Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, my complaint is with you, Finn. I find it preposterous that you could accept that our God could EVER hold such a vile attitude for ANY reason. You clearly do NOT know either God or Jesus.
So like Hitler’s cult the fundamentalist cult tolerates no one who “attacks christianity.” Your cult has its own Focus on the Family. Your cult continues to attempt to force the ten commandments and prayer into schools while pushing for “creationism” curriculum in science classes.
Moderator cut: Sorry, but current politics are not appropriate for the Christianity.
So, yeah, Finn, my mental picture of you is a short guy in a military uniform sporting a Charlie Chaplin mustachio. You are just an innocent “storm trooper” for your god.
You are trying so hard to anger people with these kinds of posts, and even the mods allow it, but it works only to expose the ugly face of the gay agenda.
No, my complaint is with you, Finn. I find it preposterous that you could accept that our God could EVER hold such a vile attitude for ANY reason. You clearly do NOT know either God or Jesus.
No, my complaint is with you, Finn. I find it preposterous that you could accept that our God could EVER hold such a vile attitude for ANY reason. You clearly do NOT know either God or Jesus.
Sure, same to you Mystic, and yes, your complaint IS with God.
In the other hand, you seem to have an issue with just about everyone who has even slightest disagreement with you.
Finn, I've previously asked this question of Jeff several times and, while I give him credit for at least responding, he just gives out the same red herrings about Jesus being obedient to the 'sin part' of Leviticus 20:13 but not the 'they shall surely be put to death' part. SO, as you are a professed Bible-believing Christian, do YOU believe Leviticus 20:13 to be applicable in its entirety? If not, what biblical method or Bible passage do you use to separate the first part from the last part?
Here it is, courtesy of the KJV:
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.
Pretty nasty. Seems overly harsh for something really not that big of a deal. In fact, it seems SO over-the-top in its severity that no thinking person - or, surely, very few - could take it seriously. Do YOU take it seriously, Finn?
Anyway, should you say that 'death' is no longer the penalty for the above violation of God's command ...then what IS the penalty the said offender/s will receive under the so-called 'New Covenant'? I mean, if 'death' is no longer the penalty, does this not then render Leviticus 20:13 null and void in its entirety? And, if this be the case, then what is the point of your (i.e. mainstream Christianity) for even bringing up this passage of scripture (or at least, Leviticus 18:22) at every opportunity?
The things that are abominations are about religious tabus relating to cleanliness
Abomination:
a-bom-i-na'-shun (piggul, to'ebhah, sheqets (shiqquts)): Three distinct Hebrew words are rendered in the English Bible by "abomination," or "abominable thing," referring (except in Ge 43:32; 46:34) to things or practices abhorrent to Yahweh, and opposed to the ritual or moral requirements of His religion. It would be well if these words could be distinguished in translation, as they denote different degrees of abhorrence or loathsomeness.
The word most used for this idea by the Hebrews and indicating the highest degree of abomination is to'ebhah, meaning primarily that which offends the religious sense of a people. When it is said, for example, "The Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians," this is the word used; the significance being that the Hebrews were repugnant to the Egyptians as foreigners, as of an inferior caste, and especially as shepherds (Ge 46:34). The feeling of the Egyptians for the Greeks was likewise one of repugnance. Herodotus (ii.41) says the Egyptians would not kiss a Greek on the mouth, or use his dish, or taste meat cut with the knife of a Greek.
Among the objects described in the Old Testament as "abominations" in this sense are heathen gods, such as Ashtoreth (Astarte), Chemosh, Milcom, the "abominations" of the Zidonians (Phoenicians), Moabites, and Ammonites, respectively (2Ki 23:13), and everything connected with the worship of such gods. When Pharaoh, remonstrating against the departure of the children of Israel, exhorted them to offer sacrifices to their God in Egypt, Moses said: "Shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians (i.e. the animals worshipped by them which were taboo, to'ebhah, to the Israelites) before their eyes, and will they not stone us?" (Ex 8:26).
It is to be noted that, not only the heathen idol itself, but anything offered to or associated with the idol, all the paraphernalia of the forbidden cult, was called an "abomination," for it "is an abomination to Yahweh thy God" (De 7:25,26). The Deuteronomic writer here adds, in terms quite significant of the point of view and the spirit of the whole law: 'Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thy house and thus become a thing set apart (cherem = tabooed) like unto it; thou shalt utterly detest it and utterly abhor it, for it is a thing set apart' (tabooed). To'ebhah is even used as synonymous with "idol" or heathen deity, as in Isa 44:19; De 32:16; 2Ki 23:13; and especially Ex 8:22 ff.
Everything akin to magic or divination is likewise an abomination to'ebhah; as are sexual transgressions (De 22:5; 23:18; 24:4), especially incest and other unnatural offenses: "For all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you" (Le 18:27; compare Eze 8:15). It is to be noted, however, that the word takes on in the later usage a higher ethical and spiritual meaning: as where "divers measures, a great and a small," are forbidden (De 25:14-16); and in Proverbs where "lying lips" (Pr 12:22), "the proud in heart" (Pr 16:5), "the way of the wicked" (Pr 15:9), "evil devices" (Pr 15:26), and "he that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the righteous" (Pr 17:15), are said to be an abomination in God's sight. At last prophet and sage are found to unite in declaring that any sacrifice, however free from physical blemish, if offered without purity of motive, is an abomination: 'Bring no more an oblation of falsehood-an incense of abomination it is to me' (Isa 1:13; compare Jer 7:10). "The sacrifice of the wicked" and the prayer of him "that turneth away his ear from hearing the law," are equally an abomination (see Pr 15:8; 21:27; 28:9).
Another word rendered "abomination" in the King James Version is sheqets or shiqquts. It expresses generally a somewhat less degree of horror or religious aversion than [to'ebhah], but sometimes seems to stand about on a level with it in meaning. In De 14:3, for example, we have the command, "Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing," as introductory to the laws prohibiting the use of the unclean animals (see CLEAN; UNCLEANNESS), and the word there used is [to'ebhah]. But in Le 11:10-13,20,23,41,42, Isa 66:17; and in Eze 8:10 sheqets is the word used and likewise applied to the prohibited animals; as also in Le 11:43 sheqets is used when it is commanded, "Ye shall not make yourselves abominable." Then sheqets is often used parallel to or together with to'ebhah of that which should be held as detestable, as for instance, of idols and idolatrous practices (see especially De 29:17; Ho 9:10; Jer 4:1; 13:27; 16:18; Eze 11:18-21; 20:7,8). It is used exactly as [to'ebhah] is used as applied to Milcom, the god of the Ammonites, which is spoken of as the detestable thing sheqets of the Ammonites (1Ki 11:5). Still even in such cases to'ebhah seems to be the stronger word and to express that which is in the highest degree abhorrent.
The other word used to express a somewhat kindred idea of abhorrence and translated "abomination" in the King James Version is piggul; but it is used in the Hebrew Bible only of sacrificial flesh that has become stale, putrid, tainted (see Le 7:18; 19:7; Eze 4:14; Isa 65:4). Driver maintains that it occurs only as a "technical term for such state sacrificial flesh as has not been eaten within the prescribed time," and, accordingly, he would everywhere render it specifically "refuse meat." Compare lechem megho'al, "the loathsome bread" (from ga'al, "to loathe") Mal 1:7. A chief interest in the subject for Christians grows out of the use of the term in the expression "ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION" (Mt 24:15 and Mr 13:14), which see.
Anyway, should you say that 'death' is no longer the penalty for the above violation of God's command ...then what IS the penalty the said offender/s will receive under the so-called 'New Covenant'? I mean, if 'death' is no longer the penalty, does this not render Leviticus 20:13 null and void in its entirety? And, if this be the case, then what is the point of your (i.e. mainstream Christianity) for even bringing up this passage of scripture (or at least, Leviticus 18:22) at every opportunity?[/color]
We KNOW it is no longer punished by death even in Jewish communities like Israel. There was a time when it was punishable by death even in US, until Jefferson declared castration was sufficient. As we know, US was never under mosaic law, but under secular law.
The judgment of sinners is in Gods hands, which is something I have repeated here many times, but apparently you like to play the same record over and over.
Some other posters take judgment in their own hands by calling others haters, bigots, nazis, liars, abominations etc, and that is mainly the pushers of the gay agenda where such language is normal.
Why do people bring it up? Because you BEG them to show where the Bible mentions the issue. You must have made that request 100 times on this thread alone. The verses still serve to describe how God feels about that particular act.
No, I do not support execution of gays. I accept the scriptures defining the mosaic law as written in the Bible. I am not an ancient Jew, so I realize it is not an instruction for me. Even Jews today, who embrace the scriptures no longer carry out death sentences for any crime, except maybe treason in Israel.
Then since you are not an “ancient Jew” do you accept that “abomination” in no way applies to homosexuals today simply because of their same sex attraction?
Yes or No?
The things that are abominations are about religious tabus relating to cleanliness
Abomination:
a-bom-i-na'-shun (piggul, to'ebhah, sheqets (shiqquts)): Three distinct Hebrew words are rendered in the English Bible by "abomination," or "abominable thing," referring (except in Ge 43:32; 46:34) to things or practices abhorrent to Yahweh, and opposed to the ritual or moral requirements of His religion. It would be well if these words could be distinguished in translation, as they denote different degrees of abhorrence or loathsomeness.
The word most used for this idea by the Hebrews and indicating the highest degree of abomination is to'ebhah, meaning primarily that which offends the religious sense of a people. When it is said, for example, "The Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians," this is the word used; the significance being that the Hebrews were repugnant to the Egyptians as foreigners, as of an inferior caste, and especially as shepherds (Ge 46:34). The feeling of the Egyptians for the Greeks was likewise one of repugnance. Herodotus (ii.41) says the Egyptians would not kiss a Greek on the mouth, or use his dish, or taste meat cut with the knife of a Greek.
Among the objects described in the Old Testament as "abominations" in this sense are heathen gods, such as Ashtoreth (Astarte), Chemosh, Milcom, the "abominations" of the Zidonians (Phoenicians), Moabites, and Ammonites, respectively (2Ki 23:13), and everything connected with the worship of such gods. When Pharaoh, remonstrating against the departure of the children of Israel, exhorted them to offer sacrifices to their God in Egypt, Moses said: "Shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians (i.e. the animals worshipped by them which were taboo, to'ebhah, to the Israelites) before their eyes, and will they not stone us?" (Ex 8:26).
It is to be noted that, not only the heathen idol itself, but anything offered to or associated with the idol, all the paraphernalia of the forbidden cult, was called an "abomination," for it "is an abomination to Yahweh thy God" (De 7:25,26). The Deuteronomic writer here adds, in terms quite significant of the point of view and the spirit of the whole law: 'Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thy house and thus become a thing set apart (cherem = tabooed) like unto it; thou shalt utterly detest it and utterly abhor it, for it is a thing set apart' (tabooed). To'ebhah is even used as synonymous with "idol" or heathen deity, as in Isa 44:19; De 32:16; 2Ki 23:13; and especially Ex 8:22 ff.
Everything akin to magic or divination is likewise an abomination to'ebhah; as are sexual transgressions (De 22:5; 23:18; 24:4), especially incest and other unnatural offenses: "For all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you" (Le 18:27; compare Eze 8:15). It is to be noted, however, that the word takes on in the later usage a higher ethical and spiritual meaning: as where "divers measures, a great and a small," are forbidden (De 25:14-16); and in Proverbs where "lying lips" (Pr 12:22), "the proud in heart" (Pr 16:5), "the way of the wicked" (Pr 15:9), "evil devices" (Pr 15:26), and "he that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the righteous" (Pr 17:15), are said to be an abomination in God's sight. At last prophet and sage are found to unite in declaring that any sacrifice, however free from physical blemish, if offered without purity of motive, is an abomination: 'Bring no more an oblation of falsehood-an incense of abomination it is to me' (Isa 1:13; compare Jer 7:10). "The sacrifice of the wicked" and the prayer of him "that turneth away his ear from hearing the law," are equally an abomination (see Pr 15:8; 21:27; 28:9).
Another word rendered "abomination" in the King James Version is sheqets or shiqquts. It expresses generally a somewhat less degree of horror or religious aversion than [to'ebhah], but sometimes seems to stand about on a level with it in meaning. In De 14:3, for example, we have the command, "Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing," as introductory to the laws prohibiting the use of the unclean animals (see CLEAN; UNCLEANNESS), and the word there used is [to'ebhah]. But in Le 11:10-13,20,23,41,42, Isa 66:17; and in Eze 8:10 sheqets is the word used and likewise applied to the prohibited animals; as also in Le 11:43 sheqets is used when it is commanded, "Ye shall not make yourselves abominable." Then sheqets is often used parallel to or together with to'ebhah of that which should be held as detestable, as for instance, of idols and idolatrous practices (see especially De 29:17; Ho 9:10; Jer 4:1; 13:27; 16:18; Eze 11:18-21; 20:7,8). It is used exactly as [to'ebhah] is used as applied to Milcom, the god of the Ammonites, which is spoken of as the detestable thing sheqets of the Ammonites (1Ki 11:5). Still even in such cases to'ebhah seems to be the stronger word and to express that which is in the highest degree abhorrent.
The other word used to express a somewhat kindred idea of abhorrence and translated "abomination" in the King James Version is piggul; but it is used in the Hebrew Bible only of sacrificial flesh that has become stale, putrid, tainted (see Le 7:18; 19:7; Eze 4:14; Isa 65:4). Driver maintains that it occurs only as a "technical term for such state sacrificial flesh as has not been eaten within the prescribed time," and, accordingly, he would everywhere render it specifically "refuse meat." Compare lechem megho'al, "the loathsome bread" (from ga'al, "to loathe") Mal 1:7. A chief interest in the subject for Christians grows out of the use of the term in the expression "ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION" (Mt 24:15 and Mr 13:14), which see.
It was to-ebah for Egyptians to be sheepherders, but not for Israelites. To-ebah was almost always a cultural, ritual separation.
Not a chance of getting fundamentalists to think about that, however.
Anyway, should you say that 'death' is no longer the penalty for the above violation of God's command ...then what IS the penalty the said offender/s will receive under the so-called 'New Covenant'? I mean, if 'death' is no longer the penalty, does this not render Leviticus 20:13 null and void in its entirety? And, if this be the case, then what is the point of your (i.e. mainstream Christianity) for even bringing up this passage of scripture (or at least, Leviticus 18:22) at every opportunity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
We KNOW it is no longer punished by death even in Jewish communities like Israel. There was a time when it was punishable by death even in US, until Jefferson declared castration was sufficient. As we know, US was never under mosaic law, but under secular law.
So, due to human ignorance (a 'human trait' the God of the Old Testament also appears to have suffered from) these OT laws were enacted until common sense and decency prevailed ...right? The same is true of the US legislators who, while not guided initially by the OT law, exhibited the VERY SAME ignorance pertaining to homosexuality. Ignorance is ignorance, whether it be ancient or modern. Homosexuality is NOW recognized by MODERN medical science as an innate part of one's human sexuality ...something the Bible authors and the early US legislators simply DID NOT understand. Now they do. And now they know that Leviticus 20:13 IN ITS ENTIRETY is meaningless other than to the ignorant.
As an intelligent person, do you agree that past human ignorance, both religious and secular, has been in play regarding this subject, Finn? Do you believe that human ignorance is STILL in play regarding this subject, Finn?
We should never be giving 'ignorance' a pat on the back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
The judgment of sinners is in Gods hands, which is something I have repeated here many times, but apparently you like to play the same record over and over.
Well, that isn't true, Finn. Many Christians believe that THEY ARE the mouth-piece for God ...including you, Jeff and BFundie. If not for those many mainstream Christians who appear to have taken judgment away from God and made it personal by their oft-repetitive chant that "homosexuals will burn in hell" I wouldn't need to play the same record over and over again. Understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Some other posters take judgment in their own hands by calling others haters, bigots, nazis, liars, abominations etc, and that is mainly the pushers of the gay agenda where such language is normal.
Ah yes, the 'gay agenda'. You mean as in their supposedly 'force-feeding' the general public and those Bible-thumping Christians in particular to accept them as fellow human beings? Y'know, if heterosexuals had been maligned and vilified over the years and referred to as 'abominations' in the manner that gay people STILL ARE subject to, then you would find them responding similarly once they had begun to win the battle for their human rights. While gaining acceptance, gay people - likewise human beings - haven't yet reached that point. They are slowly getting there but, in the interim, they are still demeaned and dehumanized by many Evangelical Christians, even if only on a subliminal level. Once the average 'dopey' Christian awakens from their pious slumber of ignorance surrounding 'homosexuality and the Bible' there will be far less, or even a total elimination, of the so-called 'gay agenda' to which you refer. It's because of those like you, Finn, that any perceived 'gay agenda' even exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Why do people bring it up? Because you BEG them to show where the Bible mentions the issue. You must have made that request 100 times on this thread alone. The verses still serve to describe how God feels about that particular act.
What I've asked '100 times' is for those such as yourself to show from the Bible where 'homosexuality' is addressed. You know that I don't believe that the subject of 'homosexuality', per se or intrinsically', is addressed at all in the Bible, don't you, Finn? Moreover, I think I've given some pretty sound reasons as to why I believe this. My having given those reasons might just have opened the minds of at least some of you staunch 'fundies'. I'm therefore always hopeful that the next time I ask for proof from the Bible as to where 'homosexuality' (as per the modern medical science definition of the term) is addressed in the Bible that I get the response ..."there ARE no biblical references to 'homosexuality' as an innate human condition ...only references to temple prostitution and pagan idolatry practices."
Last edited by RomulusXXV; 07-11-2019 at 12:15 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
