Jesus on Marriage...

[BluePhantom]

That's why we defer to real experts when it comes to biblical translation, folks.

Oh ok. Well lets consult some Rabbis and PhDs about it then. Surely a Rabbi would be an expert

DOES THE BIBLE PROHIBIT HOMOSEXUALITY, by Rabbi Jacob Milgrom, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at the University of California, Berkeley

Of course it does (Leviticus) 18: 22; 20: 13), but the prohibition is severely limited. First, it is addressed only to Israel, not to other nations. Second, compliance with this law is a condition for residing in the Holy Land, but is irrelevant outside it (see the closing exhortation, 18: 24-30). Third, it is limited to men; lesbianism is not prohibited. Thus it is incorrect to apply this prohibition on a universal scale...However, homosexual relations with unrelated males are neither prohibited nor penalized...from the Bible, we can infer the following: the female half of the world's homosexual population, lesbians, are not mentioned. Over ninety-nine percent of the remaining gays, namely non-Jews, are not addressed. This leaves the small number of Jewish gay men subject to this prohibition. To those who argue that the Bible enjoins homosexuality, a careful reading of the source text offers a fundamentally different view. While the Bible never applauds homosexuality, neither does it prohibit most people from engaging in it.

Here's another Rabbi for you

HOW DID THE EARLY TALMUDIC SAGES DEAL WITH OUTDATED OR IRRELEVANT BIBLICAL LAW? (And how does that relate that to the question of modern day homosexuality)? by Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill.

...This public display of what Jews held as sacred and private behavior was why the very first Talmudic references are to PUBLIC DISPLAYS of homosexual like, sexual activity, mostly by non-Jews, which was spoken of as an idolatrous perversion (תועבה TOYEVAH) of JEWISH mores and religious practice (Sanhedrin 54a) if practiced by Jews.... The ORIGINAL LEVITICUS documents of the biblical texts that are today used by the uninformed to deny a spiritual connection to God for homosexuals were not written to address either homosexuals or homosexuality. These documents are actually referring to a prohibition against imitating non-Israelite, foreign CULTIC sexual substitution fertility rituals, and do not condemn anyone who does not use substitutional and/or incestuous sex as a method of gaining Divine favor. In fact, the text of the Book of Leviticus was originally written as an instruction manual for the priestly tribe, and referred to PRIESTLY prohibitions only.

The Torah itself tells us it is not referring to homosexuality but to idolatry by its opening statement in chapter 18 of Leviticus wherin YHVH God states; "I am is YHVH your Creator Force! You are not to follow the practices of Egypt where you lived, nor of Canaan, where I will be bringing you. Do not follow any of their customs."

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch:

"The four sections of man's mission - כבשה, מלאו, את הארץ, רבו, פרו embody his whole free-willed moral development. פרו refers to marriage; רבו refers to the family; מלאו refers to society; and כבשה refers to the aquisition of property." ALL of these thing are obtainable by gays and lesbians as well as by straights. The WORD "MARRIAGE" is just that - a word. It does not, by itself, mean just a man and a woman unless that is how we define it. I choose to define it as two loving people who have come together to create a bond between themselves that allows them to be able to trust that the other partner will be faithful to the Covenant of Marriage that is between them.

Rabbi Ted Alexander (A Conservative rabbi) of the San Francisco, California's Jewish community:

"This is the way God has created them (as homosexuals), and if God has created them this way, I'm willing to give them the blessings (of marriage). Furthermore, anyone who has any hesitation to give blessings to same-sex people should not say the Sabbath Psalm, 'How great are Your works, oh God,' because that includes everybody."

Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill:

It is of utmost importance for those who are students of the Torah to reclaim the texts that have been kidnapped by the fundamentalist, Taliban types among the Jews, the Moslems, and the Christians and then twisted them, and used these texts to hurt the innocent and to make them afraid.

Rabbi Gershon Winkler:

Therefore the wording is; to lay with a man as with a woman, something a true homosexual man does not do. The sin is about a horny heterosexual man using another man for sex, which occurred in ancient religious worship among some of those very same nations that our ancestors were warned against emulating.

To translate that prohibition, therefore, as applying to any homosexual relationship is to exit the realm of divine ordination and enter instead the realm of subjective, mortal homophobia.

Rabbi Michael Lerner:

Jesus says nothing against homosexual acts. But Paul goes off against them, probably meaning the way homosexuality was being abused in Rome at the time. Nothing in the Hebrew bible prohibits gay marriage. And none of the religious texts prohibits lesbian marriages or affairs.

That enough experts for you?


HOMOSEXUALITY & THE HEBREW BIBLE

Oh let's toss in some more.

Dr. Renato Lings:

In recent years several scholars have pointed out that Lev. 18:22 does not deal with female homosexuality. It is addressed to male Israelites only. In addition, there is considerable debate as to the specific nature of the sexual act in question... the wording is anything but straightforward. A literal translation may sound like this: And with (a) male you shall not lie (the) lyings (of a) woman. (An) abomination (is) that. To most English speakers such language is incomprehensible. To reach some form of clarity in accordance with modern English style, many translators have opted for a simple solution. They have taken the unfamiliar noun “lyings” and converted it to two familiar prepositions, namely, “as” and “with.” However, this procedure is problematic. Only at the very beginning of the sentence does the Hebrew feature the preposition “with” (Hebrew eth). The other preposition “as” (Hebrew ke) is entirely absent...The original Hebrew phrase is extremely difficult to translate.

In other words, just to point this out....it makes no sense so the translators changed it.

FWCC-EMES: Biblical Analysis of Lev. 18:22 by Renato Lings, PhD

In this verse alone, we have found the potential to read this verse in multiple fashions. The verse can be viewed as a condemnation against domineering sex. It can be viewed as solely a prohibition against male-to-male anal intercourse. It can be viewed as simply a taboo for the given time period. Whatever the case may be, the last thing that one can argue is that the verse is a blanket prohibition against any form of homosexuality whatsoever.

Libertarian Jew: Parsha Acharei Mot- Does Leviticus 18:22 Condemn Homosexuality?


So who exactly is being dishonest here, again? Who is twisting what the Bible says? It seems to me that the experts, even the fucking Rabbis, agree with me.

 

[BakshisMouse]

Lair.

I don't know what the fuck that has to do with anything, but if I were in the market for one of those, I would want something like this:

 

[Buford]

^

irony abounds

So says the shit slinger.

 

[BakshisMouse]

^

irony abounds

So says the shit slinger.

So says the nameless lamer.

 

[Buford]

That's why we defer to real experts when it comes to biblical translation, folks.

Oh ok. Well lets consult some Rabbis and PhDs about it then. Surely a Rabbi would be an expert

DOES THE BIBLE PROHIBIT HOMOSEXUALITY, by Rabbi Jacob Milgrom, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at the University of California, Berkeley

Of course it does (Leviticus) 18: 22; 20: 13), but the prohibition is severely limited. First, it is addressed only to Israel, not to other nations. Second, compliance with this law is a condition for residing in the Holy Land, but is irrelevant outside it (see the closing exhortation, 18: 24-30). Third, it is limited to men; lesbianism is not prohibited. Thus it is incorrect to apply this prohibition on a universal scale...However, homosexual relations with unrelated males are neither prohibited nor penalized...from the Bible, we can infer the following: the female half of the world's homosexual population, lesbians, are not mentioned. Over ninety-nine percent of the remaining gays, namely non-Jews, are not addressed. This leaves the small number of Jewish gay men subject to this prohibition. To those who argue that the Bible enjoins homosexuality, a careful reading of the source text offers a fundamentally different view. While the Bible never applauds homosexuality, neither does it prohibit most people from engaging in it.

Here's another Rabbi for you







Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch:



Rabbi Ted Alexander (A Conservative rabbi) of the San Francisco, California's Jewish community:



Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill:



Rabbi Gershon Winkler:



Rabbi Michael Lerner:




That enough experts for you?


HOMOSEXUALITY & THE HEBREW BIBLE

Oh let's toss in some more.

Dr. Renato Lings:

In recent years several scholars have pointed out that Lev. 18:22 does not deal with female homosexuality. It is addressed to male Israelites only. In addition, there is considerable debate as to the specific nature of the sexual act in question... the wording is anything but straightforward. A literal translation may sound like this: And with (a) male you shall not lie (the) lyings (of a) woman. (An) abomination (is) that. To most English speakers such language is incomprehensible. To reach some form of clarity in accordance with modern English style, many translators have opted for a simple solution. They have taken the unfamiliar noun “lyings” and converted it to two familiar prepositions, namely, “as” and “with.” However, this procedure is problematic. Only at the very beginning of the sentence does the Hebrew feature the preposition “with” (Hebrew eth). The other preposition “as” (Hebrew ke) is entirely absent...The original Hebrew phrase is extremely difficult to translate.

In other words, just to point this out....it makes no sense so the translators changed it.

FWCC-EMES: Biblical Analysis of Lev. 18:22 by Renato Lings, PhD

In this verse alone, we have found the potential to read this verse in multiple fashions. The verse can be viewed as a condemnation against domineering sex. It can be viewed as solely a prohibition against male-to-male anal intercourse. It can be viewed as simply a taboo for the given time period. Whatever the case may be, the last thing that one can argue is that the verse is a blanket prohibition against any form of homosexuality whatsoever.

Libertarian Jew: Parsha Acharei Mot- Does Leviticus 18:22 Condemn Homosexuality?


So who exactly is being dishonest here, again? Who is twisting what the Bible says? It seems to me that the experts, even the fucking Rabbis, agree with me.

Why don't you quote some Rabbi's who believe the opposite of your agenda? Dishonest much.

 

[Buford]

^

irony abounds

So says the shit slinger.

So says the nameless lamer.

This is all you and Del have. We never see you engage in a debate. Any fool can lob shit.

 

[BluePhantom]

I would also point to this very interesting argument as well:

There is a question as to whether the ancient sages who wrote the Torah would have seen סריסים (sarisim - eunuchs) as equivalent to what we would call today “homosexuals,” as well as others who did not propagate. Did the word סריס (saris) connote more than one meaning to the ancient Israelite? Did they lump in their own minds those who they saw as either physically, mentally, or in any other way, unable (or unwilling) to create offspring as “eunuchs?” And, did they give this class of their fellow tribesmen negative connotations?

They certainly did not call them by the English word, homosexuals. Karl-Maria Kertbeny first coined the term homosexual in 1869 in a pamphlet when arguing against a Prussian anti-sodomy law. The Hebrew speaking people who wrote the original text of Leviticus did not see homosexual actions as a sexual orientation of any consequence. In fact, they viewed homosexuality as something that was of little or no real concern to the normal operation of the tribal group, thus it was not singled out as a single class identity as were Priests כהנים, Levites לויים, and Nazarites נזירים.

Mr. Faris Malik's article, “The Ancient Roman and Talmudic Definition of Natural Eunuchs,” convincingly shows that the ancient Hebrews did indeed refer to what we today call homosexuals by the term סריס-eunuch. What is the effect of this? The effect is to show most definitely that the so-called anti-homosexual passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy COULD NOT HAVE REFERRED TO HOMOSEXUALITY, just as Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill has long contended. Rather, these passages refer to sexual substitution by HETEROSEXUAL men as symbolic acts performed originally in idolatrous ceremonies.

It makes sense that the ancient sages of the Jewish people knew what homosexuality was. After all homosexuality is a natural human condition that has been on the earth as long as the species itself. The only question is by what terminology was it known to them? As the text of the Hebrew Torah (from which comes Jewish Law) is as much as 3500 years old, many of the words used then to describe people, acts, and actions are not clearly understood today. It is easier for religious fundamentalists as they take the King James English most literally as the inerrant text of the Bible "just as it was given to Moses on Mt Sinai." The scholar and Truth seeker, however, knows better. One need only take a look at the latest Jewish Publication Society translation of the Torah (from Hebrew into English), and see the number of times the notation "Hebrew meaning unknown" is beside a word, to get the drift that sometimes the true meaning of a specific word in the ancient language has been lost over time. This loss of the original meaning has happened in all languages as words go out of favor or usage, or change in the way they are used.

The New Testament records Rabbi Jesus ben Joseph of Nazareth as saying: "For there are some eunuchs who are born so from their mother's womb (homosexual?), and some eunuchs who are made eunuchs by men (castrated), and some eunuchs who make themselves become eunuchs (celibates) for the sake of the kingdom of the heavens. Let him who is able to receive it, receive it" (Matthew 19:12). It is evident that in his day he (or the writer of his words) saw several different classes of non-procreating men as part of a group that he lumped together under the generic term “eunuchs – sarisim (pl) סריסים.

So we have an interesting argument that Jesus may have indeed referred to homosexuality at least once and said: "Let him who is able to receive it, receive it"

HOMOSEXUALITY & THE HEBREW BIBLE

See also

To recap, the distinction for Ulpian and Paulus is between a eunuch whose capability to procreate is destroyed because he is missing necessary parts of his body, and an anatomically whole eunuch for whom procreation may be psychologically difficult, but is biologically unimpeded....If a second century eunuch could simply be a homosexual who was impotent with women, by the ninth century, the meaning of eunuch had shifted and narrowed. Byzantine emperor Leo VI no longer had to distinguish between types of eunuchs. For example, without noting that he was changing prior law, Leo absolutely prohibited eunuchs from marriage (only castrated men had been prohibited by the ancients, not eunuchs in general) (Constitution 98)...Kathryn Ringrose and others have mentioned the change in meaning of eunuch between the third and twelfth centuries. Now we know what the change consisted of. Before, eunuchs were primarily anatomically whole men, while later only anatomically deprived men were eunuchs...In the Talmud, as in Roman law, the distinction between natural eunuchs and man-made eunuchs was substantive...Approximately contemporaneous with Adamantios, Lucian, the Roman legislators and Rabbis Akibah and Eliezer, the Christian theologian Clement of Alexandria provided a complementary perspective about the born eunuch, by way of quoting the Basilidian Christians with respect to the gospel verse about eunuchs (Stromata 3.1.1): "Some men by birth have a nature to turn away from women, and those who are subject to this natural constitution do well not to marry. These, they say, are the eunuchs by birth."

http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/cardiff.htm

It's a very interesting argument that requires some further study...for those who have the capacity and strength of faith to study rather than put their fingers in their ears and hum. As of now I will not take a stand on it one way or the other except to say that it's certainly something I will be focusing my research on in the very near future.

 

[BakshisMouse]

So says the shit slinger.

So says the nameless lamer.

This is all you and Del have. We never see you engage in a debate. Any fool can lob shit.

Bitch, how about you check me out on the economy forum? That's the only place I'll have a serious debate.

 

[Buford]

I already did. Scroll back to previous pages. In fact I addressed it twice. Go look. It's not my problem if you ignored it the first two times.

You didn't address it with me. That passage is speaking of homosexiality. If you can't see that, then you're deceived.

You're a dope. Seriously.

And you're a race hustler and liar. Seriously.

 

[Buford]

So says the nameless lamer.

This is all you and Del have. We never see you engage in a debate. Any fool can lob shit.

Bitch, how about you check me out on the economy forum? That's the only place I'll have a serious debate.

Then get your silly ass back over there, since you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about over here. Dick nose.

 

[BluePhantom]

So says the shit slinger.

So says the nameless lamer.

This is all you and Del have. We never see you engage in a debate. Any fool can lob shit.

That's pretty rich coming from a guy who hasn't contributed a single thing of substance to the argument, but has instead simply pounded his shoe on the table and made character attacks. Fucking hilarious.

 

[BluePhantom]

This is all you and Del have. We never see you engage in a debate. Any fool can lob shit.

Bitch, how about you check me out on the economy forum? That's the only place I'll have a serious debate.

Then get your silly ass back over there, since you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about over here. Dick nose.

Well that certainly hasn't stopped you.

 

[BakshisMouse]

This is all you and Del have. We never see you engage in a debate. Any fool can lob shit.

Bitch, how about you check me out on the economy forum? That's the only place I'll have a serious debate.

Then get your silly ass back over there, since you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about over here. Dick nose.

Bitch, I can own your ass on religion in one post.

The New Testament is an unreliable collection of propagandist hearsay that is nowhere close to evidence of Jesus' divinity.

The Hebrew Scriptures portray a jealous, cruel, sadistic, and psychotic god. They are entertaining when they do not focus on morality or dry geneology.

 

[Buford]

So says the nameless lamer.

This is all you and Del have. We never see you engage in a debate. Any fool can lob shit.

That's pretty rich coming from a guy who hasn't contributed a single thing of substance to the argument, but has instead simply pounded his shoe on the table and made character attacks. Fucking hilarious.

And all you've done is quote homosexual activists. You can't deny the Scriptures so you undermine them. Any fool can do that. I asked you to explain two verses and you used some lame excuse about having done so with someone else. Explain Romans 1:26-27 for us. I'll be back soon to take you up on it.

 

[Buford]

Bitch, how about you check me out on the economy forum? That's the only place I'll have a serious debate.

Then get your silly ass back over there, since you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about over here. Dick nose.

Bitch, I can own your ass on religion in one post.

The New Testament is an unreliable collection of propogandist hearsay that is nowhere close to evidence of Jesus' devinity.

The Hebrew Scriptures portray a jealous, cruel, sadistic, and psychotic god. They are entertaining when they do not focus on morality or dry geneology.

Very enlightening. Do you often get on the internet when you're on break at McDonalds?

 

[BakshisMouse]

Then get your silly ass back over there, since you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about over here. Dick nose.

Bitch, I can own your ass on religion in one post.

The New Testament is an unreliable collection of propogandist hearsay that is nowhere close to evidence of Jesus' devinity.

The Hebrew Scriptures portray a jealous, cruel, sadistic, and psychotic god. They are entertaining when they do not focus on morality or dry geneology.

Very enlightening. Do you often get on the internet when you're on break at McDonalds?

You don't have an answer, motherfucker?

Even Jesus thinks that you're lame.

 

[mal]

^

irony abounds

^Ironic Observation is Ironically Ironic...



peace...

 

[BakshisMouse]

^

irony abounds

^Ironic Observation is Ironically Ironic...



peace...

Vapid repartee is vapid.

 

[Buford]

Bitch, I can own your ass on religion in one post.

The New Testament is an unreliable collection of propogandist hearsay that is nowhere close to evidence of Jesus' devinity.

The Hebrew Scriptures portray a jealous, cruel, sadistic, and psychotic god. They are entertaining when they do not focus on morality or dry geneology.

Very enlightening. Do you often get on the internet when you're on break at McDonalds?

You don't have an answer, motherfucker?

Even Jesus thinks that you're lame.

Oh my, someone didn't get their meds this morning.

 

[Buford]

And we're all still waiting for the explanation of Romans 1:26-27.............."Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."