The Bible and Homosexuality

[rockpond]

43 minutes ago, longview said:

I think it is pretty clear that the men of Sodom wanted to have sexual intercourse with the angels (referred to as "men" also).  Lot was extremely fearful of offenses being thrown at the powerful angels.  So he said to the homosexuals:  "do not do SO wickedly".  This is exhibit A indicating the greater perversion of unnatural relations.

Setting aside any issues with translation, with this story being told verbally over centuries before being written down, with the differences between KJV and JST versions, etc and assume that the men outside Lot's home wanted to force the angels and Lot's daughters to have sex with them.  This wickedness is not akin to any sort of sexual acts done within a loving, committed, marital relationship.

Rape and consensual sexual activity are two different things.

 

[Durangout]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Do not forget the continental separation that happened in the days of Peleg.  This occurred AFTER the Great Flood.  Between the flood and the separation, the dispersion of species was unhindered over the course of centuries.

This false sectarian notion comes from an incomplete / poor reading of Gen 10.  If you continue reading to the end if the chapter, you will clearly see that the “earth divided”  from v 25 is not referring to a physical division of the continents but a political division of the land after the flood:

25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

26 And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah,

27 And Hadoram, and Uzal, and Diklah,

28 And Obal, and Abimael, and Sheba,

29 And Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab: all these were the sons of Joktan.

30 And their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest unto Sephar a mount of the east.

31 These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.

32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

and his brother's name was Joktan.

26 And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah,

27 And Hadoram, and Uzal, and Diklah,

28 And Obal, and Abimael, and Sheba,

29 And Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab: all these were the sons of Joktan.

30 And their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest unto Sephar a mount of the east.

31 These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.

32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

[Damien the Leper]

On 10/18/2019 at 9:27 AM, InCognitus said:

The Romans 1:26-27 verse seems to address this:  "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:  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 recompense of their error which was meet."
 

The problem with this verse is that Paul isn't assuming that all people are naturally heterosexual. Natural attraction isn't confined to one type of attraction. 

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It has been interpreted that way, likely due to the conclusion that the people of Sodom were destroyed for a lack of righteousness.

If we're going to use Genesis 19 to condemn sexual acts by married gay couples then we'd also have to use it to condemn sexual acts by married straight couples.

The men outside Lot's house wanted to have forcible sex with both the male angels and Lot's daughters.  And they were destroyed.

The descriptions of the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19, and especially as religious and spiritual tradition would have it, are multi-layered and nuanced and so can be used to condemn a number of things with whatever specificity you choose. So I wouldn't be offended by any suggestion.

The angels had come to destroy the place and people anyway, for bad things that had been going on for a long time, including the various sins converging in the conduct of the men outside the door. The men outside Lot's house were struck blind, not for punishment for specific sins but to facilitate Lot's and his family's escape. Their specific sins represented in and coming together in the whole event can be teased apart.

[InCognitus]

34 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

On 10/18/2019 at 9:27 AM, InCognitus said:

The Romans 1:26-27 verse seems to address this:  "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:  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 recompense of their error which was meet."
 

The problem with this verse is that Paul isn't assuming that all people are naturally heterosexual. Natural attraction isn't confined to one type of attraction. 

"Paul isn't assuming"?  Do you think that Paul would not consider "natural use" to be related to procreation?

[aussieguy55]

I have an old edition of the New Testament in the Latin, Hebrew, German and Greek languages. I have been reading the German, and find it to be the most [nearly] correct translation, and to correspond nearest to the revelations which God has given to me for the last fourteen years. (History of the Church 6:307)

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, aussieguy55 said:

I have an old edition of the New Testament in the Latin, Hebrew, German and Greek languages. I have been reading the German, and find it to be the most [nearly] correct translation, and to correspond nearest to the revelations which God has given to me for the last fourteen years. (History of the Church 6:307)

So you are trying to make that fit with what Joseph Smith said about it being "most nearly correct"?  Do you think Joseph Smith had these very verses in mind?  If so, then tell me, why didn't Joseph Smith change any verses in Leviticus 18 or 20 in his inspired translation of the Bible?

[Anonymous Mormon]

On 10/17/2019 at 2:51 PM, aussieguy55 said:

Robert Gnuse has examine all the relevant texts

"There are seven texts often cited by Christians to condemn homosexuality: Noah and Ham (Genesis 9:20–27), Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1–11), Levitical laws condemning same-sex relationships (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), two words in two Second Testament vice lists (1 Corinthians 6:9–10; 1 Timothy 1:10), and Paul's letter to the Romans (Romans 1:26–27). The author believes that these do not refer to homosexual relationships between two free, adult, and loving individuals. They describe rape or attempted rape (Genesis 9:20–27, 19:1–11), cultic prostitution (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), male prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6:9–10; 1 Timothy 1:10), and the Isis cult in Rome (Romans 1:26–27). If the biblical authors did assume homosexuality was evil, we do not theologize off of their cultural assumptions, we theologize off of the texts we have in the canon. The author attempts to introduce some new arguments into this long-standing and passionate debate."

I feel like anyone trying to say that the Bible doesn't forbid homosexual relationships is really stretching it. Some of these verses certainly refer to practices specific to idol worshiping cults. But just because these cults did worse things than homosexuality as well, doesn't mean that homosexual relationships are approved.

To put it another way, the verse 1 Corinthians 6:9 says:

"9 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,"

The author argues that this verse is condemning prostitution and child-abuse so even though it refers to homosexuality it is not referring to consensual adult homosexuality. This verse also mentions fornication and adultery;  by this same logic I could say these verses only refer to fornication and adultery with children or for money and that otherwise these acts are never a sin  as long as it is with two consensual adults who love each other. In fact, for most of these 7 verses the author argues that the context is specific to local practices and that those at the time would have recognized this. You could say the same for every mention of adultery or fornication in all of scriptures, that these are only condemned when it's in conjunction with pagan rituals, but never with two consenting adults with feelings for each other. So by that standard all homosexuality, adultery, and fornication are okay as long as love is involved (and there are no idols, children, or payments involved).

I just don't think these arguments hold water. If you want to go with the view of some on this board that "I only choose to accept as valid scriptures that talk about love and ignore the scriptures with commandments I don't like" or "The Bible is just rules of men and they aren't God's law so man can change man's rules" then I can see this being a more valid argument. But to say, "I believe the Bible is given by God with his rules and commandments" and then try to twist and make the argument that God is in favor of Homosexual activity is just really, really, really too big of a stretch.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Anonymous Mormon

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I feel like anyone trying to say that the Bible doesn't forbid homosexual relationships is really stretching it. Some of these verses certainly refer to practices specific to idol worshiping cults. But just because these cults did worse things than homosexuality as well, doesn't mean that homosexual relationships are approved.

To put it another way, the verse 1 Corinthians 6:9 says:

"9 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,"

The author argues that this verse is condemning prostitution and child-abuse so even though it refers to homosexuality it is not referring to consensual adult homosexuality. This verse also mentions fornication and adultery;  by this same logic I could say these verses only refer to fornication and adultery with children or for money and that otherwise these acts are never a sin  as long as it is with two consensual adults who love each other. In fact, for most of these 7 verses the author argues that the context is specific to local practices and that those at the time would have recognized this. You could say the same for every mention of adultery or fornication in all of scriptures, that these are only condemned when it's in conjunction with pagan rituals, but never with two consenting adults with feelings for each other. So by that standard all homosexuality, adultery, and fornication are okay as long as love is involved (and there are no idols, children, or payments involved).

I just don't think these arguments hold water. If you want to go with the view of some on this board that "I only choose to accept as valid scriptures that talk about love and ignore the scriptures with commandments I don't like" or "The Bible is just rules of men and they aren't God's law so man can change man's rules" then I can see this being a more valid argument. But to say, "I believe the Bible is given by God with his rules and commandments" and then try to twist and make the argument that God is in favor of Homosexual activity is just really, really, really too big of a stretch.

The words that KJV translated into "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" are malakos and arsenokoites.

Malakos translates to soft.

From what I have read, a majority of Bible scholars seem to believe that arsenokoites had something to do with prostitution or maybe shrine/temple prostitution.

Extending these terms to be a prohibition of all homosexual relationships is a stretch.

[aussieguy55]

Elliott  writes "The corruption of young boys by predatory older males came under heavy censure throughout the ancient world. Occasion of this vice was given in the cultural prefernce for male to male relations  in general and the operation of pederasty as the educational arrangement. The deviant aspect of pederasty  was not the relationship as such but the "effemizing" of the younger males and their abuse by their senior tutors/lovers. In this relationship older established powerful males could and did abuse their younger  weaker and socially inferior male partners" p30.

[InCognitus]

48 minutes ago, aussieguy55 said:

Elliott  writes "The corruption of young boys by predatory older males came under heavy censure throughout the ancient world. Occasion of this vice was given in the cultural prefernce for male to male relations  in general and the operation of pederasty as the educational arrangement. The deviant aspect of pederasty  was not the relationship as such but the "effemizing" of the younger males and their abuse by their senior tutors/lovers. In this relationship older established powerful males could and did abuse their younger  weaker and socially inferior male partners" p30.

And yet, Elliott offers no biblical support that this would be the reason for the prohibition stated in the Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 texts.  Don't you think there's a good reason for that?  And in consideration of the Hebrew laws on chastity in general (see my earlier post), the age of the consenting sexual partner would not make one bit of difference.

[aussieguy55]

Grenz a conservative  scholar writes : "Grenz (1998:40), for example, avers: At the same time, we must readily admit that what is depicted and condemned in these texts is violent homosexual rape. As a result, as come away from these texts with a crucial question not satisfactorily answered: What about homosexual relationships between consenting adults?"

[InCognitus]

1 minute ago, aussieguy55 said:

Grenz a conservative  scholar writes : "Grenz (1998:40), for example, avers: At the same time, we must readily admit that what is depicted and condemned in these texts is violent homosexual rape. As a result, as come away from these texts with a crucial question not satisfactorily answered: What about homosexual relationships between consenting adults?"

Are you hoping to find something that sticks?  

This is getting ridiculous.  The Leviticus 18:22 and 20:19 texts have nothing to do with violent acts.  They are plain and simple laws of chastity.  

But the most important thing of all is this:  What do the living apostles and prophets teach on this topic?  

[aussieguy55]

"In the Genesis 19 narrative, the Sodomites surround Lot‟s house, where the angelic visitors are residing, and demand that Lot release them from his house, that they may „know‟ (Gen. 19:5, AV) (yada) them. Traditionally interpreters have understood this to mean the Sodomites‟ desire to „have sexual intercourse with‟ the visitors. However, Bailey pointed out that the usual meaning of yada elsewhere in the OT is not to have sexual intercourse with, but merely „to know.‟ For Bailey (1975:3-4): The story does not in the least demand the assumption that the sin of Sodom was sexual, let alone homosexual – indeed, there is no evidence to show that vice of the latter kind was prevalent there…We are simply told that Sodom and Gomorrah were wicked and grievously sinful, but the writer does not specify their iniquity more exactly, and only on a priori grounds can it be assumed that it was an iniquity solely or predominantly sexual in character. A later supporter of Bailey puts the argument like this: Briefly put, the thesis of this trend in scholarship is that Lot was violating the custom of Sodom (where he was himself not a citizen but only a "sojourner") by entertaining unknown guests within the city walls at night without obtaining the permission of the elders of the city. When the men of Sodom gathered around to Chapter 3 10 demand that the strangers be brought out to them, “that they might know them,” they meant no more than to “know” who they were, and the city was consequently destroyed not for sexual immorality but for the sin of inhospitality to strangers (Boswell 1980:93-94)."

[aussieguy55]

1. An argument from statistics, that while yada „occurs very frequently in the Old Testament‟ (943 times), yet „it is only used ten times (without qualification) to denote coition (these instances not including Gen 19 or „its undoubted derivative Judg. xix. 22‟)‟ (Bailey 1975:2). 2. In the place of the 'yada = sexual intercourse' rendering, Bailey invokes an argument from hospitality: Our ignorance of local circumstances and social conditions makes it impossible to do more than guess at the motives underlying the conduct of the Sodomites; but since yadha commonly means “get acquainted with”, the demand to “know” the visitors whom Lot entertained may well have implied some serious breach of the rules of hospitality (1975:3-4). For Bailey, then, yada should best be translated 'get acquainted with' in this instance. Bailey employed a cultural rationale, that Lot was a ger (foreigner) to Sodom, there by the grace of the inhabitants and, by admitting other foreigners to the city without due process, had not fulfilled cultural laws of hospitality. Thus: Is it not possible that Lot, either in ignorance or in defiance of the laws of Sodom, had exceeded the rights of a ger in that city by receiving and entertaining two “foreigners” whose intentions might be hostile, and whose credentials, it seems, had not been examined? (Bailey 1975:4). Chapter 3 11 3. Bailey (1975:7) also invokes ANE and other pagan legends of cities visited by gods, who destroyed the city or town in question for not observing the laws of hospitality. He appeals, for instance, to the myth of Philemon and Baucis (Ovid Metamorph viii 625ff; cited in Bailey 1975:7). This argument is taken up by later scholars (e.g., Boswell [1980:96] cites the seminal example of Zeus Xenios, regarded as „the patron of strangers‟. Bailey uses this as a basis for his claim that these myths influenced the Sodom story. For him the original Sodom account did not contain homosexual references, but was more akin to other mythical accounts of gods destroying cities for inhospitality. Thus: „This, again, suggests that the association of homosexual practices with the Sodom story is a late and extrinsic feature which, for some reason, has been read into the original account‟ (Bailey 1975:8). (For this phenomenon in ANE and Mediterranean literature, see also Bruce 1990:370; McNeill 1993:44; Westermann 1984:275). 4. Bailey also cites subsequent biblical and extra-biblical passages that refer to Sodom, claiming that such texts seldom, if ever, refer to sexual misconduct as the sin of the Sodomites, and that other issues (such as pride and oppression of the poor) were the real sins of the townsfolk (Bailey 1975:9-25). Such texts include Jer. 23:14; Ezek. 26:49-50; Wis. 10:8; 19:8; Ecclus.16:8 (This argument and the relevant texts will be examined more fully in a later section). Consequently, Bailey also endeavours to prove that references to homosexuality occur late in the Hebrew-Christian tradition. He avers that „it is not until we reach the late New Testament books, 2 Peter and Jude, that we find the sin of Sodom connected in any way with homosexual practices‟ (Bailey 1975:10). For Bailey, therefore, a homosexual interpretation for Sodom is a later development, probably inspired by pagan practices during the Hellenistic era: Thus the traditional Christian opinion that the Sodomites were annihilated because of their homosexual practices can be traced to its origin in the Chapter 3 12 conception of the sin of Sodom which appeared first in Palestine during the second century BC…The theory of their [the Sodomites‟] fate seems undoubtedly to have originated in a Palestinian Jewish reinterpretation of Gen. xix, inspired by antagonism to the Hellenistic way of life and its exponents, and by contempt for the basest features of Greek sexual immorality (Bailey 1975:26-27). Bailey was duly followed by other scholars. Thus Boswell (1980:93) could say, „since 1955 [i.e., the first published date of Bailey‟s work] modern scholarship has increasingly favored‟ the hospitality interpretation. Boswell (1980:93-95) likewise invoked arguments based on the statistical occurrence of yada, and on subsequent references to Sodom in Scripture which, he argues, focus on other issues rather than the sexual. Likewise, McNeill (1993 [1976]:43), cited similar arguments to prove his case that „there is no actual necessity to interpret „know‟ in Gen. xix, 5 as equivalent with „to have coitus with.‟ It may mean no more than „get acquainted with‟.‟

[aussieguy55]

"More recently, however, Morschauser (2003) has attempted to prove a non-sexual argument for yada. For him, 'it is completely unnecessary to take the Sodomites' oration as a demand for 'sexual intercourse'. (Morschauser 2003:471-472). He invokes a series of arguments from ANE culture and language to illustrate his point of the sin of inhospitality. For instance, he cites ANE sources to prove that Lot was the 'man at the gate', holding a juridical function whereby visitors to the community were screened for security purposes. According to Morschauer, Lot failed in this duty and was seen as guilty of putting the city at risk (Morschauser 2003:482-485). As regards this „sitting at the gate‟,"

I got these quotes from a thesis Google scholar.    https://www.sats.edu.za/userfiles/Rogers, BTh Thesis, 2011 Final.pdf

[InCognitus]

8 minutes ago, aussieguy55 said:

1. An argument from statistics, that while yada „occurs very frequently in the Old Testament‟ (943 times), yet „it is only used ten times (without qualification) to denote coition (these instances not including Gen 19 or „its undoubted derivative Judg. xix. 22‟)‟ (Bailey 1975:2). 2. In the place of the 'yada = sexual intercourse' rendering, Bailey invokes an argument from hospitality: Our ignorance of local circumstances and social conditions makes it impossible to do more than guess at the motives underlying the conduct of the Sodomites; but since yadha commonly means “get acquainted with”, the demand to “know” the visitors whom Lot entertained may well have implied some serious breach of the rules of hospitality (1975:3-4). For Bailey, then, yada should best be translated 'get acquainted with' in this instance.

The utter stupidity of this argument should be evident from Lot's response in Genesis 19:8:  "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes".   Lot's daughters had "not known man"?  Like they've never "gotten acquainted" with any man previously?  

Victor H. Matthews deals with the customs and code of conduct issue very directly, even with respect to the men wishing to "sexually abuse the strangers staying in Lot's house" (p. 5).  See my previous post for a link.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

The utter stupidity of this argument should be evident from Lot's response in Genesis 19:8:  "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes".   Lot's daughters had "not known man"?  Like they've never "gotten acquainted" with any man previously?  

Victor H. Matthews deals with the customs and code of conduct issue very directly, even with respect to the men wishing to "sexually abuse the strangers staying in Lot's house" (p. 5).  See my previous post for a link.

The KJV version wherein Lot offers his daughters to a group of alleged rapists isn’t a strong way to counter what you claim is “utter stupidity”. 

[Anonymous Mormon]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

The words that KJV translated into "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" are malakos and arsenokoites.

Malakos translates to soft.

From what I have read, a majority of Bible scholars seem to believe that arsenokoites had something to do with prostitution or maybe shrine/temple prostitution.

Extending these terms to be a prohibition of all homosexual relationships is a stretch.

I am not so certain. However, regardless my point remains that explaining all 7 of these verses away as only referring to what our culture views as bad homosexuality (i.e., with youth, for money, or as part of idol worship), as opposed to good homosexuality (being between two loving individuals) could also be applied to any other sexual practice (fornication, adultery, etc.). I think it's a stretch to apply this argument to all of these 7 verses.

Do you believe that you can explain away all 7 of these verses with this kind of argument?

Do you think that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality?

Do you believe the same argument being applied here for homosexuality in the bible also applies to mentions of fornication and adultery in the Bible that these are not sins (as long as they are loving consensual adults, not exchanging money and not part of idol worship)?

Edited October 24, 2019 by Anonymous Mormon

[InCognitus]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

14 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

The utter stupidity of this argument should be evident from Lot's response in Genesis 19:8:  "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes".   Lot's daughters had "not known man"?  Like they've never "gotten acquainted" with any man previously?  

Victor H. Matthews deals with the customs and code of conduct issue very directly, even with respect to the men wishing to "sexually abuse the strangers staying in Lot's house" (p. 5).  See my previous post for a link.

The KJV version wherein Lot offers his daughters to a group of alleged rapists isn’t a strong way to counter what you claim is “utter stupidity”. 

From Victor H. Matthews article, page 5:

Quote

Quote

Gen 19:8: "Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."

This speech perfectly parallels the demand made by the men of Sodom.  They demand that Lot "bring them [the men] out" just as Lot offers to "bring them [his daughters] out."  The men in the crowd state that they want to "know them" while Lot assures them that his daughters "have not known man."  The parallelism once again functions as a reversal while at the same time suggesting Lot may need to compensate for his improper actions in granting hospitality to these strangers.

Obviously, Lot's daughters are being used by their father--without any consideration for their rights as persons.  They are "property" to be used for the benefit of their father and his household.  The disregard for their rights is another parallel in the text with the angels, who are also without rights, having improperly accepted the invitation from Lot to enter his house.

Lot appears to be "throwing them a bone" with the offer of his daughters.  He may hope this will satisfy the men's desire for violence/sexual gratification, but this is also part of his assertion that he has the legal right to grant these strangers the protection of his home (Abou-Zeid: 252).  His defense of his own actions and of the strangers hinges on his assertion to "brotherhood" (i.e., citizenship) and his right to offer hospitality in the name of the city.

The parallelism factors noted above are reasons why it is "utter stupidity" to try to claim that "yada" means nothing more than "getting acquainted" in the context of the story of Genesis 19.  Regardless of what you think of Lot's behavior in the matter (I think he's kind of stupid too), this is NOT a reason for dismissal of the poor attempt at removing sexual desires from the story.

 

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I am not so certain. However, regardless my point remains that explaining all 7 of these verses away as only referring to what our culture views as bad homosexuality (i.e., with youth, for money, or as part of idol worship), as opposed to good homosexuality (being between two loving individuals) could also be applied to any other sexual practice (fornication, adultery, etc.). I think it's a stretch to apply this argument to all of these 7 verses.

Do you believe that you can explain away all 7 of these verses with this kind of argument?

Do you think that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality?

Do you believe the same argument being applied here for homosexuality in the bible also applies to mentions of fornication and adultery in the Bible that these are not sins (as long as they are loving consensual adults, not exchanging money and not part of idol worship)?

This is why I think the Bible teachings on any subject have to be taken as a whole and in context of Jewish mores carried through the centuries, including euphemisms for homosexual practices and archetypes that have been translated by those who did not necessarily understand the "manner" of the Jews.

The Bible certainly promotes sacred, religious marriage and not same-sex civil marriage.

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I am not so certain. However, regardless my point remains that explaining all 7 of these verses away as only referring to what our culture views as bad homosexuality (i.e., with youth, for money, or as part of idol worship), as opposed to good homosexuality (being between two loving individuals) could also be applied to any other sexual practice (fornication, adultery, etc.). I think it's a stretch to apply this argument to all of these 7 verses.

Do you believe that you can explain away all 7 of these verses with this kind of argument?

I was speaking specifically to the use of malakos and arsenokoites.  That explanation only applies to those words (and their translations).

13 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Do you think that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality?

No, I don't.  Leviticus might be the clearest and yet it is also embedded in a bunch of law of Moses commandments that we no longer follow.  New Testament statements are all from one person:  Paul.

And all 7 can be interpreted as various acts of rape (or desired rape), prostitution (and forms of), and pederasty.

13 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Do you believe the same argument being applied here for homosexuality in the bible also applies to mentions of fornication and adultery in the Bible that these are not sins (as long as they are loving consensual adults, not exchanging money and not part of idol worship)?

What you describe here is not the "same argument".  Fornication and adultery are sins that can be committed between two opposite sex individuals or two same sex individuals.

I don't believe that pronouncements against fornication, adultery, prostitution, rape condemn sex within marriage whether that is between opposite- or same-sex couples.

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

From Victor H. Matthews article, page 5:

The parallelism factors noted above are reasons why it is "utter stupidity" to try to claim that "yada" means nothing more than "getting acquainted" in the context of the story of Genesis 19.  Regardless of what you think of Lot's behavior in the matter (I think he's kind of stupid too), this is NOT a reason for dismissal of the poor attempt at removing sexual desires from the story.

 

My point is that Lot's offering of his daughters to a group of rapists requires careful scrutiny of the entire account.

[california boy]

Reading through this thread is an exercise of people using scripture to not only support their already determined position but also to diminish the others equally already determined position.  I guess I just don't worry too much about what other people think about my beliefs.  There is really only one person who I care about being in sync with.  God.  I trust Him.  And if people think they have gotten a different message from God than I have, I don't really care.  I don't have to answer for their beliefs or behavior.  And they don't have to answer for my beliefs or behavior.  

[aussieguy55]

I don't accept the historicity of  the Pentateuch  (Finkelstein Dever & Peter Enns). so this just some intellectual fun I have with fundamentalist Christians who attack LGBTT rights and sometimes get caught in a gay bar.