Homosexuality: Are there any biblical arguements for it?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

BTW Boris, I love your new avatar. I always thought that there was something quintessentially gay about the Imperial stormtroopers.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

BTW Boris, I love your new avatar. I always thought that there was something quintessentially gay about the Imperial stormtroopers.

Probably the British accents.

[Berzerker]

Um, that's not what Sodom was destroyed for at all. In fact, that's a common misperception about the story. Sodom was destroyed because of inhospitality towards guests, not because of there being homosexuals there.

Ever wonder where the Bedouin practice of overt hospitality comes from? Sodom...they say it is wise to be overly hospitable to strangers because you never know when a messenger of God will come by to test them. The Jews have legends about Sodom as well, one of the prophets, Isaiah I believe, visited the city and a resident hit him in the head with a stone. The prophet went to court for justice and the judge said he owed the man who struck him with the stone for services rendered, the service of being hit with a stone. The prophet proceeded to pick up a stone and struck the judge telling him to pay the man who hit him, lol.

According to the Bible, God heard an accusation about the people of Sodom but doesn't identify the source or nature of the accusation. Another Jewish legend does, a female resident of Sodom was executed for helping a stranger who had been beaten and robbed by some of the residents, acts of charity were illegal in Sodom. She cried out to God for justice...

[Ben Kenobi]

Berzerker:

Jesus.

You're no fun.
I wanted spiffor to bring that up.

You are entirely right, that Christians no longer advocate stoning punishments, because they are entirely unnecessary. Christians are to leave methods of punishing sinners to God.

Spiffor:

Can you otherwise explain me why nearly all medieval Europe was catholic, despite the Catholic church being an obviously political entity, and a powerful one that is ?

Missionaries. Catholic missionaries more successful than the Islamic missionaries.

On a more serious note, this may have been true for medieval times but what about today? Do any of the churches seek political power in addition to ecclesiastical authority?

Gripe on society. Influence. Sometimes wealth (depending on the creed). Everything a normal powerhungry person or nation would want.

So how do you explain my earlier dilemma? The problem with a church pursuing these goals is that they are more likely to lose converts. By losing converts, this destroys the entire reason for adopting this strategy.

Seperation of Church and State is a good thing for both the state and the church. This seperation allows the church to pursue spiritual ends without potential political distractions.

It allows to forbid Darwin's teaching in some States of the US.

On the grounds that it is bad science.

It allows to officially harass wanabee-aborting women with priests in Germany.

Saving babies is a political activity? Did the priest do so as a private citizen or in his capacity as a priest?

It allows to spread the Shariah in Iran. It allows to spread the Jewish law in Israel.

Point well taken for Islam and Judaism. What about Christianity?

[Ben Kenobi]

Berzerker:

Back to the gist of the thread.

Obiwan - you're reading the story of Sodom incorrectly. At what point in the story did God's messengers confirm that the occupants of the city were evil?

It would seem to be Genesis 9:13

"because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."

Was it when the messengers discovered they wanted to "know" them (assuming in a sexual way)? Or was it when they rushed the door to break in? Attempted rape was the offense, not homosexuality.

Why must it be either/or? The sin can be both the desire for sodomy and attempted rape.

Btw, it really stretches credulity to believe ALL the people of Sodom were homosexual, or even ALL the men.

All the inhabitants were sufficiently sinful. No reason to presume sodomy is the only sin that is being punished, just one among a great litany.

An all-powerful God wouldn't need to kill any righteous people unless that God was immoral too.

Indeed. Where does he kill innocents in this passage?

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris

National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA)

Yessiree. No bias here.

Any others back up this interpretation of beds instead of the practice?

You'll also note the explanation about the possible break in subject between 22 and 23.

Explained in earlier post. My interpretation fits with the overall theme of the chapter and the structure of the verses. Yours does not.

Now, in context of the chapter, that does make good sense.

Waiting for other shoe to drop.

Dr. Strangelove

That passage is poorly worded in your version, the NIV is more clearer. Compare:

Yours:

And they said, "Stand back." And they said again "This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now we will deal worse with thee, than we will with them." And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot and came near to breaking the door.

NIV:

"Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

Nothing to do with rape as punishment, but rather, that the Sodomites are angry to be judged by an outsider. Seems pretty clear to me.

[Ben Kenobi]

mapfi:

For God's sake, even though the bible is one of the roots of Christianity it is also a book that's been written by humans ages ago.

Do you trust that the Bible is an accurate record?

Berzerker:

The Jews have legends about Sodom as well, one of the prophets, Isaiah I believe,

Can't be Isaiah. Sodom existed long before Isaiah's ministry, according to Isaiah 1:1

"The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah."

Kings were established long before Sodom which existed around the time of Abraham.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Sava
I don't really care what the bible says. It's not the work of any God. It was written by crusty old men 2,000 years ago.

Yay, I agree with Sava on something.

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

You're no fun.
I wanted spiffor to bring that up.

Oops, sorry.

It would seem to be Genesis 9:13

"because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."

But in Gen 18:21, God says he needs to investigate to see if the accusations are valid or not, so 9:13 can't serve as the confirmation. When God is discussing the matter with Abraham, they eventually agree on the criterion for showing mercy or wrath. Looks like I was wrong, the messengers didn't announce their wickedness when the men rushed the door. But at some point during the confrontation between the messengers and the people of Sodom, something happened to confirm the outcry heard by God. Would you agree with that? So, in your opinion, was that "something" the people expressing a desire to "know" the messengers or was it when they rushed the door to break in? Also, the story first says all the men arrived at Lot's home, but further states all the people showed up, so, were there women in Sodom? If there were, their sin was not homosexuality, but heterosexuality/fornication, or more accurately, attempted rape.

Why must it be either/or? The sin can be both the desire for sodomy and attempted rape.

Because the latter is immoral, the former may or may not be. The messengers only reacted to the crowd once they rushed the door, true? If the people came to Lot's home and merely asked the messengers to have sex and walked away when rebuffed, I don't think that would have served as the confirmation of evil the messengers were seeking.

All the inhabitants were sufficiently sinful. No reason to presume sodomy is the only sin that is being punished, just one among a great litany.

Okay, but that still leaves us with a problem. The messengers were sent to confirm wickedness and their only confrontation with the people was the incident at Lot's home. There were no other sins mentioned, so we have only the expressed desire for sex and the attempted rape/assault.

Indeed. Where does he kill innocents in this passage?

Lot's wife? The husbands of his daughters? Abraham was able to negotiate God down to showing mercy if 10 righteous people were in Sodom, but Abraham had to start with 50 and whittle it down to 10. Doesn't that mean God was willing to destroy Sodom even if there were up to 50 righteous people living there? Btw, Lot's character was rather dubious given how he offered up his own daughters to the crowd, wouldn't you say?

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

Can't be Isaiah. Sodom existed long before Isaiah's ministry, according to Isaiah 1:1

"The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah."

Kings were established long before Sodom which existed around the time of Abraham.

True. Would have had to been a prophet nearly contemporary with Abraham and I didn't think there were any beside him since he was the father of Israel. Darn, now I'll have to look through my research.

[Jon Miller]

if you read in the code

it says "u r all gay *****"

Jon Miller

[Ben Kenobi]

Berzerker:



That previous post should read:
After, not before Sodom.

Lot's wife? The husbands of his daughters?

Both of them did not obey God's direct orders not to look back, and to run as far away from Sodom as possible.

Also, the story first says all the men arrived at Lot's home, but further states all the people showed up, so, were there women in Sodom? If there were, their sin was not homosexuality, but heterosexuality/fornication, or more accurately, attempted rape.

No problem, I've accounted for this.

Because the latter is immoral, the former may or may not be.

Both actions, in this case are connected with each other. First the Sodomites express desire to sleep with the angels, to which Lot tries to protect them, and then, they try to beat down the door to rape them.

There is no reason to seperate the two acts from each other in standing as reasons for the condemnation of God.

Lot's character was rather dubious given how he offered up his own daughters to the crowd, wouldn't you say?

Morally upstanding does not mean sinless. He made a bad choice in exposing his daughters.

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

Both of them did not obey God's direct orders not to look back, and to run as far away from Sodom as possible.

That was Lot's wife alone, the husbands thought Lot was kidding them so they stayed behind. But does that qualify her as wicked for looking back? Seems quite harsh...

Both actions, in this case are connected with each other. First the Sodomites express desire to sleep with the angels, to which Lot tries to protect them, and then, they try to beat down the door to rape them.

There is no reason to seperate the two acts from each other in standing as reasons for the condemnation of God.

But the acts are not comparable. I believe the story has it's roots in the war waged earlier between Abraham and his allies and the 4 or 5 kings of the plain's cities. But since the Bible doesn't offer a clear connection, we're stuck with the story as is. And I just find it unreasonable for God to destroy Sodom (and Gomorrah?) just because some people asked to have sex. There has to be more to it...

Morally upstanding does not mean sinless. He made a bad choice in exposing his daughters.

So did the husbands and Lot's wife.

[Ben Kenobi]

Berz:

Gen 19:14

So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry [1] his daughters. He said, "Hurry and get out of this place, because the LORD is about to destroy the city!" But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.

What else is God supposed to do? Force them out of the city? The same goes for Lot's wife, they had a choice to obey or disobey God's warning, and both of them chose to disobey.

I believe the story has it's roots in the war waged earlier between Abraham and his allies and the 4 or 5 kings of the plain's cities.

On what basis do you make this assertion?

And I just find it unreasonable for God to destroy Sodom (and Gomorrah?) just because some people asked to have sex. There has to be more to it...

Gang-raping visitors to the city isn't enough?

[yago]

I need to bring that up. You know what they say about homophobics ?

Most of them are gay, but can't handle it.