Is premarital sex really a sin?

[sojourner]

Actually, with regard to the OP of this thread, it is my position that pre-marital sex is an oxymoron. Pre-marital sex is marriage IMHO.

Spiritually, I agree with you. Legally? No.

 

[sojourner]

You can't please everyone, and neither would you want to.

You're deflecting.

 

[Sonofason]

Does Jewish Law Forbid Polygamy? - Marriage
POLYGAMY - JewishEncyclopedia.com
THE ORTHODOX JEWISH PRO POLYGAMY PAGE
Polygamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At first impression I thought you had a case. The more I read, I realized that you don't have a case at all.
Just because the Bible contains a record of polygamous relationships does not mean that God approves of them.
But I do commend you for your well presented case. It is interesting indeed that the Torah does not flat out condemn bigamy and polygamy. However, I see as well that nowhere is it ever condoned.

What Does the Bible Say About Polygamy? | Bob Enyart Live
Here's the Plain Truth About OLD TESTAMENT POLYGAMY
A Shield and Refuge Ministry - Article: Is Polygamy Required of God?
What About Polygamy in the Bible? | Answers in Genesis
Poligamy in Judaism

I could also bring up OT commands which could force polygamy. For example, if your brother died without children:
Deut 25-5: "When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her."

Note the lack of an exception for a brother that's already married.

Where you note a lack of an exception for brothers that might already be married, I make the assumption, as do many others do, such as John Gill, a noted Bible Commentator that, "the woman's husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife; that is, supposing him to be unmarried, and this is indeed supposed in the first clause of the text, by dwelling with his brother; for had he been married, he would have dwelt with his wife and family apart."
John Gills Exposition of the Bible Commentary

It would I suppose be quite common, if a father had been deceased for the eldest son to take hold of the father's estate. And if there were other children in the home that were unmarried, they would most likely remain in that home until they had taken themselves their own wives, at which time they would move out of their father's house and secure an estate for their own families.

At this point I do not concede, but rather perceive a remote possibility of you being correct. That in no way makes you correct in your analysis.

Which means you are assuming the consequent. If we can assume it doesn't apply towards my wife, we can equally assume it doesn't apply towards my wives.

No, I can't make that assumption. But you can of course assume anything you like.

Which is fine. But you don't take his statement literally without modification. You don't think that looking at your own wife is

adultery.

That's right, I don't.

So Jesus moved the bar from "sex" to "looking with lust"... that we agree. But looking at whom?

Any other woman other than your own wife. It's as clear as the sky on an unusually clear day.

Jesus just says "a woman", but you don't believe that.

That's right, I don't.

You believe only certain women. So what's the existing standard? In the OT it's the wives of other men.

As I said, polygamy is clearly a form adultery, and without God's forgiveness, it is a condemnable offense to God

No. We see that you are making a case based solely on plurality of a word.

Word's matter.

Plurals would have been silly given that it was being said to Adam and Eve. If it had been plural would you assert that it didn't apply to singular marriage? No? Then why apply the standard to a use of singular?

First of all, it wasn't plural, so that point is moot. I apply the standard to a use of singular because the text was written in it's singular form.
Furthermore, no, that wasn't being said to Adam and Eve. If anything it was being said by Adam. It was Adam speaking in the prior sentence. It is also possible that it was written by Moses. Either way, that was the way it was supposed to be. Singular.

 

[Sonofason]

You're deflecting.

No I'm not, I'm admitting my bias and telling you that I have no intention of trying to appease you. I am telling you that God has bias, and He to has no reason of trying to appease you either.

You said,

According to fact, the law is the product of knowledge and bias of the person who wrote it.

I'm saying, your right, so what?
God's law is biased, so what?

 

[JerryL]

At first impression I thought you had a case. The more I read, I realized that you don't have a case at all.
Just because the Bible contains a record of polygamous relationships does not mean that God approves of them.
But I do commend you for your well presented case. It is interesting indeed that the Torah does not flat out condemn bigamy and polygamy. However, I see as well that nowhere is it ever condoned.

What Does the Bible Say About Polygamy? | Bob Enyart Live
Here's the Plain Truth About OLD TESTAMENT POLYGAMY
A Shield and Refuge Ministry - Article: Is Polygamy Required of God?
What About Polygamy in the Bible? | Answers in Genesis
Poligamy in Judaism

So I followed one of your citations. The second one to be precise. Here is their argument:
"He [the King of Israel] must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray."

They reinterpret that as a command for monogamy for all. It's not even clearly monogamy for the king (is two "many"?)

Here's from your last citation:
"Polygamy was such a well established part of the social system that Mosaic law is not even critical of it. We find only certain regulations with respect to it; as, for example, if a man takes a second wife the economic position of the first wife and of the children she bore must be secure; and, in the case of inheritance, no child of a subsequent marriage is to be preferred over a child from the first wife. "

Are you asserting "It's forbidden and there's also rules for doing it"?

No. Polygamy was common practice throughout the time of the OT. The Torah and Bible could have addressed it, but never did.

Well. Not to the general population. The Torah does restrict Rabbis to one wife and, as pointed out, says that the king should not have "many".

Why require monogamy for some if the intent was to require monogamy for all?

Monogamy was not seen as a requirement by the people who wrote the bible nor their neighbors and is never added as a requirement by scripture. To the contrary, several verses can either force polygamy (below) or describe the rules for it.

Where you note a lack of an exception for brothers that might already be married, I make the assumption, as do many others do, such as John Gill, a noted Bible Commentator that, "the woman's husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife; that is, supposing him to be unmarried, and this is indeed supposed in the first clause of the text, by dwelling with his brother; for had he been married, he would have dwelt with his wife and family apart."

I don't see that it follows. Brother #1 was married yet Brother #2 was living there anyway.

It would I suppose be quite common, if a father had been deceased for the eldest son to take hold of the father's estate. And if there were other children in the home that were unmarried, they would most likely remain in that home until they had taken themselves their own wives, at which time they would move out of their father's house and secure an estate for their own families.

When you can get past "suppose" and onto "show", they we will have a conversation.

Any other woman other than your own wife. It's as clear as the sky on an unusually clear day.

That's you painting your own view on the passage; but even if true, your second wife is your wife.

As I said, polygamy is clearly a form adultery, and without God's forgiveness, it is a

condemn-able offense to God

Not according to the Bible. It's never once condemned even though it was a pretty common practice and would have been east to directly mention. Indeed, it *is* directly mentioned at least once (the requirement of Rabbi to take only one wife) without being extended to the population... .. the population that wrote it in first place and did not read it the way you do.

Word's matter.

Didn't say otherwise. But it's much like reading a manual that says "If a person wants a tire inflated, he should add air" and say "it's not for women because it says 'he'".

First of all, it wasn't plural, so that point is moot. I apply the standard to a use of singular because the text was written in it's singular form.

And if it had been plural then it wouldn't have applied to only one wife? I don't believe you'd actually hold that as your standard any more than you think there's only one man in the universe it applies to because it said "a man" rather than "men"

Furthermore, no, that wasn't being said to Adam and Eve. If anything it was being said by Adam. It was Adam speaking in the prior sentence. It is also possible that it was written by Moses. Either way, that was the way it was supposed to be. Singular.

Says you. The Bible has nothing that supports your position and it was not, as a matter of historical fact, what was actually done by the ancient Jews.

 

[sincerly]

Spiritually, I agree with you. Legally? No.

Sojourner, "spiritually" is in accordance with the Scriptures---what GOD has instituted.
"legally??" Still--Yes, according to the laws given by GOD.
According to(many/most) man's view today of the subject,--"mankind"/man and woman can do what is "mutually consented to by them."

However, the Scriptural Aspect is what is debated and GOD says if that happens they are considered married. Otherwise, sin has occurred.

The off-topic sexually activity of same sex gratification is condemned as well.

 

[sincerly]

So I followed one of your citations. The second one to be precise. Here is their argument:
"He [the King of Israel] must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray."

Jerry, Matt.19:3-9, "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female.
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

Jesus is still saying the Gen.2 statement/Scripture from the Creator GOD) was/is still True--One man with one woman for life.

Says you. The Bible has nothing that supports your position and it was not, as a matter of historical fact, what was actually done by the ancient Jews.

For the most part, "what was done by the ancient Jews" was in rebellion to the Creator GOD they said they would obey/do. That is the messages seen/given by the inspired Prophets.

 

[JerryL]

He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

Jesus is still saying the Gen.2 statement/Scripture from the Creator GOD) was/is still True--One man with one woman for life.

No. That's saying divorce is unlawful. It doesn't say anything at all about polygamy.

For the most part, "what was done by the ancient Jews" was in rebellion to the Creator GOD they said they would obey/do. That is the messages seen/given by the inspired Prophets.

Yet not a single prophet mentioned it? I think you are projecting.

Again: the bible addresses polygamy several times. It sets rules for how to treat each wife, for example. It also forbids it in specific circumstances (rabbi for example).

It would be like you pointing to a rule that pregnant women should not drink to establish that no one should drink. Quite the opposite: the reason you need a special rule for pregnant women is because it's not the norm.

So our special rule (one wife for rabbi) only makes sense if it's not normally the rule.

To recap.
1) It was common to have multiple wives during the time of the old testement.
2) The OT acknowledges this and makes rules for how God wants you to do it.
3) The OT never condemns this or says not to do it (except as a special rule to certain groups). Which is significant in light of #1 and #2.

I feel you have started with your conclusion and are trying to force the facts to fit it.

 

[sojourner]

I'm saying, your right, so what?
God's law is biased, so what?

God didn't write the law. The human writer wrote the law. The human writer is biased and has limited knowledge.

 

[sojourner]

"spiritually" is in accordance with the Scriptures---what GOD has instituted.

"Spiritually" is in accordance with spiritual precept -- biblical or not. It may or may not be "God-instituted."

"legally??" Still--Yes, according to the laws given by GOD.

The bible isn't a legal code. By "legally" I mean civil law.

According to(many/most) man's view today of the subject,--"mankind"/man and woman can do what is "mutually consented to by them."

Correct. We have the freedom to choose.

However, the Scriptural Aspect is what is debated and GOD says if that happens they are considered married. Otherwise, sin has occurred.

"God" doesn't "say" anything. The concept really has nothing to do with the bible.

The off-topic sexually activity of same sex gratification is condemned as well.

Only through a certain interpretation that may or may not be well-founded -- and only by the under informed human writer of the text.

 

[Harikrish]

Premarital sex is a sin. It leads to unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Jesus is a good example of premarital sex. Joseph was not his father. If Joseph was not told about Mary's pregnancy by an angel. It would have led to some awkward verses in the bible. Notice Joseph never talks about it after he heard the angel explain Mary's premarital sex.

 

[sojourner]

Premarital sex is a sin. It leads to unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Jesus is a good example of premarital sex. Joseph was not his father. If Joseph was not told about Mary's pregnancy by an angel. It would have led to some awkward verses in the bible. Notice Joseph never talks about it after he heard the angel explain Mary's premarital sex.

Is it? In whose eyes? How is that POV "universal?" You, of course, realize that even marital sex leads to unwanted pregnancies and abortions. The Nativity story is not a good example, because it's highly, highly mythic.

 

[Sonofason]

Premarital sex is a sin. It leads to unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Jesus is a good example of premarital sex. Joseph was not his father. If Joseph was not told about Mary's pregnancy by an angel. It would have led to some awkward verses in the bible. Notice Joseph never talks about it after he heard the angel explain Mary's premarital sex.

It is likely that I'm not going to change your mind about anything, because I perceive that you're your mind is already conditioned by social norms and societies influences to believe that marriage is, always has been, and always will be a civil contract, and under the control of the state, that no such thing as a natural or purely ecclesiastical marriage can take place for human beings without the consent of the state. Or that if one did take place, that it could not be considered to be marriage.

I will admit this, if two individuals were compelled to engage in such a marriage, apart from the state, they would be hard pressed to find anyone to conduct their marriage ceremony, as if a ceremony need take place at all, because all clergy in this age are in this regard agents of the state.

No. Marriage is sex. Marriage is something that our ancient ancestors have engaged in long before words even existed. It makes no sense at all to use the phrase premarital sex, unless you're referring to modern perceptions of the word marriage, where two people not only become married but also become bound by contract to the state. Words change, but the original intent of a word can never be changed. Adam and Eve had sex. As they came together with their first sexual encounter, the two were married, and became one flesh. Just like when you marry the color yellow with orange you get one color, orange.
Holy Matrimony
Ecclesiastical - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

marry - to join, to unite closely or intimately
Definition of “marries” | Collins English Dictionary

to marry is to join, to couple, and to yoke.
Definition of “yoke” | Collins English Dictionary

Consider the following two verses.

Jesus said, "from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
(Mark 10:6-9)

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.”
(Corinthians 6:15-16)


When a man takes a prostitute and has sex with her, he becomes married to her. The two become one flesh, just like Adam and Eve did on their first encounter...Never to be put asunder. Once you have sex with a prostitute, she's your wife. If you're already been married (had sex) even once, to someone else, and you proceed to have sex with another person, your an adulterer, a bigamist and a polygamist, all at once.

And my opinion with regard to your slander and lack of respect for God's Son, I have only this to say. It's blasphemy.

Blasphemy - the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things.
Google

 

[Sonofason]

God didn't write the law.

That's your opinion.

The human writer wrote the law.

That's your opinion.

The human writer is biased and has limited knowledge.

So what?

 

[sincerly]

sincerly said: ↑
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

Jesus is still saying the Gen.2 statement/Scripture from the Creator GOD) was/is still True--One man with one woman for life.
Click to expand...

No. That's saying divorce is unlawful. It doesn't say anything at all about polygamy.

Unless there is fornication by the wife, there is no divorce(in the sight of GOD), any marrying another woman is wives and "polygamy".

Yet not a single prophet mentioned it? I think you are projecting.

Jesus' answer is not a projection---but fact.

Again: the bible addresses

polygamy several times. It sets rules for how to treat each wife, for example. It also forbids it in specific circumstances (rabbi for example).

It would be like you pointing to a rule that pregnant women should not drink to establish that no one should drink. Quite the opposite: the reason you need a special rule for pregnant women is because it's not the norm.

So our special rule (one wife for rabbi) only makes sense if it's not normally the rule.

To recap.
1) It was common to have multiple wives during the time of the old testement.
2) The OT acknowledges this and makes rules for how God wants you to do it.
3) The OT never condemns this or says not to do it (except as a special rule to certain groups). Which is significant in light of #1 and #2.

I feel you have started with your conclusion and are trying to force the facts to fit it.

The "normal" is that which GOD has said and not as mankind's hard heart desires. Man's lusts are what is "common" in a rebellious society.
That which GOD has stated is the right conclusion. The wrong conclusion is trusting in the lusts of Mankind.

 

[sincerly]

"Spiritually" is in accordance with spiritual precept -- biblical or not. It may or may not be "God-instituted."

The bible isn't a legal code. By "legally" I mean civil law.

Correct. We have the freedom to choose.

"God" doesn't "say" anything. The concept really has nothing to do with the bible.

Only through a certain interpretation that may or may not be well-founded -- and only by the under informed human writer of the text.

The "spirit" of the message given by GOD in the Scriptures is "GOD-instituted". Man with man as with woman is a no-no.

Sure, one can choose wrong actions or right actions.

However, we both know that GOD did specify, in the Bible, that which is debated.

The message given needs no interpretation when it is already written in a language which is understood. An understanding that is contrary to the context is always false.

 

[sojourner]

The "spirit" of the message given by GOD in the Scriptures is "GOD-instituted". Man with man as with woman is a no-no.

That spirit, if it, indeed, exists, must be interpreted by flawed human beings. It is my opinion that the writer misunderstood that spirit.

However, we both know that GOD did specify, in the Bible, that which is debated.

No, we don't both know that. What I know is that a human being wrote the text you're referring to. I'm not aware that God "specified" anything.

The message given needs no interpretation when it is already written in a language which is understood.

The message isn't written, though, in a language that you or I understand.

An understanding that is contrary to the context is always false.

That's what you're rendering here, because you're rendering an ancient context in a post-modern framework.

 

[sincerly]

sincerly said: ↑
The "spirit" of the message given by GOD in the Scriptures is "GOD-instituted". Man with man as with woman is a no-no.

That spirit, if it, indeed, exists, must be interpreted by flawed human beings. It is my opinion that the writer misunderstood that spirit.

No, we don't both know that. What I know is that a human being wrote the text you're referring to. I'm not aware that God "specified" anything.

The message isn't written, though, in a language that you or I understand.

That's what you're rendering here, because you're rendering an ancient context in a post-modern framework.

Sojourner, Indeed, it is your opinion. However, your opinion is contrary to the message given in the context of the message written by Moses , but given by GOD as verse one stated. GOD doesn't change HIS principles to conform to mankind's lusts.With GOD, what was an abomination yesterday is still an abomination today and will be so tomorrow.
In this case, the same principle Is seen in these books/verses.
Gen.19:4-5, "
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 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, that we may know them."

Lev. 18:22, 30, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination....
Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination".

Lev. 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them".

Deut.23:17, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel."

Judges 19:22, "Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him." That "knowing" was in the same connotation as Adam knew Eve and sons were born.(sexually)

Rom.1:24-25, 32, "
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen....
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

1Tim. 1:10, (The law was made) "For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

It is your choice not to acknowledge GOD nor HIS giving of HIS(those) laws. And they are written in the English language so that English speaking persons can understand and make that choice to believe that which is written or reject it as you have done.

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner, Indeed, it is your opinion. However, your opinion is contrary to the message given in the context of the message written by Moses , but given by GOD as verse one stated.

Doesn't matter. Sometimes opinions are contrary. And we don't know that the message was "given by God." Again, that's one writer's opinion.

GOD doesn't change HIS principles to conform to mankind's lusts.

People do change their principles, though, based upon better and more complete information. And that changes how we interpret what is written. Plus, it's not about "lust." It's about the expression of love.

With GOD, what was an abomination yesterday is still an abomination today and will be so tomorrow.

With God, I'm not in the least convinced that it is an abomination -- just because some writer says it is.

Gen.19:4-5, "
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 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, that we may know them."

That passage has absolutely nothing to do with any expression of love. But it does have everything to do with the issue of hospitality to the stranger.

Lev. 18:22, 30, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination....
Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination".

What does that mean, though, to the writer? Did the writer know about homosexual expression as a normal and healthy human experience? In all likelihood not.

Deut.23:17, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel."

...and in this case, "sodomite" has more to do with rape and inhospitality than it does even with lust. Therefore, it is not cogent to your point.

Judges 19:22, "Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him." That "knowing" was in the same connotation as Adam knew Eve and sons were born.(sexually)

And, again, it really has more to do with inhospitality than anything else.

Rom.1:24-25, 32, "
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen....
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

...Aaaaaand, what does this mean? What's Paul talking about? What's the context? Is he talking about a healthy expression of love? I doubt it.

1Tim. 1:10, (The law was made) "For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"

Now you're just indiscriminately quote-mining (without regard for context, I might add). I doubt this verse has much of anything to do with homosexual love.

It is your choice not to acknowledge GOD nor HIS giving of HIS(those) laws.

It's your choice to misrepresent the holy texts, and to make of them an idol.

And they are written in the English language so that English speaking persons can understand and make that choice to believe that which is written or reject it as you have done.

No, they're written in ancient Hebrew and Greek and translated into modern English. It's a difference that's worth paying attention to.

But then, even the Pharisees twisted the texts and abused them to their advantage, using them as part of their power game when dealing with Jesus, just as you're doing here in dealing with the oppression of a minority group largely without a voice and without power. Congratulations. Jesus would be so proud of the power you've usurped at his expense.

 

[sincerly]

sincerly said: ↑
Sojourner, Indeed, it is your opinion. However, your opinion is contrary to the message given in the context of the message written by Moses , but given by GOD as verse one stated.

Doesn't matter. Sometimes opinions are contrary. And we don't know that the message was "given by God." Again, that's one writer's opinion.

People do change their principles, though, based upon better and more complete information. And that changes how we interpret what is written. Plus, it's not about "lust." It's about the expression of love.

With God, I'm not in the least convinced that it is an abomination -- just because some writer says it is.

That passage has absolutely nothing to do with any expression of love. But it does have everything to do with the issue of hospitality to the stranger.

What does that mean, though, to the writer? Did the writer know about homosexual expression as a normal and healthy human experience? In all likelihood not.

...and in this case, "sodomite" has more to do with rape and inhospitality than it does even with lust. Therefore, it is not cogent to your point.

And, again, it really has more to do with inhospitality than anything else.

...Aaaaaand, what does this mean? What's Paul talking about? What's the context? Is he talking about a healthy expression of love? I doubt it.

Now you're just indiscriminately quote-mining (without regard for context, I might add). I doubt this verse has much of anything to do with homosexual love.

It's your choice to misrepresent the holy texts, and to make of them an idol.

No, they're written in ancient Hebrew and Greek and translated into modern English. It's a difference that's worth paying attention to.

But then, even the Pharisees twisted the texts and abused them to their advantage, using them as part of their power game when dealing with Jesus, just as you're doing here in dealing with the oppression of a minority group largely without a voice and without power. Congratulations. Jesus would be so proud of the power you've usurped at his expense.

Sojourner, That which GOD says does matter---to those who accept and Believe HIM.
Where is the hospitality of that town to demand that the stranger satisfy their sexual desires.
Those initial languages isn't the one I need to understand the message. When the message is not that which was initially meant as sent, then the the message presented as the correct interpretation is false. There can be no communication between/by languages without the "meaning" and the "translation" being the same/equal thoughts.

There is no disagreement that people"twist"/give wrong meanings to GOD'S Laws. It started a long time before there was a Pharisee---but your posts reveal it is very prominent it those who are determined to negate/void/cast doubt upon the "Thus saith the Lord GOD."

There were at least three writers in those sites/books I posted---all validating the same "thy shall not"---and from different times

Yes, the serpent's information changed Eve's perspective and conclusion. We see the results of that today.

Jesus, Who was the Rock leading Israel during the entering into the promised land and, therefore, aware of Moses' teaching, is the one who Created all things. HE gave the Command to go and teach.Those teachings went back to Gen.1:1 I have shown the Scriptural truth in the case/thread. Same sex sexual gratification is not condoned by GOD.