Boy Scouts: Duty to GOD and my country

[CaptainCourtesy]

You love it "when I ignore when they tell me how to post"?

Yea, that made sense.

Here Baron, instead of diagramming it for you, I'll simplify things. I laugh at people who tell me when and what I can post. That means I laugh at you when you say that my comments are unnecessary. I think they are necessary, therefore I will make them. See how that works?



Wait a minute. You're saying that thousands of years of Judeo / Christian history is wrong but you finally got it right?

Okay...you got me.

Explain away!

I gotta hear this.[/QUOTE]

It actually wasn't very hard if you understand context and take the original ancient Hebrew translation... AND don't constrict yourself to the subjective dogma of anti-gay religious extremists and actually examine things objectively. I've posted this several times over the past few years. I'll post it again:

The passages in the OT are not what you believe they are. Here. I posted this a while back and have reposted it since:

My argument, presented, is demonstrating why my religion, Judaism (and my sect, Reform Judaism) sees no issue with homosexuality or SSM.

First, here is my treatment on the two Leviticus passages:

Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."


There are so many errors in the interpretation of these passages. One has to understand the section of the Torah that they were taken, what the context was, and the translations of the actual words. These passages cannot stand by themselves and mean what they were supposed to mean.

The section of the Torah where these passages were taken refers to codes of holiness and purity. It describes ways that God wants the Hebrews to be different from the Pagans. The passages that surround these two include passages about bestiality and incest, other unclean/unholy acts that were performed by Pagans. Now, we must first look at the word "abomination". This is taken from the Hebrew word "to'ebah". The actual translation of this is NOT abomination, but ritually unclean, something that fits perfectly with the codes of that section of the Bible. So, we now have it not an abomination, but just something that is ritually unclean.

Next, since this passage is included in the codes of holiness section, it refers to acts that Pagans do, that God wants the Hebrews to separate from. One of these acts is engaging in anal sex with male prostitutes. Now, even if we look at the issue, globally, Hebrew translations refer to anal sex acts; no mention of homosexual orientation or homosexual relationships are mentioned. At all.

Now, moving on to the actual words. Since Hebrews believed that the Torah was spoken directly to Moses from God, one must wonder why the passage reads like this:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." If God was saying something against homosexuality in men, He would have just said this: ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind: it is abomination." Why the "as womankind" part? Think about it. A man should not lie with another man as if HE were a woman. Sexuality in the Torah is always presented as male dominant/female subservient. Hebrew scholars see this as meaning that if men have sexual relations, NEITHER shall be passive ("as womankind"). Also, since this was a norm of the time, this does not apply to today, anyway.

So, what can we conclude from the actual Hebrew interpretations and the context of what was being discussed? Firstly, the entire section refers to holiness codes, separating the Hebrews from the Pagans. Secondly, the word "abomination" is not accurate; ritually unclean IS accurate. This eliminates any punishment. Thirdly, only anal sex, probably in the context of male prostitutes is prohibited; homosexual orientation has no mention and has no such prohibitions. Fourthly, IF homosexual behavior does occur, neither man can be the passive (woman) in the relationship. Fifthly, this only applies to ancient Hebrews. Sixthly, lesbian relationships are not mentioned at all and, therefore have no prohibitions.

Now, there is MORE evidence that the prostitution theory holds water. Leviticus 18:3 says this: "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances." God is saying that the Hebrews are NOT to behave like the Pagans (Canaanites and Egyptians). In both cultures, ritual gay sex with male prostitutes was common.

Now, my discussion of Sodom and Gommorah:

So everyone knows, Sodom and Gommorah was not about homosexuality at all. It was hospitality and protection. God punished those two cities because they were inhospitable, including towards his two angels that he sent. The "sodomy" that he was referring was NOT homosexuality, but was RAPE. The homosexuality misinterpretation comes from the fact that the angry mob wanted to rape (male homosexuality) the angels that visited Lot. This was a very common method of humiliation that was used at the time, especially amongst Pagans towards their enemies. During this time period, we had a patriarchal society, so, with the men in charge, humiliating and intimidating them was more effective. God's warning is that sodomy... RAPE, especially homosexual RAPE, is sinful... hence his destruction of those two cities where that practice occurred. The story says nothing about consentual homosexual behavior.

So, in conclusion, my religion sees nothing wrong with homosexuality based on the context of the passages, the cultures of the times, and the actual translations of the words. Based on these passages, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits the gay sexual orientation, nor SSM.

I am very please to say that the daughter of a friend of mine used the above "treatment" at her college. She attends a Catholic University. She's gay and wanted to start an LGBT organization. She was allowed to but was prohibited from using the word "homosexuality" for religious reasons. I gave her the above passage with a couple of links. She presented it to her dean and argued successfully to be allowed to use the word "homosexuality" in their organization's literature.

 

[Leo]

Couple of random thoughts.

Those who claim homosexuality is not 'normal' are correct only in the statistical sense, inasmuch as homosexual orientation is not the norm in the animal world, of which we homo sapiens sapiens are a part. Those, like myself, who have light grey or blue eyes, are also abnormal in the statistical sense. Is one to assume that not occurring within the standard normal distribution of a Gaussian curve is a deficiency or crime (sin) of some sort? And it must be remembered that 'abnormal' in the statistical sense, is by no means analygous with unnatural - which I feel sure is the sense that homophobic people wish to imply.

So, irrespective of what the many obscure translations of a compendium of myths and legends, concerning an illiterate, nomadic desert tribe, may be seen to indicate, the statistical 'abnormality' of a certain sexual orientation cannot be logically described as a sin, or crime. It therefore follows that organisations, such as the Boy Scouts, cannot do otherwise than accept homosexual members, if they are to retain credibility in any civilised environment. It is only in the Talibanesque realms of religious fundamentalism, that such primitive and mindless prohibitions are entertained. Are these the standards with which we desire to infect our young?

 

[Dragonfly]

Couple of random thoughts.

Those who claim homosexuality is not 'normal' are correct only in the statistical sense, inasmuch as homosexual orientation is not the norm in the animal world, of which we homo sapiens sapiens are a part. Those, like myself, who have light grey or blue eyes, are also abnormal in the statistical sense. Is one to assume that not occurring within the standard normal distribution of a Gaussian curve is a deficiency or crime (sin) of some sort? And it must be remembered that 'abnormal' in the statistical sense, is by no means analygous with unnatural - which I feel sure is the sense that homophobic people wish to imply.

Homosexuality is "abnormal" in the same sense that extreme intelligence is "abnormal".

Other examples of abnormal:

Wayne Gretzky

Michael Schumacher

Jimi Hendrix

Beethoven

Ben Franklin

and the most "abnormal" of all....if you believe the stories...... Jesus Christ

 

[CriticalThought]

That's cute and all, but the only reason they're changing their policies is because of pressure from the media, which is something they never should have faced in the first place.

So the media forced them into it? That is your claim. The very organization that took this issue up to the Supreme Court and won was finally forced against its will by media pressure to change? Really? That makes sense to you?

Let's try a more realistic answer. Maybe what changed was the attitudes of the country and the people who finance that organization started saying they didn't want to continue donating money to them while they had a discriminative policy. And perhaps they saw the writing on the wall and realized that this issue will be dead with the next generation. Could that have played a role?

 

[The Baron]

Here Baron, instead of diagramming it for you, I'll simplify things. I laugh at people who tell me when and what I can post. That means I laugh at you when you say that my comments are unnecessary. I think they are necessary, therefore I will make them. See how that works?

Then that’s what you should have said to begin with.

No sense in making this hard.

It actually wasn't very hard if you understand context and take the original ancient Hebrew translation... AND don't constrict yourself to the subjective dogma of anti-gay religious extremists and actually examine things objectively.

Sure. I’m perfectly capable of laying aside thousands of years of Judeo / Christian teachings to entertain your idea. No big deal.

I've posted this several times over the past few years. I'll post it again:

Thanks.

My argument, presented, is demonstrating why my religion, Judaism (and my sect, Reform Judaism) sees no issue with homosexuality or SSM.

Gotcha!

First, here is my treatment on the two Leviticus passages:

Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

There are so many errors in the interpretation of these passages. One has to understand the section of the Torah that they were taken, what the context was, and the translations of the actual words. These passages cannot stand by themselves and mean what they were supposed to mean.

The section of the Torah where these passages were taken refers to codes of holiness and purity. It describes ways that God wants the Hebrews to be different from the Pagans. The passages that surround these two include passages about bestiality and incest, other unclean/unholy acts that were performed by Pagans. Now, we must first look at the word "abomination". This is taken from the Hebrew word "to'ebah". The actual translation of this is NOT abomination, but ritually unclean, something that fits perfectly with the codes of that section of the Bible. So, we now have it not an abomination, but just something that is ritually unclean.

Where to begin…

1. You’re assertion regarding the word “to’ebah” is both true and false. “To’ebah” is defined:

To’ebah
“A disgusting thing, abomination, abominable:
a) in a ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages),
b) in ethical sense (wickedness, etc.).

With this in-mind, consider the following.

2. If these passages are simply part of the Holiness code then please provide the passages where the holiness codes end. If it is your assertion (and it is) that these verses are part of the holiness codes then by demonstrating where these codes end (only after verse 22) can only bolster your argument, can it not?

3. If adultery, homosexuality and bestiality only have to do with ritual or ceremonial uncleanness then it stands to reason that adultery, homosexuality and bestiality are perfectly okay with God outside the confines of a ritual. This is, of course, ludicrous.

4. That homosexuality is only a concern for ceremonial purity assumes a disjointedness from morality and ceremonial uncleanness that is not found in Leviticus.

5. You are, in context, willfully ignoring the second part of Leviticus 20:13 which states that “They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” The Torah does not require that ritual uncleanness must be punished with death…it only requires a bath.

6. Considering the above points it becomes obvious that the correct definition for “to’ebah” is the second definition (definition “b” above).

Next, since this passage is included in the codes of holiness section, it refers to acts that Pagans do, that God wants the Hebrews to separate from. One of these acts is engaging in anal sex with male prostitutes.

There is no mention of prostitutes--male or otherwise--in Leviticus 18. Prostitution is a non sequitur.

Now, even if we look at the issue, globally, Hebrew translations refer to anal sex acts; no mention of homosexual orientation or homosexual relationships are mentioned. At all.

1. You are completely correct when you say that there are no prohibition regarding sexual orientation, or in simpler terms, it is not a sin to have a homosexual orientation.

Why?

The Scriptures do not say so neither of us can be dogmatic about it although I do have my own well-founded opinion.

2. That the Bible is silent with respect to homosexual relationships is simply not true. You have the two prohibitions in Leviticus which are now solidly shown to be prohibitions. You are also ignoring the only allowable sexual relationship provided by God which is given in Genesis 2:22-24 and which Jesus reaffirmed in the New Testament.

If you’re going to consider Scripture then you must consider the whole of it. You don’t get to “pick and choose”.

And, of course, this does not even begin to address the New Testament prohibitions.

Now, moving on to the actual words. Since Hebrews believed that the Torah was spoken directly to Moses from God…”

I completely agree. That must mean I’m Jewish!

No, wait! There’s that whole Jesus thing.

Nevermind.

…one must wonder why the passage reads like this:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." If God was saying something against homosexuality in men, He would have just said this: ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind: it is abomination." Why the "as womankind" part? Think about it. A man should not lie with another man as if HE were a woman. Sexuality in the Torah is always presented as male dominant/female subservient. Hebrew scholars see this as meaning that if men have sexual relations, NEITHER shall be passive ("as womankind"). Also, since this was a norm of the time, this does not apply to today, anyway.

Or maybe is simply means what it sounds like--that men are not to have sex with men like they do with women.

Maybe it doesn’t read the way you like because many men do “lie together” for all kinds of reasons other than sex all around the world--to preserve body heat or because of a lack of beds or bedding. A buddy of mine and I have shared a tent on more than one occasion but neither of us committed an “abomination”. But your version of wording would no doubt cast a great deal of doubt on all of these things being sinful.

You’re assumption is as common as it is completely wrong. You’re assertion is that if God meant to say something then he would have said it--in your opinion--a better way or, at least, in a way you liked better. But since He didn’t then He obviously didn’t mean what he said.

And that makes no sense.

Of course we can always look at different versions of the same text (Leviticus 18:22). Referring to different versions can be very helpful to gain a different perspective when studying Scripture.

New Living Translation
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
You are not to sleep with a man as with a woman; it is detestable.

NIV
You are not to have sexual relations with a male as you would with a woman. It's detestable."

Net Bible
You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.

God’s Word Translation
Never have sexual intercourse with a man as with a woman. It is disgusting.

By the way, it’s helpful to know that Bible’s are translated using teams of translators, theologians, scholars, historians, stylists, etc. using original manuscripts. As such, it’s difficult to blame “bias” when so many are involved and agree as to how the translation should read.

That clear it up for you?

So, what can we conclude from the actual Hebrew interpretations and the context of what was being discussed? Firstly, the entire section refers to holiness codes, separating the Hebrews from the Pagans.

Disproved above.

Secondly, the word "abomination" is not accurate; ritually unclean IS accurate. This eliminates any punishment.

You mean like the one required by Leviticus 20:13…which you introduced to the debate. Also, this point was discredited above, as well.

Thirdly, only anal sex, probably in the context of male prostitutes is prohibited…

Once again, male prostitution--nor any other type--is discussed in Leviticus 18.

…homosexual orientation has no mention and has no such prohibitions.

Agreed. It is not a sin to be gay, however, homosexual sex is clearly an abomination to God.

Fourthly, IF homosexual behavior does occur, neither man can be the passive (woman) in the relationship.

In other words, homosexual sex is only sinful in you’re on the bottom…and that makes no sense, whatsoever.

Fifthly, this only applies to ancient Hebrews.

Agreed but for different reasons. Paul (a good Jew, by the way) was very clear that he Old Testament was done away with when the New Testament took effect.

Sixthly, lesbian relationships are not mentioned at all and, therefore have no prohibitions.

That’s true in the Old Testament but the prohibitions against lesbian relationships was established by Romans 1: 26-27.

Now, there is MORE evidence that the prostitution theory holds water. Leviticus 18:3 says this: "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances." God is saying that the Hebrews are NOT to behave like the Pagans (Canaanites and Egyptians). In both cultures, ritual gay sex with male prostitutes was common.

If you have an actual source besides yourself I’m willing to consider it. But, once again, Leviticus 18 does not mention prostitutes so trying to inject them into these Scriptures is, once again, a non sequitur.

Now, my discussion of Sodom and Gommorah:

So everyone knows, Sodom and Gommorah was not about homosexuality at all. It was hospitality and protection. God punished those two cities because they were inhospitable, including towards his two angels that he sent. The "sodomy" that he was referring was NOT homosexuality, but was RAPE. The homosexuality misinterpretation comes from the fact that the angry mob wanted to rape (male homosexuality) the angels that visited Lot…

1. You’re argument of inhospitality makes no sense in light of Lot’s response to the angry mob that came to rape the angels. He offered them his two virgin daughters but the mob would have none of it.

2. Genesis 19:4 makes it clear that all of the men of Sodom came out to rape the angles. As such, homosexuality must have been quite prevalent.

3. New Testament Scriptures (2 Peter 2: 2 and 6 & Jude 1: 7-8) make it clear that homosexuality was the problem.

4. However, homosexuality was not their only offense. These were a wicked people guilty of many things.

“…This was a very common method of humiliation that was used at the time, especially amongst Pagans towards their enemies.

The angels were not the “enemies” of the people of Sodom. There is no evidence in the Scriptures that the angels acted in any way hostile to the people of Sodom until they (the people of Sodom) showed-up at Lot’s house to rape them.

During this time period, we had a patriarchal society, so, with the men in charge, humiliating and intimidating them was more effective. God's warning is that sodomy... RAPE, especially homosexual RAPE, is sinful... hence his destruction of those two cities where that practice occurred. The story says nothing about consentual homosexual behavior.

1. Once again, if you have an actual source I’d be willing to consider it. Otherwise you’ve got another non-sequitur.

2. The fact that all of the men, “young and old”, showed-up to “know” the angels is an indication that homosexuality was prevalent in those cities.

So, in conclusion, my religion sees nothing wrong with homosexuality based on the context of the passages, the cultures of the times, and the actual translations of the words. Based on these passages, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits the gay sexual orientation, nor SSM.

Once again--and for the record--no, there is nothing in the Bible that calls a homosexual orientation a sin but the rest of your argument lies in ruin.

As for their being nothing in the “Bible” regarding the prohibition of homosexual sex of SSM, well, I’m going to assume you meant “Old Testament” as that’s more your area of "expertise". We haven’t even dealt with the New Testament.

I am very please to say that the daughter of a friend of mine used the above "treatment" at her college. She attends a Catholic University. She's gay and wanted to start an LGBT organization. She was allowed to but was prohibited from using the word "homosexuality" for religious reasons. I gave her the above passage with a couple of links. She presented it to her dean and argued successfully to be allowed to use the word "homosexuality" in their organization's literature.

Yea, I think there’s more to this story than what is being told. This “dean” would have to ignore thousands of years of church teaching and the New Testament and that seems unlikely.

With respect to your argument, this is the same old “gay gospel” that was first put-fourth years ago and discredited just as quickly. There is nothing new or original here.

Anyway, you've clearly lost this debate as your argument has been shattered at nearly every point. However, I am curious about one thing. You agreed with a post Clax1911 made. He said that idea that their being prohibitions in the Bible are only 200 years old. I suspect Moses is a shocked to learn this as I was! Do tell, what is the basis of this little nugget of wisdom. I've never heard it before.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Then that’s what you should have said to begin with.

No sense in making this hard.

It wasn't complicated. You not understanding it is on you.

Sure. I’m perfectly capable of laying aside thousands of years of Judeo / Christian teachings to entertain your idea. No big deal.

Translation: I am wedded to my inflexible beliefs.

Please don't play passive-aggressive, Baron. You don't do it well.

Where to begin…

1. You’re assertion regarding the word “to’ebah” is both true and false. “To’ebah” is defined:

To’ebah
“A disgusting thing, abomination, abominable:
a) in a ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages),
b) in ethical sense (wickedness, etc.).

With this in-mind, consider the following.

2. If these passages are simply part of the Holiness code then please provide the passages where the holiness codes end. If it is your assertion (and it is) that these verses are part of the holiness codes then by demonstrating where these codes end (only after verse 22) can only bolster your argument, can it not?

I do not specifically recall where the holiness codes end. It's been a while since I did all this research. My recollection is that the Leviticus Holiness Codes go from verse 17-26. So they would end at verse 26.

3. If adultery, homosexuality and bestiality only have to do with ritual or ceremonial uncleanness then it stands to reason that adultery, homosexuality and bestiality are perfectly okay with God outside the confines of a ritual. This is, of course, ludicrous.

No, you are making a false assumption. God does not speak about them outside of ritual uncleanliness. They are neither "acceptable" or "unacceptable" as written.

4. That homosexuality is only a concern for ceremonial purity assumes a disjointedness from morality and ceremonial uncleanness that is not found in Leviticus.

Homosexual BEHAVIOR, Baron, and yes, this is a ceremonial issue in Leviticus.

5. You are, in context, willfully ignoring the second part of Leviticus 20:13 which states that “They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” The Torah does not require that ritual uncleanness must be punished with death…it only requires a bath.

Ritual transgressions ARE sometimes punished with death in the Torah. Worshiping other Gods is one example, as is gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36) or improper eating of ritual offerings (Numbers 18:32). Since the context of the passage is ritualistic in nature, this fits with other passages/edicts in the Torah.

6. Considering the above points it becomes obvious that the correct definition for “to’ebah” is the second definition (definition “b” above).

Actually, considering the above points, it is obvious that "to'ebah" is the first definition.

There is no mention of prostitutes--male or otherwise--in Leviticus 18. Prostitution is a non sequitur.

Remember. The Holiness Codes has a lot to do with things that Pagans did that God did not want his "children" to do. One of these things were ritualistic sex acts with make prostitutes, somewhat common at the time with some Pagan rituals. Since the passage refers to violations of ritualistic code, this interpretation is pretty clear.

1. You are completely correct when you say that there are no prohibition regarding sexual orientation, or in simpler terms, it is not a sin to have a homosexual orientation.

Why?

The Scriptures do not say so neither of us can be dogmatic about it although I do have my own well-founded opinion.

"Well-founded" based on your opinion.

2. That the Bible is silent with respect to homosexual relationships is simply not true. You have the two prohibitions in Leviticus which are now solidly shown to be prohibitions. You are also ignoring the only allowable sexual relationship provided by God which is given in Genesis 2:22-24 and which Jesus reaffirmed in the New Testament.

I have already solidly demonstrated that the two Leviticus passages do not prohibit homosexual relationships. Therefore, the comments in Genesis 2:22-24 are not singular in their definition. And as far as the NT goes, I ignore that.

If you’re going to consider Scripture then you must consider the whole of it. You don’t get to “pick and choose”.

And, of course, this does not even begin to address the New Testament prohibitions.

For me, the NT is not scripture. Therefore, I do not consider it.

I completely agree. That must mean I’m Jewish!

No, wait! There’s that whole Jesus thing.

Nevermind.

Yeah, always gets in the way.

Or maybe is simply means what it sounds like--that men are not to have sex with men like they do with women.

Maybe it doesn’t read the way you like because many men do “lie together” for all kinds of reasons other than sex all around the world--to preserve body heat or because of a lack of beds or bedding. A buddy of mine and I have shared a tent on more than one occasion but neither of us committed an “abomination”. But your version of wording would no doubt cast a great deal of doubt on all of these things being sinful.

You’re assumption is as common as it is completely wrong. You’re assertion is that if God meant to say something then he would have said it--in your opinion--a better way or, at least, in a way you liked better. But since He didn’t then He obviously didn’t mean what he said.

And that makes no sense.

Of course we can always look at different versions of the same text (Leviticus 18:22). Referring to different versions can be very helpful to gain a different perspective when studying Scripture.

This was more of a sociological view, based on the mores of the time of when these passages were written. You are applying 21st century social mores and interpretation to something that was written when both of these things were very different.

New Living Translation
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
You are not to sleep with a man as with a woman; it is detestable.

NIV
You are not to have sexual relations with a male as you would with a woman. It's detestable."

Net Bible
You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.

God’s Word Translation
Never have sexual intercourse with a man as with a woman. It is disgusting.

By the way, it’s helpful to know that Bible’s are translated using teams of translators, theologians, scholars, historians, stylists, etc. using original manuscripts. As such, it’s difficult to blame “bias” when so many are involved and agree as to how the translation should read.

That clear it up for you?

Sure. They all failed to use the accurate Ancient Hebrew translation as I posted. Does that clear it up for YOU?

Disproved above.

Not even close.

You mean like the one required by Leviticus 20:13…which you introduced to the debate. Also, this point was discredited above, as well.

No, the one that I introduced of which you have not even come close to discrediting. Yeah, that one.

Once again, male prostitution--nor any other type--is discussed in Leviticus 18.

And once again, you are not considering context or time period.

Agreed. It is not a sin to be gay, however, homosexual sex is clearly an abomination to God.

Only in a specific circumstances... in rituals similar to what Pagans at the time did.

In other words, homosexual sex is only sinful in you’re on the bottom…and that makes no sense, whatsoever.

No, only if BOTH participants are passive, contextually, as woman were seen at the time.

Agreed but for different reasons. Paul (a good Jew, by the way) was very clear that he Old Testament was done away with when the New Testament took effect.

Paul is irrelevant to my argument and has nothing to do with scripture for me.

That’s true in the Old Testament but the prohibitions against lesbian relationships was established by Romans 1: 26-27.

Romans is irrelevant to my argument and has nothing to do with scripture for me. Baron... don't argue that NT. I will not engage. I have never read it and do not consider it as part of God's Laws.

If you have an actual source besides yourself I’m willing to consider it. But, once again, Leviticus 18 does not mention prostitutes so trying to inject them into these Scriptures is, once again, a non sequitur.

Don't remember specifically where it comes from. I believe this was known, historically. I'll see if I can find the reference.

1. You’re argument of inhospitality makes no sense in light of Lot’s response to the angry mob that came to rape the angels. He offered them his two virgin daughters but the mob would have none of it.

Actually, it makes PERFECT sense in the context of the entire story. The intimidation factor was about raping MEN.

2. Genesis 19:4 makes it clear that all of the men of Sodom came out to rape the angles. As such, homosexuality must have been quite prevalent.

Male rape was used as an intimidation tactic at the time.

3. New Testament Scriptures (2 Peter 2: 2 and 6 & Jude 1: 7-8) make it clear that homosexuality was the problem.

Again, irrelevant to my argument.

4. However, homosexuality was not their only offense. These were a wicked people guilty of many things.

I agree that the people were wicked and guilty of many things.

The angels were not the “enemies” of the people of Sodom. There is no evidence in the Scriptures that the angels acted in any way hostile to the people of Sodom until they (the people of Sodom) showed-up at Lot’s house to rape them.

The Pagans PERCEIVED them as enemies, as the often did with strangers or people they considered to be from other tribes, especially the leaders of those tribes. The angels didn't have to do anything for the Pagans to perceive them as enemies. This perception was about the Pagans.

1. Once again, if you have an actual source I’d be willing to consider it. Otherwise you’ve got another non-sequitur.

Historical basis. This is pretty common knowledge of the practice of the time.

2. The fact that all of the men, “young and old”, showed-up to “know” the angels is an indication that homosexuality was prevalent in those cities.

No, it showed that the wickedness of the people and their paranoia about strangers was prevalent.

Once again--and for the record--no, there is nothing in the Bible that calls a homosexual orientation a sin but the rest of your argument lies in ruin.

As for their being nothing in the “Bible” regarding the prohibition of homosexual sex of SSM, well, I’m going to assume you meant “Old Testament” as that’s more your area of "expertise". We haven’t even dealt with the New Testament.

And the only "ruin" here is your attempt at refutation. You are refuted nothing.

And we will not deal with the NT. It has no bearing on God's Words.

Yea, I think there’s more to this story than what is being told. This “dean” would have to ignore thousands of years of church teaching and the New Testament and that seems unlikely.

Since you have no knowledge of this situation, your opinion really doesn't hold much merit.

With respect to your argument, this is the same old “gay gospel” that was first put-fourth years ago and discredited just as quickly. There is nothing new or original here.

It's got nothing to do with whatever a "gay gospel" is. It has to do with accurate translation and interpretation based on the Ancient Hebrew text and the social mores of the time. And with those things on my side, your position has no validity.

Anyway, you've clearly lost this debate as your argument has been shattered at nearly every point.

Actually, just as I have for the past 7 years, all of your efforts have come up short. Point for point, you have not even come close to parrying what I have presented. This did not surprise me at all.

However, I am curious about one thing. You agreed with a post Clax1911 made. He said that idea that their being prohibitions in the Bible are only 200 years old. I suspect Moses is a shocked to learn this as I was! Do tell, what is the basis of this little nugget of wisdom. I've never heard it before.

I don't completely agree with Clax, but anti-gay attitudes seemed to have been fairly non-existent until the 12th Century. After that, attitudes changed. There is some speculation that this is through a more moralistic attitude towards fidelity and procreation, as it was during this time that masturbation first started to be condemned. Also, Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians began to be shunned during the same period. From here, for many centuries, a rigidly moralistic and biased attitude was maintained until actual information and research demonstrated that these things were inaccurate. Jews weren't evil, masturbation wasn't bad, and there was nothing wrong or sinful about homosexuality.

 

[Dragonfly]

Anyway, you've clearly lost this debate as your argument has been shattered at nearly every point.

Ha. Ha ha. Hahahahahhaaaaaa.....

This is the ONLY way you've won anything:

 

[The Baron]

Translation: I am wedded to my inflexible beliefs.

Please don't play passive-aggressive, Baron. You don't do it well.

I’m perfectly capable of entertaining your ideas. The problem with your ideas is that literally thousands of people have to be wrong over the course of thousands of years for you to be right and, frankly, the odds aren’t in your favor.

I do not specifically recall where the holiness codes end. It's been a while since I did all this research. My recollection is that the Leviticus Holiness Codes go from verse 17-26. So they would end at verse 26.

Close! The code runs from chapters 17 to 26 (I know…Wiki doesn’t specify and you thought they meant verses). And it deals with all kinds of things…not just ritual practices.

No, you are making a false assumption. God does not speak about them outside of ritual uncleanliness. They are neither "acceptable" or "unacceptable" as written.

You’re the only one making assumptions. The text simply say what they say and they don’t agree with you…neither do thousands of scholars, historians, theologians, etc. over the course of thousands of years.

Homosexual BEHAVIOR, Baron, and yes, this is a ceremonial issue in Leviticus.

That is correct--we are talking about homosexual behavior and please demonstrate that Leviticus deals with only ceremonial issues (when demonstrating this please use the actual text to back-up your assertions. Remember, you are not a source. You have to actually provide a source.).

Ritual transgressions ARE sometimes punished with death in the Torah. Worshiping other Gods is one example, as is gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36) or improper eating of ritual offerings (Numbers 18:32). Since the context of the passage is ritualistic in nature, this fits with other passages/edicts in the Torah.

As we’ve already established, the holiness code only cover chapters 17-26 of Leviticus. Numbers has nothing to do with anything “ritual”. In fact, you’re first two examples are first codified in the good Lord’s Top Ten List (Exodus 20). And the “improper eating of ritual offerings” is only God’s reassurance that what they are eating is their wages and they won’t be punished with death for eating it. This can only take place after any ritual.

Remember. The Holiness Codes has a lot to do with things that Pagans did that God did not want his "children" to do. One of these things were ritualistic sex acts with make prostitutes, somewhat common at the time with some Pagan rituals. Since the passage refers to violations of ritualistic code, this interpretation is pretty clear.

The Levitical passages don’t refer to any “ritualistic codes” and there is no mention of “ritualistic sex acts with make (sic) prostitutes”.

There is absolutely nothing in the text to back-up your assertion.

"Well-founded" based on your opinion.

Yes. Based on years of study I have formulated my own, well-founded opinion of why God does not condemn the homosexual orientation.

Doesn’t mean I’m right…it just means I have an opinion.

I have already solidly demonstrated that the two Leviticus passages do not prohibit homosexual relationships. Therefore, the comments in Genesis 2:22-24 are not singular in their definition. And as far as the NT goes, I ignore that.

You have “insisted” that your interpretation is correct without actually providing any supporting Scriptures or anything else and your insistence means little.

Once again, you are not your own source…you must provide a source and you continue to fail to do so.

You lose.

This was more of a sociological view, based on the mores of the time of when these passages were written. You are applying 21st century social mores and interpretation to something that was written when both of these things were very different.

Actually, you are applying 21st century political correctness to a document that defines good and evil. Unfortunately, it is the document that defines good and evil and not your political correctness.

Sure. They all failed to use the accurate Ancient Hebrew translation as I posted. Does that clear it up for YOU?

Actually, they all used original manuscripts and working independently from one another came to the same conclusions.

But I suspect that in your mind this is only evidence of bigoted collusion.

And once again, you are not considering context or time period.

Please demonstrate how?

Only in a specific circumstances... in rituals similar to what Pagans at the time did.

Right, because according to your logic adultery, homosexuality and bestiality are all fine with the Almighty except during a ritual.

This logic is, of course, fundamentally stupid--“contextually” or otherwise.

No, only if BOTH participants are passive, contextually, as woman were seen at the time.

So, in your opinion, homosexual sex is permissive if it’s done outside a ritual and only one participant is passive…as a woman was at the time. Because when men and women have sex (outside a ritual, of course) only the female is passive…unless she’s on top.

Yea…you’re just not making any sense at all…

Paul is irrelevant to my argument and has nothing to do with scripture for me.

He should. He was a Pharisee. Even a son of a Pharisee. Whether you believe in the authority of the NT or not, Paul understood--as a Jew--the prohibitions against homosexual sex acts.

In other words, Jews from 2,000 years ago properly understood the prohibitions against homosexual sex acts. So do tell, what new discovery did you make to be able to properly understand the Levitical text now? What evidence do you possess that Paul and other Jews of the day did not have.

What changed?

Don't remember specifically where it comes from. I believe this was known, historically. I'll see if I can find the reference.

Thank you. But be advised that once you find it you still have to provide evidence that Leviticus 18 was speaking of male prostitution. Currently you’re argument lacks any corroboration.

Actually, it makes PERFECT sense in the context of the entire story. The intimidation factor was about raping MEN.

Yes it is about raping men (homosexual sex) and not inhospitality.

Thank you for agreeing.

Male rape was used as an intimidation tactic at the time.

Once again please provide a source and Scriptural reference to prove both your position and that the Scriptures were talking about “intimidation tactics”.

The Pagans PERCEIVED them as enemies, as the often did with strangers or people they considered to be from other tribes, especially the leaders of those tribes. The angels didn't have to do anything for the Pagans to perceive them as enemies. This perception was about the Pagans.

Once again please provide a source and Scriptural reference to prove both your position and that the Scriptures were talking about “enemies”.

Historical basis. This is pretty common knowledge of the practice of the time.

Then you won’t have any problem providing a source and Scriptural reference to prove both your position and that the Scriptures were talking about “enemies”.

No, it showed that the wickedness of the people and their paranoia about strangers was prevalent.

The “paranoia about strangers was prevalent”?

Based on what? And remember! You are not a source.

And the only "ruin" here is your attempt at refutation. You are refuted nothing.

As always I’m more than happy to let our readers decide that for themselves. However, you really are floundering this time.

Very unlike you.

Since you have no knowledge of this situation, your opinion really doesn't hold much merit.

I wasn’t born yesterday, either.

It's got nothing to do with whatever a "gay gospel" is. It has to do with accurate translation and interpretation based on the Ancient Hebrew text and the social mores of the time. And with those things on my side, your position has no validity.

You can walk into any Christian bookstore and find a book that refutes the “gay gospel” and find your very arguments there.

Is what it is, dude.

Actually, just as I have for the past 7 years, all of your efforts have come up short. Point for point, you have not even come close to parrying what I have presented. This did not surprise me at all.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I don't completely agree with Clax, but anti-gay attitudes seemed to have been fairly non-existent until the 12th Century. After that, attitudes changed. There is some speculation that this is through a more moralistic attitude towards fidelity and procreation, as it was during this time that masturbation first started to be condemned. Also, Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians began to be shunned during the same period. From here, for many centuries, a rigidly moralistic and biased attitude was maintained until actual information and research demonstrated that these things were inaccurate. Jews weren't evil, masturbation wasn't bad, and there was nothing wrong or sinful about homosexuality.

MASTURBATION ISN’T BAD?!?!?!?!?!?

I’m just kidding. I asked for an answer and you provided it. Thank you.

 

[The Baron]

Ha. Ha ha. Hahahahahhaaaaaa.....

This is the ONLY way you've won anything:

I tell ya what, Spanky. Why don't you pay attention to what it being discussed and how it is being discussed then--maybe--one day when you grow-up you'll be able to post something intelligent.

 

[CLAX1911]

Ha. Ha ha. Hahahahahhaaaaaa.....

This is the ONLY way you've won anything:

People that say they won the debate have actually lost the debate.
And they tend to come up with pet names for the ones they say have lost.

I am starting to wonder if it is the same person with many accounts.

 

[The Baron]

People that say they won the debate have actually lost the debate.
And they tend to come up with pet names for the ones they say have lost.

I am starting to wonder if it is the same person with many accounts.

Having never won a debate yourself...how in the cornbread-hell would you know?

 

[CLAX1911]

Having never won a debate yourself...how in the cornbread-hell would you know?

I Don't declare winners, that is typically behavior of someone who is very poor at debate. You have never convinced me that you are correct. So you never "won" a debate with me.

 

[Dragonfly]

Having never won a debate yourself...how in the cornbread-hell would you know?

If nothing else, your arrogance is somewhat impressive.

Your claims however are quite absurd.

 

[Surtr]

So the media forced them into it? That is your claim. The very organization that took this issue up to the Supreme Court and won was finally forced against its will by media pressure to change? Really? That makes sense to you?

It all started with idiots who can't accept reality trying to sue the BSA because, huge shocker, the heavily Christian based organization didn't allow atheists. The news stories and press coverage haven't let up since. I'm sure the same people will still find something to bitch about, even after they're forced to go full PC by the jack booted thugs in the press.

Let's try a more realistic answer. Maybe what changed was the attitudes of the country and the people who finance that organization started saying they didn't want to continue donating money to them while they had a discriminative policy. And perhaps they saw the writing on the wall and realized that this issue will be dead with the next generation. Could that have played a role?

Oh gee, why would they ever pull their support? Maybe because the sponsors are also subject to public exposure, and some self righteous reporter with a mission can spin them into poverty with the right fake outrage followed with a little alligator tear caught on camera. It's a Christian organization. What do you people expect? That a religion that expressly forbids homosexuality is just going to open it's arms and accept you, because you think it's somehow your right to be liked, or whatever it is you unrealistically expect from society? If gays and atheists don't like the Boy Scouts, guess what? Nobody was ever forcing them to join. It's completely voluntary, and the fake outrage surround the BSA and their policies that got drummed up and spun out of control by the media was completely unfounded.