Homosexuality and the Bible[W:223]

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Couldn't 'by nature' mean impotent? Or sterile? I think you're reading FAR too much into it.

*sigh* Read the links. I didn't put them there for my health. Homosexuals were acknowledged as sometimes being included in this group. Like I said, it was a description of a profession or status, not a sexual state. Completely normally-functioning people could be eunuchs, even if they were not celibates.

 

[DA60]

Why do you believe the Bible considers homosexuality to be a sin?

Because the Bible is full of ****.

It also believes slavery is fine and killing said slaves is fine.


All major religions are for the weak and/or the ignorant and/or the desperate.

 

[CLAX1911]

Simple logic with historical context.

Jesus said sexual immorality was a sin.
Homosexuality was considered sexually immoral among the Jews.
Therefore, Jesus taught that homosexuality (among other things) was sinful.

Why do you believe the Jews found it immoral?

They didn't consider it immoral, they weren't capable of that. The concept if homosexuality didn't exist until the 19th century.

Jewish tribes thought any form of sexual activity that didn't result in children being born was immoral because they needed more Jews. That includes oral sex, anal sex, protected vaginal sex, masturbation and so forth. It didn't matter what sex you were. So they thought heterosexuality was immoral too.

 

[D_NATURED]

Why do you believe the Bible considers homosexuality to be a sin?

Because it was written by people who were trying to control humanity, not take an accurate accounting of human behavior and the relative harm of anything we do. The idea of homosexuality doesn't fit in the whole "god made everything according to his design" BS, that the bible claims. Why would god create men who like men and women who like women if it's all about being fruitful and multiplying? He wouldn't. Thus, the "choice" to be gay is a sin against His design. It's profoundly stupid but, like with many ridiculous things in the bible, there are millions of minions who would die rather than face the facts. They persist in this ignorance to this very day.

 

[CLAX1911]

Actually, if you look at the passages in context, it's not talking about 'homosexuality' per say. For example.. in one of the passages, it is referring to specifically male prostitution that was practiced as a fertility right in some of the surrounding religions. The other one is taking about humiliation rape. It CAN be covered under the blanket umbrella of 'sexual imorality', but anything can be, actually. The ancient Jews didn't have the concept as we know it today

And, technically, that is just male to male contact. Nothing is explicitly said about lesbianism. That falls under the vague and easily redefined 'sexual immorality' clause.

Anywhere in the bible where it says the weird homosexuality, they replaced the word sodomy. In biblical texts sodomy is the sin of Sodom. The bible never says Sodom's sin was sexual. That was changed.

 

[Josie]

They didn't consider it immoral, they weren't capable of that. The concept if homosexuality didn't exist until the 19th century.

Jewish tribes thought any form of sexual activity that didn't result in children being born was immoral because they needed more Jews. That includes oral sex, anal sex, protected vaginal sex, masturbation and so forth. It didn't matter what sex you were. So they thought heterosexuality was immoral too.

Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time. To say it didn't exist until the 19th century is ridiculous.

Anywhere in the bible where it says the weird homosexuality, they replaced the word sodomy. In biblical texts sodomy is the sin of Sodom. The bible never says Sodom's sin was sexual. That was changed.

Actually it does. The men of Sodom wanted to have sex with the angels that came to Lot's house. Lot called it a wicked action and the angels got Lot and his family out of there before they destroyed it.

 

[Josie]

Like I explained, nothing in the ancient use of "eunuch" meant they were necessarily celibate or "pure." Some were not. Many times, the term had absolutely nothing to do with sexual or martial practices at all, and was a term for a chamber servant. Their only universal trait is that they were trusted not to hit on women. I am not alone in thinking this includes homosexuals, as linked, and nowhere does it say they were celibate.

Try again. You still appear not to have fully read this.

Yes, I did. As I said, even if the word "eunuch" meant "homosexual", that doesn't mean anything in the context of what we're talking about. The passage you quoted was all about divorce, not salvation. You still haven't shown where Jesus said or even implies that homosexuality isn't sexual immorality.

In short, Paul preached that proclaiming your held faith alone was good enough to be saved. Jesus said works and keeping the Commandments are required.

Paul:
Jesus:

Meh - I hear the same things when I read those two passages. Paul just didn't go into detail. Paul spoke all the time about turning away from your sins, not letting anyone cause you to stumble into sin, etc. He didn't believe that you could be a non-repenting sinner and just say some words and be saved.

Paul diverges from Jesus quite often, and nowhere does he do so more frequently than in matters of salvation and sexual immorality. Like I said, if you're reading as a Christian, clearly Jesus is the guy to go with on these matters.

Of course. Jesus is the King -- Paul is just a follower.

 

[CLAX1911]

Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time. To say it didn't exist until the 19th century is ridiculous.

The concept of it hasn't. People that are sexually attracted to the same sex is a new concept. That's what homosexuality is.

Actually it does. The men of Sodom wanted to have sex with the angels that came to Lot's house.

Incorrect, they wanted to rape them.

 

[Josie]

The concept of it hasn't. People that are sexually attracted to the same sex is a new concept. That's what homosexuality is.

No, it isn't.

Incorrect, they wanted to rape them.

Right -- sodomize them.

 

[Howler63]

*sigh* Read the links. I didn't put them there for my health. Homosexuals were acknowledged as sometimes being included in this group. Like I said, it was a description of a profession or status, not a sexual state. Completely normally-functioning people could be eunuchs, even if they were not celibates.

Acknowledged by whom? I see no reference to homosexuals in any of the contemporary writings. It appears that this is just another instance of codifying or normalizing homosexuality as an acceptable and even encouraged practice. Which, while being tolerated, wasn't exactly hailed as masculine or preferable to normalcy.

 

[CLAX1911]

No, it isn't.

Yes it is.

Right -- sodomize them.

Yes, that isn't homosexuality. Sodomy in common language is oral and anal sex, and sex with protection. That's largely heterosexuality.

Sodomy in the biblical terms is being inhospitable. That includes raping the new guy.

 

[CLAX1911]

Acknowledged by whom? I see no reference to homosexuals in any of the contemporary writings. It appears that this is just another instance of codifying or normalizing homosexuality as an acceptable and even encouraged practice. Which, while being tolerated, wasn't exactly hailed as masculine or preferable to normalcy.

Well if you don't believe in exicuting or alienating homosexuals, acceptance is the only other thing you can support. Well if you want to follow Jesus's teachings.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Acknowledged by whom? I see no reference to homosexuals in any of the contemporary writings. It appears that this is just another instance of codifying or normalizing homosexuality as an acceptable and even encouraged practice. Which, while being tolerated, wasn't exactly hailed as masculine or preferable to normalcy.

I posted them right where you can click on them. Try that.

Actually, one of my sources is an anti-gay Christian, despite that he accepts the interpretation that Jesus was including gay people. Don't ask me how that one works in his mind, but there ya go.

 

[WCH]

Because the Old Testament was written by crazies just like most religious texts. That is where mostly all of the anti-homosexual parts are from.

The following New Testament passages deal with homosexual actions:

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Rom. 1:26–27).

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10).

"Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine" (1 Tim. 1:8–10).

 

[RAMOSS]

...and in almost all the other references it's simply referring to the act of homosexuality. There's nothing about "humiliation rape" in the Bible... ... and lesbianism is covered under sexual immorality.

Sad effort....

Unless, of course, you read it in cultual context, in the original hebrew. Just because you reject it due to your CHristian mistranslation doesn't mean it is a 'sad effort'

 

[RAMOSS]

Did Romans AND Jews use this distinction? Where are homosexuals EXPLICITLY mentioned? Are there any passages or texts that codify this apparent vernacular stretch?

If you a look at the letters from Paul in context, the 'inflamed with unnatural lusts', etc etc etc is the punishment for pagan practices. While obviuosly it is liked, it was the punishment for something else, not a specific prohibition.

 

[JC Callender]

Because the Old Testament where its mostly discussed was written by bronze age Hebrew tribes that would make ISIS look like liberals. If Moses were alive today he would be tried and almost certainly executed for crimes against humanity.

Huh, I wonder why they published the Ten Commandments then?

 

[JC Callender]

I think that during that period, people's prejudices led them to draw that conclusion. For a guy, that kind of interaction can be a little off-putting, more for some than others, so I think that it also the religious prudishness of the conservative bent that created that perception as well. Religious toleration is very very narrow in scope and "welfare of the soul" is a great driver.

So religious people are basically petty and shallow? Why do you think so many are drawn to Christianity then, who's golden rule is to love your neighbor as yourself?

 

[JC Callender]

Because it was written by people who were trying to control humanity, not take an accurate accounting of human behavior and the relative harm of anything we do. The idea of homosexuality doesn't fit in the whole "god made everything according to his design" BS, that the bible claims. Why would god create men who like men and women who like women if it's all about being fruitful and multiplying? He wouldn't. Thus, the "choice" to be gay is a sin against His design. It's profoundly stupid but, like with many ridiculous things in the bible, there are millions of minions who would die rather than face the facts. They persist in this ignorance to this very day.

So who do you believe made up all of these Biblical figures?

 

[RAMOSS]

It would be helpful if you're cite the passages that you're talking about.

The passage that is specifically talking about humiliation rape is the story of Sodom and Gomorah. In leveliticus 18:22, if you read it in context, it is talking about the rites that were attributed to Moloch, which was a competing religion at the time. Among the rites of moloch, which is mention just before, and just after the passage about not lie with a man, there are specific passages dealing with the fertility rights of temple prostitution and child sacrifice.

Leviticus 20 also is talking about 'ritualistically unclean', and is about what is prohibited from letting people enter the temple. The act is specifically male to ale anal sex, and it taken by man to also mean the temple prostitution

From Homosexuality and Halakhah - My Jewish Learning

Cultic prostitution, both hetero‑ and homosexual, was a common feature of idolatrous worship in the ancient Near East, but, like the story of Sodom, it is no longer a relevant precedent for modern homosexuality

That is not to say that homosexuality in the modern sense is not considered bad, particularly amount the orthodox, but that is because it falls under the category of 'sexual immorality' .. and the reinterpreatoin of the passages to modern society, since cult prostitution is not practiced anymore.

However, it's more vague and open to interpretation than modern Christian interpretations would have you believe

 

[RAMOSS]

The following New Testament passages deal with homosexual actions:

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Rom. 1:26–27).

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10).

"Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine" (1 Tim. 1:8–10).

OF course, if you look at the greek, there are terms for 'sodomites' that is a term only found in the letters of paul... that literally means 'man/bed'.. it could mean someone who is promiscuous, not homosexual. And, of course, 'sexual perverts' is open to interpretation.

 

[ajn678]

The following New Testament passages deal with homosexual actions:

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Rom. 1:26–27).

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10).

"Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine" (1 Tim. 1:8–10).

The first verse talks about a due penalty for their action, any idea what it is?

The second verse says that basically not a single person will inherit the kingdom of God. Every person in the world is somewhere in those groups.

The third verse is the same as the second.

 

[faithful_servant]

Unless, of course, you read it in cultual context, in the original hebrew. Just because you reject it due to your CHristian mistranslation doesn't mean it is a 'sad effort'

I have studied it in it's original context. In it's original context, there were a coupe of instances where Paul was referring to temple homosexuality when discussing the "pollution" of the Church by the culture it was in, all the other references (except one or two in the OT) refer to a same sex relationship. The idea about rape vs. homosexuality is from a cultural concept that homosexuality was generally considered to be something you had to be forced into and wouldn't enter into willingly. Some homosexual apologist decided that was what was being referred to when the truth is that the Bible NEVER makes that inference and is clear about it being any same sex relationship.

 

[Goshin]

Why do you believe the Bible considers homosexuality to be a sin?

Because it says so in several different places in both OT and NT.

 

[jet57]

So religious people are basically petty and shallow? Why do you think so many are drawn to Christianity then, who's golden rule is to love your neighbor as yourself?

I never said anything of the kind.