Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
aussieguy55

The Bible and Homosexuality

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

It may not be all of America.  It may be only this board, or maybe just a few boards like this one.  We actually talk about religion AND politics here.  Well, we're not supposed to talk about politics but we manage to do it at least a little bit anyway.

Sorry I did not make it clear.  I meant the Church itself getting involved in political things, propositions, supreme court actions etc....

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think you've just identified one of the major advantages of having living prophets.

Not when they seem to get so much wrong even to the point of contradicting prior LDS leaders and even themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ahab said:

It may not be all of America.  It may be only this board, or maybe just a few boards like this one.  We actually talk about religion AND politics here.  Well, we're not supposed to talk about politics but we manage to do it at least a little bit anyway.

Imagine, though, a place where you can talk about politics AND religion.  Is that really all of America, or maybe just this board and a few others like it.

There is such a place. It is weird and filled with moral degenerates and intellectual dimwits. The other day I was being mocked for saying Hitler and the Nazis were bad people. Who knew that was such a controversial stand?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

There is such a place. It is weird and filled with moral degenerates and intellectual dimwits. The other day I was being mocked for saying Hitler and the Nazis were bad people. Who knew that was such a controversial stand?

Yes, come on now, The Nehor.  Haven't you learned yet that all people are good and it's just that good people sometimes make bad and even stupid choices?

Where did I go wrong?  I thought I had taught you that already.

Share this post


Link to post

"That is an interesting string. Some people are making good points. My response, I don't know if this is what you are asking, is that the NRSV translation does one word well and the other word poorly, as if to make a compromise for the people who might be buying their bibles. Male prostitute is a feasible translation for malakoi, which has a wide range of meaning, and probably means a very immoral person. Male prostitute is what I think the biblical author might have intended. The NRSV is good there. However, Sodomites is a poor word to use in translation. I like the statement that the word only means someone who lived in the city of Sodom. Arsenokoitoi is a seldom used word. Its appearance in Corinthians is the first known appearance in written texts that we possess. Obviously it was used before Corinthians was written or the audience would not know what the word meant. Arseno means to stretch out, koitoi means bed, hence "one who stretches himself out on a bed." That sounds like Greek slang for a rapist, or a pederast. Arsekokoitoi in later years refers to economic exploiters or oppressors, which further suggests to me that the word means rapist in the early years of its usage. Used in the first century CE, a person hearing the word might think of the rich and powerful Romans who forced their male slaves or young boys to have sex with them. Luther had it right."

Comment by Dr Gnuse who I shared this thread with.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Lots of modern day criticism of the Bible and homosexuality.  As well, there's lots of criticism of the Bible on many other topics.  The arguments are similar.  The Bible is, and there is no doubt in my mind, rather contradictory on many topics. 

But when one reads the AnteNicean fathers' writings, there seems to be universal condemnation of homosexuality with citation to the scriptures.  So those closest to the action were unanimous.  It seemed to be a frequent topic.  

Edited by Bob Crockett
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/17/2019 at 1:51 PM, aussieguy55 said:

Can anyone here point me to any work that LDS scholars have done to deal with these passages?

I suppose Keven L. Barney could be considered an LDS scholar: https://www.fairmormon.org/testimonies/scholars/kevin-l-barney

He said in his footnote for 1 Corinthians 6:9 in this paper http://feastupontheword.org/images/1/1b/Footnotes_Volume_2.pdf

gr ἀρσενοκοῖται arsenokoitai, from ἄρσην arsēn male (specifically a mature male, this word is sometimes translated as “husband”); and κοίτη koitē a sexual relationship (cf. eng “coitus”). The term “sodomite,” sometimes used as a euphemism, exists only in modern language and is not a gr or heb term. Both here and in Lev. 18:22 more straightforward terms are used. While male homosexuality in general is condemned, the specific practice Paul was referring to was relations between an older man and young boys. The pairing of these two together is probably not coincidental. Sex between an older, established man, and a much younger man--even boys--was fairly common in the Graeco-Roman world. Ganymede, the cupbearer of the Gods, was the archetype of the younger passive partner (in Latin his name was Catamitus, whence “catamite” in eng). In Graeco-Roman culture there was relatively little shame attached to an older man who engaged in homosexual relations as an older partner in the active role; more shame accrued to the younger, passive partners. To Jews—and early Saints—the whole practice was abhorrent.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Teancum said:
19 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Overall people will dissect the scriptures in various ways to find some justification for their actions.  I suppose in time when sex robots become more common people will justify themselves with those things by finding some reason in the scriptures to justify it.  I think any reasonable person who reads the scriptures knows which side of the fence Jesus and Satan have on the issue.

That is a fairly blatant dismissal of substantive scholarship on the subject.

Serious and sincere question:   What exactly do you understand the "substantive scholarship on the subject" to be saying?  Can you summarize here what you think it is telling you?

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

I have never lived in America.  I have always wondered why the Church there is so much more political than other countries.  They only thing I can understand was the early Church was not protected by the government from lawlessness.  Then the law was after them for polygamy.  I am looking for reasons but not excuses. 

One reason is probably where the level of impact/influence can be the greatest.  In areas with fewer members, impact for change may be more effective by not being as politically visible and instead working directly with officials.  And likely goals are still pretty basic and centered on establishing the Church.  I understand trying to find/build even buildings to meet in can be difficult if the local government views the Church with suspicion.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, california boy said:

One, everyone seems to be ok with.  The other goes on for pages and pages.  And almost every single thread on homosexuality is started by a member of the Church.

I think it is the opposite unless you mean everyone is okay with the stance of the Church teaching adultery is a sin.

 It is more likely there are no threads on adultery because everyone or almost everyone agrees that adultery is wrong and therefore there is little to discuss.  Otoh, there is a lot of debate on LGBT subjects because there is a lot of disagreement.

Plus when was the last time laws about adultery were in the News?

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think it is the opposite unless you mean everyone is okay with the stance of the Church teaching adultery is a sin.

 It is more likely there are no threads on adultery because everyone or almost everyone agrees that adultery is wrong and therefore there is little to discuss.  Otoh, there is a lot of debate on LGBT subjects because there is a lot of disagreement.

Plus when was the last time laws about adultery were in the News?

I probably worded the adultery statement badly.  But yes. people do agree with how the Church handles adultery, but seems unsettled on. the position the Church has taken on LGBT issues.  Something just seems wrong on LGBTissues to a lot of people.  So the debate keeps going back and forth.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks for taking a look! I hope it does one thing though, I hope it puts the doubt in that God is against his children that are gay. These people are not choosing to be gay, they just are. Would you like to be told to love the same sex, if you are heterosexual? Like I've said over and over again, just imagine what that would be like. There are so many variables in human bodies. I'm so tired of the church's concentration on the LGBTQ crowd. The church leaders that do this need to walk away, just walk away. Because everytime there is a talk in conference or the latest outcry about not banning conversion therapy, it just digs at those that are LGBTQ. 

I don't think ANYONE speaking for our church is teaching God is against gay children. The church's position is not that most  people chose to be gay. The general authorities acknowledge we do not know the answers to all questions in this area. Since this is a topic of great interest and discussion, I am pleased that the General Authorities address it in conference. I would be more frustrated if they pretended the issue did not exist.  I find comfort that they have the humility to address that they do not know and address what they do know based on scripture and revelation. I still have questions.  I hope LGBTQ members  will endure while this issue is sorted out in a rather public way. There is a lot we do know and agree on which should comfort all. There are difficult questions remaining with  which the  Apostles are wrestling.  But  i am pleased they are trying and  that their approach is grounded in scripture as well as science. I would be distressed if principles and doctrine  were haphazardly abandoned based on this week's "science" - especially when much of the scholarship in this area is so tainted. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, california boy said:

I probably worded the adultery statement badly.  But yes. people do agree with how the Church handles adultery, but seems unsettled on. the position the Church has taken on LGBT issues.  Something just seems wrong on LGBTissues to a lot of people.  So the debate keeps going back and forth.

Yes, and I think what seems wrong to most people in the Church is that the world seems to be accepting it as okay more and more while the Church still feels it is wrong.  So we get more and more people of the world saying it is okay while the Church still feels it is wrong.  And the people of the world don't even seem to care that most members of the Church feel it is wrong and just want to go on as if it is okay.  Or they try to get members of the  Church to agree with them so that members of the Church will start to think it is okay, too.

So we just keep going around and around and don't seem to be getting anywhere with each other.  Those who feel it is wrong are pretty much ignored or told they are wrong for thinking it is wrong while more and more people in the world feel that it is okay.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Ahab said:

Yes, and I think what seems wrong to most people in the Church is that the world seems to be accepting it as okay more and more while the Church still feels it is wrong.  So we get more and more people of the world saying it is okay while the Church still feels it is wrong.  And the people of the world don't even seem to care that most members of the Church feel it is wrong and just want to go on as if it is okay.  Or they try to get members of the  Church to agree with them so that members of the Church will start to think it is okay, too.

So we just keep going around and around and don't seem to be getting anywhere with each other.  Those who feel it is wrong are pretty much ignored or told they are wrong for thinking it is wrong while more and more people in the world feel that it is okay.

Except there is more and more acceptance of sex outside of marriage in the world today as well.  You don't see multiple threads on sex outside of marriage for straight people.  I think it is pretty clear that a lot of members are struggling with the way the Church handles LGBT issues.  No one seems to be struggling with the Church's position on sex outside of marriage for straight people.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Except there is more and more acceptance of sex outside of marriage in the world today as well.  You don't see multiple threads on sex outside of marriage for straight people.  I think it is pretty clear that a lot of members are struggling with the way the Church handles LGBT issues.  No one seems to be struggling with the Church's position on sex outside of marriage for straight people.

I don't think it is the Church that is struggling, except maybe to get the point across that acting on LBGTQ impulses is not okay.  People generally understand that sex outside of marriage is not okay, either.  But for some reason a lot of people in the world think acting on LGBTQ impulses is okay.   They used to hide it but now they don't.  They are OUT IN THE OPEN now and I suppose they want people to think that because they are open about it that everyone else should think it is okay.  Even the fact that it is legal now doesn't mean that it is okay. Porn is legal now, too and has been for quire a while now, but we all still know that isn't okay.  I don't know what happened, really.  Where did people get the idea that it is okay?  Why do LGBTQ people think it is okay?  It isn't, but yet for some reason they think so and they want everyone else to think it is okay too.

Edited by Ahab

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, california boy said:

Except there is more and more acceptance of sex outside of marriage in the world today as well.  You don't see multiple threads on sex outside of marriage for straight people.  I think it is pretty clear that a lot of members are struggling with the way the Church handles LGBT issues.  No one seems to be struggling with the Church's position on sex outside of marriage for straight people.

A lot of people struggle with it. They just either do it or not instead of advocating for it or against it.

I have been reading through old general conferences and just read then-Elder Packer’s address in 1990. The doctrine has not really changed from that. No intimation that it was their fault for having that desire like you get in some of President Kimball’s earlier books. No mention of marriage either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I don't think it is the Church that is struggling, except maybe to get the point across that acting on LBGTQ impulses is not okay.  People generally understand that sex outside of marriage is not okay, either.  But for some reason a lot of people in the world think acting on LGBTQ impulses is okay.   They used to hide it but now they don't.  They are OUT IN THE OPEN now and I suppose they want people to think that because they are open about it that everyone else should think it is okay.  Even the fact that it is legal now doesn't mean that it is okay. Porn is legal now, too and has been for quire a while now, but we all still know that isn't okay.  I don't know what happened, really.  Where did people get the idea that it is okay?  Why do LGBTQ people think it is okay?  It isn't, but yet for some reason they think so and they want everyone else to think it is okay too.

I know this is crazy thinking, but gay marriage is legal.  And some crazy members of the church think that sex inside of marriage is not immoral.  The Church refuses to recognize those marriages as being real marriages.  A lot of members believe that just because you are gay doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to find someone to marry and share a life with.  So there is the conflict for a lot of members.  And there is the core of the countless threads that pop up like Whack-a-Moles.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

A lot of people struggle with it. They just either do it or not instead of advocating for it or against it.

I have been reading through old general conferences and just read then-Elder Packer’s address in 1990. The doctrine has not really changed from that. No intimation that it was their fault for having that desire like you get in some of President Kimball’s earlier books. No mention of marriage either.

I feel a bit uncomfortable that I might be derailing this thread.  That wasn't my intention. 

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, california boy said:

I know this is crazy thinking, but gay marriage is legal.  And some crazy members of the church think that sex inside of marriage is not immoral.  The Church refuses to recognize those marriages as being real marriages.  A lot of members believe that just because you are gay doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to find someone to marry and share a life with.  So there is the conflict for a lot of members.  And there is the core of the countless threads that pop up like Whack-a-Moles.  

I just got the 403 Error message when responding to your post and rather than writing it again I'm just going to say I was saying pretty much what has already been said before and since it apparently doesn't register with you I won't bother to say it again.

Edited by Ahab

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, california boy said:

I know this is crazy thinking, but gay marriage is legal.  And some crazy members of the church think that sex inside of marriage is not immoral.  The Church refuses to recognize those marriages as being real marriages.  A lot of members believe that just because you are gay doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to find someone to marry and share a life with.  So there is the conflict for a lot of members.  And there is the core of the countless threads that pop up like Whack-a-Moles.  

Legal in regards to the law of man yes but morality is not necessarily determined by the law of man.  It is legal to make porn or have an abortion.  The does not mean porn or having an abortion is moral.  For thousands of years, sex in a marriage was heterosexual so the default would be that it would not be immoral for those in the church and many outside of the church.  Expanding the definition of marriage does not mean the new standards mean those are now moral.   Its not an issue that the church refuses gay marriages to be real marriages, it just recognizes the view that these marriage as not compatible with the gospel or the laws of God.    The supreme court can legalize marriages in the USA for mortals.  It has no jurisdiction for those in the spirit world and beyond.   The Church has an eternal perspective on the issue. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, california boy said:

I feel a bit uncomfortable that I might be derailing this thread.  That wasn't my intention. 

I didn't think so but I will stop.

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/18/2019 at 1:29 PM, california boy said:

The Bible can be used to prove anything is either right or wrong.  Name a subject and both sides of any opinion can be supported by the Bible. 

This is not true, those who are sought to use the Bible to comment sins, or atrocities where still wrong. They may have sought to justify their sins by using the Bible, but will stand all the “more” condemned for their actions. This applies to all things, not just the narrowly defined topic of this thread. 

Edited by Bill “Papa” Lee
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/18/2019 at 12:07 PM, Teancum said:

Not when they seem to get so much wrong even to the point of contradicting prior LDS leaders and even themselves.

I think we need to believe the individuals themselves and not a leader that isn't going through this to know. Words on pages isn't proof that it comes from God.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

This is not true, those who are sought to use the Bible to comment sins, or atrocities where still wrong. They may have sought to justify their sins by using the Bible, but will stand all the “more” condemned for their actions. This applies to all things, not just the narrowly defined topic of this thread. 

I guess that depends on who thinks their interpretation of the Bible is the correct interpretation.  Battles have been fought over who was right and who was wrong.  One church has persecuted another church over who is following the Bible teachings correctly to the point of killing people for a different point of view.  And it still goes on today.  

Maybe these few scriptures on homosexuality does mean what the Church thinks it means.  But maybe these scriptures mean what other religions and other Biblical scholars think it means as has been outlined in this thread.  Those that have a different belief are usually unwilling to even consider a different point of view.  How many members even bothered to read the scholar thesis on these scriptures and carefully considered them?   They know they are right and everyone else who disagrees with their interpretation is flat out wrong.. Basic teachings of Christ have been thrown under the bus by individuals and religion when someone has an agenda to pursue.

I personally am not really impressed when people use their Bible to "prove" their teachings are righteous when in doing so they fail to treat others in any way that Christ would recognize as what He was trying to teach.  It all becomes pretty irrelevant when you start baring little children from baptism or similar actions. Then who has the correct interpretation and who doesn't becomes kind of irrelevant imo. 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...