Homosexuality: Are there any biblical arguements for it?

[Giancarlo]

Christianity cannot even prove itself.. so if tells me I am going to hell, it better well prove it. But it can't... because religion is a contradiction.

[Boris Godunov]

JC says exactly ZERO about homosexual behavior. Nada, zip, squat.

He references Sodom once, that's it, and the notion Sodom was destroyed for homosexual behavior is erroneous.

[Zkribbler]

Re: Homosexuality: Are there any biblical arguements for it?

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
he keeps saying "WELL THEY HAVE A CHOICE!!! THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT ITS EVEN IN THE GENES!!!!

Yes there is. It's in the genes. & God made the genes.

THEY ARE SINNERS AND WILL BE CAST TO HELL!".

"Judge not that ye be not judged."
[/QUOTE]


Hey! Fez is back! How's it goin' Fez?

[Giancarlo]

Zkribber, thanks for that welcome.

[Chilean Presidentâ„¢]

"pleasures of the flesh" i believe it was called where the men had other men as sex slaves and it was seen as a sin to have sex where there was no chance of a child being born (thats why the early religion was against contraception aswell)

"pleasures of the flesh" is for gay people and for heteros too. Sin is sin, beside your sex choice.

Anyway, I would love to be a sinner with a pretty lady of Sodoma

[gsmoove23]

Whoops, I apologize for my erroneous mention of JC's opinion. I could have sworn I read something of that sort in the Gospel but I guess not. I didn't put much stock in it since I don't put much stock in the Bible.

I guess it has more to do with him being a pretty big prude and having objecions to any sexual activity outside of marriage. The basic message being sin is sin and guess what, not one of us isn't a sinner. So party!

At least thats the message that I got.

[orange]

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT ITS EVEN IN THE GENES!!!!

You can run wild with this one. There is no scientific Evidence that God exists

[Boris Godunov]

Teehee!

[Vesayen]

exact translation from the Torah, in a list of sexual relations which are abominations:

"man shall not lie down with man, it is abomination"

what I have to say on it is another matter, but thats what it says.....no way to interpret it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Vesayen
exact translation from the Torah, in a list of sexual relations which are abominations:

"man shall not lie down with man, it is abomination"

what I have to say on it is another matter, but thats what it says.....no way to interpret it.

Actually, what it says in Leviticus 20:13 is:

"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."

Lev. 18:23 is essentially the same.

And there is room for interpretation. The first is a stretch for some, but does make a certain bit of sense in context:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

" National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA) interpretation: The NGPA has analyzed the verse in great detail to produce a word-for-word translation of the original Hebrew. 2 In English, with minimal punctuation added, it is:

"And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination.

In modern day English this could be translated as:

"Men may not engage in homosexual sex while on a woman's bed; it is an abomination"

That is, "rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply restricts where it may occur." This may seem a strange prohibition to us today, but was quite consistent with other laws in Leviticus which involve improper mixing of things that should be kept separate. e.g. ancient Hebrews were not allowed to mix two crops in the same field, or make cloth out of two different raw materials, or plow a field with an ox and a donkey yoked together. A woman's bed was her own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only under certain circumstances. Any other use of her bed would be a defilement.

An argument against this translation is that it would not blend well with the next verse. Leviticus 18:23 discusses a man or a woman engaging in bestiality. The traditional translations would make a smoother text. However, in defense of the NGPA translation, there is already a break in topic between verses 21 and 22. So a second break between 22 and 23 is not unreasonable."

However, the more standard liberal interpretation is:

"This passage does not refer to gay sex generally, but only to a specific form of homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples. Much of Leviticus deals with the Holiness Code which outlined ways in which the ancient Hebrews were to be set apart to God. Some fertility worship practices found in nearly Pagan cultures were specifically prohibited; ritual same-sex behavior in Pagan temples was one such practice.

The status of women in ancient Hebrew culture was very much lower than that of a man and barely above that of children and slaves. When a man engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman, he always took a dominant position; the woman would take a submissive posture. When two men engage in sexual intercourse, one of the men, in effect, takes the position of a woman. When a man takes on the low status of a woman, the act makes both ritually impure.

Many would regard "abomination," "enormous sin", etc. as particularly poor translations of the original Hebrew word which really means "ritually unclean" within an ancient Israelite era. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (circa 3rd century BCE) translated "to'ebah" into Greek as "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity. If the writer(s) of Leviticus wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word zimah.

This verse says nothing about consensual same-sex activity today. It only condemns same-sex religious prostitution. "

[Boris Godunov]

At any rate, what the Torah says is irrelevant to non-Jews, which this Catholic guy would be. The laws to be observed by Jews in the Torah don't apply to anyone except Jews.

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Um, that's not what Sodom was destroyed for at all. In fact, that's a common misperception about the story. Sodom was destroyed because of inhospitality towards guests, not because of there being homosexuals there.

Keep in mind, there was no concept of anyone being "gay" until the late 19th century...

What???? Did you read Gen 19:4-8? Men from Sodom surrounded Lots house and demanded that he send out the men of his house to the them for sex. Lot offered virgin women instead but nope, they wanted the men. You might call that inhospitable where you live, but it seems worse than that to me. Of course we're talking rape here not just sodomy or homosexuality.

The Bible has several references against homosexual practices in the old and new testaments. All I say is that its my job to love people and its God's job to judge them. I'm not going to throw stones and say someone else's sin is worse than mine. Personally though, I think God made some people homosexual and I don't think its a sin, but you can't argue that position from the Bible.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Frogman


What???? Did you read Gen 19:4-8? Men from Sodom surrounded Lots house and demanded that he send out the men of his house to the them for sex. Lot offered virgin women instead but nope, they wanted the men. You might call that inhospitable where you live, but it seems worse than that to me. Of course we're talking rape here not just sodomy or homosexuality.

Under this interpretation, they wanted to rape the two visitors. How does that relate to consentual homosexual behavior? Why do none of the verses wherein the crimes of Sodom are listed mention homosexual acts?

The Bible has several references against homosexual practices in the old and new testaments. All I say is that its my job to love people and its God's job to judge them. I'm not going to throw stones and say someone else's sin is worse than mine. Personally though, I think God made some people homosexual and I don't think its a sin, but you can't argue that position from the Bible.

Sure you can argue it, when you put the Biblical statements into the contexts of their times. Many theologians have interpreted the Old Testament prohibitions to be in reference to same-sex prostitution done for religious purposes, which was common in pagan temples in the regions surrounding the Jews.

The New Testament condemnations are limited to Paul, as JC said nothing about gay sex. And frankly, considering Paul's archaic notions about the role of women and slaverly, I don't see why his position on same-sex relations should be given special consideration. But he was also writing out of ignorance, since he'd no concept of homosexuality. Same-sex relations were seen as heterosexuals violating their natural tendencies to engage in such acts. Modern medical science has shown this is not the case.

I also am compelled to point out that the Biblical prohibitions against same-sex acts are limited entirely to male-male acts. Does this mean lesbianism is fine? Seems like a rather glaring omission.

[Frogman]

Ok Boris, I'll grant you its not so clearly stated against homosexual behavior, though the threat of raping men seems pretty bad but then again, the whole chapter is perverse.

In Gen 19:30-38, Lot's daughters get him drunk and sleep with him to bear his children. Now, I've been drunk, and I have daughters, and I just don't see how this can happen. Its incest plain and simple and I guess God thinks thats OK but other sex isn't? And this isn't the only time something like this happens. Trying to apply morality today based on the morals of ancient civilizations is just ludicrous.

It seems you have a better Biblical argument for fathers sleeping with their daughters than you do for allowing homosexuality.

[Agathon]

Who cares about the Bible. It's badly written neurotic rubbish written in hideous style.

Read Plato's dialogues. There's heaps of gay stuff in those; and at least he could write.