So, recruit me

[Wiccan_Child]

T
Firstly in response to Polycarp fan’s question, could you translate the Hebrew please to show us from 1 and 2 Samuel what leads you to think gay is ok.

Yes it says men as shown. Here is one example again.
But before they lay down, the men of the city, [even] the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as [is] good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

That is not the text, that is a translation of the text (specifically the KJV). Try again. Or, preferably, explain why you trust the KJVs translation of "Anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom".

It says men so we can assume the gender of the group is men. So don’t tell me you don’t think men is a clue to the gender.

"Anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom" isn't a clue to the gender, and that's the phrase you insist refers to 'men'.

Then don’t disagree with the Bible translations if you don’t know what you are talking about and cant give any alternative versions

I said I wasn't a scholar, not that I didn't know what I was talking about. There aren't any contextual clues that indicate which of the two possible translations of "Anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom" is correct.

Wrong. Most people believe Genesis 19 condemns same-sex sex, I agree you don’t.

Which is what I said .

Your opinion is contrary to the majority and the experts, all I am doing is showing why the majority and the experts agree this.

Allegedly. I could just as easily claim the majority of experts agree with me.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Wiccan_chlld,

That is not the text, that is a translation of the text (specifically the KJV).

That’s correct, and the correct translation as well, that why I and most people trust it, we are awaiting for your response.

"Anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom" isn't a clue to the gender, and that's the phrase you insist refers to 'men'.

The word is 'enowsh

I said I wasn't a scholar, not that I didn't know what I was talking about. There aren't any contextual clues that indicate which of the two possible translations of "Anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom" is correct.

source please.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Wiccan_chlld,

That is not the text, that is a translation of the text (specifically the KJV).

That’s correct, and the correct translation as well, that why I and most people trust it, we are awaiting for your response.

"Anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom" isn't a clue to the gender, and that's the phrase you insist refers to 'men'.

The word is 'enowsh

I said I wasn't a scholar, not that I didn't know what I was talking about. There aren't any contextual clues that indicate which of the two possible translations of "Anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom" is correct.

source please.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That’s correct, and the correct translation as well,

Justification? As I have repeatedly shown, there are two possible translations, each of which yields a completely different interpretation of the events.

The word is 'enowsh

It's not, but let's have a look at this word anyway:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]from 'anash; properly, a mortal (and thus differing from the more dignified 'adam); hence, a man in general (singly or collectively)

another, X (blood-)thirsty, certain, chap(-man); divers, fellow, X in the flower of their age, husband, (certain, mortal) man, people, person, servant, some (X of them), + stranger, those, + their trade. It is often unexpressed in the English versions, especially when used in apposition with another word.
[/FONT]
http://original.biblebrowser.com/hebrew/582.htm

So this word too can mean man, person, or even stranger.

source please.

For what? The onus is on you to provide the contextual clues.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Wiccan_Child,

Justification? As I have repeatedly shown, there are two possible translations, each of which yields a completely different interpretation of the events.

No you have not shown, you have just said there are. I have shown you several Bible translations that say men.
The word is 'enowsh

It's not, but let's have a look at this word anyway:

Yes it is 'enowsh
which is derived from 'anash;
As I said even under your translation it would make no sense whether either persons nor strangers wanted sex with persons or strangers when it is pronounced wicked and virgin daughters are offered instead. If however its men with men the meaning comes clear as to why virgin daughters are offered instead.
The Bible translations are correct, we are even more sure now than before since they have totally stood up to specific and intense gay theology in recent years.
Gay and lesbian arguments are not interested in the possibility of homosexual practice being error they are only interested in looking for any and every objection to the reality of what the text says. The tactics of those without any Biblical countenance is to spin the situation so as to demand those with the evidence justify it.
The text says men and men makes sense, especially in the light of all the others passages which exclude and condemn homosexual practice.

 

[David Brider]

The word is 'enowsh

Nope, sorry - that word is not used to describe the people outside Lot's house - they are, as Wiccan_Child has said, described as anshei.

They describe the people inside Lot's house as 'enowsh - that might be where your confusion is arising from?

David.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No you have not shown, you have just said there are. I have shown you several Bible translations that say men.

And as I've pointed out (and backed with scholarly sources, I might add), that means squat. Consider:

It means 'a man', but only in poetic language. Like the the 'man' in 'mankind', 'man' refers to all humanity (originally, 'man' meant 'human', and 'wid' and 'wyr' (I think) referred to 'males' and 'females', respectively).

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=0582&t=KJV

And:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]from 'anash; properly, a mortal (and thus differing from the more dignified 'adam); hence, a man in general (singly or collectively)

another, X (blood-)thirsty, certain, chap(-man); divers, fellow, X in the flower of their age, husband, (certain, mortal) man, people, person, servant, some (X of them), + stranger, those, + their trade. It is often unexpressed in the English versions, especially when used in apposition with another word.
[/FONT]
http://original.biblebrowser.com/hebrew/582.htm

Emphasis mine.

The word is 'enowsh
Yes it is 'enowsh

"'enowsh" and "Anshei" are different transliterations of the same word. I was mistaken before. Fortunately, my analysis stands regardless: the word can be (and virturally always is) used in a gender neutral sense.

As I said even under your translation it would make no sense whether either persons nor strangers wanted sex with persons or strangers when it is pronounced wicked and virgin daughters are offered instead. If however its men with men the meaning comes clear as to why virgin daughters are offered instead.

On the contrary, it makes no sense to offer homosexual men women. If Lot offered them his virgin sons, well, you might have a point.

But in any case, you are ignoring the glaring (and most plausable) scenario: Lot was offering his daughters so that his guests might go unharmed. Such was the value placed on hospitality that Lot would rather his own daughters go with the mob than his guests. That makes sense, regardless of the sex of the mob - sorry, 'group of people'.

The Bible translations are correct, we are even more sure now than before since they have totally stood up to specific and intense gay theology in recent years.

Not really. You exemplify the anti-gay response to pro-gay exegesis: stubbern refusal to acknowledge the facts, preferring instead to cite archaic translations as some sort of counter-argument. Can anyone say 'circular reasoning'? "Your criticism of translation x is false because it does not agree with x".

Have you ever considered that your precious translations might be wrong? (And yes, I have considered that I might be wrong. I just haven't seen any reason to believe so)

Gay and lesbian arguments are not interested in the possibility of homosexual practice being error they are only interested in looking for any and every objection to the reality of what the text says. The tactics of those without any Biblical countenance is to spin the situation so as to demand those with the evidence justify it.

Uhuh. Would you like a slice of conspiracy theory to go with that appeal to caricature? We've got some fresh ad hominems to go as well.

The text says men

Nope.

and men makes sense,

Nope.

especially in the light of all the others passages which exclude and condemn homosexual practice.

What other passages? I only see condemnations of Pagan idolatry and apostasy (Romans 1), befouling a woman's bed with non-marital sex (Leviticus 18, 20), etc.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Nope, sorry - that word is not used to describe the people outside Lot's house - they are, as Wiccan_Child has said, described as anshei.

They describe the people inside Lot's house as 'enowsh - that might be where your confusion is arising from?

David.

Man, this debating gay sex thing has been around for a long time. Even before the word gay was penned.

Obviously having talked about this subject with Jude, here's Peter's version of poor old Lot and his predicament:

. . . and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority

Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties, whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord.

But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed, suffering wrong as the wages of doing wrong They count it a pleasure to revel in the daytime They are stains and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, as they carouse with you, having eyes full of adultery that never cease from sin, enticing unstable souls, having a heart trained in greed, accursed children; forsaking the right way, they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; but he received a rebuke for his own transgression, for a mute donkey, speaking with a voice of a man, restrained the madness of the prophet.

These are springs without water and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved.

For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error, promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved.

 

[CaDan]

All are free to believe the Biblical testimony or not, what I think the problem is mostly here is people simply dont want the Biblical testimony to say what it says because they like sex more.

Behold! The fallacious core!

"People disagree with me not because they have a good faith dispute over the translation and interpretation of Scripture, but because they want to get some of that hot man-on-man action."

Well, there's a little problem with your analysis here. I'm not gay. I'm not even bi. I'm a boring white straight guy married to a lovely wife. And yet I have a difference of opinion with you about the interpretation of these passages.

That's the little problem. Here's the big problem. You are trying to win an argument via insult. That just will not do. Such behavior is not just a violation of the rules of this site, it is a violation of the usual rules of discourse in civilized settings. It is rude, crude, and-worst of all from your perspective--not very persuasive to your audience.

I advise you to stop such behavior immediately.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Behold! The fallacious core!

"People disagree with me not because they have a good faith dispute over the translation and interpretation of Scripture, but because they want to get some of that hot man-on-man action."

Well, there's a little problem with your analysis here. I'm not gay. I'm not even bi. I'm a boring white straight guy married to a lovely wife. And yet I have a difference of opinion with you about the interpretation of these passages.

That's the little problem. Here's the big problem. You are trying to win an argument via insult. That just will not do. Such behavior is not just a violation of the rules of this site, it is a violation of the usual rules of discourse in civilized settings. It is rude, crude, and-worst of all from your perspective--not very persuasive to your audience.

I advise you to stop such behavior immediately.

Very well put. Thank you

 

[Kerwin]

So, I hear gay people can recruit straight people to being gay. It should work the other way them, right? So, recruit me to being straight.

It does work the other way around but the individual being so recruited must have a strong faith in God to overcome their slavery to sin. It is also possible that Satan will loosen his hold on an individual in this way for his own reasons.

 

[tulc]

Welcome to CF Kerwin!
tulc(hopes you are blessed here)

 

[KCKID]

It does work the other way around but the individual being so recruited must have a strong faith in God to overcome their slavery to sin. It is also possible that Satan will loosen his hold on an individual in this way for his own reasons.

A sexual orientation is a sin? Seems like this is where we all came in.

 

[brightmorningstar]

TO CaDan,

Behold! The fallacious core!

That’s just your opinion, mine is as I put it

Well, there's a little problem with your analysis here.

The quote you gave is not my analysis, to which are you referring?

I'm not gay. I'm not even bi. I'm a boring white straight guy married to a lovely wife. And yet I have a difference of opinion with you about the interpretation of these passages.

Then I would say it is just disbelief as the texts are clear enough overall there are a dozen passages which tell us what most Christians and most scholars can see.

That's the little problem. Here's the big problem. You are trying to win an argument via insult.

No, my opinion as to the motive you may find insulting but I am merely believing the Bible, you are not.
And don’t bother with the violation of the rules, try not misquoting me, and giving some evidence yourself.

 

[SallyNow]

Watch Pirates of the Caribean several times.

If that doesn't make you straight then go to a doctor and have them remove the parts of the brain that control sexual desire. It may make you a zombie, and it won't actual make you straight, but it will make it easier for you to pretent to be straight. Well, if you weren't turned into a zombie.

 

[onemessiah]

So, I hear gay people can recruit straight people to being gay. It should work the other way them, right? So, recruit me to being straight.

Did it work?

 

[onemessiah]

Watch Pirates of the Caribean several times.

If that doesn't make you straight then go to a doctor and have them remove the parts of the brain that control sexual desire. It may make you a zombie, and it won't actual make you straight, but it will make it easier for you to pretent to be straight. Well, if you weren't turned into a zombie.

lol....um, k....

 

[KCKID]

Watch Pirates of the Caribean several times.

If that doesn't make you straight then go to a doctor and have them remove the parts of the brain that control sexual desire. It may make you a zombie, and it won't actual make you straight, but it will make it easier for you to pretent to be straight. Well, if you weren't turned into a zombie.

Cool. That's about the weirdest thing I've seen on this subforum but I kinda like your humor.

Um ...that WAS humor, wasn't it ...?

 

[BigBadWlf]

TO CaDan,
That’s just your opinion, mine is as I put it
The quote you gave is not my analysis, to which are you referring?
Then I would say it is just disbelief as the texts are clear enough overall there are a dozen passages which tell us what most Christians and most scholars can see.
No, my opinion as to the motive you may find insulting but I am merely believing the Bible, you are not.
And don’t bother with the violation of the rules, try not misquoting me, and giving some evidence yourself.

And a hundred years ago it was plain to anyone reading the bible and to Christian scholars agreed that blacks were a socially inferior race. Those who disagreed were obviously being mislead and stuck in their own denial and disbelief.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

And a hundred years ago it was plain to anyone reading the bible and to Christian scholars agreed that blacks were a socially inferior race. Those who disagreed were obviously being mislead and stuck in their own denial and disbelief.

But equal rights for Blacks is COMPLETELY different to the idea of equal rights for homosexuals!