Checking for validity of supposed early christian gay marriage rite

Wow.... you are one pathetic troll.

Hi Ludo,Good job in this thread. You have me convinced that Leviticus really is talking about homosexual activity. From wiki:

quote:

---

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

---

Do you still think Rrhain isn't a troll?

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

Christians have a New Testament too...In our beliefs, homosexual activity is sinful but eating pork.... not so much.The basis for the belief in the sinful nature of homosexual activity might be the same as for eating pork, but there's other stuff in the Bible after that.There's nothing wrong with a christian condemning homosexuality while eating a BLT.

What is it about man-on-man sex that makes it a "toeyvah"? So it is an "abomination" but it isn't blanketly restricted? Simply different? It seems to say the are disallowed.... What's the difference between modern homosexual sex and man-on-man sex in Bible times? I easily could be. But still, it is saying that there is something bad about man-on-man sex, no?

And it says nothing about non-ritualistic man-on-man sex? If you mean talking with a lisp while having limp wrists, generally acting like a girl and saying "fabulous" a lot, then I agree.But just plain ol' butt-fucking I don't. As Christians, we have.You can fake as heavy a lisp as you want, limp your wrists to the floor, put on a dress and just be as gay as you can be and it’s no problem. "Homosexuality" is not a sin.The sin is in the sexual intercourse... the butt-fucking and cock-sucking. Don't be dumb.Here's what I wrote:

quote:

---

The passages are there to tell Jews how their ritualistic practices are different.

​

Simply different? It seems to say the are disallowed....

---

Sim*ply: -adverb
merely; only: It is simply a cold.I even italicized different to emphasize the word. And then with the context of the following sentence, you can see that I was implying that it there is something more there than just saying they are different.Is English your first language? Maybe if you didn’t chop up my post and reply to bits, you could follow.I in no way implied that being different was simple. That’s fine. I think it is talking about man-on-man sex. I see what you’re saying. I can see your point now that the passage all on its own doesn’t necessarily say that gay sex is inherently evil. It does seem to imply, at least to me, that god has something against gay sex in general as well as for ritual with it being called an abomination and all and being listed right next to other "really bad things". Or there’s more of it . .And one could be not playing dumb but just not know the background.As Christians, we believe that same-sex sex is a also sin when its outside of marriage. So, yeah, they’re both wrong. I understand your point now.I wouldn’t say that the passage refers to “homosexuality” but that it does refer to gay sex. That the ritual gay sex was an abomination doesn’t imply that non-ritual gay sex is an abomination, all on its own, but this passage does add weight to the claim that god has a problem with gay sex.Why were the pagans having sex with the priests as a ritual? What was the point? In The Da Vinci Code.

---

This is the epitome of “playing dumb” you fucking hypocrite.

You gave me no indication that you intend to honestly debate. I'll clear up some of your misunderstandings, but I won't waste my time on most of your bullshit. First off, the part where you supported your assertion.Secondly, that they did have man-on-man sex and that homos have man-on-man sex so to say that they had no concept of it is misleading.And finally, to point out how much of a douchebag you are, I could have replied:"Oh, You speak for all humanity? Strange how there are so many people that don't seem to share your interpretation of what "homosexuality" means...." Meh, not so much. That's why I fucking asked, you dumbass.You said that the passage says that they're different. I asked if you're saying that the passage just says that they're different and nothing more. Then you go off on one word out of both sentences. So fuck you, dick. I didn't. Your reading ability is remedial. That, or you do this on purpose (my suspicion).I asked if you were saying that the passage just says they are different or if there more to it than that. You could have just responded with this, but instead you’d rather be an asshole. So fuck off. “gay” is an adjective and “homosexuality” is a noun. I was assuming that there’s more to “homosexuality” that just “gay sex” but I guess I was wrong. I dunno, you’re the gay one, you tell me. Pretty much. I don’t believe that.Your position is that perfectly straight men would go buttfuck the priest as a fertility ritual and that the passage says that this man-on-man sex was an abomination but sense it was talking about it during the ritual, it isn’t referring to buttfucking outside of the ritual so therefore it isn’t saying anything at all about the modern buttfuckers of today.It seems biased to me. But then, if I was gay, I guess I’d have that bias too. Yes. Maybe when you twist the passages that reference gay sex into NOT being about gay sex like you do to the story of Lot. But you assume that people are playing dumb when they’re not.But whatever. I had an honest question that I thought you might be able to honestly answer. But it turns out that you can’t. You'd rather be an asshole. So fuck you. I’ll start ignoring you again.