It is God's will that all females be lesbians.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 9:05 pm

Leviticus 18:22 in direct translation says;

"Do not lie with a male as one would with a woman."

Many take this as meaning a man should not sleep with a man. But the passage says nothing about that, it just says "Do not lie with a male" and makes no other stipulations. Therefor, literally, females should not be sleeping with men either, as the Bible clearly says "Do not lie with a male". They should only sleep with other women.

So really the old testament does not condemn lesbianism but encourages it. In fact it is God's will that all females be lesbians.

--

I just thought that was kind of funny. I know most do not to take the Bible literally. Although, for those extreme fundamentalist, who think the Bible is be taken word for word, it would create an interesting dilemma.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:05 am

jeremyboycool wrote:Leviticus 18:22 in direct translation says;

"Do not lie with a male as one would with a woman."

Many take this as meaning a man should not sleep with a man. But the passage says nothing about that, it just says "Do not lie with a male" and makes no other stipulations. Therefor, literally, females should not be sleeping with men either, as the Bible clearly says "Do not lie with a male". They should only sleep with other women.

So really the old testament does not condemn lesbianism but encourages it. In fact it is God's will that all females be lesbians.

--

I just thought that was kind of funny. I know most do not to take the Bible literally. Although, for those extreme fundamentalist, who think the Bible is be taken word for word, it would create an interesting dilemma.

Direct from the KJV...

22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:43 am

JawZ wrote:Direct from the KJV...

Yes, I am well aware of various versions, UOD. The one I posted is suppose to be a direct translation from masoretic, though. But it really makes little difference as it reads the same in all of them.

Expect for the "abomination" part. I guess the additional "abomination", "detestable" or "enormous sin", that is found in our common English versions is not included in the masoretic text. Not exactly sure how it ended up in our versions, but that is how things work out. I suppose there might be an objective reason. Although, translations also famously suffer from subjective influences as well, especially religious text.

I suppose we'd need someone more learned to answer that one. I am somewhat curious, but the question might be a little to vague for me to Google it.

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:58 am

So, again, you've decided to create a thread purposely to irritate Christians or Jews with whom you have a problem and whose beliefs you detest because you're gay.

It's amazing how piggish the "enlightened" folk are. And Bible-believers are to be ridiculed? Myopia isn't just for the religious.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:21 am

Burke wrote:So, again, you've decided to create a thread purposely to irritate Christians or Jews with whom you have a problem and whose beliefs you detest because you're gay.

It's amazing how piggish the "enlightened" folk are. And Bible-believers are to be ridiculed? Myopia isn't just for the religious.

You are being stupid, Burke, and unless you decide to use your brain I have no interest in speaking with you.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:46 am

jeremyboycool wrote:Leviticus 18:22 in direct translation says;

"Do not lie with a male as one would with a woman."

Many take this as meaning a man should not sleep with a man. But the passage says nothing about that, it just says "Do not lie with a male" and makes no other stipulations. Therefor, literally, females should not be sleeping with men either, as the Bible clearly says "Do not lie with a male". They should only sleep with other women.

Sure if you take it out of context. The "...as one would with a woman" at the end shows its pointed towards men.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:59 am

YARDofSTUF wrote:Sure if you take it out of context. The "...as one would with a woman" at the end shows its pointed towards men.

Yes, I did take it out of context; that was kind of the point. Although, not in the sense that you mean. I took it out of the phallocentric context that the passage was written in. Obviously the passage is meant for man on man action, I was just having some semantic fun.

blebs · Post by **blebs** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:06 am

JawZ wrote:Direct from the KJV...

22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

It doesn't get any plainer then that!

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:44 pm

blebs wrote:It doesn't get any plainer then that!

Actually technically it does, especially in the case of the KJV, in which, the Old Testament was translated from masoretic text. That passages gets plainer, as it loses the "it is abomination" part.

I am still kind of curious why that part was added. But I am starting to doubt that anyone here could be objective enough to get into the nature of Biblical translations. Apparently, some of are far too hung up on the fact that it is the Bible.

Leatherneck · Post by **Leatherneck** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:25 pm

jeremyboycool wrote:Actually technically it does, especially in the case of the KJV, in which, the Old Testament was translated from masoretic text. That passages gets plainer, as it loses the "it is abomination" part.

I am still kind of curious why that part was added. But I am starting to doubt that anyone here could be objective enough to get into the nature of Biblical translations. Apparently, some of are far too hung up on the fact that it is the Bible.

I think it only takes a fair amount of intelligence and plain 'ol self to realize what the meaning is.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:44 pm

Leatherneck wrote:I think it only takes a fair amount of intelligence and plain 'ol self to realize what the meaning is.

Well, yes, I know that, I was just joking around. Which I thought I made clear here....

jeremyboycool wrote:Yes, I did take it out of context; that was kind of the point. Although, not in the sense that you mean. I took it out of the phallocentric context that the passage was written in. Obviously the passage is meant for man on man action, I was just having some semantic fun.

Man, some of you just can't take a joke.

Rivas · Post by **Rivas** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:46 pm

ummmmm what's the point of this thread ?

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:49 pm

Rivas wrote:ummmmm what's the point of this thread ?

It was just a post of something I found humorous.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:59 pm

I am beginning to think Downhill had the right idea. This place just may not be worth the effort anymore.

Leatherneck · Post by **Leatherneck** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:28 pm

A good number of us have been discussing the same topics for over 10 years! It was a hoot for a while, but been kind of slow as of late.

satyre · Post by **satyre** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:37 pm

I am not after what it says in the Bible or Quran or any other religion.

I consider all of them are cults started by one person like big corporations such as Coke or Pepsi or GE or Ford. They all want to dominate the world. Most of the things written in the Bible are fables and myths. You can argue anyway want but I stop it here.

However, I have one observation from my life.

I see more lesbians in the world than gay men. Probably two times as gay men. Anybody has any hypothesis for that differentiation?

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:38 pm

jeremyboycool wrote:I am beginning to think Downhill had the right idea. This place just may not be worth the effort anymore.

Or you're not as funny as you thought.

It didn't come across as joke.

Leatherneck · Post by **Leatherneck** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:58 pm

satyre wrote:However, I have one observation from my life.

I see more lesbians in the world than gay men. Probably two times as gay men. Anybody has any hypothesis for that differentiation?

While your first statement perhaps refers to a disbelief in a "God" some how, some "thing" sure caused the Human female to be mighty attractive. Most other species it is the male that exhibits such beauty.

satyre · Post by **satyre** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:14 pm

"..Most other species it is the male that exhibits such beauty."

I absolutely agree with that fact.

So, more lesbians because Human males are not attractive as their counterparts?

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:32 pm

YARDofSTUF wrote:Or you're not as funny as you thought.

It didn't come across as joke.

"Or you're not as funny as you thought."

That's a good chance. Although, the religious website I visit received it well.

But I am just getting tried of always trying to censor homosexuality and religion out of my posts around here, because people are too sensitive to those subjects. Far too many fabulous gays or religious jokes have been unheard because people around here think I am working some type of secret agenda. It should be apparent to people around here, by now, that I have no problem openly speaking my mind and I don't work in covert operations.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:44 pm

Leatherneck wrote:While your first statement perhaps refers to a disbelief in a "God" some how, some "thing" sure caused the Human female to be mighty attractive. Most other species it is the male that exhibits such beauty.

It's just your sexual orientation. In my eyes human female beauty pales next to male beauty. The male human form is just gorgeous, it is the most beautiful thing on the planet. In my eyes nothing else even comes close.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:47 pm

jeremyboycool wrote: I don't work in covert operations.

hell ! I thought you did !
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:16 pm

jeremyboycool wrote:But I am just getting tried of always trying to censor homosexuality and religion out of my posts around here, because people are too sensitive to those subjects.

So don't censor it. But as most of your religious posts have been of a serious nature, don't expect people to assume your joking or using humor when you make a post like this.

Maybe add some smiley faces, word it easier to be taken as a joke, or just out right say it.

Leatherneck · Post by **Leatherneck** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:42 pm

jeremyboycool wrote:...it is the most beautiful thing on the planet. In my eyes nothing else even comes close.

You might change your mind if you ever catch a 10lb large mouth bass on a top water plug!

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:47 pm

YARDofSTUF wrote:So don't censor it. But as most of your religious posts have been of a serious nature, don't expect people to assume your joking or using humor when you make a post like this.

Maybe add some smiley faces, word it easier to be taken as a joke, or just out right say it.

Sometimes jokes work out and sometimes they don't. That is just the nature of humor. You are right though, I should have been more ready for this reaction.

I think I am just going to continue to post however I see fit, and try not worry too much about what others think. You can't please everyone all the time, and I am just not going to try. If that causes too much of a problem here, then I simply won't post here anymore.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 6:01 pm

jeremyboycool wrote:It's just your sexual orientation. In my eyes human female beauty pales next to male beauty. The male human form is just gorgeous, it is the most beautiful thing on the planet. In my eyes nothing else even comes close.

LOL

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 6:09 pm

Dan wrote:

LOL

Good grief! LOL

Although, when compared to this..

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 6:13 pm

jeremyboycool wrote:Good grief! LOL

Although, when compared to this..

well hold on ! she might look good in a thong ,4" stilettos, and a wet tank top !

just havin' fun.

Shinobi · Post by **Shinobi** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:34 pm

jeremyboycool wrote:Yes, I am well aware of various versions, UOD. The one I posted is suppose to be a direct translation from masoretic, though. But it really makes little difference as it reads the same in all of them.

Expect for the "abomination" part. I guess the additional "abomination", "detestable" or "enormous sin", that is found in our common English versions is not included in the masoretic text. Not exactly sure how it ended up in our versions, but that is how things work out. I suppose there might be an objective reason. Although, translations also famously suffer from subjective influences as well, especially religious text.

I suppose we'd need someone more learned to answer that one. I am somewhat curious, but the question might be a little to vague for me to Google it.

I believe in the bible, but I have always "supported" friends regardless of their sexual orientation. I'll be honest, I don't like what you posted and I feel your post was trying to be a slap in the face to people who believe. I know there are people out there, who hide behind the Bible and say all people who are this way and that way are "sinners" and are going to "hell" and should be condemed (and sadly even "beaten"), but that is 100% wrong and I have said that to many people over the years. Think of me, and other people who believe in the Holy Bible like me, who are on "your side" and "in your corner" before posting, please.

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:59 pm

jeremyboycool wrote:Well, yes, I know that, I was just joking around. Which I thought I made clear here....

Man, some of you just can't take a joke.

Your joke failed miserably. First you question Burke's comment about you trying to instigate trouble and then you state that you purposely made a misleading statement. Might want to get your story straight.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:29 pm

I don't care any more guys. And I am not going to argue it, as it is stupid to argue about. I will say whatever I want about whatever religion I want to. If you have problem with that put me on ignore.

If this is unacceptable, as deemed by staff, then I simply will not post here.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:34 pm

I think that is my best approach, and is completely rational and fair.

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:35 pm

jeremyboycool wrote:I think that is my best approach, and is completely rational and fair.

No one is denying your right to make a remark. You are just getting called on the fact you purposely did it to instigate things. Why you called Burke stupid is beyond me.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:42 pm

Roody wrote:No one is denying your right to make a remark. You are just getting called on the fact you purposely did it to instigate things. Why you called Burke stupid is beyond me.

Roody, think whatever you want, I just don't care anymore. It is not worth the effort or time.

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:44 pm

jeremyboycool wrote:I just don't care anymore. It is not worth the effort or time.

So you are responding why?

satyre · Post by **satyre** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 9:03 pm

Shinobi wrote:...... people who believe in the Holy Bible like me...........

I have to say stories you read in the bible are just fabricated miracles and lies just to seduce people to join the cult of that Jewish person. He started a group under his last name called, Christianity. Two thousand years ago, it was very easy to inculcate an idea and take control of a human mind.

Have you seen the great magician in the US. I forgot his name, he often appears in Larry King. If he were a dishonest person, he could have started a religion under his name like Chiristanity or Islam or Buddhism or Jainism just by showing his miraculous illusionary tricks. In fact he could have very well started a religion, like Jesus did, by showing tricks, which we can call miracles when we don’t know how it happens. He could get 10 or 20 helpers in his show as his disciples to spread his message around the world and write up a big book like Bible or Quaran. Before civilization, it was easy, but now it is not that easy to establish one like Jesus did.

Jesus Christ, Mohamad, Budha, Jain, Guru Nanak so on, are all philosophers and knew how to take control of mass population. The basic modus operandi of these people were the same; that is, scare the subjects, shatter their confidence and confuse them, then take control of their mind to follow the leader.

These religious leaders are the fundamental cause of all the problems in the world today. You and I are suffering because of their ego.

The Mohamad’s ideology is to spread his religion and convert everyone on Earth to Islam. You will never see peace in the middle East and that fight will never end.

Shinobi · Post by **Shinobi** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:00 pm

satyre wrote:I have to say stories you read in the bible are just fabricated miracles and lies just to seduce people to join the cult of that Jewish person. He started a group under his last name called, Christianity. Two thousand years ago, it was very easy to inculcate an idea and take control of a human mind.

Have you seen the great magician in the US. I forgot his name, he often appears in Larry King. If he were a dishonest person, he could have started a religion under his name like Chiristanity or Islam or Buddhism or Jainism just by showing his miraculous illusionary tricks. In fact he could have very well started a religion, like Jesus did, by showing tricks, which we can call miracles when we don’t know how it happens. He could get 10 or 20 helpers in his show as his disciples to spread his message around the world and write up a big book like Bible or Quaran. Before civilization, it was easy, but now it is not that easy to establish one like Jesus did.

Jesus Christ, Mohamad, Budha, Jain, Guru Nanak so on, are all philosophers and knew how to take control of mass population. The basic modus operandi of these people were the same; that is, scare the subjects, shatter their confidence and confuse them, then take control of their mind to follow the leader.

These religious leaders are the fundamental cause of all the problems in the world today. You and I are suffering because of their ego.

The Mohamad’s ideology is to spread his religion and convert everyone on Earth to Islam. You will never see peace in the middle East and that fight will never end.

I was replying to poster of the thread, I was not looking for a so called "history lesson" combined with your "personal" views and feelings. I believe in the holy bible and I believe there is a God. I do not "push" what I believe on other people because I feel, that I am not on a "level" per se to do so, although if someone asks about the bible and God I will always tell them that reading the Bible and praying to God has always helped me in my Life.

I also know that there are things that happen or did happen in life that I cannot explain... things that are really "out there" that I will never understand, but things that I experience in my life is proof enough for me, and I believe in the Holy Bible and that there is a God, and that.. is all that I will comment in this thread. One last thing.. I think Jeremy is a good guy, I just wanted to let him know that I did not like the post.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:01 pm

Roody wrote:So you are responding why?

What do you mean? I didn't say I was going to stop taking to you, Roody. I am just gonna try not to worry too much about your opinion of me.

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:05 pm

jeremyboycool wrote:What do you mean? I didn't say I was going to stop taking to you, Roody. I am just gonna try not to worry too much about your opinion of me.

Jeremy the way I see it you are overreacting here. I may disagree with you on some things, but I feel you and I get along well enough. We may come from two very different backgrounds, but that doesn't mean we can't get along. For all the contempt you feel the world of religion brings on you I have not seen any evidence to suggest you haven't been as full of contempt for believers as those who disagree with your beliefs have shown to you. At least when it comes to SG. I can't speak for your experiences outside of here.

Humboldt · Post by **Humboldt** » Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:45 pm

satyre wrote: I see more lesbians in the world than gay men. Probably two times as gay men. Anybody has any hypothesis for that differentiation?

To a certain degree I assume it's that lesbians are more socially accepted than gay men.

If that's true, even if the ratios were similar you'd see more closet men than women. Driven by the thought they'd be castigated by family, peers, employers?