Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is God ok with lesbians?
#26

Is God ok with lesbians?
.
Bucky Ball, addressing your post #20,

YOUR QUOTES IN “TRYING” TO HIDE YOUR EMBARRASSMENT IN BEING WRONG TO MY "LITERAL PASSAGE AS WRITTEN" IN 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.”

Do the simple math, if you can, it does matter what the JUDEO-Christian Bible says about lesbians, because of the simple fact that Christianity accepts ALL peoples, “slurpies” and “homosexuals” included!  Then, ZEUS forbid, if the Atheist like myself can show these Bible stupid pseudo-christian fools that their brutal serial killer Jesus, as God, is blatantly against this ungodly faction, and that they are worthy of death, as said passage states, then they are embarrassed and run away for having to accept what their Bibles actually say! GET IT?  MAYBE?  


YOUR CHILD LIKE NON SEQUITUR POSTS: “Two posts. Both about sexuality. LOL Who has a problem ? Go get help. LOL

I expect this type of response above from Bible stupid pseudo-christians that RUN from the facts where they were proven wrong, just like you were, but in your case, you are an Atheist.


YOUR QUOTE THAT IS A GIVEN: “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.

DUH!

.
Reply
#27

Is God ok with lesbians?
(02-12-2023, 06:00 AM)epronovost Wrote:
(02-12-2023, 12:10 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: 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.

No it isn't. The REASON for the prohibition has nothing to do with "sex" but power and social position, in Hebrew culture.
If you doubt that read my references.
Christian doctrine was originally promulgated by JEWS, who had their values from Hebrew culture.
The was no "homosexual" (a modern concept) ANYTHING. Humans in that culture were all STRAIGHT by virtue of birth gender.
That really is not all *that* difficult.
The FACT IS, there were in Europe in Christianity same-sex UNION rituals and ceremonies, within CHRISTIAN churches.
What ? You never read the news ?

"In pre-Christian Rome and Greece, there had been some debate on which form of sex was preferable. While many people seemed to not oppose bisexual expressions, there were those who preferred to be exclusively one or the other as discussed in Plutarch's Moralia"

Historian John Boswell claimed the 4th century Christian martyrs Saint Sergius and Saint Bacchus were united in the ritual of adelphopoiesis, which he calls an early form of religious same-sex marriage. After the Middle Ages in Europe, same-sex relationships were increasingly frowned upon and banned in many countries by the Church or the state. Nevertheless, Historian John Boswell argued that Adelphopoiesis, or brother-making, represented an early form of religious same-sex marriage in the Orthodox church.[32] (However, the historicity of this interpretation is contested by the Greek Orthodox Church, and Boswell's scholarship critiqued as being of dubious quality by "theologian" (LOL) Robin Darling Young. Alan Bray saw the rite of Ordo ad fratres faciendum ("Order for the making of brothers") as serving the same purpose in the medieval Roman Catholic Church.

In late medieval France, it is possible the practice of entering a legal contract of "enbrotherment" (affrèrement) provided a vehicle for civil unions between unrelated male adults who pledged to live together sharing ‘un pain, un vin, et une bourse’ – one bread, one wine, and one purse. This legal category may represent one of the earliest forms of sanctioned same-sex unions."

You're totally wrong about EVEN the Christian view of these unions.

BTW. I'm embarrassed about nothing. Another lie, Stop lying. Your presumptions are not my problem.
Test
Reply
#28

Is God ok with lesbians?
(02-12-2023, 05:56 PM)Iconoclast Wrote: .
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!



.

LOL, so you take everything in the Babble literally. Such a fool.
Your assumptions are ALL entirely false.
You did lie, and you are in no position, intellectually or by ANY training to make assertions with NO support about ANY topic here
You do need an education, and to date, you have provided NO SUPPORT for even one of your ignorant assertions.
Where did you get your graduate level education on the topics ?
Oh, LMAO, ... you have none.
You haven't even referenced ONE of my references, and why they are wrong.
You're just another gay or Christian who is/has invested EVERYTHING in being a victim.
Good luck with that. What a joke you are.

Repeating your false assertions with no academic support in no way makes them any more true than the first time you made your FALSE claims.
You have answered NONE of the objections to your shit I provided, ... why ? Because you know nothing about ancient languages and cultures and are totally 120% incompetent to say anything here. All you know about is modern concepts and false opinions you assume are true, (but are not) about ancient cultures. It's why historians talk about "Presentism" all the time. Where did you get your graduate degrees in Greek, Hebrew, and Semitic Cultures ? Oh nowhere. You just copy -paste shit, and are unable to actually aregue anything, other than re-post your unsupported assertions. That's not how debate works, Charlie.
Test
Reply
#29

Is God ok with lesbians?
(02-12-2023, 07:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: No it isn't. The REASON for the prohibition has nothing to do with "sex" but power and social position, in Hebrew culture.

And it doesn't make a difference. In effect, same-sex relationship were prohibited or at the very least frowned upon. You are making an interesting, but largely pointless distinction. Plus, I would like to point out that in a strictly patriarchal society like the Hebrews or Greeks gender and sex are understood through the lens of power and social position; there is no separating the two as completely different concepts in their mind. It would be like seperating the State from person of the monarch in an absolute monarchy. Thus, it would be equally incorrect to say it has nothing to do with sex since sex and gender identity are intimately linked to power. These extremely authoritarian and misogynistic societies perceived sexuality as a reflection of power and social standing. How you had sex and with what organs determined your social position in society and vice versa. 

Quote:The FACT IS, there were in Europe in Christianity same-sex UNION rituals and ceremonies, within CHRISTIAN churches.
What ? You never read the news ?


And you certainly know that these traditions were mostly associated with monastic ceremonies and the entire idea that they were romantic or sexual in nature is doubtful in the first place. They could easily be viewed as platonic brother-like relationship as in adopting a brother instead of a child; basically the Antique version of BFF bracelets. There is a difference between ceremonial brotherhood and marriage let alone sexuality. John Boswell is, in my opinion, potentially falling for a presentism in his arguments for early forms of same-sex marriage. In an effort to dispel the myth of the medieval period being sexually extremely repressive, he overcorrects and overstate the evidence. Adelphopoiesis, is, in my opinion and as historian Brent Shaw proposed, best understood as a Christian-friendly version of blood oaths and blood-brotherhood than same-sex relationship let alone same sex marriages. 


Note that a few, extremely rare cases of brotherhood ceremony in late Antiquity and early Middle Ages doesn't erase the mountains of evidence that makes homosexual relationship and intercourse frowned upon if not downright punishable by death; especially after some "medieval hippies" like the Cathars and the Waldensians were declared heretics and slaughtered in mass amongst other thing due to their view on sexuality. Yes, all major Christian dominations be it the Catholic or the Orthodox Church and most of the modern Reformed Churches kept this view of sexuality. No, homosexuality and homosexual relationship were hardly tolerated by Christians with very few rare, and declared heretical, exceptions.
Reply
#30

Is God ok with lesbians?
(02-12-2023, 09:05 PM)epronovost Wrote:
(02-12-2023, 07:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: No it isn't. The REASON for the prohibition has nothing to do with "sex" but power and social position, in Hebrew culture.

And it doesn't make a difference. In effect, same-sex relationship were prohibited or at the very least frowned upon. You are making an interesting, but largely pointless distinction. Plus, I would like to point out that in a strictly patriarchal society like the Hebrews or Greeks gender and sex are understood through the lens of power and social position; there is no separating the two as completely different concepts in their mind. It would be like separating the State from person of the monarch in an absolute monarchy. Thus, it would be equally incorrect to say it has nothing to do with sex since sex and gender identity are intimately linked to power. These extremely authoritarian and misogynistic societies perceived sexuality as a reflection of power and social standing. How you had sex and with what organs determined your social position in society and vice versa. 

Quote:The FACT IS, there were in Europe in Christianity same-sex UNION rituals and ceremonies, within CHRISTIAN churches.
What ? You never read the news ?


And you certainly know that these traditions were mostly associated with monastic ceremonies and the entire idea that they were romantic or sexual in nature is doubtful in the first place. They could easily be viewed as platonic brother-like relationship as in adopting a brother instead of a child; basically the Antique version of BFF bracelets. There is a difference between ceremonial brotherhood and marriage let alone sexuality. John Boswell is, in my opinion, potentially falling for a presentism in his arguments for early forms of same-sex marriage. In an effort to dispel the myth of the medieval period being sexually extremely repressive, he overcorrects and overstate the evidence. Adelphopoiesis, is, in my opinion and as historian Brent Shaw proposed, best understood as a Christian-friendly version of blood oaths and blood-brotherhood than same-sex relationship let alone same sex marriages. 


Note that a few, extremely rare cases of brotherhood ceremony in late Antiquity and early Middle Ages doesn't erase the mountains of evidence that makes homosexual relationship and intercourse frowned upon if not downright punishable by death; especially after some "medieval hippies" like the Cathars and the Waldensians were declared heretics and slaughtered in mass amongst other thing due to their view on sexuality. Yes, all major Christian dominations be it the Catholic or the Orthodox Church and most of the modern Reformed Churches kept this view of sexuality. No, homosexuality and homosexual relationship were hardly tolerated by Christians with very few rare, and declared heretical, exceptions.

You can take that up with Boswell. You also get to support your unsupported historical assertions with references. I see none.
https://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-P...0679751645
How do you know they were "frowned upon" ?
You don't, and if you do, let's see the evidence.
Your assertions are worthless.
Since when are you an expert on early Christian thought and scholarship ?
Test
Reply
#31

Is God ok with lesbians?
(02-12-2023, 09:23 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(02-12-2023, 09:05 PM)epronovost Wrote: And it doesn't make a difference. In effect, same-sex relationship were prohibited or at the very least frowned upon. You are making an interesting, but largely pointless distinction. Plus, I would like to point out that in a strictly patriarchal society like the Hebrews or Greeks gender and sex are understood through the lens of power and social position; there is no separating the two as completely different concepts in their mind. It would be like separating the State from person of the monarch in an absolute monarchy. Thus, it would be equally incorrect to say it has nothing to do with sex since sex and gender identity are intimately linked to power. These extremely authoritarian and misogynistic societies perceived sexuality as a reflection of power and social standing. How you had sex and with what organs determined your social position in society and vice versa. 



And you certainly know that these traditions were mostly associated with monastic ceremonies and the entire idea that they were romantic or sexual in nature is doubtful in the first place. They could easily be viewed as platonic brother-like relationship as in adopting a brother instead of a child; basically the Antique version of BFF bracelets. There is a difference between ceremonial brotherhood and marriage let alone sexuality. John Boswell is, in my opinion, potentially falling for a presentism in his arguments for early forms of same-sex marriage. In an effort to dispel the myth of the medieval period being sexually extremely repressive, he overcorrects and overstate the evidence. Adelphopoiesis, is, in my opinion and as historian Brent Shaw proposed, best understood as a Christian-friendly version of blood oaths and blood-brotherhood than same-sex relationship let alone same sex marriages. 


Note that a few, extremely rare cases of brotherhood ceremony in late Antiquity and early Middle Ages doesn't erase the mountains of evidence that makes homosexual relationship and intercourse frowned upon if not downright punishable by death; especially after some "medieval hippies" like the Cathars and the Waldensians were declared heretics and slaughtered in mass amongst other thing due to their view on sexuality. Yes, all major Christian dominations be it the Catholic or the Orthodox Church and most of the modern Reformed Churches kept this view of sexuality. No, homosexuality and homosexual relationship were hardly tolerated by Christians with very few rare, and declared heretical, exceptions.

You can take that up with Boswell. You also get to support your unsupported historical assertions with references. I see none.

Didn't I specifically quoted a historian disagreeing with Boswell on the point of Adelphopoiesis. Hell, you yourself quoted theologians who disagree with him (and on the point of Christian doctrine, theologians are a relevant authority). 

Do you want me to quote you the entire "criticism" section of Wikipedia on the subject considering you seem to have lifted most of your quotes from it or can we spare ourselves this pointless exercise of "dick measuring" and actually talk about the ideas instead of the quotations. No, the views of Boswell on same-sex union in the early Middle Ages and Late Antiquity are not without critique, far from there. 

I would also like to note that in Western Europe the practice of adelphopoiesis disappeared around the 14th century following a trend in opposition to homosexual relationship becoming stronger and stronger from the 11th century onward. That's well before any modern conception of sexual orientation and it was driven largely by Papal dictates and Christian theologians of the time on moral grounds as in those relationship were viewed as unnatural and sinful. No, Christian theology and doctrine doesn't support, actively discourage if not downright forbids homosexual relationship. 

Uncommon idiosyncratic practices linked to same-sex affection in a religious context are of relative little use when discussing theology too. After all, the Catholic Church became infamous for its practice of selling indulgence yet you will not find any support for such a practice in doctrinal texts nor any serious theologian interpretation. It was a sham and it made a very big splash within Christendom.
Reply
#32

Is God ok with lesbians?
(02-12-2023, 09:43 PM)epronovost Wrote:
(02-12-2023, 09:23 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: You can take that up with Boswell. You also get to support your unsupported historical assertions with references. I see none.

Didn't I specifically quoted a historian disagreeing with Boswell on the point of Adelphopoiesis. Hell, you yourself quoted theologians who disagree with him (and on the point of Christian doctrine, theologians are a relevant authority). 

Do you want me to quote you the entire "criticism" section of Wikipedia on the subject considering you seem to have lifted most of your quotes from it or can we spare ourselves this pointless exercise of "dick measuring" and actually talk about the ideas instead of the quotations. No, the views of Boswell on same-sex union in the early Middle Ages and Late Antiquity are not without critique, far from there. 

I would also like to note that in Western Europe the practice of adelphopoiesis disappeared around the 14th century following a trend in opposition to homosexual relationship becoming stronger and stronger from the 11th century onward. That's well before any modern conception of sexual orientation and it was driven largely by Papal dictates and Christian theologians of the time on moral grounds as in those relationship were viewed as unnatural and sinful. No, Christian theology and doctrine doesn't support, actively discourage if not downright forbids homosexual relationship. 

Uncommon idiosyncratic practices linked to same-sex affection in a religious context are of relative little use when discussing theology too. After all, the Catholic Church became infamous for its practice of selling indulgence yet you will not find any support for such a practice in doctrinal texts nor any serious theologian interpretation. It was a sham and it made a very big splash within Christendom.

You STILL have presented no evidence that were even was a concept of "homosexual" anything. It's (the WORD) a concept of sexual orientation. It DID NOT EXIST until the 19th Century. You people can't seem to get that

Quote:and it was driven largely by Papal dictates and Christian theologians of the time on moral grounds as in those relationship were viewed as unnatural and sinful. No, Christian theology and doctrine doesn't support, actively discourage if not downright forbids homosexual relationship.9

More unsupported assertions. Are you now all of a sudden a qualified scholar on the subject and period. LMAO.
Selling indulgences is totally irrelevant.

Nope. Dismissed.

Brent Shaw : "I am an historian of imperial Rome whose interests have been directed to subjects as diverse as social banditry and family history, but my regionally-based research has usually been focused on the history of the north African provinces of the empire."

Why am I even here wasting my time ?
Test
Reply
#33

Is God ok with lesbians?
(02-10-2023, 09:43 PM)Reltzik Wrote: 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.)

It is all sound theory, as that "projected" god is the only one we know. Very handy for the projectors!
Big Grin
test signature
Reply
#34

Is God ok with lesbians?
(02-12-2023, 10:15 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: You STILL have presented no evidence that were even was a concept of "homosexual" anything. It's (the WORD) a concept of sexual orientation. It DID NOT EXIST until the 19th Century. You people can't seem to get that.

You don't seem to get that I am not making the argument that there was a concept of homosexuality as in the sexual orientation, but that there were what we would qualify homosexual relationship that is two people of the same sex sexually and romantically attracted to one another unless you want to make the claim that gay people appeared in the late 19th century which is absurd.   

You don't seem to get that the absence of knowledge on sexual orientation did not prevent the existence of homosexuals and the persecution of people who are in homosexual relationship and that this persecution was largely encouraged and popularized by Christian doctrine.

Quote:More unsupported assertions. Are you now all of a sudden a qualified scholar on the subject and period. LMAO.
Selling indulgences is totally irrelevant.


No, it's an illustration that doctrine and practice within a religion or even a Church can be divorced and running opposed causing conflict and schisms down the line.

Quote:Nope. Dismissed.

I quoted you three religious figures making specific religious arguments against homosexuality. I also quoted you a very famous pope laws about sodomy.

Fuck Bucky get your fucking head out of your fucking ass. You know what I am referring too. You read and quoted extensively the Wikipedia article on homosexuality in the Middle Ages and the one on adelphopoeisis. In fact there is nothing you have ever said on this thread or in others on the subject that was not directly lifted from Wikipedia. Stop playing your qualification game. You are not a medieval historian. You are not an academic in this domain. You are a dude who read an average quality resumé of the literature on the subject in an online encyclopedia. I don't think anybody on this board is a medieval historian specialized in medieval history of the Catholic or Greek Orthodox Church. Boswell whom you quote is not a specialist of the Greek Orthodox Church history either. He doesn't read Greek very well; that's a criticism he received too. I have read those articles too and within them there is a LOT of historical evidence for the persecution of homosexuals by the Christian orthodoxy based on moral objection and punished by mutilation and even death, but here are a few just for you.

In the 13th century A.D., the theologian Thomas Aquinas was influential in linking condemnations of homosexuality with the idea of natural law, arguing that "special sins are against nature, as, for instance, those that run counter to the intercourse of male and female natural to animals, and so are peculiarly qualified as unnatural vices. Crompton, Louis, Homosexuality and Civilization, Harvard University, 2003. Page 187

"a woman who takes up devilish ways and plays a male role in coupling with another woman is most vile in My sight, and so is she who subjects herself to such a one in this evil deed"  Hildegard of Bingen quoted in Book II Vision 6 of the Scivias

Then there is the entire Liber Gomorrhianus from St Peter Damian.

In the John Boswell own book (Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality), the one you keep quoting, but probably have never read (nor did I), it quotes at page 180 that Pope Gregory III gave a penance of 160 days for "unnatural female acts (same sex incourse)" and 1 year for men with the "passive" partner being punished more severely. Boswell quotes that as "tolerance" since things would get worst afterward. In the same book at pages 289 to 291, Boswell  describes the punishment for those same acts, qualified as unnatural and sinful, as mutilation for first offenders and death by burning for repeat offenders from the Papal restoratio of the 11th century and the Council of Nablus onward.

Do you want more? I can add the criticism on Boswell's work too if you wish.
Reply
#35

Is God ok with lesbians?
(02-12-2023, 10:57 PM)epronovost Wrote:
(02-12-2023, 10:15 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: You STILL have presented no evidence that were even was a concept of "homosexual" anything. It's (the WORD) a concept of sexual orientation. It DID NOT EXIST until the 19th Century. You people can't seem to get that.

You don't seem to get that I am not making the argument that there was a concept of homosexuality as in the sexual orientation, but that there were what we would qualify homosexual relationship that is two people of the same sex sexually and romantically attracted to one another unless you want to make the claim that gay people appeared in the late 19th century which is absurd.   

You don't seem to get that the absence of knowledge on sexual orientation did not prevent the existence of homosexuals and the persecution of people who are in homosexual relationship and that this persecution was largely encouraged and popularized by Christian doctrine.

Quote:More unsupported assertions. Are you now all of a sudden a qualified scholar on the subject and period. LMAO.
Selling indulgences is totally irrelevant.


No, it's an illustration that doctrine and practice within a religion or even a Church can be divorced and running opposed causing conflict and schisms down the line.

Quote:Nope. Dismissed.

I quoted you three religious figures making specific religious arguments against homosexuality. I also quoted you a very famous pope laws about sodomy.

Fuck Bucky get your fucking head out of your fucking ass. You know what I am referring too. You read and quoted extensively the Wikipedia article on homosexuality in the Middle Ages and the one on adelphopoeisis. In fact there is nothing you have ever said on this thread or in others on the subject that was not directly lifted from Wikipedia. Stop playing your qualification game. You are not a medieval historian. You are not an academic in this domain. You are a dude who read an average quality resumé of the literature on the subject in an online encyclopedia. I don't think anybody on this board is a medieval historian specialized in medieval history of the Catholic or Greek Orthodox Church. Boswell whom you quote is not a specialist of the Greek Orthodox Church history either. He doesn't read Greek very well; that's a criticism he received too. I have read those articles too and within them there is a LOT of historical evidence for the persecution of homosexuals by the Christian orthodoxy based on moral objection and punished by mutilation and even death, but here are a few just for you.

In the 13th century A.D., the theologian Thomas Aquinas was influential in linking condemnations of homosexuality with the idea of natural law, arguing that "special sins are against nature, as, for instance, those that run counter to the intercourse of male and female natural to animals, and so are peculiarly qualified as unnatural vices. Crompton, Louis, Homosexuality and Civilization, Harvard University, 2003. Page 187

"a woman who takes up devilish ways and plays a male role in coupling with another woman is most vile in My sight, and so is she who subjects herself to such a one in this evil deed"  Hildegard of Bingen quoted in Book II Vision 6 of the Scivias

Then there is the entire Liber Gomorrhianus from St Peter Damian.

In the John Boswell own book (Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality), the one you keep quoting, but probably have never read (nor did I), it quotes at page 180 that Pope Gregory III gave a penance of 160 days for "unnatural female acts (same sex incourse)" and 1 year for men with the "passive" partner being punished more severely. Boswell quotes that as "tolerance" since things would get worst afterward. In the same book at pages 289 to 291, Boswell  describes the punishment for those same acts, qualified as unnatural and sinful, as mutilation for first offenders and death by burning for repeat offenders from the Papal restoratio of the 11th century and the Council of Nablus onward.

Do you want more? I can add the criticism on Boswell's work too if you wish.

Nope.
I presented two Jewish scholars originally. I don't want or care that you do anything other than you refute their books.
Nor do I care that you say or do anything about the Roman Church.
All I care is that someone qualified, (who is not you) prove to me that the Hebrews and early Christians had "modern" concepts of sexual orientation
using academic references. You're not even in the possible mix. Your lame attempt at using Wiki is not going to stand.
HOW DARE ancient people live according to their understanding and lights, and not the lights of some ignorant moderns ?
HOW DARE THEY ? How dare ANY ancient peoples live according to their understandings ? HOW DARE THEY ?
Of course you all are much more moral and learned to live by YOUR standards. You are so much more virtuous than they.
They ALL SHOULD have known better.
How stupid they all were.

Buh bye.
Test
Reply
#36

Is God ok with lesbians?
(02-12-2023, 11:44 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: All I care is that someone qualified, (who is not you) prove to me that the Hebrews and early Christians had "modern" concepts of sexual orientation
using academic references.

Is it ego or illiteracy? My critique of your position is not based on the fact that Hebrew and early Christian has "modern" concepts of sexual orientation. My critique of your post is that the fact they did not have a "modern" concept of sexual orientation while true is a non sequitur. It doesn't matter. Homosexuals still existed and were still largely persecuted by those same people on moral grounds and those moral grounds were supported by religious beliefs because their sexual practices and desires were considered as going against morality and propriety in those culture. Do you get the difference? 

Homosexuals were persecuted and same-sex intercourse and romantic relationship were at the very least poorly seen if not downright punishable by death. You don't need a modern concept of gender identity and sexual orientation to reject, oppose and oppress homosexuals and that's the question: "Does God or X religion or Church mandate in its doctrine the rejection or even oppression of non-heterosexuals?".
Reply
#37

Is God ok with lesbians?
(02-13-2023, 12:55 AM)epronovost Wrote:
(02-12-2023, 11:44 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: All I care is that someone qualified, (who is not you) prove to me that the Hebrews and early Christians had "modern" concepts of sexual orientation
using academic references.

Is it ego or illiteracy? My critique of your position is not based on the fact that Hebrew and early Christian has "modern" concepts of sexual orientation. My critique of your post is that the fact they did not have a "modern" concept of sexual orientation while true is a non sequitur. It doesn't matter. Homosexuals still existed and were still largely persecuted by those same people on moral grounds and those moral grounds were supported by religious beliefs because their sexual practices and desires were considered as going against morality and propriety in those culture. Do you get the difference? 

Homosexuals were persecuted and same-sex intercourse and romantic relationship were at the very least poorly seen if not downright punishable by death. You don't need a modern concept of gender identity and sexual orientation to reject, oppose and oppress homosexuals and that's the question: "Does God or X religion or Church mandate in its doctrine the rejection or even oppression of non-heterosexuals?".

It's neither. Did you even fucking read the OP and my response to it ?
No.
You have no clue what you're even talking about.

Quote:My critique of your position is not based on the fact that Hebrew and early Christian has "modern" concepts of sexual orientation.

I couldn't give two shits.

The POINT is the OP

Quote:
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?

THAT is the OP.
What you attempted to turn it in to, is no concern of mine.
Yes it's illiteracy, .... on your part, who didn't even fucking bother to read the OP.

Whatever they were doing and what YOU think they were doing was not "homosexuality".
The concept and word did not exist in the history of human ideas until the 19th Century.
I get you're wedded to your Presentism.
No one can help you get over that.
Test
Reply
#38

Is God ok with lesbians?
(02-13-2023, 01:00 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: I couldn't give two shits.

The POINT is the OP

I never was replying to the OP and the passages in the OP are biblical passages decrying homosexual intercourse amongst men and being against homosexual intercourse is of course fundamentally anti-gay and anti gay-marriage as the OP accurately described. As for the OP's point about lesbian sexual intercourse, on which you failed to comment on and address, a correct answer could have been that homosexual intercourse amongst women were not condemned in the OT, but it is mentioned in rabbinical literature and also condemned by flagellation rather than the death penalty according to Encyclopedia Judaica. The Sifra condemns marriages between two women too and is apparently the only piece of classical rabbinical literature to explicitly do so. 

If you are not and never were concerned with my critique of your opinion, then don't. Take the criticism on the nose and move on don't demand proof of something I never supported or invent medieval homosexual marriages based on a pretty shady reading of one historian of a rare practice of blood brotherhood in early medieval western Europe all which plucked from Wikipedia.
Reply
#39

Is God ok with lesbians?
(02-13-2023, 01:26 AM)epronovost Wrote: I never was replying to the OP and the passages in the OP are biblical passages decrying homosexual intercourse amongst men and being against homosexual intercourse is of course fundamentally anti-gay and anti gay-marriage as the OP accurately described. 


They are not. You're using ignorantly, MODERN concepts to describe INACCURATELY ancient understandings of human behavior.
You have not one shred of evidence there was any word such as "homosexual" or "sexual orientation" or "homosexual" anything
before Psychology invented them in them 19th Century. When you get an education, you will learn that's called "presentism".
If you have any, then post it. You won't because they didn't exist at the time of the Bible or Medieval Europe. This is the typical ignorant unschooled reading of the Bible and religious concepts. interpreted in light of modern day thinking, ignorance of the science of Human Sexuality, History, and cultural history.

pres·ent·ism
/ˈpreznˌ(t)iz(ə)m/
noun
uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts

That's what you're doing. You really should accept your erroneous mistaken bullshit here, and give it up.
Where did you get your degrees in History and Ancient Semitic Languages and Cultures ?

There is not one instance of the word "homosexuality" in the Bible, and even the Roman church did not use the concept or word until the 20th Century, when it started saying "orientation" was not sinful, but the actions were, (if acted upon). Too bad neither you nor the OP knows anything about the Roman Church's theology, or have any education in Biblical Studies or any Ancient History.

Since my references, Friedmann and Dolanskty, both PhD scholars, well-recognized, respected and widely written on the subject, agree with me, and you are a scholar of nothing, and have no expertise *at all* in any relevant subject, I'll take their writings as legit, until you can refute them. I won't be holding my breath.
Test
Reply
#40

Is God ok with lesbians?
(02-13-2023, 01:43 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: They are not. You're using ignorantly, MODERN concepts to describe INACCURATELY ancient understandings of human behavior.
You have not one shred of evidence there was any word such as "homosexual" or "sexual orientation" or "homosexual" anything
before Psychology invented them in them 19th Century. When you get an education, you will learn that's called "presentism".
If you have any, then post it. You won't because they didn't exist at the time of the Bible or Medieval Europe. This is the typical ignorant unschooled reading of the Bible and religious concepts. interpreted in light of modern day thinking, ignorance of the science of Human Sexuality, History, and cultural history.  

pres·ent·ism
/ˈpreznˌ(t)iz(ə)m/
noun
uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts

That's what you're doing. You really should accept your erroneous mistaken bullshit here, and give it up.
Where did you get you degrees in History and Ancient Semitic Languages and Cultures ?

There is not one instance of the word "homosexuality" in the Bible, and even the Roman church did not use the concept or word until the 20th Century, when it started saying "orientation" was not sinful, but the actions were, (if acted upon). Too bad neither you nor the OP knows anything about the Roman Church's theology, (either).

Jesus, you learned a word in the dictionary and now you are using it wrong in all occasion. Fuck the entire concept of the OP is to make an appeal to presentism. It's in the same category of "What do you think Plato would think of fascism?". Of course Ancient Greek philosophers had no concept of fascism, but based on their writings, values, culture, etc. you can at least make a good guess of what they would think of it should we be able to wide back the clock teach them about it and ask their opinion about it. Of course it's presentism. It's the point of the conversation.

Homosexual intercourse is the term used to describe two persons of the same sex engaged in sexual activity. That's a descriptor. It is a word that accurately conveys a specific meaning which is a description of a type of sexual act. I don't need to use their word and their understanding of sexuality to describe the exact same behavior: two guys or gals fucking one another. Call it sodomy, homosexual intercourse, nashim mesolelot (that's tribadism in Ancient Hebrew btw), it still describe the same set of behavior.  

Ancient people, despite the fact they had no such analogous terms in their own language were still familiar with the concept of two people of the same sex having sexual intercourse. They did not call it homosexuality or homosexual intercourse of course as those were alien concepts, but they certainly knew of the practice and certainly sanctioned it nonetheless. You don't need to understand or know much about sexuality to oppress people, you just need to sanction some sexual practices. That Hebrews did not know about sexual orientation as a scientific concept is beside the point. They still had sexual orientations themselves. They didn't think in those exact terms and concept, but that is not particularly important to the OP.

Ancient Hebrew still frowned against homosexual behaviors and in many cases put to death the people who practiced it. You can hardly have homosexuality without homosexual practices; homosexuality is a sexual orientation and sexual orientation implies more than feelings, urges, desires and attractions, it also involves sexual practices, the actualization of those feelings, urges, desires and attraction. Sexuality is more than thoughts it's also a whole lot of behaviors. They frowned against and rejected the practices that make a homosexual person "homosexual" in our modern language. It's not because the conception didn't exist in another language or in a specific culture that it didn't exist. Ancient Hebrew didn't understand anything about genetics, but they sure as shit practiced selective breeding with their animals. Genes meant nothing to them, but they certainly tried to pass down traits and had a concept of hereditary. The same goes for sexuality. Yes, their understanding of sexuality was rather primitive and based on their patriarchal social structure, but they still had sexual mores and norms and people who had sex with others of the same sex were in opposition to those norms and mores. Their level of punishment varied in times and places, but is undeniable. 

Saying that Ancient Hebrew didn't oppose homosexuality because they had no understanding of that term is rather ridiculous if not downright apologetic when one takes into account that Ancient Hebrew killed men who had sex with other men and flogged women who had sex with other women. That's exactly what "opposing homosexuality" looks like at its nastiest. That they didn't have a conception of homosexuality is beside the point; homosexuals as in "people who have sex with people of the same gender" were still getting oppressed. 

The way you are currently phrasing your argument, you are implying that homosexuals as in people who are attracted and have sexual and romantic relationship with partners of the same sex could not exist prior to the late 19th century. This is absurd. You are also implying that homosexuality has nothing to do with same-sex sexual intercourse which is even more absurd. If you are against same-sex sexual intercourse, and Ancient Hebrew and Christians both were, you are against what we would now call homosexuality.

Furthermore, the OP doesn't specifically talks about Ancient Hebrews either. It's talking about all the people who are using and believing in those religious texts and the doctrines that stems from them. Modern orthodox jews certainly have a modern understanding of sexuality and certainly still wish to oppress homosexual based on those passages which clearly rejects the behavior of homosexuals. The same goes for Christian so in a sense, it's not even presentism. That's how those passages have been translated and interpretated down the centuries and it aligns with a consistent view on sexual mores and norms. It aligns perfectly with a "no to same-sex intercourse", "same-sex desire are to be ignored and repressed" and "sex is to produce children first and foremost" that has been in circulation since the Iron Age. The development of our knowledge and conceptualization of sexuality has not affected nor changed to views of traditionalists on same-sex sexual relationship.
Reply
#41

Is God ok with lesbians?
.
Bucky Ball, that easily makes a fool of himself because he just doesn't "get it,"


Listen up for the LAST TIME, I do not give a rat's ass in the history of your boring non-relative dissertation that you presented because it does not relate to what the JUDEO-Christian Bible says AS LITERALLY WRITTEN relative to homosexuality in the following passages shown, AGAIN!

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)


At your expense AGAIN, the above passages in the Bible are ANTI-GAY, AS WRITTEN, no matter in what the God Damn irrelative history that you keep proposing! STOP! 

Therefore when you said there is no anti-gay passages in the Bible, as written, you were embarrassingly wrong, no matter what your irrelative history stated to the said as written passages! STOP! 

The pseudo-christian does not need an addendum to their bibles of the history that you proposed, because they are reading it literally as written! STOP!  

Is it customary for preachers to read passages, and then they say, "but, according to Bucky Ball, we need to read the history that makes these passages wrong." no they do not! STOP!

Now, pretend a pseudo-christian is reading the passages above regarding what Jesus' words said about homosexuals, where they are to be murdered, and their blood shall be upon them, where these ungodly people will not go to heaven, or they are worthy of death! STOP! 

Now, when the pseudo-christian is shown that Jesus inspired said passages of putting to death the homosexual, then He is not all loving and forgiving as they are taught on Sunday mornings, STOP! 

Then they are shown that they are worshipping a Jesus, as god, that is a murderer in this one of many bible situations, then I and other Atheists move in for the kill where there will be a "clean up" in isle 666 subsequent to us Bible Slapping them Silly, STOP!

You are just not getting it, where I use the impetus of their faith, the JUDEO-Christian Bible to make them fools where when I am done with them, they have no place to go, other than to HIDE! STOP! 



YOUR PATHETIC DUMBFOUNDED QUOTE TO MY MAIN PREMISE: "LOL, so you take everything in the Babble literally. Such a fool."

YES! In taking the Bible literally, even though I do not believe in it, is where the Atheist like me can show how STUPID the pseudo-christians are in the 21st century and embarrass and disparage them with their God's own words!  GET IT FOOL? DUH! 


Now, go wipe the proverbial egg from your face AGAIN, and for you to save further embarrassment, DO NOT address my posts anymore because you do not have the wherewithal to understand that you are DENSE to my topic at hand in how I make pseudo-christians the fools that they are through the literal word of their bibles, do you understand? Maybe? Just a little bit? Yes?  LOL!



NEXT DUMBFOUNDED ATHEIST LIKE "BUCKY BALL" THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE REASONING TO UNDERSTAND MY SIMPLE PROPOSITION TO MAKE PSEUDO-CHRISTIANS THE FOOLS THAT THEY ARE THROUGH THEIR BIBLES, WILL BE ... ?


.
Reply
#42

Is God ok with lesbians?
.
epronovost,

Your quotes in only one post of yours to the obvious mentally challenged “Bucky Ball;”

1. “You don't seem to get that I am not making the argument that there was a concept of homosexuality as in the sexual orientation, …”

2. “You don't seem to get that the absence of knowledge on sexual orientation did not prevent the existence of homosexuals ….”

3. “Fuck Bucky get your fucking head out of your fucking ass.”

4. “Do you want more?”


As explicitly seen, I am having the same problem with this inept weakmindness member named Bucky Ball as shown in my following links:

https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid392209

https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid392142


Do you think that the moderators have this Bucky Ball Character in this forum as a ruse, and a joke, just too upset the normal and logical practice of presenting our arguments against religion in general? This is because nobody in the likes of a Bucky Ball can be this boneheaded in not being able to understand simple logical deductions that we present!

.
Reply
#43

Is God ok with lesbians?
(02-13-2023, 05:43 PM)Iconoclast Wrote: .
epronovost,

Your quotes in only one post of yours to the obvious mentally challenged “Bucky Ball;”

1. “You don't seem to get that I am not making the argument that there was a concept of homosexuality as in the sexual orientation, …”

2. “You don't seem to get that the absence of knowledge on sexual orientation did not prevent the existence of homosexuals ….”

3. “Fuck Bucky get your fucking head out of your fucking ass.”

4. “Do you want more?”


As explicitly seen, I am having the same problem with this inept weakmindness member named Bucky Ball as shown in my following links:

https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid392209

https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid392142


Do you think that the moderators have this Bucky Ball Character in this forum as a ruse, and a joke, just too upset the normal and logical practice of presenting our arguments against religion in general? This is because nobody in the likes of a Bucky Ball can be this boneheaded in not being able to understand simple logical deductions that we present!

.

Goodness sweetie, ... don't pop your aneurysm.
What an ignorant fool.
Maybe some day you'll get an education.
Your unsupported ASSERTIONS are proof of nothing. Not ONE point in my references have you even challenged.
You do seem to have a great deal invested in your Jebus anger. Have you thought of getting help ?
Writing in ALL CAPS doesn't make your ignorant unsupported opinionated bullshit true.
Test
Reply
#44

Is God ok with lesbians?
epronovost,
I repeat my question.
Where did you get your PhD in Ancient Semitic Languages and cultures ?
You (both) have not rebutted one idea in the references I posted.
Nothing at all.

Just proves atheists can be as ignorant and pig-headed as any devout Christian.
LMAO.

I stand by absolutely every single word I wrote, which was copied from papers I wrote and got "A"s in in graduate school.
Neither one of you have even a 3rd Grade education in any relevant topic.

Neither of you have engaged or answered in ANY concept in the references I posted.
Neither of you have proven ANY culture had the concept of sexual orientation" 2000 -3000 years before there even was a field of Psychology.

Ta ta.
Test
Reply
#45

Is God ok with lesbians?
(02-14-2023, 01:54 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: epronovost,
I repeat my question.
Where did you get your PhD in Ancient Semitic Languages and cultures ?
You (both) have not rebutted one idea in the references I posted.
Nothing at all.

What Idea? That Ancient Hebrew didn't have an understanding and conception of sexuality based on sexual orientation which is reflected in their language which doesn't contain a direct equivalent to "homosexual" or "homosexuality"? For the fourth time, this is accurate and completely true, yet completely irrelevant to the question of how did Ancient Hebrew perceived same-sex sexual intercourse; specifically two women having sexual intercourse together; what we today refer to as lesbianism. I do not need nor want to refute these assertions first because I think they are correct, second because I think they are irrelevant to the question. They are an interesting factoid without much relevance to the OP. You don't seem understand that you are being criticized by me not on the basis of the accuracy of your claim, but their relevance.

The OP isn't concerned so much to how did Ancient Hebrew perceived and understood sexuality nor even as to the rational behind Ancient Hebrews sexual mores, traditions and taboos which is where your points on Ancient Hebrew culture as to how it relates to questions of sexuality would have been insightful. In a question how Jews and Christians (no clear specific as to which one's and from which era) view lesbianism or female same-sex sexual intercourse in general, this point loses pretty much all interest until the "why" are explored at least.

The reality is that there is solid evidence within classical rabbinical literature that decries same-sex sexual intercourse and punishment for it can be quite severe if not downright cruel. Where Ancient Hebrews would differ from Medieval Christians on this issue, despite sharing a lot of scripture in common was as to why they opposed such practices and behaviors and this where your points on Ancient Hebrews views become valuable and interesting.  

PS: Can you please not go so low as to brag about your college grades. It's not like anybody cares or could verify that sort of claim. It's even more ridiculous when you take into account you should know by now I am a history college teacher and I did published in university presses myself. It's petty at best and at worst credentialism at its worst. You know better than that.
Reply
#46

Is God ok with lesbians?
Quote:Homosexual intercourse is the term used to describe two persons of the same sex engaged in sexual activity..

It is today. The word "homosexual" did not exist in Ancient Israel. The concept of "orientation" did not exist.
The word "homosexual" involves/implies the concept of "orientation", and is a modern word. That idea did not exist until the 19th Century.
You seem to be unable to escape your presentism.
Slapping the word and concept onto ancient writing is Presentism.
It's like talking about one of the crazier prophets as being/having a very exact form of psychopathy and implying the ancient Jews knew all about that.

Quote:You are making an interesting, but largely pointless distinction.

No.
Unless the distinction is made, you get insane angry nut cases like Iconoclast, who understand nothing about the cultures that produced the texts, who are just as bad as the literalist Fundamentalist Christians.

Quote:the fact they did not have a "modern" concept of sexual orientation while true is a non sequitur. It doesn't matter. Homosexuals still existed and were still largely persecuted by those same people on moral grounds and those moral grounds were supported by religious beliefs because their sexual practices and desires were considered as going against morality and propriety in those culture. Do you get the difference?

No.
You need to learn what a non-sequitur is. That is not one. People which today would be called "homosexuals" did exist, but it wasn't today and the OP cited Leviticus.  
There were also bisexuals, who are not "homosexuals", and every sort of sexuality on the Kinsey scales, .... but the REASON the cultures forbade the behaviors was not about sex. At least in Hebrew culture it was not.

What you're describing is same-sex behavior, (and in fact one certain kind of same-sex behavior).
Of course they forbade it. Almost  all ancient cultures did. The point I made was "why" they forbade it.
That distinction seems to FINALLY sunk into your brain.

Quote:What Idea? That Ancient Hebrew didn't have an understanding and conception of sexuality based on sexual orientation which is reflected in their language which doesn't contain a direct equivalent to "homosexual" or "homosexuality"? For the fourth time, this is accurate and completely true, yet completely irrelevant to the question of how did Ancient Hebrew perceived same-sex sexual intercourse.

Quote:Homosexual intercourse is the term used to describe two persons of the same sex engaged in sexual activity. That's a descriptor. It is a word that accurately conveys a specific meaning which is a description of a type of sexual act. I don't need to use their word and their understanding of sexuality to describe the exact same behavior: two guys or gals fucking one another. Call it sodomy, homosexual intercourse, nashim mesolelot (that's tribadism in Ancient Hebrew btw), it still describe the same set of behavior.  

Yes you do if you're trying to talk about ancient cultures. You can't slap a modern word and concept on their ancient texts if you wish to be accurate.
You affirmed the garbage in Iconoclasts posts, and in fact "bolded" her use of the word "homosexual" and now your trying to weasel out of those affirmations.  

Quote:PS: Can you please not go so low as to brag about your college grades. It's not like anybody cares or could verify that sort of claim. It's even more ridiculous when you take into account you should know by now I am a history college teacher and I did published in university presses myself. It's petty at best and at worst credentialism at its worst. You know better than that.

Of course you use and assume the worst possible reason for that. If I need any advice from the likes of you, I'll be sure and ask.
Are you always this pedantic and patronizing ?
The reason I referenced them was they show that the faculty totally agreed with and approved of what I wrote.
Test
Reply
#47

Is God ok with lesbians?
.
Bucky Ball, whose lack of reading comprehension is beyond reason,

Subsequent to me easily making you the fool within this esteemed Atheist Discussion forum because of your total lack of reading comprehension in my post #41, that many agree with as shown in this link alone, what part of my statement to your laughable ineptness didn't’ you understand shown below:

“DO NOT address my posts anymore because you do not have the wherewithal to understand that you are DENSE to my topic at hand in how I make pseudo-christians the fools that they are through the literal word of their bibles, do you understand? Maybe? Just a little bit? Yes?  LOL!”


Now, be a good little boy and take your “Dog and Pony Show” to a Children’s Atheist Forum where you will be more at home with “kids,” that act the age that you do in this forum, do you understand?  

We understand that every forum has to have a member like you that “Is what they pretend to be,” of which, you pretend to be an intellectual, which is the farthest from the truth because you DO NOT have any reading comprehension skills whatsoever as shown, period!


Now, do this forum a favor and join the following “Online Reading Comprehension Class” so as not to make yourself the continued fool, okay?  Here is the link: https://www.time4learning.com/homeschool...nsion.html



NEXT DUMBFOUNDED ATHEIST LIKE “BUCKY BALL” THAT “IS WHO HE PRETENDS TO BE,” AND HAS VERY POOR READING COMPREHENSION, WILL BE, … ?

.
Reply
#48

Is God ok with lesbians?
(02-14-2023, 05:03 PM)Iconoclast Wrote: .
Bucky Ball, whose lack of reading comprehension is beyond reason,

Subsequent to me easily making you the fool within this esteemed Atheist Discussion forum because of your total lack of reading comprehension in my post #41, that many agree with as shown in this link alone, what part of my statement to your laughable ineptness didn't’ you understand shown below:

“DO NOT address my posts anymore because you do not have the wherewithal to understand that you are DENSE to my topic at hand in how I make pseudo-christians the fools that they are through the literal word of their bibles, do you understand? Maybe? Just a little bit? Yes?  LOL!”


Now, be a good little boy and take your “Dog and Pony Show” to a Children’s Atheist Forum where you will be more at home with “kids,” that act the age that you do in this forum, do you understand?  

We understand that every forum has to have a member like you that “Is what they pretend to be,” of which, you pretend to be an intellectual, which is the farthest from the truth because you DO NOT have any reading comprehension skills whatsoever as shown, period!


Now, do this forum a favor and join the following “Online Reading Comprehension Class” so as not to make yourself the continued fool, okay?  Here is the link: https://www.time4learning.com/homeschool...nsion.html



NEXT DUMBFOUNDED ATHEIST LIKE “BUCKY BALL” THAT “IS WHO HE PRETENDS TO BE,” AND HAS VERY POOR READING COMPREHENSION, WILL BE, … ?

Yes dear, .... whatever you say sweetie.
Whatever you say.
The only one you're making a fool is yourself, as you have already done.
(Speaking of "comprehension" you really should look up the word "dumfounded" It doesn't mean whet you think it does.)
Are you like 12 years old ?
BTW, in one of your last posts, you said "for the last time" .... bla bla bla.
Please stop lying.
If only that were true. You take the prize for the best troll so far this year.

When you grow up and get all big an shit, you will realize that ignorant trolls
who say things like "
Quote:We understand that every forum has to have a member like you that “Is what they pretend to be,” of which, you pretend to be an intellectual, which is the farthest from the truth because you DO NOT have any reading comprehension skills whatsoever as shown, period!
just mean they're frustrated because people don't agree with them. Unfortunately for you, I have a ten+ year history with some of these people and some of them know me personally. So you're out of luck with your bullshit.

Also you must be some fearful, timid thing, as obviously you think no one will pay attention o your rubbish unless you SHOUT it and use a huge font.
LMAO

Now run along outside and play sweetie.
Test
Reply
#49

Is God ok with lesbians?
(02-14-2023, 03:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: It is today. The word "homosexual" did not exist in Ancient Israel. The concept of "orientation" did not exist.
The word "homosexual" involves/implies the concept of "orientation", and is a modern word. That idea did not exist until the 19th Century.
You seem to be unable to escape your presentism.
Slapping the word and concept onto ancient writing is Presentism.
It's like talking about one of the crazier prophets as being/having a very exact form of psychopathy and implying the ancient Jews knew all about that.

They did not have a word for homosexual, but they had homosexuals (they didn't call them like that or maybe didn't even had a specialised word for them, but they still existed). We did not invent homosexuals in the late 19th century we discovered the concept of sexual orientation. No, homosexual doesn't imply by necessity sexual orientation. It can be used as an adjective to describe same-sex sexual practices for example. Ancient Hebrew very clearly knew that there were people who enjoyed sexual intercourse with people of the same sex than them or even who would seek exclusively this type of sexual encounter. These people are homosexuals and they did not accepted their behavior.

Presentism would be implying that Ancient Hebrew understood sexual orientation; they did not. It's not presentism to say that they oppressed homosexuals (and bisexual people engaged in homosexual acts too if you want to be more inculsive); they did kill men who had sex with other men and flogged women who had sex with other women. That's viciously oppressive. Homosexuality was not a concept of the time, but it still existed back then too. It's not presentism to say how Ancient Hebrew view homosexuals by extend homosexuality since, while they had no understanding of those concepts and did not talk about it in those terms, these realities still existed. Sexual orientation wasn't invented; it was discovered.

Quote:Unless the distinction is made, you get insane angry nut cases like Iconoclast, who understand nothing about the cultures that produced the texts, who are just as bad as the literalist Fundamentalist Christians.

From a litterary and theological perspective, which is what's being discussed by the OP, sacred texts don't strictly belong to their authors or their culture. Their interpretation is in flux as the society who relay them changes their meaning and their perception. That's a normal organic process. Ancient Hebrews are not "better/more accurate Jews" than today's Jews and the same goes for Christians. Not that Jews or Christians were more monolithic in the past than the present.

No Ancient Hebrew and modern ultraorthodoxes Jews don't perceive sexuality in the same way. Both detest homosexuals though. The reason why has changed over the years though not as much as one might think, but this hatred of same-sex relationship while different doesn't come out of nowhere. In both case it's directly linked to their patriarchal social structure though there is a case to be made about sexual purity for them too. Ancient Hebrews did view "wasting semen" as a moral crime and male masturbation is called a crime for this reason. You're supposed to jizz in your wife not anywhere else.

While Judaism, ancient or modern doesn't have a strong ascetic current, in the Middle Ages, European Jews did adopt a similar view to sexuality than their Christian neighbors on sexuality which must be something done out of necessity and for procreation only not for pleasure (and homosexual sexual intercourse was perceived as for pleasure only). It was the case for the Nachmanides. Note that in the 12th century the perceptions of sexuality had not changed much and we are still a far cry from the discovery of concepts like sexual orientation. So no, even for Jews, there is still a case to be made about an opposition to homosexual intercourse based on sexual morality and taboo though a weaker one, especially when it comes down to Jews in Antiquity as opposed to the Middle Ages. It is my opinion that the current opposition to homosexuality by traditionalist and conservative branches of judaism is derived from this "sexual purity" and "no wasting of semen" sexual rules that was minor in Antiquity, but gained popularity during hte Middle Ages to become dominant as changes to the tribal structure of the family, a loosening of patriarchal rule and a new framework of comprehension of sexuality arised and made the former justification far less convincing.    

Quote:No.
You need to learn what a non-sequitur is. That is not one. People which today would be called "homosexuals" did exist, but it wasn't today and the OP cited Leviticus.  
There were also bisexuals, who are not "homosexuals", and every sort of sexuality on the Kinsey scales, .... but the REASON the cultures forbade the behaviors was not about sex. At least in Hebrew culture it was not.

I would sorta disagree with this bolded statement though it might be a pedantic distinction. I do think it was about sex; more specifically gender roles and dynamics. The problem the Ancient Hebrew saw in male homosexuality was that "it made a woman out of a man" and that's linked to sexual dynamics and roles thus, in my opinion, it's linked to sex. 


Quote:Are you always this pedantic and patronizing ?

The pot calls the kettle black.
Reply
#50

Is God ok with lesbians?
Since I did not find anywhere in the rules that a member should not bring forth derogatory messages sent to them, therefore, I bring forth this message that I received from the infamous “Bucky Ball.”


Bucky Ball ( 32 ) - Last updated Yesterday, 06:00 PM
Negative (-1): Ignorant angry troll. Look asshole, I've been here for more than 10 years, .... you for ten minutes. Go fuck yourself.


Oh my!  As shown in “Bucky Ball's” message above to me, he is getting so upset because of the obvious truth that I present to him in being a fool upon this forum because of his total lack of reading comprehension skills as I have shown in my posts to him.

Then he admits that he has been here for 10 years, assumably as a badge of honor, but when shown that he cannot comprehend simple propositions of mine, and with other members as well, then Bucky Ball has been here 10 years too long!  LOL!

The only thing that Bucky Ball is good for in my presence, is that I will correct his Bible Stupidity at will, where he will learn from me, and he can thank me later in return for "schooling him."


NEXT PSEUDO-ATHEIST LIKE "BUCKY BALL" THAT DOES NOT HAVE READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS, WAIT! NEVER MIND, BECAUSE NO ONE CAN REPLACE BUCKY BALL'S TOTAL LACK OF READING COMPREHENSION AS SHOWN THROUGHOUT THIS THREAD!!! LOL!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)