God (Not SCOTUS) Will Be The Final Judge On G ay “Marriage”

[DinarMillionaire]

God (Not SCOTUS) Will Be The Final Judge On G ay “Marriage”

There seems to have been a shift in the Republican party away from opposing so-called *** marriage and towards an acceptance of homosexuals being able to be married with the state’s imprimatur.

I can understand Senator Rob Portman’s position. His son is ***, and he is still his son, and he loves him.

I saw Nicole Wallace on Fox News Sunday taking a similar position. She worked in the Bush 43 White House. I certainly understand Vice President **** Cheney’s position because his situation is similar to Portman’s.

Here is my problem with all of that.

The state’s imprimatur.

As I have said many times in this space, what you do on your own time and who you do it with is your own business, and I don’t really care.

But. Please include me out.

I don’t care if you covet Paris Hilton or Perez Hilton; but why do I need to know about it, much less be forced to approve of it?

If two people of the same sex want to set up housekeeping, they can enter into a civil union, which should give them every right that a married couple has. And, for the record, I think the federal government should only involve itself in marriage where it is forced to (and, thus, parts of the Defense of Marriage Act probably ARE unconstitutional.)

Why is it so important for me to do anything but wish a *** couple well?

And by me, I mean all of us.

Truth be told, I don’t really know whether or not God believes that homosexuality is fundamentally wrong or that marriage is between a man and a woman. However, he certainly arranged our plumbing to accommodate that theory.

I suspect that people on my side of the argument may eventually lose to a pop culture that places a heavy value on doing whatever feels good at the moment; and there will be, on the surface, acceptance of *** marriage.

If that’s the case, I’m glad I won’t be around to see the long-term effects. Ultimately, it won’t be Antonin Scalia or Ruth Bader Ginsburg making the judgments. It will be a much higher authority, and I suspect that it will be loud and clear.

How do I know?

I don’t. But, being willing to make a wager, I can calculate odds. Let me quote William Shatner’s “Boston Legal” character, Denny Crane, when asked if he believed in God and why:

“If you believe in God and it turns out there is no God, there’s no harm no foul. . .but if you don’t believe in God and there is a God, you’re screwed.”

So, you need to ask yourself a question. And, as the number of your tomorrows becomes significantly fewer than your yesterdays, the question may be more pressing.

The question is: do you want to bet against God? For all eternity? Those seem like pretty big odds, even for a value player.

I cannot tell you whether there is life after the body gives out or whether we just blink off like a burned out light bulb. But I’m pretty sure that I don’t want to take a chance that there is no master plan to the universe and we just become used up dustballs after we die. I’m pretty sure that the odds favor the theory of a master plan implemented by a master planner. Maybe God doesn’t take the form we think. Maybe there are not any pearly gates. But there’s a lot more empirical evidence that there is a God than man-made global warming. If that were a proposition bet in a Las Vegas sports book, I’d be hard-pressed to bet money against God. As far as betting my life for eternity, well, I’d be real nervous about that.

And, I think that Richard Nixon had it right when he told us that there’s a great silent majority out there that is more conservative socially than liberal, believes in God, and wants to do the right thing.

That explains why 30 states have laws on the books making marriage between a man and a woman that were passed in the privacy of the polling booth by that very silent majority.

Giving *** marriage the imprimatur of the state isn’t going to screw up my life.

But, if I were 20 right now, I wouldn’t want to bet on what the world might look like 50 years from now under those circumstances.

By Fred Weinberg

https://usjf.net/2013/04/god-not-scotus-will-be-the-final-judge-on-***-marriage/?utm_source=USJF+List&utm_campaign=37e5676518-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email

[thesjeske]

I believe in individual rights and liberties and freedoms. I could give a rats arse what God says or any politician says.

[King Bean]

We're all so afraid to stand up and state what's "wrong". The Bible says same sex union is wrong. That's my final authority...not POTUS, congress or some electorate...just because their son or daughter is in that position. We're all so de-sensitized that half the TV shows have same sex couples buying houses on HGTV and sitcoms with them raising kids. Thank God there ARE men and women in blessed unions. Had the garden of Eden been Adam and Doug, for instance, none of us would be here. Neg me all you want. (No offense to any Adam or Doug on here).

[Nelg]

I believe in individual rights and liberties and freedoms. I could give a rats arse what God says or any politician says.

Which is the reason that there is no respect for God, His word, or marriage.  Christians do not force their belief on anyone.  But there is a standard of good and evil that we hold as truth; the Bible.  Whether anyone accepts that belief or not matters little when it comes to the final day of Judgment.  But I don't want government or political leaders or the politically correct forcing what they "think" and believe on me or my family.  Really, they have no chance at forcing me to believe what they do or accepting the civil joining of individuals of the same sex.  That will never happen.  They can suggest, make it a law, and announce that it is "right," but that does not make it so.  So, go ahead and suggest or even apply pressure, I could care less. 

[TexasMike1958]

The Bible is very clear....its wrong.  The Bible is also clear that people who live that lifestyle and remain there will lose out on eternal life.    The problem is that they are saying people who live that lifestyle have legal rights just as hetero married couples do.  While that may be true legally, morally, they are wrong.  There is no grey area there.  Our planet is becoming more like Sodom and Gomorrah with each passing day.  And we know what happened to them.  But our SCOTUS seems to have no interest in God or supporting legal views that are as much moral as they are legal. 

[Rayzur]

The Bible is very clear....

 

Indeed, the Word of God as God spoke the Word in Hebrew to the Hebrew men who recorded it, is very clear. And as the literal Word of God was spoken and recorded before the Word of God was translated 6 times over into English, God said nothing whatsoever about same gender relationships. Nothing!!!

Unfortunately, it seems people would rather hold onto this belief than study the scripture in the language it was Spoken by God, and recorded at the time God spoke it. It is at times unnerving, grating, disappointing and even angering that the Holy Scriptures as spoken by the God of Israel, the God of Abraham, has been so horribly distorted by those who have come to adopt and call the Holy Words, their Old Testament.  

 

Here is a very brief synopsis posted elsewhere:

 

 

Thank you, Rayzur for providing the knowledge that is so lacking. I enjoyed reading your posts as the true meaning to the words written in ancient Hebrew. I recalled watching the rabbis or elders reading, reading, reading, studying, studying, studying the words. So deep and profound was their content, that I knew it would take a lifetime or 2 to understand those words. I heard stories about Rabbi Such-and-Such who, if you placed a knife into the first page of the bible, he would be able to tell you every word that is passed thru to its point. Good to see some REAL knowledge passed on in this topic. Your colleague who did the work is a fine person. Cheers! From this Jew, I give your post "2 bagels UP!" Shaloam!

Rayzur, on 04 Apr 2013 - 23:05, said:

Hey Hame

 

In a respectful effort to avoid throwing out the baby with the bath water..... Indeed, it is this very thing that many Rabbis and Hebrew scholars fear most, .....throwing out the Words of God, because the Words of God were so horribly translated into English with tragically mistaken interpretations. And then mechanically repeated (comfortably serving the deeper fears of some/many).

 

Someone told me or I got the impression you were a college professor? Which among other things would mean you definitely have the capacity to understand the significance,….. the authority of primary source. Not sure if you read the [lengthy] discussion of the literal Word of God as he spoke it in Hebrew to  His people. I ask because I just want to be sure there is crystal clear understanding of what is claimed to have been said, in distinct and factual contrast to what God literally said.

 

To recap:

 

All but parts of two of the Old Testament chapters were written in Biblical (ancient) Hebrew… (Daniel and Ezra). God did not speak to the ancient Hebrew men in English. Really, he didn't. 

 

Biblical Hebrew is the Hebrew of the books found in the Hebrew Tanakh (Bible), which the Christian world refers to as "their" "The Old Testament" (OT)

 

“THE ORIGINAL HEBREW TEXTS OF THE TORAH (the Hebrew Chumash - the Five Books of Moses,  the books  fundamentalists typically and incorrectly quote based upon horrific translations that are NOT the Words God spoke), HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY as the word is currently used today in representing a loving relationship between two of the same gender”.

 

 

THE ORIGINAL HEBREW TEXTS and LITERAL HEBREW WORDS OF GOD , (what Christians call their Old Testament) DO NOT REFER TO A LOVING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THOSE OF THE SAME GENDER. It doesn't. The discussion of Hebrew is above for those caring enough to understand what God literally said. 

 

Indeed, [still quoting Hebrew scholars/Rabbinical authority] “It is easier for religious fundamentalists as they do not feel the need(responsibility)  to understand the source of that which they use against others.  They merely take the King James English  quite literally as the “inerrant text of that which was given to Moses, on Mt Sinai, just as King James commanded it written”.  The arrogance of this dismissive treatment of Holy Hebrew Scripture is stunning.

 

“The ORIGINAL literal authentic Hebrew texts of  Leviticus  are referring to NON-ISRAELITE, RELIGIOUS cultic ritual sexual and sexual abuse practices (that had NOTHING to do with a loving relationship between those of the same [gender],) They instead were directives that Israelites were not to imitate them in their worship of God when they entered into the Land of Israel. It has nothing at all to do with what we today term as being homosexual per se, but instead is a reference to CULTIC RELIGIOUS FERTILITY RITUALS practiced by HETEROSEXUAL MEN in IDOLATROUS WORSHIP.

 

The literal Ancient Biblical Hebrew spoken by God, refers to “a prohibition against imitating non-Israelite, foreign CULTIC sexual substitution by heterosexual men during fertility rituals; and, condemns anyone who uses substitutional and/or incestuous sex as a method of gaining Divine favor”.

 

Lets review,…… the literal Word of God as God spoke it in Hebrew to His Israelite people  speaks about  foreign (non-Israelite) religious, cultic, ritual and promiscuous sexual practices, as practiced by the idolatrous religions of Egypt and Canaan, which in turn uses the SUBSTITUTION OF OTHERS, including strangers, relatives, animals, and members of the same sex for cultic ritual FERTILITY purposes”.

 

Hame  just want to make sure we’re clear that the Bible you are referencing, it is NOT a book that reflects the original and literal ancient Biblical Hebrew Words of God to His people. The God of Israel, the God of Abraham, in His Words, did NOT address a loving relationship between two of the same gender. 

 

Some people do live by the literal words of the Bible as God literally spoke the Word, but then you probably don’t hear much from them, as there is no Hebrew reference or section including a job description wherein man is asked to preoccupy himself with the lives of others.  I get what you are saying, and just wanting to make sure that we are focused upon the real deception. It is not the original Hebrew scriptures or actual Words of God. It is what man has done to the Words of God when translating them into another language and through personal or political filters in order to propagate  man’s agenda (no pun intended).

 

Btw add Genetic research to that of Psychology. I believe the marker has been identified, though is not well published, for what should be more than obvious reasons.    

 

And PS,.... In the event someone is tempted to take this farther in some convoluted meandering of false logic:  to say that the Hebrew Word of God as God spoke to the Hebrew men recording it, did not ever address a loving relationship between those of the same gender, is NOT the same as claiming God says G ay is okay, or natural, or acceptable or whatever. Get serious and stop with the dramatics.  It is to say that God said nothing about a loving relationship between two people of the same gender and did NOT say it wasn't okay, or natural or acceptable or whatever. That is the whole point. God did not say anything about it.  Human man translated it into the Bible. God didn't put it there. 

 

PPS, I still say there is something not all kosher with those who insist upon defining a relationship between two people solely in terms of their sexuality and/or sexual practices. While that may be the defining moment for some, or the hallmark of their being, or the focus of their lives; God spoke to the whole man as a being of substance, heart, mind and soul and all that which is man, in his individual relationship and worship of God through the expressions of his life. 

 

Blessings to all God's people ~~

Read more: http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?/topic/145279-g-a-y-marriage/page-4#ixzz2Pdoh6g5N

 

 

This synopsis is taken from this much longer definitive discussion of the actual Hebrew. Unfortunately it seems to be too much work for some people to wade through and apparently is much easier to simply hold onto their incorrectly translated rendition and continue to perpetuate horribly inaccurate judgment. That wouldn't matter so much, except for every single time a person's mistaken assumption separates even one single soul from the Love of God. Of course each and every one of us is individually responsible to God for what we say and perpetuate, and even more so in the judgment of others......which is why its so confusing to me that people do not seem to want to take the time and energy and effort to study the Words of God as He spoke them.... In any event, as posted on another thread of the same topic, here is the literal meaning of the Words God spoke: 

 

This is going to be long. But, so many people have followed like sheep for so many years, it’s going to take step by step to undo some of the horribly mistaken stuff that has simply been repeated over and over. If its too long to read, it might be a good idea to get off the horse of judgment, until you have the time to seriously study what you are saying, lest you get hung by your own words of judgment.

 

I also want to be perfectly clear to anyone reading this that I am not  arguing what your Bible says, or even your religion. I respect your views  and view them to be your genuine interpretation, your perspective, your vision. I’m not here to debate your belief. It’s not my place to judge your relationship with God or God  through Christ.

 

While I am concerned about your quest, I am even more concerned about those you may separate from the Love of God through condemnation, those you might hurt, those  who would blame God because you use words that are NOT His. I know you are trying to help… and in ministry it would seem like in medicine, the first rule is to do no harm… and most certainly, to do no harm in the name of God…… Indeed, in God’s Own Words spoken by His Son, “It would be better for you to tie a rope around your neck and throw yourself into the sea…”

I know you take the Bible to be the Word of God… and the Word of God written by men who are of God. You are likely aware in your studies that all but parts of two of the Old Testament chapters were written in Biblical (ancient) Hebrew… (Daniel and Ezra). God did not speak to the ancient Hebrew men in English. These English words are NOT the actual Words of God as God spoke them to Hebrew speaking men.

A profound use of God’s name would warrant years of studying the Words God actually spoke as they were written…. Especially when using His Words to judge His people. Taking the Lord’s name in vain, is more than simple swearing… and you are impacting not only those people, but their parents, grandparents, siblings, children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and the friends who share their lives.

So, you might ask, “who would know the Word as it was actually written”….

That  would be the men who speak ancient Hebrew…. who live speak, study and read ancient Hebrew and devote their entire lives to studying the Bible,… it is their the sole focus of their life  from the time of their first words until their last breath and death… Men whose entire lives center around the Bible and studying the scriptures as they were actually written in the language they speak, study and use. And lets not just ask one or two… lets ask the Rabbinical community and their leaders, “what are the Words God spoke?”

And now a word from our Hebrew Scholars and Rabbis  

“It is of utmost importance for those who are students of the Torah  to reclaim the texts that have been kidnapped by the fundamentalist Taliban types among the Jews, the Moslems, and the Christians and then twisted them, and used these texts to hurt the innocent and to make them afraid.

We must follow the example of our blessed Rabbis of Talmudic times and retranslate the Torah teachings in EVERY generation so that we might live in it and not die by it”.

 

INSERT

Okay, back to our discussion (as formulated by those of the Rabbinical community and distilled herein to save you the boredom of frequent references). I will however use quotes by way of pointing out……These are NOT my words or conclusions, they are conclusions of the men who speak, use, and study the language in which the Words of God were written. These assertions are not mine, but those of scholars of ancient Hebrew and Rabbis. [End of Insert]

 

“Knowing Hebrew is IMPORTANT, and VITAL to understanding the TRUTHS that the Hebrew Bible contains (OT). This book is the CONSTITUTION and SOURCEBOOK of the Israelite peoples. These truths do NOT come across in any other language or medium. Knowing Hebrew thought processes also helps one to have an understanding of any of the deep seated psychological issues inherent in a culture and language based upon its Hebrew roots”.

 

For those who speak Hebrew,  I’m sure you will remember from your studies that every Hebrew word is derived from a three letter (in some older cases, a two letter) root; in Hebrew called a SHORESH. These two or three letter root consonants form the template or basic structure of a family of related words. The addition of vowels, prefixes or suffixes to the basic root creates variations of meaning, tense, and parts of speech. For instance, the three consonants ד-מ-ה meaning TO RESEMBLE; and pronounced DAMAH, is the shoresh to the words DIMAH דימה (he imagined), D'MUT דמות (an image or likeness), DIMUY דמוי (a simile or comparison), DIMYON דמיון (imagination or fantasy), MIDUMAH מדומה (fictitious), KIMDUMANI כמדומני (seemingly), NIDMAH נדמה (it seems). All words that contain the same root are in some way related to every other word containing the same root (often extremely difficult for English thinkers to discern)…

 

Basically, a group's language registers and reflects its experiences through modes of thought and attitudes as seen in the way they understand the words and idioms of their common language. “There is absolutely no way that these words and idioms can be accurately reflected in a language so totally unrelated to Hebrew as is English”. English is as conceptually related to Hebrew, in thought patterns and mental visualizations, as the Japanese language is to the Cherokee language.

So why should that matter? Well, take the Hebrew word SHALOM שלום  it has little in common with its English translation of "PEACE." SHALOM… שלום does not have the passive, even negative, connotation of the word "peace" ……ושלם does not mean merely the absence of strife. It is pregnant with positive, active and energetic meaning and association……… שלום connotes "totality," "health," "wholesomeness," "harmony," "balance," "success," "the completeness and richness of living in an integrated social milieu." When people meet or part they wish each other שלום, or they inquire about each other's שלום.

 

Its hard to wrap one’s brain around the conceptualization of another language as often times the translation is passive relative to the active full bodied enriched meaning of the word in its original language. The translation misses the cultural pictures, meanings and dimensionality of the original language. Think about this for awhile….

 

Biblical Hebrew is the Hebrew of the books found in the Hebrew Tanakh (Bible), which the Christian world calls "The Old Testament" (OT).

Biblical scholars will probably also remember that the original Hebrew of the 15th and 14th centuries B.C.E. (BC) was written in the Proto-Sinaitic script; a script created by the Hebrew scribes shortly after the Hebrew people left the Egyptian exile with the Prophet Moses. This script was the way Hebrew was written until the Hebrew people were taken into the Babylonian exile in the 6th century B.C.E. (BC) Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in this script, and in a couple of scrolls the Tetragammaton; [the Sacred י-ה-ו-ה Name of God], is written in the Proto-Sinaitic script, while the rest of the scroll is written in the Aramaic script that was used after the Babylonian exile. 

….

So with this limited understanding of very complex linguistics, and extremely limited knowledge about “Biblical Hebrew”, lets look at the "g ay" question” of which so many non gays seem to be obsessed with these days:

 ….

Before examining Gods Words (or lack therein) about this specifically, one first notices how odd is the preference of many to seemingly define the totality of a relationship as nothing more than an expression of  sexuality. That seems a bit,  well; among other things, horribly limited, and extremely superficial. If that is the basis your relationship, then okay, so be it. And in all fairness, if in your belief procreation is the sole total purpose for entering into a relationship with another, then while that is not of the Words of God, it would explain why one would define people strictly by their sexual behavior in this rather limited, two dimensional aspect of who people are as God’s creations.

So What does the Ancient, Original Hebrew from God Scripture Say:

 

Rabbi Jacob Milgrom notes, “the passage in Genesis 19 is incorrectly used to erroneously give the nomenclature of sodomy to homosexual sex (from the 17th or 18th century BCE(BC) account). It does not in any way actually refer to an act of consensual sex or to sex between two individuals of the same gender at all".

"What it does refer to is an act of sexual violence and degradation and male rape. Likewise does the passage in Judges 19: 22. These are acts of VIOLENCE that are committed by parties seeking by way of sexual brutality, to show their hatred for those they are degrading. It is not an act of love or of caring, nor is it based upon sexual orientation. That some fundamentalists would see this as homosexuality speaks more to their own bias, fears, and personal issues,  than to their desire to be True to the meaning of the original text”.

 

In direct response to people’s incessant need to reference Sodom, “the Hebrew Prophet, Ezekiel, actually addresses directly the question as to what exactly was the sin of Sodom. In Ezekiel 16: 49 it states: "Behold, this was the INIQUITY of your sister Sodom; PRIDE, FULNESS OF BREAD (gluttony), AND ABUNDANCE OF IDLENESS was in her and in her daughters, NEITHER DID SHE STRENGTHEN THE HAND OF THE POOR AND NEEDY."  The sins of Sodom [in the Hebrew and context in which they were written] were - social injustice, waste, over-indulgence, and insolence. These were the crimes of Sodom. It had nothing to do with same gender relationships” !

 

Readers Digest version: Sodom has nothing to do with g ay people… Read on.

 

INSERT:

My personal question at this point?.....How is it people miss this stuff if they actually study the Bible???? And IF they actually study God’s Word, versus take the word of someone else as to what God says?… Is there such a hell bent commitment to drinking the kool-aid that one will damn anything that gets in the way???? Do people really believe they have the authority to over-ride the scripture of a prophet as it was written by the prophet? I do not understand the arrogance of that assumed authority. I can’t believe anyone would believe that… and yet I do see how it is being translated into English. [And yes, I have a whole paper on the process of translation in itself, but I digress]. This genuinely confuses me as to which is true in one’s position on this. Are people claiming a higher authority than the prophet speaking in the OT Bible? I don't genuinely believe that people would claim authority over a prophet.... so I can't figure out why the righteousness…. Seems to be one of those… hoisted  by your own petard…. kind of things?

[END INSERT}

 

Since 1994, Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill together with his  Jewish Rabbinical community, and those of Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Latin Rite linguists /scholars, in addition to an LDS (Mormon) Biblical Languages student at Emory University, studied original translations of the Hebrew, Greek and thereafter the resulting Latin texts. This study, unlike that of modern day fundamentalists, involved reviewing the various Biblical manuscripts and translations, Talmudic responses, texts and other materials collateral to the subject matter studied; e.g., history, anthropology, archaeology, philology, etymology, etc. As a result of this research and study of the actual Words, Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill states that clearly,  “THE ORIGINAL HEBREW TEXTS OF THE TORAH (the Hebrew Chumash - the Five Books of Moses,  (what fundamentalists and Christians call the Old Testament),  HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY AS WE UNDERSTAND AND USE THE WORD "HOMOSEXUALITY" today IN REPRESENTING A LOVING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TWO OF THE SAME GENDER; OR,  AS IT IS LINGUISTICALLY USED  IN TODAYS WORLD AND USE OF THIS WORD”. THE ORIGINAL HEBREW TEXTS DO NOT REFER TO A LOVING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THOSE OF THE SAME GENDER.

 

 

Okay, God’s Word in Hebrew to the Hebrew men who wrote the Words in Hebrew, had nothing to do with same gender relationships. What those words became after being drug through the issues of the various clergy, the beginnings of a new church with initially small membership,  Aramaic, to Greek to Latin, and then English is quite a different story….. Its very clear…. (and if you want to hear my Pixar After Story on how that happened… let me know)

 

Said differently, [and I am still quoting] “the original Hebrew texts of which some are the Old Testament, very clearly took issue with the cultic ritualized pagan behavior of idol worship, and that behavior had nothing to do with a same gender relationship, as it was written in the Hebrew language, spoken by God, to men who wrote in Hebrew”.

 

In the words of Hebrew scholars and Rabbis: “the text of the Hebrew Torah (from which comes Jewish Law) is as much as 3500 years old, and many of the words used then to describe people, acts, and actions are not clearly understood today”. [still quoting Hebrew scholars/Rabbinical authority] “It is easier for religious fundamentalists as they do not feel the need to understand the source of that which they use against others.  They merely take the King James English most literally as the “inerrant text of that which was given to Moses, on Mt Sinai, just as King James commanded it written”. "The scholar and Truth seeker, however, knows this is not the Truth”.

 

“One need only take a look at the latest Jewish Publication Society translation of the Torah (from Hebrew into English), and see the number of times the notation "Hebrew meaning unknown" is beside a word", 

 

Okay, hopefully that gives some level of clarity with regard to the actual Hebrew of the original scriptures:

God’s Words to the Hebrew men who wrote them, had NOTHING to do with same gender relationships. However,  I am guessing you still want to toss out a few more OT passages… It is tragic that so many brains have been washed by those who didn’t really care enough about the Word of God to actually study His actual Words, nor do they understand what God actually said. So let’s toss the most obvious choice on the table and look at Leviticus…..

 

“Within the weekly Hebrew Torah readings of Parashat Achare Mot (Leviticus 16: 1-18: 30) and Parashat Kedosheem (Leviticus 19: 1-20: 27) are found the particular verses utilized for the past sixteen centuries, by Christian fundamentalist teachers to erroneously (and seemingly almost purposefully) persecute, torture and punish a small portion of the human population”.

 

These specific verses literally read from Hebrew as follows:

 

(1) Leviticus 18: 22; which states: ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תועבה הוא "Do not lie (sexually) with a male like as you would with a woman, since this is an idolatrous perversion (תועבה TOEYVAH)".

And:

(2) Leviticus 20: 13, which states: ואיש אשר ישכב את זכר משכבי אשה תועבה עשו שניהם מות יומתו דמיהם בם "If a man has sexual intercourse with a male person, like as with a woman, they have both committed a תועבה TOEYVAH aמ idolatrous perversion. Their death is their own fault".

 

These verses were written in the Book of Leviticus originally sometime around 1350 BCE. This was a full millennium prior to Jews being in contact with a hedonistic, militant non-Semitic culture that had a Syrian-Greek-Hellenistic TOGETHER WITH a missionizing [sic] Hellenizing religious premise which was openly promiscuous. "This public display of what Jews held as sacred and private behavior is found in the very first Talmudic references to PUBLIC DISPLAYS of sexual activity, mostly by non-Jews, which in turn was an idol worshipping ritual between HETEROSEXUAL men and therein an idolatrous perversion (תועבה  TOYEVAH) of JEWISH mores and religious practice (Sanhedrin 54a) if practiced by Jews as a PUBLIC DISPLAY".

 

Quoting Rabbi and Bible scholar, Professor Jacob Milgrom, (translator and commentator of the scholarly Anchor Bible Series Translation of the Book of Leviticus, and the Jewish Publication Society Commentary on the Book of Numbers); “the ORIGINAL actual authentic Hebrew Bible Leviticus texts are referring to NON-ISRAELITE, RELIGIOUS cultic ritual sexual and sexual abuse practices that had NOTHING to do with the love found within a relationship between those of the same [gender], and that Israelites were not to imitate them in their worship of God, when they entered into the Land of Israel. It has nothing at all to do with what we today term as being homosexuality per se, but instead is a reference to CULTIC RELIGIOUS FERTILITY RITUALS practiced by HETEROSEXUAL MEN in IDOLATROUS WORSHIP. This practice neither involved the tenants of loving relationship in any sense, nor was it a comment on loving relationships between same OR opposite genders. It was an admonishment against cultic practices used to worship idols”.

 

Rabbi Faris Malik's article, “The Ancient Roman and Talmudic Definition of Natural Eunuchs,”  likewise shows that “the ancient Hebrews  referred to what we today call homosexuals by the term סריס-eunuch”. (actually there are so many other scholars who explore this similar Hebrew text, but its taken out of here as its too long for this venue). “What is the effect of this?  The effect is to show most definitely that Leviticus and Deuteronomy COULD NOT HAVE REFERRED TO HOMOSEXUALITY”, just as Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill (and about 20 others I took out quotes), long ago recited. “These passages instead refer to SEXUAL SUBSTITUTION by HETEROSEXUAL men as symbolic acts performed originally in idolatrous ceremonies”…….

(and I am leaving out a whole pattern trace by many more Rabbis who conclude the same, because its already long enough and I don’t want to lose even more people who would rather be right about others being wrong than read lol).

 

Rabbi Jacob Milgrom states that “these Leviticus texts are in reality, referring to foreign religious, cultic, ritual and promiscuous sexual practices, as practiced by the idolatrous religions of Egypt and Canaan, which in turn uses the SUBSTITUTION OF OTHERS, including relatives, animals, and members of the same sex for cultic ritual FERTILITY purposes”.

 

“The ORIGINAL LEVITICUS documents of the biblical texts are today used by the uninformed to deny a spiritual connection to God for homosexuals… yet tragically these scriptures were not in any way written to address either homosexuals or homosexuality. These documents are actually referring to a prohibition against imitating non-Israelite, foreign CULTIC sexual substitution by heterosexual men during fertility rituals; and, condemns anyone who uses substitutional and/or incestuous sex as a method of gaining Divine favor”.

(okay if I haven’t defined what is meant by terms like substitution well enough, let me know, I am trying to leave out 50 pages of documentation).

 

Rabbi Gershon Winkler writes (in the Bible Review, June 2001):

“The Jewish scriptural prohibition against heterosexual substitution is in the context of laws concerning cultic rites and rituals  performed by seven specifically named nations whose religious worship rites we were being instructed not to emulate in our worship of God” (Leviticus 18: 3, 22, 20: 13, 23; Deuteronomy 23: 18). READ THAT AGAIN PEOPLE.

“The wording; to lay with a man as with a woman, is something a true homosexual man does not do”. “The sin is about a hormonally driven heterosexual man using another man for sex, which occurred in ancient cultic religious worship among some of those very same nations that our ancestors were warned against emulating”.

“To therefore translate that prohibition, as applying to any homosexual relationship is to exit the realm of divine ordination and instead enter the realm of subjective, human fear.”

 

“The ancient Rabbis must have had some sense of this difficulty in understanding, when they ruled two thousand years ago that homosexual sexuality [relationship] is NOT included in the biblical prohibition (Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 54a-56a; Sotah 26b; Niddah 13a; Maimonides, Perush L'Mishnayot on Sanhedrin 54a)”.

 

“Hebrew Rabbis who spoke Hebrew and studied the Hebrew scriptures around the time they were written in Hebrew, ruled there was NO biblical prohibition against same [gender] relationship [and expression therein]”.

 

[Translation: do not use hormonally driven sexual practices involving the substitution of others, including family, friends and animals, as was practiced by ritualistic cults,  in the worship of the God of Israel, as this practice of hormonally driven sex with whomever is available,…. is a practice used by cultic pagans in fertility rituals and the worship of their idols, and is not to be used to gain Divine favor).

 

Again, that which is today referred as homosexual, was referred to as  סריס eunuch in Hebrew…. I am not familiar with any scripture admonishing Israel not to imitate the fertility rituals of eunuchs.

 

“This admonishment is so very clear…. The God of Israel does not want His people using the indiscriminate sexual practices of a cultic religion in the ritualistic worship of their idols, in the worship of Him. This admonishment has nothing whatsoever to do with a loving relationship between two people”.

 

 If you actually study it the way it was written, you will notice that the text of the Book of Leviticus was originally written as an instruction manual for the priestly tribe, and referred to PRIESTLY prohibitions only. The original name of the Book of Leviticus (which name comes from the Greek Septuagint) was in Hebrew "ספר תורת הכהנים SEFER TORAT HAKOHANIM" (The Instructions of the Priestly Officiants (Officiates)).

 

Among the Israelites the Priestly class was required to be קדוש  "Kadosh" (Holy; see Lev. 22: 8; Ezek. 44: 31), "set apart" from the rest of the people, just as the Sabbath and Festivals are set apart as קדוש "Holy" from the rest of weekly time.

 

During Ezra's time period (5th century BCE) this same text of Leviticus was then edited, added to, and made to apply to all the returning Jews, who were now to be a "nation of kings and priests." "You shall be Holy (קדש set apart), for I, ADONAI, your God, am Holy"(Lev. 19: 2).

 

It is clear the OT is saying, do not use indiscriminate cultic fertility rituals be they g ay or s traight, in the worship of God the Father…. I remain steadfast in my observation that it is ultimately one’s personal/your decision to embrace religious beliefs that condemn the lives of those who do not believe as do you….. and I would nonetheless caution you…. do not confuse your religious beliefs with the written Word of God as God spoke the Word, to the Israelite men who recorded it in Hebrew. Do not use your understanding against others, or  judge another by the constraints of your limited understanding and subsequent beliefs. 

 

Note in case you missed it, there is no issue taken with judging as directed by God to His people, spoken to Hebrew speaking men, recorded by Hebrew scribes in  Proto-Sinaitic script, as God's law for  His Israelite people within the boundaries of its laws and cultural meaning. The issue is with a perpetuated ignorance claiming the three times translated and twice distilled translation of God's Hebrew words into English gives people some kind of Divine authority to use the English translation of God's Hebrew Words to incorrectly judge His people. 

 

END OF FIRST ARTICLE

Stop here for complete first published response.

Next is subsequent reply in follow-up answer

 

 

 

 

 

 

Article 2: Subsequent Discussion Published in Further Reply Later Down the Road.

 

 

Yes God has a Master Plan… he wrote it in Hebrew… Very few scholars of Faith are willing to sit back and let anyone sacrifice one more soul hoping that you were able to figure it out correctly in English… 

 

Indeed, discussion about the use of the word abomination as it was written in scripture may solve some of your dilemma. Its use in original scripture is vastly different from that kidnapped and now incorrectly used in present day writing.

 

Curiously, it presently  seems to be a word some fundamentalists prefer to use (however out of context) in characterizing the behavior of others.  And yes I have to say fundamentalists in contrast to  God. In this specific case, one can’t play the "God said it"  card. He didn’t (in Hebrew), they did (in English).

 

We agree. Be clear. Take responsibility. If you are going to use God’s Words, to judge His people, then know God’s Words. You cannot on one hand be lazy in refusing to read and understand ancient scripture in ancient Hebrew, and on the other pretend to understand the full meaning of the Word of God when you are going to use it for the purpose of judging His people.

As we must so carefully point out to those who wish to know the true meaning of God’s Words, when you use His word as an index against which to judge others, and in doing so, risk the horrific possibility of turning any soul away from God, you must take responsibility for what you are saying. If it weren’t for the possible loss of one single soul to the Love of God, this discussion would not even matter. Honestly, it would not. It is so small in the world of God, yet so huge in how His Word is used against His people. To those who will not take the responsibility to study the words they use, let them at least hear that the God of Israel, the God you quote, sent His Word as it was written, in Hebrew…. Not Latin.... Not English…. 

 

So let’s discuss the word abomination and its incorrect use in many present day judgments against God’s people:

 

The Hebrew word is תועבה -TOEYVAH (abomination, detestable, idolatrously unfit, a horrible deed, a shameful vice, idolatry, idols- related to the Phoenician תעבת, derived from Old Hebrew תעבה).  

Knowledge of Hebrew shows that the words (toeyvah hee תועבה הוא), which are translated as "an abomination" or "a disgusting perversion," means much more than that. Recall from our last discussion, that Hebrew to English is like Japanese is to Cherokee.

 

“The Hebrew word TOEYVAH תועבה is used in the Torah to describe three CATEGORIES of actions in the Torah that are considered abominations or disgusting perversions.

These are (1) laws around IDOLATRY; as in Deuteronomy 17: 4; (2) laws around the eating of forbidden animal species or bodily fluids (blood, semen), as in Deuteronomy 14: 3; and (3) laws around the male cultic sexual prohibitions, as in Leviticus 18 & 20, which include incestuous relationships, bestiality, and indiscriminate sexual substitution”. (c.f., previous discussion for further clarification and definitive Hebrew reference).

 

Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill studies show that the three categories around the word TOEYVAH תועבה are, in reality, but ONE category, that of things prohibited because of their association with idolatrous worship. Thus, the word TOEYVAH תועבה (or a form of the word), is a CATEGORY of IDOLATROUS forbidden action, and is used in that manner over 100 times in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh).

 

The word TOEYVAH תועבה is used 26 times in the Torah; 2 times in Genesis; 1 time in Exodus; 6 times in Leviticus; 0 times in Numbers; and 17 times in Deuteronomy. " In all these cases it refers to a form of idolatrous indiscriminate substitution". The one time תועבה is used in Exodus (8: 22), it refers to the concept that what Israelites sacrifice is considered by the Israelites to be; an ABOMINATION, a תועבה.

 

The word TOEYVAH תועבה is in the Major Prophets 57 times. 5 times in 1 & 11 Kings, 3 times in Isaiah, 8 times in Jeremiah, 1 time in Malachi and 41 times in Ezekiel. It is not found AT ALL in the Minor Twelve Prophets.

 

In the Writings, TOEYVAH תועבה is found once in Psalms and 25 times in Proverbs. In every case that תועבה is found, it is referring to a prohibited activity centered around some concept of IDOLATRY.

 

 “Thusly,  the Hebrew word TOEYVAH  refers to a concept akin to adultery against God, by substituting the idolatrous sexual behavior of another religion's fertility practice as a method of worshipping the Israelite God; the God of Israel” 

 

As I see it, we all have a choice…. We can freely choose a translated rendition of scripture and judge others by what we believe scripture says, or we can live by the literal translation of what scripture actually does say as it was written in the Hebrew language in giving us the Hebrew Words of a Hebrew speaking God. Understood that you often hear fundamentalists proclaim that the Word of God is literal, and as you note, they in turn do not follow the literal Words of God. It is their burden and one you cannot relieve them of until their heart seeks the truth.

 

 

I would also note that we are talking OT, and have not broached the NT Words of the Hebrew Prophets. There is no prohibition in NT as well... so let me know if you want a full out translation of the NT as well; though time these days is limited.   

 

And of course it is in the NT that we find the nexus of Christianity in life and knowing God through Christ.

 

To your fundamentalist Christian friends, I would say something along the lines of “I absolutely respect your right to disagree, and in doing so would ask that you do not disrespect the Word of God by focusing upon one or two straw man sentences that you can single out to shoot down as some kind of reply.  You are invoking the Word of God, you are judging others through invocation of the Words of God, so please in the name of God, have enough respect to actually use the Words of God in the language they were spoken and written when using His Name to condemn others as your religious beliefs dictate”.

 

Tell them,  if you must call such condemnation "ministry", please at least let the people you are condemning know that the words YOU use are not the actual Hebrew Words or Concepts of God as they were written.. and instead are the Proto-Sinaitic script created by the Hebrew scribes, into Aramaic, into Greek, then Roman, into Latin and finally English.  

 

And as you note, its often said that it is not the person but the behavior that is judged. Please do not propagate the myth that you can cut up a person like some kind of psychotic Kentucky Fried Chicken, and separate the expression of their heart/emotion and God given Love, from who they are as a person.... That is who they are as a person. The Love of God is there for all, is given freely to all who seek God’s Love. Do not let your words drive away even one of His people, because you did not understand or take the time to understand what ARE HIS WORDS.  

 

Anything less than that, and you are in treacherous waters of judgment based upon false teaching in a canoe built of straw.

 

It might  also be said to any of those reading your work; please do not allow the limited understandings of some religious beliefs to tempt you into turning away from pursuing that depth of love only possible in a relationship with God. And for those who are Christian, knowing the Love of God through Christ. Let not my words or the words of any other turn you from that which is Him and His.

 

It is acceptable to remain ignorant if one does not have the time to do otherwise. However, one does not have the righteous permission to judge any other human being by the limitations of one’s understanding by simply proclaiming their authority because they read a Bible. “Woe be the man who separates but one of God’s children from Him and His Love in falsely claiming God as their authority to judge another”. שלום.

Read more: http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?/topic/145279-g-a-y-marriage/page-3#ixzz2Pdqrkl7f

[Nelg]

Raysur, you posted these articles in the other thread of G a y Marriage.  I read through them with some interest.  I agree with most of the findings concerning the Hebrew Rabbis study concerning the words relating to "homosexual" an "sodomite" that they did.  Their hermeneutics were well done, but they made a big jump in logic when they started applying the texts.  

It does not matter if the words applied to the Canaanite fertility rites, to brutal rape of man on man, the perversion is still perversion.

 

There was also an agenda on the part of the writer of blaming conservative Christians for condemning, persecuting, or judging those who chose the g a y lifestyle.  The study was begun with a bias and wound up "interpreting" instead of letting the Word of God speak for itself.  

 

I am one of those people who cares what God's Word says and I have studied the biblical languages.  Though it is useless to print the words on this sight since most cannot read the texts. I disagree with the conclusion of the writers thesis.  Homosexual relationships are a perversion of the planned purpose of God.  

 

Peace. 

[Rayzur]

Neig,

As I read this from my perspective, its  like by analogy; two medieval people discussing the facts each has about the shape of the world. And the flat world guy says to the round world guy, I think your methodology is sound but I don’t agree with your conclusions. Based on my facts the world is flat.  Such conclusion is  quite understandable in that the two groups have approached the question with the facts they have. There is no structure for the flat guy to use the facts from the round guys methodology and incorporate it into flat guy conclusions about the round guys logic. And vice versa. And there is no way the two will come to the same conclusions about the meaning of the other’s facts. They don’t see the world the same way. Both will die believing they were correct in their perspective.

 

We are the same. Like the medieval people we will each die with the belief that our distinctly different hermeneutics rendered a true, real accurate exegeses of God’s Word. There is not a platform, or structure or interpreted need in my belief system demanding that I judge the life of another individual. There just isn’t. That alone directs a different exegesis. A relationship with God is individual. God’s directives, and commandments are given to us each as individuals as to how we conduct ourselves in our relationship with Him.

 

As far as direct reply to your thoughts… wellllll…. I’m at a loss for words. I forwarded onto  Rebbe, but doubt he will reply to the specific points. With all respect, there is not really a platform for Rebbe; a scholar of ancient / Biblical Hebrew, to hummmm how do you say…., reply to a non-Hebrew speaking, non lifetime Hebrew  studying individual  of a different religion,  who replied with a non-Hebrew analysis / derived conclusion about  the logic of the  Rabbinical scholars and community thousands of years ago, to present; regarding what  Scriptures written in Biblical Hebrew said or meant. Maybe he’s got something, I just don’t see how, as there is no  platform of common understanding upon which to discuss it. And of course, it is not within practice to have an opinion as to what a non-Semitic person believes regarding their faith. Just isn’t part of any need.  

 

That said, I’m almost certain that were you to offer in kind  an analysis in Hebrew of the Hebrew words and analysis you disagree with, ……..or, your Hebrew disagreement with the logic of the Hebrew words and their meaning ….. I’m almost positive he would be interested in reading it and perhaps even respond. If you’re going to do that, maybe let me know so I can check in, before you go to a lot of trouble dealing with Hebrew and MicroSoft fonts (Mac is more friendly to that btw).

 

And I don’t understand the agenda observation.  The discussion was written as a  response,….. in replying to specific questions someone sent in. In that I’m guessing the agenda was to answer the questions. In fairness, you could probably ask what my agenda was in bringing it as a response. And I guess I would have to say that the people who speak the language and studied the language, don’t necessarily see it the same way as those reading the translation.

 

Apart from that speaking of logic,  I have to say,  it seems to be a logical leap to assume/state that only conservative Christians judge, persecute, or condemn those people who are g ay. If that is what conservative Christians do, then its what they do,…But I’m not sure that is totally definitive. From my perspective,  I really don’t think that represents all Christians (not sure how the conservative ones differ). I didn’t read anything anywhere that even implied that these attributes were specific and exclusive to conservative Christians.  Personally, again with respect, it seems you might be selling conservative Christians short or perhaps are limiting them by implying these attributes define who they are or the results of their belief system?

 

Also, I think it was pretty clearly stated  that the conclusions were not those of the author, but those of  the Rabbis, Rebbe, and scholars of Ancient / Biblical Hebrew from centuries past,  to those of the present. 

 

As for hermeneutics… you had me cracking up there…. That discussion would be an entire blog of its own. We’d probably be exiled to a different forum should that be launched in here…You and I wandering the electronic desert for 40 years….  And most certainly, while there is some overlap, without question,  Jewish and Christian hermeneutics have distinctly and clearly different approaches. Of course I agree with the written reference and indeed, you and I are kind of demonstrating that difference as we discuss this. From the  perspective, of the literal…. the grammatical-historical hermeneutics state a belief that knowing the Word of God means “nterpret[ing] each statement in light of the principles of grammar and the facts of history…… taking  each statement in its unadulterated sense, matching consistency and absent the insistence we  look further for a different  sense (of meaning).

 

And if I were to be open about it, I would say from my perspective it also seems to me that adding the word “inspired” to sensus plenior  in contrast to (literal) sensus plenior, was the means generating a solution to the problem of how early Christians were able to arrive at "non-literal" meanings of passages from the Tanakh. In so many cases it seems that whenever confronted with a hermeneutical problem caused by the literal-historical method, one would claim "inspiration” (e.g., the Apostles). That is respected and acknowledged as Divine to be sure. Its just not always spelled out as a contrast to the actual and literal Words of God.  Or indeed the actual and literal Words of God through Christ. And again, it is respected and accepted as Divine.

 

In any case its no surprise that our Biblical exegesis  would be, or could be, or is, different because of the distinctly different hermeneutics. Literal interpretation is Jewish p'shat; while typological and anagogical interpretation are specific to Christianity. While Jewish tradition teaches morals and ethics, it does not do so directly as part of textual interpretation  of scripture like Christian scholarship does. When Jews study the text they are primarily…largely asking "what does this say and mean?" And the question "what should we do in our own lives?", is an important but separate question. To the Jew, a clear directive to do something he finds morally problematic is a real dilemma, while if I understand correctly, either the situation would not arise in Christianity or the moral consideration would trump any and everything else.

 

As a final thought Neig, in approaching God’s Words as He literally spoke them, and with specific regard to the passages noted in the referenced  ‘study or thesis’, I went back and looked at them. Off the top of my head, I see the many different analyses quoted of the ancient and current Rabbis and scholars to be very logical (I’m assuming you are referencing their analysis as the “logic” you referred to in your reply?).

 

Again, from the literal perspective;

 

Discipline: Most difficulties arise in interpreting the Scriptures from neglecting a passages’ context. The guiding principle of sound interpretation is to take a passage literally (that is, in its literally used sense) unless strong reasons are present not to do so. Without such discipline, interpretation of a passage becomes so elastic that it can mean almost anything. We look at to whom was a passage written? What did it mean to it’s audience? When was it written? Under what circumstances was it written? What was the historical context? How does the passage compare with other passages the writer has written? What light do other passages shed on it?

 

Consistency: Relative to Jewish hermeneutics, there is Drash, meaning to  compare and contrast similar passages. For example, when water is parted for Moses, Joshua, Elijah and Elisha, ……they are seen as transparent overlays of the same story and context can be moved from one story to the next. Christians might notice similarities and differences between them, but from a hermeneutic approach, sharing context is practically unheard of.

 

God repeated His stories, teachings and directives over and over and over again, lest His people become lost in their journey to Him. There are transparent overlays of the same story and context carried over and over again from one story to the next. The OT passages referenced likewise have consistent transparent overlays of the same story and context repeated over and over again in them. God’s people were wandering the desert for years. They encountered many different peoples and tribes in the different cites they entered who did not worship the God of Israel. This is a very critical point. The peoples and nations encountered by the Israelites did not worship the God of Israel, the God of Abraham. They worshiped multiple gods, in pagan rituals and cultic pagan  rites with the ceremonial intention of appeasing their god(s).

The God of the Israelites very clearly, explicitly, and consistently directed His people  to worship Him as He instructed, and to not worship false gods, nor participate in rituals worshipping false gods, nor use those pagan rituals to worship Him, the God of Israel. Over and over and over again, God directed the Israelites they were not to adopt the worship practices and rituals of the non-Israelites. God spoke to His people specifically directing them every step of the way. When they encountered the people of Canaan, Egypt, and a full millennium later, Syria, Greece and the Hellenizing religious premises of openly sexual ritualistic worship of false gods, the God of Israel was very clear, over and over and over again, that the Israelite people would NOT join in these cultic practices worshipping false gods. Nor would they use these ritualistic cultic practices in worshipping the God of Israel.

 

The identity, culture  and worship practices of the Israelite people were to remain from and of the God Israel explicitly and exclusively. As part of their distinct identity from those who were not of the God of Israel, their cultural identity shunned violence, degradation, social injustice, over-indulgence and insolence. The Israelite culture and people were not to take on the cultural mores of the  non-Semitic  as their cultural identity just as they were not to worship the God of Israel through the pagan ritualistic worshipping practices including the ritualized sexual practices of the fertility rituals worshipping their gods in practices meant to result in a bountiful harvest. (its not a huge stretch to consider God knew He would be leading/ led His people through a desert with little food or water).

 

The referenced study states it very clearly: the original Hebrew texts of which some are the Old Testament, very clearly took issue with the cultic ritualized pagan behavior of idol worship. God’s people wandered the desert for decades encountering tribes, nations and cultures that were not of the God of Israel, nor did they worship the God of Israel. God did not abandon His people as they wandered in seeking Him. He was very clear as to their worship of Him, as Israelites, worshipping the God of Israel. He repeated His directives, His instructions over and over again as to how His people would worship Him, the God of Israel in worship practices exclusive to Him by His Israelite people and not in practices of other tribes, worshipping false gods.

 

The way I read it, taking a few sentences out of entire passages to focus upon, is to deny the transparent consistent message God gives His people over and over and over again. It is said by some the our God is a jealous God…. Clearly our God claims us as His.  The commandment Have NO other god before Me, in my opinion, does not well reflect the Directive or Words of God, when it is reduced to a discussion about the cultic sexual practices worshipping the false fertility gods of a non-Israelite pagan tribe.

 

And granted, my friend the distinct differences of our hermeneutics will likely render  a different focus as to the exegeses of God’s Word. It appears we both see a perversion, with one seeing it as (an extremely rare) specific cited reference to sexual practices between the same gender, with the other seeing it as a transparent consistent story  from God directing His people to abstain from the cultic ritualistic worshipping of false gods, as a means to worship Him, and to worship Him in practices exclusive to Him as the distinct God of Israel.

 

Thank God, at the end of the day, God knows the heart of the individual seeking Him, and their heart’s desire to know Him. Our God is truly an awesome God. I am grateful His Divine Wisdom transcends the pitiful limitations of my own. I respect that the depths of our convictions  from God are different regarding the exegesis of His Word in some cases. The Scholars have been discussing and debating the same for centuries, why would we be any different on DV?

And I nonetheless take comfort in sharing the common belief that it is the Words of God that direct our lives.

 

And Peace be unto you…..  

Blessings ~~~ 

[MillieChatham]

Rayzur, I thank you for your thoughtful, perspective and throughly insightful post.

[tigerstripes]

Which is the reason that there is no respect for God, His word, or marriage.  Christians do not force their belief on anyone¹.  But there is a standard of good and evil that we hold as truth; the Bible.  Whether anyone accepts that belief or not matters little when it comes to the final day of Judgment.  But I don't want government or political leaders or the politically correct forcing what they "think" and believe on me or my family².  Really, they have no chance at forcing me to believe what they do or accepting the civil joining of individuals of the same sex.  That will never happen.  They can suggest, make it a law, and announce that it is "right," but that does not make it so.  So, go ahead and suggest or even apply pressure, I could care less. 

 

1. If you're not forcing your belief on anyone, why are you opposing same sex marriage?

 

2. So government shouldn't make laws determining who is allowed to marry who then?  If someone in your family was ***, would you agree that government laws that disallow that person from marrying the one they love, would be government forcing what they think on you and your family?

 

In addition, I would respectfully suggest that the whole history of Christianity is based on forcing their beliefs on others.

(By the way, that goes for just about all religions, not just Christianity)

[Markinsa]

1. If you're not forcing your belief on anyone, why are you opposing same sex marriage?

 

2. So government shouldn't make laws determining who is allowed to marry who then?  If someone in your family was ***, would you agree that government laws that disallow that person from marrying the one they love, would be government forcing what they think on you and your family?

 

In addition, I would respectfully suggest that the whole history of Christianity is based on forcing their beliefs on others.

(By the way, that goes for just about all religions, not just Christianity)

 

I would have to say you just do not know anything about the Christian Religion, salvation is a free gift from God.  You would literrally "Have to Believe" , "Have Faith" in Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross, and his resurrection, in order to receive that gift.  If you don't believe there is no gift.  NOONE can make or force you to believe a certain way, it is impossible.  A Christian's job is to bring the good news to those who haven't heard it, it is not our job to make you believe it.

 

-

[Nelg]

Rayzur,

Wonderful post and well do.  It is now 12:15 a.m. and I have just gotten to the computer and read you post.  I'll not try to respond tonight.  I do appreciate your answer.  It was well written and to the point.  My approach to scripture is similar to yours, but I do take a Christian perspective in all hermeneutic endeavors. 

Though my day today and tomorrow is full of activities at church and Bible studies, I will try to give a brief answer to your post; or at least make comments to it. 

Thanks for being a student of the Word of God. 

Peace. 

1. If you're not forcing your belief on anyone, why are you opposing same sex marriage?

I oppose them on what I believe the Scriptures teach.  The government can do what they like. 

2. So government shouldn't make laws determining who is allowed to marry who then?  If someone in your family was ***, would you agree that government laws that disallow that person from marrying the one they love, would be government forcing what they think on you and your family?

Again, government can do what they want, it has no bearing on my faith.  Government IS a tool of the people, the government doesn't control the people of a country. 

In addition, I would respectfully suggest that the whole history of Christianity is based on forcing their beliefs on others.

(By the way, that goes for just about all religions, not just Christianity)

Many religions force their belief on individuals, but not Christianity.

It is apparent that you do not understand Christ or those who follow Him. 

[cranster]

1. If you're not forcing your belief on anyone, why are you opposing same sex marriage?

 

In addition, I would respectfully suggest that the whole history of Christianity is based on forcing their beliefs on others.

(By the way, that goes for just about all religions, not just Christianity)

I'm not sure what history you are referring to, but I think you might be referring to Islam since they are in the business of forcing their religion on others. Christians have historically evangelized, and spread the good news of Jesus Christ. To my knowledge no one has been forced to be a Christian.

[tigerstripes]

In addition, I would respectfully suggest that the whole history of Christianity is based on forcing their beliefs on others.

(By the way, that goes for just about all religions, not just Christianity)

Many religions force their belief on individuals, but not Christianity.

Read more: http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?/topic/145428-god-not-scotus-will-be-the-final-judge-on-g-ay-“marriage”/#ixzz2PlQlnrHI

 

 Um, yeah, right.

 

It is apparent that you do not understand Christ or those who follow Him. 

 

Apparently.