Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

Xzen responds to me...I think...he doesn't say:

quote:

---

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.

---

Indeed.Nobody is trying to tell a religious group how to worship.I should point out, however, that nowhere in scripture is gay marriage denigrated, either. The Bible is silent on the matter. But if any particular religion wants to speak for god and say that they know that god doesn't approve, they are perfectly free to do so and they should never be forced to perform a rite they find sacreligious.

quote:

---

Also no matter how much someone might try to deny this the Bible did have some influence in the making of laws.

---

That may be, but that doesn't make it right.Now, that doesn't mean that if it's in the Bible, it cannot be a law. It means that "It's in the Bible" can't be the justification for the law.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

The Bible only supports marriage between man and woman. No where could you show me that a man is married to a man in the Bible. Whats more is that sex outside of marriage is considered to be defilling one's self and the one you were in the act with. And on the second part I agree that it is not right that the Bible has an influence on the making of laws but it does.

Xzen responds to me:

quote:

---

The Bible only supports marriage between man and woman.

---

But it remains silent on marriage between people of the same sex.Since there is nothing in the Bible that says marriage between people of the same sex is a sin, and nothing that says it is blessed, how can anybody say the Bible is for or against it?

quote:

---

Whats more is that sex outside of marriage is considered to be defilling one's self and the one you were in the act with.

---

I never said it wasn't.But show me where the Bible says that people of the same sex can't get married?The Bible doesn't mention anything about computers or automobiles or airplanes or landing on the moon or a whole host of other things. How does one acquire an opinion about what the Bible says about those things when it is silent about them?The Bible practically ignores women. Does that mean that women never did anything of importance? Or perhaps it means that the Bible only considered certain things important enough to mention?

quote:

---

And on the second part I agree that it is not right that the Bible has an influence on the making of laws but it does.

---

So what should we do about that? Knowing that the system is imperfect and knowing that we have the power to make a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, and all that other stuff that's in the Pre-Amble, shouldn't we try to look for instances in our jurisprudence where the only justification is "The Bible says so" and strike them down as unconstitutional?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.Clearly God does not like Homosexuality neither man to man or woman to woman.[This message has been edited by Xzen, 12-01-2003][This message has been edited by Xzen, 12-01-2003]

After eleven pages of discussion about how the English translations that refer to homosexual acts are actually mistranslations of words that refer to temple prostitution, why do you think these passages are relevant?

No where in the context of the first chapter of Romans does it speak of temple prostitutes. The context clearly shows that Paul is speaking of immoral acts that were common in the roman society.

In the English, or the Greek? That's what we're talking about, here. I don't read greek, so I take Rrhain's word for it. Do you read Greek?

Xzen responds to me:[Romans 1:24-32 deleted for space]

quote:

---

Clearly God does not like Homosexuality neither man to man or woman to woman.

---

Um, I don't see anything in there about homosexuality.You seem to think that "that which is unseemly" is a reference to homosexuality.The Greek word is "aschemosune" which is a reference to female genitalia.How does one get from the vagina to homosexuality?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rrhain, do you have an answer for the rest of the points I made in my last message?And by the way... Aschemosune apparently means the vagina only by association with unseemliness. In other words, they called the female genitalia unseemly. Since the word is here used as an adjective, referring to a relationship between men, I cannot see how it would refer to the vagina. Here is the concordance entry: The only other time aschemosune is used is in the context of what love does not do: "Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil..." (1 Corinthians 13:4-5)Besides, the rest of Romans 1:25-32 shows that homosexuals were indeed known of - it reders to men 'leaving the natural use of the woman' and burning 'in their lust one toward another', mentioning this act as 'unseemly', an 'error' and 'against nature'. He also lists all manner of other sins in the same passage.

Not veary well but I'm learning. It seems to me that Rrhain's taking things out of context. Both Liberal and Conservative scholars agree that his Proof-text method is unacceptible.

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

The Book of Romans was written during the greko-roman era. In the verses I've already given from romans shows that Paul, who at the time was considered to be a Jew, openly rebuked the roman followers for practicing immoral sexual acts among which Homosexuality is included.

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

"aschemosune" translates to "a shameful act"[This message has been edited by Xzen, 12-02-2003][This message has been edited by Xzen, 12-02-2003]

I believe the name of the topic is "Does the Bible condemn homosexuality" which I think I've pretty much shown. However I will do my best to provide an extrabiblical source for you. The Jews refered to homosexuals as dogs.Deu 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Deu 23:18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.This is another Biblical refrence but from the old Testament showing that homosexuals were looked down apon and called an abomination.[This message has been edited by Xzen, 12-02-2003]