Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 35949 comments on the www.smh.com.au story from Aug 15, 2011, titled Homosexuality and the Bible. In it, www.smh.com.au reports that:

Given the ongoing debate about same-sex marriage, it is time I looked at the two Testaments to remind myself why belief is so hard for me to embrace.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.smh.com.au.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#25226 Feb 12, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Honesty isn't your strong suit is it? Correction. You have no idea what honesty means, do you.
Here is the article you reworded with your bigotry and ignorance;
As mentioned in my previous article ("War Against Distant Cities"), slavery as a result of being taken prisoner in war was common in the Ancient Near East [1][2]. Another common practice was women marrying those whom had conquered their city or tribe. In this instance, the Law set down the procedure for an Israelite man who decided to marry a woman from among those who had been captured as prisoners of war.
Again, as in previous passages, this passage must be considered in a cultural and historical context. We must consider the situation of the woman who was taken captive. Her parents, or at least her father, were most likely dead as a result of being killed during the war. It is likely that any brothers or other male family members that she had were also dead. This left her in a desperate situation [3][4]. The only choice that she would have to survive would be slavery or prostitution. However, there was another way that would slightly elevate her social status and give her a better future - marriage.
There were clear regulations set down in this instance. For example, the man could not have sex with the woman that he chose to take home as his wife immediately. It is clear that this passage is not approving rape. The situation was very specific - she was not a sex slave or a victim of rape; the man was to take her to his house with the intention of marrying her. Before they could be married, she had to shave her head (an Eastern custom symbolizing the transfer from one nationality/religion to another, also used as a sign of purification and new status; see Leviticus 14:8 and Numbers 8:7), trim her fingernails, and put away the clothes she was wearing when she was captured, signifying the end of her old life and the beginning of her new life. She was then to mourn for her parents for a month (verses 12-13), and then the man could marry her and they could have sex. This gave the woman time to grieve her losses and adapt to her new situation.
We must remember when reading this passage that people, especially women, who lived in the Ancient Near East had little to no choice who their spouse would be. Parents arranged marriages for their children [5]. With this in mind, the woman taken captive would be in a similar situation, marrying a man that she had not chosen. It may seem strange in our modern Western culture, but this was the situation in ancient times.
Finally, there was a law in this passage that protected the woman. If the man who had married her decided he no longer wanted her, he could not then enslave her or sell her as a slave to someone else. He had to let her go free (verse 14).
Far from being an approval of forcible rape, this passage set clear boundaries for men who wanted to take home captive women, detailing the proper procedures and providing protection for the woman involved.
Why, KiMare, you've amazed me. Just one thing stands out as conjecture, marriage. What we call marriage was the taking of a woman then. There was no marriage in the OT. Just because some modern translator calls having premarital sex marriage as if to cover up the idea that all a man had to do was "gamos" a woman and he became responsible to that woman, doesn't mean that marriages took place in the OT.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#25227 Feb 12, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>
I can easily analyze the situation you've presented with the effects based test I presented earlier. Does divorcing a woman such that she is left destitute on the street make for a better world? Does having one more miserable person in the world make it a better one? Well, no and no.
This is what constitutes the moral issue in every act and behavior: the effect upon the person, upon those around the person, upon society, upon the world and existence, itself. Does this contribute to a world that one would be happy to live in?
Why, yes, Charlie, it does constitute a happier world to live in.

So, you really do get it. Why is this idealogy not the premise from which you read the Bible?

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#25228 Feb 12, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>
A more careful reading with a bit more logical rigor should show you that I do not assume that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. That was just one manifestation of their general depravity.
Charlie, if you read more clearly you would have seen that homosexuality was not what Genesis 19 was about, not even for one minute. At the very least 19 spoke of rape. Now, since the townspeople, men and women, young and old were at Lot's doorstep what makes you think that homosexuality was there intent?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#25229 Feb 12, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>
God had already told her that she would die if she ate the fruit. Here was an obvious contradiction, then. Eve would have acquired the concept of lying at that very moment, when faced with this contradiction.
A contradiction does not give one knowledge of lying. There are other possibilities:

1) The snake's information, which was delivered after God's, was more up to date, and thus correct.
2) Either the snake, or God, was mistaken.

Have you ever been around children who do not yet comprehend the concept of lying? They will pretty much believe anything at face value.
Charlie Feather wrote:
So, why did she take Satan's word on this and not God's?
...why not? Was Eve aware that Satan was lying or trying to trick her? No. Moreso, she was not even *capable* of such awareness.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#25230 Feb 12, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
It becomes obvious that man's impression of God is limited.
No doubt. He holds on to superstitious Bronze Age beliefs.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#25231 Feb 12, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>
God had already told her that she would die if she ate the fruit. Here was an obvious contradiction, then. Eve would have acquired the concept of lying at that very moment, when faced with this contradiction. So, why did she take Satan's word on this and not God's?
There is another possibility. God is all knowing and all seeing, therefore God would already know the exact outcome. It must have been God's will that people acquire the knowledge of good and evil.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#25233 Feb 12, 2014
akopen wrote:
Charlie, what you fail to understand is the definition of sin. Simply stated, sin does not equate to sex anymore than sex is sin. It simply is not the definition of sin. If, as you want us to believe your test that defines immorality is valid it must be equal in qualification with the definition of sin. Your qualification falls way short of representing sin. Homosexual acts do not meet the qualification of a sin. Simply stated, abuse is a sin. More complicated is considering that sin has to do with idolatry, although this is the beginning of sin. Sin is an estrangement from God. Some are more comfortable with trespass instead of estrangement. Both terms require one to understand exactly what the Bible is saying. In the NT Jesus gives us the Greatest Commandment; love. The OT gives us laws, Commandments and it is said that they, OT, did not get it. I say, they still don't get it. This is why Jesus taught what he taught. Get it?
-
Concerning sex, sin would relate its effects. Are these effects such that they would make for a better world, one where you would like to live, or a worse world where you wouldn't care to live?(There is also the neutral effect where the world is neither better nor worse.)

Sin is really a classification of acts or behaviors that lead to undesirable outcomes for anyone concerned. Homosexuality falls into that classification. First and foremost, it is undesirable to God relative to His first commandment to man in Gen. 1:28. Secondly, it is undesirable to design: Gen. 2:18 and 2:24.

One cannot over-estimate the importance that God attaches to procreation, especially as it concerns humans. The propagation of conscious beings made in His image is central to His entire creation. Gen.1:26 It can be said without exaggeration that this was the entire purpose of creation. So one can see just how seriously homosexuality can frustrate God's will and purpose.

Homosexuals would be a disappointment to their parents, who will most likely not see any grandchildren. Homosexuality removes individuals from any demographic contribution to society. It also removes individuals from the gene pool of the species.

Everything that applies to homosexuality can also be applied to bestiality, and to a lesser extent, pedophllia, because a child will still mature and eventually be able to produce children.

In practice, some small amount of homosexuality can be tolerated in society and nature, as it is already, but it should never be upheld as a worthwhile and normative principle equal to heterosexuality.
Funny how you rant about the sins listed above when in the OT incest was acceptable, that adultery was acceptable given divorce existed, as is it today. See my take on adultery. Either case, as a sin, the sin is the abuse. It is the frame of mind that is the sin. It is why your previous post,#25117 , is so offensive. You just don't get it; get what sin is and what Jesus taught.
-
I have never seen where incest is acceptable in the OT, nor adultery. These behaviors were regulated simply because they existed, and God is a realist, but they were never condoned. It is like when the government regulates gambling and alcohol and, perhaps, other vices. This is not to be taken as an endorsement of these behaviors.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#25234 Feb 12, 2014
akopen wrote:
“Now, why would these laws that concern fundamental human nature and institutions be applicable only to the ancient Israelites and not to all human beings and societies?……"

Well, you infer wrongly. It seems as if you now want to engage in a conversation about bestiality. I'm not going there. It really has nothing to do with this discourse about homosexuality except to say that it does not.
-
No, I don't want to engage in a conversation about bestiality. You seem to see the words yet miss the point.

The question was whether the Israelites possessed some nature different from other peoples that required that they refrain from adultery, bestiality, homosexuality and incest, while other peoples did not require this?

Using a medical example, people with celiac disease are to refrain from eating glutenous foods, while these are permitted to others without that condition. One could use the example of diabetes as well. There are any number of examples. So, was this the case with the ancient Israelites, that if they engaged in those practices they would go insane, or disintegrate or something bad happen to them, while other peoples are spared these effects?

The question was rhetorical, of course, and designed to show the logical incoherence of your position. I hope that is a point well taken.
-
You really do not understand what “laws that concern fundamental human nature and institutions” is all about. I keep telling you that you don't get it; you don't get what sin is; you don't get what morality is in the Bible. Again, morality is not defined in the Bible but morality is constantly being addressed. It is what you don't get.
-
All right. You keep telling me I don't get it. But have you ever explained it? If you have, I must have missed it, so why don't you take this opportunity to explain it now so I do "get it."
-
“As far as documentation, I am Documentation!”
Just as I thought. A blasphemer too. There is only one “I am.” You are not he. Your personal interpretation is not “Documentation.” And, until you can document you're opinion does not count.
-
I think you misread that. There was no claim that I am I AM. I was saying that I am all the documentation that you need. Relying on the opinions of others in an appeal to authority is one of the better known fallacies. You can simply argue your points based on your own reasoning. I won't hold it against you. In fact, I'd welcome it.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#25235 Feb 12, 2014
akopen wrote:
Cont:
The above passage always depends on what you say the Gospel says. Your personal interpretation or even your denomination's doctrine, if it does not say what was intended then “he is to be accursed.” If you cannot document your preaching then,“be accursed.”
I hope you realize that any documentation is, itself, a product of interpretation or subject to interpretation. These may be the opinions of others whose scholarship one might respect, but who undoubtedly have their personal worldviews and biases, which has to be taken into account.

Nonetheless, I am not entirely satisfied with your replies, as you did not really address my questions in a more direct manner. So, I present more simplified questions in the hopes of getting a straight and non-evasive, non-wordy answer from you.

Does the Bible have any moral authority, and if not, then upon what source is there to base morality? If it is not a time-tested, millennial tradition like the Bible, then what?

Does it make any difference if the Biblical moral codes are misunderstood or misinterpreted if the results are positive ones that contribute to a peaceful, prosperous and orderly society? Would it be desirable if a "correct" understanding of the Bible, as you imagine it, resulted, instead, in social disorder?

Do you believe that your "correct" understanding of the Bible will lead to a more peaceful, just and better world?

Is one to apply the same methodology you prescribe to all of those verses found in Leviticus 18 and 20 the same way that you advocate that they are to be applied to Lev.18:22 and 20:13?

If your methodology permits the practice of homosexual acts, does it also permit the practice of adultery, bestiality, incest and the like as well?

Many of these questions can be answered with a simple yes or no, and an explanation for those requiring one is welcomed.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#25236 Feb 12, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>
-
Concerning sex, sin would relate its effects. Are these effects such that they would make for a better world, one where you would like to live, or a worse world where you wouldn't care to live?(There is also the neutral effect where the world is neither better nor worse.)
Sin is really a classification of acts or behaviors that lead to undesirable outcomes for anyone concerned. Homosexuality falls into that classification. First and foremost, it is undesirable to God relative to His first commandment to man in Gen. 1:28. Secondly, it is undesirable to design: Gen. 2:18 and 2:24.
One cannot over-estimate the importance that God attaches to procreation, especially as it concerns humans. The propagation of conscious beings made in His image is central to His entire creation. Gen.1:26 It can be said without exaggeration that this was the entire purpose of creation. So one can see just how seriously homosexuality can frustrate God's will and purpose.
Homosexuals would be a disappointment to their parents, who will most likely not see any grandchildren. Homosexuality removes individuals from any demographic contribution to society. It also removes individuals from the gene pool of the species.
Everything that applies to homosexuality can also be applied to bestiality, and to a lesser extent, pedophllia, because a child will still mature and eventually be able to produce children.
In practice, some small amount of homosexuality can be tolerated in society and nature, as it is already, but it should never be upheld as a worthwhile and normative principle equal to heterosexuality.
<quoted text>
-
I have never seen where incest is acceptable in the OT, nor adultery. These behaviors were regulated simply because they existed, and God is a realist, but they were never condoned. It is like when the government regulates gambling and alcohol and, perhaps, other vices. This is not to be taken as an endorsement of these behaviors.
First of all, define what is abusive of a homosexual act.

Secondly, 1:28; 2:18; 2:24 are not God's precepts that condemn any form of human sexuality. 1:28 is similar to 1:22 and the only difference between the two passages is that God tells the animals to be fertile and multiply. 2:18 is about God making a suitable partner for Adam but in 2: 19 God brings to man various animals to be his partner. God presenting beastiality to man. Go figure. 2: 24 is where the narator tells us that this is why man leaves his father and mother. Now, it is really funny that Adam had a mother and a father since Adam was the first man. Adam's choice of a partner was God's second attempt to bring a partner to Adam. The difference was not the opposite sex but that woman was like Adam, as he put it, "bone of his bones."

Please note, also that this is no precept of God's, for marriage. Marriage is not even mentioned here, not by translators nor by God.

Thirdly, given that homosexuals are the progeny of parents from time to time, they too are a creation of God. Some men are born a eunuch, other men make themselves a eunuch and still some men are forced to be eunuchs. Isaiah 56: 1-8; A New Word on Homosexuality, FREDERICK J. GAISER, Word & World, Volume XIV, Number 3, Summer 1994, http://wordandworld.luthersem.edu/content/pdf... . There are those heterosexuals that do not want children. Heterosexuals that cannot have children. There are those heterosexuals and homosexuals that take on adoptions and give children without parents, family a chance to grow up loved.

You see, Charlie, there is great goodness in homosexuals.

What you mean by normative is so evidently prejudiced. If you mean to say that homosexuality could some how have an overwhelming effect on changing this norm as related to procreation, well, Charlie that has not happened through all the years of human existence. Never will unless mothers only give birth to homosexuals.

Incest from the begining

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#25237 Feb 12, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>
-
No, I don't want to engage in a conversation about bestiality. You seem to see the words yet miss the point.
The question was whether the Israelites possessed some nature different from other peoples that required that they refrain from adultery, bestiality, homosexuality and incest, while other peoples did not require this?
Using a medical example, people with celiac disease are to refrain from eating glutenous foods, while these are permitted to others without that condition. One could use the example of diabetes as well. There are any number of examples. So, was this the case with the ancient Israelites, that if they engaged in those practices they would go insane, or disintegrate or something bad happen to them, while other peoples are spared these effects?
The question was rhetorical, of course, and designed to show the logical incoherence of your position. I hope that is a point well taken.
-
<quoted text>
-
All right. You keep telling me I don't get it. But have you ever explained it? If you have, I must have missed it, so why don't you take this opportunity to explain it now so I do "get it."
-
<quoted text>
-
I think you misread that. There was no claim that I am I AM. I was saying that I am all the documentation that you need. Relying on the opinions of others in an appeal to authority is one of the better known fallacies. You can simply argue your points based on your own reasoning. I won't hold it against you. In fact, I'd welcome it.
What was different about the Israelites was that their constitution separated them from other peoples. Israel was establishing their identity. They were few but they also consisted of all walks of life; representative of all mankind. They needed a separate and holy identity. They had one g-d and it was to be representative of the Creator.

Medical examples are a poor and useless comparison where homosexuality is concerned. Homosexuality is not a disease.

You just don't get it. Go back and read over my comments that you don't get it.

I was comparing your statement to the "I am" as you seem to clarify that only your literal interpretation is the right interpretation, making you the "I am." Idolatry would not suit your stand with God.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#25238 Feb 12, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
So you say all the people in the world right? What did they do? What commandment was in force using the Book of Genesis? So God, who is supposed to be all seeing and all knowing, the beginning and the end, made totally defective people. Wouldn't such a God have known that right from the start? Please address these issues. A God who punishes without rules is unworthy of worship and far from perfect. You would worship such a God?
It is written that where there is no law there is no sin. By that same standard, where there are no rules, then anything goes, including exterminating a part or most of humanity if it so pleases God. One cannot reproach God for breaking any rule in the complete absence of rules. And, as you had characterized these people as defective, then eliminating these defective people seems thoroughly appropriate if it so pleases God. It's not like they were innocent, kind and decent people. The Bible characterizes them as wicked.

People are born with one rule ingrained in their hearts that occurs naturally to them. This is articulated up by the Golden Rule, and it is based on empathy. I think we have all experienced empathy without anyone having to teach it to us. But people can harden their hearts and kill their conscience and render themselves incapable of empathy. I have no problem with eliminating these sort of persons. Think of the communists, the Nazis, the terrorists of today, the most brutal, hardened and violent of the criminal class. Societies actually execute such people. God had done no differently after having judged their hearts according to their empathy.
Angel

Aurora, CO

#25239 Feb 12, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
How convienent Angel. Condemn homosexuality as if God says it is a sin and keep telling homosexuals they are loved.
I think you missed the whole point of the Bible.
The bible is Christian, not American. The bible has nothing to do with homosexuality, unless you are Christian, in which case you have nothing to do with homosexuality.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#25240 Feb 12, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Christians give themselves too much credit thinking that they will abound in God's love for ever after.
You can see THAT in most of their hymns.

Pick one and count the number of "I", "me", "my", "we", "our" and "us" there are.

They are "praising" themselves.

Here's an example:



And one that TRIES to do something different :

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Both are very catchy songs but even the second still far more references the the acts of worship, and so, are still about the "worshiper" rather than the stated object of worship.

"Well, enough about me. What do you think of me."
- "Beaches"
Angel

Aurora, CO

#25241 Feb 12, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
If it were not a political issue, I'd back off and let psuedo-Christians do what they want to but, when they insist on others believing as they do they tread on my freedom. Hell will freeze over before I back off.
Biblicists would love it if they got their way without any interference.
----------
Jacob wrote:
To all other Christians out there:
Please stop basically fighting with these non-Christians. God never tells us to fight with other people. Try as hard as you can to be loving and kind to everyone- that's what Jesus would do. Ok, that is all.
"And to all a goodnight!"

No, God just tells you that homosexuality is a sin.

Your cover-up isn't working.
----------

This guy was being sincere and you basically spit in his face.
Angel

Aurora, CO

#25242 Feb 12, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
How convienent Angel. Condemn homosexuality as if God says it is a sin and keep telling homosexuals they are loved.
I think you missed the whole point of the Bible.
How could I possibly condemn homosexuality?!? I'm gay!
Angel

Aurora, CO

#25243 Feb 12, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah! But think about the man! He is out 50 shekels, stuck his entire life with a wife he probably never really wanted, and now has a bunch of hostile in-laws. That might discourage a man from raping just any woman. He might want to choose the prettiest woman from the richest family if he were going to rape any. But that is problematic, also.
Think about the man?!? Are you high?
Angel

Aurora, CO

#25244 Feb 12, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
How convienent Angel. Condemn homosexuality as if God says it is a sin and keep telling homosexuals they are loved.
I think you missed the whole point of the Bible.
My saying "try this" was telling chuck to try saying that statement instead of hate. Take a breath dude.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#25245 Feb 12, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>
It is written that where there is no law there is no sin. By that same standard, where there are no rules, then anything goes, including exterminating a part or most of humanity if it so pleases God. One cannot reproach God for breaking any rule in the complete absence of rules. And, as you had characterized these people as defective, then eliminating these defective people seems thoroughly appropriate if it so pleases God. It's not like they were innocent, kind and decent people. The Bible characterizes them as wicked.
People are born with one rule ingrained in their hearts that occurs naturally to them. This is articulated up by the Golden Rule, and it is based on empathy. I think we have all experienced empathy without anyone having to teach it to us. But people can harden their hearts and kill their conscience and render themselves incapable of empathy. I have no problem with eliminating these sort of persons. Think of the communists, the Nazis, the terrorists of today, the most brutal, hardened and violent of the criminal class. Societies actually execute such people. God had done no differently after having judged their hearts according to their empathy.
Are you admitting there were no rules in Genesis? A God who kills without laying out the rules is simply a murderer. Therefore the God of Genesis doesn't really exist at all to the point is moot. What was the dialogue with Abraham all about? The flood simply restates the idea that all life can restart given a male and female. Since none of this actually happened it makes no difference does it. I never stereotype people. There were many good people in Nazi Germany and the communist countries as well. If you mean Hitler and his goons or Stalin and his goons, I have to agree. Executing people goes against a culture of life and empathy.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#25246 Feb 12, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Charlie, if you read more clearly you would have seen that homosexuality was not what Genesis 19 was about, not even for one minute. At the very least 19 spoke of rape. Now, since the townspeople, men and women, young and old were at Lot's doorstep what makes you think that homosexuality was there intent?
Exactly. It may be about implied sexual abuse but nothing consensual.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Feds' transgender guidance provokes fierce back... 2 min woodtick57 1,042
News Annie's Mailbox: Mom upset with response to her... 29 min Dr Reker s Bellhop 2
News Khloe files for divorce against Lamar again 1 hr So Do It Already 1
News More gay people can now get legally married. Th... (Oct '14) 8 hr Three Psyche 54
News Minnesota becomes 12th state to OK gay marriage (May '13) 11 hr cpeter1313 1,874
News Johnny Depp's response to Amber's divorce reque... Fri Friend of Amber 1
News Pope Francis eases way for divorced Catholics w... Fri truth 55
More from around the web