Christians, why do you hate Gays?

[Shermana]

Here's Jesus declaring that all foods are clean

Mark 7:

14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, &#8220;Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him &#8216;unclean&#8217; by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him &#8216;unclean.&#8217;f&#8221;</SPAN>
17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18&#8220;Are you so dull?&#8221;</SPAN> he asked. &#8220;Don&#8217;t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him &#8216;unclean&#8217;? 19For it doesn&#8217;t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.&#8221;</SPAN> (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods &#8220;clean.&#8221
20He went on: &#8220;What comes out of a man is what makes him &#8216;unclean.&#8217; 21For from within, out of men&#8217;s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,</SPAN> 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.</SPAN> 23All these evils come from inside and make a man &#8216;unclean.&#8217;&#8221;

The parenthesis there "(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods &#8220;clean.&#8221 " is a totally distorted translation which unfortunately makes the rounds in most modern translations to suit their antinomian doctrines, the KJV and Douay Rheims get it right, it's merely talking about the stomach purging all foods. This interpretation and the weight that gets focused on it ultimately denies the very context of what the episode was about, which was criticizing the Pharisees for denying the parts of the Law about the needs of the poor while inventing unscriptural rituals like ritual handwashing.

I must say I get frustrated every time I see that mischevious distortion in Mark 7, they outright change the present tense into past tense to shape it into their lawless doctrine.

By this interpretation, cannibalism is okay as well. Why let a dead body go to waste by this interpretation of Jesus's words?

With that said, Jesus calls the above teaching a parable. Which means "Not entirely true but has a point".

Fortunately there are a few honest ones who understand that this issue should be read more like how the KJV and Douay Rheims have it.

http://www.truthontheweb.org/foods.htm

If Jesus actually taught breaking the Law, he would have contradicted himself and he would been liable for stoning. Yet they couldn't find anything to actually pin on him regarding law breaking at his trial.

 

[Ingledsva]

The point is Lot knew what the men of sodom wanted the messengers for sex. Offering his daughters was a sinful and desperate act to protect them. Youll notiice the men didnt want them, in fact they became enraged even more and demamded the men

In Ezekiel God is referring to Judah as sodom. The sins listed are those of Judah, not the origjnal sodom's. Hes telling them their sin is as bad in his eyes as the sexual sin of sodom.In 17:12 he says as punishment Judah went into exile

The orignal Sodom he destroyed because a of sexual immorality and going after strange flesh Jude 7

Not so - read the next verse.

(Geneva 1611) Gen 19:9 Then they said, Away hence, and they said, He is come alone as a stranger, and shall he iudge and rule? We will nowe deale worse with thee then with them. So they preassed sore vpon Lot himselfe, and came to breake the doore.
They came to JUDGE and the people wanted to turn that around - yada also, as stated before - means JUDGE.

"And worse with thee then with them" - do you really think they were going to do worse gay sex with him??? REALLY??? Nope - JUDGE and PUNISH.

 

[Shermana]

As a PURE offering - a sacrifice - in place of the angels.

“asah” (H6213) which also means sacrifice, is used in 19:8 where he tries to give his daughters - (and do) to them as you see fit.
In other words -...and sacrifice them if you see fit.
And I might add - why would he offer his virgin DAUGHTERS to a supposed HOMOSEXUAL male crowd that wants sex with the men????
Think about that.

1. Where are you getting the idea that Asah means Sacrifice necessarily? have you read your own link? It's most clearly "make/do"in almost every instance.

2. Maybe they were bi. Just because they liked men doesn't mean they didn't like women. If anything it just means they preferred the men and found them better looking.

 

[Ingledsva]

Jude is not OT, is it?

Hebrew texts reveal the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. I have already listed them.
(Funny how male on male sex is never mentioned in any of them)

Yes, plus "strange flesh" is listed in several places in the Bible as Foreign women (and their gods.)

 

[Shermana]

Yes, plus "strange flesh" is listed in several places in the Bible as Foreign women (and their gods.)

Show an example where "Strange flesh" necessarily means foreign women.

 

[Ingledsva]

Funny how you left out Leviticus 20:13

We covered Lev 20:13 above. No homosexuality.

 

[Shermana]

We covered Lev 20:13 above. No homosexuality.

Well what would you call it then? Such a semantic quandary.

 

[Ingledsva]

Show an example where "Strange flesh" necessarily means foreign women.

In Jude it means people that are different. Note that it says ...Fornication AND flesh that is different.

&#954;&#945;&#953; &#945;&#960;&#949;&#955;&#952;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#945;&#953; &#959;&#960;&#953;&#963;&#969; &#963;&#945;&#961;&#954;&#959;&#962; &#949;&#964;&#949;&#961;&#945;&#962;
and following after flesh that is different/strange

Also read Jude all the way through - it compares them to the angels that fell from their estate and mated with human women. WOMEN - not of their status - Not homosexuals.

Pro 5:20 And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?

Pro 7:5 That they may keep thee from the strange woman, from the stranger which flattereth with her words.

Jdg 11:1 Now Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty man of valour, and he was the son of an harlot: and Gilead begat Jephthah.

Jdg 11:2 And Gilead's wife bare him sons; and his wife's sons grew up, and they thrust out Jephthah, and said unto him, Thou shalt not inherit in our father's house; for thou art the son of a strange woman.

They are using it exactly as they do with - Strange Gods - meaning foreign.

You know perfectly well they tried to keep the Hebrew, and the religion, pure.
*

 

[Shermana]

In Jude it means people that are different. Note that it says ...Fornication AND flesh that is different.

&#954;&#945;&#953; &#945;&#960;&#949;&#955;&#952;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#945;&#953; &#959;&#960;&#953;&#963;&#969; &#963;&#945;&#961;&#954;&#959;&#962; &#949;&#964;&#949;&#961;&#945;&#962;
and following after flesh that is different/strange

Also read Jude all the way through - it compares them to the angels that fell from their estate and mated with human women. WOMEN - not of their status - Not homosexuals.

Pro 5:20 And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?

Pro 7:5 That they may keep thee from the strange woman, from the stranger which flattereth with her words.

Jdg 11:1 Now Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty man of valour, and he was the son of an harlot: and Gilead begat Jephthah.

Jdg 11:2 And Gilead's wife bare him sons; and his wife's sons grew up, and they thrust out Jephthah, and said unto him, Thou shalt not inherit in our father's house; for thou art the son of a strange woman.

They are using it exactly as they do with - Strange Gods - meaning foreign.

You know perfectly well they tried to keep the Hebrew, and the religion, pure.
*

While I agree with you on the example of Jude that "Strange flesh" means "That which is not meant for them" in the context of Angels and humans, the other examples are not uses of "Strange flesh" but merely use of the term "Strange".

 

[Ingledsva]

1. Where are you getting the idea that Asah means Sacrifice necessarily? have you read your own link? It's most clearly "make/do"in almost every instance.

2. Maybe they were bi. Just because they liked men doesn't mean they didn't like women. If anything it just means they preferred the men and found them better looking.

Well if you looked up the word then you know sacrifice is one of the definitions.

This second part is in answer to your Lev. question. I lost it in the tree. LOL!

First - it changes to MOLOCH worship at Lev 18:21-to at least 23 - Sacred Sex with Sacred Prostitutes. So even if with males were correct it would be referring to Qadesh - Sacred Prostitutes.

However, it does not have to be translated that way.

Lev 18:21 as for Thy seed/semen don't give in sex/copulation to Molech (abar is also to cover, copulate,) don't profane the name of Elohiym; I am YHVH.

The next line is usually started - and with man don't - however the word also means - and for man, don't. And there is NO - "as with a."

Lev 18:22 and for man, don't lie down (for sex) in the beds of (the) women, Idolatrous is he.

The next line continues on with the things we know they did in Molech worship.

Lev 18:23 And you shall not give your semen with any animal, for uncleanness with it. And a woman shall not stand before an animal to lie down with it; it is a shameful mixing.

With either translation of 22 - it is still talking about the Qadesh - Sacred Prostitutes of Molech.

 

[Ingledsva]

For what it's worth, 2 Peter 2:6-7 says that among their sins was indeed "Laviciousness"

Strong's Greek: 766.

We can see that it is rendered as "Sensuality" in many places. In Mark 7:22 it's defacto referring to "sexual immorality" or "lewdness".

Ezekiel characterizes the sins of Sodom as:

However, keep in mind that "Abomination" and "Destestable" things are often used for sexual practices that offend God, whatever they may be. It may not necessarily refer to them exclusively seeking males but in committing all the offenses outlined in Leviticus 18. Other than sexual sins, idolatry is about the only other "detestable" thing used with that word done before God (as opposed to an abominable thing before the people like eating shellfish, the word's usage is another issue). So while it's agreed that the sins of Sodom included inhospitality (if not downright cruelty to strangers as extracanonical Jewish writings suggest), it would be fair to say that the author of 2 Peter recognized that the "Detestable" thing was in the "Lavisciousness" category. Whether it was regarding mere orientation or forced-relations is another story, but I'd say there's little room for doubt that the early NT authors did regard the sin of Sodom as at least including such "Wantonness"/"Lewdness".

Indeed throught the Bible we are warned against sexual sin - however nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality actually included in those sins.

 

[Shermana]

Okay, so by that logic, a woman giving herself to an animal only has to do with moloch worship too? And every other one of the prohibitions in 18?

There's not a single commentary that remotely says that Lev 18:22 is related only to Qadeshim. You're reading into it something that's simply not there and has no scholarly support or Midrashic.

Here's your link for Asah, find a single example where the word means sacrifice by itself and is not preceding another word to imply the action.

http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/6213.htm

 

[Ingledsva]

The parenthesis there "(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”) " is a totally distorted translation which unfortunately makes the rounds in most modern translations to suit their antinomian doctrines, the KJV and Douay Rheims get it right, it's merely talking about the stomach purging all foods. This interpretation and the weight that gets focused on it ultimately denies the very context of what the episode was about, which was criticizing the Pharisees for denying the parts of the Law about the needs of the poor while inventing unscriptural rituals like ritual handwashing.

I must say I get frustrated every time I see that mischevious distortion in Mark 7, they outright change the present tense into past tense to shape it into their lawless doctrine.

By this interpretation, cannibalism is okay as well. Why let a dead body go to waste by this interpretation of Jesus's words?

With that said, Jesus calls the above teaching a parable. Which means "Not entirely true but has a point".

Fortunately there are a few honest ones who understand that this issue should be read more like how the KJV and Douay Rheims have it.

Are All Things Clean?

If Jesus actually taught breaking the Law, he would have contradicted himself and he would been liable for stoning. Yet they couldn't find anything to actually pin on him regarding law breaking at his trial.

Here is the Douay for you guys.

Mar 7:5 And the Pharisees and scribes asked him: Why do not thy disciples walk according to the tradition of the ancients, but they eat bread with common hands?
Mar 7:6 But he answering, said to them: Well did Isaias prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Mar 7:7 And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men.
Mar 7:8 For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these.
Mar 7:9 And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition.
Mar 7:10 For Moses said: Honour thy father and thy mother. And He that shall curse father or mother, dying let him die.
Mar 7:11 But you say: If a man shall say to his father or mother, Corban (which is a gift) whatsoever is from me shall profit thee.
Mar 7:12 And further you suffer him not to do any thing for his father or mother,
Mar 7:13 Making void the word of God by your own tradition, which you have given forth. And many other such like things you do.
Mar 7:14 And calling again the multitude unto him, he said to them: Hear ye me all and understand.
Mar 7:15 There is nothing from without a man that entering into him can defile him. But the things which come from a man, those are they that defile a man.
Mar 7:16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
Mar 7:17 And when he was come into the house from the multitude, his disciples asked him the parable.
Mar 7:18 And he saith to them: So are you also without knowledge? Understand you not that every thing from without entering into a man cannot defile him:
Mar 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart but goeth into his belly and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats?
Mar 7:20 But he said that the things which come out from a man, they defile a man.
Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
Mar 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness.
Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.

 

[Ingledsva]

Okay, so by that logic, a woman giving herself to an animal only has to do with moloch worship too? And every other one of the prohibitions in 18?

There's not a single commentary that remotely says that Lev 18:22 is related only to Qadeshim. You're reading into it something that's simply not there and has no scholarly support or Midrashic.

Here's your link for Asah, find a single example where the word means sacrifice by itself and is not preceding another word to imply the action.

Strong's Hebrew: 6213.

Don't exaggerate. We are talking specific Bible verses. All three verses cover what we know they did in such Sacred Sex Worship, and they mention Molech.

And I might add - as far as I can tell - all of the other verses supposedly about homosexuality - are actually about the Qadesh and Sacred Sex.

 

[Shermana]

Don't exaggerate. We are talking specific Bible verses. All three verses cover what we know they did in such Sacred Sex Worship, and they mention Molech.

And I might add - as far as I can tell - all of the other verses supposedly about homosexuality - are actually about the Qadesh and Sacred Sex.

Don't exaggerate? We know that pagan rites also included beastialism and incest too. Your argument carries no weight. You either accept that ALL of the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 apply exclusively to Moloch worship by your logic, or you accept its referring to different situations that are not necessarily linked. You're saying they are necessarily linked.

As far as I can tell, there's no reason to assume it's only about Qadeshim anymore so than drunken revelries are only ever about pagan festivals.

 

[Ingledsva]

Don't exaggerate. We are talking specific Bible verses. All three verses cover what we know they did in such Sacred Sex Worship, and they mention Molech.

And I might add - as far as I can tell - all of the other verses supposedly about homosexuality - are actually about the Qadesh and Sacred Sex.

Don't exaggerate? We know that pagan rites also included beastialism and incest too. Your argument carries no weight. You either accept that ALL of the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 apply exclusively to Moloch worship by your logic, or you accept its referring to different situations that are not necessarily linked. You're saying they are necessarily linked.

As far as I can tell, there's no reason to assume it's only about Qadeshim anymore so than drunken revelries are only ever about pagan festivals.

That is BULL. It specifically changes to Molech worship - by NAME - at 18:21.

By the way there is a verse that mentions some of the other things in 18 in this worship. I will look for it tomorrow.

 

[Shermana]

[/I]



That is BULL. It specifically changes to Molech worship - by NAME - at 18:21.

By the way there is a verse that mentions some of the other things in 18 in this worship. I will look for it tomorrow.

Calling it bull does not equate to actually responding to the concept that all the prohibitions would thus be related to Moloch worship by your logic. You simply don't like this fact I suppose. Why do you think 18:22 counts but 18:23 doesn't? Selective cherry picking to favor your doctrine perhaps? Otherwise, please explain why you'd include 22 but not the rest of the prohibitions after that.

And like I said, you will have a very hard time finding a single Commentary or Midrashic or Talmudic extrapolation that fits with this strange, arbitrary view. Why don't you try posting on the Judaism DIR and see what they have to say on this matter if you insist on dodging the issue that all the rest of the chapter would apply according to this?

And I am interested in seeing this verse you claim.

 

[allright]

We covered Lev 20:13 above. No homosexuality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So which OT laws are valid, and which are to be dismissed?
Just food prohibitilns and stonings?

Apparently, if you read the Bible with "integrity", you would have realized that Christ only triumphed over *part* of the law.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I recognize that even the OT ackowledged its own inferiority. I believe Jesus is the fullfillment of the promise of a new covenant and with that comes a new and improved standard of behavior. Among that new standard that Jesus instituted are thing such as "turning the other cheek" as opposed to taking revenge on someone as well as leaving the job of punishing sins to God instead of stoning people ourselves. Jesus however did not attempt to supercede the 10 commandments which would include the behavior in question (under idolotry). As far as the kosher stuff, the apostles came together in Acts and agreed that God was not calling the gentiles to become totally Jewish. For the sake of us gentiles I hope they were right hehehe..

You seem to be saying that the stonings proscribed in Leviticus law are nothing more than mans own revenge on the sinner, rather than Law.

As for Jesus and the Commandments;

Matt 22:37-40
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


Mark 12:29-31
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments [is], Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment. And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.


Luke 10:25-28
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.


John 13:34-35
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.



John 15:9
As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.


John 15:12
This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.


John 15:17

These things I command you, that ye love one another.




If love is the greatest of all commandments made by Jesus, is hate the greatest of all sins?