Topic started by KARAN SINGH YADAV (@ 202.41.235.5) on Tue Dec 23 07:55:01 EST 2003.
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.

To all people I would like to clarify that the YADAVS are the only true Kshtriyas (Warrior Class) left in current India. This Race Yaduvansh was started by King Yadu and Lord Krishna was the supreme Yadav of all times

Responses:

• From: mummudicholan (@ 131.178.0.213) on: Thu Jan 1 15:50:27 EST 2004
  
  What is a "sh1triya"?
  
  Does this confirm that Lord Krishna is a piece of SH1T?
  
  
• From: mummudicholan (@ 131.178.0.213) on: Thu Jan 1 15:51:42 EST 2004
  
  //To all people I would like to clarify that the YADAVS are the only true Kshtriyas (Warrior Class) left in current India. This Race Yaduvansh was started by King
  Yadu and Lord Krishna was the supreme Yadav of all times //
  
  
  You mean to say that Laloo Prasad Yadav is a direct descendent of Lord Krishna the Shitriya?
  
  
• From: veerendra (@ ) on: Wed Apr 7 00:34:32
  
  From: mummudicholan (@ 131.178.0.213) on: Thu Jan 1 15:51:42 EST 2004
  
  
  //To all people I would like to clarify that the YADAVS are the only true Kshtriyas (Warrior Class) left in current India. This Race Yaduvansh was started by King
  Yadu and Lord Krishna was the supreme Yadav of all times //
  
  
  You mean to say that Laloo Prasad Yadav is a direct descendent of Lord Krishna the Shitriya?
  
  
  yes, if you are the descenden of your grand-grand-------------father.
  
  
• From: Graham Staines (@ algart.org) on: Wed Apr 7 02:31:10 EDT 2004
  
  
  Search and find articles and topics quickly and accurately! See different advanced ways to search for articles on this site.
  Top of Form 1 Further Topic Research: Syntax help Bottom of Form 1
  I apologize in advance for this article. My intentions are not to upset nor offend Jews and Christians. My intentions are to expose the unfortunate man's corruption and alteration in the Bible. This article contains inappropriate quotes from the Bible. It is not suitable for children under 16 to read. Viewer discretion is advised.
  Introduction: We must first of all know that the entire Bible is corrupted and unreliable and is mostly filled with man-made laws and corruption! 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)"
  The Revised Standard Version makes even clearer: "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, we clearly see that the Jews had so much corrupted the Bible with their man-made cultural laws, that they had turned the Bible into a lie!
  See Also Deuteronomy 31:25-29 where Moses peace be upon him predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death.
  The Book of Moses predicted that the Law (Bible) will get corrupted. The Book of Jeremiah which came approximately 826 years after did indeed confirm this corruption.
  X-Rated Pornography in the Bible:
  The sections of this article are:
  - X-Rated Pornography in the Bible.
  - Women's breasts are important sexual objects.
  - 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 from her
  "mother's breast" as she said) so she doesn't have to take him home in secret.
  - The entire Bible is corrupted anyway according to its Theologians!
  - Christians practicing pornography and sodomy. Apparently they think it's ok
  to do it!
  - Emails that agree and disagree with me and my responses.
  - King David, the Begotten Son of GOD and X-Rated Pornography.
  - About the validity of the books of 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and
  Esther.
  - Question to Jews and Christians about King David.
  - Does the Bible allow for women to be Lesbians?
  - So what about those Christians who prohibit Homosexuality for men just
  because the Old Testament prohibits it?
  - What the Bible Says About Homosexuality? An article about homosexuality
  in both OT and NT in the Bible from www.godlovesfags.com
  - Homosexuality and the Bible, An Interpretation. Another article from
  www.godlovesfags.com
  - Conclusion.
  The Bible has some really weird things in it that you would really be ashamed to even share with your own little kids!. It teaches you to fantasize about women's breasts and vaginas. It also teaches you to sleep with your own sister!.
  A quick answer to the Christian folks who claim that the "Song of Songs" book in the Bible is talking about a husband and a wife: As you will see below in the article, the book is not talking about a husband and a wife. It's talking about two lovers. But even if it was talking about a husband and a wife, then wouldn't you agree with me that exposing your wife's privates to the world is pornography by itself?
  What is the spiritual point and wisdom from having pornography in the Bible? How is it supposed to be GOD Almighty's True Living Words?
  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 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 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 up-h-olstered 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?
  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 [showed off his groin in other words] 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.
  Her 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 movie "Sex in the Bible" on A&E TV Station, the Hebrew translation to "Your naval" is referring to the woman's VAGINA. The English translators substituted the word "NAVEL" WITH "VAGINA." Please rent a copy of the movie and watch it. 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.
  Further proofs from Jim; a non-Muslim guy who tried to prove that I was not accurate about the translation of the word "Naval" in this Porn-full verse. He sent the following to the Christian "Answering Islam" team:
  "Mr. Abdallah seems to have done little homework in this matter, since his whole analysis seems to stem from someone named Mike. Here is actually what this video says:
  The word navel and the umbilical cord both come from the woman's vagina since this is a natural part of childbirth."
  So Mr. Jim, what exactly did you disprove here? Whether "Naval" accurately means "vagina" or something inside the vagina it wouldn't make much difference. You just further proved how full of porn the Bible really is.
  Please answer this question for me:
  Why should vaginas and illegal sex done by unmarried lovers be talked about in a sexual fantasy in the book that is supposed to be the True Living Words of GOD Almighty from the first place?
  Please visit my rebuttal to your hoax:
  Rebuttal to the so-called "Suckling Pornography" lie against Islam.
  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, 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!
  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.
  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 [], [], [], [].
  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.
  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" [, ] for all this corruption that is going on.
  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."
  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
  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 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.
  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.
  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?
  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"?
  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.
  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?
  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:
  were uncharitable and abusive to strangers
  wanted to rape people
  engaged in homosexual acts
  whether the punishment was for this single act involving Lot, or because of long lasting sinful behaviour
  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.
  Leviticus 18:22 states: "Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." The term abomination (to'ebah) is a religious term, usually reserved for use against idolatry; it does not mean a moral evil. The verse seems to refer to temple prostitution, which was a common practice in the rest of the Middle East at that time. Qadesh referred to male religious prostitutes. (See the discussion of Deuteronomy below).
  Leviticus 20:13 states: "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they should surely be put to death....". The passage is surrounded by prohibitions against incest, bestiality, adultery and intercourse during a woman's period. But this verse is the only one in the series which uses the religious term abomination; it seems also to be directed against temple prostitution.
  These passages are part of the Jewish Holiness Code which also:
  permits polygamy
  prohibits sexual intercourse when a woman has her period,
  bans tattoos
  prohibits eating rare meat
  bans wearing clothes that are made from a blend of textiles
  prohibits cross-breeding livestock
  bans sowing a field with mixed seed
  prohibits eating pigs, rabbits, or some forms of seafood
  requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath
  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.
  Deuteronomy 23:17 states (in the King James Version) "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." This is an "error" by the authors of the KJV. The word qadesh in the original text was mistranslated as sodomite. Quadesh means "holy one" and is here used to refer to a man who engages in ritual prostitution in the temple. There is little evidence that the prostitutes engaged in sexual activities with men. Other Bible translations use accurate terms such as shrine prostitute, temple prostitute, prostitute and cult prostitute.
  Judges 19 describes an event much like that at Sodom. This time, an unnamed Levite visited the town of Gibeah with his slaves and concubine. He met an old farmer and was made welcome. A gang of men appeared and demanded that the old man send out the Levite that they might homosexually rape or assault him. (It is again not clear what the precise meaning of the verb to know was). The old man argued that they should not abuse the visitor. He offered to give them both the Levite's concubine and his own virgin daughter to be heterosexually raped. The mob accepted the former, raped her all night and finally killed her. The Levite sliced up her body into 12 pieces and sent one to each of the tribes of Israel. This triggered a war between the inhabitants of Gibeah and the Israelites during which tens of thousands died. There was no condemnation against the Levite for sacrificing his concubine, or for committing an indignity to a body. Judges 20:5 emphasizes that the aim of the mob was to kill the stranger - the ultimate act of inhospitality. It appears that these passages condemn abusive treatment of visitors. If they actually refer to homosexual activity, then they condemn homosexual rape; they have nothing at all to say about consentual homosexual relationships.
  I Kings 14:24 and 15:12 again refer to temple prostitution. The original word qadesh is mistranslated as sodomite (homosexual) in the King James Version, but as male prostitute, male cult prostitutes, and male shrine prostitutes in more accurate versions. As mentioned before, there is little evidence that homosexuality was involved. Again, the text has nothing to say about consentual homosexual relationships.
  Romans 1:26 and 27, according to most Biblical scholars, condemns all gay and lesbian activity. Paul criticizes sexual activity which is against a person's nature or disposition. But a minority of scholars interpret the passage differently: in Greek society of the time, homosexuality and bisexuality was regarded as a natural activity for some people. Thus Paul might have been criticizing heterosexuals who were engaged in homosexual activities against their nature. He might not be referring to homosexuals or bisexuals at all.
  The verses preceding 26 might indicate that he was referring to sexual acts associated with idol worship. The verse is too vague to be interpreted as a blanket prohibition of all same-sex activities.
  I Cor 6:9 Paul lists a many activities that will prevent people from inheriting the Kingdom of God. One has been variously translated as effeminate, homosexuals, or sexual perverts. The original Greek text reads malakoi arsenokoitai. The first word means soft; the meaning of the second word has been lost. It was once used to refer to a male temple prostitute (as in the verses from the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament described above). The early Church interpreted the phrase as referring to people of soft morals; i.e. unethical. From the time of Martin Luther, it was interpreted as referring to masturbation . More recently, it has been translated as referring to homosexuals . Each Translator seem to take whatever activity that their society particularly disapproves of and use it in this verse.
  1 Tim 1:9 again refers to malakoi arsenokoitai which has been variously translated as homosexuals, sexual perverts etc. Again, the original meaning of the text as been lost.
  Jude 7 refers to the people of Sodom as "giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh". Strange flesh has been variously translated as perverted sensuality, unnatural lust, lust of men for other men, and perversion. Again, it is unclear what is being referred to here. Some biblical scholars interpret this as referring to an ancient Jewish legend that the women of Sodom engaged in sexual intercourse with angels.
  In summary:
  homosexual activity in the temple by male prostitutes is clearly prohibited by the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament).
  homosexual activity in general may have been prohibited at the time bythe Holiness Code, but that code is no longer binding on Christians today.
  St. Paul considered at least some male and female homosexual acts to be forbidden, but it is unclear precisely which acts are included. He may have been referring to temple prostitution, or to people who are notinnately gay, lesbian or bisexual engaging in homosexual acts. One should note that Paul also condemned women preaching (1 Cor 14:34) orwearing gold or pearls (1 Tim 2:11). He also accepted and did notcondemn the institution of slavery. Some Christians feel that his writings are not a useful guide for ethics and morals in the 20th Century.
  Jesus made many hundreds of statements regarding belief and behaviour. However He never mentioned homosexuality.
  There are two Biblical same-sex relationships (one between two women, the other two men) reported in the Bible in a positive light. They appear to have progressed well beyond friendship. They were likely homosexual affairs, although not necessarily sexually active relationships:
  Ruth 1:16, 2:10-11 between Ruth and Naomi
  1 Samuel 18:1-4, 1 Samuel 20:41-42 and 2 Samuel 1:25-26 between David and Jonathan. (Some translations of the Bible distort the original Hebrew text, particularly of 1 Samuel 20)
  It is the subject of endless debate whether St. Paul's prohibition of at least some homosexual acts was:
  for the people in the vicinity of the Mediterranean during the 1st Century CE, or
  for all people, forever.
  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.
  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.
  Homosexuality and the Bible, An Interpretation
  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.
  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:
  Fathers are literally allowed to stick their fingers into their own daughters' vaginas in the Bible before the daughters get married.
  Raping girls at the age of 3 is allowed in the Jewish Holiest Book, the Thalmud.
  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.
  Women rights in Christianity?
  Church Priests/Ministers who changed their sex and still preach in their Churches.
  Priests with the AIDS.
  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.
  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 Burdic-k, 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
  
  http://www.animal-cruelty.com/x_rated.htm
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Want to post a response?