NationStates Jolt Archive

What does the bible have to say about sex? Is it only to be used for reproduction? Or what does it really say? Or does it contradict itself?

If it say it should be only used for reproduction, isn't it just logical that it should condem sexual intercourses between 2 men?

Homosexuality is that a person feels drawn(sexualy) to persons with the same gender of him and nothing with the act of sex itself. Atleast in my opinion. Basing this on that I felt that I was hetrosexual before I had sex for the first time.

If you think of homosexuality this way, does the bible really condem it?

And if it doesn't, and none-reproduction sex isn't condemned anymore, why should sexual intercourses between 2 men be condemned?

Discuss, you with knowledge of the bible and others. And do not start namecalling and flaming etc. Note that this view of homosexuality is my own personal view and nothing I want to force on to others to belive(unless they start to force me into thier views ;) ).

To my knowledge, the bible makes a couple references to being against gay men, but nothing about being against lesbians.

The bible mentions (and admonishes) gayness at most 6 times. It admosnishes straightness 362 times. Jesus never mentioned the gay.

Edit: Damn, missed an 's'

To my knowledge, the bible makes a couple references to being against gay men, but nothing about being against lesbians.
Some people think Ruth was a lesbian. *Grabs bible and reads*

Actually, scriptually, homosexuals are condemned to hell. And lesbians are homosexuals, because the Term "homosexual means one sex, or like sex. Also, sex is meant for woman and man, according to the Bible. It is also meant for husband and wife only.
According to the Bible, and the only mention of it, masturbation is a sin. In the Old Testament, a man, "spilled his seed" on the ground because he didnt want to sleep with this woman, so God struck him down, or killed him because he "wasted" his seed!!
Actually, the Bible is full of pretty cool stories.

Actually, scriptually, homosexuals are condemned to hell. And lesbians are homosexuals, because the Term "homosexual means one sex, or like sex. Also, sex is meant for woman and man, according to the Bible. It is also meant for husband and wife only.
According to the Bible, and the only mention of it, masturbation is a sin. In the Old Testament, a man, "spilled his seed" on the ground because he didnt want to sleep with this woman, so God struck him down, or killed him because he "wasted" his seed!!
Actually, the Bible is full of pretty cool stories.

Erm, no. Onan didn't want to impregnate his brother's wife (but God wanted him to), so he "pulled out" early and "missed". God killed him for not making a baby with his brother's wife, not for spilling his seed...

[""s being in this case marking slightly stressed euphemisms.]

God killed him for not making a baby with his brother's wife

WTF... didn't God read Leviticus? I'm sure having sex with your sister in law is abomination?

WTF... didn't God read Leviticus? I'm sure having sex with your sister in law is abomination?

His brother died, so she became his wife by Mosaic law, he didn't want to bear a child with her because it would have been his brother's child.

God killed him for not making a baby with his brother's wife

WTF... didn't God read Leviticus? I'm sure having sex with your sister in law is abomination?
no, his brother was recently deceased, so it was expected of him

edit: by deceased I mean that god smote him....and then since his brother "missed" god smote him too

Erm, no. Onan didn't want to impregnate his brother's wife (but God wanted him to), so he "pulled out" early and "missed". God killed him for not making a baby with his brother's wife, not for spilling his seed...

[""s being in this case marking slightly stressed euphemisms.]
Well I have to admit that I'm not sure what god intended by this heinous incident. But I hear from a friend who was raised Catholic, and went to a Catholic school, that this passage is why they think masturbation is bad. Although when I first read it I thought the same as you.

This isn't one of those things that needs analysis. I'm not even a Christian and simply from reading the bible or even parts of it it's VERY clear that the bible is very strongly anti-homosexual... I can look up all the specific passages later if you'd like.

Really because even the term "homosexual" as well as the concept of sexual orientation is predated by the bible for, ohh... a very long time.

no, his brother was recently deceased, so it was expected of him

edit: by deceased I mean that god smote him....and then since his brother "missed" god smote him too

So God killed his brother to force him to commit abomination then killed him for spilling his splooge...

omg!

Actually, scriptually, homosexuals are condemned to hell. And lesbians are homosexuals, because the Term "homosexual means one sex, or like sex. Also, sex is meant for woman and man, according to the Bible. It is also meant for husband and wife only.
According to the Bible, and the only mention of it, masturbation is a sin. In the Old Testament, a man, "spilled his seed" on the ground because he didnt want to sleep with this woman, so God struck him down, or killed him because he "wasted" his seed!!
Actually, the Bible is full of pretty cool stories.
I would like to see a passage that says that ALL homosexuals are condemned to hell
Also, I feel I should remind you that the bible was not originally written in English (or probably any language you may speak fluently) so I would be wary to trust something like that which could be so easily misinterpreted. Like if it was originally "god says men having sex with men is an abomination" you should be able to see how a translator would make that "god says homosexuality is an abomination"

But yeah, I'd still like to see a place in the bible where it says lesbians are bad (not that I necessarily disbelieve, I'm just curious)

The bible definitely anti homosexuality, but then it is a work of fiction so why put any credence in it.

In my opinion the Bible has to be interpreted in the context in which it was written. It was written at a time when one of the most important factors in life was to procreate and ensure the continuance of your family lineage.

In my opinion the Bible should serve as a guide for people and not a rule book. I think the biggest themes in the Bible are that you should always love God as your creator and savior, and to try and live as honestly, humbly, and spiritually as you can. I believe that that is the key to salvation, not which of the thousands of rules you choose to follow. I believe God will judge you based on what's in your heart.

i jsut have this to say....it was adam and eve...not adam and steve...thats teh way it was in teh begining and thats the way it should always be

i jsut have this to say....it was adam and eve...not adam and steve...thats teh way it was in teh begining and thats the way it should always be
:rolleyes:

yeah, it was adam and eve and not ryan and caroline, but does it bother you if they get married?

A few have stated they think the bible is anti-homosexual. But those who say this, do you think it's because of the sexual act or about the feelings?

That was what I was really curious about.

i jsut have this to say....it was adam and eve...not adam and steve...thats teh way it was in teh begining and thats the way it should always be

since, in "the beginning," as written in the Bible, slaves were owned and sold without any sense of wrong-doing, i assume you also support that. you also don't cut your hair, since that's how it was "in the beginning." you also view all medicine as "witchcraft" and expect doctors (especially female ones) to be burned alive. these things all were the way it was done "in the beginning." tell us again how that is justification for anything.

since, in "the beginning," as written in the Bible, slaves were owned and sold without any sense of wrong-doing, i assume you also support that. you also don't cut your hair, since that's how it was "in the beginning." you also view all medicine as "witchcraft" and expect doctors (especially female ones) to be burned alive. these things all were the way it was done "in the beginning." tell us again how that is justification for anything.
You are right, slaves were owned and sold without any sense of wrong-doing but you fail to see the bigger picture. Can you name one time in with the Israelites had slaves? No you can't. Other nations had slaves and they were eventually conquered (Former Syria, Babylon, etc) by either Israel or a greater power who was in turn eventually conquered. You do cut your hair because in 1st Corinthians 11:14 states that, "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him." By common sense, in order for a man to not have long hair, he must what? Cut it. Your third point is also in fault. Medicine is not witch craft and doctors are not burned alive. The physician Luke was a doctor and he was not burned alive. So hopefully, you have a new sense of the beginning.

In my opinion the Bible has to be interpreted in the context in which it was written. It was written at a time when one of the most important factors in life was to procreate and ensure the continuance of your family lineage.

In my opinion the Bible should serve as a guide for people and not a rule book. I think the biggest themes in the Bible are that you should always love God as your creator and savior, and to try and live as honestly, humbly, and spiritually as you can. I believe that that is the key to salvation, not which of the thousands of rules you choose to follow. I believe God will judge you based on what's in your heart.
The bible does not say read over the laws and disregard the ones you don't agree with. All laws are to be followed unless they became obsolete because of the death and resurrection of Jesus. You can try to to live as honestly, humbly, and spiritually as you can but that is not the key to salvation. The key is too believe the Jesus is the one and true risen king.

You are right, slaves were owned and sold without any sense of wrong-doing but you fail to see the bigger picture. Can you name one time in with the Israelites had slaves? No you can't. Other nations had slaves and they were eventually conquered (Former Syria, Babylon, etc) by either Israel or a greater power who was in turn eventually conquered. You do cut your hair because in 1st Corinthians 11:14 states that, "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him." By common sense, in order for a man to not have long hair, he must what? Cut it. Your third point is also in fault. Medicine is not witch craft and doctors are not burned alive. The physician Luke was a doctor and he was not burned alive. So hopefully, you have a new sense of the beginning.

The entire book of Lev-Effing-Viticus. Leviticus has strict guidelines on how to sell your daughter into slavery, how to take slaves of conquered people, and what to to with the virgins from conquered lands.

Leviticus also says you cannot cut your hair at the sideburns, so the bible is internally inconsistant again- which is right? The word of God to Moses in the OT or the teachings of Jesus from Paul in the NT?

I would like to see a passage that says that ALL homosexuals are condemned to hell
Also, I feel I should remind you that the bible was not originally written in English (or probably any language you may speak fluently) so I would be wary to trust something like that which could be so easily misinterpreted. Like if it was originally "god says men having sex with men is an abomination" you should be able to see how a translator would make that "god says homosexuality is an abomination"

But yeah, I'd still like to see a place in the bible where it says lesbians are bad (not that I necessarily disbelieve, I'm just curious)
Since homosexuality is a sin and one continues to live in sin then they are condemned to hell. If one changes their ways, then one can enter heaven. Try levitcus 18:22. "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; this is detestable." So the converse of this is, Do not lie with a woman as one lies with a man(this is directed to a woman as the previous was directed a man)

Leviticus 18:6-23 "None of you shall approach a close relative to have sexual intercourse with her. I am the Lord. You shall not disgrace your father by having intercourse with your mother. Besides, since she is your own mother, you shall not have intercourse with her. You shall not have intercourse with your father's wife, for that would be a disgrace to your father. You shall not have intercourse with your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in your own household or born elsewhere. You shall not have intercourse with your son's daughter or with your daughter's daughter, for that would be a disgrace to your own family. You shall not have intercourse with the daughter whom your father's wife bore to him, since she, too, is your sister. You shall not have intercourse with your father's sister, since she is your father's relative. You shall not have intercourse with your mother's sister, since she is your mother's relative. You shall not disgrace your father's brother by being intimate with his wife, since she, too, is your aunt. You shall not have intercourse with your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife, and therefore you shall not disgrace her. You shall not have intercourse with your brother's wife, for that would be a disgrace to your brother. You shall not have intercourse with a woman and also with her daughter, nor shall you marry and have intercourse with her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; this would be shameful, because they are related to her. While your wife is still living you shall not marry her sister as her rival; for thus you would disgrace your first wife. You shall not approach a woman to have intercourse with her while she is unclean from menstruation. You shall not have carnal relations with your neighbor's wife, defiling yourself with her. You shall not offer any of your offspring to be immolated to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am the Lord. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination. You shall not have carnal relations with an animal, defiling yourself with it; nor shall a woman set herself in front of an animal to mate with it; such things are abhorrent." (NAB)

How does it not get any clearer than that? The abomination is the homosexual act, not homosexual feelings. The other acts in this passage still hold in the New Testament, so why should the homosexual act be the exception?

The entire book of Lev-Effing-Viticus. Leviticus has strict guidelines on how to sell your daughter into slavery, how to take slaves of conquered people, and what to to with the virgins from conquered lands.

Leviticus also says you cannot cut your hair at the sideburns, so the bible is internally inconsistant again- which is right? The word of God to Moses in the OT or the teachings of Jesus from Paul in the NT?
Slavery was never supported by the bible or religious leaders of that era. Not in one place does the bible say slavery is right. Since the statement, " if you are not with me, then you are against me" is found in the bible. Than the practice of slavery is immoral. "There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Alexander Campbell.

http://www.libertygospeltracts.com/question/prequest/beardtrm.htm

This link will provide you with the answer to the second part of your statement.

The bible definitely anti homosexuality, but then it is a work of fiction so why put any credence in it.
Can you name one time where the bible has been discredited?

Leviticus
(God speaking to Moses)

22 aThou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.


22 says don't lie with man like you would with a women.

Since homosexuality is a sin and one continues to live in sin then they are condemned to hell. If one changes their ways, then one can enter heaven. Try levitcus 18:22. "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; this is detestable." So the converse of this is, Do not lie with a woman as one lies with a man(this is directed to a woman as the previous was directed a man)

May I ask You the question directly?

Is it somewhere in the bible that there is not just the sexual act of homosexuals that is condemned but also having affections for a person of same gender?

And, another question, what does the bible have to say about sex when not trying to reproduce?

Slavery was never supported by the bible or religious leaders of that era.

Bull. The Old Testament mentions the Israelite practice of slave-holding over half a dozen times.

Furthermore, there is a well-known Hebrew practice of releasing slaves after seven years (also called the "Jubilee"). Perhaps you'd like to explain how you can release a slave without owning one.

Not in one place does the bible say slavery is right.

That's a misleading statement; the Bible does not pass judgment on slavery's morality AT ALL, it merely treats it as a fact of life. It gives the Israelites instructions on how to treat their slaves, but never says anything about "You are forbidden from owning slaves".

Check out the following from Watchtower Magazine: http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2001/9/8a/article_01.htm

Clearly, Jehovah did not approve of 'man dominating man' through abusive slavery. But did not God later allow slavery among his people? Yes, he did. However, the slavery that existed in Israel was vastly different from the tyrannical forms of slavery that have existed throughout history.

God's Law stated that kidnapping and selling a human was punishable by death. Furthermore, Jehovah provided guidelines to protect slaves. For example, a slave who was maimed by his master would be set free. If a slave died because his master beat him, the master could be punished with death. Women captives could become slaves, or they could be taken as wives. But they were not to be used for mere sexual gratification. The gist of the Law must have led righthearted Israelites to treat slaves with respect and kindness, as if these were hired laborers.—Exodus 20:10; 21:12, 16, 26, 27; Leviticus 22:10, 11; Deuteronomy 21:10-14.

Some Jews voluntarily became slaves to their fellow Jews in order to repay debts. This practice protected people from starvation and actually allowed many to recover from poverty. Furthermore, at key junctures in the Jewish calendar, slaves were to be released if they so desired.* (Exodus 21:2; Leviticus 25:10; Deuteronomy 15:12) Commenting on these laws regarding slaves, Jewish scholar Moses Mielziner stated that a "slave could never cease to be a man, he was looked upon as a person possessing certain natural human rights, with which the master even could not with impunity interfere." What a stark contrast to the abusive systems of slavery that mar the annals of history!

In short, it can be said that the Israelites practiced a form of HUMANE slavery, but it was slavery, nontheless, and was not characterized as something negative, either by their religious leaders, or their religious writings- Bible or Talmud.

i jsut have this to say....it was adam and eve...not adam and steve...thats teh way it was in teh begining and thats the way it should always be

Yes, but even the Bible could spell "the" correctly, even if it had to do it in Hebrew and Greek.

Since homosexuality is a sin and one continues to live in sin then they are condemned to hell. If one changes their ways, then one can enter heaven. Try levitcus 18:22. "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; this is detestable." So the converse of this is, Do not lie with a woman as one lies with a man(this is directed to a woman as the previous was directed a man)

Actually, the Old Testament is fairly vague (and often somewhat contradictory) concerning the afterlife, for "good" people or "bad" ones.

All Leviticus says is God doesn't like men lying with men. Ok. God also doesn't like people eating shellfish, or cutting their hair or beards, or publicly desecrating the Sabbath.

You don't even know if the prohibition on homosexuality is supposed to apply to non-Jews! After all, there are tons of Jewish commandments Christians don't observe- like that Sabbath thing, for instance (the Sabbath is on SATURDAY). Or keeping kosher. Or wearing teffilin.

My personal beliefs: The Bible is good brain food. It is a fascinating document, with many interesting portions which have a lot of insight to offer people that are willing to examine it. However, it is by no means a perfect document. I believe it can help people learn about themselves, about others, and about the idea of God. But I also believe that people should learn about these things for themselves, using whatever prism they wish. If they want to use one part of the Bible, fine. If they want to use another, fine. If they want to use the Hobbit- fine. I'm not going to pass judgment on them.

People have the right to believe whatever they want. The problem I have with certain organized religions, particularly the more conservative "It's all God's word" branches of Christianity, is that they dishonestly- or appear to be- select certain parts of the Bible which fit with their world-view, and then try and act like THAT'S the totality of the scriptures. Compare this with, for instance, my more holistic form of practice, which takes what I like and disregards what I don't- while still acknowledging that things I don't choose to follow or accept or believe in remain part of the tradition and literature.

You are right, slaves were owned and sold without any sense of wrong-doing but you fail to see the bigger picture. Can you name one time in with the Israelites had slaves? No you can't. Other nations had slaves and they were eventually conquered (Former Syria, Babylon, etc) by either Israel or a greater power who was in turn eventually conquered. You do cut your hair because in 1st Corinthians 11:14 states that, "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him." By common sense, in order for a man to not have long hair, he must what? Cut it. Your third point is also in fault. Medicine is not witch craft and doctors are not burned alive. The physician Luke was a doctor and he was not burned alive. So hopefully, you have a new sense of the beginning.

That's just the point, though, I think. God's revelation is continuing because he is a living God. If all these other practices and laws that were in effect have fallen by the wayside as we progress as a species, then why is this one so sacrosanct?

Perhaps there was an understanding of homosexuality and perhaps, at the time, it was permissable to treat them as second class citizens and less than human just as it was permissable to have slaves. Do we really want to say that we've made no progress in the last 2000 years? That seems to sort of admit we've dead ended as a species.

That's just the point, though, I think. God's revelation is continuing because he is a living God. If all these other practices and laws that were in effect have fallen by the wayside as we progress as a species, then why is this one so sacrosanct?...Do we really want to say that we've made no progress in the last 2000 years? That seems to sort of admit we've dead ended as a species.

He is a living God and some but not all laws became obsolete in the coming of Jesus. On these things I hope we can agree. But in the Letters from Paul, in no place does he mention that it is right for a man have sexual relations with a man or a woman with a woman, but instead he mentions on many occasions how a husband should love his wife and a wife should respect her husband. Not husband love your man and other husband respect your man because homosexuality was considered wrong in the OT as well as in the NT. O but we have progressed, just look around at the technology. But technology is not and never will be a trend of a failed nation. Homosexuality is. Look at almost every major superpower or dead nation and you will find an avid support for this act. A nation doesn't have to support gays to progress in the history of this world, look at Israel now.

I will repost this to this thread since it is shorter, but it is also in my thread of Why teh Bible does NOT Condemn homosexuality, or at least for Modern Christians.

Leviticus is NOT applicable to condemning homosexuality BECAUSE the other laws of Leviticus are NOT followed by modern Christians. How can you say, when modern Christians do not follow the other laws of Leviticus, that only the law of that verse applies to modern day Christians, and the others are to be conveniently ignored? How can you even use that as condemning homosexuality, when your not using the law forbidding certain foods to condemn those people eating those foods? Or the other myriad laws, including concerning clothing being woven of two different types of cloth. It is foolish to point out the one law. The same word (Abomination) is used to refer to eating shellfish as well. Leviticus laws are part of the Mosaic Code, the old laws that applied to the People of Israel, and part of the OLD Covenant with God. The NEW Covenant, as would be explained by most preachers, is after Jesus came. How can you pull a few laws out of the Mosaic Code, the code that applied to the People of Israel, and use it just to condemn homosexuals? I do not see many Christians following the Mosaic Code.

Also, the first post explains why Paul's mentioning of it is not necessarily talking of the homosexuality in terms of relationships. It is talking about temple prostituion, etc. Clearly. The words used even are such

EXPLANATION OF PAUL (quoted from religioustolerance.org)

The NIV contains the phrase: "homosexual offenders." Suppose for the moment that Paul had written "heterosexual offenders" or "heterosexual sexual offenders." We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality; only of those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn homosexuals. Rather it condemns homosexuals who engage in sexual offences.

The original Greek text describes the two behaviors as "malakoi" (some sources quote "malakee,") and "arsenokoitai." Although these is often translated by modern Bibles as "homosexual," we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word "paiderasste." That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals. We can conclude that he probably meant something different from persons who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.

"Malakoi" is translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. It could also mean "loose" or "pliable," as in the phrase "loose morals," implying "unethical behavior." In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards. [John] Wesley's Bible Notes defines "Malakoi" as those "Who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship." 6 One knowledgeable but anonymous reviewer of our web site said that the word translated here as "effeminate" really "means men not working or advancing ideas so as to concern themselves with love only. Not working for the good of the whole....Our present culture has all sorts of connotations associated with the word 'effeminate' that simply don't apply" to Paul's era. It would seem that the word "effeminate" can only be regarded as a mistranslation.


"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." The Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 as "arsenokoitai." They were referring to "male temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. 4 Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought that it meant temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire. One source refers to other writings which contained the word "arsenokoitai:" (Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John; Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum). They suggest that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but no necessarily homosexual sex)." 2 Probably "pimp" or "man living off of the avails of prostitution" would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word aresenokoitai." 5


Still others thought that it meant "masturbators." At the time of Martin Luther, the latter meaning was universally used. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.

Many would consider catamites, (a boy or young male who engaged in sexual activities with men) to be a likely valid translation for the first behavior. Such boys were often slaves, kept by rich men as sex partners. The second term might then refer to the men who engaged in sex with the catamites. That is, they are abusive pedophiles. The New American Bible 3 contains a footnote which reads:
"The Greek word translated as 'boy prostitutes' [in 1 Cor. 6:9] designated catamites, i.e. boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world....The term translated 'practicing homosexuals' refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys."

Harper's Bible Commentary (1998) comments that the passage refers to "both the effeminate male prostitute and his partner who hires him to satisfy sexual needs. The two terms used here for homosexuality... specify a special form of pederasty that was generally disapproved of in Greco-Roman and Jewish Literature."

Many religious liberals might agree that the center portion of 6:9 might be accurately translated as: "male child abusers and the boys that they sexually abuse." i.e. the two behaviors probably relate to that portion of pedophiles who are child rapists, and the male children that they victimize. The verse would then refer to the crime of child sexual abuse and has no relation to homosexuality in the normal sense of the term: i.e. consensual sexual relations between adults of the same gender.

It is worthwhile to check the words attributed to Jesus by the author of the Gospel of Matthew. He also had a list of sins that could bring doom on a person: Matt 15:18-20: "...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man..." It is worth noting that homosexual behavior is not one of the behaviors that is mentioned in this passage. One might conclude that Jesus did not consider it important.

Actually, the Old Testament is fairly vague (and often somewhat contradictory) concerning the afterlife, for "good" people or "bad" ones.

All Leviticus says is God doesn't like men lying with men. Ok. God also doesn't like people eating shellfish, or cutting their hair or beards, or publicly desecrating the Sabbath.

You don't even know if the prohibition on homosexuality is supposed to apply to non-Jews! After all, there are tons of Jewish commandments Christians don't observe- like that Sabbath thing, for instance (the Sabbath is on SATURDAY). Or keeping kosher. Or wearing teffilin.

My personal beliefs: The Bible is good brain food. It is a fascinating document, with many interesting portions which have a lot of insight to offer people that are willing to examine it. However, it is by no means a perfect document. I believe it can help people learn about themselves, about others, and about the idea of God. But I also believe that people should learn about these things for themselves, using whatever prism they wish. If they want to use one part of the Bible, fine. If they want to use another, fine. If they want to use the Hobbit- fine. I'm not going to pass judgment on them.

People have the right to believe whatever they want. The problem I have with certain organized religions, particularly the more conservative "It's all God's word" branches of Christianity, is that they dishonestly- or appear to be- select certain parts of the Bible which fit with their world-view, and then try and act like THAT'S the totality of the scriptures. Compare this with, for instance, my more holistic form of practice, which takes what I like and disregards what I don't- while still acknowledging that things I don't choose to follow or accept or believe in remain part of the tradition and literature.

The laws of Levitcus are the laws of the Jews but the laws of the Christians are either taken from the Jews or based upon them. Based upon that I free to eat shellfish but that is not the topic at hand. I do know that the prohibition on homosexuality(as you put it) does apply to non jews because of the destruction of non Jewish towns for acts including homosexuality(I believe no example is needed for this one, but if you don't know what I'm talking about ask.) How is it not a perfect word? I have regular debates with several atheists friends who after several years can still offer me no credible disprove or error in God's Word. Sure if somebody wants to use one part of bible for one thing and disregard the rest they can do that but that will not get them into heaven. BTW, I did find the hobbit remark very funny. Even if you don't want to judge these people, I will. I know some are thinking right now that the bible says not to judge others. Wrong, the bible says do not judge others' motives or service(1 Corinthians 4:3) but do judge others who do what the bible says is sin(1 Corinthians 5). I also dislike those who use only the parts of the bible that fits there need. I will try not to let that happen and provide the entire picture. I also ask that any non-believers reframe from picking a verse or two with out providing additional background that skews their point.

this is a constant topic on this board. no one has been moved from one opinion to the other. so why do we need to debate it constantly?

you are either gay or not, religious or not

if you are not religious, why do you care what the bible says? other peoples intolerant beliefs are not going to be affected by your logically pointing out the error of their ways. they will change once they realize that gay people are not "them" but "us".

if up are religious and you are not gay, well hun, you are surrounded by VILE sinners. even when you are in church, some of those seemingly holy people are doing stuff that would make your hair stand on end. everyone is sinning and pretending not to. why are you so concerned about ONE kind of sin? is it that these gay people have the nerve to not pretend to not be gay? that they "sin" openly? ASK YOURSELF THIS QUESTION. why do you care about this one sin that hurts no one but the sinner himself? (if you are religious and not gay but dont find homosexuality to be a sin, well....uh... god bless you!)

if you are religious AND gay, well then i guess i see your problem. id be obsessed about it too. there are several denominations that do not condemn homosexuality, check them out and see if you can fit in there.

The bible definitely anti homosexuality, but then it is a work of fiction so why put any credence in it.
Ha! That is so strange, but that is exactly what I think. What if long ago some guy wrote this just to scare the little kids into doing good? Man, would he be surprised to find his fiction is worshiped and religions have branched off it. No one can truely know if the bible is real or not because it was written so long ago! This is what I think (the bible is a work of fiction) so don't start screaming and trying to sway me otherwise.

I do know that the prohibition on homosexuality(as you put it) does apply to non jews because of the destruction of non Jewish towns for acts including homosexuality(I believe no example is needed for this one, but if you don't know what I'm talking about ask.).

NO.

Sodom and Gomorra was not destroyed due to homosexuality, it was destroyed for being greedy, unkind to the poor, etc.

Ezekeiel 16:49-50:"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." God states clearly that he destroyed Sodom's sins because of their pride, their excess of food while the poor and needy suffered; sexual activity is not even mentioned.

Sodomy was NOT an ancient word that meant homosexuality, it was invented in the 1900s to refer to homosexuality, and actually started out referencing bestiality.

You cannot in fact use the one reference to Sodom and Gomorra concerning the angels...because

As quoted from religioustolerance.org (The most well researched pages I have found on these topics, the repetition of such explanations I have seen in books written on the topic of Homosexuality and the Bible including written by knowledgable Bible theologians)

Sodom and Gomorra
Genesis 19:5 -- What does "ya,da" mean?
"Yada, Yada, Yada" is a phrase popularized on the Jerry Seinfeld show to imply sexual activity among unmarried persons. It may be related to the "ya,da' which appears in Genesis 19:5.

According to the King James Version of the Bible, Genesis 19:5 says: "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them." (KJV)

The New International Version translates the same verse: "They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.' "

Ya,da´ is a Hebrew verb which is commonly translated as "know." Its meaning is ambiguous. It appears 943 times elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). Usually it means "to know a fact." In only about a dozen of these cases does it refers to sexual activity; in these instances, the sexual meaning is always obvious. The text generally talks about a man "knowing" a woman and of her conceiving a child as a result of the "knowing." All such references involve heterosexual relationships.

It is not clear whether the mob wanted to:

Gang rape the angels. This was a common technique by which men, particularly enemies, were humiliated in that society.

Engage in consensual homosexual sex with the angels: This is the interpretation of the NIV translators. They wrote very clearly that the intent was to "have sex with them."

Interrogate them. They may have been concerned that the strangers were spies who were sent to the city to determine its defensive fortifications. "Sodom was a tiny fortress in the barren wasteland south of the Dead Sea. The only strangers that the people of Sodom ever saw were enemy tribes who wanted to destroy and take over their valuable fortress and the trade routes that it protected."
As noted above, the city had just recently survived just such an attack, and may have been on high alert. 5

Attack them physically.

But technology is not and never will be a trend of a failed nation. Homosexuality is. Look at almost every major superpower or dead nation and you will find an avid support for this act.

You do realise that you come very close to preaching what Hitler preached by saying the last sentence? He thought that Jews dragged down the civilization, and you think about the same about homosexuals...

Other then that you seem to want to avoid the question i asked directly towards you at page 2 and that also is in the topic.

Ha! That is so strange, but that is exactly what I think. What if long ago some guy wrote this just to scare the little kids into doing good? Man, would he be surprised to find his fiction is worshiped and religions have branched off it. No one can truely know if the bible is real or not because it was written so long ago! This is what I think (the bible is a work of fiction) so don't start screaming and trying to sway me otherwise.
Don't worry, I want start screaming but I will try to sway you in a honorable way(without name calling). If the bible was written so long ago that no one can no whether its real or not how can the earth be 4.6 billion years old?

If the bible was written so long ago that no one can no whether its real or not how can the earth be 4.6 billion years old?

Um... would you mind connecting the dots for those of us incapable of following your train of thought?

Leviticus 18:22-23 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Deuteronomy 23:17-18 - There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

1 Kings 14:22-24 - And Judah did evil in the sight of the LORD, and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins which they had committed, above all that their fathers had done. For they also built them high places, and images, and groves, on every high hill, and under every green tree. And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

Isaiah 3:9 - The show of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.

Luke 17:25-32 - But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation. And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. Remember Lot's wife.

Romans 1:24-32 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

1 Corinthians 6:9 - Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

1 Timothy 1:9-10 - Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

2 Peter 2:6-9 - And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

Jude 1:7-8 - Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

He is a living God and some but not all laws became obsolete in the coming of Jesus. On these things I hope we can agree.

To an extent, perhaps.


But in the Letters from Paul, in no place does he mention that it is right for a man have sexual relations with a man or a woman with a woman, but instead he mentions on many occasions how a husband should love his wife and a wife should respect her husband. Not husband love your man and other husband respect your man because homosexuality was considered wrong in the OT as well as in the NT.

Well, but the thing is, I don't worship Paul. I worship God and it's far more possible to my mind that any aversion Paul might have had towards homosexuality stems from his own vision and less than that of God. Indeed, the Church itself as Paul created it is very different from the Faith as taught by Jesus who never said word one about homosexuals. If this was such an important point, wouldn't he have at least made some passing reference?


O but we have progressed, just look around at the technology. But technology is not and never will be a trend of a failed nation.

I'm not talking specifically about technological advancement but societal advancement in general. I'm also not willing to grant that assertion about technological advancement not being the trend of a failed nation, but that's an entirely different discussion.

We have advanced as a social species through the general adoption of certain concepts such as the wrongness of slavery and the idea that people are and should be fundamentally equal. When your species or group survival depends on having an extrordinary amount of children on the off chance that one of them might make it to reproduce, it's more understandable to not consider homosexuality as a viable alternative (even though I'm sure it didn't decrease the inherant propensity). However, when your species is pleantiful, it is equally understandable that a biological trigger will be sprung that takes a certain portion of the population out of the breeding pool. Nature has many such triggers and safeguards to try and keep this plate balancing act of life in the air, I don't see why homosexuality should be any different.


Homosexuality is. Look at almost every major superpower or dead nation and you will find an avid support for this act.

Er, what? The U.S.S.R. most certainly didn't support homosexuals and that's just one failed nation. It's quite a logical leap to say this is anything more than coincidence.


A nation doesn't have to support gays to progress in the history of this world, look at Israel now.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at. A tiny nation with way more nukes than necessary that wouldn't exist at all if not for it's fiat creation by the UN and the inexplicable support of the US. I'm also not aware of any particularly harsh laws against homosexuality in Israel, who even let openly homosexual men and women serve in their armed forces. Was this meant to be an example for or against?

The bible definitely anti homosexuality, but then it is a work of fiction so why put any credence in it.



i agree:P

Jesus said, through example, that thinking about doing something that was wrong, wanting to do it, was as bad as doing it. If you do it in your heart, its as bad as physically doing it as far as sinning is concerned.
In the new testament you can find examples of the new christians struggling with internal sinning as opposed to external sinning. They fight the desires of the flesh. Not fighting back against the desire to prevent the desired action, but fighting to destroy the desire and the nature that created it.
Once could use that viewpoint to argue that simply being attracted to your own gender was a sin.

The mention of sins that would doom a person and saying that in that quote it didnt mention homesexuality i see as silly. Fornication would cover homesexual acts.

As a Christian, homosexuality is a very difficult thing for me to confront. Yes, hate the sin, love the sinner; love everyone. In a sin where the act is what provides the connection between that individual and the person they most love in all the world and hopefully feels the same for the sinner, how do you tell them that is wrong? How do you seek to separate love? That has been one of the hardest questions of practicing faith I've ever had in my walk with Yahweh. I think delving into the answer, besides not directly relating to the thread, might be more inflammatory then where we already are in the discussion.

i jsut have this to say....it was adam and eve...not adam and steve...

WRONG! http://www.thesisters.demon.co.uk/bible/genesis.html

Leviticus: How exactly does this apply to an exclusively homosexual man?

Ignoring anything to do with Sodom, since it's been established that that city was destroyed because everyone there was a stupid, selfish tosser, that leaves us with Romans 1:24-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9(Wahey!) and 1 Timonthy 1:9-10.

Romans:
24 Wherefore Gloria also parkered them up to nishta sparkle through the lusts of their own thumping cheats, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of Gloria into a lie, and worshipped and served the fakement more than the Creator, who is fabed for ever. Larlou.
26 For this cause Gloria parkered them up unto vile affections: for even their palones did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the homies, leaving the natural use of the palone, burned in their lust oney toward another; homies with homies working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain Gloria in their knowledge, Gloria parkered them over to a reprobate mind, to do those fakements which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all naffness, charvering, naffness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of Gloria, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of nanna fakements, disobedient to parents,
31 Nanti understanding, covenantbreakers, nanti natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of Gloria, that they which commit such fakements are worthy of naffness, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

The clue is in the title: Romans. The Romans had well-established traditions of orgies to please the gods and prostitution, and look at verses 29-31. Does this really apply to homosexuals today? That's a rhetorical question, idiot.

Corinthians:

9 Know ye not that the naff shall not inherit the kingdom of Gloria? Be not mogued: nishter fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with homiekind,
10 Nor sharpering homies, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of Gloria.

Now, here is a plain and simple case of mistranslation. "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with homiekind" are rendered in the original Greek as malokois and arsenokoitai, and these terms are poorly understood. Malokois is thought to refer to effeminate male prostitutes(See Romans) and arsenokoitai is thought to refer to their customers: Dirty old men? As with Romans, where is the modern parallel? This is lust and paedophilia, not consensual sex between two men.

In any case, Corinthians 2:1 is a plain and undeniable condemnation of heterosexuality:

1 Now concerning the fakements whereof ye screeved unto me: It is bona for a homie not to reef a palone.

For those of you who don't have the polari, that means

Now concerning the things you wrote to me about: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

Hear that? Fambles off the palones, omis!

Now, as for the argument of fornication, or sexual relations outside of wedlock: Are we really supposed to wait until you're ready to accept us before consumating our relationships? If we have a Commitment Ceremony and get a priest to come along and say a few words, that surely clears us of fornication, since we've declared our relationship before God, regardless of what the government says.

Er, what? The U.S.S.R. most certainly didn't support homosexuals and that's just one failed nation. It's quite a logical leap to say this is anything more than coincidence.

Nazi Germany comes to mind as well. :p

Besides, which formerly opressed religious cult became accepted by the Roman empire shortly before it's downfall?

*a number of quotes from the bible. If you want to read them they are on page 3*



Thanks for a number of quotes from the bible. But they do however not answer even a single question of those who I ask in the first post. Maybe you see it that they might have ansewered one, but then such a question would have been taken out of it's consept.

Nazi Germany comes to mind as well. :p

Wait a minute, Heinrich Himmler was gay, and Hermann Goering was a transvestite... So that must be why the Third Reich went to pot. Then again, homosexuality was widespread in Japan, especially amongst the samurai, and they had the highest GDP until late last century.

Did you hear about the homosexual who fancied himself, but couldn't get round to it?

The bible says homosexuals are abominations correct? the bible also says people who eat shellfish are abominations so they should both be treated exactly the same no?

The bible says homosexuals are abominations correct? the bible also says people who eat shellfish are abominations so they should both be treated exactly the same no?

I'm getting a t-shirt printed: "I suck cock, you eat pork, WE'RE EVEN!"

The bible says homosexuals are abominations correct? the bible also says people who eat shellfish are abominations so they should both be treated exactly the same no?

Well the Bible says in numerous passages that the Old Laws, of which Leviticus is part of, the Mosaic Code is no longer followed. According to what the BIble says, Jesus came, and "fulfilled" the Law. The People of Israel were under the Mosaic Code (Leviticus and other Old Testament Books) and had to serve God by those laws. But when Jesus came, he died for their sins, and therefore Christians are instructed in the Bible that they are now saved by faith and grace, not by the Law.

Ephesians 2:14-18: "For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father."

Galatians 2
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Galatians 5:2-4: "Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."

Galatians 3:24-25
Galatians 324 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

And also Paul wrote
I Corinthians 9:19-22: "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some."




So clearly Christians are not under the old Law (Mosaic Code) contained in the Old Testament, and cannot expect any one else to be under those same laws.

Galatians 5:2-4: "Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."


Wait a minute, does that mean that the vast majority of Christians-American are actually Jewish?

Wait a minute, does that mean that the vast majority of Christians-American are actually Jewish?

I pointed a Conservative Christian to that, and he said that Paul was being "facetious" and that Paul was not to be taken literally. Well, if he is not to be taken literally there, then they should just not take him literally anywhere. Actually, I would say that Paul was addressing his letter to a particular audience, and that is why he said such a thing. Therefore OUR argument of him addressing a letter to a particular audience (The Romans) when talking about sexuality is valid, since the Romans were at the time practicing same sex in the context of temple prostitution and pagan orgies (And the words Paul used as I have said before when translated from Greek do not even translate as gay. The words he used were not even in Greek homosexual literature of the time. Neither was the word he used used to refer to homosexuals in any other context. When used elsewhere in the Bible, the same Greek word has been translated as something else?!)

I pointed a Conservative Christian to that, and he said that Paul was being "facetious" and that Paul was not to be taken literally. Well, if he is not to be taken literally there, then they should just not take him literally anywhere. Actually, I would say that Paul was addressing his letter to a particular audience, and that is why he said such a thing. Therefore OUR argument of him addressing a letter to a particular audience (The Romans) when talking about sexuality is valid, since the Romans were at the time practicing same sex in the context of temple prostitution and pagan orgies (And the words Paul used as I have said before when translated from Greek do not even translate as gay. The words he used were not even in Greek homosexual literature of the time. Neither was the word he used used to refer to homosexuals in any other context. When used elsewhere in the Bible, the same Greek word has been translated as something else?!)

So, what you are trying to say is, simply put, that in the OT homo- and bi-sexuality is condemned, but Jesus himself frees them from this since faith is more important then allways following every law. And that the referanses to condeming same-sex-relations in NT is more badly translating that rather are condeming the abuse. Is that correct?

Yes, this is correct. But even in the OT it is debatable if it actually condemns homosexuality, and what those two verses mean in Leviticus. However, it does not apply any way as Jesus came to free us of the law.

Yes, this is correct. But even in the OT it is debatable if it actually condemns homosexuality, and what those two verses mean in Leviticus. However, it does not apply any way as Jesus came to free us of the law.

So then are Christians also free to practice bestiality and incestuous relatinships, both of which are prohibited in Leviticus 18?

So then are Christians also free to practice bestiality and incestuous relatinships, both of which are prohibited in Leviticus 18?

Well I don't know, how do you interpret it? The Bible obviously says the law has been put away...

But in the NT there is...
Matt 15:18-20: "...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man..."

But yeah, I'd still like to see a place in the bible where it says lesbians are bad (not that I necessarily disbelieve, I'm just curious)
I dont think you will find it, because to "lesbian" isnt in the bible.

I dont think you will find it, because to "lesbian" isnt in the bible.
Lesbian can´t have sexual intercourse anyway. They lack the needed biological requirements.
Non the less it is nasty and unnatural.

God created Adam and Eve as a role model for man kind: thats also all marriage is about: one man and one woman, NOTHING ELSE.

You are right, slaves were owned and sold without any sense of wrong-doing but you fail to see the bigger picture. Can you name one time in with the Israelites had slaves? No you can't. Other nations had slaves and they were eventually conquered (Former Syria, Babylon, etc) by either Israel or a greater power who was in turn eventually conquered. You do cut your hair because in 1st Corinthians 11:14 states that, "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him." By common sense, in order for a man to not have long hair, he must what? Cut it. Your third point is also in fault. Medicine is not witch craft and doctors are not burned alive. The physician Luke was a doctor and he was not burned alive. So hopefully, you have a new sense of the beginning.

You know what scares me? You speak of the Bible as if it's real. It's a book of stories, dude. I don't go around quoting Harry Potter and casting spells.

Lesbian can´t have sexual intercourse anyway. They lack the needed biological requirements.
Non the less it is nasty and unnatural.

God created Adam and Eve as a role model for man kind: thats also all marriage is about: one man and one woman, NOTHING ELSE.

Lesbians can't have sexual intercourse? I beg to differ. :fluffle:

However, you're entitled to your own opinion, or is it really yours? Do you think that because you were told to? Or maybe because the "bible says so"? Again, it's a book of stories, letters... fiction. Written by men, not a god. This is contemporary mythology. Just as the greeks had their stories to explain things they didn't understand, so do the christians. I just wish they'd think for themselves.

Lesbians can't have sexual intercourse? I beg to differ. .
How could that work???? And just to make shure you understand: I mean intercourse, nor oral sex or something like that.

Leviticus
(God speaking to Moses)

22 aThou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.


22 says don't lie with man like you would with a women.

Which can be interpreted as not sleeping with a man in the same position you would as with a woman: i.e. missionary style. At the time of the Bible's compilation, such issues were quite relevant, as there were also rules concerning the manner in which people had sex. The "spilling of seed" issue most clearly highlights that, I think, given it directly to sexual practice, not sexuality. The Bible not not directly discuss sexuality, only sex. The two issues are different. The original language is more suggestive of that than of homosexuality as a whole, then, because the Bible does not truly address sexual preference.

I don't understand why an occurence that seems to be biological and exists in many of Earth's species should be such an issue for us. If you don't want to have sex with someone of your own gender...don't. Don't bother to seek out people who do for any reason. Leave it alone.

The Leaders of the Commonwealth of Hak-Generale

The original language is more suggestive of that than of homosexuality as a whole, then, because the Bible does not truly address sexual preference.

The Leaders of the Commonwealth of Hak-Generale

So, it's safe to say that it's only the sexual act that the bible condems as it never speaks of having sexual feelings of someone of the same sex?

So, it's safe to say that it's only the sexual act that the bible condems as it never speaks of having sexual feelings of someone of the same sex?

If you read my earlier commentary on Leviticus, you would understand that Leviticus is nothing to worry about. Leviticus condemns a lot of other things, like even laying a hand on a woman during her period, eating shellfish, etc. Obviously Leviticus is not anything to go by.

Shalom, from a Jew...who can read the original text:
So anyways, continuing. This new group of people, these Jews, had to figure out some ways to separate themselves from the other people around them. It's at a time where national identity is very important, and the Jewish identity was being born - so they adopt some rules. A lot of the pagan temples around have male prostitutes which are paid by male worshippers to have sex with the worshippers and thereby achive communion with the G-d(s). Judaism didn't want to even resemble these other groups. Understand, it's not out of hate but of a need to establish one's identity - which is hard when there hasn't been anything like you before except one Egyptian pharoah who tried it and was deposed by his people. So all these rules concerning everything from diet to clothing to moral conduct get written down. These are all a mixture of common sense and a lot of ritual. Ie. "Don't eat pork." 2,000 years ago it wasn't a good idea to eat a meat that bred bacteria so easily as pork does compared to beef. And I think they also know what I now know - it tastes like shit. so they write all these laws down and they become known as the "purity code." The priestly purity code....the Levitical purity code...Levitical....Leviticus! The book of Leviticus becomes the basis for what you do, as an ancient Jew, to differentiate themselves from everyone else. And in all of this is one verse of one chapter which becomes the basis for the discrimination against GLBT people from then on. Leviticus 18:22. Most of us will know this as the "A man shall not lay down with a man..." commandment. But just to show you the bunk of translations, check this out. (borrowed from www.religioustolerance.org) This is from a few of the 23223423424 English bible translations out there:

1) ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."

2) KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".

3) LB: (Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"

4) Net Bible: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act." 1

5) NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

6) NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

7) RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination

So, yeah....baaaaaad translating. At this point they're translating translations. So let's look at the Original.
This is from the JPS Hebrew-English concordance edition of the Tanakh (Old Testament). It's got the Hebrew in one column on a page and the English on the other and you can follow verse for verse in both. Ok. So, in Hebrew it says the following: "Ve'et zachar lo tishkav mishk've ishah toevah hiv." You can't translate something without looking at each word, and when you do that you find the following.

Ve'et, is an indicator. It basically means "and if." Zachar is a specific word. It is only EVER used to refer to a "male of the covenant." A Jewish male. Lo tishkav - "shall not" or "should not," followed by "Mishk've ishah." Here's the ringer. Mishk've means "to lie down with," and ishah means "a WOMAN." The masculine word is Ish. Ishah is a feminine, it means WOMAN, followed by "Toevah hiv." meaning "it is an abomination because of uncleanliness."

We now understand this passage to mean the following: "A man shall not lie with a menstruating woman, since the bed is unclean." or as this site puts it: ( http://hometown.aol.com/spiritandflesh/leviticus.html ) in his own interpretation of the passage:

"The Holiness Code of Leviticus prohibits male same-sex practices because of religious considerations, not because of sexual ones. The concern is to keep Israel from taking part in Gentile practices. Homogenital sex is forbidden because it is associated with pagan activities (i.e. cultic prostitution), with idolatry, and with Gentile identity. The argument in Leviticus is religious, not ethical or moral. That is to say, no thought is given to whether the sex in itself is right or wrong. All concern is for keeping Jewish identity strong.
Therefore, it is a misuse of the Bible to quote Leviticus as an answer to today's ethical question of whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Leviticus was not addressing this question. The concern in Leviticus, the cultural context of that text,
and the meaning of male-male sex in ancient Israel are all very foreign to the present situation. Today's question and that in Leviticus are simply two different things.
To further underscore the point, the word "abomination" is simply another word for "unclean." An "abomination" is a violation of the purity rules that governed Israelite society and kept the Israelites different from the other peoples. Early Israelites thought male homogential sex was dirty. It was prohibited not because it was wrong in itself but because it offended religious sensitivities. Homogenitality made a Jewish man look like a Canaanite. And to the Israelites, God's chosen people, that was unacceptable."

You know, I think it's pretty gutsy that the conservative Christians, whose entire religion is merely a cult of mine, thinks they know my text better than me. Or that they can say anything about this. Shalom.

Question regarding the fella who spilled his seed and was smote...

Who withnesses this incident and then went on to write about it?

Consider the conversation, if it was told by the sister-in-law:

"Well, he changed his mind, started to abuse himself, and that's when the lightening struck..."

Can't we get away from the religious threads? Is no one else sick of hearing these two sides say, "You're dumber than me so Nya!!"

Really, debats don't go anywhere, and all we have going on here is some people who believe in the bible, and others who think anyone who hints that it's true is a retard.

Really, shouldn't we be above this? I realize that we aren't, but shouldn't we?

May I ask You the question directly?

Is it somewhere in the bible that there is not just the sexual act of homosexuals that is condemned but also having affections for a person of same gender?

And, another question, what does the bible have to say about sex when not trying to reproduce?

Yeah sure, I don't mind a couple of questions. I can not find anywhere in the bible where affections for a person of same gender is condemned(but that's not to say that a verse saying that wasn't formally in there and has been taken out through the many different revisions and editings) so I would have to that it is only the sexual act that is being condemened. I've read of no where where the bible condemns sex when not trying to reproduce.

Can't we get away from the religious threads? Is no one else sick of hearing these two sides say, "You're dumber than me so Nya!!"

Really, debats don't go anywhere, and all we have going on here is some people who believe in the bible, and others who think anyone who hints that it's true is a retard.

Really, shouldn't we be above this? I realize that we aren't, but shouldn't we?
What's the point of being civilized if one can not discuss any topic they wish. Could not a new idea or perspective come out of this debate? Isn't a new idea or an altered opinion greater than simply ignoring a topic once it has been discussed previously? If this was true, the US constitution would be drastically shorter considering that it took them over 5 years of debate to write it. On the plus side, I have seen very little name calling.

Moodom, it does not honestly even condemn the act, sadly. I think it is spreading lies and ignorance to say it does. The Bible condemns fornification, adultery, and all the other sins numerous times. I have debunked most of the retranslation sand reintreptations of the Bible verses here. There are even instances of seemingly close to homosexual relationships in the Bible.

Take this for instance:

1 Samuel 18
1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit", etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.

1 Samuel 18
3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

1 Samuel 20
41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

And for the BIG ONE

2 Samuel 1
26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women rarely spoke to each other in public. Since David's only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he must be referring to sexual love here. It would not make sense in this verse to compare platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman; they are two completely different phenomenon. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan.

Which can be interpreted as not sleeping with a man in the same position you would as with a woman: i.e. missionary style. At the time of the Bible's compilation, such issues were quite relevant, as there were also rules concerning the manner in which people had sex. The "spilling of seed" issue most clearly highlights that, I think, given it directly to sexual practice, not sexuality. The Bible not not directly discuss sexuality, only sex. The two issues are different. The original language is more suggestive of that than of homosexuality as a whole, then, because the Bible does not truly address sexual preference.

I don't understand why an occurence that seems to be biological and exists in many of Earth's species should be such an issue for us. If you don't want to have sex with someone of your own gender...don't. Don't bother to seek out people who do for any reason. Leave it alone.

The Leaders of the Commonwealth of Hak-Generale

Considering that there is 10s of millions of species and you can name less than 1% of them that engage in homosexuality? That is not biological nor natural.

You know what scares me? You speak of the Bible as if it's real. It's a book of stories, dude. I don't go around quoting Harry Potter and casting spells.
Can you prove the bible false?

Can you name one time where the bible has been discredited?

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Nazi Germany comes to mind as well. :p

Besides, which formerly opressed religious cult became accepted by the Roman empire shortly before it's downfall?
Yes, that is two nations. Bravo, would you like me to start naming mine? Prove that this thread is working comes from your second point. That arguement was never been brought up before me. Bravo(this one is non sarcastic). But the sudden change of heart in the Roman Empire was not enough to prevent there destruction after years of pagan worshiping.

The bible, simply put, is a work of fiction used in the control of mass populations.

It has been translated, re-translated, interpreted, and re-interpreted so many times that it has lost its true purpose, and become a tool to dominate people's minds and cause them to question their existence, and crticize their every action.

As to homosexuality, it's been around far longer than the bible - Roman era, not to mentioned distracted Neanderthals and their 'pets'.

:fluffle:

As such, all conversation to do with homosexuality and the bible are considered moot, and from hereon in - ILLEGAL! Besides, the original Bible was written in German!

Leviticus 18 is the laws of sexual relations handed from god to moses on mount sanai says that men shouldnt have sex with each other. It says nothing about women but im assuming that in their male dominating mindsets they just assumed that women fell under the same catagory as men. so not only is the bible against homosexuality but god himself is against homosexuality. thats if you look at it as a religion though and not just as a general guideline to how to live a good life. it wasn't one of the ten commandments so obviously god didnt feel too incredibly strongly about it.

The bible, simply put, is a work of fiction used in the control of mass populations.

It has been translated, re-translated, interpreted, and re-interpreted so many times that it has lost its true purpose, and become a tool to dominate people's minds and cause them to question their existence, and crticize their every action.

As to homosexuality, it's been around far longer than the bible - Roman era, not to mentioned distracted Neanderthals and their 'pets'.

:fluffle:

As such, all conversation to do with homosexuality and the bible are considered moot, and from hereon in - ILLEGAL! Besides, the original Bible was written in German!

by the way the first five books of the bible (Leviticus included which i sited above) have been translated but they have a copy of them found with the dead sea scrolls that has the original translation which is also the translation used for the bible code, so it is the real thing, and it says that men shouldnt have sex with other men.

Leviticus 18 is the laws of sexual relations handed from god to moses on mount sanai says that men shouldnt have sex with each other. It says nothing about women but im assuming that in their male dominating mindsets they just assumed that women fell under the same catagory as men. so not only is the bible against homosexuality but god himself is against homosexuality. thats if you look at it as a religion though and not just as a general guideline to how to live a good life. it wasn't one of the ten commandments so obviously god didnt feel too incredibly strongly about it.

Yea, whatever, obviously you read nothing in this thread so far or any of the explanations of why Leviticus does not even count, at all, in debating homosexuality. There have been numerous posts to discount that.

Besides, the original Bible was written in German!

No it was not. The Bible was the first thing to come off the printing press, invented in Germany.

If your friends think you are smart because you are 'opinionated', then they are ten times more dumb than you.

:sniper:

No it was not. The Bible was the first thing to come off the printing press, invented in Germany.

If your friends think you are smart because you are 'opinionated', then they are ten times more dumb than you.

:sniper:

Main Entry: sar·casm
Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain <tired of continual sarcasms>
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm <this is no time to indulge in sarcasm>
synonym see WIT

by the way the first five books of the bible (Leviticus included which i sited above) have been translated but they have a copy of them found with the dead sea scrolls that has the original translation which is also the translation used for the bible code, so it is the real thing, and it says that men shouldnt have sex with other men.

... and it was written by men, not God, not Jesus, not even Moses - men, and written decades after the events supposedly transpired. Ever hear of the Fish story... 22 inches turn into 22 ft in less than a week... what do you think a year would do? Let alone decades? Ever seen a 22 mile fish before? Slightly exaggerated? Perhaps, ... we'll never know... we weren't there.

by the way the first five books of the bible (Leviticus included which i sited above) have been translated but they have a copy of them found with the dead sea scrolls that has the original translation which is also the translation used for the bible code, so it is the real thing, and it says that men shouldnt have sex with other men.

The bible code is crap. Christian crap. Read my earlier post.

Lesbian can´t have sexual intercourse anyway. They lack the needed biological requirements.
Non the less it is nasty and unnatural.

Pure opinion. Mere mouth to mouth kissing spreads tons of germs. Why isn't THAT considered "nasty"? What constitutes unnatural? What definition are you using? Is "unnatural" necessarily the same thing as "bad"?

God created Adam and Eve as a role model for man kind: thats also all marriage is about: one man and one woman, NOTHING ELSE.

Um, actually, God created Adam and Lilith first, and they weren't exactly a model couple. Neither were Adam and Eve, for that matter.

Considering that there is 10s of millions of species and you can name less than 1% of them that engage in homosexuality? That is not biological nor natural.

Using that criteria, we could make many similar judgments about human activities being "unnatural". Wearing clothes, using electricity, cooking food, etc...

Are you suggesting that all these things are bad, too? Should we refrain from doing something until we observe zebras doing it in the wild? Are animals to be our litmus tests for what is permissable? (By the same token, does this mean I now have free liscence to hunt other humans down and eat them, a-la "natural" animal predators?)

Just wondering how far this logic goes.

The bible code is crap. Christian crap. Read my earlier post.

Unfortunately, it cannot be categorized as being a purely Christian endeavor. Several members of the Orthodox Jewish community have also become "Torah Code" advocates.

Considering that there is 10s of millions of species and you can name less than 1% of them that engage in homosexuality? That is not biological nor natural.

Watch, someone's going to prove him wrong, and he'll say "well, we arn't animals!"

The bible code is crap. Christian crap. Read my earlier post.

Nah, it's been run on the Torah as well as on the orignal Hebrew* Bible, with results that beat normal odds of 'coincidence' in both.

*Or whichever language it was originally written in, I'm not 100% sure. I know it wasn't German though :P

I have regular debates with several atheists friends who after several years can still offer me no credible disprove or error in God's Word.

Suppose someone hits you, what do you follow, "eye for an eye" or do you present your left after being slapped to the right, like Jesus taught? Imho those two are mutually exclusive.

Suppose someone hits you, what do you follow, "eye for an eye" or do you present your left after being slapped to the right, like Jesus taught? Imho those two are mutually exclusive.

I have been told that an eye for an eye doesn't mean that if you make someone blind he have the right to make you blind. It should rather be understood as if someone makes you blind he should use his eyes to help you see so that you can live as before you got blind. Or something like that.

Why don't we see it that way you ma then ask. Well, it might have been badly translated or just badly formulated from the start.

And "tooth for tooth" then means he has to chew your food for you if he broke your jaw, huh?

There's no real way for humans to know how any transient being thinks or feels because man documented any instance in any religious text. For example: the Pope can edit the Catholic bible any way he likes, and by the time a man becomes the Pope he's usually senile. Mormonism also proves the fallibility of religious text. John Adams said God gave him the book of Mormon on golden tablets, but then he "lost" them. Doesn't that make Mormonism kind of like a cult? But I digress. By looking at the bible we know how people who lived thousands of years ago thought... after it was "translated". Perhaps that’s why the Muslims and the Jews don't eat pork. Thousands of years ago, there were limited ways to properly cook pork, since a temperature of 400 degrees needs to be reached to sear all the bacteria and/or parasites out of the meat. The religious leaders noticed that all these people were dying after eating this meat, and told them God said not to eat it to save the populous. However, people today still don't eat pork under the belief that God will judge them based on their diet. Any way, it's best to form your own opinions on any issue, and perhaps read a religious text if you want some guidance.

And "tooth for tooth" then means he has to chew your food for you if he broke your jaw, huh?

No, now I assume you are just beeing stupid by your own will.

If you cause a man to break his leg so he can't grow his cropse etc etc then you should repay him by doing the work for him. Because you are the one who are guilty of making him incapable of supporting his family for a time.

Your interpretation has its charms, but it actually is a guideline for retaliation, akin to the lex tallonis.

Your interpretation has its charms, but it actually is a guideline for retaliation, akin to the lex tallonis.

No, that's just a later interpretation.

Sources?

Sources?

http://www.fact-index.com/a/an/an_eye_for_an_eye.html

Seems like we are both right.

"My" interpretation of it is younger then yours, but I thought it first apeared in the OT and not in Babylon.

However, if it's in the OT, then it should there be interpretated as Judaism(wich is the religion of jews, am I right?) interpretate it. And then it isn't the reverse thing of turn the other cheek.

Even if it was to be interpretated as the original, literally Babylonian interpretation it wouldn't be the complete opposite of turn the other cheek as it limits how hard you can vengeance upon someone.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
I would like to personally thank you Narklos for showing me a site like this. It has been very worthy peice to me in this debate. I would like to ask you and anyother pro-gay advocate on this thread to visit this site also. It has clarified things greatly. To be more specifc, go to http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm.

But for those of you who don't click the link, here are a couple of quotes I would like everyone to see.

"Romans

With his usual intolerance, Paul condemns homosexuals (including lesbians). This is the only clear reference to lesbians in the Bible. 1:26-28 "

"1 Corinthians

Paul lists ten things that will keep you out of heaven, including homosexuality and being "effeminate." 6:9-10"

"Jude

God sent "eternal fire" on the people of Sodom and Gomorrah for "going after strange flesh." 1:7-8"

So, again I would like to thank you for giving me a credible site which shows the lesbians are condemned in the bible. That if you are homosexual, you will not go to heaven. And that Sodom and Gomorrah might have been destoryed for being greedy but also for being homosexual.

Using that criteria, we could make many similar judgments about human activities being "unnatural". Wearing clothes, using electricity, cooking food, etc...

Good point.

God made Adam and Eve, not...

Bob the whining homophobe and Diana the spiteful biblethumper. So there. :P

The bible mentions (and admonishes) gayness at most 6 times. It admosnishes straightness 362 times. Jesus never mentioned the gay.

Edit: Damn, missed an 's'
Jesus never admonishes straightness, he admonishes uncleanliness. Get it right mate.

Jesus never admonishes straightness, he admonishes uncleanliness. Get it right mate.

The only thing he said about Jesus was that he never mentioned gay. So Maybe you should get it right? ;)

Considering that there is 10s of millions of species and you can name less than 1% of them that engage in homosexuality? That is not biological nor natural.

I suppose if you count asexual one-celled organisms, sure, it's a small amount.

If you count mammalian species, of which we are a part? Bigger amount.

If you count the most intelligent of those species, which we claim to be part of? Nearly all of them practice some form of homosexual contact.

I'm good with those odds.

Hak-Generale

Nah, it's been run on the Torah as well as on the orignal Hebrew* Bible, with results that beat normal odds of 'coincidence' in both.

Yes, but similar results came up when researchers ran the code on "Moby Dick", leading to the theory that you can duplicate the code and its results as long as you use a large-enough document.

I would like to personally thank you Narklos for showing me a site like this. It has been very worthy peice to me in this debate. I would like to ask you and anyother pro-gay advocate on this thread to visit this site also. It has clarified things greatly. To be more specifc, go to http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm.

But for those of you who don't click the link, here are a couple of quotes I would like everyone to see.

"Romans

With his usual intolerance, Paul condemns homosexuals (including lesbians). This is the only clear reference to lesbians in the Bible. 1:26-28 "

"1 Corinthians

Paul lists ten things that will keep you out of heaven, including homosexuality and being "effeminate." 6:9-10"

"Jude

God sent "eternal fire" on the people of Sodom and Gomorrah for "going after strange flesh." 1:7-8"

So, again I would like to thank you for giving me a credible site which shows the lesbians are condemned in the bible. That if you are homosexual, you will not go to heaven. And that Sodom and Gomorrah might have been destoryed for being greedy but also for being homosexual.

Who cares? You obviously didn't read up on that site much (I love it, got it bookmarked ;)). Guess what? I'm not a christian. So I'm already burning in hell. Because Jesus loves me.

Who cares? You obviously didn't read up on that site much (I love it, got it bookmarked ;)). Guess what? I'm not a christian. So I'm already burning in hell. Because Jesus loves me.

Not only that; the website has a clear agenda in oversimplifying Bible passages so as to further their own ideology. They are far from being a credible source of Biblical scholarship.

There's no real way for humans to know how any transient being thinks or feels because man documented any instance in any religious text. For example: the Pope can edit the Catholic bible any way he likes, and by the time a man becomes the Pope he's usually senile. Mormonism also proves the fallibility of religious text. John Adams said God gave him the book of Mormon on golden tablets, but then he "lost" them. Doesn't that make Mormonism kind of like a cult? But I digress. By looking at the bible we know how people who lived thousands of years ago thought... after it was "translated". Perhaps that’s why the Muslims and the Jews don't eat pork. Thousands of years ago, there were limited ways to properly cook pork, since a temperature of 400 degrees needs to be reached to sear all the bacteria and/or parasites out of the meat. The religious leaders noticed that all these people were dying after eating this meat, and told them God said not to eat it to save the populous. However, people today still don't eat pork under the belief that God will judge them based on their diet. Any way, it's best to form your own opinions on any issue, and perhaps read a religious text if you want some guidance.

uh not to take away from your very thoughtful post
but
its joseph smith, john adams was president of the united states

i highly recommend you looking up just HOW joseph smith did the translation of those golden tablets. i found it rather amusing. also check out what joseph smith did after getting the revelation from god about polygamy. its worth the search.

oh and to the rest of you

isnt this horse dead YET?

In the Old Testament, a man, "spilled his seed" on the ground because he didnt want to sleep with this woman, so God struck him down, or killed him because he "wasted" his seed!

Do you have a chapter and verse reference to that?

Please, if you're going to give a reference from the Bible, like the Bible says this or the Bible says that, please give me book, chapter, and verse. Its too easy to take one verse and take it out of context completely.

Do you have a chapter and verse reference to that?

Please, if you're going to give a reference from the Bible, like the Bible says this or the Bible says that, please give me book, chapter, and verse. Its too easy to take one verse and take it out of context completely.

Genesis 38: 1-10. http://www.hareidi.org/bible/Genesis38.htm#1

And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah. And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua; and he took her, and went in unto her. And she conceived, and bore a son; and he called his name Er. And she conceived again, and bore a son; and she called his name Onan. And she yet again bore a son, and called his name Shelah; and he was at Chezib, when she bore him. And Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, and her name was Tamar. And Er, Judah's first-born, was wicked in the sight of HaShem; and HaShem slew him. And Judah said unto Onan: 'Go in unto thy brother's wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her, and raise up seed to thy brother.' And Onan knew that the seed would not be his; and it came to pass when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did was evil in the sight of HaShem; and He slew him also.

The interpretation of what this event exactly MEANS has varied over the course of history. Generally, it has been cited by traditionalist Jews and Christians as proof that God condemns masturbation, among other things.

http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.showResource/CT/BQA/k/19

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html

http://www.goodmorals.org/sterile.html

What's interesting is that some Christians have taken the Onan story and have gone a step further, claiming that it condemns ALL non-reproductive sex. Judaism, however, has never been against sex for pleasure (as long as it remained within certain parameters). In fact, it is a commandment for Jewish men to give their wives sexual pleasure- although some sex acts are still considered forbidden.

What's interesting is that some Christians have taken the Onan story and have gone a step further, claiming that it condemns ALL non-reproductive sex.

One could then say that this might be why they is against homosexual sex, cause it is none-reprductive sex. ;)

Can you prove the bible false?
Can you prove the bible true?

One could then say that this might be why they is against homosexual sex, cause it is none-reprductive sex. ;)

In fact, Onan is often used as one of the rationales for Christian (and Jewish) opposition to homosexuality.

Edit: More on Onan.

http://www.ldolphin.org/Mast.shtml

In fact, Onan is often used as one of the rationales for Christian (and Jewish) opposition to homosexuality.

Edit: More on Onan.

http://www.ldolphin.org/Mast.shtml

We should make a distinction here. Within the Christian community, most of Christendom is opposed to the very idea of homosexuality - save for a few, quite liberal denominations. (The United Church of Christ, The Disciples of Christ etc.) but all of these have a congregational paulity meaning that the individual congregation decides what it will take and leave of the national policy of the church body. (Usually referred to as the 'General Synod'). Jews fall into the categories of: Reconstructionist, Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, and the Chasidim. That is in order from most liberal to most conservative, but unlike Christianity the majority of us tend to fall into the reform category (which is still the fastest growing branch). Jewish branches do not work like Christian denominations - none believes one is more "right" than the other, the difference merely exists on observation of mitzvot (commmandments) within the Tanakh. Reconstructionist and Reform Jews perform gay marriages and ordain gay rabbis and cantors. Conservatives see homosexuality as un-natural but not to the point of discomfort. They will not, however, perform gay marriages. the orthodox definately are not permissive of homosexuality, only in that it directly violates what they see as a commandment in Leviticus (18:22) and Orthodox Jews try to obey ALL 613 commandments - which is more than I can say for most anti-gay Christians. But my point is this. No Jew is going to throw someone out of a synagogue, send them to a "you can change" camp or anything else. There's no fear of a verbal rebuke or threats of hell. Because what you do is considered between you and G-d, and it is not my place to interfere with that. So when we talk about Jewish "opposition" to homosexuality. You're not going to find Orthodox, Chasidim, and Conservatives out on Capitol hill protesting gay marriage or gays in general. We're just simply not like that. Understand?

Jews fall into the categories of: Reconstructionist, Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, and the Chasidim.

Actually, Hasidism are considered Ultra-orthodox, which falls under the general "Orthodox" banner (there being two main camps, the Modern Orthodox and the Ultra-Orthodox).

That is in order from most liberal to most conservative, but unlike Christianity the majority of us tend to fall into the reform category (which is still the fastest growing branch).

Actually, the fastest growing branch is "unaffiliated". Also, when you say "majority", do you mean American Jews, or World Jewry population, or what?

Jewish branches do not work like Christian denominations - none believes one is more "right" than the other, the difference merely exists on observation of mitzvot (commmandments) within the Tanakh.

That's not really true. From what I've read, there seems to be a large body of evidence to suggest that many Orthodox consider themselves to be more "right" than non-Orthodox because they observe more mitzvot. Ditto for Conservatives as compared to the Reform.

But my point is this. No Jew is going to throw someone out of a synagogue, send them to a "you can change" camp or anything else.

That's not quite true. While there haven't been any documented incidents (that I'm aware of) of people being kicked out of synagogues, there are certainly many gays and lesbians from Orthodox homes who were ostracized or disowned by their families. Furthermore, there do indeed exist "change" programs within the Orthodox world, and I don't doubt that a fair amount of their clients are coerced into attending by their communities.

There's no fear of a verbal rebuke or threats of hell.

I watched a documentary some time ago called "Trembling before G-d", about gay and lesbian Orthodox Jews. There did indeed seem to be verbal rebukes, and, I believe, some threats of damnation.

Because what you do is considered between you and G-d, and it is not my place to interfere with that.

But such a view is not uniform in Jewish thought. Which makes sense, since there is basically NOTHING which is uniform in Jewish thought.

So when we talk about Jewish "opposition" to homosexuality. You're not going to find Orthodox, Chasidim, and Conservatives out on Capitol hill protesting gay marriage or gays in general. We're just simply not like that. Understand?

You are misinformed. There have indeed been Hasidic demonstrations against gays in American cities, although not in DC to my knowledge. Furthermore, there are demonstrations in Israel against gays every year on Israel's Gay Pride Day.

Please understand: I am in no way implying that Jewish opposition to homosexuality is in any way similar in terms of volume- numerical volume, or proportional volume- to Christian opposition. But it does exist, and it's important to acknowledge it. I would recommend you see the documentary. It's quite good.

http://www.tremblingbeforeg-d.com/

I thought the bit with Onan being smote was about him not providing a male heir for his dead brother? I remember reading somewhere that one OT law was that the brothers of a man who dies without a male heir must impregnate his wife until she produces one. This might well come from the Onan passage, but it strikes me as the most logical interpretation- There's no explicit statement that the spillage itself is bad, it says(In the Polari Bible- http://www.thesisters.demon.co.uk/bible/ )

Genesis 38

6 And Judah lelled a palone affair for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar.
7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was naff in the varda of the Duchess; and the Duchess ferricadoozaed him.
8 And Judah cackled unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's palone affair, and marry her, and raise up maria to thy brother.
9 And Onan knew that the maria should not be his; any road up, when he trolled in unto his brother's palone affair, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should parker maria to his brother.
10 And the fakement which he did displeased the Duchess: wherefore he ferricadoozaed him also.

So, it's his duty as a brother to produce maria(seed) for his deceased brother, so that his brother's line continues. Nothing about masturbation, spillage or anything like that.



As for whoever said that if we haven't proven homosexuality in more than 450 species out of the hundred million or so. it can't be biological, you're being rather dense- prove heterosexuality exists in all these species, rather than infer that it happens from continuation of the species.


Inferrance is not proof, as any priest should be telling you.

I thought the bit with Onan being smote was about him not providing a male heir for his dead brother? I remember reading somewhere that one OT law was that the brothers of a man who dies without a male heir must impregnate his wife until she produces one. This might well come from the Onan passage, but it strikes me as the most logical interpretation- There's no explicit statement that the spillage itself is bad

...So, it's his duty as a brother to produce maria(seed) for his deceased brother, so that his brother's line continues. Nothing about masturbation, spillage or anything like that.

Quite right. The Onan bit is indeed about him disobeying God. However, over the years, there have been some theologians (and their followers) who have used this as evidence that his exact act- masturbation and, by extension, non-productive sex- were bad, too.

READ THIS!! I wanted to get your attention I know theres so many posts on this thread.

Homosexuality is absolutely completely against the bible. Jehovah*(go down below) has even had entire cities destroyed because of how many homosexuals there were. For one, the city Sodom, which is also a root word for the word sodomy which as im sure everyone knows is a nicer way of saying ass-sex. You absolutely cannot be a christian AND a practicing homosexual. Alot of people including preachers can not understand the bible because they read bibles in "ye ol english", if you are going to try to understand the bible you need a new version. I suggest The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

My thoughts: Not allowing homosexuals to marry is letting church views mix with state and thats illegal. Bush may not like the thought of gay people being married but thats not his problem, there gonna be gay no matter what.

* Jehovah (gods name) was taken out of most bibles by the Jews who became very afraid of pronouncing gods name wrong. SO to get around this they decided to speak of god by his title. In bibles they replaced the word Jehovah with (capitalized) God, or Lord. If you see the word (lowercase) lord, or god in the bible it is normally refering to Jesus. However Satan was also refered to as "god of this world". In bibles that do not state gods name look for where Abraham starts to sacrafice his son, when its all said and done he names that area of land Jehovah-Jirah, while most bibles cut out Jehovahs name, they generally leave his name in here. Ive only seen one bible where they changed it to Lord-Jirah.

email me at hottie_wit_da_naughty_body@hotmail.com

READ THIS!! I wanted to get your attention I know theres so many posts on this thread.

Homosexuality is absolutely completely against the bible. Jehovah*(go down below) has even had entire cities destroyed because of how many homosexuals there were. For one, the city Sodom, which is also a root word for the word sodomy which as im sure everyone knows is a nicer way of saying ass-sex. You absolutely cannot be a christian AND a practicing homosexual. Alot of people including preachers can not understand the bible because they read bibles in "ye ol english", if you are going to try to understand the bible you need a new version. I suggest The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

My thoughts: Not allowing homosexuals to marry is letting church views mix with state and thats illegal. Bush may not like the thought of gay people being married but thats not his problem, there gonna be gay no matter what.

* Jehovah (gods name) was taken out of most bibles by the Jews who became very afraid of pronouncing gods name wrong. SO to get around this they decided to speak of god by his title. In bibles they replaced the word Jehovah with (capitalized) God, or Lord. If you see the word (lowercase) lord, or god in the bible it is normally refering to Jesus. However Satan was also refered to as "god of this world". In bibles that do not state gods name look for where Abraham starts to sacrafice his son, when its all said and done he names that area of land Jehovah-Jirah, while most bibles cut out Jehovahs name, they generally leave his name in here. Ive only seen one bible where they changed it to Lord-Jirah.

email me at hottie_wit_da_naughty_body@hotmail.com

I love people who use Sodom.

Quote the verse in which God says "Dammit, Sodom is filled with gay people. Guess I need to destroy it"

Homosexuality is absolutely completely against the bible. Jehovah*(go down below) has even had entire cities destroyed because of how many homosexuals there were. For one, the city Sodom, which is also a root word for the word sodomy which as im sure everyone knows is a nicer way of saying ass-sex. You absolutely cannot be a christian AND a practicing homosexual. Alot of people including preachers can not understand the bible because they read bibles in "ye ol english", if you are going to try to understand the bible you need a new version. I suggest The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

My thoughts: Not allowing homosexuals to marry is letting church views mix with state and thats illegal. Bush may not like the thought of gay people being married but thats not his problem, there gonna be gay no matter what.

The city of Sodom was destroyed because they were selfish, oppresive bastards, as detailed in Genesis 18-19. Read the actual passage that's used against homosexuality, Genesis 19, it's about gang-rape.

5 And they screeched unto Lot, and cackled unto him, Where are the homies which came in to thee this nochy? Lell them out unto us, that we may know them.
6 And Lot trolled out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7 And cackled, I pray you, brethren, nix so wickedly.
8 Varda now, I have dewey palone chavvies which have not known homie; let me, I pray you, lell them out unto you, and do ye to them as is bona in your ogles: only unto these homies do nishter; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
9 And they cackled, Stand back. And they cackled again, This oney fellow came in to troll, and he will needs be a beak: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the homie, even Lot, and came ajax to break the door.
10 But the homies lau forth their famble, and pulled Lot into the lattie to them, and shut to the door.

This is nothing to do with homosexual love, it's about gang rape. There is nothing consensual about this. In any case, 'know' is an ambiguous term, and can have legal conotations, aswell as sexual, in the original Hebrew, if my memory serves. The Sodomites say 'Thie one fellow came in to walk, and he will needs be a magistrate', which could even indicate that there is no sexual dimension, or that gang rape is being used as a punishment for trespass into the city.

Sodomy is a 19th century term, it's a result of the homophobic mood of the times.

Sorry buddy but you have to be homosexual to gangrape someone of the same sex. Or atleast participating in a homosexual act. They were punished for being homosexual no matter which way they decided to have homosexual fun.

Also no matter which era the word sodomy was coined its root word is still based on Sodom.

Sorry buddy but you have to be homosexual to gangrape someone of the same sex. Or atleast participating in a homosexual act. They were punished for being homosexual no matter which way they decided to have homosexual fun.

Cite.

Show me where, in the bible, it says that city was destroyed because of homosexuality.

Well above its stated that in Genesis 18 about gang rape. However, the men of the city had no interest in gangraping a woman they wanted the two men who lot knew to be angels, and then lot. Lot offered his daughters to the men instead and they wanted nothing to do with that. His daughters were even virgins which was a "high comodity" I guess you could say, sort of like gold. The large majority of men of sodom were gay and violent about it.

ALSO sodomy is not a homophobic term in anyway, it just refers to anal sex which is normally associated with man o man. A man can commit sodomy with a woman or animal.

Well above its stated that in Genesis 18 about gang rape. However, the men of the city had no interest in gangraping a woman they wanted the two men who lot knew to be angels, and then lot. Lot offered his daughters to the men instead and they wanted nothing to do with that. His daughters were even virgins which was a "high comodity" I guess you could say, sort of like gold. The large majority of men of sodom were gay and violent about it.

STEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeRIKE one!

I see no verse condemning them for homosexuality. Try again.

If I were some God-hating asshole, I know who I'd rather gangrape to show my hatred of Him.

Your a terrible ump. Start reading at genesis 19. It speaks of two angels that came to visit Lot. A large amount of men saw them and liked what they saw and went to Lots house to have sex with the men, when Lot refused to let them in they tried to break down the door Lot offered his daughters because he well is obviously going to protect gods messengers. The men got angry and tried to rape Lot, the angels then blinded the men. Keep reading I know theres alot more ive read the bible probably ten times or more in its entirety, I have to read over large parts though cause i dont have it memerized.

And whos that?? One, I do hate god, or atleast think hes a dick. Im just stating what his word says. Doesnt mean i agree with it. Infact I was promoting gay marriage and some of my best friends are gay.

And whos that?? One, I do hate god, or atleast think hes a dick. Im just stating what his word says. Doesnt mean i agree with it. Infact I was promoting gay marriage and some of my best friends are gay.

The angels maybe?

Your a terrible ump. Start reading at genesis 19. It speaks of two angels that came to visit Lot. A large amount of men saw them and liked what they saw and went to Lots house to have sex with the men, when Lot refused to let them in they tried to break down the door Lot offered his daughters because he well is obviously going to protect gods messengers. The men got angry and tried to rape Lot, the angels then blinded the men. Keep reading I know theres alot more ive read the bible probably ten times or more in its entirety, I have to read over large parts though cause i dont have it memerized.

http://www.wackyweaselworld.com/flameINC/images/TS2.gif

Now cite an exact bible verse that says Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality.

And whos that?? One, I do hate god, or atleast think hes a dick. Im just stating what his word says. Doesnt mean i agree with it. Infact I was promoting gay marriage and some of my best friends are gay.

You're mistaken. You're not stating what "his" word says, but rather what you THINK it means. All it says is some guys tried to rape Lot & the Angels, and Lot gave them his daughters instead. You're trying to infer, from that, that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality.

Here is an alternate interpretation.

http://www.motherflash.com/TheLivingWaters/bible/genesis19.html

Who are the real sodomites?
Genesis 19

There are only a few passages in the Bible that refer to same-gender sexual acts. The one most people think of is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. Surely, they say, here God says homosexuality is wrong when he destroys Sodom because of their homosexuality. A logical response to this is "Surely all heterosexuality is wrong because God does not approve of heterosexual rape."

The story of Sodom is not about homosexuality. It's about inhospitality. The inhospitality is expressed as a same-gender gang rape threat.

If we read the passage in context, it is a parallel to the preceding chapter, "the hospitality of Abraham." Three visitors come to Abraham, he welcomes them and is given the promise of a son in his old age. Two of these three visitors then go to Sodom, where Abraham's nephew Lot welcomes them, but all the men in the town arrive to challenge that welcome. They want to "know" the visitors. The word translated "to know" sometimes means sexual knowledge. It is likely that they mean same-gender rape, the ultimate put-down (to treat a man like a woman) that was used to humiliate a defeated enemy. This is not referring to a homosexual orientation or a loving same-gender relationship. This is talking about heterosexual men abusing power in violent same-gender rape. To say this is wrong and sinful and that God condemns it, is not to say that homosexuality is any of those things.

Lot refuses to surrender the visitors and offers his two virgin daughters instead. That this behavior is not condemned by the Bible is usually ignored by people trying to prove homosexuality is a sin. Likewise the apparent acceptance of incest between these same daughters and Lot in the story that follows is ignored. To be consistent, a biblical literalist (who does not accept that some things in the Bible are a result of the culture and time and not of God's will) ought to take the whole passage: accepting that same-gender rape is wrong and that incest and offering ones daughters to a violent mob are okay. But homophobic people are not known for their logic.

Nor do they seem to take what the Bible says elsewhere about Sodom as important. Other biblical references, such as Ezekiel 16:49, are clear that the sin of Sodom is about hospitality not about sex. In Luke's Gospel (10:12), Jesus also understands the sin of Sodom to be inhospitality. In fact, Jesus says nothing anywhere in the Bible about homosexuality, but he has a lot to say about the importance of welcoming people.

According to the Bible, the sin of Sodom is failure to welcome people who are different. By biblical standards, then, those who fail to welcome GLBT people are the real sodomites that the Bible condemns.

Are you serious you dont even own a bible do you?? Read what I told you to. They wanted to have sex with men and for trying to do that they were destroyed. Read the section yourself Im not going to type out the long ass story.

Are you serious you dont even own a bible do you?? Read what I told you to. They wanted to have sex with men and for trying to do that they were destroyed. Read the section yourself Im not going to type out the long ass story.

= "You disagree with me" = "You obviously do not own the bible. There are only 2 kinds of people in the world. People who read the bible and people who disagree with it."

Are you serious you dont even own a bible do you?? Read what I told you to. They wanted to have sex with men and for trying to do that they were destroyed. Read the section yourself Im not going to type out the long ass story.

I don't want the story.

I KNOW the story, I used to be a christian.

It looks like they wanted to rape people (which is a sin). They also were violent (another sin).

Why were they destroyed specifically for homosexuality, is what I'm asking.

I wasnt dissagreeing with you hark, I was back to talking with goed. Goed do you think that god is against homosexuality. And I like that link taht you found it does mention that lot tried to give his daughters, but it doesnt mention that the men wouldnt accept the girls cause they wanted a manwich. Look I can find a billion scriptures on gods view of homosexuality but I cant do in a second, the bibles long and tedious, ill need time to read it more in order to properly answer your question.

No, they weren't, because God wanted to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah a whole chapter before that event. And no, I don't own a Bible, because I'm not a Christian. I use this: http://www.thesisters.demon.co.uk/bible/ . As I've already said, inferrance is not proof. They were wearing clothes and talking in that passage, it doesn't mean either of those were the single, specific reason. If God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for homosexuality, why doesn't hellfire and brimstone rain down on every Pride march?

And there aren't billions of Biblical verses that condemn same sex acts, there are half a dozen or so. There are over 300 that condemn opposite sex acts.

Their not raping Lot's daughters is irrelevant, it shows they weren't interested in sex, they were interested in emphasising their absolute authority. We know from science(Revealed to scientists through results by the Holy Spirit) that homosexuality is roughly constant in its occurence. This makes it a logical impossibility that everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah was gay- Abraham in Genesis 18 convinces God not to destroy the cities for the sake of just 10 people who are not terrible sinners.

And hark, yes angels are hot, look at bartlby( dogma ) played by ben affleck, ben affleck won people magazines sexiest man a year or two ago. But loki played by matt damon, i dont think hes so hot, but most people do.

And hark, yes angels are hot, look at bartlby( dogma ) played by ben affleck, ben affleck won people magazines sexiest man a year or two ago. But loki played by matt damon, i dont think hes so hot, but most people do.

I am not a gardening tool. What is a bartlby?

Well thats why so many people disscredit gods existence, because he hasnt done anything to or for anyone since the appostles death. Thats something no one can answer only disbelieve or have faith.

No, they weren't, because God wanted to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah a whole chapter before that event. And no, I don't own a Bible, because I'm not a Christian. I use this: http://www.thesisters.demon.co.uk/bible/ . As I've already said, inferrance is not proof. They were wearing clothes and talking in that passage, it doesn't mean either of those were the single, specific reason. If God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for homosexuality, why doesn't hellfire and brimstone rain down on every Pide march?

A good link I've found for the OT is the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation of the Tanakh (Hebrew Scriptures). You might want to give it a look:

http://www.hareidi.org/bible/bible.htm

have you ever seen dogma?? hes the character played by ben afflek

http://www.pappayon.com/handbill/big/d/dogma.jpg

have you ever seen dogma?? hes the character played by ben afflek

http://www.pappayon.com/handbill/big/d/dogma.jpg

*drool*

Ahh! The brimstone! It burns!

Lets start a new thread, Who do you think is the sexiest gay man?? I vote kyan douglas

http://www1.luc.edu/info/images/kyan.jpg

Very sexy, but off topic. I'd to get on. Topic, that is.

Erm, no. Onan didn't want to impregnate his brother's wife (but God wanted him to), so he "pulled out" early and "missed". God killed him for not making a baby with his brother's wife, not for spilling his seed...

[""s being in this case marking slightly stressed euphemisms.]

Whoa, really?? No way! Are you serious? Sick! I gotta read this book....

Well I think that I answered the topic for like the last three pages or so. It may be so vaguely stated about the city of sodom that that scripture doesnt count. But it is deffinetly answered a million other places in the bible. You may be able to discredit genesis but theres other places.

All in all you cant be christian AND a practicing homosexual. Nuff said. You can be homosexual and believe in god doesnt mean your doing whats right in his eyes. But people cant help being gay and theres nothing anyone can do about that. Gay marriage should be legal, like I said before Bush and other politicians religious beliefs creating laws banning it is a mixture of church and state. America was built inorder to seperate the two, if we hadnt left england for this reason we wouldnt have america or atleast not the america we know, it would probably be alot like canada. Thast my oppinion atleast.

yah the bibles a pretty sick book manly the beggining. Like when those girls, come to think of it i think it was lots daughter got there dad drunk so that hed have sex with them cause they wanted to carry on the blood line. And how do you think adam and eves kids reproduced they all had sex with there sisters.

Uh I dont think that theres an Onan in the bible. Is that that book of mormon crap?? Cause if it is... it IS crap. You should see southpark make fun of it. Absolute hilariousness.

Uh I dont think that theres an Onan in the bible. Is that that book of mormon crap?? Cause if it is... it IS crap. You should see southpark make fun of it. Absolute hilariousness.

It's in Genesis, check back a few pages to see where.

Don't just state there are verses in the Bible condemning homosexuality, cite them(Or look at one of the sim'lar topics to this which has them cited and shot down, to save us the effort). Also, log onto courage.org.uk and see that people who used to try to 'cure' homosexuals have given up after good old bible-thumping, prayer and experience showed them it was useless.

The Bible says nothing against homosexuality. The terms used in the oft-cited passages aren’t even the same ones. Jesus’ death supposedly ended Mosaic law, and the only other references are from Paul, who amongst others, Thomas Jefferson considered as perverting Jesus’ teachings, and so excised all his writings from his version of the Bible.

Proof that the Bible has been wrong? The ‘Doubting Thomas’ story. It appears only in John, and there is no evidence of its existence before the 4th Century schism between John’s followers and those of Thomas. This was because Thomas NEVER believed Jesus returned physically from the dead, as stated in his own gospel, of which we have an older version than any of the current canon.

In Sodom, the issue wasn’t homosexuality as others pointed out. The men who wanted to rape the angels (who are genderless, remember) were offered Lot’s daughters instead by Lot himself. “Here — rape my daughters” wasn’t enough to cause Lot to fall out of favour with God. The term ‘sodomy’ meant any turning from God, then anything sexual outside of marriage, then anything other than penile-vaginal sex, then anal sex — the meaning has shifted through the years, and relying on its use in a translation is plain silly.

The Catholic Church even performed same-sex unions up until the 12th Century. The idea of disenfranchising homosexuality was essentially a recruitment drive to make more Catholics.

The Roman Empire fell after adopting Christianity, not because of homosexuality.

Homosexuality is biologically normal and seen in every mammal species.

It’s a safe bet not to trust anyone who thinks they completely understand the will of the divine. Or drink their Kool-Aid.

Well I think that I answered the topic for like the last three pages or so. It may be so vaguely stated about the city of sodom that that scripture doesnt count. But it is deffinetly answered a million other places in the bible. You may be able to discredit genesis but theres other places.

All in all you cant be christian AND a practicing homosexual. Nuff said. You can be homosexual and believe in god doesnt mean your doing whats right in his eyes. But people cant help being gay and theres nothing anyone can do about that. Gay marriage should be legal, like I said before Bush and other politicians religious beliefs creating laws banning it is a mixture of church and state. America was built inorder to seperate the two, if we hadnt left england for this reason we wouldnt have america or atleast not the america we know, it would probably be alot like canada. Thast my oppinion atleast.


Actually it is NOT mentioned a "million" times, you have obviously not read the thread or the Bible well if you say that. I have already refuted every Biblical verse that supposedly "condemns" homosexuality, and I will not repeat it for you. The Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality, the only place it possibly does is Leviticus, and that does not apply to modern Christians.

It condemns fornification (Sex outside of marriage) a lot more. Have you ever fornicated? What kind of email address is that you have? Does not sound too "Christian" to me.

You are right, slaves were owned and sold without any sense of wrong-doing but you fail to see the bigger picture. Can you name one time in with the Israelites had slaves? No you can't. Other nations had slaves and they were eventually conquered (Former Syria, Babylon, etc) by either Israel or a greater power who was in turn eventually conquered. You do cut your hair because in 1st Corinthians 11:14 states that, "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him." By common sense, in order for a man to not have long hair, he must what? Cut it. Your third point is also in fault. Medicine is not witch craft and doctors are not burned alive. The physician Luke was a doctor and he was not burned alive. So hopefully, you have a new sense of the beginning.

That's an excellent point about the Israelis....to expound on that:

Has it ever once occurred to anyone that the Old Testament that so many modern-day, self-proclaimed Christians put so much stock in....wait for it....here it comes...... -wasn't written for Christians-??

The Old Testament was by NO MEANS ever meant to be a guideline for modern days. It was a collection of histories and laws passed down for the sole use of the Jewish people. The Jews were Yahweh's people...not Gentiles. I thought it rather obvious that if you are calling yourself a Christian, you would be following the teachings of Christ (who was rejected by the Jews, if I remember my history). Rejected because his teachings were subversive to the ways of life that the Orthodox Jews had been following for generations. Ways of life passed down through the Torah.....or the Old Testament.

Another good point was made: Christ never mentioned homosexuality. But he did mention love, compassion and acceptance. He taught that you should love your enemies, not just your friends. That you should be willing to accept anyone into your midst. To do unto others, to be most cliché.

Perhaps if more people would remember that, as proclaimed Christians, they should be following the teachings of Christ and not the laws of the Ancient Jews, we would have a much more understanding populace and far less of the conflicts we are now encountering over subjects such as homosexulity.

I realise that there will undoubtedly be people who will find some way to attempt to discredit my statements. But if you try to think with a bit of logic and not with a mind addled by an overly-zealous attitude toward faith, perhaps it will make a bit of sense.

eeeeeeeeehhhhh im american therefore im lazy I dont want to cite scriptures.

heres one 1 corinthians 6.9

What! do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit gods kingdom (so heaven or the promised earthly paradise)? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolators, not adulterers, not men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons...etc etc

I'm wondering, are Churches actually obliged to marry homosexuals by the Bible? Think about, sexual acts outside of marriage are fornication, and fornication is a sin. Therefore, by not letting homosexuals marry, homosexuals are being forced to fornicate or remain celibate- surely not a fair choice?

Haha I never said that I was a christian just because I state the fact of what the bible says does not mean taht I think that it is right.

well the bibles states against it so there not supposed to condone gay marriages also gay marriages are still illegal and christians are not supposed to dissobey there governments law unless a govenments law directly violates gods law.

eeeeeeeeehhhhh im american therefore im lazy I dont want to cite scriptures.

heres one 1 corinthians 6.9

What! do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit gods kingdom (so heaven or the promised earthly paradise)? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolators, not adulterers, not men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons...etc etc

Fornication and adultery are mentioned just as prevalently. So....non-sequitir approaching.

If the church and state are going to prevent same-sex unions, shouldn't they do a little digging before they marry ANYONE? I happen to know of a man who was married to at least two women with families by each. That's fornication AND adultery all in one. So if the state is so eager to take a religiously biased view on marriage, perhaps background checks should be mandatory before marriage for anyone.

eeeeeeeeehhhhh im american therefore im lazy I dont want to cite scriptures.

heres one 1 corinthians 6.9

What! do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit gods kingdom (so heaven or the promised earthly paradise)? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolators, not adulterers, not men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons...etc etc

Sorry, no.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind (KJV)

The original word effiminate was (malakoi), which actually means lazy, and in older Bible commentaries it will indicate that that is the proper Greek translation until it has been mistranslated in modern times. That same word has been translated as masturbation before they decided to target homosexuals and make it that. So those verses don't count.


Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, or idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals (malakoi arsenokoitai), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. [1 Corinthians 6: 9-10]

The law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites (arsenokoitai), slave traders, liars, perjurers and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching...[1 Timothy 1: 9-10]


While these are the only passages where the word "homosexual" occurs it's important to be aware that prior to recent translations that wasn't the case even though the word "homosexual" has been commonly used since the late 1800's. In fact, it's interesting that the word homosexual or sodomite have been included even in the last several decades when no one is even certain as to the original meaning of the words malakoi and arsenokoitai. The translation of these words seem to have some flexibility to various times in history depending on behavior that's particularly unacceptable at that time. The early Church understood malakoi arsenokoitai used in combination to signify people of soft morals while it was thought to refer to masturbation from the reformation to the twentieth century. The word "malakoi", never used to denote gay relationships, is a very common Greek word that literally means "soft." There are two other appearances of this word in Scripture where it's used in reference to soft clothing. [Matthew 11:7-18 and Luke 7:24-25]. "Arsenokoitai" literally means male-bed and usage of this word is extremely rare in Greek literature and the actual meaning is very unclear.

One thing that is clear is what Paul's exposure to same-sex behavior would have been, including temple prostitution, orgiastic sexual rituals, the worship of idols, and the custom of married Roman soldiers to take a younger and effeminate male soldier with them on their crusades. None of these behaviors speak to the lives of the sons and daughters of God who are gay and lesbian.

Sorry, no.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind (KJV)


Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, or idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals (malakoi arsenokoitai), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. [1 Corinthians 6: 9-10]

The law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites (arsenokoitai), slave traders, liars, perjurers and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching...[1 Timothy 1: 9-10]


While these are the only passages where the word "homosexual" occurs it's important to be aware that prior to recent translations that wasn't the case even though the word "homosexual" has been commonly used since the late 1800's. In fact, it's interesting that the word homosexual or sodomite have been included even in the last several decades when no one is even certain as to the original meaning of the words malakoi and arsenokoitai. The translation of these words seem to have some flexibility to various times in history depending on behavior that's particularly unacceptable at that time. The early Church understood malakoi arsenokoitai used in combination to signify people of soft morals while it was thought to refer to masturbation from the reformation to the twentieth century. The word "malakoi", never used to denote gay relationships, is a very common Greek word that literally means "soft." There are two other appearances of this word in Scripture where it's used in reference to soft clothing. [Matthew 11:7-18 and Luke 7:24-25]. "Arsenokoitai" literally means male-bed and usage of this word is extremely rare in Greek literature and the actual meaning is very unclear.

One thing that is clear is what Paul's exposure to same-sex behavior would have been, including temple prostitution, orgiastic sexual rituals, the worship of idols, and the custom of married Roman soldiers to take a younger and effeminate male soldier with them on their crusades. None of these behaviors speak to the lives of the sons and daughters of God who are gay and lesbian.


Also Paul's teachings often went against Christ's so unless you are going to rename yourself a paulite as opposed to a Christian his word on many subjects is often irrelivent.

Also Paul's teachings often went against Christ's so unless you are going to rename yourself a paulite as opposed to a Christian his word on many subjects is often irrelivent.

As I understand it, both from historical writings and my own personal beliefs based on theories from historians, Paul was a bit of a twisted soul.

I don't know if I'd exactly want to even consider that nomenclature. =)

Well those are good points but, the jews in jesus' time were no longer gods people. They slowly created laws and took laws out of context thats why jesus had to do away with the sabath because of the levels of crazy the scribes and pharacies or whatever there called had taken it to. Its not that laws of old were corrupt its that the religions did, people like power thats why my government is a dictatorship (muahahah muahahah). Also there were laws that god had set for people of that time like you could not eat certain animals, when proper ways of cooking were developed it became allright to eat things. Modern Jews still dont think christ was the mesiah thats why they follow moses' laws of old. And im pretty sure they still dont eat pork right?? Cause it was originally unclean hard to cook and forbidden.

As I understand it, both from historical writings and my own personal beliefs based on theories from historians, Paul was a bit of a twisted soul.

I don't know if I'd exactly want to even consider that nomenclature. =)

My main beef with Paul is that he is the basis for religious conservatism, if we took the teachings of Jesus on their own we would probably be alot more liberal.

Well those are good points but, the jews in jesus' time were no longer gods people. They slowly created laws and took laws out of context thats why jesus had to do away with the sabath because of the levels of crazy the scribes and pharacies or whatever there called had taken it to. Its not that laws of old were corrupt its that the religions did, people like power thats why my government is a dictatorship (muahahah muahahah). Also there were laws that god had set for people of that time like you could not eat certain animals, when proper ways of cooking were developed it became allright to eat things. Modern Jews still dont think christ was the mesiah thats why they follow moses' laws of old. And im pretty sure they still dont eat pork right?? Cause it was originally unclean hard to cook and forbidden.

The pork eating is dependent on whether they are orthodox or not. I have a Jewish friend who is kosher and one that is not.

yah paul was pretty creepy he killed alot in horrible ways but I guess he completely changed. When did pauls teachings differ from christs?? Save for when he wasnt christian. In fact paul healed people through god after jesus died, if he would have went against christ god wouldnt have let him do the miracles. Jesus didnt even have the power to do miracles god did it through him.

So you are going to ignore, Freakin Sweet, my explanation of Corinthians above? It is ignorant not to research it yourself and just go off because society tells you to condemn the gays

Well those are good points but, the jews in jesus' time were no longer gods people.

That's cute.

They slowly created laws and took laws out of context

Such as, mr. theologian?

One thing that I think is funny, is that ive yet to hear anyone that reads the bible say that jesus is not gods son but god which is a totally asinine belief. Yet most of the "christian religions" believe it.

One thing that I think is funny, is that ive yet to hear anyone that reads the bible say that jesus is not gods son but god which is a totally asinine belief. Yet most of the "christian religions" believe it.

Are you ignoring the homosexuality disputing stuff that got posted?

well one thing about studying the bible is that you should read history too. I think that there would be alot more believers had the library of alexandria not burned down, but thats just my thought ive always had a suspicion about that place. You should scroll back and find my original and first post which ignited this one i dont feel like writing about when the jews took out gods name again.

no im not, it takes a while to look it up cause i well have to look alot up i want to be right.

no im not, it takes a while to look it up cause i well have to look alot up i want to be right.

Well I hope you know you are wrong, and will admit it.

Another study I found.......
Word Studies: MALAKOI - Literally means "soft" or "males who are soft". This word has been translated as "effeminate" (KJV), "homosexuals" (NKJV), "corrupt" (Lamsa), "perverts" (CEV), "catamites" which means call boys (JB), "those who are male prostitutes" (NCV), and "male prostitutes" (NIV, NRSV). Until the Reformation in the sixteenth century and in Roman Catholicism until the Twentieth Century, malakoi was thought to mean "masturbators." Only in the Twentieth century has it been understood as a reference to homosexuality. In 1522 Martin Luther translated this term "weichlinge" or "weaklings." Philo, a first century contemporary of Paul, applied the term to a man who had remarried his former wife. It commonly designated any male whose behavior was less than respectable. Many scholars argue that malakoi refers to moral weakness in general, with no specific connection to sodomy.

Several translations combine malakoi and arsenokoitai and render them with a single phrase which they believe refers to the passive recipient of and active partner in sodomy. The RSV (1946-1965) translated the two words as "homosexuals" and later changed it (1971 ed.) to "sexual perverts." The LB used the word "homosexuals" while the TEV used the phrase "homosexual perverts." Clearly these translations reflect the bias of those involved in the translation process. There is nothing in the text or context which necessitates that these two words be taken together.

no im not, it takes a while to look it up cause i well have to look alot up i want to be right.

Well it is right. The passage was mistranslated.

look I read the information that you googled you magnificent historian and all it says is that sodomites was misstranslated, but its not that it was mistranslated, it has dual meanings. It basically refers to but sex and sometimes also is considered to include oral. The part that you so readily decided to leave out is that the word ARSENOKOITAI directly refers to man on man relations, undisputedly. Now even if god didnt say homosexuality is immoral he does talk about ass sex oral sex and masturbation, so you get the point even if they could date or marry in the eyes of the lord they couldnt do anything about it. We live in a different time we dont speak ye ol english get a modern bible its like trying to read another language.

OK, let's get this shit in the Bible analysed.

Leviticus

18:22 Nanti lie with homiekind, as with womankind: it is dowry cod.

20:13 If a homie also lie with homiekind, as he lettieth with a palone, both of them have committed a dowriest cod: they shall surely be lau to naffness; their blood shall be upon them.

All right, bisexuality is out, but exclusively homosexual men don't lie with women. But, of course, it's also dowry cod to eat pork and shellfish and sim'lar. Anyway, the holiness code of Leviticus doesn't apply to any Christian who's not circumcised, since their faith in Christ gets them into heaven. In any case, as Parsha explained a little way back, the holiness code was to stop the Jews from becoming like other sects of the time, with their temple prostitution- gays don't do that.


1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a bona homie, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the naff and for kerterverers, for unfabe and profane, for murderers of aunties and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that dinge themselves with homiekind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other fakement that is contrary to sound doctrine

Those that dinge(pollute) themselves with mankind is said to refer to homosexuals, but coming right after whoremongers(pimps), whores(either gender) is the more likely meaning. Menstealers probably means people(either gender) who sleep with married men and hope to claim the man for themselves. Not against homosexuals. Nya!


1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the naff shall not inherit the kingdom of Gloria? Be not mogued: nishter fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with homiekind,

6:9-Wahey! Sorry. Now, effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankind is the rendering of the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai, which are taken to mean by modern Greek scholars to mean effeminate call boys and dirty old men. That's prostituion and paedophilia, not homosexuality.


Deuteronomy 23:17-18, 1 Kings 14:22-24, Isaiah 3:9, 2 Peter 2:6-9(Whoo!) and Jude 1:7-8 are also cited occasionally, but they all talk about S&G, which we've been all over repeatedly.

look I read the information that you googled you magnificent historian and all it says is that sodomites was misstranslated, but its not that it was mistranslated, it has dual meanings. It basically refers to but sex and sometimes also is considered to include oral. The part that you so readily decided to leave out is that the word ARSENOKOITAI directly refers to man on man relations, undisputedly. Now even if god didnt say homosexuality is immoral he does talk about ass sex oral sex and masturbation, so you get the point even if they could date or marry in the eyes of the lord they couldnt do anything about it. We live in a different time we dont speak ye ol english get a modern bible its like trying to read another language.


No, wrong again. The sin of Sodom WAS NOT SODOMY.

Old Testament References The Sins of Sodom Mentioned
Deuteronomy 29:17-26 Idolatry and images to false gods
Deuteronomy 32:32-38 Idolatry
Isaiah 1:9-23 Murder, greed, theft, rebellion, covetness
Isaiah 3:8-15 Mistreating the poor
Isaiah 3:11-19 Arrogance
Jeremiah 23:10-14 Adultery, lying by priests and prophets
Jeremiah 49:16-18 Pride of the heart
Jeremiah 50:2-40 Idolatry and pride
Lamentations 4:3-6 Cruelty and failure to care for the young and poor
Ezekiel 16:49-50 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
Amos 4:1-11 Oppression and mistreating the poor
Zephaniah 2:8 Pride

New Testament References The Sins of Sodom Mentioned
Luke 17:26-29 No specific sins mentioned
2 Peter 2:6 Living after ungodliness
Jude 1:7-8 Fornication after strange flesh (angels, see Genesis 6:1)

How the heck you can say that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality, I do not know. Your basically thinking that because the modern translation of sodomy is anal sex that that must have been Sodom's sin. WRONG. The BIBLE says why they were destroyed. Obviously YOU are not reading YOUR Bible.

Now as to your other part

Word Study: ARSENOKOITAI - Here we have the same Greek word used in 1 Corinthians 6. It has been translated as "them that defile themselves with mankind" (KJV), "sodomites" (NKJV, RSV, NRSV), "those who defile themselves with males" (Lamsa), those "who live as homosexuals" (CEV), "those who are immoral...with boys" (JB), "those who have sexual relations with people of the same sex" (NCV), "perverts" (NIV), "homosexuals" (LB), and "sexual perverts" (TEV).

Daniel Helminiac says "a contemporary statement of the positive teaching of 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, regarding male-male sex would run as follows: biblical opposition to prostitution, incest, or adultery does not forbid male-female sex acts as such. What the Bible opposes throughout is abuse of heterosexuality. Likewise, the condemnation or arsenokoitai does not forbid male homogenital acts as such. In first century, Greek speaking, Jewish Christianity, arsenokoitai referred to exploitive, lewd and wanton sex between men. This, and not male-male sex in general, is what the term implied. This, then, and not male-male sex in general, is what these biblical texts oppose."

whoa what kind of bible is that its like some twisted mexican holy gangsta bible. its late and hard for my eyes to focus on that, also when its late you laugh at everything some sort of psuedo-high. Well Im going to bed so if i dont answer, I still know im right. Its not that were not supposed to follow the greek scriptures anymore infact they are what created the ten commandments and we still follow those dont we?? Only some rules were gotten rid of. We were in a past way of life, the rules that were created seemed weird then but as we grew on rules were changed. It was a rule that you had to deficate outside of the camp, this makes sence now but back then people didnt know about diseases all they knew was that it was a weird rule but beknownst to them it kept them alive and clean, safe. As we grow on rules change, not many rules were thrown out from the greek scriptures and homosexuality was definetly not one of them... that was thrown out.

whoa what kind of bible is that its like some twisted mexican holy gangsta bible. its late and hard for my eyes to focus on that, also when its late you laugh at everything some sort of psuedo-high. Well Im going to bed so if i dont answer, I still know im right. Its not that were not supposed to follow the greek scriptures anymore infact they are what created the ten commandments and we still follow those dont we?? Only some rules were gotten rid of. We were in a past way of life, the rules that were created seemed weird then but as we grew on rules were changed. It was a rule that you had to deficate outside of the camp, this makes sence now but back then people didnt know about diseases all they knew was that it was a weird rule but beknownst to them it kept them alive and clean, safe. As we grow on rules change, not many rules were thrown out from the greek scriptures and homosexuality was definetly not one of them... that was thrown out.

Your obviously being ignorant about this, and do not know what you are talking about. You cannot even type with good grammar, how can I expect you to understand what was posted before? So perhaps it will be enlightening to others.

I think the bible condemns hypocrites and liars far more than it does homosexuals, and in the New Testament Jesus is certainly more concerned with hypocrites in positions of power than he is about anyones genetalia.

So while you're all debating the vices and virtues of homosexuality, you're NOT ranting and raving about the horrendous hypocracies and outright lies coming from the larger western powers today, and indeed i feel, almost every government in the entire world. It sickens me to see avowed christians who quote the Old Testament (that archaic anti christian culture/thought police manifesto) and harrass homosexuals while at the same time voting for unscroupulous corporate interests, flagrant conflicts of interest, and unprecedented militarisation in the name of 'God', 'Freedom' and 'Civilisation'.

Something woefully hypocritical wouldn't you say?

This debate is simply a distraction, designed to forment prejudice and keep your attention off the big scam - the dawning of an Anglo American Empire and accompanying Global Fascist Police State.

Bible vs homosexuality . . . jeez. . . why not the bible vs the banks?! I guarentee the bible (both old and new testaments, including yes Jesus Christ himself!) reserves the most frightening punishments for ursury - the lending of money with interest rates, but where's the debate there?

YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO GO THERE, OK?

JUST FORGET ABOUT IT OK?

That's why 'they' killed him!

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

By the way my point is that yea, the bible (Old Testament) condemns homosexuals, sure it does! It's a racist, oppressive, sexist and bigoted manifesto for totalitarian control and blind obedience to the patriarch. Like. . . DOH, but what i was trying to get at is that if you still think the bible contains some important moral truths then get ready to lynch that banker (ursurer), overthrow the corporate media (liars), bury George Wanker Bush (liar and hypocrite) up to his neck and stone him to death, slowly, because my friends, that's what The Bible commands.

And hell, i'm an atheist and i share similar sentiments! ;)

Be aware
Be compassionate
Be responsible

That's all ya need.

Peace.

wow did you read those scriptures before you cited them?? your just copy and pasting off of websites that didnt understand what they read. for one your first comment yes does talk about dungy idols and whatever but its not saying thats only what sodom was punished for.


ANSWER ME THIS, if anal, oral sex is against gods commands and so is masturbation, then what are gay people supposed to do??

It's the Polari, duckey, 'tis the lingo us omi-palones used to palare back when Lilly was slapping us in the cottages.

wow did you read those scriptures before you cited them?? your just copy and pasting off of websites that didnt understand what they read. for one your first comment yes does talk about dungy idols and whatever but its not saying thats only what sodom was punished for.


ANSWER ME THIS, if anal, oral sex is against gods commands and so is masturbation, then what are gay people supposed to do??

Where does it say anal and oral sex is against gods command? What are you talking about? Of course I am copying, and pasting. Do you need me to quote directly from scripture what Sodom was condemned for?


From Biblegateway.com
(King James Version)
Ezekiel 16
49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

HELLO? Do none of these scriptures get to your head? Obviously, the main sin of Sodom was NOT "sodomy" as you so ignorantly believe.

As such, all conversation to do with homosexuality and the bible are considered moot, and from hereon in - ILLEGAL! Besides, the original Bible was written in German!

I think the original bible was written in LATIN.

wow did you read those scriptures before you cited them?? your just copy and pasting off of websites that didnt understand what they read. for one your first comment yes does talk about dungy idols and whatever but its not saying thats only what sodom was punished for.


ANSWER ME THIS, if anal, oral sex is against gods commands and so is masturbation, then what are gay people supposed to do??

If you'll notice, it states plenty of reasons for Sodom being destroyed, so there's no reason to add to them. Unless you have a verse that shows it should?

Where does it say I can't put my cartso in a mouth, arse or hand? Be specific.

I am not using proper grammar and thats why i need to go to sleep i mean geez i should wake up for work in five hours atleast. And jesus didnt deal on to many small issues homosexuality was a small issue then the huge issue was how the scribes and pharacies were treating there people and leading them to disaster. Also the bible only follows jesus through three years of his life, so there wasnt much to say, he took on by far the biggest issue, they killed him for it and that was it. Your supposed to relly on the rest of the bible for other answers, if the early scriptures were all bad then we would have no need for them. But obviously we do.

I think the original bible was written in LATIN.

No. The OT was written in Hebrew, Jesus would have spoken in Hebrew, and the NT was originally written down in Greek. Which means it makes even less sense why Catholics resisted common language Bibles until the 1920s. Which is actually fucking hilarious, since the Bible was translated into Vulgar Latin- that's Vulgar as in common, omis and palones!

it was not originally written in german you dumbass, dont you think they would have mentioned a germany in the bible the first part was greek then hebrew. And for those who dont know when god said that oral sex and anal sex are illegal here you go and this is the meaning of the word when translated from greek to latin i believe, and you allready mentioned the greek word for man on man.

7 entries found for sodomy.
sod·om·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sd-m)
n.
Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English sodomie, from Old French, from Sodome Sodom, from Latin Sodoma, from Greek, from Hebrew sdm.]

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


sod·om·y (sd-m)
n.

Anal copulation of one male with another.
Anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
Copulation with an animal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sodom·ite (-mt) n.
sodom·ize (-mz) v.


Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.


Main Entry: sod·omy
Pronunciation: 'sä-d&-mE
Function: noun
Etymology: Anglo-French sodomie sexual intercourse between men, from Old French, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom, from the supposed homosexual practices of the men of the city in Genesis 19:1-11
: the crime of oral or anal sexual contact or penetration between persons or of sexual intercourse between a person and an animal; especially : the crime of forcing another person to perform oral or anal sex —sod·om·ize /'sä-d&-"mIz/ transitive verb


Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


Main Entry: sod·omy
Pronunciation: 'säd-&-mE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -om·ies
1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex —sod·om·it·ic /"säd-&-'mit-ik/ or sod·om·it·i·cal /-i-k&l/ adjective


Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


sodomy

\Sod"om*y\, n. [From Sodom. a country mentioned in the Bible: cf. F. sodomite.] Carnal copulation in a manner against nature; buggery. --Gen. xix. 5.

sodomy

n : anal intercourse committed by a man with a man or woman [syn: buggery, anal sex, anal intercourse]

I am not using proper grammar and thats why i need to go to sleep i mean geez i should wake up for work in five hours atleast. And jesus didnt deal on to many small issues homosexuality was a small issue then the huge issue was how the scribes and pharacies were treating there people and leading them to disaster. Also the bible only follows jesus through three years of his life, so there wasnt much to say, he took on by far the biggest issue, they killed him for it and that was it. Your supposed to relly on the rest of the bible for other answers, if the early scriptures were all bad then we would have no need for them. But obviously we do.

No, Jesus satisfied the Old Law by dying for our original sin- that's what keeping the Law was for. Now, if you're baptised and faithful, your original sin goes away because Jesus sorted that for you. If you're circumcised, however, you're still subject to the Law.

He may have had many, many more important issues, but he only had to say ONE VERSE on homosexuality if he thought it was an issue at all.

...the original Bible was written in German!

So that's why the bible doesn't condemn poop sex. :D

Sodomy: A word coined in the 19th Century. It did not appear in the original Bible. Please, cite book, chapter and verse condeming anal, oral and hand sex.

whats really sad is that catholics used to not know what they were reading because all bibles were in latin they used to go to church and listen to the preacher or priest or whatever speak in latin. They had no idea what he was saying they just knew or figured it was from god. I think its the same as people still using the king james its horrible and causes missunderstadings. Thats why so many people start beliefs like jesus is actually god, and some trinitarian beliefs.

alot of religions were created for ungodly reasons, i.e. the protestants (i think there the one) were created because a king wanted to get a divorce and the catholic church wouldnt let him so he started a whole new religion and forced his kingdom to follow it.

one question ive always wondered thats not really related though is why dont preachers rape girls?? I mean if there gonna rape why is it always a choir boy??

well thats what sodomy means and thats what that one word that guy stated taht is in the original greek version means the words like malakoi or somethign like that, and theres some other long a name word look in the prior posts

alot of religions were created for ungodly reasons, i.e. the protestants (i think there the one) were created because a king wanted to get a divorce and the catholic church wouldnt let him so he started a whole new religion and forced his kingdom to follow it.


Protestants are a wide coalition of faiths, anything that isn't Catholic, Orthodox or Mormon. It's Anglicans who formed as a result of Henry VIII wanting to divorce.

sodomy is just the translation of the original word banning it

well thats what sodomy means and thats what that one word that guy stated taht is in the original greek version means the words like malakoi or somethign like that, and theres some other long a name word look in the prior posts

Whatever Sodomy means, it's a word that's a little more than a century old and has no place in biblical morality unless you're using it descriptively. You can't infer anything from it, apart from that the 19th century was quite a homophobic time. It's not a direct and perfect translation, and anything referring back to S&G in the Bible is referring to the Genesis chapters 18 and 19, which don't mention arse, mouth and hand sex.

isnt that funny though that people worship a religion that doesnt actually have ironclad beliefs, one that was created not by god but for a mans selfish reason?? Thats one of the religions where people dont do reasearch for themselves they merely follow what there parents grew up believing.

another thing i think is funny is when people say that there religion is that there christian, its like uh christian is not a religion most religions think that they are christian and that all others are heathen

alot of religions were created for ungodly reasons, i.e. the protestants (i think there the one) were created because a king wanted to get a divorce and the catholic church wouldnt let him so he started a whole new religion and forced his kingdom to follow it.

Actually, protestantism was started by Martin Luther who got pissed at the Catholic church being corrupt and so started the protestant reformation.

It was actually the *Anglican* church (often called the Church of England, although the Episcopal church is a direct descendent but without the ties to the monarchy) that was founded by Henry VIII because his wives kept giving him daughters, not sons. Note: that was not a religion, so much as it was a Church.

Heck, the Roman Catholic church was a power grab by declaring a single person infallible and that everyone should follow him.

you dont see it doesnt matter when sodomy was coined it is the english trasnlated word for another languages word. the actual word used in the original greek was (i cant remember but it was) m something meaning unnatural sex and then there was an a something that meant man on man.

Getting off-topic, but Christianity is really an association of sects of Judaism. I'm not presumptuous enough to say I know whether or not God exists- I'm sure the knowledge is on a need-to-know basis, and I don't need to know yet.

you dont see it doesnt matter when sodomy was coined it is the english trasnlated word for another languages word. the actual word used in the original greek was (i cant remember but it was) m something meaning unnatural sex and then there was an a something that meant man on man.

I do see and it does matter. What was the original word? Was it malakoi or arsenokoitai? Those refer to prostitution(sepcifically effeminate call-boys and their customers), not homosexuality. Now you try.

yah im not sure what religion it was for sure and i stated that, but the one im thinking of is a major religion today. I think theres alot of them in ireland or something like that.

hey where are all you guys from?? like is it late where you are?? cause dang im about to die of sleep deprivation.

and what religion do you think is right or closest?? id have to say Jehovahs Witnesses are closest theres alot of things people think they believe that they dont actually believe though.

this word talks about unnatural sex acts

The word MALAKOS (plural MALAKOI) is a very common word that literally means "soft". It is said of clothing in Matthew 11:8. Applied to moral issues as here, it could be implied to mean "loose", "wanton", "unrestrained", or "undisciplined". This seems to be the most sensible translation of the 1 Corinthians passage. The word MALAKOS was also applied to heterosexuals who were wanton or loose. It is a general condemnation of moral looseness and lewd, lustful behavior.

this word is about man on man


The meaning of these verses in regards to homogenital acts depends on the translation of two Greek words: MALAKOI and ARSENOKOITAI, and their translation is highly debated. Basically, MALAKOI has no specific reference to homogenitality, but ARSENOKOITAI is some kind of reference to male same sex acts. A literal translation of the Hebrew word for this relates to the prohibition of the same sex acts as in Leviticus.


you try i can find more

It's Anglicans, Church of England. I live in England and we do a whole term about it in History in Secondary school. It's almost noon here.

I think the idea of organised religion as it is today is wrong. People shouldn't accept a religion if they haven't gone through it's dogma and texts, which hardly anyone does. Not even atheists, who tend to be pretty loud about it on occassion. They just think 'that sounds cool' and believe and not look at the pretty simplistic proofs that are out there for it. They're about as flimsy as the proofs for God, so I'm out of the whole mess if it doesn't affect me.

this word talks about unnatural sex acts

The word MALAKOS (plural MALAKOI) is a very common word that literally means "soft". It is said of clothing in Matthew 11:8. Applied to moral issues as here, it could be implied to mean "loose", "wanton", "unrestrained", or "undisciplined". This seems to be the most sensible translation of the 1 Corinthians passage. The word MALAKOS was also applied to heterosexuals who were wanton or loose. It is a general condemnation of moral looseness and lewd, lustful behavior.

this word is about man on man


The meaning of these verses in regards to homogenital acts depends on the translation of two Greek words: MALAKOI and ARSENOKOITAI, and their translation is highly debated. Basically, MALAKOI has no specific reference to homogenitality, but ARSENOKOITAI is some kind of reference to male same sex acts. A literal translation of the Hebrew word for this relates to the prohibition of the same sex acts as in Leviticus.


you try i can find more

Some kind of reference, i.e. vague reference, non-specific, not all-encompassing.

I absolutely agree especially on the part where you talk about atheiests. I actually have read the bible many many times and i think that the jehovahs witnesses are correct but i well think god is a jackass. He created man to serve him and yes he gives us freedom to do what we please but if we dont do what he wants then hes going to kill us, that isnt letting us do what we want its giving us a head start before he kills us. And hes so maltempored like when he told nobody to touch the ark of the covenant then as uzzah was standing by it god made it fall over on him and when uzzah touched it god killed him, how is that nice in any way?? Also were supposed to spend every second worshiping him but its not like he did anything to deserve his powers he was born with them or however he came about. Its not like an athlete or schientist that works for there skill. Who says god deserves it?? Uh I have more and better I can go on for ever but i need sleep. I live in las vegas nevada and its four in the morning here.

What I don't understand, is why someone could still take the bible seriously...
Big parts of it have been proven wrong by scientists, so why would it be right on other points?

- Creation??? There is a lot more proof for evolution
- Gigantic flood??? No evidence either.
- Earth is flat??? You must be kidding

And of other points Christians themselves say it shouldn't be taken literally.

- Creation in 7days
- Some of Jesus' miracles
- ...

So, it's only right when it fits there goals???

Just a bunch of stories for adults, way to violent parts for children :-)

--
"If the Bible is mistaken in telling us where we came from, how can we trust it to tell us where we're going?"
(Justin Brown)

just google the words. all in all just because you dont want to believe something doesnt mean its not true. I dont care either way, id still have my own views, i think gay men are normally the funniest coolest people (not so much lesbians) to hang out with, I consider my self highly metrosexual. I think gays should definetly be together, but I know its not christian, and if god hates gays why would you want to be christian?? Just cause your not christian doesnt mean you cant be nice or an outstanding citizen or a good person.

actually evolution has never been proven, and from what i understand didnt darwin say that there was flaws in his reasoning. The bible NEVER says the world is flat, and i forgot what the other one you said was. Also the seven days, those are supposed to be seven days to god, i think its something like i cant think its some big ass number of human days for everyone of gods days.

The first chapter of Genesis it self has several contradictions:

1:3-5 God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?

1:11 In chapter 1 plants are created on the third day before humans are created on the sixth day. But in chapter 2 the order is reversed. (2:4-7)

Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). Notice, though, that God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all.

More at: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com =)

One day is the Earth spinning round, not the Sun rising and falling, Evening and Morning are segments of that in the absence of light.

Plants are made on the third day, the Sun of the fourth. They then have to go a whole night without light... That's pretty freaky!

That sceptics website is really good.

I will make my one comment, and I will not be back to view your replies, so don't bother.

The bible is not meant to be taken literally. It is meant to be studied with prayer and fasting. Some other things I was gonna say but forgot.. oh well... have fun you all.

That sceptics website is really good.

Yes, it's not even a bible bashing site. It's just putting rational and logic thinking into it. =)

And why people follow a novel is beyond me.

Actually, Hasidism are considered Ultra-orthodox, which falls under the general "Orthodox" banner (there being two main camps, the Modern Orthodox and the Ultra-Orthodox).



Actually, the fastest growing branch is "unaffiliated". Also, when you say "majority", do you mean American Jews, or World Jewry population, or what?



That's not really true. From what I've read, there seems to be a large body of evidence to suggest that many Orthodox consider themselves to be more "right" than non-Orthodox because they observe more mitzvot. Ditto for Conservatives as compared to the Reform.



That's not quite true. While there haven't been any documented incidents (that I'm aware of) of people being kicked out of synagogues, there are certainly many gays and lesbians from Orthodox homes who were ostracized or disowned by their families. Furthermore, there do indeed exist "change" programs within the Orthodox world, and I don't doubt that a fair amount of their clients are coerced into attending by their communities.



I watched a documentary some time ago called "Trembling before G-d", about gay and lesbian Orthodox Jews. There did indeed seem to be verbal rebukes, and, I believe, some threats of damnation.



But such a view is not uniform in Jewish thought. Which makes sense, since there is basically NOTHING which is uniform in Jewish thought.



You are misinformed. There have indeed been Hasidic demonstrations against gays in American cities, although not in DC to my knowledge. Furthermore, there are demonstrations in Israel against gays every year on Israel's Gay Pride Day.

Please understand: I am in no way implying that Jewish opposition to homosexuality is in any way similar in terms of volume- numerical volume, or proportional volume- to Christian opposition. But it does exist, and it's important to acknowledge it. I would recommend you see the documentary. It's quite good.

http://www.tremblingbeforeg-d.com/


I have seen the documentary you're talking about. But, sir, I AM A JEW. I understand you've done reading and whatnot, but this is a community in which I am intimately involved. Israeli demonstrations are a different kettle of fish than American demonstrations, as to why it would take pages to explain the devolopment of the orthodox-or-nothing attitude in Israel. As a reform Jew, and as a Jew who studies halacha I have talked to rabbis of all the branches. Understand the documentary was talking about life in the most devout of Orthodox circles. You talk about the Orthodox really considering themselves "more right," that's not true. You see, it's looked at completely differently than you're looking at it - take your mind out of the box and look at what I'm saying. It's like this. The orthodox consider their mitzvot important to keep for themselves, and their families and the orthodox community. But we Jews have a philosophy called "k'lal yisrael" meaning: "to identify with the greater community of Jews, understanding we are all Jews who differ only in our interpretation of Halacha. Ritual observance is stessed in Orthodox Judaism, but the foundation of Judaism is still there do good for others. Live an ethical life. And there's no "damnation" because there is no hell in my religion. I also, of course, refer to the American Jewish population. "Unaffiliated" is not a branch - it means people who consider themselves Jews, but don't practice. Reform is the fastest growing branch due to it's outreach to interfaith families and people of no religious leaning. The Chasidim are not really considered "ultra orthodox," because they tend to do a lot of things that falls outside the realm of Judaism. Ie. Reincarnation. Therefore they would not fit into Orthodox. I'm just saying this because I know what I'm saying and I don't know what your point was in just contradicting because you could.

No. The OT was written in Hebrew, Jesus would have spoken in Hebrew, and the NT was originally written down in Greek. Which means it makes even less sense why Catholics resisted common language Bibles until the 1920s. Which is actually fucking hilarious, since the Bible was translated into Vulgar Latin- that's Vulgar as in common, omis and palones!

the majority of the O.T. comes from Aramaic writings which is a language older than Hebrew. Jesus spoke Aramaic. Most of the N.T. was written in Greek, and to an extent a lot of O.T. documents have also been recovered in the form of greek copies. If you want to see it this way, Aramaic was the common parlance of the people at that time. Hebrew evolved out of aramaic as a temple language, which then became a mainstream language. Aramaic is much more fluid when spoken. When you look at it, it's kind of funny as semitic languages go because so many words end in alephs, and ayins. Today, these are considered silent (or glottal stop) letters whose purpose is to hold vowels. But back then they had a sound...the Hebrew of the Jews of Ethiopia has sounds for Aleph, Ayin etc. and so this is the speculation that their Hebrew is the closest to the original as spoken. *shrugs* food for thought?

actually evolution has never been proven, and from what i understand didnt darwin say that there was flaws in his reasoning. The bible NEVER says the world is flat, and i forgot what the other one you said was. Also the seven days, those are supposed to be seven days to god, i think its something like i cant think its some big ass number of human days for everyone of gods days.

First of all, yes, Darwins theory hasn't been proven completely and not everything seems to be true, however the base of it has never been disproven either. Creation can be disproven easily with what science learns us.
The Bible says that the earth is flat and fixed in space: see http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm

And that 7 days nonsense... you just prove my point, believers allways find way to get away with it... just pathetic attempts, the Bible is just as fake as Greek mythology, the only difference is that there are still people who believe God speaks out of some burning bushes and there are no people who think He sits on a cloud with a lightning in his hands.

I have seen the documentary you're talking about. But, sir, I AM A JEW.

As am I. Nice to meet you. :)

I understand you've done reading and whatnot, but this is a community in which I am intimately involved.

And I'm happy for you, but some of the things you've written are not entirely correct, and I'm not going to be quiet about it just because I've read books and you attend synagogue.

Israeli demonstrations are a different kettle of fish than American demonstrations, as to why it would take pages to explain the devolopment of the orthodox-or-nothing attitude in Israel. As a reform Jew, and as a Jew who studies halacha I have talked to rabbis of all the branches. Understand the documentary was talking about life in the most devout of Orthodox circles. You talk about the Orthodox really considering themselves "more right," that's not true.

It may not be your experience, and it may not be as wide-spread as I implied, but the attitude certainly exists among some sectors of Orthodox Judaism. Some Orthodox institutions have gone so far as to say that Reform and Conservative Judaism are "not Judaism at all". What would you charaterize that as if not "considering themselves more right"?

But we Jews have a philosophy called "k'lal yisrael" meaning: "to identify with the greater community of Jews, understanding we are all Jews who differ only in our interpretation of Halacha.

BUT, not all Jews consider all other Jews to be included under the definition of klal yisrael. This is not specifically an Orthodox issue, either. Many Jews have certain reservations about, for instance, including Messianic Jews under this banner.

And there's no "damnation" because there is no hell in my religion.

I'm afraid it's not that simple. Judaism is simply not that clear-cut on this issue- or many issues, for that matter. ;)

http://www.convert.org/differ.htm#DEATH

http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_afterlife.htm

http://www.askmoses.com/qa_detail.html?h=111&o=164

http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm

Only the very righteous go directly to Gan Eden. The average person descends to a place of punishment and/or purification, generally referred to as Gehinnom (guh-hee-NOHM) (in Yiddish, Gehenna), but sometimes as She'ol or by other names. According to one mystical view, every sin we commit creates an angel of destruction (a demon), and after we die we are punished by the very demons that we created. Some views see Gehinnom as one of severe punishment, a bit like the Christian Hell of fire and brimstone. Other sources merely see it as a time when we can see the actions of our lives objectively, see the harm that we have done and the opportunities we missed, and experience remorse for our actions. The period of time in Gehinnom does not exceed 12 months, and then ascends to take his place on Olam Ha-Ba.

Only the utterly wicked do not ascend at the end of this period; their souls are punished for the entire 12 months. Sources differ on what happens at the end of those 12 months: some say that the wicked soul is utterly destroyed and ceases to exist while others say that the soul continues to exist in a state of consciousness of remorse.

So, the real issue is, "Is the Jewish conception of Gehenna compatible with the Christian vision of Hell"?

You may certainly not believe in a Hell. But that doesn't mean that this is a view held uniformly throughout Judaism (like a lot of other things, incidentally).

The Chasidim are not really considered "ultra orthodox," because they tend to do a lot of things that falls outside the realm of Judaism. Ie. Reincarnation.

Well, according to them these ideas all have "authentic" Jewish roots in Orthodoxy, so it sort of depends who you ask.

http://www.pinenet.com/~rooster/hasid1.html

A lot of people have expressed extreme astonishment that Hasidim would believe in things like reincarnation, prophetic dreams, miracles, angels, spiritual healing -- ideas which are often labeled as New Age. What can I tell you? For them maybe it's New Age, but for us it's ancient history... There are many Hasidic stories about reincarnation and similar topics.

...While it may be true that the fundamentalist Christians are the most non-mystical and literalist groups in the Christian world, the opposite is true of Jews. The modernized Reform and secular Jews are the ones who reject mysticism for literalist rationalism, while the Hasidim and the Orthodox are more open to things like mystical dreams and reincarnation.

Therefore they would not fit into Orthodox.

*shrugs* Again, depends who you ask. From what I've read, among Judaism and Jewish athropology scholars, Hasidism tend to be labelled "ultra-orthodox", or "haredim". For instance:

http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/363_Transp/08_Orthodoxy.html

I'm just saying this because I know what I'm saying and I don't know what your point was in just contradicting because you could.

I wasn't just contradicting you "because I could". Rather, because I felt that some of the things you wrote were somewhat inaccurate, and I was just trying to clarify why I felt so.

I'm sorry if you're viewing this as a challenge to you or me trying to be disrespectful, because that's not my intent. Just to share information about something I enjoy learning about. :(