Homosexuality is a sin. and Tattoos.

[Knatalie9]

I happen to be a pretty firm conservative... and honestly... I do believe that homosexuality is a sin. However, I don't think anyone but God has the right to condemn anyone to hell. Its not our place. Homosexuality isn't any more of a sin than lying, stealing, lusting, ect. And you shouldn't throw rocks if you live in a glass house. I am guilty of this as well. And we all need God's grace and love. Otherwise we are all condemned to hell.


End of story.  

[Priestley]

I think it's important to point out that we have an archive full of topics on homosexuality, tattooing/piercing and other things of interest. I do wonder whether Brandon bothered to look these up before posting. I'm also irritated by his impatience in waiting for a response.

Also, something I realised recently after making some enquiries with the local Jehova's Witnesses who knock on my door was that, in Acts, while the council of the Christian governing body (which included the apostles - as well as prominent Christians of the time, I imagine) agreed that Christians were no longer bound by the laws of Moses but were to continue abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood and unbled meat and from fornication (Acts 15). A decade later, Christians still acknowledged that they should still keep themselves from sacrifices to idols, from blood and from fornication (Acts 21). While this doesn't have much bearing on the debate about homosexuality in Christianity, I found it quite appropriate to the discussion of how much of Old Testament law still applies to Christians today.  

[freelance lover]

Quote:

Quote:

zz1000zz Wrote: Also, the Bible saying something is an "abomination" does not mean it is a sin.

Define sin buddy...

Quote:

Dr. Walter C. Kaiser Jr. Wrote: Homosexuality also carried strong disapproval of Scripture. It is labelled an "abomination" (tow'ebah) five times in this chapter (vv. 22, 26, 27, 30) and in Leviticus 20:13. The root meaning of "abomination" is "to detest," "to hate," or "abhor." It is that which is hated and detested by God and is therefore degrading and offensive to the moral sense. Dr. Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Towards Old Testament Ethics, pg. 118.

Actually she's right about the abomination bit. The Hebrew actually translated to a more nuetral term imply that that is not what is traditional or commonly done. The translators often times just take a liberty with those words because it's always been translated that way. I don't remember all the details off the top of my head, but I can look it up in a lexicon if need be. That's the main jist of it though.  

[Metanoeo]

Quote:

Actually she's right about the abomination bit. The Hebrew actually translated to a more nuetral term imply that that is not what is traditional or commonly done. The translators often times just take a liberty with those words because it's always been translated that way. I don't remember all the details off the top of my head, but I can look it up in a lexicon if need be. That's the main jist of it though.

Lexicons are not always full proof when it comes down to what the text has to say. Yes, lexicon definitions are useful but they create confusion and word play between the reader and text. Similar how are English language is today, for an example. The word "bear" which could refer "something difficult to deal with" or "a surly, uncouth, burly, or shambling person." So, the point is that context is key and not lexicon definitions.

Quote:

Tow'ebah: Strong's Number: 8441

1. a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable
1. in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
2. in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)

If you try to fit all of these definitions into "tow'ebah" then your in trouble without context. If I say that it’s an ethical abomination then my opponent will say it's a ritual abomination. Both positions are supported by the Lexicon definition. It's not proper.

It's all about context. Here read the part of the chapter.

Quote:

If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. If a man lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them. If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you. If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. He has uncovered his sister's nakedness, and he shall bear his iniquity. If a man lies with a woman during her menstrual period and uncovers her nakedness, he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from among their people. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister or of your father's sister, for that is to make naked one's relative; they shall bear their iniquity. If a man lies with his uncle's wife, he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness; they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. If a man takes his brother's wife, it is impurity. He has uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.

All of them are degrading and offensive to the moral sense. Not to mention, the guilty results are death and just punishment.  

[Priestley]

Quote:

It's all about context. Here read the part of the chapter.

Quote:

If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. If a man lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them. If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you. If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. He has uncovered his sister's nakedness, and he shall bear his iniquity. If a man lies with a woman during her menstrual period and uncovers her nakedness, he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from among their people. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister or of your father's sister, for that is to make naked one's relative; they shall bear their iniquity. If a man lies with his uncle's wife, he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness; they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. If a man takes his brother's wife, it is impurity. He has uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.

All of them are degrading and offensive to the moral sense. Not to mention, the guilty results are death and just punishment.

Well, it's only offending to the moral sense if such a moral sense has been established within the community.

Take the idea of child abuse, for example, and how any sexual act towards a minor is considered child abuse when, in certain communities, it is common to marry someone who would be a minor if he/she lived in a community like ours. It's not offensive to the moral sense of the community to which he/she belongs.  

[Metanoeo]

Quote:

Quote:

It's all about context. Here read the part of the chapter.

Quote:

If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. If a man lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them. If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you. If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. He has uncovered his sister's nakedness, and he shall bear his iniquity. If a man lies with a woman during her menstrual period and uncovers her nakedness, he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from among their people. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister or of your father's sister, for that is to make naked one's relative; they shall bear their iniquity. If a man lies with his uncle's wife, he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness; they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. If a man takes his brother's wife, it is impurity. He has uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.

All of them are degrading and offensive to the moral sense. Not to mention, the guilty results are death and just punishment.

Well, it's only offending to the moral sense if such a moral sense has been established within the community.

Take the idea of child abuse, for example, and how any sexual act towards a minor is considered child abuse when, in certain communities, it is common to marry someone who would be a minor if he/she lived in a community like ours. It's not offensive to the moral sense of the community to which he/she belongs.

What are you suggesting? These laws of God are offensive in the moral sense only within the Jewish community?  

[freelance lover]

I think Lexicons are very important in studying scripture, but you have to know how to use them properly. I'm glad you used Strong's lexicon though- that's an excellent one to use.

I don't think they create confusion- I think they give us a better understanding as to what the scripture says. We cannot assume that the people who lived when the Bible was written are exactly like us, and that's an assumption readers usually make. They live in a completely different world than we do, and thus words have different meaning and connotations. We had have to consider what have been redacted and editted throughout time because people diagreed with the theological message of the passage.

I'm not saying that these scripture don't say what they generally mean, I'm saying that there a whole slew of ways to look at them from different points of view, all of which are valid. Lexicons can give us a better idea of what th word may actually mean or why the translator feels the need to use whatever word they did. Because- let's face it- some translators take some liberties that don't really fall in line with what the scripture actually says *coughTheMessagecough*.

/end Biblical schpeel.  

[Metanoeo]

Sure, Lexicons give us a better understanding of a foreign word to the reader but it doesn't show us the proper definition of a particular verse in its context. That's the whole point I'm trying to make. For instance, you are trying to point out that "abomination" is meant in a traditional and ritual sense from a lexicon definition. But I'm trying to point out that the context is pointing towards a moral sense of "abomination" which is also supported by the lexicon dictionary. So then, two different views, one same word. Same goes with zz1000zz argument, he or she(?) is trying to point out that "abomination" has nothing to do with sin or morality. So then it becomes one big so called "paradox" and none of us even have the proper education of Hebrew and Greek. Some many views but no absolute. Such discussions like this hit a nerve in my spine.

Anyway, if that's your position then there is nothing more that I can do to convince you.  

[zz1000zz]

It is absurd to go back to and reference the Hebrew word (whichever spelling of tow'ebah you prefer), then use the English definitions of abomination, as done by Dr. Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and the like. There is no indication the condemnation of homosexuality in Leviticus rises above ritualistic condemnation. and every indication that is all it is.

Quote:

none of us even have the proper education of Hebrew and Greek.

I would watch for those assumptions. I hear they do bad things to you and me.  

[Metanoeo]

Quote:

It is absurd to go back to and reference the Hebrew word (whichever spelling of tow'ebah you prefer), then use the English definitions of abomination, as done by Dr. Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and the like.

I will humble myself as such as possible right now... Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. is a distinguished Professor of Old Testament. Very few professors can match his great understanding of the Old Testament and history of the Hebrew language and culture. So please don't accuse him of poor exegetical and Hebrew definitions.

Quote:

There is no indication the condemnation of homosexuality in Leviticus rises above ritualistic condemnation. and every indication that is all it is.

Sure, you have your interpretation but I say its an extreme exegetical crime. You still have not answered my question to you about defining sin.

Quote:

Quote:

none of us even have the proper education of Hebrew and Greek.

I would watch for those assumptions. I hear they do bad things to you and me.

Thanks for the warning but I know what I'm doing. With all respect towards ryuu_chan wishes, we should avoid the sniping and threats in this topic as much as possible. If not, this topic is better off locked.  

[zz1000zz]

Quote:

I will humble myself as such as possible right now... Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. is a distinguished Professor of Old Testament. Very few professors can match his great understanding of the Old Testament and history of the Hebrew language and culture. So please don't accuse him of poor exegetical and Hebrew definitions.

He may be quite knowledgeable and skilled, but that is not an issue. He translated a Hebrew word, then discussed the definition of the English form as though it was directly applicable. It is incorrect and absurd.

Quote:

Sure, you have your interpretation but I say its an extreme exegetical crime. You still have not answered my question to you about defining sin.

You never asked a question about the definition of sin, so naturally I did not answer a such a question.

Quote:

Thanks for the warning but I know what I'm doing. With all respect towards ryuu_chan wishes, we should avoid the sniping and threats in this topic as much as possible. If not, this topic is better off locked.

I have no idea what you are talking about with, "we should avoid the sniping and threats" as I did not do either. I pointed out you made an assumption and repeated a common warning for such.  

[freelance lover]

Quote:

Sure, Lexicons give us a better understanding of a foreign word to the reader but it doesn't show us the proper definition of a particular verse in its context. That's the whole point I'm trying to make. For instance, you are trying to point out that "abomination" is meant in a traditional and ritual sense from a lexicon definition. But I'm trying to point out that the context is pointing towards a moral sense of "abomination" which is also supported by the lexicon dictionary. So then, two different views, one same word. Same goes with zz1000zz argument, he or she(?) is trying to point out that "abomination" has nothing to do with sin or morality. So then it becomes one big so called "paradox" and none of us even have the proper education of Hebrew and Greek. Some many views but no absolute. Such discussions like this hit a nerve in my spine.

Anyway, if that's your position then there is nothing more that I can do to convince you.

So, from what I understand, based on what you're saying either of us could be right. You can interpret it either way really, with little difficulty in my opinion. I'd have to do a lot a research and such and well, I've already got one exegesis paper to work on, I don't have time to be doing another one sweatdrop

The only reason I brought up the bit about abomination is because I remember a couple of my religion prefessors commenting on that- both of whom hold PhDs. Granted, it still comes down to interpretation and far as I know, both of them are fairly liberal. I think no matter how much you research and go back to the Hebrew or Greek and so on, there's still multiple ways to read a text because everyone is coming from a different place. We read it in a different time, place, and with a different bias.  

[Metanoeo]

Quote:

Quote:

I will humble myself as such as possible right now... Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. is a distinguished Professor of Old Testament. Very few professors can match his great understanding of the Old Testament and history of the Hebrew language and culture. So please don't accuse him of poor exegetical and Hebrew definitions.

He may be quite knowledgeable and skilled, but that is not an issue. He translated a Hebrew word, then discussed the definition of the English form as though it was directly applicable. It is incorrect and absurd.

Fine, nothing more I can do here.

Quote:

Quote:

Sure, you have your interpretation but I say its an extreme exegetical crime. You still have not answered my question to you about defining sin.

You never asked a question about the definition of sin, so naturally I did not answer a such a question.

Yes, I did. Its on page 1 of this topic.

Quote:

Quote:

Thanks for the warning but I know what I'm doing. With all respect towards ryuu_chan wishes, we should avoid the sniping and threats in this topic as much as possible. If not, this topic is better off locked.

I have no idea what you are talking about with, "we should avoid the sniping and threats" as I did not do either. I pointed out you made an assumption and repeated a common warning for such.

"I hear they do bad things to you and me" is a threat.  

[Priestley]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

It's all about context. Here read the part of the chapter.

Quote:

If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. If a man lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them. If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you. If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. He has uncovered his sister's nakedness, and he shall bear his iniquity. If a man lies with a woman during her menstrual period and uncovers her nakedness, he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from among their people. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister or of your father's sister, for that is to make naked one's relative; they shall bear their iniquity. If a man lies with his uncle's wife, he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness; they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. If a man takes his brother's wife, it is impurity. He has uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.

All of them are degrading and offensive to the moral sense. Not to mention, the guilty results are death and just punishment.

Well, it's only offending to the moral sense if such a moral sense has been established within the community.

Take the idea of child abuse, for example, and how any sexual act towards a minor is considered child abuse when, in certain communities, it is common to marry someone who would be a minor if he/she lived in a community like ours. It's not offensive to the moral sense of the community to which he/she belongs.

What are you suggesting? These laws of God are offensive in the moral sense only within the Jewish community?

You misunderstand. Much of the Western world's morality shares much with Judeo-Christian morality due to much of the Western world's morality being based upon it.

Consider the morality in certain native African and American communities and their differences with Judeo-Christian/Western morality.