Can someone please tell me where the Bible says homosexuality is wrong??

[Gusto md]

All I have come across is this.....doesn't exactly drive the current religious point of view home, does it....!

Jonathan and David were married in the Bible (1 Samuel 18:1, 3 - 4). "And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword and to his bow and to his girdle." and also Ruth's relationship with Naomi is suspect, (Ruth 1:16-17) "And Ruth said to Naomi, Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part three and me."

[Bush_Blows]

1. Noplace.

It ain't there.

[Dookus]

31. Nonsense

of course it's there. Read Leviticus.

[Old Deuteronomy]

79. Romans 1

Read it and weep. Or do as many do and deny.

BUT, it IS there for all to see and understand.

It doe snot however tell us to act like idiots about it all. God will handle His business. Ours is to love one another and uplift one another.

[Rush1184]

40. Also, the King James Version,

which is the most popular translation, was comissioned by king james, who was gay himself. Just a piece of trivia I picked up on these boards a while back.

I googled it, and found this:
<snip>
The first edition of the English Bible commonly known as the "King James Version" was printed in 1611. King James VI & I of Great Britain had sponsored the project, and the translators appropriately dedicated the new Bible to him. At this point in his own personal life, King James had already been involved in a love affair with one man, the Duke of Lennox, which provoked a rebellion in Scotland; his current lover in England was a young man whose special relationship with the king would earn him the Earldom of Somerset. By 1615, however, Somerset's fortunes declined and James succeeded in luring his most famous lover, George Villiers, later Duke of Buckingham, into bed. What are we to make of these relationships between King James and his so-called "favorites?" Many earlier historians treated the subject with shock, disdain, and denial. Only recently has the subject been treated more seriously and fairly by scholars such as Caroline Bingham, Jonathan Goldberg Roger Lockyer, and David Bergeron.
<snip>
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/12465.htm

[MemphisTiger]

70. Weather he was gay or not is suspect

some of his detractors labeled him as gay, closet catholic, and many other things. There are alot of rumors but no FACTS.

[Maple]

2. Jesus never said

a word about it. And the word of Jesus is all Christians need to be concerned about.

[Djinn]

12. what were the words of jesus?

we only have the words of people who lived anything up to a few hundred years after his death.

there ARE no "words of jesus" in existence

[Maple]

14. Hey I'm an atheist

and don't buy any of it...but there are specific words attributed to Jesus in the new testament...and there's not one word about being gay said by him.

And the words of Jesus are all that christians need to be concerned with...not anybody else.

[Djinn]

24. me too

but the point I'm making is that we have NO idea what the words of Jesus were - certain statements are attributed to him but they were written by people who never met him. Christian don't follow Christ - they follow what a committee decided Christ was that has been filtered through a few thousand years of change.

[Terran]

33. You're applying too much common sense...

People 'behave' (or they're supposed to) as if the 'words of Jesus' in the Bible are the whole of his life and actions. It doesn't matter that they aren't literally his words recorded on the spot. A lot of Christians believe that they are literally 100% accurate. So, the point becomes, if one believes that, then one should act based on the words we have; but of course most Christians fail to do that.

[Djinn]

55. Of course it matters

you can not base an argument based on "words of jesus" if you don't know the "words of jesus" it's something that NEEDS to pointed out to people who use that claim to justify their prejudices.

But, yes I get your point - if people are too illogical to make that connection it can be helpful to point out that what they (usually) provide as "evidence" of God's distaste for homosexuality - ie Leviticus - is in the Old Testament and if they really want to follow that they should stop calling themselves Christians.

[Terran]

69. Still, from the standpoint of ethics and the 'culture war'

I would prefer to stick with what the Bible says Jesus said than try to invalidate those words with qualifications such as the ones you're making. Why (especially because I'm not a believer?)? Because the words we have support a liberal view of behavior--selfless help for those who are most vulnerable, and brotherly love. These are two things I dare say we all stand by as liberals, and few Republicans support, despite the fact that they claim a monopoly on Christianity. The paradigm we have tends to illuminate their hypocrisy, and I prefer to keep it that way.

[Maple]

37. I agree

but so called christians are supposed to follow the words of Jesus as written in the Bible.

And in that Bible...he said not one word about gays.

[jojo54]

34. Hallafrickingluya

somebody has finally said exactly what I think.

[Atlas Mugged]

65. The Sermon On The Mount

is as close as you'll get. It's widely regarded as Jesus' own words. You know, The Beatitudes? I'm not a christian, but this is a rather pleasant bit, especially the eye of the needle and the camel metaphor.

[fat free goodness]

66. You are (sorta) incorrect, here.

You are correct that all of the various books comprising the new testament were written at least decades after Jesus' death, and that none of the new testament was directly written by Jesus.

However, some of the books were indeed written by the apostles, who were eyewitnesses. Considering the four Gospels specifically:
Matthew was written by Matthew the apostle, a direct eye witness.
Mark was written by a disciple of Peter, who was an apostle of Jesus. (Witness once removed).
Luke was written by someone who was not an apostle, but was taught by several apostles independently. His work is thus especially interesting, since interviewing witnesses separately from each other and over a long period is likely to give a better picture than even one of the witnesses can supply.
John was written by the Apostle John, who was a direct eyewitness.
Acts was written by the same Luke, but at a later date.

[Djinn]

77. and how much of those words

are properly translated? how many of them were edited for political expediency over the years (hence the slant towards blaming Jews for Jesus' death rather the Romans who actually held power at the time) as a historical document the Bible is useless.

[A HERETIC I AM]

78. The idea that the Gospels were ACTUALLY written by those

named individuals is a disputed one. It is unlikely that ANY of the Apostles actually wrote anything down because it is unlikely that they were actually real people. 12 apostles--12 signs of the Zodiac....coincedance? nope. The story of Christ and his followers is an allegorical tale of the movements of the sun and stars through the heavens. Looking to validate the historicity of these individuals is fruitless and has NEVER been successfully done. Every attempt to, when independently checked, reveals nothing.

[seabeyond]

3. Leviticus and paul i believe

they were more stressed on divorce, especially paul, Leviticus said no divorce shellfish or homosexual acts

on edit the closest jesus came was a roman asked jesus to heal his boy. the "boys" were well known for taking care of all the soldiers needs including sexual. jesus healed the boy without a word about his sinnin

[madeline_con]

82. Paul

Wasn't Paul a raging homophobe? That's what I heard, that he was obsessed with it.

[Dervill Crow]

86. Paul wasn't crazy about women, either. eom

[UdoKier]

4. Must be somewhere near where it says...

to never ever eat shrimp, or pork, or make money from interest.

Honestly, why anyone thinks the admonitions of any 2000 year old book should still be followed today is beyond me...

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. Well, they don't actually think that... they "think they think" that;

Which is why they eat pork, borrow and lend money and get divorced. The posturing about homosexuality is really about getting a self-administered rush of self-righteousness.

[osiristz]

35. It's not 2000 years old

The Bible as we know it, was not canonized until the 4th century. That makes it approximately 1600 years old.

Of course, it was again re-written at the behest of King James (that flaming gay man) who indulged in the most vile of sins, at least according to his book. It was likely Sir Francis Bacon who actually transcribed the 'athorized version'. What authorized means is anyoone's guess.

The 4 books canonized in the Current bible were among over 100 gospels floating around in the first three centuries. When you look at the Bible today, please remember you're looking at a 'compilation' not a book.

The first 5 books (attributted to Moses dubiously) were likely penned by King Josiah in about 700 bc. That's when he claims to have miraculously "found the Book of The Law" in the temple while doing renovations.

From that point he instituted sweeping changes on the hebrew society, He outlawed the pagan practices which were the norm, claiming that the "Book of the Law" was the original religion and that the current religion they were practicing (many deities) were not. Thus the 'new' religion became the old and the old became heresy.

History is always written from the viewpoint of the victor.

With regards to monotheism - think not that the early Hebrews were a monotheistic society. The word "Elohim" thankfully preserved in the current Bible (some anyway) is distinctly PLURAL and FEMININE.


What does this all have to do with homosexuality in the bible. Well, it only serves to demonstrate that most of it must be taken with "pillar of salt".

[megatherium]

67. it's not 1600 years old either.

Key elements are probably 1900+ years old. The Gospels and letters of the NT that were chosen were chosen because the fourth-century council decided that these were the authentic writings of the immediate followers of Jesus. The members of the council knew that the (now canonical) writings were in circulation from early on (the four Gospels date from maybe 60 to maybe 110 or 120). The other Gospels (gnostic, etc) were clearly later (second and third centuries). The members of the council had the writings of earlier church fathers to guide them, writings dating to the early second century (e.g., Polycarp of Smyrna, who personally knew the Apostle John). These writings quote many of the modern NT books, plus several other writings that did not make the cut.

Now the council didn't always guess correctly on authenticity. Of the 12 letters of Paul found in the NT, only five of them are now believed authentic; possibly two more, while the others are second-century letters written in Paul's name by followers. The council debated long and hard about Revelation; succeeding generations of Christians still have doubts about that book.

But it is clear that the picture that is often painted, that there was a miasma of competing writings and that the decisions as to what should be in the canon were made on arbitrary or political grounds, is simply not accurate. We know more about the origins of Christianity than these tendentious theories suggest.

on edit: typo

[Igel]

74. You have to read a bit more.

The preface to the first KJV printing says it's not "anybody's guess" why it's authorized: Jimmy-boy authorized it for reading in the churches. The translators are also listed, and we know the process they used, the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek versions they used, the translation they based theirs on, and their charge. Pretty well documented, in fact.

There are bits from the end of the first century AD in just about perfect agreement with medieval Gk sources for 2-3 of the gospels, and fairly full texts of some of them from the 2nd century. Late canonization doesn't mean the originals aren't older. Same argument for the OT.

The 19th century Josiah "authorship" business was a self-serving racist claim. We can't tell Josiah edited the Pentateuch; if he did, he didn't add much to the very much older documents he was using. Too many details in the Pentateuch and older books of the OT make assumptions impossible to make by 700 AD.

Elohim is plural; a little's been made of it theologically. Many languages use plural to indicate respect, and they do it in different ways. English is one of them: "Royal we" and singular "you".

The -im in Elohim is masculine in Hebrew. Not to say agreement classes never do unexpected things, but my dictionary agrees that the word's masculine. And, were it feminine, it matters little. In Russian, my wife's cat is female, but in Spanish it's male. It was spayed.

[lolly]

45. Yeah, that's the place

You know, where we're warned not to wear clothes with mixed textiles--no cotton-poly tees for good Christians?

[TheFarseer]

5. Leviticus

goodness sakes, man. I thought everyone knew that by now. I think paul says something about it also.

[Maple]

7. Ain't none of then Jesus

and Jesus is all 'Christians' are supposed to care about.

Paul never even met Jesus, and Jesus revoked the old testament in the Sermon on the Mount.

[Clovis Sangrail]

13. Jesus revoked the Old Testament?

I think this would be news to most Xians.

[Maple]

16. It probably would be news

to most christians...but Jesus specifically revoked the old testament in his sermon on the mount.

Numerous times in fact...'you have heard it said of them in the old times....but I say unto you'....

Most 'christians' have never read the Bible.

[Dookus]

32. No he didn't revoke the old testament

he clearly stated he came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.

Christianity still treats the Old Testament as the word of God.

[Lindacooks]

38. Nope, read the Semon on the Mount.

There are many instances of 'the law says, but I say to you..."

[Dookus]

48. That doesn't prove your point

Unless you can show me where Jesus said the Old Testament is hereby revoked, he did not do so.

In fact, he said the contrary.

Matthew 5:17-20
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

[fat free goodness]

64. "The law" did not mean "the prophets" or "The old testament"

The Jewish priesthood had built up a very elaborate system of rules that comprised "the Law." The Law was based on what the prophets said, but went far beyond it, mostly extending rules or prohibitions to their "logical" conclusions. (Contrived example: Rule says don't eat pork. Extension: don't uses dishes that pork may have touched, since atoms of porky uncleanliness may still remain.)
The Sermon on the Mount does not "revoke" the old testament, but Jesus did explain that what was important was how you related to God and Man. If by honoring the letter of the law you violated the spirit, you were wrong. The whole of the law could be summed up as "Love God before everything, and love your fellow man as you love yourself."

If you followed the law to honor God, this was good. If by following the Law you acted kindly towards your fellow man, you wer probably on the right track. If following the Law you lead you to hate or abuse other people, you were doing it wrong.

[Lindacooks]

76. Gee, a contradiction in the Bible??

Who would've thought it???

</sarcasm>

Of course, there are many contradictions in the Bible. Just look at the two versions of creation in Genesis for starters. And here's a quote from the Sermon on the Mount, which proves MY point:

Matthew 5: 39-42

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

[madeline_con]

83. 2 creation accounts?

People say that a lot,that there are 2 accounts of the creation in Genesis.

I always thought it was just elaborating on what it said at first, and wasn't a different take on it.

[Maple]

39. Yeah he did

Expressly said so. Several times in fact.

He fulfilled the law...and then changed it.

Christians should be more familiar with the Bible before they preach it.

[Dookus]

46. I'm not a christian

and I'm not preaching anything.

I'm simply saying the idea that the old testament was revoked is certainly not a tenet of any major christian denomination.

[dsc]

63. You are wrong here

Peter's dream settles this issue. The early church had to decide if people first had to become Jews to become Christians or not. They decided not. Thus we aren't bound by the Old Testement.

[fat free goodness]

68. Not "bound by" does not mean "revoked".

I am not bound by the laws of Bolivia. However, this does not mean the laws of Bolivia are revoked. It means I am not Bolivian, nor in Bolivia.
Non-Jews do not have to become Jews to become Christians. They are quite reasonably not bound by Jewish law.
However, there are rules or revelations in the Old Testament that do apply. The distinction is whether the rule is something that was revealed by God as a general principal of human / God relations, or a rule specifically given to the Jews, to keep them set apart as a people.
Of the laws from God, Jesus said they could be summed up as “Love God first, and every man as you love yourself.” The spirit of the law as just cited is more important than the letter: if you find yourself obeying the letter of the law but breaking the spirit, you are wrong.
Of the Jewish law, some of the rules were specifically designed to keep the Jews set apart, and cohesive as a people. These laws were not “repealed.” However, Jesus noted that the priesthood had extended the laws far beyond what God had actually specified. (Possibly for fear of encroaching on one of the actual laws, or possibly just to wield more power.) Jesus showed no reluctance to ignore such rules when they conflicted with the “spirit of the law” noted above.

[DustMolecule]

50. Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament.....he completed it.....

...it is finished/complete in HIM (Jesus) and then a new covenant of 'grace' in our Lord, Jesus Christ began (for believers).

People know/have learned their own short-comings (that they cannot ever be true to 'the law'....we fall very short and sin/break 'the Old Testament laws'. What will 'save' us then? Realization of our own innate sinfulness and then living on/with God's (Jesus's grace)....Jesus 'did it all' for us.....we humans can't possibly attempt to ever earn what Jesus so freely gave to us.

[JVS]

61. Right on!

Who taught you this?

[Tux]

81. Fulfill laws

I thought it was prophesies.

[alcuno]

20. Call it a pivot. And yes he did.

Jesus said, "You have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say to you that if a man strikes you on the right cheek, you should turn and give him your left cheek."

It's a matter of interpretation, but I believe that Jesus was essentially saying that there's a new sheriff in town.

[Clovis Sangrail]

54. pivot yes, revocation no

there is plenty in the sermon on the mount to agree with the idea that he was putting forth the "new sherriff in town" idea.. and that portions of the old testament were being superceeded...
...but I have found no place where Jesus says the old testament "is now null and void".

A minority may believe this is what he meant, but it is not what he said.

Further, the continued inclusion of the old testament in religious teachings tends to indicate that the major Xian religions do not agree that the old testament is now null and void.

[MemphisTiger]

72. He was talking about personal relationships

I would have to disagree with your interpretation of His intent

[MemphisTiger]

71. That is false

[Clovis Sangrail]

8. as stated... leviticus 18:22

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

But leviticus also says:
"Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you"

which rules out shellfish... so take it with a truckload of salt.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. I was watching some PBS show about religious Jews and Homosexuality

And at one point this guy was relating a conversation he had with his rabbi about him being gay. The rabbi was quite clear that anal sex was straight out, pun inteneded. Anal sex it seems was forbidden between people, regardless of their sex. The rabbi had no clue what oral sex was, and once it was explained to him, other than his complete mystification about why anybody would do such a thing, he actually had no problem with it and did not see it as a violation of biblical law. Sort of the Clinton defense. God acts in mysterious ways.

[lolly]

42. Not an uncommon distinction

I believe that many countries--including European countries during the Renaissance--outlawed "sodomy," but not specifically homosexuality.

Anal sex--with another man, with one's wife, with anyone--was illegal, and was all considered pretty much the same crime.

Don't think they obsessed with the difference between hetero/homo like we do now. I'm not sure they even had a concept of homosexual.

[madeline_con]

85. I'm not sure they even had a concept of homosexual.

Do you think being gay is some new phonomenon?

[kweerwolf]

58. Why would oral sex mystify the rabbi?

Hasn't he read in Exodus where God said, "Go down, Moses"??????

Uh-oh! Bet I smoke a turd in purgatory for that one! :spank:

[JohnLocke]

59. It does make sense.

Anal sex is much more dangerous than oral sex.

[madeline_con]

84. >>>> The rabbi had no clue

what oral sex was, and once it was explained to him <<<<

OMG. It's true what they say about Jewish girls.

[Quixote1818]

36. So that means women can lie with women! It ONLY says Men!

If they want to be consistent and follow the Bible literally seems being lesbian is A-OK with God.

[jdj]

51. no, but this is the culture mores talking, not God

ROMANS 1:26
Because they do this (worshipping false gods) God has given them over to shameful passions. Even the women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts. In the same way men give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other. Men do shameful things with each other, and as a result they bring upon themselves the punishment they deserve for their wrong doing. (GNB


this is basically what would happen if some yahoos from the sticks went to New York for a weekend and then wrote their moral code based on what they saw that they were intrigued by/afraid of.

there is a very intesting statement in another chapter that says no Israelite shall become a "temple prostitute". So this culture, which they eventually over ran, apparently associated sexuality and the holiness of God. You can find inferences about these ancient sex-positive woman centered religions all over the old testament, and what we got left with is sickness about sexuality.

[Morning Dew]

43. Deuteronomy is good too

http://www.cforc.com/kjv/Deuteronomy/21.html

Deut. 21 lays out how to deal with inheritance when you have more than one wife and, as a bonus, the exciting prospect of getting the men of your town to kill your stubborn and rebellious son.

[Djinn]

9. The Bible doesn't say anything with much clarity

or that doesn't contradict something else in the Bible - it was written by several people over the course of hundreds of years - those people were relating things that had happened decades earlier and had been passed on (ever play chinese whispers?) It was also written in the language of 2000 years ago - words can not always be directly translated in that case, "virgin" meant something different in the middle east around Jesus' time than it does now.

Pretty much any point (and it's counterpoint) can be made in reference to the Bible - that homosexuality is or isn't wrong, that life begins at conception or with the first breath, that one should be a pacifist, that one should fight.

Attempting to properly interpret a document like that is a waste of time - better to just respond to the people who want to condemn people because of their sexuality based on their their intepretation of the Bible with,

(A) The Bible also details the abomination of eating seafood - start crusading on THAT for a while

(B) Not everyone beleives in your god or even a god and it is therefore wrong to base laws upon those beliefs, to give them an example ask if they'd like any laws based on the Koran or the Dharmapada.

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. I dunno... sounds pretty intense to me.

[alcuno]

11. I think that the first reference is in Genesis.

Genesis 18:20 "The the Lord said: "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin is so grave."

My Catholic bible says that there was a varying view of the wickedness. According to "Yahwist," the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexuality.

In Genesis 19:4, "all the people to the last man-closed in on the house (Lot's). They called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out so that we may have intimacies with them.""

Personally, it's the Old Testament and I try to focus on the New Testament. I don't recall any references there.

[janx]

18. Yeah, and what did Lot do? He threw his daughters out there!

There was a heck of a lot of hedonism and friskiness happening at Sodom and Gomorrah, but the fundies always pick out the homosexual part.
:shrug:

[alcuno]

22. Lot was just being a good host.

They didn't want the daughters and they stayed in the house. Of course, he later impregnated one of them.

It's the Old Testament, proceed with caution.

[lolly]

44. No, I think we're getting stories mixed up

It was a runaway concubine who was thrown to the crowd--and whatever they did to her (it's not specific) was so horrible that it killed her.

The good host found the concubine dead on his doorstep the next morning, and they did what any normal bunch of homo-hating men would do--they cut her body up and sent it to members of all the other tribes of Israel to convince them to ostracize the tribe whose members killed her.

Lot's daughters fooled him into having sex with him so that they could have babies/heirs.

[HughBeaumont]

15. I could give a shite less what a 2000 year old novel says.

As long as they ain't minors, animals or blood relatives, be with who you want to be with.

This novel is by NO means a governmental tool, a guide to etiquette and morality or meant to be taken as seriously as life itself.

[FloridaPat]

17. There are suppose to be 2 places in the Bible where it says that.

However, if you go back to the original language, the particular word used has no translation. No one knows what it is, so sometime hundreds of years ago, someone gave it that translation.

I have heard this rumor. Not being able to read any of the Bible in the original, I can't verify it.

[DUgosh]

47. It that work "effeminate"

Or some similar word, but it does not mean a gay man. The word acturally traslate into ... a man that lives off a woman" ( lets, or makes her support him financially). I bet Joyce Meyers' husband laughs all the way to the golf course everday.

[ultraist]

21. Check a fundie site, they have that nonsense smeared all over their sites

Leviticus, 'Gays are sinners will burn in hell' BS. Hate speech cloaked in religious talk.

[Extend a Hand]

23. A really good site on this topic...

The following site goes through the scriptures (both old and new testament) that are often used to either condemn or justify homosexuality and analyses them from both the conservative and liberal christian point of view.

You have to scroll down past the ads to get to the material but I have found it worthwile on this site.-- they also have links to the viewpoints on homosexuality of many religions both christian and non-christion.


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

[merh]

25. Well, those that claim to be christians are supposedly following

the teachings of Jesus and living their life in his image and by his messages. Jesus said of the old testament, the law, I have not come to change it, but to fulfill it. This means by his life he would fulfill the predictions of the prophets and set the example christians are to follow.

When Jesus was asked what is the greatest commandment, Jesus said to love they God with thy whole heart and thy whole soul and second unto that is to love thy neighbor as thyself.

We are taught that God is love and Jesus is love, so we are to love the act of loving, we are to love unconditionally and we are to love giving love and being loved. We are to love ourselves because we are children of god, we are love, and we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. To be true followers of Christ means you cannot hate anyone, even the sinners, you must love everyone, including those that are different than you.

This thread has a good discussion of this issue.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3159277

Also http://www.religioustolerance.org is a source where you can find discussion of the misinterpretation of the old testament verses that folks claim give them the right to hate gays. Apparently the translation of the bible from one language to another has left alot to be desired.

[kittenpants]

26. oh, somewhere before the seven headed dragan makes an appearance

and somewhere after woman's disgrace with the talking devil/snake

[Djinn]

56. LOL

why do we put so much store in a book filled with more fantasy than Dubya's resume.

[davsand]

27. Take a look at this website for some interesting reading on the subject:

http://members.shaw.ca/trogl/bibquote.html

Among a lot of other things, it has a master list of all Biblical verses that people say have to do with homosexuality. I also has links to various sites presenting differing views.

It is well worth looking at.


Laura

[stevedeshazer]

41. That's a great site

Thanks for the link

[jonnyblitz]

28. leviticus 20:13 says gays are worthy of death.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

such a lovely book. :eyes:

[yodermon]

29. Romans 1:26-30. Attributed to Paul.

Make of it what you will. We all know what the fundies make of it.

Romans 1:26-30 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural 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 indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

:shrug:

go here for some context.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Romans%201:20-30

[megatherium]

73. One of the earliest New Testament writings.

Dating to about 60 if memory serves. It's an interesting passage, because in it Paul seems to portray homosexuality as a punishment resulting from idolatry, rather than as something that leads to punishment. (Verse 26: "Because of this" refers to their worship of statues, animals, etc.) Apparently, Paul was discussing pagan temple prostitution practices -- not gay love as we understand it (where partners of a similar age share their lives in a manner similar to married couples).

[jayctravis]

30. Isn't there something... "Thou shalt not lie with man as with woman..."

But I interpret that as "Don't talk shit with your buddies."

[Stand and Fight]

52. Read the thread...

That has been brought up.
:evilgrin:

[jdj]

49. Here's a couple more:

CORINTHIANS 6: 9-10 reads

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate , nor homosexual offenders , nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.


(this is what scares gay christians so, it states homosexuals will not get into heaven)

I Timothy 1:10 refers to "them that defile themselves with mankind"; this is a translation of the same Greek word "arsenokoites" as appears in I Corinthians.

http://www.otkenyer.hu/halsall/lgbh-cortim.html

it's pretty obvious that these particular cultures didn't cotton too well to greek and roman queens. they were rednecks, basically.

edit: here is a nice paragraph from that site that pretty much sums it up:


"The meaning of these texts, said to exclude homosexual people from the Kingdom of God, hinges on the meaning of two Greek Terms, `malakoi' and `arsenokotai.' Throughout history these terms have been translated variably (masturbatory, practicers of heterosexual anal sex, sodomites, catamites and the like). Suggested translations today still vary (morally loose, masturbators who waste their property, boys and their pederast partners, temple prostitutes serving men and women, gold-digging gay hustlers who pursue the elderly). No one really knows what these terms mean. There is no good reason to suppose they apply to consensual, respectful, homosexual acts per se, especially since such an interpretation would be in conflict with all the rest of the Bible."

[Solon]

75. Just an FYI:

You quoted this passage:

CORINTHIANS 6: 9-10 reads

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate , nor homosexual offenders , nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Notice the word I highlighted, there is a reason for that, look up the etymology of Homosexual, it has roots in the 19th century I believe, not much further than that, and NO ancient languages used in the Bible had even a remote equivalent. This is an example of shoddy translation at best, and probably an agenda displayed at worst.

[OneBlueSky]

53. for Christians, the more important question should be . . .

Q: What did Jesus have to say about homosexuality?

A: Nothing!

and, as an aside . . . here was a guy who hung out with 12 other guys, never married, talked about "loving your brother," and wore skirts . . . helo-o-o-o-o-o! . . .

[Djinn]

57. Generally the people that get all burned about

about homosexuality being "against Christianity" are the same types who (in the words of the Editor of the Oklahoma Examiner when speaking about the KKK back in the 1920's) would flog Christ for being a foreigner and a Jew.

[kweerwolf]

60. My all-time favorite quote about gays and the Bible is this one:

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three
hundred sixty two admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean
that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more
supervision."
- Lynne Lavner, comedienne

[Behind the Aegis]

62. My opinion...take it as such. :)

First, there is a wonderful book (about 56 pages, maybe a tad longer) called: "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" that I can highly recommend. It is a fast and easy read.

Second, there are many problems with Biblical scriptures. Read the story of Noah..was it two of every animal or seven? It's in there! So what is the real issue with homosexuality?

The Levitican Code (many have already touched on this one) actually is addressing two issues: paganism and reproduction. First, the pagan issue: Ancient Israel/Palestine had quite a few pagans romeing (get it? ROME-ing! :)) about and the Jews thought this was a big NO-NO! It violated the whole "only one G-d" rule. Many of those pagans cults/religions had fertility rites that involved EVERYONE doing everyone else. All that sex was to entice the fertility gods and have them provide for bountiful harvests. However, the Jews frowned on this. Also, the idea of having sex for pleasure or "social bonding" was a foreign concept, therefore, illegal. The idea was (as someone already stated in this thread or another like it), that Jews' science at the time was that sperm contained already made babies, therefore, shooting those "babies" into an "unfertile field" was sinful. This is also why there are "laws" forbidding masturbation (how many of us are already Hell-bound because of THIS! :evilgrin:).

Sodom and Gomorrah. The real sin here was inhospitable behavior, NOT homo-sex! The fact that the crowd wanted to RAPE the angels, demonstrated that they were not hospitable to guests to the town. This is why Lot offered up his daughters. Hospitality is still a big Middle Eastern custom. People are taught not to admire too strongly something in an Arabs' (Greek's, Jew's) home because the owner may give it as a gift to the admirer, even if the object is an heirloom! This is where the rule, "my house is your house" comes from. Therefore, the real sin here was not homosexuality, but inhospitality.

Paul. He was a homophobe, misanthrope, misogynist, and all around sad person! But, most of the quotes in the New Testament deal with the sin of LUST, not homosexual behavior. Again, this comes down to issues of reproduction. Also, there was an idea that sex was a "necessary" evil.

So, if you are a literalist, then there is no arguing because that type of person will not be able to see past the written word. However, scratch the surface, even gently, and it is more apparent that the laws were not against homosexual sex or behavior, but lust.

So there it is! My long-winded two cents!

[Dogmudgeon]

80. "Homosexuality" in the Bible

A very strong case has been made that in each instance where "homosexuality" is mentioned in the Bible, it refers to the then-common practice of pederasty, where a more powerful, usually older man would use a boy or a young or less-powerful man as a sex toy. Nearly all the Semitic, Asian and Indo-European religions and cults practiced this. The ancient Greeks thought it elevated the catamite (the "catcher") as a form of mentorship, but usually it was a degrading practice. And it endured quite a long time. It was only eliminated in the Muslim world a few generations ago; Arabs did not traditionally even consider man-to-man contact as sex.

That the ancient Hebrews would outlaw the practice -- as well as chattel polygamy -- makes sense in the context that Mosaic law was intended to promote respect within the nation of Israel (i.e., children of Jacob). The Jews were differentiated early on by rejecting most of the degrading sexual, social, and legal practices of their neighbors.

It may well be that man-to-man peer sexual relations were also included in the prohibitions, but if the law was intended to stop degrading practices, then that would have been a minor, and possibly unrelated, issue.

Of course, there's a lot of disagreements over this.

--p!