Was slavery condemned in the Bible?

[ding]

Does it command that they be put to death?

Does it not say that? Today somebody had to kill a cow. I ate a portion of it. Did the people working where the cows were killed hate the cow?

I was a jury foreman once. They guy committed the crime and he could have gotten the death penalty. The judge gave him life without parole. To this day, I have no personal feelings toward the guy one way or another. Even he had been fried, I would not hate him.

I felt sympathetic for the girl he beat and raped. After the trial was over we all hugged and cried over her ordeal. Still, I didn't have any personal feelings in my vote to convict.

I don’t believe it does say that.

I looked it up and quoted it. Leviticus 20: 13 Authorized King James Version

All I can tell you is what I read.

Sure but if you believe it means a command to kill gays that observation is at odds with the practice of the Jews so maybe that interpretation isn’t correct.

That verse has NOTHING to do with Jews. So your interpretation is incorrect.

The book of Leviticus emphasize ritual, legal and moral practices of the Jewish people.

So it kind of does.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Does it not say that? Today somebody had to kill a cow. I ate a portion of it. Did the people working where the cows were killed hate the cow?

I was a jury foreman once. They guy committed the crime and he could have gotten the death penalty. The judge gave him life without parole. To this day, I have no personal feelings toward the guy one way or another. Even he had been fried, I would not hate him.

I felt sympathetic for the girl he beat and raped. After the trial was over we all hugged and cried over her ordeal. Still, I didn't have any personal feelings in my vote to convict.

I don’t believe it does say that.

I looked it up and quoted it. Leviticus 20: 13 Authorized King James Version

All I can tell you is what I read.

Sure but if you believe it means a command to kill gays that observation is at odds with the practice of the Jews so maybe that interpretation isn’t correct.

That verse has NOTHING to do with Jews. So your interpretation is incorrect.

The book of Leviticus emphasize ritual, legal and moral practices of the Jewish people.

So it kind of does.

No, it factually does not. The Old Testament deals with a people called Israel in the Bible. It has NOTHING to do with "Jews."

FWIW, the first time the word Jew appears in the Bible, they are at war with Israelites. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they ain't the same people.

 

[irosie91]

in order to understand what the lines in Leviticus meant to the people to whom
it was addressed ------one needs to review commentaries. It is silly to rely on
the translation --------private diddling between consenting "friends" was probably
ignored. -----the issue was either the ORGANIZED stuff-----or some sort of
cult involving the "behavior"-----I base my comment on the actual practical
discussions thrown around in the talmud

Try using English and proper punctuation. Whatever you said is gibberish. Thanks.

wrong----you have a reading comprehension problem.------

 

[Porter Rockwell]

in order to understand what the lines in Leviticus meant to the people to whom
it was addressed ------one needs to review commentaries. It is silly to rely on
the translation --------private diddling between consenting "friends" was probably
ignored. -----the issue was either the ORGANIZED stuff-----or some sort of
cult involving the "behavior"-----I base my comment on the actual practical
discussions thrown around in the talmud

Try using English and proper punctuation. Whatever you said is gibberish. Thanks.

wrong----you have a reading comprehension problem.------

Your inability to express yourself in the English is YOUR problem. If you fail to use complete sentences and the right punctuation, I cannot understand you.

 

[ding]

I don’t believe it does say that.

I looked it up and quoted it. Leviticus 20: 13 Authorized King James Version

All I can tell you is what I read.

Sure but if you believe it means a command to kill gays that observation is at odds with the practice of the Jews so maybe that interpretation isn’t correct.

That verse has NOTHING to do with Jews. So your interpretation is incorrect.

The book of Leviticus emphasize ritual, legal and moral practices of the Jewish people.

So it kind of does.

No, it factually does not. The Old Testament deals with a people called Israel in the Bible. It has NOTHING to do with "Jews."

FWIW, the first time the word Jew appears in the Bible, they are at war with Israelites. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they ain't the same people.

That's semantics. The point is that - whatever name you want to call them - their book Leviticus emphasized their ritual, legal and moral practices. And their practices indicated that they did not fucking kill gay people.

So why is it that you think they were commanded to kill gay people?

The obvious answer is that they weren't because they didn't fucking kill gay people in reality.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I looked it up and quoted it. Leviticus 20: 13 Authorized King James Version

All I can tell you is what I read.

Sure but if you believe it means a command to kill gays that observation is at odds with the practice of the Jews so maybe that interpretation isn’t correct.

That verse has NOTHING to do with Jews. So your interpretation is incorrect.

The book of Leviticus emphasize ritual, legal and moral practices of the Jewish people.

So it kind of does.

No, it factually does not. The Old Testament deals with a people called Israel in the Bible. It has NOTHING to do with "Jews."

FWIW, the first time the word Jew appears in the Bible, they are at war with Israelites. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they ain't the same people.

That's semantics. The point is that - whatever name you want to call them - their book Leviticus emphasized their ritual, legal and moral practices. And their practices indicated that they did not fucking kill gay people.

So why is it that you think they were commanded to kill gay people?

The obvious answer is that they weren't because they didn't fucking kill gay people in reality.

You just admitted that it was a legal practice. Why are you getting your boxers in a bunch?

 

[irosie91]

Sure but if you believe it means a command to kill gays that observation is at odds with the practice of the Jews so maybe that interpretation isn’t correct.

That verse has NOTHING to do with Jews. So your interpretation is incorrect.

The book of Leviticus emphasize ritual, legal and moral practices of the Jewish people.

So it kind of does.

No, it factually does not. The Old Testament deals with a people called Israel in the Bible. It has NOTHING to do with "Jews."

FWIW, the first time the word Jew appears in the Bible, they are at war with Israelites. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they ain't the same people.

That's semantics. The point is that - whatever name you want to call them - their book Leviticus emphasized their ritual, legal and moral practices. And their practices indicated that they did not fucking kill gay people.

So why is it that you think they were commanded to kill gay people?

The obvious answer is that they weren't because they didn't fucking kill gay people in reality.

You just admitted that it was a legal practice. Why are you getting your boxers in a bunch?

uhm ---not exactly-----in practice BEING GAY was not a crime-----developing a
cult or a temple to GAYNESS like a GAY NITECLUB would have been a crime.

 

[irosie91]

in order to understand what the lines in Leviticus meant to the people to whom
it was addressed ------one needs to review commentaries. It is silly to rely on
the translation --------private diddling between consenting "friends" was probably
ignored. -----the issue was either the ORGANIZED stuff-----or some sort of
cult involving the "behavior"-----I base my comment on the actual practical
discussions thrown around in the talmud

Try using English and proper punctuation. Whatever you said is gibberish. Thanks.

wrong----you have a reading comprehension problem.------

Your inability to express yourself in the English is YOUR problem. If you fail to use complete sentences and the right punctuation, I cannot understand you.

You have problems with comprehension. Your inability to understand any writing that is not grammatically correct or punctuated correctly is very odd. I have
never heard of your form of dyslexia.

 

[ding]

Sure but if you believe it means a command to kill gays that observation is at odds with the practice of the Jews so maybe that interpretation isn’t correct.

That verse has NOTHING to do with Jews. So your interpretation is incorrect.

The book of Leviticus emphasize ritual, legal and moral practices of the Jewish people.

So it kind of does.

No, it factually does not. The Old Testament deals with a people called Israel in the Bible. It has NOTHING to do with "Jews."

FWIW, the first time the word Jew appears in the Bible, they are at war with Israelites. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they ain't the same people.

That's semantics. The point is that - whatever name you want to call them - their book Leviticus emphasized their ritual, legal and moral practices. And their practices indicated that they did not fucking kill gay people.

So why is it that you think they were commanded to kill gay people?

The obvious answer is that they weren't because they didn't fucking kill gay people in reality.

You just admitted that it was a legal practice. Why are you getting your boxers in a bunch?

Do you even logic?

 

[G.T.]

in order to understand what the lines in Leviticus meant to the people to whom
it was addressed ------one needs to review commentaries. It is silly to rely on
the translation --------private diddling between consenting "friends" was probably
ignored. -----the issue was either the ORGANIZED stuff-----or some sort of
cult involving the "behavior"-----I base my comment on the actual practical
discussions thrown around in the talmud

Try using English and proper punctuation. Whatever you said is gibberish. Thanks.

wrong----you have a reading comprehension problem.------

Your inability to express yourself in the English is YOUR problem. If you fail to use complete sentences and the right punctuation, I cannot understand you.

You have problems with comprehension. Your inability to understand any writing that is not grammatically correct or punctuated correctly is very odd. I have
never heard of your form of dyslexia.

yeah. The post he's taking issue with was pretty easy to read/decipher.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

That verse has NOTHING to do with Jews. So your interpretation is incorrect.

The book of Leviticus emphasize ritual, legal and moral practices of the Jewish people.

So it kind of does.

No, it factually does not. The Old Testament deals with a people called Israel in the Bible. It has NOTHING to do with "Jews."

FWIW, the first time the word Jew appears in the Bible, they are at war with Israelites. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they ain't the same people.

That's semantics. The point is that - whatever name you want to call them - their book Leviticus emphasized their ritual, legal and moral practices. And their practices indicated that they did not fucking kill gay people.

So why is it that you think they were commanded to kill gay people?

The obvious answer is that they weren't because they didn't fucking kill gay people in reality.

You just admitted that it was a legal practice. Why are you getting your boxers in a bunch?

uhm ---not exactly-----in practice BEING GAY was not a crime-----developing a
cult or a temple to GAYNESS like a GAY NITECLUB would have been a crime.

Got any citations for that or are you talking out your ass?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

in order to understand what the lines in Leviticus meant to the people to whom
it was addressed ------one needs to review commentaries. It is silly to rely on
the translation --------private diddling between consenting "friends" was probably
ignored. -----the issue was either the ORGANIZED stuff-----or some sort of
cult involving the "behavior"-----I base my comment on the actual practical
discussions thrown around in the talmud

Try using English and proper punctuation. Whatever you said is gibberish. Thanks.

wrong----you have a reading comprehension problem.------

Your inability to express yourself in the English is YOUR problem. If you fail to use complete sentences and the right punctuation, I cannot understand you.

You have problems with comprehension. Your inability to understand any writing that is not grammatically correct or punctuated correctly is very odd. I have
never heard of your form of dyslexia.

As a teacher, I would have never passed you above the 4th grade either.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

That verse has NOTHING to do with Jews. So your interpretation is incorrect.

The book of Leviticus emphasize ritual, legal and moral practices of the Jewish people.

So it kind of does.

No, it factually does not. The Old Testament deals with a people called Israel in the Bible. It has NOTHING to do with "Jews."

FWIW, the first time the word Jew appears in the Bible, they are at war with Israelites. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they ain't the same people.

That's semantics. The point is that - whatever name you want to call them - their book Leviticus emphasized their ritual, legal and moral practices. And their practices indicated that they did not fucking kill gay people.

So why is it that you think they were commanded to kill gay people?

The obvious answer is that they weren't because they didn't fucking kill gay people in reality.

You just admitted that it was a legal practice. Why are you getting your boxers in a bunch?

Do you even logic?

Do you? If so, I have yet to see it.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

in order to understand what the lines in Leviticus meant to the people to whom
it was addressed ------one needs to review commentaries. It is silly to rely on
the translation --------private diddling between consenting "friends" was probably
ignored. -----the issue was either the ORGANIZED stuff-----or some sort of
cult involving the "behavior"-----I base my comment on the actual practical
discussions thrown around in the talmud

Try using English and proper punctuation. Whatever you said is gibberish. Thanks.

wrong----you have a reading comprehension problem.------

Your inability to express yourself in the English is YOUR problem. If you fail to use complete sentences and the right punctuation, I cannot understand you.

You have problems with comprehension. Your inability to understand any writing that is not grammatically correct or punctuated correctly is very odd. I have
never heard of your form of dyslexia.

yeah. The post he's taking issue with was pretty easy to read/decipher.

Put those lips right up there on that ass.

 

[ding]

The book of Leviticus emphasize ritual, legal and moral practices of the Jewish people.

So it kind of does.

No, it factually does not. The Old Testament deals with a people called Israel in the Bible. It has NOTHING to do with "Jews."

FWIW, the first time the word Jew appears in the Bible, they are at war with Israelites. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they ain't the same people.

That's semantics. The point is that - whatever name you want to call them - their book Leviticus emphasized their ritual, legal and moral practices. And their practices indicated that they did not fucking kill gay people.

So why is it that you think they were commanded to kill gay people?

The obvious answer is that they weren't because they didn't fucking kill gay people in reality.

You just admitted that it was a legal practice. Why are you getting your boxers in a bunch?

uhm ---not exactly-----in practice BEING GAY was not a crime-----developing a
cult or a temple to GAYNESS like a GAY NITECLUB would have been a crime.

Got any citations for that or are you talking out your ass?

Do you have any citations showing they killed people for being gay?

 

[Indeependent]

IIRC, the first slaveholder in the Bible was Abraham. If I'm not right, someone will correct me.

God put his own people into slavery for disobedience and he allowed his people to subdue other nations and take slaves. So, when, if ever, did it become a sin?

You are discussing servitude vs slavery.

 

[ding]

The book of Leviticus emphasize ritual, legal and moral practices of the Jewish people.

So it kind of does.

No, it factually does not. The Old Testament deals with a people called Israel in the Bible. It has NOTHING to do with "Jews."

FWIW, the first time the word Jew appears in the Bible, they are at war with Israelites. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they ain't the same people.

That's semantics. The point is that - whatever name you want to call them - their book Leviticus emphasized their ritual, legal and moral practices. And their practices indicated that they did not fucking kill gay people.

So why is it that you think they were commanded to kill gay people?

The obvious answer is that they weren't because they didn't fucking kill gay people in reality.

You just admitted that it was a legal practice. Why are you getting your boxers in a bunch?

Do you even logic?

Do you? If so, I have yet to see it.

I just showed it to you when I explained how if they had been commanded to kill people for being gay, they would have killed gay people. But since no gay people were put to death for being gay, then obviously they were not commanded to kill gay people.

That’s logic. Do you need for me to explain how it is logic?

 

[G.T.]

Try using English and proper punctuation. Whatever you said is gibberish. Thanks.

wrong----you have a reading comprehension problem.------

Your inability to express yourself in the English is YOUR problem. If you fail to use complete sentences and the right punctuation, I cannot understand you.

You have problems with comprehension. Your inability to understand any writing that is not grammatically correct or punctuated correctly is very odd. I have
never heard of your form of dyslexia.

yeah. The post he's taking issue with was pretty easy to read/decipher.

Put those lips right up there on that ass.

I'm just being an honest observer, dude. Her post was very decipherable, so for you to pretend it was incoherent is only being pedantic. Rosie is cordial most of the time, you don't have to do her like that.

 

[ding]

Try using English and proper punctuation. Whatever you said is gibberish. Thanks.

wrong----you have a reading comprehension problem.------

Your inability to express yourself in the English is YOUR problem. If you fail to use complete sentences and the right punctuation, I cannot understand you.

You have problems with comprehension. Your inability to understand any writing that is not grammatically correct or punctuated correctly is very odd. I have
never heard of your form of dyslexia.

yeah. The post he's taking issue with was pretty easy to read/decipher.

Put those lips right up there on that ass.

That’s mighty Christian of you, brother.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

No, it factually does not. The Old Testament deals with a people called Israel in the Bible. It has NOTHING to do with "Jews."

FWIW, the first time the word Jew appears in the Bible, they are at war with Israelites. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they ain't the same people.

That's semantics. The point is that - whatever name you want to call them - their book Leviticus emphasized their ritual, legal and moral practices. And their practices indicated that they did not fucking kill gay people.

So why is it that you think they were commanded to kill gay people?

The obvious answer is that they weren't because they didn't fucking kill gay people in reality.

You just admitted that it was a legal practice. Why are you getting your boxers in a bunch?

uhm ---not exactly-----in practice BEING GAY was not a crime-----developing a
cult or a temple to GAYNESS like a GAY NITECLUB would have been a crime.

Got any citations for that or are you talking out your ass?

Do you have any citations showing they killed people for being gay?

I posted what I saw in the Bible. Other than that, it is all pure speculation unless / until one of us or someone else posts facts that show otherwise. If God blessed his people for keeping his laws, I'd say people caught in the act were killed. If you can argue God did not keep his word, your position might be the right one.