Leviticus 20:13

[smitti]

What do you think about the bible saying "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."?

 

[ozium]

Not much. Have you read Leviticus? Here are some gems:

Leviticus 11:10-11
But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you. They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination.

15:16-18
And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even. And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even. The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even.

20:9
For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him.

20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.


Anyone who takes it seriously hasn't read it.

 

[slimjim]

He says it better than I ever could

 

[XMan101]

Superb!! Wish I could remember that speech by heart )

 

[loveless92]

xman, I am going to try and memorize that speech and then post a video on here.

 

[richym]

I like what Gene Robinson (a gay American Episcopalian bishop) has to say on this, and I probably won't do him justice at all.
The key is the wording "To sleep with a man as one lies with a woman." Does this mean all homosexaul acts, or is it getting at something else. Robinson suggests that it is actually talking about an abusive relationship, where one is treated as less than the other. He comments that it was common in ancient times for conquering armies to not only rape the women of the town they conquered, but also the men. To sleep with them men as with a woman.
I really should go and listen to his talk again and write this better. But basically the question is, have we been reading bits in the Bible and just assumed that we know what they mean, because we know what the words mean in our culture. But could it be that the few references to "homosexuality" are actualy to abusive relationships, and that God is not against caring and loving homosexual relationships? After all, he made us like this.

 

[gb2000ie]

What do you think about the bible saying "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."?

Actually - that's not what the bible says - that's what a translation of a translation of a translation of a long long long lost original says. How's your ancient Greek? Or your Hebrew?

As has been fantastically pointed out, the old testament says many things that we do not follow any more. In fact, the whole point of Christianity is that Christ gave us a new covenant, replacing the old one from the old testament. This is why Christians can eat pork even though Leviticus prohibits it, this is why Christians are not circised, even though the old testament demands it.

Basically - Leviticus is a Jewish book, not a Christian one. Jesus freed Christians from it's restrictive prescriptions. We can wear cloths made of many materials, we can eat shell fish, and much more. All of which Leviticus prohibits. Depending on your version of the bible, the same word, abomination, is used to describe men lying with men, and eating shell fish. Funny how you don't see Christians crusading against shrimpers, or picketing seafood restaurants!

If Jesus really thought Homosexuality is a big deal, then why exactly did he not make a single recorded comment on the matter? He spoke about many things, yet somehow homosexuality wasn't worth mentioning. Makes you think! He was also big on the whole love thing. I'm not so sure he'd be all that happy with all the hate and persecution that's being done in his name.

Anyhow - biblical quotes are best understood in context, they don't work so good as disarticulated snippets.

B.

 

[NuHorizons2see]

For anyone who is interested in this subject matter; I'll recommend watching the doentary/ film 'For the Bible tells me So'.

I found it extremely intriguing and it touches on what has been discussed here, amongst other thought provoking points.

 

[diklik]

But could it be that the few references to "homosexuality" are actualy to abusive relationships, and that God is not against caring and loving homosexual relationships? After all, he made us like this.

That is a wonderful question that most Christians will run away from answering. They never want to admit that God (being solely responsible human creation) - may not have made only str8 people in "His image". If God is in charge, as we are told to believe in the Christian faith, and since God is perfect and makes no errors (another bit of well-promulgated Christian dogma), then homosexuality should be accepted and freely practiced by God's believers. For any Christian to declare otherwise, repudiates their 'confession of faith' in God's omnipotent and omniscient being. Of course when challenged, they twist and turn and spout some mysterious Scriptural interpretation that excuses their hypocrisy.

 

[richym]

Well diklik, hopefully more and more Christians are realising that we need to take the whole of the Bible seriously. That we need to take into account things like context, so that we know what there verses we have pulled out really mean. I think we are starting to change, but who knows where the church will get to.

 

[gb2000ie]

That is a wonderful question that most Christians will run away from answering. They never want to admit that God (being solely responsible human creation) - may not have made only str8 people in "His image". If God is in charge, as we are told to believe in the Christian faith, and since God is perfect and makes no errors (another bit of well-promulgated Christian dogma), then homosexuality should be accepted and freely practiced by God's believers. For any Christian to declare otherwise, repudiates their 'confession of faith' in God's omnipotent and omniscient being. Of course when challenged, they twist and turn and spout some mysterious Scriptural interpretation that excuses their hypocrisy.

As much as I agree that there is a lot of hypocricy in many Christian churches, and as against organised religion as I am, I do want to quibble slightly.

I can only speak for the Catholic Church, being a former member, but their position is different to what you state above, and gets around your argument.

According to Catholic dogma, it is not a sin to BE gay, it is a sin to ACT on gay impulses. God made you with a disfigurement, like people born without a leg, so you are to be loved and cared for, but you are not to sin. The very pompous phrase "Love the sinner hate the sin" comes from this dogma.

So - God made you gay, but wants you not to act on your sexual urges in the same way that he wants un-married straight men not to act on them. I disagree totally with this argument, but it does get around your argument unfortunately.

I have no idea how many of the other Christian churches share this point of view, if any, so in America this may be very much a minority view, but in Europe it is quite dominant, especially in places like Ireland.

B.

 

[josh_the_hot_boy]

Fyi in order to believe in Leviticus one must believe in the Bible.

 

[onkelholle]

That is a wonderful question that most Christians will run away from answering. They never want to admit that God (being solely responsible human creation) - may not have made only str8 people in "His image". If God is in charge, as we are told to believe in the Christian faith, and since God is perfect and makes no errors (another bit of well-promulgated Christian dogma), then homosexuality should be accepted and freely practiced by God's believers. For any Christian to declare otherwise, repudiates their 'confession of faith' in God's omnipotent and omniscient being. Of course when challenged, they twist and turn and spout some mysterious Scriptural interpretation that excuses their hypocrisy.

Superb comment!
I agree absolutely.

 

[illumulli]

I don't give any credit to a fictional book. These quotes are not based on any fact, just beliefs.

 

[diklik]

Originally Posted by gb2000ie:
According to Catholic dogma, it is not a sin to BE gay, it is a sin to ACT on gay impulses.

Yep, that is accurate according to their dogma, but scripturally bordering on being incorrect. Numerous passages (from the Pauline letters) in the New Testament equate a mental state with the physical sin. In other words, thinking about fucking another guy is the same as actually doing it - since the sinful thought itself is (supposedly) contrary to God's commandments and precepts. This is supported in the Catholic Rite of Confession, where a penitent may confess to impure thoughts, and be awarded penance to obviate this sin. So abstention from active (physical) gay sex is not sufficient to render one free of sin, at least when taking all of the NT at face value (a highly questionable action at best).

With due respect to any Catholics present, the RC Church's dogma often has nothing to do with actual Holy Writ - a fact shared by all organized religions not only the RC Church.

 

[gb2000ie]

Numerous passages (from the Pauline letters) in the New Testament equate a mental state with the physical sin. In other words, thinking about fucking another guy is the same as actually doing it - since the sinful thought itself is (supposedly) contrary to God's commandments and precepts. This is supported in the Catholic Rite of Confession, where a penitent may confess to impure thoughts, and be awarded penance to obviate this sin. So abstention from active (physical) gay sex is not sufficient to render one free of sin, at least when taking all of the NT at face value (a highly questionable action at best).

I'd argue that by thinking about sex they mean actively doing so, fantasising about it, rather than just having an impulse that you then immediately push aside. Given the fact that all this comes down to a game of Chinese whispers anyway, that's certainly not impossible.

Then you have the angle that according to Catholicism we are all sinners, hence we all need confession, so even if just a gay impulse is enough to be a sin, you can still stay within the church if you confess it and get absolution.

I find it fascinating how little of the Catholic dogma comes straight from Jesus' mouth, and how much comes from the NT authors, popes, and even just theologians. I wonder of Jesus were to come back today would he even recognise the RCC as a church supposedly preaching his message? Honestly, I think not.

B.

 

[diklik]

I'd argue that by thinking about sex they mean actively doing so, fantasising about it, rather than just having an impulse that you then immediately push aside.

I'd go along with that interpretation. Resisting an impulse would be the "Christian thing", to wax a little sarcastically.

I find it fascinating how little of the Catholic dogma comes straight from Jesus' mouth, and how much comes from the NT authors, popes, and even just theologians..

Amen to that one!:thumbs up: Everyone, even back in that day, thought that he had the exclusive handle on what Jesus said or would have said. Makes me truly wonder about assholes like Fred Phelps who claims to preach the Gospel but hates on anyone he chooses as a target. Wonder how he works that out with Jesus' commandment to 'love thy neighbour' in Matthew 22?

 

[topdog]

...I really should go and listen to his talk again and write this better. But basically the question is, have we been reading bits in the Bible and just assumed that we know what they mean, because we know what the words mean in our culture. But could it be that the few references to "homosexuality" are actualy to abusive relationships, and that God is not against caring and loving homosexual relationships? After all, he made us like this.

BINGO! Because ultimately the question we are asking is what's the writer saying here AND how does it apply to us today, especially those in loving committed homosexual relationships.

In regards to what the writers of this (and other) anti-gay biblical were writing about - yes they were all abusive relationships. In what situations did "men lie with men" in that culture. They didn't have the cute Modern Family gay couple next door raising kids and sharing the car pool to school.

• There were temple prostitutes (both male and female) with whom the worshiper would reenact quite literal fertility rituals.
• The was rape by armies to subjugtate the vanquished (who were then either killed or sold off into slavery).
• There were sex slaves and there were prostitutes.

That's what the historians tell us. So whoever wrote this down, was condemning those practices.

Would they also condemn a loving family relationship between two male partners? We have no idea - they were never confronted with that situation. The concept of varied sexual orientation didn't emerge until the end of the 19th Century (and even then , moved only very slowly through the medical and psychological communities.)

So, all those people who assert that "The Bible CLEARLY says..." are full of it. They have no Bible Scholarship from the past 100 years backing them up.

 

[ozium]

No one would care about this book's ignorance if it wasn't heralded as not only a moral guide, but the words of a perfect god itself. Apologists can squabble over context ad infinitum, the point is the book is clearly imperfect and written by ignorant men. Doesn't take "Bible Scholarship from the past 100 years" to figure that out. Its age and immorality shows, more all the time.

It disappoints me apologists even try defending some of this garbage.

 

[FabianIver]

I honestly believe if your stupid enough to take the bible seriously then deserve whatever bullshit the church throws at you for being gay