GOD DICTATES THE TEACHING OF LEVITICUS AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY

The Christian religion armed with the Bible teaches the beloved superstition that homosexuality and lesbianism are gravely sinful. The fact that the Bible recognises only heterosexual marriage as the proper context for sex is sufficient proof of that.

In the time of Henry VIII, homosexuality was a capital crime.

In ancient Persia, Zoroastrianism decreed that anybody who found a couple of the same sex making love had the right to chop them up with an axe.

Religious prejudice then and such teachings do lead to the murder of gay people.  In honour of the victims you get the Bible thrown out of courtrooms and society.

THE TEXTS

Leviticus 18:22 quoting God says that it is an abomination before him for a man to lie with a man was with a woman. It even decrees that practicing homosexuals are to be put to death (20:13). It was made as bad as adultery for which the penalty was stoning to death so that was how homosexuals were killed. It says the men have nobody but themselves to blame.

ITS NOT JUST THE TEXTS YOU HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT!

The law of God actually put homosexuality on a par with child-sacrifice and bestiality! This is incredible but see for yourself (page 18, Hard Sayings, Derek Kidner, Intervarsity Press, 1972; Leviticus 18:21-23). The same punishment exists for it as for them. So, if two men sincerely say they won’t have sex if your baby is beaten up then you have to beat up your baby.

PAGAN SEX?

Progressive theologians say the Law came out against homosexuality so strongly because it was practiced as a religious rite by the pagans and it was necessary to ban it to keep the Hebrews who were God’s people away from alien influence. Not once does the Bible make it clear that that was the reason. It is to be dismissed as speculation. The Bible never even says that the Hebrews knew that the pagans were doing homosexual rites. And there is a load of difference between two men having sex in private without any religious connotations and two men doing it publicly or privately before an idol or on an altar as an offering to the gods. The Law would have commanded that if two men were caught together and there was reason to think they were doing it for pagan gods that they should be stoned to death but it imposed a blanket ban on gays. It didn’t. Laws can’t afford to be vague. Even if they were worshipping gods there was no need to kill them at all and never mind so cruelly. The cruelty of their deaths suggests that it was about revenge not about justice or keeping the people clean. God just couldn’t stand them and wanted the state and his people to be like that too.

Liberals do not really think idolatry is much of a sin so they are just distorting again.
 
FEMINISATION?
 
Leviticus is said to imply that to have sex with a man as a woman is feminisation and thus degrading a man by treating him like a woman. It does not. It merely is trying to say it means sex. Having sex with a man as with a woman refers to penetration and that is what it is trying to get across. Man and woman are designed for each other and to use a man as a woman is abuse. Philo and Josephus say that two men having sex should mean both, active partner and passive partner, are put to death for it.

The feminisation argument is just tacked on to this as an excuse for saying the text does not apply in these days. Liberal Christians are happy to suggest that the Bible degraded women by using that logic so we can discard it. They are saying that God is said to have made the rule for cultural reasons! They are introducing their own speculations. 

A subjugation argument is closely linked to this one.

SUBJUGATION?

The idea that Leviticus prescribes the death penalty for a man sleeping with a man as if a woman is only referring to how it is a problem to subjugate another man as you would a woman is very strange. It is only an excuse for pretending the rule is about custom and culture not morality! The passive partner will not feel subjugated! Subjugation applied only to straight sex and there were many who saw man and woman as equal in the sex act.

It is said that since a man having sex with a woman was thought to declare her to be an inferior for she is dominated by the male that a man having sex with a man declared the other man to be inferior when he was not for only women and animals are inferior to men. It was thought to be unnatural to make a man inferior to man. It was thought to be unnatural to make a man inferior to a man. There is no evidence that this was supported by the Bible although it does treat women almost as sub-humans. And if this is the view of the Bible that sex between males makes equals inferior to each other, then nothing says it was the only reason for forbidding homosexuality.

Men subjugated other males by making them slaves and the Torah accepted that. The Torah never says it accepts the cultural idea that a man having sex with a woman is overpowering her in a sense so it could be done to slaves. It does not mention it.

REPEATED OFFENCES
If God is slow to anger as Exodus 34:5,6 says then it may be that if homosexuals were stoned to death it was only after repeated offences. The Leviticus text speaks as if it is a man with the same man. It is not clear if the sex is a once-off or spread out over a period of time which indicates a relationship. It implies that God was left no choice but to lay down draconian rules to prevent the people making things worse for themselves with too much sin. It is best to assume the Law means what it says. No responsible law would be that unclear. Its logic is, "Catch the men at it and then stone them for they will do it again." That presumes that they are we would call gay today.
The text does not care if they are inclined to be gay or what. The sex is what they are executed for.

KILLED OVER A CUSTOM NOT A MORAL RULE?
 
Some believers hold that Leviticus is just saying that gay sex is an abomination meaning a taboo or just a religious impurity. That means it was just forbidden not because it was wrong in itself but for cultural reasons. They say that Jesus did away with this rule like he did away with the rule banning pork. But abomination is used of things that are definitely wrong and which Christianity still considers forbidden so they are lying. God did not command that people be put to death for religious taboos but for serious crimes.

The fact that the Bible forbids mixing fabrics/seeds but does not prescribe a death penalty means gays who say this deprives Leviticus of credibility need their heads testing. Why? For they talk as if the Bible has authority and then say that! Homosexuality is not a mere religious taboo for Leviticus 18:24 says that the nations defile themselves by this sin.

Leviticus 11:9-12: “These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination onto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcasses in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.” This shows that abomination is something to be intensely avoided and hated. This is more than a taboo! 

To argue that a God having people killed for being homosexual and engaging in gay sex is for cultural not moral reasons is bizarre. God having gays killed for moral reasons would not be worse than having them killed for cultural reasons. It would be more homophobic to decree death for cultural reasons than perceived moral ones! Also, if it is about culture then as culture does not give chances it would mean that gays were being killed for once-off sex.

You can say that the shellfish abomination argument means God will make something an abomination by just saying.  So we have no clear grounds for saying that he has lifted that judgement on gay sex.

THE NEW TESTAMENT
The argument of some that Jesus did not mention homosexuality is odd. It is said that Jesus did not condemn homosexuality directly - he didn't condemn most sins directly. But the argument expects him to name it so that they can argue that his not naming it means it is not a sin! That is logic. He did condemn it directly when he slammed fornication. He said that sex outside marriage was wrong and that marriage is only for one man and one woman. So he frowned upon homosexuality.

There is no doubt that the Law wants the homosexuals put to death as cruelly as possible. Those Christians who say they are appalled by this suggestion will mutter about since Christ we listen to the spirit of the Law and not the letter. St Paul commanded this in their scriptures that they say are written by God. But you can listen to both. Spirit of the Law means do what the law intends. Obeying the letter of the law would result in the law being taken out of context. For example, the Law would take it for granted that though the Law is always binding you do not put a homosexual to death if that person may have been insane at the time of the crime. A person who is hell-bent on taking it too literally would disagree.

There is no doubt that if we are to obey the spirit of the Law we are to use force and fear to prevent homosexuality and adultery and idolatry. The Law commands that these crimes be punished with destruction which means that if you can’t do that you do all you can to prevent these sins. You use the law of the land to fight them and make it dish out the severest penalties possible.
 
Their saying that they ask nothing worse of the homosexual than they do of the heterosexual, namely no sex outside of marriage, makes them look insincere. The obedient heterosexual has a bigger of chance of having sex for marriage is available to her or him. The homosexual is forbidden to have a non-physical sexual relationship while heterosexuals can date and have romances. Kissing except for pecks on the cheek is a sexual activity and so is cuddling.

HOMOPHOBIA
 
To accept a gay child, to let a gay person work in your business and to let gay people have a date in your restaurant are all definitely contrary to the Christian faith. Jesus commanded his hearers to obey all the Scribes and Pharisees said (Matthew 23). They commanded the death of homosexuals in the name of the Law so there is no doubt that the Vatican and Canterbury and all other centres of Christianity are committing heresy and expelling themselves from the true Christian faith if they condemn homophobia. They understand homophobia to mean excessive and violent hatred of homosexuals – many of them do not see it as homophobia when a man is rejected from a teaching position for being gay. Homophobia is a refusal to accept the right of a person to be homosexual and practice gay love. Homophobia means something different to the Christians.
 
GOD SAYS THEIR DEATH BY STONING IS THEIR OWN FAULT

 It is likely that when God was so harsh on homosexuality it was because it was thought to be a disorder that could be spread if it was tolerated. People knowing gay people could set in motions triggers that could lead them into similar practices. That is God’s point.

Some gay Christians want you to think that if the Bible God sentenced two men caught together to stoning the reason was not because he considered homosexuality wrong! That is narcissistic: "Oh we are so great that no God could disapprove of us or what we do in bed!" Now Muslims and Christians justify what was done to “sinners” by saying they were warned and thus asked for what they got. They drop the love for say the adulteress who gets stoned to death. They blame the victim! Even if it is true that the person asks for it we should not even think about that or let it influence us. Say a country invades us. We try to violently crush them. Instead of thinking they bring it on themselves we should keep thinking, “We need to protect ourselves." It is an outrage to say, "What terrible people they are for they force us to kill them and force God to approve and help us though he respects human life so deeply." That is sheer hate expressed in "loving" words. Hate is rarely open and clear. That is very strong hate and clearly says, "We are too good to kill but we have to." Thus the killings totally degrade the enemy.

The Bible does teach that killing is an evil though sometimes a strictly necessary one. So the idea is that gay sex is such a terrible evil those who engage in it kill themselves. It is not about society's disapproval of the sex. Engaging in the sex forces society to destroy you. That is the Bible logic and thus it implies today's Church if it were sincere would be putting gay men to death.

OTHER PROOFS OF SINFULNESS
 
Asa was praised by God for expelling all homosexuals from the land (1 Kings 15:11, 12).

God said that David kept his commandments and that he did ONLY in his sight what was right. Read 3 Kings 14:8. It shows that though the Bible admits David's sins it talks as if he were sinless. Notably the commandments in those days were definitely interpreted as condemning homosexuality so that is important to note too. By the laws of interpretation, you read statements in the light of how David would have understood them, it is definite that homosexuality is condemned by the Bible.

If God exists then he comes first. He puts himself first. He deserves all his own love. He deserves all love. He deserves all going to Hell for him if it means they value him better. We must put him first and love him with all and not some of the love in us. Heterosexual sex implies making a sacrifice to bring a child into the world for God so sex that does not create life is immoral. The consistent homosexual should be an atheist.
 
CONCLUSION The person who will not affirm LGBT plus regardless of what a Bible or God says is just a bigot.  There is an implied bigotry in trying to twist the Bible in a desperate and irrational drive for approval.

No Copyright