Homosexuality and the Bible...

[fromthe heart]

These will explain better than I:


The Story of Sodom - Genesis 19:1-25
Many people carelessly proclaim that God destroyed the city of Sodom because of homosexuality. A careful look however, reveals that this is unlikely.

Two angels were sent to Sodom by God, where Lot, Abraham's nephew, persuades the divine travelers to stay in his home. It is important to note that travelers depended on the kindness of strangers. Ancient hospitality codes required people to offer food, shelter and protection to people who were traveling. Without these codes travel would have been difficult, if not impossible.

After the Angels ate and were preparing for bed, all of the people of Sodom converged on Lots home, demanding that the angels come out so that the towns people might know(rape) them. In an effort to protect his guests, Lot denies the angry mob access to the angels, but offers his two virgin daughters instead. This suggests Lot knew his neighbors to be heterosexual. The townspeople refuse, and charge at Lot in an attempt to gain access to the angels. At this point the angels pull Lot back inside the house, and render the angry crowd blind so they can not find the door. The angels then warn Lot to gather his family and leave the city because it will soon be destroyed.

Much confusion over this passage has to do with the phrase to know them. The Hebrew word yadha (to know) has several different meanings throughout the Bible. In most cases it means to "have thorough knowledge of." In many cases it means "to check the credentials of", and in some cases may mean to "have sex with". In this case, however, it is clear that the townspeople wanted to harm the strangers, and because of ancient hospitaliy codes, Lot felt compelled to protect his guests. The townspeople wanted to perform an act of violence by raping the angels, a grave violation of ancient hospitality codes.

Homosexual rape was not uncommon. Kings of conquered tribes were sometimes raped by the invading army as the ultimate symbol of defeat and humiliation. The men in these armies were not homosexual, they were heterosexuals performing an act of violence. Never in any culture has more than a minority of the population been homosexual, and it is unlikely that all of the men in these armies or all the men of Sodom were gay.

Unfortunately, some people have focused on rape as a sexual act, rather than an act of violence, and have missed the point completely. The reason for Sodom's destruction is made clear in Ezekiel 16:48-50. According to Ezekiel, the sins of Sodom were pride, laziness, being inhospitable, neglecting the needs of the poor, greed, and idolatry (the worshipping of idols). Nothing about homosexuality is mentioned, nor is it mentioned in any other passage of Scripture which refers to the account of Sodom.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030417013301/hcqsa.virtualave.net/bible.html


Another link about Sodom and Gomorrah

Thank you for the info and the links.:162:

 

[fromthe heart]

Maize...do you mind if I trouble you once more?...Ezekiel 16:50 says 'committed abomination', I think this is what some use to refer to homosexual acts...is that correct?

 

[Green Gaia]

Maize...do you mind if I trouble you once more?...Ezekiel 16:50 says 'committed abomination', I think this is what some use to refer to homosexual acts...is that correct?

This is what I have:

Ezekial 16:49-50 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. NIV

 

[fromthe heart]

This is what I have:

Ezekial 16:49-50 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. NIV

KJV says committed abomination before me

 

[Lightkeeper]

KJV says committed abomination before me

So there you have it. It's a matter of translation. I don't see an explanation of what committed abomination means. The previous verses talk about lovers. There is nothing in there about homosexuality. An abomination could be how people treat guests and others.

 

[Scott1]

But...didn't God destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for that very reason?

Genesis 19 recounts the story of how Abraham's nephew, Lot, entertained two angels at his home in Sodom. Word got around that Lot had some visiting men in his home, and "the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old," gathered outside his home, clamoring for the two visitors to be turned over so that they could be homosexually raped: "Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we might have intimacies with them."

Notice what's going on here. The strangers had been shown hospitality by Lot and his family (vv. 1-3). The townsmen didn't cry out to Lot that they wanted to be "inhospitable" to the visitors, but that they wanted to have intercourse with them, which is something markedly different. Lot attempts to quell the mob by offering them his two virgin daughters, suspecting that because these men were homosexuals they would refuse. The entire account revolves around a single sin: homosexuality.

While it's true that later Old Testament prophets pointed out other sins the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of (Is. 1:9-20, 3:9, Ezek. 16:46-51, Jer. 23:14), it's clear that the primary sin, the sin which provoked God's wrath, was homosexuality.
If you examine the Old Testament passages in which God outlines the sins which would merit the death penalty under the Mosaic Law (Lev. 20:27, 24:10-23; Deut. 13:5-10, 21:18-21, 22:21-24), you'll see that homosexuality was condemned alongside such crimes as murder, idolatry, and blasphemy (Lev. 20:13). Search as you might, you won't find the Lord meting out the death penalty to persons guilty of inhospitality.

 

[Jaymes]

Yet God doesn't punish Lot for offering his daughter to be gang-raped instead of the angels?

 

[Druidus]

Never in any culture has more than a minority of the population been homosexual, and it is unlikely that all of the men in these armies or all the men of Sodom were gay.

The Spartans, anyone? Routinely, they practiced homosexuality and pedophilia. Men were expected to find a young boy, and bond with him, emotionally and sexually. This continued for centuries, was commonplace, moral, and was normality.

 

[Master Vigil]

The bible also says slaves should obey their masters without question. Hmm... I'm sure most christians are ok with getting rid of slavery, why such a problem with homosexuality?

 

[painted wolf]

Druidus, the Spartains were if anything bisexual. The idea that the army that sleeps together fights for one another is a old one. The Medieval Japanese Samuri also held similer ideas tword young boys. Almost all Spartans were required to join the military for some part of their lives as part of citizenship. If they were all homosexual then there wouldn't be many new Spartans.

Remember when talking about 'abomination' many things fit that term biblically speaking. Wearing clothing of mixed materials, eating uncleen food, women talking in church et cet.
It doesn't automatically mean homosexual activity.

wa:do

 

[HelpMe]

The bible also says slaves should obey their masters without question.

wasn't biblical slavery more along the lines of signing a contract for a certain amount of time(at the end of which, said signee could leave or CHOOSE to remain), and less along the lines of what is present in the minds of those whom recall american slavery?

 

[Druidus]

How do we know they didn't reproduce by binary fission? lol Yeah, I know that they were bisexual, but I was talking in terms of homosexuality as an act.

 

[painted wolf]

not true... if you were not Jewish you were out of luck.

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Emancipation of Slaves: Slaves in ancient Israel were automatically emancipated after 6 years of slavery, but only if they were Jewish. However, if the slave owner "gave" the slave a wife, the owner could keep the wife and any children as his property. Passages in Exodus state that female slaves who were sold into slavery by their fathers would be slaves forever. A corresponding passage in Exodus contradicts this; it required female slaves to be given their freedom after 6 years. One could purchase a slave from a foreign nation or from foreigners living with them. These slaves would remain in slavery forever, unless the owner chooses to frees them An Israelite who was a slave could be freed by a family member or by himself if he had the money. The cost of freeing a slave was computed on the basis of the number of years to the next Jubilee Year; this could be 1 to 50 years. Male Israelite slaves were automatically freed during the Jubilee Year. Depending upon which verse was being followed, female Israelite slaves might also have been freed at that time. Foreign slaves were out of luck. [/font] http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul2d.gif[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."[/font] http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul2d.gif[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Deuteronomy 15:12-18: "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him."[/font] http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul2d.gif[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."[/font] http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul2d.gif[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)[/font] http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul2d.gif[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Leviticus 25:48-53: "After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself. And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubilee: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him."

taken from http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm

wa:do

[/font]

 

[HelpMe]

is that not like the military's requirance(a word?) of soldiers to serve a term.

"And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty:"

again, i do not see biblical slavery as comparable to american or european(sp) slavery.but undoubtedly it is the image in the mind of anyone reading the word 'slavery'.

there are obviously sites dedicated to answering 'religioustolerence', but quoting our various sources really does little to add to the discussion.also, this is quite off topic.

 

[painted wolf]

the point is that using the bible to uphold any 'moral/legal' ideal is fraught with difficulty as it will require that you ignore some of the bible to do so. Those who clame that one or two verces indicate a mandate on activity such as homosexuality must also come to terms that more of the bible is devoted to such issues as the proper care and behavior of slaves.
There is more of a mandate for the insitution of slavery/indentered servitude than there is for the treatment of Homosexuals in the community.
Thus using the bible in an argument over Homosexuality is flawed. IMHO.

wa:do

 

[HelpMe]

the point is that using the bible to uphold any 'moral/legal' ideal is fraught with difficulty as it will require that you ignore some of the bible to do so

imho(if i may), this is a lie.but this isn't the 'biblical contradictions' thread, so we can leave it at stating our opinions for now.

 

[fromthe heart]

So there you have it. It's a matter of translation. I don't see an explanation of what committed abomination means. The previous verses talk about lovers. There is nothing in there about homosexuality. An abomination could be how people treat guests and others.

I think all the different translations play a major role in the confusion we get into and not necessarily the text themselves all the time. I guess it's ones responsibility to search their own hearts too in what is meant a lot of the time, don't you? I imagine it would be important to pray for God's guidance prior to reading most scriptures and trust in Him to lay the truth on ones heart.

 

[anders]

But...didn't God destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for that very reason?

Genesis 19 recounts the story of how Abraham's nephew, Lot, entertained two angels at his home in Sodom. Word got around that Lot had some visiting men in his home, and "the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old," gathered outside his home, clamoring for the two visitors to be turned over so that they could be homosexually raped: "Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we might have intimacies with them."

Sorry, you are wrong here. The people/inhabitants of Sodom, that is men and women, young and old, wanted to know thew visitors. Literally. Why did women and children want to know the visitors? Sodom had been at war recently, so of course they wanted to know what kind of foreigners the foreigner Lot had admitted into the city. It is even possible that the townspeople understood that the newcomers were angels or similar celebrities, so of course they wanted to see them. Obviously, they wouldn't be interested in Lot's daughters, whom the already knew.

The very few times the word "yâda`" (know) is used in the Bible as a euphemism for carnal knowledge (10 or 14 out of 943 or 947 for the literal meaning - I lost count somewhere), it is used by the narrator, not quoted from a participant's saying. It just came to my mind that the narrator might even have understood that "yâda`" could be misunderstood here, so to make sure, it is pointed out TWICE that the "young and old" were there.

It has been pointed out enough in the thread what the sins of Sodom were. It is perfectly obvious that homosexuality is never mentioned as one of them. Look at Ez 16:49, Jer 32:14 etc. The closest you get is in James 7, but that might as well refer to the abomination of eating shrimp.

The whole chapter, Gen 19, is not really about homosexuality, or the mentioned sins inhospitality, cruelty, lawlessness and others. Its purpose is to tell the exiled Jews that the Lord will help them, like when Lot got out of Sodom, be their situation ever so difficult.

Please don't think that my thoughts are just fantasy. They are a condensed version of an exegesis paper I made for the second university term of Religious studies. I have for example excluded lots of linguistic references to the original Hebrew and translations into other languages (I used more than ten languages and at least 15 of my Bibles). The OT professor did not protest against any of my above conclusions, but awarded me a Good pass, which is the higher of the two pass alternatives.

 

[Valjean]

If you peruse the old testament you'll find no shortage of abominations. From a historical perspective we must be careful in imputing currently unpopular transgressions to culturally distant peoples.

Perhaps the Sodomites performed work on the Sabbath or raised swine.

 

[Melody]

This is something I don't understand... Practicing homosexuals claim to be Christians while both the New and Old Testament of the Bible condemn the homosexual act. What do you all make of this?

Desi,

Anyone can make claims to be anything. It doesn't mean they are. The problem lies in the interpretation of the Bible. Some interpret it as the inerrant and infallible Word of God. Others look at the Bible more as an inspirational book. Some believe that the moral laws of the Old Testament still apply while some go by the New Testament where Jesus said he is the Word made flesh. In other words, we are to follow Jesus' teachings and not the Old Testament. Jesus teachings were about finding salvation through faith and belief in Him and not by following archaic laws and rituals. That said...

The Bible states that homosexuality is wrong....as is lying, adultery, stealing, coveting, idolatry, etc. No one sin is worse than any other in God's eyes (there is a verse on this but can't place it at this second)...sin is sin. Some choose to close their eyes and are misled by their pastors and church to believe that alternative lifestyles are acceptable...and they may be... depending on their definition of "Christian" and whether or not they believe the Bible is the Word of God.