Yep....Leviticus. Out of context, too. Let's keep reading and hit Leviticus 18:29 and see what's said about this abomination and it's consequences: Leviticus is all about ordinances, laws and customs meant for the chosen Jews in the promised land...and no one else. These are the onerous things Jesus died to free us from. Why all of us in mixed blends are no longer an abomination. The reason and point of these burdens are no longer needed as the savior has come. If homosexuality is a great sin why is it not in the top ten? Adultry is and most Christians have no problem accepting cheaters and divorces all over the place and in fact, fucking around a great deal themselves while pointing self-righteous fingers at the "abominable" gays. Why didn't Jesus discuss gays at length or more pointedly, at all, if it was so important to deal with them? Captain J, unless you subscribe to following all the edicts of Leviticus, why the need to single out the one about gays for special notice? I am quite certain you have done a great many abominations to be found there yourself. Do you have anything besides a Leviticus statute to offer, because it's not very convincing as anything but an edict for a certain people, in a certain place in a certain time for a specific purpose.
And therein lies the problem. ONE verse, in isolation to the rest of the Bible. The whole of Chapter 18: And what does he mean by the things which are done in Egypt and Canaan? what will any bible scholar, no matter how conservative, tell you if you ask why God judged those peoples? Worship of false gods. if there's anything clear cut in the Old Testament it's that THE offense of the Egyptians and the Canaanites was idol worship, and the thing that repeatedly got the Israelites into trouble with God was THAT - idol worship. more on that in a sec... Essentially a list of all the things which counted as incest. Oh, and on a side note, for all those who love to talk about "Biblical Marriage" - v.18 implies that God had no problem with multiple spouses, as long as they were not siblings. THIS appears in the very same chapter with the verse you cited. does ANY Christian view this offense in the same way that they view homosexual acts/ Bueller? BAM. Here's your key verse for context. How is it that this verse fits into a list of sexual sins? why is it not wildly out of place? Because when you view it in the context of the beginning of the chapter, you recognize that this whole chapter is not about sex but about things done in the pagan temple. where ritual sex acts were a big big part of such worship. Have you ever wondered WHY this says "a man with a man" and says nothing about two women? Is good against male homosexuality but cool with lesbians (The God Baba! ) No. It's not that at all. It's because in that culture (and the first rule of exegesis is the verse means FIRST what it meant to the original reader - the context of the time and place of the writer and audience is the foundation of understanding) the key thing about sex for a man was who was in the active and who was in the passive position. It was considered an abomination - more about that word in a bit - for a male to assume the passive role. With women, no one cared. That's why in ancient cultures, in some places even beyond the time of Christ, one of the things that often happen after a military conquest was the rape of the leaders of the opposing nation or army. As an act of humiliation and conquest, because the most shameful thing in those cultures was for a man to assume the passive role, even by force. what this tells us, among other things, is that it's not about God's will that it is an abomination, but that it was an abomination in the culture for an example of this, see the passage where it is said that for the Jews to sacrifice to God near the Egyptians was "an abomination to the Egyptians" - abomination did not mean "abomination to God" but "abomination to the culture" Again - why no prohibition on a woman lying with a woman? you can't simply ignore that. All that was basically off the cuff from me remembering the things I've studies. another key point is the fact that Modern Christians do not cite everything else Leviticus calls an abomination as even sinful, let alone "abominable" the orthodox conservative Christian theological position is that the Levitical law does not apply to Gentile Christians The Council of Jerusalem settled that point in the text of the New Testament. Why then does this ONE rule still apply. The reality is that IF you are going to argue that homosexuality is sin, you MUST - if you know anything about Biblical exegesis - build that case from the New Testament. That's, again, me freestyling. Here's what the guy in the video had to say (next post)
He addresses all of them in the video, which is transcribed at the link at the bottom of this post. http://matthewvines.tumblr.com/
See, the only ones this theological origami works for are Tamar, and Nova. Guys like TLS, they want their hate, they love their hate. You're not gonna talk that shit away. ..and the rest of us..we're atheist, or apatheist.
Which is why the first line of defense against homophobes within the religion has to be their co-religionists. Unless they weasel their way into civic power a la Santorum, and then the rest of us can man the barricades.
Nice rant. BTW, I love how you know what I do. Now, did any of your rant disprove what I said? No, it did not. I merely stated that the Bible considers male homosexuality a sin and an abomination. I was not arguing the merits of it, nor whether to believe in it or not. I was addressing the fact that it is clearly stated in the bible. It is, end of story. BTW, to Nova. I'll address your post later. I'm on a phone and your quoting makes it too complicated to respond to with the phone.
What is clear is that it is usually ripped out of context to imply something that it doesn't actually say in context.
I can't speak for others do. I was responding to a specific post and point. The context of that section is forbidden sexual relations (and a few other forbidden things).
I was studying this very thing some years ago, that the translations were erroneous, which is quite an easy thing to do, make an errant translation, because when there isn't a word for something, and you make one up (which we all do in one way or another), it gets translated as that word, and thus you have a skew in the texts that become "common knowledge", leading to a lack of closer examination. In other words, the Bible can be forever vague about one thing or another, which is why this debate is likely never to end until Christianity dies off and another religion takes its place, and even then, who knows what that religion will require and demand. Still, in the context of Christianity itself, the theology has enough bumps and bruises without needing to add to it. All the condemnation of homosexuality does is galvanize more people in realizing that following those passages is foolhardy, and that no reasonable god would truly make such a demand in light of our humanity, save if he was an asshole. So when the choice becomes "loving god" and "sadistic asshole", "loving god" wins out because people* don't want to follow a sadistic asshole. They want to follow a loving god who treats people fairly and loves them. *Okay, most people.
Well, to repeat for clarity - I'm speaking within the context of traditional Christianity. In my years of experience among Christians, your approach (calling bullshit on the whole religion) never changes anything because mentally the believer throws up a wall right away - they are not prepared to have their whole faith system challenged. But it is possible in some cases to shift opinions within the overall worldview - folks like TLS notwithstanding. It might not advance your goal of ridding the world of "bronze age myths" as religion, but if it makes the world a somewhat more sensible place - particularly in the realm of folks not being assholes - then that's worthy progress in itself.
the larger context is "things done in the practice of false religion" and the larger context to that is "things god forbid in the Levitical law which no longer apply" and the larger context to that is "how does this relate to the nature of god as revealed throughout scripture"
They don't apply according to whom? According to the bible (old t) the laws are immutable and never subject to change.
There are seventeen seperate instructions in the bible for people to murder homosexuals. I know you people like to retcon things, but this one is beyond ridiculous. The various bits of the bible that are being parsed here are reflective of the primitive norms one would expect from bronze and iron age societies. Trying to discern from them how one should live ones life in the 21st century is dangerous.
I am wondering, has anyone studied the history of homosexuality extensively? It seems a lot of the hatred of it stems from the Abrahamic religions, i.e. Judiasm, christianity, Islam. Did any other culture or religion view it as something evil or wrong? In my brief encounters with Buddhism and Hinduism, I've never heard them mention anything about the topic. What I am asking I guess, is, did the world at large accept homosexuality until Abraham came along?
Even if one could successfully argue that the statements against homosexuality in the Bible are taken out of context, there are other parts that are much worse. See Deuteronomy 22:22-29 for example.
This. I enjoyed this nugget when I was 7 in Catholic School; Judges 22-29 "Leave the dude alone, guys! Rape my bitch instead!" I'll be sure to put these important life lessons to good use in my daily life.
there's also a death penalty proscribed for things no one considers sinful today (cursing your parents for instance) so...yeah...there's that. As i said in the OP, this is a discussion held within the context of Christian theology. that you reject that worldview is already widely understood and contributes nothing to this conversation.
most aboriginal societies I've heard much about on the subject don't, as far as I understand historically Hinduism hasn't. Obviously pagan religions don't. Even in the Abrahamic history, the actual issue isn't so much sex but the cultural assumption that a man should never assume the submissive role and to do so was shameful. Since the nature of male-male sex requires a "receiver" in the passive role, it was consequently by definition a shameful act. But even in that day, if you went to the temple and availed yourself of a male prostitute, or kept a boy, or raped the man you'd defeated in combat, you were golden.
that's true but it reinforces the truth that the levitical law was written for and to a primitive culture and is not a reflection of what would be said to all men at all times and places. something which the Christian church readily acknowledges in the case of the verses you cite and steadfastly ignores in the case of the verse Captain J cited.
Not to mention back then they needed to keep the population going, nowdays that isn't a problem anymore!!
Yes except that it followed the cast system. you could fuck a dude all you wanted as long as he was not your equal or superior. the one of lesser status was shamed by the passive role. Which is why the very bottom rung were the temple prostitutes. if you were a low-class dude who couldn't fuck any other guy, there was always the prostitutes.
That's Christianity. They are not the only religion. To Christians they may not be relevant. That is a true statment.
This is probably the key to my family lineage, right here. We were probably the temple prostitutes. This makes me think of "History of the World" for some reason.
