If this is how this should be started, so be it:
http://www.equip.org/free/DP801.htm
How many more would you like me to come up with?
The most beautiful word in the Gospel of Jesus Christ is "whosoever."
Which is always followed by a prerequisite for something. Take for instance the infamous John 3:16; "... that whosoever
believes in Him should not perish..." So the term "whosoever" is not just a blanket term for everybody to not perish but everybody who follows the prerequisite of believing in Jesus.
All of God's promises are intended for every human being.
Following this logic, every human being should be able to just walk into Isreal and God will drive out it's inhabitants so that it can be theirs (Josh. 1:3-4)
How tragic it is that the Christian Church has excluded and persecuted people who are homosexual!
That is truly a tragedy especially when you consider that the Aposlte Paul had accepted people who had repented of that lifestyle (1 Cor. 6:9-11)
For many centuries, the Christian Church's attitude toward human sexuality was very negative: sex was for procreation, not for pleasure;
Is the best way to counter this unbiblical attitude with a negative steriotype? The Bible promotes both procreation and pleasue when it comes to human sexuality (see The Song of Solomon a.k.a. Song of Songs). With that being noted, I am curious if your solution to this negative attitude would be to promote sex for pleasure and not for procreation?
Such tradition often continues to influence churches today. Many teach that women should be subordinate to men, continue to permit forms of discrimination against peoples of color, and condemn homosexuals.
Do you have anything to validate this statement? I live in what has been called "The Bible Belt" and the Southern Baptist church I attend in the small Iowa town I live in does not promote these kinds of traditions. How many churches have you been to that do these things compared to how many that don't?
Other churches today are influenced by a century of psychoanalytic thought promoted through a powerful minority in the field of medicine. They see homosexuality as some kind of sickness. Although this view has now been soundly discredited by the medical profession, some churches and clergy continue to be influenced by the idea. They say that homosexuals are "imperfect" and in need of "healing."
And you keep using the term "homosexuals" and "gay men and lesbians". While I agree with this statement, isn't using those terms treating people who have chosen to live such a lifestyle as if they are a different kind of human rather than a human who has chosen to life a certain type of lifestyle? There are Christian ministries trying to educate other Christians why they shouldn't even be using terms "homosexuals, or "gay men and lesbians" for that very reason.
Biblical interpretation and theology also change from time to time. Approximately 150 years ago in the United States, some Christian teaching held that there was a two-fold moral order: black and white. Whites were thought to be superior to blacks, therefore blacks were to be subservient and slavery was an institution ordained by God. Clergy who supported such an abhorrent idea claimed the authority of the Bible. The conflict over slavery led to divisions which gave birth to some major Christian denominations. These same denominations, of course, do not support slavery today. Did the Bible change? No, their interpretation of the Bible did!
New Information Refutes Old Ideas
What influences lead us to new ways of understanding Scripture? New scientific information, social changes, and personal experience are perhaps the greatest forces for change in the way we interpret the Bible and develop our beliefs. Scientific awareness of homosexual orientation did not exist until the nineteenth century
You would probably really be interested in the history of this. I know I am. What I find interesting is your acknowledgement that not all Christian denominations taught such an abhorrent idea (BTW, you are very right about this). In other words, before New scientific information, social changes, and personal experience, there were Christian denomiations not teaching the abhorrent idea you gave as an example. If that is the case, the next question should be, what exactly influenced the denominations that didn't teach the abhorrent idea especially when you consider that, as you stated, the Bible doesn't change?
Second, all of Sodom's people participated in the assault on Lot's house; in no culture has more than a small minority of the population been homosexual
First off, I don't know exactly what translation of the Bible you are using, so I won't get into that. I personally preffer the NASB. The way it renders Gen. 19:4 is "Before they lay down, the
men of the city, the
men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old,
all the peolpe from every quarter."
This verse is not trying to state that there were old ladies with canes and babies outside the house causing problems but clearly validates twice that what is meant by "all the people from every quarter" is all "the men of Sodom". Second, with that being noted, this was not even all the men of the "culture" but rather just the city which is very different. But, if you want to go there anyways, you should check out Scandinavia
http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp
Third, Lot's offer to release his daughters suggests he knew his neighbors to have heterosexual interests.
That still deosn't negate that these neighbors of his also had sexual interests in the visitors that he had in his house who were portrayed as males(it's called bisexuality) but rather, when kept in it's proper context, validates that their interests
were, as you confirmed, sexual in nature, and
not to "have thorough knowledge of... intent to examine the visitors' credentials". Why would Lot have offered his daughters to a bunch of guys looking to examine the visitors credentials?
Fourth, if the issue was sexual, why did God spare Lot, who immediately commits incest with his daughters?
Didn't you just confirm that the issue was sexual? But as far as Lot goes, the answer to that question can be found in Gen. 18:20-33 and why Abraham was so concerned about the city being destroyed. Lot was a relative of Abraham's. When Sodom had fallen in a war (Gen 14), Abraham had gone to rescue his relative Lot (Gen. 14:16) and when the king of Sodom offered Abraham the "goods", Abraham refused (Gen. 14:21-24). So while it is clear that Abraham could probably care less about Sodom, it could be easily and logically concluded that God had saved Lot on Abraham's account and nothing more.
EZEKIAL 16:48-50 states it clearly: The people of Sodom, like many people today, had abundance of material goods. But they failed to meet the needs of the poor, and they worshipped idols
It then states in verse 50 "
Thus they were haughty and committed
abominations before me..." The question then becomes, what exactly were these "abominations"? there are many things that are listed as abominations to God in the Bible.
Christians today do not follow the rules and rituals described in Leviticus. But some ignore its definitions of their own "uncleanness" while quoting Leviticus to condemn "homosexuals." Such abuse of Scripture distorts the Old Testament
meaning and denies a New Testament message. "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." These words occur solely in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, a ritual manual for Israel's priests. Their meaning can only be fully appreciated in the historical and cultural context of the ancient Hebrew people. Israel, in a unique place as the chose people of one God, was to avoid the practices of other peoples and gods.
Are you attempting to turn the Hebrew people inta a race? Do you know what the term proselyte means(Exodus 12:48; Ezr. 6:21)? On top of that, both Leviticus chapters 18 and 20 start of with "speak" or "say to the
sons of Isreal" not "say to the Levites" which would've made those chapters specifically preistly laws.
The Hebrew word for a male cult prostitute, qadesh, is mistranslated "sodomite" in some versions of the Bible.
O.K. so use a more accurate version of the Bible. That still would not negate that these male prostitutes may have been used for satisfying homosexual desires.
Given the strong association of toevah with idolatry and the canaanite religious practice of cult prostitution, the use of toevah regarding male same-sex acts in Leviticus calls into question any conclusion that such condemnation also applies to loving, responsible homosexual relationships.
That same word is found in Deut. 12:31 where the emphasis has to do with the idolatros act of burning sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. would you use the same conclusion there as if there was such a thing as a loving was of burning one's children in a fire to theirs gods?
Such concerns were ultimately reflected by Jesus Christ, who said nothing about homosexuality, but a great deal about love, justice, mercy and faith.
Amen!!! And the Love Jesus was refferring to was not a naive acceptance of anything whether it is good or bad but rather "does not rejoice with unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth" (1 Cor.13.6)
Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Liberal Christians: Many believe that texts in Genesis and the rest of the Bible make it clear that Sodom was punished because of the violent, abusive, inhospitable, greedy, and unsympathetic behavior of its citizens towards visitors, widows, the poor and other disadvantaged persons. Genesis 19 may condemn homosexual rape simply because it is rape. It would then be consistent with Deuteronomy 22:25-29 which condemns heterosexual rape. The passage does not impact on consensual homosexual activities between consenting adults, and is totally unrelated to loving, committed, same-sex relationships, civil unions and marriages. [/font][font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]
