Homosexuality and the Bible - Page 5

[MommyofHero]

Originally Posted by merpk

The "death sentence" in the pasuk (sentence) refers specifically to the one forbidden sexual act. Period.

Judaism teaches it just as it says it.



If the Christian Bible distorts that pasuk to say gay folks shall be killed, that's a Christian distortion. The original text does not say that. Period.

That "one forbidden sexual act" is homosexuality (i.e. man lying with man--- last I checked, that's known as a homosexual act, no?).
The Christian Bible says that the forbidden act is to be punishable by death.
Believe me, I'm not trying to defend the Bible or anything. I think it's rubbish, regardless of translation. I'm just pointing out why, perhaps, Christians tend to have such a huge hang-up with homosexual acts: In the Old Testament, it is forbidden and punishable by death. I'm sure certain Christians will twist and turn it around to defend their "loving" God, and claim that it was only meant for certain reasons and certain people under certain conditions, blah blah blah, but I'm just simply pointing out what the Bible says.

[BelovedBird]

Originally Posted by merpk

And I repeat, with emphasis, what I said: It says ZERO ZIP NADA about gay men or women being put to death. The "death sentence" in the pasuk (sentence) refers specifically to the one forbidden sexual act. Period.

When it is done in front of 2 witnesses who warn the participants that the act is punishable and they continue anyway in front of the 2 witnesses.

[BelovedBird]

Originally Posted by MommyofHero

That "one forbidden sexual act" is homosexuality (i.e. man lying with man--- last I checked, that's known as a homosexual act, no?).

No. You are using a word and a concept that is not part of the text. The text says nothing about "homosexuality". Therefore you cannot say that "homosexuality" is what anyone is ever supposed to be punished for. The torah uses precise wording. If Christianity mistranslates and misinterprets that then that has nothing to do with what was originally written.
If you want to talk about the Christian religion and the Christian belief, christian texts, please specify that. "The bible" in its original is the torah and noone gets to misinterpret what it says when learned Jews are around to correct them. The If you want to argue that please come up with the word in lashon hakodesh.

[MommyofHero]

Originally Posted by BelovedBird

No. You are using a word and a concept that is not part of the text. The text says nothing about "homosexuality". Therefore you cannot say that "homosexuality" is what anyone is ever supposed to be punished for. The torah uses precise wording. If Christianity mistranslates and misinterprets that then that has nothing to do with what was originally written.
If you want to talk about the Christian religion and the Christian belief, christian texts, please specify that. "The bible" in its original is the torah and noone gets to misinterpret what it says when learned Jews are around to correct them. The If you want to argue that please come up with the word in lashon hakodesh.

I DID specify that I was referring to the Christian translation and not the Judaic texts!!
Re-read my original comment:
I understand that the translations of the original Hebrew OT text that traditional Judaism teaches differs from the Protestant Christian versions and translations of the same text. I was raised Christian, and that's the Bible I used to (be forced to) read-- the King James version, and the verse goes like this:
"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."

I really don't know how Judaism teaches it, and I'm sure you know way more about that than I do.
I just know that the Christian Bible commands that they be killed.
Like I said, rubbish.

[cappuccinosmom]

The Christian Bible says that the forbidden act is to be punishable by death.

I think BelovedBird makes an interesting point. The OT, whether translated by Christians or not, designates a *specific act*. Rather than a state of being or the possession of a certain attraction. Your own quote from the KJV specifies an act. An attraction or proclivity may or may not be a built in part of a person (depending on your view of the "born that way debate). However a choice is made whenever an action is done. I am not knowledgeable about Judaic teaching on the practice of homosexuality, though I'd be most interested. I do though, find no problem in differentiating between desire and action.

While the OT is a huge part of the basis of Christianity, Christian doctrine is generally drawn from the NT. (You may have heard the term "types and shadows", the OT is looked at as a theological sign-post always pointing to Jesus, the ultimate sacrifice, the fulfillment of law, etc) And while the NT (from a conservative/evanglical POV) is clear that homosexual sex is sin, the mention of it is usually found among a whole list of sins, not in the context of "These are what the Church will kill you for" but "We are all sinners, these particular ones are the ones that do damage to relationships and the body and thus need special attention" or "these are the particular sins that are a struggle for the particular people I am writing to, so we need to see repentence and revival in the Church". Jesus with the woman at the well, and with the woman caught in adultery is to be the Church's example. "I love you, I will not stone you, or condemn your past, but go and sin no more". Have church folk failed to follow Jesus' example? And are there people who hypocritically focus on homosexuality and ignore sins like heterosexual premarital sex and adultery? Absolutely. But in that failing they were going *against* his example and against even Paul's teaching.

[mamabadger]

Cappucinosmom, that puts it in context very nicely.

Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom

And are there people who hypocritically focus on homosexuality and ignore sins like heterosexual premarital sex and adultery? Absolutely. But in that failing they were going *against* his example and against even Paul's teaching.

The obsession with homosexuality in some churches, sometimes to the exclusion of every other moral issue, leads some people to throw themselves in the opposite direction. This is understandable but does not represent Christian teaching any better.

Originally Posted by Thao

Are you saying that gay people cannot engage in "sexual morality and restraint"? I have a friend that has been monogamous with her partner (her first and only lover) for 30+ years now, through very rough times. She is a model of "sexual morality and restraint". I'm not understanding how your comment above has anything to do with the issue of homosexuality, unless you think that all homosexuals are promiscuous?

I would not want to dismiss your friend's behavior in any way, but we are talking about two different things. In traditional Christianity, some kinds of sexual activity are proscribed. To take a neutral example, it forbids sex between siblings. If a man lives for years in a monogamous relationship with his sister, it is hard to say whether he is, from the strict Christian perspective, being promiscuous or not; but his actions are not in keeping with Christian guidelines. In Christian tradition, "morality and restraint" would require him to look for a different partner. If he does not believe in those guidelines or the philosophy behind them, he has to use his best judgment to decide what is right. The same applies here.

This argument conflates cultural attitudes with God's attitudes. <skip>
As for what the early Church thought about same-sex relationships, I highly doubt that the sort of homosexual relationships we can see today -- two loving, committed people in a lifelong relationship -- existed during the time of the early church because cultural attitudes simply did not allow them. What did exist was ritual prostitution and the Greek model of older men "mentoring" younger boys. So Jesus and the early church could no more comment on modern homosexual relationships (ones that exhibit sexual morality and restraint) than they could airplanes or computers.

Maybe members of the early Church did not encounter a modern type of homosexual relationship, although I would not say so conclusively. However, they certainly saw committed, loving relationships which nevertheless went against Christian teachings. For example, they probably came across polygamous men who had great affection for both/all their wives and who lived morally upright lives in general. The Church still opposed multiple spouses very strongly for its members.

I don't know if your comparison with airplanes and computers applies. Nothing really new has been discovered about genitals and what can be done with them, and that is what the Church dealt with where sexual morality was concerned, not "relationships."

A great deal is said about early Church members being influenced by the culture in which they lived, but not much about the fact that we are all influenced by our own culture. We have to be aware of preconceived ideas as well. The apostles and other first generation Christians had to break with their own religion and culture, and rethink some of their most strongly held beliefs, not once but repeatedly. They learned how to question their own first principles. I think they were less likely to act on unexamined assumptions than most of us.

[mrsteapot]

Okay, I'm going to do something I don't do, answer after reading only the first post.
Here goes: Ask your friend how avoiding people meshes with "loving the sinner"? Jesus did not avoid sinners, that is who he spent a great deal of time with.
A 4 yo is not going to "catch homosexuality", what they are going to catch is that it is okay to hate someone. That is a bigger issue in my book.
I think it is far better to model love. We have friends that have all kinds of sin in their lives, including us. Which kinda also brings up something about being without sin and throwing stones....
Alright now I'll go read and see how many other people have already said this

[BelovedBird]

Originally Posted by MommyofHero

I DID specify that I was referring to the Christian translation and not the Judaic texts!!
Re-read my original comment:
I understand that the translations of the original Hebrew OT text that traditional Judaism teaches differs from the Protestant Christian versions and translations of the same text. I was raised Christian, and that's the Bible I used to (be forced to) read-- the King James version, and the verse goes like this:
"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."

I really don't know how Judaism teaches it, and I'm sure you know way more about that than I do.
I just know that the Christian Bible commands that they be killed.
Like I said, rubbish.

That was not your original comment. Your original comment said "the bible".

[CrunchyChristianMama]

Well said Mamabadger.

Is the OP still following the thread? I'm still curious of your thoughts on my questions I posed about polygamy or incestuous relationships that are between consenting adults.

[AlwaysByMySide]

Is the OP still following the thread? I'm still curious of your thoughts on my questions I posed about polygamy or incestuous relationships that are between consenting adults.

Yep, still here. Haven't checked on the thread in awhile, so I'm a little behind, but I have been thinking about it a lot, and have added to my outlook. Original question from you...

Originally Posted by Evie's Mama

But I'm wondering, if you say that two, consenting adults can have a relationship and that God is ok with that...then why can't three? Or four? Why does it have to be two?

I need to do research on this before I come back with a definitive answer, but I would imagine that that would fall under the lust category, and I do believe there is something in the Bible about leaving and cleaving and becoming one. (Went to a Family Life marriage retreat a few years ago...that kind of stuck with me.) On the whole, though, in my eyes, it's just not my thing to judge. What difference does it make what *I* think? It's what God thinks that matters.

As far as what I've been thinking about this in the past couple of days....I was investigated in my daughter's death a few years ago, and spent many many hours being questioned by NCIS. One of the things that I kept telling them, because I truly believe it, is that it doesn't matter to me if they think I did something wrong. I know I didn't, and when I die, I can march up to the Lord in good faith knowing that I had nothing to do with her dying, and I know that HE knows I had nothing to do with it. THAT is my ONLY concern, and I got tired of trying to convince THEM that I hadn't done anything wrong, because in the end, what do I care what they think? To this day, one of the agents refuses to pull me off the suspect list, (even though I wasn't even home when she died, and obviously they can't put enough "evidence" together to attempt to charge me with anything, because there ISN'T ANY, because I didn't have anything to do with it), because in her head, I had something to do with it. And other than the fact that I can't get my daughter's last outfit until they pull me OFF the suspect list and close the case, I could not possibly care less what she thinks of me. I care what God thinks of me. Period.

So, if someone is in a polyamorous situation, in the end, I think it's between them and God. I don't know the answer, and like I said, I'll do more research into it and think about it some more, but the "two becoming one" thing is sticking out in my head right off the cuff. I'll be back when I have a constructive answer.

[Thao]

Originally Posted by mamabadger

I would not want to dismiss your friend's behavior in any way, but we are talking about two different things. In traditional Christianity, some kinds of sexual activity are proscribed. To take a neutral example, it forbids sex between siblings. If a man lives for years in a monogamous relationship with his sister, it is hard to say whether he is, from the strict Christian perspective, being promiscuous or not; but his actions are not in keeping with Christian guidelines. In Christian tradition, "morality and restraint" would require him to look for a different partner. If he does not believe in those guidelines or the philosophy behind them, he has to use his best judgment to decide what is right. The same applies here.

This is somewhat circular reasoning, no? If you define "chaste, moral, restraint" as only heterosexual sex, then naturally a gay couple cannot achieve them. But I would quibble with your definition of the words . As for a man living monogamously with his sister, that would not be promiscuous at all because promiscuous means to have multiple partners; however it would be incestuous.

Originally Posted by mamabadger

Maybe members of the early Church did not encounter a modern type of homosexual relationship, although I would not say so conclusively. However, they certainly saw committed, loving relationships which nevertheless went against Christian teachings. For example, they probably came across polygamous men who had great affection for both/all their wives and who lived morally upright lives in general. The Church still opposed multiple spouses very strongly for its members."

This is a good point, but unless I'm missing something it rests on an interpretation of certain verses that could equally be interpreted differently. Where in the NT does it "strongly oppose" polygamy? Jesus talks about how divorcing one's spouse and remarriage is equivalent to adultery, but that is a stretch if you try to apply it to polygamy as it is clearly talking about divorce. There is of course the verses in 1 Timothy about church leaders having only one wife, but that could be because a man with many wives would have too many family responsibilities to take on the added responsibilities of church leadership. etc. I just don't see a clearcut prohibition on that one either, just verses that are interpreted in that way (likely because of the cultural leanings of the person doing the interpreting).

Originally Posted by mamabadger

A great deal is said about early Church members being influenced by the culture in which they lived, but not much about the fact that we are all influenced by our own culture. We have to be aware of preconceived ideas as well. The apostles and other first generation Christians had to break with their own religion and culture, and rethink some of their most strongly held beliefs, not once but repeatedly. They learned how to question their own first principles. I think they were less likely to act on unexamined assumptions than most of us.

You are absolutely right about this! We all are influenced by culture. We all have preconceptions, you as well as I. I look at that verse in Romans about homosexuality, and I see that it is clearly NOT talking about a loving godfearing homosexual couple. You look at it and see that it is. I believe you are as sincere in your interpretation as I am. But everyone interprets what they read in the Bible, even those (like the boyfriend of the OP) who say, "the Bible says it, so I believe it". If he (and others) truly did that, they would not allow women to speak in their church.

[CrunchyChristianMama]

Originally Posted by AlwaysByMySide

I'll do more research into it and think about it some more, but the "two becoming one" thing is sticking out in my head right off the cuff.

That's why I would personally say no to polygamy being ok in God's eyes, but also one of the verses that I point to that says God designed relationships to be heterosexual...

"The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

[DariusMom]

Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom

OK, I am a born-again evangelical who would be on the side of any sex outside of hetero marriage being outside God's perfect will/Word.

That said, I think it is *silly* to keep children away from homosexuals in particular. I mean really, they "see" all types of people, from all backgrounds, doing all sorts of things, any time we go out. We believe strongly in modesty. But if I were to avoid all contact with immodest people, we'd never leave the house. Most people don't dress according to our standards of modesty, so I suppose pretty much all friendships would be out, and then if everybody applied this, we'd lose our friendships with our even more conservative friends so their children wouldn't grow up to be "immodest" like my children. :

I would point out two things to your friend:
1. A person doesn't go to hell for being homosexual, anymore than a person goes to hell for being a glutton. If your friend believes homosexuality is sin according to the Bible, this friend must also know that gluttony is included in the list of "really bad sins". Picking out a particular sin and saying "You're going to hell for that" is a form of "works righteousness" which most Evangelicals claim to despise, since we're supposed to be relying on the grace of God and the sacrifice of Jesus for our salvation.

2. One can relate to, even have wonderful relationships with, people with whom one disagrees strongly. My aunt, who has been with her female partners for decades, reads my radically conservative blog. And compliments me on it. : We have great times at family get-togethers, and her "gayness" isn't even on the radar when it comes to family relationships. We love each other, we enjoy each other's company, she and her partner were wonderful to us when we were kids and are wonderful to our children now. Spending time with them did not "turn" me or my siblings gay, and I have no fear that it will have that effect on my kids either. It is no different than my other aunt who has lived with her male partner for decades. We do not believe that is Biblical either, and wouldn't want our children to do that, but it doesn't mean we can't love people where they are, spend time with them, and relate to them.

what a wonderful perspective!

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by Thao

This is a good point, but unless I'm missing something it rests on an interpretation of certain verses that could equally be interpreted differently. Where in the NT does it "strongly oppose" polygamy? Jesus talks about how divorcing one's spouse and remarriage is equivalent to adultery, but that is a stretch if you try to apply it to polygamy as it is clearly talking about divorce. There is of course the verses in 1 Timothy about church leaders having only one wife, but that could be because a man with many wives would have too many family responsibilities to take on the added responsibilities of church leadership. etc. I just don't see a clearcut prohibition on that one either, just verses that are interpreted in that way (likely because of the cultural leanings of the person doing the interpreting).
<skip>
I look at that verse in Romans about homosexuality, and I see that it is clearly NOT talking about a loving godfearing homosexual couple. You look at it and see that it is.

To be fair, we are probably talking a little bit at cross purposes, since I am mostly looking at what the Church has done and taught, not what the Bible may or may not say. I am not a believer in basing everything on the Bible, whatever the interpretation, and since the topic is "Homosexuality and the Bible" you could set my comments aside as irrelevant.
If it is Church teachings we are looking at, it would be hard to find a time or place, from the lives of the Apostles on down, when the Church accepted multiple spouses, or was even slightly unclear on the matter. The same applies to homosexuality or incest. To me, this makes the interpretation of any particular scriptural passage irrelevant.
Honestly, what this reminds me of most, is a campaign years ago by some company which produced pork products. They came up with an explanation, using Hebrew scripture and a lot of rationalization, for why certain of their meat products were actually Kosher, and could be eaten by observant Jews. Representatives of the Jewish community just shrugged and said sorry, no matter how you interpret and re-interpret and re-re-interpret selected passages, it's pork, everybody knows it's pork, Jews do not eat pork, end of story. The intentions are much less self-serving in this case, of course.

[Thao]

Ah, I see. And yes, if your authority is the Church rather than the Bible, then of course you are right. I grew up in a church that was independent fundamentalist, which meant we looked only to the Bible, not to the established Church, and from the OP's description I have a feeling her (ex) boyfriend was going to a similar type of church. So that was my focus.

[ThomasL]

I was raised Christian and did not reallly read the bible until my adult years and I from what I read it appeared that homosexuality was considered a sin. One interesting note was I saw no nowhere in the bible in which Jesus condemned homosexuality. It seemed the one thing he only condemned was hypocritical behaviour among the relgious leaders. But other parts of the bible said negative things about homosexuality though the word itself is not used.

[princesstutu]

I've been moving, but I wanted to clarify my post with regard to these comments:

Originally Posted by Evie's Mama

I find this perspective so intriguing. On one hand you're saying that you are open and have no place to judge. But then you follow it by saying that it needs to be between two, consenting adults. That's placing parameters on what you think is ok just like I do, yet you claim to be the one not passing judgment.

I have no problem being intolerable to anything non-consensual, as I think respect is more important than sex, but I only judge in the sense that I will not find it tolerable or acceptable, not judge as in I'll say the person is condemned spiritually or unforgiven by me. I think people confuse condemnation and judgment a lot. I have no power to pass out spiritual punishment nor do I want it.

Originally Posted by Evie's Mama

So then who gets to place parameters on what is ok and how do you decide? I'm not trying to be mean here, I'm just genuinely curious. What makes you draw the line at two, consenting adults. Why not three? Or four? What age are they considered an adult? What if it is a consenting 14 year old who is mature for their age? I just want to understand when you call it ok in your own mind to pass judgment and what made you place the line there.

I just made a simple statement. I have no qualms with polyamory and I doubt God does, either. I will not judge (condemn) a 14yo for having sex (what does "mature for her age mean"? covers all matter of sins, doesn't it?), but I will be aware (just like with anyone else) and if the 14yo is doing so for unhealthy reasons and/or getting unhealthy results from the choice, I think it's my responsibility as a human being dealing with another human being to attempt to address that. That's called compassion, not judgment in the cynical sense.

Boundaries are a pretty normal part of life and everyone gets to pick their own. The problems come in when a person's desire to enforce their own boundaries encroach upon another person's boundaries, right? Judgment is an inherent quality in human beings. Condemnation is not necessary, tho. And, if to say, "I'm not sure your action there is in your best interest" is seen as condemnation, I can understand that. When I've encountered that, I've left it alone. It is not about me being "right", it's about helping someone be their best self. But, even then, I'm not attached to the outcome. I respect another person's right to live however s/he wants.

I have no idea if I'm expressing that how I planned, but I'm going to stop.

Originally Posted by Evie's Mama

But I'm wondering, if you say that two, consenting adults can have a relationship and that God is ok with that...then why can't three? Or four? Why does it have to be two?

Sorry I threw that "two" in there. People do not like limiting God's love, eh?

[AngelBee]

Originally Posted by BelovedBird

That was not your original comment. Your original comment said "the bible".

Does the Jewish faith call their sacred writings "the Bible"? I thought that was a Christian term.