Leviticus And Homosexuality

[benjaburns]

Recently I've had several of my atheist and agnostic friends tell me that the verse in Leviticus saying "A man should not lie with another man as he does with a woman" is actually better translated as "A man should not lie with his brother as he does with a woman" and that, since the verse appears in a block of text condemning incest, that it really doesn't condemn homosexuality at all. However, I looked the verse up in my Bible and, while it does appear in close proximity to condemnations of incest, it's not exactly in the same place as those condemnations. It's a little bit after them. So, I'm confused. Is the "brother" translation indeed more accurate and is the incest idea plausible too?

[Lycorth]

If a man lies with his brother, it's incest - and also homosexuality. So, even if this sketchy translation they've offered is genuine, the aforementioned passage still seems to condemn homosexual behavior.

 

It's bizarre to see the lengths people will go to just to say the plain text of the Babble doesn't mean what it states. Especially from Agnostics and Atheists, from whom I'd expect better.

[roman]

Partly (or maybe mostly) because I am an ex-Xian atheist and am somewhat homosexual, I have read all or many of the debates about what the bible does and does not say and/or "what it really means," particularly on this subject of homosex...for decades I've been reading this stuff. One of the best reads on this subject is contained in a book I already recommended to "Pete" called The Good Book by Peter Gomes.

 

However, this is my opinion on it: it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what is really means or doesn't really mean - this is just mental masturbation for scholars (not condemning masturbation in any of its forms). The only thing that really matters is how current Xians USE it. That's it, and that's all. Current Xians USE this "book" and other excerpts from the bible to support their condemnation and suppression of the minority homosexual population, and that's all anybody needs to know. It is the CURRENT interpretation that has meaning for me and other gay people. And CURRENTLY, the Xians are powerful and want to kill us, using the bible as their mandate.

 

So why bother with what it "really means"? They want to kill us; that's all you need to know. So fuck it all...the bible, preachers, Xians in general, and Xianity en toto.

[Jella]

The only thing that really matters is how current Xians USE it. That's it, and that's all. Current Xians USE this "book" and other excerpts from the bible to support their condemnation and suppression of the minority homosexual population, and that's all anybody needs to know. It is the CURRENT interpretation that has meaning for me and other gay people. And CURRENTLY, the Xians are powerful and want to kill us, using the bible as their mandate.

 

So why bother with what it "really means"? They want to kill us; that's all you need to know. So fuck it all...the bible, preachers, Xians in general, and Xianity en toto.

 

That's it exactly. I've had friends refer me to websites that try to say that the Bible doesn't mean what it says, (referring to homosexuality) and while I'm no scholar I can read.

 

Just watch those religious channels, we have four here locally on cable, and at least one of them is preaching the sins of homosexuals at any given time. I guess in a way I should feel flattered that they find us so interesting.......not

[currentchristian]

Recently I've had several of my atheist and agnostic friends tell me that the verse in Leviticus saying "A man should not lie with another man as he does with a woman" is actually better translated as "A man should not lie with his brother as he does with a woman" and that, since the verse appears in a block of text condemning incest, that it really doesn't condemn homosexuality at all. However, I looked the verse up in my Bible and, while it does appear in close proximity to condemnations of incest, it's not exactly in the same place as those condemnations. It's a little bit after them. So, I'm confused. Is the "brother" translation indeed more accurate and is the incest idea plausible too?

 

It seems very clear to me that the Israelite community of circa 4,500 years ago forbade homosexual sexual relations. (There is no condemnation of homosexual emotional or homosexual relationships, as long as they were not sexual.) I don't see a way around this. However, and it's a big however, I see very little in the Mosaic code that is pertinent to 21st century life.

 

Last night, for example, I was reading in Deuteronomy 23.1 as follows: "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD." (NRSV) Come on, what on earth does this have to do with modern life. I even fell sorry for the poor guy 4,000 years ago who was in the accident and has his testicles crushed or his penis cut off. Not only was his excluded from having children (very big in those days, of course!), he was cut off from the Lord's assembly.

 

Leviticus condemns homosexual sexual activity, but the Mosaic code condemns much that we condone and condones much that we condemn. It is mostly irrelevant in providing guidance on ethical, moral, or spiritual values today.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

Partly (or maybe mostly) because I am an ex-Xian atheist and am somewhat homosexual, I have read all or many of the debates about what the bible does and does not say and/or "what it really means," particularly on this subject of homosex...for decades I've been reading this stuff. One of the best reads on this subject is contained in a book I already recommended to "Pete" called The Good Book by Peter Gomes.

 

However, this is my opinion on it: it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what is really means or doesn't really mean - this is just mental masturbation for scholars (not condemning masturbation in any of its forms). The only thing that really matters is how current Xians USE it. That's it, and that's all. Current Xians USE this "book" and other excerpts from the bible to support their condemnation and suppression of the minority homosexual population, and that's all anybody needs to know. It is the CURRENT interpretation that has meaning for me and other gay people. And CURRENTLY, the Xians are powerful and want to kill us, using the bible as their mandate.

 

So why bother with what it "really means"? They want to kill us; that's all you need to know. So fuck it all...the bible, preachers, Xians in general, and Xianity en toto.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that what matters is how the Bible is used today, and these Mosaic codes are used only for one thing that I can think of--to condemn homosexuals. Interestingly, homosexuals are not condemned in the Mosaic code or anywhere else in the Bible, unless they engage in homosexual sexual activity. But when was the last time you heard any Christian use the Mosaic code, except to condemn homosexuals?

 

I also agree that Peter Gomes' The Good Book is a great read. He's also a fantastic preacher, one of the best I've ever heard. All his sermons are archived at the website of the Memorial Church at Harvard where he is preacher. They are a joy to listen to...I'd think even if one doesn't believe in a god.

 

I disagree that Christians "want to kill us." I see no evidence of this anywhere. I understand the frustration and even anger at many Christian groups, I really do, but engaging in explosive rhetoric that does not fit the circumstances will not help to further bridge the divide. Seems to me.

 

-CC

 

 

This certainly is your right and I would defend it. But

[currentchristian]

That's it exactly. I've had friends refer me to websites that try to say that the Bible doesn't mean what it says, (referring to homosexuality) and while I'm no scholar I can read.

 

Just watch those religious channels, we have four here locally on cable, and at least one of them is preaching the sins of homosexuals at any given time. I guess in a way I should feel flattered that they find us so interesting.......not

 

It's very sad. Another example of "straining out gnats and swallowing camels," to quote Jesus. We just never learn, do we.

 

-CC

[Guest]

... I see very little in the Mosaic code that is pertinent to 21st century life...

 

... the Mosaic code condemns much that we condone and condones much that we condemn. It is mostly irrelevant in providing guidance on ethical, moral, or spiritual values today.

 

Just wondering what your thoughts are on Matthew 5:17-19.

 

"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets...For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law untill all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men to do so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

 

Kinda hard to say the OT law is irrelevant now, wouldn't you say?

[currentchristian]

... I see very little in the Mosaic code that is pertinent to 21st century life...

 

... the Mosaic code condemns much that we condone and condones much that we condemn. It is mostly irrelevant in providing guidance on ethical, moral, or spiritual values today.

 

Just wondering what your thoughts are on Matthew 5:17-19.

 

"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets...For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law untill all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men to do so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

 

Kinda hard to say the OT law is irrelevant now, wouldn't you say?

 

You ask a good question. Some in fact teach that the Mosaic law was not at all invalidated with the ushering in of the Jesus experience and those Christians maintain kosher, the festival days, etc. Most Christian theologians contend that those who follow the Jesus revelation are no longer beholden to the Mosaic law. (I'm not invalidating the Mosaic covenant for those who maintain that it is valid for them.)

 

Christians who claim the Law is "nailed to the cross," express their view that Jesus is saying that the Law will never pass away, not an iota or dot, "until all is accomplished." Was "all accomplished" by his time on this plane? What is "all"? What does it mean to be "accomplished"? Did Jesus, by fulfilling the Law, render it null?

 

Jesus is quoted in this passage as saying that those who relax the commandments will be called "least in the kingdom of heaven." Does he refer to the entirety of the Law or just the commandments? Does he mean those who relax the law prior to its fulfullment? Either way, for me the Mosaic Law is not longer binding and in many cases not at all sensible as a guide for the contemporary person. I may be called "least in the kingdom of heaven" for saying this, but that's what my conscience tells me is true.

 

-CC

[Clergicide]

Lev 18:22 is where the transgression is listed. Leviticus 18 is a chapter on sexual transgression, and covers all of the crimes of a sexual nature, including incest, adultery, beastiality and homosexuality.

 

KJV -Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

 

Darby -And thou shalt not lie with mankind as one lieth with a woman: it is an abomination.

 

American Standard Version -Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

 

NKJV -You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

 

Young's Literal Translation -`And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is].

 

 

Lev 20:13 is the punishment passage:

 

KJV- 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; their blood shall be upon them.

 

Darby - And if a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall certainly be put to death; their blood is upon them.

 

American Standard - And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

NKJV - If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

 

Young's Literal Translation -`And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood [is] on them.

[Clergicide]

You ask a good question. Some in fact teach that the Mosaic law was not at all invalidated with the ushering in of the Jesus experience and those Christians maintain kosher, the festival days, etc. Most Christian theologians contend that those who follow the Jesus revelation are no longer beholden to the Mosaic law. (I'm not invalidating the Mosaic covenant for those who maintain that it is valid for them.)

 

Christians who claim the Law is "nailed to the cross," express their view that Jesus is saying that the Law will never pass away, not an iota or dot, "until all is accomplished." Was "all accomplished" by his time on this plane? What is "all"? What does it mean to be "accomplished"? Did Jesus, by fulfilling the Law, render it null?

 

Jesus is quoted in this passage as saying that those who relax the commandments will be called "least in the kingdom of heaven." Does he refer to the entirety of the Law or just the commandments? Does he mean those who relax the law prior to its fulfullment? Either way, for me the Mosaic Law is not longer binding and in many cases not at all sensible as a guide for the contemporary person. I may be called "least in the kingdom of heaven" for saying this, but that's what my conscience tells me is true.

 

-CC

 

This is something I find very interesting. The Exodus account makes it fairly clear the two tablets contained all of the law and statutes commanded by God, and were inscribed by His finger. After which he asks Moses to add to the tablets the 10 Commandments (11 entirely different ones actually). As such they seem indivisible. If 10 are valid because of the tablets then the rest of the contents should be equally valid, especially given that God took the time to inscribe them.

 

Did His death unmake the law? His birth was treated by the law. Mathew, Luke, and John show us He lived by the law. Matthew 5:17 He says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." I see no evidence in the Gospels to support his unmaking of the law. Romans is usually construed to mean something along those lines. What Paul is actually saying is that violation of the law is indeed sinful, but you can't avoid sin by following the law alone, only when coupled with faith in Christ can the law be used to avoid sin.

 

This of course is going strictly by the book, which is usually meaningless.

[Sexton Blake]

The bible, notably the old testament has a number of verses against homosexuality:

 

Genesis:

 

"And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him."

What did Ham do? Did he just look at his naked father or was there something more to it than that? Some commentators have suggested that Ham committed homosexual rape on his drunken father, and that this was why Ham's descendants were eternally punished with slavery. 9:24

 

This verse doesn't say what the Sodomites did to make them such exceedingly great sinners, though most bible believers equate "Sodomite" with homosexual. (But see Ezekiel 16:49, which claims the sins of Sodom were pride, gluttony, sloth, greed, and failure to help the poor.) 13:13

 

The two angels that visit Lot wash their feet, eat, and are sexually irresistible to Sodomites. 19:1-5

 

God kills everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah. 19:4-5, 24-25

 

What did Sarah see? 21:9

 

Leviticus:

 

Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 18:22

 

If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13

 

Deuteronomy:

 

Women are not to wear men's clothing -- it's an "abomination unto the Lord." 22:5

 

God says not be bring any whore, sodomite, or dog into the house of the Lord. For "these things are an abomination to the Lord." Sodomites and dogs are biblical names for homosexuals. 23:17-18

 

1 Samuel:

 

"The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul ... And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments ... and his girdle." 18:1-4

 

"Jonathan ... delighted much in David." 19:2

 

Saul is angered by his son's homosexual affair with David and says, "do not I know that thou has chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion of thy mother's nakedness?" 20:30

 

David and Jonathan "kissed one another, and wept with one another" when they parted for the last time. 20:41

 

2 Samuel:

 

David says to Jonathan: "very pleasant has thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of woman." 1:26

 

1 Kings:

 

God shows his homophobia by calling gay people "sodomites" and their sexual relations "abominations." 14:24

 

Asa "did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD" by expelling homosexuals (or "sodomites", as the good book calls them). 15:12

 

Jehoshaphat "did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord" and "took" the homosexuals (sodomites) "out of the land," or as the RSV says, "he exterminated" them. 22:43, 46

 

2 Kings:

 

Josiah, with God's approval, broke down the houses of the sodomites. 23:7

Isaiah

 

"They declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul!"

The biblical god just doesn't seem to care much for homosexuals. And he gets especially upset when "they hide it not." 3:9

 

Daniel:

 

"Neither shall he regard ... the desire of women"

The antichrist is gay!

(Or so says Rev. Dwight McKissic of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Texas, citing this verse as proof.) 11:37

Joel

 

They "have given a boy for a harlot." 3:3

 

Romans:

 

With his usual intolerance, Paul condemns homosexuals (including lesbians). This is the only clear reference to lesbians in the Bible. 1:26-28

 

Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death." 1:31-32

 

1 Corinthians:

 

Paul lists ten things that will keep you out of heaven, including homosexuality and being "effeminate." 6:9-10

 

1 Timothy:

 

Homosexuals (those "that defile themselves with mankind") are included on the list of lawless, disobedient, unholy, and profane people. 1:10

 

2 Timothy:

 

Iin the last days people will become evil, "without natural affection." Fundamentalist say that this refers to homosexuals. 3:3

 

Jude:

 

God sent "eternal fire" on the people of Sodom and Gomorrah for "going after strange flesh." 7-8

 

Revelation:

 

"The hundred and forty and four thousand ... which were not defiled with women"

Are the 144,000 men that are "not defiled by women" homosexuals? Are only gay men to be saved? 14:1-4

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I have come across a fair number of christians who are homosexuals on another christian board where even the moderator is gay and instantly censors anything that is not pro-gay. The bible says homosexuality is wrong, but these people try to rewrite the bible, saying "what it really means is....", or that this was written by ordinary men with the prejudices of the time, and is obviously wrong but the rest of the bible is true.

 

Being a gay christian is like being a Satan worshipping christian.

[currentchristian]

Being a gay christian is like being a Satan worshipping christian.

 

Now, that's a very broad brush you're painting with. I'm not sure which is worse -- being compared to a Jewish Nazi or a Satan-worshipping Christian, but I have been compared to both on this forum. Hmmm....I guess all the "celebrate diversity" business hasn't sunk in yet for everyone?

 

-CC

[Jella]

I have come across a fair number of christians who are homosexuals on another christian board where even the moderator is gay and instantly censors anything that is not pro-gay. The bible says homosexuality is wrong, but these people try to rewrite the bible, saying "what it really means is....", or that this was written by ordinary men with the prejudices of the time, and is obviously wrong but the rest of the bible is true.

 

Being a gay christian is like being a Satan worshipping christian.

 

I'll be the first to admit that gay people can be difficult to talk too. We are a very opinionated group of folk. I think that many of us felt stifled in our youth, or afraid to speak up, so as adults we have some strong opinions. Now that of course is a generalization, but I find it to be a strong trait in many. I do however, considering the way gays are treated that they deserver the benefit of the doubt for the most part.

 

It's very difficult fo those that have never been on the recieving end of minority bias to understand how that feels, especially when you grow up with it. When I hear straight white's say that 'things like that hurt their cause' whether it be gay or black, it always strikes a nerve with me and I just want to say to them, how in the fuck do you know, but most of the time I just shake my head and move on. Now that doesn't mean that what they say don't have a shred of truth to it, but nonetheless very few straight white's have ever felt any sort of discrimination, and/or bias.

 

I am learning just how many here though, are feeling it from Xtians, so they are getting a taste of it. It truly does suck.

 

Sorry for straying, but I just had to point that out.

[Vigile]

Being a gay christian is like being a Satan worshipping christian.

 

Now, that's a very broad brush you're painting with. I'm not sure which is worse -- being compared to a Jewish Nazi or a Satan-worshipping Christian, but I have been compared to both on this forum. Hmmm....I guess all the "celebrate diversity" business hasn't sunk in yet for everyone?

 

-CC

 

Actually his logic is spot on. Satan worshipers and homosexuals are given equal treatment in the bible: death.

 

You have probably found that we are not very pc on this forum. If there's one thing we can't tolerate it's having to whitewash the facts. Feel free to dispute us as you are able. We won't hate you for disagreeing with us. Moreover, you are welcome here and you are absolutely free to share your views.

[Vigile]

I do however, considering the way gays are treated that they deserver the benefit of the doubt for the most part.

 

This statement confuses me. Can you clarify?

[Jella]

Actually his logic is spot on. Satan worshipers and homosexuals are given equal treatment in the bible: death.

 

I agree completely

 

[

You have probably found that we are not very pc on this forum. If there's one thing we can't tolerate it's having to whitewash the facts. Feel free to dispute us as you are able. We won't hate you for disagreeing with us. Moreover, you are welcome here and you are absolutely free to share your views.

I like that this is so. I'm tired of PC, I mean one can use tact in certain forums, but I would much rather know how someone feels.

I do however, considering the way gays are treated that they deserver the benefit of the doubt for the most part.

 

This statement confuses me. Can you clarify?

I'm sorry about that, what I meant was because of general treatment of gays in our society, christians and homophobes alike, I can see why some are a bit sensitve and would not be receptive to anti-gay rethoric. Even when they are wrong to do so, I understand why the do it. I hope that's clear, I didn't realize how off that statement really was.

[currentchristian]

Actually his logic is spot on. Satan worshipers and homosexuals are given equal treatment in the bible: death.

 

You have probably found that we are not very pc on this forum. If there's one thing we can't tolerate it's having to whitewash the facts. Feel free to dispute us as you are able. We won't hate you for disagreeing with us. Moreover, you are welcome here and you are absolutely free to share your views.

 

The pc business gets under my skin, too and the "celebrate diversity" business can, too.

 

One thing about the laws of the Mosaic code is that they were written for one group of people, the Israelites. They are not universal laws -- for all people, for all time. Still, I'd hate to have been a homosexual Israelite in 2500 B.C.E.! Since these laws were not universal, however, I suppose one could always abandon his people and join up with others.

 

-CC

[KenneyVTX]

The pc business gets under my skin, too and the "celebrate diversity" business can, too.

 

One thing about the laws of the Mosaic code is that they were written for one group of people, the Israelites. They are not universal laws -- for all people, for all time. Still, I'd hate to have been a homosexual Israelite in 2500 B.C.E.! Since these laws were not universal, however, I suppose one could always abandon his people and join up with others.

 

-CC

 

The only thing PC in my life says IBM in front of it. (I actually still have one, yes it's an antique now).

 

Indeed. The Mosaic law was written to set the Israelites apart from the other tribes at the time. By follow the laws, you would be clearly marked as such. I don't know about you guys, but I'm not an Israelite. The other thing is if you bind someone to the law, by invoking it as a standard for being, you are binding yourself to the law. The law is a single entity, you can't pick and choose. You break one, you've broken them all. I just have to ask, "are those socks cotton/poly blend?" if they answer yes then I just reply "then I'll see you in hell".

[Sexton Blake]

CurrentChristian. I'm just quoting what the bible says. It tells us that if a person if homosexual, then they are going to hell. Nowhere in the bible does it say that god has changed his mind and really loves homosexuals.

 

 

Incidentally, have you read up on St Francis? A drunken wastrel who stole from his father to pay for his lifestyle. In the end, dad kicked him out and Francis, as his good life collapsed and his friends naturally deserted him, ended up as a tramp and went a bit gaga, ending up as a strange kind of hermit.

 

As to Satan, read Job 1 and 2. god and Satan seem to be on good terms.

[Sexton Blake]

Jella. I have found the gay people I can get on with best, as with every other minority group is the people who want to be accepted like everyone else as just another person. Anyone who wears their differences on their sleeve, ready to demand that they are accepted because of them, are even in fact somehow better because of them I don't get on with well.

[Sexton Blake]

Vigile del fu. The other forum, I won't mention it's name because I don't want certain people finding their way here, so we end up with talk of gay pride marches, an old queen (80) calling other male posters "lover", etc.

 

I and others were put into moderation for merely trying to discus homosexuality there to counter overwhelming gay propganda. Also for what I did here, posting the anti-gay verses in the bible which someone had actually asked for. You were not even allowed to talk about hell there!!! When I complained once, a religion host told me that even the absolute truth was not always acceptable there, and this was backed up by having respectable quotations from national newspapers (not tabloids) removed. What a dump!

 

I try not to be insulting, though I do run to sarcasm at times.

[Sexton Blake]

currentchristian. I think from the way the bible mentions it, it was probably as prevalent in their societies as in any other society and this was an effort to try and control homosexuality to some degree. With the strict segregation of girls and women in such desert societies, and even today in muslim societies, I would think that would encourage homosexuality.

 

While some years ago, a Pakistani muslim made an indication of cutting off of hands for homosexuals when it came up in a conversation, it seemed to be very widespread in muslim Egypt, and I was propositioned several times (mainly by young men) there, as a lone man tourist.

[Vigile]

Vigile del fu. The other forum, I won't mention it's name because I don't want certain people finding their way here, so we end up with talk of gay pride marches, an old queen (80) calling other male posters "lover", etc.

 

I guess coming from a man of his age I would consider that endearing rather than a threat or a cause for discomfort. I'm not sure that overtly gay individuals wear anything on their sleaves, they are just being who they are. That it stands out is just due to their different nature, which is still uncommon throughout most of society. Hetero men and woman have identifying idiosycracies as well, it's just that most of us are so used to these that we expect them and thus don't notice.

[currentchristian]

CurrentChristian. I'm just quoting what the bible says. It tells us that if a person if homosexual, then they are going to hell. Nowhere in the bible does it say that god has changed his mind and really loves homosexuals.

 

Incidentally, have you read up on St Francis? A drunken wastrel who stole from his father to pay for his lifestyle. In the end, dad kicked him out and Francis, as his good life collapsed and his friends naturally deserted him, ended up as a tramp and went a bit gaga, ending up as a strange kind of hermit.

 

As to Satan, read Job 1 and 2. god and Satan seem to be on good terms.

 

Nowhere does the Bible say, "Homosexuals are going to hell." Indeed, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and the Phelps family and many others say this, but the Bible does not. Leviticus proclaims that men who have sex with men are an "abomination" and worthy of "death," just as many other acts Leviticus are abominations and worthy of death. But this code was ratified for one small group of people living 3,500 years ago. Other than these two references in Leviticus, there is no more mention of homosexuality in the OT. (Genesis 19, while used by "biblethumpers" to condemn homosexuals is about gang rape, and the sins of Sodom were sexual in nature and also gluttony, neglect of the poor and arrogance.)

 

Paul, of course, did have a problem with homosexuality. In fact, he is the first to ever mention lesbianism in the entire Bible, in his Romans 1 lecture. Paul also writes that "male prostitues" and "abusers of boys" will not "inherit the kingdom of God" in the I Corinthians 6 passage and to Timothy. Unfortunately, these Greek words Paul used are translated "homosexuals" by some translations ("abusers of themselves with mankind" in the KJV), an incorrect translation many say. But Paul was incorrect about many things and my experience teaches me that he is incorrect about homosexuals. I know too many gay Christians to believe that Paul was correct on this issue.

 

Regarding hell, there is none, in my view; and the scripture does not teach an eternal hellfire, so no one is going there!!!

 

As to Job, it's a story, a parable, a teaching, a lesson. I'd not take these heavenly councils literally.

 

Regarding St. Francis, you are the first person I have ever known in my life to besmirch his character! I shall investigate, and would appreciate any links you have establishing your slanderous claims. If you are proven correct, I shall change my avatar posthaste!

 

-CC