# Are you a Sodomite?



## JFS

I'm sure you think not, but what was the real lesson of Sodom? The Bible is a big collection so there are bound to be many many diverse themes in it, but there are at least two major morality threads that run through it- 1) rules around conducting your personal actions in accordance with God's rules and 2) a general obligation to help  others.   The 10 Commandments may be an example of the first category e.g. thou shall not commit adultery (Exodus 20:12) and Jesus admonition "Truly I say to you, inasmuch as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me" (Matt 25:45) would be an example of the second.

So we all know that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they engaged in wicked behavior- we all picture salacious sexual deviancy or something.  Oooh those evil Sodomites just can't keep their pants on so that was their undoing or something like that.  Their problem was they did not conduct themselves in accordance with God's rules for personal behavior.  Or so that's what you hear the most.

But that may not be the full story.  Maybe their problem wasn't in their pants, unless that is where they kept their wallet.  God said clearly why he destroyed Sodom:

“‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. " (Ezekiel 16:49).

But wait, the emphasis here isn't on the titillating stuff, it isn't even really on the laws of personal behavior (but I'm sure you could fit it in the "detestable" category).  The emphasis is clearly on the lack of compassion for the poor and needy.  This seems to fit more in the second line of morality (helping the poor), than the first (rules of personal conduct).  But I never hear it preached that way. So why is that- is God mistaken in Ezekiel as to why he destroyed Sodom?  

And more importantly, how are we helping the poor in our cities such that we are not guilty of the sins of Sodom and thus Sodomites ourselves?


----------



## gordon 2

JFS said:


> I'm sure you think not, but what was the real lesson of Sodom? The Bible is a big collection so there are bound to be many many diverse themes in it, but there are at least two major morality threads that run through it- 1) rules around conducting your personal actions in accordance with God's rules and 2) a general obligation to help  others.   The 10 Commandments may be an example of the first category e.g. thou shall not commit adultery (Exodus 20:12) and Jesus admonition "Truly I say to you, inasmuch as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me" (Matt 25:45) would be an example of the second.
> 
> So we all know that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they engaged in wicked behavior- we all picture salacious sexual deviancy or something.  Oooh those evil Sodomites just can't keep their pants on so that was their undoing or something like that.  Their problem was they did not conduct themselves in accordance with God's rules for personal behavior.  Or so that's what you hear the most.
> 
> But that may not be the full story.  Maybe their problem wasn't in their pants, unless that is where they kept their wallet.  God said clearly why he destroyed Sodom:
> 
> “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. " (Ezekiel 16:49).
> 
> But wait, the emphasis here isn't on the titillating stuff, it isn't even really on the laws of personal behavior (but I'm sure you could fit it in the "detestable" category).  The emphasis is clearly on the lack of compassion for the poor and needy.  This seems to fit more in the second line of morality (helping the poor), than the first (rules of personal conduct).  But I never hear it preached that way. So why is that- is God mistaken in Ezekiel as to why he destroyed Sodom?
> 
> And more importantly, how are we helping the poor in our cities such that we are not guilty of the sins of Sodom and thus Sodomites ourselves?



I have read it preached this way.

Why is that it is rare?

Perhaps, because many people are spiritual bullies. Spiritual Carl Roves perhaps,they are the first to judge with  spiritual lazyness and belittle to prop themselves or their kind, up  by what they see or identify as sinful behaviour. They are quite happy to stop at this, because to dwelve more into the story of Sodom and Gommorah, they would find themselves--as your title implies-- as the Sodomites. Much more effective to slam it as sexual immorality--than to "venture" into dialogue on spiritual justice. Sex is a good sound bite...


----------



## gordon 2

And more importantly, how are we helping the poor in our cities such that we are not guilty of the sins of Sodom and thus Sodomites ourselves?[/QUOTE]

I suggest that many christians are involved in political and social organizations in order to help the poor. However in a more spiritual sense are we ourselves the poor? Are we spiritual paupers or spiritual beggars for all our talk?

It seems to me that helping the poor in all instances  that scripture takes it up as a theme, that the issue is of people forgetting or disregarding the will of God on the greater subjects of Justice and Peace and the lesser subjects of Pride and Compassion.

In Isaiah the "rightious" Isreal and Judah, disregrade the will of God by seeing  themselves as just--and  mainly serving themselves. In the Good Samaritan the "rightious" does the will of God and offers another as just and the object of His justice. Serving ourselves vs serving others....what is the balance?


----------



## Ihunt

Yes I am but I ask forgiveness and try every day to do better.


----------



## JFS

Ihunt said:


> Yes I am but I ask forgiveness and try every day to do better.



Yes but I don't think the key message is that we are all hopeless sinners, even if that is true.   The people of Sodom failed on seemingly a collective basis to live up to God's standard for caring for the poor and needy.  This is expressly stated in the context of pointing out the collective shortcomings of Jerusalem.  The focus seems less on a person's singular failure than on their collective failure, and the judgment is against a standard God expects us to meet.  He didn't destroy all cities (e.g. the flood) which presumably would have been the outcome if he was after just sinners, but rather only the cities that were sufficiently arrogant and uncaring.


----------



## JFS

gordon 2 said:


> I suggest that many christians are involved in political and social organizations in order to help the poor.



No doubt they do and I join when I can.  I just found the emphasis to be different at the source then the way it is typically portrayed.  I'm sure as with most things people can spin it to suit their desired views (perhaps me included), but it's hard to ignore that the emphasis on collective responsibility for the poor seems to be more of an issue than the dirty stuff.


----------



## gordon 2

JFS said:


> No doubt they do and I join when I can.  I just found the emphasis to be different at the source then the way it is typically portrayed.  I'm sure as with most things people can spin it to suit their desired views (perhaps me included), but it's hard to ignore that the emphasis on collective responsibility for the poor seems to be more of an issue than the dirty stuff.



I believe your view is the correct one.


----------



## storeman

Never in my life heard it spoken about like that. I will have to study that out and see.


----------



## Greaserbilly

storeman said:


> Never in my life heard it spoken about like that. I will have to study that out and see.



What a shame.

Because Sodom was notorious even outside the Bible - known as a place where getting stabbed in the back, robbed, mugged, cheated or worse was a near certainty.

And even though the Bible is EXPLICIT that Sodom and Gomorrah were prideful, inhospitable and generally Republican places to live - the narrative is it's all the fault of the Gays.

And why?

Because if you preach from the pulpit that the crime of Sodom was turning a blind eye to beggars, well, it might just hurt the feelings of many who ignored that beggar at the off ramp just before Church.

Keep in mind many Christians seem to think their only obligation to the rest of the world is to occasionally turn their eyes skywards and thank God for making them of the elect. Don't need to give to charity, don't need to not be bigoted, heck, the adultery thing and the beating people up own at the bar? I'M WORSHED BY THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB, IT'S TEFLON AGAINST SIN

But very, very few people being themselves of the Gay in that congregation would have any problem with the condemnation of something they find personally disgusting.

Just about everyone has lied. And/or technically stolen something (paperclips from the office, browsing the net at work). I'm sure some punches have been thrown, some insults. Half of all marriages end. It's not a comfortable thing to tell people or to be told that these things, these things we do day to day, are WRONG.

But gayness? Oh no, that's a minority thing. No concerns about alienating the congregation, there.


----------



## JB0704

I had not read this thread until now, and I had never looked at the story of S & G in this way.  Interesting stuff, for sure.  I do think that christianity, as a whole, has a tendency to use S & G to beat gay folks up instead of using the gospels to build them up, and tell them God loves them too (unless you believe in election).


----------



## Greaserbilly

> I had not read this thread until now, and I had never looked at the story of S & G in this way.



Odd that many don't teach it that way, because that's the way it was written. The Bible is extremely explicit about why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. It's some theologians with an axe to grind who decided that wasn't good enough and wrote their own interpretive version instead.

Do keep in mind that Sodom was set to be destroyed before the angels made their way to Lot to say hey, yo, you'd better get moving out of here, fast. They weren't there on a mission to do anything else than Get. Lot. And. Family. Out.

It's not "because the crowd that came to ask about the angels were gay, God destroyed it".


----------



## centerpin fan

I knew our agreement would be short-lived.

Busy today.  I'll try to post a disagreement later.



Greaserbilly said:


> Odd that many don't teach it that way, because that's the way it was written. The Bible is extremely explicit about why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. It's some theologians with an axe to grind who decided that wasn't good enough and wrote their own interpretive version instead.
> 
> Do keep in mind that Sodom was set to be destroyed before the angels made their way to Lot to say hey, yo, you'd better get moving out of here, fast. They weren't there on a mission to do anything else than Get. Lot. And. Family. Out.
> 
> It's not "because the crowd that came to ask about the angels were gay, God destroyed it".


----------



## Greaserbilly

Oh, we'll agree.
And we'll disagree.

I'd be genuinely interested to see your take on this, because in my readings of Genesis 18-20, God had already decided to destroy Sodom. Though Abraham begs look, if I can find 50 men who are righteous, ok, 40. 30? 20? 10! God says sure, because he KNOWS full well there's Lot and family, and, er, that's it.

The Angels that went to warn Lot and tell him to leave admit full well they were sent to destroy the place. The decision had been made prior to them getting there.


----------



## centerpin fan

Greaserbilly said:


> Because Sodom was notorious even outside the Bible - known as a place where getting stabbed in the back, robbed, mugged, cheated or worse was a near certainty.



"Worse" as in gang, homosexual rape?




Greaserbilly said:


> ... Sodom and Gomorrah were prideful, inhospitable and generally Republican places to live - the narrative is it's all the fault of the Gays.



Please note that sodomy is not a synonym for "prideful", "inhospitable" or "generally Republican".




Greaserbilly said:


> And why?
> 
> Because if you preach from the pulpit that the crime of Sodom was turning a blind eye to beggars, well, it might just hurt the feelings of many who ignored that beggar at the off ramp just before Church.
> 
> Keep in mind many Christians seem to think their only obligation to the rest of the world is to occasionally turn their eyes skywards and thank God for making them of the elect. Don't need to give to charity, don't need to not be bigoted, heck, the adultery thing and the beating people up own at the bar? I'M WORSHED BY THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB, IT'S TEFLON AGAINST SIN
> 
> But very, very few people being themselves of the Gay in that congregation would have any problem with the condemnation of something they find personally disgusting.
> 
> Just about everyone has lied. And/or technically stolen something (paperclips from the office, browsing the net at work). I'm sure some punches have been thrown, some insults. Half of all marriages end. It's not a comfortable thing to tell people or to be told that these things, these things we do day to day, are WRONG.
> 
> But gayness? Oh no, that's a minority thing. No concerns about alienating the congregation, there.



You make it sound like the only sin churches preach against is homosexuality.  In my lifetime, I have heard FAR more sermons against lying, stealing, adultery, etc.  Homosexuality is barely a blip on the radar.


----------



## centerpin fan

Greaserbilly said:


> The Bible is extremely explicit about why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.



Yes, but that doesn't stop the "gay Christian" websites from trying to explain it away.




Greaserbilly said:


> It's some theologians with an axe to grind who decided that wasn't good enough and wrote their own interpretive version instead.



Details, please.  Who, what, when, where, why?


----------



## centerpin fan

Greaserbilly said:


> ... because in my readings of Genesis 18-20, God had already decided to destroy Sodom..



We agree there.  We just disagree on the reason.


----------



## Greaserbilly

> "Worse" as in gang, homosexual rape?



Actually, the stories in question refer to people having limbs amputated or having other tortures performed on them, for sport. These were probably fairy tale type stories, but they were told outside of the Bible about that truly evil place.



> Please note that sodomy is not a synonym for "prideful", "inhospitable" or "generally Republican".



Nor is it necessarily used to describe interactions between two men, or _coitus per anum_. It has been used in the past to describe similar acts between a man and a woman. 



> You make it sound like the only sin churches preach against is homosexuality. In my lifetime, I have heard FAR more sermons against lying, stealing, adultery, etc. Homosexuality is barely a blip on the radar.



Excepting that usually adulterers are forgiven. Remember Jimmy Swaggart and his "AH HAV SIYINNED?" Never met good churchgoing folk waiting outside an adulterer's place with a baseball bat waiting to exact some holy justice. Just sayin'.


----------



## Greaserbilly

centerpin fan said:


> We agree there.  We just disagree on the reason.



Here's the reason I ascribe to: Ezekiel 16:49
“‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."


----------



## centerpin fan

Greaserbilly said:


> Actually, the stories in question refer to people having limbs amputated or having other tortures performed on them, for sport. These were probably fairy tale type stories, but they were told outside of the Bible about that truly evil place.



You lost me.  What are you talking about?




Greaserbilly said:


> Nor is it necessarily used to describe interactions between two men, or _coitus per anum_. It has been used in the past to describe similar acts between a man and a woman.



C'mon ... be serious.    What does it commonly mean?  Here's the etymology:

Middle English, from Anglo-French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Genesis 19:1–11

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sodomy




Greaserbilly said:


> Never met good churchgoing folk waiting outside an adulterer's place with a baseball bat waiting to exact some holy justice. Just sayin'.



... and I've never met any waiting outside a homosexual's home.  They're treated exactly the same as other sinners, in my experience.


----------



## centerpin fan

Greaserbilly said:


> Here's the reason I ascribe to: Ezekiel 16:49
> “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."



Care to guess where I first read this verse (today, that is)?  Christiangay.com.

What are "detestable things"?  Do you believe gang, homosexual rape might fit into that category?  I do, based on Leviticus 20:13:

“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable..."


----------



## mtnwoman

centerpin fan said:


> Care to guess where I first read this verse (today, that is)?  Christiangay.com.
> 
> What are "detestable things"?  Do you believe gang, homosexual rape might fit into that category?  I do, based on Leviticus 20:13:
> 
> “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable..."



I agree.


----------



## JB0704

centerpin fan said:


> “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable..."



I don't think a sound argument can be made that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.  That being said, I think there is validity to the argument that there was a lot more going on at S&G than the gayness.

It is my experience that gay folk are looked at differently than the unwed mother, or alcoholic, or prideful person.  Often, the destruction of S&G is used as evidence of God's wrath on that particular sin.  BUT......

....what about Noah's flood.  In the OT there is evidence of ALL sins being detestable to God, not just the gayness.  My point is, when we come across these people, they should be treated the same as the prideful congregant and the gossiper.  No better, no worse.

I assure you it is heartbreaking watching a gay christian friend struggle with a choice between his physical nature and his beliefs.  Beliefs lead to a life of loneliness, physical nature leads to a life of "sin" and not being accepted with their fellow believers.  That does not happen with the gossiper, or the prideful.  I refuse to condemn them.


----------



## Greaserbilly

centerpin fan said:


> Care to guess where I first read this verse (today, that is)?  Christiangay.com.
> 
> What are "detestable things"?  Do you believe gang, homosexual rape might fit into that category?  I do, based on Leviticus 20:13:
> 
> “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable..."



Whereas gang rape of a woman would be acceptable? :swords:

You do realise that the same word ABOMINATION (to'eh'vah) also applies to the horrible, evil, life ending abominations of eating shrimp, right?



> ....what about Noah's flood. In the OT there is evidence of ALL sins being detestable to God, not just the gayness.



Yes, but some people fixate on some to the exclusion of others.



> I assure you it is heartbreaking watching a gay christian friend struggle with a choice between his physical nature and his beliefs.



You know, it's really weird, but if you actually look at what Jesus did, and his followers, it was to be really accepting? He healed the children of pagans who had faith. St. Philip baptized a man of color, and more besides, one who was "injured in the private parts" and therefore considered to be not eligible to be in the congregation of Israel according to the OT.

I can't help but think that Jesus would be totally cool with your friend, and rather down on the people who'd condemn people like him.

As for baseball bat weilding people outside the homes of gay people, pull the other finger. They TOTALLY exist. Violence against gays is something that happens on an extremely regular basis.


----------



## centerpin fan

Greaserbilly said:


> You do realise that the same word ABOMINATION (to'eh'vah) also applies to the horrible, evil, life ending abominations of eating shrimp, right?



Where in the NT are Christians told not to eat shrimp?  Or follow any of the OT dietary laws, for that matter?  Peter addresses this in Acts 15.  On the other hand, there are many warnings in the NT against all types of sexual immorality.


----------



## centerpin fan

Greaserbilly said:


> I can't help but think that Jesus would be totally cool with your friend ...



I think Jesus would tell him the same thing He told the woman caught in adultery:  "Neither do I condemn thee.  Now, go and sin no more."


----------



## Greaserbilly

centerpin fan said:


> Where in the NT are Christians told not to eat shrimp?  Or follow any of the OT dietary laws, for that matter?  Peter addresses this in Acts 15.  On the other hand, there are many warnings in the NT against all types of sexual immorality.



I don't wish to go down that road again, suffice it to say that I'm actually LEARNING Biblical Greek while trying to get an answer from a source that isn't obviously biased one way or the other, which is a real dickens.

Oh, and for the record "sodomy" is also defined as oral contact or contact in another "forbidden location" (keeping this as G-rated as possible) with EITHER GENDER, or intimate contact with an animal.

As for the Greek term that Paul uses, ARSENOKOITAI, Arsenokoitai is first used in the Sibylline Oracles to mean child molesters. St. John the Faster uses it to refer to a heterosexual act that “some men even perform with their wives”.  Yes, it's a quote, but it's no less true. It's not as cut and dried as you think to argue that gayness per se is wrong in the NT.

Keep in mind in arguing all this, I'm trying to err if I am on the side of an inclusive and forgiving God, in the same vein as the rest of the NT. The NT was mostly about breaking all notions of what was ritually, per se, unclean. 

The Samaritan was the only one who would touch someone who was dying. St. Philip baptized a man who was lacking his genitals. Jesus TOUCHED lepers. I could go on and on about how Jesus wonderfully and subversively stood what was understood about God was on its head. It was less about "this kind of person is unclean" and more about "hey, you guys - stop arguing about how to tax rue and mint and other herbs and pay attention to the poor and hungry in your midst".

But this story is about Sodom. The Bible is clear - Sodom was an evil place. And it's even more literally spoken why it was to be destroyed. It was inhospitable to strangers, it was haughty, etc.


----------



## JB0704

Greaserbilly said:


> The Samaritan was the only one who would touch someone who was dying. St. Philip baptized a man who was lacking his genitals. Jesus TOUCHED lepers. I could go on and on about how Jesus wonderfully and subversively stood what was understood about God was on its head. It was less about "this kind of person is unclean" and more about "hey, you guys - stop arguing about how to tax rue and mint and other herbs and pay attention to the poor and hungry in your midst".



Great paragraph!  I do think Jesus turned religion on it's head.  I wish more folks saw his nature this way.  There would be a lot more compassion, grace, and giving associated with our faith.


----------



## Greaserbilly

JB0704 said:


> Great paragraph!  I do think Jesus turned religion on it's head.  I wish more folks saw his nature this way.  There would be a lot more compassion, grace, and giving associated with our faith.



Following "The Christ" is easy. You just say the sinner's prayer, and then you're saved, so whatever you do or say or believe or whatever is totally forgiven. So you can carry on your hard drinking, small minded, violent, cheating ways because after all, it ain't about good or evil, but saved and lost.

Following Jesus, however, sure as heck is not. It's not enough to not choke the snot out of someone irritating you, but to even refrain from thinking about it. It's about going up to that foul-smelling alcoholic beggar and making sure he has something to eat, even if that means whatever he's scrounged up cash wise can go to liquor. It means not condemning anyone, and constantly striving to forgive and to find the good in people. It means charity, it means humility, it means putting one's own human prejudices aside.


----------



## centerpin fan

Greaserbilly said:


> I don't wish to go down that road again, suffice it to say that I'm actually LEARNING Biblical Greek while trying to get an answer from a source that isn't obviously biased one way or the other, which is a real dickens.



Congratulations on learning Greek.  

Speaking of biases, viewing homosexuality as sin is one area that Jews, Muslims and Christians agree.  I will grant you that the more liberal Jews and Christians disagree, but they are in a small minority.  Here's a quote from Dennis Prager (Jewish) on the subject:


_Jews or Christians who take the Bible's views on homosexuality seriously are not obligated to prove that they are not fundamentalists or literalists, let alone bigots (though, of course, people have used the Bible to defend bigotry). Rather, those who claim homosexuality is compatible with Judaism or Christianity bear the burden of proof to reconcile this view with their Bible. Given the unambiguous nature of the biblical attitude toward homosexuality, however, such a reconciliation is not possible. All that is possible is to declare: "I am aware that the Bible condemns homosexuality, and I consider the Bible wrong." That would be an intellectually honest approach. But this approach leads to another problem. If one chooses which of the Bible's moral injunctions to take seriously (and the Bible states its prohibition of homosexuality not only as a law, but as a value --- "it is an abomination"), of what moral use is the Bible?
_




Greaserbilly said:


> Oh, and for the record "sodomy" is also defined as oral contact or contact in another "forbidden location" (keeping this as G-rated as possible) with EITHER GENDER, or intimate contact with an animal.



Yes, but that's not the sodomy in Genesis 19 or Romans 1.




Greaserbilly said:


> As for the Greek term that Paul uses, ARSENOKOITAI, Arsenokoitai is first used in the Sibylline Oracles to mean child molesters. St. John the Faster uses it to refer to a heterosexual act that “some men even perform with their wives”.  Yes, it's a quote, but it's no less true. It's not as cut and dried as you think to argue that gayness per se is wrong in the NT.



I don't want to get into that again.  I just disagree.  It's been cut and dried for 2,000 years.  _Homosexuality is sin._  As Prager notes above, the burden is on you to prove otherwise.  




Greaserbilly said:


> But this story is about Sodom. The Bible is clear - Sodom was an evil place. And it's even more literally spoken why it was to be destroyed. It was inhospitable to strangers, it was haughty, etc.



I'm not sure when I first heard this "inhospitality" argument (10, maybe 20 years ago.)  All I am sure of is that I LOL when I first heard it.  It's absolutely ridiculous on its face.  To get to that tortured interpretation, you have to completely ignore the entire context of Scripture and slice and dice the individual verses.  Its the same thing the anti-gun crowd does with the 2nd Amendment.  "Look," they say, "it's only _the militia_ that can own guns."


----------



## GunnSmokeer

*legal definition*

Just keep in mind that no matter what "biblical" definition of "Sodomite" you come up with, there is a Georgia crime called "sodomy" and while it may be unconstitutional for the Courts to enforce a criminal penalty for that sort of conduct between consenting adults, it may be actionable as libel and slander if you accuse somebody of it.
So watch out who you label a Sodomite.
The people hearing that label might not attach the same meaning to the term that you intended.


----------



## Greaserbilly

> Yes, but that's not the sodomy in Genesis 19 or Romans 1.



Neither quote discusses "Sodomy". The word "sodomy" is English, and is someone's TAKE on Sodom. Arguing what the Bible "meant" by using what someone decided to say in English AFTER THE FACT isn't really good exegesis, is it?



> Homosexuality is sin. As Prager notes above, the burden is on you to prove otherwise.



The ancient Hebrews didn't understand "homosexuality" as such. The very devout comedian Sasha Baron-Cohen (Borat, etc) made a Christian pastor in the "ex-gay/conversion" movement have to think when he asked questions of him in the guise of hyper-gay German fashion reporter "Bruno". He said "if I admire (parts of a man) that's fine, but the moment I (do a specific act with it) I'm crossing a line?" Okay, don't lie with a man in the bed of a woman. What if I shower with him and we keep our various parts out of each other? And the pastor had never actually thought this through. "Where is the line"?



> I'm not sure when I first heard this "inhospitality" argument (10, maybe 20 years ago.) All I am sure of is that I LOL when I first heard it. It's absolutely ridiculous on its face.



It's in Ezekiel. Had you not actually read the Bible up til then? And, you're trying to tell me that you're discounting what is EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE BIBLE (This is the sin of your sister Sodom....) and yet instead believe in your own INTERPRETATION of what "did detestable things before me" was? 

Now, in order to maintain an intellectual honesty, the word there is תוֹעֵבָ֖ה, which means a form of ritual uncleanliness, and yes "lying with a man in the bed of a woman" is תוֹעֵבָ֖ה. But then again, this is murky, if you think about it. There's a whole REAM of things that are תוֹעֵבָ֖ה, including eating shrimp. One cannot say "well, go look at Romans" because Romans hadn't been written yet.

I understand that for 2,000 years or so homosexuality was considered inherently sinful, just like being black was (you are of the TRIBE OF HAM), women were considered inferior and unfit to preach, slavery was totally justified and so on and so forth. However, something called the 20th century came calling, and people became less interested in necessarily what the Hebrews or Romans thought of culture and tried to cut through it to see what Jesus would say or do.

And I think the original poster is right to quietly remind us that being inhospitable to strangers and ignoring the poor and needy was the primary crime of Sodom, and the one explicitly stated. We continue to do that today. We should be less concerned about the ones we think we know about, and should be even more concerned about elevating that to the primary reason and ignoring the other ones.


----------



## centerpin fan

Greaserbilly said:


> Neither quote discusses "Sodomy". The word "sodomy" is English, and is someone's TAKE on Sodom. Arguing what the Bible "meant" by using what someone decided to say in English AFTER THE FACT isn't really good exegesis, is it?




Based on the following, I'd say that "take" is pretty accurate.  Did all the translators of all these versions get it wrong?


New International Version (©1984)
They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

New Living Translation (©2007)
They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"

English Standard Version (©2001)
And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
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.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to [stay with] you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men who came in to you this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

American King James Version
And they called to Lot, and said to him, Where are the men which came in to you this night? bring them out to us, that we may know them.

American Standard Version
and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Bible in Basic English
And crying out to Lot, they said, Where are the men who came to your house this night? Send them out to us, so that we may take our pleasure with them.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither that we may know them: 

Darby Bible Translation
And they called to Lot, and said to him, Where are the men that have come in to thee to-night? bring them out to us that we may know them.

English Revised Version
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.

Webster's Bible Translation
And they called to Lot, and said to him, Where are the men who came in to thee this night? bring them out to us, that we may know them.

World English Bible
They called to Lot, and said to him, "Where are the men who came in to you this night? Bring them out to us, that we may have sex with them."

Young's Literal Translation
and they call unto Lot and say to him, 'Where are the men who have come in unto thee to-night? bring them out unto us, and we know them.'


More to follow.


----------



## centerpin fan

Greaserbilly said:


> The ancient Hebrews didn't understand "homosexuality" as such.






The Jews had a very good understanding of what homosexuality is.  Here's Prager again:


_The Torah uses its strongest term of censure --- "abomination" --- to describe homosexuality. It is the Bible's moral evaluation of homosexuality that distinguishes homosexuality from other offenses, capital or otherwise. As Professor Greenberg, who betrays no inclination toward religious belief writes, "When the word toevah ("abomination") does appear in the Hebrew Bible, it is sometimes applied to idolatry, cult prostitution, magic, or divination, and is sometimes used more generally. It always conveys great repugnance" (emphasis added). Moreover, the Bible lists homosexuality together with child sacrifice among the "abominations" practiced by the peoples living in the land about to be conquered by the Jews. The two are certainly not morally equatable, but they both characterized a morally primitive world that Judaism set out to destroy. They both characterized a way of life opposite to the one that God demanded of Jews (and even of non-Jew --- homosexuality is among the sexual offenses that constitute one of the "seven laws of the children of Noah" that Judaism holds all people must observe). Finally, the Bible adds a unique threat to the Jews if they engage in homosexuality and the other offenses of the Canaanites: "You will be vomited out of the land" just as the non-Jews who practise these things were vomited out of the land. Again, as Greenberg notes, this threat "suggests that the offenses were considered serious indeed." _


----------



## centerpin fan

Greaserbilly said:


> It's in Ezekiel. Had you not actually read the Bible up til then?



I've read it before, but I had never seen anybody completely ignore Genesis 19 and say that "inhospitality" was the reason Sodom was destroyed.  Here's Matthew Henry's take on the Ezekiel passage:

_Their going after strange flesh, which was Sodom’s most flagrant wickedness, is not mentioned, because notoriously known, but those sins which did not look so black, but opened the door and led the way to these more enormous crimes, and began to fill that measure of her sins, which was filled up at length by their unnatural filthiness. Now these initiating sins were, (1.) Pride, in which the heart lifts up itself above and against both God and man. Pride was the first sin that turned angels into devils, and the garden of the Lord into a :nono::nono::nono::nono: upon earth. It was the pride of the Sodomites that they despised righteous Lot, and would not bear to be reproved by him; and this ripened them for ruin. (2.) Gluttony, here called fulness of bread. It was God’s great mercy that they had plenty, but their great sin that they abused it, glutted themselves with it, ate to excess and drank to excess, and made that the gratification of their lusts which was given them to be the support of their lives. (3.) Idleness, abundance of idleness, a dread of labour and a love of ease. Their country was fruitful, and the abundance they had they came easily by, which was a temptation to them to indulge themselves in sloth, which disposed them to all that abominable filthiness which kindled their flames._





Greaserbilly said:


> It's in Ezekiel. Had you not actually read the Bible up til then? And, you're trying to tell me that you're discounting what is EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE BIBLE (This is the sin of your sister Sodom....) and yet instead believe in your own INTERPRETATION of what "did detestable things before me" was?


----------



## JB0704

Centerpin, did the flood happen because of gayness, or sin as a whole?  My point is that folks seem to set that one sin aside as "very bad," when, in reality, they are all bad and equally condemning.  You point out the word abomination, but isn't sin itself an abomination?  One guy is gay, and another gossips, which sin sends the person to he11 quicker.......

Remember our "gay church worker" thread that I deleted?  Do you know if any preacher out there has put as much effort into confronting gossip as they do with gayness?  Which causes more harm to the local church? Which hurts more people?  Which ruins more friendships?  I would say gossip is a greater negative to humanity than gay people.  I don't think the two are even close.  Yet, you quote people who build entire cases against gayness, who insist we confront it, and then we have people wanting to make it against the law.....why? What harm are any of us caused by gay people?  I would think my kids are more harmed by seeing Christians be awful to each other (read any of my previous thoughts and experiences with church) than the existence of gay folks in my community.

Maybe, as Christians, we could do better if we focused on how to be better citizens, to love our neighbors, feed the poor, etc. than we do by confronting folks over their life style.


----------



## centerpin fan

Greaserbilly said:


> I understand that for 2,000 years or so homosexuality was considered inherently sinful, just like being black was (you are of the TRIBE OF HAM), women were considered inferior and unfit to preach, slavery was totally justified and so on and so forth. However, something called the 20th century came calling, and people became less interested in necessarily what the Hebrews or Romans thought of culture and tried to cut through it to see what Jesus would say or do.



This is the crux of the matter, and you say it so well.  You have decided that the opinions of Hollywood and the mainstream media trump the Bible regarding homosexuality.  You care more about what Snooki thinks about it than what the Apostle Paul thinks about it.


----------



## Greaserbilly

centerpin fan said:


> You have decided that the opinions of Hollywood and the mainstream media trump the Bible regarding homosexuality.  You care more about what Snooki thinks about it than what the Apostle Paul thinks about it.



Where in the name of anything sacred is the word "Snooki" mentioned anywhere in this thread except for your quote?

How about this? I care more about what I personally believe Jesus to have been like, than the Apostle Paul.
Jesus was not a judgmental jerk who confined his circle of friends to the people who are pure according to the dictates of his day. In fact, he was reviled as a drunk for hanging around with prostitutes, tax collectors, and other people considered the unclean scum of the earth of the day.

I highly doubt if Jesus showed up today he'd be parked at Landover Baptist, preaching a prosperity gospel and pointing out what classes of people are innately sinful.  He'd probably be in despair that his general message of forgiveness, love and inclusion has been replaced by the kind of OT-law loving (but worse, in a selective fashion) group of Pharisic people looking to justify their own prejudices.

For me, the idea that the translators of the KJV and other places could have got it wrong doesn't mean "oh wow! I get to love Hollywood immorality!" It makes me think "Oh wow! Maybe my friends who've walked from the church because they don't believe God to be a bigot might come back. Oh wow. Maybe he does love my close friends who happen to be gay. Maybe our very human bigotries don't matter in His eyes."

But you seem obsessed with this idea of somehow using English to make me understand that vague terms in the original languages are mathematical proof of a bigotry.



> New International Version (©1984)
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> New Living Translation (©2007)
> They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"
> 
> English Standard Version (©2001)
> And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”
> 
> New American Standard Bible (©1995)
> and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."
> 
> King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
> 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.
> 
> GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to [stay with] you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
> And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men who came in to you this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
> 
> American King James Version
> And they called to Lot, and said to him, Where are the men which came in to you this night? bring them out to us, that we may know them.
> 
> American Standard Version
> and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
> 
> Bible in Basic English
> And crying out to Lot, they said, Where are the men who came to your house this night? Send them out to us, so that we may take our pleasure with them.
> 
> Douay-Rheims Bible
> And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither that we may know them:
> 
> Darby Bible Translation
> And they called to Lot, and said to him, Where are the men that have come in to thee to-night? bring them out to us that we may know them.
> 
> English Revised Version
> 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.
> 
> Webster's Bible Translation
> And they called to Lot, and said to him, Where are the men who came in to thee this night? bring them out to us, that we may know them.
> 
> World English Bible
> They called to Lot, and said to him, "Where are the men who came in to you this night? Bring them out to us, that we may have sex with them."
> 
> Young's Literal Translation
> and they call unto Lot and say to him, 'Where are the men who have come in unto thee to-night? bring them out unto us, and we know them.'



Funny. The word "sodomy" isn't in there ONCE.


----------



## Greaserbilly

centerpin fan said:


> Based on the following, I'd say that "take" is pretty accurate.  Did all the translators of all these versions get it wrong?
> 
> 
> New International Version (©1984)
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> New Living Translation (©2007)
> They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"
> 
> English Standard Version (©2001)
> And they called to Lot, â€œWhere are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.â€�
> 
> New American Standard Bible (©1995)
> and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."
> 
> King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
> 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.
> 
> GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
> They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to [stay with] you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
> 
> King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
> And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men who came in to you this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
> 
> American King James Version
> And they called to Lot, and said to him, Where are the men which came in to you this night? bring them out to us, that we may know them.
> 
> American Standard Version
> and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
> 
> Bible in Basic English
> And crying out to Lot, they said, Where are the men who came to your house this night? Send them out to us, so that we may take our pleasure with them.
> 
> Douay-Rheims Bible
> And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither that we may know them:
> 
> Darby Bible Translation
> And they called to Lot, and said to him, Where are the men that have come in to thee to-night? bring them out to us that we may know them.
> 
> English Revised Version
> 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.
> 
> Webster's Bible Translation
> And they called to Lot, and said to him, Where are the men who came in to thee this night? bring them out to us, that we may know them.
> 
> World English Bible
> They called to Lot, and said to him, "Where are the men who came in to you this night? Bring them out to us, that we may have sex with them."
> 
> Young's Literal Translation
> and they call unto Lot and say to him, 'Where are the men who have come in unto thee to-night? bring them out unto us, and we know them.'
> 
> 
> More to follow.



No, I don't think that was mistranslated.

But please remember, the decision to destroy Sodom was PRIOR to this event. 

Was what the men wanted to do wrong? Absolutely. A gang of men wanted to pack-rape strangers. And you never answered me before - if the two angels had been female, would that have been okay?


----------



## centerpin fan

JB0704 said:


> Centerpin, did the flood happen because of gayness, or sin as a whole?



Sin as a whole.




JB0704 said:


> My point is that folks seem to set that one sin aside as "very bad,"



Because it's clearly noted in the Bible as being "very bad".  I'm not making this up.




JB0704 said:


> One guy is gay, and another gossips, which sin sends the person to he11 quicker.......



God did not destroy any cities over gossip (or inhospitality.)




JB0704 said:


> Remember our "gay church worker" thread that I deleted?  Do you know if any preacher out there has put as much effort into confronting gossip as they do with gayness?  Which causes more harm to the local church? Which hurts more people?  Which ruins more friendships?  I would say gossip is a greater negative to humanity than gay people.  I don't think the two are even close.  Yet, you quote people who build entire cases against gayness, who insist we confront it, and then we have people wanting to make it against the law.....why? What harm are any of us caused by gay people?  I would think my kids are more harmed by seeing Christians be awful to each other (read any of my previous thoughts and experiences with church) than the existence of gay folks in my community.



You bring up a lot of points.  As to which is worse, gossip or gayness ... well, they're both sins.  Churches generally survive gossip, though.  That's not always the case with homosexuality.  For recent examples, look at the Church in the Now where the pastor admitted he was gay.  They've definitely lost members from that.  Same goes for Eddie Long's church and Earl Paulk's church (that wasn't homosexuality, but it was sex-related.)  The point is that _any_ sexual sins tend to be devastating to a church.  See also Swaggart and Jim Bakker.

What harm are any of us caused by gay people?

Zip.  Zilch.  None.  Nada.

The harm comes not only when people say it is not sin, but when they demand that the church should be able to have gay ministers.




JB0704 said:


> Maybe, as Christians, we could do better if we focused on how to be better citizens, to love our neighbors, feed the poor, etc. than we do by confronting folks over their life style.



For the record, I don't wander the streets of midtown Atlanta looking for gay people to confront.  I think the Westboro Baptist Church people are insane and violence against gays is wrong.  However, I'm not gonna tell someone that their sin is not sin.  That is not loving my neighbor.


----------



## Greaserbilly

> The Torah uses its strongest term of censure --- "abomination" --- to describe homosexuality.



And eating shrimp. Better put down that fork at Red Lobster, lest you cause the whole nation to be set on fire.

Because according to CPF, God never destroyed anywhere for idolatry, murder, being inhospitable, etc. etc. etc. and ignoring the needy and hungry, JUST FOR BEING GAY.


----------



## centerpin fan

Greaserbilly said:


> How about this? I care more about what I personally believe Jesus to have been like, than the Apostle Paul.



Again, this is the crux of the matter.  You have set yourself up as your own pope.  You are the arbiter of truth.




Greaserbilly said:


> Jesus was not a judgmental jerk who confined his circle of friends to the people who are pure according to the dictates of his day. In fact, he was reviled as a drunk for hanging around with prostitutes, tax collectors, and other people considered the unclean scum of the earth of the day.



Agreed.




Greaserbilly said:


> I highly doubt if Jesus showed up today he'd be parked at Landover Baptist, preaching a prosperity gospel and pointing out what classes of people are innately sinful.  He'd probably be in despair that his general message of forgiveness, love and inclusion has been replaced by the kind of OT-law loving (but worse, in a selective fashion) group of Pharisic people looking to justify their own prejudices.



Agreed.




Greaserbilly said:


> Maybe he does love my close friends who happen to be gay.



You can remove the "maybe".  He absolutely does.




Greaserbilly said:


> Funny. The word "sodomy" isn't in there ONCE.



No, but men having sex with other men is.  "Sodomy" was taken from the Genesis passage.


----------



## Greaserbilly

> For the record, I don't wander the streets of midtown Atlanta looking for gay people to confront.



And for the record, those who do often makes it difficult for the rest of the human race to get them to believe they're people of any worth, never mind loved by Jesus and welcome at a Church.

Can you not understand "because of the way you are, God hates you" is a pretty crappy way to treat ANYONE?


----------



## centerpin fan

Greaserbilly said:


> But please remember, the decision to destroy Sodom was PRIOR to this event.



So, you think this "men gang raping other men" thing was a new thing they just decided to try on a whim?  They had never done that before?




Greaserbilly said:


> ... if the two angels had been female, would that have been okay?



Sorry.  No.


----------



## Greaserbilly

centerpin fan said:


> Again, this is the crux of the matter.  You have set yourself up as your own pope.  You are the arbiter of truth.



You cannot read the Bible without interpreting it. Reading it literally without some kind of theological or moral spin is impossible. 






> You can remove the "maybe".  He absolutely does.



Now you're contradicting yourself. First you say that God destroys cities because they contain gays, and now you say that God loves them? Funny, strange way to show it.




> No, but men having sex with other men is.  "Sodomy" was taken from the Genesis passage.



Let me rephrase that so you can see where I'm coming from.

I'm not an atheist saying "the Bible is wrong"
I'm a theist, saying "I think the way someone translated and understood this is wrong".

Of course the expression "sodomy" was coined in the 1000s to talk about certain acts: sometimes between the same sex, sometimes not.

But what we're discussing here is what it says in the Old Testament about Sodom and why it was destroyed. And I'm going back to Ezekiel. Not some commentator. Not some English term coined 2,000 years or so after the fact.

I hope you understand the nature of my talk with you here. I don't think God hates people. I also don't think God cares about anything human beings get bent out of shape about. Just as Jesus said "it's not what you put into your mouth that matters but what comes out" - I believe God is genuinely above human ideas about right and wrong and the New Testament is full of those startling stories.

The Apostle Paul, who disobeyed the Holy Spirit, is to be read for instruction, but not necessarily taken 100% correct. And I grind my teeth that he used a weird, obscure term that is not conclusively one way or the other, leading to 2,000 years or so of persecution.


----------



## centerpin fan

Greaserbilly said:


> And eating shrimp. Better put down that fork at Red Lobster, lest you cause the whole nation to be set on fire.



... and you never answered me.  Where in the NT are Christians told not to eat shrimp?




Greaserbilly said:


> Because according to CPF, God never destroyed anywhere for idolatry, murder, being inhospitable, etc. etc. etc. and ignoring the needy and hungry, JUST FOR BEING GAY.



First, I never said anything about murder or idolatry.  I said gossip and inhospitality.

Second, it's not according to me.  That homosexuality is sin is the clear teaching of the church for 2,000 years. (It's the clear teaching of Islam and Judaism, too.)  The churches and synagogues that teach otherwise are in a very small minority.


----------



## Greaserbilly

centerpin fan said:


> So, you think this "men gang raping other men" thing was a new thing they just decided to try on a whim?  They had never done that before?



No, apparently Sodom was a wicked city full of rape, murder, cheating, impiety, callousness and evil. That's why God decided it needed to be removed with extreme prejudice.




> Sorry.  No.



So in other words, the RAPE is what made it wrong?


----------



## centerpin fan

Greaserbilly said:


> Can you not understand "because of the way you are, God hates you" is a pretty crappy way to treat ANYONE?



Never said that.


----------



## centerpin fan

Greaserbilly said:


> So in other words, the RAPE is what made it wrong?



All rape is wrong.


----------



## Greaserbilly

centerpin fan said:


> ... and you never answered me.  Where in the NT are Christians told not to eat shrimp?



But it's an "abomination"!



> Second, it's not according to me.  That homosexuality is sin is the clear teaching of the church for 2,000 years. (It's the clear teaching of Islam and Judaism, too.)  The churches and synagogues that teach otherwise are in a very small minority.



The Church also taught that the earth was flat, slavery was acceptable and that the Jews murdered Christ. Do you agree with these positions, also?


----------



## centerpin fan

Greaserbilly said:


> You cannot read the Bible without interpreting it. Reading it literally without some kind of theological or moral spin is impossible.



Agreed, but you have made yourself "the decider".




Greaserbilly said:


> Now you're contradicting yourself. First you say that God destroys cities because they contain gays, and now you say that God loves them? Funny, strange way to show it..



Have you ever heard of the concept of repentance?




Greaserbilly said:


> The Apostle Paul, who disobeyed the Holy Spirit, is to be read for instruction, but not necessarily taken 100% correct. And I grind my teeth that he used a weird, obscure term that is not conclusively one way or the other, leading to 2,000 years or so of persecution.



Because you know better than him, right?


----------



## JB0704

centerpin fan said:


> Sin as a whole......Because it's clearly noted in the Bible as being "very bad".  I'm not making this up......God did not destroy any cities over gossip (or inhospitality.).



Hmmmm....I think God destroyed the Earth over all sin (the flood), thus making point 1 and 3 contradictory.  Many sins are noted as "very bad" in the Bible. Check out Romans 1:18-32, gossip is lumped in with the gayness.






centerpin fan said:


> Churches generally survive gossip, though.  That's not always the case with homosexuality. .



The business of church might survive, but what about the relationships destroyed?  Which is more important, the business or the people?  Also, I think you may want to reconsider this statement, gossip is constantly ripping churches (the people) apart.  Your examples of gayness destroying the church are relevant to adultery as well.  The church did not fall apart because of gayness, it was sexual immorality which happened in the form of gayness.



centerpin fan said:


> The harm comes not only when people say it is not sin, but when they demand that the church should be able to have gay ministers..



But we will give the prideful and gossipping ministers a pass....right?




centerpin fan said:


> However, I'm not gonna tell someone that their sin is not sin.  That is not loving my neighbor.



And how do you take it when a person who has nothing invested in you, or even takes a minor interest in you points out your "sin?"  

Now, imagine how a gay person feels when somebody they don't know, and has no interest in their well being, tells them they are sinning.


----------



## Greaserbilly

centerpin fan said:


> Never said that.



So let's get to the crux of this.

God doesn't hate gays, he just hates certain acts. (if I understand you correctly). 

And even then, only when performed between two men. The best way to transmit HIV outside of blood transfusion is perfectly acceptable if one partner is female, right? Then God is a sexist.

If those acts are vile and wrong regardless of who's on the receiving end, God's in error for not saying so.

If it's just that Leviticus is a silly cultural taboo, tossed out like the rest of "The Law" when Jesus pointed out the only thing that matters is to do as one would be done by, then the fault is human, not God's. That's what I believe, and why. Jesus ate non-kosher food (an ABOMINATION) and healed on the Sabbath (and should, by OT law, have been executed). And yet was "sinless". Are you starting to see where I'm going with this?

In the New Testament, Paul, a Jewish convert who occasionally doesn't pay attention to the Holy Spirit, makes a vague comment that many people understand to mean "homosexual", in other words, being born to find the same gender attractive - to be WRONG. Unless you can somehow translate that vague term to be a prohibition against any kind of act.

Now, let's return to the original. "God hates you for who you are". That's what you're implying Paul is saying. I don't think we'll ever know conclusively what Paul is trying to say, except to lean on tradition and say "well, for 2000 years we believed it to mean..."

So please tell me how 'homosexuality is a sin' can be translated to anything other than 'God says the way you are is evil and wrong'.


----------



## centerpin fan

Greaserbilly said:


> But what we're discussing here is what it says in the Old Testament about Sodom and why it was destroyed. And I'm going back to Ezekiel. Not some commentator. Not some English term coined 2,000 years or so after the fact.



As I said before ... 

Yes, you're going to Ezekiel because you think it says what you want it to say.  You ignore all other scriptures on the matter and 2,000 years of church history.  You ignore what 99% of churches teach today.  You also ignore what your own church taught until fairly recently.


----------



## JB0704

centerpin fan said:


> You can remove the "maybe".  He absolutely does..



Then you are not one of those who does not think the word "world" in John 3:16 actually means "world?"  I thought you were a calvinist?  Maybe I am confusing you with other folks......


----------



## Greaserbilly

> Agreed, but you have made yourself "the decider".



As have you, if you think about it. 



> Have you ever heard of the concept of repentance?



Most definitely.



> Because you know better than him, right?



I don't know if I do or don't, but I know I wouldn't disobey the Holy Spirit if it appeared to me and spoke directly to me.


----------



## Greaserbilly

centerpin fan said:


> As I said before ...
> 
> Yes, you're going to Ezekiel because you think it says what you want it to say.  You ignore all other scriptures on the matter and 2,000 years of church history.  You ignore what 99% of churches teach today.  You also ignore what your own church taught until fairly recently.



Actually, Centerpin : I'm going to Ezekiel because that's where it states, explicitly and unequivocally, why Sodom was destroyed. Sticks in the craw of the gay haters, that does.

I'll quote it again if you missed it.

“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. " (Ezekiel 16:49).

I don't see anything about gayness there. Am I reading the wrong Bible?

Does yours say

“‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were gay, gay and gay; they were gay and homosexual. They were gay and did gay things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. " (Ezekiel 16:49).

I don't have to look at 2,000 years of commentary. I can read it in the Bible itself. "Oh wow! Really? Hey, there it is. I don't have to guess, cross reference Romans (which was written later) to Derek 9:13. It's written RIGHT HERE plain as day. Gosh."


----------



## centerpin fan

For JB (for the sake of expediency):

Hmmmm....I think God destroyed the Earth over all sin (the flood), thus making point 1 and 3 contradictory.  Many sins are noted as "very bad" in the Bible. Check out Romans 1:18-32, gossip is lumped in with the gayness.  Yes, but as Greaserbilly has pointed out before, Paul is not talking about gayness in Romans 1.  So maybe he's not talking about gossip, either.  (Sorry, could not resist a little sarcasm there.)


The business of church might survive, but what about the relationships destroyed?  Which is more important, the business or the people?  Also, I think you may want to reconsider this statement, gossip is constantly ripping churches (the people) apart.  Your examples of gayness destroying the church are relevant to adultery as well.  Agreed.

The church did not fall apart because of gayness, it was sexual immorality which happened in the form of gayness.  Agreed.


But we will give the prideful and gossipping ministers a pass....right?  Nope, they're wrong.



And how do you take it when a person who has nothing invested in you, or even takes a minor interest in you points out your "sin?"  True story:  I was walking down the hall one day behind a coworker.  I noticed he had a HUGE rip in his pants (like 6" long) that he had somehow not noticed.   I pointed it out and he thanked me profusely.  If he had been a complete stranger, I would have done the same thing.  It would have been no different if I had been the one with the tear in his pants.

Now, imagine how a gay person feels when somebody they don't know, and has no interest in their well being, tells them they are sinning.


----------



## JB0704

Centerpin, I might have missed the sarcasm, but I think the gayness is very explicitly described in Romans 1.  Are you saying it is not?  Check out 1:27, pretty detailed....

I'm just saying that it is all lumped together.  I have trouble with folks being singled out.


----------



## centerpin fan

Greaserbilly said:


> I don't see anything about gayness there. Am I reading the wrong Bible?



No, you're just doing what all the gay apologists do:  you're ignoring the parts you don't like or explaining them away with faulty interpretations.  In passages where the meaning is crystal clear (Romans 1, for example), you pick apart the words and verses in an attempt to throw doubt on the meaning.  You question the translations of every English version on the market and insist that it's only because of "bias" of the translators that they all translate the passages as they do.


----------



## centerpin fan

JB0704 said:


> Centerpin, I might have missed the sarcasm, but I think the gayness is very explicitly described in Romans 1.



Oh, I do, too!  And so do the Catholics, the Copts, the Orthodox and 99% of the Protestant churches.  It's just that GB does not.  That was the sarcasm.


----------



## centerpin fan

Gotta go, guys.  I'll be back later.


----------



## Greaserbilly

centerpin fan said:


> No, you're just doing what all the gay apologists do:  you're ignoring the parts you don't like



Au contraire. I take them very seriously. 



> or explaining them away with faulty interpretations.  In passages where the meaning is crystal clear (Romans 1, for example),



Funny you should mention that, because the little Greek that I do know has reallly illuminated Romans 1.

"to dishonour their own bodies between themselves" is the English translation in Romans 1:24.

But you must understand that most of these contain the word "kai", meaning "and" - in other words, the sentence is part of the previous.

"And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." <--- they worshipped idols like men and beasts and insects.

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

The first two words are DIO KAI, which means "and because of this" for all intents and purposes. In other words, this sentence does not stand alone.

"their own bodies between themselves:" is actually SOMATA HAUTON EN HAUTOIS.  Somata is "bodies", hauton is "their". "en hautois" is "in themselves". The "between" here is "amongst", not "with". It's the GENITIVE CASE. "they dishonour their own bodies of themselves, within themselves". It is NOT the dative "to or from".

And that's a classic case of looking at the Greek, having a few choices, and choosing a set of words other people decide to imply mean something else.

And you realise that I'm actually giving you the word and sentence division here. There is nothing, absolutely NOTHING to suggest that those words don't belong with the next set of sentences. Because the NT wasn't written in sentences, but in one solid interrupted string of letters without punctuation or sentence breaks.

Unless of course you seem to think the book was written in English, and backtranslated to the Greek.








> you pick apart the words and verses in an attempt to throw doubt on the meaning.  You question the translations of every English version on the market and insist that it's only because of "bias" of the translators that they all translate the passages as they do.



Yes, yes I do. Even more so now that I know what is there, how it was written, and how it was compiled. And I now understand why any serious Bible student, especially a Seminarian, is required to learn the languages in question.


----------



## tjbones

God started off making a woman for a man (and vice versa).  That was a design so that they could have children.  Then He designed "marriage" so that they would be committed to each other.  When folks started to stray and either have sex with other men/women, God called it an abomination - A husband having sex with another woman (other than his wife) is wrong...as is any combination thereof...BECAUSE it isn't how he designed things... A man with a man or woman with a woman is no different - NOT what God designed...So ALL aberration from what God intended is wrong...He is love...So anything that goes against love is sin...You can manipulate words however you choose...But whatever goes against God's intentions is wrong...


----------



## centerpin fan

Greaserbilly said:


> I'm going to Ezekiel because that's where it states, explicitly and unequivocally, why Sodom was destroyed.



... and what does Leviticus 18:22 explicitly and unequivocally state?  I'll post it for you:

"'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Do you really believe the Hebrews did not understand that passage?  Did the priests lie awake at night, tossing and turning, unable to decipher its meaning?




Greaserbilly said:


> Sticks in the craw of the gay haters, that does.



I'll have to take your word for it.  If I ever meet a gay hater, I'll ask and try to confirm your theory.


----------



## centerpin fan

Greaserbilly said:


> Funny you should mention that, because the little Greek that I do know has reallly illuminated Romans 1.
> 
> "to dishonour their own bodies between themselves" is the English translation in Romans 1:24.
> 
> But you must understand that most of these contain the word "kai", meaning "and" - in other words, the sentence is part of the previous.
> 
> "And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." <--- they worshipped idols like men and beasts and insects.
> 
> "24 Wherefore God also gave them	up	to	uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:"
> 
> The first two words are DIO KAI, which means "and because of this" for all intents and purposes. In other words, this sentence does not stand alone.
> 
> "their own bodies between themselves:" is actually SOMATA HAUTON EN HAUTOIS.  Somata is "bodies", hauton is "their". "en hautois" is "in themselves". The "between" here is "amongst", not "with". It's the GENITIVE CASE. "they dishonour their own bodies of themselves, within themselves". It is NOT the dative "to or from".
> 
> And that's a classic case of looking at the Greek, having a few choices, and choosing a set of words other people decide to imply mean something else.
> 
> And you realise that I'm actually giving you the word and sentence division here. There is nothing, absolutely NOTHING to suggest that those words don't belong with the next set of sentences. Because the NT wasn't written in sentences, but in one solid interrupted string of letters without punctuation or sentence breaks.
> 
> Unless of course you seem to think the book was written in English, and backtranslated to the Greek.




Allow me to translate:

“As a student of Greek for nearly a month now, I, Greaserbilly, assure you that the translators of the Bishop’s Bible, the KJV, the NKJV, the NASB, the NIV, the ESV, the JB, etc. are all corrupt, incompetent, homophobic fools.  Even worse, I suspect they may be Republicans.  Accordingly, any passage they translate that refers to homosexuality in a negative light is to be dismissed outright as the work of hopelessly biased troglodytes.”


----------



## Greaserbilly

centerpin fan said:


> ... and what does Leviticus 18:22 explicitly and unequivocally state?  I'll post it for you:
> 
> "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."



I'm not yet into the Biblical Hebrew. Once I get there, I might have other things to say. Suffice it to say that that isn't cut and dried, either.

But this condemns an act - it does not condemn the way someone feels or is made. Or any other acts the two could get up to. 



> I'll have to take your word for it.  If I ever meet a gay hater, I'll ask and try to confirm your theory.



They exist. Westboro Baptist Church is a place to start.


----------



## centerpin fan

Greaserbilly said:


> They exist. Westboro Baptist Church is a place to start.



I agree that the WBC is completely insane and a disgrace to Christianity.  They're disgraceful human beings, period.


----------



## Greaserbilly

centerpin fan said:


> I agree that the WBC is completely insane and a disgrace to Christianity.  They're disgraceful human beings, period.



But ya know what? They latch on to the only acceptable form of bigotry left in the Western World.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Sodom is a picture of what will happen in the end. The immorality part is just to show how bad it is but not to be specific. "the present days are reserved for fire". If we try to read into this to much then we force ourselves to look at the whole thing. Lot offering his daughters. There is no reasonable answer to justify this. My point is that our message in this is not in specifics but taken from the overview


----------



## JB0704

1gr8bldr said:


> If we try to read into this to much then we force ourselves to look at the whole thing. Lot offering his daughters. There is no reasonable answer to justify this.



I have wondered about this.  Lot was "righteous," but he was ready to turn his daughters over to be gang raped.  I don't understand how that is a picture of his "righteousness."

I think it speaks volumes on how different our modern culture is than the one in which these books were written.


----------



## Greaserbilly

JB0704 said:


> Then you are not one of those who does not think the word "world" in John 3:16 actually means "world?"  I thought you were a calvinist?  Maybe I am confusing you with other folks......



τον κοσμον  is "the world" in the accusative case.


----------



## Greaserbilly

JB0704 said:


> I have wondered about this.  Lot was "righteous," but he was ready to turn his daughters over to be gang raped.  I don't understand how that is a picture of his "righteousness."
> 
> I think it speaks volumes on how different our modern culture is than the one in which these books were written.



1) Back then women were chattel. When of breeding age they were sold to whoever paid a half decent dowry.

2) Coupling of angels and humankind was something so absolutely and utterly forbidden, on a cosmic/galactic scale (one of the reasons for the flood was to destroy the Nephilim) that in his mind, handing over his daughters would be preferable to annihilating the world.


----------



## Greaserbilly

> ... and you never answered me. Where in the NT are Christians told not to eat shrimp?



They aren't. Paul in fact said Christians can for all intents and purposes ignore the law.



> “As a student of Greek for nearly a month now, I, Greaserbilly, assure you that the translators of the Bishop’s Bible, the KJV, the NKJV, the NASB, the NIV, the ESV, the JB, etc. are all corrupt, incompetent, homophobic fools. Even worse, I suspect they may be Republicans. Accordingly, any passage they translate that refers to homosexuality in a negative light is to be dismissed outright as the work of hopelessly biased troglodytes.”



That's your opinion.

Actually, it's more like

"Based on talking to learned people, if you look at the texts, some suggest that being gay is fine so long as you don't commit coitus per anum if you're Jewish - and if you're Christian, the others warns against two vague circumstances whose meaning are TOTALLY LOST TO TIME and whose meanings are therefore totally dependent on interpretation, spin, personal morality and theology."

"Translations have therefore suggested the social mores of the times in which the translations took place so it stands to reason that the older ones, attempting to divine the intent of God, would interpret them in an honest effort to promote good."


----------

