Let us do away with the homosexuals & sodomites

[presidente]

Presidente, you are flailing about, disagreeing with me but more, disagreeing with any of the source authorities I quote; yet you do not attempt to in detail what a passage says.

You have not presented any solid reason why these passages should not be taken in a straightforward manner. I have not disagreed with everything from every source, either. You are the one flailing about, grasping at straws. Of course, your line of reasoning is not new. There are plenty of people who have gone before you who seem far more interested in promoting gay as okay than in proper interpretation of the word of God who have laid the groundwork>

You also have not answered my question as to what is more important to you, pleasing God or getting people to agree with the idea that homosexuality is okay and same-sex sexual activity is okay. Do you post on Muslim boards trying to persuade Muslims that gay is okay? How about Buddhists? Why does Christianity become the target of those seeking to promote libertine ideas in regard to this issue?

I'll quote one of your sentences to show how 'odd' your reasoning is.

You wrote:
"You also overlook the fact that Romans 1 is about 'men.' Paul does not specify that one individual became idolatrous, then burned with lust, then started doing same-sex acts."

You emphasize 'men' here and you've done it in the past when referencing some saying "boys" are involved. On that point, the passage is literally rendered by "males" with no definite age contrast. Yet, in the 3rd Greek for men in Rom. 1:27, there is a difference in the Greek, as stated in the BDAG -

"The Attic form ἄρρην appears in Ac 7:19 v.l.; Ro 1:27a v.l.; 1:27ab Tdf., S. [but the last reads ἄρσεσιν for the third occurrence]"

From Wikipedia: "Attic Greek is the Greek dialect of the ancient region of Attica, including the polis of Athens. Often called classical Greek,"

Your other argument in that sentence is that since it is 'men', it is plural and does not specify an individual person's behavior. You seem to think the idea is that a mass of men has done something but not individuals. That is really strange thinking! Masses of people are made up of individuals.

Paul is not specific here. He says 'men.' The idea that this was a multi-generational process certainly fits with the passage. That one generation of men became idolators, and as Gentiles persisted in idolatry, they were given over to lust and perversion including same sex sexual acts is consistent with the passage.

Your reading is odd. Your insistence that it must be about a men who desired women turning to have sex with men against their own sexual orientation is bizarre and obviously false. You also cited a source that showed that the concept of sexual orientation was not around in the first century in the first place, so why read it back into Paul's letters.

While it is true that Rom. 1:27 does not specify a man with a boy; an adult male with a male youth; it is interesting that a variation is used for the 3rd Greek for "male" in the verse. Then, also, Paul in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 speaks of sodomites, and a sodomite involves abuse, so would involve an aggressive type of male lording it over another male in a lower position of power, a boy, youth or slave. That does match the history of that day as multiple commentaries have pointed out.

One thing LGBT-agenda interpreters point out is that 'sodomite' carries a lot of baggege. Aren't you opposed to aresenokoitai being translated as 'sodomite' or 'homosexual' in I Corinthians 6? I addressed this earlier. The term is similar to the Leviticus prohibition of a man lying with a man as one does with a woman; 'arsenos koiten' shows up in the latter reference to it.

I would agree with you that 'homosexual sex' involves abuse. It may be consensual, but men are abusing the very bodies God gave them. The KJV translate it as 'abusers of themselves with mankind.' I would not use 'abuse' nowadays to translate that if I were a Bible translator, since the term conjures up imagines of black eyes.

I agree with the commentators, translators and interpreters who take arsenokoitai to refer one member of the sex act, and in this context, for the malakos to refer to the other guy.

Whether you translate it as men or males, the word arsenos there is plural, and notice the connection with the word aresenokoitai in I Corinthians 6 and I Timothy 1.

The idea that homosexual sex is okay is against the overall teaching of scripture on the topic. Men having sex with men carried a death penalty in the Old Testament and Gentiles were driven out of the land for it. Paul says to prevent fornication, let every woman have her own husband and to let every man have his own wife. There is no provision for a man to have a husband. In the Eden story, there is man and woman not man and man. The husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church-- not some scenario with two men.

Instead of trying to change the Bible to accommodate lusts, the solution is repentance and the grace of God working in ones life to overcome sin. The Bible says, that 'if ye live after the flesh, ye will die; but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."

 

[presidente]

Your phrase "pro-homosexual lust" is your mischaracterization of what I've written. It is as false as your claim I'm teaching LGBTQ revisionist theology.

How is either of these characterizations in any way inaccurate?

Lust does not justify sin.

 

[SophieT]

In question one, I am always offended when asked that because invariably it is asked by a fundamentalist type who thinks if I answer "No", they will give me the formula to be "born again", which is to believe. That is contrary to Scripture which teaches that we have faith and believe because we have been born again, better "born anew" or "born from above".

On question two, at age 80 consummating love of any kind has been long gone! Also, according to fundamentalists, if I were gay I'd be dead now.... from AIDS. Regardless, if I were queer as a three dollar bill, does it effect the truth of what I've taken from the pertinent Scriptures? Address the Scripture exposition or exegesis, instead of trying to side track.

there is no sidetracking in asking you any questions

and is there something wrong with being someone who believes 'fundamentally' as opposed to someone like you who keeps trying to find hidden jewels that are not in scripture?

you show contempt for someone who believes what scripture teaches and then get defensive when someone questions your beliefs

and you dying of AIDS has been covered more than once by different people, but for all we know you have it right now

we don't know...you are just someone on a pc trying to sound superior.

 

[presidente]

Men who had sex with men and others who committed various sins 'received in themselves due recompense for their error which was meet' before AIDS came on the scene.

This is a straw man argument.

 

[Jon-E]

Men who had sex with men and others who committed various sins 'received in themselves due recompense for their error which was meet' before AIDS came on the scene.

This is a straw man argument.

Can you not understand sarcasm? I grew up in fundamentalism and have listened to many fundamentalists and I know exactly how they teach the "recompense" as being AIDS as well as other STDs. One fundamentalist Pastor, that I had sat under his preaching, actually wrote a tract aimed at homosexuals and named AIDS as the "recompense"

Like I said before, I'll stop on this thread until someone actually presents a studied exegesis of the pertinent passages. These opinions and silly arguments I'm encountering are a waste of time. You do know don't you, that males plural is made up of individual males?

"and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due." (Rom 1:27, ERV)

As Chrysostom pointed out, you cannot leave what you did not possess! If they left their natural use with women, they must be what we would call heterosexuals in this day. If they then have sex with other males, they are acting like homosexuals(better read sodomites) because of their insatiable lust, the consuming fire of lust. The 19th century JFB commentary points this out as well, as does the modern encyclopedia:

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Fully Revised 1988, Vol. 4 page, 437 we read this comment on Rom. 1:27:
"...how did Paul understand the homosexual behavior he condemned? Evidently he understood it as freely chosen (cf. 'exchanged,' 'gave up') by people for whom heterosexual relations were 'natural,' and as chosen (by heterosexual people) because of their insatiable lust ('consumed with passion')."

 

[Lanolin]

hmm after having used up the women they turn to men.

Women have been lusted over for centuries by men how do you think women feel. Although I guess that is 'natural' but doesnt mean all women actually like it either.

Sometimes a woman may become a 'trophy wife' for her husband, to be discarded when she gets old.

I think Lots wife might have been one, though God did rescue Lots family from Sodom, she was the one who looked back. Lots daughters then committed incest with him...despite Lot declaring they were engaged. But then he did offer them to the guys who wanted to rape the angels (?!) I cant imagine someone knocking on my door, and demanding sex right then and there. Does that happen

well actually it seems like it does all the time...for many single women . (stalkers! harassers! wolf whistles)

 

[Lanolin]

what exactly is the 'natural use of a woman'?

I dont think prostitution is a 'natural use' of a woman come to think of it. That did happen a lot in the Bible, though (Rahab and Tamar) but the children being born eventually became the lineage from which Jesus came.

Jesus then saved women from a life of prostituion (mary Magdalene, woman with five + husbands etc) and told them to sin no more. I dont really know if he saved any sodomites or homosexual men though.

 

[CS1]

Can you not understand sarcasm? I grew up in fundamentalism and have listened to many fundamentalists and I know exactly how they teach the "recompense" as being AIDS as well as other STDs. One fundamentalist Pastor, that I had sat under his preaching, actually wrote a tract aimed at homosexuals and named AIDS as the "recompense"

Like I said before, I'll stop on this thread until someone actually presents a studied exegesis of the pertinent passages. These opinions and silly arguments I'm encountering are a waste of time. You do know don't you, that males plural is made up of individual males?

"and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due." (Rom 1:27, ERV)

As Chrysostom pointed out, you cannot leave what you did not possess! If they left their natural use with women, they must be what we would call heterosexuals in this day. If they then have sex with other males, they are acting like homosexuals(better read sodomites) because of their insatiable lust, the consuming fire of lust. The 19th century JFB commentary points this out as well, as does the modern encyclopedia:

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Fully Revised 1988, Vol. 4 page, 437 we read this comment on Rom. 1:27:
"...how did Paul understand the homosexual behavior he condemned? Evidently, he understood it as freely chosen (cf. 'exchanged,' 'gave up') by people for whom heterosexual relations were 'natural,' and as chosen (by heterosexual people) because of their insatiable lust ('consumed with passion')."

LOL completely unbiblical. Lust always drives the flesh to do what God said not to do. Sex with women other than your wife is a sin. Sex with a man while being a man is taking the lust of the flesh to a whole new level of depravity downward.

All sin will lead to greater sin IF unchecked. Much of this sinful flame started with a simple look at pornography.

Which turned into sexual addictions.

I have heard hundreds of testimonies from women & women, who were introduced to pornography that took root to many things God said do not do:

1. adultery
2. fornication
3. Sexual abuse
4. coe-dependency
5. anger
6. substance abuse
7. rape
8. homosexuality
9. broken homes
10. incest
11. suicide

Homosexuality is seen as so bad because of all the other things that happen before the abomination was done.

Gays and transgender Testify up to over 80% were sexually abused by a friend or family member. that led them to self-abuse, drug, and addiction, and finally suicide. Most of this is driven by women. Mothers of sons and daughters who have been abused that they (mother) did nothing to stop.

No father in the home has greatly allowed the distortion of what a man is supposed to do and be, because fathers were absent. The Government moved in and said we will help, but no father in the home, or we stop the check.

How one cannot discern the demonic attack on children from this list above is beyond me. Maybe I see it better because

I was sexually abused, and no father in the home. Had Uncles who were sexual predators of little nephews like me. They slept with them and taught them how to smoke dope and became the replacement of the dad in the home or a mom's boyfriend molesting the daughters yet mom would say she was lying because of her coe-dependency.

You Have No Clue!

Many of us choose not to share this on chat sites because many here are nothing but freaks who pm others and seek relationships as web perverts.

I know that full well too, as a Moderator in the site.

I did my best to protect many from such types as possible the Job of Admin here is not easy. " Onefallen" and others do a great job and a very long-suffering as is the site owner.

It is not homophobe that those who have had this kind of experience we're able to be set free from it because of the power of God.
IT is those like you, that seeks to continue the abuse of them.

Those who have been sex-free from Drugs and homosexuality and come to the LORD are being PERSUed by LGBQ with A Vengence, to try AND GET THEM BACK INTO A SEXUAL ENCOUNTER.
So they can say to them Look there is no difference between you and me nothing NEW. Just like the pimp or drug pusher who wants to keep them in the addiction gives them money and drugs appealing to the lust of the flesh which is NOT dead we fight that every day!!

Lastly, we have to fight false teachers of the word of God who use the word of God to say gays can be chritians and how they are saved IN the sin of Homosexuality not From the sin of homosexuality. Because they have secret sexual addictions that they cannot shake so it must be how I am.

it is the most demonic attack and key strategy of Satan. Get you Bound with the pleasures of the flesh and when you get addicted keep them from those who love them and freedom again. The devil is a liar. Jesus is the answer Truth is to be told.

 

[presidente]

Can you not understand sarcasm? I grew up in fundamentalism and have listened to many fundamentalists and I know exactly how they teach the "recompense" as being AIDS as well as other STDs. One fundamentalist Pastor, that I had sat under his preaching, actually wrote a tract aimed at homosexuals and named AIDS as the "recompense"

I never heard the sermon or read the tract. I have probably heard or read the suggestion that AIDS could be part of the 'recompense', but that's not a specific exegetical sort of thing, as if the passage referred specifically to AIDS.

Like I said before, I'll stop on this thread until someone actually presents a studied exegesis of the pertinent passages.

You have not done so yourself. You have quoted bits and pieces of others writings and some authors who would not agree with the conclusions you try to draw from their writings.

These opinions and silly arguments I'm encountering are a waste of time. You do know don't you, that males plural is made up of individual males?

The silly argument is the idea that Paul was talking about men going against their own 'sexual orientation', not your words exactly, but that is the concept you are trying to read into the text, while at the same time admitting that New Testament authors were not familiar with the modern concept of sexual orientation.

Historically, how realistic is it t think that when idolatry was first introduced, that within that generation men turned to various forms of sexual perversion and homosexuality? There were some sexual morals left among the Athenians during the classical period, with some of them recognizing same-sex sexual behavior as immoral and not appreciating the Spartan influence in this regard. That is one of the reasons I am inclined to view the passage as being about what happened to men that turned to idolatry over a large span of time.

But let's say you are right, and men became perverted sexually and started wanting to have sex with other men all in one generation. If that is the proper understanding, this still does not justify the same-sex sexual behavior you would seek to justify.


Romans 1

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Your sexual orientation argument does not make sense either. If individual men who had once desired women gave themselves over to vile passions, why would it be okay for men who had never desired women to give themselves to vile passions? Either way, the passions are still vile. If individual men who had once desired women left their natural use, burned with lust one to another, and committed what is shameful, why would it be justifiable for men who had never desired women to leave the natural use of the woman, burn in lust toward one another and commit what is shameful?

Whether these men in the passage are 'gay' or 'bi', their passions are still vile. The passage says their acts are shameful.

This is LGBT revisionism. I appreciate intellectual honesty. If you believe Paul is wrong or does not know what he is talking about, just say so. But trying to re-interpret what Paul as saying as to not be against men having sex with each other comes off as intellectually dishonest. It is like those people who try to argue that Elijah used some ancient form of lighter fluid to put on the sacrifice at Mt. Carmel instead of water. If you don't believe it, just say you don't believe it. Why believe the events happened at all if you have to invent a lighter fluid scenario? It's just so ridiculous. So is your trying to twist the writings of a first-century Jew to allow for an exception for same sex behavior based on sexual orientation, when you quote sources arguing that such a concept did not exist back then. I do not think you will find people here gullible enough to fall for the revisionism.

"and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due." (Rom 1:27, ERV)

Again, if the natural use of the woman doesn't feel natural to you, that doesn't make it any less natural. Men and women marrying and having babies is in line with nature.

As Chrysostom pointed out, you cannot leave what you did not possess!

The actual quote does not say what you are trying to read into it. You never did explain how you get this idea of yours out of the Chrysostom quote. Chrysostom believed men could find satisfaction in a married relationship with a woman and a woman could find sexual satisfaction in a married relationship with a man, though he also pointed out Paul preferred celibacy, or 'virginity' as translations of Chrysostom's commentary on I Corinthians 7 put it.

If they left their natural use with women, they must be what we would call heterosexuals in this day.

This is a stupid argument, and a foolish argument in the Proverbs sense of the word that has a sense of immorality in the use of the word foolishness. The verse refers to the natural use of the woman, not what 'feels natural' to a man with vile passions.

If they then have sex with other males, they are acting like homosexuals(better read sodomites) because of their insatiable lust, the consuming fire of lust. The 19th century JFB commentary points this out as well, as does the modern encyclopedia:

Well, do you agree with Paul that men who desire to have sex with men do so out of lust, or do you disagree? Don't try to twist Paul into saying something he did not. If you believe Paul, men have sex with men because they burn with vile lust, assuming it is consensual. If it is not, one man has vile lust. If you disagree with him, disagree. Don't try to twist what he was saying.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Fully Revised 1988, Vol. 4 page, 437 we read this comment on Rom. 1:27:
"...how did Paul understand the homosexual behavior he condemned? Evidently he understood it as freely chosen (cf. 'exchanged,' 'gave up') by people for whom heterosexual relations were 'natural,' and as chosen (by heterosexual people) because of their insatiable lust ('consumed with passion')."

One of your other sources disagrees with this. Your commentary is clearly anachronistic, reading the idea of 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' into the passage. One of your other sources disagreed with that idea. You need to decide which of your sources you believe.

Also, we are thinking human beings, not idiotic robots that treat every turn of phrase in a commentary as if it were truth. Many Christians do believe in the inspiration of scripture, but not the inspiration of commentators with an agenda.

If you think this commentator is right, then you should disagree with Paul again, since he would be promoting the idea that many 'fundamentalists' hold to that being a homosexual is basically a choice.

Paul does not address the issue of whether some men just never care for the natural use of the woman or not. That is not the topic of the passage. Whether you appreciate the natural use of the woman, in regards to marriage, sexuality, having children, etc. or not, Paul describes same sex sexual affections as vile and the acts as shameful. Leviticus still condemns a man having sex with a man as one does with a woman. There is no exception for those with certain sexual orientations. I Corinthians 6 and I Timothy 1 do not make a separate allowance based on sexual orientation.

Btw, if the Bible said it was okay for men to have sex with men if they were not heterosexual, then wouldn't the Bible be discriminating against people based on sexual orientation?

You are old now. The 'youthful lusts that war against the soul' must have dried up some by 80. Why not repent and let go of these justifications for lust and sin that you are making? Why continue trying to confuse and mislead the young?

 

[SophieT]

Can you not understand sarcasm? I grew up in fundamentalism and have listened to many fundamentalists and I know exactly how they teach the "recompense" as being AIDS as well as other STDs. One fundamentalist Pastor, that I had sat under his preaching, actually wrote a tract aimed at homosexuals and named AIDS as the "recompense"

Like I said before, I'll stop on this thread until someone actually presents a studied exegesis of the pertinent passages. These opinions and silly arguments I'm encountering are a waste of time. You do know don't you, that males plural is made up of individual males?

"and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due." (Rom 1:27, ERV)

As Chrysostom pointed out, you cannot leave what you did not possess! If they left their natural use with women, they must be what we would call heterosexuals in this day. If they then have sex with other males, they are acting like homosexuals(better read sodomites) because of their insatiable lust, the consuming fire of lust. The 19th century JFB commentary points this out as well, as does the modern encyclopedia:

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Fully Revised 1988, Vol. 4 page, 437 we read this comment on Rom. 1:27:
"...how did Paul understand the homosexual behavior he condemned? Evidently he understood it as freely chosen (cf. 'exchanged,' 'gave up') by people for whom heterosexual relations were 'natural,' and as chosen (by heterosexual people) because of their insatiable lust ('consumed with passion')."

actually its worse than that

try separation from God for eternity

that, is the actual 'recompense'

 

[Katia]

Obviously I'm talking about the words/labels, when discussing the Bible, not persons. The words "sodomy" and "sodomite" were coined about the 13th century by the church of Rome; and "homosexual" and "homosexuality" created in Germany in the 19th century, coming into English around 1900. We are living in a day when many (maybe 30%) think they fit somewhere in the modern idea of LGBTQ, and some young people are truly confused about it. So, I'm posting what I find the pertinent Scriptures teach on males relations to males. I'll be using the 1885 English Revised Version because of its literal accuracy. I'll usually use the 1828 Webster's Dictionary for English, since I'm using an older English version. On definition of the Hebrew and Greek I'll use accepted standard reference works.

Sodom:
Lot, being covetous chooses the land toward Sodom because of its fruitfulness, being called "like the garden of the LORD". (Gen. 13:10, ERV)
"Now the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners against the LORD exceedingly." (Gen 13:13, ERV)

Webster's: "men, plu. of man. Two or more males, individuals of the human race...Persons; people; mankind; in an indefinite sense", Strong's "Hebrew enowsh a mortal, a man in general". Therefore, Gen. 13:13 would mean the "people" of Sodom were exceedingly wicked, not just the males.

A key verse about "men" and "males" in OT Hebrew:
In Gen. 17:23 is the strange sounding phrase "every male among the men of Abraham's house" where "male" is the Hebrew zakar and "men" is the Hebrew enowsh. It is clear that the English "men" must be seen in context to determine if it means males; or mortals, humans in general.

"But before they lay down, the men(enowsh) of the city, even the men(enowsh) of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; 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. And Lot went out unto them to the door, and shut the door after him. And he said, I pray you, my brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known 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; forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof. And they said, Stand back. And they said, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and drew near to break the door." (Gen 19:4-9, ERV)

The word "men" here means young and old, all the people, male and female. There is no reason to think only males here because it is all the people. This wicked people want to "know them", the angels who appear as men; and we know this has sexual connotations because of Lot's offer to give his virgin daughters to them. Lot addresses his fellow citizens as "brethren", the Hebrew 'ach and Strong's gives "a brother" as the basic meaning, but then adds {used in the widest sense of literal relationship and metaphorical affinity or resemblance (like H1).} Webster's defines "brother" literally as male, but definition #2 reads "Any one closely united; an associate; as a band of brothers." When we say "brethren of the church" we don't exclude the ladies. Lot is speaking as we would say "neighbors". Verse nine clearly states an act of violence, "drew near to break the door", in other words this was going to be a rape, and rape is an act of dominance and violence, not sexual desire. In years past I'd have considered rape an act solely committed by males, but in our wicked day it's clear it can apply to both sexes. I can only see attempted rape here in the Sodom record, possibly by the entire city rather than only the males. The Lord GOD tells us what the sin of Sodom was:

"As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom; pride, fulness of bread, and prosperous ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." (Ezek 16:48-50, ERV)

No sexual sin is specifically mentioned here, but the sins of "pride" and "haughtiness" are clearly mentioned. Yet there is the word "abomination" that translates the Hebrew to`ebah and Strong's defines it thus: "1(properly) something disgusting; 2(morally, as noun) an abhorrence; 3(especially) idolatry; 4(concretely) and idol." This Hebrew word is found 41 times in Ezekiel, more than any other OT book and it seems to be largely associated with idolatry in Ezekiel, yet 22:11 does connect it with adultery, and again in 33:26. More on this word "abomination" later when looking at Lev. 18:22 and Deut. 23:17.

Jesus spoke of Sodom, and his words spoken to the Jews are:

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, as ye go forth out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city." (Matt 10:14-15, ERV)

One other statement about Sodom is in the NT book of Jude:

"And angels which kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to fornication, and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 1:6-7, ERV)

Who is being referred to as "these"? It appears to be the angels as I read it. The Revised English Bible clearly translates in that manner:

"Remember too those angels who were not content to maintain the dominion assigned to them, but abandoned their proper dwelling-place; God is holding them, bound in darkness with everlasting chains, for judgement on the great day. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbouring towns; like the angels, they committed fornication and indulged in unnatural lusts; and in eternal fire they paid the penalty, a warning for all." (Jude 1:6-7, REB)

So what does "strange flesh"(ERV) or "indulged in unnatural lusts"(REB) mean? In the Greek, strange is heteros which Strong's defines as "other or different"; and flesh is sarx which Strong's defines as "flesh (as stripped of the skin)." In Jude 14 the book, Prophecy of Enoch, is mentioned and in that book the story of Gen. 6:1-4 is thought to be about angels, "sons of God"; who have sexual relations with humans, "daughters of men". Since the non-canonical book of Enoch is referenced, I believe the "strange flesh" or "different flesh" refers to the people of Sodom attempting to rape angels, which is clearly a different flesh. The "different flesh" can not mean a human to human, but more fitting to human to angel, see: "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes." (1Cor 15:39, ERV)

Isn't pride and a haughty spirit at the base of all violent criminality? Isn't sin very much about pride and a haughty air. We see it daily in minor things, where the normal rules of society are just ignored by those who think it does not apply to them. The healthy person parking in Handicapped Zones; the aggressive, reckless and high speed driving, etc. Prisons are full of people who think society's rules are only for others. The Apocryphal book of Sirach, written about 180 BC, gives a historical look at what the Jews thought about Sodom, and I'll use the old KJV translation:

Sir 16:8 KJVA "Neither spared he the place where Lot sojourned, but abhorred them for their pride."

Leviticus 18:22 and Deut. 23:17,18 will be in the next OP. This is taking more space than I had thought.

Using the Bible to justify your hatred? We should only regulate our own lives. Judgement of others is for God only.

 

[Gardenias]

@Jon-E,
your way of twisting the word and your interpretations are false and repugnant!

 

[CS1]

LOL completely unbiblical. Lust always drives the flesh to do what God said not to do. Sex with women other than your wife is a sin. Sex with a man while being a man is taking the lust of the flesh to a whole new level of depravity downward.

All sin will lead to greater sin IF unchecked. Much of this sinful flame started with a simple look at pornography.

Which turned into sexual addictions.

I have heard hundreds of testimonies from men & women, who were introduced to pornography that took root to many things God said do not do:

1. adultery
2. fornication
3. Sexual abuse
4. coe-dependency
5. anger
6. substance abuse
7. rape
8. homosexuality
9. broken homes
10. incest
11. suicide

Homosexuality is seen as so bad because of all the other things that happen before the abomination was done.

Gays and transgender Testify up to over 80% were sexually abused by a friend or family member. that led them to self-abuse, drug, and addiction, and finally suicide. Most of this is driven by women. Mothers of sons and daughters who have been abused that they (mother) did nothing to stop.

No father in the home has greatly allowed the distortion of what a man is supposed to do and be, because fathers were absent. The Government moved in and said we will help, but no father in the home, or we stop the check.

How one cannot discern the demonic attack on children from this list above is beyond me. Maybe I see it better because

I was sexually abused, and no father in the home. Had Uncles who were sexual predators of little nephews like me. They slept with them and taught them how to smoke dope and became the replacement of the dad in the home or a mom's boyfriend molesting the daughters yet mom would say she was lying because of her coe-dependency.

You Have No Clue!

Many of us choose not to share this on chat sites because many here are nothing but freaks who pm others and seek relationships as web perverts.

I know that full well too, as a Moderator in the site.

I did my best to protect many from such types as possible the Job of Admin here is not easy. " Onefallen" and others do a great job and a very long-suffering as is the site owner.

It is not homophobe that those who have had this kind of experience we're able to be set free from it because of the power of God.
IT is those like you, that seeks to continue the abuse of them.

Those who have been sex-free from Drugs and homosexuality and come to the LORD are being PERSUed by LGBQ with A Vengence, to try AND GET THEM BACK INTO A SEXUAL ENCOUNTER.
So they can say to them Look there is no difference between you and me nothing NEW. Just like the pimp or drug pusher who wants to keep them in the addiction gives them money and drugs appealing to the lust of the flesh which is NOT dead we fight that every day!!

Lastly, we have to fight false teachers of the word of God who use the word of God to say gays can be chritians and how they are saved IN the sin of Homosexuality not From the sin of homosexuality. Because they have secret sexual addictions that they cannot shake so it must be how I am.

it is the most demonic attack and key strategy of Satan. Get you Bound with the pleasures of the flesh and when you get addicted keep them from those who love them and freedom again. The devil is a liar. Jesus is the answer Truth is to be told.

had to do a s/p.

 

[Deus_Vult]

The phallic and degenerate penetratrion through a hole like the anus, designed by God to evacuate toxic and infectious waste is nasty, disgusting and contrary to God's teachings... There is no difference between a homosexual and a zoophilic, both are mentally ill and both need spiritual help, if one homosexual wants to leave his bad path, he should be helped... Otherwise he must keep away just like the rest of mentally ill people.

 

[CS1]

The phallic and degenerate penetratrion through a hole like the anus, designed by God to evacuate toxic and infectious waste is nasty, disgusting and contrary to God's teachings... There is no difference between a homosexual and a zoophilic, both are mentally ill and both need spiritual help, if one homosexual wants to leave his bad path, he should be helped... Otherwise he must keep away just like the rest of mentally ill people.

a little graphic don't you think?

 

[Jon-E]

a little graphic don't you think?

That graphic statement exposes the odd stereotype that even many modern translations use in 1 Cor. 6:9. There are gays who do not practice that stereotypical passive-dominant idea. I have correspondence with a Christian, bisexual man who is married, and before he married his wife, he and his friend practiced only mutual fellatio and onanism. He explained to me that he and his friend thought the other coupling would be "sodomy". Maybe that is his culture in South Africa?

 

[CS1]

That graphic statement exposes the odd stereotype that even many modern translations use in 1 Cor. 6:9. There are gays who do not practice that stereotypical passive-dominant idea. I have correspondence with a Christian, bisexual man who is married, and before he married his wife, he and his friend practiced only mutual fellatio and onanism. He explained to me that he and his friend thought the other coupling would be "sodomy". Maybe that is his culture in South Africa?

FYI there is no such thing as "Christian bisexual " If the person is Christian their Identity is with Christ, not a sexual preference. And I say again your use of explicated sexual language is not needed. the graphic statement is not exposing any stereotype but overkill to say something and use a term like " a hole" .

 

[Deus_Vult]

a little graphic don't you think?

We have to be graphic today, to explain why homosexuality is a mental disorder, why it's against God, and why loving another man doesn't have to imply such a degenerated act... otherwise nobody will understand why is it actually wrong.

 

[CS1]

We have to be graphic today, to explain why homosexuality is a mental disorder, why it's against God, and why loving another man doesn't have to imply such a degenerated act... otherwise nobody will understand why is it actually wrong.

even a 5-year-old knows it is wrong without being graphic.

 

[Deus_Vult]

even a 5-year-old knows it is wrong without being graphic.

Tell that to some of the "christian homosexuals" i have seen posting here in this site trying to justify homosexuality.