Originally posted by vistesdOk, i apologize for the harsh tones of my text, I don't know why i came across as particularly harsh, this is not my intent. There is one other way of determining, that of historical context, i.e. other usages of the same term. How is the term veanshei (rendered in my interlinear as mortals) in English as men in Genesis 19:4, used elsewhere?
There is nothing that you say here that I really disagree with, except for the statement that my argument is strictly lexical, ignoring context. It’s just that the context does not support singling out homosexual rape as the crime here (and certainly not homosexuality per se, even if one were to assume that all the “men” [ishim, males] of Sodom were ...[text shortened]... is not specified, it cannot simply be inferred, and then fed back into the exegesis as context.
http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/veanshei_582.htm
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo apologies necessary! I didn't take even your tone as harsh (and hopefully mine isn't either; let's just say that we're using tones of "surety" ). No, we're fine, there, old friend.
Ok, i apologize for the harsh tones of my text, I don't know why i came across as particularly harsh, this is not my intent. There is one other way of determining, that of historical context, i.e. other usages of the same term. How is the term veanshei (rendered in my interlinear as mortals) in English as men in Genesis 19:4, used elsewhere?
http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/veanshei_582.htm
I agree about digging deeper into that Hebrew term. I have drawn on what I take as scholarly sources there, but I should do my own word search. That will take some time. For now, not to put you off, I am going to enjoy some time visiting with my wife this evening (who is weary now of me reading our back-and-forth out loud to her).
Originally posted by vistesdI would recommend not reading it to her to prevent landing in divorce court. 😏
No apologies necessary! I didn't take even your tone as harsh (and hopefully mine isn't either; let's just say that we're using tones of "surety" ). No, we're fine, there, old friend.
I agree about digging deeper into that Hebrew term. I have drawn on what I take as scholarly sources there, but I should do my own word search. That will take some time ...[text shortened]... y wife this evening (who is weary now of me reading our back-and-forth out loud to her).
Originally posted by vistesdgive the lady my regards 🙂
No apologies necessary! I didn't take even your tone as harsh (and hopefully mine isn't either; let's just say that we're using tones of "surety" ). No, we're fine, there, old friend.
I agree about digging deeper into that Hebrew term. I have drawn on what I take as scholarly sources there, but I should do my own word search. That will take some time ...[text shortened]... y wife this evening (who is weary now of me reading our back-and-forth out loud to her).
4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThanks, done.
give the lady my regards 🙂
Thanks also for the research asignment. 🙁 There are 161 verses in the Tanach with the word enoshey,* that is, just that form, without considering the singular (and I think there should be another plural form, but I might be wrong)! I have just listed them so far.
* Our transliterations might differ, but that is not unusual as there is no consistent rule (sometimes I just pick one of the ones I've seen; sometimes I just do my own when I can--unfortunately I still need the vowel-points to do that!). The v', though, is the prefix for "and", which is attached to the word in Hebrew. I have run into problems with word-searching on that score before, because the "and" becomes an actual prefix rather than a separate word.
____________________________________
EDIT: Oh my! There are 110 hits for enoshim! :'(
I've heard a theory that people who protest the most about something is because they have an undue fear of it (Homophobia for example) or maybe they have a hidden desire to partake in it themselves. My personal reason to have issue with homosexuality is because it seems to go against nature and it is not natural because if all did it then the species would not continue for one thing. I believe in a designer who made male and female or what then is the purpose of even having male or female? However I believe Christians or so called Christians treatment of gay's is at times horrendous. The signs " God hates Fags" and all yet these who do this are they not under the same or worse condemnation ? Love your fellow humans be an example of love not of hate as this is the message of Christ.
Manny
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfieBecause homosexuality is condemned in scripture. Besides, they don't have the faculty to think for themselves.
im still confused as to why the people on here who are calling homosexuals unnatural and therefore wrong, are not also denouncing all other unnatural human activities. why is it only homosexuals that are being singled out?
Originally posted by stellspalfiebecause the anus is not designed for penetration, physiologically therefore homosexuality is unnatural and irrational. Let you produce a shred of evidence trio the contrary.
im still confused as to why the people on here who are calling homosexuals unnatural and therefore wrong, are not also denouncing all other unnatural human activities. why is it only homosexuals that are being singled out?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobieso your problem is irrational behavior?!?!?! do you extend this to all irrational behavior or just homosexuality?
I am not condemning anything, i am merely pointing out that homosexuality is physiologically unnatural and therefore irrational.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by menace71Ok well apart from the obvious issue with trying to divide the world into natural and unnatural
I've heard a theory that people who protest the most about something is because they have an undue fear of it (Homophobia for example) or maybe they have a hidden desire to partake in it themselves. My personal reason to have issue with homosexuality is because it seems to go against nature and it is not natural because if all did it then the species would ...[text shortened]... r fellow humans be an example of love not of hate as this is the message of Christ.
Manny
and then committing the naturalistic fallacy of saying that "nature good, un-nature bad"....
I have to bring you up on your reasoning the homosexuality is inherently bad from a species standpoint.
First it should be said that evolution is a messy process which can result in what look like harmful traits
being perpetuated either because it's a common copying error or because the slightly harmful genes are
attached to incredibly helpful ones and they come as a package.
However. In species such as ours (ones where considerable effort goes into raising offspring) it can be beneficial
for a tribal (extended family group) to grow without necessarily increasing the number of breeding individuals.
For example having more warriors and resource gatherers to help support the young and their mothers.
In particular it could be beneficial to have big strong males to back up the alpha male but not compete with him
for the females. Thus having younger brothers who are gay and thus don't compete for the females but will
help back up the alpha male could be an advantage. the group is more peaceful and stable which helps it keep
social cohesion and it makes evolutionary sense as siblings share an awful lot of DNA so by helping each other
they increase the chances of their genetic materiel being passed on without actually needing to all individually
reproduce.
Now as it happens it does appear that your chances (as a male) of being gay increases significantly the more older
brothers you have. And there is also a reasonable amount of evidence pointing to reductions in testosterone hormone
levels in successive pregnancies in mothers being the cause.
This leads to younger brothers being more likely to be gay and less likely to compete with the elder brothers for females.
Now I can't tell you that the above is actually what happened, that to a certain degree homosexuality was actually selected for.
But what I hope you can see is that evolution CAN select for traits that seem harmful to an individuals reproduction chances
as long as it improves the groups reproduction chances because the group shares an awful lot of the same DNA.
This topic is comprehensively dealt with in Dawkins "The Selfish Gene".