seebs said:
A very interesting question. To understand it, we should look at the whole passage. However... Even if we grant your assumption that it's just plain about homosexual activity, that still doesn't explain why I should connect it to the Sodom story in any way.
If we grant:
1. Paul condemns gay sex.
and
2. The men of Sodom did something wrong.
This does not justify the conclusion "what the men of Sodom did wrong involved gay sex". There's nothing in Paul's writing referring to the Sodom story.
A clear reading does prove that the men desired to have sex with the angels of God. He offered his own VIRGIN daughters to assuage their lust.Here is that word KNOW again
Clear enough
Gen 19:8
Behold now, I have two daughters
which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as [is] good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
He is certainly talking about same-gender sexual activity.
Rom 1:26
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for
even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27
also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:32
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them
This is a referral to the death penalty as applied in Leviticus to homosexual acts.
This is a restatement of the command of God in Leviticus
Lev 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
However... That doesn't mean that what he was describing was ALL same-gender sexual activity, nor does it mean that this is all there was to it.
Prove it
Read Judges 19. In this story, a couple of women are brutally raped and killed. It is plain that this passage describes heterosexual sex. It is even more plain that the sexual component is not the one that brings condemnation.
Can you read the word of God? Go back and read it again and you will see that the men wanted to have Homosexual sex, just as Lot offered his daughters to silence the sexual lust of these me , he gave them a woman. Their first desire was to have sex with men
Jdg 19:22
[Now] as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, [and] beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying,
Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
They wanted a homosexual gang rape
In Romans 1, we are seeing a discussion of people in pagan Rome, who were once Christians but have turned away from God, replaced the incorruptible God with idols, and who then engage in sexual activity. Remember the word you so helpfully pointed out, referring to male cult prostitutes? That practice was alive and well in Rome when Paul wrote his diatribe.
So it is approved of God for men to have sex with me if they are not apostate Romans?
This "theory " of yours lines up with my initial premies , that is homosexuality is a judgment of God on the unrepentant .
He gives them over to the reprobate mind that are Idolators . (realizing that an idol is anything that is held higher than God (money, sex, etc, not only idols made with the hands of men)
Remember that hermeneutics begins with understanding who is writing, when he's writing, where he's writing, and whom he's writing to. Paul is writing to people whose one-time fellow worshippers have gone back to the temple of Aphrodite and indulged in pagan rituals. Small wonder, then, that he should describe one of those rituals.
The epistles were written to a specific group, but then circulated throughout the new churches.
Romans is the foundational doctrinal book of the bible.
The book was not written to the apostate, but to the church for their education.
The Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit for the teaching , reproof etc of the entire church. That was not written only for Rome .
Tell me who was the inspired book Of leviticus written for?
If it was only for the Jews, why would the Romans be held to the standards of Romans?
I will tell you why. God is the same yesterday , today and tomorrow.
he is not a respecter of persons. What was sin for the Jews, was a sin for the Romans, and is a sin for you and me.
I do not believe it is reasonable to attempt to draw any conclusions from this passage that extend beyond the very clear scope it was written in - that of people who are clearly turning their backs on God, and going into other faiths
I believe the turn was to idoltery .
So then deal with Leviticus .
And even more commonly used without that connotation.
However, not all sexual relations are interchangeable.
No, it doesn't. There is nothing at all in the Romans quote to indicate any connection at all with Sodom. There's nothing in it saying "just like in Sodom", or anything like that.
I believe we both see it as relating to homosexuality .
The condemnation by God is there and clearly written
You're committing First Degree Eisegesis, here. You're taking a pair of conclusions:
1. Sodom is about gay sex.
2. Romans 1 is also about gay sex.
Even though these are, in fact, the topic of the debate, you start by assuming them, then you draw the conclusion:
I do not think that there is any doubt that the condemnation in Romans is of Gay sex, with or without Sodom. It is CLEARLY condemned by God . God called it an abomination to the Jews. Here the same message is given to the church.
3. Romans 1 refers to Sodom and explains it.
This makes, quite simply, no sense at all. There is murder throughout the Old Testament, but we don't look at Romans 1:29, and say "see? This example of someone killing someone else was murder, not justified killing, because Paul wrote about murder."
Is murder sin?
Is it condemned in both the old and new testament?
That is the point
Yes, indeed.
So similar, in fact, that it creates a big problem for your position, because we find out that, when there's no gay sex involved, God still condemns the behavior as wrong.
Oops.
Seebs, that is just a foolish comment.
The incident begins and ends with homosexuals.
They lusted after a man, and then when a woman was offered instead they in anger ravaged her and murdered her.
The murder was BECAUSE there was no gay sex [/quote]
If we can say that God would condemn something as wrong even if He didn't condemn gay sex, then we can't use it as an example of condemnation of gay sex.[/quote]
The killing of the woman is condemned, that does not negate the fact that God said that homosexual behavior was a cause for the death penalty , Because one think is a sin, does not mean that other behavior is not a sin. God can chew gum and walk at the same time.
Please, for a moment, slow down and reason this out. "Come, let us reason together" says the Bible.
Instead of starting with the conclusions you've always been taught, instead of bringing out the knee-jerk "but this HAS to mean X" conclusions, just read the Bible and see what it says.
Look at the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Now, imagine, briefly, that wer replace the angels with women. We now have a story much like Judges 19.
Do you think God would have said "yes, go ahead and gang-rape the angels, it's heterosexual so it's okay"?
Is this what passes for a serious argument?
If not... Then it doesn't matter whether it's gay sex or straight sex, the story is telling us about gang rape and inhospitality, because those are wrong either way.
Yea I would say it is inhospitality LOL. Rape is never friendly !
Scripture is given to us for instruction.For you to say with a straight face that inhospitality,was the reason that Lot offered his daughters is foolish.
I want to restate my original position.
When men are unrepentant and idolatrist according to Paul they are given over to a reprobate mind by God and that includes the homosexual acts described in Romans.
Sodom was a selfish, and sinful and foolish city . In that event we see what happens when the restraining hand of God is removed from a civilization . It becomes a debased civilization. Not just Homosexuality but all manner of other man loving and God hating sin rules .
Look at Deuteronomy 23:17.
[bible]Deuteronomy 23:17[/bible]
We see in this verse a pair of matching condemnations, one of male prostitutes, one of female prostitutes.
You expect me to believe that, if it's a male prostitute, the problem is "having male/male sex", but that, if it's a female prostitute, the problem is "selling sex for money".
Deu 23:16
He shall dwell with thee, [even] among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.
Deu 23:17
There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel,
nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
I simply expect you to acknowledge that they are both sin.
This is pure eisegesis. The condemnatinon of prostitution does not give us any basis for condemning a specific sexual act that a prostitute might perform; it gives us a basis only for condemning prostitution.
I think you need to reread your own proof text. BOTH acts are condemned.
What's interesting here is the distinction between "a man" and "mankind". Why are different words do?
When used as a noun (as it is in Leviticus )
Here is the definition
male (of humans and animals)
Lexicon Results for zakar
Hebrew for 02145
Pronunciation Guide
zakar {zaw-kawr'}
TWOT Reference
Root Word
TWOT - 551e
from 02142
Part of Speech
n m, adj
Outline of Biblical Usage
n m
1) male (of humans and animals)
What would you interpret from the claim "if a man lies with a male" in English? Wouldn't that imply a distinction being drawn?
Perhaps we're talking about a man lying with a boy.
And hey... Remember those cult prostitutes? The boys dressed up as women that men were supposed to have sex with to increase fertility? Hey, this is a perfect description of that!
Instead of guessing what you want it to mean to meet your theology, you may want to do some study to make sure you are guessing right .
When the Holy Spirit wants to say boy he says boy, when he wants to say man he says man
BOY
yeled {yeh'-led}
TWOT Reference
Root Word
TWOT - 867b
from 03205
Part of Speech
n m
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) child, son, boy, offspring, youth
a) child, son, boy
b) child, children
c) descendants
d) youth
e) apostate Israelites (fig.)
What you seem to be doing here is ignoring the question.
Even if we grant without any qualms or questions your assertion that gay sex is always immoral in every context, what possible basis do you have for asserting that this, and not gang-rape, inhospitality, or any of the other Biblical claims, was the sin of Sodom?
I read the word of God , and your reason for what you believe?
I have never been real big on political correctness .
The Bible clearly tells us what Sodom's sins are. We are told by two prophets and a Messiah what Sodom's sins were, and they were not "gay sex".
Yes the Bible does tell us the sins that caused God to turn them over to a reprobate mind. But to assert that being rude or inhospitable is actually the reason for the fire and brimstone is very funny.
The question is what did the Jews understand?
Listen to Jude.
"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 for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
Here Paul to the Corinthians
1Cr 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived:
neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Basically, everyone in this thread but you is trying to have a discussion of what the Sodom story says. You're trying to argue that Jews disapproved of gay sex. That doesn't even matter to the question. The question is what particular aspect of the wrongness of Sodom was the relevant one to the Jews, and to God, and every last shred of evidence there is suggests that the important point of the story is gang-rape and inhospitality, rather than sex.
Basically what every one on this thread want is to redefine what the word of God says quite clearly .
What matters is , is that scripture is clear in its condemnation of homosexual sex. Even if you want to argue that Paul was talking to the Romans , he was still condemning Homosexual sex and saying that desire was a punishment from God for their idoltery.
Even if you want to argue that sodom was destroyed because they did not offer the angels tea and crumpets, Homosexuality was condemned in the law given to the Jews.
No amount of focusing on how much you believe gay sex to be wrong will change this. Gay sex could be very very very wrong, and the story of Sodom would still be about a bunch of people who tried to gang-rape strangers instead of welcoming them or leaving them alone. The Old Testament has dozens of condemnations of such activity, which have to be TOTALLY IGNORED for any other interpretation to make sense.
Lets review
Old Testament law.
Lev 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
Lev 18:23
Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it [is] confusion.
Lev 18:24
Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
m.
Lev 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
A command of God not to be like the heathen nations
Deu 23:17
There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Paul speaking by the spirit of God says this
Rom 1:26
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.Confirming the words of Paul
Jud 1:7
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.
Tell 'ya what. We'll track down one of our friendly neighborhood Orthodox Jews, and ask them what the sins of Sodom were. 'k?
Tell ya what , ask an Orthodox Rabbi
