How many times does the Bible forbid homosexuality?

Jesus adored caftans.

Unless there are gay priests on DL, we don't know this bible stuff OP.

It is only really mentioned in the Old Testament- which is also known as the Pentateuch. The OT includes the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. Homosexuality is mentioned amongst a host of other things like adultery in order to keep the people of Israel in check, so they wouldn't spread disease, have children outside of marriage, and cause other issues.

The New Testament usually will mention homosexuality in a more vague way, often as "sexual perversion". However, there were members of the early Christian churches who previously engaged in things like homosexuality, adultery and incest, but became followers. The apostle Paul mentions this a few times.

Also, Jesus was a Rabbi so he knew the Old Testament extremely well and quoted it often. I highly doubt he would be tolerant of gay people. He could not even tolerate the pharisees and the sadducees.

[quote]Homosexuality is mentioned amongst a host of other things like adultery in order to keep the people of Israel in check, so they wouldn't spread disease, have children outside of marriage, and cause other issues.

R2 Homosexuality is NOT mentioned in the Jewish Bible. Pentateuch/Old Testament are insulting, demeaning Xtian terms used to annihilate Jews, their laws, culture and history.

Stick with Xtian topics. You'll look less like a complete idiot.

r4 Okay THE TORAH!!! Is that better? Is Leviticus NOT part of the Jewish Bible now? How about the part in Leviticus where it says to not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman because it is detestable/an abomination? Is that somehow not part of the Jewish Bible?

Fucking lying retard.

Jesus was a homosexual. Read my book!

"Let the man go up into the man!"

Please stop with the bible crap. It has been mistranslated and butchered so many times its a work of deliberate fiction.

King James, a homo himself, twisted the whole text to suit his agenda. That's the version That the crazy "Christians" are always spouting.

It's all bunk. Ignore it.

Jesus is a bottom.

I'm wearing my trademark blue pants while reading this mahvelous thread.

Pharisees and Saducees. That's the church and the law. "O ye hypocrites" Jesus is quoted as saying in the NT many times. Jesus' ministry was a challenge to these two sects of Judaism because He taught something at odds with what they were pushing. They were all about controlling the people. Jesus empowered the people. He was an activist of sorts, championing the rights of the people. The law said the adulterous woman was to be stoned to death. Jesus said He didn't care what the law said - let he who is without sin cast the first stone. He taught tolerance. He said that we could do all the things He did and more. He knew the spirit was willing, but the flesh was weak. It was the Pharisees and Saducees who had Jesus wacked. The story of Jesus is played out among us on earth in a never ending loop, happening 10 million times across the world right now. Jesus comes to your city or county with the whole story being played out again. Who are the contemporary characters? The churches and the law. Roman soldiers are the police. Criminals go free every day while the innocent stand condemned = Barabbas/Jesus. You know some people who would agonize over his doom, and you know plenty who would yell "CRUCIFY HIM!!" In the end, we are to remember that we are human all of us, and the more we can remember that we are human is the closer we are to our spirit selves. "You, created only a little lower than the angels have crouched too long in the bruising darkness, have lain too long face down in ignorance, your mouths spilling words armed for slaughter." Anything not of love - anything not done in love but done in hate is sin. Believe in what is called God. It is, always was, and forever will be. You, gay or not, are of that God.

r8 except the original manuscripts exist and people learn Hebrew and Greek to read them, but okay keep telling yourself that.

OP, why doesn't the Bible say that slavery should be banned? We find slavery morally reprehensible. Could it be that the writers of the Bible reflected the prejudices of the times and the societies they lived in, including the big taboo against homosexuality?

[quote]How about the part in Leviticus where it says to not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman because it is detestable/an abomination?

R5 That's NOT what it says. This is what it says:

ואת־זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תועבה הוא

Unfortunately, you like so many other ignorant morons can't read the source text, are reduced to parrotting the erroneous nonsense of others, who also don't understand the source text

[quote]except the original manuscripts exist and people learn Hebrew

R12 They learn Hebrew as a formal, not spoken, language. They are completely ignorant of every day usage (עברית יום יום) and nuance. And THAT'S the problem, and why Vayikra 18:22 has been MISTRANSLATED for almost two millennia.

Stick to Xtian topics. You'll look less like a complete idiot.

The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you'll have them do unto you. :-)

Jesus certainly got nailed in the end.

OT Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24;15:12;22:46; 2 Kings 23:7; Job; Leviticus

New Testament

Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:10; Revelation 21:8

----

Those are all the ones I can think of at the moment. Don't feel like quoting the actual verses, so here:

DL's own biblical bitch-fight. Carry on, boys

^^Which is why I didn't even bother to read the thread. Just dropped my little contribution to answer OP's query and dipped.

Not today, Satan, lol.

Fag!

Yup r (12). The Christians here in America, hissing and spitting at us, are rushing to read "original" text after studying Greek an Hebrew.

Even those "original" texts are highly suspect. They do encourage slavery and murder though.

Good retort. Dope.

[quote]Jesus would have been tolerant of gay people.

"Tolerant"? Is that all? You clearly don't think much of him.

I don't know her.

r14 okay and what the fuck does ואת־זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תועבה הוא translate to? You conveniently leave out was it says, because you are a fucking liar.

r24 and the fucking link I included fucked up the Hebrew letters and made them unrecognizable characters so now the url is fucked.

What it says ואת־זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תועבה הוא means is: "Prohibition of male intercourse or male intercourse is a commandment not to do from the Torah , which forbids having anal sex between men . This prohibition does not apply to relationships between women... only to relationships between men. This prohibition is considered as part of incest prohibitions, Which are considered among the most severe prohibitions in Halacha ."

R24 R25 perfectly proves the point made in R14. He can't read the source text, and cuts/pastes more ignorant nonsense to reinforce his own.

Stick with Xtian topics. You'll look less like a complete idiot.

Please r14 you can enlighten someone without insulting them. You wrote something completely in Hebrew or whatever, did not translate it, then proceeded to tell people they mistranslated something and should stick to Christianity. Shall I use Google Translate to get your point?

R27 How about something much simpler? Stop commenting on something you are completely clueless/ignorant about. Go back and read R14 again S L O W L Y for rationale.

Oh! And one more HUGE clue that homosexuality is not "forbidden" in Jewish law. That's why it's not criminalize in Israel.

Erratum R29 criminalized

It does appear to have been mistranslated as R4 etc point out

R31 The law is meant for people who speak, read and write Hebrew, use the language as everyday discourse, understand its nuance and context. Who don't require interpretations, translations or translations of translations of translations, so that the original meaning becames lost and ludicrous.

r26 r32 So in other words, it DOES say homosexuality is forbidden in Leviticus, but because it was originally written in Hebrew, only those who speak, read and write Hebrew are allowed to know that!!! Everyone else must stick to "Xtian" topics because they are complete idiots!

Fucking lying cunt! "Oh the Jewish Bible says nothing about homosexuality... err it says... umm something in Hebrew... err about something... haha... nothing to see here!"

R33 prefers ranting to reading comprehension. No surprise.

Is Anscher the "Xtian" troll? The troll's obsessive need to reconcile homosexuality and Judaism would be in keeping with Anscher's ethnocentrism.

R35 "Reconcile"? There's nothing to "reconcile", says quite clearly in R14 and R29. But carry on posting your bile and bigotry.

FWIW, here is a recent Twitter thread on that verse in Leviticus by Joel Baden, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Yale.

A professor of Hebrew Bible who doesn't speak word one of Hebrew. Much like most of the Rabbis outside of Israel. He's just another "expert" disseminating mistranslated ignorance.

What on earth are you talking about R38? Baden literally has a degree in Semitic languages. He teaches classes on the Hebrew language. Do you think Yale would hire someone who isn’t fluent in Hebrew to be their Professor of Hebrew Bible?

[quote]Do you think Yale would hire someone who isn’t fluent in Hebrew to be their Professor of Hebrew Bible?

Absolutely!! He may know the English translation for words, formal Hebrew, but he'd be hard put to order for a felafel on the streets of Tel Aviv. Just as most Rabbis outside of Israel can read Hebrew, know what the word means, but are devoid of understanding nuance and context. And this has been the problem for the last 2,000 years and why so much of the Jewish Bible has been mistranslated and often horribly.

How many wives and children were mentioned in the FIRST book of the bible??? Total bullshit!

The bible also talks about how you can murder your children for being insubordinate!

Also, it is a sin to "mix materials" in your clothing.

It"s a sin to "mark your skin" (get a tattoo)

Were any of early Christians uncut?

[quote]How many wives and children were mentioned in the FIRST book of the bible??? Total bullshit!

And yet there are two books devoted to women. Ruth, which is read on Shavuot and Ester, which is read on Purim.

[quote] Also, it is a sin to "mix materials" in your clothing.

[quote] It"s a sin to "mark your skin" (get a tattoo)

Wrong! There is a prohibition against wearing garments made from mixing linen and wool (sha'atnes). There is also a prohibition against "cutting, printing or marking" your skin. Neither are "sins".

Wow r28 you're so upset. Is your butt plug stuck again?

[quote] Jesus would have been tolerant of gay people.

O’rly? Next you’ll tell us about Mother Goose.

The upshot is that Jewish gays have to stop their evil ways, according to the Torah.

the torah also promised more than 2800 slaves to jews in heavens.

I’ve always thought Jesus had big dick face. I can’t imagine that it was very hygienic going under the knife back in biblical times, were they all cut?

Jesus never mentions it. Paul does, but Paul was an uptight lawyer kinda guy who felt he had to answer every question.

Jesus was chill. He was comfortable with ambiguity. He was into his friends, and his wine, and sleeping out in the wilderness and getting along with basically everybody. Jesus would have said, "Whatever lifts your caftan, so long as you're not hurting anybody else."

It makes no sense to argue that people fluent in modern Hebrew have any real insight into the nuances of bronze-age & iron-age Hebrew. That's what the professors of Hebrew have. Modern English speakers struggle with Shakespeare, let alone Malory or Chaucer.

Jesus would not have been tolerant of anyone who uses another person as a means to an end even if it's mutual. That's not about sexual orientation.

[quote]It makes no sense to argue that people fluent in modern Hebrew have any real insight into the nuances of bronze-age & iron-age Hebrew

Brone-age, Iron-age Hebrew??? Just when you thought posters on this thread had reached the height of complete ignorance and stupidity, R50 posts to illustrate that there are heights as yet unscaled.

80% of the words in the Jewish Bible are spoken daily on the streets of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa. That might give you a clue as to why Israelis don't need translations or interpretations to read the laws and history meant solely for the nation of Israel. And, again, why homosexuality is not criminalized in Israel.

If you have access to the attached article, I found Gnuse's "Seven Gay Texts" a useful introduction for my class on attitudes towards gay people in Judaism and Christianity.

Here;s the abstract for those who don't trust links:

Abstract There are seven texts often cited by Christians to condemn homosexuality: Noah and Ham (Genesis 9:20–27), Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1–11), Levitical laws condemning same-sex relationships (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), two words in two Second Testament vice lists (1 Corinthians 6:9–10; 1 Timothy 1:10), and Paul's letter to the Romans (Romans 1:26–27). The author believes that these do not refer to homosexual relationships between two free, adult, and loving individuals. They describe rape or attempted rape (Genesis 9:20–27, 19:1–11), cultic prostitution (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), male prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6:9–10; 1 Timothy 1:10), and the Isis cult in Rome (Romans 1:26–27). If the biblical authors did assume homosexuality was evil, we do not theologize off of their cultural assumptions, we theologize off of the texts we have in the canon. The author attempts to introduce some new arguments into this long-standing and passionate debate.

Tolerance and Acceptance aren’t the same thing. And this is where gay men always go wrong. They think because people are tolerant of them that they’re accepted

Not the same thing.

Despite hot people today try changing the word, homosexuals fall under sodomites. They aren’t the only ones who do this act though. But they DO perform this act.

The Bible also mentions two men should not lay with each other, and it’s obvious it is in a sexual manner.

How* people today try changing the word

[quote]The Bible also mentions two men should not lay with each other,

The Jewish Bible does not mention that.

Among his disciples I am quite sure one of them (at least) must have been gay. I was told that the apostle Paul's "thorn" could have been homosexuality. Jesus certainly would not condemn anyone.

Just peeking in here. In the final analysis, we must debate the final argument. Did "the word" REALLY come from God, or did the word come from mankind, insisting that it came from God? If asked, would God gently shake "his" head, palms up at the shoulders with an amused giggle saying "I never said any of that shit!" ? Yes, I know Jesus was the Rabbi, but He essentially said the same thing in numerous instances by countermanding what "the word" said. And therein lies a significant part of His mission!

You do realize you're talking about works of fiction, don't you?

From what I got from my Catholic teachings was that the Bible was more of a guide than the final say in how things should be done.

Like the other poster has argued, we may never know what the original words truly intended. Even though we can translate it, we don't have all the cultural or societal clues at the particular time it was written to gain full insight. We can only make educated guesses.

A silly example, but in English today we use "sick" in different ways. Sometimes it can mean cool, but sometimes it means that something is unwell. Without context, it's hard to say which meaning should be used.

King David and Prince Jonathan.

Well if he didn't mind me selling my cooter for a denarius or two, he certainly wouldn't mind a couple of dudes getting each other off for free.

If i was having non-penetrative sex, as a 13 year old boy, with another boy, was I sinning? I didn't know what sex was and I didn't know I was doing anything sinful. If you don't know, is it a sin?

The whole lie with a man as with a woman text has been twisted to mean antigay over the years.

In its original context, it meant that when you were given safe harbor in someone's home for the night, you were welcome to fuck his daughters, mother or even possibly his wife, but if you really needed to get a load off, never try to fuck the man of the house's hairy, shit caked hole.

[quote] did the word come from mankind, insisting that it came from God?

DING DING DING

Really r65?

Really, R67.

That's very hard to believe, R65.

"The Catholic Old Testament includes Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch (includes the Letters of Jeremiah), I and II Maccabees, and additions to Daniel and Esther. These books were included in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of a different Hebrew canon. Early church fathers, who relied on the Septuagint (they could read Greek, but not Hebrew), sometimes quoted these books as Scripture. The status of the books continued to be debated throughout the Middle Ages.

At the time of the Reformation, Protestants decided that, because the additional books weren't in the Hebrew Bible, they shouldn't be in the Christian Bible, either (though they were included in early editions of the King James Bible). Catholics, at the Council of Trent (1546), decided to keep the "deutero-canonical" books."

What to include in the Bible was decided by committee. That has me convinced that it's the inerrant word of God --- every word of it.

R69, I think R65 has a few bridges available at shockingly reasonable prices.

I love it how people talk about these fictional characters as if they were real. How stupid one has to be to believe this?

[quote] Much like most of the Rabbis outside of Israel.

Are you Jewish? You couldn't be more wrong. Most if not all rabbis I ever dealt with were fluent in Hebrew, I can't think of anyone who wasn't. Speaking Hebrew with a thick American accent does not make someone not fluent in a language.

Who cares what the old testament says, apparently that Jesus bloke paid for all of our debts from Adam onwards in full when he died, we are sin free. Fair to say that as an atheist from a very young age, and someone who is a happy sodomiser I wasn't paying that much attention in RE classes, so I might have got that wrong...

To your point R73, most of my Jewish friends are not rabbis, nor even particularly religious, but they are definitely conversant, if not fluent, in Hebrew. They spent many childhood weekends in Hebrew School.

Three.

Is the magic number, no more, no less.

[quote]I might have got that wrong...

Lil' bit.

Jesus' death wasn't meant to "clear out" the law of Moses, but to fulfill it. It goes back to the fall of man in the Garden of Eden which condemned humanity to death (read: Hell) by default. The only way that sin could be cleansed was through the shedding of innocent blood free of sin. Since all humans are born sinful, the lamb was considered the most innocent creature free of sin, which is why the OT Hebrews would sacrifice lambs to cleanse their sins. Jesus was the ultimate "sacrificial lamb" because he was the only man born free of sin (holy) due to being God in the flesh. In other words, God came to Earth as a man for the sole purpose of being sacrificed so that humanity would have an option for salvation (choosing Him) as opposed to being damned for eternity, along with Satan, regardless.

It was also so humanity didn't have to go through all of those "Jewish rituals" to cleanse themselves from sin; just repent and "sin no more." All humanity had to do was declare that Jesus was God...which is what got him executed. The Jewish high priests didn't want to accept that a peasant bastard (assumed product of Mary's unfaithfulness to Joseph) born in a barn in Bethlehem had any authority over them, much less, was their Messiah. So, they labeled him a heretic "sorcerer," the Romans mocked him as "King of the Jews" during his execution, and the rest is history.

One interesting tidbit to me, though is if Jesus truly was God, he knew every gory detail of what would happen to him (omniscient) during his execution and still went through with it. So, he couldn't have been lying because no matter how pathological a person is, no one would martyr themselves the way he and his disciples did (they all were executed brutally) based on a lie. No one would condemn themselves to being tortured to death to the extent that Jesus was, based on a lie. When Jesus is praying in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:32-42) before his arrest, it says that he was so distressed that he started sweating blood; an actual rare condition known as hematidrosis that only happens under extreme psychological duress/trauma. So, he and his disciples, at the very least, really, [bold]really[/bold], believed that he was, indeed, God in the flesh.

No way in hell I'd allow myself to be tortured like that for a lie. Eventually, I'm fessing up to my BS after the first few warnings. Not about that life.

Here is everything Jesus ever said about gays and homosexuality:

Jesus prayed to God in the Garden of Gethsemane before He was arrested. "Father, if it be Your will, let this cup pass from me." Jesus prayed to God often. When He was baptised by John, the Spirit of God descended upon him there in the water and spoke for all to hear "This is My SON! My beloved SON! O, how I delight in Him. My beloved SON!"

When Jesus says that who has seen Him has also seen the Father, He does so figuratively. He is God in essence, as we are all meant to be, all of us children of God.

Very interesting, R78, but I wonder if the real reason is that at some point in time there were enough Christians who weren't Jews and were unwilling to follow Jewish laws about diet, etc. in the Hebrew Bible.

You may have thought I was joking at R65 - my language was snarky - but I was serious.

Some Bible scholars (more progressive ones, of course) say that it actually does pertain more to hospitality one extends to a stranger and wasn't specifically directed at same sex couples, mainly because the concrete, defined idea of those couples didn't even really have a name.

Many scholars, even some centrist ones, see the King James translation as one where man injected his own homophobic dislike into the existing text and subsequent translations.

I was raised Catholic, but it was really more cultural than anything (as is the case with a lot of Catholics—and Jews, for that matter). I did attend a Jesuit college, but I don’t remember much from the religious studies. I have read some interpretations regarding the story of Sodom and Gomorrah that have it condemning the rape and abuse of an angel as opposed to two men having sex—but I’m not knowledgeable enough to know the basis of that reading.

Jesus never condemned homosexuality or homosexuals.

r80 Read John 8...

Actually, I'm r78. Forgot my own damn number. Let me take myself to bed, lol.

Learn

Great addition to the thread, R87! Learn!

[quote]𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐝 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲?

Zero times, OP, for the simple reason that "homosexuality" as a word, as well as the concept of sexual orientation, did not exist at the time the bible was written.

[quote]Is Anscher the "Xtian" troll?

R35, Anscher is the troll who keeps insisting that Hebrew can only be read and understood by natural Hebrew speakers, and that everyone else should stay in their own lane. "Stick with Xtian topics. You'll look less like a complete idiot" is his catchphrase. Here, he's R4, R14, R26, R28, R29, R30, R32, R34, R36, R38, R40, R43, R52, and R57.

Regardless of whether he appears to take positions which substantially are in agreement with what some posters are saying, he maintains an adversarial posture, like a hall monitor, attempting to silence everyone else on the subject. He's really a non-contributor on these kinds of threads, a troll.

Jesus said ...JUDGE NOT and LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF....

Supposedly - the New Testament cancelled out much of the Old Testament.

But the fundies didn’t get the memo.

[quote]Were any of early Christians uncut?

Well, yeah, it was kind of a whole thing for awhile there.

r81 Well for one, 'Christian' wasn't even a term back then and is more Roman in nature. But they were all Jews; some who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, others who rejected as a heretic and "magician" thus the split of all of these Abrahamic religions and sects. He honestly was executed because of politics and high priest hubris. Pilate didn't even want to crucify him because he thought it excessive a punishment for the crime he was accused of. He even offered a "trade" for a far worse criminal (Barabbas) and the high priest still demanded he be crucified and Barabbas freed. That's how much Jesus pissed those people off. Like...damn, lol.

Pretty much none of that happened r93. All of that is made up later, and kind of crazy in the context of an actual Roman governor in an actual Roman province. Yes, a tiny number of Jews did decide at some early date that some Yeshua was the messiah, but in some crazy ass "he's dead now" way. But the rest is all kind of nonsense and fantasy. And it's possible there wasn't even a "Jesus" at all behind the whole thing, but in fairness most Biblical scholars would say there was.

This whole mess is why I'm Buddhist.

r94 I think the ongoing consensus amongst Biblical scholars is that Jesus/Yeshua, the person, did, in fact exist. The debate is was he who he claimed to be.

I'll just find out if I'm wrong when I die. Which might be too late but oh well. My luck be like that.🙃

[quote]He honestly was executed because of politics and high priest hubris.

Really, R93? Are you sure it wasn't because Greek exegetes studying the Septuagint found passages they felt described the 'Anointed Savior' as having been executed, i.e. in passages like Isaiah 53? And then wrote his narrative accordingly?

[quote]R96: I think the ongoing consensus amongst Biblical scholars is that Jesus/Yeshua, the person, did, in fact exist.

Understandable, since the vast majority of biblical scholars are believers.

No, I mean, there's actual historical evidence, from secular sources, that he was a real person that existed.

There are seven texts often cited by Christians to condemn homosexuality: Noah and Ham (Genesis 9:20–27), Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1–11), Levitical laws condemning same-sex relationships (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), two words in two Second Testament vice lists (1 Corinthians 6:9–10; 1 Timothy 1:10), and Paul's letter to the Romans (Romans 1:26–27). The author believes that these do not refer to homosexual relationships between two free, adult, and loving individuals. They describe rape or attempted rape (Genesis 9:20–27, 19:1–11), cultic prostitution (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), male prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6:9–10; 1 Timothy 1:10), and the Isis cult in Rome (Romans 1:26–27).

[quote]R98: No, I mean, there's actual historical evidence, from secular sources, that he was a real person that existed.

No,babe, there's not.

It's disappointing to see a website like History.com repeating exploded apologists' chestnuts like Josephus and Tacitus. For instance, on Josephus:

I suggest you guys go to this gentleman's YouTube page and watch his playlists of videos talking about the historical accuracy of the Bible and Jesus' existence. The name of his channel tells exactly where he stands on the debate.

Back in the 80s there was some nonsense among some gay Catholics that the rule of celibacy for priests did not apply to the homosex, but only to heterosexual activity, because that, with its possibility of procreation and emotional entanglement,, would distract the priest from his duties, while anonymous blowjobs were simply physical release.

Like I said, it was the 80s.

R99, I've never really seen Noah and Ham (Genesis 9:20–27) cited by Christians against homosexuality. Nor can one read Robert K. Gnuse's paper ('Seven Gay Texts: Biblical Passages Used to Condemn Homosexuality') on it, since it requires a paid membership. The passage and its accompanying Talmudic commentary seems more an oddity regarding racial bigotry and slavery.

As for Sodom and Gomorrah, they didn't exist. The narrative of Genesis 19 is plagiarized from the older story in Judges 19, in many places word-for-word. The Genesis passage represents an embellishment of the other, giving it what the scribes felt was a more satisfying, vengeful ending. Nothing sexes up a story like striking people blind, and raining fire and brimstone on them.

Another clue that it's fictional is that the names of the towns in Genesis 19 are reflections of the roles they play in the narrative: 'Sodom' means 'burnt,' 'Gomorrah' means 'terrible people,' and 'Zoar' means 'little.' Ask yourself - how can a town be named 'burnt' *before* its supposed judgment fell? It's a literary device.

But other passages in the bible illustrate how the story was interpreted. "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride, fulness of bread, and careless ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy" (Ezekiel 16:49). The New Testament taught that it was inhospitality; Mark 6:10-11; Matt.10:14-15; Lk.10:10-12, where towns' refusal to receive evangelists is expressly compared to Sodom and Gomorrah. Nothing there about homosexuality.

Though I think you are basically right, and Catholic doctrine is officially homophobic still, and no gay sex is "allowed," it is true that the actual priestly celibacy rules did have a lot to do with procreation and children and essentially the Church not wanting to deal with a lot of priests' kids horning in on "their" land and expecting inheritances. And yes, a lot of women cluttering up the rectory or the monastery wasn't ideal either, from their perspective. Hell, a lot of women cluttering up anywhere wasn't ideal from the point of view of a Church that was decidedly patriarchal and misogynistic, at least by the time you get to the early middle ages.

Honestly I agree with those who say, the blunt truth is Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all innately homophobic, and you can either walk away from them or simply decide that hey, there's a lot of nonsense in all of them, so I'm going to ignore this particular nonsense. Anyone who reads even part of the Bible knows that Yahweh is sometimes a crazy old coot yammering on about some bullshit that popped into His crazy head for who knows what reason. Or hell, follow a tradition that goes back to the beginnings of Christianity and just have your own little conversations with the risen Christ and work out a new understanding of all this nonsense.

oops, sorry, should have said that comment was for r102.

Meh. r102 The Catholic church, and Catholicism in general, has always been...off. Most of the "religious rites" are based on Paganism, which, to be blunt, is no stranger to sex rituals.

There's a reason the Church is rife with sex abuse.

Let me not go there though. Not trying to anger any Catholics up in here. Just stating facts.

And r101 like I said, I'll find out if I'm wrong when I die. Not about to worry myself with it while I'm still breathing.

There was a debate in early Christianity about whether Christians had to follow the Jewish Law. Paul said absolutely not, while Jesus’s brother James, Peter, etc. seem to have thought that you should (at least if you were a Christian Jew). The Gospel of Matthew also seems to disagree with Paul’s view. But that’s the thing; there was no ONE version of Christianity in the 1st and 2nd centuries. It was a religion with many sects/churches that believed different things. Eventually, Paul’s version basically won out, thanks in part to a real rupture between Judaism and Christianity in the late 1st-early 2nd century, the destruction of the James-led Christian church in Jerusalem during the Jewish War, and the fact that pagan Christians almost certainly outnumbered Jewish Christians by the end of the 1st century. But how much of Paul’s theology would have been shared by the historical Jesus is a matter of fierce debate. And the answer to the question about the relationship between Jesus and the Law will change depending on what New Testament book you consult (or which early follower of Jesus you asked if you traveled back in time).

[quote]R107: There was a debate in early Christianity about whether Christians had to follow the Jewish Law. Paul said absolutely not, while Jesus’s brother James, Peter, etc. seem to have thought that you should (at least if you were a Christian Jew).

Critical scholarship tends to regard the real issues within the New Testament as being a contest between Christian sectarians, with "Paul" serving as a placemarker for the Marcionites, and "Peter" as a stand-in for the Catholic position, at least as it stood at the beginning of the 3rd century CE. Marcionites did not believe that Christians had any business following Jewish law. It wasn't that they were particularly anti-semitic; it's just that they regarded it as being the prerogative of Jews, whom they regarded as following an inferior 'creator god,' the Demiurge. Galatians is an example of a largely Marcionite document (save for the Pastoral Stratum).

By contrast, the Catholics were deeply invested in the idea of themselves as the successors of the Jews in the eyes of the creator god, as inheritors of the Jewish scripture and of its promises - so much so that, within Catholicism, there were different opinions of exactly how much Jewish law was binding upon Christians. One can find such differing opinions in the Gospel of Matthew, in the Pastoral epistles, and in Acts.

[quote]Anscher is the troll who keeps insisting that Hebrew can only be read and understood by natural Hebrew speakers

Delusional R89 as usual conjuring up "Anscher" the Demon Jew to salve/salvage his ignorant ego. Dismissing someone who consistently illustrates that you are ignorant of Hebrew and depend on others who are equally ignorant. Your "Hebrew can only be read and understood by natural Hebrew speakers" simply illustrates more of the same.

The topic was, is and remains the woeful mistranslation of the Jewish Bible by people who could/can neither read Hebrew nor understand it at its most basic, let alone nuance and context. That for speakers of everyday Hebrew (עברית יום יום), the Jewish Bible is clear and concise; they don't require "interpretations" or translations to understand exactly what is written, as I've posted to you before, any more than you would require an "interpretation" of see Jane run.

Such as your assertion at R103 that סדם means "burnt" (no, it doesn't. צרוף means burnt); עמרה (it's AMORAH. Gomorrah is yet another mistranslation by the Hebrew ignorant *ahem*) means "terrible people" (no, it doesn't. It comes from copious (as in water) as well as bitter, a reference to the Dead Sea which it was near), and צער (it's Tsoahr) means "little" (no, it doesn't. Depending on context, it means insignificant or sadness. Oh, and it will come as a complete surprise to the people working in Sdom that it "doesn't exist".

The posters on this thread post complete and utter stupidity about the Jewish Bible, to say nothing of the stunning ignorance of Hebrew and how it is taught outside of Israel. Like R75 who doesn't realize the complete ludicrousness of the assertion "they are definitely conversant, if not fluent, in Hebrew. They spent many childhood weekends in Hebrew School." Kids in "Hebrew School" can barely read Hebrew. Ordering a felafel in Tel Aviv would be far beyond them.

You and the rest of the woefully ignorant on this thread should stick to Xtian topics. You'll all look less like complete idiots.

Oh, and R89 R103 et al, it may have escaped your notice that I never EVAH comment on the Xtian Bible because I well and truly know that I'm utterly clueless about its contents and anything I post would be ignorant drivel. Unlike you vis-a-vis the Jewish Bible, Jewish law, Hebrew, etc.

[quote]The narrative of Genesis 19 is plagiarized from the older story in Judges 19, in many places word-for-word.

R103 Please point out IN THE SOURCE TEXT where Bereishit (Genesis) 19 "plagarizes" either "word for word" or otherwise Shoftim (Judges) 19.

The story of Noah and the Flood is similar to earlier Mesopotamian flood myths. Why are the writers of the inerrant Word of God stealing from other cultures? This is shocking.

"The story of Noah may be part of the Abrahamic canon, but the legend of the Great Flood almost certainly has prebiblical origins, rooted in the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia. The Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh dates back nearly 5,000 years and is thought to be perhaps the oldest written tale on the planet. In it, there is an account of the great sage Utnapishtim, who is warned of an imminent flood to be unleashed by wrathful gods. He builds a vast circular-shaped boat, reinforced with tar and pitch, that carries his relatives, grains and animals. After enduring days of storms, Utnapishtim, like Noah in Genesis, releases a bird in search of dry land."

R112 The story of Noah and the Flood (the source text of which you cannot read) and the Sumerian Epic (the source text of which you cannot read, if extant) are similar because someone with an agenda has asserted that they are. Simply one person's opinion. As it were.

[quote]Why are the writers of the inerrant Word of God stealing from other cultures?

You might want to pose that question to the Catholic Church and other Xtian churches.

But R113, the ancient Hebrews, God's chosen people, were stealing from PAGAN cultures. Doesn't that shock you? I assume the Sumerians weren't monotheists.

Christianity was an evolution from Judaism. They believed in the same God. Nothing shocking there.

The quote I made was from Time magazine. I trust that they have their facts straight much more than I trust you.

[quote] the ancient Hebrews, God's chosen people, were stealing from PAGAN cultures.

One person's opinion.

[quote]Christianity was an evolution from Judaism.

Xtians stole laws and history meant solely for Jews, then spent the next 2,000 years discriminating, persecuting and committing genocide on Jews to annihilate the guilt of Xtian theft.

[quote]The quote I made was from Time magazine.

Someone with an agenda. As mentioned in R113.

And you don't have an agenda, R115? That's very funny.

R116 Uh, no. I'm not Time magazine.

Um no, R117. The parallels between Noah and the Flood and the Epic of Gilgamesh have been made by plenty of scholars. Your rebuttals are very weak.

[quote]he parallels between Noah and the Flood and the Epic of Gilgamesh have been made by plenty of scholars. Your rebuttals are very weak.

R118 So are yours, in that "Whelp, they agree with ME, so they must be right!" kinda way.

R114, I don't care if it's Time magazine, the real question is CAN THEY ORDER A FALAFEL IN TEL AVIV???

R99 even the footnote to the Corinthian passage in the Bible approved for use in the Catholic Church in the US (by the bishops) says this refers to boy prostitutes and probably to those who used them. It's a subtle movement on the part of the official Church. The Catholic Church doesn't really what the OT says.

R120 I don't care if they have an agenda!! It's Time magazine! They reinforce my peculiar worldview! So fuck yeah! I believe 'em!

Um no, R119. These are reputable scholars, not some anonymous person on the internet. If you want to go through life with your eyes closed and your hands over your ears and immediately dismiss any evidence that undermines your beliefs, that's your choice.

Oh, by the way, the structure of the universe as described in Genesis is completely wrong. If God was speaking through the writers of the Bible, you'd think they'd get that right. Looking forward to your extremely lame rebuttal.

It is 2022. Tattoos and other stuff are not taboo.

Then again, maybe you're a Flat Earther, R119, and don't believe in science.

r120 Ok. Who tf is Anscher? This is like the 3rd or 4th time I've seen this person mentioned in a thread on this site.

R123

[quote]These are reputable scholars

Who are offering their OPINION.

[quote]If you want to go through life with your eyes closed and your hands over your ears and immediately dismiss any evidence that undermines your beliefs, that's your choice.

Evidence? How did they arrive at their "evidence" exactly? Via study of source text? Or were they reduced to depending on translations, 2nd and 3rd hand information, because they couldn't read the source text? Rather lame, isn't it?

[quote]The structure of the universe as described in Genesis is completely wrong

How would you know? You can't read it and are reduced to depending on someone else's - wait for it - translation/opinion (who also can't read it). Talk about lame.

R126, he's an unhinged troll who's obsessed with the fact that he's Jewish.

By the way, r99 repeated the abstract of the Gnuse article for some reason, but he wasn't the person who posited it earlier in the thread. That was me.

The argument that Sodom and Gomorrah didn't really exist so we can disregard that passage as being anti-gay is utterly beside the point. OP asked for the passages that the Bible forbid homosexuality. The Gnuse article provides the passages that Christians refer to and how they use them and gives alternative interpretations. It is not about their historical truth. It's about how they have been used.

Who care what these historically barbaric bases for organized religion have to say about homosexuality? There is all manner of brutality, particularly toward women, in the Old Testament. It’s disgusting.

I'd assume the OP was trying to educate himself in order to debate with believers, Charlie. OP may not care, but he may want to know how to intelligently refute others.

Wouldn't it be hilarious if the Anscher troll were not really Jewish but just wanted to be. Thus the obsession.

People like r113 upset me. They think they precious religion literally came from God to man and had absolutely no influence from surrounding cultures or evolved over time. Like really. SMH

The Bible really doesn’t say anything about homosexuality. Heterosexual men have rewritten and tweaked that book of stories to fit their own narrative.

Why do any of you care whether homosexuality is condemned or not. Yes, the Bible condemns homosexuality. Pick up the fucking book and read it. Everyone who isn't braindead knows that the Bible condemns homosexuality and gay people from having a place in God's favour. I don't care what the Bible says about homosexuality, because the Bible is no different from the homophobic cunts that we are all surrounded by today, be it religious people or nonreligious people. Yes, there are even nonreligious people who are homophobic cunts. The Bible should be treated as any other book, in terms of it having some good things about it, but mostly bad and cruel things about it that make no fucking sense, and are contradictory as fuck.

God wouldn't need to get fucking men to write a Bible for him. He would be able to talk to each one of us and get to know us as individuals. A loving God wouldn't need to threaten to kill you forever because of being who you are. The only time a human being should be judged or punished, is if someone is intentionally and psychotically trying to hurt someone or is being cruel to an animal. Everything outside of that should not be threatened with punishment and death, especially from God who is suppose to want happiness for everyone and to have freewill.

The Bible is book of tales and nothing more than that. It’s not written by “GOD” because there isn’t one. It’s a compilation of stories complied into a social construct to control people and fund the business of religion.

R136 and if there was a God, he/she wouldn't need a fucking book written for them by humans.

Man created God in his image.

Malevolent, horrendous humans.

I can't believe there are fundie Xtian types here trying to shame gay men into paying attention to their Invisible Sky Pal.

Which posters are doing that, r139?

No one is shaming anybody. I posted the Wikipedia paragraph about which scriptures are used to forbid homosexuality (even if it wasn't the actual intent of the scripture).

[quote]He would be able to talk to each one of us and get to know us as individuals.

To be fair, r135, that's actually what having a relationship with Christ is supposed to be like if you make a genuine effort to seek Him. According to the Bible, He already "knows us as individuals" right down to the number every single strand of hair on our heads. It's [italic]us[/italic] who don't know [italic]Him[/italic]; mostly by choice. And that's fine. We have free will for a reason. So, do you.

[quote]especially from God who is suppose to want happiness for everyone and to [bold]have freewill.[/bold]

Yeahhhh, about that. If it wasn't for free will, technically, sin wouldn't exist. Which would mean that, God is indirectly responsible for the existence of sin since He created free will and then gave free will to His creations. I still can't reconcile the point of creating beings you know ahead of time will turn against you and then allowing them to be punished for eternity for it in the first place. It makes zero sense to me. But, apparently, it's because my feeble human brain can't possibly comprehend the logic and this is "all a part of His plan." Whatever that is.

In fairness, there isn't a whole lot of logic to get r142. There is probably not a god or gods at all, but there is certainly no all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God. That's some nonsense that should have been thrown out the first time some dingbat suggested it. You start down that road and you're going to wind up with the dreariness of Calvinism if you aren't very careful.

R142, the difficulty in ultimately explaining evil is called "the theodicy problem" in philosophy and theology. There is no convincing answer to it. Philosophers say the problem is without a solution; theologians say it is a 'mystery', which amounts to the same thing.

When the King's scribes wrote and re-wrote and re-wrote The Holy Bible, they were afraid humans would become extinct due to short life span, malnutrition, plagues, etc. So they raised women's status and pushed "be fruitful and multiply"- and that included not wasting your precious seed with other men.

Of course it's long since outdated, as women keep having too many children and the planet runs out of resources and fresh air/water.

Please don't r145. I mean, I like the sentiment, but no, that is not in any way what happened from all the many and various and sometimes nuts authors of the Bible. Don't imagine some ancient presidential commission trying to solve some real world problems. It just never really works out that way, or I should say mostly. Sometimes it's practical propaganda, but mostly it's a mindset the average 21st century American just doesn't have, even the wingnuts.

And if there's anything that ain't precious, it's men's seed. We can jerk that thing five times a day and still have enough to repopulate the whole planet. Even in our friggin 90s. I can't imagine anything less precious than sperm.

[quote]I can't imagine anything less precious than sperm.

Gurl must be getting plenty.

Heh, fair enough r148. Good dick is to be treasured and venerated. Not the message I get from the Bible, but it should be.

Based on its context in Leviticus, the "man lying with a man" passage is argued by many scholars to be part of the prohibitions against acting like the Cana'anites did (assuming gay sex was part of Cana'anite practice in the temple or in the mudhut). On the other hand, other scholars say it fits with the general Israelite purity notions (meat is only allowed of those with the right hooves and cud chewing or fish must have fins and gills) and therefore a dick is only for a vajayjay.

Either way, gay men dont fuck as part of pagan rituals and the purity laws are superceded by Jesus, so the passage shouldn't matter (according to Gnuse).

That is definitely part of what is going on, with the whole book of Leviticus, and sort of the whole Old Testament r150. But come on, it is forbidding an act, the act of a man going up into the man. That is what it is when all is said and done. It is wrong, it is silly, it is not the word of God, but it is not confused about what it is. And of course, it is part of a whole lot of sex rules, like not fucking your mother-in-law, that aren't just about being unlike those Canaanites. It's a whole system, a whole wrong-headed system, but pretending it is not anything but being un-pagan is just sort of silly.

It's actually weirder, though. It's part of a whole system of keeping a very specific god, Yahweh, living in a very specific land, Israel, and not polluting the land in such a way that Yahweh has no choice but to leave and curse the people who forced him out. In that sense, it has jack shit to do with modern Americans and modern Europeans and a whole lot of other moderns. At least that is what I'm getting from Joel Baden, a scholar referenced upthread, and his very interesting twitter feed.

Yeah, great idea. Let's place imperfect beings in an even profoundly more imperfect world, and expect them to be perfect!

God is not the asshole, here. It's ancient/medieval mankind who segued into modern day simpletons unwilling to use their own heads rationally to decipher the true word as written in the heart. It's nice to have read the bible, but I don't need any other word beyond that which is already within me.

Religion is all about controlling other people while telling those people they have free will....TO THINK, BELIEVE, AND DO as they're told. A steady stream of one contradiction upon another.

Oddly, an imperfect God is so much better all around. We need an imperfect God. We can deal with that. It's like being forced to live with some perfect human. Annoying, to put it mildly.

[quote] pretending it is not anything but being un-pagan is just sort of silly

I'm not giving my opinion at all, so this criticism shouldn't be directed at me. I don't really care what Leviticus or Paul's letters say. I'm just reporting what others argue.

Not enough!

[quote]The argument that Sodom and Gomorrah didn't really exist so we can disregard that passage as being anti-gay is utterly beside the point.

R129, that's not the argument presented at R103. It's about how the story was plagiarized and was subsequently interpreted, that it isn't about 'homosexuality.'

[quote]The Gnuse article provides the passages that Christians refer to and how they use them and gives alternative interpretations.

Again, the Gnuse article is not available, save by paid subscription. You don't have any business pretending it's in play. If you want to make that material available by posting it, that's fine.

It doesn't matter whether it was plagiarized either. You are just mudying the water needlessly. You know and I know that the story isn't about homosexuality. It's about rape and rules of hospitality. But you make it more complicated than you need to to bring in the Jephthah's daughter story.

So, if I tell you what the article says but you can't read it for yourself it doesn't matter. Got it.

[quote]Yes, the Bible condemns homosexuality. Pick up the fucking book and read it. Everyone who isn't braindead knows that the Bible condemns homosexuality and gay people from having a place in God's favour.

R135, that is argued poorly.

[quote]R157: You are just mudying the water needlessly... But you make it more complicated than you need to to bring in the Jephthah's daughter story.

I haven't said anything about Jephthah's daughter. Talk about muddying the water needlessly. You show no sign of have read or understood what I posted.

[quote]So, if I tell you what the article says but you can't read it for yourself it doesn't matter. Got it.

Sounds to me like you don't have the article either.

Ah, you're the Dennis R MacDonald troll, R157. Now your attacks make sense.

I'm not attacking you. This thread and every other religion thread is not about you, not matter how hard you try to make them about you.

I meant the Levite's concubine story. I got them mixed up in my head for a second. But it's still beside the point. And calling one a plagiarism of the other is not helpful either because there is no reason to think one is intentionally a rip-off of the other, but probably one story that developed in two different ways.

Of course I have the Gnuse article. I have no idea why you make up such fantasies about things you can't possibly know. I have it in pdf format and the student in one of my classes read it every time the class runs. Next you will be calling some other poster my sockpuppet. Same bag of stupid tricks from you every time.

I'm so fucking tired of your horseshit. The OP asked a question. I tried to help him out with a source for the information he wanted and even though you couldn't access the article that explains the arguments on the passages he got what he asked for. So fuck off.

Oh, and by the way, you usually call a troll based on what a poster continually posts about. Since I never post about Dennis but you do at every opportunity that name better suits you.

These two go at it in any religion based thread. GET A ROOM!

[quote] These two go at it in any religion based thread.

I fucking never do a fucking thing except try to help people learn shit about religion. And every time this asshole comes after me. He fucking stalks me from thread to thread. And if anyone ever supports what i say he rants about how they are sockpuppets.

Fuck this shit.

It's all yours, Poisoned Dragon. Show everyone how much smarter you are than everyone else.

[quote]I'm not attacking you. This thread and every other religion thread is not about you, not matter how hard you try to make them about you.

Your unmistakable hostility isn't called for. When I look at the history to see who that is, it's usually you.

[quote]I meant the Levite's concubine story. I got them mixed up in my head for a second. But it's still beside the point. And calling one a plagiarism of the other is not helpful either because there is no reason to think one is intentionally a rip-off of the other, but probably one story that developed in two different ways.

Nothing drives you crazy like criticizing biblical texts. You're a fundie at heart.

[quote]Of course I have the Gnuse article... I have it in pdf format

Then posting excerpts from it shouldn't be a problem. Why can't you do it?

[quote]Next you will be calling some other poster my sockpuppet. Same bag of stupid tricks from you every time.

Stop using them. Why do you have to be so insecure?

[quote]I'm so fucking tired of your horseshit. The OP asked a question. I tried to help him out with a source for the information he wanted and even though you couldn't access the article that explains the arguments on the passages he got what he asked for. So fuck off.

The OP has never returned to this thread, so there's no indication that you gave him anything.

[quote]Since I never post about Dennis but you do at every opportunity that name better suits you.

Yes, you infamously posted about Dennis, claiming to know him personally, and trying to invalidate him through personal attacks. Referring to you as "the Dennis R. MacDonald troll" identifies you as the poster who did that.

[quote]I fucking never do a fucking thing except try to help people learn shit about religion. And every time this asshole comes after me. He fucking stalks me from thread to thread.

I'm never aware you're there until I look to find out why some poster is irrationally attacking me, and it turns out to be you. What a New Testament professor you seem to be! I wonder what your students and the faculty would think if they could see your screaming, cursing tirades. Mmm-mmm.

[quote]And if anyone ever supports what i say he rants about how they are sockpuppets.

When the socks share your bitter hostility, it's a dead giveaway.

[quote]It's all yours, Poisoned Dragon. Show everyone how much smarter you are than everyone else.

I'm not interested in that. My point in asking for excerpts from the Gnuse article was that the prospectus differed from what I would have considered the supposed Christian prooftexts on the issue; I wanted to see his take on it. I had no idea that it was you, and that asking you for it would make you flip your lid - again.

The Bible is not antigay there are literally hundreds of pro-gay passages and only a few mistranslated anti passages. The lies and double standards of the Christian priests and preachers show them all to be charlatans and frauds because they ALL know this.

[quote] The Bible really doesn’t say anything about homosexuality.

R134 The first poster among a plethora of the ignorance with a modicum of wisdom.

[quote] Yes the Bible condemns homosexuality

[quote] the "man lying with a man" passage is argued by many scholars to be part of the prohibitions against acting like the Cana'anites

The JEWISH bible does not condemn homosexuality. Which is crystal clear to anyone who can read it. Who don't need "scholars" who "interpret" or "translate" what the words say. Which is why homosexuality is not nor ever was criminalized in the nation of Israel.

I've previously posted this on another thread for R89 R103 R108 et al enlightenment, and it's relevant here.

It might help to keep in mind that the Jewish Bible, Talmud, Gemara, and commentaries were and are written in HEBREW, the language of the nation of Israel. It might help to keep in mind that a nation, dispersed from its country and increasing separated/removed from both its language and law, to say nothing of the Catholic Church's role in forbidding study/use of/destroying large segments of the Jewish Bible it considered to be "anti-Xtian", increased the instances of misunderstandings/errors. Those misunderstandings/errors were exascerbated when nikud, the dots and dashes under the letters, began being utilized to assist a nation to read a language that was becoming unknown/foreign to them. It also might help to understand that living as a despised minority in someone else's country meant Jews were forced to amend their laws to comform to the sensibilities of the host culture whose goodwill they needed to survive.

Vayikra 18:22:

ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תועבה הוא

The crux of the prohibition rests on the second word זכר,which has several meanings/readings, in this context, (male) youth/child (זכור) . The prohibition is against pedophilia, enthusiastically practiced by pagan tribes from the Babylonians to the Greeks. And for the past two millennia it's been mistranslated by those who had no knowledge of Hebrew, context and nuance. Again, that's why homosexuality was never criminalized by a nation who could easily read its own laws.

[quote]R134 The first poster among a plethora of the ignorance with a modicum of wisdom.

Matt/R165, I'd already said as much at R89.

[quote]I've previously posted this on another thread for R89 R103 R108 et al enlightenment, and it's relevant here.

Since it has always been my position that the Jewish bible does not condemn homosexuality, none of your tirades have ever been for my 'enlightenment.' I have no idea why you always direct your scolding remarks at me. Trolling, I guess.

R166 You're not the only poster on this thread. Much as you might think you are. Part of R165 was originally posted in response to whatever horseshit you posted on the The War in France thread. Ergo, the reference to you was relevant.

This is an adult board. You post ignorant horseshit, I point out that it's ignorant horseshit. It bothers you because you have no response, other than childish attempts to deflect, shoot the messenger, as it were, using names conjured from your delusional mind.

Stick to Xtian topics. You'll look less like a complete idiot.

This thread has gone exactly as I expected it to. Well done, my children.

[quote]R166 You're not the only poster on this thread. Much as you might think you are. Part of R165 was originally posted in response to whatever horseshit you posted on the The War in France thread. Ergo, the reference to you was relevant.

No, R167/Matt, it wasn't. I never posted to 'The War in France' thread, nor had I even heard of it. I just looked it up and found you screaming at an authenticated poster named menluvinguy. That is not me.

Are you drunkposting? Or are you just impaired? Keep track of who you're talking to.

R169 How do I know that you're not also menlovinguy? On an anonymous board with the ease of changing authentication names? Where posters authenticate or not depending on whim?

[quote]Keep track of who you're talking to.

Hardly warranted in that take yourown advice kinda way considering who you, in your delusions, refer to me as.

[quote]How do I know that you're not also menlovinguy? On an anonymous board with the ease of changing authentication names? Where posters authenticate or not depending on whim?

R170, you can use the 'Ignore' function to look at our respective posts. Different content, different opinions, different posting styles are all indicative of different people.

I don't have the time, energy, resources, or the motivation to post under more than one name. Some days I don't go online at all.

[quote]Hardly warranted in that take yourown advice kinda way considering who you, in your delusions, refer to me as.

Lots of posters here know who you are, and have identified you. You've had accounts banned, spouting the same tagline, "Stick to Xtian topics. You'll look less like a complete idiot." You're a known quantity. But even a far right troll such as yourself could stand to exercise a little integrity on topics which interests we share. At least on the issue of homosexuality. If you treat me with respect on the threads where we cross paths, I will treat you with respect.

[quote]Lots of posters here know who you are, and have identified you. You've had accounts banned, spouting the same tagline, "Stick to Xtian topics.

R171 Thus your and other posters delusions. Lots of posters feed off the delusions of other posters, in this case you, demonizing to suit your agenda, salve your ego/wounded balls, whatever. It remains delusion and highly erroneous.

Oh, and I've never been banned from DL.

The Bible thinks the world is a few thousand years old. I’ll pass.

[quote]Oh, and I've never been banned from DL.

Of course you have. On the thread '𝐕𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞-𝐬𝐞𝐱 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬,' you're classified as [𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐥 𝟓𝟖𝟓𝟒], with a line strike through all your posts. You had to abandon that account. On that thread, see R200 for an example.

R174 Not me. More of your delusions.

[quote]But even a far right troll such as yourself

You keep right on shooting that messenger with childish pejoratives and delusions. Illustrates EXACTLY what you are.

Addendum R175

[quote]If you treat me with respect

I'm sure you are well aware that respect is EARNED. Start EARNING it!

[quote]R174 Not me. More of your delusions.

Yes, it's you, R175.

From that thread, R200:

̶ ̶P̶e̶t̶u̶l̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶d̶i̶s̶m̶i̶s̶s̶a̶l̶ ̶d̶o̶e̶s̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶n̶g̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶a̶c̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶d̶e̶p̶e̶n̶d̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶i̶n̶t̶e̶r̶p̶r̶e̶t̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶t̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶H̶e̶b̶r̶e̶w̶ ̶(̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶A̶r̶a̶m̶a̶i̶c̶)̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶J̶e̶w̶i̶s̶h̶ ̶B̶i̶b̶l̶e̶.̶ ̶Y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶e̶t̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶l̶o̶s̶t̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶t̶e̶x̶t̶,̶ ̶n̶u̶a̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶m̶e̶a̶n̶i̶n̶g̶.̶ ̶A̶n̶d̶ ̶y̶e̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶t̶i̶n̶u̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶p̶o̶s̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶e̶x̶t̶r̶a̶p̶o̶l̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶b̶a̶s̶e̶d̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶g̶n̶o̶r̶a̶n̶c̶e̶.̶ ̶S̶u̶c̶h̶ ̶a̶r̶r̶o̶g̶a̶n̶c̶e̶!̶ ̶ ̶ע̶ב̶ר̶י̶ת̶ ̶ה̶י̶א̶ ̶ה̶ש̶פ̶ה̶ ̶ה̶ש̶ל̶י̶ש̶י̶ת̶ ̶ש̶ל̶י̶ ̶ש̶ה̶ת̶ח̶ל̶ת̶י̶ ̶ל̶ד̶ב̶ר̶ ̶ב̶ג̶י̶ל̶ ̶5̶ ̶ ̶A̶s̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶[̶R̶1̶9̶7̶]̶,̶ ̶s̶t̶i̶c̶k̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶X̶t̶i̶a̶n̶ ̶B̶i̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶.̶ ̶Y̶o̶u̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶l̶o̶o̶k̶ ̶l̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶t̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶i̶g̶n̶o̶r̶a̶n̶t̶.̶

[𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐥 𝟓𝟖𝟓𝟒]

R177 Not me. Plagarized. Ergo, your delusions.

Others can judge for themselves.

It's way past my bedtime. Goodnight.

The bible clearly says it's an abomination for a man to lie with another man as he'd lie with a woman... so when your friend ask whether his shirt makes him look fat, tell him the fucking truth. It DOES make him look fat.

The Bible also forbids fornication, that is any sex outside of marriage, but that hasn't stopped hetero sluts from looking down on gays.

FWIW, the Pentateuch does not = the Old Testament. It = the first five books of what Christians call the Old Testament, and it means "five implements", so it is not an offensive term, it is a factual term. (Though I do realise that today facts are often offensive.)

Scholars who aren't swayed by religion think those five books were written by at least four different schools of thought, over quite a long period. Leviticus was written by the Priests, whose only concern was laying down laws. It is the book on which Sorkin based his famous rant in The West Wing, where President Bartlet is fired up by a tele-evangelist's objection to homosexuality. Here's the rant (forgive me if the formatting doesn't come out right).

"I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

"I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my youngest daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

d) My Chief of Staff insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obliged to kill him myself?

e) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

f) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

g) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

h) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

i) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread. (cotton/polyester blend) He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14) " [End of Bartlet]

If that doesn't stop you caring how many times the Bible forbids anything, then you're very committed, you precious thing.

R182 The laws in the Jewish Bible are meant solely for Jews. Not Xtians, evangelical or otherwise, and certainly not a fictional Xtian TV character.

[quote]that hasn't stopped hetero sluts from looking down on gays.

Oh, trust me. They, too, are in hot water, my child. A literal lake of fire awaits them. It is written.

[quote] The story of Noah and the Flood (the source text of which you cannot read) and the Sumerian Epic (the source text of which you cannot read, if extant) are similar because someone with an agenda has asserted that they are. Simply one person's opinion. As it were.

That's not true at all, and I'm not the poster you're talking to. The Flood myth is the most basic comparative religion text you get to study in Academia if you want to waste your time with this useless garbage. It has extensive literature and it is found across the globe, not only in the Epic of Gilgamesh, but also in Hinduism, Chinese animism, Norse Mythology, South American native tales, North American native tales, Central American native tales, Polynesian native tales, Aboriginal too the list is very long.

Annoying Christians have use this very well known fact to prove their stupid myth must be real if everyone mentions very similar accounts.

You're wrong and you're the one with an agenda and you're also a snob and a narcissist.

Anyway you're all wrong. the Bible mentions homosexuality in a positive context hundreds of times like when Jacob fucks the angel and gets the name Israel and Daniel whores himself to Nebuchadnezzar to save the Jews in captivity.

Xtians desexed the Bible to make it suitable for children, which is what most of them really are.

R182 - 😂😂😂😂😂!! Loved it!

It's amazing how you can miss the point, R184. These laws are incredibly barbaric and it's horrifying to think they were ever enforced by any group of people at any time. One can see time and time again in one passage after another in the Bible that the authors had the prejudices and incredibly backward mindset of the time and society they lived in. These attitudes are completely unacceptable in the modern world but you keep pretending that the entire Bible is the Word of God and can't be questioned.

^ Anscher/R184 simply must be a troll. His assertion that the Bible's tolerance of homosexual acts is proved by the fact that those acts aren't illegal in modern Israel is absurd. Only a troll could claim to believe such a thing. Israel's charedi population is well aware of the fact that they don't like in the halachic state that they would prefer. That's why their politicians, when in government as a coalition partner, have historically preferred to serve as Deputy Ministers rather than Cabinet Ministers: because they are ambiguous on the question of their recognition of the present, secular state.

The Christians never believed being gay was wrong until Mohammad made such a big deal of it. Clear historical fact. The truth is today's Christian leaders in America have borrowed that from the Muslim religion because nothing in the Jewish or Christian tradition supports their lies.

*don't live in the halachic state

[quote]The crux of the prohibition rests on the second word זכר,which has several meanings/readings, in this context, (male) youth/child (זכור) . The prohibition is against pedophilia, enthusiastically practiced by pagan tribes from the Babylonians to the Greeks. And for the past two millennia it's been mistranslated by those who had no knowledge of Hebrew, context and nuance.

Pretty much exactly what the link I posted at R31 says- mistranslated

Modern Hebrew was developed by Ben Yehudah who adapted Biblical Hebrew millennium after the Torah was written. So to somehow say that modern Hebrew interprets Biblical Hebrew is a logical fallacy. And while homosexuality is not criminalized in Israel, at best,there are Orthodox Rabbis such as Beit Hillel which preach "tolerance", but you would be hard pressed to find any halachically based Rabbi who believes homosexual sex for men is not against halacha. And that verse in Leviticus is not interpreted any other way than as a prohibition. There are restaurants in Jerusalem which serve pork. It is legal. It does not mean that eating pork is OK under Jewish law.

Didn't the original text say you shouldn't like _to_ a man as you would lie _to_ a woman?

And I'm not implying that it's okay to lie to women but not to men; that would be sexist.

I think the text means that when you lie, you need to keep your audience in mind. It's a lot hard to lie to men than to women because women aren't as clever as men.

The books of the Bible were written over the course of many centuries by many different authors. Very few of them involve or even allude to sodomy. Opposition to anal sex doesn’t seem to be a cornerstone belief of either Judaism or Christianity.

Not nearly enough OP!!

[quote]Xtians desexed the Bible to make it suitable for children

Someone hasn't read Song of Solomon.

[quote]Very few of them involve or even allude to sodomy.

Actually, R198, 𝑛𝑜𝑛𝑒 of them do in the original languages. 'Sodomy' and 'sodomite' are not biblical words; 'sodomite' was a fast one foisted on the English translation (in Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12 , 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7; Job 36:14), popularized by the King James Version. The actual Hebrew word used in these passages was 𝑞𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑠, or plural, 𝑞𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑚 which, literally translated, means 'ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑦 𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑠.' No association with Genesis 19 or the story of Sodom was present in these texts, except what the KJV translators perversely placed there.

The 𝑞𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑚 were temple functionaries in the service of the larger Canaanite/Hebrew pantheon, serving El Elyon and his consorts Anath, Asherah, and Astarte, as well as Shamash, Hadad, Mot, Dagon, Yam, Chemosh, Lotan, etc.. During the Hasmonean Era, these elements were purged in favor of a Yahweh-Only cult, also sometimes identified as the Deuteronomists. In the minds of the Deuteronomists, the worship of any deity besides YHWH was considered whoredom, and such practitioners were characterized in the literature as 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠 (see Deuteronomy 23:17-18), even though there was no actual sexual activity involved. It was a case of religious propaganda, or invective.

Later expositors, such as the anonymous priestly authors of Leviticus and Christian authors, tended to read the metaphorical Deuteronomic language literally, and thus the myth of the "male shrine prostitute" was born. That it took off the way it did is a measure of how compelling lurid stories, ostensibly about pagans, were to them.

R192 the idea that Christianity was totally cool with homosexuality until the rise of Islam will come as a shock to the Christian church fathers and emperors of the 4th and 5th centuries.

[quote]It's amazing how you can miss the point, [R184]. These laws are incredibly barbaric and it's horrifying to think they were ever enforced by any group of people at any time.

R190 And you continue to ignore the point. The laws were meant for Jews. Your opinion based on your 21st century projection is completely irrelevant.

[quote] Modern Hebrew was developed by Ben Yehudah who adapted Biblical Hebrew millennium after the Torah was written. So to somehow say that modern Hebrew interprets Biblical Hebrew is a logical fallacy.

R195

Interprets is your own misunderstanding. No one needs to "interpret" their own language. And as mentioned in R52 , 80% of the words in the Jewish Bible are spoken daily on the streets of Israel. Ben Yehudah simply developed grammatical structure to the existing words. Therefore, "Modern Hebrew" is a misnomer

[quote]but you would be hard pressed to find any halachically based Rabbi who believes homosexual sex for men is not against halacha. And that verse in Leviticus is not interpreted any other way than as a prohibition.

The people of Israel have only been reunited as a functioning nation for 70. It will take time to repair 2,000 years of destruction of its laws, language and history. "Halachically-based" Rabbis haved learned Hebrew, Tenach, Talmud, Gemara the identical way for the past two millennia, by rote. No one's ever had wherewithal to alter that learning method, largely due to dispersion and כבוד אב ואם

And here's R201, back for another day of being run around the room. You do thrive on it!! Cutting/pasting furiously from Wikipedia words in a language he can't read/understand, truly believing that those "translatons" he's posting are knowledge, when in reality it's just more erroneous horseshit.

[quote]he actual Hebrew word used in these passages was 𝑞𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑠, or plural, 𝑞𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑚 which, literally translated, means 'ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑦 𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑠.'

Straight from the source text: the word is קדש plural קדשים , which was - wait for it - yet again mistranslated/mispronounced. It's pronounced kOdesh (singular), and kOdeshim (plural). The 'ו' , the 'o' or 'u' sound, doesn't appear, is understood by people familiar with Hebrew and its words. The Hebrew ignorant, such as those you continue to cut/paste, wouldn't know that. Anyway, means holy (singular), or holy ones when used to designate a group.

Stick to Xtian topics. You'll look less like a complete idiot.

Well then bitch if you're using modern Israeli laws as an extension of what the Israelites practiced, then it should be law that eating unclean meat is forbidden, or that a woman who touches the genitals of the man her husband is fighting should have that hand chopped off right? But as I'm sure you'll tell me, "stick to Xtian topics..." yada yada yada

[quote]if you're using modern Israeli laws as an extension of what the Israelites practiced, then it should be law that eating unclean meat is forbidden,

There is. It is forbidden to raise pigs בארץ ישראל (in/on the land of Israel).

[quote]or that a woman who touches the genitals of the man her husband is fighting should have that hand chopped off right?

This "injunction" is from where? Exactly?

Stick to Xtian topics, as well as avoid hissy fits when posting. You'll less like a complete idiot.

[quote]You'll less like a complete idiot.

What is lessing and how do complete idiots less, R206?

R207 Desperate, aren't ya?

Gurl, GURLS! You're BOTH cunts.

First of all it does not FORBID it, it says it's wrong. You can still do it, but you'll be sinful

Second of all, why don't you ask this about Mo-Hammet or Buda or Barack Obama? Huh? Why pick on the Christians?

R206 where the woman grabs the balls of the man who is fighting her husband is in Deut. 25:11-12, Rose!

Furthermore, why hasn't Israel reinstated community stoning, then? And I don't mean marijuana.

[quote]You can still do it, but you'll be sinful

R210 Sinful? Uh, no. You'll simply be a law breaker.

[quote]Why pick on the Christians?

Because Xtians are thieves, who directly stole laws and history meant solely for Jews and incorporated into their belief system, pretending it was their own. To say nothing of spending two millennia persecuting and butchering Jews. Muslims wrote their own laws, the Qor'an.

[quote]where the woman grabs the balls of the man who is fighting her husband is in Deut. 25:11-12,

כִּֽי־יִנָּצ֨וּ אֲנָשִׁ֤ים יַחְדָּו֙ אִ֣ישׁ וְאָחִ֔יו וְקָֽרְבָה֙ אֵ֣שֶׁת הָֽאֶחָ֔ד לְהַצִּ֥יל אֶת־אִישָׁ֖הּ מִיַּ֣ד מַכֵּ֑הוּ וְשָֽׁלְחָ֣ה יָדָ֔הּ וְהֶֽחֱזִ֖יקָה בִּמְבֻשָֽׁיו:

R211 The above is Devarim 11. Grabs the balls? Where does it say that? Exactly? Rose?

[quote]why hasn't Israel reinstated community stoning

Because for the moment, capital punishment is not enforced in the nation of Israel for the same reason as mentioned in R203. Eventually, it may very well be reinstated. Rose!

I neither read nor am fluent in Hebrew Ms Prissy Highfalutin R212, either directly translate it or shut up. If you can speak fluently in French and English, would you argue your point in French to someone you know can only speak English? How effective is that?

[quote]And here's R201, back for another day of being run around the room. You do thrive on it!!

R204/Matt, the only one running around the room has been you, frantically trying to stay relevant.

[quote]Straight from the source text: the word is קדש plural קדשים , which was - wait for it - yet again mistranslated/mispronounced. It's pronounced kOdesh (singular), and kOdeshim (plural). The 'ו' , the 'o' or 'u' sound, doesn't appear, is understood by people familiar with Hebrew and its words. The Hebrew ignorant, such as those you continue to cut/paste, wouldn't know that.

I don't need to know how it's pronounced, Matt, since I'm not pronouncing it. '𝑄𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑠' and '𝑞𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑚' is how it appears in all of the scholarly literature and in concordances like Strong's. That's how it's rendered in English, sensible since this discussion is in English, and if you want to converse intelligibly on this topic, you'll use English, too. Nobody else is as impressed that you speak/read Hebrew as you yourself are, and it's irrelevant to the topic, which isn't 'nobody can talk about Jewish scripture except a Hebrew-speaking Jew.' Nor is it ever going to be.

[quote]𝐀𝐧𝐲𝐰𝐚𝐲, 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐲 (𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫), 𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩.

Which is exactly what I said at R201. How gratifying that you agree with me. There is no other relevant point, save that there was no such thing as "male temple prostitutes" with reference to that word.

[quote]Stick to Xtian topics. You'll look less like a complete idiot.

How about you sticking to the topics that are being discussed, instead of constantly trying to divert it onto your being a Jew and speaking Hebrew? Nobody cares about that, and you'll look less like a complete lunatic.

[quote]I neither read nor am fluent in Hebrew Ms Prissy Highfalutin R212, either directly translate it or shut up.

R213, you won't get anything from R212/Matt, probably because he doesn't have it to give (he's probably not as fluent as he pretends to be). On the subject of Deuteronomy 25:11-12, you may find this blogpage useful:

R53/R54/R162, if you're feeling better, I was trying to ask you why the prospectus on the Gnuse article doesn't mention Jude 7, which seems to be a favorite Christian clobber text.

As far as my own experience goes, the clobber texts with which I've engaged in answering have been the following:

𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝟏𝟗:𝟏-𝟏𝟏

𝐋𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐬 𝟏𝟖:𝟐𝟐/𝟐𝟎:𝟏𝟑 - (I place these two together as one instance, more or less)

𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝟏:𝟏𝟖-𝟑𝟐

𝟏 𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐲 𝟏:𝟖-𝟏𝟎/𝟏 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝟔:𝟗-𝟏𝟏 - (I place these two together as one passage by the Pastoral Redactor, originating in 1 Timothy, and then being interpolated back into the text of 1 Corinthians in order to provide a second witness)

𝐉𝐮𝐝𝐞 𝟕

𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝟐𝟐:𝟏𝟓 - (rare, since it's only found in the CJB, the "Complete Jewish Bible", a paraphrase by David H. Stern, a Messianic Jewish theologian. His bible contains a number of crank, eclectic renderings like this one)

It goes without saying that I regard none of these passages as either addressing* or prohibiting homosexuality.

* There is a single exception, Romans 1:18-32, which mentions it without being seen to actually condemn or prohibit it.

[quote] I neither read nor am fluent in Hebrew

R213 And yet you post as argument complete nonsense from people as ignorant in the language as you. How effective is that?

[quote]Matt, the only one running around the room has been you, frantically trying to stay relevant.

Ah, R214 still uses delusional names as what? Attempt to salve shattered ego?

[quote] don't need to know how it's pronounced

Of course you do. And so do the woefully ignorant you cut/paste from. It's the crux of the problem. Can't read it, can't pronounce it, mistranslate it, misunderstand it, etc. etc. etc. Goes directly to what I've been chasiing you and the other complete idiots around the room about since R4.

[quote]How about you sticking to the topics that are being discussed, instead of constantly trying to divert it onto your being a Jew and speaking Hebrew? Nobody cares about that,

Well, you sure don't. Because someone who speaks Hebrew can point out in detail just what a complete idiot you are posting ignorant horseshit. Such as that below.

Oh, and I don't remember posting my ethnicity. Never assume.

R215

[quote]When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets; then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall have no pity."

draweth? smiteth? thou? That's not what it says in Hebrew. That's Xtian ignorant horseshit. Which you do love to propagate.

R214 You still haven't responded to R111. I know you can't, but it does reiterate your dependence on others who as clueless as you are.

There are no "clobber" texts in the Bible. Genesis in particular is pro-gay. Many lies have been spread about various passages, such as the idea that marriage is defined there. It isn't, and in the original the male was singular and the female plural, so one man one woman was certainly never God's plan

Sodom is another example of a story about something else being hijacked by brainless homophobes. As an ethical example it is ridiculous. Lot's daughter drug and rape him, but apparently that's okay. So is offering your daughters to a crowd for rape. Meanwhile glancing in the wrong direction is to be punished with death. The whole story is nonsense. That it is about violence and murder, not gay sex, is obvious from the repeat of the story in Gibeah. The Sodom story being about gays is the fault of English translators of King James' time, who were probably trying to stop him from shagging all the men in the kingdom (which is what King Solomon's beautiful son did).

[quote]so one man one woman was certainly never God's plan

R220 Nope, sure wasn't. According to Jewish law, a man can take (the concept of marriage - erusin, kedushin - was much later) as many women as he can support (or endure). Also the concept of "adultery" doesn't exist for men, only for women. Women are restricted to one man so that there is no conflict or doubt about the father of the women's kids. Today, with DNA testing, that prohibition is obsolete.

Rabbeinu Gershom issued a חרם (embargo?) on polygamy "forever" (1,000 years according to Jewish law), again due to Xtian sensibilities mentioned in R165. Since Rebbeinu Gershom's חרם was issued in the 10th century, it is no longer in force, so perhaps polygamy will be reinstated.

The Jews of Yemen never heard about Rabbeinu Gershom's חרם. When they returned to Israel in the 1950s, some of them had two, three wives and a children therefrom. The Israeli government said that they would recognize all the kids as progeny from one man, but they would only recognize one wife, and told the guy "Pick one. That's all you get".

Priestly celibacy was never God's plan either, as we can see from the pope presiding over western catholics with a celibacy requirement and eastern catholics also, who have none. The whole issue is not ethical but political: a church which can reproduce itself is a threat to political leaders. Ethics and morals have nothing to do with any of it.

But the fact that they continually lie about all these things is very telling. Billy Graham used to demonize teen sex, and guess what, his "conversions" at his rallies were all adolescents. This kind of exploitation, trying to make everyone feel shame shame shame, is certainly a type of pedophilic abuse.

Whatever, kosher bitch r217.

[quote]Women are restricted to one man so that there is no conflict or doubt about the father of the women's kids. Today, with DNA testing, [bold]that prohibition is obsolete.[/bold]

Real talk, though, that prohibition needs to make a comeback. Because a lot of these women out here are outta pocket and messy as hell. A lot of kids are all messed up because their mother was just trifling.

Like this type of mess doesn't make any damn sense:

[quote]Oh, and I don't remember posting my ethnicity. Never assume.

I don't need to assume; it's something you posted a couple of years ago, on one of your now-blocked former accounts. (Yes, it was you.)

[quote]draweth? smiteth? thou? That's not what it says in Hebrew. That's Xtian ignorant horseshit. Which you do love to propagate.

Of course it's not Hebrew; it's English. There's such a thing as translation; texts do not need to remain in their original languages. And as a matter of fact, it's not "Xtian ignorant horseshit," but the JPS 1917 Edition, translated and published by Jews, which is what Mechon-Mamre.org uses to render its Hebrew into English. The site is Jewish, the blog I linked is Jewish, something you might have noticed if you had actually engaged with the information provided. You're too busy trolling. Your discourtesy might be forgivable 𝑖𝑓 you were correct, but you're usually wrong.

[quote]The Sodom story being about gays is the fault of English translators of King James' time, who were probably trying to stop him from shagging all the men in the kingdom (which is what King Solomon's beautiful son did).

R221, don't you mean 'what King Saul's beautiful son did'?

Absalom

Jonathan and David too of course.

[quote]Absalom

R229, Absalom was David's son, and as far as I'm aware, he didn't shag all the men in the kingdom.

Saul's son Jonathan shagged David, so there's that.

[quote]R214 You still haven't responded to R111. I know you can't, but it does reiterate your dependence on others who as clueless as you are.

Of course I could, R219, since I've been discussing it online for years, but you're attempting to shift the goalposts into a discussion of the Jewish language, upon which you troll continuously, and it isn't even something you do in good faith; you 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤 perfectly well that the passages are related. If I choose to discuss the textual relationship between Judges 19 and Genesis 19, I'll do it for the sake of other posters here, and not in answer to your need to try to control the thread.

But in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty: from the sole of his foot even to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him.

And it was so, that when any man came nigh to him to do him obeisance, he put forth his hand, and took him, and kissed him.

And on this manner did Absalom to all Israel that came to the king for judgment: so Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel.

I don't know who you're talking about R231. I was going straight from the KJV as seen in 2 Samuel 14 which I"ve quoted in R232. ALL the men of Israel. If you are a biblical literalist, there it is!

Well, R232, you got me; I'd never noticed that about Absalom. I'd always found his sleeping with his father's wives so distasteful that I kind of dismissed him.

But the language employed regarding him in 2 Samuel 14:25 strikes a chord; it makes me think of the Lament over the King of Tyre from Ezekiel 28.

[quote]If you are a biblical literalist, there it is!

R233, I'm not.

Ancient societies, we can agree, were bigger horndogs than today. They didn't have professional sports, tv, and the internet to distract them from getting it on!

Yeah we'll look what happened to both Jonathan and Absalom: both died tragically. That should tell you what Yahweh thought of the homosexuals

[quote]Ancient societies, we can agree, were bigger horndogs than today. They didn't have professional sports

Excuse you, bitch!

Nonsense R237. Everybody dies tragically. Absalom had 40 years to fuck all the men of Israel.

[quote] Absalom had 40 years to fuck all the men of Israel.

He just hadn't met the right gal

R236, I'm not sure that I would characterize 2 Samuel 15:5-6 as "shagging," or homosexual behavior. "Kissing" isn't "shagging." The context is part of a larger description of Absalom's deceitful ingratiation with the people of Israel in order to make himself more favorable to them than the king, in order to better carry off his coup against him.

Sorry, no homosexuality there.

And I'm no fundie resistant to seeing homosexuality in the bible. It's just not there in this instance.

Nonsense R241. Now you're involved in hairsplitting and anachronism. "Kissing isn't sex." Well Mr. Clinton, more power to your hairsplitting. It's the pattern you see. The gay gay gay pattern. It is only by incessantly repeated double standards and intellectual dishonesty and VIctorian prudery that anyone sees the Bible as anything other than a pornographic fuckfest, which it was. And I guarantee you the original was racier than the translation.

He didn't just kiss them anyway, he grabbed them and took them.

[quote]He didn't just kiss them anyway, he grabbed them and took them.

Sorry, R243, it doesn't say anything like that.

Absalom’s Conspiracy

15:1 In the course of time, Absalom provided himself with a chariot and horses and with fifty men to run ahead of him. 2 He would get up early and stand by the side of the road leading to the city gate. Whenever anyone came with a complaint to be placed before the king for a decision, Absalom would call out to him, “What town are you from?” He would answer, “Your servant is from one of the tribes of Israel.” 3 Then Absalom would say to him, “Look, your claims are valid and proper, but there is no representative of the king to hear you.” 4 And Absalom would add, “If only I were appointed judge in the land! Then everyone who has a complaint or case could come to me and I would see that they receive justice.”

5 Also, whenever anyone approached him to bow down before him, Absalom would reach out his hand, take hold of him and kiss him. 6 Absalom behaved in this way toward all the Israelites who came to the king asking for justice, and so he stole the hearts of the people of Israel.

7 At the end of four years, Absalom said to the king, “Let me go to Hebron and fulfill a vow I made to the Lord. 8 While your servant was living at Geshur in Aram, I made this vow: ‘If the Lord takes me back to Jerusalem, I will worship the Lord in Hebron.’”

9 The king said to him, “Go in peace.” So he went to Hebron.

10 Then Absalom sent secret messengers throughout the tribes of Israel to say, “As soon as you hear the sound of the trumpets, then say, ‘Absalom is king in Hebron.’” 11 Two hundred men from Jerusalem had accompanied Absalom. They had been invited as guests and went quite innocently, knowing nothing about the matter. 12 While Absalom was offering sacrifices, he also sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David’s counselor, to come from Giloh, his hometown. And so the conspiracy gained strength, and Absalom’s following kept on increasing...

The New International Version was specifically written to make the Bible more consistent and more acceptable to bourgeois taste. The KJV people may not have been the most well-versed in Hebrew, but when they didn't know what something meant, they left it in figuring later generations would figure it out. Instead we got modern advertising execs trying to change the Bible to make it more consistent for eight year olds in puritannical America.

FFS, it’s a book of bullshit stories handed down, translated, and adapted to whatever whim the authors wanted.

[quote] The KJV people may not have been the most well-versed in Hebrew, but when they didn't know what something meant, they left it in figuring later generations would figure it out.

R245, the KJV translators added non-biblical words like "sodomite."

What is it in 2 Samuel 15 that you think is being left out by the bourgeois NIV? Post/link any official version of the passage you like, but you're still not going to ever make it say, "Also, whenever anyone approached him to present hole before him, Absalom would seize him by his hand, break him over and fuck him in the ass." Not even close.

Is Everyone in the Bible Gay???!!!

Seriously r245, is there a passage in the Bible, your own translation or whatever, that is seriously, a full-on, no doubt about it, celebration of two guys having sex together? Not just hinting. Full on man going up into the man and loving it.

R227

[quote] it's something you posted a couple of years ago, on one of your now-blocked former accounts. (Yes, it was you.)

Nope. Never posted my ethnicity. Assumption/error/delusion/whatever.

[quote]it's English. There's such a thing as translation; texts do not need to remain in their original languages.

It's Xtian horseshit English translation, divorced from the original text, devoid of accuracy, meaning and the principle cause of misunderstanding.

[quote]but the JPS 1917 Edition, translated and published by Jews,

Well, if it's published by Jews, then it must be right. Except that there is nothing in Devarim 25:11 that mentions testicles, balls or any other body part. Yep, the ignorant posting ignorance.

[quote]you 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤 perfectly well that the passages are related.

R231 I have no idea what you are referring to specifically. And neither do you. Except that someone, whose Hebrew understanding is on par with yours, opined that they are.

[quote]If I choose to discuss the textual relationship between Judges 19 and Genesis 19, I'll do it for the sake of other posters here,

For the "sake of other posters"? Or for your own ego? Cutting/pasting woefully mistranslated ignorance is not disseminating knowledge. It's simply propagating more ignorance.

[quote]nd not in answer to your need to try to control the thread.

I do it for the sake of others posters here. To provide information that what you're posting is yet more of that inaccurate nonsense (such as Vayikara 18:22 or testacles/balls ref above) that has caused so many problems, with no connection to the source text.

The language of the Jewish Bible is HEBREW, not English. Foreign translations are inaccurate, divorced from context, nuance and - wait for it - meaning.

[quote] is there a passage in the Bible, your own translation or whatever, that is seriously, a full-on, no doubt about it, celebration of two guys having sex together?

R249 Not in the Jewish Bible, there isn't.

It's not in the Bible [bold]period[/bold], r251. Why is it so hard for you to accept that none of the Abrahamic religions approve of homosexuality? It is what it is. Either follow the teachings if that's what your upbringing is, or whatever, or walk away from it. You can't have it both ways.

[quote]R250: Except that there is nothing in Devarim 25:11 that mentions testicles, balls or any other body part.

The link I posted at R215 doesn't say that it does. You didn't read it. Emily Litella much?

[quote]R109: Such as your assertion at [R103] that סדם means "burnt" (no, it doesn't. צרוף means burnt);

R253

[quote]The link I posted at [R215] doesn't say that it does. You didn't read it.

Not only did I read it, I posted that verse at R212. There is nothing in that verse that mentions testicles or balls. The ignorant posting ignorance.

[quote]From an unused verb סדם (sadam), to burn.

Maybe in Ca'ananite. Not in Hebrew.

[quote]Seriously R245, is there a passage in the Bible, your own translation or whatever, that is seriously, a full-on, no doubt about it, celebration of two guys having sex together? Not just hinting. Full on man going up into the man and loving it.

R249, 1 Samuel 20:35-41 comes pretty damned close.

"Then Jonathan made a 𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑡 with David because he loved him as himself. And Jonathan removed the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, his sword, his bow, and his belt" (1 Samuel 18:3-4), i.e. Jonathan stripped completely naked before David, most unusual unless a sign of sexual intimacy, both then and now.

That the relationship was sexual in nature is further reinforced by Saul's accusation (1 Sam.20:30b: "…do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s 𝑛𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑑𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠?" The expression reflects the language of the Holiness Code in describing sexual offenses, cf. Leviticus 18:7-17). Saul's outburst was followed by Jonathan secretly meeting David in a concealed place, where the passage offers another of those odd euphemisms peculiar to Jewish scripture, suggesting the two had intercourse and climaxed (1 Sam.20:35-41); Jonathan's subsequent vow (v.42) was the equivalent of a marriage vow.

[quote]R254: Maybe in Ca'ananite. Not in Hebrew.

In the Iron Age, they were the same thing. Maybe if you came to terms with the fact that biblical Hebrew is not the same as modern Hebrew, you might know that.

Hebrew is the only remaining living Canaanite language.

[quote]Maybe if you came to terms with the fact that biblical Hebrew is not the same as modern Hebrew, you might know that.

See R52. The concept of "Bibilical Hebrew" is a misnomer. But since you can't read or understand it, you wouldn't know.

R257, you're simply, tragically wrong.

Furthermore:

[quote]Biblical Hebrew is harder to read than the King James Bible for one reason: there is no punctuation.

R258 From your link. That "punctuation" is called nikud. Nikud is not used in any Hebrew text, not in the Torah, not the Talmud, Gemara, commentaries or modern Hebrew literature. Because Hebrew speakers don't need nikud to read their own language or understand it. Nikud was one of the principle reasons for misunderstanding/mistranslation.

R259 See R52

Yet more instances of the ignorant posting ignorance.

Stick to Xtian topics. You'll look less like a complete idiot.

I love the story of Noah's drunken nakedness and how his sons covered him up as if seeing Daddy naked was going to inspire gay orgies.

And the story of David and Jonathan is the greatest male love story in all literature. I can't believe people still read it and don't recognize what they're reading. Saul was so jealous!

There's considerably more to it than that, R260. Read the articles.

Posters say you're autistic. Is that true?

R262 The "considerably more" is irrelevant. The writer can't read Hebrew without nikud, (which I mentioned in R165). That tells me that he hasn't a clue in hell about which he speaks. And you post it because you because you are even more clueless than he is.

The whole situation between Saul and David and Jonathan seemed like some twisted love triangle. Father and son competing over this pretty boy. David was a sinner in everything else why not engage in the homosex as well?

Also any sex that was non-procreative was looked down upon. Maybe because the region was harsh and self-preservation of the Jewish was important especially after the Temple was destroyed? Also maybe Greek and Roman pederasty was associated with polytheism and Jews needed to distinguish from that?

David and Jonathan kissed each after a long absence until David "exceedeth." You can translate that any way you want but I know exactly what happened.

David cried.

What we're missing are the passages

Jonathan: David, what the Hell did you just do!

David: I'm sorry, I couldn't help it!

Fun fact: When Yonatan was slain on Har Gilboa, David cursed the mountain (the area). To this day, nothing grows in the area David cursed.

I dunno r266. David wanted Bathsheba's tail so badly, he orchestrated her husband's murder in battle, after knocking her up, just so he could have her for himself. Sounds like a typical straight dude drunk on testosterone and pride, to me.

Ruth and Naomi are also interpreted by some as a lesbian couple.

Joseph of Genesis was flamboyant, emotional and a pretty boy close to his mother Rachel. More concerned with grooming himself and his coat of many colors than roughhousing with his macho brothers. He turned down Potiphar's wife, who I imagine was a MILF.

I think David was bi or at least confused by his hormones when he was young. Thank God for guys like that.

[quote]Ruth and Naomi are also interpreted by some as a lesbian couple.

Dykes? Uh, no. BFFs in that כִּי אֶל-אֲשֶׁר תֵּלְכִי אֵלֵךְ, וּבַאֲשֶׁר תָּלִינִי אָלִין--עַמֵּךְ עַמִּי, וֵאלֹהַיִךְ אֱלֹהָי (where you go, I will go. Your nation is my nation. Your G-d is my G-d) kinda way.

Ruth eventually married Boaz, and eventually became the grandmother of King David. The Book of Ruth is read publicly every Shavuot.

Addendum R271 Omitted translation for בַאֲשֶׁר תָּלִינִי אָלִין (where you stay at night, I will stay at night)

R127, here is the structure of the universe as described in the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible, as you probably already know:

The ancient Israelites thought of the earth as a flat disk encircled by water, heaven above and underworld below. Humans inhabited Earth during life and the underworld after death.

The sky was like a solid inverted bowl over the Earth, colored blue from the heavenly ocean above it. Rain, snow, wind and hail were kept in storehouses outside the firmament. The sky had "windows" to allow precipitation to fall on Earth --- the flood that Noah experienced happened when the "windows of heaven" were opened. Humans looking up at the sky from Earth saw the floor of heaven.

The Earth was the center of the universe. The stars, Sun, Moon and planets moved in their allotted paths across the great dome above the Earth, ie. these celestial bodies all orbited the Earth. According to the Hebrews, the Sun and the Moon were only a short distance from one another.

The Earth rested on foundations that went down into the deep. The foundations made the land stable. In other words, the land was not floating on the water and could not be tossed about by wind and wave.

R127, reading about the ancient Hebrews' beliefs about the structure of the universe is so interesting. It's like reading a fairy tale. I guess the lines of communication between God and the authors who wrote these parts of Genesis were really fuzzy. They got so much wrong. Makes you wonder what other authors got wrong in the rest of the Bible. So much for the inerrancy of the Word of God.

Your usual super lame rebuttal is especially hilarious in this situation. You know --- you can't read and understand the original text so you are reduced to depending on someone else's translation/opinion (who also can't read it). I'll bet the original text has everything right, that the Earth is a sphere, that it has its own atmosphere, that it revolves around the Sun, that the Earth is not the center of the universe, etc. The translations are that stunningly bad 😆.

It couldn't be more obvious that the ancient Hebrews were limited by the understanding of the world (and the universe) at the time. They were influenced by the beliefs of neighboring cultures. They didn't have God speaking through the authors of the Bible, telling them The Real Truth.

I don't believe in tortured re-interpretations of the passages of the Bible that condemn homosexuality. I think that the straight majority of ancient Hebrews were creeped out by sexual activity between people of the same sex and that prejudice is reflected in the Bible. They lived in a completely different world where many people lived short lives because of disease and famine and war. Therefore, there was an emphasis on straight people getting married young and having lots of children to ensure the survival of the tribe. They wanted the population to grow so they could hold their own against neighboring hostile tribes. Homosexuality didn't fit into that view of the world.

[quote]Christianity was an evolution from Judaism. They believed in the same God. Nothing shocking there.

R114/R273, not at first. The first Christians were gnostic, worshiping an unknown, transcendent god they called 'the Father of Lights,' later, just 'the Father.' They taught that the Jewish creator god was an inferior being they called 'the Demiurge.' (See 2 Corinthians 4:4.) They didn't use Jewish scripture, but collected and conserved their own texts, later characterized as 'Pauline' (the Marcionite canon).

The proto-Catholics were later on the scene (mid-2nd-century) and, 𝑖𝑛 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑜𝑛'𝑠 𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑛, they developed their own, comprising most of the canonical New Testament. These books often began with a Marcionite document, like Galatians, Corinthians, or Romans - or the Gospel of Mark - to which was added a Catholic interpolative overlay, or 'Pastoral' stratum, to bring it more in line with Catholic beliefs. Using 'Mark' as a base, they wrote successive gospel replacements, each intended as stand-alone self-sufficient documents. Soon they were composing their own pseudepigraphal works out of whole cloth, like 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, the Epistle of Jude, and 1 & 2 Peter.

Something else the proto-Catholics did was to appropriate both the Jewish god and the Jewish scriptures (in Greek, the Septuagint) as their own, claiming themselves as 'heirs of the promise', in what's been called Replacement Theology, or Supersessionism. The Christianity we know today did not begin in Judaism, with Jewish adherents, and gradually, organically transition to non-Jewish adherents. The appropriation was uninvited, and violent, likely beginning in the wake of the Jewish Wars with the Roman Empire, 66-135 CE.. By the time proto-Catholic Christian documents appeared on the scene, they already contained anti-semitic rhetoric (for example, 1 Thessalonians 2:14b-16; the blood libel of Matthew 27:25). This cult did not find its origins among the Jews.

[quote]I don't believe in tortured re-interpretations of the passages of the Bible that condemn homosexuality. I think that the straight majority of ancient Hebrews were creeped out by sexual activity between people of the same sex and that prejudice is reflected in the Bible.

You're entitled to believe that if you wish. But you may be called upon to justify your interpretations of such passages on a case-by-case basis (non-specific generalizations about 'the bible' will not do as answers). The Iron Age and early Common Era had no concept of sexual orientation, and it has only been various culture wars since the beginning of the 2nd millennium up to the present day which have attempted to place condemnations of 'homosexuality' there.

[quote]Omitted translation for בַאֲשֶׁר תָּלִינִי אָלִין (where you stay at night, I will stay at night)

R271/R272, 'where you sleep, I will sleep' does tend to lend itself to a possible sexual relationship. One cannot rule it out.

Song of Solomon includes many racy gay on gay passages that the Xtians got round by ascribing alternating female and male speaking parts where none were indicated

Most of the prophets were gay too,

And how do you degay Jacob "wrestling with the angel" all night until his penis was dislocated?

Israel gets it very name from a night of hot mansex

You cannot say, "That's just your interpretation" when there are hundreds of pro-gay passages and the whole 'Case' against gays is limited to a few mistranslated ephemera dreamed up by modern day frauds and scammers. The antigay "interpretation" of scripture is just a lie, nothing more.

It is their unethical and antihistorical claim that human nature was different back then and men could show excessive affection without it being sexualized, but the burden of proof is on them, not us, and they have not managed it.

Let's face it most preachers today are not dealing from belief, but from a desire not to do productive work, and make their coin persuading other people to feel guilty. Since capitalism has deprived them of the horror of greed, they concentrate on sex instead. But they all know it's a lie.

The Bible and Quran had a lot of homoerotic passages. The Islamic world was even more gay especially in Persia and up until the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Unlike the Bible, the Quran has actual hate passages against gays.

Christianity and Islam both seemed to not care about sex until the rise of fundamentalism. Christianity became violently homophobic during the later Middle Ages while Islam became violently homophobic around the fall of the Ottoman Empire and rise of Wahhabism in the 1900s.

R285 alright then: BOTH hate gays; ya happy?

R286 Yes because both are equally homophobic because both arose from Judaism which was anti-recreational sex. So all three Abrahamic religions have bones to pick with homosexuals. Simply a product of its time and climate. Judaism went through many stages. Christianity was heavily reformed thanks to the revival of interest in Greek and Roman culture and philosophy during the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Islam never had those reforms and in fact grew more and more fundamentalist thanks to oil-rich tycoons who pushed extremist Islam in order to destabilize the region and gain control over the resources. The US is complicit with tyrannical Islamic fundamentalism of Gulf Arab countries despite many of our politicians claiming to be god-fearing Christians who support democracy.

Once again you are lying. There was no "problem" with recreational sex. That's a VIctorian lie. The problem was inheritance and maintaining patriarchy. Sex was incidental. The US is complicit and has been with Saudi Arabia since 1944. Again it's a position that most Americans would disdain, but Texas oilmen were the ones establishing and maintaining it. Why? Because Texas is essentially a Latin American oligarchy.

1933, TYpo.

Evidently not enuff

[quote]Unlike the Bible, the Quran has actual hate passages against gays.

R284, citations?

Are you certain that those alleged instances aren't like the supposed passages in the bible?

Jewish Bible and Quran are all pretty similar. Very much judicial and ethnocentric. The New Testament is different in that it focuses a lot on forgiveness and charity and veers more into Greek style philosophy. It's more universal as a lot of the Jewish customs and dietary restrictions were discarded by Paul. I can see why it sold so well to the pagan masses as it offered a God that seemed more caring and anyone could convert and be saved. When it became state religions it got more violent and forced by the sword.

[quote]I can see why it sold so well to the pagan masses as it offered a God that seemed more caring and anyone could convert and be saved. When it became state religions it got more violent and forced by the sword.

Isn't that more a wishful point of view, looking through modern rose-colored sunglasses at the purported appeal of early Christianity, R292? More realistically, it would seem to have been Christianity's fierce black-and-white extremity that appealed to its adherents, who then acted out the truth about their religion once they came to power.

You seem to accept uncritically a lot of the myths about Christian origins, R292, like that of persecution (cf. Candida Moss, 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑀𝑦𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛: 𝐻𝑜𝑤 𝐸𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑠 𝐼𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐴 𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑦 𝑂𝑓 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑦𝑟𝑑𝑜𝑚, 2014). Are you a believer?

R293 I believe the influence of Platonism on New Testament writers was the reason behind the black-and-white morality. Paul's letters and James letter were the first written parts and the additional material likely was influenced more by Greek folk culture. God in the New Testament is less anthropomorphic and portrayed more as a living essence. Compared to The Old Testament which has a bunch of gods who even appear in person at various points with Yahweh the angry storm god becoming the major god of Israel and eventually the only god worth recognizing. I don't think Judaism would have appealed as much because of this plus it was more ethnocentric and about the preservation of Jewish people first. Jesus was made less Jewish and more universal as a better sell to gentiles of the Mediterranean.

I'm not religious but I do see Christianity influenced a lot of social movements. Including anti-slavery, anti-war, labor and equal rights movements. So it wasn't completely destructive

[quote] I believe the influence of Platonism on New Testament writers was the reason behind the black-and-white morality.

Perhaps.

[quote]Paul's letters and James letter were the first written parts and the additional material likely was influenced more by Greek folk culture.

R294, I used to think that the 'Pauline' letters were earliest, but since becoming better acquainted with the Dutch Radicals and other critical scholarship, I now tend to think not. It's probable that the so-called 'Epistle to the Hebrews' may well be the oldest document in the New Testament, but it's not really Pauline - 'Paul' is a name later interpolated into it.

The "additional material" can be demonstrated to have been mined from the Septuagint, as well as some non-canonical works like 'Wisdom of Solomon,' Philo, Josephus, and Pseudo-Philo's 𝐵𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠. Classical Greek literature like the works of Homer also comprised an important source. The New Testament is the product of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, pseudepigrapha all.

[quote] I don't think Judaism would have appealed as much because of this plus it was more ethnocentric and about the preservation of Jewish people first. Jesus was made less Jewish and more universal as a better sell to gentiles of the Mediterranean.

To your first statement, I agree. But I do not think Jesus had to be "made less Jewish" because he was only ever a depiction of a Jew in narratives written by gentiles to begin with. The only connection the early Christians actually had with Judaism was that they culturally appropriated the Septuagint and ran with it, subjecting it to their own exegesis and applying it to themselves - that is, they saw themselves as its heirs of its promises. Supersessionism.

[quote]Christianity influenced a lot of social movements. Including anti-slavery, anti-war, labor and equal rights movements. So it wasn't completely destructive

I rather see it as the reverse: various social movements, borne of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, gained influence within various Christian sects in the 18th-19th centuries, slowly transforming them from inside, so that progressive advancement began to slowly occur.

Had any trace of this potential existed within Christianity in and of itself, it would not have taken some eighteen centuries for it to manifest. It took an outside influence to do this, and Christian sectaries fought against the progress tooth and nail. The irony of it is that these thought revolutions are now commonly attributed to Christianity - or Christians have sought to take credit for it.

In fifty years or so, homosexuality will have become so thoroughly culturally assimilated that Christians will take credit for that too, and will deny that Christians ever persecuted homosexuals - at least not "true Christians."