Detriotblkmale30,

Thee:
"Last I checked, spelling errors, typos and improper facts are standard on these message boards."

Your posts comprise a large share of said glitches. It's clear that you take the lowest common denominator as your standard. That sits well with your appeal to popular hearsay as the criterion of facticity.

"You would however make a great 5th grade history or grammar teacher. Your focus on miniscule details such as paragraphs would be very helpful to young students. Sadly for you they dont really apply here on this online message board."

So your standard for what you post on an 'On Faith' thread is less than 5th grade? That explains a lot...

"I will let you have the last word, clearly that will make you feel superior(even if you're not)Go ahead. Take care."

If I have the "last word", it won't be by your leave, you sanctimonious tosser. Your poorly articulated, condescending "arguments" amount to nothing more than "the Bible told me so" - pious clichés all. No actual thought is evident in anything you've written here.

Go back to 5th grade and learn your letters.

No "obviously" quick posts flawed or unflawed are Not any type of gauge of intelligence. Thats ridiculous. That you think they are actually speaks again to your immaturity. Funny I dont see IQ tests being replaced with online message board posting tests. If the best life skills class is life itself, then hopefully this exchange has taught you not to be so petty and pompous. If not, then hopefully you will learn that lesson soon. You clearly are acting like this is some sort of classroom exercise. Last I checked, spelling errors, typos and improper facts are standard on these message boards. If we were in a collegiate setting then yes, we would be spellchecking every word, double checking facts, inserting the proper footnotes. It's not. Get over it already.---------------
onforio wrongly says:
Yes you are. Otherwise you would not bother to respond ;^) Clearly, I have hit a nerve.
----------
LOL I'm sorry to inform you but your comments arent worth me getting upset over.I simply don't appreciate being misrepresented and I take the time to correct others when they do misrepresent me. There you go again onforio, making unsubstantiated and incorrect assumptions. You never cease to amaze me with your belief that you "know" what I am saying or thinking, when you do not. Nice try though.If you had actually managed to hit a nerve, everyone would know it and the tenor of my posts would be markedly different than they have been.
Onforio says:
I was not refuting arguments. I gave a pointed critique of your unsubstantiated "facts". Your historical howlers were not trivial; they betray a gullible, careless mindset on your part.
---------------------
You gave a needless pointed critique of TWO missed facts or "howlers" what every that means. TWO facts neither of which disprove my arguments that Hebrews were in oppressive manual labor slavery in EgyPt and that Jesus as referenced by other non-Biblical sources actually did exist. How saying those two things are mindless, guilible or even this major Federal case that you have turned it into, speaks to your immaturity and fixation with what,I am not even sure exactly. You would however make a great 5th grade history or grammar teacher. Your focus on miniscule details such as paragraphs would be very helpful to young students. Sadly for you they dont really apply here on this online message board. I have not more time for this pointless banter. I wish you well I'm sure you will pop up again sometime and write a book about how I missed a period or left out a letter here and there. Good day best of luck to you. I will let you have the last word, clearly that will make you feel superior(even if you're not)Go ahead. Take care.

No "obviously" quick posts are not any type of gauge of intelligence. Thats ridiculous. That you think they are actually speaks again to your immaturity. Funny I dont see IQ tests being replaced with online message board posting tests. If the best life skills class is life itself, then hopefully this exchange has taught you not to be so petty and pompous. If not, then hopefully you will learn that lesson soon. You clearly are acting like this is some sort of classroom exercise. Last I checked, spelling errors, typos and improper facts are standard on these message boards. If we were in a collegiate setting then yes, we would be spellchecking every word, double checking facts, inserting the proper footnotes. It's not. Get over it already.---------------
onforio wrongly says:
Yes you are. Otherwise you would not bother to respond ;^) Clearly, I have hit a nerve.
----------
LOL I'm sorry to inform you but your comments arent worth me getting upset over.I simply don't appreciate being misrepresented and I take the time to correct others when they do misrepresent me. There you go again onforio, making unsubstantiated and incorrect assumptions. You never cease to amaze me with your belief that you "know" what I am saying or thinking, when you do not. Nice try though.If you had actually managed to hit a nerve, everyone would know it and the tenor of my posts would be markedly different than they have been.
Onforio says:
I was not refuting arguments. I gave a pointed critique of your unsubstantiated "facts". Your historical howlers were not trivial; they betray a gullible, careless mindset on your part.
---------------------
You gave a needless pointed critique of TWO missed facts or "howlers" what every that means. TWO facts neither of which disprove my arguments that Hebrews were in oppressive manual labor slavery in EgyPt and that Jesus as referenced by other non-Biblical sources actually did exist. How saying those two things are mindless, guilible or even this major Federal case that you have turned it into, speaks to your immaturity and fixation with what,I am not even sure exactly. You would however make a great 5th grade history or grammar teacher. Your focus on miniscule details such as paragraphs would be very helpful to young students. Sadly for you they dont really apply here on this online message board. I have not more time for this pointless banter. I wish you well I'm sure you will pop up again sometime and write a book about how I missed a period or left out a letter here and there. Good day best of luck to you.

Detroitblkmale30,

Thee:
"What someone quickly rattles off in rebuttal on an onboard message board, minus spell checking and with typos obviously is no reflection of their command of the English language or their intellect."

Yes it is. Obviously. Perhaps you should pause and think, maybe check some of your "facts", before you rattle.

"you have missed multiple times now my point that this is not a thesis paper or dissertation."

I never claimed it was. If you think my responses were of "thesis" standard, that's just a reflection of your pyramid-sized ignorance.

"your comments fixated on such minute and trivial details as a means to attempt to refute my arguments."

I was not refuting arguments. I gave a pointed critique of your unsubstantiated "facts". Your historical howlers were not trivial; they betray a gullible, careless mindset on your part.

"I'm not concerned with your opinions about me, my education or anything else.It is irrelvant really."

Yes you are. Otherwise you would not bother to respond ;^) Clearly, I have hit a nerve.

"Perhaps you can take some life skills classes on not overreacting to small, unrelated details as well as not making gross over-generalizations from one issue to another."

The best "life skills class" is life itself. On the other hand spelling, punctuation, coherent sentence construction, and research skills can be learned ... in many cases.

onofrio: Either your ability to read or comprehend what you read are at a elementary school level as you have missed multiple times now my point that this is not a thesis paper or dissertation. What someone quickly rattles off in rebuttal on an onboard message board, minus spell checking and with typos obviously is no reflection of their command of the English language or their intellect. To suggest otherwise is pure folly, as are most of your comments fixated on such minute and trivial details as a means to attempt to refute my arguments. I'm not concerned with your opinions about me, my education or anything else. It is irrelvant really. You've already shown yourself to be without reason or any ability to take points into consideration in a genuine honest critique.Perhaps you can take some life skills classes on not overreacting to small, unrelated details as well as not making gross over-generalizations from one issue to another. Im sure there are some down under, in Australia where I beleive you said you are.

feetxxxl1: are you serious?? David would have STILL been sinning, Uriah was Bathesheba's husband, that would have been three sins, fornication and adultery, and sodomy. Even you have to agree that is at least TWO sins. That argument doesnt compute.

DanielintheLionsDen: You couldnt hurt my feelings with your immature and silly words. I was simply pointing out the futility of your arguments where I am concerned. Your opinions have no relevance or bearing on my beleifs. Waste your words if you so choose.Just know they are inaccurate.I dont need to change and never will. Thanks for your blind opinion. You took the words out of my mouth, I however am wise enough to stop getting someone like yourself who is blinded by his own so called wisdom to see something so clear that he refuses to see. I leave you alone to your so-called "enlightenment"

detroitblkmale30

I know that I can see what you are blind to. But how can I explain it to you, since you are blind and cannot see? How can I get you comprehend that there is more than you realize, since by nature, you lack the capacity to realized it?

If you are blind to what I can see, then how may you instruct me on what I DO see, yet hidden from you?

It is sort of a Helen Keller cunundrum.

Anyway, sorry I hurt your oh-so-sensitive feelings. I always wonder at what thin skins the anti-gay have; they are so good at pretentious snobbery, without even seeming to realize how obnoxious they are being, and then when it is pointed out to them, they get all huffy and bent out of shape.

Just one more thing; gay people do not need to change; you do.

"feetxxxl: you simply consistently miss the point or just deflect."

if king david has loved uriah as he loved himself he would never have stepped into what he did with bathsheba.

Detriotblkmale30,

Your written English really is woeful. I would expect a better standard from an "Ivy Leaguer".

If you want your ideas to be taken seriously, you could at least learn to punctuate properly, and arrange your text in paragraphs. You could also try spell-checking your posts before you press 'Submit'.

In your case, sloppiness of writing complements a sloppiness of thought.

I'm sure there are classes you can take, somewhere in the DC area.

DanielintheLionsDen: Funny how you call me narrow minded. Maybe we should be worshipping you daniel since you have the answers. Do you have a church I can attend? I'd love to get some answers on life. Whats its meaning? How exactly was everything formed and created? Where is and what do heaven and hell look like?can you save me from my sins? Your statements are pure folly. I'm glad my hope is built on God and not man's realtivist opinions that change depending what year it is.You have nothing to contribute to my faith. I did not say EVERBODY is anti-gay I said, "anti-gay opposition is not ONLY rooted in Christianity or religion, there are plenty of non-religious anti-gay people." Re-read what I wrote.I have studied what I beleive, why dont you exercize your brain and stop making easy, yet incorrect assumptions about what I have or have not done. Simply because you see things a certain way, doesnt mean you have undeniably correct knowledge. You have no grounds for declaring my beliefs false doctrines, therefore you have no grounds for instructing me to "exercise my brain" in your condescending fashion. You can say as a mortal and limited human being that your prespective or opinion is this or that.I have no problem with that. I declare my beleifs to be what they are based upon not only stated scripture, but a study of GO'd word and also who he has reveleaed himself to be in his Word.However you have no universal truth. Of course believing that you do is Icarus-like. We all know what happened to him.

feetxxxl: you simply consistently miss the point or just deflect. I dont really recognize your Christian principles. I know everyone has a different "take" on certain things in the the Word of God but I dont see mainstream Christian principles in what you are describing.Even Jesus says we are responsible for our outward acts. YOu seem to be saying we are not. Simply because we have grace does not mean we can act however we want simply because we claim we love God. Loving God means not only loving him with our thoughts but with our actions in the physical realm. This does not "save us" but it demonstrates our love and obedience to God. I have said nothing of hate. Hate is not acceptable.

onofrio: Of course no one was talking to you onforio but since you inserted yourself in the conversation, I must say I am now think differently about the maturity of someone with an advanced degree. Doesnt say much for education. Your immaturity and constant fixation on minor faults and flaws erodes any credibility you might have had when it comes to critiquing me. You are an unreliable critic. Nice try though.

Detroitblkmale30,

Thee:
"As a very intelligent person with a Ivy League education,my brain is just fine."

If you're so highly educated, why is the standard of your written English so woeful?

My estimate of "a Ivy League education" has fallen substantially.

detroit

you keep talking about outward acts. are you not aware of the inner dwelling of being given over to something of the sinful nature in your heart, long before acting out anything in the realm of physicality. do you think that it is less of a sin of your heart than when the heart acts it out?

one the things of the basis of all sin in romans1 is "not thinking it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God"

is it not a sin to deny an inner relationship with the spirit of christ that lives within us. is it any less of a sin than when that denial acts out in physicality. is it any less a sin to hold hatred in ones heart, than when in meeting person, that hatred acts out. does not that hatred act out in other parts of our lives long before we ever act it out toward the person that we hate?

according to you harboring this hate is not a sin until we actually initiate a physicality towards our brother.

you say no our sin is anything that hate makes a do. how can we be truly contrite if our focus is merely about outward acts and not the inner sin, the sin of not loving.

what is the gain in focusing on not doing this physicality and not doing this physicality when the sin is really about the love in our hearts, that happened FIRST and was the source of the physicality, a love that we received thru grace, christ's love thru us, his spirit living in all.

Detroit

Pointing out false doctrines does mean that I put myself higher than God. By promoting false doctrines, you DO set yourself above God. You said yourself, that being anti-gay is not Christian; everybody is anti-Gay; well that is not true; being anti-gay is just simple bigotry and intolerant people like you, seek to justify yourself by citing quotes fromt eh Bible, by hiding behind God and Jesus, by saying it is Jesus who is anti-gay, and no matter how wrong it might seem, still you are obligated to Jesus's teachings.

Mental conformity to prefigured dogma whether or not it makes any sense is not using your brain. When I say that you have kindergarten beliefs, I mean that your religious outlook is apparently very limited and undeveloped. You can do better, simply by excercising you brain, just a little, rather putting your brain on automatic pilot, with no care or worry about anything but adherence to doctrinal conformity.

This is not secular relativism. That statement of yours merely shows the limitaitons that your mind operates under.

feetxxxl1: i know i get that. Thats your point, its not however Biblical.

christ is righteousness, he is a righteousness apart from the law.
----------------------------------
Christ is righteousnes...in comparison to the law. Afterall if there is no law how are you defining what is rigtheous and what isnt???

---------
why would i chose to be led by that which even if i follow it i receive no righteousness, whereas if i love as christ did, thru his grace, i not automatically follow the law i do much more, i fulfill it(complete the law) as christ did. christ who said follow me.
this is about grace and is centered on christ.
the other is centered on the interpretation of the believer, and is therefore centered on the believer and is without grace.

------------
I think you have it confused. We are called by Christ by God to follow all of his commandments. It is Christ who saves us through our faith and provides us grace yes. But that doesnt then mean we turn around and ignore how he has asked us to live in his word. We dont attempt not to follow his laws because we are imperfect in nature. No we follow his laws to the best of our ability and if/when we fall short we are forgiven through grace. You dont complete the law if you live opposed to it by sinning. Nowhere does Jesus say, just keep these two commandments and that is all God requires of you.Jesus was summarizing and paraphrasing the Levitical laws, not trimming or condensing them. Let's go back to the popular scripture on this point.
Matt. 5:17
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

SO clearly Jesus did not come to do away with the law. WOuldnt it have been easier for him to say that if he diagreed with the law or thought it no longer necessary? Afterall he knew he would be crucified anyway so its not as if he was concerned with inciting anger among the scribes.Secondly "fulfill" in english means complete, in the original Hebrew the meaning also signifies to teach. One of Jesus' first acts as a boy was to teach the law in temple.So Jesus came to complete the prophesies of his coming and imparting grace to us as beleivers, but he also came to reinforce and teach the moral constructs of the law. He is saying here you cant have one without the other. If there is no law(or requirement to abide by it), there is no need for Jesus' grace or pardon.

"You still have given no Biblical foundation for ignoring old testament and new testament moral codes of conduct outside of the two great commandments.That's not Christianity."

my point is that christ's love is greater than all those moral codes.

christ is righteousness, he is a righteousness apart from the law.

why would i chose to be led by that which even if i follow it i receive no righteousness, whereas if i love as christ did, thru his grace, i not automatically follow the law i do much more, i fulfill it(complete the law) as christ did. christ who said follow me.

this is about grace and is centered on christ.

the other is centered on the interpretation of the believer, and is therefore centered on the believer and is without grace.

DanielintheLionsDen: I actually agree with you in why we disagree. You actually have put a period in my opinion on these dicussions. What you said however, also contradicts your own argument against Christians who are opposed to homosexual acts.I agree with the following of what you posted:
-------------------------------
The emergence of belief is something mysterious, as mysterious as just about any other aspect of our lives. You cannot argue me out of mine, nor can I argue you out of yours.
If, I, as a Christian, say I believe in God, it is by no scientific proof that I would say such a thing. For I know that there is no scientific evidence pointing to the existence of God, and I respect science as a credible way of looking at the world
--------------------------
Because of that, arguing the following of what you said does not compute or make sense to Christians nor is it applicable.
-----------------------------------------
With regards to the Christian anti-gay agenda, irrationality is not sustainable in the area of ethics. Moral imperatives must make sense. The Christians teachings tgay people are false; any religion that reaches such obvously false conslusions has indeed much greater problems of credibility than merely its views on gay people.
----------------
We are arguing apples an oranges here. I suppose in a non-religious, humanist, ethical analysis you could argue what must make sense and compare religions and all of those things. That's all fine and dandy. Of course Christians will never be concerned with say a secular professor's ethical analysis of Christianity. For a Christian, and I would add for most of the major religions, we cannot save ourselves. We did not create ourselves in the big scheme of things. A sense that we have an ability to be overtly moral in and of ourselves is wishful thinking at best. hense the phrase "man's inhumanity to man." Keep in mind, anti-gay opposition is not ONLY rooted in Christianity or religion, there are plenty of non-religious anti-gay people. Let's not act like this is simply a Christian concept. In an event, there is no comparison or debate to be had between the moral constructs and definitions of moral imperatives between Christian and secular because Christian values come from a soveriegn God, who supersedes, human thought. Attempting to have secular discussion about a supernatural God, his moral code of ethics, and his follower's adherence to that is akin to a conversation between an English-only speaker and a Japanese-only speaker.The languages and value systems are not equal. Alas I was almost feeling as if we had arrived at a civil conclusion to this discussion and then you had to throw in your final paragraph about kindergarten religion. First of all, I tremble at the ego of someone who thinks himself wiser than God. Secondly, your juvenile insults obviously will have no bearing on my faith. As a very intelligent person with a Ivy League education,my brain is just fine.

DanielintheLionsDen
"Moral imperatives must make sense"
Sense to whom? We must always understand why God tells us to do or not to do a certain action? Certainly that is not borne out in the Bible, there are numerous instances of adherents following what God said, without understanding why. Those followers are commended, your very namesake is an example. That's a very humanist way of looking at moral ethics which is fine for a secular ethics analysis, but not consistent with a faith that adhere's to an all powerful, all-knowing God. While it is acceptable to question God, He's made it clear, as even most parents do, its not acceptable to demand and wait for an understanding of the "why" of particular instructions prior to carrying them out. God never promised us an answer to all things or all commandments.
No where in the New Testament are the two great commandments referred to as the ONLY commandments. All of God's word is given to us as instruction to follow, not some of it.This two commandment actually puts forth a false idol.
---------------------
Jesus countered the moral complexity of scribal authority with his assurance that the whole of our moral duty could be summed up in two great commandments: love God and love your neighbor.
----------------------
Your statement above, reflects a personal interpretation on your point which is errant. Jesus did contradict many Old Testament practices in the Gospels, moneychanging in the temple, stoning the adultress, persecution of the poor. Interesting enough, he did not contradict prohibitions against homosexuality. He clearly was aware of these passages. Why didnt he revise them? He took time to contradict seemingly so much else. Attempting to claim the Two Great commandments as a white wash of all old and new testament opposition to homosexual acts represents a veiled moral smokescreen of an argument a best. Its theological irresponsible to insist that proponents of Biblical scriptures against homosexuality, must provide "evidence" of how something that has already been condemned, runs contrary to Jesus' great commandments when Jesus himself never said anything to counter those prohibitions. Therefore the onus is on pro-homosexuality to definitively disprove those texts and show how Jesus specifically supports homosexuality. Which of course there is not such evidence. A generic "love your brother as yourself is not sufficient.I can love a murderer that does not mean his behavior is acceptable. Repeat this sentence for any other sinner, heterosexuals included, and it applies. Jesus when forgiving the adultress woman and saving her from being stoned, said "go and sin no more." He was loving and forgiving, but his statement in this event still represents a support of the Mosaic laws of Leviticus and the Ten Commandments. Now if Jesus himself rejects sin as defined in those passages, how do people act as if those laws no longer apply????

Detroit

Religious arguing is pointless, because people do not form their religious beliefs based on arguments with people trying to convert them or change them.

The development of belief is a mysterious confluence of experiential contingencies, moderated and filtered by the acuity of ones own senses, and the dexterity and cleverness of ones own intelligence.
The emergence of belief is something that comes to you as you mature; it seeps into your mind, and is sculpted and formed by your own personal doubts, and by your own psychological reactions to doubt and its consequent fears.

The emergence of belief is something mysterious, as mysterious as just about any other aspect of our lives. You cannot argue me out of mine, nor can I argue you out of yours.

If, I, as a Christian, say I believe in God, it is by no scientific proof that I would say such a thing. For I know that there is no scientific evidence pointing to the existence of God, and I respect science as a credible way of looking at the world.

A sincere belief in God, is a way of looking at mysteries, which we cannot explain, and a way to set a trouabled mind on a more peaceful course; faith does not mean knowledge; these are two very different concepts; yet few people would make the distinction, in trying to impose their own beliefs on others.

With regards to the Christian anti-gay agenda, irrationality is not sustainable in the area of ethics. Moral imperatives must make sense. The Christians teachings tgay people are false; any religion that reaches such obvously false conslusions has indeed much greater problems of credibility than merely its views on gay people.

I suggest that you cast off your kinder-garten religion, and think again what you believe, and how credible it may be. It is never too late to acquire wisdom, and as I said before, and not intended as an insult, you have have a brain, so why don't you use it?

feetxxxl1: i love all of humanity my brothers and sister in Christ and non believers. I howver do not condone sin. I dont hate anyone so I fall within those scriptures. However you have addressed none of the other issues? You cant simply claim love and ignore the commandments. Thats like telling your parents you love them and only do two things they say and ignoring the rest. You still have given no Biblical foundation for ignoring old testament and new testament moral codes of conduct outside of the two great commandments.That's not Christianity.

detroit

1john4: 19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.

the point is not a rule but instead a reality. that we can only do the 1st commandment if we are godloving(love one another as i have loved you) as in the the 2nd also.

the love that loves god also godloves(love one another as i have loved you) ones brother also.

Homosexuals are often told their behavior is “unbiblical” to which they reply, “unbiblical according to whom?” It is undeniable that there are biblical texts that have been understood to mean that all expressions of homosexuality are wrong. However, responsible biblical interpreters recognize that reason has a role to play in distinguishing valid tradition from hallowed mistakes. A concession to irrationality is not sustainable in the area of ethics. Moral imperatives must make sense.

In that connection, Jesus countered the moral complexity of scribal authority with his assurance that the whole of our moral duty could be summed up in two great commandments: love God and love your neighbor. Committed gay relationships breach neither of these commandments. The biblical texts which appear to condemn homosexuality must, therefore, reflect certain kinds of homosexual activity in the ancient world which did contravene the twin laws of love. This could be either because they were abusive or associated with idolatry. Those who wish to insist that homosexuality is “unbiblical” must demonstrate, therefore, what it is about same-sex relationships that make them wrong. Posturing that does not get beyond “the Bible says so” smacks of the crudest form of fundamentalist obscurantism.

Most important of all, if you are determined to insist that homosexuality should be treated as a sin, you must provide some rational evidence of the harm it does. All we are told in this connection is that it damages “the family.” Gay Christians simply do not understand the logic of this charge. Is the implication that thousands of young people would choose homosexuality as an alternative to heterosexual marriage if the Church rescinded its ban? The idea is patently ridiculous.

It is always easier to identify arrogance in others than in oneself. No doubt the strident assertions of some pro-gay activists lack meekness or even courtesy. Raised voices and immoderate words are all too often symptoms of chronically inflated egos, and both gay and anti-gay lobbies certainly have their share of these.

However, there is a more dangerous form of arrogance than simple big-headedness. Prejudice is particularly menacing when it is coupled to an arrogant assertion of absolute certainty. There is a small gap between “I am sure I am right” and “Therefore I must be obeyed.” It was the absolute certainty of fascism and communism that made them capable of genocide. It was the absolute certainty of Muslim fundamentalism that led to the carnage of September 11. Christians too have been guilty of frightful acts of tyranny and atrocity in the past. In fact, any creed that purports to have access to “Truth” can be subverted in this way.

feetxxxl: I notice you didnt answer the question. Its ok you cant really say it anyway else youve said it enough. The problem is if beleivers arent required to follow God's laws which include more than just those two you keep quoting over and over again, why would non beleivers beleive?? Let's delve into your "godlove" verses.Matt. 22
Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

So yes we are two do those two things. We however are not required to ONLY do those two things. The question was which law was the greatest. Jesus responds these two are the greatest, he doesnt say these are the ONLY laws to live by. He says all the other laws "hang" hinge, are connected, are related to those. What kind of laws might related to the first commandment? Hmmm..How about Though shalt have no other God's before me? A Levitical law.(i.e. idolatry)Still applies. Jesus said he came to fulfill the Mosaic laws including those in the old testament. To oversimplify that passage down to two commandments is disinegnuous and misleading. If that were the case, we would only really need that passage of scripture.Perhaps the Gospels. The BIble would be real thin. The bottom line is we are being led by his love and guided by the knowledge of His word and commandments as it has been given to us. Afterall if Jesus is God as he is then the entire commandments of the Bible represent his commandments. Jesus also said " If ye love me, keep my commandments. The emphasis here is not on one or two but all of his commandments.

i dont know how else to say it.

god is love, his love is the fulfillment of the law. fulfillment is the completion of the law, completing its purpose which is point to the being love of christ, whom chose place in him all his fullness.

"if you have seen me you have seen the father"

"if you know me you know the father"

if this being love lives in us that surpasses all knowledge why would we chose to be led by knowledge, instead of his love.

if believers are unable to show how being homosexual comes against this love why would believers then chose to be led by anything that diminishes homosexuality from heterosexuality. is not love, spirit, greater than any physicality?

feetxxxl1: your points are tkane even some of which I agree. I didnt forget that slavery was often a form of punishment in the old testament for non-believers. It was actually a form of evangelism in the new testament Paul/Philemon/and his master. Even though homosexuality is a sin, I do not see homosexuals as "diminished" in comparison to heterosexuals. The ONLY comparative disadvantages between the two groups are the most obvious of course, natural procreation, and to a lesser degree inability to provide mother/father parenthood. But those are situational and not the same as saying a homosexual is somehow weaker or less of a person.with However none of those scriptures overturn old and new testament Jesus and all of his godlove as you call it doesnt overturn it. He says he cam to fulfil the Mosaic laws. So quoting a lot of passages about love and loving thy neighbor doesnt negate the passages in the rest of the Bible about what is sinful. If I were to believe homosexuality wasnt a sin(which I dont) I'd pretty much be more persuaded by the critics who follow the "lost in translation" approach than those who whitewash scripture and the law in the language of love for all, and responsibilty for none. Is prostitution a sin? Or does godlove just require us to love our neighbor as ourselves and live and let live? That's basically the argument you seem to be making.

you so easily forget your own words about punishment...............which runs throughout scripture..............punishment of pagans.

and the looked upon virtue of evangelism. slavery was also looked on as a form of evangelism, for the thought of less than white.

in the same way that homosexuality is looked upon as less than heterosexual.

although homosexuals have never been found lacking in any sector of society compared to heterosexuals. and we know that sin is defiling and diminishes. but there is no evidence of dimunition compared to heterosexuals. homosexuals bond in the same way as heterosexuals......mutual love, affection, devotion, trust, respect for a shared committed life together. the legal massachussetts' gay marriages have not succombed to the the divorce percentages of heterosexuals or those of the heterosexuals that were married at the same time.

believers can only make homosexulity a sin thru a regulation, procreation, and design mentality. all this is about interpretation and legalities. not an iota of this is about spirit or the fruit of the spirit of galatians5.
none of this has anything to do with the godlove of the 2nd commandment(love neighbor) which is the summation(romans and galatians) of all issues of regulation, design, and procreation. these are all things of knowledge. love surpasses knowledge.

ephesians3:18 may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19 and to know this LOVE that surpasses KNOWLEDGE—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.

20 Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us,

christ who was given all authority and all judgement.

feetxxxl1, & Onofrio, there is no point in arguing with someone that their piss is made of same toxins as anyone elses, when they say they believe they piss "Chanel # 5". You can rhyme and reason with someone who at least concedes that the scripture was authored by same human beings who authored all other texts. In fact teh scripture is the vilest pieces of literature that still exists in the world. The commentaries about them are nothing but frauds committed by the commentors trying to rationalize the vile texts to make them palatable for their times.

feetxxxl1: First of all slavery is a human evil. Blacks didnt suffer slavery simply because Leviticus said so or any other religious text gave any creedence to it. Slavery existed before Leviticus and after. Some people utilized Leviticus as their justification, many did not. But the comparison is not analogous because the anti-homosexual scriptures exist outside of Leviticus.There are also anti-slavery references in the Bible, there are no pro-homosexuality arguments however. There is nothing "extreme" about something that is consistently opposed in the Bible.

detroit

if you are black, then maybe you can relate to that blacks, in general, after having suffered persecution from an extreme belief in a lev scripture, an extreme belief that caused 1700 years of their ETHNIC SLAVERY, split a church, and contributed to a civil war, now turn around stand on an extreme belief about another lev scripture to persecute gays.

onforio: There is such a thing none as a general statement. It isnt against the law to issue a broad statement. Once again, get over it.You made an assumption about the statemet I made and you were wrong. Period.
Speaking of assumptions lets examine a couple more of your incorrect ones.
ONforio says:
Oh, pardon my stupidity for inferring that the moniker Detroitblkmale30 refers to a black male, aged 30, from Detroit. Are you now going to tell me you're actually a woman, too?
------------------------------
I am not 30, nor do I live in Detroit,I am a black male. so one out of three. thats not so good as a test score, but a .333 percentage would make you a great hitter in baseball. You make to erroneous assumptions and then get up set enough to through sarcasm my way?? lol. I think what you just did there was to make an assumption based on commonly held moniker beliefs, and you were wrong. Hmmmm that sounds like what I did in regards highlighting commonly held beliefs off of pop culture(i.e. The Ten Commandments movie) I guess that puts you in the same boat, its ok there's plenty of room in that boat, along with the rest of humanity that make mistakes and wrong assumptions. Yes it IS the equivalent. The only difference is the subject matter, at the end of the day you made wrong assumptions both about what I said, and who I am and I made a wrong couple of statements with regards to herodotus and Pyramids. Any suggestion that it isnt the same is simply obtuse and asinine. No one said your fault was greater no one said I was passing on great truths and facts. Simply clearly you have some kind of anti-Christian fixation that causes you to attempt to kill a fly of an argument with a nuclear bomb rebuttal. Its imature and utterly unnecessary. I am still trying to understand your level of vehemence.Like I said before, people make statements, they get corrected on specific points they move on. You have continued to harp on something that at the end of the day STILL is not even a defining point of my arguments. The bottom line is simply that regardless of WHICH Pyramids the Hebrews were forced to build, or which cities, or which edifices, they were still enslaved in forced construction and manual labor in OPPRESSIVE slavery. So try as you have and fail to label me cavalier with all of my facts. Its rather Are you still talking about Herodotus? How many people have misremembered seeing something somewhere?? Surely you have, you are human it happens. I retracted that herodotus bit for the umpteenth time and in its placed listed several factual non-biblical historical references in its place. So enough about not being factual. My argument on the Jesus front still stands. Jesus lived on this earth. PERIOD. Continually harping on a "dead" point isnt going to lessened the credibilty of that argument or make it any less true. Sorry. Nice try though. My overall arguments and statements are reliable. This is not a dissertation its a discussion. Get over it

Detroitblkmale30,

Thee:
"I was clearly not referring to the Great Pyramids at Giza or any specific Pyramids."

Of course, you were dealing out vague, unsubstantiated BS, with all the misplaced confidence of a patent ignoramus.

"Once again assuming something you dont know case in point. I live in washington dc not Detroit, hence a Washington paper site that I am commenting on. There you go with assuming something once again."

Oh, pardon my stupidity for inferring that the moniker Detroitblkmale30 refers to a black male, aged 30, from Detroit. Are you now going to tell me you're actually a woman, too?

To your vacuity and dishonesty you now add moral idiocy.

According to your ethical compass, my misinterpretation (?) of your blog moniker is the moral equivalent of your propagation of dumbass popular hearsay as established fact.

Clearly, for you - as for so many Christians - spreading an untruth in the "good" cause is totally acceptable. And if anyone calls you out on it, it's them who has the problem, not you. According to you, you have made a mere trifling "mistake", and my fault is greater for not indulging you. Well, pointing to "the Pyramids" and insisting that mean old Pharaoh forced the Hebrews to build them under the whip is not a trifling mistake. That you confidently deployed this image, this myth, this cinematic pap, to make a point about the truth of the Exodus reveals that you are the sort of person who is easily duped and doesn't check his facts. Your credulity is compunded by ignorant obstinacy. You insisted you had read about Christ in some quote from Herodotus even after your error was pointed out. And you're still trying to salvage some sort of credibility, some sort of "face".

You have demonstrated that, when it comes to matters of history, you are not a reliable witness.

Hopefully, this little exchange will prompt you to wonder what other untruths you are currently believing to be facts.

Secular: Good thing my faith isnt based on IDA. The bottom line is sure IDA might cast doubt on it, but they havent disproven it. Would you trust German authorities to give you all of the exact details of the holocaust or would you seek out the records of the Jews? Is it plausible that the prideful Pharoahs and officials of the day might have reduced or stricken records of this people that caused so many plagues to be leveled upon them. A people they were forced to "let go" to their great embarrassment and casualties??? Yes it is possible. As we were still dealing in the world of "gray" and "long shadows" I will stick with my faith. YOu can have the one "ruling authority" of the IDA

it is not emotions or mental aberrations, even outer physical acts that seperate one from the love of christ but what is one's heart. this is about inner conviction.

consider in the terms of lots wife apparently there was something in her heart that caused her to linger in her viewing of sodom and consequently she was overcome with gaseous fumes covered with molten minerals in the same way as the victims of pompeii with the same results.

literalism is of no importance if the results are the same.

detroitblkmale30, based on tremendous amount of archeological work done by the Israeli department of archeology, since 1967 in Sinai and surrounding areas a long shadow has been cast on the accuracy of the Exodus account. Per IDA, the whole Exodus story is indeed a fiction. In fact reading the report Ben Gurion supposedly lamented that alas the title deed for Israel seem to have been misplaced or something to that effect. This was stated by one of Chris Hitchens debates with David Wolpe, if I am not mistaken - it was definitely Hitchens which went unchallenged. Hitchens was in fact in praise of the archeologists for their professional honesty, despite the religious and emotional pressure on them.

onofrio: YES you clearly have put words in my mouth and assumed I was saying something I was NOT. I was clearly not referring to the Great Pyramids at Giza or any specific Pyramids. Why you are so upset and cursing I dont know. I;m the one who's words you are twisting are assuming. I took fault for what I said I got wrong. Its OVER deal with it.Or take some anger management classes. I dont know something.Once again assuming something you dont know case in point. I live in washington dc not Detroit, hence a Washington paper site that I am commenting on. There you go with assuming something once again. That;s the same thing you accuse me of. Taking something that "appears" to be the case based of my handle in this case without confirming whether it is true or not. They were missed facts, nothing flagrant about them, only in your mind. Often people on these sites as I have said AD NAUSEUM, quickly respond to a post and get facts wrong here or there. I sure its even happened to you. A flagrant howler whatever that is, as you say, would be if I said the Hewbrews had enslaved the EgyPtians. Not saying the Hebrews were forced to build cities vs building Pyramids, which again has been a commonly held belief for decades, outside of EgyPtian scholars and expert archaeologists.
Onforio says:
A word of advice: Cecil B De Mille is not a reliable source for ancient history. Best not to base future apologetic attempts on his melodramatic epics.
-----------------------
What Onforio Didnt read was what I had already posted:
go watch the movie the Ten commandments from the 1940's with Charlton Heston yes for decades most people believed the hebrews built the Pyramids.I put that movie forward not as historical proof but as evidence of commonly held beliefs that the Hebrews built the Pyramids.
-------
Clearly I say here Onforio that I chose that movie not as historical proof that Hebrews built the Pyramids. Instead it is as you may recall it was used in support of the argument that many people over time thought that the indeed did build them. It is international evidence that at one time for many decades people commonly thought the Hebrews built the Pyramids, even if they were wrong, they still beleieved that to be the case as evidenced by the movie. So clearly, you have done me NO favors. There you go with your annoying presumptiousness again.

the word for argue, debate, discuss, and reason was used 13 times in acts, it was this process, with the conviction by the holy spirit that paul used to build his churches.

Speaking of Lot, indeed it is the one of the innumerable cinches in the Armour of the Abrahmic faiths. An omnipotent and omniscient deity cannot foresee the scumbag Lot will prove to be but he spared him and his wife was turned into a pillar of salt looking backwards. I just wonder how can curiosity ever be considered a terrible infraction as opposed to drunkenness, & incest. This is all beyond me. Also to claim that incest was not endorsed, is a hypocritical in light of the fact that the deity is swift in punishment of the curious wife but totally unconcerned of Lot's transgressions, is at the least condoning the vile behavior of his favorite folks. These are the rationalization theists make all the time yet claim the omniscience & omnipotence of the deity. Notwithstanding the comments of another blogger OT is the bane of all three of them. But of course NT is the additional bane of Christianity and Islam (whatever of NT was plagiarized into Koran). And of course Koran itself is the additional bane of Islam. ================================ How one gets so stupid I don't know. It has been suggested that the Nazi Befriending blogger had his brains fried on Cow Pee and Cow faeces, but I doubt it. There are others who consume said excrement.

This piece of excrement was told repeatedly that he knew not whereof he spoke. I offered him books by esteemed secular scholars, links, etc., but the putzy racist wasn't interested.

The putzy racist "opines." And while said putz is opining actually reaches out to a blogger posting vile antisemitic trash, said blogger having been identified by other bloggers as a member of Storm Front, the nazi party.

This putzy secular is advised that the angels were a test for Lot. He is the prototype of the weak, but not thoroughly evil man. He constrasts with Lot.

LOT's WIFE WAS NOT CURIOUS, YOU STUPID, ARROGANT, PRESUMPTUOUS BOOR. SHE WAS ATTACHED, COMMITTED, YOU MORON.

THE INCEST OF LOT'S DAUGHTER'S RESULTED IN WHAT, DWEEB?

REALLY, I THINK THE VAUNTED FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN HINDUS AND JEWS MUST BE REVISITED--ONE CANNOT KNOW HOW MANY "SECULARIST NAIZS" ABOUND.

AT ANY RATE, THE DALIT WILL BE CHRISTIANIZED--NOT MY PROBLEM--AND DWEEBIE SECULAR CAN SUCH HIS THUMB OR WHATEVER AND OPINE.

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | December 14, 2010 8:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The conundrum is solved. The great professor of Al Chemistry & Fertile Imagination (PACFI) went out to another thread and unleashed her rant, as predicted. Thank you PACFI for living up to the prediction. PACFI a simple question since I prophesied your behavior do I become a prophet too, like your favorites, Adam, Ibrahim, Yahya, Yakub, Musa, et al?

Detroitblkmale30,

"onofrio: you've been to busy condemning me for your assumptions and hairsplitting notice the admitting of missing a fact here and there on the pyramids and herodotus."

I have not invented sh!t about what you think; I have addressed the content and implications of what you have actually written. In all of this exchange, I have quoted your very own words at length when I want to make a point about your views.

You have not missed "a fact here and there". You have confidently asserted unsubstantiated hearsay as fact, and then found fault with me for "calling" you "out" on it (I am Australian; my native idiom sometimes varies from that of Detroit, where, it seems, non-sentences are de rigueur). As I've already stated, my argument is not with Exodus per se, but with your mishandling/misattribution of "facts", and with your attempts to avoid responsibility for trading in historical misinformation - not "missed facts", but flagrant howlers.

A word of advice: Cecil B De Mille is not a reliable source for ancient history. Best not to base future apologetic attempts on his melodramatic epics.

There, I'm doing you a favour.

secular: I simply went from the scripture you posted which was a reference to the brutality of the Egyptians towards the Hebrews in Egypt, which indeed underscores what I was making to onforio as it was written. If you meant something else then I can only take you at your word and I absolve you from any "siding" with my arguments. Nonetheless, I could take the scripture you posted and post it for onforio's benefit and it would have made my argument. That is my only point.I admitted what you said was unintended, thats not disingenuous.

onofrio: you've been to busy condemning me for your assumptions and hairsplitting notice the admitting of missing a fact here and there on the pyramids and herodotus.Its not slippery evading when I'm simply defending myself from someone so confident in his points that he assumes he knows exactly what Im stating when he doesnt. I will admit to errors when I make them in earnest. I won't however admit to errors of what other people "think" Im making when I in fact am not making them.Read the post below in regards to my arguments. They stand still, un-impeded by your 2-3 fact nitpicking.

Seriously Onforio: go watch the movie the Ten commandments from the 1940's with Charlton Heston yes for decades most people believed the hebrews built the Pyramids.I put that movie forward not as historical proof but as evidence of commonly held beliefs that the Hebrews built the Pyramids. SO if you want to call that 70 year old "ground shifting" go ahead lol.Once again you are treating this forum as a dissertation which it is not. Therefore no need to list footnotes. Sometimes people get details right on here someties they get them wrong. What's with the Federal case?? I didnt jump down your throat when you mistakenly said I was "caught out" The correct term of course is called out. But hey, mistakes happen. Here you go with being so sure of yourself that you know what I'm thinking are saying exactly. There such things as questions, if you're not sure or before you pounce all over me, why dont you ask what I meant, you have multiple degrees. I assume they asks questions of your points rather than just assuming they knew your every intention. In this case no, I was not saying the Hebrew schedule of servitude was hard because there were "many" Pyramids, I was saying there were many, namely over 130 Pyramids as in not the famous Pyramids, meaning the record of who worked where and when is not set in stone. This of course brings me to my next point. Where did I say I was referring to the Great Pyramids at Giza?? Go find that and post it please. im familar with those and would have mentioned them specifically. Once again, there you using your great intellect to "project" my meaning and then clubbing me over the head with an unrelated rebuttal. Speaking of desperate attempts, your attempts to slam your great knowledge of EgyPt over everyone's head is getting to be quite juvenile not to mention annoying. We get it you know your EgyPt, congratulations. However, you dont know me, you dont know my thoughts or intentions and your presumptiousness is quite pompous. You missed the last point completely about fact checking. I was not saying why dont you check your OWN facts. I was saying Additionally there is a difference between stating facts that one beleives to be true, learning they are not and not repeating them as I have done, and bending facts which I have not done. Finally nothing you have said or even corrected have changed my overall argument that there were Hebrews who were enslaved in EgyPt, oppressed as slaves in the building of various EgyPtians structures and edifices and who instituted a more regulated , some would say just( I wouldn't) system of slavery within their own society. Your hair splitting over Pyramids, which ones, doesnt impact that argument.But again that is what people do I suppose when they can't win an argument, they change the subject or deflect or redirect attention to something else other than the larger point. Nothing so fun as scapegoating all of Christianity than actually holding a civil discussion.

Detroitblkmale30,

Thee:
"Many facts are missed on this board and people are corrected and they move on. I don't know what your fixation is quite frankly, but it still has no bearing on my overall arguements"

You have not admitted correction, or that you were significantly wrong. Rather you insist you've been essentially right all along.

(... It's just a bit of ground-shifting, so what's the fuss? ... what's the matter with a bit of hearsay here, a bit of BS there? Let's not get hung up on the details...)

The bearing it has on your "overall arguments" is that you are clearly unable to distinguish historical evidence from popular hearsay, and are willing to assert just any old unsubstantiated sh!t if you think it makes your "overall argument" more persuasive.

Any argument you make is undermined by your casual/naive attitude to historical verification, and further eroded by your slippery evasions once you've been found out.

Detroitblkmale30,

Thee:
"Don't act like it hasnt been a commonly held belief for centuries that the Hebrews built the pyramids so I DID NOT invent that concept."

More ground-shifting. A "commonly held belief" now, is it? You should test such "beliefs" more carefully before you deploy them as facts. Why repeat something that is just fanciful hearsay? The pyramids - for a long time - were also commonly considered granaries built under Joseph. Subscribe to that view too?

"Go read any number of books are movies on the subject. i am not arguing on anything out of the blue."

So vague numbers of "books" and "movies" is your criterion for historicity? Actually, I have read extensively on the matter at hand. I can tell you (and I have demonstrated in brief) that you are talking (with increasing shrillness) out of your a-hole.

"yeah I said those pyramids, not ALL. so whats your point there?"

You said "of which there were many", implying that there was a link between the number of pyramids and the severity of Hebrew servitude. My point is that you are retreating into vague broadness once your statements of "fact" are shown to be anything but.

"Last I checked there were 138 pyramids built all over the spectrum of Egytian history."

So which ones did the Exodus Hebrews contribute to? You originally implied there were many.

"I never referenced Giza or any pyramid specifically."

When you exclaim "Have you seen the Pyramids??" with a capital P, what obvious, oh-so-tangible pyramids are you hoping to evoke, if not the celebrated ones at Giza? Did you want to implant in your readers' minds the image of the pyramids of Saqqara, Hawara, Meidum, and Lisht? Or perhaps the little mudbrick pyramidions placed on tombs ar Deir el-Medina (at least they're New Kingdom)? Are you seriously claiming you invited consideration of "the Pyramids" without reference to the Giza trio?

Your desperate attempt to evade your own BS is pitiful. Your reluctance to admit your own fraud makes me suspect you're not just a jackass, but a liar.

"Why dont you go through ALL of the posts and factcheck people?"

Because I actually know something of the matters you've ignorantly spouted about, and I'm sick of Christians making sh!t up. If it is within my (admittedly feeble) powers, I'll set the record straight. You, it is clear, prefer to bend it.

detroitblkmale30, if any I was making the point that even by the account of Exodus the treatment of Hebrews by Egyptians was on par with that of any slave by any other slave owners. You are being disingenuous, when claiming that I made your point. Either you misunderstood me or trying claim victory where none is to be found.

onforio: yeah I said those pyramids, not ALL. so whats your point there? The bottom line is they were oppressed they built structures all of which ones? who knows. Don't act like it hasnt been a commonly held belief for centuries that the Hebrews built the pyramids so I DID NOT invent that concept. Go read any number of books are movies on the subject. i am not arguing on anything out of the blue. I wasnt even referencing those THREE pyramids. Go ahead, paste a comment of mine that mentioned the pryamids you are referencing. YOu cant because I didnt. Stop trying to twist my words and make it seem like i'm saying something I'm not.Last I checked there were 138 pyramids built all over the spectrum of Egytian history. I never referenced Giza or any pyramid specifically.Once again, not invented, commonly held beleifs. Nice try though trying to make my comments irrevevalent my nitpicking. What I am calling out is your obsession with trying to act superior based upon your EgyPtian knowledge, assuming someone is saying something they are not, and then as i said earlier, attempting to invalidate their entire argument based upon a missed fact and typo. Sorry, but im not falling for it. Nice try though.Why dont you go through ALL of the posts and factcheck people? Many facts are missed on this board and people are corrected and they move on. I don't know what your fixation is quite frankly, but it still has no bearing on my overall arguements

Detroitblkmale30,

Thee:
"I referenced pyramids as an example of edifices that were constructed. You cannot say that no Hebrew ever contributed to or built a pyramid for one."

No I can't. But your original "in fact" claim - which I confronted - was not about what an isolated Hebrew might have done here or there, but of a whole people labouring at many pyrmaids. What you said (nay trumpeted) was this:

"Have you seen the Pyramids??Pharoah, the one who subjected the Hebrews to brutal manual labor constructing those huge edifices in the African heat, who would order his foremen to keep going even if one of the slaves was getting trampled." (Bold mine for emphasis)

And

"Secondly the Hebrew slaves were in fact responsible for preparing, making bricks, moving stones,assembling the materials, assembling casts and other tasks in the building many of the Egytian edifices including the Pyramids of which there were many" (Bold mine for emphasis)

Twice you've made sweeping, unqualified statements about what the "Hebrew slaves" supposedly did in relation to pyramid-construction. The great ages of pyramid building in Egypt, as I pointed out earlier, were finished centuries before the Ramesside milieu of the Exodus. Those massive monuments at Giza, Saqqara, Dahshur, Abu Roash, et cetera could not have been built with any contribution from the "Hebrew slaves" who exodised under Moses. It's like attributing Notre Dame to Napoleon - a gross, laughable anachronism.

My argument is not with the plausibility or accuracy of Exodus. My argument is with the way you argue, deploying sheer invention as if it were fact, and then disingenuously back-tracking once your humbug has been exposed.

In effect, you began with a position of these are the facts.

When your facts have been exposed as fantasy you shift to well the facts are not such a big deal after all, here's the gist, to wit:

"Maybe that included pyramids maybe it didnt. I wasnt there, neither were you last I checked. It did include include however multiple cities and countless edificies.Again why the haggling over what type of building? it really doesnt matter."

And

"So I missed a fact here or two. This is an online discussion forum not a dissertation. The bottom line remains, the overall point of my arguments are sstill consistent and based on facts."

Facts merely "missed"? No, facts invented.

You've been caught out, Detroit Male. You invent "history" to suit your apologetic agenda. Time to stop talking out of your a-hole.

Secular: well often things have unintended consequences. You highlighted the severity of egytian slavery, a point I had been making to onforio. So you helped whether you intended to or not. A thank you is in order.You'll never succeed in showing me the so-called "folly" of my faith so I can spare you the trouble of trying on that account.Well thats like saying you have finally conceded that water is not fire LOL. I'm pretty clear the world is clear on the difference between science and faith as am I. Your mistake is thinking that the two are mutually exclusive. They of course are not. Just (if you could ) ask Sir Isaac Newton. "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done,” Ill take science and faith then in that equation, but faith will always come first.

Secular: thanks for your assistance in helping prove my point to onforio.

********************************************

I don't understand the above statement from you DetroitBlkMale. I most certainly was not trying to help you, if any I was trying to show you the folly of your thoughts and writings. Just so I make myself clear, I am with Onforio in the argument you are having with him/her. You have finally conceded the point I was trying to make that there is no objective way of knowing the scripture is right. That is teh difference between science and faith. I will take science any day ouver faith

Secular: thanks for your assistance in helping prove my point to onforio. Fair enough questions. In complete objectivity, I assume there are always two stories right? The story of the oppressor and the story of the oppressed. I imagine the egyptians would say they treated their slaves well or how they should be treated as slaves, the scriptures beg to differ. Leviticus lays forth distinctions in treatment for non-Hebrew slaves which can be "owned" in perpetuity and beaten for disobedience. I guess my point was simply the mere nature of the combination of slavery, the conditions(climate, and type of work-major construction) and lack of regard for life made Hebrews life more oppressive in Egypt than it was for their slaves.At the very least Hebrew society had prohibitions against the killing of slaves, no such evidence of that in Egypt. Here is what Exodus says about treatment of slaves in Hebrew society:Exodus 21:
26 "If a man hits his male or female slave in the eye and the eye is blinded, he must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if a man knocks out the tooth of his male or female slave, he must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.
Having said that, to me slavery in any form is unacceptable so I dotn want anyone thinking im condoning slavery or saying well this kind of slavery isnt so bad.To me there's not such thing as "good" slavery." However it does appear that this type was not as onerous as their experience in Egypt due to the existence of "slave laws" that actually limit the actions of the slave masters.

To answer you final question, how do I discern that these stories were not written by fiction writers? Well for one on a non religious level, its very common for any people, tribe etc to catalogue their history and experiences just on a basic level and pass them down in written form. More specifically, in our Christian tradition discernment is taking everything in both testaments into account and basically "testing" it up against what we know of God through the scriptures. Based upon the totality of the Bible. If God acted in one manner in Genesis, is it consistent that he would have acted in similar manner in Exodus or Matthew for that matter, etc. What are the promises and scriptures, commandments,The ultimate answer of course comes down to a matter of faith, either you beleive that God is he he says he is, did what it is written he did or you don't. Having 100 percent historically proof would be great. I'd love if there were horse skeleton's at teh bottom of the Red Sea, but I dont need to see them to believe that Exodus ocurred. I respect the right of those not to beleive that.At the end of the day you can scientifically prove something that is supernatural. I think that is where religion and those who dont believe in it failt to see eye to eye

1:11 Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses.

1:12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and
grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel.

1:13 And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with
rigour:
1:14 And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in
morter, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all
their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour.

The above is the extent of the description of the hardships faced by the Hebrews in Egypt. I could not find any description of how the Hebrews treated their slaves, other than now infamous regulations. please tell me how do you conclude whose treatment of the slaves was more onerous. How do you discern from just these description. Mind you I am not conceding that Exodus had indeed taken place. For argument's sake even if we were to stipulate that the treatment by the Egyptians was more onerous, how can you show us skeptics that those verses were not written by a human fiction writer. How do you discern that?

onforio: lol kindly explain to me how you get a captured people to build cities, buildings edifices for the sake of your argument even ONE building? Might not it take the cracking of a whip the witholding of rations, in other words OPPRESSION. Either you are being intentionally stubborn or obtuse. Either way there's no more sense in me trying to convince someone who wont accept that people in bondage and slavery forced to build structures throughout a nother nation's culture will indeed face oppressive circumstances. Thats not hyperbole, thats reality.I referenced pyramids as an example of edifices that were constructed. You cannot say that no Hebrew ever contributed to or built a pyramid for one.Secondly. I never attributed ALL of the pyramids to the Hebrews. No one is making anything up. You fail to try and catch me in that. that was merely an example. The bottom line is that Hebrews were slaves in EgyPt. They were oppressed as slaves, forced to participate in manual labor that involved construction of edifices. Maybe that included pyramids maybe it didnt. I wasnt there, neither were you last I checked. It did include include however multiple cities and countless edificies.Again why the haggling over what type of building? it really doesnt matter. The main point is the Hebrews through oppressive slavery were forced to make bricks for all kinds of buildings and monuments in EgyPt.That I didnt make up.Everyone throws out I find it amusing though that your microscopic focus on every comment still misses the "big picture" which There are both Biblical and non biblical accounts of this kind of slavery.I have never seen a pleasant account of slavery in EgyPt. This was not the proverbial walk in the park Tell me oh EgyPtian scholar would you want to be a slave in EgyPt, regardless of what the terms where? If someone said you're going to be a slave in EgyPt, we will spare you building mass structures, simply Your mere suggesting slavery for the Hebrews in that time in that climate, could possibly be anything other than oppressive is frankly ignorant which I find surprising for someone so well educated. So I missed a fact here or two. This is an online discussion forum not a dissertation. The bottom line remains, the overall point of my arguments are sstill consistent and based on facts.(pyramids/oppressive slavery)Herodotus/many other historical references to same effect) Your insistence on throwing the out the an occasional mistake baby with the big picture bath water still smacks of nitpicking and pettiness.

Detroitblkmale30,

Thee:
"Well considering Hebrew slaves were enslaved throughout EgyPt to build as we both agreed entire cities"

I did not agree with you about that; I informed you that Exodus mentions two sites of Hebrew servitude: Pithom and Raamses. The picture Exodus paints of an Egypt swarming with oppressed Hebrews is narrative hyperbole.

Thee:
"the point is moot as to WHICH structures. No one will ever know how many buildings exactly were built by all of the Hebrew slaves."

But you were quite confident that you knew all about it. You named pyramids, "of which there were many" as among the "edifices" at which Hebrews "in fact" laboured. Yet not even Exodus makes this claim. And you cannot supply evidence that this occurred for even a single pyramid. You have simply made sh!t up and trumpeted it as a fact. It's not sledgehammering to call you to account for that.

Thee:
"EgyPtian slavery was brutal,oppressive and involved a great deal of manual labor particulary related to construction. None of your questioning or nitpicking over which pyramids or which edifices negates that."

Apart from your rather inattentive reading of Exodus, how do you know what "Egyptian slavery" entailed? A question is begged...

What my questioning does establish is that you are prone to make bold pronouncements about historical matters on the basis of sheer ignorance.

Christ-testifying Herodotus...pyramid-building Hebrews...I'm not "nitpicking", Detroit Male, just showing how cavalier you are with regard to historical evidence and process. Like lots of Christians...

onofrio: did you know there was a t in typo? Thats what that egytian was called.Well considering Hebrew slaves were enslaved throughout EgyPt to build as we both agreed entire cities, the point is moot as to WHICH structures. No one will ever know how many buildings exactly were built by all of the Hebrew slaves.Your using a sledgehammer to kill a fly approach to the argument though misses the larger point which again was simply. EgyPtian slavery was brutal,oppressive and involved a great deal of manual labor particulary related to construction.None of your questioning or nitpicking over which pyramids or which edifices negates that.

I'll gladly you trade you my mispeak about herodotus for the other references I included.Secondly, the point of those references was simply to show that there are historically accepted non-biblical references to the existence of Jesus. I did not suggest that those sources proved everything in TheBible.I never said they could, my point was about the historical existence of Jesus. His miracles etc. thats where faith comes in to play. You do not have to believe in those. You have free will.The larger point though here is Jesus was not mythical, whether you beleive he was miraculous is another arugment.

Detriotblkmale30,

Thee:
"I already said I mispoke on Herodotus."

You didn't, actually. You put up a link to a list of quotes from ancient source documents, all of which I am familiar with. Of course, Herodotus was not there, but there was no retraction from you.

None of these sources "prove" the theological claims made by Christians about Jesus, or even most of the "historical" claims. In particular, the Testimonium Flavianum, as is well known-and-shown (and by Christian scholars too), is at least partially interpolated by a Christian scribal copyist, so is an unreliable guide.

As I already wrote to you below:
The Pliny stuff shows only that there were folks who believed in some sh!t, not that the sh!t happened.
Y'know, like mention of Mormons don't mean Joe Smith read no gold plates...

Note, I am not necessarily claiming that Jesus the Galilean thaumaturge never existed, only that the specific claims Christians make about his divinity, Messiahship, birth, resurrection, et cetera cannot be corroborated/substantiated by sources outside the New Testament.

Detroitblkmale30,

Thee:
"the Hebrew slaves were in fact responsible for preparing, making bricks, moving stones,assembling the materials, assembling casts and other tasks in the building many of the Egytian edifices"

Many "edifices", eh? "In fact" too? Could you name a few examples of these many "edifices" that were "in fact" built by Hebrews? There are plenty to choose from at Karnak, Luxor, Medinet Habu, Deir el-Bahri, Biban el-Muluk, Mit Rahina, Ashmunein, Amarna, Elephantine, Abydos, Giza, Saqqara, el-Kab, Buhen, Mirgissa, Soleb, el-Silsila, Dahshur, Meidum, Lisht, Giza, Abusir, Abu Roash, Lahun, Hawara...

to name just a few.

So, Detroit male, which "edifices"?

Oh, and there's a p in Egyptian.

Detroitblkmale30,

Thee:
"Secondly the Hebrew slaves were in fact responsible for preparing, making bricks, moving stones,assembling the materials, assembling casts and other tasks in the building many of the Egytian edifices including the Pyramids of which there were many.Egytians themselves did then take the materials and build them into what we see now."

Would you care to point out the archaeological evidence for pyramid-construction at the New Kingdom sites of Pi-Ramesse and Pi-Atum (where Exodus places the Hebrews)?

And would you point out the biblical evidence for the involvement of Hebrews in pyramid-construction at even one of the pyramid fields of Egypt?

I'd be interested to know what sort of chronological system you're working with. You seem to be attributing construction of all the pyramids to "Hebrew slaves". Yet this creates some chronological difficulties. For example, the pyramids at Giza were constructed in Dynasty 4, more than a millennium before the Dynasty 19 Ramesside milieu of the Exodus account. The pyramid sites of the Middle Kingdom at places like Dahshur, Lahun, and Lisht predate Dynasty 19 by at least five centuries. And the New Kingdom was not a time of major pyramid construction. Are you claiming that the Hebrews were slaving for over a thousand years at all this pyramidery?

I only have a postgraduate degree in Egyptology, so please enlighten me.

Secular: That was a reference to how Many it was a reference more speicifally to You ought to be familiar with the sense that one "ruling" body does not make something true or untrue.That keen uncanny sense is called discernment. A Biblical ability to "test the spirits" and divine as to what is Godly and what is not based off of God's words, his practices and principles. The reliance is off of his word not my own beliefs or some generic sense of what "seems right" in a universal shall i say secular way. As for your poster that is between the two of you. I dont think debating conversations are sinful. My point was simply none of us myself included are without sin or faults or mistakes.We all do somethings right and somethings wrong some more so than others. Moses included.

onofrio: scroll down I provided a list of historical references non biblical sources. I already said I mispoke on Herodotus. I also cited Pliny in that post which stands true as do the others I listed such as Tacitus.

Secondly the Hebrew slaves were in fact responsible for preparing, making bricks, moving stones,assembling the materials, assembling casts and other tasks in the building many of the Egytian edifices including the Pyramids of which there were many.Egytians themselves did then take the materials and build them into what we see now.Anyway your second point still underlines my point of very difficult manual labor, in high heat, and carrying of stones etc etc etc

Secular: On one hand you say there was no moses on the other you say he didnt give up anytthing which is it? There was a Moses, Israelis and Christians all over the world contrary to your citation beleive he did indeed live.

*********************************************

Sorry I should have said: "Even accordint to the Exodus account the fictional character of Moses didn't give up anything"

Coming to the point of how many people believing in life of Moses, sir you ought to be aware that truthiness of a belief is not a function of how many believe in something. There was a time when most of the world population believed earth was flat and now most believes it is spheroid. Do you think earth changed its form based on how many believed in its different form? Or do you think earth was always spherical?

Also you claim that you take god's word seriously. How do you tell if certain texts are god's words or not? What kind of keen uncanny sense you posses that rest of us mortals do not.

Coming to the question of me sinning or not, I personally think there is wrong thing to do and a right thing to and lots of shades in between. In so far as me, I don't for a moment claimed that I have always done the right thing nor would I say I have always done the wrong thing either. On the balance I think I have done right things a lot more than wrong. Take for instance there is a blogger right on this thread, who has been vilifying me ad nauseum. The right thing to do would have been for me to ignore her and put her out of her misery, as she would have after another bout or two may be left me alone. But I did not. The absolutely the wrong thing to do would have been to vilify her with some atrocious lies, as she did in her posts. But I did not do that either. But I could not resist the temptation to needle her - and that is something in between right and wrong. Now she will go bonkers, when she reads my post on her. Is what I did sinful? May be in your eyes. But not in mine, she is grown women. She knew she would and wanted to provoke me. So now she will go of on a rant rampage, may be not if she reads this post of mine. Either way, she is in a conundrum now. If she rants then she is doing what I want her to do per my previous post. If she doesn't rant then again she is doing what I want her to do based on this post. I am in the meanwhile, having a big laugh, at her pompous bloviations.

Professor of Al Chemistry, for some one who claims to be shunning me and posting every other post to that effect, you keep posting against me all the time. As a matter of fact 7 posts in less than one hour. Oh! My, My, that's a bit much for even for you, who is shunning me. Lady you are obsessed. I just checked with Bellvue, and they assure me they a have nice padded room, waiting for you. Do everyone on this blog a favor and ask your SO to drive you there. They tell me they will have you out by new years so you can be back teaching your recipes to make gold from lead in the new year. Of course my sympathies always with your students, for being so gullible in enrolling in your classes. yweh speed with you.

Detroitblkmale30,

Thee:
"Have you seen the Pyramids??Pharoah, the one who subjected the Hebrews to brutal manual labor constructing those huge edifices in the African heat, who would order his foremen to keep going even if one of the slaves was getting trampled."

Some points to note:
1) The pyramids were not built by Hebrew slaves. They were built by a core professional work force seasonally augmented by corvee labour from Nilotic villages.

2) According to Exodus, the Hebrews were exploited for labour in the construction of the cities of Pithom (Eg. Pi-Atum) and Raamses (Eg. Pi-Ramesse), both in the eastern Nile delta. No "pyramids".

I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that Herodotus is a source for the life and death of Jesus, as you earlier insisted:

Thee:
"There are non-biblical historical accounts Herodotus, Pliny the Younger that confirm Jesus's life and "death""

"FarnazMansouri2: actually yes in BOTH texts ive read them,"

Secular: On one hand you say there was no moses on the other you say he didnt give up anytthing which is it? There was a Moses, Israelis and Christians all over the world contrary to your citation beleive he did indeed live. There was an Exodus. You'll never convince me otherwise.I dont take self serving words I take the word of the God who created me seriously. Why wouldnt I? Is it somehowe more enlightened to take YOUR word for my life's mission and calling and moral code? LOL. Then all of humanity is a cad including yourself secular, because I sure you have sinned (pick or religion in your case) fallen morally short, or made mistakes no matter what the scale.

DanielintheLionsDen: *Sigh* to refresh your memory:

"Your Christian beliefs are kindergarten beliefs.
If you are a gwownup, then maybe you might graduate to something more mature. "
-------------------------------------
What you said as reprinted above asks whether or not I am a grown up and suggests implicitly that I grow up or graduate to something more mature. If by more mature you mean turning God's word into something so morally relativistic it becomes worthless. Then no.That is what seems juvenile to me.

However speaking of getting what someone said wrong, I never said my feelings were hurt, for one. Secondly i never said anything about hating gay people which I dont.So strike that paragraph you wrote.And well strike the last one too.

Detroitblkmale30

I did not tell you to "grow up" and I did not hurl any insults. I said that your religious views are kindergarten, and as an adult, it is within your capacity to acquire a more mature outlook, without detailed instruction from me. If you choose not to do that, then that is a problem for you.

Gay hatred is a personal and existential threat to gay people, who are by the way, human beings and American citizens, who count as much as you do. So stop crying about your hurt feelings if you feel personally slighted. I think there is really no comparision.

In promoting gay hatred, what kind of reaction would you expect? You expect silence, don't you? Well, those days are gone and over.

Continues from below

This is the last of this I shall be posting tonight. ONe might ask whether caste, which is foundational in Hinduism, bride-burning, female feticide, Satti, gay-killing, cow urine drinking (cow pee cola now on supermarket shelves), cow dung ingestion has affected the psyche of Hindu Atheist SECULAR, the Tanakh scholar and befriender of an IDENTIFIED NAZI, posting vile racist filth.

" 8. On seeing his beautiful daughter Padma, Brahma was sexually excited. He wooed his daughter and wanted to copulate with her. How could a daughter give consent to her own father? Padma refused. Brahma could not give up his desire. He began to quote the Vedas to convince her that there was nothing wrong in having sex with anyone, anytime, anywhere for the sake of giving birth to a child. "
-- ( Puran )
This is the Vedic verse Brahma quoted to justify incest :
Mathara Mupathya, susara Mupatithe, Puthrartheetha.
Sagamarthi, Napathra loka, nasthee thath.
Saravam paravo vindu ha, dasmath Puthrar tham.
Matharam suransathee Rehathee
- ( Vedas, cited in Puran )
Translated this verse means
" This is the sanskrit sloka Brahma quoted to his daughter. The sacred verse enjoins, that for the sake of a child one can enjoy her own sister or daughter, without any sin attached to it.
( Puran )"
Yet, the Brahmins give some strage `justifications' for this act, in order to fool the non-Brahmins into practicing incest and destroying their race forever :

" Brahma followed Savitri [ Sarasvati ], married her, and they lived together in a lotus for one hundred years. The Purana [ Matsya ] then points out that no question arises regarding prohibited acts of the gods since they do not reap the fruits of their karma (actions) as do mortals. A further justification of Brahma's action is given by noting that Brahma is the lord of the Vedas and Savitri is the goddess of the Vedas. They therefore are inseparable, and to unite the Vedas with the sacred prayer can surely be no evil."
( Spellman, p.30 )
Brahma was not satisfied by visiting the many prostitutes and had to marry his own daughter. Incest being sanctioned in the `Holy' Vedas, she was more than happy to marry her father. What a great father Brahma was, a model for all Brahmin fathers !
Indeed, Brahma served as the model and justification for the terrible Devadasis system. This was the instutionalised mass rape of Black Sudra women by lecherous Brahmin men. The huge Vishnu temples served as massive brothels in which thousands of Sudra women were forced into prostitution. Not only that, the money they earned was all eaten by the Brahmins ! The Vishnu temples of Brahmanism served as an open sex market with the Brahmin men as pimps and Sudra women as the merchandise. What a fantastic religion indeed ! And in this, Brahma merely served as the role model of the mad, raping Brahmin whose lecherous sexual appetite knew no bounds.

Continued from below

Secular defends this:

7.3 BRAHMA'S KINDNESS TOWARDS WOMEN
As I have already proved in the previous chapters the Vedas justity treating a women as nothing but an object for forced labour, child-rearing and fuel for fire or money-making (through Vedic dowry).
The creator God's interactions with women, his insatiable lust for lascivious ladies, his lecherous behaviour with his wives and concubines are components that form the model of a true Brahmin. In fact, every Brahmin is said to be a manifestation of Brahma [ cite ] hence they have to follow him in every respect !

The legend of Brahma and Sarasvati is given in the following Vedic texts ( Spellman, p.28 ):

Aitareya Brahmana.III.33
Satapatha Brahmana.I.7.4.1ff; XIV, 4.2.1ff;
Matsya Purana.III.32 ff;
Bhagavata Purana.III.12.28ff.
Kovoor has amply summed up the acts of this vile `God' Brahma, the model for all Hindus :

" Brahma is one of the 3 main gods - Trimurti - of the Hindu pantheon. He is the creator of the universe. Sarasvati, who became the wife of her own father, was the daughter of Brahma. There are 2 stories about her genesis in the `Saraswati Purana'. One is that Brahma created his beautiful daughter Saraswati direct from his `vital strength' or seminal fluid. The other is that Brahma used to collect his semen in a pot whenever he masturbated fixing his carnal eyes on the celestial beauty Urvasi. Brahma's semen in the pot gave birth to the sage Agastya, and Agastya in turn gave birth to Saraswati. Thus, Saraswati had no mother.
This daughter or grand-daughter of Brahma is the Hindu goddess of learning. When Brahma saw the beauty of Saraswati he became amorous. To escape from her father's passionate approach Saraswati ran to the lands in all four directions, but she could not escape from her father. She succumbed to Brahma's wish. Brahma and his daughter Saraswati lived as husband and wife indulging in incest for 100 years. They had a son Swayambhumaru and a daughter Satarupa. THrough the incest of Brahma's son and daughter Brahma got two grandsons and two grand-daughters."
[ Kovoor, p.76 ]
This shows that Brahma considered women merely as objects for sensual fulfullment. Read on about the `greatness' of these Hindu gods. His constant affairs with women throws light upon his insatiable appetite.
The Vedas enjoin incest as a kind of marriage. This fact was utilised by Brahma when convincing Sarasvati (also known as Padma) to succumb to his unlimited lust :

Continues above

Continued from post below

SEcular defends this:

7.1 RAMA'S RUTHLESS PERSECUTION OF WOMEN
Rama treated women with all the severity of the Vedas. As per standard versions of the Ramayana, Rama was 16 years old when she married Sita, and Sita was only 14 years old [ Ram.wh 69 ]. However, these are later, forged versions where the Brahmins have deliberately deleted incriminating passages proving that Rama married Sita when she was 6 years old. As per the oldest extant versions of the Ramayana, namely the Buddhist Ramayana, the marriage was performed as per Manu-Smrti, and Sita was only 6 years old when the lecherous bastard Rama raped her. Marrying a 6 year old baby clearly shows that Ram was not only a rapist and scoundrel to boot but also a child molester.
" These items were deleted by the Vaishnava Brahmans in yet another attempt to perpetrate historical fraud. However, the truth has finally been dug out since the Buddhist Ramayana is older than the extant Vaishnava versions, and preserve the facts which were later suppressed by the Aryan Vaishnava fundamentalists. Rama's dirty laundry has been exposed for all to see. So Rama was, besides being guilty of the mass murder of Sudra Blacks, introducing apartheid and supporting fascism, guilty of incest and child-marriage. "
-- [ Babu ]

Many of the real-life passages of Rama's life are also preserved in the Ravayana, an oral history of the Dalits. This version also accredits Rama with killing his own father. This epitome of a god was nothing but a coward who cut off womens' noses and murdered his enemies by striking from the back. After he brutally murdered Ravana this traitor burnt the city of Lanka, killing all the thousands of innocent women and children in it. These are only a few of the sadistic crimes against humanity committed by this butcher.
7.2 KRISHNA'S WONDROUS TREATMENT OF WOMEN
The main reasons for forming the insidious religion of Brahmanic Hinduism was so that the white male Aryan followers of this religion could satisfy their desires with their own as well as the enslaved black Sudra women. Later the lecherous Brahmin men transformed Vedism into Vaishnavism (which represents 75 % of all `Hindus') and abrogated to themselves the right to sexual enjouyment of all races, while other men were forbidden access to Brahmin women.
One of the main examples of this wonderful treatment of aboriginal women is the `great' God Krishna himself. He raped the Black Sudra women, namely the low-caste cowherdesses or gopis on a massive scale. These ghastly deeds were later distorted into a benign love story by the fraud Brahmins in order to whitewash Krishna's crimes.

Continues above

Continues (from post below)

Hindu atheist Secular has become an "expert" on Tanakh. When he first started posting, I found him so amazingly ignorant that I offered assistance, unsuspecting at first, as is often the case with me. Not only did I clarify, I posted for him articles and books by esteemed scholars. Secular went on his merry way, explaining that his goal was to attack Christianity as it is the dominant religion here. If that is the case, I queried, why, then, are you not dealing with the Christian Testament? (Not hard to do, as I've demonstrated, as thousands of Christians have done, themselves, attacking its antisemitism, homophobia, sexism, "cheap grace," the short shrift it makes of justice, etc.) But no. Secular was interested in Tanakh. Telling him the community he was making with racists was to no avail. Explaining that the Christians had abused Tanakh and with their NT employed it as a weapon was to no avail.

Why it had not been, I learned a few days ago. That was when SEcular reached out to a blogger named "Jewish MOther," who posted on Rabbi HIrschfield's thread that "the Jews own the media," etc. The blogger to whom Secular extended the click of friendship was identified by other bloggers as a member of StormFront, the Nazi Party.

Secular posted an empathic comment. He sympathized with this blogger, a Nazi, who had taken a controversial position.

Then SEcular proceeds to attack Tanakh.
------------------------------
And what does pro-semitic Secular defend?
Well, let's see which Hindu text he went to battle for: SCROLL UP (continued above)

Now, we have the curious case of Secular, a defender of Hinduism, until two days ago, who proclaims himself an atheist. He says he was an Indian government official, but now says he did not say so. He has screeched and screamed at me for my work to liberate India's enslaved, trafficked, raped, murdered 300 Dalit Untouchables). These dark-skinned people are in the plight their in largely because of the color of their skin. The Hindu religion stresses the horror of caste violation (race mixing).

Two years ago, pre "Secular," I blogged here that this nightmare would find voice in America. Dalit academics are here. The first International Conference on Untouchability was held in London two years ago. And, finally, under tremendous pressure, Hindu academics have taken a stand and Secular has changed his stripes a bit, but that is only because outsiders have been few and far between on Dr.Shukla's thread.

If you want to know about oppression, read the position paper. MOre links on the Dalit to follow.

There are movements afoot by Catholics and Protestants to educate the Dalit and convert them. Conversion frees them from the bonds of their caste and allows them to enter certain professions. Catholics and Protestants have published their results.

On India and Gayness
If you want to know how to spell the word "nightmare," look up "gays in India." You will be happy to know that gayness was "decriminalized" in INdia in July 2009. Can gay couples rent an apartment? If you are out will you get a job? Can 2,000 pigs fly off a mountain?

Continues above

I'm not terribly fond of attacking other people's religions. However, Christianity (including Catholicism) has taken upon itself the right to another people's culture, the right to reinterpret it for them, the right to supercede it. Christianity mauls these people in its services and in the thinking and writing of its practitioners. It has mass murdered and tortured them in the names of its founder.

And it persists in these practices to this very day. Hence, it exported its virulence to the Middle East, which has since thoroughly Islamized Christian antisemitism. Korea, which has no Jews, started to become one of the most antisemitic nations on earth once Christian missionaries began their work there.

What, one may ask is wrong with this picture? Does it have anything to do with Christian homophobia? Christian attempts to co-opt the legislative process?

"Indeed, you did replace the covenant of justice. How can we bring it back."

in regard to romans1 if being homosexual is of itself a sin, if same sex between males is of itself is a sin, as written in lev, why then the need to mention being given over to ......................shameful lust.

Posted by: feetxxxl1 |
-----------------------------
Lev has nothing to do with "same-sex" relationships as I have explained ad nauseum throughout this bishop's illiterate take on Tanakh, not written for him. The issues are temple prostitution, rape, and incest.

Romans is indisputable. Your Testament reviles Jews, is essentialist, and intolerant of same-sex unions. Good luck with that Justice thing.

Did you mean cad by Moses who rejected this lifestyle when he could have stayed and lived as a prince, instead subjected himself to all kinds of trials and doubt and rejection.

First of all let me break it to you there was no Moses. Even the Israeli department of archeology has conceded there probably never was the story of Exodus. To which David Ben Gurion supposedly lamented "also the title deeds for Isarel are not there. Besides Moses did not give up anything. He was indeed a cad and a murdering fugitive from justice. See I do not take self serving words as some kind of eternal truth. They don't impress me when thye are from NT, or OT, from Al Kittab koran.

Daniel: It doesnt seem to be irrelavant, its rather confusing actually. But I'll focus on what you say not what "fairy tale" you chose to name yourself after, as you wish.Nice try, to late to try and "grow-up" It takes alot of imagination to take the phrases from my posts such as childish and attempt to affix them to me after you were already shown to be acting immaturely. Sorry, doesnt work.I have a mature contexutal outlook. What I ask if you is stop being so disrespectul, presumptive and again, immature. Common sense as well as logic, and intellectual discussions are not so common from what youve been saying. My arguments about slavery, as a descendant of a former slave are actually very logical if you took the time to follow along. But so many people , just cut to the end and hurl insults. Its ok I understand, its easier to do it that way

you have a very curious and humorous take on Genesis. I dont see any of that in there however.Have you seen the Pyramids??Pharoah, the one who subjected the Hebrews to brutal manual labor constructing those huge edifices in the African heat, who would order his foremen to keep going even if one of the slaves was getting trampled. Yeah I wanna be just like that guy. Did you mean cad by Moses who rejected this lifestyle when he could have stayed and lived as a prince, instead subjected himself to all kinds of trials and doubt and rejection. yeah a real cad LOL. You should read the story Amazing Grace or watch the movie, the whispering God did was in the ear of the abolitionists around the world,not the slave owners.

Detroitblkmale30

The screen name I have chosen is irrelevant. Don't worry about it; I'm not.

My observation, as a serious adult person, is that you are childish, even silly. I cannot expect you to comprehend now, what I mean. It is, apparently, beyound your present capacity, according to the limtis that you have set for yourself.

All I ask of you is to seek a mature religous outlook, and as I said before, use your brain.

There is such a thing as common sense, which does indeed count for a lot. Without common sense, your credibility on just about everything goes down the toilet.

... your arguments about slavery, for example ...

Why dont you do something out of character read Genesis for example. There were no codes for what you could and couldnt do with Egytian slaves unlike with Hebrew slaves. Free the rest who? Perhaps you missed the point of the Israelites as "God's chosen people?" Why would God free those who worshipped God's that mocked him?

Of course I have. I first read about talking snakes and the floods, and pair of animals and said "WoW Really"! then came the story of that scum bag Avram and I could not keep my breakfast. By the way, in Gensis Pharaoh comes out looking more like a benevolent statesman who cared for his subjects and of course your hero comes out looking like a cad, that he was. I believe you mean Exodus not Genesis, regarding the slavery issue. What little that was written about the treatment of slaves by Pharaoh wasn't very extensive to make a judgment, except that there were a few self serving verses about the harshness. One more thing the so called chosen per the account in Exodus were no more pandering to their deity than the other slaves. In fact the account does not at all mention any thing about the others mocking the Hebrew deity. Beside what kind of narcissistic deity is yours?

Wrong again. Your comparison to white supremacists and 18th century slavery and the children of Israel isnt applicable. Hebrews werent running around judging and claiming enslavement was God's judgement. A review of God's actions make it clear that was his intention in those cases.

I suppose the Hebrew god was whispering into the ears of the kings and prophets of Israel to take different nations as slaves. If that were so when did the deity stop whispering? How do you know that it was not whispering in those scum bag white supremacists?

secular: any reader of history can see Egytians were much more ruthless. Why dont you do something out of character read Genesis for example. There were no codes for what you could and couldnt do with Egytian slaves unlike with Hebrew slaves. Free the rest who? Perhaps you missed the point of the Israelites as "God's chosen people?" Why would God free those who worshipped God's that mocked him? I know its hard to understand for a nonbeleiver, but no this isnt somethnig that would have been concocted, not for Christians who believe these texts are God's sacred and inspired word and the history of his people over time. Nom youve tried to poke holes, unsuccesfully. I guess thats the difference between your hypothesis and my account of how things actually were . I never said the children of I find it so comical how the doubters try so furiously to find "one" thing that is flawed in their own non-divine minds about Christianity in an attempt to arrive at a "gotcha" moment. There is no such moment here no matter how many QED's you through out LOL.
Wrong again. Your comparison to white supremacists and 18th century slavery and the children of Israel isnt applicable. Hebrews werent running around judging and claiming enslavement was God's judgement. A review of God's actions make it clear that was his intention in those cases. Modern day slaveowners simply used all kinds of justifications in the Bible which were not intended for them which you already alluded to in your first post, including non-biblical ones to justify their actions. Apples and oranges.The New Covenant of Jesus' day did away with ancient punishments, which those that did embrace in modern slavery willfully ignored.Well we agree on one thing, I dont believe it is a good idea to enslave anyone either. We do however live in a sin-filled world, with either imperfect and flawed people or down right evil people.Sadly these things have happened and do happen even in some forms today.

The Egytian slavery which preceded this time period was very ruthless and not the kind that was "allowed" in the Hebrew society. Note the God of the OT freed his people from that kind of bondage i might add.Secular you missed my other points which already answer this question. God could have put any proscription he wanted to in the Bible. But he acted for reasons man will never know. OFten though in the Old Testament, he allowed slavery as a punishment against other peoples and nations for their unrighteous actions. So offering that prohbition would have eliminated one means of his punishment.

Oh! really how did you determine that egyptian was more onerous than the hebrew slavery? If that were so, then why did your deity not free the rest? Why this nepotism? Oh I see it did not proscribe so it can punish peoples. And in its wisdom you surmise that Hebrew slavers were the more just people than the other nations? To me that sounds more self serving claims of the Hebrews. Tell me wouldn't Hebrews have devised this ruse when they wrote up the old texts claiming that the deity was making this stuff up? Just like god old Patty Robertson claimed that his sky daddy steered the storm away from his home. Or for that matter MO, when he wanted to get into the skirts of his dear Zainab (daughter in law) had Jibril reveal to him the appropriate revelation? Occam's razor tells me to go with my hypothesis rather than with your hypothesis.

Then again the white supremacists also thought along your lines regarding the diety's punishment being visited upon whoever they were enslaving. How can we bring objectivity to evaluate the Hebrew contention (rather yours) and the white supremacists contention. generally I find that in these cases subjectivity replaces the objectivity depending on who is being gored and who is goring. The only objective, non-self-serving position is it is never a good idea to enslave anyone, which of course is my position. That is why it is the objective & selfless position (LOL). The same goes for the human sexuality.

Q.E.D.

hebrew slavery

1 Kings 9:20-22

20 There were still people left from the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites (these peoples were not Israelites). 21 Solomon conscripted the descendants of all these peoples remaining in the land—whom the Israelites could not exterminate[a]—to serve as slave labor, as it is to this day. 22 But Solomon did not make slaves of any of the Israelites; they were his fighting men, his government officials, his officers, his captains, and the commanders of his chariots and charioteers.

its intersting that you would think the jews would be ideal slave owners given their historical reputation of how they dealt with gentiles..................as in kings...........the unexterminated.

Secular: not an untenable position at all actually.Of course the OT and NT are not vile texts becuase they do not deal solely with slavery or any other one issue. They are to be taken, as any history as account of one's comprehensive expereinces, both good and bad so point 1. ITs banned or negatively looked upon in the across the entire Bible not just Leviticus an some other text. 2 Also falls flat there. Secular, as one who Im assuming and correct me if im wrong, is an atheist, you should appreciate this one little ditty the most, God gave mankind free will. This enables him to act as southern slave owners did however they saw fit. That of course was with most of the 16th-19th century slave owners worldwide to the great detriment of my ancestors. WHen? Slavery varies all across the glove over time. The discusion here of course is in the Hebrew slavery. The Egytian slavery which preceded this time period was very ruthless and not the kind that was "allowed" in the Hebrew society. Note the God of the OT freed his people from that kind of bondage i might add.Secular you missed my other points which already answer this question. God could have put any proscription he wanted to in the Bible. But he acted for reasons man will never know. OFten though in the Old Testament, he allowed slavery as a punishment against other peoples and nations for their unrighteous actions. So offering that prohbition would have eliminated one means of his punishment.No one has proven my God the the Christian God is ever incorrect. Is it man who is sinful, rebellious, mean and cruel to his fellow man. Using your logic, lets take the converse. Note no where in the Bible does God create the institution of slavery,that was man's doing. No where does God say thus I have created this institution called slavery and you must take slaves.Nice try though on trying to suggest God is fallible.No thanks, I dont deal in "perhaps" He was clear on what he meant and it stands as it does today the same as it was centuries ago.Im glad you know latin, unfortunately your QED is misplaced and misguided as you have failed to "prove" anything other than offering your thoughts, which even though I disagree, I do appreciate.

detroitblkmale30, it seems to me that you are battling an untenable position. Just to make sure that I do not mis undertsand your positions. Let me state your positions

1) Homosexuality is banned by because of its explicit prohibition in Leviticus and other sordid texts.

2) The slavery is not explicitly recommended, but nonetheless regulated for the benefit of slaves. So OT & NT are not vile texts that perpetuated & promoted immoral conduct.

3) Slavery practiced during the biblical times was markedly different and benign compared to the one practiced in mid 1800s US of A, - I don't know when that was as most of it is fiction. Lets say we go with the period of time otherwise called bronze age.

Didn't the omniscient deity yweh, father or whatever, did not see that benign slavery would degenerate into the vile thing it was that your fore-parents suffered? Was the slavery practiced by the Israelites and then later by the early Christians the only benign form? What about the one practiced by the Pharaoh and others? If the one practiced by the others was not benign why is t that the deity did not get the rest of the yolk of slavery besides the Israelites?

Also pray tell when exactly did the slavery of bronze age cease to be benign and turn into the monstrous one of the mid 1800 in USA? Did the deity did not foresee that? Wouldn't it have been lot more economical for the deity to have just said "Thou shalt not own slaves". That would have only taken 5 words, and I am sure there are at least 50 pronouncements on regulating the slavery. Do you really believe that your deity just overlooked the slavery in his zeal spread other righteousness, or perhaps slipped thru the cracks eh! If so can we withdraw the omniscient 7 the perfectness attributes off it? Then we can go about saying the deity of OT & NT, & Islam is right most of the time, perhaps?

Also can you identify which secular event had transformed the benign form of slavery into the onerous one? Now that it is settled that the deity of OT, NT, & Koran is only right most of the time, then perhaps we can surmise that it may be wrong on point 1 above?

SO perhaps the deity was wrong on both counts that on Slavery and on Homosexuality.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

at the time of moses, according to the law no isrealite male could make another male his property. women that were slaves, wives were property and there was no restriction about owning male to have sex with them. the point being that isrealite males had sex with only that which was his property, prostitutes excluded. a restriction against sex between males reenforced this law.

"Indeed, you did replace the covenant of justice. How can we bring it back."

in regard to romans1 if being homosexual is of itself a sin, if same sex between males is of itself is a sin, as written in lev, why then the need to mention being given over to ......................shameful lust.

Perhaps of interest to those who have swiped Tanakh from the people who wrote it, distorted said text, and continue to do so.

'Tis your own "covenant of grace" (LOL) and only that which hates gay people, among billions of others, us Jews, for example, many of whom lie dead at the feet of said "covenant."

Indeed, you did replace the covenant of justice. How can we bring it back.
--------------------------------

Romans

25For they exchanged the truth of God for a (AT)lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, (AU)who is blessed forever. Amen.

26For this reason (AV)God gave them over to (AW)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (AX)men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, (AY)God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

DanielintheLionsDen:

So let me get this straight DANIEL IN THE LIONS DEN. You choose to identify yourself by a kindergarten tale? what does that make you? Speaking of growing up, why dont you try and offer an intellectual argument instead of juvenile insults? The person accusing me of not being "grown-up"(kids use that phrase by the way) is resulting play ground insults. How very mature of you.

Feet;Dont quite get your point. Of course slavery would not be acceptable today, im not arguing for slavery, simply making a comparison between OT slavery and "recent' slavery

@DANIEL, obstinately and emphatically rejecting the truth does not make it untruth.

And I am truly sorry about that.

thebump

You promote false doctrines as truth. But repeating a lie does not make it true. Repeating it with emphasis likewise does not make it true.

Sorry about that.

Detroitblkmale30

Your Christian beliefs are kindergarten beliefs.

If you are a gwownup, then maybe you might graduate to something more mature.

Such things are no secret. Just think a little bit. You have a brain, don't you?

Comment: "they have a responsibility to cast off the imorality [sic] that leads to such unjust mistreatment"

Unjust mistreatment of anybody is, by definition, unjust and wrong. Telling the truth, however, is the highest form of justice and of love, as well as the highest form of respect for another's human dignity. And the truth is that sexual acts outside the sacramental bond of husband and wife are inherently sinful. To lie about the meaning and purpose of sex, and thereby to encourage another person to endanger her or his soul, would be a most grave injustice.

detroit

you keep talking about 19th century slavery and i keep asking you to show me a isrealite slavery that would be acceptable under the new covenant according to the love of the 2nd commandment.

the point is that slavery of any kind was a violation of the love of the 2nd commandment, although the law of the old covenant said it was acceptable.

DanielintheLionsDen: How do you believe one Biblical story, Im assuming from your name, maybe im wrong, but not others?

There is nothing wrong with being gay and being gay is not a sin. Failure to recognize such basic and common sense truths is immoral.

Religion that preach imorality are wrong. Gay people should not change; religious people are the ones who who should change.

As long as religious people speak in the idiom of morality, they have a responsibility to cast off the imorality that leads to such unjust mistreatment of gay people. Beyond that, they have ZERO credibility in anything else that they say or believe.

feetxxxl1: I dont need to explain it I've already explained it in my previous post.YOu should know since you are claiming SO MUCH of the new testament love of Christ over anything else in the Bible, to take the Bible chronologically. The God of the old testament, Jesus' father used this slavery of non hebrews often as a punishment for other tribes for their actions.That of course happened historically BEFORE Jesus arrived on earth. The "spirit" of the old testament and overall(mostly indentured servitude with "term limits" ) however does not endorse slavery as we have known it in the 17th-19th centuries. Like I said Philemon's and Paul's interaction and reference to slavery which was new testament a focus on the new salvation for Philemon, attempted salvation for the owner and a new level of well treatment of Philemon as instructed by Paul.

onofrio: Let me really make it simple for you since your vocabulary is limited due to your vulgarity....Read these sources for yourself. Pliny wasnt the only one. and for the record Pliny said very specifically there were Christians who beleived in the recently "killed" Christ
I suppose they were making it up way back then too lol But for more reference here you go.
http://www.bibleviews.com/non-biblical.html
http://carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people

onofrio: your vocabulary is almost unreadable, but as long as it makes sense to you thats all that matters

I see that Mr. Robinson skipped over the Council of Jerusalem found in the Book of Acts or Tradition, where much of the Church teaching is clarified and is normally held in great respect by the Anglican communion.

But alas if you set as prerogative to strip away Church teaching on homosexuality this little exercise of deception is laudable and necessary. The ends justify the means.

What I don't understand is how one can be at peace in that deception? How can one be at peace knowing they've failed to submit themselves to Truth? How can one be at peace knowing they've promoted falsehoods and led people into sin?

"So when I said the Bible does not endorse wholdheartedly slavery it does not."

its true that the spirit of the old testament condemns slavery but the regulation, the thing that you have chosen to stand on about homosexuality, said wholeheartedly that enslaving of non jews was good, so much so that believers, even after the old covenant had passed away heb8, continued to enslave ethnic pagans for 1700 years after christ, because they like you stood on the regulation.

Detroitblkmale30,

"but churhces have a right to preach what they believe is immoral."

Yes, so much of what churches preach is immoral, as you say.

There's the everlasting gob-unstoppering worm-and-burn for non-sunbeams, (INJUSTICE, CRUELTY)

There's the blood libel, (LIES, INCITEMENT, FALSE WITNESS)

There's the hacked Tanakhic spolia, (LARCENY)

There's the dead-man-walking wound-probing humbuggery, (MORE LIES, FALSE WITNESS)

There's the blood-drenched human sacrifice as panacea, (MURDER, MORE CRUELTY, MORE LIES)

There's the flesh-and-blood fest, (CANNIBALISM)

Preachers are spoiled for choice, really.

Detroitblkmale30,

I'll make it a little simpler for you.

The Pliny stuff shows only that there were folks who believed in some sh!t, not that the sh!t happened.

Y'know, like mention of Mormons don't mean Joe Smith read no gold plates...

Nongod is grinning
at all the god-spinning
affrayed homo-phonics
and history-onics.

O Herod, OT us!

Detroitblkmale30,

"There are non-biblical historical accounts Herodotus, Pliny the Younger that confirm Jesus's life and "death""

"FarnazMansouri2: actually yes in BOTH texts ive read them,"

If you had done even the most cursory research of your own, you would not have made such a dumbass of yourself.

Herodotus lived in the fifth-century BC. His Histories are a great read, and say precisely NADA about Jesus, as you would expect from writings composed over 400 years before the time of Jesus' floruit.

The correspondence between Pliny the Younger and the emperor Trajan occurred while Pliny was governor of Bithynia in the early 2nd century, nearly 80 years after the time of Jesus' death. Said correspondence confirms the existence of Christians, but offers no independent corroboration of events described in the "New Testament".

Back to the books, Detroit Male.

detroit

what part of take slaves for life to pass onto your children as inheritance do you not get. what part of, it is exceptable to beat on your slave with rods as long as you dont kill them do you not get.

please explain and describe this isreali enslavement property relationship as described in leviticus that would not come against the godlove of the 2nd commandment under the new covenant.

Bump,

Secular is in the process of being shunned. He's a Hindu Islamophobe, Judeophobe, and God knows what else.

He's getting desperate now that he's been exposed on other threads.

Best to ignore, as the rest of us do. If he keeps this up, he'll be blocked as CCNL, now Rambollini was.

In the meantime, most of us just ignore him.

farnaz, I hate no one. Indeed, telling the truth is the ultimate act of love.

Meanwhile, may I respectfully suggest that in light of some of the viciously hateful posts you have allowed to appear here under your name, you may not be the most authoritative indicter on that score.

Posted by: thebump

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Thebump, you need to learn something here. The professor arrogates to herself the role of the ultimate arbiter of who is bigoted, and who is not. When one is a bigot when one is not. Above all, I mean above all, she is the absolute authority on everything scriptural and there is no appeal. For a self proclaimed atheist, she is also heads up the policing of the blasphemers of Washington Post. So be careful, very careful.

farnaz, I hate no one. Indeed, telling the truth is the ultimate act of love.

Meanwhile, may I respectfully suggest that in light of some of the viciously hateful posts you have allowed to appear here under your name, you may not be the most authoritative indicter on that score.
-----------------------------------------
bumb, respectfully, the hateful consequences of distorting, vilifying another people and its text, and of "sacralizing" a supersessinist creed in a subsequent text has been evident in two thousand years of genocide by the adherents of said creed.

Said hatred repeats itself in many of the hateful posts we see here and in the gay bishop's essays.

Throughout the aforementioned two thousand years, Jews have reasoned, explained, defended.

That did not work.
-----------------------------
Respectfully, when you support hateful doctrine, you hate.

farnaz, I hate no one. Indeed, telling the truth is the ultimate act of love.

Meanwhile, may I respectfully suggest that in light of some of the viciously hateful posts you have allowed to appear here under your name, you may not be the most authoritative indicter on that score.

FarnazMansouri2: actually yes in BOTH texts ive read them, those arent the only references to Jesus' life and death he is a historical figure. its a fact whether you accept it or not.

sure people should speak in love and not hate. but churhces have a right to preach what they believe is immoral. Those who dont approve are free to create or join their own churches who preach something different

There is no mention of "sacramental bonds" in Tosefta.

Bump, I don't want to play. You torture the body of Christ with your hatred of gays. (Try thinking about it that way, via YouTube)

@farnaz: Exactly — any sexual act outside the sacramental bond of husband and wife is immoral.

Farnaz: If you do not wish to convert to Judaism, but do wish to adhere to the path set out by HaShem for all humanity, you have the Noachide Code, spelled out in Tosefta.

Which precludes sexual immorality. Oops!

Posted by: thebump
-----------------------------------
Incest and adultery.

There are non-biblical historical accounts Herodotus, Pliny the Younger that confirm Jesus's life and "death"
-----------------------------
Errr...No, in neither text. The climate promoted by many gay-hating churches has contributed to suicide, beatings, murder.

It must end. It is inhuman, an atrocity.

Farnaz: If you do not wish to convert to Judaism, but do wish to adhere to the path set out by HaShem for all humanity, you have the Noachide Code, spelled out in Tosefta.

Which precludes sexual immorality. Oops!

Second Reply: I am not in violation of any of those commandments. I am accountable to The Bible and word of God and his son Jesus Christ.I'm not held accountable to YOUR interpretation of Hebrew scripture. Say what you want, its a free country. It has absolutely NO bearing on me and my spiritual life.

I think you need to do some research. There are non-biblical historical accounts Herodotus, Pliny the Younger that confirm Jesus's life and "death" Never said Jesus was an animal, obviously my last point went right over your head.While we are on the point of telling people to stop, stop painting everyone with a broad brush. I am not torturing anyone or trying to legislate. Everyone is responsible for their own life. This whole arguement of people professing their faith and beleifs are responsible for other people taking their own lives is bogus and bunk. God holds each one of us responsible for our own actions. I am not in favor of anyone speaking in hate, i do not do that myself. You would do well to deal with people as they are individuals. I make no generalizations about you. I would expect more civility and maturity from adults.

SECOND REPLY

If you do not wish to convert to Judaism, but do wish to adhere to the path set out by HaShem for all humanity, you have the Noachide Code, spelled out in Tosefta.

1. You shall not murder.

2. You shall not steal

3. You shall not commit incest or adultery.

4. You shall not eat the flesh of living animals.

5. You shall not worship idols.

6. You shall not blaspheme the name of HaShem.

7. You must establish courts of Justice.
-----------------
Your current religious practices put you in violation of the second, fifth, and sixth of these commandments.

Even if you take them ONLY literally, and it is assumed in Tosefta that you may, that is all right.

Jesus, if he existed, was not an animal.

I don't begrudge you your nt gods. I object to your nt's mangling of HaShem, its defilement, its hatred for humanity.

Take Tanakh out of your nt, stop torturing gays to the point that they take their own lives, stop trying to legislate in America, and we'll get along just fine.

You shall not murder. You shall not steal. You shall not blaspheme the name of HaShem.

yeah i read that already. and you are incorrect. We are made in God's image which already implies a semblance between God and us. What exactly God looks like no one knows not even you. Jesus was the NEW covenant, an all powerful all capable God is capable of manifesting himself in all kinds of different ways. You yourself say that man is not capable of comprehending all of God's ways and forms. So how can you say God doesnt do any particular thing? God's heavenly beings angels manifest themselves in physical form several times in the old testament. Why would it be a stretch to think God could do the same?? Your sacrific reference is also not accurate. God of the Old testament always demanded animal sacrifices so he demanded antonement for sin. Jesus' death was not considered a sacrifice when it happened. But Jesus did offer himself as atonement for sin, which unlimited the need for future animal sacrifice. This is also consistent you might note with God's old testament habits of saving either mankind or a city from destruction,captivity through the rigtheousness and worthyness of ONE man(i.e. Noah, Lot, Moses etc.)

If you do not wish to convert to Judaism, but do wish to adhere to the path set out by HaShem for all humanity, you have the Noachide Code, spelled out in Tosefta.

1. You shall not murder.

2. You shall not steal

3. You shall not commit incest or adultery.

4. You shall not eat the flesh of living animals.

5. You shall not worship idols.

6. You shall not blaspheme the name of HaShem.

7. You must establish courts of Justice.
-----------------
Your current religious practices put you in violation of the second, fifth, and sixth of these commandments.

Even if you take them literally, and it is assumed in Tosefta that you may, that is all right.

If you read the NT, you will find that the "God" of the NT has nothing to do with the God of Tanakh.

Tanakh contains no mention of any original sin. Further, the Adam and Eve story is etiological, and that is all. It is meant, in part, to explain the tendency of human to err, ERR, not "sin."

The task of human is Tikkun Olam, healing or perfecting the world. Human is told in many ways how to do this. It is human's job and no one else's. When the world is healed and there is no injustice, Messiah (variously interpreted) will come.

Human sacrifice was to be ended with the binding of Isaac, who, at the time of the event, was thirty-five years old.

The Tanakh God is not human. He cannot be fully comprehended by humans. Moses is the figure to whom the deity revealed himself in as much fullness as a human being could withstand and live. Moses did not see the "face" of God. Tanakh God is not a man.

The deity draws sharp distinctions between himself and Sons of Man. To even consider a Son of God is nonJudaic on its face.

To think that the Tanakh God, who so condemned human sacrifice, who went to such pains to end it, to think that Tanakh God would sponsor this is psychotic, debauched, evil.

To attribute to Him, the sponsored slaughter of a virgin or man/god to atone for the sins of the community is to undo the "way," the "walking," the "path" and exchange it for the pagan blood lust still at work in the region.

It is a psychotic, perverse, evil distortion.

You have your nt gods.

Farnaz "our God is the God of the old and new testaments

"The terms of slavery in the old testament in many cases also were more similar to indentured servants, with slaves having terms of service 7, 14, 21 years of service."

Oh! Really? If that was the case why did your beloved yweh purportedly bother to get the Israelites free from Pharaoh? If t was worse under Pharaoh, why did he not bother with the remaining slaves? I guess because they were not his people. A very much given to nepotism god, i suppose. Speaking of 1, 14, 21 year jubilees was only for slaves who were Hebrews and not for others.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
"Slaves in ancient times could collect inheritance from their masters. Masters were regulated in their treatment. "

Perhaps there were an occasional master who showed compassion in his dying moments. But it was not due to any regulation. Speaking of regulating slave ownership - one is allowed to beat the living daylights of the slave as long as the poor wretch does not die within 24 hours. My goodness, gosh sooo magnanimous of yweh that he bestows such benefactions on the pond scum slave.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

"Additionally, when you read the entirety of the old testament, the God of the old testament often uses his people, the children of Israel as instrument of his judgement. This would include wars and battles against "unholy" nations. This judgement would also include taking their people as slaves. This is why slavery was not permitted within the Hebrew society."

But of course yweh purportedly did not bother to free non-israelites, but did took on himself to punish non-israelits. I suppose the unholy nations are all the Baal worshiper Jebudites, Caananites, et, etc who were already in residence where Israelites wanted to conquer.

Are people really so gullible to buy into this nonsense? Simple explanation is that there were several tribal wars of conquest and defense. Where perhaps all sides ascribed to themselves their divine providence as a way to strengthen, mobilize, & motivate their side. So all this malarkey written up. It happens that the Israelites prevailed and their texts have been passed on. To look at these texts anything more than that in 21st century is a testament to the fact that how easily human are delusional. They are so eager to gulp that Kool Aid by the jugs. 90% of the social ills, give or take a few % point, can be gotten rid of if we leave these musty, vile tome on teh dust heap of human history.

You have your nt gods, yes.

Farnaz: well thats where we differ you have your God and we have ours. Im sad you see things that way but it in now way lessens the power of God and his son Jesus Christ.

If you read the NT, you will find that the "God" of the NT has nothing to do with the God of Tanakh.

Tanakh contains no mention of any original sin. Further, the Adam and Eve story is etiological, and that is all. It is meant, in part, to explain the tendency of human to err, ERR, not "sin."

The task of human is Tikkun Olam, healing or perfecting the world. Human is told in many ways how to do this. It is human's job and no one elses. When the world is healed and there is no injustice, Messiah (variously interpreted) will come.

Human sacrifice was to be ended with the binding of Isaac, who, at the time of the event, was thirty-five years old.

The Tanakh God is not human. He cannot be fully comprehended by humans. Moses is the figure to whom the deity revealed himself in as much fullness as a human being could withstand and live. Moses did not see the "face" of God. Tanakh God is not a man.

The deity draws sharp distinctions between himself and Sons of Man. To even consider a Son of God is nonJudaic on its face.

To think that the Tanakh God, who so condemned human sacrifice, who went to such pins to end it, to think that Tanakh God would sponsor this is psychotic, debauched, evil.

Ill just handle all of the slavery responses at once, so to feet.., lepid,secular: The first thing to recognize about these passages is that while slavery is wrong in any form in my opinion, the slavery discussed in these passages was not the same kind of slavery of the largely the American south and the rest of the world during that time period. Many of the same punishments slave would receive would also be prescribed for non slaves in society.The terms of slavery in the old testament in many cases also were more similar to indentured servants, with slaves having terms of service 7, 14, 21 years of service. Slaves in ancient times could collect inheritance from their masters. Masters were regulated in their treatment. Additionally, when you read the entirety of the old testament, the God of the old testament often uses his people, the children of Israel as instrument of his judgement. This would include wars and battles against "unholy" nations. This judgement would also include taking their people as slaves. This is why slavery was not permitted within the Hebrew society. Lastly, Philemon a slave, who converted to Christianity, was sent by Paul back to hus master, not as a punishment but as a witness to his master(evangelism so to speak) with instruction for him not to be harmed. So once again while I personally wouldnt have liked to have seen ANY kind of slavery, ancient or otherwise, thinking of the Biblical slavery as the American slavery we are familiar with is incorrect. Southern slave masters using scriptures to justify their actions were basically Biblically illiterate by comparison. So when I said the Bible does not endorse wholdheartedly slavery it does not.
Feel free to read more
http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/What_God_Says_About_Slavery

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/57430/does_the_bible_endorse_slavery.html

WARNING:

rambollini-1 is the former CCNL/Yael/Tom, etc., banned from this blog.

He is a notorious homophobe and bigot. It will take a few days for ELIZABETH TENETY to block him as DAVID WATERS did.

IGNORE HIM.

The general population to include many of the voters in California, rightly or wrongly, find gay sexual activities, "unionized" or not, to be "yu-cky" and unusual and typically associate such activity with the spread of AIDS which is of course wrong. Said AIDS epi-demic in the gay male community at the start of the AIDS crises will always remain unfortunately a stigma on the gay community.

Garoth writes:

Paul and Jesus use the "Old" Testament in new ways - even misquoting it
------------------------
You do not mind then, that the Quran has done much the same with the NT. The Quran, of course, is similarly "inspired."

Do you have any idea of what a wretched ideologue you sound like in attempting to justify the mangling of Tanakh one finds in the Greek Testament?

There is one benefit to this sad series of "essays" by Robinson, along with comments, and that is to those who are in arms against imperialist discourse, racism, etc.

The comments in all their diversity offer the full range from bigotry owing to ignorance, failure to inquire, to those issuing from hearts so hardened that they cannot and will not see.

Heartening it is that there are some among the benighted bloggers who did take it upon themselves to look further into the "OT" and revise. But they are few and far between.

The bottom line is that Robinson, anti-gay bigots, anti-Judaic bigots suffer from much the same malady.

ATTENTION JEWS:
AGAIN, I say to Js out there. Carefully, attend to the young and their desire to proseltyze. Judaism offers remedy to this sort of horror, that which you see here. The young are starting. They have learned from the Christians. Suggest you do the same.

When Christians learn of Tanakh, read the commentaries, they see themselves "coming out of the darkness." We have all read this.

Read this thread, the essays, and understand why.

In the OT, JHWH told the children of Israel that they were allowed to take prisoners of war as slaves, as well as telling them from whom they could and could not purchase slaves. Seems to me that if he thought slavery was a bad thing, he would have forbidden his "chosen people" to practice keeping of slaves.

Posted by: lepidopteryx
_________________________________
I think we should deal with the Christians/Catholics, GOD's PEOPLE, such as your self, since the bishop is of your kind, one of GOD's PEOPLE.

Seems to me that if the God of God's people thought keeping slaves should be forbidden, he would have forbidden it.

Btw., who or what is JHWH. I have in front of me the Hebrew Bible. Kindly, refer chapter and verse to this JHWH, pronouncements attributed to him in Lev, etc., along with relevant commentaries.

NT Highlights on Slavery
(More available on request)

While in prison, Paul met a runaway slave, Onesimus, the property of a Christian -- presumably Pheliemon. He sent the slave back to his owner. This action is forbidden in Deuteronomy 23:15-16:

"Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee."

"He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him."

-----------------------------
"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel." (1 Peter 2:18)
---------------------
1 Timothy 6:1 Let all who are servants under the yoke give all honour to their masters, so that no evil may be said against the name of God and his teaching. 2 And let those whose masters are of the faith have respect for them because they are brothers, working for them the more readily, because those who take part in the good work are of the faith and are dear. Give orders and teaching about these things.

"Slavery however was not something overtly supported by the "law" of the Bible."

lev25: 44Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

isn't god saying that ethnic slavery is good. that enslaving anyone who is not an isrealite is permissible.

exodus21: 20 Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Leviticus 25:39
If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves.

Slavery was a worldwide cultural institution. Over time humanity has decided to eliminate slavery and rightly so. Slavery however was not something overtly supported by the "law" of the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible is slavery endorsed or called a good institution. There is a passage about slave obeying masters but that scripture is directed at the slave and their well being in this world and the next not as a commendation of support to the slave master or institution. The children of Israel were freed from slavery if you recall.So it can't be said that.

Posted by: detroitblkmale30

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Detroitblkmale, long time no see. Excuse me your god purportedly freed the Israelites, after killing the first borns. But then Yweh couldn't bring himself free the remaining no chosen ones, did he? And what about jubilee once 7 years to release Israelite slaves but not necessarily binfing to release non-israelte slaves. What was that, benign neglect? Not endorsement. Is this just like the Yweh not endorsing Abraham's pimping his wife? Only a person who drank the kool aid by jugs would claim Yweh did not endorse slavery. The same Yweh thought it important proscribe shell fish but forgot to admonish the chosen ones to not have slaves. Or for that matter Allah remembered to recommend women to shave their nether regions but forgot to condemn slavery. More kool aid from James town.

I think the point that Bishop Robinson is missing is the concept of sin and repentance. Homosexuality is a sin. There are passages in the Old and New Testament to substantiate that. It is one thing to acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin and that it is something a person is struggling to overcome. It doesn't mean that the person may not slip back on occasion, but acknowledging the sin is a big part of repentance. And that person would be welcome lovingly into most any church in the Country even fundamentalist ones. But the person who comes in and denies the behavior as sinful, who basically says, well its okay cause I want to do it. That person is unrepentant and needs to seriously examine their relationship with God. Yes, we are all sinners, the key is not what sin we commit, it is acknowledging that the sin is in fact a sin and trusting in God to rescue us from that sin. And when we slip up, confessing it to Him. We are all imperfect and alcoholics, adulterers, wife beaters, homosexuals, gluttons, and drug addicts all have some predisposition toward their particular sin. So, the excuse to not repent that God made me this way, doesn't cut it. Fundamentalists do not hate homosexuals. They find the lack of a repentant heart as the offensive behavior. To say that God has changed His mind about what's sinful and what is not sinful is a dangerous concept. Most scholars believe that God is immutable unchangeable. That is why Christians use a 2000 year old set of scriptures and have not changed them. Some have written books that are deemed scripturally authoritative by some faiths to supplement the bible. Their names: Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Sun Jung Moon, Mohammed to name a few. Bishop Robinson may be added to that list, soon.

Detroit Black Male,

In the OT, JHWH told the children of Israel that they were allowed to take prisoners of war as slaves, as well as telling them from whom they could and could not purchase slaves. Seems to me that if he thought slavery was a bad thing, he would have forbidden his "chosen people" to practice keeping of slaves.

garoth: Considering the Bible is taking in its entire context, my points were not beside the point considering those other texts are all related to this topic. Besides if you are so strongly entrenched on your position, why the delay in asking me to stand in line to consider other texts? why not just address the issue? Even Robinson is considering other so called "texts of terror." These texts are all related. Your error in response to my post is assuming there is a correlation between slavery or women's ministry. There isnt. Slavery was a worldwide cultural institution. Over time humanity has decided to eliminate slavery and rightly so. Slavery however was not something overtly supported by the "law" of the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible is slavery endorsed or called a good institution. There is a passage about slave obeying masters but that scripture is directed at the slave and their well being in this world and the next not as a commendation of support to the slave master or institution. The children of Israel were freed from slavery if you recall.So it can't be said that. With women "keeping silent in the church" this again was a cultural recommendation by Paul not a directive from God as the Levitical directives agaisnt homosexuality were begun with "thus saith the Lord...." Jesus never misquoted the laws of the old testament. He did however clarify things for those pharisees and other who Jesus felt like had missed the point or highlighting the new covenant of grace and forgivness that he was ushering in. since you bring up that point however, I find it interesting that Jesus did NOT take his ministry as an opportunity to "correct" the law about homosexuality. Obviously he knew the scriptures as everyone did. As Robinson states..Jesus said .....nothing... on the subject.Wonder why.Perhaps because there was no need to clarify those passages they spoke for themselves.I dont see how I missed the point on Covenant of Grace as I actually outline that earlier in this response. Yes we have grace,which is why the woman caught in adultery was not stoned as the old law required. Jesus simultaneously upheld the old law in regards to its prohibitions and instituted the new covenant of grace. Which only solidifies my point actually. The Levitical laws of moral conduct are still in effect for beleivers as Jesus demonstrated with his "go and sin no more" statement meaning that what she did clearly was a sin and while she was not "condemned" she did not have license to continue that behavior. This applies to this context. Jesus upheld the laws against homosexuality, even mentioning that marriage is between a man and a woman. He did not, although he easily could have, open the door to anything else.
Rev. Robninson im sure some appreciate your postulations, but they are very misguided.

Once again the scholarship is sorely lacking. Peter Damian coined the terms 'sodomy' and 'sodomite'. These words were never apart of the Ancient Greek or Roma Latin. Never.
Peter Damian made them up out of whole clothe in 1049 CE. His horrendously incompetent "The Book of Gomorrah" is the real culprit here.

that believers hold concepts that jesus,god, came to follow the law, rather than, god came to fulfill, to complete the law,and that god, his love is greater and transcends the law, shows that even after 2000 years believers are still struggling to embrace the new covenant of christ.

A commenter writes: "The texts the Bishop considers are....the ones on which the arguments - from both sides - have been based."

Maybe for sola scriptura types. But scripture is not necessary. Reason and natural law are perfectly adequate to understand the authentic meaning and purpose of sex.

EastCoastCommentator,

"All we have here is collection of words to justify one's own sin and no regard for holiness."

You say that like it's a bad thing.

"Why is this man allowed editorial space?"

Probably for the same reason that you are allowed commenting space.

"Would a practicing drunkard, thief, liar or adulterer be granted time as a valid authority?"

Many are.

"He may be considered a "voice" of religion, but does not know the God of the Bible or His Word.

Do you?

"Most of the posters, in their efforts to either denigrate Bishop Robinson or to defend their anti-homosexual bias . . ."

It is also interesting how you executed the common ploy of starting with an unfounded ad hominem attack. I realize that is effective rhetoric to shut down conversation with many people, but it is still doubly fallacious. You beg the question about our motives and use personal attacks. Cute.

"Paul and Jesus use the "Old" Testament in new ways - even misquoting it - to give it new meanings, making it "relative" to their message."

Thanks for tipping your hand. Authentic Christians know that the original texts contained exactly what God wanted them to. Jesus affirmed the OT to the last letter. Saying he misquoted it is a direct assault on his deity.

Most of the posters, in their efforts to either denigrate Bishop Robinson or to defend their anti-homosexual bias, have not even listened to his argument - as evidenced by their posts. detroitblkmale30, your first argument, including other texts for consideration, while perhaps well-intentioned in trying to broaden the conversation, is a bit beside the point. The texts the Bishop considers are the basic tyexts both sides of the debate have been considering for some time now, and are the ones on which the arguments - from both sides - have been based. If you want to open up a new dialog based on other texts, stand in line. The rest of your argument does not hold water. The same could be said for slavery, women's mionistry, and a host of other redefining of the texts that has, historically, gone on ever since these first texts were written. It is common, for instance, for scholars to speak of JlD,E and P when talking about the first five books of the Bible, because the biblical writers, themselves, edited and rewrote old material to make it more "relative" to their time. Paul and Jesus use the "Old" Testament in new ways - even misquoting it - to give it new meanings, making it "relative" to their message.

Your other error is a theological one, regarding the concept of "Covenant" and its applicability to what Christians refer to as the "New Covenant." The "New Covenant" Paul speaks of is not one based on law, or keeping of the law, but based on "by grace through faith," as both Paul and, later Luther, put it. Luther defines two "uses" for the law: (1)the civil use, to "restrain evil" and order society. This use can include things like stop signs and payment of taxes, and are not "God-given," but their effect is one that God desires - that we might lead orderly lives, protected from harm. These laws may be changed "as needed," and vary by culture and time. (2) to drive us to Christ. Seeing the law (any laws), we are reminded of our human sinfulness and inability to keep the law, as both Jesus and Paul remind us (Jesus telling us, for instance, that even "lust in the heart" is breaking the rule against adultery, and calling a person a "fool," breaking the law against murder). Seeing that we cannot possibly keep the law, we are forced to rely on God's grace alone, as the sole means of our salvation, and the basis of all of our relationships - with both God and other people. Others have also talked about a "third use," that law can serve the purpose of helping us see what God desires - in "do not murder," for instance, we see that God desires life for us. Keeping of laws, however - civil or religious - in no way defines our relationship with God. Paul addresses this particularly in Romans, and in Galatians, it is the central argument of the letter.

Again, thank you, Bishop Robinson, for your essays.

Will the Washington Post be giving a full series to authentic Christians to address what that the Bible really says about homosexual behavior? It couldn't be more clear, despite the spins of Robinson.

100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.

100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.

100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).

0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

Of course we should treat gays kindly. Robinson & Co. are clever are implying that taking the orthodox (read: real) reading of scripture on human sexuality is somehow mean. But that is a lie. If you really love gays you'll tell them the truth. What the pro-gay theologians do is the most hateful speech of all, telling gays that God is pleased with their behavior.

reedit
REEDIT
its interesting that WE believers created a regulation in OUR minds and lived under it for 2000 years that said that homosexuality was a sin, and because of this made further the assessment that all homosexual sex was about lust.
that WE would do this knowing,that under the new covenant, WE were not under regulation but instead grace.

reedit

it is interesting that WE believers...........

its interesting that believers created a regulation in their minds and lived under it for 2000 years that said that homosexuality was a sin, and because of this made further the assessment that all homosexual sex was about lust.
that they would do this knowing,that under the new covenant, they were not under regulation but instead grace.

but as much as this is not of christ and his new covenant, it pales in comparison to 2000 years of proactive antisemetism in spite of the existence of romans 10 and 11.

Mr. Robinson, your justification of the homosexuality from scripture is tortured. Throw the damn book on the dust heap and be done with it.

Good Lord, is he still at it?

On religious law: Romans 3:23-25 - "... since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith."

On judging others: Luke 6:37 - "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." Also John 8:7 - "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

On using the Word of the Lord against potential believers: Matthew 18:6 "If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depths of the sea."

On love: John 13: 34 "I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another."

May the Lord of Love and the Prince of Peace have mercy on us all.

There is NOT word in the Hebrew or the Greek text of the Bible that even means "sodomite."

The residents of Sodom are literally called "people" in the Hebrew text of Genesis 19. Every time that the word "Sodomite" appears in the King James Version Bible, the religion in question has no connection with Sodom residents.

The mistranslated Hebrew word is "kodesh." As a noun when referring to a male human being, it means a votary for a deity (god) of any kind. Kodesh as a noun really just means "holy" as in "holy" person, place, or thing.

As a verb, Kodesh means, to "be holy, "make holy," or "set aside for a special use."

The word mistranslated as "sodomite" in the quoted text in italics is "arsenokoitai." Since it has the "ai" ending instead of the "oi" (masculine) ending, the people in question are women. If "arseno" is supposed to mean "male" and "koit" is supposed to mean "bed," then it is women with lose morals to take men to bed with them.

Paul coined the word "arsenokoitai." NO writer in Greek before or after Paul ever used the word.

An Episcopal Bishop ought to have known better than quote a mistranslation.

All we have here is collection of words to justify one's own sin and no regard for holiness.

Why is this man allowed editorial space?

Would a practicing drunkard, thief, liar or adulterer be granted time as a valid authority?

He may be considered a "voice" of religion, but does not know the God of the Bible or His Word.

Not much to go on here, just vague references to a few passages of scripture based upon there seldomness of use. Nothing convincing on Robinson's part saying that it doesnt prove homosexuality is a sin, even though he tries to state that. He also leaves out that moloks is also used to denote "effeminate"

Additionally Robinson leaves out in this Biblical homosexual "walkthrough" Jude 1:7 Deuteronomy 23:17, among others. Is it any wonder afterall that through these centuries scholars, Biblical editors arrived at smiliar definitions and uses of these words. Only "today" all of a sudden, these are seen as misguided by a small minority of christian beleivers such as robinson. We must guard against this type of self-supporting Biblical revisionism that leads to moral relativism which is clearly against both old and new testament covenants. The real question isnt how could such a practice be wrong when Jesus doesnt say anything about it or how these passages are mistken, but rather how anyone after reading multipe passages, in various books of the Bible, in both testaments, written by different authors, cultures, and nations ALL arrived at the same conclusion. Afterall if such course correction were necessary, the PERFECT time for God to revise his oppostion to homosexuality or clairfy his intention would have been with Jesus' ministry and as Robinson so specifically stated, Jesus said...........
thats right NOTHING. He didnt have to all the other passages which he came to fulfill Matthew 5:17 had said it for him, and Paul would say it after him.The fault with this approach of, "the translators got it wrong" is that God is all knowing, past, present and future. If and it is, the Bible was our road map, even correcting for human error, God would have made sure at some point to make sure we got the message that homosexuality is not a sin, if indeed it wasnt. God knew his word would be translated from Hebrew to Greek to English and every other language. Basically thats no excuse. The story of Jesus and all of the other ones, "made it" through the centuries to us in their proper context and meaning. These sciptures did as well. Anything else is simple reconstruction to fit a particular agenda. The messages in the Bible that we have today are the ones God intended.Which of course includes homosexuality acts as sin.