Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman

[tbonez]

Then you may as well fuck right off then because what's your purpose for existing here?

Stealing livestock?

Look there he goes! And he's got your goat!

 

[Inwood]

The only reason you asked that was because I said I could care less what YOU say/think. I think any rational slash well adjusted person would take your neurotic outbursts the same way I did. What a random question to ask. And here where?

Obviously we have differing opinions on what 'rational slash well adjusted' people are, don't we?

And by 'here', you thick-headed wingnut, I mean JUB.

 

[nitish]

Obviously we have differing opinions on what 'rational slash well adjusted' people are, don't we?

And by 'here', you thick-headed wingnut, I mean JUB.

Insulting people is not nice. It's against the code of conduct. And that personally offends me.

But to answer your weird slash random question, I am here because I want to be here? um...duh!

 

[Inwood]

Insulting people is not nice. It's against the code of conduct. And that personally offends me.

FINALLY! Now you know how it feels to be insulted, just as you insulted RationalLunacy. By the way, that man has studied this very subject for probably longer than you've been alive, so show the man some respect. He knows what the fuck he's talking about.

But to answer your weird slash random question, I am here because I want to be here? um...duh!

Well if you want to be here so you can start threads under the false pretense of having a civil discussion all the while flaming and insulting people, then you may as well skip to my lou right out the front door. That sort of attitude is not welcome here.

 

[cyberelf429]

What verse of the Bible says "Don't feed the troll?"

 

[nitish]

FINALLY! Now you know how it feels to be insulted, just as you insulted RationalLunacy. By the way, that man has studied this very subject for probably longer than you've been alive, so show the man some respect. He knows what the fuck he's talking about.


Well if you want to be here so you can start threads under the false pretense of having a civil discussion all the while flaming and insulting people, then you may as well skip to my lou right out the front door. That sort of attitude is not welcome here.

ummm.....slanderous much? I didn't insult anyone. Actually Rational Lunacy doesn't like me. The feeling is mutual. So I am going to politely, but sternly turn down your advice of respecting him because he's old.

Again, show me how I am insulting people?

 

[tbonez]

I would imagine few of us on JUB are fluent in the languages of the modern Christian Bible, and fewer still versed in the history and cultures of the people who wrote it.

There in lies the crux of it.

Without context, scripture is almost meaningless.

To understand Leviticus (or any other scripture) you need to understand the religious and political climate of the day. Not to mention the fact that Leviticus was 'competing' with the popularity of numerous well established "pagan" practices and rituals.

Marriage, for example was not a "Christian" invention, they just rebranded an existing tradition. More to the point, this fallacy of "traditional marriage": It is not the long-standing Christian tradition at all. The whole notion of romantic love being the basis of marriage it thoroughly modern and untraditional...Something else we have the French to thank for I suspect.

 

[nitish]

There in lies the crux of it.

Without context, scripture is almost meaningless.

To understand Leviticus (or any other scripture) you need to understand the religious and political climate of the day. Not to mention the fact that Leviticus was 'competing' with the popularity of numerous well established "pagan" practices and rituals.

Marriage, for example was not a "Christian" invention, they just rebranded an existing tradition. More to the point, this fallacy of "traditional marriage": It is not the long-standing Christian tradition at all. The whole notion of romantic love being the basis of marriage it thoroughly modern and untraditional...Something else we have the French to thank for I suspect.

This actually helps me. I doubt anyone would suggest that the middle eastern culture/tradition, which not only did I study, but grew up in is accepting of homosexuality. This is a moot argument. We all know that the culture of the bible writers was not an accepting environment of different people or ideas. Hell, Damnation, and all that jazz.

 

[tbonez]

This actually helps me. I doubt anyone would suggest that the middle eastern culture/tradition, which not only did I study, but grew up in is accepting of homosexuality. This is a moot argument. We all know that the culture of the bible writers was not an accepting environment of different people or ideas. Hell, Damnation, and all that jazz.

I confess I know virtually nothing worth knowing about history of Muslim culture beyond a modern (1500's onwards) European context.

IMO, when trying t understand the Bible it is critical to understand that throughout biblical times politics and religion were inseparably entwined and mostly indistinguishable. Again, for me, viewing the Bible outside of the context in which it was written is to reduce it to a collection parables. It is really so much more.

As for the question of Leviticus 20:13, imagine this: Take one line out of a book about some place you have never been.. Now, translate it into Swahili, then Ojibwa, then Gaelic. Now read it back to someone and ask them what EXACTLY the author was trying to say. See the problem?

 

[Kurn]

My understanding is modern Christians who are pro gay or are gay choose to ignore or discredit this and other passages in the bible are are hostile...

Leviticus 18:22:

Leviticus 20:13 :


I never understood how you can both believe in and disbelieve the same source. Humans are good at holding contradictory opinions/thoughts, but how can you blatantly say that god approves of homosexuality?

There are varieties of Protestantism that believe that the blood of Jesus put an end to the Old Law. [there are also varieties that make a lot of exceptions to that.]
Actually, if you focus on the OT, you misinterpret Christianity. That's a pretty good rule for most Christian denominations.
Of course, many fundamentalists believe that God was "serious" when, as they believe, God gave Moses the "Laws." So those passages therefore carry some weight.

There is a verse in Matthew, the one about men who are "born eunuchs for the Kingdom of God." The Christianity of pro-Gay Christianity takes this and other verses to suppose that the Kingdom of God has been opening and widening more and more over the centuries. Less than two centuries ago, for example, Slavery was thought by many to be a legitimate institution and you could bring up many verses to support that position. Most schools of Christianity have embraced and passed beyond condoning the institution of slavery.

There is a branch of Christian theology called "Process Theology" that tends to emphasize social progress, equating it with greater spiritual freedom.
Process Theology is not popular among "religious/social conservatives."

 

[tbonez]

...The passage in Leviticus does prohibit the act, there is no question about it...

Please don't take offence to this, none is intended:

If you have any idea as I don't... How does Judaism deal with Leviticus 12:1-8 and Leviticus 23 with regard to burnt offering and animal sacrifices?

I'm genuinely interested.

 

[nitish]

There are varieties of Protestantism that believe that the blood of Jesus put an end to the Old Law. [there are also varieties that make a lot of exceptions to that.]
Actually, if you focus on the OT, you misinterpret Christianity. That's a pretty good rule for most Christian denominations.
Of course, many fundamentalists believe that God was "serious" when, as they believe, God gave Moses the "Laws." So those passages therefore carry some weight.

There is a verse in Matthew, the one about men who are "born eunuchs for the Kingdom of God." The Christianity of pro-Gay Christianity takes this and other verses to suppose that the Kingdom of God has been opening and widening more and more over the centuries. Less than two centuries ago, for example, Slavery was thought by many to be a legitimate institution and you could bring up many verses to support that position. Most schools of Christianity have embraced and passed beyond condoning the institution of slavery.

There is a branch of Christian theology called "Process Theology" that tends to emphasize social progress, equating it with greater spiritual freedom.
Process Theology is not popular among "religious/social conservatives."

People changed their mind about slavery. But the scripture remain the same. Slavery was ok, and is still ok in the bible. I am aware that I am taking the literalistic side of the bible. But why wouldn't I? People allegedly get their belief in god form the bible. Not interpreting it literally renders the whole bible to become just a set of recommendations, and thus the whole system becomes useless. If God inspired the bible, then isn't every part of it important? t was important enough for god to include it in his holy bible.

Don you think it's interesting that the bible also warns of people twisting it for evil? Maybe god was talking about the liberal interpretation of the bible that we have today. (Although I really don't believe in God, so this is just a suggestion, not my personal belief)

 

[tbonez]

People changed their mind about slavery. But the scripture remain the same.

You are either glossing over, or entirely unaware, of one of the central themes of Christianity..."Free will"

We are, as Christians, are free to choose. We can choose to reject slavery as an immoral and repugnant idea despite the fact that in biblical times it was a common and widely accepted practice.

Christina faith is not a some kind of monolith. Some ideas which were palatable in Biblical times are no longer acceptable.

 

[Kurn]

[replying to Nitish]
Liberals aren't evil. They just let you find out for yourself. And they know that a law enforcing morality just ends up shifting the "morality" into a different configuration. Evil finds another way to pop up and make a mess.
Ergo, just be good as best you know how!

According to St. Paul, knowledge of God comes from Nature. It's natural. Many others are more or less of a similar opinion.

I'm post-Christian. I reject authoritarian congregations. Mob morality isn't morality. Mob morality corrupts morality. Not to mean that church people are totally corrupt. It's just a personal preference of mine.

If morality isn't something that comes from within, then what is it? And what comes from within is modified by experience and adjusts to circumstance.
This sort of natural morality DOES NOT morph into a monstrous thing like Nazism, etc. The latter is another example of mob morality.

 

[nitish]

I'm not close to being knowledgeable about Jewish law as it is very complex and takes years to train and study just like one needs to go to law school to be a lawyer and not just read law books on his own.

As I understand animal sacrifices were purely symbolic and meant to show gratitude to God, especially back in the day when livestock was very expensive. Animal sacrifices also symbolize a substitute for Jacob who would have almost been sacrificed, the most difficult test for his father Issac because no man could withstand such a test and trust in a God. Today animal sacrifices have zero value in Jewish tradition because they can only be practiced when the Temple is restored, that means for 2 thousand years there has been no such practice.

If your question is about cruelty in such a practice maybe, but the Torah is also strict rules on how animals should be treated, like the Talmud teaches a person to feed his animals before he himself starts to eat for example...

Don't you mean Abraham sacrificing his son Issac, and not Issac sacrificing Jacob?

That's how it is in the Qur'an, and I wouldn't think it would be different in Judaism.


Also, Animal sacrificing is in Christianity and Islam too. Good stuff. I guess god appreciates tasty animals too.

 

[nitish]

You are either glossing over, or entirely unaware, of one of the central themes of Christianity..."Free will"

We are, as Christians, are free to choose. We can choose to reject slavery as an immoral and repugnant idea despite the fact that in biblical times it was a common and widely accepted practice.

Christina faith is not a some kind of monolith. Some ideas which were palatable in Biblical times are no longer acceptable.

ummmm....isn't that what I said? People mold religion to fit their needs. The bible is largely pro slavery (not pro pro, but it seems to accept it as a way of life). It even regulates how hard you can beat your slaves. How nice.

 

[Swellegant]

All charming backchat aside, there is a way to look at the Bible's proscriptions on homosexuality that makes sense:

See, sex is bad, all the time...straight sex, too. It's forgiveable in order to procreate, but it's still bad. To have sex for pleasure, to masturbate, to have sex without possibility of childbirth... these are all sins. AND EVERYONE DOES THEM.

Christ said "You who are without sin shall cast the first stone." We are all of us sinners, we feel envy and lust, we get angry, we eat and drink too much... even the Pope sins. That's why Christ died for us, because there's no way in hell any of us could ever get into Heaven on our own merits.

The problem with people singling out homosexuals for persecution, while leaving alone adulterers, witches, and people who disrespect their fathers (all of whom share the sentence of death in Leviticus), you commit a sin of hypocrisy.

If you are going for a belief that the Bible is God's unimpeachable Word, you have to take it all, you don't get to edit, you don't get to say that this passage is symbolic and this passage is literal. It's all or nothing.

That woman who won a suit that performing gay marriages was against her religion... she's a hypocrite. I bet she doesn't refuse to peform marriages for adulterers, divorcees, thieves and murderers, people who use birth control or people who are infertile. They're all against her religion, too. But she's singled out the homos for special treatment, and that makes her a bigot (and the ruling in her favor a travesty). And that makes her a sinner in her own religion's definition; it also makes Baby Jesus cry.

So whether or not the passages are translated correctly, whether or not the Bible is the Word of God, and whether or not you believe or disbelieve any of it... we are still all sinners, and no one sin is greater than another (except, if I remember aright, blasphemy), so ain't nobody getting a stepstool to their high horse from God.

 

[nitish]

All charming backchat aside, there is a way to look at the Bible's proscriptions on homosexuality that makes sense:

See, sex is bad, all the time...straight sex, too. It's forgiveable in order to procreate, but it's still bad. To have sex for pleasure, to masturbate, to have sex without possibility of childbirth... these are all sins. AND EVERYONE DOES THEM.

Christ said "You who are without sin shall cast the first stone." We are all of us sinners, we feel envy and lust, we get angry, we eat and drink too much... even the Pope sins. That's why Christ died for us, because there's no way in hell any of us could ever get into Heaven on our own merits.

The problem with people singling out homosexuals for persecution, while leaving alone adulterers, witches, and people who disrespect their fathers (all of whom share the sentence of death in Leviticus), you commit a sin of hypocrisy.

If you are going for a belief that the Bible is God's unimpeachable Word, you have to take it all, you don't get to edit, you don't get to say that this passage is symbolic and this passage is literal. It's all or nothing.

That woman who won a suit that performing gay marriages was against her religion... she's a hypocrite. I bet she doesn't refuse to peform marriages for adulterers, divorcees, thieves and murderers, people who use birth control or people who are infertile. They're all against her religion, too. But she's singled out the homos for special treatment, and that makes her a bigot (and the ruling in her favor a travesty). And that makes her a sinner in her own religion's definition; it also makes Baby Jesus cry.

So whether or not the passages are translated correctly, whether or not the Bible is the Word of God, and whether or not you believe or disbelieve any of it... we are still all sinners, and no one sin is greater than another (except, if I remember aright, blasphemy), so ain't nobody getting a stepstool to their high horse from God.

I agree with you. It's all or nothing. Take it or leave it. The argument we're having is that some people are suggesting the bible has zero negative thing to say about gay acts. Next, they will have be believe sex before marriage is A-OK in the bible. I agree in that homosexuality should not be considered a big sin, or at least should be taken as seriously as the other crazy sins in Leviticus. Thank god I am an atheist is all I have to say about this topic.

I just wish people would either take the bible very seriously, or ignore it; hopefully the later.

 

[tbonez]

If your question is about cruelty in such a practice maybe, but the Torah is also strict rules on how animals should be treated, like the Talmud teaches a person to feed his animals before he himself starts to eat for example...

No, that wasn't it at all!

Christians have the New Testament to deal with much of Leviticus. I just wasn't clear on how or why Jews no longer adhered to that particular 'requirement'...Beyond the practice reasons it would no longer be followed to the letter.

 

[tbonez]

... because there's no way in hell any of us could ever get into Heaven on our own merits.

Oh I suspect you could...If only you didn't keep a turtle in a bowl. That might be a deal breaker.

You have a gift for summation.

I guess worshipping at the feet of a master might be a bit problematic from a strict scriptural standpoint.

Perhaps if I just kissed your pinky ring?