Wow. Talk about distortion of Scripture.

[praying]

If rape had NOTHING to do with sexual desire then there would be no sex act. just a beating.

Sexual arousal does not in anyway equal sexual desire, it can but not in those circumstances. People can become physically aroused without having any sense or feeling of deisre for the person. It is merely an outlet for the enegry of the power and control the man has over you at the moment. The rape is a way letting you know you are completely powerless.

 

[GenemZ]

As well as not wearing blended clothing and eating certain foods... why doesn't God ever burn anyone to a cinder for wearing a poly/cotton blend while eating shrimp?

The term, "abomination" will not be seen in the passages concerning eating shrimp, nor wearing permanent press clothes.

I heard a prominent rabbi exegete the Hebrew word translated "abomination." He said, that it refers to something that God sees as the lowest, vilest, most despicable type of thing a man can do.

God puts a special value judgement with a big asterisk next to the homosexual act. No one was to be executed for eating shrimp or for wearing a VanHousen shirt. But! A man laying with another man? As a man lays with woman? ..... They were to be executed under the Mosaic law. Killed. God did not want this sort of behavior existing in his kingdom.

Leviticus 20:13 (New King James Version)
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

It amazes me how plainly it is spoken, yet someone out there will always try to spin this away.

Here... Let me help.

Now if a man tells a falsehood to another man? Like a man tells a falsehood to a woman? That's an abomination. In other words. If a gay man cheats and lies to his lover, like men do when they cheat on their wives? Its an abomination..... (see how spin works?)

They spin the Hebrew just like I did with the English. Spin, spin, spin.....

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

Not neccessarily.
Just because it was designed as a pleasurable activity, and being married with 4 kids let me just say "nice work God", but also it's been perverted into a way to control, humiliate, and punish people. The rapist gains as much, or more perverted pleasure from that as he does the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] he has.
And I doubt there'd be much worse humiliation or punishment than being sodomised by a gang of men.

And this is why Lot protected his guests.

I can see where you're coming from, but, had it been about sex, then Lot's daughters would have been acceptable to the gang.

Gang rape and abuse of Lot's daughters would have been sex? Not, control, humiliation, and punishment?

Abuse, is abuse. They simply preferred the males. (It must have been their after shave. It smelled "heavenly.") GeneZ

 

[Joykins]

Any place where roving gangs of toughs barge into private households to demand that guests be produced for their sexual satisfaction without any expectation of resistance, and to whom rape is apparently neither a concept or a crime, has a lot of really deep problems, very few if any of which have anything to do with homosexual orientation as understood or relationships as practiced in the 21st century.

 

[GenemZ]

Any place where roving gangs of toughs barge into private households to demand that guests be produced for their sexual satisfaction without any expectation of resistance, and to whom rape is apparently neither a concept or a crime, has a lot of really deep problems, very few if any of which have anything to do with homosexual orientation as understood or relationships as practiced in the 21st century.

They would not be allowed to have full expression of their lusts because of how our cultures are in the 21st century. Too much social conditioning to allow for that. Much moral breakdown will take place when the AntiChrist has his way. There will be no restraint. The Church (with the indwelling Holy Spirit) will be gone!

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4
"Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the departure occurs (church removed) and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God."

He can not come until the God's restraint on earth (the faithful church) is taken out of the way.

2 Thessalonians 2:6-7 niv
"And you know what restrains him now (Holy Spirit indwelling believers), so that in his time he will be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way (the Rapture)."

When the AntiChrist comes, men will be evil like in the days of Noah. There will be no restraint. The AntiChrist is lawless. The only law will be his desire.

Their flood (destruction) will be the Lord's returning...

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[NPH]

The term, "abomination" will not be seen in the passages concerning eating shrimp, nor wearing permanent press clothes.

Leviticus 11:9-12

"These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."

Yeah, I see no mention at all of "abomination" in the passages concerning eating shrimp.

 

[Kgreg]

http://www.taac.us/wiki/index.php/On_Inclusiveness




If that is so, then why in the next few lines after the bolded part (bolded by the author of the article) does it completely contradict that very statement about "knowing" someone?

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man. I pray you, let me bring them out to you, and you do to them as you see fit. But do nothing to these men, for this is why they came under the shadow of my roof.

And why does Lot say not to act evilly to the men if they simply wanted to be introduced to the strangers??

Sheesh. Does anyone else here see someone making the Bible read what they want it to say?

This is just another doctrine of making the Scriptures say what they want Them to say, rather than acknowledging the truth of God's Word.

 

[NPH]

I am going to copy/paste a post from another thread. I think it dealt quite well with some of what is being discussed here (particularly in regards to what the sin of Sodom was)

--Genesis 19:1-11:

To indicate that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality is to indicate that all the men of the city were homosexual. It’s absurd to think that all the men surrounding the city were homosexual because not only is the presence of women and children mentioned, but also because Lot offered up his daughters in exchange for the strangers…an offer that would have meant nothing had Lot known that all the men who stood before his door were homosexual.

--Sex vs. Power:

Lot welcomes two strangers into the walled fortress of the city and brings them to his home. Having not been born in Sodom, Lot is also considered an outsider. Therefore the men of Sodom were not only wary of the two strangers, but Lot as well. The men gathered outside the house as an aggressive mob. Their intentions weren’t for sexual gratification, but to let these strangers know who was in charge. They sought to insight a violent gang rape on Lot’s visitors to put them in their place. It becomes obvious that power rather than sex is behind the act of rape. There are drawings from antiquity illustrating the rape of conquered soldiers by their victors just as there continue to be stories of same-sex rapes in prisons across America. Whether conquered enemy or recently incarcerated inmate, the intention of the rape is to use a perverse means to prove power and might while at the same time humiliating the other by placing them into the inferior and weak position of the woman. Rape is an evil act whether the intended victim is of the same or opposite sex. If the sin of Sodom was homosexuality and it was indeed destroyed as a result, then the sin of Gibeah in a somewhat parallel story in Judges 19 is heterosexuality.
In this story, a Levite is journeying through the country with his concubine. Knowing the risks of traveling late into the evening, the Levite opts to continue past Jebus, and on to Gibeah where he believes he will find safety among fellow Israelites from the tribe of Benjamin. When he arrives, he is not welcomed by any of the men of the city, but finally finds shelter with another foreigner living in Gibeah.
The Levite is being sheltered by the elderly man from Ephraim when the men of the city surround the house demanding that he come out so that they may “know” him. AS in the story of Sodom, the man of the house offers his daughter in exchange for the stranger, which they refuse. The Levite then offers the mob his concubine. The men accept the exchange and proceed to gang rape the woman resulting in her death. Judges 20 and 21 go on to chronicle the eventual extinction of the Benjamites including the entire town of Gibeah. In keeping with the striking similarities of these two stories, would not the logical, consistent conclusion be to say that God destroyed Gibeah for their sin of heterosexuality if one maintains that Sodom was destroyed for their sin of homosexuality?

--If it wasn’t homosexuality, then what was it?

Hospitality had a different meaning in ancient times. Today, it means imparting a warm welcome upon visitors to your home, church, business establishment, etc. In Biblical times, it meant life or death to the traveler moving between cites separated by miles of harsh desert. It was considered to be a sacred obligation…even to the point of offering up one’s own daughters for the safety of strangers.
On two occasions, Jesus mentions the inhospitality of Sodom in Matthew 10:11-15 and again in Matthew 11:19-24. On both of these occasions He refers to cities that treated He and His disciples with inhospitality. Why would Jesus compare the sin of inhospitality with sexual sins rather than to the inhospitality shown to the angels by the citizens of Sodom?

--Other references to The Sin(s) of Sodom:

Deuteronomy 29:17-26 Idolatry and images to false gods
Deuteronomy 32:32-38 Idolatry
Isaiah 1:9-23 Murder, greed, theft, rebellion, covetousness
Isaiah 3:8-15 Mistreating the poor
Isaiah 3:11-19 Arrogance
Jeremiah 23:10-14 Adultery, lying by priests and prophets
Jeremiah 49:16-18 Pride of the heart
Jeremiah 50:2-40 Idolatry and pride
Lamentations 4:3-6 Cruelty and failure to care for the young and poor
Ezekiel 16:49-50 Pride, gluttony, idleness, neglect of the poor and needy

Amos 4:1-11 Oppression and mistreating the poor
Zephaniah 2:8 Pride
Luke 17:26-29 No specific sins mentioned
II Peter 2:6 Living after ungodliness
Jude 1:7-8 Fornication after strange flesh


Leviticus 18:22
[font=&quot]The word “abomination” was used for anything religiously unclean or associated with idol worship. This text refers to heterosexual males who took part in the boal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. Even if this did refer to homosexuality, these old laws in Leviticus are no longer needed or followed today. They were specifically for the Jewish people of that time. So, when people eat their seafood and wear their cotton-polyester clothing and the men cut their hair and beards, yet quote this verse against homosexuality it makes them seem like hypocrites.

[/font] I Corinthians 6:9-20
The two words sometimes translated as “homosexuals” are: malakoi and arsenokoitai. Both are used very rarely in the bible (and Greek literature). Malakoi correctly translated means soft. This could refer to anyone from a catamite to someone who is cowardly or malleable. The word arsenokoitai is harder to translate, but many researchers believe that it refers to the sacred prostitutes in the Temples of Fertility Gods. A word close to this one refers to “men who slept around”. Both words most likely refer to male prostitutes. *The word “homosexual” was not even a word until the late 1800’s.

Romans 1 speaks of a boal fertility ritual that was used to ensure good crops. These were men having sex with 'temple gods/prostitues'. The sin is idolatry. [font=&quot]21[/font][font=&quot]For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

[/font]

 

[Rmered]

Gang rape and abuse of Lot's daughters would have been sex? Not, control, humiliation, and punishment?

Abuse, is abuse. They simply preferred the males. (It must have been their after shave. It smelled "heavenly.") GeneZ

I think you and I probably agree on that, however, the particular aspect I was addressing was in regard to whether rape is just forced sex.

It is much worse. It also humiliates, controls and punishes.

And whilst these men may have simply been used to having sex with men, forcing Lot's guests to have sex would have a greater impact on those who are raped than 'just having sex'.

Either way, there is nothing in the original intent of this thread that justifies homosexuality in any way, from a Biblical perspective, and we can go off on as many tangents as we like, but that's the bottom line.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Gang rape and abuse of Lot's daughters would have been sex? Not, control, humiliation, and punishment?

Abuse, is abuse. They simply preferred the males. (It must have been their after shave. It smelled "heavenly.") GeneZ

Or, they didn't want to abuse the children of a resident. They wanted to express dominance over foreigners. Abusing Lot's daughters wouldn't do that.

 

[indra_fanatic]

Now let me get this straight. You are saying the point of this story is that them men of Sodom were more evil than the men of Gibeah, because in similar circumstances the men of Gibeah accepted the woman who was thrown out to them to sexually abuse and murder. Is that what you meant to say?

No, I would not say that. I do not get Lot off the hook either, but in truth I think his offer was made out of patriarchal ignorance, not genuine hatred of women.

Sodom and Gomorrah had a lot of bad things going for (or rather against) them. They are remembered more clearly than the other barbarous cultures of the day, though, because of the unique nature of one of their national pasttimes. Thus, even though Sodom was not just condemned for its homosexuality, condemnation for its sexual offenses was one big reason for its destruction.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Leviticus 11:9-12

"These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."

Yeah, I see no mention at all of "abomination" in the passages concerning eating shrimp.

Check the Hebrew:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=08441&version=kjv

Different words.

 

[NPH]

Check the Hebrew:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=08441&version=kjv

Different words.

Thanks frag. But then, why did the translators use the same word in English if it were different words in Hebrew? Particularly since I don't speak Hebrew Looking further it shows that word (Tow'ebah) as meaning 'disgusting' (in a ritual sense or wickedness. which one in the case of Leviticus though?) and the word in the shellfish section (shaqata) to have a meaning of 'count filthy' or 'to detest'. Pretty similar meanings.

In fact, the Hebrew word used for 'male with male sex' leaves itself open to meaning in regards to rituals, but the word used for shellfish is solely used for something filthy or detestable. It would seem that "shaqats" is a more narrowly defined word and would have been more appropriate than "tow'ebah" for the meaning most people use to describe the 'male with male' verses.

 

[GenemZ]

Leviticus 11:9-12

"These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."

Yeah, I see no mention at all of "abomination" in the passages concerning eating shrimp.

Not the same Hebrew word.

Your translator decided to blurr the distinctions. They are used differently.

Homosexuality = 8441 tow`ebah to-ay-baw' or tonebah {to-ay-baw'}; feminine active participle of 8581; properly, something disgusting (morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol:-- abominable (custom, thing), abomination. (Lev 18:22)

Shrimp, etc = 8263 sheqets sheh'-kets from 8262; filth, i.e. (figuratively and specifically) an idolatrous object:--abominable(-tion).


NIV9 " 'Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. 11 And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. 12 Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you.

NASB 9'These you may eat, whatever is in the water: all that have fins and scales, those in the water, in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat.
10'But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you, 11and they shall be abhorrent to you; you may not eat of their flesh, and their carcasses you shall detest. 12'Whatever in the water does not have fins and scales is abhorrent to you. "


One, meant that Jews were to learn to the detest certain foods.

Yet, God states he is the one who personally sees homosexuality as an abomination.

Today we can eat shrimp. That part of the law was abolished. Yet, God does not change his mind about sin. He still sees adultery as sin. As well as bestiality. We can eat shrimp today. But, can you have relations with an animal? If you are to give homosexuality a clean sheet, you'll have to throw in also bestiality. Would you?

Would you?

Grace and great wonderment..... GeneZ

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Thanks frag. But then, why did the translators use the same word in English if it were different words in Hebrew? Particularly since I don't speak Hebrew Looking further it shows that word (Tow'ebah) as meaning 'disgusting' (in a ritual sense or wickedness. which one in the case of Leviticus though?) and the word in the shellfish section (shaqata) to have a meaning of 'count filthy' or 'to detest'. Pretty similar meanings.

In fact, the Hebrew word used for 'male with male sex' leaves itself open to meaning in regards to rituals, but the word used for shellfish is solely used for something filthy or detestable. It would seem that "shaqats" is a more narrowly defined word and would have been more appropriate than "tow'ebah" for the meaning most people use to describe the 'male with male' verses.

The use of tow'ebah is interesting, considering its association with idolatry. It is also interesting how Leviticus doesn't mention male temple prostitution while Deuteronomy repeats every capital crime in Leviticus except Lev 20:13 but does prohibit male temple prostitution.

 

[NPH]

Not the same Hebrew word.

Your translator decided to blurr the distinctions. They are used differently.

Homosexuality = 8441 tow`ebah to-ay-baw' or tonebah {to-ay-baw'}; feminine active participle of 8581; properly, something disgusting (morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol:-- abominable (custom, thing), abomination. (Lev 18:22)

Shrimp, etc = 8263 sheqets sheh'-kets from 8262; filth, i.e. (figuratively and specifically) an idolatrous object:--abominable(-tion).



Today we can eat shrimp. That part of the law was abolished. Yet, God does not change his mind about sin. He still sees adultery as sin. As well as bestiality. We can eat shrimp today. But, can you have relations with an animal? If you are to give homosexuality a clean sheet, you'll have to throw in also bestiality. Would you?

Would you?

Grace and great wonderment..... GeneZ

Ah, and how interesting. Another reference to the Hebrew words and again it even says "especially idolatry" and yet no one even seems to consider that part of it.

Where was 'that part of the law abolished'? So only the part that contains 'male with male' was kept? So then anyone who curses their parent should be put to death, anyone that commits adultery should be put to death, anyone that has sex with a menstruating woman should be exiled? Or was it just that one particular verse kept and the entire rest of Leviticus was 'abolished'? (oh, except bestiality since you agree to keep that one also)

How convienient that the part that was 'abolished' were all the inconvienient parts but those that were kept are the easy ones, the ones that justify certain prejudices.

He still sees adultery as a sin, eh? Then I ask this of you (since you were asking me about bestiality) ... This coming Sunday will you, genez, walk into your Church and demand that every single person who has divorced and remarried beg God's forgiveness and leave their new spouse because they are adulterous and living in sin? Will you or have you done that?

No, i'm sure you haven't and wouldn't (though hey, you might have! Who am I to know ). This is what I mean, it's convienient to make excuses for divorce (and consequently adultery) in spite of the fact that Jesus himself told us we cannot divorce!

Sad how the things Jesus told us not to do we can rationalize away but the things He didn't mention we hold to as if they were matters of life and death. Bleh, I've said enough.

 

[NPH]

The use of tow'ebah is interesting, considering its association with idolatry. It is also interesting how Leviticus doesn't mention male temple prostitution while Deuteronomy repeats every capital crime in Leviticus except Lev 20:13 but does prohibit male temple prostitution.

Hmm, I did not know that in regards to Deuteronomy. Thanks for something new and interesting (again!) frag I've never been a big fan of those early books of the OT, seems I might have to do some reading soon.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Hmm, I did not know that in regards to Deuteronomy. Thanks for something new and interesting (again!) frag I've never been a big fan of those early books of the OT, seems I might have to do some reading soon.

I've been here three and a half years. You can pick up a lot of insights in that time.

 

[ebia]

You've missed a bit. The very next bit, in fact.
Eze 16:50 "Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw {it.}Eze 16:51 "Furthermore, Samaria did not commit half of your sins, for you have multiplied your abominations more than they. Thus you have made your sisters appear righteous by all your abominations which you have committed.

The abominations are sexual immorality,

Wrong. The word translated abomination is used in almost every instance to refer to ritual sins. The most reasonable presumption is therefore that Ezekiel is refering to sins in general, or ritual sins specifically, with that word.

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRHEB84.htm#S8441

 

[ebia]

Not the same Hebrew word.

Your translator decided to blurr the distinctions. They are used differently.

Homosexuality = 8441 tow`ebah to-ay-baw' or tonebah {to-ay-baw'}; feminine active participle of 8581; properly, something disgusting (morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol:-- abominable (custom, thing), abomination. (Lev 18:22)

Shrimp, etc = 8263 sheqets sheh'-kets from 8262; filth, i.e. (figuratively and specifically) an idolatrous object:--abominable(-tion).


NIV9 " 'Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. 11 And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. 12 Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you.

NASB 9'These you may eat, whatever is in the water: all that have fins and scales, those in the water, in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat.
10'But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you, 11and they shall be abhorrent to you; you may not eat of their flesh, and their carcasses you shall detest. 12'Whatever in the water does not have fins and scales is abhorrent to you. "


One, meant that Jews were to learn to the detest certain foods.

Yet, God states he is the one who personally sees homosexuality as an abomination.

A more reasonable distinction of the words is that the word tow`ebah is only ever used for ritual sins, and therefore what is being refered to in Lev 18:13 is a ritual sin, where as eating shellfish is a non-ritual sin.

Today we can eat shrimp. That part of the law was abolished.

Where is your evidence that some parts of the law have been abolished and not others.

Yet, God does not change his mind about sin. He still sees adultery as sin. As well as bestiality. We can eat shrimp today. But, can you have relations with an animal? If you are to give homosexuality a clean sheet, you'll have to throw in also bestiality. Would you?

That simply does not follow. Just because something is no longer prohibited by Leviticus, it does not follow that it is necessarily ok.