Jesus on Marriage...

[BakshisMouse]

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."

Who gives a shit about the New Testament? Like I said, all what it is is propagandist hearsay.

Care to dispute that?

 

[BakshisMouse]

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.

I'm taking it you'll never take the effort to dispute my statements:

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.

Which is fine, because all that you can offer is amateur ad-hominim.

 

[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."

Who gives a shit about the New Testament? Like I said, all what it is is propagandist hearsay.

Care to dispute that?

No one disputes you don't give a shit about the topic. Who are your arguing with?

 

[Buford]

You don't have an answer, motherfucker?

Even Jesus thinks that you're lame.

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

I'm taking it you'll never take the effort to dispute my statements:

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.

Which is fine, because all that you can offer is amateur ad-hominim.

You're too smart for me. You win.

 

[BakshisMouse]

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."

Who gives a shit about the New Testament? Like I said, all what it is is propagandist hearsay.

Care to dispute that?

No one disputes you don't give a shit about the topic. Who are your arguing with?

I am requesting that you refute:

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.

But I know you won't.

 

[BakshisMouse]

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

I'm taking it you'll never take the effort to dispute my statements:

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.

Which is fine, because all that you can offer is amateur ad-hominim.

You're too smart for me. You win.

Finally, some honesty from you.

 

[Buford]

I'm taking it you'll never take the effort to dispute my statements:

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.

Which is fine, because all that you can offer is amateur ad-hominim.

You're too smart for me. You win.

Finally, some honesty from you.

Oh, yes. Everyone can see I am no match for you. Your eloquent intelligent argument has left me speechless. I am defeated and ashamed. You're brilliant. I bet you attended Harvard.

 

[BakshisMouse]

You're too smart for me. You win.

Finally, some honesty from you.

Oh, yes. Everyone can see I am no match for you. Your eloquent intelligent argument has left me speechless. I am defeated and ashamed. You're brilliant. I bet you attended Harvard.

You're on a roll! You might pass that kindergarten entrance exam yet!

 

[Buford]

Finally, some honesty from you.

Oh, yes. Everyone can see I am no match for you. Your eloquent intelligent argument has left me speechless. I am defeated and ashamed. You're brilliant. I bet you attended Harvard.

You're on a roll! You might pass that kindergarten entrance exam yet!

Now that I've acknowledged your obvious superiority and intelligence, what lesson did you have for us today on the topic?

 

[BakshisMouse]

Oh, yes. Everyone can see I am no match for you. Your eloquent intelligent argument has left me speechless. I am defeated and ashamed. You're brilliant. I bet you attended Harvard.

You're on a roll! You might pass that kindergarten entrance exam yet!

Now that I've acknowledged your obvious superiority and intelligence, what lesson did you have for us today on the topic?

My lesson is:

Become an atheist immediately so you can rid yourself of the smug sanctimony of Christianity and related deisms. This is the path to enlightenment.

 

[Buford]

You're on a roll! You might pass that kindergarten entrance exam yet!

Now that I've acknowledged your obvious superiority and intelligence, what lesson did you have for us today on the topic?

My lesson is:

Become an atheist immediately so you can rid yourself of the smug sanctimony of Christianity and related deisms. This is the path to enlightenment.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPMZfxUeLvk&feature=related]Horny donkey - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Sky Dancer]

You're on a roll! You might pass that kindergarten entrance exam yet!

Now that I've acknowledged your obvious superiority and intelligence, what lesson did you have for us today on the topic?

My lesson is:

Become an atheist immediately so you can rid yourself of the smug sanctimony of Christianity and related deisms. This is the path to enlightenment.

Good luck getting the Christians off your back.

 

[BakshisMouse]

Now that I've acknowledged your obvious superiority and intelligence, what lesson did you have for us today on the topic?

My lesson is:

Become an atheist immediately so you can rid yourself of the smug sanctimony of Christianity and related deisms. This is the path to enlightenment.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPMZfxUeLvk&feature=related]Horny donkey - YouTube[/ame]

Damn. Just when I thought you made progress. Keep this up, and I might have to expell you.

 

[Buford]

Now that I've acknowledged your obvious superiority and intelligence, what lesson did you have for us today on the topic?

My lesson is:

Become an atheist immediately so you can rid yourself of the smug sanctimony of Christianity and related deisms. This is the path to enlightenment.

Good luck getting the Christians off your back.

I think you're confused here. Did you follow this from his first post?

 

[Buford]

My lesson is:

Become an atheist immediately so you can rid yourself of the smug sanctimony of Christianity and related deisms. This is the path to enlightenment.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPMZfxUeLvk&feature=related]Horny donkey - YouTube[/ame]

Damn. Just when I thought you made progress. Keep this up, and I might have to expell you.

The only think you can expell correctly is your own waste. Now pull your damn pants up and quit taking dumps in the donkey pasture, moron.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Amazing. The answer was in the same bible passage that the OP perverted to make a false point.

Outstanding.

 

[mal]

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.

Amazing. The answer was in the same bible passage that the OP perverted to make a false point.

Outstanding.

^Pervert Lives and Dies by someone with an Agenda sayinig "may".



peace...

 

[BakshisMouse]

The only think you can expell correctly is your own waste. Now pull your damn pants up and quit taking dumps in the donkey pasture, moron.

Well, now you've done it! Two weeks of out of school suspension and a parental notification! This will go on your permanent record, young man!

 

[catzmeow]

Horny donkey - YouTube

You and your boyfriend make a lovely couple, Buford. I must reluctantly agree to support your campaign for marriage rights, in spite of my previous objections to interspecies relationships.

 

[BluePhantom]

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."

And I told you I already gave it. Unlike you I am not going to retype the same thing over and over. Look here, here, and comments on Paul in general here. Note as well that you even responded to my comments on Romans here (badly I might add) and I responded to your insipid rebuttal here. You don't even know what you have already argued.