Let us do away with the homosexuals & sodomites

Your argument here is foolish sophistry. The passage is about 'men', and this is stuff that happened over time. Think of Canaanite society. At first, there was some residual knowledge of the true God. Eventually that was corrupted by idolatry. Eventually, men gave up natural desires for women. Men desiring men sexually is not natural or normal. It is an abomination/repulsive/disgusted and God commanded that it be deemed such. It's unnatural-- again Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. And babies come out of women's wombs not the upper or lower end of a man's digestive system, hands, thighs, or what have you.

If it seems normal to you, that is because you have some twisted desires that are against nature. God can save and redeem people who have twisted desires.



Not sure how this is supposed to prove your point. If one generation of Canaanites, Greeks, Romans, etc. had started off worshipping idols and had men lose interest in their wives for other men, and the next generation of men had some guys who never cared for women at all and just wanted to indulge in 'gay' sex, it's all sinful. Sexual relations between men are sinful. They were sinful for Gentiles in the BIble.



This is 'men'-- a group. It's a group of people doing this. If you desire something wicked from your youth or you turn to something wicked as an old man, it is still wicked. Leviticus 18 sexual sins were things for which __Gentiles__ were also driven out of the land.

Your trying to reinterpret scripture through the false paradigm of 'sexual orientation' that did not exist back then is reading your perverted philosophy back into the text, and clearly not what Paul was saying.


* To quote this encyclopedia, I had to include the adjective use of the banned words as it was so written.


No! no! This is perversion. It is abnormal for two men, even close friends, to have any kind of sexual desire for each other at all. Those who experience that have something wrong with them. This kind of desire is something extreme, not something normal. God can save people who have all kinds of backgrounds and problems, drug addicts, evil sexual desires. I Corinthians 6 tells us of such people who have been washed, sanctified, and justified-- not left in that state.



English has lots of different words to express related concepts, too.



Maybe you should not think about such things. Lots of 'gay' people do some of the same sins as Nero, maybe not with the same threat of punishment. But they say he did wicked stuff like engage in sexual stuff with men, get 'gay married', very wicked stuff, in addition to the adultery attributed to him.




Our society is not overtly idolatrous in the literal stone or gold statue-worshipping sense. But it has abandoned God in many ways and rebelled against many of His precepts. This slowly rising tide of homosexual perversion-- until recently about 30% of millineals stated they considered themselves LGBT in a survey--has been growing since the sexual revolution. American society and government rebelled against God by embracing sex before marriage, legalized murder of babies in the womb, and more recently same-sex sexual activity and transgendered operations. Gay men have higher suicide rates than sexually normal males. Trans men ('mtf') have much higher suicide rates than normal men. Yet those who suffer from the insane evil left-wing perspective on this issue promote LGBT among the youth. Public high schools have clubs promoting this evil. There are also people going onto Christian forums trying to persuade Chrsitians this sort of thing is okay.



The passage is not all that clear what the recompense is, and it isn't written in such a way to point to one specific thing. Being a sexual pervert who doesn't know God may be the recompense for the error, but there are a lot of other sins in the passage, too, listed toward the end. .



No, the natural desire of men is for women, rightly expressed between a man and his wife. God allowed wicked homosexual desires to enter mankind because of idolatry. But that does not mean if a homosexual never desired women, that his desires are okay.

Your interpretation is just sophistry, and it does not line up with Leviticus or the overall teaching of scripture on sexuality. You are reading the LGBT ideology about orientation back into the text and interpreting it by an ideology that developed over 1900 years later. Stop justifying sin.

Presidente, I've repeatedly tried to answer your entire reply, but keep getting the limitation to 10,000 characters.

Let's do a topic or a verse at a time, not merely opinions, but real study. For instance, why do you reject the research that has been done on sexual orientation?

Just because it does not have the approval of fundamentalists?

From the David Myers psychology textbook:
"The consistency of the brain, genetic, and prenatal findings has swung the pendulum
toward a biological explanation of sexual orientation (Rahman & Wilson, 2003; Rahman & Koerting, 2008). Still, some people wonder: Should the cause of sexual orientation matter? Perhaps it shouldn’t, but people’s assumptions matter. If you see sexual orientation as inborn—as shaped by biological and prenatal influences—then you likely favor “equal rights for homosexual and bisexual people” (Bailey et al., 2016). If you see same-sex attraction as a lifestyle choice or as encouraged by social tolerance, then you likely oppose equal rights for nonheterosexual people. To justify his signing a 2014 bill that made some homosexual acts punishable by life in prison, the president of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni, declared that homosexuality is not inborn but rather is a matter of
“choice” (Balter, 2014; Landau, E., et al., 2014)."
https://davidmyers.org/uploads/SexualOrientationPsy12e.pdf

From the US HHS site:
"What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation, or Inherent Sexuality?
There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of cognitive and biological factors.

I just cut my post into multiple posts when that happens.



Why is that relevant? The important question is why you reject the word of the Lord through prophets and the teachings of the apostles. The Bible says not to make a provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof. If hypothetically, homosexual genes came into mankind due to the idolatry of Romans 1, or if that is not the case, either way, Christians are not to yield to the flesh.

In the research I have read, twins studies show a higher propensity for one twin who was separated from another at church to be considered homosexual if his other twin is homosexual. But in the majority of separated twins where one is homosexual, the other is not.

There may be a hereditary aspect of sin that is not DNA. There may be spiritual heredity. Children may inherit bad traits from their parents and fall into the same sins their parents commit unless they repent. Christians are not to 'mortify the deeds of the body', like Romans 8 says.

If a certain gene shows up in adulterers, serial fornicators, murderers, etc., that doesn't make any of these things right.



We aren't just talking about modern American fundamentalists. Moses and the apostles, historical Judaism, historical Christianity, Roman Catholics, Protestants, etc. realize that this is sinful.



Sounds more like a book on ideology than biology.



'Most scientists'? Most scientists aren't specialists in research related to homosexuality.

Presidente, you either accept the science on homosexuality in this day, or be recognized as giving nothing but personal opinion. I am a stickler for sticking to the standard rules and principles of interpretation. If you check the etymology in the English dictionaries, you'll find "sodomy" and "sodomite" were coined around the 13th century by the church of Rome. The word homosexual was created in Germany in 1869 and came into English around 1900. Keeping that in mind consider:[/quote}

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, Copyright 2000
"The terms 'homosexuality' and 'homosexual' are coinages of the 19th century C.E. and have no equivalent in ancient Hebrew or Greek. It is debatable whether the modern idea of homosexuality (an erotic attraction focused only or primarily on persons of the same gender) existed at all in antiquity. The Bible does not appear to say anything directly about homosexuality in this modern sense of the term, but a few passages do refer to same-gender genital acts." page 602

The best book on hermeneutics I've read happens to be available online and it reads on this matter:

"RULE:—If a translation be used, it must be an exact equivalent of the original, or the difference must be noted by the interpreter." page 49
https://icotb.org/resources/PrinciplesofInterpretation.pdf

New Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, IVP Copyright 1996
"The Bible says nothing specifically about the homosexual condition (despite the rather misleading RSV [1st Ed]translation of 1 Cor. 6:9), but its condemnations of homosexual conduct are explicit. The scope of these strictures must, however, be carefully determined. Too often they have been used as tools of a homophobic polemic which has claimed too much." page 478

Fundamentalists and many evangelicals wish to create their own definitions of words and make blanket statements that are nothing but bigoted opinions, not anything factual. My purpose in the OP was to quit using words that are not found in the OT Hebrew or NT Greek, and stick to natural and clear statements of conduct given for the Christian in the New Covenant.

For the New Covenant believer, a Christian, there is no commandment forbidding two loving male friends to not only have the love and companionship, but also sexual expression of it in private between themselves? I challenge anyone to produce one Scripture that forbids such for one who is a Christian. Don't read into the Scripture, eisegesis, read out of it, exegesis. The problem with this topic of conduct between two males is explained in the following:

From The Ethics of Sex, Copyright 1964, by Helmut Thielicke (1908-1986) German Protestant theologian and rector of the University of Hamburg from 1960 to 1978 -

"One cannot expect to find in the theological ethics of German-speaking Protestantism a clear, consistent attitude toward homosexuality simply because hitherto the writers on ethics have taken little or no notice of the mere fact itself and therefore a body of opinion -- to say nothing of the unanimity of judgement -- is almost non-existent... Doctrinaire prejudices, which at the same time distort the theological problem presented by homosexuality, manifest themselves also in the fact that the value-judgment "homosexuality is sinful" is not isolated from an objective assessment of the phenomenon but is rather projected into it, and the result is that one arrives at an a priori defamation of those who are afflicted with this anomaly." page 269, 270

Scattergun responses that are giving nothing but opinion, 'Doctrinaire prejudices', will be ignored! Anyone, give the book, chapter, verse that you think condemns sexual conduct between two loving male companions. If anyone chooses to use a modern translation that inserts some form of "homosexual" into 1 Cor. 6:9 and/or 1 Tim. 1:10; explain the reasoning for choosing that particular translation since translations vary greatly on those two verses.

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.

When I see 2 guys kiss, it makes me feel a bit squeamish, but when I see the way the sleek and the strong of God treat "the least of these," it makes me cry.

I go further than that. I'm more than a bit squeamish to see 2 males kissing in public or 2 females kissing in a romantic way. But even with male and female, I find public displays of too much of this a turn off as well.

You have written a lot of fundamentalist, bigoted opinion, but you did not give a verse and exegete it to prove it condemns sexual conduct between two loving male companions who are Christian believers. I've noticed that in this entire thread, no one attempts to show any verse that condemns it or if they quote a verse, they are unable to show or demonstrate how it applies to this particular situation because none do.

Various cults can list verses to support their cult, but they too cannot show how the verses mean what they claim.

Then do not do that. It is very clear that Romans 1 does not teach what you claim about 'nature.' And many cluts have encouraged sexually immoral behavior.

You have written a lot of fundamentalist, bigoted opinion, but you did not give a verse and exegete it to prove it condemns sexual conduct between two loving male companions who are Christian believers. I've noticed that in this entire thread, no one attempts to show any verse that condemns it or if they quote a verse, they are unable to show or demonstrate how it applies to this particular situation because none do.

If under a. above "the natural use" the definite article 'the' points back to the created design and order. But under b. "their natural sexual function" would indicate that by their nature, their own sexual nature,

these women would have the created order, the created sexual function within themselves, but could only change their conduct.

The wording about changing "natural use" means their conduct. A person cannot change their sexual nature or orientation. They change their "use".

The natural, or nature cannot refer to the animal world because same sex animals pair up and it is a natural part of the animal world.

"Same-Sex Attraction in Other Species: In Boston’s Public Gardens, caretakers solved the mystery of why a much-loved swan couple’s eggs never hatched. Both swans were female. In New York City’s Central Park Zoo, penguins Silo and Roy spent several years as devoted same-sex partners. Same-sex sexual behaviors have also been observed in several hundred other species, including grizzlies, gorillas, monkeys, flamingos, and owls (Bagemihl, 1999). Among rams, for example, some 7 to 10 percent display same-sex attraction by shunning ewes and seeking to mount other males (Perkins & Fitzgerald, 1997). Homosexual behavior seems a natural part of the animal world."

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:" (Rom 2:14, KJV)

In the NRSV, it reads:
"When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves." (Rom 2:14, NRSV)

If "nature" is thought to be a person's instinct, it is speaking of what is natural to that person. That would be what is seen above in 2.b.

The one other option is "nature" is referring to the created order in the perfection of Eden, which would be 2.a. above.

Okay, gays, on the left...okay, anti-gays, on the right.
Hand out guns to everybody. On the count of 3, start shooting! 1...2...or
We could try to find common ground, perhaps try to understand each other, perhaps acknowledge that we all have a free will, perhaps acknowledge that we have to share this planet...perhaps conclude that it is better to love than it is to hate...hey, where have I heard that before?

there is no anti-gay here there are only called sin, sin. Ridiculous and over-the-top comments like "Hand out guns to everybody" is not needed. Here is no common ground with sin, we are not to compromise with sin in our own lives let alone call deceit love AND GRACE. if ONE's idea of love is not, to tell the truth, that is not love at all.

Perhaps when I'm aware of my own sinfulness, I'll be a little less harsh with another's. I encounter far too much anti-anyone rhetoric online and far too little, "love your neighbor as yourself," and "he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Casting stones in that passage was a scenario where people were literally about to cast stones. It wasn't about tell endorsing sin. Jesus preached against sin.