Sodom and Gomorra (Jesus, moral, Moses, Gomorrah, coffin)

[JerryL]

Because many Christian's believe that the Bible is sufficient to warrant a change in the law. Therefore, if the Bible condemns homosexuality, so should the law. Other people find this unnacceptable but do not have a problem with the Bible condemning other things such as murder since their views are more inline with Biblical thinking on these matters.

But these Christians wear clothing of mixed material, and work on Sunday, and eat non-Kosher food, and divorce one another. They are hypocrits.

It would seem even stranger if he tried to make the exchange if he knew that the men wanted to rape the angels. Afterall, what kind of father wants his daughters raped?

From a Biblical standpoint? An honorable one. Remember that daughters were property, the only crime of rape was the devaluing of a father's property (or violation of a husbands), and so he's giving up his daughters value for the virture of hospitality to strangers.

Rape is being condemned as well as fear of the unknown. Genesis 19:5 could easily mean have sex with but I find the translations meaning "know" and beat up/kill equally justifiable given an abscence of knowledge of the original Greek word.

I don't agree. Rape is never condemned in the Bible. Inhospitality is being condemned.

I think that all of the passages in the Bible that condemn homosexuality are refutable.

'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. seems pretty on-point. But we diverge a bit from the topic there.

How can we tell that the passage refers to both homosexuality and rape? If they were heterosexual, it would be logical to assume it just referred to rape yes? Why change the logic, then, if the sexuality changes?

Name a Biblical passage condemning rape itself.

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by JerryL

But these Christians wear clothing of mixed material, and work on Sunday, and eat non-Kosher food, and divorce one another. They are hypocrits.

But hypocrisy does not disqualify you from the democratic system and its easy to be a hypocrit.

Originally Posted by JerryL

From a Biblical standpoint? An honorable one. Remember that daughters were property, the only crime of rape was the devaluing of a father's property (or violation of a husbands), and so he's giving up his daughters value for the virture of hospitality to strangers.

That is arguable about the Bible but would probably have been the attitude of the people at the time. Either way it puts Christians in an uncomfortable position.

Originally Posted by JerryL

I don't agree. Rape is never condemned in the Bible. Inhospitality is being condemned.

I wouldn't know if the Bible never condemns it. I am suggesting however, that if sex, or the implication of sex, occurs in this passage, it is occuring in circumstances of rape, not mutual consensual sex, and it is therefore this that would be condemned, not the homosexuality.

Originally Posted by JerryL

'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. seems pretty on-point. But we diverge a bit from the topic there.

It is not possible for 2 men to lie with each other in the same way as a man and a woman. This is just a biological impossibility. I have better arguments than that but that is the most obvious and easiest one to throw out.

Originally Posted by JerryL

Name a Biblical passage condemning rape itself.

Again I am not arguing that the Bible condemns rape since I do not know enough about the topic of rape in the Bible to make such an assertion. I am merely suggesting that some of the passages that are used to say that homosexuality is wrong, are in fact describing scences of homosexual rape, homosexual polygamy etc. and it is the extra factor in these scenarios that are being condemned not the homosexuality itself. There are no accounts of consensual homosexual relationships being condemned.

[YamiB.]

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. seems pretty on-point. But we diverge a bit from the topic there.

Like you've already pointed out Christians don't follow Levitical law anymore.

[JerryL]

I wouldn't know if the Bible never condemns it. I am suggesting however, that if sex, or the implication of sex, occurs in this passage, it is occuring in circumstances of rape, not mutual consensual sex, and it is therefore this that would be condemned, not the homosexuality.

But if the Bible does not condemn rape, than it would not condemn this rape for being rape. (I'm not sure that the Bible makes a clear statement on a man being raped, so it's possible it would condemn that rape as rape).

It is not possible for 2 men to lie with each other in the same way as a man and a woman. This is just a biological impossibility. I have better arguments than that but that is the most obvious and easiest one to throw out.

The fact that your interpritation is obviously impossible proves that it's not a valid interpretation. It would be like passing a law prohibiting men from breast-feeding babies... it would make no sense.

That and you are awful 'nilla in your view of male-female sex.

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by JerryL

But if the Bible does not condemn rape, than it would not condemn this rape for being rape. (I'm not sure that the Bible makes a clear statement on a man being raped, so it's possible it would condemn that rape as rape).

That is fair enough. However, for the Christian who is convinced that certain passages talk about unconsensual sex between 2 men, it is easier to argue that the passages condemn the unconsensual sex than to argue that the sex did not occur in the first place. I view the misconception, in my eyes, of the Bible condemning homosexuality more destructive than the misconception that the Bible condemns rape and so prefer to argue the former than the latter.

Originally Posted by JerryL

The fact that your interpritation is obviously impossible proves that it's not a valid interpretation. It would be like passing a law prohibiting men from breast-feeding babies... it would make no sense.

Or that the translation is wrong. Either way, the verse does not condemn homosexuality. For starters it definitely does not condemn female homosexuality. Then look at these suggestions:

Originally Posted by www.religioustolerance.org

This passage does not refer to gay sex generally, but only to a specific form of homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples. Much of Leviticus deals with the Holiness Code which outlined ways in which the ancient Hebrews were to be set apart to God. Some fertility worship practices found in nearly Pagan cultures were specifically prohibited; ritual same-sex behavior in Pagan temples was one such practice.

The following suggests that the passage was in response to the view of men and women at the time and therefore no longer applies today given the change of view in the gender roles.

Originally Posted by www.religiousforums.com

The status of women in ancient Hebrew culture was very much lower than that of a man and barely above that of children and slaves. When a man engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman, he always took a dominant position, as a penetrator; the woman would take a submissive posture. When two men engage in sexual intercourse, one of the men, in effect, takes the role of a woman. When a man takes on the low status of a woman, the act makes both ritually impure.

Furthermore, the passage refers to "ritual" sin, in the original Hebrew, not moral sin, indicating that this is talking about a Pagan cult and an attempt to remove sex worship from the Jewish religion. In other words, this is not talking about homosexuality in a loving, consenting relationship.

Another suggestion is that a better translation is "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination." In other words, it is where the sex takes place (in the bed of a woman) that is prohibited, not the sex itself. Given that the original scripture of this passage is no complete, this is an equally fair translation.

There is more and not all of these arguments are congruent so its a take your pick kind of dealio.

That and you are awful 'nilla in your view of male-female sex.

So are many fundamental Christians who also happen to be the people who most often argue that homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible. I'm comfortable with using their own view against them in such a debate.

[JerryL]

Or that the translation is wrong. Either way, the verse does not condemn homosexuality. For starters it definitely does not condemn female homosexuality.

Definately not. One off-comment by Paul aside, the Bible is not anti-F/F sex.

Another suggestion is that a better translation is "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination." In other words, it is where the sex takes place (in the bed of a woman) that is prohibited, not the sex itself. Given that the original scripture of this passage is no complete, this is an equally fair translation.

I thinnk that the Jewes use of abomination/perversion is pretty clearly indicitative that they are talking about m/m sex. It's an abomination of "correct" sex, just as two-material clothing is an abomination of correct clothing, and sacrificing the wrong animal is an abomination of the sacrifice.

So are many fundamental Christians who also happen to be the people who most often argue that homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible. I'm comfortable with using their own view against them in such a debate.

Fair enough, though it means you are making a lot of assumptions I don't share.

[Fluffy]

Definately not. One off-comment by Paul aside, the Bible is not anti-F/F sex.

If you are interested in discussing that passage, I have posted extensively on it here: scripture to condemn homosexuality

I thinnk that the Jewes use of abomination/perversion is pretty clearly indicitative that they are talking about m/m sex.

No I think the use abomination/perversion by Christian Biblical translators indicate that they are talking about m/m sex. Such a translation is not congruent with the original passage. A better one is unclean. There are other sexual practices which could be considered "unclean".

Fair enough, though it means you are making a lot of assumptions I don't share.

I wouldn't say I am making any assumptions beyond the idea that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, at least in this subject. The arguments I use do make more assumptions but no more than it takes to believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality and generally these assumptions are better backed up by historical knowledge, translation and unbiased interpretation.

[flacsmada]

Either way homosexuality is one of the ten commandments, one of the seven deadly sins, and is mentioned in 1 cor 5 as a sin. So im not saying God doesn't love that person, i just wanted to clearfy that it is a sin.

adam

[jewscout]

Originally Posted by flacsmada

Either way homosexuality is one of the ten commandments...

oh really...please could you point out which one it is?

[Fluffy]

Either way homosexuality is one of the ten commandments, one of the seven deadly sins, and is mentioned in 1 cor 5 as a sin. So im not saying God doesn't love that person, i just wanted to clearfy that it is a sin.

Homosexuality in the ten commandments? I assume you must be using some perversion of the 7th commandment since no other commandment mentions sexual immorality. Here is a list of things that the 7th commandment has been used to condemn:

Adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts;

All unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections;

all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto;

Wanton looks, impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel, prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages;

Allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them;

Entangling vows of singl