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

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

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

Please do. 

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

Doing so would be a sin. 

It's the same with homosexuality. 

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

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

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

Great.

Can you now answer my question:

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

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

HERE

The word is "know".

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

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

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

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

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

KFC POSTS #30

Leauki,

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

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

I already have....

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

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

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

No, you haven't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To me it sounds like they want to question them.

It's different mindsets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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