• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christians, why do you hate Gays?

Shermana

Heretic
There is no Hebrew word for "as".

As for the "For", the context is always "With". As with "As with". The use of the word "For" for "As with" only means "for" in that sense of "with". With that said, there is no "And" there. You cannot simply expect direct English translation from the Hebrew.

We see the word correlated for "As" here,

http://bible.cc/isaiah/49-26.htm

Otherwise without that "As", the context means "With wine" directly without the comparative sense. Which makes no sense.

Are you trying to imply that all the writers of the ancient Midrash and Hebrew scholars and the ancient writers like Philo and Josephus and other Hebrew speakers didn't understand the equivalent concept of the correlation of "as"? This was NEVER interpreted as anything differently than a total prohibition on male-male relations in any point in recorded Jewish history.

Your case involves trying to say that ALL the Hebrew speaking scholars and writers somehow lost or changed this knowledge and only Liberal scholars and those like yourself have somehow managed to reclaim this lost understanding that the professionals for millenia have ALL gotten wrong without exception.

Genesis 9:10 Hebrew Texts and Analysis

As much as I hate Tektonics, they cover your same arguments almost exactly as I covered them.
 
Last edited:

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
There is no Hebrew word for "as".

As for the "For", the context is always "With". As with "As with". The use of the word "For" for "As with" only means "for" in that sense of "with". With that said, there is no "And" there. You cannot simply expect direct English translation from the Hebrew.

We see the word correlated for "As" here,

Isaiah 49:26 I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh; they will be drunk on their own blood, as with wine. Then all mankind will know that I, the LORD, am your Savior, your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob."

Otherwise without that "As", the context means "With wine" directly without the comparative sense. Which makes no sense.

Are you trying to imply that all the writers of the ancient Midrash and Hebrew scholars and the ancient writers like Philo and Josephus and other Hebrew speakers didn't understand the equivalent concept of the correlation of "as"? This was NEVER interpreted as anything differently than a total prohibition on male-male relations in any point in recorded Jewish history.

Your case involves trying to say that ALL the Hebrew speaking scholars and writers somehow lost or changed this knowledge and only Liberal scholars and those like yourself have somehow managed to reclaim this lost understanding that the professionals for millenia have ALL gotten wrong without exception.

Genesis 9:10 Hebrew Texts and Analysis

As much as I hate Tektonics, they cover your same arguments almost exactly as I covered them.

I don't agree with that.

And I also translate Isaiah 49:26 "and for."

Isa 49:26 And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh, and for sweet wine, their own blood. They shall become drunken and know ...
 

starlite

Texasgirl
fantôme profane;3179168 said:
Which scripture says that?

(1 Timothy 2:14) NWT
Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression
New International Version (©1984)
And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
New Living Translation (©2007)
And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result.
English Standard Version (©2001)
and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.
International Standard Version (©2012)
and it was not Adam who was deceived. It was the woman who was deceived and became disobedient,
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
 
Last edited:

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
I think I've said this before elsewhere - in I don't know how many threads we have on the subject - but I've rarely heard religious legalists explain why they hate gays, but they take a lot of time to explain why God hates gays.

I do know I've heard it argued before that most legalists won't picket soldiers funerals parading the signs that "God hates ****", but nonetheless it certainly seems they agree with the sentiment. Westboro is just so much more loud and brazen about it.
 

McBell

Unbound
Westboro is just so much more loud and brazen about it.
I disagree.
It isn't that they are louder or more brazen, it is that they do not sugar coat it, do not dress it up all nice and pretty, and care not to be politically correct about it.

They put it out there for all the world to see without trying to hide it behind politics, religion, or a mask of love and caring.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
I have never read that homosexuality "should be punished". It is written that homosexuals will end up in the fire. I think that fire means something everyone is headed for but homosexuals will be those that do not take the way out. The ones taking the way out that is being offered are the ones that will be saved. Somethings prevent a person from wanting a way out, homosexuality being one of them.

deleted by me. :)
 
Last edited:

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
I disagree.
It isn't that they are louder or more brazen, it is that they do not sugar coat it, do not dress it up all nice and pretty, and care not to be politically correct about it.

They put it out there for all the world to see without trying to hide it behind politics, religion, or a mask of love and caring.

Hunh. Good point.
 
I don’t give a eff either way so long as they do not infringe my personal space of love and sex , what I am concerned with is that fact that the more I get accused the more homophobic I become
 
Top