Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
18:21 'You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God. **
Especially when it is never mentioned again like that outside of Leviticus, but there are about half a dozen verses about not giving over sons and daughters to be shrine or cult prostitutes?
eg Deut 23:17: "None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute,nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult 6945 prostitute.
(Strong's Number H6945 matches the Hebrew קָדֵשׁ (qadesh), which occurs 23 times in 9 verses in the Hebrew concordance)
Read the first few verses of Leviticus 20 and see all the references about not giving offspring over to Molech. Then guess what? Yes the other Leviticus verse (20:13) used against gay men follows those verses just like in Lev 18:22
** Some translations say 'pass through the fire' of Molech. But this is not in the original Hebrew. Molech was a Canaanite god. Look up references to Molech in the OT to see the connection to shrine prostitutes Blue Letter Bible - Search Results for NASB.
To me, it's so obvious that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 are references to male shrine prostitutes when you follow simple honest Biblical hermeneutics. Sadly, many people are just fed those 2 verses out of context to regurgitate against gay people and never even bother to look into it any further.
What does that have to do with anything? The verses are pretty clear to me, it's about a man 'laying' with another man and that is considered an abomination.
It's the sex act, most specifically anal intercourse that's sinful, not being gay in itself.
More heterosexuals engage in anal sex than gays. You all sure are obsessed with an act that doesn't even happen very often. And if God opposed anal sex so much, why is the prostate the male G-spot?
Quote:
I have tried to wrap my mind around the temple prostitution argument, but it simply doesn't hold weight when you read the text for what it says.
It absolutely does, you just refuse to accept that it could be right. The context itself tells you that's what it is. Even Philo, around 30 A.D, wrote that Paul was condemning pagan prostitution, just like Moses did in Leviticus. Why would Philo, a Jewish legal expert, compare pagan prostitution in the Torah to Paul's writings, if it weren't what it meant?
You don't want that to be a valid possibility, because if that were true, it means the Bible doesn't condemn modern day gays who don't engage in pagan prostitution, and there goes your Biblical justification to demonize gay people.
Romans has a passage referring to women having sexual relations with women, whether that's intercourse is up for debate, but it was at least seen as lewdness and sinful.
That wasn't the crime, it was a punishment. Those women were heterosexual, not lesbians and they were engaging in hedonistic pagan rituals. These are not two 40 year old gay women in a monogamous relationship we're talking about.
What does that have to do with anything? The verses are pretty clear to me, it's about a man 'laying' with another man and that is considered an abomination.
Seriously?
Because given all the evidence those verses are most likely referring to male shrine prostitutes worshipping pagan fertility gods. Idolatory was a common theme amongst anything that was labeled to'ebah. The Hebrew word translated as 'abomination' didntt mean the same thing in those times as we mean by' 'abomination' in the 21st century. See what the Jews have to say about their own language: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...52-abomination
So what the heck does that verse have to do with gay or lesbian people?
Seriously? Have you never looked up the Hebrew word qadesh which was translated in the KJV as 'sodomites'? It's been corrected in most english versions as 'shrine prostitute' or 'temple prostitute' or 'cult prostitute' - even most conservative translations.
Deut 23:17: "None 3808 of the daughters 1323 of Israel 3478 shall be a cult6945 prostitute,6945 nor 3808 shall any 4480 of the sons 1121 of Israel 3478 be a cult6945 prostitute.6945
As for Romans 1 - Have you never read verses 23 to 25? How can you miss the references to idolatrous worship?
1) 23 and [they] changed [ἤλλαξαν] the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of fowls, and of quadrupeds, and of reptiles. 24 Wherefore also God did give them up [παρέδωκεν], in the desires of their hearts, to uncleanness, to dishonour their bodies among themselves;
2) 25 who did change [μετήλλαξαν] the truth of God into a falsehood, and did honour and serve the creature rather than the Creator. . . . 26 Because of this did God give them up [παρέδωκεν] to dishonourable affections,
3) for even their females [θήλειαι αὐτῶν] did change [μετήλλαξαν] the natural use [φυσικὴν χρῆσιν] into that against nature [παρὰ φύσιν]; 27 and in like manner [ὁμοίως] also the males having left the natural use [φυσικὴν χρῆσιν] of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another. . . . 28 And, according as [καὶ καθὼς] they did not approve of having God in knowledge, God gave them up [παρέδωκεν] to a disapproved mind, to do [ποιεῖν] the things not seemly.
The structure of Rom 1:23-28 is framed around three parallels bracketed by μετ/ήλλαξαν ("they exchanged": vv. 23, 25, 26b) and παρέδωκεν (God "surrendered" them: vv. 24, 26a, 28). Parallelism is common in Hebrew literature and involves repeating a thought in different ways for emphasis and clarification. Paul uses it here to emphasize God's response to idolatry. He describes people engaged in philosophies and religions that worship creation and created things, not YHWH. Moreover, and incongruously to the contemporary reader, he infuses each of the parallels with eroticism. He concludes that abandoning Yahweh leads to the "sin list" at the end of the chapter (vv. 29-31).
Both the first and second parallels (vv. 23-24, vv. 25-26a) explicitly describe idol worship common in the first century. In each passage, the people actively exchange something holy and true to worship that which is not YHWH, and God surrenders them to eroticisms. In the first, God surrenders (παρέδωκεν) them to some form of ritual impurity...
Try reading ALL of Romans, not just 2 cherry-picked verses. And study the 1st century culture Paul lived in.
Ever notice how they also always, ALWAYS ignore Romans 2?
Romans 2 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?
If the end of Romans 1 is condemning gays, then Romans 2 is logically saying that anyone who condemns gays are gay themselves, because they do the exact same things Paul just described. It says it right there!
Therefore, we can conclude the writings of Paul have declared anti-gay Romans 1 cherry pickers are in fact gay pagan idol worshippers. That would explain quite a few things about their obsession though wouldn't it?
How does a man lay with another man like he would a woman? Do men now have vaginas? Or is that not referring to vaginal intercourse?
I've yet to see anyone who cherry picks that verse to use against gay men, explain why this verse didn't just say "And do not lie with another male" OR explain why it follows verses about giving over offspring to Molech.
To be fair, most Christians do think that the ones that still apply (still not sure how that one gets worked out, and I grew up Baptist), apply to everyone equally.
Even if they don't follow their religion.
It just boggles me. I'm Jewish. And I'm fairly conservative in my religion.
I also wholeheartedly support same-sex marriage.
Why should anyone outside of my religion be forced to live by its laws?
You'd be surprised at the number of christians who don't think that getting remarried is a sin (in most cases). It is because it is too hard for them to imagine that their god would not want them to be happy, etc. Well, how do you think gays feel? They protest against gays getting married while getting divorced and remarried at every turn.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
