In Norway it is OK for homosexuals to marry in the church

[Dogbean]

You are leaving out the fact that the only way to understand anything is to interpret it. Raw data coming from our eyes, our ears, and our fingertips must be interpreted from light to images, from sound to words, from pressure,heat and pain to texture, temperature and hardness.

Words must be fitted together into sentences. Alternative meanings of those words must be considered to find the most appropriate, etc. It is extremely unlikely that any two people can agree on every aspect of every interpretation.

Still, on things that are relatively clear (and that includes the vast majority of their shared experiences), they can agree on the "underlying truth" and even on most of the details. This is what what makes communication possible.

Because of this agreement in the majority, and how automatic it is, it is jarring to find disagreement in something that seems as clear and unambiguous to a person as the things he does agree with the second person on.

The first impulse is to assume that the person does agree but is lying about it. The second impulse is to assume that emotional (or spiritual) issues are clouding the other person's ability to analyze the raw data objectively, resulting in a faulty conclusion. In many cases we can reject these possibilities and move on to possibilities that involve different legitimate interpretations of the same phenomena.

If we can not immediately reject those first two possibilities, it is possible that the other person is lying or is emotionally (and/or spiritually) blocked from true understanding. It is also possible that we are the "other person" who is blocked. It is also possible that neither party has found the "underlying truth" in the issue, either because both are too emotionally (spiritually) distracted, or because there is not enough data and both are adding more (but different one from the other) data by inference and analogy.

Nowhere in any teaching on marriage in the Bible, is there a condition set as to who may or may not covenant a marriage. Generally, if the society saw a couple as being married, so does the Bible. Fraudulent bait-and-switch tactics did not invalidate a marriage. Bigamous second marriages were still considered valid, etc.

Ok, my friend, let's put this interpretation idea of yours to the test. Being an open forum, this exercise is open to anyone. Take Genesis 2:21-24.

So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [h] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [i] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, [j] '
for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

How do you interpret this? I especially am interested in your "interpretation" of verse 24.

 

[gwdboi]

And respectfully, I think that the stuff I changed to red is a common excuse used by people to get around parts of the Bible they don't like; they just say "well I interpret it this way." That makes sense for stuff like eschatology, predestination, age of accountability, things that are not exactly clear. But the passages on homosexuality are fairly clear; there's really no way around it. They are as clear as the teachings on salvation, love, unity, charity, profanity, etc. I don't see any real way around it; I can't see how any Bible believing Christian can endorse homosexual acts.

Well, have you actually looked into the linguistics of those verses? If you have then you would see why they aren't very clear.

First, we will look at the Old Testament passages. When discussing sexuality in the ancient world we must keep in mind the ancient mindset of sexuality. The most important credo in the ancient world was that one not have sexual relations with a social equal (West online). A primary cause of the distaste of homosexuality in the ancient world is that more often than not the two men would be of the same social class (the class of men) and therefore would violate the sociosexual credo. Homosexual sex was often used in the ancient world to show dominance over another person (West online). Let me also note another type of homosexual love that existed exclusively in the warrior class: a homosexual love between warriors was often viewed as heroic and poetic in the ancient middle east and was often praised (Horner 20).
Now we will discuss the first of the "hellfire" verses: the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Hebrew states that the men of Sodom wanted "to know" (Hebrew: yadah, to become acquainted with or to have sexual intercourse with) the angels that came to meet Lot. A more likely interpretation is that the men of Sodom wanted to rape the angels in order to show their dominance and superiority and thusly the sin of Sodom is more so a sin of pride against the messengers of God rather than a "sin of homosexuality" (West Online).
Another verse that is commonly used against homosexuals is the Levitical verse: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). There are actually many reasons why this verse would not apply today. Firstly this verse is a part of the Levitical holiness code that details what is prohibited for priests and what is considered ceremonially unclean. The actual word used is tow`ebah. When one looks at the usage of the word throughout the Bible one sees that tow`ebah generally refers to idolatry. It is not beyond the range of abstraction to theorize that since there was no word for homosexual in the ancient Hebrew that the concept of a loving same sex relationship was not thought of. Therefore, it is possible to say that the Hebrews probably thought that any same sex intercourse would have been purely based on lust thus making the other person of attraction an idol which is against the word of the Lord. Let me also point out that Leviticus states nothing against two women having sex. So, is it okay to be a lesbian but not a gay male? Also, if this verse is to be given such weight then why do we not follow the Levitical laws that dictate what is okay to eat and not to eat? Let us not forget this passage in Hebrews 8:7 AMP: "For if that first covenant had been without defect, there would have been no room for another one or an attempt to institute another one" and Hebrews 8:13 AMP: "When God speaks of a new [covenant or agreement], He makes the first one obsolete (out of use). And what is obsolete (out of use and annulled because of age) is ripe for disappearance and to be dispensed with altogether."

Now let us turn to the New Testament. First I wish to give some background information on the ancient Greeks. Let it be known that the Greeks did not have a word that translated to homosexual for the sheer fact that most males were at least bisexual. Male homosexuality was expected and even celebrated in Greek culture. Sex was not defined by the gender of the participants but by dominant / submissive roles. Greek homosexuality was mostly pederasty. Older males would socialize younger males (usually between sixteen and twenty) and would also be their lovers. While they did not have terms for homosexual, they did have terms for this sort of relationship. The older male was called erastes and the younger male was called eromenos (Mondimore 8).
Now we will turn to individual passages in the New Testament and discuss their meanings and mistranslations. First let's look at the verse in Romans 1. Romans 1: 25-27 Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed forever! Amen (so be it). For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one, And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another--men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution. Let me first point out that this verse is not intended to be a condemnation of homosexuality but a condemnation of lust. The people at the time were so consumed with physical appearance that they did not even consider love in most sexual endeavors. We can see why this would be bad because as stated in verse 25 "… and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…" The people of the time were so consumed with the physical aspects of the person that they did not even consider giving any glory to God for creating such a wonderful work in the human form. Since this passage discusses lust and not love, it is not discussing loving, committed same-sex relationships between two adults.
The next verses that we find seemingly condemning homosexuality are found in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Timothy 1:9-11 ""The law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God." Now, the largest problem with these two verses is the translation of the two Greek words: arsenokoitai and malakoi. Taking into mind the Greek mindset of sex the two words (arsenokoitai: arseno: man, koitai: bed, lying, or having sex with; malakoi: soft [as in the softness of a fabric or "soft" moral views]) the more likely translation of "homosexual" is actually "male prostitute." The NIV even goes as far to translate the word as "homosexual offenders" in 1 Corinthians and "perverts" in 1 Timothy. Homosexual offenders and perverts do not even come close to referring to committed homosexual relationships.
Let us go further and investigate some pro-gay verses in the Bible. First let us look at this story told by Matthew:

Matthew 8:5-11

When Jesus returned to Capernaum, a Roman officer came and pleaded with him, "Lord, my young servant lies in bed, paralyzed and in terrible pain." Jesus said, "I will come and heal him." But the officer said, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come into my home. Just say the word from where you are, and my servant will be healed. I know this because I am under the authority of my superior officers, and I have authority over my soldiers. I only need to say, 'Go,' and they go, or 'Come,' and they come. And if I say to my slaves, 'Do this,' they do it." When Jesus heard this, he was amazed. Turning to those who were following him, he said, "I tell you the truth, I haven't seen faith like this in all Israel! And I tell you this, that many Gentiles will come from all over the world—from east and west—and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the feast in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Initially one would not think that the above passage has anything to do with homosexuality, but when we look at the original Greek the meanings become clear. The word translated as "slave" in the above passage is actually the Greek word "pais" which held the meaning of a boy or son, ordinary servant, or a same sex partner. As a matter of fact, pais was used hundreds of times in Greek literature to identify a same-sex partner. (Now, before all of you go flipping through your Bible dictionaries and lexicons, remember that these are marketed products and therefore alternative or unorthodox definitions were probably omitted so that the dictionary or lexicon would not be "banned") Keep in mind that in order to uphold the Greek sociosexual credo, one of the same-sex partners would have had to have been of a lower status than the other: a slave. Also, there is a parallel passage in Luke (Luke 7:1-10) that recounts this same story. Luke does not use the word pais but rather the word "doulos" to describe the servant. Doulos literally means servant and not son so we can eliminate the possibility of the Centurion asking Jesus to heal his son. Luke also specifically modifies doulos with the word entimos meaning the Centurion's "special slave." Let us also note that in the above passage when the centurion refers to his "slaves" in verse nine he uses the term doulos without any modifiers. The centurion is making a linguistic distinction between this special one and his other ordinary servants. This fact specifically leads us to believe that this doulos entimos (entimos: held in honor, prized, precious)(entimos online) is in fact the centurion's same-sex partner. Also, let us ask why a Roman Centurion would go before a Jewish religious teacher and ask him to heal a slave if in fact the slave was easily replaceable. There would have to have been some serious psychological motivation to bring the centurion to cross such major societal boundaries. If we approach the above passage without any bias, the contextual clues would compel us to believe that this was a gay centurion asking Jesus to heal his same-sex partner. How did Jesus respond? "I tell you the truth, I haven't seen faith like this in all Israel! And I tell you this, that many Gentiles will come from all over the world—from east to west—and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the feast in the Kingdom of Heaven" Matt. 8:10-11. Even if there is the chance that this pais is not a same-sex partner, notice that Jesus does not ask the man what kind of pais he is referring to (Jesus would have been well aware of the meanings of pais). If Jesus so desired He could have used this to condemn gay people, but Jesus didn't care what kind of pais the centurion had, just that the centurion had FAITH (Would DVD).
Let us look at another pro-gay verse in the New Testament. Matthew 19:12 reads: "For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." Let it be known that in biblical times the term eunuch did not always mean a castrated male. Eunuch often meant barren females and gay foreign ministers, magicians, and priests. Eunuchs made so by others are more than likely those who have been castrated and those who renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven are people who have chosen celibacy, but what of "some are eunuchs because they were born that way…"? Could this be a reference to God's queer children? I think so (Wilson online).
In conclusion, I believe that based on linguistic and historical interpretation and the very spirit of Jesus Christ, the Bible does not discriminate but affirms homosexuals in committed relationships. Let us keep in mind that Jesus himself never spoke directly about the subject of homosexuality. Jesus spoke about prostitution, adultery, even divorce, but not homosexuality.

Works Cited

West, Mona PhD. Rev. The Bible and Homosexuality. The Metropolitan Community Church. http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Templat...Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=582. 28 February 2007.
Same Sex Relationships in the Bible. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm#dav. 28 February 2007.
Mondimore, Francis Mark. A Natural History of Homosexuality. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1996.
Would Jesus Discriminate? Prod. The Metropolitan Community Church. 15 June 2006.
Entimos. The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon. http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1784&version=nas. 7 March 2007.
Wilson, Nancy Rev. Elder. The GLBT Family in the Bible… Founding and Following the Work of Jesus. http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Templat...ty&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=631. 7 March 2007
Horner, Tom. Jonathan Loved David. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster Press. 1978

 

[OllieFranz]

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking me. Some take Genesis 2 (as a whole -- the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden in Eden) as literal truth. Some as a parable or fable, with a lesson to be learned. Some as a "myth" or "just a story." I have a tendency to fence-sit between the first two. What I know of science makes it very unlikely that there was a literal Garden in Eden or that Eve was fashioned from Adam's rib. But unlikely is not impossible. And other sections of the Bible accept the proposition that there were a single first ish and a single first ish-shah.

Since you are especially interested in my "interpretation" of verse 24, I have to wonder if you mean how do I "avoid" seeing what many conservatives seem to see in it, namely a statement that marriage "must" be between one man and one woman. Assuming that is more-or-less what you are asking, I will endeavor to explain my understanding of the verse.

Certainly, the marriage of Adam and Eve (if we accept the story as literally true) was between one man and one woman -- Adam had already rejected all of the animals as potential mates, and there were no other humans. But in later generations there were more humans to choose from. Many of the patriarchs had multiple wives, and God blessed them.

When Jesus quotes this verse in Matthew 19, the point He is making is not the comparative genders of the two partners, but the nature of their joining. He is using the verse to argue against divorce, not against any particular joining. (Although, it should be noted that if a couple are not willing to work on preserving the marriage and avoiding the need to even consider divorce, then it is probably better they not marry in the first place.)

While, ideally, the marriage relationship should be one on one, and the couple should become one flesh, one being, there is nothing in the verse that states that the couple must be one man and one woman, as opposed to two men or two women.

Yes the language assumes that the couple is man and woman, but that sort of thing is common when talking about plurals and generalizations in most languages. For example it is normal usage for a Spanish speaker to refer to his "padres" (fathers) when he means his mother and father. There is not a separate gender-neutral word in Spanish, like the English "parent."

In this case (Genesis 2:24/Matthew 19:5) it is a reflection of the fact that most marriages are between a man and a woman. But the choice of language alone does not produce a moral force against other types of coupling.

OK, your turn.

How is it that in Leviticus 18:22 you manage to avoid seeing that the phrase "to lie with a man" employs the word shakab, while the phrase "as (to lie) with a woman" employs the word mishkab? Both simply mean to lie down. Both can, however, be used in a sexual sense as they seem to be here. But while mishkab simply implies sex, every time the Bible uses the word shakab to imply sex, there is an element of force, coersion, or other violation of legal consent involved. As such, the verse seems to be prohibiting non-consensual sex, or rape.

How do you avoid seeing that the word toevah which is translated as "It is an abomination," or "It is detestable" is not the word used in Leviticus and Deuteronomy to designate sexual immorality -- that word would be zimmah, "wicked" -- but the word used to designate serious ritual impropriety, such as sharing a meal with pagans, or eating forbidden meats? It also is used to condemn, somewhat more forcefully, idolatrous practices.

How do you avoid noticing that the verse does not prohibit lesbian sex at all.

The incest verses basically always involve both a man and a woman, and even so as many examples are given as necessary to show that it applies equally in both directions: a man should not bed his mother, nor should he bed his daughter --both examples are given: the man as the parent, and the woman as the parent. Likewise, Leviticus 18:23 prohibits both men and women from practicing inappropriate behavior with animals. But Leviticus 18:22 only prohibits men from engaging in the act described.

In fact, it only prohibits being the "active" partner in that act. A fact that only seems all the more relevant when added to the rape implication of using the word shakab.

 

[Bellicus]

I got a bad habit of starting threads and forgetting all about them, just to come back and see a lot more answers then I would have time to read trough and answer.

I guess this tells us that the church in Norway doesn't teach based on Scripture.

There is so much disagreement about this (for example: there's a whole forum of its own here, just for these debates), that I would not feel OK by saying what is and what is not based on Scripture, since the Scripture is not clear about it at all. Some say "it is a sin" and some say "it is not a sin". based on what they think the Scripture tells.

And I can't see why the Church of Norway should not marry people that disagree with "it is a sin", since they apparently already have made their mind up about what they think. Specially not should the Church decide what non-Christians should be allowed to do, after all a Christian marriage should be better then a non-Christian one. Would things be so much better if the homosexuals had a secular marriage instead?

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Genesis 2:21-24 (NKJV)
21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. 23 And Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

How do you interpret this? I especially am interested in your "interpretation" of verse 24.

Since I'm the guy who brought up the interpretation issue in the first place, I'll take a brief stab at this.

These verses describe what is, for the vast majority of men, the reality that they are attracted to members of the opposite sex, seek their fulfillment in a member of the opposite sex, and form a life-long union with a member of the opposite sex. These verses are not in the form of a commandment. They are not prescriptive. They just describe what is, for the majority, a norm.

So, what is your "interpretation?"

 

[Texas Lynn]

Thanks for the update on Norway. To some extent the U.S. is headed in the same direction and this is wonderful.

It is my understanding that Norway has a state church (Lutheran) as well as a constitutional monarchy. In the U.S., same gender marriages are performed by some churches but not by most. This is up to the individual churches and their leadership.

 

[Dogbean]

Thanks for the update on Norway. To some extent the U.S. is headed in the same direction and this is wonderful.

It is my understanding that Norway has a state church (Lutheran) as well as a constitutional monarchy. In the U.S., same gender marriages are performed by some churches but not by most. This is up to the individual churches and their leadership.

In churches where the Scripture is actually adhered to, homosexual marriages would not be performed.

 

[Texas Lynn]

In churches where the Scripture is actually adhered to, homosexual marriages would not be performed.

So you say. Churches which make the claim to "adhere" to the several obscure texts seeming to address LGBT relationships are merely being extremely selective in their "adherence".

But that you for providing an excellent example of how scripture may be misused to harm others by extremists. By and large in most Mainline churches few besides a loud minority object to same gender marriages and most churches will be performing these ceremonies within a generation, as they certainly should.

 

[Dogbean]

So you say. Churches which make the claim to "adhere" to the several obscure texts seeming to address LGBT relationships are merely being extremely selective in their "adherence".

You are wrong. There are churches out there that stick to the WHOLE of Scripture, and those are the churches that make the best attempts at upholding God's holiness.

But that you for providing an excellent example of how scripture may be misused to harm others by extremists. By and large in most Mainline churches few besides a loud minority object to same gender marriages and most churches will be performing these ceremonies within a generation, as they certainly should.

God help us when that happens. Many churches do this to appeal to people. They are more interested in increasing their numbers and looking better to pagans than upholding God's holiness and preaching the Word.

 

[BigBadWlf]

But that you for providing an excellent example of how scripture may be misused to harm others by extremists. By and large in most Mainline churches few besides a loud minority object to same gender marriages and most churches will be performing these ceremonies within a generation, as they certainly should.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

You are wrong. There are churches out there that stick to the WHOLE of Scripture, and those are the churches that make the best attempts at upholding God's holiness.

Those, I assume, are the churches where the silent women wear their hair long or cover their heads, where people pluck out their sinful eyes and lop off their sinful hands, where adulterers are stoned to death, where divorcees are not allowed to remarry, where disobedient children are put to death, where...

 

[Texas Lynn]

You are wrong. There are churches out there that stick to the WHOLE of Scripture, and those are the churches that make the best attempts at upholding God's holiness.

I've yet to see any who make menstruating women stay in a red tent. I imagine the ones that do have about 2 members.

I've not yet seen evidence of ANY church that will "stick to the whole of scripture". All are exceedingly selective about such things.

God help us when that happens.

There's no better way to honor God than to honor Love in all its forms.

Many churches do this to appeal to people. They are more interested in increasing their numbers and looking better to pagans than upholding God's holiness and preaching the Word.

I can tell you unequivocally those which honor same gender marriages do not do so for the reasons you unfortunately suggest. The marriages of same gender couples are every bit as holy and upholding of God's word as heterosexual ones.

 

[Dogbean]

I've yet to see any who make menstruating women stay in a red tent. I imagine the ones that do have about 2 members.

I've not yet seen evidence of ANY church that will "stick to the whole of scripture". All are exceedingly selective about such things.



There's no better way to honor God than to honor Love in all its forms.



I can tell you unequivocally those which honor same gender marriages do not do so for the reasons you unfortunately suggest. The marriages of same gender couples are every bit as holy and upholding of God's word as heterosexual ones.

Then they might as well let unrepentant murderers in their congregation. It's no different to God.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Then they might as well let unrepentant murderers in their congregation. It's no different to God.

Of course, no one has any way to know that. It's certainly not based on anything logical.

The sentiment is most unfortunate.

 

[RMDY]

I know that most users of this forum are from the US, and there it is not allowed for homosexuals to marry. But where I live it is OK to marry in the church, it is OK to be artificially pregnant for lesbians, and OK to adopt children for both genders. It is also OK to be a priest of the Church and the same time live as a homosexual

A Cannanite would also say to you:

"I know that most users of this forum are from the US, and there is not allowed for homosexuals to marry---or even do all sorts of things! But where I live it is ok to commit sexual immorality with your parents and take your brothers wife, it is ok to steal, to murder, to commit homosexuality, to sacrifice your children to idols, and to do all sorts of things! It is even ok for Israelites to be pagan and jewish at the same time!"

So what say you? Don't go by your countries laws---go by the Law of Christ.

 

[seeker777]

I guess this tells us that the church in Norway doesn't teach based on Scripture.

Your right, stoning children from disobeying their parents is forbidden.

Men may approach women who are having their periods.

Genocides are taught as being a bad thing.

Stoning adulterers is also forbidden.

Your right, Norway's Church does not teach based on scripture. ( Thank goodness for that)

 

[OllieFranz]

Bump!

Tackleberry -- You have not responded to my last post. If I were like some people I would be convincing myself that you found yourself outclassed and were pretending that I never posted. People like that are in the "game" just for the points and would see this as a victory.

But I don't think that is the case. I think that it is a simple case of your getting sidetracked by later posts by others here, and forgetting to reply to mine. I believe from seeing how involved you got with EPII that you are sincerely interested in understanding our positions and in clearly and logically explaining yours.

Ok, my friend, let's put this interpretation idea of yours to the test. Being an open forum, this exercise is open to anyone. Take Genesis 2:21-24.

So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [h] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [i] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, [j] '
for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

How do you interpret this? I especially am interested in your "interpretation" of verse 24.

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking me. Some take Genesis 2 (as a whole -- the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden in Eden) as literal truth. Some as a parable or fable, with a lesson to be learned. Some as a "myth" or "just a story." I have a tendency to fence-sit between the first two. What I know of science makes it very unlikely that there was a literal Garden in Eden or that Eve was fashioned from Adam's rib. But unlikely is not impossible. And other sections of the Bible accept the proposition that there were a single first ish and a single first ish-shah.

Since you are especially interested in my "interpretation" of verse 24, I have to wonder if you mean how do I "avoid" seeing what many conservatives seem to see in it, namely a statement that marriage "must" be between one man and one woman. Assuming that is more-or-less what you are asking, I will endeavor to explain my understanding of the verse.

Certainly, the marriage of Adam and Eve (if we accept the story as literally true) was between one man and one woman -- Adam had already rejected all of the animals as potential mates, and there were no other humans. But in later generations there were more humans to choose from. Many of the patriarchs had multiple wives, and God blessed them.

When Jesus quotes this verse in Matthew 19, the point He is making is not the comparative genders of the two partners, but the nature of their joining. He is using the verse to argue against divorce, not against any particular joining. (Although, it should be noted that if a couple are not willing to work on preserving the marriage and avoiding the need to even consider divorce, then it is probably better they not marry in the first place.)

While, ideally, the marriage relationship should be one on one, and the couple should become one flesh, one being, there is nothing in the verse that states that the couple must be one man and one woman, as opposed to two men or two women.

Yes the language assumes that the couple is man and woman, but that sort of thing is common when talking about plurals and generalizations in most languages. For example it is normal usage for a Spanish speaker to refer to his "padres" (fathers) when he means his mother and father. There is not a separate gender-neutral word in Spanish, like the English "parent."

In this case (Genesis 2:24/Matthew 19:5) it is a reflection of the fact that most marriages are between a man and a woman. But the choice of language alone does not produce a moral force against other types of coupling.

OK, your turn.

How is it that in Leviticus 18:22 you manage to avoid seeing that the phrase "to lie with a man" employs the word shakab, while the phrase "as (to lie) with a woman" employs the word mishkab? Both simply mean to lie down. Both can, however, be used in a sexual sense as they seem to be here. But while mishkab simply implies sex, every time the Bible uses the word shakab to imply sex, there is an element of force, coersion, or other violation of legal consent involved. As such, the verse seems to be prohibiting non-consensual sex, or rape.

How do you avoid seeing that the word toevah which is translated as "It is an abomination," or "It is detestable" is not the word used in Leviticus and Deuteronomy to designate sexual immorality -- that word would be zimmah, "wicked" -- but the word used to designate serious ritual impropriety, such as sharing a meal with pagans, or eating forbidden meats? It also is used to condemn, somewhat more forcefully, idolatrous practices.

How do you avoid noticing that the verse does not prohibit lesbian sex at all.

The incest verses basically always involve both a man and a woman, and even so as many examples are given as necessary to show that it applies equally in both directions: a man should not bed his mother, nor should he bed his daughter --both examples are given: the man as the parent, and the woman as the parent. Likewise, Leviticus 18:23 prohibits both men and women from practicing inappropriate behavior with animals. But Leviticus 18:22 only prohibits men from engaging in the act described.

In fact, it only prohibits being the "active" partner in that act. A fact that only seems all the more relevant when added to the rape implication of using the word shakab.

 

[Dogbean]

Yes, Ollie, I must have gotten sidtracked.....sorry. I mostly post at work, and sometimes things come up (like actual work) and sometimes I get sidetracked with other people or other threads. But you are right about me. I'll probably have to give a sincere response tomorrow.....

Just so I don't lose it again please post your question to me in a PM and I'll respond on the board later.

Rock on

 

[Brennin]

I think your country is subverting the Christian ethos to its peril.

I know that most users of this forum are from the US, and there it is not allowed for homosexuals to marry. But where I live it is OK to marry in the church, it is OK to be artificially pregnant for lesbians, and OK to adopt children for both genders. It is also OK to be a priest of the Church and the same time live as a homosexual. The only limit goes if a doctor refuse to artificially make pregnant or if a priest refuse to marry someone - then they don't have to. But still there would be no problems in finding someone that would support this. The leader of the medical ethics comity in the country have already been in a rage that some doctors have the rights to deny this from personal opinions.

And here I am, just another Norwegian, and I am not sure what to think. I can't find anything in my bible that would condemn the acts of my country, but I could find a lot that would condemn the actions of those that judge all this. I have a lot of personal opinions about this, but I cant find any biblical support for my opinions, so I remain neutral really.

What do all of you think about these laws, that was accepted now in 2008?

 

[Texas Lynn]

I think your country is subverting the Christian ethos to its peril.

That kind of ethos isn't particularly Christian per se.