Homosexuality in Leviticus

This is the second in a series of articles examining the Biblical bases for opposition to homosexuality by The Rt. … Continued

This is the second in a series of articles examining the Biblical bases for opposition to homosexuality by The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire and visiting Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, Washington, DC.

First, and most famous, of the scriptural texts used to condemn homosexuality are the two references in the Holiness Codes of Leviticus: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” (Lev. 18:22) and “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.” (Lev. 20:13)

The context of these two passages are the holiness and purity codes set down for the people of Israel – rules set forth both to define what was clean and unclean before God, as well as what set the Hebrew people apart from their heathen neighbors who worshiped gods other than the one true God. In a memorable speech on homosexuality at Trinity College in 1992, The Rev. Dr. Frank G. Kirkpatrick put the biblical code in context: This “purity code assumes a ‘normal’ or natural state for things, any deviance from which is abnormal, deviant, and therefore unclean, impure, and polluting. Menstruation is not ‘normal’ for women (since it occurs less frequently than periods of non-menstruation): therefore when women are menstruating they are regarded as unclean. Blemishes [including blindness and lameness] are abnormal, therefore unclean.”

Kirkpatrick further explained: “Men who act like women are abnormal, therefore unclean. Now the assumption here is that to be a man is to desire women. Anything else is acting against one’s nature. Thus when a man lies with another man he is acting contrary to his own nature. It was inconceivable in this context that a man could be genetically or biologically predisposed to desire other men. To be engaged in homosexual activity therefore was to do what one was literally not inclined or predisposed to do. Thus it was acting against one’s own conscience and predispositions. This is what made it unnatural and therefore a violation of nature.”

This is an important point, difficult for the modern day mind to grasp: homosexuality as a sexual orientation was unknown to the ancient mind. Same gender, intimate physical contact was not unknown, of course, but everyone was presumed to be heterosexual. In his book Embodiment, An Approach to Sexuality and Christian Theology, James B. Nelson wrote, “It is crucial to remember this, for in all probability the biblical writers in each instance were speaking of homosexual acts undertaken by person whom the authors presumed to be heterosexually constituted.” Therefore, any man who lay with another man as with a woman was considered to be a heterosexual man acting against his true nature.

The psychological construct of a homosexual orientation was not posited until the late 18th century – the notion that a certain minority of humankind is affectionally oriented toward people of the same gender, rather than the opposite gender. For people so oriented, intimate physical contact with people of the opposite gender would be “against their nature.” Such a possibility was unknown to the ancient mind. And so, these verses from the Leviticus Holiness Code must be read in the context of the assumption that everyone was heterosexual by nature, and acting contrary to that was not “normal,” and outside the will of the Creator.

In practice, we modern day Christians have regarded most of the injunctions in the Holiness Codes of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as culturally bound to the ancient times of the Hebrews–but not binding on us. These same purity codes forbid eating shellfish, planting a field with two different kinds of seed or wearing simultaneously two kinds of cloth. They would prohibit us from ordaining to the priesthood any handicapped person – not to mention women. We cannot, then, isolate these passages about homosexual acts and impute to them the kind of enduring authority which we ascribe to nothing before or after these passages. One has to wonder why the biblical literalists who cite this passage against homosexuality don’t seem to go all the way and advocate for death as the punishment for homosexual behavior! We cannot have it both ways.

One other guiding principle in these codes which I presume most modern day Christians and Jews would not espouse is the bias against women. Women are generally regarded as problematic, less worthy, and more unclean than men. A man who had a discharge of semen was ritually unclean until sunset, but a woman who menstruates was unclean for a week. When a woman gave birth to a boy, she was unclean for a week – but when she gave birth to a girl, she was unclean for twice as long! I would maintain that part of what made the sin of a man lying, as Nelson wrote, “with a male as with a woman” so abominable, was the scandal of the noble, privileged, favored male of the species giving up that privilege to take on the role of the less clean, less noble, certainly less privileged female. Indeed it is not extraneous to note that during wartime, a common practice in the ancient Middle East was “the submission of captured male foes to anal rape. It was an expression of domination and contempt, a powerful symbol of scorn in societies where the dignity of the male was held in high esteem. Here a man was using another man as he might use a woman.” Nothing could be worse. So in this context, these injunctions are not surprising.

Finally, there is the context of the “science” of conception of that time. Male sperm was thought to contain all things necessary for procreation. Women contributed nothing but a place for the nascent life to incubate. Therefore, the “spilling of seed” (male sperm) on the ground was a kind of abortion, the killing of life. This “scientific” understanding led to other proscriptions in the Holiness Code. Male masturbation is condemned. And the so-called “sin of Onan” was also condemned. Onan was a heterosexual man who withdrew from intercourse with his wife before ejaculation, spilling his seed on the ground instead of depositing it in his wife’s womb. And God strikes him dead.

Add to this the ancient Israelites’ need to grow the population. Upon their return from slavery in Egypt, they were surrounded by hostile cultures, eager to destroy the invaders who had returned to their “Promised Land.” The Israelite nation needed to populate themselves in order to withstand the challenge to their presence. For a man to spill his seed on the ground rather than grow more babies was not only a sin against God, but against the nation!

Oddly enough, we have relaxed these “rules” against a man “spilling his seed” through masturbation and birth control, yet we hold onto “a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman” as if it were eternally binding on believers. Such an inconsistency simply does not make sense.

Given these changes in our modern understandings and contexts, it is no longer appropriate for us to condemn men who have intimate sexual relationships with other men based on this proscription in the Leviticus Holiness Code. Either all of these proscriptions must be tossed out as binding on us, or they all must be adhered to. Biblical “literalists” cannot have it both ways, picking and choosing which proscriptions are still appropriate.

The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson is the IX Bishop of New Hampshire, in the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, and a visiting Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, Washington, D.C.

  • GT333

    It is frustrating in trying to form a comment to someone is is undoubtedly a well trained scholar in theology, yet can seriously write such a intellectually and spiritually disingenuous article. Certainly you must know Acts, chap.10 where Peters vision makes it clear that prohibitions against certain foods are lifted.You also know circumcision is no longer required.You have also read Corinthians 1 chapters 5-8,where there are multiple warnings against sexual immorality, with references to homosexuality. In reading 1 Cor.8, one reads that a Christian should not even do anything that causes his brother to stumble or sin. If you truly loved Christ or the church you would never have accepted your office. You do not care if the church is split in half, as long as you get what you want.As a Bishop, you are a shepherd? As the Apostle Paul writes to the Corinthians in chapter 11:13; “For such men are false apostles,deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angle of light. It is not surprising then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what they deserve”. Mr.Robinson, there is a church that has taught an unwavering and balanced view of human sexuality for two-thousand years.A church that bound together the scriptures. A church that was handed the keys to the Kingdom by Christ, with authority to loose and bind on earth,and which will be upheld in heaven. A church with the bones of St.Peter and thousands of other martyrs. The Roman Catholic Church awaits you.

  • garoth

    Thank you, bishop. We tend to not realize that we have our own “blinders” that get in the way of understanding the biblical world. It is important, however, to say that homosexuality, in the way that we understand it today, as a psychological orientation, certainly existed, as it always has – it was simply not understood in the same way, since modern psychology and modern science did not exist at that time. The “modern” understanding and, along with it, the division of the world into “gay” and “heterosexual” is actually very modern, as far a our common conception of it is concerned. No one thought of “Uncle Frank” or “Aunt Emma” who lived with a partner all their life, rather than being married, as “gay” even fifty years ago! They might seem “eccentric” or even, in the last century, “bohemian,” but such was the expectation that most people would be in a marriage relationship, that heterosexuality was the norm, that there was not even a word for either form of sexual expression until our time.Any way, thank you for the fine article.

  • areyousaying

    Mr.Robinson, there is a church that has taught an unwavering and balanced view of human sexuality for two-thousand years.A church that bound together the scriptures. A church that was handed the keys to the Kingdom by Christ, with authority to loose and bind on earth,and which will be upheld in heaven. A church with the bones of St.Peter and thousands of other martyrs. …a church that has allowed it’s priests to help themselves to the bodies of little boys, demonized the victims, paid them off will ill gotten riches as if they were little boy sex workers and the priests were their “johns”, and has looked the other way and even hid it’s perverts from civil prosecution through organized international criminal racketeering.The Roman Catholic Church awaits you.

  • Sajanas

    Its even more interesting if you take the analysis of the Old Testament a step farther. When the Kings of Judah compiled and composed the Torah in the 700s, the great northern kingdom had been completely obliterated and scattered by the Assyrians, leaving a relatively small bastion of early Jewish culture in the southern highlands surrounded by other kingdoms, with the rich lands of the north being repopulated by peoples from across the Assyrian Empire. Not only do they need to find some way of explaining this calamity, they needed to knit their culture together with the refugees from the north, and encourage their nation to step up and defend itself. The Bible sort of accomplished these goals, as it helped keep the Jewish people going (though I would also suggest it lead to them constantly trying assert their independence against much, much bigger empires for no good reason).But the critical question for me is why we should still even consider these national myths as so special today, given that there are hundreds of other similar ones. What makes these myths and legends so important that we have to interpret and re-interpret and re-re-re-interpret them so they correspond with today’s morals? Can’t we just be happy that we’re better people now than a people that thought it was moral to stone someone to death for working on a Saturday?

  • garoth

    areyousaying, the majority of theologians and Christians in the world would disagree with you. Which is part of the problem. We each think we have a hold on the truth – maybe we’re just arrogant.

  • slowe111

    This is all so much theo-babble or Bibble-babble. So much effort and convolutions and explanations to make something valuable out of the whole obsolete, ancient book. It should simply be relegated to the myth-heap as an object of history. Who has the testicular fortitude to do what T. Jefferson did ( The Jefferson Bible) and edit these books into a modern version – dismissing and deleting the obviously false, mistaken or irrelevant parts and trying to salvage something that is worth reading today without trying to put it “in context” ?

  • EastCoastCommentator

    The article should be titled: Justifying sin and rebellion against God.The Rt. Rev shows not only a lack of understanding of the Word, but also no shred of evidence of leading by example. If one believes God, then they follow and obey Him.

  • thebump

    Any sexual act outside the sacramental bond of husband and wife violates the Ten Commandments and is objectively immoral.What part of that basic truth does poor Gene fail to comprehend?

  • rcvinson64

    Great news: the new testament doesn’t outlaw slavery.

  • amelia45

    Ah, thank goodness! Or, thank God!Religion and faith live and breathe. God still speaks to us. The Bible has much to teach us of God and love and relationships. And, we can reconcile what we have learned from science and the modern world back to what God taught us without having to reject either.I look forward to this series. (I have lived in the Bible belt too long.)

  • Night100

    What a surprise that those people that are less than, you know the ones that are against homosexuality quickly go to attack the article, but pay absolutely no attention to what he was saying. He’s telling you that if your going to hate homosexuals because of what was added to the bible centuries later from the old testament then hate everyone and everything that is listed there as well. But you’re not. You’re only after the homosexuals. My god what is wrong with you people? Are you incapable of understanding what someone is saying? And I’m so not surprised as it’s always the same people with limited brain power that start yammering away totally missing the point.

  • Secular

    Mr. Robinson, your logic and biblical justification of homosexuality is tortured. As I always say the scripture is generally vile and of little use for us the people of 21st century. By your logic all of the scripture is man made completely negates the claim that it is some kind of divine document. This argument will not sway anyone who believes that the damn bible is some kind of divine tome.What I find perplexing is that you seem to be hung up on the word “natural” and that the to the authors of that grotesque piece horse manure, were not aware that for some of the people homosexuality is their “natural” disposition. So your logic goes, since now the science has established that some people are naturally disposed to be homosexuals, that according to the authors’ intent these admonishments are no longer operative. You give too much credit these pond scum authors. What would be the extenuating scientific evidence that you would like to allude to, to make the biblical admonishments on slaver inoperative in the 18th century in most of the world and 19th century in the US.The only thing we can appeal to is the human zeitgeist that has made these terrible oppressive admonishments unacceptable for the consensual majority of people. On the other hand the in those decrypt times a pond-scum like Abraham who pimped his wife twice, cast away his elder son & his baby mama, and was willing to sacrifice his other child as some kind of respectable rascal. In 21st century, if a person were to do what Abraham did would be ostracized. But for the fact that quartering is not allowed,(again due to human zeitgeist) the pond scum would have been quartered. Both OT, & NT, or Koran or Manu are not the places to look for moral guidance in 21st century.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    ContinuedFavorite “Biblical” Passages of Homophobic Christian Clergy1 Timothy 1:10 sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, 1 kidnappers, liars, perjurers – in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching.Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 1 Romans 1:27and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women 1 and were inflamed in their passions 2 for one another. Men 3 committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.[2

  • FarnazMansouri2

    Mr. Robinson writes,”In a memorable speech on homosexuality at Trinity College in 1992, The Rev. Dr. Frank G. Kirkpatrick put the biblical code in context.”That is odd. I’m at least acquainted with the work of every eminent European, American, and ME Judaic scholar of the twentieth century, but said Tanakh authority Kirkpatick does not ring a bell.This column reminds me of the words of the late Edward Said, who time and again, warned that stealing another people’s culture, words, etc., and then (re)interpreting them for the conquered was the sine qua non of imperialism.See also the late Catholic scholar, Rosemary Ruether on this re Christianity and Judaism.Although I know the disease persists, the arrogance of Robinson’s putting forth does astonish, this being 2010 and all. Perhaps, he will let us know what the great Jew Kirkpatrick has to say on the entire matter of the Kosreth from the beginnings until now.When consulting R. Kirkpatrick, perhaps you and he might wish to take a look at any Oxford Study Bible, along with anything else by anyone literate on the subject, and report back on the Tanakh and gayness.You two Jews, would then be able to explain (though, superficially) that Tanakh was at pains to end male on male rape, long the custom in the region, especially of weaker men by stronger, most frequently, after combat. In fact, this sort of thing goes on today. Recommend “The Contending of Horus and Seth,” available on the web. If the primary source proves difficult, I’d suggest you two Jews trot over to a decent university library.Once there, you would also want to research precisely when the construct “gay” entered Judaic culture.Finally, if and when you are up to it, read Michel Foucault. He has a great deal to say on man and boy sex in ancient Greece. Others concur. By the first century it had begun to appear “unseemly” to some, and despicable to others. That may account for some of the anti-gay hatred one sees in the “NT” (sic).Below, you will find those “NT” (sic) passages that are, in fact, the “Biblical” texts most cited by homophobic Christians.You will also find another perspective, from the Gnostic Gospels. Let’s you put it all in NT perspective, shall you, Mr. Robinson?Or should we ask R. Daniel Abulafia?Continued

  • FarnazMansouri2

    On the other hand the in those decrypt times a pond-scum like Abraham who pimped his wife twice, cast away his elder son & his baby mama, and was willing to sacrifice his other child as some kind of respectable rascal. In 21st century, if a person were to do what Abraham did would be ostracized. But for the fact that quartering is not allowed,(again due to human zeitgeist) the pond scum would have been quartered. Both OT, & NT, or Koran or Manu are not the places to look for moral guidance in 21st century.Posted by: Secular | December 7, 2010 8:26 PM

  • daniel700

    Robinson is quoting Kirkpatrick on a Biblical perspective that is accepted today by many, and probably most, Biblical scholars: uncleanness as described in the Levitical purity code does not imply moral wrongdoing. Clearly, it cannot be morally wrong to menstruate, since women have no choice but to do that. Other unclean activities, such as planting two crops in the same field, wearing mixed fabrics, and eating shellfish also are not thought to have been prohibited on moral grounds. The authors of Leviticus placed a homosexual activity – anal intercourse, in the view of most Biblical scholars – in the same category. Some antigay evangelicals try to elevate this prohibition to moral status while completely ignoring all the others. I would have quoted L. William Countryman to make the same point, but the bottom line is that the conclusion itself is scripturally sound. Incidentally, a couple of posters have quoted – in good faith, I hope – translations of verses like 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians that are, at best, questionable. The Greek malakai and arsenokoitai, found in those verses, are sometimes translated as “homosexuals,” “practicing homosexuals,” and the like, but most Biblical scholars no longer believe these are accurate renderings. John Boswell in Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality showed that most religious authorities of the time – even the ones who disapproved of what we might consider homosexuality today – did not view these verses as referring to homosexuality. They seldom grounded their prejudice in the Bible at all, but when they did, they chose verses no longer used for that purpose.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    daniel700:Re: Your postRobinson and fellow Jew Kirkpatrick are quoting the questionable “OT” (sic), mistranslated into the English from the mistranslated Greek.The NT quotes I posted are those most often used by Christian and Catholic homophobic clergy. That is what said homophobes should, in fact, reference since it is their text.Said Christians are entirely ignorant of Tanakh as they have repeatedly demonstrated. If they were to take a closer look, they would see that all that is required of them is to follow the NOachide code.Thou shalt not steal is included.Meanwhile, I look forward to the great Judaic scholars Robinson and Kirkpatrick on the Kosreth, which Robinson references.R. Daniel Abulafia writes exclusively in Hebrew and Farsi.I have emailed him in the latter asking if he will interpret the “NT” on certain points about which I’ve always been curious.His credentials are spectacular. He knows far more about NT than Robinson will ever know about Tanakh.If he cares to elucidate, and that is hard to say, I will contact Quinn and perhaps he can edify “us” just as Robinson has done.

  • eezmamata

    Flinstonian 4:25-29: and lo, the great behemoth yeway did froth and frumble at the toiletna, bemoaning the predecessor who sprayed not the lavender effulgent atmospherics. “Do you not see in mine eyes how I look upon your swamping the gas station sнitters with your defacationary disgressence? Lo, I will smite you, and your children, and your hamsters and budgies and gladiolas for 10 generations hence.Oh, what a world.

  • Chops2

    So basically all the good stuff comes from god and all the horrors are written off as a product of their times. Bollocks.You are parsing what is a pretty clear commandment i.e. to kill homosexuals, its disgusting, irrelevant and contrary to any modern sensibilities. Kinda like religion.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    (New Teste 17:30-39) And so it came to pass. And it came upon the followers of Crisco Cross-Lugger that the lardish lordling was the Son of Crush, the omnipotent, and not of Crass, the ominipotent (the confusion owing to the Virgin’s having been impregnated by two Almighties).And they set up mighty Temples, and they owned huge stock portfolios, and they accumulated great influence and power and they held dominion over the nations.”And shall we let the Jews live?” they asked.”NO!” they all said. And then in the name of Crisco Cross-Lugger, Son of Crush they began two thousand years ago to bleed to death, crucify, skin alive, burn, flog, rape, and gas those who did not believe that Crisco Cross-Lugger was the Son of Crush or even that there was a Crush. (Truthfully, they couldn’t quite get the whole Crush plus relatives thing.)And then the followers of Crisco Cross-Lugger did ask, “Shall we let the Muslims live?””NO!!” And so they set out for Yerushalayem, where, much to the delight of them, they found they could exanguinate both Jews and Muslims without stones, and walk up to their knees in the blood and bone of them.And this I say unto you, those were two of of the many wonders they did in His name.Oh, what a word err world.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    These, in fact, are the Passages Most Quoted by Homophobic Christian Clergy1 Timothy 1:10sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, 1 kidnappers, liars, perjurers – in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching.Romans 1:26For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 1Romans 1:27and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women 1 and were inflamed in their passions 2 for one another. Men 3 committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.[2

  • onofrio

    Farnaz,Thee:Among the list of (about a dozen) types of sexual misconduct and their penalties in Leviticus 20, we read: If the intent of the Torah here is primarily to discourage the If the penetrated male is the wronged party, then why should he be executed just like the one who violated him? This statute seems to implicate the victim in the crime. So the question arises: Is it really about rape, or is consent assumed?I compare the prohibitions and penalties in the surrounding passages for context:- man commits adultery with neighbour’s wife: both executed (consent assumed on part of the woman?)- man lies with his father’s wife: both executed (consent assumed on part of the woman?)- man lies with his daughter-in-law: both executed (consent assumed on part of the woman?)- man lies with a man “as with a woman”: both executed (consent assumed on part of the man – man “takes (sexually?) a woman and her mother”: all “burned with fire” (to death, or as punitive torture?)(consent assumed on part of the woman and her mother?)- man lies with animal: he is executed, the animal killed (animal could not have consented in human terms)- woman lies with animal: she is executed, the animal killed (animal could not have consented in human terms)It seems to me that no rape/coercion is necessarily implied in any of the situations listed in this part of Leviticus. Adultery – as in the first case – would have to involve some level of consent in both parties. It’s reasonable to assume that a similar implied consent applies in the following six cases, including that of the male lying with another male. And if rape Has something been lost/added in translation?

  • thebump

    Any sexual act outside the sacramental bond of husband and wife violates the Ten Commandments and is objectively immoral.What part of that basic truth does poor Gene fail to comprehend?

  • rosenpsyd

    The problem for Christians is that they use the King James translation of the Jewish Bible and it is a very poor translation of the words in the Jewish Scripture, especially in regard to the Levitical injunction of “man laying with man”. The words in the original aramaic are best translated as man shall not forcebly rape a man and man might rape a woman for that would be be an abomination (ritual impurity). The word in the original Aramaic is used only one other time in our holy scripture and it is used to describe heterosexual rape. Thus, this is an injunction against humiliating another man with rape. Not an injunction of man loving another man as Jonathan loved David.

  • rosenpsyd

    I hate to correct the learned Right Reverend Robinson but the sin of Onan was not that he spilled his seed on the ground but that he did not do his duty to impregnate his brother’s wife according to the custom of Leverite marriage where if a man died childless, his brother was obligated to bear a child with the widow so the deceased husband could have a child and carry on the name. Onan did not cooperate in this obligation. This is hardly a model for marriage today and shows how much marriage has evolved as an institution from biblical times, as it will continue to evolve.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    Btw., Mr. Robinson, speaking of shell fish, what’s up with the fish-eating on Fridays?Lotsa Fishy stuff going on Episcopal way, it would seem.Like I said, though, don’t sweat the shell fish, you Christians are only responsible for following the Noachide Code.Tanakh is not for you, never was. It is a sacred text, not a weapon. You folks could never get that point.The Noachide Code. Simple and straightforward.

  • onofrio

    Rosenpsyd,Thee:As I indicated to Farnaz below, if the passage in question is about male rape of males, then why is the victim penalised identically to the perpetrator? Does the God of Moses view the raped and the rapist as equally culpable?Thee:The original language of the Torah is Hebrew, is it not?

  • FarnazMansouri2

    I hate to correct the learned Right Reverend Robinson but the sin of Onan was not that he spilled his seed on the ground but that he did not do his duty to impregnate his brother’s wife according to the custom of Leverite marriage where if a man died childless, his brother was obligated to bear a child with the widow so the deceased husband could have a child and carry on the name. Onan did not cooperate in this obligation. This is hardly a model for marriage today and shows how much marriage has evolved as an institution from biblical times, as it will continue to evolve.Posted by: rosenpsyd I would ask the learned blogger why masturbation, etc., is such an obsession among the Christians and Catholics, as it does not come up for discussion among Jews.I would imagine that my father spoke of it with my brother, but that would have been as a father. He was and is an open man. He would NEVER have discussed it in the context of Judaism and he is rather familiar with Tanakh.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    Onofrio,I read your post, but awhile ago I emailed a scholar, R. Daniel Abulafia, who has emailed me back in Farsi and in Hebrew.I’m trying to translate. I’m having difficulty finding English words for the Farsi. As for the Hebrew, I don’t think I can do it. My illustrious other is awake, but furious, since he does not like me blogging on this. He thinks mine is a hopeless task.TWO WORDS! Thank you, Love! Force, crush (Who’d a thunk it–crush!)This may not be literal–Abulafiaia’s. I’m going to try to get through the rest.

  • onofrio

    Farnaz,Re – the Cross-Lugger and Martinet Luthlips et alii:Zesta :^)Rest you.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    Onofrio,This is going to take awhile. I can say this, though.He doesn’t think much of the essay. That is Robinson’s piece seems like a jumble to him, a mix of this and that–disparate, unrelated elements.He uses the word to’evah–I am transliterating, I hope. This means vile act, abhorrent act, abomination. This is one of the meanings that could attach to the Lev passage if it is read as a prohibition against practicing the rites of other peoples, in this case, using male prostitutes, in religious services.This makes sense, even to me, given the context.But, truthfully, I’m out of my depth here. I love this man. He is very learned and very funny, a true Iranian. He reads and speaks English, but will not write in it, and translations of his work make him crazy, so he won’t allow them. He once sued someone who posted his stuff on the web. He actually cried, his wife said.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    Onofrio,The rites of other nations evidently included male and female prostitutes in temples, which is “forced” (?), exploitive, crushing, or the like.If I’m reading this correctly, a big if, then he says “they” refers to the users. Alternatively, if one reads it as an act of defilement, then it could refer to both the user and the used since they would have been in it together. In other words, those who practiced this “fornication” in their temples (fornication is my words) would have been defiling. I think the word he is using would be better understood as perverting or inverting.But what it all comes down to is that this was a WARNING since there is no evidence of Jews fornicating in the temple (LOL) with prostitutes or anyone else.Extends for many to mean rape by men of men in war, with which I was familiar, but I guess most people are. There are various statements on this deriving from Lev.There’s a lot more. I didn’t know people had sex in temples back in the day. Hmmm….

  • FarnazMansouri2

    Crushing, forcing and in Farsi more military–warring against the sacred space or something. Somehow, there is a whole military kind of metaphor he’s into here. It’s really pitiful that atheists (a) have no nonsacred texts and (b) that which we do have lacks metaphor.I mean it’s sad. Really.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    Onofrio,Anyway, more later. The main thing is that much of Lev is about WARNINGS. But, even so, he is reading it in reference to other parts of the Tanakh and other texts.So what’s up with sex in temples? Do you know anything about this? Wouldn’t this be in your area? I’m not sure if he’s saying it happened or that this is what the author was referencing. Is there any evidence of this?Sex as a part of ancient religious rites?

  • FarnazMansouri2

    The weirdest part of these Christian discussions for me, a Jew, who seriously studied Tanakh and Talmud for years, who reads ancient (but not modern) Hebrew and Aramaic, who has read tons of commentaries, is how little what concerns the Christians has ever come up in my studies.Sex seems to be an obsession with them. The passages they pick out are ones that Jews seldom deal with.The Lev business has recently come up with some Orthodox and Haredi via the Christians!Hilarious and weird. Tanakh is not about what this line says here or that one says there. It’s not about David, for instance. It’s about David, the Pslams, plus commentaries and commentaries on the commentaries. It might be that we just aren’t literalists, as I’ve always suspected the Christians are. NOt all of them, but many.I remember when it somehow became important to say Moses (Moshe rabeinu) did never existed. All I kept thinking was so what, who cares, what’s the biggy?As did Orthodox European Jews I know. And? So? Point? Asked they.Now, try and say Jesus, Osiris, Whoever didn’t exist, and see what happens.Say he wasn’t the Son of God, and check out the response.Forget the fact that there is literally no evidence whatsoever. Nada. Forget Josephus–and JOsephus cribbers. Joey was discredited in his own day. Cribbers speak for themselves. So, again, advice to Christians: Use your warrior religion, but kindly leave Tanakh which has literally nothing to do with you, alone.Notice you don’t come up in it. Anywhere.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    If Christians want to read the work of one of the great Jewish thinkers, one of the greatest in history, read Franz Rozenzweig, “The Star of Redemption.” I recommend this because Christianity figures in Rozenzweig in an interesting way.One of the most remarkable things about this remarkable genius is that he wrote while Christian nazi Houston Stewart Chamberlain (use google) was preaching his Aryan Christianity throughout Germany.Warning: Rozenzweig is notoriously difficult, especially, when read in translation. However, there are numerous secondary resources.I’d move on to Emmanuel Levinas next. No Judaism or Christianity in his principal works, although both figure in them page after page.Good luck on that love your fellow human thing. I’d start by being just to her, myself. Don’t starve her. Don’t abuse her. Don’t plunder her, kill her, lie to her, steal from her, etc.Feed her if she is hungry and heal her if she is sick.Illness and hunger are unjust. Try to perfect the world. Tikkun Olam.If you cannot, stick with the Noachide Code.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    Yup, he means sex in temples with prostitutes and other Moloch type stuff. Evidently, it happened.So, you guys can move on. You probably should take a look at Lev 18.3. And a great deal more. Mostly, you should leave Tanakh alone, on account of your established cluelessness.You are obsessing over prohibitions like messing around with hirees in church and sacrificing your children there, which the ancient Js thought wasn’t a good idea and hence decided against it syncretism-wise.Time to move on, folks. And, Gene, you keep on eating that shell fish, especially, on Fridays. And make sure your slaves respect you and your wife submits per the NT. If you don’t buy into all of it, you might as well toss the whole thing, by yer reasoning, such as it is.

  • cprferry

    How did Mr. Robinson complete his seminary studies without studying the Council of Jerusalem which addressed what of the old law applied to gentile converts? It’s right there in Acts 15.It just goes to show you how miserable seminary training was across the board during the 60’s and 70’s. A great number of liars, scoundrels and innocent but unprepared pastors were ordained by progressive hierarchies that sought to reinvent the past and reinterpret Truth.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    CPRFery is absolutely right, Gene Robinson. It’s the fourth NT “clobber passage.” ACTS 15It’s up there right along with all the other NT distortions of Tanakh, which knew not Christians.1 Timothy 1:10sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, 1 kidnappers, liars, perjurers – in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching.Romans 1:26For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 1Romans 1:27and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women 1 and were inflamed in their passions 2 for one another. Men 3 committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.Yer stuck Gene. And you are stuck badly and in an embarrassing way.However, you twist it your loving test is responsible for your plight.Your NT condemns you. Your highjacking of the Tanakh condemns you.Never mind that the word “homosexual” is anachoronistic. Never mind that the ancient Js were thinking sex in temples and child sacrifice and incest and other Molochy stuff, which knew not Joseph or any other J.No. You “replaced” and “superseded” with your own forgiveness for a sin which never occurred originally or in any other way known to Js or anyone else.Your forgiving NT condemns you. It’s right there in four passages.Can’t exonerate it. Can’t toss it off. It’s in yer divinely forgiving dispensation.Hypocrisy is not a good thing, I say unto you. It will come and bite you in the rear, if not by me than by ole CPR.SCHAUM,COME HOME, PLEASE. CPR IS BACK.

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    There is nothing wrong with being gay. That is simple common sense. Common sense should count for something; in fact, it counts for a lot.Any religious doctrine or ancient scripture which preaches against gay people is wrong, site unseen. It is not that difficult. If it is wrong, it needs to be rethought, and changed. There is nothing wrong with being gay, and gay people should not change; it is anti-gay religion that is wrong, and it is anti-gay relgion that should change. I expect change in people who have adopted anti-gay false teachings. There is nothing wrong with being gay, except for all the religous people who have set themselves up inm their life goals to obstruct, block, and stand in the way of gay people living normal and happy lives.

  • detroitblkmale30

    Interesting. didnt sere him responding to Romans 1:26 or any other of the non Leviticus anti-homosexuality scripture. Its not JUST Leviticus. Or just the Old testament. Kirkpatrick and Robinson’s humanist reading of these text ignore one glaring issue..This was God’s word not simply one of the local clergy. Sure perhaps back then those men couldnt grasp sexually orientation. But of course God does, since he made mankind. His deliberate instruction were plain. Using this..well that was then and we are so much more “enlightened” now smacks of moral relativism which is at odds with Christianity. If these splinter Christian want to embrace homosexuality. Fine. Do as they have done and create their own churches and “bishops” however , enough with trying to convince those of us who know better by attempting to water down crystal clear scripture to fit their points. Why arent the codes against menstruation and eating certain foods still kept? For one.. we are gentiles not hebrews and those cultural rules no longer apply. Homosexuality, like the other sins of that period in the ten commandments are codes of conduct that are prohibited in BOTH the old and new testaments. Note there is no prohibition against shellfish in new testament either.Jesus healed the woman with the “issue of blood” and had no problemwith associating with her. Robinson fails here in his attempt to prove that all of these laws must be taken together or they all can be excluded. I as a Biblical literalist and millions of others like me using common sense can see exactly how God intended his word against homosexuality to be eternal while those cultural laws pertaining to food and other similar issues were contexutal for the time period.Obviosuly this isnt the only mention of homosexuality in the Bible its time Robinson and those who use this passage to back their views stop trying to act like it is.The mere existence of those other passages basically eliminates the anti-Levitical foundation in support of homosexuality

  • FarnazMansouri2

    Farnaz: Funny you should mention incest……think about Adam and Eve and if you think it’s truth or allegory. If you believe the former, then you believe in incest: Adam and Eve only had sons–where did the next female come from?Posted by: elgrunirJeez.

  • jamesls

    The Rt. Rev. Robinson states that “homosexuality as a sexual orientation was unknown to the ancient mind.” Oh, please! Does the Rt. Rev. Robinson read anything other than the bible? Homosexuality was known and practiced all over the ancient world. The literature of the Greeks and the Romans not only reflect homosexuality as a common practice but also suggest that homosexuality was not an abhorrence to the ‘gods’.

  • elgrunir

    Of course, I believe in Adam and Eve and flying pigs demon possessed.What’s with the “Jeez?”I found it ironic that in ripping Mr./Ms. Secular for not taking his or her moral authority from a supposedly holy book such as the Bible that you called his/her perspective “incestuous,” something that describes the supposed beginnings of the human race–in the Bible.

  • Catken1

    “Mr.Robinson, there is a church that has taught an unwavering and balanced view of human sexuality for two-thousand years”Unwavering, perhaps. But any church that views half of the human race as either a) lifelong virgins, submissive to male authority, or b) wombs with legs, to bear and bear and bear until they die of it, is not balanced.Nor is a church moral that defines the “morality” of sexual behavior and marriage primarily by the genitals involved, rather than by whether the couple involved treats each other well and behaves responsibly. Nor is a church moral that talks about sex and marriage as if they were mere physical functions to be used solely for breeding (even animals have more dimensions to their sexual activity than just breeding!), setting the whole emotional and spiritual side of marriage aside as only relevant in and as it contributes to breeding. “Insert Tab A into Slot B to produce Child C” is not a moral view of the whole of sex or marriage.

  • bigbrother1

    There’s only one question to ask about Leviticus. Do I fold or crumple before I wipe?

  • SubRosa2

    I always find it interesting that people zoom in on the sexual prohibitions of Leviticus (one or two verses, out of context), yet conveniently forget the entirety of Leviticus 25 – which commands radical economic restructuring of society on a regular basis. Once every 50 years – in the Jubilee Year – all property reverts back to its original owners, and all people migrate back to live with their ancestral peoples. Once every 50 years, the US would revert back to Native American ownership (not a bad idea), and we would all go live with our ancestral peoples – presumably in Europe (who would probably not be thrilled). I don’t see that part of Leviticuse getting very much airplay. And it’s a VERY important part, because Jesus make direct reference to it in his inaugural sermon after the Temptation in the Desert (Luke 4:19).

  • FarnazMansouri2

    elgrunir:Mr. Secular is an antisemite who thinks Jews own the media and that Abraham was a saint. He’s a Hindu and has posted the most blatant racist filth imaginable.POsts forwarded upon request.I tried endlessly to reason with him, get him to stop, etc., before I understood what he was.

  • detroitblkmale30

    subrosa..I think you are part of those using a scripture out of context the hebrew year of jubilee referred to a period of forgiving of “monetary”debt owed to another not righting of past wrongs. So that would be a period of wiping a credit report clean or forgiving past loans not making ammends for Wounded Knee or the other injustices done to Native Americans. I wish it were, of course amends for slavery would be next in the pecking order.This prohibition against homosexuality is very much in context

  • SubRosa2

    Lev 25:23-28 – “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; with me you are but aliens and tenants. 24Throughout the land that you hold, you shall provide for the redemption of the land. 25If anyone of your kin falls into difficulty and sells a piece of property, then the next of kin shall come and redeem what the relative has sold. 26If the person has no one to redeem it, but then prospers and finds sufficient means to do so, 27the years since its sale shall be computed and the difference shall be refunded to the person to whom it was sold, and the property shall be returned. 28But if there is not sufficient means to recover it, what was sold shall remain with the purchaser until the year of jubilee; in the jubilee it shall be released, and the property shall be returned.”

  • elgrunir

    @ Farnaz:That’s cool. And I appreciate the explanation. Cheers…

  • detroitblkmale30

    again, completely out of context first its talking about family “kin” or the in this case the children of israel. Second its talking about land that was sold out of financial hardship. Third its saying that land should be return to one’s kinsman once those who prospered have a means to do so.. Apples and oranges.

  • SubRosa2

    My point was simply that if we are not willing to look at one part of the Bible out of context, then we shouldn’t be so quick to use other verses as a club to deny entire groups of people their humanity.

  • detroitblkmale30

    and i guess my point is its not out of context when leviticus talks against homosexuality its in keeping with romans corithinians and other passages of the Bible old testament and new testament.I could go into a detailed description as to why the Levitical use of this passage is not out of context as well

  • FarnazMansouri2

    and i guess my point is its not out of context when leviticus talks against homosexuality its in keeping with romans corithinians and other passages of the Bible old testament and new testament.I could go into a detailed description as to why the Levitical use of this passage is not out of context as wellPosted by: detroitblkmale30 This is more arrogant and unacceptable than I can say.Again, I have no idea why the Christians isolate lines of Tanakh and are so obsessed with sexuality. We do not read Tanakh this way or think this way.I actually had to email a formidable scholar to try to understand what this line meant at a deeper level than I had bothered to find out because the great Judaic scholar Gene Robinson was and is so woefully wrong.Christians are clueless on Tanakh. Christianity hijacked it, and has misread it, shredded it, made an unrecognizable mess of it, as R. Abulafia basically wrote.See below.

  • SubRosa2

    To detroitblkmale30: 1 Cor 13 1 – “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.” You are in my prayers.

  • detroitblkmale30

    thanks i know that one too..i have plenty of love you are in mine as well.

  • detroitblkmale30

    faranz..of course I wasnt speaking to you, but since you addressed me , there is no point in us discussing our perspectives on these scriptures. We do not beleive the same things nor do we have the same perspectives on covenants of the Bible. So you are no more qualified to tell me about my beliefs from the Bible as I am qualified to lecture on your holy scriptures.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    faranz..of course I wasnt speaking to you, but since you addressed me , there is no point in us discussing our perspectives on these scriptures. We do not beleive the same things nor do we have the same perspectives on covenants of the Bible. So you are no more qualified to tell me about my beliefs from the Bible as I am qualified to lecture on your holy scriptures.Posted by: detroitblkmale30Of course, I would not have presumed to tell you about NT. Not until now. It occurred to me while I was rereading this thread that following two thousand years of watching people like you hijack a sacred text of another people that they cannot understand, at all, then use that text as a weapon against all kinds of other people, that I should help out a bit.I think this even though with your imperialist act, which is the inaugural racism of the WEst, which brought with it two thousand years of genocide.There are none so blind as those who will not see. I do not know what has so hardened the hearts of the Christians against their fellow humans, but I am going to do unto them what they have done unto others.I shall explain your NT.Hope you enjoy the read.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    If any Christians are interested, prior to my beginning on the NT, I would recommend Lev 3.Evidently, much of what follows concerns religions including worship of Moloch, which involved sex between men and male prostitutes, men and female prostitutes, etc., some of it in the temples. Other practices such as sleeping with others in the same beds (Tr. “layings”) including sisters, et al, had been observed.The Jews thought ill of this and therefore they figured they ought not take it in syncretically, as it were. Much of what follows is meant as WARNINGS, not directions.

  • BobGreenpoint

    Man, all this bickering over a bunch of MYTHOLOGY!!!!!!!!!!! Live and let live, people! Some people are white, some are black, some are gay, some are straight…GET OVER IT!

  • detroitblkmale30

    bob go find a mythology page then and comment on it..this page is for people of faith..get over it.

  • bigbrother1

    @Detroitblackmale30 – Your “faith” doesn’t even qualify as mythology. All you have is an idiotic superstition which displays just how ignorant and bigoted you are.

  • shadow_man

    Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and rape, not homosexuality.(Change *** to www)

  • bigbrother1

    @Thebump – You are, objectively, a useless moron.

  • LoreninCA

    Thanks to Rev Robinson for this insight. I’ve often wondered how Christians reconcile the irrational choice to discard most of the proscriptions in Leviticus and yet hang on tooth and nail to the perceived anti-homosexual passages. And there’s the further issue of ignoring the many differing translations and interpretations of what was actually written and intended.However, as an atheist, I treat the bible as nothing more than a notable and interesting compilation of work by many different voices. Fascinating intellectually and historically certainly, and with some excellent life lessons, but not the law of the secular land in modern times. Thankfully. Since I don’t believe in your god, or in much of what his “followers” have written, the proscriptions some Christians use to condemn me really don’t have any power over me. Ban me or censure me or marginalize me, it really has no effect on who I am. Oh you might affect my behavior as evidenced by all the people who are still in the closet, but you can’t change the real me. I am a man who loves another man and I’ve shared my life with him for 16 wonderful years.Now I think I’ll throw on my sharp new poly/wool blend jacket and head out to dinner for a nice shrimp cocktail.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    shadow_man:Re: Your postYou are correct to a point. Pedophilia was still accepted among the Greeks (NOT JEWS), but was in the process of becoming an embarrassment.ON Leviticus, see Lev 3. I’m not going to reprise my entire ouvre of yesterday since, in fact, Tanakh is none of the Christians’ business. I would not presume to tell you that Acts 5 makes me want to puke, for instance, as does much of the Greek Testament.However, and very briefly, the passage that very few genitally obsessed Christians now point to in Lev is in the context of certain practices in the region that the Hebrews in creating monatheism did not want to adopt. Among these were sex with male and female prostitutes in temples (TEMPLE ours, another story), layings or “beds” together with sisters, mothers, etc.From this developed the proscription against raping boys.Robinson wants to lay the blame for Christian homophobia on the Tanakh, ironic since the hijacking of that text and its use simultaneously as a weapon and source of Christian authenticity angst led to the genocide of Jews and the mauling of gays. He wants to keep the NT out of genitally obsessed Christianity.But the poor man cannot have it both ways. He cannot both replace and supersede a text with another and then sever the two at the same time.For Edward Said, hijacking another people’s identity and then explaining it to them is the sine qua non of imperialism.Shelby Spong understood that, I thought. This man does not. Ironic, no?CHRISTIANS: GROW UP. STOP HATING ONE ANOTHER, JEWS, AND EVERYONE ELSE.WHAT HAS HARDENED YOUR HEARTS AND MADE YOU SO FULL OF HATE?

  • shaiarra

    From the Gospel of LUKE 17:verses 30, 34, Jesus said, “In the day the Son of man is revealed, in that night there shall be two men in one bed, the one shall be taken, and the other left.”, So ok 2 GROWN MEN in 1 Bed {TOGETHER}? (what does this sound like?…AT THE RAPTURE SAME SEX “JESUS” says he takes one and leave the other in the same bed on that night ON THE RAPTURE, HMMMMM, ok?)SEE LUKE 17:30-34, TWO GROWN MEN “LYING” IN BED TOGETHER AT NIGHT, HE TAKES ONE AND LEAVES THE OTHER…IT DID NOT BOTHER “JESUS”Men are told to KISS Each other!!! ( BIBLE NEW TESTAMENT ) ROM16:16, 1Cor 16:20, 2Cor13:12, 1Thes5:26 1Pet5:14MOST SAME SEXERS DETEST ANAL BUT PREFER GIVING ORAL SEX WITH SOME PEROXIDE MOUTH WASH ITS MORE SANITARYSodom is a lesson regarding inhospitality, abuse, offense against strangers, and insult to the traveler – not homosexuality.( FYI ABRAHAM FOUGHT ALONG SIDE THE KINGS OF SODOM/GOMORAH GENESIS CHAP.14, WHY )Ezekiel (16:48-49) states: THE ADONI YHVH SWEARS ON HIS OWN LIFE, NOTE NO SEX IS MENTIONED BECAUSE IF IT WAS THEN HE WOULD HAVE SAID IT UP FRONT ,”This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.”Wisdom (19:13) states that the sin of Sodom was: “bitter hatred of strangers” and “making slaves of guests who were benefactors.” Jesus said in Matthew (10:5-15) that the twelve angels sent to Sodom were sent with the following instructions: ” Whatever town or village you enter, find out who in it is worthy, and stay there until you leave If any one will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah “Further confirmation of this is found in Isaiah 1:10-17 and 3:9; Jeremiah 23:14; and Zephaniah 2:8-11. It is ironic that those who oppress gay people today are the true violators of the lesson of Sodom.

  • Jerry61

    Robinson hit it on the head but then went off into left field when he related to procreation being the main purpose of male-female relationships. However, since male/male, prostitution, spilling on the ground, pulling out before ejaculation, adultery, etc did NOT produce children, or did not produce children that were acceptable to be called, and raised in, the Jewish faith, all of these acts were sinful and were to be punished. Short version: They did not produce dues paying members of the faith. Without increasing dues paying members to replace old members who die off, the Rabi might have to go to work for living.

  • onofrio

    Farnaz,Many thanks for addressing my queries about Lev 20, and taking the trouble to transmit the interpretations of R.Abulafia, which I receive respectfully. I appreciate the point you make (with his help) about possible cultic dimensions of these prohibitions. And I also recognise that the prescription of the death penalty does not necessarily imply enactment thereof.My original point was that I found it difficult to accept that Lev 20:13 was primarily concerned with the prohibition/discouragement of Is it possible that the motive uniting these Lev 20 sexual prohibitions is the concern to discourage (in the strongest terms) the So according to my tentatively offered reading, the prohibition of Lev 20:13 is not primarily intended to target and condemn homosexual orientation/sexual expression

  • shaiarra

    DO XTIANS BOMB CLINICS etc? DO XTIANS SEND TERRORIST LETTERS TO THE US GOVERNMENT??? DO XTIANS ENCOURAGE ATTACKS ON SAME SEXERS??? DID THE CHURCH START SLAVERY IN THE US AND EUROPE??? DO XTIANS QUOTE FROM A BOOK (BIBLE) THAT ENDORCES GENOCIDE?/ SLAVERY AND CHILD MARRIAGES TO ADULTS??? POLYGAMY??? INCEST??, A MAN IS ALLOWED TO SALE HIS WIFE AND KIDS INTO SLAVERY TO PAY OFF HIS DEBTS..STONEING TO DEATH DISOBIDIENT KIDS(CHILD* GOOGLE AND YOUTUBE: RELIGION MENTAL ILLNESS: AND YOU’LL SEE THE PSYCHOLOGY REPORTS ON EXTREMISM SELF RIGHTIOUSNESS DELUSIONAL AND SELF INDUCED HALLUCINATIONS AND DEADLY VIOLENCE,…GOOGLE: RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM CAUSES MENTAL ILLNESS…THEIR CRAZIES PERIOD

  • shaiarra

    GOOGLE/ WIKIPEDIA: KING JAMES BIBLE GAY……YES HE WAS A BISEXUAL HYPOCRITE….REMEMBER THAT[ EVERY TIME XTIANS THUMP THEIR BIBLE THE KJV, MORE PEOPLE ARE NOW AWARE OF THIS FACT ABOUT KJV LIFE (OH ITS ON IN THE BLOG WARS)GOOGLE: NATIONAL STOLEN PROPERTY ACTHOW COULD MOSES WRITE ABOUT HIS OWN DEATH AND BURIAL??? AFTER HE DIED???THE AUTHORIZED KJV WAS A TRANSLATED VERSION IN THE RECEPTUS TEXTUS MANUSCRIPT WITH WORD ADDITIONS IN ITALICS, THAT DON’T APPEAR IN THE ORIGINAL COPIES, WILLIAM SHAKSPIRE THE PLAYWRITE AND HIS BAND OF ROSICRUCIAN511776 MYSTICS IN 1611 WITH NUMEROUS ADDITIONS IT THE FIRSTS 60 YRS OF IT EXISTENCE, TRANSLATED THEIR VERSION OF THE RECEPTUS TEXTUS THAT KING JAMES AUTHORIZED THEM TO DO, FROM THE STOLEN VATICAN PROPERTY ie THE RECEPTUS TEXTUS, IN THE 1800s THE APOCRYPHA WAS FINALLY REMOVED, WHICH IS STILL APART OF THE VATICAN BIBLE AS WELL AS ECCLESIASTICS CHP13-22, STOLEN PROPERTY CAN’T BE COPY RIGHTEDGOOGLE; KING AUGUSTINE OF SYRIA 1050 AD CONSOLIDATE RELIGION

  • FarnazMansouri2

    Christians, What has hardened your hearts? Who has stolen your souls? Why do you propagate such inhuman cruelty? When will you leave Jews alone? When will you stop your hatred?How much blood will sate you?

  • shaiarra

    But some religious fanatics will do anything to try to get a wedge issue into the mix to advance their agenda of social AND MONEY COMMERCE control over others. JEWS NEVER DID THIS, ITS PAGAN LEVITICUS 17:1-16, Lev. 26:29 , Jer. 19:9, Ezek. 5:10, GOOGLE: BIBLE DRINKING BLOOD CANNIBALISM, SEE THE PUNISHMENT FOR XTIANSHOW COULD MOSES WRITE ABOUT HIS OWN DEATH AND BURIAL??? AFTER HE DIED??? GOOGLE/YOUTUBE: BIBLE ZEITGEIST, AND THEN YOUTUBE:Banned From The Bible II – The History Channel, SEE REAL TRUTHFUL FACTS OK, ALL RELIGIONS ARE LLC/S-CORPORATION IMF IRS 501 (3)(c)Eucharist (communion) =is pagan in it’s origin for CANNIBALISM / HUMAN SACRIFICE SYMBOLISM THAT OTHERS CONDEMN FRATERNAL ORDERS FOR ALLEGEDLY PRACTICING, BUT THE BIBLE THUMPING XTIANS DO IT AND YET BLOOD/FLESH CONSUMPTION EVEN SYMBOLICALLY IS AN ABOMINATION DEATH PENALTY BY BURNING IN FIRE, ie Eat Flesh/ Drinking Blood (vampire),THATS AN ABOMINABLE UNNATURAL FOOD AND DRINK CONSUMPTION

  • FarnazMansouri2

    onofrio,I don’t know. I found a bunch of other sites. I also reread his stuff a few times. It makes sense.Beds or layings placed together. Sisters and mothers, etc. Evidently, there’s also a question of where people sleep. They cannot be together in layings, etc.It doesn’t appear to have anything to do with the “seed.” There talking about incest and fornicating in temples, etc., there are a whole lot of other passages.Daniel said his stuff wasn’t new. There’s a mess of work on it.Masturbation has to do with procreation. There are groups of acts. Subcategories.I’m out of my depth and I don’t give a Flying F. More to the point is what is wrong with these hateful, genitally obsessed, Jew-hating Christians?Why can’t they leave us alone? Why can’t Gene stop his Christer hypocrisy? Nobody told him to hijack Tanakh and use it to torture people in the name of his NT.Why don’t they leave gay people alone?What has hardened their hearts? Stolen their souls? Why do they want to drive gays to suicide?Why are they such b.a.s.t.a.r.d.s.?Why can’t they content themselves with watching 2,000 pigs fly into the sea and drown?Btw., pigs can swim. It’s a fact. I checked.

  • 4SimpsonsDotWordpressDotCom

    The shrimp / shellfish argument is full of holes but is appealing to many because so few bother to study the passages. I address five serious problems with it in “flaws of the shellfish argument” at The short version: There were different Hebrew words translated as abomination. They were used differently in the individual verses and were used very differently in broader contexts. The associated sins had radically different consequences and had 100% different treatments in the New Testament.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    With male or female prostitutes defiling sacred spaces. Cults.Moloch and others I can’t produce, Onofrio.But they are grouped. Lev isn’t read line by line. Nothing in Tanakh is. It’s read in reference to other pages.Now the Orthodox and Haredi have gotten this filthy confusion (confusion is Daniel’s word) from the CHRISTIANS.I asked how this could have happened to them.Diaspora. We will destroy ourselves. We’ll become idolators. So, Lord be my shepherd. Guide me away from them. And heal the Christians. Bring them late, for they know not what they do but it’s EVIL.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    ONOFRIO,Do you not see the irony? The ancients wanted to keep us from sex with animals, brothers, sisters, pedophilia with prostitutes in temples, confusion in layings, (must separate sleeping spaces), child sacrifice, etc., of other nations.And I would imagine they did to some extent. But for many Orthodox and Haredi the cultish Christians stole our text and gave us this “homophobia.”Ironic. Plus ca change. I’m going to tell them, these Haredi. I shall do it myself.

  • onofrio

    Farnaz,”I’m out of my depth and I don’t give a Flying F.”If I heeded the many fathoms forever piled above my head, I would never stroke a key, nor “let pray the shadow of a sound”. :^) “Why can’t they content themselves with watching 2,000 pigs fly into the sea and drown?”Because Christ “”Btw., pigs can swim. It’s a fact. I checked.”Yes, I swim, indeed; do so regularly, in kilometres. Among pigs I’m known as Pish, among fish as Fig… “More to the point is what is wrong with these hateful, genitally obsessed, Jew-hating Christians?”They need to be filled with nongod, with blessed pains of doubt, like plains in drought.

  • onofrio

    Farnaz,”Now the Orthodox and Haredi have gotten this filthy confusion (confusion is Daniel’s word) from the CHRISTIANS.How indeed, especially as they’ve had Tanakh, Tannaim, Talmuds, etc. all this time. The confusion of tongues.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    ONofrio,”Now the Orthodox and Haredi have gotten this filthy confusion (confusion is Daniel’s word) from the CHRISTIANS.How indeed, especially as they’ve had Tanakh, Tannaim, Talmuds, etc. all this time.The confusion of tongues. And I would imagine they did to some extent. But for many Orthodox and Haredi the cultish Christians stole our text and gave us this “homophobia.”Do you see? Daniel is right in his quiet, wry way. They have adopted the abomination of nations. It happened! Diaspora.But it cannot be. They must have had “homophobia” before, a long time ago, I would think. But they never would have pointed to Lev and moved on because it would not be Judaic to do so. Without this simple-minded brutish literalism, there would have been room. And it’s worse than you can imagine, abomination wise. We have a possible Messiah among some Haredi. Dead, but “risen” or the like. It scares me a little so I stay away. I understand the agony they felt when he died. It is miraculous that he lived at all through the Shoah, that he gathered them up from the European mud, and brought them here. That they lived. That their children and their children’s children lived. It got so insane, and I cannot tell you how the secular Israelis treated it in the news that the Union of the Orthodox met to determine whether they were still Jews.It’s still going on. It’s an abomination, a sickness. I’m sorry, Sect. In many ways, your beauty is blinding. But this is DIASPORIC miasma. He was a great man, yes. But he is gone, G-d rest his soul. Let him go.When the gays leave their midst, it’s a horror. They come back to visit, but the gay people want to stay and live like gays.I am going to sleep now. When I awake, Hashem, Baruch Hashem, will have sent angelThe Haredi will have heard from above that the world is imperfect so that an erro r has been made Messiah-wise. Best to move on.Stay way from the gentiles, and welcome the gays, like the Conservative and Reformed have done. Then you can be superior to the rest of us Js, especially me, whom you usually get a kick out of anyway, and no one will object. Amen. Selah.Farnaz

  • FarnazMansouri2

    ONofrio,But truly theology is a strange thing. And so the Conservatives found all kinds of theological justification for welcoming gays, and the rabbi whose overflowing primarily hetero synagogue I sometimes go toBut the Reformed accepted it all awhile back like the Conservatives, but they do not fully understand why. The Reformed.And I said to the Orthodox (one day, I did), you are IDOLATORS and listed I the reasons. That didn’t go over well, however.

  • feetxxxl1

    under the new covenant of christ it has never been about legalities and law but instead the love of christ(love one another as i have loved you)scripture says the love of christ transcends all knowledge.it also says anything without love is nothing and gains.1cor13it also says that the godlove(love one another as i have loved you) of the 2ndbeing homosexual does not come against this love………again not this law… but this love.and about lev: in lev god also said the slavery was good.”take slaves from the surrounding countries for life and pass them onto your children as inheritance”under the new covenant, slavery is an intolerable evil because of its violation of the love of the 2nd commandment, again not law…………..but love.i disagree with robinson in that my understanding is that, it is not about what the writers understood or did not understand, what the holy spirit is and was saying thru the words of leviticus.it is thought that those of the old covenant walked in lock step to a mutual understanding of the law. not so, as in numbers 15:32-36, even with the law, moses consulted god on what must be done with a man caught gathering wood on the sabbath.1tim “all scripture is god breathed”

  • feetxxxl1

    reeditit also says anything without love is nothing and gains NOTHING.1cor13

  • FarnazMansouri2

    CHRISTIANS,I SAY THIS TO YOU. I AM AN IRANIAN JEW. I AM NOT OBSERVANT AT THIS POINT IN MY LIFE.I HAVE SEEN MURDER INCHES AWAY FROM ME. I WAS NINE.LIFE IS THE GREAT GIFT.I SAY THIS TO YOU WITH ALL THE LOVE THAT I HAVE IN MY HEART, AND IT IS ENORMOUS. IT IS TOO MUCH FOR ME TO BEAR, AND I SOMETIMES GET TOO PASSIONATE. I AM SORRY. GAY PEOPLE ARE A GIFT FROM GOD. JUST AS YOU ARE A GIFT FROM GOD.DO NOT MAUL THEM. DO NOT MAKE THEM TAKE THEIR LIVES.DO NOT SAY THEY HAVE SINNED BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT SINNED.YOU ALONE SIN WHEN YOU ROB THEM OF THEIR HUMANITY.YOU HAVE FREE WILL.

  • shadow_man

    thebump: Lol, the marriage of a man and woman is not part of the 10 commandments. You need to re-read your bible, instead of using it to condone your bigotry.

  • shadow_man

    Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Bible. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, prostitution, and rape, not homosexuality.(Change *** to www)

  • shadow_man

    Let’s examine another passage commonly taken out of context. Romans.If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching. Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ’s gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols. Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile. Paul then told the Roman Christians that they were not to judge others. To judge others is to condemn yourself (Romans 2:1). Christians are to love others out of their brokenness and into the healing wholeness that is found in Jesus Christ. The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as “natural/unnatural”, relates to that which is against one’s own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul’s concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by “nature.” Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others. It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.Now I’m pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.

  • shadow_man

    Now let’s examine Sodom, and how that is taken out of context by anti-gays.The Sodom Story – Genesis 19:1-29All other Old and New Testament references to Sodom involved the sins of idolatry, inhospitality, indifference toward the poor and the rejection of God’s messengers. There are NO REFERENCES to same sex acts or HOMOSEXUALITY.

  • shadow_man

    Leviticus is already handled. It is very clear that homosexuality is NOT a sin. Passages are taken out of context to spread hate and discrimination, just like they were taken out of context against black people, women, and other religions.

  • detroitblkmale30

    bigbrother1 : we’ve been through this before and STILL your arguments have no merit or relevance to my FAITH. go read some greek mythology if youre soo interested in myths. I find it really interesting how someone who thinks Christianity is sooo worthless spends soo much of his time going out of his way to criticize something so supposedly meaningless. Go mow your lawn, read a book, you have nothing constructive to say..dont say anything and leave us alone

  • detroitblkmale30

    the bump and shadowman I dont know how after reading the ENTIRE Bible, you could possibly arrive at the conclusion that homosexuality is not a sin. You seem to suggest there is a 2000+ year conspiracy to perseucute homosexual, even though as you argue, that term didnt even exist then. These scriptures refer to men laying with men, not boys, not pedophilia, and women laying with women. Romans clearly mentions God giving gentiles up to their “vile desires” which clearly are not preferred behavior. Sure Sodom had all kinds of sin, it was not destroyed just because of homosexual behavior.However when the men ask Lot to bring out the MEN so that they could lay with them, that was a very specific reference. That could have been any kind of sin bring those men out so we can rob them or your daughters so we can rape them. your interpretation misses a key point. This was not about rape. If the men of the town wanted the men in that fashion, they could have easily overpowered the house in numbers and “taken” the men or at least attempted to. There is no evidence of such a thing.This was about homosexual intimacy, they wanted it to be consensual or at least seductive not rape. This was the example given prior to the city’s destruction. if the Bible is God’s inspired word and i believe it is, why did God give this example and not outright rape as you claim, or any other sin. He didnt offer as he had dozens of other places in scripture idolatry. No this was specific for a reason. Why do people keep trying to take dozens of scriptures all throughout the Bible against homosexuality or whatever they called it back then, that clearly are consistent across the many years they were written in different translations, and both testaments and act like all of these are taken out of context. I could understand if there was ONE reference to homosexuality in the whole entire Bible, then perhaps a debate could be made. But to suggest that multiple scriptures througout the Bible agaisnt such behavior ALL are taken out of context is, anti-contextual in and of itself. There very existence and consistency creates its own context by definition. No thanks, homosexuality is was and always will be a sin. Not the biggest or worse, simply one of many. Last I checked, God and his word “is the same, yesterday, and forever.”

  • GT333

    Truly when Jesus said;”Do not give dogs what is sacred;do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.” This advice certainly applies to a majority of the post`s here. Sacred scripture is not open to personal interpretation, but by the Church who declared what books were sacred text and bound them together. These books,called the New Testament by the Catholic Church are interpreted by Her(The Bride of Christ. The pillar and foundation of the truth.1Tim3:15)There was one Church for one thousand years,until through sin of pride the east broke from the west(as though Christ could have two brides). Then until the 1500`s when Luther started protestantism, and as a result we have thousands of churches. Just as there can only be one Bride of Christ, there can be only one truth and one interpreter of Holy Scripture. The Catholic Church, from the very beginning, to this day, and forevermore, declares what sin is. Authority to do that comes by direct command of our Lord;”Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” This decree did not end at Peter`s death but continues with his successors. Until recent times, every single Christian church declared that all sexual relationships outside Holy matrimony were gravely sinful. They also all agreed that birth control,divorce,abortion,homosexuality,pornography,and others now tolerated, were intrinsically evil.While mainline protestant churches have abandoned these truths, the Catholic Church has not. Truth cannot be altered by popular opinion. These sins will be sins a thousand years from now, and will separate us from God.Are temporal pleasures worth it? The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that we are to be charitable towards homosexuals. It also declares the sexual practices engaged by them are intrinsically disordered, and as such a grave sin.I add that it is no worse a sin than any other mortal sin. Since the Church is the interpreter of scripture and teacher, as the pillar and foundation of truth, this subject is not up for debate except by those who are arrogantly perishing in their sin and at war with the Church of God.

  • feetxxxl1

    those who continue to assert that homosexuality is a sin do so solely out of concepts about design and that gender designates orientation. here again the assertion is that faith is about obedience to an interpretation of scripture, when faith instead is about obedience to the leading of the love of christ.

  • detroitblkmale30

    faith is about obedience to the Word of God and love for his son Jesus Christ

  • feetxxxl1

    according to scripture christ’s love is the word.john1: 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. col1: 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. IF HE IS THE WORD THEN HIS LOVE IS THE WORD, BECAUSE” GOD IS LOVE.” 1johnthere is no christ and the law but only christ and christ’s love. how can what is begotten of god not be god himself? if he is god then his love is god.”if you have seen me you have seen the father”

  • detroitblkmale30

    that Love that became flesh and the word otherwise known as Jesus had love for the woman caught in adultery..he also said go and sin no more, no one is saying despise any human being for any reason. But from scriptural perspective even Jesus drew lines regarding acceptable human behavior and warned of his father’s punishment for so lets not act like Jesus and God are only capable of love, they are also capable of anger and wrath. That’s in the “Word” too.

  • feetxxxl1

    scipture says that christ’s love transcends all knowledge.ephesians3:18 may you have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19 and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. scripture says that anything without love is nothing and gains nothing.1cor13scripture says also that the godlove(love one another as i have loved you) of the 2nd commandment, love your neighbor as oneself, is the summation of all….. all new covenant law. the fulfillment of the law is love.romans, galatians in regards to the law christ in his own words says in matt23 that the important things of the law are faithfulness(faithfulness to his love, god is love), mercy, and justice.

  • feetxxxl1

    being homosexual does not come against the love……not the law, but love of the 2nd commandment.

  • detroitblkmale30

    it does come agasint the law which Jesus himself said he came to fulfill

  • feetxxxl1

    “it does come agasint the law which Jesus himself said he came to fulfill”heb10:1 the law is ONLY ONLY a shadow of things to come and not the realities themselves. christ’s love is the realities. christ’s love,god,(light) determines the essence of the law (shadow) , not the other way around. under the new covenant christ’s love is new covenant law because he is the “summation” and “fullfilment” of the law. the summation and fulfillment of the law is the law.

  • feetxxxl1

    for the record scripture never said homosexuality was a sin. it has only been believers interpretation of it that said it did. but it was an interpretation that was apart from the love of christ rather than thru him and because of him.

  • shadow_man

    thebump: Your argument falls flat for 2 reasons:1) Jesus never condemned homosexuality

  • shadow_man

    detroitblkmale30: From reading what you wrote, it’s obvious you did not read what the biblical scholars and historians i provided said. I single-handedly debunked every line that has been used against homosexuality and proved they did not condemn homosexual sex. When you read the entire bible, it becomes very clear that idolatrous practices were always affiliated when homosexual sex is mentioned (which is actually very rare) The links go further into that and cite numerous biblical passages and evidence that prove that homosexuality is not a sin.Also, don’t take my words out of context, which is very troll-like behavior, and doesn’t work on me :) What i said was the word “homosexual” which wasn’t even a word until the 1800’s was added into a 2000 year old book when the word didn’t exist. This is clear evidence of man changing God’s words to promote hate. If you also read through earlier biblical translations, homosexual wasn’t even used in Corinthians until our time period.Again, you misinterpret what i said when you talk about men lying with men. That is mentioned in leviticus. Where i talk about boys and pedophilia is in other passages used, such as Romans. You further try to take Sodom and Romans literally, and my biblical scholars have proven why your view is wrong via using strong evidence, the bible, and history itself. Re-read my sodom interpretation and the actual links that really go further into it. You are omitting the historical context, where it was common little boys were raped, and this is correlated with the bible in those passages. Majority of the christians know that inhospitality was the main sin of sodom as well. Further, why would lot offer his daughters to gay men? That further shows holes in your literal view.”they could have easily overpowered the house in numbers and “taken” the men”This shows you again didn’t read my links. They were going to rape God’s angels, not have consenting sex.What is consistent in the Bible is every time homosexuality is mentioned, it is in conjunction with idolatry. In my next post i will give one example from the links which proves this.

  • shadow_man

    (Continued from below)# Define arsenokoites. Porphyrius Phil. Against the Christians, 88.13. The context is adultery, drunkenness, theft, witchcraft but the arsenokoit stem is not defined.# Define arsenokoites. Hippolytus, AD 170-236, Refutation of All Heresies. The context is the serpent in the garden of Eden, sodomizing-raping Eve and Adam.This usage gives no basis for concluding that arsenokoites refers to homosexuality. Naas is the serpent, from the word Naas, referring to the Naasseni, the people who call themselves Gnostics. “Naas, however, has committed sin, for he went in unto Eve, deceiving her, and debauched her; and (such an act as) this is a violation of law. He, however, likewise went in unto Adam, and had unnatural [meaning nonprocreative or interspecies] intercourse with him; and this is itself also a piece of turpitude, whence have arisen adultery and sodomy.” Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, Book V, Chapter 21. This Link will open in a new page. # Define arsenokoites. Flavius Claudius Julianus, Against the Galilaeans. Claudius quotes I Corinthians 6:9 without providing a definition of the word.# Define arsenokoites. Eusebius – Preparation of the Gospel, 6:10. Eusebius uses the word in reference to pederasty or rape. The text does not indicate homosexuality as we understand it today – a faithful, noncultic partnership between two men of equal status.# Define arsenokoites. Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel, Book I, 6.23. Eusebius uses the word in a warning against adultery, followed by the phrase, against nature (indicating nonprocreative sex). Eusebius provides no definition of the word.# Define arsenokoites. Epiphanius, AD 310-403. Two references, both of which quote I Corinthians 6:9 without providing a definition.# Define arsenokoites. Athanasius, AD 296-373. Athanasius quotes I Corinthians 6:9 without providing a definition.# Define arsenokoites. Basilius, AD 329-379. Five times Basil quotes Paul’s use of the arsenokoit stem without providing a definition.# Define arsenokoites. John Chrysostom, AD 347-407. Twenty times Chrysostom quotes I Corinthians 6:9 or I Timothy 1:10 or makes allusion to those verses without providing a definition.# Define arsenokoites. Pseudo-Macarius, mid-fourth-early fifth century, Sermon 49:5-6. As used by Pseudo-Macarius, the word refers to interspecies sex, the attempted rape of angels in Sodom, not homosexuality.# Define arsenokoites. Theodoretus, AD 393-457. Theodoretus uses the word four times, once in a vice list and in quotations from I Corinthians 6:9, without providing a definition.

  • shadow_man

    As you can see, it is very clear that the passage does not condemn homosexuality. I suggest you read all my links and interpretations done by biblical scholars and historians before twisting God’s words to suit your anti-gay agenda.

  • shadow_man

    Like i said, you have to further read what biblical scholars and historians say, where they present precise evidence using the bible itself and the historical times. Homosexuality is not a sin.(Change *** to www)I’ve read both sides of the debate, and this is what we can conclude:-The anti gay side cherry-picks lines, takes them out of context, and just says it’s wrong with no evidence. It’s easy to see why the latter wins out.

  • shadow_man

    I am going to repost the 4 lines that are commonly misinterpreted.Leviticus does not say homosexuality is a sin.Leviticus is constantly taken out of context. These two lines do not condemn homosexuals when you examine Leviticus as a whole and relate the historical times.Leviticus 18:22: Leviticus 20:13: Both of these verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also, the word abomination was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type idol worship.The Hebrew word “toevah” was used in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. “Toevah” has been translated in our Bibles as “abomination” or “detestable”. The “toevah” was used throughout the Old Testament for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry. “Toevah” refers to things that were ritually unclean – like eating pork. It is significant that another Hebrew word, “zimah,” also translated “abomination,” which means intrinsic evil or evil by its very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22, or Leviticus 20:13.It is also significant that female homosexual relationships are not mentioned in the old testament. That’s because they aren’t talking about sexual orientation, they are talking about idolatrous practices.

  • shadow_man

    The Sodom story also does not condemn homosexuality. The Sodom Story – Genesis 19:1-29All other Old and New Testament references to Sodom involved the sins of idolatry, inhospitality, indifference toward the poor and the rejection of God’s messengers. There are NO REFERENCES to same sex acts or HOMOSEXUALITY. For further reading, read the links i posted below and my post addressing this below as well.

  • shadow_man

    Romans also does not say homosexuality is a sin. This is one of the most common texts that are misinterpreted.If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching. It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.Now I’m pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ’s gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols. Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile. Paul then told the Roman Christians that they were not to judge others. To judge others is to condemn yourself (Romans 2:1). Christians are to love others out of their brokenness and into the healing wholeness that is found in Jesus Christ. The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as “natural/unnatural”, relates to that which is against one’s own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul’s concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by “nature.” Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others.

  • shadow_man

    Through all this evidence, it is very clear that homosexuality is not a sin. God created homosexuals and God loves them.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    “No Israelite woman shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any Israelite man be a cult prostitute” (Deuteronomy 23:18). Cultic prostitution, both hetero‑ and homosexual, was a common feature of idolatrous worship in the ancient Near EastNo one but a brutish literalist reads Lev or any other Tanakh text line by line out of context. The texts are read together according to well-established practices developed over the centuries by brilliant people.The Tanakh was meant for people who were of the Covenant, who sought to be just, compassionate, and loving. It was not meant for brutes and literalists (one and the same).

  • detroitblkmale30

    shadow, first using what jesus didnt say is not a compelling definition of what isnt a sin. by that definition incest wouldnt be a sin or hundreds of other things Jesus didnt say. Secondly you have NOT succeeded in disproving that these scriptures reference homosexuality. None of your argument changes my or millions of other Christians mind on these issues. Homosexuality is a sin. You can pick and chose historians to back your position just like you can pick Robinson as a “theologian” to back your position. Nothing has been put forward conclusively to a point where everyone says “ahhhhh” now i see.” Sorry. The scriptures speak for themselves. Even in the discussion of well Paul actually men prostitution etc etc. or in Leviticus it was rape etc etc.Yes Sodom’s sin was NOT simply being inhospitable. The passage doesnt say a couple men or a few men surrounded the house. It said ALL the men surrounded the house. Obviously all the men in Sodom were not rapists. Going by any criminal or societal statistics no society is comprised of 100 percent rapists. This means that Sodom had a PRACTICE of sexual immorality and fornication regarding homosexuality. For many of these men this was not about rape. It was sexual immorality and fornication tied to homosexuality. in another passage in Jude makes specific reference to this and NOT being inhospitable. “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire-Jude 1:7 So much for that argument of the story being about them being inhospitable. Note the reference to “strange flesh” This was a reference to unnatural flesh i.e. other men sexually as described in multiple Bible commentaries by Bible scholars Clarke, Gill, Barnes etc. You’re not the only one that can do a little research.There is a reason that so many have believed these stories over the centuries were mainly about fornication and homosexuality.BECAUSE THEY WERE.

  • detroitblkmale30

    shadow: you are using semantics first of all. Who cares where when the word homosexuality was used created. Thats irrelevant really. Any intelligent student of history and language knows that different terms are used and coined in succession over time to refer to the same thing. It doesnt matter if homosexualityas a term occurs in 1869 if “sodomite” and sodomy is coined to refer to the same thing as my post below clearly demonstrates 1869 years earlier. So no it doesnt make one wonder. Malakos also referred to soft as the opposite of masculine or effeminate as many translations use that word in that place.Lastly you claim erroneously the following:All other Old and New Testament references to Sodom involved the sins of idolatry, inhospitality, indifference toward the poor and the rejection of God’s messengers. There are NO REFERENCES to same sex acts or HOMOSEXUALITY.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    Sodom was a den of iniquity and the men who wanted the two angels were gay rapists.That said, Lot was never intended to be read as exemplary (LOL) as is made clear from the beginning through the end. But here we will deal with him from the time in Sodom. Although an “alien” there the simple fact that he was there would be an indication to any moron that all is not well morally with said Lot.Nevertheless, the angels came, the Lord’s answering to Abraham. Offering his daughters to gay male rapists however was not among Lot’s worst acts. As the commentaries show it may not have been the smartest ploy, but it wasn’t the stupidest either. Lot and family, however, were Lot and family and so he clearly was in no hurry to leave Sodom and the angels had to hassle him. HIs wife had stronger ties.As for his daughters, they live with their father in a cave after the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the other cities in the area. Fearing that no men are available to father their children, they make Lot drink wine on two consecutive nights and, while he is drunk, have sexual relations with him. In this manner the daughters bear sons, one of which becomes the ancestor of the Moabites and the other of which becomes the ancestor of the Ammonites.OF COURSE, PETER praises Lot, but, again, Tanakh was written for the people who had entered the Covenant, who had committed themselves to justness, wisdom, etc. It was not meant for hetero perv literalist bigots anymore than it was meant for gay bigot “Bishops.”

  • feetxxxl1

    what is interesting is that all of you are still making interpretations according to law instead of love.

  • detroitblkmale30

    feettlxx: that is because we are STILL under the law..just because Jesus is love doesnt mean we live in lawlessness and all is permissible. “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.-Jesus

  • feetxxxl1

    Matthew 5:17fulfillment of the law is love, christ’s love. romans the summation(godlove of the 2nd commandment, (love neighbor) and fulfillment of the law is the law.

  • detroitblkmale30

    feetxxxl1: that very scripture you quote matt5:17 is fulliment of the mosaic law, including the ten commandments which were written at the same time as guidance against behaving in homosexuality. So there you have it. Jesus came to fulfill not only the prophecies of his coming, not only to be “love” and to serve as remission for our sins but also to reinforce those old testament behavioural codes of conduct

  • feetxxxl1

    anyone can chose to believe anything he choses without recrimination, but whether it is of christ is another matter.

  • feetxxxl1

    detroit if we love thru christ as directed thru the 2nd commmandmment we do much more than follow the law, which even if we followed it, we receive no righteousness, but instead we fulfill it thru his love, thru his righteousnes.why focus on the shadow when we can focus directly on the light itself which is greater, and is life?

  • detroitblkmale30

    feetxxxl1 :you must follow BOTH if Jesus himself follows those “old codes” then we must as well as he stated he came to uphold them. I dont see how you keep missing that point, it must be willful denial.Those covenants DiD not pass away. Thats what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17. The only thing Jesus changed was the punishment for breaking those codes(death) and replaced them with forgiveness and eternal life. You sound like someone who only beleives in the New Testament. You forget this light you talk about..Jesus was in the temple Teaching these very laws as a young boy. He did not say I am here now, do away with these laws and codes.It doesnt get any more clear than that.

  • shadow_man

    detroitblkmale30: I notice you didn’t address 90% of my points, which is proof of trolling. But let me show you why trolling fails on this subject :)For those of you that don’t know what a troll is, they basically are posters that take a side on any sensitive topic (religion, sexuality, etc) and post to rile up and anger other posters for their own satisfaction and fun. They usually dance around a central idea while ignoring all evidence (since their primary motive is to incite anger, not prove anything). Other troll behavior includes twisting your words out of context, name-calling, lying, or doing anything that may get a rise out of you.The best way to own a troll is to get under their skin or ignore them. When a troll realizes he can’t incite anger in people and or get a rise out of them, it irks him. They keep trying, but its fun watching them in desperation as they throw everything at you trying to get any kind of rise. They lose even more, because for each troll, it gives the pro gay marriage side the chance to spread facts and information about homosexuality, to get rid of ignorance. It’s a win/win situation for us. Remember, trolls can’t win unless they incite anger. Merely getting responses is not a successful troll, since anyone can do that. What makes trolling unique is the ability to incite anger, and without doing that, they become useless. So to all posters here, do prove them wrong with facts, but do not let them incite anger.

  • shadow_man

    detroitblkmale30: Now onto the very few things about your post. Lol, the only thing your post says is that “i’m wrong”, yet you are unable to show any evidence of how, nor are you able to refute any of my points. I have not only proven that jesus did not condemn homosexuality, but the fact that no passage in the bible condemns homosexuality as well, citing various biblical scholars and historians. You also claim that i pick and choose which historians, when i have cited over 50 scholars and historians which are referenced in my links. Lol, then you merely repeat those verses and same arguments that i debunked already. Let’s see, who am i going to trust. Someone who’s obviously trying to troll and failing miserably at it, or reputable biblical scholars and historians who have offered much evidence proving that homosexuality is not a sin. Then you say there’s a reference to natural flesh, but once again are unable to point out where in the bible and how it correlates to homosexuality :) Finally, you try to use the age old argument, “because people believed it for 2000 years, it must be true” People believed for thousands of years that the world was flat, that woman were 2nd class citizens, and that slavery was humane. That doesn’t make it right or true :)

  • shadow_man

    Bumping older posts to show where the discussion is:Like i said, you have to further read what biblical scholars and historians say, where they present precise evidence using the bible itself and the historical times. Homosexuality is not a sin.(Change *** to www)I’ve read both sides of the debate, and this is what we can conclude:-The anti gay side cherry-picks lines, takes them out of context, and just says it’s wrong with no evidence.It’s easy to see why the latter wins out.

  • shadow_man

    I am going to repost the 4 lines that are commonly misinterpreted.Leviticus does not say homosexuality is a sin.Leviticus is constantly taken out of context. These two lines do not condemn homosexuals when you examine Leviticus as a whole and relate the historical times.Leviticus 18:22:Leviticus 20:13:Both of these verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also, the word abomination was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type idol worship.The Hebrew word “toevah” was used in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. “Toevah” has been translated in our Bibles as “abomination” or “detestable”. The “toevah” was used throughout the Old Testament for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry. “Toevah” refers to things that were ritually unclean – like eating pork.It is significant that another Hebrew word, “zimah,” also translated “abomination,” which means intrinsic evil or evil by its very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22, or Leviticus 20:13.It is also significant that female homosexual relationships are not mentioned in the old testament. That’s because they aren’t talking about sexual orientation, they are talking about idolatrous practices.

  • shadow_man

    Romans also does not say homosexuality is a sin. This is one of the most common texts that are misinterpreted.If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching.It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.Now I’m pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ’s gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols. Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile.Paul then told the Roman Christians that they were not to judge others. To judge others is to condemn yourself (Romans 2:1). Christians are to love others out of their brokenness and into the healing wholeness that is found in Jesus Christ.The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as “natural/unnatural”, relates to that which is against one’s own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul’s concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by “nature.” Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others.

  • shadow_man

    The Sodom story also does not condemn homosexuality.The Sodom Story – Genesis 19:1-29All other Old and New Testament references to Sodom involved the sins of idolatry, inhospitality, indifference toward the poor and the rejection of God’s messengers. There are NO REFERENCES to same sex acts or HOMOSEXUALITY.For further reading, read the links i posted below and my post addressing this below as well.

  • shadow_man

    (Continued from below)# Define arsenokoites. Porphyrius Phil. Against the Christians, 88.13. The context is adultery, drunkenness, theft, witchcraft but the arsenokoit stem is not defined.# Define arsenokoites. Hippolytus, AD 170-236, Refutation of All Heresies. The context is the serpent in the garden of Eden, sodomizing-raping Eve and Adam.This usage gives no basis for concluding that arsenokoites refers to homosexuality. Naas is the serpent, from the word Naas, referring to the Naasseni, the people who call themselves Gnostics.“Naas, however, has committed sin, for he went in unto Eve, deceiving her, and debauched her; and (such an act as) this is a violation of law. He, however, likewise went in unto Adam, and had unnatural [meaning nonprocreative or interspecies] intercourse with him; and this is itself also a piece of turpitude, whence have arisen adultery and sodomy.”Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, Book V, Chapter 21. This Link will open in a new page.# Define arsenokoites. Flavius Claudius Julianus, Against the Galilaeans. Claudius quotes I Corinthians 6:9 without providing a definition of the word.# Define arsenokoites. Eusebius – Preparation of the Gospel, 6:10. Eusebius uses the word in reference to pederasty or rape. The text does not indicate homosexuality as we understand it today – a faithful, noncultic partnership between two men of equal status.# Define arsenokoites. Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel, Book I, 6.23. Eusebius uses the word in a warning against adultery, followed by the phrase, against nature (indicating nonprocreative sex). Eusebius provides no definition of the word.# Define arsenokoites. Epiphanius, AD 310-403. Two references, both of which quote I Corinthians 6:9 without providing a definition.# Define arsenokoites. Athanasius, AD 296-373. Athanasius quotes I Corinthians 6:9 without providing a definition.# Define arsenokoites. Basilius, AD 329-379. Five times Basil quotes Paul’s use of the arsenokoit stem without providing a definition.# Define arsenokoites. John Chrysostom, AD 347-407. Twenty times Chrysostom quotes I Corinthians 6:9 or I Timothy 1:10 or makes allusion to those verses without providing a definition.# Define arsenokoites. Pseudo-Macarius, mid-fourth-early fifth century, Sermon 49:5-6. As used by Pseudo-Macarius, the word refers to interspecies sex, the attempted rape of angels in Sodom, not homosexuality.# Define arsenokoites. Theodoretus, AD 393-457. Theodoretus uses the word four times, once in a vice list and in quotations from I Corinthians 6:9, without providing a definition.

  • shadow_man

    It’s very clear that homosexuality is not a sin ^_^

  • feetxxxl1

    that the believers attempt to make any kind of regulation of anything out of legalites such as”Arsenokoites”comes against the principles of the new covenant. because under the new covenant we are not under regulation but grace. we no longer have a relationship to god thru regulation as in deut 28(torn curtain), but instead it is directly thru the conviction of our hearts of not godloving ourselves and our neighbor. it is the leading of christ’s loving that we are led by, the law being to remind believers of what is not love, but it is the spirit of christ that lives within us that shows us what is his love. it is this inner relationship that we are led by. paul understood that because he was one of the first to be taught directly by this inner dwelling spirit, paul who never taught thru the law, not even with the man who had his father’s wife.paul writes that anything that does not come against this love ” is permissible but may not be constructive” such as it was permissible for women to speak in church, but paul did not find it constructive in his churches.

  • detroitblkmale30

    feetxxxl1 : We fundamentally disagree. as does Jesus’ very words in scripture with your post. Jesus DID NOT come to release us from any laws or obligations of the old testament. He came to UPHOLD those. I cant say it any more clearly than that. Anything other than that is a revisionist attempt on the Bible. Do you even read the old testament anymore or do you just focus on the new testament?

  • detroitblkmale30

    shadow_man: you say I havent shown any facts or proven things. Neither have you. YOu have offered you interpretation of scripture, which these days apparently are like opinions, everybody has one. We obviously diasgree. Simply saying something you disgree with is taken out of context, does NOT actually mean it is taken out of context. I or millions of other Christians fail to see your point. “The Sodom story also does not condemn homosexuality.”

  • detroitblkmale30

    shadow: would this all loving all knowing merciful God simply allow these misunderstanding to fester? Keep in mind unlike slavery and similar issues, this was not a topic on which the Bible said little. As the Words of the Bible read today, it very clearly speaks out against homosexuality. So I would beleive that a God who is so loving and caring, would NOT allow his word to be twisted for centuries, when he had the opportunity to correct it through his son. He did NOT however. Why is that???? Why would he wait for rev. robinson and similar “scholars” to attempt to contextualize the arugment thousands of years later??? The answer in case you are wondering is…HE WOULDNT. Don’t worry more specific responses to your comments to come.

  • feetxxxl1

    uphold……….to maintain, to followfulfill…………to complete

  • detroitblkmale30

    feetxxxl1Im glad you have a dictionary complete in the Biblical sense does not mean to do away with. So we agree Jesus came to fulfill, complete hold and maintain the Levitical laws which prohibit homosexuality. Even the phrase is in agreement with something and not opposition to. SO even if Jesus was saying I came to complete the mosaic and levitical laws. It meant he came to support them. He clearly says do not think I came to do away with the law.No where in the new testament Jesus say you no longer need to follow the ten commandments or other laws of moral conduct. He ushers in grace and love but he also calls for accountabilty and for followers to “sin no more.” Jesus didnt define sin, it was already define. He didnt change what sin was, he changed the punishment for sin through his love.Sin is still sin, the law is still the law. We still must follow it. We cannot live however we want to simply because we have grace. The Bible says “God is not mocked, you will reap what you sow.”We can be thankful for God’s love we can’t however take advantage of it.

  • detroitblkmale30

    I can sum up your major one argument with one refutation, because frankly, we all have better things to do on a weekend than this. The word arsenokoites which you keep hammering like a nail sticking out. NO one , and even Robinson agrees in his other posts with this, can say definitively and consistently what it meant or referred to. Which could have included everything from homosexuality to pedophilia, to idolatry to, irreverance. So why through different authors of scripture at different times in different books, and testaments, is it referred to as the same thing..homosexuality??..hmmmm..At the end of the day, nothing you have posted or said has convinced me and apparently vice versa. I’ll stand on the Word of God in the Bible as it stands, 2000 years of precedent, the majority of Christendom and most importantly both the re-affrimation of the mosaic moral laws by Jesus. You can stand on one vague greek word, Robinson’s interpretation and the “enlightenment” of non-Biblical sources and societal leaders.

  • shadow_man

    detroitblkmale30 wrote: “your “troll” comment is both comical and juvenile.” Name-calling ^_^ Just like a troll typically does. I see you can pull out a list of scholars, but unlike myself, you still do not cite evidence from them to counter my points. I can also do the same copy and pasta of scholars ^_^”Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality” John Boswell is professor of history at Yale and the winner of the 1981 American Book Award For History among other things. Boswell’s 400 page book is renowned as being the most comprehensive study and is the result of ten years of research. Boswell’s extensive study cites from over 100 other scholars works. Paul Robinson of The New York Times Book Review, says of the book “John Boswell restores one’s faith in scholarship…His knowledge of the relevant scholarly literature is remarkable, and his book displays the sweep and control that one finds only in the work of a major historian. Newsweek in its review said “An astonishing work of scholarship that ranges with ease over fourteen centuries, almost as many languages…” Boswell goes on for 60 pages just on lexicography, texts and translations. He takes the biblical language very seriously. Boswell is a prize winning, respected historian. “The New Testament and Homosexuality” Robin Scroggs, Prof of New Testament at Union Theological Seminary is a serious theologian and is favorable reviewed by many theologians. He is a married heterosexual. He also cites other theological professors that read his manuscripts and the final book is a combination of much insight from many Christian theologians. Scroggs, includes cites from Boswell and expands even further. “Body Theology” James B. Nelson, Professor of Christian Ethics, United Theological Seminary, New Brighton, MN. Deals with both heterosexual and homosexual issues. William Coffin, Pastor Emeritus, Riverside Church of New York, says “For all pastors, counselors, and especially Church members who are silent, timid, or negative about sexuality “Body Theology” is a godsend.” Nelson calls Christian Homophobia a sin from Jewish through Christian times due to the false understandings. What the Bible forbids is acts of lust, rape, idolatry, violation of religious purity obligations, or pederasty, but no condemnation of homosexuality in relationships of mutual respect and love. “On the other hand, the Bible pointedly celebrates instances of same-sex emotional intimacy, a fact often overlooked by fearful homophobic readers.

  • shadow_man

    That list doesn’t even include the hundreds of scholar and historians referenced in my links, which prove homosexuality is not wrong :)(Change *** to www)

  • shadow_man

    detroitblkman: Ahhh, more troll-like behavior, throwing out blatant lies like this one.detroitblkman wrote: “you say I havent shown any facts or proven things. Neither have you.”shadow_man wrote: “It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.Now I’m pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.”That’s factual history. While our interpretations are opinion, i have proven why mine has far more weight than yours, as i cite far more evidence ^_^

  • shadow_man

    detroitblkmale30: Lol, you merely reposted your sodom rebuttal in a different way. My interpretation proves you wrong. But i can copy and paste too my friend ^_^The Sodom Story – Genesis 19:1-29All other Old and New Testament references to Sodom involved the sins of idolatry, inhospitality, indifference toward the poor and the rejection of God’s messengers. There are NO REFERENCES to same sex acts or HOMOSEXUALITY. It’s interesting that out of all the people in the Bible who mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah, only Jude explicitly mentioned sexual activity (I’ll get to that). And why in the world would Lot offer his DAUGHTER to supposed male homosexuals? And how is it possible that the entire city was homosexual?So what were the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah? Oh, I don’t deny that sexual activities took place (but of every conceivable kind…particularly of the abusive kind, and certainly not exclusively gay sex), but the implications in the above passages were that Sodom and Gomorrah were smitten for their general moral depravity: that is, the city was pretty much an embodiment of every sin imaginable. What really broke the camel’s back though was the city’s inhospitality. In Mosaic law (under which death was not an uncommon punishment for what we might consider trivial today), and considering the cultural norms of the time, inhospitality toward guests was punishable by death (consider Exodus 23:9 for why this is so). That is, by showing a clear lack of hospitality to the two angels and presumably others, piled on top of the city’s overall depravity, Sodom had doomed itself long before its citizens tried to rape the angels on Lot’s doorstep. Oh, by the way, calling the citizens “homosexual” because they tried to rape someone makes as much sense as calling male prison rape the act of homosexuals.So what of Jude 7? In the KJV, Jude mentions “fornication” (adultery; self explanatory) and “strange flesh” — in Greek, “sarkos heteras” (“other flesh”). Remember that the men tried to rape *angels*, who by biblical definition are not *human*. That is to say, it can just as easily be interpreted that they were committing bestiality of sorts — for attempting to rape angels. Or, it’s possible that the meaning was something else entirely — cannibalism (considering how it talks about “flesh”, not “bodies”). I don’t tend to believe the cannibalism theory, but it’s been posited.

  • shadow_man

    detroitblkmale30: On your next comment, you talk about how God lets homosexuality fester for 2000 years long and that’s why it’s wrong. Well, looking back at history, God also let slavery and the subjugation of woman fester so long. Only recently has those changed as we realized our earlier interpretation of the Bible was wrong. The same thing is happening here with homosexuality :) When the progressive train passes you by, and the majority of people see homosexuality as normal and accept gay marriage, remember when i said “i told you so” ^_^

  • shadow_man

    (Continued from below)# Define arsenokoites. Porphyrius Phil. Against the Christians, 88.13. The context is adultery, drunkenness, theft, witchcraft but the arsenokoit stem is not defined.# Define arsenokoites. Hippolytus, AD 170-236, Refutation of All Heresies. The context is the serpent in the garden of Eden, sodomizing-raping Eve and Adam.This usage gives no basis for concluding that arsenokoites refers to homosexuality. Naas is the serpent, from the word Naas, referring to the Naasseni, the people who call themselves Gnostics.“Naas, however, has committed sin, for he went in unto Eve, deceiving her, and debauched her; and (such an act as) this is a violation of law. He, however, likewise went in unto Adam, and had unnatural [meaning nonprocreative or interspecies] intercourse with him; and this is itself also a piece of turpitude, whence have arisen adultery and sodomy.”Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, Book V, Chapter 21. This Link will open in a new page.# Define arsenokoites. Flavius Claudius Julianus, Against the Galilaeans. Claudius quotes I Corinthians 6:9 without providing a definition of the word.# Define arsenokoites. Eusebius – Preparation of the Gospel, 6:10. Eusebius uses the word in reference to pederasty or rape. The text does not indicate homosexuality as we understand it today – a faithful, noncultic partnership between two men of equal status.# Define arsenokoites. Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel, Book I, 6.23. Eusebius uses the word in a warning against adultery, followed by the phrase, against nature (indicating nonprocreative sex). Eusebius provides no definition of the word.# Define arsenokoites. Epiphanius, AD 310-403. Two references, both of which quote I Corinthians 6:9 without providing a definition.# Define arsenokoites. Athanasius, AD 296-373. Athanasius quotes I Corinthians 6:9 without providing a definition.# Define arsenokoites. Basilius, AD 329-379. Five times Basil quotes Paul’s use of the arsenokoit stem without providing a definition.# Define arsenokoites. John Chrysostom, AD 347-407. Twenty times Chrysostom quotes I Corinthians 6:9 or I Timothy 1:10 or makes allusion to those verses without providing a definition.# Define arsenokoites. Pseudo-Macarius, mid-fourth-early fifth century, Sermon 49:5-6. As used by Pseudo-Macarius, the word refers to interspecies sex, the attempted rape of angels in Sodom, not homosexuality.# Define arsenokoites. Theodoretus, AD 393-457. Theodoretus uses the word four times, once in a vice list and in quotations from I Corinthians 6:9, without providing a definition.

  • shadow_man

    Let me bump the other interpretations to show how it all ties in together. Romans does not condemn homosexuality.If taken out of context, this passage seems to condemn homosexuals. However, when Romans 1:26-27 is considered within the context of Romans 1:16 through Romans 2:16, the Scriptures clearly present a different teaching. Paul was writing to the church in Rome. The Roman church had become troubled by divisions related to spiritual pride. Paul was addressing the Christians in Rome and teaching about the pagans in Rome. After declaring the power of Christ’s gospel to save all, he pointed out that the religious people of Rome had refused to even acknowledge GOD as one of their many gods. They had turned their backs on the one true living God and worshiped handmade idols. Paul explained that as a result of their idolatry, every part of their lives had become corrupt and vile. Paul then told the Roman Christians that they were not to judge others. To judge others is to condemn yourself (Romans 2:1). Christians are to love others out of their brokenness and into the healing wholeness that is found in Jesus Christ. The Greek word Paul used, that has been translated in our Bibles as “natural/unnatural”, relates to that which is against one’s own inherent nature (i.e., heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts). It was also related to Paul’s concept of what was culturally acceptable. The same Greek word is used in I Cor. 11:14-15 in reference to correct hair length for men and women and in Gal. 2:15 in reference to Jews and Gentiles who were such by “nature.” Paul emphasized that IDOLATRY (not homosexuality) was the evil which resulted in temple prostitution, sadomasochism, and lack of regard for others. Romans 1:24-27: It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.Now I’m pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.

  • shadow_man

    Leviticus is constantly taken out of context. These two lines do not condemn homosexuals when you examine Leviticus as a whole and relate the historical times.Leviticus 18:22: Leviticus 20:13: Both of these verses refer to heterosexuals who participated in fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks, not homosexuals, there is absolutely no mention of sexual orientation or homosexuality. Also, the word abomination was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or dealing with any type idol worship.The Hebrew word “toevah” was used in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. “Toevah” has been translated in our Bibles as “abomination” or “detestable”. The “toevah” was used throughout the Old Testament for activity involving ethnic contamination and religious idolatry. “Toevah” refers to things that were ritually unclean – like eating pork. It is significant that another Hebrew word, “zimah,” also translated “abomination,” which means intrinsic evil or evil by its very nature, was not used in Leviticus 18:22, or Leviticus 20:13.It is also significant that female homosexual relationships are not mentioned in the old testament. That’s because they aren’t talking about sexual orientation, they are talking about idolatrous practices.

  • shadow_man

    detroitblkmale30: Once again, you are proven wrong :) Homosexuality is not a sin. After the name-calling and lying you attempted, it’s pretty clear you’re trying to troll, and failing miserably ^_^ If i already know what you’re doing, you will fail to incite anger every time.Ciao my friend! :D

  • detroitblkmale30

    shadow_man: nice try. If you go back you’ll notice you have defined yourself as the troll since you were the one to launch the troll label at me. Nice caught in your own noose just like Haman. once again you havent proven anything, just taken your opinion and those who agree with you and offered their thoughts.You’ve have simply put forth opinions of others that have not “proven” anything. If it were so compelling EVERYONE would support it kinda like gravity or a round earth. So alas you have provent NOTHING.Repeating what you said earlier doesnt make it any more true, now that I think is “trollish”behavior once again in your own admission.I also notice you didnt respond to any of the main posts that was said in my last posts. Its ok at some point one runs out of arguments and things to say its natural.

  • shadow_man

    detroitblkmale30: Don’t be mad at me that your trolling has failed miserably ^_^ If i were trolling, i would never have provided any evidence or links. But of course, you rarely post evidence (listing random scholars but not showing what they say isn’t evidence), name-call, and have been caught lying. It’s easy to see why your trolling has failed miserably :) Lol, merely saying “you haven’t proven anything” and then looking at my posts is equivalent to me holding up a shiny red apple, and you claiming “it’s not red” ^_^The difference between what i posted and what you posted is that your posts are mostly your opinions not backed up by good supporting evidence (i’ve refuted all of them), whereas the evidence i posted is from reputable biblical scholars and historians who have posted significant evidence proving homosexuality is not a sin.Of course, that doesn’t matter to you, since you’re trying to troll, and failing miserably at it ^o^

  • detroitblkmale30

    shadow_man: shadow, by our very definition, even though I already know im not, Ill show you the error of your ways; I am not a troll. I have no desire to incite anger first of all, I am simply putting forth a perspective which I believe in. That is having the conviction of one’s beleif, not trolling. However if it makes you feel superior to call me a troll, go ahead, I know that sometimes makes people feel better about themselves to try and attempt to inaccurately belittle others. II’m secure enough to allow you to try and label me something that benefits you(even if it is irrelevant) SO there call me what you want to..sticks and stones…Untrue once again. my opinions are based of centuries of facts and scripture. Your opinion are based off of opinionated and slanted research. That’s ok Washington does that all the time. YOu havent refuted anything really. But once again if it makes you feel better to have the “upper hand” *rolling eyes* You havent caught my lying at all, nothing ive said is a lie. calling people a liar doesnt make them a liar. all of those scholars support many of the premises of what I already put forth. If you or anyone else are so inclined to take the time, you can find them in their papers. There is NO evidence that homosexuality is a not a sin. Thats the point. Simply posting things that others believe to be true are not proof that homosexuality is not a sin. Like I said irrefutable proof means everyone accepts it, there is no way to deny it. There are clear ways to dispute and aruge with every point you have made or your scholars. Your example proves my point. There is no red apple that you are holding up that everyone can look at and say yes that is red. Your example is more like holding up some sort of crystal that may look red to you from your angle when the light is hitting it, but is different colors from where others stand and depending on what light reflects of it. That pretty much sums up this whole debate. The difference is since the Bible has specifically states an anti-homosexuality position in both testaments, through multiple writers, contexts, cultures and since there is no refuting of this position anywhere actually IN THE BIBLE, including by Jesus himself, when he had every chance to do so, the onus is on you and yours to indisputably, definitively, provide overwhelming evidence that the BIble is wrong.You have not accomplished this.No one else has either, so you shouldnt feel bad. It hasnt been accomplished because it isnt true. Gravity we can proove, various laws of nature and phyics we can proove, this on the other hand, for folks on your side of the issue is an OPINION based on interpretation of a couple of greek words with unclear meanings. But you put forth a valiant attempt at trying to troll-matize me. Take heart in that.

  • detroitblkmale30

    shadow: obviously you need an exercise in definitions and self examination. First of all you began the whole troll diatribe.. inacurately I might add. Secondly I referred to your arguments at times being comical and juvenile, not you as a person. When people get upset and offended it is almost always when they feel they as a person have been insulted. I however did not do that,hence , I was not name calling as that refers to trying to affix these insults to you or your name. So as I said. I was not name calling. Failed argument number one.Lying: LOL you havent shown any facts that prove homosexuality is NOT a sin. You have simply So saying that someone is “lying” because they suggest that you havent offered definitive proof is in of itself a lie, although I won’t stoop to “name-calling” by calling you a liar. I simply beleive you passionately believe what you do as I beleive what I do. No harm in that. Failed argument number two.Sorry engaging in disputing another’s points does not make one a troll, if it does guess what you are one too. Like I already said on that point. The point of those scriptures is BOTH idolatry and same sex acts were sinful to God. So simply trying to deflect the sin only on the idolatry is disingenuous. Even if that was the case, if same sex acts were unacceptable in idolatry why would they be acceptable outside of it? Why were they associated with idolatry in the first place?? No matter how you slice it, seems like it all lies on thin ice.The only thing that is predictable is your repeated and failed attempts to define me as a troll. But since it is obviously so important to you to affix that label to me, however inaccurately, like i said last time fine go ahead lol.I’m secure enough in who I am to know it doesnt apply. I just find it odd that the person who began by personally calling me a name “troll” is going to have an issue with having his IDEAS called names.

  • detroitblkmale30

    Oops missed a sentence in there.. On the lying point, instead of definitively proving something you have simply posted positions of pro-gay scholars. That’s not proving something, basically offering a perspective.

  • detroitblkmale30

    shadow_man: Here we go again…Its funny how on one hand you focus so much attention on being accurate, but when you miss the mark you deflect and refocus on trolling.It is inaccurate actually. Just admit it. You missed the mark on that attack. Its ok I know your human. All of us make mistakes.Seriously though, I’ve already “allowed” you to call me a troll if it makes you feel better. And you still keep trying smack me over the head with it as if you have to try an prove it to the world. LOL What is your fixation with “trolls” Most people arent even familiar with that term. By your own admission focusing on a joke or even a NAME CALLING fixation actually makes you a troll by your own definition. Own it. Its ok.Well im sorry to inform you, “meeting you” has had absolutely ZERO impact on my through process regarding my self-worth intellectual abilities. I still think Im EXACTLY as intelligent an capable or deflating any arugument as I was prior to this increasingly silly “debate” I really am over here laughing right now. Are you serious with that line???? Wow how egotistical are you? Thats ridiculous. You will never get the satisfication or confirmation from me that somehow I think you’re better or smarter than I am. Never. Nothing you can post or say will change that. Nice try though.Lol, claiming someone does not provide evidence when they provided links is the true proof. Also, when you avoid 90% of someone’s points, that’s even clearer proof ^_^I also notice you immediately made a second post above your big one. This shows desperation on your part of trolling. Here’s a pro-tip: Trolling does not work if the person you’re attempting to incite anger knows that’s what you want :0)

  • detroitblkmale30

    Dear Shadow: I almost hesitated to post this right after my previous post when I ran out of space on my last comment, because of your last trollish criticism, but then I remembered that you yourself post two comments in a row(simply look at some of your posts) I thought, well then its ok because surely the great amd all-knowing shadow certainly wouldn’t be caught doing something so “desperate”

  • shadow_man

    Lol you want me to do that when i already know you’re trying to troll, and failing miserably. ^_^ Not only do you name-call and lie, but you also avoid most points and provide virtually no evidence. That’s why your trolling has failed, you are too obvious and use too many troll-techniques at the same time. You started out well making it less obvious, but this has one drawback. If you fail ultimately to incite anger, you’ve wasted all that effort, and usually at that point, a troll starts to become very obvious and desperate for a reaction, as you’ve done here.There’s this art called troll-busting, aka owning and countering a troll on their own turf. It’s relatively a new thing to deal with them trolls and requires far more skill. I won’t expose the tactics used for it though, because then you’ll know what to look for ^_^ But you’ve pretty much done what i wanted you to do to bust your trolling. The main weakness of a troll, is once i know you’re trying to do it, there’s 0% chance of you winning, because the only way a troll can “win” is to incite anger. It’s an extremely fun new technique. The fact that your trolling has failed miserably, is simply icing on the cake :o)Now let’s examine some of your failed trolling once again :Ddetroitblkmale30 wrote: “obviously you need an exercise in definitions and self examination”lol!name-callinglyingshadow_man wrote: “It would help if you knew what the culture was like back then. In those times, male-male intercourse was a result of idol worship. Back then, it was a common practice of cult priests and priestesses to submit to sexual acts with either gender as part of the worship of their deities. Therefore, such acts were considered sinful and debauchery. It would be the same if it were hetero people involved in cultic sex, prostitution or sexual abuse of minors.Now I’m pretty sure that two guys engaging in sex these days are NOT idol worshipers. In fact, 99% of the time, it is a physical act of love; just like any hetero couples.”More troll-like behavior, blatant lies.Keep em coming my friend :D

  • detroitblkmale30

    shadow_man: You said nothing new in the your post. Cutting and pasting previous points is actually troll behavior, although I dont have to tell you that since you are so familiar with trolls. Running out of things to say?? Its still comical to me that you are so busy trying to take the speck out of my eye, you cant even see the beam in yours. You launch this whole name calling (Troll) discussion and then turn around and accuse me of name calling when I’ve already refuted that point clearly.MY response to your last point was an example of the phrase “you brought it on yourself. Once again I am not lying, simply disagreeing with you is not lying. LOL But then again people who argue from egotistical standpoints, view everyone else as beneath them and inferior so I guess from that standpoint it doesnt surprise me that you would take your word as ultimate truth, therefore anything that someone says contrary to it(like youve only offered opinions supporting yours) will be deemed a lie. There is no debating or arguing with someone who acts so delusionally. You are incapable of admitting your mistakes. Another sign of egotism. Its ok I never assumed you were perfect. Troll busting lol.. well you are failing miserably and you never will succeed. I am not a troll never will be. But if it saves time in both of our days, to “allow” you to “bust” me whatever that means LOL. This one-time debate has turned plain silly. Take your insistence on my inciting anger.”The main weakness of a troll, is once i know you’re trying to do it, there’s 0% chance of you winning, because the only way a troll can “win” is to incite anger.”

  • detroitblkmale30

    shadow-man: Troll: that’s obviously the only language you understand shadow. enough of your silly kindergarten attempts to “trollize” me. It really is appears to be some kind of superiority complex with you. If i can somehow call him a troll, then I am superior to him and I “win” Whatever win means lol.This is quite juvenile. Real easy to say you predicted something (in your head) after youve seen what’s been written LOL.I don’t see any post below that one that says that. I guess for those who engage in triviality like you do I should have said you have said nothing NEW of consequence, nothing new in putting forth a relevant argument. Indeed even that “new” paragraph simply rehashes your incorrect suggestion that I am a troll, in a different way. The premise is still old, and increasingly tired. Ooops looks like you’ve failed to catch me in a lie, again my friend.detroitblkmale30 wrote: “obviously you need an exercise in definitions and self examination”

  • detroitblkmale30

    shadow_man: I think I gave you too much credit. I took you for someone who could at least be genuine in discussions, but I see you are insistent on ignoring critiques even when they fit you, repeating arguments, and mindlessly droning on and on about trolling when it doesnt even apply.You conduct yourself one way(namecalling, as in calling me a troll) but take no responsibilty for doing the very things you accuse me of(even though I haven’t)Clearly you have no idea what name calling actually means.Further attempting to show you your errors would only fall on deaf ears, or eyes in this case. Therefore your attempted applications of the term troll to me do not apply. You clearly mistake opinion(even if of others) as facts. There is a difference. The earth is round is a fact.No one argues that point. Saying homosexuality is not a sin within Christianity is your OPINION. No one has PROVEN that it isnt. The only thing that has failed is your “troll-busting” .I leave you to your incessant fascination with trolling, perhaps you can convince someone else that they are somehow inferior or a troll as you have failed to accomplish this with me. Hey, you can’t win them all the saying goes. The only thing I am doing wrong is continuing a conversation with you as you have no interest in being genuine about any points of discussion. I leave you to your troll-fixation. I will continue to seek out intellectual debates, not trivial ones which this one has devolved into.Good day sir.

  • shadow_man

    On a side note:WHOOOOOoOO HOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!The elimination of bigotry and discrimination has taken one step forwards.Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has finally been repealed. It’s about time our Congress acknowledged the fact that majority of military servicemen, the majority of Americans, and the majority of our government supported the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and realize it was a discriminatory policy that had no place in our modern day. We need to praise our gay and lesbian men who are serving our nation and fighting for our freedom.