Question regarding abominations

[Petra]

How many times does the bible condemn homosexuality? In which books?

What are the other abominations and sins of the bible?

How many times are they each talked about as abominations in the bible? In which books?

Do you know of any good on-line resources that makes it easy for a bible ignoramus such as I?

At one point, there was a member at CF called Papist who argued from the bible that homosexuality was not an abomination and had all kinds of biblical references for people to consider - unfortunately, the great server crash of 2002 saw that brilliant and scholarly thread lost and I can find nothing like it.


I know that in Leviticus, the book most often quoted when damning homosexuality as an abomination, also damns the eating of shellfish and the wearing of mixed clothing fibres or something. I also know that it is Old Testament.

And that is about the extent of my biblical knowledge. :shrug:



Thank you. :)

[LadyShea]

How many times does the bible condemn homosexuality? In which books?

What are the other abominations and sins of the bible?

How many times are they each talked about as abominations in the bible? In which books?

Do you know of any good on-line resources that makes it easy for a bible ignoramus such as I?

At one point, there was a member at CF called Papist who argued from the bible that homosexuality was not an abomination and had all kinds of biblical references for people to consider - unfortunately, the great server crash of 2002 saw that brilliant and scholarly thread lost and I can find nothing like it.


I know that in Leviticus, the book most often quoted when damning homosexuality as an abomination, also damns the eating of shellfish and the wearing of mixed clothing fibres or something. I also know that it is Old Testament.

And that is about the extent of my biblical knowledge. :shrug:



Thank you. :)

There is a thread on IIDB where I pulled up all usage of the word "abomination". I simply typed it in as a keyword at www.biblegateway.com. Most newer translations change it to "unclean" or some such shit, but leave it as abomination especially for homosexuality. Use the KJV for this search.

It's a great resource as you can view different Bible translations, search by keyword and has cool tools for moving forward and back from the verse for context.

[Goliath]

How many times does the bible condemn homosexuality? In which books?


Here (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm) is the list in the SAB. Every time I go to that site, I'm constantly amazed at how thorough and concise it is. It's really an indispensable weapon when dealing with biblical issues.

[Petra]

Thank you, LadyShea!

Bible Gateway looks like a great resource.


Cheers, honey bee. :D

[wade-w]

The book you are thinking of is Leviticus. I've heard many fundamentalists use that particular book of the OT to condemn homosexuality. What I've never understood is why the passages about shellfish, pork, and fabrics are somehow no longer applicable, but their interpretation of the sex passages in the same book are.

[Petra]

Here (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm) is the list in the SAB. Every time I go to that site, I'm constantly amazed at how thorough and concise it is. It's really an indispensable weapon when dealing with biblical issues.

Wierd. This post wasn't there when I replied to LadyShea.

Thank you, Goliath. There is much good info to read there, also. Cheers. :)

[Petra]

The book you are thinking of is Leviticus. I've heard many fundamentalists use that particular book of the OT to condemn homosexuality. What I've never understood is why the passages about shellfish, pork, and fabrics are somehow no longer applicable, but their interpretation of the sex passages in the same book are.


Yup. That's what I'm wondering, too.


With the rise of Destiny Church in NZ, I want to acquire as much info as possible about the bible and all it's abominations, so that I might be able to argue that the bible, for example, only mentions homosexuality a dozen times, but it mentions gluttony three dozen times, or something. Then I can quite rightly ask these arseholes why they are so hung up on homosexuality when clearly the bible has a greater concern about the abomination of gluttony.

(Am I making sense?)

[Adora]

I'm just going to be a pain and point out that condemning sodomy is different from condemning homosexuality.

[Petra]

Yep. Aware of that.

[Goliath]

I'm just going to be a pain and point out that condemning sodomy is different from condemning homosexuality.

Why, and why does it matter? I say we use every tool at our disposal to fight them.

[wade-w]

I'm just going to be a pain and point out that condemning sodomy is different from condemning homosexuality.

Which is why I was careful to use the phrase "their interpretation".

[dave_a]

The book you are thinking of is Leviticus. I've heard many fundamentalists use that particular book of the OT to condemn homosexuality. What I've never understood is why the passages about shellfish, pork, and fabrics are somehow no longer applicable, but their interpretation of the sex passages in the same book are.

There are 2 schools of theological thought regarding the OT and NT.

One school of thought says that anything said in the OT that isn't reversed in the NT still stands. An example would be Jesus, in the NT, repealing the dietary laws when he said it isn't what goes into a man that makes him unclean, but that which comes out of a man. This was said in direct response to a violation of the OT dietary laws. Thus, it is a reversal of the OT law.

The other school of thought is that anything said in the OT must be repeated in the NT or it can be assumed it is no longer in effect.

The idea is that prior to Jesus, mankind was under the Law. The Law was not intended to be the way things ought to be, man could never attain salvation by trying to uphold the entirety of the Law. The purpose of the OT Law was to put a spotlight on how incapable mankind was to attain the holiness God requires.

When Jesus came he put aside the Law in the sense that he fulfilled it himself and those who have faith in him benefit from his fulfilling it as if they themselves had fulfilled it. Some of the law was meant as an archetype of the christ.

Regardless of whether one subscribes to the first or 2nd view, the condemnation of homosexuality stands because Paul repeated it in Romans, a book in the NT.

So, the NT doesn't reverse the prohibition, but it does repeat it. Since we have a condemnation in both the NT and OT there is no room for doubt that the present position of the church is to view homosexuality as an abomination unless one wishes to be a liberal Christian that doesn't take the bible seriously or one wishes to interpret plain language in a unique and fanciful manner.

Anyway, I am atheist, I am just trying to answer the question.

[Petra]

Anyway, I am atheist, I am just trying to answer the question.


Which is all I ask, and I thank you for your perspective. :)

What other things was Paul so anti? And was he as anti those things as he was homosexuality?

[dave_a]

Anyway, I am atheist, I am just trying to answer the question.


Which is all I ask, and I thank you for your perspective. :)

What other things was Paul so anti? And was he as anti those things as he was homosexuality?

Well, he was very anti women. He is the one who forbid a woman to have equal status with men. 1 Corinthians 11 spells it out:

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

What Paul was not against was slavery. The short book of Philemon is Paul sending an escaped slave back to his christian master with a nice note asking the master to forgive the slave for running away.