The most sited story of homosexuality being a sin is Genesis 19 in the Torah/old testiment depending upon your religion.

The Bible or Torah never directly say homosexuality is a sin, it has merely been interpreted that way by few and been accepted by some.

Here is a summary of Genesis 19 as well as both sides analysis, decide for yourself.

Genesis 18 describes a meeting between God, two angels, Abraham and Sarah. God had apparently decided to kill all of the men, women, youths, children and newborns in the four cities. Abraham bartered with God, as a Middle-East resident would in a market place. He persuades God to cancel the mass murder if ten righteous people can be found in Sodom.

Genesis 19 describes how the two angels who accompanied God went on to visit the Canaanite city of Sodom. The city had just experienced warfare (Genesis 14:1-2) and was probably on high alert to forestall more conflict. Lot welcomed the angels into his house. They had been sent to warn him that God was displeased with the wickedness of the city's residents. God had decided to destroy a large geographical area, including the city of Sodom. All of the people from the city gathered around the house and demanded that Lot send the strangers to the mob so that they might "know" the angels. Sensing evil intent by the citizens of Sodom, Lot refused. As an alternative, he offered his two virgin daughters to be raped by the mob, if that would appease them. Since young women were generally married by the age of 15 in that culture, his daughters would have had to be 14 years old or younger! The offer was declined. The angels blinded some of the mob. Later, the angels urged Lot and his family to flee and to not look back. Unfortunately, Lot's wife seems to have had an inquisitive mind. She looked the wrong way, so God killed her on the spot and turned her into a pillar of salt.

Interpretation by many conservative Christians:

The meaning of this chapter in Genesis is obvious, and does not require any detailed analysis. "Knowing" the angels means that the intent of the mob was to engage in an orgy of anal intercourse with the angels. This is why God was displeased with the inhabitants of the city and decided to destroy both the city and its inhabitants. God hates homosexuality then and now.

Interpretation by many liberal Christians:

Many feel that Genesis 19 is unrelated to consensual same-sex behavior. It may be related to homosexual rape which is as abhorrent as heterosexual rape.

I do not think it was intended by god to even be interpreted this way, but even if it was I do not think god intended it as condemnation of homosexuality, the most twisted way I see it I still have to agree with the liberal perspective. In no way is god intending to condemn homosexuality.

Full story at http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibg.htm

i read a cool quote someplace that shows that your digging too deep for the answer.

"god created adam and eave, not adam and steve--hence no gay rights, you'd be going against the will of god, whether or not he says so"

not by any means my own opinion but just a thought. also i'd say that in a case this broad your better off sticking with the common conception that it is a sin. if by any means you manage to prove otherwise dont forget to send george bush a letter telling him ti f*ck himself. (interesting to see if that counts as homosexuality http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif))

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

i read a cool quote someplace that shows that your digging too deep for the answer.

"god created adam and eave, not adam and steve--hence no gay rights, you'd be going against the will of god, whether or not he says so"

not by any means my own opinion but just a thought. also i'd say that in a case this broad your better off sticking with the common conception that it is a sin. if by any means you manage to prove otherwise dont forget to send george bush a letter telling him ti f*ck himself. (interesting to see if that counts as homosexuality http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif))



Yeah I read that one on the same website too, but I thought it was a fairly lame argument. God had to create 2 opposite sex heterosexual partners to keep the human race alive, as well as make the majority of the population heterosexual. Just because he didn't make the first too people homosexual doesn't make homosexuality a sin. I can't see anybody honestly reading it the way you presented it.

No, I think fucking yourself goes under intrapersonal sexuality. Or just hardcore masterbation.

well i guess its pretty easy to argue it either way see. homosexuality cant be a sin if god created people already destined to be gay. but if it is something you conciously develop then maybe it is a sin. it all boils down to the silly argument as to whether homosexuality is predetermined or not--the answer to which is still unknown.

OMG!!! Homosexualtiy is, like, teh uber sin!!!!!!! If you bang man, you die.

QUOTE Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:

The Bible or Torah never directly say homosexuality is a sin, it has merely been interpreted that way by few and been accepted by some.

How bout Leviticus 18:22

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

QUOTE Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:

The Bible or Torah never directly say homosexuality is a sin, it has merely been interpreted that way by few and been accepted by some.

How bout Leviticus 18:22



That is another good argument, it is from the Torah which is in hebrew. You usually read it in English in your whatever books as: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

The hebrew is as follows (these are with english characters as I cannot use hebrew characters on the internet.)

"V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some form of anal sex with other men. But they do not agree on the full scope of the forbidden activities.

The second part of this verse explains what type of sin this transgression falls under.

Moral sin is produced by rebellion against God. This seems to be the interpretation of most biblical translations imply when they translate the Hebrew "toeyvah" into English words such as "abomination," "enormous sin," or "detestable."

Ceremonial uncleanliness is caused by with a forbidden object or by engaging in a behavior which might be quite acceptable to non-Hebrews, but which was forbidden to the Children of Israel. Eating birds of prey, eating shellfish, cross breeding livestock, picking up sticks on a Saturday, planting a mixture of seeds in a field, and wearing clothing that is a blend of two textiles are examples of acts of ritual impurity which made a Child of Isreal unclean. These were not necessarily minor sins; some called for the death penalty.

Which is the correct translation?

Obviously, it is important for a student of the Bible to resolve exactly what behavior is forbidden: is it:

All homosexual behavior, by either men or women, or

All sexual behavior between two men, or

Only anal sex between two men, or

Only anal sex in a Pagan temple ritual, or

Sexual activity between two men in a woman's bed?

Some Interpretations:

This passage does not refer to generally, but only to a specific form of homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples. Much of Leviticus deals with the Holiness Code which outlined ways in which the ancient Hebrews were to be set apart to God. Some fertility worship practices found in nearly Pagan cultures were specifically prohibited; ritual same-sex behavior in Pagan temples was one such practice.

The status of women in ancient Hebrew culture was very much lower than that of a man and barely above that of children and slaves. When a man engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman, he always took a dominant position, as a penetrator; the woman would take a submissive posture. When two men engage in sexual intercourse, one of the men, in effect, takes the role of a woman. When a man takes on the low status of a woman, the act makes both ritually impure. (showing the sexism of the religious texts).

Many would regard "abomination," "enormous sin", etc. as particularly poor translations of the original Hebrew word which really means "ritually unclean" within an ancient Israelite era. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (circa 3rd century BCE) translated "to'ebah " into Greek as "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity. If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word "zimah."

This verse says nothing about consensual same-sex activity today. It only condemns same-sex religious prostitution.

So there are many possibilities up for interpretation. Don't merely go with what you have been told, be willing to interpret it for yourself.

Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the meaning of this verse. Many people tend to select that interpretation that most closely reinforces their initial beliefs about the Bible and homosexual behavior.

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

"god created adam and eave, not adam and steve--hence no gay rights, you'd be going against the will of god, whether or not he says so"

If God meant us to eat cooked food we would be born with little furnaces in our mouths.

Both catchy phrases that feel good comming off the tounge.

EDIT: Learning to speak another language is going against the will of God. After he went to all that trouble of making it hard for us to comunicate.

[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 05-12-2005).]

Yes it is.

Yep, you're gonna burn in hell... cock gobbler.

quote:Originally posted by Maccabee:

Yep, you're gonna burn in hell... cock gobbler.

Your mom gobbles nigger cock, Jewtard.

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

Your mom gobbles nigger cock, Jewtard.

And you're the product of goat fucking... cum stain!

The title of your thread:

quote:Is homosexuality a sin?[/b]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:

That is another good argument, it is from the Torah which is in hebrew. You usually read it in English in your whatever books as: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

The hebrew is as follows (these are with english characters as I cannot use hebrew characters on the internet.)

"V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some form of anal sex with other men. But they do not agree on the full scope of the forbidden activities.

The second part of this verse explains what type of sin this transgression falls under.

Moral sin is produced by rebellion against God. This seems to be the interpretation of most biblical translations imply when they translate the Hebrew "toeyvah" into English words such as "abomination," "enormous sin," or "detestable."

Ceremonial uncleanliness is caused by with a forbidden object or by engaging in a behavior which might be quite acceptable to non-Hebrews, but which was forbidden to the Children of Israel. Eating birds of prey, eating shellfish, cross breeding livestock, picking up sticks on a Saturday, planting a mixture of seeds in a field, and wearing clothing that is a blend of two textiles are examples of acts of ritual impurity which made a Child of Isreal unclean. These were not necessarily minor sins; some called for the death penalty.

Which is the correct translation?

Obviously, it is important for a student of the Bible to resolve exactly what behavior is forbidden: is it:

All homosexual behavior, by either men or women, or

All sexual behavior between two men, or

Only anal sex between two men, or

Only anal sex in a Pagan temple ritual, or

Sexual activity between two men in a woman's bed?

Some Interpretations:

This passage does not refer to generally, but only to a specific form of homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples. Much of Leviticus deals with the Holiness Code which outlined ways in which the ancient Hebrews were to be set apart to God. Some fertility worship practices found in nearly Pagan cultures were specifically prohibited; ritual same-sex behavior in Pagan temples was one such practice.

The status of women in ancient Hebrew culture was very much lower than that of a man and barely above that of children and slaves. When a man engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman, he always took a dominant position, as a penetrator; the woman would take a submissive posture. When two men engage in sexual intercourse, one of the men, in effect, takes the role of a woman. When a man takes on the low status of a woman, the act makes both ritually impure. (showing the sexism of the religious texts).

Many would regard "abomination," "enormous sin", etc. as particularly poor translations of the original Hebrew word which really means "ritually unclean" within an ancient Israelite era. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (circa 3rd century BCE) translated "to'ebah " into Greek as "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity. If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word "zimah."

This verse says nothing about consensual same-sex activity today. It only condemns same-sex religious prostitution.

So there are many possibilities up for interpretation. Don't merely go with what you have been told, be willing to interpret it for yourself.

Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the meaning of this verse. Many people tend to select that interpretation that most closely reinforces their initial beliefs about the Bible and homosexual behavior.



From these, i have to ask the obvious question.

No, no,no....the other obvious question.

Are you Jewish?

If you are, then does it really matter what type of sin this is? If one keeps his dick out of assholes, then it doesnt need atonement. If God said, "dont do it", and someone does it, it is a sin.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

The title of your thread:



From these, i have to ask the obvious question.

No, no,no....the other obvious question.

Are you Jewish?

If you are, then does it really matter what type of sin this is? If one keeps his dick out of assholes, then it doesnt need atonement. If God said, "dont do it", and someone does it, it is a sin.

So then you say homosexuality is not a sin but anal sex is. Fudgepacking (aka anal sex) is not actually much more prevelent in the homosexual community than it is in the heterosexual community. Most homosexuals prefer oral. (We learned this in Social Psychology class).

As to my personal religion, I am half Jewish by blood, and by belief I am VERY reform verging on athiest jewish. I also manage to keep my dick out of assholes.

quote:Originally posted by Maccabee:

And you're the product of goat fucking... cum stain!

Lol, look everybody! A Jew! Let's point and laugh! HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

Lol, look everybody! A Jew! Let's point and laugh! HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Is that your comeback? How pathetic...

Sexual immorality, in any form, is a sin.

That includes any and all sex outside of the institution of marriage.

That is, according to Christianity.

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

well i guess its pretty easy to argue it either way see. homosexuality cant be a sin if god created people already destined to be gay. but if it is something you conciously develop then maybe it is a sin. it all boils down to the silly argument as to whether homosexuality is predetermined or not--the answer to which is still unknown.

Physiologically, people who practice homosexuality have not been found to be different in any way, shape, or form.

To say you are born that way is a copout for taking responsibility for your own mental dysfunction.

Yes, homosexuality is a disorder...because it does nothing to perpetuate our species, and actually hinders it.

No procreation and a heightened level of disease prove that homosexuality is an anomaly resulting from desire, and not genetics.

quote:Originally posted by niggersexual:

OMG!!! Homosexualtiy is, like, teh uber sin!!!!!!! If you bang man, you die.

No sin is greater than another.

If you are a liar, you are equally a sinner as someone that is homosexual.

I think Christians focus WAY TOO MUCH on sexual immorality as an abhorrent sin, and not just sin in general.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No sin is greater than another.

If you are a liar, you are equally a sinner as someone that is homosexual.

I think Christians focus WAY TOO MUCH on sexual immorality as an abhorrent sin, and not just sin in general.

I agree with you Digital. The reason i am replying to this post is to try to use your statement as a doorway. I have a question (which i have an answer to). Dont answer it right away. I'm not sure if this will work, but bare with it for a bit, please.

The question is:

If "No sin is greater than another", why do "Christians focus WAY TOO MUCH on sexual immorality as an abhorrent sin"?

Or for that matter, why do people (both believers in the Judeo-Christian God and non-beleivers argueing against the belief) in general think that murder is a worse sin than, say "a little white lie" or a "lustful thought"?

You don't want me to answer ?

You want other people's answers first, or ??

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You don't want me to answer ?

You want other people's answers first, or ??

correct

K. *winks*

I guess you have presumed I already know the answer...and don't want me to ruin it. *lol*

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

K. *winks*

I guess you have presumed I already know the answer...and don't want me to ruin it. *lol*

maybe you do, and maybe you dont... but i'm not sure that this will work, so i'd like alittle latitude to try to steer it....

right now, i have to go by my brother inlaw and help work on a car.

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

well i guess its pretty easy to argue it either way see. homosexuality cant be a sin if god created people already destined to be gay. but if it is something you conciously develop then maybe it is a sin. it all boils down to the silly argument as to whether homosexuality is predetermined or not--the answer to which is still unknown.

Well god did create people already destined to be gay. He's omniscient, and so he knew how everything would go in our universe before he created it, and still created it. I think it's pretty impossible to say that an ever-omniscient being who created everything didn't intend something.

This argument is just factually unsound and it is disturbing that it has spread so quickly among those who wish to apply naturalistic, human, and politically correct sensibilities to God’s law. First of all, to those who would counter with the argument that homosexuality occurs in nature and is therefore natural, I submit to you that the point of Torah was not to permit the natural and forbid the unnatural, indeed the mix of affirmative and negative mitzvos points to a much larger purpose in the law. God made us in his image and mitzvos bring us closer to that divine purpose. He distinguished us from the beasts of the earth, not just in that we think on the level we do, but in that we behave differently. If you are presented with challenges that make fulfilling the mitzvos difficult, then you are all the more righteous for overcoming them. A gay observant Rabbi married to a woman to whom he is faithful is a Tzadik if I ever heard of one.

Torah is the handbook for g-dly behaviour, the handbook of holiness. Indeed, the Hebrew word for holy, kodesh, literally implies separation, to be set apart from. Mitzvos set us apart from the beasts and the idolaters in thought and deed and as we subliminate our natural inclinations where indicated by Torah, we reveal more of the divine spark resting in all of us and bring ourselves closer to God. I urge everybody, Jew and Gentile alike, if you believe in God, to follow what commandments apply to you as they are written and not as you would like them to be written in order to rationalise your own behaviour. Don’t decide what you’re going to do and then try to bend the law to make yourself feel better, that’s backward thinking. His word is the first step, not the last.

quote:Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:

Interpretation by many conservative Christians:

The meaning of this chapter in Genesis is obvious, and does not require any detailed analysis. "Knowing" the angels means that the intent of the mob was to engage in an orgy of anal intercourse with the angels. This is why God was displeased with the inhabitants of the city and decided to destroy both the city and its inhabitants. God hates homosexuality then and now. That is not the interpretation of conservative Christians, or anybody else for that matter. As was already established at that point, God had decided to destroy the cities before the mob attempted to rape the angels. The sin most often attributed to Sodom and Gomhorra as a whole and as the reason for their destruction wasn’t homosexuality, but their lack of respect and aid to the poor. Their sexual transgressions were if anything the straw that broke the Camel’s back..

quote:Ezekiel 16:46-50 (JPS):

And thine elder sister is Samaria, that dwelleth at thy left hand, she and her daughters; and thy younger sister, that dwelleth at thy right hand, is Sodom and her daughters.

Yet hast thou not walked in their ways, nor done after their abominations; but in a very little while thou didst deal more corruptly than they in all thy ways.

As I live, saith the L-rd GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride, fullness of bread, and careless ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

And they were haughty, and committed an abomination* before Me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.*Notice toevah appears in this passage again, translated as abomination.

quote:Josephus, Antiquities I:194-5

The Sodomites, overweeningly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the Divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and declined all intercourse* with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance...*Intercourse not to be understood as sex in this context

quote:Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 109a:

The men of Sodom waxed haughty only on account of the good which the Holy One, blessed be He, had lavished upon them...They said: Since there cometh forth bread out of (our) earth, and it hath the dust of gold, why should we suffer wayfarers, who come to us only to deplete our wealth. Come, let us abolish the practice of travelling in our land...

There were four judges in Sodom named Shakrai (Liar), Shakurai (Awful Liar), Zayyafi (Forger), and Mazle Dina (Perverter of Justice). Now if a man assaulted his neighbour's wife and bruised her, they would say to the husband, Give her to him, that she may become pregnant for thee. If one cut off the ear of his neighbour's ass, they would order, Give it to him until it grows again.

If one wounded his neighbour they would say to the victim, Give him a fee for bleeding thee [bloodletting was sometimes considered medically beneficial in those days; Here the Sodomite judge cruelly ruled that if one beats you until you bleed, you owe your attacker money for this "beneficial" medical service"...]

... they had beds upon which travellers slept. If the guest was too long they shortened him by lopping off his feet; if too short, they stretched him out...

If a poor man happened to come there, every resident gave him a denar [coin], upon which he wrote his name, but no bread was given [the store owners recognized such coins, and refused toa accept them]. When he died, each came and took back his (denar)...

A certain maiden gave some bread to a poor man, hiding it in a pitcher. On the matter becoming known, they daubed her with honey and placed her on the parapet of the wall, and the bees came and consumed her. Thus it is written, And the Lord said, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah, because it is great (rabbah): whereupon Rab Judah commented in Rab's name: on account of the maiden (ribah).

quote:Genesis Rabbah, Parashah 49:6:

Said R Levi, Even if I wanted to keep silent, the requirement of justice for a certain girl will not allow me to keep silent. There was the case of two girls, who went down to draw water from the well. One said to her friend, Why are you pale? The other said, All the food is gone from our house and we are ready to die. What did the other do? She filled the jug with flour and exchanged it for her own. Each took the one of the other. When the Sodomites found out about it, they took the girl (who had shared the food) and burned her. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, Even if I wanted to keep silent, the requirement of justice for a certain girl will not allow me to keep silent. What is written is not, 'In accord with their cry', but, 'according to her cry', referring in particular to the girl.As has been clearly shown, none of the aggadot or opinions have ever given primacy to the sin of homosexual acts in the destruction of the two cities. [Source (http://www.iwgonline.org/docs/sodom.html).]

quote:T-BagBikerStar:

Ceremonial uncleanliness is caused by with a forbidden object or by engaging in a behavior which might be quite acceptable to non-Hebrews, but which was forbidden to the Children of Israel.The problem with your argument is that it wasn’t acceptable for non-hebrews. The same sexual practises forbidden to Jews in Leviticus 18 (notice the entire chapter deals with issues of sexual immorality such as incest) are also forbidden to the entire world in the seven laws of Noah, so even if you are a “half-Jew” (i.e. goy because your mother was goy) or not a Jew by any standard, then you are still forbidden from acting on feelings of homosexuality.

quote: Which is the correct translation?

Obviously, it is important for a student of the Bible to resolve exactly what behavior is forbidden: is it:

All homosexual behavior, by either men or women, or

All sexual behavior between two men, or

Only anal sex between two men, or

Only anal sex in a Pagan temple ritual, or

Sexual activity between two men in a woman's bed?Well, if you see the start of the chapter you will notice that one of the thematic commandments of the portion is not to adopt the customs of other cultures. Both male and female homosexuality fell into those categories and the Hallakhah reaffirms this notion. Jews don’t kneel while praying and don’t trim their peyos either, also both to avoid adopting the customs of other cultures particularly disapproved of, homosexuality would be no different.

quote: This passage does not refer to generally, but only to a specific form of homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples. Much of Leviticus deals with the Holiness Code which outlined ways in which the ancient Hebrews were to be set apart to God. Some fertility worship practices found in nearly Pagan cultures were specifically prohibited; ritual same-sex behavior in Pagan temples was one such practice.Because of the very nature of the pagan temples as places of avodah zorah, practically nothing done in them is permissible, but that wasn’t the point of the commandment. If you want prohibitions against male and female temple prostitutes, see Deuteronomy 23:17-18, which regards those too as an abomination. The point of the commandments in this section is to forbid sexually immoral practises. I mean come on, it’s lumped in with the commandments forbidding incest and adultery. Don’t you think that means it has something to do with the main topic of the other commandments? Context, context, context! And besides all of those commandments prohibit things that are not only bad for keeping a healthy gene-pool and continuing the human race, but also things fully in practise in other cultures, so forgoing anal sex for oral pleasure with someone of the same sex is still imitating the excesses of those pagan cultures: the laws of kedushah forbid it. And it isn’t just that we’re talking about oral and anal sex here. Famous hallakhic opinions rule both permissible in the context of heterosexual marriage. The Rambam felt that as long as you deposited your seed somewhere in your wife’s body, you could do whatever you liked and Nedarim literally RECCOMENDS oral sex as good foreplay.

Snipping for length… http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Properly circumcised, let’s continue on!

quote:The status of women in ancient Hebrew culture was very much lower than that of a man and barely above that of children and slaves. When a man engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman, he always took a dominant position, as a penetrator; the woman would take a submissive posture. When two men engage in sexual intercourse, one of the men, in effect, takes the role of a woman. When a man takes on the low status of a woman, the act makes both ritually impure. (showing the sexism of the religious texts).As we have learned from Kabbalah, women are on a higher spiritual plane than men. When a woman says “she'asani kirtzono” (for He has made me according to His will) in prayer, she is implying that men are farther from that will. This is because while Adam was created from simple mud, woman was created from the rib of a being already formed, something already made into God’s image which He then worked his will upon. Torah reflects this. This is why more of the mitzvos apply to men than do to women. They require more instruction to bring themselves closer to God. For men, giving sex to their wives is an OBLIGATION, not vice-versa. If she wants it, there’s nothing you can do. If she doesn’t want it, there’s still nothing you can do, unless she’s taking it to malicious extremes. A man is also obligated to please his wife sexually. She has to enjoy the experience or he’s failing her and God himself! ‘Himself,’ in fact, is merely a simplification since God is also referred to in the female form throughout the Tanakh, showing that ‘he’ possesses the aspects of both genders. So much for sexism!

Nedarim in the Talmud is littered with charts showing the minimum number of times men in different occupations (sailor, metalsmith, farmer) must take time to make love to their wives. Furthermore, in Kesuvos, the volume of Talmud dealing in marriage contracts, the Gemarra speaks in greater detail of the ways in which a wife may obtain a ghet than how a man can initiate divorce proceedings. The rules are very strict. For instance if he has entered into a contract with her that she is divorced from him if he does not return from a journey after a certain period and he is detained from returning for any reason short of his death, then the ghet is valid. Some opinions even hold that it should be retroactive to the time the contract was entered into, so that she might not even have to wait to remarry, having been techinically a divorcé that entire time! As it is brought down in Kesuvos, even if he is standing on the river bank across from the city, waiting for the ferry to come when the time expires and he shouts to her ‘I am here, I have returned!’ she may simply reply ‘Your field has become flooded’ (the talmudic equivalent of ‘too bad, so sad!’).

Women in modern times, influenced by irrelevant changes in the political sphere, have interpreted the fact that they are regarded as tameh (ritually impure: I will deal with your word ‘mix-up’ shortly) during menstruation, that they are not to don tefillin in prayer, tie tzis tzis to be worn, or become Rabbis to mean that they are regarded as ‘lower’ in God’s eyes. Certainly fulfilling the mitvos are a joy and a privilege in many respects, but knowing that God made you so well that you wouldn’t have to fulfil as many of them in order to be close to him is as much reason to thank Him as any! The mechitzah is not meant to guard the ark and the bimah from the sight of the women, but to keep the men concentrated on their prayer by guarding the women from their roving eyes!

quote:Many would regard "abomination," "enormous sin", etc. as particularly poor translations of the original Hebrew word which really means "ritually unclean" within an ancient Israelite era.Many might regard it as a poor translation, but many of those are people who don’t really understand Lashon haKodesh and Judaism, and the rest are just dishonest. The Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (http://www.jewishbookmall.com/shop/asinsearch_1583304312.html) defines Toev (the root of the word in question) as to hate or detest.

quote:The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (circa 3rd century BCE) translated "to'ebah " into Greek as "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity.It’s interesting that you should refer to perhaps the most unreliable translation of the Torah in history as the support for your argument. The Septuagint came into being when the goyim became suspicious of the Torah and what was written in it and forced the Jews on pain of death to translate it into Greek to be added to the library at Alexandria. Supposing for the sake of argument that you’re correct and bdelygma did mean ritual impurity, if you were going to translate your holy book, which describes a common practise of the people who are forcing you on pain of death to translate it as an abomination, wouldn’t it maybe make sense to soften the language a little? In any case, that is not what they did, and bdelygma also means abomination precisely.

quote:Webster’s:

Bdelygma: a detestation [extreme hatred or dislike; an object of hatred or contempt] -- abomination [extreme disgust and hatred].

Christian theologists will tell you that Jesus describes the Anti-Christ using the terms ‘Abomination of Desolation’ (Matthew 24:15) and the word used is bdelygma! Also, if you stayed awake in Greek rhetoric, you would know that the famous rhetorical authors used bdelygma to describe people and situations they detested. The root of bdelygma is bdelysso which means to emit a foul odor or turn away in disgust as if from a foul odor. Bdelysso is in turn derived from bdeo, which means literally ‘to stink.’ What you presented was mistranslated to the point of being wilfully misleading in an effort to justify a political persuasion with regards to morality and societal norms.

quote:If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word "zimah."Zimmah means to plot, plan, be purposeful, be discrete, or conniving. The moral reprobation attached to it is related to the context of mischief, licentiousness, adultery, or being generally of a ‘wicked mind.’ There is no need for God to define something as a sin. Transgressing any of the commandments is by definition a sin. Furthermore, correlating once again to the gross mistranslations you have thus far employed, if God had wanted to describe homosexual activity as a ‘ritual impurity’ he would have used the word ‘Tumah.’ Which truly means ritual or spiritual impurity (http://www.e-wellsprings.org/Article.asp?Category=6&Article=27)!



quote:This verse says nothing about consensual same-sex activity today. It only condemns same-sex religious prostitution.I really don’t understand where you’re coming from at all. You say you’re so reform you verge on not even believing in God and many of the things you have said in this thread show a particularly dim view of Him, and yet you still feel you have to bend the interpretation of His word to justify your personal sensibilities. Why? Why bother if you don’t really yearn to be closer to Him? He isn’t really as cruel as you think. You can work to His purposes and still be the kind and considerate person with regard to other people’s feelings that you are in your heart. I urge you to take some of your larger questions to a knowledgeable Rabbi and in the mean time, this is an article I found inspiring (http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=274117).

Blessings of Torah,

Sephiroth

Bustin’ rhymes Yeshiva-Style!

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Sexual immorality, in any form, is a sin.

That includes any and all sex outside of the institution of marriage.

That is, according to Christianity.

that is a good point

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

...Bustin’ rhymes Yeshiva-Style!...

True dat... dawg... true dat

You is the badest Heb this side of Tel Aviv...

LMFAO...

Sephiroth, fantastic!! And also thank you, I love learning about Jewish teaching and as far as i can tell, what you said is correct from the Christian doctrine as well, albeit more precise and from the "root"... i loved it.

Homosexuality ACTS are sinful unless u r one of God's select few. But being homosexual in itself is not a sin. Only the act(s).

For instance: David.....

(Read and Ye shall find the answer;see, 2 Sam 1:26 and much more...

:edit:dropthe'ity'

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 05-19-2005).]

Homosexuals are gay and so are mods that ban me.

Oh for G-d's sake...bringing up that Sam II passage is getting so old. Platonic love anyone? Only homophobic frat boys, unsure of their own sexuality read into that one. Bring up as many as you like, I can explain them all...

quote:Originally posted by The_Nazi:

Homosexuals are gay and so are mods that ban me.

Who did ban you?

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

Oh for G-d's sake...bringing up that Sam II passage is getting so old. Platonic love anyone?

Platonically lame. The fuckin passage is plainly stated: "my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: [b]thy love to me was wonderful, PASSING THE LOVE OF WOMEN[b]”

Can u explain why the odd comparison to women??? Plz do. Furthermore,

"And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, [b]and fell on his face to the ground, and BOWED himself three times; and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded" -1(not 2) Samuel 20:41. -Happy now?

They= Jonathan and David

'Bowed', in this context, means to SUBMIT, in this case, the SUBMISSION is sexual. HE GOT FUCKED. He put his face in the dirt and took it up the ass, end of story.

quote:Only homophobic frat boys, unsure of their own sexuality read into that one. Bring up as many as you like, I can explain them all...

Whatta bitch ass cop-out.... Try explaining the fact that you've resorted to ad-hominem attacks rather than answering anything (that I've said) or adding some INTELLIGENT comments/facts/etc, for starters.

FTR: Metalligod = non frat-guy/VERY sure he likes BOTH men and women/has no reason to be AFFRAID of homosexuals and therefore, isn't.

-try again

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

Originally posted by Sephiroth:

Oh for G-d's sake...bringing up that Sam II passage is getting so old. Platonic love anyone?

Platonically lame. The fuckin passage is plainly stated: "my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: [b]thy love to me was wonderful, PASSING THE LOVE OF WOMEN[b]”

Can u explain why the odd comparison to women??? Plz do. Furthermore,

"And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, [b]and fell on his face to the ground, and BOWED himself three times; and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded" -1(not 2) Samuel 20:41. -Happy now?

They= Jonathan and David

'Bowed', in this context, means to SUBMIT, in this case, the SUBMISSION is sexual. HE GOT FUCKED. He put his face in the dirt and took it up the ass, end of story.

quote:Only homophobic frat boys, unsure of their own sexuality read into that one. Bring up as many as you like, I can explain them all...

Whatta bitch ass cop-out.... Try explaining the fact that you've resorted to ad-hominem attacks rather than answering anything (that I've said) or adding some INTELLIGENT comments/facts/etc, for starters.

FTR: Metalligod = non frat-guy/VERY sure he likes BOTH men and women/has no reason to be AFFRAID of homosexuals and therefore, isn't.

-try again

and my history teacher said the other day "I have this neat guitar and sometimes I like to whup it out and wank on it."

He was not referring to beating off on his guitar. Quit trying to twist god's words to make something wrong out of it. God did not intend that to be meant that way, and it is still questionable whether god intended homosexuality to be taken as a sin, although sepheroth did have a good argument, I think if it was a commandment it would have been put out a bit clearer and not ended up with a questionable interpretation.

quote:Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:

and my history teacher said the other day "I have this neat guitar and sometimes I like to whup it out and wank on it."

He was not referring to beating off on his guitar. Quit trying to twist god's words to make something wrong out of it.

First of all, you dunce, I didn't twist a damned thing, second, THOSE ARE NOT GOD'S WORDS. LEARN TO READ, it's a useful skill...

quote:God did not intend that to be meant that way,

I'm sure He didn't, because HE'S NOT THE ONE WHO SAID IT. You're clearly making yourself out to be an idiot. That's the blatant truth, not an insault. I won't bother to respond to you, just so you know, so say what you will; intelligence is obviously not required for this conversation. I quit. The rest of what you said isn't worth responding to, as it doesn't apply to me.

Oh, and b4 I go:

quote:God did not intend that to be meant that way,

Ok, and who the hell are you to make such an assertion? Have you ever had a responsive conversation with God? Is it written in His words some where? Didn't think so....

Like I've said in the past: being homosexual isn't a sin or sinful, homosexual acts are considered sin, save for in 'special' circumstances.

out of curiosity what exactly are these? http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

i mean the 'special' circumstances...

You know...my favorite part of the bible of all time is the Book of Job. Job...kicks ass. What can I say? Its an entire section of the Bible that serves as big fat 'fuck you' to any and all who claim to understand God. That, I think right there, is probably something so profound, possibly explaining why Christans for centuries have been trying to disavow its existance. Yes, I know Christ said the old ways are no more, but if you look at the sermon on the mount he's in actuality trying to incarnate the true spirit of the religion rather than say 'fuck off' to the Jews and prescribe harsher punishments. Therefore, the Book of Job is entirely legitimate. For those who don't understand what I'm alluding too, the Book of Job refers to this guy Job. Job is a devout Jew and one of God's favorites. Satan and God have a conversation (a VERY interesting passage in my opinion) and essentially God decides to test Job's faith. He kills his family and gives him a terrible skin illness. Job gets irked by this and asks God why he deserves this. God's answer to Job is something to the extent of (and I'm paraphrasing) 'who are you to judge the allmighty creator or even try to interpret my actions?'. That right there ladies in gentlemen is profound. We don't know WHAT God wants. We don't know WHY he acts. Hell, the bible was written by man and has been edited for centuries. How do we know this is God's word? I'm not saying homosexuality would not being a sin in God's eyes. What I'm saying is I don't know what God thinks and I'm not entirely sure any of us have the capacity to make that judgement.

[This message has been edited by Skankinsasquatch (edited 05-24-2005).]

That segment makes it sound like we are just useless pawns to be abused by two superpowers representing good and evil. Actually it sounds exactly like the Amber series of books written by Roger Zelazny. We would not exist if it were not for these two polar opposites of good and evil, infact the whole universe was created for their battle over power, and we are only small miniscule changes individually in the balance of power between these super human entities. Makes it sound like god wouldn't give a shit about homosexuality.

Leviticus 18:22

" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Leviticus 20:13

" 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that qualifies as a sin.

I didn't even read the post because obviously its not !! if god does exist which i doubt but i dont turn down the possibilty there was no rule in the beginning for love .. reproduction yes .. because men can have babies as we know but i believe love is open to anthting and eyerything and homosexuality should be excepted among everyone and i'm sick and tired of posts like this.. who cares grow up.

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

Platonically lame. The fuckin passage is plainly stated: "my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, PASSING THE LOVE OF WOMEN”

Can u explain why the odd comparison to women??? Plz do.Because it's a compliment in extremity on the friendship given him by Jonathan. He's saying Jonathan's platonic love was more precious to him than the love of women (i.e. sexual/romantic love). Saying his friendship was better than his wife's friendship (with all its sexual benefits) is a pretty damned sterling compliment. However, if we make this into a homosexual comment, it ceases to make sense contextually. Verses 17-27 are a DIRGE! Why would he make such an overtly sexual comment in an elegy? Ohh Jonathan, your ass was better than pussy! Oy!

quote:"And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and BOWED himself three times; and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded" -1(not 2) Samuel 20:41. -Happy now?

'Bowed', in this context, means to SUBMIT, in this case, the SUBMISSION is sexual. HE GOT FUCKED. He put his face in the dirt and took it up the ass, end of story.



Uhh...no...the word means prostrate precisely, which, despite rhyming with an internal member of the male system, has yet to be used in reference to any sort of sexual position. Prostration was at the time the standard form of prayer to Hashem...flat on your face in the fear of the almighty. It has since evolved into the gentle rocking exhibited in davening, except on Yom Kippur when we go all out. Muslims still prostrate themselves as their liturgy calls for it. Besides do you know anyone who can go three times in quick succession?



quote:Whatta bitch ass cop-out.... Try explaining the fact that you've resorted to ad-hominem attacks rather than answering anything (that I've said) or adding some INTELLIGENT comments/facts/etc, for starters.

FTR: Metalligod = non frat-guy/VERY sure he likes BOTH men and women/has no reason to be AFFRAID of homosexuals and therefore, isn't.

-try again[/B]OH I’m sorry, I misunderstood your reasoning. What I read from you originally as “Hehehehe, he said BOW! lololoz0rs!” is instead “See! The bible condones my behaviour!”

So instead of merely being juvenile bedroom humour, your aim was rationalisation and self-justification, which is much more troubling. I would assume you really don’t believe in God or the voracity of the bible, so my question to you, the same one I asked T-Bag, is why bother?

-try harder

quote:Originally posted by cactus_licker:

I didn't even read the post because obviously its not !! if god does exist which i doubt but i dont turn down the possibilty there was no rule in the beginning for love .. reproduction yes .. because men can have babies as we know but i believe love is open to anthting and eyerything and homosexuality should be excepted among everyone and i'm sick and tired of posts like this.. who cares grow up.Again, why bother even commenting, if there is no God, nothing is a sin.

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

...Verses 17-27 are a DIRGE! Why would he make such an overtly sexual comment in an elegy? Ohh Jonathan, your ass was better than pussy! Oy!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!

how about you all shut up, get in a single file line, drop trough and fuck me in the ass

quote:Originally posted by I14xdl:

how about you all shut up, get in a single file line, drop trough and fuck me in the ass

Keep your anal fetishes off of our forum.

You people are going to go to Hell with you "homosexual relations."

I first want to state that the guy who stated about the Kabbalah may be my new best friend, lol. That is a common misconception about the role of women in Jewish society.

Odly enough i saw no mention of the bit from Leviticus "A man shall not lay with another man as he would with a woman this is an abomination before me" which shows his disdaind for that behavior, I would also like to mention that this is the same book in which the laws of Kashrut are held which Chrisitians ingore, and the exact same langueage is used for G-ds description of eating shrip. www.godhatesshrimp.com (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com)

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

QUOTE Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:

The Bible or Torah never directly say homosexuality is a sin, it has merely been interpreted that way by few and been accepted by some.

How bout Leviticus 18:22



And

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

The problem with your argument is that it wasn’t acceptable for non-hebrews. The same sexual practises forbidden to Jews in Leviticus 18 (notice the entire chapter deals with issues of sexual immorality such as incest) are also forbidden to the entire world in the seven laws of Noah, so even if you are a “half-Jew” (i.e. goy because your mother was goy) or not a Jew by any standard, then you are still forbidden from acting on feelings of homosexuality.

(Which, I agree with JewDude, is an excellent post.)

It was there.

Edit- it was the first thing I looked for. Was going to put it also :-).



[This message has been edited by Random_Looney (edited 05-26-2005).]

And

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

[...] even if you are a “half-Jew” (i.e. goy because your mother was goy) or not a Jew by any standard, then you are still forbidden from acting on feelings of homosexuality.

I thought that the goyim were all non-pure Jews, including gentiles, as translated into "soul-less beasts." Please correct me if I am wrong, as I am not Jewish, but have great interest in Judaism.

'the homosexual offenders shall not enter the gates of heaven'- I forget where, but the retarded book actually said that.

quote:Originally posted by SwordChucks:

'the homosexual offenders shall not enter the gates of heaven'- I forget where, but the retarded book actually said that.

You realize their are innumerable translations of the Bible? Which dumb one are you refering to?

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

The problem with your argument is that it wasn’t acceptable for non-hebrews. The same sexual practises forbidden to Jews in Leviticus 18 (notice the entire chapter deals with issues of sexual immorality such as incest) are also forbidden to the entire world in the seven laws of Noah, so even if you are a “half-Jew” (i.e. goy because your mother was goy) or not a Jew by any standard, then you are still forbidden from acting on feelings of homosexuality.

First, the phrase "half-jew" is particularly offensive to me, as I would qualify for what you classify as that, if you must consider some superiority in being a "pure blood" or whatever you would ike to be called, at least call us Samaritans, its a little less ignorant. Secondly, the only people who believe that it is not acceptable for others than the hebrews were the hebrews, therefore someone who had never heard of that or just totally ignored it because it was not of their faith would have been ignorant to such decrees, therefore, if their intnetion was still pure, then they still would not be sinning necesarily. Also the specific event which this refers to is a child having sexual relations with his father while his father is passed out which is a particularly heinous because it include; rape, incest, adultery, and homosexuality all at once (homosexual rape should bring to mind sodom) so that law can be interpreted to say that only those acts which are OBVIOUSLY evil to all people apply.



[This message has been edited by JewDude (edited 05-26-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

First, the phrase "half-jew" is particularly offensive to me, as I would qualify for what you classify as that, if you must consider some superiority in being a "pure blood" or whatever you would ike to be called, at least call us Samaritans, its a little less ignorant.That was his self-identification, not something I applied to him. I was merely responding to his use of the term.

quote:Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:

As to my personal religion, I am half Jewish by blood, and by belief I am VERY reform verging on athiest jewish.In the future, please take the time to read the topic before deciding to become offended.

The 'who's a Jew and who's not a Jew' question has a simple answer in Hallakha: matrilineal descendancy. It has nothing to do with genetic ratios, because if it did, hardly any 'pure bloods' would be left. We welcome converts and we retrieve souls who are the product of intermarriage and bring them back to the Mitzvos. It's a matter of the shape of your soul, not the makeup of your genes. My father is not a Jew, and yet I am, because my mother is. If my father were a Jew and my mother were not, I would not be. But as the Yiddish expression goes, if my grandmother had balls she'd be my grandfather. There is no such thing as half-jewish or half-goyish, unless you reject the Hallakhah (i.e. Karaites and the liberal movements). I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from making such sweeping assumptions about my social attitudes. That's something I find offensive and Lashon Harah will do neither of us any good.

quote:Secondly, the only people who believe that it is not acceptable for others than the hebrews were the hebrews, therefore someone who had never heard of that or just totally ignored it because it was not of their faith would have been ignorant to such decrees, therefore, if their intnetion was still pure, then they still would not be sinning necesarily.Of course, ignorance is bliss, but it's just an excuse for sin. It cannot make what is a sin not a sin. In fact, the weight of the sin remains, but upon our shoulders, for it is our duty to teach the Noahide laws and bring Mashiach as soon as possible so that no longer will any person be ignorant of HaShem and his decrees!

quote:Also the specific event which this refers to is a child having sexual relations with his father while his father is passed out which is a particularly heinous because it include; rape, incest, adultery, and homosexuality all at once (homosexual rape should bring to mind sodom) so that law can be interpreted to say that only those acts which are OBVIOUSLY evil to all people apply.

I believe you're confusing the passage in question with Genesis 9:20-25 which reads loosely as follows:

quote:20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded [a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,

"Cursed be Canaan!

The lowest of slaves

will he be to his brothers."This qualified as incest in the eyes of HaShem, not because there was actual sex involved, but because the standard of what constitutes incest, as shown in the very language used in Leviticus, is very strict and includes even seeing one's relatives in the nude, thus why the other sons covered their eyes. Another similar case is that of Lot and his daughters (Genesis 19:30-38), who actually did have sex with their father and became pregnant by him, having lived as hermits in fear of the rest of the world and wishing to continue the family line.

The passage in Leviticus goes through a long and detailed list of relationships that would qualify as incestual and not one of them describes a male relative. If general homosexuality were permissible, would it not bear explanation as to exactly which male relatives it would be forbidden to lie with? Instead the passages dealing in incest are followed by two additional commandments, one stating that man cannot lie with man as he does with woman and another forbidding beastiality (also obviously irrelevent to incest). If the commandment in question does indeed forbid homosexuality in general, then the reason that the passage lacked a dissertation on homosexual incestual relationships is obvious: such explanation would be redundant, because it all falls under the general prohibition against homosexuality! This section of Parshas Kedoshim deals in general sexual immorality. "Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways," said HaShem. Why? "Because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants." ...clearly showing the correlation in the Noahide laws.

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

Odly enough i saw no mention of the bit from Leviticus "A man shall not lay with another man as he would with a woman this is an abomination before me" which shows his disdaind for that behavior, I would also like to mention that this is the same book in which the laws of Kashrut are held which Chrisitians ingore, and the exact same langueage is used for G-ds description of eating shrip. www.godhatesshrimp.com (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com) Now wait, that's another can of worms there. He said 'those shall be an abomination to you,' not 'those are an abomination before me.' He meant we should 'avoid them like the plague,' to use the modern vernacular. In the prohibition against homosexuality, however, it's more like He's saying 'that is the plague,' and there's a distinct difference.

quote:Originally posted by Random_Looney:

And

I thought that the goyim were all non-pure Jews, including gentiles, as translated into "soul-less beasts." Please correct me if I am wrong, as I am not Jewish, but have great interest in Judaism.Goyim means literally 'nations,' as in the opening line from Psalm No. 2: "Lamah rag'shu goyim?" (Why do the nations rage?). It is meant in this context as a reference to nations other than Israel. There is no such thing as a 'pure Jew' or an 'impure Jew,' except in the context of Tumah, or ritual impurity, which is a different subject entirely. Perhaps you're thinking of the terms Shiksa and Shaygetz, which do indeed carry a derogatory connotation, but as far as I know are only used in reference to non-Jews, mainly to emphasise the prohibition against intermarriage with them.

quote:Originally posted by Random_Looney:

You realize their are innumerable translations of the Bible? Which dumb one are you refering to?

The Christian New Testament.

quote:1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version):

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Ah, yeah- my mistake. I forgot about goyim meaning "nations", instead connotating it with Islamic propaganda on Jewish "ritual sacrifice". Thanks for correcting me, or I would have continued to confuse the two for who knows how long. :-). "New International Version"- that's what I was looking for. Interesting (I own many translations and don't think any are perfect on their own).

quote:Originally posted by Skankinsasquatch:

[B]For those who don't understand what I'm alluding too, the Book of Job refers to this guy Job. Job is a devout Jew and one of God's favorites.

Actually, Job wasn't a Jew at all. Just a run of the mill Noachide/Monotheist.

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

First, the phrase "half-jew" is particularly offensive to me, as I would qualify for what you classify as that

There is no such thing as a half Jew. You are either a Jew, because you either converted properly, or your mother was a Jew, or your mother was not a Jew and you are not.

If it is the latter, don't kid yourself. If the former, don't worry so much about what you're not.

quote:if you must consider some superiority in being a "pure blood" or whatever you would ike to be called

Again, no superiority issue. Just a status one.

quote:at least call us Samaritans, its a little less ignorant.

Samaritains are a whole 'nother thing. They are people who appeared after the first exile ended and claimed they were Jews who remained. They only keep their copy of the Torah (which says a few specific details differently like how their tenth commandment is that Mt. Gerizim is the real location of the temple aka God's meeting place) and the book of Joshua. That's where their bible ends, and no Jewish authority considers them Jews in any way shape or form.

[This message has been edited by SpaceFalcon2001 (edited 05-27-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by SpaceFalcon2001:

Samaritains are a whole 'nother thing. They are people who appeared after the first exile ended and claimed they were Jews who remained. They only keep their copy of the Torah (which says a few specific details differently like how their tenth commandment is that Mt. Gerizim is the real location of the temple aka God's meeting place) and the book of Joshua. That's where their bible ends, and no Jewish authority considers them Jews in any way shape or form.[/B]

Excuse me, asshole, but we Samaritans are the real Jews around here. Just because we inter-married and disobeyd HaShem means nothing! So what? We only marry each other now, making us pure both spiritually, and genetically. In fact, we're so pure, we're numbered around 600.

End of sarcasm.

Well I see now why the Reform Judaism movement has some level of disdain for overly orthodox Jewish interpretations. When you get to the point that you exclude people based upon herritage and don't consider how they were raised, then you are being idiotic. But besides my general disdain for those who would like to call me not Jewish (its sort of a sensitive subject as I was run out of the Conservative synagouge where I live because people kept calling me a half-Jew) I have a question for you. Moses, the prophet who was closest to G-d in all of Israel, did not marry a Jew, she was a Midianite, does that make him unclean? Does that make his offspring (the entire tribe of levi that are not Cohenim) not Jewish as well?

Also Hallakah rarely has any bearing, because you fail to recognize a major point, the rule of the majority, I am reminded of a story involving R' E;eazar.

R' Eleazar was trying to convince the other Jews that a certain type of stove was unkosher, they responded that they had used this style for years and they believed it was clean to use. Eleazar said "If I am right then let the walls shake" and sure enough they did. They still wouldn't yeild. Then they went outside and he said "If I am right let the trees close around me" and sure enough they did, yet again they did not yeild. Finally he said "If I am right let a voice of G-d call down from the heavens and say so" and a voice said "Rabbi Eleazar is right" however the other Jews pointed out that it did not matter if he was right, if the other Jews did not accept it, then the stove was still clean, that rule of majority effected hallakah, and the voice came again stating that they were right. This shows the basic precept of rule of majority in Judaism, since most Jews consider those of mixed lineage to sill be Jews, then they are, and those who believe they AREN'T are going against hallakah. (Don't think just cause you named yourself after the 10 elements of the will of G-d that you are one Sephiroth)

Hallakah is also law institued by men, not G-d, the Rabbinate has no such authority as a matter of position and leaves their validity suspect.

[This message has been edited by JewDude (edited 05-27-2005).]

quote:Because it's a compliment in extremity on the friendship given him by Jonathan. He's saying Jonathan's platonic love was more precious to him than the love of women (i.e. sexual/romantic love). Saying his friendship was better than his wife's friendship (with all its sexual benefits) is a pretty damned sterling compliment.

Nice try, you're trying to change what he actually says into what you want it to mean. If he meant it the way you say, he wouldn't say configured his words the way he did. The way you put it, you have him saying that Jons' love MEANT more to him than that of a womens'. But that is clearly not what he's saying, what he's saying is that it was/is "BETTER THAN" that of a womens'.

Contextually/sensibly, there's a GREAT big difference in the two.[/b]

quote:However, if we make this into a homosexual comment, it ceases to make sense contextually. Verses 17-27 are a DIRGE! Why would he make such an overtly sexual comment in an elegy? Ohh Jonathan, your ass was better than pussy! Oy!

While that is very funny, it is also very childish and unintelligent. The comment was in refference to something sexual, yes, but it wasn't in itself sexual. The ultimate display of human affection is to offer your body to the one you love so much. His compliment to Jonathan was more than a sexual thing, it was in it's own way like saying, that Jonathan was 1 in a million.

But as the 'story' goes, Xians leave everything 'up for interpretation', this is my opinion, there will always be others, and I don't care, I was asked what I thought and so I shared what "I THOUGHT". End of discussion.

quote:Uhh...no...the word means prostrate precisely, which, despite rhyming with an internal member of the male system, has yet to be used in reference to any sort of sexual position. Prostration was at the time the standard form of prayer to Hashem...flat on your face in the fear of the almighty. It has since evolved into the gentle rocking exhibited in davening, except on Yom Kippur when we go all out. Muslims still prostrate themselves as their liturgy calls for it. Besides do you know anyone who can go three times in quick succession?

Makes sense, so I'll buy it.

quote:OH I’m sorry, I misunderstood your reasoning. What I read from you originally as “Hehehehe, he said BOW! lololoz0rs!” is instead “See! The bible condones my behaviour!”

Oh, I'm sorry, you're an ignorant bitch. I don't need a fuckin book to condone ANYTHING I do. What I do is my choice and my choice alone. Fuck the bible and the ppl that wrote it. It has no bearing on the way I'll live my life, only idiots who are affraid to think their own thoughts use the bible for guidance, eat shit, and choke on it. Bible, smible, whatta douche.... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:So instead of merely being juvenile bedroom humour, your aim was rationalisation and self-justification, which is much more troubling.

LOL, wrong you cretin, don't even begin to try and understand the simplest of my aims, as you are obviously too inept to concieve of such things.

Like I said, BEING homosexual IS NOT A SIN, homosexual ACTS are sinful/sin. For EVERY sin in the bible there's a "loophole", an instance in which sin is justified. Ergo, the whole murder/war comflict, dumbass.

I'll reiterate it for you one last time, I don't need justification for anything I do, especially my sexual activities, especially from a friggin book. Unlike you, I have a billion, maybe more, active brain cells at my disposal. And I'd never expect anything ratioal to come from the bible, or the bible-toting liars that use it.

Rationality is for people whom actually have minds of their own, i.e. not you. No I'm not saying that all Xians are sheep, but most definately are. Whether or not you are Xian, matters not, you're obviously a drone.[/b]

quote:I would assume you really don’t believe in God or the voracity of the bible, so my question to you, the same one I asked T-Bag, is why bother?



Because the fucking topic is called, "Is homosexuallity a sin?"

Can you not fuckin read? The fact that someone doesn't follow a religion doesn't mean that they should be closed minded to some or all of its pricipals. O my suffering Lord, you're an ill-bred idiot. He and I obviously respect and/or care to know/understand the opinions of others and thusly we want to learn. That's why we bother.

Your an imbecile to the fullest extent of the word. With your ideology ppl shouldn't learn about things if they don't right off that bat, believe in it whole-heartedly. You should REALLY invest in a HIGH powered shotgun, some high-tech shells, and go cobain yourself, you're nothing more than a sad, useless being.

Know this, if you are at all capable, that what I say to you is not a result of your opinions it is because of who/what you are. You stupidity freightens and astounds me.

-Die in flames, plz...

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

out of curiosity what exactly are these? http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

Whatever "God" sees fit, like for homosexuality, having many wives in addition to your male fuck buddy, being one of His favorites, there are instances in which He's let up with the strictness on all of "His" proclaimed sins.

-"...For this cause, God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly..." Rom 1:26

There are loopholes for rape, incest, cold-blood murders, self-mutilation, etc.

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

Well I see now why the Reform Judaism movement has some level of disdain for overly orthodox Jewish interpretations. When you get to the point that you exclude people based upon herritage and don't consider how they were raised, then you are being idiotic.

Except Judaism isn't based on who you think you are, it's based on who you actually are. If a black boy is raised as an oreo, what color is he? (Hint: He's still black)

quote:Moses, the prophet who was closest to G-d in all of Israel, did not marry a Jew, she was a Midianite, does that make him unclean? Does that make his offspring (the entire tribe of levi that are not Cohenim) not Jewish as well?

No. If you remember, there are two things here. According to Reform Judaism, Moses wasn't a Jew since he wasn't raised Jewish.

Anyway, when Moses was born, "Jews" didn't exist. Was Abraham a Jew? Was Isaac a Jew? Where did they get Jewish wives? They didn't. At that time, they were Just general "Hebrews" who were monotheists. Everyone present at Mt. Sinai became a Jew, and that's where it really establishes itself.

quote:Also Hallakah rarely has any bearing, because you fail to recognize a major point, the rule of the majority, I am reminded of a story involving R' E;eazar.

Again, stupidity. The rule of majority concerns the majority of the SANHEDRIN, not the Jewish people in general. If the rule of majority ment all Jewish people, then every time they went to worship another God (i.e. Isaiah) they would have been right, yet God kicked their ass and said wtf do you think you're doing?

And you are a complete idiot because (Reformers like to distort the truth, much like christians) here's the real story right out of the Talmud:

quote:We learnt elsewhere: If he cut it into separate tiles, placing sand between each tile: R. Eliezer declared it clean, and the Sages declared it unclean; (end of 59a)

and this was the oven of ‘Aknai. Why [the oven of] ‘Aknai? — Said Rab Judah in Samuel's name: [It means] that they encompassed it with arguments as a snake, and proved it unclean. It has been taught: On that day R. Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument, but they did not accept them. Said he to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let this carob-tree prove it!’ Thereupon the carob-tree was torn a hundred cubits out of its place — others affirm, four hundred cubits. ‘No proof can be brought from a carob-tree,’ they retorted. Again he said to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let the stream of water prove it!’ Whereupon the stream of water flowed backwards — ‘No proof can be brought from a stream of water,’ they rejoined. Again he urged: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let the walls of the schoolhouse prove it,’ whereupon the walls inclined to fall. But R. Joshua rebuked them, saying: ‘When scholars are engaged in a halachic dispute, what have ye to interfere?’ Hence they did not fall, in honour of R. Joshua, nor did they resume the upright, in honour of R. Eliezer; and they are still standing thus inclined. Again he said to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let it be proved from Heaven!’ Whereupon a Heavenly Voice cried out: ‘Why do ye dispute with R. Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the halachah agrees with him!’ But R. Joshua arose and exclaimed: ‘It is not in heaven.’ What did he mean by this? — Said R. Jeremiah: That the Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice, because Thou hast long since written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, After the majority must one incline.

R. Nathan met Elijah and asked him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do in that hour? — He laughed [with joy], he replied, saying, ‘My sons have defeated Me, My sons have defeated Me.’

quote:That is, the rabbis read the Torah--fairly freely, it should be noted--as containing within it a principle for resolving interpretive disputes. R. Joshua's point is that the Torah was given at Sinai and is not, as the rest of Deuteronomy 30:12-14 makes clear, "in Heaven that you should say, who shall go up for us to heaven and bring it to us that we may hear it and do it? . . . But the word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, so that you may do it." Thus, heavenly voices are unnecessary; miracles are no substitute for legal reasoning. [FN22] R. Jeremiah adds to this, that in the event disputes do arise, the proper dispute resolution technique is not appeals to heaven but rather majority vote. [FN23] Indeed, not only is R. Eliezer's voice from Heaven rejected, but the later authorities make clear that all voices from Heaven and other forms of prophecy are to be rejected if they contradict the existing understanding of the Law. [FN24]

So no, don't use things in the wrong way when you don't know shit about it to begin with. The Majority refers specifically to the sanhedrin, and since their is no sanhedrin anymore, your argument doesn't mean shit.

JewDude, you really are a Goy.

[This message has been edited by SpaceFalcon2001 (edited 05-27-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

Also Hallakah rarely has any bearing, because you fail to recognize a major point, the rule of the majority, I am reminded of a story involving R' E;eazar.

R' Eleazar was trying to convince the other Jews that a certain type of stove was unkosher, they responded that they had used this style for years and they believed it was clean to use. Eleazar said "If I am right then let the walls shake" and sure enough they did. They still wouldn't yeild. Then they went outside and he said "If I am right let the trees close around me" and sure enough they did, yet again they did not yeild. Finally he said "If I am right let a voice of G-d call down from the heavens and say so" and a voice said "Rabbi Eleazar is right" however the other Jews pointed out that it did not matter if he was right, if the other Jews did not accept it, then the stove was still clean, that rule of majority effected hallakah, and the voice came again stating that they were right. This shows the basic precept of rule of majority in Judaism, since most Jews consider those of mixed lineage to sill be Jews, then they are, and those who believe they AREN'T are going against hallakah. (Don't think just cause you named yourself after the 10 elements of the will of G-d that you are one Sephiroth)

Hallakah is also law institued by men, not G-d, the Rabbinate has no such authority as a matter of position and leaves their validity suspect.





You seem to be overly sensitive... seek some help, Seph was not trying to belittle you.. it's all in your mind.

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

Originally posted by Random_Looney:

And

I thought that the goyim were all non-pure Jews, including gentiles, as translated into "soul-less beasts." Please correct me if I am wrong, as I am not Jewish, but have great interest in Judaism.Goyim means literally 'nations,' as in the opening line from Psalm No. 2: "Lamah rag'shu goyim?" (Why do the nations rage?). It is meant in this context as a reference to nations other than Israel. There is no such thing as a 'pure Jew' or an 'impure Jew,' except in the context of Tumah, or ritual impurity, which is a different subject entirely. Perhaps you're thinking of the terms Shiksa and Shaygetz, which do indeed carry a derogatory connotation, but as far as I know are only used in reference to non-Jews, mainly to emphasise the prohibition against intermarriage with them.

Is the literal meaning of "goy (im)" denigrating, or just the use of the term?

I was curious because I had previously heard that it was offensive to many, and the official definition of dictionary.reference.com defines it as "Used as a disparaging term for one who is not a Jew." Thank you ahead of time.

quote:Originally posted by SpaceFalcon2001:

So no, don't use things in the wrong way when you don't know shit about it to begin with. The Majority refers specifically to the sanhedrin, and since their is no sanhedrin anymore, your argument doesn't mean shit.

JewDude, you really are a Goy.



However the majority can be seen as an over lying rule in Judaism moron. By simple examanition of tradition one can see these, it would make sense that Judaism is intended to be somewhat democratic, and this rule applies to ALL RABINICAL COURTS. Including those that still exist you closed minded fool. Also don't use goy as a derragatory term, it isn't, there are many goy who are more righteous than most Jews, Balaam being one of special notice. So why don't you back off of what you don't know about, and learn about the true meanings of Judaism, as to my overreaction to Sephiroth's comments, and I recognize them as such, I apologize to taking it so offensively, my reacvtion is due to a few bad child hood experiences with a few less than righteous Jews.

Also I would like to point out that that specific interpretation was taught to me by a Hassedic Rabbi who is also approaching becoming a Kabblah master, so back of it. Also if you want to get technical, the term Jew didn't come into being untill the schism between the north and south kingdoms of Israel, and Jew is now commonly to refer to one of the people of Israel, as they (Moses Aaron etc.) ALL were.

Metalligod, you seem to want everyone on the forum to DIE in some way or another (usually involving a great amount of pain), which would indicate that not only do you not like us, but that you consider us to be dumber and less important than you.

Why are you still here ?

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

[B]However the majority can be seen as an over lying rule in Judaism moron.

Again, you: Idiot, ignorent and wrong.

quote:By simple examanition of tradition one can see these, it would make sense that Judaism is intended to be somewhat democratic, and this rule applies to ALL RABINICAL COURTS.

The democracy is always limited to halacha, which you prefer a break in it because it plays to your fantasy.

quote:Including those that still exist you closed minded fool.

The people who say that you are a Jew means as much as a priest telling me that you're a Jew. Thanks losers, but you don't have a say in a religion you don't really belong to.

quote:Also don't use goy as a derragatory term, it isn't

Goy can be used in a derragatory fashion. Ancient hebrew doesn't have insults, you add a sarcastic meaning to insult someone.

quote:there are many goy who are more righteous than most Jews

You definatly prove that one, since you're neither a good goy nor a good Jew.

quote:Balaam being one of special notice

Balaam was a really evil guy, I don't know what you're talking about. A prophet he was, however, evil he most certainly was.

quote:learn about the true meanings of Judaism

You should try it sometime. There's this little idea called God and this little thing called a Torah. They're pretty important.

quote:my reacvtion is due to a few bad child hood experiences with a few less than righteous Jews.

Your problem seems to be with Jews who are actually, ya know, JEWISH BY THE VERY DEFINITION OF THE WORD.

quote:Also I would like to point out that that specific interpretation was taught to me by a Hassedic Rabbi who is also approaching becoming a Kabblah master, so back of it.

Chassids don't always play the halacha game properly when explaining to Jews, nor would he have taught it to you if you were a goy, nor did you learn it correctly, nor did you impliment it correctly, and nor is it from the kabbalah. You've got alot going for you there.

quote:Also if you want to get technical, the term Jew didn't come into being untill the schism between the north and south kingdoms of Israel, and Jew is now commonly to refer to one of the people of Israel, as they (Moses Aaron etc.) ALL were.

It says in the talmud that the term Jew is a very specific meaning relating to the acceptance of the commandments and the belief in the one God. Since you don't really seem to do either, you're still not a Jew in any sense of the word.

[This message has been edited by SpaceFalcon2001 (edited 05-29-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Random_Looney:

Is the literal meaning of "goy (im)" denigrating, or just the use of the term?

I was curious because I had previously heard that it was offensive to many, and the official definition of dictionary.reference.com defines it as "Used as a disparaging term for one who is not a Jew." Thank you ahead of time.

It's a usage thing. The derogatory connotation is all context oriented. If it's meant to be derogatory, it's derogatory, if not, then not. All non-Jews could be properly referred to as goyim without any derogatory meaning intended. If a Jew is particularly disdainful of goyim, then he would use it as a derogatory term, I imagine. Also, because of the antagonism between Jews and goyim and again because of the strongly held prohibition against intermarriage, those contexts would make the term derogatory, just as my intonation or the context of my usage of the term 'Black' could give the term an innocent meaning or a derogatory one.

quote:Originally posted by SpaceFalcon2001:

Again, you: Idiot, ignorent and wrong.

Wow there is a whole lot of evidence in that statement, can everyone just see the innumerable facts.

quote:The democracy is always limited to halacha, which you prefer a break in it because it plays to your fantasy. Just wrong here.

quote:The people who say that you are a Jew means as much as a priest telling me that you're a Jew. Thanks losers, but you don't have a say in a religion you don't really belong to.

And you have no say in a faith you don't really understand.

quote:You definatly prove that one, since you're neither a good goy nor a good Jew.

I don't know where you get of judging my moral character seeing as you have never met me in my entire life.

quote:

Balaam was a really evil guy, I don't know what you're talking about. A prophet he was, however, evil he most certainly was.

He followed G-ds commands, I don't know how you define good and evil but that seems like good to me.

quote:

You should try it sometime. There's this little idea called God and this little thing called a Torah. They're pretty important. The funny thing is that very little of you evidence has anything to do with either.

quote:

Your problem seems to be with Jews who are actually, ya know, JEWISH BY THE VERY DEFINITION OF THE WORD. Thats just an ignotant statement, my father is a "real jew" and don't try to pull any Freudian bullshit about Oedipus on me.

quote:

It says in the talmud that the term Jew is a very specific meaning relating to the acceptance of the commandments and the belief in the one God. Since you don't really seem to do either, you're still not a Jew in any sense of the word.

I see your point, seeing how the Talmud is the devinely inspired writings of Judaism... Oh wait, ITS NOT, the Books of Moses are the only ones in which a strong Divine guidance can be seen. So if you are going to say that just because some "Sages" believed it, that its what G-d believes then your ignorant. Yet again you judge my moral character without fondation, I wonder how G-d will look upon that?

[/QUOTE]

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

Originally posted by Random_Looney:

Is the literal meaning of "goy (im)" denigrating, or just the use of the term?

I was curious because I had previously heard that it was offensive to many, and the official definition of dictionary.reference.com defines it as "Used as a disparaging term for one who is not a Jew." Thank you ahead of time.

It's a usage thing. The derogatory connotation is all context oriented. If it's meant to be derogatory, it's derogatory, if not, then not. All non-Jews could be properly referred to as goyim without any derogatory meaning intended. If a Jew is particularly disdainful of goyim, then he would use it as a derogatory term, I imagine. Also, because of the antagonism between Jews and goyim and again because of the strongly held prohibition against intermarriage, those contexts would make the term derogatory, just as my intonation or the context of my usage of the term 'Black' could give the term an innocent meaning or a derogatory one.

Well put, I just think its sad that alot of people use it in a bad way.

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

Originally posted by Random_Looney:

Is the literal meaning of "goy (im)" denigrating, or just the use of the term?

I was curious because I had previously heard that it was offensive to many, and the official definition of dictionary.reference.com defines it as "Used as a disparaging term for one who is not a Jew." Thank you ahead of time.

It's a usage thing. The derogatory connotation is all context oriented. If it's meant to be derogatory, it's derogatory, if not, then not. All non-Jews could be properly referred to as goyim without any derogatory meaning intended. If a Jew is particularly disdainful of goyim, then he would use it as a derogatory term, I imagine. Also, because of the antagonism between Jews and goyim and again because of the strongly held prohibition against intermarriage, those contexts would make the term derogatory, just as my intonation or the context of my usage of the term 'Black' could give the term an innocent meaning or a derogatory one.

A much-appreciated and helpful explanation. Thank you.

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

Wow there is a whole lot of evidence in that statement, can everyone just see the innumerable facts.

It can be seen through your lack of research or even knowledge of the subject, other than what you poorly recounted that "some Jew" told you.

quote:Just wrong here.

Interesting, you just complaing that I don't have enough evidence when you present none of your own. Good Job.

quote:And you have no say in a faith you don't really understand.

Let's consider who might understand just a little bit more:

Me: Actually a part of the religion as it has been for millenia.

You: No real connection at all, except possibly to recent revisions to be like everyone else.

Hmmmm

quote:I don't know where you get of judging my moral character seeing as you have never met me in my entire life.

Again, You: Walking around claiming to be a Jew without really acting like one or doing anything really Jewish.

Sounds like you're just a big lier.

quote:He followed G-ds commands, I don't know how you define good and evil but that seems like good to me.

Let's think about this: Gentile prophet who keeps sacrificing animals to try and curse Israel, and God forces him to bless them instead.

Balaam's followers are distinguished by three morally corrupt qualities, viz., an evil eye, a haughty bearing, and an avaricious spirit—qualities the very opposite of those characterizing the disciples of Abraham.

When Balaam saw that he could not curse the children of Israel, he advised Balak as a last resort to tempt the Hebrew nation to immoral acts and, through these, to the worship of Baal-peor. Hmmmm...

quote:The funny thing is that very little of you evidence has anything to do with either

I don't know about "you evidence" but there's no evidence of the contrary.

quote: Thats just an ignotant statement, my father is a "real jew" and don't try to pull any Freudian bullshit about Oedipus on me.

Freudian bullshit? That really doesn't have anything to do with is. Think about it:

Jewish law says that your mother must be a Jew (if you are not a convert) to be a Jew. You have neither converted nor is your mother a Jew. You are a goy. You are ignorent, and even against the law as it stands. You're angry because it will not change to play to your fantasies. We're not christians, we don't change up shit to make you happy.

quote:I see your point, seeing how the Talmud is the devinely inspired writings of Judaism... Oh wait, ITS NOT

However, it is a text on how the law had been implimented (the law on why you're not a Jew extend beyond the talmud) since the time of Moses, told to him by God.

quote:the Books of Moses are the only ones in which a strong Divine guidance can be seen.

So you say those books are divine? Make up your mind. The time of those books is where that "divine guidence" (aka the law) came from, and there is more there than is written. You either accept the law, or reject it, you can't have it both ways.

quote:Originally posted by SpaceFalcon2001:

Freudian bullshit? That really doesn't have anything to do with is. Think about it:

Jewish law says that your mother must be a Jew (if you are not a convert) to be a Jew. You have neither converted nor is your mother a Jew. You are a goy. You are ignorent, and even against the law as it stands. You're angry because it will not change to play to your fantasies. We're not christians, we don't change up shit to make you happy.

That mother thing is only true in the orthodox community, so long as he is not orthodox his temple will accept him despite his mother not being Jewish. (Those are my circumstances). Otherwise your arguments above hold strong.

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

Well I see now why the Reform Judaism movement has some level of disdain for overly orthodox Jewish interpretations. When you get to the point that you exclude people based upon herritage and don't consider how they were raised, then you are being idiotic. But besides my general disdain for those who would like to call me not Jewish (its sort of a sensitive subject as I was run out of the Conservative synagouge where I live because people kept calling me a half-Jew)[...]

I'd like to point out, because this conversation is becomming filled with Lashon Harah, that until this comment was made, there was no disdain being shown and the argument was a factual one. It wasn't until you started insulting Orthodox Jews for sticking to the millenia old traditions of the religion you claim to subscribe to that one of them responded in kind. This whole thing is Chilul HaShem and should stop. It's not meant as a superiority issue, it's completely to do with status and how the law is interpreted. Saying that Hallakhah doesn't consider you a Jew doesn't mean that you have no right to your family's cultural and religious traditions. It just means that if you want to participate in the full ceremonies, Aliyah to the Torah, marriage with other Jews, et cetera, you'll have to submit to proper conversion. It's a technicality and nothing to be ashamed of: just a fact of life.

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

Originally posted by JewDude:

Well I see now why the Reform Judaism movement has some level of disdain for overly orthodox Jewish interpretations. When you get to the point that you exclude people based upon herritage and don't consider how they were raised, then you are being idiotic. But besides my general disdain for those who would like to call me not Jewish (its sort of a sensitive subject as I was run out of the Conservative synagouge where I live because people kept calling me a half-Jew)[...]

I'd like to point out, because this conversation is becomming filled with Lashon Harah, that until this comment was made, there was no disdain being shown and the argument was a factual one. It wasn't until you started insulting Orthodox Jews for sticking to the millenia old traditions of the religion you claim to subscribe to that one of them responded in kind. This whole thing is Chilul HaShem and should stop. It's not meant as a superiority issue, it's completely to do with status and how the law is interpreted. Saying that Hallakhah doesn't consider you a Jew doesn't mean that you have no right to your family's cultural and religious traditions. It just means that if you want to participate in the full ceremonies, Aliyah to the Torah, marriage with other Jews, et cetera, you'll have to submit to proper conversion. It's a technicality and nothing to be ashamed of: just a fact of life.

True, and I apologize if I am overly aggresive at times, it really has some really bad memories for me and I tend to get quite irrational about it to a degree, though that doesn't excuse it, it does explain my overreaction to a degree. Again I apologize for any unprovoked aggresion.

quote:Originally posted by SpaceFalcon2001:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JewDude:

[QUOTE]

Let's consider who might understand just a little bit more:

Me: Actually a part of the religion as it has been for millenia.

You: No real connection at all, except possibly to recent revisions to be like everyone else.

Hmmmm



Yet to be proven, thats kind of what this whole debate is about.

quote:

Again, You: Walking around claiming to be a Jew without really acting like one or doing anything really Jewish.

Sounds like you're just a big lier.

Because of course you have kept tabs on my life to see what parts of it were "Jewish" and which were not, lets try to avoid the personal attacks as you really don't know me at all. I apologize for any instance in which I attacked your character, I tend to get aggressive about this, as I state in the above post.

quote:

Let's think about this: Gentile prophet who keeps sacrificing animals to try and curse Israel, and God forces him to bless them instead.

Balaam's followers are distinguished by three morally corrupt qualities, viz., an evil eye, a haughty bearing, and an avaricious spirit—qualities the very opposite of those characterizing the disciples of Abraham.

When Balaam saw that he could not curse the children of Israel, he advised Balak as a last resort to tempt the Hebrew nation to immoral acts and, through these, to the worship of Baal-peor. Hmmmm...

I (and others I know) interpret it as such: He obviously wanted something different then what G-d wanted, however when G-d made his command, Balaam did as he was told, I did not claim he was perfect, just righteous. Like Noah, blameless in his situation huh? (Yes I am aware it actually reads "blameless in his age" but an age is a kind of situation.)



Freudian bullshit? That really doesn't have anything to do with is. Think about it:

Jewish law says that your mother must be a Jew (if you are not a convert) to be a Jew. You have neither converted nor is your mother a Jew.

You don't know wether or not I have converted, I don't believe I stated otherwise.

quote:You are a goy. You are ignorent, and even against the law as it stands. You're angry because it will not change to play to your fantasies. We're not christians, we don't change up shit to make you happy. Evil tonge, lets not try to slight other peoples faiths in this debate ok? Though Judaism disagrees with Christianity, any relegion that is geared towards the spiritual betterment of its followers is valid. Christianity definately does this.



quote:

However, it is a text on how the law had been implimented (the law on why you're not a Jew extend beyond the talmud) since the time of Moses, told to him by God.

And of course the way we implement the law is infallible because we are...(sarcasm)

quote:So you say those books are divine? Make up your mind. The time of those books is where that "divine guidence" (aka the law) came from, and there is more there than is written. You either accept the law, or reject it, you can't have it both ways.

I never doubted the divine nature of the Books of Moses, however, it is important to recognize the time and situation frame in which these laws were created. They were necessary for the survival of the Jewish people as the mother was the parent who was responsible for the spiritual upbringing of the child. This is no longer the case.

If we are going to continue this argument, we should probably make a new thread, this is getting rather extensive and off topic.

quote:Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:

Originally posted by SpaceFalcon2001:

Freudian bullshit? That really doesn't have anything to do with is. Think about it:

Jewish law says that your mother must be a Jew (if you are not a convert) to be a Jew. You have neither converted nor is your mother a Jew. You are a goy. You are ignorent, and even against the law as it stands. You're angry because it will not change to play to your fantasies. We're not christians, we don't change up shit to make you happy.

That mother thing is only true in the orthodox community, so long as he is not orthodox his temple will accept him despite his mother not being Jewish. (Those are my circumstances). Otherwise your arguments above hold strong.



I'm reform.

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

I'm reform.

Indeed, the first sign of trouble is membership to a young sect that pretty much turns the religion upside down in every way. You want to worship in egalitarian churches? Not quite what I find desirable, but that's what reform "temples" add up to.

quote:Yet to be proven, thats kind of what this whole debate is about.

See previous problem, admitted and answered. The only way to "prove" me wrong would be to validate the decision to more or less take everything Jewish out of being Jewish.

quote:You don't know wether or not I have converted, I don't believe I stated otherwise.

You admit to being reform. They don't believe you need to convert (they believe alot of weird things that they make up along the way, so that's not new), and even if you did convert by them, no way would it be considered a valid transition.

quote:Though Judaism disagrees with Christianity, any relegion that is geared towards the spiritual betterment of its followers is valid. Christianity definately does this.

Christianity is essencially a greek mutilation of the Jewish ideas of the time. All christianity does is convince people of goodness through faith alone, and it builds on a fear of eternal punishment to keep you in line (which naturally fails often).

The only difference between christianity and Reform Judaism is that the latter doesn't concern itself with death.

quote:And of course the way we implement the law is infallible because we are...(sarcasm)

What has changed since the creation of Judaism about the orthodox implimentation? A menorah is always the same, the slaughter has always been the same, the only changes in implimentation are those of conservative and reform Judaism, and conservative at least mostly sticks to the same, unchanged laws.

quote:it is important to recognize the time and situation frame in which these laws were created. They were necessary for the survival of the Jewish people as the mother was the parent who was responsible for the spiritual upbringing of the child. This is no longer the case.

Let's think on two things.

1. God said to keep the laws up forever (i.e. not just keep these laws, if you feel like it, for a few years and call back if you like them), Reform Judaism says that doesn't matter. If it's really divine, it remains divine. It does not change for every generation or every person, and thus is still valid today.

2. Reform Jews are the prime example of failure to both raise and maintain the Jewishness of their children. The Reform intermarriage rate is 53% and the birth rate is about 1.72. And that was 15 years ago. Things have only gotten worse. The overall Jewish population is shrinking (that means a negative birthrate overall). The only Jews who are increasing in size are the orthodox Jews. Why is this? Because all the crappy Jews are marryig out and having kids with poor Jewish identities and no will to keep up Jewish traditions. Reform Judaism is killing itself off, that doesn't seem like survival to me.

quote:Originally posted by SpaceFalcon2001:

Indeed, the first sign of trouble is membership to a young sect that pretty much turns the religion upside down in every way. You want to worship in egalitarian churches? Not quite what I find desirable, but that's what reform "temples" add up to.





You admit to being reform. They don't believe you need to convert (they believe alot of weird things that they make up along the way, so that's not new), and even if you did convert by them, no way would it be considered a valid transition.





Christianity is essencially a greek mutilation of the Jewish ideas of the time. All christianity does is convince people of goodness through faith alone, and it builds on a fear of eternal punishment to keep you in line (which naturally fails often).

The only difference between christianity and Reform Judaism is that the latter doesn't concern itself with death.





What has changed since the creation of Judaism about the orthodox implimentation? A menorah is always the same, the slaughter has always been the same, the only changes in implimentation are those of conservative and reform Judaism, and conservative at least mostly sticks to the same, unchanged laws.





Let's think on two things.

1. God said to keep the laws up forever (i.e. not just keep these laws, if you feel like it, for a few years and call back if you like them), Reform Judaism says that doesn't matter. If it's really divine, it remains divine. It does not change for every generation or every person, and thus is still valid today.

2. Reform Jews are the prime example of failure to both raise and maintain the Jewishness of their children. The Reform intermarriage rate is 53% and the birth rate is about 1.72. And that was 15 years ago. Things have only gotten worse. The overall Jewish population is shrinking (that means a negative birthrate overall). The only Jews who are increasing in size are the orthodox Jews. Why is this? Because all the crappy Jews are marryig out and having kids with poor Jewish identities and no will to keep up Jewish traditions. Reform Judaism is killing itself off, that doesn't seem like survival to me.

Being reform is interpreting the religion for yourself. Not just listening to what some random ass uneducated Rabbi said 1500 years ago. Every sect of Judaism has it's points where it claims to be superior and it's shortcomings to the others. Orthodox is exactly by the books, how the rabbi's have interpreted god's writings in the Torah. Conservative is similar with minor leeway for more modern day applications and interpretations. Reform is interpretting god's writing to see how it fits with the world today. Does "You shall not work on the sabbath" really mean you can't turn on a lightbulb? That kind of stuff.



To be accepted into the orthodox community he would need a orthodox conversion, that is true. He is reform and under our modern day application of god's text he is deemed Jewish.

No, there is a shitload of difference between Christianity and reform Judaism. Eating Kosher? Chanukah? Passover? Rosh Hashannah? Every Holiday infact? Jesus? Christmas/Easter/more holidays? Priests? Church v. Temple?

That's right, the orthodox don't do much for the new interpreting of the texts. Reform Judaism is based on applying Judaism to modern applications.



1. Quit bashing reform. You show an absolute lack of understanding for their belief.

2. This is a disgusting comment. You are against inter-religious marriage? According to all religious beliefs of Judaism marriage between Jews and people of other religions is AOK. We do not serve to populate this planet with more Jews. That final survival comment sounds like Social Darwinism.

(Population shrinking means higher death rate than birth rate, or speaking for religions it could mean converts out of the religion or other things as well)

WTF!!

well thats a no shiter...

its a fucking sin...

guy on guy thats fucking wrong!!!

quote:Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:

Being reform is interpreting the religion for yourself. Not just listening to what some random ass uneducated Rabbi said 1500 years ago.

I.e. making up your own random shit. Orthodox isn't about what some "uneducated" (the very fact that you label it that way shows you don't know all that much about the basis of the religion) rabbis decided 1500 years ago. That's Rabbinic Judaism in general. The point is that Orthodox Judaism is based on what some "uneducated" God said more than 3000 years ago, and the text is proven as unchanged since.

quote:Orthodox is exactly by the books, how the rabbi's have interpreted god's writings in the Torah.

...

Reform is interpretting god's writing to see how it fits with the world today.

Those one is by the law, i.e. the law in the torah, and they listen to Rabbis who are by DEFINITION the people who are actually learned men who recieved "ordination" in a direct line back to Moses.

Reform is just doing whatever the shit it feels like and they are a bunch of morons who choose to ignore the law entirely (just how are you supposed to interpret "DO NOT EAT PORK", it looks pretty clear-cut), because they feel it doesn't apply to anyone, much less them. They couldn't be more wrong.

quote:Does "You shall not work on the sabbath" really mean you can't turn on a lightbulb? That kind of stuff.

Exactly. You don't know what work means. That's why the talmud exists. Otherwise you have idiots making up their own mind about just what work is, instead of accepting what work has been since Moses. Not that it matters, because a good deal of Reformers do money earning work on saturday if they have a business that depends on daily intake.

Either way, whether a lightbulb can be turned on and off is a more arguable debate, and that's why conservative Judaism exists.

There's no excuse for saying it's ok to eat pork, amoungst other things...

quote:He is reform and under our modern day application of god's text he is deemed Jewish.

The reform don't base his affiliation on a Godly text at all (I can show you the decision at a later time, and it's not at all religious). They base the idea on an ethnic affiliation, not a belief one. Sort of if someone started a church of being black, which didn't care what God you worshipped, only that you were black.

quote:No, there is a shitload of difference between Christianity and reform Judaism.

Are there?

[quote]Eating Kosher?

How many reformers do that? Try next to none.

quote:Chanukah?

Of course, the second least important holiday is the most important for reformers.

quote:Passover?

Some Christians celebrate it in their own way. Most reformers don't at all.

quote:Rosh Hashannah?

Good Job hitting one of the two holidays that twice a year reformers go to. Sort of like twice a year christians that only go to church on christmas and easter.

quote:Every Holiday infact? Jesus? Christmas/Easter/more holidays?

Speaking of Christmas, 70% of Reformers celebrate christmas in some fashion. Where's the line? Oh right it's gone. Non-Jews not only freely marry Reform Jews, they also are allowed to join the congregation, and serve on committees, all without being in any fashion Jewish!

[quote]Priests?

Christian priest/minister, Reform Rabbi, they both fulfill the same role: leading services, organizing events, and comforting their followers (having been trained for that, as they fill no other purpose that can be specific to only them), as opposed to orthodox rabbis who people consult on a constant basis for a decision or reminder on how to follow the law. The Orthodox Rabbi today is extremely educated, and to say that he is not is a large display of ignorance on your part.

quote:Church v. Temple?

Reform temples are a great deal like church.

That's right, the orthodox don't do much for the new interpreting of the texts. Reform Judaism is based on applying Judaism to modern applications.

quote:1. Quit bashing reform. You show an absolute lack of understanding for their belief.

That's funny, you'd think I'd have known all about it having been affiliated with it for about 10 years, but hey, you wouldn't have guessed that.

quote:2. This is a disgusting comment. You are against inter-religious marriage? According to all religious beliefs of Judaism marriage between Jews and people of other religions is AOK.

Just what are you smoking? Check the Torah "DO NOT INTERMARRY WITH THE NON-JEWS" but hey, I guess we've just been misinterpreting it all the time. Where are the hellanists today? Oh right, they don't exist anymore. The point of everything is to keep Jews Jewish, and non-Jews can do what they like if it's peaceful. To say that all religious beliefs of Judaism accept intermarriage is a simple lie that is probbly well enorsed by Reform Judaism. Orthodox certainly don't believe it, Conservative don't accept it. Hmm I guess you misinterpreted all too.

quote:(Population shrinking means higher death rate than birth rate, or speaking for religions it could mean converts out of the religion or other things as well)

Both are true. Reform Jews have no real affiliation with their religion, nor any real knowledge of it, so they are easily absorbed into other more cushiony religions. Nor do most Reform Jews feel a need to have more than one or two children.

quote:Originally posted by SpaceFalcon2001:

Indeed, the first sign of trouble is membership to a young sect that pretty much turns the religion upside down in every way.

First off let me say that I agree with everything you have written. But you do realize that you will never convince those two, yes? Seph was right, all you guys are managing to do is drag us all thru the mud... And though they are ignorant of the consequences... you aren't, please stop having this conversation.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Metalligod, you seem to want everyone on the forum to DIE in some way or another (usually involving a great amount of pain), which would indicate that not only do you not like us, but that you consider us to be dumber and less important than you...

What seems and what actually is, are OBVIOUSLY 2 VERY different things. The fact that YOU feel, that I want everyone dead is a concoction or YOUR mind/YOUR THINKING and YOURS alone.

Don't EVER try to pass off your thinking as my own, as it makes you look very ignorant and childish. And I will surely call you out on that account. I can't state my thoughts and feelings any plainer, if you don't fully grasp the concepts I put forth, then say nothing, cause you're most likely too inept to understand what's being said, so don't make it my fault.

It is very true that I don't like a great deal of you, however, that doesn't mean that I won't value an opinion but forth by someone whom I do not particularly like. I do believe that I explained this very ideal to YOU and others in great detail, in a thread which YOU created, not too long ago...

See, [i]Speak 4 yourself. There are many indivisuals who won't look past the things they don't like in others, which in return impares their ability to appreciate or respect the other qualities of the disliked indivisual. (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/003889.html)

I don't particularly like you or Rust, however, I do sometimes agree with you, and I've never denied your ability to make valid points. My dislike for the both of you stems from the fact that you're both 'set in your ways', you often miss the point which others make because it doesn't include or corroborate your own. You also sometimes don't even take the POV's of others into consideration, for that reason I tend to avoid you.

Yeah I get pissed, I curse ppl out, and everyone else does the same, don't single me out because I add a little flair to my snideness if you expect responses from me, because you will be ignored. Call it immature if you will, I don't care, I simply choose not to argue anymore.

For the record, I don't talk to most of the ppl on this forum, therefore, you cannot know one way or the other whether or not I want them dead.

And finally, you obviously read/see/hear what you wish, normally I curse ppl out 4 asking me things which I've already answered, esp when their question comes from the very source/message in which the question is answered...

quote:...Why are you still here ?

quote:Originally posted by The Great Metalligod:

...I obviously respect and/or care to know/understand the opinions of others...

...want(s) to learn

'Nuff said?

-I quit

So we don't end up wrecking this thread any more than we have, I am going to make a new thread called "Reform/Conservative/Orthodox Judaism". We can continue it up there for those who are interested.

"Is homesexuality a sin?"

Yes.



[This message has been edited by Ethanael (edited 06-02-2005).]

Sodom --> Sodomize? interesting

According to my CCD teacher, being gay is not a sin, but the act of gay sex is a sin because it is out of wedlock, and you can't get married in God's eyes if you are gay.

quote:Originally posted by SpaceFalcon2001:

Christianity is essencially a greek mutilation of the Jewish ideas of the time. All christianity does is convince people of goodness through faith alone, and it builds on a fear of eternal punishment to keep you in line (which naturally fails often).

[/B]

You have a very poor understanding a multi-denominational faith. It is as different as various Jewish sects. You seem to have only had experience in dealing with extreme fundamentalist protestant Christians of a highly evangelical nature. I suggest you learn more about the nuances of Christianity, or not generalize.

quote:Originally posted by Random_Looney:

You seem to have only had experience in dealing with extreme fundamentalist protestant Christians of a highly evangelical nature. I suggest you learn more about the nuances of Christianity, or not generalize.

Wrong. That's how christianity started. Eventually it developed into the catholic church and the eastern orthodox. Now they are even more messed up and watered down.

quote:Originally posted by Random_Looney:

You have a very poor understanding a multi-denominational faith. It is as different as various Jewish sects. You seem to have only had experience in dealing with extreme fundamentalist protestant Christians of a highly evangelical nature. I suggest you learn more about the nuances of Christianity, or not generalize.

I must agree with Random here, you really have no apparent knowledge of the area, and whatever knowlegde you have is very flawed, Christianity is a good faith when applied correctly, and to say that it is something inately evil is wrong, true there have been bad Christians but there have also been bad Jews. I would ask that you don't make sweeping generalizations about others relegions, even if it isn't my own.

quote:Originally posted by SpaceFalcon2001:

Originally posted by Random_Looney:

You seem to have only had experience in dealing with extreme fundamentalist protestant Christians of a highly evangelical nature. I suggest you learn more about the nuances of Christianity, or not generalize.

Wrong. That's how christianity started. Eventually it developed into the catholic church and the eastern orthodox. Now they are even more messed up and watered down.

I always thought Christianity started near Israel/Palestine, where this dude named Jesus once lived... Sorry for changing the subject.

quote:Originally posted by Random_Looney:

I always thought Christianity started near Israel/Palestine, where this dude named Jesus once lived... Sorry for changing the subject.

No actually. Historical research shows that originally, there were certain views of Jesus in a more appropriate light. There are certain documents refered to as Q:

Q1, written circa 50 CE, which described Jesus as a Jewish philosopher-teacher.

Q1 implies that essentially all of present-day Christian beliefs were unknown to the immediate followers of Jesus. The concept of Jesus as Lord or as a member of the Trinity was completely foreign to their thinking. God was very definitely a single entity, the Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Q2, written during the 60's CE, which viewed Jesus as a Jewish apocalyptic prophet.

Q3, written during the mid 70's during a time of great turmoil in Palestine. Jesus is described as a near-deity who converses directly with God and Satan.

Notice, it's not till about 40 years after the death of Jesus (interestingly, around the time of the destruction of the temple) that Jesus is being seen as a God. Still, it wasn't till 10 years after that the Gospel of Mark appeared.

JewDude, the issue is what is true.

FACT: Christianity is nothing like it originally was and is more or less made up along the way in a fashion similar to borg like ideas of assimilating the world. It has no credibility.

FACT: Reform Judaism is the same way. If animal fucking were in fashion, Reform Judaism will accept it. Again, no credebility.

quote:Originally posted by SpaceFalcon2001:

Originally posted by Random_Looney:

I always thought Christianity started near Israel/Palestine, where this dude named Jesus once lived... Sorry for changing the subject.

No actually. Historical research shows that originally, there were certain views of Jesus in a more appropriate light. There are certain documents refered to as Q:

Q1, written circa 50 CE, which described Jesus as a Jewish philosopher-teacher.

Q1 implies that essentially all of present-day Christian beliefs were unknown to the immediate followers of Jesus. The concept of Jesus as Lord or as a member of the Trinity was completely foreign to their thinking. God was very definitely a single entity, the Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Q2, written during the 60's CE, which viewed Jesus as a Jewish apocalyptic prophet.

Q3, written during the mid 70's during a time of great turmoil in Palestine. Jesus is described as a near-deity who converses directly with God and Satan.

Notice, it's not till about 40 years after the death of Jesus (interestingly, around the time of the destruction of the temple) that Jesus is being seen as a God. Still, it wasn't till 10 years after that the Gospel of Mark appeared.

JewDude, the issue is what is true.

FACT: Christianity is nothing like it originally was and is more or less made up along the way in a fashion similar to borg like ideas of assimilating the world. It has no credibility.

FACT: Reform Judaism is the same way. If animal fucking were in fashion, Reform Judaism will accept it. Again, no credebility.

You believe that Q stuff? Almost no theologian I've heard speak believes that- even Jewish ones. I heard that it was advocated by Otto Von Bismarck in an attempt to combat the kulturkampf, and that it has no historical basis. There were biblical references and ancillary sources to refute the Q document claim.

Christianity is not like it was because it was not accepted as Judaism (it was originally like Hassedic Judaism to an extent), and driven out of Jewish culture, leading to a fight between the biblical Peter and Paul over such rules as keeping kosher law or not out of fairness for gentiles. Every religion changes, and is merely exegesis of their perception of a divine being's will. The Jewish religion changed when the Samaritans intermarried, it changed slightly when Moses saw the golden calf, breaking some commandments, etc. Minor changes, along with schisms and the diaspora greatly change religion. Much like the lack of a temple, thus, a lack of sacrifice. Though theologically, not necessitating change per se, it has sparked it.

All you homosexuals are gonna burn!!!

quote:Originally posted by SpaceFalcon2001:

Wrong. That's how christianity started. Eventually it developed into the catholic church and the eastern orthodox. Now they are even more messed up and watered down.Actually, Christianity started as a salvation through works religion, a small, but radical sect in Judaism. Much like the Mashichists in the modern day Chabad Lubavitch movement. It wasn't till Paul of Tarsus came along that the Hallakhah ceased to have weight and they stopped converting people to Judaism in order to convert them to Christianity. That was a few decades in.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No sin is greater than another.

If you are a liar, you are equally a sinner as someone that is homosexual.

I think Christians focus WAY TOO MUCH on sexual immorality as an abhorrent sin, and not just sin in general.

This is one of the main reasons i'm leaning away from christianity- murdering someone is equal to saying god damn or jesus christ...

That is incorrect- some Christian denominations place emphasis on various aspects of a sin in order to characterize its severity.

Again, it is nearly impossible to generalize the Christian religion with one, or a couple statements.

quote:Originally posted by Experimental:

This is one of the main reasons i'm leaning away from christianity- murdering someone is equal to saying god damn or jesus christ...

Well, that's actually kind of misleading. Christians view all sins as equal in the sense that when you are born you are in a state of innocent neutrality, but the first sin makes you tip towards hell. The Christian belief of salvation in Jesus, however, makes that irrelevent in that no matter what sins you have commited, he can save you from all of them and that once saved you can't become 'un-saved.'

Edit: Of course that concept also creates issues for most people, but I don't know how I might explain what they believe from there, since it was never adequately explained to me. I guess we'll have to wait for Digital_Savior to get moved into her new house and then ask her.

[This message has been edited by Sephiroth (edited 06-08-2005).]

The only thing I don't understand is, if God didn't wan't us to pound the ol' poop-chute, why'd he give it such a tight little pucker?

So your shit doesn't fall out everywhere...oh well...too late.

buttsecks?