Ok, so someone educate me. Is there anything in the Bible that makes any one sin more sinful than another? According to the Bible, lying about people is a sin (bearing false witness against thy neighbor). Homosexuality is a sin. Why is it that people care so darned much about homosexuality, to the point of violence, but when it comes to lies we often don’t think twice? Where is the list of worldly sins, in order of importance?
The 10 Commandments, for the Jews in the audience, are the big no nos. Other than that, there seems to be no yardstick. The Catholics differ between venial & major sins, tho.
sdimbert wrote:
OK - I’ll accept you know more about this than I do. I ain’t no scholar, that’s for sure.
Poor choice of words - my apologies. What I was getting at was that some dietary restrictions were made at the time for health reasons (I’m thinking about making this kosher, for example), whereas those same problems don’t exist today, and yet people still follow those rules because they’re in the Bible. See what I mean? The same might be argued for homosexuality.
Um, does that mean you’re gay but you don’t have sex? 
I’d imagine you don’t have homosexual sex because you’re not homosexual, not because God said not to. If he said it was ok, does that mean I could get a date out of you? 
Eonwe asked:
To quote a mock talk show I once did:
Host: So, let’s say I steal a gumball. Does that mean I’m going to burn in the same Hell next to, say, Hitler?
Pontiff: Look, do you know how hard it would be to gradate sin? Think of the paperwork! It’s got to be all or nothing, or we might as well just throw the whole thing out the window…
Humor, of course, but it makes a point.
And homosexuality is “icky,” so it’s ok to revile them. Adultery isn’t, and everybody lies, and nobody cares about cotton/poly blends, so those are things we don’t have to make as big a deal about.
All I have to say is, thank God he gave us the wisdom to have more than one interpretation of the Bible - some people don’t view things quite as harshly as others.
Esprix
daniel:
**
Come now, Daniel. You sound intelligent enough to know that Judaism carries a strong Oral Tradition. Animal sacrifice disappeared after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.
As to your other questions:
[ul]
[li]I do forgive all debts (to Jews) every Shmitta year. Most observant (better word than “orthodox”) Jews do.[/li][li]I do not trim my peyot (“sidelocks,” or “sideburns”) beyond the limits established by the Rabbis.[/li][li]I don’t grow any of my own food, so I don’t need to follow the agricultural laws you mention. Actually, they apply only in the land of Israel. You want to see some complicated legislation? Check out Israel’s laws regarding the sale of produce during shmitta and yovel (every seventh and fiftieth year), when the eating of Israeli produce is forbidden![/li][/ul]
**
I know you’re not giving me a hard time :).
(You should see the faces people make when they hear about the Jewish Laws regarding a woman’s period!)
**
For clarification:
Leviticus 19:
16 - Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the LORD.
17 - Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
18 - Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
–King James Bible, Leviticus 19:16-18
If I understand corectly, these three verses yield the following laws:
[ol]
[li]No tattling (16).[/li][li]Don’t stand idly by while someone else gets hurt (16).[/li][li]Don’t hate others (17).[/li][li]Tell people when they make a mistake (Jews call this mussar, or “moral instruction” (17).[/li][li]Don’t let your friends sin (17).[/li][li]Revenge is a no-no (18).[/li][li]Don’t bear any grudges (18).[/li][li]The “Golden Rule” - Love your neighbor as yourself (18).[/li][/ol]
So, what are the “Bible-thumpers that revile homosexuals” doing wrong?
On the one hand, they tattle, some of them hate others, and they seem to have a problem with the Golden Rule (#'s 1, 3 and 8). But, on the other hand, they are following Rules #2, 4 and 5. (I don’t think that revenge or bearing grudges really enter into this debate.)
It’s counter-productive to tell people that they aren’t following Biblical Law when the Law is as ambigious as it is in this case. (By the way, that is exactly why Judaism has such a complicated Oral Tradition!)
I reassert my original point to answer the OP - Homosexual sex is a sin because God says so, in Leviticus, 18:22.Also, please notice that I keep saying that “homosexual sex” is sinful and not that “homosexuality” is. Big difference.
Regarding point #1:
As far as I know, Christians are still bound by the Seven Noahide Laws:
From[ url=“http://www.interlog.com/~glgqc/7noahidelaws.html”]An English Summary of the Seven Noahide Laws by Gary Lloyd Gottlieb, Q.C.
It’s true, when Paul decided that Christians were no longer going to be Jews, he released them from the bulk of the 613 laws of the Torah. But, seven remain - those that bind all of makind. And #4 includes Homosexual sex.
Your second point is just silly. You seem to be asserting that, since people don’t follow the laws, no one has to follow the laws. My (almost) three-year-old knows that two wrongs don’t make a right! As I said earlier in this thread:
**
I don’t care which laws people think are trivial and which they think are important. Neither does the OP. red_dragon60 asked why some religions consider homosexuality a sin. My reply is still that I don’t know if any religions consider homosexuality a sin. But I know that Judeo-Christian religions consider homosexual sex a sin because the Bible says it is in Leviticus, 18:22.
Esprix wrote:
**
Apology accepted, my friend. 
As far as the rest of your comment… :climbing up on a soapbox: …“No, No NO!”
This is another common misconception. The Bible’s code of dietary laws (what I will call “Kosher”) was not created “at the time for health reasons.” This is a simple enough idea to prove, because, as you point out, Kosher foods are not, inherently, more healthy than traif (non-Kosher) foods!
Simply put, anyone who asserts otherwise is an apologist. Look, some laws in the Torah make a lot of sense (as has been pointed out in this thread). But, others don’t. Jews call these laws Chukim - laws with no logical basis. We follow these rules for the simple reason that God tells us to. Now, some people might try from time to time to make up reasons to explain them, but that’s all they are - attempts to explain something that we are to accept without explanation.
**
Heh.
The truth of the matter, Esprix, is that this is a difficult debate for me because I know that you’re gay; I am personally having a hard time keeping issues clear in my head, because I am afraid you will take things I say personally. I hope that doesn’t happen - you are obviously an intelligent, reasonable and unusually caring person.
So, if I were gay, yeah, I suppose I’d like to go out with ya :D.
That said, I want to reassert a point I’ve been making throughout: The way I understand it, the Bible does not prohibit homosexuality, it prohibits homosexual sex. You can feel whatever you want, but acting on those urges is, in the words of the Bible, an “abomination.”
You said it, brother!
OK, again, I’ll take your word for it - you’re living this religion, not me.
And as much as I don’t understand and/or agree with it, that is the nature of faith.
Thank you, and I won’t. Besides, there’s nothing from a religious point of view you couldn’t tell me that I haven’t already heard before.
Woo hoo! Then again, if you were gay, and you actually did want to go out with me, but you still thought homosexual sex was a sin and didn’t want to participate, then, uh, I’m afraid this just isn’t going to work out…
(Actually, do you think homosexual sex is a sin? Just curious.)
Yup. This, of course, is the crux of many religious conflicts, particularly Catholics.
Esprix
Does this mean that you only asked me for a date so you could sleep with me?!? Do I look like that kind of guy!!! I feel so… so… used.
I would think that the answer to your question would be obvious from my earlier posts in this thread. I do believe that homosexual sex is a sin, using the definition of “sin” that I cited above.
That does not, however, mean that I think people who practice homosexual sex are going to be struck by lightening, burn in hell, or catch AIDS as a punishment from God (all opinions voiced by zealous, religious, anti-gay types). I may be wandering away from both the OP in this thread and the codified systems of Judaism, but I believe that “sin” is a personal issue, best left between the individual and his or her God.
As you said:
**
See you Saturday! Say around 9:30? (That’s when Shabbos ends!)
The Noahide Laws do not exist in my copy of the New Testament. JC said He was our New Covenant. And, “sexual transgressions” IS wide open to interpretation.
Even tho Lev 19 does seem to contradict itself, I do believe that the hatred of many Christians for Gays is definately NON-Biblical.
And since the Jewish Faith has deceided that some of the Laws are obsolete, by “Tradition” (and, yes I know about the traditions,I was teasing a bit*, however, there ARE some odd “cults” of Jews, also), maybe we could cut the Gays some slack.
And I am NOT saying that one can ignore the Laws since some do. My point is that many Christians make a BIG deal of how “sinful” & evil Gay sex is, but blithely go about ignoring/performing many other Laws/sins. “Let those who are without Sin, cast the 1st stone”. Get that 2X4 out of YOUR eye bfore you point out the splinter in mine, to paraphrase.
- But I AM impressed.
Daniel,
I’m glad there is someone else online this late!
you said:
**
You’re right - people do that. Lots of people do lots of bad things.
But I think that’s a different (and far less interesting) question than the one we are debating. You seem to be asking: “Why are some people hypocrites?”
DUH.
Some people do things that make no sense. Some people are jerks. Some even do things just to make others unhappy. It’s a poopy world sometimes. 
But, the question we were debating was whether or not organized religions see homosexuality/homosexual sex to be sinful.
Thus, our discussions of Leviticus were enlightening and productive. Your point regarding the Noahide Laws speaks to this issue and is a good one. I can’t do much to answer it - I know a bit about my own religion - I’m in over my head in the New Testament.
The only parts of the NT I have read were in a Literature class. Sorry.
BTW,
**
Two questions:
1 - What do you mean “obsolete by ‘Tradition’”?
2 - What did I do to impress you? (I like to know when I do something impressive, since I usually miss it. )
The Traditions (note cap) say that the verses in Lev. which deal with sacrifice, etc are “obsolete” ever since 70 AD, or so I have read. And to have you so open minded AND following the Laws so devotely, is impressive.
Bet you didn’t think a Goyim could argue Talmudic, eh? (actually, I know very little Talmud, but I am a pretty good Biblical scholar. Even if one discounts the Religion, the Bible is still the best history book that is that old).
You HAVE heard the one about the Bar Mitzva, the Yamaha, and the 3 Rabbis, haven’t you?
And we agree (I think)that both Biblical Religions DO see Gay Sex as a Sin, but also that the religous Right is making a bigger Deal about it that the Bible does, mainly because they are hypocritical bigots.
Damn! And here I was hoping to save a fortune on highlighter kits.
No - You’re doing fine!
I had a teacher in High School who was a Goy (singular) and loved to show his Yiddish and Hebrew off. He used to make a point by saying, “And you can bet the family kibbutz that…(whatever)” Heh.
You’re right - we’re on the same page here (even if we are using different books).
As far as your point about the religious Right (and general populace) making a bigger deal about this than other “sinful” activities…
I have to always remind myself that I am not the only person in the world who views things through the filter of my own, personal life. Everybody does that. When I was a teacher, I watched TV asking myself, “How can I use this in class?” I’m sure that doctors get something very different from e.r. than I do, and we both get a different thing from it than lawyers and social workers do.
Everybody sees the world through their own lens, and this is the same way. Whether I believe they are right or not, some people see their job to be telling others how to live. Those kinds of people see everything through the lens of “how does this further my cause?” So, since science has uncovered so much about AIDS and other STDs’ connection to the homosexual communities, those in the religious right leapt at the chance to further their own goals.
I guess that I am in agreement (gasp!) with Sentnel’s main point in his Smoking Thread over in the Pit. His point there (if you dig deep enough) seems to be that yes, smoking is bad, but lots of anti-smokers do lots of other bad things, too, so we should stop this illogical focus on smokers. In the same way, lots of people do lots of “sinful” things, so the religious zealots should try to deal with all of them instead of focusing just on gays.
It’s an ugly fact - but there it is. People don’t always do what is best for everyone; like I said before:
**
.
.
.
Can I take the lack of anyone else’s opinions to mean that we’ve closed this thread up?
Danielinthewolvesden:
Well, those aren’t merely “traditions” but is explicitly stated in Deuteronoly.
I don’t have chapter and verse on me (I’m going to have to bring a small Bible into work with me, because I hate having to type that all the time!), but the verses say something as follows: “when you come into the land that G-d will give to you, you shall not do that which you do today, sacrificing in any place that you please. You may do this only because you have not come to the resting-place and the inheritance that G-d will give you. G-d will designate a place, and there you shall bring all your sacrifices and holy obligations.”
I’m sure I’m mangling it…I’m resolved, now, to storing a small Bible here. But the basic idea is that it was explicitly stated (not merely traditional) in the Bible that once a Holy Temple has been built, sacrifices cannot be brought outside of one…even after it has been destroyed.
cmkeller:
**
Just try http://www.bibles.net - great source! It lets you browse 5 or 6 different English Translations of the Bible and it has a number of Concordances.
A new and refreshing point of view - nicely put.
Dr. Boyfriend doesn’t get home until Sunday… so sure!
Esprix
But that “Holy Place”, is now, again, held by the Jews. In any case, there is no indication it is refering to Jerusalem, as the Israelites did not get their hands on that City until David, some 300 years after the Israelites entered the “promised land”. During that time, it seems the “holy place” was Shiloh, or Baale-Judah. And there is nothing that says the one “holy place” cannot be moved, just that there be ONLY one. If it had said that the “holy place” was forever fixed, then David could not have moved it.
Sdim: I was aware that “goyim” is plural, I was using it in the sense of “one of the Goyim”. I have NO idea of grammar in that Language, tho.
Esprix:
**
Thank you.
**
I tried to explain this whole SDMB fixation to my wife last night - she thinks I’m “addicted.” Then she wanted to see some posts so I showed her, and she saw this one.
She’s not sure if she should be jealous or not!
Danielinthewolvesden:
True. However, there is something stopping us from setting up an altar and bringing sacrifices: we are ritually impure and cannot be purified without the ceremony of the red heifer. So conditions aren’t right yet for the resumption of sacrificial service.
True again. G-d says in Deuteronomy that he will show them the place at a later time. That time came during David’s reign, when the prophet Gad told David to build an altar on the threshing-floor of Aravnah the Jebusite.
Those were all temporary locations for the Tabernacle (some of which lasted for a long time). None of them were prophetically designated as “the place.” The site of the Holy Temple was.
It says that it must be the place designated by G-d. Once that designation has been made, it can’t be un-made (except, presumably, by an equivalent prophet, which has never happened). If it had been prophetically designated prior to David’s time, then indeed David would not have been allowed to move it.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Umm, you DO know that Deuteronomy was written AFTER the Temple. ie about 700Bc for some sections & 950 bc at the earliest. The later section (blessing of Jacob) would seem to be odd if actually written at the time of the Exodus, as the Tribes of Joseph, Ephraim & levi are given the most glowing blessings, and thus appear to be written after 700 BC, but in any case after Israel split off from Judah. Note thatthe tribe of Judah is given rather short shrift, which as if it was written PRIOR to the Davidic Kingdom, would be odd. The Book was “discovered” in 621 BC, after the Temple had been in place for nearly 400 years.
And, besides, Joshua decided the Tabernacle should be set up at Shiloh, and he is considered a prophet, not to mention a Voice of YHVH (I’ll respect your faith and delete the vowels). Samuel agreed & decided on it’s later home, after capture, and he is also a Prophet.
And that verse in Deut does not say the temple can’t be moved, just that there be one, and only one. I can’t find the Prophesies of Gad.
Usually, I read the entire (or the vast majority) of a post before responding myself, but I made an exception this time (mostly because, on a quick scan, I was able to determine what was being said… I’m not surprised Esprix got involved with this one… hehe…). Anyway, my theory (given from a Christian’s point of view, not that I’m religious at all myself, I’m jsut well-read on religion, especially for someone my age):
Jesus didn’t have any children (officially). Ergo, he didn’t have sex (and probably didn’t masturbate, but there’s another thread hanging around for that). Anyway, continuing on with the “logic”… Jesus was perfect, supposedly. So therefore, sex is sinful. HOWEVER, it’s also a necessity, so in an act of compromise, sex is okay if you’re trying to create a kid. I’m sure that if the church knew about artificial insemination when it was first being created, sex would have been determined to be the worst thing a person can do.
I once believed that sex should be reserved for procreation… however, I didn’t believe it for very long…
Ooh… I just remembered, too… I think it would be a good idea, in the future, for any biblical reference to include which version of the Bible is being referred to. I’m not trying to be critical, I swear I’m not, I just think it’d be a lot more helpful for things like this.