Talk:Homosexuality and the Bible

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Why don't you include material from groups like Dignity USA,Soulforce,and the MCC,this thing on homosexuality and the bible is completly one-sided.

If you'd care to summarize the liberal POV on homosexuality, we can add that somewhere in this encyclopedia. I for one am particularly interested in how what arguments they make in opposition to the traditional or conservative Christian POV that homosexuality is sinful. Who are they to say it's not? --Ed Poor Talk 20:20, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
Who are you to say it is? --AndrasK 20:49, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Brief responses to primary homosexual arguments

The ONLY times the Bible explicitly addresses the issue of homosexual activity is that of prohibition and condemnation. While not much is given here, i would like to post a basic summary of more or less basic responses to primary pro-homosexual attempts to negate Biblical injunctions against their homo-eroticism.

The idea that Gn. 2:24 does not exclude sanctioned same sex marriage (and where there is "cleaving" there must be marriage) is not simply an argument from silence, and contrary to God's declaration of marriage in which every occurrence of "wife" is female, but is one that presumes that God cannot and does not make clear such a basic thing as marriage and sexual morality. Sanctioning marriage between same genders has the same amount of warrant is that of man with animals - which relations the homosexual hermeneutic used to negate in Lev. 18:22 must allow.

In Genesis 19 and Judges 19, "yada" (know, as in "to know them") is never (by my research) used to denote "knowing" anyone personally by means of force, but is sometimes used (as btwn humans to personally know) to denote gaining sexual knowledge (Gen 4:1,17, 25, 19:8; 24:16; 38:26; Num. 31:18, 35; Jud. 11:39; 19:25; 21:12; 1 Sam. 1:19; 1 Kg. 1:14; Mt. 1:25), and which fits in perfectly with the offer of virgins rather than the men.

In Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 the attempts to negate such injunctions based upon their being in the context of pervading Canaanite religion relies upon imposing a hermeneutic that negates the other prohibited moral practices in their particular company (adultery, incest, bestiality, etc.), which are just as universally applicable, but the negation of which the rest of Scripture disallows, as it abundantly confirms moral laws regarding sexual conduct etc. The homosexual argument here makes the error of supposing that a law given in one context cannot be universally applicable. But such reasoning "no other gods" (Ex. 20:3) can only apply to Egyptians ones or formal idols. However, all sins are the fruit of idolatry. When a practice is only applicable or wrong in a specific religious context God makes that manifest, as He does in regard to ritual washings (Heb. 9:10). The attempt on this page to make these injunctions simply to keep Israel from being assimilated the Canaanite culture (team colors) is invalid, as it not only ignores the aforementioned distinction between basic moral laws and ritual, but that the Bible treats their foundational sins as inherently wicked, for which cause God destroyed the Canaanites, not simply because they were different. (Lev 18:24, 27; Deu_20:18, Deu_23:18, Deu_25:16, Deu_27:15; 1Ki_14:24; 2Ki_16:3, 2Ki_21:2; 2Ch_36:14; Eze_16:50, Eze_22:11; Hos_9:10).

Another attempt is to make them only applicable to the Levites, but which the context denies (Lev. 18:2; 19:2; 20:2).

Another attempt requires a radical significance for the absence of more than two explicit prohibitions (Lv. 18:22; 20:13, and only one of the death penalty for it (20:13). This ought to be enough (what part of "no" don't you understand?), and which attempt ignores that fact the the more common a sin then the more it is likely to be mentioned (like idolatry), while not all the types of fornication are repeated elsewhere in the O.T. Meanwhile (in my research), not all the of the other specific sins of fornication in Leviticus 18 + 20 are condemned elsewhere in the Old Testament, though they are part of universal prohibitions, and the death penalty for at least one (Lv. 20:12) is only mentioned once, as is the penalty for perjury that caused a mans death (Dt. 19:15-21). In addition, the idea that the prohibitions against homosexual fornication simply refer to "ritual uncleanness" is as absurd as forcing the other injunctions against fornication, adultery, etc. into that category. And as far as the "shellfish hermeneutic," which equates dietary laws (Lev. 11) with purely moral ones, this ignores the clear classification made under the promised (Jer. 31:31-34) New Covenant instituted in Christ's blood (Lk. 22:20; Heb. 9:16), between typological laws (Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:14-16; Heb. 9:9, 10) which are not repeated under the New, while moral ones which are abundantly reiterated.

Attempts to relegate Rm. 1:18-27 (and it's Levitical basis) to only homo-eroticism that is part of idolatry again fails to recognize that ALL sin is a manifestation of idolatry, formal or informal. Either Jesus is Lord or the flesh is Lord at any given time. Paul is not simply condemning a specific cultural phenomenon, rather his foundational objection is that of the rejection of God the Creator, who by design and original inclinations made man and women uniquely compatible and complementary (Gn. 2:18-24), and to be joined with the same gender is to go against what He joined (Gn. 2:24). And when a practice is only wrong in a specific relational context then we can see God making that manifest, as He does in explicitly providing marriage for heterosexuals, while condemning all unmarried sexual relations. The text in Romans 1 also goes on to list other sins as further manifestations of degeneration, and which are likewise universally evil. Neither was the condemned homosexual eroticism forced, but consensual, and that it was driven by lust, as is typically evident today, does not allow for any practice of homosexual eroticism that is not, any more than it allows for "loving" heterosexual eroticism outside marriage, which is never provided by God for homosexuals.

As for the dual commands of Deuteronomy 23:17-18, these do pertain to Temple prostitution, and the use of the word "sodomite" makes that distinction, and like other culturally applied laws, these are based upon basic immutable law of Lev. 18:22 which are applicable to all times and cultures. In addition, specific prohibitions against one manner of homosexual activity need not negate those of a universal nature. When the State prosecutes priestly pedophilia, it is condemning all forms of such.

Another objection is to applying the word "sodomy" or "sodomite" to homosexuals, as it not an accurate word for such. However, in the Bible, as in real life, sometimes a word is not understood by it's exact meaning but according to it it's contextual employment, especially when used as a euphemism. As homosexuals like the word “gay,” they must comprehend this. A “grunt” need not be a vocal utterance but can denote an unskilled hard laborer, as such are known for such sounds. The Hebrew word translated "sodomy," (qâdêsh) basically describes a dedicated person, and is related to a word meaning “sanctify”(qâdash), but in all it's occurrences (except Job. 36:14 = unclean) it signifies a class of unholy person(s) dedicated to practicing homosexual acts as part of temple activity, as indicated first in Dt. 23:18 (the male version of a prostitute), and their having houses by the Temple in 2 Ki. 23:7. Further instances (1Ki. 14:24; 15:12; 22:46) testify to their sinful condition, and the translated word “sodomite” derives it's meaning from the practice of the people with whom it is associated. Likewise “the price of a dog” was not the price paid for the sale of a dog, but denotes the gains of the “kadesh,” a person who was called κίναιδος by the Greeks, and which class of people received their euphemistic name from the dog-like manner in which the male prostitute perversely debased himself. It later was applied by the Jews to all Gentiles, signifying their unclean state, and in Rev_22:15 it is spiritually applied to all the the defiled.

Then there is the "red letter" hermeneutic, that must negate any sin Jesus did not explicitly condemn, as if the same Holy Spirit did not inspire the rest of Scripture, though Jesus promised more would come by Him (Jn. 16:12, 13) and affirmed that which already did (Mt. 4:4; Jn. 10:35), both of which details the fornications (plural) that Jesus condemned and will send one to Hell (Mk. 7:21; Rev. 21:27).

As for attempts to find approved examples not simply of homosexual activity, but of marriage (as without that sanctifying provision which God abundantly and explicitly evidences for heterosexuals - and also would for homosexuals if indeed it was the healthy and wholesome thing they make it out to be - then it would be unholy fornication), such attempts require reading present western culture into an Oriental setting, as well as ignoring other aspects necessary for sound exegesis.

Beginning in 1 Sam,. 18, David and Jonathan's "bosom buddy" expressions of affection are in keeping with the strong emotional language of the culture, and of David elsewhere (read the Psalms), and are an example of platonic love between two fellow soldier whose loyalty to God and thus each other was trial tested, and the attempt to make them erotic fails in every attempt. Saul was known for keeping potentially good soldiers from going home (1 Sam. 14:52), the Hebrew word covenant never is used for marriage, and David became the kings son in law for the first time with Michal (1 Sam. 18:21-27: the word "one" is missing often in Scripture when the context makes it clear what it is).

Regarding Jonathan's stripping of his soldiers garments, ("girdle" means armor in other places and men did wear undergarments in those days, while the word “even” is used to denote a limited extent in such places as Num. 4:43) and giving them to David is not erotic, but was a ceremony of prophetic significance after the manner of the clear parallel in Numbers 20:26. Therein we read the command, "And strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son: and Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, and shall die there." This ceremony symbolically signified the transference of the office of Aaron upon his son. In like manner, Jonathan's divestiture of his royal clothing (as the king's son) to give them to this poorly clad shepherd boy (clothes were indicative of royalty: cf. Esther 6:8) prophetically signified the transference of the future kingship from himself (as the normal heir) to David, which would shortly come to pass. None of this lends itself to the imaginative erotic encounters the liberal interpretation seeks.

As for the farewell (1 Samuel 20:41), "kissing" is very very rarely sexual in the Bible (and when it is, the context makes it very evident), nor was kissing looked upon as a sexual expression in the Middle East (wikipedia). As for "until David exceeded" (i will not tell you how they try to use that) relates to his David's weeping. But true to form, homosexual apologists cannot leave two close fire-tried comrades to sadly say good bye for good (and it was very sadly for good, and the only real friend the hunted David likely had) without forcing a meaning into a place where it does not belong.

Finally, as regards David's later poetic lament after Johnathan death (2 Sam. 1: 26), "pleasant" is used of Saul as well (v. 23), and as for “thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women,” David is not comparing his close buddy's love as being of a higher quality of sensual love, but is contrasting the marvelous brotherly love of Jonathan with the sexual “eros” love of women. Likewise we can say that unconditional, nonreciprocal love surpasses that of sexual love. But evidently many homosexual apologists lust to see what they seem to value the most when they force it in here.

David actually knew little of any manner of the love of women, as his wife, Saul's daughter Michal, was still with the man Saul had joined her with (1 Sam. 25:44) after David had to flee for his life (1Sam. 19:11-17). She would also soon be cursed due to her self righteous carnal reproof of him (2 Sam. 6:14-23), but Johnathan risked his life for David and the future of Israel more than once, and showed himself a singular true hearted sacrificial faithful friend and a Godly fellow soldier in helping David escape Saul's murderous will for him. David thus expresses deep grief at his loss with words of strong emotion which are common in Scripture. David would later woefully and tearfully lament “my son, my son Absalom! would God I had died for thee (1 Sam. 18:33), while in the poetic Psalms David expresses how he “bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth for his mother" when speaking of his love even for an enemy (Ps. 35:14). But this is all pathos, not eros, and in the story of those two compatriots we have an example of “bosom buddies” who risked their lives in friendship and fidelity to what was right in God's sight, which affirms such platonic love and actually excludes eroticism. True love is manifested and realized in a far more comprehensive and deeper manner than simply sexually, and the latter does not even qualify as true love (thus a relationship must thrive without it before it can be part of it). Moreover the fact that they both were married testifies to their heterosexual nature, and it was not a Billy that David lusted after later, but a Bathsheba.

As for Ruth, if the word "cleave" is to mean sexually as they propose or assert, then she would be a whoremonger, as she was told to be "cleave" to both the menservants and maid servants. Before she got married! This would give a radically different definition to the term "virtuous women," but such is what homosexual hermeneutics require, and which forced interpretations militate against the Bible from actually being a moral authority

I need not get into even more desperate and complex attempts to squeeze married homo-erotic activity out of holy Scripture, suffice to say that the more one studies them then the more it becomes apparent as such apologists cannot get God to in any ways explicitly sanction the homo-erotic activity they crave then they must force oblique inferences into texts, which again and again fail to prove the radical erotic ethos that is contrary to the only statements God makes regarding men lying with men, which forbid and condemn it.

For more on this (if you really need it) i would recommend (mine) and (see Homosexuality) --Daniel1212 23:20, 19 February 2008 (EST)