|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:58 am
The Rotten Banana v2 leviticus 20:13-20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. " Romans 1:26-27 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature." "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet." All I have for right now. Yes, Romans 1 is the basis of my argument against homosexual ity activity for Christians (see my main arguments on page 3 and 10 of this topic); on this the previous page I was trying to argue against it from Leviticus for Jews. And yeah, I missed that other verse in Leviticus... I haven't tried arguing it from the Law before. That is actually very helpful for the argument from the Torah! That verse in Leviticus 20 is smack-dab in the middle of a whole list of bans of different types of sexual immorality. The temple ritual of child-sacrifice is mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, but then it goes into every kind of sexual immorality, in the middle of which is homosexual relations between men. How's that for context?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:09 am
Say, when are our Muslim peeps going to weigh in? I know the Koran must say stuff about homosexuality... I'm no expert, but Islam in general seems to be against homosexuality. Are there reinterpretations of the Koran that have it otherwise?
Any takers? biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:38 am
Nebulance The Rotten Banana v2 leviticus 20:13-20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. " Romans 1:26-27 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature." "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet." All I have for right now. Yes, Romans 1 is the basis of my argument against homosexual ity activity for Christians (see my main arguments on page 3 and 10 of this topic); on this the previous page I was trying to argue against it from Leviticus for Jews. And yeah, I missed that other verse in Leviticus... I haven't tried arguing it from the Law before. That is actually very helpful for the argument from the Torah! That verse in Leviticus 20 is smack-dab in the middle of a whole list of bans of different types of sexual immorality. The temple ritual of child-sacrifice is mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, but then it goes into every kind of sexual immorality, in the middle of which is homosexual relations between men. How's that for context? If you want to talk about context, you're toast. Homosexuality in antiquity was pederasty. The relationships were between an older man (Pursuer) and a younger boy (Beloved). At the time of either Bible, loving committed and mutual homosexual relationships did not exist. Homosexuality today is NOT the same as it was in antiquity so you can't even argue that those verses are about homosexuality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:39 am
The Rotten Banana v2 leviticus 20:13-20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. " Romans 1:26-27 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature." "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet." All I have for right now. Leviticus is for the Jews not Christians. So the natural use of women is sex with men? Well isn't that sexist. prove that unnatural = immoral.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:40 am
Question to all Christians: If homosexuality is a sin why didn't Jesus say anything against it? He spoke of all the other sins did he not? So why not homosexuality?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:47 am
In Medias Res IV Nebulance The Rotten Banana v2 leviticus 20:13-20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. " Romans 1:26-27 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature." "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet." All I have for right now. Yes, Romans 1 is the basis of my argument against homosexual ity activity for Christians (see my main arguments on page 3 and 10 of this topic); on this the previous page I was trying to argue against it from Leviticus for Jews. And yeah, I missed that other verse in Leviticus... I haven't tried arguing it from the Law before. That is actually very helpful for the argument from the Torah! That verse in Leviticus 20 is smack-dab in the middle of a whole list of bans of different types of sexual immorality. The temple ritual of child-sacrifice is mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, but then it goes into every kind of sexual immorality, in the middle of which is homosexual relations between men. How's that for context? If you want to talk about context, you're toast. Homosexuality in antiquity was pederasty. The relationships were between an older man (Pursuer) and a younger boy (Beloved). At the time of either Bible, loving committed and mutual homosexual relationships did not exist. Homosexuality today is NOT the same as it was in antiquity so you can't even argue that those verses are about homosexuality. First of all, that argument does not prove your point. Of course there were different sexual customs back then. But the command is not limited to that particular sexual custom. Second, isn't pederasty something from Greek and Roman times? This is Leviticus... somehow I doubt the Canaanites had this same custom. Even if they did, why would you assume that this was the only context in which homosexual relationships took place? If homosexuality is 'natural,' then there must have been other homosexual relationships going on, relationships that were not excluded by this command. Third, you still haven't addressed my point that the commands against homosexual relations come in the midst of commands against incest, adultery, bestiality, and child sacrifice (not the dietary restrictions to which you like to claim it is equivalent). Want to argue that those are okay, now that we have different customs about how we conduct them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:48 am
Mei tsuki7 The Rotten Banana v2 leviticus 20:13-20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. " Romans 1:26-27 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature." "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet." All I have for right now. Leviticus is for the Jews not Christians. So the natural use of women is sex with men? Well isn't that sexist. prove that unnatural = immoral. *Sigh*... I really don't want to repeat everything we've said for the last few pages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:52 am
Mei tsuki7 Question to all Christians: If homosexuality is a sin why didn't Jesus say anything against it? He spoke of all the other sins did he not? So why not homosexuality? No He did not speak of every single sin. And not everything is discussed in Sacred Scripture either, in any faith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:53 am
Vasilius Konstantinos Mei tsuki7 Question to all Christians: If homosexuality is a sin why didn't Jesus say anything against it? He spoke of all the other sins did he not? So why not homosexuality? No He did not speak of every single sin. And not everything is discussed in Sacred Scripture either, in any faith. He did, however, specifically mention marriage as being between a man and a woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:54 am
Nebulance In Medias Res IV Nebulance The Rotten Banana v2 leviticus 20:13-20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. " Romans 1:26-27 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature." "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet." All I have for right now. Yes, Romans 1 is the basis of my argument against homosexual ity activity for Christians (see my main arguments on page 3 and 10 of this topic); on this the previous page I was trying to argue against it from Leviticus for Jews. And yeah, I missed that other verse in Leviticus... I haven't tried arguing it from the Law before. That is actually very helpful for the argument from the Torah! That verse in Leviticus 20 is smack-dab in the middle of a whole list of bans of different types of sexual immorality. The temple ritual of child-sacrifice is mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, but then it goes into every kind of sexual immorality, in the middle of which is homosexual relations between men. How's that for context? If you want to talk about context, you're toast. Homosexuality in antiquity was pederasty. The relationships were between an older man (Pursuer) and a younger boy (Beloved). At the time of either Bible, loving committed and mutual homosexual relationships did not exist. Homosexuality today is NOT the same as it was in antiquity so you can't even argue that those verses are about homosexuality. First of all, that argument does not prove your point. Of course there were different sexual customs back then. But the command is not limited to that particular sexual custom. Second, isn't pederasty something from Greek and Roman times? This is Leviticus... somehow I doubt the Canaanites had this same custom. Even if they did, why would you assume that this was the only context in which homosexual relationships took place? If homosexuality is 'natural,' then there must have been other homosexual relationships going on, relationships that were not excluded by this command. The canaanites were doing worse. Gay prostitution, human sacrifices... Leviticus was for the PRIESTS, why else do you think so many RELIGIOUS Jews do not follow Leviticus today? I personally know a lot of Jews who are extremely religious and east bacon. EVEN IF homosexuality is a sin, it is the exact same as eating bacon. This isn't to say that a homosexual must be celibate either. G-d doesn't punish you for eating bacon, Hashem won't punish me for ******** my girlfriend. Quote: Third, you still haven't addressed my point that the commands against homosexual relations come in the midst of commands against incest, adultery, bestiality, and child sacrifice[/i] (not the dietary restrictions to which you like to claim it is equivalent). Want to argue that those are okay, now that we have different customs about how we conduct them? Everything that Canaanites were doing, not the Jews. Thank you for just proving that this verse is about "What not to do that your neighbours are doing".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:54 am
Vasilius Konstantinos Mei tsuki7 Question to all Christians: If homosexuality is a sin why didn't Jesus say anything against it? He spoke of all the other sins did he not? So why not homosexuality? No He did not speak of every single sin. And not everything is discussed in Sacred Scripture either, in any faith. Then what sins did he not speak of?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:55 am
Nebulance Mei tsuki7 The Rotten Banana v2 leviticus 20:13-20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. " Romans 1:26-27 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature." "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet." All I have for right now. Leviticus is for the Jews not Christians. So the natural use of women is sex with men? Well isn't that sexist. prove that unnatural = immoral. *Sigh*... I really don't want to repeat everything we've said for the last few pages. Just copy pasta cause i don't feel like searching for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:56 am
Nebulance Vasilius Konstantinos Mei tsuki7 Question to all Christians: If homosexuality is a sin why didn't Jesus say anything against it? He spoke of all the other sins did he not? So why not homosexuality? No He did not speak of every single sin. And not everything is discussed in Sacred Scripture either, in any faith. He did, however, specifically mention marriage as being between a man and a woman. Can I have the scripture for that please and if you are going to paste the scripture itself please give the surrounding scripture as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:58 am
Nebulance Vasilius Konstantinos Mei tsuki7 Question to all Christians: If homosexuality is a sin why didn't Jesus say anything against it? He spoke of all the other sins did he not? So why not homosexuality? No He did not speak of every single sin. And not everything is discussed in Sacred Scripture either, in any faith. He did, however, specifically mention marriage as being between a man and a woman. What do you think would have happened if he hadn't? If Jesus had said that marriage was fine between a man and a man, at that time in history he would have been stoned to death. The people of that time just weren't ready to accept something so radical. (and apparently some people today even stare )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:58 am
Mei tsuki7 Nebulance Mei tsuki7 The Rotten Banana v2 leviticus 20:13-20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. " Romans 1:26-27 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature." "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet." All I have for right now. Leviticus is for the Jews not Christians. So the natural use of women is sex with men? Well isn't that sexist. prove that unnatural = immoral. *Sigh*... I really don't want to repeat everything we've said for the last few pages. Just copy pasta cause i don't feel like searching for it. All right, give me a minute and I'll see what I can do. In Medias Res IV, let's try to stay on track with the discussion we're having right now, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
