Sorry about the dreadful job of posting the quotations from CarnalK and Diogenes the Cynic. And my question was not clear either. I will try again. The question is for either or both of you or for anyone who wants to answer.
When this text is debated and evaluated, it is always done from a male point of view. Imagine for a moment that you are a woman reading the Bible and run across this directive from God. What meaning does it have for a female?
I don’t know the context. Was God speaking directly to a male? Is there anything in the Bible about female homosexuality?
“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman.” For most females, that would be a directive to have sex every time she lay beside a man – any man. That would be the opposite of how we lie with a woman.
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
First, let me say I don’t actually dislike you at all. We are usually in different discussions here so I haven’t really gotten to know you personally but I would agree with the general consensus that you are a pretty darn nice guy. It’s just that being here as long as we have, a couple of nitpicks have turned into a boil that I need to lance.
See, when you call people with a more literal interpretation of the Bible “Bible-believing”, in other threads “Bible-worshipping” and modern Pharisees we can all probably agree it’s meant to be derogatory. It feels hypocritical to me because as stated they just put less speculation into their interpretation. They still are trying to follow what they think God has commanded. Just because you read the Bible in a different way doesn’t mean you are doing any different than them.
Don’t get me wrong, yours would be the way I would go if I was a Christian but the Bible is so full of contradictions and crap I don’t see why you don’t throw out the whole mess and find a better book. The only reason I can guess is that all Christians are a little bit “Bible worshippers”.
Anyway, that out of the way: In a hypothetical theocracy set up on your beliefs, would divorce only be granted for an abusive relationship?
[/QUOTE]
I agree, CarnalK. And with regard to the divorce thing, I agree wholeheartedly. There’s a lot of reasons between the “Hollywood Divorce” and getting the shit kicked out of you on a daily basis that would make divorce the correct option. Why would Jesus want someone to stay in a stale, worn-out marriage? Wouldn’t he, if he loved us, want us to be happy? For most people, the reasons they married their spouse have simply expired. People change. If a couple doesn’t evolve together – if they no longer share a common goal – what’s the point of staying together? Surely god wouldn’t want his children to be miserable, would he? Wouldn’t he want each of us to be the best person they can be? And couldn’t that mean evolving, and possibly partnering multiple times, to attain that level of personal satisfaction?
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
And I’m curious, why is that more of an hypocrisy for a fundy than any other Christian? Jesus was clear on that point, wasn’t he? It doesn’t contradict his “love everybody” command.
[/QUOTE]
It isn’t any different for the Fundies,but they make such a big thing out of some of the other quotes; so in a way they pick and choose as well. If one is going to translate the Bible as literally as they try to do, one could go in all directions at once!
badchad…I can’t link you to the numerous sites I used to determine my own beliefs on this. I could at one time, I had them bookmarked. My computer died a few years ago and I lost them all. I could go to a lot of time and effort to find them again, if I thought you really wanted to research the “issue.” I don’t HAVE a lot of time, though, and since I don’t think you really WANT to research the issue and instead just want to fight with me? [sub]And I don’t need a CITE for THAT, either…all you need to do is to search on your username and Christian to see why I came to that conclusion.[/sub] I’m not inclined to take time I don’t have to look for them again. I have no personal need to revisit them…I have made my own conclusions and I am comfortable with my beliefs. I would suggest you do a search in GD. That is where I found a lot of them.
[/QUOTE]
Or in other words you hold, and profess as true, a belief that you can’t substantiate. Thank you.
[QUOTE=badchad]
Or in other words you hold, and profess as true, a belief that you can’t substantiate. Thank you.
[/QUOTE]
That, assmunch, is explicit trolling. Scotticher stated, in direct response to you, that she had formed her opinions (I gather you have some difficulty distinguishing between opinions and beliefs) on the basis of a number of things which she had read and bookmarked the online material from – and that she no longer had those bookmarks, for a reason clear to anyone who’s had a computer go bad on them. Are you calling her a liar (because of a belief about her that you can’t substantiate)? Or are you indulging yourself in misrepresentation of what she said.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
It has to do with the location of the verse in a grouping of verses which is concerned with isolating Israel from the Canaanite cults and speaks of other ritual practices. Also because the Hebrew word translated as “abomination” had a religious meaning akin to “heretical.” Also because transvestite male prostitution was common in Canaanite temples and the Bible shows concern with it elsewhere.
[/QUOTE]
Cite specifically what makes you think the Leviticus verses in question have to do only with Canaanite cults and ritual practices? Are you suggesting that having sex with your sister, mother, aunt, neighbors wife, and dog are ok (from a Christian perspective) now too, since the admonitions against come from the same place?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
You seem to be putting all your eggs in the Leviticus basket but what I asked for was a case that PAUL intended to condemn homosexuality.
[/quote]
I don’t propose to make the strength argument based on what PAUL wrote. I’ve been pretty clear on that.
No, I’m saying it’s as clear as is biblically possible that Leviticus condemns it, and since Paul probably knew about Leviticus and Paul spoke out against perverted sexual practices, Paul PROBABLY didn’t like it either.
Based on your comment…
“I don’t even know that I necessarily agree that Paul did not view homosexual behavior as a per se sin.”
…I don’t even think you disagree with me all that much.
Leviticus was pretty clear saying don’t do as the Canaanites do, don’t do as the Egyptians do, but do as such… don’t shag your mom, don’t shag your sister, don’t shag your dog, don’t shag your neighbors wife, and don’t shag other men, etc, etc. I don’t feel I need to show that this wasn’t part of some temple practice anymore than I need to exclude that these weren’t part of some Martian practice. Leviticus said not to do these things, period. It does not say, it’s ok to do these things under some given circumstances. If you think it does, lets see your cite.
Bullshit. You think Jesus was a nice guy, you think his philosophy is cool, you think bunch of liberal Christians on this board are your friends, and you wouldn’t dream of arguing contrary to any of that.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
That, assmunch, is explicit trolling.
[/quote]
“Assmunch,” what would Jesus say about that?
I’m saying she professed a belief/made a claim…
”I am no longer convinced that the Bible presents being gay as a sin. I have read some interpretations of the Scriptures that are used to support the position that being gay is a sin…with a totally different interpretation. From very Godly and learned Biblical scholars. And I believe that these are the correct interpretations.”
…based on interpretations from learned bible scholars, that she can’t (or perhaps won’t) back up. I made no assumptions about her motivations and that’s not trolling, no matter how much you wish it to be. But hey keep pushing that “report bad post” button, I’m sure it makes you feel better.
[QUOTE=badchad]
“Assmunch,” what would Jesus say about that?
[/QUOTE]
For some reason I get a picture in my head of Jesus high-fiving Poly for saying that.
[QUOTE=badchad]
Cite specifically what makes you think the Leviticus verses in question have to do only with Canaanite cults and ritual practices?
[/quote]
Because it says so. The Holiness Code in Leviticus is explicily identified as a set of injunctions intended to keep Israel ritually pure and separate from Canaanite and Egyptian practices (Lev. 18 1-4). Also because it repeatedly uses the word to’ebah (so commonly translated as “abomination”) which has a specifically ritual connontation rather than a simple moral one. If referred to ritual impurity and idolotrous practices. The word zimah was used for moral sin.
Another suggestive point is that while almost all of these codes are repeated in Deuteronomy, the alleged homosexual injunction is not. It does however have a specific injunction against bringing “the hire
of a prostitute, or the wages of a dog [male temple prostitute], into the house of Yahweh.” (Dt. 23:18)
I’m saying that if those things are forbidden to Christians it’s not because of Leviticus. The Leviticus Holy Code is no longer binding on Chistians and, in fact, the “man with a man” verses tend to be the only ones ever cited as such.
Well, since you’re trying to play “gotcha” with Christians, you’re going to have to deal with tha fact that Paul said the old laws were nullified (Gal. 3). The Leviticus Holy Code does not apply to Christians. Even Jews think it only applies to Jews. If you want to argue that homosexuality is a Christian sin, you’re going to have to use the New Testament.
Paul said Leviticus was not binding on Christians.
I was admitting that I didn’t know how Paul would have viewed mutually consenting, adult same-sex relationships. Paul’s primary exposure to homosexuality would have been his observations of what was practiced in the Hellenized world, and that would have meant a lot of pederasty and male prostitution. Some homsexual practices were not even really seen as "sexual. I wouldn’t presume to be able to know how Paul would have viewed modern homosexual relationships, and he may well have disliked what he saw on the streets of Corinth, but the fact remains that he never condemned such relationships and nothing in the NT really addresses homosexuality, as we understand it, at all.
I already have, You don’t know what you’re talking about and you’re actually only showing your own cultural bias in assuming that some of those practices were just immoral only because they seem that way to you.
Furthermore, Leviticus is not binding on Christians, so it doesn’t matter - to Christians - what Leviticus says.
You’re not nuch of a psychologist. I’m not even 100% convinced that Jesus really existed, much less that he must have been “nice.” I think some of the sayings attributed to him are cool. I also think that about some sayings from the Tao Te Ching, the Hindu Vedas, the Qur’an, the works of Shakespeare and Mark Twain and Douglas adams and Monty Python.
And (no offense intended to anyone here) I don’t think of anyone I’ve never net in real life as my “friend.” There are people I enjoy having discussions with on this board, and I may have a sense of their online personalities, but I never presume that I really know them, and I do not feel obliged to defend them out of any sense of loyalty or honor. My opinions are mine.
Anyway, I’ve always been so openly contemptuous of any and all claims of the supernatural that I’m sure I’ve managed to miff even the most liberal people of faith on this board.
Why not? After all, the original audience for Leviticus didn’t need as much historical information as we do in order to interpret its prescriptions. They lived in that culture, and didn’t need every detail about it explicitly spelled out for them, the way we do nowadays living in a different culture. I don’t think we can just assume that because Leviticus doesn’t explicitly specify a temple-practice context for some of its prohibitions, no such context was intended.
In fact, I thought that was the whole point of modern Biblical scholarship of the sort that Diogenes was citing: to find out from a wide range of historical sources the details of the cultural context of the Biblical writings, so we can get a better understanding of what they meant to their original audience. If we have that increased understanding and information available to us, why would we deliberately reject it? Why should we assume that we already know everything we need to know about the Bible’s meaning, just from a naive reading of its text?
I’m not a Biblical scholar, but it certainly seems plausible to me that, as Dio said, the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 are about trying to stamp out disapproved ritual practices, rather than setting rules for individual personal behavior. I mean, look at 18.21, where it’s forbidden to sacrifice your own child to Moloch by burning it! :eek: That’s not some ordinary human sin that people are naturally tempted to commit, is it?
ISTM that that’s pretty obviously a foreign ritual practice that the Israelite leadership doesn’t want people to imitate. Similarly, the prohibitions of sex between immediate family members remind me of ancient Egyptian royal sibling marriages and other close-kin marriages, which were meant to ritually symbolize the union of gods and goddesses.
Sure, I’m willing to believe that ancient Hebrew society disapproved of any kind of homosexual sex, not just ritual male temple prostitution on the model of Canaanite practices. But I’m not convinced that Leviticus 18.22 is really about officially prohibiting all kinds of homosexual sex, as well as the ritual kind. It’s a subject on which I would trust reputable historical scholarship more than I’d trust my own uninformed assumptions about what the text “obviously” means.
I’m sure you are waiting a day or two to bump the thread but I am really wondering why you chose your previous post to be such a numb cunt on this thread, badchad. Scotticher’s reasons for not following up are pretty fucking understandable but you had to come in and take ashit. Do you really think it ultimately helps even your antagonistic point of view?
[QUOTE=badchad]
Or in other words you hold, and profess as true, a belief that you can’t substantiate. Thank you.
[/QUOTE]
Good grief…are you actually expecting me to substantiate my faith with…what, science? My beliefs? For Heaven’s Sake, man…I would have thought that by this time it would have become obvious to you that faith isn’t a matter of scientific proof! I would like to point out to you that evolution has no scientific proof either. It is a matter of faith, from my perspective, to believe in evolution. I find it impossible to believe that from slime in a pond the extremely complex human being “evolved.” Anyone who believes that is evidencing faith that I don’t have.
As far as the rest? I already told you. When it comes to the Christian faith, badchad, you are either a jerk, or you just like to argue. Either way, I am not inclined to spend a lot of time trying to link you to sites you are clearly not interested in reading. Sorry, but your previous behavior does not lend me to be willing to waste a whole lot of time I don’t have in order to find information for you that I don’t think you want in the first place. (I think I already SAID THAT?)
Find someone else to fight with, badchad. I have no need to justify my beliefs to you, nor do I have any need to prove anything. I didn’t just accept everything that was presented to me, I investigated and researched and came to my own conclusions. It is of no consequence to me that you think I can’t substantiate my beliefs. Personally, I think you are a jerk. Perhaps I can’t substantiate THAT, either. Although I’m sure I COULD…if it mattered to me and I had more time than I have.
I guess I will just have to allow the fine people of this board to evaluate which of us is a jerk and which of us isn’t. I’m willing to take the consequences of that poll.
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
I’m sure you are waiting a day or two to bump the thread but I am really wondering why you chose your previous post to be such a numb cunt on this thread, badchad. Scotticher’s reasons for not following up are pretty fucking understandable but you had to come in and take ashit. Do you really think it ultimately helps even your antagonistic point of view?
[/QUOTE]
And…I just posted, which was pretty bad timing, given your post! I swear I didn’t see yours before I posted mine.
In any case, Thank You. I mean, thank you if you weren’t making fun?
I wasn’t making fun at all, badchad is, as usual, going a little overboard.
To be honest, primarily I’m annoyed that my happy little attempt to draw out of Polycarp some things that would allay some annoyances of mine was fucked up so soundly. But I also definitely thought that demanded an online literary basis of your belief system was a little bit much, to say the least.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
… They may not be as hateful as Phelps {who doesn’t concentrate on deceased gays BTW, but deceased soldiers, gay or straight} but IMO when they focus on the “gay” issue and make an attempt to present this issue as more important than this awful war and the many other social issues we need to face then I think their priorities are really messed up They in essence are saying gay marriage is a more serious problem than this war and the freakin liars in our current admin. If you’re willing to ignore blatant dishonesty because a president claims to support your cause then that is hypocrisy IMO.
[/QUOTE]
That’s sort of what I think of them also. They are just as biased, just as hateful. Thet just put their turd in a slightly different wrapper than Phelps.
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
But I also definitely thought that demanding an online literary basis of your belief system was a little bit much, to say the least.
[/QUOTE]
And thank YOU for that, as well.
Also, I suppose I should apologize to badchad for calling him a jerk. It isn’t as though I DON’T think he is a jerk, because I do. But it was very unkind of me to say so. [sub]Not that I think he is likely to care what I think of him, I’m sure he doesn’t…no reason he SHOULD.[/sub] I should have gone on as I have in the past when I read his posts on the subject of Christianity and just kept my opinions to myself.