Biblical support for gay sex? A simple question

[EnemyPartyII]

I still disagree with you here. One of the verses I gave you, from the NT, said both "homosexual" and "sodomites." Sodomites is obviously people performing anal sex. That would appear to leave lesbians out, at first glance, but I don't think so, because Paul said "homosexuals" as well. To me, those two words, combined later with sexual immorality and fornication, tells me that God only approves of male to female vaginal sex between a man and a woman. The only other sexual act that I could possibly endorse that does not seem to fit into any of those categories is oral sex between a husband and a wife.

Wow. Just wow.

"Sodomite" was not used as a term to refer to homosexuals until the 6th Century. I absolutely, 100% guarantee you that "sodomite" is not an accurate translation of the original text... unless it is refering to people from Sodom, which is the ONLY meaning that "Sodomite" had contemporary with the authors of the Bible.

This is why I'm such a proponent of deeper study... because if you just read the Bible and accept it, no questions, you read "Sodomites are bad", and you think "hey, homosexuals are bad, the Bible SEZ!" right? But lets look at things a bit more closely...

1st Century, Paul uses the word "arsenokoites" which no one seems able to translate adequately.
6th Century, "Sodomite" is first associated with homosexuality, largely as part of a political maneuver by the then Emperor to allow scapegoating of homosexuals.
some time after the 16th C, someone translating from the original text to the Bible version you use, comes to "arsenokoites", and has difficulty translating it, and (probably with the best of intentions, but not necesarily with any rigour or accuracy) uses the apparent etymology of the word to come up with "homosexual" as a possible meaning. At the time of translation, "homosexual" either does not exist, or is not in common usage, so the translater uses the then common term "sodomite" as a translation for the word.
Present day, people, reading "sodomite" in the Bible, and being aware of the story of Sodom and Gamorrah, assume, incorrectly, that "Sodomite" is an accurate translation of the original text, when, in fact, it is not, just as they assume, incorrectly, that the sins of Sodom have anything to do with consentual homosexual intimacy. The sins of Sodom were haughtiness, poor hospitality, and attempted rape/interrogation (another translation difficulty) of two angels. Nowhere, ANYWHERE in the Bible, or anywhere else, is there a single text saying that Sodom was condemned for its homosexuality.

But Roman political maneuvering, eroneous translation, shifted meanings in common parlance, and here we are. People just assume that sodomite means homosexual, and that it is a perfectly accurate Biblical word.

Behold the power of words, and their ability to warp intents and meanings.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

All we have seen from you is assumptions and they don’t work as David married so that wasn’t a such a relationship, we can equally assume the centurion had a wife so that’s the end of your argument there.

David got married AFTER Jonathon was killed.

Can you show us where in the Bible there is a consensual loving monogamous homosexual relationship.

David and Jonathon. Right there. Go look.

And just because David got married doesn't mean he didn't have homosexual relationships. Clearly David was bisexual. Jonathon may have been either bi or homosexual, we'll never know. However, when two bisexuals of the same gender have a relationship, its a homosexual relationhip. Either or both of them can then go on to have a heterosexual relationship, it doesn't change the fact that the previous same sex relationship was a homosexual one.

Jonathon and david were homosexual lovers. All evidence, viewed with rigour, indicates this.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

This is why I'm such a proponent of deeper study... because if you just read the Bible and accept it, no questions, you read "Sodomites are bad", and you think "hey, homosexuals are bad, the Bible SEZ!" right? But lets look at things a bit more closely...

Well the thread is about Biblical support for gay sex, if you don’t agree with what the Bible ‘SEZ’ how can you take much part in the discussion.

1st Century, Paul uses the word "arsenokoites" which no one seems able to translate adequately.

yes they do, you have been given some of the translations and anyway who cares, the thread is asking for Biblical support for gay sex, not your disbelief of what the Bible SEZ and the Biblical condemnations.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

In other words Paul was probably addressing both the male and female partner in a gay relationship.

Wow... I don't think you really have a good handle on how homosexuality works

 

[EnemyPartyII]

To EnemyPartyII
Well the thread is about Biblical support for gay sex, if you don’t agree with what the Bible ‘SEZ’ how can you take much part in the discussion.

yes they do, you have been given some of the translations and anyway who cares, the thread is asking for Biblical support for gay sex, not your disbelief of what the Bible SEZ and the Biblical condemnations.

I was answering someone else's question, without trying to dissemble or obfuscate, unlike some people around here.

Heres an idea, why don't you butt out of other people's conversations unless you have something constructive to add?

Tackleberry's a big boy, I'm sure if he thinks anything I said was offtopic, he is quite capable of telling me himself.

KTHXBI

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

David and Jonathon. Right there. Go look.

David didn’t marry Jonathan for a start, go look, and he was promiscuous with women, go look.
Do you know what monogamous means?

And just because David got married doesn't mean he didn't have homosexual relationships.

And just because he got married doesn’t mean he did, but tends to imply he didn’t.

Clearly David was bisexual.

Clealry he wasn’t as we do know he slept with women 2 Samuel 11, but the text doesn’t say he slept with men. Where is your evidence? David loved Jonathan and was fond of him, but love isn’t sex.

Jonathon may have been either bi or homosexual, we'll never know.

If Jonathan has been bisexual or homosexual do you think they would have had sex when they knew it was against God’s purposes according to the law? David murdered and committed adultery and that was exposed as the sin.
There is absolutely no basis for your idea.

However, when two bisexuals of the same gender have a relationship, its a homosexual relationhip

That’s gay speak, I don’t even care why, there is no such thing as hetero, homo or bi sexual in the Bible.

Jonathon and david were homosexual lovers. All evidence, viewed with rigour, indicates this.

There is no evidence you haven’t provided any evidence, all you have shown is they loved each other. If you address my criticisms of your assumptions you will see that even your assumptions are weak.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

Wow... I don't think you really have a good handle on how homosexuality works

He doesn’t need to, homosexuality is a modern concept which is basically unbiblical and ungodly according to the Bible. If one starts to look at the world in terms of sexuality instead of the sex of man and woman that God created one will soon get confused about God’s purposes.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

David didn’t marry Jonathan for a start, go look, and he was promiscuous with women, go look.
Do you know what monogamous means?

Was he promiscious with women while his beloved Jonathon was around? No...

And just because he got married doesn’t mean he did, but tends to imply he didn’t.

It might imply that if it weren't for all the homosexual evidence we have. Hint, it is quite common for homosexuals to marry for appearance or social reasons.

If Jonathan has been bisexual or homosexual do you think they would have had sex when they knew it was against God’s purposes according to the law?

I think Jonathon and David were comfortable having sex because they knew God didn't have a problem with it.

There is absolutely no basis for your idea.

Um... yes there is, all that stuff about loving each other more than any woman, and so on.

That’s gay speak, I don’t even care why, there is no such thing as hetero, homo or bi sexual in the Bible.

If there is no such thing as heterosexual or homosexual in the Bible, then how come you keep telling us the Bible condemns homosexuality?

There is no evidence you haven’t provided any evidence, all you have shown is they loved each other. If you address my criticisms of your assumptions you will see that even your assumptions are weak.

I've provided heaps of evidence. You cover your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears, but that doesn't make the evidence go away.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

To EnemyPartyII

He doesn’t need to, homosexuality is a modern concept

Are you insane?

12,000 BCE

Near the end of the Upper Paleolithic Era, human beings have left artifacts and artwork suggesting an appreciation of homo eroticism.[citation needed] Examples include a few cave paintings and hundreds of phallic "batons" among which is a graphically carved double [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] from Gorge d'Enfer (in present-day France) that seems to have been crafted for two women to use together.[1]

[edit] 5,000 BCE

Possible examples of homo eroticism in European Mesolithic art include a rock engraving found in Addaura, Sicily, in which men and women dance around two cavorting sexually aroused male figures.
Source: Timeline of more History

[edit] 25th/24th century BCE

• Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum's tomb is built in Egypt during the fifth dynasty.

It is believed that the two men may have been lovers, making this the first record of a possible homosexual relationship.[2]

[edit] 7th century BCE

• 630 BCE Dorian aristocrats in Crete adopt formal pederastic relations between adult princes and adolescent boys, with the double aim to educate the youths and curb population growth; see Cretan pederasty.

Pederasty spread through ancient Greece, influencing sports, literature, politics, philosophy, art and warfare, and causing, according to some, a flowering of culture; it was associated with gymnasia and athletic nudity.[3][4]

which is basically unbiblical and ungodly according to the Bible.

Two lines ago you just said there is no such thing as hetero or homosexual in the Bible, so how can the Bible be against either of them?

If one starts to look at the world in terms of sexuality instead of the sex of man and woman that God created one will soon get confused about God’s purposes.

If one starts to look at the world in terms of left handedness instead of the right handedness of God, one soon gets confused about...

You see what I'm getting at? One's sexuality has nothing to do with God's purpose. Your constant attempts to try to link two utterly unrelated concepts is tiresome and either disingenuous or that result of someone giving you seriously bad information.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII
David didn’t marry Jonathan for a start, go look, and he was promiscuous with women, go look.
Do you know what monogamous means?

Was he promiscious with women while his beloved Jonathon was around? No...

true but that doesn’t mean anything, that he was promiscuous with women suggests, in your terms, he was heterosexual and doesn’t nothing to support an example of a monogamous homosexual union. Besides David and Jonathan were in serious mortal danger, the last thing on their minds would have been sex with anything, and there is no greater love than a man lay down his life for his friend.

It might imply that if it weren't for all the homosexual evidence we have.

But we don’t have any evidence. The only evidence presented is one which assumes love means gay sex, which is gay thinking, the fact is the writer didn’t have such thinking, he describes sex as finding someone beautiful and sleeping with them, which David singularly does with women and not with Jonathan.

Hint, it is quite common for homosexuals to marry for appearance or social reasons.

then you have to show the writer, David Jonathan were homosexual, all the evidence suggests they weren’t. Your argument is circular, because you think they were homosexual you make the homosexual connotations about what the said and did.

I think Jonathon and David were comfortable having sex because they knew God didn't have a problem with it.

But they evidence shows David knew the law that God does have a problem with it. Lev 18 and 20. Your argument of disbelief is based on disbelief.

Um... yes there is, all that stuff about loving each other more than any woman, and so on.

Well Jesus says that we must love God more than mother brother etc, love isn’t sex. Your thinking is seemingly dominated by seeing everything sexually.

If there is no such thing as heterosexual or homosexual in the Bible, then how come you keep telling us the Bible condemns homosexuality?

I am not telling you the Bible condemns homosexuality, I am showing you the Bible condemns same sex unions, whether you think same sex unions and acts are homosexual heterosexual or bisexual is upto you.

I've provided heaps of evidence. You cover your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears, but that doesn't make the evidence go away

You haven’t provided any evidence, you have only provided assumptions, You said you think David and Jonathan were completely comfortable having sex, yet there is no scriptural evidence they even had any sex, let alone were comfortable. The answer is there is no evidence they had sex and the evidence is they would not have been comfortable as they knew God’s purposes and law against same sex sex. Please provide the evidence they had sex before you provide the evidence they were comfortable before you make such outrageously baseless claims,

 

[brightmorningstar]

To EnemyPartyII

He doesn’t need to, homosexuality is a modern concept

Are you insane?

No not at all. We know from the Bible people engaged in same sex acts, homo-eroticism, the Bible condemns them, homosexual is a modern word to describe same sex attraction. So he did need to know about homosexuality but about what God’s word says about same-sex acts.

Two lines ago you just said there is no such thing as hetero or homosexual in the Bible, so how can the Bible be against either of them?

as explained the Bible condemns same sex unions, homosexual is the word and concept you use, if you think same sex acts are more heterosexual than homosexual that’s up to you.
If one starts to look at the world in terms of sexuality instead of the sex of man and woman that God created one will soon get confused about God’s purposes.

If one starts to look at the world in terms of left handedness instead of the right handedness of God, one soon gets confused about...

Yes they might but what does God’s word say about being left handed? Sure Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father and the goats are on the left and the sheep on the right, but the sheep are the ones who did certain things not their handedness,

You see what I'm getting at? One's sexuality has nothing to do with God's purpose.

It does as one is dysfunctional according to God’s purpose just as is our desires to greed, lying etc. But homosexual means having same-sex attraction, the Bible condemns same sex unions, your constant attempts to avoid what the Bible says and talk in terms of sexuality doesn’t help address what the word of God says.

 

[Dogbean]

But homosexual means having same-sex attraction, the Bible condemns same sex unions, your constant attempts to avoid what the Bible says and talk in terms of sexuality doesn’t help address what the word of God says.

Denial and avoidance are common tactics of those lost in sin.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Wow. Just wow.

"Sodomite" was not used as a term to refer to homosexuals until the 6th Century. I absolutely, 100% guarantee you that "sodomite" is not an accurate translation of the original text... unless it is refering to people from Sodom, which is the ONLY meaning that "Sodomite" had contemporary with the authors of the Bible.

This is why I'm such a proponent of deeper study... because if you just read the Bible and accept it, no questions, you read "Sodomites are bad", and you think "hey, homosexuals are bad, the Bible SEZ!" right? But lets look at things a bit more closely...

1st Century, Paul uses the word "arsenokoites" which no one seems able to translate adequately.
6th Century, "Sodomite" is first associated with homosexuality, largely as part of a political maneuver by the then Emperor to allow scapegoating of homosexuals.
some time after the 16th C, someone translating from the original text to the Bible version you use, comes to "arsenokoites", and has difficulty translating it, and (probably with the best of intentions, but not necesarily with any rigour or accuracy) uses the apparent etymology of the word to come up with "homosexual" as a possible meaning. At the time of translation, "homosexual" either does not exist, or is not in common usage, so the translater uses the then common term "sodomite" as a translation for the word.
Present day, people, reading "sodomite" in the Bible, and being aware of the story of Sodom and Gamorrah, assume, incorrectly, that "Sodomite" is an accurate translation of the original text, when, in fact, it is not, just as they assume, incorrectly, that the sins of Sodom have anything to do with consentual homosexual intimacy. The sins of Sodom were haughtiness, poor hospitality, and attempted rape/interrogation (another translation difficulty) of two angels. Nowhere, ANYWHERE in the Bible, or anywhere else, is there a single text saying that Sodom was condemned for its homosexuality.

But Roman political maneuvering, eroneous translation, shifted meanings in common parlance, and here we are. People just assume that sodomite means homosexual, and that it is a perfectly accurate Biblical word.

Behold the power of words, and their ability to warp intents and meanings.

Great research

Thank you for the information

 

[Dogbean]

BBW what is your faith? Is it catholic like your icon says? Are you practicing?

 

[Kerwin]

You can’t have male and female in a same sex relationship.

Sorry, I believe I confused you by using the word ”partner”. I was simply referring to the role of the male homosexual in the relationship not to the sex which indicated by saying “gay” relationship. I hope that clarifies things for you.

 

[darkshadow]

Brightmorningstar, Do you ever feel like you are talking to a brick wall, when talking to some people, and the wall would make more since in the conversation, then those people?

 

[RMDY]

Why?

Because no one else has anything to teach you?

Because this book answers ALL questions about religions other than your own, and no new information will be tolerated?

Call me cynical (I almost certainly am) but let me guess... this is a book you have read, that told you exactly what you wanted to hear, namely, that all other religions are delusional, non-sensical pipedreams, except your own, which is firmly rooted in unimpeachable, empirical evidence and logic.

Am I close?

Convict of sin ---> John the Baptist, Jesus, the apostles as well as Paul's message was to repent and get right with God. Furthermore, we are called to a holy life. I certainly do not call homosexuality holy. It is a counterfeit, just like false religions. Homosexuality counterfeits hetrosexuality. False religions counterfeit God's relationship with mankind. Lusts are counterfeit ways of loving people. Need I go on?
Banks burn counterfeit money. Farmers burn counterfeit wheat, which is chaff. The government destroys counterfeit materials such as driver liscences that were forged falsely. Hey, it hurts to have a counterfeit bill only to be told you are denied what you expected to get. If I live as a counterfeit christian living in lies, then I would be denying myself the life I should be living in Jesus.

Yes, I referred to Kingdom of the Cults because it takes biblical scripture and argues against world religions to prove how false and wrong they are.

Your welcome to prove the author wrong---go on right ahead---take it up with him yourself. Give him a call, an e-mail, or yet see him in person. Rebute his arguments, then when you do, tell me that I am wrong to refer to him.

Thats it---> defend Jehova witnesses and mormons, defend christian science and scientologists, defend spiritism. Defend hinduism and eastern religions, and zen buddhism, and the "Worldwide Church of God". Say they have right ways to God.

 

[RMDY]

I wouldn't want to worship a god who would subject me to an eternity of horrible torture for not believing in him (when there is no evidence that he exists), for not wanting to worship him (when the Bible shows him to be an arbitrary, petulant, bloodthirsty tyrant), and for having sex with people of my own sex (which doesn't hurt anyone).

God already says your sinful and separated from him naturally. Can you prove you don't deserve to die?

Argue your case! GO for it. I doubt your a righteous and good person. I doubt you would even pass the test!

 

[RMDY]

If God wants to prove himself moral, he should act morally. 'By their fruits ye shall know them'. The god who countenanced the genocide described in the Book of Joshua is not a god I would want to worship.

Your argument is a strawmen argument, for the bible calls no one good and no one righteous, no not one (except Jesus), for we are naturally separated from God because of Adam's sin.

The bible also tells that God didn't let Abraham take the promised land as an inheritence because the Cannanites didn't heap their own sins upon themselves to the maximum and God was waiting for that to happen at a later time---at a time where he would judge them for being completely and utterly evil.

Also, for your information, I wouldn't advise you to defend people who sacrifice their children to statues of stone or throw their children into fire, or commit gang rapes, or anything like that.

 

[RMDY]

The physicists' prediction of how the universe will end, and that described in Revelations,a re very different.

People do not even understand the universe but try to predict it anyway. Also keep in mind, people still do not fully understand the brain, how then can they understand the universe?

There is considerable evidence against intelligent design, but this is not the appropriate forum to discuss it.

Oh yes, like how we as well as this universe were created from nothing without a cause for no reason and by chance everything happened the way it was to the point where we exist today, by chance, without cause, and for no reason?