Jesus on Marriage...

[theHawk]

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.

LOL. A bunch of modern day liberal Jews with a pro-homo agenda say its OK so it must be so.

If homosexuality was A-OK according to ancient Jewish texts all this time then why have they not been marrying gay couples for thousands of years?
Oh...it must be because these modern day enlighted Jews and 'scholars' can interpret the Torah and all of their ancient religious texts better than the Jewish priests and scholars of those anceint times.

Stop trying to pretend you're an expert at translations and linguistics because it's just so embarrassing and pathetic.

YOU have absolutely no credentials to be making such claims and the sources you are using are selected soley to achieve your political agenda. Orthodox Judaism rejects homosexuality outright, yet you conviently leave them out of your sources.

Carry on, Queer-boy.

 

[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."

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.

You thought you were done, but I have many questions and points to discuss.

Which version of the Bible correctly translates Romans 1:24-27?

 

[theHawk]

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.

You thought you were done, but I have many questions and points to discuss.

Which version of the Bible correctly translates Romans 1:24-27?

His idiotic self made word-for-word translation no doubt.

 

[theHawk]

Oh boy...this post by BluePhantom tells us alot...

But sometimes Paul talks about "the effeminate" and "unnatural sexual acts" and how being effeminate is an affront to God, etc. Again we have have to understand some cultural points here. Paul was a Roman and in Roman culture (or Greek or frankly just about any culture of the time) they distinguished greatly between the dominant role in homosexual activity and the feminine role in homosexual activity. It was perfectly fine and natural to be the dominant male in homosexual activity. But the feminine male was a position reserved for young boys and slaves. It would be considered a social abomination; completely unnatural for a grown man to assume the feminine role.

In other words, in regards to homosexual relations it was no problem at all to be the pitcher; you just couldn't be the catcher. Now in the 21st century we don't distinguish between the two forms of homosexual roles. We tend to lump them together: gay is gay no matter what role you take and to suggest that there is a difference between the dominant role and the feminine role is ridiculous. But that is according to our 21st century perception. To Paul...a Roman....that would make perfect sense and indeed would be the precise way that he was brought up to think.

Looks like we have a "pitcher" who thinks he's not gay. LOL.

 

[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.

You thought you were done, but I have many questions and points to discuss.

Which version of the Bible correctly translates Romans 1:24-27?

None of them. I would suggest Greek Interlinear if pressed to pick one.

 

[BluePhantom]

Oh boy...this post by BluePhantom tells us alot...

But sometimes Paul talks about "the effeminate" and "unnatural sexual acts" and how being effeminate is an affront to God, etc. Again we have have to understand some cultural points here. Paul was a Roman and in Roman culture (or Greek or frankly just about any culture of the time) they distinguished greatly between the dominant role in homosexual activity and the feminine role in homosexual activity. It was perfectly fine and natural to be the dominant male in homosexual activity. But the feminine male was a position reserved for young boys and slaves. It would be considered a social abomination; completely unnatural for a grown man to assume the feminine role.

In other words, in regards to homosexual relations it was no problem at all to be the pitcher; you just couldn't be the catcher. Now in the 21st century we don't distinguish between the two forms of homosexual roles. We tend to lump them together: gay is gay no matter what role you take and to suggest that there is a difference between the dominant role and the feminine role is ridiculous. But that is according to our 21st century perception. To Paul...a Roman....that would make perfect sense and indeed would be the precise way that he was brought up to think.

Looks like we have a "pitcher" who thinks he's not gay. LOL.

Do you so proudly display your ignorance of other topics as well? History is history dude. Ancient culture was what it was. Perhaps if you spent some time educating yourself on such things you wouldn't be championing your ignorance with such zest.

 

[Buford]

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.

You thought you were done, but I have many questions and points to discuss.

Which version of the Bible correctly translates Romans 1:24-27?

None of them. I would suggest Greek Interlinear if pressed to pick one.

So every version available is wrong. Okay. So give us the Greek Interlinear version of Romans 1:24-27. Thanks.

 

[BluePhantom]

LOL. A bunch of modern day liberal Jews with a pro-homo agenda say its OK so it must be so.

Talk about destroying yourself with your own argument

If homosexuality was A-OK according to ancient Jewish texts all this time then why have they not been marrying gay couples for thousands of years?

There is strong evidence that they did until the 4th century jackass.

 

[theHawk]

Oh boy...this post by BluePhantom tells us alot...

But sometimes Paul talks about "the effeminate" and "unnatural sexual acts" and how being effeminate is an affront to God, etc. Again we have have to understand some cultural points here. Paul was a Roman and in Roman culture (or Greek or frankly just about any culture of the time) they distinguished greatly between the dominant role in homosexual activity and the feminine role in homosexual activity. It was perfectly fine and natural to be the dominant male in homosexual activity. But the feminine male was a position reserved for young boys and slaves. It would be considered a social abomination; completely unnatural for a grown man to assume the feminine role.

In other words, in regards to homosexual relations it was no problem at all to be the pitcher; you just couldn't be the catcher. Now in the 21st century we don't distinguish between the two forms of homosexual roles. We tend to lump them together: gay is gay no matter what role you take and to suggest that there is a difference between the dominant role and the feminine role is ridiculous. But that is according to our 21st century perception. To Paul...a Roman....that would make perfect sense and indeed would be the precise way that he was brought up to think.

Looks like we have a "pitcher" who thinks he's not gay. LOL.

Do you so proudly display your ignorance of other topics as well? History is history dude. Ancient culture was what it was. Perhaps if you spent some time educating yourself on such things you wouldn't be championing your ignorance with such zest.

You're doing all the "championing of your ignorance with zest" with your child like translations and bad sourcing.

By the way, you should move to the middle east and become a Muslim. They still live that "ancient culture" you're so fond of where adult males are allowed to be homosexual as long as they are the "pitcher" and the young boys are the "catcher" and that its done in secrecy.

 

[theHawk]

LOL. A bunch of modern day liberal Jews with a pro-homo agenda say its OK so it must be so.

Talk about destroying yourself with your own argument

If homosexuality was A-OK according to ancient Jewish texts all this time then why have they not been marrying gay couples for thousands of years?

There is strong evidence that they did until the 4th century jackass.

OK there is "strong evidence" that the Jews did gay marriages up until the 4th century...because BluePhantom says so.

Talk about delusional....

 

[BluePhantom]

You thought you were done, but I have many questions and points to discuss.

Which version of the Bible correctly translates Romans 1:24-27?

None of them. I would suggest Greek Interlinear if pressed to pick one.

So every version available is wrong. Okay. So give us the Greek Interlinear version of Romans 1:24-27. Thanks.

Typical fundamentalist trick ignoring the context defined in Romans 1:21-23.

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more
than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom1.pdf

Now verses 21-25 are discussing idolatry. Paul is talking about pagan rituals and those who have ignored God. They became "vain in their imagination". Now it's important to note he is not talking about vanity, but futility. In other words their imagination which produced idols that represented God in pagan images were in vain.

In 25 he points out that they worship the "creature more than the Creator". In other words the idol became their god, not God Himself. He then describes the pagan rituals associated with idol worship which included orgies, same-sex activity, etc in honor of pagan idols and gods. He makes reference of turning against their "natural" urges. Even heterosexuals were expected to participate in same-sex activity during pagan ritual. This would be "unnatural" for them as they do not normally have such sexual attractions but are being forced to by ritual.

The whole thing is about idolatry and pagan rituals practiced by Christians who have returned to pagan life. Only when you take 27 out of context (as fundamentalists do all the time in order to confirm their bias) can it be spun as a condemnation of homosexuality in general.

 

[BluePhantom]

Oh boy...this post by BluePhantom tells us alot...



Looks like we have a "pitcher" who thinks he's not gay. LOL.

Do you so proudly display your ignorance of other topics as well? History is history dude. Ancient culture was what it was. Perhaps if you spent some time educating yourself on such things you wouldn't be championing your ignorance with such zest.

You're doing all the "championing of your ignorance with zest" with your child like translations and bad sourcing.

By the way, you should move to the middle east and become a Muslim. They still live that "ancient culture" you're so fond of where adult males are allowed to be homosexual as long as they are the "pitcher" and the young boys are the "catcher" and that its done in secrecy.

(sigh)....actually no....that's still a death offense for Muslims under Sharia law. But feel free to keep spewing your ignorance. It's quite entertaining.

 

[Foxfyre]

Blue Phantom was trained in a much different discipline than I was, and I don't agree with his view of the translation of much of this stuff or his take on some of the history. However, there are many many schools of theology. If there were not, we would all pretty much think and believe alike in matters of religion and there would be one church, not many hundreds or thousands of different faiths, each believing it is closest to the truth.

I do know, however, that Jesus was very big on live and let live except when people presumed to discipline, cheat, or hurt other people. He was also very big on common sense and used that in his teachings. He rarely quoted scriptures, but when he did, he used it as illustration. He did not pluck passages from the Bible as some kind of conclusive evidence for his lesson of the hour.

He would be grieved to see Christians snarling at and insulting each other related to his teachings or what God expects of them.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I wonder if Jesus would care if Christians were snarling at and insulting gays and lesbians and non-christians?

 

[Buford]

None of them. I would suggest Greek Interlinear if pressed to pick one.

So every version available is wrong. Okay. So give us the Greek Interlinear version of Romans 1:24-27. Thanks.

Typical fundamentalist trick ignoring the context defined in Romans 1:21-23.

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more
than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom1.pdf

Now verses 21-25 are discussing idolatry. Paul is talking about pagan rituals and those who have ignored God. They became "vain in their imagination". Now it's important to note he is not talking about vanity, but futility. In other words their imagination which produced idols that represented God in pagan images were in vain.

In 25 he points out that they worship the "creature more than the Creator". In other words the idol became their god, not God Himself. He then describes the pagan rituals associated with idol worship which included orgies, same-sex activity, etc in honor of pagan idols and gods. He makes reference of turning against their "natural" urges. Even heterosexuals were expected to participate in same-sex activity during pagan ritual. This would be "unnatural" for them as they do not normally have such sexual attractions but are being forced to by ritual.

The whole thing is about idolatry and pagan rituals practiced by Christians who have returned to pagan life. Only when you take 27 out of context (as fundamentalists do all the time in order to confirm their bias) can it be spun as a condemnation of homosexuality in general.

It doesn't say anything about "pagan ritual" and scripture doesn't say anything about heterosexuals expected to participate in a "ritual" since no "ritual" is mentioned.

 

[BluePhantom]

Blue Phantom was trained in a much different discipline than I was, and I don't agree with his view of the translation of much of this stuff or his take on some of the history. However, there are many many schools of theology. If there were not, we would all pretty much think and believe alike in matters of religion and there would be one church, not many hundreds or thousands of different faiths, each believing it is closest to the truth.

I do know, however, that Jesus was very big on live and let live except when people presumed to discipline, cheat, or hurt other people. He was also very big on common sense and used that in his teachings. He rarely quoted scriptures, but when he did, he used it as illustration. He did not pluck passages from the Bible as some kind of conclusive evidence for his lesson of the hour.

He would be grieved to see Christians snarling at and insulting each other related to his teachings or what God expects of them.

I am reminded of a quote from Rev Susan Schneider of the Lutheran church in Wisconsin:

Preaching from a biblical passage in Acts, she said that just as early Christians debated whether to baptize gentiles, modern Christians are still drawing boundaries between in groups and out groups.

“The only thing that has changed in the church since the first century is who is considered ‘us,’ and who is considered ‘them,’ ” she said. “The essential issue is the same: We aren’t sure ‘they’ belong with God at all. When I was young, a pastor said, whenever you draw a line between us and them, bear in mind that Jesus is on the other side of that line.”

 

[Sky Dancer]

Blue Phantom was trained in a much different discipline than I was, and I don't agree with his view of the translation of much of this stuff or his take on some of the history. However, there are many many schools of theology. If there were not, we would all pretty much think and believe alike in matters of religion and there would be one church, not many hundreds or thousands of different faiths, each believing it is closest to the truth.

I do know, however, that Jesus was very big on live and let live except when people presumed to discipline, cheat, or hurt other people. He was also very big on common sense and used that in his teachings. He rarely quoted scriptures, but when he did, he used it as illustration. He did not pluck passages from the Bible as some kind of conclusive evidence for his lesson of the hour.

He would be grieved to see Christians snarling at and insulting each other related to his teachings or what God expects of them.

I am reminded of a quote from Rev Susan Schneider of the Lutheran church in Wisconsin:

Preaching from a biblical passage in Acts, she said that just as early Christians debated whether to baptize gentiles, modern Christians are still drawing boundaries between in groups and out groups.

“The only thing that has changed in the church since the first century is who is considered ‘us,’ and who is considered ‘them,’ ” she said. “The essential issue is the same: We aren’t sure ‘they’ belong with God at all. When I was young, a pastor said, whenever you draw a line between us and them, bear in mind that Jesus is on the other side of that line.”

You have a very kind view of Christianity. I love it. May you influence many people here.

 

[Buford]

Blue Phantom was trained in a much different discipline than I was, and I don't agree with his view of the translation of much of this stuff or his take on some of the history. However, there are many many schools of theology. If there were not, we would all pretty much think and believe alike in matters of religion and there would be one church, not many hundreds or thousands of different faiths, each believing it is closest to the truth.

I do know, however, that Jesus was very big on live and let live except when people presumed to discipline, cheat, or hurt other people. He was also very big on common sense and used that in his teachings. He rarely quoted scriptures, but when he did, he used it as illustration. He did not pluck passages from the Bible as some kind of conclusive evidence for his lesson of the hour.

He would be grieved to see Christians snarling at and insulting each other related to his teachings or what God expects of them.

I am reminded of a quote from Rev Susan Schneider of the Lutheran church in Wisconsin:

Preaching from a biblical passage in Acts, she said that just as early Christians debated whether to baptize gentiles, modern Christians are still drawing boundaries between in groups and out groups.

“The only thing that has changed in the church since the first century is who is considered ‘us,’ and who is considered ‘them,’ ” she said. “The essential issue is the same: We aren’t sure ‘they’ belong with God at all. When I was young, a pastor said, whenever you draw a line between us and them, bear in mind that Jesus is on the other side of that line.”

Jesus drew the line. Jesus said marriage is a man and a woman. Which side are you going to stand with?

 

[Buford]

Blue Phantom was trained in a much different discipline than I was, and I don't agree with his view of the translation of much of this stuff or his take on some of the history. However, there are many many schools of theology. If there were not, we would all pretty much think and believe alike in matters of religion and there would be one church, not many hundreds or thousands of different faiths, each believing it is closest to the truth.

I do know, however, that Jesus was very big on live and let live except when people presumed to discipline, cheat, or hurt other people. He was also very big on common sense and used that in his teachings. He rarely quoted scriptures, but when he did, he used it as illustration. He did not pluck passages from the Bible as some kind of conclusive evidence for his lesson of the hour.

He would be grieved to see Christians snarling at and insulting each other related to his teachings or what God expects of them.

I am reminded of a quote from Rev Susan Schneider of the Lutheran church in Wisconsin:

Preaching from a biblical passage in Acts, she said that just as early Christians debated whether to baptize gentiles, modern Christians are still drawing boundaries between in groups and out groups.

“The only thing that has changed in the church since the first century is who is considered ‘us,’ and who is considered ‘them,’ ” she said. “The essential issue is the same: We aren’t sure ‘they’ belong with God at all. When I was young, a pastor said, whenever you draw a line between us and them, bear in mind that Jesus is on the other side of that line.”

You have a very kind view of Christianity. I love it.

Was Jesus being unkind when he said marriage is a man and a woman?

 

[theHawk]

The whole thing is about idolatry and pagan rituals practiced by Christians who have returned to pagan life. Only when you take 27 out of context (as fundamentalists do all the time in order to confirm their bias) can it be spun as a condemnation of homosexuality in general.

Wow, this is your arguement? It's "spun as condemnation of homosexuality"? It's "taken out of context"?

These passages pertain to humanity turning away from God and embracing lies and sin. Nothing is taken out of context.