Your interpertation

[pshah1991]

The bible does not approve of homosexuality. However I have gotten into several interesting conversations about what the actual SIN is. Is it a sin to have "feelings" for the same gender? Or is it a sin to act on those feelings? How far must you act on these feelings before it is considered a sin?

I personally don't believe that people choose who they have feelings for, and most Christians I know agree. Christians I know think that the you don't chose to have these feelings, but you do choose to ACT on those feelings, and your choice of acting on these feelings is a sin. (I'm from LA, California, so we have pretty liberal christians)

Please note that this is NOT A CONVERSATION about legalizing gay Marriages, or any of that. I personally am not Christian, and I personally whole heartedly support gay marriage and gay rights. I am just really curious to know what Christians feel the sin is.

Thanks!

[eneidaselina]

What is a sin? what about the times of the great philosophers back in ancient times. were they sinners also?

[mrisha]

You must also remember that the Bible was written by "man" who determined that certain acts were a sin and they (man) weren't perfect.  5,000 years ago humans were "sining" as they are today.

So, what is the real definition of sin and what is a real sin?

[davidf938]

Since we do know that the Bible was written by humans, I believe sin was whatever the writer wanted it to be. If the writer didn't approve of something, it must be a sin. There is no record of the christian god ever stating otherwise.

[th4moi]

"Since we do know that the Bible was written by humans, I believe sin was whatever the writer wanted it to be".....see, that right there is the reason why so many christians change their faith. if you think logically, how in the world can you believe in a book that is written by a human..and been changed many times?? that just shows ignorance.

[liljp617]

What are we talking about in particular?

This?

Leviticus 18:22
'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

People love to quote this in opposition to homosexuality without really looking into it.

A more literal translation is that "man shall not lie with another man in the bed of a woman". This may sound a little weird, but consider that the rules in Leviticus are really intended for Levite priests, not the average Israelite. A woman's bed was considered a somewhat sacred place, with special rules including things like how to wash before, during and after taking a romp in it (with the woman). If the literal translation is correct, then the rule effectively says that gay sex is OK, just don't do it in the bed of one of your wives.

Many translations use the word "abomination," which is simply a mistranslation. "Unclean" is a better translation. If i recall (and it's been a while), it is the same word used to describe a menstruating woman. "Yucky" in Jewish thought, but hardly an "abomination".

The truth is that the Tanakh (the Old Testament) is vague on homosexuality. The New Testament is slightly less vague - Paul was almost certainly homophobic - but there is still no clear denouncement unless you want to read it that way.

All in all, it doesn't really matter.  Just another example of cherry picking the Bible.

The problem is that the Biblical Hebrew the Old Testament largely comes to us in is a dead language. On top of that, the original Old Testament was written in a sort of compacted form of Hebrew that dropped a lot of information... especially little participles (a lot of that information was added after the fact in later years).

To see why this matters, it may mean that "man shall not lie with another man in the bed of a woman" could easily be "man shall not lie with another man as if in the bed of a woman". Those tiny little particles make a lot of difference.

My opinion is that the Bible does condemn homosexual behavior at all points (feelings, actions, etc.)...but I mean this is a book that condemns you to death for mouthing back to your parents, so it's not that big a deal. (Incidentally, yes, Leviticus 20:13 is essentially identical to 18:22 with just the added death penalty - which means it does speak of "in the bed of a woman".)

The question you have to ask yourself if you care about Biblical pronouncements is why follow these verses, but not the verses about shellfish or the rituals involving menstruation, etc. etc.? The Old Testament condemns hundreds of things, many of them rather stupid. Why pick these verses out as valid and not Leviticus 19:19 (KJV "... neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee."), which basically forbids wearing wool-blended clothing?

[pshah1991]

I was just wondering how each individual christian interperts the bible, and its view on homosexuality.