Homosexuality and the Bible

[california boy]

9 hours ago, gav said:

KJV Revelation 22:

^{10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.}

^{11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.}

^{12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.}

^{13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.}

^{14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.}

^{15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.}

Not sure how this has any relevance to what we are discussing.  Maybe instead of just quoting the Bible, you might want to explain why you decided to quote those particular verses.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I was kind of taken aback when I saw that Dan McClellan's YouTube channel has the user name maklelan, which is the user name of a poster ( @maklelan ) who hasn't posted here since November 2016. He quit in a huff because his vehement anti-Trump posts weren't getting the traction he wanted.His last post, after expressing shame at being a Mormon possibly because Utah was supporting for Trump, and that some MDDBers weren't in agreement with his views, was: "I am done with this website."

I suspect this Dan McClellan and @maklelan are the same guy. 

No need to suspect.  Take a look at that linked post:

Quote

I am done with this website.

1

My blog

 

The "My blog" link takes you to the blog of our very own Daniel O. McClellan.

He did seem to be "done" for a while.  While he quit posting under "maklelan" in November 2016, he picked up posting under his current "Dan McClellan" in March 2019.  However, he has only 383 posts since then, so he does seem to have pared down his participation here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Let us not diverge into politics with this.

🙄😂😅

[Stargazer]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No need to suspect.  Take a look at that linked post:

The "My blog" link takes you to the blog of our very own Daniel O. McClellan.

He did seem to be "done" for a while.  While he quit posting under "maklelan" in November 2016, he picked up posting under his current "Dan McClellan" in March 2019.  However, he has only 383 posts since then, so he does seem to have pared down his participation here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Obviously I completely missed that. Duh.

[provoman]

6 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

You have not understood me correctly. I have been consistent and clear about my position and about my non-devotional & non-dogmatic methodological approach in my several videos on TikTok.

 

Ok, in one of your videos you discuss mishkevei ishah" with a parrallel of "mishkav zachur", then, as I recall, you discuss that mishkav zachur referrs to pentration and that the penetrated is blameless.

And it appears you have deleted the video wherein you discuss mishkevei ishah and mishkav zachur.

Edited November 14, 2022 by provoman

[smac97]

On 11/14/2022 at 2:26 PM, provoman said:

Quote

You have not understood me correctly. I have been consistent and clear about my position and about my non-devotional & non-dogmatic methodological approach in my several videos on TikTok.

Ok, in one of your videos you discuss mishkevei ishah" with a parrallel of "mishkav zachur", then, as I recall, you discuss that mishkav zachur referrs to pentration and that the penetrated is blameless.

But the "blameless" part is difficult to reconcile with Leviticus 20:13, which condemns both participants ("If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death").  So the the condemnatory portion of Leviticus 20:13 must have been a later editorial addition, as position taken by "some scholars."  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Traditional Interpretation

According to its traditional interpretation the verse {Lev. 18:22} prohibits that a man should have sex (‘to lie’) with a male as he would have sex with a woman. This understanding underlies the NRSV version of the verse quoted above, and most other translations of Leviticus. In a very detailed essay published in 1994, Saul Olyan defined the forbidden act more explicitly as involving **** penetration and effusion of sperm. Olyan thought the law was originally aimed at the ‘insertive partner’ only.⁵ But he admitted that at least in the present version of Leviticus, both partners, the ‘insertive’ and the ‘receptive’ in his terminology, were considered guilty. Lev. 20:13 explicitly states: ‘Both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death.’
...
 

A New Approach

A few recent studies on the laws on same-sex intercourse in Leviticus have set out a path to a very different understanding. 
...
I propose to interpret Lev. 18:22 (and 20:13) as a prohibition of male–male intercourse with a married man.
...
The traditional interpretation of Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 is universally reflected in the earliest translations of the Hebrew Bible, parabiblical literature,¹⁸ Philo and Josephus,¹⁹ and the New Testament.²⁰ It has remained more or less uncontested until a few years ago. It may seem presumptuous to call this unanimous opinion into question. Nevertheless, the alternative interpretation is philologically possible and merits due consideration.

Dan's approach (adapted, I think, from  Saul Olyan's “’And with a Male You Shall Not Lie the Lying down of a Woman’: On the Meaning and Significance of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13”) posits that the Levitical prohibitions are limited to the "penetrator," and the above article suggests that the prohibitions are limited to "male-male intercourse with a married man."

Both of these exegetical efforts are, I think, are aptly described as contravening the "traditional interpretation," the earliest translations of the Hebrew Bible, parabiblical literature, Philo, Josephus, and the New Testament.  Sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar, and sometimes the "traditional" approach is the correct one.  For Latter-day Saints, we have the added benefit of living prophets and apostles, which I think lessens the guesswork and the reliance on speculative approaches like those above.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 8, 2023 by smac97

[InCognitus]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So the the condemnatory portion of Leviticus 20:13 must have been a later editorial addition, as position taken by "some scholars."

I don't have access to that article, but I'd like to see if there are actual textual variants that back up this theory and what texts are involved, or if they are simply speculating based on the context.  And even if it was a later addition, there may be legitimate reasons for the addition if it was an inspired amendment for clarification.  But there is also the possibility of later tampering with the text by uninspired editors.  So it may not prove anything one way or another.  But I'd still like to see if there are manuscripts that back this up.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, InCognitus said:

I don't have access to that article,

It is available online here.

1 minute ago, InCognitus said:

but I'd like to see if there are actual textual variants that back up this theory and what texts are involved, or if they are simply speculating based on the context. 

The latter, I suspect.  Per Richard Hess, this inference is "speculative and unproven."

I am certainly open to correction on this point.

1 minute ago, InCognitus said:

And even if it was a later addition, there may be legitimate reasons for the addition if it was an inspired amendment for clarification.  But there is also the possibility of later tampering with the text by uninspired editors.  So it may not prove anything one way or another.  But I'd still like to see if there are manuscripts that back this up.

Agreed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Eschaton]

You know, heterosexuality in the Hebrew Bible is completely unrecognizable to modern Christian standards of behavior. I'm not sure why their views on homosexuality would be in force while their views of, for example, permissible sexual behavior for married men is ignored? After all, the prohibition on adultery in the Hebrew Bible only and uniquely applied in the case of someone having sex with a married woman. 

That's why Abraham is allowed to have sex with the slave, Hagar. He never married Hagar, but he was permitted to have sex with her anyway because of her status. Adultery laws were meant to protect the property rights of men, not to ensure sexual morality. Having relations with a slave, concubine or prostitute was not considered adultery - for the man. 

 

From the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary:

Quote

 

In the OT, adultery had a precise and limited definition: sexual relations between a married (or betrothed) woman and any man other than her husband. Adultery, therefore, was committed only against a husband, never a wife.

 

 

Edited November 14, 2022 by Eschaton

[gav]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Not sure how this has any relevance to what we are discussing.  Maybe instead of just quoting the Bible, you might want to explain why you decided to quote those particular verses.

 

In the verses quoted what are "dogs" and why are they without the city?

[california boy]

4 hours ago, gav said:

In the verses quoted what are "dogs" and why are they without the city?

You want me to interrupt the Bible for you?

[Calm]

6 hours ago, gav said:

In the verses quoted what are "dogs" and why are they without the city?

You are the one posting the quote, not him. Why should he be the one providing the interpretation for a quote you thought was relevant, not him?

Edited November 15, 2022 by Calm

[gav]

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

You want me to interrupt the Bible for you?

The title of you post is "Homosexuality and the Bible"

The verses quoted are relevant to that title:

11 hours ago, california boy said:

KJV Revelation 22:

^{10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.}

^{11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.}

^{12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.}

^{13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.}

^{14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.}

^{15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.}

The "dogs", as mentioned here, is an ancient euphemism for those who participate in the homosexual act, for reasons which become obvious if you think about it for a minute. This statement is attributed to "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." (All names of Jehovah/Jesus Christ). It's pretty clear that He stipulates that there are certain classes of behaviour that exclude various unrepentant groups from the symbolic "right to the tree of life" and that are excluded from symbolically entering "in through the gates into the city." (i.e. exaltation).

The "dogs" are clearly excluded because they are without(outside) the city and have no right to enter in...

[gav]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

You are the one posting the quote, not him. Why should he be the one providing the interpretation for a quote you thought was relevant, not him?

Sometime insight comes from grappling with a question...

[Kenngo1969]

@gav

This is off-topic, I admit, but your avatar creeps me out: I have ... I won't call it a "love-hate" relationship ... an interesting, complicated relationship with snakes: They fascinate me, creep me out, and make my skin crawl, all at the same time.

He's cute, though.  Is he a pet?  (Don't answer that!  Already, I have derailed the thread enough!)  There is a subset of snake-handling Latter-day Saints.  Who knew?  

If I lived in an area with a high cobra population, I would get a honey badger as a pet:

 

 

Edited November 15, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 hours ago, gav said:

The title of you post is "Homosexuality and the Bible"

The verses quoted are relevant to that title:

The "dogs", as mentioned here, is an ancient euphemism for those who participate in the homosexual act, for reasons which become obvious if you think about it for a minute. This statement is attributed to "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." (All names of Jehovah/Jesus Christ). It's pretty clear that He stipulates that there are certain classes of behaviour that exclude various unrepentant groups from the symbolic "right to the tree of life" and that are excluded from symbolically entering "in through the gates into the city." (i.e. exaltation).

The "dogs" are clearly excluded because they are without(outside) the city and have no right to enter in...

For a less homophobic interpretation:

https://www.bibleref.com/Revelation/22/Revelation-22-15.html

[gav]

46 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

For a less homophobic interpretation:

https://www.bibleref.com/Revelation/22/Revelation-22-15.html

I see your hyperlink and raise you two...

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2000/2000-6.pdf

Most bible translations leave it as dogs, more interesting are those that don't, some match the interpretation you linked to, others go further. Some are incredibly direct.

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Revelation 22:15

 

[gav]

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

@gav

This is off-topic, I admit, but your avatar creeps me out: I have ... I won't call it a "love-hate" relationship ... an interesting, complicated relationship with snakes: They fascinate me, creep me out, and make my skin crawl, all at the same time.

He's cute, though.  Is he a pet?  (Don't answer that!  Already, I have derailed the thread enough!)  There is a subset of snake-handling Latter-day Saints.  Who knew?  

Frequent backyard visitor... Mark 16:18

[Kenngo1969]

42 minutes ago, gav said:

Frequent backyard visitor... Mark 16:18

Whoo-wee!  Good luck ... (Or perhaps better said, May God bless you! )

[The Nehor]

On 11/14/2022 at 12:18 PM, smac97 said:

Dan's circumspection and reticence are, however, set aside when it comes to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.  Again, he begins with "nobody's exactly sure" about what these passages "mean," but he nevertheless proceeds to disregard that uncertainty and - through serialized speculations and interpretations - he draws a number of conclusions that he presents as being fairly definitive.  I am curious as to the disparity here, as if we lack the means and data to draw definitive conclusions as to the origins / legitimacy / interpretation / meaning of the relationship between David and Jonathan, cannot the same be said about conclusions regarding Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13?  Why is Dan "reluctant to answer" as to the former topic, but fine with speculating and drawing (seemingly definitive) conclusions about the latter topic?

I would be content if we all agreed that we do not know what those scriptures mean. Or does this not apply to the traditional interpretation?

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, gav said:

The title of you post is "Homosexuality and the Bible"

The verses quoted are relevant to that title:

The "dogs", as mentioned here, is an ancient euphemism for those who participate in the homosexual act, for reasons which become obvious if you think about it for a minute. This statement is attributed to "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." (All names of Jehovah/Jesus Christ). It's pretty clear that He stipulates that there are certain classes of behaviour that exclude various unrepentant groups from the symbolic "right to the tree of life" and that are excluded from symbolically entering "in through the gates into the city." (i.e. exaltation).

The "dogs" are clearly excluded because they are without(outside) the city and have no right to enter in...

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[california boy]

22 hours ago, gav said:

The title of you post is "Homosexuality and the Bible"

The verses quoted are relevant to that title:

The "dogs", as mentioned here, is an ancient euphemism for those who participate in the homosexual act, for reasons which become obvious if you think about it for a minute. This statement is attributed to "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." (All names of Jehovah/Jesus Christ). It's pretty clear that He stipulates that there are certain classes of behaviour that exclude various unrepentant groups from the symbolic "right to the tree of life" and that are excluded from symbolically entering "in through the gates into the city." (i.e. exaltation).

The "dogs" are clearly excluded because they are without(outside) the city and have no right to enter in...

I really can't follow what you are talking about.  The scripture I referenced is clearly talking about dogs receiving scraps from the masters table.  If you want to compare homosexuality to dogs, it says more about you than it does enlightenment of some scriptural passage.

Edited November 16, 2022 by california boy

[The Nehor]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

I really can't follow what you are talking about.  The scripture I referenced is clearly talking about dogs receiving scraps from the masters table.  If you want to compare homosexuality to dogs, it says more about you than it does enlightenment of some scriptural passage.

You have to get your mind further into the gutter and combine it with some straight stereotypes about gay sex to know what he is hinting at.

It is much stupider than you think.

[jkwilliams]

On 11/14/2022 at 1:39 PM, Stargazer said:

I was kind of taken aback when I saw that Dan McClellan's YouTube channel has the user name maklelan, which is the user name of a poster ( @maklelan ) who hasn't posted here since November 2016. He quit in a huff because his vehement anti-Trump posts weren't getting the traction he wanted. His last post, after expressing shame at being a Mormon possibly because Utah was supporting for Trump, and that some MDDBers weren't in agreement with his views, was: "I am done with this website."

I suspect this Dan McClellan and @maklelan are the same guy. 

Let us not diverge into politics with this. I just thought the coincidence was interesting enough to share.

 

How did you not know this? 

[Stargazer]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

How did you not know this? 

Because I'm clueless? <- That's probably correct... 🙂