Christians and Jews Who Sanction Homosexual Sex

[Lyndon]

So you're on a crusade to make all Christians hate homosexual sex, how valiant!!

 

[kiwimac]

No I didn't. I simply found it specious---there is absolutely no reason to consider Leviticus 18:22 in any kind of temple context (your Rev, Turner, whom you quote, is a grasping apologist of the worse kind: he has an agenda he's working to fulfill)---so I moved on to the issue at hand.

And FYI, when you directly quote someone, as you indicate by your italicization and attribution, it's against the rules of accepted composition to paraphrase it.

.

.

You are entitled to your opinion as benighted and specious as it may be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So supposedly atheist leftists don't think Christians should be supporting gay marriage because they think they understand the bible, which they obviously read for proof texts only. Frankly their position is homophobic, if only atheists are allowed to accept gays, that's blatant homophobia.

How do you think Christians should interpret the anti-LGBT passages in the Bible?

 

[Lyndon]

As representative of a 4000 yr old culture!!

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

A very good point! And certainly seems to be true of those denominations that accept homosexuality, including one not mentioned earlier, the United Church of Canada, one of our largest denominations.

It has always seemed to me that Sola Scriptura could never lead to any real good...too much room for colossal error!

If you're intellectually honest, this is obvious.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Do you have a reason for some other translation?

... I mean, a reason other than that you don’t like the “standard” translation?

Huh? English ISN'T "the standard translation ", Leviticus was originally written in Hebrew, then translated to Greek. As for the KJV, it's nothing but an accident of history that it's so revered. Any translation is subject to ongoing scholarship. To imagine there is one unalterable "correct" translation is pure appeal to authority.

But even if such a thing DID exist, it would still include assumed contextual knowledge from several extinct ancient cultures, and would STILL be subject to misunderstandings and mistranslations by people, both well meaning and agenda driven alike.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Then you might want to take a look at the New Testament. (I've given three examples for each of the following four passages)

Romans 1:26–27

ESV
6 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

KJ21
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature. 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 recompense for their error which was meet.

CJB
26 This is why God has given them up to degrading passions; so that their women exchange natural sexual relations for unnatural; 27 and likewise the men, giving up natural relations with the opposite sex, burn with passion for one another, men committing shameful acts with other men and receiving in their own persons the penalty appropriate to their perversion.


1 Corinthians 6:9–10

ERV
Surely you know that people who do wrong will not get to enjoy God’s kingdom. Don’t be fooled. These are the people who will not get to enjoy his kingdom: those who sin sexually, those who worship idols, those who commit adultery, men who let other men use them for sex or who have sex with other men, those who steal, those who are greedy, those who drink too much, those who abuse others with insults, and those who cheat.

TLB
Don’t you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexuals—will have no share in his Kingdom. Neither will thieves or greedy people, drunkards, slanderers, or robbers.

NCV
Surely you know that the people who do wrong will not inherit God’s kingdom. Do not be fooled. Those who sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, those who are male prostitutes, or men who have sexual relations with other men, those who steal, are greedy, get drunk, lie about others, or rob—these people will not inherit God’s kingdom.


1 Timothy 1:9–10

AMP
9 We also know that the law is not made for those who do what is right. It is made for those who are against the law and refuse to follow it. The law is for sinners who are against God and all that is pleasing to him. It is for those who have no interest in spiritual things and for those who kill their fathers or mothers or anyone else.for sexually immoral persons, for homosexuals, for kidnappers and slave traders, for liars, for perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

ERV
9 We also know that the law is not made for those who do what is right. It is made for those who are against the law and refuse to follow it. The law is for sinners who are against God and all that is pleasing to him. It is for those who have no interest in spiritual things and for those who kill their fathers or mothers or anyone else. 10 It is for those who commit sexual sins, homosexuals, those who sell slaves, those who tell lies, those who don’t tell the truth under oath, and those who are against the true teaching of God.

ESV
9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers,[a] liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.


Jude 1:7

EHV
Like Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, who in a similar way indulged in extreme sexual immorality and pursued homosexual perversion, they serve as an example of those who are going to suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

GW
What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them is an example for us of the punishment of eternal fire. The people of these cities suffered the same fate that God’s people and the angels did, because they committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities.

NOG
What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them is an example for us of the punishment of eternal fire. The people of these cities suffered the same fate that God’s people and the angels did, because they committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities.

.​

All potential arguments for considering homosexual activity sinful. What's your point?

Is there any particular reason you're trying to troll Christians with this stuff? Generally, we fall into two broad camps, 1. Blind literalists, who will say "the Bible says it, that settles it", who will never "sanction" homosexuality any way, and 2. those of us who've been researching and meditating and praying about these issues for years. You think we haven't encountered the clobber passages before? I see that you think you're being exceptionally clever trying to devil's advocate problematic bits of scripture at us, but I can't work out what you think it will achieve, beyond alienating potential allies?

I'll remind you again MOST Christians aren't blindly literalist sola scripura KJVmonaut strawmen.

 

[Lyndon]

I think he's trying to encourage Christians not to accept homosexuality, purely so he can point at them and say look how bad Christians are. He's very transparent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Huh? English ISN'T "the standard translation ", Leviticus was originally written in Hebrew, then translated to Greek.

I meant the standard translation to English. Every translation I've ever read of Leviticus has rendered that passage as a prohibition on same-sex sexual relations. Do you think the community of Biblical scholars are all incompetent? That seems to be your implication.

As for the KJV, it's nothing but an accident of history that it's so revered. Any translation is subject to ongoing scholarship. To imagine there is one unalterable "correct" translation is pure appeal to authority.

If you think I even mentioned the KJV in this thread (before right now, anyway), then you've been jumping to some unjustified - and incorrect - conclusions.

But even if such a thing DID exist, it would still include assumed contextual knowledge from several extinct ancient cultures, and would STILL be subject to misunderstandings and mistranslations by people, both well meaning and agenda driven alike.

What do you think the "right" understanding of Leviticus 18:22 is? What do you think the correct translation is?

An ancient author saw fit to use that verse to express some sort of meaning; if you don't think that intended meaning was "God says men shouldn't have sex with men," then tell us what you think the intended meaning was and how you arrived at that conclusion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think he's trying to encourage Christians not to accept homosexuality, purely so he can point at them and say look how bad Christians are. He's very transparent.

I think he's continuing a very Christian tradition: calling out hypocrisy.

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 23:23-28 - New English Translation

Glossing over the homophobia in the Bible while keeping the homophobic parts is like whitewashing a tomb, to use an analogy most Christians can relate to.

 

[Lyndon]

Scripture quoting atheists are a joke!@!

 

[Lyndon]

You're peed off because not every Christian thinks every word in the Bible comes from God, Cry me a river!!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're peed off because not every Christian thinks every word in the Bible comes from God, Cry me a river!!

Why do you keep the parts that you don't think come from God?

 

[Lyndon]

Because its a history book full of people's writings, some of which are inspired by God. You're really way out of your water on this one, you don't seem to have a clue about Christianity, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that you can take any out of context text out of the bible and that's what Christians believe, you're dead wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because its a history book full of people's writings, some of which are inspired by God.

So you do support having the anti-gay bits in there, despite the fact that other Christians will still take it seriously and still believe that it comes from God?

Have you at least put together a list of the parts of the Bible you reject?

 

[Lyndon]

So you're in favour of some form of censorship of the Bible, removing texts that offend you, a lot of nerve for an atheist.

 

[viole]

.

Knowing how much god hates homosexual sex, and that it's almost a given that every homosexual couple engage in it, how can any Christian denomination or Jewish movement sanction same-sex marriages, in effect sanctioning homosexual sex?

Those religious Abrahamic religious organizations that sanction same-sex marriage.

Alliance of baptists
Conservative Judaism
Episcopal Church
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Reform Judaism
United Church of Christ (Congregational Church)
And perhaps the United Methodist Church (We'll know in February, 2019)

.​

.

Probably in the same way they came to tolerate shrimps as a form of food.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you're in favour of some form of censorship of the Bible, removing texts that offend you, a lot of nerve for an atheist.

If you really do disagree with parts of the Bible, why not get rid of those parts?

If you don't do this, you still bear your share of responsibility when other Christians take these parts seriously.

 

[Skwim]

All potential arguments for considering homosexual activity sinful. What's your point?

Well, exchemist said: " Exactly. In the whole bible there seems to be only a couple of sentences about homosexuality and that is in the OT and concerns male homosexuality only. Christ said nothing about it at all.

I said: Then you might want to take a look at the New Testament. (I've given three examples for each of the following four passages)

.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

If you really do disagree with parts of the Bible, why not get rid of those parts?

If you don't do this, you still bear your share of responsibility when other Christians take these parts seriously.

This is a really odd argument to me. It would be like understanding that there's a lot of racism and misogyny in various classic literature by authors I like, and then stating I should remove them to preserve some false narrative. Instead of removing it, I'd rather keep it there to show where we've come from and how we've changed as story tellers, and take both the truth I see in it and the failures I see in it as part of the narrative. In no way does that make me responsible if someone takes it as instruction of that racism and sexism.