Leviticus 18:22 is it misinterpreted(Help me)?

[AJLove]

I mean it clearly says that what I am is wrong(or does it). I read the Bible and homosexuality article on here but I'm still confused. And it said the Lord said it so can please help me?

[andrewlittle]

This has been discussed many times before, AJ.

Here is a link to just one post - see if it prompts some questions.

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=26962&postcount=13

[pnggrad79]

AJ,
You are reading for face value and not in the cultural envelope in which it was written. Leviticus was part of a Holiness Code written to keep the Hebrew people set apart and sanctified for God's purpose to bring the savior into the world. It was necessary to keep them pure and holy in the midst of a slew of polytheistic nations that practiced idolatry, and a host of other things that God obviously did not want the Israelites participating in. Also, it was a common practice in battle then in order to humiliate a conquered foe to rape them. That meant that men would humiliate the conquered army by treating them like women and forcing themselves on them. God found the practice detestable. I believe this is what God was telling the Hebrews to stay away from.

You have to consider the cultural and historical context in which these verses were written. It is crucial to understanding them, and something that fundamentalists conveniently forget to do. They like to lift it out of the Bible and wave it in front of our face as if it meant the same thing to the ancient Israelis as it does to us today in our own cultural envelope. Come on. Things mean different things today than they did 20 years ago. Give me a break.

Stop taking it so seriously. Leviticus wasn't written for you. It was written for ancient Hebrews 4-5000 years ago. That isn't to say it isn't relevant, it just isn't applicable to you. It has valuable lessons and we have lots to learn from it, but the literal message was INTENDED for Hebrews wandering in the Sinai post Egypt, and pre Canaan, and God was trying to prepare them to bring forth the Messiah. Be holy... Be set apart.... that is the message....;)

[Pablo Rafael]

AJ,

This is the easiest "clobber verse" to address. The holiness laws in Leviticus have been totally done away with by Christ's death on the cross. We are no longer bound by the law. Paul had to reprimand Peter because Peter was insisting that the gentiles had to follow the holiness laws. Peter (led by the Holy Spirit) had to admit that he was wrong.

Read the rest of the book of Leviticus, and it is obvious that it does not apply anymore. One verse cannot be taken out of context. If this one verse is still in effect, then all the other admonitions in Leviticus also would be. Since those regulations obviously are not in effect, neither is this one.

Pablo

[pnggrad79]

Amen Pablo,
Amazing how so many fundies want to keep the letter of the law and act like all of Leviticus is still applicable for today. Hey, if it were, none of us would be eating BLT's, shrimp, wearing cotton blend shirts, etc. But the fundies like to just lift verses out of the Bible to justify their own fears and prejudices and this crap is what happens. Good people like AJ run around being fearful instead of celebrating who he is, and who he was created to be. All because some lame ass minister bellowed out, "You are an abomination...." I want to just hit that guy who told AJ that lie. It simply is not true.

[tpdncr4christ]

I mean it clearly says that what I am is wrong(or does it). I read the Bible and homosexuality article on here but I'm still confused. And it said the Lord said it so can please help me?

Ever heard of the phrase "The blood of the new covenant?" That's Jesus. Leviticus 18 and all of the Old Testament would be the old covenant, the old pact with God. Now there is the new covenant, Jesus. That's all you need. Don't worry about the old covenant unless you don't believe in Christ as a Messiah, which makes you Jewish... but that's a different thing all together.

[dsdrane]

Ever heard of the phrase "The blood of the new covenant?" That's Jesus. Leviticus 18 and all of the Old Testament would be the old covenant, the old pact with God. Now there is the new covenant, Jesus. That's all you need. Don't worry about the old covenant unless you don't believe in Christ as a Messiah, which makes you Jewish... but that's a different thing all together.

Excellent point, Austin.

I wonder how many "Christian" Fundamentalists Christ today would write off as Pharisees...? ;)

[Unmasked]

Sadly Underdog, I don't think so.

[Erik]

May as well shut down the US economy since charging interest on a loan to a countryman is also a no-no.

[pnggrad79]

Exactly! And while you're at it, cancel all shellfish restaurants, and that industry altogether. And the fashion industry because they regularly mix fabrics. And all those pigs? Gotta get rid of those, too? Man a lot of people are going out of business if we go back to Leviticus as running our lives.

The point being made that Leviticus was part of the OLD covenant is clearly profound, and something Jesus did away with by his death on the cross. So rest easy, Leviticus is taken out of context because fundamentalists like to do that because they are scared little rabbits afraid to admit they might be wrong.:rolleyes:

[ladyinred]

Think of what would happen if we applied the old rules of the sabbath today, a man was stoned if I remember correctly for gathering sticks on the sabbath in the old testament, you could not even light a fire in your house on the sabbath. Think what would happen if we applied that today, alot of people like policemen ,firefighters, medical workers, nurses and etc could be put to death for working on the sabbath. Utterly ridiculous. And I do agree we have to read the bible with history in mind and look at the cultures of those times ,etc.

[RedneckDyke]

Not to mention those evil tattoo parlors. :D:D:D:D

[Gennee]

I will be doing an in-depth study of Leviticus 18:22 as it applies to transgender and gender variant people. The subject of eunuchs will also be addressed. It is important to address the subject in regard to when the command was given, why, and the social climate existing when the command was given. One has to read the whole chapter, a few chapters before and a few chapters after this verse to understand why it was written.

Gennee

[Erik]

Not to mention those evil tattoo parlors. :D:D:D:D

Really ??? Looks like I'm in trouble.

[Progo35]

I agree with Pablo and others-Leviticus no longer has any relevance to living a godly life, except those verses that forbid murder, etc. Theological arguments against homosexuality have to be made with the NT in order to retain credibility. Now, the debate will always be there in terms of the few NT verses that mention homosexuality as being wrong, but the OT doesn't have any relevance to what is right or wrong anymore, and Christians who use that verse to justify oppression against LGBT people are living a double standard when they eat shrimp, allow a woman to speak in church, etc. The NT's verses do not justify this, either, of course, but the OT really doesn't have a place in such debates.

[scott snedeker]

I think focussing on Leviticus 18:22 is another example of asking the wrong question. IT is unworthy of attention. It is another "What do others expect me to be or do?" question.

If you Read Dan Millman's, The Peaceful Warrior Socrates answer's Dan's question of what he should do next with:

"Empty the garbage!"

Dan, insulted, replies with:

"What does emptying the Garbage have to do with anything?"

Socrates taps Dan on the forehead:

"Empty this garbage here!"

:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

[ladyinred]

Why would we base modern society on the questionable morals of ancient times anyway?I'm no biblical scholar, but would we want our morals to be shaped by the ancient Roman empire. Paul lived during a time for example where women were subhuman and looked down on and had no rights in Roman society. Paul was not Jesus, and Christ certainly didn't treat women this way .Could his writings about women being silent in church have been colored by the cultural prejudices of his time? If we based our morals on old testament scripture I guess we are all going to hell for eating shrimp?Wearing mixed fibers, for not observing the sabbath? And women not being virgins?

[Daniel]

I think focussing on Leviticus 18:22 is another example of asking the wrong question. IT is unworthy of attention. It is another "What do others expect me to be or do?" question.

If you Read Dan Millman's, The Peaceful Warrior Socrates answer's Dan's question of what he should do next with:

"Empty the garbage!"

Dan, insulted, replies with:

"What does emptying the Garbage have to do with anything?"

Socrates taps Dan on the forehead:

"Empty this garbage here!"



As someone (I can't remember who) once said:

Analyzing the darkeness doesn't take you towards the light.

[Tinkerbell047]

Alright, this is a scripture I deal with every day. It's the belly of my struggle with myself and being "un-straight" (I like that one! ^_^)

I was discussing this with my mom the other night. I told her this verse was really getting to me, and more or less explained why, keeping my personal struggle out of it. Her reply went something like this:

When Jesus died, he fulfilled the laws, he didn't do away with them. The reason we can eat what ever we want is because God showed (I can't remember who at the moment) a vision of a blanket/tray/something (Can't remember what!) being lowered with all the unclean foods upon it, and told him that all things were good to eat. God, obviously, isn't talking about GLBT peoples.

This is the part where mom's explanation starts to die for me. But, it's still catching me up.

An abomination remains an abomination no matter what. And, the usage of the word changes based on the size of the sin. So, eating something unclean is less important than (direct quote time) "having man sex," (sometimes my mom kills me.) obviously giving part of your body is more important than what you eat. Just like we still don't sleep with family members, we don't have sex with the same gender. They are both sins.

End of mom's paraphrased dissertation.

I though that all sins were equal in God's eyes. So, if that's right, then why is one abomination worse than another? Why does culture change one part of the code and not the other? I'm so confused. Here is my biggest question: God changed his mind once; we used to could sleep with family, then He said no. We used to not be able to eat certain things, then He said okay. God originally sent Jesus only to the Jews, then Mary changed his mind and let us have Him too. Why did God say loving those we do is wrong, and why can't He have changed his mind about this as well? What makes this different? And, aren't all sins the same?

Thanks,
-Tink

[Zerbie]

Your mom's comparison between food and sex is completely distorted to me. Why would sex be more important than food? We can go much longer without sex than we can go without food. And furthermore, as deeply as sexual contact influences us, still our bodies are MADE of food. The food we eat creates our skin cells, bone cells, muscle cells, BRAIN cells (in other words, the tool we do our thinking through is fueled by food, well & oxygen) - the point being, food impacts EVERY aspect of our physical existence. IF anything, what we eat would be a hundred times more important than the gender of a lover.

[paul]

"Alright, this is a scripture I deal with every day. It's the belly of my struggle with myself and being "un-straight" (I like that one! ^_^)"

Tink,

I think you are being honest and thoughtful about this. Me thinks it's all in the approach. How does one figure out what God really wants or thinks? As you point out, the bible indicates a few different points of view. For instance, you make a good point about sleeping with the family. But hey, why leave it there? The children of Israel, "God's chosen people" came from two wive's and two concubines. That would be four women and one man. Joe Smith would be proud, but some Christians would say that's sin.

My point is, you can take the bible and pretty much justify what ever you like. Polygamy? It's in there. Genocide? yep, it's in there too. You, your mom, anyone, can find a scripture and tell you what "God says." So what do you do? Most of the Christians on this site are advocates of following the "law of love" that "Jesus" taught. That, at least, narrows things down a bit.

If you consider your self a follower of Jesus' teachings, then you probably know that he spent a lot of energy giving the pharisees what for. Why? These guys were very strict and careful to try and follow the written rules of "God's law." Why would the "Son of God" object to that? Why would you object to that Leviticus verse? Is it because following that law written in stone contradicts the law of love written in your heart?

"When Jesus died, he fulfilled the laws, he didn't do away with them."

It wasn't just Jesus' death that "fullfilled the laws," but his life as well. How did he do that? Did he keep everything written in Leviticus? There's a few Pharisees who might point out areas where he broke the Levitical code. But, we don't need the Pharisees to know this. The Levitical code called for stoning someone who commits adultery. Jesus' response to those who wanted to follow that Levitical code was to exercise mercy. I propose that the "law" that Jesus "fullfilled" was the "law of love," not the Levitical code.

I would suggest that your challenge as a "Christian" is not what to eat or what not to eat, who to sleep with or who not to sleep with, etc. The challenge is to love God and your neighbor as your self, following Jesus' examples of how to fulfill that "law."

[Tinkerbell047]

^_^ Thank you, Paul. I guess that's a really good way of looking at it thatI hadn't seen before.

[andrewlittle]

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.

Matthew 7:12 "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.

Matthew 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John came;

Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Luke 16:16 "The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone tries to enter it by force.

Luke 16:29 Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them.'

Luke 16:31 He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"

Luke 24:27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.

Luke 24:44 Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you-- that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled."

John 1:45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth."

Acts 13:15 After the reading of the law and the prophets, the officials of the synagogue sent them a message, saying, "Brothers, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, give it."

Acts 24:14 But this I admit to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our ancestors, believing everything laid down according to the law or written in the prophets.

Acts 26:22 To this day I have had help from God, and so I stand here, testifying to both small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would take place:

Acts 28:23 After they had set a day to meet with him, they came to him at his lodgings in great numbers. From morning until evening he explained the matter to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the law of Moses and from the prophets.

Romans 3:21 But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets,

There is a distinct, and unmistakable, pattern in the New Testament that is conveniently overlooked by many (most?) Christians - namely, the frequent reference to "laws and the prophets" and "law of Moses and the prophets" are one and the same. These are held up as valid by Jesus, the gospel writers and Paul, while they also stand in contrast to the other "laws", which are the priestly laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

Jesus came to fulfil the laws of Moses and the prophets - regulations about how we engage with and treat each other - but not the Levitical laws about ritual or social acceptability. The latter were the laws that the Pharissees held on to doggedly, and which caused Jesus to rail against them as legalists and anathema to the Kingdom of God.

Jesus fulfilled the 10 Commandments (the laws of Moses) and the cries of the prophets against inhumane and unrighteous behavior. He did so, however, while voiding the laws imposed by the Levites and other priests to control and lord over the Jews.

In short, Jesus fulfilled the ethical laws (those that deal with right relations with each other as the will of God), and abolished the moral laws of the priests (those that established humans as arbiters of right and wrong).

[Gregory_de_Bois]

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.

Matthew 7:12 "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.

Matthew 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John came;

Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Luke 16:16 "The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone tries to enter it by force.

Luke 16:29 Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them.'

Luke 16:31 He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"

Luke 24:27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.

Luke 24:44 Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you-- that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled."

John 1:45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth."

Acts 13:15 After the reading of the law and the prophets, the officials of the synagogue sent them a message, saying, "Brothers, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, give it."

Acts 24:14 But this I admit to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our ancestors, believing everything laid down according to the law or written in the prophets.

Acts 26:22 To this day I have had help from God, and so I stand here, testifying to both small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would take place:

Acts 28:23 After they had set a day to meet with him, they came to him at his lodgings in great numbers. From morning until evening he explained the matter to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the law of Moses and from the prophets.

Romans 3:21 But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets,

There is a distinct, and unmistakable, pattern in the New Testament that is conveniently overlooked by many (most?) Christians - namely, the frequent reference to "laws and the prophets" and "law of Moses and the prophets" are one and the same. These are held up as valid by Jesus, the gospel writers and Paul, while they also stand in contrast to the other "laws", which are the priestly laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

Jesus came to fulfil the laws of Moses and the prophets - regulations about how we engage with and treat each other - but not the Levitical laws about ritual or social acceptability. The latter were the laws that the Pharissees held on to doggedly, and which caused Jesus to rail against them as legalists and anathema to the Kingdom of God.

Jesus fulfilled the 10 Commandments (the laws of Moses) and the cries of the prophets against inhumane and unrighteous behavior. He did so, however, while voiding the laws imposed by the Levites and other priests to control and lord over the Jews.

In short, Jesus fulfilled the ethical laws (those that deal with right relations with each other as the will of God), and abolished the moral laws of the priests (those that established humans as arbiters of right and wrong).

whoa. That was brilliant. Andrew, you have done it again.

[keltic63]

why do you seek the living among the dead?

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4764

I moved it, gave it its own thread entitled mike68's questions thread (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4764)





in the Foyer ;)


for access to the Foyer, take a look at these instructions (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=29).

[tymejumper]

Not to mention those evil tattoo parlors. :D:D:D:D



Well then, that's it! I definately going to Hell! At least I'm enjoying the ride. :lol::lol::lol:

[Special Agent JamBor]

I mean it clearly says that what I am is wrong(or does it). I read the Bible and homosexuality article on here but I'm still confused. And it said the Lord said it so can please help me?

Leviticus 18:22
"A male shall not lie with a male as with a female; it is an abomination"

This verse is not condemning homosexual sex between 2 men in a committed relationship. It is condemning homosexual sex used for idol worship.

It was not uncommon back then to practice Paganism. One of the rituals was sex. Two men would have sex in front of an alter.

The clue here is that it does not mention women. If God intended it to be only a man and a woman and any deviation from that is sinful, then God would have surely mentioned lesbianism if he was in fact referring to actual homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22, because even though many people consider lesbianism as "not real sex", it would still be a deviation of what God intended of a relationship, male and female together (presuming that WAS his sole intention).

If Leviticus was condemning homosexuality, it would have surely mentioned lesbianism as well. Because it didn't points to the fact that the verse may not have been talking about homosexuality. How does it tie into Idol worship? Well, back then women were excluded from any forms of worship. They were not allowed to participate in the rituals. This is why it doesn't mention women.

The verse is condemning homosexual sex between 2 men committing an act of Idol Worship, not between 2 men in a loving, committed relationship.

[scott snedeker]

Leviticus 18:22
"A male shall not lie with a male as with a female; it is an abomination"

This verse is not condemning homosexual sex between 2 men in a committed relationship. It is condemning homosexual sex used for idol worship.

It was not uncommon back then to practice Paganism. One of the rituals was sex. Two men would have sex in front of an alter.


Really! Being a pagan and studying pagan roots I am curious. Since when did levite priests travel to northern Europe? And am I now the new evil one abomination because I am not monogamous? Is the new refomed Abrahamic gay follower selecting some one morally inferior to them to dehumanize and despise, there by diverting the crosshairs of God's wrath to another target?

So fulll of crap!

The clue here is that it does not mention women. If God intended it to be only a man and a woman and any deviation from that is sinful, then God would have surely mentioned lesbianism if he was in fact referring to actual homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22, because even though many people consider lesbianism as "not real sex", it would still be a deviation of what God intended of a relationship, male and female together (presuming that WAS his sole intention).

It's more like women weren't "real people" as they were "property", behind oxen in their "covetous" value

If Leviticus was condemning homosexuality, it would have surely mentioned lesbianism as well. Because it didn't points to the fact that the verse may not have been talking about homosexuality. How does it tie into Idol worship? Well, back then women were excluded from any forms of worship. They were not allowed to participate in the rituals. This is why it doesn't mention women.


Read Above
The verse is condemning homosexual sex between 2 men committing an act of Idol Worship, not between 2 men in a loving, committed relationship.


I salute that with a big Raspberry!

[Special Agent JamBor]

Scott,

I didn't say anything about Europe nor is it my intention to insult anyone. There's nothing that angers me more when you are not trying to insult someone, but it happens anyway.

Please do me a favor and not take offense to that, please.

As for talking about men in a loving, committed relationship. Yes I do mean that. I'm a gay Christian but I believe being sexually promiscuous is sinful. Sexual Orientation (gay or straight) is not a sin, but being sexually promiscuous (gay or straight), I believe IS a sin and I won't take that back because it's what I believe.

But we all sin. I might not commit the sin of being sexually promiscuous, but I sin also and I am just as much at fault.

So I'm sorry if I slandered Paganism, but there's no reason I have to be sorry for believing that sexual promiscuousity is wrong.

[Special Agent JamBor]

I salute that with a big Raspberry!

OK, scratch whatever I said about that Levitical Code. Here is Soulforce's article on the Bible and Homosexuality. We'll go by that: http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

[scott snedeker]

Scott,

I didn't say anything about Europe nor is it my intention to insult anyone. There's nothing that angers me more when you are not trying to insult someone, but it happens anyway.

But you did say something about northern Europe without realizing it. Pagan means the Ancient spiritual paradigms of Europe and the British
Isles before the spread of Christianity. THe Latin Pagan means "Country" as opposed to the Civilzed Roman world. Leviticus predates the Roman Empire so the Word "Pagan" did not even exist. The Olympians (Zeus et al) were not pagan as this was the spirtual paradigm of the greeks and adopted by the Romans and part of the civilzed Roman Empire.

Please do me a favor and not take offense to that, please.

Obviously I did take offense. I can't go back in time and un-do that, but I'm over it, and I forgive you. I understand that you did not know what pagan means and that, like me, are struggling in a homophobic envionment.

Your statement was unskillful because of the above and resulted in offense, but it was unintentional. That actaully makes it easy for me to forgive. It is essential that I forgive lest I carry the offense beyond this moment and for you so that you do not suffer futher loss of inner peace and having your heart closed to another human being.

I ask for your forgiveness in return for the suffering my response has caused you.

As for talking about men in a loving, committed relationship. Yes I do mean that. I'm a gay Christian but I believe being sexually promiscuous is sinful. Sexual Orientation (gay or straight) is not a sin, but being sexually promiscuous (gay or straight), I believe IS a sin and I won't take that back because it's what I believe.

Here we come from different paradigms. The more people I love and make love to, the closer I am to honoring [God]'s gift to me. I have six people who hold my heart and make love to. We are a circle of lovers. When we all get together the power of our love can be felt in the air and we are in bliss. There is no way that something this genuine, blissful, loving and peaceful can be a sin.

But we all sin. I might not commit the sin of being sexually promiscuous, but I sin also and I am just as much at fault.

So I'm sorry if I slandered Paganism, but there's no reason I have to be sorry for believing that sexual promiscuousity is wrong.

I take you at your word that it is wrong.....for you. Monogamy would be wrong for me. Did that years ago and the results were catastrophically miserable for me and my ex.

I am gay and polyamorous. Practicing Monogamy would be practicing infidelity to my heart and hurtful to those I love so dearly. How could I shut out people I have been making passionate love to for years? Which one would I pick? How could I break the hearts of all the others for no good reason?