"Sodom and Gomorah" Tories /Lib Dems

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Why isn't our consciousness a valid reason to impart significance? As far as we are able to tell, we are the part of the cosmos that is conscious - the conscious cosmos. I'd say that alone is pretty significant. That one part of the cosmos is organised in such a way as to be able to contemplate the entire cosmos, including itself, is pretty amazing.

"You talk like a Minbari"

 

[Dave Ellis]

Disagree, the problem is that the claim didn't give any exact description of the fairy itself, so how we suppose to prove/disprove it with the lack information provided by the claim itself? You can't do it. The methods doesn't not prove anything considering existence, only the existence of the method itself.
So what is the supposed methodology that verify this existence based on this?

That's the point, it doesn't matter how well defined it is, unless I make it self contradictory, there is always a small chance this being actually exists somewhere. You can not prove it doesn't exist.

If you want a clearly defined example, prove Darth Vader doesn't (or didn't) exist. While its very unlikely he exists here and now, it's possible George Lucas was subject to an amazing coincidence and accurately described a guy that lived a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.

While I grant you that it seems silly, it's still something that can not be disproven.

 

[super animator]

That's the point, it doesn't matter how well defined it is, unless I make it self contradictory, there is always a small chance this being actually exists somewhere. You can not prove it doesn't exist.

If you want a clearly defined example, prove Darth Vader doesn't (or didn't) exist. While its very unlikely he exists here and now, it's possible George Lucas was subject to an amazing coincidence and accurately described a guy that lived a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.

While I grant you that it seems silly, it's still something that can not be disproven.

But at the same time it can't be proven, because it in a galaxy far far away, something we can't access it.
Let just agree to disagree then. It's a nice conversation with you though. We should get to know each other in real life.

 

[Dave Ellis]

But at the same time it can't be proven, because it in a galaxy far far away, something we can't access it.
Let just agree to disagree then. It's a nice conversation with you though. We should get to know each other in real life.

But, you can prove it. It's currently beyond our technological means to get there, however if we travelled to this galaxy, we could prove that Darth Vader exists, or existed (assuming there is some kind of tangible evidence left behind).

That's the key though, to prove anything you need evidence. Anything that does not exist, obviously does not produce evidence.

Therefore, you're left with a complete lack of evidence for a non-existent thing. You would be justified in saying it's very improbable a proposal with absolutely no supporting evidence is true, however due to this lack of evidence, you can't prove it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I hope you see sense soon, my noodly lord the flying spagetti monsters mercy is endless but he won't hold out forever you know! Repent now its your only chance to be saved from your sins!

^ That is how ridiculous your preaching sounds to me.

Heathen!! The great noodly one (cheese be upon him) is forever merciful!

Everybody is saved from being cast into the eternal boiling pot of spaghetti water, for the noodly one sent the galactic strainer to save us!

 

[super animator]

But, you can prove it. It's currently beyond our technological means to get there, however if we travelled to this galaxy, we could prove that Darth Vader exists, or existed (assuming there is some kind of tangible evidence left behind).

That's the key though, to prove anything you need evidence. Anything that does not exist, obviously does not produce evidence.

Therefore, you're left with a complete lack of evidence for a non-existent thing. You would be justified in saying it's very improbable a proposal with absolutely no supporting evidence is true, however due to this lack of evidence, you can't prove it.

Unless you know the exact location of this galaxy and method of travel I'm not holding my breath, can we end the conversation now please?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Unless you know the exact location of this galaxy and method of travel I'm not holding my breath, can we end the conversation now please?

While it may take time to locate the galaxy, if it exists, it can be found. It would be possible to prove, although it may take a very long time.

If you want to drop the conversation, stop replying to my rebuttals lol

 

[Aijalon]

70% of Jews support same-sex marriage. Most Jews do not view Leviticus as condemning modern day gays. Only Orthodox Jews have an issue with it due to lack of procreation, but even they are having a crisis in the community as Rabbis are admitting they're gay. And Orthodox Jews still live in the stone age just like conservative Christians.

It's sad to see that Jews, who failed to see God the Son, also can't now see the simplicity of the moral law that is in the Old Testament they claim to keep.

Leviticus 18 does not have to do with prostitution, it has only to do with God's moral code as related to sexuality.

4 `My judgments ye do, and My statutes ye keep, to walk in them; I [am] Jehovah your God;
​

There is no mention of prositution having to do with it, it is a clear and simple prohibition of homosexual acts. It should be noted that if the issue is only prostitution, then sex with animals is also acceptable as long as you don't do it religiously.

It is very plain and simple. No homosexual sex - of any kind.

22 `And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is].
23 `And with any beast thou dost not give thy copulation, for uncleanness with it; and a woman doth not stand before a beast to lie down with it; confusion it [is].
​

The minimum penalty for breaking these moral codes was to be cut off from Israel.

29 for any one who doth [any] of all these abominations -- even the persons who are doing [so], have been cut off from the midst of their people;
​

Chapter 19 is prefaced by God's additional requirements for holiness (commands to be like God):

2 `Speak unto all the company of the sons of Israel, and thou hast said unto them, Ye are holy, for holy [am] I, Jehovah, your God.
​

the content of chapter 19 has to do with moral and ethical conduct in the areas of worship, marriage (heterosexual) and family, economics/labor, and agriculture.

Chapter 20 contains additional details about the death penalty for certain immoral acts, the first of which was infant sacrifice.

13 `And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood [is] on them.
14 `And a man who taketh the woman and her mother -- it [is] wickedness; with fire they burn him and them, and there is no wickedness in your midst.
15 `And a man who giveth his lying with a beast is certainly put to death, and the beast ye do slay.
​

Anyone who is prepared to discount the basic penalty for these deeds from chapter 18, which is that you are cut off from the saints/Israel, and twist chapter 20 to having only to do with pagan temple prostitution should be prepared to endorse sex with animals as long as they give glory to God and don't do it at Molech's temple.....

It doesn't matter if there is a reference to pagan idol worship as only one of the reasons for the death penalty, the others all stand alone. Israelites were to put their brothers to death for homosexual acts, incest, and beastiality. These all go together as one set of sexually immoral activities that have not changed, as Paul also lists these as "vile lusts"

You may like to cherry pick from a teaching or two that was already cherry picking, the end result will be that you will be cut off from Christ in the end, who as you know, upheld the law.

 

[Dave Ellis]

It's sad to see that Jews, who failed to see God the Son, also can't now see the simplicity of the moral law that is in the Old Testament they claim to keep.

Leviticus 18 does not have to do with prostitution, it has only to do with God's moral code as related to sexuality.

4 `My judgments ye do, and My statutes ye keep, to walk in them; I [am] Jehovah your God;
​

There is no mention of prositution having to do with it, it is a clear and simple prohibition of homosexual acts. It should be noted that if the issue is only prostitution, then sex with animals is also acceptable as long as you don't do it religiously.

It is very plain and simple. No homosexual sex - of any kind.

22 `And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is].
23 `And with any beast thou dost not give thy copulation, for uncleanness with it; and a woman doth not stand before a beast to lie down with it; confusion it [is].
​

The minimum penalty for breaking these moral codes was to be cut off from Israel.

29 for any one who doth [any] of all these abominations -- even the persons who are doing [so], have been cut off from the midst of their people;
​

Chapter 19 is prefaced by God's additional requirements for holiness (commands to be like God):

2 `Speak unto all the company of the sons of Israel, and thou hast said unto them, Ye are holy, for holy [am] I, Jehovah, your God.
​

the content of chapter 19 has to do with moral and ethical conduct in the areas of worship, marriage (heterosexual) and family, economics/labor, and agriculture.

Chapter 20 contains additional details about the death penalty for certain immoral acts, the first of which was infant sacrifice.

13 `And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood [is] on them.
14 `And a man who taketh the woman and her mother -- it [is] wickedness; with fire they burn him and them, and there is no wickedness in your midst.
15 `And a man who giveth his lying with a beast is certainly put to death, and the beast ye do slay.
​

Anyone who is prepared to discount the basic penalty for these deeds from chapter 18, which is that you are cut off from the saints/Israel, and twist chapter 20 to having only to do with pagan temple prostitution should be prepared to endorse sex with animals as long as they give glory to God and don't do it at Molech's temple.....

It doesn't matter if there is a reference to pagan idol worship as only one of the reasons for the death penalty, the others all stand alone. Israelites were to put their brothers to death for homosexual acts, incest, and beastiality. These all go together as one set of sexually immoral activities that have not changed, as Paul also lists these as "vile lusts"

You may like to cherry pick from a teaching or two that was already cherry picking, the end result will be that you will be cut off from Christ in the end, who as you know, upheld the law.

You seemed to miss his point... The point was what you think Leviticus says in English it doesn't say in the original Hebrew. In short, your gay bashing is a result of some guys poor translation a few hundred years ago, and not what is actually in Leviticus.

 

[Aijalon]

You seemed to miss his point... The point was what you think Leviticus says in English it doesn't say in the original Hebrew. In short, your gay bashing is a result of some guys poor translation a few hundred years ago, and not what is actually in Leviticus.

So in other words, you can't refute that - at least in English translations - there is any room for homosexuality....

Even if there are some verses that are mangled, which I doubt there are many, Leviticus 18-20 in Hebrew can't be that far off from what I've posted here. I don't have plans to learn Hebrew but I think the translation I've used is as good as any there is.

Pray tell, what English translation should I be using? Or am I just completely disqualified from reading the Bible because I speak only English?

 

[mindlight]

It's sad to see that Jews, who failed to see God the Son, also can't now see the simplicity of the moral law that is in the Old Testament they claim to keep.

Agreed but these are secular or Liberal Reform Jews. Messianic Jews and Orthodox Jews have a more honest reading of scripture. In many ways Bible believing Christians are more Jewish than those Jews who support gay marriage or abortion albeit circumcised in the heart not flesh.

Leviticus 18 does not have to do with prostitution, it has only to do with God's moral code as related to sexuality.

4 `My judgments ye do, and My statutes ye keep, to walk in them; I [am] Jehovah your God;
​

There is no mention of prositution having to do with it, it is a clear and simple prohibition of homosexual acts.

Yes this is very clear and the context is a whole load of verses about not sleeping with your mum and sister and what not - which has absolutely nothing to do with prostitution

Also where it means prostitution of this sort the bible is actually quite specific

No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute.

It should be noted that if the issue is only prostitution, then sex with animals is also acceptable as long as you don't do it religiously.

Some of the people here may argue this is only a matter of choice or how loud the animal squeals but you are right it really is unbelievable.

When the Germans repealed their homosexual laws they also repealed the laws on bestiality at the same time. Now they are reviewing the bestiality laws in the light of animal rights activists complaining rather than for any moral reasons-

It is very plain and simple. No homosexual sex - of any kind.

22 `And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is].
23 `And with any beast thou dost not give thy copulation, for uncleanness with it; and a woman doth not stand before a beast to lie down with it; confusion it [is].
​

The minimum penalty for breaking these moral codes was to be cut off from Israel.

29 for any one who doth [any] of all these abominations -- even the persons who are doing [so], have been cut off from the midst of their people;
​

Chapter 19 is prefaced by God's additional requirements for holiness (commands to be like God):

2 `Speak unto all the company of the sons of Israel, and thou hast said unto them, Ye are holy, for holy [am] I, Jehovah, your God.
​

the content of chapter 19 has to do with moral and ethical conduct in the areas of worship, marriage (heterosexual) and family, economics/labor, and agriculture.

Chapter 20 contains additional details about the death penalty for certain immoral acts, the first of which was infant sacrifice.

13 `And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood [is] on them.
14 `And a man who taketh the woman and her mother -- it [is] wickedness; with fire they burn him and them, and there is no wickedness in your midst.
15 `And a man who giveth his lying with a beast is certainly put to death, and the beast ye do slay.
​

Anyone who is prepared to discount the basic penalty for these deeds from chapter 18, which is that you are cut off from the saints/Israel, and twist chapter 20 to having only to do with pagan temple prostitution should be prepared to endorse sex with animals as long as they give glory to God and don't do it at Molech's temple.....

It doesn't matter if there is a reference to pagan idol worship as only one of the reasons for the death penalty, the others all stand alone. Israelites were to put their brothers to death for homosexual acts, incest, and beastiality. These all go together as one set of sexually immoral activities that have not changed, as Paul also lists these as "vile lusts"

You may like to cherry pick from a teaching or two that was already cherry picking, the end result will be that you will be cut off from Christ in the end, who as you know, upheld the law.

Very good and relevant post thanks for your contribution.

 

[Marius27]

So in other words, you can't refute that - at least in English translations - there is any room for homosexuality....

Seeing as the English translation itself proves it's discussing pagan worship rituals and prostitution, you're wrong even in English. And a man can't lay with another man the way he would a woman. Men don't have vaginas. Clearly this isn't talking about vaginal intercourse.

Even if there are some verses that are mangled, which I doubt there are many, Leviticus 18-20 in Hebrew can't be that far off from what I've posted here. I don't have plans to learn Hebrew but I think the translation I've used is as good as any there is.

Nope it's not. Because you removed it from context, and you ignore the last clause. The last clause "As with a woman" in Hebrew, approximately means "Lie lyings woman". That clause doesn't make much sense in Hebrew, much less English.

I will also remind you, Leviticus is an entire book directed at the ritual practices of the Levite priests. Nobody alive today is a levite priest.

Pray tell, what English translation should I be using? Or am I just completely disqualified from reading the Bible because I speak only English?

You need to stop assuming your understanding of certain verses is without a doubt accurate when Hebrew and English are completely unrelated and cannot be translated word for word. You also need to stop ignoring context, culture, and construction. You completely ignore the abrupt subject change in Leviticus 18. Why would the book go from discussing child sacrifice in the temples of the Canaanite gods in verse 21, to discussing gay people in verse 22 unless it's in the context of pagan rituals? There were no verse or chapter numbers originally. Verse 21 and 22 are an entirely separate subject from verse 20.

 

[Aijalon]

Seeing as the English translation itself proves it's discussing pagan worship rituals and prostitution, you're wrong even in English. And a man can't lay with another man the way he would a woman. Men don't have vaginas. Clearly this isn't talking about vaginal intercourse.

Correct, it is not talking about vaginal intercourse. It is talking about two men getting naked and doing the hokey pokey. Duh. You can mince words all you like.

The pagan ritual in question here is the act of homosexuality, that in and of itself is pagan, right there in chapter 18. How can you miss it? I took nothing out of context. Will you say next that my Bible has the chapters and verses out of order completely. LOL. The context is pretty obvious.

What is your opinion of beastiality then? You conveniently avoided that.

Your view of Leviticus is completely bent. It was to be read and known to all the people, only the temple rituals were for the Levites, the rest of the laws were observed by everyone. Why else were they read to all the people. It is called the Levitical law because it was given to Moses and Aaron, and the priests were responsible for teaching the law.

You need to get right with God, and give up your immoral ways, friend. God is not okay with your homosexuallity. You shall not inherit the kingdom of God unless you recognize your sin and repent.

Some of the people here may argue this is only a matter of choice or how loud the animal squeals but you are right it really is unbelievable.

When the Germans repealed their homosexual laws they also repealed the laws on bestiality at the same time. Now they are reviewing the bestiality laws in the light of animal rights activists complaining rather than for any moral reasons-

Well, mistreating animals is a moral issue after all.......... increadible.:o

 

[Dave Ellis]

So in other words, you can't refute that - at least in English translations - there is any room for homosexuality....

Even if there are some verses that are mangled, which I doubt there are many, Leviticus 18-20 in Hebrew can't be that far off from what I've posted here. I don't have plans to learn Hebrew but I think the translation I've used is as good as any there is.

Pray tell, what English translation should I be using? Or am I just completely disqualified from reading the Bible because I speak only English?

What I was saying, is that if he understands how to read ancient Hebrew, and he has read the applicable texts, and they don't say what you think they say, then you are wrong.

Personally, I think in the end it's a moot issue as you have absolutely no reason to take the Bible seriously in any language.... however if you decide to, it makes sense to appeal to the earliest possible text in it's original language if you want to find out what the book actually says.

 

[Marius27]

Correct, it is not talking about vaginal intercourse. It is talking about two men getting naked and doing the hokey pokey. Duh. You can mince words all you like.

What's the hokey pokey? Are you claiming it was acceptable for a man to have non-vaginal intercourse with a woman under Jewish law?

The pagan ritual in question here is the act of homosexuality, that in and of itself is pagan, right there in chapter 18. How can you miss it? I took nothing out of context. Will you say next that my Bible has the chapters and verses out of order completely. LOL. The context is pretty obvious.

Heterosexuals engaging in prostitution (which is what they did in those temples) is not the meaning of homosexuality and is not applicable to modern day gay people.

What is your opinion of beastiality then? You conveniently avoided that.

Animals cannot consent, and is thus not comparable. Anti-gays always resort to such ridiculous slippery slopes when they have irrational positions.

Your view of Leviticus is completely bent. It was to be read and known to all the people, only the temple rituals were for the Levites, the rest of the laws were observed by everyone. Why else were they read to all the people. It is called the Levitical law because it was given to Moses and Aaron, and the priests were responsible for teaching the law.

None of the 613 Mitzvah are applicable to anyone but Orthodox Jews. Leviticus was a specific set of instructions for the Levite priests, their rituals, and application to God's teachings. You ignore 99% of the laws in the Torah, yet you have the audacity to judge gays with those laws you ignore?

"Judge not lest ye be judged. By the measure you judge others, you will be judged".

Have fun when God judges you by your failure to follow all 613 Mitzvah, because you judge gays with them.

You need to get right with God, and give up your immoral ways, friend. God is not okay with your homosexuallity. You shall not inherit the kingdom of God unless you recognize your sin and repent.

I am right with God.

 

[Aijalon]

The 'hokey pokey' is in other words, would be a man poking another man in his corn-hole. I assume you've heard of it?

So what was the point of the beastiality verse then? It clearly was comparable in Leviticus, otherwise why was it there?

 

[Marius27]

The 'hokey pokey' is in other words, would be a man poking another man in his corn-hole. I assume you've heard of it?

Yes, and far more straight people do that than gays. The Bible never says that's what the practice is. Seeing as spilling one's seed outside of the vagina is forbidden under Jewish law, anal sex wouldn't be condoned with a woman either. So that's not what it's prohibiting.

So what was the point of the beastiality verse then? It clearly was comparable in Leviticus, otherwise why was it there?

Who said it's comparable?

 

[Cjwinnit]

I will also remind you, Leviticus is an entire book directed at the ritual practices of the Levite priests. Nobody alive today is a levite priest.

That's simply not true. Leviticus also talks about the ethics and morality of incest as well as homosexuality in the same chapter, a thing that the secular world has not been able to quite break the taboo of.

 

[Aijalon]

Yes, and far more straight people do that than gays. The Bible never says that's what the practice is. Seeing as spilling one's seed outside of the vagina is forbidden under Jewish law, anal sex wouldn't be condoned with a woman either. So that's not what it's prohibiting.



Who said it's comparable?

The verse does not concern sodomy with a woman, it concerns men. It says that men shall not lay together as a man and woman lay together. It's pretty straightfoward.

Leviticus said bestiality is comparable. It is there. In your view, why is it mentioned?

Why?

 

[Marius27]

That's simply not true. Leviticus also talks about the ethics and morality of incest as well as homosexuality in the same chapter, a thing that the secular world has not been able to quite break the taboo of.

That entire chapter is dealing with the ritual/cultural practices of the Egyptians and Canaanites. God is telling the Israelites not to follow their practices. Are you an ancient Israelite? If not, then that chapter is not directed at you or anyone else who isn't an ancient Israelite.