Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Excellent post! It's refreshing to see a post by a Christian who has taken the time to study this instead of blindly quoting modern english translations to support their prejudice.
Unfortunately, you'll probably find that many will just completely ignore everything you've written or tell you that you are "twisting" the text. When in fact you are "untwisting" the modern faulty translations of the original languages.
I would be interested to hear your take on one of the other verses most commonly used to condemn homosexuals in Pauls first letter to the Romans (Rom 1:26-27). From everything I've studied about Rome at the time of Paul, and taking into account who he was writing to and the main subject of the letter, it's rather clear that he was referring to early converts who had reverted back to worshipping the Roman fertility gods.
From what I understand, one of the practices at that time, was using ritual sex in the temples to worship the pagan gods and goddesses. This ritual sex involved men and women all having sex with other (opposite gender sex as well as same gender sex) to honour the gods and goddesses in pagan temples. Again, this was in the context of idolatry and the use of sex rituals in the shrines. Nothing at all to do with homosexuality and everything to do with the problem Paul perceived about those converts who reverted back to worshipping their previous pagan gods.
Another piece of evidence that the handful of references in the Bible to any "same sex activity" are in the context of idolotry, lies in the OT with the repetition of the Leviticus death penalty laws in Deuteronomy. Almost all of the verses in Levitcus 20 that have death penalties are repeated in Deuteronomy.
However the law in Lev 20:13 is not repeated, which would seem odd, except that Deut 23:17 states:
Deut 23:17 There must never be a sacred prostitute 25 among the young women 26 of Israel nor a (qadesh)sacred male prostitute27 among the young men 28 of Israel. 23:18 You must never bring the pay of a female prostitute 29 or the wage of a male prostitute 30 into the temple of the Lord your God in fulfillment of any vow, for both of these are abhorrent (toevah) to the Lord your God.
This adds weight to view that the verses in Lev 18:22 and Lev 20:13 refer to idolatrous practices of temple prostitution. Lev 18:22 is also sandwiched between 2 other idolatrous worshipping practices of the Canaanites and Egyptians. Also the word "toevah" (translated as abomination in some english versions) is usually associated with idolatry.
The Hebrew word "qadesh" used in Deut 23:17 and the other verses in Kings, was translated in the KJV as "sodomites". Most modern versions now use the translation "sacred male prostitute" or "male shrine prostitute" or "male cultic prostitute". The 4 verses in Kings are: 1 Kings 14, 15, 22, 23.
Again this adds weight to the view that what some modern translators translate as "homosexuals", was actually refrring to male shrine prostitutes.
As for the story of the Roman centurion and his "beloved servant", like you, I've also read about the secular literature at the time which uses the word "pais" to refer to a younger male sexual partner, and the fact that Roman centurions were not allowed to marry at that time.
As for Sodom, it's rather obvious to me that the sins of Sodom relate directly to the Hebrew Laws of Hospitality. Any Hebrew scholar would say the same. The terrible treatment of strangers (and widows and orphans and the poor etc) is also referred to in the NT. The side issue that there were men who wanted to rape the two angels was more about a practice where men would rape strangers to dominate them and humiliate them - use them like they would a woman (which would be hugely insulting and humiliating given the status of women at that time). This wasn't done out of lust, it was about control and power. Men...as in Heterosexual men, have done this throughout history- it doesn't mean they are homosexuals - it means they are rapists.
The sins of Sodom were outlined in Ezekial 16:49. No mention of homosexuals there.
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote that: "The Sodomites, overweeningly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the Divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and declined all intercourse with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance." (Josephus, Antiquities I: 194-5)
Again, I agree with you that the story of Sodom has nothing to do with homosexuals. One only has to read a similar story of the treatment of the Levite in Gibeah in Judges 19.
The Levite's female concubine was the one who ended up being gang-raped and torn to pieces by the crowd of men who wanted to "know" the Levite.\
Here's a good link explaining Sodom and Gomorrah, includiing what the Talmud and Midrash has to say: http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/ency..._and_Gomorrah/
Again, you wrote an excellent post IMO -Looking forward to more posts from you on this subject...
This is a new major genocide at the birthing stage in Uganda, and can spread throughout Africa.
Witch hunts are certain to happen.
In Uganda the gay agenda is survival. Execution is by hanging.
This reflects the global gay agenda, to simply live in peace and not be harmed.
This is the direct result of promoting conversion therapy, by Christians, for homosexuals in Uganda.
I wonder if they have started to build any ovens yet?
Google Uganda Gay Law to learn more.
See Rachel Maddow take apart the author of a book used by some of these Ugandan extremists to support their agenda. Rachel Maddow Show
If you were take out all the propaganda, lies and misrepresentations in this man's books, there would be nothing left. I find it absolutely disgusting that this man is making money by spreading lies, fear and hatred under the banner of "love". He turns my stomach.
The term marriage is a religous term. Marriage is a religous practice belongs to religion.
Please forgive me and pray for me please because I do not won't to be intolerant of anyone, I have no right to be intolerant of others.
I just don't understand why the gay community insist having the term "marriage."
2. Because when two people who love each other want to make a life commitment to each other (and often raise children together)...what else would you call it?
Here's a question. Why do so many Christians use the verse from Ruth 1:16 in their wedding vows?
"For whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God"
FYI: Arsenokoites during the medieval ages was translated in the Bible to make masturbation a sin (something I just found recently).
******************************************
On your question:
Romans 1:26-27 (KJV)
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving use of the women, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recommence of their error which was meet.
The activities Paul is describing here are Gentile idolatry. He was in the port city of Corinth, second only to Rome in pagan temple idol worship and orgies that included animals.
Renown anti-gay Christian author Dr. Robert Gagnon said that male/male sex was commonly practiced in worshiping the fertility goddess in sex-centered cults in Corinth. They paid prostitutes in the temple for sex while worshiping their pagan gods; they left their wives to do this.
This implies the men were heterosexual to begin with.
On the part: "...even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:"
Women had sex with male prostitutes and animals in the pagan temples during that time. It was not describing the love between two lesbians.
To impose this scripture as a condemnation of all homosexual activity in the 21st century is taking the scripture out of historical context; and not seeing the sins of the 1st century it was addressing.
The scripture did not condemn gay men and women who love God and each other. It was condemning straight men and women who stopped worshiping God and each other, and entered the pagan temples to worship the pagan gods and have sex with pagan male prostitutes on the part of men, and women against the nature--being married (one man and one woman), having sex with animals was against nature.
Most Christians are imposing a modern concept on a 1st century situation with this scripture.
This is only one way of interpreting this scripture. There are at least a dozen; most of them refute this logic.
I submit to you they have motive to defend their belief against homosexuals. Objective positions are hard to find on this very interesting scripture.
Last edited by apologist 007; 12-12-2009 at 12:03 PM..
Reason: typo
This is about acceptance. Marriage is pretty much the last obstacle in making homosexuality a very much right, accepted, normal behaviour in our society.
Actually gay marriage is not as important to me is employment non-discrimination. If gays could get married in every state but I could still be fired from my job, then its not enough. I am once again in danger of getting fired for my sexual orientation, just like I was fired from my last job for that. I'm not out at work but people pretty much know I am gay because of the way I talk and walk and there is absolutely nothing I can do to change that, even if I did suppress my homosexual desires I would still outwardly appear gay. I don't understand why conservatives insist on keeping it legal to fire people over their sexual orientation. I can understand wanting exceptions in the law for religious organizations but there is no reason secular and government employers should even take sexual orientation into consideration as qualification for employment. What I do in my private life, as long as its within confines of the law, should have no affect on my job performance and therefore should be a non-issue.
As for Sodom, it's rather obvious to me that the sins of Sodom relate directly to the Hebrew Laws of Hospitality. Any Hebrew scholar would say the same. The terrible treatment of strangers (and widows and orphans and the poor etc) is also referred to in the NT. The side issue that there were men who wanted to rape the two angels was more about a practice where men would rape strangers to dominate them and humiliate them - use them like they would a woman (which would be hugely insulting and humiliating given the status of women at that time). This wasn't done out of lust, it was about control and power. Men...as in Heterosexual men, have done this throughout history- it doesn't mean they are homosexuals - it means they are rapists.
The sins of Sodom were outlined in Ezekial 16:49. No mention of homosexuals there.
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote that: "The Sodomites, overweeningly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the Divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and declined all intercourse with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance." (Josephus, Antiquities I: 194-5)
Sodomites: a name derived from the city of Sodom which is described in Genesis 19. (NRSV, NKJ). The men of the city are described as wanting to rape male visitors; many Christians interpret this as a blanket condemnation of all homosexual behavior.
Dr. William Brownlee, Claremont Graduate School
Dr. Brownlee, 1917-1983, an internationally renowned expert on the Hebrew language and the Dead Sea Scrolls said this about the Sodom story:
"The oppression of the stranger is the basic element of Genesis 19:1-9 [and] ‘sodomy’ in Genesis is basically oppression of the weak and helpless [not anal sex]."
This heterosexual conservative scholar declares that sodomy has nothing to do with homosexuality. When alive he was considered the best scholar in Hebrew and the Old Testament in the world and he led the Dead Seas Scrolls Project researching the ancient Word of God.
Even most conservative scholars agree homosexuality was not the sin of Sodom; God decided to destroy Sodom and four other cities before the angels arrived. The men of Sodom were wicked and at best bi-sexual. They practiced pagan shrine prostitution.
Actually gay marriage is not as important to me is employment non-discrimination. If gays could get married in every state but I could still be fired from my job, then its not enough. I am once again in danger of getting fired for my sexual orientation, just like I was fired from my last job for that. I'm not out at work but people pretty much know I am gay because of the way I talk and walk and there is absolutely nothing I can do to change that, even if I did suppress my homosexual desires I would still outwardly appear gay. I don't understand why conservatives insist on keeping it legal to fire people over their sexual orientation. I can understand wanting exceptions in the law for religious organizations but there is no reason secular and government employers should even take sexual orientation into consideration as qualification for employment. What I do in my private life, as long as its within confines of the law, should have no affect on my job performance and therefore should be a non-issue.
I have always wondered this and I think this is the perfect chance to do so. Do you think the issue is partially a prejudice against men who act more effeminate? Effemaphobia I guess would be a good made up word for it. I ask this because as a guy I don't watch football, I don't hunt I don't do many manly things. I do the dishes and I like to cook. I'm even pretty good at sewing. And I get some criticism from it even though I have no homosexual inclinations.
I also know that not all gay people are this way. I know a gay couple that you wouldn't even have an idea that they were gay unless they told you so (or of course if you knew them). They catch a lot of flack from people who find out about it, but they keep a lid on it at their jobs and they have kept their jobs for years now. and this is a very red state mind you.
I totally agree with what you say here. What you do with your life at home is your business. And it really irritates me when people can't respect that. It seems that there is a crowd that will never ever be satisfied until everyone thinks along their party lines and their religious lines and anyone who doesn't conform to that is just plain wrong. That sickens me more a room full of gay people ever could.
Actually gay marriage is not as important to me is employment non-discrimination. If gays could get married in every state but I could still be fired from my job, then its not enough. I am once again in danger of getting fired for my sexual orientation, just like I was fired from my last job for that. I'm not out at work but people pretty much know I am gay because of the way I talk and walk and there is absolutely nothing I can do to change that, even if I did suppress my homosexual desires I would still outwardly appear gay. I don't understand why conservatives insist on keeping it legal to fire people over their sexual orientation. I can understand wanting exceptions in the law for religious organizations but there is no reason secular and government employers should even take sexual orientation into consideration as qualification for employment. What I do in my private life, as long as its within confines of the law, should have no affect on my job performance and therefore should be a non-issue.
Just remember if it is perfectly legal to fire someone because they are homosexual, then it is also legal to fire someone because they are heterosexual.
Imagine the outcry if companies fired folks for being straight.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
