|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Religion In The Military An argument in defense of homosexuality|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Experienced Member |
Per an English atheist. Please try to read it all the way through before vomiting your retaliation:
The Sins of Sodom Traditionally, Christianity is the religion most hostile to homosexuals, usually citing Genesis 19: 1-11 to prove that God found homosexuality so abhorrent that he destroyed Sodom for it. Most people fail to read the full text of Genesis 19 because they are so sure that they know what it means or they don't want to be confused with the other biblical facts contained in the rest of the chapter. The Basic Story God confides in Abraham about his plans to discover what is happening in the city of Sodom because the 'outcry against Sodom is so great and their sin is grave'. He didn't mention any crime specifically but said He would 'go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me'. He sends two divine messengers who are met at the city gates by Lot, a citizen of the city, and he offers them hospitality. Lot's guests enter his house and he prepares them a feast. As they are getting ready for sleep, the men of the city, every one of them from the youngest to the oldest surrounds Lot's house and demand that Lot surrenders his guests so that they may 'know' them. The subsequent riot and the demand to 'know' the visitors ~ probably accurately interpreted as a wish to sexually abuse them ~ is taken as "proof" the the special sin of Sodom was homosexuality. It may be fair to assume that some of the men in the crowd had a sexual interest in the strangers, but it's difficult to imagine that every man in the city was a homosexual. The text is clear though ~ the men of Sodom gathered 'to the last man'. An Abuse of Hospitality It's long been well known and documented that anal penetration, or the threat of it, has been used as an act of subjugation by heterosexual males in many cultures for thousands of years, so there's nothing to support the contention that all the men of Sodom were homosexuals. It does, however, say a lot about their treatment of strangers. Lot's guests were aliens in a strange city, subject to the will of it's citizens. The city could befriend or abuse stangers, making them subject to the citizens' will, giving or refusing their protection and demonstating the visitors' weakness and vulnerability and the strength and power of the people in the city. A popular way to insult a stranger was to force him to act out the female role in the sex act ~ at that time women were seen as the property of men ~ and nothing was more insulting to a man as being forced in to the womans role. Probably only a few of the men would perform sexually, maybe being gay, while the others looked on cheering, legitimizing the act through patriotism and mob violence. Back To The Story Genesis 19:3-7 "And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned unto him, and entered the house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men 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 came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him. And said I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly." This is where most people stop reading, having assured themselves that God finds homosexuality was the sin and that those found guilty of that sin deserve divine wrath. Genesis 19:8 "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not knowm 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; for therefore they come under the shadow of my roof." Later on in the story, after Sodom has been burned and Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt for looking back, Lot's daughters commit incest with their father, resulting in them both becoming pregnant. This seems a very odd story for Christians to use as proof that the bible condemns homosexuals. The biblical text suggests approval of Lot's use of his virgin daughters to placate an angry mob by satisfing the mobs sexual demands. It also suggests incest as a legitimate practice. Remember, God considered Lot to be a righteous man, that's why he was spared. Another important issue raised by the story is that of the mens' intention to commit gang rape. Lot seemed to think that homosexual gang rape was evil, especially as it violated the Middle Eastern law of hospitality ~ for the men "came under the shadow of my roof", but, since no laws of hospitality would be broken, a heterosexual gang-rape of his daughters would be acceptable. Rape of any kind is totally unacceptable, but the condemnation of homosexual gang rape can not be equated to a condemnation of homosexuality per se. Christian fundamentalists who like to present issues in black and white view Sodom's destruction as God's judgement on homosexuals although reading the passage in full shows that it is God's judgement on inhospitality. In Luke, Jesus compares the times of Noah,the times of Sodom and the end times. The only implied sexual activity is of a heterosexual nature. Luke 17 26-29 "And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, thet bought, they sold, they planted, they built. But the same day Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from Heaven, and destroyed them all." Interestingly, Jesus never mentions homosexuality as being a sin. Nor is it mentioned in any of the four Gospels. Either He didn't think it was one or the people who wrote down His words didn't think it was important enough to note. Several of the prophets have remarked that the sins of Jerusalem were as the sins of Sodom, or worse. Isaiah "For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judas is fallen; because their tongue and their doings are against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of His glory. The show of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, the hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves." Jeremiah 23:14 "I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants of Gomorrah." Does this mean that the sins of Jerusalem was homosexual activity, or is it a case of reading into the text the message you want to find there? Abominations to God Many people quote Leviticus 18:22 ~ "you shall not lie with a male as with a woman" to prove that God hates gays but if they are going to live by that archaic text they should be sure to note what else Leviticus considers sinful. * 21:7 "you shall not marry a woman divorced from her husband. * 20:10 "If a man commits adultery, both the adulterer and adulteress shall be put to death." * 19:19 ~ "you shall not let you cattle breed with a different kind." * 19:19 ~ "you shall never wear a garment of cloth made of two different kinds of material." [I especially love this one] * 19:31 ~ "do not turn to mediums or be defiled by them." They should also check Proverbs 6:16-19 "These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood. An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief. A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethen. In Ezekiel 16:48-49, God Himself even spells out the sins of Sodom. Homosexuality is not on His list. This seems an odd oversight if God really does hate homosexuals. 16:48 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. 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. Leviticus condemns homosexuality twice, in 18:22 and 20:13. It's part of the Mosaic law, a long list of foods and acts that were considered unclean, from eating shellfish to cursing your father. One of the big themes of the New Testament is that Christians are not bound by Mosaic law. If the Bible is infallibly true, then Christians may use their own judgment in choosing whether to follow the Mosaic law, and shouldn't bother about those who choose differently. In the first chapter of Romans Paul describes people who worship idols instead of God, "wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness," and they turned to homosexuality and a long list of other wrongs running the gamut from murder and deceit to whispering. Why is it that all those who condemn others never quote this passage all the way to its punch line: "Therefore art thou inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself." Paul isn't telling this story to condemn the homosexuals: He's condemning the people who condemn the homosexuals. Read Romans all the way through and its hard to miss Paul's point: He's writing to a group of Jewish Christians who have been criticising gentile Christians for not keeping the Mosaic law, and Paul is telling them, politely but firmly, to knock it off. If the Bible is infallibly true, it's wrong to use Leviticus or the story of Sodom as a basis for condemning homosexuals. [Okay... puke away.] |
||
|
"I love the smell of Brown Water in the morning" |
Pretty interesting post Bill. I for one, have read ALL of story of Sodom. The story illustrates a number of things; that the city was filthy with sin; that women were little more than possessions; that even the patriachs were not above sinning, that Lot's wife, by looking back showed she missed the "wild night life".God shows throughout His word the downside of His people, one needs to only go so far as David. As for homosexuality, God does not, nor should true Christians HATE anyone. Rather it is the SIN that is to be hated. Homo's are no less nor more sinners than murderers, rapists, or jay walkers. That God considers homosexual behavior to be a sin is an indisputable biblical fact. If one is to defend the practice one will have to depend on other sources than the Bible.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Raunchy, |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Nice puke, but not very accurate. Where's YOUR "evidence"? |
|||
|
|
"I love the smell of Brown Water in the morning" |
Wow Bill, you just went and got all bitter on me. Name calling doesn't become you. Is it possible there is something to drinking at the VFW vs the American Legion? How disappointing.  |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
The word puke refers to my first message [the messages I expected to receive from my post], not to you, my friend. I don't belong to either the VFW or the American Legion, inasmuch as they are inhabited by overbearingly jingoistic and religious nutballs, often. It was until just recently that they needed people to be sworn god believers to be members. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
New film argues that Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality
By BECKIE SUPIANO Religion News Service (UNDATED) “For the Bible Tells Me So,” a documentary that seeks to make the case that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, is making the rounds at film festivals and screening in select cities. The 97-minute film weaves biblical analysis with the stories of five Christian families who learn that one of their children is gay. Two of the families are well known: former House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt, whose daughter Chrisy is a lesbian, and Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson, who made headlines as the church's first openly gay bishop. The documentary traces each family's experience of wrestling with how their child's sexuality fits in with their moral and religious beliefs. Some come to accept it; others learn to love their children while continuing to believe homosexuality is wrong. One parent's strained relationship with her daughter ends with the girl's suicide. That mother, Mary Lou Wallner, became a gay rights activist. “The gay kids are in the film, but it's really about those parents,” said the film's director, Daniel Karslake, at a discussion following the film's Washington premiere. The decision to focus on the parents was strategic. “The film was made with a conservative Christian audience in mind,” Karslake said. His expectation was that those viewers would identify with the parents in the film as they struggled to reconcile their faith with the sexuality of their children. The film has already won a number of awards, including the HBO Audience Award at the Provincetown Film Festival and the Audience Award for Best Documentary at the Seattle International Film Festival. It was also nominated for the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival. In addition to the families' stories, the documentary features religious leaders, including retired Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the Rev. Peter Gnomes of Harvard University , discussing biblical views of homosexuality. They maintain that biblical passages typically used to suggest homosexuality is sinful have been misinterpreted or distorted. The film argues against a literal interpretation of Scripture and for one that considers the text's historical context. With such a reading, the film says, many of the passages used to condemn homosexuality turn out to be about something else. For example, some scholars say the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was failure to take in travelers, not homosexuality. Richard Mouw, the president of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena , Calif. , is the one critical voice in the film, disputing the theory about Sodom and Gomorrah . One couple, Brenda and David Poteat, remain uncomfortable with their daughter's sexuality. Though filmmakers attempted to get evangelical leaders who hold the literalist view to appear in the film, they all declined, said Robin Voss, one of the film's executive producers. Instead of interviewing biblical literalists, the film relies on archival footage of their sermons and television appearances. The documentary includes a light-hearted animated segment asserting that homosexuality is not a choice, and should not be confronted with therapies that attempt to treat or change it. Much of the film's analysis of Scripture was based on seminars given by the Rev. Steve Kindle, a Disciples of Christ pastor and the founder of Clergy United for the Equality of Homosexuals. Voss and her friend Keith Lewis were inspired to make a movie about the Bible's take on homosexuality after attending one of these seminars in 2003. Karslake, meanwhile, was working on “In the Life,” a PBS news show geared toward a gay and lesbian audience. Karslake came on as the film's director. Though reasonably respectful of the opposing point of view, the film is likely to attract an audience already open to the idea of Scripture and homosexuality being compatible. “We'll have trouble getting some people who are strident in their views to go,” Voss said. |
|||
|
I like to fight fire... with gasoline...  |
Gosh, thank you so much for allying me with murderers and rapists. Why is it that nobody every says “divorcees are sinners just like rapists”? Hmmm? Why is that collation never made? Which commandment covers jaywalking? (or homosexuality for that matter)  |
|||
|
|
Member |
personally i dont think you should be judged by any faith thats just plain b.s..
its fear that causes this kinda crap, ugh i dont even wanna go there... if you are a good person why does it matter who u love? |
|||
|
Basic Training |
|
|||
|
|
Member |
Our society is bent on explaining away all manner of evil actions. Victims are demonized and perpetrators are hailed as heros. Wrong is called right and right is called wrong. If there are no absolutes, no one can be held accountable for their actions.....well at least not in this world.
|
|||
|
|
"I love the smell of Brown Water in the morning" |
|
|||
|
|
"I love the smell of Brown Water in the morning" |
|
|||
|
|
Member |
Hi Bill,
The Bible is not merely a book, historical reference, or document. It is a personal letter written for a specific people. Those people are God’s children. I’ve used this analogy here before so will touch on it briefly… Reading God’s Word (Bible) is akin to finding an old letter from a grand-parent. While reading the letter we’ll probably be familiar with some of those stories and names. We might even find that the more we read it – we start recalling other memories. However, if that letter were from a stranger, the letter would have little meaning. IMHO - The Bible is best understood when the reader respects the principles of the author. That principle is Covenant. That’s what the whole thing is about covenant keepers – covenant breakers. There are several books addressing the issues you are describing regarding God’s law; Two I highly recommend are; Law & Society & Institutes for Biblical Law – both by Rouses J. Rushdoony. There are others but these two books address theonomy both with common sense and with scriptural integrity. As for your post… especially the premise of specificity regarding sexual sin and Paul’s purpose of the letter – Romans… The letter is addressing those Jews who still regarded themselves as special in God’s eyes – especially those who arrogantly and hypocritically are condemning the Gentiles… Paul warns them… Romans 2:23-24 23 You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? 24 For “THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES BECAUSE OF YOU,” just as it is written. The above passage sort-a puts them on notice – wouldn’t you agree…
That statement is presumptuously wrong… Matt 5:17 Jesus Himself says… “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
Bill – Paul is condemning “BOTH!” Paul is condemning the sins AND the hypocrisy of those who are “pretending” that they no longer commit those sins. They are hypocrites! Roman’s 2:1-6 1 Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2 And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. 3 But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: Paul goes on to say clarify his point even further Romans 2:11-16 11 For there is no partiality with God. 12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus. Just some thoughts… |
|||
|
|
Member |
AMEN - AMEN - AMEN The church must start teaching apologetics and quit this nonsense of humanistic rationalism. It reminds me of when I catch employees stealing from us. It's almost comical, if it wasn't so sad. Without any conscience of right or wrong they consistently attempt to turn it around. It's strange - I call them in the office... and start with “…the cash-register was short - and without skipping a beat the guilty ones will always reply... "...are you calling me a thief..?” I’m fighting with a builder even now… He is supposedly a “Christian” and he used our construction funds for his own purposes. This delayed the completion of our house by more than 14 months. During this time I was paying the construction loan & rent for where we were staying… He submitted his last expense report for a final draw wanting an additional 170k. There was no explanation or credit for the expenses incurred by me… I questioned him on the situation and asked what he thought I should be thinking… after I subtracted the erroneous over-charges and the expenses I incurred from the promised completion date until we finally moved in – he owes me over 200k. He doesn’t feel responsible for those costs because that’s just what happens sometimes when folks build houses… Hmm, and how much crack do I need to smoke to reach that conclusion…??? When I confronted him about the missing funds – then about the lack of integrity, his response was… “well, you know Christians aren’t perfect… I wasn’t trying to rip you off…” hmm, okay, I suppose that makes it all better… So, I go to a judge to arbitrate the situation and the judge says FIRE the builder… I explain if I fire the builder – the lender will pull the loan and foreclose consequently forcing me & my business into bankruptcy… the judge says, if you don’t fire him the courts will take the position that you (me) are enabling him… go figure! So, now, I have the dubious reality of facing bankruptcy, shooting a builder, or suing the builder. He probably has zero money anyway which will leave me with a judgment against him – and paying an attorney 25-40 thousand dollars to fight it… where is justice… and this guy still goes to church and think’s he’s a Christian… and that is only a small part of it. I have know freaking idea what I will do but the hammer is coming and I can’t see anyway possible that I will lose everything I own including my business. It disgusts me. The church as abandoned truth for convenience – faith for statistics – integrity for intentions. We were hoping to retire in our new house. It's a dream property on the water and though we haven't been forced to move yet, it isn't fesible to continue much longer... I don't get it - I really don't get it... |
|||
|
