What do the Bible texts used to condemn homosexuality actually mean?

[Gail]

On 4/20/2019 at 4:30 PM, Bravus said:

4. But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

To me, this implies something other than regular homosexuality as the normal ratio of gay men in any town is not 100%. I see this as violence.

[B/W Photodude]

20 minutes ago, Gail said:

To me, this implies something other than regular homosexuality as the normal ratio of gay men in any town is not 100%. I see this as violence.

The percentage of men behaving in a homosexual manner may vary from one culture to another. For instance, it is said that no reasonably good looking boy in Afghanistan makes it to adulthood without being molested. You can find many such reports pn various disturbances of "normal" sexuality throughout middle eastern cultures. They seem to have very different ideas even ragarding the purposes of women. So, I am not surprised by the Sodom story.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-11217772

[stinsonmarri]

On 4/17/2019 at 8:57 PM, Bravus said:

I'm excluding the story of Sodom and the desire of the men of the city to rape the angels (and another very similar story about a happening in Bethlehem, that comes up more rarely), because (a) we do not know that angels are male in the first place and (b) this is not a story about consensual homosexuality, it is a story about rape, and none of us are saying rape is ever OK.

The fact that, in English, much much later, the term 'sodomy' was applied to various sexual practices is not Biblical, it just reflects a misunderstanding.

You should not have excluded Sodom because we do know they were male.

And YAHWEH appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way. Gen 18:1, 2, 16

And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; And he said, Behold now, my masters, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came into thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. Gen 19:1, 2, 15 

I have stated over and over that angels are all male spiritual beings. Heb 1:5 states clearly to the angels, THE FATHER never called them HIS SON! They are male but some here think they have genders just like the evil men of Sodom thought. Why because they did not show their complete appearance. Angels have four or six wings and they have four faces. Three are animals lion, ox, and an eagle. They do have also the face of a man. Read Eze Chapter One! THE FATHER, THE SON, and THE HOLY SPIRIT are all MALE BEINGS!  What you read in the Bible that YAHSHUA created us to reproduce and the Bible states that. Nowhere does it claim reproduction of the angels. We only read that the angels were created to be ministering spirits and the two Cherubs known are Gabriel and Lucifer. Lucifer title is Satan now and Gabriel is the main angel that is mention in the Bible. Show me anywhere in the Bible that they reproduce it is not there! 

Finally; the Bible shows clearly that created beings called Adam were given reproduction organs. Male with a male cannot produce, nor female with a female! If you had two islands miles apart and all male gay men and the married gay couple were on one and all female gay also the married female gay couple; they all would die out! Dying comes from sin, so it is simple they all would die because they are an abomination to THE MOST HIGH! But, we should never mistreat anyone because of their sexual orientation, adultery, lying, stealing, etc. We must, however, preach the truth and allow all to make a choice! At Sodom, Lot offered those evil men his daughters, they refused because they wanted to have sex with men. It was the angels who blinded those men and it will be YAHWEH, not us who will judge us all who disobey HIS WORD!

Blessings!

[Bravus]

Phew. There's a lot there.

On the last point: that's not how humans work. All humans are born to a mother and a father, but yet 4-10% of people in all human societies are same-sex attracted. We don't really know why that happens, but it is natural, and happens everywhere and everywhen.

And it's not as though Earth's current problem is underpopulation...

If the angels do not reproduce, why would they be male? They would be gender-neutral. Which invalidates the whole claim that Sodom is about homosexuality.

[Bravus]

Male pronouns were routinely used generically for all human beings and human-like entities as recently as the 1970s, let alone several hundred years BC when this story was written and in the early 1600s when it was translated. 

[hch]

On 4/20/2019 at 12:30 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

True.  That Scripture has much more to it than just homosexuality.

Scripture deals with a lot of issues.

Is this issue at  the level of being a salvation issue?

If it is getting it right is important: Not a matter of opinion or personal preference.

[Gregory Matthews]

A general topic may be a salvation issue without saying that understanding a specific verse is a salvation issue.

[phkrause]

On 4/20/2019 at 9:57 PM, Bravus said:

(staying on topic)

Only two daughters of Lot are ever mentioned in Scripture, as far as I know.

But yet verse 15 states: And as the dawn rose, the angels pressed Lot, saying, "Get up, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you perish because of the iniquity of the city."

Which implies to me that there were other daughters who were married!!

[R. G. White]

I hesitate to dive into this discussion, as the original post seems already set up to quibble. If only those five passages were taken into consideration, I find it hard to see how one could miss their obvious intent, unless we already had an agenda of our own, which would preclude our being led by the Holy Spirit.

Beyond the shadow of a doubt, homosexual practice is condemned. This also implies that homosexual desires or orientation is also sinful and corrupt. If we really understand the Bible's teaching concerning how sinful and corrupt we all are from birth, then IMHO this should not be a problem. When we give ourselves to God, to enter His service, we have already chosen Him and His ways over our own natural inclinations, and we are trusting in Him to fix whatever may be wrong with us, in His own time and way. The saving of a soul is a very complex process, but simple faith is how we gain access to it.

[Bravus]

The OP was intended sincerely. 

No-one, so far, has been willing to discuss the actual texts. Anything and everything but. 

[Gustave]

2 minutes ago, Bravus said:

The OP was intended sincerely. 

No-one, so far, has been willing to discuss the actual texts. Anything and everything but. 

I would discuss some texts with you.

[R. G. White]

14 minutes ago, Bravus said:

The OP was intended sincerely. 

No-one, so far, has been willing to discuss the actual texts. Anything and everything but. 

I'll take your sincerity at face value, if you will do the same for me. I addressed all five of your actual texts. Their meaning and intent are obvious to me, so what more can I say, unless you want to try to explain how they don't really mean what they appear to be saying?

[Bravus]

OK. I am happy to stipulate and agree that each of these texts, read literally in English translation and taken at face value, condemn homosexual activity. (in some forms)

I’m not sure where in those texts you find your position that homosexual orientation/attraction is condemned, and would be interested in an explanation of that. 

I also think that reading texts literally in English and taking them at face value is not good theology and doesn’t work very well. If we did it with Jesus’ words, for example, how many of us would still have two hands and two eyes?

So, in that context, digging a little deeper than the surface seems desirable.

 

 

[R. G. White]

2 hours ago, Bravus said:

OK. I am happy to stipulate and agree that each of these texts, read literally in English translation and taken at face value, condemn homosexual activity. (in some forms)

I’m not sure where in those texts you find your position that homosexual orientation/attraction is condemned, and would be interested in an explanation of that. 

I also think that reading texts literally in English and taking them at face value is not good theology and doesn’t work very well. If we did it with Jesus’ words, for example, how many of us would still have two hands and two eyes?

So, in that context, digging a little deeper than the surface seems desirable.

 

 

Here is my explanation. The 8th commandment condemns stealing as a sin. It follows that the desire or tendency to steal is therefore sinful and corrupt. This would fall under the category of "the clearest reasoning." As an application of the principles of the 7th commandment, the Bible does not appear to go any easier on homosexual practice than it does on stealing, so how would the desire or tendency toward that abominable practice not be equally corrupt? We are all born seriously messed up, and we often become further deranged during our lives, by our environment and by our own choices. I believe we need a humbler view of ourselves, not a more favourable view of sin.

No, taking the English translation of a text at face value does not always work. However, it is correct exegesis to begin there, and to stay there barring some compelling reason to the contrary. Do you have any insight to share, concerning the larger biblical context, the immediate context, or the original languages, that would call into question the apparent intent of any of those verses? Hint:  Today's popular psychology is not a reason. We all know the world loves sin.

[stinsonmarri]

On 4/24/2019 at 9:00 PM, Gail said:

To me, this implies something other than regular homosexuality as the normal ratio of gay men in any town is not 100%. I see this as violence.

It was 100% that is why Lot sat out at the gate of the city. It was also violence because these men or angels were "new meat!" How many understand the meaning of the word "know?"

From c. 1200 as "to experience, live through." Meaning "to have sexual intercourse with," also found in other modern languages, is attested from c. 1200, from the Old Testament (Genesis iv.1). Etymology Online Dictionary

But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came into thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.  Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came into sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.  But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. Gen 19:4-10 

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from YAHWEH. Gen 4:1 

What amazes me that Strong skip around the truth of the Hebrew word "yada," and I feel it was hard for Europeans men at that time to express sexuality out loud! However, they were going to violently rape Lot to get to the angels. The Bible said the people both old and young were doing this awful sin. Even those who were married, that is how depraved their minds had become. I am also not a shame to let all know these were Black people. The Sodomites were Canaanite who came from Ham. Ham was not a homosexual and that is a lie that has spread over the centuries, these people were. Let make this clear the Greeks and the Romans participated in homosexual act also! The mistletoe comes from the Celtics who only mated with women to breed children. These blond head tall men love to show off their beautiful bodies even in battle. They scared even the Romans soldiers and were brave fighters. You can read about the Celtics and Druids, before going off to war they would kiss under the mistletoe that's where this ritual started. 

A kiss is also something which is, at times, associated with lust. So the practice of "kissing under the mistletoe" also had roots in the orgiastic celebrations in connection with the Celtic Midsummer Eve ceremony. At the time the mistletoe was gathered, the men would kiss each other as a display of their homosexuality. (The custom was later broadened to include both men and women.) Kissing under the mistletoe is also reminiscent of the temple prostitution and sexual license proliferating during Roman Saturnalia. Biblical Discernment Ministries

 But it wasn’t always like this. In ancient times, the Celts were renowned as much for their erotic energy and multiple love affairs as for their warlike habits. Male warriors were often part of sodalities, groups of “special friends,” who engaged freely and openly in same-sex relationships. Ancient Greeks such as Aristotle and Strabo mention Celtic homosexuality as one of the few good things about what they considered a barbarian culture.
For centuries, Celtic culture has been renowned for drinking and storytelling, but it’s not exactly known for its eroticism. Even in traditional Irish dancing, there is no close contact with your partner, and often not even eye contact.

Because Celtic women had the right to bear arms and to stand in the line of battle with men, they were closer to having legal equality than the women in most other cultures. Moreover, they had sexual autonomy. Under ancient Celtic law, marriages were made specifically for the purpose of procreation. The Romans were horrified by the existence of polyandrous and polygamous marriages among the Celts. Nonprocreative relationships outside of marriage were also acceptable and legal for men and women. By Gayle Gibson (teacher at the Royal Ontario Museum); Same-sex Celts

My point is homosexual was a part of all cultures of the ancient world. So, I am not surprised about today! But like Sodom, today it has become acceptable even categorize as biological and natural. The Bible says it is unnatural and it is a sin but we must not mistreat anyone. Judgment will take place on all sinners not just on some! 

Finally, they were violent with this act then and they are today, we call it rape and molestation of men and boys!

Blessings!

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, Bravus said:

OK. I am happy to stipulate and agree that each of these texts, read literally in English translation and taken at face value, condemn homosexual activity. (in some forms)

I’m not sure where in those texts you find your position that homosexual orientation/attraction is condemned, and would be interested in an explanation of that. 

I also think that reading texts literally in English and taking them at face value is not good theology and doesn’t work very well. If we did it with Jesus’ words, for example, how many of us would still have two hands and two eyes?

So, in that context, digging a little deeper than the surface seems desirable.

 

 

I don't think there is anything in Scripture that condemns homosexual attraction - there isn't anything I'm aware of in Scripture that condemns the attraction to animal sex. I think it's the "act" of homosexual sex and the "act" of bestiality. 

[R. G. White]

30 minutes ago, Gustave said:

I don't think there is anything in Scripture that condemns homosexual attraction - there isn't anything I'm aware of in Scripture that condemns the attraction to animal sex. I think it's the "act" of homosexual sex and the "act" of bestiality. 

The nature of sin may be a deep study, but it seems that we sin because we are sinners, not so much the other way around. Being miserable because we are attracted to sin, but cannot participate in it, doesn't seem like a very good way to spend eternity. Jesus, as the divine Son of God, naturally found sin repugnant, just as Adam did before his fall, and I believe God has the power and the will to bring us to that same place, provided we yield to Him our will.

[R. G. White]

There is a dynamic that often seems to underlie any discussion of this topic in particular, but of other topics as well.

As I see it, the conservative approach is to distract from my sin by talking about yours. If your sin appears much worse than mine, I might even be able to persuade God to accept me. After all, I showed that I was on His side by taking a stand against sin.

The liberal approach seems to be to tolerate and excuse your sin, so that you will do the same for me. If your sin appears to be much worse than mine, I might even be able to persuade God to accept me for being so gracious. After all, what could be more Christ-like?

I submit that neither of these approaches entails entering the sheepfold by the Door, but involves climbing up some other way. The blood of Christ alone can justify us, and this means an ever-deepening realization of our own inherent sinfulness, and an ever-increasing dependence on the righteousness of Christ. I will not excuse your sin, neither your acts of sin nor your sinful tendencies or desires, but I will encourage you to believe that Jesus can more easily save you than He can me, if you will put all of your hope in Him.

[R. G. White]

56 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Have you thought about why this is so?

Our brother has chosen to ignore the entire angels-in-Sodom story, for highly dubious reasons, and no one has even mentioned the astonishingly similar Levite-in-Gibeah story. I'm afraid there is no lack of evidence.

[Bravus]

The Sodom story is about rape. If you want to discuss Sodom, start a new thread. It is not part of this inquiry.

[R. G. White]

40 minutes ago, Bravus said:

The Sodom story is about rape. If you want to discuss Sodom, start a new thread. It is not part of this inquiry.

You don't get to define the purpose of every Bible story for the rest of us. We are free moral agents. That story included attempted homosexual rape, among other things. They THOUGHT the angels were male human beings. Unlike in the Gibeah story, there was no actual rape. In the Gibeah incident, the rape was not homosexual, but only for lack of opportunity.

If you would rather not deal with the facts, don't open a thread inviting people to comment.

[R. G. White]

1 hour ago, Bravus said:

The Sodom story is about rape. If you want to discuss Sodom, start a new thread. It is not part of this inquiry.

As for interpreting the meaning of a Bible story such as the one about the angels in Sodom, I think it is reasonable to look to the rest of Scripture for insight. I'm still waiting for you to give me a reason not to take those five verses at face value.

[Bravus]

I'm interested in why people are so determined to get that story in. Do the other 5 texts not get the job done by themselves?

I'm very happy to discuss the Sodom story - in another thread.

[stinsonmarri]

 

 

1

On 4/25/2019 at 8:23 PM, Bravus said:

Phew. There's a lot there.

On the last point: that's not how humans work. All humans are born to a mother and a father, but yet 4-10% of people in all human societies are same-sex attracted. We don't really know why that happens, but it is natural, and happens everywhere and everywhen.

And it's not as though Earth's current problem is underpopulation...

If the angels do not reproduce, why would they be male? They would be gender-neutral. Which invalidates the whole claim that Sodom is about homosexuality.

I suggest you read Gen 19 again and also Eze 1 which describes angels. They can appear to look like mortal men or an ox. Let me stop right here. Satan appears also to like this ox that is huge and evil looking with a pitchfork. In the ancient, there are depictions of a huge birdlike creature with wing also a huge lion with wings. These spiritual made beings have shown all of their features in the past. Yet, you want to claim they have gender, something you have not read in the Bible. A lie does not care who tell it or writes it, it is still a lie. The evolutionist says we evolve from an ape, do you see that happening? We just want to believe any and everything but the truth. That's why we are in the condition were are in today. We actually believe that YAHWEH would use an immortal person to do HIS bidding and you cannot find one in the Bible. Baalim was a prophet and was told not to go and curse Israel, yet he did and YAHWEH would not let him curse them! We come up with all kind of answers to justify what you choose to believe over what YAHWEH Says and Commands. Nothing disobey like us, the sun and the moon still follow the Law that was given from creation.

YAHWEH had to confound our people in the past language because YAHWEH Said "and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do." Satan is a deceiver like no other and we continually fall for his deception and again terrorist violence due to hate happen again on the Sabbath. It was a High Holy Day, but it was not a passover. The passover was a meal, nor was it a feast day which means to overeat. It was:

 In the first day, ye shall have an Holy Convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto YAHWEH seven days: in the seventh day is an Holy Convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. Lev 23:7, 8 

 Now the Appointed Set Time of Unleavened Bread drew nigh, which is called the passover. Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, when the passover must be killed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat. Luke 22:1, 7, 8  WOY

I gave this point to show how even IsraEL changed what YAHWEH said. YAHWEH never called angels men, HE Said they were "ministering spiritual beings." Because they can appear to look like creatures they are not creatures, they are angels! Angels actually mean ministers. Why do YAHWEH have to state it like you wanted when HE stated exactly like HE wanted and it is clear what they are and what they are not. The evil men of Sodom thought what they saw and it is clearly said you cannot believe everything you see!!!!

Blessings!

[Bravus]

Ezekiel 1 is one of my favourite scriptures.

And we seem to be in agreement: angels are not men, but in this instance looked like men. They did not have 4 wings and 4 faces.