Evangelicals to Gays: We Have Nothing For You | RD Blog: The Devil's Advocate | ReligionDispatches

[par five]

Straight and Proud wrote:

<quoted text>
Not another wing nut posting... Lets see my vaible source......... lets use Dr Seuss or Donald Duck. Does that work for ye Irish lad?

Well, they certainly make a lot more sense than the source you do actually use Straight and Proud. You must get very tired standing erect, with your chest puffed out all day long. Maybe you should relax, sit down and read some of Dr Seuss's books, as you obviously go a bundle on make believe. Ribs turning into a woman and all that!

[Liam R]

No Surprise wrote:

<quoted text>
It wasn't name calling in the way your insinuating. I was describing a train of thought that I find quite ignorant for anyone espousing it.
The train of thought that any sexual activity done in a temple for a ritual is wrong, but those same types of sexual activities done in a home or anywhere else is ok. That type thinking, to me and many others, is ignorant thinking. Either God finds fault with an action or he doesn't. You may think that God believes where you do a wrong may not actually be a wrong, but neither the OT or the NT will attest to that in a single verse. But what the OT and the NT will attest to is that no matter where it is done, a wrong is a wrong in God's eyes.

So much ignorance...

YES IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. Look at Exodus chapter 26, it is all about the details of making the tabernacle. It details the nimber of loops in a curtain, the type of wood for the alter, etc, etc, etc. Other places detail where to make or where NOT to make an alter for sacrifices. Incense is required, but Aaron's sons were killed for burning the wrong incense

It is okay to eat lamb meat. It is okay to eat lamb meat after the lamb has been properly sacrificed upon the alter of the God of the Bible. It is a sin to eat lamb meat if that lamb was sacrificed to another God. And THAT is exactly what we are talking about here.

It is okay to have sex. It is not okay to have sex with another man's wife. It is not okay to have sex with a temple prostitute. It is not okay to have sex as a fertility ritual for a foreign God.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

[Straight and Proud]

par five wrote:

<quoted text> Well, they certainly make a lot more sense than the source you do actually use Straight and Proud. You must get very tired standing erect, with your chest puffed out all day long. Maybe you should relax, sit down and read some of Dr Seuss's books, as you obviously go a bundle on make believe. Ribs turning into a woman and all that!

well if adult conversation bores you then stay away from it. You pop up in here babbling about who knows what, and who cares.... The only puffy thing here is the space between yer pointy little ears. Good day to ya

[Connie Clear]

Crazy Baptist wrote:

<quoted text>Exactly, good to see someone on this forum can read with a comprehention level above a third grader.
IT DOES IN FACT SAY THEM.
CB

Yes, it does in that English version. Drop back 1400 years to the Greek version. Here is Genesis 27 from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm...

So God 430 created 1254 man 120 in his [own] image 6754, in the image 6754 of God 430 created 1254 he him; male 2145 and female 5347 created 1254 he them.

Each number represents the Greek word the previous word or phrase was translated into. If you go to the link and click on that number, it will give you the definition, etc.

NOTE: the last two words "he them" was added by the English translator. It is not in the Greek. So this verse would be better translated as
God created man in image of God; male and female.

[Connie Clear]

Each number represents the Greek word the previous word or phrase was translated FROM.

[Straight and Proud]

Jonah wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, and second graders also beleive in the boogeyman, Santa, the Tooth Fairy, Leprecans, superheroes and purple dinasaurs. Your biblical myths are nothing in comparison.

Jonah,

as usual, you sure put me in my place.... wow, how will I go on.....Does it really suck or just totally suck to be such a bitter, hateful person? NOT ONE of your posts has had anything to do with... well anything other than to stir up shite!
Try joining a conversation as an adult and put the childish rhetoric behind you. You MIGHT be taken seriously then.
Until then, goodbye little one

[Connie Clear]

Moses is often thought of as the author of Genesis. However, it appears that Genesis is a composite of several sources:

(1)the J text, named for its use of the term YHWH as the name of God;
(2) E text, named for its usage of the term "Elohim" for God;
(3) P, or Priestly source, named for its preoccupation with the Aaronid priesthood
(4) Several anomalous sources not traceable to any of the three major documents have been identified.

These texts were composed independently between 950 BC and 500 BC. Moses, or whoever combined them into one document, may have been working from fragments.

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 appear to be from different texts -- different authors who explained the creation a little differently. Trying to make the two accounts into one is fruitless.

Genesis 1 (King James Version)
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

[Connie Clear]

Liam R wrote:

<quoted text>
Just like real estate... location, location, location.
Or did you want a more serious reason? I have not made any real study of African customs, my knowledge is rather superficial. However, I think that there actually is a big difference. According to the Bible, circumcision was instituted to signify the covenant between the God of the Bible and His worshippers. Well, the male worshippers, anyway. ;)
On the other hand, some forms of the African scarification is practiced as a beauty aid. One of the most bizarre forms that I know of is the practice by a tribe where the males, as a coming of age ritual, cut open heir penis and insert small stones into the slits. The cuts are then allowed to heal over, thus putting a series of bumps along the top of the penis and providing for greater clitoral stimulation.
I am not sure, but I think that there are also some forms tht are done for religious reasons, and those forms would be pretty much the same as circumcision. There is one big distiction, however. Circumcision is considered by many people to be child abuse when it is performed on infants, and the African scarification is generally done as a rite of passage into adulthood.

I just threw the idea out there. It is not something that I care enough about to really do any study -- maybe someday ...

I have heard that uncircumcised men are less .... LESS (don't take chances)... less likely to get HIV/AIDS. I don't think that I've searched out any scientific studies.

[Liam R]

Straight and Proud wrote:

<quoted text>
Mr Golem,
I respectfully disagree with your position. The bible never stated that Adam was an androgyne. If you finish the verse, it states,"male and female He created them", not one, them. This is clearly talking of 2 separate beings. The only reference to the becoming of one flesh comes from the scripture about a man leaving his mother and father and taking his wife and becoming one with her.
I have to disagree with your interpretation due to the fact that the bible clearly shows that God created Adam then created Eve from Adam.

"male AND female He created them"
"male and female He created THEM"
You need to stop and think whether or not you are putting the stress on the wrong word. And you need to remember that for the past three thousand years, the Jews have had a tradition of reading the Torah aloud at their services, cycling through the entire thing every years. That tradition includes stressing the same syllables in the same way every time.

Then too, you need to remember that we are discussing allegorical myth, not historical fact. Since the Bronze Age when such myths seemed to make sense we have learned much about how the world really works,including the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and life has evolved over the years, with humans evolving out of pre-humans a couple of hundred of thousands of years ago. We didn't just "poof" into existance, but we did make the transistion from animals, to almost human, to true humman with souls &c in the image of God.

[Liam R]

Connie Clear wrote:

<quoted text>
I just threw the idea out there. It is not something that I care enough about to really do any study -- maybe someday ...
I have heard that uncircumcised men are less .... LESS (don't take chances)... less likely to get HIV/AIDS. I don't think that I've searched out any scientific studies.

Hmm, last I had heard was just the opposite, that circumcised men were less likely to get AIDS, but that study came out of Sub-Saharan Africa and the men most likely to get circumcised also happen to live in areas that place a greater emphasis on hygene and cleanliness. Eh, too late for me either way.

[Connie Clear]

Connie Clear wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you have any knowledge of overpopulation?

Multiplying gets you to infinity very quickly. God did NOT say, "Every last one of all your descendants for all time must also multiply."

Do you have a problem of taking everything personally? If your boss tells the person in the cubical next to you to do something, do you take it personally and think you HAVE to do it, too?

Straight and Proud wrote:

<quoted text>
Ms Connie,
This was a reply to your post saying that the creation of man and woman and their direction from God to multiply was a lie that Christians created.

HOW in the name of ALL creation -- Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Tao,... did you get that statement related to what I said?

What I said is simple. God told Dad and Mom to multiply. God DID NOT tell Dad and Mom that all their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren ... descendants forever MUST multiply.

How do you make that into some kind of Christian lie?

Read the Bible for WHAT IT SAYS -- nothing more and nothing less.

Nothing personal, just the facts ma'am! The scriptures posted are straight out of the bible.

You quoted the scripture and immediately applied God's words (said only to Mom and Dad) to all descendants.

Your response is a bit off the wall and not really relevant to the discussion (besides I ate the person in the next cubicle for lunch, LOL). If you wish to talk of over population, I agree totally that it has gotten out of control!! Way too many babies being born than responsible parents to care for them, some races are more...... but that is indeed a different subject.

Exact SAME subject. God told Mom and Dad to procreate. God did not tell all the descendants to procreate until they destroy the earth.

It is not two different subjects. It is one and the same. You cannot argue that sex is only for procreation and then say that the world is overpopulated and something needs to be done.

[Straight and Proud]

Liam R wrote:

<quoted text>
"male AND female He created them"
"male and female He created THEM"
You need to stop and think whether or not you are putting the stress on the wrong word. And you need to remember that for the past three thousand years, the Jews have had a tradition of reading the Torah aloud at their services, cycling through the entire thing every years. That tradition includes stressing the same syllables in the same way every time.
Then too, you need to remember that we are discussing allegorical myth, not historical fact. Since the Bronze Age when such myths seemed to make sense we have learned much about how the world really works,including the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and life has evolved over the years, with humans evolving out of pre-humans a couple of hundred of thousands of years ago. We didn't just "poof" into existance, but we did make the transistion from animals, to almost human, to true humman with souls &c in the image of God.

Liam,

Either way you pronounce it, and or them is still 2 different parts. Whether you believe it to be myth , fact or fantasy does not change the wording. You are free to believe the way you do, I do not condemn that but the words in question are still very clear that God created MAN then creted woman....

[Straight and Proud]

Connie Clear wrote:

<quoted text>
Isn't it funny how they remember verses according to their argument? They just have to put that wife and marriage in there and will argue incessently that wife and marriage is there.

The quote from you above was right after a reply to Golem's response to our discussion on creation. Easy to assume you were responding to the subject matter......

[Liam R]

No Surprise wrote:

<quoted text>
A eunuch in the Bible, speaking of those eunuchs that devote themselves to the Lord and his laws, in the OT and the NT, they do not marry and they take an oath of celibacy. So these type eunuchs are not heterosexual or homosexual.

Well, that is YOUR spin on it, anyway. Do you have ANY evidence, or is it just your overwhelming need to pretend that homosexuality is somehow condemned?

From discussions in the Talmud, it is clear that even though they did not have the term "homosexual" nor the concept of sexual orintation, they DID have to deal with homosexual men who simply were unable to pretend to have any interest in women. To the more primitive mindset, the only answer they could understand was that the men wee somehow eunuchs from birth, even though they appeared to be fuly functioning males.

To learn more about natural eunuchs, go here:
http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/cardiff.htm

No Surprise wrote:

lol...trying to change the Torah? The holiness code referred to both moral and ritual implications because the Israelites had absorbed the ways of the Egyptian life style as their own into their daily life and ritual practices.
You may split hairs and say a word may only be used for one definition but you are wrong.

Prove it.

No Surprise wrote:

The holiness code dealt with changing the Israelites in how they thought (morals) and how they worshipped (rituals). Second, you forget in the wilderness, the Israelites had ONLY one portable temple and Moses and Aaron and the other priests would never of let it be turned into a sex fest club as the Israelites tried to do when waiting for Moses to come down from the mountain before they even had a temple established by moses.

Not relavent in the least. The point was that the men were not to go off and visit the temples of the Canaanites. Since those temples were groves on the hill tops, there were many of them and thy were easy to find.

No Surprise wrote:

The prohibition of incest and men laying with men, etc., was for them being done anywhere. Not just in a single portable temple guarded by priests who were under the thumbs of Moses and Aaron.

And that is YOUR misunderstanding of what the Bible says. Pay attention to what is actually said. Man <ish> shall not lay mankind <zakar> as with woman <ishshah>, for it is abomination <tow'ebah>.

IF it meant man lying with any man, anywhere, it would have been ish and ish, not ish and zakar. Zakar refers to males (not just human, any species) that have been concecrated to a God. And tow'ebah refers to things that are abomination BECAUSE they are partof the worship of foreign Gods.

Then too, Deuteronomy repeats and recaps the laws. It does not mention anything about homosexual acts, BUT it does specifiy that qadesh are prohibited, and qadesh is the Hebrew word for male temple prostitute. A qadesh would be a zakar, since a temple prostitute is a type of priest.

No, if this was just a matter of one word that might go one way or another, then I could agree with you that it is not clear. But the fact remains that it is NOT just one word, it is many, and it is not just one verse, it is several passages that overlap and reinforce one another and they all say that homosexuality is not a sin.

[Straight and Proud]

Connie Clear wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
HOW in the name of ALL creation -- Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Tao,... did you get that statement related to what I said?
What I said is simple. God told Dad and Mom to multiply. God DID NOT tell Dad and Mom that all their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren ... descendants forever MUST multiply.
How do you make that into some kind of Christian lie?
Read the Bible for WHAT IT SAYS -- nothing more and nothing less.
<quoted text>
You quoted the scripture and immediately applied God's words (said only to Mom and Dad) to all descendants.
<quoted text>
Exact SAME subject. God told Mom and Dad to procreate. God did not tell all the descendants to procreate until they destroy the earth.
It is not two different subjects. It is one and the same. You cannot argue that sex is only for procreation and then say that the world is overpopulated and something needs to be done.

so now where do you come up with this response????? we discussed creation and you jumped to overpopulation.....now you see that they ARE 2 different subjects.....

[Akfbks]

Straight and Proud wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you smokin crack?? What part of God made male, then made female and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply did you miss? Your attempt to change the wording and the meaning is baseless. The verse is as implicit as it can be about creation and multiplying.

One aspect of the verse is about the biology. Same thing presented to animals. What is important here is that man was made in the image of God, God's Spirit. If you doubt my reasoning and question my reasoning then read the link I presented. My post was a quote.

[Connie Clear]

Connie Clear wrote:

<quoted text>
HOW in the name of ALL creation -- Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Tao,... did you get that statement related to what I said?
What I said is simple. God told Dad and Mom to multiply. God DID NOT tell Dad and Mom that all their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren ... descendants forever MUST multiply.
How do you make that into some kind of Christian lie?
Read the Bible for WHAT IT SAYS -- nothing more and nothing less.

You quoted the scripture and immediately applied God's words (said only to Mom and Dad) to all descendants.

Exact SAME subject. God told Mom and Dad to procreate. God did not tell all the descendants to procreate until they destroy the earth.
It is not two different subjects. It is one and the same. You cannot argue that sex is only for procreation and then say that the world is overpopulated and something needs to be done.

Straight and Proud wrote:

<quoted text>
so now where do you come up with this response????? we discussed creation and you jumped to overpopulation.....now you see that they ARE 2 different subjects.....

I repeat: Exact SAME subject.

[Straight and Proud]

Akfbks wrote:

<quoted text>
One aspect of the verse is about the biology. Same thing presented to animals. What is important here is that man was made in the image of God, God's Spirit. If you doubt my reasoning and question my reasoning then read the link I presented. My post was a quote.

quote or off the cuff, it is still out in left field.

[The Golem]

No Surprise wrote:

<quoted text>
It wasn't name calling in the way your insinuating. I was describing a train of thought that I find quite ignorant for anyone espousing it.
The train of thought that any sexual activity done in a temple for a ritual is wrong, but those same types of sexual activities done in a home or anywhere else is ok. That type thinking, to me and many others, is ignorant thinking. Either God finds fault with an action or he doesn't. You may think that God believes where you do a wrong may not actually be a wrong, but neither the OT or the NT will attest to that in a single verse. But what the OT and the NT will attest to is that no matter where it is done, a wrong is a wrong in God's eyes.

I stand by my post. I never said that it was a matter of place alone. You must have me confused with someone else.

[Straight and Proud]

Connie Clear wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I repeat: Exact SAME subject.

Ms Connie,
I will simplify thi. Please show me where I supposedly said that sex is for procreation only... You will not find it. I am NOT a Catholic (thank God). The intamacy between my wife and I is not for procreation anymore, it is purely for US!!!!! I understand where your arguement is coming from now but it is not true.
God gave us the wisdom to know what and when to do things. The reference I was making to a control is RESPONSIBILITY!!!!! Please read the post and not what you think it means. Control should be over those who cannot care for their offspring, my tax dollars could do better things than support them and all the, well I am going no further, I think you understand what I am saying.