storytime

Homosexuality was "evil" for Israel because Israel needed children to be raised for war. As the prophet looked around at all the other non Israeli peoples who were not increasing their families birth rate, the prophet probably figured the odds of winning wars was in Israel's favor if they banned same sex relations and started increasing birth rates. If a man's strength was in the number of sons for war, then children were a must have commodity. I'm not convinced that the love for children had anything to do with "be fruitful and multiply". But the taking of land and possessing it was.

storytime

Who owned and built Jerusalem at the first? Wasn't it a king Jehru, thus the name Jehru-salem? Didn't David raid the city and take it[robbery] from King Jehru's subjects[citizens]? Was the city not sacred to King Jehru and his people?

Or was it that Melchizedec king who owned Jehru-salem. Wasn't he called "the prince of peace", of "salem"?

From your analysis it seems that Jerusalem is in a world of trouble because of the first theives lead by David who robbed her.

storytime

"I SHALL MAKE JERUSALEM AS A BURDEN UNTO THE NATIONS".

That statement could easily refer to the separated tribes of ten(as nations) who left Rehoboam's southern kingdom and followed Jeroboam as their new king in the Northern territories. The Jews at Jerusalem were jealous and wanted worship and honor at their kingdom. Jeroboam built worship houses in what was called "the high places", probably mountainous areas for his ten tribes, this being more convienient for his people than traveling all the way back to Jerusalem.

How many hundreds of years was this before Jesus came into the picture and preached "salvation is of the Jews"? Jesus must have believed that the Jews at Jerusalem held the correct temple place and worshiped the correct way instead of those others called the lost tribes in the northern territories. For Jesus didn't say 'salvation is of God, or salvation is of Israel's ten lost tribes. He said "salvation is of the Jews".

I don't see this story as culminating in chaos and disaster for humanity. I see this story as a story about warring of Jews.

JaronK

Well, that's assuming gay people don't want children (many do, and choose to adopt or use other methods, including sleeping with someone just to get a child) and that bisexuality doesn't exist. But are you here condoning polygamy? That produces more children and would solve the problem easily enough.

Please, you act like the bible is never contradictory. Out of curiosity, how many days was Noah on the arc? Was it 40 days, or 150 days? Both are stated. How about Genesis... plenty of different stories there, including some serious contradictions. Clearly the idea that if it's contradictory it must not exist in the bible cannot be correct.

And the bible says that David and Jonathan had a marriage contract and that David loved Jonathan more than he could any woman... not to mention the part about Jonathan stripping naked before David and telling David to take what he wanted. You'll note David did have wives as well, so clearly multiplying wasn't an issue here.

JaronK

spamandham

Possibly, but as likely, it all centers around property rights. Women were considered property in those days. They belonged to the father to be sold off , and once purchased, they belonged to the husband. This is why it was perfectly acceptable to have as many wives and concubines as you could afford. It's also why slave females were fair game as were females captured in war. It was not against any laws to have sex with them even if you were not married to them.

JaronK

Indeed, and I'm not fully sure they understood the full concept of STDs back then. After all, bath houses were seen as being able to cure disease, without people realizing that diseases would spread that way.

JaronK

IamJoseph

Basically, all laws are advocations, for the benefit of man - not the deity. This includes the ritual laws as well, Monotheism being an advocation against an incorrect belief; rituals were designed to form a rythym to remember the law.

In the process, and the more interesting to me, is the ID, treatment and quarantine against incurable leprosy is the first separation on record between medicine and the occult. Medicine, a faculty of science, began here.

My suspicion is, this was not even Paul, but Rome at work here; there was a rue that no adverse or negative writings were permitted. We have no contemporary writings of Paul, he never met Jesus, and much has been spoken in the name of those two figures by others, and in what appears a far removed space-time. Contrastingly, we have loads of greek and Roman archives which mirror the later church doctrines and its abject disdain of the jews - because of numerous wars the preceding 3 centuries with Hellenist invasions.

E.g., the later European blood libels was a direct lift off from a Roman writer, while the Protocols of Zion, a horrific falsehood from later christianity, is an example of what can emerge via devious manouverings, and that the people can believe it as gospel for centuries. I doubt the figures of Jesus or Paul would be responsible for the numerous claims ascribed to them, while I have no problem seeing this as typically European [Hellenism/Romanism]. This is seen by anyone who studies ancient history.

IamJoseph

[QUOTE=JaronK;5865023]

No - it does not say that.

In fact, all wrongs by David were fastediously challenged by the then Prophet Nathan [who represnted the law of the land], who confronted david with the charge of adultry before the people, and placed a severe sentence on him. Gay would not have been tolerated in that space-time.

spamandham

...more accurately, for the benefit of those writing the rules.

The idea of totally wiping out your enemy - to include the innocent - precedes Christianity. Can you guess where these commands come from?

"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy."

"...do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..."

IamJoseph

I don't think so. The tribes were all accounted as one nation [see the cencus in Exodus, where the term 'Nation of Israel' was introduced after its total of 3 million Hebrews was accounted]. The term NATIONS [plural] is elsewhere used with Abraham, namely many nations shall come from his seed.

We see that both Babylon and Rome, mighty empires, also fell away for their deeds upon Jerusalem; today's crimes cannot be any different. Jews have never robbed anyone's lands in all their 4000 year history, and they are original inhabitants of Canaan, being a Hebrew Canaanite group.

The jews were displaced by Rome in a war of 70 CE, who's decree of heresy was rejected. They were then fastediously barred from returning by Christianity - a church was erected in the temple site, then the church was destroyed and a mosque was erected there. These constitute robbery - specially bad when a religion attempting to be Gdly inclined, flaunts factual history and truth.

There is a sector of Jerusalem [a hilltop] which first belonged to the Jebusites - this was legally purchased by David and included in the city. The Jebusites were allies of the Israelites, siding with Joshua against six other canaanite groups in a domestic war, and lived peacefully with the israelites for many centuries. The advocation of rendering Jerusalem as a burden unto the nations - can only apply to those nations which commit false caims and heinous deeds such as genocide and holocausts, and want to destroy the existing witnesses.