That's IF you accept revelation as anything but the metaphorical rantings of an anti-roman populace using codes to refer to the fall of rome, or if you accept revelation as being divinely inspired. I do not.

Me neither. I mean, I tried to read revelation once and jesus had a sword coming out of his mouth and I was like, man, this sounds like a japanese video game. I was just pointing it out because for people who believe the bible as literal, they believe only 144,000 men are going to heaven and no one else.

Thank you Eggy.

I can't imagine why Bible authors would put anything in the Bible about commited same sex relationships. The entire concept simply didn't exist back then. However, Temple prostitution was a problem for a a LOT of reasons.

1. Most temple prostitutes were NOT honored to be doing their job. They weren't paid, they were abused for all intents and purpose.
2. Undoubtably, they DID have a tendency to spread STD and other disease.
3. Temple prostitution was a pagan rite, one that I'm sure the ancient Jews wanted to do away with.
4. Both men and women were temple prostitutes, but much beyond that we don't know much about them. It's likely that young men and women, were used by men, for simply their own sexual gratification and it was abusive to the "initiates". Or they truly were used for religious rites, but probably more like abuse if you look at it objectively.

God isn't happy about abusive sex or abusive relationships, not between opposite sexes or same sexes, and prostitution for temples or money, is generally a bad idea... it spreads disease. And, it's adultry considering most people who used temple prostitues (men) were married. If they weren't married, it was STILL adultry in the eyes of God.

Think about it, back 2000 years ago there weren't happy gay men decorating their wad and daube hut together (the idea would have been absurd), those gay men were married making babies with their WIVES, to ensure the family line, wealth, and to increase their social status. Perhaps they satisfied their sexual lust other places (like pagan temples?) Ok... well, they were still married men who slept with their wives. So in that time and era, it's highly likely that gay men and their sexual encounters WERE adultry, they were likely married--to women whether they wanted to be or not.

The idea of lesbians was probably even more obscure. Women at this time in history were incredibly intimate with each other and each other's bodies. They delivered each others babies, they were in constant company with one another. The more often shared their bedsides with a female servant, friend or family than they did with their own husbands. I'm sure no one gave a second thought to a lesbian relationship at that time, or that there could even be such a thing. Women were close, what women did in bed on the sly with one another was probably never considered by the MEN who wrote the Bible. To them, women's relationships were a huge mystery and not particularly worthy of speculation... oh ya, kinda like today. haha.

You touched on a topic worthy of it's own thread! Obvious to who? It's obvious to millions that woman should be beaten if non-compliant to their husbands my friend. It's obvious to millions that homosexuality is a choice, and wrong in their Gods eyes too.

Before I get bashed and accused of being a right wing, conservative, Christian loving, Billy Graham supporter, please be advised the above are not obvious to ME necessarily, but indeed they are to MILLIONS.

I always here (hear) that the bible says it's a sin to be a homosexual (though I've also heard it's okay to be a homosexual as long as you don't act on it).

I STRENUOUSLY object to the idea that sex for the sake of pleasure and pair bonding is immoral.

Oh god, nothing like old skool- fire and brimstone.

How would they justify it to themselves, they would read the bible, come to the part about homosexuals, and say:
ok we skip this part due to political correctness and read on....

sex out of marriage is sin,

Ok, what about this one-
Genesis 13:10
And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the LORD destroyed Sodom.

Surly, the reason the city was called Sodom, is because there was a lot of sodomising was going on.
no?
It's like calling a city 'Necrophilia'

Ok, what about this one-
Genesis 13:10
And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the LORD destroyed Sodom.

Surly, the reason the city was called Sodom, is because there was a lot of sodomising was going on.
no?
It's like calling a city 'Necrophilia'

We are discussing Bible here, aren't we?
I'm just talking about a book

And no I don't really believe that, it doesn't matter what I believe, because I'm not talking about my beliefs but just discussing Bible,
which the topic at hand

Ok, what about this one-
Genesis 13:10
And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the LORD destroyed Sodom.

Surly, the reason the city was called Sodom, is because there was a lot of sodomising was going on.
no?
It's like calling a city 'Necrophilia'

so the crowd that wanted to rape ' the angels' and instead Lot offered his daughters

And likely every man at the door of Lot demanding to "send the strangers out so they may know them" were all MARRIED. Adultry, not homosexuality. They weren't Jewish men either, they were Pagan men who did not know God, therefore, they were used to their rites of *gasp* TEMPLE Prostitution ... which the Jews didn't like for a lot of really good reasons.

It wouldn't have mattered if the angels were male or female... the moral of the story would be the same. Don't rape people, don't commit adultry, farming someone out for prostitution is NOT ok, AND, be good to your guests and protect them. Those are the morals. It has nothing to do with homosexual relationships.

And likely every man at the door of Lot demanding to "send the strangers out so they may know them" were all MARRIED. Adultry, not homosexuality. They weren't Jewish men either, they were Pagan men who did not know God, therefore, they were used to their rites of *gasp* TEMPLE Prostitution ... which the Jews didn't like for a lot of really good reasons.

It wouldn't have mattered if the angels were male or female... the moral of the story would be the same. Don't rape people, don't commit adultry, farming someone out for prostitution is NOT ok, AND, be good to your guests and protect them. Those are the morals. It has nothing to do with homosexual relationships.

Ok this one is interesting

And immediately the 'cock crew.'

Now, I'm not an expert on gay slang but cock crew sounds suspicious.

concubines ? why not now ? the bible didn't change.

These weren't Jews back then, Jewish tribes were made after that. So you can't call them pagan, because
there were no Jews, in fact Abraham went from town to town and they all knew the god, sometimes god even speak to others,
there were no chosen people back then, they all pretty much knew god more or less

gay men fear jail in todays society for the same reason.

I disagree Lt Ripley, to gay men- jail would be a sort of 'twisted heaven', which is probably why there is so much homosexual behaviour in men's jails.
Not all of it is rape...
But anyway, on the flipside..As a straight man- I wouldn't mind being sent to a woman's prison.

as for sex out of marriage. What of pologamy? widely accepted in the bible but not now ? why ?

concubines ? why not now ? the bible didn't change. did it ? or is it man grew beyond the beliefs of those who wrote the bible ?

as they will with homosexuality. the more it is understood as a natural part of the world and not a sin by the uneducated misled by scripture that not only has been taken out of context to refer to male prostitutes , but a society that didn't understand the natural world.
there is no excuse anymore for this ignorance.

Ok this one is interesting

Matthew 26:74
Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the 'cock crew.'

Now, I'm not an expert on gay slang but cock crew sounds suspicious.

curious . did you move into a area that has a large gay population or did it become so as time went on. ?

if the latter did you find your property values went up ?

around here , where ever gay men move , the property values increase. Great for businesses as well.

I disagree Lt Ripley, to gay men- jail would be a sort of 'twisted heaven', which is probably why there is so much homosexual behaviour in men's jails.
Not all of it is rape...
But anyway, on the flipside..As a straight man- I wouldn't mind being sent to a woman's prison.

I know you're being flip here.

However, I would like to set the record straight.

There's a lot of exaggerated talk going on here.

Rape in prison doesn't happen as frequently as people think it does.

Someone close to me 10 did years inside. Walla Walla State Pen. A notorious worst offender type of prison.

The inmates are under such constant watch, that the opportunity to perpetrate something like rape would be incredibly difficult. It does happen, but it's more rare than you'd think. My friend says that in his 10 years, mostly at Walla Walla, but also in County and at McNeil Island, that he only heard of 2 for sure, and 1 was a rumor, that was never confirmed as true or not.

What's more common is someone quickly getting shanked or clobbered in the yard. Rape takes too much time away from the prying eyes of security.

I know you're being flip here.

I only know this one-

James 2:3
And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:

Respect those who wear gay clothing.
I think it means, respect those who wear leather trousers, chaps..leather hats.. cowboy costumes etc.

your faulty opinion doesn't stem from fact but from old stereotypes thought up by straight men. not real life. Gay men in prison , real gay men are viewed as less than and treated horribly. although gay s*x takes place between straight men in prison ( gay for the stay) the reason it's treated different is because they don't view it as such. as well as they know that actually they are straight. ( sex alone doesn't dictate sexuality).

yes it's confusing but it's the rules inside and how they act.

Please... er if having sex with a man isn't homosexual I don't know what is.Sex alone doesn't dictate sexuality? er that doesn't make any sense.

Well let me ask you this. What sexuality is a man who wants nothing more then to have sex with another man, only likes men, but because there are no men around, he gets out his urges by having sex with women (but if there was another man around that was willing, then he wouldn't be sleeping with the women)? Is he gay or straight?

true but millions more don't believe it. long ago millions believed the earth was flat too. we became educated.

I think you re TOTALLY wrong, MILLIONS do believe homosexuality is wrong! I'm not saying tehy are right but they do!

I also been told that many gay-males prefer a little danger in the atmosphere..., especially if one is into leather.

Heterosexuality is the headline and homosexual is an offshoot from heterosexuality.

He's not gay or straight- but obsessed with sexual desire. His only concerned with his selfish pleasure.

He's a cenobite. Concerned only with the pleasure of the flesh.

good lord, this nonsense again? What the heck does that even mean? Nothing.

Um, no, a man who falls in love with another man is considered gay in our society.
I'm starting to think that you just have a problem with any sex that is not for procreation and is instead for pleasure and bonding and the enrichment of a relatinship.

Well let me ask you this. What sexuality is a man who wants nothing more then to have sex with another man, only likes men, but because there are no men around, he gets out his urges by having sex with women (but if there was another man around that was willing, then he wouldn't be sleeping with the women)? Is he gay or straight?

As if there aren't straight people who like "danger" and leather, or Lesbians into S&M. You sound ignorant.

You're sounding confused Neognosis- I was replying to Buddharat example (see below). Love wasn't a issue... love wasn't mentioned, nor was sex as enrichment of a relationship mentioned.

I think, he just thinks- the Nature's rules- ie female and male having sex to produce children is 'homophobic.'