Notice the cross on this guy's neck. The girl too had a cross but I didn't
want to display it because it was right on her breast.
This is for the Islamphobics and the Islam-hating Christian media out there. My sincere apologies to the good Jews and Christians.
I do LOVE the good Jews and Christians and I have nothing against them.
| The Good Book of Love: Sex in the Bible documentary
film. (available here) Listen to the narration (audio file). (91 seconds) Interpretation Voice of:
My rebuttal to Shamoun's and
Katz' "Osama's Dirty Lies" absurd and self-refuting article. |
More elaborations and proofs are further down in the article.
Why do I use "pornful" instead of "porn-full"?
Jesus lusted after Mary Magdalene!
X-Rated Pornography in the Bible:
The sections of this article are:
1- X-Rated Pornography in the Bible:
Some Jews and Christians claim that the praised graphical pornography in the Bible is actually a conversation between a husband and his wife. They know well that claiming otherwise would bring total shame to the gospel of porn, because of the (literally) x-rated and low-life graphical pornography. There is ample evidence that prove their claim to be bogus and desperate. Let us look at this example from the many below:
Song of Songs 8:1-3 "If only you were to me like a brother, who was nursed at my mother's breasts! Then, if I found you outside, I would kiss you, and no one would despise me. I would lead you and bring you to my mother's house-- she who has taught me. I would give you spiced wine to drink [i.e., her vagina's semen!], the nectar of my pomegranates. His left arm is under my head and his right arm embraces me."
She wished if he was her brother so that she wouldn't have to take him home in secret. Now if he was truly her husband, then what would prompt her to wish that he was her brother? Were husbands back then not allowed to live with their wives? If so, how did they then consummate and have children and raise generations and societies? Were they allowed to live with each others for a while?
The obvious answer, that only the ashamed people from the Jews and Christians would deny, is that the "lover" was NOT her husband, and she was not his wife.
Further more, according to "Sex in the Bible" documentary film, the two were "a maiden (virgin) and her lover" and not
husband and wife. Listen to this for yourself.
"maiden" means virgin; an unmarried woman; a single
girl, etc...
From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=maiden%20:
maid·en
n.
The bottom line is:
The graphical pornography in the gospel of porn (the bible) is quite devastating and
unjustifiable. The book's followers have to literally resort to lying in order
to minimize the moral damage and denigration that this corrupt book teaches and causes.
2- Women's breasts are important sexual objects:
The Bible in numerous places teaches us about women's breasts and talks about them at the same time it is talking about sexual fantasies and intercourse.
Comparing the sister's breasts to the size of the towers: Let us look at the following verses: "We have a young sister, and her breasts are not yet grown. What shall we do for our sister for the day she is spoken for? (Song of Songs 8:8)" and later about the sister....."I am a wall, and my breasts are like towers. Thus I have become in his eyes like one bringing contentment. (Song of Songs 8:10)"
Let us look at Song of Songs 4:5 "Your two breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle that browse among the lilies."
Let us look at Proverbs 5:19 "A loving doe, a graceful deer, may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love." Could it be meant to say "may her breasts sexually satisfy you"?
Let us look at Song of Songs 1:13 "My lover is to me a sachet of myrrh resting between my breasts."
Praising the bed that they had sex on: Let us look at Song of Songs 1:16 "How handsome you are, my lover! Oh, how charming! And our bed is verdant"
Having sex all night long: Let us look at Proverbs 7:18 "Come, let's drink (i.e., perhaps it includes drink and swallow semen) deep of love till morning; let's enjoy ourselves with love!"
Let us look at Song of Songs 1:2-4 "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth-- for your love is more delightful than wine. Pleasing is the fragrance of your perfumes; your name is like perfume poured out. No wonder the maidens love you! Take me away with you--let us hurry! Let the king bring me into his chambers. We rejoice and delight in you; we will praise your love (i.e., semen) more than wine. How right they are to adore you!" I don't think this would be appropriate for a kid under 18 to read. Also, I don't think it is appropriate to have such open sexuality in a divine book anyway.
His right arm sexually feeling her body: Let us look at Song of Songs 2:6 "His left arm is under my head, and his right arm embraces me."
Let us look at Song of Songs 3:4 "Scarcely had I passed them when I found the one my heart loves. I held him and would not let him go till I had brought him to my mother's house, to the room of the one who conceived me." So in other words, she was not married to him, and when she found him, she took him back to her bed room to have illegal sex with him? If she were married to him, she wouldn't take him to her "mother's house". She would take him to their house.
Let us look at Song of Songs 3:10 "Its posts he made of silver, its base of gold. Its seat was upholstered with purple, its interior lovingly inlaid by the daughters of Jerusalem." Why does the Bible teach young men to spend all of their time and effort to try to impress all of the girls in their town so they can possibly end in bed with them?
3- Fantasizing about a girl he calls his "sister". Her vagina tastes like wine for him. And they had sex all night long. After he satisfied her really good, she wished if he were her brother (her biological brother nursed by her "mother's breast" as she said) so she doesn't have to take him home secretly:
Note: Even though she may not be his biological sister, but calling her a "sister" in a pornographic and sick situation as shown in details below is not proper, and may suggest that the sick pervert would fantasize about his biological sister if he had one.
Let us look at Song of Songs 4:9 "You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride; you have stolen my heart with one glance of your eyes, with one jewel of your necklace." Fantasizing about his sister? at least he shows in this verse that he would!.
Let us look at Song of Songs 4:10 "How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride! How much more pleasing is your love than wine, and the fragrance of your perfume than any spice!" Making love to his own sister? "pleasing is your love (making???) than wine"?
Let us look at Song of Songs 4:12 "You are a garden locked up, my sister, my bride; you are a spring enclosed, a sealed fountain."
Sleeping with his sister: Let us look at Song of Songs 5:4 "I slept but my heart was awake. Listen! My lover is knocking: 'Open to me, my sister, my darling, my dove, my flawless one. My head is drenched with dew, my hair with the dampness of the night.' I have taken off my robe (i.e., he showed his penis to her. Underwears didn't exist back then!) must I put it on again? I have washed my feet, must I soil them again? My lover thrust his hand through the latch-opening; my heart began to pound for him." What a disgusting way for someone to talk so pervertly about his sister like that!!.
Let us look at Song of Songs 5:8 "O daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you-- if you find my lover, what will you tell him? Tell him I am faint with love." Teaching women to be sexually too open.
His sister's vagina tastes like "wine":
"How beautiful your sandaled feet, O prince's
daughter! Your graceful legs are like jewels, the work of a craftsman's
hands. Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine.
Your waist is a mound of wheat encircled by lilies. Your breasts are like two fawns,
twins of a gazelle. Your neck is like an ivory tower. Your eyes are the pools
of Heshbon by the gate of Bath Rabbi.
.......
I said 'I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit.' May your
breasts be like the clusters of the vine, the fragrance of your breath like apples,
and your mouth like the best wine. (The NIV Bible, Song
of Songs 7:1-4, 8-9)"
According to the documentary film "Sex in the Bible" on A&E TV Station, the Hebrew translation to "Your naval" is referring to the woman's VAGINA. This was sent to me by my dear brother in Islam Mike who embraced Islam just recently; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.
| The Good Book of Love: Sex in the Bible documentary
film. (available here) Listen to the narration (audio file). (91 seconds) Interpretation Voice of:
My rebuttal to Shamoun's and
Katz' "Osama's Dirty Lies" absurd and self-refuting article. |
Having sex all night long with that sister: Let us look at Song of Songs 7:11 "Come, my lover, let us go to the countryside, let us spend the night in the villages." And make love all night long?
She wished if he were her brother, so she doesn't have to take him home with her in secret. He must have satisfied her really good!! Let us look at Song of Songs 8:1-3 "If only you were to me like a brother, who was nursed at my mother's breasts! Then, if I found you outside, I would kiss you, and no one would despise me. I would lead you and bring you to my mother's house-- she who has taught me. I would give you spiced wine to drink [i.e., her vagina's semen!], the nectar of my pomegranates. His left arm is under my head and his right arm embraces me." She wished if he were her biological brother so she can take him home without a secret and there he can have sex with her all the time!
To all of you girls who have brothers out there:
If you have a very attractive brother, please don't follow the gospel of porn's advise and to try to sleep with him in bed!! Ok?
Few more points to notice from Song of Songs 8:1-3
verse above:
1- She wished if her boyfriend/lover was her actual brother so she wouldn't have to take him home in secret.
2- She would sleep with her own brother.
3- She would kiss him publicly.
4- She wants him to feel her body.
5- She wants him to do her all night long!
6- Her wanting to kiss him publicly clearly means that the Bible's *holy* slut is so horny and so turned on that she having him at home doing her all night long is not enough. THEY HAVE TO MAKE OUT PUBLICLY TOO.
What more pornography and sick trash do you want? Even today's internet pornography have not yet gone down to the filthy level of brothers and sisters sleeping with each others. That's how sick and pervert the Bible really is.
Another AUDIO FILE of her and her "lover" having sex in the field.
Important Note: If you don't call the above garbage "pornography", then what else would you call it? It wouldn't surprise me to see Christians end up one day sleeping with their sisters, as Christian men are marrying men and Christian women are marrying women in California, USA.
It wouldn't surprise me to see brothers committing adultery with their sisters especially since the Bible seems to allow them to do it anyway (any sister with a stud brother who was nursed by her "mother's breasts"), especially if they both live over at their mother's home.
I am not being sarcastic!
Please visit The Bible claims that Sarah (Isaac's mother) was Abraham's biological sister.
4- The entire Bible is corrupted anyway according to its Theologians!
We must know that the Bible can not be trusted. Let us look at what the Theologians and Historians of the NIV Bible wrote about the Books of Song of Songs and Proverbs:
* Please be advised that the Bibliography of the NIV Bible that I used is listed at the end of this article. I used the latest version of the NIV Bible.
About the book of Song of Songs: "Verse 1 appears to ascribe authorship to Solomon. Solomon is referred to seven times, and several verses speak of the 'king', but whether he was the author remains an open question. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 997)"
About the book of Proverbs: "Although the book begins with a title ascribing the proverbs to Solomon, it is clear from later chapters that he was not the only author of the book. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 935)"
As we clearly see, no one knows who wrote the porn-full book of Song of Songs, and the book of Proverbs. How can you claim that the books were indeed all revealed by GOD Almighty? If you're not sure, and you still insist on your claim, then you are committing a crime against GOD Almighty's Revelations.
(www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm)
The NIV Bible Theologians and Historians also commented on other books of the Bible to be corrupted by the scribes:
"...portions of the book were probably added by scribes or editors from later periods of Israel's history... (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 183)"
The Jewish scribes had very badly corrupted the Bible and turned it into a big lie. That is why GOD Almighty said:
"`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"
"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"
In either translation above, we clearly see that the Bible has too many narrated stories and man-made cultural laws that were inserted into it that were not Divine Revelations from GOD Almighty. The following sites have tons of details that prove that [1], [2], [3], [4].
It's quite obvious that the Bible is more like a man made cultural book than a divine book that is meant to be for all times and all places. Anyway, the Bible was not even written by its original authors. That is why you see things such as "And Moses went up to the mountain...." instead of "And I [Moses] went up to the mountain....", or "And Jesus said to Matthew...." instead of "And Jesus said to me [Matthew]...." Most of the Books and Gospels of the Bible were written by third party people that were not even chosen by GOD, which makes the Bible just a cultural history book rather than a divine book from GOD Almighty. Please see Question #3 to see why Allah Almighty allowed for the Bible of today to be corrupted.
5- Christians practicing pornography and sodomy. Apparently they think it's ok to do it!
Notice the cross on this guy's neck. The girl too had a cross
but I didn't
want to display it because it was right on her breast.
All I did was go to a search engine (I won't say which one) and typed "Christian Porn" and found this picture. I don't go out and seek pornography for I am (1) a married person and very dearly respect and love my Wife; and (2) I am a good Muslim, and sexual sinning is considered a crime against Allah Almighty.
But I wanted to prove a point, that X-Rated Pornography is not only common in the Bible, but also common among Christians.
I am a strong believer that the person's behaviors in life are influenced by the way he was brought up and the things he/she believes in. Since open sexuality and pornography are so high among the Christian society (with all my respect for you), could it be that Christians don't see the Bible as a book that really prohibits such acts? or could it be that Christians see high pornography in the Bible and think it is ok to do it?
Most Christian women wear (occasionally or often) mini skirts that expose 90% of their legs to the public, wear bikinis that expose 90% of their entire bodies to the public, go to bars and night clubs where Satan is having a great time there and watch movies that have inappropriate sexual fantasies scenes in it, such as a boyfriend making love to his girlfriend, etc....
Most Christian men have no problem looking lustfully at other women, going to clubs and bars in a hope to get laid with some woman someday and watch movies that have inappropriate sexual fantasies scenes in it, such as a boyfriend making love to his girlfriend, etc....
My question is then, if you are a Christian that fits in the above categories, then what makes you think that you are any better than the guy and the girl above in the picture who are practicing pornography?
ATTENTION! PLEASE READ BEFORE EMAILING ME:
My dear friends, I keep receiving continuous emails from Christians telling me that I can't judge Christianity from the two sinners above. Well, please DO NOT misunderstand my point here. I am not that ridiculous to judge an entire religion from some worthless picture like the one above. I was only proving a point that Christians have no problem sinning. There are millions of Christians out there who would do what the two above are doing. Just like there are millions of Christian women who have no problem exposing 99% of their bodies to the public by wearing bikinis in beaches. Just like there are millions of Christians who have no problem having sex before marriage, and live with their boyfriends or girlfriends without marriage and have kids from them too.
I blame Christianity for lacking teachings of "social discipline" [1, 2] for all this corruption that is going on.
6- Emails that agree and disagree with me and my responses:
An email from a Christian having no problem with pornography:
The cross,in the porn industry.How can you judge people like that.I have
big plans on being a porn star,I think that you can not see something
beautiful as PORN.you lack an appreciation for art.I think you are a mad
man,how can some one learn about sex,if they do not,see it at a very
young
age,I am all for,leaving X rated material around so,younger people can see
it,I think If I never saw the stuff I saw as a youngster,I would not have
gained the intellect that I have now,so get a life,no offense,please write more x
rated bible stuff,even see if you can find some more,because it further
justifies my life and the way I lead my so called Christian life,and p s I LOVE YOU :) and
I hope I have not offended you in any way shape form or fashion.
Another email from a Christian:
From: "Alex A." <[I Decided not to include the email because this might be
too embarrassing or inappropriate for the person]>
To: truthspeaks@answering-christianity.com
Subject: Christian "porn"
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 06:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
Hi Osama,
I think you're missing the point. The Bible is
wonderful literature, it has everything in it,
including romance and physical love. Vagina's tasting
like wine: well, don't they, a bit? It's poetic,
anyway. Lighten up, buddy. Bodies are beautiful, sex
is great, and, in fact, a lot of us are perfectly
comfortable talking about how desirable our wives and
girlfriends are over the dinner table. And I bet
we're more generally well adjusted people than you
whacky angry lot.
Best,
Valdemars Einklins
My response: Dear Valdemars, although for the most part, your email, like the email before it above, is not worth replying to, but the reason why I posted it is to highlight to my Christian readers the word "girlfriends" that you used.
Nothing is more ridiculous than seeing a boyfriend and his girlfriend and their "illegitimate" kids go to Church on Sunday. If marriage is not a big deal to you, and committing fornication/adultery is also not a big deal to you, then how do you expect your religion to lead society into a GOD-Loved one?
I feel sorry for your kids for feeding them the poison of your sick Christian society by encouraging them to have boyfriends and girlfriends and possibly live with them too without marriage. Let alone having sex with them without marriage.
Discussion with one of the anti-Islamic members of the "Answering Islam" team:
I received an email from one of the members of the Christian "Answering Islam" team:
Subj: Re: Companions doesn't mean "sexually together"
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 2:35:16 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Quennel Gale <queball20@yahoo.com>
To: ISLM4EVR1@aol.com
He said: "Pornography isn't porn if a man is expressing his love for his wife! What is wrong with sex between a man and a woman who are married? Didn't God first make it that way?"
My answer: First of all, it is quite obvious that the lovers above are not a "husband" and a "wife". When she wished if her lover were her brother nursed at her "mother's breasts" so she wouldn't have to take him home in secret so they can have sex all night long, that obviously proves that we don't have a husband and a wife relationship.
The KJV Bible's Historians and Theologians also claim that it wasn't a "husband" and a "wife" relationship: "Two lovers, Solomon and a Shulamite girl, express their feelings for one another, with occasional comments made by friends. (From the King James Version Commentary, page 945)"
The KJV Bible's Theologians and Historians say that the porn-full book talks about Solomon and his lover. But we don't know whether it was Solomon who wrote this book or not, nor do we know whether this is some ridiculous poem and a lie written after he died or not.
One must ask a simple question here: Why should there be "lovers" in the Bible? Why should there be illegal sex and disgusting pornography in the Bible?
As for pornography, before you give me some dumb answer (sorry to say that) like this one to justify the obvious pornography in the Bible, think of the woman that you will marry. Let's take your logic for a second and assumed that they were a "husband" and a "wife": If you don't mind me asking, Would you tell the entire world how round and tasty your wife's breasts and vagina are as the porn-hungry guy did in the Bible?
Yes GOD Almighty created sex as I explained in My response to the so called "X-Rated pornography in Islam" lie, but He also created PRIVACIES for us. Exposing your wife's private parts is pornography by itself.
Also, as I showed from the NIV Bible's Commentary regarding the book of Song of Songs above; "Verse 1 appears to ascribe authorship to Solomon. Solomon is referred to seven times, and several verses speak of the 'king', but whether he was the author remains an open question. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 997)", it is quite obvious that no one in this world knows JUST WHO WROTE THE BOOK! So the porn-full book is corrupted. I don't believe that GOD Almighty would ever inspire some one to tell the world that a "vagina tastes like wine".
Otherwise, if we were to use your logic and sense, then this means Christians should not have any problem with porn movies and magazines, since the bible has the same contents in it.
Also back to your ridiculous nonsense logic and interpretations, if exposing your wife's private parts to the entire world isn't a problem for you, as billions of people already read the Bible and learned about female lover's private parts (her breasts and vagina taste like wine for him), then think of the impact it will have on your innocent kids and their morals.
It amazes me how Christians don't have problems with sexual openness. Perhaps when one's 12 year-old daughter gets pregnant, or 10 year-old son catches the AIDS virus, then the Christian would realize how dangerous his careless attitude and views toward pornography and sexual openness are.
An email from a Christian that agrees with me:
From: "Carlos Galvez" <[...........]>
To: truthspeaks@answering-christianity.com
Subject: im a christian and i agree in something.
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:43:16 +0000
Hi Osama,
I am a christian that likes to hear other religions. I am reading your
website and I find some truth, mixed with some things that are wrong. I was
reading the site "Pornography in the Bible" and I find a very big truth.
How come christians get into pornography?
I read the email of Quennel Gale <queball20@yahoo.com> wrote
and I agree
with you Osama. Sex is all right. But telling the whole world how good your
sex is with your wife is wrong. You can lead some single guys in
fornication because you are describing or showing pictures of people having
sex. Plus its on the old testament that we are not suppose to see the
nakedness of others(leviticus).
I agree with you saying that if for a "christian" "committing
fornication/adultery is also not a big deal to you, then how do you expect
your porn-full religion to lead society into a GOD-Loved one?" That is not
christian at all.
Thanks for having the time of reading my email.
7- King David, the Begotten Son of GOD and X-Rated Pornography:
First King David is GOD's Begotten Son: "I (David) will declare the decree: the LORD had said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (The King James Version Bible, Psalm 2:7)" In this verse, we clearly see how GOD Almighty loved King David so much, that he chose him to be His begotten Son.
The importance of King David in the Bible and to Christians and Jews:
1- King David was called "God's begotten son" in psalm 2:7 as shown above.
2- Christians call Jesus "Son of David", not meaning a biological son, but
rather a son in a respectful way. To respect Jesus, they call him "son of David"
i.e. David is good and respectful. See Matthew 1:1, Matthew 9:27, Matthew 12:23,
Matthew 15:22, Matthew 20:30-31, Matthew 22:42, and many other verses.
3- David's Star is the Jews' holy symbol just like the Cross is the Christians' holy
symbol.
Knowing the above facts, let us examine King David and fornication in the Bible:
X-Rated Pornography from the "Begotten Son of GOD":
Please be advised that I am not claiming that GOD Almighty agreed with the pornography of King David in the Bible. In fact, I don't even believe that King David did any of this. I proved below that the Books that claim this about King David are corrupted and unreliable and full of man-made doubts and lies.
David watches a women bathe, likes what he sees, and "goes in unto her." Let us look at 2 Samuel 11:2-4 "One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, 'Isn't this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?' Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (She had purified herself from her uncleanness.) Then she went back home." This Holy Figure in the Bible is a pervert!.
So what happened to "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. (From the NIV Bible, Leviticus 20:10)"????
The woman was not only another man's wife, but also the wife of his neighbor! Double deadly crimes had been committed by the King against GOD Almighty!
How come Leviticus 20:10 was compromised in the Bible and never applied to King David?! Didn't King David know about this law? Yet, the Jews use his star as their holy symbol; the David Star, and the Christians call Jesus his son; "Son of David".
It seems to me quite clearly that the Bible is nothing but a compromised corrupted Book as Jeremiah 8:8, 2 Samuel 11:2-4 and Leviticus 20:10 above suggest.
If the strong eats the weak in the Bible, then what moral and wisdom are we to learn from this book?
Further more....
GOD supposedly inspired King David's men to get some heat for King David by having a beautiful virgin minister unto him. Let us look at 1King1:1-4 "When King David was old and well advanced in years, he could not keep warm even when they put covers over him. So his servants said to him, 'Let us look for a young virgin to attend the king and take care of him. She can lie beside him so that our lord the king may keep warm.' Then they searched throughout Israel for a beautiful girl and found Abishag, a Shunammite, and brought her to the king. The girl was very beautiful; she took care of the king and waited on him, but the king had no intimate relations with her." Is the Bible a porn-full man made book? or is it an inspired Divine Book from GOD Almighty? Did GOD Almighty inspire David's men to bring him a young virgin so he can sleep with her without marriage? What kind of morals are we teaching our kids here?
Let us look at Esther 2:2-4 "Then the king's personal attendants proposed, 'Let a search be made for beautiful young virgins for the king. Let the king appoint commissioners in every province of his realm to bring all these beautiful girls into the harem at the citadel of Susa. Let them be placed under the care of Hegai, the king's eunuch, who is in charge of the women; and let beauty treatments be given to them. Then let the girl who pleases the king be queen instead of Vashti.' This advice appealed to the king, and he followed it." So what we call today illegal prostitution and sex according to the "laws of the Bible" is actually allowed in the Bible? Here we see that GOD Almighty in His Divine Book, the "Holy Bible", inspired the King and his men to bring young bosomed virgins to sleep with the King, and the best one of them would replace Vashti.
8- About the validity of the books of 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and Esther:
Here is what the NIV Bible Theologians and Historians say about the books:
About the books of 1 and 2 Samuel: "Many questions have arisen pertaining to the literary character, authorship and date of 1,2 Samuel."
"Who the author was cannot be known with certainty since the book itself gives no indication of his identity."
(From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 368).
About the books of 1 and 2 Kings: "There is little conclusive evidence as to the identity of the author of 1,2 Kings."
"Whoever the author was, it is clear that he was familiar with the book of Deuteronomy."
(From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 459).
About the book of Esther: "Although we do not know who wrote the book of Esther, from internal evidence it is possible to make some inferences about the author and the date of composition. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 707)"
(www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm)
So as we clearly see from the above quotes, no one in this world knows who wrote these books. Yet, Christians regard these books as Holy Divine Revelations from GOD Almighty.
What kind of a low and cheap man-made book the Bible really is?
9- Question to Jews and Christians about King David:
Assuming that the above lies in the Bible about King David are true, which I as a Muslim by the way don't believe that a Prophet from GOD Almighty would do these things, and Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran did talk about King David in the best way, but as to Jews and Christians, it is a must for them to believe in what's written in their corrupted and porn-full Bible. So my questions to them are:
For the Jews, after reading the above verses about King David, why do you use "King David's Star" as your holy symbol that represents Judaism?
For the Christians, why do you call Jesus "Son of David"?
10- Does the Bible allow for women to be Lesbians?
Please be advised that I got this point from the Christians of www.godlovesfags.com who are very largely supported by Christians world wide. Visit their guest book and see the thousands upon thousands of Christians supporting their site; supporting sodomy and lesbianism.
More on sodomy from Christians:
Let us look at Leviticus 20:13: "`If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." The Bible here punishes to death those males who have anal sex. The godlovesfags.com site claims that this verse sentence to death only those males that did "prostitution" back then, and women are allowed to be lesbians.
There is no mention throughout the Bible about punishing Lesbian women!.
Leviticus 20:13 above is talking explicitly about men only. The Bible does separate men from women in its commands. It doesn't combine them.
Let us look at the following two examples:
Leviticus 20:15 "IF A MAN has
sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the
animal."
Leviticus 20:16 "IF A WOMAN
approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal.
They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Notice in the above two verses that the man has to get caught having sex with an animal in order for him to be put to death, while the woman does not necessarily have to get caught having sex with an animal. If she only looks suspicious then she would still be put to death, while the man has to be caught doing it.
The point is, we can't apply Leviticus 20:13 above to Lesbians, because it only talks about male gays practicing anal sex. Therefore, the Bible does allow for women to be Lesbians.
Please visit Are Homosexuals and eating Pigs allowed in the Bible?
I was surprised to learn that most of the Christians that I encountered on the internet have no problem with homosexuality and don't think that there is anything wrong with it in the Bible. Their main point is that homosexuality was never addressed in the New Testament, thus practicing it is a matter of a choice.
Some even go into extremes by saying that Jesus never got married and Paul discouraged men to marry women; "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. (From the NIV Bible, 1 Corinthians 7:1)" To them, since this is the case, then men marrying men should not be prohibited in the New Testament and Christianity.
Again, please visit Are Homosexuals and eating Pigs allowed in the Bible? for more details and references.
11- So what about those Christians who prohibit Homosexuality for men just because the Old Testament prohibits it?
Well, how about considering your Pig's meat products such as ham, bacon, pork chops, etc...? Shouldn't you prohibit them too just because the Old Testament also prohibits them?
"And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you. (From the NIV Bible, Leviticus 11:7-8)".
So, if you're going to prohibit Homosexuality from your Christian perspective, then there goes also your Easter and Christmas Ham and Bacon, and Barbecue Pork Chops. Otherwise, you're a selective hypocrite!
For further explanation and references to this topic, again please visit Are Homosexuals and eating Pigs allowed in the Bible?
12- What the Bible Says About Homosexuality:
The following article was taken from www.godlovesfags.com
Note: I am not desperately trying to find any resource to prove homosexuality in the Bible. The reason why I chose this homosexual site is because I learned about it from CNN.COM before, and I once saw more than 10,000 posts on their message board, for which most of the ones I read were supportive of the site. So homosexuality is a controversial topic that most Western Christians seem (from my personal experience only) to support.
What the Bible Says About Homosexuality.
In biblical times, same-gender sexual interactions could take many forms. Some were:
1. kings of conquered tribes were sometimes raped by the invading army as the ultimate symbol of defeat and humiliation.
2. some non-Jewish tribes in the area had male prostitutes in their temples that may have engaged in same-sex activities; this horrified the ancient Israelites.
3. it is reasonable to assume that many loving gay and lesbian relationships existed, but these would normally have been conducted in secret.
Only the third type would have any similarity to today's gay and lesbian consentual, committed, loving relationships.
Many versions of the Bible exist in the English language. Each reflects the world view, beliefs and mind sets of its translators. Their personal biases distort their work. There is an additional complexity facing translators: today's society is very different from that of Biblical times. It is sometimes difficult to find a current English word that matches a Hebrew or Greek term.
Many words have been translated from the original Hebrew and Greek texts as "homosexual", "sodomite", "homosexuality". However, most (perhaps all) of the references bear no similarity to today's lesbian and gay partnerships.
By carefully reading the original texts and considering the societies in which they were written, one comes to surprising conclusions:
* The Bible has a lot to say about temple prostitution.
* It talks about being kind to strangers in a way that has been incorrectly interpreted as referring to homosexual acts
* It says almost nothing about homosexual feelings;
* It says nothing about sexual orientation. The writers of the Bible assumed that everyone was heterosexual (or "straight"); the concept of sexual orientation was not developed until the late 19th century.
The Bible does make occasional references to activities which have been translated as homosexuality:
* Genesis 19 describes how two angels visited Sodom and were welcomed into Lot's house. The men of the city gathered around the house and demanded that Lot send the visitors to the mob so that they might know the angels. [The Hebrew verb yada (to know) is ambiguous. It appears 943 times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). In only about a dozen of these cases does it refers to sexual activity; it is not clear whether the mob wanted to rape the angels or to meet with them, and perhaps attack them physically. From the context, it is obvious that their mood was not friendly]. Lot refused, but offered his two virgin daughters to be heterosexually raped if that would appease the mob. The offer was declined. God decided to destroy the city because of the wickedness of its inhabitants. The angels urged Lot and his family to flee and to not look back. Unfortunately, Lot's wife looked the wrong way, so God killed her because of her curiosity.
God was apparently not critical of Lot for offering his two daughters to be raped. However, God was angry at the other inhabitants of the town. He destroyed Sodom with fire and brimstone (sulfur). He presumably killed all of the men in the mob, their wives and other adults, as well as children, infants, newborns, etc. It is unclear from these few verses whether God demolished the city because the citizens:
The Church has traditionally accepted the third explanation, and believed that the sexual activity was habitual. In fact, the term sodomy which means anal intercourse was derived from the name of the city, Sodom. But the first explanation is clearly the correct one. As recorded in Matthew 10:14-15 and Luke 10:7-16, Jesus implied that the sin of the people of Sodom was to be inhospitable to strangers. In Ezekeiel 16:48-50, God states clearly that he destroyed Sodom's sins because of their pride, their excess of food while the poor and needy suffered, and their worship of many idols; sexual activity is not even mentioned. Jude disagreed with God; he wrote that Sodom's sins were sexual in nature. Various biblical translations describe the sin as fornication, going after strange flesh, sexual immorality, perverted sensuality, homosexuality, lust of every kind, immoral acts and unnatural lust; you can take your pick.
We are faced with the inescapable and rather amusing conclusion that the condemned activities in Sodom had nothing to do with sodomy.
These passages are part of the Jewish Holiness Code which also:
Churches have abandoned the Holiness Code; it is no longer binding on modern-day Christians. They can wear tattoos, eat shrimp, wear polyester-cotton blends and engage in temple prostitution without violating this particular section of the Bible. Although this code is obsolete for Christians, many clergy still focus on those passages which deal with homosexuality.
In summary:
One can argue that the ancient Israelites were surrounded by warlike tribes. Their fertility was very important if the group was to survive. The early Christian church was also surrounded by enemies. Homosexuals tend to have few children; thus their presence would be met with opposition. At the end of the 20th Century, conditions are the exact opposite; we are threatened by our excessive fertility. Perhaps Paul's criticism of homosexuality is no longer valid, like his various prohibitions against women's behaviour.
Please visit Homosexual Marriage in Islam?
What is the punishment for Gays and Lesbians in Islam?
Is anal sex really allowed in Islam? It is prohibited between the Husband and the Wife.
What is the punishment for fornication and adultery in Islam?
What is the punishment for rape in Christianity and Islam? See how the Bible tolerates it and even indirectly promotes it to happen to single women.
Does Paradise in Islam really have Lesbianism in it?
X-Rated Pornography in the Noble Quran? Bunch of nonsense put together by anti-Islamics.
13- Homosexuality and the Bible, An Interpretation:
The following article was taken from www.godlovesfags.com
Note: This is the same note as the one in the previous section. I am not desperately trying to find any resource to prove homosexuality in the Bible. The reason why I chose this homosexual site is because I learned about it from CNN.COM before, and I once saw more than 10,000 posts on their message board, for which most of the ones I read were supportive of the site. So homosexuality is a controversial topic that most Western Christians seem (from my personal experience only) to support.
by Walter Barnett
About the author:
A native of Texas Walter barnett graduated summa cum laude from Yale University, where he
was president of Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship. He earned his Doctor of Jurisprudence
at the University of Texas and his Master of Laws at Columbia University. He was also a
Fullbright Scholar at the College of Europe in Belgium. After a brief period of law
practive in Texas he served for four years on the staff of the Legal Adviser of the U.S
department of State in Washington, and then taught for ten years in the law schools of the
Universities of Miami, New Mexico and Texas and at Hastings College of Law at the
University of California. He also worked for nearly two years as Program Interpreter for
the Friends Committee on Legislation of California and is a member of the San Francisco
Monthly meeting of the Religious Society of Friends. Since the beginning of 1979 he has
been living with the Catholic Workers, first in Los Angeles and now in Redwood City,
California.
His interest in the subject of this pamphlet goes back to 1969 when he became involved in
the struggle for civil rights of Gay people. This culminated in his first book, Sexual
Freedom and the Constitution - An Inquiry into the Constitutionality of Repressive Sex
Laws (University of new Mexico Press, 1973). He is also the author of Jesus - the Story of
His Life (Nelson-Hall, Inc., 1976). He was moved to write this pamphlet as a result of the
recent efforts of Anita Bryant in Florida and John Briggs in California to marshall
Christian support for their campaigns against the rights of homosexuals.
Request for permission to quote or to translate should be addressed to Pendle Hill
Publications, Wallingford, PA 19086. USA.
ISBN 0-87574-226-2
Most Christians are still uneasy about homosexuality. Even Gay Christians themselves often
share this uneasiness, because we have all been brought up in the same Christian
tradition. There are many causes for the uneasiness; but the one cause which seems most
important in the minds of all is the conviction that the Bible condemns homosexuality, in
itself and in all its manifestations.
In recent years a slow change has begun to occur in Christian attitudes towards
homosexuality and homosexual persons. Some Christians while maintaining the traditional
attitude for themselves, have become prepared to admit that it is not necessary in secular
society to punish homosexuals for behaviour which is permissible to heterosexuals. On this
basis, most which is Christian churches have now made formal statements supporting the
right of homosexual people ot protection against discrimination.
Some Christians have gone further and acknowledge that the particular virulence with which
some people have attached and condemned homosexual acts and homosexual persons is totally
unjustified, if a caring person weighs the relative importance given to homosexual
behavior in the Bible, and especially if he or she respects the attitudes appropriate for
a Christian when dealing with fellow human beings. Some theologians and a number of Gay
Christians, working from a growing understanding of the biblical texts, have come to the
conclusion that the Bible does not exclude homosexual people form the Christian
Fellowship, within bounds analogous to those applied to heterosexuals.
The Bible does mention homosexual behavior in extremely negative terms in a handful of
widely scattered verses, but modern research has turned up considerable evidence casting
doubt on the traditional interpretation of these passages - an interpretation that has
borne tragic consqeuences for homosexuals throughout almost the whole of Christian
history. The purpose here is to examine this evidence, together with some of the light
science has shed on the subject of psychosexual development, in the hope that it will lead
to a more informed appraisal.
The critical fact generally unknown to or overlooked by heterosexuals is that
homosexuality is something quite distinct from homosexual behaviour and even from
homosexual desires or lust. Homosexuality is an emotional and affectional orientation
towards people of the same sex. It may or may not involve sexual acts, though of course it
usually does. On the other hand, homosexual acts can be and are performed by both
homosexuals AND heterosexuals, and homosexual desire or lust is probably experienced by
most heterosexuals. (The most common instances of extensive homosexual behaviour by
hetersexuals ofccur in those situations such as prisons where heterosexual partners are
unavailable.) This is why those who possess this same-sex emotional orientation abjure the
term homosexual and call themselves by their own slang word, Gay. The word homosexual for
them overemphasizes the specifically sexual element in their feelings. Because it was
coined by the scientific community to label them, it also carries overtones of clinical
pathology which they reject. Since 1974 the American Psychiatric Association and the
American Psychological Association have both officially disavowed this implication of the
label, but the Gay community continues to reject the word. So even in general usages
"gay" is replacing "homosexual" just as "black" or
"Afro-American" has replaced "Negro".
Most people grow up to want and seek an intimate and loving relationship with a person of
the opposite sex. Gay people on the other hand are those who have discovered that they
want and seek such a relationship with a person of the same sex. Why and how this variant
occurs is not now and probably never will be the subject of any pat explanation because it
is the consequence of a wide range of factors, some of which are environmental and some
possibly hereditary or physical. What is imporant, though, from the point of view of sin
is that most Gay people have no conscious recollection of ever having chosen this
orientation any more than the ordinary hetersexual ever consciously chose to want the
opposite sex. It is simply a given in their emotional make-up, an integral part of the
personality. And they sense that nothing on earth will ever change this, just as the
ordinary heterosexual cannot imagine changing into a homosexual.
Some people are truely bisexual; they find both sexes equally interesting and attractive.
These however are few and far between. The orientation of the great majority is fixed and
definite, towards either the opposite sex or their own. This is not to deny that many
people engage in some experimentation on both sides of the fence before they know for sure
which side is home, but it is a mistake to conclude from this fact that all people are
basically bisexual. It is equally a mistake to conclude that all people are basically
heterosexual and a few are lured away into homosexuality by seduction. The truth rather
seems to be that human sexuality is initially free-floating and unattached, that an
emotional interest develops very early in life, and that this interest then comes
increasingly to the fore as puberty and adolescence bring on explicitly sexual fantasies
and behaviour.
The reason therefore why Gay people seek out others of their own sex and engage in sexual
behaviour with them is not that they are incapable of bridling their lusts or are
perversely determined to disobey God but simply because the option open to the rest of
humankind - a hetersoexual relationship and specifically marriage to a prtner of the
opposite sex - is not open to them. Legally of course it is open, but emotionally it is
not. It would for them be living a lie - a sin against their partner as well as
themselves. Such a relationship does not perform for them the function it is meant to
perform - to satisfy, to recreate, to replenish. Unlike the heterosexual they feel
completed only by a person of the same sex.
This is not to say that Gay people are incapable of heterosexual behaviour. Many can
perform heterosexual coitus just as many heterosexual people are capable of engaging in
homosexual acts. But if given the choice they will prefer a partner of the same sex, not
out of mere perversity but because it is only a partner of the same sex who satisfies them
emotionally.
Now in order for anything to be a sin there must be a possibility of moral choice. Where
there is no choice there can be no sin. So if one's sexual orientation is not a matter of
choice, it cannot be a sin to be a homosexual. True, it may be admitted, but one does have
the choice of committing or not homosexual acts. This boils down to saying that whether or
not homosexuality - the orientation - is a sin, homosexual behaviour invariably is.
The cruelty of this position is that it leaves only one option open to Gay people who take
their relationship to God seriously - the option of total and complete life long celibacy.
Because as already noted the option open to the rest of the world - heterosexual marriage
- is immoral and unethical, yes sinful, for a Gay person. But the church would never dream
of imposing such a burden on heterosexuals. Even the Roman Catholic Church which requires
celibacy of its priests has always admitted this to be a special calling for those select
few to whom God has given the ability to accept it; it is not for everyone. Heterosexual
Christians should beware of doing like the Pharisees of old, laying down on the backs of
other people a yoke they themselves would find impossible to bear.
Actually the Bible appears unequivocally to condemn only three things:
(1) homosexual rape; (2) the ritual homosexual prostitution that was part of the Canaanite
fertility cult and at one time apprently taken over into Jewish practive as well; and (3)
homosexual lust and behaviour of the part of heterosexuals.
On the subject of homosexuality as an orientation, and on consensual behaviour by people
who possess that orientation, it is wholly silent. The orientation as such was apprently
unknown to or at least unrecognised by the Biblical authors. If we may assume that the
Biblical authors were themselves all heterosexual this would not be at all suprising. For
that matter it has only been since about 1890 that the science of psychology began to
recognise homosexuality as a distinct entity.
In the first place homoexuality and homosexual behaviour are never anywhere in the Bible
mentioned either by Jesus Christ himself or any of the Old Testament prophets. If it
really were a sin in God's sight surely he or they or both would have inveighed against
it. This fact should be of cardinal important to the thinking of any person who purports
to follow Jesus.
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18 and 19 has traditionally in Christianity
been thought to demonstrate God's condemnation of homosexual behaviour. All this because
the Hewbrew word meaning "to know" in Gensis 19:5 has been interpreted to mean
"have sexual intercourse with." "They [the townsmen of Sodom] called to
Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to use, that we may know
them.' "
In the story God informs Abraham that these two cities will be destroyed because of their
great wickedness, but the wickedness is never specified. Abraham persuades God to spare
the cities if even ten righteous men can be found in them. Two angels them come to Sodom
to investigate and are given hospitality by Abraham's nephew Lot. All the townsmen both
young and old surround the house and demand to "know" the two strangers, but Lot
refuses to surrended them up and offers instead his two virgin daughters. When this offer
is rejected, the angels pull Lot inside and shut the door, striking the townsmen blind so
that they grope about in darkness. The angels then urge Lot and his household to flee the
city to escape its destruction.
Actually in the Bible this Hebrew word "to know" rarely means sexual
intercourse. Apart from this story and the counterpart tale in Judges 19, it has that
meaning in only about fifteen instances out of more than 900, and in all those few
instances it denotes hetersoexual coitus as, for instance, in Genesis 19:8). Some scholars
believe that here, because of the circumstances, it has only its usual meaning of
"become aquainted with."
Lot himself was a resident alien in Sodom, and for such a person to harbor two other
foreigners within the city's gates could well rouse suspicion that they were spies looking
for weaknesses in its defenses that a potential enemy could exploit. The townsmen
therefore had a perfectly justifiable excuse for demanding that the two strangers show
themselves so that their indentities and the purpose of their visit could be ascertained.
Lot's reaction however indicates that there was some serious mischief afoot, and his
offering the townsmen intercourse with his two virgin daughters to kepe them from doing
anything to his guests does seem to support the notion that the mischief was specifically
sexual.
Even if the sexual interpretation is corect, the sin of Sodom does not necessarily lie in
homosexuality or homosexual behaviour. Rather, this wicked thing that Lot enjoins the
townsmen not to do is rape pure and simple, and gang rape at that. Rape is not a sin
peculiar to homosexuality; it occurs far more often in a heterosexual ontext. Its
sinfulness lies not in the context, whether heterosexual or homosexual, but in the
victimisation of the nonconsenting partner.
In our reading today of this story we overlook a little known fact - that the entire
ancient Near East hospitality to sojourners and travellers was not seen to be, as with us,
a merely a voluntary option but rather was a sacred religious duty. See Leviticus
19:33-34; Matthew 25:35, 38, and 43. Thus whatever the townsmen intended, any kind of
mistreatment or indignity inflicted on Lot's guests would be a sin. It would violate the
sacred obligation of hospitality. And indeed this latter is the sin or wrong Lot's own
words indicate in verse 8 - "Don't do anything to these men, for you know they have
come under the shelter of my roof." This interpretation is further buttressed by the
fact that the story presents in such marked contrast to the behaviour of the Sodomites the
elaborate hospitality shown the angelic visitors by Abraham and Lot.
Finally it is worth noting for future reference that sexual intercourse between humans and
angels - two different orders of creation - would in itself have been wrong in the eyes of
the Jews, who would remember that in Genesis 6:1-8 the disaster of the Great Flood comes
hard on the heels of a charge that the "sons of God" (presumably angels) took to
wife the daughters of men.
The idea that the Sodom story is not an indictment of homosexuality is no new-fangled
interpretation. Most later Jewish commentary on it both inside and outside of the Bible
does not make out the sin of these cities to be homosexuality or homosexual behaviour.
According to Isaiah 1:9 and 3:9, it was a lack of social justice; according to Ezekiel
16:46-52 it was disregard for the poor; and according to Jeremiah 23:14 it was general
immorality. Though ancient Rabbinical literature - the Talmud and Midrashim - often refers
to Sodom in connections with sins of pride, arrogance and inhospitality, it contains only
one mention of anything homosexual, namely a midrash emphasising rape and robbery of
strangers. ("The Sodomites made an agreement among themselves whenever a stranger
visited them they should force him to sodomy and rob him of his money.") It is
primarily among Philo of Alexandria and Joesphus, that we find the homosexual
interpretation, and it is probably from Josephus that the interpretation eventually found
its way into the Christian Church.
In the New Testament two passages - II Peter 2:4-9 and Jude 6-7 - refer to Sodom and
Gomorrah as examples of God's judgement on the wicked in such terms as apparently to adopt
a sexual interpretation . The former refers to the townsmen of Sodom as licentious or
"unprincipled in their lusts," and the latter says that ehy gave themselves to
fornication and went after different flesh. Neither passage contributes anything more on
the subject. But it is important to bear in mind that both authors may have been thinking
not of homosexual intercourse but of intercourse between different orders of creation
(humans and angels). Both authors refer to God having likewise judged the angels who
sinned, and Peter refers to the story of the Flood. Consequently both were probably only
reiterating the view found in some Jewish writings from the same general period, namely
the Testament of Naphtali 2:4-5, and the Book of Jubilees 7:20-22, 16:5-6, and 20:5-6. The
view found in these other writings is that the Sodomites were cursed for having changed
the order of nature by runnin after angels just as the angels have been cursed at the
flood for having gone a-whoring after the daughters of men.
Jesus himself mentions Sodom and Gomorrah but only to say that they will be judged less
severely than the towns that rejected his disciples or refused to repent even after
witnessing the works he performed (Matthew 10:14-15, and 11:20-24, Luke 10:10-12, and
17:28-29). None of these passages tells us his interpretation of the Sodom story, though
the fact that he linked the name of Sodom with refusal to welcome his disciples may give
us a hint. And the parallel to the Sodom story reported in Luke 9:51-56 in which James and
John the sons of Zebedee beseech Jesus to call down from heaven destruction by fire on an
inhospitable Samaritan town provides at least some confirmation that Jesus and his
disciples held to the more prevalent view within Jewish tradition that the sin depicted in
the Sodom story was inhospitable treatment of travellers rather than homosexuality or
homosexual behaviour.
The story in Judges 19 of the outrage at Gibeah is very similar to that of Sodom and Gomorrah, and some scholars consider the one derived from the other. Here again the Hebrew word "to know" is used (Judges 19:22) and the host's offer of two females as diversion implies that it is to be taken in a sexual sense. In this story, however, the male guest pushes is concubine out the door, and the townsmen of Gibeah "know" and abuse her all night long, as a result of which she dies. yet this story goes on to say explicitly (Judges 20:4-5) that the townsmen's intention was to kill the male guest. So the mischief that was afoot here was not merely sexual, even homosexual rape; it was murder. And it ended in a heterosexual gang rape that took the womans life.
Even if the original intent of both the townsmen of Sodom and those of Gibeah was homosexual rape, obviously both stories are about heterosexual males who indulge in it as a sport. Otherwise the offer in both stories of females as a diversionary sexual object makes no sense. To extend such an offer to homosexual males would be pointless because it would hold no interest for them.
In Deuteronomy 23:17-18, in I Kings 14:24, 15:12, and 22:46, in II Kings 23:7, and in Job 36:14, there are references to a kadesh (singular) or to kedeshim (plural), which literally mean "holy man" and "holy men". Some translations of the Bible render these terms by the English word sodomite(s). The passage in Deuteronomy forbids Israelite men to become such, and likewise forbids an Israelite woman to become a kedeshah - the same word for the femenine gender. Modern Bible Scholars believe these terms refer to priests and priestesses of the Canaanite fertility cult, and evidence outside the Bible supports the inference that both types of functionaries engage in sexual intercourse with male worshippers as part of the ritual. Indeed the Deuteronomy passage by poetic parallelism appears to equate kedeshah with the hebrew word for a female prostitute (zonah). The 38th chapter of Genesis and Hosea 4:12-14 also support this equation. Thus the better translation of kadeshikedeshim would be "male cult prostitute(s)."
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 enjoin the men of Israel not to "lie with a male as with a woman," for which the latter verse invokes the death penalty. It is state to be to'ebah. This Hebrew word, generally translated as abomination in English, is used in the Old Testament to refer to idolatry and to practices associated with idolatry. And in deed the whole context of these injunctions is a polemic against the Israelites imitating the defiling practices of the Canaanites whom they displaced in Palestine. Thus again, the prohibition is probably directed against the practice of ritual homosexual prostitution as found in the Canaanite fertility cult. In any event the intent cannot be to condemn all homosexuality and homosexual behaviour because there is no prohibition whatever in Leviticus against women having sexual relations with other women. This can hardly be explained as an oversight or on the basis that what women do is never of any consequence, because these chapters do contain explicit prohibitions against both male and female intercourse with an animal. So if homosexual behaviour is supposedly such an evil in God's sigh, why does Leviticus forbid it only to males and not to females ?
Apart from the association of male homosexual acts with Canaanite idolatry, the answer probably lies mainly in a concern for the "seed" of life rather than a concern about homosexuality per se. The Hebrews like other ancient peoples had no accurate knowledge of conception. They did not know that women produce eggs which the man's sperm fertilizes, but apparently thought that the seed came solely from the man; when "sowed" in a woman it would grow into a new being just as a seed from from plants will sprout and grow when sowed in the earth. They likewise did not know that matings between different species are sterile. Thus men must not expend their seed in other males where it would be unproductive, or in animals where it might result in a "confusion" such as a centaur. Women are forbidden to receive seed from an animal for the same reason, but because presumably they have no seed, what they do among themselves is inconsequential.
Also, in the patriarchal society of the ancient Hebrews the status and dignity of the male was held to be inviolable, so much so that even the women of the house must be sacrificed to preserve if need be, as in the Sodom and Gibeah stories. In the ancient Near East it was not uncommon for the victors in war to rape vanquished kings or warriors as a mark of utter subjection and contempt. The Hebrews unlike the Greeks may thus have associated male homosexuality with disrespect and debasement of the male sex and viewed it as intolerable for that reason. Moreover, any society that exalts the male sex over the female may tend to associate male homosexuality with effiminacy. It therefore becomes tabooed to keep the dominant sex from being assimiliated to the status of women.
Even if these Levitical injunctions are to be read as an absolute prohibition against males engaging in homosexual behaviour under any and all circumstances, it is worth asking why this should be deemed binding on Christians when so many other injunctions of the Pentateuch are not. For instance these same chapters of leviticus make punishable by banishment the sin of a man having intercourse with his wife during menstrual period (Leviticus 18:19 and 20:18). Leviticus also forbids the wearing of cloth made of two different kinds of fibers, say for instance cotton and polyester (Leviticus 19:19). And what about Exodus 22:18, requiring that witches be put to death?
The only three remaining Biblical passages that conceivably touch on homosexual behaviour are found in I Corinthians 6:9, I Timothy 1:10, and Romans 1:18-32.
In I Corinthians 6:9 Paul asks his readers, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God ?" He then proceeds to list certain catergories of people as examples of those who will not inherit the kingdom. In this list two of the Greek words, namely malakoi and arsenokoitai, have usually been rendered in English translation by a single term such as "homosexuals," "sodomites," "sexual perverts," pr "homosexual perverts."
Please visit Homosexual Marriage in Islam?
What is the punishment for Gays and Lesbians in Islam?
Is anal sex really allowed in Islam? It is prohibited between the Husband and the Wife.
What is the punishment for fornication and adultery in Islam?
What is the punishment for rape in Christianity and Islam? See how the Bible tolerates it and even indirectly promotes it to happen to single women.
Does Paradise in Islam really have Lesbianism in it?
X-Rated Pornography in the Noble Quran? Bunch of nonsense put together by anti-Islamics.
14- Conclusion:
It's quite obvious that the Bible:
1- Has ample material in it for porn seekers and perverts, which quite obviously makes it
a porn-full book.
2- Allows men to have sex (without marriage) with virgin women and non virgin women, but
prefers to do it with virgin women.
3- The Bible allows for sisters to fantasize about or even have sex with their own biological brothers, who were nursed by their "mother's breasts".
Note: I understand that the use of the word "sister" doesn't necessarily mean that they were biological siblings. But when she says that she wished if he were her brother who was nursed at her "mother's breasts", so she wouldn't have to take him home in secret anymore so they can have as much sex as they want does indeed suggest that she would sleep with her own biological brother, hence the porn-full bible does allow for sisters to fantasize or even have sex with their biological brothers, or at the very least allows them to have that sick mentality!
4- Fornication is allowed in the Bible and is practiced widely among the holiest people of the Bible.
5- The Bible is a compromised book. The strong in the Bible eats the weak as was shown in the story of King David sleeping with his neighbor's wife and getting away with it without any punishment. Meanwhile, the Bible punishes to death the person who sleeps with his neighbor's wife.
6- The Bible seems to have no problem with Lesbianism what so ever, and if the Old Testament is ignored, then it most definitely seem to have no problem with Homosexuality for both men and women in general, since the Christians of today have no problem eating Pig's meat, which clearly was prohibited in the Old Testament and was never addressed in the New Testament.
The Bible talks about porn very openly. It also talks about how round and tasty the women's breasts and vaginas are. If women are sex objects in the Bible, then how is that supposed to be respectful to women? It is quite obvious that the Bible is man made corruption and not the true Living Word of GOD Almighty.
Would you trust your own little kid to read the Bible privately?
Would you talk about how "round" and "tasty like wine" your wife's or girlfriend's (lover's) or biological sister's breasts and vagina are to your family and friends on the dinner table during Christmas, Thanksgiving or Easter?
Do you honestly believe that the above verses were inspired from GOD Almighty? You judge for yourself!
My dear Christian friend, I am not trying to upset you. I wasn't the one who wrote the Bible. And I wasn't the one who corrupted it either. Please open your heart to Islam, the One True Religion that Calls for the Oneness and Worship of Allah Almighty, and Allah Almighty will help you.
Further sites to research:
Forcing 3-year old slave girls into sex in both the Bible and the Talmud.
Jesus lusted after Mary Magdalene!
My rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's "Osama Abdallah's Obsession with Pedophilia in the Bible" article.
What is the punishment for rape in Christianity and Islam? See how the Bible tolerates it and even indirectly promotes it to happen to single women.
Contradicting errors even in Porn in the Bible.
History of man's corruption in the Bible. The Bible was not even written by the Prophets of GOD and the Disciples of Jesus.
Christianity is the cause of our social corruptions today.
Church Priests/Ministers who changed their sex and still preach in their Churches.
What is the punishment for Gays and Lesbians in Islam?
Is anal sex really allowed in Islam? It is prohibited between the Husband and the Wife.
Science proved that Homosexuals are born natural. How then can Islam prohibit homosexuality?
What is the punishment for fornication and adultery in Islam?
What is the punishment for rape in Christianity and Islam? See how the Bible tolerates it and even indirectly promotes it to happen to single women.
Does Paradise in Islam really have Lesbianism in it?
X-Rated Pornography in the Bible.
X-Rated Pornography in the Noble Quran? Bunch of nonsense put together by anti-Islamics.
Are Homosexuals and eating Pigs allowed in the Bible?
The Bible claims that Sarah (Isaac's mother) was Abraham's biological sister.
The lust for virgins and the degradation of non-virgins in the Bible's OT and NT.
Book Information (Bibliography):
1- The NIV Study Bible, 10th Anniversary Edition.
General Editor: Kenneth Barker.
Associate Editors: Donald Burdick, John Stek, Walter Wessel and Ronald Youngblood.
Published at: Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 49530, USA
ISBN: 0-310-92589-4.
2- Holy Bible - King James Version.
KJV Giant Print, personal size reference Bible.
Published by Zondervan Publishing House.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530, U.S.A.
Printed in the United States of America
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1