Homosexuality in I Corinthians and I Timothy

This is the fifth in a series of articles, by The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal Bishop of New … Continued

This is the fifth in a series of articles, by The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire, and visiting Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, Washington, DC, examining the Biblical texts traditionally used to address the issue of homosexuality from a religious (Jewish and Christian) perspective.

“Homosexuality” in I Corinthians and I Timothy

Finally, we turn to two other letters of Paul, one to Timothy and the other to the Christian community in Corinth, passages which are used to condemn homosexuality in modern times. A closer look at those identified as “male prostitutes” and “sodomites” (in the New Revised Standard Version translation) reveals serious questions about who is being talked about in these passages.

In the letter to the Corinthians, amid the list of those who will not inherit the kingdom of God, Paul uses two Greek words: malakoi arsenokoitai. The first is a common Greek word meaning “soft,” and elsewhere in scripture is used to describe a garment. Nowhere else in scripture is it used to describe a person. The early church seems to have understood it as a person with a “soft” or weak morality. Later, it would come to denote (and be translated as) those who engage in masturbation, or “those who abuse themselves.” In our own time, with masturbation having been more popularly accepted, this word has often been used to denote homosexuals. All we actually, factually, know about the word is that it meant “soft.”

The Greek word arsenokoitai is an even greater mystery. It is found nowhere else in Scripture – NOR is there any record of its being used in any other contemporaneous text. We have nothing, either internal to the scriptures nor external to them, to give us guidance as to its meaning.

When such a mysterious word appears in an ancient text, the translator must do something with it. Even with commonly understood words, a translator has choices to make about which English word best communicates the word’s meaning. In the case of a completely unknown word like arsenokoitai, the danger of mistranslation is heightened. Many translators have chosen to take the two words together, understanding the Greek word for “soft” as applying to the receptive partner in male-to-male anal intercourse, and have taken the arsenokoitai to mean the active partner. This is speculation at best.

Others have speculated that this receptive/active relationship applies to a practice (which would have been known to Paul) in which an older man took a teenaged boy “under his wing,” taught him the ways of the world, and used him sexually. If this were its true meaning, we would all condemn such a practice as child abuse! No one is arguing for acceptance of such a practice.

The same pairing of words is used in Paul’s First Letter to Timothy, with no further light being shed on its meaning. Whatever its meaning, there is no reason to believe that homosexual men, as we now understand them, are the target of Paul’s condemnations.

Yet, we can understand the prejudice and bigotry that has resulted from the ambitious, if erroneous, translations of these words: depending on the translation, the words “pervert,” “sodomite,” and even “homosexual” have been used. If an unsuspecting believer picks up his Bible and reads the word “homosexual” in one of these passages, the reader assumes that Paul meant what we mean by that word, and the condemnation of homosexuals seems unequivocally clear. The fact is, we simply can only speculate about what Paul meant in his use of these words. What we do know is that when the meaning of a word or passage is unclear, the translator’s own prejudices are apt to play a part in the words used to translate the unknowable meaning of the Greek. Do we really want to base our condemnation of an entire group of people on a shaky translation of an unknowable Greek word? A reasonable person, not to mention a compassionate Christian, would not.

In Conclusion

Whatever one makes of these seven “texts of terror,” it seems clear that they must not be used in the service of condemning homosexuality as we know it today. Simply stated, the Bible does not speak to the questions we are asking today about men and women who are affectionally oriented toward people of the same gender. Taken in their own contexts, these texts speak to situations and from understandings different from our own.

Let me be clear. I am not asserting that the Bible speaks affirmatively of same gender, intimate, sexual relationships. All seven of these passages are negative. They simply are not addressing the questions we are asking in light of modern understandings of psycho-sexual relationships.

There is much, however, in scripture about compassion for one’s fellow human beings, a call for empathy and justice for the marginalized, and a standard of honesty, mutuality and love in all relationships. Therefore, I would argue that Holy Scripture gives us great and lasting guidance for the conduct of our relationships, one with another, whether they be with strangers, friends, or intimate, life-long partners. But a wholesale condemnation of the loving relationships of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people? No!

Read the relevant passages below:

I Corinthians 6

9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers–none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

I Timothy 1

8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. 9This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, 10fornicators, sodomites, slave-traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

  • detroitblkmale30

    Not much to go on here, just vague references to a few passages of scripture based upon there seldomness of use. Nothing convincing on Robinson’s part saying that it doesnt prove homosexuality is a sin, even though he tries to state that. He also leaves out that moloks is also used to denote “effeminate”Additionally Robinson leaves out in this Biblical homosexual “walkthrough” Jude 1:7 Deuteronomy 23:17, among others. Is it any wonder afterall that through these centuries scholars, Biblical editors arrived at smiliar definitions and uses of these words. Only “today” all of a sudden, these are seen as misguided by a small minority of christian beleivers such as robinson. We must guard against this type of self-supporting Biblical revisionism that leads to moral relativism which is clearly against both old and new testament covenants. The real question isnt how could such a practice be wrong when Jesus doesnt say anything about it or how these passages are mistken, but rather how anyone after reading multipe passages, in various books of the Bible, in both testaments, written by different authors, cultures, and nations ALL arrived at the same conclusion. Afterall if such course correction were necessary, the PERFECT time for God to revise his oppostion to homosexuality or clairfy his intention would have been with Jesus’ ministry and as Robinson so specifically stated, Jesus said………..

  • EastCoastCommentator

    All we have here is collection of words to justify one’s own sin and no regard for holiness.Why is this man allowed editorial space? Would a practicing drunkard, thief, liar or adulterer be granted time as a valid authority? He may be considered a “voice” of religion, but does not know the God of the Bible or His Word.

  • joe_allen_doty

    There is NOT word in the Hebrew or the Greek text of the Bible that even means “sodomite.” The residents of Sodom are literally called “people” in the Hebrew text of Genesis 19. Every time that the word “Sodomite” appears in the King James Version Bible, the religion in question has no connection with Sodom residents.The mistranslated Hebrew word is “kodesh.” As a noun when referring to a male human being, it means a votary for a deity (god) of any kind. Kodesh as a noun really just means “holy” as in “holy” person, place, or thing. As a verb, Kodesh means, to “be holy, “make holy,” or “set aside for a special use.”The word mistranslated as “sodomite” in the quoted text in italics is “arsenokoitai.” Since it has the “ai” ending instead of the “oi” (masculine) ending, the people in question are women. If “arseno” is supposed to mean “male” and “koit” is supposed to mean “bed,” then it is women with lose morals to take men to bed with them. Paul coined the word “arsenokoitai.” NO writer in Greek before or after Paul ever used the word. An Episcopal Bishop ought to have known better than quote a mistranslation.

  • SubRosa2

    On religious law: Romans 3:23-25 – “… since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith.”On judging others: Luke 6:37 – “Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” Also John 8:7 – “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”On using the Word of the Lord against potential believers: Matthew 18:6 “If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depths of the sea.”On love: John 13: 34 “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another.”May the Lord of Love and the Prince of Peace have mercy on us all.

  • thebump

    Good Lord, is he still at it?

  • Secular

    Mr. Robinson, your justification of the homosexuality from scripture is tortured. Throw the damn book on the dust heap and be done with it.

  • feetxxxl1

    its interesting that believers created a regulation in their minds and lived under it for 2000 years that said that homosexuality was a sin, and because of this made further the assessment that all homosexual sex was about lust.but as much as this is not of christ and his new covenant, it pales in comparison to 2000 years of proactive antisemetism in spite of the existence of romans 10 and 11.

  • feetxxxl1

    reeditit is interesting that WE believers………..

  • feetxxxl1

    reedit

  • 4SimpsonsDotWordpressDotCom

    Will the Washington Post be giving a full series to authentic Christians to address what that the Bible really says about homosexual behavior? It couldn’t be more clear, despite the spins of Robinson. 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms. 100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman. 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children). 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions. Of course we should treat gays kindly. Robinson & Co. are clever are implying that taking the orthodox (read: real) reading of scripture on human sexuality is somehow mean. But that is a lie. If you really love gays you’ll tell them the truth. What the pro-gay theologians do is the most hateful speech of all, telling gays that God is pleased with their behavior.

  • garoth

    Most of the posters, in their efforts to either denigrate Bishop Robinson or to defend their anti-homosexual bias, have not even listened to his argument – as evidenced by their posts. detroitblkmale30, your first argument, including other texts for consideration, while perhaps well-intentioned in trying to broaden the conversation, is a bit beside the point. The texts the Bishop considers are the basic tyexts both sides of the debate have been considering for some time now, and are the ones on which the arguments – from both sides – have been based. If you want to open up a new dialog based on other texts, stand in line. The rest of your argument does not hold water. The same could be said for slavery, women’s mionistry, and a host of other redefining of the texts that has, historically, gone on ever since these first texts were written. It is common, for instance, for scholars to speak of JlD,E and P when talking about the first five books of the Bible, because the biblical writers, themselves, edited and rewrote old material to make it more “relative” to their time. Paul and Jesus use the “Old” Testament in new ways – even misquoting it – to give it new meanings, making it “relative” to their message.Your other error is a theological one, regarding the concept of “Covenant” and its applicability to what Christians refer to as the “New Covenant.” The “New Covenant” Paul speaks of is not one based on law, or keeping of the law, but based on “by grace through faith,” as both Paul and, later Luther, put it. Luther defines two “uses” for the law: (1)the civil use, to “restrain evil” and order society. This use can include things like stop signs and payment of taxes, and are not “God-given,” but their effect is one that God desires – that we might lead orderly lives, protected from harm. These laws may be changed “as needed,” and vary by culture and time. (2) to drive us to Christ. Seeing the law (any laws), we are reminded of our human sinfulness and inability to keep the law, as both Jesus and Paul remind us (Jesus telling us, for instance, that even “lust in the heart” is breaking the rule against adultery, and calling a person a “fool,” breaking the law against murder). Seeing that we cannot possibly keep the law, we are forced to rely on God’s grace alone, as the sole means of our salvation, and the basis of all of our relationships – with both God and other people. Others have also talked about a “third use,” that law can serve the purpose of helping us see what God desires – in “do not murder,” for instance, we see that God desires life for us. Keeping of laws, however – civil or religious – in no way defines our relationship with God. Paul addresses this particularly in Romans, and in Galatians, it is the central argument of the letter.Again, thank you, Bishop Robinson, for your essays.

  • 4SimpsonsDotWordpressDotCom

    “Paul and Jesus use the “Old” Testament in new ways – even misquoting it – to give it new meanings, making it “relative” to their message.”Thanks for tipping your hand. Authentic Christians know that the original texts contained exactly what God wanted them to. Jesus affirmed the OT to the last letter. Saying he misquoted it is a direct assault on his deity.

  • 4SimpsonsDotWordpressDotCom

    “Most of the posters, in their efforts to either denigrate Bishop Robinson or to defend their anti-homosexual bias . . .”It is also interesting how you executed the common ploy of starting with an unfounded ad hominem attack. I realize that is effective rhetoric to shut down conversation with many people, but it is still doubly fallacious. You beg the question about our motives and use personal attacks. Cute.

  • PSolus

    EastCoastCommentator,”All we have here is collection of words to justify one’s own sin and no regard for holiness.”You say that like it’s a bad thing.”Why is this man allowed editorial space?”Probably for the same reason that you are allowed commenting space.Many are.Do you?

  • thebump

    A commenter writes: Maybe for

  • feetxxxl1

    that believers hold concepts that jesus,god, came to follow the law, rather than, god came to fulfill, to complete the law,and that god, his love is greater and transcends the law, shows that even after 2000 years believers are still struggling to embrace the new covenant of christ.

  • archyboi

    Once again the scholarship is sorely lacking. Peter Damian coined the terms ‘sodomy’ and ‘sodomite’. These words were never apart of the Ancient Greek or Roma Latin. Never.

  • detroitblkmale30

    garoth: Considering the Bible is taking in its entire context, my points were not beside the point considering those other texts are all related to this topic. Besides if you are so strongly entrenched on your position, why the delay in asking me to stand in line to consider other texts? why not just address the issue? Even Robinson is considering other so called “texts of terror.” These texts are all related. Your error in response to my post is assuming there is a correlation between slavery or women’s ministry. There isnt. Slavery was a worldwide cultural institution. Over time humanity has decided to eliminate slavery and rightly so. Slavery however was not something overtly supported by the “law” of the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible is slavery endorsed or called a good institution. There is a passage about slave obeying masters but that scripture is directed at the slave and their well being in this world and the next not as a commendation of support to the slave master or institution. The children of Israel were freed from slavery if you recall.So it can’t be said that. With women “keeping silent in the church” this again was a cultural recommendation by Paul not a directive from God as the Levitical directives agaisnt homosexuality were begun with “thus saith the Lord….” Jesus never misquoted the laws of the old testament. He did however clarify things for those pharisees and other who Jesus felt like had missed the point or highlighting the new covenant of grace and forgivness that he was ushering in. since you bring up that point however, I find it interesting that Jesus did NOT take his ministry as an opportunity to “correct” the law about homosexuality. Obviously he knew the scriptures as everyone did. As Robinson states..Jesus said …..nothing… on the subject.Wonder why.Perhaps because there was no need to clarify those passages they spoke for themselves.I dont see how I missed the point on Covenant of Grace as I actually outline that earlier in this response. Yes we have grace,which is why the woman caught in adultery was not stoned as the old law required. Jesus simultaneously upheld the old law in regards to its prohibitions and instituted the new covenant of grace. Which only solidifies my point actually. The Levitical laws of moral conduct are still in effect for beleivers as Jesus demonstrated with his “go and sin no more” statement meaning that what she did clearly was a sin and while she was not “condemned” she did not have license to continue that behavior. This applies to this context. Jesus upheld the laws against homosexuality, even mentioning that marriage is between a man and a woman. He did not, although he easily could have, open the door to anything else.

  • lepidopteryx

    Detroit Black Male, In the OT, JHWH told the children of Israel that they were allowed to take prisoners of war as slaves, as well as telling them from whom they could and could not purchase slaves. Seems to me that if he thought slavery was a bad thing, he would have forbidden his “chosen people” to practice keeping of slaves.

  • genericrepub

    I think the point that Bishop Robinson is missing is the concept of sin and repentance. Homosexuality is a sin. There are passages in the Old and New Testament to substantiate that. It is one thing to acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin and that it is something a person is struggling to overcome. It doesn’t mean that the person may not slip back on occasion, but acknowledging the sin is a big part of repentance. And that person would be welcome lovingly into most any church in the Country even fundamentalist ones. But the person who comes in and denies the behavior as sinful, who basically says, well its okay cause I want to do it. That person is unrepentant and needs to seriously examine their relationship with God. Yes, we are all sinners, the key is not what sin we commit, it is acknowledging that the sin is in fact a sin and trusting in God to rescue us from that sin. And when we slip up, confessing it to Him. We are all imperfect and alcoholics, adulterers, wife beaters, homosexuals, gluttons, and drug addicts all have some predisposition toward their particular sin. So, the excuse to not repent that God made me this way, doesn’t cut it. Fundamentalists do not hate homosexuals. They find the lack of a repentant heart as the offensive behavior. To say that God has changed His mind about what’s sinful and what is not sinful is a dangerous concept. Most scholars believe that God is immutable unchangeable. That is why Christians use a 2000 year old set of scriptures and have not changed them. Some have written books that are deemed scripturally authoritative by some faiths to supplement the bible. Their names: Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Sun Jung Moon, Mohammed to name a few. Bishop Robinson may be added to that list, soon.

  • Secular

    Slavery was a worldwide cultural institution. Over time humanity has decided to eliminate slavery and rightly so. Slavery however was not something overtly supported by the “law” of the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible is slavery endorsed or called a good institution. There is a passage about slave obeying masters but that scripture is directed at the slave and their well being in this world and the next not as a commendation of support to the slave master or institution. The children of Israel were freed from slavery if you recall.So it can’t be said that. Posted by: detroitblkmale30&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&Detroitblkmale, long time no see. Excuse me your god purportedly freed the Israelites, after killing the first borns. But then Yweh couldn’t bring himself free the remaining no chosen ones, did he? And what about jubilee once 7 years to release Israelite slaves but not necessarily binfing to release non-israelte slaves. What was that, benign neglect? Not endorsement. Is this just like the Yweh not endorsing Abraham’s pimping his wife? Only a person who drank the kool aid by jugs would claim Yweh did not endorse slavery. The same Yweh thought it important proscribe shell fish but forgot to admonish the chosen ones to not have slaves. Or for that matter Allah remembered to recommend women to shave their nether regions but forgot to condemn slavery. More kool aid from James town.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    NT Highlights on SlaveryWhile in prison, Paul met a runaway slave, Onesimus, the property of a Christian — presumably Pheliemon. He sent the slave back to his owner. This action is forbidden in Deuteronomy 23:15-16: “Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee.” “He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.”—————————–

  • FarnazMansouri2

    In the OT, JHWH told the children of Israel that they were allowed to take prisoners of war as slaves, as well as telling them from whom they could and could not purchase slaves. Seems to me that if he thought slavery was a bad thing, he would have forbidden his “chosen people” to practice keeping of slaves.Posted by: lepidopteryx Seems to me that if the God of God’s people thought keeping slaves should be forbidden, he would have forbidden it.Btw., who or what is JHWH. I have in front of me the Hebrew Bible. Kindly, refer chapter and verse to this JHWH, pronouncements attributed to him in Lev, etc., along with relevant commentaries.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    Garoth writes:Paul and Jesus use the “Old” Testament in new ways – even misquoting itDo you have any idea of what a wretched ideologue you sound like in attempting to justify the mangling of Tanakh one finds in the Greek Testament?There is one benefit to this sad series of “essays” by Robinson, along with comments, and that is to those who are in arms against imperialist discourse, racism, etc.The comments in all their diversity offer the full range from bigotry owing to ignorance, failure to inquire, to those issuing from hearts so hardened that they cannot and will not see.Heartening it is that there are some among the benighted bloggers who did take it upon themselves to look further into the “OT” and revise. But they are few and far between.The bottom line is that Robinson, anti-gay bigots, anti-Judaic bigots suffer from much the same malady.ATTENTION JEWS:When Christians learn of Tanakh, read the commentaries, they see themselves “coming out of the darkness.” We have all read this.Read this thread, the essays, and understand why.

  • rambollini-1

    The general population to include many of the voters in California, rightly or wrongly, find gay sexual activities, “unionized” or not, to be “yu-cky” and unusual and typically associate such activity with the spread of AIDS which is of course wrong. Said AIDS epi-demic in the gay male community at the start of the AIDS crises will always remain unfortunately a stigma on the gay community.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    WARNING:rambollini-1 is the former CCNL/Yael/Tom, etc., banned from this blog.He is a notorious homophobe and bigot. It will take a few days for ELIZABETH TENETY to block him as DAVID WATERS did.IGNORE HIM.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    If you read the NT, you will find that the “God” of the NT has nothing to do with the God of Tanakh.Tanakh contains no mention of any original sin. Further, the Adam and Eve story is etiological, and that is all. It is meant, in part, to explain the tendency of human to err, ERR, not “sin.”The task of human is Tikkun Olam, healing or perfecting the world. Human is told in many ways how to do this. It is human’s job and no one elses. When the world is healed and there is no injustice, Messiah (variously interpreted) will come.Human sacrifice was to be ended with the binding of Isaac, who, at the time of the event, was thirty-five years old.The Tanakh God is not human. He cannot be fully comprehended by humans. Moses is the figure to whom the deity revealed himself in as much fullness as a human being could withstand and live. Moses did not see the “face” of God. Tanakh God is not a man.The deity draws sharp distinctions between himself and Sons of Man. To even consider a Son of God is nonJudaic on its face.To think that the Tanakh God, who so condemned human sacrifice, who went to such pins to end it, to think that Tanakh God would sponsor this is psychotic, debauched, evil.

  • detroitblkmale30

    Farnaz: well thats where we differ you have your God and we have ours. Im sad you see things that way but it in now way lessens the power of God and his son Jesus Christ.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    You have your nt gods, yes.

  • detroitblkmale30

    Farnaz “our God is the God of the old and new testaments

  • FarnazMansouri2

    If you read the NT, you will find that the “God” of the NT has nothing to do with the God of Tanakh.Tanakh contains no mention of any original sin. Further, the Adam and Eve story is etiological, and that is all. It is meant, in part, to explain the tendency of human to err, ERR, not “sin.”The task of human is Tikkun Olam, healing or perfecting the world. Human is told in many ways how to do this. It is human’s job and no one else’s. When the world is healed and there is no injustice, Messiah (variously interpreted) will come.Human sacrifice was to be ended with the binding of Isaac, who, at the time of the event, was thirty-five years old.The Tanakh God is not human. He cannot be fully comprehended by humans. Moses is the figure to whom the deity revealed himself in as much fullness as a human being could withstand and live. Moses did not see the “face” of God. Tanakh God is not a man.The deity draws sharp distinctions between himself and Sons of Man. To even consider a Son of God is nonJudaic on its face.To think that the Tanakh God, who so condemned human sacrifice, who went to such pains to end it, to think that Tanakh God would sponsor this is psychotic, debauched, evil.To attribute to Him, the sponsored slaughter of a virgin or man/god to atone for the sins of the community is to undo the “way,” the “walking,” the “path” and exchange it for the pagan blood lust still at work in the region.It is a psychotic, perverse, evil distortion.You have your nt gods.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    If you do not wish to convert to Judaism, but do wish to adhere to the path set out by HaShem for all humanity, you have the Noachide Code, spelled out in Tosefta.1. You shall not murder.2. You shall not steal3. You shall not commit incest or adultery.4. You shall not eat the flesh of living animals.5. You shall not worship idols.6. You shall not blaspheme the name of HaShem.7. You must establish courts of Justice.Even if you take them literally, and it is assumed in Tosefta that you may, that is all right.

  • detroitblkmale30

    yeah i read that already. and you are incorrect. We are made in God’s image which already implies a semblance between God and us. What exactly God looks like no one knows not even you. Jesus was the NEW covenant, an all powerful all capable God is capable of manifesting himself in all kinds of different ways. You yourself say that man is not capable of comprehending all of God’s ways and forms. So how can you say God doesnt do any particular thing? God’s heavenly beings angels manifest themselves in physical form several times in the old testament. Why would it be a stretch to think God could do the same?? Your sacrific reference is also not accurate. God of the Old testament always demanded animal sacrifices so he demanded antonement for sin. Jesus’ death was not considered a sacrifice when it happened. But Jesus did offer himself as atonement for sin, which unlimited the need for future animal sacrifice. This is also consistent you might note with God’s old testament habits of saving either mankind or a city from destruction,captivity through the rigtheousness and worthyness of ONE man(i.e. Noah, Lot, Moses etc.)

  • FarnazMansouri2

    Jesus, if he existed, was not an animal.I don’t begrudge you your nt gods. I object to your nt’s mangling of HaShem, its defilement, its hatred for humanity.Take Tanakh out of your nt, stop torturing gays to the point that they take their own lives, stop trying to legislate in America, and we’ll get along just fine.You shall not murder. You shall not steal. You shall not blaspheme the name of HaShem.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    SECOND REPLYIf you do not wish to convert to Judaism, but do wish to adhere to the path set out by HaShem for all humanity, you have the Noachide Code, spelled out in Tosefta.1. You shall not murder.2. You shall not steal3. You shall not commit incest or adultery.4. You shall not eat the flesh of living animals.5. You shall not worship idols.6. You shall not blaspheme the name of HaShem.7. You must establish courts of Justice.Even if you take them ONLY literally, and it is assumed in Tosefta that you may, that is all right.

  • detroitblkmale30

    I think you need to do some research. There are non-biblical historical accounts Herodotus, Pliny the Younger that confirm Jesus’s life and “death” Never said Jesus was an animal, obviously my last point went right over your head.While we are on the point of telling people to stop, stop painting everyone with a broad brush. I am not torturing anyone or trying to legislate. Everyone is responsible for their own life. This whole arguement of people professing their faith and beleifs are responsible for other people taking their own lives is bogus and bunk. God holds each one of us responsible for our own actions. I am not in favor of anyone speaking in hate, i do not do that myself. You would do well to deal with people as they are individuals. I make no generalizations about you. I would expect more civility and maturity from adults.

  • detroitblkmale30

    Second Reply: I am not in violation of any of those commandments. I am accountable to The Bible and word of God and his son Jesus Christ.I’m not held accountable to YOUR interpretation of Hebrew scripture. Say what you want, its a free country. It has absolutely NO bearing on me and my spiritual life.

  • thebump

    Farnaz: Which precludes sexual immorality. Oops!

  • FarnazMansouri2

    There are non-biblical historical accounts Herodotus, Pliny the Younger that confirm Jesus’s life and “death” It must end. It is inhuman, an atrocity.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    Farnaz: If you do not wish to convert to Judaism, but do wish to adhere to the path set out by HaShem for all humanity, you have the Noachide Code, spelled out in Tosefta.Which precludes sexual immorality. Oops!Posted by: thebump

  • thebump

    @farnaz: Exactly — any sexual act outside the sacramental bond of husband and wife is immoral.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    There is no mention of “sacramental bonds” in Tosefta.Bump, I don’t want to play. You torture the body of Christ with your hatred of gays. (Try thinking about it that way, via YouTube)

  • detroitblkmale30

    FarnazMansouri2: actually yes in BOTH texts ive read them, those arent the only references to Jesus’ life and death he is a historical figure. its a fact whether you accept it or not. sure people should speak in love and not hate. but churhces have a right to preach what they believe is immoral. Those who dont approve are free to create or join their own churches who preach something different

  • thebump

    farnaz, I hate no one. Indeed, telling the truth is the ultimate act of love.Meanwhile, may I respectfully suggest that in light of some of the viciously hateful posts you have allowed to appear here under your name, you may not be the most authoritative indicter on that score.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    farnaz, I hate no one. Indeed, telling the truth is the ultimate act of love.Meanwhile, may I respectfully suggest that in light of some of the viciously hateful posts you have allowed to appear here under your name, you may not be the most authoritative indicter on that score.Said hatred repeats itself in many of the hateful posts we see here and in the gay bishop’s essays.Throughout the aforementioned two thousand years, Jews have reasoned, explained, defended. That did not work.

  • Secular

    farnaz, I hate no one. Indeed, telling the truth is the ultimate act of love.Meanwhile, may I respectfully suggest that in light of some of the viciously hateful posts you have allowed to appear here under your name, you may not be the most authoritative indicter on that score.Posted by: thebump@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@Thebump, you need to learn something here. The professor arrogates to herself the role of the ultimate arbiter of who is bigoted, and who is not. When one is a bigot when one is not. Above all, I mean above all, she is the absolute authority on everything scriptural and there is no appeal. For a self proclaimed atheist, she is also heads up the policing of the blasphemers of Washington Post. So be careful, very careful.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    Bump,Secular is in the process of being shunned. He’s a Hindu Islamophobe, Judeophobe, and God knows what else.He’s getting desperate now that he’s been exposed on other threads.Best to ignore, as the rest of us do. If he keeps this up, he’ll be blocked as CCNL, now Rambollini was.In the meantime, most of us just ignore him.

  • feetxxxl1

    detroit what part of take slaves for life to pass onto your children as inheritance do you not get. what part of, it is exceptable to beat on your slave with rods as long as you dont kill them do you not get. please explain and describe this isreali enslavement property relationship as described in leviticus that would not come against the godlove of the 2nd commandment under the new covenant.

  • onofrio

    O Herod, OT us!

  • onofrio

    Nongod is grinning

  • onofrio

    Detroitblkmale30,I’ll make it a little simpler for you.The Pliny stuff shows only that there were folks who believed in some sh!t, not that the sh!t happened.Y’know, like mention of Mormons don’t mean Joe Smith read no gold plates…

  • feetxxxl1

    “So when I said the Bible does not endorse wholdheartedly slavery it does not.” its true that the spirit of the old testament condemns slavery but the regulation, the thing that you have chosen to stand on about homosexuality, said wholeheartedly that enslaving of non jews was good, so much so that believers, even after the old covenant had passed away heb8, continued to enslave ethnic pagans for 1700 years after christ, because they like you stood on the regulation.

  • cprferry

    I see that Mr. Robinson skipped over the Council of Jerusalem found in the Book of Acts or Tradition, where much of the Church teaching is clarified and is normally held in great respect by the Anglican communion.But alas if you set as prerogative to strip away Church teaching on homosexuality this little exercise of deception is laudable and necessary. The ends justify the means.What I don’t understand is how one can be at peace in that deception? How can one be at peace knowing they’ve failed to submit themselves to Truth? How can one be at peace knowing they’ve promoted falsehoods and led people into sin?

  • detroitblkmale30

    onofrio: your vocabulary is almost unreadable, but as long as it makes sense to you thats all that matters

  • detroitblkmale30

    onofrio: Let me really make it simple for you since your vocabulary is limited due to your vulgarity….Read these sources for yourself. Pliny wasnt the only one. and for the record Pliny said very specifically there were Christians who beleived in the recently “killed” Christ

  • detroitblkmale30

    feetxxxl1: I dont need to explain it I’ve already explained it in my previous post.YOu should know since you are claiming SO MUCH of the new testament love of Christ over anything else in the Bible, to take the Bible chronologically. The God of the old testament, Jesus’ father used this slavery of non hebrews often as a punishment for other tribes for their actions.That of course happened historically BEFORE Jesus arrived on earth. The “spirit” of the old testament and overall(mostly indentured servitude with “term limits” ) however does not endorse slavery as we have known it in the 17th-19th centuries. Like I said Philemon’s and Paul’s interaction and reference to slavery which was new testament a focus on the new salvation for Philemon, attempted salvation for the owner and a new level of well treatment of Philemon as instructed by Paul.

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    There is nothing wrong with being gay and being gay is not a sin. Failure to recognize such basic and common sense truths is immoral.Religion that preach imorality are wrong. Gay people should not change; religious people are the ones who who should change. As long as religious people speak in the idiom of morality, they have a responsibility to cast off the imorality that leads to such unjust mistreatment of gay people. Beyond that, they have ZERO credibility in anything else that they say or believe.

  • detroitblkmale30

    DanielintheLionsDen: How do you believe one Biblical story, Im assuming from your name, maybe im wrong, but not others?

  • feetxxxl1

    detroit you keep talking about 19th century slavery and i keep asking you to show me a isrealite slavery that would be acceptable under the new covenant according to the love of the 2nd commandment.the point is that slavery of any kind was a violation of the love of the 2nd commandment, although the law of the old covenant said it was acceptable.

  • thebump

    Comment: Unjust mistreatment of anybody is, by definition, unjust and wrong. Telling the truth, however, is the highest form of justice and of love, as well as the highest form of respect for another’s human dignity. And the truth is that sexual acts outside the sacramental bond of husband and wife are inherently sinful. To lie about the meaning and purpose of sex, and thereby to encourage another person to endanger her or his soul, would be a most grave injustice.

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    Detroitblkmale30Your Christian beliefs are kindergarten beliefs. If you are a gwownup, then maybe you might graduate to something more mature. Such things are no secret. Just think a little bit. You have a brain, don’t you?

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    thebump You promote false doctrines as truth. But repeating a lie does not make it true. Repeating it with emphasis likewise does not make it true.Sorry about that.

  • thebump

    @DANIEL, obstinately and emphatically rejecting the truth does not make it untruth.And I am truly sorry about that.

  • detroitblkmale30

    Feet;Dont quite get your point. Of course slavery would not be acceptable today, im not arguing for slavery, simply making a comparison between OT slavery and “recent’ slavery

  • detroitblkmale30

    DanielintheLionsDen:So let me get this straight DANIEL IN THE LIONS DEN. You choose to identify yourself by a kindergarten tale? what does that make you? Speaking of growing up, why dont you try and offer an intellectual argument instead of juvenile insults? The person accusing me of not being “grown-up”(kids use that phrase by the way) is resulting play ground insults. How very mature of you.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    Perhaps of interest to those who have swiped Tanakh from the people who wrote it, distorted said text, and continue to do so. ‘Tis your own “covenant of grace” (LOL) and only that which hates gay people, among billions of others, us Jews, for example, many of whom lie dead at the feet of said “covenant.”Indeed, you did replace the covenant of justice. How can we bring it back.Romans25For they exchanged the truth of God for a (AT)lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, (AU)who is blessed forever. Amen. 26For this reason (AV)God gave them over to (AW)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (AX)men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, (AY)God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

  • feetxxxl1

    “Indeed, you did replace the covenant of justice. How can we bring it back.”in regard to romans1 if being homosexual is of itself a sin, if same sex between males is of itself is a sin, as written in lev, why then the need to mention being given over to ………………….shameful lust.

  • feetxxxl1

    at the time of moses, according to the law no isrealite male could make another male his property. women that were slaves, wives were property and there was no restriction about owning male to have sex with them. the point being that isrealite males had sex with only that which was his property, prostitutes excluded. a restriction against sex between males reenforced this law.

  • Secular

    detroitblkmale30, it seems to me that you are battling an untenable position. Just to make sure that I do not mis undertsand your positions. Let me state your positions1) Homosexuality is banned by because of its explicit prohibition in Leviticus and other sordid texts.2) The slavery is not explicitly recommended, but nonetheless regulated for the benefit of slaves. So OT & NT are not vile texts that perpetuated & promoted immoral conduct.3) Slavery practiced during the biblical times was markedly different and benign compared to the one practiced in mid 1800s US of A, – I don’t know when that was as most of it is fiction. Lets say we go with the period of time otherwise called bronze age.Didn’t the omniscient deity yweh, father or whatever, did not see that benign slavery would degenerate into the vile thing it was that your fore-parents suffered? Was the slavery practiced by the Israelites and then later by the early Christians the only benign form? What about the one practiced by the Pharaoh and others? If the one practiced by the others was not benign why is t that the deity did not get the rest of the yolk of slavery besides the Israelites?Also pray tell when exactly did the slavery of bronze age cease to be benign and turn into the monstrous one of the mid 1800 in USA? Did the deity did not foresee that? Wouldn’t it have been lot more economical for the deity to have just said “Thou shalt not own slaves”. That would have only taken 5 words, and I am sure there are at least 50 pronouncements on regulating the slavery. Do you really believe that your deity just overlooked the slavery in his zeal spread other righteousness, or perhaps slipped thru the cracks eh! If so can we withdraw the omniscient 7 the perfectness attributes off it? Then we can go about saying the deity of OT & NT, & Islam is right most of the time, perhaps?Also can you identify which secular event had transformed the benign form of slavery into the onerous one? Now that it is settled that the deity of OT, NT, & Koran is only right most of the time, then perhaps we can surmise that it may be wrong on point 1 above?SO perhaps the deity was wrong on both counts that on Slavery and on Homosexuality.Quod Erat Demonstrandum

  • detroitblkmale30

    Secular: not an untenable position at all actually.Of course the OT and NT are not vile texts becuase they do not deal solely with slavery or any other one issue. They are to be taken, as any history as account of one’s comprehensive expereinces, both good and bad so point 1. ITs banned or negatively looked upon in the across the entire Bible not just Leviticus an some other text. 2 Also falls flat there. Secular, as one who Im assuming and correct me if im wrong, is an atheist, you should appreciate this one little ditty the most, God gave mankind free will. This enables him to act as southern slave owners did however they saw fit. That of course was with most of the 16th-19th century slave owners worldwide to the great detriment of my ancestors. WHen? Slavery varies all across the glove over time. The discusion here of course is in the Hebrew slavery. The Egytian slavery which preceded this time period was very ruthless and not the kind that was “allowed” in the Hebrew society. Note the God of the OT freed his people from that kind of bondage i might add.Secular you missed my other points which already answer this question. God could have put any proscription he wanted to in the Bible. But he acted for reasons man will never know. OFten though in the Old Testament, he allowed slavery as a punishment against other peoples and nations for their unrighteous actions. So offering that prohbition would have eliminated one means of his punishment.No one has proven my God the the Christian God is ever incorrect. Is it man who is sinful, rebellious, mean and cruel to his fellow man. Using your logic, lets take the converse. Note no where in the Bible does God create the institution of slavery,that was man’s doing. No where does God say thus I have created this institution called slavery and you must take slaves.Nice try though on trying to suggest God is fallible.No thanks, I dont deal in “perhaps” He was clear on what he meant and it stands as it does today the same as it was centuries ago.Im glad you know latin, unfortunately your QED is misplaced and misguided as you have failed to “prove” anything other than offering your thoughts, which even though I disagree, I do appreciate.

  • Secular

    The Egytian slavery which preceded this time period was very ruthless and not the kind that was “allowed” in the Hebrew society. Note the God of the OT freed his people from that kind of bondage i might add.Secular you missed my other points which already answer this question. God could have put any proscription he wanted to in the Bible. But he acted for reasons man will never know. OFten though in the Old Testament, he allowed slavery as a punishment against other peoples and nations for their unrighteous actions. So offering that prohbition would have eliminated one means of his punishment.
    Oh! really how did you determine that egyptian was more onerous than the hebrew slavery? If that were so, then why did your deity not free the rest? Why this nepotism? Oh I see it did not proscribe so it can punish peoples. And in its wisdom you surmise that Hebrew slavers were the more just people than the other nations? To me that sounds more self serving claims of the Hebrews. Tell me wouldn’t Hebrews have devised this ruse when they wrote up the old texts claiming that the deity was making this stuff up? Just like god old Patty Robertson claimed that his sky daddy steered the storm away from his home. Or for that matter MO, when he wanted to get into the skirts of his dear Zainab (daughter in law) had Jibril reveal to him the appropriate revelation? Occam’s razor tells me to go with my hypothesis rather than with your hypothesis.Then again the white supremacists also thought along your lines regarding the diety’s punishment being visited upon whoever they were enslaving. How can we bring objectivity to evaluate the Hebrew contention (rather yours) and the white supremacists contention. generally I find that in these cases subjectivity replaces the objectivity depending on who is being gored and who is goring. The only objective, non-self-serving position is it is never a good idea to enslave anyone, which of course is my position. That is why it is the objective & selfless position (LOL). The same goes for the human sexuality.Q.E.D.

  • detroitblkmale30

    secular: any reader of history can see Egytians were much more ruthless. Why dont you do something out of character read Genesis for example. There were no codes for what you could and couldnt do with Egytian slaves unlike with Hebrew slaves. Free the rest who? Perhaps you missed the point of the Israelites as “God’s chosen people?” Why would God free those who worshipped God’s that mocked him? I know its hard to understand for a nonbeleiver, but no this isnt somethnig that would have been concocted, not for Christians who believe these texts are God’s sacred and inspired word and the history of his people over time. Nom youve tried to poke holes, unsuccesfully. I guess thats the difference between your hypothesis and my account of how things actually were . I never said the children of I find it so comical how the doubters try so furiously to find “one” thing that is flawed in their own non-divine minds about Christianity in an attempt to arrive at a “gotcha” moment. There is no such moment here no matter how many QED’s you through out LOL.

  • Secular

    Why dont you do something out of character read Genesis for example. There were no codes for what you could and couldnt do with Egytian slaves unlike with Hebrew slaves. Free the rest who? Perhaps you missed the point of the Israelites as “God’s chosen people?” Why would God free those who worshipped God’s that mocked him?
    Of course I have. I first read about talking snakes and the floods, and pair of animals and said “WoW Really”! then came the story of that scum bag Avram and I could not keep my breakfast. By the way, in Gensis Pharaoh comes out looking more like a benevolent statesman who cared for his subjects and of course your hero comes out looking like a cad, that he was. I believe you mean Exodus not Genesis, regarding the slavery issue. What little that was written about the treatment of slaves by Pharaoh wasn’t very extensive to make a judgment, except that there were a few self serving verses about the harshness. One more thing the so called chosen per the account in Exodus were no more pandering to their deity than the other slaves. In fact the account does not at all mention any thing about the others mocking the Hebrew deity. Beside what kind of narcissistic deity is yours?
    Wrong again. Your comparison to white supremacists and 18th century slavery and the children of Israel isnt applicable. Hebrews werent running around judging and claiming enslavement was God’s judgement. A review of God’s actions make it clear that was his intention in those cases.
    I suppose the Hebrew god was whispering into the ears of the kings and prophets of Israel to take different nations as slaves. If that were so when did the deity stop whispering? How do you know that it was not whispering in those scum bag white supremacists?

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    Detroitblkmale30The screen name I have chosen is irrelevant. Don’t worry about it; I’m not.My observation, as a serious adult person, is that you are childish, even silly. I cannot expect you to comprehend now, what I mean. It is, apparently, beyound your present capacity, according to the limtis that you have set for yourself.All I ask of you is to seek a mature religous outlook, and as I said before, use your brain.There is such a thing as common sense, which does indeed count for a lot. Without common sense, your credibility on just about everything goes down the toilet. … your arguments about slavery, for example …

  • detroitblkmale30

    you have a very curious and humorous take on Genesis. I dont see any of that in there however.Have you seen the Pyramids??Pharoah, the one who subjected the Hebrews to brutal manual labor constructing those huge edifices in the African heat, who would order his foremen to keep going even if one of the slaves was getting trampled. Yeah I wanna be just like that guy. Did you mean cad by Moses who rejected this lifestyle when he could have stayed and lived as a prince, instead subjected himself to all kinds of trials and doubt and rejection. yeah a real cad LOL. You should read the story Amazing Grace or watch the movie, the whispering God did was in the ear of the abolitionists around the world,not the slave owners.

  • detroitblkmale30

    Daniel: It doesnt seem to be irrelavant, its rather confusing actually. But I’ll focus on what you say not what “fairy tale” you chose to name yourself after, as you wish.Nice try, to late to try and “grow-up” It takes alot of imagination to take the phrases from my posts such as childish and attempt to affix them to me after you were already shown to be acting immaturely. Sorry, doesnt work.I have a mature contexutal outlook. What I ask if you is stop being so disrespectul, presumptive and again, immature. Common sense as well as logic, and intellectual discussions are not so common from what youve been saying. My arguments about slavery, as a descendant of a former slave are actually very logical if you took the time to follow along. But so many people , just cut to the end and hurl insults. Its ok I understand, its easier to do it that way

  • Secular

    Did you mean cad by Moses who rejected this lifestyle when he could have stayed and lived as a prince, instead subjected himself to all kinds of trials and doubt and rejection.
    First of all let me break it to you there was no Moses. Even the Israeli department of archeology has conceded there probably never was the story of Exodus. To which David Ben Gurion supposedly lamented “also the title deeds for Isarel are not there. Besides Moses did not give up anything. He was indeed a cad and a murdering fugitive from justice. See I do not take self serving words as some kind of eternal truth. They don’t impress me when thye are from NT, or OT, from Al Kittab koran.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    “Indeed, you did replace the covenant of justice. How can we bring it back.”in regard to romans1 if being homosexual is of itself a sin, if same sex between males is of itself is a sin, as written in lev, why then the need to mention being given over to ………………….shameful lust.Posted by: feetxxxl1 |Romans is indisputable. Your Testament reviles Jews, is essentialist, and intolerant of same-sex unions. Good luck with that Justice thing.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    I’m not terribly fond of attacking other people’s religions. However, Christianity (including Catholicism) has taken upon itself the right to another people’s culture, the right to reinterpret it for them, the right to supercede it. Christianity mauls these people in its services and in the thinking and writing of its practitioners. It has mass murdered and tortured them in the names of its founder.And it persists in these practices to this very day. Hence, it exported its virulence to the Middle East, which has since thoroughly Islamized Christian antisemitism. Korea, which has no Jews, started to become one of the most antisemitic nations on earth once Christian missionaries began their work there.What, one may ask is wrong with this picture? Does it have anything to do with Christian homophobia? Christian attempts to co-opt the legislative process?

  • FarnazMansouri2

    Now, we have the curious case of Secular, a defender of Hinduism, until two days ago, who proclaims himself an atheist. He says he was an Indian government official, but now says he did not say so. He has screeched and screamed at me for my work to liberate India’s enslaved, trafficked, raped, murdered 300 Dalit Untouchables). These dark-skinned people are in the plight their in largely because of the color of their skin. The Hindu religion stresses the horror of caste violation (race mixing).Two years ago, pre “Secular,” I blogged here that this nightmare would find voice in America. Dalit academics are here. The first International Conference on Untouchability was held in London two years ago. And, finally, under tremendous pressure, Hindu academics have taken a stand and Secular has changed his stripes a bit, but that is only because outsiders have been few and far between on Dr.Shukla’s thread.If you want to know about oppression, read the position paper. MOre links on the Dalit to follow.There are movements afoot by Catholics and Protestants to educate the Dalit and convert them. Conversion frees them from the bonds of their caste and allows them to enter certain professions. Catholics and Protestants have published their results.On India and GaynessContinues above

  • FarnazMansouri2

    Continues (from post below)Hindu atheist Secular has become an “expert” on Tanakh. When he first started posting, I found him so amazingly ignorant that I offered assistance, unsuspecting at first, as is often the case with me. Not only did I clarify, I posted for him articles and books by esteemed scholars. Secular went on his merry way, explaining that his goal was to attack Christianity as it is the dominant religion here. If that is the case, I queried, why, then, are you not dealing with the Christian Testament? (Not hard to do, as I’ve demonstrated, as thousands of Christians have done, themselves, attacking its antisemitism, homophobia, sexism, “cheap grace,” the short shrift it makes of justice, etc.) But no. Secular was interested in Tanakh. Telling him the community he was making with racists was to no avail. Explaining that the Christians had abused Tanakh and with their NT employed it as a weapon was to no avail. Why it had not been, I learned a few days ago. That was when SEcular reached out to a blogger named “Jewish MOther,” who posted on Rabbi HIrschfield’s thread that “the Jews own the media,” etc. The blogger to whom Secular extended the click of friendship was identified by other bloggers as a member of StormFront, the Nazi Party.Secular posted an empathic comment. He sympathized with this blogger, a Nazi, who had taken a controversial position.Then SEcular proceeds to attack Tanakh.

  • FarnazMansouri2

    Continued from post belowSEcular defends this:7.1 RAMA’S RUTHLESS PERSECUTION OF WOMENMany of the real-life passages of Rama’s life are also preserved in the Ravayana, an oral history of the Dalits. This version also accredits Rama with killing his own father. This epitome of a god was nothing but a coward who cut off womens’ noses and murdered his enemies by striking from the back. After he brutally murdered Ravana this traitor burnt the city of Lanka, killing all the thousands of innocent women and children in it. These are only a few of the sadistic crimes against humanity committed by this butcher.Continues above

  • FarnazMansouri2

    Continued from belowSecular defends this:7.3 BRAHMA’S KINDNESS TOWARDS WOMENThe legend of Brahma and Sarasvati is given in the following Vedic texts ( Spellman, p.28 ):Aitareya Brahmana.III.33″ Brahma is one of the 3 main gods – Trimurti – of the Hindu pantheon. He is the creator of the universe. Sarasvati, who became the wife of her own father, was the daughter of Brahma. There are 2 stories about her genesis in the `Saraswati Purana’. One is that Brahma created his beautiful daughter Saraswati direct from his `vital strength’ or seminal fluid. The other is that Brahma used to collect his semen in a pot whenever he masturbated fixing his carnal eyes on the celestial beauty Urvasi. Brahma’s semen in the pot gave birth to the sage Agastya, and Agastya in turn gave birth to Saraswati. Thus, Saraswati had no mother.Continues above

  • FarnazMansouri2

    Continues from belowThis is the last of this I shall be posting tonight. ONe might ask whether caste, which is foundational in Hinduism, bride-burning, female feticide, Satti, gay-killing, cow urine drinking (cow pee cola now on supermarket shelves), cow dung ingestion has affected the psyche of Hindu Atheist SECULAR, the Tanakh scholar and befriender of an IDENTIFIED NAZI, posting vile racist filth.” 8. On seeing his beautiful daughter Padma, Brahma was sexually excited. He wooed his daughter and wanted to copulate with her. How could a daughter give consent to her own father? Padma refused. Brahma could not give up his desire. He began to quote the Vedas to convince her that there was nothing wrong in having sex with anyone, anytime, anywhere for the sake of giving birth to a child. “” Brahma followed Savitri [ Sarasvati ], married her, and they lived together in a lotus for one hundred years. The Purana [ Matsya ] then points out that no question arises regarding prohibited acts of the gods since they do not reap the fruits of their karma (actions) as do mortals. A further justification of Brahma’s action is given by noting that Brahma is the lord of the Vedas and Savitri is the goddess of the Vedas. They therefore are inseparable, and to unite the Vedas with the sacred prayer can surely be no evil.”

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    Detroitblkmale30 I did not tell you to “grow up” and I did not hurl any insults. I said that your religious views are kindergarten, and as an adult, it is within your capacity to acquire a more mature outlook, without detailed instruction from me. If you choose not to do that, then that is a problem for you.Gay hatred is a personal and existential threat to gay people, who are by the way, human beings and American citizens, who count as much as you do. So stop crying about your hurt feelings if you feel personally slighted. I think there is really no comparision.In promoting gay hatred, what kind of reaction would you expect? You expect silence, don’t you? Well, those days are gone and over.

  • detroitblkmale30

    DanielintheLionsDen: *Sigh* to refresh your memory:”Your Christian beliefs are kindergarten beliefs. However speaking of getting what someone said wrong, I never said my feelings were hurt, for one. Secondly i never said anything about hating gay people which I dont.So strike that paragraph you wrote.And well strike the last one too.

  • detroitblkmale30

    Secular: On one hand you say there was no moses on the other you say he didnt give up anytthing which is it? There was a Moses, Israelis and Christians all over the world contrary to your citation beleive he did indeed live. There was an Exodus. You’ll never convince me otherwise.I dont take self serving words I take the word of the God who created me seriously. Why wouldnt I? Is it somehowe more enlightened to take YOUR word for my life’s mission and calling and moral code? LOL. Then all of humanity is a cad including yourself secular, because I sure you have sinned (pick or religion in your case) fallen morally short, or made mistakes no matter what the scale.

  • Secular

    Professor of Al Chemistry, for some one who claims to be shunning me and posting every other post to that effect, you keep posting against me all the time. As a matter of fact 7 posts in less than one hour. Oh! My, My, that’s a bit much for even for you, who is shunning me. Lady you are obsessed. I just checked with Bellvue, and they assure me they a have nice padded room, waiting for you. Do everyone on this blog a favor and ask your SO to drive you there. They tell me they will have you out by new years so you can be back teaching your recipes to make gold from lead in the new year. Of course my sympathies always with your students, for being so gullible in enrolling in your classes. yweh speed with you.

  • detroitblkmale30

    onofrio: scroll down I provided a list of historical references non biblical sources. I already said I mispoke on Herodotus. I also cited Pliny in that post which stands true as do the others I listed such as Tacitus.Secondly the Hebrew slaves were in fact responsible for preparing, making bricks, moving stones,assembling the materials, assembling casts and other tasks in the building many of the Egytian edifices including the Pyramids of which there were many.Egytians themselves did then take the materials and build them into what we see now.Anyway your second point still underlines my point of very difficult manual labor, in high heat, and carrying of stones etc etc etc

  • detroitblkmale30

    Secular: That was a reference to how Many it was a reference more speicifally to You ought to be familiar with the sense that one “ruling” body does not make something true or untrue.That keen uncanny sense is called discernment. A Biblical ability to “test the spirits” and divine as to what is Godly and what is not based off of God’s words, his practices and principles. The reliance is off of his word not my own beliefs or some generic sense of what “seems right” in a universal shall i say secular way. As for your poster that is between the two of you. I dont think debating conversations are sinful. My point was simply none of us myself included are without sin or faults or mistakes.We all do somethings right and somethings wrong some more so than others. Moses included.

  • onofrio_

    Detroitblkmale30,Thee:Would you care to point out the archaeological evidence for pyramid-construction at the New Kingdom sites of Pi-Ramesse and Pi-Atum (where Exodus places the Hebrews)?And would you point out the biblical evidence for the involvement of Hebrews in pyramid-construction at even one of the pyramid fields of Egypt?I’d be interested to know what sort of chronological system you’re working with. You seem to be attributing construction of all the pyramids to “Hebrew slaves”. Yet this creates some chronological difficulties. For example, I only have a postgraduate degree in Egyptology, so please enlighten me.

  • onofrio_

    Detroitblkmale30,Thee:Many “edifices”, eh? “In fact” too? Could you name a few examples of these many “edifices” that were “in fact” built by Hebrews? There are plenty to choose from at Karnak, Luxor, Medinet Habu, Deir el-Bahri, Biban el-Muluk, Mit Rahina, Ashmunein, Amarna, Elephantine, Abydos, Giza, Saqqara, el-Kab, Buhen, Mirgissa, Soleb, el-Silsila, Dahshur, Meidum, Lisht, Giza, Abusir, Abu Roash, Lahun, Hawara…to name just a few.So, Detroit male, which “edifices”? Oh, and there’s a

  • detroitblkmale30

    I’ll gladly you trade you my mispeak about herodotus for the other references I included.Secondly, the point of those references was simply to show that there are historically accepted non-biblical references to the existence of Jesus. I did not suggest that those sources proved everything in TheBible.I never said they could, my point was about the historical existence of Jesus. His miracles etc. thats where faith comes in to play. You do not have to believe in those. You have free will.The larger point though here is Jesus was not mythical, whether you beleive he was miraculous is another arugment.

  • detroitblkmale30

    onofrio: did you know there was a t in typo? Thats what that egytian was called.Well considering Hebrew slaves were enslaved throughout EgyPt to build as we both agreed entire cities, the point is moot as to WHICH structures. No one will ever know how many buildings exactly were built by all of the Hebrew slaves.Your using a sledgehammer to kill a fly approach to the argument though misses the larger point which again was simply. EgyPtian slavery was brutal,oppressive and involved a great deal of manual labor particulary related to construction.None of your questioning or nitpicking over which pyramids or which edifices negates that.

  • onofrio_

    Detroitblkmale30,Thee:I did not agree with you about that; I informed you that Exodus mentions Thee:But you were quite confident that you knew all about it. You named pyramids, “of which there were many” as among the “edifices” at which Hebrews “in Thee:Apart from your rather inattentive reading of Exodus, how do you know what “Egyptian slavery” entailed? A question is begged… What my questioning does establish is that you are prone to make bold pronouncements about historical matters on the basis of sheer ignorance.Christ-testifying Herodotus…pyramid-building Hebrews…I’m not “nitpicking”, Detroit Male, just showing how cavalier you are with regard to historical evidence and process. Like lots of Christians…

  • detroitblkmale30

    onforio: lol kindly explain to me how you get a captured people to build cities, buildings edifices for the sake of your argument even ONE building? Might not it take the cracking of a whip the witholding of rations, in other words OPPRESSION. Either you are being intentionally stubborn or obtuse. Either way there’s no more sense in me trying to convince someone who wont accept that people in bondage and slavery forced to build structures throughout a nother nation’s culture will indeed face oppressive circumstances. Thats not hyperbole, thats reality.I referenced pyramids as an example of edifices that were constructed. You cannot say that no Hebrew ever contributed to or built a pyramid for one.Secondly. I never attributed ALL of the pyramids to the Hebrews. No one is making anything up. You fail to try and catch me in that. that was merely an example. The bottom line is that Hebrews were slaves in EgyPt. They were oppressed as slaves, forced to participate in manual labor that involved construction of edifices. Maybe that included pyramids maybe it didnt. I wasnt there, neither were you last I checked. It did include include however multiple cities and countless edificies.Again why the haggling over what type of building? it really doesnt matter. The main point is the Hebrews through oppressive slavery were forced to make bricks for all kinds of buildings and monuments in EgyPt.That I didnt make up.Everyone throws out I find it amusing though that your microscopic focus on every comment still misses the “big picture” which There are both Biblical and non biblical accounts of this kind of slavery.I have never seen a pleasant account of slavery in EgyPt. This was not the proverbial walk in the park Tell me oh EgyPtian scholar would you want to be a slave in EgyPt, regardless of what the terms where? If someone said you’re going to be a slave in EgyPt, we will spare you building mass structures, simply Your mere suggesting slavery for the Hebrews in that time in that climate, could possibly be anything other than oppressive is frankly ignorant which I find surprising for someone so well educated. So I missed a fact here or two. This is an online discussion forum not a dissertation. The bottom line remains, the overall point of my arguments are sstill consistent and based on facts.(pyramids/oppressive slavery)Herodotus/many other historical references to same effect) Your insistence on throwing the out the an occasional mistake baby with the big picture bath water still smacks of nitpicking and pettiness.

  • Secular

    1:11 Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with
    their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and
    Raamses.

    The above is the extent of the description of the hardships faced by the Hebrews in Egypt. I could not find any description of how the Hebrews treated their slaves, other than now infamous regulations. please tell me how do you conclude whose treatment of the slaves was more onerous. How do you discern from just these description. Mind you I am not conceding that Exodus had indeed taken place. For argument’s sake even if we were to stipulate that the treatment by the Egyptians was more onerous, how can you show us skeptics that those verses were not written by a human fiction writer. How do you discern that?

  • detroitblkmale30

    Secular: thanks for your assistance in helping prove my point to onforio. Fair enough questions. In complete objectivity, I assume there are always two stories right? The story of the oppressor and the story of the oppressed. I imagine the egyptians would say they treated their slaves well or how they should be treated as slaves, the scriptures beg to differ. Leviticus lays forth distinctions in treatment for non-Hebrew slaves which can be “owned” in perpetuity and beaten for disobedience. I guess my point was simply the mere nature of the combination of slavery, the conditions(climate, and type of work-major construction) and lack of regard for life made Hebrews life more oppressive in Egypt than it was for their slaves.At the very least Hebrew society had prohibitions against the killing of slaves, no such evidence of that in Egypt. Here is what Exodus says about treatment of slaves in Hebrew society:Exodus 21:To answer you final question, how do I discern that these stories were not written by fiction writers? Well for one on a non religious level, its very common for any people, tribe etc to catalogue their history and experiences just on a basic level and pass them down in written form. More specifically, in our Christian tradition discernment is taking everything in both testaments into account and basically “testing” it up against what we know of God through the scriptures. Based upon the totality of the Bible. If God acted in one manner in Genesis, is it consistent that he would have acted in similar manner in Exodus or Matthew for that matter, etc. What are the promises and scriptures, commandments,The ultimate answer of course comes down to a matter of faith, either you beleive that God is he he says he is, did what it is written he did or you don’t. Having 100 percent historically proof would be great. I’d love if there were horse skeleton’s at teh bottom of the Red Sea, but I dont need to see them to believe that Exodus ocurred. I respect the right of those not to beleive that.At the end of the day you can scientifically prove something that is supernatural. I think that is where religion and those who dont believe in it failt to see eye to eye

  • Secular

    Secular: thanks for your assistance in helping prove my point to onforio. ********************************************I don’t understand the above statement from you DetroitBlkMale. I most certainly was not trying to help you, if any I was trying to show you the folly of your thoughts and writings. Just so I make myself clear, I am with Onforio in the argument you are having with him/her. You have finally conceded the point I was trying to make that there is no objective way of knowing the scripture is right. That is teh difference between science and faith. I will take science any day ouver faith

  • detroitblkmale30

    Secular: well often things have unintended consequences. You highlighted the severity of egytian slavery, a point I had been making to onforio. So you helped whether you intended to or not. A thank you is in order.You’ll never succeed in showing me the so-called “folly” of my faith so I can spare you the trouble of trying on that account.Well thats like saying you have finally conceded that water is not fire LOL. I’m pretty clear the world is clear on the difference between science and faith as am I. Your mistake is thinking that the two are mutually exclusive. They of course are not. Just (if you could ) ask Sir Isaac Newton. “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done,” Ill take science and faith then in that equation, but faith will always come first.

  • detroitblkmale30

    onforio: yeah I said those pyramids, not ALL. so whats your point there? The bottom line is they were oppressed they built structures all of which ones? who knows. Don’t act like it hasnt been a commonly held belief for centuries that the Hebrews built the pyramids so I DID NOT invent that concept. Go read any number of books are movies on the subject. i am not arguing on anything out of the blue. I wasnt even referencing those THREE pyramids. Go ahead, paste a comment of mine that mentioned the pryamids you are referencing. YOu cant because I didnt. Stop trying to twist my words and make it seem like i’m saying something I’m not.Last I checked there were 138 pyramids built all over the spectrum of Egytian history. I never referenced Giza or any pyramid specifically.Once again, not invented, commonly held beleifs. Nice try though trying to make my comments irrevevalent my nitpicking. What I am calling out is your obsession with trying to act superior based upon your EgyPtian knowledge, assuming someone is saying something they are not, and then as i said earlier, attempting to invalidate their entire argument based upon a missed fact and typo. Sorry, but im not falling for it. Nice try though.Why dont you go through ALL of the posts and factcheck people? Many facts are missed on this board and people are corrected and they move on. I don’t know what your fixation is quite frankly, but it still has no bearing on my overall arguements

  • Secular

    detroitblkmale30, if any I was making the point that even by the account of Exodus the treatment of Hebrews by Egyptians was on par with that of any slave by any other slave owners. You are being disingenuous, when claiming that I made your point. Either you misunderstood me or trying claim victory where none is to be found.

  • onofrio

    Detroitblkmale30,Thee:You have not admitted correction, or that you were significantly wrong. Rather you insist you’ve been essentially right all along.(… It’s just a bit of ground-shifting, so what’s the fuss? … what’s the matter with a bit of hearsay here, a bit of BS there? Let’s not get hung up on the The bearing it has on your “overall arguments” is that you are clearly unable to distinguish historical evidence from popular hearsay, and are willing to assert just any old unsubstantiated sh!t if you think it makes your “overall argument” more persuasive. Any argument you make is undermined by your casual/naive attitude to historical verification, and further eroded by your slippery evasions once you’ve been found out.

  • detroitblkmale30

    Seriously Onforio: go watch the movie the Ten commandments from the 1940′s with Charlton Heston yes for decades most people believed the hebrews built the Pyramids.I put that movie forward not as historical proof but as evidence of commonly held beliefs that the Hebrews built the Pyramids. SO if you want to call that 70 year old “ground shifting” go ahead lol.Once again you are treating this forum as a dissertation which it is not. Therefore no need to list footnotes. Sometimes people get details right on here someties they get them wrong. What’s with the Federal case?? I didnt jump down your throat when you mistakenly said I was “caught out” The correct term of course is called out. But hey, mistakes happen. Here you go with being so sure of yourself that you know what I’m thinking are saying exactly. There such things as questions, if you’re not sure or before you pounce all over me, why dont you ask what I meant, you have multiple degrees. I assume they asks questions of your points rather than just assuming they knew your every intention. In this case no, I was not saying the Hebrew schedule of servitude was hard because there were “many” Pyramids, I was saying there were many, namely over 130 Pyramids as in not the famous Pyramids, meaning the record of who worked where and when is not set in stone. This of course brings me to my next point. Where did I say I was referring to the Great Pyramids at Giza?? Go find that and post it please. im familar with those and would have mentioned them specifically. Once again, there you using your great intellect to “project” my meaning and then clubbing me over the head with an unrelated rebuttal. Speaking of desperate attempts, your attempts to slam your great knowledge of EgyPt over everyone’s head is getting to be quite juvenile not to mention annoying. We get it you know your EgyPt, congratulations. However, you dont know me, you dont know my thoughts or intentions and your presumptiousness is quite pompous. You missed the last point completely about fact checking. I was not saying why dont you check your OWN facts. I was saying Additionally there is a difference between stating facts that one beleives to be true, learning they are not and not repeating them as I have done, and bending facts which I have not done. Finally nothing you have said or even corrected have changed my overall argument that there were Hebrews who were enslaved in EgyPt, oppressed as slaves in the building of various EgyPtians structures and edifices and who instituted a more regulated , some would say just( I wouldn’t) system of slavery within their own society. Your hair splitting over Pyramids, which ones, doesnt impact that argument.But again that is what people do I suppose when they can’t win an argument, they change the subject or deflect or redirect attention to something else other than the larger point. Nothing so fun as scapegoating all of Christianity than actually holding a civil discussion.

  • detroitblkmale30

    onofrio: you’ve been to busy condemning me for your assumptions and hairsplitting notice the admitting of missing a fact here and there on the pyramids and herodotus.Its not slippery evading when I’m simply defending myself from someone so confident in his points that he assumes he knows exactly what Im stating when he doesnt. I will admit to errors when I make them in earnest. I won’t however admit to errors of what other people “think” Im making when I in fact am not making them.Read the post below in regards to my arguments. They stand still, un-impeded by your 2-3 fact nitpicking.

  • detroitblkmale30

    secular: I simply went from the scripture you posted which was a reference to the brutality of the Egyptians towards the Hebrews in Egypt, which indeed underscores what I was making to onforio as it was written. If you meant something else then I can only take you at your word and I absolve you from any “siding” with my arguments. Nonetheless, I could take the scripture you posted and post it for onforio’s benefit and it would have made my argument. That is my only point.I admitted what you said was unintended, thats not disingenuous.

  • onofrio

    Detroitblkmale30,”I have not invented sh!t about what you think; I have addressed the content and implications of what you have You have not missed “a fact here and there”. You have confidently asserted unsubstantiated hearsay A word of advice: Cecil B De Mille is not a reliable source for ancient history. Best not to base future apologetic attempts on his melodramatic epics. There, I’m doing you a favour.

  • Secular

    Speaking of Lot, indeed it is the one of the innumerable cinches in the Armour of the Abrahmic faiths. An omnipotent and omniscient deity cannot foresee the scumbag Lot will prove to be but he spared him and his wife was turned into a pillar of salt looking backwards. I just wonder how can curiosity ever be considered a terrible infraction as opposed to drunkenness, & incest. This is all beyond me. Also to claim that incest was not endorsed, is a hypocritical in light of the fact that the deity is swift in punishment of the curious wife but totally unconcerned of Lot’s transgressions, is at the least condoning the vile behavior of his favorite folks. These are the rationalization theists make all the time yet claim the omniscience & omnipotence of the deity. Notwithstanding the comments of another blogger OT is the bane of all three of them. But of course NT is the additional bane of Christianity and Islam (whatever of NT was plagiarized into Koran). And of course Koran itself is the additional bane of Islam.
    ================================
    How one gets so stupid I don’t know. It has been suggested that the Nazi Befriending blogger had his brains fried on Cow Pee and Cow faeces, but I doubt it. There are others who consume said excrement.

    The conundrum is solved. The great professor of Al Chemistry & Fertile Imagination (PACFI) went out to another thread and unleashed her rant, as predicted. Thank you PACFI for living up to the prediction. PACFI a simple question since I prophesied your behavior do I become a prophet too, like your favorites, Adam, Ibrahim, Yahya, Yakub, Musa, et al?

  • feetxxxl1

    the word for argue, debate, discuss, and reason was used 13 times in acts, it was this process, with the conviction by the holy spirit that paul used to build his churches.

  • detroitblkmale30

    onofrio: YES you clearly have put words in my mouth and assumed I was saying something I was NOT. I was clearly not referring to the Great Pyramids at Giza or any specific Pyramids. Why you are so upset and cursing I dont know. I;m the one who’s words you are twisting are assuming. I took fault for what I said I got wrong. Its OVER deal with it.Or take some anger management classes. I dont know something.Once again assuming something you dont know case in point. I live in washington dc not Detroit, hence a Washington paper site that I am commenting on. There you go with assuming something once again. That;s the same thing you accuse me of. Taking something that “appears” to be the case based of my handle in this case without confirming whether it is true or not. They were missed facts, nothing flagrant about them, only in your mind. Often people on these sites as I have said AD NAUSEUM, quickly respond to a post and get facts wrong here or there. I sure its even happened to you. A flagrant howler whatever that is, as you say, would be if I said the Hewbrews had enslaved the EgyPtians. Not saying the Hebrews were forced to build cities vs building Pyramids, which again has been a commonly held belief for decades, outside of EgyPtian scholars and expert archaeologists.

  • Secular

    detroitblkmale30, based on tremendous amount of archeological work done by the Israeli department of archeology, since 1967 in Sinai and surrounding areas a long shadow has been cast on the accuracy of the Exodus account. Per IDA, the whole Exodus story is indeed a fiction. In fact reading the report Ben Gurion supposedly lamented that alas the title deed for Israel seem to have been misplaced or something to that effect. This was stated by one of Chris Hitchens debates with David Wolpe, if I am not mistaken – it was definitely Hitchens which went unchallenged. Hitchens was in fact in praise of the archeologists for their professional honesty, despite the religious and emotional pressure on them.

  • feetxxxl1

    it is not emotions or mental aberrations, even outer physical acts that seperate one from the love of christ but what is one’s heart. this is about inner conviction. consider in the terms of lots wife apparently there was something in her heart that caused her to linger in her viewing of sodom and consequently she was overcome with gaseous fumes covered with molten minerals in the same way as the victims of pompeii with the same results.literalism is of no importance if the results are the same.

  • detroitblkmale30

    Secular: Good thing my faith isnt based on IDA. The bottom line is sure IDA might cast doubt on it, but they havent disproven it. Would you trust German authorities to give you all of the exact details of the holocaust or would you seek out the records of the Jews? Is it plausible that the prideful Pharoahs and officials of the day might have reduced or stricken records of this people that caused so many plagues to be leveled upon them. A people they were forced to “let go” to their great embarrassment and casualties??? Yes it is possible. As we were still dealing in the world of “gray” and “long shadows” I will stick with my faith. YOu can have the one “ruling authority” of the IDA

  • detroitblkmale30

    onforio: There is such a thing none as a general statement. It isnt against the law to issue a broad statement. Once again, get over it.You made an assumption about the statemet I made and you were wrong. Period.

  • detroitblkmale30

    feetxxxl1: First of all slavery is a human evil. Blacks didnt suffer slavery simply because Leviticus said so or any other religious text gave any creedence to it. Slavery existed before Leviticus and after. Some people utilized Leviticus as their justification, many did not. But the comparison is not analogous because the anti-homosexual scriptures exist outside of Leviticus.There are also anti-slavery references in the Bible, there are no pro-homosexuality arguments however. There is nothing “extreme” about something that is consistently opposed in the Bible.

  • Secular

    feetxxxl1, & Onofrio, there is no point in arguing with someone that their piss is made of same toxins as anyone elses, when they say they believe they piss “Chanel # 5″. You can rhyme and reason with someone who at least concedes that the scripture was authored by same human beings who authored all other texts. In fact teh scripture is the vilest pieces of literature that still exists in the world. The commentaries about them are nothing but frauds committed by the commentors trying to rationalize the vile texts to make them palatable for their times.

  • detroitblkmale30

    feetxxxl1: your points are tkane even some of which I agree. I didnt forget that slavery was often a form of punishment in the old testament for non-believers. It was actually a form of evangelism in the new testament Paul/Philemon/and his master. Even though homosexuality is a sin, I do not see homosexuals as “diminished” in comparison to heterosexuals. The ONLY comparative disadvantages between the two groups are the most obvious of course, natural procreation, and to a lesser degree inability to provide mother/father parenthood. But those are situational and not the same as saying a homosexual is somehow weaker or less of a person.with However none of those scriptures overturn old and new testament Jesus and all of his godlove as you call it doesnt overturn it. He says he cam to fulfil the Mosaic laws. So quoting a lot of passages about love and loving thy neighbor doesnt negate the passages in the rest of the Bible about what is sinful. If I were to believe homosexuality wasnt a sin(which I dont) I’d pretty much be more persuaded by the critics who follow the “lost in translation” approach than those who whitewash scripture and the law in the language of love for all, and responsibilty for none. Is prostitution a sin? Or does godlove just require us to love our neighbor as ourselves and live and let live? That’s basically the argument you seem to be making.

  • detroitblkmale30

    feetxxxl: I notice you didnt answer the question. Its ok you cant really say it anyway else youve said it enough. The problem is if beleivers arent required to follow God’s laws which include more than just those two you keep quoting over and over again, why would non beleivers beleive?? Let’s delve into your “godlove” verses.Matt. 22 So yes we are two do those two things. We however are not required to ONLY do those two things. The question was which law was the greatest. Jesus responds these two are the greatest, he doesnt say these are the ONLY laws to live by. He says all the other laws “hang” hinge, are connected, are related to those. What kind of laws might related to the first commandment? Hmmm..How about Though shalt have no other God’s before me? A Levitical law.(i.e. idolatry)Still applies. Jesus said he came to fulfill the Mosaic laws including those in the old testament. To oversimplify that passage down to two commandments is disinegnuous and misleading. If that were the case, we would only really need that passage of scripture.Perhaps the Gospels. The BIble would be real thin. The bottom line is we are being led by his love and guided by the knowledge of His word and commandments as it has been given to us. Afterall if Jesus is God as he is then the entire commandments of the Bible represent his commandments. Jesus also said ” If ye love me, keep my commandments. The emphasis here is not on one or two but all of his commandments.

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    Homosexuals are often told their behavior is “unbiblical” to which they reply, “unbiblical according to whom?” It is undeniable that there are biblical texts that have been understood to mean that all expressions of homosexuality are wrong. However, responsible biblical interpreters recognize that reason has a role to play in distinguishing valid tradition from hallowed mistakes. A concession to irrationality is not sustainable in the area of ethics. Moral imperatives must make sense.In that connection, Jesus countered the moral complexity of scribal authority with his assurance that the whole of our moral duty could be summed up in two great commandments: love God and love your neighbor. Committed gay relationships breach neither of these commandments. The biblical texts which appear to condemn homosexuality must, therefore, reflect certain kinds of homosexual activity in the ancient world which did contravene the twin laws of love. This could be either because they were abusive or associated with idolatry. Those who wish to insist that homosexuality is “unbiblical” must demonstrate, therefore, what it is about same-sex relationships that make them wrong. Posturing that does not get beyond “the Bible says so” smacks of the crudest form of fundamentalist obscurantism. Most important of all, if you are determined to insist that homosexuality should be treated as a sin, you must provide some rational evidence of the harm it does. All we are told in this connection is that it damages “the family.” Gay Christians simply do not understand the logic of this charge. Is the implication that thousands of young people would choose homosexuality as an alternative to heterosexual marriage if the Church rescinded its ban? The idea is patently ridiculous. It is always easier to identify arrogance in others than in oneself. No doubt the strident assertions of some pro-gay activists lack meekness or even courtesy. Raised voices and immoderate words are all too often symptoms of chronically inflated egos, and both gay and anti-gay lobbies certainly have their share of these.However, there is a more dangerous form of arrogance than simple big-headedness. Prejudice is particularly menacing when it is coupled to an arrogant assertion of absolute certainty. There is a small gap between “I am sure I am right” and “Therefore I must be obeyed.” It was the absolute certainty of fascism and communism that made them capable of genocide. It was the absolute certainty of Muslim fundamentalism that led to the carnage of September 11. Christians too have been guilty of frightful acts of tyranny and atrocity in the past. In fact, any creed that purports to have access to “Truth” can be subverted in this way.

  • feetxxxl1

    detroit1john4: 19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister. the point is not a rule but instead a reality. that we can only do the 1st commandment if we are godloving(love one another as i have loved you) as in the the 2nd also.the love that loves god also godloves(love one another as i have loved you) ones brother also.

  • detroitblkmale30

    feetxxxl1: i love all of humanity my brothers and sister in Christ and non believers. I howver do not condone sin. I dont hate anyone so I fall within those scriptures. However you have addressed none of the other issues? You cant simply claim love and ignore the commandments. Thats like telling your parents you love them and only do two things they say and ignoring the rest. You still have given no Biblical foundation for ignoring old testament and new testament moral codes of conduct outside of the two great commandments.That’s not Christianity.

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    DetroitReligious arguing is pointless, because people do not form their religious beliefs based on arguments with people trying to convert them or change them. The development of belief is a mysterious confluence of experiential contingencies, moderated and filtered by the acuity of ones own senses, and the dexterity and cleverness of ones own intelligence.The emergence of belief is something mysterious, as mysterious as just about any other aspect of our lives. You cannot argue me out of mine, nor can I argue you out of yours.If, I, as a Christian, say I believe in God, it is by no scientific proof that I would say such a thing. For I know that there is no scientific evidence pointing to the existence of God, and I respect science as a credible way of looking at the world. A sincere belief in God, is a way of looking at mysteries, which we cannot explain, and a way to set a trouabled mind on a more peaceful course; faith does not mean knowledge; these are two very different concepts; yet few people would make the distinction, in trying to impose their own beliefs on others. With regards to the Christian anti-gay agenda, irrationality is not sustainable in the area of ethics. Moral imperatives must make sense. The Christians teachings tgay people are false; any religion that reaches such obvously false conslusions has indeed much greater problems of credibility than merely its views on gay people.I suggest that you cast off your kinder-garten religion, and think again what you believe, and how credible it may be. It is never too late to acquire wisdom, and as I said before, and not intended as an insult, you have have a brain, so why don’t you use it?

  • detroitblkmale30

    DanielintheLionsDen

  • detroitblkmale30

    DanielintheLionsDen: I actually agree with you in why we disagree. You actually have put a period in my opinion on these dicussions. What you said however, also contradicts your own argument against Christians who are opposed to homosexual acts.I agree with the following of what you posted:

  • feetxxxl1

    “You still have given no Biblical foundation for ignoring old testament and new testament moral codes of conduct outside of the two great commandments.That’s not Christianity.”my point is that christ’s love is greater than all those moral codes.christ is righteousness, he is a righteousness apart from the law. why would i chose to be led by that which even if i follow it i receive no righteousness, whereas if i love as christ did, thru his grace, i not automatically follow the law i do much more, i fulfill it(complete the law) as christ did. christ who said follow me.this is about grace and is centered on christ. the other is centered on the interpretation of the believer, and is therefore centered on the believer and is without grace.

  • detroitblkmale30

    feetxxxl1: i know i get that. Thats your point, its not however Biblical.christ is righteousness, he is a righteousness apart from the law. ———————SO clearly Jesus did not come to do away with the law. WOuldnt it have been easier for him to say that if he diagreed with the law or thought it no longer necessary? Afterall he knew he would be crucified anyway so its not as if he was concerned with inciting anger among the scribes.Secondly “fulfill” in english means complete, in the original Hebrew the meaning also signifies to teach. One of Jesus’ first acts as a boy was to teach the law in temple.So Jesus came to complete the prophesies of his coming and imparting grace to us as beleivers, but he also came to reinforce and teach the moral constructs of the law. He is saying here you cant have one without the other. If there is no law(or requirement to abide by it), there is no need for Jesus’ grace or pardon.

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    DetroitPointing out false doctrines does mean that I put myself higher than God. By promoting false doctrines, you DO set yourself above God. You said yourself, that being anti-gay is not Christian; everybody is anti-Gay; well that is not true; being anti-gay is just simple bigotry and intolerant people like you, seek to justify yourself by citing quotes fromt eh Bible, by hiding behind God and Jesus, by saying it is Jesus who is anti-gay, and no matter how wrong it might seem, still you are obligated to Jesus’s teachings.Mental conformity to prefigured dogma whether or not it makes any sense is not using your brain. When I say that you have kindergarten beliefs, I mean that your religious outlook is apparently very limited and undeveloped. You can do better, simply by excercising you brain, just a little, rather putting your brain on automatic pilot, with no care or worry about anything but adherence to doctrinal conformity.This is not secular relativism. That statement of yours merely shows the limitaitons that your mind operates under.

  • feetxxxl1

    detroityou keep talking about outward acts. are you not aware of the inner dwelling of being given over to something of the sinful nature in your heart, long before acting out anything in the realm of physicality. do you think that it is less of a sin of your heart than when the heart acts it out? one the things of the basis of all sin in romans1 is “not thinking it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God” is it not a sin to deny an inner relationship with the spirit of christ that lives within us. is it any less of a sin than when that denial acts out in physicality. is it any less a sin to hold hatred in ones heart, than when in meeting person, that hatred acts out. does not that hatred act out in other parts of our lives long before we ever act it out toward the person that we hate?according to you harboring this hate is not a sin until we actually initiate a physicality towards our brother.you say no our sin is anything that hate makes a do. how can we be truly contrite if our focus is merely about outward acts and not the inner sin, the sin of not loving. what is the gain in focusing on not doing this physicality and not doing this physicality when the sin is really about the love in our hearts, that happened FIRST and was the source of the physicality, a love that we received thru grace, christ’s love thru us, his spirit living in all.

  • onofrio_

    Detroitblkmale30,Thee:If you’re so highly educated, why is the standard of your written English so woeful? My estimate of “a Ivy League education” has fallen substantially.

  • detroitblkmale30

    onofrio: Of course no one was talking to you onforio but since you inserted yourself in the conversation, I must say I am now think differently about the maturity of someone with an advanced degree. Doesnt say much for education. Your immaturity and constant fixation on minor faults and flaws erodes any credibility you might have had when it comes to critiquing me. You are an unreliable critic. Nice try though.

  • detroitblkmale30

    feetxxxl: you simply consistently miss the point or just deflect. I dont really recognize your Christian principles. I know everyone has a different “take” on certain things in the the Word of God but I dont see mainstream Christian principles in what you are describing.Even Jesus says we are responsible for our outward acts. YOu seem to be saying we are not. Simply because we have grace does not mean we can act however we want simply because we claim we love God. Loving God means not only loving him with our thoughts but with our actions in the physical realm. This does not “save us” but it demonstrates our love and obedience to God. I have said nothing of hate. Hate is not acceptable.

  • detroitblkmale30

    DanielintheLionsDen: Funny how you call me narrow minded. Maybe we should be worshipping you daniel since you have the answers. Do you have a church I can attend? I’d love to get some answers on life. Whats its meaning? How exactly was everything formed and created? Where is and what do heaven and hell look like?can you save me from my sins? Your statements are pure folly. I’m glad my hope is built on God and not man’s realtivist opinions that change depending what year it is.You have nothing to contribute to my faith. I did not say EVERBODY is anti-gay I said, “anti-gay opposition is not ONLY rooted in Christianity or religion, there are plenty of non-religious anti-gay people.” Re-read what I wrote.I have studied what I beleive, why dont you exercize your brain and stop making easy, yet incorrect assumptions about what I have or have not done. Simply because you see things a certain way, doesnt mean you have undeniably correct knowledge. You have no grounds for declaring my beliefs false doctrines, therefore you have no grounds for instructing me to “exercise my brain” in your condescending fashion. You can say as a mortal and limited human being that your prespective or opinion is this or that.I have no problem with that. I declare my beleifs to be what they are based upon not only stated scripture, but a study of GO’d word and also who he has reveleaed himself to be in his Word.However you have no universal truth. Of course believing that you do is Icarus-like. We all know what happened to him.

  • onofrio_

    Detriotblkmale30,Your written English really If you want your ideas to be taken seriously, you could at least learn to punctuate properly, and arrange your text in paragraphs. You could also try spell-checking your posts before you press ‘Submit’. In your case, sloppiness of writing complements a sloppiness of thought. I’m sure there are classes you can take, somewhere in the DC area.

  • feetxxxl1

    “feetxxxl: you simply consistently miss the point or just deflect.” if king david has loved uriah as he loved himself he would never have stepped into what he did with bathsheba.

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    detroitblkmale30I know that I can see what you are blind to. But how can I explain it to you, since you are blind and cannot see? How can I get you comprehend that there is more than you realize, since by nature, you lack the capacity to realized it?If you are blind to what I can see, then how may you instruct me on what I DO see, yet hidden from you?It is sort of a Helen Keller cunundrum. Anyway, sorry I hurt your oh-so-sensitive feelings. I always wonder at what thin skins the anti-gay have; they are so good at pretentious snobbery, without even seeming to realize how obnoxious they are being, and then when it is pointed out to them, they get all huffy and bent out of shape.Just one more thing; gay people do not need to change; you do.

  • detroitblkmale30

    DanielintheLionsDen: You couldnt hurt my feelings with your immature and silly words. I was simply pointing out the futility of your arguments where I am concerned. Your opinions have no relevance or bearing on my beleifs. Waste your words if you so choose.Just know they are inaccurate.I dont need to change and never will. Thanks for your blind opinion. You took the words out of my mouth, I however am wise enough to stop getting someone like yourself who is blinded by his own so called wisdom to see something so clear that he refuses to see. I leave you alone to your so-called “enlightenment”

  • detroitblkmale30

    feetxxxl1: are you serious?? David would have STILL been sinning, Uriah was Bathesheba’s husband, that would have been three sins, fornication and adultery, and sodomy. Even you have to agree that is at least TWO sins. That argument doesnt compute.

  • detroitblkmale30

    onofrio: Either your ability to read or comprehend what you read are at a elementary school level as you have missed multiple times now my point that this is not a thesis paper or dissertation. What someone quickly rattles off in rebuttal on an onboard message board, minus spell checking and with typos obviously is no reflection of their command of the English language or their intellect. To suggest otherwise is pure folly, as are most of your comments fixated on such minute and trivial details as a means to attempt to refute my arguments. I’m not concerned with your opinions about me, my education or anything else. It is irrelvant really. You’ve already shown yourself to be without reason or any ability to take points into consideration in a genuine honest critique.Perhaps you can take some life skills classes on not overreacting to small, unrelated details as well as not making gross over-generalizations from one issue to another. Im sure there are some down under, in Australia where I beleive you said you are.

  • detroitblkmale30

    No “obviously” quick posts are not any type of gauge of intelligence. Thats ridiculous. That you think they are actually speaks again to your immaturity. Funny I dont see IQ tests being replaced with online message board posting tests. If the best life skills class is life itself, then hopefully this exchange has taught you not to be so petty and pompous. If not, then hopefully you will learn that lesson soon. You clearly are acting like this is some sort of classroom exercise. Last I checked, spelling errors, typos and improper facts are standard on these message boards. If we were in a collegiate setting then yes, we would be spellchecking every word, double checking facts, inserting the proper footnotes. It’s not. Get over it already.—————

  • detroitblkmale30

    No “obviously” quick posts flawed or unflawed are Not any type of gauge of intelligence. Thats ridiculous. That you think they are actually speaks again to your immaturity. Funny I dont see IQ tests being replaced with online message board posting tests. If the best life skills class is life itself, then hopefully this exchange has taught you not to be so petty and pompous. If not, then hopefully you will learn that lesson soon. You clearly are acting like this is some sort of classroom exercise. Last I checked, spelling errors, typos and improper facts are standard on these message boards. If we were in a collegiate setting then yes, we would be spellchecking every word, double checking facts, inserting the proper footnotes. It’s not. Get over it already.—————

  • onofrio_

    Detriotblkmale30,Thee:Your posts comprise a large share of said glitches. It’s clear that you take the lowest common denominator as your standard. That sits well with your appeal to popular hearsay as the criterion of facticity. “So your standard for what you post on an ‘On Faith’ thread is less than 5th grade? That explains a lot…”If I have the “last word”, it won’t be by your leave, you sanctimonious tosser. Your poorly articulated, condescending “arguments” amount to nothing more than “the Bible told me so” – pious clichés all. No actual thought is evident in anything you’ve written here.Go back to 5th grade and learn your letters.

Read More Articles

colbert
Top 10 Reasons We’re Glad A Catholic Colbert Is Taking Over Letterman’s “Late Show”

How might we love Stephen Colbert as the “Late Show” host? Let us count the ways.

emptytomb
God’s Not Dead? Why the Good News Is Better than That

The resurrection of Jesus is not a matter of private faith — it’s a proclamation for the whole world.

noplaceonearth
An Untold Story of Bondage to Freedom: Passover 1943

How a foxhole that led to a 77-mile cave system saved the lives of 38 Ukrainian Jews during the Holocaust.

shutterstock_148333673
Friend or Foe? Learning from Judas About Friendship with Jesus

We call Judas a betrayer. Jesus called him “friend.”

shutterstock_53190298
Fundamentalist Arguments Against Fundamentalism

The all-or-nothing approach to the Bible used by skeptics and fundamentalists alike is flawed.

shutterstock_178468880
Mary Magdalene, the Closest Friend of Jesus

She’s been ignored, dismissed, and misunderstood. But the story of Easter makes it clear that Mary was Jesus’ most faithful friend.

shutterstock_186795503
The Three Most Surprising Things Jesus Said

Think you know Jesus? Some of his sayings may surprise you.

shutterstock_185995553
How to Debate Christians: Five Ways to Behave and Ten Questions to Answer

Advice for atheists taking on Christian critics.

HIFR
Heaven Hits the Big Screen

How “Heaven is for Real” went from being an unsellable idea to a bestselling book and the inspiration for a Hollywood movie.

shutterstock_186364295
This God’s For You: Jesus and the Good News of Beer

How Jesus partied with a purpose.

egg.jpg
Jesus, Bunnies, and Colored Eggs: An Explanation of Holy Week and Easter

So, Easter is a one-day celebration of Jesus rising from the dead and turning into a bunny, right? Not exactly.

SONY DSC
Dear Evangelicals, Please Reconsider Your Fight Against Gay Rights

A journalist and longtime observer of American religious culture offers some advice to his evangelical friends.