Good post!
Executing homosexuals
- Thread starter zoo22
- Start date
Good post!
genuineoriginal
New member
I am seeing a pattern.
You keep rejecting the question of why God would say that homosexual sex is an abomination an a crime worthy of death.
Whenever you are asked why God did that, you keep throwing up the "House" of Israel (which shows your ignorance), and refusing to address the question.
God chose the children of Israel to be His chosen people, to live in the land He promised Abraham, and to follow the Law that He gave through Moses.
Maybe now you are ready to say why the law giving homosexual sex offenders the death penalty was the right thing to do for the time period when the children of Israel inhabited the promised land and the Law was in effect.
genuineoriginal
New member
No, I am not.
Isn't that just the stupidest thing ever?
Who was the moron that came up with a word that means "same" "fear"?
Are you trying to surround me with stupidity to the point I give in and agree?
Is this the Orwellian double-think in action?
No, it is a normal reaction to an abominable act, as proven over and over again throughout history.
You really should get your facts straight.
However, I don't have that kind of hatred.
I have pity for the fools that think it is a normal and natural act, so I try to warn them that God said it was so vile it was punishable by death.
I am sure you would dance on my grave because I dared to quote a Bible verse you don't agree with.
Not a chance, Grasshopper. You do a dandy great job of that all by yourself.
You're a real prize, you know that? You are consistently unable
to absorb anything I post! I find that quite fascinating!
I am sure you would dance on my grave because I dared to quote a Bible verse you don't agree with.
This comment alone shows that you either incapable of deciphering what is written or out and out lying because you have no other argument and know it.
BTW, in regards to your ignorant comment ... I only dance at happy events. The word *happy* does not correspond with anything about you.
Either that or it just shows how he thinks, so...
genuineoriginal
New member
I can't find anything relevant to the conversation in your posts.
I have asked you to explain, but you keep refusing to do so.
Do you know why you keep saying the same thing over and over as if it means something?
Could you share that information?
Not with you because, you keep seeing a pattern!
genuineoriginal
New member
I take that as an admission that you really don't know why you stop thinking when it comes to God giving the Law to the children of Israel.
Believe what you will about GM! It matters not!
Doormat
New member
Doormat said:
I'm not lying, but stating what I believe to be a fact. The two verses in Leviticus are not about homosexuality in general, but are about a married man committing adultery with another man. Nothing in the law about female homosexuality, you agree. The verses in the New Testament that are allegedly about homosexuality don't stand up to scrutiny, and I gave you an example of that with the dubious translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9.
Doormat said:
The clause "as with womankind" is superfluous, and the underlying Hebrew has been mistranslated. You aren't aware how the Hebrew scriptures have been mistranslated in many places? Here, read this.
In verse 22 the Hebrew word mishkab is mistranslated to "as with." The actual meaning of the word is laying place, and we find example of that word in scripture used in the context of adultery, which is evidence in support of my claim. The fact the verse uses the word for "laying place" and "wife" should be big read flags to you.
Furthermore, I don't believe a man can have sex with another man in the same way he has sex with a woman unless he is engaging in sodomy with women. Consider your interpretation necessarily implies heterosexual sodomy (oral and anal) was lawful at that time.
Doormat said:
Explain how two female homosexuals can violate the principle of Matthew 7:12?
If you can't, you've got nothing.
If it turns out that you are wrong about homosexuality you would be the one sinning, bearing false witness against acts that are not sin.
genuineoriginal
New member
The Rabbis mentioned in the Talmud were all Hebrew scholars that understood the meanings of the words written in the Torah (even if they were poor at how to apply those words).
The Talmud treats the verse as speaking about homosexual sex.
This has nothing to do with mistranslations, since it is about how the Hebrew words were understood by native Hebrew speakers.
An english translation of the Talmud uses the word Pederasty to describe the act, but mentions that it is between two adult males.
Doormat
New member
That's all you have, a single comment about pederasty in the Talmud? That's not evidence against anything I've claimed. My interpretation of Leviticus accommodates that interpretation.
Doormat
New member
Anyone interested in understanding what Levitcus 18:22 is really about should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviticus_18#Sexuality.
I was amazed to find that article today and see that it essentially states what I believe is the correct interpretation of Leviticus 18:22, what I was trying to explain to poster genuineorginal.
Regarding the Hebrew word mistranslated to "as with" we read:
That's what I claimed.
Does anyone have an argument with proofs that refutes anything claimed in that article?
I was amazed to find that article today and see that it essentially states what I believe is the correct interpretation of Leviticus 18:22, what I was trying to explain to poster genuineorginal.
Regarding the Hebrew word mistranslated to "as with" we read:
mishk’vei - This is a noun. The base form of the noun is mishkav, and it can be seen that the las tthree letters of the base, sh-k-v, are also the three letters of the verb root above, meaning “lie down”. This noun means “bed”. Hebrew nouns have more than one form. In addition to having singular and plural forms, many nouns also have absolute and construct forms. An absolute noun stands alone, with its own meaning. A construct noun is grammatically tied to the noun that follows it. In English it often translates by placing the English word “of” between the two nouns. A good example is the Hebrew Beit Lechem(Bethlehem), which in English translates as “House of Bread”. This is because the first word, Beit, is in the construct state. Mishk’vei is in the plural construct state, meaning “beds of”.
That's what I claimed.
Does anyone have an argument with proofs that refutes anything claimed in that article?
Last edited:
And yet they refuse to eat anything not kosher, even going beyond by extrapolating these rules areas they weren't intended. And they also refuse to work on the Sabbath. Bunch of hypocrites.
genuineoriginal
New member
That shows how little you know about the Talmud.
There are two pages dealing with this verse.