Prooving homosexuality a sin

As most of you know, many pro homosexual activists try and pro-homosexualize anti homosexual passages in the bible;

Like leviticus which they have narrowed it down to cult prostituion
and sodom and gomorah being entirely about in hospitality…

are there any websites or arguments you can give me to help against websites and arguments like these; lionking.org/~kovu/bible/toc.html

[quote=Valtiel]As most of you know, many pro homosexual activists try and pro-homosexualize anti homosexual passages in the bible;

Like leviticus which they have narrowed it down to cult prostituion
and sodom and gomorah being entirely about in hospitality…

are there any websites or arguments you can give me to help against websites and arguments like these; lionking.org/~kovu/bible/toc.html
[/quote]

Before they commit any moral crime, Judges 19:22 describes a large number of homosexuals surrounding a house and asking to homosexually copulate with a male guest “sons of Belial.”

Belial is a Hebrew name for Satan.

[quote=BibleReader]Before they commit any moral crime, Judges 19:22 describes a large number of homosexuals surrounding a house and asking to homosexually copulate with a male guest “sons of Belial.”

Belial is a Hebrew name for Satan.
[/quote]

Bump…

[quote=Valtiel]Bump…
[/quote]

help please!!!

[quote=Valtiel]As most of you know, many pro homosexual activists try and pro-homosexualize anti homosexual passages in the bible;

Like leviticus which they have narrowed it down to cult prostituion
and sodom and gomorah being entirely about in hospitality…

are there any websites or arguments you can give me to help against websites and arguments like these; lionking.org/~kovu/bible/toc.html
[/quote]

Valtiel,

I’m not following your link, but let me try to answer the question you posed anyway.

For starters, the state of being homosexual is not sinful. It is intrinsically disordered (and so are a lot of other things in this world), but it is not sinful.

Homosexual activity is sinful–intrinsically and gravely sinful. The reason for this is that the marital relationship is supposed to be a “type”–a foreshadowing, more than an image and less than the actual thing–of the relationship between Christ and the Church in Heaven. Any activity that distorts that image is sinful. And in Heaven there will not be Christ and Christ, and there will not be Church and Church; thus the marital relationship must be between a man and a woman and not between two men or between two women.

  • Liberian

[quote=BibleReader]Before they commit any moral crime, Judges 19:22 describes a large number of homosexuals surrounding a house and asking to homosexually copulate with a male guest “sons of Belial.”

Belial is a Hebrew name for Satan.
[/quote]

The problem there, is that one has to ask, not only “Is there any record in the Bible of that sort of activity ?”, but also, “If such activity does appear - what is its purpose?” That kind of thing is found

[list]
*]in cultic contexts: sacred sodomy was quite widespread in the ancient near east
*]in descriptions of activity intended to humiliate, by casting doubt on the virility of one of those involved;
*]in descriptions of gang-rape
[/list]Since plenty of homosexuals are no more in favour of gang-rape (which is so largely a power issue anyway; not one of affection and love in any form) than anyone else, passages condemning the use of sex for what they too regard as repugnant are going to mean very little.

Homosexuality, like sexuality in general, has had many functions in history: the Spartans encouraged it in the interests of military cohesion - if men were fighting not just to protect friends, but lovers, they would fight better. It worked too. IOW - not all descriptions of homosexuality in the Bible or outside of it, describe what Western homosexuals today do. That is why the question of purpose is so important in a text. Sometimes, Biblical passages don’t mean what it would be helpful for them to mean. ##

Bible Verses

Gn 1:27 - complementarity of sexes reflects God’s inner unity
Gn 2:21-24 - transmission of life through total self-donation - one flesh
Gn 19 - original sin deteriorates to Sodom’s sin, destroyed
Lv18:22 - called abomination, cut off from people (v.29)
Lv 20;13 - both shall be put to death for abominable deed
Rom 1;27 - called unnatural, shameful, and a perversity
1Cor 6:9 - active homosexuals won’t inherit kingdom of God
1Tim 1:9-10 - those who engage in such acts called sinners

and this link:

The Catholic Church and Homosexuality

[quote=Gottle of Geer]## The problem there, is that one has to ask, not only “Is there any record in the Bible of that sort of activity ?”, but also, “If such activity does appear - what is its purpose?” That kind of thing is found
[list]
*]in cultic contexts: sacred sodomy was quite widespread in the ancient near east
*]in descriptions of activity intended to humiliate, by casting doubt on the virility of one of those involved;
*]in descriptions of gang-rape
[/list]Since plenty of homosexuals are no more in favour of gang-rape (which is so largely a power issue anyway; not one of affection and love in any form) than anyone else, passages condemning the use of sex for what they too regard as repugnant are going to mean very little.

Homosexuality, like sexuality in general, has had many functions in history: the Spartans encouraged it in the interests of military cohesion - if men were fighting not just to protect friends, but lovers, they would fight better. It worked too. IOW - not all descriptions of homosexuality in the Bible or outside of it, describe what Western homosexuals today do. That is why the question of purpose is so important in a text. Sometimes, Biblical passages don’t mean what it would be helpful for them to mean. ##
[/quote]

Hi, Gottle of Geer.

I think that you are over-intellectualizing.

A title “sons of belial” given by an ancient Hebrew writer to a group of homosexuals is surely an insult addressed to homosexuals. The New Testament Committee, in its footnote, said that “sons of belial” inferred that these were homosexuals given to “extreme perversion.”

Whether the evil society in which these “sons of Satan” lived regarded sodomy as “sacred” or a mere expression of another’s non-virility is non-relevant. The question is, What did God’s Old Testament Church, the Hebrews, think of homosexual activity?

The doers were called “sons of belial.” That’s pretty clear.

You also seem to mix up the gang rape with the title “sons of belial.” What makes you think that the author called them “sons of belial” because of the gang rape? I don’t see that in the story.

Look at the text. A group of homosexual men come to the house, and say, “Bring out your guest, that we may yada him.” Yada simply means “know.” In the current context it is that same yada employed when the Bible says that “Adam yada’d his wife Eve,” Genesis 4:1. He “sexed” her, would be a good translation.

Well, these men were proposing that they “sex” the Levite of Ephraim.

How does the owner of the house, inside the house, react to their homosexual proposal respecting his male guest?

Remember, he isn’t yet aware that a gang rape is coming. He says, “No, my brothers; do not be so wicked.” What is “wicked”? A man “yada-ing” a man. Since this man is my guest, do not commit this crime." What is a “crime”? Their proposal that they “yada” the male guest.

Nah, the context is clear enough. These guys are “sons of belial” because they “yada” men.

HOw do they defend their beliefs against Romans chapter 1?

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24**Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.** 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. 

26**Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. **    28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

David

You know, the website you mentioned said this:

“Unfortunately Church tradition bought us these twistings of scripture and ignores true biblical research to find the truths of scripture.”

…Protestant assumptions, working mightily.

Here’s another website: truthsetsfree.net/study.html

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.