If we are made in the image of God, where does homosexuality fit?

[DrBubbaLove]

But of those 213 times, only 16 of them actually refer to sex. It is not common to use "shakav" to refer to sex. "Mishkav," which also mainly means "to lie down" or (as a noun) "bed," is the more common word to use when sex is meant. While 14 out of 213 looks to be inconclusive, when you look at 14 out of 16, where the two that are not clearly non-consentual are the very verses we are wondering about, suddenly the picture changes.

The only two verses where "shakav" means sex, and it is not clearly a case of non-consensual sex, are Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. In both of these verses, both "shakav" and "mishkav" are used. The forbidden sex is called "shakav" while the acceptable sex it deviates from is called "mishkav."

When the rabbis whose discussions make up the commentaries known as the Talmud and the Midrash were working out their understandings of the Scriptures, the familiar division of the books into numbered chapters and verses had not yet been invented. One rabbi would write out the whole verse to begin his argument. Another rabbi, commenting on the first one's points would abreviate the verse, quoting just enough to remind his readers of the passage in question. A discussion of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 would be referred to as "man-lying" or "Mishkav zakur." Except that that is not a correct abbreviation of the verse. But it was only by pretending that the verse used "mishkav" instead of "shakav" that the rabbis were able to extend the prohibition to all man-on-man sex.

Even so, they could not extend it to woman-on-woman sex. A couple of rabbis questioned whether it should be, but the overwhelming response was that there was nothing wrong with a woman "rubbing" another woman.



The rabbis also wondered why, if only the taking of the "active" position is forbidden, the "passive" man is also to be killed. They could not find a satisfying answer. They were left with competing theories, none of them conclusive. The one with the most adherents was that that if the "passive" man were not killed, he would be a constant reminder of the shame that one of their own had been a "man-lyer."

This is supported by two other Biblical facts. The rape laws mandated that the woman be killed if the act occurred in the village (presumably with a neighbor), but not if it occurred in the field (presumably by a stranger) [Deuteronomy 22:23-27] and the fact that David's ambassadors to Ammon were not killed after their rape by Hanun's men, but just secluded until the evidences of their violation faded and their beards grew back in. [2 Samuel 10; 1 Chronicles 19]

I need to clarify a few things and sepperate fact from fiction and allegations. No reference for these confused rabbis is given, but clearly they are confused and we agree on that much.

Ok, I recounted using blueletterbible.org simple search for shakab,

There are 213 occurrences all in OT, 54 (not 16) clearly reference sexual activity including heterosexual acts (many more than just 2), homosexual acts, bestiality, and rape/non-consensual. Most of those 54 references are single occurrences in a single verse. A few times the word occurs multiple times in one verse (thou shall not lie with….. and the one who lies with will be….“ for example). Several times there are a series of verses, each using the word but covering only a single event (one rape for example).

Remove both multiple occurrences of the SHAKAB in a single verse and a series of verses covering the same event, and we get only 39 distinct references to a sexual act where SHAKAB is the word used.

Of those 39, only 6 directly indicate rape. In all 6 of those references there are either other words present or context to modify the word SHAKAB to indicate either force or violence is associated with the act. Which means the ONLY TIME SHAKAB is used to clearly indicate RAPE it apparently REQUIRES the use of context or words such as “force” or “hold” to indicate it was either violent or non-consensual. It is NEVER used alone to indicate non-consensual sex without these modifiers.

Said another way, that is about 15% of the times SHAKAB is used, it is referencing a sexual activity that is forced rape, but in EVERY one of those cases the context and modifying words are needed to indicate this sex was FORCED. So the word itself cannot simply be taken as “non-consensual” as was originally suggested by Mr Wolf.

If we add the two events with Lot (two daughters getting him drunk on two nights) and even the two bestiality references as certainly non-consensual then we can stretch this to only 1 in 4 times that SHAKAB is used, that it is used to reference to a non-consensual sex. STILL IN ALL 10 of these cases the verses clearly give other words or context indicating the sex is non-consensual. A beast, a drunk, force, pillaging are all elements needed to turn SHAKAB into non-consensual sex.

So again, for us to conclude that every reference using SHAKAB (the other 75%) are all non-consensual is clearly without merit.

So to conclude the two verses in question forbid only non-consensual homosexual acts is completely without merit as there is nothing in those verses to suggest the presence of force or violence is required to make it prohibited. In fact it compares the homosexual act with the heterosexual act.

So if we follow the opposite sides logic the verses in question would be rendered something like “though shall not rape another man as one would rape a woman” which makes no sense at all.

An attempt is made to suggest other words are used to reference consensual sex instead of SHAKAB. That is clearly false as a full 75% of the time SHAKAB is used it is consensual sex.

A further attempt to deceive is used in suggesting the various punishments for rape indicate something regarding the usage of SHAKAB (rape in city verses rape in field – stone the woman in the city but spare the woman raped in the field). It is not a question of passive verses active, or stranger verses known perp.

Am not sure why there should be confusion here as the following verses clearly say the reason this is so. It says that the woman in the city should have cried out where as the presumption in the field is that woman would not have been heard even if she did cry out. Now I am not about to defend the ancient cultures treatment of woman, but we do not need to invent reasons where one is given and justified (at least in their minds).

The incident regarding David’s men and the way they were treated by Hanun’s men is another smoke screen. First the word SHAKAB is not part of that story at all. Second they had the bottoms of their britches torn out and their heads shaved. While we might laugh today at such college frat antics, there was great shame in just those literal acts in those days. We have NO need to invent the added disgrace of a rape on David’s men to explain their great shame. But even if we say the story indicates forced rape by men on men (am not sure why we should believe this), there is no connection to the word SHAKAB in this story. So the point is both moot and deceptive.

 

[AREMNANT]

Pretty straight forward question that has always bugged me. I personally don't feel that homosexuality is any more a choice than my own heterosexuality is. I am simply not aroused by a naked man, on the other hand naked woman DO arouse me, I am not making a choice. So if God created us in his image, why are some of us gay?

I posted this on another thread: Is God's image that of a carnal-minded sinful man? or Is God making us into His Image? Are we SPIRIT or NATURAL? "God [is] SPIRIT" (John 4:24)

"And saying is God, Make WILL WE [a continuing action] humanity in Our image…"
and
"And CREATING [a continuing action] is God humanity in His image" (Gen. 1:26a & 27a Concordant Literal Old

But the natural man [still being carnal-minded] receives not the things of the SPIRIT of God: neither CAN HE know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (I Cor. 2:12-14).


"Because the carnal mind is enmity [hatred] against God: for it is NOT subject to the [spiritual] law of God, neither indeed CAN BE" (Rom. 8:7).

"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a SPIRITUAL BODY" I Cor. 15:43, and

"Now this I say, brethren, that FLESH AND BLOOD CANNOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD" 15:50).
​

 

[Gravetye]

I apologize, I don't mean to intervene. It would seem as if you didn't read the entire post or maybe not understand it.



I believe the poster you quoted was saying that rape was considered to be sin even back then. As it is written in the OT to be a sin.
Lot was trying to avoid sin, so offering up his daughters for rape would've been just as sinful as acts of homosexuality.

But the obvious can be ignored and the posters other point can be proven.

Ah, no. I read what he wrote. I understood it. My point is that Lot wouldn't have believed offering his daughters to the men of Sodom would be rape at all, because he would have considered himself to be their consent because he was their father. So by offering the men an alternative, two "willing" sexual partners, he was attempting to keep them from harming his guests. Which he would still have considered rape because not only were they men, but they were guests in his home. Which means that the sin of the men of Sodom here was attempted rape, not homosexuality.

 

[Gravetye]

I was first taught that Sodom was destroyed for their homosexuality, or their practice of it. So I can definitely see that side of the issue. I tried to defend it to the best of my ability as well. I have since learned that what I tried to defend does not stand up to debate, especially formal debate. The above verse in bold print shows why. One should see what it was that Sodom did that ultimately drew the Lord's attention to them. The leading man or men of the town were sodomizing the male strangers (or ordering it done) that came into their town.....just like in the prison population. Instead of welcoming them and providing the tired, dirty, and hungry travelers (as was the culture back then) a washing, a bed, and food/drink, they were subjecting them to public humiliation. The result of this practice would have benefitted the leading man/men of the town in that they would not have been challenged by the newcomers. They could carry on business as usual, still the unquestioned top dog/dogs.

Exactly. I was taught the same thing concerning the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, that they were destroyed for their homosexuality--even read one of those silly Jack Chick tracts about it--but I kept re-reading the story in the bible, and I couldn't understand why the sin was homosexuality when it seemed more apparent that the issue was rape.

 

[elephunky]

I just want to say...that there have been cases where christian homosexuals - who grew up being taught it was wrong, hated themselves for feeling attracted in all ways to the same sex. Try to massively deny who they are and pretend to be someone else, which brings about depression and other lowly feelings, which can bring about the temptation to off themselves as a way to escape

 

[ke1985]

Ah, no. I read what he wrote. I understood it. My point is that Lot wouldn't have believed offering his daughters to the men of Sodom would be rape at all, because he would have considered himself to be their consent because he was their father. So by offering the men an alternative, two "willing" sexual partners, he was attempting to keep them from harming his guests. Which he would still have considered rape because not only were they men, but they were guests in his home. Which means that the sin of the men of Sodom here was attempted rape, not homosexuality.

Where does it say in the Bible that homosexuality is ok?

 

[Stinker]

Originally Posted by Gravetye

Ah, no. I read what he wrote. I understood it. My point is that Lot wouldn't have believed offering his daughters to the men of Sodom would be rape at all, because he would have considered himself to be their consent because he was their father. So by offering the men an alternative, two "willing" sexual partners, he was attempting to keep them from harming his guests. Which he would still have considered rape because not only were they men, but they were guests in his home. Which means that the sin of the men of Sodom here was attempted rape, not homosexuality.
​

Where does it say in the Bible that homosexuality is ok?

In regards to the post and your apparent misunderstanding of it, I ask you this question ke1985; Since you believe that the men in Sodom who 'wanted' (in the anal way) the male guests in Lot's house, is it your understanding then that a man who is married to a female, sins if they engage in anal intercourse with each other?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I think we need to remember this event occured thousands of years ago and women were regarded a little higher or perhaps even lower than one's cattle at least when compared to a man. If Lot had had sons to offer, my bet would be that those boys would not have been on the table or even considered as his daughters were.

That Lot wanted to honor these two men and pay respect to them as being "lords" over him is also clear from the story. Also clear that Lot took pride, as was the custom of the day, in extending his right to protect his own household and extended that to cover his honored guest. In inviting them into the city Lot has taken responsibility for their comfort and saftey. A matter of some pride in those days and something to be protected in itself. Showing weakness by giving these men what they wanted would only invite shame and further encroachment upon Lot's personal property/possessions.

In that context I do not think it is clear that Lot could seen as attempting (himself) to avoid sin in offering up his daughters in place of his guests. He was attempting to save face by giving a possession (for men possessed women in those days) as an alternative to being forced to give up his position as the rightful protector of his honored guests (a considerably "higher" loss of respect apparently than offering his daughters).
The offer gave Lot an out and presumably offered something Lot thought the men might want in exchange for forgetting about the two young men.

I do not think we can infer from this that Lot felt it was either ok, right or not sinful that his daughters would be raped as opposed to the two men getting raped. I do think Lot felt that was a better outcome than loosing his right to protect himself and his property by just giving in to the demands of the crowd (a move which ironically would no doubt result in his daughters being raped eventually anyway).

 

[ke1985]

In regards to the post and your apparent misunderstanding of it, I ask you this question ke1985; Since you believe that the men in Sodom who 'wanted' (in the anal way) the male guests in Lot's house, is it your understanding then that a man who is married to a female, sins if they engage in anal intercourse with each other?

Perhaps just answer this: where in the Bible is homosexuality condoned?

 

[Nadiine]

Originally Posted by Gravetye
In regards to the post and your apparent misunderstanding of it, I ask you this question ke1985; Since you believe that the men in Sodom who 'wanted' (in the anal way) the male guests in Lot's house, is it your understanding then that a man who is married to a female, sins if they engage in anal intercourse with each other?

Jude clarifies this is for sex (sexual immorality)
Jude 1:7
as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Further, Ezekiel 16 lists the sins of Sodom, and one of them
is "abominations". Lev. 18 calls homosexuality 'abomonation'
specifically. So homosexuality is part of the reason for judgment
and you find the same again in Romans 1:32 (earlier in the chapter
homosexuality is described):
Romans 1:32


32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.


Additionally, what a husband and wife who are lawfully married
(covenanted in God's eyes), do in the marital bed is undefiled.
Whatever they mutually decide to do with one another is
lawful.
I have read no laws in the Bible about restricted sex acts
within lawful marriage.

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled;
but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

 

[Inviolable]

Ah, no. I read what he wrote. I understood it. My point is that Lot wouldn't have believed offering his daughters to the men of Sodom would be rape at all, because he would have considered himself to be their consent because he was their father. So by offering the men an alternative, two "willing" sexual partners, he was attempting to keep them from harming his guests. Which he would still have considered rape because not only were they men, but they were guests in his home. Which means that the sin of the men of Sodom here was attempted rape, not homosexuality.

OK, got that now and I apologize for the misconception.

However. When Lot offered his "daughters" the "females" of the house, the men of Sodom refused them. So even if it was rape, (I'll agree with you that it is) why would they go through the trouble of explaining that the men of Sodom only wanted men to rape?

 

[Inviolable]

I just want to say...that there have been cases where christian homosexuals - who grew up being taught it was wrong, hated themselves for feeling attracted in all ways to the same sex. Try to massively deny who they are and pretend to be someone else, which brings about depression and other lowly feelings, which can bring about the temptation to off themselves as a way to escape

I agree with you and that is something "any" Christian should be sensitive of.
Even if a Christian is against gay marriage, we shouldn't hold it against someone for simply being who they are.

 

[Nadiine]

I agree with you and that is something "any" Christian should be sensitive of.
Even if a Christian is against gay marriage, we shouldn't hold it against someone for simply being who they are.

that's very true, unfortunately, we get attacked for that just becuz
we are against it.
In alot of people's minds they think disagreement means hatred &
condemnation - & if that's so, how does that apply to their own
disagreements with who they disagree with?

 

[Nadiine]

I just want to say...that there have been cases where christian homosexuals - who grew up being taught it was wrong, hated themselves for feeling attracted in all ways to the same sex. Try to massively deny who they are and pretend to be someone else, which brings about depression and other lowly feelings, which can bring about the temptation to off themselves as a way to escape

If so, what's the solution? Lie and say God is pleased with a moral sin
that He gave a death penalty to in the OT?

For that matter, we can say the same is true of drug addicts or
alcoholics or sex addicts or adulterers when they continue their sins
and people tell them it's wrong -
in most/many cases they know it's wrong, but are still addicted and suffer
with it.

This is one of the most touching statements I can remember - I watched
Robert Downey Jr. at his lowest, in court speaking to the Judge on drug
charges (he violated his parole) in his pain and I'll never forget it:
[QUOTE]“(It's) like I've got a shotgun in my mouth, with my finger on the trigger,
and I like the taste of gun metal.”[/quote]
What homosexuals like, is what Robert Downey likes; but it still
doesn't mean we ignore what's wrong (sin) or harmful and leave them
to it.

Biblically, it destroys the soul & keeps people from eternal life.
The issue becomes choices we make - we either choose God or
we choose our sins & vices and let them master us.
The road isn't easy but we're told to count the cost of following.
It's high: dying to self.

 

[Ave Maria]

Homosexuality is a result of the fall of Adam and Eve just as diseases and other frailities of humans are.

 

[Stinker]

Jude clarifies this is for sex (sexual immorality)
Jude 1:7
as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Further, Ezekiel 16 lists the sins of Sodom, and one of them
is "abominations". Lev. 18 calls homosexuality 'abomonation'
specifically. So homosexuality is part of the reason for judgment
and you find the same again in Romans 1:32 (earlier in the chapter
homosexuality is described):
Romans 1:32


32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.


Additionally, what a husband and wife who are lawfully married
(covenanted in God's eyes), do in the marital bed is undefiled.
Whatever they mutually decide to do with one another is
lawful.
I have read no laws in the Bible about restricted sex acts
within lawful marriage.

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled;
but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

Romans chapter 1 verse 18-32 was dealing with 'straight' people and what they believed their goddess Aphrodite/Ashteroth commanded them to do in her worship (sex-role reversal) and the resulting hedonistic behavior that followed.

The abomination of Sodom mentioned in Ezekiel chapter 16 was not the 'love-making' that those attackers wanted to have with Lot's 2 male guests. It was what the leading man/men of Sodom was doing to male travelers when they came to their city. Male-breaking (public sodomizing) was what ultimately drew the Lord's attention to that city. This practice is effective in preventing any possible challenge to those concerned about losing their supremacy over the group.

The story of Sodom does not address homosexuality. It addresses a practice that is still used even today....in the male prison popuation.


If one still believes that the men at Lot's door just wanted to make love to Lot's 2 male guests, and that this love making was why God destroyed that city, then a married couple who engages in sodomy does sin when they do so.

 

[LightHorseman]

Homosexuality is a result of the fall of Adam and Eve just as diseases and other frailities of humans are.

Um, we Catholics don't believe in a literal fall anymore, so you might need to work on your explanation a bit.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Um, we Catholics don't believe in a literal fall anymore, so you might need to work on your explanation a bit.

I would agree many Catholics are no longer properly taught, but that does not mean the Church no longer believes it. Reading the Catechism is a good way to work on one's Catholicism.

"The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents."

English Translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church with Search Utility

 

[Nadiine]

most catholics DO believe in the Fall of man --

SOME do not - as liberal theology sweeps thru and removes
sound doctrine. (prophetical as a sign of our times in the church)

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I was trying to be polite