Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   People, please read this... (re: Same sex mariage)
Charles Munroe
Member (Idle past 3634 days)
Posts: 40
From: Simi Valley, CA USA
Joined: 09-07-2003


Message 151 of 234 (62192)
10-22-2003 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IrishRockhound
06-28-2003 8:39 AM


Homophobia
Rock Hound :
You shouldn't be suprised at the reaction of the fundamentalist outrage at same sex marriage. After all didn't they :
-support the slave trade
-resist giving women the right to vote
-backed Prohibition and enriched the Mafia
-supported segregation
-railed against sex education and safe sex
-support creationism nonsense
What they have consistently failed to do is ask "What does Jesus say about same sex marriage?" Answer : Nothing. Therefore there is no doctrinal, much less moral, support for their position. They are simply inserting their bias, hatred and muddled thoughts into a religious context; just like in times past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IrishRockhound, posted 06-28-2003 8:39 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 152 of 234 (62194)
10-22-2003 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Zealot
10-22-2003 11:42 AM


TwinCrier contradicts himself on the current applicability of the Mosaic Law and tries to bury it amid a sheer mass of verbiage.
Oh, and he (she?) needs to learn how to spell "throne." That's just embarassing....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Zealot, posted 10-22-2003 11:42 AM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Zealot, posted 10-22-2003 5:52 PM zephyr has replied

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 234 (62197)
10-22-2003 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by zephyr
10-22-2003 5:29 PM


Whoot!
Eventually now that translation issues are out of the way , we find the 'Just because it was a Levitican law doesn't mean it applies today' argument.
Never expected that one huh

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by zephyr, posted 10-22-2003 5:29 PM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by zephyr, posted 10-22-2003 6:04 PM Zealot has replied

zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 154 of 234 (62200)
10-22-2003 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Zealot
10-22-2003 5:52 PM


Be reasonable. I pointed out the glaring contradiction regarding the law because I'm not as informed on the other issues. It's still telling that so many people who violate Levitican law daily (if not every waking minute) are rabid proponents of the disputed Levitican proscription against same-sex behavior. I too see cause for doubt in the translation, and it is childish of you to proclaim victory on the subject simply because I felt it was not my place to speak thereof.
You haven't even refuted my argument, let alone those of the other participants, and theirs are the ones that count.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Zealot, posted 10-22-2003 5:52 PM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Zealot, posted 10-22-2003 8:35 PM zephyr has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 155 of 234 (62222)
10-22-2003 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Zealot
10-22-2003 4:30 PM


zealot writes:
Ah but then every Christian that sais homosexuality is a sin, is a homophobe.
This is my point. Doing so would not be right, just as YOUR claiming that any nonXtian or non100%hetero who says homosexuality is not condemned (by those passages under discussion) are somehow biased or listening only to biased scholars.
Many Xtians, like yourself, do so. This is wrong. I will not do start to do this if you will agree not to continue doing so.
zealot writes:
Well because my faith clearly states it a sin. Clearly.
You just avoided my argument in order to restate your position.
Or are you saying that if some Hebrew scholars discover that the proscription against witches does not include palmreaders your faith would be shaken to its core?
I might add that your faith clearly states you are to kill witches on sight. Since palmreaders do not have the theoretical exemption I just gave above, do you kill palmreaders on sight? Or does this proscription not mean much anymore?
It also clearly states that slavery is okay and sets prices for it. Is your faith shaken that all Xtian denominations currently teach that slavery is wrong?
zealot writes:
*Lev 20vs13
And whoever shall lie with a male as with a woman, they have both wrought abomination; let them die the death, they are guilty.
Nothing dubious about that. Amazing that all Christians have been able to mistranslate that one huh ? From the dawn of Christianity and Judaism.
As has already been stated, the translation you just gave IS NOT the correct translation.
And actually of all the mistranslations that one IS NOT so amazing. While you keep dismissing the idea that it is talking about ritual sex, rather than regular sex, some scholars actually use evidence and argument to try and make the case (rather than flippant assertion).
I have read scholars that were not so sure what seems to be about ritual sex, remained just about ritual sex. While they all agreed the LEV proscription as originated WAS ABOUT RITUAL SEX, some claimed that it was expanded through teaching and practice to include all sexual activity simply to prevent backsliding (accidental ritual) as well as creating an identity for Jews.
If you want to try and make a case along those lines you could. But once again it would require doing that odious task of research.
Claiming that Xtians or Jews have done things one way for centuries is hardly credible as an argument that they are right.
If you do not understand this point, then let me put it to you this way...
Jews had been doing things for centuries then Jesus came along to say they no longer needed to... and some things were not right. Are you saying Jesus was wrong.
No probably not. But then the Xtian church practiced many things for centuries until some guy named Luther pointed out errors between teachings and practice. Are you saying Protestants were wrong?
Homosexual sex acts were not universally condemned at all times. If you want to give some evidence that they were I would love to see that, especially for ancient Jewish lands. Male Temple prostitution was... because it was a major threat to the early Jewish faith.
zealot writes:
WELL DONE Holmes, there does exist a Christian Scholar in you somewhere! Nothing in the Bible or old testament indicated that the Jew's were in any way accepting of Homosexuality.
Unfortunately I cannot return the compliments. Your repeated assertions to avoid doing basic research is not giving me hope that will ever become one either.
While your latter sentence is correct, and I would say the Bible is still "down" on homosexuality (if by offshoot, rather than direct condemnation), where is the evidence that Jews have historically persecuted gays?
There is no mention of people killing, or trying to kill, anyone because of their sexuality EXCEPT for prostitutes, or adulterers (and even in this case many---like David-- get to slide). Why would this be if the Bible is deadset against homosexuals?
And don't bring Sodom into this. Even if it was about homosexuality (which is in debate) it has nothing to do with PEOPLE killing anyone. If anything, Abraham pleads for everyone to be saved if but for 10 people.
zealot writes:
Would you like me to spend 3 years becoming an expert on Hebrew so I can know what I already know now ?
No. How about three hours on the internet, researching this issue. Or three days if you can be bothered by such a petty thing?
While I am still incredulous that you wouldn't want to learn Hebrew (just to know more about the Bible), you don't need to go that in depth to research this particular topic to some degree.
Maybe I should put out an African Bible in various native dialects with more accurate Hebrew translations, and then let you argue with them that they should bother with your English version (or even learning English) because they already have one in their own language.
Continuing with Sodom...
zealot writes:
Read the text. You are ignoring their direct words.
No, but you continue to ignore mine and those which come before what they say.
I see no inconsistency with them saying what they say at that moment, when they are now sure they must bring Sodom down.
However, I do see a major inconsistency with claiming Angels who have been sent to kill the entire town (including innocents), would disobey this command by walking in to meet Lot, then wait to get about God's business until the town has not only surrounded the house, but kicked their way in.
zealot writes:
You think perhaps they were instructed to destroy it the next morning ? I dont know, give Lot a chance to gather his family together and flee Sodom while everyone was asleep ?
This is not only a curious theory, it is in conflict with what God said he was going to do... in other words you keep discounting what God said, based on what the Angels said. Why am I wrong in basing my interpretation on God's word, rather than the Angels?
zealot writes:
You seem to be able to make an assumption based on the timing of the angels in blinding the people, but think Lot just insane in RANDOMLY offering his daughters to the men at his house.
Now , lets
My assumption is based on the timing of what the Angels said and that squares with what God said he was going to do.
I don't understand what you are getting at with what I think about Lot.
Now, lets... what?
------------------
holmes
[This message has been edited by holmes, 10-22-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Zealot, posted 10-22-2003 4:30 PM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Zealot, posted 10-22-2003 8:45 PM Silent H has replied

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 234 (62223)
10-22-2003 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by zephyr
10-22-2003 6:04 PM


TwinCrier contradicts himself on the current applicability of the Mosaic Law and tries to bury it amid a sheer mass of verbiage.
What exactly is your argument ? You stated that someone contradicted themselves and pointed out a spelling mistake.
As you pointed to Mosaic Law, would you like to air your views on whether Lev 20:13 is a clear indication that God considered Homosexuality a sin, or is it another mistranslation ?
**
, - -- ‘, ; , .
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Thing is Zephyr, Rrhain has been arguing with great conviction that there is nothing in the bible that even refers to homosexuality, so either he is correct , or the vast majority of Jewish and Christians are wrong.
What is your opinion on this particular verse ?
cheers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by zephyr, posted 10-22-2003 6:04 PM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by zephyr, posted 10-22-2003 9:35 PM Zealot has replied
 Message 165 by Rrhain, posted 10-23-2003 8:32 AM Zealot has not replied

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 234 (62224)
10-22-2003 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Silent H
10-22-2003 8:25 PM


Holmes, before I even address your post, please inform me as to the mistranslation ?
Which part is mistranslated in this ?
Lev 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Can you tell me which word is wrong ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Silent H, posted 10-22-2003 8:25 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Silent H, posted 10-22-2003 10:42 PM Zealot has replied
 Message 166 by Rrhain, posted 10-23-2003 8:34 AM Zealot has not replied

zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 158 of 234 (62233)
10-22-2003 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Zealot
10-22-2003 8:35 PM


quote:
What exactly is your argument ? You stated that someone contradicted themselves and pointed out a spelling mistake.
I noted that the person to whom you referred us made points are not self-consistent. His overall argument is the same as yours. So, if you want to use it, it would be a good idea to answer the repeated question as to whether the entirety of the OT law applies. Then we'll know whether you're a)supporting your view with a law that is invalid or b)committing yourself to follow every letter of the law as long as you feel the need to object to other people having fun behind closed doors.
To be honest, I think it would be a bad idea for me to get any more involved in this thread. I'm about to take off for a couple of weeks and I'd hate to just bail in the middle of a good discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Zealot, posted 10-22-2003 8:35 PM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Zealot, posted 10-23-2003 8:00 AM zephyr has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 159 of 234 (62248)
10-22-2003 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Zealot
10-22-2003 8:45 PM


zealot writes:
Holmes, before I even address your post, please inform me as to the mistranslation ?
Which part is mistranslated in this ?
If you read my post, you would see that I was suggesting that this particular mistranslation was not the word-word kind like others (such as sodomite-Qadesha which you ought to address as well).
In fact I was saying that the LEV passage is not surprising that it would get translated as it does into English, and some scholars have suggested by the time of the English translation it may have taken on the more general proscription IN PRACTICE.
Rei has already answered why this is a mistranslation in a post to you in the other homosexuality thread. Very briefly though, the entire section is about proscriptions regarding religious practices. Thus this section is related to religious practices. And "abomination" is actually as you have already stated "unclean" along the lines of "pagan/unclean", or "ritually unclean".
Thus all Hebrew scholars I've read (and I'm sure you'll find) agree that the original proscription in LEV is talking about sex with male prostitutes.
To pull that one line out and say it refers to homosexuality alone, is like pulling one line out of a work manual regarding sexual harassment in the work place, and using it to say the company condemns certain sexual activity (even in the privacy of one's home).
There is a valid question... which I mentioned... whether in practicing this proscription it became more generalized to create an identity for Jews as well as to prevent backsliding (guys making excuses they didn't know what they were doing was ritual sex).
If you argued along these lines, it'd make more sense... ala, the Xtians (or particular apostles) were some who came to adopt this broader practice and so translated the ritual proscription in broader terms.
On a personal note, I think that this is the most credible line of argument and almost convincing. The problem is it must be put into perspective with the other passages in Hebrew which clearly refer to "temple prostitute".
I hope this makes sense, and that you can now move on to address my post.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Zealot, posted 10-22-2003 8:45 PM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Zealot, posted 10-23-2003 7:50 AM Silent H has replied

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 234 (62308)
10-23-2003 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Silent H
10-22-2003 10:42 PM


Rei has already answered why this is a mistranslation in a post to you in the other homosexuality thread. Very briefly though, the entire section is about proscriptions regarding religious practices. Thus this section is related to religious practices.
WRONG.
Shall we read in CONTEXT of the text ?
12 And if a man lie with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have wrought corruption; their blood shall be upon them.
If you sleep with your son’s wife, Penalty Death
13 And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Sleeping with another man. Penalty Death
14 And if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
Sleeping with your wife’s mother. Penalty Death
The text is about SEXUAL IMMORALITY, its clear to any Biblical scholar.
The thing is Holmes, you seem to have changed your mind regarding Rrhains translation based on his theories, yet did you ever bring up this verse ?
The translation is made directly from the Maseretic text. IT IS CORRECTLY TRANSLATED. Go ask again any of your Hebrew friends, because I have asked mine. Indeed the Maseretic text (The text used by Rrhain [ where is he btw ] ) Translates it as such.
Thus all Hebrew scholars I've read (and I'm sure you'll find) agree that the original proscription in LEV is talking about sex with male prostitutes.
Funny, everyone I've read seems to say the opposite.
To pull that one line out and say it refers to homosexuality alone, is like pulling one line out of a work manual regarding sexual harassment in the work place, and using it to say the company condemns certain sexual activity (even in the privacy of one's home).
IT DOES refer to homosexuality alone. PLEASE Holmes, its clear, you know that, I know that, Rei AND Rrhain knows that. Its NOT taken out of context, the context is sexual immorality as I've shown. Read the text again.
Why do you think Isrealites were not allowed to have gay relationships or marriages ? Because this was the LAW, passed down to them.
On a personal note, I think that this is the most credible line of argument and almost convincing. The problem is it must be put into perspective with the other passages in Hebrew which clearly refer to "temple prostitute".
Holmes, There is in now way, a more specific wording could be used to indicate a man-man relationships to be sinfull. This hasn't changed for the Jews or any Christians. This needs NOT be compared with any other passages to prove itself, its a piece of text specific to sexual immorality.
What you are suggesting is the following. Take this piece of text (explicity referring to homosexuality IN CONTEXT), find another piece of text somewhere else, where there is an argument over the translation of a word( which you ASSUME it MUST imply temple prostitute), then LINK the two together FOR NO APPARENT REASON , and eventually you can come to the conclusion that eventhough this piece of text tells you explicitly that its a sin, somehow dissasociate it from plain old gay sex and associate it with 'temple prostitution'.
That is reaching Holmes. The least you can do is agree the obvious, that this verse is about homosexuality , nothing else. You spoke about your dislike for Intellectual dishonesty. Look back at Rrhain's posts, see how many times he avoided addressing this verse, think about WHY he didn't address this verse, and then come back to it.
Once you agree its sin, we can go on to the topic of why it is still sin, when other Mosaic Laws aren't.
cheers
[This message has been edited by Zealot, 10-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Silent H, posted 10-22-2003 10:42 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Rrhain, posted 10-23-2003 8:46 AM Zealot has not replied
 Message 171 by Silent H, posted 10-23-2003 1:06 PM Zealot has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 161 of 234 (62309)
10-23-2003 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Zealot
10-22-2003 9:13 AM


Zealot writes:
quote:
I merely questioned Rrhains suggestion that infact Heterosexual sex had a greater risk of HIV infection that homosexual sex.
And I gave you the references. I even used *your* source to show you the references.
quote:
ALSO, you dont mention ratio's of homosexual to heterosexual.
That's because, as I told you before, we don't know. Not only do we not know that ratio, the simple fact of the matter is that nobody is keeping track of the sexuality of people. As you were shown above, just because people are of the same sex, that doesn't mean they're gay. What is tracked is whether or not you got it from someone of the same sex or of the opposite sex.
quote:
"Only 4% of the HIV cases are from homosexuals" .. WOW
BUT:
"Only 1% of the population is homosexual"
(*chuckle*)
Why didn't you use the following hypothetical numbers?
"Only 4% of the HIV cases are from homosexuals"
BUT
"Only 10% of the population is homosexual"
And you say you're not trying to claim that HIV is a gay disease....
quote:
Do lesbians become 'one flesh' in the same way hetero or homosexual become 'one flesh' ?
Um, you do understand that lesbains are homosexuals, yes?
But to get to your point, yes. Gay people, including lesbians, become "one flesh" in the same way that straight people do.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Zealot, posted 10-22-2003 9:13 AM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Zealot, posted 10-23-2003 9:22 AM Rrhain has replied

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 234 (62312)
10-23-2003 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by zephyr
10-22-2003 9:35 PM


I noted that the person to whom you referred us made points are not self-consistent. His overall argument is the same as yours. So, if you want to use it, it would be a good idea to answer the repeated question as to whether the entirety of the OT law applies. Then we'll know whether you're a)supporting your view with a law that is invalid or b)committing yourself to follow every letter of the law as long as you feel the need to object to other people having fun behind closed doors.
I was posted a letter to someone 'other than myself' and asked to explain it all. Personally (as Crashfrog demonstrated in the other thread), there is no intent on actually finding an answer to the questions, merely attemps to mock. Because I'm trying to stay on topic, I have referred it to someone what could provide answers.
HOWEVER the important part is FIRSTLY to be able to convince Holmes and others that according to Lev. law, homosexual sex is a sin, before I can continue with this discussion.
Unfortunitely the only people that seem to air their views are Holmes (bisexual) and Rei (lesbian) and Rrhain (not sure about his sexuality). So perhaps if someone else could provide input as to what I (and millions of other Christians) know to be a sin, we can try get this discussion back on track.
Thus I asked for your input, as it might just be more neutral.
cheers
To be honest, I think it would be a bad idea for me to get any more involved in this thread. I'm about to take off for a couple of weeks and I'd hate to just bail in the middle of a good discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by zephyr, posted 10-22-2003 9:35 PM zephyr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Rrhain, posted 10-23-2003 8:51 AM Zealot has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 163 of 234 (62315)
10-23-2003 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Zealot
10-22-2003 9:32 AM


Zealot responds to me:
quote:
IF I keep my post brief , you wont ignore this specific verse I've referred to twice.
I already answered it. Leviticus is not referring to homosexuals. How could it when they had no concept of homosexuality?
Yes, you don't see the admonition against temple prostitutes, but that's because you aren't looking. First, you have a mistranslation. "Abomination" is not the right word. "Ritually unclean" is better...the opposite of "kosher," in a sense. Leviticus is talking about ritualistic practices.
And what would temple prostitution be if not a ritualistic practice?
quote:
quote:
quote:
So homosexuality among Jews is not sinfull then huh ?
Among the most common sects of Judaism, no.
That's interesting because surely they are all able to understand Hebrew ?
Yes. That's why they don't consider homosexuality to be sinful, really.
There's nothing in the Torah that says that it is. This is not surprising since the culture at the time had no concept of it and the language had no words for it.
quote:
Again mistranslations ?
No, not at all. Jewish texts don't read like Christian ones. The word "to'evah" doesn't really mean "abomination" except in a ritualistic sense.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Zealot, posted 10-22-2003 9:32 AM Zealot has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 164 of 234 (62320)
10-23-2003 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Zealot
10-22-2003 4:30 PM


Zealot writes:
quote:
Nothing in the Bible or old testament indicated that the Jew's were in any way accepting of Homosexuality.
Um, David and Johnathan. The Old Testament doesn't have much in it with regard to love stories, but the tale of D and J is right up there. Note, this doesn't mean D and J were gay (again, there's no concept of homosexuality), but it does mean that falling in love with another person of the same sex isn't exactly the worst thing in the world.
At worst, it is most accurate to say that nothing in the Bible (which includes the Old Testament) indicated that Jews were in any way hostile of homosexuality.
But then again, this is not surprising since they had no concept of it and no words to describe it.
How do you make a statement about something you don't understand and can't describe?
quote:
I mean, heck, we've only spend a month trying to dispute whether homosexuality is a sin, when it sais so clearly in Lev!
No, it doesn't.
What makes you think "to'evah" means "abomination" rather than "ritually unclean"?
quote:
Call it an abomination, call it 'wrong' , call it Pagan. I care not.
You should. None of those three mean the same thing. So to use one when a better choice would be another means you're not getting the intent of the passage.
quote:
Fact is it is a sin, punishment death.
Says who? You? Why should we believe you?
The text you claim justifies you doesn't say what you think it says.
quote:
but think Lot just insane in RANDOMLY offering his daughters to the men at his house.
No, Lot is not "randomly" offering his daughters. He has a deliberate agenda in mind: Distract the mob.
And that would be a useful thing if the mob were made of people who weren't gay. After all, if they were gay, what on earth was Lot thinking offering them sex with someone of the opposite sex? They wouldn't take the bait.
If you know that everybody in your town has peanut allergies and will never eat peanuts and they're pounding at your door, would you try to distract them with peanut brittle? What would be the use? They're never going to take it because they don't eat peanuts.
So if the entire male population of Sodom were gay and pounding at your door, would you try to distract them by offering them sex with women? What would be the use? They're never going to take it because they don't have sex with women.
The only way Lot's action becomes "random" is if the township is gay. But since Lot is not behaving randomly, since he has a specific agenda in mind, then we must necessarily conclude that the township of Sodom was not gay.
If they are gay, Lot's actions make no sense. If they're not gay, we can understand what Lot was trying to do.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Zealot, posted 10-22-2003 4:30 PM Zealot has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 165 of 234 (62322)
10-23-2003 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Zealot
10-22-2003 8:35 PM


Zealot writes:
quote:
would you like to air your views on whether Lev 20:13 is a clear indication that God considered Homosexuality a sin, or is it another mistranslation ?
Yes, it is a mistranslation.
quote:
Thing is Zephyr, Rrhain has been arguing with great conviction that there is nothing in the bible that even refers to homosexuality, so either he is correct , or the vast majority of Jewish and Christians are wrong.
Um, since Judaism doesn't consider homosexuality a sin, I think the problem isn't that the Jews are wrong but that the Christians are.
They seem to think that something in the Old Testament refers to homosexuality.
And even worse, they seem to think that something in the New Testament refers to homosexuality, too.
There simply aren't that many references to same-sex sexual activity in the Bible. None of them refer to anything that we would describe as "homosexuality." They're all about ritualistic sex, temple prostitution, and the like.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Zealot, posted 10-22-2003 8:35 PM Zealot has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024