Leviticus 20:13

linwood · Feb 25, 2005

NS,

I apologise.

The point I was trying to make is that you don`t really believe the verse should be followed as written as I earlier said.

Now if you wish to harmonise the verse or wish to stick to the "moral" of the verse as an analogy but not the punishment the verse commands that is all fine by me.

I feel it is "picking & choosing" but it`s not my faith so it doesn`t matter what I feel it is.

It`s yours, I`m just trying to get you to think about it from another perspective.

I`m sorry if I went too far.

Lightkeeper · Feb 25, 2005

I was just thinking that saying one doesn't agree with homosexuality is like saying one doesn't agree with heterosexuality. Homosexuality isn't a choice any more than heterosexuality is. I could say I don't agree with blue eyes and it would make as much sense as not agreeing with homosexualy. We don't have a choice in either. I could wear green contact lenses and pretend I was heterosexual, but then I suppose someone would disagree with that.

Natural Submission · Feb 25, 2005

linwood said:
NS,

I apologise.

The point I was trying to make is that you don`t really believe the verse should be followed as written as I earlier said.

Now if you wish to harmonise the verse or wish to stick to the "moral" of the verse as an analogy but not the punishment the verse commands that is all fine by me.

I feel it is "picking & choosing" but it`s not my faith so it doesn`t matter what I feel it is.

It`s yours, I`m just trying to get you to think about it from another perspective.

I`m sorry if I went too far.

No need to apologize. i take this verse with a grain of salt. i don't know if it is true or not. Who am i to judge anyone, i am nothing special. i see both sides of the coin and understand where everyone is coming from. i respectively choose not to participate in the discussion anymore. In the Grand Scheme of things we are all one family, and never would i promote spilling my family's blood.

i look forward to speaking with everyone in other threads. Peace

Linus · Feb 26, 2005

Maize said:
Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. Contrary to popular belief, the word paraphysin does not mean "to go against the laws of nature", but rather implies action which is uncharacteristic for that person. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. When the scripture is understood correctly, it seems to imply that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals.

Maize,
I do not know what your source is for this information, but I do not see the word physin anywhere in my Greek dictionary of NT words. I looked up the word nature and got Phusikos, where Vine's Expository Dictionary specifically mentions Romans 1:26, 27. But no where can I find physin, nor can I find paraphysin for that matter. Im not saying you are wrong, but It's not something that I my sources indicate. Could you point me in the right direction?

anders · Feb 26, 2005

Lev 20:13 comments on a physical impossibility. There is of course no way that a man can "lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman", so even believers must realize that the writer meant something else than sexual intercourse. Today, we can't tell what circumstances or practices or customs the writer intended to banish. Any way you interpret it, the verse doesn't refer to homosexual love.

Linus, you should look for physis/φύσις, the nominative form. A complication in NT is that the word occurs only 5 times: Romans 1:26, 11:21, 11:24. The author plays a couple of times on the opposites according to / contrary to: κατά φύσιν / παρά φύσιν. I know very little Greek, but I find Maize's interpretation of φύσις entirely possible and in line with dictionaries. So, it would mean "according/contrary to someone's/something's own nature", rather than intending a comparison with some majority or accepted standard or suchlike.

Scorn · Feb 26, 2005

I've had this site titled "The Six Bible Passages Used To Condemn Homosexuals" bookmarked for some time now...I even think we've been down this road before.

Leviticus 18:22:
[font=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][size=+1]"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

[/size][/font][font=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman]Leviticus 20:13:
[/font][font=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman][size=+1]"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."[/size][/font]
Author's Note: Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied. The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idol worship.

Because these two verses in Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) have been used more than any other Bible texts to condemn and reject gay and lesbian people, the following material is given to help you think objectively about traditional abusive use of the Bible regarding homosexuals.

Link = http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html#Leviticus18:22

croak · Feb 27, 2005

Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks.

Click to expand...

Baal was a god, right? So, I think what is meant by these versus is that people who perform these things for the sake of some "god" who they think will give them good flocks and healthy flocks. This is seen as idol worship and is, of course, wrong. Am I right?

Scorn · Feb 27, 2005

The antiquity of the worship of the god or gods of Baal extends back to the 14th century BCE among the ancient Semitic peoples, the descendants of Shem, the oldest son of Biblical Noah. Semitic is more of a linguistic classification than a racial one. Thus, people speaking the same or similar languages first worshiped Baal in his many forms. The word Baal means "master" or "owner". In ancient religions the name denoted sun, lord or god. Baal was common a name of small Syrian and Persian deities. Baal is still principally thought of as a Canaanite fertility deity. The Great Baal was of Canaan. He was the son of El, the high god of Canaan. The cult of Baal celebrated annually his death and resurrection as a part of the Canaanite fertility rituals. These ceremonies often included human sacrifice and temple prostitution.

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/b/baal.html

That's correct, this is seen as idol worship. Whether idol worship is wrong or not is outside my purview, but that was the point of the passage, as suggested by this pastor.

Melody · Feb 27, 2005

Scorn said:
Author's Note: Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied. The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idol worship.

Romans 1:26-27:

"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature. And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Nowhere do I see any rationale, author than the author's opinion, that this does not mean exactly what it says. Nowhere does it say that these acts are forbidden in idol worship but acceptable at any other time. The Bible says it is forbidden.

With the same rationale I can say that adultery is ok as long as I'm not engaging in idol worship. Same for lying, coveting, etc.

Please show how you or the author came to this conclusion.

anders · Feb 27, 2005

Scorn,

I found that site some three weeks ago, and I haven't read all of it yet. Much of it is rather identical to what I wrote in a paper for second university semester GT studies. The one thing I disagree with so far is that I think that the Judges episode is older than the Gen. one.

One thing that the author seems to have overlooked, though, is that the crowd in front of Lot's house consisted of all the inhabitants of Sodom, young and old, not just the "men". Who thinks that old women and young girls wanted anything else than information on the strangers?

And we could ask those who wrote the book. In no Jewish scriptures other sins of Sodom are mentioned than general unfairness, hostility towards strangers, cruelty, as in Talmud: Sanhedrin 11 on Ezek. xvi. 49: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: Pride, abundance of food . . . but the hand of the poor and needy did she not strengthen."

Scorn · Feb 27, 2005

Melody said:
Romans 1:26-27:
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature. And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Nowhere do I see any rationale, author than the author's opinion, that this does not mean exactly what it says. Nowhere does it say that these acts are forbidden in idol worship but acceptable at any other time.

The point, as I see it, is that we must make a attempt to understand the meaning of the text as it existed when written. It's not enough to look at a translation of a translation. Whether they be entire passages or individual words that have been attributed special meaning over time.

Melody said:
The Bible says it is forbidden.

Melody said:
With the same rationale I can say that adultery is ok as long as I'm not engaging in idol worship. Same for lying, coveting, etc.

I might begin with the notion that anything I have to say on the topic will probably not convince you one way or the other, but I fail to see where these examples you suggest (adultery, lying, coveting) have, in the past, been interpreted into Romans 1:26-27. As I see it, the reasoning does not follow in any meaningful way.

Melody said:
Please show how you or the author came to this conclusion.

Please click the link.

anders · Feb 27, 2005

Melody said:
Romans 1:26-27:

"...men abandoned the natural use of the woman ..."

Nice shot in your own foot, Melody! Who in today's society do you think will be
impressed by a quote saying that men should use women?

Melody · Feb 27, 2005

Scorn said:
[/color][/font][/i][/color]

The point, as I see it, is that we must make a attempt to understand the meaning of the text as it existed when written. It's not enough to look at a translation of a translation. Whether they be entire passages or individual words that have been attributed special meaning over time.

I might begin with the notion that anything I have to say on the topic will probably not convince you one way or the other, but I fail to see where these examples you suggest (adultery, lying, coveting) have, in the past, been interpreted into Romans 1:26-27. As I see it, the reasoning does not follow in any meaningful way.

Please click the link.

Scorn,
I did clink the link and I see nothing to back up the opinions other than more opinions. I am looking at the meaning of the text as it existed when written. It seems very clear. Even given the times. The Greeks and other cultures may have seen nothing wrong with homosexuality, but it doesn't mean that God's chosen people...the Hebrews....considered it normal and acceptable by God. Taken in that context, I don't see how God would now permit what was once forbidden.

The reasoning does not follow in any meaningful way.

Melody · Feb 27, 2005

anders said:
Nice shot in your own foot, Melody! Who in today's society do you think will be
impressed by a quote saying that men should use women?

I did not shoot myself in the foot. If you choose to deliberately take the negative/selfish connotation of "use" so be it.

When you wish to debate, please let me know.

Scorn · Feb 27, 2005

anders said:
One thing that the author seems to have overlooked, though, is that the crowd in front of Lot's house consisted of all the inhabitants of Sodom, young and old, not just the "men". Who thinks that old women and young girls wanted anything else than information on the strangers?

My guess is that it's because in many translations in Gen 19:4 it mentions only men.

Scorn · Feb 27, 2005

Melody said:
Scorn,

Melody said:
I did clink the link and I see nothing to back up the opinions other than more opinions. I am looking at the meaning of the text as it existed when written. It seems very clear.

Yet it's unclear to me where you are deriving your meaning of the original text as it existed when written.
When place in context with Romans 1:24-25, it is easy to see how the author came to a conclusion (with some knowledge of the rituals practiced at the time) that the passages in question Romans 1:26-27, two verses as I see it that were framed by 24-25 have more validity as idol worship and temple prostitution. and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorwho is forever praised. Amen.

Melody said:
Even given the times. The Greeks and other cultures may have seen nothing wrong with homosexuality, but it doesn't mean that God's chosen people...the Hebrews....considered it normal and acceptable by God. Taken in that context, I don't see how God would now permit what was once forbidden.

That is of course assuming we all believe that Romans 1:26-27 were in fact referring to homosexuals.

Melody said:
The reasoning does not follow in any meaningful way.

I'm not sure if this was just meant as a shot at me or if there was some context to reposting a portion of a sentence I had originally posted.

Melody · Feb 27, 2005

Scorn said:
That is of course assuming we all believe that Romans 1:26-27 were in fact referring to homosexuals.

Romans 1:26-27:

"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature. And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Men abandonded the natural use of women and burned in their desire toward one another.

Followed by...

Men with with men committing indecent acts.

If not homosexuality, then what do you believe this refers to?

michel · Feb 27, 2005

I feel torn between two forces here, the first being 'The Bible' (As I see it a Manual for moral living with accounts of the life of the 'Son of God'. However, I am the son of God, and everyone reading this is the son or daughter of God (Through Adam and Eve).
I am not a Homophobic.
There have been mulitiple examples of 'mutations' in nature. Those sound as if God did not intend them to be as they are. Perhaps some intervention by man has caused the abberations; to name a few examples:- conjoined twins, very badly deformed babies, children born with a 'parasitic' foetus (Actually another child) in their bodies; the list is endless.

Now there are two possibilities a) God is not 'Perfect' - in the design, there was a flaw or b) through the use of chemicals, radiation whatever, Man has caused the 'mutations.

Take your pick; for me, it is man who has become a little too clever 'for his own boots'. Now to await Deut's response......

Scorn · Feb 27, 2005

Melody said:
Romans 1:26-27:

"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature. And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

Men abandonded the natural use of women and burned in their desire toward one another.

Followed by...

Men with with men committing indecent acts.

If not homosexuality, then what do you believe this refers to?

Scorn said:
When place in context with Romans 1:24-25, it is easy to see how the author came to a conclusion (with some knowledge of the rituals practiced at the time) that the passages in question Romans 1:26-27, two verses as I see it that were framed by 24-25 have more validity as idol worship and temple prostitution. and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorwho is forever praised. Amen.

As I suggested there are potentially other meanings behind this.

Melody · Feb 27, 2005

Scorn said:
[/size]
[/size] [/size]
As I suggested there are potentially other meanings behind this.

I've found numerous websites out there that suggest the same thing but I just don't see how this can be misconstrued. Let's look at all the verses in Romans 1:21-28:

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imagination, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves.

25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen

Verses 21-25 deal with the people's sin of idolatry. They reject God and create their own gods.

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature;

27And 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 recompense of their error which was meet.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Verses 26-28 deal with the continuing spiral of sin. Note the first 3 words of verse 26: "For this cause". In other words, *because* they were idolators, he gave them up to their sin. Not, "this is only a sin if it's done during pagan rituals or idolatrous practices."

Leviticus 20:13

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Trickster

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator Emeritus

Active Member

Well-Known Member