David and Jonathan

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Wiccan_Child,

I wonder if you are a KJV-only. You seem to be replying on inaccurate translations. Why?

I am not nor have I suggested it, I was referring to the NIV and the Hebrew text. Why have you asked me a question about something I have not said in response to my question?
I will repeat the question and in more detail,
They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing
Its says men 'enowsh, it says to know them yada`, it says wicked ra`a`

All believers?

yes, anyone who doesn’t believe that is a non-believer of it.

Initially, yes. For whatever reason, God created humans to be a sexually reproducing species. Thus, the initial humans must represent all necessary sexes. It is not a statement of morality, but a fulfillment of necessity.

That’s assumption and contrary to what the Bible says in that God created woman for man ‘it was for this reason’ If it was man for man He didn’t need to create woman did He?

It doesn’t mention a marital bed, that’s your insertion but it does mention a man with a man instead of a woman.

Man shall not lie in the layings of a woman. I.e., where the woman is layed. I.e., her marital bed. No the word is shakab which is not maritial, but merely to lie or to le sexually. Once again you have added an assumption that the Biblical use of the word does not support in order to try and create a straw man and escape clause from the consequence.

Yes. However, ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek are not, and I'm willing to bet that they aren't yours either.

That’s why I am pointing out to you what you do not understand about the Hebrew and Greek which scholars of the languages do.

I have, many times. God gave them up to their unnatural lusts, and by way of example the Bible tells of men forgoing their natural use of the women (i.e., these men were straight), and going after their own gender (i.e., straight men going after men). It is a clear condemnation of going against one's nature, but it does not state what one's nature is.

Another assumption with no credibility, nor have you
addressed what I wrote. Your point was idolatry, the text says God gave them up to idolatry and to lusts and to all kinds of things when they turned away form God. The text makes no assumption of straight or gay, but it if you think they were homosexual then you know homosexual is turning away from God’s purposes.
But the text also says
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Your assumption assumes if homosexual men therefore had sex with women it would be a perversion, yet God created women for man ‘for this reason’ that a man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and the two shall become one flesh. This is why we as Christians see homosexual acts are turning away from God.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Wiccan_Child,

No offence, but I find your word less than trustworthy. I suggest you have a look at the original texts.

Don’t take my word for it take the Bible’s word if not don’t take the Bible falsely.

Whether the Bible is 'true' or not is irrelevant. It is still a collection of statements.

Well if you don’t believe the Bible and don’t mind your Wiccan faith being criticised but you don’t believe the Bible and do mind homosexual practice being criticised, why are you so bothered about homosexual practice? Is that more of a God to you than Wicca?

Unfortunately, I do not blindly trust inaccurate translations.

Hardly a convincing statement from someone who doesn’t understand enough Hebrew or Koine Greek to be able to translate it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Don’t take my word for it take the Bible’s word

Huh? We're debating what the Bible's word is.

Well if you don’t believe the Bible and don’t mind your Wiccan faith being criticised but you don’t believe the Bible and do mind homosexual practice being criticised, why are you so bothered about homosexual practice?

Because what people perceive the Bible to says about Wicca does not affect me, whereas what they think it says about homosexuality does affect me. We've gone over this many times, brightmorningstar.

Is that more of a God to you than Wicca?

Arguably, since neither Biblical criticism nor Wicca are gods.

Hardly a convincing statement from someone who doesn’t understand enough Hebrew or Koine Greek to be able to translate it.

If you disagree with my translations, then please, show me my error. But do not make accusations without being prepared to back them up.

Why have you asked me a question about something I have not said in response to my question?

Because that is how humans talk.

I will repeat the question and in more detail,
They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing
Its says men 'enowsh, it says to know them yada`, it says wicked ra`a`

Does it say '[to] know them' or '[to] have sex with them'? You seem to have mixed your translations.

yes, anyone who doesn’t believe that is a non-believer of it.

Naturally. A nonbelieve of X is a nonbeliever of X. But you said:
"For believers [Jude 1] points to same-sex sex." Are you referring to believers of your interpretation, or to followers of the Christian faith? Because the former is a useless tautology, while the latter is a gross stereotype.

That’s assumption

I assumed nothing. It's a logical conclusion based on the Biblical narrative.

and contrary to what the Bible says in that God created woman for man ‘it was for this reason’ If it was man for man He didn’t need to create woman did He?

My point still stands. That women were created for men for the purpose of procreation does not imply that men should not be attracted to other men (nor women to women). You assume too much.
Unless, of course, you can demonstrate your derivation of morality from such a inconspicuous verse.

No the word is shakab which is not maritial, but merely to lie or to le sexually.

I never said the word was marital. The verse "[SIZE=-1]וְאֶת זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכַּב מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תּוֹעֵבָה הִוא[/SIZE]" directly translates to "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman". The point, brightmorningstar, is that the phrase 'lay lyings' is meaningless in English. The KJV translates it as 'lay as the lyings', i.e., don't sleep with men as you would a woman. Liberal translations take it as 'lay in the lyings', i.e., don't sleep with men in the 'lyings', or beds, of a woman. Given the time, it likely refers to a woman's marital bed, since that is only for her and her husband to make love in.
How you translate 'lay lyings' is up to you. The liberal translation, however, conforms with the rest of Leviticus more than the traditional one (seperation of two seperate acts, not condemnation of one).

Once again you have added an assumption that the Biblical use of the word does not support in order to try and create a straw man and escape clause from the consequence.

I'm sorry? Is English your first language?

That’s why I am pointing out to you what you do not understand about the Hebrew and Greek which scholars of the languages do.

Well of course scholars of the language understand the language they specialise in. My point was that your analysis is no different from my own. If circumstances allowed, it would be logical to get an independant and unbiased expert in to move our discussion forward; we would both, I assume, defer to their expertise.

Another assumption with no credibility,

I assumed nothing. Demonstrate otherwise, or retract the claim.

Your point was idolatry, the text says God gave them up to idolatry and to lusts and to all kinds of things when they turned away form God. The text makes no assumption of straight or gay, but it if you think they were homosexual then you know homosexual is turning away from God’s purposes.
But the text also says
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Your assumption assumes if homosexual men therefore had sex with women it would be a perversion, yet God created women for man ‘for this reason’ that a man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and the two shall become one flesh. This is why we as Christians see homosexual acts are turning away from God.

My response to this depends on your response to the above.

 

[david_x]

On the contrary, I made no such statement, and I take offense to being misquoted. Do not do so again.

You lie. You said that sex was made by the goddess or somthing like that.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You lie. You said that sex was made by the goddess or somthing like that.

The very fact that you end with 'or something like that' makes me doubt that you even know what I am talking about. To save further embarrasment on your part, my actual quote was:
Sing, feast, dance, make music and love, all in My Presence, for Mine is the ecstasy of the spirit and Mine also is joy on earth.
It's an excerpt from the Charge of the Goddess. It was in response to someone asking about Wiccan views on sex. This verse pretty much sums it up.

 

[david_x]

The very fact that you end with 'or something like that' makes me doubt that you even know what I am talking about. To save further embarrasment on your part, my actual quote was:
Sing, feast, dance, make music and love, all in My Presence, for Mine is the ecstasy of the spirit and Mine also is joy on earth.
It's an excerpt from the Charge of the Goddess. It was in response to someone asking about Wiccan views on sex. This verse pretty much sums it up.

Thank you, i could not find it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

*bump*

 

[david_x]

why?