• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Leviticus and Homosexuality

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Well...most Christians consider homosexuality something natural and absolutely not a sin. So do I.
I think that love has no gender. We are all different, so there are people genetically predisposed to fall in love with people of the same gender. It's DNA, which determines our endocrine system, and so our sexuality.

I think that the Old testament unfortunately contains obsolete and intolerant affirmations, which would be condemned by Jesus, surely.

Christians, I just want to know your opinion: how do you consider the Leviticus verses against homosexuality?
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
The leviticus laws only prohibit acts of homosexuality. They do not, at any point, address simply being homosexual.

Well...I understand that. But what if two young men fall in love with each other? What if they kiss without having sex? I don't think that a kiss is something lustful; it's something definitely romantic
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Homosexuality is an issue that the bible cannot directly illuminate, since it does not address that issue. Biblical precept can inform us how we are to work our way through the issue of acceptance of homosexuality as normal, though. In a loving, non-judgmental, and accepting way, prayerfully, and without malice.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Homosexuality is an issue that the bible cannot directly illuminate, since it does not address that issue. Biblical precept can inform us how we are to work our way through the issue of acceptance of homosexuality as normal, though. In a loving, non-judgmental, and accepting way, prayerfully, and without malice.


Or maybe the Leviticus verses intended to condemn just homosexual lust, not homosexual love
 

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
The real question should be: Are you really looking to do everything the Bible says?
 

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Well...and the answer would be: "Just those things of the Bible which match with the good of mankind"

If you're able to determine the good all by yourself, why go backwards for reaffirmation?
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Well...and the answer would be: "Just those things of the Bible which match with the good of mankind"
Assuming that god's word as revealed in the Bible has the good of mankind already in mind, how does one go about establishing some other "good of mankind"?
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Or maybe the Leviticus verses intended to condemn just homosexual lust, not homosexual love
It condemns the homosexual act, for a variety of reasons, none of which have to do with the act as a normal, healthy expression of one's orientation.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
We need someone who is an expert in Biblical Hebrew and the historical context those verses were written in to tell us what they were actually saying, in this thread.

Regardless, Christians do not follow the Levitical Law.
 

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
It condemns the homosexual act, for a variety of reasons, none of which have to do with the act as a normal, healthy expression of one's orientation.

I think gender roles play a large part in Leviticus condemnation of homosexuality. A man in a patriarchal culture is assign a role, he is to take a wife who is to bear children for him. Any deviation from this role is consider an abomination from the natural order of things.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
We need someone who is an expert in Biblical Hebrew and the historical context those verses were written in to tell us what they were actually saying, in this thread.

Regardless, Christians do not follow the Levitical Law.
From my 20 or so graduate hours of biblical exegesis and cultural contextual studies of the ancient Near East, I'm not an expert in Hebrew, but I can tell you what I learned, because we discussed the issue at length in several courses.

In the ancient Near East, honor and shame were sexually-imbedded. That is, men embodied honor, and women embodied shame. Therefore, men had to act honorably -- like men. When you had sex with another man, it was an act of shame, because the sex act was seen as a form of subjugation. A man could not honorably subjugate another man sexually. And I don't have to tell you that to (excuse me, ladies) bend over and "take it like a woman" certainly was a shameful act.

Beyond the whole honor/shame taboo, though, was the simple fact that homosexuality as an orientation was unknown. Men were simply attracted to women, end of discussion. Therefore, there could be no real love expressed in homosexual acts. So, the act was always seen as perverse for that reason; moreover, because there was a lot of taking of slave boys, battlefield rape, etc., which are clearly acts of violence. These acts are all condemnable. The Hebrew texts simply do not approach the homosexual act as normal. It simply was not conceivable to them.

That's why I say that the bible cannot definitively speak to homosexuality; it does not deal with homosexuality -- only with acts of perversion.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I think gender roles play a large part in Leviticus condemnation of homosexuality. A man in a patriarchal culture is assign a role, he is to take a wife who is to bear children for him. Any deviation from this role is consider an abomination from the natural order of things.
Well, it would certainly be a waste of seed...
 

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
From my 20 or so graduate hours of biblical exegesis and cultural contextual studies of the ancient Near East, I'm not an expert in Hebrew, but I can tell you what I learned, because we discussed the issue at length in several courses.

In the ancient Near East, honor and shame were sexually-imbedded. That is, men embodied honor, and women embodied shame. Therefore, men had to act honorably -- like men. When you had sex with another man, it was an act of shame, because the sex act was seen as a form of subjugation. A man could not honorably subjugate another man sexually. And I don't have to tell you that to (excuse me, ladies) bend over and "take it like a woman" certainly was a shameful act.

Beyond the whole honor/shame taboo, though, was the simple fact that homosexuality as an orientation was unknown. Men were simply attracted to women, end of discussion. Therefore, there could be no real love expressed in homosexual acts. So, the act was always seen as perverse for that reason; moreover, because there was a lot of taking of slave boys, battlefield rape, etc., which are clearly acts of violence. These acts are all condemnable. The Hebrew texts simply do not approach the homosexual act as normal. It simply was not conceivable to them.

That's why I say that the bible cannot definitively speak to homosexuality; it does not deal with homosexuality -- only with acts of perversion.

I agree. A lot of it is the cultural misogyny of a patriarchal culture. If a man plays the part of a woman then he is no longer truly a man and has brought shame upon himself. So what is he? He is an abomination. These verses are indicative of Biblical homophobia but of Biblical misogyny.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
From my 20 or so graduate hours of biblical exegesis and cultural contextual studies of the ancient Near East, I'm not an expert in Hebrew, but I can tell you what I learned, because we discussed the issue at length in several courses.

In the ancient Near East, honor and shame were sexually-imbedded. That is, men embodied honor, and women embodied shame. Therefore, men had to act honorably -- like men. When you had sex with another man, it was an act of shame, because the sex act was seen as a form of subjugation. A man could not honorably subjugate another man sexually. And I don't have to tell you that to (excuse me, ladies) bend over and "take it like a woman" certainly was a shameful act.

Beyond the whole honor/shame taboo, though, was the simple fact that homosexuality as an orientation was unknown. Men were simply attracted to women, end of discussion. Therefore, there could be no real love expressed in homosexual acts. So, the act was always seen as perverse for that reason; moreover, because there was a lot of taking of slave boys, battlefield rape, etc., which are clearly acts of violence. These acts are all condemnable. The Hebrew texts simply do not approach the homosexual act as normal. It simply was not conceivable to them.

That's why I say that the bible cannot definitively speak to homosexuality; it does not deal with homosexuality -- only with acts of perversion.

That makes a lot of sense. The Greeks and Romans and seemingly every culture in that area viewed it the same. Obviously that isn't or shouldn't be applicable to our times as we have a more developed view of sexuality.

Thanks.
 
Top