THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE LI'BLE TO READ IN THE BIBLE

[KCKID]

Why are SO many Christians hung up on homosexuality? While the average Christian would be hard pressed to locate such a text in their Bibles if asked, they would undoubtedly say “Because it’s a sin according to the Bible.� I personally find such a response difficult to accept and rather strongly suspect that one’s ‘religious belief’ on this issue is NOT the driving force behind their aversion/condemnation of homosexuality. I mean, if Christians REALLY desire to condemn ‘sin’ as they perceive it they could give homosexuals a break and instead have a field day targeting the many other human behaviors going on within society that God appears to hate. But …they don’t . . .well certainly not with the same zeal they do toward homosexuality.

So, what is going on here? Does the Bible really condemn sexual relations between consenting adults of the same gender? Or, does the Bible not address the matter of homosexuality at all …or, at least, not as we today recognize homosexuality? Would the Bible authors have even been aware of one’s innate sexuality as well as the complexities surrounding sexuality in general? Or, in simple terms, would they, as with many males of today, have regarded some males as 'effeminate' (or ‘sissies’) based on both ignorance and their own perceived cultural image of the ‘alpha male’? Or, if these authors were considered to be writing by divine authority, might we then say that God is the instigator of such ignorance and has allowed this ignorance to persist from generation to generation?

My main question in this thread is: of the ‘thimble-full’ of scriptures that are commonly used by Christians to condemn homosexuality (sexual attraction/desire directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex), how many of these texts might be considered to be far too ambiguous (open to several possible meanings or interpretations) to have caused such a furor within Christendom in general and specifically resulted in the division of a number of present-day Christian denominations? Can these few scriptures be analyzed so accurately that they can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to condemn homosexuality as we refer to the term today? I say no …they cannot. I’ve given my reasons in the past and will do so again if challenged.

Please discuss the below scriptures, as best you can, exegetically, i.e.
observation: what do the passages say?
interpretation: what do the passages mean?
correlation: how do the passages relate to the topic of homosexuality as we define it today?
application: how should these passages affect your/my life?

Note: I've purposely used the NIV for the following texts.

Leviticus 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." (NIV)

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (NIV).

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (NIV)

1 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, To those who have been called, who are loved in God the Father and kept for[a] Jesus Christ:
2 Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.
3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.
4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[c] at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.
6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.
7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire . . .etc. (NIV)

Should there be other related Bible texts to the topic feel free to present them based on the above criteria for analysis. I purposely omitted the Sodom and Gomorrah saga since it's been done to death and quite clearly has nothing to do with homosexuality per se. However, likewise feel free to present that strange tale for discussion should you find it to be relevant.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 55 by 99percentatheism]

The above post, 99percent, is so far off track that I find it impossible to respond to it. This is clearly a common tactic that you use in order to avoid specific questions asked of you. The 'man lying with man being an abomination' part of Leviticus 20:13 (and 18:22) is the most infamous text from the Bible with regard to its alleged condemnation of homosexuality. It is also one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted scriptures in the Bible. I offered up a short video (just 8.27 minutes in length) at this site that explains Leviticus 20:13 to the Christian what a Jew would probably already know. These texts of Leviticus - in fact every text in the Bible that references homosexual activity - has a direct reference to idolatry and shrine temple sex. Moreover, I believe that YOU already know this but prefer to turn a convenient blind eye the truth! It must be rather intimidating running an arrogant hate campaign based on lies and then having someone come along and dashing it with actual facts.

It would appear, 99percent, that you have no intention of engaging in a level-headed discussion about the so-called 'clobber texts' of the Bible. And, I trust that the readers of this thread will take note of your reluctance to do so and take from it what they will. Meanwhile you will continue to demean and to dehumanize gay people with your hateful and deceptive message. I have more than a feeling that this topic has become such an obsession with you that you wouldn't want anything - even the truth! - to get in the way of this anti-gay crusade.

Shame on you.

The "clobber passages" in the Bible stretch from Genesis to Jude. There simply is no such thing as same gender marriage, or same gender sexuality anywhere supported, condoned, affirmed, approved, celebrated or even mentioned or referenced!!!!!

"LGBT" and "Q" activists are free to invent their own religion OR patronize any religious organization that they find willing to celebrate homosexuality. Like I have written, the overwhelming history of gay pride has come to the forefront through completely secular political power. And any Christian Church that wants to have the rainbow flag planted as far away from their Church property as that can possibly happen is not doing anything wrong.

Not one gay pride activist, liberal theologian or "affirming religious body" has yet to produce any supportive scriptures to base the homosexualization of Christianity as just the next step in the gay agenda. The only justification that has been offered is the two wrongs ploy. That The Church has accepted adulterers, the divorced and the remarried into congregations. Yet, not one adulterer, divorcee or remarried person in any Church anywhere has a movement and well funded organizations that demand to have their sins affirmed and ignored.

The response we hear is reminiscent of the threats from the men of Sodom towards Lot: You want to play the judge over us? We will treat you worse then them.

How incredibly ironic and a bit hypocritical that it was "minority rights" that were all important and all encompassing to validate the concerns of gay pride adherents and proponents, and yet now is the pronouncement from the very same gay pride proponents that there is a minority percentage of Christians that will not submit to gay authority over them and that this ends the debate for good.

My how the shoe is on the other foot.

When ANY scripture can be produced that clearly, unambiguously and directly affirms, celebrates and encourages same gender sexuality, within or without a "marriage" then the issue will be settled for The Church universal. The consistency of scripture supports the Christians that are not in concert with the "LGBT Community." No matter how small that number is or becomes.

With a turning away of the ad hominem attack:

If anyone that calls themselves a Christian, has scriptures that support a doing away with the preaching to repent of sins, or that thoughts in ones own mind can redefine sin and sinning in and for the sinner. . . produce them.

[Princess Luna On The Moon]

[Replying to post 1 by 99percentatheism]

What gay agenda? Gays don't want to create their own religion. Besides, why does an organization supporting our rights need to be religious? And what does 'homosexualizing the church' mean, exactly? This whole idea that gays want to overtake the church and turn it into nothing but a gay cult is baffling to me, and I'm gay. That is not the intention, I assure you. All we want is equality in marriage (well, equality in everything else of course) since it is not truly a religious property.

[Heretic Gal]

The response we hear is reminiscent of the threats from the men of Sodom towards Lot: You want to play the judge over us? We will treat you worse then them.

Is that Lot, who was going to offer his virgin daughters to the men of Sodom to be raped? You know, the standard apologetic I always hear for this is that Lot was upholding the standard of "hospitality" by not letting his guests be hurt. Just wondering: did it ever occur to anyone that Lot could have offered HIMSELF to the mob, rather than anyone else in his household?

[dianaiad]

The response we hear is reminiscent of the threats from the men of Sodom towards Lot: You want to play the judge over us? We will treat you worse then them.

Is that Lot, who was going to offer his virgin daughters to the men of Sodom to be raped? You know, the standard apologetic I always hear for this is that Lot was upholding the standard of "hospitality" by not letting his guests be hurt. Just wondering: did it ever occur to anyone that Lot could have offered HIMSELF to the mob, rather than anyone else in his household?

Given the story...I don't think that Lot was in any danger of being deprived of his daughters and he knew it. The crowd..a bunch of young men..was calling for his male guests; how would the substitution of girls help? As for offering himself....er....

Are you aware of the rule of the protector? When the oxygen masks drop on a plane, you put your own on first and THEN you start putting it on other people. Firemen make certain of their own safety before they go in, and first responders don't go after victims of a shooting until they know the shooting has stopped. You can't protect people if YOU are dead....

And if Lot had offered himself, and the mob had taken him, who would be left to protect his family and his guests? If he had, and they'd taken him, what would have happened then? His daughters, wife and guests would still have been in danger, and given the attitude of the mob, that danger would have been realized. I think, from what I can read of the story, that Lot was between a rock and a hard place; absent the miracle that actually happened, he and his family (and his guests) were toast.

.......and no matter what his choice, those who view it from a distance would still criticize it.

Have you ever had to deal with a mob of people who wanted something?

I have. They aren't people anymore. They have, collectively, become one monster.

Whether this story is true or not, I think that his predicament is 'true to life,' when dealing with mob psychology and Lot's choices. No...given that that group of men was demanding the male guests, Lot was not risking anything by offering his daughters. Cynics could point out that, if the mob broke in and took the strangers, they might spare Lot and his family because he offered something, and God might spare Lot because he offered his family to spare his guests (which was considered the honorable thing when guests are in one's home). It was a pretty savvy move...and about the only one that might have worked, under the circumstances; making Lot look good to everybody and sparing his daughters. HE knew those guys didn't want his girls, after all.

All that said, I don't like Lot much. He was a wuss...and a drunk, and an idiot. (shrug) But he wasn't endangering his daughters by offering them to a mob of gay men wanting to have sex with his male guests, now, was he?

Empty offer that he knew would be refused.

[Haven]

All that said, I don't like Lot much. He was a wuss...and a drunk, and an idiot. (shrug) But he wasn't endangering his daughters by offering them to a mob of gay men wanting to have sex with his male guests, now, was he?

Empty offer that he knew would be refused.

How do you know they were gay? It appears that there's zero evidence in the text to support this.

[99percentatheism]

99percentatheism:

[Replying to post 55 by 99percentatheism]

The above post, 99percent, is so far off track that I find it impossible to respond to it. This is clearly a common tactic that you use in order to avoid specific questions asked of you. The 'man lying with man being an abomination' part of Leviticus 20:13 (and 18:22) is the most infamous text from the Bible with regard to its alleged condemnation of homosexuality. It is also one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted scriptures in the Bible. I offered up a short video (just 8.27 minutes in length) at this site that explains Leviticus 20:13 to the Christian what a Jew would probably already know. These texts of Leviticus - in fact every text in the Bible that references homosexual activity - has a direct reference to idolatry and shrine temple sex. Moreover, I believe that YOU already know this but prefer to turn a convenient blind eye the truth! It must be rather intimidating running an arrogant hate campaign based on lies and then having someone come along and dashing it with actual facts.

It would appear, 99percent, that you have no intention of engaging in a level-headed discussion about the so-called 'clobber texts' of the Bible. And, I trust that the readers of this thread will take note of your reluctance to do so and take from it what they will. Meanwhile you will continue to demean and to dehumanize gay people with your hateful and deceptive message. I have more than a feeling that this topic has become such an obsession with you that you wouldn't want anything - even the truth! - to get in the way of this anti-gay crusade.

Shame on you.

While thread derail and ad hominem attack seems quite popular, can anyone answer what I have written below with examples of clear pro homosexuality pronouncements from the Bible?

If anything should be an obsession for a Christian, it should be truth.

__________________________________________________________________

The "clobber passages" in the Bible stretch from Genesis to Jude. There simply is no such thing as same gender marriage, or same gender sexuality anywhere supported, condoned, affirmed, approved, celebrated or even mentioned or referenced!!!!!

"LGBT" and "Q" activists are free to invent their own religion OR patronize any religious organization that they find willing to celebrate homosexuality. Like I have written, the overwhelming history of gay pride has come to the forefront through completely secular political power. And any Christian Church that wants to have the rainbow flag planted as far away from their Church property as that can possibly happen is not doing anything wrong.

Not one gay pride activist, liberal theologian or "affirming religious body" has yet to produce any supportive scriptures to base the homosexualization of Christianity as just the next step in the gay agenda. The only justification that has been offered is the two wrongs ploy. That The Church has accepted adulterers, the divorced and the remarried into congregations. Yet, not one adulterer, divorcee or remarried person in any Church anywhere has a movement and well funded organizations that demand to have their sins affirmed and ignored.

The response we hear is reminiscent of the threats from the men of Sodom towards Lot: You want to play the judge over us? We will treat you worse then them.

How incredibly ironic and a bit hypocritical that it was "minority rights" that were all important and all encompassing to validate the concerns of gay pride adherents and proponents, and yet now is the pronouncement from the very same gay pride proponents that there is a minority percentage of Christians that will not submit to gay authority over them and that this ends the debate for good.

My how the shoe is on the other foot.

When ANY scripture can be produced that clearly, unambiguously and directly affirms, celebrates and encourages same gender sexuality, within or without a "marriage" then the issue will be settled for The Church universal. The consistency of scripture supports the Christians that are not in concert with the "LGBT Community." No matter how small that number is or becomes.

With a turning away of the ad hominem attack:

If anyone that calls themselves a Christian, has scriptures that support a doing away with the preaching to repent of sins, or that thoughts in ones own mind can redefine sin and sinning in and for the sinner. . . produce them.

________________________________________________________________

[Heretic Gal]

[Replying to post 64 by dianaiad]

I really hate to say this, because I usually respect and enjoy your posts enormously. But this one really disturbed me.

Lot's daughters most certainly would have been in danger if they had been thrown to the mob. Even if the "gay" men hadn't raped them, don't you think they would have been beaten up? And as a previous poster pointed out, we don't know that they were "gay" in the modern sense. Maybe they were "prisoner gay" (!) and just in the habit of assaulting men as well as women.

The point is Lot had no way of knowing whether or not they would take his daughters when he offered them, which is why he shouldn't have. And I wonder if that might be why they decided to rape HIM just a short time later. Because they knew Daddy didn't care any more about them than that fellow in Judges who threw his concubine to a similar raging mob - with predictable consequences.

[dianaiad]

All that said, I don't like Lot much. He was a wuss...and a drunk, and an idiot. (shrug) But he wasn't endangering his daughters by offering them to a mob of gay men wanting to have sex with his male guests, now, was he?

Empty offer that he knew would be refused.

How do you know they were gay? It appears that there's zero evidence in the text to support this.

Er...have you actually read the story?

Genesis 19: 4-5 where the men of the city demanded that lot send out the men Lot had as guests so that they (the men of the city) could have sex with the guests?

Unless you have a very different definition of 'gay' than I do, one in which the most obvious identifier is missing (desiring, sexually, one's own sex), they were homosexual, or at least acting on homosexual impulses.

there is some evidence, mind you, that the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah..and the other cities of the plains referred to..were the result of natural disaster. There is very strong evidence that cities matching the geographical description were indeed destroyed by fire, etc.

Now if the story as told in the OT is not true, that God did not destroy those cities, isn't it interesting that destruction like this was attributed, by the folks the gay pride people keep wanting to portray as perfectly accepting of homosexual behavior, should make the 'final straw' of such a decision the demand of a mob of men to have Lot turn his male guests over to them so that they could have sex?

Either way it makes justifying homosexual behavior by the bible a bit difficult.

Now me, I don't think being gay is a problem any more than my being heterosexual is a problem, when it comes to living according to the teachings of Christ.

It's not about who you desire. It's about what you do about it.

[Heretic Gal]

All that said, I don't like Lot much. He was a wuss...and a drunk, and an idiot. (shrug) But he wasn't endangering his daughters by offering them to a mob of gay men wanting to have sex with his male guests, now, was he?

Empty offer that he knew would be refused.

How do you know they were gay? It appears that there's zero evidence in the text to support this.

Er...have you actually read the story?

Genesis 19: 4-5 where the men of the city demanded that lot send out the men Lot had as guests so that they (the men of the city) could have sex with the guests?

Unless you have a very different definition of 'gay' than I do, one in which the most obvious identifier is missing (desiring, sexually, one's own sex), they were homosexual, or at least acting on homosexual impulses.

But the thing is that we don't know that they were *exclusively* as in 100% gay. Lots and lots* of gay men are quite able to perform with women. In fact, quite a few of them have fathered children, before realizing they really preferred men. Remember that in this ancient world, "gay" was not really a lifestyle choice. And that sex, in the hands of an angry mob, is simply one more way to intimidate and punish their victims - whether male or female is irrelevant beyond a certain point.

(*and okay, I guess that's kind of a pun. "Lots" = "Lot" = "me needing some coffee". )

[help3434]

All that said, I don't like Lot much. He was a wuss...and a drunk, and an idiot. (shrug) But he wasn't endangering his daughters by offering them to a mob of gay men wanting to have sex with his male guests, now, was he?

Empty offer that he knew would be refused.

As a Mormon you shouldn't even believe that Lot offered his daughters to the mob. Did you forget about the JST?