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.
Thanks Warden. I think you have tied this one up. The bible does NOT condemn same sex relationships.
I have a question on the 'sodomites' - male temple prostitutes. While it is being suggested that these male prostitutes were providing a ritual service to temple patrons, is there any reason to assume they were providing that service to men? Did they not provide that service to women? The men had temple prostitutes to have their ritual with.
There's a heap of literature on the web pertaining to sacred shrine temple prostitution and as to why they were deemed necessary in the first place. I just grabbed the below item and I also provide the link but, as said, there are lots more similar studies to sift through for those who want to.
Two different kinds of prostitute are found in biblical stories. First are those who offered to have sex with men to earn money or to get some personal favor. Some women may have become prostitutes as a way to survive when they no longer were under the protection or care of a husband, father, or other family members. Prostitutes wore fancy clothes and jewels to attract men (Ezek 16:8-26). One prostitute named Rahab is best known for helping Joshua’s spies escape from Jericho after they had sneaked into the city (Josh 2).
A second kind of prostitute, often called a “sacred” or “temple” prostitute, was a female or a male who had sex with worshipers of a god or goddess in a temple. Many of these gods or goddesses were thought to make the land and its people fertile. In Canaan, there were pairs of such gods: Baal and Asherah, and later, Osiris and Isis. The prophet Hosea seems to be warning the people of Israel against having sex with temple prostitutes in rituals honoring these Canaanite fertility gods (Hos 4:10-19). Some time later, Judah’s King Josiah (639–609 B.C.) tore down buildings that housed “male prostitutes” (2 Kgs 23:7) who may have served in the worship of Canaanite gods. In the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament), Israel’s unfaithfulness is often compared with being a prostitute or chasing after prostitutes (Isa 23:16; Jer 3:6; Ezek 16; Nah 3:4). In the New Testament, the writer of Revelation calls Babylon, meaning the Roman Empire, a shameless prostitute who tempts people and nations into relations with her (Rev 17).
The Law of Moses (Lev 19:29) forbade prostitution, and those found guilty could be killed by crushing them with stones (Deut 22:21). A priest’s daughter who became a prostitute was to be burned to death (Lev 21:9). No money earned by prostitutes was to be accepted as a gift to the temple (Deut 23:18).
Other possible same sex relationships in the Bible
Daniel and Ashpanez
Quote:
Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.
Various English translations differ greatly:
"Now God had caused the official to show favor and sympathy to Daniel" (NIV)
Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" (KJV)
"Now God made Daniel to find favor, compassion and loving-kindness with the chief of the eunuchs" (Amplified Bible)
"Now, as it happens, God had given the superintendent a special appreciation for Daniel and sympathy for his predicament" (Living Bible)
"Then God granted Daniel favor and sympathy from the chief of the eunuchs" (Modern Language)
"Though God had given Daniel the favor and sympathy of the chief chamberlain--" (New American Bible)
"God made Ashpenaz want to be kind and merciful to Daniel" (New Century Version)
"And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs" (Revised Standard Version)
"God caused the master to look on Daniel with kindness and goodwill" (Revised English Version)
-----
The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel.
Of course, this would be unacceptable to later translators, so they substitute more innocuous terms. The KJV reference to "tender love" would appear to be the closest to the truth. One might question whether Daniel and Ashpenaz could sexually consummate their relationship. They were both eunuchs. Apparently, when males are castrated after puberty, they still retain sexual drive. It is interesting to note that no other romantic interest or sexual partner of Daniel was mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.
I think there is far LESS evidence of a homosexual relationship (and neither of these men were capable of the sex act so even the majority of fundamentalists would give them a pass), than there are for Jonathan and David (in particular) and for Naomi and Ruth.
The point is, that when there are TWO very real possibilities in interpretation, fundamentalists always choose the one that is most harmful to other people because viewing others as the epitome of sinfulness about something they claim to be free from is "okay." It goes to the depth that Satanic influences have crept into the area of religion, turning light into darkness and day into night.
Jesus came to bring freedom from the LAW to everyone. He proved it over and over in His teachings, His parables, and His rebuke of those (even His disciples) who tried to marginalize those who didn't live up to the "holiness code" of that day. Modern fundamentalism is focused on their own holiness code, much of it developed in the last one and a quarter centuries.
Fundamentalism is a modern day cult sucking in those who are afraid of others, insecure in their spirituality, and threatened by anything awry from what they have always heard. Very few develop the fortitude to study Scripture in an intellectually challenging way. This provides focus for Paul (who was quite intellectual himself) to state, "Study to show yourself approved unto God, RIGHTLY dividing the word of truth."
Those today, not all that far removed from the Venetians, will claim different. Few have studied scripture thoroughly or deeply with different viewpoints--so they reach conclusions from ignorance of the mind, and coldness of their hearts.
You, dear reader, are different. You WILL approach the Bible in a manner beyond Sunday School. You should learn for yourselves which of these two tales of Scripture is more accurate by reflecting on the context of the times in which they were written. You do not have to be ignorant to be a "good" christian. In fact, without knowledge you may very well end up coming to crass conclusions of those fundamentalists.
Thanks Warden. I think you have tied this one up. The bible does NOT condemn same sex relationships.
I have a question on the 'sodomites' - male temple prostitutes. While it is being suggested that these male prostitutes were providing a ritual service to temple patrons, is there any reason to assume they were providing that service to men? Did they not provide that service to women? The men had temple prostitutes to have their ritual with.
Romulus gave a very clear description in his response to your question. But yes, the Roman conquerors had Temple prostitutes of both sexes. There is even some pretty good Scriptural evidence that Jesus healed a "boy" who had been the "consort" of a Roman Centurion.
I've printed it elsewhere as it is a quite interesting article--again using contextual content to make explanations (and it is quite interesting that the centurion--who was by Roman law not allowed to have a wife in a foreign land--didn't want Jesus coming to his own home. But it is a lengthy explanation and consideration. I will save it for the next day or two.
There are a few people having heart attacks over discovering the implications of their "perfect" Scripture tonight.
Why are you feigning shock/horror? Ruth and Naomi along with David and Jonathan are regularly brought into conversations such as this one. And, with good reason. This surely isn't the first time you've heard this claim ...?
Besides, why would it be impossible for some of the Bible luminaries to have been gay? Why? When Bishop John Shelby Spong announced many years ago that he believed Paul to have been gay much of mainstream Christianity pretty much required smelling salts to bring them around! This was blasphemy! Why? Why would it have been impossible for Paul to have been gay? Why would it have mattered if he was gay? Incidentally, Bishop Spong is quick to emphasize that this IS ONLY HIS OPINION that he bases on some of the things that Paul writes in his letters. And, he offers those reasons to back up his opinion.
Jesus shocked people with many of his own statements and actions surrounding the ugliness of the holiness code. They crucified Him for it.
Thanks for your well-measured comments in this thread.
OMG, that spirit really has sunk it's claws into you hasn't it? Now it's Ruth and Naomi.....unreal.
By the time it's done with you, you'll have found nothing but lesbian or gay unions in the whole book. Quick! Did you check your parents out??? You can't be too sure, you know. Peace
I'm surprised that he's not claiming Jesus was gay too since he hung out with men. Hey that's proof enough for him! People like him need David to be gay in the Bible on the thinnest level of evidence so he can build this case to support the sin of homosexuality and expound anger and hatred for those who do not.
Yeah makes total sense. King David was so gay that he actually had a man murdered so he could sleep with his wife! Maybe it's just me, but I kinda think that makes you very heterosexual.
]I'm surprised that he's not claiming Jesus was gay too since he hung out with men.[/b] Hey that's proof enough for him! People like him need David to be gay in the Bible on the thinnest level of evidence so he can build this case to support the sin of homosexuality and expound anger and hatred for those who do not.
Yeah makes total sense. King David was so gay that he actually had a man murdered so he could sleep with his wife! Maybe it's just me, but I kinda think that makes you very heterosexual.
It was I who pointed out the possibility of David being gay in response to the statement that as long there was the possibility the bible condemns homosexuality, it should be taken that homosexuality was a sin.
I am claiming that the bible does not in fact condemn same sex relationships and that the bible has been corrupted to say it does. Did David not kiss Jonathan until he became large?
1 Samuel 20:41
"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (KJV)
Quote:
The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became large.
Quote:
1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)
They did not wear underwear in those days so in effect, Jonathan stripped naked for David.
And you're not so dense that you couldn't read and comprehend this.....
The pagans allowed homosexual unions obviously, it was part of their idolatrous worship. But there were some laws attached to it. And that was if a man in a inferior social position dominated the act on a superior one, the death penalty was activated. In other words, it wasn't just for unbridled lusts, it was used to delegate societal status, a weak form of slavery, a position of exaltation and degrading control over a "lesser". Peace
And you fail to see that this fact only makes the context worse while not reflecting on the relationship in private life in any way?
Did shrimp defile the land? I never said I wanted religious laws. I am only pointing out that God doesn't approve of homosexuality. He said it was detestable. You can't get away from that. So you run to your crutch of using terms like "hate" and "bigots".
Your god does not approve of SHELL-FISH, TOUCHING PIGS, BLENDING FABRICS, DRINKING MILK WITH MY BURGER, and 609 OTHER INANE acts.
HOT THE FLIP DOES SSM "DEFILE" the FLIPPIN LAND?????
These cultists really need to get a grip on reality and step away from that ONCE UPON A TIME misogynistic piece of junk they idolize and put Christ back in the center of their lives.
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.
Other possible same sex relationships in the Bible
Peace