Evidence that homosexuality is wrong..?

[Phinehas2]

Dear MrPirate,

Leviticus has many laws about having carnal relations with of another person the Hebrew word for sexual intercourse or carnal relations is shakhabh. Multiple times we can find prohibitions about having carnal relations with any number of people. (though it is surprising to see who is not included) what we do not find in either Leviticus

18:22 or 20:13 is a prohibition of carnal relations (shakhabh) between two men. In literal translations we do not even find the strange and awkwardly worded “though shall not lie” is the Hebrew mishkabh, which elsewhere is translate as to lay on the ground next to and not considered to be sinful. Rather in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 we find the Hebrew word shakab. Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 says that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex. In other words, it is an abomination to rape a man. Homosexuality and consensual homosexual intercourse are not abominations and not sins. And a man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.

Ok thanks but no thanks. Firstly my citations address the issue of all the law or none, used by gay and lesbian activists. The answer is Jesus fulfils the law.
You have no problem with the idea to love your neighbour but you obviously do with the same sex bit as you have chosen to post your disbelief of that.
Anyway the word shakhabh is to lie down and usually qualified with carnally to denote where it is sexual with a woman Numbers 5:13, Lev 19:20, otherwise it refers to for example copulation or masturbation. In Lev 18:22 and 20:13 it is to lie with a man as with a woman. However the septuagint confirms this You have been mislead by incorrect gay theology, which is widely used by gays and lesbians who are sucked in by it… for example http://www.rayofhopechurch.com/sexual1.htm coming from McNeil’s original work.

Furthemore Paul was an expert in the Jewish law, you aren’t, and he obviously refers to the septuagint
meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gynaikos (Lev. 18:22)
koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos (Lev. 20:13)[39]

Otherwise there is no mention of forcing or coercing in Lev 18:22 and Lev 10:13, where did you get this idea from? Which words?

 

[djbcrawford]

By defining murder. Murder is a subset of killing, and 'killing in self-defence' is another subset. Arguably, muder is killing for the sake of killing: the intention of murder is to murder, rather than, say, to preserve one's kin or to aquire food.

I would say very few people kill for the sake of killing. Jealousy, rage, greed but not just for the hell of it (if you don't mind the expression)

I agree. But if you have felt the urge to steal a car, but didn't, then that is a good thing (since stealing a car is bad). I have never felt inclined to do any number of bad things, but this does not make me a good person. I agree with you in that it is the actions of a person that determines their morality, where the suppresion of an urge counts as an act.

Exactly my point, it is amazing how much we actually agree on.

Not really. I said: "the moral view of Christians is not true simply because it is unique". This is a consequence of objective logic, not subjective opinion. The reason behind it is that two mutually exclusive ideals can both be unique, but, b y definition, they cannot both be true. Thus, the statement "If something is unique, then it is true" is false: it leads to a logical contradiction.

No, but the fact it is unique makes it worth looking at. The other religions I am aware of teach do A,B and C and you earn heaven. Christianity teaches that heaven is priceless, it can never be earned. All you have to do is accept the ticket God offers and pay back what you can out of love and gratitude.

A sentiment which I disagree with, again.

Oh well, maybe we don't agree on that much after all.

Which is the exact opposite of what I said: it's the journey, not the starting point. If someone was once a dyed-in-the-wool YEC Creationist, but is now fully-fleged atheistic evolutionist, would I think less of them? Of course not. I would not consider them to be an ex-Creationist, but rather an Evolutionist. Past experiances can tell you about a person, but only to a certain degree.

It's not JUST the journey. You have to consider the starting point too. For example, you meet 2 men running a marathon. Man A is fresh and Man B is struggling. You can make the assumption that man A is the fittest, but if you then find out he's only been running 2 miles and the other man has been running 10 you are way out in your assumption. The journey as a whole includes the start and the finish.

Since you have resigned yourself to ignorance, I feel compelled to agree.

Right back atcha! (or in english - I feel compelled to say the same about you)