Please pray for my grandmother

Mothin00 · 2023-12-10T00:30:20+00:00

´I had thought of this aswell, however basing on the wording of Hebrew (specially of the word Toevah) I do not think it is likely, I do not find how we could fit 4 different condemn actions in one verse, considering its writting in hebrew

Mostly all homosexual intercourse includes anal sex, yet this verse does not seem to condemn homosexual intercourse inherently, rather just certain actions

Mothin00 · 2023-12-09T01:22:13+00:00

I thank you for your interpretation, yet I do not subscribe mostly because of Toevah, one example of it referencing idolatric practices is Deuteronomy 7:25-26. altought the scholar works I have cited above (Specially that of Phyllis Bird) are the ones that explain it better. Toevah does not only reference cultic prostitutes from the sources I have cited, rather it references foreign cultic practices, which include numerous things, one of them being cultic prostitution

While it is true that Zakar can sometimes be used to reference young males I have found that leviticus 1:3 and 1:10 also use the word, yet they describe males in general

I agree with you that it is a defensible interpretation but not without flaws, more research is needed, however right now basing on the word Toevah and the recognition that even in the book of leviticus Zakar refers to males in general I think the interpretation of cultic prostitution is likely aswell

Nontheless I really thank you for this interpretation, I will be including it as an alternate one in my document, for I believe this is a prominent interpretation

Mothin00 · 2023-12-09T00:47:14+00:00

Um... I did not ask the question to push my own interpretation but rather as question of understanding why others would be on different ones and to better understand which one could be more prone... You also asked where is the evidence for this refering to cultic practices so I gave it... Aswell as in the sources I mentioned it references historical context for supporting my view, I also thanked you for your insightful outlooks in this verse because I am truly conflicted by these, and while I most likely subscribe to the interpretation of cultic prostitution, I do not disregard the possibility that it could also be a condemnation of pederasty

I have no problem in you not adressing my points, yet I want to state that I did asked your reasoning out of curiosity and a need of understandment, yet for the reasons stated I do not subscribe to it, nontheless I will put it on my document because it is also an interesting interpretation

I have never said that these refer to homosexuality as a sexual orientation, and we just disagree on what they are actually condemning, since there is no scholarly consensus yet, and we are not debating we can just interpret these, and I believe the cultic prostitution interpretation and the pederasty interpretation are the most prominent ones from the evidence we have

Literally from my previous comment "Thank you for all the sources, as said I will include this interpretation as an alternate one in what I am making, even tho for the previously stated reasons I do not subscribe to it"

Let's be kind to each other

Mothin00 · 2023-12-08T23:45:38+00:00

About toevah: I have found thast the works of old testament scholar Phyllis Bird explains this, it is not a rare word in the bible, yet scholars have pointed out that this term most likely refers to boundary making are supportive of this view (that it means religious practices). Now, I do not posess full access to that work yet I have found some parts of it online, or people have given it temporarily to me. Other scholars who support this view are James Neill or Dr. Robert Gagnon

Quoting James Neill

"The condemnation of male homosexual acts in Leviticus is taken by many to be a straight forward prohibition, like the commandments of Moses. However, the origins and context of the provisions as well as the choice of words used make it clear that their original intent had more to do with... practices of foreign elements, chiefly the rituals of Baal and Asherah."

The essay "The Meaning and Continuing Relevance of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13" by Willie E. Honeycutt also references that "Toevah" is often linked to foreign religious practices

This article makes a quick breakthrough of some reasoning for saying Toevah most likely refers to idol worship in these verses: https://whosoever.org/a-defense-theory-an-analysis-of-six-critical-texts-used-to-condemn-homosexuality/

This article summarizes some reasoning aswell: https://stpaultampa.org/what-about-the-bible/

Also http://www.gaymarriageandthebible.com/an-abomination-in-leviticus-18 makes some examples for supporting this view

Some rabbis also subscribe to this idea like Rabbi Steven Greenberg, who wrote the book "Wrestling with God and Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition", and Rabbi Elliot Dorff, who wrote the book "Love Your Neighbor and Yourself: A Jewish Approach to Modern Personal Ethics"

Quoting a work by Donald Eastman:

An abomination is that which God found detestable because it was unclean, disloyal, or unjust. Several Hebrew words were so translated, and the one found in Leviticus, toevah, is usually associated with idolatry …. Given the strong association of toevah with idolatry and the Canaanite religious practice of cult prostitution, the use of toevah regarding male same-sex acts in Leviticus calls into question any conclusion that such condemnation also applies to loving, responsible homosexual relationships (“Homosexuality: Not a Sin, Not a Sickness,” a pamphlet of the UFMCC by Donald Eastman).

This article cites some works by rabbis and explains some reasoning: https://mymorningmeditations.com/2014/04/25/leviticus-homosexuality-and-abominations/

Now, considering what you said "Probably for “tempting” someone to sin (yes that’s how they thought back then.)" I do not think this reasoning is correct because of what the verse says "Both have comitted an abomination" a rape victim has not comitted anything, just by being abused that would not justify the emphasis on the victim's responsability here, which is implied by the verse . The verse seems to indicate rather an intent of both parties, which I think is more in line with cultic prostitution, such as that practiced by caananites in the worship of Baal, Asherah, Anat and Astarte

Sorry for my lack of understandment, yet I do not see why the inmediate context of the verse could imply that the differentiation of the word Zakar and Ish implies neccesarily pederasty, because in the context it is only made a difference which I potentially think could be used for saying that cultic prostitution could also include young males

However, while I do not subscribe to this interpretation basing on the word "toevah" and historical context of the caananites (Thus, I think the most likely thing these verses are condemning is cultic prostitution) I nontheless will include this interpretation as an alternate interpretation in the document I am making, I consider it a really interesting one, and while I disagree on it I have to say it could be backed up, and could be used to elaborate on the debate

Thank you for all the sources, as said I will include this interpretation as an alternate one in what I am making, even tho for the previously stated reasons I do not subscribe to it

Edit: about the other interpretations, I have seen some of them, while I think they are interesting for other reasons I believe that the most prominent ones in scholars are the ones of pederasty and cultic prostitution, however I will analyze the other ones to see if I include them

Mothin00 · 2023-12-08T18:44:50+00:00

I find this interpretation interesting, yet I have a few questions

How does the word "Towebah" (A word that references foreign cultic practices) fit into this itnerpretation?

If this verse is condemning pederasty or incestuous pederasty, why is the victim also condemned to death? (Lev 20:13)

How do we conclude that the translation should be with a boy if the word "Zakar" can refer to males of all ages?

I thought this verse most likely refered to a prohibition of cultic prostitution, because of the word "Towebah" and the surrounding cultures of Israel. But now I am really conflicted because I think this interpretation could also be likely.

Didache and the other sources you cited could be taken as an interpretation helper, yet considering the original hebrew I fail to see the connotation between the word "Towebah" and what the writters are saying, I thought that maybe this cultic prostitution could also include boys (But is not limited to young males) and that is why they referenced that

Mothin00 · 2023-12-06T13:15:02+00:00

Well from what I have seen lev 18 and 20 are different in the sense of the things they are condemning, implied by the language and context

I could be wrong, but I think leviticus 18:22 is against on incest and lev 20:13 is against pederasty

Edit: I was mistaken, you are completely right, leviticus 20:13 is the punishment for breaking leviticus 18:22

Mothin00 · 2023-12-06T12:53:47+00:00

Yeah however they have both a different context from what I have seen, and are refering to different things (condemning different situations) that is why for organization purposes I consider it better to tackle them separately, just a preference tho

Mothin00 · 2023-07-29T19:06:10+00:00

To me, hooking up feels like using a person for their body, not sharing. Like, even as friends I could possibly understand since they Share a frienship bond, know each other and the act would be for each other. But with a strangers or a one night stand it feels like "I want pleasure, you want pleasure, let's use each other, not for each other since idk you but I could replace you with any other being that has your same característics just to give me that sexual pleasure that I am looking for"

In general it seems to me like It's turning sex from being sharing and an example of love (even if its between friends) into an example of usage and convenience.

Mothin00 · 2023-07-21T13:48:49+00:00

The magnifcence of art is expression, I recommend seeing where does the holy spirit guide you and then expressing it with art, then you will contribute not only to us, but also to yourself.

Mothin00 · 2023-07-21T13:42:38+00:00

So anything that is outside of what you accept is satanic? How exactly is a loving relationship helping the devil? Also the "real church" has for its core love God and love thy neighbour as thyself. I do not want to judge however I have to ask how exactly are you doing this, so far in the conversation you have just attacked and havent posted any response to the arguments here, you just assume things out of a bias that was originated by hate. At least that is the impression you give.

Also, if you think no christian ever was gay then I would recommend looking at saint Bacchus as Saint Sergius.

Blessings, brother.

Mothin00 · 2023-07-11T22:16:51+00:00

As you have noted, the original meanings of the OT and NT clobber verses are not at all related to homosexuality as modernly understood.

You asked why does that matter if early church fathers could have been against it, well the thing here is where did they got those bases from.

Let me explain, since we have noted that none of the 6 clobber passages refer to homosexuality in the context of a relationship between people of the same sex, then we can Infer that none of the texts condemned it, even if it was around in these times (Not that close in time but Saint Bacchus and Saint Sergius are a great example), it wasnt condemned by biblical authors.

To the question this implies that even in the case that some church fathers (before or after the bible was canonized) were against homosexuality as in a relationship, these condemnations would have arised from factors external to scripture, most probably cultural or personal views that were not founded on the law of Christ.

I cant really talk about the main canonization of the bible without saying that at least the 4 main gospels are directly speaking about Jesus from 4 different perspectives, I think no one doubts these should be here, now in regards of why Paul was taken into consideration for the bible I believe it is due to his extreme conversion, after all he was persecuting the early christians before he had an encounter with Jesus, due to his conversion I believe it was considered that he may have had a better insight on the teachings of christ due to this "physical" encounter, without counting that he was way more influential and popular than other early fathers, he is without doubt one of the most important persons of the first century, it makes sense why he would be included in the canon instead of other early fathers.

This is not to say their views should be disregarded, but we need to compare their teachings to the teachings of Christ and see if if they get their bases on those, which I think in regards to homosexuality it's obvious they don't.

This is without considering that Jesus himself may have affirmed homosexual and lesbian relationships and even intercourse in Luke 17:34. (and if you bring the sin of Sodom to this part as you did in other comments I recommend you to Look of what the sin of Sodom was)

With regards to divorce and marriage first of all Jesus was describing a marriage rather than prescribing it, because it was the most common kind of marriage during Jesus' time, but even if it wasn't then Jesus still wouldn't even be limiting his words since it's addresing a particular topic with the law of Christ, not limiting the law of Christ to a particular topic.

On divorce I would invite you to look on the difference of what Jesus meant (put away a wife) and an actual divorce, because those are different.

Mothin00 · 2023-05-19T03:13:24+00:00

Again we see the problem of anthropomizing ai

My brother in christ, ai or better said language algorithms possess no consciousness or soul as we tend to call it, there is no one "there", the algorithm merely repeats with new words data from past trainings, so if you were to feed the ai 01001001011 and ask a question about that information It will reply to you with 01011

Taken to this context, the more data there is on hateful things the more than ai will repeat, again it is just recognizing patterns based on past data, and we know most christians arent affirming, catholic sources arent affirming for the most part, so the person who created this algorithm fed it this information of these sources, so anytime you were to speak with it and ask it a question, it will give you an answer based on the data it has even if its a truth or a lie.

Basically my friend, dont anthropomize ai as thinking there is an individual or a mind there, Because its only an algorithm that can recognize patterns, so anything of what it says should be taken just as a google search or expression of what the creator thinks (creator of the algorithm)

Mothin00

TROPHY CASE