How does the Bible NOT condemn homosexuality?

I believe in context it talks about intercourse.

If it was rape it would've said "thou shalt not make one to lie with mankind as with womankind" or something to that affect.

It would've said "to make one to lie with".

Even if that's the case it'll still prevent same sex becuase usually in order to have relations you are in the same bed.

Where does it say "against"?

- - - Updated - - -

It's not natural anymore than bestiality is.

 

No it doesn't. Men are naturally the head of the house. It's just facts. Now sometimes the wife needs to be head of the house due to an absent husband but that's different.

A simple test. Tell a woman to wash your feet. See if she submit. The same goes for a man. Tell him to love you.

That's not what equality is about. A household cannot have two heads. Someone needs to make the final decision. And really its not all that great. The one with the final decision has to bare in mind that his decision can ruin his household. And to my recollection men are on average better at leadership and decision making.

 

This whole post of yours is just plain nonsense.

You merely confirm the Biblical opinion of women as subserviant.

I agree that is the biblical statement. And, I do not even slightly agree with that.

Women are equal humans, and any policy to the contrary must be opposed.

 

Because it was manipulated to suit political agendas.

behavior? No.

Yes, homosexuality was a term coined in the 19th century to describe the concept of a natural homosexual person, an idea that was formulated in the 19th century.

I have you a list of places in the bible where it commands to kill people. As i recall you're excuse for not addressing them was that you are too lazy. But I'll post them again.

Deuteronomy 17:12
Exodus 22:17
Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 20:27
Exodus 21:15
Proverbs 20:20
Leviticus 20:10
Leviticus 21:9
Exodus 22:19
2 Chronicles 15:12-13
Zechariah 13:3
Deuteronomy 22:20-21
Exodus 31:12-15

If he did command people t to kill he is a homicidal sociopath and not a god. Gods can do their own bidding being omnipotent and all.

 

That is why Captain Kirk asked; why does God need a Star Ship ???

https://youtu.be/xnxvKJAv5Ik

 

Well, you have much to learn in Life, Women do very well at making all sorts of decisions, they may not be endowed with superior upper body strength, however, decision making has little to do with upper body strength.

 

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. The more i think about this religious stuff, the more i learn objectivity as the unclean looking in the more frightening it appears.

This book commands genocide. How can that be good?

- - - Updated - - -

It's like he's aprogrammed robot delivering the same message we know they all have been programed to believe.

 

It is like all these Gun Control Advocates, their shopworn Arguments make zero sense, yet they run an entire plethora of nonsense and false reasoning that contradicts simple Logic of anyone that has carried a handgun for many years, So when someone tells Me that a handgun is not a Defense, I laugh at their silly Robot like responses.

Same with the idiots that say Gay People should not be allowed to Marry.

 

It makes absolutely zero sense to use “shakab” (שכ&#1489 to mean intercourse when “shekobeth” (שכבת&#1498 specifically means “sexual intercourse” or “copulation”

Please re-read what was written ... "here are 52 incidences in which shakab is used in a sexual context, mainly “to make one lie down,” which by modern definition would be RAPE. The other verses out of these 52 are sexual acts characterized by coercion and/or a deceptive act to sexually lure committed or married person away from their mate. So the context of shakab is very specific to rape, coerced sex or sex masked in some type of adulterous deception and is never used as just common intercourse "

and it could very well say that, shakab-שכב, can mean “to make one lie down”

“You shall not make one lie down with (shakab-ושכ&#1489 mankind as with (mishkab-משכ&#1489 womankind; it is an abomination." .. it changes the context to forcing a man to "lie down" ie rape, and as such consensual sex between men would not be a sin.

Nope.

eth .. can be translated as against.

 

Yeah, I have actually defended myself and my family with a gun so that most defiantly is nonsense.

The people that carry on about how it's a mental illness are the funny ones.

 

lol!!!

Good one!!!

Aa

 

To which I agree. But this isn't about equality. I believe this link explains it better.

https://www.carm.org/what-does-it-mean-when-bible-says-man-head-woman

 

Evidence?

Yes.

Then what are you talking about. The Bible doesn't mentions the word but it does mentions the act.

Addressed in other thread.

Irrelavant. If he's the true God then it doesn't matter if he's a sociopath. He's God, your not. He makes the rules, you obey.

 

You can "believe" whatever YOU must... but CARM is essentially BOGUS.

 

Immoral detestable actions condoned by it.

No.

Homosexuality isn't an act.

Link it, i never saw it adressed.

The bible isn't a person. It isn't God nor is it God's word it can't possibly be unless your god is wicked. Excusing this immorality by saying that it's god is a real lack of thought.

 

Further, if humans have better morals than the so called "god" in the bible, it can't be a god.

Saying this character's morals are better than ours (even though they clearly aren't) because he is called "god" in your book is circular logic.

 

That still differentiates on the basis of gender, suggesting one is the head of the other - even when supposedly "of one flesh"



I don't know why you posted that link.

 

Without the exact word, describing the exact act, and translated exactly. It is nothing but one's interpretation.

Link to it or else no one knows. No one follows your every post. Or cares.

If is pretty big word and very subjective. Can't base life on an if.

 

This is the point so many don't get. It isn't like lying, masturbating, etc. Is biblically fine but homosexuality isn't.

 

Yet no one can prove that. Biblically.

 

what, that all three are biblically sinful?

 

He didn't say you can't assert it biblically. He said you couldn't prove it biblically. Your assertion is not proof.

 

I am a firm believer in progressive revelation......
the Book of Leviticus does condemn anal intercourse.....
which would tend to decrease the rate of the spread of the HIV virus.....
if we obeyed Leviticus....

but when all human beings become humble....
and understand hidden meaning in many scriptures.....
when we know that we have probably lived many times.....

then we will have a different view than the rather simplistic teachings of Leviticus......
that truly have value........ under most circumstances, most of the time but.....

Grace triumphs over judgment.....


Isaiah 42:21

To my thinking this implies that as more and more and more of the Holy Spirit / Ruach ha Kodesh.....
is poured out on all flesh we will be able to understand the laws of Moses / Moshe in a new light.....

......
http://www.thomastwin.com/6 A Thomas background.html

http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380599/jewish/Judaism-and-Reincarnation.htm
Judaism and Reincarnation

 

I guess I misunderstood your post.
But biblically, many things are hard to prove. There is just to much translation and interpretation things happening for things to be accurate and provable.

 

Yeah, all three are sinful. The translation aspect isn't a problem today because we have access to texts that are thousands of years old that we can match against. The interpretation part I don't see much issue with - there aren't any pertinent texts in this regard (that these three acts are sins) in which there is significant legitimate differences in interpretation.