Proof Gay Marriage is Wrong

Right/Wrong is subjective; in other words, its particular to different person/time frame etc… Inter racial marriage used to be “wrong” and masturbation used to be very “wrong”. Since its highly subjective and varies from person to person, how can one “Proof” it empirically, thats like an oxymoron.

IMHO that the topic doesn’t even make sense. Its like someone making the following claims:

Proof swearing is wrong
Proof finding Paris Hilton hot is wrong
Proof joking is wrong
Proof being lazy is wrong

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Just jump in and correct me wherever you feel that I have not quoted the scriptures accurately. I only ask that you be specific.
[/quote]

At first I was going to ask “How can one accuratley quote scriptures?”, but realised that the better question would be “How can you think scriptures are accurate?”

My problems are not with God, they are with the churches and the faith in a book that could have, and most likely did have a lot of political persuasion in the making/editing of it though the many, many years.

I believe in God, just not the churches.

[quote]slimjim wrote:
Yeah, and those damn fags obviously had sex with monkeys in the first place and caused the whole epidemic, I’m sure God put that disease in place in order to punish them, and that is why heterosexuals don’t get AIDs in the first place.
[/quote]

Slimjim, how did you guess? You are correct. Well almost, God didn’t do it as a punishment. It’s just an outcome, cause and effect. You play with fire and you get burned, etc…

I know doing this will freak all you Lib’s out, but here is where the Bible predicts AIDS:

Romans 1
"21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator?who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Notice how they received the “due penalty” for their behavior and this penalty was “received IN THEMSELVES”.

Hummmmm??. Wonder what that could be?

[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Just jump in and correct me wherever you feel that I have not quoted the scriptures accurately. I only ask that you be specific.

At first I was going to ask “How can one accuratley quote scriptures?”, but realised that the better question would be “How can you think scriptures are accurate?”

I believe in God, just not the churches.[/quote]

This is off topic, but since you brought it up:

I think that is one very negative sterotype. The scriptures are indeed accurate. In fact compared to other ancient documents the Bible comes out looking quite good.

Here’s something that you might find interesting:

While I have no way of knowing, your distrust of churches might be founded upon one (or several) bad experiences. All I can say is that you should read the Bible (if you have not already), the entire book, at least the New Testament. Then attend a good Bible teaching church your life will be changed for the better!

Keep in mind that anyone can criticize anything (just take a look at some responses on this forum on all topics). It takes a true open mind to give something a chance.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

Ahhh conservatives. I’ld like to be there when you explain to Him why you voted for Bush and then again to get him re-elected after it was obvious he was a murdering thief.

“but, but, but we killed in your NAME!!!”

Yeah, that should do the trick.[/quote]

I’d like for you to have spent 20 minutes in one of Saddam’s torture chambers. You’d scream in agony, begging for a U.S. Marine to rescue you. But wait, that shouldn’t happen, according to you – the ‘murdering thief’ and our guys should stay out of Iraq.
This site needs a qualifying IQ test (139, btw).

[quote]
I’d like for you to have spent 20 minutes in one of Saddam’s torture chambers. You’d scream in agony, begging for a U.S. Marine to rescue you. But wait, that shouldn’t happen, according to you – the ‘murdering thief’ and our guys should stay out of Iraq.
This site needs a qualifying IQ test (139, btw). [/quote]

It needed to be done.

The purpose of sex is to create children. Sex without that purpose is for pleasure, something that lower forms of life indulge in. It therefore follows that gay sex, gay marriage, and so forth, is immoral and proper only to lower forms of life. Human beings, being God’s noblest creation, should strive toward monogomous, heterosexual marriage.

Because we also do have an animal background (I believe we did evolve from them), all humans lapse. Jesus came to forgive those lapses. We will continue to seek pleasure in sex, but must keep in mind that monogomous, heterosexual marriage is the goal we should all strive toward.

Being Faithful to the Scriptures:
Romans 1:26-27 as a
Case in Point*

ARLAND J. HULTGREN
Luther Seminary
St. Paul, Minnesota
THE QUESTION PUT BEFORE US BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THIS OCCASION IS:
?How shall we honor the normative character of scripture for matters of faith and life as we address concerns where there is conflict in the Christian community? Case in point: Human sexuality in light of Romans 1.?
My presentation is divided into four parts. I begin by discussing historical
and literary contexts, then move on to exegetical and hermeneutical matters, and end up with some conclusions.

I. ROMANS 1:26-27 IN ITS HISTORICAL AND LITERARY CONTEXTS In terms of the historical context of Romans there is little debate. It is generally held that Paul wrote Romans in the mid-50s from Corinth. In chapter one Paul speaks about same-sex behavior. We might assume that what he writes about was evident to him at Corinth and elsewhere.

But it is hard to
know for certain. Paul was of Jewish background, and many of the expressions he uses echo ancient Jewish writings, including those of Philo (ca. 20 B.C.-A.D. 45)
and Josephus (ca. A.D. 37-100).1 In Jewish thought homosexual activity was con-sidered a gentile problem especially, typical of their lifestyle and widespread among them; and it was linked to idolatry. Of course the Jewish writers could be accused of exaggerating the ways of the gentiles.

But a look at surviving literature and visual arts from antiquity confirms
that the Jewish critics were not just name-calling. The picture that emerges
from studies of overt homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world is that such activity was quite common, quite public, and widely tolerated.2 But what kind of activity?

The following four phenomena are well documented:

  1. Pederasty. By definition, pederasty is an erotic relationship of an older
    man with a youth. The ideal for the older man was to have a boy as an erotic companion
    prior to the boy?s having a beard. Once the boy reached that stage, the man
    would acquire another. According to both Dover and Karlen, homosexual activity
    between partners of the same age category is virtually unknown in the sources.3

And Robin Scroggs has written: ?Apart from certain exceptions of an adult male
prostitute…, I know of no suggestions in the texts that homosexual relationships
existed between same-age adults.?4
2. Sexual abuse of slaves by their owners. While pederasty involved major
differentials of power and age between the abuser and the victim, this form of
abuse involved a differential of power and social class. And it took place in a
world where about 20% of the population was made up of slaves, even more?up
to a third?in some cities.5
3. Both male and female prostitution.
4. Lesbianism?at least in literature.

Whether Paul actually observed it or
not, gentile literary works spoke of female homosexuality. Several Hellenistic
works prior to Paul?s day speak of Sappho of the sixth century B.C. who had a
school of music and poetry for girls on the island of Lesbos. Her surviving poems
express eroticism for girls, and she is portrayed?rightly or wrongly?in Hellenistic
sources as having physical relationships with the girls in her school.6

All this took place in a world of machismo where men seemed to think that
the male sex organ was their most useful weapon to make conquests and establish
power. Men were driven to seek honor and to avoid shame. It was also a world ofmisogyny where women were marginalized. According to Dover, women were encouraged to treat all men alike with mistrust.7 And so we should be struck more than we usually are by those passages in the New Testament in which men are exhorted
to love their wives (Eph 5:25; Col 3:19). These are counter-cultural exhortations.

The most blatant form of homosexual activity was pederasty. Some gentile
writers of antiquity condemned what they saw, including contemporaries of Paul,
such as Dio Chrysostom (ca. A.D. 40-112) and Seneca (ca. 5 B.C.-A.D. 65).8 But Jewish writers attacked it most vigorously. The author of the Testament of Levi?thought to come from the second century B.C.?speaks of pederasty as a direct consequence of idolatry (17:11).9 In the Jewish work called the Sibylline Oracles?in a portion also thought to come from the second century B.C.?the same
link between idolatry and pederasty is made (3:586-600), and there is a list provided of those national groups who practice pederasty.

These are the Phoenicians,
Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, Persians, Galatians, and all the people of Asia Minor(3:595-600).10 That is another way of saying that the gentile nations are filled with pederasts. Finally, Philo names pederasty as a common vice among gentiles in various cities.11

Rest of the article is here:
http://www.luthersem.edu/word&world/Archives/14-3_Sex/14-3_Hultgren.pdf

[quote]ZEB wrote:

This is off topic, but since you brought it up:

I think that is one very negative sterotype. The scriptures are indeed accurate. In fact compared to other ancient documents the Bible comes out looking quite good.

Here’s something that you might find interesting:

[/quote]

I want to debate religion even less than I want to debate politics today, however, I don’t know how accurate the scriptures really are, the basic ideals they express are probably pretty close, but what about the fact that the Bible is based on a Greek translation of Jewish text? One minor translation that was lost in the mix was the prediction of a messiah being born to a barren or childless woman. Except Greeks didn’t have a word that matched that exactly and used the term “virgin,” little bit of a shift there between a chick with no kids, and a virgin.

I don’t know your particular faith Zeb, and I wouldn’t ask for something that personal over an internet forum, but you’ve got to wonder how many errors like this could have been passed down over time. It isn’t as if the Catholic Church, who has overseen most of the Bible’s translation and construction for Christians, is exactly a non-political entity when it comes to suppressing things that don’t agree. There are plenty of examples to choose from, but a recent one is the Dead Sea Scrolls which were discovered around 1947 and originally agreed to be dated around 200 BCE.

Yet when the scroll of the Light Messiah was discovered who espoused teachings of compassion VERY similar to that of Jesus, their solution was to say that everything else that was discovered was 200 BCE, but that particular scroll happened to be 400 CE and just managed to slip in there amongst all those older scrolls.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

Ahhh conservatives. I’ld like to be there when you explain to Him why you voted for Bush and then again to get him re-elected after it was obvious he was a murdering thief.

“but, but, but we killed in your NAME!!!”

Yeah, that should do the trick.

I’d like for you to have spent 20 minutes in one of Saddam’s torture chambers. You’d scream in agony, begging for a U.S. Marine to rescue you. But wait, that shouldn’t happen, according to you – the ‘murdering thief’ and our guys should stay out of Iraq.
This site needs a qualifying IQ test (139, btw).[/quote]

Man, this thread is all over the place today.

[quote]harris447 wrote:
So, should people with homosexual urges make the “choice” to not act upon them?
[/quote]

Those who do not act on sexual urges (homo or hetero) are commonly known as asexual or abstinent, but that’s not exactly what you’re asking. To not-so-exactly answer your question but force the part of the issue I’m concerned with, do you believe the government should be able to enact legislation (pro or con) based on the “urges” of a minority? If you haven’t noticed, I’m not a big fan of the government telling people what to do, especially when it’s not a majority decision.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

Ahhh conservatives. I’ld like to be there when you explain to Him why you voted for Bush and then again to get him re-elected after it was obvious he was a murdering thief.

“but, but, but we killed in your NAME!!!”

Yeah, that should do the trick.

I’d like for you to have spent 20 minutes in one of Saddam’s torture chambers. You’d scream in agony, begging for a U.S. Marine to rescue you. But wait, that shouldn’t happen, according to you – the ‘murdering thief’ and our guys should stay out of Iraq.
This site needs a qualifying IQ test (139, btw). [/quote]

I’d like YOU to spend 5 minutes in one of the School of the America’s, I mean the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation’s torture chambers.

You think the U.S. government isn’t guilty of atrocities? Or any other government for that matter? Granted, that doesn’t pardon Hussein’s regime, but it does knock your ass off your high horse.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’m sorry you have this hate for Christianity and apparently Christians as well. It seems that you have “spent” all of your compassion on your homosexual friends (who are also deserving by the way). Well that’s a shame because there is a big world out there. A world that stretches beyond your little group of friends. That world includes all sorts of people. Some who have ideas that are different than yours. When you can tolerate those ideas without name calling and castigation that will be a big…make that HUGE step in growing your own maturity level and tolerance![/quote]

Sorry ZEB. I will publicly apologize to you right here and now. You aren’t ready to accept the emptiness of the fate that awaits us all, and that’s okay. My attempts to jokingly jostle you from your self-built jail cell have done nothing but hurt your feelings, and I am sincerely, truly sorry.

My bad.

FWIW: Know that I respect you, especially when you have shown yourself to be helpful and encouraging to people who need it. I will not lie and say that your posts haven’t helped me immensely. The chin-up article you wrote a ways back, for example, was awesome. Thank you.

Anyway, all I can say right now is that I will try to be less… scathing, maybe? in my criticism of the brainwashing and fear which is represented by all religions who use the pretended knowledge of what happens after death to enslave and control my people. At least to you, because it makes it worse. I imagine that every post like my typical anti-“fairy tale is reality” screed just serves to strengthen, in some tiny way, your belief in the supernatural, and alienates you further from the truth. I have truly failed you.

Make no mistake, ZEB. You are controlled. You have nothing against gays, right? We’ve been over this in other threads. You aren’t a homophobe, you just don’t like that they commit this “sin”, right? So really, the only thing holding you back from accepting a gay person as “normal and okay in their own way” is your religious belief. Use this example and search your feelings… what else does your religion do besides draw indelible lines between people and separate you and alienate you?

You are getting what you are paying for, ZEB, you ARE being shepherded… whether you realize it or not… and these institutions exert their power and influence over our nation every time you vote your “religious conscience” at the ballot box.

Millions of people just like you struck down gay marriage last time we had a national vote. Why? What would it hurt for a few gay people like my friends here in the hospital to get a little measure of relief and acceptance for their “disability” (ugh), and make their lives easier?

If you met my friend here in the lab, you would like her immediately. Everybody does. And if you got to know her personally, you would realize that it would mean a lot to her and her partner to be able to be accepted and raise her daughter without this shadow of “being different in a weird way” hanging over her family.

It is such a small thing for us, ZEB, because it costs us nothing to reach out to the gay community and say “You know what? Y’all are different… I can’t really relate to you in some ways, but you aren’t hurting anybody, and if this will make you guys feel better, and maybe this will help everybody get along in this world a little better… go ahead… get married… what the hell. Maybe I’ll even buy an Indigo Girls CD or something.”

But your shepherds have decided this issue for you. You aren’t allowed to reach out and understand what the world is like from a different point of view. You cast that vote against gay marriage without really knowing what kind of good you could have done. So the world remains a little more painful and small for some good and kind people… needlessly. It didn’t have to be this way, ZEB.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The purpose of sex is to create children. Sex without that purpose is for pleasure, something that lower forms of life indulge in. It therefore follows that gay sex, gay marriage, and so forth, is immoral and proper only to lower forms of life. Human beings, being God’s noblest creation, should strive toward monogomous, heterosexual marriage.

Because we also do have an animal background (I believe we did evolve from them), all humans lapse. Jesus came to forgive those lapses. We will continue to seek pleasure in sex, but must keep in mind that monogomous, heterosexual marriage is the goal we should all strive toward.[/quote]

We are one of the only species that DO have sex for pleasure (I think dolphins are another). It’s the other animals that ONLY have sex to procreate.

[quote]doogie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The purpose of sex is to create children. Sex without that purpose is for pleasure, something that lower forms of life indulge in. It therefore follows that gay sex, gay marriage, and so forth, is immoral and proper only to lower forms of life. Human beings, being God’s noblest creation, should strive toward monogomous, heterosexual marriage.

Because we also do have an animal background (I believe we did evolve from them), all humans lapse. Jesus came to forgive those lapses. We will continue to seek pleasure in sex, but must keep in mind that monogomous, heterosexual marriage is the goal we should all strive toward.

We are one of the only species that DO have sex for pleasure (I think dolphins are another). It’s the other animals that ONLY have sex to procreate.

[/quote]

DUde, have you ever seen a dog humping a couch? tell me what the hell he’s planning to procreate.

[quote]doogie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The purpose of sex is to create children. Sex without that purpose is for pleasure, something that lower forms of life indulge in. It therefore follows that gay sex, gay marriage, and so forth, is immoral and proper only to lower forms of life. Human beings, being God’s noblest creation, should strive toward monogomous, heterosexual marriage.

Because we also do have an animal background (I believe we did evolve from them), all humans lapse. Jesus came to forgive those lapses. We will continue to seek pleasure in sex, but must keep in mind that monogomous, heterosexual marriage is the goal we should all strive toward.

We are one of the only species that DO have sex for pleasure (I think dolphins are another). It’s the other animals that ONLY have sex to procreate.

[/quote]

Does that include my dog that humps the neighbour’s leg every time we go for a walk?

[quote]slimjim wrote:
DUde, have you ever seen a dog humping a couch? tell me what the hell he’s planning to procreate.
[/quote]

They also aren’t licking themselves for that long just because they want their nuts to be really really really clean.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
slimjim wrote:

Yeah, and those damn fags obviously had sex with monkeys in the first place and caused the whole epidemic, I’m sure God put that disease in place in order to punish them, and that is why heterosexuals don’t get AIDs in the first place.

Zap you obviously are not part of the current dating scene if you don’t realize that men and women of both sexual persuasions are very promiscuous these days, shockingly so even to me in many cases.

I know you are being sarcastic, but the whole monkey fucking, god hates gays bullshit pisses me off.

I am simply trying to make the point that the gay community has far more problems than the red herring of gay marriage. Some of their problems are of their own creation, some are due to intoleration in society.

I am a bit out of touch with the dating scene today. We were pretty promiscuous back when I was younger.

It still pales in comparison to what my gay friends tell me they see and do. Statistics tend to bear this out.

[/quote]

And what of it? I’ve known plenty of honest to goodness, girls-gone-wild exponentially pales in comparison, freaky, horny, died-in-the-wool sluts. And yet many of these girls have settled down when they found the right person and took a monogomous relationship seriously. Who’s to say that gay guys are not the same? There could be a lot of reasons for the high level of promiscuity, not the least of which being is that a true committment to the level of us straight people (ie. marriage or at least a civil union) is precluded to them. So, might as well have some fun. Besides which, sex and drugs have long been coping mechanisms and an escape from pain (albiet a bad one) for all people. And gay people sure seem to have a lot to contend with and need of escape.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
WMD wrote:

A qadesh could be male or female and it was common to go to them with gifts and have sex with them in return for favors from the god they served. This was common among the Canaanites and other Near Eastern cultures. You know, the people the early Hebrews lived among. What is so terrible about that? People didn’t hire temple prostitutes, they went to them as intermediaries between them and the god.

“Qadesh” means “male temple prostitute.” In the King James version it’s used five times to describe (basically) “male prostitute.”

You even stated: “A qadesh could be male or female and it was common to go to them with gifts and have sex with them in return for favors from the god they served.”

Um…what do you think a prostitute does? You have proven my case and I thank you.

The following is exactly what I predicted would be the comeback by wmd for the word “Malakoi.”

Malakoi means, (according to the LSJ)soft, delicate, weakness, want of patience, effeminate. This at least is how Herodotus or Thucydides used the term. Caesar used it to mean the calmness of the sea.

If the above were correct then the tens of thousands of Biblical interpreters through the past 2000 years would be wrong and wmd (and the pro homosexual web sites) would be right. I know who I am betting on!

The following is the proper usage as stated previously:

The word “malakoi” means effeminate. Pro homosexual web sites will tell you that Malakoi simply means “soft.” Thereby dodging the literal meaning of the word…they think. However, it was used to describe men who had sexual relations with other men. Today a similar derogatory term might be “fairy” “limpwrist” “faggot.” In other words, it was indeed a nasty slang term which not unlike the three above had a double meaning.

Arsenokoites appears only in a couple of Paul’s letters in the New Testament.

“Only” in a couple of Pauls letters? I think that is very significant since there are many things that Paul was trying to concentrate on. Exactly how much time and energy should he be giving to the (Biblical) sin of homosexuality?

How many times did Paul mention stealing, rape, incest, murder, bestiality etc. (Note to liberals I am not stating the homosexuality is or should be a crime-Think Bible debate).

The fact that he mentioned homosexuality “a couple of times” is indeed noteworthy!

The LSJ defines it as lying with men.

Men lying with me does not have a sexual connotation? What were they doing sleeping or playing checkers? “Lying with” meant having sex with. Different times and different vernacular. You have now become entertaining…and I thank you.

The LSJ assigns no sexual meaning to it and most scholars debate its true meaning since we have no other use of term to make comparisons. The ending is in the feminine, by the way, so it could easily be referring to women who lie with men, like hetairai.

Um…nice try. Arsenokoitai is actually two words: The first word is “arsen” which comes from the word “arrhen” meaning “males.” The second half of this ancient word is “koitai” this word comes from the word “koite” meaning "bed chamber or to lie with (not alone).

If you put the ancient words together you come up with the exact same meaning that tens of thousands of professional (as in paid to dedicate your life to this) interpreters have come up: HOMOSEXUAL! Which is exactly what Paul meant.

Men having sex with someone of the same gender. That was the clear language of the day for homosexual. I know you don’t like it but it simply happens to be fact.

There is no legitimate debate regarding this word with anyone familiar with the scriptures and ancient Greek (as the Bible interpreters are). There is however much debate among the pro homosexual web sites on how to turn this into some sort of victory for their side. Not happening!

You might actually want to study a language before you try to pass yourself off as an expert.

The good part is I don’t have to be an expert in order to follow along on what the actual experts have interpreted and written about for hundreds of years. And since I know you are not an expert I suggest that you stop swallowing the homosexual party line relative to the Bible (even though I understand your lack of respect for the scriptures. It’s still wrong to try to twist them to suit your need).

I’m waiting for you to show me all those places where homosex is condemned.

And I am waiting for you to show me all of the scriptures that promote homosexuality (note to readers: there are none).

Okay, I’ll go first:

The text in Romans 1:24-27 is worth quoting at length:

“because of the desires of their hearts God gave them over” that is, those who chose not to worship God as God “to an uncleanness” that is, filthy conduct "consisting of their bodies being dishonored among themselves…

God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Now what do you suppose that these “dishonorable passions” were? (starting with females here in honor of your gender)

“for even their females exchanged the natural use” that is, of the male as regards sexual intercourse “for that which is contrary to nature” that is, sexual intercourse with other females “and likewise also the males, having left behind the natural use of the female, were inflamed with their yearning for one another, males with males committing indecency and in return receiving in themselves the payback which was necessitated by their straying” that is, from the truth about God evident in nature.

Again, every credible interpretaTion of the ancient scriptures comes up with a similar version as above.

There is far more scripture which condemns the act of homosexuality. But since I am geared up for the long haul I want to take them one at a time!

Respond to this one first!

I know Jonathan and David were into each other, at least according to Samuel. They were even joined in a marriage ceremony.

LOL…this is probably your most ridiculous comment (and that’s saying a lot considering what you have written). I hope this is not your answer to my question: “Show me all of the pro homosexual verses in the Bible.” On the one hand you twist and turn obvious Greek and Hebrew words which mean “homosexual” into something else. And on the other hand you reach oh so far to try to make two straight men into homosexuals. There is absolutely no passage in the Bible where Jonathan and David were joined in a marriage ceremony!

Please respond soon :slight_smile:

[/quote]

ZEB, dear, you are a complete fraud. You have now proven it. I am indeed an expert on the subject because I am a researcher in Biblical studies and archeology at the University of Texas. You don’t have any credentials. You don’t even know what the LSJ is, do you? It is the standard Greek-English lexicon used by all Classical scholars the world over. You don’t know any Hebrew yourself, but you give your trust to people whose outlook you emulate. You lack intellectual honor and integrity because you are too lazy to learn the languages yourself. If you were to learn the languages, you would see that word usage varied from author to author and time period to time period. Heck, I took my definitions for the words malakoi and arsenokoitai straight from the Lidell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon, not from any website. Arsenokoitai is listed as one word. It is found only in the New Testament and only in the Pauline Epistles, therefore there is no way to compare various usages. If you have an extra-Biblical usage of it, please provide because you’ll be the only one with that knowledge. As I pointed out, the -ai ending is feminine plural nominative. If you knew anything about ancient Greek ,you would know that adjectives match their nouns in gender, number and case, therefore malakoi does not go with arsenokoitai, -oi being a masculine plural nominative ending. Your trust in your “thousands” of experts is clearly misplaced. That or you are simply twisting facts to suit your own prejudices. What is significant about the feminine ending of arsenokoitai, is that it means women laying with men, not men laying with men. But since you can’t actually read Greek you wouldn’t know that. You’d just put your blind and ignorant trust in someone else.

And as far as Qadesh goes, you still think the name of the city actually means male prostitute, don’t you? Because that’s something people would do, name cities after prostitutes. Welcome to the city of Hoochie Mama. Right. Examine the text of Job 5:1 in the Hebrew. You will find the word qadeshim tranlated as “holy ones” (the -im ending is plural, like elohim).

Bottom line: you are a fraud. A mean-spirited, lazy, dishonorable fraud. People like you pervert and distort the teachings of the Christ and the Bible to suit your prejudices. You make me sick. You are benath my dignity. Fucktard.

WMD

And just for the record, I never once said I don’t believe in God.

I don’t believe in oppression based on perverted interpretations of the biblical texts. To all Christians who actually try to live a Christ-like life and who practice non-judgement and live and let live, I apologize for lumping you in with people like ZEB. You certainly don’t deserve THAT.