What do the Bible texts used to condemn homosexuality actually mean?

[R. G. White]

12 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

This is quite true, in that one does NOT have to be some kind of "expert" to read and understand scripture. There is a thing called "context" which usually can take care of any & all pretext.  I'm just adding this parenthetical note to the discussion - do not have energy or time to post more. What I would suggest, in terms of context, for Lev. 18 is just that. Context. I'm not seeing much of that here, yet.

Very true. I happened to be reading in I Chronicles this morning, where it says that the word of David, commanding the armies of Israel to be counted, was abominable to Joab. I recall the Book of Exodus making the observation that every shepherd was an abomination to the Egyptians. Clearly, the word means "detestable."

I'm afraid that the self-styled "loving relationship," in the context of homosexual behaviour, is like Casper the friendly ghost. The Bible strictly forbids having anything to do with those who call up the spirits, and there are no good fallen angels. I recall hearing a sermon in which Ron Halverson, Sr. describes his experience in going to Casper, Wyoming to hold a series of evangelistic meetings. Let's just say that the ghosts were not friendly.

[R. G. White]

12 hours ago, Kevin H said:

I have been hesitant to post here because our church finds itself on the one hand getting many converts and reaching out in fellowship to the popular evangelical churches who have a very hard line on this topic, and much of our finances come from appealing to this mindset. 

Yet on the other hand, our leaders tend to be more careful readers of the Bible than the typical evangelical. And they have pointed out that these verses run into three different groupings. 

One grouping is dealing with how the Canaanites would worship Baal. Canaan/Israel is in an area about 150 miles wide by about 50 miles long, yet it has the most diverse geography, and meteorology in a small space and one of if not the most diverse for plants and animals than any place else on earth. California is second but is 17 times the size and does not have nearly the diversity.  This small piece of land is where Europe, Asia, Africa and the Arabian deserts all meet, with their weather patterns and life forms. This variety is what the Bible means when saying that the land if flowing with milk and honey. This also gives both a predictability yet unpredictability to how it will be year after year for things such growing food which one of these four patterns will be reflected this year.

Each year they saw themselves as unsure if the rains from Baal will come from over the Mediterranean sea indicating Baal raising from the dead on the third day and defeating the chaos monster  and brings the rains of life for their gardens to grow or will the winds come from the Arabian desert with dry air and Baal staying dead from his fight with the chaos monster and the gardens dry up and the people starve. 

Therefore at certain key points in the agricultural cycle (which happen to be the feasts and fast of the land) the Canaanites believed that they needed to help out Baal and the gods of life gain victory over the gods of death and famine. They believed that they could help Baal out by uniting their life-forces. They would do this by making bread of mixed grains (Ezekiel 4:9 bread is this unkosher unclean bread talking about the Hebrews being in the unclean lands). wearing clothes made out of different textiles, and everyone uniting their bodies. They would go to the temple and worship Baal on these critical points of the agricultural cycle by having orgies. Everyone having sex with each other. Parents with their children, their neighbors, their neighbor''s children as their neighbors having sex with the parents children, throw in the animals as well. But this was done not necessarily for pleasure but out of desperation that this activity was somehow helping Baal and the gods of life so that they don't starve to death.  

And thus we find in the Bible instructions on what the Hebrews can and cannot do when they come to worship Yahweh. Yes, they were allowed to worship on the say days that were critical points of the agricultural cycle with some of their less objectionable traditions such as the two goats for Yom Kippur and the unlevened bread for the spring feast, and the grain sheaf for feast of first fruits. But they were NOT to do any of the uniting of the life forces. They were not to be like the Canaanites feeling fearful that Baal might loose and thus need their help, but rather they were to not trust in works but rejoice that Yahweh is victorious 

(One interesting question of discussion. Do any of us eat Ezekiel 4:9 bread? Do any of us wear clothes of mixed textiles or do we only eat bread made of one grain and wear clothes made of 100% of the same textile? If we are doing some of the same things in the same sin list as homosexual activity why do we say that some of it applys to them but does not apply to us.?)

So the first context were we find texts about homosexual activity is when the Bible says that the Hebrews can and cannot do when coming to  a worship service.  

It's good to have the context, for sure. This comment of yours is the first I've heard that gives me any understanding of why God would not allow garments of mixed origin. Clearly, it was like leaping over the threshold -- a recognition of false gods. Is this God's only reason for objecting to homosexuality? I think not. Unless we have become desensitized, homosexuality is as naturally detestable to us as eating (I won't say what). It is obviously a perversion of the natural order, and this is something cited by Paul in the New Testament. We never see the prohibition against mixed fabrics repeated in the New Testament. Furthermore, in Leviticus 18, we see homosexual behaviour included in a list of forbidden practices that have nothing to do with religion as such. It is also singled out as one of three items that are described as wickedness, abomination, or perversion, respectively. The other two items are sex with one's step-child and bestiality.

I do believe it is vitally important to be gentle with those who are overtaken in any sin, fully conscious of our own need of divine grace and mercy, but that doesn't mean we should be afraid to call sin by its right name. Popularity has never been able to make good evil, or evil good.

[R. G. White]

10 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

where, in the scripture textual material of Lev 18 or anywhere else do we find evidence of this?

It is perhaps not best to boast that our Adventist theologians are more sophisticated than their Evangelical counterparts. If we have a better understanding of Bible truth, it is because God has blessed us to that end. God forbid that we should become so sophisticated that we can no longer see the obvious.

What should distinguish us from the Evangelicals is not our willingness to tolerate or excuse sin. It is their willingness to resort the power of the state to enforce their dogmas.

[Bravus]

To a person born with a same-sex orientation, having sex with someone of the opposite sex is also 'naturally detestable'.

We also crave enough fat and sugar to kill us. Our own feelings are not a good guide.

If you personally find homosexual relations icky, (a) don't have them, don't watch people have them but (b) that does not form a theological, moral or any other kind of argument for why other people shouldn't have them.

The claim that 4-10% of human beings are incapable of love is bizarre.

We're trying to discuss the scripture, but these private prejudices keep getting smuggled in.

[Bravus]

Indeed, it could be argued that it would be perversion for someone with a natural same-sex orientation to go against their 'natural use' and have a sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex.

[R. G. White]

10 minutes ago, Bravus said:

To a person born with a same-sex orientation, having sex with someone of the opposite sex is also 'naturally detestable'.

We also crave enough fat and sugar to kill us. Our own feelings are not a good guide.

If you personally find homosexual relations icky, (a) don't have them, don't watch people have them but (b) that does not form a theological, moral or any other kind of argument for why other people shouldn't have them.

The claim that 4-10% of human beings are incapable of love is bizarre.

We're trying to discuss the scripture, but these private prejudices keep getting smuggled in.

Seeing I was the one to make the assertion that, except to the desensitized, homosexuality is naturally repugnant, it seems to be for me to respond to this. That observation was but one small point in the midst of a number of scriptural references or allusions. Paul himself makes the point that such practices are contrary to nature, from which I took the liberty to make the above observation. I am not suggesting that we use our feelings alone as a guide, but when our sensibilities happen to coincide with the Word of God, then I doubt the safety of questioning them.

My position is that 100% of us are incapable of love. Only God's grace can give us the power, and it is bestowed only on those who are willing to be made willing to obey.

[Bravus]

3 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Is it exegetically sound" to co-opt a phrase from scripture such as "natural use" into our modern-day sociological or cultural understanding? It might be a good idea to ask which specific Bible texts would support your use here of "natural use?"

Sorry, I was not making this argument, I was riffing on R G White's use of an 'argument from what is natural'. I think it's a poor argument, and not one that is well founded in Scripture, though Paul uses something like it in some of the texts to be considered later. Personally I think that, until then, we should stick with the texts in Leviticus.

[R. G. White]

3 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Is it exegetically sound" to co-opt a phrase from scripture such as "natural use" into our modern-day sociological or cultural understanding? It might be a good idea to ask which specific Bible texts would support your use here of "natural use?"

Bravus has said many words, urging us to discuss the actual Bible texts, but he himself has neither offered any substantial commentary on any Scriptures, nor directly addressed any of the points made by others. I have to question the value of a post such as this, when the Bible references are too clear to miss (unless we have become too sophisticated to see the obvious). The only purpose being served seems to be to further desensitize us all by discussing something that Paul said shouldn't even be named among us.

[R. G. White]

2 minutes ago, Bravus said:

Sorry, I was not making this argument, I was riffing on R G White's use of an 'argument from what is natural'. I think it's a poor argument, and not one that is well founded in Scripture, though Paul uses something like it in some of the texts to be considered later. Personally I think that, until then, we should stick with the texts in Leviticus.

Paul did indeed use "something like it," and I was only explaining his point, not making one of my own. We could stick with the texts in Leviticus, but unless we were to twist them to suit ourselves, they would only lead us to the same conclusion. It is highly significant that the New Testament also condemns homosexuality, as that eliminates the argument that the Old Testament only condemned it for being an acknowledgement of false gods.

[Bravus]

I honestly have looked at every text in Leviticus 18. I commented on the opening comments, on the list of forms of sexual sin in the chapter, on the closing comments. I have also consistently and continually tried to call people back to that inquiry when they have headed off on tangents.

I honestly can't see how I could have been *more* focused on the scripture. Unless the only way to satisfy is to simply capitulate and agree with what is proposed by others. I'm trying to actively engage. I have *already stipulated* that on a face reading this text forbids male same-sex contact.

I don't see anything in this scripture that goes beyond that prohibition. Claims have been made but no evidence adduced.

I am trying to enquire into whether (a) the face reading is a reasonable reading of the text and (b) whether this prohibition is binding for all human beings for all times or only for the people of Israel newly arrived in Canaan.

I'm not sure how someone could read this whole thread and claim that I have refused to engage with Leviticus 18, though.

[R. G. White]

24 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I was actually thinking this very thing last night. There seems to be a "hesitation" to actually get into the word. And on that note; here is something to think about re Lev 18. In a cursory perusual, it can be noted that God uses a phrase repeatedly in Lev 18 and other places, and I think it would add needed context here, as well:

I think some people will be very surprised to learn the full-scope of that context. The phrase is used a number of times; it must mean something?

Well, yes, it does appear to mean something. The Bible states that the marriage bed is pure. A man and his wife may enter into unclothed intimacy without guilt. Leviticus 18 names many other kinds of unclothed intimacy, and uses this language to emphasize what a violation of decency each one represents.

[R. G. White]

17 minutes ago, Bravus said:

I have *already stipulated* that on a face reading this text forbids male same-sex contact.

I am trying to enquire into whether (a) the face reading is a reasonable reading of the text and (b) whether this prohibition is binding for all human beings for all times or only for the people of Israel newly arrived in Canaan.

a) Some of us have used other Scriptures to show that the face reading is not only reasonable, but necessary, and you have repeatedly objected to the introduction of other Scriptures. But the Bible must interpret itself. You yourself have not given us one reason to question the face reading.

b) The same goes for the universality of the prohibition. Other Scriptures answer that question. An unnatural abomination does not improve with age. You cite a certain percentage of the population that you claim naturally prefers the homosexual approach, but the Bible stories that you seem so determined to exclude show that the number was more like 100% in certain societies that were ripe for destruction. This correlation is highly pertinent, not for judging individuals, but for understanding the nature of what has evidently ensnared them.

[Bravus]

Those points are not drawn from Leviticus 18. can't have it both ways - accuse me of not wanting to study Leviticus 18, then draw your own arguments from everywhere but.

You also tilt the scales in ways that are dishonest. Bringing in the Sodom rape story and then claiming it means 100% of the society was homosexual in orientation is simply not honest.

I am genuinely trying to conduct an honest inquiry in good faith. it is possible to disagree but to use the tools of disciplined inquiry to seek understanding. If my position is shown by the evidence to be not consistent with the Bible, I will freely acknowledge that.

I discussed this issue at length with The Wanderer early in the thread, but assuming the conclusion before conducting the inquiry is not a productive way to proceed. If you have already come to the conclusion that homosexuality is universally condemned by the Bible, what is the value of even asking the question? I would be happy to discard the whole time-consuming project if the conclusion is never in any doubt.

The goal is to come to the text asking what it means, not to decide ahead of time what it means and then try to beat the text into shape. I have been accused multiple times in the thread of 'eisegesis', but I'm *trying*, within the limitations of my own knowledge and skill, to do exegesis. If I'm doing it wrong, show me how, but not by smuggling in the conclusion before the inquiry has even begun.

[R. G. White]

2 minutes ago, Bravus said:

Those points are not drawn from Leviticus 18. can't have it both ways - accuse me of not wanting to study Leviticus 18, then draw your own arguments from everywhere but.

You also tilt the scales in ways that are dishonest. Bringing in the Sodom rape story and then claiming it means 100% of the society was homosexual in orientation is simply not honest.

I am genuinely trying to conduct an honest inquiry in good faith. it is possible to disagree but to use the tools of disciplined inquiry to seek understanding. If my position is shown by the evidence to be not consistent with the Bible, I will freely acknowledge that.

I discussed this issue at length with The Wanderer early in the thread, but assuming the conclusion before conducting the inquiry is not a productive way to proceed. If you have already come to the conclusion that homosexuality is universally condemned by the Bible, what is the value of even asking the question? I would be happy to discard the whole time-consuming project if the conclusion is never in any doubt.

The goal is to come to the text asking what it means, not to decide ahead of time what it means and then try to beat the text into shape. I have been accused multiple times in the thread of 'eisegesis', but I'm *trying*, within the limitations of my own knowledge and skill, to do exegesis. If I'm doing it wrong, show me how, but not by smuggling in the conclusion before the inquiry has even begun.

I'll  believe your honesty when you believe mine. It seems you are looking for opinion to support your prejudices, not honest Bible interpretation.

Wanderer and I have both made substantial comments on the content of Leviticus 18. You have not.

When the Sodom and Gibeah stories state that "all" of the men of the city gathered around the house, wanting to "know" the visiting man or men, it is not dishonest to say that means something like 100%.

"If my position is shown by the evidence to be not consistent with the Bible, I will freely acknowledge that."

That's already been done, and your "free acknowledgement" seems to be taking the form of accusations of dishonesty. That doesn't look very good.

I for one did not decide "ahead of time" what the text meant. Failing to find any reason not to do so, I merely took it at face value. And, for that, you call me "dishonest." Until you can make a better show of good faith, I have to think that your thread is better ignored.

[B/W Photodude]

It seems that even the plainest of beliefs can be distorted when someone wants to take issue with the Bible. When God first created the earth and placed the two people in the garden and said they should cleave to each other as one. That was His model of relationships. Like the Sabbath and any number of other beliefs in the Bible, if God was going to change it, He should have made it CLEAR in the Scriptures. We should not be minutely parsing out texts to pursue an idea that has not been a part of the behavior of God's people for thousands of years. Homosexuality has never been acceptable in the Christian or Jewish tradition until the last few years.

Paul spoke much about having the mind of Christ, putting on Christ, and even stated he was waiting for Christ to be formed within the Christians in some of the churches he worked for. To continue to claim your homosexuality as a Christian would seem to be continuing to hold on to your own mind and you reflect nothing of Jesus in you. I feel confident to say Jesus did not present a gay personality and if He is shining thru a person, they will not be hanging on to their homosexuality. Jesus came to save people from their sins, not in them. This does not necessarily mean they will change to being heterosexual as even Paul suggested if one could be not married, all the better.

The thing that concerns me is when people claiming to be Christians and/or Seventh-day Adventists affirm people in their sin, they are also affirming them into perdition. And the Scriptures do state the penalties for such an act of unkindness towards another person. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 2 Cor 11:3 So, I would think long and hard before I would take something so simple and plain as the model God gave in the Garden of Eden and twist it around to approve of wrong doing. 

[Gregory Matthews]

I would like to see Bravus get what he is asking for, a discussion of the Biblical texts.

 

[Bravus]

I think I'm done.

It might just be a culture clash. I'm a scientist, not a theologian.

For me, when conducting an inquiry into a topic, a position of agnosticism is necessary in relation to the question being investigated. That is, whatever I want or hope, I will not assume a position until the evidence is in.

Clearly that is not the approach taken by others here, and that is OK, but it invalidates the whole project I am attempting.

I'll leave you all to it.

[Kevin H]

20 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

where, in the scripture textual material of Lev 18 or anywhere else do we find evidence of this?

From the scripture context and learning about the culture of ancient Canaan. The Canaanites were people, people who married and raised children. For some reason the Canaanites came to the conclusion that they needed to help Baal and the gods of life by going to their house of worship and at key times during the year that they all had to unite their life forces. This was not a bunch of men going to temple for purely homosexual relations. This was the whole community coming together, whole families were involved and having sex with not only men with men but these were whole families both men and women having sex with their children and their neighbor's children and with their neighbors spouses and with in-laws and aunts and uncles and their children having sex with their brothers, sisters, neighbor children, the parents of those children, and with their pets. They did this out of desperation out of fear that Baal might not be strong enough to win the victory over the Leviathan this cycle and thus famine will come and they all starve.    Leviticus 18 is talking about things that the Hebrews were NOT to do when they came together to worship the Lord. 

When you look at all the things that the Canaanites were doing at worship, and that it was all of them where do you get the idea that this text is talking about people who are homosexual? Were all the little children naturally homosexuals?  Were all these married couples naturally homosexuals? Then why is not the whole chapter focused on homosexuality instead of one mention in a whole list of things that the Hebrews were not allowed to do in the sanctuary/temple which the Canaanites did  when they went to their temples to worship?

Second comes from the idea among the Canaanites that in raping a man would steal some of their life force so that food that would have grown in the victim's garden will now grow in your garden. Animals that would have been born to the victim's flocks would now be born to your flocks, children that would have been born to the victim's wife will now be born to your wife. 

 

[R. G. White]

13 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

Leviticus 18 is talking about things that the Hebrews were NOT to do when they came together to worship the Lord.

That's not what I'm seeing at all. I don't doubt the accuracy of your historical knowledge. I'm just not seeing any particular connection between Leviticus 18 and what you are describing. There is certainly no mention of worship in that chapter. I agree with Wanderer's assessment that these are general moral statutes from Jehovah -- things that God's people are not to do AT ALL -- and particularly related to sexual purity. The prohibition of homosexual acts is but one item in a long list because it was but one of many sexual perversions practised by those people groups whom God had devoted to destruction.

[Kevin H]

Some of the messages of Leviticus 18 has to us is that first of all don't live in terror but trust in God. Second, don't do anything to help God. That makes your God too small. God is sufficient to run the universe including your little part of the world. 

The land that the Canaanites saw as the cursed land due to the unpredictable amounts of rain God offered to his people as the promised land. Are there promises God offers to us that we see as curses?

Sex belongs in the home between spouses, not with your children nor in-laws, or pets, or with people outside of the family. While we find good people in the Bible with multiple wives the story tells us that arrangement caused too many headaches and was not wise. There can be other unwise choices but God works with us although we suffer the consequences. 

Don't trust in mystical acts that are pure superstition. 

[Bravus]

If inquiring into a scientific question, say “Is nitrogen an inert gas”, you don’t start with the answer and then look at the evidence. You go to the evidence while reserving judgment until the evidence is in. 

[Gregory Matthews]

 

Bravus is simply saying that sometimes, in his experience, he has seen people approach the Bible with a pre-conceived agenda as to what the Bible says.  I also suggest that he, has on occasions, seen people do that in this forum and possibly in this  thread (?).

He is saying that he comes from a background in which an approach to the Bible should be from the standpoint of an open mind as to what the Bible says and not from a pre-conceived agenda.

 

 

[R. G. White]

10 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I don't have time to post references tonight but to clarify what I am saying, I am saying that Lev 18 appears to be dealing with the sanctity and holiness of marriage. 

The first five verses and the last verse of Lev. 18 demonstrates clearly that Lev 18 is dealing with a bigger picture than just vs 22, but this does not mean we throw that verse out and capitulate to modern secular demands. And I would double-underline "demands."

Thanks for clarifying. Sexual purity and the sanctity of marriage are one and the same issue to my mind.

As for those demands, even if we were all ready to meet them, would that change God's mind?

[R. G. White]

11 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Some of the messages of Leviticus 18 has to us is that first of all don't live in terror but trust in God. Second, don't do anything to help God. That makes your God too small. God is sufficient to run the universe including your little part of the world. 

The land that the Canaanites saw as the cursed land due to the unpredictable amounts of rain God offered to his people as the promised land. Are there promises God offers to us that we see as curses?

Sex belongs in the home between spouses, not with your children nor in-laws, or pets, or with people outside of the family. While we find good people in the Bible with multiple wives the story tells us that arrangement caused too many headaches and was not wise. There can be other unwise choices but God works with us although we suffer the consequences. 

Don't trust in mystical acts that are pure superstition. 

Those are the lessons of your historical research, and good ones indeed, but Leviticus 18 is not talking about heathen worship or free-for-all orgies. It's talking about specific practices that God forbids, if one is to go by the actual words and sentences included in the chapter. If we are going to ignore those, we could just as well say that Leviticus 18 is about ancient agriculture.

[R. G. White]

5 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

There is much more to marriage than just "sex."  I do understand your point, I think; and I am not in any way criticising it, just saying that the reason I concluded to use "the sanctity of marriage," phrase here is just that.

I'm all for your mode of expression. I was merely explaining that I agree with you.