religion and homosexuality - DFWstangs Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 57 (permalink) Old 02-29-2004, 09:02 PM Thread Starter
Hero in a half shell
 
Fobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Richmond Tx
Posts: 2,584
religion and homosexuality

i'm opposed to it on a moral basis. now i dont mean for this to get into all out debate, but where in the bible and what exactly does it say about homosexuality?

Fobra is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 57 (permalink) Old 02-29-2004, 09:50 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 285
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. -- 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

That might clear things up for ya.

Last edited by utdbear; 02-29-2004 at 09:54 PM.
utdbear is offline  
post #3 of 57 (permalink) Old 02-29-2004, 10:07 PM Thread Starter
Hero in a half shell
 
Fobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Richmond Tx
Posts: 2,584
thx!

Fobra is offline  
post #4 of 57 (permalink) Old 02-29-2004, 10:34 PM
98 SVT Cobra
 
MoonDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,109
Quote:
Originally posted by x_redhotcobra_x
thx!
From the Contemporary English Version

OT:
Lev 20:13 It's disgusting for men to have sex with one another, and those who do will be put to death, just as they deserve.

NT:
Rom 1:26 God let them follow their own evil desires. Women no longer wanted to have sex in a natural way, and they did things with each other that were not natural.
Rom 1:27 Men behaved in the same way. They stopped wanting to have sex with women and had strong desires for sex with other men. They did shameful things with each other, and what has happened to them is punishment for their foolish deeds.

Right along with the 1 Corinthians passage. There are a few more instances but you get the idea. It is immorally wrong and a sin regardless of what people in the "Back Porch" are saying.

Last edited by MoonDog; 02-29-2004 at 10:40 PM.
MoonDog is offline  
post #5 of 57 (permalink) Old 02-29-2004, 10:39 PM Thread Starter
Hero in a half shell
 
Fobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Richmond Tx
Posts: 2,584
i think i'll have to *save as* these in a word document. thanks all.

Fobra is offline  
post #6 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 05:26 AM
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 421
1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
four5.0snomore is offline  
post #7 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 08:18 AM
Boost is Good
 
The Punisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: With Weapons of Mass Instruction
Posts: 3,135
yes, Romans 1:18-32
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
The Punisher is offline  
post #8 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 08:27 AM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Now, take all those verses and put them into the context in which they were spoken.

Next, find me the greek word for homosexuality.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #9 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 08:51 AM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Now, lets discuss the same-sex relationships in the bible.

Lets see the interpretations of loving, same-sex relationships of David and Ruth. Yes, I know there wasn't any indication of sex in their relationships, but hey, we're all intepretting.

Ruth 1:16 and 2:10-11
1 Samuel 18:1-4 and 20:41-42 and 2 Samuel 1:25-26


As far as they verse so far given:

Leviticus 20:13 is refering to temple prostitution. Even if you want to believe it had to do with homosexuality specifically, it would be a non-issue. It's old testament. No applicable, like the 613 other laws.

Romans 1:26 and 27 is criticizing sexual activity which is against the true nature of the person. It has been interpretted over history as homosexual activity, prostitution in the temple, among other things. The meaning is muddled at best.

I Corinthians 6:9, at one point in history, it was translated to mean masturbation. Then, it was ok to masturbate, so they decided to interpret it as homosexuality.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #10 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 10:04 AM
98 SVT Cobra
 
MoonDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,109
Quote:
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
Now, lets discuss the same-sex relationships in the bible.

Lets see the interpretations of loving, same-sex relationships of David and Ruth. Yes, I know there wasn't any indication of sex in their relationships, but hey, we're all intepretting.

Ruth 1:16 and 2:10-11
1 Samuel 18:1-4 and 20:41-42 and 2 Samuel 1:25-26


As far as they verse so far given:

Leviticus 20:13 is refering to temple prostitution. Even if you want to believe it had to do with homosexuality specifically, it would be a non-issue. It's old testament. No applicable, like the 613 other laws.

Romans 1:26 and 27 is criticizing sexual activity which is against the true nature of the person. It has been interpretted over history as homosexual activity, prostitution in the temple, among other things. The meaning is muddled at best.

I Corinthians 6:9, at one point in history, it was translated to mean masturbation. Then, it was ok to masturbate, so they decided to interpret it as homosexuality.
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
Quote:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly
What on earth is muddied about that? Pretty straight forward. Men lusting toward other men.
Quote:
KJV - 1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind
This is the Greek word arsenokoitēs. It means a sodomite: - abuser of (that defile) self with mankind, one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual

And I am not even going to comment on David and Ruth, that is just ludicrous.

Disclaimer:
No other posters were flamed, ridiculed, persecuted, belittled, berated, judged or otherwise in the making of the above-posted reply. It is with respect all are asked to observe this and to provide the same courtesy bestowed upon those who have posted and those who will post. Yada, Yada, doublespeak and so forth!
MoonDog is offline  
post #11 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 10:25 AM
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
Now, lets discuss the same-sex relationships in the bible.

Lets see the interpretations of loving, same-sex relationships of David and Ruth. Yes, I know there wasn't any indication of sex in their relationships, but hey, we're all intepretting.

Ruth 1:16 and 2:10-11
1 Samuel 18:1-4 and 20:41-42 and 2 Samuel 1:25-26


As far as they verse so far given:

Leviticus 20:13 is refering to temple prostitution. Even if you want to believe it had to do with homosexuality specifically, it would be a non-issue. It's old testament. No applicable, like the 613 other laws.

Romans 1:26 and 27 is criticizing sexual activity which is against the true nature of the person. It has been interpretted over history as homosexual activity, prostitution in the temple, among other things. The meaning is muddled at best.

I Corinthians 6:9, at one point in history, it was translated to mean masturbation. Then, it was ok to masturbate, so they decided to interpret it as homosexuality.

Thayer's Greek Dictionary:

arsenokoitees, arsenokoitou, ho

one who lies with a male as with a female; a sodomite: 1 Cor 6:9 1 Tim 1:10.
four5.0snomore is offline  
post #12 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 11:43 AM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally posted by four5.0snomore
Thayer's Greek Dictionary:

arsenokoitees, arsenokoitou, ho

one who lies with a male as with a female; a sodomite: 1 Cor 6:9 1 Tim 1:10.
And I'll point you to "Sexual Relations and The Church: An Exegetical Study Of 1 Corinthians 5-7", Union Theological Society, NYC, 1987.

I wish the paper was available on the web.

A quote from the author, talking about arsenokoites and malakos
Quote:
The two words are extremely difficult to translate into English. They seem not to bear a singular reference to homosexuals and their presence in a list of offenders makes the context almost useless in determining a fixed meaning for the words
John Boswell, a Greek & Hebrew scholar and Historian from Yale University, feels that arsenokoitai may have meant "male prostitutes capable of the active role with either men or women".

Victor Furnish, Professor of New Testament from Perkins School Of Theology, Dallas, believes one cannot be absolutely certain that the two words are meant as references to male homosexual behavior.

Deidre Good, General Theological Seminary, states:
Quote:
In short: the allegation that the New Testament condemns homosexuality is not just poor but lazy and inexcusable scholarship. An attempt by some scholars to interpret I Cor 6:9 by taking malakos to mean the passive partner and arsenokoites the active partner is based on circular reasoning. The meaning of arsenokoites is problematic. There is no evidence that malakos was ever considered as a technical term for a passive partner. (There are other terms for passive and active partner in Greek. They never appear in the NT). Malakos' general meaning of effeminate is independent of sexual position or object. To define malakos arsenokoites is to define something already clear by something that is obscure
Jerry Townsley, Indiana University
Quote:
... neither arsenokoitai nor malakoi are justifiably translated as "any homosexual behavior" (or more specifically, the active and passive partners in anal homosexual intercourse, as is the common interpration by contemporary Christian anti-gay writers) in any other Greek literature, which makes one question why they are translated that way here.
The word arsenokoitai was translated by Luther to knabenschander, which means child abusers.

The word has had its meaning twisted every so often to point to the group most despised at the time.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #13 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 12:24 PM
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 421
arsenokoites (ar-sen-ok-oy'-tace); from NT:730 and NT:2845; a sodomite:

KJV - abuser of (that defileself) with mankind.
Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary.

malakos (mal-ak-os'); of uncertain affinity; soft, i.e. fine (clothing); figuratively, a catamite:

KJV - effeminate, soft.
Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary

1 Cor 6:9
[Abusers of themselves with mankind] arsenokoitoi (NT:733). Paederastae or Sodomites. Those who indulged in a vice that was common among all the pagan; see the notes at Rom 1:27.
Barnes' Notes

1 Cor 6:9-11
Solemn warnings
Here he takes occasion to warn them against many heinous evils, to which they had been formerly addicted.

I. He puts it to them as a plain truth, of which they could not be ignorant, that such sinners should not inherit the kingdom of God. The meanest among them must know thus much, that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God (v. 9), shall not be owned as true members of his church on earth, nor admitted as glorious members of the church in heaven. All unrighteousness is sin; and all reigning sin, nay, every actual sin committed deliberately, and not repented of, shuts out of the kingdom of heaven. He specifies several sorts of sins: against the first and second commandments, as idolaters; against the seventh, as adulterers, fornicators, effeminate, and Sodomites; against the eighth, as thieves and extortioners, that by force or fraud wrong their neighbours; against the ninth, as revilers; and against the tenth, as covetous and drunkards, as those who are in a fair way to break all the rest. (from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition)

Look, we can offer up many "scholars" on both sides, so it is not really the issue. The above mentioned items are from many "biblical scholars" I trust. Strong, Vine, Thayer, Henry, etc.

The heart of the creation of Eve for Adam, was just that - one woman for one man.

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. KJV

Matt 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? KJV

This is obvious from scripture both OT and NT. The bible leaves no room for specualtion or interpretation, and any scholar that can't see that needs to search his/her heart regarding the matter.

You have Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed by God for such ugly sin...

Gen 19:4-7
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

Jude 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. KJV

I feel like I could go on and on, but I won't. It is a sin. I do not hate homosexuals, but hate the sin just as I hate anger or jealousy. I have a family member who is a lesbian, and I love her. So...
four5.0snomore is offline  
post #14 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 12:35 PM
98 SVT Cobra
 
MoonDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,109
Quote:
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
And I'll point you to "Sexual Relations and The Church: An Exegetical Study Of 1 Corinthians 5-7", Union Theological Society, NYC, 1987.

I wish the paper was available on the web.

A quote from the author, talking about arsenokoites and malakos


John Boswell, a Greek & Hebrew scholar and Historian from Yale University, feels that arsenokoitai may have meant "male prostitutes capable of the active role with either men or women".

Victor Furnish, Professor of New Testament from Perkins School Of Theology, Dallas, believes one cannot be absolutely certain that the two words are meant as references to male homosexual behavior.

Deidre Good, General Theological Seminary, states:


Jerry Townsley, Indiana University


The word arsenokoitai was translated by Luther to knabenschander, which means child abusers.

The word has had its meaning twisted every so often to point to the group most despised at the time.
Arsenokoitai is a combination of the Greek words, arsen, meaning male and koite, meaning sexual intercourse. Thus we have a term which simply is an active male partner engaging in sexual intercourse. It does not specifically define whether this male is having sex with another male or a female but early on in the book of Genesis Adam and Eve are told to be fruitful and multiply. So for a male and a female to have sexual intercourse is fine. The only other option we have left here in this passage is that it must refer to a male having sexual intercourse with another male. It should also be noted that no where does it mention anything at all about money, not in the passage nor in the root words, so a male prostitute would also be a flimsy at best interpretation.

Also the Latin Vulgate in 405 AD translates 'arsenokoitai' as 'Masculorum concubitores'.

'Masculorum concubitores' means 'bedfellows of men'. The word concubitores is masculine, but masculine words also include the feminine. Mixed plurals are always masculine; only when all members of a group are female can a feminine plural be used (if one exists). Thus grammatically the bedfellows could theoretically be either, but it is quite clear from the context that 'bedfellows of males' means 'male bedfellows of males'.

Last edited by MoonDog; 03-01-2004 at 12:44 PM.
MoonDog is offline  
post #15 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 12:43 PM
Crash Test Dummy
 
Monsoon X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: never never land
Posts: 21,966
You can look at the Bible from almost any viewpoint and find verses to fit your agenda. Just like the "mark or Cain" was used to mean black skin by racist preachers in the "good" old days.

Stepping back and looking at the Bible from start to finish, you can see the picture.

Homosexuality is a sin.




*for further discussion* Devil's Advocate

Is it a sin to be homosexual or is it a sin to commit the act? Should HoS (homosexuals) become HeS (Heterosexuals) in order to be in accordance to God's will? Or can they simply stop committing the acts?
Monsoon X is offline  
post #16 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 12:49 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
You still have not provided any absolute evidence that the scriptures were talking about purely homosexual activity.

Sodomites where what? male temple prostitutes. The destruction couldn't have been because they wanted "knowledge" of the Angels, God had already decided to destroy the city. And why, when Sodom and Gommorah are mentioed elsewhere in the bible does it not mention the sexual preference of the men? It references their wickedness, which is a mental state, not a sexual preference. Ezekeil says it was because of idleness and not helping the poor (which make much more sense). Jesus says the same thing. It wasn't that the men wanted "knowledge" of the Angels. They wanted to rape the Angels. Which is a no-no regardless of gender.

Jude 7, strange flesh? I would assume if I decided to go to Vegas and hire a female prostitute, I would be indulging in strange flesh. No homosexuality at all.

The Bible doesn't have much to say about people that prefer to be intimate with members of their own gender. Like I pointed out the words in the New Testament has meant different things at different times through history.

If homosexuality was such the sin, it would have been included in the 10 Commandments.

It is NOT ruled out by any of the 100s of teachings of Jesus.

Genesis doesn't spell out everything. For example, how did the children of Adam and Eve find partners to procreate without committing incest? Or is that acceptable?
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #17 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 12:51 PM
98 SVT Cobra
 
MoonDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,109
Quote:
Originally posted by Monsoon X
You can look at the Bible from almost any viewpoint and find verses to fit your agenda. Just like the "mark or Cain" was used to mean black skin by racist preachers in the "good" old days.

Stepping back and looking at the Bible from start to finish, you can see the picture.

Homosexuality is a sin.




*for further discussion* Devil's Advocate

Is it a sin to be homosexual or is it a sin to commit the act? Should HoS (homosexuals) become HeS (Heterosexuals) in order to be in accordance to God's will? Or can they simply stop committing the acts?
I think there is a difference between someone who commits an act of homosexuality and someone who is homosexual. Take adultry for example, if I was to commit adultry once or twice against my wife would I be an adulterer or just a weak man who commited a sin? Now, on the other hand, lets say that I commit this act of adultry 100 times over the course of 10 years, am I an adulterer or weak?

Disclaimer:
No other posters were flamed, ridiculed, persecuted, belittled, berated, judged or otherwise in the making of the above-posted reply. It is with respect all are asked to observe this and to provide the same courtesy bestowed upon those who have posted and those who will post. Yada, Yada, doublespeak and so forth!
MoonDog is offline  
post #18 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 12:56 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally posted by Monsoon X
Homosexuality is a sin.
In your opinion.

Never once did Jesus denounce it.

And ANYONE quoting the Old Testament, please tell me your stance on items that Old Testament condemns:

Sex during menstruation
exogamy
naming of sexual organs
nudity (sometimes)
masturbation
birth control

and things that are allowed:

prostitution
polygamy
levirate marriage
sex with slaves
concubinage
treatment of women as property
very early marriage (like 11 or 12)

Remember, if you want to quote the Old Testament, as Paul said, you must live by ALL THE LAWS.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #19 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 01:05 PM
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
In your opinion.

Never once did Jesus denounce it.

And ANYONE quoting the Old Testament, please tell me your stance on items that Old Testament condemns:

Sex during menstruation
exogamy
naming of sexual organs
nudity (sometimes)
masturbation
birth control

and things that are allowed:

prostitution
polygamy
levirate marriage
sex with slaves
concubinage
treatment of women as property
very early marriage (like 11 or 12)

Remember, if you want to quote the Old Testament, as Paul said, you must live by ALL THE LAWS.
You are still missing the picture of God's purpose for one and one woman to unite in marriage and then produce offspring. You attack the scriptures presented, but give no response to God's intimate design. What are your thoughts about that?
four5.0snomore is offline  
post #20 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 01:11 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally posted by four5.0snomore
You are still missing the picture of God's purpose for one and one woman to unite in marriage and then produce offspring. You attack the scriptures presented, but give no response to God's intimate design. What are your thoughts about that?
Gee, lets talk about God's ultimate design.

Do you accept divorced and remarried people at your Church?
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #21 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 01:12 PM
98 SVT Cobra
 
MoonDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,109
Quote:
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
You still have not provided any absolute evidence that the scriptures were talking about purely homosexual activity.

Sodomites where what? male temple prostitutes. The destruction couldn't have been because they wanted "knowledge" of the Angels, God had already decided to destroy the city. And why, when Sodom and Gommorah are mentioed elsewhere in the bible does it not mention the sexual preference of the men? It references their wickedness, which is a mental state, not a sexual preference. Ezekeil says it was because of idleness and not helping the poor (which make much more sense). Jesus says the same thing. It wasn't that the men wanted "knowledge" of the Angels. They wanted to rape the Angels. Which is a no-no regardless of gender.

Jude 7, strange flesh? I would assume if I decided to go to Vegas and hire a female prostitute, I would be indulging in strange flesh. No homosexuality at all.

The Bible doesn't have much to say about people that prefer to be intimate with members of their own gender. Like I pointed out the words in the New Testament has meant different things at different times through history.

If homosexuality was such the sin, it would have been included in the 10 Commandments.

It is NOT ruled out by any of the 100s of teachings of Jesus.

Genesis doesn't spell out everything. For example, how did the children of Adam and Eve find partners to procreate without committing incest? Or is that acceptable?
OH, I think we have provided more than enough, your just being hard headed and your known to stir the pot every once in a while just for the sake of discussion.

Quote:
Gen 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
Gen 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
Gen 19:6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
Gen 19:7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
What did the men of the city want to do with these 'men' as they are called, that Lots calls wicked? They wanted to 'know' them.

OK, what does it mean to 'know' someone in the Bible? Adam 'knew' Eve and Cain was born. Cain knew his 'wife'; and she conceived, Mat 1:25 (Joseph) knew her (Mary) not till she had brought forth her firstborn son.

Many times in the OT and NT to 'know' someone means to have sexual intercourse with them. So these men of the city did not merely want to get to know these men in Lots house, they wanted to 'KNOW' them.
Quote:
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
Remember, if you want to quote the Old Testament, as Paul said, you must live by ALL THE LAWS.
Why dont we just throw out all the laws of the OT then and do as we please, afterall, we are covered under the blood of Jesus so no matter what we do we will be saved from it.

And he said that if you wanted to live by the law instead of living by grace then you must live by all the laws. He didn't say that the laws were useless and not to be followed. Jesus fullfilled the law, He didn't destroy it.

Last edited by MoonDog; 03-01-2004 at 01:14 PM.
MoonDog is offline  
post #22 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 01:13 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally posted by MoonDog

Why dont we just throw out all the laws of the OT then and do as we please, afterall, we are covered under the blood of Jesus so no matter what we do we will be saved from it.
So, we get to pick and choose which laws to take from the OT?
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #23 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 01:18 PM
98 SVT Cobra
 
MoonDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,109
Quote:
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
So, we get to pick and choose which laws to take from the OT?
Some of them do not apply for today. It also says that a woman is to leave and go outside the city limits for 7 days during her time of the month. But with the means we have avaliable to us today, that is not necessary. We are not supposed to relieve ourselves inside our homes, but with plumbing we are able to do so.

Disclaimer:
No other posters were flamed, ridiculed, persecuted, belittled, berated, judged or otherwise in the making of the above-posted reply. It is with respect all are asked to observe this and to provide the same courtesy bestowed upon those who have posted and those who will post. Yada, Yada, doublespeak and so forth!
MoonDog is offline  
post #24 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 01:30 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally posted by MoonDog
Some of them do not apply for today. It also says that a woman is to leave and go outside the city limits for 7 days during her time of the month. But with the means we have avaliable to us today, that is not necessary. We are not supposed to relieve ourselves inside our homes, but with plumbing we are able to do so.
So, what about when your get in a fight with another man and your wife steps in to save you by grabbing the other man's "secrets", is it still all right to cut off the offending woman's hand? Duet 25:11

Leviticus 18:20 says adulterers must die. All of them?

Just trying to figure out which ones still apply and which ones don't.

Now, I thought that, after reading Rom 10:4, Gal 3:23-25, Eph 2:15 that once Jesus died on the cross, he put an end to the Old Testament law and that we were under the new law of Christ?

Which stated in Gal 6:2, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments”.


Back on topic:

I Samuel 18:1 "And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul."

I Samuel 20:30,31 "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse (David) to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die."

II Samuel 1:25,26 David speaking "How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places. I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #25 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 01:39 PM
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
Gee, lets talk about God's ultimate design.

Do you accept divorced and remarried people at your Church?
I accept everyone, homosexuals included.

What does that have to do with the questions I proposed to you?
four5.0snomore is offline  
post #26 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 01:44 PM
Crash Test Dummy
 
Monsoon X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: never never land
Posts: 21,966
Quote:
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

Sodomites where what?
People that lived in Sodom?

Quote:

The destruction couldn't have been because they wanted "knowledge" of the Angels, God had already decided to destroy the city.
This is true. But it is for the mindset of the people having homosexual activities and wanting to "know" the visitors (all other abominations included also) that God wanted to destroy the cities. Lot was over zealous and putting his daughters' well being aside he offered them in the angels' stead. Bad move and God didn't let him do it.


Quote:

And why, when Sodom and Gommorah are mentioed elsewhere in the bible does it not mention the sexual preference of the men? It references their wickedness, which is a mental state, not a sexual preference. Ezekeil says it was because of idleness and not helping the poor (which make much more sense).
Does it need to have a complete listing everytime a reference is made to the cities? Or does the pro-gay liftestyle advocate need it to? Genesis 1 doesn't list everything that happened in Gen 2? We still know that it happened. Why? Because Gen 2 says so. A complete listing of the 10 commandments isn't listed as the things that will prevent us from inheiriting the kingdom of God but, we know that they apply. (1Cor 6:9) Pro-gayers take one scripture and use it propagate their lifestyle.


Quote:
Jesus says the same thing. It wasn't that the men wanted "knowledge" of the Angels. They wanted to rape the Angels. Which is a no-no regardless of gender.
I must've missed this. What scripture?
Quote:

Jude 7, strange flesh? I would assume if I decided to go to Vegas and hire a female prostitute, I would be indulging in strange flesh. No homosexuality at all.
This is true

Quote:

The Bible doesn't have much to say about people that prefer to be intimate with members of their own gender.
This is true, it only speaks of men and women being married or fornicating. Why 1.) because it's normal 2.) Homosexuality is touched on enough to know that it's a sin. Do we need a whole book devoted to it in the Bible?
Quote:

Like I pointed out the words in the New Testament has meant different things at different times through history.
No. It's meant different things to different people. And the way it is used in different societies and times may change. The meaning and context of the original words don't change.
[quote][b]

Quote:

If homosexuality was such the sin, it would have been included in the 10 Commandments.
Says who? You?

Quote:
It is NOT ruled out by any of the 100s of teachings of Jesus.
Jesus pretty much stuck to the commandments
Quote:

Genesis doesn't spell out everything. For example, how did the children of Adam and Eve find partners to procreate without committing incest? Or is that acceptable?
Incest wasn't prohibited back then. God didn't institute those laws until Moses' time. The only reason incest is labled bad because of the extreme possiblity of genetic mishaps.

______________________________
I'm just a poor negro
Monsoon X is offline  
post #27 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 02:04 PM
Crash Test Dummy
 
Monsoon X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: never never land
Posts: 21,966
Quote:
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
So, what about when your get in a fight with another man and your wife steps in to save you by grabbing the other man's "secrets", is it still all right to cut off the offending woman's hand? Duet 25:11
No it is not right, why? Because we would be arrested. Christians are encouraged to obey our society's laws (although I often speed)
Quote:

Leviticus 18:20 says adulterers must die. All of them?
No.

Quote:

Just trying to figure out which ones still apply and which ones don't.
Most of the ones applying to sacrificing, sabbath keeping, washing, food eating, swift punishment for sins (When the people was going to stone Mary He basically taught forgiveness. Same for putting your wife away) Moses instituted different laws because of the hardness of the people's hearts. Jesus taught love but, he still didn't accept unrepented sinning ....."Go and sin NO MORE" John 8:11
Quote:

Now, I thought that, after reading Rom 10:4, Gal 3:23-25, Eph 2:15 that once Jesus died on the cross, he put an end to the Old Testament law and that we were under the new law of Christ?
He came to fulfill not do away with.

Quote:

Which stated in Gal 6:2, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments”.
Yes, we are to love our neighbors. But that doesn't mean we encourage their sins. We love them, that's why we strive to help them be forgiven. You must think it means "hey love whatever they do"! ?????


Back on topic:
Quote:

I Samuel 18:1 "And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul."

I Samuel 20:30,31 "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse (David) to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die."

II Samuel 1:25,26 David speaking "How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places. I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."
Yes, I've read it before............IT'S FREAKIN' WEIRD!!!!! I've thought about it also. Wanna know what I think?!

______________________________
I'm just a poor negro
Monsoon X is offline  
post #28 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 02:38 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally posted by Monsoon X
I must've missed this. What scripture?
Let's see, they surrounded Lot's house and tried to break down the door to have sex with the Angels. I'd consider that forceable rape. It's a story about Mob violence.

Genesis 13:13 Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD. No mention of homosexuality.

Genesis 18:20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous. No mention of homosexuality.

Of all the verses that reference Sodom, none indicate homosexuality as Sodom's sin. Not one.

Matthew 10:14-15 and Luke 10:7-16, Jesus implies that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality. Ezekiel 16:48-50 clearly states the reasons were pride, excess of their food while the poor suffered and worshipped many idols.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #29 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 02:48 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally posted by Monsoon X
Back on topic:
Yes, I've read it before............IT'S FREAKIN' WEIRD!!!!! I've thought about it also. Wanna know what I think?!
Of course I do. I'm not opposed to other views that make sense.

But... do me a favor. Don't quote around my quotes. It makes it a pain for any redirection.

I'll try to keep one response/one item to help keep you from having to do it.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #30 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 03:29 PM
Boost is Good
 
The Punisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: With Weapons of Mass Instruction
Posts: 3,135
Quote:
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra


Leviticus 18:20 says adulterers must die. All of them?

It dose? it says
"Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her."
It dose not say they shall be killed in that passage.. Am I missing something?
The Punisher is offline  
post #31 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 03:47 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally posted by 281R
It dose? it says
"Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her."
It dose not say they shall be killed in that passage.. Am I missing something?
My bad. I'm confusing passages (although it does talk about adultery, just not the punishment) 20:10 does


KJV Leviticus 20:10

Quote:
The man who commits adultery with another man's wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.
So, it is a special case of adultery. I guess if you are married and do it with a single woman, you are ok. But don't do it with married woman. Sure death.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #32 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 03:57 PM
Boost is Good
 
The Punisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: With Weapons of Mass Instruction
Posts: 3,135
Quote:
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
My bad. I'm confusing passages (although it does talk about adultery, just not the punishment) 20:10 does


KJV Leviticus 20:10



So, it is a special case of adultery. I guess if you are married and do it with a single woman, you are ok. But don't do it with married woman. Sure death.
Well, (speaking before or w/o Jesus) Any man that commits any kind of sin shall surely be put to death. The wadges of sin is death. This verse is only stating that IMO, not saying we should kill them.

Last edited by 281R; 03-01-2004 at 04:00 PM.
The Punisher is offline  
post #33 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 03:57 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally posted by MoonDog
What on earth is muddied about that? Pretty straight forward.
Sounds to me the passage is saying don't leave your woman and boink some man in the butt.

Didn't say anything about someone who always boinks some man in the butt.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #34 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 04:01 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally posted by MoonDog
This is the Greek word arsenokoitēs. It means a sodomite: - abuser of (that defile) self with mankind, one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual

And I am not even going to comment on David and Ruth, that is just ludicrous.
I've already expanded on arsenokoite. It has had many different meanings throughout the ages. Including Luther who doesn't term in homosexuality, but child abuse.

Please, comment on David and Ruth. Tell me how ludicrous it is and how Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality isn't.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #35 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 04:03 PM
98 SVT Cobra
 
MoonDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,109
In a sense it does say that adulterers will be put to death in the NT. It says that they will not inherit the Kingdom of God. What does it mean to not inherit the Kingdom of God? To be damned eternally and separated from God. But to inherit the Kingdom is to live forever with God.

Disclaimer:
No other posters were flamed, ridiculed, persecuted, belittled, berated, judged or otherwise in the making of the above-posted reply. It is with respect all are asked to observe this and to provide the same courtesy bestowed upon those who have posted and those who will post. Yada, Yada, doublespeak and so forth!
MoonDog is offline  
post #36 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 04:23 PM
98 SVT Cobra
 
MoonDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,109
Quote:
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
Sounds to me the passage is saying don't leave your woman and boink some man in the butt.

Didn't say anything about someone who always boinks some man in the butt.
By you logic a guy cant do it just once, he would have to continue the rest of his life for it to be ok.

I am not Lutheran so it doesn't matter to me what Luther says. In the last 2000 years he is the only one to have ever ttranslated it child abuse. Everyone else has it translated as sodomite, homosexuality, abusers of themselves with mankind. So to me, it seems that Luther didn't know his Greek very well.

Once again, Sodom was destroyed for several sins that you have already mentioned, homosexuality just being one of them. The men of the city wanted to 'know' (have sexual intercourse) with the men that were housed with Lot. Gen 19:4

Disclaimer:
No other posters were flamed, ridiculed, persecuted, belittled, berated, judged or otherwise in the making of the above-posted reply. It is with respect all are asked to observe this and to provide the same courtesy bestowed upon those who have posted and those who will post. Yada, Yada, doublespeak and so forth!
MoonDog is offline  
post #37 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 04:38 PM
Lifer
 
46Tbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 33,187
Quote:
Originally posted by MoonDog
By you logic a guy cant do it just once, he would have to continue the rest of his life for it to be ok.
No, the logic is "don't leave your woman to go do it in a guy's butt". What it doesn't comment on is a man who doesn't have a woman.
46Tbird is offline  
post #38 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 07:00 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally posted by MoonDog
By you logic a guy cant do it just once, he would have to continue the rest of his life for it to be ok.

I am not Lutheran so it doesn't matter to me what Luther says. In the last 2000 years he is the only one to have ever ttranslated it child abuse. Everyone else has it translated as sodomite, homosexuality, abusers of themselves with mankind. So to me, it seems that Luther didn't know his Greek very well.

Once again, Sodom was destroyed for several sins that you have already mentioned, homosexuality just being one of them. The men of the city wanted to 'know' (have sexual intercourse) with the men that were housed with Lot. Gen 19:4
They wanted to forceably rape the men that were with Lot. Sort of like the story in Judges (almost an exact parallel, except with the use of heterosexual rape in Judges). So I guess Judges was condeming heterosexuality in there instance.

Close you mind Moondog, believe only what you want to believe.

And I'm the one that is called close-minded.

And of course, you don't want to discuss the possible same-sex relationships in the bible, so you term them as ludicrous. Why? Because you have no plausible way to answer them in a heterosexual context.

We'll forget Samuel 18:1-4 where Jonathan stripped off his robe and handed it to David. No underroos back then. Pretty highly unusual, as it would be today.

The was one of the best love stories in the Bible.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #39 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 07:11 PM
Lifer
 
46Tbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 33,187
Yeah but they didn't get married DID THEY??
46Tbird is offline  
post #40 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 08:01 PM
98 SVT Cobra
 
MoonDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,109
Quote:
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
They wanted to forceably rape the men that were with Lot. Sort of like the story in Judges (almost an exact parallel, except with the use of heterosexual rape in Judges). So I guess Judges was condeming heterosexuality in there instance.

Close you mind Moondog, believe only what you want to believe.

And I'm the one that is called close-minded.

And of course, you don't want to discuss the possible same-sex relationships in the bible, so you term them as ludicrous. Why? Because you have no plausible way to answer them in a heterosexual context.

We'll forget Samuel 18:1-4 where Jonathan stripped off his robe and handed it to David. No underroos back then. Pretty highly unusual, as it would be today.

The was one of the best love stories in the Bible.
Eric, I have never said that you are close minded.

I have nothing against possible same sex relationships in the Bible. There are many such instances. Heck, Jesus traveled around for 3 years with 12 other guys and talked about loving your brother, I guess He was gay huh? I have relationships with serveral guys within my own church but does that mean that I have sex with them, no. Neither did Johnathan and David. What I called ludicrous was the implication that they had sexual relations.

David striped off his clothing and danced before the Lord. Is that suppose to imply that David wanted to have sexual relations with God?

The presenting of clothes or rich robes, as tokens of respect or friendship, is frequently common in the East. Johnathan willingly gave up his outer garments and weapons that signified his position as prince of Israel and heir to the throne. He realized that David was God's anointed and offered the robe of succession to the true king of Israel.

Disclaimer:
No other posters were flamed, ridiculed, persecuted, belittled, berated, judged or otherwise in the making of the above-posted reply. It is with respect all are asked to observe this and to provide the same courtesy bestowed upon those who have posted and those who will post. Yada, Yada, doublespeak and so forth!
MoonDog is offline  
post #41 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 08:04 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally posted by 46Tbird
Yeah but they didn't get married DID THEY??
LOL, that is another thread.

Here is another...

The story of the Centurion. When described in Matthew, I understand the term for the servant boy was pais in the original text. The word pais connotes inclusion of homosexual activity between master and slave.

Nowhere in the NT does Jesus mention this pederatic situation, but in fact praises the Centurion's faith. Obviously, Jesus didn't care about the relationship.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #42 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 08:20 PM
98 SVT Cobra
 
MoonDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,109
Homosexuality is just fine. I have been misreading everything in the Bible. I understand now where I went wrong. There was even a thing between Jesus and Judas, remember the kiss in the garden? That wasn't just by accident.

Disclaimer:
No other posters were flamed, ridiculed, persecuted, belittled, berated, judged or otherwise in the making of the above-posted reply. It is with respect all are asked to observe this and to provide the same courtesy bestowed upon those who have posted and those who will post. Yada, Yada, doublespeak and so forth!
MoonDog is offline  
post #43 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 08:26 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally posted by MoonDog
Eric, I have never said that you are close minded.

I have nothing against possible same sex relationships in the Bible. There are many such instances. Heck, Jesus traveled around for 3 years with 12 other guys and talked about loving your brother, I guess He was gay huh? I have relationships with serveral guys within my own church but does that mean that I have sex with them, no. Neither did Johnathan and David. What I called ludicrous was the implication that they had sexual relations.

David striped off his clothing and danced before the Lord. Is that suppose to imply that David wanted to have sexual relations with God?

The presenting of clothes or rich robes, as tokens of respect or friendship, is frequently common in the East. Johnathan willingly gave up his outer garments and weapons that signified his position as prince of Israel and heir to the throne. He realized that David was God's anointed and offered the robe of succession to the true king of Israel.
David's love story ain't about going into the shower and washing yourself in the prescence of other men.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. "

Of everything in Leviticus, what does Jesus quote? You shall love thy neighbor as yourself. Jesus never condemned homosexuals or even mention anything to do with sexual orientation. The use of Leviticus to condemn anyone today is totally absurd.

It is interesting that the word arsenokoites was never used by the early Christians to condemn homosexuality.

But, he thought the Centurion's faith was pretty cool, even though he kept a boy-toy.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #44 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-01-2004, 09:41 PM
98 SVT Cobra
 
MoonDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,109
Quote:
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra
The word pais connotes inclusion of homosexual activity between master and slave.
No it doesn't.

pais:
1) a child, boy or girl
1a) infants, children
2) servant, slave
2a) an attendant, servant, spec. a king’s attendant, minister

Part of Speech: noun masculine or feminine (not effeminate)

The word used implies that his slave could have been either a boy or a girl, not that he was a homosexual.

Just for the record, Jesus never condemned anyone except the Pharisee's and that was because they were hypocrites. He would tell the sinners to go and sin no more. He did not come to condemn the world but to save that which is lost. So ofcourse He is not going to go around telling people they are going to Hell if they dont stop with their wickedness.

Last edited by MoonDog; 03-02-2004 at 08:09 AM.
MoonDog is offline  
post #45 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-02-2004, 06:07 AM
Crash Test Dummy
 
Monsoon X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: never never land
Posts: 21,966
Quote:
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

Genesis 13:13 Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD. No mention of homosexuality.

Genesis 18:20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous. No mention of homosexuality.

Of all the verses that reference Sodom, none indicate homosexuality as Sodom's sin. Not one.

Matthew 10:14-15 and Luke 10:7-16, Jesus implies that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality. Ezekiel 16:48-50 clearly states the reasons were pride, excess of their food while the poor suffered and worshipped many idols.
None of the verses you've cited mention any other reason for the downfall of the city other than being very generic in saying the men of Sodom did "wicked" or that "their sin was grevious". The general description of the actions that took place in S/G allows us to know the reasons for the city's destruction (which includes but, is not limited to Homosex) So using those generic verses as a "get out of jail" free card is a stretch at best.

Referencing Matt. and Luke as support for HomoSex is also a stretch. Looking at the context all those scriptures use S/G for is to give a comparison of how S/G won't be punished as harshly, during judgment as the cities that didn't accept the Apostles.

Ezekiel is a perfect example. It lists all the things Sodom was destroyed for v. 50 They were haughty, and committed abomination before me, Now what is the abomination? There are many things that God considered an abomination (also includes but, is not limited to homosexuality) ex: Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 both "explicitly" say that homosexuality is an abomination.

So then studying the mob scene in S/G in Genesis you can begin to piece together what the number of sins they committed were. Ezekiel also shines light on all the other sins as well as them "committing abominations". The simple truth is that for God to utterly destroy the cities they had to be up to their necks in perversion of all sorts of things.

It makes logical sense to someone who is trying to follow the word of God and is careful with their walk, that Sodom was destroyed for a number of sins (Homosex included), God made woman for man and vice versa, the OT labels Homosex as an abomination, the NT labels it also.

______________________________
I'm just a poor negro
Monsoon X is offline  
post #46 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-02-2004, 08:02 AM
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 421
Eric,

...AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T ADDRESSED GOD'S SPECIFIC DESIGN OF ONE MAN FOR ONE WOMAN...
four5.0snomore is offline  
post #47 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-02-2004, 04:40 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
four5.0snomore....

Obviously, if Adam and Eve were Adam and Steve, the human race would not develop. I'm not denying that. And, being a married heterosexual with two children, I'm proof of that.

God also says it isn't good for man to be alone. So He is cool with committed relationships. For a heterosexual, it would be one from the opposite sex. For a homosexual, it would be one from the same sex. To say that for a homosexual to be alone would be against the Word of God. If you believe homosexuality isn't totally a choice, then you would have to believe that God is a liar.

Fundementalist like to take the English bible at its word. I search a little deeper and refer to the original Greek and Hebrew texts when I can. As such, I can see (or interpret, or make up my own mind), that when the bible condemns homosexual activity, It does so in the terms of homosexual rape, child abuse, ritual sex and bestiality.

But, also understanding that God doesn't believe man (as a totality including man and woman) should be alone, a monogamous homosexual relationship is ok. IMO of course. I've known quite a few monogamous homosexual relationships, the reasons I won't get into, because it does nothing for discussion.

Except to say, I lived next door to a lesbian couple for 5 years and it was one of the most loving relationships on the street. I witnessed 5 divorces on our little street, or spazzed out dad that killed his children (IMO of course, it was deemed an accident, but I have my reasons). I had NO problem leaving either of my daughters with the lesbians to play over at their house. There were a few heterosexual couples on my street I didn't like being anywhere around my children.

Regardless of your belief of when the Christian Scriptures were written, it wasn't until the 1800s that it was believed homosexuality could lead to a normal monogamous relationship. And I can tell you from life experience they exist.

Estimates, in the US alone, there are millions of intersexual people. Many parent make the decision to have this infants operated on. What is their choice? Male or female?

Many millions are sterile. How can they multiply?

God's plan for Adam and Eve was to be heterosexual and to multiply and it was the same plan for many of their offspring.

Sexual activity can certainly be sinful when it is done in a deceitful, harming, manipulative way. No one is arguing that.

IMO, a truely gay person doesn't have a choice. The few that "convert" were never gay in the first place.

Moondog--

Pais is used by Aristotle and Homer to suggest man-boy relationships. It is also widely suggested in this day and age that the Roman soldiers were known for their homosexuality and for their panache for keeping boy slaves.

When I interpret ANY literature and don't understand the original context, I seek other literature of that day and age to further interpret the meanings of words.

Monsoon X -

I interpret the reasons for the fall of Sodom differently. Yes, it was homosexual, but forceable homosexual rape. Which, even most homosexuals would agree, is wrong.

That is all.

Last edited by 01WhiteCobra; 03-02-2004 at 04:57 PM.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #48 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-02-2004, 06:25 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Now, I have shown you my point of view (Moondog, Monsoon and four5.0snomore).

Scroll on down to the Noah's Ark thread and please give me your point of view on my question.

Last edited by 01WhiteCobra; 03-02-2004 at 06:40 PM.
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #49 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-02-2004, 09:05 PM
98 SVT Cobra
 
MoonDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,109
Even though I whole heartily disagree with you Eric, I admire your passion to stick to your guns as well as your beliefs.

Disclaimer:
No other posters were flamed, ridiculed, persecuted, belittled, berated, judged or otherwise in the making of the above-posted reply. It is with respect all are asked to observe this and to provide the same courtesy bestowed upon those who have posted and those who will post. Yada, Yada, doublespeak and so forth!
MoonDog is offline  
post #50 of 57 (permalink) Old 03-02-2004, 10:21 PM
Crash Test Dummy
 
Monsoon X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: never never land
Posts: 21,966
Quote:
Originally posted by 01WhiteCobra

Monsoon X -

I interpret the reasons for the fall of Sodom differently. Yes, it was homosexual, but forceable homosexual rape. Which, even most homosexuals would agree, is wrong.

That is all.
Okay If that's how you feel.

______________________________
I'm just a poor negro
Monsoon X is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome