Forgotten Abominations Of The Bible.

Originally posted by jakyll

5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us,so that we may know them.

There is nothing sexual there,nothing homosexual

nah, i wouldn't be quite so sure:

Source

Another example of how meaning gets lost in the translation can be seen in the use of the word "knew" for "had sexual intercourse with." Whenever Adam had sex with Eve it is described as "And Adam knew Eve his wife" (Gen. 4:1). Some other ways the Bible has for saying a man had sex with a woman include "he went in unto her" (Gen. 38:2, 9, 18) or "he took so and so to wife." (Exodus 6:20) Perhaps if the Bible stated "And Adam had sex with Eve" more people would see that it couldn't be the word of a virtuous God. But that would require that they actually READ the Bible first!

translations are a tricky thing, aren't they? i wonder why people insist aht their version is somehow unadulterated, ie original. chances are the bible existed only as oral tradition in the beginning, so the 'real thing' might not even exist.

Originally posted by amitheone

The KJV was written in Old English by the way and the style is “medievalish.”

Not necessarily disagreeing with the other points you made, but the King James was written in late Middle English. Old English was some six centuries before.

It does seem a bit odd that God would not even mention either by direct title or at least a thorough description not even one single time that homosexuality is the worst sin that could possibly exist, as many people today seem to feel about it.

Why dodge around it from Genesis to Revelation, but never once just openly denounce it and be done with it? What's the big secret? If it's toevah, it's toevah. If it's zimah, it's zimah... where are the students getting lost?

A great deal of mental acrobatics must be performed before one can denounce same-sex lifestyle from the Scripture I'm moderately familiar with, and then it would seem that gross mistranslations turn out to be the only thing that is actually wrong when all is said and done.

And usually there is much more said than done

reply to post by Long Lance

nah, i wouldn't be quite so sure:

In this instance "knowing someone" is not sexual.
If you look at the other verses that involve Sodom its their selfishness,greed,acts of murder and hatred of strangers that has so angered God.Their sexual activity is the least of God's concerns.
And it should be remembered that God had already decided to wipe Sodom off the face of the Earth before the Angels visited the city so how the locals treated Lot had no bearing whatsoever on God's decision!

The Bible cannot be looked at as a literal historical document, it would be crazy to do so, one must look for the deeper non physical meanings, constantly evolving and relevant.


The true understanding of the earth, cosmos and the meaning of it all could never be written in a book, and never comprehended on this earthly realm, we can gain glimpses of the Wisdom, but never fully understand it.

Just quoting biblical passages without any sort of attempt to assess the deeper philosophical principle will never produce anything other than an attempt by the poster to massage his own ego.


The undelying message should always be Love and Charity


[edit on 22-11-2007 by blueorder]

Originally posted by jakyll
reply to post by amitheone

 

The whole thing becomes absurd as it is totally out of context and changed the whole meaning of the intended original message. lol.

That was the point of the link!


And you seem to be forgetting,or ignoring,one important thing.Judaism.
In that faith,where the story originaly comes from,Sodom is not seen as a warning story against homosexuality.That interpretation comes intirely from the Catholic Church.

Sodom in Judaism represents the archetypal cruel and unjust society that refuses to share its wealth and consequently abuses outsiders to keep them away.

Though homosexual acts were included among the 613 Mitzvah or Commandments,the people of Sodom were seen as guilty of many other no less significant sins.Rabbinic writings affirm that the Sodomites also committed economic crimes, blasphemy and bloodshed.One of the worst was to give money or even gold ingots to beggars, but to inscribe their names on them, and then subsequently refuse to sell them food.The unfortunate stranger would end up starving and after his death,the people who gave him the money would reclaim it.

So what started this fear agaisnt homosexuality?
I say fear because many generations have seen it as a form of corruption,there was even a time when people believed you could catch it!!
Though if you look hard enough,you will see that many societies in the past accepted it just as long as it was behind closed doors and not in a place that they would have to deal with it.Out of sight Out of mind!


I've always had this feeling that the Bible,when talking about same sex relations leans towards the physical aspect of homosexuality,the act of sex itself.The same in the history of the Catholic Church.The emotional side of it is ignored.Sometimes i think thats because if they accept that 2 men and 2 women can Love each other,then they would have to say that Love can be wrong.And how can Love be wrong?

(and i mean the Love between 2 people,not people who claim to love the children or animals they abuse.etc.)

Couldn't agree more. Things done in the name of Tradition (be it religious or cultural) seems to have the effect of suppressing, if not completely destroying, any good sense a person/people may/might possess.

The problem, it seems to me, is that people act as if holy books and the words therein were written by the Deity of subject Her-/Him-/It-self. When in point of fact, these 'holy books' were written by flesh and blood men (never women). Now, I will allow for the possibility that the authors MAY have been Inspired, but they were also human. As we all know, our privately and culturally held beliefs color EVERYTHING we dosay think and feel. Consequently, Inspiration would be similarly affected, because it can only be externalized and expressed outwardly once it has filtered from the Super-conscious through the very flawed sub-conscious, and conscious minds, where we view things in relation to our own deeply held world view.

If a person so Inspired, happens to hate women for example, guess what will happen. The Great Message he was granted will reflect his own contempt for women (or any other group of people), and such will be reflected in all his writings. Similarly if he sees nothing wrong with slavery, or rape, or killing anyone who doesn't agree with him.

Now, the question becomes : WHY would such a person be so Inspired? It has nothing to do with Purity (although Hatred has as much Purity as Love, in it's on way). It has to do with Receptivty. Some people are just naturally more Receptive to non-physical impressions than others. It has nothing to do with morals, or right and wrong, or Good and Evil. It's just Nature. Every person is Receptive to a point , and then they are taught to focus only on the physical/material aspects of existance. Despite this, some few manage to maintain their Receptivity and fewer still learn to increase their Receptivity. As I said above Receptivity has nothing to do with morality or Intention, just Connectivity and practice. Hitler, for example, was Inspired, and it certainly wasn't what any decent person would call a good Inspiration. Inspiration is a force of Nature, like wind or water. Neither Good nor Evil, equally capable of Beneficence and Destruction, in Human terms.

I suppose I've strayed off-topic a bit, but it is relevent.

The point is, how do we begin to separate the 'Will of God(s)', from the will of Man (e.g., the authors)?

reply to post by 3ftcrow


I think that a lot of people believe that,just because Holy Scriptures are inspired by a God or Gods,that they are without flaw.
But,as you said,these scriptures have been written (and re-written) by the human hand,and everyone knows we humans are a flawed creature.

The problem with doctrines is that,although minor changes are made,major changes are forbidden.To me thats a problem because times,attitudes and ways of life change throughout history,so therefore faith should be adaptable,it should be a constant river of change along side the evolving world.This is possible while still keeping the core beliefs and laws.

As far as i'm concerned,if a faith has a doctrine that excludes,oppresses or has prejudice within it,then it should adapt.There can never be peace on earth if those 3 things keep happening.
And i know some people will say that its us who should change,not the religion,but that is impossible to do when the Bible does them 3 things!!


[edit on 11-12-2007 by jakyll]

reply to post by tep200377

Jesus walked on the water for a fact
Jesus made water in to vine ( AA whent crazy )
Moses splittet a whole ocean to make a safe passage for a fact
Noa gathered alle the earths millions of animal species and insects and stuffed them in a boat for a fact ..
Jesus resurected for a fact ..
You are going to burn i hell for being gay ... for a fact ..

Who says they are facts? What proof do you have that any sane man can agree to? They are all hearsay, written by who knows who centuries after the so-called "fact".

[edit on 13-12-2007 by joben]

Jesus walking on water....but he wasn't the only one.

Matthew 14:22-32.

22.And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away.
23.And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone.
24.But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.
25.And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
26.And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
27.But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
28.And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
29.And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
30.But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
31.And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
32.And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.

Just thought i'd mention it as everyone seems to forget that bit.
If,by strength of faith alone we can all walk on water,then it ceases to be a miracle.It also implies that we can become exactly like Jesus and do things that he did! Which is what the LDS Church believes.

Originally posted by zysin5
What about the post op transexuals? They are women now.. and I will tell you.. some of them you would never know they where born male..

No, they are not women, they are badly mutilated men. Welcome to reality. You may not be able to tell that they were born male, but that does not make them, "Male".




[edit on 14-12-2007 by Sparky63]

Originally posted by jakyll

I don't know how anyone can love their neighbour and condemn those that don't fit it with their beliefs at the same time.

And i don't just mean Christians.Islam and Judaism are no better.

Are you not condemning those Christians that don't fit in with your beliefs?
Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black in my opinion.
I think the real intolerance today is being reflected by those who reject the Bible as a guide for conduct and moral authority.

Originally posted by Kacen
Any Christian who uses a Leviticus law to condemn homosexuality is a hypocrite if they eat pork, shellfish, amongst other things.

Not true. The Law covenant was not to be binding on Christians.
Therefore foods that were formerly condemned were no longer to be considered unclean.
However the New Testament still makes it clear that while there were no more restrictions on food, that Homosexuality was still fobidden.

Jesus listed fornication and adultery among the “wicked things [that] issue forth from within and defile a man.

(Mark 7:20-23) 20 Further, he said: “That which issues forth out of a man is what defiles a man; 21 for from inside, out of the heart of men, injurious reasonings issue forth: fornications, thieveries, murders, 22 adulteries, covetings, acts of wickedness, deceit, loose conduct, an envious eye, blasphemy, haughtiness, unreasonableness. 23 All these wicked things issue forth from within and defile a man.”

The Greek word for fornication is a broader term than that for adultery. It describes all forms of sexual relations outside lawful marriage, including homosexuality.

This was also made clear in the book of Jude

(Jude 7) 7 So too Sod′om and Go·mor′rah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before [us] as a [warning] example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire.

Jesus Christ also warned his followers not to tolerate any professed Christian teacher who minimizes the seriousness of fornication.





[edit on 14-12-2007 by Sparky63]

Sorry Double post.
Stupid sticky Mouse Button!!!!

[edit on 14-12-2007 by Sparky63]

The Bible does not call particular attention to homosexuals as a group to be ostracized or hated by Christians.

However, the Scriptures do set forth the moral standards of our Creator, which oftentimes run counter to modern-day moresand values and politically correct views. Homosexual acts, heterosexual sex between unmarried persons, and bestiality are all condemned in the Bible. (Exodus 22:19; Ephesians 5:3-5)

Regarding acts of homosexuality, God’s Word pointedly says: “This is a hateful thing.” (Leviticus 18:22, The New Jerusalem Bible)

The apostle Paul was inspired to describe homosexual acts as expressions of “disgraceful sexual appetites” and as “contrary to nature.” He writes:

“That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error. And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting.”—Romans 1:26-28.

The Scriptures offer no apologies, no concessions, no ambiguity; homosexual practices, adultery, fornication, are all repulsive in God’s sight.
Accordingly, true Christians do not water down the Bible’s position on “disgraceful sexual appetites” merely to become more popular or more acceptable to modern culture. Nor do they agree with any movement dedicated to the promotion of homosexuality as a normal life-style.

reply to post by Sparky63


No,i'm condemning those who claim to be tolerant of all yet exclude people from that which they find tolerable.Exclusion does not equal tolerance,it never can!

The apostle Paul was inspired to describe homosexual acts as expressions of “disgraceful sexual appetites” and as “contrary to nature.”

As homosexuality has been around since the dawn of recorded history,how is it against nature?
Male animals when in heat will sometimes have sex with other males if they cannot find a female.Is that act an abomination?
Male animals have also been known to have sex with other males to show that they are the dominant one.Is that an act of abomination or just a part of nature?


Is it truly disgraceful for 2 people who love each other to express it in a physical way?
Isn't rape and pedophilia a much more wicked act?


I found this interesting site that gives for and against arguments concerning homosexuality in the Bible.

Originally posted by jakyll
Male animals when in heat will sometimes have sex with other males if they cannot find a female.Is that act an abomination?
Male animals have also been known to have sex with other males to show that they are the dominant one.Is that an act of abomination or just a part of nature?

You cannot use the behavior of animals to justify the behavior of intellectually superior humans.

Animals also fight and kill over territory, is that a justification of human war?

Animals fight and kill over social dominance, would that be OK in human society?

Some animals eat their own or other animals fecal matter. Is it then OK for humans to run around eating cat crap?

Perhaps you should consider if you really want to call your nocturnal activities animal like. Animals almost never do things that are considered normal or natural for humans.

Is it truly disgraceful for 2 people who love each other to express it in a physical way?

Yes, it often is and this is not restricted to homosexual activity either.

Serial fornication is wrong no matter what.

Do you really mean to say that you just can’t control yourself? Paul actually picked on heterosexuals more than homosexuals. Paul himself stated that he was able to abstain, however not all people could. If you could not abstain, it was desirable to marry, and the bible does clearly define marriage as between a man and a woman on more than one occasion.

The bottom line is that it is not the sexual desires and inclinations that are wrong and sinful (unless you foster them) it is the act.

Ever human has sexual desires, but as a human you should have the mental capacity to control them. If you can’t, you are no better than an animal, like you said.

Isn't rape and pedophilia a much more wicked act?

I would agree that they are more wicked, although probably not worse sin.


BTW, as to your comments about the Gospel of Mary, the oldest surviving manuscripts are dated to several hundred years after the assent of Christ and all three ancient manuscripts are incomplete and therefore not fit for inclusion in a book inspired by the Lord, as the common belief is that the Lord preserved the divinely inspired works. Would an all-powerful God really not be able to preserve the first five pages of a gospel he intended to be used for teaching? Would an all-powerful God really allow humans to undermine his efforts to give his teachings to all mankind?




[edit on 14-12-2007 by cavscout]

reply to post by cavscout

You cannot use the behavior of animals to justify the behavior of intellectually superior humans.

This is a myth that mankind likes to tell itself.Just because we are different to animals does not mean that we are better.Animals can be intelligent in other ways.I for one,when watching nature programs,am constantly amazed at what animals can achieve.

Animals also fight and kill over territory, is that a justification of human war?
Animals fight and kill over social dominance, would that be OK in human society?

These comments show that there is not such a big difference between humans and animals.We commit violent acts,we have families,we laugh and we play,we mourn the dead,we learn and we evolve and some animals mate for life as some humans do.

Serial fornication is wrong no matter what.

Even when its with the same person?
You say that they should then get married,but gay marriage is still illegal in most countries,so i expect then you would have homosexuals spending the rest of their lives alone and never being allowed to know the pleasure of a committed relationship.

And why should people get married?
Some people spend their whole lives never going to church,they don't believe and they don't care for Jesus,but they get hitched under the eyes of God and for some reason thats better than 2 people who are followers of Christ,who live by his teachings,who visit church on a regular basis and who just happen to be gay!

I would agree that they are more wicked, although probably not worse sin.

Are you serious???
Sex with two consenting adults of the same gender is a worse sin than a person forcing themselves on another in a violent,degrading and soul destroying act! And also worse than a man forcing his d**k into a...lets say,a 2yr old child!!

BTW, as to your comments about the Gospel of Mary, the oldest surviving manuscripts are dated to several hundred years after the assent of Christ and all three ancient manuscripts are incomplete and therefore not fit for inclusion in a book inspired by the Lord, as the common belief is that the Lord preserved the divinely inspired works. Would an all-powerful God really not be able to preserve the first five pages of a gospel he intended to be used for teaching? Would an all-powerful God really allow humans to undermine his efforts to give his teachings to all mankind?

The books i was talking about were originally in the Bible so therefore they must have been fit to be included!
Some of these books were removed for good,others were removed,put back and then removed again.
What remains now are just fragments,but they were obviously whole when they were once in the Bible,so your logic is flawed.

Originally posted by jakyll
This is a myth that mankind likes to tell itself.Just because we are different to animals does not mean that we are better.Animals can be intelligent in other ways.I for one,when watching nature programs,am constantly amazed at what animals can achieve.

It is a matter of opinion, I suppose, depending on the criteria you use to judge superiority.

The opinion of 99.9+% of humans is that they are superior to animals though, so it is possible that you simply enjoy being in the strange minority in more than your nocturnal indiscretions.

Now, it is a FACT that we have risen to the top of the food chain, that we dominate the Earth and that no other animal has built jets and put itself in orbit.

Oh, and lets see a dolphin build a nuke, or even something as simple as a pencil.

And let me know when monkeys figure out that whole fire thing, k?

These comments show that there is not such a big difference between humans and animals.

Wrong, it shows that there are some similar behaviors. There is HUGE difference however, because to date we are the only species who has recognized that these actions are not desirable and have taken actions to end them.

Well, I guess we can’t take credit for that. The Lord told us they were wrong, and our history that of a species trying to follow his recommendation that we stop.

Show me a single animal that will cry when made to look at a picture of its dead and mutilated offspring.

,so i expect then you would have homosexuals spending the rest of their lives alone and never being allowed to know the pleasure of a committed relationship.

Absolutely not. I see little wrong with two men or women living together and being lifelong companions, or even changing companions frequently.

Where it becomes a problem is when they have sexual relations.

See, the thing is that homosexual behavior is deviance. You may not like that title, however it by definition is deviating from the norm. Your assertion that not allowing gay men and women the pleasure of sex with each other somehow is detrimental is a symptom of a deviant obsession with sex, probably born of some type of childhood abuse or demonic possession.


Yes, that’s right, cavscout actually said it! Gay sex is deviant


It is time to go home, I will respond to the rest of your post in a bit.