|
|
Links | Photo Album | Voting | Who's Who? | Search | Sitemap |
|
Plain text was written by Chris Murphy If you are looking for the word homosexual, no you will not find it, but if the concept of homosexual acts you want then you what do you call laying with man as with womankind if it is not a homosexual act? I never said homosexual acts never come up. I said they never come up in loving, committed relationships. It only comes up in cases of idolotry, gang rape, rejection of God, prostitution and lust. I've challenged you to find a SINGLE case otherwise, *and* to tell me that those things would be OK if hetersexual sex were the case. You can't because it isn't true. Those things are just as wrong if heterosexual acts are occuring as well. It is called an abomination in Lev 18:22 Yes and I told you the word in Leviticus 18:22 is toevah and it means "you may err in this" - that is the traditional Rabbinic translation. It's an issue of ritual cleanliness. Jews don't even adhere to most of Leviticus and Christians even less. Yet you DUCK this issue. You won't say I'm wrong nor can you prove I'm wrong on Leviticus 18:22. In Lev 20:13 it is given the death penalty in a theocracy So what? Are you suggesting we should put children to death for cursing their parents? Are you suggesting that cursing your parents, which pretty much every child does at one point or another in their life, is equally as wrong as homosexual acts during in the 12th-15th century B.C. Do you believe they are both STILL worthy of the death penalty? I brough this up in a previous posting as well and you just repeat yourself. You refuse to answer my questions and rise to the challenge. You don't because you don't have the answers. You're unwilling to say that children cursing their parents and therefore getting the death penalty is totally absurd but Leviticus puts that on the same level as homosexual sex! Have you read the Talmud? Have you read Maimonides? Leviticus gives the death penalty for violation of Sabbath laws, something JESUS himself did! I also challenged you to show historical reference to a single person put to death in accordance with a violation of Leviticus as it is written, for homosexual sex or cursing your parents. Not even Jews took Leviticus punishment as being an index of morality yet psycho-Christians do, but ONLY in regards to homosexual sex. They ignore 98% of the rest of Leviticus. What's your response to that? What the excuse? Sodom became know for this activity and we see in the Gen account when the angels went to get Lot out of there the citizens wanted to know them sexually and note the angels appeared as males and the males wanted them. A case of GANG RAPE. The story is about how Sodom was so corrupt that the people were willing to defile God's messengers. There is no evidence they were homosexual. Only evidence they wanted to rape God's messengers. Excuse me, but how is this in ANYWAY remotely like a message saying "all homosexual sex is bad because it's kinda like raping God's messengers." So what's the message of Lot saying, "oh don't rape these men, I'll send you my daugters and you all can fuck them instead." That's a really good message - instead of raping these men, you can have my daughters. What a great guy Lot is. If you are going to stretch the story of these men wanting to rape God's messengers as a case of all homosexual sex being WRONG; then you must stretch what Lot does in saying it's OK to give your daughters to a hord of horny men so they can have their way with them. It's ABSURD to think this is the message of Genesis. Genesis is NOT referring to two consenting adults who are in love with each other in a committed monogomous relationship. You STILL have provided no biblical refernce, nor even any logical reason why committed same sex relationships are a problem. Hence we have Sodomy laws not homosexual laws. What's that got to do with anything? First there is no word "sodomy" or "sodomite" anywhere in the bible. There is the word Sodom, there is no other word made from Sodom found anywhere in the bible. The fact you and most of this country has had used "sodomy" is only further evidence of perverted translations of the bible and of history. What do you think of anti-miscegenation laws? Those were all based on people saying the bible said miscegenation was WRONG and the government should prevent those unions. Christians have been wrong before and the governments around the planet have supported racism and bigotry before as well. Just because there are laws, or that most people agree doesn't make it right. By the way, the Hebrews were logical enough to know that if men being sexually active with men was an abomination the converse involving women would be an abomination as well which Paul shows in Romans. No see, the Hebrews had a problem with the idea of semen being wasted. They thought that there was a limited supply and it should go only toward procreation. Hebrews were unconcerned with women having sex with each other because in their eyes it didn't reduce their ability to procreate. With men it did. There is NOTHING in Hebrew law that indicates they had any problem with lesbianism. And in Paul, he doesn't say that women had sex with other women. He said only they gave up what is natural with men; which would be sexual relations only as a wife or concubine. It is known that there were all kinds of pagan rites involving orgies in Rome at the time, so it's possible that women were having sex with other women, but at least if not more likely they were having orgies with many men as well, and Paul was witness to this. YOu think Paul was wondering around Rome peaking in people's windows and checking up on their personal life and saw all kinds of same-sex sexual activity? Nooo...he probably saw pagan ritual rites occuring in PUBLIC. Again, what I'm referring to in a committed, monogomous relationship is one based on love. Not worshiping false gods, not lust, not origes in public, not gang rape, not prostitution. Not all heterosexual sex falls under those things and neither does homosexual sex.
As for the king thing.
11 Funny how you get different words with different translations of the bible. Check out the New International Version in English. Even if you check the traditional respected Revised Standard Version you don't see the word sodomites because NO SUCH WORD EXISTS IN HEBREW:
11: And Asa did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, as David his father had done. His morality and created order so homosexuality is just the result of that rejection. It is NOT! Scripture says NOTHING about homosexuality being wrong! Nothing! It only talks about certain cases of behavior that WOULD BE wrong anyway, even if heterosexual sex were going on also. Are you saying that in any ONE of the cases where homosexual sex was said to be wrong that it would be OK if heterosexual sex were going on? NO - it would STILL be wrong. Just looking at how He designed the male and female He created will clearly speak to how the equipment is to be used. What, so oral sex between a man and wife is wrong now too? Where does Scripture say that? This is an illogical argument. Who people fall in love with and have sex with is not mandated by "compatible equipment." You would presume that only vaginal intercourse is OK, and yet there isn't a prohibition in Scripture of any kind of oral or anal sex among opposite-sex couples even though according to your argument isn't not a compatible usage of equipment. I assure you that two women and two men are able to gratify each other sexually in a VERY compatible way regardless of what you might think. Judg 19:22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house that we may know him. (KJV) As we can see by the treatment of the concubine that went out they were not just interested in a social knowledge of him, but rather a carnal sexual knowledge. These lads just happened to be bisexual. They really wanted the man, but hey if you give us a woman we will rape her as well. Not very picky, these lads. EXACTLY. Their is no evidence they are homosexual. There is no evidence they wanted to do anything but fuck someone. This is absolutely NOT the same thing, in any way, shape, or form of two people (same sexed or opposite sexed) who are adults, consenting, in-love, committed and monogomous from being together. Now, as to Paul, please read Romans 1:26,27 and tell me how that is not speaking to homosexual activity? YOu are talking in circles. We've already been through Romans and you refuse to answer my questions about it. I have never once said that these were not homosexual acts. I said PROVIDE A CITATION of a single case of homosexuals acts that occur: 1.) in cases other than rape, prostitution, idolotry, lust, or rejection of God 2.) in cases of loving, committed, monogmous relationships Fine ONE CASE - just ONE. That's the challenge. Not for you to repeat Romans 1 yet again. CLEARLY it's talking about homosexual acts, CLEARLY it occured because those people were rejecting God, not thanking Him, not honoring Him, in addition to idol worship. I Cor 6:9 Why is it that the New Internation Version doesn't mention ANYTHING to do with homosexual acts, homosexual people or homosexual ANYTHING? Why is it that French versions of the bible don't? Isn't it possible, considering that the King James Version is one of the few translations of the bible that uses the word sodomite, is translated by someone biased? The best foreign translations also are devoid of mentioning anything related to homosexuality or that of homosexual acts in both 1 Corinthians 9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. The OT quotes that I gave you have nothing to do with rape except the Judges one. What? In GENESIS they are trying to rape God's messengers! That is the story of Lot and the city of Sodom that you are referring to yes? Come on - Lot offers his daughters instead. Judges is the same freaking story all over again even using the same wording, and the guy offer his daughter and concubine. Damn, the men of that era were fucking assholes weren't they? "Don't have sex with this man, it's OK for you to boink my daughter and concubine instead though." What? You want to say that in Judges and Genesis that the men who wanted to have sex with these other men were in love with them? They wanted to have a committed relationship with them? That's absurd. They aren't the same thing AT ALL. Adultery and fornication is not rape and yet Paul throws effeminate arsenokoites in with those sins and idolatry and the word aresenkoite was their term for a Sodomite/Homosexual. 1. Effeminate doesn't mean homosexual or sodomite. I happen to know a couple of rather effeminate men who are married with children and quite happy. Sounds a little judgemental and hasty on Paul's part. 2. My copies of the bible don't say either effeminate, nor sodomite nor homosexual in conjuction with Paul's list of sins in Romans 1:29-31 Hmm, I wonder if this is where the word arse came about as a name for buttocks. I'm not able to find any derivation of arse indicating it comes from the Greek. Best I can tell it's vulgar slang, derived in England for ass. Ass first as Latin derivation, asinus and then from Greek which is onos. arseno means male. Not ass. I can be the village idiot and you have ten doctorates, but if I line up with God I am wise and if you do not then you are a fool. What I dispute is that you are lining up with God. You are lining up with what some other asshole told you to believe, you didn't read the bible and derive this understanding of ALL homosexual acts being wrong when the bible doesn't even say so (not even the extremely misleading King James Version does this). You were given this concept from someone else. It's not your own natural conclusion from reading Scripture. It is so obvious that homosexuality is deviant that most people will find it strange and even repulsive. This isn't an argument against homosexuality. For more than two hundred years this country felt interracial marriages were so deviant they found it strange and repulsive, not to mention illegal in most states, and not overturned by the Surpreme Court until 1968. Yeah - not that long ago is it? 1958 94% found interracial marriages immoral. The state of Virginia even quoted Scripture to justifiy their anti-miscegenation law. And no, homosexuality and being black are NOT the same thing - so don't even try to go there. What *IS* the same is the argument. With blacks, people said it was wrong because God said it was wrong, and they pointed to the bible. Just because most people find something strange and repulsive does NOT make it deviant and does NOT make it wrong. Provide a secular reason why you even think there is a problem with it; I challenge you can't. All I am saying is that you cannot justify your behavior or have any hopes of getting sanction from the Bible. And neither can you. Your arguments do not withstand scrutiny and are unconvincing to those who have no previously been brainwashed to be bigots. Don't believe the Bible and do what you want. I believe in the message of Christ. I accept the bible as a valid historical document of great importance. I do not choose to interpret it as a timeless document, and I do not choose to give it power over me. I believe in God and Christ, not literal interpretation of some book written 2000 years ago; and certainly not interpretations from bigoted fuckers like yourself. And in the case of homosexuality, you have no chance of proving that it is within His sanction. There's no chance of proving a lot of things are within His sanction. You just have to live life as honest and good as you can and hope in the end you did a decent job. It is an abomination. That's it and that's all He wrote. You may err in this. That's what He wrote; assuming He even writes books. And if they are true, it doesn't seem to be a very healthy lifestyle to pursue unless you have a death wish. What's unhealthy about it? It's not like heterosexuals don't get sexually transmitted disease for being promiscuous. It's promiscuity that makes any kind of sex outside of a committed relationship unsafe - not the GENDER of the person you're having sex with. Sexually transmitted disease does not spontaneously develop just because two same sexed persons have sex with each other. Give me a break - there is NOTHING inherently unhealthy about being gay, or being in a same-sex relationship. I am continuously reminded by three Biblical passages. You interpret them how you wish, and I will intepret them how I wish:
Galations 3:28
David writes in 2 Sam 1:26
Ruth says to Naomi in Ruth 1:16 To me, it doesn't matter who you fall in love with and spend the rest of your life. How you treat others is more important. Love is more important. Tolerance and acceptance is more important. |
|
|
