Is Homosexuality a "worse sin" than other sins?

[Cow Poke]

Of course and neither are our opinions inspired by God.

Mine are! (but not in the same way or to the same extent)

I thought it interesting to know what a JEWISH Study Bible would say about a passage in the Hebrew Scriptures and it confirms what the Rabbi said about it that I mentioned.

Paul was a Jew, and a Pharisee or Pharisees. What did he say?

The bottom line is that no verse in the Bible addresses a loving, committed relationship between two people of the same sex.

The Book of Ruth.

The fallout is that the opinions of some are causing people to bash homosexuals, threaten them, kill them, etc.

Bashing homosexuals, threatening them and killing them and is a sin. So is giving in to homosexual desires. One sin does not justify another sin.

And sadly the Gay nephew of one of the members of my church recently committed suicide because he could not take the persecution any longer and the persecutors justify what they do by interpreting the Bible the way that they do.

As tragic as this, it does not justify the sin of homosexuality.

[NorrinRadd]

It's obvious that we are not speaking of a grown male taking advantage of children.

A note in my Hebrew study bible says of Leviticus 18:22: "Biblical and ancient Near Eastern culture was not familiar with homosexuality in the sense of a defined sexual orientation or lifestyle. It acknowledges only the occasional act of male anal intercourse, usually as an act of force associated with humiliation, revenge, or subjection."

I've read some theories as to why people of the same sex are attracted to each other and no one seems to know for sure.

What I am sure of is that God is the judge and we are not and that He will judge fairly.

I am also sure that as Christians we should treat homosexuals with love and compassion.

And your response to the note in my Study Bible?

Adrift's post quoting Robert Gagnon addresses the Lev. passages, and it seems to *slightly* touch on that argument.

I've not found much that mentions the "orientation" aspect w.r.t. Leviticus. Keener has an article online that makes some small mention of some of the issues you cite, but in regard to Rom. 1. The CEB Study Bible briefly mentions the "orientation" aspect in regard to Lev. 18:22, agreeing with your source, and notes that homosexual practice was "detestable," in contrast to various other sexual practices that were merely "unclean." In the NIV Cultural Background Bible, Walton does not address the "orientation" issue, but his notes imply there was typically an age- or power-imbalance between the two parties in the homosexual encounter. His notes are necessarily brief, so I am perhaps deriving more than he intends, but his mention that homosexuality and bestiality were associated with cultic practices of some of the surrounding nations suggests (to me) something along the lines that the Hebrews almost automatically associated any such perverse behavior with those pagan nations, as opposed to recognizing any natural "orientation" toward it.

I'm not sure why this matters. The fact remains that there is no Biblical example of a "positive" homosexual encounter or relationship, and that all Biblical mentions of homosexual activity are in a negative context.

[Adrift]

Study bibles are not created equal. We don't even know what you're using so we can evaluate its potential use as an authority. I've seen other sources assert that the same passage was referring to cultic temple prostitution, which is hardly compatible with what you've posted.

It appears to be from The Jewish Study Bible: Featuring The Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation, which I'm sure is decent for what it is, but a study bible isn't going to offer a thorough examination on a subject, and of course, for a Christian, a Jewish Study Bible geared towards a largely Jewish audience is mostly going to forego any greater understanding or revelation on the subject we might get from the New Testament.

At any rate, this is just moving the goalpost from "these laws were really about mixing practices associated with cultic rites, so they don't apply to us," to "Ok, well then it's actually about acts of violent homosexual practices associated with humiliation, revenge, and subjugation." Well, which is it? If it's actually in reference to cultic rites, then it's unlikely to be about revenge and subjugation. This becomes a sort of wack-a-mole defense where when one argument is hammered into the ground a new one presents itself because the person making the argument isn't comfortable, and/or really doesn't want to acknowledge the Bible's stance on the subject. I'm not completely comfortable with the Bible's stance on the subject; I have plenty of gay friends, family, and acquaintances who appear to be in tender and loving relationships, and it would make things so much easier on me as a Christian if I could simply acquiesce to our culture's current view on the subject, but I have go were the evidence leads, and I trust that God in his unlimited knowledge and wisdom knows something about why homosexual practices and behaviors are harmful and ought to be redirected.

At any rate, as NorrinRadd pointed out, Gagnon alluded to some of this in my previous post, but here he offers a bit more on the subject,

Source: A FAITHFUL JOURNEY THROUGH THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUALITY? by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D

it is simply not true that no one in the ancient world had any notion of an exclusive attraction to persons of the same sex or of congenital influences on such attraction.Mesopotamian sources regarded figures comparable to the qedeshim in the Old Testament (i.e. male cult functionaries who could serve as feminized passive partners in male-male intercourse) as persons bothThe Bible and Homosexual Practicedemonstrates the obvious point that people in the ancient Near East could regard as wrong or repugnant even behavior that arose from impulses over which the perpetrator of the behavior had little or no choice in feeling.

© Copyright Original Source

http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/ho...erCritique.pdf

Source: Why I Could Not Recommend the Mennonite Book Reasoning Together: A Conversation on Homosexuality (Herald Press, 2008), Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.

The Deuteronomistic references to the qedeshim and the Levite at Gibeah. Legal material from Deuteronomy and narrative material from Deuteronomistic History (Joshua through 2 Kings) disparage the homoerotic associations of the qedeshimqedeshim and consensualqedeshim, an abhorrent or detestable act) links these texts ideologically to Lev 18:22, where the same tag is applied absolutely to all man-male intercourse and not limited to intercourse in a cultic context for pay. (2) The disgust registered by these narrators for the qedeshimqedeshim and homosexual persons today, Deuteronomistic abhorrence of the qedeshimmalakoiqedeshim makes it clear that he would have been repulsed by a consensual act of man-male intercourse, it is evident that in telling the story of the Levite at Gibeah the Deuteronomistic Historian was indicting man-male intercourse per se and not only coercive forms of man-male intercourse. Since too the story of a Levite at Gibeah in Judg 19:22-25 is in many respects a carbon copy of the Sodom narrative in Gen 19:4-11 (there are even some verbatim agreements in the Hebrew), how the narrator of Judg 19:22-25 interpreted the attempt of the men of the city to have intercourse with a male visitor provides our earliest commentary of how the Yahwist would have interpreted the similar event at Sodom. In other words, the Yahwist is likely to have viewed the man-male dimension of the attempted act as a compounding factor in underscoring the depravity of the inhabitants.

© Copyright Original Source

http://www.robgagnon.net/GrimsrudTheissenReview.htm

Source: Immoralism, Homosexual Unhealth, and Scripture A Response to Peterson and Hedlund�s �Heterosexism, Homosexual Health, and the Church� Part III: Scripture by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.

A. Ancient sexual orientation theories.Christian SexualityHomosexuality in Greece and Rome,Problems 4.26).

B. Why an orientation argument would have made little difference to St. Paul.

1. Was Paul aware that at least some homosexual desire was not a matter of personal choice? As with Philo of Alexandria, Paul was probably aware of the existence of a lifelong homoerotic proclivitymalakoisome Greco-Roman moralists and physicians, operating within a culture that tolerated and at times endorsed at least some homosexual practice, could reject forms of homosexual practice committed by those with a biological predisposition

Paul could have believed that tribades, the ancient kinaidoi,Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism [Chicago, 1996], p. 244).

© Copyright Original Source

http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/ho...mRespPart3.pdf

[Christian3]

Study bibles are not created equal. We don't even know what you're using so we can evaluate its potential use as an authority. I've seen other sources assert that the same passage was referring to cultic temple prostitution, which is hardly compatible with what you've posted.

I use The Jewish Study Bible, featuring The Jewish Publication Society. Which one do you use?

I also like Rashi's comments. He did not have one for Leviticus 18:22.

I found this:

Analysis of Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." 2

In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"

The Net Bible® translation 3 inserts two words to produce "And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman." A man must not have sexual intercourse with another man as he would normally have with a woman. i.e. anal intercourse between two men is not permitted. From this literal, word for word translation, they produce a smoother English version: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman."

An alternative translation would insert a different pair of words to produce: "And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman." That is, two men must not engage in sexual behavior on a woman's bed. Presumably, they must go elsewhere to have sex; a woman's bed was sacred and was to be reserved for opposite-gender sexual behavior.

[Christian3]

Mine are! (but not in the same way or to the same extent)



Paul was a Jew, and a Pharisee or Pharisees. What did he say?



The Book of Ruth.



Bashing homosexuals, threatening them and killing them and is a sin. So is giving in to homosexual desires. One sin does not justify another sin.



As tragic as this, it does not justify the sin of homosexuality.

About Ruth.

https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/45594

[Cow Poke]

About Ruth.

https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/45594

That's argument by weblink, my friend, and is not allowed.

[Cow Poke]

I use The Jewish Study Bible, featuring The Jewish Publication Society. Which one do you use?

I also like Rashi's comments. He did not have one for Leviticus 18:22.

I found this:

Analysis of Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." 2

In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"

The Net Bible® translation 3 inserts two words to produce "And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman." A man must not have sexual intercourse with another man as he would normally have with a woman. i.e. anal intercourse between two men is not permitted. From this literal, word for word translation, they produce a smoother English version: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman."

An alternative translation would insert a different pair of words to produce: "And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman." That is, two men must not engage in sexual behavior on a woman's bed. Presumably, they must go elsewhere to have sex; a woman's bed was sacred and was to be reserved for opposite-gender sexual behavior.

C3, Might I suggest, since we are "New Testament Christians", that you spend a little more time with the New Testament view on this?

[One Bad Pig]

I use The Jewish Study Bible, featuring The Jewish Publication Society.

Ah. That its first edition seems to have borrowed extensively from the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible tells me all I need to know about the gist of its notes.

Which one do you use?

I have a Stone Artscroll Tanakh.

I also like Rashi's comments. He did not have one for Leviticus 18:22.

Okay?

I found this:

Analysis of Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." 2

In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"

The Net Bible® translation 3 inserts two words to produce "And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman." A man must not have sexual intercourse with another man as he would normally have with a woman. i.e. anal intercourse between two men is not permitted. From this literal, word for word translation, they produce a smoother English version: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman."

An alternative translation would insert a different pair of words to produce: "And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman." That is, two men must not engage in sexual behavior on a woman's bed. Presumably, they must go elsewhere to have sex; a woman's bed was sacred and was to be reserved for opposite-gender sexual behavior.

By an internet search, presumably. Using something without attribution is called plagiarism, and is not proper. The "alternative translation" proffered by your source is patently absurd; I'm sorta impressed anyone can assert it with a straight face.

[Sparko]

About Ruth.

https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/45594

He said a committed loving relationship, not a sexual one.

[KingsGambit]

It's irritating how modern people read sex into everything. David and Jonathan, Naomi and Ruth (daughter and mother-in-law, even), and Ruth sleeping at the feet of Boaz. It says something about their own warped sex drives. It's like the people who write "shipping" fan fiction where they write sexual scenarios involving characters from shows. The implicit assumption is that any person is a potential sex partner.

[seer]

It's irritating how modern people read sex into everything. David and Jonathan, Naomi and Ruth (daughter and mother-in-law, even), and Ruth sleeping at the feet of Boaz. It says something about their own warped sex drives. It's like the people who write "shipping" fan fiction where they write sexual scenarios involving characters from shows. The implicit assumption is that any person is a potential sex partner.

[Sparko]

bacon.jpg

[seer]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]38450[/ATTACH]

OK, it would work for bacon!

[Cow Poke]

OK, it would work for bacon!

But I think that's illegal in 47 states.

[seer]

But I think that's illegal in 47 states.

No doubt, it is too much for a good man to resist!