I'm interested in a discussion (a calm one) about the Bible and homosexuality. Not whether the condition/preference/whatever is inborn or chosen, but what the Bible says about it.

I have read with great interest - creative and maybe accurate comments - about deconstructing Paul's words on the issue, but what about other parts of the Bible? Does not the Old Testament clearly condemn homosexuality?

According to religioustolerance.org, "There was no Hebrew word that meant 'homosexual.' Thus, whenever the word is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text."

According to religioustolerance.org, "There was no Hebrew word that meant 'homosexual.' Thus, whenever the word is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text."

Is religioustolerance an objective source?

There may not have been a word for "homosexuality", but that word may be more modern than the words used in the Old Testament. The OT may have described homosexuality without using the modern word. "Wary" is a two-edged sword.

Here's another site's explanation --

VERSES FROM THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES (OLD TESTAMENT) ON HOMOSEXUALITY (http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/sexorient/hom_bibh.htm)

Is religioustolerance an objective source?
About the ReligiousTolerance.org web site and its staff (http://www.religioustolerance.org/aboutus.htm)

Here's another site's explanation --

VERSES FROM THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES (OLD TESTAMENT) ON HOMOSEXUALITY (http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/sexorient/hom_bibh.htm)


When you c/p from sites that go on endlessly, I tend to lose interest. I don't have the time to follow every reference, most of which have little or nothing to do with the question.

When you c/p from sites that go on endlessly, I tend to lose interest. I don't have the time to follow every reference, most of which have little or nothing to do with the question.
Rather than my quoting piecemeal and losing some of the Biblical references, word translations and interpretations, and historical allusions, I posted the link to the site. Sorry. I won't do it again.

Rather than my quoting piecemeal and losing some of the Biblical references, word translations and interpretations, and historical allusions, I went ahead and posted the link to the site. Sorry. I won't do it again.

I forgive you. Say 3 Hail Marys and go and sin no more.

I forgive you. Say 3 Hail Marys and go and sin no more.
Only 3 Hail Marys this time? Why so few?

Only 3 Hail Marys this time? Why so few?

I'm in a forgiving mood. Now, please get back to the question and stop your interminable going off on a tangent.

There may not have been a word for "homosexuality", but that word may be more modern than the words used in the Old Testament. The OT may have described homosexuality without using the modern word.
Are we risking an anachronistic introduction of a contemporary construction of sexuality that's foreign to Bible times? The term ‘homosexuality’ was coined only recently in the late 19th century by German psychologist Karoly Maria Benkert. In addition, the Christian Church has always smiled upon procreative sex within marriage, while every other expression of sexuality has been condemned as sinful (cf. St. Augustine).

Are we risking an anachronistic introduction of a contemporary construction of sexuality that's foreign to Bible times? The term ‘homosexuality’ was coined only recently in the late 19th century by German psychologist Karoly Maria Benkert. In addition, the Christian Church has always smiled upon procreative sex within marriage, while every other expression of sexuality has been condemned as sinful (cf. St. Augustine).


The anachronism is all yours. That is the very thing I am trying to avoid. Homosexuality, while the word may be new, is hardly a "contemporary construction of sexuality foreign to Bible times". The very notion is absurd. Unless you believe homosexuality began after the Bible era. I'm sure you don't believe that.

As to the Christian Church "smiling upon procreative sex within marriage", that has nothing to do with the question. The question is What does the Bible say about homosexuality - in the Old Testamant.

Please stay on topic.

Since homosexuality is an orientation, we should be looking at what an orientation is and see what scripture says about orientation in general. In the last thread, it was impossible to get those who do not think homosexuality is a sin to do so. They wanted to jump the gun, as though homosexuality and homosexual activity were special sins entirely different from all other sins. This is one point where I have found common ground in these debates with homosexuals who have participated in these debates. They question why Christians put such emphasis on homosexuality. And I agree that it is wrong to do so. Some Christians make it a special sin in that it is somehow worse than all others, and other Christians say that it is special because it is the one where the orientation is not a sin, only the act. And yet I can find no Christians on any side of the fence who can show me a verse that says that homoswexuality or homosexual activity differs from other sins.

Jesus was very clear in Matthew 5 that the sin does not occur just when the act takes place, but takes place in the mind ahead of time. If an activity is sinful, how can the orientation towards an activity not be sinful in light of Matthew 5 (and others)?

As for Hebrew, the Old Testament is very clear that homosexual activity is sinful, whether there is a sin word for it. We can look at Leviticus and we can look at Sodom and Gomorrah for examples.

But we should not restrict ourselves to the OT - the whole of scripture is God's word. If we want to understand one part of His word, we need to consider it in the context of the whole. In the NT we do have specific references to homosexuality:

1 Cor 6:9-11
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
NKJV

This also shows that some were homosexuals and were changed when saved.

As for Hebrew, the Old Testament is very clear that homosexual activity is sinful, whether or not there is a sin word for it. We can look at Leviticus and we can look at Sodom and Gomorrah for examples.

But we should not restrict ourselves to the OT - the whole of scripture is God's word. If we want to understand one part of His word, we need to consider it in the context of the whole. In the NT we do have specific references to homosexuality:

1 Cor 6:9-11
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
NKJV




I was hoping for specific verse references in the OT. The translation of the word "homosexual" in Corinthians has been put in doubt, according to other posters. I don't want to rehash that in this thread.

I see no doubt in the translation except for those that wish not to accept it, You can call a fish a cow but it is still a fish.

This issue has been reahashed time and time again
Those that are pro homoseuxal will not accept what the bible says, those that follow and believe in the bible have no doubt in what it says.

I was hoping for specific verse references in the OT.
The OT was written in a very patriarchal society. Homosexuality or anything that smacked of male-to-male sexual relations, at least among OT males, posed a serious threat to patriarchy. One of the partners would have to assume a passive, female role and that would threaten the dignity not only of that man but also of all men by inference.

There is no mention in the OT of lesbianism. Marriage was obligatory for women, meaning that their sex role was tightly controlled. If there were lesbian dalliances, they were not a threat to the patriarchal order.

That being said, there's a verse in the OT: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable" (Lev. 20:13). Obviously this was said to the majority heterosexual population. If the author was speaking about homosexuals in that verse, he would be referring to homosexuals lying also with a woman, which would not be something they would do. The verse is warning heterosexual Hebrew males not to imitate or embrace Canaanite sex rituals that were performed by Molech's male priests and/or prostitutes who dressed up as women, as pagan goddesses, i.e. lying with a male as though with a female.

Wondergirl,

First that was written for EVERYONE to read AND it was written directly to the Jewish people of the day NOT just heterosexuals. NEXT, the verse is clear... the writer is giving you an example of exactly what you are NOT suppose to do. When you see the words LIKE or AS in scripture the Lord is going to paint a picture for you so you can understand it. ( Like and AS in scripture are extremely important words... I always take special note because the Lord is showing us something and he is going to compare it to something we understand.) Sorry but way you twist scripture to fit your agenda would be comical if it weren't so scary.

Wondergirl,

First that was written for EVERYONE to read AND it was written directly to the Jewish people of the day NOT just heterosexuals. NEXT, the verse is clear...the writer is giving you an example of exactly what you are NOT suppose to do. When you see the words LIKE or AS in scripture the Lord is gonna paint a picture for you so you can understand it. ( Like and AS in scripture are extremely important words...i always take special note because the Lord is showing us something and he is going to compare it to something we understand.) Sorry but way you twist scripture to fit your agenda would be comical if it weren't so scary.
My only agenda is to figure out the truth of what the words "homosexual" and "homosexuality" mean as per the Bible use of them.

Have you ever taken any undergrad or grad school Bible history courses?

Old Testament society was a patriarchy. True or False.

Levitical law (part of the Jewish Halakha, ritual laws given to the Jewish people) is not a cafeteria and is not part of the Ten Commandments. Those acts described as abominations (Hebrew "toevah"), ritually impure but not moral sins, included eating pork and shellfish, wearing clothing made of more than one fiber, planting two different kinds of seed in a field, and tattoos. Let's pretend Leviticus also speaks against homosexuality (as we define it in 2009) as one of these ritually impure sins. Why do we now feel free to eat at Red Lobster, enjoy pork roast, wear cotton/poly blends, and allow tattoo parlors, but retain that one Levitical holiness law against "homosexuality" (Lev. 20:13) because it suits our prejudice? In fact, Chapter 20 begins with a prohibition of sexual idolatry, and the chapter continues on to describe the ways in which Jews can maintain ritual cleanliness by not consorting with male temple prostitutes so the Jews will be seen as separate from pagan neighbors.

I was hoping for specific verse references in the OT. The translation of the word "homosexual" in Corinthians has been put in doubt, according to other posters. I don't want to rehash that in this thread.

Just because some people have rejected what the Greek experts say is no reason to doubt what God's words actually says.

Wondergirl,

Sorry had to watch american idol.

The Lord Jesus followed the Law... not just the ten commandments.. and he fulfilled ALL of the law not just the ten commandments. We are living under GRACE... we are no longer under law as Paul teaches. We eat pork and red lobster because the Lord himself told Peter in Acts to arise and eat the unclean food that had been forbidden under the law. Honestly, you can go around it, over look it, override it, over analysis it, ignore it , or change it to fit an agenda. But God is NOT the author of confusion... He says what he means and he means what he says. It is in black and white and you want to discuss if it really applies or actually says it?errrr frustrating... but I'm not going to change your mind. Homosexuality according to the Bible is wrong. But I have YET to be on this site discussing biblical doctrine where the other person concedes that they are wrong and I am right. So I reckon we will have to agree to disagree.


(but you are so wrong)

I see no doubt in the translation except for those that wish not to accept it, You can call a fish a cow but it is still a fish.

This issue has been reahashed time and time again
those that are pro homoseuxal will not accept what the bible says, those that follow and beleive in the bible have no doubt in what it says.

I think that you hit the nail right on the head. This is why this keep going around and around in circles.

That being said, there's a verse in the OT: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable" (Lev. 20:13). Obviously this was said to the majority heterosexual population. If the author was speaking about homosexuals in that verse, he would be referring to homosexuals lying also with a woman, which would not be something they would do.

You have got to be kidding. You are now going to divide up the population into straight males, homosexual males and straights males who have sex with men?

Are you serious??

I cannot believe this verse could be considered anything else, It is obvious the meaning and the warnig

Lev. 20:13 = Hebrew toe'vah (and Greek bdelygma) = "abomination" meaning "ritual impurity" and "ethnic contamination" and "foreign religious cult practice"

Another translation of Lev. 20:13, into modern English, is "It is an abomination for two men to have sex on a woman's bed. They are to be executed; it is their own fault." The interpretation is that this was another abomination in Leviticus that lists improper mixing of things that should be kept separate. A woman's bed was her own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only under certain circumstances. Any other use of her bed would be a defilement.

You have got to be kidding. You are now going to divide up the population into straight males, homosexual males and straights males who have sex with men?
That's what we have in the world now.

Another translation of Lev. 20:13, into modern English, is "It is an abomination for two men to have sex on a woman's bed. They are to be executed; it is their own fault." The interpretation is that this was another abomination in Leviticus that lists improper mixing of things that should be kept separate. A woman's bed was her own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only under certain circumstances. Any other use of her bed would be a defilement.

I always find it interesting when someone says "another translation" without saying what translation they are using. I looked it up - it is the National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA) interpretation.

That speaks for itself. I have found no other translation which makes that claim.

Originally Posted by Tj3
You have got to be kidding. You are now going to divide up the population into straight males, homosexual males and straights males who have sex with men?That's what we have in the world now.

I would not have believed it unless I had seen it myself that anyone could have made such a claim seriously.

I would not have believed it unless I had seen it myself that anyone could have made such a claim seriously.
Straight males who have sex with men - prison populations?

Straight males who have sex with men - prison populations?

And you don't think that is homosexual activity? Do you know what the word homosexual means? "homo" = "same", "sex" - well, you get the point.

I always find it interesting when someone says "another translation" without saying what translation they are using. I looked it up - it is the National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA) interpretation.
And your interpretation is fundamentalist Christian.

And you don't think that is homosexual activity? Do you know what the word homosexual means? "homo" = "same", "sex" - well, you get the point.
No. Straight males do have sex with straight males in prison.

And your interpretation is fundamentalist Christian.

If what you mean by fundametalist Christian is a person who reads the word and believes it without putting any spin on it... hey, count me IN!

And your interpretation is fundamentalist Christian.

No, read ANY credible translation. Look at the original language.

What about this:

Lev. 20:13 = Hebrew toe'vah (and Greek bdelygma) = "abomination" meaning "ritual impurity" and "ethnic contamination" and "foreign religious cult practice"

No. Straight males do have sex with straight males in prison.

If two men have sex together, whatever possesses you to say that they are straight. At best, an argument could be made for bi-sexual, which is a variant on homosexuality, but straight? Hardly.

What about this:

Lev. 20:13 = Hebrew toe'vah (and Greek bdelygma) = "abomination" meaning "ritual impurity" and "ethnic contamination" and "foreign religious cult practice"

Strong's concordance suggests that you left something out:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tow` ebah (to-ay-baw'); or to` ebah (to-ay-baw'); feminine active participle of OT:8581; properly, something disgusting (morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, the OT was written in Hebrew, not Greek.

No, read ANY credible translation. Look at the original language.
Actually, we don't have the original language. We don't have the original writings.

Strong's concordance suggests that you left something out:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tow` ebah (to-ay-baw'); or to` ebah (to-ay-baw'); feminine active participle of OT:8581; properly, something disgusting (morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, the OT was written in Hebrew, not Greek.
But not a sin. Only an offense that requires ritual cleansing.

Actually, we don't have the original language.

We don't have Hebrew?? Tell that to any Jew and see what they say.


We don't have the original writings.

We do have the original content - perhaps the original autograph, but we have the content.

Or you are now going further and denying that the whole Bible can be trusted?

BTW, the OT was written in Hebrew, not Greek.
I did give the Hebrew word and added the Greek parallel in parens.

But not a sin. Only an offense that requires ritual cleansing.

Where did you see this saying that it was "not a sin"?

Are you telling us that those things which are morally disgusting, and an abhorrence to God are not seen as sin to Him?

Are you saying that following idols and false gods are not sins?

If what you mean by fundametalist Christian is a person who reads the word and believes it without putting any spin on it....hey, count me IN!
Or the "original" (as far back as we can go) language it was written in?

If what you mean by fundametalist Christian is a person who reads the word and believes it without putting any spin on it....hey, count me IN!

Me too!!

If two men have sex together, whatever possesses you to say that they are straight. At best, an argument could be made for bi-sexual, which is a variant on homosexuality, but straight? Hardly.
Where in prison are the women for the straight men? Are all straight male prisoners chaste?

Or the "original" (as far back as we can go) language it was written in?

How far back do you want to go? We can trace the text back well over 2,000 years now and can see no changes other than things like word spelling changes, a missing letter here or there, and that sort of thing.

No other ancient document can boast of an accuracy even remotely close, and so much evidence to back it up by means of tens of thousands of manuscripts from varied sources.

We don't have Hebrew????????? Tell that to any Jew and see what they say.



We do have the original content - perhaps the original autograph, but we have the content.

Or you are now going further and denying that the whole Bible can be trusted?
We do? No translator ever made a mistake in copying what was already not the original?

This is off-topic.

Where in prison are the women for the straight men? Are all straight male prisoners chaste?

We could discuss various sexual perversions, and we could discuss the meaning of the word "willpower", but that is simply distracting from the point that a man who has sex with a man is a homosexual to one degree or another.

We do? No translator ever made a mistake in copying what was already not the original?

This is off-topic.

You should study the evidence. It would boggle you mind to see how accurately the documents have been copied.

BTW - your reference to "translation" is not relevant. The original text was copied, and then subsequently translated. We do not need to depend upon the translation - we can go back to the original language.

We could discuss various sexual perversions, and we could discuss the meaning of the word "willpower", but that is simply distracting from the point that a man who has sex with a man is a homosexual to one degree or another.
Not necessarily. He performs a homosexual act but does not have to be homosexual to do it.

You should study the evidence. It would boggle you mind to see how accurately the documents have been copied.

BTW - your reference to "translation" is not relevant. The original text was copied, and then subsequently translated. We do not need to depend upon the translation - we can go back to the original language.
I have studied it, and I apologize about the mistyped word. I meant copyist.

Not necessarily. He performs a homosexual act but does not have to be homosexual to do it.

Really? I can see only one case in which that could be true - the victim of homosexual rape. Past that,

Or do you have your own definition of homosexual

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Homosexual

Adjective
1. sexually attracted to members of your own sex [ant: bisexual, heterosexual]

Noun
1. someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have studied it, and I apologize about the mistyped word. I meant copyist.

If you have studied it, then you know that the accuracy of the copying through the centuries is beyond question.

Really? I can see only one case in which that could be true - the victim of homosexual rape.
Prison rape is committed only by homosexuals?

Prison rape is committed only by homosexuals?

No. I heard about a rape of a female prison guard by male prisoners the other day.

No. I heard about a rape of a female prison guard by male prisoners the other day.
Prison rape has everything to do with power/control and very little, if anything, to do with sex.

***ADDED -- Gang rape during gang initiation of both females and males is the same kind of thing. There are many instances of rape of males and females and even children during war, after a country has been conquered, etc.

Prison rape has everything to do with power/control and very little, if anything, to do with sex.

Sex is involved.

******RESPONSE TO YOUR ADDITION*****

You asked about whether prison rape was all homosexual and I responded. Please try to stay on the same topic.

Sex is involved.
Because that goes right to the heart of a person's most vulnerable self -- physically, emotionally, spiritually. No one is thinking lust and desire. They are only thinking control.

Because that goes right to the heart of a person's most vulnerable self -- physically, emotionally, spiritually. No one is thinking lust and desire. They are only thinking control.

Ignoring your claim to be able to read the minds of others, the definition of "homosexual" does not contain any reference regarding why they do it, therefore your claims are not germaine to the definition of the word.

Added to that, a male who was not interested in another male would be unable to perform a sex act on another man.

How far back do you want to go? We can trace the text back well over 2,000 years now and can see no changes other than things like word spelling changes, a missing letter here or there, and that sort of thing.

No other ancient document can boast of an accuracy even remotely close, and so much evidence to back it up by means of tens of thousands of manuscripts from varied sources.

This is outright HOGWASH. There are tons of variant readings in the manuscript tradition and many of them are substantial.

That anyone claiming to have studied that history of the Bible and its transmission could say such a thing is just embarrassing. There is a massive cottage industry devoted to the problems associated with the Bible's transmission, and there are catalogues of the variant mss. Readings.

The manuscript traditions is a MESS!

Ignoring your claim to be able to read the minds of others, the definition of homosexual does not contain any reference regarding why.
Please go to a college or university that houses reputable journals and do a literature search. I am not reading anyone's mind.


Added to that, a male who was not interested in another male would be unable to perform a sex act on another man.
So all the heterosexual prisoners show their power and control by winning bridge games and trivia contests while munching on tea and crumpets.

Wikipedia -- "...the penetrating partner uses the act primarily to assert control or dominance, thus minimizing this activity as an expression of sexuality per se...."

Please go to a college or university that houses reputable journals and do a literature search. I am not reading anyone's mind.

I did. But the point remains that your claims are not relevant to the definition of a "homosexual"


So all the heterosexual prisoners show their power and control by winning bridge games and trivia contests while munching on tea and crumpets.

Try all you wish, the definition does not change (unless of course you go back to the NPGA website <grin>)

You should study the evidence. It would boggle you mind to see how accurately the documents have been copied.

Surely you mean it would boggle your mind what an abysmal mess the mss. Tradition is. And the earliest mss. Date from relatively late. There are no first or second century mss. Of the NT.

For you to say this means that you have no idea what on earth you are talking about.



BTW - your reference to "translation" is not relevant. The original text was copied, and then subsequently translated. We do not need to depend upon the translation - we can go back to the original language.

YOU can't. You've never bothered to learn Hebrew or Greek.

Oh, and lots of mss. Aren't in either. I'm guessing you don't read Coptic, Ethiopic, Syriac, or Armenian either.

This is outright HOGWASH. There are tons of variant readings in the manuscript tradition and many of them are substantial.

Then you should notify the scholars who study this material. I am sure that they would be interested in seeing your new and variant findings.

Surely you mean it would boggle your mind what an abysmal mess the mss. tradition is. And the earliest mss. date from relatively late. There are no first or second century mss. of the NT.

For you to say this means that you have no idea what on earth you are talking about.

YOU can't. You've never bothered to learn Hebrew or Greek.

Oh, and lots of mss. aren't in either. I'm guessing you don't read Coptic, Ethiopic, Syriac, or Armenian either.

I see that you decided to go with the personal attacks and making false claims against me.

I did. But the point remains that your claims are not relevant to the definition of a "homosexual"



Try all you wish, the definition does not change (unless of course you go back to the NPGA website <grin>)
So you give on the prisoner issue. <grin>

So you give on the prisoner issue. <grin>

Nice try, but no cigar!!

Then you should notify the scholars who study this material. I am sure that they would be interested in seeing your new and variant findings.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Read some of Kugel's work on the OT, or Metzger (who has written two highly acclaimed books on the subject).

You have just outed yourself, Tom. You have no idea what you are talking about with this. It's a HUGE issue in NT studies. If you had been studying scholarly work on this as you have often claimed you would know better than to make such a ludicrous claim. Clearly your knowledge of the scholarly literature on the OT and NT is profoundly limited. There's just no other way you wouldn't know better than to say something like this in a public forum.

I see that you decided to go with the personal attacks and making false claims against me.
You're a Hebrew and Greek scholar?

Nice try, but no cigar!!!
I don't smoke anyway. *doing a happy dance*

Now you're just embarassing yourself. Read some of Kugel's work on the OT, or Metzger (who has written two highly acclaimed books on the subject).

I have read plenty, Akoue. Your opinion of me, having seen your assessment of the Bible, and what you have claimed, does not matter in the slightest. I am quite happy to throw in my lot with those who I know have expertise in the field.

I see that most of your posts have now become reduced to attempts at demeaning comments against me. That speaks volumes that you need to go so low to defend your position.

I don't smoke anyway. *doing a happy dance*

Then what is causing your "happy dance"? ;)

I see that most of your posts have now become reduced to attempts at demeaning comments against me. That speaks volumes that you need to go so low to defend your position.
Ah, another Tomism I can add to the list.

Ah, another Tomism I can add to the list.

If you keep a list, that is fine, but I trust that you are keep the context and the abuse that preceded it. Because I am sure that you would not want to post something mis-leading about someone else, would you :D

Only people who cannot defend themselves with the facts do that.

Then what is causing your "happy dance"? ;)
Your obfuscations which mean you have no clue about prison populations. On to discussion about the OT...

Only people who cannot defend themselves with the facts do that.
Wow! Two in a row!

Your obfuscations which mean you have no clue about prison populations.

Wow, another on my list!!

Your obfuscations which mean you have no clue about prison populations.

Now, why don't you tell us how long you were in prison, and which prison? :)

I have read plenty, Akoue. Your opinion of me, having seen your assessment of the Bible, and what you have claimed, does not matter in the slightest.


I'm sure they don't. You are apparently even unconstrained by simple grammar. Feel put upon all you like, it doesn't change the fact that you have just outed yourself in a big, big, way.

I'm not sure which "scholars" have put this notion in your head, but by all means, tell us who they are and where they say these preposterous things.


I see that most of your posts have now become reduced to attempts at demeaning comments against me. That speaks volumes that you need to go so low to defend your position.

Yes, you're adept at playing the victim. We've all seen it before. When you don't like the way things are going for you you accuse others of misrepresenting you and insulting you and on and on. Everybody here has seen it a thousand times.

BTW, most of my posts have nothing whatsoever to do with you.

I'm sure they don't. You are apparently even unconstrained by simple grammar. Feel put upon all you like, it doesn't change the fact that you have just outed yourself in a big, big, way.

Akoue, if you were as sure of yourself as your claim, and if you knew as much about the topic as you claim, you would not need to make on-going personal demeaning and abusive comments.


BTW, most of my posts have nothing whatsoever to do with you.

You should read what you say.

Let me challenge you - if you really think that you are so knowledgeable, why don't you put aside the personal comments and discuss respectfully? Can you do that? It would greatly enhance your credibility on here. Ad hominems never prove anything.

Ad hominems never prove anything.
Physician, heal thyself.

Physician, heal thyself.

I'm not a physician and I don't need healing. Methinks you are on the wrong thread, on the wrong board!

I don't need healing.

That's a bold statement for anyone to make.

Originally Posted by Wondergirl
But not a sin. Only an offense that requires ritual cleansing.
Where did you see this saying that it was "not a sin"?

Are you telling us that those things which are morally disgusting, and an abhorrence to God are not seen as sin to Him?

Are you saying that following idols and false gods are not sins?Where did you see this saying that it was "not a sin"?


I don't think that I ever saw a response to this, Wondergirl. Could you please clarify your comments as requested?

I don't think that I ever saw a response to this, Wondergirl. Could you please clarify your comments as requested?
You didn't read my posts when I explained.

(Akoue, is Tom's challenge of me what they call a Hail Mary pass?)

You didn't read my posts when I explained.

I read, and we seemed to deviate off into homosexual sex in prisons. If you addressed my points directly somewhere, please show me the post or c/p it.

To make it easy for you, my post was #41.

I read, and we seemed to deviate off into homosexual sex in prisons. If you addressed my points directly somewhere, please show me the post or c/p it.
Lemmee see. What would you say at this point?

"I already posted what you want to know. Now it's your reponsibility to go back into the thread to find it since you are the one who wants to read it."

That's not quite what you'd say, but close.

Lemmee see. What would you say at this point?

"I already posted what you want to know. Now it's your reponsibility to go back into the thread to find it since you are the one who wants to read it."

That's not quite what you'd say, but close.

But I have gone back and re-read that whole part of the discussion, so if you leave me with that, then it is clear that you did not address these points and we will leave it at that.

BTW, I note that you did not address the point, but once again make comments about me. Can we please try to stay on topic and have a respectful discussion?

You didn't read my posts when I explained.

(Akoue, is Tom's challenge of me what they call a Hail Mary pass?)

Honestly, I don't know what it is. I have no idea what to call it, but it smells like desparation and sweat.

Honestly, I don't know what it is. I have no idea what to call it, but it smells like desparation and sweat.

Are you obessessed with me, Akoue? It seems that you cannot post anything without mentioning me.

But I have gone back and re-read that whole part of the discussion, so if you leave me with that, then it is clear that you did not address these points and we will leave it at that.

BTW, I note that you did not address the point, but once again make comments about me. Can we please try to stay on topic and have a respectful discussion?

Direct quote: "I am not responsible because you did not read, or choose to deny reading my answers."

Direct quote: "I am not responsible because you did not read, or choose to deny reading my answers."

But I did - I told you that I just re-read the entire section of the thread, so then you apparently never addressed those points.

That is fine. I have my answer.

Lemmee see. What would you say at this point?

"I already posted what you want to know. Now it's your reponsibility to go back into the thread to find it since you are the one who wants to read it."

That's not quite what you'd say, but close.

I've been hit with that a few times. When asked again it usually turns into something to the effect that I don't know how to read or can't understand basic English, or that I am just brazenly mendacious. Somewhere in the mix I also get accused of personal attacks, misrepresentation, and, again, rank stupidity.

Also, anybody else who seconds my request is generally said to be stupid. There's this whole stupidity montage that he does.

Honestly, I don't know what it is. I have no idea what to call it, but it smells like desparation and sweat.
From Wikipedia -- A Hail Mary pass or Hail Mary play in American football is a term made famous when "Hail Mary" was used by the press to describe the game winning touchdown pass by Roger Staubach to Drew Pearson, in the 1975 wild card playoff. It is now a common term often used to refer to any forward pass made in desperation, with only a small chance of success (colloquially speaking, it "has a prayer's chance").

I've been hit with that a few times. When asked again it usually turns into something to the effect that I don't know how to read or can't understand basic English, or that I am just brazenly mendacious. Somewhere in the mix I also get accused of personal attacks, misrepresentation, and, again, rank stupidity.

Also, anybody else who seconds my request is generally said to be stupid. There's this whole stupidity montage that he does.

I can add these ones to my list of the abusive comments that you have made. Of course non of these have been said to you, but you have said them to others - let's read some quotes from you:

QUOTES FROM AKOUE:

"You have no idea what you are talking about"

"You are apparently even unconstrained by simple grammar"

"That was quite the little diatribe. Sadly, it's also an uninformed diatribe."

And I have many more where that came from. No one called you stupid, but your clearly seem to feel no constraints in making comments along that vein about others.

Now if you are quite done with the playground spitballs, can we get back to a respectful discussion of the topic?

Okay, we have someone suggesting that what God consider morally disgusting, or idol or an abomination is not a sin. Let's look at some examples of what scripture says about abominations:

Lev 7:18
18 And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering is eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, nor shall it be imputed to him; it shall be an abomination to him who offers it, and the person who eats of it shall bear guilt.
NKJV

Deut 7:25-26
25 You shall burn the carved images of their gods with fire; you shall not covet the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it for yourselves, lest you be snared by it; for it is an abomination to the LORD your God. 26 Nor shall you bring an abomination into your house, lest you be doomed to destruction like it. You shall utterly detest it and utterly abhor it, for it is an accursed thing.
NKJV

Jer 32:35
35 And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.'
NKJV

Do you know Hebrew, Akoue, or Greek?

>Thread Closed<
As it's degenerated yet again!