Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
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.Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
(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.
I think this was pointed out in a previous thread. Evidently, the KJV translators did a poor job of translating that word.Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
These were male temple prostitutes.
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.Originally posted by aefting:
Other then the men in Genesis 19, can you think of any specific examples of homosexual individuals in the Bible?
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.Originally posted by latterrain77:
Hi all! I don't see any possible read of these verses [referring in KJV to "sodomites"] 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. [...] The Sodomites were practitioners of wicked Idolatry and as a result of THAT and pride, met their just fate. Thanks! latterrain77
"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).Originally posted by aefting:
Other then the men in Genesis 19, can you think of any specific examples of homosexual individuals in the Bible?
Surely you jest?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.
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.)Originally posted by dianetavegia:
Hauro! You said: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 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.
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 !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.
Hi Bob. Thank you for the comments. I very much appreciate your thoughts.Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
...So those who want to play semantic games and pretend that the male temple prostitutes were NOT homosexual (sure), there is no way around Romans 1.
Why oh why would you WANT to "defend" what God "deplores"?
There is absolutely no biblical support for assuming such absurdities.Originally posted by Haruo:
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
That's right, because David never did anything wrong sexually... Oh wait a minute...Originally posted by Pastor_Bob:
To say that they were engaged in a relationshiop that God calls an abomination is very careless at best.
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.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 !
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.Originally posted by SheEagle9/11:
Is there no limit to the sacrilege & blasphemy?
Scott, are you actually insinuating that because David committed adultery with Bathsheba that he is likely a homosexual?Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
That's right, because David never did anything wrong sexually... Oh wait a minute...