Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 15 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
No. It condemns pagan Ba'al worship including ritual sexual acts between two men at the altar of Ba'al. According to Leviticus 20:13 men committing this act shall be put to death.

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 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. (KJV)

The Torah speeks of two kinds of sins, ritual sins and moral sins. If you study the text you will understand that this particular law concerns a ritual sin, not a moral sin:

The Hebrew word "to'ebah" means literally "ritually unclean". The Greek Septuagint LXX (3rd century BC) translated "to'ebah " into Gr. "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity. Had the acts written about in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 been a moral sin, "zimah" would have been used which translates into Abomination. However both verses use a word which talks about a sin committed to the way religion should be practiced. The verses cite a Ba'al rite where men had sex with other men ritually to honor the Ba'als.

Leviticus does thereby not talk about homosexuality in general as a sin, but the act where men would have sex with other men in pagan religious practices.

And then we have Paul's version:

Romans 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. (KJV)

This verse speeks of similar acts as Leviticus, but here Paul explicitly talk about married Christian men in Rome leaving their women (wives) to commit adulterous acts with people of the same sex. Not homosexuality, but adultary.

Conclusion: The bible doesnot condemn homosexuality, but rather ignorance. Read the verses in their original languages and remove the blindfold of false preachers claiming biblical fundament for hate against 10% of the world's population. The words used cite ritual impurity and religious sins in the OT and extreme adultary in NT.




posted on May, 15 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
This subject has been done to death in various guises recently:

www.belowtopsecret.com...

www.belowtopsecret.com...

www.belowtopsecret.com...

The points you raise were all discussed at great length.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   
I still see this thread as clean blood in the ongoing discussion. The anti-gay conspiracy within the church is biased and doesnot have biblical fundament. Marry gays and hope they'll stick together. Let them adopt children like hetros, there should be no difference between gays and hetros. Gays represent apprx. 10% of the population. There is five times the chance that your child is gay than that it is a MENSA prospect. Would God forget that?



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
Perhaps it has been discussed previously, and I can see the importance of trying to not re-hash the same old arguments again and again. But for myself, I must say that this is first time my eyes have seen this interpretation and I am glad I did. Kudos for the OP for pointing it out, and I will look into this for my own peace of mind.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Hey, I'm not one for stifling debate. (Just reference the serious to-ing and fro-ing in those threads.)

This ground was covered in those threads, though. Big style. The arguments put forward in the OP were refuted from a variety of angles.

If people wish to rerun the debates, that's their prerogative!



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
Oh, I had no intention of accusing you of stifling debate. Please don't take it that way. I was simply intrigued by the premise, having never seen it before.

I know the old ways were brutal, but I could never completely figure out why the verses on homosexuality were there. Now I have another train of thought to explore. this one appears to have some merit, since I know idolatry (false worship) is considered an abomination in the Bible... I would argue, the worst type of abomination even.

As I said, this will take some research and time on my part to completely research and digest, but any such endeavor that brings me closer to a true understanding of things is worth it.

My apologies if I offended you.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I wasn't in the slightest offended! I was trying to use one of those American "Hey there, nice to speak with you" - type 'Heys'. It seems I haven't got the hang of it yet. I'd better stick to my own lingo...

I'll just add that although I believe homosexual practice is described as immorality throughout the Bible, so is sex before marriage and adultery. The point is that the true church looks down on no-one: we are all in need of God's mercy, even if we may have only committed such things in thought (according to Christ's teaching).

I am totally opposed to singling out any section of society for self-righteous condemnation. This post should leave the issue in no doubt: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Old Testiment RULES are for the Jewish tribe only, it does not even apply to the people after those events.

It's like saying lets put Jesus on the cross again, man made a covenant with God or God made one to ease the curse on the people.
The Jews represented mankind as a test to these rules as Jesus did with being in the flesh but sinless.

I am not sure if killing a Gay applies anymore I don't think Jesus like with the prostitute being stoned would have allowed that with a Gay person either? He did not say it was right for the prositute but we all sin anway and God can only judge. God's judgements became more leaniant after certain prophets passed the test for mankind as one person or people's represented man at that time.

Try and see the whole picture here.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
NT:

Rev 22
11He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

^^"Let" is anti-condemn. Righteous means upright. You're upright when being how you truelly are, even when you do things others might pass a condemning judgment on. If these others go by the NT theN they should know not to pass judgement or hold anything against anyone who repents for their tresspass "against" them. Someone minding their own biz in doing concentual homo things with someone isnt trespassing against another. The problem lies in the too high of an ego in foolish ppl who are the actual ones doing what they ought not to in society like making things such as their views turn into what affects who in all they have no business affecting.



[edit on 15-5-2008 by Mabus]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by The time lord
 


The death penalty only applied when the Jewish nation was a theocracy - i.e. in Old Testament times when they regarded the eternal God as their Law-maker, Ruler and Judge. The same penalty was also prescribed for adultery and for fornication; it was not, as some people assume, something peculiar to homosexual practice.

Although the penalty is no longer relevant, the same moral law still stands today - i.e. it is the standard by which all of us will be judged on the day of judgement, unless we have found forgiveness through the Cross. Jesus stated in no uncertain terms that he had not come to abolish the law:


"Don't assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill... whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches people to do so will be called least in the kingdom of Heaven...

Gospel of Matthew 5:17&19

Jesus actually revealed that the law is far stricter than many had realised. Even looking at a woman to lust after her breaks the commandment not to commit adultery, in God's eyes (Matthew 5:27).

When people quote certain laws from the the Old Testament in an effort to say it would be ridiculous to apply O.T. laws today they fail to understand that there were 2 codes: the moral law, and the ceremonial law. The latter pertained to things such as food and clothing, to set the Jewish nation apart as uniquely belonging to God. The moral laws, however, were not abolished by Christ. This is clear both in the Gospels and from the N.T. book of Romans.

It is therefore not possible to follow Christ and continue to practice immorality of any description, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Christians, however, are no better than anyone else - they have simply accepted God's forgiveness for past wrongdoing and covenanted with God that they will seek to no longer live that way.

This is, in many ways, the key to understanding the New Testament stance on this issue:


Do not be deceived: no sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals [i.e. practising], thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, or swindlers will inherit God's kingdom. Some of you were like this; but you were washed, you were sanctified [=set apart to live God's way], you were justified [=made acceptable to God] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Corinthians 6:9b-11



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I for one think it is wrong and it is a sin, but people are still going to do it anyway and God knows it.
I for one don't understand how one man can lust over another but hey whatever floats your boat.
I'm certainly not going to condemn or try to change you.
If you're happy fine, just don't tell me I have no right if I ask you to stay away from me.
I may crack a joke at your expense at times but I do the same to others, I can take it if they return it .

Like I said, I think it's a sin but it obviously did not make the top ten.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


The Torah *does* prohibit homosexuality, adultery, incest and sexual intercourse with animals in Leviticus 20.

What you may have not given much thought over, is that your interpretations would also mean that incest, adultery and sexual intercourse with animals is also permitted if homosexuality is. As all are written in the same context in chapter 20. What you claim makes no sense, nor is it logical, and the jews definately do not interperete these texts as you do (they wrote it, so if anyone knows how to understand it, they should).



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Does it make any difference what the Bible says about homosexuality? Does it make any difference that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not taking care of their poor, widows and orphans? Does it make a difference if many people simply believe what their religious organization has told them rather than seeking the answers for themselves?

I have entered many debates on this site over homosexuality. If I loved someone of the same gender, I wouldn’t care what anyone else had to say about it. Homosexuality, as it exists today, is not the same as what is discussed in the Bible.

The Bible proclaims that any sex outside of sex between husband and wife is wrong. This is because marriage is a symbol in the Bible of Jesus and His believers. Jesus is called the Groom and His believers (church) comprise the bride. The bride is to remain faithful to the Groom. There are many instances where sexual infidelity is used as a symbol of God’s people turning away from Him.

Virginity is to be prized until the marriage. Whether or not the scriptures pertaining to homosexuality are based on idol worship is moot. If you can find anything in the Bible that say sex outside of marriage is ok, please post them.

I have nothing against homosexuals, adulterers, or those who have sex before marriage. I will not judge another’s actions. But if you are looking for an OK from the Bible to engage in these acts, I would suggest you look elsewhere.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   
"You reap what you so"

To condemn man for sin is to place him in a self hell, to condemn hell for sinning is just man.


Get over it you homo-sapiens.


The bible loves homosexuality that way they can place you IN SIN.

get it good.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
The arguments put forward in the OP were refuted from a variety of angles.


How can facts be refuted? I have presented the facts involved in the OP, not some mumbo jumbo. The words and phrases speek for themselves. Most translations of the Bible contain highly politically motivated phrasing in the given verses, with words and whole sentanses which aren't there in the source. Did you know that Biblical Hebrew lacks a word for homophilia?



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
I'll just add that although I believe homosexual practice is described as immorality throughout the Bible, so is sex before marriage and adultery.


Whether you like it or not, homosexuality isn't mentioned in the bible as being a moral sin. Sex between men in a ritual sense, concerning certain Ba'al practices in the ME, is.

Sex before marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the bible's 613 laws. If you run by the Torah, you marry the second you have sex, and you are allowed to have many wives. However, the women are not allowed to have sex with other men, and they can't leave you. If a person rapes a woman, he must pay a fine to her father and marry her. He cannot divorce her later.

Adultary is one of the gravest sins in the Torah.

[edit on 15/5/2008 by Neo Christian Mystic]



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by menguard
 


Were you trying to add something to this discussion? I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by darkelf
 


If you don't that means your sin is bigger then my sin, I just sinned by placing you in sin, so it does't matter. Your thoughts are sin, your body is sin, so sin away sinner.

Lol.



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
When people quote certain laws from the the Old Testament in an effort to say it would be ridiculous to apply O.T. laws today they fail to understand that there were 2 codes: the moral law, and the ceremonial law. The latter pertained to things such as food and clothing, to set the Jewish nation apart as uniquely belonging to God. The moral laws, however, were not abolished by Christ. This is clear both in the Gospels and from the N.T. book of Romans.


Funny then that the two only places in the Law where sex between men is mentioned, it uses words having to do with ceremonial sins, not moral sins...

And Jesus didn't abolish even the slightest letter from the Torah.

God created sexuality and our genes. 10% of us are genetically gay. You find the same pattern more or less everywhere in the animal kingdom. God doesn't condemn gays, he loves them. Statistically one of the twelve sons of Israel would be gay. Wonder who it was...



posted on May, 15 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by menguard
reply to post by darkelf
 


If you don't that means your sin is bigger then my sin, I just sinned by placing you in sin, so it does't matter. Your thoughts are sin, your body is sin, so sin away sinner.

Lol.


This is something of the more hateful things I've seen here. Apologise or claim gnosticism...






top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join