Do you protest having intercourse with women on their period?

[Tambora]

According to Leviticus, it's just as evil and wicked as sodomy.

Do you indulge in both, or just the fag part?

 

[GuySmiley]

http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/tillstill7-7.html

"Does "cut off" mean "kill" -- making this a particularly harsh penalty?

In some cases, it does seem to, and some scholars agree. Driver's commentary, for example, argues that "cut off" is used for both a death penalty and for exclusion from the covenant people; he supposes it was an "archaic judicial formula" which originally meant a death sentence, but came to mean "a strong affirmation of divine disapproval." But we'll look at this more closely below."

Boom. Lawyered

It seems to by some scholars . . . wow, powerful. Homosexuality is clearly given the death penalty whereas sex with a woman on her period might be according to some people. Not really the same.

 

[bybee]

I agree it's private. But it's in the Bible alongside homosexual behavior, which is also private.

Is the topic any more taboo than what Lot did with his daughters? I think not

Lot committed incest and then blamed his daughters. What a contemptible man.

As for sexual mores? That would be private between consenting adults.
Why do you wish to dig into other peoples privacies?
I have some really great cookie recipes?

 

[ok doser]

Lot committed incest and then blamed his daughters. What a contemptible man.

watchoo talking about willis?

Genesis 19:30-38King James Version (KJV)

30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

37 And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.

38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

 

[So many gays!]

Do you indulge in both, or just the fag part?

As an ultra-fag, I indulge in everything obviously.

 

[bybee]

watchoo talking about willis?

I believe this is an ancient lecher's interpretation? Perhaps we are meant to rightly divide this scripture in order to see the lessons therein?
In any case, notwithstanding the howls of indignation from the
word by word" literalists, I feel that there is more than one way to interpret this particular story.
Especially considering that Lot was willing to offer his daughters to the sex crazed crowd gathered outside his home. What kind of a father would do that?
Lot was saved because Abraham was a good man of faith. He was not saved because of any righteousness on his part.

 

[So many gays!]

watchoo talking about willis?

Beside the point of the OP here, but if you are defending a man for having intercourse with his own daughters, no matter how drunk (trust me, you don't lose sight of who your relatives are), then you're a moron. Or you're good with father-daughter unions. Ickkk

 

[So many gays!]

I believe this is an ancient lecher's interpretation? Perhaps we are meant to rightly divide this scripture in order to see the lessons therein?
In any case, notwithstanding the howls of indignation from the
word by word" literalists, I feel that there is more than one way to interpret this particular story.
Especially considering that Lot was willing to offer his daughters to the sex crazed crowd gathered outside his home. What kind of a father would do that?
Lot was saved because Abraham was a good man of faith. He was not saved because of any righteousness on his part.

Well said.

 

[patrick jane]

As an ultra-fag, I indulge in everything obviously.

View attachment 20136





jose

 

[bybee]

Beside the point of the OP here, but if you are defending a man for having intercourse with his own daughters, no matter how drunk (trust me, you don't lose sight of who your relatives are), then you're a moron. Or you're good with father-daughter unions. Ickkk

Don't even imply such a thing. It is over the line.

 

[bybee]

Christians know how to properly interpret "cut off".

1 Corinthians 5:11 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.​

As a surgical nurse I know I do!

 

[So many gays!]

It seems to by some scholars . . . wow, powerful. Homosexuality is clearly given the death penalty whereas sex with a woman on her period might be according to some people. Not really the same.

If you want to reject the knowledge of those more learned than you, be my guest. But don't act like you know more than they. That's just stupid

 

[So many gays!]

Don't even imply such a thing. It is over the line.

As was the point. Yet some here try to condone it as if it was a simple mistake. You and I both know that's hogwash, yes?

 

[ok doser]

Or you're good with father-daughter unions. Ickkk

shouldn't you support their right to that particular perversion, as long as they're adults?

 

[chrysostom]

It is a private matter and extremely unseemly as a thread topic!

so why don't you do something about it?

 

[ok doser]

I believe this is an ancient lecher's interpretation? Perhaps we are meant to rightly divide this scripture in order to see the lessons therein?
In any case, notwithstanding the howls of indignation from the
word by word" literalists, I feel that there is more than one way to interpret this particular story.
Especially considering that Lot was willing to offer his daughters to the sex crazed crowd gathered outside his home. What kind of a father would do that?
Lot was saved because Abraham was a good man of faith. He was not saved because of any righteousness on his part.

Where does it say that he blamed his daughters? :freak:

 

[GuySmiley]

If you want to reject the knowledge of those more learned than you, be my guest. But don't act like you know more than they. That's just stupid

You mean the knowledge that seems to be true by some people? Yeah, I'll feel free to reject that as I see fit.

 

[So many gays!]

shouldn't you support their right to that particular perversion, as long as they're adults?

No. And I'll tell you why: animals tend to shy away from reproducing with those that are closely related due to increased chances of genetic disease. Therefore, it is natural for father and daughter, mother and son, brother and sister, and so on to NOT engage in that type of behavior. It hurts the genetic line

 

[ok doser]

No. And I'll tell you why: animals tend to shy away from reproducing with those that are closely related due to increased chances of genetic disease. Therefore, it is natural for father and daughter, mother and son, brother and sister, and so on to NOT engage in that type of behavior. It hurts the genetic line

so, as long as there's no progeny, it's all good?

 

[So many gays!]

You mean the knowledge that seems to be true by some people? Yeah, I'll feel free to reject that as I see fit.

Have you studied the scriptures at a prestigious institution for a decade or more? Didn't think so. The people I regard as credible have