This is something that I've always wanted to know and didn't know anyone who knew the bible well enough to tell me. From reading the posts on this forum, there have been a few people who say they know the bible cover to cover, so I'm hoping you could help me. I always here that the bible says it's a sin to be a homosexual (though I've also heard it's okay to be a homosexual as long as you don't act on it). So my question is: What is the exact passage from the bible that says this? I'm really curious. Thanks!

(I originally put this question stuck in another thread and I think it got lost, so I thought I'd ask it here.)

Have a good day.

I am interested to know which passage too. I've thought the same as you have stated, people have said how it is against something in the Bible, but the actually passage(s) is never mentioned.

Its in Leviticus and its referred to as an abomination in the eyes of God. Leviticus 20:13.


But you know what's funny? So is working on Sunday or disrespecting your parents. Those are also punishable by death.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...&version=31


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...&version=31


Its just a little bit ridiculous to me the way Christians will pick and choose which ones of these are such a big deal.

And what's more interesting is that homosexuality doesn't even make the top Ten Commandments and there's no statements anywhere that says having sex with children is wrong. So go figure.











You know how many supposed Christians I know who have told me they had "psychic dreams" or have seen a ghost or a demon? And they think they are in like Flynn, even though they read horoscopes or are big fans of the paranormal on this site.

But homosexuals are in biiiiiiig trouble.


Homosexuality is just one more thing that people can do that's wrong. Big friggin deal.

christian do pick on homosexual unfairly and way to much i believe. if all sins are the same then lieing is the same as being a homosexual or working on the sabbath (which is actually saturday).
the thing about putting bad kids to death though....hahaha i bet there was no brats back then like there are now at least.

sex out of marriage is sin, and since you can't get married to a man, homosexuality , as in sex with a man, falls under fornication, and is just as same as having sex with a woman without her being your life partner

Wish this one was enforced more, I'm sick of John Edward.

ooooh I see this thread in an ever downward spiral.

It has been done before, and always ends in lockage.

Yeah, I'm surprised the other one is still open. This is a very touchy, sensitive subject.

It isn't just in Leviticus... scriptures also refers to homesexuality in the book of Romans, 1Timothy, Jude, and many others... here is a link that I know you will find helpful if you are looking for a solid scriptural reference for homosexuality.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1302

I hope this helps...

Thank you for showing me. I just wondered if it was really there. :-) Interesting that it comes from the same section that allows slavery and life sacrifices. Hmmm.

but the new testament mentions it from referring to the old law. also - read that whole of Livitcus and understand that time - what they refer to as 'homosexual' was actually male prostututes

Some religious groups both in and around ancient Israel had male prostitutes in their temples who ritually engaged in same-sex activities. These practices were frequently condemned in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). Temple prostitution is no longer found in most areas of the world. - this is what the bible is talking about.

There is no term that means homosexual orientation in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts of the Bible. The authors of the Bible did not understand sexual orientation and thus did not write about it. Biblical authors had little or no understanding of same-sex committed relationships. Rather, they assumed that everyone was heterosexual, but that some heterosexuals engaged in sex with persons of the same gender. Thus, when you see one of these words in an English translation of the Bible, it is important to dig deeper and find what the original Hebrew or Greek text really means.



fyi -
It is reasonable to assume that many loving gay and lesbian relationships existed in Biblical times. Rabbi Gershon Caudill wrote:

"Like all indigenous peoples, the Jews were not overly concerned about male homosexuality, where two men lived together in a monogamous, sexual relationship. As a rule, it did not get any notice....The Talmud does not record a single instance of a person being brought before the Sanhedrin on the charge of homosexual activity." 7

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

2 3 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites
10
nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.


So greedy people and Homosexuals are on par.



See this is what I mean. They zoom in on the Homosexuals but leave out all the people who go shopping in excess. Those people are fine. But the Homosexuals are in BIIIIIIIIIIG trouble.

for years people tried using the bible to keep blacks less than. Interracial marriage was still illegal in the late 60's. It's still a point of contention.

the bible has been used for all sorts of hate yet conveniently overlooking their own faults. for example why don't we have threads arguing over adulterers ? the divorced who remarry? men having hair cuts ? those sins just are over looked. but bigotry lives !!! anything that makes " me feel superior to you" thinking is warranted as important.

hypocrites all.

http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2007/01...&frame=true

The Bible has not been used for hate I don't think, its the interpretation that has been used and that comes from the heart of the reader and the churches that have sprung up.

But yes, in this regard its been a validation tool for the cruel.

The Leviticus passage is not a good indication for homosexuality being wrong. The term "abomination" makes this section clear that it's not talking about all homosexuality, but only male prostitution within the context of idol worship. I'll quote a section of text from my Bible Dictionary, I hope you get to read it, because it is most informative:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Bible says nothing specifically about the homosexual condition, but its condemnation of homosexual conduct are explicit. The scope of these strictures must, however, be carefully determined. Too often they have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has claimed too much.

The exegesis of the Sodom and Gibeah stories (Genesis 19:1-25; Judges 19:13-20, 48) is a good case in point. We must resist D.S Bailey's widely-quoted claim that the sin God punished on these occasions was a breach of hospitality etiquette without sexual overtones (it fails to explain adequately both the double usage of the word "know" ( Hebrew yada) and the reason behind the substitutionary offer of Lot's daughters and the Levite's concubine); but neither account amounts to a wholesale condemnation of all homosexual acts. On both occasions the sin condemned was attempted homosexual rape, not a caring homosexual relationship between consenting partners.

The force of the other Old Testament references to homosexuality is similarly limited by the context in which they are set. Historically, homosexual behaviour was linked with idolatrous cult prostitution (1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46). The stern warnings of the levitical law (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13) are primarily aimed at idolatry too; the word "abomination" (Hebrew to eba) for example, which feature in both these references, is a religious term often used for idolatrous practices. Viewed strictly within their context, then, these Old Testament condemnations apply to homosexual activity conducted in the course of idolatry, but not necessarily more widely than that.

In Romans 1, Paul condemned homosexual acts, lesbian as well as male, in the same breath as idolatry (v23-27), but his theological canvas is broader than that of Leviticus. Instead of treating homosexual behaviour as an expression of idolatrous worship, he traces both to the bad 'exchange' fallen man has made in departing from his Creator's intentions (verse 25). Seen from this angle, every homosexual act is unnatural, not because it cuts across the individuals natural sexual orientation (which, of course, it may not) or infringes Old Testament Law, but because it flies in the face of God's creation scheme for human sexual expression.

Paul makes two more references to homosexual practice in other Epistles. Both occur in lists of banned activities and strike the same condemnatory note. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, practicing homosexuals are included among the unrighteous who will not inherit the kingdom of God (but with the redemptive note added, "such were some of you"); and in 1 Timothy 1:9, they feature in a list of "the lawless and disobedient". The latter is especially important because the whole list represents an updated version of the Ten Commandments. Paul parallels the 7th commandment (on adultery) with a reference to "immoral persons" and "sodomites", words which cover all sexual intercourse outside marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual. If the Decalogue is permanently valid, the significance of this application is heightened still further.

It has been suggested that the meaning of "sodomites" (Greek arsenikoites) in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 may be restricted to that of "male prostitute". Linguistic evidence to support this view is lacking, however, though the word itself is certainly rare in literature of the New Testament period. it seems beyond reasonable doubt that Paul intended to condemn homosexual conduct (but not homosexual people) in the most general and theologically broad terms he knew. His three scattered references fit together in an impressive way as an expression of God's will as he saw it. As Creator, Law-Giver and King, the Lord's condemnation of such behaviour was absolutely plain.

(Quoted from the New Bible Dictionary, 21st Century edition, pp. 478-479)

Oooh Cool PA. Once again, you know your stuff.

Actually, I just quoted a Bible dictionary I own. But it is a very good dictionary, in my opinion

That's the one I was trying to remember. Thanks for posting that Android.

Sorry, but i must disagree with the modern interpretations put on some biblical passages .Yes the bible says practicing homosexuality is a sin.This is really just as clear and simple as it sounds.

LT Ripley is usually very accurate, but of course the greeks and earlier civilizations were aware of different sexual orientations. Greek society was particularly accepting of it, as it did not go against any basic religious beliefs of theirs.

There were, and still are, many spiritual, social, and medical grounds for discouraging the practice of homosexuality. BUT! BUT! BUT! there are many caveats to this. Adultery, and sex out side of marriage were equally condemned, and pose the same type of spiritual, social and medical risks.

Along with many of the rules designed to protect society as a whole, and particularly the less powerful members of it, these were not merely religious edicts but rules for safe living.

Even in modern society almost all the bible's rules, from what to eat, to how to treat others etc. still form a good basis for living, and for the structure of society.

While some judgements seem harsh to us, they must always be tempered by the bibles two supreme guides. Love one another as yourself(which presupposes a healthy love of your self, ) and judge not. It is not our place to judge sin, although we sometimes need to punish the civil perpetrators of crimes in society, which may also be sins. eg ;theft, child, spousal or parental abuse. A child who abuses a parent, as with a parent who abuses a child, should be punished, if not by stoning, then by some rigorous modern equivalent.

Just out of curiousity, what are these grounds (I don't need the "were" just the "still are" would be nice)?

Just a few basic ones and I guess even these may be dependent on core belief systems. Homosexual sex is a non productive practice. While homosexual love may be as genuine and constructive as heterosexual, the sex act in itself offers nothing in terms of family or society.

It could be compared to having sex with your sister or mother; possible and perhaps even an expression of a loving relationship, but biologically and sociologically irresponsible at least and probably fraught with dangers . This form of sex, as well as adulterous or un*spam filter* therefore, can not contribute to the spiritual fulfilment, and growth of a person. If you have no belief, or place no value, in the spiritual element of humanity, then this is irrelevant, but to others it is a significant point.

Our society is based in response to evolutionary forces on the family as a core unit to support and nurture women while they are dependent, ie child bearing and raising, and to do the same for children until they are self supporting. Cultural, social, political, or economic movements/forces which devalue the family or attempt to deconstruct it, and replace it with other forms of communal living, place this role and thus the most vulnerable members of our society at risk.

Homosexual relationships, along with the breakdown of marriage, and the consequent development of sex as a commodity outside of marriage, through premarital and extra marital sex, have tragic consequences.

I live in a fairly protected and sheltered part of the world, and yet I see every day, the economic, social, and personal costs to all, but particularly children, when the family unit breaks down. Despite the best efforts of governments to compensate for this, many children grow up never knowing their mother, or more commonly their father. I deal with the psychological and behavioural consequences of this every day.

Medical is almost self explanatory. Homosexual sex, along with some heterosexual sexual practices, are not natural, in that the human body has not evolved to cater for them. In consequence, many of these practices increase the risk of both temorary and permanent harm to our bodies.This is independent of the fact that they increase the risk of transmission of most sexual diseases. Again, this is also true where people have multiple sexual partners, in a heterosexual l relationship
Nature does not care that we have developed self aware consciousnesses which drive us to express our desires in alternate ways. We were actually designed or evolved for the purpose of procreation. Further social evolution over millenia has refined a safe method of nurturing our young. This has resulted in a slow growth and development of our young which many argue is an essential part of our development of intelligence as a species.

As you can see, a non religious argument can easily be sustained, that homosexual sex, along with some heterosexual sexual practices, are quite dangerous, both to individuals, but more significantly to the essential fabric of a workable and humane, human society.

Having said all this, it probably sounds trite, but is in fact true, that on a personal level i make no judgement of my homosexual friends or colleagues, and love them as best I can. (Some people, heterosexual or homosexual, are less easy to love than others)

This is also true of the people I know who are engaging in heterosexual practices, which time and time again i see lead to tragedy. Two of my neices have multiple children from multiple partners. We love and support them to the best of our ability, but this does not stop us grieving for the women and their children, who have lived lives of far less potential than was necessary, due to life choices which were made.

I have to say this argument has little meaning today.

Think of how many times a person has sex in their life , and how many times do they do it to conceive a child?
Basically heterosexual sex as it is practiced today is in no way different than homosexual, both is just for pleasure or love, and has little to do with reproduction, except a few times in a life when people actually plan on having a child.

Now, I don't care what people do, but I do see homosexual sex as something as ridiculous as sticking your thing in someones ear, because your sexual organ has a natural place to go (a vagina) , and it is perfectly shaped for that job.
But that would also rule out any other form of "sex" that people do these days (and I imagine have always done)

But sex is a sensitive subject, and people can't get enough of it, and I am pretty sure, that discussions about it
are waste of time, because future will be always such that provides more orgasm for people with less responsibility and consequence.
So anything that turns anyone on in any weird way will probably become social standard in the future. It's just the question of how far into the future you have to look.

Slave and master are completely different today than what they were in those days. Slaves were people that owed debt to another individual and they would work under them to pay off that debt. I guess you would say your a slave to your real estate company or your car dealer when you go in debt for a vehicle or house. Its not like the slavery you seen in the last couple generations. I will look for a good article to supplement my post but Im running short on time at the moment. Slaves and masters in biblical times werent based on a superior race over the lesser. It could have basically been anyone that was indebted to another man.

I don't agree with you Mr. Walker, but I respect your opinions. I didn't write this topic to debate anyone (that's why I didn't put it in the debate one), so I'm going to keep my side of the view out of this. I was just really interested to see where in the bible it said it was wrong and I appriciate that. I don't feel like getting into a massive debate about something that is not going to go anywhere and just going to make a lot of people really upset. Unless anyone has anything more to add to this thead, i did get the information I was looking for (from quite a few people), I will say one more time, thank you to everyone. I guess that means, if I can do this, that I close this thread. :-) Thank you all.

Well, PA stole my thunder, (whether simply quoting a very good Bible dictionary or not that was a great post ).

while mr. walker points out that homosexual sex produces no offspring in itself . so does the sex between many married and happy heterosexuals for various reasons. Not all heterosexuals are able to reproduce. Should that be a comparison as you put it a relationship between brother and sister ? it offers nothing in terms of society or family. Should they dissolve because of this ?

As for homosexual sex offering nothing to society ? a healthy loving relationship between 2 adults offers alot. Most of my friends are in relationships that have well passed 12 years - a few of them passed 20 and 2 I know that have passed 30 ! ( yes they are old gits) How do those do ill will towards society? on the contrary I would think. Long term relationships between gay people promote long term relationships. just like they do in straight society where the divorce rate is over 50 % and the majority being christian. Gays didn't cause that.

as for procreation - this world is overpopulated as it is. it is foolish to think humanity would die out because of gays. ( we do know how to procreate and even do so !!)

as for being irresponsible - that would explain abortion and unwanted pregnancies or adoptions ? the rise of std's among straight people ( 1 in 4 is the number) . HIV seems higher among gay men here in the states , but world wide it is a disease common among straight people. the USA isn't the center of the world. It is irresponsible of you to remark without education - only to propagate stereotypes.

as for spiritual fulfillment and growth as a person. again you are remarking without education . as a lesbian I feel god blessed me. a few months ago I attended a friends 25th anniversary where they re said their vows. they both felt and are extremely blessed. Their love for one another through the good times and bad gives hope that love does work. That contributes alot to the spiritual element of humanity. but it is only your contention that gay people can not give spiritually to humanity.

well you may want to thank bi sexual King James and his gift of the King James Version of the bible to humanity. What of St. Jerome ? there are others .

you state -
Our society is based in response to evolutionary forces on the family as a core unit to support and nurture women while they are dependent, ie child bearing and raising, and to do the same for children until they are self supporting. Cultural, social, political, or economic movements/forces which devalue the family or attempt to deconstruct it, and replace it with other forms of communal living, place this role and thus the most vulnerable members of our society at risk.

this is laughable. with divorce at over 50%? Gays play no part in it 's deconstruction. the lack of responsibility does. And if you educated yourself you would see that children raised in gay homes are no more likely to be gay than if raised by 2 straight parents ( of which most gays were) . Actually most are better off - they learn for the most part not to hate.

Lt. Ripley, I think I love you! I was going to make a post similiar to this but this topic gets me a bit flustered, so I held off for the sake of making it sound snippy, but you portrayed what I wanted to say so well that I'm glad I held off.

Kudos!!!!

natural is questionable. a penis and a vagina can procreate , but for alot of women it doesn't always equal pleasurable. not in the orgasmic sense. it's only the first 1/3 of the vagina that actually feels anything - the rest is pressure. plus anyone can procreate. it's not rocket science.

if we went solely by that plenty of oral s*x would have to stop. sorry guys. and more sorry for you ladies !

natural is questionable because a man's 'G' spot is located anally. so I have heard and read. and from what I understand quite pleasurable. Now why would god put it there ?

if you took away everything that was pleasurable and not natural you might as well do it through a hole in the sheet and not come into contact with each other. Breasts were made to feed a baby , not for men to drool over or touch.

natural wouldn't care if a woman had an orgasm since men do faster. once they were done that would be it ( and for lots that's how it is) since the job of procreation would be over. nothing more to see , move on ........

natural can't even be used to describe sex between chimps. they have oral sex, between both sexes. they masturbate themselves as well as each other. gay chimps ? sure are. ( as well as a multitude of other animals.)

natural is a man made description of sex to set rules by. but nature isn't set to man made rules.



again it would explain the divorce rates and fatherless children among straight people in the USA.

ps - if you ever get the chance to see it live - The Vagina Monologues was great ! it's also on dvd. really enlightening for both men and women.

shucks.

Hmmm...

I can understand why topics like this get closed down, which I think is unfortunate, because they do allow discussion of important issues, and as long as the forum guidelines are adhered to, i dont see a problem.

Having said that, I do feel that Lt ripley read, and interpreted, my post through her own eyes and cultural filters. I actually see all sex out side of marriage as just the same as homosexual sex, in its destructive nature. I thought I made this clear.

I do not think I base my comments on ignorance, with a degree in; history, geography amd politics, and a post graduate diploma in education. I also studied psychology at uni, and was for nearly ten years, a student counsellor with teenagers in a high school. I would not have let my beliefs influence my work with those children, on either a personal or a system level. In fact, it was working with such children in particular, and adolescents in general, which influenced my belief that the breakdown of the traditional marriage in western society is the single greatest debilitating influence on young people today. There are many contributing factors to this breakdown, but in my opinion everyone of them should be resisted as strongly as possible, rather than just accepting the breakdown as inevitable . The costs to individuals, and to society, are too high to be simply accepted.

Of course my personal values and attitudes influence my beliefs. But they are not just christian. There is also the influence of generations of my family, which followed traditional non -religious values with great success. I credit my 30 plus years of a very loving relationship with my wife largely to those traditional values, which kept me faithful to my marriage vows. In fact, my wife is the only person with whom I have had sex. I do not see this as a thing to be proud of, but just the natural course of events.
We were unable to have children, but the context of the marriage was to have children, and care for, and nurture them. We did so with other children than our own. Personally, I would find any sex out side of this context (regardless of its purpose) to be less productive and purposeful than within it, but that may be a particularly old fashioned perspective. (It does not make it wrong)

I never commented at all on the upbringing of children in "gay" families. Biologically, there is no reason why the child's sexual orientation should be altered, by whom they live with, but the socialisation process and belief structures of such children would be influenced by those of the adults. Both genetics and socialisation play a part in sexual orientation.

I did not say anything about the relationship, if any, between gay relationships and over or under population. Perhaps you have been sensitised to this (in my opinion unjust) criticism by others.

My point was that, in evolutionary terms, there is a purpose to sex. Sex within the context of procreation is different to sex outside this context, and in my opinion the best social context for procreation and raising children remains the family unit. On the other hand, sex outside of the marriage is statistically one of the major causes of marriage breakdown.

If you end up having no children, or 10, is neither my business, nor my concern, but statistically over population is a thing of the past. Due to other social and economic forces, the world's population will peak in about 30 years, and then start declining significantly. This is a separate issue, but it will bring a whole set of different pressures on family and social relationships. These pressures are already being experienced in japan and many European countries, where birthrates have fallen under replacement levels. The Australian population would be in the same boat if not for immigration to our country. (Pun Unintended)

I am sure, (and I do not mean to be patronising) that there are many long term gay relationships. This does not make them "right", or a preferred form of relationship. There are also long standing defacto relationships to which i would say "ditto", and there are long standing marriages which should have been dissolved long ago, due to their abusive nature.

I am sorry to contradict you, but homosexual sex is a higher risk factor than heterosexual sex, particularly with aids. In third world countries there are a multitude of cultural, medical, and hygeine factors which statistically even out the contagion, but when it comes down to sex, one is much more risky than the other. Again these are facts. I keep up to date from a geographical, historical and political point of view, on aids epidemics in the african continent, and closer to home in Papua new guinea and the pacific region. In Australia a mini resurgence in Aids has been medically attributed to an acceptance within the gay community of non safe sexual practices, despite years where education seemed to be winning this battle.

I could go on, but the main point I am making is that to call me ignorant is itself a stereotype. There are intelligent, educated, and very well informed people who disagree with you. Not all disagree for "religious" reasons, but based on facts and logic. I may not be "right", but I would not call you ignorant or ill informed just because i disagree with your life views. I find it disappointing that you saw me as that, given the nature of my argument.

I will accept your point on spirituality, given that this term may be defined in many ways. I see spirituality as life affirming. It is, perhaps, a personal blind spot that i find it hard to see sex outside of the context of producing life as a comparable spiritual act to that wthin. I said in my post that a loving relationship without sex is a different kettle of fish. There are many forms of genuine love, including that, i am sure, between same- sex couples, and older people which do not include a sexual element. I included love for family members within this context.

But Mr. walker, you and everyone else should know that the instances of AIDS are the very lowest among lesbian women. No question.

I think Lt. Ripley stated her case perfectly and I agree.



I bolded one word up there... you're right, it's not the prefered form... it is a form.

It is my opinion, that God cares more about loving life-long equal relationships than he is about whose naughty bits are touching whose. God is NOT that petty.

As to the first, that is an accident of biology.

As to the second, my observations were not so much about god's care and love. That should be accepted as given. I also said that I did not judge, or love less, those who practice different sexual mores.

I think, and it was some entries ago, that my point was that many of god's laws were instituted for real practical health reasons, and despite some scientific and social differences in existence today, those benefits largely remain.

I sincerely hope that I have not personally offended any readers. It was not my intention, and I have attempted to write in a style and tone which is as neutral as possible. However, these are my beliefs and my reasons for holding them.

While not particularly popular in the modern age, I think I have a right to express them, and in fact a need to show that such beliefs are still held by other than "ignorant' persons.

I hope that I have remained within the forum guidelines on an admittedly sensitive subject, and in a way wish that i could know better, as people, some of those who have very different life experiences, attitudes and values from my own.

I am not stupid, and know that what has provided me with a most wonderful life, may not work out the same for others. However, it is all that I can personally recommend.

Not all christians have the same view of homosexuality.below is an extract from an article to be found at www.soulforce.org




There's a Wideness in God's Mercy, the Rev. Dr. Louis B. Smedes, a distinguished Christian author and ethicist, describes exactly how the Bible says these promiscuous priests and priestesses got into this mess. Once again it has nothing to do with homosexuality:

SMEDES: "The people Paul had in mind refused to acknowledge and worship God, and for this reason were abandoned by God. And being abandoned by God, they sank into sexual depravity."

SMEDES: "The homosexuals I know have not rejected God at all; they love God and they thank God for his grace and his gifts. How, then, could they have been abandoned to homosexuality as a punishment for refusing to acknowledge God?"

SMEDES: "Nor have the homosexuals that I know given up heterosexual passions for homosexual lusts. They have been homosexual from the moment of their earliest sexual stirrings. They did not change from one orientation to another; they just discovered that they were homosexual. It would be unnatural for most homosexuals to have heterosexual sex."

SMEDES: "And the homosexual people I know do not lust after each other any more than heterosexual people do... their love for one another is likely to be just as spiritual and personal as any heterosexual love can be








fullywired

I only know this one-

James 2:3
And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:

Respect those who wear gay clothing.
I think it means, respect those who wear leather trousers, chaps..leather hats.. cowboy costumes etc.

Oh no, I did find this passage-

Exodus 19:16
And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that were (missing word) camp trembled.

I think maybe the missing word is 'totally'
All the people that were totally camp trembled.

I just wanted to point out, that "barren" women were often divorced or "put aside" just for this reason (not being productive). It's important to recognize that procreation was more important than it is now, what with infant mortality rates, the average lifespan closer to 40's vice current 60's or 70's, etc etc.

This is why I keep saying CONTEXT PEOPLE! Sex and sexuality, and the relationships that revolve around them, are very different today than they were then.

I honestly think it was not the sexuality that was the sin, but the fact that it was purely for pleasure. Man/*spam filter* was a required evil. Not so with homosexual love!

I STRENUOUSLY object to the idea that sex for the sake of pleasure and pair bonding is immoral.

Well everyone has a right to express their ideas of morality, and thus enrich the current moral compass of the society he is living in.

I'm actually of the same belief Ripley is. I don't think the Bible is talking about a commited same sex relationship at all. First of all, a man didn't stand up one day and say "Hey, I'm gay! and my lover and I are going to move in together, set up housekeeping and bake Manna pies all day". No. Young men were beholden to their parents and were married off, gay or not--likely their orientation was never even considered. People didn't have a choice in who they'd marry. The concept of openly living in a gay relationship wasn't even an option for a gay person, nor would they have even considered it... people were born to breed, and in doing so ensuring the family line and inheritence. NOT because God only approves of man and woman relationships. And marry and procreate they would--gay or not. The entire concept of "gay" and living in a same sex relationship was completely lost on these people, the whole concept didn't exist. Everything they owned, all their family wealth and honor was wrapped up in their children and heirs.

What was evil? Temple prostitution.

And for good reason. This is what I think the Bible is talking about. Temple Prostitution.

Kinda like what I said. At least the same intent!

Why thank you. I agree, provided that one's idea or morality does not extend to manditory compliance of others, with obvious exceptions like killing and stealing and raping, pillaging, etc.

Thank you Eggy.

I can't imagine why Bible authors would put anything in the Bible about commited same sex relationships. The entire concept simply didn't exist back then. However, Temple prostitution was a problem for a a LOT of reasons.

1. Most temple prostitutes were NOT honored to be doing their job. They weren't paid, they were abused for all intents and purpose.
2. Undoubtably, they DID have a tendency to spread STD and other disease.
3. Temple prostitution was a pagan rite, one that I'm sure the ancient Jews wanted to do away with.
4. Both men and women were temple prostitutes, but much beyond that we don't know much about them. It's likely that young men and women, were used by men, for simply their own sexual gratification and it was abusive to the "initiates". Or they truly were used for religious rites, but probably more like abuse if you look at it objectively.

God isn't happy about abusive sex or abusive relationships, not between opposite sexes or same sexes, and prostitution for temples or money, is generally a bad idea... it spreads disease. And, it's adultry considering most people who used temple prostitues (men) were married. If they weren't married, it was STILL adultry in the eyes of God.

Think about it, back 2000 years ago there weren't happy gay men decorating their wad and daube hut together (the idea would have been absurd), those gay men were married making babies with their WIVES, to ensure the family line, wealth, and to increase their social status. Perhaps they satisfied their sexual lust other places (like pagan temples?) Ok... well, they were still married men who slept with their wives. So in that time and era, it's highly likely that gay men and their sexual encounters WERE adultry, they were likely married--to women whether they wanted to be or not.

The idea of lesbians was probably even more obscure. Women at this time in history were incredibly intimate with each other and each other's bodies. They delivered each others babies, they were in constant company with one another. The more often shared their bedsides with a female servant, friend or family than they did with their own husbands. I'm sure no one gave a second thought to a lesbian relationship at that time, or that there could even be such a thing. Women were close, what women did in bed on the sly with one another was probably never considered by the MEN who wrote the Bible. To them, women's relationships were a huge mystery and not particularly worthy of speculation... oh ya, kinda like today. haha.

Homosexuals, homosexuals, homosexuals, and blah bla blah homosexuals. How about saying something nice about drunks as well? Buuurp. Har har har

Don't worry..I can handle this subject..I'm a sensitive guy.
Although I am a bit of a homoskeptic..
I believe in adam and eve, not adam and steve..
now where did I put my can of larger....

You touched on a topic worthy of it's own thread! Obvious to who? It's obvious to millions that woman should be beaten if non-compliant to their husbands my friend. It's obvious to millions that homosexuality is a choice, and wrong in their Gods eyes too.

Before I get bashed and accused of being a right wing, conservative, Christian loving, Billy Graham supporter, please be advised the above are not obvious to ME necessarily, but indeed they are to MILLIONS.

OK. I'm sure God forgives you for being a boorish belching drunk that laughs like a pirate. Jesus loves you!

I believe Adam and Eve are metaphorical.

I have NO problem with people who follow their idea of the bible, EXCEPT when it hurts other people.

I think it is human folly to follow the magic book that came from a magic diety who lives in the clouds when it hurts actual, living people.

I think that's core to Christ's message too. Christ said a lot about loving your neighbor, but he didn't say anything about homosexuality. (that's coming from the perspective of accepting the new testament anyway.)

So, billyhill, you don't like gays. That's fine for you, nobody says you have to be gay. But do you deny gays the right to be gay? What does "homoskeptic" mean?

But he did say this:

"Revelations:14:3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb."

So, if you're not touched by a woman then you are a virgin and you're going to heaven.......of course it's only men who have never touched a women who are going to heaven......No women in heaven.....No men who have have had sex with women in heaven.......just 144,000 men in heaven for all eternity......interesting.

That's IF you accept revelation as anything but the metaphorical rantings of an anti-roman populace using codes to refer to the fall of rome, or if you accept revelation as being divinely inspired. I do not.