Religion and Gay Marriages

[Gil Hamilton]

Well, obviously socio-political (so is most things), but I'm curious on why people say that the Bible and the Christian faith itself forbids it.

[jegs2]

Well, obviously socio-political (so is most things), but I'm curious on why people say that the Bible and the Christian faith itself forbids it.

While the Bible does not expressly forbid marriage of homosexuals, it does describe homosexuality as a sin:

1 Corinthians 6:9
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.

Leviticus 18
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Romans 1:26-27
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Edited for code correction...

[Gil Hamilton]

Ah, OK. You know, it says a whole lot more that being a non believer of any sort is a major sin (much more than it even mentions homosexuality). Does that mean from a Christian perspective, that mean that people of different religions or atheists are forbidden to marry as well?

[Darth Wong]

Just about every damned thing is defined as a sin somewhere in the Bible. I don't see people getting thrown out of church because they don't obey their parents.

[jegs2]

Ah, OK. You know, it says a whole lot more that being a non believer of any sort is a major sin (much more than it even mentions homosexuality). Does that mean from a Christian perspective, that mean that people of different religions or atheists are forbidden to marry as well?

Don't care what those outside the Faith do.

[Gil Hamilton]

Don't care what those outside the Faith do.

But you do care what gays do, even though non-believers are spoken out against far more in the Bible? If you are against gay marriage because the Bible defines homosexuality as a sin, you should logically be even more against a non-believer getting married.

[jegs2]

Don't care what those outside the Faith do.

But you do care what gays do, even though non-believers are spoken out against far more in the Bible?

If the homosexual in question claims no allegience to Christ, no I don't.

If you are against gay marriage because the Bible defines homosexuality as a sin, you should logically be even more against a non-believer getting married.

Why? If the person in question isn' t of the Faith, why should they be subject to the scrutiny of those who claim allegience to Christ? That would be analogous to my chewing out a civilian for failing to salute me. They aren't in the military, so why should I expect it?

[BrYaN19kc]

Well, obviously socio-political (so is most things), but I'm curious on why people say that the Bible and the Christian faith itself forbids it.

While the Bible does not expressly forbid marriage of homosexuals, it does describe homosexuality as a sin:

1 Corinthians 6:9
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.

Leviticus 18
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Romans 1:26-27
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Edited for code correction...

Sorry, but the word "homosexual" was not even in existence during biblical times. What translation are you using any way? Considering the word was not in existance at the time, the meaning in this translation is skewed.

[Sobbastchianno]

Well, obviously socio-political (so is most things), but I'm curious on why people say that the Bible and the Christian faith itself forbids it.

While the Bible does not expressly forbid marriage of homosexuals, it does describe homosexuality as a sin:

1 Corinthians 6:9
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.

Leviticus 18
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Romans 1:26-27
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Edited for code correction...

Sorry, but the word "homosexual" was not even in existence during biblical times. What translation are you using any way? Considering the word was not in existance at the time, the meaning in this translation is skewed.

BrYaN19kc is right. The word "homosexual" was coined in the 19th century. Neither Greek, Latin, nor Hebrew (the three main languages of the Bible) have a word that even comes close to meaning homosexual. Now, there are words in each language for homosexual acts, just as there are for heterosexual acts. There are words in all three for different types of male, and female prostitutes. It is the words used for male homosexual acts performed by male temple prostitutes, that are translated into the word "homosexual." Translating in this manner (which is erroneous) totally takes that act, and the purpose for it, out of context.

Back in Ancient Hebrew times, the idea of a consenting, loving, same sex relationship was foreign (not wrong mind you, foreign). Not that same sex relatiionships are new. Hell, the story of how Kind David loved Jonathan could be taken to mean they were in love with each other (and I am not stretching at all when I say this, I was raised Orthodox and I do read and understand Biblical Hebrew). I have stated on other threads, there are LOOSELY six admonishments to homosexuals in the Bible. There are some 365 sexual conduct admonishments to Heterosexual. It isn't that God doesn't love the homosexual, he just seems to think that heterosexuals need more guidance.

Personally, I don't believe the Bible was written, inspired, or translated by God, if in fact there even is a god.

[jegs2]

Sorry, but the word "homosexual" was not even in existence during biblical times. What translation are you using any way? Considering the word was not in existance at the time, the meaning in this translation is skewed.

1 Corinthians 6:9
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.

Leviticus 18
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Romans 1:26-27
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

I thought the first one might leave room for doubt as to the definition, but since it is an NIV translation, the meaning should be accurate enough. The second leaves no room for doubt, and the third passage seems clear enough. What appears to be skewed?

[jegs2]

Here is the background on the NIV translation of the Bible.

[AdmiralKanos]

I thought the first one might leave room for doubt as to the definition, but since it is an NIV translation, the meaning should be accurate enough. The second leaves no room for doubt, and the third passage seems clear enough. What appears to be skewed?

Not to get involved in a discussion over a Bible to which I do not personally subscribe, but quote #1 and quote #3 are from Paul, who is not Jesus and whose only authority is as a church father. He also said that he does not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; do you consider it immoral if a Christian woman teaches a college course?

If we do not take Paul as authoritative, your quote list gets cut down to just one: Leviticus. And Levitical law forbids a great many things, including the eating of shellfish. Do you consider that immoral for Christians?

[Sobbastchianno]

Here is the background on the NIV translation of the Bible.

Jegs2, you are TOTALLY missing the point, which is that there is no such word as homosexual in any of the languages in which biblical text was originally written. So, yes there is wiggle room

As to how you translate the second one from Leviticus, if you are a Christian, doesn' t matter, because Jesus was the fulfillment of the Old Testament, and as such, the laws no longer apply, and Jeses never said WORD ONE about homosexual relatiionships, pro or con, which would indicate it wasn't an issue.

Aside from all of that, honestly, we live in a country where we have a constitutional separation of church and state, so no law pertaining to civil rights should ever be based on biblical text, for ANY segment of society.

[jegs2]

Not to get involved in a discussion over a Bible to which I do not personally subscribe, but quote #1 and quote #3 are from Paul, who is not Jesus and whose only authority is as a church father. He also said that he does not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; do you consider it immoral if a Christian woman teaches a college course?

While I do disagree with some of what Paul said, I still believe much of what he said was divinely inspired, and his letter concerning homosexuals does have basis in Leviticus (I've yet to find any basis for his comment on women remaining silent in the church, with their heads covered). I believe Paul's words concerning women in authority applied only to leadership within the church.

If we do not take Paul as authoritative, your quote list gets cut down to just one: Leviticus. And Levitical law forbids a great many things, including the eating of shellfish. Do you consider that immoral for Christians?

If one doesn't take any of Paul's letters as authoritative, then you have a point. Yes, Levitical law does name a great many sins, including the eating of shellfish, but the following is why that is no longer considered a sin for Christians:


Acts 10:9-16
9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray.
10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance.
11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners.
12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air.
13 Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14 "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
(NIV)

This passage is believed to have a dual meaning. First, foods previously considered unclean are now clean. Secondly, Gentiles (non-Jews) were considered clean, whereas before, Jews had considered them unclean.

[LadyTevar]

Here is the background on the NIV translation of the Bible.

If I was mean, I could go into a rant I heard one deacon give about how the *only* translation of the Bible is and should be the KJV.

King James put it this way: (All italics and other grammer exactly as written)

1Cor, 6:9
"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 themselfs with mankind,"

Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"

Romans 1: 26-27
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another: men with men working that which is un-seemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

[AdmiralKanos]

How can anybody read that KJV version? You spend half your time trying to figure out what the hell they're saying.

[jegs2]

As to how you translate the second one from Leviticus, if you are a Christian, doesn' t matter, because Jesus was the fulfillment of the Old Testament, and as such, the laws no longer apply, and Jeses never said WORD ONE about homosexual relatiionships, pro or con, which would indicate it wasn't an issue.

You are partially correct. Jesus said the following concerning the law:


Matt 5:17-18
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
(NIV)

The law is still in effect, and sin remains sin, but Jesus paid the penalty for that sin, so that those who believe in him do not fall under condemnation:


John 3:17-18
17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
(NIV)

Aside from all of that, honestly, we live in a country where we have a constitutional separation of church and state, so no law pertaining to civil rights should ever be based on biblical text, for ANY segment of society.

You are correct. Law in a free society should be based on the popular will of that society.

[AdmiralKanos]

This passage is believed to have a dual meaning. First, foods previously considered unclean are now clean. Secondly, Gentiles (non-Jews) were considered clean, whereas before, Jews had considered them unclean.

So how do we know that homosexuals are not now considered clean? After all, it's a bit of a stretch to interpret that passage to describe Gentiles when it only mentions animals, so why not include homosexuals?

[LadyTevar]

Not to get involved in a discussion over a Bible to which I do not personally subscribe, but quote #1 and quote #3 are from Paul, who is not Jesus and whose only authority is as a church father. He also said that he does not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; do you consider it immoral if a Christian woman teaches a college course?

While I do disagree with some of what Paul said, I still believe much of what he said was divinely inspired, and his letter concerning homosexuals does have basis in Leviticus (I've yet to find any basis for his comment on women remaining silent in the church, with their heads covered). I believe Paul's words concerning women in authority applied only to leadership within the church.

If we do not take Paul as authoritative, your quote list gets cut down to just one: Leviticus. And Levitical law forbids a great many things, including the eating of shellfish. Do you consider that immoral for Christians?

If one doesn't take any of Paul's letters as authoritative, then you have a point. Yes, Levitical law does name a great many sins, including the eating of shellfish, but the following is why that is no longer considered a sin for Christians:

(snip Acts 10: 9-16)

This passage is believed to have a dual meaning. First, foods previously considered unclean are now clean. Secondly, Gentiles (non-Jews) were considered clean, whereas before, Jews had considered them unclean.

If only people would remember the rest of that Chapter:

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.


Edit: No, I didn't forget to capitalize the references to God as 'him'. I think the type-setter did, or something, because that's as printed.

[jegs2]

So how do we know that homosexuals are not now considered clean? After all, it's a bit of a stretch to interpret that passage to describe Gentiles when it only mentions animals, so why not include homosexuals?

Homosexuality is described as an act in the Bible (man lying with a man as one lies with a woman). If a person with homosexual tendencies did not practice the act, then it would not be a sin. Gentiles are simply people who aren't Jews.

[jegs2]

If only people would remember the rest of that Chapter:

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.


Edit: No, I didn't forget to capitalize the references to God as 'him'. I think the type-setter did, or something, because that's as printed.

Yikes, KJV! Now for a more modern translation:

Acts 10:34-35
34 Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism
35 but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.
(NIV)

Ahhhh, modern English. Sorry, I've no affinity for the KJV...

[LadyTevar]

This passage is believed to have a dual meaning. First, foods previously considered unclean are now clean. Secondly, Gentiles (non-Jews) were considered clean, whereas before, Jews had considered them unclean.

So how do we know that homosexuals are not now considered clean? After all, it's a bit of a stretch to interpret that passage to describe Gentiles when it only mentions animals, so why not include homosexuals?

My apologies, Kanos, but that whole Chapter starts out with:

"There was a certain man in Cæ-sa-re-a called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway"

It continues with a vision from God to Cornelius, telling him to seek out Peter. Peter gets his vision just before the men Cornelius send to fetch him arrive. The Chapter ends with:

45 "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that thee should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Therefore, it's not a "Stretch" to Gentiles

[LadyTevar]

Yikes, KJV! Now for a more modern translation:
(snip)
Ahhhh, modern English. Sorry, I've no affinity for the KJV...

Pity. It kinda helps that I've been around longer than the NIV, so when I was learning to read in school, I was learning to read the KJV in Sunday School

[AdmiralKanos]

Okay, is there a similar passage explicitly declaring that it's now OK for a farmer to plant two kinds of seed in one field?

[jegs2]

Okay, is there a similar passage explicitly declaring that it's now OK for a farmer to plant two kinds of seed in one field?

I don't know -- honestly haven't thought about that one, but I'll try to find out...

This is the verse to which you refer:


Lev 19:19
19 "'Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
(NIV)

My initial analysis is that those laws were intended only for the theocracy/kingdom of Israel, but that is by no means certain. Most of us wear clothing woven of two or more types of material.