According to Christian readings...is Homosexual sex wrong

[tamperer2]

Lets hear ur thoughts on this subject

[Charchuk]

Originally Posted by tamperer2

Lets hear ur thoughts on this subject

Actually to many Christians any form of sex for pleasure only is wrong if it doesn't involve reproduction. The sole purpose of sex to them is to have babies.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Charchuk

Actually to many Christians any form of sex for pleasure only is wrong if it doesn't involve reproduction. The sole purpose of sex to them is to have babies.

Not the ones I know.

[Charchuk]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Not the ones I know.

Watch the news when they interview leaders such as Jerry Falwell and others like him. Look at history itself as it viewed sex since St. Augustine's time. Are your friends Catholics or Protestants?

[tamperer2]

Originally Posted by Charchuk

Watch the news when they interview leaders such as Jerry Falwell and others like him. Look at history itself as it viewed sex since St. Augustine's time. Are your friends Catholics or Protestants?

[ Well not that I no of. Im just interested in the subject. Plus i do religious studies, sociology & pyschology at A level so social gruops and mass phobias interest me. U might also say I'm quite sad actually!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Charchuk

Watch the news when they interview leaders such as Jerry Falwell and others like him. Look at history itself as it viewed sex since St. Augustine's time. Are your friends Catholics or Protestants?

I know mostly Protestants. Although, I think that some Catholics and some Protestants would look down on pleasurable sex and some wouldn't - I don't know that its a doctrine vs. a personal opinion.

[JakeCJB]

<<Romans 1:26-"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their peversion.">>

I'm curious as to why God would make them have these "shameful lusts", if God thought these desires were so horrible.

Also, why would God use people, sexually?

[montalban]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I know mostly Protestants. Although, I think that some Catholics and some Protestants would look down on pleasurable sex and some wouldn't - I don't know that its a doctrine vs. a personal opinion.

Why's everyone not mention Orthodox? We're the second biggest Christian Church.

Earlier a writer said that sex is frowned upon excepting for the purposes of reproduction. I was impressed by the massive amount of evidence he used to back this opinion up.

As to the core issue of this thread, yes the 'traditional' churches Catholicism and Orthodoxy teach against homosexuality.
http://www.orthodox.net/articles/homosexuality.html

[ROCC]

Originally Posted by tamperer2

Lets hear ur thoughts on this subject

Getting back to the original question...yes.
The bible is very clear about the idea of whether homosexual sex is wrong.
Verses:
1 Corinthians 5:9-"I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people..."

Romans 1:26-"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their peversion."

thes are just a few.

[Girl Esq.]

Originally Posted by tamperer2

Lets hear ur thoughts on this subject

The following thoughts are the sermon notes of pastor John Keating, who has graciously given me permission me to share them with whomever is interested.

Bible Doctrine Church
Website: http://bibledoctrinechurch.org/
Attn: John Keating
700 Munras Avenue
Monterey, CA 93940
Phone: 831-394-2708


NOWHERE in the Scriptures does it say that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexual sex. Even if the specific point of the story was concerning a sexual matter, rather than hospitality, the real issue is rape not homosexuality. Jesus claimed the issue was simply one of showing hospitality to strangers (Luke 10:10-12). How ironic that those who discriminate against homosexuals actually seem to be the true practitioners of the sin of Sodom.

2. The story of Sodom: Genesis 19 is one of the most commonly cited anti-homosexual passages in the Bible. It is so frequently used that the term "Sodomite" that once referred to an inhabitant of Sodom, has become a legal term for criminal sexual acts, & has also become a derogatory synonym for a homosexual.

This story is generally thought of in terms of the fate of a single town: Sodom. But according to Deut. 29:22-29, God's anger caused a number of cities to be destroyed. It involved: "...the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath."

Unfortunately, the real names of Sodom and Gomorrah were not preserved. Sodom was derived from the Hebrew word "S'dom," which means "burnt." Gomorrah is derived from the Hebrew word "'Amorah," which means "a ruined heap." These appear to be place names which were assigned after the disaster.

Genesis 19 describes how two angels visited the Canaanite city of Sodom. The city had just experienced warfare (Gen. 14:1-2) and was probably on high alert to forestall more conflict. Lot welcomed the angels into his house. They had been sent to warn him that God was displeased with the wickedness of the city's residents. God had decided to destroy a large geographical area, including the city of Sodom. All of the people from the city gathered around the house and demanded that Lot send the strangers to the mob so that they might "know" the angels. (The Hebrew verb ya,dah - to know, is ambiguous. It appears 943 times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). In only about a dozen of these cases does it refer to sexual activity. It is not clear whether the mob wanted to rape the angels or to just meet with them, and perhaps attack them physically. Sensing evil intent by the citizens of Sodom, Lot refused. As an alternative, he offered his two virgin daughters to be raped by the mob, if that would appease them. The offer was declined. God was apparently not critical of Lot for offering his two daughters to be raped. However, God was angry at the other inhabitants of the town. The angels blinded some of the mob. Later, the angels urged Lot and his family to flee and to not look back. Unfortunately, Lot's wife seems to have had an inquisitive mind. She looked the wrong way, so God killed her on the spot and turned her into a pillar of salt.

He destroyed Sodom with fire and brimstone (sulfur). He presumably killed all of the men in the mob, their wives and other adults, as well as children, infants, newborns, etc.

“Traditional Churchianity” has accepted the explanation of homosexual relations to explain what happened. In fact, the term sodomy which means anal intercourse is derived from the name of the city, Sodom. Actually inhospitality is the correct explanation! As recorded in Mat. 10:14-15 and Lk. 10:7-16, Jesus implied that the sin of the people of Sodom was to be inhospitable to strangers. In Ezek. 16:48-50, God states clearly that he destroyed Sodom's sins because of their pride, their excess of food while the poor and needy suffered, and worshiped many idols; sexual activity is not even mentioned.

We are faced with the inescapable and rather amusing conclusion that the condemned activities in Sodom had nothing to do with sodomy. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah actually condemns inhospitality and idolatry, not homosexuality.

3. Genesis 19:4 -- Who was in the mob?

According to the King James Version of the Bible, Genesis 19:4 says: "...the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter." (KJV)

The KJV translation is ambiguous. The first part of the verse talks about "the men of Sodom," -- that is, a male group. The second part talks about "all the people," -- presumably men, women, and children. The ambiguity appears to be due the phrase in the original Hebrew that is transliterated as "anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom." It meant "the people of the city, the people of Sodom." It appears that the KJV translators perhaps influenced by their homophobia, chose a translation that would make the mob all male. The original Hebrew text says that everyone in Sodom -- men, women and children -- were there. Today, San Francisco has the reputation for being the “gayest” city in the world. Yet even in San Francisco, gay men constitute far less than half the total male population. To suggest that every man & boy in Sodom was homosexual is simply not credible. Any reasonable interpretation of the story must account for the fact that “all the males” (both homosexual and heterosexual), and perhaps even the women, participated in this attack. Something other than homosexual desire seems to have been at work here.

4. Genesis 19:5 -- What does "ya,dah" mean?

According to the King James Version of the Bible, Genesis 19:5 says: "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know (Heb. ya,da) them." (KJV)

Ya,dah is a Hebrew verb which is commonly translated as "know." Its meaning is ambiguous. In most passages it generally talks about a man "knowing" a woman and of her conceiving a child as a result of the "knowing." All such references involve heterosexual relationships.

It is not clear (in the KJV) whether the mob wanted to:

a. Gang rape the angels. This was a common technique by which men, particularly enemies, were humiliated in that society.

b. Engage in consensual homosexual sex with the angels: This is the interpretation of the NIV translators. They wrote very clearly that the intent was to "have sex with them."

c. Interrogate them. They may have been concerned that the strangers were spies who were sent to the city to determine its defensive fortifications. "Sodom was a tiny fortress in the barren wasteland south of the Dead Sea. The only strangers that the people of Sodom ever saw were enemy tribes who wanted to destroy and take over their valuable fortress and the trade routes that it protected." As noted above, the city had just recently survived just such an attack, and may have been on high alert.

d. Attack them physically.

5. Gen. 19:8 -- Lot's offer to have his daughters gang raped: From the context, it is obvious that the mood of the mob was not friendly. Lot may have assessed that they had sex on their minds, because he offered his virgin daughters as an attempt to placate the mob. Some Christian interpreters maintain that all of the men in the city were present in the mob, and that all were homosexual. Lot would certainly have known of this, for he was a resident of the city. If they were all gay, then he would hardly have made a gift of his daughters to be raped; the mob would have had no sexual interest in women. It’s obvious that Lot believed the crowd outside his door was predominantly heterosexual. Why else would he offer his daughters?

If they were ALL homosexual, he would have given the mob a gift of his two future son-in-laws. His daughters were both engaged to men from Sodom. In their culture, engagement was a binding arrangement, with many of the properties of marriage. It gave Lot authority over his future son-in-laws, much as he had control of his daughters. So he would have been able to sacrifice his daughter’s fiancées. But he didn't. Thus, we can conclude that most or all of the men of Sodom were not gay. 13. Another indication that the all the men of Sodom were not gay is seen in a number of biblical references which emphasize that one of the serious sins of Sodom was their neglect of orphans and widows. If all male "Sodomites" were gay then there would be few or no marriages and thus few or no widows and orphans.

6. A final indication is that Lot's future sons-in-law were from Sodom and were engaged to be married to his daughters. It is apparent that they were not homosexuals. God was apparently not critical of Lot for offering his two daughters to be raped. If he were, he might have decided to not save Lot and his family.

7. Why did God exterminate all the men, women and children of Sodom? The text of Gen. 19 implies that God approved of Lot's behavior, even though he made an offer of his virgin daughters to be raped. This approval would have been extended to Lot's family as well. But God had a fierce anger directed at the other inhabitants of the town. He destroyed Sodom with fire and brimstone (sulfur) dumped from above. He presumably killed all of the men and Women of Sodom, as well as all the innocent children, infants, newborns, etc. who lived in the city. It is unclear from this brief passage in Genesis whether God demolished the city because the citizens habitually:

a. Engaged in consensual homosexual acts -- a same-sex orgy in this case. This is the belief of most conservative Christians.

b. Were uncharitable and abusive to strangers, the poor, sick, and disadvantaged. In that society, a person had a very strong obligation to protect any guests in their home. Other Christians believe that this is the meaning behind the story of the destruction of Sodom.

c. Humiliated their visitors by engaging in "an act of sexual degradation and male rape...These are acts of violence that are committed by parties seeking to show their hatred for those they are degrading. It is not an act of love or of caring". Perhaps the sin of Sodom was the threat of mass rape.

d. Wanted to engage in bestiality -- having sex with a member of another species. The mob may have wanted to rape the angels; angels are not human beings; they are of a different species. This would be consistent with the quotation in Jude about the men of Sodom going after "other flesh."

8. Accessing other biblical passages to understand Genesis 19: A common procedure in biblical apologetics is to let the Bible interpret the Bible. Looking elsewhere in the Bible for references to Sodom may help us determine which of the four above interpretations is correct.

a. The interpretation of Gen. 19 as referring to a homosexual sin appears to have been created in the 11th century by the Italian ascetic St. Peter Damian. Christian theologians generally accepted this explanation until recently. In fact, the English word sodomy, which popularly means either homosexual or heterosexual anal intercourse, was derived from the name of the city. The term sodomy is also used in some ancient laws to refer to a variety of sexual behaviors in addition to heterosexual intercourse. Some of these laws are still on the books although the U.S. Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional in 2003-JUN. Opinion among most liberal and mainline Christian and Jewish theologians has now reverted to the original Christian belief that Gen. 19 refers to a lack of charity and to ill treatment of strangers. Consider:

b. In ancient Jewish literature, such as the Ethics of the Fathers and the Talmud, there are many references to Sodom. The phrase "middat Sdom" was used. It may be translated as "the way the people of Sodom thought". It meant a lack of charity and hospitality towards others; ignoring the needs of the poor, etc. In the Middle East, a person's survival could depend upon the charity of strangers. To help strangers was a solemn religious duty of paramount importance. See Lev. 19:33-34 and Mat. 25:35, 38 & 43.

c. Many believe that texts in Genesis and the rest of the Bible make it clear that Sodom was punished because of the violent, abusive, inhospitable, greedy, and unsympathetic behavior of its citizens towards visitors, widows, the poor and other disadvantaged persons. Gen. 19 may condemn homosexual rape simply because it is rape. It would then be consistent with Deut. 22:25-29 which condemns heterosexual rape. The passage does not impact on consensual homosexual activities between consenting adults, and is totally unrelated to loving, committed, same-sex relationships, civil unions and marriages.

There is an ironic aspect to this passage that is rarely discussed: God seems to condemn the citizens for insensitive treatment and harassment of others. But, this is the very passage that many conservative and some mainline Christian faith groups use to attack gays and lesbians.

9. The real story of Sodom may well have involved a mob driven by fear and hatred, attempting to humiliate, by rape, people that they do not know. Ironically, the Sodom situation has many parallels to gay-bashing today, with members of the public trying to assault gay and lesbian strangers who seek shelter from the mob. This is a story about attempted mob violence, not homosexual desire.

10. To test this proposition, let’s ask a simple question. Suppose the 2 angels in the story had been women, but the story otherwise unfolded exactly the same: The men of Sodom clamored to have sex with the 2 female angels and God destroyed the city. Do you think anyone would conclude this story was a blanket condemnation of heterosexuality? Of course not! Instead, we all would conclude (correctly) that the wickedness of Sodom was shown by their desire to sexually violate two strangers in their midst, and perhaps simply to humiliate them not because of any particular sexual lust pattern.

11. In fact, this is the way other writers of the Bible interpreted this story (see the many references in the last class on Sodom and Gomorrah). We noted that NONE of them said that homosexuality was the sin of Sodom.

12. In total, the Bible contains six phrases which touch on homosexual behavior. Given the hundreds of commandments and thousands of pages, I can't see how homosexuality is of much interest to the scriptures. The Bible contains much more material condoning slavery and confining the rights of women than it does speaking about homosexuality. The fact that many Christians condemn homosexuality with righteous appeals to the scriptures is an example of bringing to the Bible what is really a twentieth century preoccupation and pretending that a handful of sentences from the Bible correspond to our modern anxieties over sexuality. I would submit that their interpretation is driven by anti-gay prejudice. Many Christians only know the stereotypes they learned in childhood. They buy into the idea that all gay men are predators and that loving relationships between inherently homosexual people do not exist. And thus they assume that Gen. 19 must be a sweeping condemnation of homosexuality, and that all homosexuality takes the form shown in that story. Actually, this story is at most a condemnation of homosexual rape or could it be heterosexual rape? And, as other Scriptures affirm, it is more generally a condemnation of the mistreatment of those who are most vulnerable, including strangers.

13. Thus, the condemned activities in Sodom probably had nothing to do with sodomy. As one Christian editor wrote: "To suggest that Sodom and Gomorra is about homosexual sex is an analysis of about as much worth as suggesting that the story of Jonah and the whale is a treatise on fishing."

[Girl Esq.]

The following thoughts are the sermon notes of pastor John Keating, who has graciously given me permission me to share them with whomever is interested.

Bible Doctrine Church
Website: http://bibledoctrinechurch.org/
Attn: John Keating
700 Munras Avenue
Monterey, CA 93940
Phone: 831-394-2708


CAN GAYS/LESBIANS BE SAVED? According to the Bible, it is God who creates people (regardless of sexual orientation). He forms us as we are. Our genes, our temperaments, our time and place in history, our talents, our gifts, our weaknesses -- all are part of God's inscrutable and loving plan for us. So, somehow God must be behind the fact that some people are homosexual. Why then would God's word condemn it? Does it mean that these people are "mistakes"? God doesn't make mistakes; but humans do, in Biblical interpretation for example. These are facts to think about when considering this issue and the relevance and meaning of the verses in the Bible so commonly used to condemn homosexuals. The clear message to the gay community from the modern Church has been one of rejection. Gay people, like many other minorities or small eccentric groups, have been labeled as unacceptable to the kingdom of God. In the same way that the Jews considered Gentiles as unclean, gays have been treated as filthy; rubbish to be thrown out. Some (like this church) have rejected this blanket statement and have attempted to reach out; understanding that Jesus' mission was not one of condemnation, but salvation. But, nowhere in scripture can anyone justify hate as a proper response to homosexuals or anyone else. All people (includes gays, or minorities, or any other “undesirables”, etc.) are the creation of God. Just being different doesn’t mean they should be treated different. Instead, James says to treat all alike without discrimination (Jam. 2:1-4).

The Bible clearly says that God's free gift of grace (unmerited favor) is extended to all who by faith receive it (Rom. 5:2). "For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that WHOEVER believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16) "Everyone who calls upon the name of the LORD shall be saved." (Joel 2:32) Paul teaches "there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Rom. 10:12-13) "All the Father gives me will come to me, and WHOEVER comes to me I will never drive away." (John 6:37)

These important passages paint a picture that no matter what some misguided churches or even Christians may have said or done, God's love is extended to WHOEVER will respond to His free gift of grace. Jesus did not come to bring condemnation to anyone, but so that the world through Him might be saved (John 3:17). Therefore, those who do not extend the free gift of God's unmerited favor to EVERYONE as it was extended to them, are not abiding in the clear teaching of the New Testament. The witness of the Holy Spirit is all anyone needs (Rom. 8:16) to come to the inward security of knowing who they really are: a child of God!

3. THE LAW OF MOSES: The first five books of the Old Testament are called the Pentateuch (literally 5 tools). They are traditionally attributed to Moses' authorship and contain the Law (Torah). The Law contains more than six hundred regulations governing everyday living for the Children of Israel. They cover everything from instructions on how to wear clothes and prepare ceremonial foods to laws concerning the observance of holy days and punishments requirements for certain crimes. The Law was specifically given to the Israelites and never intended to be the law for the Gentiles. In that sense, none of us have ever been under the Law and there is no need for us to be under it now.

The Apostle Paul observed that the ones who have fallen away from grace (Gal. 5:4) are the ones who have put themselves under the Law. This was a sect known as the Judaizers and is not referring to those without the Law. The Law was given to show that the righteousness of God could not be obtained by legalistically keeping rules. It gave the people knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20) and demonstrated the impossibility of ANYONE being able to measure up and be accepted by God on the basis of keeping it.

The major source of condemnation today against homosexuality and other social moral issues, has come from those who have not fully grasped the significance of the law of Grace as opposed to the Law of Moses and their belief that homosexuality is a violation of God's Law. Nearly every argument against homosexuality has at its root the Law of Moses. They mistakenly believe that “sodomy” is forbidden by the Law. This is not true. The word “sodomy” is a modern word, coined under the mistaken belief that Sodom was destroyed because of rampant homosexuality. We have seen in our last lesson that this is not true. The word “sodomy” does not appear in any of the main translations (KJV, RSV, NASB, or NIV). It has taken on new meaning in this century referring to any sexual act other than copulation between a man and a woman who are married to each other. It varies from state to state in its legal definition. This variance illustrates one of the prime difficulties in understanding the Scripture in its original language. To understand and explain what the writer has written, one must understand the words the writer used as the writer understood them. Word meanings change over time and the unlearned can come away from passages with a total misunderstanding of the writer's meaning.

4. The approach to Leviticus: The book of Leviticus is a product of its culture. Not only that, it is a commentary of the Law as represented in the Ten Commandments. The writers were neither scientists nor historians writing from expertise, but were persons of faith -- priests, writing from the unique experiences that they encountered. They were problem solvers in an era where simplistic, yet decisive actions were necessitated by illnesses and controversies that arose within the camp of the tribe of Israel. They were people who were forced to make quick and sudden decisions as need arose. For 21st Christians to use these formulas as criteria for ethical and moral decision making would be naive at best, heresy at worst. The priests used the tools of knowledge at their disposal, just as we are required to use the tools of knowledge available to us. Today, we can benefit from thousands of years of learning!

Bottom line -- the arguments suggesting and concerning homosexuality in Leviticus as well as in all of scripture, must be treated equally. The Bible is not a cafeteria; there can be no picking and choosing! The rules of interpretation must be consistent across the board. Therefore, the Leviticus text must be critiqued as a whole, and not willy-nilly in order to defend or condemn a particular point of view. A verse taken out of its context is never an appropriate rule of measure for doing biblical exegesis and interpretation with integrity. This is especially so with the Book of Leviticus. A little common sense never hurt either!

At the beginning of the chapter that includes the passages we will study, Lev. 18:3 states: "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances." Here, God is saying that the Hebrews are not to follow the practices of the Egyptians or of the Canaanites. Homosexual ritual sex in temples of both countries was common. Thus, one might assume (since it’s the same context) that Lev. 18:22 relates to temple same-sex rituals -- something that was ritually impure.

4. An Abomination - Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13: Perhaps the two most widely abused verses used to condemn homosexuality come from Leviticus.

Leviticus 18:22: You shall not lie (Qal imperfect of shakab - to lay down with sexually) with mankind as one lies (Qal imperfect of shakab - to lay down with sexually) with womankind; this is an abomination.(Hebrew word toevah referring to the act as being "detestable" or an "abomination". This word literally means "culturally forbidden".) The term abomination is generally associated with idolatry and the Canaanite religious practice of cult prostitution (see note #3 above). Given toevah's strong association with cult prostitution it is unlikely that this passage applies to loving responsible homosexual relationships. This verse says nothing about consensual same-sex activity today. It only condemns same-sex religious prostitution.

The Hebrews used special words to condemn specific wicked or abominable misdeeds. If this passage had been referring to sexual misconduct, the writer would have used the word zimmah instead of toevah.

The land was full of idolatry. The Palestinian god of the sun, Baal and his consort, the fertility goddess Ashtorath, were commonly worshipped in the area and toevah appears throughout the Law to denounce these idolatrous practices. But zimmah is used wherever immoral acts such as prostitution or rape are the subject. Whatever detestable acts here are being prohibited have something to do with idolatry. This passage does not refer to gay sex generally, but only to a specific form of homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples. Much of Leviticus deals with the Holiness Code which outlined ways in which the ancient Hebrews were to be set apart to God. Some fertility worship practices found in nearly Pagan cultures were specifically prohibited; ritual same-sex behavior in Pagan temples was one such practice.

When translated from Hebrew to Greek (Septuagint), the word BDELYGMA was used.. which means ritual impurity, and not the word ANOMIA, which would have meant a violation of the law or a wrong or a sin. The author was obviously meaning something different than what many Christians try to make them mean today. The verse seems to refer to temple prostitution, which was a common practice in the rest of the Middle East at that time.

Another possible theory is that in modern day English this could be translated as: "Men may not engage in homosexual sex while on a woman's bed; it is an abomination" That is, "rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply restricts where it may occur." This may seem a strange prohibition to us today, but was quite consistent with other laws in Leviticus which involve improper mixing of things that should be kept separate. e.g. ancient Hebrews were not allowed to mix two crops in the same field, or make cloth out of two different raw materials, or plow a field with an ox and a donkey yoked together. A woman's bed was her own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only under certain circumstances. Any other use of her bed would be a defilement.

An argument against this translation is that it would not blend well with the next verse. Leviticus 18:23 discusses a man or a woman engaging in bestiality. The traditional translations would make a smoother text. However, in defense of the above given translation, there is already a break in topic between verses 21 and 22. So a second break between 22 and 23 is not unreasonable.

One more possible interpretation could be: that the operative cultural bias here is that it is an abomination to treat another man like a woman. The status of women in ancient Hebrew culture was very much lower than that of a man and barely above that of children and slaves. When a man engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman, he always took a dominant position; the woman would take a submissive posture. When two men engage in sexual intercourse, one of the men, in effect, takes the position of a woman. When a man takes on the low status of a woman, the act makes both ritually impure. It is not usual for a gay man to have sex with another man as if he the latter were a woman. If he were to do so, then he would be pretending that he was with a woman and not with another man. Thus, he would not be in a homosexual relationship at all. The passage might actually refer to a heterosexual male who is forcing himself to fantasize that he is having sex with a woman in order to be able to complete the act. In modern terms, this would be considered as a male heterosexual violating his own sexual orientation.

Women were second class citizens in the Hebrew culture and were generally treated as property. If a man was penetrated in sexual intercourse he was being treated like a woman and so was degraded in the Hebrew mind. The offense was not that this was a homosexual act, the offense was that a MAN was treated like a WOMAN. If this line of thinking is correct it would serve to explain why there is no prohibition against female homosexual acts in the Old Testament. Women could not be degraded by such an act as they were already not held in high esteem. There is a theory that the Hebrew people believed in a perfect order of creation and anything that violated that order was considered unclean or an abomination. A probable example would be that fish were considered the perfect sea animal, hence anything in the sea that did not have scales and fins was unclean. (Lev. 11:9-10) Cattle were the perfect cud chewing animal, hence anything that chewed cud, but didn't have hooves was unclean. (Lev. 11:6). If this theory is correct then the prohibition against male sex acts would be violating the role of the perfect ideal human: man. It would seem to mix the sex role of the imperfect woman with the ideal role of the man.

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lies (Qal imperfect of shakab - to lay down with sexually) with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; (toevah – lit. – “culturally forbidden”.) they shall surely be put to death, their blood shall be upon them." The passage is surrounded by prohibitions against incest, bestiality, adultery and intercourse during a woman's period. But this verse is the only one in the series which uses the religious term abomination; and it appears to be directed against temple prostitution.

This verse in Leviticus prescribed the death penalty for this behavior. It really is severe. But Leviticus also prescribes the same penalty for cursing one's parents. Other sexual sins also merited the death penalty: adultery, incest and bestiality. The law in Leviticus considered all these crimes to be very serious -- but for different reasons. Cursing one's parents, for example, was a major crime against society. Israelite society of the time was built around the extended family and the operation of the whole family depended on obedience within the family hierarchy. So, to oppose one's parents was to threaten social disorder. As far as adultery, in that society the woman was the man's property and sex outside of the marriage was also a financial loss for the man... theft. The wives were bought with a "bride’s price". It was important that any children born were legitimate heirs.

As far as the reference to homogenital acts, it had a much different meaning then than it is today. Among the early Israelites, to engage in homogenital sex meant to be like the Gentiles, to identify with the non-Jews. That is to say, to engage in homogenital acts was to betray the Jewish religion. Leviticus condemned homogenital sex as a religious crime of idolatry, not as a sexual offense, and that religious treason was thought serious enough to merit death. Leviticus condemned homogenital acts as a religious crime of idolatry, not as a sexual offense.

5. Even if the reader disagrees with the theories stated above they should take note that these verses are a part of the Hebrew Scriptures often called the 'Holiness Code'. This 'code' is no longer followed by the Christian church.

Let’s understand that the Holiness Code of Leviticus (of which this is a part) was written primarily as a ritual manual for Israel's priests. Christians today are not bound by the rules and rituals described in Leviticus. (Gal. 3:22-25). One thing is clear from Paul's teaching: anyone who puts themselves under any one point of the Law obligates themselves to keep the whole Law (Gal. 5:3) or they are worthy of death.

If Christians today insist on using this passage to condemn homosexuality, then they are also bound by the other rules and rituals described in Leviticus.

Among other things, the Holiness Code of Leviticus prohibits:

Sexual intercourse during a women's menstrual cycle

Tattoos

Wearing certain types of jewelry

Eating certain kinds of meat

Wearing clothing made from blended textiles (cotton-polyester blends)

Cross-breeding livestock

Sowing a field with mixed seed

Eating or touching the dead flesh of pigs, rabbits, & some forms of seafood

Men cutting their hair or shaving their beards

The Holiness Code also endorses polygamy and requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath. Obviously, it is unfair to use these passages to condemn homosexuality, while ignoring the fact that most Christians do not follow the rest of the rules and rituals outlined in the Holiness Code of Leviticus.

6. Judge for Yourselves: Why don't fundamentalists organize protests and picket seafood restaurants, oyster bars, church barbecue suppers, all grocery stores, barber shops, tattoo parlors, and stores that sell suits and dresses made of mixed wool, cotton, polyester, and other materials? All of these products and services are "abominations" in Leviticus. When have you heard a preacher condemn the demonic abomination of garments that are made of mixed fabrics?

The warning is given in Leviticus 26:14-16 that "If you do not obey me and do not carry out all of these commandments, if instead, you reject my statutes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances so as not to carry out all my commandments ...I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that shall waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you shall sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies shall eat it up." The list of punishments and terrors that will come from not keeping all of the commandments continues through many verses.

Read what Jesus said in Matthew 7:1-5 about hypocrites who judge others. "Do not judge lest you be judged yourselves... Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ...You hypocrite!"

If you have been led to misuse Leviticus and other parts of the Bible in order to condemn and hate and reject people, you are on the wrong path. Jesus quoted only one passage from Leviticus: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (19:18). Jesus used Leviticus to teach love. Many false teachers use Leviticus and other writings to condemn, humiliate and destroy. I know which approach seems truly Christian to me. Jesus never condemned homosexuals or even mentioned anything that could be taken as a reference to sexual orientation.

It is clear that the Christian church does not abide by the Holiness Code. It was a set of regulations which governed the Hebrew tribes but is not considered binding on the Christian church because there is now a NEW COVENANT IN JESUS CHRIST! The following verses talk about this New Covenant:

Colossians 2:16-17 - "Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is Christ."



Hebrews 8:18 - "For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect."

Hebrews 8:13 - "In that Christ says 'a new covenant,' Christ has made the first obsolete."

Since the Christian church does not follow the Holiness Code it has no right to arbitrarily pick Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13-14 as still binding just because it seems to support a particular prejudice. Today we understand the dignity of women, human sexuality in general, and homosexuality in particular in ways inconceivable to the ancient priests who compiled Leviticus. As Christians, we are freed from the Law and saved by grace (Rom. 7:6; Gal. 5:4).

7. What did Jesus & the Apostle Paul say about this: Jesus in Mark 7:18-23 chided his disciples for their lack of spiritual understanding. Jesus and his disciples had been condemned by the religious leaders because they did not wash and eat according to the Law. Jesus said, "Are you too so uncomprehending? Don't you see that whatever goes into your mouth from the outside cannot defile you; because it does not go into your heart, but into your stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus Jesus declared all foods clean."). And Jesus added, "That which proceeds from within you, out of your heart, defiles you. Evil thoughts, abusive sex acts, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting, wickedness, deceit, not caring, envy, slander, arrogance and foolishness: all of these evil things proceed from within and defile you."

Paul also rejected the absolute commands of Leviticus in Colossians 2:8-23, where he said, "If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 'Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!' (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using) in accordance with human commandments and teachings? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against human indulgence." (2:20-23). Paul declared in 2:14 that Jesus has "canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us which was hostile to us; and Jesus has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."

8. Clearing up some misconceptions about gays/lesbians:

a. A common misconception is that gays and lesbians molest children at a far higher rate than heterosexuals. This myth has long been used to prevent gay men and lesbians from working with children. In truth, most children who are molested are molested by heterosexual men.

Why don't we use the same logic that has previously, and is still applied to gay men and lesbians, to restrict heterosexual men from teaching, leading scout troops, or working in any field where they may be in close contact with children?

b. Why do so many people consider AIDS/HIV to be a gay disease when: The World Health Organization reports that heterosexual contact is responsible for over 70% of all AIDS/HIV cases world wide?

According to CDC statistics (July, 1997) heterosexual sex is the fastest growing mode of transmission for HIV in the United States - growing at a rate of 15 to 20 percent a year, compared to 5 percent for intravenous drug users and 5 percent for male homosexuals.

Lesbians remain the least likely group of people to acquire HIV through sexual contact.

[ROCC]

"a. A common misconception is that gays and lesbians molest children at a far higher rate than heterosexuals. This myth has long been used to prevent gay men and lesbians from working with children. In truth, most children who are molested are molested by heterosexual men.

b. Why do so many people consider AIDS/HIV to be a gay disease when: The World Health Organization reports that heterosexual contact is responsible for over 70% of all AIDS/HIV cases world wide?"



Your point makes no sense. Yes, more children are molested by heterosexual men, BUT ONLY BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE HETEROSEXUAL MEN. And yes, Heterosexuals make up 70% of AIDS cases, but for the same reason. You are assuming that half of the world is homosexual, if that were the case then you would make sense. Look at your b., 30% of AIDS cases are spread through homosexuals, but less then 1% of people are homosexuals. So actually, you are much much more likely to spread AIDS as a homosexual.

As to your verses, the guy you are quoting is obviously some kind of crock or cult starter. He deprives his ideas from the world, not from the Bible. We are warned of such people in the bible.

You addressed no New Testement verses and your only defense for Old Testement ones were to confuse people with Hebrew words at to try and point out other things in the bible you didn't agree with.

You talked about tatoos being wrong, actually the verse was refering to marking yourself because that is what the pagans did.

You mentioned a verse where men couldn't trim there beard, that was directed at priests and teachers for different reasons.

[unkerpaulie]

Originally Posted by tamperer2

Lets hear ur thoughts on this subject

homosexuality is a sin, (by definition, transgression of God's commandment). the Bible specifies this quite a few times. since christianity means following the commands of God/lifestyle of Jesus, then it would follow that a christian is expected to uphold the law of God and shun the transgression of that law. (note that I did not say "shun the transgressors")

so to answer the question, according to christian standards, yes homosexuality is wrong

now, according to social standards, well thats another matter...

[unkerpaulie]

Girl ESQ, you have a ridiculous mass of research supporting your position, and your articulation is excellent, as well as your debate style. nuff respect

everything you said concerning the irrelevance of the old testament law and the issue of grace, I totally agree with all that. the word "know" in the context of Genesis 19, I still think it means "to have sex with", and you stated that you are open to the possibility of this definition, which would imply that the men of Sodom truly did desire homosexual relations with Lot's guests. that would make homosexuality one of the sins of Sodom. that would also mean that the men were struck with blindness because they were driven by homosexual lusts.

but I leave that as "possibly". no debate necessary

I do want to address a point that you implied at the very top of your post:

Originally Posted by Girl ESQ

According to the Bible, it is God who creates people (regardless of sexual orientation). He forms us as we are. Our genes, our temperaments, our time and place in history, our talents, our gifts, our weaknesses -- all are part of God's inscrutable and loving plan for us. So, somehow God must be behind the fact that some people are homosexual.

to me it implies here that you believe people are born homosexual, or perhaps with homosexual tendancies. by extension, it implies that you believe people are born with all the tendencies of emotions and feelings that they act on.

I disagree. it has not been proven that people are born with homosexual tendencies. there are a lot of studies about it that produce contradicting results. no doubt there are tons of articles that propogate the notion that homosexuality is genetic/biological/physical, but they are all based on a few experiments of questionable methods. I'll provide links later.

homosexuality is the act of having sexual relations with people of the same sex. homosexuality is also the sexual attraction people of the same sex have for one another. therefore it is a feeling as well as an action based on that feeling.

the thing is, homosexuals justify their actions by their feelings, and they justify their feelings by the belief that "being gay" is built-in

first of all, if homosexual actions is based on feelings, how can it be justified? how can gays use the argument "you cant resist your feelings"? feelings dont control one's actions, the influence it at best, but a persons actions ultimately rests on choice. you can choose to act on your feelings or not.

secondly, if it is true that "you cant resist your feelings", then why do we make other feelings-based actions crimes? murder and rape are considered passionate crimes, meaning that feelings had a lot to do with it. yet we incarcerate murderers and rapists because it is illegal for them to act on those feelings.

moreso, if emotion-based actions can be linked to genetics/physiology/biology, then these commiters of "passionate" crimes are probably born with the temperament to kill or rape. how can society judge them? and if scientific research has found biological links to homosexual behavior, why arent there biological links to ALL emotion-based behavior? I hardly think that homosexuality can be the only feeling that is biologically rooted, and all other feelings are by choice...

[Girl Esq.]

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

Girl ESQ, you have a ridiculous mass of research supporting your position, and your articulation is excellent, as well as your debate style. nuff respect

UnkerPaulie,

My apologies. In my haste to respond to the topic ( I was at work and on my way into a meeting), I was remiss in properly attributing the argument in my post to the man responsible for it. Although I am in complete agreement with the exegesis, interpretation and data propounded, the thoughts expressed are those of Pastor John Keating, who has graciously permitted me to share them with whomever is interested.

"John Keating was born in 1946 and born again in 1966. And as a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is dedicated to spreading the gospel of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ to any who are searching under God consciousness and positive volition for eternal truth. Further, as one with the gift of Pastor Teacher is dedicated to accurately teaching the Word of God, line upon line, precept upon precept to all who would be open and positive toward the teaching of Bible Doctrine.
Pastor Keating is a 1968 graduate of Univ. of Miami, Coral Gables, FL - B.A. Mass Communications. And a l969 graduate of the Florida Bible College, then in Miami, FL - B.A. Biblical Education. And has been under the tape ministry of Berachah Church, Houston,TX since 1968. He was the founder and director of Campus Evangellism, Inc. Lexington, KY. Has served as a proud member of the U.S. Army Infantry for 7 yrs. Pastored the Rockwood Bible Church, St. Louis MO and now Pastor of Bible Doctrine Church."

http://bibledoctrinechurch.org

Bible Doctrine Church
Website: http://bibledoctrinechurch.org/
Attn: John Keating
700 Munras Avenue
Monterey, CA 93940
Phone: 831-394-2708


This is my own personal response to your thoughts on whether homosexuals are born so. I am a homosexual and I am not certain why that is so. When I was a child I felt drawn towards girls when other girls were expressing interest in boys. I didn't have a name for the feelings nor was I aware they were frowned on by society until much later. I do agree that homosapiens are in control of how we act on our feelings. I feel attraction to women. Throughout my life when I have imagined falling in love, it has been a woman that I have pictured. Although I have had many close friendships with a variety wonderful men, I have never fallen in love with one.
Almost ten years ago I met a woman who instantly took my breath away. She was elegant with a very happy smile and freckles across her cheeks. The friend introducing us thought we should meet because we were both nice people and had much in common. We had an instant rapport both intellectually and spiritually and felt compelled to spend time in each other's company. Over the years my love for her has deepened and matured. I appreciate virtually every moment I have with her. I worry about her safety and I wear my seatbelt to make her happy. I never imagined I would instinctively consider someone else's needs before my own. I take great pleasure in simple things like doing yard work on Saturday, with her on the porch drinking coffee and holding forth on some topic she just read in the paper. Yes this feels innately correct and natural. We have chosen to spend the remainder of our lives committed solely to each other. I know that we will age and that some day she may predecease me. The thought of life without her makes my heart seize with pain. Could I choose to walk away from her and ignore my feelings? Yes. But why would you ask me to do so? Why would you expect me to do so? Why would I want to do so unless it were absolutely commanded by God. What do I gain by walking away from her? Society's approval?

After years of self doubt it finally occured to me to seek discernment from God and guidance from the Holy Spirit. God graciously answered my prayers. He does not disapprove and he does not expect me to break my committment and live a life without the person I love. To you I would say, point to a single place in the Bible where it says clearly, definitively and absolutely in the Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic, that "A woman shall only love a man and shall not love another woman" or "a woman must not marry another woman" or "a woman shall not have sexual relations with another woman."or " a woman with another woman is despicaible in God's sight" or anything even remotely close. Show me a clear prohibition on women together and if you please take it straight from the original languages and not from someone's self serving translation. I say self serving, because it was only in the last few years that I discovered without the help of a concordance, some obscure verses in Ezekiel 16:49-50 that addressed the sins of Sodom. Ezekiel 16:49-50 says, "Behold this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. vs 50 Thus they were haughty and committed abominations." This particular reference to Sodom goes unmentioned by most Christians and is ignored in the concordance of at least three different Bibles of which I am aware. (see NASB Greek Hebrew Study Bible, NIV, Scoffield King James). You would think as these verses clearly address the sins of Sodom, that they would warrant a mention in every Bible concordance under the word Sodom. I would wager that the failure to mention Ezekiel 16:49-50 is directly related to self serving concerns that the verses would undermine the most well worn argument against homosexuals. Imagine, dictionaries would have to be altered from:

sodomy> noun anal intercourse.
DERIVATIVES Sodomize (also sodomise) > verb
ORIGIN from latin peccatum Sodominicum ‘sin of Sodom’ (after the book of Genesis chapter 19, which implys that the men of the town of Sodom in ancient Palestine practiced homosexual rape)

to:
sodomy> adjective, arrogant, selfish, and lazy behavior .
DERIVATIVES Sodomize (also sodomise) > verb
ORIGIN from latin peccatum Sodominicum ‘guilt of Sodom’ (after the book of Ezekiel chapter 16, which clearly states that the guilt of Sodom was that she had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.


You would also think that if homosexuality were "one of the sins" that caused the destruction of Sodom it would warrant a distinct mention in this list. Particularly so, if it were "the sin" that caused the destruction of Sodom. Ah, I hear it coming. "but it does say abomination and every one knows when God says abomination it is a code word for homosexuality" I ask you, why would Almighty God use a code word? If God meant to impart the idea of men having sex in men Ezekiel 16:50, I am quite certain he would have inspired Ezekiel to say so. Furthermore, if one reads Ezekiel Chapter 6 it becomes obvious that the abomination being addressed is idolatry and the worship of false Gods.

The argument that all of the men of Sodom were homosexual is not even logical. God said he would not destroy Sodom if even ten righteous people could be found. If Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality we would then have to presume that the term "righteous " was meant to be synonymous with non-homosexual. As the city was ultimately destroyed we also have to presume that 10 non-homosexuals could not be found in Sodom. What are the odds that every single inhabitant of Sodom was homosexual? Were there no women and if so, were all of the women lesbians? How did the city propogate itself if all of the inhabitants were homosexual? Even San Fransico with it enormous population of gay people has heterosexual inhabitants.

If the city was destroyed because the crowd outside of Lot's door wanted to have homosexual sex with the angels that then must mean that the crowd was entirely male. This must be true because if women were in the crowd outside of Lot's door clamoring to have sex with the angels it would be heterosexual sex they were seeking not homosexual sex unless the angels were women. However, if the angels were women, that would of course mean that the men outside of Lot's door were not seeking homosexual sex. I guess the argument could be made that one of the angels was male and the other was female, but then that opens up a whole new theological argument regarding gender of angels and it also opens up the possibility that the men would have wanted to have sex with the female angel and the women would have wanted to have sex with the male angel thereby eliminating homosexuality entirely. Therefore, if one is to make the argument that Sodom's doom was homosexuality we must assume that the crowd outside of Lot's door was entirely homosexual males. If this is true, then either there were no heterosexual female or male inhabitants of Sodom or if they did exist, they were not outside Lot's home on that night. If there were heterosexual female and male inhabitants of Sodom, then it is likely that they numbered at least ten. So then why did God destroy Sodom if he had promised to spare the city if at least 10 heterosexuals could be found?

The answer is in Ezekiel 16:49-50
Righteous did not mean non-homosexual.

UnkerPaulie:

You will notice that I have taken certain liberties with your argument. I hope you will not mind, as it is done solely for the purpose of experimentation. I have exchanged the word homo for hetero, the word same for opposite and the word gay for straight. The idea is to put the shoe on the other foot. I am assuming from your moniker, that you are a man, if not my apologies and the experiment will not work.

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

I do want to address a point that you implied at the very top of your post:
to me it implies here that you believe people are born HETEROsexual, or perhaps with HETEROsexual tendancies. by extension, it implies that you believe people are born with all the tendencies of emotions and feelings that they act on.

I disagree. it has not been proven that people are born with HETEROsexual tendencies. there are a lot of studies about it that produce contradicting results. no doubt there are tons of articles that propogate the notion that HETEROsexuality is genetic/biological/physical, but they are all based on a few experiments of questionable methods. I'll provide links later.

HETEROsexuality is the act of having sexual relations with people of the OPPOSITE sex. HETEROsexuality is also the sexual attraction people of the OPPOSITE sex have for one another. therefore it is a feeling as well as an action based on that feeling.

the thing is, HETEROsexuals justify their actions by their feelings, and they justify their feelings by the belief that "being STRAIGHT" is built-in

first of all, if HETEROosexual actions is based on feelings, how can it be justified? how can STRAIGHTS use the argument "you cant resist your feelings"? feelings dont control one's actions, the influence it at best, but a persons actions ultimately rests on choice. you can choose to act on your feelings or not.

secondly, if it is true that "you cant resist your feelings", then why do we make other feelings-based actions crimes? murder and rape are considered passionate crimes, meaning that feelings had a lot to do with it. yet we incarcerate murderers and rapists because it is illegal for them to act on those feelings.

moreso, if emotion-based actions can be linked to genetics/physiology/biology, then these commiters of "passionate" crimes are probably born with the temperament to kill or rape. how can society judge them? and if scientific research has found biological links to homosexual behavior, why arent there biological links to ALL emotion-based behavior? I hardly think that HETEROsexuality can be the only feeling that is biologically rooted, and all other feelings are by choice...

Now for the experiment:

From this point forward imagine resisting your feelings toward women. The next time you meet an incredible woman that you are tremendously attracted to, you must resist the urge. If you are currently in a committed relationship with a woman you are in love with, you must leave her immediately and put your feelings toward her out of your mind.
No fantasizing about women, and no relationships with women that go beyond platonic -- EVER! You are limited to having good close women friends for the rest of your life. Unfortunately, in keeping with the rules, we must also prohibit any type of self gratification as it would undoubtly occur in conjuction with the aforementioned prohibited act of fantasizing about women.

However, all is not lost, you are permitted to settle down and have a committed relationship with any man of your choosing.