RE: A question of morality (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


EdBowie -> RE: A question of morality (12/24/2013 12:46:08 AM)

Thank you.


quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1

quote:

ORIGINAL: shadowborn61
Have we now become the opposite of "gay bashers"?

Are you trying to say the following two things are parallel?

1) I don't like X behavior, so I won't spend my own money to support X behavior.
2) I don't like X behavior, so I will hospitalize people who engage in X behavior.





popeye1250 -> RE: A question of morality (12/24/2013 4:26:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

FR
This is pretty clear. The guy has the right to hold his views and A&E has the right to end his employment for discussing those views in public. This is free speech and the free market at its finest.


Ditto.
I would add to that that A&E could also fire anyone else for airing (their) beliefs in public.




thompsonx -> RE: A question of morality (12/24/2013 5:31:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: shadowborn61

By now i am sure most of us have heard about the remarks made by Phil Robertson of the Duck Dynasty show on A&E.
Let me start by saying that i am a bisexual man as well as a veteran.
Now while i find Mr.Robertsons beliefs to be offensive does that give me the right to try and force my beliefs on him?
Absolutely not too many of my brothers in arms have died to give me the right to disagree with Mr.Robertson as well as give him the right to believe as he does.

Actually that is not why your brothers in arms died.

Are we not by boycotting the products his family produces or the show his family stars in trying to force our beliefs on him and his family?

No that is called democradcy at work. If I dont like you I do not have to associate with you or buy your products. It is called "act like an asshole and you will be treated like an asshole.:[



Doesn't that make us just as bad as we are trying to make him and his family out to be?


Only if one has failed logic 101


Have we the victims of prejudice now become the bigots?

Nope, but there are plenty of gay bashers out there who would act the poser and claim solidarity with this punk assmotherfucker.


Have we now become the opposite of "gay bashers"?

Nope

I believe that my right to my opinion stops where it interferes with anyone elses rights and as i have said too many of my brothers in arms have died for us to disparage their sacrifice by trying to force our beliefs on others.

You seem to be in favor of pushing their ideas on us.




thompsonx -> RE: A question of morality (12/24/2013 5:33:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FellowSlave

As I understand Phil Robertson of the Duck Dynasty made his remarks while having private interview

That is incorrect.

and the remarks were not specifically directed to concrete person but they rather reflect his belief system. The question is: are people allowed to say what they believe when asked?

Yes



As a libertarian I have no problems what he said. Is it wrong or right it is up to me to decide, but only to compare with my own understanding. Pseudo-liberals are sending him to re-education camp.

Which make believe liberal has sought to do this?


This is what being fired symbolically equates.

That would not even be true on the planet shitbreather.



Today it is just symbolic, very soon it will become a reality. Marxist totalitarian state is developing.


Some shit breathing moron gets his ass fired for sor stuffing his feet in his mouth and that somehow will usher in a marxist totalitarian state?[8|]


The question is not only about morality, it is also about mind control.

Absolutely right... if ones mind is not in concert with the constitution then they either need to get their mind right or get the fuck out.




MsMJAY -> RE: A question of morality (12/24/2013 6:26:30 AM)

So refusing to give a very rich man your money and your time is indicative of a Marxist totalitarian state? Funny....I thought that was the opposite of Marxist totalitarianism. So if everyone were forced to watch Duck Dynasty and forced to buy his products would that then indicate freedom and democracy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FellowSlave

As I understand Phil Robertson of the Duck Dynasty made his remarks while having private interview and the remarks were not specifically directed to concrete person but they rather reflect his belief system. The question is: are people allowed to say what they believe when asked?
As a libertarian I have no problems what he said. Is it wrong or right it is up to me to decide, but only to compare with my own understanding. Pseudo-liberals are sending him to re-education camp. This is what being fired symbolically equates. Today it is just symbolic, very soon it will become a reality. Marxist totalitarian state is developing. The question is not only about morality, it is also about mind control.






tweakabelle -> RE: A question of morality (12/24/2013 7:34:21 AM)

For those interested here is one account of how this issue is being reported overseas:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/how-duck-dynasty-exposed-a-new-christmas-culture-war-20131224-hv6qm.html




vincentML -> RE: A question of morality (12/24/2013 8:33:15 AM)

Bless us everyone, Tweakabelle, it wouldn't be the season without a good culture clash. It is a welcomed distraction from all the phony cheer. [:D]




FellowSlave -> RE: A question of morality (12/24/2013 10:00:34 AM)

quote:

Ever notice how movie starts suddenly show up on late night talk shows? Book authors on the news? Game developers on web shows? Just before the products they worked on are released? They go into those interviews knowing what they can and can not say of the product. When a politician speaks on 'Meet the Press' for example, they must try to push their viewpoint without allowing the interviewer to trip them up and say something REALLY bad. An there have been plenty of moments in US History of famous people doing or saying dumb things. I'm sure they wish they could take it back.


I do understand your viewpoint (or at least I think I do). You live in "real World". It is a World of plastic people, everybody must think every moment what image of themselves to project to others. Interviews loose their meaning, morality is not universal but what THEY say it is, politics is just lies, "reality shows" are not real, if Le Bron James says the Earth is flat it is so ... and so on.




kiwisub12 -> RE: A question of morality (12/24/2013 10:00:41 AM)

I see this whole thing from a slightly different angle - what I see is the media making news - again.

When the show wasn't a huge thing, the man could say anything he wanted, and apparently did, and no-one gave a flying flip.

Fast forward a few years, and some bucks, and all of a sudden what he says is news with a capital N. It isn't so much that he said what I consider to be rather bad taste remarks, it's that the rest of the media took the ball and ran with it. And ran and ran and ran.

I've never seen the show, don't want to see the show, think the appearance of the individuals is marketing at its finest (from preppy to redneck), and defend his right to say anything he wants, but I don't have to read or listen to it.

I also think that there would be way less "news" if the media in general kept their opinions out of what they report.




EdBowie -> RE: A question of morality (12/24/2013 3:22:46 PM)

Do you have anything other than inept strawmen to back up the earlier false equivalencies?


quote:

ORIGINAL: FellowSlave

quote:

Ever notice how movie starts suddenly show up on late night talk shows? Book authors on the news? Game developers on web shows? Just before the products they worked on are released? They go into those interviews knowing what they can and can not say of the product. When a politician speaks on 'Meet the Press' for example, they must try to push their viewpoint without allowing the interviewer to trip them up and say something REALLY bad. An there have been plenty of moments in US History of famous people doing or saying dumb things. I'm sure they wish they could take it back.


I do understand your viewpoint (or at least I think I do). You live in "real World". It is a World of plastic people, everybody must think every moment what image of themselves to project to others. Interviews loose their meaning, morality is not universal but what THEY say it is, politics is just lies, "reality shows" are not real, if Le Bron James says the Earth is flat it is so ... and so on.





GotSteel -> RE: A question of morality (12/24/2013 4:32:05 PM)

Forcing societies beliefs on subgroups isn't necessarily a bad thing. Consider NAMBLA, I hope we can all agree that it's correct to try and force our beliefs on NAMBLA.

Why is ok to oppose NAMBLA? This should be an easy question to answer, it's because their beliefs are harmfull to society. That's the difference, demonstrable harm.

So to tie back into the topic does being gay cause harm? The answer here in reaity seems to be no, ergo there's no valid reason not to accept them.

Do homophobia and racism cause harm? Quite obviously yes, ergo it's wrong to accept them.




Phydeaux -> RE: A question of morality (12/25/2013 6:09:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Forcing societies beliefs on subgroups isn't necessarily a bad thing. Consider NAMBLA, I hope we can all agree that it's correct to try and force our beliefs on NAMBLA.

Why is ok to oppose NAMBLA? This should be an easy question to answer, it's because their beliefs are harmfull to society. That's the difference, demonstrable harm.

So to tie back into the topic does being gay cause harm? The answer here in reaity seems to be no, ergo there's no valid reason not to accept them.

Do homophobia and racism cause harm? Quite obviously yes, ergo it's wrong to accept them.


Igniting a bit of a flame. Japan is quite xenophobic. Does it cause harm?




MsMJAY -> RE: A question of morality (12/26/2013 6:10:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Forcing societies beliefs on subgroups isn't necessarily a bad thing. Consider NAMBLA, I hope we can all agree that it's correct to try and force our beliefs on NAMBLA.

Why is ok to oppose NAMBLA? This should be an easy question to answer, it's because their beliefs are harmfull to society. That's the difference, demonstrable harm.

So to tie back into the topic does being gay cause harm? The answer here in reaity seems to be no, ergo there's no valid reason not to accept them.

Do homophobia and racism cause harm? Quite obviously yes, ergo it's wrong to accept them.


Igniting a bit of a flame. Japan is quite xenophobic. Does it cause harm?


Yes.
Xenophobia in Japan




windchymes -> RE: A question of morality (12/26/2013 8:53:44 AM)

Bad news for all you bacon eaters:

Leviticus 11: 7-8

7 you will regard the pig as unclean, though it has a cloven hoof, divided into two parts, it is not a ruminant. 8 You will not eat the meat of these or touch their dead bodies; you will regard them as unclean.


Since I already know I'm going to hell, I'll eat your portions.




Phydeaux -> RE: A question of morality (12/26/2013 11:12:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Forcing societies beliefs on subgroups isn't necessarily a bad thing. Consider NAMBLA, I hope we can all agree that it's correct to try and force our beliefs on NAMBLA.

Why is ok to oppose NAMBLA? This should be an easy question to answer, it's because their beliefs are harmfull to society. That's the difference, demonstrable harm.

So to tie back into the topic does being gay cause harm? The answer here in reaity seems to be no, ergo there's no valid reason not to accept them.

Do homophobia and racism cause harm? Quite obviously yes, ergo it's wrong to accept them.


Igniting a bit of a flame. Japan is quite xenophobic. Does it cause harm?


Yes.
Xenophobia in Japan


And what do you say the harm is?




njlauren -> RE: A question of morality (12/26/2013 5:22:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: shadowborn61

By now i am sure most of us have heard about the remarks made by Phil Robertson of the Duck Dynasty show on A&E.
Let me start by saying that i am a bisexual man as well as a veteran.
Now while i find Mr.Robertsons beliefs to be offensive does that give me the right to try and force my beliefs on him?
Absolutely not too many of my brothers in arms have died to give me the right to disagree with Mr.Robertson as well as give him the right to believe as he does.
Are we not by boycotting the products his family produces or the show his family stars in trying to force our beliefs on him and his family? Doesn't that make us just as bad as we are trying to make him and his family out to be?
Have we the victims of prejudice now become the bigots? The only reason this even got any attention is because the man is a celebrity and the media made it a point to make this an issue.
Remember when the owner of the Chick-Fillet restaurant chain made similar statements and his stores were boycotted? He changed his stance and business went back to normal. Now how many of you believe the man really changed how he believes or just said what everyone wanted him to say?
Have we now become the opposite of "gay bashers"?
I believe that my right to my opinion stops where it interferes with anyone elses rights and as i have said too many of my brothers in arms have died for us to disparage their sacrifice by trying to force our beliefs on others.


What veterans fought for is the right to say as you wish and not have the government censor you for your speech, freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom from being criticized or paying consequences for unpopular speech. Tom Paine, who was one of the biggest proponents of freedom of speech, ended his life as an outcast, because of his stance against religion, he couldn't even be buried in a cemetery.


It is funny how people with unpopular beliefs or who make stupid statements cry "freedom of speech". Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities, and it doesn't protect you from criticism, it doesn't protect you from consequences. Those screaming about the moron on Duck Dynasty are using their freedom of speech, to criticize him, and if people threaten A and E with a boycott over them running the show, it is expressing their outrage at what he said as well.

The problem with 'respecting beliefs' is when those beliefs hurts other people. The clown in question might feel being gay is a sin or gays should be put into gas chambers, but the problem here is those beliefs often are used to hurt gays and others. If Mr. Robinson came out and said Jews were a bunch of greedy bastards and hitler was right about what he did to them, would you be upset if people were up in arms and wanted the show canceled? Are you saying people have to buy what they don't want? I am sure among the hunting crowd they probably got a lot more orders because of what the guy said, and there were probably people who because of what he said, started watching the show....when the jerk who owns chic fil a said he supported gays not being able to marry legally (which isn't about the belief, but rather that he would deny a legal right to others simply because he is a schmuck born again Christian), he got a lot of traffic in his restaurants from the redneck crowd, 'eat at chic fil a' was a lot more popular than 'boycott chic fil a'....were they wrong cause they went to the restaurant? or those who bought the family's products cause they hate gays?

As Voltaire said, I will fight for the right to say what you want, as much as I find it reprehensible, but I also will fight for the right to others to express their beliefs and speak out, and my voice will be among them. You can't cover with the right to speak as being 'his right to his beliefs', that in effect is saying no one has the right to criticize him for his beliefs or to take action when they find those beliefs vile...it is a two edged sword. Religious groups have tried boycotts of companies that are gay friendly, how come that was okay but this clown is not? What people are doing is what Justice Brandeis, in a famous censorship case, put in his rulings. He said the answer to bad speech is not law banning it or censorship; rather it is a lot of speech, good speech, to bury the bad speech and make it seen as being bad. Mr. Robinson faces no legal sanction for his beliefs or speech, but the public sanctions he faces for his stupidity is the price of speaking out things that are not popular or are controversial.




njlauren -> RE: A question of morality (12/26/2013 5:30:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: shadowborn61

So what exactly gives You the right to decide that? are You an A&E producer? You have the right to not watch his show or buy his products but other than that You have no more right to tell him what to say or believe than he has to tell You.
Or did all the Americans who died to protect Your rights die for nothing?


Why does Robinson have the right to his beliefs, but the poster not his? Are you saying that whatever someone believes, no one has the right to criticize that belief or try and convince the person why they are wrong? So if someone believes Jews are devil spawn who make matzos out of christian babies they kill (which, folks, is still out there...), that is okay, and we should smile and say "oh, what a wonderful belief?". The black muslims have beliefs that are far out there, should we not criticize their leaders when they say things like Hitler was great? Should we say to a KKK member "oh, your beliefs are your own, so I respect them?"...should I say to those who tried to ban same sex marriage in the constitution "oh, that is your belief, so it is okay?". People have the right to their beliefs, but what you are basically doing is making Robinson and others with repugnant beliefs into victims and are defending their right to whine about the consequences of their beliefs. Robinson probably figured everyone thinks like he does, and was shocked that speech and beliefs have consequences, well, guess what he does. No one can force someone to believe differently than they do, but they have the right to criticize them for those beliefs, we fought for the right to say and believe what we want, but that goes as well for those who believe the person is wrong. Slave holders believed the black slaves they had were subhuman, and sadly more than a few churches justified slavery or remained quiet, while abolutionists and people of conscience denounced slavery and those who practiced it.




njlauren -> RE: A question of morality (12/26/2013 5:38:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

I covered this in the other thread, so I am going to cut it down.

First the bible is pretty clear about homosexuality, sorry but it is, at least in Leviticus.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (NKJ, Leviticus 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13)

As I read it, "They shall surely be put to death" indicates they face the wrath of god. Since Sodom and Gomorrah he has not done much smiting. Which means he has either mellowed or something.

Which brings us to the point that homosexuality happens in the animal kingdom as well. Now some born again, evangelical, smite people with the bible on the forehead Christians will say animals do not know better. However, homosexuality is not a choice, its biological. The pray the gay away boot camps and rehabs be damned, they aint going to cure it.

So where does that leave us? Simple, it leaves us with the one thing that Jesus said, "Judge not lest ye be judged." Speak your beliefs, but leave everything else to God. And HIV/AIDS, soldiers being killed in combat, natural disasters are not God passing judgement on Homosexuality, sins of America or anything else. Remember when God smites a city or a people, he dont leave anyone behind except the righteous, and when it came to cities, he told the righteous to get out.

If AKDS/HIV was a plague on homosexuals, then answer this:

Why are people other than homosexuals getting it? Besides the parent disease is called SIDS, Simian Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Found in apes and monkeys. People eat monkeys and got the virus, then it mutated as viruses do, and bingo, people pass it to people. There is also a Feline virus and other species viruses.

I have a daughter that is bi, so, while I dont agree with her lifestyle, I accept it.

And no, you dont have to buy the products that the family makes, it is your choice. Walt Disney was anti Semitic, how many of you bought Disney products when he was still alive? Where was the call to boycott Disney for the founder's beliefs? It is the same fucking thing.

I have been told by people I pray wrong, I am going to hell for being Catholic and my daughter is going to hell for her lifestyle. When these people show me the tablets of stone carved by the finger of god, or I hear a booming voice from heaven when they tell me this, I will blow em off as not knowing what they are talking about and claiming authority they dont have.

I mean I have seen "the Ten Commandments" and read the bible enough to know just what people look like after being in the direct presence of god.

Jif-
Actually, the bible isn't clear, and what you just posted is prime example of that. Every Jewish group outside orthodox jews recognize the origins of that quote in the context of leviticus. Would it surprise you to know that almost every proscription, from uttering the name of Yahweh to wearing clothing of different colors to a child striking its parent, was 'abomination', and was punishable by death (the Calvinists in fact actually executed children who struck their parents, claiming biblical authority to do so)....more importantly, those lines in leviticus are referring to a Babylonian sex ritual, the wording is almost identical to the Babylonian rite, and leviticus as a whole was rewritten during the Babylonian exile as an attempt to keep Judaism in existence and not be enmeshed in Babylonian culture and religion. The Jewish sects outside the orthodox all recognize same sex couples and people as fully children of God and not as abominations, and it is their text......The reality is outside the evangelicals, most Christians have come around on gays, as have Jews, the Catholic bishops may be a bunch of troglodytes who think kids being molested isn't a big deal and gays are evil, but something like 70% of Catholics think church teaching on gays is wrong, same with mainstream protestants.





njlauren -> RE: A question of morality (12/26/2013 5:45:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: shadowborn61

I agree in that the only vote we have today is where we choose to spend our money and to be honest i returned a duck dynasty hoodie that i got for my son for Christmas and told him i was doing so and why and he agreed with my reasons.
No he doesn't know about my preferences.
@jlf1961
Seriously you are going to quote Leviticus? really?
OK i have to go way off topic for this one and i did not write this but i do have the authors permission to re post it. It goes along with my belief that the Bible is not the word of God but that it is the word of God as written down and interpreted by men
This was written to a friend of the authors who is lesbian and believes that the Bible as written says that homosexuality is a sin.
Here goes.

i studied Theology at a Catholic college, i was briefly on track to become a nun, i dissected the Bible using it's original languages of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, and again with it's translation to French (which was later translated to English). While people are free to believe whatever they want, it is NOT clearly stated in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. Maybe it is a sin, maybe it's not (i don't think so but hey, that's my opinion). But why do people think it is so clearly a sin? Because of translation issues & poor interpretation, mostly.

These are the verses she and her friends gave me to support how cut and dry their argument was. Following each verse is my response. You can find these verses and various translations of them here.

Timothy 1:10
"for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine " (NIV)

The word that translated to homosexual in Timothy 1:10 is arsenokoiati, and the translation is highly debated, in large part because this was not a word used to mean homosexual until this writing by Paul. (note: there were words that were common and translated to a range of things including sexual acts between men, or between women, but these words were not used).

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (NIV)

This verse says that says that malakoi will not inherit the Kingdom of God, but malakoi has also been translated to male prostitutes, effeminate men, perverts, and the self-indulgent. (Even the NJB, the version of the Bible that is commonly used in the Catholic Church, translates malakoi to self-indulgent, not to homosexuals or men who have sex with men).

1 Corinthians 7:2
"But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband." (NIV)

Paul states that people are best off being celibate, but if they are going to have sex then they should get married. He goes on to say that married couples should never deny each other sex. The argument that it is against homosexuality comes from the wording that each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. However, there no such thing as a recognized marriage between the same sex at the time this was written, so it would not make sense for the author to say that a man should have a husband. This is an example of a verse that needs to be taken in context of the chapter and the era to be best understood.

P.S. If the statements in this chapter are to be taken as literal fact, if a husband raped his wife she would be at fault, for denying him sex to begin with.

Jude 1:7
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (KJV)

The reference to strange flesh is most commonly interpreted to mean sex with angels, not between men. This is apparent from the link back to the story of Sodom & Gomorrah (which was about inhospility and sexuality with angels, not about homosexualty), and is supported in the word choice: the Greek word, heteras, was used, which means different, instead of the word homoios, which means the same.

And finally, the most commonly used verse to argue that homosexuality is a sin:

Leviticus 18:22

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." (ESV)

Leviticus was written for a specific sect, and includes many other things that we would view as being unrealistic, and definitely not sinful, to do today, such as saying that eating or even touching hares and pigs (11:6-8) or crab, shrimp, or lobster (11:10-12) makes you unclean. Here are a few other things prohibited, sinful, punishable by death, etc. in Leviticus: Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11). Failing to include salt in offerings to God (2:13). Eating fat (3:17). Eating blood (3:17). Moses tells his sons if they mess up their hair or tear up their clothes they will die (10:6). Drinking alcohol in holy places (this was specified as a permanent rule, which makes me worry about Catholics) (10:9). Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4). Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5). Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19). Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9) or picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10). Mixing fabrics in clothing, or planting different seeds in the same field (19:19). Trimming your beard (19:27). Getting tattoos (19:28). Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32). Working on the Sabbath (23:3).
This was written by irisenchanted on FetLife and posted there here is a link to Her blog as well http://iriskraken.wordpress.com/2013/12/22/homosexuality-in-the-bible/


The first official English language bible was not translated from the French, the KJV was translated from greek and hebrew texts, they did not translate a french version nor did they translate the Latin vulgate bible, the official bible of the Christian world until the reformation. As far as I know, earlier translations into native languages (which earned the translator the death penalty by church authorities) were done from greek and hebrew texts. The provenance of those texts themselves is dubious, since there is no such thing as "original' NT texts (Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus", is an excellent book on the problem of the texts).....In the best translations, especially the NSRV, the references to homosexuality is not there, and the scholars in the annotated version say references to homosexuality more than likely reflect the bias of the translator, rather than the authors of the texts.




njlauren -> RE: A question of morality (12/26/2013 5:51:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:



Leviticus 18:22

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." (ESV)

Leviticus was written for a specific sect, and includes many other things that we would view as being unrealistic, and definitely not sinful, to do today, such as saying that eating or even touching hares and pigs (11:6-8) or crab, shrimp, or lobster (11:10-12) makes you unclean. Here are a few other things prohibited, sinful, punishable by death, etc. in Leviticus: Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11). Failing to include salt in offerings to God (2:13). Eating fat (3:17). Eating blood (3:17). Moses tells his sons if they mess up their hair or tear up their clothes they will die (10:6). Drinking alcohol in holy places (this was specified as a permanent rule, which makes me worry about Catholics) (10:9). Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4). Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5). Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19). Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9) or picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10). Mixing fabrics in clothing, or planting different seeds in the same field (19:19). Trimming your beard (19:27). Getting tattoos (19:28). Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32). Working on the Sabbath (23:3).
This was written by irisenchanted on FetLife and posted there here is a link to Her blog as well http://iriskraken.wordpress.com/2013/12/22/homosexuality-in-the-bible/



Leviticus was not written for a specific sect. The quote is question is one of two holiness codes, leviticus 18 and leviticus 20 which compliment the Deuteronomic codes.

The writer, to make the prohibitions of leviticus ridiculus equates the punishment of homosexuality with various offenses which merely rendered a man or woman unclean. They are not the same in the least.

Homosexuality, or adultery - etc were punishable by death.
Having sex with a woman during her period or masterbation merely made one unclean. One, due to contact with blood - for 7 days; the other for 3. Eating improper food made one unclean. Working on the sabbath.

The blood prescription in Judaism (if I recall my studies correctly) date all the way back to cain and abel - where the blood spilled cried to the Lord. In all of Judaism there were correct ways to slaughter animals - rules that are kept to this day in orthodox congregations.

This is why christians are made clean by the blood of the lamb.

Picking up grapes, or fallen grain deprived widows and orphans the role of gleaners - which afforded them a way to live

Anyway.

1. I know of no significant disagreement that the words of Leviticus make homosexuality punishable by death.
2. The fact that the general population views something as sinful or not sinful isn't really material to believers.
3. My personal observation as a christian is along the lines of the pope. God's definition of sin hasn't changed - but who am I to judge another's persons walk to christ? Pride, not homosexuality is the greatest vice - and blasphemy against the spirit the only unforgiveable sin.




What you leave out is a lot of things in the OT were punishable by death, which includes adultery, a child striking its parent, uttering the name of Yahweh, and any number of other offenses. What Jews will tell you is the death penalty was commonly used in the writing to indicate the level of the offense, but for example, it is unlikely Jews put children to death for hitting their parents (can't say the same thing for some Christian sects).

Secondly, the line in leviticus has context that make the line a little less clear. It is likely it is prohibiting a sex ritual that was in Babylonian religion, where male priests would have sex, where one of them literally would take on the role of a woman ("as with a woman"). Leviticus was rewritten in 600bce during the exile, and a lot of it was designed to keep Jews from assimilating. In that context, the line about homosexual sex becomes forbidding jews to do a foreign sex ritual, not a broad based condemnation. It is very easy to claim the bible is clear, but the problem is the bible is a complex book, and the Jews, whose words those are, don't agree with it being that clear.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625