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.
Look, I have no problem with gays. I do have a problem with in-your-face-constantly gays and POC is a prime example of that. Right now four gay threads on the front page. Geez.
It is not the best question either. It is like saying how many deviants must we have before God wants them around (and I am not saying gays are deviants). I literally refer to anyone who goes way beyond the bounds of mainstream behavior like criminals, murderers and thieves.
Get the government out of marriage and the posts will end.
Nope. You can research any non-conservative resource, and it will discuss that To'evah dealt with cultural taboos, or things that violated a person/groups dignity to engage in. Abomination is a horrible translation of the word.
as
Marcus Jastrow's dictionary (widely considered by ) To'evah "That which is repulsive" and "Abomination" (and the example's he use's doesn't include either of the 2 verses in question)
Now according to your understanding of the word in question how would you translate the word toavas (same root word different grammatical construct ((not sarcastic) If you want we can turn this in to a discussion of Hebrew grammer)) in Deuteronomy chapter 25 verse 16 because the verse means according to my definition of the word
Quote:
Those verses also do specifically refer to a woman's bed, or they wouldn't have added a conditional clause.
no it doesn't see rashi on the second verse, it refers to a specific action which is not appropriate to write on a forum such as this. If it meant bed there would be something that meant "on" (bi al alav ext.) in the verse which neither verse has.
Quote:
Leviticus laws are stupid and completely unapplicable to modern day society.
Love your neighbor as your self, don't speak gossip, don't take revenge, are stupid and completely inapplicable to modern day society?
Um, no actually it doesn't. Aside from Romans 1 (which has nothing to do with gays when looked at in its original meaning), nothing is ever condemned about lesbians. Leviticus also adds the clause, in beds of a woman. Why does it restrict where/how a man may lay, not merely that he may not lay with another man? Had it been an outright condemnation, it would have said "A man shall not have consensual sexual relations with another man". Period. But it doesn't say that in Hebrew.
I never said homosexuality didn't exist. I said, the Biblical authors weren't aware of sexual orientation. The prevalent behavior among the Israelites, Greeks, and Romans was prostitution and pederasty. Same-sex consensual relationships were very rare, and Paul would have never taken the time to target a tiny minority he was barely aware of.
He was speaking to large audiences about common sins. The common sins were pederasty and prostitution. Even Paul's contemporaries like Philo understood this.
We in the modern day, have of course lost Paul's meaning and butchered it beyond recognition to support prejudices.
“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Matt. 19:4.)
Jesus lived under the laws of Moses and condoned them.
“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:46-47.)
"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17)
"It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matthew 5:31-32)
--If laying with a divorced woman is the same as adultery what would common sense say tht a man laying with a man would be?
It's easy to say it isn't spelled out word for word in the Bible and then shuffle it to the bottom of the deck. If you can take a hint from his words it's plain as day.
Just because God created us in his image doesn't mean that we behave in a manner he sees fitting.
who says homosexuality is unfitting of what god see's fit? who are you to judge the path of others? you got god on speed dial? or do you get that hateful little belief from one of those old rag books with middle eastern roots people like to reference so much?
god=great, powerful, all knowing,
bible=bull$hit written by man
jerks=people who speak for god
you can not prove that.. you just believe that.. because you refuse to believe evidence otherwise..
what makes you the expert on homosexuality anyway?
what about you that is so friggin special and high and mighty that makes you a better reference regarding homosexuality than lets say someone that's actually gay?
who do you think you are?
Get the government out of marriage and the posts will end.
Isn't the first word in this forum politics?
I'm on your side. I just wish you'd tone it down. I'm tired of reading stupid questions like "Are straights better than gays?" I mean, c'mon. At least come up with some provocative topics.
Let me think...if one out of ten people are gay, then clearly there must be some genetic component. Why do people judge this more than the color of one's eyes? Ok, at least it's worthy of thought.
Here's a good break down of the biblical references to homosexuality through the Patriarchal, Mosaic and Christian ages. Note the term arsenokoites (men who practice homosexuality), and malakos. It is described as vile passions and foreign skin.
New International
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
King James
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (malakos), nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
According to the title of this thread God also wants to have around pedophiles, animal abusers, serial killers, rapists and all others since He creates them. BTW, I want to marry my goat, why can't I? You are all goatphobics!!! Show some TOLERANCE!
I'm on your side. I just wish you'd tone it down. I'm tired of reading stupid questions like "Are straights better than gays?" I mean, c'mon. At least come up with some provocative topics.
Let me think...if one out of ten people are gay, then clearly there must be some genetic component. Why do people judge this more than the color of one's eyes? Ok, at least it's worthy of thought.
My only side is on liberty, I don't know who "you'd" is. I never even open threads like you mentioned, my cause is liberty, nothing more.
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.
