posted
Some of you may recall that some time ago, I posted a topic called "The Sin of Sodom" concerning the actual reason for the destruction of Sodom.
At the time, I also stated that I would be covering, in turn, each of the Big Eight.
I'm finished.
However, the text is too large (and too full of html) to effectively post on Hatrack, so I have placed it on the web here: Homosexuality in the Bible
Please, give me feedback. Where is my essay strong, what are its weakpoints? Where could I explain more? Am I missing anything?
As always, I appreciate the input of each and everyone one of you.
posted
As a side note to all this I just want to throw in if anyone here knows about the biblical influence that the Assyrians had on the bible.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you're basically saying, HRE, is not that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality (because it does). You're saying that it can't be taken seriously because it's "absurd" and Paul's a bigot.
If you're just going to say that the Bible is a pile of crap, you could just say so and not waste your time and mine.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for compiling that information. I learned a lot and I look forward to the discussion that will ensue.
quote:Stop drinking water and drink only alcohol; it is good for your stomach (1 Tim 5:23)
My high school history teacher taught us that the sanitation conditions in ancient times often make it safer for one to drink wine than water. Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
daggonee, I'm sorry you got that message; what I'm trying to say is that the references to homosexuality are mostly in the parts of the Bible that are usually dismissed and ignored, and that Paul isn't a reliable source for much of anything.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, in all honesty, Paul was a bigot. So were the other writers of the Bible. So were the vast majority of all humans until 1900 or so, and a very considerable portion up until 1950, 1960. Not just on homosexuality, but also on race, gender, and religion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beren, I don't know what Bible you are using, but I suggest you throw it away and get a good translation. Here's what the NIV says:
quote: Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.
-- 1 Timothy 5:23
Or the NASB:
quote: No longer drink water exclusively, but (44) use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.
-- 1 Timothy 5:23
Or, the Amplified Bible:
quote:Drink water no longer exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.
-- 1 Timothy 5:23
Sounds like he's saying that a little bit of wine is good for digestion. I agree with him. What's wrong with that?
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Sodomite = homosexual, right? Wrong. This is a mistranslation in modern times, one of the many that crop up upon close inspection. The Hebrew word in question is qadhesh, feminine form qedheshah. It literally means "temple prostitute", and nothing more.
*wince* kadesh and kedeshah mean prostitute, but where does the temple enter into it?
quote: -Wear clothing of two clothes (any nylon/cotton blend, etc.) (19:19)
If you're going to nit-pick, get it right. The ONLY forbidden cloth mixture is wool and linen. Nylon and cotton, and any other mixture, is perfectly fine.
quote: -Trim your beard (19:27)
Not trim (which is fine), SHAVE.
quote: -Go to a church if you are a dwarf, blind, lame, flat-footed, hunch-backed; if you have bad vision, birthmarks or other blemishes, a flat nose, damaged testicles, or anything "superfluous". I guess God doesn't like the disabled. (21:16-21)
One, I can guarantee the verse does not say "church"; two, you are badly translating and then tacking a judgment (an incorrect one) on to boot.
quote: -Curse, or you will automatically be stoned to death (24:16)
"Automatically"? So the required court of 70, the witnesses and warnings, all are ignored in favor of what, the Stoninator 2000?
quote: Believe me, the list goes on and on and on. So, anyone who cites Leviticus against homosexuality either A) has not read Leviticus and has no idea of its absurdity, or B) knows what Leviticus says, but doesn't want you to know.
Buddy, I live these laws you are so glibly mistranslating and mocking. I know full well what Leviticus does and does not say.
And just for that, I won't tell you where the multiple spelling and usage errors are. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
HRE, that was a nicely researched piece. I have read stuff like this before, especially the bits about the other things we shouldn't do according to the Bible, like not eat shellfish or trim one's beard (I got the latter but not the former). The "Paul is a bigot" thing is a newer tact. Clearly, people like Digging Holes has a hard time when OTHERS point out what is picked and what is discarded but have no problem doing it themselves. What is difficult is taking what is now considered ONLY a holy text and breaking it down into what it really is...an amazing historical text with political, historical, sacred, and practical applications and uses. Taken as a sum of amazingly diverse parts, one can look at why things were included at the time (some for simply health codes) and think, okay, that makes sense then but thanks to modern sanitation and food preparation, those laws don't make sense.
But really, who DID decide in churches today which of those old "thou shalt nots" to keep and which to throw out? Why is one infallible truth (such as God hates Homosexuals...oh wait, only the "sin" not the "sinner") and others quaint anachronisms? Why do most Christian men shave and find no problem with that but take other things so literally or, as HRE pointed out, have to dig a bit to support it? It is easy to say "ah, he hates the whole Bible so let's not discuss it" and dismiss it as Digging Holes has suggested but it is clear that for someone like HRE to be so well read on various versions of the Bible that maybe, must maybe, some people can mine the book for the wisdom and truth without having to succumb to ancient prejudices and practices that are clearly contrary to the teachings of the churches namesake. Maybe.
Good stuff. I think the Bible is really in need of rescuing from the literalists and those who pervert one of histories most important books to make it so "sacred" that its mysteries can't be discussed without insinuation of blashemy.
posted
Oh. I see. Yes, that was just after I threw my hands up in disgust.
You know, HRE, if you can only riducule the bible by grossly misquoting it, I must say that it only weakens your case. Oh, I'm sorry? What case was that? Nothing...
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
digg, thanks for showing the other translations. For most of the verses I checked a few, but not that one.
Apologies, rivka. The temple prostitute part came from the King James Dictionary of Biblical terms, which I sourced.
As for the Levitican laws, I acknowledge that I have not studied them extensively and my interpretation is probably off. I'm heading for bed, so I can't change it now, but I'll do so in the morning.
Seriously, if my interpretation is wrong, it only makes me happy to see some logic in there. Thanks for that. BTW, what is wrong with linen/wool blend?
And, much as I may have offended you (for which I am deeply sorry, you seem like a really cool person), would you please show me my spelling and usage errors?
Pretty please?
With sugar on top?
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I really enjoy the Bible. I read it often, and I have read it from cover to cover. I find the Gospels to be the most inspirational works I have ever read.
However, that does not make them infallible.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason for the linen/wool admixture prohibition is discussed as length. Short version: God says so. Long version: there are many possible things we can learn from it (it comes from the two (incompatible) sacrifices and natures of Kayin (Cain) and Hevel (Abel); one is animal derived-and one plant-derived; it is actually a very special mixture and may only be used in the Temple clothes of the Priests) -- but still, it all boils down to: God says so.
As far as the spelling/usage issues, that would require me rereading it. I'm not sure if I'm willing to do so, but I will contemplate the possibility.
posted
HRE, you claiming to like the Bible is in stark contrast to your article. In it, you use gross generalizations, misinterpretations, deliberately falsified translations and just plain ignorance to demolish it. And all for what? You say one thing, and do another. That either means you're a liar, or very confused. I'm not sure which to pick.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Digging Holes, you claiming to like the Bible is in stark contrast to many Christian practices. In them, people typically use gross generalizations, misinterpretations, deliberately falsified translations and just plain ignorance to support it. And all for what? You say one thing, and do another. That either means you're a liar, or very confused. I'm not sure which to pick.
posted
HRE, you might consider leaving this out of your essay:
quote:To the point: these two verses are the most often cited against homosexuality. When you hear these verses, however, I can promise you that the speaker is one of two things: ignorant of the Bible, or a deceiver.
It might be hard for people to keep an open mind when they feel they are being attacked. I think you make some good points in your essay. Given the sensitive nature of the topic, there is no need to punch up the rhetoric.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, fil, it's nice to know that I'm guilty for something that someone I don't know seems to have done, according to you. Thanks for pointing that out. I suppose that if caucasians were once part of the nazi party, that makes me one too, right? I was criticizing HRE's article as it applies to himself. You, on the other hand, are wasting server space. And I am wasting space in even replying to you.
Will it never end?
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it will never end! Bwahahahaha...actually, you were generalizing and saying that HRE was demolishing the Bible...when in fact, he was making a case for why using the Bible as the defining reason to hating gays might be a bad idea and not well supported in the text. He in fact pointed out that far from demolishing the Bible he loves the book and finds great inspiration in it. So one bit of hyperbole leads to another.
quote: Go to a church if you are a dwarf, blind, lame, flat-footed, hunch-backed; if you have bad vision, birthmarks or other blemishes, a flat nose, damaged testicles, or anything "superfluous". I guess God doesn't like the disabled
I see...
Well, having read the text in the original hebrew, I can assure you that this is NOT what the text said. Too bad your english translations are full of inaccurate manipulations...
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me, the article appears to be saying, summed up, that, "People who believe the Bible...well, they shouldn't, because it's full of crazy things and anyone who takes it seriously must either just be blindly agreeing with all the bigots who wrote it, or just be crazy, blind, or a deceiver. Or all of the above. The writers of the Bible certainly were"
Littered throughout, of course, with plenty of gross generalizations, opinions stated as fact, laughably bad and insulting 'interpretations' of scripture, and insults to those who hold these writings to be sacred.
Did I miss anything?
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: As for the Levitican laws, I acknowledge that I have not studied them extensively and my interpretation is probably off. I'm heading for bed, so I can't change it now, but I'll do so in the morning.
Wait, how can you attack the meanings of the Levitican text if you haven't studied them extensively and your translations are probably off?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The reason for the linen/wool admixture prohibition is discussed as length.
rivka, a question (I ask you because I'm both lazy and I want to rely on a good source):
Is it that the laity shouldn't use cloth made from blended wool and linen, or is it prohibited to wear both at the same time (even if they are separate cloths)? So, say, is it okay for me to wear my linen shirt and linen skirt along with my pretty grey and dark rose striped wool scarf (which I am doing right now and feeling a little nervous about )?
Thanks! Just checking for accuracy, not that I'd be taking off my scarf right now and waiting for an answer ... tucking it away in a desk drawer ... Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:daggonee, I'm sorry you got that message; what I'm trying to say is that the references to homosexuality are mostly in the parts of the Bible that are usually dismissed and ignored, and that Paul isn't a reliable source for much of anything.
posted
You know, upon a second, more sober reading, after Judges and Genesis, I really do begin to come across a bit like a frothing lunatic.
I'll have to change that, especially the sections in Leviticus. Thanks for pointing out my (many) errors there, rivka.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This has been annoying me for a while, and lucky you, HRE, you get the brunt of it all.
I don't know as much as I should about Judaism, and how strictly Jews are expected to adhere to the Torah laws (ie, Leviticus).
BUT, as a Gentile Christian, I am really really really sick of hearing this argument about how the Levitican laws are selectively applied to homosexuality. Guess what? They are. And I feel no shame about this, because you know what? It's in the Bible. Go take a look at Acts 15. This is the part of early Jesus-movement history when the Jews were trying to figure out what to do with all these Gentiles that were getting involved.
How much of Torah do they need to follow? Do they need to be circumcised? Follow the laws of Kosher?
Paul and barnabas went to Jerusalem to meet with all the elders and apostles (thus, note that this is NOT a Pauline doctrine) to discuss it. Peter and James and the rest of the council made their decision.
quote:22Then the apostles and elders and the whole church in Jerusalem chose delegates, and they sent them to Antioch of Syria with Paul and Barnabas to report on this decision. The men chosen were two of the church leaders[6] --Judas (also called Barsabbas) and Silas. 23This is the letter they took along with them:
"This letter is from the apostles and elders, your brothers in Jerusalem. It is written to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. Greetings!
24"We understand that some men from here have troubled you and upset you with their teaching, but they had no such instructions from us. 25So it seemed good to us, having unanimously agreed on our decision, to send you these official representatives, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27So we are sending Judas and Silas to tell you what we have decided concerning your question.
28"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these requirements: 29You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or eating the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well. Farewell." (NLT)
And if anyone wants to argue that homosexuality (as described in Leviticus) does not fall under the category of "sexual immorality," go ahead. But stop trying to pretend that we're selectively interpreting things on purpose. That's what the apostles and elders, the first generation of Jesus-followers, the immediate and present personages, decided. We're not being inconsistent, we're doing the best we can to follow the guidelines we were given.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sara, take the scarf back out. First of all, I could wear the combination you mentioned, as long as I did not sew or pin the linen and wool together. More here.
Second of all, this is not one the Noachide laws, so (according to Jewish law) only Jews are required to keep it.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
rivka, I will acknowledge a good measure of relief.
quote:Even the smallest amount is forbidden. For example, if you have a wool suit and the label is sewn on with a linen thread, it is forbidden to wear the suit until the linen thread is removed. You may not wear a wool jacket with a linen patch on the elbow, or anywhere else.
The prohibition of shatnez applies to any sort of material, whether it be used for socks, shoes, gloves, pajamas, etc., and to any period of time, no matter how brief. We may not even try on clothing that has shatnez to see if it fits.
Wow. This practice of the faith is one of serious dedication. Thank you for the cite and for the clarification, rivka. I will not search my woolen scarves for linen-threaded labels, but I will think of you when I wear them. *smile
[ September 06, 2004, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dags, that's an excellent source. (Actually, I didn't know it was available online now! Great!)
But yes, one of the Noachide Laws (more accurately, categories) is gilui arayot -- sexual immorality. And that would include such things as adultery, incest, bestiality, and homosexuality (although possibly only male homosexuality).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*laugh* In actual practice, men get the brunt of the shatnez issues. It is quite common for men's wool suits to have issues with linen linings and such, while fairly rare for women's garments (with the exception of wool overcoats, which us SoCallians don't worry much about) to have that concern.
My cousin does shatnez checking -- I call him if I'm not sure if something needs to be checked. Anyway, I wear mostly cotton and synthetics. It's too warm for wool here most of the year! And both wool and linen often need to be dry-cleaned. (Not too practical with three kids, not too mention when you're as much of a klutz as I am. )
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I misunderstood what you were referring to when you said it wasn't one of the Noachide laws. You meant the linen/wool thing, not homosexuality.
That's what I get for not rereading a few posts when I come back into a thread.
posted
Equae, I sense a bit of circular reason in your argument.
You say that Homosexuality is immoral according to the bible because there is New Testament condemnation of Sexual Immorality, and that must include Homosexuality because there is a bible verse in the New Testament that has a condemnation of Sexual Immorality, and that must include homsexuality because....
My limited study of the Bible, and history of Biblical times seems to point out the competing religions used sex as a religious service, (the oft mentioned Hill Shrines and Baal festivals). Taken in the context of the other practices condemned in your quote, those sexual services available from the Ishtar/Aphrodite temples is what is more likely being condoned. Eating foods from the alter--Sacrilidge. Strangled foods were commonly the alter foods as well.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taken in the context of the Noachide laws, though, it is very consistent. One would assume that the Jewish leaders of the new Church were aware of these laws when they considered this issue.
quote: However, it is permitted to wear a linen garment over a woolen garment, or vice versa, since they are not attached to each other
Wait, so rivka as long as theyre not attached by a thread it's ok? Are you sure? I always thought that if you're wearing wool tzitzit your not allowed to wear anything with linen.
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi, Jaime. Peanut gallery here (no reliable source of knowledge), but from rivka's link, it appears that no connector is permitted, though otherwise okay. That is, no pins or glue or tape holding the cloths together, not even areas that don't touch the body.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yah, it's just for some reason I always thought that if I were wearing wool tzitzit I'm not allowed to wear linen regardless of whether it's connected or not...that link would've made my life alot easier if I saw it before the summer started...
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jaime, I know people who WON'T wear anything linen while wearing wool tzitzis; but my understanding is that is not the halachah. (And the site I linked to is very good and has well-researched and well-written articles, written by someone I used to know many many moons ago.)
Ask me the next time I'm wearing wool tzitzis, and I'll find out for sure. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you sure it's not different customs maybe or do all customs follow the same law? Just curious but are you Sephardic or Ashkenazi, or do you follow Chasidic customs?
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not aware of any differences in custom regarding shatnez. I myself am Ashkenazi, and not Chassidish; the web site I linked to is written by a Karlin-Stalin chassid.
posted
Dan, I was arguing against a specific point in HRE's essay. The part where he says that since christians don't follow other parts of Leviticus, why do we argue against homosexuality based on Leviticus.
In the section that I quoted, the argument was not over morality in general. It was over just how much of Jewish religious law were the Gentile believers supposed to adhere to. Not morality - Torah. Did these Gentiles have to become fully Jewish, from circumcision right through? No. but they could not eat meat offered to idols, meat that came from strangled animals, and they had to avoid sexual immorality.
I'm not saying anyone has to believe in the Bible's teachings. I'm just sick of that particular argument being used. It just doesn't hold water.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
EL I understood what you were saying. You argued it quite well. What my response is simply "Sexual Immorality" and "Homosexuality" is not identical. Prostitution, Promiscuity, Beastilaity, Incest, Rape and Sexual Practices in conjunciton with other religions would fall into that category.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, I got a question for those of you familiar with the Hebrew. I brought this up before in the old Sodom thread, but no one knew the answer then.
# Deut. 23: 17
17 ΒΆ There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
OK, it has been said here that the translation of "sodomite" is wrong--that it should be temple prostitute--then corrected again to say just prostitute. But look at the above from the King James Version. It has the word "whore" already, I am guessing that means prostitute. And it connects it with females. Then it says "sodomite" and connects it with males. Are these male prostitutes? Somehow I seriously doubt it, considering the beliefs and culture of the time. It makes *so* much more sense for it to be referring to homosexuality.
But I don't know the original Hebrew, so I will wait patiently for someone to explain this to me. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
If you're going to nit-pick, get it right. The ONLY forbidden cloth mixture is wool and linen. Nylon and cotton, and any other mixture, is perfectly fine.![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
