Clement of Alexander did not condemn loving homosexual monogamous relationships

[Brieuse]

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor. [Paedagogus.] Book III [153 - 217 AD]

The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast His eye on them. . . .Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.iii.html

Clement of Alexandria Exhortation To The Heathen

And what are the laws? “Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not seduce boys; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt love the Lord thy God.” And the complements of these are those laws of reason and words of sanctity which are inscribed on men’s hearts: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; to him who strikes thee on the cheek, present also the other;” “thou shalt not lust, for by lust alone thou hast committed adultery.”

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.ii.html

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1

But life has reached this pitch of licentiousness through the wantonness of wickedness, and lasciviousness is diffused over the cities, having become law. Beside them women stand in the stews, offering their own flesh for hire for lewd pleasure, and boys, taught to deny their sex, act the part of women. Luxury has deranged all things; it has disgraced man. A luxurious niceness seeks everything, attempts everything, forces everything, coerces nature. Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature; women are at once wives and husbands: no passage is closed against libidinousness; [i.e. every possible body orifice is used for “lechery.”] and their promiscuous lechery is a public institution, and luxury is domesticated.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.i.html

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor - Pedagogos Book 3
Chapter 3
Against Men Who Embellish Themselves

Such was predicted of old, and the result is notorious: the whole earth has now become full of fornication and wickedness. I admire the ancient legislators of the Romans: these detested effeminacy of conduct; and the giving of the body to feminine purposes, contrary to the law of nature, they judged worthy of the extremest penalty, according to the righteousness of the law.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.iii.html

I have taken it upon myself to fetch the entire texts so that I cannot be accused of quoting out of context. I have highlighted the texts below in relation to the above quote

 

[Brieuse]

1.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.ii.x.html

Chapter X.—Answer to the Objection of the Heathen, that It Was Not Right to Abandon the Customs of Their Fathers.



those who have been redeemed from utter slavery. Oh, happier far the beasts than men involved in error! who live in ignorance as you, but do not counterfeit the truth. There are no tribes of flatterers among them. Fishes have no superstition: the birds worship not a single image; only they look with admiration on heaven, since, deprived as they are of reason, they are unable to know God. So are you not ashamed for living through so many periods of life in impiety, making yourselves more irrational than irrational creatures? You were boys, then striplings, then youths, then men, but never as yet were you good. If you have respect for old age, be wise, now that you have reached life’s sunset; and albeit at the close of life, acquire the knowledge of God, that the end of life may to you prove the beginning of salvation. You have become old in superstition; as young, enter on the practice of piety. God regards you as innocent children. Let, then, the Athenian follow the laws of Solon, and the Argive those of Phoroneus, and the Spartan those of Lycurgus: but if thou enrol thyself as one of God’s people, heaven is thy country, God thy lawgiver. And what are the laws? “Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not seduce boys; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt love the Lord thy God.”10051005
Ex. xx. 13–16; Deut. vi. 5.
And the complements of these are those laws of reason and words of sanctity which are inscribed on men’s hearts: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; to him who strikes thee on the cheek, present also the other;”10061006
Luke vi. 29.
“thou shalt not lust, for by lust alone thou hast committed adultery.”10071007
Matt. v. 28.
How much better, therefore, is it for men from the beginning not to wish to desire things forbidden, than to obtain their desires! But ye are not able to endure the austerity of salvation; but as we delight in sweet things, and prize them higher for the agreeableness of the pleasure they yield, while, on the other hand, those bitter things which are distasteful to the palate are curative and healing, and the harshness of medicines strengthens people of weak stomach, thus custom pleases and tickles; but custom pushes into the abyss, while truth conducts to heaven. Harsh it is at first, but a good nurse of youth; and it is at once the decorous place where the household maids and matrons dwell together, and the sage council-chamber. Nor is it difficult to approach, or impossible to attain, but is very near us in our very homes; as Moses, endowed with all wisdom, says, while referring to it, it has its abode in three departments of our constitution—in the hands, the mouth, and the heart: a meet emblem this of truth, which is embraced by these three things in all—will, action, speech. And be not afraid lest the multitude of pleasing objects which rise before you withdraw you from wisdom. You yourself will spontaneously surmount the frivolousness of custom, as boys when they have become men throw aside their toys. For with a celerity unsurpassable, and a benevolence to which we have ready access, the divine power, casting its radiance on the earth, hath filled the universe with the seed of salvation. For it was not without divine care that so great a work was accomplished in so brief a space by the Lord, who, though despised as to appearance, was in reality adored, the expiator of sin, the Saviour, the clement, the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe; because He was His Son, and the Word was in God, not disbelieved in by all when He was first preached, nor altogether unknown when, assuming the character of man, and fashioning Himself in flesh, He enacted the drama of human salvation: for He was a true champion and a fellow-champion with the creature. And being communicated most speedily to men, having dawned from His Father’s counsel quicker than the sun, with the most perfect ease He made God shine on us. Whence He was and what He was, He showed by what He taught and exhibited, manifesting Himself as the Herald of the Covenant, the Reconciler, our Saviour, the Word, the Fount of life, the Giver of peace, diffused over the whole face of the earth; by whom, so to speak, the universe has already become an ocean of blessings.1008

 

[Brieuse]

2.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.iii.iii.html

Chapter III.—Against Men Who Embellish Themselves.

To such an extent, then, has luxury advanced, that not only are the female sex deranged about this frivolous pursuit, but men also are infected with the disease.15951595
[Heathen manners are here depicted as a warning to Christians. We cannot suppose Christians, as yet, to any extent, corrupted in their manners by fashion and frivolity; for to be a Christian excluded one from temptations of this kind.]
For not being free of the love of finery, they are not in health; but inclining to voluptuousness, they become effeminate, cutting their hair in an ungentlemanlike and meretricious way, clothed in fine and transparent garments, chewing mastich,15961596
[Query, De re Nicotiana?]
smelling of perfume.15971597
[Smelling of Nicotine?]
What can one say on seeing them? Like one who judges people by their foreheads, he will divine them to be adulterers and effeminate, addicted to both kinds of venery, haters of hair, destitute of hair, detesting the bloom of manliness, and adorning their locks like women. “Living for unholy acts of audacity, these fickle wretches do reckless and nefarious deeds,” says the Sibyl. For their service the towns are full of those who take out hair by pitch-plasters, shave, and pluck out hairs from these womanish creatures. And shops are erected and opened everywhere; and adepts at this meretricious fornication make a deal of money openly by those who plaster themselves, and give their hair to be pulled out in all ways by those who make it their trade, feeling no shame before the onlookers or those who approach, nor before themselves, being men. Such are those addicted to base passions, whose whole body is made smooth by the violent tuggings of pitch-plasters. It is utterly impossible to get beyond such effrontery. If nothing is left undone by them, neither shall anything be left unspoken by me. Diogenes, when he was being sold, chiding like a teacher one of these degenerate creatures, said very manfully, “Come, youngster, buy for yourself a man,” chastising his meretriciousness by an ambiguous speech. But for those who are men to shave and smooth themselves, how ignoble! As for dyeing of hair, and anointing of grey locks, and dyeing them yellow, these are practices of abandoned effeminates; and their feminine combing of themselves is a thing to be let alone. For they think, that like serpents they divest themselves of the old age of their head by painting and renovating themselves. But though they do doctor the hair cleverly, they will not escape wrinkles, nor will they elude death by tricking time. For it is not dreadful, it is not dreadful to appear old, when you are not able to shut your eyes to the fact that you are so.
The more, then, a man hastes to the end, the more truly venerable is he, having God alone as his senior, since He is the eternal aged One, He who is older than all things. Prophecy has called him the “Ancient of days; and the hair of His head was as pure wool,” says the prophet.15981598
Dan. vii. 9. [A truly eloquent passage.]
“And none other,” says the Lord, “can make the hair white or black.”15991599
Matt. v. 36.
How, then, do these godless ones work in rivalry with God, or rather violently oppose Him, when they transmute the hair made white by Him? “The crown of old men is great experience,”16001600
Ecclus. xxv. 6.
says Scripture; and the hoary hair of their countenance is the blossom of large experience. But these dishonour the reverence of age, the head covered with grey hairs. It is not, it is not possible for him to show the head true who has a fraudulent head. “But ye have not so learned Christ; if so be that ye have heard Him, and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: that ye put off, concerning the former conversation, the old man (not the hoary man, but him that is) corrupt according to deceitful lusts; and be renewed (not by dyeings and ornaments), but in the spirit of your mind; and put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.”16011601
Eph. iv. 20–24.
But for one who is a man to comb himself and shave himself with a razor, for the sake of fine effect, to arrange his hair at the looking-glass, to shave his cheeks, pluck hairs out of them, and smooth them, how womanly! And, in truth, unless you saw them naked, you would suppose them to be women. For although not allowed to wear gold, yet out of effeminate desire they enwreath their latches and fringes with leaves of gold; or, getting certain spherical figures of the same metal made, they fasten them to their ankles, and hang them from their necks. This is a device of enervated men, who are dragged to the women’s apartments, amphibious and lecherous beasts. For this is a meretricious and impious form of snare. For God wished women to be smooth, and rejoice in their locks alone growing spontaneously, as a horse in his mane; but has adorned man, like the lions, with a beard, and endowed him, as an attribute of manhood, with shaggy breasts,—a sign this of strength and rule. So also [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], which fight in defence of the hens, he has decked with combs, as it were helmets; and so high a value does God set on these locks, that He orders them to make their appearance on men simultaneously with discretion, and delighted with a venerable look, has honoured gravity of countenance with grey hairs. But wisdom, and discriminating judgments that are hoary with 276wisdom, attain maturity with time, and by the vigour of long experience give strength to old age, producing grey hairs, the admirable flower of venerable wisdom, conciliating confidence. This, then, the mark of the man, the beard, by which he is seen to be a man, is older than Eve, and is the token of the superior nature. In this God deemed it right that he should excel, and dispersed hair over man’s whole body. Whatever smoothness and softness was in him He abstracted from his side when He formed the woman Eve, physically receptive, his partner in parentage, his help in household management, while he (for he had parted with all smoothness) remained a man, and shows himself man. And to him has been assigned action, as to her suffering; for what is shaggy is drier and warmer than what is smooth. Wherefore males have both more hair and more heat than females, animals that are entire than the emasculated, perfect than imperfect. It is therefore impious to desecrate the symbol of manhood, hairiness.16021602

 

[Brieuse]

continued

[On the other hand, this was Esau’s symbol; and the sensual “satyrs” (Isa. xiii. 2) are “hairy goats,” in the original. So also the originals of “devils” in Lev. xvii. 7, and 2 Chron. xi. 15. See the learned note of Mr. West, in his edition of Leighton, vol. v. p. 161.]
But the embellishment of smoothing (for I am warned by the Word), if it is to attract men, is the act of an effeminate person,—if to attract women, is the act of an adulterer; and both must be driven as far as possible from our society. “But the very hairs of your head are all numbered,” says the Lord;16031603
Matt. x. 30.
those on the chin, too, are numbered, and those on the whole body. There must be therefore no plucking out, contrary to God’s appointment, which has counted16041604
έγκαταριθμένην seems to be here used in a middle, not a passive sense, as καταριθμημένος is sometimes.
them in according to His will. “Know ye not yourselves,” says the apostle, “that Christ Jesus is in you?”16051605
2 Cor. xiii. 5.
Whom, had we known as dwelling in us, I know not how we could have dared to dishonour. But the using of pitch to pluck out hair (I shrink from even mentioning the shamelessness connected with this process), and in the act of bending back and bending down, the violence done to nature’s modesty by stepping out and bending backwards in shameful postures, yet the doers not ashamed of themselves, but conducting themselves without shame in the midst of the youth, and in the gymnasium, where the prowess of man is tried; the following of this unnatural practice, is it not the extreme of licentiousness? For those who engage in such practices in public will scarcely behave with modesty to any at home. Their want of shame in public attests their unbridled licentiousness in private.16061606
[Such were the manners with which the Gospel was forced everywhere to contend. That they were against nature is sufficiently clear from the remains of decency in some heathen. Herodotus (book i. cap. 8) tells us that the Lydians counted it disgraceful even for a man to be seen naked.]
For he who in the light of day denies his manhood, will prove himself manifestly a woman by night. “There shall not be,” said the Word by Moses, “a harlot of the daughters of Israel; there shall not be a fornicator of the sons of Israel.”16071607
Deut. xxiii. 17.
But the pitch does good, it is said. Nay, it defames, say I. No one who entertains right sentiments would wish to appear a fornicator, were he not the victim of that vice, and study to defame the beauty of his form. No one would, I say, voluntarily choose to do this. “For if God foreknew those who are called, according to His purpose, to be conformed to the image of His Son,” for whose sake, according to the blessed apostle, He has appointed “Him to be the first-born among many brethren,”16081608
Rom. viii. 28, 29.
are they not godless who treat with indignity the body which is of like form with the Lord?
The man, who would be beautiful, must adorn that which is the most beautiful thing in man, his mind, which every day he ought to exhibit in greater comeliness; and should pluck out not hairs, but lusts. I pity the boys possessed by the slave-dealers, that are decked for dishonour. But they are not treated with ignominy by themselves, but by command the wretches are adorned for base gain. But how disgusting are those who willingly practice the things to which, if compelled, they would, if they were men, die rather than do?
But life has reached this pitch of licentiousness through the wantonness of wickedness, and lasciviousness is diffused over the cities, having become law. Beside them women stand in the stews, offering their own flesh for hire for lewd pleasure, and boys, taught to deny their sex, act the part of women.
Luxury has deranged all things; it has disgraced man. A luxurious niceness seeks everything, attempts everything, forces everything, coerces nature. Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature; women are at once wives and husbands: no passage is closed against libidinousness; and their promiscuous lechery is a public institution, and luxury is domesticated. O miserable spectacle! horrible conduct! Such are the trophies of your social licentiousness which are exhibited: the evidence of these deeds are the prostitutes. Alas for such wickedness! Besides, the wretches know not how many tragedies the uncertainty of intercourse produces. For fathers, unmindful of children of theirs that have been exposed, often without their knowledge, have intercourse with a son that has debauched himself, and daughters that are prostitutes; and licence in lust shows them to be the men that have begotten them. 277These things your wise laws allow: people may sin legally; and the execrable indulgence in pleasure they call a thing indifferent. They who commit adultery against nature think themselves free from adultery. Avenging justice follows their audacious deeds, and, dragging on themselves inevitable calamity, they purchase death for a small sum of money. The miserable dealers in these wares sail, bringing a cargo of fornication, like wine or oil; and others, far more wretched, traffic in pleasures as they do in bread and sauce, not heeding the words of Moses, “Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a harlot, lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.”16091609
Lev. xix. 29.
Such was predicted of old, and the result is notorious: the whole earth has now become full of fornication and wickedness. I admire the ancient legislators of the Romans: these detested effeminacy of conduct; and the giving of the body to feminine purposes, contrary to the law of nature, they judged worthy of the extremest penalty, according to the righteousness of the law.
For it is not lawful to pluck out the beard,16101610
[When the loss of the beard was a token of foppery and often of something worse, shaving would be frivolity; but here he treats of extirpation.]
man’s natural and noble ornament.
“A youth with his first beard: for with this, youth is most graceful.”
By and by he is anointed, delighting in the beard “on which descended” the prophetic “ointment”16111611
Ps. cxxxiii. 2.
with which Aaron was honoured.
And it becomes him who is rightly trained, on whom peace has pitched its tent, to preserve peace also with his hair.
What, then, will not women with strong propensities to lust practice, when they look on men perpetrating such enormities? Rather we ought not to call such as these men, but lewd wretches (βατάλο&#953, and effeminate (γύνιδε&#962, whose voices are feeble, and whose clothes are womanish both in feel and dye. And such creatures are manifestly shown to be what they are from their external appearance, their clothes, shoes, form, walk, cut of their hair, look. “For from his look shall a man be known,” says the Scripture, “from meeting a man the man is known: the dress of a man, the step of his foot, the laugh of his teeth, tell tales of him.”16121612
Ecclus. xix. 29, 30.
For these, for the most part, plucking out the rest of their hair, only dress that on the head, all but binding their locks with fillets like women. Lions glory in their shaggy hair, but are armed by their hair in the fight; and boars even are made imposing by their mane; the hunters are afraid of them when they see them bristling their hair.
“The fleecy sheep are loaded with their wool.”16131613
Hesiod, Works and Days, i. 232.

 

[Brieuse]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.iii.viii.html

3.

Chapter VIII.—Similitudes and Examples a Most Important Part of Right Instruction.

And if any one of you shall entirely avoid luxury, he will, by a frugal upbringing, train himself to the endurance of involuntary labours, by employing constantly voluntary afflictions as training exercises for persecutions; so that when he comes to compulsory labours, and fears, and griefs, he will not be unpracticed in endurance.
Wherefore we have no country on earth, that we may despise earthly possessions. And frugality16451645
The word used by Clement here for frugality is εύτέλεια, and he supposes the word to mean originally “spending well.” A proper way of spending money is as good as unfailing riches, since it always has enough for all that is necessary.
is in the highest degree rich, being equal to unfailing expenditure, bestowed on what is requisite, and to the degree requisite. For τέλε has the meaning of expenses.
How a husband is to live with his wife, and respecting self-help, and housekeeping, and the employment of domestics; and further, with respect to the time of marriage, and what is suitable for wives, we have treated in the discourse concerning marriage. What pertains to disciplane alone is reserved now for description, as we delineate the life of Christians. The most indeed has been already said, and laid down in the form of disciplinary rules. What still remains we shall subjoin; for examples are of no small moment in determining to salvation.16461646
[This plea for similitudes illustrates the principle of Hermas, and the ground of the currency of his Pastor.]
See, says the tragedy,
“The consort of Ulysses was not killed
By Telemachus; for she did not take a husband in addition to a husband,
But in the house the marriage-bed remains unpolluted.”16471647
Euripides, Orestes, 588–590.

Reproaching foul adultery, he showed the fair image of chastity in affection to her husband.
The Lacedæmonians compelling the Helots, their servants (Helots is the name of their servants), to get drunk, exhibited their drunken pranks before themselves, who were temperate, for cure and correction.
Observing, accordingly, their unseemly behaviour, in order that they themselves might not fall into like censurable conduct, they trained themselves, 282turning the reproach of the drunkards to the advantage of keeping themselves free from fault.
For some men being instructed are saved; and others, self-taught, either aspire after or seek virtue.
“He truly is the best of all who himself perceives all things.”16481648
Hesiod, Works and Days, i. 291.

Such is Abraham, who sought God.
“And good, again, is he who obeys him who advises well.”16491649
Ibid.

Such are those disciples who obeyed the Word. Wherefore the former was called “friend,” the latter “apostles;” the one diligently seeking, and the other preaching one and the same God. And both are peoples, and both these have hearers, the one who is profited through seeking, the other who is saved through finding.
“But whoever neither himself perceives, nor, hearing another,
Lays to heart—he is a worthless man.”16501650
Ibid.

The other people is the Gentile—useless; this is the people that followeth not Christ. Nevertheless the Instructor, lover of man, helping in many ways, partly exhorts, partly upbraids. Others having sinned, He shows us their baseness, and exhibits the punishment consequent upon it, alluring while admonishing, planning to dissuade us in love from evil, by the exhibition of those who have suffered from it before. By which examples He very manifestly checked those who had been evil-disposed, and hindered those who were daring like deeds; and others He brought to a foundation of patience; others He stopped from wickedness; and others He cured by the contemplation of what is like, bringing them over to what is better.
For who, when following one in the way, and then on the former falling into a pit, would not guard against incurring equal danger, by taking care not to follow him in his slip? What athlete, again, who has learned the way to glory, and has seen the combatant who had preceded him receiving the prize, does not exert himself for the crown, imitating the elder one?
Such images of divine wisdom are many; but I shall mention one instance, and expound it in a few words. The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practising adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast His eye on them. Nor did the sleepless guard of humanity observe their licentiousness in silence; but dissuading us from the imitation of them, and training us up to His own temperance, and falling on some sinners, lest lust being unavenged, should break loose from all the restraints of fear, ordered Sodom to be burned, pouring forth a little of the sagacious fire on licentiousness; lest lust, through want of punishment, should throw wide the gates to those that were rushing into voluptuousness. Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men. For those who have not committed like sins with those who are punished, will never receive a like punishment. By guarding against sinning, we guard against suffering. “For I would have you know,” says Jude, “that God, having once saved His people from the land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed them that believed not; and the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved to the judgment of the great day, in everlasting chains under darkness of the savage angels.”16511651
Jude 5, 6.
And a little after he sets forth, in a most instructive manner, representations of those that are judged: “Woe unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain, and run greedily after the error of Balaam, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.” For those, who cannot attain the privilege of adoption, fear keeps from growing insolent. For punishments and threats are for this end, that fearing the penalty we may abstain from sinning. I might relate to you punishments for ostentation, and punishments for vainglory, not only for licentiousness; and adduce the censures pronounced on those whose hearts are bad through wealth,16521652
Following Lowth’s conjecture of κακοφρόνων insteasd of that of the text, κακόφρονας.
in which censures the Word through fear restrains from evil acts. But sparing prolixity in my treatise, I shall bring forward the following precepts of the Instructor, that you may guard against His threatenings.

 

[Brieuse]

1.

thou shalt not seduce boys

Not condemning loving monogamous homosexual relationships
2.

In context not out of context, Clement of Alexander is condemning anybody, homosexual or heterosexual that makes themselves appear less of a man. He cites examples such as shaving, combing hair, and using a mirror to look less like a man should.

He is not condemning loving monogamous homosexual relationships
3.

The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practising adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys

Clement of Alexander is telling what the sexual sin was of Sodom. Burning with insane love for boys is not a loving monogamous homosexual relationship.

 

[Brieuse]

Now, why would the words "Insane love for boys" be used by Clement of Alexander?
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/judeochristian/bible.txt

Taken from Is the Homosexual my Neighbor, by Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott (pp 54-59): ...the men of Sodom could not have been exclusively homosexual in their orientation in the sense that the term is used today. Quite likely, they were primarily heterosexual, out for novelty, and seeking to humiliate the strangers... Every last one of the city's males is said to have taken part in this attempted gang rape! Sodom certainly was not a 'gay city'... Rape is not so much a sexual act as it is an act of violence. In.. rape... the emphasis is on displaying force and demonstrating power over someone who is perceived as weak and vulnerable... Among some ancient peoples, it was not unusual to flaunt one's triumph over enemies by treating them with the greatest possible contempt. Such contempt was demonstrated by forcing captive men to 'take the part of a woman' and be passive recipients in anal intercourse...
If the modern prison's version of a gang rape was in the minds
of the men of Sodom, it is understandable that they did not accept
Lot's offer of his daughters. Women already had a low place in the
society of Sodom... Humiliating actual women would not have provided the sense of conquest they had anticipated in degrading the male strangers and 'dragging them down' to the level of women... In the ancient Middle East, writes John McKenzie, 'that the woman should be sacrificed for the man was simply taken for granted.' No wonder that a man would dread the disgrace and punishment of being treated 'like a woman,' which is what male gang rape signified.
...rather than concentrating on homosexuality, the Sodom story
seems to be focusing on two specific evils: (1) violent gang rape and
(2) inhospitality to the stranger. Surely, none of us would be
prepared to say that if the men of Sodom had accepted the offer of
Lot's daughters... then God would have withheld judgement... Violence... is the real part of this story. To put it another way:
even if the angels had taken on the form of women in their earthly
visitation, the desire of the men of Sodom to rape them would have
been every bit as evil in the sight of God...
Concerning the inhospitality described in the Sodom story, John
McNeil reminds Christians of the irony that no group has been treated less hospitably by the church than the homosexual community, and that the biblical passage used to justify such treatment has been the very one that condemns uncharitable behavior. 'In the name of a mistaken understanding of the true crime of Sodom and Gomorrah, the true crime of Sodom and Gomorrah has been and continues to be repeated every day,' argues McNeil. To underscore the sin of inhospitality in Sodom, he reminds us of Jesus' words to his disciples in Luke 10:10-13: 'When you enter a town and they do not make you welcome...I tell you it will be more bearable for Sodom on the great Day than for that town.'

This brings us to a second factor to keep in mind whine
examining the story of Sodom: the Bible is its own best commentary on many issues. And the Bible provides explanations for Sodom's
destruction that have nothing at all to do with homosexuality. In
the first chapter of Isaiah, the nation of Judah is rebuked through a
comparison with Sodom and Gomorrah. The specific sins mentioned are greed, rebellion against God, empty religious ritual without true
devotion to God, failure to plead the cause of orphans and widows,
failure to pursue justice, and failure to champion the oppressed.
There is no mention of homosexuality...

In the New Testament... Jesus refers to Sodom, not in the
context of sexual acts, but in the context of inhospitality (Luke
10:10) Jude 7 does refer to the sexual sins of Sodom: 'The committed
fornication and followed unnatural lusts.' The emphasis here is on
heterosexual intercourse outside of marriage (fornication) and on
'going after alien or other or strange flesh,' as the original Greek
reads in literal translation. These 'unnatural lusts' thus could, in
this context, and in view of the apocryphal texts to which Jude made
an allusion, refer to a desire for sexual contact between human and
heavenly beings. The Jerusalem Bible footnote for Jude 7 reads 'They lusted not after human beings, but after the strangers who were angels.'

If, then, we decide to follow the time-honored principles of
allowing the Bible to provide its own commentary and of interpreting
cloudy passages in the light of clearer ones, we are forced to admit
that the Sodom story says nothing at all about the homosexual
condition. The only real application to homosexuals would have to be a general one: homosexuals, like everybody else, should show
hospitality to strangers, should deal justly with the poor and
vulnerable, and should not force their sexual attentions upon those
unwilling to receive them.

And, according to 'The New Testament and Homosexuality', by Robin Scroggs (p 73):

Any claim.... that the story [of Sodom] is a blanket
condemnation of homosexuality in general is unjustified. The attempt
on the bodies of the guests is but an example of the general evil,
which has already caught God's attention. It is, furthermore, an
attempt at rape. The most that can be said is that the story
judges... rape to be evil and worthy of condemnation.

Scholars have noted that virtually none of the other references
to this story in the Hebrew Bible (unless it is that of the Levite
and his concubine) explicitly interpret the sin as sexual... later
Biblical authors thus had no apparent interest in the homosexual
dimension of this story.

According to "The New Testament and Homosexuality", by Robin Scroggs
(pp 72-73):

"The prohibition in Leviticus 18:22 is terse: 'With a male you
shall not lie (shakov) the lyings of a woman; it is an abomination'
(au. trans). The awkwardness of the sentence is caused by the fact
that there is no technical term for homosexuality in Hebrew.
Nevertheless the meaning is clear. 'Shakov' is frequently used to
denote sexual intercourse; thus, the sentence is a general
prohibition of male homosexuality.

"Two things must be noted. The first is that female homo-
sexuality is not prohibited. The second is the wording of the
verse... There is more to note than the lack of a technical term and
the use of a euphemism (shakov) for intercourse. What is crucial is
that the general word for 'male' is used, without any qualification
of age. This lack of qualification will determine the language of
all future Jewish discussions, no matter what forms of homosexuality
are being attacked...

"Leviticus 20 gives... penalties... The penalty for male
homosexuality is death [Lev 20:13]... Male homosexuality is but one
of several crimes listed as punishable by death in this chapter; that
is, it is not singled out as a uniquely henious sin...

"These two verses are the only legal traditions about
homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible... no other biblical passage refers
to this prohibition... All that can be said is that late in Israelite
history a single law appears... prohibiting male homosexuality. No
rationale is given for its appearance as an 'abomination.' One might
conjecture that originally it was linked to pagan religious culture
or with the thwarting of the intended use of sperm for purposes of
procreation, but it is probably best not to speculate..."

And, according to "Is the Homosexual my Neighbor," by Letha Scanzoni and
Virginia Ramey Mollenkott (pp 60-61):

"...consistency and fairness would seem to dictate that if the
Israelite Holiness Code is to be invoked against twentieth-century
homosexuals, it should likewise be invoked against such common
practices as eating rare steak, wearing mixed fabrics, and having
marital intercourse during the menstrual period..."

I CORINTHIANS 6:9-10 reads:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of
God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor homosexual offenders
[arsenokoites], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor
revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

I placed two words in brackets. The first one, "malakoi", Scroggs (p. 14) says "literally means 'soft' and is no technical term for a homosexual." It apparently refers to young boys who would take the "recepient" position in anal sex, often for money. It's also translated in some Bibles as "morally weak".

"Aresenokoitai", on the other hand, is clearly a sexual term but,
according to Scroggs:

Since... the New Testament occurrences are the earliest appearances
of the word, it is not easy for us to be sure what it means. John
Boswell in his recent study denies that it refers to a homosexual
person in general but rather specifically to the male prostitute who
could serve heterosexual or homosexual clients. At any rate, the sin
is prostitution, not homosexuality in itself. (p. 14)

These words are the words used both in Corinthians and in I Timothy 1:10 which are commonly translated into modern bibles as "homosexual", "effeminate," and "self-indulgent." In these enlightened times, however, there is no indication that such terms are in any way connected to homosexuality in itself. In fact, according to "Is the Homosexual my Neighbor," by Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott:

the idea of a lifelong homosexual orientation or "condition" is never
mentioned in the Bible... Bible writers assumed that everyone was
heterosexual and that in times of moral decay, some heterosexuals
peopled did some strange and unnatural things with each other. Since the Bible is silent about the homosexual condition, those who want to understand it must rely on the findings of modern behavorial science research... (p. 71)

In summary, despite common interpretations of the words "malakoi" and "aresenokoitai" in modern times, there is no clear evidence which links them unquestionably to homosexuality in itself. Instead, in every case in which they are used, there is an implied connection with either prostitution or child molestation. Modern research shows us, however, that such connections are fallacious. There is no research which clearly demonstrates that there is any correlation between homosexuality and the "sins" referenced alongside it
in Corinthians and Timothy.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their
women exchanged natural relations for unatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for ther perversion.

--Romans I:26-27 (NIV)

This is a common passige cited to demonstrate that homosexuality is
"wrong" and "unnatural." Such an assumption however, fails to take into account the fact that there are many homosexual Christians who are often monagamous. According to "Is the Homosexual My Neighbor," by Scanzoni & Ramey:

The key thoughts seem to be lust, "unnaturalness," and, in verse 28,
a desire to avoid acknowledgement of God.... although the censure
fits the idolatrous people with whom Paul was concerned here, it does not seem to fit the case of a sincere homosexual Christian. Such a person loves Jesus Christ, and wants above all to acknowledge God in all of life, yet for some unknown reason feels drawn to someone of the same sex, for the sake of love rather than lust. Is it fair to describe that person as lustful or desirous of forgetting God's
existence? (p. 62)

Romans does not discuss love-- it simply speaks of lust, as if it is all that homosexuals are capable of. This, simply, is not true. According to John McNeill, in "The Church and the Homosexual":

If a Catholic homosexual confessed occasional promiscuity, he could
receive absolution and be allowed to receive communion in good
conscience. If, however, he had entered into a genuine permanent
love relationship, he would be judged in "a state of sin," and unless
he expressed a willingness to break off that relationship, he would
be denied absolution. (p. 169)

By taking such a stance, the Catholic Church practically encourages promscuity for homosexuals. Healthy monagamous relationships are treated as somehow "worse" than a series of one night stands. As far as the notion that this verse informs us that homosexuality is "pure lust," Robin Scroggs writes, in "The New Testament and Homosexuality":

 

[Brieuse]

continued

...Paul thinks of pedastry, and perhaps the more degraded forms of
it, when he is attacking homosexuality... Perhaps it was those
particular conditions he had heard of that made him consider
homosexuality unnatural, rather than some overarching abstract
theological conviction....

Another point to note is that a common practice of Paul's time by
non-Christians involved temple orgies in which sexual acts were performed with many people. It's quite possible that the act he has described here was one such orgy. Notice the sins involved in this that are not inextricably connected with homosexuality: Orgies, sex in a temple, turning away from one's nature and lust. These are what Paul is condemning. Possibly because he's never known of cases of homosexuality which did not include such sins he didn't choose to separate them. Possibly, he simply did not have the knowledge that we now have of what homosexuality is. Also, he possibly did not have the insight or experience to know that there are people on this earth for whom homosexuality is natural and that it can exist in a monagamous, loving relationship.

For whatever reason, however, it is clear that when Paul spoke of what we often interpret to mean homosexuality, we are not referring to the same thing. In Paul's time there were no clear exaples of monagamous relationships between gay men. There were no cases of devout Christians who were also gay. Today, however, we know better. There are gay men who form covenants with one another and have every bit as much of a commitment to one another as any legally married couple. There are lesbian women who have chosen a parter for life who happens to be female. Whether we approve of this or not, it is a reality and Christians around the world will be forced to recognize that the answers given in the Bible are not so clear as they were once thought to be.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]I have taken it upon myself to fetch the entire texts so that I cannot be accused of quoting out of context. I have highlighted the texts below in relation to the above quote[/SIZE]

here is B's 1st post in this thread, followed by several pages of quotation from Clement. He wishes to not be charged with quoting out of context. Yeah right!

In this post he quotes 3 words from one sentence then summarizes part of one paragraph in one sentence, ignores ALL the accompanying text and in one big phony pretext acts like the only thing Clement said was these 2 sentences

[SIZE=-1]
1.
thou shalt not seduce boys
Not condemning loving monogamous homosexual relationships
2.
In context not out of context, Clement of Alexander is condemning anybody, homosexual or heterosexual that makes themselves appear less of a man. He cites examples such as shaving, combing hair, and using a mirror to look less like a man should.

He is not condemning loving monogamous homosexual relationships
3.
The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practising adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys

Clement of Alexander is telling what the sexual sin was of Sodom. Burning with insane love for boys is not a loving monogamous homosexual relationship.[/SIZE]

Now for the TRUTH! B would have us believe that the ONLY thing Clement said was "burning with insane love of Boys."

I also see e.g. "Men play the part of women", "women that of men,""women are at once wives and husbands:""the giving of the body to feminine purposes, contrary to the law of nature,""effeminacy of conduct."

But B couldn't see any of that. We aren't going to get any honesty and integrity here.

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor. [Paedagogus.] Book III [153 - 217 AD]

The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast His eye on them. . . .Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.iii.html

Clement of Alexandria Exhortation To The Heathen

And what are the laws? “Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not seduce boys; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt love the Lord thy God.” And the complements of these are those laws of reason and words of sanctity which are inscribed on men’s hearts: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; to him who strikes thee on the cheek, present also the other;” “thou shalt not lust, for by lust alone thou hast committed adultery.”

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.ii.html

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1

But life has reached this pitch of licentiousness through the wantonness of wickedness, and lasciviousness is diffused over the cities, having become law. Beside them women stand in the stews, offering their own flesh for hire for lewd pleasure, and boys, taught to deny their sex, act the part of women. Luxury has deranged all things; it has disgraced man. A luxurious niceness seeks everything, attempts everything, forces everything, coerces nature. Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature; women are at once wives and husbands: no passage is closed against libidinousness; [i.e. every possible body orifice is used for “lechery”/“libidinousness.”] and their promiscuous lechery is a public institution, and luxury is domesticated.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.i.html

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor - Pedagogos Book 3
Chapter 3
Against Men Who Embellish Themselves

Such was predicted of old, and the result is notorious: the whole earth has now become full of fornication and wickedness. I admire the ancient legislators of the Romans: these detested effeminacy of conduct; and the giving of the body to feminine purposes, contrary to the law of nature, they judged worthy of the extremest penalty, according to the righteousness of the law.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.iii.html

​

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Now, why would the words "Insane love for boys" be used by Clement of Alexander?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Taken from Is the Homosexual my Neighbor, by Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott (pp 54-59): ...the men of Sodom could not have been exclusively homosexual in their orientation in the sense that the term is used today. Quite likely, they were primarily heterosexual, out for novelty, and seeking to humiliate the strangers... Every last one of the city's males is said to have taken part in this attempted gang rape! Sodom certainly was not a 'gay city'... Rape is not so much a sexual act as it is an act of violence. In.. rape... the emphasis is on displaying force and demonstrating power over someone who is perceived as weak and vulnerable... Among some ancient peoples, it was not unusual to flaunt one's triumph over enemies by treating them with the greatest possible contempt. Such contempt was demonstrated by forcing captive men to 'take the part of a woman' and be passive recipients in anal intercourse. . . [/SIZE]​

..

Then we have a long quote from a rubbish 20th century homosexual book which has ABSOLUTELY no evidence for any of the assumptions and presuppositions it spews.

 

[Der Alte]

. . ."[SIZE=-1]The prohibition in Leviticus 18:22 is terse: 'With a male you shall not lie (shakov) the lyings of a woman; it is an abomination' (au. trans). The awkwardness of the sentence is caused by the fact that there is no technical term for homosexuality in Hebrew. Nevertheless the meaning is clear. Shakov' is frequently used to denote sexual intercourse; thus, the sentence is a general prohibition of male homosexuality.

"Two things must be noted. The first is that female homosexuality is not prohibited. The second is the wording of the verse... There is more to note than the lack of a technical term and the use of a euphemism (shakov) for intercourse. What is crucial is that the general word for 'male' is used, without any qualification of age. This lack of qualification will determine the language of all future Jewish discussions, no matter what forms of homosexuality are being attacked...

"Leviticus 20 gives... penalties... The penalty for male homosexuality is death [Lev 20:13]... Male homosexuality is but one of several crimes listed as punishable by death in this chapter; that is, it is not singled out as a uniquely henious sin... "These two verses are the only legal traditions about homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible... no other biblical passage refers to this prohibition... All that can be said is that late in Israelite history a single law appears... prohibiting male homosexuality. No rationale is given for its appearance as an 'abomination.' One might conjecture that originally it was linked to pagan religious culture or with the thwarting of the intended use of sperm for purposes of procreation, but it is probably best not to speculate.[/SIZE]. . ."

Another book written by a homosexual. Guesses, assumption, presupposition, speculation, NO, NONE, ZERO lexical or grammatical evidence and the homosexuals who scribble this putrid offscouring would rather die than actually consult a Hebrew source.

From the time of Moses, ca. 1200 BC, the Talmudic scholars interpreted the scriptures as condemning ALL homosexuals acts; by ALL persons, male and female; in ALL places, under ALL circumstance, at ALL times, NO exceptions.

The Talmudic scholars did NOT even mention, and did NOT limit the condemnation of homosexual acts to, “homosexual rape,” “temple prostitution,” pagan temples and/or religious activities!

And OBTW one of my citations was written by a Lesbian.

Talmud -- Sanhedrin 54a

MISHNAH. HE WHO COMMITS SODOMY WITH A MALE OR A BEAST, AND A WOMAN THAT COMMITS BESTIALITY ARE STONED. . . . Our Rabbis taught: If a man lieth also with mankind, as the lyings of a woman,29 both of them have committed on abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them,]. . . [Note: All upper case appears in the original]

Sanhedrin 54b

This teaches the punishment: whence do we derive the formal prohibition? — From the verse, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.[sup]1[/sup] . . . whence do we know a formal prohibition for the person who permits himself thus to be abused? — Scripture saith: There shall be no sodomite of the sons of Israel:[sup]2[sup] and it is further said, . . .

Now, he who [actively] commits pederasty, and also [passively] permits himself to be thus abused — R. Abbahu said: On R. Ishmael's view, he is liable to two penalties, one [for the injunction] derived from thou shalt not lie with mankind, and the other for [violating the prohibition,] There shall not be a Sodomite of the sons of Israel. . . .

for there shall be no Sodomite applies to sodomy with mankind. [sup]13[/sup] . . .

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Jewish Encyclopedia - Dog

The shamelessness of the dog in regard to sexual life gave rise to the name ("dog") for the class of priests in the service of Astarte who practised sodomy ("kedeshim," called also by the Greeks &#954;&#965;&#957;&#945;&#943;&#948;&#959;&#953;, Deut. xxiii. 19 [A. V. 18]; compare ib. 18 [17] and Rev. xxii. 15; see Driver ad loc.), . . .(see "C. I. S." i., No. 86).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=415&letter=D

Jewish Encyclopedia - Chastity

(e) The unnatural crimes against chastity, sodomy and pederasty, prevalent in heathendom, were strictly prohibited (Lev. xviii. 22, 23; xx. 13, 15, 16; Deut. xxvii. 21).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=386&letter=C

Jewish Encyclopedia - DIDACHE -

Dependence upon Jewish Custom.

2: "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Ex. xx. 14). (This includes: "Thou shalt not commit sodomy nor fornication.") "Thou shalt not steal" (Ex. xx. 15). . . .

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=341&letter=D

Jewish Encyclopedia - Crime

In three cases the person on the point of committing a crime may be killed: where he pursues a neighbor in order to kill him; where he pursues a male to commit sodomy;

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=301&letter=L

Jewish Encyclopedia - The 613 Commandments,: 3347-53.

Adultery, sodomy, etc. Lev. Xviii. 7, 14, 20, 22, 23.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=689&letter=C​

"We Can't Legitimate Homosexuality Halakhically" (USCJ Review, Spring 2004): Joel Roth

The two verses in the book of (Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) which deal with homosexuality are really quite clear, despite the efforts of some to call their clarity into question. (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 absolutely forbid homosexual intercourse between males. The Rabbis, in the Sifra (Aharei Mot 9:8), also understand the Torah to forbid lesbianism. The Torah’s prohibitions, let it be clear, are against actions, like male homosexual intercourse, not against fantasies or attractions.

The Torah and the Rabbis do not distinguish between types of homosexuals in any way... The Rabbis were well able to conceive of monogamous and loving relationships between members of the same sex, and I quote in my paper the texts that prove this beyond reasonable question. But their words cannot possibly be read to imply that such monogamous or loving gay relationships are in a different halakhic [Jewish legal] category than any other relationships between members of the same sex. The prohibition is clear and total.”​

http://www.uscj.org/POINTRoth6331.html

Naomi Grossman, freelance journalist, states in her April 2001 article in Moment Magazine, "The Gay Orthodox Undergound":

"The Torah strictly forbids homosexual sex, and rabbis have consistently upheld that prohibition through the ages... The prohibition against homosexual sex comes from Leviticus: 'Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence' (18:22). In biblical times, the punishment for violating that code was clear. 'If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death -— their bloodguilt is upon them' (Leviticus 20:13). The Talmud extends the prohibition to lesbian sex [Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 21:8]."

Official Orthodoxy makes no distinction between the sex act, which the Torah flatly prohibits, and homosexuality as a sexual identity. "Homosexuality is not a state of being in traditional Judaism; it's an act," Freundel says. "Desires are … not relevant."​

http://members.aol.com/gayjews/moment.html​

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Brieuse,
The text says the men of Sodom, both young and old surrounded the house and demanded to know carnally the men in Lot's house.
We know the visitors in Lots house were angels but evidently the men of Sodom didnt.
We dont know whether their orientation was heterosexual or homosexual, but I assume from the fact they wanted sex with the men they were homosexual or bi-sexual. but your cited statement is right we dont know, this is the problem with esisegis and adding modern cultural assumptions to the text and context just to try and prove a point.

the rest of the assumptions are built upon assumptions.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Liberals taking text out of context...why am I not surprised?

 

[Brieuse]

Precisely what is out of context? I posted almost the entire chapters.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Precisely what is out of context? I posted almost the entire chapters.[/SIZE]

And you don't know the answer to this question? I clearly showed you how your "summary" was out-of-context. You did quote several pages of Clement, in about 3 posts, standing alone with no reference or commentary by you. Then at the end you quoted 3 words from one sentence, and summarized one paragraph in one sentence, IGNORED all of the rest of the accompanying text and stated that the only thing Clement was condemning was ."insane love of boys" and men shaving, etc."

Can you even see my posts? Can you read them? I quote enough of a paragraph so some context is evident, and even highlighted certain words and phrases.

You evidently can't even see these words in your own quotes, "Men play the part of women", "women that of men,""women are at once wives and husbands:""the giving of the body to feminine purposes, contrary to the law of nature,""effeminacy of conduct."

Since you ignored these words which contradict your assumptions/presuppositions how can you even ask what is out of context?

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Dear Brieuse,
The text says the men of Sodom, both young and old surrounded the house and demanded to know carnally the men in Lot's house.
We know the visitors in Lots house were angels but evidently the men of Sodom didnt.
We dont know whether their orientation was heterosexual or homosexual, but I assume from the fact they wanted sex with the men they were homosexual or bi-sexual. but your cited statement is right we dont know, this is the problem with esisegis and adding modern cultural assumptions to the text and context just to try and prove a point.

the rest of the assumptions are built upon assumptions.[/SIZE]

Your post consists of assumptions upon assumptions, but some of us do know and have actually studied this topic and can show from the writings of the Hebrew scholars from the time of Moses to the present and the writings of the early church, first 300 years, not your imagined "esisegis [sic] and adding modern cultural assumptions" that the ancients clearly knew what the sin of Sodom was.

Let us look at Jude, for example.

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.

Jud 1:7 &#969;&#962; 5613 ADV &#963;&#959;&#948;&#959;&#956;&#945; 4670 N-NPN &#954;&#945;&#953; 2532 CONJ &#947;&#959;&#956;&#959;&#961;&#961;&#945; 1116 N-NSF &#954;&#945;&#953; 2532 CONJ &#945;&#953; 3588 T-NPF &#960;&#949;&#961;&#953; 4012 PREP &#945;&#965;&#964;&#945;&#962; 846 P-APF &#960;&#959;&#955;&#949;&#953;&#962; 4172 N-NPF &#964;&#959;&#957; 3588 T-ASM &#959;&#956;&#959;&#953;&#959;&#957; 3664 A-ASM &#964;&#959;&#965;&#964;&#959;&#953;&#962; 5125 D-DPM &#964;&#961;&#959;&#960;&#959;&#957; 5158 N-ASM &#949;&#954;&#960;&#959;&#961;&#957;&#949;&#965;&#963;&#945;&#963;&#945;&#953; 1608 V-AAP-NPF &#954;&#945;&#953; 2532 CONJ &#945;&#960;&#949;&#955;&#952;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#945;&#953; 565 V-2AAP-NPF &#959;&#960;&#953;&#963;&#969; 3694 ADV &#963;&#945;&#961;&#954;&#959;&#962; 4561 N-GSF &#949;&#964;&#949;&#961;&#945;&#962; 2087 A-GSF &#960;&#961;&#959;&#954;&#949;&#953;&#957;&#964;&#945;&#953;4295 V-PNI-3P &#948;&#949;&#953;&#947;&#956;&#945;1164 N-ASN &#960;&#965;&#961;&#959;&#962;4442 N-GSN &#945;&#953;&#969;&#957;&#953;&#959;&#965;166 A-GSN &#948;&#953;&#954;&#951;&#957;1349 N-ASF &#965;&#960;&#949;&#967;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#945;&#953;5254 V-PAP-NPF ​

The verbs translated “giving themselves over to fornication” i.e. &#949;&#954;&#960;&#959;&#961;&#957;&#949;&#965;&#963;&#945;&#963;&#945;&#953; and “going after,” i.e. &#945;&#960;&#949;&#955;&#952;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#945;&#953; are AAP and 2AAP, respectively, aorist, active, participle, an action began in the past continuing into the future. God knew of Sodom's sins when he talked with Abraham before going to Sodom. The perverts of Sodom were prevented from completing any action against the angels, by blindness, and certainly did not do anything with any flesh afterward.

From the time Moses delivered the law, to the Israelites, ca. 1200 BC, until the present, Jewish scholars interpreted the O.T. scriptures as condemning ALL same gender sex acts; by ALL persons, male and female; at ALL times, in ALL places, and under ALL circumstances, NO exceptions or exclusions. The early church fathers also interpreted the N.T. scriptures as condemning ALL homosexual acts, with NO exceptions or exclusions.

The ancient Jewish scholars and the ECF did NOT even mention, and did NOT limit the condemnation of homosexual acts to, “homosexual rape,”“temple prostitution,”“enslaved boy prostitutes,”“effete, jaded Roman nobles,” pagan temples and/or pagan religious activities!

Recent posts: Evidence from Talmud, and other ancient Jewish writings, Link

Evidence from early church fathers, Link

This evidence spans approximately 1500 years of church history, from 1200 BC through 300 AD.

 

[Brieuse]

Der Alter, you are posting off topic.

I am referring specifically to Clement of Alexander. Be patient, it took me long enough to make this topic, and I shall get to the others. I promise.

I have read through his entire chapters. You are making several conclusions out of nothing. He spoke about men with boys and he spoke about men who make themselves "pretty" for other men and women. Nothing, absolutely nothing, nada about loving monogamous homosexual relationships.

Go back read the chapters. The only way you can come to any conclusion that it is referring to homosexual men and their nature in the entirety is by taking a symbolic/non-literal approach to the chapters. That approach I have been condemned by this forum in general for taking.

The evidence is all there, for you to read. Now, specifically, where in the chapters written by Clement of Alexander were homosexuals condemned in their entirety?

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Der Alter, you are posting off topic.

I am referring specifically to Clement of Alexander. Be patient, it took me long enough to make this topic, and I shall get to the others. I promise.[/SIZE]

I wasn't talking to you. You are not the only person posting in this thread. Don't bother addressing any of the other fathers.

[SIZE=-1]I have read through his entire chapters. You are making several conclusions out of nothing. He spoke about men with boys and he spoke about men who make themselves "pretty" for other men and women. Nothing, absolutely nothing, nada about loving monogamous homosexual relationships.[/SIZE]

You keep repeating the same out-of-context two points and keep ignoring the rest of writing.

I am aware that Clement addressed men with boys and men who "embellish" themselves, but surely you cannot be so blind that you cannot see he addressed the other points I posted. If you cannot read and understand what I posted there is no point in continuing I see no point in talking to a wall.

[SIZE=-1]Go back read the chapters. The only way you can come to any conclusion that it is referring to homosexual men and their nature in the entirety is by taking a symbolic/non-literal approach to the chapters. That approach I have been condemned by this forum in general for taking.[/SIZE]

You go back and read, I quoted several sections IN CONTEXT, there is nothing symbolic about them, you keep ignoring them because they blow your assumptions and presuppositions completely away.

[SIZE=-1]The evidence is all there, for you to read. Now, specifically, where in the chapters written by Clement of Alexander were homosexuals condemned in their entirety?[/SIZE]

Even dave's cut/paste from homosexuals-&#1103;-us.com® in this thread "False Translation of the word "homosexual" - 1 Cor 6:9" admits that Clement condemns homosexuality and even calls him homophobic. Specifically Post #103

Isn't husband and wife a loving monogamous relationship? Now tell me you can't see that?

[SIZE=+1]Clement of Alexandria The Instructor. [Paedagogus.] Book III [153 - 217 AD]

The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast His eye on them. . . .Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.iii.html

Clement of Alexandria Exhortation To The Heathen

And what are the laws? “Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not seduce boys; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt love the Lord thy God.” And the complements of these are those laws of reason and words of sanctity which are inscribed on men’s hearts: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; to him who strikes thee on the cheek, present also the other;” “thou shalt not lust, for by lust alone thou hast committed adultery.”

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.ii.html

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1

But life has reached this pitch of licentiousness through the wantonness of wickedness, and lasciviousness is diffused over the cities, having become law. Beside them women stand in the stews, offering their own flesh for hire for lewd pleasure, and boys, taught to deny their sex, act the part of women. Luxury has deranged all things; it has disgraced man. A luxurious niceness seeks everything, attempts everything, forces everything, coerces nature. Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature; women are at once wives and husbands: no passage is closed against libidinousness; [i.e. every possible body orifice is used for “lechery”/“libidinousness.”] and their promiscuous lechery is a public institution, and luxury is domesticated.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.i.html

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor - Pedagogos Book 3
Chapter 3
Against Men Who Embellish Themselves

Such was predicted of old, and the result is notorious: the whole earth has now become full of fornication and wickedness. I admire the ancient legislators of the Romans: these detested effeminacy of conduct; and the giving of the body to feminine purposes, contrary to the law of nature, they judged worthy of the extremest penalty, according to the righteousness of the law.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.iii.html
[/SIZE]​

 

[davedjy]

Your post consists of assumptions upon assumptions, but some of us do know and have actually studied this topic and can show from the writings of the Hebrew scholars from the time of Moses to the present and the writings of the early church, first 300 years, not your imagined "esisegis [sic] and adding modern cultural assumptions" that the ancients clearly knew what the sin of Sodom was.

Let us look at Jude, for example.

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.

Jud 1:7 &#969;&#962; 5613 ADV &#963;&#959;&#948;&#959;&#956;&#945; 4670 N-NPN &#954;&#945;&#953; 2532 CONJ &#947;&#959;&#956;&#959;&#961;&#961;&#945; 1116 N-NSF &#954;&#945;&#953; 2532 CONJ &#945;&#953; 3588 T-NPF &#960;&#949;&#961;&#953; 4012 PREP &#945;&#965;&#964;&#945;&#962; 846 P-APF &#960;&#959;&#955;&#949;&#953;&#962; 4172 N-NPF &#964;&#959;&#957; 3588 T-ASM &#959;&#956;&#959;&#953;&#959;&#957; 3664 A-ASM &#964;&#959;&#965;&#964;&#959;&#953;&#962; 5125 D-DPM &#964;&#961;&#959;&#960;&#959;&#957; 5158 N-ASM &#949;&#954;&#960;&#959;&#961;&#957;&#949;&#965;&#963;&#945;&#963;&#945;&#953; 1608 V-AAP-NPF &#954;&#945;&#953; 2532 CONJ &#945;&#960;&#949;&#955;&#952;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#945;&#953; 565 V-2AAP-NPF &#959;&#960;&#953;&#963;&#969; 3694 ADV &#963;&#945;&#961;&#954;&#959;&#962; 4561 N-GSF &#949;&#964;&#949;&#961;&#945;&#962; 2087 A-GSF &#960;&#961;&#959;&#954;&#949;&#953;&#957;&#964;&#945;&#953;4295 V-PNI-3P &#948;&#949;&#953;&#947;&#956;&#945;1164 N-ASN &#960;&#965;&#961;&#959;&#962;4442 N-GSN &#945;&#953;&#969;&#957;&#953;&#959;&#965;166 A-GSN &#948;&#953;&#954;&#951;&#957;1349 N-ASF &#965;&#960;&#949;&#967;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#945;&#953;5254 V-PAP-NPF ​

The verbs translated “giving themselves over to fornication” i.e. &#949;&#954;&#960;&#959;&#961;&#957;&#949;&#965;&#963;&#945;&#963;&#945;&#953; and “going after,” i.e. &#945;&#960;&#949;&#955;&#952;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#945;&#953; are AAP and 2AAP, respectively, aorist, active, participle, an action began in the past continuing into the future. God knew of Sodom's sins when he talked with Abraham before going to Sodom. The perverts of Sodom were prevented from completing any action against the angels, by blindness, and certainly did not do anything with any flesh afterward.

From the time Moses delivered the law, to the Israelites, ca. 1200 BC, until the present, Jewish scholars interpreted the O.T. scriptures as condemning ALL same gender sex acts; by ALL persons, male and female; at ALL times, in ALL places, and under ALL circumstances, NO exceptions or exclusions. The early church fathers also interpreted the N.T. scriptures as condemning ALL homosexual acts, with NO exceptions or exclusions.

The ancient Jewish scholars and the ECF did NOT even mention, and did NOT limit the condemnation of homosexual acts to, “homosexual rape,”“temple prostitution,”“enslaved boy prostitutes,”“effete, jaded Roman nobles,” pagan temples and/or pagan religious activities!

Recent posts: Evidence from Talmud, and other ancient Jewish writings, Link

Evidence from early church fathers, Link

This evidence spans approximately 1500 years of church history, from 1200 BC through 300 AD.

More false doctrine quoting from you!


MYTH #2: The Old Testament teaches that God destroyed an entire city because of homosexuality.

FACT: Even a cursory reading of the story of Sodom in Genesis 18 &19 makes this myth ludicrous. First of all, in Genesis Chapter 18, God appears to have decided to destroy the city before the infamous "homosexual" act with angels was attempted.

However, God promised Abraham that He would not destroy the city if there were at least 10 righteous people (gender is not specified) living within its city limits (Gen 18:32). The fact that the city was destroyed means that not even 10 righteous people, male or female, could be found. To assume that every remaining person was a homosexual is absurd. In Chapter 19, verses 4 and 5, we are told that "the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, &#8216;Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out that we may know them.&#8217;" The NRSV says "the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. The idea that every single man in the entire city was a homosexual is preposterous.

Furthermore, in over 40 references to Sodom in the Scriptures, not one of these makes specific reference to homosexuality. If homosexuality were the "sin of Sodom," you would think that there would be at least one! In fact, there is one very specific reference to what Sodom&#8217;s sin actually was: Ezekiel 16:49,50 says, "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. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen" (NIV). If homosexuality was the "sin of Sodom," this was Ezekiel&#8217;s perfect opportunity to declare that fact and he blew it!

http://www.opendoorcenter.com/myths_&_facts.htm

 

[davedjy]

Your post consists of assumptions upon assumptions, but some of us do know and have actually studied this topic and can show from the writings of the Hebrew scholars from the time of Moses to the present and the writings of the early church, first 300 years, not your imagined "esisegis [sic] and adding modern cultural assumptions" that the ancients clearly knew what the sin of Sodom was.

Let us look at Jude, for example.

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.

Jud 1:7 &#969;&#962; 5613 ADV &#963;&#959;&#948;&#959;&#956;&#945; 4670 N-NPN &#954;&#945;&#953; 2532 CONJ &#947;&#959;&#956;&#959;&#961;&#961;&#945; 1116 N-NSF &#954;&#945;&#953; 2532 CONJ &#945;&#953; 3588 T-NPF &#960;&#949;&#961;&#953; 4012 PREP &#945;&#965;&#964;&#945;&#962; 846 P-APF &#960;&#959;&#955;&#949;&#953;&#962; 4172 N-NPF &#964;&#959;&#957; 3588 T-ASM &#959;&#956;&#959;&#953;&#959;&#957; 3664 A-ASM &#964;&#959;&#965;&#964;&#959;&#953;&#962; 5125 D-DPM &#964;&#961;&#959;&#960;&#959;&#957; 5158 N-ASM &#949;&#954;&#960;&#959;&#961;&#957;&#949;&#965;&#963;&#945;&#963;&#945;&#953; 1608 V-AAP-NPF &#954;&#945;&#953; 2532 CONJ &#945;&#960;&#949;&#955;&#952;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#945;&#953; 565 V-2AAP-NPF &#959;&#960;&#953;&#963;&#969; 3694 ADV &#963;&#945;&#961;&#954;&#959;&#962; 4561 N-GSF &#949;&#964;&#949;&#961;&#945;&#962; 2087 A-GSF &#960;&#961;&#959;&#954;&#949;&#953;&#957;&#964;&#945;&#953;4295 V-PNI-3P &#948;&#949;&#953;&#947;&#956;&#945;1164 N-ASN &#960;&#965;&#961;&#959;&#962;4442 N-GSN &#945;&#953;&#969;&#957;&#953;&#959;&#965;166 A-GSN &#948;&#953;&#954;&#951;&#957;1349 N-ASF &#965;&#960;&#949;&#967;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#945;&#953;5254 V-PAP-NPF ​

The verbs translated “giving themselves over to fornication” i.e. &#949;&#954;&#960;&#959;&#961;&#957;&#949;&#965;&#963;&#945;&#963;&#945;&#953; and “going after,” i.e. &#945;&#960;&#949;&#955;&#952;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#945;&#953; are AAP and 2AAP, respectively, aorist, active, participle, an action began in the past continuing into the future. God knew of Sodom's sins when he talked with Abraham before going to Sodom. The perverts of Sodom were prevented from completing any action against the angels, by blindness, and certainly did not do anything with any flesh afterward.

From the time Moses delivered the law, to the Israelites, ca. 1200 BC, until the present, Jewish scholars interpreted the O.T. scriptures as condemning ALL same gender sex acts; by ALL persons, male and female; at ALL times, in ALL places, and under ALL circumstances, NO exceptions or exclusions. The early church fathers also interpreted the N.T. scriptures as condemning ALL homosexual acts, with NO exceptions or exclusions.

The ancient Jewish scholars and the ECF did NOT even mention, and did NOT limit the condemnation of homosexual acts to, “homosexual rape,”“temple prostitution,”“enslaved boy prostitutes,”“effete, jaded Roman nobles,” pagan temples and/or pagan religious activities!

Recent posts: Evidence from Talmud, and other ancient Jewish writings, Link

Evidence from early church fathers, Link

This evidence spans approximately 1500 years of church history, from 1200 BC through 300 AD.

Strange flesh


In like manner the entire male population of Sodom (physical beings) wanted to rape these angelic messengers (spiritual beings). This was something that not only was a horrific crime but like Jude, out of the natural order of things. We can only imagine the supernatural power such spiritual beings have. Who is mortal man to stand in their way if God did not restrain them, or us, from such liaisons? We can only speculate that the men of Sodom hoped to receive some sort of supernatural power from these unearthly visitors by raping them. Remember - the primary religions of the day were the fertility cults that believed, as part of their religious rites, that sexual relations with another somehow conveyed a portion of that person&#8217;s strength and power to you. In the case of temple prostitutes, having sex with one would convey to the participant a blessing from the god the temple prostitute was a proxy for.

http://gaychurch.org/Gay_and_Christian_YES/7f%20-%20gac%20-%20clobber%20pasasges%20-%20strange%20flesh%20(1).htm