Checking for validity of supposed early christian gay marriage rite

The word that the KJV of the bible abomination is toevah, as was mentioned. Other activities that were called 'Toevah' in Leviticus was eating pork, wearing fibers of mixed linen and wool, and menstruating women.Now, much of this was how the Ancient Jews chose to keep their temple 'clean'. If someone does something that is 'Toevah', they had to go through a specific purification rite (immersion in water, or Mikveh) at the temple.Now, Christians love to quote leviticus as a prohibition against homosexuality. It is a toevah. They ignore what Toevah actually means, and how it is handled to 'cure' something. It specifically was talking about temple behavior.If you look at many of the items that are 'ritualistically unclean', it is referring to ceremonies taken from competing God's rituals in the area.That being said, there is a general attitude through out the offical restrictions against sexual licentiousness that it is perfectly acceptable to consider those restriction a warning against homosexual behavior, and the orthodox Jews do indeed have that attitude.Look up to'evah , that is the most common transliteration .And for a discussion about To'evah from a site that is not specifically for homosexuals is Spark of the Week 5754-27Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.

LudoRephaim writes:

quote:

---

Eating Pork is not against Christian beliefs (as Catholic scientist made clear in a recent post), but sexual immorality, as defined in the Torah, is. So the things about pork and ceremonial thingies dont matter to a Christian.

---

In other words, you're a cafeteria Christian: You take the passages you want to follow and ignore the rest. If you truly want to follow the Law, and Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of the Law would be changed till all be fulfilled, then it all goes together.If you're going to throw away one part of the Law, then you're going to have to throw it all away. If it happens that the Christian religion has a stance in common with Judaism, it will necessarily require a separate justification.In short, a Christian cannot use one part of Leviticus as justification for condemnation when they ignore another part. They all go together.

quote:

---

But then again for a Jew i'm not sure that a Turkey would be considered "clean".

---

Have you never been to a Jewish deli?Hint: Israel is the world's largest consumer of turkey per capita.Hint: A turkey is not a bird of prey. It has a crop, an extra toe, and a peelable gizzard.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

LudoRephaim responds to me:

quote:

---

There are several questions you haven't answered of mine, either.

---

Indeed, but yours hang upon the answer to mine. Until you answer mine, we cannot progress. We are talking about what the text says and to do that, we have to understand all the words in it as well as the context in which it exists and the phrasings that are used to determine meaning.

quote:

---

Seems Toevyeh is more strenous and more powerful a word for sin than Zimmah is.

---

Incorrect. It's the other way around. Things that are "toeyvah" are ritually bad. Things that are "zimah" are inherently bad.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you don't know the Hebrew, and you've certainly been giving the indication that you don't, how can you claim to know what it mans?

---

​

Simple; I study the work of people who Know Hebrew

---

And it doesn't occur to you to question them? To take more than just their word for it?

quote:

---

All these things okay in your book, since they are called "Toevyeh"? Okay outside of ritual?

---

I didn't say that. I simply said that the understanding of what the passage means is very different from what people commonly say it means. Mae West never said, "Why doncha come up and see me some time," Bogart never said, "Play it again, Sam," and Gore never said he "invented the internet." It doesn't matter how many people claim that they did, none of those things are true. That doesn't mean there is absolutely no connection between what was actually said and what people claim was said, but it does mean that if we're going to do things like read god's mind, then we had better be sure we are referring to the actual quotes in complete context.Clearly, the text is referring to a sexual prohibition. But just because the sexual activity is between two people of the same sex does not mean that there is a blanket restriction on such. As the joke goes, there are four (or six, depending on how you translate) passages restricting same-sex sexual activity while there are over 300 passages restricting mixed-sex sexual activity. That doesn't mean god loves straights less than gays.They just need more supervision.It's interesting that you mentioned the kashrut state of turkey as it is a somewhat illustrative point. The Bible makes a clear statement about four-legged animals with regard to traits but when it refers to birds, it provides a list: These birds are not kosher, leaving the impression that all others are.But then what to do about New World birds? None of the birds from the New World, like turkey, were mentioned because they weren't known about. But does that make bald eagles kosher? The response has been no, they aren't. While bald eagles aren't mentioned, they are so much like the birds that are (being birds of prey) that they are considered included: Eagles are not kosher.Turkeys, on the other hand, are much like birds that are solidly kosher. Thus, they are also considered kosher.Since what we consider "homosexuality" simply did not exist as a concept at the time, we cannot simply claim that the passages referred to in the Torah are necessarily referring to what we, in modern times, call "homosexuality." It might, but it cannot be taken for granted. We have to examine the text in order to see.And what we find is that the passage you cite is in a field of passages regarding ritual behaviour. That should make us take a look at what it is that is being condemned.

quote:

---

if Homosexuality is okay in your book, considering it is listed as "toeyveh" and not "Zimah" (as if God didn't want us to use common sense in interpreting his word)

---

Nice try, but that's my point to you: The common sense interpretation is that since it is not described as "zimah," it is not something that is inherently evil.

quote:

---

then those sexual sins are only sins when it comes to ritual prctices?

---

(*chuckle*)Because being gay is the same as bestiality and child sacrifice on a functional level.Remember, there was no such concept as "being gay" at the time. You seem to think that the issue is that if it isn't considered a sin, then it is something that should be done. You're ignoring the fact that the pagan that the Jews were separating themselves from were doing it for ritualistic practices, themselves. You didn't sacrifice your child just because you felt like doing it. You did it in order to appease your god. The passages are there to tell Jews how their ritualistic practices are different.And by the way: You seem to have forgotten that Abraham was told to sacrifice his child and he didn't blink. He was sad, but it never occurred to him to say, "But that's something god would never do!" Yes, god stops him, but I am asking to look at this from Abraham's point of view: God is asking for a child sacrifice so that's precisely what he sets out to do.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I don't see abomination there.The only place I can remember the Bible talking about wool and linen is in Ezek. 44 talking about the garments Aaron and his sons were to wear in the inner court and Holy of Holies.For the record: These are the Hebrew words translated in the KJV.Definition: found Here. ‘ Hebrew word translated abomination in KJV .
tow`ebah transliteration of ‘This word has nothing to do with any activity in the Bible other than to describe what God thinks about the act that has been stated previously. Whether it be eating pork, worshiping false god, defiling oneself, or man having sexual relaions with a man.Now to the scripture that forbids sex between males. Strickly forbidden.Hebrew word:
‘ shakab 1) to lie down word translated lie in Leviticus 18:22; 22:12, 13.
The same word is used in Genesis 19:32, 33, 34. These are the verses where Lots, daughters lie with their father and conceive.Hebrew word translated as with in Lev. 18:22
‘ mishkab 1) a lying down, for sexual contact.
Also same word used for, as he lieth in Lev. 22:13.The penalty for man having sex with a man. God says He detest, has extreme hate for man to lie with and have sex with mankind as with a woman.The penalty for man and man sex is death to both participants.There is no way to say the KJV Bible does not say the above or that the Hebrew words translated in it does not say what you read above.Now you can claim the KJV was translated from bogus Hebrew Texts and therefore is not a good translation thus the original did not mean what is said in the KJV.You can also say it is all a myth and none of it is true.But if there is a God and man stands before Him in judgment and the Bible is His Word. Man will be judged according to what God said not what man says or thinks He said.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

What is it about man-on-man sex that makes it a "toeyvah"? So it is an "abomination" but it isn't blanketly restricted? Simply different? It seems to say the are disallowed.... What's the difference between modern homosexual sex and man-on-man sex in Bible times? I easily could be. But still, it is saying that there is something bad about man-on-man sex, no?

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

What is it about man-on-man sex that makes it a "toeyvah"?

---

The ritualistic part. It is in reference to the fertility rites of the pagans. Remember, there is no concept of what we would call "homosexuality."

quote:

---

So it is an "abomination" but it isn't blanketly restricted?

---

You're missing the point. Didn't you read the post? Remember how I talked about the kashrut of turkey and eagles? How they aren't listed in the Bible since, being a New World birds, they weren't known? How that didn't stop them from applying the concepts of what was understood to those birds?So, shouldn't we do the same for this new concept of "homosexuality"? The passage is referencing ritualistic sex and when was the last time you heard of people having sex with priests?Oops...sorry about that.

quote:

---

Simply different?

---

Since when is "different" ever "simple"? Let's not play dumb.

quote:

---

It seems to say the are disallowed....

---

Yes...ritually disallowed. Again, what we consider "homosexuality" simply did not exist as a concept at the time. Thus, we cannot simply claim that the passage refers to what we, in modern times, call "homosexuality." Having sex with the priest is different than having sex for love. When was the last time you heard of people having sex with priests?Damn it...did it again. Sorry.

quote:

---

What's the difference between modern homosexual sex and man-on-man sex in Bible times?

---

The fact that the former is about forming a human relationship while the latter is about a fertility rite. Most gay people don't have sex for religion. When did you last hear of people having sex with priests?D'oh! Why do I keep saying that?

quote:

---

But still, it is saying that there is something bad about man-on-man sex, no?

---

Indeed, but one would have to be playing dumb to think that that was all there was to it. By this logic, mixed-sex sexual activity is even more problematic because the Bible goes on and on about how you're not supposed to do it. Only four passages restricting same-sex sex while there are more than 300 restrictions on mixed-sex sex. This doesn't mean god loves straight people less.They just need more supervision.Again, there was no concept of what we would call "homosexuality" back then. To think that this passage, therefore, refers to what we would call "homosexuality" is disingenuous at best. There might be something, but it isn't to be found in this bare passage. It's talking about ritual sex and when was the last time you heard about people having sex with priests?OK...I'm not really joking about it. When was the last time you heard about sex for religion?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

And it says nothing about non-ritualistic man-on-man sex? If you mean talking with a lisp while having limp wrists, generally acting like a girl and saying "fabulous" a lot, then I agree.But just plain ol' butt-fucking I don't. As Christians, we have.You can fake as heavy a lisp as you want, limp your wrists to the floor, put on a dress and just be as gay as you can be and it’s no problem. "Homosexuality" is not a sin.The sin is in the sexual intercourse... the butt-fucking and cock-sucking. Don't be dumb.Here's what I wrote:

quote:

---

The passages are there to tell Jews how their ritualistic practices are different.

​

Simply different? It seems to say the are disallowed....

---

Sim*ply: -adverb
merely; only: It is simply a cold.I even italicized different to emphasize the word. And then with the context of the following sentence, you can see that I was implying that it there is something more there than just saying they are different.Is English your first language? Maybe if you didn’t chop up my post and reply to bits, you could follow.I in no way implied that being different was simple. That’s fine. I think it is talking about man-on-man sex. I see what you’re saying. I can see your point now that the passage all on its own doesn’t necessarily say that gay sex is inherently evil. It does seem to imply, at least to me, that god has something against gay sex in general as well as for ritual with it being called an abomination and all and being listed right next to other "really bad things". Or there’s more of it . .And one could be not playing dumb but just not know the background.As Christians, we believe that same-sex sex is a also sin when its outside of marriage. So, yeah, they’re both wrong. I understand your point now.I wouldn’t say that the passage refers to “homosexuality” but that it does refer to gay sex. That the ritual gay sex was an abomination doesn’t imply that non-ritual gay sex is an abomination, all on its own, but this passage does add weight to the claim that god has a problem with gay sex.Why were the pagans having sex with the priests as a ritual? What was the point? In The Da Vinci Code.

---

This is the epitome of “playing dumb” you fucking hypocrite.

— zimmah 1) plan, device, wickedness, evil plan, mischievous purpose
From root word. — zamam 1) to have a thought, devise, plan, consider, purpose
zimmah is something wicked.
‘ tow`ebah 1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable
Definition of abomination found Here. ‘ tow`ebah is from the root word ‘ ta`ab 1) to abhor, be abominable, do abominablyLeviticus 19:29 Actually it deals with a man pimping his daughter as a prostitute. The thought translated from — zimmah 1) plan, device, wickedness, evil plan, mischievous purpose.of foolishness — 'ivveleth 1) foolishness, folly
is sin chatta'ah 1) sin, sinfulDefinition of sin found Here and the scorner from — luwts 1) to scorn, make mouths at, talk arrogantly
Definition of scorner found Here
is an abomination to men.So to answer your question, Why do you think that is?The writer was talking about two different things one being foolish thoughts is a sin and the other a scorner is a disgusting thing to men.Now that the smoke screen you threw up has been cleared could we get to discussing the subject?If you care to do so you could discuss my message Message 79 to ramoss.According to the scriptures in the verses I discussed there can be no way that there could have been gay marriage rite's under the law that was given to God's people.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Is menstrual sex also an abomination according to your interpretation and thinking?If so, do you oppose menstrual sex as avidly as you do homosexuality?

I don't remember mentioning my position one way or the other.What I think does not matter as far as what is written in the Scriptures.All these scriptures are found in Leviticus.Incest (18:6-17) Death is the penalty for the above. Different punishment for these.Menstrual sex (18:19) Seems like they were to be banished and shunned.Adultery (18:20) Death was the penalty.Child sacrifce (18:21) Death was the penalty.Human-animal sex (18:23) Death was the penalty.Homosexual sex (18:22). Death was the penalty.There are several other things mentioned in chapter 20 and the penalty for not keeping the statute.I am glad I am not under those laws and have never been as I am a Gentile. Those laws was given to a particular people to preserve a pure people through which the Messiah could come and take that law and fulfill it and take it out of the way.But that does not change the attitude God has towards those things.
God hates all those things and the punishment stands even today. The only difference is Jesus died to take away the penalty of those things that God hates.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

And it says nothing about non-ritualistic man-on-man sex?

---

What part of "no concept of what we call 'homosexuality'" are you having trouble with?

quote:

---

If you mean talking with a lisp while having limp wrists, generally acting like a girl and saying "fabulous" a lot

---

Indeed...there was no concept of you back then.Now that we have the stupid comments out of the way....

quote:

---

But just plain ol' butt-fucking I don't.

---

As if that were the only thing involved in being gay.And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

quote:

---

As Christians, we have.

---

Oh? You speak for all of Christianity? Strange how there are many sects that don't seem to share your interpretations of pretty much any passage you care to name. The official position of the Catholic church is that evolution is the only scientific explanation we have for the diversification of life on this planet. Compare this to certain Protestant sects that still insist the entire universe is only 6000 years old.

quote:

---

You can fake as heavy a lisp as you want, limp your wrists to the floor, put on a dress and just be as gay as you can be and it’s no problem.

---

I'm sure your personal habits give you great joy. What relevance do they have here?

quote:

---

"Homosexuality" is not a sin.

​

The sin is in the sexual intercourse

---

But what is the justification? The passage in question is about having sex with a priest. When was the last time you heard about priests having sex? Since you've wandered into Christianity, let's look at the word Paul coined:arsenokoitesThis word is literally a compound Greek word consisting of "male" ("arsenos") and "temple prostitute" ("koitos").So again, I have to ask: When was the last time you heard about priests having sex?

quote:

---

Sim*ply: -adverb
merely; only: It is simply a cold.

---

First: Argumentum ad dictionary is not an argument. Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive.Second: You will note that you were the one who said "simply different," not me. Therefore, what makes you think I was using "different" SIMPLY (hah!) to mean distinct, dissimilar, variant, other, or nondescript?The Law exists not "simply" to define Jews from other groups. It is to hammer home the point that they are not other groups. They are the chosen ones. There is a purpose to the defining characteristics of identity.So as I said: Since when is "different" ever "simple"?

quote:

---

I even italicized different to emphasize the word.

---

The fact that you italicized the word you put in my mouth does not change the fact that you were putting words in my mouth. I didn't say "simply," so why do you think I should accept your rephrasing?

quote:

---

And then with the context of the following sentence, you can see that I was implying that it there is something more there than just saying they are different.

---

And as I responded, the idea that "different" is ever "simple" is naive. You put words in my mouth and now you're complaining that I'm not accepting your changing of my words. I didn't say "simply different," so why on earth did you respond as if I did?

quote:

---

Is English your first language?

---

Yes. Now, the question is not if English is a first or second language. The question is simply if you are capable of recognizing if a word does or does not appear in a sentence: Do you see the word "simply" or any other variation of that word in there?No?Then why did you stick it in?And when I corrected you, pointing out that no, I didn't mean "simply," why did you insist upon it? When you read my mind, do you have to sit and concentrate or do thoughts simply pop into your head unbidden?

quote:

---

I in no way implied that being different was simple.

---

So you when you said, "Simply different," you didn't mean "simply"? So if you didn't mean "simply" and I didn't mean "simply," I'm at a loss to understand why you brought it up and why you're continuing to harp on it.

quote:

---

It does seem to imply, at least to me, that god has something against gay sex in general

---

Why? The passage is about temple prostitution. Are you saying gay people only have sex for god? When was the last time you heard about priests having sex?

quote:

---

As Christians, we believe that same-sex sex is a also sin when its outside of marriage.

---

Once again, you speak for all Christians? Strange how there are many sects that don't seem to share your interpretations of pretty much any passage you care to name.At any rate, if you think sex outside of marriage is a sin, there's a simple (hah!) solution.

quote:

---

I wouldn’t say that the passage refers to “homosexuality” but that it does refer to gay sex.

---

You do realize that you just contradicted yourself. If it isn't about "homosexuality," then it cannot be about "gay" sex because "gay" and "homosexuality" are the same thing.The passage refers to sex between two males. Surely you aren't saying that all sex between people of the same sex are "gay," are you?

quote:

---

That the ritual gay sex was an abomination

---

But it isn't "gay sex." It's "ritual sex." It happens to be between people of the same sex, but that doesn't make it "gay." Remember: There is no concept of "gay" at the time. How can the passage be about something they didn't conceive of?

quote:

---

doesn’t imply that non-ritual gay sex is an abomination, all on its own, but this passage does add weight to the claim that god has a problem with gay sex.

---

Only if you also claim that all the other passages describing straight sex as abomination "add weight to the claim that god has a problem with straight sex." Do you?All the passages in the Bible regarding sex between people of the same sex are in reference to sex with priests. When was the last time you heard of priests having sex?

quote:

---

Why were the pagans having sex with the priests as a ritual? What was the point?

---

Didn't you read my post? What part of "fertility" are you having trouble with?

quote:

---

This is the epitome of “playing dumb” you fucking hypocrite.

---

(*chuckle*)If it is inappropriate when I do it, what might that indicate about how to respond when you do it?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT responds to me:You seem to be stuck in argumentum ad dictionary. Understanding a language is more than just rattling off synonyms. You need to get to deeper concepts. You need to go beyond individual words and get to usage."Toeyvah" are things that are bad in a ritualistic sense. They have to do with intent, purpose, and underlying motivations. "Zimah," on the other hand, are things that are inherently bad no matter what. Murder is always bad and that's why it's described as "zimah."

quote:

---

Now that the smoke screen you threw up

---

What "smoke screen"? If sex between people of the same sex were always bad, why isn't it described as "zimah"? The point is that there were common phrasings that were used to describe things that are never to be allowed. Those phrasings are not used. Since they are not used, why interpret it as if they were? If they had meant it, they'd have said it. Since they didn't, why second guess them?

quote:

---

According to the scriptures in the verses I discussed there can be no way that there could have been gay marriage rite's under the law that was given to God's people.

---

Since the entire concept of gay people didn't exist then, why would we expect to find such in the Bible? As I pointed out regarding turkeys and bald eagles and whether or not they were kosher, there was no concept of such. They're New World birds. They were not known of. The laws regarding the kashrut of birds is a specific list: These birds are not kosher. Well, what does that mean with regard to New World birds? They took the concept of why the birds in the list were not kosher (they were birds of prey) and applied them to the New World birds. Bald eagles, being predators, are not kosher. Turkeys, who aren't birds of prey, have an extra toe, have a crop, and have a gizzard that can be peeled, are kosher.So since there is no concept of "gay" in the Bible, how should we treat it when we finally do come to the realization that there are people who fall in love with people of their own sex? The only admonitions against same-sex sex in the Bible have to do with temple prostitution. Since gay people generally don't have sex in order to achieve the blessings of god for a good harvest, what do we do now?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT writes:

quote:

---

The only difference is Jesus died to take away the penalty of those things that God hates.

---

That's not what Jesus says.Not one jot, not one tittle of the law shall be changed till all be fulfilled.Are you saying all has been fulfilled? You seem to be a follower of Paul, not Jesus.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I did not give you synonyms, "1. A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language."I gave you the actual Hebrew Word. The correct transliteration and the meaning of that Hebrew word. I then gave you the dictionary meaning of the english word that was used to express the same meaning as the Hebrew word.You tell me I need to get deeper concepts.You then tell me your version of what the words mean. Without producing any evidence to back up your view. Other than you say so.
Why should I take your word as fact? So what part of your anatomy did you get your definitions from?Where did you get your degree in Chaldee and Armaic Hebrew?You tell me murder is always described as "zimah"The word murder is found in Psa. 10:8, 94:6, Jer. 7:9 Hosea 6:9. Is the only one lewdness, — zimmah 1) plan, device, wickedness, evil plan, mischievous purpose appears in. All definitions given in this manner are from a Chaldee Armaic Hebrew Lexicon.The verse says these priests devised an evil wicked plan. I agree.The Bible says:
Exd 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Deu 5:17 Thou shalt not kill
Kill, ratsach verb 1) to murder, slay, kill.Maybe you can help me out here. I can't find where the penalty for murder was given.I do find where there was a city of refuge was for the slayer, someone who killed someone. Jos. 21:13, 21, 27, 32 and 38.The slayer could flee to the city of refuge and while there no one was allowed to kill them.I find no city of refuge for anyone commiting the offense in: Would you please explain to me how my having sex with my wife is in a ritualistic sense.Under the law given in this scripture if I have sex with a man as I do with my wife I an my male partner shall surely be put to death.Leviticus 20:13 does not make a different punishment for a ritual or non ritual occurance of the sex act. The penalty is for a man having sex with a man. What part of "Thou shall not" do you not understand? Lev. 18:22What part of "they shall surely be put to death" do you not understand? Lev. 20:13There are no exception's made for any reason. "If a man", would include any man. There was such a thing a male and male sex back then. It was forbidden and the penalty for it was death.So what is the concept of gay people about if it is not sex? Would you please take these words and explain to me where it is talking about temple prostitution? God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

You gave me no indication that you intend to honestly debate. I'll clear up some of your misunderstandings, but I won't waste my time on most of your bullshit. First off, the part where you supported your assertion.Secondly, that they did have man-on-man sex and that homos have man-on-man sex so to say that they had no concept of it is misleading.And finally, to point out how much of a douchebag you are, I could have replied:"Oh, You speak for all humanity? Strange how there are so many people that don't seem to share your interpretation of what "homosexuality" means...." Meh, not so much. That's why I fucking asked, you dumbass.You said that the passage says that they're different. I asked if you're saying that the passage just says that they're different and nothing more. Then you go off on one word out of both sentences. So fuck you, dick. I didn't. Your reading ability is remedial. That, or you do this on purpose (my suspicion).I asked if you were saying that the passage just says they are different or if there more to it than that. You could have just responded with this, but instead you’d rather be an asshole. So fuck off. “gay” is an adjective and “homosexuality” is a noun. I was assuming that there’s more to “homosexuality” that just “gay sex” but I guess I was wrong. I dunno, you’re the gay one, you tell me. Pretty much. I don’t believe that.Your position is that perfectly straight men would go buttfuck the priest as a fertility ritual and that the passage says that this man-on-man sex was an abomination but sense it was talking about it during the ritual, it isn’t referring to buttfucking outside of the ritual so therefore it isn’t saying anything at all about the modern buttfuckers of today.It seems biased to me. But then, if I was gay, I guess I’d have that bias too. Yes. Maybe when you twist the passages that reference gay sex into NOT being about gay sex like you do to the story of Lot. But you assume that people are playing dumb when they’re not.But whatever. I had an honest question that I thought you might be able to honestly answer. But it turns out that you can’t. You'd rather be an asshole. So fuck you. I’ll start ignoring you again.