Rainjack, when you run across the completely over the line attacks I’ve born the brunt of just lately, I think you’ll understand if I’m a bit paranoid at the moment.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
My point is as it has been. There is behavior in society that is unacceptable. The anti-gay marraige side wants to draw the line right here. Everything from gay marraige on is bad for society. Bad for families. Bad for the institution of marraige. [/quote]
How?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:
My point is as it has been. There is behavior in society that is unacceptable. The anti-gay marraige side wants to draw the line right here. Everything from gay marraige on is bad for society. Bad for families. Bad for the institution of marraige.
How?
[/quote]
Because that is what paranoid right-wing religious fanatics believe. It has nothing to do with suicide rates, the effects of such an abnormal relationship on children, or the fact that marraige has been between a man and a women since there has been the institution of marraige.
This thread is already 17 pages long. If you want to start yet another endless debate over gay-marraige go ahead. I’m done.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Because that is what paranoid right-wing religious fanatics believe. It has nothing to do with suicide rates, the effects of such an abnormal relationship on children, or the fact that marraige has been between a man and a women since there has been the institution of marraige.
This thread is already 17 pages long. If you want to start yet another endless debate over gay-marraige go ahead. I’m done.
[/quote]
Well, at least we can come to the conclusion that you really don’t have a reason.
100meters:
For the sake of clarity at this point in the debate I would like to dedicate one post to one point. That way we can better examine the truth behind the scripture and avoid the many dodges that 100meters seems to have taken along the way.
There are several points which need to be debated such as:
-
The meaning of “know” as stated in Genesis 19, regarding Lot. And why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.
-
Leviticus and the law regarding homosexuality.
-
The New Testament and the Bibles warning relative to homosexual activity.
-
The meaning of scripture and how even the act of Stealing, or any sin, can be rationalized using the same logic, word games, and other false hoods that the pro homosexuals use to defend the act of homosexuality.
-
100meters assertion that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of “lack of kindness to strangers” is not only completely wrong, but actually sounds quite foolish. He is claiming that God burned two cities to the ground in order to kill all of those who are “unfriendly.” Let’s see what God thought about the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah which was well beyond simply being “unkind”:
Genesis 18:20-And the Lord said, because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great and because their sin is very “GRIEVOUS.”
Does anyone reading this post think the “grievous” sin that God is referring to is “lack of kindness?” How ridiculous and perfectly politically correct you must be if that is the case!
Because of their “grievous” sin God sent two angels to Sodom. We are then aware that the “men of Sodom” circled the house and wanted to “know” the two strangers inside.
Let?s discuss the word “know” as used in Genesis 19:5- “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.”
Then Lot wanting to protect the strangers pleaded in 19:6, 7 & 8:
“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 do this thing. Behold now, I have two daughters which HAVE NOT KNOWN A 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.”
100meters claims that the men of Sodom were simply guilty of being unfriendly. Why then did they circle the house of Lot and insist on wanting to “KNOW” the visitors? If they wanted to beat them up or perhaps integrate them why then would Lot respond by offering his daughters who “HAVE NOT KNOWN A MAN.” That is indeed an odd response, if the plea was to simply be unkind to them. Unless of course the word “know” means to have sex with. And that is exactly what it means in this context!
We see that both the men of Sodom and Lot himself both use the word “KNOW.” We might not be 100% positive that the men of Sodom want to have sex with the strangers (only 99% sure) at this point.
However, it is later absolutely confirmed when Lot brings his daughters from the house and states boldly “THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN A MAN” do to them what is good in your eyes (now what would be “good” in a mans eyes?). “DO TO THEM.” That means there is some sort of “action” explicitly stated. He did not say “say to them.” And again we see the words “NOT KNOWN A MAN.” These words are stated plainly. Lot also uses the word “WICKED.” Greek translation means “Raa” (raw-ah) meaning, “good for nothing, bad, morally afflicted.” Sure does not sound like simply being “unkind.” In fact it follows quite well Gods use of the word “GRIEVOUS” to describe the acts of Sodom. Both words denote a very bad sin!
Here is what we know to be fact so far:
-
God was very upset over a “GRIEVOUS” sin taking place in Sodom and Gomorrah.
-
The men are calling out to “KNOW” the strangers.
-
Lot does not want them to do this "WICKED THING.?
-
Lot wants to substitute his daughters “WHO HAVE NOT KNOWN A MAN.”
There is almost no other way to interpret what is happening. This is not my opinion, but fact from the above passages. However, let’s take a close look at the word “know” from ancient interpretations. The Greek text reveals many definitions for the word “know.” Let?s allow the readers of this post to determine which definition fits best the above scenario:
The meaning of “know”: "To be aware of, acknowledge, instruct, be learned, tell’ understand, teach, be sure of, to lie with, as in sexual relations, to come to have, surety of, comprehend, consider, to be made aware of, acquaintance, posses knowledge, answer, advise, to be learned, kinsman, kinsfolk, famous and appoint, "
Judging by the many definitions above which do the readers feel fits Lots scenario best? Do you think Lot was describing this “wicked thing” because the men wanted to be “aware” of the strangers? Because they wanted to simply “acknowledge” the strangers? Take a good look.
Furthermore, which of the above definitions best fits Lot description of his daughters? His comment: “They have never KNOWN a man.” Do you think that he is saying that his daughters never “comprehended” a man? They never “answered” a man? Again pick one that fits better than to “lie with.”
“To know” is a very common phrase in the Bible when referring to two people having sex. As can plainly be seen in the following references:
Genesis 4:1
“And Adam KNEW Eve his wife; and she conceived,and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.”
Genesis 4:17
“And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he built a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.”
Genesis 4:25:
“And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, [said she], hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.”
There are far more references than this in the Bible relative to “knowing” meaning to have sex. However, for our purposes these four will suffice.
There is not doubt that Adam was not getting to know his wife as in “understand” her. Obvious by the final installment above: “Adam knew his wife again.” That would be the third time he “knew” her and she once again bore a child.
Along with the other facts within the passages there is no question as to the intent of the “men of Sodom.”
Finally, I will end where I began: why would God call simply being “unkind” a “GRIEVOUS” sin? Grievous comes from the word “kabad,” (kaw-bade) meaning “severe, heavy in a bad sense.” Being “unkind to strangers” as 100meters asserts is certainly not the “grievous” sin to which God refers!
In conclusion, based upon the facts above there is no other determination that we can make other than the obvious. God did in fact destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexual acts.
100meters would have you believe that the twin cities were destroyed for other sins, any other sin, other than extensive acts of homosexuality. He will grasp at meaningless nuances while dodging the clear point of the scripture. He will dissect a word here and there, (he may even question the meaning of the word “is”). He will no doubt twist and turn, while all the time avoiding the obvious, all in order to rationalize homosexual behavior, which is clearly a sin as you can see, (in my first installment), according to the Bible. His personal acceptance of a certain lifestyle blinds him to, not simply my opinion as you can see, but to the facts!
From the Washington Post 5/23/05
Top Psychiatric Group Urges Making Gay Marriage Legal
Associated Press
Monday, May 23, 2005; Page A02
ATLANTA, May 22 – Representatives of the nation’s top psychiatric group approved a statement Sunday urging legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
If approved by the association’s directors in July, the measure would make the American Psychiatric Association the first major medical group to take such a stance.
The statement supports same-sex marriage “in the interest of maintaining and promoting mental health.”
It follows a similar measure by the American Psychological Association last year, little more than three decades after that group removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.
The psychiatric association’s statement was approved by voice vote on the first day of its weeklong annual meeting in Atlanta. It cites the “positive influence of a stable, adult partnership on the health of all family members.”
The resolution recognizes “that gay men and lesbians are full human beings who should be afforded the same human and civil rights,” said Margery Sved, a Raleigh, N.C., psychiatrist and member of the assembly’s committee on gay and lesbian issues.
The document states that the association is addressing same-sex civil marriage, not religious marriages. It takes no position on any religion’s views on marriage.
Massachusetts is the only state that allows same-sex marriage. Eighteen states have passed constitutional amendments outlawing same-sex marriage.
You are still trying? Lordy ZEB, this is some strange convoluted logic, that transparently reveals your own added bias at every step. I will continue to use the scripture to beat down every false claim made! And again YOU will be left twisting in the wind! Was it not enough that in the last post Jesus himself utterly debunked your assertation —here you claim Jesus’ reasoning is foolish! careful, careful!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
- 100meters assertion that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of “lack of kindness to strangers” is not only completely wrong, but actually sounds quite foolish. He is claiming that God burned two cities to the ground in order to kill all of those who are “unfriendly.” Let’s see what God thought about the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah which was well beyond simply being “unkind”:
Genesis 18:20-And the Lord said, because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great and because their sin is very “GRIEVOUS.”
Does anyone reading this post think the “grievous” sin that God is referring to is “lack of kindness?” How ridiculous and perfectly politically correct you must be if that is the case!
Because of their “grievous” sin God sent two angels to Sodom. We are then aware that the “men of Sodom” circled the house and wanted to “know” the two strangers inside.
[/quote]
Again, It may seem incredible to somebody not aware of the culture and customs of these people, that treatment of strangers was held in the UTMOST regard! What is the difference between Lot and the Sodomites? Kindness to strangers! Let’s see if I’m right, according to the scripture:
Matthew 10:14-15
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city
Luk 10:9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
Luk 10:10 But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,
Luk 10:11 Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
Luk 10:12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.
Ok thats Jesus talking—pretty sure he’s the son of god and I’m pretty sure that he’s saying the exact same thing I am! Is this Jesus, just being “politically correct”? Or is Zeb just making stuff up?
In actual fact in every cross reference to Sodom in the bible (and there are many), there is ZERO reference to the sin of sodom being homosexuality. Zeb isn’t that odd? In every case I’m hitting homeruns, and in every cross reference God fails to provide you with so much as a life jacket for your faulty claim. Again to be clear, Jesus is saying without a doubt the EXACT SAME THING AS 100meters! To boot, The old testament references never back up ZEB’s false premise, and only go to strengthen my “ridiculous” claim!
Wisdom 19:13-14, “…whereas the men of Sodom received not the strangers when they came among them.”
Ecclesiasticus 16:8 “He did not spare the people among whom Lot was living, whom he detested for their pride.”
Ezekial
16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
hmmm…strange, no mention of homosexuality and again the hint of inhospitablity! Zeb I accept your surrender!
First it is my acceptance of the scripture that has led me to accept “certain lifestyles”. Second I’ve yet to use anything but the scripture as my basis to destroy your faulty claims.
On to your incorrect point!
To know:
You must have deliberately ignored my previous post—
943 times know is used. 10 times it is used in reference to sexual activity. It is always in reference to heterosexual activity. You list (incredibly) 4. Just four. There are 933 cases of the exact same word used to mean simply “to know”. Versus your 4. Now again as already established in the scripture you have a town full of people who don’t trust outsiders. The town has already been slated for destruction, right Zeb? God’s already talked to abraham, who bides some time if he can find 10 good people in the town…he can’t. The town is going to be toast. God sends 2 angels to Lot, a sojourner, NOT A RESIDENT, the residents of Sodom, in recent texts all of the men (young and old!), but historically:
Genesis 19:4 says: “…the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter.” (KJV)
Oh my! Men!Women! Children! all coming to rape the angels right ZEB? Honey, kids, lets go rape some angels! At this point Zeb wants to know to mean have homosexual sex with—first its’ not the correct hebrew word, second such a usage has never occured in the good book! Given the stated sins of Sodom, as written in the scripture and repeated by the Lord, it’s most likely not the correct usage. To be sure there were no good intentions. But in order to totally debunk Zeb, why on earth is he offering his daughters to a homosexual crowd? And when the Sodomites say:
And they said, Stand back. And they said [again], This one [man] came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: Now will we deal worse with thee than with them.
Zeb do you think that Old man Lot is gonna get a worse raping than the angels–? I really don’t think so.
We’ve established already.
- Sodom is going to be destroyed before this incident ever happened.
- Homosexuality is never,ever mentioned as one of the sins of sodom in many, many, references to the destruction of sodom.
- In the bible there are other such stories of unkindness to strangers followed by the destruction of the town. In Judges, a guest’s concubine is RAPED to death, the town of the rapists is destroyed—using the same language in the Sodom story. In order to be logically consistant Zeb would have to argue that heterosexual sex was the reason for the towns destruction. Jacob’s daughter Dinah is raped by Shechem the Hivite and Shechem’s town is destroyed. Again since Zeb assumes the Sodomites homosexually raped the angels, and because of it Sodom was destroyed—because God hated the homosexual behavior, Zeb again if he was honest and consistant (he may not be) would have to argue that God destroyed these other towns, because God hates heterosexual sex. Zeb you are debunked through and through, your logic, your assumptions, your usage…
all
are
debunked.
The easiest argument is God destroyed the towns of people who were inhospitable/unkind/unjust to others. It had(obviously)
nothing
to
do
with
sexual orientation.
You have ONLY your assumption, that’s it, just your opinion. You are contradicted by 2000 years of hebrew teaching, by the scripture, by Jesus himself. Nice try, but again God’s will is consistant, and not hypocritical, your usage isn’t.
100meters:
As we continue this very interesting debate I am going to depart from my sometimes sarcastic tone. Any sort of debate has the ability to bring out the worst in people, I am no exception.
However, it ends here for me! After contemplating this issue and reading your posts I am sure that you do in fact believe what you are claiming. I know we may be on the far side of the spectrum when it comes to this (and many other) issues. However, I do respect your opinion and it does not help either you or me to cast negative aspersions on each other. With that stated:
Your first example of Matthew 10:14-15 “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.”
Christ is not referring to “unkindness” he is speaking of those people in any particular town who turn away from Christ. The message of the New Testament, as you know, is Christ as savior of the world. Anyone who refuses to accept this must “depart out of that house or City, shake the dust off your feet.” The message is the acceptance of Christ nothing to do with “unkindness.”
You further prove this point by citing even more examples in Luke 10:9, 10, 11 and finally 12: "It will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city (any city that rejects Christ). Sodom and Gomorrah is always held up as the worst possible example. Not because of “unkindness” as you claim, but because of “the most GRIEVOUS and WICKED (as God called it) sin” perpetrated there.
However, even that sin (any sin) is not as bad as rejecting Christ! I think that we can both agree on this.
Your Ezekial16:49 example: “Behold this was the iniquity of they sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.”
It seems that Sodom was indeed a sinful place. I do not question that fact. Usually when there is a City which has turned its back on God there is more than one sin which is abundant. I don’t think Sodom and Gomorrah is any exception to this rule.
However, do not be deceived that just because there was an abundance of sin in Sodom and Gomorrah does not mean that the sin of homosexuality was absent! It would be illogical to assume that just because there was a multitude of sin that the sin of homosexuality was not present. In fact, as we see in Ezekiel 16:47 God refer directly to the sin of homosexuality: “Yet thou not walked after their ways, nor done after their ABOMINATIONS: but, as {if that were} a very little {thing}, thou was corrupted more than they in all they ways.”
When we go to the Hebrew version (which is the oldest and most trusted) we see that the word “ABOMINATION” which is “tow ebah” meaning: “Something morally disgusting, abominable, thoroughly unpleasant or revolting.”
Furthermore, in Ezekiel 16:50 “And they were haughty, and committed ABOMINATION before me: therefore I took them away as I saw {good}.”
What was that sin that was so morally disgusting and revolting? It was the sin of homosexuality as proven in Genesis.
The word “now”: Youhave accepted that there are times in the Bible when the word "know"is used to mean having sex with. I cited only three in my most recent post, however there are others, see Judges 11:39, 19:25, 1 Samuel 1:19. That you now acknowledge (you did not in a previous post) that the word ?know? can be used as in ?having sex with? then you must still answer this question which you have not addressed:
Why would the men of Sodom come to Lots house and holler out: ?bring the strangers out so that we may KNOW them?? Again did they simply want to talk to them? That was not the intent of the men of Sodom. In fact, according to you they were ?unkind.? Therefore, we can be pretty sure that they did not want ?know? them as in greet, understand and be friendly with.
We have further proof that they did not want to ?know? them as in understand and be friendly because Lot came to the door and pleaded with the men of Sodom: ?I pray you brethren do not so ?WICKEDLY? do this thing. Why would it be wicked for the men of Sodom simply to talk, greet or get to understand the two strangers?
As further proof Lot then offers his daughter!And herein lies the very crux of my point and why (I think) the NIV and other translations are written as they are by people much smarter than myself:
You stated:"Why would Lot offer his daughters to a group of homosexual men?? The question that you should be asking is why would Lot even think of offering his daughters to a group of men if they (the men in town) only wanted to greet, meet and get to better understand the two strangers! There is only one reason for Lot to first call the act (it was something they wanted to do to the men otherwise he would not use the words ?do so wicked a thing) ?WICKED,? and then plead with the men while bragging about his virgin daughters. How did sex enter into this if it is about simply greeting the men? Or for that matter if any other usage of the word “know” is used.
Read this passage carefully:
?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 do this thing. Behold now, I have two daughters which HAVE NOT KNOWN A 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."
Ask yourself this question: Why would Lot who is a good man and righteous in the eyes of God implore the men of Sodom who surrounded the house to ?NOT SO WICKEDLY DO THIS THING? (it was an action as in ?do this thing?) and then offer up his daughters which ?HAVE NOT KNOWN A MAN.? What would be the point of Lot bragging about hisvirgin daughters to a group of men other than that he was trying very hard to prevent the men from having sex with the two strangers. Furthermore, why would he call the act of ?KNOWING? the men, ?WICKED? unless of course he was aware that the men wanted to have homosexual sex with the strangers?
Without wandering to far from this specific account of Sodom and Gomorrah (Lot and the men surrounding his house) please tell me exactly your reflection on the series of events that took place at the time the men sourrounded Lots house and called out to him.
At this point I honestly don?t understand how anyone can claim that homosexual sex did not take place and was not the intent of the men of Sodom when they surrounded Lots house.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
100meters:
As we continue this very interesting debate I am going to depart from my sometimes sarcastic tone. Any sort of debate has the ability to bring out the worst in people, I am no exception.
However, it ends here for me! After contemplating this issue and reading your posts I am sure that you do in fact believe what you are claiming. I know we may be on the far side of the spectrum when it comes to this (and many other) issues. However, I do respect your opinion and it does not help either you or me to cast negative aspersions on each other. With that stated:
Your first example of Matthew 10:14-15 “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.”
Christ is not referring to “unkindness” he is speaking of those people in any particular town who turn away from Christ. The message of the New Testament, as you know, is Christ as savior of the world. Anyone who refuses to accept this must “depart out of that house or City, shake the dust off your feet.” The message is the acceptance of Christ nothing to do with “unkindness.”
[/quote]
Ok. The point of me quoting this was not Jesus’ message, but instead the analogy. But regardless, This has nothing to do with accepting Christ…Actually the pretext is Jesus giving his disciples the power to heal etc, and telling them to go forth and teach that the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Then he tells them “And whosoever shall not receive you…” (The disciples) that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom than that city. I think we can all agree, that is a very clear analogy, be unkind–city destroyed.
Please note it did not require the homosexual rape of the disciple, only his rejection. To affirm in absolute terms the importance of kindness to others, to show with no doubt that this is valued above all other values…
JOHN 15:12 NKJ
12 "This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
You have made my claim seem ridiculous,yet it is a persistant theme in Jesus’ life. (and his one commandment!)
It is more logical to assume the sins of Sodom were simply the sins listed in the scripture, which unfortunately does mention homosexualtity. Ezekiel doesn’t DIRECTLY mention homosexuality, here you have to hope abomination means homosexuality. Unfortunately abomination does not refer to homosexuality—as explained before.
Here you continue to misuse “toevah” (translated here abomintation) Zeb, I’d ask you to research the meaning of this some more. Toevah does not mean intrinsically evil, but ritually unclean. Examples would include eating pork, shellfish, cutting beards, all abominations. Throughout the old testament it is used to “designate those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry” in fact sometimes it means just idoltry. It never refers to homosexuality. Never. Not to mention sins unrelated to rituals, and idols would have used the word “zimah”—temple prostitutes=toevah
prostitutes=zimah. Homosexuality is not used with either of these words. Ever.
You mean other than the fact homosexuality in anyway is never mentioned. Remember to know is not used with homosexuals, and that the whole town is present, and yet, you are still assuming homosexuality inspite of all the evidence to the contrary. Why does the whole town gather? Isn’t it most likely that the town was going to F up the strangers. Wouldn’t the offering of virgins be a good distraction (remember women were property back then) Note: Lot did not offer himself up for these supposed homosexuals (men, women, and children) he offered his daughters. Your view just makes no sense—and By now you must have seen-- that you keep inserting your own personal take on the story, a very activist take I might add.
100meters:
The message that Jesus is attempting to relate to the readers of this particular scripture (Matthew 10:14,15) is that those who reject Christ will have it worse than the great sinners of Sodom and Gomorrah.
He (Christ) is claiming that rejecting him is even worse than homosexual acts and every other sort of sin that took place in Sodom and Gomorrah.
I agree completely that over all Christ certainly preached love. However, he also warned of those who would not turn from their sin and what would occur to them. In the passage above it seems obvious he was speaking about rejecting him (as being the single worst act you can commit) since he came as savior of the world! This was his main message above any other. However, this is not germane to the topic at hand.
I stand by the definition of “Abomination.” It is used 52+ times in the Old Testament and many of those times it is used to describe a "disgusting, revolting, morally displeasing act to God. Since we know (based on what is to follow with the specific incident in Sodom) that homosexuality (not my opinion) is unpleasing to God I suppose that God is able to describe it using that term.
For example we see once again that the Lord uses the word “ABOMINATION” to describe homosexuality. “They have committed an abomination.” Same word used by the Lord regarding Sodom and Gomorrah.
Lev 20:13 “If a man also lieth with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an ABOMINATION: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.”
My point is not to debate the above scripture (yet), however I simply cite it so that you can see the Lord uses the word “ABOMINATION” to describe the act of homosexuality.
God also used the word “GRIEVOUS” to describe Sodom and Gomorrah?s acts. Do you really think that God is using language like “Grievous and Abomination” to describe the act of “Unkindness?” I think that is a huge assumption (pure opinion) on your part with no real basis in fact. He probably chose those two words because they fit all, or most of the serious, sins that are taking place in Sodom and Gomorrah (homosexuality being only one of them).
However, the words abomination and grievous are not as important as what it leads up to!
You continue to say that “homosexuality is never mentioned.” We both agree that the word “homosexual” was not coined as yet. Hence, you will never see it in the Bible. However, just because the word was not yet in common usage, does not mean that the act was not “in common usage.”
Case in point: My example above when God says in Lev 20:13 “If a man also lieth with mankind, as he lieth with a woman.” Even God does not yet have a specific word for the act of homosexuality! Therefore, he is actually trying to describe it as you can see. Some can be blinded because there is no specific word. As you know however an action can indeed take place without a word to exactly define it. Even God used a description of the act of homosexuality.
Since that is the case you do see words that are used in place of homosexuality, words that mean “to have sex with.”
“Know” (Yada) is one of them. There are many references in the Bible relative to people using the word “know” for having sex as quoted specifically in my two most recent posts.
Here lies the crux of the matter:
If the men of Sodom did not want sex with the two strangers “Bring them out so that we may “KNOW” them” then please tell me exactly why they used that word? Is it not logical to assume just as you did regarding the word “abomination” that there would be better, more accurate words to use rather than “know” if they in fact did not want to have sex with them? We have already seen that there is no specif word to describe homosexuality, so why not use the common term for having sex with a female: “KNOW.”
Your comment that the men of Sodom wanted to beat up the strangers simply does not make sense. And I believe it is you who are adding your own opinion to fact (perhaps what some wish would have happened). The word “know” in ancient Hebrew does not have any sort of definition which relates to fighting, or beating people up. There are however some very accurate words to describe fighting, one such is the Hebrew word, “Lacham” which means to “fight” “wage battle” “destroy” “devour” “consume” etc.
It is used in scripture many times in fact:
1Sam 17:9 when Goliath called out for some one to “lacham” (or fight him).
7 Deuteronomy 2:32 Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to “lacham” (do battle) at Jahaz.
13 Joshua 11:5 And when all these kings were met together, they came and pitched together at the waters of Merom, to “lacham” (destroy or fight) against Israel.
There are many more instances (at least 20+) where “lacham” is used to indicate a “fight” or to “destroy” another group of people. However, not one time is the word “KNOW” (yada) used in any of it’s definitions to mean “F up the strangers” as you put it.
The men were after sex with the male strangers!
Another point that leads us to this fact is that Lot cries out to the men.
Genesis: 19:7,8 “And said, I pray you, brethren, do not (do) so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not “KNOWN” a 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.”
The above is proof as Lot is actually asking the men to “KNOW” his daughters! In fact, bragging that they had not “KNOWN” a man. The offer: instead of “knowing” the strangers “know” my daughters. Do you think he is offering his two virgin daughters to be beaten up by the men? If so why is he bragging about their virginity? No, he is absolutely offering them up for sex (as you have stated and I argee, women were considered more like property) instead of the two men whom the men of Sodom were insisting on having sex with.
The words are plainly written. There simply is no other logical conclusion that one can derive!
KEY POINTS:
A. The word abomination is used in other scripture to describe the act of homosexuality. While the word was not yet invented the act was indeed occurring. Since there was no word to define homosexuality even God used a description “If a man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman.”
B. Lot attempts to replace the two men with his two daughters. The men cried out “we want to KNOW (have sex with) the strangers.” Lot?s reply: I have two daughters who have never KNOWN (had sex with) a man, do to them what is good! That “good” thing was to have sex!
100meters, where do you get your biblical arguments? I am no biblical scholar, but much of what you post is contrary to what I have learned or believed.
It seems that when you are faced with something that appears to be counter to what you are saying you state that the translation is wrong.
How do you know? What is your background?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters, where do you get your biblical arguments? I am no biblical scholar, but much of what you post is contrary to what I have learned or believed.
It seems that when you are faced with something that appears to be counter to what you are saying you state that the translation is wrong.
How do you know? What is your background?[/quote]
Zap,
I’m not debating what the church teaches on homosexuality—Their viewpoint and the history of that viewpoint is clear.(I thought the scripture would be enough for zeb, but perhaps some history will help.) I’m arguing that the bible doesn’t condemn the homosexual orientation. In the bible there are 6 passages usually mentioned to justify this bias. Usually they are easily debunked. I would encourage everybody to make up their own mind but use the whole context, and research the usage of the words—especially the misleading abomination ( just substitute with “religously unclean” or “idoltry”) So to answer your question, I get my arguments from the bible!
LOL you guys are killing me! I can’t believe how big this thread got while I was gone. So let me get this straight: if I don’t see a problem with my gay friends who want to get married, then that means I must also support animal fucking and pedophilia? Yeah, whatever dudes…
This kind of crap is why I was calling you guys homophobic. Hey, maybe I’m wrong, but it just sounds like you guys will proclaim all kinds of ridiculous shit just to keep your minds closed to the possibility that being gay is okay. This is why I was saying that this issue is your own personal problem and not anything wrong with the homosexual community.
And another thing, the “homophobe” term isn’t hateful thing, it’s just another label. I don’t hate you guys for thinking my friends here are evil or unnatural, I just wish you could see them as normal people like yourselves. The queer men and women I work with here are wonderful people (well most of them, hehe) who do not hesitate to put themselves in danger for you (firefighters), go to extraordinary lengths to save your life (paramedics), provide comfort and aid while you are extremely sick (nurses), and so on and so forth.
The next time somebody pulls your sorry ass out of a wrecked car, think for a second: that person trying to help you just might be one of those “perverted” homosexuals you look down your nose at. And now you’ve got their gay cooties all over you. EWWWWW!!! 
[quote]ZEB wrote:
100meters:
The message that Jesus is attempting to relate to the readers of this particular scripture (Matthew 10:14,15) is that those who reject Christ will have it worse than the great sinners of Sodom and Gomorrah.
He (Christ) is claiming that rejecting him is even worse than homosexual acts and every other sort of sin that took place in Sodom and Gomorrah.
[/quote]
Now c’mon zeb! It’s clear the analogy is disciples being rejected = sins of sodom.
It has nothing to do with him—Its the disciples!!!
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not…
… And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence…And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Whoever shall not recieve YOU!(the 12!)
We don’t know that, because:
1.God never says it
2.Not a 10 commandment
3. Biblical authors had no modern concept of homosexuality
4.Sexual orientation is never mentioned.
5.Biblical story of Jonathan and David not condemned.
6. This leads you to suppose…my whole point.
Uhmm… It’s not used to describe homosexuality/or orientation
Context for the readers: Leviticus is “Instructions for the Priests” It outlines how the people of Israel are properly supposed to worship God. It has no bearing on anyone that is not a Jew. Lev 18:22 and 20:13 are parts of the Holiness Code outlying what constitutes uncleanliness. Toevah(horribly translated abomination, but really “unclean”) is used to describe things related to religous practice or idol worship. One popular practice of Israel’s neighbors was temple prostitution. Cults all over the area included men sleeping with men in temple rituals. This is why the word “toevah” is used here. This is why it is worded “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman” These are heterosexual men who in idoltrous rituals are sleeping with men in cult temples.This is OBVIOUSLY “toevah”(unclean), but not because these men are gay. The pretext of idoltry and cult practices has already been established in Leviticus, in fact:
You shall not offer any of your offspring to be immolated to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am the LORD.
22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.
Molech was the fire god worshipped throughout Canaan.Clearly the holiness code is centered around separating the people of Israel from their neighbors, and their idoltrous practices. While Zeb would have you believe the bible was written in a vacuum, in truth the biblical writers were reacting to immediate world around them. Of huge concern was the immense popularity of the local gods and cults, Leviticus’ holy codes deal with such concerns. The most popular god was Baal or “lord” and in Canaan was the name for the fertility gods. He was widely accepted amongst the jews and even worshipped by kings and royalty of the tribes of Israel. Rituals involved—bestiality, temple prostitution, and human sacrafice. The biggest problem facing the people of israel wasn’t leaving god (“yahweh”) for Baal, but the blending of the 2. Baal became for many the everyday life god, the god of rain, crops, and livestock. It was believed that sexual acts by male and female prostitutes would arouse Baal enough to “fertilize” the earth. This theme of idoltry and the problems it creates, runs throughout the old testament. Leviticus is written in this context.Leviticus 18:22 is referring to said temple prostitutes. If it was not toevah would not be used. As I wrote before and as ZEB chose to ignore when you see temple prostitute, you also see toevah. When you see just prostitute you see “zimah”. And again I repeat toevah is not used for intrinsically evil sins.And again God gave these laws to a select group of people, and the laws pertain specifically to them and nobody else as stated in the bible. They have no bearing on me or zeb at all. Which is why we are free to perform all the abominations, eating pork, cross breeding animals, trim beards etc…
Zeb, Leviticus commanded them to be kind to strangers, breaking that rule would have been grievous! The bible says that unkindness to strangers was the sin of sodom.
wisdom 19:14 For the Sodomites did not receive those, whom they knew not when they came
And Zeb If You’d just admit that Sodom was going to be destroyed prior to the “event” ever happening (hence the angels), I think this debate would be over.
Still no. See above. The best you can say is God finds heterosexual men sleeping with men to be religously unclean.—not a grievous sin. We don’t get God’s opinion of a gay man who sleeps with a gay man whom he loves. Do we ZEB? We never, ever do.
know here means know. Know in its usage 933 times of 943 times means to get a more thorough knowledge of or check the credentials of. Lot lives at the gates of sodom a town full of people who don’t accept outsiders! The whole town shows up. In the end Lot is rewarded for his kindess, the sodomites well their town is destroyed. The theme isn’t god is kind to those who are kind, but destroys those who are homosexual, there’s a distinct cause and effect, accept outsiders=good, don’t accept outsiders=bad. This is a consistant theme in the bible. Homosexuality is not a theme at all.
zeb yes or no, sodom was going to be destroyed prior to the “event”
yes or no, the scriptures many references to sodom confirm my kindness to others theme, and never mention homosexuality in any direct way.
Also zeb, note that by using the sodom story to attack homosexuality, you yourself are committing the sin of sodom (as it is understood in the scripture)–not accepting outsiders! oh the irony!
100meters, that was a pretty interesting post. I’m not religious, so I don’t really give any credence to an old book dictating my morals for me, but that was pretty awesome. I always wondered why a religion that embraces the hippie values of acceptance and forgiveness would so revile a segment of our population for no good reason. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Zeb says “hate the sin, love the sinner”, but why define a gay as a sinner in the first place?
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters, where do you get your biblical arguments? I am no biblical scholar, but much of what you post is contrary to what I have learned or believed.
It seems that when you are faced with something that appears to be counter to what you are saying you state that the translation is wrong.
How do you know? What is your background?
Zap,
I’m not debating what the church teaches on homosexuality—Their viewpoint and the history of that viewpoint is clear.(I thought the scripture would be enough for zeb, but perhaps some history will help.) I’m arguing that the bible doesn’t condemn the homosexual orientation. In the bible there are 6 passages usually mentioned to justify this bias. Usually they are easily debunked. I would encourage everybody to make up their own mind but use the whole context, and research the usage of the words—especially the misleading abomination ( just substitute with “religously unclean” or “idoltry”) So to answer your question, I get my arguments from the bible!
[/quote]
I mean what version of the Bible?
You keep going back to Greek translations. Your arguments are well reasoned if the translations you are using are correct. I just wonder where you get this stuff? Do you speak Greek? Did you learn it from someone else?
I am just curious what your personal background is in this area.
Nothing in the bible originated as english text…
[quote]vroom wrote:
You keep going back to Greek translations.
Nothing in the bible originated as english text…[/quote]
Zap’s FULL questions and statements make this little ditty unnecessary. He qualified the Greek translation by asking his background in Greek. Why try to find an issue that doesn’t exist?
It is a valid question to ask someone translating any material. And certainly anyone translat ing the Bible, as more than one text exists.
Personally, I think 100 meters has done a great job here of clarifying these 6 passages. I don’t disagree with ZEB or totally agree with 100, but enough ambiguity has been shown to make translation one way or the other possible.
Thanks guys for the biblical lesson, but really all it’s proven is what many say about the Bible. It can be so broadly interpreted, depending on what you want to see, that it makes it less than perfect as a evidentery reference.
100meters:
Unfortunately we agree on so little regarding the Bible that anytime one of us uses an example to make our point regarding the main subject of debate (Sodom and Gomorrah) we tend to create mini debates within the main debate.
I’m sorry about that; it’s not my intention to be deliberately argumentative. I have actually learned a great deal from this debate with you and I want to thank you for that opportunity. As they say iron sharpens iron!
Rather than engage in several mini side debates I suggest that we stick closely to the topic at hand.
Sodom and Gomorrah:
I’m glad that you see that the men of Sodom did not gather around Lots house to “to F them up.”
Now you are stating that “know here means to know” (as in a greeting).
You are getting a step closer to the truth but are still off base. However, I honestly believe you are seeking the truth as am I. I have actually tried to read this scripture several different ways, but it simply does not make sense any other way.
Read the scripture below. If “know means to know” as in “understand better, greet” etc. then why does Lot respond to the men’s request to “know” the strangers by calling it “wicked?”
Lot is a righteous man in Gods eyes and would not call “greeting” strangers a “wicked thing.”
Genesis: 19:7, 8 “And said, I pray you, brethren, do not (do) so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not “KNOWN” a 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.”
The above scripture clearly spells out the following:
-
Lot feels responsible for the two “strangers.” “They (came) under the shadow of my roof.” Why would he be protecting them from a simple greeting?
-
That Lot was well aware that the men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to “DO” something to the two strangers: “unto these men do not DO this wicked thing.” The men were there to take action.
-
Lot brags of their virginity using the word “know.” “I have two daughters who have not ‘KNOWN’ a man.” Why is that entered into it if it’s only a greeting? Unless, as the scripture clearly indicates, the men wanted to have sex with the strangers.
-
Finally, as stated previously: “Don’t do this wicked thing” Lot was righteous in the eyes of the Lord and would not call simply greeting strangers as wicked. In fact, “greeting” strangers is a kind thing as you state. Why then would Lot plead so vehemently to prevent the men from “knowing” the strangers if “knowing” meant “to greet, or better understand?” That makes no sense.
It has been difficult for me to stick closely to this particular part of the Bible. I hope in response you will use the same discipline and comment only on the above so that we can hopefully reach some sort of mutual resolution (even if that resolution is to amicably disagree) before moving on to the next topic of debate.
[quote]vroom wrote:
You keep going back to Greek translations.
Nothing in the bible originated as english text…[/quote]
And Moses didn’t speak (or go) Greek.
It is my understanding that the Bible was written in Greek.
100meters arguments are well reasoned and are based on a different translation. I would like to know more about it.