Does the Bible really say that homosexuality is sinful?

[Bravus]

I've asked that we leave Sodom aside entirely for the moment, but others seem unwilling. 

Back to Leviticus. Is everything in Chapters 18-20 binding on Christians today? Is so, why are many of them not done? If not, which and why and how do we distinguish in a theologically sound way?

[Green Cochoa]

3 minutes ago, David Geelan said:

I've asked that we leave Sodom aside entirely for the moment, but others seem unwilling. 

Back to Leviticus. Is everything in Chapters 18-20 binding on Christians today? Is so, why are many of them not done? If not, which and why and how do we distinguish in a theologically sound way?

Would you like to suggest which part is not binding and why?  

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Just in chapter 19, I highlighted just a few things (not sure about the "sabbaths" -- the verses might be referring to the various holy days, and not necessarily the 7th day Sabbath)

 

19 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

² Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy.

³ Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the Lord your God.

⁴ Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the Lord your God.

⁵ And if ye offer a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the Lord, ye shall offer it at your own will.

⁶ It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if ought remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire.

⁷ And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is abominable; it shall not be accepted.

⁸ Therefore every one that eateth it shall bear his iniquity, because he hath profaned the hallowed thing of the Lord: and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

⁹ And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest.

¹⁰ And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the Lord your God.

¹¹ Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.

¹² And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord.

¹³ Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.

¹⁴ Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the Lord.

¹⁵ Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

¹⁶ Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the Lord.

¹⁷ Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

¹⁸ Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.

¹⁹ Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

²⁰ And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.

²¹ And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering.

²² And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

²³ And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised: three years shall it be as uncircumcised unto you: it shall not be eaten of.

²⁴ But in the fourth year all the fruit thereof shall be holy to praise the Lord withal.

²⁵ And in the fifth year shall ye eat of the fruit thereof, that it may yield unto you the increase thereof: I am the Lord your God.

²⁶ Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.

²⁷ Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

²⁸ Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord.

²⁹ Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.

³⁰ Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the Lord.

³¹ Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the Lord your God.

³² Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the Lord.

³³ And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.

³⁴ But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

³⁵ Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.

³⁶ Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am theLord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.

³⁷ Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the Lord.

[CoAspen]

The answers shall be interesting.......such as verse 34.....

[Bravus]

Nope. Very simple, easy, logical questions. Some verses in these passages are considered binding, others are not. There must be a good reason why. I genuinely wish to understand what it is.

[Bravus]

There are a number of important NT texts, and we'll get to them, but I'm trying to seriously address these two texts in Leviticus first. 

[Green Cochoa]

3 hours ago, David Geelan said:

Nope. Very simple, easy, logical questions. Some verses in these passages are considered binding, others are not. There must be a good reason why. I genuinely wish to understand what it is.

Are you saying you consider some not to be binding?  Which ones?

I didn't see any in the chapter Pam posted that need to be tossed for any reason, except for the portion of the passage which spoke of animal sacrifices--that has changed, and the Bible tells us so.

[Bravus]

You do not cut your hair or shave your beard at all? And you are 100% never wearing clothes of blended fibres?

I am not stating that any are non-binding. The actions of all Christians, including you, demonstrate that you believe some are non-binding.

[Green Cochoa]

48 minutes ago, David Geelan said:

You do not cut your hair or shave your beard at all? And you are 100% never wearing clothes of blended fibres?

I am not stating that any are non-binding. The actions of all Christians, including you, demonstrate that you believe some are non-binding.

You misinterpret the texts, perhaps.  It doesn't say not to cut one's hair.  It says not to "round" the corners of the head.  What are corners?  Certainly not all parts of the head, for one.  Furthermore, shaving is not the same as cutting the hair.  Perhaps the eyebrows are a "corner."  I don't shave mine, do you?  But what is "round"?  A style of hairdo, perhaps?

Furthermore, there is but one mixture prohibited in clothing: linen and wool.  I don't wear such a mixture, do you?  Polyester and cotton are neither linen nor wool.

Even if you should succeed in proving that I have not kept the commandments, how does that make them void?   Since when would I or you or society in general be any criterion upon which to judge God's law?

[Bravus]

You're missing my point: I assume because I am not making it clearly enough.

Let me lay out the whole argument:

Those two texts, in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20, clearly say that a man sleeping with a man as with a woman is an abomination.

(two side notes, but please don't be distracted by them: (1) it says nothing about women sleeping together and (2) I would interpret 'as with a woman' to mean intercourse, whereas many gay couples do not have penetrative intercourse, they use other activities together)

If those two texts apply now, then the debate is over: the Bible prohibits, at least, male-male sex.

The point I am making here is that there are adjacent texts, in the same chapters, and for the same purpose, that Christians do not consider binding on them. There are no Christians who comply with 100% of the rules in Leviticus. There are none who comply with 100% of even what's left after the fulfilled and no longer necessary animal sacrifices are removed.

Given that not all texts are binding now, how do we decide which are and are not? Perhaps the prohibition against male-male sex was a ceremonial law for Israel, distinguishing the chosen people from temple prostitution practices among the surrounding tribes, and is irrelevant to loving homosexual relationships now.

I'm not making that last claim yet, but I am trying to probe this issue of why some texts in Leviticus are binding and some are not, and what criterion is used to judge which are which.

[Bravus]

I presume that the beards and hair of Hassidic Jews are styled as they are in response to those texts in Leviticus, and that anyone not sporting that style does not believe 100% of the texts in Leviticus are binding.

[Bravus]

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/hasidic-style-significance/526ad57302a7603d930004aa

[Green Cochoa]

Nice picture. 

My position is that except for the sacrifices and ritual system associated with them, e.g. Passover and feasts, i.e. the things clearly abolished at the cross when type met antitype, the remainder of Leviticus holds true today.

[Bravus]

Guess you'll be changing your hairstyle then.

I think limiting it to wool/linen blends is likely to be over-parsing the text, given so much of the rest of the chapter is about not mingling unlike things (crops in a field, colours of livestock) and given that those were the *only* two available fibres for weaving in that time and place. 

[Green Cochoa]

2 hours ago, David Geelan said:

Guess you'll be changing your hairstyle then.

I think limiting it to wool/linen blends is likely to be over-parsing the text, given so much of the rest of the chapter is about not mingling unlike things (crops in a field, colours of livestock) and given that those were the *only* two available fibres for weaving in that time and place. 

Well, the text could have said "different kinds of fibers" just as it specified different "kinds" in other categories.  It didn't.  When the Bible says not to cook a kid in its mother's milk, does that mean no kind of meat should be cooked in milk?  What about eggs?  There goes your omelet if you take to extending things to what they didn't say.

I guess you have to interpret first whether it is addressing a principle or simply a rule.  I would be willing to leave such to individual discretion, but the text does specify particularly linen and wool, and I have heard a good argument for why that might be that applies specifically to those two, but I don't remember the details.

[bonnie]

17 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

Well, the text could have said "different kinds of fibers" just as it specified different "kinds" in other categories.  It didn't.  When the Bible says not to cook a kid in its mother's milk, does that mean no kind of meat should be cooked in milk?  What about eggs?  There goes your omelet if you take to extending things to what they didn't say.

I guess you have to interpret first whether it is addressing a principle or simply a rule.  I would be willing to leave such to individual discretion, but the text does specify particularly linen and wool, and I have heard a good argument for why that might be that applies specifically to those two, but I don't remember the details.

The two fibers are incompatible. Wool will shrink and linen doesn't. Fabrics of today were unknown then. It still would be unusual to find a linen and wool blend

[bonnie]

If I remember right there was also a symbolic meaning to this. Weren't the priestly garments  a combination of the two fibers? So those not of the priesthood were not to impersonate for lack of a better word the priesthood?

Maybe some of the weavings in the tabernacle were also linen and wool woven together.

On the practical side one fiber would destroy the other.

 

 

 

[Bravus]

The words in the rest of the very same text are 'mingled': mingled crops, mingled livestock.

Anyway, we're off in the weeds (golf metaphor, not marijuana one!) on this blended fibres one. Let's leave it.

The texts on gleaning and on how the stranger and the poor are treated are arguably more consequential.

The overall point is that it seems to be always possible to find some way to rationalise away the parts of these chapters that we personally do not support, but to uphold rigidly those that we do wish to support.

Why don't the restrictions on haircuts and beards apply today?

I do have an answer: probably because they were specific symbols of specific religions surrounding the Israelites at the time. It might be like 'don't shave off all your hair to be like a neo-Nazi skinhead' or 'don't wear blue in South Central'.

But then the texts about men lying with men are in the context of presenting seed to Moloch: specific religious practices of specific neighbouring enemy groups around Israel at the time.

If these prohibitions are indeed of that kind, then they are no more valid now than the instructions about haircuts.

[Bravus]

(again, if I say 'let's leave it' on a topic, it's not binding on anyone. It's a suggestion, and I say it because I've recognised that entrenched positions and varying interpretations mean we could go around and around forever on it and make no progress. I'd love this inquiry to have some direction and momentum, so getting stuck in the weeds is unproductive... but if you like it there, be my guest. I have to admit it's where I play most of *my* golf!)

[Green Cochoa]

57 minutes ago, David Geelan said:

The texts on gleaning and on how the stranger and the poor are treated are arguably more consequential.

Most farmers I know obey the texts on gleaning simply for financial reasons.  I reckon I would too if I were farming.  I have actually gleaned in a farmer's field more than once.  Treating the poor with mercy and kindness should be obvious for any Christian.

 

1 hour ago, David Geelan said:

Why don't the restrictions on haircuts and beards apply today?

Who says they don't?

 

1 hour ago, David Geelan said:

But then the texts about men lying with men are in the context of presenting seed to Moloch: specific religious practices of specific neighbouring enemy groups around Israel at the time.

Are they?

Here's from chapter 20:

 20:10    And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.  
 20:11    And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.  
 20:12    And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood [shall be] upon them.  
 20:13    If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.  
 20:14    And if a man take a wife and her mother, it [is] wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.  
 20:15    And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.  
 20:16    And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.  
 20:17    And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it [is] a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.  
 

[Bravus]

...and here's from Chapter 18:

"²¹ And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord.

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

It's obviously not a slamdunk, and I've been rebuked before for talking about 'cherry picking', and can be accused of it myself, but it's interesting to me that there are 2 verses under consideration and you picked the one that challenges my point and ignored the other. Of course, I could be accused of doing the reverse. I should have been more clear and specific: in one of the instances, the text about male-male sex is in the context of the religious practices of surrounding nations. 

[Bravus]

On the haircut issue, you keep saying it is still binding, but you keep not abiding by it.

Perhaps you need to repent, reject that sin, and be sanctified into changing your behaviour before condemning the 'sin' of others?

"Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone", said Jesus, and they all quietly turned and went away.

[Bravus]

Here's a Jewish understanding: http://www.uhcg.org/HoI/Shave-or-Not.html

[Bravus]

And another: http://www.yahstruth.org/Publications/Beards.php

[Green Cochoa]

I just don't see the "context" that you allege.  Obviously, I'm not the only one, either, as in my Bible, the page heading includes the words "sundry laws."  In other words, the two laws you refer to here are not necessarily connected.  To use an extreme, but contextually appropriate example, one might ask if the seventh commandment (adultery) was given in the context of killing (the sixth commandment).  Is it only adultery if one has a necrophile relationship?  Obviously, then, the juxtaposition of two verses or laws cannot be in all cases "contextually related" except that they are both laws.

7 minutes ago, David Geelan said:

...and here's from Chapter 18: