Leauki posts:

Again, same-sex "marriage" is part of the homosexualists offensive to impose a moral revolution. The homosexual movement is attempting to make the immoral moral. The only thing today that stands in the way is Christianity.  In order for the homosexualists to acheive their goal and shatter religious opposition to homosexuality, they must cast liberal teachings against traditional teachings of Christianity. 

It has always been known through Natural Law, the Biblical record, as well as the writings of the Church Fathers that the cities were burned with fire from Heaven becasue of the sin of homosexuality. This has always been clear and the only way around this obstacle is to find theologians and writers influenced who change the focus of the chastisement from sodomy to other sins. In this way they dilute or deny the gravity of unnatural vice as one of the "sins that cries out to Heaven for vengence." Gen. 19:13.

Hebraic, (biblical) Judaism certainly condemned sodomy and there is no merit whatsoever for the Talmudists to teach Sodom was punished for inhospitality (as you claim).

Morality is subjective.  What is moral to you may be immoral to another, and vice versa.

The mormon's once taught that slavery and/or segregation was justified because their religious text said it was, did that make slavery and/or segregation right?  They have since changed their ways, but it took a while.

This is the same kind of thing.

really?  Where?  Funny El-D you seem to know so much about scripture that you don't read. 

No Leauki.  Wrong.  I'm about as literal as they come and this passage taken literally reads pretty simply.  You're making it much harder by reading into it what you want to read into it.  In fact in all my years of studying the bible I've never ever heard it interpreted the way you bring up.  I've read Genesis probably at least 50 times over the last 40 years and studied it at length at least half that amount. 

well you just contradicted yourself.  You're saying that it has nothing to do with homosexuality but yet you admit that the men of the town wanted to have (rough) sex with male angels?  Isn't that a contradiction?  And we're retarded?  On top of that I find it quite amazing how dogmatic you are and how knowledgable about this subject you are when you already admitted you hadn't read the passage in what...20 years?  Quite interesting.....you're making my head hurt.  Yet I just got done reading Genesis (month of January) and I know not what I'm talking about? 

You are very naive when it comes to your grandparents......believe me grandparents have sex!  I "know" that for sure. 

Why don't you ask them and get back to us? 

no, one does not choose to be a slave....but one does choose whom to have sex with. 

God has the truth.  And he's given us plenty of proof.  His fingerprints are everywhere.  But that's another subject and getting off the trail. 

But you don't choose who you are attracted to.

And I was talking about a religion saying that one thing is ok when clearly it was not, why can't that be extrapolated to apply to our current discussion?

Just because I don't study the bible doesn't mean that I have read it.  I may not be able to quote chapter and verse but I remember a few things here and there.  I don't have a bible here with me so I can't find the exact quote but if I remember when I get home I'll find the parts of leviticus that refer to other things as abominations.

Please do. 

What has that got to do with anything?  I'm a married woman.  I've been attracted to other men in my married life  but I have chosen NOT to act on it. 

Doing so would be a sin. 

It's the same with homosexuality. 

And you are working in the framework of moral relativism which removes an absolute standard by which to judge sexual conduct.

Are the sexual practices of homosexuals a socially acceptable form of behavior? Do we want our children to experiment with homosexuality?

Homosexuality is a deathstyle...the results are death, disease and unhappiness. Homosexuality, especially male, is created around anonymous sexual encounters. Long term partners are rare and even among "married', the cheating ratio is high. Promiscuity begets diseases as does anal intercourse becasue the rectal wall is thin and easily results in tears, infection or worse. Drug use as a sexual enhancer is widespread in homosexual communities.  

Great.

Can you now answer my question:

Can you explain in detail please how the Talmudists of the second century and Rabbi Nachmanides of the 13th century were influenced by or hoping to advance the "modern homosexualist, hedonist agenda"?

I really believe folks here might benefit from watching the following You Tube clip (tho slightly OT...sorry Zu):

HERE

The word is "know".

Is it true or false that you read that word as "have sex with"?

Is it true or false that "literal" means "taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory"?

Is it true of false that the "usual or most basic sense" of "know" is "know"?

Is it true or false that reading "know" as "have sex with" is reading the word with metaphor or allegory?

Is it, again, true or false that "literal" means "taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory"?

KFC POSTS #30

Leauki,

Since Sacred Scripture (both the Old and New Testament) bears this out, it's absolutely true..however, you said in post 33,

and claimed the Talmudists and a 13th century rabbis' teaching as your proof.

I already have....

In order for the homosexualists to acheive their goal of making the immoral practice of homosexuality moral and shatter religious opposition to homosexuality, they must cast liberal teachings against traditional teachings of Old Testament Hebraic Judaism and Christianity.

It has always been clearly understood by the Biblical record as well as the writings of the Church Fathers that the cities were burned with fire from Heaven because of the wickedness and abomination of homosexuality. The only way around this obstacle is to find theologians and writers who change the focus of the chastisement from sodomy to other sins. (You have obviously found the Talmudists and the 13th century Rabbi).

Hebraic (Biblical) Judaism as well as Jewish Scripture (God's truth) certainly condemned sodomy and there is no merit whatsoever for the Talmudists or the 13th century Rabbi to teach that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for inhospitality (as you claim they did).

No, you haven't.

Can you explain in detail please how the Talmudists of the second century and Rabbi Nachmanides of the 13th century were influenced by or hoping to advance the "modern homosexualist, hedonist agenda"?

And the only way around the obstacle of not finding one's prejudices confirmed by the Bible is to find theologians and writers who read "know" as "have sex with". And I am not saying that "church fathers" did not also attempt to confirm their prejudices using the Hebrew Bible.

The fact is that thousands of years ago people already understood the Sodom and Gamora story in the way I do. You said that it is a modern interpretation done by, apparently, some homosexual lobby (which I am apparently a part of, for some reason). And I ask you why a rabbi who lived in the 13th century would care about a 21st century gay lobby when interpreting the Hebrew Bible?

To me it's obvious that rabbi Nachmanides felt a need to lecture about the virtue of hospitality. And to me that makes sense because that's a rabbi's job, reminding us to be good. I see no evidence at all that he had a gay agenda or anything like that.

and I can show you this comment you just made is not correct.  Just because you picked out a Jewish Rabbi in the 13th century who chose to opine his reason for this destruction does not make your case.  It was clear that the early church fathers and writers of the first century believed this was a case of sexual pervision....I can give you  perhaps hundreds of bible commentators who saw this clearly as a sexual problem not a hospitality problem.  

Like I keep saying just read the whole context.  It's quite clear.  You're getting caught up in one word "know" which you already have admitted (and rightly so) that it's also used in a sexual way....as in Adam "knew" his wife and she conceived. 

Besides Leauki....you keep saying it's a hospitality problem (and it's not completely wrong but it's gross inhospitality)and we can see quite clearly (from plain reading of the text) that Lot offered to wash their feet, house and feed them before they even stepped into the city.  On top of that you even admitted these (homosexuals) men out side the city wanted to "know" these angels better.  Well coming from your POV wouldn't that be a hospitable thing to do? 

Where in the world can you even get this is a hospitality problem when we can see quite clearly it's not.  These angels had a place to lodge, food to eat, their feet washed and the townsfolks wanted to "know" (your definition) them better. 

You protest too much, Leauki. Wasn't it you who wrote in #55,

As KFC has already said, it doesn't have to do with the person's mindset...Read the passage in context and the phrase, "that we might know them" can be understood as nothing other than sexual immorality.

Genesis 19:4-8, "But before they went to bed, the men of the city beset the house both young and old, all the people together. 5 And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in with thee at night? Bring them out hither that we may know them. 6 Lot went out to them and shut the door after him and said: 7 Do not so I beseech you, my brethren, do not commit this evil. 8 I have two daughters who as yet have not known man: I will bring them out to you, and abuse you them as it shall please you, so that you do not do evil to these men, becasue they are come in under the shadow of my roof."

Verse 8 clears up the question of what "know" means in no uncertain terms. The Sodomites wanted to know (to have sex with) the 2 men (angels).  

And take St.Luke 1: 27-35...where we read that the Blessed Virgin Mary who when greeted by the Angel Gobriel and told she would conceive and bear a son was greatly puzzled as to how this could be....why? becasue in v.34 she asks, "How shall this be done, becasue I know not man"?  

I don't have a beef against Rabbi Nachmanides..as a matter of fact, your claim that he interpretated Genesis 19 to teach about the virtue of hospitality is the first I ever heard of him.  All I can think is that he should have employed some other Biblical passage in which to do so.

Again, the consistent and long held interpretation of Genesis 19 is that God destroyed the cities because of sexual perversion.

Teaching God's destruction of  Sodom and Gomorrah was due to inhospitality rather than becasue of sexual perversion is twisting the meaning of Genesis 19. 

In that case I would expect you, if you were honest, to acknowledge that my interpretation of the story as being about hospitality (and the lack thereof) is not a new one.

Again, that is ONE long held interpretation. The other long held interpretation is that it was about hospitality.

No. Using the story to condemn homosexuality is twisting not only the meaning of the story but also the concept of the loving god.

To me it sounds like they want to question them.

It's different mindsets.

When I think of a group of men, I just don't think "sex".

I know the "I have nothing against..." formula gets old quickly, but that's how it is. I have nothing against homosexuals but I just don't think "sex" when I think about a group of men. It doesn't come to mind.

When the context is man (or men) and girls, "sex" is something that comes to mind; and I agree that the word can then mean "have sex". But among just men, the context "sex" is simply not present. Why would it?

No problem.....your claim that the interpretation of Genesis 19 as being about inhospitality is not a new one, but goes back to the 13th century rabbi's teaching is gladly acknowledged.

Of course, what you're saying is understandable, but we aren't talking about personal views about homosexual persons...we are talking about the correct interpretation of God's word in Genesis 19 and specifically the sexual practice of homosexuality.  

So, therefore, it would if when the passage is understood in its whole context....in this case Genesis 19:4-8 is clearly about men wanting "to know" men (that is, have sex, possibly violent sex with them).

Try to look at it this way....Sacred Scripture is God's timeless message to us that will last until the end of time, so if we are to take lessons from its teaching, getting the correct interpretation and understanding of that is very important.

Evidently, such a portentious punishment as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by sulphurus fire is a permanent example for all times corresponding to an extremely sinful situation. In Genesis, there is no doubt whatsoever that this most grave sin of Sodom was homosexuality. There are other cases that Sacred Scripture describes when the laws of hospitality and morality were violated (as in the Gibeah rape of the traveling Levite's concubine), but the analagy ends there. Unlike Sodom, Gibeah wasn't destroyed with fire from Heaven.   Therein lies the differences between God's punishment for inhospitality and for rampant sexual perversion such as homosexuality.

Leauki,

Not at all...God is loving yes, but He is equally just...HIs judgment against the Sodomites of Sodom and Gomorrah is a lesson of His justice. Psalm 118:137, "Thou art just, O Lord; and Thy judgment is right."

And you think the text was written not for people like me to interpret but for people like you to interpret?

How much were people supposed to think about sex between men back when the story was first taught?

I was talking about how the gov't shouldn't be involved in marriage but should treat two people of oany sex equallly when it comes to gov't programs.

The fact that this conversation has devolved into a biblical discussion just proves my point.  Faith-based belief structures do not make good law unless the faith (or faiths [or non-faiths]) have the same beliefs.

So you wanted to discuss this without regard to religion even though everyone's opinion on it is likely to be related to their religious beliefs?

Punishing men for wickedness is not an unloving act Leauki.  God was quite clear that men lying with men and woman with woman was an absolute abomination and a sin against him.  He gave plenty of warning.  Using our bodies in an abominable way is an affront to a holy God who skillfully and thoughtfully created us in his image.  In order to stop any type of wickedness punishment is needed otherwise it will spread rapidly (as we're seeing today.)  It's not just about homosexuality but any type of gross sexual pervision he's against. 

Ok, Leauki you keep bringing up this one Rabbi who holds to this interpretation (which I've never heard of) but can you name anyone else that holds to this interpretation in the Jewish faith?  Can you name any other Jewish Rabbis that hold to the other interpretation (the one that makes most sense) and can you tell me who in your estimation holds the majority view and what that majority viewpoint is?  Is there any discussion you can get ahold of between rabbis on both sides of this issue? 

To be quite frank I'm surprised we are even having this discussion.  It's always been interpreted (as far as I've ever known before you brought up this Rabbi) as a sexual perversion problem in Sodom.  Can you show me anywhere in scripture where it says that inhospitality is an abomination (worthy of death) and that anyone not hospitable should be killed? 

exactly.  You got this right Leauki.