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.
Continual errors ignored, are you really so obtuse to think that G-d would say it's ONLY an abomination in pagan temple rituals, but it's ok in the homes of people??? Peace
When the nature of the relationship is different, with the temple being an example of profligacy and idolatry and the home an example of a committed relationship, why would He not?
When the nature of the relationship is different, with the temple being an example of profligacy and idolatry and the home an example of a committed relationship, why would He not?
Oh, I see....it's not ok if it's a pagan temple people, but it IS ok in HIS temple, which we are, as long we are committed to it and the person being degraded by that spirit. Yes, you're right that makes perfect sense. Peace
Why of why, is there not a, "you're so far out in your reasoning, you're on Pluto", smilie available on this thing???......sigh
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.
Yep. And the mid and early 1990s psychologists actually waffled around on using the term heterosexual or homosexual to describe those with a penchant for a buggery. The Bible is rather clearly lacking support for either pederasty or man-man buggery. A man sodomizing another man is well known as a left-hand path ritual which might also come under the term orgy (or secret rites ritual). It seems that maybe the idea is that a soul's relation to the body should be that the soul controls the body rather than the other way around and therefore certain practices are avoided.
Anyways, its worth noting that in all of my travels, from the deep south to West Coast I never heard a pastor suggest or promote hatred for 'homosexuals'. Actually one very large denomination (has congregations around the planet) discouraged their congregation members from discussing the Bible with gays or from witnessing for safety reasons (i.e. violent reactions or retaliations) and that was back around 1995. But none of them expressed any hatred or disdain for "gays".
Last edited by CaptainCommander; 05-25-2016 at 04:40 PM..
And you are so wrapped up in your own Word twisting, self-righteousness and biased self serving carnally minded thinking and labeling (while condoning labels you personally have an affinity for), all the while waving your "gay is ok" flag, it's impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you. Peace
You are on here to prove yourself "right." I'm on here to be effective in explaining to others how your view is that of a Pharisaical bigot who loves LAW more than Jesus.
You foolishly questioned Jonathan and David's relationship and attempted to spiritualize what was meant as straight historical text. Do you spiritualize Genesis 2 as well or do you foolishly reject scientific evidence like your brother jeffbase40?
2 Samuel 1:26
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."
In ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women rarely spoke to each other in public. Since David's only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he must be referring to sexual love with Jonathan. It wouldn't make sense in this verse to compare platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman; they are two completely different things. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan.
Is that a certainty? No. But it is closer to the possibility than a platonic relationship.
Yet as an implacable fundamentalist you love verses that divide you from other people.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7
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.
(*sigh*) ...I'm resisting the urge to bang my head against the wall in exasperation. How many times can the very same ground be covered before people catch on? All I have to say to Snowball is that those texts have already been addressed elsewhere on these threads MANY times and they DO appear to reference temple prostitutes. They certainly don't reference homosexuality as per our understanding of the term.
Now, if Snowball or anyone else can present an exegetical approach to these particular scriptures that DON'T reference male/male sex with idolatry then please do so. Merely offering a chapter and a verse without explanation just doesn't cut it.
If you really look into it you might find that all sin is some form of idolatry. 'Idolatry' and 'adultery' are oddly words that sound very much alike. If you consider a man putting above God and all godly principles his desire to bed his brother's wife, would not elevation of such desire or objective above God constitute idolization of the desire. Would not exaltation to such extent of the goal to bed the brother's wife constitute idolatry (rhymes with adultery). Now, if having sex with a horse is placed above God and all else holy, then doesn't that become an idol? How about someone putting money so high above God that he or she murders ten people, rapes a dog and date rapes his neighbors wife for $10M. Consider the term worship as being synonymous with 'service'.
What if the men who were about to stone a woman accused of adultery were stopped by writing in the sand because the writing or drawing reminded them of their own spiritual adultery? So if a man knows that God is displeased with men sodomizing each other but places the desire or philosophies of pederasts or buggerists above God's truth, then it becomes an idol, doesn't it?
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.
I have time to kill before I have to head off so I reluctantly address this post of vicarjoe to fill in the time ...not that it will do any good but I can only try. Do you know WHY the men would be lying with men, vicarjoe? Well, you NEED to explain to us, rather than just regurgitating the same old crud that we've heard a million times before, WHY men would be lying with men. What was going on in those ancient times that prompted "God" in the Holiness Code of the Levite tribe to prohibit certain practices? I'm not going to tell you what I believe. I'm asking you to explain since you come across so c o c k sure of yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vicarjoe
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.
I won't even attempt to address the above piece of nonsense.
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.
