Homosexuality and the Bible

What are you talking about? The bible last time I looked said nothing about that.

Yes he took the angels into his home, and then the towns people did come to have "sex" with the strangers.

But Lot feeling this is unbecomming of his guests, so offered his daughters instead, who got the same treatment any guy would have....

At least that's how I remembered it so if I am wrong just post a few passages.

"While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, 'Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.' The owner of the house went outside and said to them, 'No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing.' But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, 'Get up; let's go.' But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home. When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel." - Judges 19:22-29

Nuff Said

Originally posted by abstract_alao
Judges 19:22-29

Nuff Said

This isn't the story of Lot, Gabriel, Raphael and Sodom. But a similar story that shows the same customs. In Genesis 19 we hear the original story (sorry it's quite long so please foregive me):

Ge 19:1�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; 2�And he said, Behold now, my lords, 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. 3�And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

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: 5�And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 6�And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7�And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8�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. 9�And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to 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. 10�But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. 11�And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

12�And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: 13�For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it. 14�And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.

15�And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city. 16�And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the LORD being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city. 17�And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed. 18�And Lot said unto them, Oh, not so, my Lord: 19�Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die: 20�Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one: Oh, let me escape thither, (is it not a little one?) and my soul shall live. 21�And he said unto him, See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow this city, for the which thou hast spoken. 22�Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither. Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar. 23�The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar. (My note: they ended up in the mountains where his daughters raped him later on and fulfilled Lot's worries).

24�Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; 25�And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

26�But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

Don't mix the stories here.

Blessings,
mikromarius

[Edited on 21-5-2003 by mikromarius]

Yes, the old familiar texts are here:as Thomas points out -you cannot wish bits of scripture away, there are 3 possibilities -whether or not the Bible is "right": or "wrong" is, in a logical sense, irrelevant.

a)The Bible is silent on the topic
b) the Bible condemns homosexuality
c) the Bible accepts homosexuality without condemnation

you can pick only one.

And this drivel about "fundamentalism" is merely that: drivel.
One can only logically be "fundamental" -within commonly agreed parameters concerning the exactness of translation
To imagine that one can, say, accept Corinthians, but dismiss Isaiah is mere foolishness, if not the sin of pride.
If you don't like what the book says -this doesn't make you a "liberal" Christian or a "non-fundamentalist": it makes you a "non-Christian".
The rest is vanity, stupidity and hot air.

How many times has this topic been on ATS? The same old list of nonsense topics.
How hard is it to accept the only defensible logical position? We may well be agog with interest at what you think and believe; but no one whose head is right gives a d**n about your "personal" Bible or your "customised" Christianity.

We could actually rid this forum of the endless, repetitious, spam'n'scam, bandwidth-wasting, boring, "same old c**p threads - and get on with discussing what holy texts actually do or do not say and how we react to this.
That might actually bring some intelligence to the forum as a regular feature rather than as an occasional interruption.

Interesting point Estragon. Bishop Spong is as quilty of misqouting the Bible to prove his point as the fundies misqoute
the Bible to prove their point. A case of the kettle calling the pot black
(O lord give me a day where I do not hear a cliche.) What I like is the
statement that Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality. Well He
didn't say much about murder or stealing either. Maybe He figured that
the subject had already been adequately covered elsewhere. How many
times do you need to put a prohibition on something? If you read law,
you will find only one statue dealing with murder. Once you say in law
that it is illegal, you don't need another law to say it is illegal.
Of course I love the way the liberal theologians bend history.
Galileo's problems with the Church did not stem from a Biblical source
but from a non-Biblical source. For in Galileo's time, the Church
decided that the ancient Greek's had the lock on all secular
knowledge. The concept that the earth was the center of the solar
system came primarily from Greek philosophy. It was the Greek
philosopher, Aristotle, who put fourth the contention that earth
was the center of the universe, the only place in the Bible that can
be used to support the earth centered theory was Joshua 10:12-10:14.
Any theologian worth his salt, could have demostrated that an idiomatic
interpretation of this passage should be used rather than a literal
interpretation (i. e., figures of speech). For we all know that Christ
died on Friday and was resurrected on Sunday, but He said he would spend
"three days and three nights" in the grave. Well that was because He
was using a figure of speech. Joshua was using a idiom (or figure
of speech) when he wrote this passage. However the pope would not be
convinced because Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, wrote that the earth
was the center of the universe. (The church was using a non-biblical
reference.)

As for the rights of women here is something interesting:

Deuteronomy 21:10

10. When thou goest forth to battle against thine enemies, and
Jehovah thy God delivereth them into thy hands, and thou
carriest them away captive,
11. and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and thou
hast a desire unto her, and wouldest take her to thee to wife;
12. then thou shalt bring her home to thy house; and she shall
shave her head, and pare her nails;
13. and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her,
and shall remain in thy house, and bewail her father and her
mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her,
and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
14. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou
shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her
at all for money, thou shalt not deal with her as a slave,
because thou hast humbled her.
15. If a man have two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated,
and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated;
and if the first-born son be hers that was hated;
16. then it shall be, in the day that he causeth his sons to inherit
that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved
the first-born before the son of the hated,
who is the first-born:
17. but he shall acknowledge the first-born, the son of the hated,
by giving him a double portion of all that he hath; for he is
the beginning of his strength; the right of the first-born is his.

The first passage (11-15), basically says that if you take a woman captive
in combat and if you take a fancy to her, you got to take her home and marry her.
And if you lose interest in her, you got to let her go her own way. Can you
imagine telling a Greek, Roman, or Babylonian soldier of that time this?
Roman General: "Well men, tomorrow we are going to take that town.
Now remember no raping of the women. If you see a girl you like you gotta
take her home and marry her". Two seconds later, the New Roman General
(since the previous Roman General is now dead of about two hundred sword
wounds) says: "Well men, tomorrow we are going to take that town, and
tomorrow night, it's PARTY TIME!"

The second set of passages (15-17) protects the property rights of children
(and indirectly the property rights of the wife). Note that the term "hate"
is really Hebrew idiomatic term for "less loved" (i. e., not his "favorite
wife"). In short, you cannot discriminate against a wife because you no
longer love her as much. In those days (as it is in certain cultures today),
it was common for a man to marry a younger second (and third) wife when his
first wife had grown older. (The first wife no longer passed the "pencil test"
and she just was not as sexually attractive as when she was 18.) Well in
some cultures of that time, the children of the first wife lost out to any
children from the second wife. These passages were intended to protect the
property rights of the first wife's children (particulaly a son).
Since Spong pointed to Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20, he didn't point to the
passages which follow that prohibit bestiality. Since he wishes to do away
with the Bible as defining homosexuality as immoral, then would he welcome
the sheep bangers to his church?

Absolutely right, j-flieger these arguments ex silentio are the mark of the manipulative.
Arguing that "X is good" because it doesn't explicitly say that "X is bad" is logical imbecility. No where does it say that Jesus ate meat; but that's hardly Scripural justification for vegetarianism!

Originally posted by Estragon
Yes, the old familiar texts are here:as Thomas points out -you cannot wish bits of scripture away, there are 3 possibilities -whether or not the Bible is "right": or "wrong" is, in a logical sense, irrelevant.

a)The Bible is silent on the topic
b) the Bible condemns homosexuality
c) the Bible accepts homosexuality without condemnation

you can pick only one.

The bible condemns sex outside marriage. Whether hetrosexual, homosexual or with animals. Why make a special case with homosexuality? It is just as abominable to have sex with another man (if you're a man) as to have sex with another woman outside marriage.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Yes but remember the Torah was written by men that thought the world was flat surrounded on all sides by water and the land on top of water, the sky a curtian obsuring Heaven from man. Do consertive christians like Thomas Crowne still believe that the world is only 6000 years old. One can read the bible and beleive that it is the word of God literally. Another can read it and with conscious thought see all the contradictions that are contained within.

The story of Sodom and Gormmorath is a good example of one, God is supposed to be omnipotent, but he had to sead to two angels down to these cities to find out what was actually going on. Surely this is a omniscience God. Yeah right pull the other one.

Many scholars have by various means proved that the bible is incorrect geographically, historically, biologically, geologically, etc.

To quote Spong, "A literal Bible presents me with far more problems than assets. It offers me a God I cannot respect, much less worship; a diety whose needs and prejudices are at least as large as my own. I meet in the literal understanding of scripture a God who is simply not viable, and what the mind cannot beleive the heart can finally never adore."

Further "This..........one of the primary reasons why educated young adults find themselves abandoning organized religionin droves. Adding piety to ignorance does not temper the ignorance, no matter how real and beautiful the piety"



[Edited on 21-5-2003 by Maddas]

Originally posted by Estragon
And this drivel about "fundamentalism" is merely that: drivel.
...
If you don't like what the book says -this doesn't make you a "liberal" Christian or a "non-fundamentalist": it makes you a "non-Christian".
The rest is vanity, stupidity and hot air.

Well said Estragon, we needed your kind of spice here

Blessings,
mikromarius

Originally posted by jagdflieger
...The only place in the Bible that can
be used to support the earth centered theory was Joshua 10:12-10:14.

So the Sun stopping in the sky somehow proves that the earth is the center of the universe to you? Wow!

For we all know that Christ
died on Friday and was resurrected on Sunday, but He said he would spend
"three days and three nights" in the grave. Well that was because He
was using a figure of speech.

No it was because he knew exactly what would happen. As he died in year 30 on the Wednesday before the first of three Sabbaths that week.

(The first wife no longer passed the "pencil test"
and she just was not as sexually attractive as when she was 18.)

It was more than merely a pencil test. Children was the security when you grew old. The more children you had who worked, the greater the chance for the elderly to be secured. Pencil test... When a woman gomes in a certain age, her "woumb is shut" and her "well dries up". This has nothing to do with pencils...

Since Spong pointed to Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20, he didn't point to the passages which follow that prohibit bestiality.

Well, and you probably don't know why these things are mentioned? These passages are almost a reversed step by step introduction to Ba'alism. It was important for Moses to point out that homosexual sex and beastiality was also to be concidered adultary and fornication, since the ten commandments didn't cover it. The Israelites believed that if they only could had sex with anything but another woman, they were clean, but Moses used Ba'alism as an example throughout the Law on immorality and ungodliness. Leviticus 18 is about Ba'alism and step by step, God condems almost every part of it. Leviticus 18:24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you.

It was important for Moses to separate the Israelites from the other clans that lived in Canaan at the time. They were mostly Ba'al worshippers. It was important for him to point out every sin they did in the names of their gods. If the Israelites did the things of the Ba'al worshippers and the rest of the Canaanites, they would wander astray and God would hide his face from all of Israel and leave them on the path of destruction.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Yes Estragon, I to am sick and tired of the laconic sententious, somewhat condesending comments posted by the cyber chum, drivel mongers I have so far met.

One must be careful to not become exactly what one despises.

[Edited on 21-5-2003 by Maddas]

Originally posted by Maddas
Yes but remember the Torah was written by men that thought the word was flat surrounded on all sides by water and the land on top of water, the heven a curtian obsuring Heaven from man. Do consertive christians like Thomas Crowne still believe that the world is only 6000 years old. One can read the bible and beleive that it is the word of Gog literally. Another can read it and with conscious thought see all the contradictions that are contained within.

You're speeking about an adequate, esoteric world view here, it's not astronomy. The Book of Raziel was a book that according to myth was given to Adam in Eden by the Arch angel Raziel who was the gatekeeper of the highest heaven and was also the protector of all esoteric wisdom etc. The book of Enoch many say is this very book. And here we see the world view you mention. To treat the Torah as a book on astronomy is to use the American tax rules to explain the universe. It just doesn't work.

The story of Sodom and Gormmorath is a good example of one, God is supposed to be omnipotent, but he had to sead to two angels down to these cities to find out what was actually going on. Surely this is a omniscience God. Yeah right pull the other one.

God did very well know what was happening in Sodom and Gomorrah. Infact he wanted to destroy the city even without rescuing Lot and his lot, but Abraham plead before the Lord and the Lord accepted Abraham's wishes for he was a rightious man. Therefore the Lord (represented by Arch Michael) sent the other two men he was with, Arch Gabriel and Arch Raphael to rescue Lot and his family and destroy Sodom and Gomorra. Read your homework mister...

Many scholars have by various means proived that the bible is incorrect geographically, historically, biologically, geologically, etc.

To quote Spong, "A literal Bible presents me with far more problems than assets. It offers me a God I cannot respect, much less worship; a diety whose needs and prejudices are at least as large as my own. I meet in the literal understanding of scripture a God who is simply not viable, and what the mind cannot beleive the heart can finally never adore."

Further "This..........one of the primary reasons why educated young adults find themselves abandoning organized religionin droves. Adding piety to ignorance does not temper the ignorance, no matter how real and beautiful the piety"

Yes he is absolutely right. If Moses had come today, he would have made a large chapter about traffic laws, and he would definately have made many laws against environmental crimes. The Torah is a book of laws, not astronomy and geography. It is a continuance of a tradition that spans all the way back to Eden and Adam. A system of wisdom and esoteric knowledge. Hidden within the book, between the lines, you can find new levels of wisdom. The systems you find therein are not manmade, they are bones and flesh and blood on a spiritual body, the Messiah, the Word.

Blessings,
mikromarius

Hidden within the book, between the lines, you can find new levels of wisdom. The systems you find therein are not manmade, they are bones and flesh and blood on a spiritual body, the Messiah, the Word.

And with that Mikro, I compleately agree with you. Could not have put it better myself!.

"Do consertive [sic] christians like Thomas Crowne still believe that the world is only 6000 years old."
Surely, the issue is: does Thos turn to Genesis when he feels the need -from time to time -to brush up on his geology?
I suspect not.
If you want the Bible -or other sacred texts - to be 101 textbooks, you are probably among the not-right-headed.
It is the essence of a sacred text that it, in some way, "passeth all understanding": the rules are null and void.
That's why it's sacred.
Which bit is the hard word?
Religion asks for "faith" not your IQ score.
If you find this intolerable - stay away from religion: it ain't hard to do.

Maddas: Please quoute your sources:

Many scholars have by various means proved that the bible is incorrect geographically, historically, biologically, geologically, etc.

What are the geograhical, historical, biolobical, geological mistakes in the Bible? Name some with references as to what the mistake is. For example where does it say in the Bible that the world is flat or is only 6000 years old?

And you may consider me :

Yes Estragon, I to am sick and tired of the laconic sententious, somewhat condesending comments posted by the cyber chum, drivel mongers I have so far met.

But at least I try to use refernces to prove my point. If you were to present arguments in a court of law, you better be prepared to offer the evidence to back up what you say.

By the way mikromarius, I presume you know what the "pencil test" is, and the point about lots of children is a load of crap used to excuse that kind of behavoir. The primary reason men in those days took on second wives is the same reason why today men divorce and marry younger women, or why that they take on a young mistress - they just want young nukey.


[Edited on 22-5-2003 by jagdflieger]

Originally posted by Estragon
US posters will be more familiar with this tedious, self-promoting old f*rt!
Former Bishop of Newark (Noo Joizee, that is) and he is to modesty and self-restraint what Genghiz Khan was to interior decorating.

This may be ture, but principals before personalities.

Originally posted by mikromarius

The story of Sodom and Gormmorath is a good example of one, God is supposed to be omnipotent, but he had to sead to two angels down to these cities to find out what was actually going on. Surely this is a omniscience God. Yeah right pull the other one.

God did very well know what was happening in Sodom and Gomorrah. Infact he wanted to destroy the city even without rescuing Lot and his lot, but Abraham plead before the Lord and the Lord accepted Abraham's wishes for he was a rightious man. Therefore the Lord (represented by Arch Michael) sent the other two men he was with, Arch Gabriel and Arch Raphael to rescue Lot and his family and destroy Sodom and Gomorra. Read your homework mister...


I Quote from my bible Genesis 18:20'21
"Then the Lord said "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin so grave, (21) that I must go down and see whether or not their actions fully correspond to the cry against them that come to me. I mean to find out."

Iseralite Tradition was unanimous in ascribing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to the wickedness of these cities, but tradition is varied in regard to the nature of this wickedness. According to Isaiah (1,9;3,9), it was lack of social justice; Ezekiel (16,46-51) described it as a disreguard for the poor, whereas Jeremiah(23,14) saw it as general immorality.

Many scholars have by various means proived that the bible is incorrect geographically, historically, biologically, geologically, etc.

This comment is easy to research go get any book on biblical archeology. The differences are not major but are significant. Obvious ones are the lack of any evidence of the bondage of the Isrealites, various aspect of the exodus. etc.etc. ref (The Exodus Enigma by Ian Wilson).
Concerning the Hebrew scriptures it is the prevailing point of view amoung biblical scholars regarding four document theory originally poposed by the Graf-Welhansen school in the nineteenth century. That theory brought around the familar symbols of , (J or Y) Yahwist, (E) Elohist, (D) Deuteronomic, and (P) Priestly.
These divisions stand for thre separate strands of biblical narration, each with his own agenda that later came to be mearged into the one continuous biblical narrative. Although it is constantly being modified as knowledge expands in biblical research, it continues to be affirmed almost incontrovertibly in its broard sweep.
If the bible is so important to us, it seems essential that we understand how it came to be written. It did not drop from Heaven in a complete and final form, written in Elizabethan English. Again any one can research this as well.




[Edited on 22-5-2003 by Maddas]

Maddas a book you might enjoy is Nelson Glueck's " Rivers in the Desert" if you can find it. Nelson Glueck was a Jewish archaeologist in the 1950's and 1960's. He always used the Torah as the starting point of his research. I have to dig out my copy and reread it.