• 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!

Does the Bible really say "homosexuals"?

Does the Bible use that word (homosexuality or homosexual)?

  • Total voters
    16
P

pearl

Well-Known Member
thomas t said:
Does it make sense to attribute this word to a Bible verse, when the concept of what homosexuality really is... did not emerge until the late 19th century? If I am informed right?
Click to expand...

There was no concept of an 'orientation', men with men or boys was understood as perversion,
and when engaged in worship, an abomination. Even today for many this mindset has not changed, those strongly opposed to homosexuals will never allow themselves to believe homosexuality is not a choice.
 
McBell

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Kooky said:
Can you support your claims with evidence? I am unaware of there existing an ancient belief in the existence of exclusive attraction to the same gender - especially in light of arranged male-female pairings being commonplace everywhere in the ancient Mediterranean.
Click to expand...
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.
​
 
YoursTrue

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
pcarl said:
There was no concept of an 'orientation', men with men or boys was understood as perversion,
and when engaged in worship, an abomination. Even today for many this mindset has not changed, those strongly opposed to homosexuals will never allow themselves to believe homosexuality is not a choice.
Click to expand...
In harmony with your thoughts, there have been (are) those with homosexual tendencies who refrain from the practice in order to do what they believe is right. A parallel can be also what is called kleptomania. A person might be strongly inclined to steal no matter what -- even if they don't need the object -- but can realize it's not a good practice, and can refrain because they believe it is wrong in the eyes of the One they worship.
 
T

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
YoursTrue said:
In harmony with your thoughts, there have been (are) those with homosexual tendencies who refrain from the practice in order to do what they believe is right. A parallel can be also what is called kleptomania. A person might be strongly inclined to steal no matter what -- even if they don't need the object -- but can realize it's not a good practice, and can refrain because they believe it is wrong in the eyes of the One they worship.
Click to expand...
that's parlleling homosexuality and illness, see Kleptomania - Symptoms and causes

So this is a disparaging view about homosexuals.
In my opinion, sexual orientation is part of one's identity. If you speak condescendingly about someone else's identity, you speak bad about them as a person, I think.

For instance I'm a musician (also as part of my identity).
If you say "being a musician can be paralleled by kleptomania", I would feel attacked, too, of course.

Homophobia is a severe problem in Christianity, as I see it.
There is a huge Christian message board that goes as far as to say in its terms of use that users must not promote homosexuality.
However, anyone is invited to post view against that sexual orientation as much as they want.
Those who have opposing views might get into trouble with the moderation team.
Under the current regulation they can ban and delete as they wish.

But this problem is not limited to the mods of that private board though. Anyone posting on this board seems to make it clear that they cannot find the problem within this set of rules as they act according to these rules.
It's a climate of uncertainty of everyone who wishes to say anything in defence of LGBT+ persons and their sexuality.

This is what I would call the classic scheme of discrimination that you perceive so often in Christiandom, it's a shame, I think.


But still, I remain neutral on the question of whether homosexuality is sin or not.
 
BilliardsBall

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Unveiled Artist said:
Is the man gay? Straight?

What's his orientation?

Did he love the guy he slept with or was it based on lust?

I've read all "homosexual" verses but this proves my point. It's not about who a person has sex with. So the bible is irrelevant when talking about homosexual people. It's only relevant if Any person regardless the sex and attraction have immoral sex.

Homosexuality (heterosexuality, etc) has nothing to do with sex.

Do you believe you're straight cause you (case in point) had sex with the opposite sex or did you know already before asking the person out?
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing whether orientation has to do with sex acts. I'm saying the Bible condemns certain sex acts. However, just because I feel like a giraffe does not make me a giraffe. The Bible includes mercy for, say, a rape victim, and punishment for people who commit acts willingly.
 
BilliardsBall

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Kooky said:
Well, before we open that particular can of worms, we could start with the issue of modern Christians interpreting a set of laws that were, in all likelihood, historically intended to be applied to the Judaic priesthood (hence the name leviticus or torat kohanim, "laws of the priests") as broadly applicable social mores. What's the point in hewing so strongly to the strictures of an ancient priesthood when very few other regulations from that book are being taken seriously by modern day Christians?


EDIT: Once we're past that first barrier, @Unveiled Artist already pointed out a few key issues here. Homosexuality, in modern parlance, tends to be understood as the exclusive attraction to people of one's own gender, but this passage is entirely about specific sexual practices being reserved only for male-on-female couplings, with the strange turn of phrase, "as he lies with a woman", which could be interpreted as all forms of erotic intimacy, or only specific forms of sexual practices that the ancient Jews considered appropriate only for male-on-female encounters.

So not only does this passage not talk about homosexuality by our modern understanding of the phenomenon, it's not even clear what its actual subject matter is without proper historical context.

Can you see how this gets iffier and iffier the further we go into detail about this? It's far from being as pat as "the Bible wants to punish homosexual practice", and in fact a close reading suggests several possible interpretations that have nothing to do with homosexuality as us modern folks understand it.

And any deeper knowledge of the actual historical and cultural context of these items - which, I want to stress again, we do not have - could throw any possible interpretation only further out of sync with the commonly accepted interpretation that is currently popular among modern Christian fundamentalists.
Click to expand...

You are using a presentist understanding of sex/orientation--which modern understanding is not universally accepted, of course--to take something from its context.

"...could be interpreted as all forms of erotic intimacy, or only specific forms of sexual practices that the ancient Jews considered appropriate only for male-on-female encounters," by which you mean, of course, gay sex.
 
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
BilliardsBall said:
I'm not arguing whether orientation has to do with sex acts. I'm saying the Bible condemns certain sex acts. However, just because I feel like a giraffe does not make me a giraffe. The Bible includes mercy for, say, a rape victim, and punishment for people who commit acts willingly.
Click to expand...

Many christians don't differentiate homosexuality (bible definition) from homosexuals (people). Their idea (generalizing for sake of simplicity) is that if one is called a homosexual, they are inherently a lust-oriented sinner because they do (not could) have same-sex sex. The issue (to me) is not what the bible says about same-sex sex. I don't differentiate people having sex based off their genitals but because of the nature of their intention (lust or love or, say, having sex with their sperm donor instead of paying for sperm, and so forth) or something like age. Definitely not specific to what's between one's legs.

Why are christians (generalizing) hooked on the word homosexuality and applying it to homosexuals (in general) as a special group of same-sex sinners?
 
BilliardsBall

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Unveiled Artist said:
Many christians don't differentiate homosexuality (bible definition) from homosexuals (people). Their idea (generalizing for sake of simplicity) is that if one is called a homosexual, they are inherently a lust-oriented sinner because they do (not could) have same-sex sex. The issue (to me) is not what the bible says about same-sex sex. I don't differentiate people having sex based off their genitals but because of the nature of their intention (lust or love or, say, having sex with their sperm donor instead of paying for sperm, and so forth) or something like age. Definitely not specific to what's between one's legs.

Why are christians (generalizing) hooked on the word homosexuality and applying it to homosexuals (in general) as a special group of same-sex sinners?
Click to expand...

What you wrote is not true of most Christians. Most of we born again Christians are interested in helping broken, hurting people.
 
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
BilliardsBall said:
What you wrote is not true of most Christians. Most of we born again Christians are interested in helping broken, hurting people.
Click to expand...

It depends on the bias. Many christian parents feel they're helping their homosexual child but at the same time instilling in them that homosexuality is a sin (assuming the child is homosexual before he or she is an adult). Some indoctrinated beliefs harm people even if the christen had no intention of doing so. I only heard of christians who change their perspective (and even challenge their theology) when their child(ren) suffer as a result.

There are christian homosexuals but a lot of them find it hard to go into a church that accepts them: who they are, who they are with, who they want to marry, and who they are intimate with/love.

The intention in many christians are well-meaning. The invisible or visible bias and segregation (known or not) are embedded in one's thought, behavior, and theology. There are LGBTQ affirming christian churches but it's rare a christian denomination would consider them as such.
 
T

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
BilliardsBall said:
? I've long threads with gays and lesbians here and elsewhere. I do not participate in forums where any people are banned or unwelcome.

It is clear that the Bible condemns homosexuality without using the equivalent for the modern term "homosexuality".
Click to expand...
Well, LGBT+ people can't reply in this very board we had a debate in.
It's hypocrite to say it does not discriminate against LGBT+ people, I think.
They cannot reply there. I mean those who are LGBT+ and open about it.
(They could always sneak in in a "secret mission") but that's not the same.

So if it's all so very clear ... the conservatives could afford a real debate on this matter in their own boards... without segregating the other side out, I think.
They could just say their opinion, and everyone would see it's true. If it's all so clear, that would be the solution, I think.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The problem is that, in modernity, the act is conflated with the orientation. In antiquity, there was no concept for sexual orientation as we understand it. Therefore, since, for them, all men were “naturally” attracted to women, any same-sex act would have been abominable. When the ancients wrote the texts, they weren’t concerned with the orientation, so they could not have meant “homosexuality” in the way we understand it today — as a preference. Additionally, there was no Hebrew or Greek word for “homosexuality.” “Homosexuality” simply is not addressed in the Bible.

When the Bible talks about men lying with men, it could have been referring to an act of forcible rape, or an act of pederasty (neither of which refer to a loving, consensual act). Therefore, the acts are referred to as being prohibited. The Bible simply never refers to loving, consensual, same-sex relationships as being prohibited or abominable. Such relationships simply didn’t exist in the minds of the ancients.

Therefore, it’s not right to say that such relationships are condemned by the Bible, because they are not.
 
U

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
thomas t said:
Well, LGBT+ people can't reply in this very board we had a debate in.
It's hypocrite to say it does not discriminate against LGBT+ people, I think.
They cannot reply there. I mean those who are LGBT+ and open about it.
(They could always sneak in in a "secret mission") but that's not the same.

So if it's all so very clear ... the conservatives could afford a real debate on this matter in their own boards... without segregating the other side out, I think.
They could just say their opinion, and everyone would see it's true. If it's all so clear, that would be the solution, I think.
Click to expand...

We can share our opinions to an extent, but they're not really taken seriously because the other party has already made up their mind about homosexuality. It's rare to get some to see otherwise unless they have a profound experience that lets them "get it."
 
Saint Frankenstein

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
To me, the issue isn't so much about homosexuality as an orientation, but sodomy (generally anal sex but oral sex is sometimes included in the definition) that Christianity from the ancient days seems extremely opposed to. Love and even romantic feelings are not condemned, really. It's the sexual acts that are taboo. All of the Abrahamic religions generally share that view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top