|
Post by Draxy on Nov 6, 2003 3:05:30 GMT -5
Hussar: Well, because quoting from a pop culture movie in a fairly serious debate could make you look immature and uneducated. Note, I am not calling anyone immature and uneducated, I am merely pointing out that some people could view it that way.
Draxy: Likewise though Hussar, to many people, who justly or not believe that the entire purpose of the Bible is completely and totally human desire to control the thoughts and actions odf others and has nothing to do with God, quoting from it can (Not neccesarily does, but can) make the person doing so look exactly the same.
All the Bible has over a movie, to many peoples minds, is tenure.
Hussar: Perhaps someone could explain it to me though. I know the prohibition to homosexuality comes from Leviticus. Fine. But, we ignore 99% of the rules laid down in Leviticus because they make absolutely no sense in a modern context and many are outright illegal now. Stoning my mother for wearing two different kinds of cloth would be pretty dimly viewed by the local constabulary. As would selling my sister. And the many, many other insanities which appear in Leviticus. How can the churches legitimately toss out part of a book supposedly given to them by God and keep an other part?
Draxy: *shrugs* Human nature and the desire to dictate to others what and how they are allowed to think?
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Nov 6, 2003 10:17:01 GMT -5
I, personally, take everything in the Old Testament with a grain of salt, especially Leviticus. Anybody who eats pork or has a glass of milk with their steak is already disobeying the will of the Lord, if you believe everything from the Bible. I believe that when Christ came along and made a new covenant, He threw out the old one. The rules from the Old Testament were made to help a people living in the middle of the desert thrive. Pork is actually very unhealthy, and men who "spilled their sperm" were wasting energy that could have been used to procreate and increase the population. Notice that nowhere does Leviticus prohibit female homosexuality, only male. Lesbians weren't wasting eggs or preventing themselves from procreating. The New Testament threw out the old rules and made a set of new ones, for civilized society. Now, not only must you not kill, you must not think of killing. Old Testament rules are about actions. New Testament rules are about intent.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Nov 6, 2003 15:54:50 GMT -5
Good point.
Perfectly valid perfectly sound. The probelm is the New Testament also condemns homosexuality. Jesus himself never said word one about sex, but Paul had a bit to say on the subject.
Of course, Christians should be followers of Jesus rather than Paul and where the two conflict favor Jesus.
I think Jesus's most importantwords were: Love your neighbor and your enemy, and Judge not lest ye judged.
I think theymake a good ending to any moral argument.
Almost as good as: In this world, hate never yet dispelled hate. Only love can dispel hate. You too shall pass away, knowing this how can you quarrel.
fromthe Dhamapadda, the Sayings of Buddha.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 6, 2003 23:35:25 GMT -5
That's what I was asking actually Khyron. What does Paul say about homosexuality and where does he say it?
|
|
|
Post by ShonenSenshiDave on Nov 7, 2003 10:36:48 GMT -5
Check Paul's Letters to the Romans, IIRC. It's like a whole whopping ONE LINE. Yup, that's it. And it didn't even come from the mouth of the Messiah; it came from a man. Just like Leviticus. Man's law trying to dictate and interpret a Deity's Will. Not always useful, IMHO.
But Hussar is correct; most of Leviticus is completely ignored; certain passages are taken out of context and/or mistranslated to serve the needs of whomever happens to be writing (or preaching) the stuff at the time.
Examples: "Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman for it is an abomination in the eyes of God." (Leviticus) Ok, seems pretty damning of homosexuality, right? WRONG. I've read several articles which state the actual line deals with the Greek institution of Pederaesty (and the Jews did exist at the time of the Greeks, and were one of the few religions not totally absorbed by the Greek empire. Adkins and Adkins, Handbook to Life in Ancient Greece). The Jews were aware of the practice of older men mentoring younger men in all things, including sex, and probably didn't like it as AN INSTITUTION. They don't seem to take issue with the act itself; rather they oppose an institution which requires men to engage in same-sex relations, even though they may not be gay. There's prolly also an issue with age as well.
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". Uhhh... am I the only one who remembers Solomon? Y'know, King. Summoned the Witch of Endor to help him communicate with the dead and buried spirit of Saul (?). Heck, one of the major Magickal tomes still around is called the Greater Key of Solomon and deals with bindings, ceremonial magicks, etc. I somehow doubt that Leviticus is condemning Solomon. My understanding is that the actual translation should be "thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live". Read: assassin or herbalist with not-so-gentle motives.
"I am the Lord your God, thou shall have no others before Me." That certainly has implications, lol. To some, it imlies that ancient Hebrew religions were actually pantheistic as opposed to monotheistic. I suspect that the Hebrew God became dominant, and eventually the worship of other Gods ceased. But don't be fooled; there is evidence that ancient Hebrew religions were not originally monotheistic, such as the Qabalah.
Let the Anglicans go their own way. History is full of examples where the Anglican church schismed because one part pouted about something another did. The Anglican church, historically speaking, is not exactly the most stable...(IIRC, several modern Christian branches have roots in the Anglican Church). Either things were too liberal, not liberal enough, etc. Every so often the Anglicans hit critical mass and then there are "issues", and then there's another sect. <shrugs>
|
|
|
Post by Wyrmfire on Nov 7, 2003 14:33:30 GMT -5
"I am the Lord your God, thou shall have no others before Me." That certainly has implications, lol. To some, it imlies that ancient Hebrew religions were actually pantheistic as opposed to monotheistic. I suspect that the Hebrew God became dominant, and eventually the worship of other Gods ceased. But don't be fooled; there is evidence that ancient Hebrew religions were not originally monotheistic, such as the Qabalah. It's not so much that they were pantheistic, its just that religion was viewed a little differently when everyone was isolated enough to have their own gods. When you ran in to someone that worshipped some other god, is was accepted that they both existed, but you still just worship your own. The jews were somewhat unique in that they only worshipped one god, but they would have accepted the fact that your god exists too. But, I wil also point out that you can still have a lie (from their point of view!) before God, or another human. You don't have to acnowledge the existence of another God to tell people not to worship that god.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Nov 7, 2003 16:00:55 GMT -5
But, I wil also point out that you can still have a lie (from their point of view!) before God, or another human. You don't have to acnowledge the existence of another God to tell people not to worship that god. *nods* Example: I don't know my way around the Bible very well, but when Moses was on the mount recieving the Ten Commandments, remember the golden calf? That was obviously a lie, the people knew it, but they still put another god before God.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 7, 2003 20:37:26 GMT -5
Yes, and they got their butts smote for that lie too.
|
|