Sure, Ezekiel 16:49-50. Nowhere is homosexuality mentioned. It was pride and gluttony and in the midst of plenty gave no help to the poor and needy, which was considered to be far more abominable than it is today.
If you read the account of Sodom and Gomorrah, no mention is made of homosexuality. Oh, they threatened to sexually abuse God's angels, which is certainly a problem. It was a common practice to show dominance over your enemy by raping their men, and it seems reasonable to assume this was the motivation behind the threat. It was certainly a show of a lack of hospitality, which was a grievous sin in that culture. But the idea that run-of-the-mill homosexuality was even a factor is an interpolation by Christian tradition and is not supported by scripture.
If the motive was merely to show dominance, why did Lot offer his daughters to satisfy the abusers desires in place of the angels (emissaries of God)? Gen 19.
Because the motivation of the mob was unbridled sexual lust. That lust was piqued by the presence of the pure, spiritually beautiful angels. That's how lust works. Evil lust is attracted to purity. It want's to claim it, but always destroys it in the process.
I think you might be looking at the wrong scripture. I mean, scripture over HERE may not support X, but scripture over THERE does support X.
If you want to assert that scripture does not support X, well, it's easy to simply go to the scripture that serves your intent and ignore the scripture which doesn't!
Sure, that's a fair interpretation. But it still says nothing about homosexuality. It says something about evil.
"If you want to assert that scripture does not support X, well, it's easy to simply go to the scripture that serves your intent and ignore the scripture which doesn't!"
I agree with that. People do it all the time. Whenever we see a contradiction in scripture we can untangle it by studying the context, the translation, the culture of the time, etc. As far as I can tell from my studies of all the passages relevant to this discussion, the Christian interpretation of the Bible as being condemnatory of homosexuality (not talking about adultery, promiscuity, or fornication, gay or straight - that's all clearly forbidden) is based on tradition paired with incorrect translations or a lack of context.
Since I was born gay and didn't have a say in the matter, that's quite a comfort.
Christians can be guilty of a terrible thing in this matter. By pounding on the Bible and insisting that God hates gays, they drive gays out of worship. Many of these people react by saying "Well if God hates me, then I hate God." They turn their back on God entirely, and that's on those Christians. Wouldn't you prefer that a gay man loves God, finds a partner to whom to commit, stays faithful, and lives a good life with Christian fellowship? I think Jesus would prefer that. But the perpetuation of the false tradition hinders it, which is just sad.
Ezekiel makes clear that the sin of Sodom wasn't homosexuality. It was cruelty.
But let's not let that get in the way of a good story!
Chapter and verse, please.
Sure, Ezekiel 16:49-50. Nowhere is homosexuality mentioned. It was pride and gluttony and in the midst of plenty gave no help to the poor and needy, which was considered to be far more abominable than it is today.
If you read the account of Sodom and Gomorrah, no mention is made of homosexuality. Oh, they threatened to sexually abuse God's angels, which is certainly a problem. It was a common practice to show dominance over your enemy by raping their men, and it seems reasonable to assume this was the motivation behind the threat. It was certainly a show of a lack of hospitality, which was a grievous sin in that culture. But the idea that run-of-the-mill homosexuality was even a factor is an interpolation by Christian tradition and is not supported by scripture.
Hope that helps!
If the motive was merely to show dominance, why did Lot offer his daughters to satisfy the abusers desires in place of the angels (emissaries of God)? Gen 19.
Because the motivation of the mob was unbridled sexual lust. That lust was piqued by the presence of the pure, spiritually beautiful angels. That's how lust works. Evil lust is attracted to purity. It want's to claim it, but always destroys it in the process.
I think you might be looking at the wrong scripture. I mean, scripture over HERE may not support X, but scripture over THERE does support X.
If you want to assert that scripture does not support X, well, it's easy to simply go to the scripture that serves your intent and ignore the scripture which doesn't!
IMO.
"Unbridled sexual lust."
Sure, that's a fair interpretation. But it still says nothing about homosexuality. It says something about evil.
"If you want to assert that scripture does not support X, well, it's easy to simply go to the scripture that serves your intent and ignore the scripture which doesn't!"
I agree with that. People do it all the time. Whenever we see a contradiction in scripture we can untangle it by studying the context, the translation, the culture of the time, etc. As far as I can tell from my studies of all the passages relevant to this discussion, the Christian interpretation of the Bible as being condemnatory of homosexuality (not talking about adultery, promiscuity, or fornication, gay or straight - that's all clearly forbidden) is based on tradition paired with incorrect translations or a lack of context.
Since I was born gay and didn't have a say in the matter, that's quite a comfort.
Christians can be guilty of a terrible thing in this matter. By pounding on the Bible and insisting that God hates gays, they drive gays out of worship. Many of these people react by saying "Well if God hates me, then I hate God." They turn their back on God entirely, and that's on those Christians. Wouldn't you prefer that a gay man loves God, finds a partner to whom to commit, stays faithful, and lives a good life with Christian fellowship? I think Jesus would prefer that. But the perpetuation of the false tradition hinders it, which is just sad.