The usually cited “most glaring” passages in Leviticus (Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13), read strictly literally, don’t condemn homosexuality per se, but both partners in a male homosexual act where one of them also engages heterosexual sex.
Condemnation of homosexuality is a popular gloss or rationalization of this, wierdly common among literalists, but, I mean, Leviticus condemns mixing fibers, and has plenty of rules that apply to only one gender, I don't see why we shouldn't take its condemnation of specifically men mixing gay and straight sex literally, too. (And maybe also take Acts 15 literally as to which part of the ancient Mosaic law applies to non-Jewish Christians, and not worry about that rule however we gloss it, since it concerns neither pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, blood, or the meat of strangled animals.)
> The usually cited “most glaring” passages in Leviticus (Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13), read strictly literally, don’t condemn homosexuality per se, but both partners in a male homosexual act where one of them also engages heterosexual sex.
Curious how you get that interpretation out of those texts? From "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable", I read "as one does with a woman", as an analogy. Do you have reason to read it otherwise?
One interesting issue about Scripture is that it gets rewritten to support doctrinal positions; neither the KJV (which, admittedly, sometimes plays games with language specifically for the way thing sound) not many modern translations with strong scholarship separate out the subjects of who is having sex with men vs who is doing it with women the way your quote does; OTOH, its found in some translations that purport strictness, and lots of admittedly freer translations and paraphrases (some of which go further, like the The Living Bible, and just rewrite to condemn “homosexuality” with that word.)
OTOH, I just realized I don't know what is true of the version used by this app, because while for some reason I thought it was KJV, I'm not sure what version it is using currently (there's a reference to starting with using the KJV implying something else is used now, but its not clear what that is.) So the comment about what those verses contain, as relates to the app, may or may not be correct.
Two things: some folks just say, "the Bible was rewritten!!!!!!" with no evidence, just that it's an old text. Biblical textual criticism is a lot more complex than that, of course, and we do have pre-BC texts of Leviticus to compare to. So, arguably, these things can be checked.
Second, there's the "all translators mangle things, often to support existing dogma" which is a lot harder. The version I quoted is the English Standard Version, which is a very highly respected modern translation. Translation is hard, even with modern languages. So I'd want to see someone with actual Ancient Hebrew credentials to explain it.
oh there we go. this is a debate completely unrelated to the OP post.
and the so called "clobber passages" and a holistic accepting Christian view at sexual orientation minorities and gender identity minorities has been discussed at nauseam.
you find them easily searching for "LGBT+ friendly affirming Christian ressources"
god bless you, those you love and those you don't love yet.
Okay, possibly unrelated, but a good question, yes?
I find any time someone says, "Yes, that's what the Bible says, but no, that's not what the Bible means!" you're on very thin ice, regardless if it's said by a person in a pulpit or a person throwing (metaphorical) stones.
I'm also eager to learn where I'm wrong about something... if I've misunderstood something, I want to be enlightened.
look, I'm a Catholic lesbian in Germany, married to a wife, and we have an active church life with our family with our two kids.
I find any time someone claiming the Bible means what it says, literally, you're on very thin ice, regardless if it comes from a pulpit or if it comes from a person trying to (again) slander or misrepresent my family as "evil" or "sinful" or "intrinsically disordered".
I have skin in this game and I have my fair share of wounds from well meaning misguided love the sinner hate the sin bigotry.
wrt your curiosity I said and I say it again: "LGBT+ friendly affirming Christian ressources" finds you _plenty_ of elaborate treatises.
It's pretty black and white that the Bible condemns homosexuality, there is no rationalization required.
The rationalization is the other way around. Many Christians no longer believe that homosexuality is wrong and they are faced with having to abandon the Bible as a guide for morality or coming up with complex interpretive efforts to align the text with modern moral perspectives.
Of course, most Christians chose the latter option or abandon the Old Testament, which is almost impossible to defend by modern moral standards, and stick with the New Testament which is a bit more vanilla.
It's not wrong to be skeptical of translations – in such cases I usually like to start by pulling up the original words and checking out the definitions, ala https://biblehub.com/text/leviticus/18-22.htm
Doesn't help with the grammar, but it's a very accessible way to get some accountability for the translations.
Condemnation of homosexuality is a popular gloss or rationalization of this, wierdly common among literalists, but, I mean, Leviticus condemns mixing fibers, and has plenty of rules that apply to only one gender, I don't see why we shouldn't take its condemnation of specifically men mixing gay and straight sex literally, too. (And maybe also take Acts 15 literally as to which part of the ancient Mosaic law applies to non-Jewish Christians, and not worry about that rule however we gloss it, since it concerns neither pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, blood, or the meat of strangled animals.)