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.
A number of the post-1946 Bibles contain the word "homosexual" without any real justification for the authors having done so. There are no Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek words used in the original texts that equate to the term. And, many Christians believe it to be an authentic scriptural condemnation of homosexuality and use this corruption of scripture at every opportunity. Prior to 1946 - and, someone, please correct me with actual facts if I'm wrong - there was no scriptural condemnation of homosexuals. So, what does this tell you?
Seriously? Just because the modern term for it wasn't used, doesn't negate the scriptures that plainly speak against it, which you have been shown dozens of times. Nor, as I mentioned, does it negate the principles therein. Peace
And that considering that God made all the animals "saw that it was good".
He said all the darkness of the 6 days was good, even very good, BECAUSE it was needed for His ultimate plan, not because the inherent nature of the darkness was good in and of itself. I trust I don't need to post 30 scriptures on darkness to prove this point? Peace
A number of the post-1946 Bibles contain the word "homosexual" without any real justification for the authors having done so. There are no Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek words used in the original texts that equate to the term. And, many Christians believe it to be an authentic scriptural condemnation of homosexuality and use this corruption of scripture at every opportunity. Prior to 1946 - and, someone, please correct me with actual facts if I'm wrong - there was no scriptural condemnation of homosexuals. So, what does this tell you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rbbi1
Seriously? Just because the modern term for it wasn't used, doesn't negate the scriptures that plainly speak against it, which you have been shown dozens of times. Nor, as I mentioned, does it negate the principles therein. Peace
Refer to my post (above). I said that, in the original manuscripts of the Bible, there were NO Hebrew, no Aramaic and no Greek equivalents for our modern-day definition of the term "homosexuality". The modern definition of 'homosexual' is "a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex." The male/male sex acts as referenced in the Bible have nothing to do with that definition at all. The male/male sex acts as referenced in the Bible are men (highly likely heterosexual men) participating in sacred rituals involving temple prostitutes, rituals performed in the context of religious worship. There is a lot of relevant information about sacred shrine temple prostitution on the web for those that are interested in finding out more about the subject. Both (likely heterosexual) men and (likely heterosexual) women were involved in sexual pagan temple rituals. The reason i emphasize 'heterosexual' is because these acts had nothing to do with homosexuality per se.
So, the principle behind one's having sex with a temple prostitute for ritualistic purposes is quite different to the principle behind one's having sex for mutual intimacy or 'love making'. The latter principle negates the former principle. Sex (per se) is okay unless performed within a ritual dedicated to a graven image. Or rape, of course.
Refer to my post (above). I said that, in the original manuscripts of the Bible, there were NO Hebrew, no Aramaic and no Greek equivalents for our modern-day definition of the term "homosexuality". The modern definition of 'homosexual' is "a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex." The male/male sex acts as referenced in the Bible have nothing to do with that definition at all. The male/male sex acts as referenced in the Bible are men (highly likely heterosexual men) participating in sacred rituals involving temple prostitutes, rituals performed in the context of religious worship. There is a lot of relevant information about sacred shrine temple prostitution on the web for those that are interested in finding out more about the subject. Both (likely heterosexual) men and (likely heterosexual) women were involved in sexual pagan temple rituals. The reason i emphasize 'heterosexual' is because these acts had nothing to do with homosexuality per se.
So, the principle behind one's having sex with a temple prostitute for ritualistic purposes is quite different to the principle behind one's having sex for mutual intimacy or 'love making'. The latter principle negates the former principle. Sex (per se) is okay unless performed within a ritual dedicated to a graven image. Or rape, of course.
You're wrong. That is because the references to the temple sodomites
are not the only reference to "homosexuals" in the Bible. We also read
Leviticus 18:22. 20:13, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Romans 1: 26-28.
jeffy, I see you ignored the above, and a subsequent request for information on these "man made products" gay men require for sexual intimacy.
I think you lied.
That's not very Christian of you, jeffy. Lies make baby Jesus cry.
I know teasing is mean, and I'll probably hate myself in the morning, but I think our friend is suddenly reticent to admit they know what "boy butter" is.
I know teasing is mean, and I'll probably hate myself in the morning, but I think our friend is suddenly reticent to admit they know what "boy butter" is.
Well, perhaps jeffy - who is apparently wise in the ways of manly love - will tell us if that's what he meant.
The bible also does not contain any words in English. Since it was written in ancient Greek and Hebrew and that is only the copies of copies that we have. None of the bible books are anything more than a copy of a copy the newest of which is some hundred or more years from the original. We don't even know how close it is to the original and then we do know what the intent is. If you say men who lay with men as they do with women you know it means HOMOSEXUAL. Good god these liberal homos go to a great pretzel bend to try to fit their life style to be sanctioned by the bible. Its very simple, from what we have available to us, copies of copies. We know that the writers of the bible did not think being gay was anything more than a gross sin. You gays are like someone who says they are a vegetarian but its not a disqualifying act to eat a burger at McDonald. Or when some guy says I use cigars that is not smoking. It is and being gay is antithetical to being a christian. Just because someone accepts it as a priest does not mean the bible is OK with it. If your gay your not following the bible principals and rules. But if you want to live as a hypocrite that is up to you.
Because the bible clearly does not. Besides, if homosexuality was such a sin then why didn't God destroy all homosexuals in the flood? Why did he create Eve from a man's rib (and thus making her transgendered)? What was wrong with forming a mound of clay and breathing life into it?
LOL. As if homosexual is a separate species. It speaks of an affinity for a fetish not a species.
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.
