The scripture says the males became violently enflamed with their lust toward one another. No mention of granting sexual favors to a priest.
"Sins of Sodom" What were they guilty of?
I will visit your site and read the texts again for clarity. But, I am skeptical. Basically, I have found that scripture is so pliable and ambiguous that almost anything can be justified.
I don't think scripture is the best source to answer my questions. I will consult it again slowly and in a new light.
Read the essay carefully, Joel.
The most destructive thing which ever happened to the Bible was when chapter and verse numbers were assigned to the scriptures. It allows any scripture to be taken out of context. (The WTBTS is notorious for this.)
In the same letter to the Romans, clearly in the same thought, Paul expresses his distaste for idolatrous worship. Just because the Bible does not specifically state the idolatrous fertility ritual practices of the temples of Artemis, Aphrodite, etc., that does not make it so. The letters from Paul were guides to the early Christians, just as the Watchtower and Awake are guides to modern-day Jehovah's Witnesses. You would never see a guide to how to practice pagan faiths in any WTBTS publication, would you?
One needs to balance the scriptures with accurate historical accounts.
I find the Biblical prohibition against homosexuality to be a Jewish thing. Other than Genesis, for its mythos(Jewish), and the book of John(Gnostic), I find no value in any other part of what has come to be called 'The Bible' that can't be found in other books of other religions and ethnicities. Paul was Jewish, and he had a prejudice against homosexuals and women, probably because he was Jewish. He was also celibate and a widower. If you out it in context and stop trying to make square pegs fit into round holes....then The Bible actually does have some valuable things to say(and a whole lot of hogwash).
No wonder the WTBTS has changed its mind so many times on the future fate of the sodomites.
I saw the same documentary as Swan, it was interesting and painted a realistic picture of what may have happened and would then be interpreted by people who lived during that time period.
Yeah and thats a real nice story about Lot and his family who had to be dragged out of a supposed depraved city and then later his daughters got him drunk and had sex with him......I never read about them dragging any wine flasks with them when the angels were dragging them out of the city into the mountain caves. Maybe there was U-brew close by. Or was this what Lot told everyone when his daughter became pregnant. Take a look at his character...first he selfishly chose a better region than his elder Abraham. He decided to live in what the bible calls a depraved city. He offered up his two virgin daughters to a mob instead of kicking their asses. It goes on and on...I think more than likely this was a case of incest and abuse.
Do you think that maybe many of the ancient stories in the bible could be manipulated to fit or convey a thought or explain a catastrophy. If you think its not possible read the WTBTS publications and see how they have portrayed themselves over the last hundred years and how millions of people accept their accounts as truth and gospel. Gods chosen Org in 1919, Jah selected the name Jehovah's witnesses, Jehovah reveals the bible truths to the FDS. In the 1975 yearbook being able to buy 500 tons of coal was a sure sign of Gods approval.....I'm rambling again...Ok deep breath and relax.
Yeah - and two angels just sat there and let Lot offer up his daughters?
If you're a guest in my house and somebody wants to tear the place apart and sacrifice you or gangrape you or whatever, it's time to find my copy of the 2nd amendment and tear some crap up!
If I stay at your place and its a group of women who want to gang rape me stay the hell out of it....
How would some of you respond to Romans Chapter 1 where Paul mentions the male and female leaving the natural use of one another for one contrary to nature, male with male receving full recompense for their error?
Many fundamentalists deploy these texts to oppose tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality. These texts do make the writer's position clear. Other texts may leave room for speculation, but this chapter appears decisively postured against alternative sexual practices.
I need more information from sources other than scripture to draw temporary conclusions on this matter.
Actually it is other texts that make the writers position clear, or rather what the writer believed Gods position to be. Keep in mind this has little to do with why
Well, clearly I don't condemn homosexuality, but I do believe that the Bible does. I have read the book, "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" and I don't buy the gentleman's arguments. That said, I don't believe much of the Bible is reliable enough to bicker about. I do believe it has been changed through the years to suit whoever happened to be in power at the time. Beyond change itself, certainly it has been interpreted a zillion different ways to serve to satisfy people that they are somehow right and others subject to their wishes, whims, rules, etc. The only parts of the Bible that I think ring true are the accounts of Jesus' life and teachings. They simply seem true to me. Love is the only rule that makes any since. Love is the Christian thought. It is quite ludicrous how few of those clammering that they are the connection to God, practice love even occasionally.