Lev 20:13 and Homosexuality

[fragmentsofdreams]

I wholeheartedly agree that if I find myself supporting a position that hinders my ability to love God or my neighbor, something has gone wrong.

 

[kern]

Wow, I'm surprised to see so much support for the "homosexuality is not a sin" viewpoint, and from another Catholic too. It seemed like back in April it was everybody vs. seebs and me.

-Chris

 

[seebs]

There was another thread in which it was everyone vs. fragments. Heh.

I think canonical Catholic teaching is "homosexual acts sinful, homosexual orientation not chosen, they're called to celibacy, show some compassion here". I don't know whether that's infallible doctrine or a reasonable guess by educated clergy.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

What I like about the Catholic position is that they realize that people are struggling and know that what they are asking is a sacrifice. It's too bad that use some lazy theology and somewhat destructive language from time to time.

 

[NOTso angry-amy]

i still am not convinced that homosexuality is a sin. being promiscuous is a sin, but homosexuality, i think not.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by kern
Wow, I'm surprised to see so much support for the "homosexuality is not a sin" viewpoint, and from another Catholic too. It seemed like back in April it was everybody vs. seebs and me.

-Chris

Ah April. Back when I was a newbie. Times have changed.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by seebs
There was another thread in which it was everyone vs. fragments. Heh.

I think canonical Catholic teaching is "homosexual acts sinful, homosexual orientation not chosen, they're called to celibacy, show some compassion here". I don't know whether that's infallible doctrine or a reasonable guess by educated clergy.

The main reason I stay around is the couple of people who have realized that they were being unloving and hurtful.

 

[kern]

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams
What I like about the Catholic position is that they realize that people are struggling and know that what they are asking is a sacrifice. It's too bad that use some lazy theology and somewhat destructive language from time to time.

I don't like that they use Sodom and Gomorrah as a reference for homosexuality being a sin. Even if you believe that homosexuality is a sin I don't see how this story can be read to condemn a consensual homosexual relationship. At worst it condemns homosexual rape -- but heterosexual rape is also prohibited in the Bible but we don't extrapolate that to mean that heterosexual sex is a sin.

-Chris

 

[kern]

Originally posted by seebs
There was another thread in which it was everyone vs. fragments. Heh.

Well, I've basically sworn off these threads -- I have nothing more to say beyond what I said back on that thread in April, so I just refer anyone back there.

I think canonical Catholic teaching is "homosexual acts sinful, homosexual orientation not chosen, they're called to celibacy, show some
compassion here".

You got it. They're a little waffle-y on whether or not homosexuality is a choice. The language is rather vague but they appear to suggest that for "some people", homosexuality is not a choice.

I don't know whether that's infallible doctrine or a reasonable guess by educated clergy.

I don't know about this either.

-Chris

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by kern
I don't like that they use Sodom and Gomorrah as a reference for homosexuality being a sin. Even if you believe that homosexuality is a sin I don't see how this story can be read to condemn a consensual homosexual relationship. At worst it condemns homosexual rape -- but heterosexual rape is also prohibited in the Bible but we don't extrapolate that to mean that heterosexual sex is a sin.

Agreed. The story of Lot's experience in Sodom is actually very very similar to a later story (Judges, I think?) involving a concubine...

I believe the idea that Sodom was about the gay sex was an innovation quite some time later; in the OT, it's referred to twice (once in Ezekiel, once in Isaiah), and both times, they explicitly say that the sin of Sodom was something *other* than homosexuality. I mean, not something ambiguous involving sex; something like "inhospitality". When Christ told His disciples to shake the dust from their shoes when faced with inhospitality, He referred back to Sodom.

I have seen historians suggest that the debate about homosexual acts (which you find occasional hints of in surviving early literature) finally got settled around 1000-1200, and it may be that the Sodom thing comes from that. I haven't seen any earlier references to the idea that Sodom's sin was gay sex.

 

[kern]

Jude is the only one that talks about sexual practices in conjunction with Sodom, but every Biblical commentary I have looked at says that "going after strange flesh" refers to the attempted rape of angels, not homosexuality.

-Chris

 

[seebs]

Well, "strange" is a translation of "heteros", meaning "other".

What scares me about it is the implication: If this story *has* to be about homosexual activity, that means God wouldn't have objected if it hadn't been homosexual. So, if a bunch of guys had threatened to gang-rape angels, but the angels had been "female" (not sure on gender and angels), that woulda been boys being boys.

 

[NOTso angry-amy]

my translation of the bible has the words homosexual in it. i know that the words homosexual wasnt used until last century after freud. what gives? and what translations would be more accurate. i read passages and myself question whether it is more about lvoe or more about hate.

 

[seebs]

The places you're most likely seeing it are 1Cor 6:9 and a nearly-identical passage a bit later. What *should* it be? Very good question; there have been lots of papers written arguing for various translations.

http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gaytrans.html

A good summary of what's been used in various Bibles.

 

[seebs]

http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/scripture.html

This is perhaps a more complete study.

 

[RevKidd]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0>

<TBODY>

<TR vAlign=top>

<TD>What does Paul say about this.&nbsp; I think it is very clear and can not be mis-interpreted.

who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

</TD></TR>

<TR vAlign=top>

<TD>1:26&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; For this reason God gave them up to&nbsp;&nbsp; vile&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. [/size][/font]</TD></TR>

<TR vAlign=top>

<TD>[font="Arial, Geneva, Helvetica"]

<DL compact>

<DT><B>1:27</B>

<DD>Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. </DD></DL>Sounds like Homosexuality too me....

&nbsp;[/font]</TD></TR>

<TR vAlign=top>

<TD>[font="Arial, Geneva, Helvetica"]

<DL compact>

<DT><B>1:28</B>

<DD>And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; </DD></DL>[/font]</TD></TR>

<TR vAlign=top>

<TD>[font="Arial, Geneva, Helvetica"]

<DL compact>

<DT><B>1:29</B>

<DD>being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,&nbsp; wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, </DD></DL>[/font]</TD></TR>

<TR vAlign=top>

<TD>[font="Arial, Geneva, Helvetica"]

<DL compact>

<DT><B>1:30</B>

<DD>backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, </DD></DL>[/font]</TD></TR>

<TR vAlign=top>

<TD>[font="Arial, Geneva, Helvetica"]

<DL compact>

<DT><B>1:31</B>

<DD>undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; </DD></DL>[/font]</TD></TR>

<TR vAlign=top>

<TD>[font="Arial, Geneva, Helvetica"]

<DL compact>

<DT><B>1:32</B>

<DD>who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. </DD></DL>Paul is stating here very plainly what these people were doing, and that the actions that they were partaking of, not just homosexual sex, is wrong.&nbsp; And in the very next chapter,&nbsp;he rebukes people who judge these people because they are indulging in the same sins.&nbsp; I don't see where we can say that Homosexuality is not wrong or sinful.&nbsp;[/font]</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[RevKidd]

sorry guys. I don't know why I am having problems cutting and pasting scripture onto these boards. It won't let me edit it either. Sorry. If someone wants to tell me what I have done wrong wet me know...

 

[RevKidd]

my translation of the bible has the words homosexual in it. i know that the words homosexual wasnt used until last century after freud. what gives? and what translations would be more accurate. i read passages and myself question whether it is more about lvoe or more about hate.

Amy, the best translation to use would be the NASB - New American Standard Bible.&nbsp; It is a literal word for word translation of the bible.&nbsp; It can at times, be&nbsp;for some people, difficult to read.&nbsp; This translation is the translation that many people use for indepth, literal meaning.&nbsp; That is why I would have a bible dictionary and a greek and hebrew lexicon handy.&nbsp; All of these resources are available as well.&nbsp; Check out www.crosswalk.com and go to bible study tools...

 

[seebs]

Even the NASB can have trouble with a word no one is sure about.

As to the Romans thing, compare it closely to Job 36:1-14... And look closely at the context. What Paul described is *EXACTLY* what would have happened had normal, heterosexual, married, people returned to the pagan worship common in Rome at the time.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by PastorFreud
The argument you will hear back, just if you didn't already know, is that Leviticus calls homosexuality an ABOMINATION. And while eating pork and wearing mixed fabric and eating shrimp have all changed, what is an abomination never changes.

Besides the problem FOD has pointed out, the problem with this argument is that having sex with your wife on her period is also an abomination.

Leviticus consistenly uses a phrase 'Quadesh' to refer to all these practices. It seems that there is a connection with Canaanite religious practices as FOD suggested. At any rate, calling homosexuality in America in 2002 the same as the homosexuality that was warned about in Leviticus is a shaky proposition. God also commanded that they were to build fences around their roofs. God seemed to be against all kinds of practices that did not lead to healthy reproduction. The pork would have been dangerous to eat, people might fall off the roof, homosexual sex does not lead to babies, sex during menstration would not lead to babies, but I can't explain the mixed fabrics thing.

&nbsp;

Not exactly what people "always hear".&nbsp; What I always hear is that there are absolutely no references to same sex unions as being ok.&nbsp; Multimple references are made against male/male sex.&nbsp; Sex is different from eating pigs because the New Testament explicitly ok's eating pigs and explicitly denies indulging in sexual immorality.

&nbsp;

As for abomination, it means disgusting.&nbsp; It does not take high philology to understand why homosexual acts might appear to be disgusting.&nbsp; The same is for the most part clear of the less severe denouncement of unclean.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

There is no real confusion here.&nbsp; I have to go look on the LAST homosexual thread to see if this question has been asnwered yet, but so far no one has ever found a single legitimate reference to approved homosexuality.&nbsp; I think this speaks volumes.