Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

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.

Zealot writes:

quote:

---

homosexuality (ie: choosing a lifestyle of gay sex)

---

Excuse me? When did sexuality become a choice?When did you choose to be straight, Zealot? Tell us how you went about it? Did you take in a full inventory of sexual behaviour, sample all the various possibilities, and then decide? Or did you wake up one day and say, "You know, being gay is just too hard, so I guess I'll take the easy road and be straight"?Exactly how did you choose, Zealot?

quote:

---

did not exist back then.

---

Incorrect.We've been through this before, Zealot. It isn't that people whom we would call gay didn't exist back then. It's that nobody thought of the world that way.It's the same attitude that has laws against two males having sex in Victorian England but no such laws against two women having sex. It isn't that there weren't any lesbians. It was simply that nobody thought women would do that sort of thing.The example of Sparta is a perfect one. At the time of marriage, some men had a hard time making the transition from their sexual history with the other men at the mess and the role of husband and father. So a tradition was created where on the marriage night, he would sneak away from the festivities, meet his wife for secret sex, and then go and rejoin his comrades in the mess.Most men made the transition to living with their wives quickly and without much disturbance. But for some men, this "sneak out, sex, sneak back" would continue for years.Now think about it, Zealot: What might those people be?That's right. Those men who had a hard time leaving the sexual connection with the men for the sexual connection with women were probably gay. But did they see themselves as gay? Of course not. Nobody really thought anything of it. So long as he fulfilled his duty and sired the next generation, then he could stay with his comrades in the mess all he wanted. The sex that went on in the mess was not considered the same sort of thing as the sex that went on in the marriage bed.How does one define "heterosexual" and "homosexual" in a culture in which all the men eventually have sex with both men and women and everybody knows it? And that doesn't even begin to look at the question of the women. No, you don't get to use our terminology for it...use theirs. How does one describe a person who falls in love with someone of the same sex when that sort of thing is expected out of all the men and yet they fall in love with people of the opposite sex, too?We in the current era, given the way we look at sexual activity and sexual orientation, see the world in a different way.Take a look at many of the youth of today. If you ask them if they're virgins, many will say yes...even if you press on and find out that they have had oral sex. They simply do not think of oral sex in the same way as intercourse. A "virgin" in their minds is someone who has never had intercourse. The fact that you or I might not see it that way doesn't change the fact that they don't and they are the ones living in their world.It is the height of arrogance to think that your cultural attitude is universal in scope.

quote:

---

Dont ask me to explain

---

Yes, please don't. You clearly do not understand the argument, so you are the absolute worst person to ask for clarification.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Here's what my concordance says, defenderofthefaith: Notice the ending of your entry, though: "Especially idolatry" and "abominable (custom)." Don't you think those have connection to ritualistic practices.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

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]

Zealot responds to me:

quote:

---

Thus when God makes the Law, he makes it abundantly clear what deeds were sinful, by describing it as man having sex with man.

---

No, when god makes the law, he makes it abudantly clear which deeds are sinful by describing it as temple prostitution.Since we're never going to convince the other, can we drop this now?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Well done!!

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]

Zealot responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, when god makes the law, he makes it abudantly clear which deeds are sinful by describing it as temple prostitution.

---

​

Wrong. Seems you have to be pro gay or gay for it to be 'clear'.

---

Wrong. Seems you have to be a homophobic fool for it to be "clear."

quote:

---

How could the rest of the world ever have confused it with homosexuality

---

Hmmm...now why would a bunch of homophobic people want to use the Bible to condemn homosexuality....hmmm...why would they...so hard to figure out? And since when has the rest of the world read the original texts?Tell me, do you really think Pat Robertson's followers have read the Bible? Or do they simply take his word for it?

quote:

---

I take it they are all refer to temple prostitution

---

Yes. Congratulations. I knew you'd come around some day. I guess I was wrong when I said we're never going to convince the other. I suppose that's why you didn't drop it.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

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.

---

The only thing I "managed" to "admit", is what I had said all along and is contrary to what you just said above. Homosexuality (actually male-male sex acts) were specifically talked about, but always in connection with ritual practice (ie prostitution). The latter is something you never "managed" to "admit" no matter how much evidence was presented.I do believe the Bible, and the Bible's God, was not gay friendly as he clearly had a hetero agenda and tended to look at it as a bad sign for a culture when homosexual sex acts increased. This brings into question whether proper Xians can have gay marriages.But NEVER did I say God thought homosexuality was worthy of death.Here is something you can quote me on Zealot:"Zealot is not worth arguing with. He will change your words around to prolong debate, and if you manage to defeat him with logic and evidence he will resort to calling you names and never return to debate."Never use my name to defend your position again (especially since you implied none of my statements should be trusted because I am like swine).
------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 11-21-2003]

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

Obviously for Leviticus 18:22 to be referring to something that happens in the temple, the entire chapter must be referring to temple prostitution. Nowhere does it make this clear. How did you come to the conclusion that it does, Rrhain?If the entire chapter is about temple practices, were the customs of bestiality in 18:23 also ritually committed in pagan temples?If 18:22 refers to temple prostitutes, why doesn't it just say "Thou shalt not lie with a temple prostitute?" Why does it specifically forbid men lying with men? Does this mean the priests could lie with female temple prostitutes?A "custom" does not necessarily suggest a temple ritual, just something that you habitually do. It suggests, as per the concordance, that homosexuality is a 'disgusting custom'.Finally, if the Bible does forbid homosexuality, why do you care?

defenderofthefaith responds to me:

quote:

---

Obviously for Leviticus 18:22 to be referring to something that happens in the temple, the entire chapter must be referring to temple prostitution.

---

Congratulations! You figured it out.

quote:

---

Nowhere does it make this clear. How did you come to the conclusion that it does, Rrhain?

---

From the text. This entire thread is filled with the analysis of it. Haven't you read it?

quote:

---

Finally, if the Bible does forbid homosexuality, why do you care?

---

Because I live in a country where, even though the founding document that delineates the method of governance directly states that religious argument is not a basis for law, there are people who think that the Bible has some sort of say in what the law should be.I happen to detest injustice and, just as bad, hypocrisy and lying.So it's quite upsetting to see people claim that something should be outlawed because the Bible says it should be...when not only does the government not care what the Bible says, but also the Bible doesn't say that.So we've got the trifecta here: A group of people causing injustice over a lie they would be hypocritical about other people's religions supporting.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

The denial of gay marriage in a court house is unconstitutional however a Church is well within it's boundries to refuse joining a gay couple in marriage being that it is not supported anywhere in the scriptures. Also no matter how much someone might try to deny this the Bible did have some influence in the making of laws.[This message has been edited by Xzen, 12-01-2003]

Xzen:Writing to you, as an atheist lesbian: I agree 100%.Churches that do not want to grant same-sex marriages (for example, Southern Baptists) should not have to. Churches that do want to (such as the Unitarian Unversalists) should be allowed to.Also, the Bible is not the basis of our legal system (like many try and claim). However, as you mentioned, the Bible did have some influence in the making of our laws.Even though we're probably on opposite ends of the spectrum, I fully agree with you. America is a mix of religious and secular; a mix of different beliefs and ideals. We take pride in leaving individual decisions up to individuals, and not forcing things on other people unless they're critical to the overall safety and/or function of the society (such as not letting people drink and drive, not letting people abuse their children, etc).------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Deu 31:24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,
Deu 31:25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying,
Deu 31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.It was the writings of Moses that called for the stoneings of transgresorsCol 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.When Christ died the ordinances that called for the stoneing of individuals was done away with.Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.No one claiming to be a Chritian should persecute or judge anyone but should try and see them as who they could be in Christ.