posted
This is a part of a series of articles I am preparing for my website. Since the members of Hatrack are such adept fact-checkers, I felt it would be helpful to run it through here first.
Please, if you wish to help and critique, do not stop at checking facts, but continue and correct the style of the article. Where could I improve the delivery? How could I reinforce the conclusion?
(I've also included all my sources in the text, except the Bible. I assume that the verses I mention are easily accessible; however, for those who do not have one, a digital copy is available at www.bible-gateway.org)
quote:The matter of homosexual marriage has brought forth a lot of conflict and division among the people of this nation, primarily because many people hold their beliefs in the Bible, which they know to hold homosexuality as a sin. From the Genesis through Romans, through the teachings of our clergymen, it appears as the whole of the Bible is in accord on this matter.
There are eight primary scriptures used to lambast homosexuality. These are known as the Big Eight, and they are Genesis 19:4-11, Judges 19:22, Deuteronomy 23:17-18, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, I Corinthians 6:9, I Timothy 1:10, and Romans 1:26-27.
In the next few weeks, we will cover all these verses in ones, twos, or threes. Try to disregard the teachings you've grown up with and keep an open mind when you read this. What you decide in the end is up to you entirely.
Genesis 19 is the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The focus of the case against homosexuality is presented in these seven verses:
quote:4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." 6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." 9 "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. 10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.
Archeological evidence shows that Sodom was most likely destroyed around the 20th century BC, and that it was located in an area that is now covered by the Dead Sea. (Harper's Bible Dictionary, Bible-History.com) At this time, Greek was beginning to rise from humble origins and was gaining power throughout the Mediterranean.
The Greeks had a very strong custom called xenia. This was a custom of hospitality that was strictly enforced throughout the Greek nation. Namely, it dictated a guest-host relationship in which the host was required to take in any guest that arrived at his home at any time, exchange gifts, and, of utmost importance, protect the guest under any and all circumstances. This custom was often enforced by death to the violator, and probably came about due to the scarcity of communication between the Greek Isles; whatever information there was was brought by travelers, and they needed to be able to count on a place to stay whereever they went. (You can check my definition of xenia here, but the rest of the information about xenia came from my learnings of the Ancient Greek and Roman cultures. If you can identify any problems with it, please let me know.)
This concept of xenia worked so well for the Greeks that versions of it can be found among many other cultures and nations of the time. This is where we come back to scripture. For those who have trouble slogging through scripture, a summary of Sodom's destruction follows.
Lot was sitting outside the gates of Sodom when two angels of God arrived. Lot introduced himself and offered the angels a berth for the night. They refuse, and he offers again. They accept Lot's offer and follow him to his home. Once there, he feeds them, washes them, and offers them a bed for the night. An excellent follower of the xenic principle. At this point the evening turns sour. The townspeople gather around Lot's house and demand that he hand over his guests so that they could rape them. Lot refuses and does something that modern society would consider appalling: he offers his two virgin daughters in the angels' stead. Remember, though, the xenic custom placed the safety of the guest over everything else. The townspeople refuse and begin battering down the door. At this point, the angels step in, blind the attackers, and send Lot and his family out to another town, at which point they destroy Sodom.
This leaves a bit of ambiguity as to the actual reason behind Sodom's destruction, in my opinion. For more insight, we have to look at the three verses that explicitly state Sodom's sin. These are:
Jeremiah 23:14
quote:14 And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah."
Jude 1:7
quote:7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Ezekiel 16:49-50
quote:49'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. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
These all contain a similar vein: sexual immorality or perversion. Ezekiel goes a bit further, however, and details the Sodomite's inhospitality to visitors and to their own people. Could it not be that the crime of Sodom was not so much men having sex with men, but townspeople regularily raping visitors to the town and disobeying the sacred law of xenia?
The Talmud, a record of the discussions of many rabbis on Jewish laws and ethics (Fact-Index), concurs with Ezekiel's descriptions of Sodom's crimes:
quote:The men of Sodom waxed haughty only on account of the good which the Holy One, blessed be He, had lavished upon them...They said: Since there cometh forth bread out of (our) earth, and it hath the dust of gold, why should we suffer wayfarers, who come to us only to deplete our wealth. Come, let us abolish the practice of travelling in our land.
There were four judges in Sodom named Shakrai (Liar), Shakurai (Awful Liar), Zayyafi (Forger), and Mazle Dina (Perverter of Justice). Now if a man assaulted his neighbour's wife and bruised her, they would say to the husband, Give her to him, that she may become pregnant for thee. If one cut off the ear of his neighbour's ass, they would order, Give it to him until it grows again.
In modern terms, the Talmud suggests that the Sodomites were condemned for restricting immigration...for institutionalizing the law of "might makes right"...and perversion of justice. Source
In fact, throughout the Talmud, the term middat Sdom is used, which translates to "the way Sodom thought". It is used to indicate inhospitality, arrogance, or lack of charity.
In Isaiah 1:1-31, Isaiah lists out the sins of Judah and Jerusalem, and likens them to the people of Sodom:
Isaiah 1:10
quote:Listen to the LORD, you leaders of Israel! Listen to the law of our God, people of Israel. You act just like the rulers and people of Sodom and Gomorrah.
He goes on to tell their crimes: rebellion against God (Isaiah 1:4), idolatry and meaningless worship (Isaiah 1:13), injustice, lack of charity (Isaiah 1:17), murder and corruption (Isaiah 1:21-23).
Nowhere does Isaiah list homosexuality as a sin of Sodom, Judah, or Jerusalem.
Sodom and Gomorrah were perpetrators of many, many sins, rape and inhospitality foremost among them. That this is an argument against homosexuality takes the story a perhaps a step further than it was intended. We will see a similar story in Judges, in which God orders the destruction of the tribe of Benjamin.
[ August 03, 2004, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: HRE ]
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I studied much the same thing in my pentateuch course.
The verses before the destruction of Sodom tell of Lot's following of the tradition of hospitality with the messengers as a counterpoint to Sodom's treatment of the same messengers.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Attempts to argue that homosexuality isn't wrong using biblical passages isn't going to convince someone who believes already in both the bible and that homosexuality is wrong.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It does seem that there was more to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah than homosexuality. Certainly trying to rape newcomers is a pretty ugly thing to do. But I don't quite see how that means that homosexuality wasn't part of the offense. Taken by itself, there isn't as much evidence along those lines, true, but there are the other scriptures. Unless you want to count the Old Testament to only be concerned with disease and Paul to not *really* be authoritative. (Not sure where that second one comes from though.)
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The matter of homosexual marriage has brought forth a lot of hate in this country....
I think this could be phrased better. A person who believes homosexuality is wrong will be inclined to disregard everything else you say if you start off by insinuating his/her beliefs/opinions are hateful.
"Divisiveness" might be a better word.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I appreciate the fact that while you make the point about hospitality, you don't try to take it too far and say that the hospitality issue was the ONLY issue involved in the destruction of Sodom, and that in the context of the story, the sexual issues were considered just fine and dandy. I mean, Sodom had a LOT of problems, all of them equally problematic. God wouldn't fry a city JUST because there was a lot of homosexual interaction going on, or JUST because somebody raped someone else. I imagine that it would take the accumulation of a lot of different problems to set off the fire and brimstone.
So I like the fact that you bring to light a second problem that contributed to the destruction, to argue against the idea that "as soon as we get a couple of them gays in town, we're done for! God likes to set them folks on fire!" That's not QUITE how it works ...
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It does seem that there was more to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah than homosexuality. Certainly trying to rape newcomers is a pretty ugly thing to do. But I don't quite see how that means that homosexuality wasn't part of the offense. Taken by itself, there isn't as much evidence along those lines, true, but there are the other scriptures. Unless you want to count the Old Testament to only be concerned with disease and Paul to not *really* be authoritative. (Not sure where that second one comes from though.)
That's an excellent point, Beverly. Continuing that thread of logic, if I kill someone as I stand on one leg, why wouldn't standing on one leg also count against me when considering my punishment?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not great logic, Lalo... Most people don't believe that standing on one foot is intrinsically wrong, whereas a lot of people believe being gay is. To them, it could be like killing someone and also raping them. Or something.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
And while I have profound pity for whoever believes homosexuality is intrinsically wrong (unless there are particularly convincing arguments I haven't heard), does that mean if I believed standing on one leg was intrinsically wrong, I'm as logical preaching against the evils of one-leggedness by anecdoting a story about killing people on one leg as a priest preaching against the evils of homosexuality by anecdoting the rapes of Sodom?
I'm not sure how much clearer I can make my point. Beverly's factoring in homophobia as a rationale for God's smiting Sodom, the incredible difficulty of believing that story aside. If I factor in standing-on-one-leg as a rationale for God's smoting of me for my crime of killing another, how am I less logical than her? Is it possible He was smiting rapists, not homosexuals? If God's failed to smite all that many one-legged men since my murder, is it possible He smote me for my murder, not for the fact I was standing on one leg? God's track record of smiting rapists and murderers aside.
Though all this is pointless, anyway, given I can just cite all sorts of wacky laws nobody pays attention to from the Old Testament and people will insist, oh no, we just don't listen to the Old Testament anymore! A new covenant! The Old Testament's no longer applicable! Which renders this argument moot as all hell.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though, personally, I would dearly love to hear an explanation as to how homosexuality is less moral than standing on one leg. Can anyone provide one?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or could it possibly be that this story in the Old Testament was written by the ancient equivalent of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell ? Could it be that a city met with terrible natural destruction and a "good shepherd" of that era took the opportunity to lay the cause on the behaviors he considered sinful and ascribe those to the inhabitants of that city?
I don't think that's very much of a stretch? Certainly less of a stretch than the story itself or than trying to write apologist arguements for embarassing scriptures. (Though I appreciate the sentiments behind the apologist arguement. )
posted
I would argue that by the time you reach "God's scripture is full of lies because it's important for believers to learn to recognize them," you're pretty close to disbelief. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You did a good job of researching and writing this out HRE. I think you'd find even more support for your position if you check out the Jewish commentaries on the story of Sodom found in the Talmud and elsewhere. They don't seem to think it was about homosexuality either.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not familiar with the Talmud, and I would have no idea where to begin looking. Can you point me in the right direction?
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, Ezekiel speaks of the reasons why Sodom was destroyed. Reasons is plural, more than one. It may have been that only one reason would not have been enough. The above example does not attempt to make a case for homosexuality *not* being considered a sin by God. It seems to me that there is enough evidence in scripture that it is a sin.
So in your example add to killing someone raping them also, because I think you and I can both agree on raping as being a sin.
I think it is interesting to note that the story in Judges is so similar to the story of Lot in Sodom. Kind of the way the stories of Sarah and Rebekkah being desired by powerful men are similar. It has been speculated that only one of those stories actually happened, and there is no way to know which is the actual event and which was a ledgend that developed. Or they both may have happened.
In the story in Judges, we have almost the same events. A male visitor comes and men want to have sex with him. Again a maiden daughter is offered to hold them off. It is called "wicked" and "folly" even as he offers to let them rape his daughter! How would raping a daughter be better than doing something inhospitable? If homosexuality weren't a sin and it were rape for rape and his daughter.... I don't buy it. Letting your daughter be raped is way too big a deal to compare to breaking custom of being inhospitable. It rather seems to make a strong case for the wrongness of the homosexual act. Lot (and I assume this man, if this isn't a ledgend retelling) was taught according to Jewish law, I don't see why he would particularly care about Greek custom.
This makes a strong case for the idea that the homosexuality was abominable in the sight of God and that it therefore makes sense that it would be included under any explaination of "sexual abomination" and therefore part of the reason for the destruction because it is part of the description of abomination.
Then, of course, you have the other scriptures in the new testament.
But this all precludes that you actually believe these things to be the word of God, which you don't. But I do. I also have the words of modern-day prophets on the subject. And this happens to be what I believe.
posted
HRE, Here's a brief look at some of the stuff from the Talmud, Mishna and Midrash. I don't know how great a resource it is, but it looks like you can find the Talmud and Midrash here. Hope this helps.
posted
Further scriptural evidence that the among the many sins of Sodom, sexual sin stands out:
Deut. 23: 17
17 ¶ There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
This sentance talks about whores and sodomites as though they are similar. Whores being female, sodomites male. Could it be rape and not homosexuality? Yes, but you have the circumstance of offering a daughter rather than a male. Implication: homosexuality.
The term sodomite is then used again, and again, and again in the Old Testament.
Here is another relating it to sexual immorality:
Jer. 23: 14
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 thereof as Gomorrah.
We've already heard this one:
Jude 1: 7
7 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.
So, it seems to me illogical to make a case for sexual sin *not* being a part of it. Unless, again, you do not believe the Bible is scripture. And I think I have made a case for the homosexuality in specific.
posted
I doubt very seriously that Lot was taught according to "Jewish Law" or at least according to any code of law we have evidence of outside Genesis itself since Lot and co. predate anything most scholars would probably consider the origins of "Jewish Law" (i.e. the myriad proscriptions handed down through Moses).
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Wikipedia article looks to be a good compilation, Squicky. The stuff at sacred-texts is mostly second-rate (or worse) translations. (The good ones haven't entered public domain.)
quote: Deut. 23: 17
17 ¶ There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Well, in my text it's verse 18 , but in any case, the Hebrew is (in both the case of the male and female) absolutely devoid of the root "sodom." It has a root that is usually translated as either prostitution or promiscuity, depending on context.
I can't actually look up Yirmiyahu, and it's been years since I last studied it. Hoverer, I seem to recall that the Sodom and Gomorrah aspects of the comparison were more related to the deliberate and compounded wickedness.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl Ed, yeah that was what I was wondering too. As far as I was aware the Greeks were way, way after the time of Lot. While there is still an extremely strong hospitality tradition in the middle east, to my knowledge it vastly preceded the Greeks, so I don't quite know how relevant bringing them into the discussion is. Lot was way before the Persians, before the true founding of Israel, so you probably should look at earlier middle eastern cultures to get your hospitality references.
quote:Letting your daughter be raped is way too big a deal to compare to breaking custom of being inhospitable. It rather seems to make a strong case for the wrongness of the homosexual act.
Actually I think it makes a strong case, as does much of the rest of the Old Testament, that men acting feminine were evil but no one much cared what happened to women.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do think turning one's back on the hungry and naked is a worse sin than being gay. And I think the more problematic issuew with being gay is not attraction to men, but rejection of women. It is a form of ingratitude for God's creation (equally for women who reject men).
Now in the context of this passage, I don't think it would have been okay if they had raped the virgins. I don't think that was very sound thinking on Lot's part. Of course, considering how they did wind up starting their families... And those were the people God saved out of Sodom. If it is true that they were the best of that city, it had to be a city pretty riddled with anxiety and self-sufficient thinking.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: While there is still an extremely strong hospitality tradition in the middle east, to my knowledge it vastly preceded the Greeks, so I don't quite know how relevant bringing them into the discussion is. Lot was way before the Persians, before the true founding of Israel, so you probably should look at earlier middle eastern cultures to get your hospitality references.
Sodom was destroyed circa 1900 BC, when the Greek nation was just beginning and the Minoan Empire was in full strength. That is where I drew the traditions from. There is evidence that it superceded even the Minoans.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok thanks for the clarification. Most of the time though when people say "Greeks" they are referring to the nation in its heyday which was considerably later.
quote:And I think the more problematic issuew with being gay is not attraction to men, but rejection of women. It is a form of ingratitude for God's creation
I thought this was very interesting Pooka. I had never thought of homosexuality in this way.
HRE, great post, very interesting. It seemed objective. When I read something like this I hate it when the author throws his opinion in the readers face.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've done a little research. I still don't think you should use the "greeks" as your main example, because at the time of Sodom and Gomorrah their influence at the time wasn't strong in the region (if it was there at all) on the Phonecians/Cannanites in the middle east. Greece wasn't yet the naval powerhouse they became, and hospitality customs were likely dictated by the Phonecians themselves not the Greeks. Egyptian influence in the region was far, far stronger, geographically and politically.
The reason why I'm coming back to this is because I think it weakens your point (which I like) a lot. I think hospitality customs were sacred in many ancient cultures, and to single out the hospitality customs of early Greeks in the Minoan and Mycean era is misdirected geographically if nothing else.
AJ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenecians has a good example of this spher of influence. The Phonecians brought the alphabet to Greece, not the other way around. I don't think the hospitality customs were necessarily flowing the other direction.
quote: And I think the more problematic issuew with being gay is not attraction to men, but rejection of women. It is a form of ingratitude for God's creation
I think this may be a very important part of the issue. God does not condemn a man for having tendancies towards being attracted to men any more than he condemns them for having tendancies to be attracted to a woman he cannot marry. But I honestly believe that he does not under any circumstances condone sexual relations between same-gender. But I also believe that he does not at any time condone sexual relations outside of marriage either.
For men who just can't feel attracted to women, this is a plight. But for those for whom it is a choice between one or the other, well, they have a choice.
I do think that there are different severities for different sin and that cruelty to other humans is worse than personal sexual immorality. In this story, they managed to attempt both in one act.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KarlEd, you are right about the "Jewish law". Lot and Abraham were certainly before Moses. But that doesn't necessarily mean that Lot was not taught in accordance with those same principles. But this gets into LDS doctrine and speculation. Remember that Lot was counted righteous enough to be spared.
The more important point is that Lot was from a different culture and people. Why would he have embraced their customs fully enough to sacrifice his daughter unless there was something more compelling as an issue here?
quote:But I honestly believe that he does not under any circumstances condone sexual relations between same-gender. But I also believe that he does not at any time condone sexual relations outside of marriage either.
For men who just can't feel attracted to women, this is a plight. But for those for whom it is a choice between one or the other, well, they have a choice.
Bev, could I hear some reasoning behind this? I'll address your earlier argument in a second, but I'm fairly sure you're going to back out of it fairly soon given loyalty to the Old Testament means loyalty to all the Old Testament -- and oh, the laws, the laws they are a'wacky.
I've never quite understood how homosexuality is "sexual immorality." Why you declare it immoral for a woman to fall in love with a woman even if she's bisexual and can couple with a man -- if I fall in love with a brunette incapable of having children, though I'm capable of reproducing with a blonde, am I immoral? Does your declaration mean the contention of your religion is that love exists for the purpose of reproduction?
I'm sure the train of logic supporting this position would be staggering, if only I could see it. If you could define "sexual immorality" for me, I'd be much obliged. Is BDSM with my wife moral and romance with my gay boyfriend (say would-be husband if the country weren't quite so bigoted) of five years immoral?
I can see declaring sexual activity before marriage immoral, though I'm not particularly swayed by that argument either, but when defining sexual immorality, please don't fall back on the idiotic circle of "homosexuality is immoral because it's pre-marital sex, since we won't let them marry." Does this mean homosexuality would be moral if they were in a marriage? "No, they can't marry." Why not? "Homosexuality is immoral." Why? "It's pre-marital sex!" ARGH.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Letting your daughter be raped is way too big a deal to compare to breaking custom of being inhospitable. It rather seems to make a strong case for the wrongness of the homosexual act. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually I think it makes a strong case, as does much of the rest of the Old Testament, that men acting feminine were evil but no one much cared what happened to women.
Chris has totally hit the nail on the head with this one. The guy was going to give them his daughters to rape in order to save the violent mob from committing a worse sin ?
"You know, you guys are really bad. Tell ya what-- I'll let you rape my virgin daughters, so that you won't be doing something REALLY evil."
That just makes me want to kick Lot's arse, and probably God's, too (if 'he' has one).
If it had nothing to do with hospitality traditions, then I would say Lot wasn't worth saving, either. Let his DAUGHTERS be raped by a mob to prevent the 'worse sin' from happening. Geez, bev, that's a stretch.
An interesting perspective, though one that makes me cherish my godlessness all the more.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'll address your earlier argument in a second, but I'm fairly sure you're going to back out of it fairly soon given loyalty to the Old Testament means loyalty to all the Old Testament -- and oh, the laws, the laws they are a'wacky.
Not necessarily. That is what continuing revelation is for. Certain laws apply to specific times according to the needs of that time. Other laws are based on eternal, unchanging principles. The homosexuality thing happens to be one of them.
quote: I've never quite understood how homosexuality is "sexual immorality." Why you declare it immoral for a woman to fall in love with a woman even if she's bisexual and can couple with a man -- if I fall in love with a brunette incapable of having children, though I'm capable of reproducing with a blonde, am I immoral? Does your declaration mean the contention of your religion is that love exists for the purpose of reproduction?
This shows a lack of understanding of my faith and beliefs.
The BDSM is off in left field. You assume that my faith condones a "whatever goes on between husband and wife is fine". That is an incorrect assumption.
As for the whole propegation thing, you have to understand LDS theology on the eternal nature of the family. The idea is that the organization of the family unit is far more than just an earthly convenience. We believe in a married God. We believe that mankind *can* be exalted to be as God. Part of this involves marriage. We believe in the continuation of the marital relationship and all that that implies and the continuation of procreation also. We believe that that is where *we* came from.
So just because a man and woman can't have children in this life means nothing. They can be parents of children in the eternities. The idea here is building family units that may last eternally. Homosexual unions don't fit into that plan. They may even run contrary to it.
Lalo, you are not trying to understand. So how can you understand?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is going to go nowhere, because the most common reply to any argument challenging a religious view is going to be "you don't understand," with the caveat that you must be religious and have those beliefs to be able to understand to begin with.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lalo, Ezekiel speaks of the reasons why Sodom was destroyed. Reasons is plural, more than one. It may have been that only one reason would not have been enough. The above example does not attempt to make a case for homosexuality *not* being considered a sin by God. It seems to me that there is enough evidence in scripture that it is a sin.
Um. So what were the reasons? Or are you contending that since Ezekiel mentions "reasons" (trusting that you're accurate), it wasn't enough that the people of Sodom were rapists -- they had to be gay rapists before God would do anything?
Wow.
I'd be interested in knowing why God hasn't fried every prison in the world yet.
quote:So in your example add to killing someone raping them also, because I think you and I can both agree on raping as being a sin.
Er. You believe gay rape is the moral equivalent of raping and killing? I never thought I'd see the day when someone defended heterosexual rape as more moral than homosexual rape.
quote:I think it is interesting to note that the story in Judges is so similar to the story of Lot in Sodom. Kind of the way the stories of Sarah and Rebekkah being desired by powerful men are similar. It has been speculated that only one of those stories actually happened, and there is no way to know which is the actual event and which was a ledgend that developed. Or they both may have happened.
...well, or they were both invented stories.
quote:In the story in Judges, we have almost the same events. A male visitor comes and men want to have sex with him. Again a maiden daughter is offered to hold them off. It is called "wicked" and "folly" even as he offers to let them rape his daughter! How would raping a daughter be better than doing something inhospitable? If homosexuality weren't a sin and it were rape for rape and his daughter.... I don't buy it. Letting your daughter be raped is way too big a deal to compare to breaking custom of being inhospitable. It rather seems to make a strong case for the wrongness of the homosexual act. Lot (and I assume this man, if this isn't a ledgend retelling) was taught according to Jewish law, I don't see why he would particularly care about Greek custom.
Uh. What?
I'm not sure I understand you. In Judges (citations, please?) a man visits a city, and other men want to rape him. He offers them his daughter instead, and you're outraged that the Bible declares he's "wicked" and foolish?
How the hell does this make any case against homosexuality? If anything, it makes a rather strong point against heterosexuality. The guy you just described, assuming you described him accurately, is a monster.
quote:This makes a strong case for the idea that the homosexuality was abominable in the sight of God and that it therefore makes sense that it would be included under any explaination of "sexual abomination" and therefore part of the reason for the destruction because it is part of the description of abomination.
I don't see how it makes any case at all that homosexuality's "abominable in the sight of God" -- I don't see how you've made the case for anything, really. Can you at all clarify what you've said?
quote:Then, of course, you have the other scriptures in the new testament.
Well, no. To the best of my recollection, all you have is Paul -- who is, by the way, a raging misogynist. If you were truly faithful to the Bible, you'd not be preaching to me right now. You'd wear veils (read: burqa) to keep other men aside from your husband from seeing you. But we can't take that seriously -- Paul was from a different era! A different time! Bigotry was accepted back then, but we know better now, the Word of God must be constantly put into context for the age it's in so we can marvel at its effectiveness even today and for all time.
Gah. At least you're getting off the Old Testament -- I've yet to meet someone who can make a case for picking and choosing which laws they'll support from the Old Testament while ignoring other idiotic bits from it. Care to be the first?
quote:But this all precludes that you actually believe these things to be the word of God, which you don't. But I do. I also have the words of modern-day prophets on the subject. And this happens to be what I believe.
So if I decided I'd believe "modern-day prophets" (who? The Rev. Moon? Why not?), I'd be justified in declaring that homosexuality's an abomination?
In that case, I believe in the Word of Rob. I have here in my hand a book written by him, clearly stating standing on one leg is an abomination in the eyes of God -- as are, why not, being an unveiled woman in the sight of a man not her husband and being a colored man asserting authority over a white man. Why not? So if enough people believed in my religion, we'd be legitimate? I could force my views (substantiated by only the Book of Rob) on you even if you don't believe them? I wouldn't have any obligation to provide reasoning beyond "I decided to believe homosexuality/one-leggedness is immoral"?
C'mon, Bev. Give me something of substance -- you can quote Old Testament passages all day, but then I can just bring up, say, Leviticus, and you'll insist it's immoral to sell daughters into slavery or okay to wear shirts sewn of different fibers after all, and you'll probably fall back to the default argument that the Old Testament is irrelevant since God made a new covenant with the New Testament. So then we'll go into Paul and I'll ask you why you decide to believe Paul's very few blurbs about homosexuality and ignore (presumably) his paragraphs upon paragraphs about the immorality of women, and damn I've had this argument too many times.
I'm asking for reasoning outside of you picking what you'll believe. Anything. Can you provide a convincing argument for restricting homosexual rights or even just declaring homosexuality immoral without referring to one religious text or another? Amaze me.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev, before you put too much effort into rationalizing Lot giving his daughters to the mob, check your JST (Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible). I think he sidesteps this issue altogether by maintaining the giving of the daughters was a mistranslation in the first place.Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not necessarily. That is what continuing revelation is for. Certain laws apply to specific times according to the needs of that time. Other laws are based on eternal, unchanging principles. The homosexuality thing happens to be one of them.
Heh! Really? So what makes homophobia an eternal, unchanging principle of God and the declaration that we kill those that work on the Sabbath a "certain law" that applies "to specific times according to the needs of that time"?
You're pulling at straws, Bev. Is this how you excuse inconsistency in belief in the Bible? I'll believe this because it's an eternal unchanging principle of God, but that, oh, He can't believe that, and hmm, I'm sympathetic with this so I'll believe that, and oh that looks perfectly ridiculous! God wouldn't want us to do that!
Yeesh.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've never quite understood how homosexuality is "sexual immorality." Why you declare it immoral for a woman to fall in love with a woman even if she's bisexual and can couple with a man -- if I fall in love with a brunette incapable of having children, though I'm capable of reproducing with a blonde, am I immoral? Does your declaration mean the contention of your religion is that love exists for the purpose of reproduction? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This shows a lack of understanding of my faith and beliefs.
Well, no. I'm trying to provide some reasoning for the homophobia you declared is an "eternal, unchanging principle" of your faith and beliefs. You declare people can't (or shouldn't) fall in love with their same gender, but have yet to provide any reasoning why aside from a truly monstrous (and bizarrely interpreted) story from the Old Testament about a man giving his daughters to a mob.
So I'll ask again. What reasoning do you have for your anti-homosexuality? What, exactly, makes homosexuality immoral? You can shoot up all the Bible passages you want, but I can shoot up others I doubt you'll declare are also "eternal, unchanging principles of God." (Your argument that your beliefs are what God actually wants and He didn't mean all the rest of that in the Bible is interesting, but hardly a new twist, and I remain somehow unswayed.) Can you provide any sort of reasoning which makes homosexuality immoral? Or will you rest with the I-believe-homosexuality-is-immoral-so-it-is argument?
quote:As for the whole propegation thing, you have to understand LDS theology on the eternal nature of the family. The idea is that the organization of the family unit is far more than just an earthly convenience. We believe in a married God. We believe that mankind *can* be exalted to be as God. Part of this involves marriage. We believe in the continuation of the marital relationship and all that that implies and the continuation of procreation also. We believe that that is where *we* came from.
Oh... So it would be immoral for me to marry a woman I know is incapable of bearing children, right? Because the family isn't just an earthly convenience. I can be exalted as to be God! And I have a responsibility, nay, a duty to have children so I can fulfill my responsibility to be a family unit. So the wife who can't have children simply won't do.
C'mon.
quote:So just because a man and woman can't have children in this life means nothing. They can be parents of children in the eternities. The idea here is building family units that may last eternally. Homosexual unions don't fit into that plan. They may even run contrary to it.
Oh, my mistake. You don't care that heterosexuals can't have children, since that'll work out anyway. But homosexuals that can't have children (which is only half the homosexual population, btw), they're incapable of being "family units that may last eternally" -- why, exactly?
I am trying desperately to understand your beliefs for something more than they appear. Thus far I'm disappointed -- I ask again, please, provide some reasoning that substantiates your claim that homosexuality is "sexual immorality." Please.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But homosexuals that can't have children (which is only half the homosexual population, btw), they're incapable of being 'family units that may last eternally' -- why, exactly?"
Eddie, technically, they're not. Homosexual men can marry women and become part of a family unit that lasts eternally. Seriously.
The Mormons believe that gender is in fact an attribute that perhaps transcends God Himself; it's an inherent part of someone. So you need someone of the female gender and someone of the male gender to form one of those eternal units, because -- they believe -- that's just the way the universe works.
You might not agree, but you can't argue with their logic (if only because their logic immediately appeals to a higher power).
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that is if you believe in an objective morality, meaning truth that exists whether anyone believes it or not, there isn't going to be any proof. I'm not saying this so that you'll agree with me, that's the last thing I'd expect. But when something is objectively true, there doesn't HAVE to be proof, although it's your prerogative if you choose not to believe it.
What I mean is, if you believe in a world where the only things that can exist are things that can be proven by scientific methods, then you don't believe in objective truth, because that exists outside of science, etc.
I am NOT talking about what I believe is objectively true. I'm talking about THE objective truth, whatever that is, that is true no matter what. That didn't spring out of a scientific, amoral beginning.
posted
You have to be able to look at it from multiple perspectives, but the religious one isn't always big enough, especially when you take into consider personal experience and what it feels like to be magnetically drawn to a person of the same sex no matter how many times you tell yourself how "wrong" it is... Those verses are probably often taken out of context.
And what is the story of a woman who had been raped and killed and the person who did it had to pay money to her husband because of damage of property?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jutsa, it is possible to understand another's POV even if you disagree with it. I have seen plenty of non-religious understand a religious POV. But I have never seen Lalo even try to understand. Only refute.
Lalo, Judges 19 has the story. "Wicked" and "folly" referred to sexual things the men were going to do to the guest man.
How exactly do you want me to make my case? By using scriptures you don't believe in? I'm sure you have heard each scripture in the Bible that addresses the issue. But if you don't believe in the Bible of *course* that is not going to hold any weight with you.
I am only making a case that according to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. My case involves that while Sodom and Gommorrah may have been destroyed for far more reason than homosexuality, which is found every where in every time, that doesn't mean that the Bible does not say that it is a sin. That is all.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
, but in any case, the Hebrew is (in both the case of the male and female) absolutely devoid of the root "sodom." It has a root that is usually translated as either prostitution or promiscuity, depending on context.
