Or misleading. At first glance, I thought “eating a lobster” might be some new euphemism for a freaky sexual practice – sort of this month’s “Dirty Sanchez” – and was simply posted in the wrong forum.
Having said that, I’m sure the SDMB will no doubt start collectively figuring out what freaky sexual practice is best described as “eating a lobster,” and a new meme will be born. Congratulations; it’s rare to be around for the birth of these things. 
Hey, man I didn’t known God was down on recreational drugs. Mind, I haven’t done X in years, so I’m off the hook. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
As for your Hebrew thunder god’s silly rules and regulations, I worry about them as much as I worry about being condemned by Vishnu to further incarnations as a lower life form as punishment for eating beef. Your god is a creation of the human imagination, just like Odin, Zeus, Re Herakhte, Quetzalcoatl, and every other personfication of natural forces dreamed up by different societies over the ages.
Moreoever, it’s very hard to take you seriously when you people pick and choose the rules you choose to live by. For example, Paul said that women should no speak in church, yet I see the Pauline prohibitions on homosexuality preached by women in shameless violation of Gawd’s Holy Word. On Sundays, I see sinners openly wearing cotton/poly blends which are a foul abomination the Lord has clearly forbidden to his flock. Alas, alas, for you, lawyers and Pharisees, you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Hypocrisy, I calls it.
Still, if you lot wish to live your lives constrained by the cultural mores of a pack of Bronze Age sheepherders, go for it, but I really would like for you to leave the rest of us alone. I’m not a member of your club, and your constant attempts to make everyone else in the US live by the bylaws of your church is really irritating. We live in a democratic republic, not a theocracy (yet), so you Christian mullahs who want to turn this place into a born-again Iran can either learn to get along with the rest of us who do not share your antiquated beliefs, or get out and form your own Puritan society someplace else.
Oh, and don’t fool yourselves that the Lord God Almighty will spare you from judgment for committing abominations in His sight, selah! Amen and amen!
I was raised Jewish and I’ve been thoroughly studying the religion for ten years now (since first grade). I can tell you that there is no indication in the old testament that the main laws (ex. kosher) are subject to nullification or alteration in any circumstance.
Thank you. I thought so, but it always helps to have a more avid devotee of scripture than I confirm it for others.
I agree, tho some circumstances make Torah impossible to fully observe (such as in the sacrificial laws), but kosher law & other Israel-Gentile distinctions do not apply to Gentiles. The Q is - is the law against male-male sex an Israel-specific law or is it a law for humanity? I hold that its place in Torah (Leviticus 18) make it as universal as the surrounding laws against incest & bestiality.
It appears the passage only applies to those who “gave up relations with women”. If you only have sex with men is it OK?
That is the greatest site ever!!
My my. You’re badly taking Romans 1 out of context. Paul here was going off on a diatribe against a particular group of men in Rome. A group of so-called Christians that had (at least in Paul’s opinion) badly tweaked the Word of Jesus ( Rom1:21 “Because when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened…” Rom.1:23 “and changed the Glory of the incorruptable God into an image made like to corruptible man…” 24 “Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanliness through the lusts of their own bodies between themselves” 25 “Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator…” And he goes on to say THIS group of blasphemers are homosexual murderers, and are guilty of scads of other horrible sins. They aren’t guilty of these sins because they are homosexuals , they are cursed with all these sins (which includes homosexual sex- and also “debate”, “covetousness”, “proud” “boasters” )because they are heretics & blasphemers.
Now, back to the OP- once “Jesus died for our sins”, most Christians hold that He then fulfilled the Mosaic Law for all Christians. Thus all the Old Testament Laws do not hold on Christians- including very specifically keeping kosher & getting circumscribed. Thus, it is OK to eat Lobster if youre a Christian. ;j
Jesus himself really seemed to list only one sin- not “doing unto others as you would have them do unto you”. That woudl generally include murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc. Things that I think we can all agree are “no-no’s”.
Paul didn’t like sex. At all. For anyone (1Cor7:1 “…It is good for a man to not touch a woman”). Even married couples (then it was tolerable, only as a way to avoid “fornication”). This included homosexual sex- because of course homosexual sex was at that time fornication. He does include homosexual men amoung his list of “unrighteous” (1Cor 6:9) (or at least most translators think that’s what he meant) but he also included “fornicators” “the covetous” and ‘drunkards’ amoung a long list of those who won’t “inherit the kingdom of God”. Thus, yes, dudes having gay sex were (to Paul) sinners- just as drunkards & fornicators were. No worse. If you assume the words of Paul are Gospel, then gay sex (not homosexuality- as “not having sex =good” even if the sex you’re not having is gay sex) is a sin, just as bad as sex outside marriage, or drinking too much, or coveting stuff that don’t belong to you.
Thus, pretty much- we are all guilty of at least the last. I- who love to “covet” my way through catalogs full of stuff I can’t afford- am a sinner. The “Fundie” who really wants that spiffy new car is just as much a sinner as the gay guy sucking dick down at the “baths”. Boff that girl before marriage? Sinner. :eek:
It ain’t with St. Peter, let me tell you. No way. Paul don’t do that.
So, did the advent of vinyl footballs finally put that abomination of touching a dead pig’s flesh to rest?
I’m sure he was talking about food but this thread needs a little levity.
Tee hee.
As ** clairobscur** rightly questions, why is it that certain Paulian exhortations are enforced when others are not? I wanted to share the attempts of one sect that holds (or tries to, unless it messes with their tax-exempt status) the Bible as inerrant, the Jehovah’s Witnesses…
Women are not to address the congregation, as a woman speaking in church is a ‘shameful’ thing. This basically meant that penises trump all: for example, if only women showed to up at the kingdom hall to go door-to-door (which was not uncommen), one woman would have to cover her head and lead the prayer. However, if there was a baptized male there, even if he was 10 years old, he would lead.
Also, while males of any age would give short speeches (5 min) on a given topic at the podium, the women, since they were not to address the congregation, had to do little skits, where one woman was the householder and the other the witness, on the raised stage.
Women were allowed to answer questions over the Watchtower readings, though, since I guess that was somehow different than addressing the congregation…
Also, it’s interesting to see people like the raindog who believe so firmly in biblical inerrancy (correct me if I’m wrong, rd), since the whole idea of a ‘pure Christianity’ - one that follows strictly to biblical rules is a fairly modern invention - in the 1800s, mainly. I mean, think about medieval, or baroque Christianity, for example - for an adherant to this concept of ‘pure Christianity’, it would be unthinkable, and uncomprehensible. Even the earliest Christians practiced their religion in a way that would be almost unrecognizable to the fundamentalist Christians. (Of course, if they take the same perspective as the JW’s, history can go out the window, and they are simply reviving the exact same form of Christianity as practiced 1800 years ago…) What is a modern (fundamentalist) Christian to make of the Corpus Christi celebrations, the auto sacramentales, the dragons, the parades, the parties, the singling, the rituals, the costumes, the dances, the decorations, etc…?
So I can have oral sex…but I have to swallow?
Ah, double-edged sword, I know you well.
I think Derek and Clive (Peter Cook and Dudley Moore) pretty much covered the field in deviant lobster behaviour back in the seventies. Try googling “Jayne Mansfield”+“Lobsters”. 
aurelian said:
My goals at SDMB, when I’ve participated, have been fairly simple. My feeling is that:
The bible is as pertinent and useful for everyday life as it has ever been. Mark Twain said that religion gave God a bad name. He was right. But despite the rank hypocrosy demonstrated by many religions, the message has more pertinence than ever before. Our generation, perhaps more than any other, has seen an almost complete breakdown in social mores and family structures. We call this enlightenment, and an escape from the bronze age sheepherder mentality. But to the extent we’ve gotten away from the bible and it’s core values we’re spiritually poorer for it. We’re more profane, crass, materialistic, and stupifyingly selfish. For all our advances, there are many parts of our society that have regressed to a state of near spiritual barbarity. I’m sure that there are some, perhaps most, here that would disagree.
To understand the bible and appreciate it’s message, one must read it regularly. In fact, most of my posts have not been in the areas of the inerrancy of the bible, but rather responding to the constant stream of misquoted bible texts on this board. We’re not talking about weighty doctrinal issues (although there’s been a fair amount of that too) but garden variety stuff that is quoted out of context, partially quoted or completely misapplied. Before anyone jumps in with the obligatory, “That’s just your interpretation!”, we’re talking about pretty basic stuff, that a cursory reading of the text involved would reveal. I am no expert at the bible, but rather a serious student. But we’ve had scriptures quoted many, many times that weren’t even close to the explanation given. It was clear almost every single time when I’ve pressed for clarification that the poster had little or no real command of the text in question, or it’s context. It’s one thing to question the legitimacy of the bible, it’s another thing entirely to quote it in strident terms having not completely read the account being quoted. In another thread a poster said Paul was against sex; the text quoted actually was a prescription for a heathy sex life and if followed correctly would improve the communication and quality of many couples sex lives. Another poster qouted text in Matthew that supported that one shouldn’t “slavishly” follow the “book.” [bible] The text actually made the exact opposite point; that one should rely on the bible not on man made traditions. Time and again texts are being quoted with little or no real knowledge of what’s being quoted.
I must run now, as there things that I must do. I would like to partially address the point (and I’ve seen variations of it here) that following the bible closely is a fairly recent advent; in the last couple hundred years. That is simply not true. (Although it surely sounds authentic) Throughout human history, including the time period covered throughout the whole bible, ther have those who stuck close to biblical teachings, and those who didn’t. Both the OT and the NT are replete with stories of those who strayed from the bible and it’s mesage and in most, if not all, there was either severe penalty (The OT specifically) and in the NT admonishment and/or counsel. Jesus was harshly critical of the Pharisees for their failure to follow the Law, and Paul counseled whole congregations for their inclinations to stray. The message in the NT from Jesus through Paul is consistent that the bible is valid and to be followed. ( I will provide cites if someone wishes) From the early church forward there have been those who followed and those who didn’t. Many of the religious traditions that are popular today have origins that are non-biblical. But the notion that following the bible is a recent development is just not true.
Must run now. maybe will continue later.
The raindog says:
But inerrancy is the core issue; it is what gives the Bible its authority, and what makes non-fundamentalists question the legitimacy of a belief system that obeys some of the rules (no gay sex), but not others (lobsters for everyone!) I have read the Bible cover to cover many times, and I come to different conclusions than you - of course, so do all sorts of denominations of Christianity. (God is one or three; wine becomes blood; fornication means gay sex in particular or simply sex outside of wedlock; women are not allowed to speak in church)
Forgive me if I’m being repetitive, but this is why I brought up inerrancy (and why I hope you will address your feelings on it): I understand your desire to make sure that the correct texts are being addressed - that’s the first step in the debate. But once it is established that yes, we are talking about Ephesians X:yy, inerrancy creeps in the picture. If the Bible is the inspired word of God, and God is omnipotent and infallible, than all that is contained in the Bible is true and accurate and good. Again, it is this connection to God that gives the Bible its power; if you thought that it was just some collection of tales and history (ie, a piece of literature in the vernacular sense) it would not have such power, such moral authority. (This is why you accept the Bible as divinely-inspired truth but not the Koran.) Thus, one either takes the Bible as a whole, inerrant and true; or one decides (based on dogmatic concerns, social/political needs, etc) to accept some scripture but not all. Again, for a non-fundamentalist, that is, someone who does not believe the Bible is inerrant, it seems contradictory and subjective that some rules are applied and others aren’t. (ie, gay sex and lobster - since lobster is pretty clearly given the thumbs-up in the NT but gay sex is not so clear).
Well, you called that last statement right, that’s for sure. I mean this sincerely: I’m sorry that you think so little of humankind. What, exactly, are the social mores that have broken down?
Increase in children born out of wedlock? Need I remind you that the only reason Catholic priests are celibate is because in the 13th century priests were fathering children left and right, children that would have legitimate claims to the property of the Church, and in a move of self-protection, the Council of Trent moved to enforce celibacy? And that oodles of kids were born out of wedlock throughout medieval and baroque Europe?
Degeneration of marriage? Again, as opposed to what? When people were married to build wealth and property? When a man could beat his wife, rape her, and kill her if she cheated on him? When children that weren’t noble were essentially labor? The idea of a marriage based on romance is very new - while there most certainly love stories throughout history, in medieval and baroque Europe (well, okay, I guess I only have direct experience with Spain) poor people were thought to be physically incapable of love - what was marriage for them? You didn’t even need a priest to get married until a few hundred years ago.
Civil rights? If you were a Muslim or Jew in the Spain of the Catholic kings, here are your choices: leave your home, where your ancestors may have lived for hundreds of years; forcibly convert to Christianity (and still continue to suffer discriminations) or die.
Read literature. Authors in every century have decried the moral baseness of their time, the lack of morality, etc, just as you are doing now. That most certainly does not mean that we need not deal with the problems of our time, but it is idiotic to arrogantly think that we are that much different than other places and historical moments.
I did not say ‘following the bible’, I said taking the Bible as inerrant and following all its rules and absolute and correct. That is most certainly a recent historical development. (And if I weren’t in the middle of a massive book-rearrangement-project, I could give you some title of history of religion books ) I am not talking about ‘pagan’ roots of modern holidays (and they’re replete with such influence).
I’ve rambled on enough, but the raindog, I honestly hope you will take the time to answer my questions.
Kinda odd that after I demolished Loopydude’s argument, he has been rather scarce, eh? :rolleyes:
Isn’t a debate about biblical inerrancy (it isn’t) a bit of a hijack?
OTOH, we have answered the OP’s question. Note also that our Op hasn’t posted back here. Hmmm. :dubious:
aurelian said:
I will be glad to. However, the next couple days look to be pretty busy, so I’ll try to squeeze a few minutes in here and there. The kids are off on summer break and things get busy.
You’ve brought up some interesting points and I would be pleased to respond to them.
raindog: This is perhaps mildly critical, but more it’s a request. I’m not a Christian, but I’d like to understand a little better the Christian view of homosexuality. You seem to be pretty knowledgeable about the Bible (moreso than most folks I know, at least) but you still haven’t even attempted to explain what that passage actually means. Whoever it was who quoted it originally was a little over-the-top - and I suspect some of the argument was because he was using terms simply as casual emphasis that have a far more specific, important meaning to a Christian. At any rate, though, you’ve lapsed into “debate mode” here (yes, the aforementioned quoter made an affirmative statement with no backup - so what?) and I at least would probably be a little more enlightened if you simply presented and explained your views rather than arguing.
At any rate, though, for those of us who can’t simply look at a Bible verse and understand it, lacking the context and the experience needed to do so, what was Paul saying? And what is the Biblical view of homosexuality? And what is the basis for it being banned when the rest of the injunctions from Leviticus have been thrown out? Simply a revelation experienced by Paul? Or is there more complexity to the law here that I don’t understand?
Note that I welcome the opinions of other well-informed Christian (or at least, very familiar with the Bible) Dopers - perhaps ones who might feel a little more forthcoming with their information.
Gobear Jewish thunder god? I disagree. A quick read of any issue of Thor will reveal that he doesn’t worry about his mother or feel guilty at least once every two pages. Clearly, he’s a goy.
But seriously folks, I can’t prove G-d exists and never claimed I could. I believe based on feelings and experiences but have no evidence whatsoever. Gobear based on my experience of G-d (which may just be a flaw in my temporal lobe), your homosexuality is no sin. From your many posts, the most grievous sin you’re guilty of is eating a limb cut from a living animal (specifically an octopus).
Kanicbear
I again recommend the documentary Trembling Before G-d (the title, on the box, tape, and in the credits is spelled with the hyphen). It’s about orthodox Judaism and homosexuality. The folks interviewed range from ‘Oh Lord, make me hetero’ to ‘as a result of the conflict between my homosexuality and my Judaism, I’ve given up my Judaism’ to ‘I obey the commandments and love G-d, and my homosexuality is no sin’. As I’ve said often, I feel that part of my purpose is to go those homosexuals who suffer due to the seeming condemnation of homosexuality and tell them that the Lord made them gay. Their homosexuality is His work. It is no sin, and He loves them.
FriarTed
I usually see them referred to as Noahide rather than Noahic. One law definitely condemns sexual imorality. But, it doesn’t define it. The laws are intentionally brief and vague as an entire moral and legal code is supposed to be inferred. Cruelty to animals is not explicitly condemned. The law simply forbids eating a limb torn from a living animal.
Back To The OP
Being Jewish ;j what Paul said is of only academic concern.