Is it possible that conservatives really don't know much about the Bible...

[Dale]

Seebs in post #72:
<< . Anyone familiar with period Koine Greek ready to give a reasonable discourse on the question of what that word did or didn't mean when Paul wrote it? >>
*
I'll have to point out that the passage I quoted was from Acts, written by Luke, not Paul. I accept DRA's explanation, in post #74, of what it means.

 

[Dale]

Marlow in post #6:
<< I think its very likely that Conservatives don't know the Bible as well as they like to make out. When I hear thenm say 'The Bible has never been disproved by Science' or 'everything in Genesis has been shown to be true' I quote Genesis 1. 14 to 16 , which is impossible to sustain today. I usually don't hear from them again! >>
*
Genesis 1:14-16:
"And God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.' And it was so. God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."
*
This passage says that God the Creator made the Sun, moon and stars and that the Sun and moon provide light for the earth. I would consider this to be a most uncontroversial passage and I have no idea why any Christian would question it.
*
Marlow, if no one answers you when you question this passage in Genesis, it may be because you are asking silly questions.

 

[- DRA -]

Well, gang-raping them certainly was.

Root of homosexual: HOMOS
Root of heterosexual: HETEROS
Greek text in Jude: HETEROS SARX

It feels like a stretch.

Basically, it would have been incredibly odd to refer to "same flesh" as "strange flesh". Makes no sense at all.

Given the "natural" order of sexual orientation (Rom. 1:26-27), it is strange . . . and "shameful" (verse 27) . . . for men to desire other men sexually.

Gen. 19:5 presents men desiring men (at least, they thought they were men). While it is true that the angels were strangers or aliens and not natives of that area, we still have to realize that it is strange behavior for men to desire other men sexually. It goes against nature.

We currently use the term homosexuality to refer to people who are sexually oriented to people of their own gender . . . with heterosexuality referring to people who are sexually oriented to people of the opposite gender. The men of Sodom had "gone after strange flesh." The word Koine Greek word heteros means "other". We are told what they were after in Gen. 19:5. Rather than following the natural course of sexuality, they went after other flesh - - rather than men desiring women sexually, the men of Sodom desired other men. That is strange behavior. It is also a characteristic - - not the sole characteristic, but still a characteristic that cannot be ignored - - of an unrighteous people (Gen. 18:17-33).

We should not overlook the admonition in the latter part of Jude 7 - [The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities] "are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

 

[Perceivence]

Jude speaks as though it were an example of their behavior. He doesn't seak as though it were the only one, but...

But...?

And that's what I was wondering.... He mentions "going after strange flesh" as one of the sinful acts they did that deserved the punishment that they received.

It's unidiomatic. It would fit better with, say, bestiality, or going after angels, and better still (in context) with raping foreigners.

Unidiomatic? Not really. If one considers heterosexual relationships as natural, then any other type would be unnatural or "strange."

I think it does, because he was writing in the language from which we got them.

Well if "strange flesh" is "HETEROS SARX" and "heterosexual" is derived from "HETEROS," are you saying that "strange flesh" and "heterosexual [flesh]" are related in this sense?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Given the "natural" order of sexual orientation (Rom. 1:26-27), it is strange . . . and "shameful" (verse 27) . . . for men to desire other men sexually.

Gen. 19:5 presents men desiring men (at least, they thought they were men). While it is true that the angels were strangers or aliens and not natives of that area, we still have to realize that it is strange behavior for men to desire other men sexually. It goes against nature.

We currently use the term homosexuality to refer to people who are sexually oriented to people of their own gender . . . with heterosexuality referring to people who are sexually oriented to people of the opposite gender. The men of Sodom had "gone after strange flesh." The word Koine Greek word heteros means "other". We are told what they were after in Gen. 19:5. Rather than following the natural course of sexuality, they went after other flesh - - rather than men desiring women sexually, the men of Sodom desired other men. That is strange behavior. It is also a characteristic - - not the sole characteristic, but still a characteristic that cannot be ignored - - of an unrighteous people (Gen. 18:17-33).

We should not overlook the admonition in the latter part of Jude 7 - [The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities] "are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

You are using an anachronistic view of natural law. The idea of a natural law did not come to prominence until the Middle Ages.

 

[Dale]

Seebs in post #12:
<< You can provide three thousand years of consistent understanding of, say, the Sodom story, and a week later, it's back to being what would be most convenient for someone's argument, even though it's been shown to be wrong, and worse than wrong, over and over. >>
*
You are not too clear on what you mean here. Christians have always taken the Sodom story to mean homosexual behavior. Remember the movie, The Bible, from the 1960's? There the people of Sodom were shown as engaging in both homosexuality and bestiality. Where do you think the words "sodomy" and "sodomite" came from?
*
I am aware that historically many Rabbis thought that part of the problem at Sodom was inhospitality to strangers. That makes sense and it fits with the customs of the time it happened. It helps explain why Lot was willing to take such extreme measures to protect men who had taken refuge under his roof. Inhospitality being part of the problem doesn't change the fact that the Sodom story obviously condemns homosexuality.
*
It is possible that medieval Rabbis looked for some other element in the Sodom story because they did not think they lived in a society where homosexuality was a problem.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Seebs in post #12:
<< You can provide three thousand years of consistent understanding of, say, the Sodom story, and a week later, it's back to being what would be most convenient for someone's argument, even though it's been shown to be wrong, and worse than wrong, over and over. >>
*
You are not too clear on what you mean here. Christians have always taken the Sodom story to mean homosexual behavior. Remember the movie, The Bible, from the 1960's? There the people of Sodom were shown as engaging in both homosexuality and bestiality. Where do you think the words "sodomy" and "sodomite" came from?
*
I am aware that historically many Rabbis thought that part of the problem at Sodom was inhospitality to strangers. That makes sense and it fits with the customs of the time it happened. It helps explain why Lot was willing to take such extreme measures to protect men who had taken refuge under his roof. Inhospitality being part of the problem doesn't change the fact that the Sodom story obviously condemns homosexuality.
*
It is possible that medieval Rabbis looked for some other element in the Sodom story because they did not think they lived in a society where homosexuality was a problem.

The Judeo-Christian interpretation of this passage goes back much farther than movies in the 1960's. The connection to homosexuality did not even come up in Jewish thought until 100BC - AD100. It did not become widespread in Christian understanding until the Middle Ages.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Given the "natural" order of sexual orientation (Rom. 1:26-27), it is strange . . . and "shameful" (verse 27) . . . for men to desire other men sexually.

Gen. 19:5 presents men desiring men (at least, they thought they were men). While it is true that the angels were strangers or aliens and not natives of that area, we still have to realize that it is strange behavior for men to desire other men sexually. It goes against nature.

We currently use the term homosexuality to refer to people who are sexually oriented to people of their own gender . . . with heterosexuality referring to people who are sexually oriented to people of the opposite gender. The men of Sodom had "gone after strange flesh." The word Koine Greek word heteros means "other". We are told what they were after in Gen. 19:5. Rather than following the natural course of sexuality, they went after other flesh - - rather than men desiring women sexually, the men of Sodom desired other men. That is strange behavior. It is also a characteristic - - not the sole characteristic, but still a characteristic that cannot be ignored - - of an unrighteous people (Gen. 18:17-33).

We should not overlook the admonition in the latter part of Jude 7 - [The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities] "are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

You are using an anachronistic view of natural law. The idea of a natural law did not come to prominence until the Middle Ages.

The view that I am using is the one delared in Rom. 1:26-27 - - but one that our early fathers apparently had no trouble figuring out e.g. see Gen. 4:1,17,25, and so on in chapter 5. The first departure from this natural orientation is found in Genesis chapter 19. I am under the direct impression that God was not exactly pleased by this unnatural characteristic of the men of Sodom.

 

[artybloke]

Remember the movie, The Bible, from the 1960's? There the people of Sodom were shown as engaging in both homosexuality and bestiality.

You're using a movie from the 1960's as evidence that this what the church has always taught? The church has been around a bit longer than that. Now, could we have a quote from, say, the early church fathers that says it's about homosexuality? Probably not, as they didn't have a word for it, but if you can twist the Bible to say what it doesn't, I'm sure you can twist one of the fathers of the church to say what you want them to say. Just get out your scissors and paste; that's the usual fundamentalist method of Biblical criticism, isn't it?

 

[seebs]

You are not too clear on what you mean here. Christians have always taken the Sodom story to mean homosexual behavior. Remember the movie, The Bible, from the 1960's? There the people of Sodom were shown as engaging in both homosexuality and bestiality. Where do you think the words "sodomy" and "sodomite" came from?

I think they came from the late Medieval period.

While there is considerable debate in theological circles about the age of the earth, most people will say that it's a fair bit more than forty years.

It is possible that Christians in 1960 believed a lot of weird stuff that would have been seen as heresy, idolatry, blasphemy, or just plain silly, by the early Church.

I am aware that historically many Rabbis thought that part of the problem at Sodom was inhospitality to strangers. That makes sense and it fits with the customs of the time it happened. It helps explain why Lot was willing to take such extreme measures to protect men who had taken refuge under his roof. Inhospitality being part of the problem doesn't change the fact that the Sodom story obviously condemns homosexuality.

Except that there's not even a hint of discussion of homosexuality in the story. All it talks about is rape.

Do you think that Judges 19 "obviously condemns heterosexuality", or do you correctly note that, in fact, gang rape is morally wrong?

It is possible that medieval Rabbis looked for some other element in the Sodom story because they did not think they lived in a society where homosexuality was a problem.

It is possible that you have not read any Rabbinical commentaries on the story, nor the passages in the Bible which refer back to Sodom. I would go so far as to call it "likely".

 

[- DRA -]

Except that there's not even a hint of discussion of homosexuality in the story. All it talks about is rape.

Do you think that Judges 19 "obviously condemns heterosexuality", or do you correctly note that, in fact, gang rape is morally wrong?

In all fairness with the story of the Sodom in Genesis chapter 19, the story does not specifically say that homosexuality was involved . . . but neither does it say that rape was involved. Look closely and you will find neither of those words in that story. Nevertheless, men who wanted to have sexual relations with other men is homosexuality (verse 5), and men who would break down a door to force men to have sexual relations with them against their will is rape (verse 9).

No, I do NOT believe the story in Judges chapter 19 condemns heterosexuality. It was God's plan in the beginning (Gen. 2:24) that man take a wife and become one flesh with her. Jesus taught that this was the foundation for marriage in Matt. 19:4-6. The writer of Hebrews offers God's view of sexual relations in marriage . . . and outside of marriage (Heb. 13:4).

Is the story in Judges 19 solely about heterosexuality? Look closely at the text. Doesn't the story reveal the original focus of the men of Gibeah's desires? Wasn't that focus originally on the Levite, and not on the man's concubine?