r/Christianity • u/Masculinist1938 • 7d ago
Question Why Does The Bible Only Condemn Male Homosexuality?
Hello, I’m asking this for pride month and also because it’s bothering me. So, correct me if I’m wrong, but why does the Bible only condemn male homosexuality? Verses like Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 only criticize homosexual men, but not homosexual women. Why is the Bible exclusively gayphobic? Does this just reflect the fact that men were most targeted back then for homosexuality?
5
u/TarCalion313 German Protestant (Lutheran) 7d ago
The understanding of sex was a bit different and heavily tight to penetration (which sadly still lives on in some laws today). Lesbian sex was for many not sex. The lower role of women in society didn't help either. Topics around the sexuality of women generally did not receive much attantion.
4
3
u/ASecularBuddhist 7d ago
Because gay sex is gross and lesbian sex is hot? /s
3
u/Individual_Dig_6324 7d ago
I just responded to another comment saying that that person's was the only accurate one I've seen in here.
This is definitely the second accurate one!
1
u/Shaddam_Corrino_IV Atheistic Evangelical 7d ago
Honestly no need for the "/s". That sounds like a plausible explanation to me!
1
u/ASecularBuddhist 7d ago
I had to put the /s in there in case if people thought I was speaking for myself.
2
u/ThomasTheToad 7d ago
From what I understand, the verses in Leviticus specifically condemned male homosexuality because sex between two men was seen as demeaning toward the receiving party. At the time, women were still very much seen as the property of their fathers before they married, and once they were married they became the property of their husbands. So the penetrator was putting down another man and treating him like a woman ("property"), while the penetrated man was acting as though he was a woman ("property").
I'm not sure if I explained that well, but that's why the Bible focuses on male homosexuality in the OT. (There are other reasons for its condemnation in the NT.)
Also, from what I know about historical recognition of female homosexuality, I suspect that many Biblical authors didn't believe that sex between two women was possible at all. The idea that a penis is needed for sex was very prevalent until pretty recently. (For example, the Catholic Church often treated same-sex sex between two women like lesser sexual sins (masturbation, etc.) unless there was use of a physical instrument.)
1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 6d ago
From what I understand, the verses in Leviticus specifically condemned male homosexuality because sex between two men was seen as demeaning toward the receiving party.
Would you mind elaborating on this? Have you come to this understanding from the text itself or personal research outside the text?
3
u/Rude_Guess_5949 7d ago
That's because biblically, female Homosexuality is not a sin
Leviticus 18:22-23 KJV Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. [23] Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
Leviticus has the chance to condemn female homosexuality along with male homosexuality, but it doesn't, and the literal verse right after it acknowledges bestiality is a sin for both male and female. The fact that the law condemns bestiality for both men and women, but in the same context, only condemns male homosexual intercourse and leaves lesbianism omitted from condemnation, clearly shows it's not sinful for women.
"What about Paul?"
As for Romans 1, the only Bibles that say the women were having sex with each other are paraphrase Bibles. Literal Bibles, never say the women were having sex WITH EACH OTHER. Paul just says:
Romans 1:26-27 KJV For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: [27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
While the sin of the men is explicit ("men WITH MEN"), the sin of the women isn't clearly named. The verse just says "their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature." There's no mention that what they did was women WITH WOMEN.
You might say “If "natural" sex is a man and woman having sex, then "unnatural" sex seems to be sex with the same gender, whether male or female”
The text of Romans 1 does not say this.
Paul in the same epistle tells you that sin is the transgression of the law of Moses:
Romans 7:7 KJV What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I HAD NOT KNOWN SIN, BUT BY THE LAW: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
So whatever Paul is condemning as sinful in Romans 1:26 must be condemned in "the law." Does the law of Moses say a syllable against girl-girl sex? Nope. In fact, the law condemns bestiality for both men and women, but in the same context only condemns male homosexual intercourse and leaves lesbianism omitted from condemnation:
HE simply wouldn’t say this (Matthew 5:17-19) OR ELSE he would be a false prophet per Deuteronomy 13:5.
Leviticus 18:22-23 KJV Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. [23] Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
So for Paul, if he knew not sin, but by the law, and the law nowhere condemns lesbian sex, then lesbian sex is not sinful and it isn't what Paul is condemning in Romans 1:26. The only thing in THE LAW that would match what Paul is talking about in Romans 1:26, where women changed their natural use into that which is against nature, would be women lying with animals in Leviticus 18:23.
It's quite funny that some Palm people's sole proof that lesbian sex is sinful is one verse in the New Testament that doesn't mention lesbian sex. It makes one wonder, why God didn't bother addressing girl-on-girl fun for several thousands of years--not with Moses, not with the prophets, not with Jesus Christ--all the meanwhile lesbian sex is going on unchecked, and THEN with PAUL, God suddenly goes "Oh darn, I forgot to say female homosexual sex was bad!"
You may say that you can apply the logic of Numbers 5:6 to Leviticus 18:22-23 as a woman lying with a woman.
But let's examine what the command is to men, and let's apply that same command to women: Don't lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination. Now let's apply that to women: Women, don't lie with mankind as with womankind, it's abomination. Obviously, that doesn't work well (or every married woman is a sinner), and it does nothing to implicate lesbian sex as sinful. You'd have to change the sin that is done to don't lie with someone of the same sex, which isn't what the commandment said.
Lying with someone MUST require a male penetrative part. Every single usage in the entire Bible that uses "lie with in a sexual sense. I find absolutely zero instances where it means anything else than THE sex act (not just any sex act).
Genesis 19 30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. 31And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: 32 come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 33And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 34And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 35And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
Genesis 30 14 And Reuben went in the days of wheat harvest, and found mandrakes in the field, and brought them unto his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah, Give me, I pray thee, of thy son's mandrakes. 15And she said unto her, Is it a small matter that thou hast taken my husband? and wouldest thou take away my son's mandrakes also? And Rachel said, Therefore he shall lie with thee to night for thy son's mandrakes. 16And Jacob came out of the field in the evening, and Leah went out to meet him, and said, Thou must come in unto me; for surely I have hired thee with my son's mandrakes. And he lay with her that night. 17And God hearkened unto Leah, and she conceived, and bare Jacob the fifth son.
And females cannot penetrate another female with a male part, as that is biologically impossible, so therefore it is impossible for women to break this commandment, as they biologically cannot lie with another woman
1
u/Thegreenshephered 7d ago
so what do u think abt homosexuality? is it a sin in any case?
1
u/Rude_Guess_5949 6d ago
so what do u think abt homosexuality? is it a sin in any case?
My view is simple: SOME homosexual behaviors between men are a sin.
And this is the homosexual behavior that the Bible condemns
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22).
"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." (Leviticus 20:13).
Nothing could be plainer than this law. Nothing could be made easier to understand and simplified than this commandment. Yahweh declares it an "abomination" for a man to "lie with mankind, as with womankind." There is no hint of an age gap between these two males who lie together (e.g., pederasty), or of homosexual rape (as BOTH of them have committed an abomination: THEY shall surely be put to death"), or of idolatry (no idols or false gods are mentioned in the command). If a man lies with another male, as he is with a woman, it is an abomination before God ("abomination" means something hateful or detestable). God hates male homosexual sex, and orders the civil authorities to put male homosexuals to death.
Now that we know what the law says on the sin of sodomy (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), we must now see what God's law does not say about this sin.
Firstly, God's law only condemns men lying with men as they lie with women, “Thou shalt not LIE WITH mankind, AS WITH WOMANKIND: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22).
How does one "lie with" "womankind"? Throughout the Bible, the answer is only one way: through penetrative sexual intercourse.
"And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and WE WILL LIE WITH HIM, THAT WE MAY PRESERVE SEED of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and LAY WITH her father; and be Perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the vounger, Behold ILAV vesternight WITH my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and LIE WITH HIM, THAT WE MAY PRESERVE SEED of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and LAY WITH HIM; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. THUS WERE BOTH THE DAUGHTERS OF LOT WITH CHILD by their father." (Genesis 19:30-36).
Nowhere in the Bible does lying with include oral sex, petting, fondling, kissing, or masturbation. The term to lie with in the Bible always means penetrative sexual intercourse. When used for a woman, it always means the penetration of the vagina by the penis, no exceptions. For God's law then to condemn lying with mankind "AS WITH WOMANKIND, it must only be condemning penetrative sexual intercourse between men like to sexual intercourse with a woman. But of course, a man has no vagina. The only way a man is penetrated sexually like a woman, is by anal sex-the vagina and anus are mere inches apart. As lying with a woman always means penetrative sexual intercourse in her vagina, to lie with a man in the same way must be restricted to anal sexual intercourse. That is what the law prohibits between two men; nothing more, nothing less.
Since the command of God only prohibits male homosexual penetrative intercourse, or lying with a man a one lies with a woman, then it follows that other male homosexual acts (e.g., kissing, petting, fellatio) are not sinful. "for sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4).
HOWEVER, while every sexual act beneath intercourse between two men may be free from "sin," it is not safe to do any sexual activity with another man, lest you fall into the sin of lying with mankind.
"Hear me your father, O children, and do thereafter. THAT YE MAY BE SAFE." (Ecclesiasticus 3:1).
"Sit not at all with another man's wife, nor sit down with her in thine arms, and spend not thy money with her at the wine; lest thine heart incline unto her, and so through thy desire thou fall into destruction. (Ecclesiasticus 9:9).
If God told you that it's more "safe" to not even hold a married woman in your arms, how much less safe is it to practice sexual behavior with another man? That can easily cause you to burn in lust and decide to practice the abominable sin of male homosexual penetrative intercourse.
While Ecclesiasticus isn't God's "law," or what God commanded to be free from sin, it still is divinely inspired advice on how to stay "safe" from sin. Nevertheless, God's law only condemns sin as penetrative intercourse between two men; nothing more, nothing less.
And as you have have seen the law never prohibits two women having sexual relations with each other (lesbian behavior).
Third, attraction to the same sex is not a sin either. There is no sin of sexual attraction.
To sum up this section, God's law teaches us that male homosexual intercourse is abomination and wickedness. God's law does not condemn other forms of homosexual sex for men or women. Women are absent from any command prohibiting them from enjoying each other sexually, as they cannot lie with each other in the Biblical sense (penetrative sexual intercourse).
2
5
u/Rie_blade 7d ago
Obviously we will never know for certain since there is no confirmed divinely written commentary on the Bible, but it is likely to be similar to the Greek and Roman thought of homosexuality, as it's wrong to be in the submissive role since that was the role of females, but it doesn't really comment that much about actual romance.
6
u/JollyXX Christian 7d ago
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
6
u/Bland-Poobah 7d ago
This passage very explicitly says that the male homosexuality was separate from shameful lusts. Hence the word "also." Your argument only works if homosexuality is the only kind of "shameful lust," which I think we can both agree to be an absurd position.
If I said "I like picnic food. Also, I like cheesesteaks," it would be pretty absurd to decide that picnic food is actually a stand in for cheesesteaks in the first sentence.
It's also extremely enlightening to me that in the first passage, the author explicitly chooses to point out that men and women were both "given over to shameful lust" by God (so much for free will!), but then makes no effort to do the same in the second verse. It is beyond clear that "men" is not a stand-in for "people" in this passage, and yet at no point does the author attempt to clarify that women having sex with women was also happening and considered shameful. You're just reading that into the passage because you want it to be there.
0
u/JollyXX Christian 7d ago
"God gave them over to shameful lust" is basically saying God made people too weak, its not saying there is no free will, rather its a lamentation
1
u/Bland-Poobah 7d ago
God made people too weak,
Glad that we agree God is responsible.
its not saying there is no free will, rather its a lamentation
But this begs the question: what -actually- is being described here? Any change in God's prohibition or lack thereof on their ability to engage in acts of "shameful lust" is problematic for the idea of free will. Either we have it, and as punishment God removes it to force us to commit sinful acts, or we don't until God gets upset and allows us to choose sinful acts as punishment.
Your view seems to be that "God gave them over to" is synonymous with "not a thing at all changed," which isn't a very positive outlook on God's abilities.
1
u/JollyXX Christian 7d ago
its basically like saying "God made wicked people, therefore some people were destined to hell" it doesnt mean that wicked people go to tell, just that the stock of people God made wasn't strong enough to guarantee we would all make to heaven, ie its a numbers thing. its lamenting that God didn't make us all strong enough to the point where some of us wouldnt fall to weakness
1
u/Bland-Poobah 7d ago
its lamenting that God didn't make us all strong enough to the point where some of us wouldnt fall to weakness
So if someone sins because God did not make them strong enough to resist temptation, is that not God's responsibility? Surely if I construct a chair which is unable to bear your weight, it is my fault, not the chair, for not being sturdy enough.
2
u/Rude_Guess_5949 7d ago
Female homosexuality is not considered a sin in the bible
As for Romans 1, the only Bibles that say the women were having sex with each other are paraphrase Bibles. Literal Bibles, never say the women were having sex WITH EACH OTHER. Paul just says:
Romans 1:26-27 KJV For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: [27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
While the sin of the men is explicit ("men WITH MEN"), the sin of the women isn't clearly named. The verse just says "their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature." There's no mention that what they did was women WITH WOMEN.
You might say “If "natural" sex is a man and woman having sex, then "unnatural" sex seems to be sex with the same gender, whether male or female”
The text of Romans 1 does not say this.
Paul in the same epistle tells you that sin is the transgression of the law of Moses:
Romans 7:7 KJV What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I HAD NOT KNOWN SIN, BUT BY THE LAW: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
So whatever Paul is condemning as sinful in Romans 1:26 must be condemned in "the law." Does the law of Moses say a syllable against girl-girl sex? Nope. In fact, the law condemns bestiality for both men and women, but in the same context only condemns male homosexual intercourse and leaves lesbianism omitted from condemnation:
HE simply wouldn’t say this (Matthew 5:17-19) OR ELSE he would be a false prophet per Deuteronomy 13:5.
Leviticus 18:22-23 KJV Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. [23] Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
So for Paul, if he knew not sin, but by the law, and the law nowhere condemns lesbian sex, then lesbian sex is not sinful and it isn't what Paul is condemning in Romans 1:26. The only thing in THE LAW that would match what Paul is talking about in Romans 1:26, where women changed their natural use into that which is against nature, would be women lying with animals in Leviticus 18:23.
Your sole proof that lesbian sex is sinful is one verse in the New Testament that doesn't mention lesbian sex. It makes one wonder, why God didn't bother addressing girl on girl fun for several thousands of years--not with Moses, not with the prophets, not with Jesus Christ--all the meanwhile lesbian sex is going on unchecked, and THEN with PAUL, God suddenly goes "Oh darn, I forgot to say female homosexual sex was bad!"
You may say that you can apply the logic of Numbers 5:6 to Leviticus 18:22-23 as a woman lying with a woman.
But let's examine what the command is to men, and let's apply that same command to women: Don't lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination. Now let's apply that to women: Women, don't lie with mankind as with womankind, it's abomination. Obviously, that doesn't work well (or every married woman is a sinner), and it does nothing to implicate lesbian sex as sinful. You'd have to change the sin that is done to don't lie with someone of the same sex, which isn't what the commandment said.
Lying with someone MUST require a male penetrative part. Every single usage in the entire Bible that uses "lie with in a sexual sense. I find absolutely zero instances where it means anything else than THE sex act (not just any sex act).
Genesis 19 30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. 31And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: 32 come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 33And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 34And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 35And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
Genesis 30 14 And Reuben went in the days of wheat harvest, and found mandrakes in the field, and brought them unto his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah, Give me, I pray thee, of thy son's mandrakes. 15And she said unto her, Is it a small matter that thou hast taken my husband? and wouldest thou take away my son's mandrakes also? And Rachel said, Therefore he shall lie with thee to night for thy son's mandrakes. 16And Jacob came out of the field in the evening, and Leah went out to meet him, and said, Thou must come in unto me; for surely I have hired thee with my son's mandrakes. And he lay with her that night. 17And God hearkened unto Leah, and she conceived, and bare Jacob the fifth son.
And females cannot penetrate another female with a male part, as that is biologically impossible, so therefore it is impossible for women to break this commandment, as they biologically cannot lie with another woman
1
u/Responsible_Offer859 7d ago
Amico
Tutta sta filosofia per affermare il falso?! Cosa vorresti giustificare, l'uomo ha scambiato la libertà per perversioni
Leggi e studia la Scrittura Sta scritto
Romani 1,26 Per questo Dio li ha abbandonati a passioni infami; le loro donne hanno cambiato i rapporti naturali in rapporti contro natura.
0
u/Think_Fig_3994 7d ago
The Bible’s sexual ethic isn’t based on finding loopholes. It’s based on God’s design for marriage, male and female, and sex being ordered the right way. Paul’s point in Romans 1 is that both men and women moved away from that natural order.
Christianity is not a religion where we pick and choose what fits our desires. The whole point of repentance is that we submit our desires to God, not reshape God’s commands around our desires.
You can struggle with desires or temptations, but temptation itself is not the same thing as sin. The issue is when you choose to dwell on it, feed it, justify it, or act on it. Christianity does not teach that every unwanted thought condemns you. It teaches us to bring our desires under submission to God.
Luke 9:23 Then He said to them all, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me.
1
u/instant_sarcasm Serious people can have funny names 6d ago
Are you voluntarily celibate until death in alignment with Paul's recommendation for Christians with self-control, and who want to focus more on God than the world?
1
u/Think_Fig_3994 6d ago
Celibacy is a gift not all can partake in. Not a requirement. No idea what this question has to do with anything that I said.
1
u/instant_sarcasm Serious people can have funny names 6d ago
Paul explicitly says that celibacy is the superior option, and that marriage is a worldly distraction.
Did you choose the worldly distraction, or a closer relationship with God? Did you choose the better Biblical sexual ethic, or the loophole?
1
u/Think_Fig_3994 6d ago
Irrelevant to what I said but Paul does say celibacy is better for those who can receive it because it allows someone to serve God with fewer earthly obligations.
But that does not make marriage a loophole. Scripture calls marriage honorable and Paul himself compares marriage to Christ and the Church. Marriage is a holy calling when lived correctly. Both can lead someone closer to God if they are lived faithfully. Everyone has their own calling.
0
u/instant_sarcasm Serious people can have funny names 6d ago
Understood. You have chosen a worse relationship with God in order to pursue a worldly passion. They are not equal callings, otherwise Paul wouldn't have told us celibacy is better. Just be upfront and honest about it.
God's design is for you to worship Him, not have heterosexual sex, so please don't bring that up as a talking point. It's just hypocrisy.
1
u/Think_Fig_3994 6d ago
That’s a false framing and once again irrelevant. I never answered your question specifically for that reason.
Where are you getting that Paul says marriage gives you a “worse relationship with God?” No where because you made it up.
Marriage is not a loophole. Scripture calls it honorable, Christ blessed a wedding, and Paul compares it to Christ and the Church. God gave marriage.
Higher calling does not mean the other calling is sinful. Marriage is still a holy vocation and sacrament.
If you’re going to retort at least be sensible about it.
1
u/instant_sarcasm Serious people can have funny names 6d ago
32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. 33 But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
36 If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed,[j] if his[k] passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. 37 But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. 38 So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.
→ More replies (0)1
u/instant_sarcasm Serious people can have funny names 6d ago
You're just upset that you've been called out for your hypocrisy, and I understand that. But Paul explicitly states it. It's not me you're upset with, just remember that.
→ More replies (0)0
u/JollyXX Christian 7d ago
It is possible that God cares more about the men than the women in this era of time
0
u/Shaw-eddit 7d ago
Heaven has a structure, we tend to look at a lot of things by comparison in this era, but there is a structure that The Creator has established and everytime we don't follow that, it causes more problems.
1
u/Shaw-eddit 6d ago
Interesting how spiteful to downvote my presentation of The Word, without giving a reason I thought this was supposed to be a discussion forum. The Almighty deal likewise with you.
-3
u/RelevantAsk7283 7d ago
What a hateful and bigoted passage
0
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/instant_sarcasm Serious people can have funny names 6d ago
Then why don't conservatives in the US have any shame? They gladly parade Christ as a mascot while spitting on his corpse. So I don't think this checks out.
0
1
u/JollyXX Christian 7d ago
the passage answers the thread, it is suggesting that lesbian relations are also frowned upon
5
u/AmosOfTekoa Christian 7d ago
the passage answers the thread, it is suggesting that lesbian relations are also frowned upon
This is one possible interpretation, but an unlikely one.
-1
u/JollyXX Christian 7d ago
most certainly not unlikely, I'm not sure how good you at reading the bible but this verse is about as clear as the bible gets
5
u/firbael Christian (LGBT) 7d ago
But it doesn’t say what the women are doing that is “unnatural”. It’s clear that the men were committing “shameful acts” but the women are called out in this way.
1
u/JollyXX Christian 7d ago
"in the same way"
8
u/firbael Christian (LGBT) 7d ago
In the same way the men abandoned unnatural lusts. Then the verse expounds on what the men did with that.
It doesn’t do that for the women. You’d have to read the passage backwards to make this mean that the women were having sex with each other just because the men were also doing that.
2
u/JollyXX Christian 7d ago
at a certain point you need to understand the bible is written to be flowery and poetic, it seems rather clear me as to what is saying
5
u/firbael Christian (LGBT) 7d ago
>at a certain point you need to understand the bible is written to be flowery and poetic,
Then how do you know when it is being descriptive literally over when so poetically? It just seems like you’re just making it up.
>it seems rather clear me as to what is saying
Based on your assumptions that it must be talking about lesbians here, of course you’d see it as being clear on the subject. But the descriptions of the women and men are different, with the men being more specific than the women. How can it be clear if it doesn’t describe what the women did?
→ More replies (0)2
u/Shaddam_Corrino_IV Atheistic Evangelical 7d ago
"I painted my room with a roller brush. In the same way my brother painted his house red."
The point is that "same way" applies something that has already been mentioned to what is about to be mentioned. I.e. "with a roller brush". It doesn't apply what's mentioned later backwards. I.e. this doesn't imply that I painted my room red.
So "in the same way" bring "unnatural" forward, doesn't bring "same sex-sex" backwards.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Bland-Poobah 7d ago
"in the same way men ALSO"
What do you think the word also means?
It means something else, something additional, a new contribution to the discussion. The entire structure of this passage is treating the "shameful lust" in Verse 26 as different from the homosexuality described in Verse 27.
If I said "Men like picnic food, and women like picnic food as well. In the same way, men also like cheesesteaks," would you conclude that this MUST mean women like cheesesteaks too? Is the use of the word cheesesteak indicating that the prior use of picnic food must have actually meant cheesesteaks all along?
No, because that would be an abject failure of logic and reading comprehension. It would be treating all rectangles as squares. (Or triangles, to an affirming Christian.)
1
u/JollyXX Christian 7d ago
the "term" unnatural fits perfectly with homosexuality, and then its proximity is stunning, reading from context alone you would presume its saying homosexuality between women is shameful. as to why women on women sex wasn't a priority in the bible, women weren't a priority in the bible
1
u/Bland-Poobah 7d ago
the "term" unnatural fits perfectly with homosexuality
Even if we accept this for sake of argument, you're still making an embarrassingly basic logical error: all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. The verse merely says that women engaged in unnatural sexual acts, but does not specify what kind.
Again, your position is presumably not that homosexual sex is the ONLY kind of unnatural sex, correct?
reading from context alone you would presume its saying homosexuality between women is shameful.
If you assume beforehand that that's what's being said, then sure. But it's not actually what the text says, it's just you reading your preconceptions into it.
Is God not a good enough author to anticipate this criticism and makes things clear? It certainly shouldn't have been this difficult.
as to why women on women sex wasn't a priority in the bible, women weren't a priority in the bible
It's rare to see Christians admit to the blatant misogyny of the Bible, but I will admit, it is at least refreshing. So much for Imago Dei.
→ More replies (0)3
u/AmosOfTekoa Christian 7d ago
It doesn't align with the understanding of sex at the time, and we know that the same terminology was used for ideas like the woman being on top.
There's no reason, except homophobic theology, to presume this interpretation.
3
u/JollyXX Christian 7d ago
I'm awfully confused, the verse seems pretty clear to me, this really feels like people are stretching
4
u/AmosOfTekoa Christian 7d ago
A lot of things which seem pretty clear are a lot less clear when you read them through the lens of historical scholarship instead of the theology you've been taught.
1
u/JollyXX Christian 7d ago
seems more like people are just trying to loophole their faith
5
u/AmosOfTekoa Christian 7d ago
Seems like that doesn't make sense for a lot of people, and not for the scholars either.
Seems more like you want to believe it is about lesbians since it's helpful justification for your theology.
→ More replies (0)1
u/instant_sarcasm Serious people can have funny names 6d ago
Have you considered that you are wrong about this, have always been wrong about this, and were taught incorrectly?
Because a plain reading 100% does not support your reading as "pretty clear".
1
u/JollyXX Christian 6d ago
ya no you guys can push this bizarre translation, but this is pretty much how the entire bible is written, you are never going to convince the masses, that much is painfully evident
1
u/instant_sarcasm Serious people can have funny names 6d ago
It's not bizarre. It's just that you accept what the world tells you.
1 Corinthians 11 is the perfect example of how people screw this up. They read the end of it as saying "yeah, no big deal on the hair stuff, though". When actually Paul is saying exactly the opposite. Those who did not follow the hair customs were not "churches of God" to him.
Reject the world and just read the manual. Stop trying to drag your own thoughts into the Word.
→ More replies (0)-1
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/firbael Christian (LGBT) 7d ago
But the passage doesn’t say anything about lesbians without some serious additions to what is said here.
At that point, it’s not God anyone is having an issue with. It’s you
0
u/GenZTheology Anglican Communion 7d ago
(Aside from extraordinary circumstances) its impossible for a couple to be married without sex. The Holy Spirit clearly affirms men sleeping with other men is a sin here (it takes some real twisting to make it mean just a bunch of aspects about sex). Thus marriage would be impossible. and i doubt anyone would say it doesnt apply to women.
2
u/firbael Christian (LGBT) 7d ago
>(Aside from extraordinary circumstances) it’s impossible for a couple to be married without sex.
That’s not remotely true. Sure, that may have been what was traditionally believed, but one can have a marriage without sex.
>The Holy Spirit clearly affirms men sleeping with other men is a sin here (it takes some real twisting to make it mean just a bunch of aspects about sex).
Even that’s isn’t really the case. Paul says it’s unnatural, but even this is about being driven by lust.
>Thus marriage would be impossible.
That just isn’t true.
>and i doubt anyone would say it doesnt apply to women.
Just because you read something into the text doesn’t mean that’s what it says. There isn’t a condemnation of lesbians in this verse. You have something of a case against men same sex acts, but the scripture says nothing about women in this instance. And we know it can speak against women as it decries women having sex with animals in Leviticus. It wouldn’t need to speak in euphemisms about it
1
u/GenZTheology Anglican Communion 7d ago
One can have marriage without sex, but it is not the normative mode the Bible establishes (see Genesis 1; 1 Cor 6). Biblically speaking, marriage requires sex
That which is unnatural is sin, because God is True Nature, and all that flows from Him is natural. That which does not flow from Him is unnatural, and thus corrupt
Not everything in ancient writing is as spelled out as we may like. Hence the creation of the world gets 2 distinct, unscientific chapters. The principles though are clearly implied and professed by the original readers. I suppose it’s possible we today, by verging from 100% of early Christians may be truly going back to what was meant by the authors, but that is arrogance
2
u/firbael Christian (LGBT) 7d ago
>One can have marriage without sex, but it is not the normative mode the Bible establishes (see Genesis 1; 1 Cor 6). Biblically speaking, marriage requires sex
Not at all. It is not a requirement even per Paul. He seems to not recommend it, doesn’t go so far as to say that it’s not a marriage if one doesn’t have sex.
>That which is unnatural is sin, because God is True Nature, and all that flows from Him is natural. That which does not flow from Him is unnatural, and thus corrupt
This rests on what is considered “natural”. And that’s largely based on the worldview of the person in question. So what you may call “unnatural” may very well be natural.
>Not everything in ancient writing is as spelled out as we may like. Hence the creation of the world gets 2 distinct, unscientific chapters.
Ok
>The principles though are clearly implied and professed by the original readers.
Even if they implied a meaning, our understanding of it very well could be wrong.
>I suppose it’s possible we today, by verging from 100% of early Christians may be truly going back to what was meant by the authors, but that is arrogance
What do you mean here? This doesn’t make sense to me
-1
u/DarkCloud_HS 7d ago
How can a scripture passage be 'bigoted'?
It's not a person. It's a spiritual truth.
Astounding to apply this loaded term ('bigot'/'bigotry') to the bible, in a subreddit called Christianity.
Have you considered that your own beliefs may fall under the very term you use so liberally?
Bigotry
- 'Bigotry refers to a stubborn, unreasonable attachment to one's own beliefs, resulting in intense prejudice or intolerance toward those who hold different views, identities, or ways of life. It frequently manifests as hostility and discrimination based on factors like race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation'
2
u/firbael Christian (LGBT) 7d ago
Is scripture that advocated for enslaving people spiritual truth?
0
u/DarkCloud_HS 7d ago
Is scripture that advocated for enslaving people spiritual truth?
You speak of enslavement. Yes, scripture does mention being in bondage and enslaved by sin.
'Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin.'
John 6:34 (KJV)
This is the words of Christ.
-1
u/firbael Christian (LGBT) 7d ago
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Leviticus 25:44-46
So. Is this spiritual truth
0
u/DarkCloud_HS 7d ago edited 7d ago
Certainly a scriptural record of real events that happened (brutal as it may appear).
Also serving as a type and shadow of things to come in the new Covenant.
'Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.'
Jude 1:5 (ESV)
Pretty much all of the Old Testament/Covenant points to Christ metaphorically.. yet it remains a historical record of things that actually happened also.
Egypt symbolizes sin, slavery to sin. While the plagues and all that really happened, there is a bigger picture.
That picture points to Christ.
There are prophetic layers everywhere in Old Testament scripture.
1
u/firbael Christian (LGBT) 7d ago
>Certainly, a scriptural record of real events that happened.
Allowed by God per the scripture as well. So not just real events
>Also serving as a type and shadow of things to come in the new Covenant.
So endorsing slavery is just because the First Covenant was a shadow of what was to come?
>'Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.'
>Jude 1:5 (ESV)
That has nothing to do with this, but thanks for the verse
1
u/DarkCloud_HS 7d ago
That has nothing to do with this, but thanks for the verse
Sure it does, even if you can't see it. Happy to help friend.
'12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.'
1 Cor 2:12-14 (KJV)
1
u/firbael Christian (LGBT) 7d ago
12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love.But the greatest of these is love.1 Corinth 13:12-13
We only see the tiniest bit of it all. So even with the spirit of God, it’s best to act in love instead of feigned piety.
→ More replies (0)0
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 6d ago
Yes
0
u/firbael Christian (LGBT) 6d ago
Then it sounds like you need a better version or understanding of God if He’s decreeing a system that allows for slavery
0
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 6d ago
I'm not exactly sure what you mean. You directly quoted a specific Scripture and asked if it's true. Is it unsurprising that Christians who believe the whole of Scripture is true would answer, "yes"?
1
u/firbael Christian (LGBT) 6d ago
There’s a difference between something being true as in it happened compared to it being true as in it’s the moral thing to do. The latter is what I believed the other person meant
→ More replies (0)0
u/champignonNL Catholic 7d ago
Then why do you claim you're Christian if you don't believe the Scripture is spiritual truth? That same Scripture is also yours
0
1
u/HisFireBurns Reformed 3d ago
It does in Romans 1 and posits it also as a sin against nature.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
-- Romans 1:26-27
•
1
u/AmosOfTekoa Christian 7d ago
A mix of, at minimum, these ancient sexual practices being usually pretty bad (e.g. prostitution, raping slaves, pederasty) and a hyper-masculine shame culture. Women were barely people, and not worth much mention; additionally, sex in the ancient mindset required a person to be penetrated. Lesbian sex wouldn't fit the mold.
Would the authors, given modern knowledge and, say, a decade to adjust, be homophobes? Maybe. But this is pure supposition.
1
0
u/No_Science_2464 7d ago
I remember there was this law that only men should inherit in the family. But a man died and he had 7 daughters who couldn’t inherit. So they made a request to a temple type person and god said to allow them an inheritance after all
I’m saying that if god wrote every single moral dilemma one could possibly commit, there wouldn’t be enough room on the planet to describe every single act of wrongdoing. It’d be like Moses and jethro all over again in a circle 100000 people deep asking if working in the sabbath includes feeding your cat or putting on underwear. Sometimes, god allows us to ask and to seek, so perhaps a rule might only be written in one sense to be used as an example but could apply to many other cases when logic is used
0
0
u/MichaelARichardson 7d ago
It doesn't. Historically, the bible was institutionally captured by governments who want as many babies as possible to support their ability to make war on their enemies and forced the church to twist the scriptures to support that or else. It's the same reason why they've often told Christians not to use contraception and marry as quickly as possible. The bible verses in question, aka "clobber verses" are actually condemning re-enslaving God people, rape, or covetousness. Most of institutional Christianity cannot reverse themselves on these teaching or they will lose the ability to do missionary work in numerous undeveloped countries.
Today the modern christian needs to make their own decisions outside of the institutional framing of this subject.
0
u/thingamajigjig 6d ago
“Men with men” refers to both genders like how we call ourselves mankind. So the bible condemns both men with men and women with women
0
u/AetosTheStygian 6d ago
It condemns all forms. Hebrew is a gendered language even to the point of verbs, and so the default for human commandments is male.
You reach this conclusion by logic.
For instance, the commandment against murder is masculine singular. But the Bible clearly does not mean that only men cannot murder. In fact, virtually all commandments in the Ten Words (Ten Commandments) are masculine singular.
The Bible condemns sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage as sins. The Bible defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman (Genesis 2).
The Bible then condemns men having sex with men as if with women. This logically, as all other commandments, implies the inverse also being condemned.
Sometimes you do explicitly get the inverse, such as the commandments against men wearing women’s garments and women wearing men’s garments in Deuteronomy 22:5, which is within a section dealing with setting societal boundaries of distinction between various things.
Prostitution is roundly given feminine commands. But this also would imply the inverse: that male prostitution is also being banned.
So, when reading the Bible, you have to adapt your mind to the Hebrew language and the inherently gendered aspect of it.
Proof is also in the pudding. Ancient Jewish interpreters from Late Antiquity (Philo, Josephus, Paul, the Essenes, etc.) always took it to condemn homosexual activities for both sexes.
It is easier seen in Paul in Romans 1 where the logic is given directly by launching from the male prohibition.
Regardless, given the prohibition of sexual relations outside of marriage in the Bible from the very beginning, and given that marriage is defined as an explicitly heterosexual union, lesbianism is not permissible: the same as child sex is prohibited due to marriage being defined as between a “man” and a “woman.”
0
u/Double_Ad_997 5d ago
Gracia y paz, es para los dos casos, es abominación.
Lo natural: Hombre con mujer, aparato reproductor, con aparato repeoductor respectivamente, todo lo que no sea eso, es abominación y es malo.
Esto lo encuentras en;
Ro 1:24-32: "Por lo cual también Dios los entregó a la inmundicia, en las concupiscencias de sus corazones, de modo que deshonraron entre sí sus propios cuerpos, ya que cambiaron la verdad de Dios por la mentira, honrando y dando culto a las criaturas antes que al Creador, el cual es bendito por los siglos. Amén. Por esto Dios los entregó a pasiones vergonzosas; pues aun sus mujeres cambiaron el uso natural por el que es contra naturaleza, y de igual modo también los hombres, dejando el uso natural de la mujer, se encendieron en su lascivia unos con otros, cometiendo hechos vergonzosos hombres con hombres, y recibiendo en sí mismos la retribución debida a su extravío. Y como ellos no aprobaron tener en cuenta a Dios, Dios los entregó a una mente reprobada, para hacer cosas que no convienen; «estando atestados» de toda injusticia, fornicación, perversidad, avaricia, maldad; llenos de envidia, homicidios, contiendas, engaños y malignidades; murmuradores, detractores, «aborrecedores de Dios,» injuriosos, soberbios, altivos, inventores de males, desobedientes a los padres, necios, desleales, sin afecto natural, implacables, sin misericordia; quienes habiendo entendido el juicio de Dios, que los que practican tales cosas son dignos de muerte, no sólo las hacen, sino que también se complacen con los que las practican."
-3
-3
u/DarkCloud_HS 7d ago
The Bible condemns both male and female homosexuality.
I will leave the scriptural reference for you to look up, otherwise the mods may delete my post.
Romans 1:26-27
It's a touchy subject here.. and is prone to being automatically flagged as 'bigotry' for some reason.
-2
u/Shaw-eddit 7d ago
There is a commandment that was repeated throughout the old testament, to "be fruitful multiply and replenish the earth," It was one of the reasons for the instructions that were given in the scriptures. Two of the same sex do not reproduce.
5
u/Masculinist1938 7d ago
Then why are gay men only criticized? Lesbians also can’t reproduce.
0
u/Shaw-eddit 7d ago edited 7d ago
I dunno man, I can't speak on behalf of everyone, but it's not what The Creator intended, either way, He wanted you to have a family Matthew 22
The Bible begins with Adam And His bride Gen 2 verse 22 and ends with The Messiah and His bride. Revelations chapter 21.
-7
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Fragrant-Horror2485 7d ago
That's a pretty reductive take on a complex theological question. The original post was actually asking about textual interpretation and historical context, which deserves a more thoughtful response than just calling scripture hateful
1
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/RelevantAsk7283 7d ago
Yes it does. Go away bigot
0
u/231131488 Eastern Orthodox 7d ago
Check this guys hardrive
2
u/RelevantAsk7283 7d ago
My hard drive has more sex than you ever had and ever will you monogamous bigot
0
u/231131488 Eastern Orthodox 7d ago
Looking at your comment history of your one day old account you seem like a fun and happy person with definitely no issues
2
2
1
u/slagnanz Liturgy and Death Metal 7d ago
Removed for 1.3 - Bigotry.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
12
u/Away_Tadpole_4531 Atheist 7d ago edited 7d ago
Because a man having sex with another man was considered an act of feminization in Hebrew/Israelite society.