Two Questions

Amen!!!!!!!!

 

Scott,

Let's debate diversity perversity and intolerance here: http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=002809

Joseph Botwinick

 

Okay, let's take a look at each verse:

1Ki 14:24 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.
In Hebrew, the word translated "sodomite" is qadesh, meaning a male temple prostitute. Temples of idol worship frequently employed male prostitutes to use sex in the practice of idolatry.

1Ki 15:12 And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.
Again, it's the Hebrew word qadesh, meaning a male temple prostitute. Note the reference also to removal of idols in the same reference.

1Ki 22:46 And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.
Again, it's the Hebrew word qadesh, meaning a male temple prostitute.

2Ki 23:7 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.
Once again, it's the Hebrew word qadesh, meaning a male temple prostitute. Note the reference in this verse and the next verse to places of worship.

Deu 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. This also refers to the homosexual.
Here, not only is the Hebrew word qadesh (a male temple prostitute) used for "sodomite", but the Hebrew word qdeshah (a female prostitute) was also used. This verse isn't addressing homosexuality, it's addressing prostitution.

How wrong can you be. It has always been morally wrong. You may deny it all you want to, but that is an absolute 100% fact. Both the OT and the NT says as much.
You paint me with a broad brush. You'll never find a single post where I've said homosexuality was wrong. On the contary, I've said that the bible forbids homosexual behavior. But, what I've also said is that the word translated "sodomite" in the OT is not any homosexual, but a male prostitute used for the puropuse of sexual acts as a form of idolatrous worship in temples.

You said to HCL, " HCL - Because they're already saved" They may be nice, but that is not salvation. They have the wrong Jesus. If they have the right Jesus then they will not be practicing their sin as a lifestyle.
I don't remember if I said that or not. But salvation and repentance are two different things. Repentance is not a condition of salvation, it is a result of salvation. While I believe that a truly saved person is repentant of their sins, that does not mean that a saved person has repented of their sins. Repentance is a process, salvation is not. Most of us here are saved, yet we all harbor a sins that we have yet to repent of, because as sinners we all sin conitnuously.

 

JohnV: 1Ki 14:24 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.
In Hebrew, the word translated "sodomite" is qadesh, meaning a male temple prostitute. Temples of idol worship frequently employed male prostitutes to use sex in the practice of idolatry.

Since you will never believe me on anything, let's see what Matthew henry said:

II. Here is much evil said of the subjects, both as to their character and their condition.

1. See here how wicked and profane they were. It is a most sad account that is here given of their apostasy from God, v. 22–24. Judah, the only professing people God had in the world, did evil in his sight, in contempt and defiance of him and the tokens of his special presence with them; they provoked him to jealousy, as the adulterous wife provokes her husband by breaking the marriage-covenant. Their fathers had been bad enough, especially in the times of the judges, but they did abominable things, above all that their fathers had done. The magnificence of their temple, the pomp of their priesthood, and all the secular advantages with which their religion was attended, could not prevail to keep them to it. Nothing less than the pouring out of the Spirit from on high will keep God’s Israel in their allegiance to him. The account here given of the wickedness of the Jews agrees with that which the apostle gives of the wickedness of the Gentile world (Rom. 1:21, 24), so that both Jew and Gentile are alike under sin, Rom. 3:9. (1.) They became vain in their imaginations concerning God, and changed his glory into an image, for they built themselves high places, images, and groves (v. 23), profaning God’s name by affixing to it their images, and God’s ordinances by serving their idols with them. They foolishly fancies that they exalted God when they worshipped him on high hills and pleased him when they worshipped him under the pleasant shadow of green trees. (2.) They were given up to vile affections (as those idolaters Rom. 1:26, 27), for there were sodomites in the land (v. 24), men with men working that which is unseemly, and not to be thought of, much less mentioned, without abhorrence and indignation. They dishonoured God by one sin and then God left them to dishonour themselves by another. They profaned the privileges of a holy nation, therefore God gave them up to their own hearts’ lusts, to imitate the abominations of the accursed Canaanites; and herein the Lord was righteous. And, when they did like those that were cast out, how could they expect any other than to be cast out like them?

You see JohnV matthew Henry disagrees with you also. Maybe it is you who might need to re-exam your position.

 

Looks like the translators of the King James Version did a poor job of translating that Hebrew word, which led to Matthew Henry's mistaken commentary concerning that word. Other translations do a better job of translating that word. The ESV translates it as "male cult prostitutes" in 1 Kings 14:24.

 

Amen Jailminister

J barner2000 I am assuming that we are talking about a married couple too and if not then you are right, there is more to the picture.

By the way I can't help but get the feeling that more than just Rev Joshua feel sodomy is O.K. as long as it is between a married man and woman if so do you believe that God approves of it?

I could be wrong but I don't think God even implies that it is O.K.

Most agree that that a sodimite is a male temple prostitute also called a dog.

But the act of sodomy is, well the act of sodomy without having to be expicit and I wont.

what are your views on this?

[ July 02, 2003, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: JesusisGod2 ]

 

I hope we never get into a debate over which sexual acts, positions, etc. are okay and which are not okay between a husband and wife.

All sexual activity outside of marriage(as traditionally defined ) is sinful. Period.

I am afraid we are mixing up politics and the Bible to a large extent in these various threads. There are lots of actions that are sinful but they are not illegal.

Just think, do we really want to spend the billions of dollars it would take to enforce anti-sodomy laws?

 

Since you will never believe me on anything
Yet you still refuse to acknowlege that I was right and you were wrong in regards to the OT references.

let's see what Matthew henry said:
Why? What book of the Bible did he write?


You see JohnV matthew Henry disagrees with you also.
Then he doesn't have an understanding of OT Hebrew. What I cited was factual. It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing.

Maybe it is you who might need to re-exam your position.
If I did, I'd be guilty of adding to the Bible. Sorry, I'm biblically forbidden from doing that.

But, just so you don't mistake me, I'm not saying, and I've never said that homosexual intercourse was okay. We're in agreement that the Bible forbids it, so don't accuse me of saying differently. However, the fact that the previous verses in question above refer to male temple prostitutes, rather than homosexuals in general, is a matter of fact.

 

but dont you believe that it would not be sin if the homosexuals could marry?
if so then i can not put this any more lightly then to say your doctrine is from demons, wheather this may fault me with the moderators or not.

 

Originally posted by JesusisGod2:
...as long as it [sodomy] is between a married man and woman if so do you believe that God approves of it?
Yes, sodomy in the marriage bed, and for that matter, any consenting sexual activity in the marriage bed between the husband and wife is appropriate. As long as it stays inthe marriage bed, the marriage bed remains undefiled.

I could be wrong but I don't think God even implies that it is O.K.
Please cite a bible verse where it forbids it in marriage. It doesn't. It forbids it as a matter fornication.

Most agree that that a sodimite is a male temple prostitute also called a dog.
I've heard this, but haven't seen the bible reference myself, where it calls temple prostitutes dogs. I'm not saying it doesn't just that I haven't seen it.

But the act of sodomy is, well the act of sodomy without having to be expicit and I wont. It's been described before here. It's genital/orgal, or genital/anal sexual contact. Again, not forbidden in the marriage bed.

 

No, I believe that "marriage" is reserved for a man and a woman, and I believe that the government has an interest in recognizing it as such. Two same sex persons, or persons not desiring marriage, may be recognized to have a civil union, but not marriage.

 

This is not what I've witnessed. A great many gay people, saved or otherwise, believe that they are perverted and sinful, and repent as best they can. Sometimes, after years of suffering in this way, reinforced by the way their families and their churches misread and misapply Scripture, their eyes are opened to the falsehood of that notion, they realize that they are trying to repent of their humanity, which just doesn't work, because the aspect of their personality which they have been seeing as "their sin" is in fact not sinful, and this attempted repentance of an unrepentable object has often led them to ignore the very real and grievous sin in their lives (including in their sex lives) and the Holy Spirit works a mighty work in them. And they are still gay. Others go to their graves repentant, and celibate, and miserable.

If someone uses vulgarity and relizes what they have done is wrong, it may equally well be that a parent or teacher inculcated some notions of moral vocabulary in them at a very early age. Unsaved, indeed not even nominally Christian people are just as prone to this as the putatively born-again.

Haruo

 

No, I believe that "marriage" is reserved for a man and a woman, and I believe that the government has an interest in recognizing it as such. Two same sex persons, or persons not desiring marriage, may be recognized to have a civil union, but not marriage. </font>[/QUOTE]civil union? what a mess for this country. another liberal mess

 

Not really, I support the idea of non-marriage civil unions. While it's true that homosexual couples would benefit, there are greater benefits to non-homosexuals. For example, if I'm retired and single, and my brother (or sister) is as well, and we, in our old age, decide to buy a house together and share expenses, etc, as one household, we could get a civil union, which would mean our property is community property so long as the civil union exists. It has nothing to do with sexual identity in this case, but has extreme benefits for those choosing to live in a family, regardless of sexuality. I would hardly call that concept "liberal". Preservation of the extended family is quite conservative.

 

Joshua: Are you reading the same Bible I am???

You will have to answer to God one day for leading these people to Hell by telling them homosexual activity is OK with God. By lying to them, you are dooming them to an eternity in Hell.

The only thing practicing homosexuals are 'saved' from is a heterosexual relationship! They are certainly not 'saved' by any stretch of the imagination in Biblical terms.

I think you are so adamant on this subject because it helps you justify your OWN preferences.

Which one of these verses do you want these people to hear? Which one do you think YOU will hear for condemning these people to Hell forever?

"Well done, thy good and faithful servant."

"Many will call me, Lord, Lord, and I will say; depart from me, I never knew you."

 

JohnV, I told you you would not believe me and now you do not believe Matthew Henry(who is one of the most highly respected commentators on the entire bible.) I guess you and guys like KenH and irRev Joshua are the only ones that are right.

Stick your head in the sand I don't care.

 

Sue, I cannot believe this came out of your fingers!