Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

Having seen this thread pop up again and again with the same points being repeated (by various people mind you), I would think it to be a good idea to clear some of the following things up.
Note, I have chosen to reply to Rrhain instead of somebody else, as I'm sure he'll reply My interest in the discussion is not to prove a point but to learn about an interesting issue...
I'll split the discussion for clarity:(1) Translation
Rrhain:
You have stated that the passage in Leviticus (20:13) is not a reference to homosexual activity in general but more precisely to male temple prostitution. Your argument, as you have stated it here, relies (to some extent) on the translation of to'ebah:
Rrhain:

quote:

---

1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable
a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)

---

which is the definition that can be found at blueletterbible.orgDOTF had another concordance:

quote:

---

prop. something disgusting (mor.), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence;
espec. idolatry or (concr.) an idol; - abominable (custom, thing), abomination.

---

which is a little different.I first want to note that this is not the only instance in the bible where to'ebah is used. For example: in Deu 4:24 it is "to'ebah" to take one's wife back after divorcing, in Deu 7:24 it relates to graven images.
Second, it is interesting to note that in Lev "to'ebah" is not used in "food laws" etc. but only in this contextThe challenge to you, Rrhain, would be to establish why "to'ebah" can be used in Deu 4:24 in the context of law / morality and why in Lev it should be restricted to purely ritualistic issues (i.e. temple prostitution). On the other hand, the oponents (dotf, xzen) are welcome to establish a good explanation why in the book of Leviticus the single mention of to'ebah refers to this alleged anti-homosexual law (note that word translated to abomination in Leviticus are variably shequets, shaqats, or pigguwl).(2) Context
The immediate context of the offending passage is:
Lev 20 (KJV - the context is similar in every translation)
12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.12 refers to sex with one's daughter in law, 14 to sex with one's mother in law (shudders). The context is not related to temple prostitution but to "sexual offenses". Please establish either why this does not matter or where the context is.(3) Historical
This is mainly out of interest. Could you (Rrhain) point me to a source about temple prostitution within the Hebrew cult. And could the others (dotf, xzen) point me to a source about the historical treatment of homosexuals in the Jewish culture especially in the greko-roman era.Thanks and best regards

I should have specified: Extrabiblical reference.. the bible is the subject at hand, thus reasoning according to the bible leads invariably to circular arguments. Especially this is leading nowhere as Rrhain has already challenged the translation and thus we're back at where we started... Therefore: Extrabiblical information please..A second point: classifying Paul as a jew and drawing conclusions about jewish customs from there qualifies as a strawman (which I am sure Rrhain will wish to point out).no offense intended
best regards

This has come up already...

quote:

---

Deu 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

---

I think it has been states that the sin of sodom was not necessarily that of homosexuality but (ezechiel). The use of the word sodomite as an equivalent for homosexual is based on the favoured / homophobic interpretation of the bible.
Maybe you shouldn't bring up points that have been dealt with in the very same threads again unless you can establish a significantly new connection or variation of what has already been discussed.
I think some people will agree with me when I say:
(a) The thread has reached a point where bringing up passages translated into English does not help anymore, as the translation is exactly what is challenged at this point. Please establish that the original texts intended to condemn homosexuality..
(b) two liners just don't cut it
regards

wow, you must be typing way faster than me

hi xzen,I guess you should try to stop preaching and start participating in the discussion.
Some of the passages have been discussed on this forum before (see for example Rei's post above or this link ).
Try to show your interest in a real discussion by summing up your points, stating how the biblical passages under discussion are not only due to translational bias but reflect the original intent.
Also note my points brought up in this post and please try to explain, why the only time to'ebah turns up in Leviticus it is in conjunction with homosexuality. It is also interesting to note that the word for "effeminate", your post 173:

quote:

---

1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind

---

is translated as soft everywhere else, e.g.:

quote:

---

Mat 11:8 But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.

---

You must realize that the bible was not written in English and thus some bias could be incurred in the translation (see change a soft to an effeminate here and there and see what you get )You see, I - like holmes - do not quite buy into Rrhain's string of argumentation and that's why I challenged him to reinforce his points. Altogether, however, I find the discussion of the presence subject highly interesting and entertaining, as it is a very nice case study of how "messages" could be modified by choosing a translation.my very best regards

You don't get it, do you?
Nobody is discussing what established christian denominations say about homosexuality. Their position, for the most part, is absolutely clear.
Nobody is discussing whether the common bible translations condemn homosexuality. They are pretty clear.The discussion is about what was stated in the "original" texts. Were the passages in question meant to be read in this sense (i.e. "Does the bible condemn homosexuality?"). This is a very interesting discussion in the sense that one can learn a lot about text changing with context etc.If you would like to discuss the issues raised in this thread without resorting to statements of faith and (yes, definately) homophobia, then you're absolutely welcome to share your views. If not, don't bother to respond to me..my very best regards

my bad and my sincere apologies. (still waiting for Rrhain though to improve his argument)
regards[This message has been edited by Alex, 12-03-2003]