Homosexuality and the Torah -and- the Christian NT

[GISMYS]

[MENTION=36767]Bloodrock44[/MENTION] is a respected and intelligent member of USMB, one who goes out of his way to build bridges to people of all types, Left, Right, male, female, straight, gay, Christian, Jew, muslim, Buddhist, you name it.

He is straight, as am I, but he is not narrow. And neither am I.

You are out of line for someone who is so new here and who doesn't even know the players yet. You should apologize to him, if you have any decency within yourself.

Not a problem Stat. He's over sensitive which causes him to lash out irrationally. And a perfect example of "agree with me or else you're a hater." Any logical person could see in no way I denigrated homosexuals.

You want them to keep their lives in the bedroom. Do you do that with your wife or girlfriend? Do you keep that hidden in the bedroom?
To expect that of gay people is to denigrate them.
Their out, and the marginalizers will not be able to chase them back in.
This battle has already been lost.

NO GOD WANTS all sinners to confess and repent===Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. 11 Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 corinthians 6:9-11

 

[Statistikhengst]

You are magnanimous enough to want them to lead lives they must hide from society.
You are selling yourself with your avatar as someone who's sense of self is tied up in his masculinity. People that wore that uniform fought and died for gays to have their freedom to pursue their happiness, and not be marginalized in the shadows.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

[MENTION=36767]Bloodrock44[/MENTION] is a respected and intelligent member of USMB, one who goes out of his way to build bridges to people of all types, Left, Right, male, female, straight, gay, Christian, Jew, muslim, Buddhist, you name it.

He is straight, as am I, but he is not narrow. And neither am I.

You are out of line for someone who is so new here and who doesn't even know the players yet. You should apologize to him, if you have any decency within yourself.

Not a problem Stat. He's over sensitive which causes him to lash out irrationally. And a perfect example of "agree with me or else you're a hater." Any logical person could see in no way I denigrated homosexuals.

I saw it. My response would be similar to yours.

I am for gays living open and free and fullfilled lives. I have no problem with them marrying at all. In fact, most would call me a str8 ally.

But I don't want all of the lifestyle thrown in my face and I don't want my 7 year old daughter to have to see any of that stuff until she is old enough to mentally and emotionally process that stuff on her own.

And yes, I did see part of that "agree with me or you're a hater". That is disappointing.

 

[Statistikhengst]

[MENTION=36767]Bloodrock44[/MENTION] is a respected and intelligent member of USMB, one who goes out of his way to build bridges to people of all types, Left, Right, male, female, straight, gay, Christian, Jew, muslim, Buddhist, you name it.

He is straight, as am I, but he is not narrow. And neither am I.

You are out of line for someone who is so new here and who doesn't even know the players yet. You should apologize to him, if you have any decency within yourself.

Not a problem Stat. He's over sensitive which causes him to lash out irrationally. And a perfect example of "agree with me or else you're a hater." Any logical person could see in no way I denigrated homosexuals.

You want them to keep their lives in the bedroom. Do you do that with your wife or girlfriend? Do you keep that hidden in the bedroom?
To expect that of gay people is to denigrate them.
Their out, and the marginalizers will not be able to chase them back in.
This battle has already been lost.

What I do with my girlfriend stays in my bedroom. Why should that be different for gay people?

Most gays I know are very private people, not the "in your face" types.

 

[thebrucebeat]

[MENTION=36767]Bloodrock44[/MENTION] is a respected and intelligent member of USMB, one who goes out of his way to build bridges to people of all types, Left, Right, male, female, straight, gay, Christian, Jew, muslim, Buddhist, you name it.

He is straight, as am I, but he is not narrow. And neither am I.

You are out of line for someone who is so new here and who doesn't even know the players yet. You should apologize to him, if you have any decency within yourself.

Not a problem Stat. He's over sensitive which causes him to lash out irrationally. And a perfect example of "agree with me or else you're a hater." Any logical person could see in no way I denigrated homosexuals.

I saw it. My response would be similar to yours.

I am for gays living open and free and fullfilled lives. I have no problem with them marrying at all. In fact, most would call me a str8 ally.

But I don't want all of the lifestyle thrown in my face and I don't want my 7 year old daughter to have to see any of that stuff until she is old enough to mentally and emotionally process that stuff on her own.

And yes, I did see part of that "agree with me or you're a hater". That is disappointing.

Either of you are free to cite my post where I said "agree with me or you're a hater", or an extremely similar sentiment.
Or to post an apology.

 

[GISMYS]

God's word on sick sexual perversion==God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness.They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.
Romans 1:26-29

 

[Chuckt]

Statistikhengst,

This isn't necessarily how I would approach it.

Your defense is based on assumptions and half interpretations from what you hear from people. You have to remember that this is a post Christian nation which doesn't teach the Bible anymore so you are only getting part truth from people when you hear it.

Your defense ignores revelation from God.

Chuck

Well, first the OT/OP is not a defense of anything. Did you actually read it?

Second, I am sure that in some universe somewhere, what you wrote made sense.



Care to try again?

Finally, it must be considered that Jesus did, in fact, speak against homosexuality. On numerous occasions, Jesus condemned the sins of adultery (Matthew 19:18), sexual immorality (Matthew 19:9) and fornication (Matthew 15:19). These terms describe any type of sexual intercourse that is not within the confines of a marriage ordained by God. Jesus then proceeded to define exactly what God views as a morally permissible marriage. He stated:


Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate (Matthew 19:4-6).

By defining marriage as between one male and one female, Jesus effectively condemned all other arrangements, including but not limited to one man and two women, one woman and two men, three men and one woman, three men and three women, one man and one man, one woman and one animal, etc. You can see the overwhelming logic of such. For Jesus to have to explicitly condemn every assortment of genders and numbers would be absurd. When He defined marriage between one man and one woman, He clearly showed that such an arrangement is the only one authorized by God.

Apologetics Press - ?Jesus Didn?t Condemn Homosexuality?

 

[PostmodernProph]

The largest complaint I have about SOME Christians is with those who claim to know their theology in and out and proclaim that the "blood of Christ" renders the 613 Mitzvoteem null and void, and yet, when it comes to gays, all of a sudden they are very interested in two verses from Leviticus.

I find that hypocritical and lacking in a solid basis. And that could be a good starting point for this thread.

do you concur that the other prohibitions you refer to (which Christianity teaches are null and void following Christ) do not use the Hebrew word to'ey'vah = an abomination, but use a different Hebrew word?

do you concur that to'ey'vah = an abomination is used in limited situations in the OT, particularly to describe incest, bestiality, idolatry, human sacrifice and homosexual acts?

would you then argue that if it is proper to permit homosexual acts because they were not specifically condemned by Jesus, that we should also permit human sacrifice for the same reason?

 

[PostmodernProph]

What I do with my girlfriend stays in my bedroom. Why should that be different for gay people?

Most gays I know are very private people, not the "in your face" types.

the problem hasn't been what they were doing in the bedroom, the problem is what they've been doing in the courthouse.....

 

[thebrucebeat]

[MENTION=36767]Bloodrock44[/MENTION] is a respected and intelligent member of USMB, one who goes out of his way to build bridges to people of all types, Left, Right, male, female, straight, gay, Christian, Jew, muslim, Buddhist, you name it.

He is straight, as am I, but he is not narrow. And neither am I.

You are out of line for someone who is so new here and who doesn't even know the players yet. You should apologize to him, if you have any decency within yourself.

Not a problem Stat. He's over sensitive which causes him to lash out irrationally. And a perfect example of "agree with me or else you're a hater." Any logical person could see in no way I denigrated homosexuals.

I saw it. My response would be similar to yours.

I am for gays living open and free and fullfilled lives. I have no problem with them marrying at all. In fact, most would call me a str8 ally.

But I don't want all of the lifestyle thrown in my face and I don't want my 7 year old daughter to have to see any of that stuff until she is old enough to mentally and emotionally process that stuff on her own.

And yes, I did see part of that "agree with me or you're a hater". That is disappointing.

You have now stated that accusation twice, but have provided no citation to make anything but a hollow finger wag. You are stating something you aren't supporting.
If you are really an ally, what are you afraid of your 7 year old seeing?

 

[GISMYS]

not a problem stat. He's over sensitive which causes him to lash out irrationally. And a perfect example of "agree with me or else you're a hater." any logical person could see in no way i denigrated homosexuals.

i saw it. My response would be similar to yours.

I am for gays living open and free and fullfilled lives. I have no problem with them marrying at all. In fact, most would call me a str8 ally.

But i don't want all of the lifestyle thrown in my face and i don't want my 7 year old daughter to have to see any of that stuff until she is old enough to mentally and emotionally process that stuff on her own.

And yes, i did see part of that "agree with me or you're a hater". That is disappointing.

you have now stated that accusation twice, but have provided no citation to make anything but a hollow finger wag. You are stating something you aren't supporting.
If you are really an ally, what are you afraid of your 7 year old seeing?

sick sexual perversion is an ugly,dirty,foul,pathetic abomination!!! You get the idea????

 

[thebrucebeat]

i saw it. My response would be similar to yours.

I am for gays living open and free and fullfilled lives. I have no problem with them marrying at all. In fact, most would call me a str8 ally.

But i don't want all of the lifestyle thrown in my face and i don't want my 7 year old daughter to have to see any of that stuff until she is old enough to mentally and emotionally process that stuff on her own.

And yes, i did see part of that "agree with me or you're a hater". That is disappointing.

you have now stated that accusation twice, but have provided no citation to make anything but a hollow finger wag. You are stating something you aren't supporting.
If you are really an ally, what are you afraid of your 7 year old seeing?

sick sexual perversion is an ugly,dirty,foul,pathetic abomination!!! You get the idea????

So you are an ally?
With friends like you, I don't think they need enemies.

 

[DriftingSand]

You mentioned a "state of being." One thing both the Old and New Testaments make clear is that man's "state of being" is a sinful state. We're all born into a state of sin nature. Had man been perfect then there would not have been a need for the law in the Old Testament or Christ's death/sacrifice in the New Testament. Therefore, since we're all in a sinful state from birth then we can conclude that all of Old Testament laws existed to curb our sinful actions or desire to act sinfully.

So, since the Old and New Testaments condemn homosexual acts then we can only conclude that it is against God's will to "act" like homosexuals act. The same is true of murder, theft, false witness, adultery, promiscuity (gay or straight), covetousness, etc., etc. Both the Old and New Testaments urge us to repent (avoid) of our sins. That is to say, we are to recognize that we are sinners and change our sinful habits by praying for strength from God and by walking another path away from the sinful path we're on. Repentance is a foundational tenet of the entire Bible.

 

[DriftingSand]

The largest complaint I have about SOME Christians is with those who claim to know their theology in and out and proclaim that the "blood of Christ" renders the 613 Mitzvoteem null and void, and yet, when it comes to gays, all of a sudden they are very interested in two verses from Leviticus.

I find that hypocritical and lacking in a solid basis. And that could be a good starting point for this thread.

It's important to realize that we aren't comparing apples to apples. The Old Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant. It's true that Christ sacrificed Himself for our sins but His death is not a "get out of jail free" card that gives us free license to sin. He and the Apostles still make it very clear what conduct is acceptable and what conduct is not.

I could post lots and lots of Scripture to prove my point but I doubt that most folks would read it. Nevertheless, if anyone actually wants me to I would be more than happy to.

It's not the least hypocritical for a Christian to openly oppose the sin of homosexuality just as it's his responsibility to oppose abortion/murder, theft, dishonesty, and a slew of other sins. Does that mean that a Christian is perfect? Not in the least. But just because we stumble and fall doesn't mean that we ignore sins. It's one reason why Christians are called to congregate together and form churches. Where two or three are gathered together in Christ's name there He is in our midst. There is strength in numbers.



"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke?

 

[thebrucebeat]

The largest complaint I have about SOME Christians is with those who claim to know their theology in and out and proclaim that the "blood of Christ" renders the 613 Mitzvoteem null and void, and yet, when it comes to gays, all of a sudden they are very interested in two verses from Leviticus.

I find that hypocritical and lacking in a solid basis. And that could be a good starting point for this thread.

It's important to realize that we aren't comparing apples to apples. The Old Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant. It's true that Christ sacrificed Himself for our sins but His death is not a "get out of jail free" card that gives us free license to sin. He and the Apostles still make it very clear what conduct is acceptable and what conduct is not.

I could post lots and lots of Scripture to prove my point but I doubt that most folks would read it. Nevertheless, if anyone actually wants me to I would be more than happy to.

It's not the least hypocritical for a Christian to openly oppose the sin of homosexuality just as it's his responsibility to oppose abortion/murder, theft, dishonesty, and a slew of other sins. Does that mean that a Christian is perfect? Not in the least. But just because we stumble and fall doesn't mean that we ignore sins. It's one reason why Christians are called to congregate together and form churches. Where two or three are gathered together in Christ's name there He is in our midst. There is strength in numbers.



"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke?

Or perhaps Jesus meant that the gathering of two or three would be more genuine than the "strength in numbers" meme you suggest.
Perhaps the larger the church, the greater the separation.
Food for thought.

 

[DriftingSand]

The largest complaint I have about SOME Christians is with those who claim to know their theology in and out and proclaim that the "blood of Christ" renders the 613 Mitzvoteem null and void, and yet, when it comes to gays, all of a sudden they are very interested in two verses from Leviticus.

I find that hypocritical and lacking in a solid basis. And that could be a good starting point for this thread.

It's important to realize that we aren't comparing apples to apples. The Old Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant. It's true that Christ sacrificed Himself for our sins but His death is not a "get out of jail free" card that gives us free license to sin. He and the Apostles still make it very clear what conduct is acceptable and what conduct is not.

I could post lots and lots of Scripture to prove my point but I doubt that most folks would read it. Nevertheless, if anyone actually wants me to I would be more than happy to.

It's not the least hypocritical for a Christian to openly oppose the sin of homosexuality just as it's his responsibility to oppose abortion/murder, theft, dishonesty, and a slew of other sins. Does that mean that a Christian is perfect? Not in the least. But just because we stumble and fall doesn't mean that we ignore sins. It's one reason why Christians are called to congregate together and form churches. Where two or three are gathered together in Christ's name there He is in our midst. There is strength in numbers.



"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke?

Or perhaps Jesus meant that the gathering of two or three would be more genuine than the "strength in numbers" meme you suggest.
Perhaps the larger the church, the greater the separation.
Food for thought.

What I meant by "strength in numbers" is the fact that Christ (Who is our genuine strength) would be present IF we gather together in His name. I should have made that more clear. I don't like the direction some of the huge mega-churches are going. I'll be somewhat blunt here but I am no fan of Joyce Meyers or Joel Olsteen as I believe they ignore man's fallen state and that very real place called "hell." They're what the Bible calls "ear ticklers." My dad (a Baptist minister) used to call their form of preaching the "blab it and grab it" sort. I realize some may be offended but I'm of the mind that ALL of Scripture should be preached. Man needs to hear that he's a fallen creature in need of a Savior. These "self-help" churches are for the birds (in my opinion).

I personally prefer small, home Bible studies with no more than about 20 people (preferably about 10 people).

 

[Quantum Windbag]

On this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/347434-various-thoughts-on-the-issues-of-homosexuality.html


There has been an unbelievably active conversation about Homosexuality, and invariably, some people have quoted scripture in order to make their point.

I want to clarify some things.

The Holy Book(s) of Judiasm, called the "Tanakh" is comprised of:

the Pentateuch (the five books attributed to Moshe), called the "Torah"

the Prophets, known as "Neviim"

the histories, or "writings", known as "Ketuvim"

Torah + Neviim + Ketuvim = T + N + K = TANAKH.

So, the word that describes the "jewish Bible", if you will, is an acronym.

The Tanach is known in Christianity as the Old Testament and was written in both Aramaic and old Hebrew. The Tanakh has been passed down over the last 3,300+ years through scribes who have spent their entire lives copying the holy texts, letter for letter, with perfect accuracy. In fact, the rules for scribes and Torah calligraphy are long and extensive. A copied Torah scroll with so much as even one error must be burned and cannot be kept.


So far, so good.

The Tanakh, esp. the Pentateuch, is also a compendium of Jewish Law (Halakha), and in Judaism, there are 613 (SIX HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN) laws, also known as commandments. The Hebrew for commandment is "Mitzvah" (plural: "Mitzvoteem").

Those commandments are supposed to cover every conceivable aspect of Jewish Life, from the agrarian to the cosmopolitan. There are especially many laws governing the family unit.

Of those 613 Mitzvoteem, there are exactly two which deal specifically with homosexual acts. Notice that I did not write the word "Homosexuality", for two reasons:

1.) The term did not exist then, and even if it did
2.) that would be a state of being, but the verses deal with acts and deeds, not a state of being.

Both of those verses are within the third book of the Pentateuch, called "Va'yikra" ("HE called", known in English as "Leviticus", referring to the Levi's, who, along with the Kohen (Cohens) were and are entrusted to be the High Priests (V'hakohaneem) of the Temple).

The first verse is from Lev 18:22:

Leviticus 18 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

Here is a screenshot of that verse:

Here is a transliteration of the Hebrew you see:

ve’et za’khar lo tish’kav, mish’ke’vey i’shah to’ey’vah hi

Word for word:

ve'et = an
za'khar = male
lo = no, not, do not
tish'kav = sleep (verb)
mish'ke'vey = delight (a word used to describe sex)
i'shah = woman
to'ey'vah = an abomination
hi = is

Of course, Hebrew/Aramaic sentence construction is different than in English. But the point is there.


-----------------------------------------------------------


Here is the second verse, Lev. 20:12

Leviticus 20 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre


Here is a screenshot of that verse, in both English and Hebrew:

ve’ish a’sher yish’kav et za’khar
mish’ke’vey i’shah to’ey’vah a’su she’ney’hem mot yu’ma’tu de’mey’hem bam

Word for word:

ve'ish = And man
asher = which (could also be who)
yish'kav = sleeps
et = the
za'khar = male
mish'ke'vey = delight
I'sha = woman
to'ey'vah = An abomination
a'su = did (past tense of to do)
she'ney'hem = both
mot = die (from to die)
yu'ma'tu = often
de'mey'hem =four who are (yes, "de" literally means "4")
bam = (shall) do

Same deal here: different sentence construction, but the meaning can be seen.

Some like to translate the word for "delight" to mean "bed". This is not uncommon.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of the two verses, Lev. 20:13 is longer and carries the death penalty explicitly with it.

Not all Mitzvoteem carry the word for "Abomination" (to'evah) and this is one of the rare cases in the Tanakh where an article (to = an) is used instead of just being inferred. For the most severe of all sins, "to'evah" (an abomination) is used twice in a row. Here, this is not the case.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hebrew scholars over the years also developed a catalog of sorts as to how death penalty punishment for homosexual acts should be carried out, you can read them:

Issurei Biah - Chapter One - Texts & Writings

Issurei Biah - Chapter Twenty One - Texts & Writings

(if you want to see how anal retentive those scholars were back then, take a look at Halacha 19)

Also as applies to women:

Issurei Biah - Chapter Twenty One - Texts & Writings

(Halacha 8)


It should be noted that only a very small percentage of Jews actually adhere to the "Issure Biah" - lectures from another time in history, to say the least.


------------------------------------------------------------

So, of 613 Mitzvoteem, exactly 2 have to do with homosexual acts. That is 0.33% of all commandments. Notice that the commandments against homosexual acts is also placed next to things like adultery or sleeping with a woman while she is on her period.


What is NOT indicated anywhere in the Tanakh are homosexual thoughts or feelings. They are not prohibited:

Homosexuality and Jewish Law - My Jewish Learning

An important point to make from the outset is that Jewish law does not teach that it is forbidden to be a homosexual. On the contrary, Jewish law is concerned not with the source of a person’s erotic urges nor with inner feelings, but with acts. The Torah forbids the homosexual act, known as mishkav zakhar, but has nothing to say about homosexuality as a state of being or a personal inclination.

In other words, traditionally, a person with a homosexual inclination can be an entirely observant Jew as long as he or she does not act out that inclination.

Also:

A more likely explanation for the ban against homosexual behavior is given in the Talmud by Bar Kapparah, who makes a play on the word to’evah (“abomination&#8221, claiming that it means to’eh atah ba (“you go astray because of it&#8221. Both Tosefot and the Asheri (medieval commentators) comment on this passage that a man will leave his wife and family to pursue a relationship with another man. In other words, homosexuality undermines and threatens the Jewish ideal of family life, of marriage and children, articulated in the Torah. Heterosexuality is the communal norm for Jews; homosexuality, a perversion of that norm.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I am not indicating my personal feelings on this. I am simply reporting EXACTLY what is found within the Tanakh as pertains to homosexual acts, nothing less and nothing more. I am neither advocating nor condemning Homosexuals or Homosexuality, or for that part, even Homosexual acts. All I'm doing is to get the information out there.

How does this tie in to Christianity?​

Well, I am hoping that our Christian members will now pipe up and give us some knowledge, but one thing I know for sure:

Yeshuah (Jesus), according to the Christian New Testament (which I have read in full six times so far in my life), was never even once quoted as having said anything at all about a homosexual act, homosexuals or homosexuality.

That can lead one to one of three possible conclusions:

1.) He was unaware of this issue (doubtful)
2.) He didn't know what to say about it (very, very doubtful)
3.) It was not important enough for him to speak about it (the most likely of the three).

You can read through all of the NT, you will not find one quote where Jeshuah specifically talks about this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The largest complaint I have about SOME Christians is with those who claim to know their theology in and out and proclaim that the "blood of Christ" renders the 613 Mitzvoteem null and void, and yet, when it comes to gays, all of a sudden they are very interested in two verses from Leviticus.

I find that hypocritical and lacking in a solid basis. And that could be a good starting point for this thread.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sources, for any in doubt, in case you want to do this stuff on your own:

Complete hebrew transliteration of the Tanakh:

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/docs/17_xlit.pdf

Hebrew/English - English/Hebrew translator:

Free Online Hebrew Dictionary. Type in Hebrew/English. Translate Hebrew or Phonetic Hebrew.

I did most of the word for word in my head, and double checked 4 words, just to be safe.

The fake expert is back, what a surprise.

Aren't you the stupid idiot that that made up some sort of blood covenant with a guy named Noad?

As soon as they walk into a Christian business making demands that a man of faith appease something he sees as a sin. Lawsuits result, supreme court rulings are made, and those rulings ultimately affect the America I live in.

Either you cannot think, or are not willing to think of a circumstance, ergo no real argument. "I know of a tonne of gay people" is nothing but you falling on mere anecdotal evidence to prove your point. Please.

Anyway you wash it, it is bigotted behaviour. You don't get to push your faith down my throat. So if a Christian believes all blacks are going to hell, they don't have to serve them? Pahleeze....

Talk about clutching at straws...

I have given up hope trying to reason with them about it.

It works like this:

Christians claim that the blood of Christ replaces with old Noadic blood-covenant, and therefore, they don't really need to concern themselves with the 613 commandments (Mitzvoteem) laid out in the Torah, which is, of course, the Christian Old Testament as well.

In fact, TK claimed that the blood of Christ especially covers -and renders null-and-void- any of those 613 Mitzvoteem that bring a death penalty with them.

But when it comes to two lone verses in Leviticus, 2 out of 613 commandments, both of which use verbage about a specific homosexual act (mishkav Z'char) but not about homosexuality, both of which are called abominations and both of which carry the death penalty with them, all of a sudden, many Christians are totally interested in the book of Leviticus, specifically 18:22 and 20:13. I bet they don't even know one other verse out of that book.

Never mind that Jesus was not quoted even once on the subject, not even once. Never mind that not one of his apostles refers to homosexuality specifically, but rather, once again, to a homosexual act.

Never mind any of that: some Christians find homsexuality to be totally abhorrent, and I get that. And I respect that they don't like it.

But to make business decisions based on that? Really?

The seven deadly sins as laid out:

Seven deadly sins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lust
gluttony
greed
sloth
wrath
envy
pride

Those sins all have a much higher status, or severity, than a homosexual act.

But some Christians are just absolutely wanting to see gays as the enemy. They need a picture of an enemy in front of them to somehow march forward, it seems.

Using TKs logic, and the logic of many others, if such Christians really mean what they say, then she cannot sell to or partake in the marriages of:

people who are obese (gluttony)
people who have had affairs (lust)
cheapskates (greed)
people out of work (lazy)

etc. etc.


And actually, the prohibition against jacking-off or even ejaculating anywhere other than in the vagina is much harsher than that of a homosexual act:

Beresheet (Genesis) 38:8-10

Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.

This translations is way too tame. In original hebrew G-d struck Onan with lighting and fried him.


So, this logically means that Christians should under no circumstances allow the wedding of any man whose seed has landed anywhere but inside a woman's vagina, that is very, very clear.

You can see how this all slowly goes down the rabbit hole of looniness ad absurdium.

Not to mention that gay marriage is technically a legal issue, not a religious issue.

And not to mention that Christians still don't get that homosexuality - a state of being and feeling - is NOT prohibited in the Torah. Specific homosexual acts are, two times, out of 613 commandments or 0.33% of all commandments. That's how important G-d thought this issue to be. And his "Son", as Christians call Yeshuah, didn't even speak a word over it. Not one word.


So, I've given up on the whackos.


Let the Christians discriminate, and when they can't keep their businesses open any more, it's not my problem. Being a good capitalist, I will tell them: tough shit.

FYI, I read the Old Testament 4 times last year, and I discovered that you are about as knowledgeable about it as I am about what it is like to live on the surface of Jupiter as a silicone based life form.

Tell me something oh he who wouldn't know the truth if he stepped in it, why does committing the act of homosexuality merit a death penalty if it isn't a big deal? Why is it listed between the sins of child sacrifice and bestiality?

By the way, the Old Testament actually tells us that thought and desire is sinful.

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Wow, look at that, still a pompous ass, and I didn't even have to use the New Testament to disprove your argument.

Feel stupid yet?

 

[Newby]

Finally, it must be considered that Jesus did, in fact, speak against homosexuality. On numerous occasions, Jesus condemned the sins of adultery (Matthew 19:18), sexual immorality (Matthew 19:9) and fornication (Matthew 15:19). These terms describe any type of sexual intercourse that is not within the confines of a marriage ordained by God. Jesus then proceeded to define exactly what God views as a morally permissible marriage. He stated:


Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate (Matthew 19:4-6).

By defining marriage as between one male and one female, Jesus effectively condemned all other arrangements, including but not limited to one man and two women, one woman and two men, three men and one woman, three men and three women, one man and one man, one woman and one animal, etc. You can see the overwhelming logic of such. For Jesus to have to explicitly condemn every assortment of genders and numbers would be absurd. When He defined marriage between one man and one woman, He clearly showed that such an arrangement is the only one authorized by God.

Apologetics Press - ?Jesus Didn?t Condemn Homosexuality?

You beat me to it, I've brought this up several times in other threads, and it always seems to get ignored. Imagine that??

 

[Statistikhengst]

Finally, it must be considered that Jesus did, in fact, speak against homosexuality. On numerous occasions, Jesus condemned the sins of adultery (Matthew 19:18), sexual immorality (Matthew 19:9) and fornication (Matthew 15:19). These terms describe any type of sexual intercourse that is not within the confines of a marriage ordained by God. Jesus then proceeded to define exactly what God views as a morally permissible marriage. He stated:


Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate (Matthew 19:4-6).

By defining marriage as between one male and one female, Jesus effectively condemned all other arrangements, including but not limited to one man and two women, one woman and two men, three men and one woman, three men and three women, one man and one man, one woman and one animal, etc. You can see the overwhelming logic of such. For Jesus to have to explicitly condemn every assortment of genders and numbers would be absurd. When He defined marriage between one man and one woman, He clearly showed that such an arrangement is the only one authorized by God.

Apologetics Press - ?Jesus Didn?t Condemn Homosexuality?

You beat me to it, I've brought this up several times in other threads, and it always seems to get ignored. Imagine that??

Because it's not true. Jeshua was so very specific about many, many, many things in your New Testament, but in terms of Homosexual acts, he was totally silent. And then for you to lump all of that into one carte blanche statement is, well, cheap and taudry, and I think it doesn't do Jeshuah justice.

What a shame.

 

[Newby]

Apologetics Press - ?Jesus Didn?t Condemn Homosexuality?

You beat me to it, I've brought this up several times in other threads, and it always seems to get ignored. Imagine that??

Because it's not true. Jeshua was so very specific about many, many, many things in your New Testament, but in terms of Homosexual acts, he was totally silent. And then for you to lump all of that into one carte blanche statement is, well, cheap and taudry, and I think it doesn't do Jeshuah justice.

What a shame.

Care to comment on what was actually said instead of repeating the same old line? He was totally silent on sex outside of marriage? He was totally silent on what marriage was? Try again...

 

[thebrucebeat]

You beat me to it, I've brought this up several times in other threads, and it always seems to get ignored. Imagine that??

Because it's not true. Jeshua was so very specific about many, many, many things in your New Testament, but in terms of Homosexual acts, he was totally silent. And then for you to lump all of that into one carte blanche statement is, well, cheap and taudry, and I think it doesn't do Jeshuah justice.

What a shame.

Care to comment on what was actually said instead of repeating the same old line? He was totally silent on sex outside of marriage? He was totally silent on what marriage was? Try again...

There are many things Jesus was not explicit about.
What we know with a certainty from your avatar is you have a peculiar fascination with beefy dudes with long hair.