Is God ok with lesbians?

[bibito71]

We all know the anti-gay passages in the bible used to justify things like opposition to gay marriage. 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=KJV

The most popular being Leviticus 20:13. 

These passages describe male homosexuality.  
 
Where are the passages condemning lesbianism?  

From a biblical perspective, it seems lesbians are alright, but not gay men.  Why do you think that is?

[Chas]

We all know the anti-gay passages in the bible used to justify things like opposition to gay marriage. 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=KJV

The most popular being Leviticus 20:13. 

These passages describe male homosexuality.  
 
Where are the passages condemning lesbianism?  

From a biblical perspective, it seems lesbians are alright, but not gay men.  Why do you think that is?

These tales were written by men in a patriarchal society that considered women to be chattel.  Duh.

[Vorpal]

God loves lipstick lesbians with a passion.

[adey67]

In my country male homosexuality was legalised in 1967 but female homosexuality has never been illegal although it was certainly frowned upon. The foundation for this discrepancy appears to be based on the Bible's obsession and prohibition of sodomy, the religious are certainly obsessed about men taking it up the shitter and women also. It's why IMHO separation of church and state is so important.

[no one]

god is in the closet. It clearly has a thing for the old baloney pony. It's one of those self hate things.

Truth be told, lucifer was actually god's therapist, was this close to getting god to express how it truly feels about troser trout. However, god could not bring itself to admit it, and fired lucifer.

[Bucky Ball]

We all know the anti-gay passages in the bible used to justify things like opposition to gay marriage. 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=KJV

The most popular being Leviticus 20:13. 

These passages describe male homosexuality.  
 
Where are the passages condemning lesbianism?  

From a biblical perspective, it seems lesbians are alright, but not gay men.  Why do you think that is?

Unfortunately, you're entirely wrong.
There are no "anti-gay" passages in the Bible.
You should look up what "presentism" is in History, and then look up your topics.
In the history of human ideas, the concept of "sexual orientation" did not arise until the late 19th Century, when the science of Psychology was beginning to be studied and looked at. In ancient Israel, *despite* the fact that ignorant Christians (and others) attempt to use the verses incorrectly, there was no concept of "gay" and NO concept of "homosexuality". Human were all assumed to be "straight" and in line with their birth gender. This is not news. The SCIENCE of Human Sexuality made great strides in the LAST century, the 20th Century.

The intent of the writers/editors and assemblers of Leviticus, was to advocate for the equality of all before their god.
From a previous post of mine :

"Homosexuality as an "orientation" was unknown in the history of human ideas until the late Nineteenth Century.
There was no, (supposed), "lifestyle" until the Twentieth Century. The idea of "orientation" arose when Psychology began to develop as a science. All men were assumed to be straight, and only straight, all women straight, and only straight.
There was also no notion of a VAST continuum of sexual behaviors, (bisexuality), as science recognizes today.
Any "different" behavior was seen as "deviancy" from an absolute inherent norm, which the person was assumed to inherently possess, completely by virtue of birth gender.

In Ancient Israel class and status distinctions were extremely important.
The injunction in Biblical times, (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), was against (assumed), STRAIGHT men, (and only men), (as they ALL were assumed to be straight), engaging in same-sex behaviors. (There is a mistaken use of the Sodom and Gomorrah myth in this context also, which is misguided, and I'll deal with that last).

Why ?
It had to do with class structure, and male status. A male, who held the highest position in society, and held the highest class status, was seen to be "feminized" by penetration, and designated as a social inferior, (female), by a male of lower class status, and thus his status was lowered, to that of a woman.

THAT is the reason the culture forbade it. It had NOTHING to do with sex. It was status, and only status. This concept remains very much, (subliminally and overtly), in place today. This law code, in Leviticus, (the latest law code to be written), is the ONLY place this appears in the Old Testament. The author of Leviticus was very interested in the "equality of all" before God. It was that author's agenda. He also said strangers, and others from outside Israel were all to be treated with equal rights and dignity, which was a departure, from other texts and codes. It is ironic, indeed, this equality has been turned on it's head, to treat gay people, less equality. The author of Leviticus WANTED all people treated equally, and that is why he wrote the injunction into the text, in the first place, to PREVENT inequality. The ideal society for this author was classless, and that could not happen if a male penetrates a male, and makes him thereby, a lower class. It's about class, not sex.

This cultural origin was true in the Old Testament culture, as well as the New. That is the reason it ended up in the Bible, and the ONLY reason it was there.

The law in the Old Testament : "You shall not lay a male as with the laying of a woman, it is an offensive thing". (note: the correct translation is NOT, "it is an abomination"). (The word "toi-va" is used, and in archaic Hebrew, EVERYWHERE else is translated, "an offensive thing").

Why is this important ? Because there are levels of "offensive things", and levels of meanings of "offensive things".

There were a number of levels of offensive things in the Old Testament.

#1. was something which was offensive to God, and this was the worst.
#2. was something which was offensive to other peoples and cultures, (for example the same word is used with reference to some foods being "offensive" to other cultures, (as haggis might be to Americans), or for example the Egyptians didn't eat, with non-Egyptians, as that was "offensive", or in today's language, "bad manners".
#3. was something which was just generally "offensive", with no further relational attribution.

So it can be "offensive" to some people, but not everyone, and is relative to the situation, or to god, or just in general.

The injunction against male same sex behavior is the third kind of offensive. It's not related to either God or anything, or anyone else.
(There are other verses around it that are stated to be offensive to God, but not this one).
So in this text, it is offensive to the authors of the text, and that specific culture, (only).

Same-sex behaviors (upper class man penetrated by same class or lower class men), was forbidden, for class reasons.
Equal class men, doing non-penetrating activity, or women together was not forbidden.
(Woman with woman, in general, was not addressed, as the class issue was not important.)

So what does this tell us ?
It tells us the laws were written into the Bible by HUMANS, for human culturally relative, and internally referenced reasons.
The laws in the Bible REFLECTED their OWN culture, of the times, and did not "inform" the culture.
The direction of information flow is crucial. Every Biblical scholar knows this. The Bible was informed by the culture, NOT the other way around.
There are no "ultimate" claims possible from culturally relative, historically rooted, human local customs.

The other main text used to justify the fundamentalist nonsense about homosexuality, is the Sodom and Gomorrah myth in Genesis.

Hospitality of Abraham : In Genesis 18, there is a myth about the hospitality of Abraham, (he welcomes two strangers, who turn out to be angels), as that was an important cultural value, in a society where a wandering desert dweller could get lost, and die.

The myth is followed closely by it's counter-example of inhospitality in the Lot myth, (Sodom and Gomorrah). It is not about sex. It's a counter example to the hospitality story, of inhospitality. The context is important.

The great irony is that some ignorant religious fundies use the Bible to keep gay people away from their "table", and feasts, using the very texts that the Bible intended to teach hospitality and equality, to do the opposite.

ref : Drs. Shawna Dolansky, and Richard Elliott Friedman, "The Bible Now", and "Who Wrote the Bible"

It would really help if religionists got their facts straight, and learned about their fucking Bible.

[Minimalist]

It would really help if religionists got their facts straight, and learned about their fucking Bible.

Not much chance of that happening.

[jerry mcmasters]

We all know the anti-gay passages in the bible used to justify things like opposition to gay marriage. 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=KJV

The most popular being Leviticus 20:13. 

These passages describe male homosexuality.  
 
Where are the passages condemning lesbianism?  

From a biblical perspective, it seems lesbians are alright, but not gay men.  Why do you think that is?

Probably just didn't matter, even if the men suspected such a thing existed.  I imagine young girls were bargained off to suitors of their dad's choice and wouldn't have had opportunities to fully express their true sexuality.

[skyking]

Just to answer the Original post in the most direct way, why don't you ask her? Why come here, go to the source.

[Aliza]

From a biblical perspective, it seems lesbians are alright, but not gay men.  Why do you think that is?

Both are okay (seriously).

[adey67]

We all know the anti-gay passages in the bible used to justify things like opposition to gay marriage. 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=KJV

The most popular being Leviticus 20:13. 

These passages describe male homosexuality.  
 
Where are the passages condemning lesbianism?  

From a biblical perspective, it seems lesbians are alright, but not gay men.  Why do you think that is?

Unfortunately, you're entirely wrong.
There are no "anti-gay" passages in the Bible.
You should look up what "presentism" is in History, and then look up your topics.
In the history of human ideas, the concept of "sexual orientation" did not arise until the late 19th Century, when the science of Psychology was beginning to be studied and looked at. In ancient Israel, *despite* the fact that ignorant Christians (and others) attempt to use the verses incorrectly, there was no concept of "gay" and NO concept of "homosexuality". Human were all assumed to be "straight" and in line with their birth gender. This is not news. The SCIENCE of Human Sexuality made great strides in the LAST century, the 20th Century.

The intent of the writers/editors and assemblers of Leviticus, was to advocate for the equality of all before their god.
From a previous post of mine :

"Homosexuality as an "orientation" was unknown in the history of human ideas until the late Nineteenth Century.
There was no, (supposed), "lifestyle" until the Twentieth Century. The idea of "orientation" arose when Psychology began to develop as a science. All men were assumed to be straight, and only straight, all women straight, and only straight.
There was also no notion of a VAST continuum of sexual behaviors, (bisexuality), as science recognizes today.
Any "different" behavior was seen as "deviancy" from an absolute inherent norm, which the person was assumed to inherently possess, completely by virtue of birth gender.

In Ancient Israel class and status distinctions were extremely important.
The injunction in Biblical times, (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), was against (assumed), STRAIGHT men, (and only men), (as they ALL were assumed to be straight), engaging in same-sex behaviors. (There is a mistaken use of the Sodom and Gomorrah myth in this context also, which is misguided, and I'll deal with that last).

Why ?
It had to do with class structure, and male status. A male, who held the highest position in society, and held the highest class status, was seen to be "feminized" by penetration, and designated as a social inferior, (female), by a male of lower class status, and thus his status was lowered, to that of a woman.

THAT is the reason the culture forbade it. It had NOTHING to do with sex. It was status, and only status. This concept remains very much, (subliminally and overtly), in place today. This law code, in Leviticus, (the latest law code to be written), is the ONLY place this appears in the Old Testament. The author of Leviticus was very interested in the "equality of all" before God. It was that author's agenda. He also said strangers, and others from outside Israel were all to be treated with equal rights and dignity, which was a departure, from other texts and codes. It is ironic, indeed, this equality has been turned on it's head, to treat gay people, less equality. The author of Leviticus WANTED all people treated equally, and that is why he wrote the injunction into the text, in the first place, to PREVENT inequality. The ideal society for this author was classless, and that could not happen if a male penetrates a male, and makes him thereby, a lower class. It's about class, not sex.

This cultural origin was true in the Old Testament culture, as well as the New. That is the reason it ended up in the Bible, and the ONLY reason it was there.

The law in the Old Testament : "You shall not lay a male as with the laying of a woman, it is an offensive thing". (note: the correct translation is NOT, "it is an abomination"). (The word "toi-va" is used, and in archaic Hebrew, EVERYWHERE else is translated, "an offensive thing").

Why is this important ? Because there are levels of "offensive things", and levels of meanings of "offensive things".

There were a number of levels of offensive things in the Old Testament.

#1. was something which was offensive to God, and this was the worst.
#2. was something which was offensive to other peoples and cultures, (for example the same word is used with reference to some foods being "offensive" to other cultures, (as haggis might be to Americans), or for example the Egyptians didn't eat, with non-Egyptians, as that was "offensive", or in today's language, "bad manners".
#3. was something which was just generally "offensive", with no further relational attribution.

So it can be "offensive" to some people, but not everyone, and is relative to the situation, or to god, or just in general.

The injunction against male same sex behavior is the third kind of offensive. It's not related to either God or anything, or anyone else.
(There are other verses around it that are stated to be offensive to God, but not this one).
So in this text, it is offensive to the authors of the text, and that specific culture, (only).

Same-sex behaviors (upper class man penetrated by same class or lower class men), was forbidden, for class reasons.
Equal class men, doing non-penetrating activity, or women together was not forbidden.
(Woman with woman, in general, was not addressed, as the class issue was not important.)

So what does this tell us ?
It tells us the laws were written into the Bible by HUMANS, for human culturally relative, and internally referenced reasons.
The laws in the Bible REFLECTED their OWN culture, of the times, and did not "inform" the culture.
The direction of information flow is crucial. Every Biblical scholar knows this. The Bible was informed by the culture, NOT the other way around.
There are no "ultimate" claims possible from culturally relative, historically rooted, human local customs.

The other main text used to justify the fundamentalist nonsense about homosexuality, is the Sodom and Gomorrah myth in Genesis.

Hospitality of Abraham : In Genesis 18, there is a myth about the hospitality of Abraham, (he welcomes two strangers, who turn out to be angels), as that was an important cultural value, in a society where a wandering desert dweller could get lost, and die.

The myth is followed closely by it's counter-example of inhospitality in the Lot myth, (Sodom and Gomorrah). It is not about sex. It's a counter example to the hospitality story, of inhospitality. The context is important.

The great irony is that some ignorant religious fundies use the Bible to keep gay people away from their "table", and feasts, using the very texts that the Bible intended to teach hospitality and equality, to do the opposite.

ref : Drs. Shawna Dolansky, and Richard Elliott Friedman, "The Bible Now", and "Who Wrote the Bible"

It would really help if religionists got their facts straight, and learned about their fucking Bible.

Thanks Bucky, I've learned a lot reading this post 

[bibito71]

We all know the anti-gay passages in the bible used to justify things like opposition to gay marriage. 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=KJV

The most popular being Leviticus 20:13. 

These passages describe male homosexuality.  
 
Where are the passages condemning lesbianism?  

From a biblical perspective, it seems lesbians are alright, but not gay men.  Why do you think that is?

These tales were written by men in a patriarchal society that considered women to be chattel.  Duh.

What is the aramaic term for "hot girl-girl action" I wonder ?

[bibito71]

God loves lipstick lesbians with a passion.

he does

[bibito71]

In my country male homosexuality was legalised in 1967 but female homosexuality has never been illegal although it was certainly frowned upon. The foundation for this discrepancy appears to be based on the Bible's obsession and prohibition of sodomy, the religious are certainly obsessed about men taking it up the shitter and women also. It's why IMHO separation of church and state is so important.

God is definitely a lesbian and muff dives on the regular.

[epronovost]

Ancient people tended to see sex from a purely masculinist perspective so no penetration=no sex. Thus to them the idea of two women having sex together must have felt pretty absurd. "It didn't count" so to speak.

[Iconoclast]

.
"bibito71" 

 
YOUR QUOTE IN YOUR INITIAL POST: "Where are the passages condemning lesbianism?"  

For your future knowledge, the following passage that is anti-lesbian and stated by Jesus in being the one true god (2 Peter 1:1) and inspired by Him as God (1 Thessalonians 2:13) is shown herewith:

"For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet . . . Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" (Romans 1:26-27)


.

[Reltzik]

Judging by the search preferences of the most zealously religious Christians?  Yes, God is 100% into lesbianism.

(Okay, that might not be what the straight women Christians are browsing the internet for, but we all know the women aren't the ones making receiving revelation on these rules.)

(Yes, I know the original post was actually about Biblical rules, but I figure the same dynamic was in play in the ancient world when this stuff was being written, and also taking digs at modern hypocrisy is fun.)

[Iconoclast]

.
YOUR QUOTE IN POST #6 TO BIBITO71: "There are no "anti-gay" passages in the Bible."

To use your phrase, unfortunately, you're entirely wrong.

You cannot get more anti-gay within the Bible when Jesus as the one true god (1 Timothy 2:5) in his inspired words within the Bible (1 Thessalonians 2:13) specifically stated the following passages:

1.  "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

2. “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,” (1 Corinthians 6:9)

3.  "For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet . . . Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" (Romans 1:26-27)

4. "For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God;" (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5)


Bucky Ball, copy this information for future use in the FACT that Jesus' inspired words do show that the Bible is anti-gay!

.

[Bucky Ball]

.
YOUR QUOTE IN POST #6 TO BIBITO71: "There are no "anti-gay" passages in the Bible."

To use your phrase, unfortunately, you're entirely wrong.

You cannot get more anti-gay within the Bible when Jesus as the one true god (1 Timothy 2:5) in his inspired words within the Bible (1 Thessalonians 2:13) specifically stated the following passages:

1.  "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

2. “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,” (1 Corinthians 6:9)

3.  "For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet . . . Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" (Romans 1:26-27)

4. "For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God;" (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5)


Bucky Ball, copy this information for future use in the FACT that Jesus' inspired words do show that the Bible is anti-gay!

.

I'll pass.
Nope, nope and nope.

Now all you have to do is :

1. prove there was a Jesus,
2. prove that anything OTHERS wrote was "Jesus inspired", While you're at it, (not using Timothy as there was no canon when he was writing,
3. demonstrate that there was in ancient cultures a concept of "gay" and /or "homosexuality", or sexual orientation, .... ie
a word and HISTORY of "sexual orientation" in ancient times.
With 5 academic references and why that word should be translated as you claim from the Greek.
Good luck with that.

You need to look up the word "presentism" in historical analysis.
It's not often that we see ignorant fundamentalists, such as yourself, here doing the very same shit as ignorant fundamentalist Christians.
Congratulations.

Some male with male sex was forbidden. It was not forbidden because they were "anti-gay", as I fully demonstrated, and which you obviously did not bother to read.
Ot was forbidden for other easons.

Unfortunately for you, you have exposed your ignorance of ancient cultures and thought, and your complete inability to speak about the subject.
There was no concept of "homosexuality" or sexual "orientation" at the time, and you have none, and have presented none.
You think you know more than my posted references. Premier academics. LMAO. Seriosly ? LOLOLOL

"The GREEK word "arsenokoitai" is a compound word: arseno is the word for “a male,” and koitai is the word for “mat” or “bed.” Put the two halves together, and the word means “a male bed”—that is, a person who makes use of a “male-only bed” or a “bed for males.” in 1 Corinthians 6:9 there IS NO WORD there which is properly translated from ancient Greece as "homosexuality". Do you read Greek ? The concept of homosexuality did not exist until Psychology was a field of study in the late 19th Century, and you can demonstrate nothing else.

Maybe get an education before you try to lie to this crowd, with an expertise you do not have.
How pathetic.

[Bucky Ball]

.
"bibito71" 

 
YOUR QUOTE IN YOUR INITIAL POST: "Where are the passages condemning lesbianism?"  

For your future knowledge, the following passage that is anti-lesbian and stated by Jesus in being the one true god (2 Peter 1:1) and inspired by Him as God (1 Thessalonians 2:13) is shown herewith:

"For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet . . . Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" (Romans 1:26-27)


.

Who gives a shit what ignorant ancients thought about anything ? We certainly don't.
No one here accepts this bullshit as having any foundation or authority.
The SCIENCE of Human Sexuality know NOW much more than these ancient Igno rants, not unlike yourself.

Two posts. Both about sexuality.
LOL
Who has a problem ?

Go get help.
LOL

You can't possibly be so ignorant that you don't know a certain small percentage of every specie on the planet has same-sex relationships.
It's perfectly "natural". It occurs throughout nature.

[TinyDave]

Just to answer the Original post in the most direct way, why don't you ask her? Why come here, go to the source.

Because she's not real...

[Bucky Ball]

.
YOUR QUOTE IN POST #6 TO BIBITO71: "There are no "anti-gay" passages in the Bible."

To use your phrase, unfortunately, you're entirely wrong.

You cannot get more anti-gay within the Bible when Jesus as the one true god (1 Timothy 2:5) in his inspired words within the Bible (1 Thessalonians 2:13) specifically stated the following passages:

1.  "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

2. “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,” (1 Corinthians 6:9)

3.  "For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet . . . Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" (Romans 1:26-27)

4. "For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God;" (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5)


Bucky Ball, copy this information for future use in the FACT that Jesus' inspired words do show that the Bible is anti-gay!

.

bla bla bla ...
I'll pass.
Nope, nope and nope.

Now all you have to do is :

1. prove there was a Jesus,
2. prove that anything OTHERS wrote was "Jesus inspired", While you're at it, (not using Timothy as there was no canon when he was writing,
3. demonstrate that there was in ancient cultures a concept of "gay" and /or "homosexuality", or sexual orientation, .... ie
a word and HISTORY of "sexual orientation" in ancient times.
With 5 academic references and why that word should be translated as you claim from the Greek.
Good luck with that.

You need to look up the word "presentism" in historical analysis.
It's not often that we see ignorant fundamentalists, such as yourself, here doing the very same shit as ignorant fundamentalist Christians.
Congratulations.

Some male with male sex was forbidden. It was not forbidden because they were "anti-gay", as I fully demonstrated, and which you obviously did not bother to read.
Ot was forbidden for other easons.

Unfortunately for you, you have exposed your ignorance of ancient cultures and thought, and your complete inability to speak about the subject.
There was no concept of "homosexuality" or sexual "orientation" at the time, and you have none, and have presented none.
You think you know more than my posted references. Premier academics. LMAO. Seriosly ? LOLOLOL

"The GREEK word "arsenokoitai" is a compound word: arseno is the word for “a male,” and koitai is the word for “mat” or “bed.” Put the two halves together, and the word means “a male bed”—that is, a person who makes use of a “male-only bed” or a “bed for males.” in 1 Corinthians 6:9 there IS NO WORD there which is properly translated from ancient Greece as "homosexuality". Do you read Greek ? The concept of homosexuality did not exist until Psychology was a field of study in the late 19th Century, and you can demonstrate nothing else.

Maybe get an education before you try to lie to this crowd, with an expertise you do not have.
How pathetic.

[Minimalist]

I don't know about this god fucker but I always find it the best part of the movie.

[epronovost]

bla bla bla ...
I'll pass.
Nope, nope and nope.

Now all you have to do is :

1. prove there was a Jesus,
2. prove that anything OTHERS wrote was "Jesus inspired", While you're at it, (not using Timothy as there was no canon when he was writing,
3. demonstrate that there was in ancient cultures a concept of "gay" and /or "homosexuality", or sexual orientation, .... ie
a word and HISTORY of "sexual orientation" in ancient times.
With 5 academic references and why that word should be translated as you claim from the Greek.
Good luck with that.

You need to look up the word "presentism" in historical analysis.
It's not often that we see ignorant fundamentalists, such as yourself, here doing the very same shit as ignorant fundamentalist Christians.
Congratulations.

Some male with male sex was forbidden. It was not forbidden because they were "anti-gay", as I fully demonstrated, and which you obviously did not bother to read.
Ot was forbidden for other easons.

Unfortunately for you, you have exposed your ignorance of ancient cultures and thought, and your complete inability to speak about the subject.
There was no concept of "homosexuality" or sexual "orientation" at the time, and you have none, and have presented none.
You think you know more than my posted references. Premier academics. LMAO. Seriosly ? LOLOLOL

"The GREEK word "arsenokoitai" is a compound word: arseno is the word for “a male,” and koitai is the word for “mat” or “bed.” Put the two halves together, and the word means “a male bed”—that is, a person who makes use of a “male-only bed” or a “bed for males.” in 1 Corinthians 6:9 there IS NO WORD there which is properly translated from ancient Greece as "homosexuality". Do you read Greek ? The concept of homosexuality did not exist until Psychology was a field of study in the late 19th Century, and you can demonstrate nothing else.

Maybe get an education before you try to lie to this crowd, with an expertise you do not have.
How pathetic.

The fact people in Antiquity didn't have a modern conception of sexual orientation is beside the point though. In effect, Christian doctrine forbade homosexual sexual intercourse. Saying that it doesn't oppose homosexuality it opposes homosexual sexual intercourse is a distinction without much difference. The fact is that Christianity, from its early days through the Middle Ages and in the Modern Era opposed homosexual intercourse and non-reproductive sex in general. The reason why might vary depending on the era and the particular theologian, but it usually goes from "penetration makes a woman out of a man and is thus an insult" to "sex is sinful in and itself and should only be done to get children" passing by "it's a against nature/design of God" which was popularized by Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Peter Damian and Saint Hildegard, but in all cases, the rational is still anti-homosexual and bigoted. Let's not put lipstick on a pig and call it horse.

[Iconoclast]

.
Bucky Ball, addressing your needless over zealous post #19,

The FACT remains that the passages that I gave you, as literally written within the Bible, and barring what certain words actually mean that you presented by interpretation, yada, yada, yada, and whether knowing Greek or not, are anti-gay in their nature, period! 2+2=4.


YOUR QUOTE ABOUT JESUS: “prove there was a Jesus”

I want Jesus the Christ to have existed for the sole purpose of making pseudo-christians the fools that they are, because of his despicable biblical modus operandi!  HELLO, anybody home today, obviously not?


When the pseudo-christians read their primitive Bronze and Iron Age Bibles, do you think that they are worried over the literal words as stated in said passages? No they do not, they accept the written word as is, barring your over-stated notion that what they are reading is allegedly wrong. GET IT? HUH?

Then when I as an Atheist present the LITERAL word of the Bible as written, showing Jesus as being the serial killer Hebrew Yahweh God incarnate of the OT, and where he is responsible for brutal bloody murders throughout the Old and New Testaments, is where the Atheist like myself can bury the pseudo-christian in debate or discussion. This is because these biblical disturbing axioms were never taught to them by their preachers on Sunday mornings in the first place, DO YOU UNDERSTAND?


YOUR QUOTE THAT DOESN’T MATTER TO ME: “Unfortunately for you, you have exposed your ignorance of ancient cultures and thought,”

There is no ignorance on my part relating to the Bible passages that I gave you as written, and that more so than not, YOU didn’t even know existed in the first place to prove my point of them being ANTI-GAY! Understood?! 


You’re the type of Atheist that argues to the pseudo-christians that they do not know the true meaning of certain words in the bible, *cough,* and where you use science to try and prove them wrong, ho hum, where they will always have an irrational answer to your facts, yada, yada, yada, until you are blue in the face, B-O-R-I-N-G, zzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

I am an Atheist that solely goes for their throat in using the impetus of their primitive faith, the JUDEO-Christian Bible as literally written and inspired by Jesus, as biblically shown in 1 Thessalonians 2:13, no matter when this passage was written, UNDERSTOOD?  There is no need for "decoder rings, or crystal balls” that you represent to determine the final outcome of the pseudo-christians embarrassment relative to their Bible. GET IT?  

Where I can easily prove in the Bible that there is only one god, and that god is Jesus the Christ their assumed savior, of which was responsible for brutal and horrific murders of innocent infants and other parts of his creation, and where women are 2nd class citizens within the scriptures, and where Jesus is an abortionist as well, amongst other despicable acts that he created!  When doing this, they become silent, and for the most part, use lame excuses to run away from my biblical axioms! Does your assumed education allow you to understand this simple premise, and why I use it? 


YOUR QUOTE: “Maybe get an education before you try to lie to this crowd”

In closing, and at your embarrassing expense in front of the membership, I DID NOT lie to this “crowd” in what I presented as explicit ANTI-GAY passages as shown, AND as written, in my post #18!  Therefore, you were proven wrong when you ineptly stated herewith: "There are no "anti-gay" passages in the Bible.” NOT!  LOL!



.