quote:

---

References to Homosexuality in the Bible

From chapter four of John Boswell's Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. You can confirm most of the information in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.
The argument that God punished Sodom for homosexuality turns on the word "know" in Genesis 19:5, "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them." The chapter contains no other possible reference to homosexuality.

There is no reason to assume that "know" in this passage meant carnal knowledge: the Hebrew verb "to know" occurs 943 times in the Old Testament, but refers to carnal knowledge only ten times. In the Septuagint, the Greek word chosen to translate it in this verse clearly means "to make the acquaintance of" with no sexual connotation. There is a strikingly similar passage in Judges 9:22ff., "...the men of the city...beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him." (The old man even offers his daughter as a bribe to get them to go away, just as Lot does.) This passage is universally interpreted as a warning against inhospitality, and the old man himself doesn't mention homosexuality at all when he recounts the incident in 20:5.

Jesus himself apparently believed that Sodom was destroyed for the sin of inhospitality: check Matthew 10:14-15 and Luke 10:10-12. In Ezekial 16:49-50 the sins of Sodom are enumerated; homosexuality is not mentioned.
The word "sodomite" occurs five times in the King James Version: Deuteronomy 23:17; I Kings 14:24, 15:12, and 22:46; and II Kings 23:7. In all five cases it translates the Hebrew word "qadesh" which means a male prostitute in a pagan temple; there is very little evidence about the practices of the qadeshim, and no particular reason to assume they serviced men.
The only direct references to homosexuality in the King James Old Testament are Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination," and the similar verse 20:13. "Abomination" here is a rather loaded translation of the Hebrew word "toebah" which suggests ritual uncleanliness rather than moral evil.

Both Jesus and Paul taught that under the new dispensation it was not the physical violation of Levitical precepts which constituted "abomination" but the interior infidelity of the soul. The Council of Jerusalem in A.D. 49 decided that converts to the Christian faith would not be bound by any requirements of the Mosaic law except to refrain from eating food that had been strangled, contained blood, or had been offered to idols, and to refrain from fornication--the Greek term for which does not refer to homosexuality.

(There is also room for doubt as to what exactly is being prohibited: a literal translation would be "You shall not sleep the sleep of a woman with a man"; just what constitutes "the sleep of a woman" has been the subject of considerable debate, to put it mildly, among Jewish scholars. Some have speculated that this passage, too, was aimed specifically at curbing temple prostitution; notice, for example, that the qadeshim are specifically labeled as "toebah" in I Kings 14:24.)

Romans 1:26-27 reads, "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 woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

The "nature" in this passage is the Greek word "phusis" which means personal nature or disposition. It's the same Greek word that occurs, for example, in I Corinthians 11:14, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?", where Paul is probably using "phusis" to mean custom or tradition.

There's a lot of debate about just what "phusis" connoted at that time; but the one thing that's clear is that Paul isn't talking about "natural law" here. (The concept of a "natural law," one that was sinful to violate even for those ignorant of divine law, probably never even occurred to Paul, and certainly didn't occur to any of the many early Christian theologists who commented on this passage; the idea didn't show up in theology for another thousand years. Also, we know from other sources that homosexuality was generally regarded at the time as a natural physical trait; if Paul disagreed with the prevailing belief, there are plenty of other places in his writings where you'd expect him to say so, and he doesn't.)

The word "against" in "that which is against nature" is a clear mistranslation. The Greek word here is "para," which means not "against" but "in excess of." (It's translated as "more than" in the preceeding verse, in fact, and in many other places in the New Testament. The Greek word meaning "in opposition to" is "kata.") The very same phrase, "para phusis," is even used to describe the activity of God Himself in Romans 11:23-24, "And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree."

What Paul seems to be condemning here is not homosexuality per se (in fact, the absence of any reference to homosexuality in the list of sins that immediately follows, in verses 29-31, is striking) but the satisfying of one's desires in excess of what is fitting to one's nature. (This is also how the passage was interpreted by early Christian theologians; Saint John Chrysostom, for example, felt that it was an important point that the men and women had previously enjoyed satisfactory heterosexual relations.

"No one can claim, [Paul] points out, that she came to this because she was precluded from lawful intercourse or that...she was unable to satisfy her desire...") In general, Paul seemed to feel that sin lay not in specific acts but in their immoderation. "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband," I Corinthians 7:1-2. "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any," I Corinthians 6:12.

I Corinthians 6:9-10 reads, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

"Effeminate" is a poor translation of the Greek word "malakos" which means "soft". The word is not translated as "effeminate" anywhere else in the Bible. It is the same word that is translated as "soft" in Matthew 11:8 ("But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses"; similarly Luke 7:25). In a moral sense, "malakos" just means "licentious"; Aristotle in the _Nicomachean Ethics_ (7.4.4) says specifically that "malakos" refers to unrestraint in respect to bodily pleasures. The translation as "effeminate" seems awfully gratuitous.

"Abuser of himself with mankind" is a translation of the Greek word "arsenokoites"; this word has changed meaning several times over the centuries, so it's perhaps understandable how it got translated as it did; but in Paul's time, and in fact until well into the fourth century, it seems to have simply meant a temple prostitute. (Corroborating this indirectly is the fact that a great deal of contemporary homoerotic Greek writing has survived and not once in any of it does the word "arsenokoites" appear.)

I Timothy 1:10 refers to "them that defile themselves with mankind"; this is a translation of the same Greek word "arsenokoites" as appears in I Corinthians.

---

Comments? This originally came from www.godlovesfags.com

------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." - Jeffrey Richman, UB student

 

Let the flame war begin.... *awaits Omega and First of Two*

------------------
"...when all that is driving my heart forward
is you, thoughts of you, hopes for you,
and a fading dream with a Mona Lisa smile
that whispers "are you thinking of me too?"

17 days till the dreams become reality...

Are you surprised?
 

------------------
"...when all that is driving my heart forward
is you, thoughts of you, hopes for you,
and a fading dream with a Mona Lisa smile
that whispers "are you thinking of me too?"

17 days till the dreams become reality...

------------------
'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson

 

------------------
Avon: "You really do believe in taking risks, don't you?"
Tarrant: "Calculated risks."
Avon: "Calculated on what? Your fingers?"
-- Blake's Seven, Ultraworld
 

------------------
Avon: "You really do believe in taking risks, don't you?"
Tarrant: "Calculated risks."
Avon: "Calculated on what? Your fingers?"
-- Blake's Seven, Ultraworld
 

------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." - Jeffrey Richman, UB student

 

Hey Omega honestly I would really just put this one up to a MAJOR differences in Bible translations and let this dog lay, because it's not going to change anyone's option and it's going to piss a LOT of people off.

Of course "God Loves Fags...?", God loves everyone .

------------------
I will not subject my classmates to medical experiments.

[This message has been edited by HMS White Star (edited November 04, 1999).]
 

http://members.aol.com/gunnyding/christ2.htm

Their logic is coherent and the Biblical references cited make sense the way they are interpreted.

On an emotional level, I still feel that homosexual behavior might be "wrong", but this could just be residual resistance to altering a long-held view. I can find no logical way to refute the arguments at that site, and must therefore conclude that they are probably right.

I'll probably be doing some more research on this topic. Thus far, the only arguments I have found against homosexuality being compatible with Christianity appeal to hatred and distrust. If I find anything logical from either point-of-view, I shall post it here and see what the rest of you think.

One last thing: Just like you, I have noticed that some people use the "gay is evil" argument to promote violence and hateful acts against gays. That is plainly wrong. It is no different than the use of the Bible to lable all Jews "Christ killers" or using evolution to "prove" that blacks (or some other minority) are inferior and deserve to be subjugated.

Just a word of wisdom (okay, another last thing ) to those (mostly Christians) who will argue that homosexuality is wrong: be very careful of how you state your case. Say what you mean without making it sound like homosexuals ought to be rounded up and eliminated. Carefully read your statements before you post. If you are right, remember that God has created each and every one of these people and has commanded you to love them, even if you believe they are practicing a sin. Keep in mind that there are other sins of which you yourself are guilty. Get the lumber out of your own eyes before you start looking for specks in other people's eyes.

--Baloo

[Sorry if the wording of those last two paragraphs are awkward. It's late, I'm tired, and I'm adding that because I hate it when people point and shout "SINNER!" without realizing that they are sinners, too, so why all the shouting?]

------------------
Welcome to the museum of really dangerous things.
Feel free to pick up and handle any of the displays.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited November 04, 1999).]
 

The site itself is this:

http://hcqsa.virtualave.net/dispell.html

How To Have "Fruitful Discussions" is here:

http://hcqsa.virtualave.net/dispell.html#spirit

--Baloo

------------------
Welcome to the museum of really dangerous things.
Feel free to pick up and handle any of the displays.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited November 04, 1999).]
 

Education is the key here and I don't just mean academic, I mean life education.

Let me quote someone - Grand Nagus Gint to be exact:

"Would anyone have bought it if we had called it 'The suggestions of aquisition?'."

Now, I await the standard bearer. Anyone have the hand-grenade of antioch about?

------------------
"Diplomacy is the art of Internationalising an issue to your advantage"

Field Marshal Military Project
http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net

Actually, anybody who would use those passages as a literal argument against homosexuals DOES have to also believe that they have to be "rounded up and eliminated," coz the Bible says to do that, too.

Not to mention a whole lot of other "unsavory" types, of which I am at least one. (Or if not, I will be, in just a second...)

Come away! Worship Reason!

There, that should do it. Come and slay me now.

------------------
'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson

 

------------------
"...when all that is driving my heart forward
is you, thoughts of you, hopes for you,
and a fading dream with a Mona Lisa smile
that whispers "are you thinking of me too?"

16 days till the dreams become reality...

------------------
Fool of a Took, throw yourself in next time!!
Gandalf

[Runs away very swiftly.]

------------------
Welcome to the museum of really dangerous things.
Feel free to pick up and handle any of the displays.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

On the homosexuality thing: I believe myself to be VERY Christian. I won't deny it, but I generally try not to bring it up because of the stigma it seems to have around here, and the fact that I'm just not wanting to fight about it.

HOWEVER, I'm bringing it up now... and why? Because. It seems like Christians are being generalized once again as closed-minded hypocrites, and I just want to say that WE'RE NOT ALL LIKE THAT!

I have a ton of friends that partake in various homosexual/bisexual activities. And you know what? I don't care. It's their life and I am NOT one to EVER condemn them for being who they are. I may choose not to get involved n homosexuality, but that's because it's not who *I* am...

For those people that condemn homosexuality because it's such a "sin", I just want to point out that we're ALL sinners, and as long as we live on this Earth, nothing can change that, whether we want to believe it or not....

One of the most Christian friends that I have IS homosexual and has been in a monogamous reltionship with another man for several years now. The two of them are wonderful together, and they're happy, and there is NO doubt in my mind that each of them will get into heaven if they were to die today.

I know a lot of Christians don't share that belief with me, but that's their own belief system in effect.

*looks for words* I don't know what I was trying to say in this message, and I don't know what I'm trying to say now. All I know is that homosexuality is a part of the world we live in today, just like heterosexuality is, and we need to just come to terms with it. No matter WHAT your POV on it is, you need to be accepting of others, even if you don't AGREE with it. We're never going to come to agreement on this issue, that's clear. But what this world needs isn't total agreement nearly as much as total acceptance of the fact that we're NOT all the same and we're not always going to do the same things or act in the same way.

What can i say? I'm a lover, not a fighter....

I just wish everyone else was, too....

~LOA

------------------
"...my body is weak and I can't take the struggle anymore...
the love that was here is filled up by anger and rage..." ~FOM

 

------------------
"...when all that is driving my heart forward
is you, thoughts of you, hopes for you,
and a fading dream with a Mona Lisa smile
that whispers "are you thinking of me too?"

16 days till the dreams become reality...

------------------
"...when all that is driving my heart forward
is you, thoughts of you, hopes for you,
and a fading dream with a Mona Lisa smile
that whispers "are you thinking of me too?"

16 days till the dreams become reality...

[This message has been edited by Jubilee McGann (edited November 04, 1999).]
 

------------------
Fool of a Took, throw yourself in next time!!
Gandalf

------------------
Death before Dishonor!
However Dishonor has
quite a disputed defintion.

Shouting down the opposition is not a Godly and loving approach to dialogue. I am convinced that any "evangelists" who operate in this fashion are unsure of their faith and their "facts". They raise their voices when what they should be saying is "I don't know" or "I'll have to look that up.

To more clearly understand what I think of these "conversion" tactics, please go look at the following definition: Demagogue.

I've quoted this in my sig before: "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Anyone who's survived an "evangelical ambush" comes away with, at best, a very poor opinion of Christians in general and Christianity in particular. Torquemada is dead, but his spiritual successors live. A good Christian must treat that sort of behavior with all the respect it deserves: none. A bully is a bully, and needs to be stood up to, whether he wears a leather jacket and carrys a chain or wears a cassock and totes a Bible.

--Baloo

------------------
Welcome to the museum of really dangerous things.
Feel free to pick up and handle any of the displays.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited November 04, 1999).]
 

LOA makes a good point, though.

------------------
"Diplomacy is the art of Internationalising an issue to your advantage"

Field Marshal Military Project
http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net

I've had my share of "evangelical ambushes." I've had my share, and your share, and his share. I've had a LOT.

That's why I keep my swords sharpened.

*enters Andy Rooney mode*

Y'ever notice that "evangelist" is an anagram for "Evil's Agent?" Why is that?

*end Andy Rooney mode*

------------------
'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson

 

A two-parter.

HOMOSEXUALITY: Fact and Fiction (Part One in a Two-Part Series on Homosexuality)

THAT WHICH IS UNNATURAL: Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture (Part Two in a Two-Part Series on Homosexuality)

The first one presents homosexuality as a definite sin. Of course, if they are right, then they are correct to use that approach, but they provide no evidence for their case.

The second addresses some of the evidence presented in the links I have provided above (in previous posts). Their argument seems to boil down to "Nope! That's not what the original writers meant". Admittedly, the article is of limioted scope, so it's unreasonable to expect them to provide reams of evidence. On the other hand, given the large volume of gay Christian sites and the wealth of information provided there, one would think that someone would devote the time and research necessary to refute their arguments if they are, indeed spurious.

My opinion? I have no doubt they believe what they say they do, but do not find their arguments compelling.

--Baloo

------------------
Jesus saves.
Moses invests.
--Bumper Sticker
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

[Post-edit comments:]
I almost forgot to mention. I had to provide my name and email address to gain access to the information at that site. Let me know if the links don't work for you. I will try to smuggle the information out somehow.

[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited November 07, 1999).]
 

Spam Scam?

Now that they got yer email, will they send it to every far-rightist Fundie group out there? Will you be invited to protest at some guy who died from AIDS's funeral?

I tremble with anticipation.

------------------
'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson

 

------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." - Jeffrey Richman, UB student

I'm sure some of the soccer hooligans would say they were just "protesting" for their team, if they could.

All I can tell you if from my own experience, and the only protests _I'VE_ been at which turned ugly had, as the main antagonists, self-appointed "moral guardians" of the community.

------------------
'In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to Liberty; he is always in allegiance to the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." ---- Thomas Jefferson

 

As far as 1^st of 2's comments above, I believe the self-righteous pose a greater danger to society than nearly any other group.

--Baloo

------------------
Hobbes: Do you think there's a God?
Calvin: Well, somebody's out to get me."
--Bill Watterson
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

------------------
--Then, said Cranly, do you not intend to become a protestant?
--I said that I had lost the faith, Stephen answered, but not that I had lost self-respect. What kind of liberation would that be to forsake an absurdity which is logical and coherent and to embrace one which is illogical and incoherent?

James Joyce, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.