What is our church doing about this?

[John317]

Quote:

By offering his daughters to those men-- as horrible as it sounds--Lot showed deep respect for the "natural order" of God's plan for human beings, which is that the male is to use the female for sex,

I'm trying to follow this thread, but I get to this sentence and then I just can't go any further.

I used to think that feminists who accused Christianity of being anti-female were way off the mark.

Can I just say....

(1) Most of the atheists I know would not be capable of coming up with anything like the above quote. (maybe I mix in the wrong circles.)... aldona

Please allow me to explain:

I'm certainly not defending or condoning any of those behaviors. The Bible calls both heterosexual rape and homosexual rape "abominations" to God. God hates both sins. People who do those things will not be in God's kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9,10; 1 Tim. 1: 10; Rev. 21: 8; 22: 15.) 1 Tim. specifically names "fornicators" and "sodomites." 1 Cor. 6: 9 specifically names "adulterers," "homosexuals," and "sodomites" (NKJV).

I would like to point out that the word translated "homosexuals" refers to "catamites," that is, the passive partner in a homosexual act. "Sodomites" refers to the active. So both kinds will not be in heaven if they continue to practice those things and don't repent of them and forsake them. The Bible could not be clearer.

But the man who rapes a female (or the woman who "rapes" a male) is also included among those who won't be God's kingdom (unless, of course, he/she repents and is forgiven by God).

Where the difference lies between these sexual sins is in the "unnaturalness" of the homosexual acts. Romans 1 describes them as "against nature" because they are using human bodies in a way that God did not intend. God intended the male to use the female body for sexual pleasure. God never intended for females and males to use the bodies of their same gender for sexual pleasure. That is why the Bible never calls heterosexual rape or sex a "perversion," "against nature," or "unnatural," as it plainly does of homosexual acts. For instance, Romans 1 refers to them as "shameful lusts" (v. 26), "the degrading of their bodies" (v. 24), "unnatural" (v. 26), "indecent" and "perversion" (v. 27).

Jude 7 uses two Greek words that mean, literally, "different flesh," i.e., different from that which God intended when he created humans. Those words are translated as "perversion" (NIV), "strange flesh"(NKJV; ASV; NASV), "unnatural lust" (NRSV; REB; NJB), and "other kind of flesh" (Rotherham's Emphasized).

Regards,

"John 3:17"

[Tom Wetmore]

Right on Co-aspen!

There's some very queer thinking posted here.

mel

LOL

And to CoAspen:

Your statement "I think the 'tongue' got way out front of the 'brain'!" is spot on! It fits with a quote I just read attributed to A.E. Housman - "We think by fits and starts." That is to say our thinking too frequently experiences short circuits in the synapses. This whole thread strikes me as yet another fine example of an effort to carry out the first quote in my signature below...

I read both of these in the book I have been plowing through, and enjoying - Dallas Willard's Divine Conspiracy. He quoted Housman in the context of the importance of actually thinking to become and make disciples for Jesus. He stated that unfortunately "we are rarely thoughtful." And he continues, "Thus a part of the call of God to us has always been to think. Indeed the call of Jesus to 'repent' is nothing but a call to think about how we have been thinking."

Later on in the same chapter Willard said something that gives one serious pause in the context of the strange drift of this discussion:

Quote:

The acid test of any theology is this: Is the God presented one that can be loved, heart, soul, mind and strength? If the thoughtful, honest answer is 'Not really', then we need to look elsewhere or deeper. It does not really matter how sophisticated intellectually or doctrinally our approach is. If it fails to set a lovable God - a radiant, happy, friendly, accessible and totally competent being - before ordinary people, we have gone wrong. We should not keep going in the same direction, but turn around and take another road.

Tom

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Why would Aldona want to pray that she be treated as Lots wife and daughters were ab out to be??

I did not mention Aldona by name for a couple of reasons. 1. The sentiment she expressed, I am quite sure, is held by many people. 2. Since there are so many lurkers that come here and read our posts, I don't like the idea of personalizing posts. My comments address the sentiment that was posted which I am quite sure is held by many of the lurkers too.

During my first mission trip to El Salvador, the contact from Maranatha that was to pick me up forgot about me. I was in a foreign country. I could hardly communicate in Spanish and I was stranded at the airport with no name or phone number of anyone to call. I stood on the curb and held up a sign that read "Maranatha" and eventually an Adventist family stopped. I couldn't understand them so they had to write everything down so I could read what they were trying to tell me. They took me home, fed me and gave me a place to sleep. The next day they took me to the Adventist mission where I was able to get in contact with Maranatha. That is an example hospitality. I kind of doubt that they would have offered their virgin daughters to a mob of sexually aggressively homosexuals in order to protect me, but that is what Lot did. So while, one might not want to be the daughter of the "righteous" Lot, it wouldn't be so bad to be the guest of a "righteous" Lot. I was pointing out that there are two sides to that coin.

Quote:

What was the male created for!

Is that a question? The Bible says "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." (Rev. 4:11)

[Woody]

Quote:

I don't like the idea of personalizing posts.

You are free to say that you don't like to do that. But many do and are not ashamed to say so. Personalizing actually makes it more like family and more friendly. It is like ... being on a first name basis.

But ... to each his own. We have heard many times that you claim that you don't like to do so and that is fine. We will talk to others on a first name basis and you can be vague.

I am not aware of any rules on CA that state you can't address someone by name. So as long as it is not against the rules ... I think I would like to encourage it.

At least it is better than calling for apologizes and calling people names which seems to me like personalizing it too much.

[Dr. Shane]

I should have been more clear. I don't like personalizing posts when disagreeing with someone. I frequently personalize posts when not disagreeing with someone. That is simply a means of playing well with others. There are some rules some place here that tell us to focus on the topic and not on other members. That is some very good advice as well.

[John317]

Quote:

The acid test of any theology is this: Is the God presented one that can be loved, heart, soul, mind and strength? If the thoughtful, honest answer is 'Not really', then we need to look elsewhere or deeper. It does not really matter how sophisticated intellectually or doctrinally our approach is. If it fails to set a lovable God - a radiant, happy, friendly, accessible and totally competent being - before ordinary people, we have gone wrong. We should not keep going in the same direction, but turn around and take another road.

Tom

Isn't it true that there are many people who might object to a God who would reject practicing homosexuals from his Kingdom? One of my closest friends objects strongly to a God who condemns fornication or unrepentant fornicators. He sees nothing wrong with that or with homosexuality. A lot of people object to any notion that God will ever punish or destroy the wicked. Yet the Bible clearly teaches that one day God will do exactly that.

My point is that, apart from God's special revelation as given through His prophets, our judgments about these things are faulty. Human, sinful consciences need training in the Word of God in order to have an understanding of truth. As the Bible says, mere human wisdom is foolishness when it comes to knowledge of God and the way of salvation (1 Cor. 1: 18-2: 16; John 17: 17).

Only in one way can we come to a real knowledge of the truth regarding these things, and that is through the prayerful, sincere study of God's Word. Without enlightenment from God through His Spirit (Who never contradicts what He has inspired the prophets to write) humans are in spiritual darkness (Acts 16: 14).

Regards,

"John 3:17"

[John317]

At least it is better than calling for apologizes and calling people names which seems to me like personalizing it too much.

I entirely agree with you.

It's great to be personal when you are agreeing with people, but when it's disagreeing with them, as Shane said, then personalizing posts is usually not a good idea because it can tend towards being an attack on the person rather than on an idea or viewpoint.

Personally I have no problem with someone's saying an idea or a post, even, of mine, is stupid or crazy or "vile," etc., (although I myself would never say these things to anyone, under any circumstances). But that is obviously different from personal name-calling as in, "You are stupid" or "You are vile," etc. I make that distinction but I realize others might have a hard time seeing it. The thing I think everyone needs to consider is how visitors may perceive the posts, so that even if it may not be against the rules to say someone's post is stupid, etc., it may not be in the best interests of CA's objectives to do it. I guess the best principle always to follow is Christ's law of treating others as we want others to treat us.

Best regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Clio]

The idea that God was being honored or protected, is to put it simply, repugnant!

Lets stop all this hiding behind the phrase 'your attacking me',

so people never have to 'face the music'!

Abba does not need our protection. He doesn't even "need" our honor....

He needs our love and obedience. What do you suppose would have happened had that mob laid even one finger on the two angels?

Exactly.

[Clio]

*giggles*

Well put, Pam!

Clio

[olger]

John317, I really admire someone who is open and honest like you are. Thanks for sharing. Yes, you will always be a homosexual and though you may be that, you still are my brother in Christ and I will accept you and support you as you are.

Hi guys. Two things:

JOhn3, I appreciate your story (as I did last year when I first heard it), for it demonstrates the power of God to save and to change. God is with you brother.

Secondly, I don't like to put tags on people. "He's ADD, he's bi-polar, he's homosexual" etc... Having participated in sin of any kind does not set the tone for the rest of our life, THAT highway is the sole domain of God's grace. A tag is a death sentence.

Many in our world believe that once a homosexual always a homosexual. I don't buy this. Paul says "And such WERE some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God (1 Cor 6:11)." This is the good news of consecration!

Yes, we may have consequences of past choices, and occasional memories, but victory in Christ creates new memories, and better choices.

Shall we tell a girl who had an abortion (40 million women in America btw ) "I know you will always be a murderer the rest of your life...?" No. Let us lead them to the Healer of hearts, and the Highway of the righteous (Proverbs 16:17).

Endeavoring to speak the truth in Love,

olger

(ps. Street did more than attend this shameful ceremony. He presided over it. That's his choice, and he should be called to account for strengthening evil in the eyes of this world. I know what Isaiah would say, if he were here.

[Parade Orange]

well... yes we shouldnt be going around telling the lovely women in this day and age that if they aborted their child we tell them their are murderers and we will always be reminding of them of that.

Being a murderer is a bad thing.

Being GAY is not.

its like comparing apples to oranges

[carolaa]

God made the male first. Then He created the female for the male. Not to be a slave, but a help mate. One of the reasons the female was made (not the only one) was for sex. Adam and Eve had sex before sin ever entered into the world. Sex between man and woman was part of God's perfect plan for humanity.

From what I am reading in this thread, John317 and Coaspen alike both agree that Lot was influenced by his culture. This might be a shocker but... so are we. While some may be glad their father wasn't a "righteous" man like Lot, if they are ever in trouble in a strange city they are likely to pray they will find a "righteous" man like Lot. We need to be careful in judging people of other cultures based upon our own.

I totally agree with you. We're quick to make judgments based on our preconceived ideas.

While it is appalling to us that Lot would offer his daughters, it shows how little women were valued in that culture. I like to think that Lot knew very well the mob wasn't interested in his girls and only said that to buy time. But I am enjoying reading the different opinions and thoughts on the subject.

[cardw]

Quote:

By offering his daughters to those men-- as horrible as it sounds--Lot showed deep respect for the "natural order" of God's plan for human beings, which is that the male is to use the female for sex, and not other males. The rape of any body by anyone, whether male or female, is a terrible crime, but the rape of a female's body by a male is at least not a perversion in the way that homosexual rape is. See the Bible's characterization of these things in Romans 1: 24-28. So, it seems to me, Lot was showing that he would rather have his beloved daughters abused than see such a horrible, unnatural crime as homosexual rape committed against Yahweh in the person of His messengers. This is doubtless a hard concept for us to fully grasp because we've grown accustomed to viewing these things through the eyes of a society which increasingly advocates the notion that marriage between two men or two women should be considered normal.

Wow, this is really some of the most ignorant reasoning that I have come across in a long time. The reason Lot offered his daughters to the mob is because women were seen as property. And if you are going to rate sins by how much the Bible talks about it you will find far more content about adultery. There is nothing noble about Lot. If he was going to be noble he would have offered himself.

You can find evidence for women as property in regard to how women are treated in Old Testament law. Another story that reveals women's status as property can be found in the priest who had a concubine who was being raped while he was inside a house. The concubine pleaded at the door all night to be saved and eventually died from the violence of the gang rape. The priest opened the door and found her dead the next morning after ignoring her pleas all night. He was not horrified by her suffering but because he had lost a concubine. He cut her into 12 pieces and sent one piece to each tribe.

What horrifies me in your reply is that you need to have the Bible fit some twisted infallibility at the expense of moral empathy. Its time we stopped taking this horrible book literally. The writers of the Old Testament thought what these men did were good ideas and they fit within their concept of women as property. Your reply reveals the very same ignorance.

We wonder why Islam practices acts like wanting to apply 40 lashes to an English teacher for naming a teddy bear Mohammed. Its because they are taking their scriptures literally the same way. Its the same Iron age morality.

I writing this because we can no longer stay silent about this type of thinking. Its terribly destructive to women and further represents them as second class beings. If I could use stronger language I would.

To suggest that the rape of a woman is less wrong than the rape of a man is treating the victim as an object. To suggest that God would be less offended by the rape of a woman is why Christianity is scorned by thinking people around the world.

[Dr. Shane]

There are different views on the issue and I can appreciate both. We will always be sinners. That doesn't mean we will always be sinning but even after millions of years in eternity we will still be in need of Christ's robe of righteousness to cover our sin.

Once we have sinned, we are a sinner.

Once we have lied, we are a liar.

Once we have fornicated, we are a fornicator.

Some non-practicing alcoholics call themselves recovering alcoholics while others call themselves recovered alcoholics. It is simply a difference of prespective.

Will a gay man always be a gay man? Again, I think it is a matter of perspective. I have known those that left the lifestyle that no longer consider themselves gay. I have also known those that believe they will always be gay. Like alcoholics, it seems to be a difference of perspectives.

I respect both ways of looking at it. Ultimately, it is up to he individuals how they want to view themselves in regard to the label.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Wow, this is really some of the most ignorant reasoning that I have come across in a long time.

Again, we can't force people to play well with others but we can point it out when they refuse to do so.

Quote:

We wonder why Islam practices acts like wanting to apply 40 lashes to an English teacher for naming a teddy bear Mohammed. Its because they are taking their scriptures literally the same way.

Yes, we know already. John317 is in the same class as Islamic terrorists.

[John317]

May I suggest you go back and read all of my posts on this topic. I never said on any of them that the rape of a woman is less wrong than the rape of a man. In fact, since you missed it, I will paste some of it here. Nor did I ever say that God is less offended by the rape of a woman than the rape of a man. Be so kind as to copy and paste any words I wrote that say this and if I have indeed said this, I promise you I shall be the first to give myself a good lecture if not a well-deserved drubbing.

Please read:

I'm certainly not defending or condoning any of those behaviors. The Bible calls both heterosexual rape and homosexual rape "abominations" to God. God hates both sins. People who do those things will not be in God's kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9,10; 1 Tim. 1: 10; Rev. 21: 8; 22: 15.) 1 Tim. specifically names "fornicators" and "sodomites." 1 Cor. 6: 9 specifically names "adulterers," "homosexuals," and "sodomites" (NKJV).

I would like to point out that the word [Gk:"malakos," soft] translated "homosexuals" refers to "catamites," that is, the passive, feminine partner in a homosexual act. It occurs in Greek, extra-biblical literature. "Sodomites" refers to the active. So both kinds will not be in heaven if they continue to practice those things and don't repent of them and forsake them. The Bible could not be clearer.

But the man who rapes a female (or the woman who "rapes" a male) is also included among those who won't be God's kingdom (unless, of course, he/she repents and is forgiven by God).

Where the difference lies between these sexual sins is in the "unnaturalness" of the homosexual acts. Romans 1 describes them as "against nature" because they are using human bodies in a way that God did not intend. God intended the male to use the female body for sexual pleasure. God never intended for females and males to use the bodies of their same gender for sexual pleasure. That is why the Bible never calls heterosexual rape or sex a "perversion," "against nature," or "unnatural," as it plainly does of homosexual acts. For instance, Romans 1 refers to them as "shameful lusts" (v. 26), "the degrading of their bodies" (v. 24), "unnatural" (v. 26), "indecent" and "perversion" (v. 27).

Jude 7 uses two Greek words that mean, literally, "different flesh," i.e., different from that which God intended when he created humans. Those words are translated as "perversion" (NIV), "strange flesh"(NKJV; ASV; NASV), "unnatural lust" (NRSV; REB; NJB), and "other kind of flesh" (Rotherham's Emphasized).

Regards,

"John 3:17"

[John317]

Isn't that just amazing?!! O if only people would read! Some people see more between the lines than they do on the line. I never got this kind of reaction when I was practicing homosexuality and active in the Gay Liberation Front. Everyone "loved" me then. (That's eros, not agape.) Oh well.

All I can suggest is that people go back and re-read all of my posts on this thread and stay with the actual words I say, not with what they imagine I'm saying.

It's as if a number of people are using the "reader response approach," which is OK in experimental reading but plays havoc when one is seriously attempting to arrive at a true understanding of what someone has written; that is, if one is making such an attempt.

[John317]

[Parade Orange]

Thanku John317 for clearing this up. I am sure they are investigating your posts and see what you exactly said so there wont be any more confusion.

and a few may even take back a few words

[Parade Orange]

I am waiting with baited breath

[John317]

I am waiting with baited breath

Greetings, Parade. I'm very glad to see you on here! I sure hope I cleared that up too. And thank you!!!

OK, but just remember to breath a little now and then. Something tells me you could be waiting longer than you've practiced for.

[cardw]

Quote:

May I suggest you go back and read all of my posts on this topic.

Ok, I will...

Quote:

The rape of any body by anyone, whether male or female, is a terrible crime, but the rape of a female's body by a male is at least not a perversion in the way that homosexual rape is.

You are making a distinction between the sins. Your statement "at least" is a statement that the rape of a female is not as bad as homosexual rape. You state that the homosexual rape is "unnatural" and therefore a greater abomination.

Quote:

Lot showed deep respect for the "natural order" of God's plan for human beings, which is that the male is to use the female for sex, and not other males.

You suggest that Lot was somehow virtuous because he was going to send his daughters out, because that would be less offensive than having them raping a man. Plus there is nothing "natural" about raping a woman.

This is absolute nonsense. Lot was a coward and had no respect for women. If respect for God's plan causes me to send out my children to be raped, then that god is a crazy god.

And I think you will find that I did not call you a terrorist. I never said terrorist, but compared your reasoning to Islamic reasoning. I said you were ignorant. I said that this type of reasoning is the basis of the devaluing of women and reflects a similar reliance on ancient texts, rather than reasoning to determine ethical behavior.

You might try practicing a little reading yourself.

[John317]

Quote:

May I suggest you go back and read all of my posts on this topic.

Ok, I will...

Quote:

The rape of any body by anyone, whether male or female, is a terrible crime, but the rape of a female's body by a male is at least not a perversion in the way that homosexual rape is.

You are making a distinction between the sins. Your statement "at least" is a statement that the rape of a female is not as bad as homosexual rape. You state that the homosexual rape is "unnatural" and therefore a greater abomination.

Where did I say that the homosexual rape is a greater abomination? It is not my fault the Bible makes the distinction between what is natural and unnatural. I am simply telling you what the Bible says. You could study it for yourself. Can you find any verse where the Bible calls heterosexual rape "unnatural" or "a shameful lust," or "against nature." I am only pointing this information out. I am not drawing any conclusions from it other than the simple fact that it may be one reason that Lot chose to offer his daughters to the homosexual mob rather than let his angel/men-guests be raped by them. I am not saying he was right to do so. I am not saying I would do it. In fact, I wrote that I wouldn't have done it. I am only saying that our ways of thinking about these things are different from Lot's.

I am discussing the way the Bible views things. I am not interested in opinion, either in mine or in anyone else's. So I am trying to discover what the Bible says. Let me know if you find an error in the facts or in the logic. That is really what I am after; truth in facts and reasoning. You could help me out a lot if you would point out where I am in error on either of those scores.

Here is what I wrote in an earlier post, which explains why I make a distinction between the sin of homosexual rape and heterosexual rape:

I'm certainly not defending or condoning any of those behaviors. The Bible calls both heterosexual rape and homosexual rape "abominations" to God. God hates both sins. People who do those things will not be in God's kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9,10; 1 Tim. 1: 10; Rev. 21: 8; 22: 15.) 1 Tim. specifically names "fornicators" and "sodomites." 1 Cor. 6: 9 specifically names "adulterers," "homosexuals," and "sodomites" (NKJV).

I would like to point out that the word [Gk:"malakos," soft] translated "homosexuals" refers to "catamites," that is, the passive, feminine partner in a homosexual act. It occurs in Greek, extra-biblical literature. "Sodomites" refers to the active. So both kinds will not be in heaven if they continue to practice those things and don't repent of them and forsake them. The Bible could not be clearer.

But the man who rapes a female (or the woman who "rapes" a male) is also included among those who won't be God's kingdom (unless, of course, he/she repents and is forgiven by God).

Where the difference lies between these sexual sins is in the "unnaturalness" of the homosexual acts. Romans 1 describes them as "against nature" because they are using human bodies in a way that God did not intend. God intended the male to use the female body for sexual pleasure. God never intended for females and males to use the bodies of their same gender for sexual pleasure. That is why the Bible never calls heterosexual rape or sex a "perversion," "against nature," or "unnatural," as it plainly does of homosexual acts. For instance, Romans 1 refers to them as "shameful lusts" (v. 26), "the degrading of their bodies" (v. 24), "unnatural" (v. 26), "indecent" and "perversion" (v. 27).

Jude 7 uses two Greek words that mean, literally, "different flesh," i.e., different from that which God intended when he created humans. Those words are translated as "perversion" (NIV), "strange flesh"(NKJV; ASV; NASV), "unnatural lust" (NRSV; REB; NJB), and "other kind of flesh" (Rotherham's Emphasized).

Cheers,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

I never said anything about your saying I was a terrorist. Never mentioned it. If you go back and reread the posts, you will find it was someone else who said that, not I, my friend.

Cheers,

"John 3: 17"

[olger]

THE MEANING OF “Strange Flesh”

Many English translations of Jude 7 more accurately reflect the meaning of heteros by avoiding the use of the term “strange.” For example, the RSV renders the phrase in question as “indulged in unnatural lust.” The NIV and TEV read: “sexual immorality and perversion.” Moffatt’s translation reads: “vice and sensual perversity.” Goodspeed, Beck, Weymouth, and the Twentieth Century New Testament all have “unnatural vice.” The Simplified New Testament has “homosexuality.” The Jerusalem Bible reads: “The fornication of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other nearby towns was equally unnatural.” Even the Living Bible Paraphrased suitably pinpoints the import of the original in the words, “And don’t forget the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, all full of lust of every kind, including lust of men for other men.”

Considering the meaning of “strange” in its only occurrences in the KJV (11 times), NKJV (7 times), ASV (10 times), RSV (6 times), and NIV (5 times), one finds that it never is used to refer to angels, but instead refers to: “strange things” (Luke 5:26—i.e., a miracle); “strange land” (Acts 7:6—i.e., Egypt); “strange gods” (Acts 17:18); “strange things” (Acts 17:20—i.e., ideas); “strange cities” (Acts 26:11—i.e., Gentile or outside Palestine); “strange tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:21—i.e., foreign languages); “strange country” (Hebrews 11:9—i.e., Canaan); “strange doctrines” (Hebrews 13:9); “think it strange” (1 Peter 4:4—i.e., odd); “some strange thing” (1 Peter 4:12—i.e., unusual); and “strange flesh” (Jude 7—i.e., male with male). All the other occurrences of the underlying Greek term in the New Testament further undergird the nonapplication of the term to “angelic flesh.”

Most commentators and language scholars recognize this feature of Jude’s remark, as evinced by their treatment of Jude 7. For example, the New Analytical Greek Lexicon defines heteros in Jude 7 as “illicit” (Perschbacher, 1990, p. 177). Williams identified “strange flesh” as “unnatural vice” (1960, p. 1023). Barclay wrote: “What the men of Sodom were bent on was unnatural sexual intercourse, homosexual intercourse, with Lot’s two visitors. They were bent on sodomy, the word in which their sin is dreadfully commemorated” (1958, p. 218). Alford correctly translated the Greek as “other flesh,” and defined the phrase as “[other] than that appointed by God for the fulfillment of natural desire” (1875, 4:533). Jamieson, et al., defined “going after strange flesh” as “departing from the course of nature, and going after that which is unnatural” (n.d., p. 544). Schneider said the expression “denotes licentious living” (1964, 2:676; cf. Hauck, 1967, 4:646; Seesemann, 1967, 5:292). Macknight said: “They committed the unnatural crime which hath taken its name from them” (n.d., p. 693). Mayor (not Street) explained, “the forbidden flesh (literally ‘other than that appointed by God’) refers…in the case of Sodom to the departure from the natural use” (n.d., 5:260). Barnes stated: “the word strange, or other, refers to that which is contrary to nature” (1978, p. 392, italics in orig.), and Salmond adds, “a departure from the laws of nature in the impurities practiced” (1958, p. 7).

The frequent allusion to “nature” and “unnatural” by scholars must not be taken to mean “beyond nature” in the sense of beyond human, and thereby somehow a reference to angels. The same scholars frequently clarify their meaning in unmistakable terms. For example, after defining “strange flesh” as unnatural, Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown add: “In later times the most enlightened heathen nations indulged in the sin of Sodom without compunction or shame” (n.d., p. 544). Alford, likewise, added: “The sin of Sodom was afterwards common in the most enlightened nations of antiquity” (4:533). It is neither without significance nor coincidental that these Bible scholars focus on forms of the word “natural,” in view of the fact that Scripture elsewhere links same-sex relations with that which is “against nature” (Romans 1:26-27) or unnatural—i.e., out of harmony with the original arrangement of nature by God at the Creation (e.g., Genesis 1:27; 2:22; Matthew 19:4-6). John317 has already presented this distinction.

Context: In the second place, beyond the technical meanings and definitions of the words in Jude 7, contextual indicators also exclude the interpretation that the sin of the men of Sodom was not homosexuality but their desire for angelic flesh. This idea was presented already in this thread, to deflect the authority of Scripture away from the condemnation of homosexual practice. Look again at the wording of the verse: “as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these….” To what cities does Jude refer? The Bible actually indicates that Sodom and Gomorrah were only two out of five wicked cities situated on the plain, the other three being Zoar, Admah, and Zeboim (Deuteronomy 29:23; Hosea 11:8). Zoar was actually spared destruction as a result of Lot’s plea for a place to which he might flee (Genesis 19:18-22).

Do the advocates of homosexuality wish to hold the position that the populations of the four cities that were destroyed were all guilty of desiring sexual relations with angels? Perhaps the latest sexual fad that swept over all the cities in the vicinity was “angel sex”? Come on. And are we to believe that the great warning down through the ages regarding the infamous behavior of the inhabitants of Sodom—a warning that is repeated over and over again down through the ages to people in many places and periods of history (Deuteronomy 29:23; 32:32; Isaiah 1:9; 3:9; 13:19; Jeremiah 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lamentations 4:6; Ezekiel 16:46,49,53,55; Amos 4:11; Zephaniah 2:9; Matthew 10:15; 11:24; Luke 10:12; 17:29; Romans 9:29; 2 Peter 2:6; Revelation 11:8)—is: “Do not have sex with angels!”? How many times have you been tempted to violate that warning? No, the glare of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is flung down the whole length of Scripture history is not angel sex! It is same-sex relations—men with men. And, unbelievably, now the very warning that has been given down through the ages needs to be re-issued to America! This is a very grievous sin that God will not trifle with—the Bible is clear.

Additionally, the men of Sodom were already guilty of practicing homosexuality before the angels showed up to pronounce judgment on their behavior. That is precisely why the angels were sent to Sodom—to survey the moral landscape (Genesis 18:21) and urge Lot and his family to flee the city (Genesis 18:23; 19:12-13,15-16). The men of Sodom were pronounced by God as “exceedingly wicked and sinful against the Lord” back at the time Lot made the decision to move to Sodom (Genesis 13:13). There is proof of this in Jude 7 (i.e., “having given themselves over” and “going after”). The Sodomites descended on Lot’s house when the cup of fornications was already full, on the day before God’s doom descended.”

One final point likewise discounts the claim that the men of Sodom were lusting after angel flesh. The men of Sodom did not know that the two individuals visiting Lot were angels. They had the appearance of “men” (Genesis 18:2,16,22; 19:1,5,8,10,12,16), whose feet could be washed (Genesis 19:2) and who could consume food (Genesis 19:3). The men of Sodom could not have been guilty of desiring to have sexual relations with angels, since they could not have known the men were angels. Even if the men of Sodom somehow knew that the visitors were angels, the impropriety of same-sex relations remains intact—since the angels appeared in the form of males—not females.

An honest and objective appraisal of Jude 7 provides no support for the homosexual cause. The Bible consistently treats homosexual behavior as sinful, and warns us not to "call evil good, and good evil" (Isaiah 5:20).

"Ours Is a Day of Special Peril for Children.--We are living in an unfortunate age for children. A heavy current is setting downward to perdition, and more than childhood's experience and strength is needed to press against this current, and not be borne down by it. The youth generally seem to be Satan's captives, and he and his angels are leading them to certain destruction. Satan and his hosts are warring against the government of God, and all who have a desire to yield their hearts to Him and obey His requirements Satan will try to perplex and overcome with his temptations, that they may become discouraged and give up the warfare. {CG 471.1}

We never needed close connection with God more than we need it today. One of the greatest dangers that besets God's people has ever been from conformity to worldly maxims and customs. The youth especially are in constant peril. Fathers and mothers should be on their guard against the wiles of Satan. While he is seeking to accomplish the ruin of their children, let not parents flatter themselves that there is no particular danger. Let them not give thought and care to the things of this world, while the higher, eternal interests of their children are neglected."

Humbly submitted by olger before breakfast