How Did I Come to My Conclusions About Homosexuality?

[PastorFreud]

And 'unnatural'. Is it not unnatural to graft a branch unto a tree?


It could mean both.

So you are saying God acted unnaturally. God went against God's nature?

 

[PastorFreud]

Strange.

A quick check at http://www.blueletterbible.org, a site that gives the original language and Strong's numbers, shows otherwise.

'zakar' is either a masculine noun meaning "male (of humans and animals)" or an adjecive meaning "male (of humans)."

Just knowing the meanings that words can take is not enough to understand the Hebrew language. You must also understand construction of sentences. For example, I saw a sign that said "Fine for parking here" downtown. Since it was fine to park there and it was the closest spot, I parked my car and got a ticket. (a made up story, by the way.)

Whenever a word's meaning can be clear from the context, it is ok to use that word. But when a word's meaning might be confused, one must choose a more specific word or make it clear with punctuation. Oi! No punctuation like we would use today in Hebrew. So the choice of words should be taken a bit more meaningfully. If the author meant all man to man contact, he would not have chosen his words so carefully.

Now the actual wording (from memory here, I don't have by Hebrew Bible open) is something along the lines of that is wrong for a "man to have sex with a man upon a woman's bed." This is translated "as with a woman." I think the original is more meaningful and a construction that might signify catamite prostitution. Thus, the Septuagint is making a good choice when it uses "malakoi arsenkoiti" to translate, except I think that is a bit of fiction. I'll have to research that one.

Pagan temple prostitution was abolished a couple hundred years after Paul. No wonder early translators had trouble figuring out what he was talking about. They made a similar mistake about unicorns.

 

[PastorFreud]

Of all the things that you have said in the thread, I found this to be the most troubling (emphasis added by me)--

With what the Bible says of it, I had rather risk that I should sin against them and be punished then to allow them to continue in their practice and have their blood upon my hands.

Do you consider that the power is yours to allow or disallow others from a lawful behavior? Do you believe that you should restrict homosexuals from practicing their "sin?" How would you do this? If you would use power to overpower those who are different, then you are not only among the haters, you are also under the influence of what Paul calls demonic power.

I would much rather err on the side of love. I would much rather err on the side of logic in the light of debatable texts that may be condemning something entirely different than sex in committed relationships. Beyond that possibility, there are clear passages regarding how we should treat others and the use of power to force others to accept our privately held beliefs.

 

[Perceivence]

Perceiving said:

Roz sez:

Wow Percy.....three lies in that little sentence.

1. Nobody said you were not a true Christian.
2. Nobody is discrediting God's word.
3. Nobody is making Christianity "less Christian." (Well, I guess those who slander homosexuals are.......but you didn't mean that, did you?)

*sigh*

Whatever you say.

 

[Perceivence]

So you are saying God acted unnaturally. God went against God's nature?

I guess you could put it that way.

Just knowing the meanings that words can take is not enough to understand the Hebrew language. You must also understand construction of sentences. For example, I saw a sign that said "Fine for parking here" downtown. Since it was fine to park there and it was the closest spot, I parked my car and got a ticket. (a made up story, by the way.)

Whenever a word's meaning can be clear from the context, it is ok to use that word. But when a word's meaning might be confused, one must choose a more specific word or make it clear with punctuation. Oi! No punctuation like we would use today in Hebrew. So the choice of words should be taken a bit more meaningfully. If the author meant all man to man contact, he would not have chosen his words so carefully.

Now the actual wording (from memory here, I don't have by Hebrew Bible with a man upon a woman's bed." This is translated "as with a woman." I think the original is more meaningful and a construction that might signify catamite prostitution. Thus, the Septuagint is making a good choice when it uses "malakoi arsenkoiti" to translate, except I think that is a bit of fiction. I'll have to research that one.open) is something along the lines of that is wrong for a "man to have sex

Pagan temple prostitution was abolished a couple hundred years after Paul. No wonder early translators had trouble figuring out what he was talking about. They made a similar mistake about unicorns.

I see.

So was the context supposed to indicate 'zakar' as a boy?

 

[PastorFreud]

I guess you could put it that way.

I see.

So was the context supposed to indicate 'zakar' as a boy?

1. If God acted against nature, and this account is also in Romans where heterosexuals act against nature, then it can't mean morally wrong, can it? God did not act in a way that was morally wrong, did he? So it means "different" more than "immoral."

2. I think that would still be an oversimplification. But with "zakar" and with the "on a woman's bed" and with some other factors, it certainly seems to be condemning a canaanite practice and not monogamous relationships between same sex couples. The laws against beastiality, etc. are repeated, but this one is not. What you will find where you might expect this law to be repeated is a condemnation of catamites.

On the other hand, all of these laws had something to do with setting the Hebrews apart from the nations around them and building them into a strong nation. Don't eat pork. Build a fence around the roof of your house so no one falls off. Clean up mold. Don't have sex with your wife during her period (possible contamination). Eat the fish that look and act like fish, but not shrimp and lobster. The birds that look and act like birds are holy, the ones who don't fly or look funny are not. There is a theological purpose going on here as YHWH establishes himself as king (until they reject him) and very different from the gods of the canaanites.

So, I said all that to say that maybe God was condemning homosexual sex. But to take this commandment as prescriptive for all people at all times in all situations while rejecting the rest, including the abomination of shellfish, is to read the Bible magically. It is to read the text as written directly to us a prescription, yet ignore the parts we don't like. I take the whole account of Leviticus descriptively, not prescriptively. Does that mean good ideas don't exist in those passages that could be applied today? That's an unnecessary conclusion. But anything that we should consider today as binding will be repeated somewhere else. We should still clean up our mold, but there are some great products that work better than Levitical cleansing. We should still wash up after sex, but it doesn't take all day and a special pool of water. We can eat pork and shellfish if we are careful to preserve them well. And since homosexuals in committed relationships aren't hurting anyone, we should bless their marriages. And only build a fence around the roof of your house if you are in the habit of using it as a living space and need to make it safe. Otherwise, the fence might actually cause problems if it keeps the snow from falling off the house and the roof collapses and kills everyone inside. It takes discernment to understand the spirit of the law rather than just following the letter of the law (which can kill in the case of the roof collapsing because you put a fence up that kept the snow loaded on it.)

 

[Perceivence]

1. If God acted against nature, and this account is also in Romans where heterosexuals act against nature, then it can't mean morally wrong, can it? God did not act in a way that was morally wrong, did he? So it means "different" more than "immoral."

...That's assuming that all 'unnatural' (or whatever translation you use for that word) practices are morally wrong, right? And you're doing the converse by saying that if God did it and He doesn't do wrong then the use of the word in Romans 1 can't intrinsically mean that the people are doing wrong...right?

2. I think that would still be an oversimplification. But with "zakar" and with the "on a woman's bed" and with some other factors, it certainly seems to be condemning a canaanite practice and not monogamous relationships between same sex couples. The laws against beastiality, etc. are repeated, but this one is not. What you will find where you might expect this law to be repeated is a condemnation of catamites.

On the other hand, all of these laws had something to do with setting the Hebrews apart from the nations around them and building them into a strong nation. Don't eat pork. Build a fence around the roof of your house so no one falls off. Clean up mold. Don't have sex with your wife during her period (possible contamination). Eat the fish that look and act like fish, but not shrimp and lobster. The birds that look and act like birds are holy, the ones who don't fly or look funny are not. There is a theological purpose going on here as YHWH establishes himself as king (until they reject him) and very different from the gods of the canaanites.

So, I said all that to say that maybe God was condemning homosexual sex. But to take this commandment as prescriptive for all people at all times in all situations while rejecting the rest, including the abomination of shellfish, is to read the Bible magically. It is to read the text as written directly to us a prescription, yet ignore the parts we don't like. I take the whole account of Leviticus descriptively, not prescriptively. Does that mean good ideas don't exist in those passages that could be applied today? That's an unnecessary conclusion. But anything that we should consider today as binding will be repeated somewhere else. We should still clean up our mold, but there are some great products that work better than Levitical cleansing. We should still wash up after sex, but it doesn't take all day and a special pool of water. We can eat pork and shellfish if we are careful to preserve them well. And since homosexuals in committed relationships aren't hurting anyone, we should bless their marriages. And only build a fence around the roof of your house if you are in the habit of using it as a living space and need to make it safe. Otherwise, the fence might actually cause problems if it keeps the snow from falling off the house and the roof collapses and kills everyone inside. It takes discernment to understand the spirit of the law rather than just following the letter of the law (which can kill in the case of the roof collapsing because you put a fence up that kept the snow loaded on it.)

One seldom finds a Christian using this passage to show God's condemnation for homosexuality today unless s/he shows that this command goes on to today. If I remember correctly, it was brought up here to show that God has condemned it before and it's not a stretch to say that He condemns it in the New Covenant too.

Of course, what you said about discernment is completely applicable.

 

[Rocinante]

Nice thread. No name-calling. No bloodshed.

Well done, all.



Did anybody learn anything? Want explore more of the Biblical passages about homosexuality? Only a few remaining.

 

[puriteen18]

ALL heterosexual acts outside of marriage are sin
All homosexuals acts are sin...period.

Amen and Amen!

 

[draper]

ALL heterosexual acts outside of marriage are sin
All homosexuals acts are sin...period.

For my own curiosity, do you mean holding hands, hugging, dancing & so forth by 'all hetersexual acts outside of marriage'?

 

[puriteen18]

Calling ALL homosexual acts sin.......is a far cry from "proclaiming the glorious gospel.".

I did not say that. The gospel is to proclaim that man is a sinner in need of a Saviour. Homosexuality just happens to be one of those sins.

It is hurtful to the people, their families and their friends..

To let them go down to hell is far worse than any offence. But I think you misunderstand how I go about sharing the gospel. I don't go after homosexuality I go after sin.

Nobody says homosexuals have never sinned. The truth is simply that all homosexual relationships are NOT sin.......only those that break the law of love.

This is the doctrine of Pharisees.
Salvation is not brought by any law, but by grace alone.

 

[Rocinante]

Puriteen,

I'm not talking about salvation (unless it's your salvation). I'm talking about the fact that the Bible does not condemn monogamous, committed homosexual relationships waiting to be blessed by marriage (as many are today).

That's all. Your constant claims that you are on a mission to save homosexuals from hell is ludicrous when the ones you are talking about may already be Christians......and besides being ludicrous--it's slanderous and hurtful.

Simply stop your slander and everybody will be better off. You can go around preaching your "gospel" of FundaGelicalism all you want......just stop calling ALL homosexuals sinners and saying they are all going to hell.

Now that's not so hard, is it?

 

[Perceivence]

So we should stop professing the truth?

 

[Rocinante]

No, you should start professing the truth.

 

[puriteen18]

For my own curiosity, do you mean holding hands, hugging, dancing & so forth by 'all hetersexual acts outside of marriage'?

Does it tempt to lust, to have a sexual desire toward? Then it is not fit for the child of God.

 

[puriteen18]

Puriteen,

I'm not talking about salvation (unless it's your salvation). I'm talking about the fact that the Bible does not condemn monogamous, committed homosexual relationships waiting to be blessed by marriage (as many are today).

That's all. Your constant claims that you are on a mission to save homosexuals from hell is ludicrous when the ones you are talking about may already be Christians......and besides being ludicrous--it's slanderous and hurtful.

Simply stop your slander and everybody will be better off. You can go around preaching your "gospel" of FundaGelicalism all you want......just stop calling ALL homosexuals sinners and saying they are all going to hell.

Now that's not so hard, is it?

Once again I am not going after homosexuals.

I am saying that men are in need of Christ becuase they are sinners. To lust after a member of your own gender is a sin.

Stop calling homosexuals sinners? What, we are all sinners, and equally so.

I don't go up to someone and say "hey, you're gay and need to get saved!"

I speak that all men are sinners. If they ask me what is sin I will tell them.

You say you are not talking about salvation, but do you not see how you are?

To say someone can live in a lifestyle of sin and be saved is absurd. Shall I tell a "Bob and Jane" that they are okay and can just keep living together?

 

[puriteen18]

No, you should start professing the truth.

So we should give up the Bible and follow this new revelation that God gave to you?

 

[puriteen18]

Of all the things that you have said in the thread, I found this to be the most troubling (emphasis added by me)--



Do you consider that the power is yours to allow or disallow others from a lawful behavior? Do you believe that you should restrict homosexuals from practicing their "sin?" How would you do this? If you would use power to overpower those who are different, then you are not only among the haters, you are also under the influence of what Paul calls demonic power.

I would much rather err on the side of love. I would much rather err on the side of logic in the light of debatable texts that may be condemning something entirely different than sex in committed relationships. Beyond that possibility, there are clear passages regarding how we should treat others and the use of power to force others to accept our privately held beliefs.

I think if you knew my theology you would know that I see no worth in any man, and nothing at all in myself. No, I have no power to allow or disallow. Perhaps I should have said "should I just act like there is nothing wrong with them or with anyone?"

You are on logic's side and I, by God's grace, on love's.

You use your reason to dismiss Biblical teaching and will not even try to help people know where there is forgiveness.

 

[flicka]

I think if you knew my theology you would know that I see no worth in any man, and nothing at all in myself.

I think it's unfortunate that your faith leads you to feel this way about yourself and others. God made you, if he wasn't proud of that you wouldn't be here now. Self loathing does not a better christian make. Everyone has worth, everyone is worthwhile. If you can't see that then you life is meaningless.

 

[puriteen18]

I think it's unfortunate that your faith leads you to feel this way about yourself and others. God made you, if he wasn't proud of that you wouldn't be here now. Self loathing does not a better christian make. Everyone has worth, everyone is worthwhile. If you can't see that then you life is meaningless.

It is a mystery of the faith, but knowing that you are undeserving just brings about greater joy.

That fact that God would go that far to save us is one of the most uplifting parts fo our faith. It is not self-loathing; it's just accepting the fact of what we are.

Most of you here seem to being worried about the physcological repercussions of such ideas and doctrines, when you should worry about what is true.

Don't you see how this makes life even more meaningful, that though unworthy, God saved me and chose me for His own. He loved me with an unknowable love.

Christianity is not about all this modern mess of "poor little timmy has a problem"; it is about the Truth, even the Truth Jesus Christ.

If you don't like it no one is making you be a disciple.