Sassafrass Raistimass
12-08-2004, 01:34 AM
I chanced upon a topic in the compost bin (don't even remember how I found it) that bugged the crap out of me. I'd like to address a few points, if I'm allowed to.
http://www.evermoreforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=27498&postcount=67
Read the bible. God destroyed Soddam and Gomorrah, simply for the reason that it was evil due to all of the homosexuality. God even visited the city in human form, only to be disgusted by it. It's an abombination in the eyes of the almighty. Sure, it can be forgiven, but only if the activity stops.You'd have to try damn hard to prove Sodom and Gommorah had anything to do with homosexuality at all. The word that is commonly translated to "have sex with" in Genesis 19 was the Hebrew word "yada," which means, quite simply, "to know." This word is used 943 times in the Old Testament, and in only about a dozen instances does it refer to sexual relations. All of these instances involve a woman getting pregnant, so there is no ambiguity involved.
Sodom was a town that had just undergone a war, and thus had extreme distrust for outsiders. When it demanded to "know" the angels, they probably wanted to beat them, throw them out of town, or simply kill them.
I know of at least four Bible passages that describe the sin of Sodom as being inhospitable to strangers; the Jewish Talmud even interprets it as such. Jesus Himself heavily implied that this was the case. The only Biblical passage that could possibly be used to describe Sodom's sin as homosexuality is Jude 7, where it says they "lusted after strange flesh." However, given the lack of any other evidence, this can easily be explained away by any number of reasons: perhaps this means they were adulterous (implied in Jeremiah 23:14), or perhaps "strange flesh," since it would be referring to the angels (angels = not men), means just that.
Translating the events in Sodom as homosexual only began around the 11th century. Given that scholars can't really decide whether this or true or not, and since it generally leans toward the "no" column, you can hardly base your beliefs around it. So if we throw out Sodom for ambiguity and Leviticus for more obvious reasons, we're left with...what? Paul? His passages are still highly contested as well, but even if they were not, he's not the kind of man I'd want to be basing my discrimination around.
http://www.evermoreforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=27498&postcount=67
Read the bible. God destroyed Soddam and Gomorrah, simply for the reason that it was evil due to all of the homosexuality. God even visited the city in human form, only to be disgusted by it. It's an abombination in the eyes of the almighty. Sure, it can be forgiven, but only if the activity stops.You'd have to try damn hard to prove Sodom and Gommorah had anything to do with homosexuality at all. The word that is commonly translated to "have sex with" in Genesis 19 was the Hebrew word "yada," which means, quite simply, "to know." This word is used 943 times in the Old Testament, and in only about a dozen instances does it refer to sexual relations. All of these instances involve a woman getting pregnant, so there is no ambiguity involved.
Sodom was a town that had just undergone a war, and thus had extreme distrust for outsiders. When it demanded to "know" the angels, they probably wanted to beat them, throw them out of town, or simply kill them.
I know of at least four Bible passages that describe the sin of Sodom as being inhospitable to strangers; the Jewish Talmud even interprets it as such. Jesus Himself heavily implied that this was the case. The only Biblical passage that could possibly be used to describe Sodom's sin as homosexuality is Jude 7, where it says they "lusted after strange flesh." However, given the lack of any other evidence, this can easily be explained away by any number of reasons: perhaps this means they were adulterous (implied in Jeremiah 23:14), or perhaps "strange flesh," since it would be referring to the angels (angels = not men), means just that.
Translating the events in Sodom as homosexual only began around the 11th century. Given that scholars can't really decide whether this or true or not, and since it generally leans toward the "no" column, you can hardly base your beliefs around it. So if we throw out Sodom for ambiguity and Leviticus for more obvious reasons, we're left with...what? Paul? His passages are still highly contested as well, but even if they were not, he's not the kind of man I'd want to be basing my discrimination around.