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?

[kiwimac]

1_john quoted

Three gay members of the Maryland House of Delegates in March helped kill an effort to join seven other states in putting constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage on the ballot.

Utah Rep. Jackie Biskupski and Sen. Scott McCoy worked with gay activists to bottle up a bill to bar domestic-partner benefits.

Idaho Rep. Nicole LeFavour helped stop a bill that would have required a parent's signature to allow students to join gay and lesbian clubs in high schools.

1: Why you you want to stop Gay people from marrying? What harm would it do to you personally if they did?

2: Why shouldn't the partners of Gay folk have the same rights as the partners of heterosexuals?

3: Does any other on-campus club require a parent's signature for a pupil to join? If not why single out a LGBT club?


Kiwimac

[kiwimac]

Pederasty is alive and well gentlemen.

Look at these pictures:

http://www.article8.org/docs/news_event ... de_052105/

How on earth do photographs of a Youth Gay Pride march equate with Pederasty?

Kiwimac

[melikio]

And that is why liberals are the enemy of the United States.

I'm certain enough you can't be trusted, 1John.

(Keep that in mind.)

-Mel-

[Cathar1950]

I didn't see any mention about sodomy except from you.

I was in a hurry and used a two-cent word I did indeed learn from leftists. I'll try not to veer into the reprobate lexicon. "Scumbag associates" I'll use next time.

"Scumbag associates" should be reported don't you think?

And that is why liberals are the enemy of the United States.

More crap I see.

[1John2_26]

I am familiar with how liberals interpret things.

I Kings 14:22-24 22. Judah did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins which they committed, above all that their fathers had done. 23. For they also built them high places, and pillars, and Asherim, on every high hill, and under every green tree; 24. and there were also sodomites in the land: they did according to all the abominations of the nations which Yahweh drove out before the children of Israel.

I Kings 15:11-13 11. Asa did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, as did David his father. 12. He put away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. 13. Also Maacah his mother he removed from being queen, because she had made an abominable image for an Asherah; and Asa cut down her image, and burnt it at the brook Kidron.

In looking at the passages in 1st Kings, it is important to notice its context. In both of these passages the context is the removal from Israel of the High Altars to Ashtereth and her consort. And it is in this context that various translations say in 1 Kings 14:24 and 1 Kings 15:12 that Sodomites were 'put out of the land."

What does this mean?

The word translated as 'Sodomite' in these passages is the Hebew Qadesh which is actually "... a (quasi) sacred person, that is, (technically) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry:..." and this word comes from Qadash which is "...A primitive root; to be (causatively make, pronounce or observe as) clean (ceremonially or morally): - appoint, bid, consecrate, dedicate, defile, hallow, (be, keep) holy (-er, place), keep, prepare, proclaim, purify, sanctify (-ied one, self), X wholly..."

That is the passages are not referring to homosexuality at all but rather to the worship of the Goddess Ashtereth by ritual prostitution. It is the same word used in Deut 23:17. As the following image shows:

There is no end in this discussion until the Gay Agenda takes over our legislation, and the heretics get more podium clout.

But Christians will be just fine . . .:

Leviticus is a book of laws. the prohibitions against homosexuality were against homosexual prostitution. My source here is a professor at the Harvard Divinity School. It is found in a book by Peter Gomes titled, "The Good Book" and read the chapter on sex. It will explain some of this I think, or at least give references...
...I talked to a scripture "scholar" the other day about the prohibitions on homosexuality in the Old Testament. This is what he said: the prohibitions were a prohibition on ABORTION. Back then, in fact, before the discovery of the egg inside the female ovary in the year 1724, everyone believed that the mans' "seed" carried the entire life force. women were but incubators - that's why you don't see prohibitions against masturbation for women. No seed to spill. Hmmm, bit of a double standard. anyway, so, anything that would spill the seed someplace outside the incubator was sin. masturbation was the same level as withdrawal (coitus interruptus) and gay sex. Does that shed some light?
And M.K. closed:

Have you heard anything about these 2 statements? "If" these statements were true, could a historian or theologian make a connection that this was truly what scripture meant?
So, let's get down to brass tacks. Our two verses:

18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
To answer our inquirer, we have to start here with some basics. The laws of the OT can be broken down into three categories:

First, universal moral laws. This includes do not steal, do not kill, by common agreement (even among liberals...hee hee...).
Second, cultural universals. By this I mean laws geared to Israel's culture that have a universal moral law behind them. (As an example, some have suggested the prohibition on trimming your beard [Lev. 19:27] relates to pagan practices that cut facial hair for magical purposes. So the universal behind this cultural would be, don't do the occult.)
Finally, ceremonial laws. Instructions for building the Ark of the Covenant, for example. All of this has been superseded by Christ and won't come into our discussion again.
The question becomes this: Are the Leviticus passages in question in the first category as we say, or in the second category (related to temple cults, seed value, etc.) as the liberals say? I have to conclude that there are in category 1, for the following reasons:

Note first the CONTEXT of the 2 Lev. prohibitions: 18:22 and 20:13. Both are set in the middle of other laws regarding sexual behavior: Don't lay with your mom, your aunt, etc. Can it be seriously argued that *these* have anything to do with wasting seed, temple cults, etc.? (It should be added that nowhere is there any evidence that the Jews regarded semen as symbolic of life, as in other cultures; Wold, Out of Order, 115.) On the contrary, the context of the commands is that of Category 1 laws: Universal absolutes. This is especially so for the 2nd cite, which is smack in the middle of such prohibitions:
Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the LORD, who makes you holy. If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head. If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads. If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you. If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible. If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people. Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible. If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless. If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless. Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out.
Note that what we have here involves a series of crimes and punishments. The punishments range from "worst to best", from death to expulsion to barrenness. This suggests that the crimes are in a "worst to best" range as well, and our verse of concern is smack in the middle - and one of those that gets the death penalty! The context, the structure of the commands, and the punishment together suggest that what we have here is a universal condemnation of all such behavior!

But here's a pushback - what about 18:22, which is, admittedly, after a prohibition on sacrificing to Molech:
18:22-4 Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD. Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
I say this "admittedly" because I can see the liberal theologians trying to say, "See, that's a context that shows the next prohibition on men and men relates to temple practice!" All right: Then to be quite blunt, and begging pardons for the crudity, what about the prohibition following that one, about having sex with animals? Can we say that no such prohibition existed if you wanted to have sexual relations with an animal, as long as it wasn't having to do with a religious rite? I think even liberals might choke on that one! The conclusion must be as Wold [119] offers: The inclusion of Molech here is an incidental; here, the homosexual element is shown as (yet another) reason why worship of Molech is wrong.

I have now seen one arguer try to get around this argument. Jeramy Townsley offers this:

The one counter-argument that can be raised against this is that, if we say that each of these behaviors are now "clean" and we can engage in them then we are supporting incest and bestiality, since prohibitions against both of these are found in Leviticus 18 and 20. But this is not necessarily the case. While these particular chapters are designed to delineate ritualistic uncleanness, that doesn't mean that any of these activities can't be classified under another branch of law. For example, bestiality is mentioned in two other passages other than in Leviticus (Ex 22.19, and Dt 27.21), as is incest. Homosexuality, however, is never mentioned outside of these passages...
That homosexuality is "never mentioned outside of these passages" is irrelevant (and in fact untrue; see our entry on homosexuality here). The two examples given, Ex. 22:19 and Deut. 27:21, are part of clusters of miscellaneous laws that do not go out and mention every possible alternative. Thus we would have the absurd conclusion, using Townsley's logic, that Deut. 27:22-3...

Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen. Cursed be he that lieth with his mother in law. And all the people shall say, Amen.
...unlike Lev. 18, allows incest with those relatives not named in Lev. 18 (father, grandchildren, aunt)! This is simply a case of Townsley trying to nitpick away the prohibition with a non-stated distinction. One may as well argue back that the reason that such behavior was "unclean" was because it was a generally prohibited relationship.

It's important to note that the Jews NEVER interpreted these verses in any way other than against plain old homosexual behavior. They never saw any kind of "culture factor" behind this prohibition. (See here the works of Philo and Josephus, for example.)
It *is* a valid practice to look for a "cultural factor" behind laws like the one about cutting your beard. But these involved things that were "universal" at the time, and work under the assumption that there is no "normal" use of beard cutting - i.e., to look hip or something. One presumably would never cut one's beard like that UNLESS they had some nasty plans! So if we want to say that the "men and men" cites are "cultural" we have to assume that there was no "normal" way that there could be "men and men" - which would mean that non-ritual homosexuality was thought to not be a normal practice, or was non-existent!

Here's a point to ponder: If these were prohibitions against temple prostitution, why are "men and men" only mentioned when men and women combos were also used in the temples? Why single out "men and men" here? Who not just say "temple prostitution"? As in...

...there are very SPECIFIC condemnations of temple prostitution elsewhere (Deut. 23:17-8). This would suggest that the Lev. cites are not "roundabouts" or allusions to that practice.
As side note, I'll add here that some try to circumvent this conclusion by dating Leviticus c. 520-400 BC and/or suggesting it was composed as a "mirror reaction" by Israeli men who were raped by Babylonian or Persian soldiers. I think such psychobabble as this can be safely ignored as entirely speculative and presuming the very thing that needs to be proven.)
A second side note is an argument used by Townsley and others, saying:
The usage here is not a single Hebrew word or idiom which can refer to any sex acts between the same gender. Rather, the texts clearly say, "if a man lies with a man as with a woman." There is no leeway in these texts to include lesbian acts in this pronouncement. This is important, because it does not seem consistent to condemn male homosexuality and not female homosexuality, if the point of condemning homosexuality is because it is "unnatural."
Townsley is falling into the same trap as skeptics like Dennis McKinsey: Ancient law codes, being didactic, do not need to be "consistent" with our modern, precision-oriented expectations; the condemnation of male homosexuality applies by exension to female homosexuality, just as laws that say "If a man..." do not mean a woman can get away with the same act with no punishment. (It's also questionable how widespread such behavior would have been anyway, given how closely guarded daughters would have been in the ancient household.)

Bottom line: While it is POSSIBLE that there is a "culture" factor behind these prohibitions, the burden of proof is on the liberal side to prove their case, which they have failed to do - politically-correct Harvard seminarian or not!

[1John2_26]

I didn't see any mention about sodomy except from you.

Homosexuality and sodomy are connected. Pun intended.

Quote:
I was in a hurry and used a two-cent word I did indeed learn from leftists. I'll try not to veer into the reprobate lexicon. "Scumbag associates" I'll use next time.

"Scumbag associates" should be reported don't you think?

And I'll bet that I get a formal warning where you have used so many personal insults with complete support.

Quote:
And that is why liberals are the enemy of the United States.

More crap I see.

Are you mentioning sodomy here?

[melikio]

Pederasty is alive and well gentlemen.

Look at these pictures:

http://www.article8.org/docs/news_event ... de_052105/

How on earth do photographs of a Youth Gay Pride march equate with Pederasty?

Kiwimac

LOL!!! See what I mean about 1John's mental "vortex"? (Sigh.)

How "pederasty" fits many of the things he mentions, is something that is going on in his head only, as far as most would be able to tell.

-Mel-

[kiwimac]

I am familiar with how liberals interpret things.

I Kings 14:22-24 22. Judah did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins which they committed, above all that their fathers had done. 23. For they also built them high places, and pillars, and Asherim, on every high hill, and under every green tree; 24. and there were also sodomites in the land: they did according to all the abominations of the nations which Yahweh drove out before the children of Israel.

I Kings 15:11-13 11. Asa did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, as did David his father. 12. He put away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. 13. Also Maacah his mother he removed from being queen, because she had made an abominable image for an Asherah; and Asa cut down her image, and burnt it at the brook Kidron.

In looking at the passages in 1st Kings, it is important to notice its context. In both of these passages the context is the removal from Israel of the High Altars to Ashtereth and her consort. And it is in this context that various translations say in 1 Kings 14:24 and 1 Kings 15:12 that Sodomites were 'put out of the land."

What does this mean?

The word translated as 'Sodomite' in these passages is the Hebew Qadesh which is actually "... a (quasi) sacred person, that is, (technically) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry:..." and this word comes from Qadash which is "...A primitive root; to be (causatively make, pronounce or observe as) clean (ceremonially or morally): - appoint, bid, consecrate, dedicate, defile, hallow, (be, keep) holy (-er, place), keep, prepare, proclaim, purify, sanctify (-ied one, self), X wholly..."

That is the passages are not referring to homosexuality at all but rather to the worship of the Goddess Ashtereth by ritual prostitution. It is the same word used in Deut 23:17. As the following image shows:

There is no end in this discussion until the Gay Agenda takes over our legislation, and the heretics get more podium clout.

So what are you disagreeing with here? Me? the plain meaning of the Hebrew Qadesh? (BTW just how many years have you studied Hebrew and Greek?), the fact that the 1st Kings passages PLAINLY mean Idol worship?

Kiwimac

[Cathar1950]

I didn't report you john and you do deserve to be insulted as you have hurled one slanderest thing after another.

Homosexuality and sodomy are connected. Pun intended.

I don't see a pun.
No they are not connected any more then heterosexuality and sodomy are.
I wrote commenting on john's calling liberals enemies of the USA, which is obvously, a lie.

More crap I see.

John wrote back:

Are you mentioning sodomy here?

No I was not mentioning sodomy john you did. I am not surprised that is what you thought about.

[kiwimac]

Romans 1: 26-27

26. For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature.
27. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error.

At first sight it must appear that the Romans passage does indeed condemn LGBT activity. Paul is quite clearly criticising sexuality which is against nature. However there are at least a couple of points which might mitigate against the obvious interpretation of the verses.

1: Greco-Roman society accepted that homosexuality and bisexuality was a natural activity for some people. And so it is possible that Paul was actually criticising heterosexuals who engaged in homosexual acts in
order simply to have sex.

2: If we look at the verses which come before Rom 1:26-27 it becomes clear that he was referring to sexual acts which were associated with idol worship. Because of the preceding verses it is considered by scholars that the verse is simply not clear enough to win the prize for being opposed to homoerotic acts.

Once again it is important to let scripture interpret scripture and to look at the verses in their context. A context which is found in Romans chapters 1-3. Please note the following verses:

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God for salvation for everyone who believes; for the Jew first, and also for the Greek.

The Good News of the inbreaking Kingdom is that it is for everyone, both Jew and Gentile.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

God's anger is shown against all ungodliness and unrighteousness.

Romans 1:28-32 28. Even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29. being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil habits, secret slanderers, 30. backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31. without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32. who, knowing the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them.

Those who are outside the kingdom need the Gospel as is shown in their acts. Note here how Paul ties sexual acts into the general picture he is creating of a people seperated from God by idolatory.

BUT (and here Paul starts to really warm to his topic); Romans 2:3 Do you think this, O man who judges those who practice such things, and do the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?

The Jews are as much in need of the Good News as are the Gentiles.
for (Romans 3:23-24) 23. for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; 24. being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;

Paul seems to be criticising both Jew and Gentile, he is not happy with homosexual acts but he seems to consider them 'unclean' (following the precepts of the law) rather than immoral. But please also notice, Paul was condemning ACTS not people. We are not even terribly certain WHAT acts paul was condemning because we are not sure of the background to the letter of the Romans. Just what series of events was he talking about? What triggered paul's comments? Was he talking about pederasty? Was he talking about homosexual acts committed with slaves? Was he talking about people of heterosexual orientation committing homosexual acts?

Can we assume these verse mean one thing and one thing only?

Perhaps we can leave Paul with the final comment here?

Romans 2:1 Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judge. For in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself. For you who judge practice the same things.

Kiwimac