I always use the KJV. Altho there are later, perhaps better translations, none have better language. And, when most fundamentalists start thumping the Bible, it’s the KJV they thump. You asked where it said that in the Bible–I have, then quoted THE Bible, at least the most popular Bible.
And Paul never says sex is “good”, he allows for it during marriage, as better than fornication, and thus acceptable. But only if you can’t be “as him”. Ie, Holier than thou & celibate. He had anothe rreason to preach against sex, he believed that the Second coming was SO near, you would not have time to raise the kids.
But in any case, “fornication” is “natural”, also. Every animal except Man does it and Man did it for 100000’s of years before there was marriage, and there are still, and were many many societies that did not practice it. “Marriage” is thus “un-natural”. But we don’t have to model ourselves after the “lower” animals, we don’t have to do what they do. So we can have marriage, and/or if we like, Gay sex.
I am curious as to what you (and others) have to say about the merits of various Bibles. I’ve never heard of the NAV (“New American Version,” I assume) but I of course am familiar with the NIV and KJV. Actually in looking at the front of this older bible of mine I find that it is not the NAS as I claimed, but rather the “Revised Standard Version” which is apparently a revision of the “American Standard Version” which is a revision of the KJV. Can anyone illuminate as to what all of this boils down to?
And as far as Daniel referring to celibacy by choice, I was perfectly aware of that; I get the impression from him that celebacy is not natural when it goes against a natural urge for sex. I do not think that this is a good way of defining what is natural at all, as human beings are constantly repressing and controlling various desires. For people to refuse to act on their instincts is, I believe, quite natural for them as human beings–anyone who has sufferred through potty training can attest to this.
Uh, from a Nature point of view, those things are natural, as they occur in Nature without man-made assistance. To wit, from http://www.merriam-webster.com:
Specifically, warriors back in the day were all men. During most conflicts, when the men were away from home, there arose a disparity between the ratio of men and women. In other words, men were away for months or years or as was often the case they never came back at all. With this in mind, it doesn’t really help your village’s population if all of the few remaining candidates for inseminating women are instead enjoying the company of other men.
**
Look at the other side of the equation. You have all these warrior men away from home with no women around. It was not untypical for these army men to have relationships with one another. Some even argue that it was good for morale.
The Biblical passages can always be argued over. Check out : http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/7608/intro.htm for an interesting take on things. For example, the Leviticus passage is taken as a prohibition based on the need for culutural separation and cohesion, not as a condemnation of the act itself.
A more interesting question might be: Why are only Judeo-Christian-Moslem religions against homosexuality? I’m unaware of any large-scale, say, Buddhist, dislike.
Pure speculation. As far as I and other Orthodox Jews are concerned, it was written in 1272 BCE.
The blessing at the end of Deuteronomy was by Moses, not Jacob. And granted, Judah didn’t get as many words as Joseph and Levi did, but so what? He got a pretty darned good blessing. Since when does size determine the effectiveness or importance of a blessing?
Presumably you’re referring to the story in which King Josiah discovered a Torah scroll after cleaning the Holy Temple and the Land of Judea from the idolatrous excesses of Kings Manasseh and Amoz. However, it’s clear from the books of Kings and Chronicles, in which that story is recorded, that the Torah was not unknown to those times, and there were many who could interpret it. There’s some question amongst the sages as to the significance of the Torah-finding story, but anyone reading the books of Kings and Chronicles in context (rather than taking that single story as a stand-alone) would see that.
Not everything decided by a prophet is necessarily a prophecy. There is no statement by Joshua or by Samuel commanding that an altar (or sanctuary) be built on a specific spot. There was one by Gad (to David).
It says “the place that G-d will choose.” The prophet Gad appears in the book of Samuel (and, according to the Talmud, he wrote much of it). The specific prophecy regarding the spot where to build an altar is in II Samuel, Chapter 24, Verse 18-19.
cmkeller: I knew they were the Blessings of Moses, I was comparing them to the Blessings of Jacob, but deleted the wrong bits when editing. However, I say that “…Hear Lord, the voice of Judah, and bring him unto his people: let his land be suffient unto him: and be thou an help to from his enemies.” is a pretty unexciting blessing/prophesy for the greatest Kings of Israel/Judah ever, the high point of Jewish history. Compare that to the Blessings of Jacob, and it appears odd. If you look at the state of the Tribes in about 700BC, the blessings match that state. Simeon is not mentioned at all, and of course by then it had dwindled to nothing. The blessing of Reuben seems to show that is about to join Simeon (which it did). The blessings (of Moses) do not match the state of the tribes prior to the Temple. But, OK, it is your faith.
Now as to all those saying Homosexuality is “not natural”, it has been shown in Populations studies, that many animals (I used mice for my study) when the space runs out, but there is lots of food & water, begin forms of “birth control”, including killing young, allowing only the Alphas to breed, and yes, turning to homosexual sex. So, it seems when animals are overcrowded, it is perfectly “natural” to turn to gay sex.
The argument that homosexuality is “not natural and therefore bad” is pretty weak, it seems to me (Daniel, I’m not accusing you or anything, I’m just sayin’). After all, it’s not “natural” to build big ol’ cities and live in ‘em… it’s not “natural” to fly to the moon… it’s not “natural” to have a big ol’ Straight Dope discussion board over the Internet where we discuss what’s natural and what’s not
People are sentient, which means that they are capable (or, they should be) of overcoming their inherent nature. So while I agree that homosexuality isn’t natural, I don’t think that makes it bad. However, the “unnatural” angle may have a lot to do with why religious authorities believe homosexuality to be bad.
(By the way… the NAV is the New American Version… I got familiar with it during my time at a private school run by Marianists, an offshoot of Catholicism. It’s basically just a step down from the NIV. But I’m mostly familiar with the KJV, it being the only Bible version that I’ve read through completely. Of course, that was a couple years ago, maybe it’s time to read through it again).
And lastly… Chaim, you’re amazing. I used to consider myself a semi-biblical scholar (I guess I sorta am, for my age), but you, sir, deserve props for your knowledge.
I don’t know; I think that for G-d to be a help against one’s enemies would be an especially appropriate blessing for a king, who’s likely to lead his nation in war.
Not really, because they serve different purposes. Jacob’s blessings were intended for his individual sons, the tribal progenitors. Moses’s blessings relate to the tribes and their roles in the nation they are about to build.
That is your conclusion, based on the idea that Deuteronomy was compiled much later. It also fits quite well into the context of its proper place in Israelite history: the leader of the tribe of Simeon had recently been killed for publicly consorting with a Midianite princess and inspiring similar sins which caused the deaths of 24000 Israelites. When Joshua divided up the land, rather than give the tribe of Simeon its own territory, he gave them a few cities within the territory of Judah.
CMK: thanks for your reply. Although this has been fun, I am afraid we have hijacked this thread. I would love to continue any reasonable arguement Re Old Testament, but we should start elsewhere. (eg, how did the prohibition of seething the meat of a kid in its mother’s milk derive into separate dishes, and was this reasonable, or Biblical?) or we could continue this. I agree you are ahead on points, but you have SDIM in your corner, and there’s no KO yet. I ain’t doing half bad for a Goy, if I say so myself.
Esprix, I think we need to work out a better understanding of what’s “natural” and what isn’t, buddy-boy. But that’s the argument for another thread, a thread that I don’t feel like starting 'cuz it’d probably go nowhere.
What I mean by “natural” (for this example, anyway) is referring to the basic instinct in an animal to pass on its genetic material. By other definitions of natural, however, you’d be right, as well. On the other hand, it can be argued that, since humans have the natural tendency to use tools to alter their environment, huge slabs of concrete covering the planet and toxins in the air and water are “natural”.
But I don’t care WHAT definition one uses… there’s NO WAY that Pauly Shore can be “natural”.
You’ve misunderstood my point. I was responding to the assertion that the OT’s ban on sex with a menstrating wife was not based on any “natural” law. It is based on a natural law - the one I described.
As far as what kind of sex is “natural” or “unnatural,” I would have to go along with the general consensus that pretty much anything is OK as long as Pauly Shore is not involved with a giraffe.
I hadn’t opened this thread 'til now, because I thought it’d be rants. Shows what I know. Very impressed across the board. Esprix has singled out cmkeller, I’ll single out sdimbert: hugely impressive, well researched, intelligent posts. Thank you
Now, to reply to the OP with my crudest economist’s hat on:
Religions codify and add a supernatural dimension to common morality.
Successful ones extract money from believers whilst leaving them wealthy enough to breed new believers.
Until recently, few avowed homosexuals bred.
Most religions did not have to go after the gay market, since they did not supply new customers.
Yeah, you’re right. I’ll start a new thread to anser the question you’ve posed there…but I’ll start it in GQ, rather than GD, because it doesn’t sound like a debate topic.
