A re-examination of nothing (2)

[EnemyPartyII]

I never said that same sex intimacy was the entire bounds of homosexuality. Don't pigeon-hole me with your preconcieved ideas about what I mean and what I'm going to say.

Neither you or I am the writer, God is the author so how about you ask Him about the change in terminology. Looking at that in context it makes for a broader definition than merely the sexual act. If it was confined to the sexual act then it may well have been more prescriptive. Intead the scripture mentions lying with a man so perhaps that also includes the times when sexual relations are not being pursued? The fact that women are not mentioned specifically is not a big deal, you don't have to be an intellectual giant to see that the rules are applicable for both sexes.

Massive interpretive leap? Certainly a much smaller one than any verses you care to cite tht support homosexuality.

God is not the author of the Bible, nor does even the Bible make such a claim, so I'm at a loss as to why you do.

 

[k2svpete]

Eye glasses? Anti-biotics? Caesarian section?So what? There's a moral stigma attached to eating shellfish, or eating with your left hand some places. You gunna change your life because of what someone else thinks? Jesus was pretty clear about miral stigmas... seem to recall him dining with tax collectors...Amazingly... people who are not brought up being told that homosexuality is evil... don't seem to be all that confronted by it. There goes that theory... full points for thinking though.And cultures and traditions change and evolve. Its a GOOD thing...

C'mon now, let's not get carried away with corrective actions of the problems that sin brought into nature.

Remember that before sin there weren't weeds or thorns either. You know the difference as well as I do, don't be deliberately belligerent with that please.

 

[k2svpete]

God is not the author of the Bible, nor does even the Bible make such a claim, so I'm at a loss as to why you do.

God is the author in that the writers are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Note the distinction between writers and author. It is a book so there must be an author, it just so happens that He had writers put the words on parchment.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

C'mon now, let's not get carried away with corrective actions of the problems that sin brought into nature.

Remember that before sin there weren't weeds or thorns either. You know the difference as well as I do, don't be deliberately belligerent with that please.

Ah, now we're back to what some might call goal post shifting, but what is CERTAINLY a matter of personal belief, since the bible clearly doesn't say anything to the effect that human or indeed, plant, anatomy or speciation changed as a result of "sin"... indeed, a theory which creates far more problems than it answers.

But this is why you need to be careful about your terminology... you said "anything that goes against nature"... well, I cite things that go against nature.

Indeed, I would strongly contend that homosexuality is PERFECTLY natural... and I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

God is the author in that the writers are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Note the distinction between writers and author. It is a book so there must be an author, it just so happens that He had writers put the words on parchment.

Again, the Bible makes no such claim.

It is supposed to be INSPIRED by God, but that is not the same as suggesting God dictated the Bible and it perfectly reflects his views on any given subject without taint or bias by human contributors

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII

Again, the Bible makes no such claim.

Again yes it does.
“David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: " 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." '” – Mark 12:36.
“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. “ - John 14:26

It is supposed to be INSPIRED by God, but that is not the same as suggesting God dictated the Bible and it perfectly reflects his views on any given subject without taint or bias by human contributors

The only person suggesting any connection between inspired and dictated is you. You are seemingly trying to correct others for your own mistake.

The fact is EnemyPartyII, time and time again what is quite obviously written in the Bible is simply denied by you. I know those who claim not to be Christians who believe much more of the Bible than you, and indeed they don’t dispute what it says.
All you do time after time is say what you think the Bible doesnt say, the whole of your faith seems based on what the Bible doesnt say.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII,

Indeed, I would strongly contend that homosexuality is PERFECTLY natural... and I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.

Contending is fair enough but can you demonstrate otherwise?
Sure people have practiced same-sex sex through history, indeed the Bible refers to it as detesible and error throughout. But firstly the sex organs of a man and woman I would say are undeniably designed for each other for reproduction, in that way I would say same-sex sex has no justificaton except for pleasure. Sexual pleasure is no justfication alone for any type of sex.
But as Christians here we believe the Bible is God's word and in the Bible same-sex unions are condemned.

 

[OllieFranz]

Dear David Brider,
Actually yes He did, for example Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.- NIV.
The NIV says it is detestible rather than abomination.

But in the original Hebrew the ban is both more specific and more confusing. The word toevah relates to religious impurity. The word for sexual immorality is zimmah, as found in Lev 18:17

Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; [for] they [are] her near kinswomen: it [is] wickedness.

If the command were just against all sexual activity between men, the command would have been much simpler, especially surrounded by all the other commands about forbidden sex. The command would just have to just say "Thou shalt not lie with a man." That the command added "in the lyings of a wife" confused the rabbis for centuries. This phrase clearly restricted the ban to a single action, and in fact to only one of the two posiions in that action. Even in Leviticus 20:13, while the blood of both participants was required, it was still only the one who was forbidden to participate.

Also, in any other society where this action is either forbidden or frowned upon -- including Western Europe and its daughter civilizations which have been nominally Christian -- the focus of the scorn is on the "passive" participant, who, it was felt, debased himself in the role of a woman. The "active" participant at least acted as a man would act. But Leviticus forbids one to be the "active" participant, but does not comment on the "passive" one.

One possibility lies in the fact that there are reasons to ask of something about the choice of grammar in both the phrases "to lie with a male" and the "lyings of the wife" if they may reference force or coersion -- in other words, rape. In both phrases, it is subtle, and alone, those hints in either would probably not mean rape, but when it occurs twice in one command you must wonder.

And finally there is the untranlated word et. The word has no counterpart in English, and is usually optional in Hebrew. In the Bible it almost always means that one must expand the meaning of the word it modifies. In the Hebrew, the fifth commandment (or fourth, depending on you denomination) reads "Honor your et-father and your et-mother." This is taken to mean that you should not only honor your direct parents, but also your grandparents, step-parents, foster-parents, and others who stand in loco parentis.

In Leviticus 18:22, et modifies the word "male." The commandment is to not lie with the male -- expanded. How do you expand on "male" except to add female? The commandment tells us not to lie with the male -- or the female -- "in the lyings of the wife." It is not just a command against adultery: Adultery is separately forbidden in Leviticus 18:20. So, we are back to wondering if "the lyings of the wife" means rape.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear EnemyPartyII
Again yes it does.
“David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: " 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." '” – Mark 12:36.
“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. “ - John 14:26

The only person suggesting any connection between inspired and dictated is you. You are seemingly trying to correct others for your own mistake.

The fact is EnemyPartyII, time and time again what is quite obviously written in the Bible is simply denied by you. I know those who claim not to be Christians who believe much more of the Bible than you, and indeed they don’t dispute what it says.
All you do time after time is say what you think the Bible doesnt say, the whole of your faith seems based on what the Bible doesnt say.

Well if you acknowledge that inspoired and dictated don't mean the same thing, you can stop implying that the Bible is somehow the inerrant, direct word of God, devoid of any human slant, taint, bias or imput, can't you?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear EnemyPartyII,
Contending is fair enough but can you demonstrate otherwise?
Sure people have practiced same-sex sex through history, indeed the Bible refers to it as detesible and error throughout. But firstly the sex organs of a man and woman I would say are undeniably designed for each other for reproduction, in that way I would say same-sex sex has no justificaton except for pleasure. Sexual pleasure is no justfication alone for any type of sex.
But as Christians here we believe the Bible is God's word and in the Bible same-sex unions are condemned.

like ALL biological systems, the reproductive tract serves MANY functions, so saying that a certaibn action does not utilise ONE of these functions does not, ipso facto, mean that it is unnatural use. Homosexual intimacy is perfectly natural use of the reproductive system, utilising the many NON-procreative functions of said systems

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ollifranz,

But in the original Hebrew the ban is both more specific and more confusing. The word toevah relates to religious impurity. The word for sexual immorality is zimmah, as found in Lev

18:17

No hardly, ‘wickedness’ is ok, even in Lev 19:29 the zimmah is chalal which can be tramslated prostitution. . Sorry I don’t rate your Hebrew compared to the Bible translations, an indeed, the passage was asked for an given , if you reject the evidence then that’s another matter, and in my view disbelief.

In Leviticus 18:22, et modifies the word "male." The commandment is to not lie with the male -- expanded. How do you expand on "male" except to add female? The commandment tells us not to lie with the male -- or the female -- "in the lyings of the wife." It is not just a command against adultery: Adultery is separately forbidden in Leviticus 18:20. So, we are back to wondering if "the lyings of the wife" means rape.

Nonsense Lev 18:22 is Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it abomination. So it doesn’t say what you claim it says, male or female, but simply male zakar with female 'ishshah . Sorry, again I don’t rate your Hebrew compared to the Bible. You are simply disputing the Bible.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII

Well if you acknowledge that inspoired and dictated don't mean the same thing, you can stop implying that the Bible is somehow the inerrant, direct word of God, devoid of any human slant, taint, bias or imput, can't you?

Sorry but I have answered your question the Bible does indeed say what you claimed it doesn’t. And furthermore I don’t need to stop doing what I am not doing just because you implied it. Your task is to admit the Bible says what you claimed it didn’t, unless you don’t believe the Bible again.

like ALL biological systems, the reproductive tract serves MANY functions, so saying that a certaibn action does not utilise ONE of these functions does not, ipso facto, mean that it is unnatural use. Homosexual intimacy is perfectly natural use of the reproductive system, utilising the many NON-procreative functions of said systems

Sorry but the nose isn’t a sex organ, the penis and the vagina are. My point is that the penis and the vagina are the sex organs, and are undeniably designed for each other for reproduction, in that way I would say same-sex sex has no justificaton except for pleasure. Sexual pleasure is no justfication alone for any type of sex.

 

[davedjy]

like ALL biological systems, the reproductive tract serves MANY functions, so saying that a certaibn action does not utilise ONE of these functions does not, ipso facto, mean that it is unnatural use. Homosexual intimacy is perfectly natural use of the reproductive system, utilising the many NON-procreative functions of said systems

Agreed. Btw, he says that same sex unions are condemned in Scripture in the post you quoted. Same sex unions are NOT mentioned one place in the Bible, so that is 100% false.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Sorry but the nose isn’t a sex organ, the penis and the vagina are. My point is that the penis and the vagina are the sex organs, and are undeniably designed for each other for reproduction, in that way I would say same-sex sex has no justificaton except for pleasure. Sexual pleasure is no justfication alone for any type of sex.

Yep!

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Davedjy,

Agreed. Btw, he says that same sex unions are condemned in Scripture in the post you quoted. Same sex unions are NOT mentioned one place in the Bible, so that is 100% false

EnemyPartyII has been saying there are. If you were really interested in debate you would debate the issue rather than just pushing your agenda.

What you say is just denial and disbelief of the Bible passages given which show same-sex union is condemned.