SPLIT: Male vs. Female homosexuality in the OT/NT

[truagape]

T700:

Well, what I said was this:

"Father, I appreciate and share your concern that homosexuals not be harassed, harmed, or attacked. I also share your belief that Jesus and His church do and should extend love to them.

Were we differ is that I believe the Bible’s prohibition against their acts of homosexual behavior are still in effect. Unlike many Old Testament rules (the dietary laws, for example), these proscriptions were never abrogated in the New Testament and were in fact, restated."

It was not part of my conversation with that particular clergyman, but for the sake of this thread, I will point out that while the prohibition is reinforced in the New Testament, I do not recall the penalty being stoning. Rather, the penalty is far worse for practicing homosexuals–eternal separation from God.

Paul

When you use the phrase “homosexual behavior” are you talking about both males and females, or just one sex?

==================================
STAFF NOTE: this thread split from:

• [thread=276439]Stoning in Scripture: No stoning = liberal interpretation?[/thread]

 

[Claire_from_DE]

When you use the phrase “homosexual behavior” are you talking about both males and females, or just one sex?

Chaste behavior isn’t limited to one gender.

 

[T700]

When you use the phrase “homosexual behavior” are you talking about both males and females, or just one sex?

I was referring to both sexes, as I understand that the scriptural prohibition does also.

Paul

 

[truagape]

I was referring to both sexes, as I understand that the scriptural prohibition does also.

Paul

Well in your previous post you mentioned the Old Testament prohibition against “homosexual behavior”. Perhaps you can show me where [unlike beastiallity where God repeatedly forbade both sexes, not just in Leviticus (addressing the priestly Levetical Law Code, or in Exodus (to the Isrealites leaving Egypt), and also in Deuteronomy ( to the Isrealites entering the Promised Land)] in the Old Testament women were included within the so-called “homosexuality prohibition”.

 

[truagape]

Chaste behavior isn’t limited to one gender.

The focus here is “homosexual behavior”, and the so-called Old Testament reference to it, not the more generalized, non-disputed notion of “chaste behavior”. Please stick to the subject matter at hand.

 

[mattkubes]

The focus here is “homosexual behavior”, and the so-called Old Testament reference to it, not the more generalized, non-disputed notion of “chaste behavior”. Please stick to the subject matter at hand.

What angle are you coming at this from? Both are quite clearly forbidden in the New Testament. Why is this such a concern (I’m genuinely curious)?

 

[truagape]

What angle are you coming at this from? Both are quite clearly forbidden in the New Testament. Why is this such a concern (I’m genuinely curious)?

Only from the angle of truth.
And your second statement, while off the topic of Old Testatment, is not true. I would invite you to re-read Romans 1 (assuming that’s what you’re referring to).
And since you’re “genuinely curious” about where you preceive me to be comming from, I’m also curious if you ever thought about or questioned the unbiblical history of words such as “sodomite”, and the damaging impact it has had on distorting scripture.

 

[T700]

Well in your previous post you mentioned the Old Testament prohibition against “homosexual behavior”. Perhaps you can show me where [unlike beastiallity where God repeatedly forbade both sexes, not just in Leviticus (addressing the priestly Levetical Law Code, or in Exodus (to the Isrealites leaving Egypt), and also in Deuteronomy ( to the Isrealites entering the Promised Land)] in the Old Testament women were included within the so-called “homosexuality prohibition”.

I’m not an expert on the subject and am very happy to be corrected by one who is. My understanding is that you are correct–the specific prohibition in the Old Testament referred to male homosexual acts. The New Testament specifically includes those acts involving women also. Logic would seem to thereby include lesbianism in condemnation also.

I do mean it; I’m not an expert and am always open to correction. If you could show me in scripture and/or the teaching of the Church where I am mistaken, I would greatly appreciate it.

Paul

 

[mattkubes]

Only from the angle of truth.
And your second statement, while off the topic of Old Testatment, is not true. I would invite you to re-read Romans 1 (assuming that’s what you’re referring to).
And since you’re “genuinely curious” about where you preceive me to be comming from, I’m also curious if you ever thought about or questioned the unbiblical history of words such as “sodomite”, and the damaging impact it has had on distorting scripture.

Even if that is true, the Church has ruled definitively on the matter - so if we had a discussion on this, we’d probably have different assumptions with regards to Magisterial Teaching authority. I think there are some more fundamental issues that need to be discussed before this line of reasoning can be profitable.

 

[truagape]

I’m not an expert on the subject and am very happy to be corrected by one who is. My understanding is that you are correct–the specific prohibition in the Old Testament referred to male homosexual acts. The New Testament specifically includes those acts involving women also. Logic would seem to thereby include lesbianism in condemnation also.

I do mean it; I’m not an expert and am always open to correction. If you could show me in scripture and/or the teaching of the Church where I am mistaken, I would greatly appreciate it.

Paul

Paul I so appreciate your humble response!! There are many people, both on and off these forums, who have been very caviler in throwing around these unscriptural accusations and perspectives against innocent Christians with devasting and damaging effects. Thank you for not doing that!

The reason why the OT passage does not address women is because Yahweh was not addressing homosexualtiy as many have been led to believe. He was setting his holy people apart fromt the Cannanite culture in the land before them. And within the Levitical Law Code God specifically instructed his people not to engage in the cultic temple worship the Cannanites were guilty of. This form of worship included priests dressing as women, accepting the “seed” from men to appease their Gods and to ensure a succesfull harvest. The seed the men gave was to be considered the greatest give, the gift of life.
This fact becomes even more clear in the book of Dueteronomy (Known as the “Second Law” or the “Explanation of the Law”). Here when Yahweh is addressing all of the Isralites he specifically forbids both males and females from becomming temple prostitutes. All of this is contrasted rather consistently against the repeated (3 times) and consistent prohibition on bestality, which God specifically addressed to both males and females. He did it when the Isrealites left Egypt (Exodus), he did it when establishing the Levetical Law Code (Leviticus), and he did it once the Isrealites reached the promise land (Deuteronomy). In fact, interestingly enough, it is in regards to this particular prohibition where God himself specifically uses the phrase “perversion”.
It’s also worth noting too that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah where never used by Yahweh as an example of homosexuality. Nowhere in all of scripture. In fact, God, in Ezekiel 16:49-50 is the very first one to specifcally mention what Sodom was actually guilty of. And homosexuality is nowhere mentioned. But don’t just take my word for it. I invite you to put everything I have said thus far to the test and see for yourself what the loving word of God and history actually confirm.

 

[truagape]

Even if that is true, the Church has ruled definitively on the matter - so if we had a discussion on this, we’d probably have different assumptions with regards to Magisterial Teaching authority. I think there are some more fundamental issues that need to be discussed before this line of reasoning can be profitable.

So would you be suggesting that the scriptural facts as contained within history can be altered? Of course not! Nevertheless, you would have no choice but to, at the very least, recognize that there is deffinately a difference between “scripture and homosexuality” and “church-teaching and homosexuality”.

And in regards to the “fundamental issues” you speak of. I would be more than willing to discuss these with you as well. So what are they?

 

[mattkubes]

So would you be suggesting that the scriptural facts as contained within history can be altered? Of course not! Nevertheless, you would have no choice but to, at the very least, recognize that there is deffinately a difference between “scripture and homosexuality” and “church-teaching and homosexuality”.

No, but I would suggest that the written scriptures are not an exhaustive account of God’s revelation, and it would certainly be a stretch to say that the Bible presents homosexual acts in a positive light (or, I believe, that it is even silent on the issue: even if it were, that would make no difference to the Church’s ability to rule infallibly on the matter). The difference, if there is any, is superficial at best, since the Church is the only body with the authority to definitively interpret scripture.

 

[Matariel]

Only from the angle of truth.
And your second statement, while off the topic of Old Testatment, is not true. I would invite you to re-read Romans 1 (assuming that’s what you’re referring to).
And since you’re “genuinely curious” about where you preceive me to be comming from, I’m also curious if you ever thought about or questioned the unbiblical history of words such as “sodomite”, and the damaging impact it has had on distorting scripture.

Well, all this is mute anyway-- the infallible teaching of the Church has always been that all male and female homosexual acts are disordered and mortally sinful (unless there are mitigating factors).

The Church teaches people who suffer from SSA to live chaste, Catholic lives. This way they can encourage others to also live chastely.

 

[truagape]

Well, all this is mute anyway-- the infallible teaching of the Church has always been that all male and female homosexual acts are disordered and mortally sinful (unless there are mitigating factors).

The Church teaches people who suffer from SSA to live chaste, Catholic lives. This way they can encourage others to also live chastely.

In certain respects you are absolutely right. With respect to the Church and what it teaches, your post above gets no disagrement from me. But with respect to Sacred Scripture and the biblical facts provided within it, your post above is a clear proclamation that there are differences between “church teaching and homosexuality” versus “scripture and homosexuality”. And the facts found within scripture do a remarkable job at bringing the lies found within certain religious teachings to the surface.

 

[thistle]

Only from the angle of truth.
And your second statement, while off the topic of Old Testatment, is not true. I would invite you to re-read Romans 1 (assuming that’s what you’re referring to).
And since you’re “genuinely curious” about where you preceive me to be comming from, I’m also curious if you ever thought about or questioned the unbiblical history of words such as “sodomite”, and the damaging impact it has had on distorting scripture.

Its not very complicated. Marriage is only between man and woman. Sexual activity is restricted to husband and wife. This is clear in scripture.
What is also clear in scripture is that sexual immorality is forbidden so any sexual activity outside marriage is sinful and that of course includes heterosexual people having sex ouside marriage, male gay sexual activity and female lesbian sexual acivity.