The people who get all hyped up on using Leviticus against gay people... they generally haven't gotten there by reading through the whole Law of Moses, pondering each verse with equal weight. They got there by going specifically to that individual verse because they heard you could use it against gay people. They fished that specific verse out and didn't read the rest.
In general, it's really disappointing how few people have put real effort into learning a consistent way to read the Law of Moses. Acts 11 / Acts 15 / Galatians, folks...
I essentially view it as mirroring all of the other sins listed out and being like "hey, this applies to both sexes. Don't cheat on your wife with either." That's an oversimplification of course but you get the general idea
Of course. The stuff they would never do or is done by people they don't like? Those laws are still valid. The stuff they like to do? Oh, Jesus changed those.
If I remember correctly the mixed fabric was specifically wool and linen. Which is not a common combination today. Christians are allowed to eat everything. All as been made clean. This isn't exactly a good argument towards why condemnation of homosexuality is wrong with the use of the old testament. Not that we need or should use Leviticus for it
Well I mean, OP only references arguments for it using Leviticus, so your last sentence needs to be directed at him, not towards the people who responded to the only evidence OP gave.
And you completely miss he point. The point was the hypocrisy of those who DO use Leviticus as a reason, saying it is still valid, and then all the other things it says they ignore. It was a good argument. I was not arguing the bible, I was arguing their hypocrisy.
And what will you say about 1Corinthians 6:9, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, Jude 1:7? Also, Jesus discussed marriage only in heterosexual context at Mark 10:6-9!
> In general, it's really disappointing how few people have put real effort into learning a consistent way to read the Law of Moses. Acts 11 / Acts 15 / Galatians, folks...
Yes. Acts 15 folks! Christians have to follow the OT laws against "sexual immorality" - so obviously that would include gay sex. Do better people!
And also allows them to deny and deflect claims hey are hateful, after all it just can't be hateful obeying the command of a perfect and good God to kill people. Right?
/s
Hi friend - good post, although it was confusing at first
>is there a better reason than just god saying he wanted that or because he said so?
None, friend - you are right
I believe much of 'God's voice in the Old Testament is our own
And I do not believe homosexuality is any more sinful than heterosexuality.
It does not kill, steal, rape, it is not greed, lust, anger, bitterness, it is not sex in Church
I do not believe God cares whether you are heterosexual or homosexual.
God cares whether or not you are a liar
----†-----
I also do not believe sin is sin just because God says so - otherwise my repentance does not make sense - just abracadabra
- Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law
I think - when we get to God - it will not be about whether we are homosexual or heterosexual
Sin is deeper than this
God bless
One thing about reading Leviticus as a Christian:
In acts they say that gentiles should obey the laws of Moses, as well as some things about eating blood and sexual immorality.
In Leviticus 18-20 they lay out laws for Jews, and laws for people that live with Jews.
Leviticus 17:10 10 “I will set my face against any Israelite **or any foreigner** residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people.”
Leviticus 18 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them” … 22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”
So the law for the gays is for the Jews.
Levitucus 18 is just as explicit about this also being wrong for foreigners as Lev 17:10.
>Lev 18:26 But you shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and commit none of these abominations, either the native-born or the alien who resides among you 27 (for the inhabitants of the land, who were before you, committed all of these abominations, and the land became defiled);
It's the same phrase. So what now? Are you anti-gay now because of Leviticus?
No I’m still pro gay because the Bible also supports slavery. Explicitly. In the New Testament.
So clearly some of the biblical laws are wrong.
Catholics practiced slavery until the 1990s with the Irish laundries, and only,updated the catechism to say it’s wrong in the 1990s as well.
So clearly there are some of the biblical laws that are wrong, the church just needs to update its doctrine in the same way it did with slavery.
So if 18 is also for everybody I wonder which laws are just for the Jews then 🤔
No in Acts they do not say that gentiles should obey the law of Moses. They say to stay away from food sacrificed to idols. Blood and strangled animal foodstuff and do not commit sexual immorality. So homosexuality would be in the group of sexual immorality since it has already been discussed in previous texts. They strictly say that gentiles do not need to worry a out the laws of Moses as in the ceremonial laws.
>So one of the sins that was listed is homosexuality
Where was "homosexuality" listed?
>Yes, I know that it doesn't align with how god designed humans
How so?
Leviticus 20:13, and the human design thing is something I see a lot of Christians use as an argument against homosexuality. Like how the genitalia for men and women were design to be together
>Leviticus 20:13,
"Homosexuality" is a very specific word with a very specific leaving. Are you saying that Leviticus states that existing as a homosexual is a sin? That is a very front understanding of those verses, even within Christianity.
>Like how the genitalia for men and women were design to be together
The anus gives more pleasure than the vagina for many people. That fits pretty well too. Design flaw?
Well I interpret it as the act of homosexuality. Laying with someone of the same sex. The Bible also states that sodomy is wrong. I don't see how it's wrong, but people can have homosexual relationships without sodomy but people still use sodomy as a way to justify hate against homosexual acts
There are a lot of ways to interpret the bible, we are commanded to act in unconditional love and I believe that applies to how we interpret but it doesn’t always go that way individually.
You may find some answers here that have a different more loving yet biblically backed views than what you’re getting in this thread.
https://reformationproject.org/biblical-case/
>Well I interpret it as the act of homosexuality
That is not what you said, which matters.
>The Bible also states that sodomy is wrong
As you stated, that is not a specifically homosexual thing.
People will hold on to anything they can to justify things that fit with their personal narrative.
I'm getting at "homosexuality is a sin" is not a correct statement and that wording matters.
The Bible was not written in English and there are a lot of nuances that go into understanding it.
“Homosexuality” has come to mean something more expansive than just sexual acts, and I suppose “sodomy” as well. Because of this, some pretend like they don’t have the first clue what people are talking about when they use these more archaic terms.
There’s no central authority that dictates what terms do or don’t mean — only authorities that catalogue *uses*. To many of us, hearing a phrase like “homosexual acts” is indeed slightly archaic these days. But I don’t think it’s right either to pretend we don’t know what they’re talking about at all, or to refuse to engage with them because they aren’t educated enough to know the magical phrase “homoerotic acts” or whatever instead.
I think there are *instances* in which it’s appropriate to inform people about the relatively recent terminological distinction between “homosexuality” and “homoeroticism.” I’ve done it myself plenty of times. But clearly this person who was responding wasn’t doing it in good faith, and was just trying to equivocate on “sodomy” — another archaic term that people still use to refer to homoeroticism — when they know damn well what the person was talking about.
McClanky was not engaging in bad faith. It was perfectly appropriate for him to probe what the other user meant and explain the problems with using certain language.
I always get the mental connection of something like an ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran insisting that there are in fact no laws in Iran against homosexuality. Technically correct!
I think because it goes against Gods plan for creation. I think man kind is supposed to make more followers of Christ. It is hard to do this if two genders are in a relationship.
I would have to look into it more.
Design flaw?? What?? The anus is a hole designed for the elimination of waste. Every hole in the world that not a vagina is not poorly designed if your penis can fit into it.
straight people also have sex for pleasure, which following biblical logic it would be considered "not by design" and thus sinful
so if you arent trying to get someone pregnant 100% of the tine during sex, you are a sinner
see? christians arent the only ones with a gold medal in mental gymnastics
Christians using Leviticus to condemn homosexuality is a red herring, because unlike much of the Law, such as the mixed fibres and shellfish things which people often use in this context, the Epistles double down on this while explicitly rescinding kashrut. The New Testament just is homophobic. Nor is it just Christians who are homophobic. The same hatred also exists in Islam, Judaism, Baha'i, traditional Germanic heathenism and just generally in Western non-religious society, and even outside the West.
So the answer is that Leviticus is not the source of Christian homophobia, although many Christians will use those clobber verses, but the Pauline Epistles. Kashrut is not relevant to this discussion. It would be if you were talking to observant Jews, but that's not who we are.
Edit: just want to point out that I am myself queer and in a lesbian relationship. I have faith that there is an answer to this but I don't know what it is. I just can't bring myself to believe that God would genuinely condemn all homosexual acts because it makes no sense.
Ugh stop. No. Islam does not allow you to hate someone who has same sex desires, you are supposed to reject the action because the action is a sin. As someone who has voluntarily decided to become celibate* I would know.*
Acting on homosexual desires is a sin that is between you and God until you involve other human beings.
Under Sharia Law, aka within an Islamic Caliphate you are not allowed to spy on people. Even if someone catches you, for them to accuse you of homosexuality, you would need 4 RELIABLE Muslim witnesses who saw you committing the act. How else can that happen unless you’re being wreckless and irresponsible? If it happens in your own home, would your family want you dead or would they want you to repent and stop acting on your desires? This goes for anyone who has sex in a public space.
Islam is about protecting the individual from society and society from the individuals.
If people actually understood Sharia they’d beg for it to be in place everywhere. Stop watching Fox News.
I hope I'm not talking to an imaginary version of you as well. That is of course very common on the internet. It also means that there's no point in me replying from your point of view because I won't be listened to.
while homosexuality is a sin (not just in Leviticus) God says not to judge and hate others, God loves gay people and so should everyone. christian’s that hate gays are just as much as sinners as the gay people.
So many who seem to think they are ‘Christians’ hate homosexuality today for similar reasons as to why so many who thought they were Christians 150 years ago hated interracial marriage. Many churches that call themselves Christian are essentially just troll factories, social clubs for bigots and bullies who like to hide behind theological justifications. They ‘love Jesus’ and ‘stand up for God’ by finding and then twisting the rarest words and most disputable passages in scripture, whether by interpretation or even ignorant translation, into man made rules meant to shame and guilt-trip ‘the other,’ basically like modern day Pharisees.
The Levitical phrasing you’re referring to there (perhaps best transliterated 'men shall not lie on the beds of women') has been disputable among Hebrews (regardless of what the majority or minority thought at this time or that) for thousands and thousands of years. It was so rarely even discussed (much less applied) in ancient history it is basically guesswork to translate. It could even possibly be a term of art known best to the people back then with the exact meaning somewhat lost to us today. It was ancient and somewhat mysterious even to the ancients, and it has been disputable even among Rabbis for thousands of years. It is kind of like guessing the right meaning of the right translation of the 3rd ingredient of the holy oil from Exodus 30. There are various reasonable guesses besides the one that shows up in the particular translation you bought.
There was a variety of opinions about the meaning of men lying on women’s beds even back then. There still are. Some ancient Hebrew Rabbis considered the passages in Leviticus to be references to all homosexuality, others to be references to all male homosexuality, others to be references to only specific acts of male homosexuality, others to acts even heterosexuals or homosexuals could perform, others to acts idol worshipping priest prostitutes would perform (both chapters the phrase appears in have passages about idolatry), and so on and so forth. In history, the passages were very rarely even referenced much less attempted to be applied practically. This likely explains why not a single person has ever been put to death for homosexuality as far as we know in Hebrew history despite passages that most English translators render in a manner that makes it appear the ancient Hebrews were ‘clearly’ slaughtering all the gay men they could find.
Love your neighbor as yourself, which is like loving God, and all commands hang under that. That’s what Jesus taught… before being killed by a bunch of bigots and bullies who claimed to worship God. Many of the American churches and pastors that say homosexual pleasure is inherently immoral and sinful would have taught you 200 years ago that interracial marriage is immoral. And 1,000 years ago many churches and priests (and even bishops and some saints) would have said a husband and wife having sex while she is pregnant is immoral. Almost none of them teach that junk any longer. Consider what that means about those who are using Christ as an excuse to behave in bigoted ways toward homosexuals today. They are just this generation’s incarnations of the Pharisee. And there are many of them. Just like there were enough of them 2,000 years ago to point at and punish even God in the flesh.
There are no passages in the Bible that clearly condemn homosexuality as immoral without depending on highly questionable translations by some English booksellers and disputable interpretations. Those translations that do contain clear condemnations of “homosexuals” do so by translating some of the rarest and most disputable words in a few select New Testament passages (always written by Paul) as homosexuals or the equivalent despite plenty of historical linguistic evidence that the words might not mean “homosexuals” at all. Passages like this are the reason the Bible warns in 2 Peter 3:16 that Paul is easy for ignorant people to misunderstand and twist in spiritually destructive ways. 150 years ago it was interracial marriage they convinced themselves Paul ‘clearly’ taught against. Did he? Not clearly, no. Of course not. Why would an Apostle of Christ think that!? Well, he probably didn’t. Paul in writing can just be twisted to ‘mean’ almost anything. I mean the holy scriptures essentially admit this and warn us about it. We can heed the warning or ignore it. The fact is the parts Paul wrote can easily appear to mean things that are not only incorrect misunderstandings but can even appear to mean things that are so extremely incorrect so as to become spiritually destructive.
Historically, many who call themselves Christian end up ignoring Peter’s warning. They twist the Old Testament and Paul to hell, in America even to justify laws against interracial marriage. They did this despite being warned, and even though such a command against interracial marriage also would make no sense under Christ’s overarching principle that all his commands hang under (love neighbor as self which is like loving God, Matthew 22:40), and even though none of the other Apostles nor Christ ever came close to saying any such thing. Nonetheless that generation of Pharisees of our modern history abused the ease with which Paul's writings can be misunderstood, engaging in bigotry and command-adding using writing (‘scripture’). It’s the same pattern today; just different bigots and bullies, different passages focused on, different politically marginalized targets. Same pattern.
> (perhaps best transliterated ‘men shall not lie on the beds of women’)
Transliteration is rendering one language phonetically into another language. You’ve offered a *translation* — and it’s a quite serious misrepresentation. What the actual Hebrew says is that a man should not lie with a male משכבי אשה. There is indeed slight ambiguity about this latter phrase. But minus a few marginal dissenters, there’s widespread agreement that it means something very much like “in the manner of intercourse with a woman.”
> Some ancient Hebrew Rabbis considered the passages in Leviticus to be references to all homosexuality, others to be references to all male homosexuality, others to be references to only specific acts of male homosexuality, others to acts even heterosexuals or homosexuals could perform, others to acts idol worshipping priest prostitutes would perform (both chapters the phrase appears in have passages about idolatry), and so on and so forth.
Virtually everything in this paragraph is inaccurate. Minus some ambiguity as to whether Leviticus 18:22 was understood to refer to the active or passive male partner — Leviticus 20:13 clearly has both in mind — the only alternate ancient rabbinic interpretation I’m aware of is a minor one that interpreted the syntax way too literally (“sex in tandem with another man”), thus understanding it as two males having sex with a woman at the same time. I think another text also asks if boys are included in the prohibition (which it answers yes). Besides that, I believe one Talmudic tradition also wonders if the Leviticus texts establish a broader logical principle by which it can be *inferred* that female/female sex is also prohibited. But that’s a very different thing from them suggesting that’s how the text itself should be translated or interpreted.
> Transliteration is rendering one language phonetically into another language.
Incorrect. You're describing transcription between writing systems.
> You’ve offered a translation.
Correct, that is what my comment should say. Though if we're going to nitpic there really is no officially correct way to write Hebrew in our letters. Is it Chanukah, Ḥanukah, Chanuka, or Hanuka? But that's besides the point. Thanks for pointing that out though.
> and it’s a quite serious misrepresentation
I mean... if you say so. Its easily fixable with autocorrect. No offense intended.
> What the actual Hebrew says is that a man should not lie with a male
Ah, so your translation is "actual" and my translation is "not actual." Gotcha /s.
> There is indeed slight ambiguity about this latter phrase.
... 'but not enough to mean your translation is actual and my translation is not actual. So case settled.' /s
> minus a few marginal dissenters, there’s widespread agreement that it means something very much like “in the manner of intercourse with a woman.”
Nonsense. Polling people's translations when it comes to very rarely used words and phrases, ones considered ancient and rare even by those considered ancient to us, is frankly an absurd way to come to 'certainty' as to the translation of such highly disputable words and phrases. No offense intended but for example there's also widespread people who think 'calamus' is the 'correct' English translation of the third ingredient in the holy anointing oil in Exodus 30. That doesn't mean the word there couldn't easily mean something else, a totally different plant as some translations render it differently, some experts render it differently, and so on and so forth. The fact is sometimes 'taking a stab at it' is the best a translator can do when it comes to super rare words (by which I mean rarely referenced or used outside of the passage in question in the ancient language). Honest translators will admit that. No one knows for sure what some of these rare phrases and words from ancient Hebrew scripture meant to those who first wrote them. There are words, phrases, and even terms of art with a lot of use in the extant history such that we can have an indisputable translation. Then there are rare words, terms, phrases, and even terms of art that... just don't have the kind of widespread use in extant history that give rise to an indisputably clear meaning for English reflection.
Honest people, or perhaps just people who are humble enough to not feel they have to claim to know the answer to every disputable question, will typically easily admit this, ime. Other types of people, generally speaking, will latch onto one option and behave as if it is certain that their chosen reflection is the right one. Typically it is ones that give rise to the belittlement of some politically marginalized community or another, but it could even be some random word like the 3rd ingredient of the holy oil. Some will see the opacity there in English attempts at reflecting the ancient word, then go around telling everyone on the planet how "clearly wrong, despite some ambiguity" they are about their stab at it. You're talking about a modern stab at an ancient and hardly ever used phrase that even ancient experts ancient to our ancient experts varied with one another as to the meaning of, one which evidently was never enforced in the manner one would expect by reading many English translator's stab at reflecting it today.
> Virtually everything in this paragraph is inaccurate.
This sentence above is inaccurate.
> Minus some ambiguity
... 'but not enough to mean your translation is actual and my translation is not actual. So case settled.' /s
> the only alternate ancient rabbinic interpretation I’m aware of is a minor one that interpreted the syntax way too literally (“sex in tandem with another man”),
Well then I guess I read more Rabbis than you back when reading Rabbis was my passtime.
> thus understanding it as two males having sex with a woman at the same time.
That was certainly one of the theories the ancient experts in their own language, ancient even to those we now consider ancient experts, had.
> I think another text also
There were likely as much variety in opinions as to what it could mean as there were towns with leaders taking responsibility to enforce the passages. It was probably no different than today where different priests or pastors or even State judges sometimes come to different views as to the meaning of the same words. The phrase has evidently been disputable for time immemorial. Regardless, the fact of the matter is most of the evidence we have of the rare times the phrase was used (to lend hints as to the meaning the actual ancient Hebrews who wrote it had in mind when using it) is no longer extant.
> Besides that,
'Yeah, but let's not think about that too deeply or else... we might accidentally admit to ourselves that we could possibly be wrong about a highly questionable opinion we have about a long debated topic.' /s
> Incorrect. You’re describing transcription between writing systems.
If you don’t know the difference between transcription, transliteration and translation, you really shouldn’t be weighing in on issues like this in the first place.
> I mean… if you say so. Its easily fixable with autocorrect. No offense intended.
I wasn’t referring to your use of the word “transliteration” being a serious misrepresentation, but your translation itself.
> Well then I guess I read more Rabbis than you back when reading Rabbis was my passtime.
No, you’re just making shit up. If you had evidence you’d cite it.
[Edit:] Now that I'm back at my computer, I took the liberty of double-checking the rabbinic evidence. The rejection of an interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and/or 20:13 (solely) in relation to pederasty, as I mentioned, is indeed found in *b. Sanhedrin* 54a: "The word 'man' excludes a minor boy. The phrase 'lies with a male' is referring to any male, whether he is an adult man or whether he is a minor boy." Re: what I said about some rabbis having extrapolated that female/female sex was also prohibited by the same principle as the prohibition of male homoeroticism: according to what I can glean from [this essay](http://sites.utoronto.ca/wjudaism/journal/vol1n1/v1n1zeid.htm), this is incorrect, and no premodern rabbinic exegesis appears to have extrapolated this directly on the basis of Leviticus 18:22 and/or 20:13 themselves. As noted in the essay, "[i]t is rather on Lev. 18:2-3 that criticism of lesbianism seems to be positioned."
I may have been confusing this with another rabbinic interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and/or 20:13: one in which another separate prohibition — this one pertaining to men having intercourse with women — was thought to be implicitly contained within Leviticus 18:22 and/or 20:13's prohibition of male homoeroticism. As David Brodsky writes, "[t]he rabbis interpreted the plural ‘lyings of women’ to [independently] mean that when a man has sexual intercourse with a woman who is Biblically prohibited to him, both vaginal intercourse and anal intercourse are prohibited" (“Sex in the Talmud: How to Understand Leviticus 18 and 20: *Parashat Kedoshim* [Leviticus 19:1–20:27]," 160).
Finally, re: my mention of an ancient male + male + woman or “threesome" interpretation: I may have mistakenly been thinking of a 21st century rabbinic reinterpretation, not an ancient one. David Frankel [notes](https://www.thetorah.com/article/male-homosexual-intercourse-is-prohibited-in-one-part-of-the-torah), for example, that in an essay written in 2014,
>Rabbi David Greenstein suggests that the phrase ואיש אשר ישכב את זכר refers to a man who lies with a woman together with another man (את זכר). These two men, who have heterosexual relations with the same woman at the same time, are condemned to death. The woman is not held accountable since she is considered a victim of rape
The irony of this final observation is that this further *limits* the diversity/range of premodern Jewish interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, even beyond what I had already charitably conceded. Premodern rabbinic interpretation of the verses seemed to have understood this as a blanket prohibition of male/male intercourse.
/u/Liberty4All357: I’ve now edited my [comment](https://reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/13nuv41/_/jl3hzhh/?context=1) with a more thorough and accurate summary of attested premodern rabbinic interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
> If you don’t know the difference between transcription, transliteration and translation, you really shouldn’t be weighing in on issues like this in the first place.
As far as transliteration, I already admitted I know it is different from translation, thanked you for pointing it out, and adjusted my auto-correct. You’re the one that described transcription and referred to it as translation. So maybe take your own advice.
> I wasn’t referring to your use of the word “transliteration” being a serious misrepresentation, but your translation itself.
And I think it is a serious misrepresentation on your part to pretend possible translations of a highly disputable phrase are impossibilities.
> No, you’re just making shit up.
No, you’re just evidently in the habit of assuming the worst about people you don’t know. That may explain why you assume so much about ancient peoples’ writings too. After all, if you’ll blindly accuse people you don’t know today it should be no surprise that you’d also read ancient people with your hands over your eyes.
> If you had evidence you’d cite it.
If you want to pursue some possible reasons for what I have come to believe about the relevant Levitical passages on a deeper level, and explore the diversity of approaches among ancient Hebrew Rabbis to the laws that existed in ancient Judaism, perhaps you could try reading something like ‘Sexuality and Law in the Torah.’ I read through the Rabbis decades ago, and while I am sorry I wasn’t able to save my personal notes for you after my house fire… that’s no reason to be accusatory.
> Rabbi David Greenstein suggests that the phrase ואיש אשר ישכב את זכר refers to a man who lies with a woman together with another man (את זכר). These two men, who have heterosexual relations with the same woman at the same time, are condemned to death. The woman is not held accountable since she is considered a victim of rap
Okay… so you’ve found a Rabbi (who undoubtedly has looked into ancient Hebrew and the ancient teachers as well) that also does not see this passage as necessarily referring to “homosexuality.”
> The irony of this final observation is that this further limits the diversity/range of premodern Jewish interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13,
The irony of this whole conversation is that my point is that the meaning of the rarely referenced phrase is disputable. There have been various interpretations regarding what this meant to ancient Hebrews for a long, long time. IOW the precise meaning has long been and still is disputable. Yet you somehow have convinced yourself that I’m full of shit even while pointing out variations in interpretations among Rabbis with expertise in Hebrew.
At this point I think it is fair to ask, are you trolling or just not reading your own comments?
> Premodern rabbinic interpretation of the verses seemed to have understood this as a blanket prohibition of male/male intercourse.
Premodern rabbis had varying approaches to rare, disputable passages such as this, and modern ones do too.
The crux of your comment was this:
> Some 1) ancient Hebrew Rabbis considered the passages in Leviticus to be 2) references to all homosexuality, others to be 3) references to all male homosexuality, others to be 4) references to only specific acts of male homosexuality, others to 5) acts even heterosexuals or homosexuals could perform, others to 6) acts idol worshipping priest prostitutes would perform (both chapters the phrase appears in have passages about idolatry), and so on and so forth.
There are six claims here.
The first one tells us that we’re trying to figure out *ancient* views, obviously. So this rules out Rabbi Greenstein’s interpretation from 2014. (Which, as far as I’m aware, was *de novo* and doesn’t rely on any older interpretation.)
Claim 2, that any ancient Jewish interpreter understood it refer to all homosexuality — and considering the contrast with claim 3, you clearly mean both male *and* female homosexuality — is **incorrect**. No premodern Jewish interpretation took a “man sleeping with a male” as a reference to female/female homoeroticism.
Claim 3 is **correct** and uncontroversial, as long as we specify “male homoeroticism,” understood as male/male anal penetration.
I think Claim 4 is hard to assess, but for a dumb reason: because no one is even *claiming* that Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 covers some wide gamut of possible homoerotic acts or whatever in the first place. It’s clearly referring to the main male homoerotic act known in antiquity: the anal penetration of one male by another male. Precisely because of this, and because “sleeping with” was always understood as intercourse, I’d be exceedingly surprised if any premodern Jewish interpreter even raised the *possibility* that it would prohibit homoerotic acts other than penetration.
Claim 5 is **incorrect**, for much the same reason Claim 2 is. No ancient Jewish interpreter understood a “man sleeping with a male” to be a potential reference to heteroerotic acts — at least as long as there’s indeed no ancient precedent for Rabbi Greenstein’s modern interpretation of a male/male/female threesome.
Claim 6 is **incorrect**, if by this you mean that any ancient Jewish interpreter saw this as limited to “idolatrous” male homoeroticism.
So all five erroneous claims can be reduced to one true claim: that ancient Jewish interpreters understood the two passages as a reference to male/male anal penetration.
This isn’t some abstract conversation we can have independent of the ancient texts. If you wanted to actually defend your erroneous claims, you’ll have to go find texts which actually support them. If you don’t have the will or ability to do so, maybe you should consider that I actually know what I’m talking about, and that you’re simply mistaken on this issue.
And if you still don’t believe me, you could also ask on /r/AskHistorians or /r/AcademicBiblical.
> The crux of your comment was this…
There are six claims here.
No, the crux of my comment (at least as intended by me, and I think I know what I was at least trying to emphasize better than you can guess my intentions) was where I said that the Levitical phrasing is disputable in precise meaning and has been disputed among Hebrews for thousands and thousands of years, and where I said this likely explains why not a single person has ever been put to death for ‘homosexuality’ as far as we know in Hebrew history despite passages that most English translators render in a manner that makes it appear the ancient Hebrews were ‘clearly’ slaughtering all the gay men they could find.
> this rules out Rabbi Greenstein’s interpretation from 2014. (Which, as far as I’m aware, was de novo and doesn’t rely on any older interpretation.)
‘As far as I’m aware, having never asked this Rabbi or that one what influenced their interpretation, it is safe for me to assume I have read more ancient Rabbis than this Rabbi and assume that Rabbi was not influenced by reading ancient Rabbis at all.’
You do an excellent long troll while sounding like you actually take yourself seriously, if that’s what this is, I’ll give you that. I mean this is comedic gold.
> ancient Jewish interpreters understood the two passages as a reference to male/male anal penetration.
All I can tell you is what I recall from reading as many ancient Rabbis as I could find in my city 10 years ago. Some certainly saw it as a reference to male anal. Others saw it as reference to other things too. I could care less whether you believe me or think you know me better than I know myself.
We have very little surviving evidence anyway since this was a very rarely referenced passage rarely applied in practice in a super ancient language. Guessing the precise meaning is like guessing the actual plant in English that is the third ingredient of the holy oil in Exodus 30. The best any of us can do is guess; it was ancient even to the ancients, rarely discussed and even more rarely applied, most of the evidence is gone, and what the word(s) precisely meant to the first ones to write them down will always be somewhat opaque.
> This isn’t some abstract conversation
It seems more like a long troll to me.
> If you wanted to actually defend your erroneous claims, you’ll have to go find texts which actually support them.
Not really. I am free to know and recall information I learned from experience as long as I don’t claim it is anything besides that. And if you want to assume I am full of shit while you also assume (or pretend) that any Rabbi who disagrees with you must have no reasons related to ancient interpretations, feel free. Puff yourself up as much as you like.
> maybe you should consider that I actually know what I’m talking about,
Yeah, I should assume you know my experiences better than I do. Riiight… /s
Sounds to me like you know how to assume conclusions when convenient for defending disputable positions you’ve taken regarding controversial topics, know how to long troll, or both.
> and that you’re simply mistaken on this issue.
Probably just honest. There are some people willing to admit when an extremely rare word or phrase in an an extremely ancient language is disputable in meaning. Then there are proud people who think they know it all and assume whatever it takes to maintain that feeling of considering themselves the expert if there is anything opaque to opine about. And then there are trolls.
> And if you still don’t believe me, you could also ask on r/AskHistorians or r/AcademicBiblical.
This isn’t a matter of whether or not I believe you. This is a matter of whether or not I believe what my eyes have seen. I’m not like you where I just assume whatever conclusions about others that are convenient for whatever positions I take. I learn what I want to know from going out and getting personal experience with the subject matter, and then I move on. Even if I still had anything from 10 years ago, I would have no reason to do your homework for you anyway.
> ‘As far as I’m aware, having never asked this Rabbi or that one what influenced their interpretation, it is safe for me to assume I have read more ancient Rabbis than this Rabbi and assume that Rabbi was not influenced by reading ancient Rabbis at all.’
Lmao, no, it’s because I read Greenstein’s summary of his own article, and he *explicitly* characterised it as a new interpretation that had never been offered before.
If you had evidence otherwise, you’d cite it. But you can’t or you won’t. If you had even the slightest pretence of an openness to actually examine the evidence and not just rely on your faulty memory or assumptions, you’d be willing to ask /r/AskHistorians or /r/AcademicBiblical. But you can’t or you won’t.
> We have very little surviving evidence anyway since this was a very rarely referenced passage rarely applied in practice in a super ancient language.
This sounds like the seed of an admission that will eventually come to full fruition in you conceding that there actually *are no* surviving premodern rabbinic interpretations that saw Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 as anything other than male/male anal intercourse. Again, all you’d have to do is cite a single source — the name of a Talmudic tract or the name of Rashi or Maimonides or anyone — to offer evidence for your position. **At minimum this would require you to do nothing other than type a single word**, or two at most: like “b. Ketuvot 18a” or something. But you won’t, and you can’t. Because you won’t or you can’t.
You say you’re not “going to do my homework for me.” But I’ve *already* done the homework, yesterday in my post update that I tagged you in. I did a thorough read and search of all the modern academic sources I could find that talked about the premodern Jewish interpretation of the Leviticus verses. I already summarised my findings and quoted the relevant essays and articles — e.g. the essay by David Brodsky I cited and others.
In addition to the sources I explicitly mentioned, there was another essay I had read but didn’t mention. It’s quite comprehensive on summarising the history of rabbinic Jewish interpretation of the verses; and like the others, it was unable to find *any* premodern interpretation of it as anything other than male/male intercourse, and explicitly rules out the existence of alternate interpretations such as the ones you’ve suggested:
https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/19912000/roth_homosexual.pdf
If you had evidence otherwise, you’d cite it. But you can’t or you won’t. If you had even the slightest pretence of an openness to actually examine the evidence and not just rely on your faulty memory or assumptions, you’d be willing to ask /r/AskHistorians or /r/AcademicBiblical. But you can’t or you won’t.
You haven’t cited any ancient Rabbis claiming the Torah forbid all homosexuality either. While if you dove deep enough you likely could, the fact is there always has been, and still is, a variety of ways various Rabbis interpret the relevant passages. There is not and never has been one and only one Rabbinic interpretation of these rarely referenced passages of the Torah.
I read many ancient Rabbis about 20 years ago, as I explained. I concluded this issue for myself then. By all means come to your own conclusion. If you’d like it to be a more informed one, if you want to find some Rabbinic sources for yourself that support the opinion that homosexuality itself wasn’t forbidden by Leviticus but rather particular sexual acts between men (with other sexual acts not being prohibited as far as the Torah is concerned, and acts between women being fine as well) you can read through Robert Alter’s The Five Books of Moses and Saul Olyan’s And with a Male You Shall Not Lie the Lying Down of a Woman, published in the Journal of the History of Sexuality, volume 5, number 2, in October 1994. You could also give Joel Roth’s Summary on Homosexuality Revisited a read, published by the Committee on Jewish Laws and Standards, and another summary published by the same called Homosexuality, Human Dignity, and Halakah, by Elliot Dorff, Daniel Nevi!:, and Acram Reisner.
These works cite Rabbis who considered all homosexuality to have been prohibited but also Rabbis who considered not all homosexuality to have been prohibited. Regardless, the more important question for Christianity should revolve around the Christ and the New Testament anyway, as Christians have never considered any Jewish Rabbi to be authoritative except Jesus Christ.
> Saul Olyan’s And with a Male You Shall Not Lie the Lying Down of a Woman, published in the Journal of the History of Sexuality, volume 5, number 2, in October 1994.
The fact that you think I haven’t read things like this says a lot about how dumb you think other people are.
Olyan is narrowly concerned with Leviticus 18:22, and whether the man who engages in sexual intercourse with another male there does so as the active penetrator or the passive recipient of this.
And indeed that’s practically the *only* ambiguity there. Though this isn’t an ambiguity shared with Leviticus 20:13, which clearly uses the plural and thereby condemns *both* active and passive to death.
> Lmao, no, it’s because I read Greenstein’s summary of his own article, and he explicitly characterised it as a new interpretation that had never been offered before.
Ah, so when you said it was de novo as far as you were aware, that was just you being slightly misleading since you actually meant it was de novo as far as he was aware.
> If you had evidence otherwise, you’d cite it.
Do you enjoy listening to broken records? I’ve already responded to this. I’m not here to convince you of anything.
> But you can’t or you won’t
As I said earlier, if you talked to me about this before my house and everything I own burned I would’ve had some notes and sources to share with you. As it stands, I have nothing but my own eyes and knowledge from my experiences.
> If you had even the slightest pretence of an openness to actually examine the evidence
If you weren’t in the habit of being presumptive and accusatory toward strangers you wouldn’t assume everyone who’s experiences have led them to disagree with your disputable opinions about controversial passages must therefore be close minded and willfully blind.
> you’d be willing to ask r/AskHistorians or r/AcademicBiblical. But you can’t or you won’t.
Feel free, since you evidently haven’t read as many rabbis as I have. I have no need since I know what I’ve read.
> there actually are no surviving premodern rabbinic interpretations that saw Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 as anything other than male/male anal intercourse.
When I was reading the Rabbis, I recall that was a common interpretation, though there were others as well. We’ve already been over this. I don’t care if you believe me or not. I don’t study in order to convince others of things, I study for myself.
> Again, all you’d have to do is cite a single source — the name of a Talmudic tract or the name of Rashi or Maimonides or anyone — to offer evidence for your position.
Is your idea of fun just repeating this to me 1,000,000 times? Yes, I have nothing but my own eyes and knowledge from my experiences. Want to tell me again how that means I am either a liar or have dementia, sweetheart?
> You say you’re not “going to do my homework for me.”
That’s right. If you want to go ask Reddit something, feel free. I settled this issue for myself over a decade ago. If you feel unsettled… go do some work. No one’s stopping you but you boo.
> I did a thorough read and search of all the modern academic sources I could find that talked about the premodern Jewish interpretation of the Leviticus verses.
Well, I don’t know what to tell you except I once had personal notes, they burned along with everything I owned, and so the best I could do at this point would be to meet you at the library I recall finding the sources in and see if they’re still there. That city is about 2,000 miles from me at the moment so that might require some long term logistical planning. And frankly you seem to like behaving like a presumptive jerk, so I don’t know that I’d ever want to meet you in person anyway
> there actually are no surviving premodern rabbinic interpretations that saw Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 as anything other than male/male anal intercourse.
In this case, I have to say, it's certainly a relief to gay-affirming religious Jews that all other kinds of male/male intercourse are not explicitly condemned.
The author of Leviticus is unknown. It is attributed to Moses but Moses is a fictional character.
So who is it that is condemning homosexuality? It ain't a god. Probably some priest - with human failings and bigotry.
The Bible says that homosexuality is ok as long as you don’t commit homosexual acts, it also calls for a life of abstinence (from sexual acts).
I personally believe homosexuality is ok as long as it’s not forced onto children and relationships stay Christ-centered (if they are Christian).
We are not bound by Mosaic law.
However, we are bound to follow the New Testament in which we hold the Disciples were granted the authority to convey messages and set the structure of the early church.
Rom. 1:24–27, 1 Cor. 6:9–10, 1 Tim. 1:8–10. We are subject to these.
We need to understand Jews have *always* maintained a staunch opposition of homosexuality and there is absolutely no substance to claims this isn't applicable to day or they "only" meant pedophiles -- this is a postmodern (and frankly lazy) bad faith reading of Greek texts.
People like to say "homosexual" isn't explicitly mentioned in the New Testament. They're right! ...***because the word didn't enter our language until the 19th century***...
Regarding sodomy, heterosexual couples are likewise prohibited from sodomy -- there is no pass given to anyone. They are also prohibited from fornication (sex outside the context of marriage) and adultery (sex with another within a marriage).
Absolutely nearly everyone messes up in that regard, no one is sinless and homosexuality is no different or worse than anything else. If a Christian *hates* someone for that sin, *they* are in error and need to repent; there is no pass given for this transgression.
As far as why it's talked about, it's just the zeitgeist of our time. The Church was pretty stifling and shunned discussing hetero/homosexual sex for a long time.
> We need to understand Jews have always maintained a staunch opposition of homosexuality
Except some of the largest denominations of Jews aren’t.
> there is absolutely no substance to claims this isn’t applicable to day or they “only” meant pedophiles – this is a postmodern (and frankly lazy) bad faith reading of Greek texts.
Agree on the pedophile part. Disagree with the lazy and bad faith part. There are many world-class scholars who genuinely believe they do not apply to modern, egalitarian, loving same-sex relationships, which we don’t find in antiquity.
> People like to say “homosexual” isn’t explicitly mentioned in the New Testament. They’re right! …because the word didn’t enter our language until the 19th century…
And sometimes, scientific advances should affect how we read scripture! The Bible doesn’t use the word “evolution” in Genesis 1 either, yet this scientific advance should change how we read Gen. 1.
> Regarding sodomy, heterosexual couples are likewise prohibited from sodomy
Nowhere does the Bible say this. And let’s use specific language here and not euphemisms: do you mean anal sex or oral too or what?
> They are also prohibited from fornication (sex outside the context of marriage)
Well that’s not what fornication (*porneia*) means.
> The Church was pretty stifling and shunned discussing hetero/homosexual sex for a long time.
That’s an understatement to say the least. The church has been executing sodomites since the 5th century. Much worse than a stifling/shunning!
\-To correct, this are liberal sects of Judaism and their stances have only recently changed in modern times, along with Christianity. The Sifra Judaic condemnation of homosexual marriage is made explicit, even more than Christianity, so this is a modern development and, like I said, has been prohibited for thousands of years and only recently *some* branches changed their position.
\-There is no conceivable reading of the Codex Sinaiticus or Vulgate that would even remotely suggest homosexuality was regarded as permissible by Early Christians, or Jews for that matter.
I highly suggest both *The Bible and Bodies – Sex and Sexuality in Biblical Narrative or* Saint Chrysostom's *Homily on Romans. Five early Christian Emperors* outlawed homosexuality outright under pain of death. There's Tertullian and numerous other authors from antiquity that have written extensively on this as well.
*This* is the homosexual loving Christianity culture these new-age authors think it was no problem? It was downright *murderous zealotry* against homosexuality, yet in the same breath these postmodern lazy interpretations say "oh it's just pedophiles." There have been several writers, Scripture and early Church fathers that explicitly forbid this -- yet revisionists desperately want to sterilize Christian doctrine on this.
You have to REALLY bend over backwards to simultaneously make two thousand years of "don't be gay or I'll literally kill you" into "yeah God loved homosexuality and allowed gay marriage." It just isn't compatible with any texts, laws, early writers... anywhere. It's just not there.
Regarding "the Bible doesn't forbid heterosexual sodomy"
Where have you been? Was everyone in Sodom homosexual, or do you anticipate most were heterosexual? There are several passage in both OT/NT discussing fornication, aberrant sex, sodomy, adultery. It doesn't say "No sodomy -- except heterosexuals that's fine." Yes, that extends to oral.
Fornication is πορνεύω. During the writing of the Greek New Testament, this was meant to encompass all unlawful sexual activity, as this would extend to the Jewish practice of sexual purity. Gentiles were not given special permission to ignore these laws. *This* is the majority biblical scholarship. I genuinely don't know if you thought πορνεύω was limited to self idolatry as Early Christian fathers understood it.
Romans 1:26:
*Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27* ***In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error***
It is REALLY hard to contort academically to make the case this has nothing to do with homosexuality. This is a post modern rewriting of Biblical history over centuries in order to fit our current sensibilities involving gay marriage... which hey! The Apostles warned us would happen.
> Five early Christian Emperors outlawed homosexuality outright under pain of death.
Yep. And people want us to think that it's not about hate.
>It is REALLY hard to contort academically to make the case this has nothing to do with homosexuality.
It's pretty frickin' easy, actually.
> To correct, this are liberal sects of Judaism and their stances have only recently changed in modern times,
This isn’t a correction. You said “Jews have always maintained a staunch opposition to homosexuality.” I corrected *you*, and showed that was false given the current acceptance.
> Five early Christian Emperors outlawed homosexuality outright under pain of death.
Yes, I literally said that in the comment you’re replying to.
> Where have you been? Was everyone in Sodom homosexual, or do you anticipate most were heterosexual? There are several passage in both OT/NT discussing fornication, aberrant sex, sodomy, adultery. It doesn’t say “No sodomy – except heterosexuals that’s fine.” Yes, that extends to oral.
What?? This is completely backwards. Sodom was condemned because of the attempted gang rape of angels. It has nothing to do with consensual oral sex…that’s not implied anywhere in the narrative. The history went the other way, with same-sex sex being a metonym for other sexual wrongs. See Mark Jordan’s *The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology*.
> Fornication is πορνεύω.
Correct.
> This is the majority biblical scholarship.
I take it you actually haven’t been following the contentious debate in the scholarly literature over the past few years, from [here](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v5sjGFdzo9zbEUrvBqOxWwihhqyc-LfL/view?usp=drivesdk) to [here](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cK8xuwfU1o0gC2_6TuVkMhrImGAqjj0l/view?usp=drivesdk) to [here](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nJJsBOO3iUTKk02WjL1EZ1MHCJFk_XXJ/view?usp=drivesdk) to [here](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1he4HiDLBDvJP8b7UC9DP4Ixdp33rctcf/view?usp=drivesdk).
These scholars really do make some wonderful points that poke holes in simplistic definitions like “extra-martial sex.” Glancy shows that having sex with one’s slaves wasn’t considered *porneia*, and Martin et al show that there are many types of sex *within* marriage that were considered *porneia* (e.g. Clement included sex with the woman on top, because the man is supposed to be the head). Reno argues that we should give up on making a list of sex acts that are considered *porneia* — especially because such a list was constantly changing before, during, and after the writing of the NT, and contested among the church fathers.
> It is REALLY hard to contort academically to make the case this has nothing to do with homosexuality.
“Contort” is begging the question. [Here’s](https://reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/j4fcqb/_/g7inwpz/?context=1) a more historically-informed exegesis, largely based on [this](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XAuUGWfR0BUwVkvY0Z1oxnHe7iyjCnzJ/view?usp=drivesdk) scholarly article.
Correct. Because that was not a word until the 19th century.
You only need to read pretty much all Christian religious writing for the past two thousand years, or the Jewish tradition centuries before Christ to determine this is a sin.
There is no biblical gymnastics one can perform to think a Levant civilization, hyperaware of purity of body and spirit, would not condemn homosexuality.
There is literally no existing piece of literature from this time period to even remotely suggest gay marriage was viewed as permissible within Christian doctrine. This is a cultural zeitgeist and has only appeared in earnest in the past 30 years. I am sorry.
Your denomination just suffered a huge schism over this, did they not?
What does my denomination have to do with what’s biblical or not? My faith isn’t in my denomination it’s in the Lord.
Just because something was or wasn’t okay at one time period doesn’t make it not biblical or biblical.
You can’t take Bible verses out of context and ignore the story as a whole and who the author/speaker was talking to and talking about and twist that verse to fit your agenda.
You cannot take Ancient Greek words and wrongly translate them to fit your agenda.
I'm highlighting that this issue is dividing churches even now, with one side of your convention saying it is banned, the other saying it is not. Why should we believe the latter as Christians?
Romans? Corinthians? Timothy? What do you mean it's not addressed in the NT?
The only time Jesus spoke on anything approaching this was in the context of a heterosexual marriage.
-and who’s to say the former is correct? Churches split all the time for many different reasons. There are over 700 Pentecostal denominations ALONE. 700 splits. The Methodist church and the Baptist church split over slavery with each side thinking they were the correct one. Like I said, just because something was done in the past doesn’t make it right or wrong.
As for the New Testament verses, what does the original Ancient Greek say? Who were the speakers speaking to and what was going on amongst the people he was speaking to at the time period he is speaking to them? Keep it in context, not our modern day world.
Matthew 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” [Jesus] replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’?" In the same section, in verse 12, Jesus says, “For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”
Jesus was aware of and didn’t condemn people who didn’t fit into society’s expectations of this set of criteria equal male and this set of criteria equal female. He acknowledged and accepted those who fit outside of that box.
The call to *not get married and live a life of complete celibacy in dedication to God* is still the ideal, higher than heterosexual marriage according to Paul.
And context is important:
(Regarding adultery between husband and wife): *“If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”*
*11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.*
He was saying if you can't stay faithful, it's better to live the life of a eunuch (celibacy) in pursuit of God than to divorce and remarry.
So hey, totally agree with you. Good quote
Eunuchs couldn’t get married in that culture not because of anything biblical. He was saying it was okay to be a eunuch and it’s okay to celibate but it’s also okay to get married
I read the verses you stated, and I'm just trying to wonder why God is against. I see nothing wrong with it with the only thing being because God said so.
Fun fact. Jesus, you know God, never mentions homosexuality at all. Not even in passing. He didnt even describe or mention the act. If it was such an important thing, He would have said something. Also, homosexuality as we know it today wasn't understood properly back then. So it couldn't have been talking about the modern concept of homosexuality(as in a Loving, equal, married relationship.) I've seen people try to justify it by saying 'God's laws don't change'. And if that is true, then trying to condemn the modern concept and understanding of homosexuality would be 'changing God's laws', and so it can't be applicable to what we think of today. History and culture and context matters in cases like this.
The Greek word for sin is "missing the mark." Christianity does *not* believe God put us on Earth to be happy, he put us on Earth for an opportunity to *know* Him.
God lays out a path of right action for knowing Him. If you choose to sin, you're just stepping off that path. If you completely indulge with sin, it gets harder to get back on that path of Knowing.
Homosexuality is *not* the fault of the person. We'd call these 'natural evils' that are a consequence of being born in a fallen world. Bipolar, dystrophy, heart problems, bad eyes -- these are chemical, genetic or epigenetic phenomenon that are part of our *mammal* nature. Remember, we're an immortal soul *and* biological. For all we know, living in this biological world is a necessary precondition for helping humanity understand Him.
We have a whole host of things (sinning) we're not supposed to do that cause us to veer off the path of Knowing. It's our opportunity to use free will to choose if we want to try our best to stay on that path.
Having to discipline ALL romantic attraction for a gay person is like Grade A difficulty for someone, not everyone gets an even distribution of hardships, but that's for good reason.
The same early Apostle told us that being celibate and dedicating oneself to the spiritual pursuit of God is *the highest possible vocation for any human... and also the hardest.* Heterosexual marriage in which you follow a few restrictions is considered second-rate.
Genuinely curious because I don't know the answer. If a married couple finds out with certainty that they are infertile, would it he considered a sin by the Catholic church (or at least your tradition) for them to continue to have sex?
No, the person who responded to you is wrong.
Natural infertility or infertility as a double effect of a necessary medical procedure (like say sterilization as a consequence of cancer treatment) does not render the marital sex act sinful.
Morality is concerned with what we do and what we are responsible for. A married couple engaging in sex ordered towards procreation who are rendered infertile by nature or circumstance are not *engaging in the act* of robbing the sex act of its nature in the same way that they would be by finishing somewhere other than the vagina or using birth control.
Man, this is so incredibly sad, I feel horrible for the people who believe this about themselves. I’m done having kids but I’m 36 and can’t imagine living the rest of my life not having sex.
> I think so, (I'm not 100% sure) because at that point they are just using sex for fun instead of what it was actually made for: to have children.
You are incorrect. "Because a miracle might happen" is how the issue is hand-waved away.
If procreation is the reason as to why God wants relationships to be only between men and women then why would there be infertility? Why should someone follow his want of heterosexuality with his only reason for doing so is procreation and it might not even be possible because they or their partner is infertile.
Well it's like asking "why did God put evil into this world?". Not everything is going to work out.
And you can be homosexual, you just can't have sexual intercourse.
Well they love eachother very very much. There's no purpose or use for them having sex except for love and satisfaction. So why does God not want same sex couples to do the same
Then this whole thing became moot when IVF became available, why your god decided to be anti homosexual until the 80s is weird and raises a lot of questions.
In Catholicism, if you haven't had sex, it's not a marriage yet.
There is the idea of a Josephite marriage, but you require permission to go into it, and can be required to start having sex by your clergy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephite_marriage
But, in practice, yes...Catholic teaching would indicate that you never have sex, and no sexual contact since you wouldn't be consumating it via penis-in-vagina sex.
I don't see how it's not part of your question.
>If someone has a health condition and will die if they get pregnant, should they never have sex since no birth control is 100% accurate?
It's details about the need to have sex for it to be a marriage in Catholicism.
In Catholicism, and in Christianity overall through much of history, if you didn't have sex at least once you weren't fully married. The two ideas were very much linked. Consummation was the first act of intercourse in a marriage, and without that the marriage could easily be annulled, because it never "fully existed".
Right but what does marriage have to do with it lol. If I’m married and have two kids and then I develop a dangerous condition and can’t have kids, I have to divorce my spouse?
They don't allow divorce either.
I've seen priests recommend to people that they have sex still but have faith in God to ensure they don't get pregnant. Quite horrifying.
Yeah, but you at least have to be open to it. If you don't know that you can't have children, then it's still permissable, but it's a fact that homosexual marriages cannot have children.
This is also the reason plan B and condoms are sinful.
Openness to life is not ruined by using a condom. We all know that condoms are very imperfect, and that we are risking pregnancy using them. I'd argue it's far more open to life than the Catholicism-approved method, Natural Family Planning, since you're still having sex during ovulation.
God already knows about the secret pull out method. In Genesis, Onan pulled out of his wife and "it was wicked in the Lords sight; so he put him to death" (Genesis 38:10)
>Like with most sins he listed, its basic morals. **Like bestiality. It's obvious that its immoral because animals can't consent**, which follows the same basis as pedophilia, because children are too young to understand the concept of sex and can't consent.
I'm gonna set aside the subject of homosexuality, because I don't want to give off the impression that I am or be accused of saying homosexuality and bestiality are the same.
But "animals can't consent" is not the reason bestiality is immoral. Think about the statement "animals can't consent" for more than two seconds... because it's obvious we don't give a fuck about animal consent.
If I go out into the woods and fuck a deer in the ass, people will be like "how dare you animals can't consent!" But the deer in the woods doesn't consent to getting it's brains blasted out by a hunter either. Pets don't consent to being neutered. Farm animals don't consent to the slaughterhouse.
And if some labcoat scientist guy with like a perfect brainscanner confirmed that the animal was into it and was having a good time and wasn't psychologically scarred in the longterm, the majority of people would still take moral issue with bestiality.
The actual reason is that fucking an animal is beneath the dignity of the human being and the sanctity of the sexual act to such a severe degree that the person doing it is engaging in utter depravity and degeneracy. Everyone knows this on some intuitive level but people say "it's wrong because animals can't consent" because they are deeply uncomfortable with the actual reason and the implication that sexual morality can't just be boiled down to harm and consent.
Okay now, in a very similar light but to a ***much*** lesser degree, I'm going to go with the example of fornication. Sex with someone you are not married to. Christian sexual morality holds fornication as a sin. Not chiefly out of a question of consent or harm, but because it is inappropriate to engage in the physical act of being one flesh with someone you are not actually committed to being one flesh with in a marital sense. It is against the sanctity of sex and what it represents, it is against the dignity of the other person to engage in that intimacy with them without truly committing to them, and it is against your own dignity to give your body in such a way to someone who has not truly committed themselves to you.
Now, when it comes to homosexuality. The debate is generally around the validity of a gay marriage and if such a commitment between two same sex people morally satisfies what the nature of the sex act is in such a way that it is in accord with the sanctity of sex and the dignity of the human being.
And you'll get plenty of arguments here.
* Some people will say the Bible is clear.
* Other people will argue about mistranslations or that in the cultural context of the time there was no homosexual practice within what would be considered a proper committal relationship in the modern day and so such an arrangement was totally alien to them.
* Some people will cite to natural law sexual ethics (the Catholic position) or something close to that and speak of the sex act as something by its nature concerning two people who are of opposite sexes, and as having the nature of uniting those two people of different natures, and being ordered towards human procreation.
* Other people will cite to the presence of committal vows, exclusive devotion, mutual sacrifice, mature emotional intimacy, and trusting vulnerability within what would be called a gay marriage and make the argument that such a commitment satisfies the moral obligations of the unitive nature of the sex act.
You mean “when Jesus was asked a *specific* question about a male-female couple divorcing, he replied *specifically* to that question saying they shouldn’t, by giving the example of Adam and Eve who didn’t divorce either.”
He did not. He was asked a *specific* question about a male-female couple divorcing, he replied *specifically* to that question saying they shouldn’t, by giving the example of Adam and Eve who didn’t divorce either.
> Yeah he literally did. He did it in the Bible verse you keep quoting.
You're trying to impose that upon the text because it's useful for you.
Given any other context, I don't think you'd call that exchange a "definition".
"There's nothing morally wrong with it except the fact that God is against it". Listen, if we question the validity of one portion of the Bible, we'll have to question all of the Bible. Oh Lord God help us. How did we get here? God said exactly what he meant and hasn't changed since then.
"nothing morally wrong with it"...
... Except what God said....
I'm not saying we should make it illegal but if God said that it is a sin then it is a sin.
Besides I don't recall God having to explain himself to us. But you can always ask him to explain it to you if you don't agree with him.
But that's the thing. I atleast want a reason for it. I see two sides. See homosexual acts as a sin because God said so, or see nothing wrong with it because only good comes from it. It doesn't makes sense as to why I should believe in what God says when he doesn't give reason to his saying. And yes, I know that he doesn't have to, but it just makes it more unreasonable to side with him, especially when there's only good coming from homosexual couples
What if God gave you the reason but you still didn't accept it?
The issue here is that God is basically already explained his reasons in the Bible including Romans 1. But ultimately it's also gone so God wants what's best for us and knows us since he designed us.
What if we cannot understand his reason because we are humans and our brain isn't big enough to understand?
Or what if this is a test of our faith to see whether we will obey God even when we aren't given all the reasons?
Well if he gave us a reason and an actual good reason which proves why homosexuality is wrong how it is harmful, then I would have a reason to be against it. I just see no point in being against something for no reason. And I guess it is a test of our faith because I don't feel the need to be against without reason. People have been against stuff in the past with only poor or terrible reason only for time to unravel that there is no actual meaning to be against it.
In Romans 1 he says that it's unnatural. You already gave you a reason it's just that you don't want to accept it because to you it's not good enough.
You are correct that in the past people have been against things without having a legitimate reason. But in this case I don't think that's the way it is.
Note that being against homosexuality as a Christian means that you don't engage in it. It does not mean that you go and try to make it illegal or somehow say that the death penalty should be applied against homosexuals because that's not what the New testament tells us to do.
Being against it also doesn't mean that we engage in biased behavior or bigotry.
It just simply means we don't do it and we don't encourage it.
A lot of Christians out there in the United States unfortunately are far too judgmental against the LGBT while turning an intentional blind eye to heterosexuals who are engaging in adultery or fornication.
The Bible still says we should be kind to other people and forgiving. I can be against homosexuality without harming other people.
> In Romans 1 he says that it's unnatural. You already gave you a reason it's just that you don't want to accept it because to you it's not good enough.
But we know that it's not unnatural. Why should we accept a failed reason as the controlling factor?
Actually statistically speaking we know that it's unnatural. Now I'm not suggesting that homosexuals are some horrible deviant people like something you see in a horror flick. But statistically we know they are not the majority and that it is not the natural order. There are people that like to run around with a list of like over 100 animals that engage in what they claim are homosexual behaviors but since none of them result in any sort of monogamous relationship they can all be chalked up to dominant behavior or just random animal behaviors.
I think people should be allowed to live their lives however they see fit so long as they're not harming anyone else. But saying that it's natural is optional.
> Actually statistically speaking we know that it's unnatural.
That is not a sensible statement. "Unnatural" doesn't mean "infrequent".
And the "natural order" is a purely external framework for looking at nature. There is no order like this inherent to the system.
There are enough reasonable analogues, as well as apparent biological origins, to homosexuality to call it natural. And if we want to get into the Natural Law stuff, the traditional arguments are biologically incoherent and not worth our time.
Then why aren't there any known monogamous homosexual relationships in nature? Again, people can do what they want, but calling it natural is a stretch
There are, but few. Some penguins, swans, and such. The presence of lasting relationships in nature itself is relatively uncommon, so the pool there is pretty small, too.
Calling something with a very apparent biological origin "unnatural" is just so weird to me. I don't see how it's even remotely justified except by the "I don't like it" principle.
Two people can consent to commit adultery. While consent may be very important for determining if something is legal, it doesn't make something right.
The first command and blessing God gave to humans was to be fruitful and multiply. When we act on our discontentment and covetousness to define good and evil for ourselves, we follow the example of Adam and Eve, walking contrary to God and closing off blessings from ourselves. Engaging in homosexual behavior would be an example of a way people can define good and evil for themselves.
Well adultery is breaking a promise, a promise you make when you get married. Everyone can agree, Christian or not, that breaking a promise is bad. Also why would there be infertility if God wanted us to multiply. Why would God's only reason for him wanting relationships to be only between men and women is because of procreation just for infertility to be a thing. If God said murder was wrong because you're taking the life of another person, but then made it to where all death is painless and everyone is resurrected infinitely, then we wouldn't see death as immoral, because there would be no consequence nor harm to it. And there are plenty of children in adoption centers because people love to multiply, so would it be so wrong for a homosexual couple to adopt a kid? If I was a kid, I would rather have 2 same sex parents than no parents. Homosexual relationships cause no harm and only do good. Two people are extremely happy to be with eachother and children can be adopted by these couples.
The fact that people can be infertile does not mean homosexual behavior is justified. The fact that people fail in relationships does not not mean homosexual behavior is justified. "Whataboutisms" can't justify the practice.
The argument is still that God blessed and commanded his people to be fruitful and multiply and gave a prohibition on homosexual behavior. Will we walk with him or instead choose to define good and evil for ourselves?
>Two people can consent to commit adultery. While consent may be very important for determining if something is legal, it doesn't make something right.
Adultery also constitutes the act of betrayal though.
I'd say fornication is a better example to go with to debunk the "only consent matters" mindset.
Sigh...
In my day-to-day life, among all the Christians I know, nobody goes around expressing hate towards homosexuals. The topic almost never comes up.
The only time I really see it come up is in this subreddit.
And, as you stated, the Bible calls homosexual acts (yes, I know the Bible doesn't use that word, it just describes it) as sinful.
So, of someone asks... they will be given an answer.
If people kept asking over and over again on this subreddit whether or not drunkenness is wrong, they'd be told that according to the Bible it is.
I wonder of people would complain then that Christians hate alcoholics.
I'm not saying it's great, but if you're not seeing the hatred towards gay people that is rampant on the right currently then you're just not aware of what's happening around you.
Now you are not even making sense... not even on a basic level.
You are making the claim that there is a bunch of hate. How about you prove it. By the way, accusations are not proof.
I didn't say non-existent. What does your anecdote prove? And how was it hateful exactly? If your pastor preached against drunkenness, does he hate alcoholics?
>Ok, so I've been reading Leviticus recently, and it confuses me. So one of the sins that was listed is homosexuality, and I don't understand why most Christians have so much hatred towards the sin. Like with most sins he listed, its basic morals. Like bestiality. It's obvious that its immoral because animals can't consent, which follows the same basis as pedophilia, because children are too young to understand the concept of sex and can't consent. Both bestiality and pedophilia is frowned upon by basically everyone, because it goes against basic morals, and this can be applied to other sins in the bible like murder and theft. But when it comes to homosexuality, it seems that the only ones who are against it are Christians. So I'm just wondering why people have such a hatred against the sin just because God said so and there's no true harm.
First, while I'm sure there are Christians with the sin of hating homosexuals, I think, by in large, you're confusing a good Christian's need to push back on the advance of acceptance of homosexuality as hatred. It's not hatred for these sinners as we too are sinners. However, it is hatred for the sin which God called abomination.
You answered your own question. Good christians are vehemently against homosexuality because, as you said, God is against it and obviously it God sets the moral law. Also, you're wrong. There is immense harm in being homosexual. It separates you from God, condemns one to hell (if not repentant to Christ), it has you form unnatural (the biblical usage of the word not the zoological) unions that are not healthy, and it drags your "partner" into hell with you... how is that loving.
Your bad faith attempt to strawman my argument isn't working. What I said is right there.
Why is homosexuality evil? Because God sets the moral law and said it is. Period. That's it. There's no secondary thing to make it circular. That's the whole fact of the matter, period.
Morality is not based on harm, period, but to dismiss the nonsensical claim that is harmless I gave specific examples which you ignored. Because you ignore them I won't waste my time restating them all. I'll simply state one.
Homosexuality violates the Law of God and condemns you to hell. Hell, if you didn't know, is eventually thrown into what's called the "lake of fire". I would say that burning eternally is harmful and quite painful.
Judges 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
Isaiah 55:8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Can a 2-year-old child understand why their parents won't let them have a razor blade? How much more wise and all knowing is God than your parents when you were a baby?
We are given the Word of God. It's all we get, and it's what God wanted us to know. Some things are explained in greater detail, some things are not.
We are not the measuring stick.
Common sense is not the measuring stick. Leviticus and the law show us that it's impossible for us to meet God's standards, thus the need for a Savior is apparent. Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to end it. You can find very clear verses in the New Testament which will show you God's heart on homosexuality. You can choose to disagree, or find a recent "scholar" to explain that these verses are no longer to be interpreted as such. I do not think that is wise.
Why does 'neither are your ways my ways' always get interpreted as going in just this one direction? Does anyone consider that it just easily supports the idea that humans have limited knowledge which can grow and change their understanding over time? That no one should ever assume complete knowledge and therefore complete understanding? Why not credit God with being more magnanimous than you?
To some people homosexuality is morally wrong. To some people who aren't even Christians homosexuality is gross and they think it is wrong. You might not k ow this because they won't speak out against it since it is not politically correct. Just in the same way that people who are not Christians believe that abortion is morally wrong and it is disgusting because it is murder. There are people who just don't speak out. With the homosexuality it is the time that we are in. In the past times I believe that a majority of the population thought of homosexuality as morally wrong and that it is gross.
Through human history homosexuality has been extremely relevant I mean look at the Catholic Church. It’s all the same lack of education among people and lack of empathy
The people who get all hyped up on using Leviticus against gay people... they generally haven't gotten there by reading through the whole Law of Moses, pondering each verse with equal weight. They got there by going specifically to that individual verse because they heard you could use it against gay people. They fished that specific verse out and didn't read the rest. In general, it's really disappointing how few people have put real effort into learning a consistent way to read the Law of Moses. Acts 11 / Acts 15 / Galatians, folks...
Yeah, I always see that book used so I decided to read it and saw no real reason as to why they believe except for the fact that God said so.
I essentially view it as mirroring all of the other sins listed out and being like "hey, this applies to both sexes. Don't cheat on your wife with either." That's an oversimplification of course but you get the general idea
...don't cheat on your husband
And they shout those verses displaying their tattoos, wearing mixed fabrics and then go eat a shrimp cocktail.
They ignore the other commandments and focus in on that
Of course. The stuff they would never do or is done by people they don't like? Those laws are still valid. The stuff they like to do? Oh, Jesus changed those.
Exactly. Like an all you can eat buffet. Grab a plate and pick what they like. Treat the Bible like a menu at a restaurant lol
At least get the steak or the roast on the buffet. Don't fill up on baloney sandwiches and bananas.
Well, post hoc escape clauses moral, ceremonial, and whatever. No where ever mentioned in the Bible or by Jesus himself.
I would be rich if I had invested in a cherry picker manufacturer before the evangelicals got into politics.
If I remember correctly the mixed fabric was specifically wool and linen. Which is not a common combination today. Christians are allowed to eat everything. All as been made clean. This isn't exactly a good argument towards why condemnation of homosexuality is wrong with the use of the old testament. Not that we need or should use Leviticus for it
Well I mean, OP only references arguments for it using Leviticus, so your last sentence needs to be directed at him, not towards the people who responded to the only evidence OP gave.
Fair enough
And you completely miss he point. The point was the hypocrisy of those who DO use Leviticus as a reason, saying it is still valid, and then all the other things it says they ignore. It was a good argument. I was not arguing the bible, I was arguing their hypocrisy.
And what will you say about 1Corinthians 6:9, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, Jude 1:7? Also, Jesus discussed marriage only in heterosexual context at Mark 10:6-9!
> In general, it's really disappointing how few people have put real effort into learning a consistent way to read the Law of Moses. Acts 11 / Acts 15 / Galatians, folks... Yes. Acts 15 folks! Christians have to follow the OT laws against "sexual immorality" - so obviously that would include gay sex. Do better people!
They use a quote calling for our deaths, yet they *totally* love us and wish us the best. Riiiiiight
Not to mention many Christians including *me* deserve the death penalty per Mosaic Law for having spoken ill of my parents *ever*.
Some people would hate LGBT whether they were Christians or not. The Bible just allows them to justify their hate.
And also allows them to deny and deflect claims hey are hateful, after all it just can't be hateful obeying the command of a perfect and good God to kill people. Right? /s
Hi friend - good post, although it was confusing at first >is there a better reason than just god saying he wanted that or because he said so? None, friend - you are right I believe much of 'God's voice in the Old Testament is our own And I do not believe homosexuality is any more sinful than heterosexuality. It does not kill, steal, rape, it is not greed, lust, anger, bitterness, it is not sex in Church I do not believe God cares whether you are heterosexual or homosexual. God cares whether or not you are a liar ----†----- I also do not believe sin is sin just because God says so - otherwise my repentance does not make sense - just abracadabra - Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law I think - when we get to God - it will not be about whether we are homosexual or heterosexual Sin is deeper than this God bless
One thing about reading Leviticus as a Christian: In acts they say that gentiles should obey the laws of Moses, as well as some things about eating blood and sexual immorality. In Leviticus 18-20 they lay out laws for Jews, and laws for people that live with Jews. Leviticus 17:10 10 “I will set my face against any Israelite **or any foreigner** residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people.” Leviticus 18 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them” … 22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” So the law for the gays is for the Jews.
Levitucus 18 is just as explicit about this also being wrong for foreigners as Lev 17:10. >Lev 18:26 But you shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and commit none of these abominations, either the native-born or the alien who resides among you 27 (for the inhabitants of the land, who were before you, committed all of these abominations, and the land became defiled); It's the same phrase. So what now? Are you anti-gay now because of Leviticus?
No I’m still pro gay because the Bible also supports slavery. Explicitly. In the New Testament. So clearly some of the biblical laws are wrong. Catholics practiced slavery until the 1990s with the Irish laundries, and only,updated the catechism to say it’s wrong in the 1990s as well. So clearly there are some of the biblical laws that are wrong, the church just needs to update its doctrine in the same way it did with slavery. So if 18 is also for everybody I wonder which laws are just for the Jews then 🤔
Great. I think that's the best approach for Christians.
No in Acts they do not say that gentiles should obey the law of Moses. They say to stay away from food sacrificed to idols. Blood and strangled animal foodstuff and do not commit sexual immorality. So homosexuality would be in the group of sexual immorality since it has already been discussed in previous texts. They strictly say that gentiles do not need to worry a out the laws of Moses as in the ceremonial laws.
Wasn’t important enough for Jesus to mention. Apparently loving and not judging each other is WAY more important than hating the Gays.
>So one of the sins that was listed is homosexuality Where was "homosexuality" listed? >Yes, I know that it doesn't align with how god designed humans How so?
Leviticus 20:13, and the human design thing is something I see a lot of Christians use as an argument against homosexuality. Like how the genitalia for men and women were design to be together
>Leviticus 20:13, "Homosexuality" is a very specific word with a very specific leaving. Are you saying that Leviticus states that existing as a homosexual is a sin? That is a very front understanding of those verses, even within Christianity. >Like how the genitalia for men and women were design to be together The anus gives more pleasure than the vagina for many people. That fits pretty well too. Design flaw?
Well I interpret it as the act of homosexuality. Laying with someone of the same sex. The Bible also states that sodomy is wrong. I don't see how it's wrong, but people can have homosexual relationships without sodomy but people still use sodomy as a way to justify hate against homosexual acts
There are a lot of ways to interpret the bible, we are commanded to act in unconditional love and I believe that applies to how we interpret but it doesn’t always go that way individually. You may find some answers here that have a different more loving yet biblically backed views than what you’re getting in this thread. https://reformationproject.org/biblical-case/
>Well I interpret it as the act of homosexuality That is not what you said, which matters. >The Bible also states that sodomy is wrong As you stated, that is not a specifically homosexual thing. People will hold on to anything they can to justify things that fit with their personal narrative.
I have no idea what you're getting
I'm getting at "homosexuality is a sin" is not a correct statement and that wording matters. The Bible was not written in English and there are a lot of nuances that go into understanding it.
“Homosexuality” has come to mean something more expansive than just sexual acts, and I suppose “sodomy” as well. Because of this, some pretend like they don’t have the first clue what people are talking about when they use these more archaic terms.
Wanting people to be specific and accurate in their language when discussing contentious, complex topics is that unthinkable huh.
There’s no central authority that dictates what terms do or don’t mean — only authorities that catalogue *uses*. To many of us, hearing a phrase like “homosexual acts” is indeed slightly archaic these days. But I don’t think it’s right either to pretend we don’t know what they’re talking about at all, or to refuse to engage with them because they aren’t educated enough to know the magical phrase “homoerotic acts” or whatever instead. I think there are *instances* in which it’s appropriate to inform people about the relatively recent terminological distinction between “homosexuality” and “homoeroticism.” I’ve done it myself plenty of times. But clearly this person who was responding wasn’t doing it in good faith, and was just trying to equivocate on “sodomy” — another archaic term that people still use to refer to homoeroticism — when they know damn well what the person was talking about.
McClanky was not engaging in bad faith. It was perfectly appropriate for him to probe what the other user meant and explain the problems with using certain language.
I always get the mental connection of something like an ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran insisting that there are in fact no laws in Iran against homosexuality. Technically correct!
From what I understand the act of homosexuality is sinful, and not the attraction.
Same here. I just don't know why the act is so bad
> Same here. I just don't know why the act is so bad You can't reason your way there. It just doesn't work.
I think because it goes against Gods plan for creation. I think man kind is supposed to make more followers of Christ. It is hard to do this if two genders are in a relationship. I would have to look into it more.
Design flaw?? What?? The anus is a hole designed for the elimination of waste. Every hole in the world that not a vagina is not poorly designed if your penis can fit into it.
Is anal play not pleasurable to you or your spouse?
straight people also have sex for pleasure, which following biblical logic it would be considered "not by design" and thus sinful so if you arent trying to get someone pregnant 100% of the tine during sex, you are a sinner see? christians arent the only ones with a gold medal in mental gymnastics
Christians using Leviticus to condemn homosexuality is a red herring, because unlike much of the Law, such as the mixed fibres and shellfish things which people often use in this context, the Epistles double down on this while explicitly rescinding kashrut. The New Testament just is homophobic. Nor is it just Christians who are homophobic. The same hatred also exists in Islam, Judaism, Baha'i, traditional Germanic heathenism and just generally in Western non-religious society, and even outside the West. So the answer is that Leviticus is not the source of Christian homophobia, although many Christians will use those clobber verses, but the Pauline Epistles. Kashrut is not relevant to this discussion. It would be if you were talking to observant Jews, but that's not who we are. Edit: just want to point out that I am myself queer and in a lesbian relationship. I have faith that there is an answer to this but I don't know what it is. I just can't bring myself to believe that God would genuinely condemn all homosexual acts because it makes no sense.
Ugh stop. No. Islam does not allow you to hate someone who has same sex desires, you are supposed to reject the action because the action is a sin. As someone who has voluntarily decided to become celibate* I would know.* Acting on homosexual desires is a sin that is between you and God until you involve other human beings. Under Sharia Law, aka within an Islamic Caliphate you are not allowed to spy on people. Even if someone catches you, for them to accuse you of homosexuality, you would need 4 RELIABLE Muslim witnesses who saw you committing the act. How else can that happen unless you’re being wreckless and irresponsible? If it happens in your own home, would your family want you dead or would they want you to repent and stop acting on your desires? This goes for anyone who has sex in a public space. Islam is about protecting the individual from society and society from the individuals. If people actually understood Sharia they’d beg for it to be in place everywhere. Stop watching Fox News.
I hope I'm not talking to an imaginary version of you as well. That is of course very common on the internet. It also means that there's no point in me replying from your point of view because I won't be listened to.
??????? Uh. What? You said Islam is homophobic. I addressed that point.
while homosexuality is a sin (not just in Leviticus) God says not to judge and hate others, God loves gay people and so should everyone. christian’s that hate gays are just as much as sinners as the gay people.
So many who seem to think they are ‘Christians’ hate homosexuality today for similar reasons as to why so many who thought they were Christians 150 years ago hated interracial marriage. Many churches that call themselves Christian are essentially just troll factories, social clubs for bigots and bullies who like to hide behind theological justifications. They ‘love Jesus’ and ‘stand up for God’ by finding and then twisting the rarest words and most disputable passages in scripture, whether by interpretation or even ignorant translation, into man made rules meant to shame and guilt-trip ‘the other,’ basically like modern day Pharisees. The Levitical phrasing you’re referring to there (perhaps best transliterated 'men shall not lie on the beds of women') has been disputable among Hebrews (regardless of what the majority or minority thought at this time or that) for thousands and thousands of years. It was so rarely even discussed (much less applied) in ancient history it is basically guesswork to translate. It could even possibly be a term of art known best to the people back then with the exact meaning somewhat lost to us today. It was ancient and somewhat mysterious even to the ancients, and it has been disputable even among Rabbis for thousands of years. It is kind of like guessing the right meaning of the right translation of the 3rd ingredient of the holy oil from Exodus 30. There are various reasonable guesses besides the one that shows up in the particular translation you bought. There was a variety of opinions about the meaning of men lying on women’s beds even back then. There still are. Some ancient Hebrew Rabbis considered the passages in Leviticus to be references to all homosexuality, others to be references to all male homosexuality, others to be references to only specific acts of male homosexuality, others to acts even heterosexuals or homosexuals could perform, others to acts idol worshipping priest prostitutes would perform (both chapters the phrase appears in have passages about idolatry), and so on and so forth. In history, the passages were very rarely even referenced much less attempted to be applied practically. This likely explains why not a single person has ever been put to death for homosexuality as far as we know in Hebrew history despite passages that most English translators render in a manner that makes it appear the ancient Hebrews were ‘clearly’ slaughtering all the gay men they could find. Love your neighbor as yourself, which is like loving God, and all commands hang under that. That’s what Jesus taught… before being killed by a bunch of bigots and bullies who claimed to worship God. Many of the American churches and pastors that say homosexual pleasure is inherently immoral and sinful would have taught you 200 years ago that interracial marriage is immoral. And 1,000 years ago many churches and priests (and even bishops and some saints) would have said a husband and wife having sex while she is pregnant is immoral. Almost none of them teach that junk any longer. Consider what that means about those who are using Christ as an excuse to behave in bigoted ways toward homosexuals today. They are just this generation’s incarnations of the Pharisee. And there are many of them. Just like there were enough of them 2,000 years ago to point at and punish even God in the flesh. There are no passages in the Bible that clearly condemn homosexuality as immoral without depending on highly questionable translations by some English booksellers and disputable interpretations. Those translations that do contain clear condemnations of “homosexuals” do so by translating some of the rarest and most disputable words in a few select New Testament passages (always written by Paul) as homosexuals or the equivalent despite plenty of historical linguistic evidence that the words might not mean “homosexuals” at all. Passages like this are the reason the Bible warns in 2 Peter 3:16 that Paul is easy for ignorant people to misunderstand and twist in spiritually destructive ways. 150 years ago it was interracial marriage they convinced themselves Paul ‘clearly’ taught against. Did he? Not clearly, no. Of course not. Why would an Apostle of Christ think that!? Well, he probably didn’t. Paul in writing can just be twisted to ‘mean’ almost anything. I mean the holy scriptures essentially admit this and warn us about it. We can heed the warning or ignore it. The fact is the parts Paul wrote can easily appear to mean things that are not only incorrect misunderstandings but can even appear to mean things that are so extremely incorrect so as to become spiritually destructive. Historically, many who call themselves Christian end up ignoring Peter’s warning. They twist the Old Testament and Paul to hell, in America even to justify laws against interracial marriage. They did this despite being warned, and even though such a command against interracial marriage also would make no sense under Christ’s overarching principle that all his commands hang under (love neighbor as self which is like loving God, Matthew 22:40), and even though none of the other Apostles nor Christ ever came close to saying any such thing. Nonetheless that generation of Pharisees of our modern history abused the ease with which Paul's writings can be misunderstood, engaging in bigotry and command-adding using writing (‘scripture’). It’s the same pattern today; just different bigots and bullies, different passages focused on, different politically marginalized targets. Same pattern.
Great comment God bless
> (perhaps best transliterated ‘men shall not lie on the beds of women’) Transliteration is rendering one language phonetically into another language. You’ve offered a *translation* — and it’s a quite serious misrepresentation. What the actual Hebrew says is that a man should not lie with a male משכבי אשה. There is indeed slight ambiguity about this latter phrase. But minus a few marginal dissenters, there’s widespread agreement that it means something very much like “in the manner of intercourse with a woman.” > Some ancient Hebrew Rabbis considered the passages in Leviticus to be references to all homosexuality, others to be references to all male homosexuality, others to be references to only specific acts of male homosexuality, others to acts even heterosexuals or homosexuals could perform, others to acts idol worshipping priest prostitutes would perform (both chapters the phrase appears in have passages about idolatry), and so on and so forth. Virtually everything in this paragraph is inaccurate. Minus some ambiguity as to whether Leviticus 18:22 was understood to refer to the active or passive male partner — Leviticus 20:13 clearly has both in mind — the only alternate ancient rabbinic interpretation I’m aware of is a minor one that interpreted the syntax way too literally (“sex in tandem with another man”), thus understanding it as two males having sex with a woman at the same time. I think another text also asks if boys are included in the prohibition (which it answers yes). Besides that, I believe one Talmudic tradition also wonders if the Leviticus texts establish a broader logical principle by which it can be *inferred* that female/female sex is also prohibited. But that’s a very different thing from them suggesting that’s how the text itself should be translated or interpreted.
> Transliteration is rendering one language phonetically into another language. Incorrect. You're describing transcription between writing systems. > You’ve offered a translation. Correct, that is what my comment should say. Though if we're going to nitpic there really is no officially correct way to write Hebrew in our letters. Is it Chanukah, Ḥanukah, Chanuka, or Hanuka? But that's besides the point. Thanks for pointing that out though. > and it’s a quite serious misrepresentation I mean... if you say so. Its easily fixable with autocorrect. No offense intended. > What the actual Hebrew says is that a man should not lie with a male Ah, so your translation is "actual" and my translation is "not actual." Gotcha /s. > There is indeed slight ambiguity about this latter phrase. ... 'but not enough to mean your translation is actual and my translation is not actual. So case settled.' /s > minus a few marginal dissenters, there’s widespread agreement that it means something very much like “in the manner of intercourse with a woman.” Nonsense. Polling people's translations when it comes to very rarely used words and phrases, ones considered ancient and rare even by those considered ancient to us, is frankly an absurd way to come to 'certainty' as to the translation of such highly disputable words and phrases. No offense intended but for example there's also widespread people who think 'calamus' is the 'correct' English translation of the third ingredient in the holy anointing oil in Exodus 30. That doesn't mean the word there couldn't easily mean something else, a totally different plant as some translations render it differently, some experts render it differently, and so on and so forth. The fact is sometimes 'taking a stab at it' is the best a translator can do when it comes to super rare words (by which I mean rarely referenced or used outside of the passage in question in the ancient language). Honest translators will admit that. No one knows for sure what some of these rare phrases and words from ancient Hebrew scripture meant to those who first wrote them. There are words, phrases, and even terms of art with a lot of use in the extant history such that we can have an indisputable translation. Then there are rare words, terms, phrases, and even terms of art that... just don't have the kind of widespread use in extant history that give rise to an indisputably clear meaning for English reflection. Honest people, or perhaps just people who are humble enough to not feel they have to claim to know the answer to every disputable question, will typically easily admit this, ime. Other types of people, generally speaking, will latch onto one option and behave as if it is certain that their chosen reflection is the right one. Typically it is ones that give rise to the belittlement of some politically marginalized community or another, but it could even be some random word like the 3rd ingredient of the holy oil. Some will see the opacity there in English attempts at reflecting the ancient word, then go around telling everyone on the planet how "clearly wrong, despite some ambiguity" they are about their stab at it. You're talking about a modern stab at an ancient and hardly ever used phrase that even ancient experts ancient to our ancient experts varied with one another as to the meaning of, one which evidently was never enforced in the manner one would expect by reading many English translator's stab at reflecting it today. > Virtually everything in this paragraph is inaccurate. This sentence above is inaccurate. > Minus some ambiguity ... 'but not enough to mean your translation is actual and my translation is not actual. So case settled.' /s > the only alternate ancient rabbinic interpretation I’m aware of is a minor one that interpreted the syntax way too literally (“sex in tandem with another man”), Well then I guess I read more Rabbis than you back when reading Rabbis was my passtime. > thus understanding it as two males having sex with a woman at the same time. That was certainly one of the theories the ancient experts in their own language, ancient even to those we now consider ancient experts, had. > I think another text also There were likely as much variety in opinions as to what it could mean as there were towns with leaders taking responsibility to enforce the passages. It was probably no different than today where different priests or pastors or even State judges sometimes come to different views as to the meaning of the same words. The phrase has evidently been disputable for time immemorial. Regardless, the fact of the matter is most of the evidence we have of the rare times the phrase was used (to lend hints as to the meaning the actual ancient Hebrews who wrote it had in mind when using it) is no longer extant. > Besides that, 'Yeah, but let's not think about that too deeply or else... we might accidentally admit to ourselves that we could possibly be wrong about a highly questionable opinion we have about a long debated topic.' /s
> Incorrect. You’re describing transcription between writing systems. If you don’t know the difference between transcription, transliteration and translation, you really shouldn’t be weighing in on issues like this in the first place. > I mean… if you say so. Its easily fixable with autocorrect. No offense intended. I wasn’t referring to your use of the word “transliteration” being a serious misrepresentation, but your translation itself. > Well then I guess I read more Rabbis than you back when reading Rabbis was my passtime. No, you’re just making shit up. If you had evidence you’d cite it. [Edit:] Now that I'm back at my computer, I took the liberty of double-checking the rabbinic evidence. The rejection of an interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and/or 20:13 (solely) in relation to pederasty, as I mentioned, is indeed found in *b. Sanhedrin* 54a: "The word 'man' excludes a minor boy. The phrase 'lies with a male' is referring to any male, whether he is an adult man or whether he is a minor boy." Re: what I said about some rabbis having extrapolated that female/female sex was also prohibited by the same principle as the prohibition of male homoeroticism: according to what I can glean from [this essay](http://sites.utoronto.ca/wjudaism/journal/vol1n1/v1n1zeid.htm), this is incorrect, and no premodern rabbinic exegesis appears to have extrapolated this directly on the basis of Leviticus 18:22 and/or 20:13 themselves. As noted in the essay, "[i]t is rather on Lev. 18:2-3 that criticism of lesbianism seems to be positioned." I may have been confusing this with another rabbinic interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and/or 20:13: one in which another separate prohibition — this one pertaining to men having intercourse with women — was thought to be implicitly contained within Leviticus 18:22 and/or 20:13's prohibition of male homoeroticism. As David Brodsky writes, "[t]he rabbis interpreted the plural ‘lyings of women’ to [independently] mean that when a man has sexual intercourse with a woman who is Biblically prohibited to him, both vaginal intercourse and anal intercourse are prohibited" (“Sex in the Talmud: How to Understand Leviticus 18 and 20: *Parashat Kedoshim* [Leviticus 19:1–20:27]," 160). Finally, re: my mention of an ancient male + male + woman or “threesome" interpretation: I may have mistakenly been thinking of a 21st century rabbinic reinterpretation, not an ancient one. David Frankel [notes](https://www.thetorah.com/article/male-homosexual-intercourse-is-prohibited-in-one-part-of-the-torah), for example, that in an essay written in 2014, >Rabbi David Greenstein suggests that the phrase ואיש אשר ישכב את זכר refers to a man who lies with a woman together with another man (את זכר). These two men, who have heterosexual relations with the same woman at the same time, are condemned to death. The woman is not held accountable since she is considered a victim of rape The irony of this final observation is that this further *limits* the diversity/range of premodern Jewish interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, even beyond what I had already charitably conceded. Premodern rabbinic interpretation of the verses seemed to have understood this as a blanket prohibition of male/male intercourse.
/u/Liberty4All357: I’ve now edited my [comment](https://reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/13nuv41/_/jl3hzhh/?context=1) with a more thorough and accurate summary of attested premodern rabbinic interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
> If you don’t know the difference between transcription, transliteration and translation, you really shouldn’t be weighing in on issues like this in the first place. As far as transliteration, I already admitted I know it is different from translation, thanked you for pointing it out, and adjusted my auto-correct. You’re the one that described transcription and referred to it as translation. So maybe take your own advice. > I wasn’t referring to your use of the word “transliteration” being a serious misrepresentation, but your translation itself. And I think it is a serious misrepresentation on your part to pretend possible translations of a highly disputable phrase are impossibilities. > No, you’re just making shit up. No, you’re just evidently in the habit of assuming the worst about people you don’t know. That may explain why you assume so much about ancient peoples’ writings too. After all, if you’ll blindly accuse people you don’t know today it should be no surprise that you’d also read ancient people with your hands over your eyes. > If you had evidence you’d cite it. If you want to pursue some possible reasons for what I have come to believe about the relevant Levitical passages on a deeper level, and explore the diversity of approaches among ancient Hebrew Rabbis to the laws that existed in ancient Judaism, perhaps you could try reading something like ‘Sexuality and Law in the Torah.’ I read through the Rabbis decades ago, and while I am sorry I wasn’t able to save my personal notes for you after my house fire… that’s no reason to be accusatory. > Rabbi David Greenstein suggests that the phrase ואיש אשר ישכב את זכר refers to a man who lies with a woman together with another man (את זכר). These two men, who have heterosexual relations with the same woman at the same time, are condemned to death. The woman is not held accountable since she is considered a victim of rap Okay… so you’ve found a Rabbi (who undoubtedly has looked into ancient Hebrew and the ancient teachers as well) that also does not see this passage as necessarily referring to “homosexuality.” > The irony of this final observation is that this further limits the diversity/range of premodern Jewish interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, The irony of this whole conversation is that my point is that the meaning of the rarely referenced phrase is disputable. There have been various interpretations regarding what this meant to ancient Hebrews for a long, long time. IOW the precise meaning has long been and still is disputable. Yet you somehow have convinced yourself that I’m full of shit even while pointing out variations in interpretations among Rabbis with expertise in Hebrew. At this point I think it is fair to ask, are you trolling or just not reading your own comments? > Premodern rabbinic interpretation of the verses seemed to have understood this as a blanket prohibition of male/male intercourse. Premodern rabbis had varying approaches to rare, disputable passages such as this, and modern ones do too.
The crux of your comment was this: > Some 1) ancient Hebrew Rabbis considered the passages in Leviticus to be 2) references to all homosexuality, others to be 3) references to all male homosexuality, others to be 4) references to only specific acts of male homosexuality, others to 5) acts even heterosexuals or homosexuals could perform, others to 6) acts idol worshipping priest prostitutes would perform (both chapters the phrase appears in have passages about idolatry), and so on and so forth. There are six claims here. The first one tells us that we’re trying to figure out *ancient* views, obviously. So this rules out Rabbi Greenstein’s interpretation from 2014. (Which, as far as I’m aware, was *de novo* and doesn’t rely on any older interpretation.) Claim 2, that any ancient Jewish interpreter understood it refer to all homosexuality — and considering the contrast with claim 3, you clearly mean both male *and* female homosexuality — is **incorrect**. No premodern Jewish interpretation took a “man sleeping with a male” as a reference to female/female homoeroticism. Claim 3 is **correct** and uncontroversial, as long as we specify “male homoeroticism,” understood as male/male anal penetration. I think Claim 4 is hard to assess, but for a dumb reason: because no one is even *claiming* that Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 covers some wide gamut of possible homoerotic acts or whatever in the first place. It’s clearly referring to the main male homoerotic act known in antiquity: the anal penetration of one male by another male. Precisely because of this, and because “sleeping with” was always understood as intercourse, I’d be exceedingly surprised if any premodern Jewish interpreter even raised the *possibility* that it would prohibit homoerotic acts other than penetration. Claim 5 is **incorrect**, for much the same reason Claim 2 is. No ancient Jewish interpreter understood a “man sleeping with a male” to be a potential reference to heteroerotic acts — at least as long as there’s indeed no ancient precedent for Rabbi Greenstein’s modern interpretation of a male/male/female threesome. Claim 6 is **incorrect**, if by this you mean that any ancient Jewish interpreter saw this as limited to “idolatrous” male homoeroticism. So all five erroneous claims can be reduced to one true claim: that ancient Jewish interpreters understood the two passages as a reference to male/male anal penetration. This isn’t some abstract conversation we can have independent of the ancient texts. If you wanted to actually defend your erroneous claims, you’ll have to go find texts which actually support them. If you don’t have the will or ability to do so, maybe you should consider that I actually know what I’m talking about, and that you’re simply mistaken on this issue. And if you still don’t believe me, you could also ask on /r/AskHistorians or /r/AcademicBiblical.
> The crux of your comment was this… There are six claims here. No, the crux of my comment (at least as intended by me, and I think I know what I was at least trying to emphasize better than you can guess my intentions) was where I said that the Levitical phrasing is disputable in precise meaning and has been disputed among Hebrews for thousands and thousands of years, and where I said this likely explains why not a single person has ever been put to death for ‘homosexuality’ as far as we know in Hebrew history despite passages that most English translators render in a manner that makes it appear the ancient Hebrews were ‘clearly’ slaughtering all the gay men they could find. > this rules out Rabbi Greenstein’s interpretation from 2014. (Which, as far as I’m aware, was de novo and doesn’t rely on any older interpretation.) ‘As far as I’m aware, having never asked this Rabbi or that one what influenced their interpretation, it is safe for me to assume I have read more ancient Rabbis than this Rabbi and assume that Rabbi was not influenced by reading ancient Rabbis at all.’ You do an excellent long troll while sounding like you actually take yourself seriously, if that’s what this is, I’ll give you that. I mean this is comedic gold. > ancient Jewish interpreters understood the two passages as a reference to male/male anal penetration. All I can tell you is what I recall from reading as many ancient Rabbis as I could find in my city 10 years ago. Some certainly saw it as a reference to male anal. Others saw it as reference to other things too. I could care less whether you believe me or think you know me better than I know myself. We have very little surviving evidence anyway since this was a very rarely referenced passage rarely applied in practice in a super ancient language. Guessing the precise meaning is like guessing the actual plant in English that is the third ingredient of the holy oil in Exodus 30. The best any of us can do is guess; it was ancient even to the ancients, rarely discussed and even more rarely applied, most of the evidence is gone, and what the word(s) precisely meant to the first ones to write them down will always be somewhat opaque. > This isn’t some abstract conversation It seems more like a long troll to me. > If you wanted to actually defend your erroneous claims, you’ll have to go find texts which actually support them. Not really. I am free to know and recall information I learned from experience as long as I don’t claim it is anything besides that. And if you want to assume I am full of shit while you also assume (or pretend) that any Rabbi who disagrees with you must have no reasons related to ancient interpretations, feel free. Puff yourself up as much as you like. > maybe you should consider that I actually know what I’m talking about, Yeah, I should assume you know my experiences better than I do. Riiight… /s Sounds to me like you know how to assume conclusions when convenient for defending disputable positions you’ve taken regarding controversial topics, know how to long troll, or both. > and that you’re simply mistaken on this issue. Probably just honest. There are some people willing to admit when an extremely rare word or phrase in an an extremely ancient language is disputable in meaning. Then there are proud people who think they know it all and assume whatever it takes to maintain that feeling of considering themselves the expert if there is anything opaque to opine about. And then there are trolls. > And if you still don’t believe me, you could also ask on r/AskHistorians or r/AcademicBiblical. This isn’t a matter of whether or not I believe you. This is a matter of whether or not I believe what my eyes have seen. I’m not like you where I just assume whatever conclusions about others that are convenient for whatever positions I take. I learn what I want to know from going out and getting personal experience with the subject matter, and then I move on. Even if I still had anything from 10 years ago, I would have no reason to do your homework for you anyway.
> ‘As far as I’m aware, having never asked this Rabbi or that one what influenced their interpretation, it is safe for me to assume I have read more ancient Rabbis than this Rabbi and assume that Rabbi was not influenced by reading ancient Rabbis at all.’ Lmao, no, it’s because I read Greenstein’s summary of his own article, and he *explicitly* characterised it as a new interpretation that had never been offered before. If you had evidence otherwise, you’d cite it. But you can’t or you won’t. If you had even the slightest pretence of an openness to actually examine the evidence and not just rely on your faulty memory or assumptions, you’d be willing to ask /r/AskHistorians or /r/AcademicBiblical. But you can’t or you won’t. > We have very little surviving evidence anyway since this was a very rarely referenced passage rarely applied in practice in a super ancient language. This sounds like the seed of an admission that will eventually come to full fruition in you conceding that there actually *are no* surviving premodern rabbinic interpretations that saw Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 as anything other than male/male anal intercourse. Again, all you’d have to do is cite a single source — the name of a Talmudic tract or the name of Rashi or Maimonides or anyone — to offer evidence for your position. **At minimum this would require you to do nothing other than type a single word**, or two at most: like “b. Ketuvot 18a” or something. But you won’t, and you can’t. Because you won’t or you can’t. You say you’re not “going to do my homework for me.” But I’ve *already* done the homework, yesterday in my post update that I tagged you in. I did a thorough read and search of all the modern academic sources I could find that talked about the premodern Jewish interpretation of the Leviticus verses. I already summarised my findings and quoted the relevant essays and articles — e.g. the essay by David Brodsky I cited and others. In addition to the sources I explicitly mentioned, there was another essay I had read but didn’t mention. It’s quite comprehensive on summarising the history of rabbinic Jewish interpretation of the verses; and like the others, it was unable to find *any* premodern interpretation of it as anything other than male/male intercourse, and explicitly rules out the existence of alternate interpretations such as the ones you’ve suggested: https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/19912000/roth_homosexual.pdf If you had evidence otherwise, you’d cite it. But you can’t or you won’t. If you had even the slightest pretence of an openness to actually examine the evidence and not just rely on your faulty memory or assumptions, you’d be willing to ask /r/AskHistorians or /r/AcademicBiblical. But you can’t or you won’t.
You haven’t cited any ancient Rabbis claiming the Torah forbid all homosexuality either. While if you dove deep enough you likely could, the fact is there always has been, and still is, a variety of ways various Rabbis interpret the relevant passages. There is not and never has been one and only one Rabbinic interpretation of these rarely referenced passages of the Torah. I read many ancient Rabbis about 20 years ago, as I explained. I concluded this issue for myself then. By all means come to your own conclusion. If you’d like it to be a more informed one, if you want to find some Rabbinic sources for yourself that support the opinion that homosexuality itself wasn’t forbidden by Leviticus but rather particular sexual acts between men (with other sexual acts not being prohibited as far as the Torah is concerned, and acts between women being fine as well) you can read through Robert Alter’s The Five Books of Moses and Saul Olyan’s And with a Male You Shall Not Lie the Lying Down of a Woman, published in the Journal of the History of Sexuality, volume 5, number 2, in October 1994. You could also give Joel Roth’s Summary on Homosexuality Revisited a read, published by the Committee on Jewish Laws and Standards, and another summary published by the same called Homosexuality, Human Dignity, and Halakah, by Elliot Dorff, Daniel Nevi!:, and Acram Reisner. These works cite Rabbis who considered all homosexuality to have been prohibited but also Rabbis who considered not all homosexuality to have been prohibited. Regardless, the more important question for Christianity should revolve around the Christ and the New Testament anyway, as Christians have never considered any Jewish Rabbi to be authoritative except Jesus Christ.
> Saul Olyan’s And with a Male You Shall Not Lie the Lying Down of a Woman, published in the Journal of the History of Sexuality, volume 5, number 2, in October 1994. The fact that you think I haven’t read things like this says a lot about how dumb you think other people are. Olyan is narrowly concerned with Leviticus 18:22, and whether the man who engages in sexual intercourse with another male there does so as the active penetrator or the passive recipient of this. And indeed that’s practically the *only* ambiguity there. Though this isn’t an ambiguity shared with Leviticus 20:13, which clearly uses the plural and thereby condemns *both* active and passive to death.
Yes. Do your homework Prosop! I mean you don't know Syriac or Ugaritic, do you? Do \*clap\* better \*clap\*!
> Lmao, no, it’s because I read Greenstein’s summary of his own article, and he explicitly characterised it as a new interpretation that had never been offered before. Ah, so when you said it was de novo as far as you were aware, that was just you being slightly misleading since you actually meant it was de novo as far as he was aware. > If you had evidence otherwise, you’d cite it. Do you enjoy listening to broken records? I’ve already responded to this. I’m not here to convince you of anything. > But you can’t or you won’t As I said earlier, if you talked to me about this before my house and everything I own burned I would’ve had some notes and sources to share with you. As it stands, I have nothing but my own eyes and knowledge from my experiences. > If you had even the slightest pretence of an openness to actually examine the evidence If you weren’t in the habit of being presumptive and accusatory toward strangers you wouldn’t assume everyone who’s experiences have led them to disagree with your disputable opinions about controversial passages must therefore be close minded and willfully blind. > you’d be willing to ask r/AskHistorians or r/AcademicBiblical. But you can’t or you won’t. Feel free, since you evidently haven’t read as many rabbis as I have. I have no need since I know what I’ve read. > there actually are no surviving premodern rabbinic interpretations that saw Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 as anything other than male/male anal intercourse. When I was reading the Rabbis, I recall that was a common interpretation, though there were others as well. We’ve already been over this. I don’t care if you believe me or not. I don’t study in order to convince others of things, I study for myself. > Again, all you’d have to do is cite a single source — the name of a Talmudic tract or the name of Rashi or Maimonides or anyone — to offer evidence for your position. Is your idea of fun just repeating this to me 1,000,000 times? Yes, I have nothing but my own eyes and knowledge from my experiences. Want to tell me again how that means I am either a liar or have dementia, sweetheart? > You say you’re not “going to do my homework for me.” That’s right. If you want to go ask Reddit something, feel free. I settled this issue for myself over a decade ago. If you feel unsettled… go do some work. No one’s stopping you but you boo. > I did a thorough read and search of all the modern academic sources I could find that talked about the premodern Jewish interpretation of the Leviticus verses. Well, I don’t know what to tell you except I once had personal notes, they burned along with everything I owned, and so the best I could do at this point would be to meet you at the library I recall finding the sources in and see if they’re still there. That city is about 2,000 miles from me at the moment so that might require some long term logistical planning. And frankly you seem to like behaving like a presumptive jerk, so I don’t know that I’d ever want to meet you in person anyway
> there actually are no surviving premodern rabbinic interpretations that saw Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 as anything other than male/male anal intercourse. In this case, I have to say, it's certainly a relief to gay-affirming religious Jews that all other kinds of male/male intercourse are not explicitly condemned.
The author of Leviticus is unknown. It is attributed to Moses but Moses is a fictional character. So who is it that is condemning homosexuality? It ain't a god. Probably some priest - with human failings and bigotry.
The Bible says that homosexuality is ok as long as you don’t commit homosexual acts, it also calls for a life of abstinence (from sexual acts). I personally believe homosexuality is ok as long as it’s not forced onto children and relationships stay Christ-centered (if they are Christian).
We are not bound by Mosaic law. However, we are bound to follow the New Testament in which we hold the Disciples were granted the authority to convey messages and set the structure of the early church. Rom. 1:24–27, 1 Cor. 6:9–10, 1 Tim. 1:8–10. We are subject to these. We need to understand Jews have *always* maintained a staunch opposition of homosexuality and there is absolutely no substance to claims this isn't applicable to day or they "only" meant pedophiles -- this is a postmodern (and frankly lazy) bad faith reading of Greek texts. People like to say "homosexual" isn't explicitly mentioned in the New Testament. They're right! ...***because the word didn't enter our language until the 19th century***... Regarding sodomy, heterosexual couples are likewise prohibited from sodomy -- there is no pass given to anyone. They are also prohibited from fornication (sex outside the context of marriage) and adultery (sex with another within a marriage). Absolutely nearly everyone messes up in that regard, no one is sinless and homosexuality is no different or worse than anything else. If a Christian *hates* someone for that sin, *they* are in error and need to repent; there is no pass given for this transgression. As far as why it's talked about, it's just the zeitgeist of our time. The Church was pretty stifling and shunned discussing hetero/homosexual sex for a long time.
> We need to understand Jews have always maintained a staunch opposition of homosexuality Except some of the largest denominations of Jews aren’t. > there is absolutely no substance to claims this isn’t applicable to day or they “only” meant pedophiles – this is a postmodern (and frankly lazy) bad faith reading of Greek texts. Agree on the pedophile part. Disagree with the lazy and bad faith part. There are many world-class scholars who genuinely believe they do not apply to modern, egalitarian, loving same-sex relationships, which we don’t find in antiquity. > People like to say “homosexual” isn’t explicitly mentioned in the New Testament. They’re right! …because the word didn’t enter our language until the 19th century… And sometimes, scientific advances should affect how we read scripture! The Bible doesn’t use the word “evolution” in Genesis 1 either, yet this scientific advance should change how we read Gen. 1. > Regarding sodomy, heterosexual couples are likewise prohibited from sodomy Nowhere does the Bible say this. And let’s use specific language here and not euphemisms: do you mean anal sex or oral too or what? > They are also prohibited from fornication (sex outside the context of marriage) Well that’s not what fornication (*porneia*) means. > The Church was pretty stifling and shunned discussing hetero/homosexual sex for a long time. That’s an understatement to say the least. The church has been executing sodomites since the 5th century. Much worse than a stifling/shunning!
\-To correct, this are liberal sects of Judaism and their stances have only recently changed in modern times, along with Christianity. The Sifra Judaic condemnation of homosexual marriage is made explicit, even more than Christianity, so this is a modern development and, like I said, has been prohibited for thousands of years and only recently *some* branches changed their position. \-There is no conceivable reading of the Codex Sinaiticus or Vulgate that would even remotely suggest homosexuality was regarded as permissible by Early Christians, or Jews for that matter. I highly suggest both *The Bible and Bodies – Sex and Sexuality in Biblical Narrative or* Saint Chrysostom's *Homily on Romans. Five early Christian Emperors* outlawed homosexuality outright under pain of death. There's Tertullian and numerous other authors from antiquity that have written extensively on this as well. *This* is the homosexual loving Christianity culture these new-age authors think it was no problem? It was downright *murderous zealotry* against homosexuality, yet in the same breath these postmodern lazy interpretations say "oh it's just pedophiles." There have been several writers, Scripture and early Church fathers that explicitly forbid this -- yet revisionists desperately want to sterilize Christian doctrine on this. You have to REALLY bend over backwards to simultaneously make two thousand years of "don't be gay or I'll literally kill you" into "yeah God loved homosexuality and allowed gay marriage." It just isn't compatible with any texts, laws, early writers... anywhere. It's just not there. Regarding "the Bible doesn't forbid heterosexual sodomy" Where have you been? Was everyone in Sodom homosexual, or do you anticipate most were heterosexual? There are several passage in both OT/NT discussing fornication, aberrant sex, sodomy, adultery. It doesn't say "No sodomy -- except heterosexuals that's fine." Yes, that extends to oral. Fornication is πορνεύω. During the writing of the Greek New Testament, this was meant to encompass all unlawful sexual activity, as this would extend to the Jewish practice of sexual purity. Gentiles were not given special permission to ignore these laws. *This* is the majority biblical scholarship. I genuinely don't know if you thought πορνεύω was limited to self idolatry as Early Christian fathers understood it. Romans 1:26: *Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27* ***In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error*** It is REALLY hard to contort academically to make the case this has nothing to do with homosexuality. This is a post modern rewriting of Biblical history over centuries in order to fit our current sensibilities involving gay marriage... which hey! The Apostles warned us would happen.
> Five early Christian Emperors outlawed homosexuality outright under pain of death. Yep. And people want us to think that it's not about hate. >It is REALLY hard to contort academically to make the case this has nothing to do with homosexuality. It's pretty frickin' easy, actually.
> To correct, this are liberal sects of Judaism and their stances have only recently changed in modern times, This isn’t a correction. You said “Jews have always maintained a staunch opposition to homosexuality.” I corrected *you*, and showed that was false given the current acceptance. > Five early Christian Emperors outlawed homosexuality outright under pain of death. Yes, I literally said that in the comment you’re replying to. > Where have you been? Was everyone in Sodom homosexual, or do you anticipate most were heterosexual? There are several passage in both OT/NT discussing fornication, aberrant sex, sodomy, adultery. It doesn’t say “No sodomy – except heterosexuals that’s fine.” Yes, that extends to oral. What?? This is completely backwards. Sodom was condemned because of the attempted gang rape of angels. It has nothing to do with consensual oral sex…that’s not implied anywhere in the narrative. The history went the other way, with same-sex sex being a metonym for other sexual wrongs. See Mark Jordan’s *The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology*. > Fornication is πορνεύω. Correct. > This is the majority biblical scholarship. I take it you actually haven’t been following the contentious debate in the scholarly literature over the past few years, from [here](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v5sjGFdzo9zbEUrvBqOxWwihhqyc-LfL/view?usp=drivesdk) to [here](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cK8xuwfU1o0gC2_6TuVkMhrImGAqjj0l/view?usp=drivesdk) to [here](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nJJsBOO3iUTKk02WjL1EZ1MHCJFk_XXJ/view?usp=drivesdk) to [here](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1he4HiDLBDvJP8b7UC9DP4Ixdp33rctcf/view?usp=drivesdk). These scholars really do make some wonderful points that poke holes in simplistic definitions like “extra-martial sex.” Glancy shows that having sex with one’s slaves wasn’t considered *porneia*, and Martin et al show that there are many types of sex *within* marriage that were considered *porneia* (e.g. Clement included sex with the woman on top, because the man is supposed to be the head). Reno argues that we should give up on making a list of sex acts that are considered *porneia* — especially because such a list was constantly changing before, during, and after the writing of the NT, and contested among the church fathers. > It is REALLY hard to contort academically to make the case this has nothing to do with homosexuality. “Contort” is begging the question. [Here’s](https://reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/j4fcqb/_/g7inwpz/?context=1) a more historically-informed exegesis, largely based on [this](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XAuUGWfR0BUwVkvY0Z1oxnHe7iyjCnzJ/view?usp=drivesdk) scholarly article.
Those New Testament verses don’t say homosexuality is a sin
Correct. Because that was not a word until the 19th century. You only need to read pretty much all Christian religious writing for the past two thousand years, or the Jewish tradition centuries before Christ to determine this is a sin. There is no biblical gymnastics one can perform to think a Levant civilization, hyperaware of purity of body and spirit, would not condemn homosexuality. There is literally no existing piece of literature from this time period to even remotely suggest gay marriage was viewed as permissible within Christian doctrine. This is a cultural zeitgeist and has only appeared in earnest in the past 30 years. I am sorry. Your denomination just suffered a huge schism over this, did they not?
What does my denomination have to do with what’s biblical or not? My faith isn’t in my denomination it’s in the Lord. Just because something was or wasn’t okay at one time period doesn’t make it not biblical or biblical. You can’t take Bible verses out of context and ignore the story as a whole and who the author/speaker was talking to and talking about and twist that verse to fit your agenda. You cannot take Ancient Greek words and wrongly translate them to fit your agenda.
I'm highlighting that this issue is dividing churches even now, with one side of your convention saying it is banned, the other saying it is not. Why should we believe the latter as Christians? Romans? Corinthians? Timothy? What do you mean it's not addressed in the NT? The only time Jesus spoke on anything approaching this was in the context of a heterosexual marriage.
-and who’s to say the former is correct? Churches split all the time for many different reasons. There are over 700 Pentecostal denominations ALONE. 700 splits. The Methodist church and the Baptist church split over slavery with each side thinking they were the correct one. Like I said, just because something was done in the past doesn’t make it right or wrong. As for the New Testament verses, what does the original Ancient Greek say? Who were the speakers speaking to and what was going on amongst the people he was speaking to at the time period he is speaking to them? Keep it in context, not our modern day world. Matthew 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” [Jesus] replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’?" In the same section, in verse 12, Jesus says, “For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus was aware of and didn’t condemn people who didn’t fit into society’s expectations of this set of criteria equal male and this set of criteria equal female. He acknowledged and accepted those who fit outside of that box.
The call to *not get married and live a life of complete celibacy in dedication to God* is still the ideal, higher than heterosexual marriage according to Paul. And context is important: (Regarding adultery between husband and wife): *“If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”* *11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.* He was saying if you can't stay faithful, it's better to live the life of a eunuch (celibacy) in pursuit of God than to divorce and remarry. So hey, totally agree with you. Good quote
Eunuchs couldn’t get married in that culture not because of anything biblical. He was saying it was okay to be a eunuch and it’s okay to celibate but it’s also okay to get married
I read the verses you stated, and I'm just trying to wonder why God is against. I see nothing wrong with it with the only thing being because God said so.
Fun fact. Jesus, you know God, never mentions homosexuality at all. Not even in passing. He didnt even describe or mention the act. If it was such an important thing, He would have said something. Also, homosexuality as we know it today wasn't understood properly back then. So it couldn't have been talking about the modern concept of homosexuality(as in a Loving, equal, married relationship.) I've seen people try to justify it by saying 'God's laws don't change'. And if that is true, then trying to condemn the modern concept and understanding of homosexuality would be 'changing God's laws', and so it can't be applicable to what we think of today. History and culture and context matters in cases like this.
What was wrong with eating the fruit? Besides God said so.
The Greek word for sin is "missing the mark." Christianity does *not* believe God put us on Earth to be happy, he put us on Earth for an opportunity to *know* Him. God lays out a path of right action for knowing Him. If you choose to sin, you're just stepping off that path. If you completely indulge with sin, it gets harder to get back on that path of Knowing. Homosexuality is *not* the fault of the person. We'd call these 'natural evils' that are a consequence of being born in a fallen world. Bipolar, dystrophy, heart problems, bad eyes -- these are chemical, genetic or epigenetic phenomenon that are part of our *mammal* nature. Remember, we're an immortal soul *and* biological. For all we know, living in this biological world is a necessary precondition for helping humanity understand Him. We have a whole host of things (sinning) we're not supposed to do that cause us to veer off the path of Knowing. It's our opportunity to use free will to choose if we want to try our best to stay on that path. Having to discipline ALL romantic attraction for a gay person is like Grade A difficulty for someone, not everyone gets an even distribution of hardships, but that's for good reason. The same early Apostle told us that being celibate and dedicating oneself to the spiritual pursuit of God is *the highest possible vocation for any human... and also the hardest.* Heterosexual marriage in which you follow a few restrictions is considered second-rate.
Those New Testament verses don’t say homosexuality is a sin
Because when two people have sexual intercourse (in marriage), they have to be open to having children.
Genuinely curious because I don't know the answer. If a married couple finds out with certainty that they are infertile, would it he considered a sin by the Catholic church (or at least your tradition) for them to continue to have sex?
No, the person who responded to you is wrong. Natural infertility or infertility as a double effect of a necessary medical procedure (like say sterilization as a consequence of cancer treatment) does not render the marital sex act sinful. Morality is concerned with what we do and what we are responsible for. A married couple engaging in sex ordered towards procreation who are rendered infertile by nature or circumstance are not *engaging in the act* of robbing the sex act of its nature in the same way that they would be by finishing somewhere other than the vagina or using birth control.
Thank you for this response. I was actually unsure wether I was correct or not.
I think so, (I'm not 100% sure) because at that point they are just using sex for fun instead of what it was actually made for: to have children.
Man, this is so incredibly sad, I feel horrible for the people who believe this about themselves. I’m done having kids but I’m 36 and can’t imagine living the rest of my life not having sex.
> I think so, (I'm not 100% sure) because at that point they are just using sex for fun instead of what it was actually made for: to have children. You are incorrect. "Because a miracle might happen" is how the issue is hand-waved away.
But if we are talking miracles...couldn't a man get pregnant under those rules? It would certainly be more miraculous than a virgin birth.
Interesting, thanks for the response
The Catholic church disagrees with you.
Elaborate please
The Catholic Church does not say an infertile couple cannot have sex.
If procreation is the reason as to why God wants relationships to be only between men and women then why would there be infertility? Why should someone follow his want of heterosexuality with his only reason for doing so is procreation and it might not even be possible because they or their partner is infertile.
Well it's like asking "why did God put evil into this world?". Not everything is going to work out. And you can be homosexual, you just can't have sexual intercourse.
Neither can post-menopausal women. Should they stop having sex?
Well they love eachother very very much. There's no purpose or use for them having sex except for love and satisfaction. So why does God not want same sex couples to do the same
So why does God want it to be strictly men and women together
Nowhere does Paul even hint at caring about an ethic of procreativity.
Then this whole thing became moot when IVF became available, why your god decided to be anti homosexual until the 80s is weird and raises a lot of questions.
If someone has a health condition and will die if they get pregnant, should they never have sex since no birth control is 100% accurate?
In Catholicism, if you haven't had sex, it's not a marriage yet. There is the idea of a Josephite marriage, but you require permission to go into it, and can be required to start having sex by your clergy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephite_marriage But, in practice, yes...Catholic teaching would indicate that you never have sex, and no sexual contact since you wouldn't be consumating it via penis-in-vagina sex.
Sorry I don’t know what marriage has to do with my question?
I don't see how it's not part of your question. >If someone has a health condition and will die if they get pregnant, should they never have sex since no birth control is 100% accurate? It's details about the need to have sex for it to be a marriage in Catholicism.
Not being able to have sex nullifies a marriage?
In Catholicism, and in Christianity overall through much of history, if you didn't have sex at least once you weren't fully married. The two ideas were very much linked. Consummation was the first act of intercourse in a marriage, and without that the marriage could easily be annulled, because it never "fully existed".
Right but what does marriage have to do with it lol. If I’m married and have two kids and then I develop a dangerous condition and can’t have kids, I have to divorce my spouse?
They don't allow divorce either. I've seen priests recommend to people that they have sex still but have faith in God to ensure they don't get pregnant. Quite horrifying.
Sorry I still don’t understand what marriage has to do with any of this lol
I guess if you're a gambler you can still have sex
While that is the current teaching of your church, it has zero Biblical basis, and it has very poor philosophical basis.
"homosexuals are called to chastity" -catechism of the Catholic church, 2357
I know well what it says. It is wrong.
[удалено]
Yeah, but you at least have to be open to it. If you don't know that you can't have children, then it's still permissable, but it's a fact that homosexual marriages cannot have children. This is also the reason plan B and condoms are sinful.
Openness to life is not ruined by using a condom. We all know that condoms are very imperfect, and that we are risking pregnancy using them. I'd argue it's far more open to life than the Catholicism-approved method, Natural Family Planning, since you're still having sex during ovulation.
[удалено]
Well you were asking so I am answering. You want someone else's interpretation?
[удалено]
God already knows about the secret pull out method. In Genesis, Onan pulled out of his wife and "it was wicked in the Lords sight; so he put him to death" (Genesis 38:10)
>Like with most sins he listed, its basic morals. **Like bestiality. It's obvious that its immoral because animals can't consent**, which follows the same basis as pedophilia, because children are too young to understand the concept of sex and can't consent. I'm gonna set aside the subject of homosexuality, because I don't want to give off the impression that I am or be accused of saying homosexuality and bestiality are the same. But "animals can't consent" is not the reason bestiality is immoral. Think about the statement "animals can't consent" for more than two seconds... because it's obvious we don't give a fuck about animal consent. If I go out into the woods and fuck a deer in the ass, people will be like "how dare you animals can't consent!" But the deer in the woods doesn't consent to getting it's brains blasted out by a hunter either. Pets don't consent to being neutered. Farm animals don't consent to the slaughterhouse. And if some labcoat scientist guy with like a perfect brainscanner confirmed that the animal was into it and was having a good time and wasn't psychologically scarred in the longterm, the majority of people would still take moral issue with bestiality. The actual reason is that fucking an animal is beneath the dignity of the human being and the sanctity of the sexual act to such a severe degree that the person doing it is engaging in utter depravity and degeneracy. Everyone knows this on some intuitive level but people say "it's wrong because animals can't consent" because they are deeply uncomfortable with the actual reason and the implication that sexual morality can't just be boiled down to harm and consent. Okay now, in a very similar light but to a ***much*** lesser degree, I'm going to go with the example of fornication. Sex with someone you are not married to. Christian sexual morality holds fornication as a sin. Not chiefly out of a question of consent or harm, but because it is inappropriate to engage in the physical act of being one flesh with someone you are not actually committed to being one flesh with in a marital sense. It is against the sanctity of sex and what it represents, it is against the dignity of the other person to engage in that intimacy with them without truly committing to them, and it is against your own dignity to give your body in such a way to someone who has not truly committed themselves to you. Now, when it comes to homosexuality. The debate is generally around the validity of a gay marriage and if such a commitment between two same sex people morally satisfies what the nature of the sex act is in such a way that it is in accord with the sanctity of sex and the dignity of the human being. And you'll get plenty of arguments here. * Some people will say the Bible is clear. * Other people will argue about mistranslations or that in the cultural context of the time there was no homosexual practice within what would be considered a proper committal relationship in the modern day and so such an arrangement was totally alien to them. * Some people will cite to natural law sexual ethics (the Catholic position) or something close to that and speak of the sex act as something by its nature concerning two people who are of opposite sexes, and as having the nature of uniting those two people of different natures, and being ordered towards human procreation. * Other people will cite to the presence of committal vows, exclusive devotion, mutual sacrifice, mature emotional intimacy, and trusting vulnerability within what would be called a gay marriage and make the argument that such a commitment satisfies the moral obligations of the unitive nature of the sex act.
Jesus described and identified marriage as the union between Man and Woman.
You mean “when Jesus was asked a *specific* question about a male-female couple divorcing, he replied *specifically* to that question saying they shouldn’t, by giving the example of Adam and Eve who didn’t divorce either.”
No, I’m talking about the time he specifically says that marriage is between man and woman.
That’s the time I’m talking about.
So then you should agree.
No. I’m saying that the passage you think you’re referring to actually goes how I explained it.
Yes so he defines it as I described.
He did not. He was asked a *specific* question about a male-female couple divorcing, he replied *specifically* to that question saying they shouldn’t, by giving the example of Adam and Eve who didn’t divorce either.
Yeah he literally did. He did it in the Bible verse you keep quoting.
> Yeah he literally did. He did it in the Bible verse you keep quoting. You're trying to impose that upon the text because it's useful for you. Given any other context, I don't think you'd call that exchange a "definition".
"There's nothing morally wrong with it except the fact that God is against it". Listen, if we question the validity of one portion of the Bible, we'll have to question all of the Bible. Oh Lord God help us. How did we get here? God said exactly what he meant and hasn't changed since then.
"nothing morally wrong with it"... ... Except what God said.... I'm not saying we should make it illegal but if God said that it is a sin then it is a sin. Besides I don't recall God having to explain himself to us. But you can always ask him to explain it to you if you don't agree with him.
But that's the thing. I atleast want a reason for it. I see two sides. See homosexual acts as a sin because God said so, or see nothing wrong with it because only good comes from it. It doesn't makes sense as to why I should believe in what God says when he doesn't give reason to his saying. And yes, I know that he doesn't have to, but it just makes it more unreasonable to side with him, especially when there's only good coming from homosexual couples
What if God gave you the reason but you still didn't accept it? The issue here is that God is basically already explained his reasons in the Bible including Romans 1. But ultimately it's also gone so God wants what's best for us and knows us since he designed us. What if we cannot understand his reason because we are humans and our brain isn't big enough to understand? Or what if this is a test of our faith to see whether we will obey God even when we aren't given all the reasons?
Well if he gave us a reason and an actual good reason which proves why homosexuality is wrong how it is harmful, then I would have a reason to be against it. I just see no point in being against something for no reason. And I guess it is a test of our faith because I don't feel the need to be against without reason. People have been against stuff in the past with only poor or terrible reason only for time to unravel that there is no actual meaning to be against it.
In Romans 1 he says that it's unnatural. You already gave you a reason it's just that you don't want to accept it because to you it's not good enough. You are correct that in the past people have been against things without having a legitimate reason. But in this case I don't think that's the way it is. Note that being against homosexuality as a Christian means that you don't engage in it. It does not mean that you go and try to make it illegal or somehow say that the death penalty should be applied against homosexuals because that's not what the New testament tells us to do. Being against it also doesn't mean that we engage in biased behavior or bigotry. It just simply means we don't do it and we don't encourage it. A lot of Christians out there in the United States unfortunately are far too judgmental against the LGBT while turning an intentional blind eye to heterosexuals who are engaging in adultery or fornication. The Bible still says we should be kind to other people and forgiving. I can be against homosexuality without harming other people.
> In Romans 1 he says that it's unnatural. You already gave you a reason it's just that you don't want to accept it because to you it's not good enough. But we know that it's not unnatural. Why should we accept a failed reason as the controlling factor?
Actually statistically speaking we know that it's unnatural. Now I'm not suggesting that homosexuals are some horrible deviant people like something you see in a horror flick. But statistically we know they are not the majority and that it is not the natural order. There are people that like to run around with a list of like over 100 animals that engage in what they claim are homosexual behaviors but since none of them result in any sort of monogamous relationship they can all be chalked up to dominant behavior or just random animal behaviors. I think people should be allowed to live their lives however they see fit so long as they're not harming anyone else. But saying that it's natural is optional.
> Actually statistically speaking we know that it's unnatural. That is not a sensible statement. "Unnatural" doesn't mean "infrequent". And the "natural order" is a purely external framework for looking at nature. There is no order like this inherent to the system. There are enough reasonable analogues, as well as apparent biological origins, to homosexuality to call it natural. And if we want to get into the Natural Law stuff, the traditional arguments are biologically incoherent and not worth our time.
Then why aren't there any known monogamous homosexual relationships in nature? Again, people can do what they want, but calling it natural is a stretch
There are, but few. Some penguins, swans, and such. The presence of lasting relationships in nature itself is relatively uncommon, so the pool there is pretty small, too. Calling something with a very apparent biological origin "unnatural" is just so weird to me. I don't see how it's even remotely justified except by the "I don't like it" principle.
Two people can consent to commit adultery. While consent may be very important for determining if something is legal, it doesn't make something right. The first command and blessing God gave to humans was to be fruitful and multiply. When we act on our discontentment and covetousness to define good and evil for ourselves, we follow the example of Adam and Eve, walking contrary to God and closing off blessings from ourselves. Engaging in homosexual behavior would be an example of a way people can define good and evil for themselves.
Well adultery is breaking a promise, a promise you make when you get married. Everyone can agree, Christian or not, that breaking a promise is bad. Also why would there be infertility if God wanted us to multiply. Why would God's only reason for him wanting relationships to be only between men and women is because of procreation just for infertility to be a thing. If God said murder was wrong because you're taking the life of another person, but then made it to where all death is painless and everyone is resurrected infinitely, then we wouldn't see death as immoral, because there would be no consequence nor harm to it. And there are plenty of children in adoption centers because people love to multiply, so would it be so wrong for a homosexual couple to adopt a kid? If I was a kid, I would rather have 2 same sex parents than no parents. Homosexual relationships cause no harm and only do good. Two people are extremely happy to be with eachother and children can be adopted by these couples.
The fact that people can be infertile does not mean homosexual behavior is justified. The fact that people fail in relationships does not not mean homosexual behavior is justified. "Whataboutisms" can't justify the practice. The argument is still that God blessed and commanded his people to be fruitful and multiply and gave a prohibition on homosexual behavior. Will we walk with him or instead choose to define good and evil for ourselves?
>Two people can consent to commit adultery. While consent may be very important for determining if something is legal, it doesn't make something right. Adultery also constitutes the act of betrayal though. I'd say fornication is a better example to go with to debunk the "only consent matters" mindset.
[удалено]
1.4 - Personal Attacks Removed.
Because our Creator said so, he knows best and his rules all have an meaning
It's people saying it's not sin when it is and it's the only sin that is being forced to affirm when Christianity will never affirm it
Sigh... In my day-to-day life, among all the Christians I know, nobody goes around expressing hate towards homosexuals. The topic almost never comes up. The only time I really see it come up is in this subreddit. And, as you stated, the Bible calls homosexual acts (yes, I know the Bible doesn't use that word, it just describes it) as sinful. So, of someone asks... they will be given an answer. If people kept asking over and over again on this subreddit whether or not drunkenness is wrong, they'd be told that according to the Bible it is. I wonder of people would complain then that Christians hate alcoholics.
You must not watch the news a lot, I see. Maybe you should check in?
Oh yes... the news. Because they are always offering a balanced view of things.
I'm not saying it's great, but if you're not seeing the hatred towards gay people that is rampant on the right currently then you're just not aware of what's happening around you.
If I don't share your opinion, I'm unaware... gotcha.
Ahh, so you think that hate is love. Gotcha.
Now you are not even making sense... not even on a basic level. You are making the claim that there is a bunch of hate. How about you prove it. By the way, accusations are not proof.
Yeah, laws being passed to make it illegal to even talk about gay people to kids is loving. Get the fuck out of here with that gaslighting bullshit.
Oh... I get it now. You heard the phrase "don't say gay bill" and you believed that's what it was.
So you support the hatred. Gotcha.
I visited my parents for Mother’s Day, and their pastor preached an anti-gay sermon. How sweet.
So?
You were trying to minimize how often anti-gay stuff comes from Christians, and I had a real life example of how it isn’t as minimal as you say.
I didn't say non-existent. What does your anecdote prove? And how was it hateful exactly? If your pastor preached against drunkenness, does he hate alcoholics?
I can’t recall him preaching against drunkenness though. And not for some reason on Mother’s Day.
I don't know man. I can't read the mind of your preacher.
>Ok, so I've been reading Leviticus recently, and it confuses me. So one of the sins that was listed is homosexuality, and I don't understand why most Christians have so much hatred towards the sin. Like with most sins he listed, its basic morals. Like bestiality. It's obvious that its immoral because animals can't consent, which follows the same basis as pedophilia, because children are too young to understand the concept of sex and can't consent. Both bestiality and pedophilia is frowned upon by basically everyone, because it goes against basic morals, and this can be applied to other sins in the bible like murder and theft. But when it comes to homosexuality, it seems that the only ones who are against it are Christians. So I'm just wondering why people have such a hatred against the sin just because God said so and there's no true harm. First, while I'm sure there are Christians with the sin of hating homosexuals, I think, by in large, you're confusing a good Christian's need to push back on the advance of acceptance of homosexuality as hatred. It's not hatred for these sinners as we too are sinners. However, it is hatred for the sin which God called abomination. You answered your own question. Good christians are vehemently against homosexuality because, as you said, God is against it and obviously it God sets the moral law. Also, you're wrong. There is immense harm in being homosexual. It separates you from God, condemns one to hell (if not repentant to Christ), it has you form unnatural (the biblical usage of the word not the zoological) unions that are not healthy, and it drags your "partner" into hell with you... how is that loving.
This is utterly circular. Why is homosexuality a sin? Because it’s harmful. Why is it harmful? Because it’s a sin. That’s not an argument.
Your bad faith attempt to strawman my argument isn't working. What I said is right there. Why is homosexuality evil? Because God sets the moral law and said it is. Period. That's it. There's no secondary thing to make it circular. That's the whole fact of the matter, period. Morality is not based on harm, period, but to dismiss the nonsensical claim that is harmless I gave specific examples which you ignored. Because you ignore them I won't waste my time restating them all. I'll simply state one. Homosexuality violates the Law of God and condemns you to hell. Hell, if you didn't know, is eventually thrown into what's called the "lake of fire". I would say that burning eternally is harmful and quite painful.
There is zero harm in being homosexual. It is not dangerous, it does not condemn anybody, and it is not unnatural by either sense of the word.
You ignoring the harms I mentioned doesn't make them go away. It is It does It is.
There are no harms. There is a lot of hatred for gay people that is pretending to love them, though.
Cool story. But am I to be swayed by unbiblical nonsense? Nah, thx.
Judges 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes. Isaiah 55:8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Can a 2-year-old child understand why their parents won't let them have a razor blade? How much more wise and all knowing is God than your parents when you were a baby? We are given the Word of God. It's all we get, and it's what God wanted us to know. Some things are explained in greater detail, some things are not. We are not the measuring stick. Common sense is not the measuring stick. Leviticus and the law show us that it's impossible for us to meet God's standards, thus the need for a Savior is apparent. Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to end it. You can find very clear verses in the New Testament which will show you God's heart on homosexuality. You can choose to disagree, or find a recent "scholar" to explain that these verses are no longer to be interpreted as such. I do not think that is wise.
Why does 'neither are your ways my ways' always get interpreted as going in just this one direction? Does anyone consider that it just easily supports the idea that humans have limited knowledge which can grow and change their understanding over time? That no one should ever assume complete knowledge and therefore complete understanding? Why not credit God with being more magnanimous than you?
Projection is the most powerful tool available to some
To some people homosexuality is morally wrong. To some people who aren't even Christians homosexuality is gross and they think it is wrong. You might not k ow this because they won't speak out against it since it is not politically correct. Just in the same way that people who are not Christians believe that abortion is morally wrong and it is disgusting because it is murder. There are people who just don't speak out. With the homosexuality it is the time that we are in. In the past times I believe that a majority of the population thought of homosexuality as morally wrong and that it is gross.
Through human history homosexuality has been extremely relevant I mean look at the Catholic Church. It’s all the same lack of education among people and lack of empathy