Christians, why do you hate Gays?

[Shermana]

Actually we have many ancient fragments using the word and not a single one of them is homosexuality. It appears to "usually" mean aggressive sex acts against a person's will. For instance rape. And there are fragments using the term with women. SO - not homosexuality.

Please link to some of these examples that define "Man bedder" as "Man-forcer". From what I've read, the common understanding is that of a "John" who hires call-boys, not a rapist. I have not once seen any attempt to explain it as rapist or aggressive forcer, so please show where you get this from.

And Malekoi - is the same as "dandy" in English

Got that right.

-

and probably was used for the Temple Prostitutes.

I'd like to see a Greek source that directly uses it as such for anything but Catamites. (I.e. not necessarily prostitutes or religious ones at that). I've heard some say it's referring to male temple prostitutes but the evidence appears to be rather....non existent. Unless you have some of course to present. At best for this interpretation you have Lucian who condemns some Priests who were slain because they were Malakos (soft), which would not make sense by your definition, as he could be referring to them simply doing their thing freely without pay, and is merely describing the characteristic. Other than that, it means Catamite such as when Dionysus uses it. This makes more sense when the fact that the Romans considered passive-behavior/role to be condemnable by death, so there's no clear cut proof it's referring necessarily to prostitution but to simply being the passive partner in any relationship, regardless if its among priests or laity.

However - those male prostitutes were not homosexual - they were bought, or gifted, to the temple and trained for their sex acts.

So yeah, get that source you speak of.

I get a kick out of this actually - we know they had to have words for homosexuality - the Greeks definitely did - yet none such word is found in the OT - or the NT.

Please show an example of these words other than Malekoi that you claim the Greeks to have used to denote this early concept of "orientation".

And before you jump in with "sodomite" any study will tell you that was a Temple Prostitute.

By all means, present such a study with examples, these "studies" that try to link it I believe are grasping at straws and are avoiding the known uses of the term. But I may be wrong, so please show your source and let's examine where these studies are getting their info from.

2Ki 23:7 And he brake down the temples of the sodomites (Qadesh – Sacred Prostitute – Strong’s H6945,) that were by/in the Temple of the YHVH, where the women wove hangings in the Temple to Asherah.

Please explain how a reference to "Sacred" Temple prostitutes in any way is somehow remotely connected to the use of "Soft/dandy", thanks. Not like they can't be two different concepts or anything.

Deu 23:17 There shall be no whore (Qadeshah Sacred Prostitute H6948) of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite (Qadesh Sacred Prostitute H6945)of the sons of Israel.

Okay, I think you're stuck on the idea that just because Temple prostitutes are referenced that it somehow changes the fact that they're not necessarily the same concept or somehow links them necessarily. If anything this works in your favor for the "Dogs" concept.

They are obviously changing the actual meaning in later translations! And folks are saying they don't change text or mislead! Bull!

I do not doubt that there may be changing of the word to mean "Sodomite", but all you've done is show that they mentioned Temple prostitutes elsewhere and then somehow tried to connect that to the term "Soft" here without clear relation, while mentioning studies and uses of the term, so let's see those examples you speak of. The reality is that the term has been employed to simply mean being the passive-receiver in a relationship which was condemnable by death in Roman society. There's no reason to assume it refers exclusively to prostitutes, religious or not.

If anything, the word "Arsenkoit" may mean the "Active" partner, what you call "Aggressive" earlier. It could possibly mean Rapist/forcer in this context but by no means necessarily and most likely refers to consentual relations. But according to Dionysus, Malakos can apply merely to anyone who was the "passive" in a relationship without necessarily being paid or forced or whatnot.

[7] ‘In classical Greek, malakos is used of boys and men who allow themselves to be used homosexually and of those who play the part of the passive partner in homosexual intercourse.77 In Roman Antiquities, written about 7 B.C. by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Aristodemus of Cumae is called malakos because he had been “effeminate” (thēludrias) as a child, having undergone things associated with women.78 Thus, while there is some ambiguity about malakos, there is evidence in supporting the view that it refers to the passive partner in homosexual intercourse. Moreover, this view is further supported by its use with arsenokoitēs, a term for the active member in such acts.’, Feinberg, Feinberg, & Huxley, ‘Ethics for a Brave New World’, pp. 200–201 (1996).

http://christianstudies.wordpress.c...-greek-word-malakos-refer-to-homosexual-acts/

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Yes Revelation 22:15's use of "dogs" may very well have been a direct reference to those who committed "homosexual" acts among males in colloquial use of the term, especially seen with Deuteronomy 23:18, so those who say Jesus never mentions it may be wrong on that regard if Revelation is taken into account. Now some may say that "dogs" only refers to those who willfully sell themselves to other males, but that itself cane open a whole can of worms. It's indisputable however that the use of "Effeminate" or "Soft" in 1 Corinthians 6 is a defacto reference to Catamites, as the term is employed by several Greek authors to denote, which may well be an early term to describe what we now call "Orientation"

I'm pretty sure all that justification of these acts through being an "orientation", or any other method of justification, is addressed in chapter 3 of 1 Corinthians

"18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a “fool” so that he may become wise.19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”a;20and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”b"


As far as what Jesus did or didn't condemn. He does make it clear that sexual immorality is indeed something that exists in God's eyes. He was a student of the Old Testament and quoted it often. He would know exactly what the definition of sexual sin is from the OT. There's no reason to believe that he calls for some of that law to be superceded. If he had offenders of this portion of the law running around all over the ancient world making an assault on Jewish culture so that people couldn't go anywhere without hearing the "virtues" of homosexual acts being lauded perhaps we might have a record of him focusing on this particular portion of the law.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm pretty sure all that justification of these acts through being an "orientation", or any other method of justification, is addressed in chapter 3 of 1 Corinthians

"18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a “fool” so that he may become wise.19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”a;20and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”b"

How do you know that isn't talking about you and the certainty you claim about your position?

As far as what Jesus did or didn't condemn. He does make it clear that sexual immorality is indeed something that exists in God's eyes. He was a student of the Old Testament and quoted it often. He would know exactly what the definition of sexual sin is from the OT. There's no reason to believe that he calls for some of that law to be superceded.

Yes there is - he worked on the Sabbath. He acknowledged the law, but explained that it's more important to act out of love than to follow the law.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

How do you know that isn't talking about you and the certainty you claim about your position?


.

Because I'm not afraid to read it with integrity, regardless of what it might cost me. You can only interpret the Bible however you want if you read it without integrity.

 

[Shermana]

He didn't actually work on the Sabbath, a miraculous healing is not work and its arguable whether picking heads of grain and eating them on the spot constitutes working. He didn't say it's better to act out of love than follow the Law, he said it's okay to perform an emergency-related thing like pulling a donkey out of a pit. To say this goes denies what he said that Love of God IS obeying the Law. What he said is that there are sometimes exceptions to the Law in emergency situations such as if a person's life or his animal's life is in danger. Not just to do what you want cause you feel like it. Plus, there are some manuscript related issues to this whole episode that's good for another thread discussion.

It is by no means a way of saying "Go ahead and do what you want if it's in love, forget the Law if it's in love".

Even Antinomian Christians often agree that Jesus didn't actually break the Sabbath.

http://home.earthlink.net/~gdpifer/Did_Jesus_Break_the_Sabbath-.html

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because I'm not afraid to read it with integrity, regardless of what it might cost me. You can only interpret the Bible however you want if you read it without integrity.

So you think that you read the Bible with integrity? Why do you think so?

What does "reading the Bible with integrity" mean to you?

 

[Ingledsva]

Yes he did use it for the Canaanite woman but not necessarily exclusively for them. However, it's used in the OT for such most clearly. Are you implying that the text is meant to say that Christians will be rejected from the Kingdom if they are merely racially canaanite especially in context to the rest of those who are discluded in that verse? If so, what about the clear Deuteronomy reference?[/quote]

The Hebrew used "dog" to refer to people of other faiths/nations!

"Keleb" also means "of Pagan Sacrifice" and "Sacred Prostitute." Look it up. Deu 23:17 tells us these are QADESH and QADESHAH (Sacred Prostitutes.)

It is very obvious what the translation should actually be - they TELL US = QADESH = Sacred Prostitute!

Not DOG!

This is another verse that has been "ALTERED/tweaked" by later people to push a homophobic agenda.

 

[Ingledsva]

What are you whating I wonder?

Some people are like dogs. Did you ever have a dog? Dogs are attached to their owner just like some men are attached to their leader, master, lord, boss, whatever. It is how evil men become capable of doing damage. Evil men and women, I guess, gather dog like people around them. It is their power. I am too good to my dog. But I have seen dogs that are ill treated but those dogs still are devoted to their master.

A man can seem like a perfect specimen of humanity. The one thing that keeps him away from finding YHWH, righteousness and meekness is his dog-like quality. Zephaniah 2:3. How so? You cannot be serving two masters. That is plain logic. You either search for YHWH or you search for what your master demands. Some people are their own master. OK.

We are discussing particular Bible verses - one of which (deu 23:18) shouldn't even have been translated "dog," and you mentioned a verse that says nothing about "dogs." I said "WHAT?"

 

[Shermana]

Yes he did use it for the Canaanite woman but not necessarily exclusively for them. However, it's used in the OT for such most clearly. Are you implying that the text is meant to say that Christians will be rejected from the Kingdom if they are merely racially canaanite especially in context to the rest of those who are discluded in that verse? If so, what about the clear Deuteronomy reference?[/quote]

The Hebrew used "dog" to refer to people of other faiths/nations!

"Keleb" also means "of Pagan Sacrifice" and "Sacred Prostitute." Look it up. Deu 23:17 tells us these are QADESH and QADESHAH (Sacred Prostitutes.)

It is very obvious what the translation should actually be - they TELL US = QADESH = Sacred Prostitute!

Not DOG!

This is another verse that has been "ALTERED/tweaked" by later people to push a homophobic agenda.

The word in question is Deuteronomy 23:18 is Keleb which defacto means dog. As far as I'm aware it has NEVER meant anything else. Just because a dog can be used as a pagan sacrifice perhaps does not mean the word can be interchanged whatsoever. You might as well say that "pig" and "mongoose" can mean Pagan sacrifices. Likewise, there's no reason to assume it only applies to religious prostitutes like Qadesh does, but simply one who is the passive/receiver in any arrangement in general.

Strong's Hebrew: 3611.


Exodus 22:31
BIB: לֹ֣א תֹאכֵ֔לוּ לַכֶּ֖לֶב תַּשְׁלִכ֥וּן אֹתֽוֹ׃
NAS: you shall throw it to the dogs.

Where are you getting that it means a pagan sacrifice exactly? Specific example please. Telling me to look it up is not a substitute for providing an example. It is not once used in the Hebrew bible to mean anything but dogs (except in this instance), in every single example. It is nowhere meant to mean Pagan Sacrifice. I suggest YOU look it up and stop trying to change the Hebrew to fit what you want it to mean. Just because it refers to Qadeshim in the previous verse doesn't mean they are the exact same concept.

With that said, the word "Dog" in the New Testament context CAN mean people of other faiths and religions, but not necessarily, as the Roman Centurion was not called a dog, so it was most likely just referring to the Canaanite woman's ethnicity. WIth THAT said, you'd be saying that no Canaanite Christian is allowed in the New Jerusaleam. I would say there's good weight to assuming that it's referring to the same use of "dog" in Deuteronomy, as a male prostitute. Otherwise you'd be arguing for racial exclusion in the New Jerusalem, since nowhere is Dog used for a person of another faith, just ethnicity from the context. When Jesus says he only came for the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, it was likely referring to members of the Tribe itself, since the "Lost sheep" may have been of other faiths.

Besides, I already told you that you may have a point in that "dogs" may refer to Temple prostitutes (Qadesh). But then again, it may not necessarily and may simply refer to any male who prostitutes himself to another male for any reason or any form of payment or gift or favor. There's really no reason to assume that a Qadesh and a Kaleb are exactly the same.

And with that said, it's quite clear that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 forbid any male-male relations at the penalty of death to begin with, as "lie with a woman" can be interpreted to mean practically anything that a man does with a woman.

 

[savagewind]

We are discussing particular Bible verses - one of which (deu 23:18) shouldn't even have been translated "dog," and you mentioned a verse that says nothing about "dogs." I said "WHAT?"

Thanks lol it was rhetorical. I guess I did not answer it or you would have said so I think.

 

[Ingledsva]

Actually we have many ancient fragments using the word and not a single one of them is homosexuality. It appears to "usually" mean aggressive sex acts against a person's will. For instance rape. And there are fragments using the term with women. SO - not homosexuality.

Please link to some of these examples that define "Man bedder" as "Man-forcer". From what I've read, the common understanding is that of a "John" who hires call-boys, not a rapist. I have not once seen any attempt to explain it as rapist or aggressive forcer, so please show where you get this from.

This site has all known uses - http://www.gaychristian101.com/Define-Arsenokoites.html

And Malekoi - is the same as "dandy" in English

Got that right.

-

and probably was used for the Temple Prostitutes.

I'd like to see a Greek source that directly uses it as such for anything but Catamites. (I.e. not necessarily prostitutes or religious ones at that). I've heard some say it's referring to male temple prostitutes but the evidence appears to be rather....non existent. Unless you have some of course to present. At best for this interpretation you have Lucian who condemns some Priests who were slain because they were Malakos (soft), which would not make sense by your definition, as he could be referring to them simply doing their thing freely without pay, and is merely describing the characteristic. Other than that, it means Catamite such as when Dionysus uses it. This makes more sense when the fact that the Romans considered passive-behavior/role to be condemnable by death, so there's no clear cut proof it's referring necessarily to prostitution but to simply being the passive partner in any relationship, regardless if its among priests or laity.

The reason he can use it with priests and catamites is it means “dandy,” those whom are lovers of the good life, like rich food, fine wine, silk and soft clothing, womanizing, don’t like work, etc.

However - those male prostitutes were not homosexual - they were bought, or gifted, to the temple and trained for their sex acts.

So yeah, get that source you speak of.

I am not going to go searching for a source for you. Look it up. Google. Do you really think gay men and women said “yeah, I think I’d like to be a Temple Prostitute spending my whole life sexually servicing idiots? They were owned and trained from childhood for their Sacred duties.

I get a kick out of this actually - we know they had to have words for homosexuality - the Greeks definitely did - yet none such word is found in the OT - or the NT.

Please show an example of these words other than Malekoi that you claim the Greeks to have used to denote this early concept of "orientation".

Why should I spend my time doing that? Prove that any of the Bible verses we are told are about Homosexuals, actually are! Only one verse is in question – and it uses two different forms of “man” and doesn’t have “as with” women, in it.

And before you jump in with "sodomite" any study will tell you that was a Temple Prostitute.

By all means, present such a study with examples, these "studies" that try to link it I believe are grasping at straws and are avoiding the known uses of the term. But I may be wrong, so please show your source and let's examine where these studies are getting their info from.

LOL! I’m talking about “your” “Bible study” here. Look up Sodomite on a Christian site. Look it up in a Strong’s. They will tell you this is a Qadesh.

2Ki 23:7

And he brake down the temples of the sodomites (Qadesh – Sacred Prostitute – Strong’s H6945,) that were by/in the Temple of the YHVH, where the women wove hangings in the Temple to Asherah.

Please explain how a reference to "Sacred" Temple prostitutes in any way is somehow remotely connected to the use of "Soft/dandy", thanks. Not like they can't be two different concepts or anything.

LOL! Go back and look at what was actually being discussed. This verse show that “Sodomites” are Qadesh = Sacred Prostitutes. Not homosexual.

Deu 23:17

There shall be no whore (Qadeshah Sacred Prostitute H6948) of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite (Qadesh Sacred Prostitute H6945)of the sons of Israel.

Okay, I think you're stuck on the idea that just because Temple prostitutes are referenced that it somehow changes the fact that they're not necessarily the same concept or somehow links them necessarily. If anything this works in your favor for the "Dogs" concept.

It shows that they are changing verses talking specifically about SACRED Prostitute SEX – into false verses condemning homosexuals!

They are obviously changing the actual meaning in later translations! And folks are saying they don't change text or mislead! Bull!

I do not doubt that there may be changing of the word to mean "Sodomite", but all you've done is show that they mentioned Temple prostitutes elsewhere and then somehow tried to connect that to the term "Soft" here without clear relation, while mentioning studies and uses of the term, so let's see those examples you speak of. The reality is that the term has been employed to simply mean being the passive-receiver in a relationship which was condemnable by death in Roman society. There's no reason to assume it refers exclusively to prostitutes, religious or not.

If anything, the word "Arsenkoit" may mean the "Active" partner, what you call "Aggressive" earlier. It could possibly mean Rapist/forcer in this context but by no means necessarily and most likely refers to consentual relations. But according to Dionysus, Malakos can apply merely to anyone who was the "passive" in a relationship without necessarily being paid or forced or whatnot.

As has been explained above and shown by Biblical works such as Strong’s – Sodomite does not mean homosexual – or receiving partner. I put a link to the other above.

[7] ‘In classical Greek, malakos is used of boys and men who allow themselves to be used homosexually and of those who play the part of the passive partner in homosexual intercourse.77 In Roman Antiquities, written about 7 B.C. by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Aristodemus of Cumae is called malakos because he had been “effeminate” (thēludrias) as a child, having undergone things associated with women.78 Thus, while there is some ambiguity about malakos, there is evidence in supporting the view that it refers to the passive partner in homosexual intercourse. Moreover, this view is further supported by its use with arsenokoitēs, a term for the active member in such acts.’, Feinberg, Feinberg, & Huxley, ‘Ethics for a Brave New World’, pp. 200–201 (1996).

As has already been explained – malakos can be used with a passive partner, a fat, imbibing priest, or any of us, because of its “dandy” meaning. Jack of the Pirate movies is malakos – and obviously not homosexual. You are trying to associate it by adding meaning.

Please break these up next time so people will actually take the time to read them. There is so much here I hope it posts right.

 

[Ingledsva]

The word in question is Deuteronomy 23:18 is Keleb which defacto means dog. As far as I'm aware it has NEVER meant anything else. Just because a dog can be used as a pagan sacrifice perhaps does not mean the word can be interchanged whatsoever. You might as well say that "pig" and "mongoose" can mean Pagan sacrifices. Likewise, there's no reason to assume it only applies to religious prostitutes like Qadesh does, but simply one who is the passive/receiver in any arrangement in general.

Strong's Hebrew: 3611.


Exodus 22:31
BIB: לֹ֣א תֹאכֵ֔לוּ לַכֶּ֖לֶב תַּשְׁלִכ֥וּן אֹתֽוֹ׃
NAS: you shall throw it to the dogs.

Where are you getting that it means a pagan sacrifice exactly? Specific example please. Telling me to look it up is not a substitute for providing an example. It is not once used in the Hebrew bible to mean anything but dogs (except in this instance), in every single example. It is nowhere meant to mean Pagan Sacrifice. I suggest YOU look it up and stop trying to change the Hebrew to fit what you want it to mean. Just because it refers to Qadeshim in the previous verse doesn't mean they are the exact same concept.

With that said, the word "Dog" in the New Testament context CAN mean people of other faiths and religions, but not necessarily, as the Roman Centurion was not called a dog, so it was most likely just referring to the Canaanite woman's ethnicity. WIth THAT said, you'd be saying that no Canaanite Christian is allowed in the New Jerusaleam. I would say there's good weight to assuming that it's referring to the same use of "dog" in Deuteronomy, as a male prostitute. Otherwise you'd be arguing for racial exclusion in the New Jerusalem, since nowhere is Dog used for a person of another faith, just ethnicity from the context. When Jesus says he only came for the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, it was likely referring to members of the Tribe itself, since the "Lost sheep" may have been of other faiths.

Besides, I already told you that you may have a point in that "dogs" may refer to Temple prostitutes (Qadesh). But then again, it may not necessarily and may simply refer to any male who prostitutes himself to another male for any reason or any form of payment or gift or favor. There's really no reason to assume that a Qadesh and a Kaleb are exactly the same.

And with that said, it's quite clear that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 forbid any male-male relations at the penalty of death to begin with, as "lie with a woman" can be interpreted to mean practically anything that a man does with a woman.

A basic Strong's tells us this - and the previous verse number 17 proves it - as it calls them Qadesh, Sacred Prostitutes.

As to Leviticus 18:22 it is part of 21 which tells us this is Molach worship = Sacred Sex.

Lev 20:13 is the one verse I said was in contention. Two forms of man, no "as with a" woman, etc.

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.

lev 20:13 And men that (shakab) lie down for (zakar) commemorative (mishkab) intercourse women (to'ebah) idolatry commit, both shall be put to death, death and bloodshed upon them.

And here is how Leviticus 20 starts out -

Lev 20:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
Lev 20:3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.
Lev 20:4 And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not:
Lev 20:5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.

 

[Shermana]

A basic Strong's tells us this - and the previous verse number 17 proves it - as it calls them Qadesh, Sacred Prostitutes.

There's no reason to assume they are one and the same as opposed to being in the same conceptual class. You're in this idea that just because it refers to something in a previous verse that a different word int he next somehow means its the exact same thing. Doesn't work that way.

As to Leviticus 18:22 it is part of 21 which tells us this is Molach worship = Sacred Sex.

You're really reading into things that simply aren't there at this point. There's simply no reason to assume that all those sexual practices are exclusively connected to Moloch worship. By this logic, you're saying it's okay to get with a goat as long as you're not worshiping Moloch, or with your sister or your mom for that matter. Are you trying to say that every single prohibition in Leviticus 18 only applies if there's demon/false god worship involved? Otherwise it's a-okay? Reevaluate your position there. Are you prepared to say that the other prohibitions like Beastlism is only prohibited as long as its not in a ritual to Moloch?

Lev 20:13 is the one verse I said was in contention. Two forms of man, no "as with a" woman, etc.

That's what I meant, as he lieth with a woman. No difference. I really don't see what you're getting at exactly. The concept is that if a man lies with a man as if he lies with a woman, he's to be put to death, and "lies with a woman can mean paractically anything a man does with a woman". Either you misunderstood me or you're really grasping at straws here.

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.

lev 20:13 And men that (shakab) lie down for (zakar) commemorative (mishkab) intercourse women (to'ebah) idolatry commit, both shall be put to death, death and bloodshed upon them.

This is just getting ridiculous. The word abomination does not necessarily mean idolatry. That's simply a wrong logical syllogism. All idolatry is abomination, but not all abomination is idolatry. With that said, I'm not even sure if I understand how you're trying to twist Leviticus 20:13 exactly. Not a single midrash would agree with your conclusion here.

A

nd here is how Leviticus 20 starts out -

Lev 20:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
Lev 20:3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.
Lev 20:4 And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not:
Lev 20:5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.

Again, by this logic, cursing your parents is only forbidden if you're worshipping Moloch. You're simply trying to stretch a context that doesn't work. Are you saying that all the prohibitions there only apply if you're worshiping Moloch? Apparently so.

Not to mention that there is NO Midrash which says anything of the sort.

So if you're stuck on the idea that these prohibitions only have to do with Moloch worship and are otherwise okay, you have some big cans of worms there I hope you realize.

 

[Shermana]

This site has all known uses - http://www.gaychristian101.com/Define-Arsenokoites.html

Okay, and where of those say anything about being a rapist as opposed to the "active" partner. I notice that your source refers to Eusbieus's use of therm to define pederastry as "rape". Now we may consider such to be "Statutory rape" or "Abuse" in modern society, but back then, the receiver, no matter how young, was not necessarily regarded as a rape victim. This is an example of modern Semantics versus the original use of the term. All it means in its known uses is as the Active partner of a male-male relationship. Nothing more. It CAN mean a rapist, but not necessarily, and if you're trying to say necessarily, no dice.

And Malekoi - is the same as "dandy" in English

And once again, you got that right. But in Greek the concept would be more for "Catamite".


-

The reason he can use it with priests and catamites is it means “dandy,” those whom are lovers of the good life, like rich food, fine wine, silk and soft clothing, womanizing, don’t like work, etc.

I think we have different definitions of Dandy, and you're ignoring the examples I showed you that Lucian and Dinoysus used the term.

I am not going to go searching for a source for you. Look it up. Google. Do you really think gay men and women said “yeah, I think I’d like to be a Temple Prostitute spending my whole life sexually servicing idiots? They were owned and trained from childhood for their Sacred duties.

Translation: You have no sources and you refuse to do your part in debate which is to provide evidence for your claims and you ignored the sources I presented, and you are too lazy or dishonest to admit that you have no actual examples and think telling a person to "go google it" somehow is a substitute for proving your claims. Thanks for playing.

Why should I spend my time doing that? Prove that any of the Bible verses we are told are about Homosexuals, actually are! Only one verse is in question – and it uses two different forms of “man” and doesn’t have “as with” women, in it.

Why should you spend your time trying to actually back your claim instead of looking like you are too lazy or dishonest to do so and expecting people to go on a wild goose chase for a search for examples that don't exist? Well, there's the whole concept of burden of proof and all, but thanks for admitting that you don't feel you have to actually back your claims.

Also, your claim that Lev 20:13 doesn't include "As with a woman" is a straight up lie, what translation are you using?

Leviticus 20:13 Biblos Interlinear Bible

Now I already mentioned that the word "Homosexual" is a semantic quandary, and that the Torah forbids the actual act between two males, and "As with a woman" however you translate that, can mean ANYTHING a man does with a woman, rabbis have argued for years about what that means exactly.

LOL! I’m talking about “your” “Bible study” here. Look up Sodomite on a Christian site. Look it up in a Strong’s. They will tell you this is a Qadesh.

At this point you're not even following what I'm even saying.

LOL! Go back and look at what was actually being discussed. This verse show that “Sodomites” are Qadesh = Sacred Prostitutes. Not homosexual.

I think you're arguing with yourself here. Why don't you try actually addressing what I said instead.

It shows that they are changing verses talking specifically about SACRED Prostitute SEX – into false verses condemning homosexuals!

Seriously, try actually addressing what I said.

As has been explained above and shown by Biblical works such as Strong’s – Sodomite does not mean homosexual – or receiving partner. I put a link to the other above.

Okay, try addressing what I actually said. Thanks. I think I made it most clear from the examples that Malakoi was in reference to receiving partners in general, and I thought I was clear that I agree that Sodomite is not the right (as in most accurate) term to use. It CAN be used as such, but not necessarily. We have an issue here of "Possible vs necessarily".

As has already been explained – malakos can be used with a passive partner, a fat, imbibing priest, or any of us, because of its “dandy” meaning. Jack of the Pirate movies is malakos – and obviously not homosexual. You are trying to associate it by adding meaning.

Yes it can, and in the sense that Paul used it, he was probably using it in the same sense that Dionyus and Lucian used it, as I demonstrated. Accusing me of adding meaning is not an excuse for ignoring the blatant examples of Authors who used the term in the way I described.

Please break these up next time so people will actually take the time to read them. There is so much here I hope it posts right.

Done.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

So you think that you read the Bible with integrity? Why do you think so?

What does "reading the Bible with integrity" mean to you?

Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Among other things it means not trying to claim that the guy who said these words and spoke about the need to abstain from sexual immorality somehow might be willing to budge on one form of sexual sin simply because we don't have a record of him speaking about it specifically.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Among other things it means not trying to claim that the guy who said these words and spoke about the need to abstain from sexual immorality somehow might be willing to budge on one form of sexual sin simply because we don't have a record of him speaking about it specifically.

So you consider "the law" binding, do you?

To me, the passage you quoted earlier speaks about the folly of human certainty, and would apply just as much - if not moreso - to you and your apparent belief that you know the mind of God as it would to someone who sees no sin in homosexuality.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

So you consider "the law" binding, do you?

To me, the passage you quoted earlier speaks about the folly of human certainty, and would apply just as much - if not moreso - to you and your apparent belief that you know the mind of God as it would to someone who sees no sin in homosexuality.

That could be a reasonable conclusion if the Bible wasn't already filled with what the Christian God would call his wisdom. This is talking about all the little rationalizations people come up with to disobey the Christian God. There's a difference between the "wisdom of the world" and "God's wisdom" in the Bible. The former is actually spoken of as being foolishness.

1 Corinthians 1:

18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”c

20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That could be a reasonable conclusion if the Bible wasn't already filled with what the Christian God would call his wisdom. This is talking about all the little rationalizations people come up with to disobey the Christian God. There's a difference between the "wisdom of the world" and "God's wisdom" in the Bible.

You do realize that Jesus saved his harshest criticism for people who thought they knew the mind of God, don't you?

1 Corinthians 1:

18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”c

20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.

Keep reading:

1 Corinthians 13:9-12:

9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I [d]became a man, I did away with childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror [e]dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.

So Paul recognizes his knowledge as flawed and imperfect, but you consider yours superior? Interesting.

Exactly what do you have to let you see clearly and not "in a mirror dimly"? Whatever it is, Paul says that he didn't have it.

 

[The Wizard]

I am a Christian and I don't hate gays.

But if you were to ask a Christian who believes homosexuality to be a sin, they will they "hate the sin, love the sinner". I am not saying anything is a sin or not a sin, I am just saying what they say. Most of the Christians I know think like that- and they hate no one.
What you are listening to are the loudest ones, not the majority, as Storm said.

Yep, I'll third that one. Becouse of generalizations, many undeserving Christians get lumped up with those loud, obnoxious ones...

 

[Straw Dog]

Yep, I'll third that one. Becouse of generalizations, many undeserving Christians get lumped up with those loud, obnoxious ones...

Yeah, it can be quite difficult to generalize about Christians. All organizations evolve over time and Christianity, by far, is the largest and most diverse. All generalizations are probably wrong, except that one . At the most, it might make sense to draw some similarities about individuals within the same denomination, but what can we say about all Christians? I mean, other than they all believe that they're Christians. Some might see that as a weakness for the religion, but I actually see it as a strength. It means that the original message sent by Jesus of Nazareth is highly adaptable and capable of melding with many different cultural settings. Perhaps the message was a lot more simple than what most mainstream dogmas would lead us to believe.