Sodom, Greece, Rome and homosexuality.

[AlAyeti]

Does allowing for diversity include parents having no voice in what their children are forced to be taught and have to accept?

Do Christians and the many other cultures and belief systems opposed to homosexuality have the right to have their culture and religious views respected in society when it comes to decent and natural sexual behavior in the education system and in public?

Are homosexuals demanding accesss to children under the label of diversity and anti-hate legislation?

This seems the number one issue between average and normal "family" people and the homosexual agenda.

Can there be laws passed that keeps homosexuality from becoming forced on children and families that oppose it, without the homosexual community and homosexual action organizations crying discrimination?

Is there such a thing anymore as heterosexual rights?

[Easyrider]

Cathar,

Many christians do seem obsessed with sex especially homosexual sex but what can you do.

Kiwimac

I think the vast majority of Christians wouldn't even be discussing it if the pro-gay crowd wasn't so obsessed with spreading their unbiblical theology in the church and all across America. If you want to hear less about homosexuality and the Bible, I recommend you cease promoting and defending it as a godly lifestyle.

The fact is that nowhere in the Bible is either gay marriage or a gay relationship ever viewed in a favorable light.

[kiwimac]

Cathar,

Many christians do seem obsessed with sex especially homosexual sex but what can you do.

Kiwimac

I think the vast majority of Christians wouldn't even be discussing it if the pro-gay crowd wasn't so obsessed with spreading their unbiblical theology in the church and all across America. If you want to hear less about homosexuality and the Bible, I recommend you cease promoting and defending it as a godly lifestyle.

The fact is that nowhere in the Bible is either gay marriage or a gay relationship ever viewed in a favorable light.

I find it interesting that you seem unwilling to engage with the evidence which I have presented and which has almost certainly been presented before which indicates that your interpretation of what the scriptures teach is mistaken.

Instead you seem to take cover underneath blanket statements and perhaps like a small child you find the 'blanket' protects you from all manner of bogey-men but just like that small child the 'safety ' is illusory.

God is not about bias, or prejudice or hatred. In Christ we see the 'plan' for the kingdom and it is tolerance and acceptance of the other and love even unto death.

Kiwimac

[Easyrider]

I wondered if anyone would bring up Jude 1:7

This scripture is a dangerous one for you to use because it almost certainly does not say what you THINK it says. Jude is one of those books you need to be very careful with as the author has a habit of quoting from extra-biblical material in order to make a point and sometimes no one is sure just WHAT he means.

Let me quote

JUDE 7

Some people ASSUME that this verse refers to the account of what happened in Genesis chapters 18 and 19. However this verse says that people in Sodom and Gomorrah went after "strange flesh". It does NOT say that they are talking about the account in Genesis 18-19.

Some scholars believe that this passage actually refers to a Jewish legend, as contained in the apocryphal Naphtali 3.3.4-5 in The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, that the WOMEN of Sodom had intercourse with angels. (Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, p. 97,
Professor John Boswell and Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition, Derrick Sherwin Bailey, pp 11-16).

It would not be unprecedented to believe that the author of Jude would refer to extrabiblical stories as he does so in Jude 6 (referring to a passage in the apocryphal Enoch 1:6-8) and in Jude 9 (referring to a Jewish tradition that the archangel Michael argued with Satan over the body of Moses). Even if one chooses to believe that this passage DOES refer to Genesis 18-19 one can not ASSUME that "strange flesh" means a "man going after a man", after all Lot's guests were NOT MEN but ANGELS, "strange flesh" indeed.

The context of this passage is condemning a new teaching which did not honor angels (see Jude verse 8) an example of people attempting to dishonor angels is simply brought up here to illustrate the point.

Source: http://www.whosoever.org/bible/

Well, Sodom and Gomorrah are specifically mentioned in Jude 1:7, so its very hard to make that conveniently disappear. You also might have an iota of a case for what you referenced, except that Genesis 19:5 says, "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 (have sex with them NIV)."

Its quite obvious that the men of Sodom and Gomorrah believed they were dealing with MEN, and not angels.

Additional evidence against the pro-gay stance on Jude 1:7 follows:

Most commentators and language scholars recognize this feature of Judes remark, as evinced by their treatment of Jude 7. For example, the New Analytical Greek Lexicon defines heteros in Jude 7 as "illicit" (Perschbacher, 1990, p. 177). Williams identified "strange flesh" as "unnatural vice" (1960, p. 1023). Barclay wrote: "What the men of Sodom were bent on was unnatural sexual intercourse, homosexual intercourse, with Lots two visitors. They were bent on sodomy, the word in which their sin is dreadfully commemorated" (1958, p. 218). Alford correctly translated the Greek as "other flesh," and defined the phrase as "[other] than that appointed by God for the fulfillment of natural desire" (1875, 4:533). Jamieson, et al., defined "going after strange flesh" as "departing from the course of nature, and going after that which is unnatural" (n.d., p. 544). Schneider said the expression "denotes licentious living" (1964, 2:676; cf. Hauck, 1967, 4:646; Seesemann, 1967, 5:292). Macknight said: "They committed the unnatural crime which hath taken its name from them" (n.d., p. 693). Mayor explained, "the forbidden flesh (literally other than that appointed by God) refersin the case of Sodom to the departure from the natural use" (n.d., 5:260). Barnes stated: "the word strange, or other, refers to that which is contrary to nature" (1978, p. 392, italics in orig.), and Salmond adds, "a departure from the laws of nature in the impurities practiced" (1958, p. 7).

The frequent allusion to "nature" and "unnatural" by scholars must not be taken to mean "beyond nature" in the sense of beyond human, and thereby somehow a reference to angels. The same scholars frequently clarify their meaning in unmistakable terms. For example, after defining "strange flesh" as unnatural, Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown add: "In later times the most enlightened heathen nations indulged in the sin of Sodom without compunction or shame" (n.d., p. 544). Alford, likewise, added: "The sin of Sodom was afterwards common in the most enlightened nations of antiquity" (4:533). It is neither without significance nor coincidental that these Bible scholars focus on forms of the word "natural," in view of the fact that Scripture elsewhere links same-sex relations with that which is "against nature" (Romans 1:26-27) or unnaturali.e., out of harmony with the original arrangement of nature by God at the Creation (e.g., Genesis 1:27; 2:22; Matthew 19:4-6).

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2596

[Easyrider]

I find it interesting that you seem unwilling to engage with the evidence which I have presented and which has almost certainly been presented before which indicates that your interpretation of what the scriptures teach is mistaken.

You spoke too soon. See my prior post which addresses your suspect interpretations of Jude 1:7.

Instead you seem to take cover underneath blanket statements and perhaps like a small child you find the 'blanket' protects you from all manner of bogey-men but just like that small child the 'safety ' is illusory.

Let this mark your first example of an unsolicited ad hominem to try to minimalize your debate opponent (likening me to a child). Please refrain from such unwarranted characterizations.

God is not about bias, or prejudice or hatred. In Christ we see the 'plan' for the kingdom and it is tolerance and acceptance of the other and love even unto death.

Attempting to legitimize sinful behavior is unbiblical.

As for "love" in unbiblical sexual relationships, the Bible has this:

"Love does not rejoice in iniquity."

And,

"Love does a neighbor no harm" (like enticing one's neighbor into a sinful sexual relationship, for which there are undoubtedly negative spiritual reprecussions).

[kiwimac]

Easyrider,

You might have a point if the people of Sodom and Gomorrah had written Jude. But they did not. And so it matters not what they thought but what JUDE thought. And if the words "Sarkos Heteras" in Jude do mean "illicit" or "unnatural vice" then you have a problem because 'Sarkos' simply refers to the body and 'Heteras' is the greek root from which we get Heterosexual.

Kiwimac

[kiwimac]

Mistaking a similie for an ad hominem is interesting but I was not attacking you simply commenting on an attitude which I find prevalent among many Christians.

[melikio]

I think the vast majority of Christians wouldn't even be discussing it if the pro-gay crowd wasn't so obsessed with spreading their unbiblical theology in the church and all across America.

Well, I cannot speak for the "pro-gay" crowd per se, but I can indeed tell you that I have personally and FREQUENTLY witnessed "Christians" abusing homosexuals in word and deed. I didn't cry and feel worthless for YEARS, because MOST Christians extended the type of love that Jesus did. I can count on practically ONE hand, where a Christian was more loving in their view of homosexuals, than they were emotionally radical. Why would a homosexual person GO TO a "Christian" for help? WHY??!!!

I got tired of it; people posing as agents of "love", being more hateful than any of those I'd known of, who wern't "Christians" at all. All certain Christians are doing with their TOXIC faith/religion, is pushing people away (hopefully not from what is truly good about religion).

If you want to hear less about homosexuality and the Bible, I recommend you cease promoting and defending it as a godly lifestyle.

It's about NOT pushing your idea/s of what is right/wrong ONTO people. Anyone may protest even the BEST things, if they are FORCED to embrace them. Leave homosexual people alone, at that certain point, where YOUR authority and personal autonomy are powerless to change anything. Do what you think is best, but don't expect others to follow down behind you, just because you THINK you are "right". Homosexuals have a "right", to oppose those who think it's right to FORCE their views upon them. Some Christians can't accept that basic thing, and to find the proper position of reasonable compromise (in the social sense); God didn't put individual Christians out here, to rule over the other sinners.

The fact is that nowhere in the Bible is either gay marriage or a gay relationship ever viewed in a favorable light.

Neither does the Bible actually PROMOTE the hideously-hateful social environment/s which so many Christians intend and/or attempt to IMPOSE upon most homosexual people the world over; it is not difficult, to see that's hardly anything like Jesus Christ.

Like I said, homosexual people aren't all radically pro-gay or anti-family; and they do have the right to oppose abusive and oppressinve behavior leveled AT or DUMPED ON them (spiritually, morally or socially).

-Mel-

[Easyrider]

Easyrider,

You might have a point if the people of Sodom and Gomorrah had written Jude. But they did not. And so it matters not what they thought but what JUDE thought. And if the words "Sarkos Heteras" in Jude do mean "illicit" or "unnatural vice" then you have a problem because 'Sarkos' simply refers to the body and 'Heteras' is the greek root from which we get Heterosexual.

Kiwimac

According to that it would seem to be perfectly legitimate. However, the problem is the passage condemns it as sexual immorality and perversion, and clearly associates it with Sodom and Gomorrah. There is also a descriptor in the phrase along with heteras, which is translated as "strange" ('unnatural' - similar to what we see in Romans 1:26-27, which also militates against gay sex being legitimate).

[melikio]

According to that it would seem to be perfectly legitimate. However, the problem is the passage condemns it as sexual immorality and perversion, and clearly associates it with Sodom and Gomorrah. There is also a descriptor in the phrase along with heteras, which is translated as "strange" ('unnatural' - similar to what we see in Romans 1:26-27, which also militates against gay sex being legitimate).

See? This is all very intellectual and legalistic, but it still doesn't address exactly HOW Christians DO actually treat homosexual people.

THAT needs to be addressed, likely more than most other things. For if homosexuals are allowed to be dehumanized and to meet with "special" chastisement which other sinners do not (based upon a few biblical points of view), then there is something surely out of balance.

I can stand for someone to call my behavior immoral (I'll work that out with God, or not); but to take just the Bible (and certain peole's interpretations of it), and somehow say that is THE final measure of civility or kindness that will be afforded homosexuals, simply isn't reasonable nor realistic. The hard line anti-homosexual people within Christendom, get no special points or merit for causing homosexuals the unusual pain they tend to inflict, yet many behave as if they will receive such special merit from Jesus Christ; just for the putting down or dehumanization of homosexual people. It doesn't make sense to me at all, for that to be a "holy" thing, even as I consider how "wrong" many think homosexuality is.

-Mel-

[Easyrider]

Well, I cannot speak for the "pro-gay" crowd per se, but I can indeed tell you that I have personally and FREQUENTLY witnessed "Christians" abusing homosexuals in word and deed.

And vice versa, as evidencef by the recent demonstration in San Francisco where peaceful Christians were denigrated and defamed by the pro-gay crowd.

One thing I've distinctly noticed: When Christians do not accept pro-gay theology, active homosexual priests, etc., they are usually immediately called names like homophobes, bigots, etc. That should stop. It does nothing constructive for the pro-gay cause. People have a right to their Biblical beliefs just like you do.

I didn't cry and feel worthless for YEARS, because MOST Christians extended the type of love that Jesus did. I can count on practically ONE hand, where a Christian was more loving in their view of homosexuals, than they were emotionally radical. Why would a homosexual person GO TO a "Christian" for help? WHY??!!!

Are you seeking a place that worships Christ or are you also seeking a church that will embrace open / active gayness? If the latter's the case, don't expect any success anytime soon.

From my experience, many gays don't just want to go to church, they want and demand that the church embrace their active homosexuality. No righteous church on earth should do that. They should accept gays and love them, but not embrace the sin.

Leave homosexual people alone, at that certain point, where YOUR authority and personal autonomy are powerless to change anything. Do what you think is best, but don't expect others to follow down behind you, just because you THINK you are "right". Homosexuals have a "right", to oppose those who think it's right to FORCE their views upon them. Some Christians can't accept that basic thing, and to find the proper position of reasonable compromise (in the social sense); God didn't put individual Christians out here, to rule over the other sinners.

If this is your way of saying Christians should let sin reign in their midst, that normally will not happen - not for adultery, not for fornication, and not for gay sex. If people will leave their fornications and / or pro gay sex agenda at the door of the church and not try to force it on the congregation, I seriously doubt any congregation will give them any problems.

Like I said, homosexual people aren't all radically pro-gay or anti-family; and they do have the right to oppose abusive and oppressinve behavior leveled AT or DUMPED ON them (spiritually, morally or socially).

On that we agree.