Examples of Homosexuals

Judges 19:22

 

These were male temple prostitutes. We don't know what kind of acts they committed or whether they were homosexual, looking at the word qadesh.

 

I think this was pointed out in a previous thread. Evidently, the KJV translators did a poor job of translating that word.

 

Perhaps Jonathan (in his relationship with David), though clearly neither Jonathan nor David was exclusively homosexual and there is no certainty that the relationship involved "that sort of" intercourse. But it was clearly "romantic" in the heroic kingly manner. 1 Samuel 18-20 and environs.

Haruo

 

(1 Ki 14:24 KJV) And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

(1 Ki 15:12 KJV) And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

(1 Ki 22:46 KJV) And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.

(2 Ki 23:7 KJV) And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.


Hi all! I don't see any possible read of these verses as being related to "sexuality." The text strongly points to IDOLATRY. The groves (2 Kings 23: 7), the idols (1 Kings 15: 12), the abominations (1 Kings 14: 24), the houses of the sodomites - which were houses of worship (2 Kings 23: 7); all of these references are closely associated with Idolatry rather than sexuality. Sexuality is not explicitly mentioned in these verses, as idolatry IS.

One of the verses supplied (2 Ki 23:7) makes reference to the WOMEN weaving some items for the house of worship - clearly a reference to "false religion," not homosexual orgies. Furthermore, the false church's proximity to GOD's true house of worship is referenced, further illustrating the "spiritual" degeneracy of an idolatrous religion, not the sexuality of it's members.

Throughout the Bible, it is repeatedly shown that GOD was intent on casting out abominable and detestable "idolatry" from Israel. The Bible is extreme in it's focus on Idolatry as being the primary sin of offence in Israel. To commit Idolatry was to commit adultery against GOD himself! (Jer. 3: 1-5).

Idolatry is such a focus, that the first AND second Commandments of the 10 Commandments expressly relate to Idolatry (Exo. 20: 1-6). NONE of the 10 Commandments relate specifically to homosexuality (though one does relate to adultery). If sin could be measured on a scale of "one through ten," Idolatry would rank a strong TEN. Idolatry is the NUMERO UNO sin (as Solomon could easy attest).

One of the verses supplied, 1 Kings 14: 24, is CLEARLY speaking of idolatry which GOD routinely purged out of Israel at various times (with King Josiah's purge of it perhaps on the largest scale). The Sodomites were practitioners of wicked Idolatry and as a result of THAT and pride, met their just fate. Thanks! latterrain77

 

You're half right. These verses are primarily about idolatry or other unacceptable religious activity. But no explicit mention of sexuality was necessary in the culture in which they were written, because it was common knowledge that some of these heterodox and/or foreign religions made use of sexual intercourse, mostly but not always heterosexual, in their rituals, and that they employed a cadre of specialists (priests? prostitutes? whatever) to participate in those rituals. In other words, while the reference is primarily to idolatry, and not explicitly to sex(uality), there was an unavoidable and proper sexual connotation to the term in the original — a connotation, however, which had little or nothing to do with homosexuality per se, but rather with ritual intercourse designed to enhance the harvests or to ensure the fertility of the kingly line.

The use of "sodomite" as a translation for the Hebrew "QaDeŠ" (which is closer to "saint" than to either "Sodomite" or "prostitute", etymologically) is the result of the KJV translators' (and earlier English translators') uncritical adotion of Latin forms which had arisen in early mediaeval Catholicism as a result of a tendentious misreading of the Sodom story and NT texts referring to it (esp. in Jude 7). To see a reference to homosexuality as presently at issue in these passages is simply very poor exegesis driven by theopolitical agendas.

Haruo

 

"nor abusers of themselves with mankind...shall enter the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justifed in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God" (I Cor. 6).


Mark Osgatharp

 

Hauro! You said:

Surely you jest?

 

Surely you jest? </font>[/QUOTE]No, I'm not jesting. This is the thesis of the title chapter in Jonathan Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times, and in my opinion it is a defensible thesis. If you start with the assumption that David couldn't possibly have had a homosexual relationship, or that such an idea is unthinkable in a Type of Christ, or something, then you will predictably arrive at the conclusion that it is at best a jest. If you start with some awareness of the sexual practices of monarchs and heroes in the countries on which the Israel of Saul and David (or the Davidic line, if you don't take an historicistic view of Samuel) were seeking to model themselves, it is an entirely reasonable interpretation of the Biblical material. It is of course widely held by GLBT Christians who seek Biblical models for their lives. (Eisegesis, to be sure, but of a kind we all engage in, IMHO.)

Haruo

 

This is absolutely one of the most disgusting repulsive posts I've ever had the displeasure seeing on this board. Is there no limit to the sacrilege & blasphemy? Apparently not !

Jude[4] For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Hi Bob. Thank you for the comments. I very much appreciate your thoughts.

When you look at Romans 1, it does not say that GOD "gave up" homosexuals. Rather, it shows that GOD "gave up" Idolators! Homosexuality is shown to be a "result" of Idolatry, not the other way around.

GOD "gave up" the people in Romans 1 on two seperate accounts. The first count can be found in verse 24. The reason they were "given up" is explained in verse 23 which describes crude pagan idolatry, not homosexual behavior. As a result of the v23 idolatry, verse 24 says; "Wherefore GOD also gave them up." So, on the first count, it is shown that GOD "gave up" idolators - NOT homosexuals. The homosexuality of these idolators came AFTER.

The second count of GOD "giving up" the people in Romans 1 can be found in verse 26; "for this cause GOD gave them up" (v26)." What cause? Verse 25 provides the answer; because they "changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Idolatry again! So, on the second count, it is shown that GOD "gave up" idolators - not homosexuals.

Last thoughts; I wouldn't dream of defending any sexual practice that occurs outside of marriage. God Forbid! I'm just trying to point out what I see the Bible actually saying. I think Romans 1 is unambiguous in showing that Idolatry is it's central theme. The prevailing view that GOD "gave up" homosexuals in Romans 1 is simply not supported by the text as I read it (that is not to say that sexuality outside of marriage is appropriate, because it is not). Rather, GOD "gave up" Idolators in Romans 1.

Wouldn't you say it's so that homosexuals who are NOT idolators cannot logically be among those who were "given up," as were the idolators of Romans 1 "given up" due to their idolatry? Many homosexuals are NOT idolators (I suppose). 1 Cor. 6: 9-11 shows that homosexuals are not necessarily "given up," while Idolators ARE. Thanks Bob! latterrain77

 

Hi Haruo. Thank you for your comments. I appreciate it. You said; "But no explicit mention of sexuality was necessary in the culture in which they were written, because it was common knowledge that some of these heterodox and/or foreign religions made use of sexual intercourse, mostly but not always heterosexual, in their rituals, and that they employed a cadre of specialists (priests? prostitutes? whatever) to participate in those rituals." But how do we know that? Secular history? Is it prudent to reach a Biblical conclusion from history alone without Biblical support? Thanks Haruo. latterrain77

 

There is absolutely no biblical support for assuming such absurdities.

The relationship that Jonathan had with David was an intimate friendship that would be likened to brothers. Theirs was a pure relationship; most certainly not sexual or romantic in any form or fashion. The most intimate friendship subsisted between them, and they loved each other with pure hearts. They had a friendship which could not be affected with changes or chances.

The fact that they kissed one another when they met only illustrated the love they felt for each other. It was very common for men to greet one another with a kiss. Jacob and Esau, Samuel and Saul, Joseph and his brothers, David and Barzillai (2 Sam 19:39), Paul and the elders of the church of Ephesus (Acts 20:37).

To say that they were engaged in a relationshiop that God calls an abomination is very careless at best.

 

That's right, because David never did anything wrong sexually... Oh wait a minute...

 

This is absolutely disgusting! And to imply that since David sinned sexually, he was possibly also a homosexual means that every many and woman who had sex before marriage, committed adultery, lusted after someone...... are also possibly homosexuals.

Well said, SheEagle
Diane

 

Actually SheEagle, this is neither sacrilege nor blasphemy. Even if one believes that homosexuality is wrong, David is not God. One can question is sexual behaviors in light of the cultural context in which his biographies were written, and not blaspheme.

Speaking of which, has anyone even read the book which develops this premise. The case is by no means rock-solid, but it does raise some interesting points.

Joshua

 

Scott, are you actually insinuating that because David committed adultery with Bathsheba that he is likely a homosexual?