Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

Rei writes:

quote:

---

Also, I would be interested in some more things being explained.

​

1) The major statistical difference in finger lengths in the gay community, especially in lesbians. I can also get into other biological differences if you'd like - there are a good number of them (ranging from the extremely high ratio of left-handedness to the sizes of components of the brain)
2) The presence of intersex babies. If there are intersex bodies, why not intersex minds?

---

Um, this is just a speculation, but it would seem that the latter is not connected to the former, necessarily.That is, males are more likely to be left-handed than females. If gay men are more likely to be left-handed, then it would appear that gay men are more masculine, not less.We still don't have a good handle on the etiology of sexual orientation. There does appear to be a biological component, but what that means is still very much up in the air.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I want to start by saying that I read your posts that were pointed out in the "post of the month" forum and found them well assembled, even if I did not agree, and so I hope to see you approach this topic in the same way. I'll try.Clarity is really needed here. Agreed.I get what you mean by God's allowance being the prime determiner of what is wrong... no matter how strange people may find his commands. Thanks for acknowledging this - many people do not and from that point forward all communication ceases.However what is in question here, and you did not address it in specific, is where God states that homosexuality is wrong. This is stated in several verses throughout both the Old and the New Testament. I certainly will not undertake here a thorough examination of this - such a task would be a lengthy dissertation. But I won't leave you empty-handed.

​

First, you should be aware that many such examples are implicit in nature; i.e., one must infer that God doesn't approve of homosexuality (it's usually a very straightforward inference).

​

One example in the OT : It is well known that the "modern" term of 'sodomy' is in reference to the practice of the Sodomites - a practice condemned by God and in part for this reason the city was destroyed (Genesis 19).

​

One does not need to infer all of it - sometimes it is explicit as in Romans 1:22-32. Here's Romans 1:24-28...

​

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:

​

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

​

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:

​

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust toward one another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

​

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient,

​

**********************************************

​

The meaning couldn't any be clearer - especially when taking other Scripture into account - homosexual practices (m2m or w2w) is sin to God, period!Rei is not alone in believing (well I would say "knowing") that other than English and Latin translations, the earlier Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek versions do NOT include statements directly condemning homosexuality. The earlier language refers only to male prostitution. This could take us into the issue of Bible translations. I employ the AKJ 1611 Version and believe that the other translations aren't as valid but that would be another subject.If this is inaccurate, what passages do you feel condemn homosexuality, or why does it appear that the earlier texts refer to male prostitution if they meant homosexuality? See above.My own assessment is that it might still fall under the catchall of "fornication", but that is clearly not as "bad" as murder to God. Or at least I would think not having a direct commandment against it might make it a "lesser" sin. I have no idea what your religious training/background is so let me just say it plain : to God, sin is sin. Stealing $1.00 or killing a child will equally land a person in hell. Sin - any sin - is totally incompatible with God. Hence, "this sin being not as bad as that sin" is an ill-defined statement to anyone that understands something of the nature of God.

​

Joralex

quote:

---

it would seem that the latter is not connected to the former, necessarily

---

Correct, biologically. However, it points out a theological issue. If God is willing to make people who are physically incongruous with their gender (which He apparently is), why would he not also make people who are sexually incongruous with their gender?

quote:

---

That is, males are more likely to be left handed than females. If gay men are more likely to be left-handed, then it would appear that gay men are more masculine, not less.

---

Again, quite true. There is lots of evidence of both hypermasculinization and hypomasculinization in gay men, depending on different factors. But, to paraphrase Galileo's famous "And yet, it moves" remark - "And yet, the changes are there."The fact remains that there are major statistical anomalies in characteristics of gays and lesbians. Why? We haven't the slightest, although there are theories. But there are significant statistical genetic and physical differences from the average population.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Can you really use the term "sodomy" to refer to homosexuality when it's not clear that the citizens of Sodom are homosexual? I don't recall any mention of it in Genesis.I mean, yes, the word clearly stems from a perception that Sodom was a city full of gay people, but do you have any biblical evidence to support that perception? I haven't seen any.As for Romans doesn't "men with men working that which is unseemly" refer to temple prostitution, not homosexuality? I mean, why would the Bible use "unseemly" to refer to homosexuality without actually saying "homosexuality is unseemly" in any other part?The fact that the Bible doesn't exactly spell out what it is they're doing that's so unseemly gives you a lot of wiggle-room, I'd say. Sure, that passage could refer to homosexuality, but the question is, what does it literally refer to?

I want to compliment you for having very well composed responses, even if I mention a couple of exceptions below.From your reply I do believe a large part of the problem is in the translation. The terms "sodomy" and "sodomite" as used in the English/Latin translations are not a direct translation from earlier versions (Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic). The words in those earlier versions are "male prostitute".All other instances of direct reference to male male sex acts that do not use "sodom" are also mistranslations from Hebrew/Greek words related to male prostitution.This indicates a mistake in translation (intentional or not) which pushes an incorrect inference of God's actual meaning.I realize you are using a specific translation, but doesn't the fact that there are mistranslations which readily cause incorrect inferences make you interested in digging further on this subject? Perhaps we should start another thread on translation issues as I would love to hear what you have to say on that subject. Although Romans clearly shows that God considers homosexuality to be a detrimental practice, or as he put it "not convenient", "unseemly", and "against nature", it seems somewhat disingenuous to quote this passage as if it were God condemning homosexuality as a sin.In fact, the passage relates God punishing a group of people that have turned away from God, by MAKING them homosexuals... and rampant ones at that.He certainly outlines that the "natural use" of women is sex with men for children, and so same sex acts are against nature and will end up producing natural harms for them. These would be those recompenses he mentioned that occur from that error.In that era, it would certainly be a greivous error for an entire people to stop procreating entirely. It would weaken and perhaps cause a people to fall before their enemies.That is all that passage reads as... when the first part is included to put in its proper context. Homosexuality is a curse he put upon a people for turning away, so as to weaken them, and not that he says he curses those who are homosexual.Other than "unclean", and "dishonorable" practices of sex for pleasure, God does not use the word "sin" at all, and says nothing about them needing further punishment because the practices he has pushed them into.I totally get how you can infer from this that according to God being homosexual is as if having been cursed, or at least having fallen ill and are acting in an unhealthy manner. But this is a far cry from it being a practice worthy of wholesale condemnation and punishment like the many direct statements God makes about other practices. I do not think I left it ill-defined for anyone, but let me try to my statement clearer.There are 10 direct commandments. These are unquestionable lines which one cannot cross. These are the "most important" or IMO he would not have wasted everyone's time by delineating them as THE 10 commendments people must follow.Then there are methods of conduct which lead to ill health and uncleanliness (spiritual or physical). These are "sinful" and perhaps you can end up in hell for them, but they are not as weighty of sins as those proscriptions handed to Moses.I hate to use the word disengenuous twice in the same post, but I feel this line of argument was less than fully honest. Clearly the Catholic church views sins as having various degrees of "sinfulness" attached to them. Unless you view Catholics as having no understanding of the nature of God, they would seem to support my own viewpoint.As it is I was raised (though it did not take) in a Protestant environment, lived in an evangelically oppressed town, and went to a Xtian affiliated college. While I do not believe in the Xtian God at all, I feel I have some understanding of what different Xtian denominations believe about sin, and the result of sin.Other than certain evangelical denominations, I have most have been pretty flexible and use a "graded" approach to the nature of sin. Heck, even Dante outlined a layered hell for degree of sin in life! Let's not forget the idea of purgatory either.I don't mind pursuing this discussion with an assumption that all sins are equal, but would like to do so with an understanding yours is not the only interpretation, and that I am accepting yours for the sake of argument.------------------
holmes

I have to defend joralex on this one. Unless Rrhain or Rei have some additional info, the biblical scholars I've read on the subject do NOT say that this passage refers to anything other than men lusting and having sex with men (and women too).The reason it does not come out against homosexuality in any direct reference is, as Rrhain has correctly pointed out in another thread, there was no concept of homosexuality back then.The best they could talk about was individual acts of men being with men (or women/women), or as seems to be more the case with condemnation, doing so in the context of prayer to deities.There was a popular notion back then that men being used for sex by other men were assuming a weaker role. The Romans passage may very well be written with that in mind, where God has made these ungodly people weak by making all their men and women switching roles.------------------
holmes

(reply is to Joralex)In reference to this specific passage:

quote:

---

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
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:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust toward one another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient,

---

Ignoring that you're misreading cause and effect (the cause, if you read the chapter, is that they turned away from God and started worshipping idols; the effect is that they began to practice same sex relations, which were often associated with pagan worship), this is Romans, offered by Paul. Paul considers it shameful. So? Do you agree with Paul that women should be submissive? Do you agree that women should not teach men? Do you agree that women are saved through childbearing? Do you see original sin as the woman's fault? Do you believe that slaves should obey their earthly masters with deep respect and fear? Do you think that they should do whatever their masters tell them, no matter how harsh? Does your church speak in tongues? Paul treats all of these things as critical to a godly society.If you're going to pick and choose parts of the bible, do you use a priest to clean mildew? Do you sacrifice doves for forgiveness? Do you wear clothes made from two kinds of fabric? Does your church ban the disabled? The bible is filled with all kinds of commandments that noone today follows. What gives you the right to choose? Your "inference"? Because I, for one, would infer that a kind and loving God wouldn't create people with clear statistically-evident differences, and then set the rules in opposition to them. Of course, I would also assume that a God that creates commandments for men and women wouldn't create people who are physically incongruous to either one. ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Hume's journey to understand cause and effect is far from clearly applicable as far as I can read the English in "up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust toward one another; men with men working that which is unseemly ". Perhaps another language scholar could inform??I read THE WOMEN DID CHANGE...
MEN WITH MEN WORKING... with an AND. In other words, X exressed differently than Y. I know I do not "need:" to insist on reading it like this but are the non-English words clear as these passages implying SEXUAL CHANGES and not merely a DIFFERENCE IN sex? And further that any change is behvioral and not simply physiological?I mean to have the questions answered WITHIN the verses not without. I KNOW one can really read this more clearly by changing focus to a larger segement of the text. That is not the intent of these particular questions here.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-23-2003]

Frog, seems to me like you wish to 'split hairs' on this issue.

​

As I stated in my previous post, the exhaustive study of this topic is a lengthy dissertation and I, for one, have more important things to do. If you are really interested in reaching the truth in this matter, I would encourage you to undertake a serious study of the Bible from cover to cover and you'll find what many others (including myself) have found : homosexuality is an affront to God and there is no excuse for it in His eyes.

​

Yes, there may be some men that have a 'biological weakness' for other men... but then there are also men that have a 'biological weakness' for women (i.e., they would like to bed as many women as they can). Both of these 'biological weaknesses' take a back seat to what God commands on the matter.

​

These are 'spiritual weaknesses' no less than the gluttonous tendency that some people have, or the tendency to lie / cheat, or to dishonor their parents, etc. - all are equally sin to God.

​

We each have two choices : comply with what God commands or do whatever we desire to do. The choice is ours and so are the consequences for our choice.

​

Joralex

I submit that you found exactly what you were looking for in the Bible - homosexuality is an affront to you, and naturally you came to the conclusion that it is to god, too. You certainly haven't supported it from the Bible, and a considerable Christian presence in this country feels that you are also in error. Since god doesn't exist, I'll base my conclusions on the actual effects that behaviors have. Two men having sex with each other has no effect on my life or anybody's.

From your reply I do believe a large part of the problem is in the translation. Maybe, but if this is the case then it becomes a dispute over the validity of the AKJ 1611 Version and that would be a different topic. Just for your info : I am personally convinced - after a great deal of research into the matter - that the AKJ 1611 Version is the only valid translation that exists.The terms "sodomy" and "sodomite" as used in the English/Latin translations are not a direct translation from earlier versions (Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic). The words in those earlier versions are "male prostitute". I won't quibble on this point - I haven't conducted exhaustive research into that particular word/translation. Nonetheless, and as I've already stated, my position is based on the totality of Scripture and not just on one or two verses. It is that totality which, IMHO, clearly indicates that if God were asked point-blank how He felt about homosexual acts He'd say, "Homosexual behavior is an abomination to Me." All other instances of direct reference to male male sex acts that do not use "sodom" are also mistranslations from Hebrew/Greek words related to male prostitution. Again, I cannot and won't argue on this point of translation. Even so, 'male prostitution' is.... what? A male selling his 'services' to females or to other males or both? Whatever the case, it is sin to God.

​

One more thing, when I did look into this topic (long ago) there was not a single Bible scholar (that I recall) that had any doubt whatsoever about God's position towards homosexual behavior. I find it interesting that some people would put this matter into question.This indicates a mistake in translation (intentional or not) which pushes an incorrect inference of God's actual meaning. Hmmm... depends on what "IS" is. Now, where have I heard that before????I realize you are using a specific translation, but doesn't the fact that there are mistranslations which readily cause incorrect inferences make you interested in digging further on this subject? Absolutely! That is why several years ago I undertook a lengthy search into Bible translations. My conclusion : the AKJ 1611 Version is the only valid translation that exists. All other versions have, to a greater or lesser degree, distorted/changed the preserved Word of God.Perhaps we should start another thread on translation issues as I would love to hear what you have to say on that subject. I've done this several times already and it's a rather lengthy topic. The problem I see is that the "answer" must come from two sources : tangible evidence and spiritual discernment. Tangible evidence is fragmented and scholars throughout the ages have interpreted this evidence differently - that creates some difficulties. Spiritual discernment is a show-stopper for you and I since you don't even believe in the Christian God.Although Romans clearly shows that God considers homosexuality to be a detrimental practice, or as he put it "not convenient", "unseemly", and "against nature", it seems somewhat disingenuous to quote this passage as if it were God condemning homosexuality as a sin. The 'totality' of Scripture must be considered, remember? Maybe even this passage (which to me clearly condemns homosexuality) could be interpreted as not condemning homosexuality (as it does to you). However, I see no way possible (without extreme contortionism) to reconcile homosexual behavior with the God of the Bible cover-to-cover.In fact, the passage relates God punishing a group of people that have turned away from God, by MAKING them homosexuals... and rampant ones at that. "Making them homosexuals"? My goodness, NO! God "gives them up to their lusts of their own hearts and to their vile affections" - that is NOT the same thing as "making them homosexuals".

​

Allow me to translate : God knows what is in the heart of these people - what they really desire - and so He steps aside and allows them to wallow in their sin. Had these people shown any tendency to seek righteousness and to depart from evil, God would be there for them but they don't so He "gives them up unto themselves".He certainly outlines that the "natural use" of women is sex with men for children, and so same sex acts are against nature and will end up producing natural harms for them. These would be those recompenses he mentioned that occur from that error. It's much more than that. There are spiritual consequences (beyond the natural consequences) that these people will face.In that era, it would certainly be a greivous error for an entire people to stop procreating entirely. It would weaken and perhaps cause a people to fall before their enemies. True... and then there's also the spiritual facet.That is all that passage reads as... when the first part is included to put in its proper context. Homosexuality is a curse he put upon a people for turning away, so as to weaken them, and not that he says he curses those who are homosexual. I understand your interpretation, I just don't totally agree with it.Other than "unclean", and "dishonorable" practices of sex for pleasure, God does not use the word "sin" at all, and says nothing about them needing further punishment because the practices he has pushed them into. God didn't "push them" into anything - I explained that earlier (He gives them unto themselves).I totally get how you can infer from this that according to God being homosexual is as if having been cursed, or at least having fallen ill and are acting in an unhealthy manner. But this is a far cry from it being a practice worthy of wholesale condemnation and punishment like the many direct statements God makes about other practices. Just as I can understand your interpretation. But you are basing your interpretation on a single, isolated passage. This is not the way to find answers in the Bible.

​

Here's a bit more : the reason that God "gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves" was because they had decided in their hearts to "worship and serve the creature/creation instead of the Creator". In essence God says, "you have free will and that is what you have chosen - I give you unto yourselves."

​

Because such behavior is essentially animalistic, rather than human, sodomites are actually also referred to as "dogs" in the Bible. Consider Deuteronomy 23:17-18, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Though shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both of these are abomination unto the Lord thy God".

​

In Revelation 22:14-15 we see another reference to these "dogs" : "Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." I do not think I left it ill-defined for anyone, but let me try to my statement clearer.There are 10 direct commandments. These are unquestionable lines which one cannot cross. These are the "most important" or IMO he would not have wasted everyone's time by delineating them as THE 10 commendments people must follow. And you are correct. However, God later (NT) explains (because we were too dense to understand it the first time) that there is "substance behind form".

​

For instance, it isn't just physically taking a person to bed, just the thought of doing so constitutes adultery/fornication in God's eyes (Matthew 5:27-28). The Ten Commandments don't spell this out, do they?

​

Likewise, there are many things that God intended and said but it is only with dedicated study - with a genuine desire to arrive at truth - that God's meaning comes to us. This He did so by design.Then there are methods of conduct which lead to ill health and uncleanliness (spiritual or physical). These are "sinful" and perhaps you can end up in hell for them, but they are not as weighty of sins as those proscriptions handed to Moses. That is your view and I'll respect it. My view is that all sin - any sin - is worthy of death. That is why I openly confess my unworthiness as a sinner and my inability to cleanse myself from sin. And this is why Jesus Christ is my only way to salvation as His plan for mankind specifies.I hate to use the word disengenuous twice in the same post, but I feel this line of argument was less than fully honest. Clearly the Catholic church views sins as having various degrees of "sinfulness" attached to them. Maybe I just wasn't clear enough. Stealing $1.00 clearly does not carry the same weight as murdering an innocent child. But to God, sin is sin and NO sin is acceptable to God.

​

This is why Christ came to pay for ALL sin - past, present, future, big and small - for those that would accept that gift (grace) from God. If I stand before God with any sin then I am condemned to hell, period! But with Jesus Christ standing "in my place" (that is what my inheritance is), I will stand sinless before God and so eternal reconciliation with God is now possible.Unless you view Catholics as having no understanding of the nature of God, they would seem to support my own viewpoint. Catholics have some understanding of some areas but in other areas they are simply wrong. Catholic theology is yet another topic that would take us off course.As it is I was raised (though it did not take) in a Protestant environment, lived in an evangelically oppressed town, and went to a Xtian affiliated college. While I do not believe in the Xtian God at all, I feel I have some understanding of what different Xtian denominations believe about sin, and the result of sin. Okay.Other than certain evangelical denominations, I have most have been pretty flexible and use a "graded" approach to the nature of sin. Then please allow me to be the first (?) to correct you on this. Sin is completely incompatible with God. God doesn't say "I accept this sin but I don't accept that SIN". Any sin is unacceptable to God. If you think about it, it's the only thing that makes sense. Heck, even Dante outlined a layered hell for degree of sin in life! Let's not forget the idea of purgatory either. Dante was Dante and purgatory is non-Scriptural. The Catholics have a "purgatory", with origins in the early Catholic Church, which is a fabrication for the purpose of appeasing the masses that wanted a "second chance" for their loved ones and maybe even for themselves. That purgatory exists is a lie that, unfortunately, many prefer to believe.I don't mind pursuing this discussion with an assumption that all sins are equal, but would like to do so with an understanding yours is not the only interpretation, and that I am accepting yours for the sake of argument. I hope that what I've written above helps clarify my meaning. Of course, I know that "my" interpretation is not the only one - there are scores of others (Mormons, JW, Catholics, ... etc... etc...).

​

I'll leave you with a simple question : Which sin is acceptable to God?

​

If you know of one, let's hear it. If none, then now you know what is meant by "all sins are equal".

​

Joralex

Ahhhhhh... I see that I had made a mistake.Perhaps you did not realize where all of this was starting from. Somebody in another thread had said that murder was actually preferable to homosexuality to the Xtian faith.This seemed ridiculous no matter what interpretation was used. When you came in to say that they were equal, I mistook that to mean that they were equal acts of atrocity.I think I get you now. What you mean is that while they may be graded in how bad they are, once sin enters the picture that is enough to land one in the spiritual pokey.Kind of like you can forge a check to steal money, or shoot everyone in the bank dead. While the former is less horrific it will get you arrested just the same as the latter.Do I have it at this point?If so, then I get what you are saying.Here is where I see us then:1) The main problem is differences on translation2) We are not going to get anywhere on this specific topic without simply dealing with issues of translationIt is clear you are taking a very holistic view of the Bible which I find quite interesting. I might even note that up until a couple months ago I was only aware of the English versions and had the same holistic view of the Bible's treatment of homosexuality.I guess I still didn't believe Sodom's destruction had anything to do with sex persuasion, but all the other passages were negative as you have stated.It is just that I started digging and It became apparent that passages had been changed from the Hebrew/Greek to create this incorrect holistic view.In fact that is the problem, any single mistranslation can be passed off since there are other passages which say etc etc etc... But what if all of them have been? That is what i have been finding.Now I am not trying to say "you are wrong". What I am saying is maybe you want to check into it. I found it quite stunning and I ended up having to go back to friends and say "I guess I was wrong". I just could no longer hold the English translation on that subject as holding any water.As far as the use of "male prostitute" is concerned the scholars I read were pretty unanimous that it was because there were a couple of rival religions at the time which used them. Thus it was worshipping another God to do so.Some scholars had said that the specific proscription was generalized to male-male sex in order to create a cultural identity for Jews as well as eliminating excuses that one didn't know one was worshipping ("hey I just went there for sex").I accepted this latter position (which meant Xtianity did proscribe homosexual acts in general) but it too became untenable under the weight of further evidence.I still don't think the Xtian God is gay-positive, but reading the Bible holistically I do not think it is something other than a weakness and minor foible.Given your structure for what sins require saving, I don't see how anyone can argue with you on this point. You have set the bar very very very low.As a final note, I take back my saying that God MADE those who walked away from him homosexual. Your wording was much more appropriate. More like he walked away from them as they walked away from him. I still believe though that that is less than condemnation and truly shows his view of homosexuality, which is not as hard as many Xtian denominations currently espouse.In fact, doesn't a gay person who wants to worship God, and asks Jesus for forgiveness of his sins, not in the position of walking toward God? Is this not the same as everyone else worshipping God (since everyone has sin and cannot escape that)? That would seem to put them diametrically opposed to those Unclean people in Romans who had simply abandoned everything.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

I am personally convinced - after a great deal of research into the matter - that the AKJ 1611 version is the only valid translation that exists.

---

.Ah. So, did your "great deal of research" include the word qadesh?(BTW, why do you use colors, and not quote tags?)

quote:

---

my position is based on the totality of Scripture

---

So were the positions of those who used it to defend slavery. Your point?

quote:

---

Even so, 'male prostitution' is.... what? A male selling his 'services' to females or to other males or both?

---

Well, the context of pagan worship, typically both. And that isn't at all related to homosexuality. Prostitution != homosexuality.

quote:

---

there was not a single Bible scholar (that I recall) that had any doubt whatsoever about God's position toward homosexual behavior

---

Really? F.F. Bruce remarks about Paul's reference in Galatians 3:28 emphasizes that there is no theological difference to the heterosexual pair "male and female", and also discusses Ezekiel's definition of what Sodom's sin was (pride and selfishness). The Fundamentalist Journal concludes that the leviticus holiness code, based on the teachings of Jesus and Paul in Mark 7:17-23 and Romans 14:14,20 rejects the old line of ritual distinctions, which were based on keeping the hebrew people as a distinct line (such as not wearing cloth from two different kinds of fabric, ritual purity, etc). They write that the code condemns "idolatrous practices" and "ceremonial uncleanliness", and conclude "We are not bound by these commands today." Presbyterian bible scholar George R. Edwards writes that no prophet even uses the noun for male cult prostitutes (qadesh); in fact, they're remarkably silent on anything that could be interpreted as referring to homosexuality, despite speaking about relationships extensively. Victor Paul Furnish writes about my previous point, that in Romans, even the highly conservative Paul (my words, not his ) was obviously referring to idolatry in the paragraph, and describing that as the sin, and by it referenced the fertility cults that involved promiscuous sex between priests and priestesses and their worshipers. Catherine Kroeger wrote in the Journal of Evangelical Theological Society about many of the old practices referred to (which actually led to the origin of our word "shaman"). These activities of sexual pagan worship were occuring in temples all across Paul's travels. As a consequence, this was Paul's entire conception of "homosexuality" - promiscuous activity in pagan worship. Thielicke and Scroggs come to the same conclusion. Gordon D. Fee and the Fundamentalist Journal weigh in on Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, concluding that the words malokoi and arsenokoitai are notoriously difficult to translate,. Scroggs concludes that, given its usage in early Greek writings, the only accurate translation of 'malokoi' could be 'pederasty'. 'Arsenokoitai' seems to have been coined by Paul. In Greek culture, malokoi were young boys procured (either free or slave) for use as a sex object. Sometimes they were paid, sometimes they weren't. Perhaps this could be viewed as a condemnation of NAMBLA, but hardly the gay community. For more writings, you can read the works of Bernard Ramm and Marten H. Woudstra. In short, the general conclusion is that there is nothing in the bible that reflected at all homosexuality as it is known today, only cult prostitution. Stanford classics professor John J. Winkler warns against "reading contemporary concerns and politics into texts and artifacts removed from their societal context."Source: "The Bible Is An Empty Closet", (C) 1999 Evangelicals Concerned Western Regional Fellowship [quote]God "gives them up to their lusts of their own hearts and to their vile affections"[quote] Yes, you're right, that is not the same thing as making them homosexual. In this passage, he lets them continue onward and fall into being eastern Mediterranean pagan fertility worshippers.

quote:

---

nor sodomite sons of Israel

---

But That Is An Inaccurate Translation Of QadeshHow many times do we have to point out that "Sodomite" is an english word coined because of a general public perception of Sodom's sin being homosexuality, despite flat-out contradiction from Ezekiel? And that "homosexual" is also a horrible translation, because Qadesh itself comes from the pagan goddess Qadesh. And, the word "whore" is qadeshah - merely the feminine form of the exact same word!I know you're in love with the KJV, but there's a number of awful translations in it. For an example, "coat of many colours" should actually be translated as "brightly colored coat". There's near universal consensus on this. But some people hold KJV up almost as an idol, and refuse to acknowledge where it's wrong.I would like a response to my comments about biological differences, and the intergendered, and how this fits into God's plan.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 09-24-2003]

I submit that you found exactly what you were looking for in the Bible - homosexuality is an affront to you, and naturally you came to the conclusion that it is to god, too. If believing that will give you a better night's sleep then be my guest.You certainly haven't supported it from the Bible, and a considerable Christian presence in this country feels that you are also in error. I have more than amply supported it from the Bible for myself. But I'm puzzled, why would YOU ask me to support it from the Bible when you don't believe in the Bible? Ergo, you are either a very confused individual or hypocritical in your statement."We each have two choices : comply with what God commands or do whatever we desire to do. The choice is ours and so are the consequences for our choice."Since god doesn't exist, I'll base my conclusions on the actual effects that behaviors have. Oh, so now God "doesn't" exist yet a few sentences ago you asked me for "Biblical" support of my position. If you can't see the contradictions in your thinking, I assure you that others do notice.Two men having sex with each other has no effect on my life or anybody's. A typical shortsighted statement.

​

I don't know if you have a son (or any children for that matter) but since you don't seem to mind homosexuals then why don't you try the following : if/when you have a son, leave him unsupervised in the company of a clan of homosexual men for a few weeks and tell me if you are able to sleep completely at ease during that time.

​

For that matter, I don't believe that you personally would feel at ease around homosexuals (unless you are one yourself) since there's this little thing called AIDS going around. You know, AIDS - that troublesome thing that killed the movie star Rock Hudson because of his homosexual lifestyle.

​

Millions have died as a result of AIDS and this disease has brought about countless changes in our society. Heck, even in small things : I used to get razor-shaved when I got my haircut - but barbers won't do this anymore. Do you know why, Frog?

​

What I'm saying in a nice way is that anyone claiming that homosexuality "doesn't affect them" is simply not paying attention.

​

Joralex

quote:

---

I don't know if you have a son (or any children for that matter) but since you don't seem to mind homosexuals then why don't you try the following : if/when you have a son, leave him unsupervised in the company of a clan of homosexual men for a few weeks and tell me if you are able to sleep completely at ease during that time.

---

This is a nice littly mainstay of bigotry. "Deep down, you know you feel the same way."Last time I heard a statement like this, it was from a racist who said to me, "you know damn well you'd cross the street right now if you saw a black guy coming."Whatever gets you through the day, Joralex.

quote:

---

For that matter, I don't believe that you personally would feel at ease around homosexuals (unless you are one yourself) since there's this little thing called AIDS going around.

---

I would think he would feel more uncomfortable around homosexual men who had AIDS if he was homosexual, and having sex with them. Then he'd be in a far more likely position to receive AIDS from them. You don't catch it from a toilet seat, you know.Regardless, do homosexual women not count? They have a far lower risk of AIDS than heterosexuals of either gender.

quote:

---

You know, AIDS - that troublesome thing that killed the movie star Rock Hudson because of his homosexual lifestyle.

---

Would this be the same disease that nailed basketball star Magic Johnson because of his heterosexual lifestyle?Anyone who thinks eliminating homosexuality would get rid of AIDS is deluding themselves.[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 09-25-2003]