Christians, why do you hate Gays?

[-Peacemaker-]

You do realize that Jesus saved his harshest criticism for people who thought they knew the mind of God, don't you?



Keep reading:

1 Corinthians 13:9-12:


So Paul recognizes his knowledge as flawed and imperfect, but you consider yours superior? Interesting.

Exactly what do you have to let you see clearly and not "in a mirror dimly"? Whatever it is, Paul says that he didn't have it.

Ephesians 6

10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints

2 Timothy 3: 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2 Corinthians 10 1By the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you—I, Paul, who am “timid” when face to face with you, but “bold” when away! 2I beg you that when I come I may not have to be as bold as I expect to be toward some people who think that we live by the standards of this world. 3For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. 6And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete.



The last thing Paul views Scripture as is some book filled with ambiguous means and undiscernable truths. On the contrary, he views it as the primary tool to discern the lies of the Devil from truth. Basically everything the Devil says is something that contradicts God. The "sword" which is Scripture is what Jesus used to defeat the Devil's temptation in the desert. The Devil said do "so and so", and Jesus responds by quoting the OT. It's the same thing now for Christians. Does Scripture contain a complete knowledge of God? Of course not, but it does cover morality extensively.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The last thing Paul views Scripture as is some book filled with ambiguous means and undiscernable truths. On the contrary, he views it as the primary tool to discern the lies of the Devil from truth. Basically everything the Devil says is something that contradicts God. The "sword" which is Scripture is what Jesus used to defeat the Devil's temptation in the desert. The Devil said do "so and so", and Jesus responds by quoting the OT. It's the same thing now for Christians.

It was also the same thing for the Pharisees. They thought they were righteous too, and they had scripture to back themselves up just like you do. Jesus condemned them anyhow.

It seems to me that if a person was "reading the Bible with integrity", as you put it, they'd say that there's more to the interpretation of God's word than you're showing us here.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

It was also the same thing for the Pharisees. They thought they were righteous too, and they had scripture to back themselves up just like you do. Jesus condemned them anyhow.

It seems to me that if a person was "reading the Bible with integrity", as you put it, they'd say that there's more to the interpretation of God's word than you're showing us here.

Matthew 23:

1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.</SPAN> 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.</SPAN> 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.</SPAN> .....

.....23“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.</SPAN> 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.</SPAN>



They CLAIMED to have the support of Scripture. It was THROUGH Scripture that Jesus said otherwise

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Matthew 23:

1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2&#8220;The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses&#8217; seat.</SPAN> 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.</SPAN> 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men&#8217;s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.</SPAN> .....

Frankly, I think this is precisely what you're trying to do with homosexuality.

.....23&#8220;Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices&#8212;mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law&#8212;justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.</SPAN> 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.</SPAN>

Do you think there's any justice, mercy or faithfulness in your position? Because I can't see it.

They CLAIMED to have the support of Scripture. It was THROUGH Scripture that Jesus said otherwise

They claimed it the same way that you claim to have the support of scripture now.

I get it: you think that you're righteous, that your position is correct, and that it's okay to use scripture to condemn others. But answer me this: can you provide a single example in the Gospels where Jesus encountered a person who thought he was righteous, that his position was correct, and that it was okay to use scripture to condemn others when Jesus did ANYTHING other than harshly rebuke the person who thought this?

 

[Desert Snake]

If people think that Jesus wasn't teaching something completely different from the Pharisees then they may as well practice Judaism. I take the NT at it's word, there was a vast difference between what Jesus taught and what the Pharisees were preaching.
This also relates to how Jesus instructed His followers to stop following the unnecessary OT laws such as circumcision, not eating shellfish etc., but keep the necessary OT laws.

 

[Ingledsva]

Also, your claim that Lev 20:13 doesn't include "As with a woman" is a straight up lie, what translation are you using?

Leviticus 20:13 Biblos Interlinear Bible

Now I already mentioned that the word "Homosexual" is a semantic quandary, and that the Torah forbids the actual act between two males, and "As with a woman" however you translate that, can mean ANYTHING a man does with a woman, rabbis have argued for years about what that means exactly.

LOL! Go look at that Hebrew again. It does NOT say "as with a" woman.

"as with a" is not in the sentence - and other translations of some of the words make more sense without having to add crap in.

Which is why I said this is the only one in actual contention. All of the others are Sacred Prostitutes.
As I pointed out by giving the actual words.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I get it: you think that you're righteous, that your position is correct, and that it's okay to use scripture to condemn others. But answer me this: can you provide a single example in the Gospels where Jesus encountered a person who thought he was righteous, that his position was correct, and that it was okay to use scripture to condemn others when Jesus did ANYTHING other than harshly rebuke the person who thought this?

John the Baptist

 

[Ingledsva]

The word in question is Deuteronomy 23:18 is Keleb which defacto means dog. As far as I'm aware it has NEVER meant anything else. Just because a dog can be used as a pagan sacrifice perhaps does not mean the word can be interchanged whatsoever. You might as well say that "pig" and "mongoose" can mean Pagan sacrifices. Likewise, there's no reason to assume it only applies to religious prostitutes like Qadesh does, but simply one who is the passive/receiver in any arrangement in general.

Strong's Hebrew: 3611.


Exodus 22:31
BIB: &#1500;&#1465;&#1443;&#1488; &#1514;&#1465;&#1488;&#1499;&#1461;&#1428;&#1500;&#1493;&#1468; &#1500;&#1463;&#1499;&#1462;&#1468;&#1430;&#1500;&#1462;&#1489; &#1514;&#1463;&#1468;&#1513;&#1456;&#1473;&#1500;&#1460;&#1499;&#1445;&#1493;&#1468;&#1503; &#1488;&#1465;&#1514;&#1469;&#1493;&#1465;&#1475;
NAS: you shall throw it to the dogs.

Where are you getting that it means a pagan sacrifice exactly? Specific example please. Telling me to look it up is not a substitute for providing an example. It is not once used in the Hebrew bible to mean anything but dogs (except in this instance), in every single example. It is nowhere meant to mean Pagan Sacrifice. I suggest YOU look it up and stop trying to change the Hebrew to fit what you want it to mean. Just because it refers to Qadeshim in the previous verse doesn't mean they are the exact same concept.

With that said, the word "Dog" in the New Testament context CAN mean people of other faiths and religions, but not necessarily, as the Roman Centurion was not called a dog, so it was most likely just referring to the Canaanite woman's ethnicity. WIth THAT said, you'd be saying that no Canaanite Christian is allowed in the New Jerusaleam. I would say there's good weight to assuming that it's referring to the same use of "dog" in Deuteronomy, as a male prostitute. Otherwise you'd be arguing for racial exclusion in the New Jerusalem, since nowhere is Dog used for a person of another faith, just ethnicity from the context. When Jesus says he only came for the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, it was likely referring to members of the Tribe itself, since the "Lost sheep" may have been of other faiths.

Besides, I already told you that you may have a point in that "dogs" may refer to Temple prostitutes (Qadesh). But then again, it may not necessarily and may simply refer to any male who prostitutes himself to another male for any reason or any form of payment or gift or favor. There's really no reason to assume that a Qadesh and a Kaleb are exactly the same.

And with that said, it's quite clear that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 forbid any male-male relations at the penalty of death to begin with, as "lie with a woman" can be interpreted to mean practically anything that a man does with a woman.

Look it up. Deu 23:17 tells us these are QADESH and QADESHAH (Sacred Prostitutes.)

It is very obvious what the translation (IN 18) should actually be - AS they TELL US this is about = QADESH = Sacred Prostitute!

This is the KJV version -

Deu 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Deu 23:18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

The actual word that has been mistranslated as whore - is Qadeshah.
The actual word that has been mistranslated as sodomite - is Qadesh.

Qadesh are Sacred Prostitutes. 18 is still talking about those Qadesh - Sacred Prostitutes.

A simple Strong's check will show you that they know the word translated "dog" means Sacred Prostitute - Qadesh
This is simple. Seventeen tells us what 18 is talking about.

Deu 23:17 There shall be no Qadeshah of the daughters of Israel, nor a Qadesh of the sons of Israel.
Deu 23:18 Thou shalt not bring the wage of a prostitute, or the price of a (dog) Qadesh, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

This is how the HRB (Hebraic Roots Bible) has it -

(HRB) You shall not bring the hire of a prostitute, or the price of a dog (male prostitute), into the house of YAHWEH your Elohim for any vow; for even both of these are an abomination to YAHWEH your Elohiym.

That (male prostitute) is theirs - I did not add it.

So, we are talking Qadesh - Sacred Prostitutes - not homosexuals - HERE - and in most verses where we are told they are about homosexuals.

 

[Ingledsva]

If people think that Jesus wasn't teaching something completely different from the Pharisees then they may as well practice Judaism. I take the NT at it's word, there was a vast difference between what Jesus taught and what the Pharisees were preaching.
This also relates to how Jesus instructed His followers to stop following the unnecessary OT laws such as circumcision, not eating shellfish etc., but keep the necessary OT laws.

Unfortunately they try keep some of the unnecessary - such as supposed Homosexual bans - supposed tattoo bans - etc.

 

[Desert Snake]

So, we are talking Qadesh - Sacred Prostitutes - not homosexuals - HERE - and in most verses where we are told they are about homosexuals.

So instead of "male prostitute" it was translated as "sodomite". What's the difference? Are you saying that the male prostitutes weren't homosexuals?

 

[tumbleweed41]

So instead of "male prostitute" it was translated as "sodomite". What's the difference? Are you saying that the male prostitutes weren't homosexuals?

Conversely, instead of "female prostitute", it was translated as "whore". Whats the difference? Are you saying that female prostitutes weren't heterosexuals?



Here's the difference, homosexual/heterosexual does not equate to prostitute.

 

[Ingledsva]

For Shermana

"Okay, and where of those say anything about being a rapist as opposed to the "active" partner. I notice that your source refers to Eusbieus's use of therm to define pederastry as "rape". Now we may consider such to be "Statutory rape" or "Abuse" in modern society, but back then, the receiver, no matter how young, was not necessarily regarded as a rape victim. This is an example of modern Semantics versus the original use of the term. All it means in its known uses is as the Active partner of a male-male relationship. Nothing more. It CAN mean a rapist, but not necessarily, and if you're trying to say necessarily, no dice."

Actually several of them mention rape - The rape of Ganymede - Aristides in his Apology lists rape - Hippolytus lists rape - Eusebius reference to pederasty or rape - etc.

Also, Pederastry can be used here as rape because it was "cultural" to the Greeks, for instance, but we are talking Bible here, and the Hebrew/Jewish thought. For them pederastry would be rape of young males by pedophiles. Eusebius shows this.

 

[Ingledsva]

For Shermana

I am not going to go searching for a source for you. Look it up. Google. Do you really think gay men and women said “yeah, I think I’d like to be a Temple Prostitute spending my whole life sexually servicing idiots? They were owned and trained from childhood for their Sacred duties.

Translation: You have no sources and you refuse to do your part in debate which is to provide evidence for your claims and you ignored the sources I presented, and you are too lazy or dishonest to admit that you have no actual examples and think telling a person to "go google it" somehow is a substitute for proving your claims. Thanks for playing.

LOL! I've shown you verses, translations, the actual Greek or Hebrew, mistranslated text, given the Strong's numbers so people can follow along, and sent you to a page of know uses. I'm not going to do the rest of the research for you.

 

[Desert Snake]

Here's the difference, homosexual/heterosexual does not equate to prostitute.

So what are you saying the "sodomite" reference in Deut. 23:17 is actually referring to?

Deut.23:17
"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel". -King james Version

 

[Ingledsva]

For Shermana

As has been explained above and shown by Biblical works such as Strong’s – Sodomite does not mean homosexual – or receiving partner. I put a link to the other above.

Okay, try addressing what I actually said. Thanks. I think I made it most clear from the examples that Malakoi was in reference to receiving partners in general, and I thought I was clear that I agree that Sodomite is not the right (as in most accurate) term to use. It CAN be used as such, but not necessarily. We have an issue here of "Possible vs necessarily".

I don't care that later people added catamite. Though I can see why they might later add that idea to catamite, or receiving partner.

It is used three times in the Bible - both of the other uses mean dandy - fine food, fine wine, fine clothing. I'm going to guess the third one does as well.

They are talking about John the Baptist.

Luk 7:25 But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled, and live indulgently, are in kings courts.

As to Sodomite - We are talking Bible verses here. A sodomite at the time of these writings was a Sacred Prostitute. No other definition.

 

[Shermana]

For Shermana



Actually several of them mention rape - The rape of Ganymede - Aristides in his Apology lists rape - Hippolytus lists rape - Eusebius reference to pederasty or rape - etc.

Also, Pederastry can be used here as rape because it was "cultural" to the Greeks, for instance, but we are talking Bible here, and the Hebrew/Jewish thought. For them pederastry would be rape of young males by pedophiles. Eusebius shows this.

Why don't you get the exact references and quotes so we can examine the specifics.

I don't care that later people added catamite. Though I can see why they might later add that idea to catamite, or receiving partner.

Later people? Can you find EARLIER authors who used it as "temple prostitute" as you insist? I'm aware that "Soft" can be used like "Soft raiment" just like "Pansy" can mean "Flowers" and "Sissy" can be a girl's name and "Dandy" can mean "flamboyant" and "Flamboyant" can mean "Showy". That doesn't change the fact that the likely intended meaning was most likely close to what we call "Effeminate", and unless you have an earlier reference than these "Later references", you have no way of showing it exclusively means "Temple prostitute" at the time as opposed to "Passive partner". Like I said, the pagan Romans even considered being the Passive partner to be a death-penalty crime long before the NT was written. If you say it has "no other definition" then please do your job as the burden of proof demands and stop asking other people to look up your own claims for you. That's how debate works. If you're going to insist something is necessarily defacto and there's "No other definition", prove it. I've proved that the only times it's mentioned other than the NT is in general reference to being a passive partner. And you completely ignored that Dionysus used the term in the way as I said 70 years before the Epistles were written. So please find an earlier author than Dionysus or kindly retract your claim that it's "Later authors" who use it as such.

 

[Ingledsva]

Why don't you get the exact references and quotes so we can examine the specifics.

LOL! I gave you the link to all known text - you implied you read it.

So what is the problem?

 

[Shermana]

So what are you saying the "sodomite" reference in Deut. 23:17 is actually referring to?

Deut.23:17
"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel". -King james Version

It is in fact referring to male temple prostitutes, HOWEVER, the reference to "wages of a Dog" in 23:18 is not necessarily referring to them exclusively. It is noteworthy that "hire of a harlot" uses a different word than "Wages of a dog", so it may be not necessarily saying the "hire of a dog" in that it's a prostitute but merely his earned income.

Perhaps we can find some Midrash and Talmudic exegesis on this.

 

[Shermana]

LOL! I gave you the link to all known text - you implied you read it.

So what is the problem?

So we've established that you haven't read your own link (Since it doesn't list the actual quotes and this is probably why you're shy to post them, it does provide the references however so you can track them down if you'd like to support your case that it necessarily, exclusively, defacto ONLY refers to rape), and you've presumed that Ancient Israelites assumed all Pederastry was defacto rape (The talmud may imply otherwise in a particularly controversial verse I don't care to get into), attempting to state it defacto ALWAYS refers to rape rather than simply the act of "Manbedding" which can be applied to a variety of situations where the "Active partner" does his thing. Perhaps "Sodomy" would in fact be the most accurate translation of what the word entails, since sodomy can be either forced or consentual without necessarily applying to either.

 

[Desert Snake]

It is in fact referring to male temple prostitutes, Ah, o.k. HOWEVER, the reference to "wages of a Dog" in 23:18 is not necessarily referring to them exclusively. It is noteworthy that "hire of a harlot" uses a different word than "Wages of a dog", so it may be not necessarily saying the "hire of a dog" in that it's a prostitute but merely his earned income.

Perhaps we can find some Midrash and Talmudic exegesis on this.

Yeah, that would clear the question up I think.