Dogbean's long awaited official stance on gay marriage and homosexuality

[Dogbean]

How would this be different to what you've been doing? (claiming that the Bible mentions "rampant homosexuality" as the sins of Sodom is a Brenin fabrication, utterly devoid of a Biblical reference, just for an example)

I notice you keep avoiding the New Testament passages we gave you condemning homosexuality and trying to bring this back to Sodom.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I notice you keep avoiding the New Testament passages we gave you condemning homosexuality and trying to bring this back to Sodom.

Sorry, I thought we were discussing the Sodom bit.

I'm happy to point out the problems with the NT "condemnation" of homosexuality if you like. Where to start? The fact that "arsenokoite's" translation is disputed? How about the fact that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, and all his preaching was about inclusiveness of all, not about targeting anyone for unequal treatment? Or better yet, how about all the parts where Jesus tells us not to judge others, and worry about our own salvation, rather than self righteously engaging in the judgement and condemnation of others?

Up to you...

 

[Dogbean]

Sorry, I thought we were discussing the Sodom bit.

Honestly, my friend, we have so many threads going about the same thing, I'm kind of lost in it all. We have lost track of what is being discussed in each thread, so they are all just "general homosexuality" threads to me at this point.

I'm happy to point out the problems with the NT "condemnation" of homosexuality if you like.

Your perceived problems...

Where to start? The fact that "arsenokoite's" translation is disputed? How about the fact that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality,

Wrong. See my signature. The passage from Mark is Jesus quoting the definition of marriage in Genesis. So he did touch on it.

and all his preaching was about inclusiveness of all, not about targeting anyone for unequal treatment? Or better yet, how about all the parts where Jesus tells us not to judge others, and worry about our own salvation, rather than self righteously engaging in the judgement and condemnation of others?
Up to you...

Hmm...I seem to remember Jesus telling us at the end of Matthew to "Go and make disciples of all nations..." Nobody is targetting you for unusual treatment. You claim to be a believer. So think of it as a brother confronting you of your sin in love. And I am not being self-righteous; I am wretched before God as well.

 

[*Starlight*]

OH really? So if the rapers were heterosexual males, why did they want to rape OTHER MALES? Come on. Rape is part of it, but so is homosexuality.

Why do you think it matters whether the rapists were homosexual or heterosexual?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Honestly, my friend, we have so many threads going about the same thing, I'm kind of lost in it all. We have lost track of what is being discussed in each thread, so they are all just "general homosexuality" threads to me at this point.

Yeah, I get that too. I'd sort of like to keep my "EnemyParty to renounce homosexuality" thread on topic though.

Your perceived problems...

I'm not the only one who percieves said problems though. If you could maybe stop fobbing them off as "homosexual propaganda" and deal with them legitimately, we may get somewhere.

Wrong. See my signature. The passage from Mark is Jesus quoting the definition of marriage in Genesis. So he did touch on it.

I disagree. See, once again, the discussion on the difference between a proscriptive and a normative definition. Both the Genesis and the Mathew passages are clearly normative, not proscriptive, context tells all.

Hmm...I seem to remember Jesus telling us at the end of Matthew to "Go and make disciples of all nations..." Nobody is targetting you for unusual treatment. You claim to be a believer. So think of it as a brother confronting you of your sin in love. And I am not being self-righteous; I am wretched before God as well.

I don't doubt that your heart is in the right place, or that your motivations I pure, I just think you are basing your position on flawed information.

 

[Dogbean]

I disagree. See, once again, the discussion on the difference between a proscriptive and a normative definition. Both the Genesis and the Mathew passages are clearly normative, not proscriptive, context tells all.

Ok I'm not a linguist or a language analyst. But God tells us that the Holy Spirit will teach us what the Scriptures say.

I don't doubt that your heart is in the right place, or that your motivations I pure, I just think you are basing your position on flawed information.

You have no reason to say this. I think this is an unfounded accusation to try to smear my good intentions.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Ok I'm not a linguist or a language analyst.

Then maybe you should have a look at what some actual linguists and language analysts have to say on the matter. Please do your best to find impartial objective ones.

But God tells us that the Holy Spirit will teach us what the Scriptures say.

Indeed. Yet when two people read the Bible, and come up with conflicting interpretations, they can't both be right, huh? So, how do you know which of us, if either of us, are getting the good oil from the HG?

You have no reason to say this. I think this is an unfounded accusation to try to smear my good intentions.

How does saying that "I think your intentions are good", smear you?

 

[artybloke]

So if the rapers were heterosexual males, why did they want to rape OTHER MALES?

I don't know. Why did soldiers in ancient armies, all of whom would have had wives and children at home, rape their defeated enemy soldiers? Maybe because rape has precious little to do with sex and more to do with the domination and humiliation of the victim...

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I don't know. Why did soldiers in ancient armies, all of whom would have had wives and children at home, rape their defeated enemy soldiers? Maybe because rape has precious little to do with sex and more to do with the domination and humiliation of the victim...

Thats what I said... rape is about power, NOT sexual gratification.

 

[Brennin]

How would this be different to what you've been doing? (claiming that the Bible mentions "rampant homosexuality" as the sins of Sodom is a Brenin fabrication, utterly devoid of a Biblical reference, just for an example)

No, it is the correct exegesis. Philo, Josephus, the Book of Jubilees and other ancient sources agree that rampant homosexuality was found in Sodom, your laughably absurd claim that it was a 6th century political fabrication notwithstanding.

I suggest quitting while you are behind.

 

[Brennin]

Then maybe you should have a look at what some actual linguists and language analysts have to say on the matter.

I have and that is why I find your claims laughably absurd.

 

[Jase]

No, it is the correct exegesis. Philo, Josephus, the Book of Jubilees and other ancient sources agree that rampant homosexuality was found in Sodom, your laughably absurd claim that it was a 6th century political fabrication notwithstanding.

I suggest quitting while you are behind.

Josephus:

Now, about this time the Sodomites, overwhelmingly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and avoided any contact with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance, and not only to uproot their city, but to blast their land so completely that it should yield neither plant nor fruit whatsoever from that time forward. —Jewish Antiquities 1:194-195


Let's see, Sodomites, exhibiting arrogance of number and wealth, were insolent to both men and God, and hated foreigners. For these reasons, God blasted the land completely. Where does Josephus talk about rampant homosexuality that is not rape?

​

 

[Brennin]

Josephus:

Now, about this time the Sodomites, overwhelmingly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and avoided any contact with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance, and not only to uproot their city, but to blast their land so completely that it should yield neither plant nor fruit whatsoever from that time forward. —Jewish Antiquities 1:194-195


Let's see, Sodomites, exhibiting arrogance of number and wealth, were insolent to both men and God, and hated foreigners. For these reasons, God blasted the land completely. Where does Josephus talk about rampant homosexuality that is not rape?

Josephus also writes:

Now when the Sodomites saw the young men to be of beautiful countenances, and this to an extraordinary degree, and that they took up their lodgings with Lot, they resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence; and when Lot exhorted them to sobriety...

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/works/files/ant-1.htm

Now, the cities of the plain were destroyed for the same egregious sin:

Jude 1:7
Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

The sin cannot be so narrow as "attempted rape of angels whom they thought were beautiful young men." How many angels/beautiful young men do you think the cities of the plain received as tourists? Precious few, I assure you. No, the text refers to an endemic problem, and that problem was rampant homosexuality. Pronounced avarice was also a problem but that is in addition to, not instead of, their rampant homosexuality.

 

[Jase]

Josephus also writes:

Now when the Sodomites saw the young men to be of beautiful countenances, and this to an extraordinary degree, and that they took up their lodgings with Lot, they resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence; and when Lot exhorted them to sobriety...

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/works/files/ant-1.htm

"they resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence"

If you can't read that verse and see that it's referring to rape, there really is no further point talking to you.

Now, the cities of the plain were destroyed for the same egregious sin:

Jude 1:7
Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

The sin cannot be so narrow as "attempted rape of angels whom they thought were beautiful young men." How many angels/beautiful young men do you think the cities of the plain received as tourists? Precious few, I assure you. No, the text refers to an endemic problem, and that problem was rampant homosexuality. Pronounced avarice was also a problem but that is in addition to, not instead of, their rampant homosexuality.

Actually, as I have pointed out before, Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed for homosexuality, but for inhospitality, arrogance, gluttony, hatred towards strangers.

Now, this was the sin of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were disdainful and committed abominations in front of me. Therefore I did away with them, as you have witnessed." (Ezekiel 16:49, 50).

Did Ezekial point any anything regarding homosexuality as to why God destroyed Sodom? No. You have been proven wrong, please move on.

 

[OllieFranz]

No, it is the correct exegesis. Philo, Josephus, the Book of Jubilees and other ancient sources agree that rampant homosexuality was found in Sodom, your laughably absurd claim that it was a 6th century political fabrication notwithstanding.

I suggest quitting while you are behind.

Yes, but Philo, Josephus, and the others are all relative latecomers to the party. The idea first occurred in the first or second century Before Christ. There are no records earlier than that, which associate Sodom with sexual immorality in general (at least not to any extent where it would be especially associated with the "wickedness" that caused it Sodom's destruction), much less "homosexuality" in particular. And the idea was a very sporadic minority opinion until after the anti-homosexual writings of Clement (who while extremely anti-homosexual never associated that sin with Sodom) and Augustine started influencing Church politics.

If you are aware of the Book of Jubilees, are you also aware of the fact that the writer of that book attributes the behaviour of the mob to the fact that they knew Lot's visitors as angels, and that they wanted their wives to mate with the angels and produce a new race of giants? Are you aware that the letters of Jude and 2 Peter borrowed heavily from that book for their history. There are secular scholars that claim that Jude's "heteras sarkos" (strange flesh) refers to the Sodomites wanting angels, not humans.

 

[Brennin]

"they resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence"

If you can't read that verse and see that it's referring to rape, there really is no further point talking to you.





Actually, as I have pointed out before, Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed for homosexuality, but for inhospitality, arrogance, gluttony, hatred towards strangers.

Now, this was the sin of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were disdainful and committed abominations in front of me. Therefore I did away with them, as you have witnessed." (Ezekiel 16:49, 50).

Did Ezekial point any anything regarding homosexuality as to why God destroyed Sodom? No. You have been proven wrong, please move on.

This is not difficult. I mentioned the attempted rape of the angels but, as I clearly stated, that could not be the sin of Sodom (God resolved to flatten the city before the angels arrived.)

 

[Jase]

This is not difficult. I mentioned the attempted rape of the angels but, as I clearly stated, that could not be the sin of Sodom (God resolved to flatten the city before the angels arrived.)

The sin of Sodom, as I quoted from Ezekial is due to inhospitality and arrogance, not homosexuality.

 

[Brennin]

The sin of Sodom, as I quoted from Ezekial is due to inhospitality and arrogance, not homosexuality.

Sorry, but that is in addition to, not in place of, the sin of rampant homosexuality.

 

[OllieFranz]

So you are saying that "the plain meaning" of "sexual immorality and ... unnatural lust" is homosexuality. that any time we see these phrases that is the clear and only way to read the phrases. So you are denying that rape, adultery and fornication are sins as long as they are heterosexual?
................

I have not seen anyone on these boards claim (other than as a straw man version from the other side) that no homosexual acts, including homosexual adultery and fornication are sin. They accept that there are limits to what God allows for sex. And they are the same limits that He places on heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.

You have now handed me a ready-made straw man against your side. I could claim that you say that the Bible does not condemn adultery and rape, and even trot out your argument verbatim. I will not do that for two reasons. One, I prefer not to make too big a case when someone, in the heat of argument says something monumentally asinine. It happens ball too often to too many good people.

And two because arguing against a straw man does nothing good. It does not advance your case against the actual position, and it does not sharpen your skills; if anything it dulls them.

My ideological opponents cannot marshal a legitimate argument to save their lives. When "sexual immorality" is used in conjunction with "unnatural lust," then, yes, it refers to homosexual acts. However, "sexual immorality" by itself does not necessarily refer to just homosexual acts.

Jude 1:7
Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

I refrained from following up earlier because I was unfamiliar with the verse in which the phrases "sexual immorality" and "unnatural lusts" occurred together. Thank you for providing the reference.

But how gullible do you think we are? Or perhaps the question should be "how gullible are you?" You present a pairing of verses that only appear in one translation -- a dynamic translation at that -- and in only in one verse, as a pairing that must mean that together they signify homosexuality.

Let's take a closer look at that verse:

ως σοδομα και γομορρα και αι περι αυτας πολεις τον ομοιον τροπον τουτοις εκπορνευσασαι και απελθουσαι οπισω σαρκος ετερας προκεινται δειγμα πυρος αιωνιου δικην υπεχουσαι
(The Westcott-Hort edition of 1881)

as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, having given themselves to whoredom, and gone after other flesh, have been set before -- an example, of fire age-during, justice suffering.
(Young's Literal Translation)

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (KJV)

Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. (NASB)

Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, having, in the same way as these, given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.

​

The word unnatural (or rather the Greek phrase usually translated as unnatural, against nature, etc) does not appear any where in this verse. Instead, as in the more literal translations I have provided, it is the phrase "heteras sarkos" which the translators of the RSV chose to render -- dynamiically -- as "unnatural lust."

Both the idea of sexual immorality and the men going after (not lusting after) "strange flesh" come from the Book of Jubilees, as I mentioned above, and they are not the same idea, and neither indicates that the men of Sodom were homosexuals.

You can't base your theology on a single translation of the Bible, especially a dynamic one. You are too much at the mercy of the whims of the translators.

 

[Brennin]

I refrained from following up earlier because I was unfamiliar with the verse in which the phrases "sexual immorality" and "unnatural lusts" occurred together. Thank you for providing the reference.

But how gullible do you think we are? Or perhaps the question should be "how gullible are you?" You present a pairing of verses that only appear in one translation -- a dynamic translation at that -- and in only in one verse, as a pairing that must mean that together they signify homosexuality.

Let's take a closer look at that verse:

ως σοδομα και γομορρα και αι περι αυτας πολεις τον ομοιον τροπον τουτοις εκπορνευσασαι και απελθουσαι οπισω σαρκος ετερας προκεινται δειγμα πυρος αιωνιου δικην υπεχουσαι
(The Westcott-Hort edition of 1881)

as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, having given themselves to whoredom, and gone after other flesh, have been set before -- an example, of fire age-during, justice suffering.
(Young's Literal Translation)

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (KJV)

Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. (NASB)

Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, having, in the same way as these, given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.

​

The word unnatural (or rather the Greek phrase usually translated as unnatural, against nature, etc) does not appear any where in this verse. Instead, as in the more literal translations I have provided, it is the phrase "heteras sarkos" which the translators of the RSV chose to render -- dynamiically -- as "unnatural lust."

Both the idea of sexual immorality and the men going after (not lusting after) "strange flesh" come from the Book of Jubilees, as I mentioned above, and they are not the same idea, and neither indicates that the men of Sodom were homosexuals.

You can't base your theology on a single translation of the Bible, especially a dynamic one. You are too much at the mercy of the whims of the translators.

I am well aware of the underlying Greek. Homoeroticism is condemned even if you translate it "literally" as "different flesh."