Documentary claims "homosexuality" was a mistranslation in Bible, did not appear until 1946

Well this will surely rock some boats. What say you conservatives?

So basically the Greek word actually meant sexual pervert not homosexual. So all those child raping clergy have been the real sinners all along not the LGBTQ folks

I'm really interested to see how some on this site try to spin this.

So basically the Greek word actually meant sexual pervert not homosexual.

Most xian's will not see the difference between the 2.

God made Adam and Steve, not Adam and sheep!

Why would anyone want to inherit the 'Kingdom of God'? The upkeep alone will turn you into a Dickensian orphan and anyhoot Airbnb has dibs on all and any profit. 

Pretty much, you get to do all the work and upkeep and really see little for it. Not really worth it it seems.

In many indigenous communities worldwide a person being LBGT isn't considered to be a perversion. They are accepted as they are and in North America, they are called Niizh manidoowag which translates to '' Two-Spirit'' people and it is not a derogatory term in any way. 

Too bad that the various religious communities cannot accept them. 

It's hard be both a heretic and a heathen. 

Today, more than 45,000 churches preach that homosexuality is a sin, according to the documentary's  website.  

Just another little flag that should signal to believers that the Bible is not the divine word of a perfect god but rather merely the words of men.   Don't take it as truth;  take it as a record of historical positions that were used to indoctrinate the masses so as to control them.

I have 'skin' in the game on this. For those who do not know, I am homosexual and Christian - having been raised in the Church and discovering my natural sexual inclination at puberty. (I am fully aware that not all children "wait' until puberty to manifest traits of same-sexuality.)

As you can imagine, a "diagnosis" of homosexuality while growing up in a heterosexually straight-laced organization through family ties and childhood development friendships is devastating to one network connecti-bility! You are at once too young to set out on your own and yet surrounded by a new sea of life-long strangers.

This. . . question about. . .ancient word meaning can not be solved or "litigated" through biblical text literation or revision history of some time ago.

To this end, there is at least one homosexual-styled church congregation in in LA County, CA. 

Also, practically-speaking if God desires to spiritually bring a homosexual or group of homosexuals to a higher 'calling' - God gives the increase accordingly.

A/Noon CB.. I don't care who you are, what you are, where you are or what you do..

If you treat your fellow human beings with dignity and respect...(Just a pity some of them don't return the compliment)...

You win my vote hands down...

Have a great evening....

I agree. Dignity and respect for all.

I have 'skin' in the game on this. For those who do not know, I am homosexual and Christian - having been raised in the Church and discovering my natural sexual inclination at puberty.

I have never understood the problem that the religions have with the LBGT community.

Did god create man?  -   Basically all religions say YES.

Then god created you the way you are.  Why they can't understand and accept that by their own beliefs is amazing to me.

The problem is religions do or agree with whatever ancient men with pens said in a book. It's like people cannot think for themselves. I have yet to see a rational explanation as to why homosexuality is bad. Usually, such arguments against it are based on religious doctrine or emotional/personal dislike. Some even erroneously think sexual orientation is a choice. Even if it were, that still wouldn't explain what makes it so bad.

Even if it were, that still wouldn't explain what makes it so bad.

One of the problems is that religious people sometimes do not make those choices for themselves.  They also do not make those decisions based on whatever religious text they follow. 

They determine it is bad because someone else, who claims to know what their god wants, tells them it is bad.

They need someone to throw stones at...

Exactly.  Like I said, it's as if some people are incapable of thinking for themselves. So they'll parrot whatever nonsense someone else tells them, no questions asked. 

So they'll parrot whatever nonsense someone else tells them, no questions asked. 

Because that person makes them feel better about themselves.

They determine it is bad because someone else, who claims to know what their god wants, tells them it is bad.

Yes.

I sometimes wonder if people are afraid to really think about their God. That would take them into dangerous territory. So they do not think about their God. They take as gospel (see what I did there?  ) what their Preacher and their co-congregants tell them.

Of course... this may be a good thing. Talking about the Bible is like talking about climate science: people imagine that they know far more than they actually do.

"They need someone to throw stones at..."

I just love the hilarious way Monty Python deals with religion.

I sometimes wonder if people are afraid to really think about their God.

Personally, I think they are.  That's why religions have so much animosity towards atheists.

Theists spend how much of their life with religion? 

• Sunday's of course, but how much money have they donated? 
• What choices in life have they made because of religion? 
• Have they lost friends or relatives due to religious choices?
• And even, have loved ones lost their lives because of religious medical restrictions?

To suddenly stop, think about it, and realize they have based their entire life on an obviously silly myth, is more than a lot of people are willing to do.  Many just go to church without any actual belief, because that is the way they were raised.

Perhaps worse... they might realize that in fact they have not led their lives according to Christ's teachings. They have not loved their neighbors.

Such an understanding would be insupportable. So they never allow themselves to reach it.

A good, genuine, concern. The STANDING problem/issue/dilemma for the Church as a whole unit is this. . . the books are codified.  That is, the words are set 'in stone.' Subsequently, future generations of Christian believers, accepting that God inspired ranking prophets and apostles of the past to write down what was given them through Spirit, have no compelling reason (or heard any sufficient enough) to modify what is "handed down." That's one significant and primary thought on the Church's LGBTQ position.

The Church is mystified and confused about what it is that homosexuals 'do' (in private and in society). That is, the Church view of homosexuality is it a dirty, "abominable," practice from which nothing "issues" (as in offspring). That is a secondary thought.

Finally, the Church position is heterosexuality is a more efficient way of sexualization. That is, man and woman relationships are profitable to humanity in the long run. Consequently, God is "proper" to cast doubt or diminish any other sexual type (as "Best).

Ozzwald, I love your question. I have much more to write about how I see it (having lived it on both sides). If you wish, do ask away! Absolutely nothing is sacred. Indeed, it is time people 'talk this out!' (Smile.)

That is, the words are set 'in stone.'

... but not in English...

I have never understood the problem that the religions have with the LBGT community. Did god create man?  -   Basically all religions say YES. Then god created you the way you are.  Why they can't understand and accept that by their own beliefs is amazing to me.

God created fleshly beings. Have you observed that our created world and humanity conducts themself on a spectrum? That is, for everything we can 'do' dynamically, there exist an equal opposite? (Including concepts of "God & Satan" though idealogically God has no equal)?

Now to your question. There are plenty human 'states and conditions' that societies ward against justifiably. That is, it is not enough or proper for any society to let humans run around inside them similar to 'beasts' or 'dangerous free spirits.'  (I presume you agree.)

Of course. . . .

Finally, the Church position is heterosexuality is a more efficient way of sexualization. That is, man and woman relationships are profitable to humanity in the long run. Consequently, God is "proper" to cast doubt or diminish any other sexual type (as "Best).

If I may add 1 more thing to this.

The church/bible/god is without doubt highly misogynistic.  Without a clear differentiation between male and female, much of the way the bible treats the different sexes, would become moot. 

The church has already had to declare so much of the bible as a metaphor and not actual history, that to do it with something so fundamental to it as the way women are perceived, would undercut the entire bible itself.

Here is the way I see it (together and apart from) as a Christian. Today, as a society, we throw around a great many incendiary words and phrases meant to stop conversation in its tracks. . . . Is it helpful? Sometimes. Is it essential to understanding. Definitely not.

God can rank distinction: Order can be more positive and essential than its polar opposite Chaos at times. There are indeed fundamental factors (distinctions) that make us essentially different human beings (and unequal).

There are scores of homosexuals who wish to be welcomed into the Church body. It would fulfill them. Why, should homosexuals want this?

Also, there are scores of homosexuals who want to co-mingle with heterosexuals! Maybe even vice-versa (males) -If only as a form of diversity.

The church/bible/god is without doubt highly misogynistic. 

No wonder look at who and when that stuff was written and organized. 

Seems our world has changed in the last few thousand years, their words have not changed and are still challenged yet today. But some believers of their words will never change even though the whole world and our understanding of it does. 

Their choice. Not mine though.  

The obsession with homosexuality in the church is not based on scripture. It is perhaps the ultimate example of bigoted people using scripture to validate and perpetuate their bigotry.

The very word "homosexual" was not even coined until the 19th century in Germany. Our understanding of what it means to be homosexual has evolved much ever since.

By the way "heterosexuality" was coined by the same man, and for a long time did not simply mean an attraction to the opposite sex. It was a term of sexual excessive passion for the opposite sex. In other words, if you are proud of being heterosexual in the 21st century, you would have reason to be embarrassed by that label when it was first coined. The current understanding of the term didn't develop until about the 1920s and 30s.

Unfortunately, the religious bigots worked hand-in-glove with a long line of 20th century German-influence psychoanalysts who, starting with Freud (who later evolved on the issue and regretted his early work), declared without evidence that homosexuality was a perversion, and a sign of a damaged psyche, often to be blamed on the parents. As this madness was going on, other branches of psychiatry - psychiatrists and the like - fought back against these unscientific proclamations. But bigoted religious groups put a megaphone in front of the psychoanalysts and a nationwide prejudice was nurtured.

You can see the results of their work in this famous CBS special from 1967. It's amazing to look back and believe this aired on national television. Imagine the impact it had.

None of the references to homosexual acts in the Bible have anything to do with healthy relationships between consenting adults. They also have nothing to do with innate sexual orientation. How could they? People didn't even have that understanding of sexuality.

There is a lot more to it. I have been studying it for a long time. There are a number of people doing good work on this front if anyone wants some references. But suffice to say that none of the cruelty and inhumanity inflicted on LGBTQ people by churches or governments is actually justified in Hebrew scripture, much less the teachings of Jesus or the letters of Paul.

The obsession with homosexuality in the church is not based on scripture.

Obsession probably not, but homosexuality (defined but not with that label) is certainly part of scripture:

"You shall not   lie   with a   male   as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22. " 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." Chapter 20 verse 13.

Ancient Hebrews (et. al.) frowned on homosexuality (at least male homosexuality).   Naturally they defined a God who frowned upon it too.

Obsession probably not

I don’t know what you’re talking about, but evangelical churches are definitely obsessed with it.

Ancient Hebrews (et. al.) frowned on homosexuality (at least male homosexuality).

No, it didn’t. Ancient people didn’t even understand sexuality in that way. The verses in Leviticus are misused in a couple of ways.

First, they are part of what is known as the Holiness Codes. As a general matter, these codes, rather than being some kind of mortal sin, are really just social rules intended to make the Hebrews - and more specifically, the more religious Levites - distinct from other cultures. I.e. “Holy” or set apart. They don’t even apply to anyone else.

Our modern sense of the word “abomination” puts more weight on these prohibitions than is warranted. It’s more fair to think of it as a kind of taboo, or “stuff our people don’t do.”

There is also little evidence that this death penalty was implemented much. For one thing, in the Hebrew tradition, there are rules of evidence and a requirement of multiple witnesses that make getting to that extreme circumstance very difficult.

Second the words for “man” and “male” are different words. Given that these writings are at least 2+ millennia old, there is some scholarly disagreement on the specific context.

For centuries, in Europe, the second word was translated as something like “young boys.” It was therefore not a prohibition against a healthy relationship between two consenting adults, but rather against boy molesters. The surrounding cultures routinely practiced sex between older men and boys.

Another suggestion is that male rape was a typical act of dominance over a defeated enemy and these passages my be referring to that. In modern times we have seen that male rape of children by priests or of grown men in prison have nothing to do with sexual orientation.

So there are good reasons to think these passages are about something other than normal homosexuality, and very little reason to think they are some kind of prohibition against it. The latter interpretation is a result of bigotry supported by lazy translations and even lazier psychoanalysis.

So lesbians are all good, that's a relief...

Two girls and a guy!  All good!  Two guys - ICKY!

I don’t know what you’re talking about, but evangelical churches are definitely obsessed with it.

I was saying that the obsession is likely not in scripture, but homosexual acts most certainly were.   

No, it didn’t. Ancient people didn’t even understand sexuality in that way. The verses in Leviticus are misused in a couple of ways.

They understood men lying with men as women.   The fact that they did not understand genetics, epigenetics, environmental trigger factors, etc. does not mean they did not understand the practice of same sex relationships.

First, they are part of what is known as the Holiness Codes. As a general matter, these codes, rather than being some kind of mortal sin, are really just social rules intended to make the Hebrews - and more specifically, the more religious Levites - distinct from other cultures. I.e. “Holy” or set apart. They don’t even apply to anyone else.

Yet these rules prohibited male-male relationships.   It does not matter that they applied to a special group, the fact that they exist shows that ancient Hebrew frowned on the practice.   

Our modern sense of the word “abomination” puts more weight on these prohibitions than is warranted. It’s more fair to think of it as a kind of taboo, or “stuff our people don’t do.”

If one is put to death for male-male sex, that suggests that the practice is frowned upon (being euphemistic here), right?   The word ' abomination ' is redundant given the penalty.

There is also little evidence that this death penalty was implemented much. For one thing, in the Hebrew tradition, there are rules of evidence and a requirement of multiple witnesses that make getting to that extreme circumstance very difficult.

Most of the time the death penalty was not applied.   But the death penalty is still there indicating how the authors viewed male-male sexual acts.

For centuries, in Europe, the second word was translated as something like “young boys.” It was therefore not a prohibition against a healthy relationship between two consenting adults, but rather against boy molesters. The surrounding cultures routinely practiced sex between older men and boys.

So you are suggesting that 'male' only means young boys?   Is there a prohibition against young girls then?   Why only males?   Hard to get past the male-male sex connotation.

Another suggestion is that male rape was a typical act of dominance over a defeated enemy and these passages my be referring to that. In modern times we have seen that male rape of children by priests or of grown men in prison have nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Tacos! one could argue that any word in any book could have a different meaning.   Or play the context card and suggest that what is read really is not appropriately read at face value because there is a complex context at play which changes the meaning of the plain words into an entirely different meaning.   One can make those suggestions, but I doubt many will be convinced by the attempt.

So there are good reasons to think these passages are about something other than normal homosexuality, and very little reason to think they are some kind of prohibition against it. The latter interpretation is a result of bigotry supported by lazy translations and even lazier psychoanalysis.

I see the passages as a good indication that male-male sex was frowned upon by the ancients and very little reason to think that the plain meaning should be IGNORED and an alternate inferred meaning be substituted.

Finally, here are some other references to male-male sex in the Bible:

Genesis 19:5-6 ☞ 

⁵  They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

⁶  Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him ⁷  and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. ⁸  Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

1 Corinthians 6:9–10 ☞

⁹ Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men ^{[ a ] 10}  nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlerswill inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26–27 ☞

²⁶  Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.  Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷  In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men , and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Sure, this may all be just a grand misunderstanding of the mores and practices of ancient men and a coincidental failure in all of the incarnations of the Bible to accurately capture the meaning of the original texts.   Then again, we might start by plain reading.

Most modern men seem to have no issues with lesbian sex.   Might have been true for the ancients too.

I read some women watch male gay porn.

I suppose that makes sense.   

Probably not something they would mention at the dinner table, but....

Haha

As long as they can watch...

Exactly.

Even ancient people knew that was hot, Lol

So lesbians are all good, that's a relief...

Pretty much. Even in the 20th century, it wasn’t nearly as big a concern as male same-sex relationships.

I have given you real and valuable information. If you want to live in ignorance and support the hate and cruelty being perpetrated, that’s on you. 

Yet these rules prohibited male-male relationships.

You think so? You think that covers it, huh? Simple question: So then male-female relations are not prohibited correct?

What about premarital sex? What about adultery? What about rape? What about sex with little girls? What about sex with dead women? What about sex with your sister? What about sex with a female animal?

You can’t just look at a modern English translation of a Middle English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of a Hebrew text written two or three millennia ago by another culture and think you know what the hell you are reading.

The word ' abomination ' is redundant given the penalty.

This has been explained to you. The word abomination does not mean what you think it means.

Is there a prohibition against young girls then?

No. And that should be a clue to you that there wasn’t a prohibition against all same sex relationships.

Hard to get past the male-male sex connotation.

Yeah, that’s what all the homophobic evangelicals say who would rather abuse their fellow human beings than fucking learn something. I can’t tell you how many times these people have tried to tell me “scripture is clear.” It’s not clear. Let me repeat for you. Scripture. Is. Not. Clear.

Or play the context card

Give me a fucking break. The context CARD? That’s truly the stupidest, most ignorant thing I think you could have said. Context is what matters. Seriously, are you trying to promote ignorance? Cruelty? Suicides?

Finally, here are some other references to male-male sex in the Bible:

I am confident that I am far more familiar with such references than you are. Do not presume to teach me. Your ignorance on this topic is what is clear. The story of Lot and Sodom doesn’t have anything whatsoever to do with homosexuality. It is a story about hospitality. The passages in the New Testament are just as misused as the other verses we have talked about. I would teach you about them, but your comments have made plain you are not interested.

I have given you real and valuable information. If you want to live in ignorance and support the hate and cruelty being perpetrated, that’s on you. 

What is with the attitude?   You provided your information and I provided mine.   You have your opinion on what is likely and I have mine.   I did not insult you or attack you in any way.   I countered your hypothesis with mine and gave you my supporting facts.   If you want an adult, calm discussion with me then all you need do is be honest and impersonal and I will naturally reciprocate.

So then male-female relations are  not  prohibited correct?

I have not seen where male-female relations are prohibited.   Why do you ask?

What about premarital sex? What about adultery? What about rape? What about sex with little girls? What about sex with dead women? What about sex with your sister? What about sex with a female animal?

Why are you asking about all these variations?   Do you think I somewhere made a claim that the Bible covers all possible situations in life?    We are talking about male-male sexual relations are we not?

You can’t just look at a modern English translation of a Middle English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of a Hebrew text written two or three millennia ago by another culture and think you know what the hell you are reading.

I agree.   Words evolve and thus their meanings change.   But one cannot use that as an excuse to change the meaning to suit their needs.  Note how I ended my comment with other examples from the Bible.   That was to give you something to correlate.   Biblical scholars use correlations to 'triangulate' semantics.    Note how your point on man-male comes into question when I show you quotes with man-man.   

This has been explained to you. The word abomination does not mean what you think it means.

And I gave you my response.   My response essentially said that we can ignore the word abomination because the death penalty illustrates how wrong this act was considered.   Did you read that?     

No. And that should be a clue to you that there wasn’t a prohibition against all same sex relationships.

Where do you see me claiming that there was a prohibition against all same sex relationships?   I never wrote anything even close to that.   In fact, take a look at what Dulay and I noted; here Dulay replies to my comment @ 9.1.1 :

Dulay @ 9.1.2 ☞ So lesbians are all good, that's a relief...

... and my reply to Dulay:

TiG @ 9.1.5 ☞ Most modern men seem to have no issues with lesbian sex.   Might have been true for the ancients too.

Dulay understood by my language that I was noting only restrictions on male-male sexual acts.   Somehow you did not get that and, worse, jumped to the presumption that I was in some way suggesting that female-female relationships were prohibited.   

Why do you add to what I write and then criticize me for something I do not agree with and have never even suggested?   What is the value in that practice other than to be  gratuitously insulting?

Yeah, that’s what all the homophobic evangelicals say who would rather abuse their fellow human beings than fucking learn something. I can’t tell you how many times these people have tried to tell me “scripture is clear.” It’s not clear. Let me repeat for you. Scripture. Is. Not. Clear.

Scripture is interpreted in all sorts of ways.   That is part of the problem.   Anyone can read almost anything into the words of the Bible and argue context, evolution of meaning, etc. and then make a claim that this is what God has decreed.   The homophobes can easily go to the Bible and (note the passages I noted in my comment) easily see that God disapproves of male-male sexual relationships.   And you can protest all you want, but it is mighty difficult to make a biblical scholarship argument to the vast majority of believers.  

And the argument is even more difficult to argue approval for a practice that carries the death penalty (regardless of how many times ancient Hebrew actually put someone to death for this).

Bottom line, the Bible gives all sorts of false justification to people for bigotry.   It even provides false justification for owning another human being as property.   Taking the Bible as divine is a mistake and you are partially (whether or not you intend to do this) supporting this position.

Give me a fucking break. The context CARD? That’s truly the stupidest, most ignorant thing I think you could have said. Context is what matters. Seriously, are you  trying  to promote ignorance? Cruelty? Suicides?

Lighten up Francis.   The ' context card ' is a convenient way to refer to the practice of deeming a direct reading of the Bible to be a misinterpretation.   It refers to the claim that the reading is out of context.   

That is a pretty emotional reaction to my making use of a colloquial expression.   

I am confident that I am far more familiar with such references than you are.

That's nice Tacos!.    I made no reference to me having superior knowledge so why are you puffing your chest?

Do not presume to teach me.

Well then.   So quoting passages to support my position is ' presuming to teach you '?   

Your ignorance on this topic is what is clear.

This is very helpful going so personal.    Really encourages me to be cordial with you.       Calm down.

The story of Lot and Sodom doesn’t have anything whatsoever to do with homosexuality. It is a story about hospitality.

The purpose of the story was never the point.   The point was Lot's illustration of the view of male-male sexual acts.   He was willing to offer his virgin daughters to avoid what he called a 'wicked' act.    A passage can express more than one idea at a time.

The passages in the New Testament are just as misused as the other verses we have talked about. I would teach you about them, but your comments have made plain you are not interested.

Well, I do not know about my comments.   Seems to me I provided my opinion and backed it up with logic and scripture.   Your comments, however, have been replete with snark and project nothing short of an attack attitude.    

As noted upfront, what is with the attitude?

You don’t like my attitude? Too bad! The kind of ignorant, lazy reading and interpretation of scripture you endorsed is literally killing people. The stakes could not be higher. And you want to treat it like a fucking debate game. Fuck that!

You didn’t supply facts or information. You supplied your uninformed and biased opinion. You have supplied only closed-minded ignorance that excuses or promotes anti-LGBT hate. Open your mind and learn something from what I wrote above. Sorry, but not sorry. I don’t have a lot of tolerance for such enthusiastic ignorance. Scripture doesn’t mean whatever you want it to mean and a plain reading for people who don’t know what they are reading is not just useless. It’s dangerous.

The kind of ignorant, lazy reading and interpretation of scripture you endorsed is literally killing people.

I do not endorse such reading.   You should by now at least know that my position is that holy books such as the Bible, when taken as the divine word of the supreme entity, are dangerous.   They are dangerous precisely because, being natural language, they can be interpreted in many ways.    Take for example the Westboro Baptist church.   Take for example the Islamic sects who murder homosexuals.   For you to not understand my position that the Bible should not be taken as divine is to be blind to years of consistent content from me.   Absolutely amazing.

Further, I made no comment that even remotely hints at what you have alleged.

You didn’t supply facts or information. You supplied your uninformed and biased opinion.

You are just 'talking mad'.   Your allegation is bullshit as evidenced by the content of my posts.

Scripture doesn’t mean whatever you want it to mean and a plain reading for people who don’t know what they are reading is not just useless. It’s dangerous.

Yes, that is correct.   I have argued that for years.   Amazing that you are here actually suggesting that I think otherwise.

My point here is that the Bible reflected the mores and values of the ancient authors and it suggests that ancient Hebrews frowned upon male-male homosexual acts.   You have declared otherwise but have not shown this to be false.   I have given rebuttal to the parts of your comments with which I disagree.   You, however, have not dealt with my rebuttal except with anger and unsubstantiated accusations and attacks.

Get a grip.

I referred to biblical scholarship in my comments.   Clearly you will reject anything I write (even when we agree) so maybe you should contemplate the serious scholars of the Hebrew holy books.

Here is my favorite biblical scholar (Richard Friedman) weighing in on ancient Hebrew views on homosexual acts:

You shall not lie with a male like lying with a woman. Why is a male homosexuality explicitly forbidden in the Torah but not
female? Some would surmise that it is because women are controlled in a patriarchal Israelite society; and so a woman would
simply have no choice but to marry a man. But this is not an adequate explanation, because there would still be opportunities
for female homosexual liaisons. Some would say that the concern is the seed, which is understood to come from the male, and
therefore is "wasted" in another male. But the text calls homosexuality "an offensive thing" (in older translations, "an
abomination"), which certainly sounds like an abhorrence of the act, and not just a practical matter of reproduction.
-Richard Elliott Friedman, Commentary on the Torah (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 2001).

You should read the full scholarly article:

Homosexuality and Halakhah: A Second Look at the Sources

You would consider these men learned scholars of ancient Hebrew beliefs, right?

One should be able to recognize that my claim that ancient Hebrew frowned on homosexual male-male acts is supported by biblical scholarship.   

Take for example the Westboro Baptist church.

You take them. I’m sure they’re looking for new members. You certainly do read the Bible the same way they do.

that the Bible should not be taken as divine

Is an irrelevant red herring. We weren’t talking about that.

Scripture doesn’t mean whatever you want it to mean and a plain reading for people who don’t know what they are reading is not just useless. It’s dangerous. Yes, that is correct.   I have argued that for years.   Amazing that you are here actually suggesting that I think otherwise.

Read your own words.:

Yet these rules prohibited male-male relationships.   It does not matter that they applied to a special group

If one is put to death for male-male sex, that suggests that the practice is frowned upon (being euphemistic here), right?   The word ' abomination ' is redundant given the penalty.

But the death penalty is still there indicating how the authors viewed male-male sexual acts.

Hard to get past the male-male sex connotation.

That one is the classic! And the icings on the cake?

the context card

and 

I see the passages as a good indication that male-male sex was frowned upon by the ancients and very little reason to think that the plain meaning should be IGNORED and an alternate inferred meaning be substituted.

Any reading of any historical document without considering context is foolish, at best. And then I gave you a ton of reasons to consider a different reading and you ignore them in favor of the Westboro Baptist approach. Everything you have to say about the issue is just the same ignorant, face value, modern English reading, supported by bigotry and devoid of context. Trust me when I tell you that is exactly how those Westboro Assholes read scripture.

You certainly do read the Bible the same way they do.

Pure trolling.

Is an irrelevant red herring. We weren’t talking about that.

If people did not read the Bible as divine then it would not matter what it said.  Hello?

Read your own words.:

Seem spot on to me.   More interesting is whatever bizarre (and the bizarre comes from you) interpretation you get from them.

Any reading of any historical document without considering context is foolish, at best.

Of course one considers context.   But one starts with the text and works beyond that in a methodical fashion.   One does not simply ignore the written text and jump to an interpretation.   Biblical scholarship is methodical and does not reject the words as written.

And then I gave you a ton of reasons to consider a different reading and you ignore them in favor of the Westboro Baptist approach.

You seem to have an inflated view of your position and 'facts'.    For example, you merely mention the Holiness code.   No specifics.   No link to make a point.   You think that is persuasive or even information bearing?

 Everything you have to say about the issue is just the same ignorant, face value, modern English reading, supported by bigotry and devoid of context. Trust me when I tell you that is exactly how those Westboro Assholes read scripture.

I understand why you resort to strawmen tactics and bullshit Tacos!, but it remains intellectually dishonest.

Got anything to offer other than your continued emotional meta?

see:  @9.1.17

Pure trolling.

Well shit, you better flag me then so you can get back to helping the bigots of the world shit on LGBT people without my pesky interruptions.

If people did not read the Bible as divine then it would not matter what it said.  Hello?

Good GOD that's dumb. A thing can matter without being divine. Where do you get this shit? That's rhetorical. I don't care where ignorance comes from.

One does not simply ignore the written text and jump to an interpretation.

Now who the fuck is doing that? It sure as shit isn't me.

Biblical scholarship is methodical and  does not reject the words as written .

What parts of Hebrew > Greek > Latin > Middle English > Modern English is so confusing for you? You are not reading "the words as written." Don't you get that????

For example, you merely mention the Holiness code.   No specifics.   No link to make a point.

First, "Holiness Code" is a specific. Duh! If you haven't heard of thing, either Google it or ASK for a link. I'm not going to link years of study for you in an NT chat, without it. You must be kidding. And then you criticize the lack of it several comments later. I'm certain that if you're so hell bent on verifying the favorite passages of the Westboro Baptists, no amount of links will persuade you.

You see, to me, a person who actually gives a shit about how religion has fucked over so many people would actually be interested in the scholarship behind my words. But you aren't. CLEARLY. You just wanted to argue ignorantly against it. You either enjoy their work or you just want to shit on religion, in general, so badly that you will cling to anything that supports that feeling.

I understand why you resort to strawmen tactics and bullshit Tacos!, but it remains intellectually dishonest.

Says the guy talking about ignoring the text and jumping to interpretations. Do you even hear yourself? I'd respond but you'd complain that I was getting personal. Fucking typical. 

Here's the link you'll probably enjoy the most.

We're done here.

I see you have ignored my post (and the content) @9.1.17 and have instead chosen to continue with emotional personal attacks.

Here is the bottom line:

I stated my position upfront @9.1

TiG @9.1 ☞ Ancient Hebrews (et. al.) frowned on homosexuality (at least male homosexuality).   Naturally they defined a God who frowned upon it too.

Since you categorically disagree with anything I write (even when we agree), I offered a link to biblical scholarship on the subject @9.1.17    This takes us to a third party.  I gave you a quote from my favorite biblical scholar and a link to a five page scholarly article on homosexuality in the Torah.

The punchline is that they support my position (their views are harsher than what I stated:  'frowned upon').

You can say 'we are done here' but if that is your closing comment after delivering more intellectually dishonest personal attacks you will absolutely get a rebuttal from me.    The above is my rebuttal.   I expect you to ignore my biblical scholarship link because it shows that you are flat out wrong.

IMPASSE

Most of the time the death penalty was not applied.   But the death penalty is still there indicating how the authors viewed male-male sexual acts.

ALL abominations are sinful. 

Sin is Sin.

The wages of sin is death, i.e. the death penalty. 

Why single out male-male sexual acts? 

Of course, there is the whole being brought before a tribunal yadda, yadda but it seems that most here just want to cut to the chase, the stoning thingy...

With all of the mandatory stoning, one has to wonder if the human race could survive under strict Levitical law. 

Why single out male-male sexual acts? 

Some scholars hold that since women were so controlled (almost like property) that they had little opportunity to engage so it was not something requiring a law.   Others have argued that the concern was over the inappropriate use of seed.   The logic, so to speak, is that male-male is clearly wrong because God intended the seed for a woman's body.   That kind of stuff.

With all of the mandatory stoning, one has to wonder if the human race could survive under strict Levitical law. 

Enoch once told me that while the death penalty was indeed in place for male-male sexual acts involving penetration, that it was rarely carried out.   I mentioned this in the thread somewhere when making that point that while one can quibble with the original meaning of the term that is represented by the English word 'abomination', the fact that the death penalty was assigned to the act indicates that God, as it were, was quite against the act.   And, of course, since the lines for God were written by ancient Hebrews (in this case), they naturally reflected the views of those ancient writers who typically reflected the mores and values of the time.

See my biblical scholarship link if you are interested in the views of several of the most well established OT biblical scholars:

Homosexuality and Halakhah: A Second Look at the Sources

Some scholars hold that since women were so controlled (almost like property) that they had little opportunity to engage so it was not something requiring a law. 

Some scholars hold that since women lying with women did not effect the Primary commandment to procreate, a law wasn't required. 

Enoch once told me that while the death penalty was indeed in place for male-male sexual acts involving penetration, that it was rarely carried out. 

So since it was rarely enforced THEN, why is the penalty so relevant NOW? 

Others have argued that the concern was over the inappropriate use of seed.   The logic, so to speak, is that male-male is clearly wrong because God intended the seed for a woman's body.   That kind of stuff.

Again, the Primary commandment to procreate. 

I mentioned this in the thread somewhere when making that point that while one can quibble with the original meaning of the term that is represented by the English word 'abomination', the fact that the death penalty was assigned to the act indicates that God, as it were, was quite against the act. 

As I pointed out, the death penalty is assigned to ALL sin. 

Secondly, as you stated, in PRACTICE the penalty was meted out only rarely. So even the ancient Hebrews viewed the 'penalty' as subjective. Yet today's Christians, and you it seems, insist that it is a hard fast rule handed down by God, though even modern Hebrew do NOT adhere to the PRACTICE. 

And, of course, since the lines for God were written by ancient Hebrews (in this case), they naturally reflected the views of those ancient writers who typically reflected the mores and values of the time.

Which would imply that they have no relevance in a modern society and said society should reject their being used a clubs to clobber people with. 

See my biblical scholarship link if you are interested in the views of several of the most well established OT biblical scholars:

From the link:

You can't require people to live by a set of standards which they cannot follow by their very nature. Jewish law should be a matter of free will. Also what does it say
about God if God creates people in such a way that they could not live by those laws? 

Interesting. 

So since it was rarely enforced THEN, why is the penalty so relevant NOW? 

None of the ancient laws should be relevant today.     Clearly my position is that it is a mistake to simply accept what ancient men wrote.

Yet today's Christians, and you it seems, insist that it is a hard fast rule handed down by God, though even modern Hebrew do NOT adhere to the PRACTICE. 

What???   Me??   Where are you getting this?    

Good grief Dulay how could you possibly think that I consider the Bible divine (handed down by God) and that I think this rule should apply today?

So your comments to me in this thread have been under the truly bizarre presumption that I believe the Bible divine and that its rules should apply??

None of the ancient laws should be relevant today.  

I don't know, Thou shall not kill still sounds relevant to me...

Good grief Dulay how could you possibly think that I consider the Bible divine (handed down by God) and that I think this rule should apply today?

Good grief TiG, how could you possibly think that I was making ANY claim about what YOU consider to be divine?

I stated the you have insisted 'that it is a hard fast rule handed down by God', which is evidenced in multiple comments that you posted. 

NOWHERE did I state that you BELIEVED in that hard fast rule or that YOU considered it divine. NOR did I say anything about what YOU think should be applied today. 

So your comments to me in this thread have been under the truly bizarre assumption that I believe the Bible divine and that its rules should apply??

Speaking of truly bizarre assumptions...

NOWHERE did I state that you BELIEVED in that hard fast rule or that YOU considered it divine. NOR did I say anything about what YOU think should be applied today. 

Did you read what I highlighted in blue?:

Dulay @9.1.27 ☞ Yet today's Christians, and you it seems, insist that it is a hard fast rule handed down by God, though even modern Hebrew do NOT adhere to the PRACTICE. 

How am I to interpret your words 'and you it seems' then?   When I read the above it looks as though you are saying that it 'seems' that I insist the homosexual act rules are hard fast rules that are handed down by God.

To be handed down by God I must necessarily believe that God exists to do this 'handing down'.   

Would you please paraphrase what you intended to communicate so that I can understand your message?    

My position is that the rules in question are a reflection of the mores and values of ancient Hebrews.   They are a product of the times.   Further, I am not in any way persuaded that these are the words of an extant God or that they should have any bearing on contemporary human beings.   These rules are not divine IMO and certainly should not be given any credence.

My point has always been what I stated upfront @9.1:

TiG @9.1 ☞ Ancient Hebrews (et. al.) frowned on homosexuality (at least male homosexuality).   Naturally they defined a God who frowned upon it too.

How am I to interpret your words 'and you it seems' then?   When I read the above it looks as though you are saying that it 'seems' that I insist the homosexual act rules are hard fast rules that are handed down by God.

You've said so multiple times. 

To be handed down by God I must necessarily believe that God exists to do this 'handing down'. 

Why? You could just as easily be arguing that is what claimed in the bible and it need have nothing to do with your own beliefs. 

Would you please paraphrase what you intended to communicate so that I can understand your message?

I already have yet you seem to WANT to take umbrage. So be it. 

My point has always been what I stated upfront

I have acknowledged that your point and your beliefs are two different things more than once. Now you seem to be trying to conflate them to make ANOTHER point. What is it? 

You've said so multiple times. 

I have never written what you have claimed.   I would never write that.   I am not in any way convinced that there is a God to 'hand things down' so I would never insist He did so.   There is, IMO, no God to do this handing down.   Nor did I claim these rules are 'hard and fast'.   Indeed I have noted several times that the historical application of these rules has varied, and contemporary application varies.  And certainly I do not approve of these rules.    Yet you think somehow I insist that they are 'hard and fast'.   They are historical rules written by men and, naturally, interpreted and applied in varied fashions over time.

Why? You could just as easily be arguing that is what claimed in the bible and it need have nothing to do with your own beliefs. 

You do not see that I have been arguing that these are mere claims from the Bible which reflect the mores and values of ancient men?   Nowhere do I say these are rules from an extant God.   

One cannot insist that these are rules handed down by God if one does not believe that a God exists to hand down the rules.

I already have yet you seem to WANT to take umbrage. So be it. 

You do not see why I take umbrage to the suggestion that I am insisting these rules are hard and fast and handed down by God??

Let's get clear for moving forward:

• I am not persuaded that the Abrahamic God exists.   In my judgment, there is no entity to hand anything to anyone.
• I am convinced that the Bible is simply the words of ancient men and reflects what these men would naturally think given the times in which they lived.
• I am of the position that the rules we are discussing (the sexual rules) were invented by ancient men to control the population as they saw fit.
• I think it is wrongheaded (and harmful) for anyone to apply these rules.

and (my point)

• I think the ancient Hebrews frowned upon male-male sexual acts as evidenced by the Bible and further supported by biblical scholarship.

I am listening to this espisode now. Question: If there existed a pill to make a homosexual, heterosexual would "I" take it?

Oh wow! That is (still) a great (breathtaking) question! It needs reflection and discussion. I wonder if it 'disturbs' some people that the answer itself is not easy?

You have that now. Viagra and a blindfold.

The answer for me would have to be NO.

Everything that we are as individuals and how we view the world has to do with what we have gone through and changing one's sexual orientation would be denying all that we have become, especially for those of us who are 'of an age'. We grew up when homosexual and heterosexual 'communities' didn't mix that much and life experiences weren't shared. 

Huh? I get it . . . but, I think there is a misunderstanding nested somewhere in that 'crack' too!

I just think 'what ifs' like that are detrimental.

I see it almost as a way of people saying being gay is not normal.

Question to gay person...would you take a pill not to be gay....

In actuality, that is perpetuating the narrative that being gay is not normal and is something that could or should be changed.

Well said. Emphatically.

I have developed some deepening friendships with male heterosexuals-apart from my past/present systems and understandings (of living life). That is, in my current relationships there are no hints of sexuality in either direction. These hetero-men do no not talk about sex with me usually (or even point out women for "extra" attention). I take it as a form of maturity. I have observed it even in the twenty-somethings I cross. 

Sometimes, I wonder if it is the 'hand of God' keeping a 'lid' on the males' (testosterone) essence in my sight and presence; guiding me away from temptation. This has been going on for many, many, years now. . . . Are heterosexual males really this 'straight'?!! I keep the question in my heart.

If so, I can admit I admire what I see in this one regard.

Are heterosexual males really this 'straight'?!!

Seems to me that sexual orientation is very complex.  I know that the extremes exist (for example, there is nothing about males that I find attractive;  I am perpetually in wonder as to what women see in men).    But there are quite a few individuals who are attracted in various degrees to people regardless of plumbing (and other characteristics).

I can only speak for myself, but it seems to me that most ‘straight’ men really are not attracted (sexually) to other men in any significant way.    The prison phenomena strikes me as heterosexual men acting against their individual natures due to extreme circumstances ... or maybe it is a power thing.   Do not know and plan to never know.

There are variants all up and down the spectrum.

Interesting.  Yet still, frankly, it has been a 'hard life' coming of age homosexually in our country - this last century! People remark on how 'easy' it is now to be 'one,' but remember this imaginary "hetero-pill" would straighten out, pun intended, a lot of confusions throughout. "Gay people" were not always "happy" and certainly not sufficiently loved.

Anyway, it's a whimiscal thought.

There are variants all up and down the spectrum.

Indeed, life is inherently multi-faceted and complex.   Human beings especially come in many flavors.   We are nowadays starting to realize what that actually means.

I read an article this morning about a middle school bully and why he bullied people. It was to hide his own sexuality.

Was a good read,  need to seed it.

A little off topic but I worked with a guy that admitted to me one day that he liked women with hairy legs. Said it felt good and comforting...

Different strokes for different folks...Haha

Here is a flavor. "Flame Monroe." This "woman" has two children by "baby momas," an adopted son, and loves female. . ."wetness" down there.  Additionally, loves her male 'relations' too.

This humor is a 'slice' of a larger 'tale' about this 'drag personality' (oh, yes, the breasts are real).

CAUTION: STRONG LANGUAGE (But will make you laugh your head off!)

life is inherently multi-faceted and complex. 

Life is also an inherently depreciating asset.

Haha

That is for sure.   I like how most women today manage their body hair (and other things). 

Question: If there existed a pill to make a homosexual, heterosexual would "I" take it?

Yeah, some of the stuff they say just blows my mind. The first one that got me was this comment from Mike Wallace, where he says:

The average homosexual (if there be such) is promiscuous. He is not interested in, nor capable of a lasting relationship like that of a heterosexual marriage.

I feel like the room shook when my jaw hit the floor. He is entirely convinced of the notion that homosexuality is deviant and twisted.

Charles Socarides, who appears in the show, is one of the most prominent members of a chain of psychoanalysts who perpetrated the myth of homosexuality as pathological - based entirely on either their own imaginings or on their experiences with a handful of homosexual patients who were already seeing them for some actual mental illness. There was never any science behind it at all. No true studies. Their "work" elevated anti-LGBT hatred to a level I don't think the human race has ever seen before. And to this day, the people who promote reparative therapy still see this guy as some kind of hero.

The average homosexual (if there be such) is promiscuous. He is not interested in, nor capable of a lasting relationship like that of a heterosexual marriage.

Yeah, I planned to come to that 'comment' next. (Majority) heterosexuals around the world set the 'plate' for homosexuals just so: (bathhouses/bushes/"down-low") that marriage or reputable livelihood was OUT OF RANGE. Only then, did those and other generations of heterosexuals maintaining the status quo sat to take analysis.

That is: "Yes. It seems the homosexual male, specifically, is promiscuous and loves a multiplicity of partners. Never do they connect the 'dots' that they set it up just that way that two men (in a long-term loving relationship) living together for too long would be considered "queer" and both would be stigmatized and subsequently ostracized from 'upward' society.

They 'manufacture' the "wed-less" queen or butch-men and then "poo-poo" her and him for displaying aggression.

Good seed.

It's worth noting that the King James Version, considered divinely inspired by many fundamentalists, does not use the word ''homosexual'':

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

This is pretty . . touching if you can 'receive it.' I spent many years watching Shawn Michaels style/antics in the ring, but I just dug out his testimony of faith.

This is. . . moving (gave me chills): Too many people "change" (turn and go the other way) for it not to be evidence of . . . . I have my own change story, twenty-seven years and counting. And, like Shawn M.,  I am alive to tell it.