SODOM AND GAMORHA: BACK FROM THE PAST

[TruthHunter]

I can tell that no one in this thread has any grasp of ancient sexuality.  Most want to read the Bible with the intent of hating people, so they read this junk into the Greek.  The ancients did not know about a lifestyle called homosexuality nor heterosexuality.  These are modern day terms.  For more information read Sir Kenneth Dover (1978) Greek Homosexuality and Michel Foucault (1984) The History of Sexuality.  Sorry no internet links for a topic this complex.

As to the Bible quotes, let's unpack it a little.

[9]  ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; Μὴ πλανᾶσθε: οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ  [10] οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται, οὐ μέθυσοι, οὐ λοίδοροι, οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν.

μαλακοὶ does not mean male prostitute, although it can be a characteristic of a male prostitute.  The word means "soft" and when applied to a man, it means effeminate. 

Ancient sexuality was mainly a man's world and it is divided into two classes - the active (always a male, embarrassing if a woman) and the passive (which could be a woman, girl, man, or boy).  The active partner penetrates and the passive partner receives.  For the ancients, gender hardly made a difference unless a male was passive and stayed passive then he'd receive the title "soft" and he would most likely be a prostitute or someone outside of the norms of society (Roman Emperors excluded).

In the ancient world, men may bugger other men to show power, dominance, to humiliate another, or for the fun of it.

ἀρσενοκοῖται means simply man laying with man and the ancients allowed this type of behavior.  If the man stayed this way or was always the receiver than he would be socially stigmatized. 

Again, ancient men always have the choice to penetrate anything they want.  The receiver is the one who receives the title "passive" "soft" and "effeminate".

As to Sodom and Gamorha, I always read the story to mean that it was bad for men to bugger anyone for power and humiliation.  They wanted to bugger men because it was the most damage they could do (like how it goes down in prison, a show of force).

So homosexuality as you think it is today, never was in the ancient world.

Obviously these passages discourage a certain type of behavior, but the behavior is not man loving man, but man buggering man.  Homosexuality is more about men loving men always and not switching to other objects of love, i.e. it is a lifestyle.

Finally for those looking for the Christian ONLY patriot movement, don't let the internet forum door bugger you as you leave!!!!!

Am I correct in thinking that you actually want us to believe that God condemns homosexual sex but not homosexuality? That it's ok to be gay but not to have sex with your gay partner? How can you defend homosexuality without defending homosexual sex? Do you have any idea how foolish you just made yourself sound?

[φυδγε]

Am I correct in thinking that you actually want us to believe that God condemns homosexual sex but not homosexuality? That it's ok to be gay but not to have sex with your gay partner? Do you have any idea how foolish you just made yourself sound?

I wrote that the ancients did not know the term homosexuality nor heterosexuality so how could they condemn it?  Do you have proof that the ancient world acknowledged these terms?  Please share.

There were no "gay's" in the ancient world.  The words that people use in a culture define their world.

Men were allowed to have sex with whatever they wanted and perhaps that is what Judaism and Christianity were trying to curtail.

You are foolish sir because you only believe what you want and you will not look at any of the evidence which I presented.

Please present your contrary evidence.  I cited my sources.  Your turn please.

[point]

There were no "gay's" in the ancient world.

Just like in Iran.  Ok makes sense now, no 'gays' in ancient time.  Just a bunch of full grown men running around having sex with each other, animals, kids and any other soft area they could find.  Now it makes perfect sense.  Thanks for that.
 

[Monkeypox]

Uh, that article is about San Fransicko, not LA.  Isn't it?

[φυδγε]

Just like in Iran.  Ok makes sense now, no 'gays' in ancient time.  Just a bunch of full grown men running around having sex with each other, animals, kids and any other soft area they could find.  Now it makes perfect sense.  Thanks for that.
 

You obviously will not consider my evidence and you stoop to making fun.  Seems like you are the ignorant one now.  I don't have to answer to your make believe bible nor history lessons.  A full grown boy making it up.

Do you have contrary evidence to present?  Will you read the sources?  I've already read your bible and I approach it using the knowledge and language of the times.  Assuming the ancient world is just like ours is an EPIC FAIL on your part.

Please start calling me names, cause I love this part of showing you how ignorant you are.

If anybody here can answer about ancient sexuality, then please go ahead.

[point]

Im not making fun of you.  I simply stating that Iran's president stated no 'gays' in Iran and you detailed the reason.  Not making fun there.  The satire is on the fact that men having sex with each other is not homosexual according to your post on ancient times.  This all started over S & G which obviously lived the same way, with the same reasons you stated.  The common ground is whatever you get from it.

Trying to justify something as right or wrong is hard to do when it was already decreed.  Doesnt matter much if you agree or not, we are all sometimes right and all sometimes wrong.  Truth never changes.

[φυδγε]

I don't see story of S & D as a bunch of pansies running around and raping men.  Pansies don't bugger people in the ancient world, it's the other way around, it's the dominant active males that penetrate in the story.  In those far distant times, male offspring were more valued than female offspring.  Giving up his daughter's to be buggered was too easy, the enemies wanted to bugger his male offspring because it was more damaging to the family and more humiliating to them (not because they wanted to start long loving male to male relationships with his children, i.e. the modern term homosexuality).

Be against whatever you want to be against.  Preach salvation however you want.  Please try and educate yourself about the ancient world and the culture which gave birth to both testaments.  This will only help your own spiritual and informational battles.

All the stories mentioned in this thread obviously aim at discouraging male buggering in general and effeminate male behavior (for the New Testament quotes).

To the ancients marriage was about producing offspring, not about having sex with the same mate for life.  This is why people in the Old Testament have concubines.  Women had less freedom to sleep around, but men were allowed to do as they wished.  As Christianity became more popular obviously much of this behavior was curtailed (i.e. adultery).

[TruthHunter]

I wrote that the ancients did not know the term homosexuality nor heterosexuality so how could they condemn it?  Do you have proof that the ancient world acknowledged these terms?  Please share.

There were no "gay's" in the ancient world.  The words that people use in a culture define their world.

Men were allowed to have sex with whatever they wanted and perhaps that is what Judaism and Christianity were trying to curtail.

You are foolish sir because you only believe what you want and you will not look at any of the evidence which I presented.

Please present your contrary evidence.  I cited my sources.  Your turn please.

Homosexuals unknown in the ancient world?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_China

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Islam

[Wanted]

I think prostitution should be legal pretty much for the same reason why i think drugs should be legal.
Better control, plus better enviroment for the prostitutes and clients, street prostitution is the worst and should NOT be legal.
Plus if prostitution practices are controlled it would reduce "sex slavery".

[φυδγε]

This is the same issue I have with my college freshmen and they normally fail over these problems of not being able to understand the ancient world.  As to sources, I don't mean the wiki way when I mean contrary evidence.  Show me ancients with homosexual relationships, i.e. long lasting lifestyle type relationships.  Did you read my sources yet?  But to entertain you, I'll read the wiki entries if you read the two books which I posted above which clearly prove my point.

Let me ask you a question, since I teach the ancient world and that is how I make my living, what do you have to prove with your wiki links?  You are just trying to win an argument which I've already won.  Please read my sources above.  If you need a more recent article please search for Paul Allen Miller and his more recent works on ancient sexuality.

Might I recommend:  Edwards, Catharine. The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge,
Cambridge UP, 1993.

[φυδγε]

Homosexuals unknown in the ancient world?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_China

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Islam

Here it is right from wiki, it totally proves my point:

"The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identifier, as Western societies have done for the past century."

This is the part where you fail miserably.

I think I'm done with this pissing match unless you are going to educate yourself about the ancient world and what culture and language gave birth to both Testaments.

And you believe S & G is about homosexual relationships?  Is that what they were going to do with the children, fall in love and marry them?  And the Ancient Greeks fell in love and married boys?  Please continue with your absurdities.  Please respond.

[TimeLady]

I'm just going to say this in this thread and leave for now...

there's a reason why there's no homosexuals in Iran.

IT IS A CAPITAL CRIME.

that's why most of them flee the country.

[φυδγε]

Here's more from wiki where my points are clearly proven:

There are two main views of male sexual activity in ancient Greek society. Some scholars, such as Kenneth Dover and David Halperin, claim that it was highly polarized into "active" and "passive" partners, penetrator and penetrated, an active/passive polarization held to be associated with dominant and submissive social roles: the active (penetrative) role was associated with masculinity, higher social status, and adulthood, while the passive role was associated with femininity, lower social status, and youth.[5] In this view, any sexual activities in which a male penetrated a social inferior was regarded as normal; "social inferiors" could include women, male youths, foreigners, prostitutes, or slaves; and being penetrated, especially by a social inferior, was considered potentially shameful.[5]

Other scholars, however, argue that male-male relations usually involved an adult male and a youth: the older male took the active (penetrative) role.[6][7] They also describe them as "warm," "loving," and "affectionate," [8] and argue that the Greek tradition of same-sex relations was central to "Greek history and warfare, politics, art, literature and learning, in short to the Greek miracle."[9]

Interesting how the wiki article cited Sir Kenneth Dover as an authority.  I wonder why the author avoids the words "homosexuality" and uses instead "male-male relations".  I wonder why that is? 

You got anything else beside supporting my argument which earlier was "me making a fool of myself".  Look at the fool now who says 500 bc was just like today with anarchists and homosexuals who are ruining society.  OMFG!!!!

[Rock]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,386789,00.html

[oyk152]

Why nobody ask a greek?Me i'm a reall greek and very well in history.Any questions please ask.

[Real Truth]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,386789,00.html

dat not kool

[oyk152]

whats not cool that i am a Greek?Why whats wrong with Greeks?We had the longest Syrtaki dance in the world here watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrVdpPzp68A&feature=related

[φυδγε]

oky152 I would appreciate what you have to say about any of this thread.  Indeed.

As for the rest, it seems the other wiki entry on Roman sexuality also supports what I wrote.  So thanks again Truth Hunter for proving my point, you may be more of a sophomore in college than a freshman after all (don't you dare come back and tell me your an adult male, cause i'll cry for humanity).

In discussing such attitudes, it is fundamental to recall that the term "homosexuality" is entirely problematic for the ancient world since there is no single word in either Latin or ancient Greek with the same meaning as the modern concept of homosexuality. Although it again and again becomes apparent that bisexuality was more the norm, even the ancient authors agree that there were ancient Roman men who had sexual relations exclusively with men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome

[oyk152]

O.k you got me.But still if you have questions you can ask me maybe you can learn something new.

[lord edward coke]

so where exactly in the Bible does it say that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for being cities full of gayness?

It says later on in the Bible that they were destroyed because the rich refused to help the poor of those cities. Which is it?

ch v.   ?

[lord edward coke]

Genesis 19

 1And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

 2And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.

 3And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

 4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:

 5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

 6And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

 7And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

 8Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

 9And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

 10But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.

 11And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

 12And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place:

 13For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.

It certainly sounds like they intended to rape the two angels to me. They were even offered Lot's virgin daughters and they refused, preferring the two men instead.

kinda like the elite of today prefer a male over a female

[bterry77]

I would like the gay lovers and the anti christ scum here who call themselves patroits to notlet the door bugger them in the a$$.To all who posted bible verses to try and make your points,Thanks I new of them and I agree with all you bible study christians.Bush family are closet gays,how about the whitehouse sleepovers,how many barny faggot franks are in congress,lots you can count on it.Every weeks for past ten some congressman or senator is in news for being a homo,give me a break.Jesus said in the end times before he comes,it would be like in days of Noah and like Sodom and G.Too Timelady, are you a lizbo or dyke??Hillary clinton is a know Lisbion,Obama has been closeted out in chicago,the nwo are homo s

[TimeLady]

I would like the gay lovers and the anti christ scum here who call themselves patroits to notlet the door bugger them in the a$$.To all who posted bible verses to try and make your points,Thanks I new of them and I agree with all you bible study christians.Bush family are closet gays,how about the whitehouse sleepovers,how many barny faggot franks are in congress,lots you can count on it.Every weeks for past ten some congressman or senator is in news for being a homo,give me a break.Jesus said in the end times before he comes,it would be like in days of Noah and like Sodom and G.Too Timelady, are you a lizbo or dyke??Hillary clinton is a know Lisbion,Obama has been closeted out in chicago,the nwo are homo s

None of your business who I am, but clearly you're a dick.

[lord edward coke]

not the most productive dialoge. but maybe we can try and reach out to other sites and grow ours?
      http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_temas2.htm#sociopolitica

[lord edward coke]

here is what the elite are into  http://www.freewebs.com/rbg247365j/mindcontrol.htm

[phigsy]

Hillary clinton is a know Lisbion

I didn't know she was Portuguese........

[Wanted]

I didn't know she was Portuguese........

LOL..i think he mispelled Lesbian, hes known to do that alot. 

[phigsy]

As long as she's not both - that would just be greedy 

[genraidar]

Christians appealed to God for their justification of 1776.

Christians will lead this revolution too.

Moral societies are required. Atheist anti-Christian societies will not last--it will only be replaced by Islam (look at Europe)

[TimeLady]

Christians appealed to God for their justification of 1776.

Christians will lead this revolution too.

Moral societies are required. Atheist anti-Christian societies will not last--it will only be replaced by Islam (look at Europe)

The Tories during the revolution thought that the Empire was kept alive by God, as well.

It works both ways.

[genraidar]

The Tories during the revolution thought that the Empire was kept alive by God, as well.

It works both ways.

And you prove nothing.

The fact remains that atheist societies cannot exist and the displacement of a non-violent religion (Chirstianity) will be replaced by Islam by immigration.

[TimeLady]

And you prove nothing.

The fact remains that atheist societies cannot exist and the displacement of a non-violent religion (Chirstianity) will be replaced by Islam by immigration.

Christianity has been violent in the past.

Remember the Crusades? That was certainly violent.

And yes, those were Christians who conducted the Crusades.

[Boubear]

Christianity has been violent in the past.

Remember the Crusades? That was certainly violent.

And yes, those were Christians who conducted the Crusades.

It was the Catholics, who murdered those who would not bow down to them, and yes they killed Christians, true Christians who believed in Jesus and only followed Him.  Read the book of the Martyrs!! Terrible terrible things have happened in the name of God.  But it wasn't God behind them!!

[point]

Christianity has been violent in the past.

Remember the Crusades? That was certainly violent.

And yes, those were Christians who conducted the Crusades.

Please go read history and learn before you make statements.  It was all out war during the Crusades, alot like today.  Muslim, Christian and Jew fighting for Jerusalem.  However if you research the groups who did the actual 'killing' they were led by pagans.  The fact its labeled as a 'Christian Crusade' shows how history is altered.

This isnt even entirely correct but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade
A good start, just read some of the crusades and what 'happened'.  History is always dictated by the winner of battles.

[TimeLady]

Please go read history and learn before you make statements.  It was all out war during the Crusades, alot like today.  Muslim, Christian and Jew fighting for Jerusalem.  However if you research the groups who did the actual 'killing' they were led by pagans.  The fact its labeled as a 'Christian Crusade' shows how history is altered.

This isnt even entirely correct but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade
A good start, just read some of the crusades and what 'happened'.  History is always dictated by the winner of battles.

... no, the Crusaders were not led by pagans, they were led by Christians who wanted to reclaim the Holy Land. At least at first.

They failed miserably.

[Boubear]

The First Crusade

Pope Urban IIwas responsible for assisting Emperor Alexus I (1081-1118) of Constantinople in launching the first crusade. He made one of the most influential speeches in the Middle Ages, calling on Christian princes in Europe to go on a crusade to rescue the Holy Land from the Turks. In the speech given at the Council of Clermont in France, on November 27, 1095, he combined the ideas of making a pilgrimage to the Holy Land with that of waging a holy war against infidels.

[TruthHunter]

Here it is right from wiki, it totally proves my point:

"The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identifier, as Western societies have done for the past century."

This is the part where you fail miserably.

I think I'm done with this pissing match unless you are going to educate yourself about the ancient world and what culture and language gave birth to both Testaments.

And you believe S & G is about homosexual relationships?  Is that what they were going to do with the children, fall in love and marry them?  And the Ancient Greeks fell in love and married boys?  Please continue with your absurdities.  Please respond.

you missed my point entirely. You tried to say that there was no such thing as homosexuality in the ancient world, and I clearly showed you that there was. If, like the homosexuals would have us believe today, that homosexuality is genetic, then surely it would have been present in human DNA from the beginning, right? So how could it have been unknown in ancient times? If homosexuality was unknown in ancient times, that argues against homosexuality being genetic. What you have failed to do, is cite any evidence for your position that males were allowed to have sex with anything they wanted with no stigma attached. Please cite your sources for this. Also, you say that only submissives or "softs" as you put it are condemned by the Bible, yet I have shown you that the bible makes a distinction between passives (effeminates) and aggressives (sodomites) and condemns both equally.

[point]

"... no, the Crusaders were not led by pagans, they were led by Christians who wanted to reclaim the Holy Land. At least at first.

They failed miserably."

Ok thats right the Templars and Teutonic Knights are good old Christian boys.  You seem to not understand pagans use the cloak of Christianity to perform the most heinous acts in history.  You mindset falls right in place cause they arent around today, killing in the name of...  There still isnt a Crusade going on right now, look at current day Jerusalem.  No there is not, groups of hidden who use whatever cloak they can to do whatever they want.  You dont have believe the things wisdom tells you, I do however wish you the best.

Im done debating with you, I dont agree with Islam because Ive studied it.  Im not a 'Christian' because of the way the truth is altered.  I am a Man of God, aka Jehovah.  Im not perfect, I dont claim to be.  However, I know without a shadow of doubt He is True and His Spirit is a power unlike anything.  I dont need anyone or anything to convince me of that.  Ive lived and seen Him work in mine and others lives and I hope you to can one day see that its not as bad as some make it out to be.  You must grab the fact this is a war on information, of which even our 'truths' are just portions.  Ive looked into the myths of Lebanon, just to get a better grip on what things happened in the perceived history.   Some churches wont ever talk about those things, real truth scares people.

[TruthHunter]

Christianity has been violent in the past.

Remember the Crusades? That was certainly violent.

And yes, those were Christians who conducted the Crusades.

Study history a bit. The Crusades were organized to retake Christian lands conquered by Islam. It was Islam that was responsible for the Crusades by conquering Christian nations in the Holy Lands. Do you expect nations allied to the conquered lands to stand by and watch them be subjugated?

(Oh, and please stop trying to pass off the sins of the Catholic church on all Christendom. The Catholic church is NOT Christian)

[TimeLady]

Study history a bit. The Crusades were organized to retake Christian lands conquered by Islam. It was Islam that was responsible for the Crusades by conquering Christian nations in the Holy Lands. Do you expect nations allied to the conquered lands to stand by and watch them be subjugated?

(Oh, and please stop trying to pass off the sins of the Catholic church on all Christendom. The Catholic church is NOT Christian)

By the time of the First Crusade, most of the lands had been in Islamic hands for a few centuries.

And yes, the Catholic church *is* a Christian church.