Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

This does go to show how outdated and utterly irrelevant the Bible actually is to today's world. The Bible belongs to a different time and to borrow a quote 'why should I take my morals from a tribe of semitic savages'? (author's name escapes me at the moment)Brian.

quote:

---

Deu 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Deu 23:18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

---

Xzen, don't feel bad, but you're a latecomer to this thread, and this passage has already been discussed. The word that is being translated as "whore" is "qadeshah", while the word that is being translated as "sodomite" is "qadesh". Qadeshah is simply the feminine form of Qadesh, so that alone should clue you in that there is something wrong with this translation.The word "Qadesh" is derrived from a pagan goddess of fertility and sexual pleasure of the same name. Worship of Qadesh was rife with temple prostitution, of both sexes. Such worship was reviled by the early Israelites, and the word became derrogatory for the people who participated in such practices.

This has come up already...

quote:

---

Deu 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

---

I think it has been states that the sin of sodom was not necessarily that of homosexuality but (ezechiel). The use of the word sodomite as an equivalent for homosexual is based on the favoured / homophobic interpretation of the bible.
Maybe you shouldn't bring up points that have been dealt with in the very same threads again unless you can establish a significantly new connection or variation of what has already been discussed.
I think some people will agree with me when I say:
(a) The thread has reached a point where bringing up passages translated into English does not help anymore, as the translation is exactly what is challenged at this point. Please establish that the original texts intended to condemn homosexuality..
(b) two liners just don't cut it
regards

wow, you must be typing way faster than me

Still no one has brought up any valid argument against the verses from Romans in which "aschemosune" translates to "a shameful act" and nothing to do with the female genitalia as was earlier stated. The name of this thread is "Does the bible condemn homosexuality." As the verses I've provided from Romans chapter one showes. The answer is YES.[This message has been edited by Xzen, 12-02-2003]

Deu 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Deu 23:18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

1Co 6:8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.Again here is another place where the bible condemns homosexuality. By the way slinging mud at me and calling me a homophobe would get you nowhere. I've had several homosexual friends that I got along great with. But the fact remains the bible does indeed condemn homosexuality.P.S.I wonder if someone who doesn't know anything about Greek will try and pick this one apart?[This message has been edited by Xzen, 12-02-2003]

quote:

---

Still no one has brought up any valid argument against the verses from Romans

---

Ughhhh... this has been addressed elsewhere in some homosexuality thread. Heck it may have been this one.I for one do not buy Rrhain's argument that Romans is not referring to homosexuality in that passage. But that doesn't help you at all.You do understand that even in the parts you posted from Romans, your argument falls apart. Romans does not say the homosexuality is condemned by God. All it says is that God punished those who fell from righteousness, by allowing them to fall into all sorts of negative practices.While this clearly shows the Xian god isn't exactly keen on homosexuality (it is a negative practice), there is a huge gulf between calling it "inconvenient", and demanding the death of those who practice it... or "condemning" it.------------------
holmes

So then those who commit negative practices have fallen from righteousness and their homosexuality is a punisment of the flesh? But wait there's more!Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.So then even though they are not condemned for homosexuality but they are condemned for their unrightiousness which begat their unnatural lusts. So in the end homosexuals are still condemned and are worhty of death.

quote:

---

So in the end homosexuals are still condemned and are worhty of death.

---

That's a little self-serving of a conclusion. It would seem that yes, homosexuals AS MUCH AS EVERYONE ELSE is condemned and worthy of death, but it is certainly NOT BECAUSE OF THEIR HOMOSEXUALITY... which is the question being raised in this thread.That was a pretty heady list no? Whisperers, fornicators, the envious, people bad to their parents, and even debaters. Uhoh, is this a debate?Yep. Looking at that list, then just about everyone is as worthy as homosexuals for death.Why is it then that homosexuality keeps getting singled out for "special treatment"? There are plenty of Xians that allow sex before marriage yet it appears in Romans (and in plenty of other places) that fornication is equally worthy of death... and thus just as "condemned" as homosexuality. Where's that outrage? Or how about envy? Capitalism would stop dead without that.And now here is where it gets interesting. The point is that those that were worthy of death were the ones guilty of Rom 1:25 (and not homosexuality). That was not believing in God. So if there are gays looking to worship God, then why is it they should not get the same understanding as anyone else wanting to worship God? Which is forgiveness.Jesus certainly protected a prostitute from being killed though clearly she practiced what was on that list, and encouraged others to do so. Are you suggesting he would not have said the same for a homosexual?------------------
holmes

hi xzen,I guess you should try to stop preaching and start participating in the discussion.
Some of the passages have been discussed on this forum before (see for example Rei's post above or this link ).
Try to show your interest in a real discussion by summing up your points, stating how the biblical passages under discussion are not only due to translational bias but reflect the original intent.
Also note my points brought up in this post and please try to explain, why the only time to'ebah turns up in Leviticus it is in conjunction with homosexuality. It is also interesting to note that the word for "effeminate", your post 173:

quote:

---

1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind

---

is translated as soft everywhere else, e.g.:

quote:

---

Mat 11:8 But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.

---

You must realize that the bible was not written in English and thus some bias could be incurred in the translation (see change a soft to an effeminate here and there and see what you get )You see, I - like holmes - do not quite buy into Rrhain's string of argumentation and that's why I challenged him to reinforce his points. Altogether, however, I find the discussion of the presence subject highly interesting and entertaining, as it is a very nice case study of how "messages" could be modified by choosing a translation.my very best regards

I'm not preaching. The conclusion I provided was bassed on the evidence I provided. I am also willing to admit that from what I've presented homosexuality is not condemned however individuals that comit homosexual acts have been given over to their unnatural lusts and their homosexuality is a proof of that. So then according to what the Bible says Homosexuals and all others listed in those passages from Romans are worthy of death.This is just a long way of me admitting that I was wrong.

Homosexuality is an act of unrighteousnes and so should be stopped because it is a display of open rebellion against God. (I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm preaching but if you want to talk about theology thats just the way it is)On another note their are churches that are consistent in not just singling out homosexuals but anyone that would have been in that list. For instence if you were living with your girl friend anmd decided you wanted to be baptised you would either have to move out and stop having premarital sex or get married. The same would apply to homosexuals. They would have to stop their homosexual acts so that they could be baptised.[This message has been edited by Xzen, 12-03-2003]

You don't get it, do you?
Nobody is discussing what established christian denominations say about homosexuality. Their position, for the most part, is absolutely clear.
Nobody is discussing whether the common bible translations condemn homosexuality. They are pretty clear.The discussion is about what was stated in the "original" texts. Were the passages in question meant to be read in this sense (i.e. "Does the bible condemn homosexuality?"). This is a very interesting discussion in the sense that one can learn a lot about text changing with context etc.If you would like to discuss the issues raised in this thread without resorting to statements of faith and (yes, definately) homophobia, then you're absolutely welcome to share your views. If not, don't bother to respond to me..my very best regards

Why is it then that homosexuality keeps getting singled out for "special treatment"? There are plenty of Xians that allow sex before marriage yet it appears in Romans (and in plenty of other places) that fornication is equally worthy of death... and thus just as "condemned" as homosexuality. Where's that outrage? Or how about envy? Capitalism would stop dead without that.And now here is where it gets interesting. The point is that those that were worthy of death were the ones guilty of Rom 1:25 (and not homosexuality). That was not believing in God. So if there are gays looking to worship God, then why is it they should not get the same understanding as anyone else wanting to worship God? Which is forgiveness.Despite my belief in God and in Christ, I think I'm as condemning of modern Christianity as anyone is. I can't imagine myself cutting the churches and Christians of America much slack on any issue. However, I think your complaint here applies to almost no one. Churches that turn their heads to premarital sex are unlikely to say anything on the homosexuality issue. Churches that are staunchly anti-homosexual are generally also vocally outspoken against pre-marital sex.As for envy, greed and other such sins, Christianity is pretty watered down nowadays, and America is very, uh...what's the word...shoot, I don't know. What I mean about America is that you have to be "pinned down" before you can be accused of anything. Envy is awful hard to prove, as is greed. Pre-marital sex and homosexual acts are actions, so they can be nailed down as having happened. With envy, greed, and such sins there is always "plausible deniability."