Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The bible and homosexuality
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 1 of 323 (103407)
04-28-2004 2:48 PM


Ok, I recently got involved in a heated debate about the morality (or immorality) of homosexuality. Since this person can't see anything past the pages of the bible, I was forced to reread the bible and tried to analyze certain points regarding this topic. Unfortunately, this person is desdamona's twin, so for now I have given up on reasoning with him.
I know that quite a few of bible bashers on these boards are believe that homosexuality is immoral because of religious reasons. I would like to know what your best arguments are for this view.
By the way, if you are thinking about using Leviticus, here is something I wrote on another forum.
On another forum, Lam writes:
Let's start with Leviticus. Leviticus 18:22 states, "you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination."
Leviticus is, of course, old testament. Most Christians these days ignore the majority of the teachings in the old testaments for obvious reasons: they're considered outdated to our moral standards today.
Leviticus 21:9 states, "A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death."
Now really, do you think, with our modern sense of morality, that we can ever justify burning someone alive?
Leviticus 12:4-5 states, "and then she shall spend thirty-three days more in becoming purified of her blood; she shall not touch anything sacred nor enter the sanctuary till the days of her purification are fulfilled. If she gives birth to a girl, for fourteen days she sahll be as unclean as at her menstruation, after which she shall spend sixty-six days in becoming purified of her blood."
Ok, to plainly put it, these verses forbids a woman from entering church for 42 days after giving birth. The Catholic church has completely ignored this verse as far as creating their policies go. To our moral standards today, the notion of a woman somehow "unclean" for 42 days after giving birth is absurd.
Leviticus 25:44 states, "Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations."
Leviticus 25:45, 46 states, "You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slavesyou may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen."
These verses clearly justify slavery, given that slaves are bought from neighboring states. Verse 25:46 clearly states that slaves are property.
During the 18th and 19th centuries, many Americans used these verses to justify slavery in this country. In other words, Leviticus was used to justify one of the darkest and most embarrassing part of our history.
Let us go back to Leviticus 18:22. If we think that this part of Leviticus in the old testament holds for our modern morality, then why not the other verses that I mentioned above? The verses that I mentioned above are only a few of the examples from the old testament where our modern sense of morality condemns as immoral.
If Leviticus 18:22 is the only thing that is telling you that homosexuality is wrong, I hope that you rethink about your position on the issue.
{Note from Adminnemooseus - This topic functions as a successor to homosexuality and the Bible, which was closed when the discussion lost contact with Biblical considerations.}
[This message has been edited by Lam, 04-28-2004]
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-28-2004]

The Laminator

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by fnord, posted 04-28-2004 3:53 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 4 by Loudmouth, posted 04-28-2004 4:21 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 8 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-28-2004 5:27 PM coffee_addict has replied
 Message 98 by coffee_addict, posted 05-03-2004 5:10 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 126 by Zachariah, posted 06-08-2004 12:31 AM coffee_addict has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 323 (103413)
04-28-2004 3:34 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

fnord
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 323 (103419)
04-28-2004 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by coffee_addict
04-28-2004 2:48 PM


Lam wrote: If Leviticus 18:22 is the only thing that is telling you that homosexuality is wrong...
No, there's also Leviticus 20:13 stating 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.
Interesting, huh? Here in Holland there's been some controversy over a book The way of the Muslim, in which the author encourages muslims to throw gay people from a high building, and then stone them to death (if still necessary). But no one says anything about the Bible implying the same thing (but without the modus operandi).
f.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by coffee_addict, posted 04-28-2004 2:48 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by berberry, posted 04-28-2004 4:30 PM fnord has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 323 (103428)
04-28-2004 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by coffee_addict
04-28-2004 2:48 PM


quote:
Leviticus is, of course, old testament. Most Christians these days ignore the majority of the teachings in the old testaments for obvious reasons: they're considered outdated to our moral standards today.
My understanding of New Testament theology is that we are no longer under the "Old Covenant." This would include dietary restrictions, holy days, etc. However, I don't see how the verses in Lev. dealing with homosexuality fit in as part of the Old Covenant. It seems to be more of a general rule, or a proscribed sin outside of the covenant.
However, within the New Covenant as proscribed by Jesus the Old Covenant was abolished. In addition, Jesus is set up as an intermediary between us and God (YHWH). So it is more of a question of what Jesus taught on the matter, at least as it applies to Christian theology. As far as I know, Jesus never mentioned it even though he lived among communities that openly condoned homosexuality, such as the Romans. Paul the Apostle included references to abstaining from homosexuality, but he also hinted at abstaining from heterosexual sex as well. He was a bit of a stoic, and this asceticism seemed to bleed into his teachings. All in all, it is hard to judge whether homosexuality is allowed or forbidden within the New Testament/Covenant, at least in my estimation.
PS: This is completely my opinion on the matter and I am not here to dictate what the Bible is saying. But, if it weren't for differing translations we wouldn't have the number of Christian sects we see today. I usually look at homosexuality as being a personal choice that doesn't affect me or my possible salvation, so why worry about it. It seems that only fear and hate drive those that speak out vehemently against homosexuality. I think Jesus taught better than that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by coffee_addict, posted 04-28-2004 2:48 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by PecosGeorge, posted 04-29-2004 2:02 PM Loudmouth has replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 323 (103434)
04-28-2004 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by fnord
04-28-2004 3:53 PM


This topic has been beaten to death here, but as a gay man I can hardly take exception to renewing the debate.
I think I've expressed my own views about this adequately in other threads. My only request here would be that anyone considering bringing up the story of Lot and the city of Sodom please review a previous thread starting with this message. You will note that the Sodom story is not adequate to make any case that homosexuality is immoral. You will also note that the discussion left many hurt feelings and apparently resulted in the exit of one or two creo members.
In other words, tread carefully.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by fnord, posted 04-28-2004 3:53 PM fnord has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Loudmouth, posted 04-28-2004 4:46 PM berberry has not replied
 Message 7 by coffee_addict, posted 04-28-2004 5:10 PM berberry has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 323 (103445)
04-28-2004 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by berberry
04-28-2004 4:30 PM


quote:
In other words, tread carefully.
Yep, it is a "tread lightly" topic indeed. I wasn't involved in the previous debate because it was so heated, and it seemed like feelings were hurt. We all have sinned, and I hardly see how anyone can point fingers. Splinter in one eye, log in another. Personally, I really can't see how Jesus would be against people loving one another, regardless of "equipment".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by berberry, posted 04-28-2004 4:30 PM berberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 04-28-2004 6:37 PM Loudmouth has replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 7 of 323 (103455)
04-28-2004 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by berberry
04-28-2004 4:30 PM


berberry writes:
This topic has been beaten to death here, but as a gay man I can hardly take exception to renewing the debate.
I know. I read through that thread about a week ago. Since that thread wandered off topic beyond belief (from homosexuality to the morality of offering your daughters for gang rape rather than your sons...), I feel like many people never had a chance to voice their opinion.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by berberry, posted 04-28-2004 4:30 PM berberry has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 323 (103460)
04-28-2004 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by coffee_addict
04-28-2004 2:48 PM


you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.
If we want to be strict biblical literalists, (and I know we all do!) I've never once put a woman's wang in my mouth. Had too much trouble finding her wang to even try it.
So does that mean it's okay for me to go down on a guy? In strict literal terms, it wouldn't be "as with a woman."
Not that I want to, but it can't hurt to clarify what the rules are, here.

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by coffee_addict, posted 04-28-2004 2:48 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by coffee_addict, posted 04-28-2004 5:30 PM Dan Carroll has replied
 Message 11 by Loudmouth, posted 04-28-2004 6:10 PM Dan Carroll has replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 9 of 323 (103463)
04-28-2004 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dan Carroll
04-28-2004 5:27 PM


Dan writes:
If we want to be strict biblical literalists, (and I know we all do!) I've never once put a woman's wang in my mouth. Had too much trouble finding her wang to even try it.
So does that mean it's okay for me to go down on a guy? In strict literal terms, it wouldn't be "as with a woman."
Not that I want to, but it can't hurt to clarify what the rules are, here.
Permission to use this argument in the future. This is the first time I have ever heard such an interpretation before. Wow.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-28-2004 5:27 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-28-2004 5:33 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 323 (103465)
04-28-2004 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by coffee_addict
04-28-2004 5:30 PM


Use it wisely, my friend.

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by coffee_addict, posted 04-28-2004 5:30 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 323 (103475)
04-28-2004 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dan Carroll
04-28-2004 5:27 PM


quote:
If we want to be strict biblical literalists, (and I know we all do!) I've never once put a woman's wang in my mouth. Had too much trouble finding her wang to even try it.
Actually, a clitoris could be considered a vestigial penis, or vice versa. The start out as the same fleshy bud during fetal development before either ovaries or testes develop. Of course, I don't know if you have ever had a clitoris in your mouth either . . .
quote:
Not that I want to, but it can't hurt to clarify what the rules are, here.
The rules are relative, just like morals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-28-2004 5:27 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by coffee_addict, posted 04-28-2004 6:13 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 13 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-28-2004 6:27 PM Loudmouth has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 12 of 323 (103477)
04-28-2004 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Loudmouth
04-28-2004 6:10 PM


Loudmouth writes:
Of course, I don't know if you have ever had a clitoris in your mouth either . . .
The thought of it gives me the chill down my spine. Even IFF I'm straight, I would still think this as the scariest thought anyone can come up with. *Shudders*

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Loudmouth, posted 04-28-2004 6:10 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 323 (103486)
04-28-2004 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Loudmouth
04-28-2004 6:10 PM


quote:
Actually, a clitoris could be considered a vestigial penis, or vice versa. The start out as the same fleshy bud during fetal development before either ovaries or testes develop. Of course, I don't know if you have ever had a clitoris in your mouth either...
Define "in your mouth".
And somebody get some Grand Funk Railroad playing, because that seems to be where this thread is headed...

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Loudmouth, posted 04-28-2004 6:10 PM Loudmouth has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 14 of 323 (103490)
04-28-2004 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Loudmouth
04-28-2004 4:46 PM


We all have sinned, and I hardly see how anyone can point fingers.
Great post, I agree and concur(not conquer) with your post.
Also - people often make a note of what it says in Romans chapter one, but miss the first verse of chapter two.
What has Lam got to do to get a debate going ? We all seem to agree on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Loudmouth, posted 04-28-2004 4:46 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by coffee_addict, posted 04-28-2004 6:41 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 18 by Loudmouth, posted 04-28-2004 6:59 PM mike the wiz has replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 15 of 323 (103493)
04-28-2004 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by mike the wiz
04-28-2004 6:37 PM


Mike writes:
What has Lam got to do to get a debate going ? We all seem to agree on this.
To be honest, I did not start this thread to debate with people. I just want anti-homosexuality people to post their view based on their bible just so I could learn something new about people that wants to get in the way of our right to get married.
However, I reserve the right to start debating if it comes to it.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 04-28-2004 6:37 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 04-28-2004 6:50 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024