Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

It's about the other man's property. It's like using his lawnmower without permission.And in any case, the main concern was that the other man shouldn't leave any of his children behind for you to feed and to claim your property as inheritance.

Jesus explains adultery as lust in the heart, which applies to both men and women and doesn't seem at all related to property.

He got the organ wrong.

As I said, it's closely related to coveting, which is about property. As Jesus pointed out, it isn't an action, it's a thought or feeling, like coveting. Adultery is a more specific version of coveting.

quote:

---

Jesus explains adultery as lust in the heart, which applies to both men and women and doesn't seem at all related to property.

---

Of course you have it wrong.Matthew 5:28 Not only does it seem to be aimed at men, it’s about committing a sin in the heart - not redefining the sin. And indeed, it is much like equating coveting to theft in the heart.

He wasn't redefining the sin, He was explaining that we are culpable for our inner thoughts and desires and not just for our outward actions.Women have always had to read ourselves into biblical admonitions to men where apoplicable and we're certainly included in this one and all the Ten Commandments. In fact the duo of Adam and Eve is called Adam in Genesis.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There are biblical laws against a lot of stuff, but in the past, when confronted with the facts that Christians single out homosexuality to get all huffy about despite the fact that other sins that are labeled as abominations are ignored, you've tried to make the point that homosexuality was some special abomination.Your ability to extend that to men wearing woman's clothing exposes the hypocrisy of that entire line of argument, as if we could not already see the inconsistency in it.Unless the locals are absolute morons, they will avoid the excesses that caused their last ruling to be overturned by the Supreme Court. Apparently this fool is giving them plenty of ammunition.

quote:

---

He wasn't redefining the sin, He was explaining that we are culpable for our inner thoughts and desires and not just for our outward actions.

---

Thanks for admitting that you were wrong.Although I have to say that the idea is pretty strange. Our desires are not within our control, so we cannot we be responsible for them. And if we are not responsible for them how can we be culpable?

You have to read a lot of stuff into the Bible when it isn't there.

That's called apologetics and study Bibles. Good money in them thar quote mines.

quote:

---

just as the food laws only applied to Israel as symbolic of the idolatries they were to avoid

---

Explain what on earth you mean by this.If you can't explain a thing (I suspect this is just some sound bite from you based on some European Roman Christian claim), then try to apply it in some way.What would the cows in Hinduism have to do with Israelite food taboos?(I kept this short and the questions are very plain and easy to undertsnad)

Your mention of Hinduism's sacred cow is utterly incomprehensible in this context.The food laws of ancient Israel had various purposes but keeping the nation separate from the heathen nations was a big part of them: Pork for instance:

quote:

---

Your mention of Hinduism's sacred cow is utterly incomprehensible in this context.

​

The food laws of ancient Israel had various purposes but keeping the nation separate from the heathen nations was a big part of them:

---

I will quote from Pere De Vaux later, and he will tell us the sources of Canaanite religion.This is odd considering that bulls were about the favorite thing to worship and sacrifice. Baal and El were bulls. (This is just the start of oddities in your logic) (much more later)Here is a quote from the book, Canaanite Myths and Legends (Gibson), p. 84-87The Ugaritic "Ba'al and Yam" text.

quote:

---

Go up on to the tower and mount the shoulder of the wall;
lift up your hands (to) heaven
(and) sacrifice to the bull El your father,
make Baal to come down with your sacrifice,
the son of Dagon with your game.

---

Calf worship was popular in the whole region.

quote:

---

Ancient Calf Worship. The origin of animal worship is hidden in obscurity, but reverence for the bull and cow is found widespread among the most ancient historic cults. Even in the prehistoric age the influence of the bull symbol was so powerful that it gave its name to one of the most important signs of the Zodiac, and from early historic times the horns of the bull were the familiar emblem of the rays of the sun, and solar gods were very commonly represented as bull-gods (Jensen, Kosmologie, 62-90; Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen, 1901-5, passim; Jeremias, Das Alter der bah. Astronomie, 1909, passim). The Egyptians, close neighbors of the Hebrews, in all eras from that of the Exodus onward, worshipped living bulls at Memphis (not Mendes, as EB) and Hellopolls as incarnations of Ptah and Ra, while one of the most elaborate rituals was connected with the life-size image of the Hathor-cow (Naville, Deir el Bahari, Part I (1907), 163-67), while the sun was revered as the "valiant bull" and the reigning Pharaoh as "Bull of Bulls." But far more important in this connection is the fact that "calf" worship was almost if not quite universal among all the ancient Semitic peoples. If the immediate ancestors of Abraham did not revere this deity, they were certainly quite unlike their relatives, the Babylonians, among whom, according to all tradition, they lived before they migrated to Israel (Gen 11:28,30; Josephus, Ant, I, vi, 5), for the Babylonians revered the bull as the symbol of their greatest gods, Ann and Sin and Marduk--the ideograph of a young bullock forming a part of the latter's name--while Hadadrimmon, an important Amorite deity, whose attributes remarkably resemble those of Yahweh (see Ward, AJSL, XXV, 175-85; Clay, Amurru (1909), 87-89), is pictured standing on the back of a bull. In Phoenicia also the bull was a sacred animal, as well as in northern Syria where it ranked as one of the chief Hittite deities its images receiving devout worship (see further, Sayce, Encyclopedia of Rel. and Ethics, under the word "Bull"). Among all these peoples the cow goddess was given at least equal honor. In Babylonia the goddess Ishtar has the cow for her symbol on very ancient seal cylinders, and when this nude or half-nude goddess appears in Israel she often stands on a bull or cow (see William Hayes Ward, Cylinders and Other Ancient Oriental Seals), and under slightly different forms this same goddess is revered in Arabia, Moab, Phoenicia, Syria and elsewhere, while among the Semitic Canaanites the bull was the symbol of Baal, and the cow of Astarte (see particularly Barton, Hebraica, IX, 133-63; X, 1-74, and Semitic Origins, chapter vii; Driver, "Astarte" in DB). Recent excavations in Israel have shown that during all eras no heathen worship was as popular as that of Astarte in her various forms (see S. A. Cook, Rel. of Ancient Israel, 1909). That she once is found wearing ram's horns (PEFS (1903), 227) only reveals her nature more clearly as the goddess of fertility.

​

Ancient Bull Worship - Background Bible Study (Bible History Online) - Bible History

---

Father De Vaux mentions three primary sources for Canaanite religion, but he leaves out Herodotus.More on that later.

quote:

---

Ancient Israel: Its Life and Instructions
By Roland De Vaux

​

p.438

​

3. Canaanite Sacrifices

​

Our knowledge of Canaanite sacrifices comes from three different sources: th allusions in the Bible, or the condemnations which it utters against the cult of the Baals and the Astartes when the Israelites took part in them, inscriptions from the Phoenician homeland and from its colonies, and the texts of Ras Shamra.

​

Among the biblical references, we must first set aside all that is not strictly Canaanite, such as the late Assyrian cults, like the cult of starts (2 K 21:3b; 23:5b: Jr 44:15-25), and the syncretist or mystery-rites menyioned in the late texts (Ez. 8:7-13; Is 65:2-5; 66:3). If we set aside sacrifices of babies also..., then, according to the biblical evidence, Canaanite sacrifices do not seem to be materially different from those which were offered to Yahweh.

​

... The description of the sacrifice on Carmel (1 K 18) tells how the prophets of Baal and Elias himself propared their holocausts in the same way, and the point of the story is lost if this was not the normal way of offering sacrifice to Baal. Jehu is supposed to be following the Canaanite ritual in the story about the temple of Baal (2 K 10:18-27), and both zebah and 'olah are mentioned there.

---

zevach means sacrifice (the "h" in the quote had a dot under it)'olah means whole or burnt offeringSee 2 Kings 5Naaman (the Syrian who lived right near the Canaanites) offered zevach ( or plural zevachim) and 'olah (plural 'oloth) to other Gods.Naaman then said he would do the same thing for Yahweh!The practices were the same.The sacrificial animals were about the same.Exodus mentions that ALL animals are to be sacrificed when the firstborn is conserned, so there were general sacrifices that included perhaps everything. There are animals that are to be used in SPECIFIC SACRIFICES mentioned in the Abraham story and throughout the Torah.Faith, you then said.

quote:

---

Pork for instance:

​

...The Canaanites kept herds of swine and sacrificed them to idols. The connection between swine and pagan worship became so strong that the prophet Isaiah equated the sacrificial offering of pig’s blood with murderboth are called abominations (Isaiah 66:3).

---

This is a common fundamentalist lie. (Faith's source claim)Isaiah 66:3 in no way is referring to anyone but Israelites (unless there was syncretic practices which mixed religions but it WAS NOT CANAANITE PRACTICES)I can tell you that Herodotus wrote at just about the same time as 2 Isaiah and he very clearly said Canaanites did not eat pork ANYWHERE (unless my memory is failing me).Also, the Canaanite's didn't eat pork in the 2OO A.D. period ANYWHERE. We know that from Porphyry of Tyre.John Calvin himself made this comment, and the lie continues.

quote:

---

it is probable that the Prophet alludes to the sacrifices of the Gentiles

---

There has never been a demonstration that Canaanites offered swine (though some Canaanite areas had swine).The Ugaritic Offering lists have lists of sacrificial animals, and swine/pigs are totally absent.Egyptians probably never sacrificed swine until the Greeks brought Baachus. Highly doubtful it was earlier as the pig was taboo.

quote:

---

Mekal: The God of Beth-Shan

​

Henry O. Thompson

​

p.140

​

Though normally the Egyptians thought the pig was "unclean", once a year they sacrificed swine to the moon and to Baachus, of Osiris/Horus, and ate the pork. One view of the Set-animal is that it is a type of pig. Muller even suggested that this later association is the origin for the whole religious prejudice of Asia and Africa against pork.

​

....

​

Gray points out the lack of swine in the offering lists from Ras Shamra. He suggests that this may indicate it was taboo among the Canaanites, from whom the Hebrew borrowed it.

---

Though "normally" will always have lots of exceptions.

quote:

---

The Ugaritic texts give us firsthand information on the Baal cult, and the ideas and ideals of the people of Canaan at the time of the Biblical patriarchs.

​

Sacrifices mentioned in the Ugaritic texts bear names similar to those of the Biblical sacrificial system. The Ugaritic texts speak of burnt offerings, whole burnt offerings, trespass offerings, wave offerings, peace offerings, firstfruits offerings, new moon offerings and others. As in the Biblical sacrifices, it was necessary that animals offered be without blemish.

​

Ugarit - Encyclopedia of The Bible - Bible Gateway

---

The Israelites got everything from the Canaanites.The taboos against pork were common in the entire area and the sacrificial system was from the Canaanites.This quote of yours (the source) in in the tradition of never ending lies.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

But you provide no reason why these ancient practices are in any way relevant for us today.

You could have said all that in a few short sentences. Your way of interpreting things is bizarre and I often just skip over your posts because I can see there are too many things in them I'd have to correct. And I refuse to consider that my sources are liars. I'm sorry I answered you at all.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.