Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

*Lev 20vs13
And whoever shall lie with a male as with a woman, they have both wrought abomination; let them die the death, they are guilty.Ofcourse, no scholars to date have been able to decipher this mystic message. Freaky.

, - -- ‘, ; , . 13And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.Exactly where is translation error ? Can you give me a word for word translation and show me support for your translation online ?cheers[This message has been edited by Zealot, 10-22-2003]PS: I care little for the translation of the word abomination. The penalty is death, so can you focus on the rest of the words in the phrase and show me how it doesn't indicate homosexuality ?[This message has been edited by Zealot, 10-22-2003]

So many types of homosexuality. Indeed does God give it a specific name as to differentiate it from the 'other' Isrealite type of homosexuality OR does he make it blatantly obvious what the deed is ?Reaching for straws here Rei. Shall we see the majority of the passage ?10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife--he hath uncovered his father's nakedness--both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.12 And if a man lie with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have wrought corruption; their blood shall be upon them.13 And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.14 And if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death; and ye shall slay the beast.Still struggling... Blimey, I see good old fashioned gay sex being discussed, and God punishing it with Death.Shall we close the chapter on whether it was a sin and move onto your next point of attack, levitical law ? 1. Christians can eat anything they choose to eat. As long as its blessed.Mat 15:10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. 11 What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "16"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. 17"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what make a man 'unclean' ; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "Hmm sexual immorality... We saw a couple of those in Lev didn't we ?[This message has been edited by Zealot, 10-22-2003]

Love the way, you can cling onto 'not an abomination' and ignore the rest Abomination is not 'really' THAT bad.. more like 'unclean', more like 'not great', more like 'indifferent' ect ect. Orthodox JudaismFrom its inceptions until the 20th century, Judaism has viewed sex between two men as sinfulConservative Judaism (also known as Masorti Judaism)(A) We will not perform commitment ceremonies for gays and lesbians.(B) We will not knowingly admit avowed homosexuals to our rabbinical and cantorial schools, or the Rabbinical Assembly or Cantors' Assembly. At the same time, we will not instigate witch hunts against those who are already members or students.(C) Whether homosexuals may function as teachers or youth leaders in our congregations and schools will be left to the Rabbi authorized to make halakhic decisions for a given institution in the Conservative movement.Reconstructionist JudaismThe Reconstructionist movement has rejected the traditional view in all areas relating to this issue: they view all restrictions on homosexualiy as null and void. As such, they ordain homosexual Jews as rabbis and cantors. The Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association (RRA) permits Jewish homosexual marriages and homosexual intermarriages.Reform JudaismThe American Reform movement has rejected the traditional view in all areas relating to this issue: they view all restrictions on homosexualiy as null and void. As such, they do not prohibit ordination of homosexual Jews as Rabbis and Cantors.I'm not sure all Jews appreciate you speaking on their behalf Rrhain.
PS: Which do you belong to ?

Why would I. Seeing as the text is pretty specific for which heterosexual activities were abominations, there is no need for punishment for those that aren't sins. Indeed, need we even worry today about any of the sexual heterosexual sins ? After all they are all "to'evah". Thus a Jew should then be allowed to sleep with a woman and her mother no ? I am using the Jewish version "to'evah". Indeed all the sexual sins in Lev 18 are considered "to'evah". The translation however is1. a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable
a.in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
b.in ethical sense (of wickedness etc) Yet in this thread you seem to have little difficulty stating as a matter of fact:"Strange, the Jews seem to be quite cognizant of this.
That's why Judaism doesn't consider homosexuality a sin." So Conservative and Orthodox indeed do seem to have a problem with homosexuality. Unusual considering "there is nothing in the Old Testament even remotely resembling homosexuality." Shall we try actually stating what we are then ? You seem pretty obtuse regarding your background. Gay, not gay, Jewish, not Jewish. Fluent in Hebrew/ not fluent in Hebrew.When I asked you about your Hebrew, you answered with an indirect question regarding whether it was possible that you had gone to Rabbinic school. Was that an attempt to make yourself sound more knowlegeable about Judaism ?cheersStrange, the Jews seem to be quite cognizant of this.
That's why Judaism doesn't consider homosexuality a sin.

Haha, I've been through this too I think in essence what Rrhain is trying to say is that homosexuality (ie: choosing a lifestyle of gay sex) did not exist back then. Dont ask me to explain Holmes managed to admit that the actual act of gay sex was sinfull and that was why (whether ritual or custom) God found it an abomination/ hehe 'bad deed' that was worthy of death.Why however a relationship based on an act worthy of death is acceptable to God, I still have to find out.

Precisely. Before The Israelites were instructed by Moses, male-male sex was not an issue, nor was taking your mother in law to bed, or a mother and her daughter to bed an issue. We dont know if there was a word for homosexuality. Thus when God makes the Law, he makes it abundantly clear what deeds were sinful, by describing it as man having sex with man.Lev 20:13 And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.You choose to harp on the word abomination, but only so you can somehow link to to 'solely ritual', whilst the entire text concerns sexual immorality, directed towards the Israelites.PS: Whether you are attacted to men or not. The act of male-male sex breaks Mosaic law.cheersZ[This message has been edited by Zealot, 11-19-2003][This message has been edited by Zealot, 11-19-2003]

Wrong. Seems you have to be pro gay or gay for it to be 'clear'. How could the rest of the world ever have confused it with homosexuality PS, your word "tow`ebah" is used to refer to all those sexual offenses used in Lev 18.vs 30 "Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God."I take it they are all refer to temple prostitution Hehe, I didn't for a second expect you to convince you.stay well.Z[This message has been edited by Zealot, 11-20-2003]

LOL. Your and Rrhain's opinions are in the vast , vast minority! It's the same baseless argument used on pro-gay webpages all over the net and only believed my those liberal churches out to get membership by exploiting a niche in the 'religious' market. IE: Those that like sin too much to change.Popular Christian forums don't even take that claim seriously, and they consider everything from Hell/no Hell, Law, no Law and whether Jesus was just a man or truely God's son. Everything is discussed, but somehow homosexuality and the amusing translation homophobe theory is not even worth discussion.Join a Christian forum and see how many fluent Hebrew and Greek members take you even remotely seriously stay wellZ

Hi berberry, you might not know me. I use to have the discussions here a while back, in the same thread. In any case due to these forums taking up too much of my time, I've been pretty dormant, so come back only on occasion.Your comment is one of judgement on Lot. Should I be forced to choose between the rape of my son or that of my daughter, sadly I will elect that of my daughter. To a godly man, homosexuality is a terribly deed and sodomy an even greater abomination. Considering that Lot's daughter were still virginal, I highly doubdt Lot didn't care a great deal about them.Peter referred to Lot as a rightous man, in the sense that Lot was the only man that feared God. Lots act of offering his daughters, was not one anyone could be proud of, yet considering the circumstances, morally permissable. Peter did not condone that particular action, but Lot's character in general. Lot had a choice, let his guests be sodomised irrespective of his wishes or actions to try and prevent it, or to offer up his daughters. Not an easy choice to make.The story of Lot is just one to illustrate exactly how anti-homosexual the Mosaic law is.stay well

I fully see your point sidelined, however I think it is very difficult to pass judgement on the little information we have regarding Lot's situation. We already know that Sodom was renound to well 'sodomy', thus anyone that stood up against this act would most likely also been sodomised. I have little doubdt that the incident at Lots house was not out of character for the Sodomites, thus Lot probably knew very well what would happen to him should he try and resist. This was also not merely a small mob of people , but all the people of the city. Lot probably realised the futility of trying to resist by force.I don't condone Lots action by any means, yet difficult to judge a man under such circumstances.

I have no idea what sodomy or anal sex is like crash, so I probaly don't provide the best point of reference. I do however think the consequences of sodomy are worst that being bowlegged for a week.You mentioned godliness. Do you follow any faith or believe in a God for you to make this comment ? 1. Try not to put words in my mouth. My words were that should I have no choice, I would rather have my daughter raped than my son. As for your sexist comment, you are are on a Christian forum or atleast one discussing Christianity. If you are to be offended by sexists remarks (or any other non politically correct statements for that matter), I suggest you avoid topics such as this one that could offend you. Alternately, feel free to report me to the admin. Again crash, do you have to revert to putting words in other people's mouths to try evoke empathy for your opinion ? Had Lot's daughters not been virgins, you probably would have claimed he didn't care about them because they weren't virgins. If you have difficulty understanding the value of a virginal daughter in a society where promiscuity will results in unwanted pregancy, well your choice.

Assumptions berberry.1. What makes you believe I am a 'born again'. Or is that just another christian-hate statement.2. Why do you possibly believe I would not love my son and my daughter equally or put my life down for either child ?My statement is that biologically anal is more damaging that vaginal rape. Should I have the choice over whether a mob will beat up my son or my daughter, it would be my son. Does that mean again I am a sexist, but only reversed ?Yes, I open the door for my wife, yes I would lay my life down for my wife, yes I carry the heavy luggage when we go on holiday, and yes should someone break into my home I would not expect my wife to fight them off. And lastly, yes, the idea of laying a hand on a woman is disgusting to me, yet should another man give me sufficient reason, I would not have a problem fighting him. Hey, if that makes me sexist.. bring on the parade. Yeah, well you lack the comprehension skills of a 6th grader. Does that make us even ?[This message has been edited by Zealot, 03-29-2004]

Fascinating. You manage to compare my analogy with a choice between sodomy and death based on the assumption that not only will the woman fall pregnant, but on top of that, she will have complications during labour and die. No pulling the wool over your eyes huh ? So which parts of the Bible do you subscribe to ? Only those that you like of Jesus ? Curious "yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." ... do you agree that to be of your opinion of godliness ? I view involentary sodomy as worst that "involuntary coitus". Again I ask, you have any point of reference to which is more physiologically damaging, anal or coital rape ? I happen to have 2 family members that are medics that have had to deal with both types of rape. In most cases of coital rape, coital evidence of the rape dissapears within 24 hours, thus it is essential for the medic to examine the patient ASAP for legal purposes should the victim wish to press charges. In anal rape cases, vascular surgery is often immediately required. You didn't really think an anus was designed for sex did you ? I care very little what you think of me crash, sorry. You would need to understand first what being a Christian entails. You clearly do not. Ah ofcourse, promisquity is perfectly civil. Sorry mate, promiscuity is immoral and putting yourself at risk by bearing a child that your father (instead of your husband) will be responsible for financially is disrespectfull and self centered.Any more insults ... ?

Wait, you truely trying to convince me that anal hemoraging cannot be fatal ? Just get atleast some idea of what you are talking about. I've explained this to you already. You need to go outside and take a breather. Come back inside and re-read my last 3 posts. Perhaps then you will find the answer to your question, although I have to say that is wishfull thinking on my part. You avoided the question I posed you. Re-read and explain to me. Or did you not understand ? You don't listen to what I have to say. On top of that, you actually made a death threat online. I dont know if this is against forum rules, but I would well imagine it would be both that aswell as illegal indeed.You need to get a grip.