It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Behold,this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom
page: 2share:
reply to post by DantesLost
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal
or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal
conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I
accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!
DENY IGNORANCE FLAME ON!
Explanation: 1stly "An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations" basically equates to anybody (an heart) that thinks about sinning and acts to carry those thoughts out!(ie that deviseth wicked imaginations and yes that includes homosexuality according to the abrahamic faiths OT! see Lev18:22 )
2ndly "feet that be swift in running to mischief" basically equates to anybody(feet that be swift) running head long into sin (in running to mischief and yes that includes homosexuality according to the abrahamic faiths OT! see Lev20:13)
3rdly "he that soweth discord among brethen" basically equates to anybody (he) who disrupts by sinning against god (that soweth discord ) will piss off the GOD FEARING community at large!(among brethen). And as i have shown above homosexuality is a sin according to the abrahamic faiths OT! Again read Lev18:22 (provided below)
Lev 18:2 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind:it is abomination.
AND
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
So to throw your own words back at ya. Talk about ignorance. (none are so blind as they who will not see!!!)
Furthermore you state and I quote you directly " Oh,and i suggest you read the link you provided properly.Firstly,its only the perception of prison officers;their opinion.And secondly,it makes a clear distinction between consensual homosexual relations and rape"... Well 1stly its actually the perception of the investigators (Helen M Eigenberg University of Tennesseeat Chattanooga) who wrote the report on what the perceptions of the correctional officers interviewed were at that time and besides even if what you say on this point is true (that it is ONLY the perception of the prison officers), are you suggesting I totally discount the opinion of an upstanding and vetted public servant on the front line of public security who also wittnessed what their opinion was based on???
2ndly Regardless of their clear distinction between consensual homosexual relations and rape it goes on to define the aggressor in the male rape as being "situationally HOMOSEXUAL"!!!! and you conveniently haven't refuted my statement saying "Besides YHVH through Moses isn't ambiguous on this at all:-
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
YHVH certainly doesn't care whether its situational or not or whether anybody enjoys themselves or not or whether they consider themselves homosexual or not. He says if you do it at all ever then you are to DIE! (I have found NO caveats to this in the Old Testament as yet!). "......care to step up to the plate?
3rdly you neither refute or agree with my 4th statement! Care to reply?
Personal Disclosure: I look forward to you Denying any ignorance I may have!
[edit on 24-12-2008 by OmegaLogos]
DENY IGNORANCE FLAME ON!
Explanation: 1stly "An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations" basically equates to anybody (an heart) that thinks about sinning and acts to carry those thoughts out!(ie that deviseth wicked imaginations and yes that includes homosexuality according to the abrahamic faiths OT! see Lev18:22 )
2ndly "feet that be swift in running to mischief" basically equates to anybody(feet that be swift) running head long into sin (in running to mischief and yes that includes homosexuality according to the abrahamic faiths OT! see Lev20:13)
3rdly "he that soweth discord among brethen" basically equates to anybody (he) who disrupts by sinning against god (that soweth discord ) will piss off the GOD FEARING community at large!(among brethen). And as i have shown above homosexuality is a sin according to the abrahamic faiths OT! Again read Lev18:22 (provided below)
Lev 18:2 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind:it is abomination.
AND
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
So to throw your own words back at ya. Talk about ignorance. (none are so blind as they who will not see!!!)
Furthermore you state and I quote you directly " Oh,and i suggest you read the link you provided properly.Firstly,its only the perception of prison officers;their opinion.And secondly,it makes a clear distinction between consensual homosexual relations and rape"... Well 1stly its actually the perception of the investigators (Helen M Eigenberg University of Tennesseeat Chattanooga) who wrote the report on what the perceptions of the correctional officers interviewed were at that time and besides even if what you say on this point is true (that it is ONLY the perception of the prison officers), are you suggesting I totally discount the opinion of an upstanding and vetted public servant on the front line of public security who also wittnessed what their opinion was based on???
2ndly Regardless of their clear distinction between consensual homosexual relations and rape it goes on to define the aggressor in the male rape as being "situationally HOMOSEXUAL"!!!! and you conveniently haven't refuted my statement saying "Besides YHVH through Moses isn't ambiguous on this at all:-
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
YHVH certainly doesn't care whether its situational or not or whether anybody enjoys themselves or not or whether they consider themselves homosexual or not. He says if you do it at all ever then you are to DIE! (I have found NO caveats to this in the Old Testament as yet!). "......care to step up to the plate?
3rdly you neither refute or agree with my 4th statement! Care to reply?
Personal Disclosure: I look forward to you Denying any ignorance I may have!
[edit on 24-12-2008 by OmegaLogos]
OmegaLogos
Quoting Liviticus back to me is ridiculous as i have given you the Hebrew/Jewish definition of there meaning,not the pro-gay definition.
Any Rabbi worth his salt will tell you that none of those verses have anything to do with homosexuality and everything to do with not worshiping in the manner of the Egyptians and Canaanites.
The title in your link.
From your link.
Here the term 'situationally homosexual' is explained,and it is clearly different from a 'true homosexual.'
Really?
Not once have i heard one of the sins of the people of Jerusalem being homosexuality.And I've studied Scriptures and been taught by scholars for over 10yrs in different universities,including Rome and Jerusalem.If you study the works of the Early Church fathers here,www.ccel.org... you will find that homosexuality is not mentioned in connection with the Laws of Leviticus,Sodom or chapter 1 of Romans.All these interpretations come from a much later date.
zysin5
I would apologize but i wasn't here months ago and there's little point joining an already existing debate thats run its course.
Quoting Liviticus back to me is ridiculous as i have given you the Hebrew/Jewish definition of there meaning,not the pro-gay definition.
Any Rabbi worth his salt will tell you that none of those verses have anything to do with homosexuality and everything to do with not worshiping in the manner of the Egyptians and Canaanites.
Well 1stly its actually the perception of the investigators (Helen M Eigenberg University of Tennesseeat Chattanooga) who wrote the report on what the perceptions of the correctional officers interviewed were at that time and besides even if what you say on this point is true (that it is ONLY the perception of the prison officers), are you suggesting I totally discount the opinion of an upstanding and vetted public servant on the front line of public security who also wittnessed what their opinion was based on???
The title in your link.
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF HOMOSEXUALITY,RAPE,AND PROSTITUTION IN MALE PRISONS.
2ndly Regardless of their clear distinction between consensual homosexual relations and rape it goes on to define the aggressor in the male rape as being "situationally HOMOSEXUAL"!!!!
From your link.
Third, officers
may consider themselves proactive in their responses,but they may not
respond to some acts of rape because they fail to define some types of sexual activity as coercive in nature.In other words,their definition of the situation leads them to see behavior as consensual sexual activity,rather than rape.....Therefore,this study examines correctional officers to determine whether they have difficulty distinguishing between rape, consensual same-sex behavior,and prostitution.
True homosexuals were described as men who had a homosexual orientation prior to incarceration—men who imported their behavior from the
streets to prison.True homosexuals presented no challenge to essentialist
theories;therefore,little attention was paid to their behavior in prison.....Situational homosexuals provided essentialists with a more interesting challenge to their theoretical orientation because they had to account for heterosexual men who engaged in homosexual behavior.
Here the term 'situationally homosexual' is explained,and it is clearly different from a 'true homosexual.'
Officers also indicated they were slightly more willing to prevent rape than to deter homosexuality,which is especially problematic if some rape is being committed under the guise of consenting homosexual acts.
4th and finally the OP asks "The sin of Jerusalem,homosexuality??" and I reply that if you look very carefully at the scripture provided it shows its the Prophets of Jerusalem and the evil doers and not Jerusalem "Herself" that sins and yes the sins of the False prophets and the evil doers could quite concievably include homosexuality!
Really?
Not once have i heard one of the sins of the people of Jerusalem being homosexuality.And I've studied Scriptures and been taught by scholars for over 10yrs in different universities,including Rome and Jerusalem.If you study the works of the Early Church fathers here,www.ccel.org... you will find that homosexuality is not mentioned in connection with the Laws of Leviticus,Sodom or chapter 1 of Romans.All these interpretations come from a much later date.
zysin5
This topic comes up atleast 1-3 times every month or so on ATS here...Use the search function OP!!! Man..
I would apologize but i wasn't here months ago and there's little point joining an already existing debate thats run its course.
reply to post by DantesLost
Leviticus 18 and 20 WERE NOT about RITUAL same-sex relations;
www.layevangelism.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.layevangelism.com...
www.str.org...
[edit on 24-12-2008 by Clearskies]
Leviticus 18 and 20 WERE NOT about RITUAL same-sex relations;
www.layevangelism.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.layevangelism.com...
www.str.org...
It's true, much of the Law deals with religious activity rather than universal morality. However:
1. Ritual purity and moral purity are not always distinct.
2. This section was not addressed to the priests, but to all the "sons of Israel" (v. 2).
3. This isn't merely ritual purity.
a. Context determines the meaning here.
b. The "toevah" (abomination) of homosexuality here is sandwiched between adultery (18:20), child sacrifice (18:21) and bestiality (18:23). Was Moses saying merely that if you committed adultery, bestiality, or child sacrifice you had to be careful to wash up before you came to church?
4. Moral aspects of the Law do still apply, as NT citations demonstrate.
5. It's curious that some claim homosexual practice was minor because it was no more offensive to God than picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Why don't they conclude that both homosexuality and Sabbath breaking etc. were so offensive to God and such a threat to Judaism that they were capital offenses? If you want to know how God really felt, look at the punishment.
[edit on 24-12-2008 by Clearskies]
Look at the context in Leviticus 18;
It's Clearly forbidden.
18:15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she [is] thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it [is] thy brother's nakedness.
18:17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; [for] they [are] her near kinswomen: it [is] wickedness.
18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex [her], to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life [time].
18:19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
18:20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.
18:21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through [the fire] to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I [am] the LORD.
>>> 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
18:23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it [is] confusion.
It's Clearly forbidden.
reply to post by DantesLost
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal
or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal
conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I
accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!
Regardless of whether it is an "abomination" or "toevah", what does GOD/YHVH thru Moses say hmmmm???? Both Lev 18:2 and Lev 20:13 state very clearly and again I quote them here with emphisis Lev 18:2 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind(i.e. HOMOSEXUALITY as what else could it be as you certainly don't specify!*):it is abomination.
AND
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman(i.e. HOMOSEXUALITY as what else could it be as you certainly don't specify!*), both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
NOTE *= My words NOT the Bibles
OH and whats the punishment for it??? Lets see now hmmm??? Maybe Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman (i.e. HOMOSEXUALITY as what else could it be as you certainly don't specify!*), both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
Not very ambiguous there is it now! PLS REMEMBER I DO NOT ENDORSE DISCRIMINATORY BEHAVIOUR AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS AT ALL!!!
Maybe if you show that the Hebrew equivilent of what I exposed in bold
is NOT homosexuality (or the death penalty) I might be more inclined to assess your arguments and therefor hypothesis favorably.
Also I fully agree with you that those scriptures are related to the practices of Canaan and Egypt. But are you seriously telling me that those practices didn't include HOMOSEXUALITY???Egyptian Homosexuality (pages 123 And 124).
Oh heres a LINK that supports us both! Me 1st with the text about " Jacob Milgrom, in his erudite study of Leviticus 17-22, lists the main explanations that have been offered for what lies behind the Lev. 18:22 ban – connecting homosexual union with idolatrous practices (Snaith 1967, Boswell 1980), wasting of male seed (Eiberg-Schwartz 1990, Biale 1992), blurring of gender boundaries (Douglas 1966, Thurston 1990), or mixing of semen with a defiling liquid (Bigger 1979, Olyan 1994).7 For Milgrom, the underlying issue is procreation vs. the producing of improper offspring (incest, adultery), no offspring (male or animal union), or the destruction of offspring (child sacrifice)." and then you with the text at the very bottom "So, the final verdict is in on the meaning of Lev. 18:22: Although Jewish rabbis many centuries later interpreted this ban as a condemnation of (Greek) homosexuality, many factors point to an original ban which was directed solely against the dangers of sacred prostitution being absorbed into the worship of Yahweh. Nowhere in the OT is any nonviolent, non-cultic homosexual act or relationship condemned or punished – and this is surely not because such did not happen. Indeed, when we look at the Jonathan and David story, we shall see how the writer there describes a clearly homoerotic friendship, with no hesitation or shame whatsoever."
Next you state and I quote you directly "Here the term 'situationally homosexual' is explained,and it is clearly different from a 'true homosexual.'" Oh REALY If It quacks like a Duck and looks like a Duck then its a Duck already alright . CALL A SPADE A SPADE DAMNIT AND STOP SPLITTING HAIRS :bnghd: I'll even use a quote that YOU provide from My LINK "Situational homosexuals provided essentialists with a more interesting challenge to their theoretical orientation because they had to account for heterosexual men who engaged in homosexual behavior."!!! What behavior??? OMG "HOMOSEXUAL" of course!!! NONE ARE SO BLIND AS THEY WHO WILL NOT SEE!!!
Finally you state and agian I quote you directly "Really?
Not once have i heard one of the sins of the people of Jerusalem being homosexuality.And I've studied Scriptures and been taught by scholars for over 10yrs in different universities,including Rome and Jerusalem.If you study the works of the Early Church fathers here,www.ccel.org... you will find that homosexuality is not mentioned in connection with the Laws of Leviticus,Sodom or chapter 1 of Romans.All these interpretations come from a much later date. " Well Well Well arn't you just the scholarly researcher. I simply did a google and came up with this website :www.amazon.com... citing many reference books that support my claim and also this website :www.religionfacts.com... which also supports my claim quoted here "Homosexuality and Conservative/Masorti Judaism
In the Conservative Jewish community, the scholars on the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS) make decisions concerning Jewish law. In 1992 the CJLS accepted four teshuvot (responsa) on homosexuality; these were used as backing sources for a unified consensus position. The consensus position is that given the current scientific, psychological and biological information on the origin and nature of homosexuality, homosexual relationships can not be judged to be in accord with Halakha (Jewish law). Some of the responsa note that future information on this subject may be sufficient to utilize lenient views and potential legal novellae; therefore the law committee holds the right to re-evaluate this area at a future date."....Care to refute???
Personal Disclosure: Its NOT about whether its just priests or temple prostitutes who are doing "it". Its WHAT they are doing that is wrong and the Bibles pretty clear on that I think I have shown. Unless U can DENY my IGNORANCE!
Regardless of whether it is an "abomination" or "toevah", what does GOD/YHVH thru Moses say hmmmm???? Both Lev 18:2 and Lev 20:13 state very clearly and again I quote them here with emphisis Lev 18:2 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind(i.e. HOMOSEXUALITY as what else could it be as you certainly don't specify!*):it is abomination.
AND
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman(i.e. HOMOSEXUALITY as what else could it be as you certainly don't specify!*), both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
NOTE *= My words NOT the Bibles
OH and whats the punishment for it??? Lets see now hmmm??? Maybe Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman (i.e. HOMOSEXUALITY as what else could it be as you certainly don't specify!*), both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
Not very ambiguous there is it now! PLS REMEMBER I DO NOT ENDORSE DISCRIMINATORY BEHAVIOUR AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS AT ALL!!!
Maybe if you show that the Hebrew equivilent of what I exposed in bold
is NOT homosexuality (or the death penalty) I might be more inclined to assess your arguments and therefor hypothesis favorably.
Also I fully agree with you that those scriptures are related to the practices of Canaan and Egypt. But are you seriously telling me that those practices didn't include HOMOSEXUALITY???Egyptian Homosexuality (pages 123 And 124).
Oh heres a LINK that supports us both! Me 1st with the text about " Jacob Milgrom, in his erudite study of Leviticus 17-22, lists the main explanations that have been offered for what lies behind the Lev. 18:22 ban – connecting homosexual union with idolatrous practices (Snaith 1967, Boswell 1980), wasting of male seed (Eiberg-Schwartz 1990, Biale 1992), blurring of gender boundaries (Douglas 1966, Thurston 1990), or mixing of semen with a defiling liquid (Bigger 1979, Olyan 1994).7 For Milgrom, the underlying issue is procreation vs. the producing of improper offspring (incest, adultery), no offspring (male or animal union), or the destruction of offspring (child sacrifice)." and then you with the text at the very bottom "So, the final verdict is in on the meaning of Lev. 18:22: Although Jewish rabbis many centuries later interpreted this ban as a condemnation of (Greek) homosexuality, many factors point to an original ban which was directed solely against the dangers of sacred prostitution being absorbed into the worship of Yahweh. Nowhere in the OT is any nonviolent, non-cultic homosexual act or relationship condemned or punished – and this is surely not because such did not happen. Indeed, when we look at the Jonathan and David story, we shall see how the writer there describes a clearly homoerotic friendship, with no hesitation or shame whatsoever."
Next you state and I quote you directly "Here the term 'situationally homosexual' is explained,and it is clearly different from a 'true homosexual.'" Oh REALY If It quacks like a Duck and looks like a Duck then its a Duck already alright . CALL A SPADE A SPADE DAMNIT AND STOP SPLITTING HAIRS :bnghd: I'll even use a quote that YOU provide from My LINK "Situational homosexuals provided essentialists with a more interesting challenge to their theoretical orientation because they had to account for heterosexual men who engaged in homosexual behavior."!!! What behavior??? OMG "HOMOSEXUAL" of course!!! NONE ARE SO BLIND AS THEY WHO WILL NOT SEE!!!
Finally you state and agian I quote you directly "Really?
Not once have i heard one of the sins of the people of Jerusalem being homosexuality.And I've studied Scriptures and been taught by scholars for over 10yrs in different universities,including Rome and Jerusalem.If you study the works of the Early Church fathers here,www.ccel.org... you will find that homosexuality is not mentioned in connection with the Laws of Leviticus,Sodom or chapter 1 of Romans.All these interpretations come from a much later date. " Well Well Well arn't you just the scholarly researcher. I simply did a google and came up with this website :www.amazon.com... citing many reference books that support my claim and also this website :www.religionfacts.com... which also supports my claim quoted here "Homosexuality and Conservative/Masorti Judaism
In the Conservative Jewish community, the scholars on the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS) make decisions concerning Jewish law. In 1992 the CJLS accepted four teshuvot (responsa) on homosexuality; these were used as backing sources for a unified consensus position. The consensus position is that given the current scientific, psychological and biological information on the origin and nature of homosexuality, homosexual relationships can not be judged to be in accord with Halakha (Jewish law). Some of the responsa note that future information on this subject may be sufficient to utilize lenient views and potential legal novellae; therefore the law committee holds the right to re-evaluate this area at a future date."....Care to refute???
Personal Disclosure: Its NOT about whether its just priests or temple prostitutes who are doing "it". Its WHAT they are doing that is wrong and the Bibles pretty clear on that I think I have shown. Unless U can DENY my IGNORANCE!
OmegaLogos
Find the reference to homosexuality in these quotes.
Ezekiel 16:46-50
Josephus,Antiquities I:194-5
Babylonian Talmud,Sanhedrin 109a
Rabbi Nathaniel.
Nahmanides (Ramban) Commentary on Genesis,13th century.
Yes,homosexual behaviour as in consensual sex,not rape.Which is obvious when you read the lines following the 'situational homosexual' quote.
Er,yes,you link to sites that don't even mention one Early Church Father.Which i typed out nice and clear.....
[edit on 24-12-2008 by DantesLost]
Maybe if you show that the Hebrew equivilent of what I exposed in bold is NOT homosexuality (or the death penalty) I might be more inclined to assess your arguments and therefor hypothesis favorably.
Find the reference to homosexuality in these quotes.
Ezekiel 16:46-50
Your elder sister is Samaria,who lived with her daughters to the north of you;and your younger sister,who lived to the south of you,is Sodom with her daughters.You not only followed their ways,and acted according to their abominations;within a very little time you were more corrupt than they in all your ways.As I live,says the Lord GOD,your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done.This was the guilt of your sister Sodom:she and her daughters had pride,excess of food and prosperous ease,but did not aid the poor and needy.They were haughty and did abominable things before me;therefore I removed them when I saw it.
Josephus,Antiquities I:194-5
the Sodomites,overweeningly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth,showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the Divinity,insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him,hated foreigners and declined all intercourse with others. Indignant at this conduct,God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance...
Babylonian Talmud,Sanhedrin 109a
The men of Sodom waxed haughty only on account of the good which the Holy One,blessed be He,had lavished upon them...They said:Since there cometh forth bread out of (our) earth, and it hath the dust of gold,why should we suffer wayfarers,who come to us only to deplete our wealth. Come,let us abolish the practice of travelling in our land...
Rabbi Nathaniel.
The men of Sodom had no consideration for the honour of their Owner by not distributing food to the wayfarer and stranger,but they even fenced in all the trees on top above their fruit so that so that they should not be seized;not even by the bird of heaven...
Nahmanides (Ramban) Commentary on Genesis,13th century.
Their intention was to stop people from coming among them,as our rabbis have said,for they thought that because of the excellence of their land...many will come there and they despised charity...they continued provoking and rebelling against Him with their ease and the oppression of the poor...Their fate was sealed because of this sin-i.e.they did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy- since this sin represented their usual behaviour more than any other.Besides, since all peoples act righteously towards their friends and their poor,there was none among all the nations who matched Sodom in cruelty.
What behavior??? OMG "HOMOSEXUAL" of course!!! NONE ARE SO BLIND AS THEY WHO WILL NOT SEE!!!
Yes,homosexual behaviour as in consensual sex,not rape.Which is obvious when you read the lines following the 'situational homosexual' quote.
The concept of sexual deprivation became a key factor in resolving this apparent paradox.Most authors noted that inmates basically had two options in prison,celibacy or situational homosexuality.
" Well Well Well arn't you just the scholarly researcher. I simply did a google and came up with this website
Er,yes,you link to sites that don't even mention one Early Church Father.Which i typed out nice and clear.....
[edit on 24-12-2008 by DantesLost]
(continued)
How smug do you feel now?
Clearskies
From your ex quote.
Some pagan ceremonies involved bestiality and child sacrifice.He was telling them not to take part in such worship.Which makes the above statement look pretty ridiculous.
Oh and the Bible quotes in the links you provided quote modern translations,which violate traditional translations withe deliberate changing of words and meanings.Which has been done to back up their own beliefs and interpretations,not Gods.
[edit on 24-12-2008 by DantesLost]
Not once have i heard one of the sins of the people of Jerusalem being homosexuality.And I've studied Scriptures and been taught by scholars for over 10yrs in different universities,including Rome and Jerusalem.If you study the works of the Early Church fathers here...
How smug do you feel now?
Clearskies
From your ex quote.
The "toevah" (abomination) of homosexuality here is sandwiched between adultery (18:20), child sacrifice (18:21) and bestiality (18:23). Was Moses saying merely that if you committed adultery, bestiality, or child sacrifice you had to be careful to wash up before you came to church?
Some pagan ceremonies involved bestiality and child sacrifice.He was telling them not to take part in such worship.Which makes the above statement look pretty ridiculous.
Oh and the Bible quotes in the links you provided quote modern translations,which violate traditional translations withe deliberate changing of words and meanings.Which has been done to back up their own beliefs and interpretations,not Gods.
[edit on 24-12-2008 by DantesLost]
Oh and the Bible quotes in the links you provided quote modern translations,which violate traditional translations withe deliberate changing of words
and meanings.Which has been done to back up their own beliefs and interpretations,not Gods.
hahaha, and most athiest use new age translations to deny God because of their errors. So it goes both ways.
Now I have saints and docotrs of the church saying gaynesss in any form is wrong. You don't spill your seed into another man asshole.
It's evil plain and simple and further more homosexualness is a possesion of lust.
God says this in the NT as well, and lust gets so bad that God blinds the understanding and men become vulnerable and have a perverted conscience.
peace.
hahaha, and most athiest use new age translations to deny God because of their errors. So it goes both ways.
Now I have saints and docotrs of the church saying gaynesss in any form is wrong. You don't spill your seed into another man asshole.
It's evil plain and simple and further more homosexualness is a possesion of lust.
God says this in the NT as well, and lust gets so bad that God blinds the understanding and men become vulnerable and have a perverted conscience.
peace.
reply to post by JesusisTruth
I'm sure they do.
But I'm not an atheist.
And the changes in modern translations are not errors,they are deliberate manipulations.Thats a very big and very important difference.
I'm sure they do.
But I'm not an atheist.
And the changes in modern translations are not errors,they are deliberate manipulations.Thats a very big and very important difference.
reply to post by DantesLost
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal
or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal
conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I
accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!
UPFRONT Personal Disclosure: I made a typo and failed to edit it.(see here ) The scripture I quote should read "Again read Lev 18:22 (provided below)
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind:it is abomination." NOTLev 18:2 as I mistakenly wrote!!!
Explanation: 1stly you state and I quote you directly "Find the reference to homosexuality in these quotes". This DOESN'T answer my question quoted by yourself (can you NOT READ???) "Maybe if you show that the Hebrew equivilent of what I exposed in bold is NOT homosexuality (or the death penalty) I might be more inclined to assess your arguments and therefor hypothesis favorably". Please STOP dodging very relevant issues. NONE of the quotes you supply are valid for the following reasons....
A)Ezekiel 16:46-50 this has nothing to do with Levitical law except to show what Sodom was like and that means getting a fuller context of Eze Chpt 16 (KJV) blueletterbible
Eze 16:1 Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,(**NOTE:-its All Ezekiels word for it!)
Eze 16:2 Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations,(*abominations)
Eze 16:15 But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was.(*harlot+fornications)
Eze 16:16 And of thy garments thou didst take, and deckedst thy high places with divers colours, and playedst the harlot thereupon: [the like things] shall not come, neither shall it be [so].(*harlot)
Eze 16:22 And in all thine abominations and thy whoredoms thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth, when thou wast naked and bare, [and] wast polluted in thy blood.(*whoredoms)
Eze 16:25 Thou hast built thy high place at every head of the way, and hast made thy beauty to be abhorred, and hast opened thy feet to every one that passed by, and multiplied thy whoredoms.(*whoredoms)
Eze 16:26 Thou hast also committed fornication with the Egyptians thy neighbours, great of flesh; and hast increased thy whoredoms, to provoke me to anger.(*fornications+whoredoms)
Eze 16:27 Behold, therefore I have stretched out my hand over thee, and have diminished thine ordinary [food], and delivered thee unto the will of them that hate thee, the daughters of the Philistines, which are ashamed of thy lewd way.(*lewd)
Eze 16:28 Thou hast played the whore also with the Assyrians, because thou wast unsatiable; yea, thou hast played the harlot with them, and yet couldest not be satisfied.(*whore+unsatiable harlot)
Eze 16:29 Thou hast moreover multiplied thy fornication in the land of Canaan unto Chaldea; and yet thou wast not satisfied herewith.(*fornication)
AND...
Eze 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
Eze 16:50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw [good].(*abominations)
Eze 16:53 When I shall bring again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, then [will I bring again] the captivity of thy captives in the midst of them:
Eze 16:54 That thou mayest bear thine own shame, and mayest be confounded in all that thou hast done, in that thou art a comfort unto them.
Eze 16:55 When thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate, then thou and thy daughters shall return to your former estate.
Eze 16:56 For thy sister Sodom was not mentioned by thy mouth in the day of thy pride,
Eze 16:57 Before thy wickedness was discovered, as at the time of [thy] reproach of the daughters of Syria, and all [that are] round about her, the daughters of the Philistines, which despise thee round about.
Eze 16:58 Thou hast borne thy lewdness and thine abominations, saith the LORD.(*lewdness+abominations)
*= check these words out here at this site jesus-messiah.com...
from that site come these quotes:-
"FORNICATION"
" Hebrew2181. zanah, zaw-naw'; a prim. root [highly fed and therefore wanton]; to commit adultery usually of the female(*but not always), and less often of simple fornication(*including homosexual acts), rarely of involuntary ravishment(*rape or situational homosexuality and);fig. to commit idolatry (the Jewish people being regarded as the spouse of Jehovah):-(cause to) commit fornication, X continually, X great, (be an, play the) harlot, (cause to be, play the) whore, (commit, fall to) whoredom, (cause to) go a-whoring, whorish."
" Greek4205. pornos, por'-nos; from pernemi (to sell; akin to the base of Grk4097); a (male) prostitute (as venal), i.e. (by anal.)(*homosexual act) a debauchee (libertine):-fornicator,whoremonger."
"4.) Unlawful lust. (unlawful lust includes the married and the unmarried.)"
"6.) A male prostitute. (This classification of an act of fornication includes homosexuals and also single or married males who offered their services for hire. Fornication is identified here as sexual relations for money. We will take it that if it includes the male it also includes the female under the name whore, strumpet, or harlot)."
"8.) Whoremongers. (to be a whoremonger is to have sexual relations with a whore or more then one whore. What is a whore? A whore is a woman who will have sexual relations with any man she chooses."
Cont blw.
UPFRONT Personal Disclosure: I made a typo and failed to edit it.(see here ) The scripture I quote should read "Again read Lev 18:22 (provided below)
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind:it is abomination." NOTLev 18:2 as I mistakenly wrote!!!
Explanation: 1stly you state and I quote you directly "Find the reference to homosexuality in these quotes". This DOESN'T answer my question quoted by yourself (can you NOT READ???) "Maybe if you show that the Hebrew equivilent of what I exposed in bold is NOT homosexuality (or the death penalty) I might be more inclined to assess your arguments and therefor hypothesis favorably". Please STOP dodging very relevant issues. NONE of the quotes you supply are valid for the following reasons....
A)Ezekiel 16:46-50 this has nothing to do with Levitical law except to show what Sodom was like and that means getting a fuller context of Eze Chpt 16 (KJV) blueletterbible
Eze 16:1 Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,(**NOTE:-its All Ezekiels word for it!)
Eze 16:2 Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations,(*abominations)
Eze 16:15 But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was.(*harlot+fornications)
Eze 16:16 And of thy garments thou didst take, and deckedst thy high places with divers colours, and playedst the harlot thereupon: [the like things] shall not come, neither shall it be [so].(*harlot)
Eze 16:22 And in all thine abominations and thy whoredoms thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth, when thou wast naked and bare, [and] wast polluted in thy blood.(*whoredoms)
Eze 16:25 Thou hast built thy high place at every head of the way, and hast made thy beauty to be abhorred, and hast opened thy feet to every one that passed by, and multiplied thy whoredoms.(*whoredoms)
Eze 16:26 Thou hast also committed fornication with the Egyptians thy neighbours, great of flesh; and hast increased thy whoredoms, to provoke me to anger.(*fornications+whoredoms)
Eze 16:27 Behold, therefore I have stretched out my hand over thee, and have diminished thine ordinary [food], and delivered thee unto the will of them that hate thee, the daughters of the Philistines, which are ashamed of thy lewd way.(*lewd)
Eze 16:28 Thou hast played the whore also with the Assyrians, because thou wast unsatiable; yea, thou hast played the harlot with them, and yet couldest not be satisfied.(*whore+unsatiable harlot)
Eze 16:29 Thou hast moreover multiplied thy fornication in the land of Canaan unto Chaldea; and yet thou wast not satisfied herewith.(*fornication)
AND...
Eze 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
Eze 16:50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw [good].(*abominations)
Eze 16:53 When I shall bring again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, then [will I bring again] the captivity of thy captives in the midst of them:
Eze 16:54 That thou mayest bear thine own shame, and mayest be confounded in all that thou hast done, in that thou art a comfort unto them.
Eze 16:55 When thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate, then thou and thy daughters shall return to your former estate.
Eze 16:56 For thy sister Sodom was not mentioned by thy mouth in the day of thy pride,
Eze 16:57 Before thy wickedness was discovered, as at the time of [thy] reproach of the daughters of Syria, and all [that are] round about her, the daughters of the Philistines, which despise thee round about.
Eze 16:58 Thou hast borne thy lewdness and thine abominations, saith the LORD.(*lewdness+abominations)
*= check these words out here at this site jesus-messiah.com...
from that site come these quotes:-
"FORNICATION"
" Hebrew2181. zanah, zaw-naw'; a prim. root [highly fed and therefore wanton]; to commit adultery usually of the female(*but not always), and less often of simple fornication(*including homosexual acts), rarely of involuntary ravishment(*rape or situational homosexuality and);fig. to commit idolatry (the Jewish people being regarded as the spouse of Jehovah):-(cause to) commit fornication, X continually, X great, (be an, play the) harlot, (cause to be, play the) whore, (commit, fall to) whoredom, (cause to) go a-whoring, whorish."
" Greek4205. pornos, por'-nos; from pernemi (to sell; akin to the base of Grk4097); a (male) prostitute (as venal), i.e. (by anal.)(*homosexual act) a debauchee (libertine):-fornicator,whoremonger."
"4.) Unlawful lust. (unlawful lust includes the married and the unmarried.)"
"6.) A male prostitute. (This classification of an act of fornication includes homosexuals and also single or married males who offered their services for hire. Fornication is identified here as sexual relations for money. We will take it that if it includes the male it also includes the female under the name whore, strumpet, or harlot)."
"8.) Whoremongers. (to be a whoremonger is to have sexual relations with a whore or more then one whore. What is a whore? A whore is a woman who will have sexual relations with any man she chooses."
Cont blw.
reply to post by DantesLost
Cont frm abv pst...
"All prostitutes are whores but not all whores are prostitutes. Some whores think that because they give free and do not charge they are not whores. This is false."
"Fornication can also be between unmarried persons. Fornication is all sexual conduct except that between a man and wife!"
End of quotes from site!
So Ezekiel chp16 lays out that the whole of Israel had sinned in many various ways (including carnally, as individuals of the tribe of Israel) but wait there is more .. what's that?? He prophesies in YHVH names...Oh yes the restoration of Sodom and Gomorrah. Has this come true??? en.wikipedia.org.... No it hasn't so therefor see this post of mine in this thread here and then come back here and tell me whether you believe you are justified in any way in using Ezekiel.
Ezekiel??? I shall not fear him!
2ndly Josephus was from the 1st Century AD and therefor corrupt.Deut 31:16-22 and 24-30
and from en.wikipedia.org... (BOLD emphesis mine):-" Josephus's two most important works are The Jewish War (c. 75) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94).[3] The Jewish War recounts the Jewish revolt against Rome (66–70). Antiquities of the Jews recounts the history of the world from a Jewish perspective. These works provide valuable insight into the background of first century Judaism and early Christianity."
AND
"How much better for everyone if all the principal figures of the region had been slithering filth like Josephus." Quip by P.J. O'Rourke.
3rdly Babylonian Talmud,Sanhedrin 109a is False Oral Law codified after the fall of the temple in 70CE/AD around 2nd and 5th century CE/AD (see my above arguments to do with the corruption of Josephus as he is a jewish contemporary of that time period)
Besides who are you going to believe??? Some post 1st century CE/AD Rabbi or YHVH through Moses?
4thly Rabbi Nathan/iel 2nd century CE/AD corrupted just like Josephus (see above)
en.wikipedia.org...
5th Nahmanides is definately corrupt as its now the 13th century CE/AD and he is a Kabbalist!!! Read Deut 18:9-13 concerning no augury or divination or sorcery!!!
Need I say any more! I have further scriptures to provide concerning this if that isn't enough.
6th you state and again I quote you directly "Yes,homosexual behaviour as in consensual sex,not rape.Which is obvious when you read the lines following the 'situational homosexual' quote.
"The concept of sexual deprivation became a key factor in resolving this apparent paradox. Most authors noted that inmates basically had two options in prison,celibacy or situational homosexuality". Bold so as to help you understand especially since the article mentions consensual HOMOSEXUAL relations as well." End Quote.
so I came up with this...
A situational HETEROSEXUAL man rapes a true HETEROSEXUAL man (definately an ACT of situational HOMOSEXUALITY and fornication but not nessissarily from motive driven by a desire of lifelong HOMOSEXUALITY on the part of the rapist or victim) and claims he is NOT a HOMOSEXUAL but that his victim is a HOMOSEXUAL and that the ACT overall was Overtly HETEROSEXUAL in nature...
Then this...
A situational LAW ABIDING man SEXUALLY ASSAULTS a true LAW ABIDING man (definately an ACT of situational CRIMINALITY and CRIME but not nessissarily from motive driven by a desire of lifelong enjoyment of CRIMINAL ACTS on the part of the rapist or victim) and claims he is NOT
a CRIMINAL but that his victim is a CRIMINAL and that the ACT overall was Overtly LEGAL in nature...
You don't seem to see that the situational homosexual rapists are trying to pull the wool over your eyes (they obviously have got you fleeced) and I find it disgusting as it demeans the victim even more and lessens us all especially when people go ahead and endorse their(the rapists) FUBAR rational. Why is it that you consider that rape doesn't involve homosexual acts (note I'm not talking about homosexual desire!)?
7th you state and I quote you directly "Er,yes,you link to sites that don't even mention one Early Church Father.Which i typed out nice and clear.....". I didn't have to provide YOUR proof as I was clearly providing my own proof to back my argument up that YES HOMOSEXUALITY existed in ancient Israel amongst the jewish population (1st site) and the (2nd site) provided modern day Religiously conservative jewish position on homosexuality(that its a sin) . Also there wasn't a stipulation in your OP that the Early Church Father/s sayings must take precedent over YHVH through Moses and the Torah.The wise crack I made about you being the scholar went to the fact that you have studied for 10yrs and that you haven't come across these VITAL sources of information and it took me just 30 seconds. 2ndly the ref-books I provide there are nearly all contemporary and those contemporary authors themselves can be personally questioned and their facts fully checkable as best we can but can this be said of any of the Early Church Fathers???
Now as to the link you provide concerning the Early Church Fathers.
a) Do you really expect me to do the same 10 years of research as you? When posting as a scholar who should know better you should be providing a detailed list of shortcuts to the juicy bits or at least some directions as to specifically who (not the name of some ambiguous large group!), what or where. Also as a scholar you should know that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and that such proof needs to clear/unambiguous, concise, well documented and accurate by meeting certain pre-perscribed valid burdens of proof criteria. You posting this link does none of those things! Are you actually a scholar or don't you know any better? Please disclose.
Continued next post...
Edited to fix a Link.
[edit on 29-12-2008 by OmegaLogos]
"All prostitutes are whores but not all whores are prostitutes. Some whores think that because they give free and do not charge they are not whores. This is false."
"Fornication can also be between unmarried persons. Fornication is all sexual conduct except that between a man and wife!"
End of quotes from site!
So Ezekiel chp16 lays out that the whole of Israel had sinned in many various ways (including carnally, as individuals of the tribe of Israel) but wait there is more .. what's that?? He prophesies in YHVH names...Oh yes the restoration of Sodom and Gomorrah. Has this come true??? en.wikipedia.org.... No it hasn't so therefor see this post of mine in this thread here and then come back here and tell me whether you believe you are justified in any way in using Ezekiel.
Ezekiel??? I shall not fear him!
2ndly Josephus was from the 1st Century AD and therefor corrupt.Deut 31:16-22 and 24-30
and from en.wikipedia.org... (BOLD emphesis mine):-" Josephus's two most important works are The Jewish War (c. 75) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94).[3] The Jewish War recounts the Jewish revolt against Rome (66–70). Antiquities of the Jews recounts the history of the world from a Jewish perspective. These works provide valuable insight into the background of first century Judaism and early Christianity."
AND
"How much better for everyone if all the principal figures of the region had been slithering filth like Josephus." Quip by P.J. O'Rourke.
3rdly Babylonian Talmud,Sanhedrin 109a is False Oral Law codified after the fall of the temple in 70CE/AD around 2nd and 5th century CE/AD (see my above arguments to do with the corruption of Josephus as he is a jewish contemporary of that time period)
Besides who are you going to believe??? Some post 1st century CE/AD Rabbi or YHVH through Moses?
4thly Rabbi Nathan/iel 2nd century CE/AD corrupted just like Josephus (see above)
en.wikipedia.org...
5th Nahmanides is definately corrupt as its now the 13th century CE/AD and he is a Kabbalist!!! Read Deut 18:9-13 concerning no augury or divination or sorcery!!!
Need I say any more! I have further scriptures to provide concerning this if that isn't enough.
6th you state and again I quote you directly "Yes,homosexual behaviour as in consensual sex,not rape.Which is obvious when you read the lines following the 'situational homosexual' quote.
"The concept of sexual deprivation became a key factor in resolving this apparent paradox. Most authors noted that inmates basically had two options in prison,celibacy or situational homosexuality". Bold so as to help you understand especially since the article mentions consensual HOMOSEXUAL relations as well." End Quote.
so I came up with this...
A situational HETEROSEXUAL man rapes a true HETEROSEXUAL man (definately an ACT of situational HOMOSEXUALITY and fornication but not nessissarily from motive driven by a desire of lifelong HOMOSEXUALITY on the part of the rapist or victim) and claims he is NOT a HOMOSEXUAL but that his victim is a HOMOSEXUAL and that the ACT overall was Overtly HETEROSEXUAL in nature...
Then this...
A situational LAW ABIDING man SEXUALLY ASSAULTS a true LAW ABIDING man (definately an ACT of situational CRIMINALITY and CRIME but not nessissarily from motive driven by a desire of lifelong enjoyment of CRIMINAL ACTS on the part of the rapist or victim) and claims he is NOT
a CRIMINAL but that his victim is a CRIMINAL and that the ACT overall was Overtly LEGAL in nature...
You don't seem to see that the situational homosexual rapists are trying to pull the wool over your eyes (they obviously have got you fleeced) and I find it disgusting as it demeans the victim even more and lessens us all especially when people go ahead and endorse their(the rapists) FUBAR rational. Why is it that you consider that rape doesn't involve homosexual acts (note I'm not talking about homosexual desire!)?
7th you state and I quote you directly "Er,yes,you link to sites that don't even mention one Early Church Father.Which i typed out nice and clear.....". I didn't have to provide YOUR proof as I was clearly providing my own proof to back my argument up that YES HOMOSEXUALITY existed in ancient Israel amongst the jewish population (1st site) and the (2nd site) provided modern day Religiously conservative jewish position on homosexuality(that its a sin) . Also there wasn't a stipulation in your OP that the Early Church Father/s sayings must take precedent over YHVH through Moses and the Torah.The wise crack I made about you being the scholar went to the fact that you have studied for 10yrs and that you haven't come across these VITAL sources of information and it took me just 30 seconds. 2ndly the ref-books I provide there are nearly all contemporary and those contemporary authors themselves can be personally questioned and their facts fully checkable as best we can but can this be said of any of the Early Church Fathers???
Now as to the link you provide concerning the Early Church Fathers.
a) Do you really expect me to do the same 10 years of research as you? When posting as a scholar who should know better you should be providing a detailed list of shortcuts to the juicy bits or at least some directions as to specifically who (not the name of some ambiguous large group!), what or where. Also as a scholar you should know that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and that such proof needs to clear/unambiguous, concise, well documented and accurate by meeting certain pre-perscribed valid burdens of proof criteria. You posting this link does none of those things! Are you actually a scholar or don't you know any better? Please disclose.
Continued next post...
Edited to fix a Link.
[edit on 29-12-2008 by OmegaLogos]
reply to post by DantesLost
Cont frm abv pst.
b) hmmm Calvinism. Are you a Calvinist (you don't disclose upfront) and if yes are you a hyper/calvinist(reformed or not?) or are you an Arminianist? Or do you fall in between? basically which denominational/ philosophical doctrine or angle are you working from? I'm preparing myself to deny these possibly ignorant doctrines. Also which heuristic hermunetics do you ascribe to?
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.apuritansmind.com...
www.auburn.edu...
8th so here is the lay of the land or thread so far as I see it from the OP onwards....
"Behold! The inequity of thy scholar DantesLost..."
Lev 18:22 Provided by you, to which I agreed yes it was about the practices of Egypt and Canaan as stated in Lev 18:3 (also provided by you) but I also provided info that Homosexuality was taking place in those places at that time! You have yet to accurately refute this info.
Lev 20:13 Provided by me as a separate scripture from the same book by the same author that does NOT involve Egypt or Canaan! and you have yet to refute that it is not talking about homosexuality.
Lev 18:21 Provided by you about Molech worship which actually has nothing to do with Homosexuality (Molech/Moloch ) but everything to do with offering your child as a burnt offering! So why is it even here?
Abomination = Toevah provided by you (unqualified without references here) and your version states it as...
"Meaning of the word Abomination.(toevah)
Modern translation:The feeling of extreme disgust and hatred.
Ancient translation:That which is ritually unclean.
If the author wanted to get across that such an act was wrong
no matter where it takes place,the word zimah would have been used.
(an example,in condemnation of temple prostitutes involving idolatry,
"toevah" is employed 1Kings 14:24,while in prohibitions of prostitution
in general the word "zimah," appears Lev 19:29)"
Where as my version states it as... "The term to'eva is usually translated as "abomination". However, because the word is used twice in regards to homosexuality, its second use has been understood by the Talmud to be a contraction of the words to'eh hu va, meaning "He is deviating from what is natural." (literally "He is wandering with it [from the natural way of the world]" since the Hebrew word to'e means "He is wandering", va "with it")" which I provide under the Link on for Conservative Judaisms views on homosexuality (top of the page, 2nd paragraph). Now I didn't Overtly bring your attention to it, but its there in MY info and I was getting to it (like just now) and so now it to can be debated. What makes your version of to'eva better than mine and where is your reference material for it?
As to your Ancient translation:That which is ritually unclean. Are you telling me that being ritually unclean is not a sin punishable under the Torah?
And as to zimah trumping toevah i.e. 1kings 14:24 VS Lev 19:29, well I show above this temple prostitution has nothing to do with Molech which has everything to do with child sacrifice by immolation by fire upon an altar.
Rom 1:21-27 Provided by you to support your misstated argument via the NT but I refute it like this:- specifically verses 24,26 and 27 all clearly are talking about homosexuality and fornication! Or how do you reconcile vrs 27 especially as not being about homosexuality!
Rom 1:28-32 Provided by you to support your misstated argument via the NT but I refute it like this:- "reprobate mind,unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness,malignity,haters of God,inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents(YHVH is THE Father!),without understanding,covenantbreakers, without natural affection" are all euphemisms for sin/ning and sexual sin/ning
of which Homosexuality is included as per Lev 20:13 which you have yet to "falsify". Oh and Specifically note what it says in Rom 1:32 about taking pleasure in it (will you be telling me next homosexuals or rapists can't or don't derive pleasure during homosexual acts???) and that they deserve the good old death penalty! which again supports the Lev 20:13 scripture I provided wholeheartedly.
The definition of sodomy provided by you (again unqualified without references) is as follows...
"The story everyone knows;Genesis 19,the destruction of Sodom.
Meaning of Sodomite/Sodomy
Modern translation:anal sex between 2 men.
Medieval translation:various forms of sexual intercourse performed by men and women,held to be
unnatural or abnormal such as anal intercourse or bestiality.
Ancient translation:A person from the city of Sodom."
And you are fully correct in this as God was going to destroy them way back in Gen 18:16-33
especially Gen 18:20-21.
Continued Next Post....
Edited to fix miswritten context.
[edit on 29-12-2008 by OmegaLogos]
b) hmmm Calvinism. Are you a Calvinist (you don't disclose upfront) and if yes are you a hyper/calvinist(reformed or not?) or are you an Arminianist? Or do you fall in between? basically which denominational/ philosophical doctrine or angle are you working from? I'm preparing myself to deny these possibly ignorant doctrines. Also which heuristic hermunetics do you ascribe to?
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.apuritansmind.com...
www.auburn.edu...
8th so here is the lay of the land or thread so far as I see it from the OP onwards....
"Behold! The inequity of thy scholar DantesLost..."
Lev 18:22 Provided by you, to which I agreed yes it was about the practices of Egypt and Canaan as stated in Lev 18:3 (also provided by you) but I also provided info that Homosexuality was taking place in those places at that time! You have yet to accurately refute this info.
Lev 20:13 Provided by me as a separate scripture from the same book by the same author that does NOT involve Egypt or Canaan! and you have yet to refute that it is not talking about homosexuality.
Lev 18:21 Provided by you about Molech worship which actually has nothing to do with Homosexuality (Molech/Moloch ) but everything to do with offering your child as a burnt offering! So why is it even here?
Abomination = Toevah provided by you (unqualified without references here) and your version states it as...
"Meaning of the word Abomination.(toevah)
Modern translation:The feeling of extreme disgust and hatred.
Ancient translation:That which is ritually unclean.
If the author wanted to get across that such an act was wrong
no matter where it takes place,the word zimah would have been used.
(an example,in condemnation of temple prostitutes involving idolatry,
"toevah" is employed 1Kings 14:24,while in prohibitions of prostitution
in general the word "zimah," appears Lev 19:29)"
Where as my version states it as... "The term to'eva is usually translated as "abomination". However, because the word is used twice in regards to homosexuality, its second use has been understood by the Talmud to be a contraction of the words to'eh hu va, meaning "He is deviating from what is natural." (literally "He is wandering with it [from the natural way of the world]" since the Hebrew word to'e means "He is wandering", va "with it")" which I provide under the Link on for Conservative Judaisms views on homosexuality (top of the page, 2nd paragraph). Now I didn't Overtly bring your attention to it, but its there in MY info and I was getting to it (like just now) and so now it to can be debated. What makes your version of to'eva better than mine and where is your reference material for it?
As to your Ancient translation:That which is ritually unclean. Are you telling me that being ritually unclean is not a sin punishable under the Torah?
And as to zimah trumping toevah i.e. 1kings 14:24 VS Lev 19:29, well I show above this temple prostitution has nothing to do with Molech which has everything to do with child sacrifice by immolation by fire upon an altar.
Rom 1:21-27 Provided by you to support your misstated argument via the NT but I refute it like this:- specifically verses 24,26 and 27 all clearly are talking about homosexuality and fornication! Or how do you reconcile vrs 27 especially as not being about homosexuality!
Rom 1:28-32 Provided by you to support your misstated argument via the NT but I refute it like this:- "reprobate mind,unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness,malignity,haters of God,inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents(YHVH is THE Father!),without understanding,covenantbreakers, without natural affection" are all euphemisms for sin/ning and sexual sin/ning
of which Homosexuality is included as per Lev 20:13 which you have yet to "falsify". Oh and Specifically note what it says in Rom 1:32 about taking pleasure in it (will you be telling me next homosexuals or rapists can't or don't derive pleasure during homosexual acts???) and that they deserve the good old death penalty! which again supports the Lev 20:13 scripture I provided wholeheartedly.
The definition of sodomy provided by you (again unqualified without references) is as follows...
"The story everyone knows;Genesis 19,the destruction of Sodom.
Meaning of Sodomite/Sodomy
Modern translation:anal sex between 2 men.
Medieval translation:various forms of sexual intercourse performed by men and women,held to be
unnatural or abnormal such as anal intercourse or bestiality.
Ancient translation:A person from the city of Sodom."
And you are fully correct in this as God was going to destroy them way back in Gen 18:16-33
especially Gen 18:20-21.
Continued Next Post....
Edited to fix miswritten context.
[edit on 29-12-2008 by OmegaLogos]
reply to post by DantesLost
Cont frm abv pst...
But I am also correct in that the Sodomites (as per your ancient
translation) were intent on commiting homosexual acts with the two angels as per Gen 19:5-9as 4 versions (NKJV,NLT,NIV,HNV and a 5th NASB if relations can be considered as including sexual)support my view and the others can be placed in a sexual context due to Gen 19:7as why would Lot need to tell them that such actions (i.e. Knowing them[the angels]) were considered wicked? Unless it was homosexual relations that they were after!
You provide the question of Gibeah and I replied that I personally don't have to resolve this as I'm not of the Abrahamic faith. But I do actually get to this ...(pls see below)
You provide Ezekiel 16:49 and I tear it down fully(see above)
You provide Prov 6:16-19 and I tore it down (seehere ) under "3rdly" and here.)
You provide Jer 23:14-15 and I refute by describing it so....1stly its Looks pretty much an updated rewrite of Ezekiels Chptr 16 but of course that is just my unfounded opinion but I also refuted with my links to both ancient Egyptian and ancient Israeli cases of homosexuality which is proof I offered you as you claimed ignorance and I quote "Really?
Not once have i heard one of the sins of the people of Jerusalem being homosexuality.And I've studied Scriptures and been taught by scholars for over 10yrs in different universities,including Rome and Jerusalem.". You may be a scholar but thats no definition of actually how good you really are at it!
You provide Judges 19:22-28 and I fully agree with it as it shows 1) that the desire for
homosexuality was widespread across several cultures of the ancient middle east including within the 12 tribes of Israel! Not just Sodom!... and 2) unfortunately you state "The reason i mentioned this is because of its close comparison with the story of Sodom.One city calls down the wrath of God for its iniquities,the other doesn't."(bold emphesis mine) and so I refute that by
saying maybe you should of read on a bit further because Gibeah DOES call down the wrath of god upon it by being punished near genocidally by the other 11 tribes of Israel Judges 20:1-48 especially Judges 20:35 where YHVH himself smites the tribe of Benjamin at Gibeah which itself is destroyed as per Judges 20:48. Care to refute or endorse this?
You provide no evidence ( and leave them hanging as to which version of bible you will accept) when discounting Simplynoone's evidence, which as much as I am Loath to use the NT, it does back up my argument that fornication includes, but is not limited homosexual acts and or desires (I
provide an extra scripture not mentioned specifically by Simplynoone's post. Jude 1:7 about "Strange flesh"!). Care to elaborate? Do you or do you not believe that Strong's Concordance is a worthy reference book? If not then why not? Do you discount the Quoran/Koran as well (here
).Thats 3 seperate faiths who worship the same Abrahamic GOD and who all condem homosexuality and can they all really be wrong on this issue?
You never answered my question concerning the validity of the correctional guards perceptional testimony! Heres an opportunity to fix that up right now.
You haven't debunked Milgroms support of me but here is Milgroms support for you debunked...
He states and I quote " So, the final verdict is in on the meaning of Lev. 18:22: Although Jewish rabbis many centuries later interpreted this ban as a condemnation of (Greek) homosexuality, many factors point to an original ban which was directed solely against the dangers of sacred prostitution being absorbed into the worship of Yahweh. Nowhere in the OT is any nonviolent, non-cultic homosexual act or relationship condemned or punished – and this is surely not because such did not happen. Indeed, when we look at the Jonathan and David story, we shall see how the writer there describes a clearly homoerotic friendship, with no hesitation or shame whatsoever"
Well 1stly one has to hunt down the book of the scripture ???18:22-23 until it becomes quite clear that it is the book of Leviticus that he is talking about (I wonder why these scriptures had no book labeling?) and then it becomes quite clear that he doesn't debunk Lev 20:13 which is backed up by the KJV Deut 23:17 (provided here for 1st time by me which states no
prostitutes or sodomites allowed (according to your medievel translation of sodomite) which hangs over the Torah like the wrath of YHVH! But aside from that he is correct that there is no instance in any biblical version that I can find of non violent homosexuals being killed for breaking the laws of YHVH as layed out in the Torah. But there are still 2 instances of attempted Gang rape
(situational homosexuality) by men on either men or angels (Sodom and Gibeah!) that were punished with the wrath of YHVH.
I personally use the KJV but I'm willing to use any version you want as long as you inform me. If your a stickler for word for word translational accuracy I suggest the LITV(www.thewordnotes.com... or
www.olivetree.com....
Continued Next Post...
But I am also correct in that the Sodomites (as per your ancient
translation) were intent on commiting homosexual acts with the two angels as per Gen 19:5-9as 4 versions (NKJV,NLT,NIV,HNV and a 5th NASB if relations can be considered as including sexual)support my view and the others can be placed in a sexual context due to Gen 19:7as why would Lot need to tell them that such actions (i.e. Knowing them[the angels]) were considered wicked? Unless it was homosexual relations that they were after!
You provide the question of Gibeah and I replied that I personally don't have to resolve this as I'm not of the Abrahamic faith. But I do actually get to this ...(pls see below)
You provide Ezekiel 16:49 and I tear it down fully(see above)
You provide Prov 6:16-19 and I tore it down (seehere ) under "3rdly" and here.)
You provide Jer 23:14-15 and I refute by describing it so....1stly its Looks pretty much an updated rewrite of Ezekiels Chptr 16 but of course that is just my unfounded opinion but I also refuted with my links to both ancient Egyptian and ancient Israeli cases of homosexuality which is proof I offered you as you claimed ignorance and I quote "Really?
Not once have i heard one of the sins of the people of Jerusalem being homosexuality.And I've studied Scriptures and been taught by scholars for over 10yrs in different universities,including Rome and Jerusalem.". You may be a scholar but thats no definition of actually how good you really are at it!
You provide Judges 19:22-28 and I fully agree with it as it shows 1) that the desire for
homosexuality was widespread across several cultures of the ancient middle east including within the 12 tribes of Israel! Not just Sodom!... and 2) unfortunately you state "The reason i mentioned this is because of its close comparison with the story of Sodom.One city calls down the wrath of God for its iniquities,the other doesn't."(bold emphesis mine) and so I refute that by
saying maybe you should of read on a bit further because Gibeah DOES call down the wrath of god upon it by being punished near genocidally by the other 11 tribes of Israel Judges 20:1-48 especially Judges 20:35 where YHVH himself smites the tribe of Benjamin at Gibeah which itself is destroyed as per Judges 20:48. Care to refute or endorse this?
You provide no evidence ( and leave them hanging as to which version of bible you will accept) when discounting Simplynoone's evidence, which as much as I am Loath to use the NT, it does back up my argument that fornication includes, but is not limited homosexual acts and or desires (I
provide an extra scripture not mentioned specifically by Simplynoone's post. Jude 1:7 about "Strange flesh"!). Care to elaborate? Do you or do you not believe that Strong's Concordance is a worthy reference book? If not then why not? Do you discount the Quoran/Koran as well (here
).Thats 3 seperate faiths who worship the same Abrahamic GOD and who all condem homosexuality and can they all really be wrong on this issue?
You never answered my question concerning the validity of the correctional guards perceptional testimony! Heres an opportunity to fix that up right now.
You haven't debunked Milgroms support of me but here is Milgroms support for you debunked...
He states and I quote " So, the final verdict is in on the meaning of Lev. 18:22: Although Jewish rabbis many centuries later interpreted this ban as a condemnation of (Greek) homosexuality, many factors point to an original ban which was directed solely against the dangers of sacred prostitution being absorbed into the worship of Yahweh. Nowhere in the OT is any nonviolent, non-cultic homosexual act or relationship condemned or punished – and this is surely not because such did not happen. Indeed, when we look at the Jonathan and David story, we shall see how the writer there describes a clearly homoerotic friendship, with no hesitation or shame whatsoever"
Well 1stly one has to hunt down the book of the scripture ???18:22-23 until it becomes quite clear that it is the book of Leviticus that he is talking about (I wonder why these scriptures had no book labeling?) and then it becomes quite clear that he doesn't debunk Lev 20:13 which is backed up by the KJV Deut 23:17 (provided here for 1st time by me which states no
prostitutes or sodomites allowed (according to your medievel translation of sodomite) which hangs over the Torah like the wrath of YHVH! But aside from that he is correct that there is no instance in any biblical version that I can find of non violent homosexuals being killed for breaking the laws of YHVH as layed out in the Torah. But there are still 2 instances of attempted Gang rape
(situational homosexuality) by men on either men or angels (Sodom and Gibeah!) that were punished with the wrath of YHVH.
I personally use the KJV but I'm willing to use any version you want as long as you inform me. If your a stickler for word for word translational accuracy I suggest the LITV(www.thewordnotes.com... or
www.olivetree.com....
Continued Next Post...
reply to post by DantesLost
Cont frm abv pst...
Finally you state and I quote it here directly "How smug do you feel now?" and I reply that "I don't feel smug at all" and for the following reasons...
1)1stly I provide "smug" from thefreedictionary.com and I note that it means... "smug (smg)
adj. smug·ger, smug·gest
Exhibiting or feeling great or offensive satisfaction with oneself or with one's situation;
self-righteously complacent: "the smug look of a toad breakfasting on fat marsh flies" William Pearson.
[Perhaps akin to Low German smuck, neat, from Middle Low German, from smucken, to adorn.]
smugly adv.
smugness n.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved." and I ask where in this thread have I exhibited feeling great or offensive satisfaction with oneself or with one's situation or been self-righteously complacent?
also... "smug
adjective self-satisfied, superior, complacent, conceited, self-righteous, holier-than-thou,priggish, self-opinionated
Collins Essential Thesaurus 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2005, 2006" and again I ask where I have exhibited any of these things in any of my posts to this thread?
2) For me to feel "smug" as you call it, would require the following
a) Someone to star my post.
b) Someone to congratulate me on my post in a post of their own to this thread.
c) Someone to flag this thread because of one/some/all my post/s.
d) You to agree with me that your OP's position concerning this is totally invalid and to state this in a post to this thread.
None of these has happened as of yet!
Personal Disclosure: SO Smug??? Hardly!!! I note as an aside that your OP and posts to date also currently fail according to several of Philosopher Paul Grice's Maxims of conversation which are as follows:- (en.wikipedia.org...)
Quantity:
Say no less than the conversation requires.(epic failure)
Say no more than the conversation requires.
Quality:
Don't say things you believe to be false.
Don't say things for which you lack detailed evidence.(epic failure)
Manner:
Don't be obscure.(epic failure)
Don't be ambiguous.(epic failure)
Be brief.
Be orderly.
Relevant:
Be relevant.(minor failure)
Thats 4 epic failures and 1 minor failure (for a total of 5 failures of conversation) out of 9 conditions, which is an over 50% failure rate. Seems to me someone is promoting ignorance.
Personally I also fail according to some of these conditions mainly:...
Say no more than the conversation requires. (I may be guilty of this. minor failure)
and...
Be brief.(epic failure on my part due to correcting your OP! This I am fully and unashamedly guilty of, so as to DENY IGNORANCE!)
Thats 1 epic failure and 1 minor failure (for a total of 2 failures of conversation) out of 9 conditions, which is an under 25% failure rate. I'll leave it to others, whether I am promoting ignorance or denying it.
Finally you state and I quote it here directly "How smug do you feel now?" and I reply that "I don't feel smug at all" and for the following reasons...
1)1stly I provide "smug" from thefreedictionary.com and I note that it means... "smug (smg)
adj. smug·ger, smug·gest
Exhibiting or feeling great or offensive satisfaction with oneself or with one's situation;
self-righteously complacent: "the smug look of a toad breakfasting on fat marsh flies" William Pearson.
[Perhaps akin to Low German smuck, neat, from Middle Low German, from smucken, to adorn.]
smugly adv.
smugness n.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved." and I ask where in this thread have I exhibited feeling great or offensive satisfaction with oneself or with one's situation or been self-righteously complacent?
also... "smug
adjective self-satisfied, superior, complacent, conceited, self-righteous, holier-than-thou,priggish, self-opinionated
Collins Essential Thesaurus 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2005, 2006" and again I ask where I have exhibited any of these things in any of my posts to this thread?
2) For me to feel "smug" as you call it, would require the following
a) Someone to star my post.
b) Someone to congratulate me on my post in a post of their own to this thread.
c) Someone to flag this thread because of one/some/all my post/s.
d) You to agree with me that your OP's position concerning this is totally invalid and to state this in a post to this thread.
None of these has happened as of yet!
Personal Disclosure: SO Smug??? Hardly!!! I note as an aside that your OP and posts to date also currently fail according to several of Philosopher Paul Grice's Maxims of conversation which are as follows:- (en.wikipedia.org...)
Quantity:
Say no less than the conversation requires.(epic failure)
Say no more than the conversation requires.
Quality:
Don't say things you believe to be false.
Don't say things for which you lack detailed evidence.(epic failure)
Manner:
Don't be obscure.(epic failure)
Don't be ambiguous.(epic failure)
Be brief.
Be orderly.
Relevant:
Be relevant.(minor failure)
Thats 4 epic failures and 1 minor failure (for a total of 5 failures of conversation) out of 9 conditions, which is an over 50% failure rate. Seems to me someone is promoting ignorance.
Personally I also fail according to some of these conditions mainly:...
Say no more than the conversation requires. (I may be guilty of this. minor failure)
and...
Be brief.(epic failure on my part due to correcting your OP! This I am fully and unashamedly guilty of, so as to DENY IGNORANCE!)
Thats 1 epic failure and 1 minor failure (for a total of 2 failures of conversation) out of 9 conditions, which is an under 25% failure rate. I'll leave it to others, whether I am promoting ignorance or denying it.
new topics
-
Why Such An Uproar Over Non-US Citizens With H1-B Work Visas.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 47 minutes ago -
Christmas Car Near Detroit…
Automotive Discussion: 2 hours ago -
Assetto Corsa EVO - a New Chapter in Simracing starts January 16th
Video Games: 5 hours ago -
The Phenomenon documentary by James Fox
Aliens and UFOs: 8 hours ago -
New UK Petition - Close the borders! Suspend ALL immigration for 5 years!
Regional Politics: 9 hours ago
top topics
-
Credit card debt
Relationships: 14 hours ago, 7 flags -
The Phenomenon documentary by James Fox
Aliens and UFOs: 8 hours ago, 7 flags -
President-elect Trump asks the Supreme Court to Let Tik-Tok Continue Operating in the U.S..
Mainstream News: 14 hours ago, 6 flags -
Christmas Car Near Detroit…
Automotive Discussion: 2 hours ago, 5 flags -
The Looking Glass - Episode 3: The Path of Least Resistance
Short Stories: 12 hours ago, 3 flags -
New UK Petition - Close the borders! Suspend ALL immigration for 5 years!
Regional Politics: 9 hours ago, 2 flags -
Assetto Corsa EVO - a New Chapter in Simracing starts January 16th
Video Games: 5 hours ago, 2 flags -
Why Such An Uproar Over Non-US Citizens With H1-B Work Visas.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 47 minutes ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
Why Such An Uproar Over Non-US Citizens With H1-B Work Visas.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 5 • : WeMustCare -
1 Billion dollars
General Entertainment • 15 • : mblahnikluver -
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Says The USA Will Be in Debt Default in Jan 2025 - Unless...
Mainstream News • 31 • : IndieA -
Liberal Madness and the Constitution of the United States
US Political Madness • 18 • : charlest2 -
President-elect Trump asks the Supreme Court to Let Tik-Tok Continue Operating in the U.S..
Mainstream News • 24 • : WeMustCare -
Awesome Dip Recipe
Food and Cooking • 7 • : mblahnikluver -
Christmas Dinner ??
Food and Cooking • 19 • : mblahnikluver -
Christmas Car Near Detroit…
Automotive Discussion • 2 • : glen200376 -
Trump's idea to make Canada the 51st US state: 'Potential is massive'
Mainstream News • 103 • : NorthOS -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3833 • : Thoughtful3