Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×

:icondadona777: More from dadona777


More from deviantART



Details

Submitted on
January 21, 2013
File Size
5.9 KB
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
738
Favourites
30 (who?)
Comments
86
Downloads
4
×
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are infamous for their alleged condemnation of homosexuality, as they describe the act of any man who "lies with mankind" as an abomination worthy of death. However, closer examination shows that these verses are not pointing toward a universal condemnation of homosexuality as many presume them to be.
    And with mankind [zakar] you shall not lay lyings (as with) womankind; it is abomination [tow`ebah] (Leviticus 18:22) And if a man ['iysh] also lie with mankind [zakar] as with womankind, both have committed an abomination [tow`ebah]; they shall surely be put to death, their blood (shall be) upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
The Hebrew word 'iysh refers to a man, in contrast to a woman. Zakar, however, is typically used throughout the Old Testament to refer to men who were sacred, or religiously affiliated, either to God or to an idol.

There are a few cases in which zakar appears to refer to men in general (those being Joshua 17:2 and Jeremiah 30:6). Therefore, in order to know for sure whether zakar in Leviticus refers to all men or just sacred men, one must look at the context surrounding these verses.
    And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord. (Leviticus 18:21) Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
    And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.
    And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not:
    Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.
    (Leviticus 20:2-5)
Molech is a pagan god, often represented by a male figure with the head of a bull with horns. It was (and still is today) worshiped the king of the gods and the counterpart to Ashtoreth. These gods were highly sexualized, and their followers sought to please them with sexual offerings, including offering themselves up to them as sexual slaves.

There is another indicator that zakar is indeed referring to sacred males dedicated to idols. The Hebrew word tow`ebah, translated as "abomination," is used throughout the Old Testament to refer to actions that are religiously unclean or to idols themselves, but not necessarily to something that in itself should be considered evil. For example, Deuteronomy 27:15 describes idols and graven images as "an abomination unto the Lord," while Genesis 43:52 states that eating and breaking bread with the Hebrews was an "abomination unto the Egyptians," in the sense that it was against their beliefs to eat with "heathens." Tow`ebah was also used to refer to letting your children pass through the fire (Deuteronomy 12:31), eating food sacrificed to idols (Deuteronomy 14:3), and sacrificing the wrong kind of animal (Deuteronomy 17:1). It was also used to refer to putting on gender-discordant clothing as a service to idols (Deuteronomy 22:5).

In conclusion, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 cannot be used to condemn homosexuality because the context surrounding them shows that homosexuality in itself is not being condemned. If one were to find a less intimidating but more linguistically correct interpretation of Leviticus 20:13, it would read the following:
    If a man lies with a male dedicated to Molech, both have committed an unclean religious act; they shall be put to death, their blood shall be upon them.
zakar: [link]
phoenecian religion: [link]
Add a Comment:
 
:iconmetaknight964:
The bible makes it clear homosexuality is a sin and that man and woman belong together as husband and wife, no exceptions. And molech has nothing to do with it, that's an incorrect interpretation by more deviant homosexuals to justify their behavior/lifestyle.
Reply
Hidden by Owner
:icondadona777:
by "read the FAQ" I meant "read the part that says you are only allowed to 'argue' with me in a note and not on my actual deviation." obviously you didn't read it and decided instead to send me completely irrelevant bible verses

you are getting blocked for being a dipshit
Reply
:iconlibertades:
Libertades Jun 1, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I've read all of these arguments and made researching about the bible condemning homosexuality, as far I have come, I can't decide which of these is true... I mean, I want to do God's will and live for him, but there's also someone I've fallen in love with, and I cannot live without.... literally; my interpersonal life is messed up.

I'm a chirstian, but I'm confused about if I should keep going this way feeling 100% safe, if you understand... and what about marriage and sexual relations...?
Reply
:icondadona777:
this was literally me a year and a half ago

long before I came out as ftm, I fell in love with a girl. I never admitted until much later it because I was extremely homophobic and obsessed with doing the "right thing." I spent two solid months in one giant anxiety attack where I slept barely two hours a night and ate less than 200 calories per day, convinced I was contaminated by an incurable lust and that God detested every second I thought about her as someone I wanted to spend my life with. I told myself that maybe falling in love was ok, but the "action" was a sin. no sex, no commitment, no relationship allowed

but that's when I realized: did my affections really fit the criteria for sinful thinking, or was the Bible being used incorrectly to condemn people who are different? I decided to read the Bible verses (practically for the first time through) that condemned "homosexuals" but there was no mention of how someone was supposed to handle being attracted exclusively to the same sex, nor any mention of commitment or relationships at all. to me, it was suspicious

I started out taking a leap of faith, "coming out" to God and saying that my being attracted to women could not possibly be sinful. I had a gut feeling that something was wrong with how christians treated homosexuals and the like. I felt that the way they used the Bible was too unloving; that if the way they presented these verses was true, then God was a cruel tyrant bent on legalism and cultural "order" instead of love and acceptance of the outcasts and the freaks

I spent a lot of time doing research. I'm still only scraping information from people who have truly studied the Bible and all its verses in context (although I did find an institute that has a course on the Bible and homosexuality that I want to attend). what I've come to realize is this: the more I learn about God and how his word works and speaks to people today, as well as the science behind sexual orientation and gender identity and the statistics on the impact of non-affirming christian teaching on the lives of homosexuals and others, the closer I come to the conclusion that this has to be the right thing


sorry for the tl;dr I hope you understand
Reply
:iconlibertades:
Libertades Jun 2, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
So many thanks for this, I needed it.
Reply
:iconlibertades:
Libertades Jun 2, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Sigh no... I still don't get over it... I mean... what about God creating Adam and Eve? If he did so,and it also says a man will abandon their father and mother to be one with his wife, I don't think it's about divorce... it just sounds so close from everything else.

What about the man being the lead of a family...? The bible says women does not have authority over the family... and it's a sin...
Reply
:icondadona777:
but if you do look at Matthew 19 the context is most definitely divorce because Jesus immediately states "what God hath joined let not man separate" referring to the union of flesh. most people don't like to talk about verse 11 and 12 either
    But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
this refers to people who do not fall into the traditional adam and eve paradigm either by choice or by a factor that they could not control (e.g., non-heterosexual orientation). at the same time, Paul states in 1 Corinthians 7 that celibacy is not for everyone either, only for those given a special gift from God
    But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

    I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
in other words, expecting someone with a functioning sex drive to be celibate all their lives will almost undoubtably lead them into promiscuity. this is why there are so many sex scandal stories involving "celibate" priests and homosexual men who are married to women. Paul says, "it is better to marry than to burn" with lust. one may have good intentions, but ultimately humans are physical beings as well as spiritual and our bodies can't always handle it


I've heard many rumors that the Bible is sexist (particularly patriarchal); that God, the epitome of power and greatness, is a masculine being. this is a lie. God is not particularly masculine, nor is he particularly feminine; he is a sexless personal entity containing both masculine and feminine characteristics (i.e., God is both powerful and nurturing). Jewish society, however, was highly patriarchal. this was not God's ordained plan but an element of their culture resulting from strict legalism and sexism. when Jesus came around, he overturned society's expectations by reaching out and empowering women, and even displaying stereotypically feminine behavior such as washing his disciples' feet and weeping in public

Paul is sometimes thought to have been the most sexist apostle, but I think this is the exact opposite of the truth. believe it or not, nowhere in the Bible does it state that women being the head of the house is in any way evil or sinful. everyone picks on Paul for his statements in 1 Corinthians 11 that women should cover their heads and in chapter 14 where he commands women to keep silent in church
    Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
the law he was referring to, of course, was not the law of Moses but the traditional Jewish law. in a patriarchal society women were expected to be subservient to men in all things. yet it was Paul who told men to love their wives, "as Christ loved the church"

this analogy is incomplete, however. the Bible states that God is no respector of persons (according to 13 different verses), and God does not nor does he want anyone to focus on one's outward appearance (1 Samuel 16:7 and 2 Corinthians 10:7). Galatians 3:28 states that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male [and] female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." if this is indeed true, then a person's sex should mean next to nothing compared to their heart and whether or not they are right with God

one last thing: I bet you're wondering why I altered Gal 3:28 to say "male and female" instead of "male nor female." I checked a lexicon concordance and found that the conjunction between "male" and "female" in that verse is the equivalent of "and" instead of "or" (see Strong's G2532). what exactly does this mean? the phrase "male and female" is actually a reference to Genesis 1:27 that says "male and female created he them," a statement on sexual reproduction. this verse is the origin of "God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve." therefore, according to Galatians, there is no "male and female" in Christ Jesus and that clinging to such a paradigm as a universal rule is unnecessary. otherwise, even celibacy would not be permitted by God


I hope this helps
Reply
Add a Comment: