Where in the Bible is homosexuality prohibited?

[Kurn]

The laws of Leviticus and similar books are best looked upon as "community-making" rules. When you live together, you generally make rules for reasons we can all name.
'Rules and Laws' are what govern the peculiar social ecology of our particular Life and Times. Part of the function of Rules is simply to self-identify or reflect 'membership and community' to each individual member.
The complexity of the system of rules varies.

 

[Green_Man_007]

does anyone know the chapter and verse, I'd be curious to read it.
thanks

Technicallly, it's not

Leviticus 18:22 has the phrase, "...as with a woman."

In context of the times, it meant not to subjugate men to the inferior staus of women, who were legally treated as property, like cattle.

The Sodom/Gomorah myth only elaborates the crime of inhospitality, not man-on-man nasty action.

Then there Paul's quip in Romans, which refers to the sin of idolatry, not simply being gay.




:

 

[Kulindahr]

I recently read the bible cover to cover, and I am of the opinion that anyone who belives that book has anything relevant to say has never read it all the way through. It's a facinating book though. It's wrong to lay with a man but OK to rape virgins and keep slaves. you just have to pick out the parts you don't like.

For the Old Testament, did you read the Masoretic text, or default to the Septuagint?
For the New, which 'approved' text did you follow -- the more traditional Nestle-Aland, or that of the American Bible society?


What you meant to say, most likely, was that you read a translation all the way through. From your attitude, I doubt you really did that, either; what you probably did was run your eyes across the words with the intention of finding things to make fun of.

It happens that I in fact have read the Bible all the way through -- the Hebrew and Aramaic, and the Greek.

As for picking out the parts you don't like -- no, you just have to actually read it. For example, in relation to this thread, if you'd really read it you'd know that Leviticus isn't even relevant unless you're a Christian of Jewish heritage.

= = = = =

Oh, BTW -- if we're going to poke at Leviticus, here's a trivia piece: can someone show why if you go to Burger King you should never, ever have a cheeseburger? and why the type of pizza allegedly America's favorite is as bad as being gay?

 

[Kulindahr]

I have to apologize...I think what you were probably saying was that mainstream christians today don't believe that Moses or God write the bible, either. I misunderstood what you were saying. I got hung up on your saying that I believed that stuff, which is certainly not the case

Also, I did sort of take a fundamentalist position, which is that if the laws are from God, you must obey them. I don't believe they're the laws of God, but I do believe that people who believe in God and the bible should follow them if they think they came from God, which is the fundamentalist position. Just as long as no one thinks that I think you have to follow those laws. Well, except the one about not sleeping with your mother, that's just weird.

The fundamentalists treat the Bible like it was a plan for building a ship -- like every item in it has to be carried out as set. That's what you're saying, too.
That position arises from failing to read and pay attention and thus understand. Where the fundamentalists err is not in ignoring some of Leviticus (etc.), but in not tossing it all out, with respect to being rules (laws). In other words, to get right down to it, they and you are very much alike: in their hearts, they really don't believe Jesus, don't believe He really meant it when He said, "It is finished" -- and neither do you.



Oh -- if anyone around here is out of date on biblical scholarship, Jack isn't even remotely a candidate.

 

[darcey]

Kulindahr, I yield to you in biblical training. However, isn't more direct to ask those who are w/o sin to cast the 1st stone? The major flaw in most "homo-sex-ual" debate is in ignoring the big JC's directive to note one's own sinfulness first. If one is aware of one's own unworthiness, one can't be aware of any other flaw in humankind. As St Paul (that lunk-head) said "the greatest of these is Love" (use your own translation). PAX

 

[Kulindahr]

That's pushing the point. Jesus' point wasn't that by looking at our own flaws we'd never see those of others, rather that we shouldn't go pouncing gleefully (or vindictively) on others as though we had no troubles of our own. We must be aware of other flaws in humankind; many of those are dangerous one way or another.

But Jesus' exaggeration is pointing up something we forget, one of the things the oft-maligned Paul reminds us of: that a sin is a sin. IF homosexuality is a sin, then it's no different than passing in a no-pass zone, cheating on a quiz, keeping incorrect change that was in your favor, or cutting in front of someone at the bar so you can get another drink faster. It's no viler than littering, spitting on the sidewalk, or dumping cat litter in the trash at the service station because you don't like the way it stinks up your trash can.

And that's another part of Jesus' point: you always have something "in your eye". Got rid of that speck? Great -- but the words still apply: remove that splinter in your own eye first. You will never, ever, this side of eternity, be able to go to your brother with your own vision clear -- but that does not preclude going to your brother. What it does preclude is any attitude of "I've got it all down, ducks in a row, course sighted in on the farthest star, figured it all out, in tune with God".

LOL -- "use your own translation". I read that and my mind started trying to remember all the versions I've ever read, including Latin, Spanish, and German...



final thought: if we're to recognize specks or logs in our own eyes, we need to grasp what God thinks of as a speck or beam or whatever. that requires grappling with things like this. but you're right about one thing with the quote from St. Paul; in today's terms we might put it, "Love is the default position; when ion doubt... love." And of course since there's only one Pope, the rest of us ought frequently to be in doubt

(apologies to anyone who doesn't appreciate Catholic humor)

 

[darcey]

Ergo, just try to live one's life & HELP other's to live theirs. It removes the need to judge anyone or anything - but still allows us to act & pray in support of everyone.

 

[mULTIsPEEDo]

However, it is in none of the Gospels and the OT is not really relevant for Christians.

 

[Kulindahr]

However, it is in none of the Gospels and the OT is not really relevant for Christians.

Well...
The OT is relevant, just not as a rule book. A lot is just plain history, and none of it is "law" any more.

 

[mULTIsPEEDo]

34"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. (John 13)

12No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. (John 4)

7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. (John 4)

11This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother's were righteous. 13Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you. 14We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death. (John 3)

8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. (Romans 13)

36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22)


Christianity has these two basic "laws", and if everyone on this planet would act upon them, then the world would be a really peaceful place.

 

[Spiff]

Plus is lesbianism even mentioned in the bible? If not, then presumably at the very least the girls get a pass.

that's what I was just thinking. It doesn't say a woman should not lie with another woman the way she lies with a man.

Obviously, those bible verses were written by a straight guy that loved watching girl on girl action.

 

[Kulindahr]

oral sex isn't covered, either.

So there must be no problem with blow jobs, right?

 

[Blktiger58]

36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22)


Christianity has these two basic "laws", and if everyone on this planet would act upon them, then the world would be a really peaceful place.

So true. So True.

 

[Blueyes]

The bible only prohibits heterosexuality. The prohibition is even extremely explicit. See the story of Adam and Eve. You couldn't have it more explicit.

Futhermore, they had 2 sons (no daughters!!!!!!!), predestinated to become each others lovers as they were the only humans present, but that is another story.

excellent point! god never wanted adam and eve to do the nasty so why should everyone else be allowed to do so these days?

 

[mULTIsPEEDo]

Nope, that's only half the truth about the Council of Nica. I will post more on that once I got a little more time...

 

[Kulindahr]

excellent point! god never wanted adam and eve to do the nasty so why should everyone else be allowed to do so these days?

???

God actually told them to "do the nasty" -- that's what "be fruitful, and multiply" means.

 

[Kulindahr]

The books of the Bible, as we know it, were selected by the Council of Nicea and several passages and books were not included because of their content and the message it sent. If you research well enough,you will find that adam was married to Lilleth, a demoness, before he was married to Eve. Lilleth bore him several children which fled with their mothers departure. Also, if you are studying the King James version, you will find that several things in King James are quite loosely interpreted from the preceeding Bible due to James being quite a sexist...amoungst other things.

The New Testament collection was not chosen by the Council of Nicea; it was established long before that by a process that involved the entire community of Christians.

If you do real research, you'll find that the business with Lilith was ancient fantasy.

That business about the King James is a laugh! Just what "preceding Bible" do you have in mind -- the Hebrew, the Septuagint, the Vulgate, or what? The truth is that for what they had to work with, the KJV is perhaps the best translation ever done.

 

[Blueyes]

???

God actually told them to "do the nasty" -- that's what "be fruitful, and multiply" means.

wow, true i really didnt even think thruogh that post. I was thinking about the garden of eden and the forbidden fruit as having something to do with sex, but it just alerted them to their nudity right? I dont really focus as much on the actual stories of the bible as i do on the central values of the church itself, so sorry if I seem really misinformed

 

[Kulindahr]

It didn't even really focus them on their nudity. Disobeying made them feel exposed before God -- you know that feeling of wanting to hide, when you know you've done something wrong and have to face the music? -- and the nudity was a feeling of being exposed, so it was a convenient excuse.

A lot of the ancient fantasy literature, like the silliness with Lilith and Adam, equates the forbidden fruit with sex, but that isn't in the book at all.


The sex thing always made me wonder, though -- what would have happened if they'd already had a kid or two before Eve blew it and got Adam to follow suit?

 

[JackFTwist]

Also, if you are studying the King James version, you will find that several things in King James are quite loosely interpreted from the preceeding Bible due to James being quite a sexist...amoungst other things.

That indeed is true. There were many preceding English translations as well as other languages floating about (hence James wanted an authorized version) and he was very sexist. The KJV never missed a chance to make something male gender specific that was not in the greek or hebrew. It also was translated with an eye to upholding episcopacy.

To anticipate the "you can't say that..." James VI and I was the son of Mary Queen of Scots (who had also once been queen of france) and succeeded Elizabeth and those two women were contemporaries of Cathrine de'Medici who as dowager queen of France was the power behind the throne through several regimes. James was taken from his mother as an infant and raised by the male protestant Lords of the Congregation under the tutleage (spelling?) of John Knox, who hated all three of these women and wrote books with titles such as "On the Monstrous Reign of Women..."

Whether that is why James was gay or not, who knows.

But the KJV is a very politicized translation and has lots of sweet turns of phrases but is hardly a good translation even for its time - it however as the Authorized Version got a lot of coverage and established itself thereby for generations. It also has the liability of being done well before much modern language and archeological reasearch and thus has faults that cannot be heled, the information was not known then.

It does have an honored place in the history of the Bible.

And I agree that the canon was not codified at Nicea, it was well before that in reference to the Christian canon; the Common Canon (the "Old Testament") was codified at Jamnia around 70 CE.


The naked thing - we still have that today. To torture or humiliate someone, frst we strip them (including frat/jock hazing and military inductions and police strip searches). Nudity is a revelation of our flaws and the humorous quirks of phyisiolgy and to be naked especially forced in the presence of clothed power is a humiliating thing. (Check out some threads by JUBers who refuse to take off their clothers for their doctors.) This is not anything to do with nudity between lovers, or of equals such as at nudist camps, but even in those situations sometimes people have to be coaxed to not feel lesser or humiliated or unworthy in their nakedness.