Homosexuality and the Torah -and- the Christian NT

[thebrucebeat]

No, you're MO is to belittle, denigrate, insult, etc.. Just like you did with me initiating the comments about my avatar and trying your damdest to imply it somehow went against my Christian faith. 'Use their own morals and beliefs against them' - who said that? Tear down, destroy, or at least attemt to, that's what you do because that's the only defense you have unfortunately. You don't have the knowledge, the integrity, or honesty to act honorably you're incapable of it. You try to anger so you can point your finger at the behavior you've coerced with that anger. Lowlife scum, that's my opinion of you, I have nothing but pity for you and others like you.

Like I said, the name calling and that sort of thing, it marginalizes your posts as the work of an infantile mind.
Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
Why don't you reflect the traits of the man indwelt by the Holy Spirit, according to Paul in Galatians? Why do you not at least aspire to them? Why has scripture become a punch line for you?
Have you turned your back on the Holy Spirit, or has He turned His to you?

Blah, blah, blah... you really do need to work on getting some new material, this is really getting kind of old and boring.

Your posts make it very clear you consider the Fruits of the Spirit old and boring.

 

[Newby]

Like I said, the name calling and that sort of thing, it marginalizes your posts as the work of an infantile mind.
Peace, love, joy, patience, goodness, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.
Why don't you reflect the traits of the man indwelt by the Holy Spirit, according to Paul in Galatians? Why do you not at least aspire to them? Why has scripture become a punch line for you?
Have you turned your back on the Holy Spirit, or has He turned His to you?

Blah, blah, blah... you really do need to work on getting some new material, this is really getting kind of old and boring.

Your posts make it very clear you consider the Fruits of the Spirit old and boring.

How so?

 

[Newby]

No argument again.
I understand.

You imagined that you posted something that could be 'argued'?

Let's review your post:

'I understand that.'
Good for you! What's to argue there?

'Hopefully you embrace Jesus's point.'
Nice of you to worry about what I embrace or don't embrace, but again I see nothing to 'argue' there.

'So far it seems like another punch line for you, like the Fruits of the Spirit.'

Your opinion of what you think you've heard so far, punchlines, there's something to argue against there?

I have to agree.
There is no argument.
None whatsoever.

Glad you could see it my way!

 

[thebrucebeat]

You imagined that you posted something that could be 'argued'?

Let's review your post:

'I understand that.'
Good for you! What's to argue there?

'Hopefully you embrace Jesus's point.'
Nice of you to worry about what I embrace or don't embrace, but again I see nothing to 'argue' there.

'So far it seems like another punch line for you, like the Fruits of the Spirit.'

Your opinion of what you think you've heard so far, punchlines, there's something to argue against there?

I have to agree.
There is no argument.
None whatsoever.

Glad you could see it my way!

You have agreed you have no argument that the Fruits are irrelevancies to you, punch lines. They are old and boring.
We agree you have rejected them.
No argument.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Blah, blah, blah... you really do need to work on getting some new material, this is really getting kind of old and boring.

Your posts make it very clear you consider the Fruits of the Spirit old and boring.

How so?

You ignore them entirely.

 

[Newby]

Your posts make it very clear you consider the Fruits of the Spirit old and boring.

How so?

You ignore them entirely.

And what did I say that gives you that impression? Please quote specifically, and then maybe I'll have some clue as to what you're going on about. I haven't said 'Fruits of the Spirit' or anything about them anywhere in this thread, you did.

 

[thebrucebeat]

How so?

You ignore them entirely.

And what did I say that gives you that impression? Please quote specifically, and then maybe I'll have some clue as to what you're going on about. I haven't said 'Fruits of the Spirit' or anything about them anywhere in this thread, you did.

We agree.
You ignore them altogether. They have no influence on you in any way.

 

[Newby]

You ignore them entirely.

And what did I say that gives you that impression? Please quote specifically, and then maybe I'll have some clue as to what you're going on about. I haven't said 'Fruits of the Spirit' or anything about them anywhere in this thread, you did.

We agree.
You ignore them altogether. They have no influence on you in any way.

That's what I thought. Have yourself a great day Brucie!

 

[thebrucebeat]

And what did I say that gives you that impression? Please quote specifically, and then maybe I'll have some clue as to what you're going on about. I haven't said 'Fruits of the Spirit' or anything about them anywhere in this thread, you did.

We agree.
You ignore them altogether. They have no influence on you in any way.

That's what I thought. Have yourself a great day Brucie!

Just did!

 

[MHunterB]

They were called dogs back then.

Perhaps. That would only show there was a social bias against them at the time, a bias the faith of the time may have shared as it did against women.
But just to see if this is simply an agenda-driven declaration, can you cite where you learned this? Some source that supports your drive-by statement?

Deuteronomy 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.

Now go learn what this means.

Since the word absolutely mistranslated as 'whore' and as 'sodomite' in the previous verse is the identical word - K-D-Sh - it very obviously indicates "sacred prostitute" ( KDSh is the root meaning 'holy').

This verse has NOTHING!!!!! to do with homosexuality per se. It forbids any son or daughter of Israel from being a 'temple' prostitute.

In MANY pagan cultures, there were 'sacred' prostitutes at the temples and fornicating with them was considered an act of worship in that culture. Such prostitutes were of both sexes - and yes, women could go 'worship' at said temples.

There is NOTHING in there specific to homosexuality. A temple prostitute who was male was NOT automatically homosexual OR committing homosexual acts.

And if one examines 'homosexual' sex in Roman culture particularly, it was more an act of dominance like rape than anything resembling 'love'. Like a dog humping another dog to show dominance - BTW, an alpha female dog will hump a male dog - and size doesn't matter...

 

[Chuckt]

Perhaps. That would only show there was a social bias against them at the time, a bias the faith of the time may have shared as it did against women.
But just to see if this is simply an agenda-driven declaration, can you cite where you learned this? Some source that supports your drive-by statement?

Deuteronomy 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.

Now go learn what this means.

Since the word absolutely mistranslated as 'whore' and as 'sodomite' in the previous verse is the identical word - K-D-Sh - it very obviously indicates "sacred prostitute" ( KDSh is the root meaning 'holy').

This verse has NOTHING!!!!! to do with homosexuality per se. It forbids any son or daughter of Israel from being a 'temple' prostitute.

In MANY pagan cultures, there were 'sacred' prostitutes at the temples and fornicating with them was considered an act of worship in that culture. Such prostitutes were of both sexes - and yes, women could go 'worship' at said temples.

There is NOTHING in there specific to homosexuality. A temple prostitute who was male was NOT automatically homosexual OR committing homosexual acts.

And if one examines 'homosexual' sex in Roman culture particularly, it was more an act of dominance like rape than anything resembling 'love'. Like a dog humping another dog to show dominance - BTW, an alpha female dog will hump a male dog - and size doesn't matter...

4. No Sodomites Allowed in the Land (Deuteronomy 23:17-18).


"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. 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" (Deuteronomy 23:17-18 with emphasis).

This verse deals with what was a common practice in the heathen world, namely temple prostitution. The heathen temples were cesspools of immorality and fornication and prostitution. A man could enter such a temple and for a price could choose either a female or a male sexual partner. The term "whore" refers to a female prostitute, and the term "sodomite" refers to a male prostitute. The term "dog" of verse 18 refers to the sodomite of verse 17. The term "sodomite" comes from a Hebrew root which means "holy." How could such an unholy prostitute be called "holy"? The answer is found in the fact that the basic meaning of the term "holy" is "set apart," and this man was set apart, not for holy purposes, but for very immoral purposes.

The term "sodomite" is "employed in the Authorized Version (KJV) of the Old Testament for those who practiced as a religious rite the abominable and unnatural vice from which the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah have derived their lasting infamy" ( Smith's Bible Dictionary). This term is used repeatedly in the books of 1 Kings and 2 Kings. In the days of Rehoboam, Solomon's son, we read this: "And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel" (1 Kings 14:24). In Deuteronomy God said that there must not be any sodomite among the sons of Israel (Deut. 23:17). In the days of Rehoboam there were sodomites among the sons of Israel. It was a time of great spiritual decline: "And Judah did evil in the sight of the LORD, and they provoked Him to jealousy with their sins which they had committed, above all that their fathers had done" (1 Kings 14:22).

Later, there were certain godly kings in Judah who rectified this problem of temple prostitution. Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord (1 Kings 15:11), and the first recorded right act that he did was to banish the sodomites from the land (1 Kings 15:12). Later this abominable practice again took root but in the days of Jehoshaphat the sodomites were again banished from the land (1 Kings 22:46). In the days of Josiah these sodomites had brought their tents or huts or ritual booths right into the courtyard of God's temple, but godly king Josiah got rid of them (2 Kings 23:7).

Homosexuality--What Does the Bible Teach?

 

[Chuckt]

Deuteronomy 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.

Now go learn what this means.

Since the word absolutely mistranslated as 'whore' and as 'sodomite' in the previous verse is the identical word - K-D-Sh - it very obviously indicates "sacred prostitute" ( KDSh is the root meaning 'holy').

This verse has NOTHING!!!!! to do with homosexuality per se. It forbids any son or daughter of Israel from being a 'temple' prostitute.

In MANY pagan cultures, there were 'sacred' prostitutes at the temples and fornicating with them was considered an act of worship in that culture. Such prostitutes were of both sexes - and yes, women could go 'worship' at said temples.

There is NOTHING in there specific to homosexuality. A temple prostitute who was male was NOT automatically homosexual OR committing homosexual acts.

And if one examines 'homosexual' sex in Roman culture particularly, it was more an act of dominance like rape than anything resembling 'love'. Like a dog humping another dog to show dominance - BTW, an alpha female dog will hump a male dog - and size doesn't matter...

4. No Sodomites Allowed in the Land (Deuteronomy 23:17-18).


"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. 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" (Deuteronomy 23:17-18 with emphasis).

This verse deals with what was a common practice in the heathen world, namely temple prostitution. The heathen temples were cesspools of immorality and fornication and prostitution. A man could enter such a temple and for a price could choose either a female or a male sexual partner. The term "whore" refers to a female prostitute, and the term "sodomite" refers to a male prostitute. The term "dog" of verse 18 refers to the sodomite of verse 17. The term "sodomite" comes from a Hebrew root which means "holy." How could such an unholy prostitute be called "holy"? The answer is found in the fact that the basic meaning of the term "holy" is "set apart," and this man was set apart, not for holy purposes, but for very immoral purposes.

The term "sodomite" is "employed in the Authorized Version (KJV) of the Old Testament for those who practiced as a religious rite the abominable and unnatural vice from which the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah have derived their lasting infamy" ( Smith's Bible Dictionary). This term is used repeatedly in the books of 1 Kings and 2 Kings. In the days of Rehoboam, Solomon's son, we read this: "And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel" (1 Kings 14:24). In Deuteronomy God said that there must not be any sodomite among the sons of Israel (Deut. 23:17). In the days of Rehoboam there were sodomites among the sons of Israel. It was a time of great spiritual decline: "And Judah did evil in the sight of the LORD, and they provoked Him to jealousy with their sins which they had committed, above all that their fathers had done" (1 Kings 14:22).

Later, there were certain godly kings in Judah who rectified this problem of temple prostitution. Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord (1 Kings 15:11), and the first recorded right act that he did was to banish the sodomites from the land (1 Kings 15:12). Later this abominable practice again took root but in the days of Jehoshaphat the sodomites were again banished from the land (1 Kings 22:46). In the days of Josiah these sodomites had brought their tents or huts or ritual booths right into the courtyard of God's temple, but godly king Josiah got rid of them (2 Kings 23:7).

Homosexuality--What Does the Bible Teach?

New International Version
Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

Revelation 22:15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

Revelation 22:15 equates dogs with the sexually immoral.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Thou shall not bring the hire of a whore,.... Which was given to her as a reward for the use of her body:

or the price of a dog; not of the firstborn of a dog, the price for the redemption of it, as some; nor for the loan of a hunting dog, or a shepherd's dog for breed, as Josephus (z) interprets this law. Abarbinel understands it figuratively of a sodomite, comparable to a dog, for his uncleanness and impudence; see Revelation 22:15; and the price of such an one the gain he got by the prostitution of his body to unnatural lusts; and so as the hire of a whore answers to one in Deuteronomy 23:17, the price of a dog to a sodomite here; and in this he is followed by some, nor is it a sense to be despised; though the Jews (a) understand it literally of a dog, and of the exchange of another creature with that; so Onkelos renders it,"the exchange of a dog:''now neither of these might a man bring

Deuteronomy 23:18 You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Perhaps. That would only show there was a social bias against them at the time, a bias the faith of the time may have shared as it did against women.
But just to see if this is simply an agenda-driven declaration, can you cite where you learned this? Some source that supports your drive-by statement?

Deuteronomy 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.

Now go learn what this means.

Since the word absolutely mistranslated as 'whore' and as 'sodomite' in the previous verse is the identical word - K-D-Sh - it very obviously indicates "sacred prostitute" ( KDSh is the root meaning 'holy').

This verse has NOTHING!!!!! to do with homosexuality per se. It forbids any son or daughter of Israel from being a 'temple' prostitute.

In MANY pagan cultures, there were 'sacred' prostitutes at the temples and fornicating with them was considered an act of worship in that culture. Such prostitutes were of both sexes - and yes, women could go 'worship' at said temples.

There is NOTHING in there specific to homosexuality. A temple prostitute who was male was NOT automatically homosexual OR committing homosexual acts.

And if one examines 'homosexual' sex in Roman culture particularly, it was more an act of dominance like rape than anything resembling 'love'. Like a dog humping another dog to show dominance - BTW, an alpha female dog will hump a male dog - and size doesn't matter...

Deuteronomy 23:18 is not a verse, or a commandment against any homosexual act and it certainly is not a commandment forbidding homosexuality. There are only two verses that directly deal with a homosexual act, and they are already outlined in the OP.

You are correct on this point. Right on target.

 

[GISMYS]

The Lord can rescue you and me from the temptations that surround us, and continue to punish the ungodly until the day of final judgment comes. 10 He is especially hard on those who follow their own evil, lustful thoughts. 2 PETER 2:9-10==God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against God’s natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.

28 So it was that when they gave God up and would not even acknowledge him, God gave them up to doing everything their evil minds could think of. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness and sin, of greed and hate, envy, murder, fighting, lying, bitterness, and gossip.

30 They were backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, always thinking of new ways of sinning and continually being disobedient to their parents. 31 They tried to misunderstand, broke their promises, and were heartless—without pity. 32 They were fully aware of God’s death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.
Romans 1:26-32== Don’t you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexuals—will have no share in his Kingdom. There was a time when some of you were just like that but now your sins are washed away, and you are set apart for God; and he has accepted you because of what the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God have done for you.
1 corinthians 6:9

 

[MHunterB]

^^^^^ yawn^^^^^^

 

[MHunterB]

@ ChuckT: I wasn't speaking from the point of view of Christian theology. Just to be certain you understand.

 

[Chuckt]

@ ChuckT: I wasn't speaking from the point of view of Christian theology. Just to be certain you understand.

Thank you. I'm a little pressed for time right now. I don't have time to do much for a while like post.

The @ sign has to be next to my name without a space for me to be notified.