Re: the Bible, translation and gays

On Apr 23, 8:16 pm, rtdav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> I believe this is an attempt at justifying what is clearly a sin, by
> trying to distinguish a difference.
Your rebuttal, just as MJ's, is based on the interpretation of
"homo***uals" in the the bible as meaning the gays and lesbians of
modern times. I disagree. Context is very im****tant when trying to
wrestle what the Bible is saying.

There WAS temple prostitution and homo***ual rape (a means of
humiliating enemies) in biblical times. We are left with the decision
to categorize "homo***uals" as meaning all gays and lesbians, or
homo***ual rape and prostitution. One cannot honestly say they can be
dead sure that when homo***uality is mentioned in the Bible that it
means the loving, longterm, monogamous relation****ps of today. That
it's not referring to the relation****ps of today is sup****ted in
Leviticus where a "man lying with a man" is included in with the
"abominations" of eating shellfish, wearing clothes made of mixed
fabrics, etc, which were social customs. The most likely reason was to
increase the population in the agrarian culture. And a study of Sodom
in the Bible shows (as was pointed out by the moderator) that the sin
of Sodom was not homo***uality, but inhospitality. This tradition has
carried over to modern times where, in the middle east, one is always
welcomed into one's home and it's against social custom not to.

The Bible was used to sup****t discrimination of a class of people
(slaves), that we now know is wrong. The same is true today of our gay
and lesbian brothers and sisters.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

   ----

[Let me be clear about Sodom. It's pretty obvious that Sodom was
****trayed as a cesspool of every kind of sin. The particular episode
described in the Bible seems like it was calculated to combine just
about as many horrors as possible into one: homo***ual rape of guests
who just happened to be angels. I would certainly never say "the sin
of Sodom was homo***uality." Homo***ual rape would be wrong even if
homo***uality is OK. However we know from other passages that Israel
considered homo***uality to be wrong. I'd never use this passage to
prove it. But given that we know it, I'd say it was intended to be
just one of many elements of offense to the episode. --clh]