Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[jeager106]

Well, how do we get around Leviticus 20:23.............
Leviticus 20:13 (ASV) And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Isn't that pretty clear plain language.
I'm not advocating passing judgement on any group and trying to stay acceptably
neutral but the above passage seems very, very, clear that it addresses two men
laying with one another.
Why would two men lay with each other? I doubt it is to keep warm.
Two men having sex with one another is very unnatural to me.
I don't feel homosexuals should be discriminated against nor shunned in any way
either.
As I said my recovery sponsor is openly gay and I like him dearly as my sponsor
and friend.
I've met his significant other and he too is a kind and gentile person.
They have what seems to be an exclusive relationship which is also not my "never mind"
as some would quip.

 

[jeager106]

1 Corinthians 6:9-10New International Version (NIV)
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.

This one ^^^^^ seems to make a clear statement that homosexuality is "wrong doing".
I'd suggest "wrong doing" is a sin.
Thoughts?????????

 

[sojourner]

Well, how do we get around Leviticus 20:23.............
Leviticus 20:13 (ASV) And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Isn't that pretty clear plain language.
I'm not advocating passing judgement on any group and trying to stay acceptably
neutral but the above passage seems very, very, clear that it addresses two men
laying with one another.
Why would two men lay with each other? I doubt it is to keep warm.
Two men having sex with one another is very unnatural to me.
I don't feel homosexuals should be discriminated against nor shunned in any way
either.
As I said my recovery sponsor is openly gay and I like him dearly as my sponsor
and friend.
I've met his significant other and he too is a kind and gentile person.
They have what seems to be an exclusive relationship which is also not my "never mind"
as some would quip.

Yes it does refer to that, but in what context? In he context battlefield rape? In the context of a culture in which shame and honor are sexually-embedded? Neither of those conditions exist in the present context.

 

[Ingledsva]

Well, how do we get around Leviticus 20:23.............
Leviticus 20:13 (ASV) And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Isn't that pretty clear plain language.
I'm not advocating passing judgement on any group and trying to stay acceptably
neutral but the above passage seems very, very, clear that it addresses two men
laying with one another.
Why would two men lay with each other? I doubt it is to keep warm.
Two men having sex with one another is very unnatural to me.
I don't feel homosexuals should be discriminated against nor shunned in any way
either.
As I said my recovery sponsor is openly gay and I like him dearly as my sponsor
and friend.
I've met his significant other and he too is a kind and gentile person.
They have what seems to be an exclusive relationship which is also not my "never mind"
as some would quip.

Goodness, you seem not to have read the rebuttal to these texts being about homosexuals.

It isn't "clear plain language." It is a translation, and we have shown that some of the words are NOT in the original, and if you read it from the top - it is condemning Molech worship which is Sacred Sex.

Lev 20:13 is about Sacred Sex in Molech worship = thus idolatry

Leviticus 20 lets us know right off the bat that it is discussing Molech worship, - which is Sacred Sex.

Lev 20:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

Lev 20:3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.

Lev 20:4 And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not:

Lev 20:5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.

Lev 20:6 And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.

There is no - as one lies with a - before woman, and zakar can be commemorative, SO ...

Lev 20:13 And if a Man also lies down for commemorative sex (Sacred Sex) women, both have committed IDOLATRY, they shall die; their blood shall be upon them.

They had sex with Sacred Prostitutes, mothers, daughters, animals, etc.

Also, as I've noted before - even if you kept the erroneous male-male -it would still be about Molech worship and Sacred Prostitutes, not homosexuals.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

1 Corinthians 6:9-10New International Version (NIV)
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.

This one ^^^^^ seems to make a clear statement that homosexuality is "wrong doing".
I'd suggest "wrong doing" is a sin.
Thoughts?????????

Totally wrong! And again you seem to have skipped over the rebuttal.

There is NO use of arsenokoites in ancient Greek as meaning homosexual, or "men whom have sex with men." It is however found to have a meaning of rape of males and females.

Another MIS-translation that does NOT say anything against homosexuals.

1534 Tyndale -1Co 6:8 Do ye not remember how that the vnrighteous shall not inheret the kyngdome of God? Be not deceaved. For nether fornicators nether worshyppers of ymages nether whormongers nether weaklinges nether abusars of them selves with the mankynde

The verse actually says -

1 CO 6:9 Know you not that the “heathen” shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither prostitutes (pornos,) nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the morally weak, nor arsenokoites (rapists,)

There are no ancient Greek texts using arsenokoites or its stem as homosexuality. There are uses for both male and female as RAPE.

The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. TLG has collected and digitized most literary texts written in Greek, from the 8th century BC to the fall of Byzantium in AD 1453. They have 73 references to the arsenokoit stem. There are NO early Greek uses of the word
as “homosexual.” LATER - the church decides to translate it as such – then these later texts copy the church original.

*

 

[jeager106]

Totally wrong! And again you seem to have skipped over the rebuttal.

There is NO use of arsenokoites in ancient Greek as meaning homosexual, or "men whom have sex with men." It is however found to have a meaning of rape of males and females.

Another MIS-translation that does NOT say anything against homosexuals.

1534 Tyndale -1Co 6:8 Do ye not remember how that the vnrighteous shall not inheret the kyngdome of God? Be not deceaved. For nether fornicators nether worshyppers of ymages nether whormongers nether weaklinges nether abusars of them selves with the mankynde

The verse actually says -

1 CO 6:9 Know you not that the “heathen” shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither prostitutes (pornos,) nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the morally weak, nor arsenokoites (rapists,)

There are no ancient Greek texts using arsenokoites or its stem as homosexuality. There are uses for both male and female as RAPE.

The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. TLG has collected and digitized most literary texts written in Greek, from the 8th century BC to the fall of Byzantium in AD 1453. They have 73 references to the arsenokoit stem. There are NO early Greek uses of the word
as “homosexual.” LATER - the church decides to translate it as such – then these later texts copy the church original.

*

Thanks for the enlightenment.
That's why I come here. To learn.

 

[jeager106]

Totally wrong! And again you seem to have skipped over the rebuttal.

There is NO use of arsenokoites in ancient Greek as meaning homosexual, or "men whom have sex with men." It is however found to have a meaning of rape of males and females.

Another MIS-translation that does NOT say anything against homosexuals.

1534 Tyndale -1Co 6:8 Do ye not remember how that the vnrighteous shall not inheret the kyngdome of God? Be not deceaved. For nether fornicators nether worshyppers of ymages nether whormongers nether weaklinges nether abusars of them selves with the mankynde

The verse actually says -

1 CO 6:9 Know you not that the “heathen” shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither prostitutes (pornos,) nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the morally weak, nor arsenokoites (rapists,)

There are no ancient Greek texts using arsenokoites or its stem as homosexuality. There are uses for both male and female as RAPE.

The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. TLG has collected and digitized most literary texts written in Greek, from the 8th century BC to the fall of Byzantium in AD 1453. They have 73 references to the arsenokoit stem. There are NO early Greek uses of the word
as “homosexual.” LATER - the church decides to translate it as such – then these later texts copy the church original.

*

Again thanks for the enlightenment.
There are literally TONS (metaphorically speaking) of MIS-information and MIS-translations
in the "Holy Scriptures".
It's important for those seeking truth to understand that the "Holy Bible" was translated
BY MEN with an AGENDA of those times of Biblical Translations.
Ergo just one reason the K.J.V. has been declared a poor at best translation.
Why?????????????????????????
I've read that in the era of King James it was "imprudent" to say the least to disagree
with KING James of England.
One thinks of "off with his head". A popular way of disposing of those that don't agree
with the King of that era.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

None -- repeat -- NONE of these passages refers to homosexuality. None.

Genesis refers to the sin of Sodom, which isn't homosexuality. It's lack of hospitality.
Leviticus is a cultural reference. In that culture, shame and honor were embedded in sexual identity: Men embodied honor; women embodied shame. It may refer to the practice of battlefield rape just as easily as it does lustful sexual encounters.
Romans refers to a sex act -- but not to homosexuality as an orientation or a sexual preference. Such was unknown at that time.
The Greek word translated as "effeminate" is unclear. But it, likewise, does not mention homosexuality.
Timothy, same as Romans.

Conclusion: You're engaging in rampant eisegesis here -- that is, you're reading into the texts what is not explicitly there. That's a really bad way to engage in interpretation, especially when your "interpretation" condemns a whole population of men and women.

Remember that there was no word for homosexuality in either ancient Hebrew of Greek.....and this you say is not referring homosexuality...haha... 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. .....

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Well, how do we get around Leviticus 20:23.............
Leviticus 20:13 (ASV) And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

You get around it by noting it's anatomically impossible.
Plus, you know, David didn't get killed for this little scene:

Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself. Saul took him that day and did not let him return to his father's house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor, including his sword and his bow and his belt. So David went out wherever Saul sent him, and prospered; and Saul set him over the men of war. (NASB)[6]

Ah, two naked dudes in a field ... even Saul thought they had something going on ... and while David never mourned or seemed to care anything about his wives, his "soul was knit to Jonathan" and he was a complete drama queen when Jonny croaked...

You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful Than the love of women.

 

[sojourner]

Remember that there was no word for homosexuality in either ancient Hebrew of Greek.....and this you say is not referring homosexuality...haha... 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. .....

That there was no word for homosexuality should be a huge red flag that homosexuality was not on their radar.

 

[jeager106]

You get around it by noting it's anatomically impossible.
Plus, you know, David didn't get killed for this little scene:

It's NOT anatomically impossible if a guy puts his "member" inside another mans
behind.
Sickening though it must be.
Such "activities" are sickening to me.
I like females don'cha'know?


Ah, two naked dudes in a field ... even Saul thought they had something going on ... and while David never mourned or seemed to care anything about his wives, his "soul was knit to Jonathan" and he was a complete drama queen when Jonny croaked...

 

[jeager106]

You get around it by noting it's anatomically impossible.
Plus, you know, David didn't get killed for this little scene:


Ah, two naked dudes in a field ... even Saul thought they had something going on ... and while David never mourned or seemed to care anything about his wives, his "soul was knit to Jonathan" and he was a complete drama queen when Jonny croaked...

Are you a female that "prefers" men who lay with men"????
I have met such in my life span and I still think they are as messed up as "men who lay with men".

 

[jeager106]

.......again I must say that I "have loved men more than men love women" and
that has NOTHING TO DO WITH SEXUAL ACTS.
Dumb shi#t!
When men fight wars and save other men's lives this is an act greater than love for women.
"Oh, haven't done that, or been there"?
Then you can't possibly understand.
This "love" has NOTHING to do with sex.
Get it???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[shmogie]

No matter what you may think, the ancients didn't have any concept of homosexuality as a sexual orientation. Heck -- there was no definitive concept of sexual orientation until the 20th century. The DSM IV removed homosexuality as deviant behavior when it was published in the 1990s.

It doesn't have anything to do with "revisionist theology." It has everything to do with a critical reading of the texts. There's a HUGE difference between theology and exegesis. In fact, any act of love is sinless, for love is not sin. Your redefinition of an act of love as sin is what constitutes "revisionist theology."

Y
What utter pap. I suggest your exegesis is rubbish. " any act of love is sinless, for love is not sin " Please give me the exact verses from the NT where this is said. A necrophiliac may love his dead wife, so having sex with her cannot be sin. I just read of a muslim male who married an eight year old girl, she died from injuries on her "wedding night", no doubt he loved her, so he committed no sin. What kind of "love" are you talking about ? in the ancient Greek used to write the NT there are at least four kinds of love. I suggest you look at the Torah, homosexuality was punishable by death. That certainly was written by the ancients. You are right in one thing, the Greek then Roman culture didn't much care about homosexuality, but they leave much to be desired when looking at morality from a Christian perspective, and that is one reason why the Church from the very beginning made clear this was aberrant, sinful behavior. The principle was based upon very sound exegesis of the texts, and by those who knew Christ. This is a blatant attempt to corrupt Christianity to fit a corrupt moral narrative............................. Most Christians aren't buying it, because they know that this attempt was predicted, and is unfolding precisely as predicted. Live as you choose, have sex with your Doberman if you love him ( in your own home as unenlightened society still finds this repugnant ), I personally couldnt care less

The point being made here - is that you folks can't prove from your Bible - that homosexuality is sin!

If we wish to go farther - you can't even prove your Bible is from a God.

Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.

*

 

[shmogie]

Y
What utter pap. I suggest your exegesis is rubbish. " any act of love is sinless, for love is not sin " Please give me the exact verses from the NT where this is said. A necrophiliac may love his dead wife, so having sex with her cannot be sin. I just read of a muslim male who married an eight year old girl, she died from injuries on her "wedding night", no doubt he loved her, so he committed no sin. What kind of "love" are you talking about ? in the ancient Greek used to write the NT there are at least four kinds of love. I suggest you look at the Torah, homosexuality was punishable by death. That certainly was written by the ancients. You are right in one thing, the Greek then Roman culture didn't much care about homosexuality, but they leave much to be desired when looking at morality from a Christian perspective, and that is one reason why the Church from the very beginning made clear this was aberrant, sinful behavior. The principle was based upon very sound exegesis of the texts, and by those who knew Christ. This is a blatant attempt to corrupt Christianity to fit a corrupt moral narrative............................. Most Christians aren't buying it, because they know that this attempt was predicted, and is unfolding precisely as predicted. Live as you choose, have sex with your Doberman if you love him ( in your own home as unenlightened society still finds this repugnant ), I personally couldnt care less

Y
What utter pap. I suggest your exegesis is rubbish. " any act of love is sinless, for love is not sin " Please give me the exact verses from the NT where this is said. A necrophiliac may love his dead wife, so having sex with her cannot be sin. I just read of a muslim male who married an eight year old girl, she died from injuries on her "wedding night", no doubt he loved her, so he committed no sin. What kind of "love" are you talking about ? in the ancient Greek used to write the NT there are at least four kinds of love. I suggest you look at the Torah, homosexuality was punishable by death. That certainly was written by the ancients. You are right in one thing, the Greek then Roman culture didn't much care about homosexuality, but they leave much to be desired when looking at morality from a Christian perspective, and that is one reason why the Church from the very beginning made clear this was aberrant, sinful behavior. The principle was based upon very sound exegesis of the texts, and by those who knew Christ. This is a blatant attempt to corrupt Christianity to fit a corrupt moral narrative............................. Most Christians aren't buying it, because they know that this attempt was predicted, and is unfolding precisely as predicted. Live as you choose, have sex with your Doberman if you love him ( in your own home as unenlightened society still finds this repugnant ), I personally couldnt care less

Totally wrong! And again you seem to have skipped over the rebuttal.

There is NO use of arsenokoites in ancient Greek as meaning homosexual, or "men whom have sex with men." It is however found to have a meaning of rape of males and females.

Another MIS-translation that does NOT say anything against homosexuals.

1534 Tyndale -1Co 6:8 Do ye not remember how that the vnrighteous shall not inheret the kyngdome of God? Be not deceaved. For nether fornicators nether worshyppers of ymages nether whormongers nether weaklinges nether abusars of them selves with the mankynde

The verse actually says -

1 CO 6:9 Know you not that the “heathen” shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither prostitutes (pornos,) nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the morally weak, nor arsenokoites (rapists,)

There are no ancient Greek texts using arsenokoites or its stem as homosexuality. There are uses for both male and female as RAPE.

The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. TLG has collected and digitized most literary texts written in Greek, from the 8th century BC to the fall of Byzantium in AD 1453. They have 73 references to the arsenokoit stem. There are NO early Greek uses of the word
as “homosexual.” LATER - the church decides to translate it as such – then these later texts copy the church original.

*

Y
What utter pap. I suggest your exegesis is rubbish. " any act of love is sinless, for love is not sin " Please give me the exact verses from the NT where this is said. A necrophiliac may love his dead wife, so having sex with her cannot be sin. I just read of a muslim male who married an eight year old girl, she died from injuries on her "wedding night", no doubt he loved her, so he committed no sin. What kind of "love" are you talking about ? in the ancient Greek used to write the NT there are at least four kinds of love. I suggest you look at the Torah, homosexuality was punishable by death. That certainly was written by the ancients. You are right in one thing, the Greek then Roman culture didn't much care about homosexuality, but they leave much to be desired when looking at morality from a Christian perspective, and that is one reason why the Church from the very beginning made clear this was aberrant, sinful behavior. The principle was based upon very sound exegesis of the texts, and by those who knew Christ. This is a blatant attempt to corrupt Christianity to fit a corrupt moral narrative............................. Most Christians aren't buying it, because they know that this attempt was predicted, and is unfolding precisely as predicted. Live as you choose, have sex with your Doberman if you love him ( in your own home as unenlightened society still finds this repugnant ), I personally couldnt care less

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That there was no word for homosexuality should be a huge red flag that homosexuality was not on their radar.

So what does sojourner say about Romans 1:27.....is this the sort of behavior of we expect of heterosexual men....or of homosexual men.....spell it out?

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. ....

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You get around it by noting it's anatomically impossible.

If they're a female to male transsexual, it's possible.

 

[Sundance]

I'm getting tired of you implying that I said, or implied, things which I did not!

Did you miss # 850?



1. Obviously this proves that I discussed both Christians for, and against, slavery! (PS. When you go so far back in a several hundred page thread, - use the NUMBER of the post, - so we can go back and see what was actually said, - and WHY it was said. What it was a reply to.)

First objection:
2. That is hilarious as those Christians used the Hebrew text as proof from God that they could hold slaves. THAT makes them pertinent to the conversation concerning slavery.

3. Bull! These were Christians - a religion descended from the Hebrew Tanakh, - utilizing their text and laws, - and specifically in this case using Leviticus Law as proof THEY could hold slaves.

Second objection:
4. Would you care to explain how my pointing out that a word which does not mean homosexuality - is being translated as homosexuality, - is decontextualizing a verse?

Qadesh - the actual word used in Deu 23:17, - means a Sacred Prostitute, - not a homosexual.

Romans 1 tells us this is a RITE in which the people having sex are doing so in worship of God turned into animals, - again - OBVIOUSLY Sacred Sex, - not about homosexuals!

You folks can continue the CRAP that I am altering the texts, - but the actual words used in the original languages in these texts, - prove I am correct, - and you folks are wrong.

*

Since reading your post (#850), I see somewhat what you're talking about. Although, I have two issues:

#1) Were the verses used by some Christians in justifying my ancestors' enslavement decontextualized or not? Are they talking about Black people and White people? What relevance do the ACTUAL VERSES THEMSELVES, what they ACTUALLY SAY, not what they were misinterpreted to say, have to the actual happenings of Slave Trade? You still have not answered this question, instead you've very much danced around it.

#2) When did I discuss ANY of the issues relating to homosexuality? That comment, to which you have made reference, is not referring to you at all.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That there was no word for homosexuality should be a huge red flag that homosexuality was not on their radar.

Interesting point.

 

[JoStories]

Yes, I think you're right. These judgemental attitudes sicken me, it's the kind of unthinking spitefulness you might expect from children on a playground....but it seems some people never grow up.

It doesn't sicken me as much as it just makes me sad. That some people would rather hold a Bible to their chest like a lifebuoy thinking that that will protect them from all things, and when one asks them why, they just point to the book as if that is an answer. I don't understand it and it simply makes me sad that someone can be that naïve.