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.
And while we are on the topic of idolatry and temple/cult prostitutes. The link up to Leviticus is pretty obvious too. Here's something I wrote a while back on my blog:
After the command not to give your offspring over to Molech in verse 21, there is a pause and a change of direction where it says "I am the Lord" - Meaning "I, not Molech, am the Lord. Ie, they are being reminded who is God and not to go worship other gods like Molech. That is obvious.
My argument (and not just mine) is that the change of direction goes on to refer to temple prostitution from verse 21 about giving children over to Molech (who is associated in several places in the OT with mentions of giving over sons and daughters to be male and female temple prostitutes) then male temple prostitutes (22), then female temple prostitutes (who also had anal sex with men as well as with animals to worship the gods) (23).
Look up references to Molech in the OT to see the connection to shrine prostitutes HERE: Blue Letter Bible .
Read a brief summary of the historical and cultural context of ancient Canaan, makes it very obvious what the texts are referring to Leviticus 18:21, 22, 23 and 24.
Leviticus 18:21 was about not giving sons and daughters over to worship of Molech
Leviticus 18:22 was specifically about males temple prostitutes (qadesh).
Leviticus 18:23 was specifically about female temple prostitutes (qadesha)
Leviticus 18:24 was about warning that other nations (Egypt and Canaan) became defiled by worshipping other gods so don't follow their practices.
There are more than half a dozen verses in the OT about not giving over sons and daughters to be temple or cult prostitutes, yet never again outside Leviticus does it state that men should not lie with a male and women should not lie with an animal.
eg Deut 23:17: "None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute (6948), nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult (6945) prostitute.
To me, it's so obvious that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 are references to male temple prostitutes when you follow simple honest Biblical hermeneutics. That's not a blanket discription of homosexuals or 21st century gay men.
Your argument is so weak it actually makes homosexuality look more like a sin.
I think that is still debatable. When you have a gay person being gay this year and back to straight next year, it's still all confusing. No matter what psychiatrists say about it people can see how some gays act.
We need to clear something up here. Nobody's rights were under assault. I definitely don't agree with A&E's decision, but it is within their rights to do what they did. Robertson did not have his 1st Amendment violated, and A&E is exercising their 1st Amendment rights. A&E is not a government contractor, nor owned or operated by the government. The situation between Robertson and A&E was between two private parties. The 1st Amendment does not protect free speech between private parties, much like C-D has the freedom to censor our opinions. This is a private forum, 1st Amendment does not apply here. The same thing happened with Robertson. So, no, you can put the scary big government claims away, because this is not a case of the FCC censoring Robertson, it is his private employer.
They are perfectly within their rights to do so. Just as the owners of Chick-Fil-A are perfectly within their rights to support traditional marriage. And in both cases, their customers are equally within their rights to let them know how they feel about that decision, and choose to support or distance themselves from that business.
Saw a great comment. Because Phil's Christian he's called a bigot. If he was Muslim he would be perfectly within his rights and allowed to express his views.
Saw a great comment. Because Phil's Christian he's called a bigot. If he was Muslim he would be perfectly within his rights and allowed to express his views.
A Muslim who compares homosexuality to bestiality or incest or something like that is still a bigot.
No. A bigot is a bigot. It has nothing to do with political affiliation. There are liberal bigots, conservative bigots, and independent bigots (going to assume that there are fewer independent). Voting one way or the other doesn't change that. Only a person's attitude.
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.
GLAAD Reeling From Duck Dynasty Fan Backlash
