The bible and homosexuality: Round 3

eh, sort of. homosexual relationships certainly existed long before that, but they tended to be of a very different sort.anywho, here's some info on the word paul uses: http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/Greeks.htmlalthough, i am find with him intending the word to mean homosexuals. paul is a woman and jew-hating bastard anyways, and i tend to ignore what he says because of this.

i haven't been paying attention. they covered the leviticus verse, right?did anyone point out that god condemns red lobster too? http://godhatesshrimp.com/

quote:

---

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

---

bad translation.

quote:

---

It seems clear that arsenokoites does not refer to mutually respecting gay relationships, but to a powerful aggressor subjugating a weaker individual, whether in the context of rape, or slave trading.

---

http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/Greeks.html

i guess. i dunno much on the subject. an addition is a change. although, the verse says "destroy" but whatever. and he was killed, technically, for being a revolutionary against csar (a lie). the reason the sanhedrin had him killed was that he challenged their authority, not their law.

well, if we take leviticus's word, grasshoppers are flying creatures that walk on four legs.but, well, they cover that elsewhere. and i'm fairly certain that grasshoppers have six legs.i think "on all fours" is an expression meaning that the primary mode of transportation for the animals is hopping or walking, as opposed to flying. or something. i'm not exactly sure, because BOTH references just sound flat-out silly.editted to add:although, on second thought, there was another sort of animal that flew like a bird, but walked on four legs on land: a pterodactyl. that's even sillier. more likely to be talking about flying squirrels. (don't eat rocky!)This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-04-2004 01:54 AM

he challenged the authority and knowledge of the church, so they didn't like him.

leviticus is a great book and all, sure, but i think considering how it's addressed to the levites, the priests, and consists of society-specific laws that comprise the theocracy of ancient israel (as opposed to modern america), it's pretty safe to ignore most of it.