How does the Bible NOT condemn homosexuality?

Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”
6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.
9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”
11 “No, Lord,” she said.
And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

"For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ...Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way."

 

^That verse should be the end to this thread.It should be the second post and that be the end of it.
33 pages later:Here it is.

 

Alexander was Bi-sexual as were a lot of Greeks back then.

AA

- - - Updated - - -

This is assuming homosexuality is a sin.

Homosexuality has been observed in over 1000 different species of nature.

AA

 

I thought homosexuality IS same sex behavior. And even if it isn't, if it condemns the act then everyone is under that restraint.

I would like to see verses treating women as non equal.

- - - Updated - - -

So? Incest, rape, inter species sex, pedophilia, and murder have been observed in nature too.

 

The KJV uses the masoretic text.

 

Where in the title does it claim anything?

No it wasn't.

Where?

Oh and I suppose dropping the F bomb everywhere is not affecting your Christian witness.

I didn't think it was nonsense.

What? How am I'm lying to myself?

God isn't the only one with supernatural powers. If he was satan would've been shot and killed by a machine gun by now.

How am I'm lying to myself.

How did they strayed from scripture?

No, he did it supernaturally. The same way the demons entered the man that Jesus casted into the pigs.

That's a discussion for another thread but I beg to differ.

- - - Updated - - -

They weren't science as the link proved.

 

Incest...all the time.
Rape...absolutely.
Inter-species sex....yep!
Pedophilia....well this is a human concept but it happens in nature all the time.
Murder....all the time.

And why would you want to see verses or anything treating woman non equal?

AA

 

In the entire title

I don't have any witnesses, that's the watch tower.

You aren't having to read it.

Telling yourself lies.

This statement makes no sense.

This doesn't make sense.

So Satan possessed the snake? why then were snakes cursed?

Beg all you want it doesn't change reality.

Claims aren't proof.

 

Doesn't actually change anything.

וְאֶת־זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכַּב מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תּוֹעֵבָה הִוא
w'et-zäkhär lo tish'Kav mish'K'vëy iSHäh Tôëväh hiw

The ambiguity of the text still remains.

 

Heterosexuals take part in same sex behavior, too.

 

Heterosexuals take part in same sex behavior, too.

There wasn't an understanding of homosexuality at that time. So, one can understand the Biblical call for "natural" to be important. Same sex behavior IS what is natural for someone who is same sex oriented.

In fact, heterosexual behavior from a same sex oriented individual would be considered unnatural.


By now we've learned that it is more complicated than that, as there is a spectrum of orientation and it doesn't have to match any particular point in the spectrum that exists for physical features. And, making laws against people having fulfilling intimate relations with a significant other is just not acceptable when the only excuse is that they were born with a combination of physical and mental features that are less commonly found together.

On the other hand, the Biblical call is also in opposition to prison sex, sex with one's students (as per Greeks), wild partying, and other cases of sex oriented to nothing but personal gratification, and that seems consistent with other calls from religion for chastity.

 

Here's a starter set from the new testament by Paul, Peter and Timothy:

1 Timothy 2:12 - But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

1 Peter 3:1-22 - Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands;

Ephesians 5:22-24 - Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

Colossians 3:18 - Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

1 Peter 3:7 - Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

 

I'm assuming that's Hebrew, but Google Translate totally hashes it.

Clues?

 

That is Lev 18:22 from masoretic text.

 

To back up the claim that the Bible treats women unequally.

- - - Updated - - -

You know, this is way off topic. Lets start over. Why do you believe the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality? And before you start up "you prove your claim first" I already did by going by the plain reading of the text.

- - - Updated - - -

And that translates verbatim as what?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, and? That only confirms my stance that no one should participate in homosexual behavior.

- - - Updated - - -

To which I agree to the last paragraph. So what are we disagreeing about?

 

Best I can find on this subject is this.

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/45688-does-1-timothy-2-12-really-say-women-can-t-teach-in-church

Men are told to love and wives are told to submit. The reason is that men tend to not love and women tend to not submit. Now it isn't saying that you should submit with no question especially if he tells you to do something against God's word.

The first part praises women and the second part is true. On average women are weaker in strength and more apt to be emotional. Sorry, that's how it works. There's nothing wrong with it though.

 

I have been over this already, but I'll do it again.

I dint believe it condemned homosexuality because they're is no evidence of it.

Further the bible was edited in the 19th century, as its constantly edited, to forbid the new concept of homosexuals

The concept of a naturally homosexual person didn't exist when the bible was written so it's rather asinine to jarrymander it into the book and say it was always there.

 

It does mean that, but it also means the attraction to the same sex. It's all about context.

It also commands you to stone people to death for having sex on their menstrual cycle. But you don't do that. You don't even advocate for that. So they're ate parts of the bible you reject because they are completely immoral.

 

“You shall not lie with (shakab-ושכ&#1489 mankind as with (mishkab-משכ&#1489 womankind; it is an abomination."

The problems arise with how the two words shown are translated.
Tthe Hebrew word “shakab” (שכ&#1489 which is translated in English “to lie with” has many definitions, (to rest, to sleep, to relax, to lie down in death, to bury, to make one lie down) not all with a sexual nature. Second, other verses in Leviticus with sexual meaning translated “to lie with” use another word, “shekobeth” (שכבת&#1498, which literally and only means “sexual intercourse” or “copulation.” Shekobeth is used for such things as adultery (Leviticus 18:20) and bestiality (Leviticus 18:23). It is interesting that the word shekobeth was not used in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 if it indeed meant that man should not have sex with another man. Third, the word mishkab (משכ&#1489 translated in these verses as a comparison to “as with” or “like as” one lies with a woman, yet the word itself is a noun meaning bed, couch or resting place and is stated 46 times in 44 verses.

It is easy to lean the sexual context of the word since it can be found 213 times in 194 verses in the Bible. Referring back to the definitions, many verses (101) used shakab to simply “lie down to sleep.” A good portion (51) of the verses used shakab as “to lie down in death.” There are 52 incidences in which shakab is used in a sexual context, mainly “to make one lie down,” which by modern definition would be RAPE. The other verses out of these 52 are sexual acts characterized by coercion and/or a deceptive act to sexually lure committed or married person away from their mate. So the context of shakab is very specific to rape, coerced sex or sex masked in some type of adulterous deception and is never used as just common intercourse

Therefore, going back to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in the context of what we see in sexual incidences of the word shakab-שכב, it is likely that these verses could literally mean that a man should not rape or force sex upon another man.

Another extremely important point is that the English translations have replaced some words with “filler words” to help the text make sense, but their “fillers” are completely misleading. When we see “You shall not lie with mankind AS WITH womankind” or “you shall not lie with a man LIKE AS a woman,” the “as with” and “like as” are filler words (i.e. completely absent from the original text.) These words exist in the Hebrew language to use a comparison, but they are not used in the verses in Leviticus. Due to this, the translators have taking the liberty to make up their own meaning by comparing lying with a man with as with a woman. So when we see the Hebrew word mishkab-משכב, the meaning is simply “bed” or “lying place,” NOT “like as” or “as with.”

Therefore we have the common translation, that relies on filler words and a translation of a word that does not appear anywhere else in the bible in the same context as in Lev 18:22



And the alternative translation of which nearly all words are based on the most common Biblical Hebrew translation of the word, except shakab which is based solely on the contextual definition used within all the verses of the Bible.



The meaning of the literal translation would be “Against man, no lie bed woman/wife, abomination it (or he/she.)” knowing that the word for “lie” has a context of rape, coerced sex, or deceptive luring of someone else’s mate, it could very well be that the verse is condemning men from sleeping with another man’s wife. When other verses state not to commit adultery AGAINST ones spouse, this could be a verse about an unmarried man who would not be committing adultery against his own spouse, but rather committing an act against another man who is the husband of the wife he is sleeping with. Thus it would be “against any man, do not lie in the bed of his wife."

Source - https://moanti.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/gaychristians/

 

As long as you recognize homosexuality as being a natural state of man (as the RCC confirms) and thus support their full rights of citizenship and equality under the law (including marriage) I'd say we're in agreement on the important issue here.

 

Your response to Timothy is too narrow. The idea of women not usurping men is a clear statement of inferiority of women.

Your suggestion that it is distinctly women who do not submit enough and thus need special admonishment to do so is preposterous and illogical.

No, those verses show a very definite and subservient role for women without even a hint that there should be equality.

 

To love someone is not a sin, however, in an effort to Demonize Gay People, haters reduce Gay People to a mere Sex act, that way you can dehumanize people in a loving relationship and have a reason to kill them.
Compare two People in a loving relationship to crimes and corruption, accuse Gay People of impairing morals and corrupting young people.

Heterosexuals, married with children have committed heinous sex crimes against children as have clergy and other related positions within churches, something not practiced nor advocated by Gay People.

 

How naive can you be? Homosexuality is thoroughly condemned in Scripture,.

 

Doesn't really matter does it?


Rightwing Christians are supporting Donald Trump for President....THE most pro-gay rights Republican Nominee in decades, maybe ever.

They've already chosen sides.....Trump over The Bible (their version of it)

 

First off how does the plain reading of the text isn't enough evidence? and second your statement contradicts what you said below. You admit at least any Bible after the 19th century condemns same sex behavior.

I agree the KJV has been edited for grammar and such in the 19th century but do you have evidence that it added homosexuality as a sin?

Evidence?

- - - Updated - - -

Where does it says that? Even if it did said that had it ever occurred to you that God know more than you and he knows why committing that act is punishable by death which I still like to see proof for?