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

originally posted by: WarminIndy

Some Christians do keep the Sabbath on Friday night-Saturday night. Some keep it Saturday night-Sunday morning.

The point is, as the Bible does not say Friday, Monday or Wednesday, only that one should honor a day of rest. Jesus told them the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

that doesn't change the fact that many early Christians as well as proselytizers like Paul(who visited the synagogue on the Jewish Sabbath (Acts 13:13-14) were in fact Jews and would have kept with Sabbath traditions of their fathers.

Christianity of today is not anything resembling Christianity of the 1st, 2nd or early 3rd centuries where the Sabbath was still observed Friday evening until Saturday evening. It is instead a Roman construct that only existed post Laodicea where Canons 37–38 state: "It is not lawful to receive portions sent from the feasts of Jews or heretics, nor to feast together with them" and "It is not lawful to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety". Another example from the Council of Laodicea (canon 29) required Christians to separate from Jewish laws and traditions, stating that Christians must not Judaize by resting on Sabbath, but must work that day and then, if possible, rest on the Lord's Day, and that any found to be Judaizers were declared anathema from Christ

The Sabbath is not kept with Jewish tradition because of Roman prejudices towards the Jews and was a way to keep the new state religion of Christianity separated from its source. One would think that for scriptural literalists they would be more inclined to keep with the teachings of the Pentateuch. I suppose this is more thinking out loud than an actual question as I had a similar conversation with my parish priest when I was still attending mass regularly and he was even more dismissive and uninterested in properly addressing it than most people on ATS.

When I am with Jews or Messianic Jews, I will respect their moment of honoring the Sabbath.

As well you should. I commend you for giving respect where it is due.

Some traditions can place burdens on people, and that is what Jesus came to free us from, the burden of the law.

Forgive my confusion but my previous response was predicated on your agreement with another poster regarding Jesus maintaining the laws and not abolishing them. Now he is freeing you from the laws that are burdensome?

We still keep the Sabbath, some keep it on those days, some other days. Whatever is your day of Sabbath, just keep it, meaning just honor the day of rest. The law is still in effect. I would say that "thou shalt not kill" is a pretty good law to keep.

I agree, killing is never a good thing but its a law of the Pentateuch as Jesus was addressing in the quoted verse from Mathew. It appears in Deuteronomy as well as Exodus.

But you are referring to the 10 commandments. Those are not the 613 laws of Moses.

In the regard of the Sabbath? It is specifically addressed as one of the commandments sure, but it is still part of canon law as per the Pentateuch

The 10 commandments simply say "remember the Sabbath, to keep it holy". In other words, just have a day set apart for rest and relaxation. The burden came about with rabbis who then dictated what one could do, and it became ridiculous.

The commandment certainly reads as such. However it is based on Genesis 2:2-3 which is the basis for the commandment.

By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

As most people who observe Biblical Sabbath regard it as having been instituted as a perpetual covenant for the people of Israel (Ex. 31:13-17, Ex. 23:12, Deut. 5:13-14) it is based on the 7th day of rest (Gen. 2:2-3, Ex. 20:8-11), and God's deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt (Deut. 5:12-15). This is all in accordance with the Jewish calendar which was followed before the Egyptian bondage.

The 10 commandments also say "covet not thy neighbor's wife". That kind of indicates that the expectation was man/woman marriage relationships are to be honored.

In bronze age Judaism perhaps, but as I cite earlier in this thread, that is not the teaching of Jesus who indicates that homosexuals were a gift from god. Hardly words of admonishment.

It's not the law we are redeemed from, it is the curse of the law. That's what law does, it brings a burden or it brings a blessing. That is why Paul also said "The law is a schoolmaster, to bring us to grace".

Again, and I mean no disrespect towards you but, you are contradicting yourself and your postings. It is very confusing to keep up with in all honesty.

And we do keep the law in Christ, who administers as the High Priest for us. Did you know, there are Jews who eat pork and shellfish. The point is, Jesus fulfilled the law, that we are no longer under the burden of the endless man made traditions. Jesus said "Go ye therefore into all the world, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world".

Which is it? you are keeping within the law or you are released from the burden of the law? And if you are keeping with the law, why then are the tenets of Leviticus almost universally ignored or picked and chosen to meet personal proclivities? Do YOU keep with all of the laws, especially Leviticus?

Therefore, as a Christian, the command is to observe all things whatsoever He has taught us. Do we keep the law? Yes, we do. In Christ alone.

Sorry, I don't see that as anything but a contradictory rationalization to feel better about personal interpretations. Seriously, no 2 sects of Christianity can even agree on so much and how it is interpreted. It is rampant with quote mining and new interpretations that have only existed since the early 19th century.

a reply to: pthena

Honestly I was really happy to see you posting again...

things have been a bit quiet lately around here, but just like everything else... people come in waves

Great to see you posting again my friend

a reply to: peter vlar

EXCEPT that the Bible records those who were Greek converts to Christianity who kept the Sabbath on Sunday. Even Tacitus mentions this in his criticism of Christians, that he called a superstitious religion.

AND now you have touched on the very argument between Peter and Paul. They had quite a fight over how to convert gentiles and what the expectation was for them.

The burden arose from when the rabbis and Pharisees inserted regulations that were not found in the law, hence becoming a burden. Jesus said "you gag on a gnat and swallow a camel". In other words, you make a big deal out of a little thing.

When Jesus was asked what is the greatest commandment (meaning the law) He said "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all the heart, and with all thy strength and with all thy mind, and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, on THESE TWO hang ALL the LAW and the PROPHETS".

The whole of the law rests on loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself. And this is a commandment we are taught by Jesus, therefore, in my loving God and my neighbor as myself, that through Christ, I keep the law and am not cursed by the penalty of the law.

If I were to kill, then I have broken the fundamental universal law of disregarding the life of another person that was created in the image of God. But that I know that it is law, fundamentally and universally, I am without excuse if I break that law, because I took a life that was not mine to give or take.

And because I know that is a law, morally, fundamentally and universally, then all other laws connected to that are equally applicable.

The reason that you didn't see Jesus condemning gays was for the same reason He didn't condemn the woman caught in adultery, which adultery is listed among the same sexual sins along with homosexuality, bestiality, incest and rape, Jesus said "Go and...(do what?)...SIN no more".

Which means it was still a sin. He couldn't say adultery was a sin but not apply the same standard to actively engaging in homosexual activities, because it is either ALL or none. And He called adultery sin, He simply could not stone her to death for it.

If He allowed her to be stoned to death for adultery (again, it is listed in the same restriction as homosexual activity), then He would have had every person who had committed any sexual sin to be stoned, and that was not His purpose. His purpose was to redeem them from it.

He took her punishment for breaking that law, as well as for every person engaging in every type of sin. But for the purpose of blanket permission? Certainly not.

And if adultery is still morally wrong (and it is listed in the same category as bestiality, rape, incest and homosexual activity), then for you to say Jesus approves, then His death was in vain and there is no hope. All people therefore would have no moral restrictions regarding any other sexual activity.

If you don't mind homosexuality and say Jesus never admonished it (yes, He did, because ALL the law...), then if you do away with the moral precepts found in the law, then you should not mind lifting the moral restriction on any other sexual activity. But you picked out homosexuality to justify, claiming Jesus would not mind, He did, He went to the cross because of it.

And it would be unfair to tell the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more and let homosexual activity not be considered sin. God is not a respecter of persons.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Outstanding explanation!

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: peter vlar

EXCEPT that the Bible records those who were Greek converts to Christianity who kept the Sabbath on Sunday. Even Tacitus mentions this in his criticism of Christians, that he called a superstitious religion.

Tacitus also said Christians were infamous for their abominations

The whole of the law rests on loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself. And this is a commandment we are taught by Jesus, therefore, in my loving God and my neighbor as myself, that through Christ, I keep the law and am not cursed by the penalty of the law.

Im sorry but it seems lime a huge stretch to justify ignoring Jesus own words in lieu of maintaining OT scripture thst he completely comtrsdicts in the Gospels.

If I were to kill, then I have broken the fundamental universal law of disregarding the life of another person that was created in the image of God. But that I know that it is law, fundamentally and universally, I am without excuse if I break that law, because I took a life that was not mine to give or take.

Created in the image of god, just like homosexuals are. Its not OK to kill someone who is created in gods image, but its OK to discriminate against another of his creations? Your god needs some meds for his bipolar disorder.

And because I know that is a law, morally, fundamentally and universally, then all other laws connected to that are equally applicable.

The reason that you didn't see Jesus condemning gays was for the same reason He didn't condemn the woman caught in adultery, which adultery is listed among the same sexual sins along with homosexuality, bestiality, incest and rape, Jesus said "Go and...(do what?)...SIN no more".

Oh of course, it couldnt have been because it was not an issue that was large enough to deal with jn the time period he was said to live...

Which means it was still a sin. He couldn't say adultery was a sin but not apply the same standard to actively engaging in homosexual activities, because it is either ALL or none. And He called adultery sin, He simply could not stone her to death for it.

If He allowed her to be stoned to death for adultery (again, it is listed in the same restriction as homosexual activity), then He would have had every person who had committed any sexual sin to be stoned, and that was not His purpose. His purpose was to redeem them from it.

None of thst changes the fact that his birth, teaching, death, ressurection and ascension in fullfilment of prophecy was also a fullfillment of the Law meaning Christians are not bound by the Law and are bound only by Christs teachings.

[/uote]He took her punishment for breaking that law, as well as for every person engaging in every type of sin. But for the purpose of blanket permission? Certainly not.

Where exactly did i state or imply that blanket permission was on the table?

And if adultery is still morally wrong (and it is listed in the same category as bestiality, rape, incest and homosexual activity)

Yet Jesus hung out with prostitutes and unmarried women, the OT is rife with rape and incest perpetrated bysome of the most important figures of the OT as esrly in Genesis as Cain, THE patriarch Abraham was married to his own half sister, Sarah. After Sofom and Gomorah, Lots daughters got him loaded and comceived sons with him. Kimg Davids eldest son raped his half sister Tamar amd the list goes on and on... So apparently the Law is more of a "Do as I say and not as I do" application. Pure hypocrisy at its finest.

then for you to say Jesus approves, then His death was in vain and there is no hope. All people therefore would have no moral restrictions regarding any other sexual activity.

I simply quoted Jesus own words. If his own admission of acceptance means he died for nothing then Im sorry but im not placing words in his mouth or fabricating an interpretation of his words to make my point seem more grounded in scripture. In Mathew 19:10-12 he talks about Natural born Eunuchs, which was how gay men were referred to in first century Judea, as a gift from god. If he had meant slaves who had their genitals removed he would not have said natural born. If you reject homosexuals, you are rejecting gods eord amd work. Please refer to my ear,ier post on this for a more complete discourse on the matter.

If you don't mind homosexuality and say Jesus never admonished it (yes, He did, because ALL the law...), then if you do away with the moral precepts found in the law, then you should not mind lifting the moral restriction on any other sexual activity. But you picked out homosexuality to justify, claiming Jesus would not mind, He did, He went to the cross because of it.

Not only did he not admonish it, he said it was a gift from god. How do you figure he went to the cross because of homosexuality? Because he needed to die for our sins and that was an abhorent on according to Leviticus? Have it your way but it totally contradicts his own words.

And it would be unfair to tell the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more and let homosexual activity not be considered sin. God is not a respecter of persons.

God is a hypocrite who changes the rules willy nilly and kills indiscriminatrly when it pleases him/her/it. Jesus on the other hand WAS a respector of persons. Including homosexuals whether you want to sdmit it or not.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Then how about concentrating on your own soul and let others do the same. I don't understand why some are so vocally anti gay when it doesn't effect them whatsoever. It just proves to me they are attempting to hide their bigotry behind their religion. Like I have said.

You kind of missed the point. This is a forum and the thread began in using homosexuality as a point of reference. People are simply discussing their view points with respect to each other. Don't be so intolerant of others. If you love the filthy practice of homosexuality (my view) then so be it. That is your prerogative.

a reply to: peter vlar

Created in the image of god, just like homosexuals are. Its not OK to kill someone who is created in gods image, but its OK to discriminate against another of his creations? Your god needs some meds for his bipolar disorder.

Some Christians may disagree with yous as to created. Some believe that the only human created was Adam. All others were from Adam or procreated. Adam was created in the image and the likeness of God. Not just the image. Also the word kill is not in the command of "Do Not Murder."

Discriminate? The law of the United States not only does not discriminate against homosexuality but protects those who practice this perversion (my view of course.)

Your hatred for God shows your true nature. Meds? Bipolar? Maybe not pecksniffian but borderline to say the least.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: peter vlar
Some Christians may disagree with yous as to created. Some believe that the only human created was Adam. All others were from Adam or procreated. Adam was created in the image and the likeness of God.

Whatever floats their boat, Christians disagree with a lot of what I think or say simply because I am no longer one of them.
What I learned in Church, from talking to my priest and from Catechism classes as a child is that all humans are created in Gods image. That does not mean god created everyone as he did Adam and Eve but that all their descendants are in gods image as their forbearers were created as such.

Not just the image. Also the word kill is not in the command of "Do Not Murder."

A little nit picky over some simple semantics no? Why not address the rampant incest of the OT that is acceptable yet homosexuality, which is discussed by Christ and said to be a gift from God.

Discriminate? The law of the United States not only does not discriminate against homosexuality but protects those who practice this perversion (my view of course.)

You have the gall to claim I hate God while demonstrating your own hatred for a group of people by consistently saying they practice a perversion. The hypocrisy knows no bounds in this thread.

Your hatred for God shows your true nature.

I think you're reading a little too much into what I wrote and adding your own biases in to boot. I have no hatred for god anymore than I hate the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, Jack Frost, Buddha, Confucius, the Dali Lama or the Easter Bunny for that matter.

Meds? Bipolar? Maybe not pecksniffian but borderline to say the least.

That's cute to use a literary critique in an attempt to paint me hypocritical, implying I'm the one who needs meds and is bipolar. I'm just a rookie on my worst days compared to Yahweh on a slow day in regards to what hypocrisy he allows according to scripture. It's rather rude and poor form to engage in name calling. Have I done so to you? I think not.

a reply to: peter vlar

Yet Jesus hung out with prostitutes and unmarried women, the OT is rife with rape and incest perpetrated bysome of the most important figures of the OT as esrly in Genesis as Cain, THE patriarch Abraham was married to his own half sister, Sarah. After Sofom and Gomorah, Lots daughters got him loaded and comceived sons with him. Kimg Davids eldest son raped his half sister Tamar amd the list goes on and on... So apparently the Law is more of a "Do as I say and not as I do" application. Pure hypocrisy at its finest.

I know that you mean well peter but your reasoning is not in accord with Christianity. I can't deny that most of what you say here is true. Jesus had not come to judge but to teach and verify His God. He said that He would cause division and He did. No one can learn unless he or she has someone or something to teach them. A sinner cannot learn to not sin unless he or she is aware of sin. You must have hands on to teach another person. Jesus entertained many sinners as well as those who did not practice sin and He said as much as He said that He came for the sinner and not the righteous.

Abraham and nephew Lot were not even aware of the Mosaic law and were not under the knowledge of Mosaic law. They were aware of the seven Noahide laws but were not saints by any means.
1- Do not deny God.
2- Do not blaspheme God.
3- Do not murder.
4- Do not engage in incestuous, adulterous or homosexual relationships.
5- Do not steal.
6- Do not eat of a live animal.
7- Establish courts/legal system to ensure law and obedience.

David is another case. David was barbaric and continually wrong. In fact he was so messed up that God saw him unfit to build His temple. He was always asking for forgiveness and then screwing up again and again. Just like most all Christians do today. But then David is not the old testament. He is just one character in those eras before Christianity and it is unfair to show him as an example of Christianity. He is not Christianity nor is he a representative of Christianity. According to Christianity David is nothing but another creature of God who lived and died as a man. Nothing more. David is not anything special in Christianity except to count genealogy. Not meaning to insult Judaism but that is one great differences between Christianity and Judaism. Jesus' nationality was Judaic and He embraced the Mosaic Torah but also eventually transitioned into His own doctrine.

a reply to: peter vlar

I'm really amazed at your response. What WAS their abomination according to Tacitus, Pliny and others?

They had been accustomed to come together on a fixed day before daylight and to sing responsively a song to Christ as God. They bound themselves with an oath—not to commit some crime—but, on the contrary, that they would not commit theft, nor robbery, nor adultery, that they would not break faith, nor refuse to return a deposit when asked for it. When they had done these things, their custom was to separate and to assemble again to partake of a meal, common yet harmless.

THOSE were the abominations and superstitions of the Christians that were then tortured in Rome. BECAUSE Christians refused to accept the Emperor as a god, that was an abomination to Rome.

I'm kind of amazed that you would invoke the Roman idea of abomination when the Romans themselves were accepting of every kind of sexual relationship, including pederasty and pedophilia. Yep, good comparison.

Every road leads to Rome, when in Rome do as the Romans do.

a reply to: peter vlar

And let's get something out of these charges against Abraham, Lot, David and Amnon.

Abraham was doing nothing different than the cultural norm, before the law of Moses. If you condemn Abraham, then please do so for the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans. Cleopatra had an incestuous relationship with her brother.

Lot, yes, Lot's daughters got him drunk, but those two children Moab and Ammon, turned out to be the fathers of people who worshiped Molech who threw their children into the fiery belly of that god. The Bible does not in any way celebrate Moab and Ammon.

David lost 3 children because of his own failure and his friend Nathan sure let him know it was not acceptable. When Nathan asked David "A man stole his neighbor's sheep" David said "That man should be killed as punishment", Nathan said "It was YOU". See, there was no justification for anything David did and he sure had to repent for it. He lost both his sons over the rape of Tamar, just because they did it, does not mean the Bible approves of it. The Bible actually points to David as an example of what NOT to do.

Just because the Bible says these people did these things, does not mean the writers of the Bible were approving of it.

And you are really foolish if you think any Christian looks at David and Lot's daughters as examples to emulate.

And really, would you like to know another response the Bible records? Simeon and Levi attacked and killed every man in Shechem over the rape and kidnapping of their sister Dina. If they took her virginity seriously enough to make that type of response, then apparently kidnap and rape was something detestable to them.

a reply to: peter vlar

And please, please, please point us to a verse where Jesus said "every sexual sin, except homosexuality, is forbidden", then I will agree with you.

Jesus upheld marriage between a man and a woman.
Jesus said to the adulterous woman "Go and sin no more".

And this verse you use...

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

They ARE MADE eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake, He that is able to receive becoming a eunuch, let him become a eunuch...meaning to have his penis cut off.....because Jesus sure would have never said to become gay for the very God that said it was an abomination.

And since He is that very Son of God, being God himself, at the beginning and eternally now...

In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word WAS God. And THAT GOD who dictated it was an abomination, THAT GOD never changed that word.

Unless gays back in the day had their penises cut off....they couldn't be very well engaging in sexual activity, now could they.

a reply to: peter vlar

Part of the Communist Goals:

Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35

January 10, 1963

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

a reply to: WarminIndy

completely misunderstanding my point. You are citing Tacitus as an excellent source, I was showing that despite a lot of his work being of high quality, he was also prone to coming up with some tom foolery on occasion.

a reply to: infolurker

And this is EXACTLY the same crap as the Seven Mountain Dominionists claim:
They intend to take over:

Family
Education
Arts/Entertainment
Business
Government
Media
Religion

Experts identify two main schools of Dominionism: Christian Reconstructionists, who believe biblical law, including stoning as punishment for adultery and other transgressions, should replace secular law; and the New Apostolic Reformation, which advocates for Christians to "reclaim the seven mountains of culture": government, religion, media, family, business, education, and arts and entertainment.

5 facts about Dominionism

So - I bet you'd just LOVE that program, right?
I'm not a communist, but the extreme right-wing is just as bad. There is a middle ground, and that's what we have to find.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: peter vlar

And let's get something out of these charges against Abraham, Lot, David and Amnon.

Abraham was doing nothing different than the cultural norm, before the law of Moses. If you condemn Abraham, then please do so for the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans. Cleopatra had an incestuous relationship with her brother.

This isn't about Egypt, Greece et al. It's about you swearing fealty to the good book while picking and choosing your interpretations of scripture as very well demonstrated by this particular response. I find it disturbing that you can rationalize it all away so easily. Abraham is cool because it preceded Moses. He's the damned patriarch of 3 of the most important and virulent faiths on the planet...he counts!

Lot, yes, Lot's daughters got him drunk, but those two children Moab and Ammon, turned out to be the fathers of people who worshiped Molech who threw their children into the fiery belly of that god. The Bible does not in any way celebrate Moab and Ammon.

Celebrate is your interpretation, not my words.

According to the midrash (Tanhuma, Vayera 12), Lot, from the outset, decided to dwell in Sodom because he wanted to engage in the licentious behavior of its inhabitants. His negative behavior comes to the fore when the townspeople mill about his door, demanding that he hand over the angels, and he instead offers his daughters to the mob. The Rabbis observe that a man usually allows himself to be killed in order to save his wife and children, while Lot was willing to allow the townspeople to abuse his daughters. In response to this, the Holy One, blessed be He, says to Lot: By your life, the improper act that you intended to be done to your daughters will indeed be committed, but to you. This midrash sharply focuses the reversal between these two episodes. In the first event, in Sodom, Lot was ready to force his daughters, against their will, to engage in sexual relations with the townspeople. In contrast, in the second episode, which takes place after the upheaval of Sodom, Lot’s daughters engage in relations with their unwitting father. Consequently, these acts of incest are Lot’s punishment for his unseemly behavior.

Another midrash (Aggadat Bere# [ed. Buber] 25:1) regards the daughters’ act as punishment for their father’s own sexual promiscuity. Lot thought that if he were to dwell in Sodom, he could engage in licentious behavior without anyone’s knowledge. He accordingly was punished by his daughters engaging in intercourse with him; this episode became common knowledge and is read each year during the public Torah reading of the verse: “Thus the two daughters of Lot came to be with child by their father” (Gen. 19:36). R. Nahman adds: “Whoever is driven by his hunger for transgression will eventually be fed from his own flesh” (Tanhuma, Vayera 12). Lot was eager to engage in promiscuity; in the end, his daughters played the harlot with him.

Another Rabbinic view was that Lot secretly lusted after his daughters. He was intoxicated when the elder sister lay with him, but he was sober when she rose, as is indicated in the Torah by the dot over the word u-ve-komah (“when she rose”). Despite his knowledge of what had transpired, he did not refrain from drinking wine the next night as well, and lying with his younger daughter (Gen. Rabbah 51:8–9).

Lot’s daughters, in contrast, are treated sympathetically. The midrash observes that, by strict law, the daughters deserve to be burnt by fire for having lain with their father (Aggadat Bere# [ed. Buber] 25:1), but the Holy One, blessed be He, who knows man’s thoughts, judges them by their thoughts and not their deed. The daughters’ true intent was not to lie with their father, on whom they had no sexual designs, but to save the world from total devastation. The daughters thought that the entire world had been laid waste, as had happened during the Flood, since they saw no living souls wherever they went; they did not know that only Sodom had been destroyed. They said: “The Holy One, blessed be He, has rescued us so that the world will exist through us, so that the human race shall continue.” The Holy One, blessed be He, knew their honest minds and good thoughts and rewarded them for their actions. Accordingly, when he commanded “no Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted into the congregation of the Lord” (Deut. 23:4), this prohibition against intermarriage applies only to the males, and not to the females (Pesikta Rabbati 42).

The underlying reason for the sympathetic treatment of the daughters of Lot apparently stems from Ruth the Moabite’s tracing her lineage to them and the subsequent descent of King David and, eventually, of the Messiah, from Ruth’s marriage to Boaz. According to the midrashic account, when Lot was commanded to rescue his two daughters from the destruction the angels already foresaw that Ruth the Moabite and Na’amah the Ammonite would descend from them (Gen. Rabbah 50:10). In addition, when Scripture tells of the incestuous act by the daughters of Lot, who say: “that we may preserve seed from our father” (Gen. 19:34), it uses the word zera (“seed,” or “offspring” in a more general sense), and not “son,” since the intent of the Holy One, blessed be He, was related to the Messiah (Gen. Rabbah 51:8). Thus, from a historical perspective, this act was essential for the future advent of the Messiah. This also explains the midrash (Gen. Rabbah, loc. cit.) that Lot’s daughters had no wine; a miracle was performed for them, and the cave in which they lived became a portent of the World to Come, dripping with wine, as in the depiction of the World to Come: “And in that day, the mountains shall drip with wine” (Joel 4:18). An additional wonder: a virgin does not become pregnant from her first intercourse, while Lot’s daughters, who were virgins, did become pregnant from this initial act (Gen. Rabbah 51:9). This midrash reiterates the purity of their intentions, since they lay with their father only a single time, to ensure the continuity of the world. Just as Ruth acted for an ideal when she went down at night to the threshing floor of Boaz, so, too, the daughters of Lot acted altruistically (Gen. Rabbah 51:10).

a reply to: peter vlar

David lost 3 children because of his own failure and his friend Nathan sure let him know it was not acceptable. When Nathan asked David "A man stole his neighbor's sheep" David said "That man should be killed as punishment", Nathan said "It was YOU". See, there was no justification for anything David did and he sure had to repent for it. He lost both his sons over the rape of Tamar, just because they did it, does not mean the Bible approves of it. The Bible actually points to David as an example of what NOT to do.

That may very well be but there are many more examples of heinous acts that are either acceptable to or done at the express direction of God.

Just because the Bible says these people did these things, does not mean the writers of the Bible were approving of it.

But in some cases, it was not only approved by, but also directed to happen by God.

And you are really foolish if you think any Christian looks at David and Lot's daughters as examples to emulate.

And you are foolish for putting words in my mouth. I never said that these people were celebrated or to be emulated. The implication was that these acts were however acceptable and as in the case of Lot's surviving daughters, sympathized with.

And really, would you like to know another response the Bible records? Simeon and Levi attacked and killed every man in Shechem over the rape and kidnapping of their sister Dina. If they took her virginity seriously enough to make that type of response, then apparently kidnap and rape was something detestable to them.

So 2 people avenging their sister is representative of the Israelites as a whole now? Let's look at Numbers 31 shall we?

Just a couple choice cuts of the kindness of the Israelites towards their prisoners as ordered by God himself-

9 And the people of Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little ones, and they took as plunder all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods. 10 All their cities in the places where they lived, and all their vencampments, they burned with fire, 11 wand took all the spoil and all the plunder, both of man and of beast.12 Then they brought the captives and the plunder and the spoil to Moses, and to Eleazar the priest, and to the congregation of the people of Israel, at the camp on the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho.

13 Moses and Eleazar the priest and all the chiefs of the congregation went to meet them outside the camp. 14 And Moses was angry with ythe officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. 15 Moses said to them, “Have you let all the women live? 16 Behold, athese, bon Balaam’s advice, caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the Lord in the incident of cPeor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. 17 Now therefore, ekill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.

a reply to: peter vlar

Whatever floats their boat, Christians disagree with a lot of what I think or say simply because I am no longer one of them. What I learned in Church, from talking to my priest and from Catechism classes as a child is that all humans are created in Gods image. That does not mean god created everyone as he did Adam and Eve but that all their descendants are in gods image as their forbearers were created as such.

My point was not to insult you but see that I have. My Point was that as sin entered the human race and Cain slew Able that was the beginning of both the appearance of people both inside and outside.

Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

I was taught that not only the image but the likeness of people have fallen from the original pattern of Adam. All due to increased sin in all of us. I did not mean that as you understood it. I was taught that if we were all created as Adam then we would all be perfect to start with.

A little nit picky over some simple semantics no? Why not address the rampant incest of the OT that is acceptable yet homosexuality, which is discussed by Christ and said to be a gift from God.

You are right. Incest is wrong to our understanding in our culture today and may have been wrong in some cultures of the past. Simply because it is in the manuscripts of the Hebrew bible does not mean it pleased God. In fact it is noted as wrong in the seven Noahide laws. But it also is not accepted in Christianity simply because it was in past cultures. I agree with you that when wrong in one instance it must be wrong in another. I can't speak for Judaic belief but I do know that Christianity does not sanction this at all.

The reason I did not comment on eunuch was because I knew it is a matter of interpretation. My teaching was that the word eunuch was castration or in some cases being born castrated or even being regarded as being castrated when not castrated. Highly controversial and should be used in a case by case discussion.

You have the gall to claim I hate God while demonstrating your own hatred for a group of people by consistently saying they practice a perversion. The hypocrisy knows no bounds in this thread.

I believe you have also misunderstood me. I do not hate anyone but in the same mindset I cannot regard sin as righteous. There is no sin if there is no God but in this discussion I assume we are theorizing a God of Christ Jesus. By the word perversion is not meant as derogatory but is meant as abnormal or unnatural. To me it is filthy and potentially dangerous to the health of the ones who engage even though many who do engage in homosexuality are never affected by disease. It is a protected practice and by a minority of people, by law, so what I think should not be relevant.

That's cute to use a literary critique in an attempt to paint me hypocritical, implying I'm the one who needs meds and is bipolar. I'm just a rookie on my worst days compared to Yahweh on a slow day in regards to what hypocrisy he allows according to scripture. It's rather rude and poor form to engage in name calling. Have I done so to you? I think not.

Excuse me ? Was it not you who wrote the following?

Created in the image of god, just like homosexuals are. Its not OK to kill someone who is created in gods image, but its OK to discriminate against another of his creations? Your god needs some meds for his bipolar disorder.

I believe that by your own post it was you yourself who said that God needed some meds fpr His bipolar disorder. My reply to that was "Your hatred for God shows your true nature. Meds? Bipolar? Maybe not pecksniffian but borderline to say the least." And that was improper for my defense to my God? Come on peter and get honest in a debate.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: peter vlar

And please, please, please point us to a verse where Jesus said "every sexual sin, except homosexuality, is forbidden", then I will agree with you.

A single verse? I don't know if I can find one that fits your narrow terms which seems to ignore the copious amounts of heinous acts perpetrated with gods acceptance or under his/her/its command. To deny that it is true is willfully ignorant and you are lying to yourself.

Jesus upheld marriage between a man and a woman.

please show me the scripture where jesus says homosexuality is a sin or anything negative about it. Jesus words against it, not some allusion towards OT law that Jesus is interpreted as supporting by you. Hint: it doesn't exist, he never said anything negative regarding Homosexuality

Jesus said to the adulterous woman "Go and sin no more".

has nothing to do with his stance on homosexuality

And this verse you use...

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

They ARE MADE eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake, He that is able to receive becoming a eunuch, let him become a eunuch...meaning to have his penis cut off.....because Jesus sure would have never said to become gay for the very God that said it was an abomination.

No, he refers to natural born eunuchs. This is how the Hebrews referred to gay men in the late 1st century BCE and early 1st century CE
There are a few types of Eunuchs, natural born and made Eunuchs as you describe are 2 of those. He was very clear about which ones were a gift from god and they were natural born, i.e. gay

And since He is that very Son of God, being God himself, at the beginning and eternally now...

In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word WAS God. And THAT GOD who dictated it was an abomination, THAT GOD never changed that word.

You can keep repeating it all you want, but if you are going to follow the scripture, you can't pick and choose which portions actually apply to you and which ones work or don't properly work with your own biases whether personal or ingrained via family or religious teachings.

Unless gays back in the day had their penises cut off....they couldn't be very well engaging in sexual activity, now could they.

Nope, they sure couldn't. Hence the differentiation between a natural Born Eunuch and those who were forced to become so as slaves and those who chose to undergo the process.

a reply to: infolurker

what exactly is your point? are you implying that I am a communist? I just don't get what you're trying to drive home here.