God Hates Gays...

Remove all ads!

On one hand sins of the flesh are portrayed as some of the heaviest ones. On the other hand, corrupt clerics and officials pose much more problem in the Gospel than harlots do. Personally, I'm inclined to make difference between misguided love and a mere pursuit of sexual gratification. Next, as I pointed out, some Christian churches are doing a great job holding to the hetero tenets but somehow they don't mind turning a blind eye to the passages about fornication, telling their members it's okay if it feels good.

Wasn't it actually called abomination in Leviticus?

He scattered them but He didn't harm them in any way save what they lost by the merchandise being scattered.

There's a difference between such matters as what you wear and such matters as who you sleep with. Plus, there's no other sex allowed in the Bible save in marriage, so it can't be okay anyway.

 

A point of correction to the initial post:

Rev. Phelps is a Democrat.

 

First off, homosexuals are not abominations, but what they do is. God loves all his children, but doesn't always approve of everything we do. He loves the homosexuals, but loathes their sins.

Secondly, their sins are none of my business. It is not my responsibility to know what guys are sleeping with what other guys, and frankly, I don't want that knowledge. Their sins are between themselves, their partners and God (and maybe whatever priesthood authority they go to when they choose to confess and forsake those sins).

I seek not to degrade this minority, but I choose not to promote their choice either.

I know that was directed at Chev, but I'll answer to that myself. None at all. The lord has spoken, and will not withdraw what he has spoken. We can choose to obey and try to live accordingly, or we can reject and do as we please, but know that we are to be held accountable for our sins.

I don't hate gays, but I am constantly frustrated by their insistance on forcing their chosen way of life in our face, and their desire to re-align social mores so that their sins are accepted by the majority. The Bible forbids hatred as well, but that is harder to obey than the forbidance on homosexuality. If some Christians consider themselves superior to homosexuals, and hate them, it's because they are struggling with a more challenging commandment...

WEll, I remember something in Isaiah that said that there would be more scriptures coming forth in the Latter Days, but again they'd be from the same God, and it would not change the parts that you object to, so I guess I had to burst your bubble there...

Actually, I understand that to mean man in a gender-neutral way, and that same sex relations are condemned equally for women as they are for men.

No, that's Satan trying to lure them to sin. Same sex attraction is a temptation, and all temptation comes from Satan.

That's why God created Women. Man is NOT meant to be alone (this directly from God trumps any interpretation of Paul that praioses celebacy). As a result God Created woman to be a companion and helpmate for him. He didn't create a second man for that...

Same Sex Rights and abortion are emotional minefields. It is very easy to forget the wisdom and guidance offered in the bible when defending these points. However, as Chev pointed out, Jesus told his diciples that if they loved him they were to obey his commandments, and such blatant contempt for one of our loved ones is a strong provokation, thus wrath difficult to resist.

Is this stance, that all sexual sins are abominations more palatable to those that oppose our stance on Homosexuality (meaning less hypocritical)? Further, Chev has hit the biggest threat to religion as a whole--those that abuse religion to gain wealth and power. But that last bit is way off topic...

 

This issue is very simple to resolve if you understand the actual position of the Bible. The Bible clearly states in both the new and old testaments that homosexuality is a sin. Sin is wrong and God hates sin. Sins are not the people who commit them. God loves these people in spite of their sins. Also, and a very important point that many people miss, homosexuality is no better or worse than any other sin. Homosexuals are not diseased or contageous. Homosexuality, just like all love and oh so many other things, is a choice. You are not born homosexual, you choose it. I don't site any research for this, just the fact that love of any kind is a choice, not just an emotion. You can choose to love or not love anyone in any way, some may be harder than others, but it is still a choice. The church in general needs to open its doors to homosexuals, just like they do to drug addicts, alcoholics, prostitutes, and any other sinner, including you, whoever you are.
Christians, remember, you are sinners, too. The only part of you that is better than them is the forgiven part, and you didn't do squat to get that, so offer it to them the same way it was offered to you.
P.S. People need to read the Bible in context. Jews in Jesus's time had no problem expressing brotherly love to others of the same gender. The disciple Jesus loved and a beloved servant just mean they were loved as brothers. In fact, if you look at the original Greek it was written in, the verb translated "loved" or "beloved" only refers to brotherly love. People need to pay attention to details like this.

 

So nice of someone else to bring up translations, I’ve brought them up twice in the past and so far I’ve been ignored by the oppsing team.

Maybe this time…

OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis 19

The Tale of Sodom

Loosley translated as Two Angels being sent to Lot, a male mob wanting to rape them, and Lot offering his two virgin daughters up instead (which was declined)

Two items:

1.) Translation of the Hebrew word “anshei” as men, to indicate it was men intent on rape, in Hebrew, the word is usually meant to represent “people” meaning that the “mob” was likely to be Men and Women.
2.) Translation of the Hebrew word “Ya’da”. This appears 943 times in the Old Testament and though in can mean to “know” in a sexual sense (as is used in most translations of Genesis 19) it is mostly used as knowing facts.

Sodom had just been at war and it’s not too much of a leap of intelligence to see that the people of the city might have been suspicious and wanting to know who these strangers were. I would argue it is inconclusive to state it was an attack on homosexuality. And as the Shaman notes, is no generally regarded as such by modern scholars, or indeed by ancient Ezekiel. This is born out by other references to Sodom in the bible which make no reference to homosexuality – Isaiah 1, Jeremiah 23, Ezekiel 16, Mathew 10 and a few others.


Leviticus 18 and 20.

The great Leviticus, the laughing stock of the bible. Far too easy to dismiss for it’s prohibitions on harvesting the corners of fields, eating fruit from a young tree, shaving or getting a hair cut, and collecting firewood on a Saturday to prevent your family from freezing. On the other hand it does allow Slavery, and requires the burning to death of prostitutes, and the ritual slaying of animals (Cattle Sheep and Goats). None-the-less, it is a very clear reference for men to not sleep with other men.

Deuteronomy 23:17 and 1 Kings 14:24

Only the King James version here, which refers to Sodomite. This is a mistranslation of the word “Qadesh” which in actual fact should be translated as cult or temple prostitute and probably refers to the practice in Pagan temples. Other versions have translated it as such.

Judges 19 and 1 Kings 14
Very similar story to that in Genesis, with similar misconstruing of the word “Ya’da” The supposedly homosexual mob are given the Levites concubine and rape her instead. (Which apparently was not a bad thing to do and neither he nor they are punished by God for it.)

NEW TESTAMENT

1 Corinthains 6:9, Romans 1:28, 1 Timothy 1 9:10

This time we have translations from the Greek.
Malkoi Arsenokoitai. Despite the obvious connotations of the latter (snigger snigger, school boy humour) neither of these actually translates directly as Homosexual. The standard Ancient Greek word for homosexual was in fact Paiderasste. (From where we get Pederast surprisingly enough). Malkoi is generally translated as “Soft”, but the meaning of Arsenokoitai has been lost in the annals of time, but in chronological order has been translated as: morals (Early Church – Soft Morals = unethical), temple prostitutes (again early church, presumably meaning a Church of the Pagan variety, see Qadesh above), Masturbators (Martin Luthur era) In fact, it wasn’t translated to Homosexuality until around the 19th/20th century.

Further Reading

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm


Interestingly NOG, the word used for the Centurions young male servant, in Mathew is “Pais” and is actually more likely to refer to homosexual love (i.e. from Paiderasste) than from brotherly love. In Luke, the word used is “doulos” which is a generic term for a servant.

 

Even if that were so, there would still be a problem of it being a lover, not a spouse. The Bible condemns any sex out of marriage.

As for Sodom, why would Lot have offered his daughters to the mob for raping if the mob had only wanted to know his guests in a non-sexual way? What connection would there be? I can't see any.

What about Benjaminites getting slaughtered for homosexual rape? Don't remember which book it was, though.

 

Idle curiosity, but does God, according to scripture, actually hate anything?

 

Thank you Carcaroth for the enlightenmnet. I don't personally speak or read either Greek or Hebrew, but both my father and older brother do. My brother is currently working on his doctorate in divinity, so much of my information comes from discusions with the two of them. This also provides an inderesting array of perspectives and prompts me to do some research on my own.
Chev:

Jesus also refused to stone an adulteress and instead told her "Go and sin no more." He also asked for water from another adulteress at a well and, while telling her all her sins, did not condemn her. Jesus offers forgiveness and mercy, not wrath and condemnation.
AMaster:
Yes, God repeatedly states that He hates sin, both in general and in specific, most comonly dealing with Israel's turning to other gods and the practice of human sacrifices. God also gets angry, jelous, and at one point, even says He regrets making man. God is neither the emotionless overseer or the wholely benevolent and eternally forgiving feeling He is so often portrayed as today. The God of the old testament, who destroyed Sodom and Gomorah completely, is also the God of the new testament, who gave His own son as payment for our sins. He is not by any means simple.

 

That's my favourite part. "Go and sin no more".

He didn't tell her "go and try to behave" but "go and sin no more". His forgiveness can't be used to justify the sin or make it lesser in any way.

 

Exactly, Repentance is not only confessing the sin, but forsaking it also. Only after forsaking the sin can you truly be forgiven.

 

Chev,
I accept that is the general concensus. (To be honest, I've never seen the exact quote that says this though), although the old testament has examples of polygamy and concubines which don't appear to be criticised. Regardless, you just don't get the extreme views attacking heterosexual sex outside of marriage as you do with the homosexual attacks by religious nutters such as the "God Hates Gays". Maybe it's the media coverage, but the Catholic church always seems more vociferous about homosexuality than other out-of-marriage sex. I'd be reasonably confident that the majority of times the Bible is raised on this site is to do with attacks on homosexuality and not on consenting heterosexual sex outside of marriage. Why? because it probably applies to the majority of people in the world now and therefore such views would be largely ignored.

Now I'm not saying that the Church should change it's views on sex outside of marriage. But the falsified text in the Bible that is responsible for the attacks on Homosexuality should be translated correctly.

Of course the "Sex outside of Marriage" raises another question, which is currently the discussion of another topic. My question is simply, given the fact that (other than Leviticus) there doesn't appear to be any complete and obviously direct references to homosexuality. Does the Bible at any point state that marriage can ONLY be between a man and woman? The word "Only" being the important one.

And if the mob was intent on rape, why did they decline? If it was a "homosexual" mob, why did he offer his daughters in the first place? Why on earth was it deemed acceptable by the Angels and God for him to offer his daughters for rape? As I've said, the text is totally inconclusive from a homosexual point of view, but has been translated to reflect the predjudicies of the translator.

Edit

I believe the Benjaminites are those from the quote from Judges.


NOG

What a superb resource. Unsurprisingly, I don't read Greek or Hebrew either so my sources are mostly online. Although I try and stay clear of any obviously prejudiced sites (either way), I don't really have any means of authenticating them so I'd be really interested to hear what your family think.

Here's another useful link, from the Canadian Lutheran Church, haven't had time to read it all though.

http://www.elcic.ca/docs/2005/freytag.pdf

Another interesting point though, from Jude when refering to Sodom. This uses the text "sarkos heteras" which has been translated as sexual immorality and pursuing unnatural lust, i.e. homosexuality. It actually translates directly as strange/alien flesh - Well they were Angels after all!

A strange aside: "Heteras" could be where the English Hetero (as in sexual) comes from.

[ September 14, 2005, 15:45: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

Chev, you are forgetting about betrothal. A betrothed couple could have sex and not be punished. This is why Joseph had the option of having Mary stoned -- her being pregnant while betrothed was not a big deal -- that Joseph was not the father made the issue punishable by stoning.

 

@T2Bruno: Ah, you are raising an important point. I could go on a bit about the evolution of the legal construct of marriage, but I don't want to bore you to death. Let's just say a betrothed couple wasn't punished for sex but having sex consumed their betrothal and they they were married. That's how you had marriage in the ancient Israel -- but in mediaeval German culture, as well. It survives in the contemporary Catholic Church where validly contracted but not consumated marriage can be dissolved by the Pope. After it's consumated, if it was validly contracted, nothing can cut it. In ancient Israel you also had the divorce option, however.

@Carcaroth:

Maybe they weren't exclusively homosexual? A number of people with homosexual attraction is able to satisfy its biological drive with members of the opposite sex.

It wasn't. That's what Lot did. Doesn't mean it was deemed acceptable. It wouldn't even be acceptable for the daughters to give themselves up if they had so wanted.

It already needs a proper perspective and much explaining as it is, but it totally lacks any sense in the gay-friendly version.

Polygamy was a concession, as was divorce. As for concubines... I guess where polygamy is already allowed, concubinage is better than one night stands. Still, I doubt concubinage is presented as something positive anywhere in the Bible.

Some Christian churches get along with it surprisingly well, yeah.

Perhaps because heterosexual sex out of marriage is less unnatural than homosexual sex? Perhaps important figures regard pre-marital sex as falling short and homosexual sex as attacking the very principle? Nowadays the mainstream position is that homosexual sex gets it as wrong as heterosexual sex out of marriage, unless if we are talking about those gay people who aren't into the promiscuous style but believe they love their partners. More and more theologians say homosexual sex is as wrong as premarital heterosexual sex. Sin comes from inside and apart from the material act, the person's level of knowledge and consent is important.

Let me play a prophet for a while:

John is a Catholic. He never misses an opportunity to remind Jack and Tom that gay sex is an abomination and that they are sinners en route to fiery fire etc etc. Jack and Tom go home and at least try to live like a normal couple, whereas John goes to a wild party and bangs three strangers on one night. Female, of course. Who gets it more wrong?

However, if someone simply goes out to get laid, I believe the homo option is more sinful on the material level than the hetero option, although I don't want to get into judging judging people's knowledge and consent. I'm not God. Besides, I have been tempted too, I have failed, who am I to judge? We just can't call right wrong or wrong right, or support the wrong as it goes on.

Hmm... In Genesis, they are created a man and a woman in God's image, suggesting the image is more complete when the two are in union. Jesus talks about a man and a woman joining up and becoming one body, so do the Apostles. There are instances of very, very close male friendships that look almost romantic (theoretically, it doesn't have to be wrong -- surely not any more than referring to your opposite gender friends as "darling", for instance), but there is no instance of homosexual marriage, no unreprobated homosexual act. Marriage is always strictly defined as something only a man and a woman can have, by very nature of their design.

[ September 14, 2005, 19:03: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

There's a chapter in either one of the books of Kings or Chronicles that talks about Solomon having 700 wives and 350 concubines. That chapter was about his downfall, after the rise, reputation for wisdom and the construction of the Temple. Not much to go on, but it's something...

Exactly, it's easier to justify your own sins when you think that "at least I'm not like those perverts over there..." Regardless, all sex outside the bonds of legal and lawful matrimony is an abomination before the Lord.

T2Bruno, Was Bethrothal included under the Law of Moses in the Old Testament? If so, could that have been where the Scribes and Pharisees got to the law and played around with it to dumb it down, losing the spirit of the Law.

Good point, Chev. Just because men like David and Solomon had manyt wives and Concubines doesn't mean that it was right. Apostasy can affect anyone. David had a man killed so he could marry the man's widow after committing adultery with her. Nowhere in the Bible is that action condoned...

As for the definition of Marriage, I go with the stance adopted ten years ago by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. Period. Since the Prophet is God's representative on Earth, and it says in the New Testament that God doesn't change his mind to reflect social pressures, this has always been the law.

 

@Gnarff:

Legally, it was consent + consummation and the consent part was achieved in the betrothal, so a consumated betrothal was marriage. It worked for the Germanic tribes and mediaeval Germans too. In Italy, they believed that consent did the whole job and consumation was irrelevant. Pope Innocent don't-remember-the-number sort of combined the two until you had what resembles the Catholic and generally Christian marriage we known today. Secular laws went for consent alone.

 

I can resist no longer.

Marriage in the Catholic Faiths (please note plural) is a sacrament performed by the two people involved.It is, afaik, the only sacrament not performed by a third party. The priest does not marry the couple but is there as a witness for God and the Church. In fact it is possible for two people to form a valid marriage contract even if there is no other person present. It is expected that they report this to a church official and have the contract validated.

This brings a question to my mind. Is a civil union ever a marriage in the religious sense.? I guess it depends on the intention of the parties but???

 

It used to be like that in the RCC, but no longer is. :/ The current Canon Law says nothing about such a possibility and the least form you can observe is two witnesses, without a priest or deacon indeed. In my book, it's ridiculous to ban people from living together, should they be single and find themselves alone somewhere without much hope of reaching a civilised location. Or when no one would like to be a witness. And similar situations. Not like any such situation is likely and yes, it would be a great danger to allow clandestine marriages (people will basically lie about never being married before if no witness is to be found), but still...

If you're Roman Catholic and you have a valid reason, you can request your bishop to issue dispensation from canonical form and so you'll be allowed to contract a sacramental marriage the moment you are contracting the civil union.

Also, the RCC regards civil unions of baptised non-Catholics as valid marriages, so long as formal requirements go. Basically the marriage can still be invalid because of a defect of consent or an impediment or a different cause, but the form requirement is met. It's basically the same as if they had requested and been granted all applicable dispensations from the form.

As you see, there's a number of loopholes in the marriage laws, but it's up to the Church to set the requirements, so it's basically just mess but without bad sacramental implications (God is not a lawyer and I'm sure He wouldn't be happy with lawyering around sacraments... in fact, the thought makes me scared).

 

Thank you for the clarification, Chev. I can understand why the RCC changed the rules due to abuse but I can think of a few, very rare instances where it should be valid.

 

The abuse really, really sucked. We have some of it today, too. I won't lie, there's a lot of things I don't like in the way marriage looks in the Canon Law or church courts. I'm not sure I could handle it better, though.

 

Religious zealots, hate 'em, I simply can't stand these red-necks ! These peoples are part of many reasons, as why I dislike the USA so much.

[ September 21, 2005, 23:42: Message edited by: DarthOne ]