To Those That Condemn Homosexuality I Ask, Where Are Your Tassels!?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

No, the Torah has NOT changed.

The Torah is what our OT is. We didn't change anything.

Who's we? If you look into the accounts of Sodom and Gomorrah, the complaints and the reasoning behind the Judgement, you'd see that the modern Torah's account, where the men of the city demand that Lot turn over the sojourners, Angels, it was to bring the sojourners to a Judge, as was the custom of the city, where the sojourners would be tortured in ways described in the book of Jasher.

It wasn't ever about sex, in the Torah. It was about depraved torture and thievery. The suggestion that Sodom was destroyed due to homosexuality came much, much later.

And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

It was illegal in Sodom, and the surrounding towns, to take in and feed sojourners. All visitors had to appear before a judge, in Sodom, and they were refused any food. Lot's first daughter was burned alive for feeding a sojourner by the people of Sodom.

That's for the poster who implied Christians changed the OT.

And for the record, I didn't use the Genesis passage, I showed you elsewhere in the Bible the word sodomite was used, and in those cases the word was qadesh.

IF the Bible was referring to the city of Sodom in II Kings, impossible because the city of Sodom had been destroyed long before. So the reference was to a type of behavior.

While you might think it simply means people living in Sodom, the sin of Sodom, in reference to the later usage of sodomites in II Kings means that the word qadesh was used as male temple prostitution.

From Genesis to II Kings, the word sodomite (qadesh) means male temple prostitution. Therefore, those writers give credence to the definition of the sin of Sodom as "send them out that we may KNOW them" which is the Biblical word for intercourse.

I had not even mentioned Genesis, I was merely showing you where else the word is used. And since the word sodomy has always classically been defined as....well, we know, then the word qadesh interpreted means those who engage in sodomy.

But here is an extra Biblical account of Sodom...

Sodomy

Philo The Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo (20 BC - 50 AD) described the inhabitants of Sodom in an extra biblical account: "As men, being unable to bear discreetly a satiety of these things, get restive like cattle, and become stiff-necked, and discard the laws of nature, pursuing a great and intemperate indulgence of gluttony, and drinking, and unlawful connections; for not only did they go mad after other women, and defile the marriage bed of others, but also those who were men lusted after one another, doing unseemly things, and not regarding or respecting their common nature, and though eager for children, they were convicted by having only an abortive offspring; but the conviction produced no advantage, since they were overcome by violent desire; and so by degrees, the men became accustomed to be treated like women, and in this way engendered among themselves the disease of females, and intolerable evil; for they not only, as to effeminacy and delicacy, became like women in their persons, but they also made their souls most ignoble, corrupting in this way the whole race of men, as far as depended on them" (133-35; ET Jonge 422-23).[24]

Philo understood it to be that very thing...could Philo have been wrong?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Honestly, I don't care how or when the word "Sodomite" got perverted to mean male homosexuals. The fact is, the oldest texts that we have don't mention anything at all about homosexuality, while enumerating the shocking sins of Sodom and Gomorrah.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

Honestly, I don't care how or when the word "Sodomite" got perverted to mean male homosexuals. The fact is, the oldest texts that we have don't mention anything at all about homosexuality, while enumerating the shocking sins of Sodom and Gomorrah.

It happened before Christianity.

And why not accept that homosexuality was well-known in the ancient world? If they did it, they had a word for it.

a reply to: WarminIndy

It happened before Christianity.

I don't believe that. There is no suggestion of male on male rape in the Torah version of the crimes of Sodom and Gomorrah. These translations come from the King James version, which is rife with questionable translations. Besides, Kings and 2 Kings aren't part of the Torah.

Why would Jews, Jesus, or any of his followers condemn male prostitutes, who were mostly not freemen, but slaves, sometimes they were freed slaves, who had no other skills? Slaves can't say "No" to their owners.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

People will always disagree.

because:

Humans have instinct, emotion and logic, which gives us the upper hand above environmental stimuli.

Therefore humans, in order to live as a community have laws and customs logically ( to various degrees ) designed to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

Humans aren't animals as we were created apart from animals.

see first quote above. Not everyone in society has the same concept of a creator, yet they must still be able to function together. Not everyone uses the same set of divinely decreed laws, some not at all, yet we must still find some way to function together.

Why is it so important that every free thinking individual accept homosexuality as normal?

see first quote.

Normal is a mathematical term having to do with averages. Perhaps homosexuality isn't normal, but then heterosexual monogamy is not normal either, statistically speaking. Perhaps celibacy is not normal.

Celibates are sometimes socially stigmatized, but not legislated against. Heterosexual monogamists are sometimes called liars by the majority kindof/almost monogamists yet they are not legislated against or openly discriminated against.

I should not be forced or pressured into a fake monogamist relationship just because I'm heterosexual monogamist.
I should be able to choose celibacy as a valid option since I'm a divorced heterosexual monogamist.
Homosexuals should also be offered the same freedom to live outside the norm.

If your creator has informed you that homosexuality is a sin then by all means refrain from that behavior. Not all people have such information. To some, such information does not exist. And yet we must all get along.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

It happened before Christianity.

I don't believe that. There is no suggestion of male on male rape in the Torah version of the crimes of Sodom and Gomorrah. These translations come from the King James version, which is rife with questionable translations. Besides, Kings and 2 Kings aren't part of the Torah.

Why would Jews, Jesus, or any of his followers condemn male prostitutes, who were mostly not freemen, but slaves, sometimes they were freed slaves, who had no other skills? Slaves can't say "No" to their owners.

Did I not say that II Kings was part of Tanakh?

Male temple prostitutes were not all slaves. For the Romans, yes.

And yes, within Judaism, slaves could indeed say no and sue their masters.

Torah and slavery

Torah is not just about liberty, Torah liberates in a radical way. Yet here you have these laws about buying and selling slaves. What's going on? Okay, they're not really slaves. Slaves are people owned by other people. In Torah law, you never have complete ownership over anything. These slaves rest on the seventh day and Jewish holidays, cannot be physically or sexually abused and are obligated in many mitzvot. So they are really more like indentured servants.

Maimonedes on slavery

The early sages would give their servants from every dish on their table. They would feed their animals and their servants before sitting to their own meals. Does it not say (Psalms 123:2), "As the eyes of the servant to the hand of his master; as the eyes of the maid to her mistress [so our eyes are towards the L-rd our G-d...]"? So, too, you should not denigrate a servant, neither physically nor verbally. The Torah made him your servant to do work, not to be disgraced. Do not treat him with constant screaming and anger, rather speak with him pleasantly and listen to his complaints. Such were the good ways in which Job took pride when he said, "Did I ever despise the judgment of my servant and my maid when they argued with me? Did not my Maker make him, too, in the belly; did not the same One form us both in the womb?"

They were not allowed to mistreat servants. The Romans however, could and did.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Jewish law didn't permit any kind of prostitution, even though it did sneak through their gates, sometimes.

Deuteronomy 23:17
'There shall be no cult prostitute of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a cult prostitute of the sons of Israel. You shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the wages of a male prostitute, into the house of the Lord your God in payment for any vow; for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God.'

Profiting from any kind pf prostitution, whether it be ritual sex and temple prostitution, male prostitution or just good old fashion "corner hooker" prostitution, it was all already considered illegal, and was condemned according to Jewish law.

The only prostitution that Paul and the New Testament texts could condemn, including male prostitution, had to be in regards to the Gentiles.

ETA: I don't know that the Old Testament actually forbids engaging a Gentile prostitute.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

Jewish law didn't permit any kind of prostitution, even though it did sneak through their gates, sometimes.

Deuteronomy 23:17
'There shall be no cult prostitute of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a cult prostitute of the sons of Israel. You shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the wages of a male prostitute, into the house of the Lord your God in payment for any vow; for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God.'

Any kind pf prostitution, whether it be ritual sex and temple prostitution, male prostitution or just good old fashion "corner hooker" prostitution, it was all already considered illegal, and was condemned according to Jewish law.

The only prostitution that Paul and the New Testament texts could condemn, including male prostitution, had to be in regards to the Gentiles.

I think that is what I said earlier.

There were times when they did it, including the passage from II Kings, that I quoted. Of course they did, and they also followed Ba'alism, against their own law.

THAT'S the problem that the prophets kept harping on about.

a reply to: windword


It seems to me that prostitution itself was what being condemned, not the fact that there were male prostitutes too.

Sincere question, that I don't have an answer to, "Do you think that there were Jewish male prostitutes in the Jewish temples in Jerusalem during the first century? If so, why don't we have Jesus condemning them in the Bible?

Would Jesus or any of his followers condemn Gentile prostitutes who WERE slaves, whether they be male or female, selling gay or straight sex for their masters? I don't think so.

a reply to: ketsuko

Are there instances of true homosexuality in the animal kingdom? Probably. Are they as common as people would like us to think? Not nearly.

So?

a reply to: Bone75

My favorite are the Christians telling other Christians how to be Christians threads.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
You aren't going to change what the bible says, and we wont re-interpret it to suit you. It is what it is and we believe what we believe and you believe what you believe.

Too bad there is no consensus across the board on what the Bible says and teaches. Interpreted in a multitude of ways by Christians, many believing they have it the right way. It is what it is and that's why there are innumerable flavors. I guess god got it wrong when he said he wasn't the author of confusion.

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: Ghost147

Psychopathy is a mental disease that very much is a state of mind. Because, a persons State of mind depends upon if they are anti-social or not. It wasn't just some abreviation of a *saying* i meant it quite literally. State of mind.

No, it's a mental disorder, not a disease. Heance the terminology of "anti-social personality disorder"

originally posted by: AnuTyr
And yes being gay is a fetish, I don't know where you are getting the idea of pedophilacs as wanting a romantic relationship with children.

Well lets see, perhaps because I have interviewed several pedophiles (some that have actually commited the act and been
incarcerate, and some who have not) and every single one of them wants a romantic relationship with children, not just to screw them and leave them be. Paraphilias are an attraction to another being or thing which involves a drive for a romantic relationship and/OR a sexual one.

You do realize that Pedophiles and Child Molesters are different things, right?

Do you also believe that Heterosexuality is a fetish? I've already shown you how other species have different sexual preferences as well, you've never refuted any of that evidence, yet you continue to blindly claim that everything involving sex is merely a fetish. How about you actually provide some proof like I have?

originally posted by: AnuTyr
Capturing children, raping them and dumping them in the woods does not constitute a romantic relationship. it is acting out a sexual fetish because it is a desire not a nessesity as much as you make it seem like it.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Most people who have molested a child are not pedophiles. Do some research.

It's people like you who have such an insane amount of ignorance that makes society in this world horrendous.

originally posted by: AnuTyr
I am sorry if my conversation has infuriated you so much that you do not really comprehend my out of the box thinking but i think you are farther from the truth are and mostly mirroring the expectations of western cultural society.

What is infuriating is your blatant lack of intellect and ignorance.

originally posted by: AnuTyr
Being gay is as much a fetish as anything else. necrophila ect.

Again, you're free to actually prove your claims.

originally posted by: AnuTyr
What sexual orientation is a necrophiliac? A deadist? Lol seriously?

Necrophiliac is the term for the paraphilia... are you seriously this dimwitted? You may as well have said "What sexual orientation is a heterosexual! An Oppositist?!?! LOL"

originally posted by: AnuTyr
There is what is considered normal behavior, and then there is abnormal behavior caused by an abnormality.
Are gay people the majority or minority? because if they were the majority, then it wouldn't be considered weird, bizare, or a state of mental ilness now would it?

Firstly, normality and commonality are not the same thing. Secondly, Biology is an open system, there is new information being added all the time, that's how evolution works. If everything was the same, it wouldn't exist. Even identical twins don't share exactly the same genetics, despite forming from the same egg.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I guess god got it wrong when he said he wasn't the author of confusion.

To avoid confusion I will specify that I'm commenting about the Christian god and not any of the other gods.

1 Corinthians NET
21It is written in the law: “By people with strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, yet not even in this way will they listen to me,” says the Lord.
. . .
31For you can all prophesy one after another, so all can learn and be encouraged. 32Indeed, the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets, 33for God is not characterized by disorder but by peace.

According to this passage Christians aren't especially expected to have the same opinions.

If the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets then it should be expected that one prophet's words would be as different from another's as one prophet is different from another. People differ and their spirits do too.

Perhaps variety is an underappreciated Christian virtue.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

Aren't you glad we don't flip out and do something bad to you?

Now post one of Mohammed, or is Christianity the religion you like to sacrilege?

Sorry, Post removed.

I think I might have written sacrilegious things.

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: ketsuko

Exactly. Being gay is the same as being a pedophile. There both has destructive as the other. Every time I watch gay porn I think " this is exactly the same as watching a child being horribly violated in the most hurtful of ways." Quick question what is God's opinion on pedophilia?

Just got HIM on the phone and HE said HE's making package deal on pedophile/gay/atheist. As a true loving god HE'll make them suffer for eternity. It's writen and numbered for a few thousand years so it's true.


Sad part it was collect call.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Aren't you glad we don't flip out and do something bad to you?

Careful now, you don't want to broad-brush all Christians do you? There are plenty who would flip out and attempt to do something bad to me for that.

Now post one of Mohammed, or is Christianity the religion you like to sacrilege?

Sure thing. Do you want one of Mohammed period? Or a homosexual Mohammed meme? At first glance, those I found were too explicit for ATS.

Btw to sacrilege something I would have to actual believe it was sacred. It isn't. It would be an exercise in futility to go about proving to you how the Bible is not remotely divine. It's called faith, because it isn't knowledge.

a reply to: pthena

Appreciate the point you're trying to make. I would argue though, that the Bible is always quite clear about how to gauge whether or not the prophet is of God or not. In the passage you shared, it also says, "God is not characterized by disorder". In other places in the Bible it speaks plainly about prophets that don't align with the will of God. God even tells lies to some prophets so that they further confuse people.

Perhaps Christian variety is a sign that there is no clear definition of Christian, because Christianity is an invention of various people.