Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your comment about revisionism is the key point, it is as if traditional views are absolute truth and cannot be wrong. Well, that can depend upon a persons perspective I suppose. I grew up around a long line of generational thinking that infered the unequally yoked verses to mean that whites marrying blacks was against God. But revisionism is fun and all, but perhaps they are correct simply because generation after generation believed it huh?
No it's not analogous at all because prohibitions on interracial relationships are discouraged in the Bible (See Moses and his wife) and only arose as a reaction to slavery among Northern Europeans. Spanish colonialism, even though it had slavery, did not have that kind of anti-miscegenation rule. Neither did Portuguese.
So it's not a tradition descending from the Bible and the Councils. Indeed the English colonials didn't start banning miscegenation until around the 1660s.
And translation issues aside you don't seem to have any concrete evidence Christianity was ever okay with homosexuality because there really is no such evidence. Even before Christianity was significant the pagan Plutarch said "we regard men who take pleasure in passive submission as practicing the lowest kind of vice." Among Christians the Church Fathers rejected it and after Christianity became the official faith of the Empire the Theodosian code went against homosexuality.
You've shown evidence of mistranslations in the Bible, but do you have any evidence Jews or early Christian actually accepted or even tolerated homosexuality? What we know of early Christians they often seemed to be sexually ascetic and sometimes seem to only tolerate heterosexuality because of procreation.
And life or Christianity is not necessarily about modern notions on what counts as "equality." Some are meant for different kinds of life than others. That homosexuals are meant for a life that produces more saints than the married life, the life of celibacy, is perhaps unfair to heterosexuals. It's certainly possible the saints are disproportionately people of same-sex attractions. But straights have to accept that.
Last edited by Thomas R.; 05-12-2011 at 05:03 PM..
Here is what a Jewish Rabbi has to say about that:
Orthodox Jews are much like Fundie Christians. They are stuck on tradition, and ignore most modern advancements indicating a need for rethought. However, this issue has become so conentious, even among Orthodox, they have recently made public declarations affirming the need to show sensitivity and compassion for gays, and they do not advocate gays marrying members of the opposite sex. Orthodox Jews, like many Christians, view the procreation argument as a reason why male anal sex was prohibited. However, Jewish law, unlike Christian, allow for non-procreative sex, which makes that argument irrelevant.
Conservative Jews have been split on the issue. Some hold the orthodox view, while others don't believe Torah law is referring to modern day relationships. In fact, Conservatives are now in many places allowing openly gay clergy and to be ordained. One Conservative Rabbi stated:
Rabbi Bradley Artson, Dean of the Rabbinic School at American Jewish University claims to have studied every reference he could find to homosexual activity mentioned in ancient Greek and Latin writers. Every citation he found described an encounter between males where one party, the master, physically abused another, the slave. Rabbi Artson could not find a single example where one partner was not subservient to the other. "Homosexual relationships today," Rabbi Artson says, "should not be compared to the ancient world. I know too many homosexual individuals, including close friends and relatives, who are committed to one another in loving long-term monogamous relationships. I know too many same-sex couples that are loving parents raising good descent [sic] ethical children. Who's to say their family relationships are less sanctified in the eyes of God than mine is with my wife and our children?"[
The Reform Judaism movement, the largest branch of Judaism in North America, has rejected the traditional view of Jewish Law on this issue. As such, they do not prohibit ordination of gays and lesbians as rabbis and cantors. They view Levitical laws as sometimes seen to be referring to prostitution, making it a stand against Jews adopting the idolatrous fertility cults and practices of the neighbouring Canaanite nations rather than a blanket condemnation of same-sex intercourse or homosexuality. Reform authorities consider that, in light of what is seen as current scientific evidence about the nature of homosexuality as a biological sexual orientation, a new interpretation of the law is required. Lesbian and gay topics and Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reconstructionist Jews are 100% in favor of gays, including same-sex marriage.
In other words, this issue is just as divided as at is in Christianity. And in the United States, most Jews do not consider Leviticus to be referring to modern day same-sex relationships.
And even if those verses referred only to anal-sex (which is what Orthodox view the prohibition as), not all gays engage in anal sex. Meaning, many gays in no way violate that law, even if they are in a relationship. Lesbians are also never mentioned in the Torah.
Meaning, even if we were bound by Torah law (which we are not), roughly half of gay men, and all gay women in no way violate that law. Which means a blanket condemnation on homosexuality is still completely wrong.
Quote:
As for context, that's irrelevant since the moral precepts carried over into Christianity. What didn't carry over were such things as the ceremonial and dietary precepts such as animal sacrifices and circumcision of the flesh and refraining from eating certain meat such as pork. Anyway, if indeed God tagged the practrices of the Caananites detestable, then that's exactly what he meant-detestable. Or do you have another definition for that as well?
Not all moral precepts didn't carry over. Those laws are not part of the 10 commandments. Breaking the Sabbath was a moral precept, and yet all Christians violate that one. As was stoning rebellious children. Divorce, adultery, fornication, etc. are all moral precepts, and yet most Christians ignore them. There are 613 Mitzvos, and I guarantee you ignore 90% of them.
As for detestable, it comes from the same word that some verses call "abomination". It's To'evah. A to'evah was a taboo, something unfitting for a particular group to engage in (in this case the Israelites). To'evah does not have the same negative connotation as abomination/detestable. Torah law indicates it was not appropriate for the Israelites to engage in things the Caananites and Egyptians were doing, probably due to their need to survive and flourish for God's purpose. Paganism, prostitution, male domination and non-procreative sex were all things they did, that would have harmed the Israelites attempts to build a nation.
You are aware those verses were not written in English right, and they have an entirely different meaning in Hebrew? Those 2 verses are about Prostitution. And detestable/abomination is a mistranslation. It is To'evah in Hebrew. A To'evah is a taboo or something a particular group should not engage in. In the context of Leviticus, the prohibition is on men becoming temple prostitutes like the Caananites, and taking on the submissive sexual role reserved for a woman. The Hebrew word for "to lie" when referring to a man, is Shakab, which is always used for some kind of forced/deceitful/ or otherwise non-consensual sexual act. For example, it's used when Lot's daughters got him drunk and raped him.
Leviticus 18: 1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the LORD your God. 3You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices.
The chapter tells you right there what the prohibition was on. Doing what the Canaanites and Egyptians did, which was pagan sex rituals. Hence, why it was "To'evah" for the Israelites to do it. Deuteronomy confirms this message: Deut 23: 17 No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute.
Not to mention, it was directed exclusively to the Israelites - meaning those laws only apply to them, not all of humanity.
Oh please! Clearly it does not say anything about pagan sex rituals. It does say anything about becoming shrine prostitutes. It clearly tells you that a man should not have sex with a man as he would with a woman. And if your going to try and pass that nonsense on, are they also talking about shrine prostitutes when in the same chapter it tells you that a man should not sleep with his neighbors wife? Or do you only call on shrine prostitutes to ignore the clear teaching of Deut. 18:22.
Last edited by Campbell34; 05-12-2011 at 09:38 PM..
You should study it first, you obviously do not understand it well. Romans is about heterosexual Greeks and Romans engaging in prostitution and pederasty. They had unbridled passion as discussed by Plato.
That link explains Romans 1 for anyone seriously interested in honest scholarship. Campbell is not, so he won't bother to read it.
Do you even read the Scriptures? I have read that Scripture many times. And because of their behavior God gave them up to (VILE AFFECTIONS).
And what were those (VILE AFFECTIONS)? Thats right, the men left the natural use of woman and burned in their lust one toward another. Men with men. Scripture says nothing in this verse about prostitution. And those who push that belief should really write their own Bible. And Plato has nothing to do with the Bible.
Care to show us where Romans 1 states prostitution?
So do you believe that anyone who believes the clear teachings of Scripture is self-righteous?
I believe people who take the legalistic approach without regard to context, culture, or original language, and condemn everyone they disagree with while being a complete hypocrite and ignoring the majority of laws in the same book are self-righteous know it alls.
Do you even read the Scriptures? I have read that Scripture many times. And because of their behavior God gave them up to (VILE AFFECTIONS).
And what were those (VILE AFFECTIONS)? Thats right, the men left the natural use of woman and burned in their lust one toward another. Men with men. Scripture says nothing in this verse about prostitution. And those who push that belief should really write their own Bible. And Plato has nothing to do with the Bible.
Care to show us where Romans 1 states prostitution?
Plato has everything to do with that verse. And it's so very obvious, no matter how much you claim to read the Bible you haven't the foggiest clue as to its meaning. Romans 1 is a direct reference to Plato's discourse on unbridled passion. Paul's audience would have been well familiar with Plato's discourse, where as 99.9% of Christians today, are not.
And that verse doesn't need to explicitly state prostitution. Read the previous verses:
Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
That is referring to pagan worship, because Greek and Romans worshipped pagan animals. And what was the overwhelmingly predominant form of same sex behavior in Greek and Roman society? Pagan prostitution and pederasty. Most of Greek and Roman society was not gay, they were heterosexuals. That was Paul's audience. Do you seriously think Paul's entire (or even majority audience) was gay? That is 100% wrong, since gays have always made up the same percentage of the population. Meaning at most, 5% of Paul's audience was gay. Paul, citing Plato's idea of unbridled passion, was criticizing the heterosexual Greeks and Romans for their pagan sexual obsessions, as it clouded their pursuit of the truth of God. For that, God allowed heterosexuals to start engaging in sex acts with each other, men with men, women with women, which for an inborn heterosexual, was not normal.
I'm frankly getting tired of having to explain this stuff over and over and over again. Stop assuming the Bible was written in English and addressed to Americans in the 21st Century United States Campbell. That verse was addressed to Greeks and Romans, in 1st Century Corinth, and it was written in Greek, which is very very different from English.
Corinthians had an entirely different culture than Americans. That verse is not applicable to modern day society.
I believe people who take the legalistic approach without regard to context, culture, or original language, and condemn everyone they disagree with while being a complete hypocrite and ignoring the majority of laws in the same book are self-righteous know it alls.
I have not call anyone self-righteous. I have not called anyone a hypocrite. I have not ignored any laws found in the Bible. I have expressed a belief in what is clearly there. And I have not added any words to the text to support my belief. And I do not added to the context when there is nothing to add.
Here are two examples explaining how flawed, socially narrow-minded uninformed thinking can lead to absurd antibiblical pro-homosexual conclusions:
Quote:
Were David and Jonathan Homosexual Lovers?
So Were They Homosexuals?
In order to believe that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers, you are going to have to ignore the plain reading of the scripture and the historic and traditional understanding of the text. In addition, you are going to have to believe that Samuel, one of God’s prophets in the tradition of the Mosiac cultural law that condemns homosexuality in Leviticus, would then approve of this homosexual relationship enough to carefully cloak it in the text. Would not this prophet of God, in the strong tradition of Judaism and the law of Moses have an opinion on this?
Hopefully this very brief review of the texts under consideration will help you to understand the orthodox Christian perspective of David and Jonathan’s relationship. David and Jonathan were the deepest of friends. True brothers in both Cause and Faith. But they were nothing more.
Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
This verse has been cited in the past as alleged proof that Jesus was homosexual. I imagine there are a few other verses used for this, and I know some folks like to claim David and Jonathan were gay lovers as well. One particular site admits there is no evidence of Jesus having a gay relationship, but uses this verse to say, "The incident makes clear that an emotional relationship existed between Jesus and the disciple closer than that which existed between him and any other, including Peter."
To put it bluntly, such arguments view intimate relationships through jaundiced Western eyes. Put your head on the breast of another man today here in America, and the jokes will fly. But in the ancient East, not so; and even today, such affectionate displays are typical on that side of the world, and well-publicized (remember all the news clips of Arab and Middle Eastern leaders kissing each other on the side of the face?), which is probably why we don't hear these sorts of verses brought up in service of homosexual Bible characters, except by the incredibly underinformed.
Abraham Rihbany (The Syrian Christ, 65), a native of the East early last century, bore with some patience the misinterpretations of modern Westerners who read the Bible through their eyes and tastes and missed certain points about what was being said and done. The particular instance of John 21:20 represents a custom "in perfect harmony with Syrian customs. How often have I seen men friends in such an attitude. There is not the slightest infringement of the rules of propriety; the act was as natural to us all as shaking hands.
The practice is especially indulged in when intimate friends are about to part from one another, as on the eve of a journey, or when about the face a dangerous undertaking. Then they sit with their heads leaning against each other, or the one's head resting upon the other's shoulder or breast."
By the same token, Easterners will use "terms of unbounded intimacy and unrestrained affection" to one another: "my soul," "my eyes," "my heart." Paul's holy kiss (Rom. 16:16, etc) is no more of a homosexual exchange.
Critics should not read Eastern custom in Western terms when they make their arguments.
-JPH Was Jesus Gay? John 21:20
BTW
This is nothing less than a satanically-inspired attack against mankind. As the Bible tells us-Satan was a liar from the start and a murderer and still continues with his trickeries in order to bring about as many eternal human deaths as possible.
Jn:8:44: Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
How? Well, please consider that Satan knows full-well that such behavior displeases God and that it leads to death. So what better way to attain that goal than to deceive via the defamation of men God approved-especially the Son of God himself whom the Bible describes as sinless.
1 Peter 2:22 - "He committed no sin, nor was deception found in his mouth".
Hebrews 7:26
26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens;
2 Corinthians 5:21
21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
You see, Satan knows that if he can convince us that Jesus disregarded the Mosaic Law via practicing homosexuality, then Jesus becomes automatically morally corrupt. The rest follows like a row of dominoes knocked over by tipping just one. If Jesus was morally corrupt then, of course, he is disqualified as our savior. If he is disqualified as our savior-then it logically follows that mankind is doomed. That's the whole purpose. Nothing more. An effort by Satan and his blinded minions-to prove Christian faith is worthless and by doing so prevent salvation.
2 Corinthians 4:4 (ESV)
4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Last edited by Radrook; 05-13-2011 at 06:56 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
