Jesus on Marriage...

[Amelia]

Back to Leviticus 18 for a moment, one of the reasons that 18:22 is not to be taken as sexual is because of context, with the context seeming to be 18:21 and not the rest of the chapter. I'm not convinced of the contextual argument. Is 18:23 about bestiality? Is there one nonsexual little riff in that chapter in between sexual passages? Or does the chapter take a hard turn from sexual acts to rituals at 18:21 and not return?

I hestitate to ask that for two reasons. First, I understand that I would need to do my own research with sources I trust before I was ever convinced. I simply wish to know how much of Chapter 18 is considered to be about sexual acts in the alternative interpretation which has been presented in this thread.

Second, I am more interested in hearing about Chapter 20 than hearing any further about Chapter 18 so I hope that my asking about that small portion of Chapter 18 I don't take too much attention from Chapter 20.

 

[mal]

Back to Leviticus 18 for a moment, one of the reasons that 18:22 is not to be taken as sexual is because of context, with the context seeming to be 18:21 and not the rest of the chapter. I'm not convinced of the contextual argument. Is 18:23 about bestiality? Is there one nonsexual little riff in that chapter in between sexual passages? Or does the chapter take a hard turn from sexual acts to rituals at 18:21 and not return?

I hestitate to ask that for two reasons. First, I understand that I would need to do my own research with sources I trust before I was ever convinced. I simply wish to know how much of Chapter 18 is considered to be about sexual acts in the alternative interpretation which has been presented in this thread.

Second, I am more interested in hearing about Chapter 20 than hearing any further about Chapter 18 so I hope that my asking about that small portion of Chapter 18 I don't take too much attention from Chapter 20.

It's Clear... God called Homosexuality an Abomination Against his Creation and Sin...

100% of the time it is Mentioned in the Old and New it is ALWAYS Shat on by God.

Repent and don't Expect the Church to Embrace you in your Sin.

End of List.



peace...

 

[Ravi]

Back to Leviticus 18 for a moment, one of the reasons that 18:22 is not to be taken as sexual is because of context, with the context seeming to be 18:21 and not the rest of the chapter. I'm not convinced of the contextual argument. Is 18:23 about bestiality? Is there one nonsexual little riff in that chapter in between sexual passages? Or does the chapter take a hard turn from sexual acts to rituals at 18:21 and not return?

I hestitate to ask that for two reasons. First, I understand that I would need to do my own research with sources I trust before I was ever convinced. I simply wish to know how much of Chapter 18 is considered to be about sexual acts in the alternative interpretation which has been presented in this thread.

Second, I am more interested in hearing about Chapter 20 than hearing any further about Chapter 18 so I hope that my asking about that small portion of Chapter 18 I don't take too much attention from Chapter 20.

The entire chapter is about sexual practices that God forbids the Israelites from engaging in.

 

[Amelia]

Back to Leviticus 18 for a moment, one of the reasons that 18:22 is not to be taken as sexual is because of context, with the context seeming to be 18:21 and not the rest of the chapter. I'm not convinced of the contextual argument. Is 18:23 about bestiality? Is there one nonsexual little riff in that chapter in between sexual passages? Or does the chapter take a hard turn from sexual acts to rituals at 18:21 and not return?

I hestitate to ask that for two reasons. First, I understand that I would need to do my own research with sources I trust before I was ever convinced. I simply wish to know how much of Chapter 18 is considered to be about sexual acts in the alternative interpretation which has been presented in this thread.

Second, I am more interested in hearing about Chapter 20 than hearing any further about Chapter 18 so I hope that my asking about that small portion of Chapter 18 I don't take too much attention from Chapter 20.

It's Clear... God called Homosexuality an Abomination Against his Creation and Sin...

100% of the time it is Mentioned in the Old and New it is ALWAYS Shat on by God.

Repent and don't Expect the Church to Embrace you in your Sin.

End of List.



peace...

The argument appears to be that homosexuality may not actually mentioned in the original text. So what is being called an abomination is something else entirely, like feeding men's food to women, or some other nonsexual thing.

I see people addressing one verse in particular. If Chapter 20 was addressed, I missed it. I have a headache right now so I don't want to read back through all the posts to see if it was tackled.

 

[Amelia]

Back to Leviticus 18 for a moment, one of the reasons that 18:22 is not to be taken as sexual is because of context, with the context seeming to be 18:21 and not the rest of the chapter. I'm not convinced of the contextual argument. Is 18:23 about bestiality? Is there one nonsexual little riff in that chapter in between sexual passages? Or does the chapter take a hard turn from sexual acts to rituals at 18:21 and not return?

I hestitate to ask that for two reasons. First, I understand that I would need to do my own research with sources I trust before I was ever convinced. I simply wish to know how much of Chapter 18 is considered to be about sexual acts in the alternative interpretation which has been presented in this thread.

Second, I am more interested in hearing about Chapter 20 than hearing any further about Chapter 18 so I hope that my asking about that small portion of Chapter 18 I don't take too much attention from Chapter 20.

The entire chapter is about sexual practices that God forbids the Israelites from engaging in.

Thanks. That's what I thought. Maybe I'm missing some other subtlety. But I need to go nurse my headache now so I'll have to check back later.

 

[Buford]

Back to Leviticus 18 for a moment, one of the reasons that 18:22 is not to be taken as sexual is because of context, with the context seeming to be 18:21 and not the rest of the chapter. I'm not convinced of the contextual argument. Is 18:23 about bestiality? Is there one nonsexual little riff in that chapter in between sexual passages? Or does the chapter take a hard turn from sexual acts to rituals at 18:21 and not return?

I hestitate to ask that for two reasons. First, I understand that I would need to do my own research with sources I trust before I was ever convinced. I simply wish to know how much of Chapter 18 is considered to be about sexual acts in the alternative interpretation which has been presented in this thread.

Second, I am more interested in hearing about Chapter 20 than hearing any further about Chapter 18 so I hope that my asking about that small portion of Chapter 18 I don't take too much attention from Chapter 20.

The entire chapter is about sexual practices that God forbids the Israelites from engaging in.

And what would the reason be for that?

 

[mal]

Back to Leviticus 18 for a moment, one of the reasons that 18:22 is not to be taken as sexual is because of context, with the context seeming to be 18:21 and not the rest of the chapter. I'm not convinced of the contextual argument. Is 18:23 about bestiality? Is there one nonsexual little riff in that chapter in between sexual passages? Or does the chapter take a hard turn from sexual acts to rituals at 18:21 and not return?

I hestitate to ask that for two reasons. First, I understand that I would need to do my own research with sources I trust before I was ever convinced. I simply wish to know how much of Chapter 18 is considered to be about sexual acts in the alternative interpretation which has been presented in this thread.

Second, I am more interested in hearing about Chapter 20 than hearing any further about Chapter 18 so I hope that my asking about that small portion of Chapter 18 I don't take too much attention from Chapter 20.

The entire chapter is about sexual practices that God forbids the Israelites from engaging in.

So God just didn't want the Jews Fucking Animals... You are still Free to?... Look at you Score!

Absurdity.



peace...

 

[BluePhantom]

There is nothing in the Bible that says lying is a sin. There is much in the Bible to suggest that it is a very bad idea to try to hide from or lie to God. And the Bible is explicit that it is a sin to knowingly bear false witness against or maliciously lie about another person.

There's nothing in the bible that says homosexuality is a sin.

Is there a point to what you're saying?

The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination and those who practice it will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Do you understand that point?

I understand that the translation of the Bible you have read say those things. I also understand that the texts they were translated from say absolutely nothing of the sort. Can you understand that?

 

[del]

There's nothing in the bible that says homosexuality is a sin.

Is there a point to what you're saying?

The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination and those who practice it will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Do you understand that point?

I understand that the translation of the Bible you have read say those things. I also understand that the texts they were translated from say absolutely nothing of the sort. Can you understand that?

don't hold your breath

 

[mal]

There's nothing in the bible that says homosexuality is a sin.

Is there a point to what you're saying?

The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination and those who practice it will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Do you understand that point?

I understand that the translation of the Bible you have read say those things. I also understand that the texts they were translated from say absolutely nothing of the sort. Can you understand that?

Can you Document it outside of an Activist Pro-Homosexual Website?...

Homosexuality is Consistently, from Old to New, called Abomination and Sin.

Repeatedly.

But that's not what was meant, right?...

Document your Claim.



peace...

 

[Buford]

There's nothing in the bible that says homosexuality is a sin.

Is there a point to what you're saying?

The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination and those who practice it will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Do you understand that point?

I understand that the translation of the Bible you have read say those things. I also understand that the texts they were translated from say absolutely nothing of the sort. Can you understand that?

That's a lie. Do you understand that? Make your pathetic case.

 

[BluePhantom]

I'm not missing any point, you are taking the great majority of pastors/priests and making them sound as though they are all uneducated as to the true interpretation of the scripture,

many of them are

and that they are doing it in order to 'control the masses',

some of them are

yet you will not give any solid examples. It's just 'all of them out there.. somewhere...' You won't even give me an example of one denomination that does it.

Sure I have. I have given you several

Do you know any specific churches educational requirements or lack thereof for their pastors?

Yep...already named them

Will they hire anyone off of the street?

Sometimes it's just that simple yes.

There are a great many christian colleges and universities in our country, which are teaching correct interpretation and which are not? How can you with any authority make the statements that you have made, yet you can't answer any of my questions?

I have answered them. You have simply ignored my answers.

What is a church by your definition? A specific congregation? A denomination?

Usually when I say Church with a capital C I am referring to a major organized religion such as Catholicism. With a lower case c I am referring to a stand alone, individual building

The 'church' is made up of people, people are not perfect, people sin. An expectation of perfection from a body of church members is a bit of a steep expectation on your part. I've never seen the characteristics that you keep pushing out there in any congregation I've been a part of.

Perhaps not....or you weren't paying very much attention.

And where you draw the line is a completely personal opinion. Apparently your view of discipleship is very limitied, I wouldn't say that agrees with Christ's teachings.

And that too is a completely personal opinion

Whenever you put the whole Bible 'up for interpretation', I guess you can say it means pretty much whatever you want it to mean. Pretty convenient.

Yeah the Church does it all the time. Go find out what Midrash is and you will see it in action.

Pick one verse that was offered in the op, provide where you are getting your source for that verse, and what you used to translate it. I'd be very interested to see what exactly it is that you are using as a source for your scripture as opposed to what is commonly known. I mean, based on what you're saying in this thread, nothing in the Bible can be trusted, might as well just throw it in the trash, right?

I already did several times and no that's not what I am saying at all. I am saying to read the Bible, but look deeper. Don't take anything on face value. Go find out if what is written in your English translation is actually the same as what is written in the original languages. A lot of times they are different and significantly different. I mean Independent Logic who has a degree in theology is here telling you pretty much the same thing. There are differences between what he is saying and what I am saying but the general theme is pretty much the same. You disregard him too apparently so what does it matter? You're not going to listen.

I didn't say either of those were 'homosexual institutions', but homosexual sex certainly falls into both of those categories. What the Romans did or did not do has no bearing on what the Bible said or didn't say, the two are completely unrelated as far as this topic goes.

No they are not...they are TOTALLY related. 100% completely intertwined. Good Lord. Do you know nothing of the history of Christianity?

So, according to you, scripture regarding 'adulterous relationships' was translated correctly? Or can that be thrown into the 'unknown' category as well?

Well that's a different thread unto itself. In ancient Jewish tradition there were several stages of marriage and while a woman was considered "unmarried" until the last stage the betrothed husband had sexual rights to the betrothed wife at a far earlier stage so it kind of depends on how you look at it.

This comment is strange to me coming from someone who has studied the Bible and the culture. The legalities of the day meant nothing to Jesus, He made a clear delineation between the Christian life and 'the world'.

Oh yes they did. Jesus acknowledged the law, even Roman law....did you forget the part about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's? Do you think that stopped at taxes? He simply said that the law of God is greater than the law of man. But to think that the legalities of the day meant nothing to Jesus is flat out laughable.

Many and Most are a high percentage of the absolute.

But they are not the absolute are they?

 

[BluePhantom]

The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination and those who practice it will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Do you understand that point?

I understand that the translation of the Bible you have read say those things. I also understand that the texts they were translated from say absolutely nothing of the sort. Can you understand that?

That's a lie. Do you understand that? Make your pathetic case.

I already have. Go back and read it yourself. It's not my fault if you don't know how to scroll through pages

 

[BluePhantom]

The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination and those who practice it will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Do you understand that point?

I understand that the translation of the Bible you have read say those things. I also understand that the texts they were translated from say absolutely nothing of the sort. Can you understand that?

Can you Document it outside of an Activist Pro-Homosexual Website?...

Homosexuality is Consistently, from Old to New, called Abomination and Sin.

Repeatedly.

But that's not what was meant, right?...

Document your Claim.



peace...

already did. get the book I linked to. That's a good start

 

[Ravi]

Quote: Originally Posted by Newby View Post
I didn't say either of those were 'homosexual institutions', but homosexual sex certainly falls into both of those categories. What the Romans did or did not do has no bearing on what the Bible said or didn't say, the two are completely unrelated as far as this topic goes.

Ah, but by then the Romans were Christian. The argument a lot of you make is that marriage is traditionally defined as male/female but in actuality it has also been in the past, and before Christianity, defined otherwise too.

 

[BluePhantom]

Is there a Bible translation out there that you feel is accurate?

No

If not, and since there are such glaring and obvious errors in any of the translations of the Bible, why after hundreds of years hasn't an intellectual such as yourself rewritten the thing with the true translation?

For a lot of reasons. Mainly because they don't sell.

What do you define separation from God as being? "Hell" is not named in the sense that you are trying to imply, but the experience is certainly described in some detail. That experience has been labeled 'hell', anyone who studies the Bible would understand the distinction.

Oh no no no......nice try but no way. Hell is suddenly being depicted as "separation from God" but for centuries it has been depicted as this place where your evil spirit will go to burn in the flames for eternity. And there are puh-lenty who still insist that's the case. The "separation from God" version of hell only came about when people actually started researching it and discovered "hey this is a bunch of bullshit" so churches had to cover their ass and came up with something different because they knew they had just gotten busted.

And I suppose 'researching' may get you different answers, if you trust the source that you're using to do your research. Seems that anything is up for any interpretation by your definition, so how do you know your resources are accurate? You have to start from some source, and you've yet to mention it. You also skipped over the rest of my post, I was really interested in what your interpretation was of the verses you quoted from 2 Peter, and how you came to the conclusion that you did regarding it?

I skipped over it because you continuously miss the point. But if you insist...as I said the reason why Peter warns against listen too closely to Paul is open for interpretation. Peter says Paul understands "...according to the wisdom God hath given him...". Wow there are a lot of ways to take that. It could mean that Peter was implying that Paul had understanding far above what the average person could understand. It could also mean that Paul completely misses the point even though he tries real hard. However, Peter is clear that in Peter's opinion Paul's position is easily twisted, easily misunderstood, easily manipulated and it can lead you into destruction. That part I am not not sure how you can interpret any other way.

 

[mal]

I understand that the translation of the Bible you have read say those things. I also understand that the texts they were translated from say absolutely nothing of the sort. Can you understand that?

That's a lie. Do you understand that? Make your pathetic case.

I already have. Go back and read it yourself. It's not my fault if you don't know how to scroll through pages

Weak... Make your Case using Scripture and Source that's not Abjectly Pro-Homosexual.



peace...

 

[mal]

I understand that the translation of the Bible you have read say those things. I also understand that the texts they were translated from say absolutely nothing of the sort. Can you understand that?

Can you Document it outside of an Activist Pro-Homosexual Website?...

Homosexuality is Consistently, from Old to New, called Abomination and Sin.

Repeatedly.

But that's not what was meant, right?...

Document your Claim.



peace...

already did. get the book I linked to. That's a good start

No... Link and Quote your Claim...

Lotta Typing... Not much Substance.



peace...

 

[Buford]

I understand that the translation of the Bible you have read say those things. I also understand that the texts they were translated from say absolutely nothing of the sort. Can you understand that?

That's a lie. Do you understand that? Make your pathetic case.

I already have. Go back and read it yourself. It's not my fault if you don't know how to scroll through pages

LOL. I don't scroll through lies. People have been trying to disprove the Bible for thousands of years and it hasn't worked. Keep trying. LOL.

 

[del]

Can you Document it outside of an Activist Pro-Homosexual Website?...

Homosexuality is Consistently, from Old to New, called Abomination and Sin.

Repeatedly.

But that's not what was meant, right?...

Document your Claim.



peace...

already did. get the book I linked to. That's a good start

No... Link and Quote your Claim...

Lotta Typing... Not much Substance.



peace...

as opposed to minimal typing and less substance.

all y'all are being schooled and all you can do is keep repeating the same stupid shit.