Attempt to override the constitutional amendment process

[Legion]

In context Legion, this is referring to sex with an animal. That doesn't have to do with the context of raping a man as if he were a woman. As I said before, this translation fits the story of Soddom and Gomorrah quite well.

Oh in context it does but leviticus 20:13 just is out of context with itself and the rest of leviticus 20.

Its fun watching you take stabs in the dark.

I assume you mean mankind, but I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at. I never said that "to lay with" didn't mean sex. I said that in the context of that scripture regarding a man laying with another man, it can be translated to mean rape. Rape is sex of course, but I distinguished one by being consensual and the other as not.

And you would be completely wrong.

Notice the passage before from the SAME BIBLE differientiats between MAN and MANKIND.

There isn't ANYTHING in the context of leviticus to suggest what you are thinking. Infact the word used to define MALE was zakar. A word that ONLY MEANS MALE.

Like i said you are stabbing in the dark.

In the bible, a man who commits adultery can be spared while the woman is stoned. The bible says thou shalt not kill, yet it says if your children disobey, you can stone them. People say the bible supports monogamy, yet one of the greatest jewish kings, Solomon, had 700 wives and concubines, and was blessed by god.

Notice all of those instances involve people at fault Natoma. The case you are trying to make is that the VICTIM is being murdered as well. Adultery and disobedience are the alledged misconduct.

The bible full of contradictions? You don't say? Never.

So is your horribly ass backwards logic.

-btw here are your passages from Romans

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Joe, I'm going to just address this one bit and I'm through. I've repeatedly pointed out your use of the rolls eyes emoticon in the very post in which you demanded an apology.

Did I roll-eyes at you at the specific request, or at some other point in that post, not releated to the direct apology offer?

You knew this was inflammatory to me at that point in time, yet you chose to use it. You've repeatedly failed to address this when I bring it up. Hardly what I would describe as creating an amiable tone condusive toward mutual apologies (an apology you did not deserve, IMO).

Right...insults I make deserve to be deleted, but ones you make aren't worthy of apologizing for. Got it.

 

[Natoma]

Ok this is really getting ridiculous. I'm going to make two short points and be done with this since you can't seem to be able to refrain from unnecessary insults and attacks. :?

In the bible, a man who commits adultery can be spared while the woman is stoned. The bible says thou shalt not kill, yet it says if your children disobey, you can stone them. People say the bible supports monogamy, yet one of the greatest jewish kings, Solomon, had 700 wives and concubines, and was blessed by god.

Notice all of those instances involve people at fault Natoma. The case you are trying to make is that the VICTIM is being murdered as well. Adultery and disobedience are the alledged misconduct.

The beast is commanded to be put to death is it not? It didn't do anything wrong by being sexed by a human did it?

The bible is chock full of contradictions and unfairness. In several scriptures it supports slavery by telling the slave to obey his master. It says nothing about the "goodness" of slavery whatsoever, and that was used to justify slavery by 19th century slave masters. Trying to find logic and consistency in the bible is near impossible, especially since it's been translated through at least 7 different languages over thousands of years, some of which are dead languages today or have no context in the time period in which they were spoken.

The bible full of contradictions? You don't say? Never.

So is your horribly ass backwards logic.

-btw here are your passages from Romans

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Romans was written by Paul, as I said earlier.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Don't worry, the act will likely get shot down in committee. And if by some act of divine intervention it doesn't, I can't see it getting past the House or Senate.

I'm actually hoping it makes it to Congress, I want this to get as much publicity as possible to help and show everyone Bush's true colors!

To Natoma & Legion- Y'all do realize to the agnostic amongst us you guys arguing theology is AWFULLY silly looking!

 

[Legion]

Ok this is really getting ridiculous. I'm going to make two short points and be done with this since you can't seem to be able to refrain from unnecessary insults and attacks. :?

just like you can't make a solid argument?

The beast is commanded to be put to death is it not? It didn't do anything wrong by being sexed by a human did it?

Natoma...a beast...isn't human. Are humans sacrificed? No. Are animals? Yes. There you have enough reason to discern there are different standards for humans and animals.

The bible is chock full of contradictions and unfairness.

However you can't admit their treatments of homosexuals are one of them.

In several scriptures it supports slavery by telling the slave to obey his master. It says nothing about the "goodness" of slavery whatsoever, and that was used to justify slavery by 19th century slave masters. Trying to find logic and consistency in the bible is near impossible, especially since it's been translated through at least 7 different languages over thousands of years, some of which are dead languages today or have no context in the time period in which they were spoken.

This is an extremely weak and irrelevant argument. Our topic is regarding the Laws of Leviticus 20 which following in consistancy punishing the guilty and not the victim. There isn't even the slightest context to assume Leviticus 20:13 is refering to rape. Not even a shread. I have given you the hebrew defintions of the words concerned and you have obviously brushed those matters aside in place of your relativist argument you think proves something.

Romans was written by Paul, as I said earlier.

And it is in the bible validating the consistancy of beliefs wrt homosexuality. I am sorry, you can't just dismiss it because it hurts your argument.

 

[Legion]

Don't worry, the act will likely get shot down in committee. And if by some act of divine intervention it doesn't, I can't see it getting past the House or Senate.

I'm actually hoping it makes it to Congress, I want this to get as much publicity as possible to help and show everyone Bush's true colors!

To Natoma & Legion- Y'all do realize to the agnostic amongst us you guys arguing theology is AWFULLY silly looking!

are matter concerning religion and the religious beneath you?

 

[digitalwanderer]

are matter concerning religion and the religious beneath you?

Yup, I got enough real things to worry about in life...watching people take fairy tales all serious like that actually just kind of makes me sad for our race.

 

[Natoma]

The beast is commanded to be put to death is it not? It didn't do anything wrong by being sexed by a human did it?

Natoma...a beast...isn't human. Are humans sacrificed? No. Are animals? Yes. There you have enough reason to discern there are different standards for humans and animals.

Abraham was commanded by god to kill his son Isaac as a sacrifice. It was stopped, but the tenor of the story does show that human sacrifice at the time was not necessarily uncommon. And Jesus? He was certainly sacrificed. You need to read up on your bible stories.

The bible is chock full of contradictions and unfairness.

However you can't admit their treatments of homosexuals are one of them.

Huh? Where are you getting this? I said that there are translation problems with the bible.

In several scriptures it supports slavery by telling the slave to obey his master. It says nothing about the "goodness" of slavery whatsoever, and that was used to justify slavery by 19th century slave masters. Trying to find logic and consistency in the bible is near impossible, especially since it's been translated through at least 7 different languages over thousands of years, some of which are dead languages today or have no context in the time period in which they were spoken.

This is an extremely weak and irrelevant argument. Our topic is regarding the Laws of Leviticus 20 which following in consistancy punishing the guilty and not the victim. There isn't even the slightest context to assume Leviticus 20:13 is refering to rape. Not even a shread. I have given you the hebrew defintions of the words concerned and you have obviously brushed those matters aside in place of your relativist argument you think proves something.

Qal and Niphal also count "to seize sexually" or "to be seized sexually" among their definitions, which can mean rape, i.e. forced sex. As I said initially, there are problems with the translations.

Now, given the status of women at the time, i.e. property, it is actually pretty easy to see the definition as possibly meaning rape of another man by a man, as if he were a woman, being the abomination. Because in later scriptures if you're a man and you rape a woman, it's not necessarily an abomination. You have to compensate the father or husband for your transgression, but it is seen as an economic/property issue, not necessarily a moral issue. The whole reason for a bowery in more recent cultures was because the woman was seen as property. And of course it doesn't get into talking about a woman with a woman in leviticus, only a man with a man, as a woman. Notice that women are only punished sexually for "misdeeds" with men, but no mention of other women. Could it be that the property status of women during this time shields them from woman/woman transgressions? Quite possibly.

But anyway, this doesn't get passed the fact that since you entered this thread you have been nothing but derisive and insulting. It's not conducive to a good discussion and I'm not dealing with it.

Romans was written by Paul, as I said earlier.

And it is in the bible validating the consistancy of beliefs wrt homosexuality. I am sorry, you can't just dismiss it because it hurts your argument.

Legion, Romans was written by Paul, who condemned everything. I'm dismissing it because he was against everything, just as leviticus is against everything. One can't just pick and choose because it suits them. That's why I don't practice christianity anymore, because I like Pork, and I like fish on fridays, and I like men, and I don't believe that the world was created in 6 literal days when science refutes that, etc etc etc.

 

[akira888]

If I recall my church history correctly, the catholic church was the only christian church in europe after the schism, until the rise of protestantism in the 1500s. All of the current denominations of christianity basically came out of protestantism separation.

Eastern Orthodoxy?

Eastern Orthodoxy was based out of Turkey [sic] was it not? I didn't consider that as part of europe when making my statement.

Cute Natoma. Real, real cute.

 

[Natoma]

I think you lost me akira?

 

[RussSchultz]

Abraham was commanded by god to kill his son Isaac as a sacrifice. It was stopped, but the tenor of the story does show that human sacrifice at the time was not necessarily uncommon. And Jesus? He was certainly sacrificed. You need to read up on your bible stories

Human sacrifice does not fit in the Judaic scheme of things. It was not part of the scheme of atonement.

That God asked Abraham to sacrifice his own child was to make a point, and was an aberration. As was Jesus.

 

[akira888]

Oh. Well, then never mind.

BTW, "Turkey" is the name of a modern nation state, not the historical name for the region (think "Israel"). The indigenous Orthodox people in the region who lived there in peace for 10000 years have nothing to do whatsoever with the modern Turkish Islamic inhabitants of the region, who are the descendents of invaders from Central Asia who exterminated en masse those aforementioned Orthodox peoples in Anatolia from 1071-1460. Basically, exactly what we did to the Indians here.

 

[Legion]

Abraham was commanded by god to kill his son Isaac as a sacrifice. It was stopped, but the tenor of the story does show that human sacrifice at the time was not necessarily uncommon. And Jesus? He was certainly sacrificed. You need to read up on your bible stories.

The first point is irrelevant as it was a test of Abraham.

Second Christians do not look at Jesus as a human sacrifice.

Qal and Niphal also count "to seize sexually" or "to be seized sexually" among their definitions, which can mean rape, i.e. forced sex. As I said initially, there are problems with the translations.

Now, given the status of women at the time, i.e. property, it is actually pretty easy to see the definition as possibly meaning rape of another man by a man, as if he were a woman, being the abomination.

Actually this doesn't make much sense and you are adding a great deal of context by changing the wording. There is no reason to believe there are problems as during the times of the ancient hebrews homosexuality was consider outside of God's will to procreate as well as associated with pagan practice.

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

if we superimpose rape upon lie then the statement becomes paradoxical.

You argument completely ignores rape is dicussed in other sections of the bible and often condones it for a set number of reasons but is generally considered wrong.


Also, it defies other obvious commandments from God such as procreation.

Because in later scriptures if you're a man and you rape a woman, it's not necessarily an abomination. You have to compensate the father or husband for your transgression, but it is seen as an economic/property issue, not necessarily a moral issue.

This is very much evidence against your argument.

Infact the only manner in which you can make the argument you are is by making numerous assumptions which have no grounds to make. For example your take on the Saddam and Gomorah story as being male rape and not simple homosexuality.

The whole reason for a bowery in more recent cultures was because the woman was seen as property. And of course it doesn't get into talking about a woman with a woman in leviticus, only a man with a man, as a woman. Notice that women are only punished sexually for "misdeeds" with men, but no mention of other women. Could it be that the property status of women during this time shields them from woman/woman transgressions? Quite possibly.

You are both right and wrong. Women were not the general focus of most of the laws. This howerver does not substatiate your beliefs wirth regards to rape. Infact, as i pointed out before, there is nothing in the context of that sentence to suggest rape at all. Your choice of using Qal and Hiphil to mean rape is selective. Men, during those times, who were penetrated by another man were looked down apon as women. This ought to tell you the law was more than likely refering to homosexuality and not male rape.

But anyway, this doesn't get passed the fact that since you entered this thread you have been nothing but derisive and insulting. It's not conducive to a good discussion and I'm not dealing with it.

No, it certainly doesn't get by that fact nor does it dismiss your playing semantic/contextual games in order to justify a position which is far left field and does not sit as consistant with the bible.

Legion, Romans was written by Paul, who condemned everything.

Irrelevant. His teachings greatly influenced the later church. This is a valid reason which suggests your belief that the pope condoned homosexual marriage is patently false.

I'm dismissing it because he was against everything, just as leviticus is against everything.

Then why not dismiss leviticus and admit your argument is souly based on a unbiblical perception. This seems to be where you are heading.

One can't just pick and choose because it suits them.

Which is exactly what you are doing with regards to your translation of lev 20:13. You are altering the wording and context as it suits you though all the other laws use the same terminology.

 

[Natoma]

Abraham was commanded by god to kill his son Isaac as a sacrifice. It was stopped, but the tenor of the story does show that human sacrifice at the time was not necessarily uncommon. And Jesus? He was certainly sacrificed. You need to read up on your bible stories

Human sacrifice does not fit in the Judaic scheme of things. It was not part of the scheme of atonement.

That God asked Abraham to sacrifice his own child was to make a point, and was an aberration. As was Jesus.

Oh I don't know about atonement per se, but human sacrifices did occur in the OT, sometimes in cases of war once a people were defeated. I did a search on my Bible CD-ROM for "human sacrifice" and these were some of the scriptures it returned.

Judges 11:29-40
II Kings 16:3
II Kings 21:6
I Kings 13:1-2
II Kings 17:17
Jeremiah 7:31

 

[Natoma]

Oh. Well, then never mind.

Uh ok.

* Natoma backs away slowly in fear.......

BTW, "Turkey" is the name of a modern nation state, not the historical name for the region (think "Israel"). The indigenous Orthodox people in the region who lived there in peace for 10000 years have nothing to do whatsoever with the modern Turkish Islamic inhabitants of the region, who are the descendents of invaders from Central Asia who exterminated en masse those aforementioned Orthodox peoples in Anatolia from 1071-1460. Basically, exactly what we did to the Indians here.

ic. Well you know more about this than I.

 

[Legion]

Abraham was commanded by god to kill his son Isaac as a sacrifice. It was stopped, but the tenor of the story does show that human sacrifice at the time was not necessarily uncommon. And Jesus? He was certainly sacrificed. You need to read up on your bible stories

Irrelevant. It likewise shows the behavior was not acceptable in the eyes of God.

The behavior was indeed practiced at the time by a number of cultures (including Egyptians) however the Hebrews were against this behavior. This is easily gathered from scripture as human sacrifce enrages God (II Kings).

Oh I don't know about atonement per se, but human sacrifices did occur in the OT, sometimes in cases of war once a people were defeated. I did a search on my Bible CD-ROM for "human sacrifice" and these were some of the scriptures it returned.

I would say Russ is correct.


Judges 11:29-40

29 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon.
30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,
31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
32 So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands.
33 And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.
34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.
36 And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.
37 And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.
38 And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.
39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,
40 That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.

What does this have to do with human sacrifice?

II Kings 16:3

Behold, I will take away the posterity of Baasha, and the posterity of his house; and will make thy house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat.

I don't see sacrifice mentioned anywhere.

II Kings 21:6

6 And he made his son pass through the fire, and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.

This was not at all accepted by the Lord. Infact, it angered him.

I Kings 13:1-2

1 And, behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the word of the LORD unto Bethel: and Jeroboam stood by the altar to burn incense.
2 And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee.

Burning bones is an act of human sacrifice? What does burning bones refer to?

II Kings 17:17

17 And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.

Likewise defined as wickedness by God

Jeremiah 7:31

31 And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.

This verse is clearly against human sacrifice.


It seems to me you just ran bible and human sacrifice through google.

 

[Natoma]

Qal and Niphal also count "to seize sexually" or "to be seized sexually" among their definitions, which can mean rape, i.e. forced sex. As I said initially, there are problems with the translations.

Now, given the status of women at the time, i.e. property, it is actually pretty easy to see the definition as possibly meaning rape of another man by a man, as if he were a woman, being the abomination.

Actually this doesn't make much sense and you are adding a great deal of context by changing the wording. There is no reason to believe there are problems as during the times of the ancient hebrews homosexuality was consider outside of God's will to procreate as well as associated with pagan practice.

Legion, all translations change the wording of the original word into their native language. Besides, there are a lot of things that occur in the bible that stem from pagan practices.

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

if we superimpose rape upon lie then the statement becomes paradoxical.

You argument completely ignores rape is dicussed in other sections of the bible and often condones it for a set number of reasons but is generally considered wrong.

Also, it defies other obvious commandments from God such as procreation.

How is it paradoxical? If a man forces another man to have sex, as he would force a woman to have sex, they have committed abomination. That is one way to read it, and I don't see the paradox.

God does tell mankind to go forth and multiply, but god also gives the scripture that thou shalt not kill, and in other scriptures tells the israelites to pillage and burn and destroy their enemies completely. Of course, some think this is thou shalt not murder, not kill, which would not necessarily be contradictory in translation. There are other scriptures that seemingly defy prior commandments.

And of course, if we get into the writings of the New Testament, one can say that Jesus just did away with the rules of the OT, defying them by his new dispensation, i.e. love, rather than the old dispensation of law. So it depends on how you want to look at it, as I said in my original post in these matters.

Because in later scriptures if you're a man and you rape a woman, it's not necessarily an abomination. You have to compensate the father or husband for your transgression, but it is seen as an economic/property issue, not necessarily a moral issue.

This is very much evidence against your argument.

Infact the only manner in which you can make the argument you are is by making numerous assumptions which have no grounds to make. For example your take on the Saddam and Gomorah story as being male rape and not simple homosexuality.

The term, "to know" has any number of translations as well. The scene at Lot's house in Genesis is of a mob of men who came "to know" the angels. Does that mean merely sex, or does it mean they wanted to basically, uhm, gang bang then angels? Lot's description in the bible seems to be of someone who was terrified, which leads me to believe that they were there to rape the angels.

The whole reason for a bowery in more recent cultures was because the woman was seen as property. And of course it doesn't get into talking about a woman with a woman in leviticus, only a man with a man, as a woman. Notice that women are only punished sexually for "misdeeds" with men, but no mention of other women. Could it be that the property status of women during this time shields them from woman/woman transgressions? Quite possibly.

You are both right and wrong. Women were not the general focus of most of the laws. This howerver does not substatiate your beliefs wirth regards to rape. Infact, as i pointed out before, there is nothing in the context of that sentence to suggest rape at all. Your choice of using Qal and Hiphil to mean rape is selective. Men, during those times, who were penetrated by another man were looked down apon as women. This ought to tell you the law was more than likely refering to homosexuality and not male rape.

Legion, the point is that you could use either Qal or Niphal and it would work as well. I don't know what the original used word was. Do you?

Also, where do you get that men who were penetrated were looked down upon as women? I don't recall that part.

Legion, Romans was written by Paul, who condemned everything.

Irrelevant. His teachings greatly influenced the later church. This is a valid reason which suggests your belief that the pope condoned homosexual marriage is patently false.

Legion I never said that the Pope condoned or didn't condone those early marriages. I said that I didn't know, and frankly neither do you.

I'm dismissing it because he was against everything, just as leviticus is against everything.

Then why not dismiss leviticus and admit your argument is souly based on a unbiblical perception. This seems to be where you are heading.

All I said from the very beginning was that there were translation problems. Some translate the texts to mean one thing, others translate it to mean another. There are various versions of the bible that one can look at, i.e. Old English, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, Modern English, and Greek.

 

[pax]

Small addendum here is that the hebrew word used in the commandments is indeed kill. Not murder. If God (or the original author for you agnostics) had meant murder and authored or desired to inspire the following writers who wrote up the various laws such as leviticus to showcase valid reasons for killing he would have used thou shall not -murder-.

The very least here is that the bible had more than one author with more than one agenda. Whether you consider one of those authors divine or not.

 

[Natoma]

Judges 11:29-40

29 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon.
30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,
31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
32 So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands.
33 And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.
34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.
36 And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.
37 And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.
38 And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.
39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,
40 That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.

What does this have to do with human sacrifice?

Jephthah slaughtered the people of Ammon in the name of the lord.

II Kings 16:3

Behold, I will take away the posterity of Baasha, and the posterity of his house; and will make thy house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat.

I don't see sacrifice mentioned anywhere.

Actually II Kings 16:3 says "But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel." And nowhere does it say that god was angry with him for this particular act.

II Kings 21:6

6 And he made his son pass through the fire, and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.

This was not at all accepted by the Lord. Infact, it angered him.

The sacrifice? Not necessarily. In fact it seems like the spells and wizards and graven images, spoken about in the next verse, could have easily angered god

I Kings 13:1-2

1 And, behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the word of the LORD unto Bethel: and Jeroboam stood by the altar to burn incense.
2 And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee.

Burning bones is an act of human sacrifice? What does burning bones refer to?

The priests were being offered as well as the bones to be burnt upon the altar.

II Kings 17:17

17 And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.

Likewise defined as wickedness by God

No it says that they sent their sons and daughters into the fire. Then it says that they sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the lord, to provoke the lord to anger. Is this any different than those that let themselves fall into a reprobate mindset? Is it necessarily a condemnation of human sacrifice? No.

Jeremiah 7:31

31 And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.

This verse is clearly against human sacrifice.

It just says that he commanded them to not burn their sons and daughters in this instance. It doesn't say that this is a wholesale condemnation of human sacrifice.

It seems to me you just ran bible and human sacrifice through google.

A search engine, be it on the internet or a CD-ROM, is a search engine. Anyway, this is moot. I've said from the beginning that these are translation problems. You and I disagree on this matter, and frankly biblical scholars disagree on this and many other matters of the bible.

What did I say on the last page to you? Translation problems can lead to problems in deciphering the contextual meaning of the text. You're trying to say that it must be this way and cannot be taken in any other way shape or form, and I'm saying that's not necessarily true. That is all I've said from the very beginning.

 

[Legion]

Legion, all translations change the wording of the original word into their native language. Besides, there are a lot of things that occur in the bible that stem from pagan practices.

Lets try not to be ridiculous. They change the word to a word following the same meaning. WRT to the context within the rest of leviticus 20 i'd say the the current translation hold consistant.

How is it paradoxical? If a man forces another man to have sex, as he would force a woman to have sex, they have committed abomination. That is one way to read it, and I don't see the paradox.

I really don't see why. Rape was not an accpeted behavior in the OT. Hense the OT provides ways to redeem oneself.

God does tell mankind to go forth and multiply, but god also gives the scripture that thou shalt not kill, and in other scriptures tells the israelites to pillage and burn and destroy their enemies completely.

No. He states though shall not commit murder. There is a great difference.

let us also not forget characters such as Onan were killed by God for refusing to procreate.

Of course, some think this is thou shalt not murder, not kill, which would not necessarily be contradictory in translation. There are other scriptures that seemingly defy prior commandments.

seemingly in the sense of how you can misconstrue them. It is very much like those who reject killing in self defense as you are infact killing. Though we legally recognize murder as an entirely different matter.

And of course, if we get into the writings of the New Testament, one can say that Jesus just did away with the rules of the OT, defying them by his new dispensation, i.e. love, rather than the old dispensation of law. So it depends on how you want to look at it, as I said in my original post in these matters.

Of course we could but that would rely on Jesus being the real messiah from the start. I'd have to say evidence would be firmly against his messiah-hood from the get go.

The term, "to know" has any number of translations as well.

That is why we have the magical concepts of literary and historical context which we can apply to the verses in order to better understand their meaning. DO to the ancient hebrews disgust with homosexuality and the over all negative references to such behavior throughout the bible and the retaining consistancy within lev 20 i'd say its a pretty safe assumption to make the verse indicates all homosexual behavior and not just male rape.

The scene at Lot's house in Genesis is of a mob of men who came "to know" the angels. Does that mean merely sex, or does it mean they wanted to basically, uhm, gang bang then angels? Lot's description in the bible seems to be of someone who was terrified, which leads me to believe that they were there to rape the angels.

I would say it inherently implies both but you are misconstruing it, without historical context, to be suggesting only male rape. In order to do this you'd have to completely ignore the emphasis of procreation and constructs regarding masculinity. We also know those people within Babylon practiced saddamy which was a before defined as male/male sex.

Legion, the point is that you could use either Qal or Niphal and it would work as well. I don't know what the original used word was. Do you?

Again this is why we have literary and historical context.

If you do not know what the original terminology was then you must admitt your argument isn't based on any sound reasoning. It is outside the vast majority of religious thought and it is not corroborated anywhere else in the bible.

Infact your "evidence" is nothing more than a silent indicator of your circular reasoning. IN order for the Saddam and Gomorah story to be an indicator of your assumption you must first operate with the assumption lev 20 only refers to male rape.

Also, where do you get that men who were penetrated were looked down upon as women? I don't recall that part.

Then i'd suggest you do external research into the historical treatment of gays by the hebrews dating all the way up to the times of the alledged jesus.

Legion I never said that the Pope condoned or didn't condone those early marriages. I said that I didn't know, and frankly neither do you.

No, i do not know for a fact but there inlies the beauty of context. We know that the NT was heavily against homosexuality. If the Pope were attempting to keep with the thinking of the time then he would indeed be against the practice of saddamy. Let us not forget throughout the Catholic churches' they condemn many men and woman of the practice of saddamy. This includes the infamous Marquis De Sade.

All I said from the very beginning was that there were translation problems. Some translate the texts to mean one thing, others translate it to mean another. There are various versions of the bible that one can look at, i.e. Old English, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, Modern English, and Greek.

You assert there are translation problems but do not relate them to the nature of this very discussion. You haven't provided a single shread of evidence to suggest that this passages were mistranslated. You just go from post to post assert this very issue as though it were fact without the slightest grounds.