| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Peter Davidson" |
| Date: |
27 Dec 2005 03:30:01 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Former Archbishop of Perth Says Pope is incorrect |
"Elizabeth" <eli_abet@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1135660190.510611.289350@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Davidson wrote:
"Norton" <norton@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dol92n$e6r$1@reader1.panix.com...
I have removed all the other cross-posted groups and so Mr.
Davidson may well never see this, which is OK.
In soc.sexuality.general Peter Davidson <brachypodium@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Over the past few years, a great many homosexuals who wanted to claim
to
be
Christian have been surprised, even shocked, at what the Bible actually
says
about homosexuality, and have gone away much wiser, if not happier. It
is
they who have been unschooled.
The mention of knee-jerk reactions is entirely inappropiate in this
connexion, though. Carnley, Spong, Griswold, Robinson and Williams have
all
been unable to persuade the scholarship of the Anglican Communion as a
whole
of the acceptability of homosexuality, and as a result, a permanent
split
at
the highest levels seems inevitable. There is cold, sober scholarship
on
both sides; it's just that one side's scholarship is must not be very
good.
Roman Catholicism is already far too wide of the truth to risk any more
loss
of credibility by following the Robinson trail. Its unfashionable
hierarchy
and its strange, medieval beliefs are already enough to discount it in
the
minds of many. For good practical reasons, far too many also believe
that
Romanism has made only lip service to moral commands. If the Vatican
thought
it could get away with homosexuality, it would; but it knows very well
what
the Bible says, and in what context it says it. If a Jesuit cannot
wriggle
round it, nobody can.
Anglicanism, otoh, has less hierarchy, and no medievalisms that
Baptists
don't have; it has more credibility (though not much), and more
chumminess
in its homelands. That is why it chances its arm on its ignorant
clientele
with homosexuality and women clergy. It is also trying to pick up the
constituency that the 'conservative' RCC can't.
The Bible is much worse in that regard. Consider the New Testament.
First, what we have in English is not the Word of God. <
We are discussing scholarship, which does not bother with translations.
How little you know of scholarship!! Translations are the meat of
scholarship. <
Anyone with even a passing interest in Christian scholarship knows that
knowledge of Greek and Hebrew are pre-requisites to any meaningful study.
Translations cannot be used, because one simply does not know that that are
accurate.
It is at best
a lousy translation of a bad translation of a set of original
fragments that have been extensively edited. <
Evidence?
Plenty of evidence around <
Then it will be easy for you to select a little of it to present here.
- but you have to have done a bit of reading. <
I have, don't worry.
If God wrote the
original, His words are long gone. <
If Carnley knows that, why does (or did) he knowingly deceive with his
false
religiosity? Why do Robinson et al. do likewise?
Evidence? <
Did Carnley not claim to represent Christ at his 'altar'? You can't have it
both ways.
People like to point to a passage in the Bible, old or new
testament and claim that it means this or that. If you look
at other translations you see that it might well mean a third
thing. And scholars often can find a fourth or fifth thing. <
Scholars don't bother with translations! That's basic.
Again, translations are the fodder of scholarship.
They are pew fodder, unfortunately. So few are taught any Greek in modern
churches.
But Carnley and co.
have not had sufficient scholarship to convince the Anglican Communion,
which is exactly why they are, it seems, on their way to the exit.
The problem is that most of the Anglican Communion are less interested
in scholarship than blind faith - that's why Dr Carnley is not getting
through to them. <
That's not true, and ridiculous.
Someone, I believe it was Elisabeth, mentioned that homosexuality
as an "orientation" was unknown before modern times. <
It has not been proved that orientation exists.
It is well known by scholars that in ancient times relationships
between men and men, women and women, men and women, were fluid and
interchangeable. <
That seems to be to be pure invention by someone.
The categories of "homosexual" and "heterosexual" were
not part of the parlance of everyday life in this times. <
That's neither here nor there. Neither was 'gay' until recently.
.
|
|
| User: "newzguys" |
|
| Title: Re: Former Archbishop of Perth Says Pope is incorrect |
27 Dec 2005 11:25:00 PM |
|
|
If the Vatican thought it could get away with homosexuality, it would;
but it knows very well what the Bible says, and in what context it
says it. If a Jesuit cannot wriggle round it, nobody can.
It is a physical impossibility that the bible says one word about
homosexuality, or even a homosexual act. They no words for nor a
concept of homosexuality at the time the bible was written. In
every case that is assigned to homosexuality it is in fact the sin
of idolatry of giving seed to the fertility gods as Baal-Molech and
Venus. They had sex with Chemarim priests to give seed to
the fertility god Baal-Molech and the Priest was a gateway to
the god. Their ***** was a portal to that god, to convert this
semen into rain and fertility. Much the same as drinking wine
is converted to the blood of Christ. It had nothing to do with
homosexuals nor a homosexual act, it was an act of idolatry.
Neither the priest nor the man having sex with the priest were
homosexuals, they were religious folks. It is like calling a
Catholic a cannibal because they drink the blood and eat the
body of Christ.
Someone, I believe it was Elisabeth, mentioned that homosexuality
as an "orientation" was unknown before modern times. <
It has not been proved that orientation exists.
It is well known by scholars that in ancient times relationships
between men and men, women and women, men and women, were fluid and
interchangeable. <
That seems to be to be pure invention by someone.
Women and children were the property of the father or husband,
a man must marry a woman like it or not. Therefore there was no
basis to form the concept of a person exclusively attracted to the
same sex, no one was without a wife. Property see Exodus 21:7,
Exo 22:16-17, Deu 22:28-30
Reprint of what Dr Carnley said based below the proof.
"The same applies to the concept of an 'exclusively homosexually
orientated person.' This was a discovery of only 150 years ago.
Go to the Bible and it simply is not there. Often, people speak
of the clear Biblical teaching about how to deal pastorally
with homosexual people, but that is a real howler. The Bible
knows nothing of the existence of homosexual people. No doubt
there were such people in the ancient world and others would
have had the experience of engaging with them, but they were
blind to their existence as 'homosexually orientated people'
because they did not yet have the concept of 'exclusive
homosexual orientation' with which to order their raw
experiences."
"Without the concept of an 'exclusively homosexually orientated
person' it is therefore an impossibility for biblical writers
to refer explicitly to or claim to know actual people who filled
that concept. Even if they experienced them, they were blind to
the existence of exclusive homosexual identity. There can
therefore be no biblical text consciously directed at
'homosexually orientated people' as a distinct sub-class of
humans. The biblical authors cannot even have dreamed of such a
thing for the Bible does not work with the mid-nineteenth century
distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals. In ancient
days it was simply a matter of working with the assumed concept
of the undifferentiated heterosexuality of males and females."
By Dr Carnley who is a Cambridge PhD, and Archbishop of Perth
For a full history of the concept of homosexuality see:
Legal history
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
Medical history
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social14.htm
If they did not have a concept of homosexuality 200 years ago
they sure didi not have a concept 2000 years ago.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Davidson" |
|
| Title: Re: Former Archbishop of Perth Says Pope is incorrect |
28 Dec 2005 12:10:21 PM |
|
|
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135747500.614765.311050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If the Vatican thought it could get away with homosexuality, it would;
but it knows very well what the Bible says, and in what context it
says it. If a Jesuit cannot wriggle round it, nobody can.
It is a physical impossibility that the bible says one word about
homosexuality, or even a homosexual act. <
You are obviously only fit for eternal destruction. And not fit to breathe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boy Toy" |
|
| Title: Re: Former Archbishop of Perth Says Pope is incorrect |
28 Dec 2005 03:12:34 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:10:21 GMT, "Peter Davidson"
<brachypodium@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
<hyAsf.18438$q4.6835@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135747500.614765.311050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If the Vatican thought it could get away with homosexuality, it would;
but it knows very well what the Bible says, and in what context it
says it. If a Jesuit cannot wriggle round it, nobody can.
It is a physical impossibility that the bible says one word about
homosexuality, or even a homosexual act. <
You are obviously only fit for eternal destruction. And not fit to breathe.
Oh yeah, well my daddy can beat up your daddy! ROFL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nightshade" |
|
| Title: Re: Former Archbishop of Perth Says Pope is incorrect |
28 Dec 2005 07:37:01 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:10:21 GMT, While I was gettin a beer, somebody,
could have been "Peter Davidson" <brachypodium@ntlworld.com>, wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135747500.614765.311050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If the Vatican thought it could get away with homosexuality, it would;
but it knows very well what the Bible says, and in what context it
says it. If a Jesuit cannot wriggle round it, nobody can.
It is a physical impossibility that the bible says one word about
homosexuality, or even a homosexual act. <
You are obviously only fit for eternal destruction. And not fit to breathe.
Just feel that xtian love.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "newzguys" |
|
| Title: Re: Former Archbishop of Perth Says Pope is incorrect |
28 Dec 2005 10:46:38 PM |
|
|
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135747500.614765.311050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If the Vatican thought it could get away with homosexuality, it would;
but it knows very well what the Bible says, and in what context it
says it. If a Jesuit cannot wriggle round it, nobody can.
It is a physical impossibility that the bible says one word about
homosexuality, or even a homosexual act. <
You are obviously only fit for eternal destruction. And not fit to breathe.
Well if the truth is that threatening to you, no wonder you type
will not even entertain the thought you are incorrect and that
their never was a sin of homosexuality in the bible.
For a full history of the concept of homosexuality see:
Legal history
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
Medical history
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social14.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Davidson" |
|
| Title: Re: Former Archbishop of Perth Says Pope is incorrect |
29 Dec 2005 05:04:08 AM |
|
|
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135831598.561285.20800@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135747500.614765.311050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If the Vatican thought it could get away with homosexuality, it
would;
but it knows very well what the Bible says, and in what context it
says it. If a Jesuit cannot wriggle round it, nobody can.
It is a physical impossibility that the bible says one word about
homosexuality, or even a homosexual act. <
You are obviously only fit for eternal destruction. And not fit to
breathe.
Well if the truth is that threatening to you <
Truth? Don't be funny.
.
|
|
|
| User: "newzguys" |
|
| Title: Re: Former Archbishop of Perth Says Pope is incorrect |
31 Dec 2005 10:38:35 PM |
|
|
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135831598.561285.20800@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135747500.614765.311050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If the Vatican thought it could get away with homosexuality, it
would;
but it knows very well what the Bible says, and in what context it
says it. If a Jesuit cannot wriggle round it, nobody can.
It is a physical impossibility that the bible says one word about
homosexuality, or even a homosexual act. <
You are obviously only fit for eternal destruction. And not fit to
breathe.
Well if the truth is that threatening to you <
Truth? Don't be funny.
This coming from someone with an imaginary friend he thinks is real.
When you talk to God, it's called prayer, but when He talks back,
it's schizophrenia.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Theopatra" |
|
| Title: Re: Former Archbishop of Perth Says Pope is incorrect |
28 Dec 2005 12:48:12 PM |
|
|
X-No-archive: yes
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135747500.614765.311050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If the Vatican thought it could get away with homosexuality, it would;
but it knows very well what the Bible says, and in what context it
says it. If a Jesuit cannot wriggle round it, nobody can.
It is a physical impossibility that the bible says one word about
homosexuality, or even a homosexual act. <
You are obviously only fit for eternal destruction. And not fit to breathe.
Peter, the intellectual narcissism, the shallow thinking of these
homosexuals is now so extreme that their idea of an "argument" is to
take the most straightforward of language, whether it be the Bible or
our Constitution, and try to convince the rest of us that it says and
means the exact opposite of what mankind has heretofore thought it
meant.
Instead of attacking what's said on its merits, which they know they
can't, they now try an end run around it by way of convincing the rest
of us that up really means down, right actually means wrong, evil is
really good and abnormal is normal. They also make up a lot of *****!
If these frauds were scientists, we'd all be living in houses with
stairs which went nowhere, planes which burrow into the earth, dams
which flood the plains and automobiles with square tires.
Theopatra
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Davidson" |
|
| Title: Re: Former Archbishop of Perth Says Pope is incorrect |
28 Dec 2005 09:03:37 PM |
|
|
"Theopatra" <Let_em_eat_Iraqi_democracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135795692.450608.195960@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
X-No-archive: yes
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135747500.614765.311050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If the Vatican thought it could get away with homosexuality, it
would;
but it knows very well what the Bible says, and in what context it
says it. If a Jesuit cannot wriggle round it, nobody can.
It is a physical impossibility that the bible says one word about
homosexuality, or even a homosexual act. <
You are obviously only fit for eternal destruction. And not fit to
breathe.
Peter, the intellectual narcissism, the shallow thinking of these
homosexuals is now so extreme that their idea of an "argument" is to
take the most straightforward of language, whether it be the Bible or
our Constitution, and try to convince the rest of us that it says and
means the exact opposite of what mankind has heretofore thought it
meant.
Instead of attacking what's said on its merits, which they know they
can't, they now try an end run around it by way of convincing the rest
of us that up really means down, right actually means wrong, evil is
really good and abnormal is normal. They also make up a lot of *****!
If these frauds were scientists, we'd all be living in houses with
stairs which went nowhere, planes which burrow into the earth, dams
which flood the plains and automobiles with square tires.
Theopatra <
You put it very well indeed, Theopatra.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boy Toy" |
|
| Title: Re: Former Archbishop of Perth Says Pope is incorrect |
28 Dec 2005 09:24:13 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 03:03:37 GMT, "Peter Davidson"
<brachypodium@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
<dmIsf.18926$q4.5948@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>
"Theopatra" <Let_em_eat_Iraqi_democracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135795692.450608.195960@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
X-No-archive: yes
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135747500.614765.311050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If the Vatican thought it could get away with homosexuality, it
would;
but it knows very well what the Bible says, and in what context it
says it. If a Jesuit cannot wriggle round it, nobody can.
It is a physical impossibility that the bible says one word about
homosexuality, or even a homosexual act. <
You are obviously only fit for eternal destruction. And not fit to
breathe.
Peter, the intellectual narcissism, the shallow thinking of these
homosexuals is now so extreme that their idea of an "argument" is to
take the most straightforward of language, whether it be the Bible or
our Constitution, and try to convince the rest of us that it says and
means the exact opposite of what mankind has heretofore thought it
meant.
Instead of attacking what's said on its merits, which they know they
can't, they now try an end run around it by way of convincing the rest
of us that up really means down, right actually means wrong, evil is
really good and abnormal is normal. They also make up a lot of *****!
If these frauds were scientists, we'd all be living in houses with
stairs which went nowhere, planes which burrow into the earth, dams
which flood the plains and automobiles with square tires.
Theopatra <
You put it very well indeed, Theopatra.
Oh how simple things are. To the simple minded, that is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Davidson" |
|
| Title: Re: Former Archbishop of Perth Says Pope is incorrect |
29 Dec 2005 04:58:52 AM |
|
|
"Boy Toy" <BoyToy@Toyz4Boyz.com> wrote in message
news:mkl6r19jr09lh4p3hhr54u2k4l6lffd7qp@4ax.com...
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 03:03:37 GMT, "Peter Davidson"
<brachypodium@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
<dmIsf.18926$q4.5948@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>
"Theopatra" <Let_em_eat_Iraqi_democracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135795692.450608.195960@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
X-No-archive: yes
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135747500.614765.311050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If the Vatican thought it could get away with homosexuality, it
would;
but it knows very well what the Bible says, and in what context it
says it. If a Jesuit cannot wriggle round it, nobody can.
It is a physical impossibility that the bible says one word about
homosexuality, or even a homosexual act. <
You are obviously only fit for eternal destruction. And not fit to
breathe.
Peter, the intellectual narcissism, the shallow thinking of these
homosexuals is now so extreme that their idea of an "argument" is to
take the most straightforward of language, whether it be the Bible or
our Constitution, and try to convince the rest of us that it says and
means the exact opposite of what mankind has heretofore thought it
meant.
Instead of attacking what's said on its merits, which they know they
can't, they now try an end run around it by way of convincing the rest
of us that up really means down, right actually means wrong, evil is
really good and abnormal is normal. They also make up a lot of *****!
If these frauds were scientists, we'd all be living in houses with
stairs which went nowhere, planes which burrow into the earth, dams
which flood the plains and automobiles with square tires.
Theopatra <
You put it very well indeed, Theopatra.
Oh how simple things are. To the simple minded, that is. <
One thing about buggers is that they are at least consistent. They get
_everything_ backwards.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "newzguys" |
|
| Title: Re: Former Archbishop of Perth Says Pope is incorrect |
28 Dec 2005 11:04:08 PM |
|
|
Theopatra wrote:
X-No-archive: yes
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135747500.614765.311050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If the Vatican thought it could get away with homosexuality, it would;
but it knows very well what the Bible says, and in what context it
says it. If a Jesuit cannot wriggle round it, nobody can.
It is a physical impossibility that the bible says one word about
homosexuality, or even a homosexual act. <
You are obviously only fit for eternal destruction. And not fit to breathe.
Peter, the intellectual narcissism, the shallow thinking of these
homosexuals is now so extreme that their idea of an "argument" is to
take the most straightforward of language, whether it be the Bible or
our Constitution, and try to convince the rest of us that it says and
means the exact opposite of what mankind has heretofore thought it
meant.
Let's see, those that speak the truth that there was never a
sin of homosexuality in the bible are shallow thinkers, yet
those that take verses out of context of even the verse
before it, as in the case of Lev 18:22, are the geniuses
that come up with creation science and intelligent design.
The english bible is a translation to start off, and also it is
a translation from a time in which they had no such concept
of homosexuality. They had absolute contempt for the
Chemarim priest who were receiving the seed to Baal-Molech
and called them nothing more than men. This is where the
very modern confusion of idolatrous sexual religious act,
being homosexual acts. In the case of Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13
and Rom 1:27 they left out the fact that one of the men
was a priest, and the act was a religious act. The word
abomination, tow'ebah, is a religious ritual abomination.
Two homosexuals just having sex is not a religious
ritual.
They had no words for nor a concept of homosexuality
at the time the bible was written. It is a physical impossibility
that the bible says one word about homosexuality, or even
a homosexual act. Please don't read the below it will burn you
eyes, like a cross on a vampire. The truth is like that.
For a full history of the concept of homosexuality see:
Legal history
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
Medical history
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social14.htm
Instead of attacking what's said on its merits, which they know they
can't, they now try an end run around it by way of convincing the rest
of us that up really means down, right actually means wrong, evil is
really good and abnormal is normal. They also make up a lot of *****!
If these frauds were scientists, we'd all be living in houses with
stairs which went nowhere, planes which burrow into the earth, dams
which flood the plains and automobiles with square tires.
Theopatra
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Davidson" |
|
| Title: Re: Former Archbishop of Perth Says Pope is incorrect |
29 Dec 2005 05:02:43 AM |
|
|
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135832648.723997.65730@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Theopatra wrote:
X-No-archive: yes
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135747500.614765.311050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If the Vatican thought it could get away with homosexuality, it
would;
but it knows very well what the Bible says, and in what context it
says it. If a Jesuit cannot wriggle round it, nobody can.
It is a physical impossibility that the bible says one word about
homosexuality, or even a homosexual act. <
You are obviously only fit for eternal destruction. And not fit to
breathe.
Peter, the intellectual narcissism, the shallow thinking of these
homosexuals is now so extreme that their idea of an "argument" is to
take the most straightforward of language, whether it be the Bible or
our Constitution, and try to convince the rest of us that it says and
means the exact opposite of what mankind has heretofore thought it
meant.
Let's see, those that speak the truth that there was never a
sin of homosexuality <
But there is one of buggery.
No one could think that you people could be Christian, simply because you
lie with such gay abandon. You'd be excluded just for being so stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "newzguys" |
|
| Title: Re: Former Archbishop of Perth Says Pope is incorrect |
30 Dec 2005 10:18:42 PM |
|
|
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135832648.723997.65730@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Theopatra wrote:
X-No-archive: yes
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135747500.614765.311050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If the Vatican thought it could get away with homosexuality, it
would;
but it knows very well what the Bible says, and in what context it
says it. If a Jesuit cannot wriggle round it, nobody can.
It is a physical impossibility that the bible says one word about
homosexuality, or even a homosexual act. <
You are obviously only fit for eternal destruction. And not fit to
breathe.
Peter, the intellectual narcissism, the shallow thinking of these
homosexuals is now so extreme that their idea of an "argument" is to
take the most straightforward of language, whether it be the Bible or
our Constitution, and try to convince the rest of us that it says and
means the exact opposite of what mankind has heretofore thought it
meant.
Let's see, those that speak the truth that there was never a
sin of homosexuality <
But there is one of buggery.
And buggery is a non-procreative act, not building the nation
of God. And that was the unnatrual act being spoke about in
Rom 1
"Sexual regulation included such non-procreative acts as masturbation,
and sodomy laws applied equally to male-male, male-female, and
human-animal sexual activity. "
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
No one could think that you people could be Christian, simply because you
lie with such gay abandon. You'd be excluded just for being so stupid.
Were we lying you could very easily counter with proof of a
concept of homosexuality and contextual proof from the bible.
Taking single verses out of the context of the rest of the
chapter, bible and times in which they were written are not
proof.
Your lot love to use Lev 18:22 as proof, (by taking this verse out
of context) I offer this to the contrary.
Job 31:
31 If the men of my tabernacle said not, Oh that we had of his
flesh! we cannot be satisfied.
Philippians 1:
8 For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in
the bowels of Jesus Christ.
Philemon 1:
20 Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh
my bowels in the Lord.
Oh I hear the cry of context now!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Davidson" |
|
| Title: Re: Former Archbishop of Perth Says Pope is incorrect |
31 Dec 2005 05:06:07 AM |
|
|
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136002722.454072.194440@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135832648.723997.65730@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Theopatra wrote:
X-No-archive: yes
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135747500.614765.311050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If the Vatican thought it could get away with homosexuality, it
would;
but it knows very well what the Bible says, and in what context
it
says it. If a Jesuit cannot wriggle round it, nobody can.
It is a physical impossibility that the bible says one word about
homosexuality, or even a homosexual act. <
You are obviously only fit for eternal destruction. And not fit to
breathe.
Peter, the intellectual narcissism, the shallow thinking of these
homosexuals is now so extreme that their idea of an "argument" is to
take the most straightforward of language, whether it be the Bible or
our Constitution, and try to convince the rest of us that it says and
means the exact opposite of what mankind has heretofore thought it
meant.
Let's see, those that speak the truth that there was never a
sin of homosexuality <
But there is one of buggery.
And buggery is a non-procreative act, not building the nation
of God. And that was the unnatrual act being spoke about in
Rom 1 <
Read all of it, idiot. Despicable pervert.
Unless you're joking, of course, in which case, a thousand apologies!
No one could think that you people could be Christian, simply because you
lie with such gay abandon. You'd be excluded just for being so stupid.
And we here see even more of you disgusting perversions. You don't deserve
just to die. Oh, no. No chance of that.
Your lot love to use Lev 18:22 as proof, (by taking this verse out
of context) I offer this to the contrary.
Job 31:
31 If the men of my tabernacle said not, Oh that we had of his
flesh! we cannot be satisfied. <
Despicable pervert. The word means 'meat', animal flesh, as eaten, as every
modern version renders it. As any person who is not utterly depraved would
suppose from the context.
Lying pervert.
Unless you're joking, of course.
Philippians 1:
8 For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in
the bowels of Jesus Christ.
Philemon 1:
20 Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh
my bowels in the Lord. <
Despicable pervert. 'Bowels' was a euphemism for the seat of the affections,
'like 'heart'. As Oliver Cromwell, the well known Puritan wrote: "I beseech
you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
Unless you're joking, of course. Surely you must be.
Oh I hear the cry of context now! <
Maybe you're not joking. Maybe you are the most disgusting joke ever to make
himself into a double shame on the internet. Which would be quite a feat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "newzguys" |
|
| Title: Re: Former Archbishop of Perth Says Pope is incorrect |
31 Dec 2005 10:53:38 PM |
|
|
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
No one could think that you people could be Christian, simply because you
lie with such gay abandon. You'd be excluded just for being so stupid.
And we here see even more of you disgusting perversions. You don't deserve
just to die. Oh, no. No chance of that.
Cute, you just said more of "your" disgusting perversions, because you
wrote that.
Your lot love to use Lev 18:22 as proof, (by taking this verse out
of context) I offer this to the contrary.
Job 31:
31 If the men of my tabernacle said not, Oh that we had of his
flesh! we cannot be satisfied. <
Despicable pervert. The word means 'meat', animal flesh, as eaten, as every
modern version renders it. As any person who is not utterly depraved would
suppose from the context.
Let's see Lev 18:22 is to be taken as is, no context of time or
the rest of the bible, but this verse must be taken in the your
context. Cute
Lying pervert.
Unless you're joking, of course.
Philippians 1:
8 For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in
the bowels of Jesus Christ.
Philemon 1:
20 Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh
my bowels in the Lord. <
Despicable pervert. 'Bowels' was a euphemism for the seat of the affections,
'like 'heart'. As Oliver Cromwell, the well known Puritan wrote: "I beseech
you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
Let's see Lev 18:22 is to be taken as is, no context of time or
the rest of the bible, but these verses must be taken in the your
context. Cute. Think it possible you may be mistaken?
Unless you're joking, of course. Surely you must be.
Oh I hear the cry of context now! <
Maybe you're not joking. Maybe you are the most disgusting joke ever to make
himself into a double shame on the internet. Which would be quite a feat.
Gen 19:
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men
which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we
may know them.
Sex?
Gen 29:
5 And he said unto them, Know ye Laban the son of Nahor? And
they said, We know him.
Did they know the hell out of him, too?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Davidson" |
|
| Title: Re: Former Archbishop of Perth Says Pope is incorrect |
01 Jan 2006 08:04:09 AM |
|
|
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136091217.958034.83210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Your lot love to use Lev 18:22 as proof, (by taking this verse out
of context) I offer this to the contrary.
Job 31:
31 If the men of my tabernacle said not, Oh that we had of his
flesh! we cannot be satisfied. <
Despicable pervert. The word means 'meat', animal flesh, as eaten, as
every
modern version renders it. As any person who is not utterly depraved
would
suppose from the context.
Let's see Lev 18:22 is to be taken as is, no context <
Lev 18:22-23 : 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is
detestable. Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself
with it.'
of time or the rest of the bible <
You can get the same in the NT, if you want.
but this verse must be taken in the your
context. Cute. <
Blow bubbles. They will make more sense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "newzguys" |
|
| Title: Re: Former Archbishop of Perth Says Pope is incorrect |
01 Jan 2006 10:04:29 PM |
|
|
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136091217.958034.83210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Your lot love to use Lev 18:22 as proof, (by taking this verse out
of context) I offer this to the contrary.
Job 31:
31 If the men of my tabernacle said not, Oh that we had of his
flesh! we cannot be satisfied. <
Despicable pervert. The word means 'meat', animal flesh, as eaten, as
every
modern version renders it. As any person who is not utterly depraved
would
suppose from the context.
Let's see Lev 18:22 is to be taken as is, no context <
Lev 18:22-23 : 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is
detestable. Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself
with it.'
And the context is Lev 18:21-24. Don't give seed to Chemarim
priests it is a ritual abomination. To have sex with a Chemarim
priest is like having sex with an animal, because Molech is a
calf faced god.
Joel 3:
3 And they have cast lots for my people; and have given a boy for
an harlot, and sold a girl for wine, that they might drink.
Numbers 31:
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill
every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying
with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Genesis 19:
36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
of time or the rest of the bible <
You can get the same in the NT, if you want.
but this verse must be taken in the your
context. Cute. <
Blow bubbles. They will make more sense.
If you cannot even take a sentence in context, what hope is there
of you taking verses in the bible in context?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Davidson" |
|
| Title: Re: Former Archbishop of Perth Says Pope is incorrect |
02 Jan 2006 09:29:07 AM |
|
|
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136174669.376554.48220@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136091217.958034.83210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Your lot love to use Lev 18:22 as proof, (by taking this verse out
of context) I offer this to the contrary.
Job 31:
31 If the men of my tabernacle said not, Oh that we had of his
flesh! we cannot be satisfied. <
Despicable pervert. The word means 'meat', animal flesh, as eaten, as
every
modern version renders it. As any person who is not utterly depraved
would
suppose from the context.
Let's see Lev 18:22 is to be taken as is, no context <
Lev 18:22-23 : 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is
detestable. Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile
yourself
with it.'
And the context is Lev 18:21-24. <
You wish.
6 "'No-one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am
the Lord.
7 "'Do not dishonour your father by having sexual relations with your
mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
8 "'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would
dishonour your father.
9 "'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's
daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or
elsewhere.
10 "'Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your
daughter's daughter; that would dishonour you.
11 "'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife,
born to your father; she is your sister.
12 "'Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your
father's close relative.
13 "'Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is
your mother's close relative.
14 "'Do not dishonour your father's brother by approaching his wife to have
sexual relations; she is your aunt.
15 "'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your
son's wife; do not have relations with her.
16 "'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would
dishonour your brother.
17 "'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not
have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's
daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
18 "'Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual
relations with her while your wife is living.
19 "'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness
of her monthly period.
20 "'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbour's wife and defile
yourself with her.
21 "'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you
must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.
22 "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
23 "'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with
it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations
with it; that is a perversion.
Don't give seed to Chemarim
priests it is a ritual abomination. To have sex with a Chemarim
priest is like having sex with an animal, because Molech is a
calf faced god. <
Lev 20:10-21
10 "'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife- with the wife of his
neighbour- both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
11 "'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonoured his father.
Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on
their own heads.
12 "'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to
death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own
heads.
13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have
done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on
their own heads.
14 "'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and
they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
15 "'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death,
and you must kill the animal.
16 "'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill
both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will
be on their own heads.
'They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.' That
still applies, eternally.
.
|
|
|
| User: "newzguys" |
|
| Title: Re: Former Archbishop of Perth Says Pope is incorrect |
02 Jan 2006 10:49:07 PM |
|
|
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136174669.376554.48220@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136091217.958034.83210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Your lot love to use Lev 18:22 as proof, (by taking this verse out
of context) I offer this to the contrary.
Job 31:
31 If the men of my tabernacle said not, Oh that we had of his
flesh! we cannot be satisfied. <
Despicable pervert. The word means 'meat', animal flesh, as eaten, as
every
modern version renders it. As any person who is not utterly depraved
would
suppose from the context.
Let's see Lev 18:22 is to be taken as is, no context <
Lev 18:22-23 : 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is
detestable. Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile
yourself
with it.'
And the context is Lev 18:21-24. <
You wish.
6 "'No-one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am
the Lord.
7 "'Do not dishonour your father by having sexual relations with your
mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
8 "'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would
dishonour your father.
9 "'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's
daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or
elsewhere.
10 "'Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your
daughter's daughter; that would dishonour you.
11 "'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife,
born to your father; she is your sister.
12 "'Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your
father's close relative.
13 "'Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is
your mother's close relative.
14 "'Do not dishonour your father's brother by approaching his wife to have
sexual relations; she is your aunt.
15 "'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your
son's wife; do not have relations with her.
16 "'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would
dishonour your brother.
17 "'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not
have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's
daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
18 "'Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual
relations with her while your wife is living.
19 "'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness
of her monthly period.
20 "'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbour's wife and defile
yourself with her.
So all of a sudden for no reason at all, they just said, hey why not
for the hell of it, let's throw in Molech at this point for no reason
what so ever. Then we can go back to saying this sexual no no
and that sexual no no. Why not, what the hell.
21 "'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you
must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.
22 "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
23 "'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with
it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations
with it; that is a perversion.
It says Don't give seed to Molech, (no where in the original hebrew
does it say anything about sacrificed or fire). Then it says don't
give seed to Chemarim Priests (only called a man because they
would not honor them with a title). Then it says to lay with a
Chemarim priest is like having sex with an animal because Molech
was a calf faced god.
For a full history of the concept of homosexuality see:
Legal history
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
Medical history
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social14.htm
Don't give seed to Chemarim
priests it is a ritual abomination. To have sex with a Chemarim
priest is like having sex with an animal, because Molech is a
calf faced god. <
Lev 20:10-21
10 "'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife- with the wife of his
neighbour- both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
11 "'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonoured his father.
Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on
their own heads.
12 "'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to
death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own
heads.
13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have
done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on
their own heads.
14 "'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and
they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
15 "'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death,
and you must kill the animal.
16 "'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill
both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will
be on their own heads.
'They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.' That
still applies, eternally.
Hey bigots like you always wante to kill homosexuals, whats
new about that. At lease now there is a Pope that wants the final
solution just like you do, be happy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Davidson" |
|
| Title: Re: Former Archbishop of Perth Says Pope is incorrect |
03 Jan 2006 06:18:26 AM |
|
|
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136263747.642371.181820@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136174669.376554.48220@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136091217.958034.83210@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Your lot love to use Lev 18:22 as proof, (by taking this verse
out
of context) I offer this to the contrary.
Job 31:
31 If the men of my tabernacle said not, Oh that we had of his
flesh! we cannot be satisfied. <
Despicable pervert. The word means 'meat', animal flesh, as eaten,
as
every
modern version renders it. As any person who is not utterly
depraved
would
suppose from the context.
Let's see Lev 18:22 is to be taken as is, no context <
Lev 18:22-23 : 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that
is
detestable. Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile
yourself
with it.'
And the context is Lev 18:21-24. <
You wish.
6 "'No-one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I
am
the Lord.
7 "'Do not dishonour your father by having sexual relations with your
mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
8 "'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would
dishonour your father.
9 "'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's
daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home
or
elsewhere.
10 "'Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your
daughter's daughter; that would dishonour you.
11 "'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's
wife,
born to your father; she is your sister.
12 "'Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your
father's close relative.
13 "'Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she
is
your mother's close relative.
14 "'Do not dishonour your father's brother by approaching his wife to
have
sexual relations; she is your aunt.
15 "'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your
son's wife; do not have relations with her.
16 "'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would
dishonour your brother.
17 "'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do
not
have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's
daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
18 "'Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual
relations with her while your wife is living.
19 "'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the
uncleanness
of her monthly period.
20 "'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbour's wife and defile
yourself with her.
So all of a sudden for no reason at all, they just said, hey why not
for the hell of it, let's throw in Molech at this point for no reason
what so ever. Then we can go back to saying this sexual no no
and that sexual no no. Why not, what the hell. <
The sentence is odd, whatever the meaning. Even if the meaning is something
to do with ritual, it does not change the meaning of anything else. This
idea is a desperate grasping at a straw.
21 "'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you
must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.
22 "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
23 "'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with
it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual
relations
with it; that is a perversion.
It says Don't give seed to Molech, (no where in the original hebrew
does it say anything about sacrificed or fire). <
So how would one give semen to an idol? The word 'seed' means children, and
elsewhere sons and daughters are mentioned as being sacrificed. Every
established translator and commentator I know takes that meaning.
Then it says don't
give seed to Chemarim Priests (only called a man because they
would not honor them with a title). <
That is pure invention.
Then it says to lay with a
Chemarim priest is like having sex with an animal because Molech
was a calf faced god. <
As is that.
But even if there is any truth in this, it does not in any way modify the
meaning of verse 22, which is categorical and unqualified.
Lev 20:10-21
10 "'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife- with the wife of
his
neighbour- both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
11 "'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonoured his
father.
Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on
their own heads.
12 "'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put
to
death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their
own
heads.
13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have
done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be
on
their own heads.
14 "'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he
and
they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
15 "'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to
death,
and you must kill the animal.
16 "'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it,
kill
both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood
will
be on their own heads. <
Oh dear. No mention of Molech, priests or rituals there.
'They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.'
That
still applies, eternally.
Hey bigots like you <
You are the bigots. Ill-mannered, abusive, interfering, bigots.You are no
different from the boorish Sodomites. And out of your tiny minds, if you
want to be considered Christians. You lie with such incredible facility and
absurdity!
In more ways than one!
.
|
|
|
| User: "nuwsguy" |
|
| Title: Re: Former Archbishop of Perth Says Pope is incorrect |
03 Jan 2006 10:40:29 PM |
|
|
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136263747.642371.181820@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Let's see Lev 18:22 is to be taken as is, no context <
Lev 18:22-23 : 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that
is
detestable. Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile
yourself
with it.'
And the context is Lev 18:21-24. <
You wish.
20 "'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbour's wife and defile
yourself with her.
So all of a sudden for no reason at all, they just said, hey why not
for the hell of it, let's throw in Molech at this point for no reason
what so ever. Then we can go back to saying this sexual no no
and that sexual no no. Why not, what the hell. <
The sentence is odd, whatever the meaning. Even if the meaning is something
to do with ritual, it does not change the meaning of anything else. This
idea is a desperate grasping at a straw.
And you desperately ignore the fact that verse 21 is the context
of Lev 18:22. And in fact it changes the entire context away from
your desperate grasping at a sin of homosexuality, so you can
"use" the bible as the basis of hate. The giving of the seed to
Molech has nothing to do with homosexuality at all.
21 "'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you
must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.
22 "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
23 "'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with
it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual
relations
with it; that is a perversion.
It says Don't give seed to Molech, (no where in the original hebrew
does it say anything about sacrificed or fire). <
So how would one give semen to an idol? The word 'seed' means children, and
elsewhere sons and daughters are mentioned as being sacrificed. Every
established translator and commentator I know takes that meaning.
Then you use the NIV so called bible which does not even pretend
to follow the original hebrew or greek, nor the original context, it
is a translation of the KJV bible with a bias modern bent to it.
The word zera (seed) is:
1) seed, sowing, offspring,
....
c) semen virile <--------
As in :
Lev 15:
16 And if any man's "seed" of copulation go out from him, then he
shall
wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even.
The closest to the time translation the Septuagint Greek says:
Lev 18:
21 "And thou shalt not give of thy seed to serve a ruler; and thou
shalt
not profane my holy name; I [am] the Lord." 'Do not dedicate any
of your seed or offspring to Molech.'
The original hebrew is:
English Strong's Hebrew
And thou shalt not [05414] nathan
let any of thy seed [02233] zera'
pass [05674] 'abar
through [the fire] to Molech, [04432] Molek
neither shalt thou profane [02490] chalal
the name [08034] shem
of thy God: [0430] 'elohiym
I [am] the LORD. [03068] Y@hovah
Notice "through [the fire] to Molech" is just thrown in there
with no reason at all.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Lev&chapter=18&verse=21&version=kjv
Then it says don't
give seed to Chemarim Priests (only called a man because they
would not honor them with a title). <
That is pure invention.
No more so than inventing a sin of homosexuality when they
had no words for nor a concept of homosexuality at the time
the bible was written. See 2 Kings 23:5-7 (the idolatrous priests
are the Chemarim priest as in Zep 1:4) as proof, as well as
Ezek 16:21-25 (the eminent place translates to ***** house)
This is proof that they were talking about temple prostitution not
homosexuality. The word sodomite (qadesh) translates to male
temple prostitute. In every case it is not a sin of homosexuality
it is a sin of idolatry.
http://www.khouse.org/cgi-bin.blb/strongs.pl?book=Deu&chapter=23&verse=17&strongs=06945
Then it says to lay with a
Chemarim priest is like having sex with an animal because Molech
was a calf faced god. <
As is that.
But even if there is any truth in this, it does not in any way modify the
meaning of verse 22, which is categorical and unqualified.
For those seeking to "use" the bible, sure it is. You do not want
to know what the bible says, you want the bible to say what you want.
Lev 20:10-21
10 "'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife- with the wife of
his
neighbour- both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
11 "'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonoured his
father.
Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on
their own heads.
12 "'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put
to
death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their
own
heads.
13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have
done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be
on
their own heads.
14 "'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he
and
they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
15 "'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to
death,
and you must kill the animal.
16 "'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it,
kill
both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood
will
be on their own heads. <
Oh dear. No mention of Molech, priests or rituals there.
I guess you conveniently ignored Lev 20:2-5 which is the context
to Lev 20:13. No wonder when you cannot even use the verse
before Lev 18:22 as the context.
'They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.'
That
still applies, eternally.
Hey bigots like you <
You are the bigots. Ill-mannered, abusive, interfering, bigots.
Yes, if we do not allow those like you to dictate to us what
religions we can or cannot worship, or not allow you to dictate
to us what sex we can or cannot have we are bigots. In other
words if the slave tells you, you have no right to tell him what
to do, he is a bigot. These slaves are Ill-mannered, abusive,
interfering, bigots, they think they can be just like all of us,
right?
You are no different from the boorish Sodomites.
So now I am a male temple prostitute?
And out of your tiny minds, if you
want to be considered Christians. You lie with such incredible facility and
absurdity!
Truth, for those who only seek to "use" the bible, is often
taken as a lie.
In more ways than one!
Prove your case without taking verses out of context then.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Davidson" |
|
| Title: Re: Former Archbishop of Perth Says Pope is incorrect |
04 Jan 2006 05:49:18 AM |
|
|
"nuwsguy" <nuwsguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136349629.486422.127250@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Davidson wrote:
"newzguys" <newzguys@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136263747.642371.181820@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Let's see Lev 18:22 is to be taken as is, no context <
Lev 18:22-23 : 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman;
that
is
detestable. Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile
yourself
with it.'
And the context is Lev 18:21-24. <
You wish.
20 "'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbour's wife and
defile
yourself with her.
So all of a sudden for no reason at all, they just said, hey why not
for the hell of it, let's throw in Molech at this point for no reason
what so ever. Then we can go back to saying this sexual no no
and that sexual no no. Why not, what the hell. <
The sentence is odd, whatever the meaning. Even if the meaning is
something
to do with ritual, it does not change the meaning of anything else. This
idea is a desperate grasping at a straw.
And you desperately ignore the fact that verse 21 is the context
of Lev 18:22. <
And what is the context for verse 23? Is that another of your hobbies?
The giving of the seed to
Molech has nothing to do with homosexuality at all. <
At last! Signs of intelligence in a bugger! Must be a mistake, surely.
21 "'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for
you
must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.
22 "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is
detestable.
23 "'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself
with
it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual
relations
with it; that is a perversion.
It says Don't give seed to Molech, (no where in the original hebrew
does it say anything about sacrificed or fire). <
So how would one give semen to an idol? <
Oh, dear. The bugger missed this one.
The word 'seed' means children, and
elsewhere sons and daughters are mentioned as being sacrificed. Every
established translator and commentator I know takes that meaning.
Then you use the NIV so called bible <
I use Hebrew, and miles better than you do. Every established translator and
commentator I know takes my meaning.
The word zera (seed) is:
1) seed, sowing, offspring <
Ah, yes. Children. Well done!
The closest to the time translation the Septuagint Greek says:
Lev 18:
21 "And thou shalt not give of thy seed to serve a ruler; and thou
shalt
not profane my holy name; I [am] the Lord." 'Do not dedicate any
of your seed or offspring to Molech.' <
Reader, you may notice that the above is in English, not Greek.
The original hebrew is:
English Strong's Hebrew
And thou shalt not [05414] nathan
let any of thy seed [02233] zera'
pass [05674] 'abar
through [the fire] to Molech, [04432] Molek
So, that means 'Do not give your children to Molech'. Unless you can think
of what Molech would want with semen. Fertility rite? Odd you didn't think
of that. But then you wouldn't!
neither shalt thou profane [02490] chalal
the name [08034] shem
of thy God: [0430] 'elohiym
I [am] the LORD. [03068] Y@hovah
Notice "through [the fire] to Molech" is just thrown in there
with no reason at all. <
Leave it out, then. I'm not fussed. Lev 18:21NASB: 'Neither shall you give
any of your offspring to offer them to Molech.'
Then it says don't
give seed to Chemarim Priests (only called a man because they
would not honor them with a title). <
That is pure invention.
No more so <
So you lied. Idiotically.
than inventing a sin of homosexuality <
Do not lie. Do not lie with a man as with a woman. Do you need it beaten
into your thick skull?
when they
had no words for nor a concept of homosexuality at the time
the bible was written. See 2 Kings 23:5-7 (the idolatrous priests
are the Chemarim priest as in Zep 1:4)
Absolute desperate nonsense. Another invention. There is not a shred of
evidence for this.
The word sodomite (qadesh) translates to male
temple prostitute. <
Garbage. Do not lie with a man! You're too gormless to join any organisation
that is not risible.
Lev 20:10-21
10 "'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife- with the wife
of
his
neighbour- both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
11 "'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonoured his
father.
Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be
on
their own heads.
12 "'If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be
put
to
death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on
their
own
heads.
13 "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them
have
done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will
be
on
their own heads.
14 "'If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both
he
and
they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among
you.
15 "'If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to
death,
and you must kill the animal.
16 "'If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it,
kill
both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood
will
be on their own heads. <
Oh dear. No mention of Molech, priests or rituals there.
I guess you conveniently ignored Lev 20:2-5 which is the context
to Lev 20:13. <
What a sick-making little pervert you are. In one passage, it is the
preceding verse that's the 'context', but where the context is not to your
liking, it's miles away! The subject changes twice before it gets to mention
your filth, anyway!
Hey bigots like you <
You are the bigots. Ill-mannered, abusive, interfering, bigots.
Yes, if we do not allow those like you to dictate to us what
religions we can or cannot worship <
You can worship who the hell you like. But not where you like; not yet,
anyway. Fascist thug.
You are no different from the boorish Sodomites.
So now I am a male temple prostitute? <
You're a boorish, sodding liar. You don't deserve to breathe.
But you are handy, in one way. You show beyond doubt that there has to be a
place called hell, if only for the likes of you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|