Leviticus and Homosexuality

[Skwim]

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.

As one who regards contemporary Biblical scripture as meaning what it says, I believe that if one is going to accept certain parts of the Bible as expressing a truth then one is obliged to accept it all as a true---cherry picking is not allowed. That one supposes that a certain scripture dictate is no longer relevant because of what-ever-reason, then one can equally disregard any other piece of scripture as irrelevant for whatever reason they can concoct. If one dismisses Levitical laws as irrelevant then the question becomes one of why they were even included in the Bible. Historical, outdated laws have little or no relevance to contemporary faith. Why would god have the composers of his word bother with cluttering the assemblage with such irrelevancies? It's akin to writing an instruction manual for Windows 8 and including warnings about issues particular to Windows 95. Of course, if the former is the reason then one has to questions the validity of everything in the Bible.

Either god was asleep at the wheel when he was guiding those who translated and assembled the books of the Bible, or they are exactly what he intends all his followers to pay attention to. Take your pick, but in MO neither case speaks well of the Bible and its dictates. However, it does have the advantage of allowing one to assemble whatever Biblical particularities one requires to fit their belief structure: Christianity is a very malleable religion, which has allowed it to meet many diverse religious needs. Pick what you need and run with it. Simply consider what various interpretations of god's word has wrought:

1 Branches of first-century Christianity
2 Catholicism

2.1 Catholic Church
2.1.1 The Latin Church
2.1.2 Eastern Catholic Churches
2.2 Other churches and movements
2.2.1 Independent (self-identified as Catholic)
​

3 Eastern Orthodoxy

3.1 Eastern Orthodox Church
3.2 Other churches
​

4 Oriental Orthodoxy

4.1 Other Churches
​

5 Church of the East
6 Other early Christians
7 Medieval sects
8 Protestantism

8.1 Lutheranism
8.2 Anglicanism
8.2.1 Anglican Communion
8.2.2 Other Anglican Churches
8.3 Calvinism
8.3.1 Continental Reformed churches
8.3.2 Presbyterianism
8.3.3 Congregationalist Churches
8.4 Anabaptists and Schwarzenau Brethren
8.5 Plymouth Brethren and Free Evangelical Churches
8.6 Methodists
8.7 Pietists and Holiness Churches
8.8 Baptists
8.8.1 Spiritual Baptists
8.9 Apostolic Churches – Irvingites
8.10 Pentecostalism
8.11 Charismatics
8.11.1 Neo-Charismatic Churches
8.12 African Initiated Churches
8.13 Messianic Judaism / Jewish Christians
8.14 United and uniting churches
8.15 Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
8.16 Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement
8.17 Southcottites
8.18 Millerites and comparable groups
8.18.1 Adventist (Sunday observing)
8.18.2 Adventist (Seventh Day Sabbath/Saturday observing)
8.18.3 Church of God movements (Sunday observing)
8.18.4 Church of God movements (Seventh Day Sabbath/Saturday observing)
8.18.5 Sabbath-Keeping Movements, Separated from Adventists
8.18.6 Sacred Name groups
8.18.7 Movements not related to the Millerites but comparable to them
8.18.7.1 Sabbath-Keeping movements, predating the Millerites
8.19 Other
​

9 Nontrinitarian groups

9.1 Latter Day Saints
9.2 Oneness Pentecostalism
9.3 Unitarianism and Universalism
9.4 Bible Student groups
9.5 Swedenborgianism
9.6 Christian Science
9.7 Other non-Trinitarians
​

10 New Thought
11 Esoteric Christianity
12 Racialist groups
13 Syncretistic religions incorporating elements of Christianity
14 Other

14.1 Christian Movements
14.2 Internet Churches
14.3 LGBT-affirming Christian denominations
14.4 Interdenominational (ecumenical) churches and organizations
14.5 Non-denominational churches and organizations
14.6 Revivals
​

source


​

That's a whole lot of "I read the Bible correctly and you don't"s.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

As one who regards contemporary Biblical scripture as meaning what it says, I believe that if one is going to accept certain parts of the Bible as expressing a truth then one is obliged to accept it all as a true---cherry picking is not allowed. That one supposes that a certain scripture dictate is no longer relevant because of what-ever-reason, then one can equally disregard any other piece of scripture as irrelevant for whatever reason they can concoct. If one dismisses Levitical laws as irrelevant then the question becomes one of why they were even included in the Bible. Historical, outdated laws have little or no relevance to contemporary faith. Why would god have the composers of his word bother with such irrelevancies? It's akin to writing an instruction manual for windows 8 and including warnings about issues particular to Windows 95. Of course, if the former is the reason then one has to questions the validity of everything in the Bible.

Either god was asleep at he wheel when he was guiding those who translated and assembled the books of the Bible, or they are exactly what he intends all his followers to pay attention to. Take your pick, but in MO neither case speaks well of the Bible and its dictates. However, it does have the advantage of allowing one to assemble whatever Biblical particularities one requires to fit their belief structure: Christianity is a very malleable religion, which has allowed it to meet many diverse religious needs. Pick what you need and run with it. Simply consider what the following interpretations of god's word has wrought:

You obviously don't understand Christian theology. We do not follow the Mosaic Laws because we are under a New Covenant. That's why in Christian Bibles, there's the Old Testament and the New Testament.

tes·ta·ment

[tes-tuh-muh

nt] Show IPA
noun 1. Law. a. a will, especially one that relates to the disposition of one's personal property.

b. will2 ( def 8 ) .



2. either of the two major portions of the Bible: the Mosaic or old covenant or dispensation, or the Christian or new covenant or dispensation.

3. ( initial capital letter ) the new testament, as distinct from the Old Testament.

4. ( initial capital letter ) a copy of the New Testament.

5. a covenant, especially between God and humans.


The OT exists in Christians Bibles as background and foundation, as well as inspiration (particularly the Psalms). We believe that Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law and instituted the New Covenant with all of humanity. Read Galatians 3. The Church views itself as the fulfillment of the ancient Israelite religion, the function of which was to prepare the world for the coming of the Messiah. Now that the Messiah has come, we're onto a new stage of salvation history.

So before you accuse people of "cherry picking", you should educate yourself on the matter at hand, lest you show your ignorance.

 

[Robert.Evans]

As one who regards contemporary Biblical scripture as meaning what it says, I believe that if one is going to accept certain parts of the Bible as expressing a truth then one is obliged to accept it all as a true---cherry picking is not allowed. That one supposes that a certain scripture dictate is no longer relevant because of what-ever-reason, then one can equally disregard any other piece of scripture as irrelevant for whatever reason they can concoct. If one dismisses Levitical laws as irrelevant then the question becomes one of why they were even included in the Bible. Historical, outdated laws have little or no relevance to contemporary faith. Why would god have the composers of his word bother with cluttering the assemblage with such irrelevancies? It's akin to writing an instruction manual for Windows 8 and including warnings about issues particular to Windows 95. Of course, if the former is the reason then one has to questions the validity of everything in the Bible.

Either god was asleep at he wheel when he was guiding those who translated and assembled the books of the Bible, or they are exactly what he intends all his followers to pay attention to. Take your pick, but in MO neither case speaks well of the Bible and its dictates. However, it does have the advantage of allowing one to assemble whatever Biblical particularities one requires to fit their belief structure: Christianity is a very malleable religion, which has allowed it to meet many diverse religious needs. Pick what you need and run with it. Simply consider what various interpretations of god's word has wrought:

1 Branches of first-century Christianity
2 Catholicism

2.1 Catholic Church
2.1.1 The Latin Church
2.1.2 Eastern Catholic Churches
2.2 Other churches and movements
2.2.1 Independent (self-identified as Catholic)
​

3 Eastern Orthodoxy

3.1 Eastern Orthodox Church
3.2 Other churches
​

4 Oriental Orthodoxy

4.1 Other Churches
​

5 Church of the East
6 Other early Christians
7 Medieval sects
8 Protestantism

8.1 Lutheranism
8.2 Anglicanism
8.2.1 Anglican Communion
8.2.2 Other Anglican Churches
8.3 Calvinism
8.3.1 Continental Reformed churches
8.3.2 Presbyterianism
8.3.3 Congregationalist Churches
8.4 Anabaptists and Schwarzenau Brethren
8.5 Plymouth Brethren and Free Evangelical Churches
8.6 Methodists
8.7 Pietists and Holiness Churches
8.8 Baptists
8.8.1 Spiritual Baptists
8.9 Apostolic Churches – Irvingites
8.10 Pentecostalism
8.11 Charismatics
8.11.1 Neo-Charismatic Churches
8.12 African Initiated Churches
8.13 Messianic Judaism / Jewish Christians
8.14 United and uniting churches
8.15 Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
8.16 Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement
8.17 Southcottites
8.18 Millerites and comparable groups
8.18.1 Adventist (Sunday observing)
8.18.2 Adventist (Seventh Day Sabbath/Saturday observing)
8.18.3 Church of God movements (Sunday observing)
8.18.4 Church of God movements (Seventh Day Sabbath/Saturday observing)
8.18.5 Sabbath-Keeping Movements, Separated from Adventists
8.18.6 Sacred Name groups
8.18.7 Movements not related to the Millerites but comparable to them
8.18.7.1 Sabbath-Keeping movements, predating the Millerites
8.19 Other
​

9 Nontrinitarian groups

9.1 Latter Day Saints
9.2 Oneness Pentecostalism
9.3 Unitarianism and Universalism
9.4 Bible Student groups
9.5 Swedenborgianism
9.6 Christian Science
9.7 Other non-Trinitarians
​

10 New Thought
11 Esoteric Christianity
12 Racialist groups
13 Syncretistic religions incorporating elements of Christianity
14 Other

14.1 Christian Movements
14.2 Internet Churches
14.3 LGBT-affirming Christian denominations
14.4 Interdenominational (ecumenical) churches and organizations
14.5 Non-denominational churches and organizations
14.6 Revivals
​

source


​

That's a whole lot of "I read the Bible correctly and you don't"s.

Interesting.... but in their own reality, they are right, as equally they will be wrong.

 

[Skwim]

You obviously don't understand Christian theology. We do not follow the Mosaic Laws because we are under a New Covenant. That's why in Christian Bibles, there's the Old Testament and the New Testament.

That's an awfully broad "we" you're using.

" . . . let's just get right to it. We're going to lay out a few possibilities for interpreting Leviticus when it comes to gay rights:

Many religious conservatives argue that Leviticus is proof that God hates same-sex sex. Making gay marriage legal would violate God's law and the law of nature. Translation? So much for America. Just like Israel in Leviticus 26, we're toast.
source

​

So it looks like your "we" has considerable exceptions.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That's an awfully broad "we" you're using.

" . . . let's just get right to it. We're going to lay out a few possibilities for interpreting Leviticus when it comes to gay rights:

Many religious conservatives argue that Leviticus is proof that God hates same-sex sex. Making gay marriage legal would violate God's law and the law of nature. Translation? So much for America. Just like Israel in Leviticus 26, we're toast.
source

​

So it looks like your "we" has considerable exceptions.

Yes, there's Christians who are ignorant of their own religion. What else is new?

 

[ScuzManiac]

You obviously don't understand Christian theology. We do not follow the Mosaic Laws because we are under a New Covenant. That's why in Christian Bibles, there's the Old Testament and the New Testament.

tes·ta·ment

[tes-tuh-muh

nt] Show IPA
noun 1. Law. a. a will, especially one that relates to the disposition of one's personal property.

b. will2 ( def 8 ) .



2. either of the two major portions of the Bible: the Mosaic or old covenant or dispensation, or the Christian or new covenant or dispensation.

3. ( initial capital letter ) the new testament, as distinct from the Old Testament.

4. ( initial capital letter ) a copy of the New Testament.

5. a covenant, especially between God and humans.


The OT exists in Christians Bibles as background and foundation, as well as inspiration (particularly the Psalms). We believe that Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law and instituted the New Covenant with all of humanity. Read Galatians 3. The Church views itself as the fulfillment of the ancient Israelite religion, the function of which was to prepare the world for the coming of the Messiah. Now that the Messiah has come, we're onto a new stage of salvation history.

So before you accuse people of "cherry picking", you should educate yourself on the matter at hand, lest you show your ignorance.

While that may be true...

It's kind of hard to get around this JUST because we live in a different day and age.

Leviticus 18:22

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

and

Leviticus 20:13

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

If this is supposed to change just because we live in a different time...

Then how do we know what else should or shouldn't change?

And if I remember correctly...

Didn't God kill everyone in Sodom because it was inhabited by homosexuals?

And I would think that just because the New Testament doesn't mention homosexuality...

It doesn't mean that it's okay all of a sudden. Just saying.

 

[Mycroft]

Too far-reaching.. There are obviously some truths in the Tanakh, and in the New Testament.

Well it seems to get a lot wrong, doesn't it? It got homosexuality wrong, it got the treatment of women wrong, the treatment of nonbelievers wrong, rainbows being sent by God wrong (they aren't), it got the Great Flood wrong and so on and so forth. Maybe it also got the existence of God wrong, too.

The Bible was written by people. Backward, primitive people in a male-dominated society (this is why it doesn't say 'nor shall a woman lie with a woman as with a man, women simply didn't enter into the equation). There was no God or Divinity involved.

 

[Sleeppy]

Well it seems to get a lot wrong, doesn't it? It got homosexuality wrong, it got the treatment of women wrong, the treatment of nonbelievers wrong, rainbows being sent by God wrong (they aren't), it got the Great Flood wrong and so on and so forth. Maybe it also got the existence of God wrong, too.

The Bible was written by people. Backward, primitive people in a male-dominated society (this is why it doesn't say 'nor shall a woman lie with a woman as with a man, women simply didn't enter into the equation). There was no God or Divinity involved.

You don't have to accept anything- whether it be from the Bible, or your friends, or your family, or anything/anyone else. Your genes will determine your reactions to the world. We aren't genetic clones living in the same spacetime, and so we will naturally have agreements and disagreements. Why waste your time with any of this?

 

[ScuzManiac]

You don't have to accept anything- whether it be from the Bible, or your friends, or your family, or anything/anyone else. Your genes will determine your reactions to the world. We aren't genetic clones living in the same spacetime, and so we will naturally have agreements and disagreements. Why waste your time with any of this?

Because we're in the debate section.

That's what we do here. We debate.

 

[Sleeppy]

Because we're in the debate section.

That's what we do here. We debate.

Good observation.

 

[ScuzManiac]

Good observation.

Well, you asked.

:sorry1:

 

[Sleeppy]

Well, you asked.

:sorry1:

I didn't ask you. And your answer had nothing to do with my question. Thanks anyway.

 

[Mycroft]

You don't have to accept anything- whether it be from the Bible, or your friends, or your family, or anything/anyone else. Your genes will determine your reactions to the world. We aren't genetic clones living in the same spacetime, and so we will naturally have agreements and disagreements. Why waste your time with any of this?

Let me ask you a question. I would ask that you simply please just answer the questions as I ask them: Why do you come to this forum?

 

[Sleeppy]

Let me ask you a question. I would ask that you simply please just answer the questions as I ask them: Why do you come to this forum?

What does this have to do with my question to you? If you don't have any use whatsoever for the Tanakh, or the New Testament- why devote so much time to it?

I come to this forum to discuss, and learn things available for my personal use. Do you have use with the Tanakh, or the New Testament? If so, what?

 

[Sand Dancer]

The Hebrews didn't know that some people were not hetero. They wrote Leviticus to differentiate between themselves and the pagan Babylonians, who engaged in homosexual rituals. They thought God would only bless them if they stayed separate from the other tribes they were near.

 

[Estro Felino]

The Hebrews didn't know that some people were not hetero. They wrote Leviticus to differentiate between themselves and the pagan Babylonians, who engaged in homosexual rituals. They thought God would only bless them if they stayed separate from the other tribes they were near.

I absolutely agree with you. That is a norm created for heterosexuals only. Only straight people have the duty to have sex with women. Gays don't have that duty, because they were born gay

 

[Skwim]

Yes, there's Christians who are ignorant of their own religion. What else is new?

Ah . . . .must be nice to get to decide what constituent characteristics of a religion are relevant or not. Because of the large number of Christian denominations and individual approaches to Christianity---many in direct opposition to one another---aside from the basic ground rules of Christianity, e.g. Jesus lived and died for our sins, it's obvious that just about any approach to Christianity is as valid as any other. Therefore, I let each person decided for them-self if they are an on-the-ball Christian or not. Once you start saying things like, "you must not, or you must, read the Bible like so," You're setting yourself up for others to lay the very same charge on yourself. Point being, although you may think a particular approach or belief is incorrect, this is no more persuasive than an approach that is just the opposite. So, your charge that there are "Christians who are ignorant of their own religion" may equally apply to yourself. It all depends on where one is coming from.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

While that may be true...

It's kind of hard to get around this JUST because we live in a different day and age.

Leviticus 18:22

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

and

Leviticus 20:13

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

If this is supposed to change just because we live in a different time...

Then how do we know what else should or shouldn't change?

And if I remember correctly...

Didn't God kill everyone in Sodom because it was inhabited by homosexuals?

And I would think that just because the New Testament doesn't mention homosexuality...

It doesn't mean that it's okay all of a sudden. Just saying.

You have to put things into context. As I said, we need someone who knows Biblical Hebrew and the cultural context to explain those verses. The meaning isn't as apparent as you think: Leviticus 18:22 and homosexuality; all views
Leviticus 20:13: Concerning homosexuality

The fact is that they simply had no concept of sexual orientation as we know now, so it's impossible that they were referring to consensual, adult and committed gay relationships as we know them now. I posted in another thread about how those views were tied up in with social mores and gender roles.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Ah . . . .must be nice to get to decide what constituent characteristics of a religion are relevant or not. Because of the large number of Christian denominations and individual approaches to Christianity---many in direct opposition to one another---aside from the basic ground rules of Christianity, e.g. Jesus lived and died for our sins, it's obvious that just about any approach to Christianity is as valid as any other. Therefore, I let each person decided for them-self if they are an on-the-ball Christian or not. Once you start saying things like, "you must not, or you must, read the Bible like so," You're setting yourself up for others to lay the very same charge on yourself. Point being, although you may think a particular approach or belief is incorrect, this is no more persuasive than an approach that is just the opposite. So, your charge that there are "Christians who are ignorant of their own religion" may equally apply to yourself. It all depends on where one is coming from.

As a Catholic, I don't believe any interpretation is as valid as another. We have a clear definition of what Christianity is and we don't accept every that calls themselves Christians as Christians. But they are free to call themselves that.

Anyway, the only group connected to Christianity that follows the Mosaic Law is Messianic Judaism, who are somewhere inbetween Judaism and Christianity and in their beliefs and practices. It is simply not a part of Christianity to follow the Mosaic Law. That debate was settled in the early centuries of Christianity.

 

[Mycroft]

I come to this forum to discuss, and learn things available for my personal use.

Do you enjoy learning and discussing?