Which bible version are you using as your reference, I prefer one that has the closest possible translation from Hebrew, In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee.". The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some form of anal sex with other men. But they do not agree on the full scope of the forbidden activities. For example: The Living Bible greatly widens the scope of the original Hebrew to include all homosexual acts by both men and women. They confuse the matter further by not differentiating between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior. They render the first part of this verse as: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden." On the other hand, many religious liberals have interpreted the beginning of this verse as referring only to sexual activities between two males during a Pagan temple ritual. If there were a liberal translation of the Bible, it might say "Ritual anal sex between two men in a Pagan temple is forbidden." The second part of this verse explains what type of sin this transgression falls under. There are two types of sin in the Mosaic Code: Moral sin is produced by rebellion against God. This seems to be the interpretation of most biblical translations imply when they translate the Hebrew "toeyvah" in this verse into English words such as "abomination," "enormous sin," or "detestable." Ceremonial uncleanliness is caused by contact with a forbidden object or by engaging in a behavior which might be quite acceptable to non-Hebrews, but which was forbidden to the Children of Israel. Eating birds of prey, eating shellfish, cross breeding livestock, picking up sticks on a Saturday, planting a mixture of seeds in a field, and wearing clothing that is a blend of two textiles are examples of acts of ritual impurity which made a Child of Israel unclean. These were not necessarily minor sins; some called for the ancient Israelite to be executed or expelled from the tribe. Religious conservatives and Bible translators tend to interpret this transgression as a moral sin. The King James Bible is typical; it calls sex between to men to be an "abomination." However, others interpret it as a ceremonial uncleanliness -- as an impurity, ritual impurity, or act that results in ceremonial uncleanliness. So again you need to read the verse in full and in context, preferably from a source that is a true, as possible, translation from the original Hebrew, then you will perhaps see, though I doubt it, that you are adhering to one interpretation. You simply cannot say that the interpretation you abide by is correct for everyone for that would be a lie. Furthermore as stated before, which you ignored, Christians are no held by laws within the OT, you may choose to follow them .. but I bet you only follow the ones that you personally agree with .. or you may not follow them, either way what you decide to follow does not mean you are 100% right and everyone else is wrong.
well if people disagree with me, they are wrong. Ah religion, making megalomaniacs out of bigots for millennia.
Herein lies the problem, far to many Christians have only ever read their particular version of the bible without even thinking who translated and wrote it, it does not take very much for the person to have a personal issue with homosexuality to add extra words, as has been done in the King James version, to influence future generations. The verse in question is, unfortunately, incomplete. Its precise meaning is ambiguous. The phrase "lay lyings" has no obvious interpretation. Attempts have been made to make sense out of the original Hebrew by inserting a short phrase into the verse. For example: The Net Bible translation inserts two words to produce "And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman." A man must not have sexual intercourse with another man as he would normally have with a woman. i.e. anal intercourse between two men is not permitted. From this literal, word for word translation, they produce a smoother English version: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman." An alternative translation would insert a different pair of words to produce: "And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman." That is, two men must not engage in sexual behavior on a woman's bed. Presumably, they must go elsewhere to have sex; a woman's bed was sacred and was to be reserved for opposite-gender sexual behavior.
The problem is few Christians have even read the bible to begin with. They believe what they are told by a preacher that cherry picked bits out of context to back up their own opinions. Dare I say, it seems to mirror a confederation of dunces.
Oh yes that is certainly a problem .. but even those who do read it don't realize that the version they are reading has been "changed" to suit. Even those who have read it do this.
Same here .. I actually started studies to become a Vicar, until I actually took the time to research other bible interpretations .. it was at that time that I realized that organized religion is nothing more than a means of control .. suffice to say I ceased my studies.
indeed, it was only upon truly studying the bible, but more than that, truly seeking God that I realized organized religions are smoke and mirrors. More than that, in the past they existed to simply hold a thumb on the subjects of a monarchy. With monarchies outliving their usefulness religion had to regroup to remain relevant, so after the renaissance and the evangelical movement it became an affirmation device. Something sorely needed in a post modern world. It only serves to help people think they are good people in spite of the vicious things they do. All this side if a religion must inject itself into the laws of a republic it either needs to be rebuked or crushed because it is an enemy of the state and seditious in its very nature.
You are correct, however it really depends on which bible version you are reading or take the quote from as each of the bibles has various interpretations through out, in the case of this verse Lev. 18:22 when read in conjunction with the rest of the verses and in context does not say what anti-homosexuals think it does. I prefer one that has the closest possible translation from Hebrew, In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee.". The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some form of anal sex with other men. But they do not agree on the full scope of the forbidden activities. For example: The Living Bible greatly widens the scope of the original Hebrew to include all homosexual acts by both men and women. They confuse the matter further by not differentiating between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior. They render the first part of this verse as: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden." On the other hand, many religious liberals have interpreted the beginning of this verse as referring only to sexual activities between two males during a Pagan temple ritual. If there were a liberal translation of the Bible, it might say "Ritual anal sex between two men in a Pagan temple is forbidden." The second part of this verse explains what type of sin this transgression falls under. There are two types of sin in the Mosaic Code: Moral sin is produced by rebellion against God. This seems to be the interpretation of most biblical translations imply when they translate the Hebrew "toeyvah" in this verse into English words such as "abomination," "enormous sin," or "detestable." Ceremonial uncleanliness is caused by contact with a forbidden object or by engaging in a behavior which might be quite acceptable to non-Hebrews, but which was forbidden to the Children of Israel. Eating birds of prey, eating shellfish, cross breeding livestock, picking up sticks on a Saturday, planting a mixture of seeds in a field, and wearing clothing that is a blend of two textiles are examples of acts of ritual impurity which made a Child of Israel unclean. These were not necessarily minor sins; some called for the ancient Israelite to be executed or expelled from the tribe. Religious conservatives and Bible translators tend to interpret this transgression as a moral sin. The King James Bible is typical; it calls sex between to men to be an "abomination." However, others interpret it as a ceremonial uncleanliness -- as an impurity, ritual impurity, or act that results in ceremonial uncleanliness. The verse in question is, unfortunately, incomplete. Its precise meaning is ambiguous. The phrase "lay lyings" has no obvious interpretation. Attempts have been made to make sense out of the original Hebrew by inserting a short phrase into the verse. For example: The Net Bible translation inserts two words to produce "And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman." A man must not have sexual intercourse with another man as he would normally have with a woman. i.e. anal intercourse between two men is not permitted. From this literal, word for word translation, they produce a smoother English version: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman." An alternative translation would insert a different pair of words to produce: "And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman." That is, two men must not engage in sexual behavior on a woman's bed. Presumably, they must go elsewhere to have sex; a woman's bed was sacred and was to be reserved for opposite-gender sexual behavior. It all really relies on which bible interpretative translation the person is reading. The other thing that most Christians fail to acknowledge is that they are not bound by the laws of the OT, they may choose to follow them if they wish, though I would suggest that most only follow the laws of the OT that they want to and the ones that they perceive as aligning with their own agenda .. such as Lev. 18:22
Yes, but as I mentioned before, those are not the words of Jesus. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality himself (at least in what is written). There are Christians, whom consider themselves followers of Christ (not Leviticus) that believe since Jesus did not mention homosexuality it is not a sin.
Just proves a point that the only ones who insist their particular interpretation of their particular bible is the right one are in utter denial of anything else.
