Changes

'''  

'''  

   

   

The ONLY times the Bible explicitly addresses the issue of homosexual activity is that of prohibition and condemnation. While not much is given here, i would like to post a basic summary of more or less basic responses to primary pro-homosexual attempts to negate Biblical injunctions against their homo-eroticism.  

The ONLY times the Bible explicitly addresses the issue of homosexual activity is that of prohibition and condemnation. Here i would like to post a basic summary of more or less basic responses to primary pro-homosexual attempts to negate Biblical injunctions against their homo-eroticism and to promote the same.  

In Genesis 19 and Judges 19, "yada" (know, as in "to know them") is never (by my research) used to denote "knowing" anyone personally by means of force, but is very often used in such a context (as btwn humans to personally know) to denote gaining sexual knowledge (Gen 4:1,17, 25, 19:8; 24:16; 38:26; Num. 31:18, 35; Jud. 11:39; 19:25; 21:12; 1 Sam. 1:19; 1 Kg. 1:14; Mt. 1:25), and which fits in  perfectly with the offer of virgins rather than the men.

In Genesis 19 and Judges 19, "yada" (know, as in "to know them") is never (by my research) used to denote "knowing" anyone personally by means of force, as the homosexual argument asserts, but is very often used in such a context (as re. personally knowing someone) to denote gaining sexual knowledge (Gen 4:1,17, 25, 19:8; 24:16; 38:26; Num. 31:18, 35; Jud. 11:39; 19:25; 21:12; 1 Sam. 1:19; 1 Kg. 1:14; Mt. 1:25). This fits in  perfectly with the offer of virgins rather than the men.

In Lev. 18:22 and  20:13 the, attempts to negate such injunctions rely upon imposing a hermeneutic that negates the other prohibited moral practices in their particular company (adultery, incest, bestiality, etc.), but which negation the rest of Scripture disallows. Another attempt is to make these injunctions only for purposes of distinction (team colors) btwn Israel and the pagan nations, yet the Bible treats them as inherently wicked, for which cause God destroyed the Canaanites.  

In Lev. 18:22 and  20:13, attempts to disallow the universality of these injunctions rely upon imposing a hermeneutic (law of interpretation) that negates the other prohibited moral practices in their particular company (adultery, incest, bestiality, etc.), but which negation the rest of Scripture disallows.

Another attempt is to make them only applicable to the Levites, but which the context denies (Lev. 18:2; 19:2; 20:2).  

This applies to the use of the "shellfish hermeneutic,"  which asserts that these prohibitions were simply part of the ceremonial and dietary laws for uncleanness, which was later done away with by Christ for Christians (Mk. 7:1-23; Acts 15:19, 20).  However, this not only would disallow any of the numerous other moral prohibitions in these chapters and elsewhere from being universally applicable, which Scripture elsewhere affirms they are, but it purposefully disregards the clear New Testament classification of laws that were typological and fulfilled in Christ, so that their observance according to the letter is abrogated (Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:14-16; Heb. 9:10-12). In contrast, purely moral laws are abundantly upheld, especially as regards sexual immorality.   

Another attempt requires a radical significance for the absence of more than two explicit prohibitions (Lv. 18:22; 20:13, and only one of the death penalty for it (20:13). This ought to be  enough (what part of "no" don't you understand?), and which attempt ignores that fact the the more common a sin then the more it is likely to be mentioned (like idolatry), while not all the types of fornication are repeated elsewhere in the O.T. Meanwhile (in my research), not all the of the other specific sins of fornication in Leviticus 18 + 20 are condemned elsewhere in the Old Testament, though they are part of universal prohibitions, and the death penalty for at least one (Lv. 20:12) is only mentioned once, as is the penalty for perjury that caused a mans death (Dt. 19:15-21). In addition, the idea that the prohibitions against homosexual fornication simply refer to "ritual uncleanness" is as absurd as forcing the other injunctions against fornication, adultery, etc. into that category. And as far as the "shellfish hermeneutic," which equates dietary laws (Lev. 11) with purely moral ones, this ignores the clear classification made under the promised (Jer. 31:31-34) New Covenant instituted in Christ's blood (Lk. 22:20; Heb. 9:16), between typological laws (Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:14-16; Heb. 9:9, 10) which are not repeated under the New, and moral ones which are abundantly reiterated.  

 

Another attempt is to make these injunctions only for purposes of distinction (team colors) btwn Israel and the pagan nations, yet the Bible treats them as inherently wicked, for which cause God destroyed the Canaanites.

 

In order to make the Levitical prohibitions conditional,an different argument requires a radical significance for the absence of more than two explicit prohibitions (Lv. 18:22; 20:13, and only one of the death penalty for it (20:13). This ought to be  enough (what part of "no" don't you understand?), and which attempt ignores that fact the the more common a sin then the more it is likely to be mentioned (like idolatry), while not all the types of fornication are repeated elsewhere in the O.T. Meanwhile (in my research), not all the of the other specific sins of fornication in Leviticus 18 + 20 are condemned elsewhere in the Old Testament, though they are part of universal prohibitions, and the death penalty for at least one (Lv. 20:12) is only mentioned once, as is the penalty for perjury that caused a mans death (Dt. 19:15-21). In addition, the idea that the prohibitions against homosexual fornication simply refer to "ritual uncleanness" is as absurd as forcing the other injunctions against fornication, adultery, etc. into that category. And as far as the "shellfish hermeneutic," which equates dietary laws (Lev. 11) with purely moral ones, this ignores the clear classification made under the promised (Jer. 31:31-34) New Covenant instituted in Christ's blood (Lk. 22:20; Heb. 9:16), between typological laws (Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:14-16; Heb. 9:9, 10) which are not repeated under the New, and moral ones which are abundantly reiterated.  

Likewise attempts to relegate Rm. 1:18-27 (and it's Levitical basis) to only homo-eroticism that is part of  idolatry fails to recognize that ALL sin is a manifestation of idolatry, formal or informal. Either Jesus is Lord or the flesh is Lord at any given time. And the text goes on to list other sins as further manifestations of degeneration, and which are likewise universally evil. Neither was the condemned homosexual eroticism forced, but consensual, and that it was driven by lust, as it typically is today, does not allow for any practice of homosexual eroticism that is not, any more than it allows for "loving" heterosexual eroticism outside marriage, which is never provided by God for homosexual.           

Likewise attempts to relegate Rm. 1:18-27 (and it's Levitical basis) to only homo-eroticism that is part of  idolatry fails to recognize that ALL sin is a manifestation of idolatry, formal or informal. Either Jesus is Lord or the flesh is Lord at any given time. And the text goes on to list other sins as further manifestations of degeneration, and which are likewise universally evil. Neither was the condemned homosexual eroticism forced, but consensual, and that it was driven by lust, as it typically is today, does not allow for any practice of homosexual eroticism that is not, any more than it allows for "loving" heterosexual eroticism outside marriage, which is never provided by God for homosexual.           

As for the dual commands of Deuteronomy 23:17-18, these do pertain to Temple prostitution, and the use of the word "sodomite" makes that distinction, thus further affirming the general applicability of Levitical prohibitions (which do not use that term), rather than the opposite, as homosexual apologists wrest it to mean. These were also addressed to Israel as a whole, as part the mixture of religious, civil and moral “statutes and judgments” that began in chapter 12. In addition, specific prohibitions against one manner of homosexual activity need not negate those of a universal nature. When the State prosecutes priestly pedophilia, it is condemning all forms of such  

As for the dual commands of Deuteronomy 23:17-18, these do pertain to Temple prostitution, and the use of the word "sodomite" makes that distinction, thus further affirming the general applicability of Levitical prohibitions (which do not use that term), rather than the opposite, as homosexual apologists wrest it to mean. These were also addressed to Israel as a whole, as part the mixture of religious, civil and moral “statutes and judgments” that began in chapter 12. In addition, specific prohibitions against one manner of homosexual activity need not negate those of a universal nature. When the State prosecutes priestly pedophilia, it is condemning all forms of such  

A final objection is to applying the word "sodomy" or "sodomite" to homosexuals, as it not an accurate word for such. However, in the Bible, as in real life, sometimes a word is not understood by it's exact meaning but according to it it's contextual employment, especially when used as a euphemism. As homosexuals like the word “gay,” they must comprehend this.  A “grunt” need not be a vocal utterance but can denote an unskilled hard laborer, as such are known for such sounds. The Hebrew word translated "sodomy," (qâdêsh) basically describes a dedicated person, and is related to a word meaning “sanctify”(qâdash), but in all it's occurrences (except Job. 36:14 = unclean) it signifies a class of unholy person(s) dedicated to practicing homosexual acts as part of temple activity, as indicated first in Dt. 23:18 (the male version of a prostitute), and their having houses by the Temple in 2 Ki. 23:7. Further instances (1Ki. 14:24; 15:12; 22:46) testify to their sinful condition, and the translated word “sodomite” derives it's meaning from the practice of the people with whom it is associated. Likewise “the price of a dog” was not the price paid for the sale of a dog, but denotes the gains of the “kadesh,” a person who was called κίναιδος by the Greeks, and which class of people received their euphemistic name from the dog-like manner in which the male prostitute perversely debased himself. It later was applied by the Jews to all Gentiles, signifying their unclean state, and in Rev_22:15 it is spiritually applied to all the the defiled.

Another objection is to applying the word "sodomy" or "sodomite" to homosexuals, as it not an accurate word for such. However, in the Bible, as in real life, sometimes a word is not understood by it's exact meaning but according to it it's contextual employment, especially when used as a euphemism. As homosexuals like the word “gay,” they must comprehend this.  A “grunt” need not be a vocal utterance but can denote an unskilled hard laborer, as such are known for such sounds. The Hebrew word translated "sodomy," (qâdêsh) basically describes a dedicated person, and is related to a word meaning “sanctify”(qâdash), but in all it's occurrences (except Job. 36:14 = unclean) it signifies a class of unholy person(s) dedicated to practicing homosexual acts as part of temple activity, as indicated first in Dt. 23:18 (the male version of a prostitute), and their having houses by the Temple in 2 Ki. 23:7. Further instances (1Ki. 14:24; 15:12; 22:46) testify to their sinful condition, and the translated word “sodomite” derives it's meaning from the practice of the people with whom it is associated. Likewise “the price of a dog” was not the price paid for the sale of a dog, but denotes the gains of the “kadesh,” a person who was called κίναιδος by the Greeks, and which class of people received their euphemistic name from the dog-like manner in which the male prostitute perversely debased himself. It later was applied by the Jews to all Gentiles, signifying their unclean state, and in Rev_22:15 it is spiritually applied to all the the defiled.

   

   

Then there is the "red letter" hermeneutic, that must negate any sin Jesus did not explicitly condemn, as if the same Holy Spirit did not inspire the rest of Scripture, though Jesus promised more would come by Him (Jn. 16:12, 13) and affirmed that which already did (Mt. 4:4; Jn. 10:35), both of which details the fornications (plural) that Jesus condemned and will send one to Hell (Mk. 7:21; Rev. 21:27).   

Then there is the "red letter" hermeneutic, that must negate any sin Jesus did not explicitly condemn, as if the same Holy Spirit did not inspire the rest of Scripture, though Jesus promised more would come by Him (Jn. 16:12, 13) and affirmed that which already did (Mt. 4:4; Jn. 10:35), both of which details the fornications (plural) that Jesus condemned and will send one to Hell (Mk. 7:21; Rev. 21:27).   

As for the farewell (1 Samuel 20:41), "kissing" is very very rarely sexual in the Bible (and when it is, the context makes it very evident), nor was kissing looked upon as a sexual expression in the Middle East (wikipedia). As for "until David exceeded" (i will not tell you how they try to use that) relates to his David's weeping. But true to form, homosexual apologists cannot leave two close fire-tried comrades to sadly say good bye for good (and it was very sadly for good, and the only real friend the hunted David likely had) without forcing a meaning into a place where it does not belong.   

As for the farewell (1 Samuel 20:41), "kissing" is very very rarely sexual in the Bible (and when it is, the context makes it very evident), nor was kissing looked upon as a sexual expression in the Middle East (wikipedia). As for "until David exceeded" (i will not tell you how they try to use that) relates to his David's weeping. But true to form, homosexual apologists cannot leave two close fire-tried comrades to sadly say good bye for good (and it was very sadly for good, and the only real friend the hunted David likely had) without forcing a meaning into a place where it does not belong.   

Finally, as regards David's later poetic lament after Johnathan death (2 Sam. 1: 26), "pleasant" is used of Saul as well (v. 23), and as for “thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women,” David is not comparing his close buddy's love as being of a higher quality of sensual love, but is contrasting the marvelous brotherly love of Jonathan with the sexual “eros” love of women. Likewise we can say that unconditional, nonreciprocal love surpasses that of sexual love. But evidently many  homosexual apologists lust to see what they seem to value the most when they force it in here.   

As regards David's later poetic lament after Johnathan death (2 Sam. 1: 26), "pleasant" is used of Saul as well (v. 23), and as for “thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women,” David is not comparing his close buddy's love as being of a higher quality of sensual love, but is contrasting the marvelous brotherly love of Jonathan with the sexual “eros” love of women. Likewise we can say that unconditional, nonreciprocal love surpasses that of sexual love. But evidently many  homosexual apologists lust to see what they seem to value the most when they force it in here.   

David actually knew little of any manner of the love of women, as his wife, Saul's daughter Michal, was still with the man Saul had joined her with (1 Sam. 25:44) after David had to flee for his life (1Sam. 19:11-17). She would also soon be cursed due to her self righteous carnal reproof of him (2 Sam. 6:14-23), but Johnathan risked his life for David and the future of Israel more than once, and showed himself a singular true hearted sacrificial faithful friend and a Godly fellow soldier in helping David escape Saul's murderous will for him.  David thus expresses deep grief at his loss with words of strong emotion which are common in Scripture. David would later woefully and tearfully lament “my son, my son Absalom! would God I had died for thee (1 Sam. 18:33), while in the poetic Psalms David expresses how he “bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth for his mother" when speaking of his love even for an enemy (Ps. 35:14). But this is all pathos, not eros, and in the story of those two compatriots  we have an example of “bosom buddies” who risked their lives in friendship and fidelity to what was right in God's sight, which affirms such platonic love and actually excludes eroticism.  True love is manifested and realized in a far more comprehensive and deeper manner than simply sexually, and the latter does not even qualify as true love (thus a relationship must thrive without it before it can be part of it).  Moreover the fact that they both were married testifies to their heterosexual nature, and it was not a Billy that David lusted after later, but a Bathsheba.   

David actually knew little of any manner of the love of women, as his wife, Saul's daughter Michal, was still with the man Saul had joined her with (1 Sam. 25:44) after David had to flee for his life (1Sam. 19:11-17). She would also soon be cursed due to her self righteous carnal reproof of him (2 Sam. 6:14-23), but Johnathan risked his life for David and the future of Israel more than once, and showed himself a singular true hearted sacrificial faithful friend and a Godly fellow soldier in helping David escape Saul's murderous will for him.  David thus expresses deep grief at his loss with words of strong emotion which are common in Scripture. David would later woefully and tearfully lament “my son, my son Absalom! would God I had died for thee (1 Sam. 18:33), while in the poetic Psalms David expresses how he “bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth for his mother" when speaking of his love even for an enemy (Ps. 35:14). But this is all pathos, not eros, and in the story of those two compatriots  we have an example of “bosom buddies” who risked their lives in friendship and fidelity to what was right in God's sight, which affirms such platonic love and actually excludes eroticism.  True love is manifested and realized in a far more comprehensive and deeper manner than simply sexually, and the latter does not even qualify as true love (thus a relationship must thrive without it before it can be part of it).  Moreover the fact that they both were married testifies to their heterosexual nature, and it was not a Billy that David lusted after later, but a Bathsheba.   

As for Ruth, if the word "cleave" is to mean sexually as they propose or assert, then she would be a whoremonger, as she was told to be "cleave" to both the menservants and maid servants. Before she got married! This would give a radically different definition to the term "virtuous women," but such is what homosexual hermeneutics require, and which forced interpretations militate against the Bible from actually being a moral authority

In the book of Ruth, homosexual apologists also strive to marry Naomi to Ruth, because the latter is said to cleave to her (rather than going back to pagan Moab), yet if the word "cleave" is to mean sexually as they assert,then she would be a whoremonger, as she was told to be "cleave" to both the menservants and maid servants. Before she got married! This would give a radically different definition to the term "virtuous women," but such is what homosexual hermeneutics require, and which forced interpretations militate against the Bible from actually being a moral authority

   

   

I need not get into even more desperate and complex attempts to squeeze married homo-erotic activity out of holy Scripture, suffice to say that the more one studies them then the more it becomes apparent as such apologists cannot get God to in any ways explicitly sanction the homo-erotic activity they crave then they must force oblique inferences into texts, which again and again fail to prove the radical erotic ethos that is contrary to the only statements God makes regarding men lying with men, which forbid and condemn it.

I need not get into even more desperate and complex attempts to squeeze married homo-erotic activity out of holy Scripture (as well as ones that even more negate the very Bible they invoke as having any moral authority) suffice to say that the more one studies them then the more it becomes apparent as such apologists cannot get God to in any ways explicitly sanction the homo-erotic activity they crave then they must force oblique inferences into texts, which again and again fail to prove the radical erotic ethos that is contrary to the only statements God makes regarding men lying with men, which forbid and condemn it.

For more on this (if you really need it) i would recommend http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/homosexual_refuted.html (mine)

For more on this (if you really need it) i would recommend http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/homosexual_refuted.html (mine)