Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 36056 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: Apr 07

Location hidden

#25291 Feb 12, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
-
In other words, obeying the interdictions on these sexual practices were a means by which a people could signify their membership in a holy congregation, order or community separate from the unholy and heathen people around them. It would be similar to taking vows in a religious or monastic order or some such, where the internal rules would have no implications for those people who are not initiates in that order.
-
You just don't get it. Go back and read over my comments that you don't get it.
-
Did I get it?

I can accept that. There would not be the same moral obligations and constraints on those outside the order, nor expectations that they abide by these. This is why Christians do not feel obligated to abide by the requirements of Judaism. Christians are members of another order with their own internal rules. However, the implications for those not within this holy congregation would ultimately be eternal damnation, which is what Christians continue to warn people of. So, it would behoove people to seek entry into this order, if this is truly the case.

But. actually that interpretation is just another iteration of moral relativism. God, surely, has universal standards of morality, and this would certainly include an interdiction on homosexual behavior.
-

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#25292 Feb 12, 2014
Jacob wrote:
<quoted text>
What? What does Lacon mean?
If you are a Biblicist then you are a Lacon, for Biblicists of Lacon, Ill.
I made this clear in a previous post.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#25293 Feb 12, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
-
The characterization of murderer, however, relies on the existence of a rule, as murder is a legal concept. Murder is unlawful killing, which implies a law. But where there are no rules or laws, no one can kill unlawfully and be a murderer. One can only kill.

You might say, then, that God is a killer, but not a murderer. Killer, however, doesn't have the same stigma that murderer has, since we all kill…… insects, germs, game animals, fish, etc.

In Genesis, there was the Law of the Talion and the interdiction on consuming blood, so it would be inaccurate to say there were no rules.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#25294 Feb 12, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Other denunciations apply equally as well. They were meant for the 12 tribes to separate themselves from other nations.
Israel was to be separate and holy. Don't get all excited about the word holy. Holy simply means that the Israel nation separated themselves from other nations by their actions and that was holy, man-made self designation of a people, the people of Israel.
So, you claim that the laws in leviticus have no universal application, but were primarily designed for the Israelites to say to the nations, "We are not like you. We are apart from you. We are a holy people of God unlike you."

Do you believe that there is any sort of universal morality that is applicable to all of humanity?

Is it likely that God used Israel as a model of society for the nations to follow?

Concerning homosexuality and other sexual practices and acts: Do you claim that these practices and acts are only forbidden to the Israelites, the violations of which will incur God's wrath, whereas, the nations will be spared from God's wrath because those interdictions are not applicable to them?

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#25295 Feb 12, 2014
Angel wrote:
<quoted text>
The bible? Gods only law is love.
-
You are beginning to get on my nerves, Angel. If you are claiming to be some sort of prophet of God with a new doctrine, then you have got to walk on water or raise the dead or something.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#25296 Feb 12, 2014
Angel wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you keep saying that?
Deut
25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. 26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. 28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days
-
"28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;"

This seems that it could also be consensual sex, or non-resistant sex, and not rape that would involve violence.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#25297 Feb 12, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really. There are disparate stories in the Bible. For example, the two creation stories are mutually exclusive. God would know how much water is in the world. There isn't enough water to cover Mt. Ararat.
-
And if Mt. Arafat were the result of the flood?
-
What's more, God would know that the world is over 4 billion year old, yet Mt. Ararat is but a few thousand years old. Nobody knows the mind of God. How pretentious.
-
It is "tuned in to the mind of God" not "know the mind of God." Yes, there is a difference.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#25298 Feb 12, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me. Leviticus did not exist. How could they think those words? What's more, it is completely impossible to do that. Besides, it is also a well known mistranslation. What it actually meant was to never sleep with another man in your wife's bed.
-
Oh, yeah! Like sleeping with a man in your wife's bed is such horrible thing that there has to be a special interdiction on this!

Do you ever think about the things you say?

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#25299 Feb 12, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
That doesn't follow.
Two people can believe in completely different supreme beings, with different personalities, different viewpoints, and different systems.
Different 'supreme beings' is a contradiction in terms. It is said that all great minds think alike. That is because great minds discover universal truths, and these are all the same truths. It is the same thing with God. If there is one God, and many people seek Him, then they will all find the same God.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#25300 Feb 12, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
You're missing the point. The "punishment" involves *MORE RAPE* for the victim. Hebrew law did not recognize the right of a woman to refuse to have sex with her husband. It allowed marital rape.
<quoted text>
Non-consensual sex, also known as rape, was permitted (by husbands). Given that marriage itself did not require consent, their law allowed men to have sex with women of their choosing, without the woman's consent.
-
-
The government forces me to pay taxes each year all without my consent. Are they doing something evil? With what I've had to pay in taxes, I prefer rape!

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#25301 Feb 12, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
<quoted text>
What gives you the impression that Adam and Eve had a high level of intelligence? Clearly Eve didn't register the contradiction and deduce that maybe she should inquire further. Neither had "knowledge of good and evil", which also places them pretty firmly in the child-zone, even by Biblical standards.
-
Well, look! She had just been created and was brand new and already she was talking and arguing with the devil. That's not being intelligent?

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#25302 Feb 12, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>
-
In other words, obeying the interdictions on these sexual practices were a means by which a people could signify their membership in a holy congregation, order or community separate from the unholy and heathen people around them. It would be similar to taking vows in a religious or monastic order or some such, where the internal rules would have no implications for those people who are not initiates in that order.
-
<quoted text>
-
Did I get it?
I can accept that. There would not be the same moral obligations and constraints on those outside the order, nor expectations that they abide by these. This is why Christians do not feel obligated to abide by the requirements of Judaism. Christians are members of another order with their own internal rules. However, the implications for those not within this holy congregation would ultimately be eternal damnation, which is what Christians continue to warn people of. So, it would behoove people to seek entry into this order, if this is truly the case.
But. actually that interpretation is just another iteration of moral relativism. God, surely, has universal standards of morality, and this would certainly include an interdiction on homosexual behavior.
-
Ya, you got what I wrote only you did not apply what you got in your last statement.
There is no room for your interdiction. So, you got what I said but applied what you wanted it to say. You also miss the point of what morality is about.

They did not get it then and they don't get it now.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#25303 Feb 12, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you claim that the laws in leviticus have no universal application, but were primarily designed for the Israelites to say to the nations, "We are not like you. We are apart from you. We are a holy people of God unlike you."
Do you believe that there is any sort of universal morality that is applicable to all of humanity?
Is it likely that God used Israel as a model of society for the nations to follow?
Concerning homosexuality and other sexual practices and acts: Do you claim that these practices and acts are only forbidden to the Israelites, the violations of which will incur God's wrath, whereas, the nations will be spared from God's wrath because those interdictions are not applicable to them?
No, God does not interfere with Creation because it was as God meant it to be.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#25304 Feb 13, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
No, God does not interfere with Creation because it was as God meant it to be.
-
Are you going to answer the questions?

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#25305 Feb 13, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya, you got what I wrote only you did not apply what you got in your last statement.
There is no room for your interdiction. So, you got what I said but applied what you wanted it to say. You also miss the point of what morality is about.
They did not get it then and they don't get it now.
-
So, basically what you are saying is that God in the Bible forbids and condemns the acts described in Leviticus 18 and 20 to His people only, but says nothing about the heathen peoples, nor does He expect them to abide by His standards because they are all going to Hell anyway, so what difference does it make.

If this is a correct inference of your position on the matter, then I would completely agree with you and we can end this discussion.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#25306 Feb 13, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>
Different 'supreme beings' is a contradiction in terms.
No, it isn't. You and I can both fathom supreme beings who operate quite differently. An impersonal god who has absolutely zero interaction with the world is vastly different than one who is intimately involved in it.
Charlie Feather wrote:
If there is one God, and many people seek Him, then they will all find the same God.
By this reasoning, there isn't one god, because many people have sought one and they've found many, many different gods.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#25307 Feb 13, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>-
The government forces me to pay taxes each year all without my consent. Are they doing something evil?
No, they're doing something necessary for society to function. Taxes are also something you are well aware of before paying them, and you have the freedom to move to another society if the way this one functions is not to your liking. Finally, an impact upon your wallet is simply not comparable to an action that damages your person and causes you to fear for your very life.
Charlie Feather wrote:
With what I've had to pay in taxes, I prefer rape!
It's difficult to take your seriously when you make ridiculous statements like this. No one would prefer rape to paying taxes.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#25308 Feb 13, 2014
Charlie Feather wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, look! She had just been created and was brand new and already she was talking and arguing with the devil. That's not being intelligent?
It's certainly not intelligence of the form that's relevant to the story.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#25309 Feb 13, 2014
akopen wrote:
<quoted text>
Does anyone else take offense to this blatant rant against women?
I would have said that in ancient times, the spoils of war and of the conquering horde often included the rape of the women of the conquered foe. It was a "taking."

Charlemagne fathered thousands.

Unfortunately, rape as an act and consequence of the subjugation of a tribal or political or cultural foe, still occurs. Looking for evidence?

Look no farther than recent conflicts in Vietnam or the Central African Republic (of the Congo). The men are shot to death or hacked apart. The women are routinely raped. There are many orther examples. The Hebrews did the same thing and believed that "God" authorized them to do so.

Just because someone in a story recounted in the Bible that someone did something vicious to someone else doesn't make it the right thing to have done. The Bible is not a compendium of righteous behavior. The Bible is a peculiar grouping of accounts, allegories, metaphorical myths and stories which are a moral and spiritual, partially historical account of a people; a tribal tapestry of history and revelation, a lot of which was not very pretty. The Bible is first, an oral accounting of the development of a relationship between individuals and their tribe with the Creator, set to script and type.

The Bible is full of erroneous and conflicting information, as well as material that is regularly and traditionally misinterpreted.

There is no justification for the behavior called rape, either of a child or an adult, whether male or female.

Rev. Ken
A priest and disciple of the Lord, Christ Jesus.

Cookie_Parker

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#25310 Feb 13, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
I want to add a couple of thoughts to my reply in Post #24292 to your post above.
These ideas, as you know are not new.
The Church, and especially the doctrine of the orthodox Church, holds that the Marriage actually, finally occurs in the physical act of "consummation." That is, the physical mating.
This is what Akopen referred to in another post. He reported that the Jewish view and the basis for the legal union was seen within tribal law as both an obligation and a responsibility that initiated with the sex act. Because authority rested in the patristic society with the man, when the man took the virginity away from the woman, he took something of purity, honor and value that could not be restored and subsequently, could only be preserved by the man agreeing to become responsible for her keep.
These are the actions that engender the obligations and responsibilities. They are tribal, cultural, societal and moral. But, they are also reflections of the spiritual reality of the bonding.
Before there was a priest or a shaman or a Justice or a Captain to conduct the ritual, there was only the bond that the man and the woman realized and recognized in each other and which occurs in the full sight of God. This occurs in the spiritual realm. There is an old saying among the Hillbillies about courting one's mate. That is, that their courtship involves a "sparking." This is a very simple, but also a very telling observation.
Does this "sparking" also occur in an "arranged" marriage?
It certainly can. Sometimes, it occurs by force and unwillingly on the part of one or both. But, it can occur over time, with and through familiarity and the acceptance of common goals in life. But, it does not always occur, even though the marriage is physically consummated.
The "sparking" is another name for the spiritual, mental, emotional and electro-chemical accommodating that occurs during the reconciliation of the bodies. It is, essentially, the harmonics of Love, and the activity of the fitting together of the two individuals into (Genesis) the "one flesh."
The bonding is also recognized in the "common-law marriage." The bonding also occurs naturally, in the natural world, in varying degrees and designs among various species. For instance, the Madoqua kirkii, the Tiliqua rugosa and the Peromyscus californicus, the Muted Swan and the Turtle Dove, are examples of pair-bonding, all of which generally mate for life.
Also, we have all heard of an "Annulment" being issued by the Church when the physical consummation can be shown to have not occurred. The annulment is permitted. But, a divorce is not permitted, without conditions. Again, Church doctrine.
One huge problem here. There is no God which has been proven. The US is a secular nation. Religious dogma are not our laws.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News FCPS curriculum takes - biological gender' out ... 24 min TerriB1 1
News Gay Pride parades used to mean protests. Now th... 3 hr EdmondWA 9
News US top court rules for baker in gay wedding cak... 3 hr EdmondWA 786
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 hr 870King 63,329
News As anti-LGBTQ activist wanted for promotion of ... 6 hr Larry Craig s WC ... 3
News Supreme Court sides with Colorado baker on same... 7 hr Larry Craig s WC ... 378
News Texas GOP Endorses 'Ex-Gay' Therapy, Hate-Crime... 7 hr Larry Craig s WC ... 13
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 14 hr Straight Shooter 28,181