Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Just a question for Dread: Why would God destroy Sodom and Gommorah over how guests were treated?
Was the Apostle Paul Gay?????
- Thread starter Dreadsox
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Macfistowannabe said:Of course I do, and it's ridiculously high. I've heard divorce being preached in church so much more than homosexuality. I was citing examples about how people get divorces for the wrong reasons. Banning divorce is not the answer, I'm not enforcing that in any way. I'm not sure what I said that made you think that I think divorce is rare.
But banning gay marriage is? This is the point trying to be made. You don't ban something or make an ammendment just because you think it's a sin. If so you'd be adding a lot more ammendments. The church is being hypocritical by chasing gay marriage and not divorce.
Macfistowannabe said:
The history of the time period of which the story takes place is one in which the guests or travelers were expected to receive sanctuary as opposed to the treatment that was extended by the people of the city.The SIN of Saddam and Gommorah is not homosexuality. The sin was in the fact that the mob wanted Lot to throw out the two guests to the croud so that they could rape them. Lot, instead offers up his two virgin daughters in place of the guests in his house, the guests to the city.
If the sin were one of sexual behavior, why would God save Lot, someone who offers up his daughters to be raped by the mob? Is this the kind of God you believe in? Then Lot at the end of the story commits and incestuous act with both daughters? These are the people God chose to save?
Does it appear to be about sex, or is it more about these words:
"Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me." Then Jesus will turn to those on His left hand and say, "Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, I was sick and you did not visit me." These will ask Him, "When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?" And Jesus will answer them, "Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!"
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I know it wasn't destroyed over homosexuality alone, there's no way possible, but it could've played a minor role. Their culture was so wicked, so sick, you would have to wonder how screwed up their government was to allow all the wickedness to go on. I will say this though, God may have been a "picker and chooser" in this case, seeing that he chose to save Lot and his family, even though the wicked culture definately influenced them, especially his daughters. Wasn't it his daughters that wanted to, and did, lose their virginity to Lot? I thought they got him drunk.
indra
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,689
Macfistowannabe said:
If that's what it says, you can certainly tell that part was written by a guy.
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
What treatment? I haven't been kicking anyone around. Those who do mistreat them do not speak for me. I just don't think God would've created women - if you believe that men were intented to live alone.Dreadsox said:
Of course it is! Who here would approve of that? Not me.Dreadsox said:
Anyways, this thread got way off topic. I'm out of here. Don't bother replying because I don't care. Have fun talking about anything but Paul and how he was supposedly a homosexual.
Last edited:
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Folks,
If I flipped out, I apologize. I do want to make it clear that I think it's a little hasty to say "don't give me this holier than thou bs" and then I get just that. I can respect your differences of opinion, all I ask is that you respect mine as well.
If I flipped out, I apologize. I do want to make it clear that I think it's a little hasty to say "don't give me this holier than thou bs" and then I get just that. I can respect your differences of opinion, all I ask is that you respect mine as well.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Macfistowannabe said:
You don't have to kick someone around to treat them badly. To tell someone their attraction is a sin, a disease, or whatever your other explanations were is poor treatment. I'm sorry you don't that.
The part about creating women if you believe that men were intended to live alone? What does this have to do with this debate? First of all your focus on just men in this whole debate is very odd. But how does believing that homosexuality is a sin = men were intended to live alone? You lost me on that one.
I didn't see anyone get "holier than thou" on you. Not even close. Dread went through a lot of research and historical fact to show people that the original texts did not read the way that so many others have interpreted them.
If this scared you and made you question your beliefs then I'm sorry, but it's far from "holier than thou".
I think my research weakens the Paul is Gay theory. I do think Paul, being a very devout Jew, was way, way to wrapped up in creating rules and regulations.
I think his background in Judiasm has more to do with this than him being Gay, although, the book really makes a great case.
I think his background in Judiasm has more to do with this than him being Gay, although, the book really makes a great case.
Dreadsox said:
Hiya Dread,
Earasete in ancient greek refered to an older man being involved with a younger man. Ernomenos was the adolescent male he was involved with. Paiderastia and paedika are words which were used to descibe the aforementioned relationship. Do you think that it is possible Paul did not use these words because it only applied to a certain group of people (older men with younger men)? That possibly he was trying to convey that the any act of that kind is wrong? Is it possible that by singling out the paiderastia relationship between and earasete and his ernomenos would have led people to believe that other forms of homosexuality was acceptable? But onto arsenokoites...
In 1 Corn. 6:9 the word arsenokoites is translated as what we would modernly view as homosexual offender.In 1Tim. 1:10 the word translates simply as pervert.
After reasearching these words at length, I can see now see exactly why Paul chose to use them. Thank you for pointing these things out because it was a challange and it prompted to me do something that I haven't done for a while. Study the actual words used in the original text of Scripture. My Greek lexicon needed dusting off.
Now since we are talking about the literal Koine Greek here I would like to address what Paul says in Romans 1:18-32 ( I would recommend reading the entire chapter its is very informative). At any rate, Paul is speaking here of male and female relationships and the distortions of them which come about in a corrupt society.
Paul addresses the nature of the relationshps - the literal nature of them in that he says they are unnatural. He uses the words "para" translated as from, "ho" translated as the and "physis" translated as nature or natural. Para ho physis, or, from the natural. Shorty after that he says something about even men abandoned natural (using the word "physikos" meaning natural, or creatures of instinct) realtionships and were inflamed with lust for one another.
Now clearly these natural relationships of which Paul is speaking, its not that of their being bridge partners. He is speaking in realtion to sexaul and furthermore sensual acts, and he does not speak of them favorably.
Again Dread, I thank you for putting this on the table. I now have, as a result of a few hours of study and an argument with my husband over the time spent on it, a fuller understanding of the text which previously I would not have bothered researching.
Now onto the women being silent behind those pesky veils... next post....
Women wearing veils in chruch. I don't know I mean if it matches your blouse then I don't see a problem with it. But don't go mixing reds and pinks.
But seriously, in regards to women remaining silent in church, something that is more relevant to me, I have always had trouble understanding this passage. It has led to my feelings on women leading churches (something I feel as a result of the passage, they shouldn't do). I do not accept the answer that has been given me that because of the new found freedoms these women were having they were causing problems in the early church in Corinth. That would reduce what Paul says to somethings being relevant to the time but other things being allowed across the time space continuum. But then I could be wrong in saying that as well.
I looked in my trusty lexicon as well for the word silent and the manner in which it is used in these vereses and get this, it says "variant, not used." Maybe I can look for more resources online to find how it translates, but I wouldn't even know where to begin.
Being a woman, and having views which I freely state anywhere, in church or otherwise, I should really do more reasearch on this. It is something that needs to be addressed. I would hate to think that my standing up for things would be in direct contrast to God's Word.
If I do however find that to be the case, I think a lot of people here in FYM will rest easier! hehehe
But seriously, in regards to women remaining silent in church, something that is more relevant to me, I have always had trouble understanding this passage. It has led to my feelings on women leading churches (something I feel as a result of the passage, they shouldn't do). I do not accept the answer that has been given me that because of the new found freedoms these women were having they were causing problems in the early church in Corinth. That would reduce what Paul says to somethings being relevant to the time but other things being allowed across the time space continuum. But then I could be wrong in saying that as well.
I looked in my trusty lexicon as well for the word silent and the manner in which it is used in these vereses and get this, it says "variant, not used." Maybe I can look for more resources online to find how it translates, but I wouldn't even know where to begin.
Being a woman, and having views which I freely state anywhere, in church or otherwise, I should really do more reasearch on this. It is something that needs to be addressed. I would hate to think that my standing up for things would be in direct contrast to God's Word.
If I do however find that to be the case, I think a lot of people here in FYM will rest easier! hehehe
Dreadsox said:
I do not justify divorce, only in the case of adultery as Jesus splained...
Soicety stating that somtething is acceptable does not automatically make it such.
And in my opinion, no one should protest in the streets over gay marriage. If anyone should protest it should be why the government has any say so at all in regards to marriage of any kind.
The defining marriage thingy was on the ballot in my state and I did not vote either way because it annoys me to see something like that politicized. It is a waste of the political process.
Picking and chosing is a dangerous game which is why in my previous post I stated I do not accept answers that denote some Biblical truths as being "of the time" they are written and yet others can be univeral and defy the boundaries of time.
thacraic said:
That is incorrect.
The use of the word, as I demostrated by quoting two other ancient texts that use the word, both use it in a list of economic transactions.
It is was not ever translated as homosexual behavior until 1958.
The second oldest translation as I referenced it is more in line with sex with boy prostitutes.
I completely disagree with your conclusion based on theses facts.
Last edited:
Dreadsox said:
That only personified the society in which they were living. They were a depraved and immoral society and that they wanted to rape the men (angels actually) that were visiting Lot was only one example of how both Sodom and Gommorah had fallen short.
Dreadsox said:
Well the use of the words in the text I am dealing with does translate as is stated (not as homosexual offenders per se, because yes that is a more modern term for a person which engages in sodomy, which that word in itself is not in the Bible, but as a result of societal usages and understanding of the word since the fall of Sodom, is translated as such.) Also, what about this word being translated as pervert in Timothy?
It seems you are basing your opinion that the translation of the word is wrong on the four words you pointed out. While all of these words earasete, ernomenos, paiderastia, paedika were not the words used to denote mere homosexuality in ancient Greek society. Quite the contrary, these words deal in the specifics of relations between two distinct groups of people (older men in there 20s to 30 and young adolescent boys, which I don't even want to think about the ages of those children, because it isn't that pleasant of a thought).
So your saying that the usage of arsenokoites is soley one thing and not to be taken as is based on four words that either together or seperate do not define actual homosexuality in ancient Greek times either.
Let's find the ancient Greek word which solely defines what homosexuality activity was at that time if the words being discussed don't offer up any clear understanding. However, in my opinion, they do.
Last edited:
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I refrained from mentioning any names, but you tend to do it quite often. Everybody obviously thinks they're right about something, but you're not much different from anyone you criticize. I refrained from singling you out, and meanwhile, you've given personal cheap shots to almost everyone you disagree with. You also tend to use that famous open-minded oxymoron quite a bit. You don't have to be openly mindless to be open-minded. You have no respect for anyone with an opinion that doesn't match yours. It seems that you think anyone who disagrees with you is a heartless, mindless, soulless, ignorant redneck, homophobic, intolerant hypocrite. With that said, go on thinking that if you want to.BonoVoxSupastar said:
thacraic said:
That's just it though, When I Quote the Gospel Writer John and the other text, which were written at roughly the same time, it is not used to denote homosexuality. It is used to denote the transaction of MONEY. The transaction of money and the sexual prostituion of boys was happening in the temple. That is based on the two words I cited. If Paul were discussing a SEXUALITY sin he would have used one of the other words, which are clearly more defined.
There is a specific meaning of the word.
You are also ignoring the next earliest translation of the text, closest to 46 AD. It was not translated in the manner you are translating it.
The Sin of Soddam and Gommorah was the practice of raping, and forcing sexual intercourse. Even in the 15-1600's when it was translated to mean sodomy a story that was not about homosexuality.
If you feel that a 1958 translation is more accurate than the texts that used the word as well as the next nearest translation to 46 AD. That is your choice.
Clearly, I am not going to change everyones mind who choose to believe it condemns homosexuality, verses using the temple to prostitute young boys.
Last edited:
I just can't get the art of posting down today. Im spazing out....
Alrighty Dread, after this I have to get AWAY from my computer! lol
Ok having mentioned sodomy in my last post I want to address the posts in regards to Sodom and what you were saying in some of your post that pertain to the cause of their destruction.
These angels were not just out for a walk one day and decided to stop by Lot's house for a visit. In the chapter preceeding the account of the destruction of Sodom, God and Abraham were talking about it.
Abraham asked God that he found 50 righteous people within the walls would he spare the city. God said sure, you find 50 righteous people there the city will be spared. Now Abraham knew that with the reputation of that city, no way could he find that many so he asked God again but said what about 40, would you spare it then? God said yup. Abraham asked him 3 more times til he got down to the number of 10 righteous people. God still said, if you can find me 10 I will spare the city.
Well, the Dead Sea now exist on or near where the ancient sities of Sodom and Gommorah once stood. A sea so filled with salt (sulphur from above, anyone?) that nothing can live in it. So we know what happened. Now we need to know why?
If in fact God had plans of destroying this city before he even sent these angels there, why on earth would how they were treated upon their arrival factor in? The fact that these people didn't serve them cups of tea and biscuts was of no consequence whatsoever. It was their immoral lifestyle that God could no longer tolerate so He decided it was time to deal with it.
Now, as was noted, He was prepared not to do this, if you read the chapter preceeding this. But evidentally not even 10 righteous people could be found in that entire city, so He destroyed it.
What was it they were doing that was so wrong? Well this could quiet easily correspond to what Paul talks about in Romans chapter 1, para ho physis or physikos, in regards to the nature of their sexual relationships. That they wanted to rape the angels visiting Lot only exemplified how far from center these people had actually gone.
As with homosexuality, the word "sodomy" is not found in the Bible, only the actions of the people of Sodom from which the word draws its name is. The actions are manifested as a result of the corrupt society in which they lived. Which funny enough leads me to the question of why also, by definition, oral sex or anal sex between two people of the opposite sex is considered to be sodomy? I mean considering the origins of the word pertaining to the unnatural sexual relations with people of the same sex, it makes little sense. That is a purely personal view though.
At any rate, the Bible is silent when it comes views on men and women engaging in oral and/or anal sex. So therefore that being the case, any opinion offered up in regards to it should be stated as personal and not biblical which is what I think I did?
Alrighty Dread, after this I have to get AWAY from my computer! lol
Ok having mentioned sodomy in my last post I want to address the posts in regards to Sodom and what you were saying in some of your post that pertain to the cause of their destruction.
These angels were not just out for a walk one day and decided to stop by Lot's house for a visit. In the chapter preceeding the account of the destruction of Sodom, God and Abraham were talking about it.
Abraham asked God that he found 50 righteous people within the walls would he spare the city. God said sure, you find 50 righteous people there the city will be spared. Now Abraham knew that with the reputation of that city, no way could he find that many so he asked God again but said what about 40, would you spare it then? God said yup. Abraham asked him 3 more times til he got down to the number of 10 righteous people. God still said, if you can find me 10 I will spare the city.
Well, the Dead Sea now exist on or near where the ancient sities of Sodom and Gommorah once stood. A sea so filled with salt (sulphur from above, anyone?) that nothing can live in it. So we know what happened. Now we need to know why?
If in fact God had plans of destroying this city before he even sent these angels there, why on earth would how they were treated upon their arrival factor in? The fact that these people didn't serve them cups of tea and biscuts was of no consequence whatsoever. It was their immoral lifestyle that God could no longer tolerate so He decided it was time to deal with it.
Now, as was noted, He was prepared not to do this, if you read the chapter preceeding this. But evidentally not even 10 righteous people could be found in that entire city, so He destroyed it.
What was it they were doing that was so wrong? Well this could quiet easily correspond to what Paul talks about in Romans chapter 1, para ho physis or physikos, in regards to the nature of their sexual relationships. That they wanted to rape the angels visiting Lot only exemplified how far from center these people had actually gone.
As with homosexuality, the word "sodomy" is not found in the Bible, only the actions of the people of Sodom from which the word draws its name is. The actions are manifested as a result of the corrupt society in which they lived. Which funny enough leads me to the question of why also, by definition, oral sex or anal sex between two people of the opposite sex is considered to be sodomy? I mean considering the origins of the word pertaining to the unnatural sexual relations with people of the same sex, it makes little sense. That is a purely personal view though.
At any rate, the Bible is silent when it comes views on men and women engaging in oral and/or anal sex. So therefore that being the case, any opinion offered up in regards to it should be stated as personal and not biblical which is what I think I did?
Dreadsox said:
And again I say that maybe he elected not to use those four words because it related to something specific and he was trying to make a more general statement about the nature of the sin altogher.
In the Book of Timothy that word is translated as pervert by the way, not male protestute or man whore or whatever you like. It is translated as pervert. So what does that mean?
Also what about in Romans? The literal Greek text I sited? Do you have anything to counter it? If so that is groovy and I can't wait to get back to you on it. But as for now, I have been here for what? nearly 2 hours if not longer!
I am addicited to this forum! ugh
Take care Dread,
Carrie
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
some thoughts on Sodomy by someone much more knowledgeable about this than i -- andrew sullivan, gay, conservative, catholic, and british. some excerpts from a very long essay written a few years ago:
"The morality of sodomy, of course, is inextricable from its etymology. It's a rare example of a sexual practice that actually refers to a place. And not just any place. In the Book of Genesis, Sodom is a city uniquely condemned by God for its waywardness. Its sins merit utter destruction. But what are those sins? Alas, the text is not specific. Most modern scholars believe the original sin of Sodom was a refusal to be accommodating to travelers. Others believe it might have been the sin of rape. Ezekiel, on the other hand, explains that Sodom and "her daughters had pride, over-abundance of bread, abundance, and leisure, but they did not extend their hand to the poor. They were raised up and committed abominations before me." Even in the New Testament, Sodom is condemned in terms of its connection with "uncleanness," and "adultery." When Leviticus condemns men who lie with men, no reference is made to Sodom itself.
So how did the iron-clad connection between gay male sex and the divine destruction of Sodom get made? Notre Dame theologian Mark Jordan's "The Invention of Sodomy In Christian Theology," is the deepest recent exploration of the issue. From the beginning, Jordan argues, non-scriptural sources definitely associated Sodom with a variety of sins: pride, disobedience, inhospitality and sexual license. It was Augustine who first went further and linked the place to "stupra in masculos" (debaucheries in men) and "flagitia contra naturam" (violations against nature). But even in Augustine, the sexual sins of Sodom were not exclusively to do with same-sex sex. They were to do with sexual license, abandon, and what became known in Latin terminology as "luxuria," the sin of worldly excess, incorporating gluttony and drunkenness and general self-indulgence. This interpretation in the early centuries of the Church did not supplant the older notions of inhospitality and callousness among the inhabitants of Sodom. It merely added new layers of iniquity. And for the most part, references to Sodom were not primarily made to determine the nature of the still-opaque sins of the city but to remind believers of the divine wrath that destroyed it, and could destroy them.
It's worth stressing here, then, that from the very beginning, sodomy and homosexuality were two categorically separate things. The correct definition of sodomy - then and now - is simply non-procreative sex, whether practised by heterosexuals or homosexuals. It includes oral sex, masturbation, mutual masturbation, contracepted sex, coitus interruptus, and anal sex - any sex in which semen does not find its way into a fertile uterus. In fact, since the medieval theologians who came up with the idea had no conception of homosexuality as a condition, it simply couldn't have been a synonym for what we now understand as homosexuality. And even with our contemporary understanding of homosexual orientation, there is an obvious distinction between sexual orientation and any particular expression of it. To give a personal example, I remember as a boy having fantasies about men, but I had no conception of any actual sexual acts. I merely felt powerfully drawn - by my hormones, emotions, needs - to men and boys rather than women and girls. When I found myself trying to imagine how these feelings might be manifested, I pictured simple bodily contact, holding, hugging, lying together. Sex was as yet beyond my pre-pubescent mind. I was surely gay; but just as surely, the whole concept of sodomy was alien to me.
[...]
But constitutionality, history and even religious tradition don't answer the more fundamental issue: why exactly is sodomy immoral? There is little doubt that Jewish and Christian scriptures prohibit such sexual practices. But they also prohibit divorce, which is perfectly legal across the Western world. And the same medieval religious tradition that fixated on sodomy was also riddled with anti-Semitism and opposition to usury. If the last two prohibitions have been abandoned as mere prejudice, why not the first? The only relevant question when we are addressing the maintenance of secular laws or social disapproval of sodomy is therefore not: has it always been so? But: on what rational grounds is sodomy actually immoral? Or to put it more starkly: Why is it wrong?
The fundamental answer is that it is unnatural. It violates the purpose of human sexuality, which is designed to foster procreation. And at some level, that argument surely makes some sense. There is something unique and miraculous about the connection between male-female sex and the creation of new life. Its connection to a marital structure in which that new life can be nurtured, protected and elevated is also one that is obviously vital to defend. In all this, Catholic doctrine affirms something life-giving and important: the nexus between sex, marriage and family. As a symbol of what sexuality can be about, indeed what it is ultimately about, this linkage makes moral and theological sense. It also makes social sense. The data is overwhelming about how better adjusted children are when they grow up in stable, nurturing traditional homes. It makes all the sense in the world for a society to find a way to celebrate and protect this arrangement, if for nothing else, the benefit of the next generation.
The trouble comes when this vision of what sex can be about becomes an instruction about what sex can never be about. To say that sexual activity reaches its heights within a procreative marital act is not the same thing as saying that all other variants of sexuality are immoral, let alone worthy of divine damnation on the lines of Sodom. Even within perfect, Catholic procreative marriages, after all, non-procreative sexual activity is inevitable. For some periods within a woman's menstrual cycle, sex cannot be procreative. Throughout pregnancy, sex cannot be procreative. After menopause, sex cannot be procreative. Moreover, unless people are married as children, there will always be a period of adolescence in which sexual capacity will far out-strip any ability to restrict it to procreation alone. These are simply facts. Human sexuality can indeed be channeled. But the standard that it must only ever be directed to procreation is simply one that no human being can ever fully live up to. Even celibates have sex drives. Is it possible that an adult male priest, for example, can live a long life without committing sodomy, if sodomy is defined as deliberate non-procreative orgasm? The answer is obviously no. In fact, the whole concept of an exclusively procreative sexuality, however beautiful in theory, is simply meaningless in practice. It does not exist. It cannot exist. It has never existed. Sodomy, at some level, is inextricable from being a sexual human being.
[...]
As a simple empirical matter, we are all sodomites now, but only homosexuals bear the burden of the legal and social stigma. Some studies have found that some 90 to 95 percent of heterosexual couples engage in oral sex in their relationships; similar numbers use contraception; a smaller but still significant number practise anal sex. We don't talk about this much because we respect the privacy of intimacy, as we should. The morality of sex in today's America and Western Europe is rightly one in which few public moral judgments are made of any sexual experiences that are private, adult and consensual. Within these parameters, non-procreative sex is simply the norm.
But to say they're the norm is perhaps too defensive. The norm is also, many have come to understand, a social, personal and moral good. It is hard to see why, for example, sexual fantasy, escape, pleasure, are somehow inimical to human flourishing - and plenty of evidence that their permanent or too-rigid suppression does actual psychological and spiritual harm. Relationships which include sexual adventure and passion and experiment are not relationships of "disintegrated" people, but relationships in which trust is the prerequisite for relief, release and renewal. The meaning of these sexual experiences is as varied as the people in them. And there are many contexts in which to understand these sexual experiences other than as purely procreative.
You can think of sex - within marriage and in other relationships - as a form of bonding; as a way to deepen and expand the meaning of intimacy; as a type of language even, where human beings can communicate subtly, beautifully, passionately - but without words. And in a world where our consumer needs are exquisitely matched by markets, in which bourgeois comfort can almost anesthetize a sense of human risk and adventure, sex remains one of the few realms left where we can explore our deepest longings, where we can travel to destinations whose meaning and dimensions we cannot fully know. It liberates and exhilarates in ways few other experiences still do. Yes, taking this to extremes can be destructive. And yes, if this experience trumps or overwhelms other concerns - the vows of marriage, the trust of a faithful relationship, or the duty we bear to children - then it can be destructive as well as life-giving. But the idea that expressing this human freedom is somehow intrinsically and always immoral, that it somehow destroys the soul, is an idea whose validity is simply denied in countless lives and loves.
"The morality of sodomy, of course, is inextricable from its etymology. It's a rare example of a sexual practice that actually refers to a place. And not just any place. In the Book of Genesis, Sodom is a city uniquely condemned by God for its waywardness. Its sins merit utter destruction. But what are those sins? Alas, the text is not specific. Most modern scholars believe the original sin of Sodom was a refusal to be accommodating to travelers. Others believe it might have been the sin of rape. Ezekiel, on the other hand, explains that Sodom and "her daughters had pride, over-abundance of bread, abundance, and leisure, but they did not extend their hand to the poor. They were raised up and committed abominations before me." Even in the New Testament, Sodom is condemned in terms of its connection with "uncleanness," and "adultery." When Leviticus condemns men who lie with men, no reference is made to Sodom itself.
So how did the iron-clad connection between gay male sex and the divine destruction of Sodom get made? Notre Dame theologian Mark Jordan's "The Invention of Sodomy In Christian Theology," is the deepest recent exploration of the issue. From the beginning, Jordan argues, non-scriptural sources definitely associated Sodom with a variety of sins: pride, disobedience, inhospitality and sexual license. It was Augustine who first went further and linked the place to "stupra in masculos" (debaucheries in men) and "flagitia contra naturam" (violations against nature). But even in Augustine, the sexual sins of Sodom were not exclusively to do with same-sex sex. They were to do with sexual license, abandon, and what became known in Latin terminology as "luxuria," the sin of worldly excess, incorporating gluttony and drunkenness and general self-indulgence. This interpretation in the early centuries of the Church did not supplant the older notions of inhospitality and callousness among the inhabitants of Sodom. It merely added new layers of iniquity. And for the most part, references to Sodom were not primarily made to determine the nature of the still-opaque sins of the city but to remind believers of the divine wrath that destroyed it, and could destroy them.
It's worth stressing here, then, that from the very beginning, sodomy and homosexuality were two categorically separate things. The correct definition of sodomy - then and now - is simply non-procreative sex, whether practised by heterosexuals or homosexuals. It includes oral sex, masturbation, mutual masturbation, contracepted sex, coitus interruptus, and anal sex - any sex in which semen does not find its way into a fertile uterus. In fact, since the medieval theologians who came up with the idea had no conception of homosexuality as a condition, it simply couldn't have been a synonym for what we now understand as homosexuality. And even with our contemporary understanding of homosexual orientation, there is an obvious distinction between sexual orientation and any particular expression of it. To give a personal example, I remember as a boy having fantasies about men, but I had no conception of any actual sexual acts. I merely felt powerfully drawn - by my hormones, emotions, needs - to men and boys rather than women and girls. When I found myself trying to imagine how these feelings might be manifested, I pictured simple bodily contact, holding, hugging, lying together. Sex was as yet beyond my pre-pubescent mind. I was surely gay; but just as surely, the whole concept of sodomy was alien to me.
[...]
But constitutionality, history and even religious tradition don't answer the more fundamental issue: why exactly is sodomy immoral? There is little doubt that Jewish and Christian scriptures prohibit such sexual practices. But they also prohibit divorce, which is perfectly legal across the Western world. And the same medieval religious tradition that fixated on sodomy was also riddled with anti-Semitism and opposition to usury. If the last two prohibitions have been abandoned as mere prejudice, why not the first? The only relevant question when we are addressing the maintenance of secular laws or social disapproval of sodomy is therefore not: has it always been so? But: on what rational grounds is sodomy actually immoral? Or to put it more starkly: Why is it wrong?
The fundamental answer is that it is unnatural. It violates the purpose of human sexuality, which is designed to foster procreation. And at some level, that argument surely makes some sense. There is something unique and miraculous about the connection between male-female sex and the creation of new life. Its connection to a marital structure in which that new life can be nurtured, protected and elevated is also one that is obviously vital to defend. In all this, Catholic doctrine affirms something life-giving and important: the nexus between sex, marriage and family. As a symbol of what sexuality can be about, indeed what it is ultimately about, this linkage makes moral and theological sense. It also makes social sense. The data is overwhelming about how better adjusted children are when they grow up in stable, nurturing traditional homes. It makes all the sense in the world for a society to find a way to celebrate and protect this arrangement, if for nothing else, the benefit of the next generation.
The trouble comes when this vision of what sex can be about becomes an instruction about what sex can never be about. To say that sexual activity reaches its heights within a procreative marital act is not the same thing as saying that all other variants of sexuality are immoral, let alone worthy of divine damnation on the lines of Sodom. Even within perfect, Catholic procreative marriages, after all, non-procreative sexual activity is inevitable. For some periods within a woman's menstrual cycle, sex cannot be procreative. Throughout pregnancy, sex cannot be procreative. After menopause, sex cannot be procreative. Moreover, unless people are married as children, there will always be a period of adolescence in which sexual capacity will far out-strip any ability to restrict it to procreation alone. These are simply facts. Human sexuality can indeed be channeled. But the standard that it must only ever be directed to procreation is simply one that no human being can ever fully live up to. Even celibates have sex drives. Is it possible that an adult male priest, for example, can live a long life without committing sodomy, if sodomy is defined as deliberate non-procreative orgasm? The answer is obviously no. In fact, the whole concept of an exclusively procreative sexuality, however beautiful in theory, is simply meaningless in practice. It does not exist. It cannot exist. It has never existed. Sodomy, at some level, is inextricable from being a sexual human being.
[...]
As a simple empirical matter, we are all sodomites now, but only homosexuals bear the burden of the legal and social stigma. Some studies have found that some 90 to 95 percent of heterosexual couples engage in oral sex in their relationships; similar numbers use contraception; a smaller but still significant number practise anal sex. We don't talk about this much because we respect the privacy of intimacy, as we should. The morality of sex in today's America and Western Europe is rightly one in which few public moral judgments are made of any sexual experiences that are private, adult and consensual. Within these parameters, non-procreative sex is simply the norm.
But to say they're the norm is perhaps too defensive. The norm is also, many have come to understand, a social, personal and moral good. It is hard to see why, for example, sexual fantasy, escape, pleasure, are somehow inimical to human flourishing - and plenty of evidence that their permanent or too-rigid suppression does actual psychological and spiritual harm. Relationships which include sexual adventure and passion and experiment are not relationships of "disintegrated" people, but relationships in which trust is the prerequisite for relief, release and renewal. The meaning of these sexual experiences is as varied as the people in them. And there are many contexts in which to understand these sexual experiences other than as purely procreative.
You can think of sex - within marriage and in other relationships - as a form of bonding; as a way to deepen and expand the meaning of intimacy; as a type of language even, where human beings can communicate subtly, beautifully, passionately - but without words. And in a world where our consumer needs are exquisitely matched by markets, in which bourgeois comfort can almost anesthetize a sense of human risk and adventure, sex remains one of the few realms left where we can explore our deepest longings, where we can travel to destinations whose meaning and dimensions we cannot fully know. It liberates and exhilarates in ways few other experiences still do. Yes, taking this to extremes can be destructive. And yes, if this experience trumps or overwhelms other concerns - the vows of marriage, the trust of a faithful relationship, or the duty we bear to children - then it can be destructive as well as life-giving. But the idea that expressing this human freedom is somehow intrinsically and always immoral, that it somehow destroys the soul, is an idea whose validity is simply denied in countless lives and loves.
Last edited:
I am more than prepared to address Romans 1. Just not now, time does not allow it at this time.
I disagree with you on your interpretation of S & G.
The Angels treatment and the story about what they wished to do to them has plenty to do with what was going on there.
I fail to see how adding in the prior chapter in the book changes anything that I wrote. I would also point out that the King Of Soddom had interactions with Abraham which indicates they also worshipped false Gods in Soddom. Not something I would think that pleased God.
If you think God was destroying them soley on homoesxualtiy I would say this to you, what do you think the number of homosexuals in a population of people is? Clearly if you think it is that high a number then this argument is moot. If you think it was about the same percentage as today, there clearly had to be more straight people in the city. The barbaric act of raping ones enemies, and people who visit the city was the sin. If they were doing this to the visitors, one wonders what else they were doing.
You failed to address the fact that he saves LOT. Lot who offers his virgin daughters to the mob. Here rape my children instead of these two visitors. Does it make sense that God would destroy an entire city over homosexuality, but save the man who offers up his daughters to be raped? Does it make sense that God, who knows all would save the daughters who get their father drunk and commit incest with him? If it were about sex they would all be dead.
It clearly is not.
I disagree with you on your interpretation of S & G.
The Angels treatment and the story about what they wished to do to them has plenty to do with what was going on there.
I fail to see how adding in the prior chapter in the book changes anything that I wrote. I would also point out that the King Of Soddom had interactions with Abraham which indicates they also worshipped false Gods in Soddom. Not something I would think that pleased God.
If you think God was destroying them soley on homoesxualtiy I would say this to you, what do you think the number of homosexuals in a population of people is? Clearly if you think it is that high a number then this argument is moot. If you think it was about the same percentage as today, there clearly had to be more straight people in the city. The barbaric act of raping ones enemies, and people who visit the city was the sin. If they were doing this to the visitors, one wonders what else they were doing.
You failed to address the fact that he saves LOT. Lot who offers his virgin daughters to the mob. Here rape my children instead of these two visitors. Does it make sense that God would destroy an entire city over homosexuality, but save the man who offers up his daughters to be raped? Does it make sense that God, who knows all would save the daughters who get their father drunk and commit incest with him? If it were about sex they would all be dead.
It clearly is not.
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Dreadsox did do a bit of research, but the only problem I have is that someone could use the same arguments he makes to justify why bestiality and other acts are not a sin. I see the justification of sodomy as a societal view rather than a biblical view. However, I will respect an opposing viewpoint.
Irvine511 , awesome post.....I missed it earlier. Wow...hit the ball out of the park.
Carrie, I am not sure when I will be in to debate this, it may be Wednesday. I am in the midst of a massive migrane attack and I am about to hit myself with some demerol. If I come out of it later and feel I can do the conversation justice I will be back. Thanks for the fine debate.
Peace
Matt
Carrie, I am not sure when I will be in to debate this, it may be Wednesday. I am in the midst of a massive migrane attack and I am about to hit myself with some demerol. If I come out of it later and feel I can do the conversation justice I will be back. Thanks for the fine debate.
Peace
Matt
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Macfistowannabe said:
I haven't made any personal cheap shots to you or anyone else in here. If you can prove me wrong then please do so and I will openly apologize. I will debate hard with someone, I will pull off the gloves sometimes, but never will I attack someone. And I will debate someone even harder when they hold a weak argument. For this is something that truly bothers me, I have seen people jump through hoops show you post after post of information and facts and you reduce everything they say to an emotional argument. You'll ignore everything this person tells you. That is not how you debate and yes I will call you out on it, but this is not a personal attack.
I have much respect for many people who do not share my opinion in here. I never have called anyone or even hinted to the idea that anyone in here was heartless, mindless, or soulless.
I have also never used the word redneck and never have I called an individual a homophobe for that matter.
I'm sorry if you see my calling a person out on a weak argument as a personal attack. Yes I can get very passionate about that, but never will I call names or dismiss someone's opinion just because it doesn't match mine.
Similar threads
