Let us do away with the homosexuals & sodomites

[Jon-E]

Your argument here is foolish sophistry. The passage is about 'men', and this is stuff that happened over time. Think of Canaanite society. At first, there was some residual knowledge of the true God. Eventually that was corrupted by idolatry. Eventually, men gave up natural desires for women. Men desiring men sexually is not natural or normal. It is an abomination/repulsive/disgusted and God commanded that it be deemed such. It's unnatural-- again Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. And babies come out of women's wombs not the upper or lower end of a man's digestive system, hands, thighs, or what have you.

If it seems normal to you, that is because you have some twisted desires that are against nature. God can save and redeem people who have twisted desires.



Not sure how this is supposed to prove your point. If one generation of Canaanites, Greeks, Romans, etc. had started off worshipping idols and had men lose interest in their wives for other men, and the next generation of men had some guys who never cared for women at all and just wanted to indulge in 'gay' sex, it's all sinful. Sexual relations between men are sinful. They were sinful for Gentiles in the BIble.



This is 'men'-- a group. It's a group of people doing this. If you desire something wicked from your youth or you turn to something wicked as an old man, it is still wicked. Leviticus 18 sexual sins were things for which __Gentiles__ were also driven out of the land.

Your trying to reinterpret scripture through the false paradigm of 'sexual orientation' that did not exist back then is reading your perverted philosophy back into the text, and clearly not what Paul was saying.


* To quote this encyclopedia, I had to include the adjective use of the banned words as it was so written.


No! no! This is perversion. It is abnormal for two men, even close friends, to have any kind of sexual desire for each other at all. Those who experience that have something wrong with them. This kind of desire is something extreme, not something normal. God can save people who have all kinds of backgrounds and problems, drug addicts, evil sexual desires. I Corinthians 6 tells us of such people who have been washed, sanctified, and justified-- not left in that state.



English has lots of different words to express related concepts, too.



Maybe you should not think about such things. Lots of 'gay' people do some of the same sins as Nero, maybe not with the same threat of punishment. But they say he did wicked stuff like engage in sexual stuff with men, get 'gay married', very wicked stuff, in addition to the adultery attributed to him.




Our society is not overtly idolatrous in the literal stone or gold statue-worshipping sense. But it has abandoned God in many ways and rebelled against many of His precepts. This slowly rising tide of homosexual perversion-- until recently about 30% of millineals stated they considered themselves LGBT in a survey--has been growing since the sexual revolution. American society and government rebelled against God by embracing sex before marriage, legalized murder of babies in the womb, and more recently same-sex sexual activity and transgendered operations. Gay men have higher suicide rates than sexually normal males. Trans men ('mtf') have much higher suicide rates than normal men. Yet those who suffer from the insane evil left-wing perspective on this issue promote LGBT among the youth. Public high schools have clubs promoting this evil. There are also people going onto Christian forums trying to persuade Chrsitians this sort of thing is okay.



The passage is not all that clear what the recompense is, and it isn't written in such a way to point to one specific thing. Being a sexual pervert who doesn't know God may be the recompense for the error, but there are a lot of other sins in the passage, too, listed toward the end. .



No, the natural desire of men is for women, rightly expressed between a man and his wife. God allowed wicked homosexual desires to enter mankind because of idolatry. But that does not mean if a homosexual never desired women, that his desires are okay.

Your interpretation is just sophistry, and it does not line up with Leviticus or the overall teaching of scripture on sexuality. You are reading the LGBT ideology about orientation back into the text and interpreting it by an ideology that developed over 1900 years later. Stop justifying sin.

Presidente, I've repeatedly tried to answer your entire reply, but keep getting the limitation to 10,000 characters. Let's do a topic or a verse at a time, not merely opinions, but real study. For instance, why do you reject the research that has been done on sexual orientation? Just because it does not have the approval of fundamentalists? The actual studies are given so they can examined.

From the David Myers psychology textbook:
"The consistency of the brain, genetic, and prenatal findings has swung the pendulum
toward a biological explanation of sexual orientation (Rahman & Wilson, 2003; Rahman & Koerting, 2008). Still, some people wonder: Should the cause of sexual orientation matter? Perhaps it shouldn’t, but people’s assumptions matter. If you see sexual orientation as inborn—as shaped by biological and prenatal influences—then you likely favor “equal rights for homosexual and bisexual people” (Bailey et al., 2016). If you see same-sex attraction as a lifestyle choice or as encouraged by social tolerance, then you likely oppose equal rights for nonheterosexual people. To justify his signing a 2014 bill that made some homosexual acts punishable by life in prison, the president of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni, declared that homosexuality is not inborn but rather is a matter of
“choice” (Balter, 2014; Landau, E., et al., 2014)."
https://davidmyers.org/uploads/SexualOrientationPsy12e.pdf

From the US HHS site:
"What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation, or Inherent Sexuality?
There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people."
http://www.ct.gov/shp/lib/shp/pdf/a...bout_sexual_orientation_and_homosexuality.pdf

 

[presidente]

Presidente, I've repeatedly tried to answer your entire reply, but keep getting the limitation to 10,000 characters.

I just cut my post into multiple posts when that happens.

Let's do a topic or a verse at a time, not merely opinions, but real study. For instance, why do you reject the research that has been done on sexual orientation?

Why is that relevant? The important question is why you reject the word of the Lord through prophets and the teachings of the apostles. The Bible says not to make a provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof. If hypothetically, homosexual genes came into mankind due to the idolatry of Romans 1, or if that is not the case, either way, Christians are not to yield to the flesh.

In the research I have read, twins studies show a higher propensity for one twin who was separated from another at church to be considered homosexual if his other twin is homosexual. But in the majority of separated twins where one is homosexual, the other is not.

There may be a hereditary aspect of sin that is not DNA. There may be spiritual heredity. Children may inherit bad traits from their parents and fall into the same sins their parents commit unless they repent. Christians are not to 'mortify the deeds of the body', like Romans 8 says.

If a certain gene shows up in adulterers, serial fornicators, murderers, etc., that doesn't make any of these things right.

Just because it does not have the approval of fundamentalists?

We aren't just talking about modern American fundamentalists. Moses and the apostles, historical Judaism, historical Christianity, Roman Catholics, Protestants, etc. realize that this is sinful.

From the David Myers psychology textbook:
"The consistency of the brain, genetic, and prenatal findings has swung the pendulum
toward a biological explanation of sexual orientation (Rahman & Wilson, 2003; Rahman & Koerting, 2008). Still, some people wonder: Should the cause of sexual orientation matter? Perhaps it shouldn’t, but people’s assumptions matter. If you see sexual orientation as inborn—as shaped by biological and prenatal influences—then you likely favor “equal rights for homosexual and bisexual people” (Bailey et al., 2016). If you see same-sex attraction as a lifestyle choice or as encouraged by social tolerance, then you likely oppose equal rights for nonheterosexual people. To justify his signing a 2014 bill that made some homosexual acts punishable by life in prison, the president of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni, declared that homosexuality is not inborn but rather is a matter of
“choice” (Balter, 2014; Landau, E., et al., 2014)."
https://davidmyers.org/uploads/SexualOrientationPsy12e.pdf

Sounds more like a book on ideology than biology.

From the US HHS site:
"What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation, or Inherent Sexuality?
There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of cognitive and biological factors.

'Most scientists'? Most scientists aren't specialists in research related to homosexuality.

 

[Jon-E]

I just cut my post into multiple posts when that happens.



Why is that relevant? The important question is why you reject the word of the Lord through prophets and the teachings of the apostles. The Bible says not to make a provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof. If hypothetically, homosexual genes came into mankind due to the idolatry of Romans 1, or if that is not the case, either way, Christians are not to yield to the flesh.

In the research I have read, twins studies show a higher propensity for one twin who was separated from another at church to be considered homosexual if his other twin is homosexual. But in the majority of separated twins where one is homosexual, the other is not.

There may be a hereditary aspect of sin that is not DNA. There may be spiritual heredity. Children may inherit bad traits from their parents and fall into the same sins their parents commit unless they repent. Christians are not to 'mortify the deeds of the body', like Romans 8 says.

If a certain gene shows up in adulterers, serial fornicators, murderers, etc., that doesn't make any of these things right.



We aren't just talking about modern American fundamentalists. Moses and the apostles, historical Judaism, historical Christianity, Roman Catholics, Protestants, etc. realize that this is sinful.



Sounds more like a book on ideology than biology.



'Most scientists'? Most scientists aren't specialists in research related to homosexuality.

Presidente, you either accept the science on homosexuality in this day, or be recognized as giving nothing but personal opinion. I am a stickler for sticking to the standard rules and principles of interpretation. If you check the etymology in the English dictionaries, you'll find "sodomy" and "sodomite" were coined around the 13th century by the church of Rome. The word homosexual was created in Germany in 1869 and came into English around 1900. Keeping that in mind consider:

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, Copyright 2000
"The terms 'homosexuality' and 'homosexual' are coinages of the 19th century C.E. and have no equivalent in ancient Hebrew or Greek. It is debatable whether the modern idea of homosexuality (an erotic attraction focused only or primarily on persons of the same gender) existed at all in antiquity. The Bible does not appear to say anything directly about homosexuality in this modern sense of the term, but a few passages do refer to same-gender genital acts." page 602

The best book on hermeneutics I've read happens to be available online and it reads on this matter:

"RULE:—If a translation be used, it must be an exact equivalent of the original, or the difference must be noted by the interpreter." page 49
https://icotb.org/resources/PrinciplesofInterpretation.pdf

New Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, IVP Copyright 1996
"The Bible says nothing specifically about the homosexual condition (despite the rather misleading RSV [1st Ed]translation of 1 Cor. 6:9), but its condemnations of homosexual conduct are explicit. The scope of these strictures must, however, be carefully determined. Too often they have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has claimed too much." page 478

Fundamentalists and many evangelicals wish to create their own definitions of words and make blanket statements that are nothing but bigoted opinions, not anything factual. My purpose in the OP was to quit using words that are not found in the OT Hebrew or NT Greek, and stick to natural and clear statements of conduct given for the Christian in the New Covenant.

For the New Covenant believer, a Christian, there is no commandment forbidding two loving male friends to not only have the love and companionship, but also sexual expression of it in private between themselves? I challenge anyone to produce one Scripture that forbids such for one who is a Christian. Don't read into the Scripture, eisegesis, read out of it, exegesis. The problem with this topic of conduct between two males is explained in the following:

From The Ethics of Sex, Copyright 1964, by Helmut Thielicke (1908-1986) German Protestant theologian and rector of the University of Hamburg from 1960 to 1978 -
"One cannot expect to find in the theological ethics of German-speaking Protestantism a clear, consistent attitude toward homosexuality simply because hitherto the writers on ethics have taken little or no notice of the mere fact itself and therefore a body of opinion -- to say nothing of the unanimity of judgement -- is almost non-existent... Doctrinaire prejudices, which at the same time distort the theological problem presented by homosexuality, manifest themselves also in the fact that the value-judgment "homosexuality is sinful" is not isolated from an objective assessment of the phenomenon but is rather projected into it, and the result is that one arrives at an a priori defamation of those who are afflicted with this anomaly." page 269, 270

Scattergun responses that are giving nothing but opinion, 'Doctrinaire prejudices', will be ignored! Anyone, give the book, chapter, verse that you think condemns sexual conduct between two loving male companions. If anyone chooses to use a modern translation that inserts some form of "homosexual" into 1 Cor. 6:9 and/or 1 Tim. 1:10; explain the reasoning for choosing that particular translation since translations vary greatly on those two verses.

 

[presidente]

Presidente, you either accept the science on homosexuality in this day, or be recognized as giving nothing but personal opinion. I am a stickler for sticking to the standard rules and principles of interpretation. If you check the etymology in the English dictionaries, you'll find "sodomy" and "sodomite" were coined around the 13th century by the church of Rome. The word homosexual was created in Germany in 1869 and came into English around 1900. Keeping that in mind consider:[/quote}

So what? You can see my previous post about how there was a lot more going on in Sodom than 'sodomy'. The ones they attempted to molest were angels. But if they thought they were men, then the men wanting to do such things may have been 'sodomites' the way the term was used later.

None of your comments about definitions make same-sex sexual behavior to do so or a desire to perform such sin a good thing.

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, Copyright 2000
"The terms 'homosexuality' and 'homosexual' are coinages of the 19th century C.E. and have no equivalent in ancient Hebrew or Greek. It is debatable whether the modern idea of homosexuality (an erotic attraction focused only or primarily on persons of the same gender) existed at all in antiquity. The Bible does not appear to say anything directly about homosexuality in this modern sense of the term, but a few passages do refer to same-gender genital acts." page 602

I addressed this, briefly, in a previous post. Saying 'homosexuals go to Hell' is problematic because the term has to do with the propensity to be attracted to the same sex. One could have this problem and still keep one's heart and mind pure and not act on evil desires of the flesh.

What about you? Do you have faith in Christ? Do you experience the grace of God in your life to overcome sin? Or do you indulge in same-sex sexual behavior?

Do you care more about the word of God and living holy before God than you do about promoting the idea that gay is okay?

The best book on hermeneutics I've read happens to be available online and it reads on this matter:

Is it the best book of on hermeneutics to you because of what it says about homosexuality?

"RULE:—If a translation be used, it must be an exact equivalent of the original, or the difference must be noted by the interpreter." page 49
https://icotb.org/resources/PrinciplesofInterpretation.pdf

New Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, IVP Copyright 1996
"The Bible says nothing specifically about the homosexual condition (despite the rather misleading RSV [1st Ed]translation of 1 Cor. 6:9), but its condemnations of homosexual conduct are explicit. The scope of these strictures must, however, be carefully determined. Too often they have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has claimed too much." page 478

So is propaganda like this what makes this the best book in your view? I don't have a problem with the first couple of sentences, as long as the author led in with the very specific problem with using a word about inclination or orientation to translate a word that is about a sexual act... but no serious scholar should use the term 'homophobia' seriously like this. I read an academic article, an old one now, that made the point that there was no evidence in the literature for an actual phobia called homophobia.

We all know that 'homophobia' is not a real phobia. It is rhetoric LGBT activists use to insult weak-willed individuals into agreeing with them. There are a lot of people who do not want to be perceived as behind the times, not PC, not woke, who will back down and even agree with an opponent at the threat of being called a name that sounds bad. But as far as a true phobia is concerned, disgust at same sex sexual activity is not the same thing as a phobia. The Old Testament command required disgust at such
activities when it commands that such a thing be an abomination. But it is also natural, something many men across many cultures feel when confronted with the idea of same sex sexual behavior. Maybe it is lessoned in cultures that promote it as normal like ancient Greece or the US since the 1990's. The LGBT advocates have started brainwashing children at a young age in the schools to overcome this and also to promote the idea that it is normal.

Fundamentalists and many evangelicals wish to create their own definitions of words and make blanket statements that are nothing but bigoted opinions, not anything factual. My purpose in the OP was to quit using words that are not found in the OT Hebrew or NT Greek, and stick to natural and clear statements of conduct given for the Christian in the New Covenant.

You have a strange perception of reality to think that evangelicals are wanting to create their own words to promote bigoted opinions. Up through the 1980's, probably most people who did not study the subset of psychology that touched on homosexuality probably thought 'homosexual' meant someone who had gay sex. Many people, especially older people and conservatives of different ages use the term that way. LGBT advocates and many young people use 'homosexual', 'gay', and 'lesbian' to refer to 'sexual orientation'. The idea that 'orientation' is there at birth, set in stone, cannot be changed, is false, and an extreme notion, but a false popular idea that replaced the broader uses of 'homosexual' and 'gay.'

Your use of 'bigoted' is also typical left wing LGBT-agenda promoting rhetoric. Everyone should hate same sex sexual activity, sex with animals, adultery, etc. So should Christians. These are wicked things. They were death penalty crimes in the OT (between men in the case of same-sex sexual activity.)

For the New Covenant believer, a Christian, there is no commandment forbidding two loving male friends to not only have the love and companionship, but also sexual expression of it in private between themselves? I challenge anyone to produce one Scripture that forbids such for one who is a Christian. Don't read into the Scripture, eisegesis, read out of it, exegesis. The problem with this topic of conduct between two males is explained in the following:

Do you care anything at all about the New Covenant, pleasing God, or the truth? Which is more important to you, loving God, or making everyone think it is okay to be gay? Which is a higher priority for you, helping others live a life pleasing to God in all areas of their lives including sex, or a 'social justice' cause of making sure everyone accepts gays? Are you using Christian-themed terms and theological arguments to promote your social agenda.

You have no leg to stand on as far as exegesis goes. Your argument (not yours, but an old argument that was lame when it was first made) that 'against nature' doesn't apply to homosexuals is pure eisegesis, reading back modern ideas about sexual orientation into the passage, when you yourself admit that the concept did not exist in the Biblical world. Paul was familiar with the Genesis story, in which God created them male and female. He was familiar with Leviticus forbidding a man lying with a man as one does with a woman, forbidding men from having sex with animals, forbidding women from sex with animals and various other laws... for which Gentiles also were driven out of the land. He was familiar with the command that a man who bedded a man like one does a woman to be put to death. Paul also existed in a historical context, and other Jews interpreted the law to forbid such acts. Philo thought such people deserved death, and went a bit further than the Torah and included cross-dressers in that category as well.

Paul was also familiar with the LXX, the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament, which used 'arsenos koiten' to refer to a man lying with a man as one does with a woman in Leviticus, and he wrote that arsenokoitai would not inherit the kingdom of God in I Corinthians 6. He also wrote to Timothy that the law was written for various categories of sinners including arsenokoitai.

The passage condemns the act-- dudes having sex with dudes. You can talk about how you want about how homosexuality is about dudes having the inclination to have sex with other dudes, and how the NT words do not address that specific thing, but that doesn't make doing the arsenokoitai thing okay.[/QUOTE]

 

[presidente]

From The Ethics of Sex, Copyright 1964, by Helmut Thielicke (1908-1986) German Protestant theologian and rector of the University of Hamburg from 1960 to 1978 -

"One cannot expect to find in the theological ethics of German-speaking Protestantism a clear, consistent attitude toward homosexuality simply because hitherto the writers on ethics have taken little or no notice of the mere fact itself and therefore a body of opinion -- to say nothing of the unanimity of judgement -- is almost non-existent... Doctrinaire prejudices, which at the same time distort the theological problem presented by homosexuality, manifest themselves also in the fact that the value-judgment "homosexuality is sinful" is not isolated from an objective assessment of the phenomenon but is rather projected into it, and the result is that one arrives at an a priori defamation of those who are afflicted with this anomaly." page 269, 270

If you read my previous post, I said the same thing, but more succinctly and more clearly-- pointing out that the acts were sinful, but the inclination to do so, as a lust of the flesh, should be resisted and overcome. Fortunately for those who have this affliction, Christ has a track record of washing and sanctifying those who have engaged in such behavior in the past (see I Corinthians 6.) God's grace also works within those who are His to will and to do that which is good.

But one should not encourage or entice others to sin. It did not end well for Balaam. Peter also points out that the false teachers in II Peter 2 enticed others to sin. Justifying sin and enticing others into it is also a problem with some of those Christ opposed in the letters to the churches in the opening chapters of the book of Revelation.

Scattergun responses that are giving nothing but opinion, 'Doctrinaire prejudices', will be ignored! Anyone, give the book, chapter, verse that you think condemns sexual conduct between two loving male companions. If anyone chooses to use a modern translation that inserts some form of "homosexual" into 1 Cor. 6:9 and/or 1 Tim. 1:10; explain the reasoning for choosing that particular translation since translations vary greatly on those two verses.

You don't have a case here. Calling such relationships 'loving'... that's the wrong kind of love. A married man who starts an adulterous affair with a married coworker may develop intense feelings with her and care about her. We might say he loves her. But his love isn't pure. It isn't the right kind of love, not the right kind of agape. If they loved each other rightly, they would not entice one another into sin.

The agape we are supposed to have is described in I Corinthians 13, since 'love does not rejoice in iniquity, but delights in the truth.' This is where those trying to promote the LGBT agenda, like yourself, and those having same-sex affairs fall short. If they truly loved each other rightly, they would not entice each other into sexual sin. Nor would they, or you, promote this kind of wickedness to other people, since love does not rejoice in iniquity but delights in the truth.

Same sex sexual affairs are unloving. Your promoting the idea that they are (even if it gets the state's or some religious organization's rebellious sanction as 'marriage') is unloving.

 

[Jon-E]

You have written a lot of fundamentalist, bigoted opinion, but you did not give a verse and exegete it to prove it condemns sexual conduct between two loving male companions who are Christian believers. I've noticed that in this entire thread, no one attempts to show any verse that condemns it or if they quote a verse, they are unable to show or demonstrate how it applies to this particular situation because none do.

 

[Oblio]

Obviously I'm talking about the words/labels, when discussing the Bible, not persons. The words "sodomy" and "sodomite" were coined about the 13th century by the church of Rome; and "homosexual" and "homosexuality" created in Germany in the 19th century, coming into English around 1900. We are living in a day when many (maybe 30%) think they fit somewhere in the modern idea of LGBTQ, and some young people are truly confused about it. So, I'm posting what I find the pertinent Scriptures teach on males relations to males. I'll be using the 1885 English Revised Version because of its literal accuracy. I'll usually use the 1828 Webster's Dictionary for English, since I'm using an older English version. On definition of the Hebrew and Greek I'll use accepted standard reference works.

Sodom:
Lot, being covetous chooses the land toward Sodom because of its fruitfulness, being called "like the garden of the LORD". (Gen. 13:10, ERV)
"Now the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners against the LORD exceedingly." (Gen 13:13, ERV)

Webster's: "men, plu. of man. Two or more males, individuals of the human race...Persons; people; mankind; in an indefinite sense", Strong's "Hebrew enowsh a mortal, a man in general". Therefore, Gen. 13:13 would mean the "people" of Sodom were exceedingly wicked, not just the males.

A key verse about "men" and "males" in OT Hebrew:
In Gen. 17:23 is the strange sounding phrase "every male among the men of Abraham's house" where "male" is the Hebrew zakar and "men" is the Hebrew enowsh. It is clear that the English "men" must be seen in context to determine if it means males; or mortals, humans in general.

"But before they lay down, the men(enowsh) of the city, even the men(enowsh) of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; 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. And Lot went out unto them to the door, and shut the door after him. And he said, I pray you, my brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof. And they said, Stand back. And they said, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and drew near to break the door." (Gen 19:4-9, ERV)

The word "men" here means young and old, all the people, male and female. There is no reason to think only males here because it is all the people. This wicked people want to "know them", the angels who appear as men; and we know this has sexual connotations because of Lot's offer to give his virgin daughters to them. Lot addresses his fellow citizens as "brethren", the Hebrew 'ach and Strong's gives "a brother" as the basic meaning, but then adds {used in the widest sense of literal relationship and metaphorical affinity or resemblance (like H1).} Webster's defines "brother" literally as male, but definition #2 reads "Any one closely united; an associate; as a band of brothers." When we say "brethren of the church" we don't exclude the ladies. Lot is speaking as we would say "neighbors". Verse nine clearly states an act of violence, "drew near to break the door", in other words this was going to be a rape, and rape is an act of dominance and violence, not sexual desire. In years past I'd have considered rape an act solely committed by males, but in our wicked day it's clear it can apply to both sexes. I can only see attempted rape here in the Sodom record, possibly by the entire city rather than only the males. The Lord GOD tells us what the sin of Sodom was:

"As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom; pride, fulness of bread, and prosperous ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." (Ezek 16:48-50, ERV)

No sexual sin is specifically mentioned here, but the sins of "pride" and "haughtiness" are clearly mentioned. Yet there is the word "abomination" that translates the Hebrew to`ebah and Strong's defines it thus: "1(properly) something disgusting; 2(morally, as noun) an abhorrence; 3(especially) idolatry; 4(concretely) and idol." This Hebrew word is found 41 times in Ezekiel, more than any other OT book and it seems to be largely associated with idolatry in Ezekiel, yet 22:11 does connect it with adultery, and again in 33:26. More on this word "abomination" later when looking at Lev. 18:22 and Deut. 23:17.

Jesus spoke of Sodom, and his words spoken to the Jews are:

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, as ye go forth out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city." (Matt 10:14-15, ERV)

One other statement about Sodom is in the NT book of Jude:

"And angels which kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to fornication, and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 1:6-7, ERV)

Who is being referred to as "these"? It appears to be the angels as I read it. The Revised English Bible clearly translates in that manner:

"Remember too those angels who were not content to maintain the dominion assigned to them, but abandoned their proper dwelling-place; God is holding them, bound in darkness with everlasting chains, for judgement on the great day. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbouring towns; like the angels, they committed fornication and indulged in unnatural lusts; and in eternal fire they paid the penalty, a warning for all." (Jude 1:6-7, REB)

So what does "strange flesh"(ERV) or "indulged in unnatural lusts"(REB) mean? In the Greek, strange is heteros which Strong's defines as "other or different"; and flesh is sarx which Strong's defines as "flesh (as stripped of the skin)." In Jude 14 the book, Prophecy of Enoch, is mentioned and in that book the story of Gen. 6:1-4 is thought to be about angels, "sons of God"; who have sexual relations with humans, "daughters of men". Since the non-canonical book of Enoch is referenced, I believe the "strange flesh" or "different flesh" refers to the people of Sodom attempting to rape angels, which is clearly a different flesh. The "different flesh" can not mean a human to human, but more fitting to human to angel, see: "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes." (1Cor 15:39, ERV)

Isn't pride and a haughty spirit at the base of all violent criminality? Isn't sin very much about pride and a haughty air. We see it daily in minor things, where the normal rules of society are just ignored by those who think it does not apply to them. The healthy person parking in Handicapped Zones; the aggressive, reckless and high speed driving, etc. Prisons are full of people who think society's rules are only for others. The Apocryphal book of Sirach, written about 180 BC, gives a historical look at what the Jews thought about Sodom, and I'll use the old KJV translation:

Sir 16:8 KJVA "Neither spared he the place where Lot sojourned, but abhorred them for their pride."

Leviticus 18:22 and Deut. 23:17,18 will be in the next OP. This is taking more space than I had thought.

When I see 2 guys kiss, it makes me feel a bit squeamish, but when I see the way the sleek and the strong of God treat "the least of these," it makes me cry.

 

[Jon-E]

When I see 2 guys kiss, it makes me feel a bit squeamish, but when I see the way the sleek and the strong of God treat "the least of these," it makes me cry.

I go further than that. I'm more than a bit squeamish to see 2 males kissing in public or 2 females kissing in a romantic way. But even with male and female, I find public displays of too much of this a turn off as well.

 

[Oblio]

I go further than that. I'm more than a bit squeamish to see 2 males kissing in public or 2 females kissing in a romantic way. But even with male and female, I find public displays of too much of this a turn off as well.

I just don't look at them. I used to be married but then I got sick. I've been single ever since. I'm a realist...who would want to fall in love with someone, only to watch them suffer and die?

 

[presidente]

You have written a lot of fundamentalist, bigoted opinion, but you did not give a verse and exegete it to prove it condemns sexual conduct between two loving male companions who are Christian believers. I've noticed that in this entire thread, no one attempts to show any verse that condemns it or if they quote a verse, they are unable to show or demonstrate how it applies to this particular situation because none do.

We have already discussed these verses and I am sure you are familiar with them. The latter part of Romans 1, I Tim. 1, I Cor. 6, Lev. 18, Lev. 20.

You have already shown your apprach to Romans 1 with reading the modern LGBT philosophy into the idea of "nature" into Romans 1, then quoting sources that argue that first century individuals were unfamiliar ideas about sexual orientation. Which of your own arguments do you believe?

You also ignored the important questions about whether living right with God and pleasing him were more important than promoting your LGBT social agenda. If you are trying to use Christianity and theological resources to spun arguments to support a social agenda and justify the lusts of tge flesh.

When you are ready to be justified before your maker and want to walk right before him, let us talk.

Christians are to mortify the deeds of the body. Showing evidence that some bodies crave certain sins does not justify sin. Lust does not justify sin.

And we are talking about Judaism and Christianity's perspectives on the issue from the time of Moses. If you wish to label those who oppose wickedness and enticing little ones in Christ as bigots, Christ blessed those who are spoken evil of falsely for his sake and those persecuted for righteousness sake.

There is no special blessing for those who are persecuted for encouraging and engaging in singul sexual behavior.

 

[Jon-E]

Various cults can list verses to support their cult, but they too cannot show how the verses mean what they claim.

 

[presidente]

Various cults can list verses to support their cult, but they too cannot show how the verses mean what they claim.

Then do not do that. It is very clear that Romans 1 does not teach what you claim about 'nature.' And many cluts have encouraged sexually immoral behavior.

 

[Jon-E]

Then do not do that. It is very clear that Romans 1 does not teach what you claim about 'nature.' And many cluts have encouraged sexually immoral behavior.

The following is what I wrote about nature in Rom. 1:26, 27:

1. Women changed "natural use", NRSV "natural intercourse", but did not, could not, change their nature.
2. a. changed "the natural use" KJV, YLT.. Referring to the created order, God's design
b. "exchanged their natural function", Amplified, "exchanged their natural sexual function" ISV, "changed their natural way" AAT by William F. Beck (LCMS)

If under a. above "the natural use" the definite article 'the' points back to the created design and order. But under b. "their natural sexual function" would indicate that by their nature, their own sexual nature, these women would have the created order, the created sexual function within themselves, but could only change their conduct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The wording about changing "natural use" means their conduct. A person cannot change their sexual nature or orientation. They change their "use".

The natural, or nature cannot refer to the animal world because same sex animals pair up and it is a natural part of the animal world.

"Same-Sex Attraction in Other Species: In Boston’s Public Gardens, caretakers solved the mystery of why a much-loved swan couple’s eggs never hatched. Both swans were female. In New York City’s Central Park Zoo, penguins Silo and Roy spent several years as devoted same-sex partners. Same-sex sexual behaviors have also been observed in several hundred other species, including grizzlies, gorillas, monkeys, flamingos, and owls (Bagemihl, 1999). Among rams, for example, some 7 to 10 percent display same-sex attraction by shunning ewes and seeking to mount other males (Perkins & Fitzgerald, 1997). Homosexual behavior seems a natural part of the animal world."
https://davidmyers.org/articles/sexual-orientation?pageID=16

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:" (Rom 2:14, KJV)

In the NRSV, it reads:
"When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves." (Rom 2:14, NRSV)

If "nature" is thought to be a person's instinct, it is speaking of what is natural to that person. That would be what is seen above in 2.b.

The one other option is "nature" is referring to the created order in the perfection of Eden, which would be 2.a. above.

Why is what I wrote incorrect? The words "nature" and "natural" can have 3 or 4 meanings depending upon the context, so you explain what you see as "nature" and "natural" in the verse. The old argument appealing to the animal world as "natural" here, is gone since animals can be have homosexual behavior as well.

 

[EternalFire]

You have written a lot of fundamentalist, bigoted opinion, but you did not give a verse and exegete it to prove it condemns sexual conduct between two loving male companions who are Christian believers. I've noticed that in this entire thread, no one attempts to show any verse that condemns it or if they quote a verse, they are unable to show or demonstrate how it applies to this particular situation because none do.

Thank you for sharing your research concerning a topic about which you obviously care very deeply, all the while knowing that unnecessary personal insult and disdain would result for doing so. It is sad that the church has too often responded out of hate to these issues instead of with love. So, in love, I ask you to consider the following carefully.

In post #21 of this thread, you quote Lev 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” It is true that this is a law of the old covenant, and, as you rightly state, “Leviticus chapter 18 must be seen in its full context.”

While you list some other verses in the chapter, vv. 24-25 weren’t mentioned. Here they are in the ERV: “Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out from before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomiteth out her inhabitants.”

I first heard the following point, based on the above verses, made by Mike Winger at the beginning of the video at the end of this post. As he correctly conveys, the “nations” in v. 24 were not under the Law of Moses, yet their actions, committed before the Law of Moses was given, defiled the land. God therefore caused the land to vomit them out.

The behavior addressed in v. 22, of course, is one of those ways the nations defiled the land and incurred God’s wrath. As is clear from vv. 27-28, if Israel committed those same sins that are being listed in Leviticus 18, they, too, would defile the land and be vomited out of it.

In short, it is no different today concerning these sins than it was before the Law of Moses was given. It is clear, for instance, that Leviticus 18 factored into the Acts 15 decision reached by the Holy Spirit and the elders in Jerusalem for the Gentile converts to abstain from sexual immorality. James’s statement in v. 21 of Acts 15 regarding Moses being read in the synagogues is why Leviticus 18 is in view, as Leviticus is one of the five books of Moses, and therefore indicates how sexual immorality is to be defined.

It is also no surprise that Leviticus 18:6-8 is Paul’s basis for determining that a man who had his father’s wife was guilty of sexual immorality. He therefore judges in 1 Corinthians 5 that the man be handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh and reprimands the church for associating with someone who is called a brother while being sexually immoral.

As for the reasoning that God outlawed the behaviors of Lev. 18:22-23 because of idolatrous practices as you have also proposed in post #21, this, too, is problematic. Can one then say, for example, that sex with goats is permissible outside of a religious context? The imposition of idolatry on vv. 22-23 because they follow immediately after a verse that mentions a false god is simply an attempt to limit the text to religious rituals and disregard the plain understanding of what is written.

I want you to know that I have prayed for you. I hope you take up Jesus’ offer in Luke 9:23: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.” He is our only hope to have peace with God (Romans 5:1).

Mike Winger has an abundance of material to help people engaging in sexual behavior with members of the same sex. I encourage you to devote yourself to those resources and perhaps contact him with subsequent questions. Here’s a link for you to begin exploring more of his content.

https://biblethinker.org/homosexuality/

 

[presidente]

If under a. above "the natural use" the definite article 'the' points back to the created design and order. But under b. "their natural sexual function" would indicate that by their nature, their own sexual nature,

This kind of stuff? Why would anyone believe this is what Paul meant? The overall context is a Jewish man who believed in Jesus, with the whole background of God's revelation through the law, commenting on the sin of Gentiles. Why would mean people to interpret what he wrote with this LGBT 'spin' on it that you are trying to read into it? You quoted other sources about first century people not having the modern concept of sexual orientation. But now you want Paul to be talking about what amounts to sexual orientation. You can't have your gay wedding cake and eat it, too.

these women would have the created order, the created sexual function within themselves, but could only change their conduct.

God created them male and female. There is corruption in creation due to the fall. That may extend to the animals you referred to. Some animals might eat a human dead body. Would you recommend that humans do the same? The Torah does not command Israelites to put female swans to death for hanging out together. It commanded men to be put to death for male with male sexual relations, though.

The wording about changing "natural use" means their conduct. A person cannot change their sexual nature or orientation. They change their "use".

The middle sentence is gay propaganda. It has nothing to do with what Paul wrote. No reasonable person would think Paul, a first century Jew and Christian preacher, intended such a thing. The verse does not say it. The acts are unseemly. Desiring to do evil is not a good thing, and we are not to make provision for the flesh to fulfill it's lusts. Those who find themselves with such lusts should not fulfill them.

The natural, or nature cannot refer to the animal world because same sex animals pair up and it is a natural part of the animal world.

"Same-Sex Attraction in Other Species: In Boston’s Public Gardens, caretakers solved the mystery of why a much-loved swan couple’s eggs never hatched. Both swans were female. In New York City’s Central Park Zoo, penguins Silo and Roy spent several years as devoted same-sex partners. Same-sex sexual behaviors have also been observed in several hundred other species, including grizzlies, gorillas, monkeys, flamingos, and owls (Bagemihl, 1999). Among rams, for example, some 7 to 10 percent display same-sex attraction by shunning ewes and seeking to mount other males (Perkins & Fitzgerald, 1997). Homosexual behavior seems a natural part of the animal world."

The creation was also subject to corruption. Your animal studies here have nothing to do with what Paul was saying. Paul wrote before those studies were written in 1997 or 1999, so he was not referring to them when he wrote about individuals doing what was against nature.

This is the same boring, tired junk LGBT apologists try to shovel to promote their viewpoints. It comes off as disingenuous as if you care nothing at all for the scriptures you are commenting on.

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:" (Rom 2:14, KJV)

In the NRSV, it reads:
"When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves." (Rom 2:14, NRSV)

If "nature" is thought to be a person's instinct, it is speaking of what is natural to that person. That would be what is seen above in 2.b.

The one other option is "nature" is referring to the created order in the perfection of Eden, which would be 2.a. above.

You are really grasping at straws. You are taking a verse about 'their natural use' and making it about their own instincts, rather than about their use which is natural. You should read the whole paragraph there in Romans. It does not say what you are trying to twist it to make it say. You can throw out dozens of citations and sources, and it still does not change the meaning.

Again, I want to ask you, do you care about being right with God, walking right with God, walking in the Spirit, and pleasing God, or is your motive here just to use religious texts to promote acceptance for homosexuality? Do you care about God at all? Do you care about the Christian faith at all? Or is the Bible and whatever quotes you can put together a tool to promote a sexual and social agenda you really care about?

 

[Oblio]

Okay, gays, on the left...okay, anti-gays, on the right.
Hand out guns to everybody. On the count of 3, start shooting! 1...2...or
We could try to find common ground, perhaps try to understand each other, perhaps acknowledge that we all have a free will, perhaps acknowledge that we have to share this planet...perhaps conclude that it is better to love than it is to hate...hey, where have I heard that before?

 

[CS1]

Okay, gays, on the left...okay, anti-gays, on the right.
Hand out guns to everybody. On the count of 3, start shooting! 1...2...or
We could try to find common ground, perhaps try to understand each other, perhaps acknowledge that we all have a free will, perhaps acknowledge that we have to share this planet...perhaps conclude that it is better to love than it is to hate...hey, where have I heard that before?

there is no anti-gay here there are only called sin, sin. Ridiculous and over-the-top comments like "Hand out guns to everybody" is not needed. Here is no common ground with sin, we are not to compromise with sin in our own lives let alone call deceit love AND GRACE. if ONE's idea of love is not, to tell the truth, that is not love at all.

 

[Oblio]

there is no anti-gay here there are only called sin, sin. Ridiculous and over-the-top comments like "Hand out guns to everybody" is not needed. Here is no common ground with sin, we are not to compromise with sin in our own lives let alone call deceit love AND GRACE. if ONE's idea of love is not, to tell the truth, that is not love at all.

Perhaps when I'm aware of my own sinfulness, I'll be a little less harsh with another's. I encounter far too much anti-anyone rhetoric online and far too little, "love your neighbor as yourself," and "he who is without sin cast the first stone."

 

[presidente]

Perhaps when I'm aware of my own sinfulness, I'll be a little less harsh with another's. I encounter far too much anti-anyone rhetoric online and far too little, "love your neighbor as yourself," and "he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Casting stones in that passage was a scenario where people were literally about to cast stones. It wasn't about tell endorsing sin. Jesus preached against sin.

 

[Oblio]

Casting stones in that passage was a scenario where people were literally about to cast stones. It wasn't about tell endorsing sin. Jesus preached against sin.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I endorse putting faith in the finished atonement for sin the Messiah bought us when He was brutalized for each one of us. And before you start with "So you think you are free to do whatever", let me tell you a story.
I was at a five-day retreat to do my business with God. At one point something the teacher said got me thinking. I asked, "Do you think that it is possible that when I sin now, that it somehow caused Jesus more pain on the cross back then?" He must've been used to that question, because without missing a beat, he said, "Are you willing to take that risk?" I said, "no."
His grace covers me, but His grace has cost, and possibly continues to cost Him greatly. This should settle your gibe, though I suspect it won't. Some get a kick out of arguing. With some, I get a kick out of saying, "repent!"