Does the bible condemn homosexuality?

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

 

You really sound like a vinyl record that has got stuck.

And you sound like a drunk in a midnight choir.

So many posters have shown that your points are invalid,

Who has actually referred to the Hebrew Torah and come with a translation of the verse based on the Hebrew language? I'm not an expert on Hebrew, but I'm kind of an expert in language in general, and when translating unknown words and phrases you must add additional words and alternate phrases to explain what is written with the meaning it would have to the reader of the original language.

Quoting from a Hebrew or Greek book demands that you research what words and phrases, sentances and paragraphs translates as. You stay in a bunch of people, a mob condemning a gay man of sin using a faulty translation of a foreign law you don't even follow yourselves. I'd say like Jesus: "him who is without sin, cast the first stone". Don't condemn so you yourself will be condemned...

but you go on regardless, repeating the same old "what about this word, what about this word, what..." Talk about not being able to see the wood for the trees!

Atleast I see the trees of the right forest....

[edit on 17/5/2008 by Neo Christian Mystic]

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


sorry Neo,

you are blind to biblical truth if that is what you are reading into it.

where did Christ tell the apostles to go? All the world! ALL scripture is good for us.

can you tell me to just where the gospels were written to???????

on you premise the whole Bible can be chucked

sorry it doesn't wash my friend, its on old argument same as is the arguments for the other letters, 10 commandments etc. its easy to dismiss anything of the bible someone feels uncomfortable with

david

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


hello Lucid

if i must and it helps, sure i will

the context is in those passages, taking one verse alone can be misleading as was the OP

my post uses the KJV

many thanks

david

[edit on 17/5/2008 by drevill]

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


where is the evidence Lucid, this is what i did asked for, tomatoes and all that

cheers

david

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Isnt it

if this was the case, and it is tenuous hearsay at best, then at least King James had the good decency to leave text as it should. not like so called Christians today trying to alter the bible rather than alter themselves to be true to God.

and i mean that for any subject.

all the best

david

reply to post by skyshow

Why would I put, or when did I say, put jesus on a list of nut cases?

I misunderstood you, apparently. Sorry.

You had said:

Thank my stars I don't believe in it at all and am able to stand back and watch the religious part of society continue to act like certifiable nut cases!

As all we are doing is discussing what Jesus and the Biblical prophets said regarding immoral behaviour, it seemed to imply you regarded Jesus, the source and subject of much of what we believe, as having made us into nutters.



reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

Jesus' mental state we don't know anything about, other than that he would be concidered a schizophreniac based on what the gospel claims he believed , saw said and did. Like many other people claiming "superhuman abilities" like telepathy and being a Messiah or a son of God and basing your life on the Law of OT, Jesus would have a psychiatric diagnosis. That's life...

No. That's spiritual blindess. And blasphemy. And proof you are no Christian, and certifiably Anti-christian.

but given the context we have been given, first century Jerusalem, he was a typical Jewish prophet and a Rabbi and not a schizo.

Too late to pull back. You have now proved beyond all doubt that everything I said about your teaching here (on the previous page) is true.

Originally posted by drevill
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

 

great source this is not

The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that "sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."[81]

Well, still about one in ten is gay in today's society.

can i point out the word PROBABLY, not really a scientific fact is it?

I may have used the assumption that there is only one factor involved, genetics, but I still refer to sound statistics showing us that 10% of the population in the world is gay. We find more or less the same ammount regardless of where we live in the world and what influences us, so my assumption is valid in my opinion.

like saying being gay is probably influenced by the stars.

im stunned how every one relies on wikipedia on a source of authority,

william harvey eat your heart out

Wikipedia may not be the best source, but atleast I am given a free license to quote from it. Show me a free, open source which is better and I'll stop quoting and refering to it.

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


Hello Neo

i think you are misunderstanding something

your argument is akin to saying the following

men, dont have sex with other men, as this is what is done in baal worship?

the point being?????????? Don't do it!

david

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


sorry Neo

just because one in ten say they are gay is no argument for genetics really is it?

if you want to use open source fire away, however it is still a bad source and gives proof of nothing

numbers proove nothing in this context only that these numbers say they are Gay... nothing else IMHO.

all the best

david

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic



here is a little evidence from a source against the ritualistic view


from an outside source

The level of abhorrence associated with homosexual action is shown in two specific ways: [a] The Hebrew word hÙfb"(OT (to’ebah) is attached to the act in 18.22 and 20.13. To’ebah is no light distaste, but rather a serious revulsion toward the action which violates the boundaries God has established. In both Leviticus 18 and 20, to’ebah is specifically attached to the homosexual act. None of the other actions are specifically singled out as abominable. That places a heavy load on the prohibition against homosexual action that cannot be lightly dismissed. But then again, to’ebah is also the conclusive description of all the actions as a whole. In 18.24-30 it is used four times to describe God’s revulsion for all these actions of disloyalty. This point is significant because God classes all of these actions together with homosexual action, making the homosexual conduct the epitome of abomination.



Also notice that to’ebah is not primarily referring to idolatry, as Eastman would have us to believe (3), but here in the immediate context of the Holiness Code (the only place the word is used in Leviticus) it has everything to do with praxis or conduct.

many thanks

david

[edit on 17/5/2008 by drevill]

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

 

Jesus' mental state we don't know anything about, other than that he would be concidered a schizophreniac based on what the gospel claims he believed , saw said and did. Like many other people claiming "superhuman abilities" like telepathy and being a Messiah or a son of God and basing your life on the Law of OT, Jesus would have a psychiatric diagnosis. That's life...

No. That's spiritual blindess. And blasphemy. And proof you are no Christian, and certifiably Anti-christian.

Are you saying that claiming to being able to perform great miracles, being religiously fundamentalistic, claiming to be the Son of God with a tendency to run away so the people wouldn't make him a king, claiming telepathy, including hearing the voice of God telling you what to do which you would follow blindly, are signs of a person being sane in the modern sense of the word, to you? Just for fun, you say you try to follow Jesus in everything you do. Go to your doctor and claim you hear the voice of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, that they tell you what to do and so you do. Tell that to your doctor or shrink and see if you are not blessed with calling you schizophrenic.

but given the context we have been given, first century Jerusalem, he was a typical Jewish prophet and a Rabbi and not a schizo.

Too late to pull back.

you read my post like Satan reads the Bible, you pull sentances out of context like you always do, removing any sensible information and context.

You have now proved beyond all doubt that everything I said about your teaching here (on the previous page) is true.

You have only presented biased claims that KJV and similar translations are correct and even the infallable Word of God, in attempts at "prooving" a literal translation of the verse is incorrect, in effect "prooving" the Hebrew Torah and the very Hebrew language is false. you are a fool with no sense of humor, and a judge with a tongue of a dragon, condemning all gays as sinners, while the Law says otherwise. How about the beam in your eye?

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

Wikipedia may not be the best source, but atleast I am given a free license to quote from it. Show me a free, open source which is better and I'll stop quoting and refering to it.

Here is a very authoritative source: Atkinson, R.L. et al (2000) Hilgard's introduction to psychology (13th ed.) Harcourt

It's not a basic introduction, rather a comprehensive summary in hardback, consisting of 768 A4-sized pages.

It presents a debate between two leading authorities, one arguing for "Evidence Favors 'Born' over 'Made'", the other presenting the case that "Sexual orientation is not Inherent".

Suffice it to say the issue is an ongoing debate, even in secular circles. The idea that homosexuality has been proven to be innate is nothing more than an urban myth.

I nevertheless still stand by my earlier comments that Christ offers forgiveness and a new way of life to all who have practiced immorality of any description. In fact he used to hang out with such people, saying things like:

The healthy don't need a doctor, but the sick do. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentence.

Gospel of Luke 5:31

Note: 'sick' simply means spiritually unhealthy, and aware of it; i.e. recognising you have become enslaved to a sinful practice, which Christ can then free you from.

Neo: you have not been listening to the arguments in this debate, you have been ignoring them and repeatedly stating your entrenched position. I certainly don't write you off - it's anyone's guess as to whether you may begin to revisit your views at some point in future. I am, however, sure (and know from experience) that most people are far more fair-minded, especially when it comes to mulling over what the Bible, and Christ in particular, have to say.

I'm not an expert on Hebrew, but I'm kind of an expert in language in general, and when translating unknown words and phrases you must add additional words and alternate phrases to explain what is written with the meaning it would have to the reader of the original language.

I have worked as a professional translator/interpreter in more than one language into English. Knowledge of the original tongues does not guarantee a reliable hermeneutical grasp of a text. That comes more from seeking out what the text says regardless of your current views, which is how Christians approach this task. You would do well to learn from them.

In your case you are using a superficial knowledge of Hebrew to try and blind people with science and to twist the clear, unambiguous meaning of the texts to fit your own private agenda, which is patently obvious: 'sexual immorality is acceptable to God'.

Originally posted by drevill
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

 

here is a little evidence from a source against the ritualistic view


from an outside source

The level of abhorrence associated with homosexual action is shown in two specific ways: [a] The Hebrew word hÙfb"(OT (to’ebah) is attached to the act in 18.22 and 20.13. To’ebah is no light distaste, but rather a serious revulsion toward the action which violates the boundaries God has established. In both Leviticus 18 and 20, to’ebah is specifically attached to the homosexual act. None of the other actions are specifically singled out as abominable. That places a heavy load on the prohibition against homosexual action that cannot be lightly dismissed. But then again, to’ebah is also the conclusive description of all the actions as a whole. In 18.24-30 it is used four times to describe God’s revulsion for all these actions of disloyalty. This point is significant because God classes all of these actions together with homosexual action, making the homosexual conduct the epitome of abomination.

Like the word for create in the first sentance of the bible is only mentioned with God as subject, the word to'ebah is only used in the context of ritual acts, therefore it should only be translated with the adverb "ritually". Your source doesn't refer to anything written, and is just a biased claim to conceur the truth. Like the English language lacks a word for Gr. Hades and Hebr. She'ol, it lacks a word for Heb. to'ebah and Gr. bdelygma. Still they use single words instead of these words. That is not translating Hebrew correct.

Also notice that to’ebah is not primarily referring to idolatry, as Eastman would have us to believe (3), but here in the immediate context of the Holiness Code (the only place the word is used in Leviticus) it has everything to do with praxis or conduct.

You don't even know how to read a lexicon or dictionary and you try to tell me what a word means. Idolatry is a ritual sin, therefore it is connected to to'ebah. Like I explained Leviticus 20:13 refers to Ba'alism, which was an Idol based religion. Committing to their practise would make you a Ba'alist and thereby an idol worshipper. Ba'al was an idol, you know... Or didn't you? He was the bull (the semantics and etymology of the English word bull is Ba'al), sybolised with a golden bull calf. And like having ritual sex with a bull is to'ebah, having ritual sex with another man is also to'ebah when doing it to Ba'al or another god or idol. You fail to proove anything, you just discredited an adequate source to substanciate your view, using unsubstansiated sources.

[edit on 17/5/2008 by Neo Christian Mystic]

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


helloNeo

you also need to take this verse into consideration

from the KJV

If a man also lie with mankind, as he with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death their blood shall be upon them.

levitcus 20:13

under your argument this si reading as

if you do lie with a man as you would a women you are committing an act of a pagan ritual and this is wrong

no matter what the reason it is wrong

david

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

You have only presented biased claims that KJV and similar translations are correct and even the infallable Word of God, in attempts at "prooving" a literal translation of the verse is incorrect, in effect "prooving" the Hebrew Torah and the very Hebrew language is false.

What twisted nonesense!

It has entirely escaped your notice, apparently, that teams of world experts on Hebrew work together for years, even decades, when translating the Bible. Yet you, who in your own words, are not an expert in Hebrew, are trying to tell the rest of the world the Bible has been translated incorrectly.

No. It has just not been translated with an agenda in mind...

Keep digging yourself in deeper...

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


fair point about the source

however

You don't even know how to read a lexicon or dictionary

quite a statement and here you commit the act you have just mentioned of transubstantiation

Originally posted by pause4thought
'sexual immorality is acceptable to God'.

Atleast homosexuality isn't even written about. For if I had translated that sentance into Hebrew, I would use a word explaining immoral abominations, and then I would use the word zimah which has to do with immoral abominations connected to the moral code of the Torah. What you want to say is that "sexual rituals are abominations to God". Incest isn't tollerated, and this is because it is immoral. That you personally believe gay sex is immoral is your own opinion, you do not have scriptural fundament. Teaching that gay sex is immoral is extrabiblical tradition within translating certain passages in the bible.

reply to post by pause4thought


Amen to that


the word about ritual is irrelevant as the context is what sets this issue

having same gender sex is akin to committing a pagan ritual sin, so don't do it. seems clear to me

david


[edit on 17/5/2008 by drevill]

Originally posted by pause4thought

No. That's spiritual blindess. And blasphemy. And proof you are no Christian, and certifiably Anti-christian.

but given the context we have been given, first century Jerusalem, he was a typical Jewish prophet and a Rabbi and not a schizo.

Too late to pull back. You have now proved beyond all doubt that everything I said about your teaching here (on the previous page) is true.

Well maybe their is hope for you yet P4T. This place prepares you for just this kind of spiritual warfare P4T. It is an art to recognise those you have exposed as you have here and you have done so to the letter the scriptures teach us to test the Christian

This one has painted himself in a corner it is true. Kudos to you P4T I am sure you will be seeing many more from those who are his.

Check your u2u's for more

good news

- Con

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

Atleast homosexuality isn't even written about.

Do you really think that by repeating this like a parrot while flying in the face of argument you are going to convince anyone?

Mind you, sometimes you say it's not mentioned, other times you say it is only mentioned in the context of pagan rituals.

Keep digging...