Back to the OP, I think Reggie White was idiot and a bigot but he was also a great football player, so I have no problem with Packers retiring his number. I think if we started combing through the biographies of every NFL player who’s ever had his number retired we might find more than a few who were not candidates for sainthood.
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)
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 Although this code is obsolete for Christians, many clergy still focus on those passages which deal with homosexuality.
The underlined part is what I want to draw attention to. Why, if this Law is the command of God, do we get away ignoring large parts of it - eating the things we love - shrimp, lobster, clams, oysters, beer battered catfish etc. Why do we get away with wearing the True Abomination that is polyester? How about that juicy rare steak or tasty ham that we enjoy so much? Is it a case of applying the law to people based on the “icky” factor - they like butts and that is yucky but give us our steaks and lobsters and small tasty animals? How can we commingle different kinds of food in one refrigerator or freezer (against the rules too)? So the parts that are inconvenient to some people are no longer binding but the parts that are binding on some other more yucky nasty person are? All or nothing. You can’t tell people to obey without picking and choosing what to obey, if you do it (picking what to obey) yourself. If you use the Jesus quote about doing away with the old law (when it applies in your favor), then you can’t use the old law against someone else. All or nothing. It’s a binary. yes or no, all or none, 1 or 0.
SteveG1- is that just an odd translation into English, then? Why say “mankind?” I’m focusing on “mankind,” not the “abomination” angle. Are these acts being deemed bad only if they’re with temple prostitutes of either sex, or only one sex, or… you get the picture.
I haven’t read the rest of this thread, so I realize I’m probably jumping onto the pile quite late here.
One day, the world will be free of barbaric, simpleminded bile such as this. Until that time, we (meaning society as a whole, since I’m not actually part of the demographic that you’re inciting hatred against) must suffer the blind, stupid ignorance of the poor misguided fools who stumble through life in the misguided belief that the Great Sky Fairy has given sanction to their evil. If there is truly a higher power, perhaps She is merely inflicting trials such as this as a test.
We can only hope.
Total agreement. Time to get drunk.
It is a strange translation. The tie-in seems to be that it was done in temples, and was frequently (usually?" often? sometimes? once in a blue moon?) performed with sex rituals of various “persuasions” as part of the worship of false or pagan gods (idolatry) . It would be a lot clearer if the wording was put in a way we would use ourselves. If it said “they buggered boys profusely and the righteous should mightily punch them in the nose for this”, it would be an open and shut case. I might not like that answer, but at least we’d all know the exact meanings. I hope a true expert will jump in and explain better. I just hope they didn’t mean the wrestler known as Mankind - what a scary mental image that would be. Or even worse, if it meant “mankind” as in “don’t mate with other humans”. Some of us love our pets, but not THAT way. :eek:
Great, all these diatribes only serve to entrench the ‘pro-family’ majority. I can just imagine conservative forums use this thread as target practice, in more ways than one. great job fighting ignorance, except you can’t fight ‘ignorance’ if you keep bashing others who disagree with you, especially those who are generally faithful. Sky fairies indeed.
I’m running out of patience with bullshit like this. “You’re helping the [Republicans, pro-family people, Creationists, blah blah blah]” is approaching “that’s what the terrorists want!” in the leagues of complete and useless attempts at thought-retardation. Shut the fuck up.
Please name one.
This is the fucking BBQ Pit. Please have a little sense of perspective, alright? This topic has been discussed, often, without the profanities.
Do you have a problem with the Packers and the NFL having a halftime show that is dedicated not to Reggie White as a great football, but a show dedicated to his life and what a great all round man he was? Because this is the type of ceremony they had.
great footbll player
I’m gonna go with this being aimed at my little rant, since you bring up sky fairies. Are you suggesting that being “faithful” gives people some sort of objective moral highground from which it is okay to spew hatred, ignorance and stupidity?
What I am saying is that, just as it is most inappropriate to resort to gay bashing or gay-hate to prove one’s ‘point’, some Christians will see some of the comments in this thread as as justification to retain some of their beliefs deemed not right by many here. Some would see is as a peculiarity of the ‘gay lifestyle’, as related to their faith. Given their persecution complex, inherited from the Judaic experience, calling them names and referring to their mythology as ‘a bunch of fairie tales’ is a most wrong tactic.
You’re not a very good psychologist. They don’t need justification to retain their beliefs. You need justification to change what you think.
I think it would do some people good to remember that others view their mythology as… mythology. What’s the underlined part of your post mean?
Sigh. If you can’t see the fallacy of what you just said, you are just as blind as the bush administration.
And you think bible trashing serves this noble purpose, a form of justification? To me, it contains a high degree of zealotry that makes totally turns off others, just as terrorism and gay bashing does. I AM NOT SAYING THAT IT IS OF THE SAME DEGREE OF VIOLENCE, I am saying that it–extreme verbal zealotry–can bring about a similar repulsiveness from the view that one is putting forth. That’s explains the treatment of those such as Ann Coltour here.
I agree with this in general, and avoid doing it myself as much as possible. (Also, my boyfriend’s a Christian, and I don’t want to end up sleeping on the couch.) On the other hand, “turn the other cheek” is a fine idea in principle, but often very difficult to put into practice. I can’t really blame Otto or Homebrew for reacting to insults with further insults, even if I think there are more effective ways of getting your point across. Some Christians may have a persecution complex inherited from the Judaic experience, but a lot of gays have a persecution complex inherited from actually being persecuted. I tend to be more respectful of the latter than the former, and grant them more latitude.
It’s also worth pointing out that “your religion is just a bunch of faerie tales,” is insulting to the precise degree as “your sexuality is a sin.” To the extent that it alienates believers who might otherwise be on our side, it is an unfortunate thing to say. But it might also make folks like Martin Hyde recognize exactly why so many people take exception to his beliefs, and are unwilling to accept, “it’s part of my belief system” as any sort of an excuse for them. I’m an atheist, and yeah, it is part of my “belief” system that most of the Bible is nothing more than faerie tales. I’m more than happy to keep that to myself, if Martin Hyde will keep his “gay sex is sinful” crap to himself. But if we’re going to be expressing what we think without regard to how it makes other people feel, as Martin was doing earlier in this thread, than “you believe in sky fairies” are as fair play as “you’re an abomination.”
That said, “Fuck Jesus and fuck you,” was pretty far over the line.
Nope.
The problem is that you’re considering this thread with no context. As I say, we have often had this same discussion, sans cursing. We’re not doing it that way right now, because we’re in the Pit, although despite that fact I think portions of it are head and shoulders above what you might find elsewhere. This is the “gloves off” part of the site, and I’m sure you know that.
Fallacy is the wrong word. But yes, I did that on purpose. Glad you caught it.
Also, speaking only for myself, in the Waking I am very very polite to Fundamentalists. I try to avoid conflict or name calling of any kind and I really do respect their beliefs (just not their intellects or their logical facilities).
The Pit, however, is for me and I’m sure some other Dopers, Fundie and Athies and others, an intellectual version of Fight Club. While personally I find The Pit to be in many ways far more educational than Great Debates (where you can’t call somebody a “fucking idiot” but where the tone still manages to get nastier), our purpose is basic for Dopers who are going slumming and in the mood for a little broken bottle and 2"x4" streetfighting.
Eh…not enough to get worked up about. I find it annoying and manipulative in the same way I find it annoying and manipulative when they play that stupid Leo Greenwood song at ballgames. The solution to both problems is the same. Flip around with the remote until it’s over. Just about anything I come across on cable news will probably piss me off more than a Reggie White tribute.
Okay, back to Minister Reggie White. Yes, his views on gays, among others, is a towing-the-line clunker, and may earn derision from those who disagree. But those were his beliefs.
However, the problem is that many in media agree right with him, when they should know better; this alone is proof that the liberal media bias is a myth.