Discussion:
They Did Not Have Homosexuals in the Bible nor Laws Until 1970's
(too old to reply)
newzguys
2006-01-02 03:28:02 UTC
Permalink
They Did Not Have Homosexuals in the Bible nor Laws Until 1970's

People that say there is a sin of homosexuality in the bible are
just ignorant of the facts of history, and the law.

Up until the 1970's the laws against sodomy were only laws against
nonprocreative sex, not homosexual sex. The very word and concept of
homosexuality did not exist commonly until 1892. Before this time
any attempt to say a law or a sin in the bible is directed
toward homosexuals is impossible. "The modern terms homosexuality
and heterosexuality do not apply to an era that had not yet
articulated these distinctions." Lawrence and Garner v. Texas US, 03

"Prohibitions against sodomy were rooted in the teachings of Western
Christianity, but those teachings have always been strikingly
inconsistent in their definition of the acts encompassed by the term.
When the term "sodomy" was first emphasized by medieval Christian
theologians in the eleventh century, they applied it inconsistently
to a diverse group of nonprocreative sexual practices." Not
homosexuals.

"The English Reformation Parliament of 1533 turned the religious
injunction against sodomy into the secular crime of buggery when it
made 'the detestable and abominable vice of buggery committed with
mankind or beast' punishable by death. The English courts interpreted
this to apply to sexual intercourse between a human and animal and
anal intercourse between a man and woman as well as anal intercourse
between two men." Again not homosexuals, but nonprocreative sex.

"Such discriminatory measures against homosexuals, although popularly
imagined to be longstanding, are in fact not ancient but a unique
and relatively short-lived product of mostly the 1970's."

It was only at the end of the nineteenth century that the very concept
of the homosexual as a distinct category of person developed. The word
"homosexual" was coined for the first time in a letter from Karl Maria
Kertbeny to Karl Heinrich Ulrichs dated 6 May 1868 and in two German
pamphlets published in 1869 in Leipzig, arguing for reform of Paragraph
143 of the Prussian Penal Code penalizing sexual relations between men.
The term after 1868 was not used by anyone else until 1880, and was
not in common use until 1892. Therefore to assign a sin of
homosexuality
to the sexual religious fertility rituals of having sex to worship
a fertility god, is an impossibility. In Lev 18:22 which is seen as a
sin of homosexuality is in fact connected to the verse before it, to
not
give seed to Molech. It is impossible to be a sin of homosexuality,
they
had no such concept of homosexuality at the time the bible was written.

"Kertbeny invented the term 'homosexuality' as part of an argument that

it was natural, and a matter of private behaviour which should be
beyond
the interference of the law. He intended it to be used as a neutral,
non-prejudicial term within legal arguments, which centred on the
concept
of equal rights and protection of minorities. 'Homosexuality' was thus
originated not as a medical term, but rather as a neutral, legal,
scientific term. "


For in depth reading see:
legal history
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html

medical history
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social14.htm
duke
2006-01-02 14:53:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by newzguys
They Did Not Have Homosexuals in the Bible nor Laws Until 1970's
People that say there is a sin of homosexuality in the bible are
just ignorant of the facts of history, and the law.
The proof is in the pudding.

Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)
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


duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Andrealphus
2006-01-02 15:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by newzguys
They Did Not Have Homosexuals in the Bible nor Laws Until 1970's
People that say there is a sin of homosexuality in the bible are
just ignorant of the facts of history, and the law.
The proof is in the pudding.
Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)
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
A few things about Leviticus. First of all, even if it defines a sin to
homosexuality, which is doubtful, Leviticus was a specific pact of laws made
between the Hebrew God, and the Hebrew (Children of Israel) and was not
meant to be applied to mankind as a whole. A clear reading of all of
Leviticus makes that abundantly clear. Moses would have considered it a
grievous sin to so much as teach Levitical law to Gentiles. Secondly, the
Book of Leviticus was a set of laws that defined "sin" in relation to temple
practices. Again, a clear reading of the whole of Leviticus clearly points
that out.

Since I am neither Hebrew, nor am I a Levite, Leviticus is irrelevant to me.

How many of the other Levitical proscriptions to you follow?
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
Mike Andrade
2006-01-02 17:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by newzguys
They Did Not Have Homosexuals in the Bible nor Laws Until 1970's
People that say there is a sin of homosexuality in the bible are
just ignorant of the facts of history, and the law.
The proof is in the pudding.
Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)
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
A few things about Leviticus. First of all, even if it defines a
sin to homosexuality, which is doubtful, Leviticus was a specific
pact of laws made between the Hebrew God, and the Hebrew (Children
of Israel) and was not meant to be applied to mankind as a whole.
A clear reading of all of Leviticus makes that abundantly clear.
Moses would have considered it a grievous sin to so much as teach
Levitical law to Gentiles. Secondly, the Book of Leviticus was a
set of laws that defined "sin" in relation to temple practices.
Again, a clear reading of the whole of Leviticus clearly points
that out.
Since I am neither Hebrew, nor am I a Levite, Leviticus is
irrelevant to me.
How many of the other Levitical proscriptions to you follow?
Get ready for the usual screed of false dichotomies, circular
reasoning, red herrings, and a host of other fallacies that avoid
factual information.
--
Mike

.....File not found. Should I fake it? (Y/N)
Andrealphus
2006-01-02 21:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Andrade
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by newzguys
They Did Not Have Homosexuals in the Bible nor Laws Until 1970's
People that say there is a sin of homosexuality in the bible are
just ignorant of the facts of history, and the law.
The proof is in the pudding.
Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)
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
A few things about Leviticus. First of all, even if it defines a
sin to homosexuality, which is doubtful, Leviticus was a specific
pact of laws made between the Hebrew God, and the Hebrew (Children
of Israel) and was not meant to be applied to mankind as a whole.
A clear reading of all of Leviticus makes that abundantly clear.
Moses would have considered it a grievous sin to so much as teach
Levitical law to Gentiles. Secondly, the Book of Leviticus was a
set of laws that defined "sin" in relation to temple practices.
Again, a clear reading of the whole of Leviticus clearly points
that out.
Since I am neither Hebrew, nor am I a Levite, Leviticus is
irrelevant to me.
How many of the other Levitical proscriptions to you follow?
Get ready for the usual screed of false dichotomies, circular
reasoning, red herrings, and a host of other fallacies that avoid
factual information.
Yeah, I know.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. – Thomas Jefferson
duke
2006-01-02 21:40:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Andrade
Post by Andrealphus
How many of the other Levitical proscriptions to you follow?
Get ready for the usual screed of false dichotomies, circular
reasoning, red herrings, and a host of other fallacies that avoid
factual information.
Say what? I'm a Roman Catholic.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Andrealphus
2006-01-02 22:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Mike Andrade
Post by Andrealphus
How many of the other Levitical proscriptions to you follow?
Get ready for the usual screed of false dichotomies, circular
reasoning, red herrings, and a host of other fallacies that avoid
factual information.
Say what? I'm a Roman Catholic.
My condolences.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
duke
2006-01-03 19:06:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Mike Andrade
Post by Andrealphus
How many of the other Levitical proscriptions to you follow?
Get ready for the usual screed of false dichotomies, circular
reasoning, red herrings, and a host of other fallacies that avoid
factual information.
Say what? I'm a Roman Catholic.
My condolences.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
2006-01-03 19:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Mike Andrade
Post by Andrealphus
How many of the other Levitical proscriptions to you follow?
Get ready for the usual screed of false dichotomies, circular
reasoning, red herrings, and a host of other fallacies that avoid
factual information.
Say what? I'm a Roman Catholic.
My condolences.
I'm thrilled with my choice. You're in deep trouble.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Andrealphus
2006-01-03 19:07:57 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 22:30:12 GMT, "Andrealphus"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Mike Andrade
Post by Andrealphus
How many of the other Levitical proscriptions to you follow?
Get ready for the usual screed of false dichotomies, circular
reasoning, red herrings, and a host of other fallacies that avoid
factual information.
Say what? I'm a Roman Catholic.
My condolences.
I'm thrilled with my choice.
One of the signs of true delusion is that the deluded are thrilled.
You're in deep trouble.
Nope.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
duke
2006-01-03 22:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
I'm thrilled with my choice.
One of the signs of true delusion is that the deluded are thrilled.
As well as those who honestly profess the truth.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
You're in deep trouble.
Nope.
You're get your chance to say why one day.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Andrealphus
2006-01-03 22:31:30 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 19:07:57 GMT, "Andrealphus"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
I'm thrilled with my choice.
One of the signs of true delusion is that the deluded are thrilled.
As well as those who honestly profess the truth.
Religionists cannot make such a claim to the truth.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
You're in deep trouble.
Nope.
You're get your chance to say why one day.
I have my chance to say right now. Nope.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
duke
2006-01-04 02:07:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
I'm thrilled with my choice.
One of the signs of true delusion is that the deluded are thrilled.
As well as those who honestly profess the truth.
Religionists cannot make such a claim to the truth.
Then support your claim that there is no almighty God.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
You're in deep trouble.
Nope.
You're get your chance to say why one day.
I have my chance to say right now. Nope.
Now's not the time. Do it one moment after you die when you stand before God to
answer for that which you did while in the flesh. And stand you will.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Andrealphus
2006-01-04 02:07:55 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 22:31:30 GMT, "Andrealphus"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
I'm thrilled with my choice.
One of the signs of true delusion is that the deluded are thrilled.
As well as those who honestly profess the truth.
Religionists cannot make such a claim to the truth.
Then support your claim that there is no almighty God.
I never made such a claim.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
You're in deep trouble.
Nope.
You're get your chance to say why one day.
I have my chance to say right now. Nope.
Now's not the time.
Yes it is. Nope.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
duke
2006-01-04 14:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Then support your claim that there is no almighty God.
I never made such a claim.
Great, then you are a man of God.


duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Andrealphus
2006-01-04 22:15:45 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 02:07:55 GMT, "Andrealphus"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Then support your claim that there is no almighty God.
I never made such a claim.
Great, then you are a man of God.
Nope. Is your thinking aways so polarized?
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
Honus
2006-01-04 03:08:52 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 22:31:30 GMT, "Andrealphus"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
I'm thrilled with my choice.
One of the signs of true delusion is that the deluded are thrilled.
As well as those who honestly profess the truth.
Religionists cannot make such a claim to the truth.
Then support your claim that there is no almighty God.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
You're in deep trouble.
Nope.
You're get your chance to say why one day.
I have my chance to say right now. Nope.
Now's not the time. Do it one moment after you die when you stand before God to
answer for that which you did while in the flesh. And stand you will.
Of course he'll be standing. It just makes sense that you aim it at Him when
you tell Him to kiss your ass.
duke
2006-01-04 14:47:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
You're get your chance to say why one day.
I have my chance to say right now. Nope.
Now's not the time. Do it one moment after you die when you stand before
God to
Post by duke
answer for that which you did while in the flesh. And stand you will.
Of course he'll be standing. It just makes sense that you aim it at Him when
you tell Him to kiss your ass.
Is he going to back in?

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Honus
2006-01-04 15:27:49 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 03:08:52 GMT, "Honus"
Post by duke
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
You're get your chance to say why one day.
I have my chance to say right now. Nope.
Now's not the time. Do it one moment after you die when you stand before
God to
Post by duke
answer for that which you did while in the flesh. And stand you will.
Of course he'll be standing. It just makes sense that you aim it at Him when
you tell Him to kiss your ass.
Is he going to back in?
Are you ever lucid?
Paul Duca
2006-01-04 07:35:55 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 22:31:30 GMT, "Andrealphus"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
I'm thrilled with my choice.
One of the signs of true delusion is that the deluded are thrilled.
As well as those who honestly profess the truth.
Religionists cannot make such a claim to the truth.
Then support your claim that there is no almighty God.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
You're in deep trouble.
Nope.
You're get your chance to say why one day.
I have my chance to say right now. Nope.
Now's not the time. Do it one moment after you die when you stand before God to
answer for that which you did while in the flesh. And stand you will.
I'm not saying a word until He answers for all the crap He heaped on
MY flesh...



Paul
duke
2006-01-04 14:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Duca
I'm not saying a word until He answers for all the crap He heaped on
MY flesh...
You heaped it all there yourself.


duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Paul Duca
2006-01-05 02:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Paul Duca
I'm not saying a word until He answers for all the crap He heaped on
MY flesh...
You heaped it all there yourself.
You can pretend He does ANYTHING for you...I won't.



Paul
Barry OGrady
2006-01-06 10:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Paul Duca
I'm not saying a word until He answers for all the crap He heaped on
MY flesh...
You heaped it all there yourself.
You blame the victims.
Post by duke
duke
*****
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Barry OGrady
2006-01-06 10:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
I'm thrilled with my choice.
One of the signs of true delusion is that the deluded are thrilled.
As well as those who honestly profess the truth.
Religionists cannot make such a claim to the truth.
Then support your claim that there is no almighty God.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
You're in deep trouble.
Nope.
You're get your chance to say why one day.
I have my chance to say right now. Nope.
Now's not the time. Do it one moment after you die when you stand before God to
answer for that which you did while in the flesh. And stand you will.
Will God answer to us for the way he made us?
Since it is our physical brain that determines how we think and feel, what will we think
with once we leave our body?
Post by duke
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Paul Duca
2006-01-04 07:26:05 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 19:07:57 GMT, "Andrealphus"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
I'm thrilled with my choice.
One of the signs of true delusion is that the deluded are thrilled.
As well as those who honestly profess the truth.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
You're in deep trouble.
Nope.
You're get your chance to say why one day.
Then God will ignore Duke...


Paul
Paul Duca
2006-01-04 07:16:07 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 22:30:12 GMT, "Andrealphus"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Mike Andrade
Post by Andrealphus
How many of the other Levitical proscriptions to you follow?
Get ready for the usual screed of false dichotomies, circular
reasoning, red herrings, and a host of other fallacies that avoid
factual information.
Say what? I'm a Roman Catholic.
My condolences.
I'm thrilled with my choice. The gals still don't put out, though.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
--
Mike Andrade
2006-01-02 22:54:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Mike Andrade
Post by Andrealphus
How many of the other Levitical proscriptions to you follow?
Get ready for the usual screed of false dichotomies, circular
reasoning, red herrings, and a host of other fallacies that avoid
factual information.
Say what? I'm a Roman Catholic.
Good for you. I'm an American Druid. It's all about the trees, man.
--
Mike

"Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather
straps."
- Emo Philips
Paul Duca
2006-01-02 23:42:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Mike Andrade
Post by Andrealphus
How many of the other Levitical proscriptions to you follow?
Get ready for the usual screed of false dichotomies, circular
reasoning, red herrings, and a host of other fallacies that avoid
factual information.
Say what? I'm a Roman Catholic.
Which means my head is quite far up my ass...
duke
2006-01-03 19:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by duke
Say what? I'm a Roman Catholic.
Which means my head is quite far up my ass...
Well, pull it out, pd.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Paul Duca
2006-01-04 07:17:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by duke
Post by duke
Say what? I'm a Roman Catholic.
Which means my head is quite far up my ass...
Well, pull it out, pd.
What is that's defying the great plan of SuperCatholic God?



Paul
newzguys
2006-01-03 04:09:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Mike Andrade
Post by Andrealphus
How many of the other Levitical proscriptions to you follow?
Get ready for the usual screed of false dichotomies, circular
reasoning, red herrings, and a host of other fallacies that avoid
factual information.
Say what? I'm a Roman Catholic.
Pope Nazinger history:

Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth at age 14 and two years later
enrolled in an anti-aircraft unit that protected a BMW factory
making aircraft engines. The workforce included slaves from
Dachau concentration camp.

Where they killed homosexuals, hum wonder where Pope Nazinger
learned to hate homosexuals? And learned to lie that there is a
sin of homosexuality in the bible. No wonder you love the verse
Lev 20:13

Nazis of a feather, kill together.



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
duke
2006-01-03 19:10:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by newzguys
Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth at age 14 and two years later
enrolled in an anti-aircraft unit that protected a BMW factory
making aircraft engines. The workforce included slaves from
Dachau concentration camp.
He left the HY.
Post by newzguys
Where they killed homosexuals, hum wonder where Pope Nazinger
learned to hate homosexuals? And learned to lie that there is a
sin of homosexuality in the bible. No wonder you love the verse
Lev 20:13
Nazis of a feather, kill together.
That's like saying that you are a male like hitler, therefore you profess
gassing Jews.
And it's a despicable act none the less.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
nuwsguy
2006-01-04 04:46:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by newzguys
Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth at age 14 and two years later
enrolled in an anti-aircraft unit that protected a BMW factory
making aircraft engines. The workforce included slaves from
Dachau concentration camp.
He left the HY.
Post by newzguys
Where they killed homosexuals, hum wonder where Pope Nazinger
learned to hate homosexuals? And learned to lie that there is a
sin of homosexuality in the bible. No wonder you love the verse
Lev 20:13
Nazis of a feather, kill together.
That's like saying that you are a male like hitler, therefore you profess
gassing Jews.
And it's a despicable act none the less.
And we finally come to the truth, why you need to think there
is a sin of homosexuality in the bible. YOU HATE HOMOSEXUALS.

Just like Pope John Paul did and Nazinger does.

Now don't you feel better getting that out.
duke
2006-01-04 21:13:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by nuwsguy
Post by duke
And it's a despicable act none the less.
And we finally come to the truth, why you need to think there
is a sin of homosexuality in the bible. YOU HATE HOMOSEXUALS.
There IS a sin of practicing homo's in the bible. But I don't hate them. They
need to repent of their sin, clean up their act, and follow Jesus in service to
mankind.
Post by nuwsguy
Just like Pope John Paul did and Nazinger does.
Now don't you feel better getting that out.
No, it's been in the bible all along.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Paul Duca
2006-01-05 02:12:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by nuwsguy
Post by duke
And it's a despicable act none the less.
And we finally come to the truth, why you need to think there
is a sin of homosexuality in the bible. YOU HATE HOMOSEXUALS.
There IS a sin of practicing homo's in the bible. But I don't hate them.
They
need to repent of their sin, clean up their act, and follow Jesus in service to
mankind.
Why would ANYONE want to serve YOU, Duke?


Paul
newzguys
2006-01-05 04:19:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by nuwsguy
Post by duke
And it's a despicable act none the less.
And we finally come to the truth, why you need to think there
is a sin of homosexuality in the bible. YOU HATE HOMOSEXUALS.
There IS a sin of practicing homo's in the bible.
Really, then who can a hermaphrodite have sex with? Anyone
they would have sex with would be the same sex, therefore
God plays a joke on some humans by creating them so
that anyone they have sex with would be homosexual sex,
and you say they are commiting a sin. Anyone they would have
sex with they would be a practicing homosexual.
Post by duke
But I don't hate them. They
need to repent of their sin,
There is no sin and never was, they had no words for nor a
concept of homosexuality at the time the bioble was written.
Therefore it is a physical impossibility that there is a sin
of homosexuality in the bible. The 11th commandment for
conservatives, thou shalt not pollute thy self with the truth.

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
Post by duke
clean up their act, and follow Jesus in service to
mankind.
First you say don't commit homosexual acts then say follow
Jesus and serve men, make up your mind.
Post by duke
Post by nuwsguy
Just like Pope John Paul did and Nazinger does.
Now don't you feel better getting that out.
No, it's been in the bible all along.
All along, since your lot invented a sin of homosexuality and
imposed it upon sexual fertility worshipers, to "use" the
bible as a weapon for your hate of homosexuals, in your
homosexual agenda. Just like Pope Nazinger

The English courts interpreted sodomy as sexual intercourse
between a human and animal and anal intercourse between a
man and woman as well as anal intercourse between two men.
The law was against nonprocreative sex, not homosexual sex.
The modern terms homosexuality and heterosexuality do not
apply to an era that had not yet articulated these distinctions.
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html

If they did not have a concept of homosexuality 200 years
ago they sure did not have a concept 2000 years ago.
Barry OGrady
2006-01-06 10:31:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
Post by nuwsguy
Post by duke
And it's a despicable act none the less.
And we finally come to the truth, why you need to think there
is a sin of homosexuality in the bible. YOU HATE HOMOSEXUALS.
There IS a sin of practicing homo's in the bible.
Really, then who can a hermaphrodite have sex with? Anyone
they would have sex with would be the same sex, therefore
God plays a joke on some humans by creating them so
that anyone they have sex with would be homosexual sex,
and you say they are commiting a sin. Anyone they would have
sex with they would be a practicing homosexual.
God likes his little jokes.
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
But I don't hate them. They
need to repent of their sin,
There is no sin and never was, they had no words for nor a
concept of homosexuality at the time the bioble was written.
Therefore it is a physical impossibility that there is a sin
of homosexuality in the bible.
Regardless, the bible does say that we must kill homosexuals.
Post by newzguys
The 11th commandment for
conservatives, thou shalt not pollute thy self with the truth.
Legal history
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
Medical history
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social14.htm
Post by duke
clean up their act, and follow Jesus in service to
mankind.
First you say don't commit homosexual acts then say follow
Jesus and serve men, make up your mind.
Post by duke
Post by nuwsguy
Just like Pope John Paul did and Nazinger does.
Now don't you feel better getting that out.
No, it's been in the bible all along.
All along, since your lot invented a sin of homosexuality and
imposed it upon sexual fertility worshipers, to "use" the
bible as a weapon for your hate of homosexuals, in your
homosexual agenda. Just like Pope Nazinger
The English courts interpreted sodomy as sexual intercourse
between a human and animal and anal intercourse between a
man and woman as well as anal intercourse between two men.
The law was against nonprocreative sex, not homosexual sex.
The modern terms homosexuality and heterosexuality do not
apply to an era that had not yet articulated these distinctions.
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
If they did not have a concept of homosexuality 200 years
ago they sure did not have a concept 2000 years ago.
The concept of homosexuality has been around for thousands of
years. Obviously the writer knew about it when he condemned
homosexuals to death.

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Jude Alexander
2006-01-06 13:42:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
Post by nuwsguy
Post by duke
And it's a despicable act none the less.
And we finally come to the truth, why you need to think there
is a sin of homosexuality in the bible. YOU HATE HOMOSEXUALS.
There IS a sin of practicing homo's in the bible.
Really, then who can a hermaphrodite have sex with? Anyone
they would have sex with would be the same sex, therefore
God plays a joke on some humans by creating them so
that anyone they have sex with would be homosexual sex,
and you say they are commiting a sin. Anyone they would have
sex with they would be a practicing homosexual.
God likes his little jokes.
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
But I don't hate them. They
need to repent of their sin,
There is no sin and never was, they had no words for nor a
concept of homosexuality at the time the bioble was written.
Therefore it is a physical impossibility that there is a sin
of homosexuality in the bible.
Regardless, the bible does say that we must kill homosexuals.
Post by newzguys
The 11th commandment for
conservatives, thou shalt not pollute thy self with the truth.
Legal history
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
Medical history
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social14.htm
Post by duke
clean up their act, and follow Jesus in service to
mankind.
First you say don't commit homosexual acts then say follow
Jesus and serve men, make up your mind.
Post by duke
Post by nuwsguy
Just like Pope John Paul did and Nazinger does.
Now don't you feel better getting that out.
No, it's been in the bible all along.
All along, since your lot invented a sin of homosexuality and
imposed it upon sexual fertility worshipers, to "use" the
bible as a weapon for your hate of homosexuals, in your
homosexual agenda. Just like Pope Nazinger
The English courts interpreted sodomy as sexual intercourse
between a human and animal and anal intercourse between a
man and woman as well as anal intercourse between two men.
The law was against nonprocreative sex, not homosexual sex.
The modern terms homosexuality and heterosexuality do not
apply to an era that had not yet articulated these distinctions.
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
If they did not have a concept of homosexuality 200 years
ago they sure did not have a concept 2000 years ago.
The concept of homosexuality has been around for thousands of
years. Obviously the writer knew about it when he condemned
homosexuals to death.
They didn't understand it outside the activities of paganism and pagan
worship. Whereas Paul is clearly connecting pagan worship practices with
homosexuality, even Leviticus is in question because the Hebrew word used
for what has been translated as "mankind" can also be translated as
"babylonian god," which reinforces what the Jews believed and how they saw
public homosexual behavior, that is in the context of pagan worshipping
which included both heterosexual and homosexual activities.
newzguys
2006-01-07 06:12:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jude Alexander
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
The English courts interpreted sodomy as sexual intercourse
between a human and animal and anal intercourse between a
man and woman as well as anal intercourse between two men.
The law was against nonprocreative sex, not homosexual sex.
The modern terms homosexuality and heterosexuality do not
apply to an era that had not yet articulated these distinctions.
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
If they did not have a concept of homosexuality 200 years
ago they sure did not have a concept 2000 years ago.
The concept of homosexuality has been around for thousands of
years. Obviously the writer knew about it when he condemned
homosexuals to death.
They didn't understand it outside the activities of paganism and pagan
worship. Whereas Paul is clearly connecting pagan worship practices with
homosexuality,
Paul nor anyone up until the very late 19th century would have
seen two men having sex for the sole purpose of giving seed to
a fertility god as a homosexual act. That concept did not exist.
"The modern terms homosexuality and heterosexuality do not
apply to an era that had not yet articulated these distinctions."
-- Lawrence and Garner v. Texas US, 2003

The use of the word homosexuality is projection to a time in
which they had no such concept nor any words for this concept.
It would be nothing more than an idolatrous act, not a homosexual
act. The act was performed by heterosexuals as a prayer, not
homosexuals having sex for sexual excitment. (Just to make
clarity of the subject.)
Post by Jude Alexander
even Leviticus is in question because the Hebrew word used
for what has been translated as "mankind" can also be translated as
"babylonian god," which reinforces what the Jews believed and how they saw
public homosexual behavior, that is in the context of pagan worshipping
which included both heterosexual and homosexual activities.
Jude Alexander
2006-01-07 14:48:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by newzguys
Post by Jude Alexander
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
The English courts interpreted sodomy as sexual intercourse
between a human and animal and anal intercourse between a
man and woman as well as anal intercourse between two men.
The law was against nonprocreative sex, not homosexual sex.
The modern terms homosexuality and heterosexuality do not
apply to an era that had not yet articulated these distinctions.
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
If they did not have a concept of homosexuality 200 years
ago they sure did not have a concept 2000 years ago.
The concept of homosexuality has been around for thousands of
years. Obviously the writer knew about it when he condemned
homosexuals to death.
They didn't understand it outside the activities of paganism and pagan
worship. Whereas Paul is clearly connecting pagan worship practices with
homosexuality,
Paul nor anyone up until the very late 19th century would have
seen two men having sex for the sole purpose of giving seed to
a fertility god as a homosexual act. That concept did not exist.
"The modern terms homosexuality and heterosexuality do not
apply to an era that had not yet articulated these distinctions."
-- Lawrence and Garner v. Texas US, 2003
The use of the word homosexuality is projection to a time in
which they had no such concept nor any words for this concept.
It would be nothing more than an idolatrous act, not a homosexual
act. The act was performed by heterosexuals as a prayer, not
homosexuals having sex for sexual excitment. (Just to make
clarity of the subject.)
I agree. I just use the word "homosexuality" to describe two men together.
Yes, I agree that in the time of Moses when he wrote Leviticus which is ALL
about ritual, uncleanliness and worship, they had NO concept of two men or
two women falling in love, bonding and wanting to remain partners. They
only conceived those pairing as what they saw, in pagan rituals. IF they
ever caught homosexuals I'm sure they thought of it as "spilling seed,"
avoiding pregnancy and just having recreational sex. The fact that this
prohibition is in LEVITICUS is HIGHLY significant yet the fundaMENTAList
choice to remain ignorant or catch that significance ESPECIALLY when it is
close proximity of the prohibition of giving seed to Molech.

Paul, in Romans, CLEARLY connects what has been translated as
"homosexuality" to paganism when he talks about worshipping the creature
rathen than the Creator.
Post by newzguys
Post by Jude Alexander
even Leviticus is in question because the Hebrew word used
for what has been translated as "mankind" can also be translated as
"babylonian god," which reinforces what the Jews believed and how they saw
public homosexual behavior, that is in the context of pagan worshipping
which included both heterosexual and homosexual activities.
newzguys
2006-01-07 06:00:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
Post by nuwsguy
Post by duke
And it's a despicable act none the less.
And we finally come to the truth, why you need to think there
is a sin of homosexuality in the bible. YOU HATE HOMOSEXUALS.
There IS a sin of practicing homo's in the bible.
Really, then who can a hermaphrodite have sex with? Anyone
they would have sex with would be the same sex, therefore
God plays a joke on some humans by creating them so
that anyone they have sex with would be homosexual sex,
and you say they are commiting a sin. Anyone they would have
sex with they would be a practicing homosexual.
God likes his little jokes.
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
But I don't hate them. They
need to repent of their sin,
There is no sin and never was, they had no words for nor a
concept of homosexuality at the time the bioble was written.
Therefore it is a physical impossibility that there is a sin
of homosexuality in the bible.
Regardless, the bible does say that we must kill homosexuals.
I'm happy to see your true feelings about homosexuals finally
came out. After all if not for your bigotry of homosexuals (your
hate of them) why else would a so called atheist so fervently
agree with the conservatives of the mythical sin of homosexuality,
and that both you and they wish to kill them.
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
The 11th commandment for
conservatives, thou shalt not pollute thy self with the truth.
Legal history
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
Medical history
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social14.htm
Post by duke
clean up their act, and follow Jesus in service to
mankind.
First you say don't commit homosexual acts then say follow
Jesus and serve men, make up your mind.
Post by duke
Post by nuwsguy
Just like Pope John Paul did and Nazinger does.
Now don't you feel better getting that out.
No, it's been in the bible all along.
All along, since your lot invented a sin of homosexuality and
imposed it upon sexual fertility worshipers, to "use" the
bible as a weapon for your hate of homosexuals, in your
homosexual agenda. Just like Pope Nazinger
The English courts interpreted sodomy as sexual intercourse
between a human and animal and anal intercourse between a
man and woman as well as anal intercourse between two men.
The law was against nonprocreative sex, not homosexual sex.
The modern terms homosexuality and heterosexuality do not
apply to an era that had not yet articulated these distinctions.
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
If they did not have a concept of homosexuality 200 years
ago they sure did not have a concept 2000 years ago.
The concept of homosexuality has been around for thousands of
years. Obviously the writer knew about it when he condemned
homosexuals to death.
The sun going around the earth or the earth turning on its axis
would look the same, but only one model is correct. The same as
a man having sex with a Chemarim priest would look like
homosexual sex to a bigot, when in fact it had nothing to do with
sex at all.
newzguys
2006-01-07 05:59:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
Post by nuwsguy
Post by duke
And it's a despicable act none the less.
And we finally come to the truth, why you need to think there
is a sin of homosexuality in the bible. YOU HATE HOMOSEXUALS.
There IS a sin of practicing homo's in the bible.
Really, then who can a hermaphrodite have sex with? Anyone
they would have sex with would be the same sex, therefore
God plays a joke on some humans by creating them so
that anyone they have sex with would be homosexual sex,
and you say they are commiting a sin. Anyone they would have
sex with they would be a practicing homosexual.
God likes his little jokes.
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
But I don't hate them. They
need to repent of their sin,
There is no sin and never was, they had no words for nor a
concept of homosexuality at the time the bioble was written.
Therefore it is a physical impossibility that there is a sin
of homosexuality in the bible.
Regardless, the bible does say that we must kill homosexuals.
I'm happy to see your true feelings about homosexuals finally
came out. After all if not for your bigotry of homosexuals (your
hate of them) why else would a so called atheist so fervently
agree with the conservatives of the mythical sin of homosexuality,
and that both you and they wish to kill them.
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
The 11th commandment for
conservatives, thou shalt not pollute thy self with the truth.
Legal history
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
Medical history
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social14.htm
Post by duke
clean up their act, and follow Jesus in service to
mankind.
First you say don't commit homosexual acts then say follow
Jesus and serve men, make up your mind.
Post by duke
Post by nuwsguy
Just like Pope John Paul did and Nazinger does.
Now don't you feel better getting that out.
No, it's been in the bible all along.
All along, since your lot invented a sin of homosexuality and
imposed it upon sexual fertility worshipers, to "use" the
bible as a weapon for your hate of homosexuals, in your
homosexual agenda. Just like Pope Nazinger
The English courts interpreted sodomy as sexual intercourse
between a human and animal and anal intercourse between a
man and woman as well as anal intercourse between two men.
The law was against nonprocreative sex, not homosexual sex.
The modern terms homosexuality and heterosexuality do not
apply to an era that had not yet articulated these distinctions.
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
If they did not have a concept of homosexuality 200 years
ago they sure did not have a concept 2000 years ago.
The concept of homosexuality has been around for thousands of
years. Obviously the writer knew about it when he condemned
homosexuals to death.
The sun going around the earth or the earth turning on its axis
would look the same, but only one model is correct. The same as
a man having sex with a Chemarim priest would look like
homosexual sex to a bigot, when in fact it had nothing to do with
sex at all.
Barry OGrady
2006-01-07 23:05:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
Post by nuwsguy
Post by duke
And it's a despicable act none the less.
And we finally come to the truth, why you need to think there
is a sin of homosexuality in the bible. YOU HATE HOMOSEXUALS.
There IS a sin of practicing homo's in the bible.
Really, then who can a hermaphrodite have sex with? Anyone
they would have sex with would be the same sex, therefore
God plays a joke on some humans by creating them so
that anyone they have sex with would be homosexual sex,
and you say they are commiting a sin. Anyone they would have
sex with they would be a practicing homosexual.
God likes his little jokes.
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
But I don't hate them. They
need to repent of their sin,
There is no sin and never was, they had no words for nor a
concept of homosexuality at the time the bioble was written.
Therefore it is a physical impossibility that there is a sin
of homosexuality in the bible.
Regardless, the bible does say that we must kill homosexuals.
I'm happy to see your true feelings about homosexuals finally
came out.
Where did you see that?
Post by newzguys
After all if not for your bigotry of homosexuals (your
hate of them) why else would a so called atheist so fervently
agree with the conservatives of the mythical sin of homosexuality,
and that both you and they wish to kill them.
I'm only the messenger. I'm telling you what the bible says.
I think we should all reject the bible.
Why do you care what the bible says?
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
The 11th commandment for
conservatives, thou shalt not pollute thy self with the truth.
Legal history
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
Medical history
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social14.htm
Post by duke
clean up their act, and follow Jesus in service to
mankind.
First you say don't commit homosexual acts then say follow
Jesus and serve men, make up your mind.
Post by duke
Post by nuwsguy
Just like Pope John Paul did and Nazinger does.
Now don't you feel better getting that out.
No, it's been in the bible all along.
All along, since your lot invented a sin of homosexuality and
imposed it upon sexual fertility worshipers, to "use" the
bible as a weapon for your hate of homosexuals, in your
homosexual agenda. Just like Pope Nazinger
The English courts interpreted sodomy as sexual intercourse
between a human and animal and anal intercourse between a
man and woman as well as anal intercourse between two men.
The law was against nonprocreative sex, not homosexual sex.
The modern terms homosexuality and heterosexuality do not
apply to an era that had not yet articulated these distinctions.
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
If they did not have a concept of homosexuality 200 years
ago they sure did not have a concept 2000 years ago.
The concept of homosexuality has been around for thousands of
years. Obviously the writer knew about it when he condemned
homosexuals to death.
The sun going around the earth or the earth turning on its axis
would look the same, but only one model is correct. The same as
a man having sex with a Chemarim priest would look like
homosexual sex to a bigot, when in fact it had nothing to do with
sex at all.
Next thing you will be saying they had no concept of the sun providing
heat and light. It doesn't matter what they called it. The concept of
homosexuality existed in bible times.

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
newzguys
2006-01-09 03:08:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
Post by nuwsguy
Post by duke
And it's a despicable act none the less.
And we finally come to the truth, why you need to think there
is a sin of homosexuality in the bible. YOU HATE HOMOSEXUALS.
There IS a sin of practicing homo's in the bible.
Really, then who can a hermaphrodite have sex with? Anyone
they would have sex with would be the same sex, therefore
God plays a joke on some humans by creating them so
that anyone they have sex with would be homosexual sex,
and you say they are commiting a sin. Anyone they would have
sex with they would be a practicing homosexual.
God likes his little jokes.
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
But I don't hate them. They
need to repent of their sin,
There is no sin and never was, they had no words for nor a
concept of homosexuality at the time the bioble was written.
Therefore it is a physical impossibility that there is a sin
of homosexuality in the bible.
Regardless, the bible does say that we must kill homosexuals.
I'm happy to see your true feelings about homosexuals finally
came out.
Where did you see that?
"we must kill homosexuals" You said "we".
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
After all if not for your bigotry of homosexuals (your
hate of them) why else would a so called atheist so fervently
agree with the conservatives of the mythical sin of homosexuality,
and that both you and they wish to kill them.
I'm only the messenger. I'm telling you what the bible says.
I think we should all reject the bible.
Why do you care what the bible says?
The better question is why despite the fact that all modern day
evidence shows they had no words for nor a concept of
homosexuality at the time the bible was written, yet you insist
that you must kill homosexuals. You are no better than the
conservatives in using the bible as a weapon against the group
you hate and wish you could kill.
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
No, it's been in the bible all along.
All along, since your lot invented a sin of homosexuality and
imposed it upon sexual fertility worshipers, to "use" the
bible as a weapon for your hate of homosexuals, in your
homosexual agenda. Just like Pope Nazinger
The English courts interpreted sodomy as sexual intercourse
between a human and animal and anal intercourse between a
man and woman as well as anal intercourse between two men.
The law was against nonprocreative sex, not homosexual sex.
The modern terms homosexuality and heterosexuality do not
apply to an era that had not yet articulated these distinctions.
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
If they did not have a concept of homosexuality 200 years
ago they sure did not have a concept 2000 years ago.
The concept of homosexuality has been around for thousands of
years. Obviously the writer knew about it when he condemned
homosexuals to death.
The sun going around the earth or the earth turning on its axis
would look the same, but only one model is correct. The same as
a man having sex with a Chemarim priest would look like
homosexual sex to a bigot, when in fact it had nothing to do with
sex at all.
Next thing you will be saying they had no concept of the sun providing
heat and light. It doesn't matter what they called it. The concept of
homosexuality existed in bible times.
And your proof is what? The bible, and out of context verses in
the bible. If so funny you call yourself an atheist but us the bible
as a weapon just like the Christians.

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
Barry OGrady
2006-01-09 10:54:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
Post by nuwsguy
Post by duke
And it's a despicable act none the less.
And we finally come to the truth, why you need to think there
is a sin of homosexuality in the bible. YOU HATE HOMOSEXUALS.
There IS a sin of practicing homo's in the bible.
Really, then who can a hermaphrodite have sex with? Anyone
they would have sex with would be the same sex, therefore
God plays a joke on some humans by creating them so
that anyone they have sex with would be homosexual sex,
and you say they are commiting a sin. Anyone they would have
sex with they would be a practicing homosexual.
God likes his little jokes.
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
But I don't hate them. They
need to repent of their sin,
There is no sin and never was, they had no words for nor a
concept of homosexuality at the time the bioble was written.
Therefore it is a physical impossibility that there is a sin
of homosexuality in the bible.
Regardless, the bible does say that we must kill homosexuals.
I'm happy to see your true feelings about homosexuals finally
came out.
Where did you see that?
"we must kill homosexuals" You said "we".
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
After all if not for your bigotry of homosexuals (your
hate of them) why else would a so called atheist so fervently
agree with the conservatives of the mythical sin of homosexuality,
and that both you and they wish to kill them.
I'm only the messenger. I'm telling you what the bible says.
I think we should all reject the bible.
Why do you care what the bible says?
The better question is why despite the fact that all modern day
evidence shows they had no words for nor a concept of
homosexuality at the time the bible was written, yet you insist
that you must kill homosexuals. You are no better than the
conservatives in using the bible as a weapon against the group
you hate and wish you could kill.
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
No, it's been in the bible all along.
All along, since your lot invented a sin of homosexuality and
imposed it upon sexual fertility worshipers, to "use" the
bible as a weapon for your hate of homosexuals, in your
homosexual agenda. Just like Pope Nazinger
The English courts interpreted sodomy as sexual intercourse
between a human and animal and anal intercourse between a
man and woman as well as anal intercourse between two men.
The law was against nonprocreative sex, not homosexual sex.
The modern terms homosexuality and heterosexuality do not
apply to an era that had not yet articulated these distinctions.
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
If they did not have a concept of homosexuality 200 years
ago they sure did not have a concept 2000 years ago.
The concept of homosexuality has been around for thousands of
years. Obviously the writer knew about it when he condemned
homosexuals to death.
The sun going around the earth or the earth turning on its axis
would look the same, but only one model is correct. The same as
a man having sex with a Chemarim priest would look like
homosexual sex to a bigot, when in fact it had nothing to do with
sex at all.
Next thing you will be saying they had no concept of the sun providing
heat and light. It doesn't matter what they called it. The concept of
homosexuality existed in bible times.
And your proof is what? The bible, and out of context verses in
the bible. If so funny you call yourself an atheist but us the bible
as a weapon just like the Christians.
Legal history
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
Medical history
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social14.htm
You are using the common Christian technique of repeating something
in the hope that it will be believed.

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
newzguys
2006-01-09 02:30:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
Post by nuwsguy
Post by duke
And it's a despicable act none the less.
And we finally come to the truth, why you need to think there
is a sin of homosexuality in the bible. YOU HATE HOMOSEXUALS.
There IS a sin of practicing homo's in the bible.
Really, then who can a hermaphrodite have sex with? Anyone
they would have sex with would be the same sex, therefore
God plays a joke on some humans by creating them so
that anyone they have sex with would be homosexual sex,
and you say they are commiting a sin. Anyone they would have
sex with they would be a practicing homosexual.
God likes his little jokes.
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
But I don't hate them. They
need to repent of their sin,
There is no sin and never was, they had no words for nor a
concept of homosexuality at the time the bioble was written.
Therefore it is a physical impossibility that there is a sin
of homosexuality in the bible.
Regardless, the bible does say that we must kill homosexuals.
I'm happy to see your true feelings about homosexuals finally
came out.
Where did you see that?
"we must kill homosexuals" You said "we"
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
After all if not for your bigotry of homosexuals (your
hate of them) why else would a so called atheist so fervently
agree with the conservatives of the mythical sin of homosexuality,
and that both you and they wish to kill them.
I'm only the messenger. I'm telling you what the bible says.
I think we should all reject the bible.
Why do you care what the bible says?
The better question to ask is, if not for a hate of homosexuals why
would you, despite the contrary to all known facts today, insist
there is the concept of homosexuality in the bible, when it is a
physical impossibility. The only message you are sending is
your hate of homosexuals, and your wish you could kill them all.

"we must kill homosexuals" You said "we"
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
No, it's been in the bible all along.
All along, since your lot invented a sin of homosexuality and
imposed it upon sexual fertility worshipers, to "use" the
bible as a weapon for your hate of homosexuals, in your
homosexual agenda. Just like Pope Nazinger
The English courts interpreted sodomy as sexual intercourse
between a human and animal and anal intercourse between a
man and woman as well as anal intercourse between two men.
The law was against nonprocreative sex, not homosexual sex.
The modern terms homosexuality and heterosexuality do not
apply to an era that had not yet articulated these distinctions.
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
If they did not have a concept of homosexuality 200 years
ago they sure did not have a concept 2000 years ago.
The concept of homosexuality has been around for thousands of
years. Obviously the writer knew about it when he condemned
homosexuals to death.
The sun going around the earth or the earth turning on its axis
would look the same, but only one model is correct. The same as
a man having sex with a Chemarim priest would look like
homosexual sex to a bigot, when in fact it had nothing to do with
sex at all.
Next thing you will be saying they had no concept of the sun providing
heat and light. It doesn't matter what they called it. The concept of
homosexuality existed in bible times.
Despite the fact that they had no words for nor any written discussion
of a person exclusively attracted to the same sex, because by law and
custom a man must marry a woman like it or not. And in every case
the context is of a man having sex with a priest or a temple prostitute
for the sole purpose of giving seed to their fertility god. If you
think
that two heterosexuals having sex for the sole purpose of performing
a religious act, is a homosexual act, then hey, bigots are like that.

Legal history
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html

Medical history
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social14.htm
newzguys
2006-01-08 15:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
Post by nuwsguy
Post by duke
And it's a despicable act none the less.
And we finally come to the truth, why you need to think there
is a sin of homosexuality in the bible. YOU HATE HOMOSEXUALS.
There IS a sin of practicing homo's in the bible.
Really, then who can a hermaphrodite have sex with? Anyone
they would have sex with would be the same sex, therefore
God plays a joke on some humans by creating them so
that anyone they have sex with would be homosexual sex,
and you say they are commiting a sin. Anyone they would have
sex with they would be a practicing homosexual.
God likes his little jokes.
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
But I don't hate them. They
need to repent of their sin,
There is no sin and never was, they had no words for nor a
concept of homosexuality at the time the bioble was written.
Therefore it is a physical impossibility that there is a sin
of homosexuality in the bible.
Regardless, the bible does say that we must kill homosexuals.
I'm happy to see your true feelings about homosexuals finally
came out.
Where did you see that?
"we must kill homosexuals" You said "we"
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
After all if not for your bigotry of homosexuals (your
hate of them) why else would a so called atheist so fervently
agree with the conservatives of the mythical sin of homosexuality,
and that both you and they wish to kill them.
I'm only the messenger. I'm telling you what the bible says.
I think we should all reject the bible.
Why do you care what the bible says?
The better question is, despite the fact that all modern
evidence shows they had no words for nor a concept of
homosexuality at the time the bible was written, you insist
on saying that there is a sin of homosexuality when that is
a physical impossibility. Why then, if not for your personal
hate and wish to kill homosexuals do you keep saying the
bible says "we must kill homosexuals".

I care about the truth, that is why I care what the bible
actually said. I care that you are using the bible, just
as the conservatives do, as a weapon against innocent
people that have done nothing but have affection for the
same sex.
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
The 11th commandment for
conservatives, thou shalt not pollute thy self with the truth.
Legal history
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
Medical history
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social14.htm
Post by duke
clean up their act, and follow Jesus in service to
mankind.
First you say don't commit homosexual acts then say follow
Jesus and serve men, make up your mind.
Post by duke
Post by nuwsguy
Just like Pope John Paul did and Nazinger does.
Now don't you feel better getting that out.
No, it's been in the bible all along.
All along, since your lot invented a sin of homosexuality and
imposed it upon sexual fertility worshipers, to "use" the
bible as a weapon for your hate of homosexuals, in your
homosexual agenda. Just like Pope Nazinger
The English courts interpreted sodomy as sexual intercourse
between a human and animal and anal intercourse between a
man and woman as well as anal intercourse between two men.
The law was against nonprocreative sex, not homosexual sex.
The modern terms homosexuality and heterosexuality do not
apply to an era that had not yet articulated these distinctions.
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
If they did not have a concept of homosexuality 200 years
ago they sure did not have a concept 2000 years ago.
The concept of homosexuality has been around for thousands of
years. Obviously the writer knew about it when he condemned
homosexuals to death.
The sun going around the earth or the earth turning on its axis
would look the same, but only one model is correct. The same as
a man having sex with a Chemarim priest would look like
homosexual sex to a bigot, when in fact it had nothing to do with
sex at all.
Next thing you will be saying they had no concept of the sun providing
heat and light. It doesn't matter what they called it. The concept of
homosexuality existed in bible times.
And your proof is what? The bible, and out of context verses,
if so, you are no better than those you fight against.
Barry OGrady
2006-01-09 10:52:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
Post by nuwsguy
Post by duke
And it's a despicable act none the less.
And we finally come to the truth, why you need to think there
is a sin of homosexuality in the bible. YOU HATE HOMOSEXUALS.
There IS a sin of practicing homo's in the bible.
Really, then who can a hermaphrodite have sex with? Anyone
they would have sex with would be the same sex, therefore
God plays a joke on some humans by creating them so
that anyone they have sex with would be homosexual sex,
and you say they are commiting a sin. Anyone they would have
sex with they would be a practicing homosexual.
God likes his little jokes.
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
But I don't hate them. They
need to repent of their sin,
There is no sin and never was, they had no words for nor a
concept of homosexuality at the time the bioble was written.
Therefore it is a physical impossibility that there is a sin
of homosexuality in the bible.
Regardless, the bible does say that we must kill homosexuals.
I'm happy to see your true feelings about homosexuals finally
came out.
Where did you see that?
"we must kill homosexuals" You said "we"
That's what the Bible says.
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
After all if not for your bigotry of homosexuals (your
hate of them) why else would a so called atheist so fervently
agree with the conservatives of the mythical sin of homosexuality,
and that both you and they wish to kill them.
I'm only the messenger. I'm telling you what the bible says.
I think we should all reject the bible.
Why do you care what the bible says?
The better question is, despite the fact that all modern
evidence shows they had no words for nor a concept of
homosexuality at the time the bible was written, you insist
on saying that there is a sin of homosexuality when that is
a physical impossibility. Why then, if not for your personal
hate and wish to kill homosexuals do you keep saying the
bible says "we must kill homosexuals".
The Bible does say that, no matter that you would prefer it
didn't.
Post by newzguys
I care about the truth, that is why I care what the bible
actually said.
I know why you reject the words of the Bible.
Post by newzguys
I care that you are using the bible, just
as the conservatives do, as a weapon against innocent
people that have done nothing but have affection for the
same sex.
Don't kill the messenger.
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
The 11th commandment for
conservatives, thou shalt not pollute thy self with the truth.
Legal history
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
Medical history
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social14.htm
Post by duke
clean up their act, and follow Jesus in service to
mankind.
First you say don't commit homosexual acts then say follow
Jesus and serve men, make up your mind.
Post by duke
Post by nuwsguy
Just like Pope John Paul did and Nazinger does.
Now don't you feel better getting that out.
No, it's been in the bible all along.
All along, since your lot invented a sin of homosexuality and
imposed it upon sexual fertility worshipers, to "use" the
bible as a weapon for your hate of homosexuals, in your
homosexual agenda. Just like Pope Nazinger
The English courts interpreted sodomy as sexual intercourse
between a human and animal and anal intercourse between a
man and woman as well as anal intercourse between two men.
The law was against nonprocreative sex, not homosexual sex.
The modern terms homosexuality and heterosexuality do not
apply to an era that had not yet articulated these distinctions.
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
If they did not have a concept of homosexuality 200 years
ago they sure did not have a concept 2000 years ago.
The concept of homosexuality has been around for thousands of
years. Obviously the writer knew about it when he condemned
homosexuals to death.
The sun going around the earth or the earth turning on its axis
would look the same, but only one model is correct. The same as
a man having sex with a Chemarim priest would look like
homosexual sex to a bigot, when in fact it had nothing to do with
sex at all.
Next thing you will be saying they had no concept of the sun providing
heat and light. It doesn't matter what they called it. The concept of
homosexuality existed in bible times.
And your proof is what?
Other animals engage in homosexual acts.
Post by newzguys
The bible, and out of context verses,
I don't use context to make the Bible say what it doesn't.
Post by newzguys
if so, you are no better than those you fight against.
Why not tell people to reject the Bible rather than pretend it says something
else?

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
newzguys
2006-01-08 03:59:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
Post by nuwsguy
Post by duke
And it's a despicable act none the less.
And we finally come to the truth, why you need to think there
is a sin of homosexuality in the bible. YOU HATE HOMOSEXUALS.
There IS a sin of practicing homo's in the bible.
Really, then who can a hermaphrodite have sex with? Anyone
they would have sex with would be the same sex, therefore
God plays a joke on some humans by creating them so
that anyone they have sex with would be homosexual sex,
and you say they are commiting a sin. Anyone they would have
sex with they would be a practicing homosexual.
God likes his little jokes.
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
But I don't hate them. They
need to repent of their sin,
There is no sin and never was, they had no words for nor a
concept of homosexuality at the time the bioble was written.
Therefore it is a physical impossibility that there is a sin
of homosexuality in the bible.
Regardless, the bible does say that we must kill homosexuals.
I'm happy to see your true feelings about homosexuals finally
came out.
Where did you see that?
"we must kill homosexuals" You said "we"
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
After all if not for your bigotry of homosexuals (your
hate of them) why else would a so called atheist so fervently
agree with the conservatives of the mythical sin of homosexuality,
and that both you and they wish to kill them.
I'm only the messenger. I'm telling you what the bible says.
I think we should all reject the bible.
Why do you care what the bible says?
The better question to ask is, if not for a hate of homosexuals why
would you, despite the contrary to all known facts today, insist
there is the concept of homosexuality in the bible, when it is a
physical impossibility. The only message you are sending is
your hate of homosexuals, and your wish you could kill them all.

"we must kill homosexuals" You said "we"
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
No, it's been in the bible all along.
All along, since your lot invented a sin of homosexuality and
imposed it upon sexual fertility worshipers, to "use" the
bible as a weapon for your hate of homosexuals, in your
homosexual agenda. Just like Pope Nazinger
The English courts interpreted sodomy as sexual intercourse
between a human and animal and anal intercourse between a
man and woman as well as anal intercourse between two men.
The law was against nonprocreative sex, not homosexual sex.
The modern terms homosexuality and heterosexuality do not
apply to an era that had not yet articulated these distinctions.
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
If they did not have a concept of homosexuality 200 years
ago they sure did not have a concept 2000 years ago.
The concept of homosexuality has been around for thousands of
years. Obviously the writer knew about it when he condemned
homosexuals to death.
The sun going around the earth or the earth turning on its axis
would look the same, but only one model is correct. The same as
a man having sex with a Chemarim priest would look like
homosexual sex to a bigot, when in fact it had nothing to do with
sex at all.
Next thing you will be saying they had no concept of the sun providing
heat and light. It doesn't matter what they called it. The concept of
homosexuality existed in bible times.
Despite the fact that they had no words for nor any written discussion
of a person exclusively attracted to the same sex, because by law and
custom a man must marry a woman like it or not. And in every case
the context is of a man having sex with a priest or a temple prostitute
for the sole purpose of giving seed to their fertility god. If you
think
that two heterosexuals having sex for the sole purpose of performing
a religious act, is a homosexual act, then hey, bigots are like that.

Legal history
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html

Medical history
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social14.htm
Barry OGrady
2006-01-09 10:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
Post by nuwsguy
Post by duke
And it's a despicable act none the less.
And we finally come to the truth, why you need to think there
is a sin of homosexuality in the bible. YOU HATE HOMOSEXUALS.
There IS a sin of practicing homo's in the bible.
Really, then who can a hermaphrodite have sex with? Anyone
they would have sex with would be the same sex, therefore
God plays a joke on some humans by creating them so
that anyone they have sex with would be homosexual sex,
and you say they are commiting a sin. Anyone they would have
sex with they would be a practicing homosexual.
God likes his little jokes.
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
But I don't hate them. They
need to repent of their sin,
There is no sin and never was, they had no words for nor a
concept of homosexuality at the time the bioble was written.
Therefore it is a physical impossibility that there is a sin
of homosexuality in the bible.
Regardless, the bible does say that we must kill homosexuals.
I'm happy to see your true feelings about homosexuals finally
came out.
Where did you see that?
"we must kill homosexuals" You said "we"
I should have said you, as a Christian, must kill homosexuals.
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
After all if not for your bigotry of homosexuals (your
hate of them) why else would a so called atheist so fervently
agree with the conservatives of the mythical sin of homosexuality,
and that both you and they wish to kill them.
I'm only the messenger. I'm telling you what the bible says.
I think we should all reject the bible.
Why do you care what the bible says?
The better question to ask is, if not for a hate of homosexuals why
would you, despite the contrary to all known facts today, insist
there is the concept of homosexuality in the bible, when it is a
physical impossibility.
That's not a valid question. It is based on false claims.
Post by newzguys
The only message you are sending is
your hate of homosexuals, and your wish you could kill them all.
You are in error. I don't want the Bible's hate covered up.
I understand that you want to make God look good but it can't be done.
Post by newzguys
"we must kill homosexuals" You said "we"
I should have said you, as a Christian, must kill homosexuals.
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by duke
No, it's been in the bible all along.
All along, since your lot invented a sin of homosexuality and
imposed it upon sexual fertility worshipers, to "use" the
bible as a weapon for your hate of homosexuals, in your
homosexual agenda. Just like Pope Nazinger
The English courts interpreted sodomy as sexual intercourse
between a human and animal and anal intercourse between a
man and woman as well as anal intercourse between two men.
The law was against nonprocreative sex, not homosexual sex.
The modern terms homosexuality and heterosexuality do not
apply to an era that had not yet articulated these distinctions.
http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html
If they did not have a concept of homosexuality 200 years
ago they sure did not have a concept 2000 years ago.
The concept of homosexuality has been around for thousands of
years. Obviously the writer knew about it when he condemned
homosexuals to death.
The sun going around the earth or the earth turning on its axis
would look the same, but only one model is correct. The same as
a man having sex with a Chemarim priest would look like
homosexual sex to a bigot, when in fact it had nothing to do with
sex at all.
Next thing you will be saying they had no concept of the sun providing
heat and light. It doesn't matter what they called it. The concept of
homosexuality existed in bible times.
Despite the fact that they had no words for nor any written discussion
of a person exclusively attracted to the same sex, because by law and
custom a man must marry a woman like it or not. And in every case
the context is of a man having sex with a priest or a temple prostitute
for the sole purpose of giving seed to their fertility god. If you
think
that two heterosexuals having sex for the sole purpose of performing
a religious act, is a homosexual act, then hey, bigots are like that.
Since you are able to reject that one aspect of the Bible you should
reject Christianity completely.

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
newzguys
2006-01-11 12:46:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Regardless, the bible does say that we must kill homosexuals.
I'm happy to see your true feelings about homosexuals finally
came out.
Where did you see that?
"we must kill homosexuals" You said "we"
I should have said you, as a Christian, must kill homosexuals.
Freudian slips like that have a true meaning, don't try to
cover up your hate of homosexuals, it is well known.

Unlike you, I am an atheist, not just passing as one.
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
After all if not for your bigotry of homosexuals (your
hate of them) why else would a so called atheist so fervently
agree with the conservatives of the mythical sin of homosexuality,
and that both you and they wish to kill them.
I'm only the messenger. I'm telling you what the bible says.
I think we should all reject the bible.
Why do you care what the bible says?
The better question to ask is, if not for a hate of homosexuals why
would you, despite the contrary to all known facts today, insist
there is the concept of homosexuality in the bible, when it is a
physical impossibility.
That's not a valid question. It is based on false claims.
And your proof of the concept of homosexuality at the time
the bible was written is what, some out of context verses
like all conservatives?
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
The only message you are sending is
your hate of homosexuals, and your wish you could kill them all.
You are in error. I don't want the Bible's hate covered up.
I understand that you want to make God look good but it can't be done.
The only hate is your's, the hate is directed at homosexuals, to
"use" the bible just like the Christians against homosexuals.
If your beef is with the bible, then truth is much more effective than
your hate of homosexuals. They had no concept of homosexuality
at the time the bible was written, period. As an atheist, and a
rational person, I have no need to make that which is not real
look good or bad. It's not real, therefore it is neither good nor bad.

Now read the below.

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
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
"we must kill homosexuals" You said "we"
I should have said you, as a Christian, must kill homosexuals.
Yeah right.
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Next thing you will be saying they had no concept of the sun providing
heat and light. It doesn't matter what they called it. The concept of
homosexuality existed in bible times.
Despite the fact that they had no words for nor any written discussion
of a person exclusively attracted to the same sex, because by law and
custom a man must marry a woman like it or not. And in every case
the context is of a man having sex with a priest or a temple prostitute
for the sole purpose of giving seed to their fertility god. If you
think
that two heterosexuals having sex for the sole purpose of performing
a religious act, is a homosexual act, then hey, bigots are like that.
Since you are able to reject that one aspect of the Bible you should
reject Christianity completely.
Unlike you, as a real atheist, I reject anything that is not true.
Barry OGrady
2006-01-06 10:31:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by nuwsguy
Post by duke
And it's a despicable act none the less.
And we finally come to the truth, why you need to think there
is a sin of homosexuality in the bible. YOU HATE HOMOSEXUALS.
There IS a sin of practicing homo's in the bible.
Tue.
Post by duke
But I don't hate them. They
need to repent of their sin, clean up their act, and follow Jesus in service to
mankind.
All things are possible for God, which means that homosexuality exists because
God wants it. You are saying we must defy God's will.
Post by duke
Post by nuwsguy
Just like Pope John Paul did and Nazinger does.
Now don't you feel better getting that out.
No, it's been in the bible all along.
Indeed.
Post by duke
duke
*****
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Barry OGrady
2006-01-06 10:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by nuwsguy
Post by duke
Post by newzguys
Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth at age 14 and two years later
enrolled in an anti-aircraft unit that protected a BMW factory
making aircraft engines. The workforce included slaves from
Dachau concentration camp.
He left the HY.
Post by newzguys
Where they killed homosexuals, hum wonder where Pope Nazinger
learned to hate homosexuals? And learned to lie that there is a
sin of homosexuality in the bible. No wonder you love the verse
Lev 20:13
Nazis of a feather, kill together.
That's like saying that you are a male like hitler, therefore you profess
gassing Jews.
And it's a despicable act none the less.
And we finally come to the truth, why you need to think there
is a sin of homosexuality in the bible. YOU HATE HOMOSEXUALS.
The bible does prescribe death for homosexual actions, and homosexuals
shall not enter the kingdom of God.
Post by nuwsguy
Just like Pope John Paul did and Nazinger does.
Now don't you feel better getting that out.
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
newzguys
2006-01-07 06:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by nuwsguy
Post by duke
Post by newzguys
Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth at age 14 and two years later
enrolled in an anti-aircraft unit that protected a BMW factory
making aircraft engines. The workforce included slaves from
Dachau concentration camp.
He left the HY.
Post by newzguys
Where they killed homosexuals, hum wonder where Pope Nazinger
learned to hate homosexuals? And learned to lie that there is a
sin of homosexuality in the bible. No wonder you love the verse
Lev 20:13
Nazis of a feather, kill together.
That's like saying that you are a male like hitler, therefore you profess
gassing Jews.
And it's a despicable act none the less.
And we finally come to the truth, why you need to think there
is a sin of homosexuality in the bible. YOU HATE HOMOSEXUALS.
The bible does prescribe death for homosexual actions, and homosexuals
shall not enter the kingdom of God.
Oh I think what you said about homosexuals tells it all about
your homosexual agenda.

"Regardless, the bible does say that we must kill homosexuals."
-Barry OGrady
Barry OGrady
2006-01-07 23:08:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by newzguys
Post by Barry OGrady
Post by nuwsguy
Post by duke
Post by newzguys
Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth at age 14 and two years later
enrolled in an anti-aircraft unit that protected a BMW factory
making aircraft engines. The workforce included slaves from
Dachau concentration camp.
He left the HY.
Post by newzguys
Where they killed homosexuals, hum wonder where Pope Nazinger
learned to hate homosexuals? And learned to lie that there is a
sin of homosexuality in the bible. No wonder you love the verse
Lev 20:13
Nazis of a feather, kill together.
That's like saying that you are a male like hitler, therefore you profess
gassing Jews.
And it's a despicable act none the less.
And we finally come to the truth, why you need to think there
is a sin of homosexuality in the bible. YOU HATE HOMOSEXUALS.
The bible does prescribe death for homosexual actions, and homosexuals
shall not enter the kingdom of God.
Oh I think what you said about homosexuals tells it all about
your homosexual agenda.
"Regardless, the bible does say that we must kill homosexuals."
-Barry OGrady
Rather than killing the messenger you should be rejecting the bible in
its entirety.

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Paul Duca
2006-01-04 07:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by newzguys
Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth at age 14 and two years later
enrolled in an anti-aircraft unit that protected a BMW factory
making aircraft engines. The workforce included slaves from
Dachau concentration camp.
He left the HY.
Post by newzguys
Where they killed homosexuals, hum wonder where Pope Nazinger
learned to hate homosexuals? And learned to lie that there is a
sin of homosexuality in the bible. No wonder you love the verse
Lev 20:13
Nazis of a feather, kill together.
That's like saying that you are a male like hitler, therefore you profess
gassing Jews.
And it's a despicable act none the less.
Only because history is written by the winners...


Paul
duke
2006-01-04 21:14:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Duca
Post by duke
And it's a despicable act none the less.
Only because history is written by the winners...
Interesting thought. We clearly know who the winners are, and not

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
2006-01-02 21:39:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by newzguys
They Did Not Have Homosexuals in the Bible nor Laws Until 1970's
People that say there is a sin of homosexuality in the bible are
just ignorant of the facts of history, and the law.
The proof is in the pudding.
Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)
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
A few things about Leviticus. First of all, even if it defines a sin to
homosexuality, which is doubtful, Leviticus was a specific pact of laws made
between the Hebrew God, and the Hebrew (Children of Israel) and was not
meant to be applied to mankind as a whole.
Really!! God told you it was not intended to be applied to all mankind?
Post by Andrealphus
A clear reading of all of
Leviticus makes that abundantly clear. Moses would have considered it a
grievous sin to so much as teach Levitical law to Gentiles.
Were there gentiles in moses' time?
Post by Andrealphus
Secondly, the
Book of Leviticus was a set of laws that defined "sin" in relation to temple
practices. Again, a clear reading of the whole of Leviticus clearly points
that out.
But of course. That's what the whole man made law of the OT is about. Man made
laws to determine how to define a sin, and more manmade laws to see if men were
following the man made laws.
Post by Andrealphus
Since I am neither Hebrew, nor am I a Levite, Leviticus is irrelevant to me.
Ok. I'm a Christian myself.
Post by Andrealphus
How many of the other Levitical proscriptions to you follow?
None. I'm a Christian.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Andrealphus
2006-01-02 22:29:51 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:23:47 GMT, "Andrealphus"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by newzguys
They Did Not Have Homosexuals in the Bible nor Laws Until 1970's
People that say there is a sin of homosexuality in the bible are
just ignorant of the facts of history, and the law.
The proof is in the pudding.
Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)
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
A few things about Leviticus. First of all, even if it defines a
sin to homosexuality, which is doubtful, Leviticus was a specific
pact of laws made between the Hebrew God, and the Hebrew (Children
of Israel) and was not meant to be applied to mankind as a whole.
Really!! God told you it was not intended to be applied to all mankind?
Read the whole of Leviticus, it was addressed to the Children of Israel, and
only to the Children of Israel. It says so in numerous places.
Post by Andrealphus
A clear reading of all of
Leviticus makes that abundantly clear. Moses would have considered
it a grievous sin to so much as teach Levitical law to Gentiles.
Were there gentiles in moses' time?
Are you really this stupid? Anyone not Hebrew, was considered Gentiles.
That would be Egyptians, Greeks, etc...
Post by Andrealphus
Secondly, the
Book of Leviticus was a set of laws that defined "sin" in relation
to temple practices. Again, a clear reading of the whole of
Leviticus clearly points that out.
But of course. That's what the whole man made law of the OT is
about. Man made laws to determine how to define a sin, and more
manmade laws to see if men were following the man made laws.
Which only applied to the people making the laws.
Post by Andrealphus
Since I am neither Hebrew, nor am I a Levite, Leviticus is
irrelevant to me.
Ok. I'm a Christian myself.
Post by Andrealphus
How many of the other Levitical proscriptions to you follow?
None. I'm a Christian.
Then there you go. I trust you're get over quoting it then.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
duke
2006-01-03 19:13:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Really!! God told you it was not intended to be applied to all mankind?
Read the whole of Leviticus, it was addressed to the Children of Israel, and
only to the Children of Israel. It says so in numerous places.
Yet the God of the Children of Israel and the God of the Christian are one and
the same.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Were there gentiles in moses' time?
Are you really this stupid? Anyone not Hebrew, was considered Gentiles.
That would be Egyptians, Greeks, etc...
I didn't know that. Even in Moses' time?
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
But of course. That's what the whole man made law of the OT is
about. Man made laws to determine how to define a sin, and more
manmade laws to see if men were following the man made laws.
Which only applied to the people making the laws.
Their God is my God.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Since I am neither Hebrew, nor am I a Levite, Leviticus is
irrelevant to me.
Ok. I'm a Christian myself.
Post by Andrealphus
How many of the other Levitical proscriptions to you follow?
None. I'm a Christian.
Then there you go. I trust you're get over quoting it then.
I'm only relating what God said about homosexuals, and it is a bad deal. Still
so today.


duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Andrealphus
2006-01-03 19:16:22 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 22:29:51 GMT, "Andrealphus"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Really!! God told you it was not intended to be applied to all mankind?
Read the whole of Leviticus, it was addressed to the Children of
Israel, and only to the Children of Israel. It says so in numerous
places.
Yet the God of the Children of Israel and the God of the Christian
are one and the same.
Which doesn't negate the fact that Leviticus was specifically addressed to
"The Children of Israel".
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Were there gentiles in moses' time?
Are you really this stupid? Anyone not Hebrew, was considered
Gentiles. That would be Egyptians, Greeks, etc...
I didn't know that. Even in Moses' time?
Have you actually read the Bible?
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
But of course. That's what the whole man made law of the OT is
about. Man made laws to determine how to define a sin, and more
manmade laws to see if men were following the man made laws.
Which only applied to the people making the laws.
Their God is my God.
But you are not Hebrew, or a child of Israel. You can apply the laws to
yourself all day long, no one really cares.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Since I am neither Hebrew, nor am I a Levite, Leviticus is
irrelevant to me.
Ok. I'm a Christian myself.
Post by Andrealphus
How many of the other Levitical proscriptions to you follow?
None. I'm a Christian.
Then there you go. I trust you're get over quoting it then.
I'm only relating what God said about homosexuals, and it is a bad
deal. Still so today.
Nonsense.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
duke
2006-01-03 22:28:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Yet the God of the Children of Israel and the God of the Christian
are one and the same.
Which doesn't negate the fact that Leviticus was specifically addressed to
"The Children of Israel".
God's chosen people.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Were there gentiles in moses' time?
Are you really this stupid? Anyone not Hebrew, was considered
Gentiles. That would be Egyptians, Greeks, etc...
I didn't know that. Even in Moses' time?
Have you actually read the Bible?
I repeat - show me where there were gentiles in Moses' time.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Their God is my God.
But you are not Hebrew, or a child of Israel. You can apply the laws to
yourself all day long, no one really cares.
God cares.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Since I am neither Hebrew, nor am I a Levite, Leviticus is
irrelevant to me.
Ok. I'm a Christian myself.
Post by Andrealphus
How many of the other Levitical proscriptions to you follow?
None. I'm a Christian.
Then there you go. I trust you're get over quoting it then.
I'm only relating what God said about homosexuals, and it is a bad
deal. Still so today.
Nonsense.
Watch.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Andrealphus
2006-01-03 22:33:14 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 19:16:22 GMT, "Andrealphus"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Yet the God of the Children of Israel and the God of the Christian
are one and the same.
Which doesn't negate the fact that Leviticus was specifically
addressed to "The Children of Israel".
God's chosen people.
Leviticus does not make that claim, it simply says "The Children of Israel"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Were there gentiles in moses' time?
Are you really this stupid? Anyone not Hebrew, was considered
Gentiles. That would be Egyptians, Greeks, etc...
I didn't know that. Even in Moses' time?
Have you actually read the Bible?
I repeat - show me where there were gentiles in Moses' time.
Read your Bible.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Their God is my God.
But you are not Hebrew, or a child of Israel. You can apply the
laws to yourself all day long, no one really cares.
God cares.
Prove it.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Since I am neither Hebrew, nor am I a Levite, Leviticus is irrelevant to me.
Ok. I'm a Christian myself.
Post by Andrealphus
How many of the other Levitical proscriptions to you follow?
None. I'm a Christian.
Then there you go. I trust you're get over quoting it then.
I'm only relating what God said about homosexuals, and it is a bad
deal. Still so today.
Nonsense.
Watch.
We've all been watching for a couple thousand years now, closer to four
thousand since the writing of Leviticus. It's all become quite boring.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
David
2006-01-03 23:34:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrealphus
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 19:16:22 GMT, "Andrealphus"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Yet the God of the Children of Israel and the God of the Christian
are one and the same.
Which doesn't negate the fact that Leviticus was specifically
addressed to "The Children of Israel".
God's chosen people.
Leviticus does not make that claim, it simply says "The Children of Israel"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Were there gentiles in moses' time?
Are you really this stupid? Anyone not Hebrew, was considered
Gentiles. That would be Egyptians, Greeks, etc...
I didn't know that. Even in Moses' time?
Have you actually read the Bible?
I repeat - show me where there were gentiles in Moses' time.
Read your Bible.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Their God is my God.
But you are not Hebrew, or a child of Israel. You can apply the
laws to yourself all day long, no one really cares.
God cares.
Prove it.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Since I am neither Hebrew, nor am I a Levite, Leviticus is irrelevant to me.
Ok. I'm a Christian myself.
Post by Andrealphus
How many of the other Levitical proscriptions to you follow?
None. I'm a Christian.
Then there you go. I trust you're get over quoting it then.
I'm only relating what God said about homosexuals, and it is a bad
deal. Still so today.
Nonsense.
Watch.
We've all been watching for a couple thousand years now, closer to four
thousand since the writing of Leviticus. It's all become quite boring.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of
blindfolded
Post by Andrealphus
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
Andrealphus you keep stating that you are neither a Hebrew or Levite so
the law does not apply to you. Do you read your Bible? Read Matthew
5:19 and notice the word "whosoever". Jesus did not say only the Hebrew
or the Levite.

Matthew 5:19


19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and
shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but
whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the
kingdom of heaven.
duke
2006-01-04 02:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Which doesn't negate the fact that Leviticus was specifically
addressed to "The Children of Israel".
God's chosen people.
Leviticus does not make that claim, it simply says "The Children of Israel"
Leviticus is not the only book in the OT.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
I repeat - show me where there were gentiles in Moses' time.
Read your Bible.
Just as I thought. You pulled that one our your ass.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Their God is my God.
But you are not Hebrew, or a child of Israel. You can apply the
laws to yourself all day long, no one really cares.
God cares.
Prove it.
Prove otherwise.
Post by Andrealphus
We've all been watching for a couple thousand years now, closer to four
thousand since the writing of Leviticus. It's all become quite boring.
Well, talk it over with God then. Let him know you're bored with him.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Andrealphus
2006-01-04 02:25:59 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 22:33:14 GMT, "Andrealphus"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Which doesn't negate the fact that Leviticus was specifically
addressed to "The Children of Israel".
God's chosen people.
Leviticus does not make that claim, it simply says "The Children of Israel"
Leviticus is not the only book in the OT.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
I repeat - show me where there were gentiles in Moses' time.
Read your Bible.
Just as I thought. You pulled that one our your ass.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Their God is my God.
But you are not Hebrew, or a child of Israel. You can apply the
laws to yourself all day long, no one really cares.
God cares.
Prove it.
Prove otherwise.
Wars, illness, disease, famine, cancer.... Yeah, that should prove that
your God doesn't give a damned.
Post by Andrealphus
We've all been watching for a couple thousand years now, closer to
four thousand since the writing of Leviticus. It's all become
quite boring.
Well, talk it over with God then.
Prove he exists.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
duke
2006-01-04 21:17:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Prove otherwise.
Wars, illness, disease, famine, cancer.... Yeah, that should prove that
your God doesn't give a damned.
If it hadn't been for original sin, mankind would not have been tossed out of
the garden (heaven). There would have been none of these ailments until mankind
introduced them into the world. Blame your own parents.


duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Andrealphus
2006-01-04 22:16:32 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 02:25:59 GMT, "Andrealphus"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Prove otherwise.
Wars, illness, disease, famine, cancer.... Yeah, that should prove
that your God doesn't give a damned.
If it hadn't been for original sin,
Post proof of this original sin.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
Paul Duca
2006-01-05 02:11:42 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 02:25:59 GMT, "Andrealphus"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Prove otherwise.
Wars, illness, disease, famine, cancer.... Yeah, that should prove that
your God doesn't give a damned.
If it hadn't been for original sin, mankind would not have been tossed out of
the garden (heaven). There would have been none of these ailments until mankind
introduced them into the world.
Everyone would also be buck naked...and sex not ridden with guilt
and shame.



Paul
Andrealphus
2006-01-05 02:58:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Duca
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 02:25:59 GMT, "Andrealphus"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Prove otherwise.
Wars, illness, disease, famine, cancer.... Yeah, that should
prove that your God doesn't give a damned.
If it hadn't been for original sin, mankind would not have been
tossed out of the garden (heaven). There would have been none of
these ailments until mankind
introduced them into the world.
Everyone would also be buck naked...and sex not ridden with
guilt and shame.
There would be no everyone. According to the fable, God didn't say anything
about "Go forth, be fruitful and multiply" until after man's supposed
original sin. There is no mention of sex between Adam and Eve before that,
nor is it clear that God had a plan for procreative actities before the boot
from the garden.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
Barry OGrady
2006-01-06 10:31:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Prove otherwise.
Wars, illness, disease, famine, cancer.... Yeah, that should prove that
your God doesn't give a damned.
If it hadn't been for original sin, mankind would not have been tossed out of
the garden (heaven). There would have been none of these ailments until mankind
introduced them into the world. Blame your own parents.
Duke is saying that had God not come up with the idea of original sin and used the tree
as an excuse to downgrade us there would have been no problems.

Duke is blaming God.
Post by duke
duke
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Andrealphus
2006-01-06 11:23:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry OGrady
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 02:25:59 GMT, "Andrealphus"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Prove otherwise.
Wars, illness, disease, famine, cancer.... Yeah, that should
prove that your God doesn't give a damned.
If it hadn't been for original sin, mankind would not have been
tossed out of the garden (heaven). There would have been none of
these ailments until mankind introduced them into the world. Blame
your own parents.
Duke is saying that had God not come up with the idea of original sin
and used the tree as an excuse to downgrade us there would have been
no problems.
Duke is blaming God.
Duke appears to have been home schooled somewhere in the Ozarks.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
Nog
2006-01-06 16:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry OGrady
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 02:25:59 GMT, "Andrealphus"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Prove otherwise.
Wars, illness, disease, famine, cancer.... Yeah, that should prove that
your God doesn't give a damned.
If it hadn't been for original sin, mankind would not have been tossed out of
the garden (heaven). There would have been none of these ailments until mankind
introduced them into the world. Blame your own parents.
Duke is saying that had God not come up with the idea of original sin and
used the tree as an excuse to downgrade us there would have been no
problems.
Duke is blaming God.
duke
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
The bible people didn't wash their ass so homosexuality was not an option.
Paul Duca
2006-01-04 07:36:49 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 22:33:14 GMT, "Andrealphus"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Which doesn't negate the fact that Leviticus was specifically
addressed to "The Children of Israel".
God's chosen people.
Leviticus does not make that claim, it simply says "The Children of Israel"
Leviticus is not the only book in the OT.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
I repeat - show me where there were gentiles in Moses' time.
Read your Bible.
Just as I thought. You pulled that one our your ass.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Their God is my God.
But you are not Hebrew, or a child of Israel. You can apply the
laws to yourself all day long, no one really cares.
God cares.
Prove it.
Prove otherwise.
Post by Andrealphus
We've all been watching for a couple thousand years now, closer to four
thousand since the writing of Leviticus. It's all become quite boring.
Well, talk it over with God then. Let him know you're bored with him.
Well, He certainly is bored with you and me, seeing how He isn't
around for us.



Paul
duke
2006-01-04 21:18:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Duca
Post by duke
Well, talk it over with God then. Let him know you're bored with him.
Well, He certainly is bored with you and me, seeing how He isn't
around for us.
He is for me. I care about him.


duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Paul Duca
2006-01-05 02:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Paul Duca
Post by duke
Well, talk it over with God then. Let him know you're bored with him.
Well, He certainly is bored with you and me, seeing how He isn't
around for us.
He is for me. I care about him.
Despite His lack of apprecation...


Paul
Paul Duca
2006-01-04 07:26:34 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 19:16:22 GMT, "Andrealphus"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Yet the God of the Children of Israel and the God of the Christian
are one and the same.
Which doesn't negate the fact that Leviticus was specifically addressed to
"The Children of Israel".
God's chosen people.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Were there gentiles in moses' time?
Are you really this stupid? Anyone not Hebrew, was considered
Gentiles. That would be Egyptians, Greeks, etc...
I didn't know that. Even in Moses' time?
Have you actually read the Bible?
I repeat - show me where there were gentiles in Moses' time.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Their God is my God.
But you are not Hebrew, or a child of Israel. You can apply the laws to
yourself all day long, no one really cares.
God cares
Only when convenient for Him.



Paul
No One
2006-01-03 03:07:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
A few things about Leviticus. First of all, even if it defines a
sin to homosexuality, which is doubtful, Leviticus was a specific
pact of laws made between the Hebrew God, and the Hebrew (Children
of Israel) and was not meant to be applied to mankind as a whole.
Really!! God told you it was not intended to be applied to all mankind?
If you are one of those who believes that the Bible is the literal
Word of God, then the answer is "yes". See

<http://www.bible.org/netbible/lev27.htm>

Final Colophon

27:34 These are the commandments which the Lord commanded
Moses to tell the Israelites45 at Mount Sinai.

45tn Most of the commentaries and English versions
translate, “which the Lord commanded Moses for the children
of Israel.” The preposition (’el), however, does not
usually mean “for.” In this book it is commonly used when
the Lord commands Moses “to speak [un]to” a person or
group of persons (see, e.g., Lev 1:2; 4:2, etc.). The
translation “to tell” here reflects this pattern in the
book of Leviticus.

Note that it says, "Israelites at Mount Sinai", not "all mandkind".

Oh, and read the footnotes. :-) The word translated as "abomination"
or "detestable act" has the following footnote (See Lev. 18:22):

33tn The Hebrew term (to’evah, rendered “detestable act”)
refers to the repugnant practices of foreigners, whether from
the viewpoint of other peoples toward the Hebrews (e.g., Gen
43:32; 46:34; Exod 8:26) or of the Lord toward other peoples
(see esp. Lev 18:26-27, 29-30). It can also designate, as
here, detestable acts that might be perpetrated by the native
peoples (it is used again in reference to homosexuality in Lev
20:13; cf. also its use for unclean food, Deut 14:3; idol
worship, Isa 41:24; remarriage to a former wife who has been
married to someone else in between, Deut 24:4).

It was clearly being singled out as something "Hebrews" shouldn't do
but others did do.
duke
2006-01-03 19:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by duke
Really!! God told you it was not intended to be applied to all mankind?
If you are one of those who believes that the Bible is the literal
Word of God, then the answer is "yes". See
Or put another way, the bible is the word of God, but not everything in the
bible is literally true.


duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Andrealphus
2006-01-03 19:17:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by No One
Post by duke
Really!! God told you it was not intended to be applied to all mankind?
If you are one of those who believes that the Bible is the literal
Word of God, then the answer is "yes". See
Or put another way, the bible is the word of God,
An assertion without proof.

but not everything
Post by duke
in the bible is literally true.
Or much of anything for that matter.
Post by duke
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
duke
2006-01-03 22:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Or put another way, the bible is the word of God,
An assertion without proof.
Try supporting your words for a change.
Post by Andrealphus
but not everything
Post by duke
in the bible is literally true.
Or much of anything for that matter.
Oh, no, a lot of it is.


duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Andrealphus
2006-01-03 22:35:06 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 19:17:20 GMT, "Andrealphus"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Or put another way, the bible is the word of God,
An assertion without proof.
Try supporting your words for a change.
Support that the Bible is the word of God is an assertion without proof?

Prove that it is. There is no physical, duplicatable, scientific
evidence that the Bible is more than a collection of writings by ancient
goatherders.
Post by Andrealphus
but not everything
Post by duke
in the bible is literally true.
Or much of anything for that matter.
Oh, no, a lot of it is.
On, no, much of is it not.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
duke
2006-01-04 02:12:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Or put another way, the bible is the word of God,
An assertion without proof.
Try supporting your words for a change.
Support that the Bible is the word of God is an assertion without proof?
The bible is the bible. I believe.
Post by Andrealphus
Prove that it is.
Prove that it isn't.
Post by Andrealphus
There is no physical, duplicatable, scientific
evidence that the Bible is more than a collection of writings by ancient
goatherders.
Well, you're hanging your eternal future on goatherders. Best of luck to you.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
but not everything
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
in the bible is literally true.
Or much of anything for that matter.
Oh, no, a lot of it is.
On, no, much of is it not.
Which parts are not true, literally. I love putting you junior atheists in a
pickle.

You really are so easy.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Andrealphus
2006-01-04 02:27:49 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 22:35:06 GMT, "Andrealphus"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Or put another way, the bible is the word of God,
An assertion without proof.
Try supporting your words for a change.
Support that the Bible is the word of God is an assertion without proof?
The bible is the bible. I believe.
Circular reasoning is not proof.
Post by Andrealphus
Prove that it is.
Prove that it isn't.
Not my burden of proof. You made the assertion.
Post by Andrealphus
There is no physical, duplicatable, scientific
evidence that the Bible is more than a collection of writings by
ancient goatherders.
Well, you're hanging your eternal future on goatherders. Best of luck to you.
That's exactly what you are doing.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
but not everything
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
in the bible is literally true.
Or much of anything for that matter.
Oh, no, a lot of it is.
On, no, much of is it not.
Which parts are not true, literally. I love putting you junior
atheists in a pickle.
Let's see... No evidence that the Hebrew were in Egypt, for starters.
You really are so easy.
It's your Bible, I can do nothing but laugh at it.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
duke
2006-01-04 21:25:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
The bible is the bible. I believe.
Circular reasoning is not proof.
Having faith is not belief without evidence. Faith is belief without proof.

I have evidence galore.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Prove that it is.
Prove that it isn't.
Not my burden of proof. You made the assertion.
You lose.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
There is no physical, duplicatable, scientific
evidence that the Bible is more than a collection of writings by
ancient goatherders.
Well, you're hanging your eternal future on goatherders. Best of luck to you.
That's exactly what you are doing.
I have faith in the evidence.
Post by Andrealphus
It's your Bible, I can do nothing but laugh at it.
Now there's a biggie destroying the bible.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Andrealphus
2006-01-04 22:17:37 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 02:27:49 GMT, "Andrealphus"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
The bible is the bible. I believe.
Circular reasoning is not proof.
Having faith is not belief without evidence. Faith is belief without proof.
I have evidence galore.
Nothing that would stand even the barest of scientific standards, which is
more delusion, than it is evidence.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Prove that it is.
Prove that it isn't.
Not my burden of proof. You made the assertion.
You lose.
No, you lose.
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
There is no physical, duplicatable, scientific
evidence that the Bible is more than a collection of writings by
ancient goatherders.
Well, you're hanging your eternal future on goatherders. Best of luck to you.
That's exactly what you are doing.
I have faith in the evidence.
Post by Andrealphus
It's your Bible, I can do nothing but laugh at it.
Now there's a biggie destroying the bible.
The bible destroys itself.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
Paul Duca
2006-01-04 07:38:22 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 22:35:06 GMT, "Andrealphus"
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Or put another way, the bible is the word of God,
An assertion without proof.
Try supporting your words for a change.
Support that the Bible is the word of God is an assertion without proof?
The bible is the bible. I believe.
Post by Andrealphus
Prove that it is.
Prove that it isn't.
Post by Andrealphus
There is no physical, duplicatable, scientific
evidence that the Bible is more than a collection of writings by ancient
goatherders.
Well, you're hanging your eternal future on goatherders. Best of luck to you.
Better than spending my eternal future hanging around Catholic
Heaven--bored, poor, menial, plastic smile on my face...and unlike Duke, not
able to pour all my energies into entering my mother's bed.



Paul
No One
2006-01-04 03:26:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by No One
Post by duke
Really!! God told you it was not intended to be applied to all mankind?
If you are one of those who believes that the Bible is the literal
Word of God, then the answer is "yes". See
Or put another way, the bible is the word of God, but not everything in the
bible is literally true.
Just out of curiosity, why would you post such a reply but ignore the
rest of the post, which showed that the Bible disagreed with him and
that he hadn't even read the part he quoted accurately?

After all, if some guy is going to be a Bible thumper, he can at
least be expected to get the beat right. :-)
duke
2006-01-04 21:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Just out of curiosity, why would you post such a reply but ignore the
rest of the post, which showed that the Bible disagreed with him and
that he hadn't even read the part he quoted accurately?
I've dealt with these fools on this issue many times before.
Post by No One
After all, if some guy is going to be a Bible thumper, he can at
least be expected to get the beat right. :-)
We do.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Theopatra
2006-01-02 22:40:46 UTC
Permalink
X-No-archive: yes
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by newzguys
They Did Not Have Homosexuals in the Bible nor Laws Until 1970's
People that say there is a sin of homosexuality in the bible are
just ignorant of the facts of history, and the law.
The proof is in the pudding.
Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)
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
A few things about Leviticus. First of all, even if it defines a sin to
homosexuality, which is doubtful, Leviticus was a specific pact of laws made
between the Hebrew God, and the Hebrew (Children of Israel) and was not
meant to be applied to mankind as a whole. A clear reading of all of
Leviticus makes that abundantly clear. Moses would have considered it a
grievous sin to so much as teach Levitical law to Gentiles. Secondly, the
Book of Leviticus was a set of laws that defined "sin" in relation to temple
practices. Again, a clear reading of the whole of Leviticus clearly points
that out.
Since I am neither Hebrew, nor am I a Levite, Leviticus is irrelevant to me.
How many of the other Levitical proscriptions to you follow?
Bwucie, the poster merely refuted, and quite nicely, the now current
homosexual canard that the Bible says nothing about male/male sodomy.
What the fuck do your own religious beliefs, or lack thereof, have to
do with what is or isn't in the Bible?

Uh, we already know you cocksuckers could give a fuck less what's in
the Bible. So what? Like, maybe the Bible should just disappear because
faggots dispute what it says? God-damn, but you imbeciles have hard
heads.
Andrealphus
2006-01-02 23:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Theopatra
X-No-archive: yes
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by newzguys
They Did Not Have Homosexuals in the Bible nor Laws Until 1970's
People that say there is a sin of homosexuality in the bible are
just ignorant of the facts of history, and the law.
The proof is in the pudding.
Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)
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
A few things about Leviticus. First of all, even if it defines a
sin to homosexuality, which is doubtful, Leviticus was a specific
pact of laws made between the Hebrew God, and the Hebrew (Children
of Israel) and was not meant to be applied to mankind as a whole.
A clear reading of all of Leviticus makes that abundantly clear.
Moses would have considered it a grievous sin to so much as teach
Levitical law to Gentiles. Secondly, the Book of Leviticus was a
set of laws that defined "sin" in relation to temple practices.
Again, a clear reading of the whole of Leviticus clearly points that
out.
Since I am neither Hebrew, nor am I a Levite, Leviticus is
irrelevant to me.
How many of the other Levitical proscriptions to you follow?
Bwucie,
Who's Bwucie?

[snip remainder unread]
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
Paul Duca
2006-01-02 23:35:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Theopatra
X-No-archive: yes
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by newzguys
They Did Not Have Homosexuals in the Bible nor Laws Until 1970's
People that say there is a sin of homosexuality in the bible are
just ignorant of the facts of history, and the law.
The proof is in the pudding.
Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)
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
A few things about Leviticus. First of all, even if it defines a sin to
homosexuality, which is doubtful, Leviticus was a specific pact of laws made
between the Hebrew God, and the Hebrew (Children of Israel) and was not
meant to be applied to mankind as a whole. A clear reading of all of
Leviticus makes that abundantly clear. Moses would have considered it a
grievous sin to so much as teach Levitical law to Gentiles. Secondly, the
Book of Leviticus was a set of laws that defined "sin" in relation to temple
practices. Again, a clear reading of the whole of Leviticus clearly points
that out.
Since I am neither Hebrew, nor am I a Levite, Leviticus is irrelevant to me.
How many of the other Levitical proscriptions to you follow?
Bwucie, the poster merely refuted, and quite nicely, the now current
homosexual canard that the Bible says nothing about male/male sodomy.
What the fuck do your own religious beliefs, or lack thereof, have to
do with what is or isn't in the Bible?
Uh, we already know you cocksuckers could give a fuck less what's in
the Bible. So what? Like, maybe the Bible should just disappear because
faggots dispute what it says? God-damn, but you imbeciles have hard
heads.
The only part of the Bible Theo needs is where Jesus forgives the
whore...



Paul
David
2006-01-02 23:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrealphus
Post by duke
Post by newzguys
They Did Not Have Homosexuals in the Bible nor Laws Until 1970's
People that say there is a sin of homosexuality in the bible are
just ignorant of the facts of history, and the law.
The proof is in the pudding.
Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)
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
A few things about Leviticus. First of all, even if it defines a sin to
homosexuality, which is doubtful, Leviticus was a specific pact of laws made
between the Hebrew God, and the Hebrew (Children of Israel) and was not
meant to be applied to mankind as a whole. A clear reading of all of
Leviticus makes that abundantly clear. Moses would have considered it a
grievous sin to so much as teach Levitical law to Gentiles. Secondly, the
Book of Leviticus was a set of laws that defined "sin" in relation to temple
practices. Again, a clear reading of the whole of Leviticus clearly points
that out.
Since I am neither Hebrew, nor am I a Levite, Leviticus is irrelevant to me.
How many of the other Levitical proscriptions to you follow?
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of
blindfolded
Post by Andrealphus
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
As a Christian you do believe that the New Testament applies to you
right?

Read Especially verses 17, 18, and 32

Romans 1

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness
and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth.

19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has
shown it to them.
20Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine
nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through
the things he has made. So they are without excuse;

21for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks
to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless
minds were darkened.

22Claiming to be wise, they became fools;

23and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling
a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity,
to the degrading of their bodies among themselves,

25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and
served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!
Amen.

26For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women
exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural,

27and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with
women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed
shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due
penalty for their error.

28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up
to a debased mind and to things that should not be done.

29They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness,
malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are
gossips,

30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of
evil, rebellious toward parents,

31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

32They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to
die -- yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice
them.

Also look at 1 Corinthians 9-10

9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of
God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,

10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were
sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,
and in the Spirit of our God.


Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. I do not understand why
people find it hard to tell
people that they are sinning. I sin all the time everyone does. I hope
for my sake that if I am
doing something sinful that a Christian brother or sister would be kind
enough to let me know
and not tell me that it is right. The problem is that people cannot see
the difference between
telling someone that they are doing something wrong and hating them.
Just because you tell
someone that their lifestyle is unhealthy and sinful does not mean that
you hate them in fact in
means you love them. I do not hate homosexuals I love them, however
their lifetyle is unhealthy
and sinful and it would be wrong for me to tell them they are living
correctly. Condoning homoseuxality would be the same as condoning any
other sin.


Romans 3:23 all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God

You said,
Post by Andrealphus
Since I am neither Hebrew, nor am I a Levite, Leviticus is irrelevant to me.
How many of the other Levitical proscriptions to you follow?
Romans 11: 16-21

16 And if the firstfruit is holy, so is the lump: and if the root is
holy, so are the branches.


17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and thou, being a wild
olive, wast grafted in among them, and didst become partaker with them
of the root of the fatness of the olive tree;


18 glory not over the branches: but if thou gloriest, it is not thou
that bearest the root, but the root thee.


19 Thou wilt say then, Branches were broken off, that I might be grafted
in.


20 Well; by their unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by
thy faith. Be not highminded, but fear:


21 for if God spared not the natural branches, neither will he spare
thee.

The Gentiles who believe in Jesus are grafted into the vine of God and
are justified by their faith becoming like the natural branches.

What this means is Gentiles who believe in Christ are now Jews by their
faith in Christ.

Remember what Jesus said,

14 Ye are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid.


15 Neither do [men] light a lamp, and put it under the bushel, but on
the stand; and it shineth unto all that are in the house.


16 Even so let your light shine before men; that they may see your good
works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.


17 Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not
to destroy, but to fulfil.


18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot
or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things
be accomplished.


19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and
shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but
whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the
kingdom of heaven.
Mike Andrade
2006-01-03 01:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by David
Homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible.
No it's not.
--
Mike

The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the
average voter.
- Winston Churchill
Nog
2006-01-02 16:55:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by newzguys
They Did Not Have Homosexuals in the Bible nor Laws Until 1970's
People that say there is a sin of homosexuality in the bible are
just ignorant of the facts of history, and the law.
The proof is in the pudding.
Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)
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
It's an abomination as is eating clams, lobsters, scallops and squid.
Anything from the waters that has not fins and scales is an abomination to
eat.
BUt then the bible is all bullshit so way worry about it.
Those middleeast jew retards 2000 years ago were just telling jew faire
tales.
Post by duke
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
newzguys
2006-01-03 04:01:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by newzguys
They Did Not Have Homosexuals in the Bible nor Laws Until 1970's
People that say there is a sin of homosexuality in the bible are
just ignorant of the facts of history, and the law.
The proof is in the pudding.
Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)
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
Yes, bigots like you wish you could kill all homosexuals, is that
why you prefer this verse? At least now you have a Nazi in charge
who wants the final solution for homosexuals just like you do.

Heil Pope !

Job 31:
31 If the men of my tabernacle said not, Oh that we had of his
flesh! we cannot be satisfied.
satyr
2006-01-02 16:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by newzguys
They Did Not Have Homosexuals in the Bible nor Laws Until 1970's
People that say there is a sin of homosexuality in the bible are
just ignorant of the facts of history, and the law.
Up until the 1970's the laws against sodomy were only laws against
nonprocreative sex, not homosexual sex. The very word and concept of
homosexuality did not exist commonly until 1892. Before this time
any attempt to say a law or a sin in the bible is directed
toward homosexuals is impossible. "The modern terms homosexuality
and heterosexuality do not apply to an era that had not yet
articulated these distinctions." Lawrence and Garner v. Texas US, 03
<snip>

It is clear that the existence of homosexuality predates the 1970s and
even the 19th century. That societies did not always legally
distinguish between homosexuality and other forms of sexual behavior
deemed perverted, may be true. However, it is clear that the
distinction was known to homosexuals themselves and to society as
well. While the laws were neutral on homosexual vs. heterosexual
sodomy, enforcement was almost always directed at the former.

A quick search of the web finds many examples where homosexuality in
its modern sense was clearly known prior to 1800. For example:

http://www.gayhistory.com/rev2/events/1726.htm

**quoted**

1726: Mollies Arrested in London
England, 1726. Guided by the Societies for the Reformation of
Manners, police raided houses in London known as gathering places for
sodomites. In the slang of the day, these sodomites were called
mollies, a word that had earlier referred to female prostitutes. Their
gathering places, the molly houses, catered to a working class
clientele, people like butchers, upholsterers and clerks. The 1726
raids were the most thorough in the 1700s, and about 20 of the houses
were shut down.

Some of the houses that were raided were taverns, others were private
homes. Most accounts from the time describe a large room for drinking,
dancing, and socializing with an adjoining room called the chapel,
where men retired to have sex, or as they said, to "get married". The
first molly houses that historians have discovered appeared in London
in the 1690s. A series of prosecutions in 1699 and again in 1707,
along with well-known suicides of mollies who feared court trials, led
to public knowledge of this new species of sodomite.

One agent who had infiltrated the molly houses found men who "sat in
one another's lap, talked bawdy, and practiced a great many
indecencies". The men he observed there were feminine and called each
other "madam" or "your ladyship". They took on feminine names like
"Princess Seraphina", "Plump Nelly", and "Mary Magdalen". Some of the
men dressed in drag, and at least one, the Princess Seraphina, dressed
in drag most of the time, but cross dressers usually wore women's
clothes only within the relative safety of the molly houses. Ned Ward,
one of the forefathers of tabloid journalism, wrote an account of
scenes he had probably heard rumors about in his book The History of
the London Clubs (1709). The mollies, he wrote, "fancy themselves
women, imitating all the little vanities that custom has reconciled to
the female sex, affecting to speak, walk, tattle, curtsy, cry, scold,
and to mimic all manner of effeminacy...". Broadsheets published about
them referred to them as both "mollies" and "woman-haters".

**end quote**


http://www.gayhistory.com/rev2/events/1715.htm

**quoted**

Paris, 1715. Police inspector Simonnet and his two assistants
directed an unprecedented campaign to suppress and contain sodomy in
Paris, a problem that seemed to be growing at an alarming rate.
Inspector Simonnet, by all accounts a committed and incorruptible
policeman, pioneered the techniques of interrogation and entrapment
used in France throughout the 18th Century.

One favorite police method was to send informants to cruise known
meeting places for sodomites. The informants, called "flies" in
official records, chatted with suspected sodomites and if a man
signaled an interest in sex, the fly called nearby gendarmes to arrest
the victim. The flies were familiar with the ways of sodomites because
they themselves had been arrested for sodomy and in exchange for
favorable treatment - an exchange that amounted to blackmail - they
became agents of the police.

Before 1738, police records referred to same-sex eroticism as
"sodomy", a term coined by St. Peter Damian around 1050 in his Book of
Gomorrah. After 1738, the police adopted a different term,
"pederasty", the ancient Greek word for sex between men and boys. In
French usage, the word came to mean sex between two males, or even
between two females, regardless of the ages of the participants.

The change in terminology also reflected a change in perception. The
Catholic church had traditionally viewed sodomy as one of the sins of
luxury and idleness, a kind of debauchery that could tempt anyone, but
the French came to perceive the pederast as a special kind of person
with an unusual, perhaps inborn, sexual disposition. A second word
was often used to describe such a predilection, "antiphysique", a word
that highlighted the unnaturalness of same-sex desire.

**end quote**

http://www.gayhistory.com/rev2/events/1730.htm

**quoted**

Amsterdam, 1730. Dutch courts were shocked to learn of a widespread
sodomitical network spread throughout the major cities of the Dutch
Republic. In Utrecht, Zacharias Wilsma was arrested and charged with
sodomy and when questioned, he told his interrogators about
sodomitical contacts he had in the major Dutch cities, especially
Amsterdam. Utrecht officials sent Wilsma there to help Amsterdam
officials eliminate the sodomitical scourge from their city. In May,
1730, Wilsma testified against four men in an Amsterdam court. All
four were executed the next month.

The confessions of those convicted in the wake of Wilsma's testimony
revealed a sodomitical subculture with its own slang and meeting
places including "fun houses", as sodomites called the all-male
brothels, and two taverns. Men who left the taverns to have sex with
each other in public toilets were said to be "going to the office" and
they had names for their sexual practices: the "shaking out" meant
masturbation, the "dirty work" referred to anal intercourse.

Like England's mollies and Paris' pederasts, the subculture was
effeminate. Dutch sodomites used feminine nicknames and terms of
endearment. One commenator, a publicist named Justus van Effen,
described sodomites as "hermaphrodites in their minds" - a point of
view that would be independently popularized by Karl Ulrichs more than
100 years later. Several servants confessed to sexual relationships
with their masters and their master's friends, a familiarity that
Dutch society, dominated by an oligarchic class structure, found
threatening. From the standpoint of public opinion, these men were
not just casual sinners; sin was their way of life.

**end quote**

Thus it is clear that homosexuality as it is defined today has existed
and been publically known in Western culture for at least 300 years.
Even in the early 18th century it was recognized as an inborn, sexual
disposition. It would be naive to believe it has not existed since
the dawn of history, however society may have known, recognized and
acknowledged it at various times.

Indeed, contrary to Newzguys assertion that the acts of sodomy in the
Bible were religious heresies committed by heterosexuals who then
returned home to their wives, homosexual relationships were known in
Biblical times. The Emperor Nero was married to a young man for a
period of time. there would be much more documentation of this were
it not or the systematic destruction of homosexual literature in the
Library of Alexandria by the Christians.

Nevertheless, enough remains to form the basis of an extensive
bibliography on the topic. See:

http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/bibancie.htm

The proven knowledge of homosexuality in history (by whatever name)
demolishes the argument that the writers of the Bible could not have
intended to proscribe this behavior on grounds other than idolatry.
The hateful vindictiveness in the Bible may well have extended to
other forms of sexuality as well, but that does not prove that they
were unaware of the nature of homosexuality.

The point is that the Bible is often a hateful book whether it is
condemning idolaters, homosexuals, masturbators or other practitioners
of victimless "crimes." This is reason enough for it not to be
considered a moral compass for the world today.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
newzguys
2006-01-03 04:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by satyr
Post by newzguys
They Did Not Have Homosexuals in the Bible nor Laws Until 1970's
People that say there is a sin of homosexuality in the bible are
just ignorant of the facts of history, and the law.
Up until the 1970's the laws against sodomy were only laws against
nonprocreative sex, not homosexual sex. The very word and concept of
homosexuality did not exist commonly until 1892. Before this time
any attempt to say a law or a sin in the bible is directed
toward homosexuals is impossible. "The modern terms homosexuality
and heterosexuality do not apply to an era that had not yet
articulated these distinctions." Lawrence and Garner v. Texas US, 03
<snip>
It is clear that the existence of homosexuality predates the 1970s and
even the 19th century. That societies did not always legally
distinguish between homosexuality and other forms of sexual behavior
deemed perverted, may be true. However, it is clear that the
distinction was known to homosexuals themselves and to society as
well.
Yes, homosexuals can fly through walls and the air, see into
the future 3000+ years, formulate the theory of General Relativity
3000 years before Einstein, and even knew about the Zero
before its invention as well. Hell, homosexuals are like unicorns
they can do anything. They knew they were homosexuals even
though they had a wife and kids at home by law and custom,
knew they were homosexuals even though they had no words
for nor a concept of homosexuality. There's nothing a homosexual
can't do, after all, they're homosexuals.
Post by satyr
While the laws were neutral on homosexual vs. heterosexual
sodomy, enforcement was almost always directed at the former.
A quick search of the web finds many examples where homosexuality in
http://www.gayhistory.com/rev2/events/1726.htm
Which had nothing to do with homosexuality, it was against
nonprocreative sex. The law (if not the practice) applied to
both.

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
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...