<p>Well, I know this is going to get me some heat, but, here it goes.</p>
<p>I think the Bible needs to be taken in context. The passages in Leviticus are almost certainly talking about the act of pederasty, not gayness as we know it today. Thoughts?</p>
<p>I disagree.</p>
<p>[Leviticus</a> 18 and homosexuality](<a href=“http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lev18.html]Leviticus”>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lev18.html)</p>
<p>Leviticus is explicitly against homosexuality.</p>
<p>Leviticus is the worst source of laws ever. I doubt many anti-gay Christians have even really read the thing. These are probably the same Protestants who don’t know who Martin Luther is and the same Catholics who don’t know what transubstantiation is.</p>
<p>Your argument talks about the ignorance of humans, not about the validity (or lack of) of Leviticus.</p>
<p>It’s hard to say exactly what the people who originally put the Bible together meant, but I’m pretty sure Leviticus was talking about homosexuality as we know it. There are other parts of the Old Testament that also speak against homosexuality (think about Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah). However, most modern Christians disregard significant portions of the Old Testament.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never really understood why they do that.</p>
<p>@Blue_Box You’re not a friend of the LGBT community are you, I cann tell from your posts, so I’m going to clarify your thoughts on the subject. The word “abomination” did not exist at the time the Bible was written, the word in the original hebrew was “Toevah” which translates roughly to “Ritualistically Unclean.” This was the same phrase used regarding how long a man should refrain from sleeping with a woman following her period. A large number of scholars today believe that this passage refers not to all homosexual sex, but explicitly to rape, and only applied to the high priests of the Levite temples anyway. </p>
<p>So in conclusion, respectfully, you’re wrong. I have more if you’re interested.</p>
<p>Why would anyone want to be gay in the first place?Its just so wrong and misguided.Can’t all people of this nature see its a form of extincting man?</p>
<p>Christians aren’t Orthodox Jews, so they won’t be following all parts of the Torah as closely. Banning homosexuality was a good way to ensure the continuation of the Israelites, not a sure thing when it was written. If the local Canaanites practiced homosexuality, the law would help the Israelites remain a distinct and separate society, as the dietary restrictions did. It’s very difficult to be assimilated when you cannot share a meal.</p>
<p>Also masterpiecealex, any sex not intended for reproduction, even heterosexual sex had for enjoyment, does not serve an evolutionary purpose. Actually, it would hurt evolution; the more sex one has, the more likely one is to catch a debilitating STD like HIV.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You say that like it’s a bad thing. If by “friend” you mean an active participant in the LGBT community, or someone involved in their causes, then no I’m not. I support their right to choose. Just like I support my right to choose heterosexuality.
As for the rest of your post, it was interesting. I didn’t know that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are 18 year olds so ignorant nowadays? I see you’re homeschooled. Are you evangelical Christian?</p>
<p>Sorry. This is a personal belief. This sort of question is going to turn into a battle.
I don’t believe in gay marriage because I am a Catholic. I do, however, believe that God has the final words about what is right and wrong. I believe that God will has the judgment over who is eligible to enter Heaven and who isn’t. But because the Church teaches us not to support gay marriage, I too, follow this path.</p>
<p>I do, however, as a Christian, respect the lives of others.</p>
<p>@blue_box – I meant more or less someone who is supportive of people who are LGBT, even in a live and let live sort of way. I apologize, I misjudged, your response to masterpiecealex suggests you would be considered a friend.</p>
<p>blue_box said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Bible is historically, scientifically, and morally indefensible if taken at face value. </p>
<p>The hard thing for Christians, ESPECIALLY for Protestants since their religion is founded on the sole authority of the Bible, is that when they start to admit the fallibility of the Bible, the whole basis of their religion kind of falls apart. Besides the Bible, what source do Christians have to believe in the divinity of Christ and all those other key elements of Christianity? If the Garden of Eden is a metaphor, then why is not Jesus Christ himself a similar metaphor?</p>
<p>“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:28-31</p>
<p>I have yet to find a passage in the Bible telling people to go out and condemn the gays for their lifestyle. I have read many times about loving your neighbor and not judging people otherwise you too shall be judged. As far as I am concerned I don’t think it matters if a person is gay or straight and it’s not going to change the way I would treat them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Book of Leviticus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To clarify: homosexuals are ritualistically unclean?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I did not find this mentioned anywhere in the passages.</p>
<p>The Book of Leviticus is speaking about the act of pederasty - involving conquering armies taking the young men from the other side as sex slaves. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. If it did condemn the whole of homosexuality, wouldn’t it specifically speak to lesbianism?</p>
<p>I think all we proven here is who on CC wants to believe that homosexuality is a sin.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is this just your interpretation of Leviticus? None of the articles I’ve read about Leviticus say that 20:13 is talking about pederasty, and not homosexuality.</p>
<p>^Okay apparantly my post from earlier got zapped, I was tired annd didn’t say what I wanted to the way I wanted to say it. </p>
<p>To clarify: Homosexual RAPE is considered “toevah” towards the levite high priests. </p>
<p>But I’ll play the game. Let’s just assume here for a moment, it meant all homosexuals as a broad category. Let’s just assume here for a minute it wasn’t talking about homosexual rape. Even if we assume both of these things, Homosexuality is “toevah” which makes it no more sinful than sleeping with a woman too soon after her period (or the woman herself). Do we really care about that in modern Christianity? No, I don’t really hear about that. I’m not a doctor so I can’t be 100% sure of the chance of illness, but to my knowledge, there’s just a “squick” factor. </p>
<p>Therefore/QED/In Conclusion: Since Homosexuality is toevah just as a woman after her period (and the sleeping with her part)… you have two things you can do from here
<p>If you can’t pick 2, you must pick 1. This is a forced choice because otherwise you just fall into hypocrisy. </p>
<p>Furthermore, this is just under the assumption that it’s not referring to raping high priests, you NEED that assumption just to reach this choice. Removing the assumption just leaves people hating gays over a law that doesn’t even apply to them. That makes any argument dead in the water before it starts because Leviticus can’t even be used as evidence against gays any longer. To make Leviticus apply to all gays, you have to qualify it. Occam’s razor says easiest solution is often the right one, if I have to add qualifiers (not referring to rape; not referring just to high priests) just to make the argument reach a logically valid conclusion then that’s reaching and makes the argument itself even weaker.</p>
<p>Itachirumon: Your argument is based on the fact that some (or most) Christians don’t regard sleeping with a woman during (or too soon after) her period as great a sin as homosexuality.
I wasn’t even arguing about that. Just because they don’t consider it a sin, doesn’t mean Leviticus doesn’t consider it a sin.
The point I’m trying to make is that Leviticus considers both homosexuality and sleeping with a woman during her period “unclean”. Hence the word toevah is used to describe both. There can be varying degrees of unclean, but we don’t go into that.</p>
<p>The high priest doesn’t even enter the situation. I still don’t know where Leviticus talks about toevah referring only to high priests.</p>
<p>So your point (2) is what should happen. What’s happening (and I don’t understand why its happening) is that those Christians who gang up on homosexuals aren’t also ganging up on those who sleep with a woman during her period.
While there are some who disregard Leviticus altogether, and have no problems with homosexuality (which is great, but they’re going against what they consider is the word of God).</p>
<p>^Except… it’s not just sleeping with a woman during her period, it’s the PERIOD ITSELF that is considered ritualistically unclean. So you’re saying you’re okay with Christians going around telling women they’ll burn in hell because they have periods, the sex thing is an addendum. </p>
<p>…And the reason that Leviticus would only apply to the levite high priests is because Leviticus was written as a set of rules FOR the levite priests. I could be remembering my research wrong and confusing “high priest” for just “priest” but the idea is it was still intended for the priest class of the levite Jews and not for the common man. </p>
<p>Let me ask you again, do you think Christians should follow the rules regarding never wearing polycotton blends, stoning disobediant children, the price of the slave, and never eating shellfish? These are also in Leviticus. If you reject even one of those and say “naww, Christians don’t have to follow that anymore” you have to reject the entire thing because that’s just your own bias.</p>