Leviticus and Homosexuality

[columbus]

Of course he would. Pelagius said that evil is when you hurt the neighbor, in his letter to Denetrias
Homosexuality doesn't hurt anybody

You really think a fourth century Christian ascetic would endorse homosexuality?

I don't. I think he would have agreed with Leviticus.

Tom

 

[McBell]

1 Samuel 19:1, And Saul spoke to Jonathan his son and to all his servants, that they should kill David. But Jonathan, Saul’s son, delighted much in David. (RSV)

1 Samuel 20:30, Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman, do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? (RSV)

1 Kings 14:24: There were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to ll the abominations...."

1 Kings 15:12 Asa "did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD" by expelling homosexuals (or "sodomites", as the good book calls them).

1 Kings 22:43, 46 Jehoshaphat "did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord" and "took" the homosexuals (sodomites) "out of the land," or as the RSV says, "he exterminated" them.

Revelation 22:15 Outside are the homosexuals, those involved with the occult and with drugs, the sexually immoral, murderers, idol-worshippers, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

1 Timothy 1:10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine​

So you pick and choose Bible versions that use the words you want to see?

Interesting that sodomy also includes oral sex and sex with animals...

Is this the best you got?

 

[ScuzManiac]

Oh, I love it when non-believers want to tell us what our books actually say and want to argue with us when we bring up a more rational interpretation for them based on study of the language and cultures at hand. You people are a trip. If you don't believe and these books don't mean anything to you, then don't try to tell us how we should interpret our sacred scriptures. "But it's not really talking about homosexuality as we understand it today..." "Yes, it is!" *spams with a bunch of verses while providing no context*

I'm sick of repeating myself as this has been gone over and gone over again in multiple threads the past few days.

Who is we? Who has made these rational interpretations?

I'd love to see anyone reputable or credible tell me that what I have provided you means something other than what it says.....

Just because I'm not a believer and you are, doesn't make you any more qualified to make these assumptions than me. I've read The Bible in its entirety numerous times (and numerous versions).

I've also spent years studying it, the text within, etc. How many times have you read it?

The only people I've ever heard argue that homosexuality is not a sin (that ARE believers) are those that view it as a sickness....

Maybe you could enlighten me as to what the verses I've referenced (as well as others) actually mean? Why has it changed all of a sudden?

And what other evidence should I provide? It's YOUR book...

But anyways, educate me. What does it all mean?

I don't want to look like a fool or anything. Teach me

 

[ScuzManiac]

So you pick and choose Bible versions that use the words you want to see?

Interesting that sodomy also includes oral sex and sex with animals...

Is this the best you got?

And of course he would hunt down verses that use the words he wants to see.

Someone argued that homosexuality isn't mentioned in The Bible...at all.

And he proved them wrong because it is.

If a "man lies with another man" isn't homosexuality, I don't know what is.

Because 99% of people will translate that to sexual intercourse.

Ya know, people that are Biblical scholars and make their living doing these kinds of things.

 

[McBell]

Who is we? Who has made these rational interpretations?

I'd love to see anyone reputable or credible tell me that what I have provided you means something other than what it says.....

Just because I'm not a believer and you are, doesn't make you any more qualified to make these assumptions than me. I've read The Bible in its entirety numerous times (and numerous versions).

I've also spent years studying it, the text within, etc. How many times have you read it?

The only people I've ever heard argue that homosexuality is not a sin (that ARE believers) are those that view it as a sickness....

Maybe you could enlighten me as to what the verses I've referenced (as well as others) actually mean? Why has it changed all of a sudden?

And what other evidence should I provide? It's YOUR book...

But anyways, educate me. What does it all mean?

I don't want to look like a fool or anything. Teach me

Please see post #64 as it looks as though it applies here as well.

 

[ScuzManiac]

Please see post #64 as it looks as though it applies here as well.

How does it apply here?

No one is "picking and choosing" as you like to put it.

But a lot of people ARE cherry picking at what is right in front of them.

"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

What are we picking at there? Nothing. It says what it says.

 

[McBell]

And of course he would hunt down verses that use the words he wants to see.

yes, even if the words you wants to see did not exist when the bible was written...

It is easy to make the bible say whatever you want it to say, just present verses from multiple versions to support your agenda...

Someone argued that homosexuality isn't mentioned in The Bible...at all.

I must have missed that post.
Pray tell, what number is it in?

If a "man lies with another man" isn't homosexuality, I don't know what is.

Wow.
You ignored your own chosen verse?
Why is that?

Because 99% of people will translate that to sexual intercourse.

Bold empty claim.

Ya know, people that are Biblical scholars and make their living doing these kinds of things.

are you claiming that 99% of people are Biblical scholars who make a living doing these kinds of things?

 

[ScuzManiac]

Get off my ***. I told you to put me on ignore before. I'm sick of you following me around with your insults and rudeness.

Actually, I'll put you on ignore. Life's too short to subject yourself to other people's vile behavior.

You also said THIS in your very first post on the board.

"God is perfect and holy and His nature never changes."

If God's nature never changes, why does the text which he provided inspiration for change?

 

[McBell]

How does it apply here?

No one is "picking and choosing" as you like to put it.

Because you are in fact picking and choosing which bible version to present each verse from.

But a lot of people ARE cherry picking at what is right in front of them.

"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

What are we picking at there? Nothing. It says what it says.

Counting the hits and ignoring the misses is not the least bit impressive.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You also said THIS in your very first post on the board.

"God is perfect and holy and His nature never changes."

If God's nature never changes, why does the text which he provided inspiration for change?

Why do cultures change and our understanding of things change? The Bible is a product of the cultures it was written in. To understand it, you have to have an understanding of those cultures. You need context, and that's what you're missing.

But go on and act like you know everything.

 

[ScuzManiac]

yes, even if the words you wants to see did not exist when the bible was written...

It is easy to make the bible say whatever you want it to say, just present verses from multiple versions to support your agenda...


I must have missed that post.
Pray tell, what number is it in?


Wow.
You ignored your own chosen verse?
Why is that?


Bold empty claim.


are you claiming that 99% of people are Biblical scholars who make a living doing these kinds of things?

1. Post #50 :yes:

2. What am I ignoring?

3. Bold empty claim? Do some research and then come back.

4. No and there's no reason to be a ******** to me for making an error. If you want to be a ******** to someone for making errors, go cycle through The Bible.

 

[ScuzManiac]

Because you are in fact picking and choosing which bible version to present each verse from.




Counting the hits and ignoring the misses is not the least bit impressive.

And which version do you recommend I use?

Why do cultures change and our understanding of things change? The Bible is a product of the cultures it was written in. To understand it, you have to have an understanding of those cultures. You need context, and that's what you're missing.

But go on and act like you know everything.

So, God's word changes depending on the day and age you are living in?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So, God's word changes depending on the day and age you are living in?

There's a difference between social teachings and daily morality, and theological dogma. Dogma is the foundation. It's what we believe about God, the afterlife, God's actions in human history, etc. Social teachings and morality is how we live out our faith and have to be examined in the context of the culture around us. Dogma doesn't change but how we live in the world changes. We do not live in the same world that existed thousands of years ago. Our knowledge and lifestyles are radically different.

Get it?

 

[ScuzManiac]

There's a difference between social teachings and daily morality, and theological dogma. Dogma is the foundation. It's what we believe about God, the afterlife, God's actions in human history, etc. Social teachings and morality is how we live out our faith and have to be examined in the context of the culture around us. Dogma doesn't change because how we live in the world changes. We do not live in the same world that existed thousands of years ago. Our knowledge and lifestyles are radically different.

Get it?

So, if that IS the case, then believers ignore Romans much like Paul did?

Just curious.

 

[McBell]

1. Post #50 :yes:

You will need do better than that...

2. But The Bible does say a lot about homosexuality?

It doesn't.

You must have gotten the post number wrong for I do not see in post 50 anything about "homosexuality isn't mentioned in the Bible... at all"

2. What am I ignoring?

Let us begin with context...
Then we can move to definitions of the actual words used...
You up for it?

3. Bold empty claim? Do some research and then come back.

You made the claim.
It is on you to support the claim.

I am not going to do your homework for you.

4. No and there's no reason to be a ******** to me for making an error. If you want to be a ******** to someone for making errors, go cycle through The Bible.

so merely asking you a question is being an *** hole?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So, if that IS the case, then believers ignore Romans much like Paul did?

Just curious.

Romans was most likely talking about some pagan sex ritual being performed by Christian backsliders: Romans 1 describes ancient shrine prostitution, not modern homosexuals.

You have to keep in mind that Paul was writing letters to specific churches to address concerns in their area.

I have no idea what you mean by "then believers ignore Romans much like Paul did". What did Paul ignore?

 

[ScuzManiac]

You will need do better than that...

​

You must have gotten the post number wrong for I do not see in post 50 anything about "homosexuality isn't mentioned in the Bible... at all"


Let us begin with context...
Then we can move to definitions of the actual words used...
You up for it?


You made the claim.
It is on you to support the claim.

I am not going to do your homework for you.


so merely asking you a question is being an *** hole?

1. Then go back a little further for that exact wording then. #43

2. Nope. I don't have the time to argue about something I already know. After this post, I'm done in this thread (at least for a while). It's 2:20AM here.

3. I can't post links yet on my account and unless you're going to go buy the books I recommend, you're going to have to do it on your own bud.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

For an academic paper for what Paul was talking about in Romans, here: http://www.jeramyt.org/papers/paulcybl.html

 

[ScuzManiac]

Romans was most likely talking about some pagan sex ritual being performed by Christian backsliders: Romans 1 describes ancient shrine prostitution, not modern homosexuals.

You have to keep in mind that Paul was writing letters to specific churches to address concerns in their area.

I have no idea what you mean by "then believers ignore Romans much like Paul did". What did Paul ignore?

Did you really just post a link from a site called "Gay Christian 101" for support?



Anyways, I don't think you've read Romans all the way through.

I suggest doing so and then we can discuss our views on it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Did you really just post a link from a site called "Gay Christian 101" for support?

Yeah, because you seem to be ignorant of what it is talking about. You haven't provided one bit of evidence to back up your argument. You haven't even provided an argument for why those verses must necessarily be referring to homosexuality as we know it (i.e. two men or two women having a committed, consensual relationship with each other like heterosexuals do). I know you can't post links, but you can make an argument and cite a source. You could just use logic, too. I often just argue from logic, myself.

Anyways, I don't think you've read Romans all the way through.

So all of Romans talks about homosexuality or it's mentioned elsewhere in Romans?

I suggest doing so and then we can discuss our views on it.

I suggest you make an actual argument instead of posting individual verses and not providing any context or discussion over what the words mean, as if we're all supposed to be wowed by that.