Because the other thread went terribly awry while I was having a busy patch in my life . . . here's a new one but more specifically directed.
Keaton asked me to address each of the common biblical quotes in regards to my assertion that there is absolutely no evidence the bible has anything negative to say about homosexuality.
Here they are:
Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9,10; Romans 1:24-27; Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4-6
As I already mentioned in the previous version oif the thread, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah has nothing to do with homosexuality. The story talks God destroying these two cities because he was angry at the extent of sin prevailing there. The straw that broke the camel's back was the uncharitable treatment of two male angels coming to visit. It had nothing to do with homosexuality, perse, but rape. God was angry that the mob wanted to rape His angels. The mob wanted to rape the angels, not because they were homosexuals, but because that would be the ultimate humiliation. Rabe is abhorent, especially the rape of angels, thus the destruction.
Again, I've already responded to this one . . . but here goes for the last time. While the King James has the Hebrew translated as "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" that is a gross mistranslation. A much more accurate translation (and the one that the Net Bible uses) is "And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman" . . . The bed of a woman is a sacred place for procreation, not sensual enjoyment. This verse is part of the Mosaic Code (not laws of God, but rules of the Hebrews) saying that men should not have sex with men in the bed of a woman.
Another one I've already discussed. Hmph. Well, the wonderfully poorly translated King James has it this way: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet." Fun stuff. Paul was NOT writing about homosexuality here. He was discussing what he disliked about Greek temple worship, that sex acts were common there, which he found unseemly for a house of God. He especially didn't approve of how otherwise straight men were instead engaging in homosexual acts during temple worship sex orgies. Furthermore, there is some debate that the original Greek is actually pointing toward sex between adult males and teenage boys, thus pedestry and not homosexuality.
1 Corinthians 6:9,10:
Yeay, another verse I've already discussed. King James: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
First of all, notice it says "effeminate" rather than "homosexual" for the first word I'm about to call into question. The original Greek for that word was "malakoi" which did NOT mean homosexual, but rather ment "soft" and was used as an adjective to morals ("loose morals") and "lazy." The second term that King James has as "abusers of themselves with mankind" in the original Greek is "arsenokoitai" which in modern Greek does mean homosexual, but did not originally mean so. In that era the word refered to either "male prostitutes" or "boy prostitutes" specifically. More importantly, it is conjectured that Paul himself invented this word, because there is no evidence of it having existed prior to his letter to Corinth.
Um . . . we already covered this above . . .
"The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh'...For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they will become one flesh." Well, that's nice. But it has nothing to do about homosexuality. The argument that this is proof that our only purpose is to procreate and thus all men must marry a woman to do so is absurd. By that logic sterile people have no right to life. They cannot fullfill their earthly purpose. I just don't see this as having anything to do with homosexuality. It is simply a story of Adam and Eve.
"...at the beginning, the Creator 'made them male and female' and said 'For this reason man will leave his father and mother, and be united with his wife; and the two will become one flesh.'" (NIV)
What has this to do with homosexuality? Nothing. At. All. Directly before this oft quoted verse was a question to Jesus: "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" Jesus' repsonse (paraphrased) was basically "no, when people are married, they are in it to win it" . . . it has nothing to do with homosexuality.
And there we are. Not a single condemation of homosexuality.
However, there are even places in the bible that seem to advocate it. Anyone want to chime in, or is it left up to me (as usual)?