Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

12/11/2008 05:28:50 PM · #1676

Originally posted by RonB:

Just out of curiosity, what do YOU think the term "strange flesh" refers to?

Flesh of which I have no knowledge, i.e. - adultery or sex outside of marriage, bestiality even. could be homosexual, but is not limited to homosexual.

You can interpret every instance of a reference to Sodom as meaning homosexual, but that is YOUR interpretation, not one that is tied to the word itself.

I looked up Sodomy in the dictionary and it seems it is a 13th century invention related to Genesis. So, it would seem that later interpretations of (well, interpretations of) bible verses led to a word that is now tied to bestiality, and anal and oral sex. The word itself was created long after the writers of the bible ceased to exist.

Now, show me where it specifically states in the bible that homosexuality (or men 'laying' with men)is wrong and condemned by God, and I will be more accepting of your opinion. for now, your entire argument is based on what you believe the word 'know' means in Genesis. Very flimsy evidence, in my opinion.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

12/11/2008 05:39:44 PM · #1677

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Louis:
You'v contradicted yourself. You previously said a "bad" act -- wait, an act "condemned in the bible" -- could be committed wholesomely when done in a "good" -- or "condoned by the bible" -- way. How do you, a man who not five minutes ago said that people are incapable of determining what is righteous or not, manage to determine which "bad, condemned" acts turn into "good, condoned" acts, and which do not? You have a lot of exegetic 'splainin to do.

When you choose the lexicon, you get to use words however you see fit. But if you wish to be understood in civil discourse you need to choose a lexicon that others share - else you will find yourself, like now, being called out. It is YOU, not I who is equating "bad" with "condemned in the bible" and "good" with "condoned in the bible" - substitutions that I do not, and would not make. As such, I feel no obligation whatsoever to be 'splainin anything to you relative to your twisted misstatement of what I posted.

Wow. So I assume you mean to say that not everything the bible condemns is bad. That's the only conclusion one can make, if you don't equate biblical condemnation with bad. Do you have any examples of good or neutral things being condemned? And how do you explain this sort of condemnation.

You're in a bit of a bind here.

First of all, you'd be much better off not assuming what I mean to say. If I say it, I usually mean it. If you find that what I say is ambiguous, ask me and I'll try to explain it in a less ambiguous way. If I don't say it, don't assume what I mean to say.
That being said, "everything" the bible condemns is not "bad". More specifically, not everything the Old Testament condemns is "bad". Which is a far cry from saying that everything that the Old Testament condemns is "good". And I'm sure that some folks will be more apt than others to rationalize in their own minds whatever their personal favorite vices are so that they may be listed among those things that are no longer "bad".
Prime example of "good" or "neutral" things being condemned in the Old Testament were the eating of rabbit, pork, shellfish, raptors, and swarming insects. It is easily explained because those animals/insects, in that place ( the desert ), at that time ( no USDA inspectors, limited ability to properly preserve ), eating those animals/insects was to risk disease(s) - some of which were infectious.

BeeCee

Nikon D40

12/11/2008 05:44:32 PM · #1678

Originally posted by BeeCee:

My first thought was that it sounded like he was referring to rape as "this wicked thing"

excerpt from the United Church of Canada page I linked earlier;

"Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19, cf. Judges 19-21)
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah and a very similar story in Judges, has nothing to do with same-sex affection or sexual intimacy. Rather, it is about infringing ancient Near Eastern hospitality codes, and about gang rape as a violent expression of male dominance."

RonB, why is this not as valid as interpretation as yours?

Message edited by author 2008-12-11 17:44:47.

12/11/2008 05:46:52 PM · #1679

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

This is pretty much where I run into trouble with "Literal meaning of the Bible".

If you who espouse the writings can't really be completely clear, and you're suject to interpretational vagaries, how is the uninformed world supposed to feel about it?

That is the crux of the problem, Jeb. If one searches the Bible for the purpose of proving it to be fallacious, then one will find fallacies. It's easy. All you have to do is use Google and find a verse that supports your position, or by lack of a verse, use it's omission to support your position. Or better yet, find conflicting verses.
However, those who study the WHOLE of scripture are often led to different conclusions. It is an amazing work.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

It just seems entirely too controversial to be able to state anything emphatically and that the best usage would be allegorical guidelines rather than to argue specific points.

Perhaps that would suffice for some, but not for folks like Louis ( in my opinion ).

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

12/11/2008 06:07:43 PM · #1680

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by RonB:

Just out of curiosity, what do YOU think the term "strange flesh" refers to?

Flesh of which I have no knowledge, i.e. - adultery or sex outside of marriage, bestiality even. could be homosexual, but is not limited to homosexual.

You can interpret every instance of a reference to Sodom as meaning homosexual, but that is YOUR interpretation, not one that is tied to the word itself.

I looked up Sodomy in the dictionary and it seems it is a 13th century invention related to Genesis. So, it would seem that later interpretations of (well, interpretations of) bible verses led to a word that is now tied to bestiality, and anal and oral sex. The word itself was created long after the writers of the bible ceased to exist.

Now, show me where it specifically states in the bible that homosexuality (or men 'laying' with men)is wrong and condemned by God, and I will be more accepting of your opinion. for now, your entire argument is based on what you believe the word 'know' means in Genesis. Very flimsy evidence, in my opinion.

Leviticua 18:22 (NIV) "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
(KJV) "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
Romans 1:24-27 (NIV) "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
(KJV) "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."

BeeCee

Nikon D40

12/11/2008 06:40:44 PM · #1681

Yet incest is fine...

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

12/11/2008 07:10:05 PM · #1682

Originally posted by RonB:

see, now we have something to work with. however, no Christians are obligated to follow Levitical Laws (they are laws for Jews, not christians). For instance, it is 'law' not to eat pork. And it is 'law' not to eat shell-fish. The Laws are about cleanliness, about how to be a good Jew, not about what kind of sex you should or shouldn't have, except in respect to being a good jew. A christian is not a good Jew, and believe it or not, Jesus was not a good Jew. He broke levitical law on many occasions.

Additionally, it was a 'sin' to have sex without the intention to procreate, whether or not you were married (every sperm is sacred...) But again, this is old testament, not new testament. Hence not only the change in name of the book, but the change in philosophy. Jesus heralded a NEW ERA and pushed for new ways of thinking of people and treating people. If you check, many people consider the story of the Centurion and his 'servant' a story of Jesus healing a gay man's loverboy (check the wording and the correct definition of pais, the work used in Luke).

Also, with regard to Lot giving up his daughters, that was a sign of preserving dignity, the old jewish way to handle it. And besides that, according to Genesis 19:36, Lot impregnated his own virginal daughters. So, lets get away from Old Testament morality and work on something that Jesus would actually promote.

Louis

Nikon D800

12/11/2008 10:21:19 PM · #1683

Originally posted by RonB:

Prime example of "good" or "neutral" things being condemned in the Old Testament were the eating of rabbit, pork, shellfish, raptors, and swarming insects. It is easily explained because those animals/insects, in that place ( the desert ), at that time ( no USDA inspectors, limited ability to properly preserve ), eating those animals/insects was to risk disease(s) - some of which were infectious.

Even though infection is not mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament with regard to forbidden food -- God's obsession seems to be with cuds and hooves, even though he shows a startling ignorance of zoology. That would be an unambiguous interpretation on your part. Though certainly not bad to eat those animals (I'd check with an Orthodox Jew before going with that though), and quite probably good or neutral, it is still condemned in the bible, and whoever eats those animals is unclean. Neutrally, of course.

I think you're right, it's best to leave the decoding of the absurdities, and the presumption that you know what the hell this is all about, to you.

12/12/2008 11:32:23 AM · #1684

Originally posted by BeeCee:

Originally posted by BeeCee:

My first thought was that it sounded like he was referring to rape as "this wicked thing"

excerpt from the United Church of Canada page I linked earlier;

"Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19, cf. Judges 19-21)
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah and a very similar story in Judges, has nothing to do with same-sex affection or sexual intimacy. Rather, it is about infringing ancient Near Eastern hospitality codes, and about gang rape as a violent expression of male dominance."

RonB, why is this not as valid as interpretation as yours?

Because ( in my opinion ) a) nowhere in scripture does it say anything about infringement of hospitality codes as being among the sins of Sodom ( see your list above from Ezekiel et. al. ); and
b) If it was about gang rape and male dominance, would not raping the daughters of Lot have sufficed to serve the "needs" of the men of Lot to show such domination?
c) If the word "know" (KJV) really meant "know intellectually", then why would Lot have referred to it as a "wicked thing"? Do you believe that the "wicked thing" Lot referred to was infringement of hospitality codes?

FYI. It's not "MY" interpretation. It is the consensus of most modern interpretaters. ref: this Wikipedia article where it says:
"The mainstream opinion among biblical interpreters maintains that, taken in the context of the events of Genesis 19:4-8, there is clear indication that homosexuality is at least one specific sin responsible for the destruction of Sodom"

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/12/2008 11:33:47 AM · #1685

Originally posted by BeeCee:

Yet incest is fine...

It is? I didn't know that.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

12/12/2008 12:00:51 PM · #1686

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by BeeCee:

Originally posted by BeeCee:

My first thought was that it sounded like he was referring to rape as "this wicked thing"

excerpt from the United Church of Canada page I linked earlier;

"Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19, cf. Judges 19-21)
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah and a very similar story in Judges, has nothing to do with same-sex affection or sexual intimacy. Rather, it is about infringing ancient Near Eastern hospitality codes, and about gang rape as a violent expression of male dominance."

RonB, why is this not as valid as interpretation as yours?

Because ( in my opinion ) a) nowhere in scripture does it say anything about infringement of hospitality codes as being among the sins of Sodom ( see your list above from Ezekiel et. al. ); and
b) If it was about gang rape and male dominance, would not raping the daughters of Lot have sufficed to serve the "needs" of the men of Lot to show such domination?
c) If the word "know" (KJV) really meant "know intellectually", then why would Lot have referred to it as a "wicked thing"? Do you believe that the "wicked thing" Lot referred to was infringement of hospitality codes?

FYI. It's not "MY" interpretation. It is the consensus of most modern interpretaters. ref: this Wikipedia article where it says:
"The mainstream opinion among biblical interpreters maintains that, taken in the context of the events of Genesis 19:4-8, there is clear indication that homosexuality is at least one specific sin responsible for the destruction of Sodom"

And of course your opinion and that of the modern interpretaters you reference is absolutely correct, neutral and free of bias. At one point, the "mainstream" interpretation was that the Earth was the center of the universe and all revolved around it. To suggest otherwise was heresy.

12/12/2008 12:38:36 PM · #1687

So it would seem to this confused participant that it'd be nice to have a list of what's considered to be relevant in today's times and what's not.....what's good and what's bad.

So how does such a person such as myself, with *NO* Biblical training separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak?

Is there any publication that is considered by most Biblical scholars to be a reasonably useful guide for the average lay person to live by?

Though I do not consider myself a Christian, or saved, in the usual manner, I certainly believe that there is much good thought and teachings recorded.

But I can easily be distracted and lose my concentration trying to slog through thousands of pages trying to ascertain good messages and sort out the irrelevant, or generally dismissed archaic teachings.

Message edited by author 2008-12-12 12:39:02.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

12/12/2008 12:44:00 PM · #1688

Originally posted by RonB:

,
FYI. It's not "MY" interpretation. It is the consensus of most modern interpretaters. ref: this Wikipedia article where it says:
"The mainstream opinion among biblical interpreters maintains that, taken in the context of the events of Genesis 19:4-8, there is clear indication that homosexuality is at least one specific sin responsible for the destruction of Sodom"

Hmmm. Wiki as a source. Not good.

Here is a biblical Scholar. It starts getting really interesting around page 7. Please note the original word, often translated into 'know.'

(BTW - if the men were engaging in homosexual acts and that is what God smote them for, why were not the women spared?)

Wait! A professor weighs in...

For a quick and easy opinion read, try here

Message edited by author 2008-12-12 12:47:52.

12/12/2008 01:16:15 PM · #1689

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by RonB:
It shouldn't be. For example, if you had a 2 year old and s/he decided to show you how much they love you by washing your car one Saturday morning while you slept in, but innocently used a dirty rag and scratched the finish, would you punish him/her? Or would you consider his/her intent and forgive them, while taking the opportunity to show them the error of their way so they wouldn't repeat the mistake? Or should your children be very, very afraid of you because you judge only on results, and not intent?

Well I certainly got punished for writing "I love dad" and "I love mom" all over the inside of our closet doors in crayon. I could come up with lots more examples of good ideas gone wrong, and my parents correcting me because of it. Punishment IS an opportunity to show the error one's way.

Even when my infractions didn't cause nearly as much damage as thoroughly scratching up an over $10K machine!

So, I guess any children I may have in the future SHOULD be afraid of doing the wrong thing even if their intentions are pure... it's traditional. That's how I learned right from wrong, and learned how complicated it can be to determine which is which.

Frankly, I weep for the spoiled kids who think they can do whatever they like as long is it's well meaning.

And I weep for kids who are afraid to show love for fear of being punished if they do it in the "wrong" way - a way that is kept hidden from them until AFTER they do it. They may not be "spoiled" but they are "damaged" ( in my opinion ).

I'd agree... thankfully you can punish without causing lasting fear.

12/12/2008 01:25:09 PM · #1690

Originally posted by RonB:

Just out of curiosity, what do YOU think the term "strange flesh" refers to?

Well, in modern parlance, "A bit of strange" is overwhelmingly used to refer to sex with a new woman, particularly a prostitute.

12/12/2008 01:28:40 PM · #1691

Originally posted by dahkota:

For a quick and easy opinion read, try here

Well written, interesting read.

ETA: As was this:

Originally posted by dahkota:

Wait! A professor weighs in...

Message edited by author 2008-12-12 13:33:18.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

12/12/2008 01:41:54 PM · #1692

Oh, and to be a bit pedantic here...

I don't lie with women as I do with men.

A) I don't lie with women at all
B) The mechanics are different, even if I had

The other two examples given seem to be primarily about about replacing worship of god with worship of flesh (the creature). Because of that, God 'gave them over' to their lusts, and they reaped the punishmnets. God did it! The lusts themselves ARE the punishment.

And then men recieved said punishment within themselves. How delicately poetic.

Sicne I never had a relationship with or worshipped God, I could be seen as getting a pass. And should!

BeeCee

Nikon D40

12/12/2008 03:56:28 PM · #1693

Originally posted by RonB:

To rape the male guests would be far worse than taking the daughters offered, for several reasons, including;

-Taking what they demanded rather than settling for what they were offered. That gives Lot the clear message that he has no power to even bargain with them.

-Taking a guest, a traveller who has been given protection in one's home. Travel was dangerous, and giving someone your hospitality was offering them a safe haven, not just a comfortable bed and a hot meal.

-The simple fact that they were men; violating one of their equal rather than settling for a mere woman, a chattel. Women were almost routinely raped with barely a second thought. It was a simple means of sexual gratification. But raping a man wasn't sexual, it was domination. The fact that he would even offer his daughters is evidence of their lesser value.

As for the incest, Lot's same two daughters bore him each a son, and Abraham's wife was his half-sister.

Which also points up the lack of value of a woman; it was okay for Abraham to offer up his sister for the king to sleep with, just not okay for him to offer his wife. Women were of value and to be protected as breedstock and servants to their husbands and little more.

edit to get the name right... duhhh...

sigh... edit again to fix quotes that I somehow missed the first time. It makes a LOT more sense now! (I hope...)

Message edited by author 2008-12-12 22:29:53.

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

12/12/2008 04:09:22 PM · #1694

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

To me, this is the best post I have ever read of yours. I hope someone here has a scholarly answer.

My answer would be to 1st consider the Bible as 3 texts. Literature. History. Philosophy. Read the Bible first as literature (even Louis stated it was "good" literature in an earlier post). Next investigate it as history if you enjoy that kind of research - where often times archeology would fill in some answers. BAR (Biblical Archeology Review is one source along these lines). Lastly read as a Philosophical treatise. Either you agree and adopt of your don't. Or you agree with parts and not others. If there is a God(s), then his rules will certainly apply - whatever they are. If there isn't - then it doesn't really matter. Based on the new testament requuiring only two laws - I would simply say; 1). Put the Lord your God 1st in every thought, word and deed and 2). Treat your neighbor as you would yourself. Sums up the philosophy part for me - quite succinctly.

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

12/12/2008 04:26:54 PM · #1695

Originally posted by Mousie:

Sicne I never had a relationship with or worshipped God, I could be seen as getting a pass. And should!

Even if you did know God - you'd still get a pass. I think some here confuse sin with damnation. They might be associative terms but are not necessarily so. The damnation/destruction of Sodom was the refusal to repent - not sin. Everyone sins. We may have different ones - but none are without sin. So what. If salvation is important to you (and it may not be), then get to know God. He'll give you a pass on any sins you might be guilty of - when you ask for forgiveness. If salvation is not important to you, then don't sweat it. The unbelievers may be right.

As far as a man lying with a man - the bible says it is one of many sins - along with adultery (anyone guilty of that one here?), lusting after a neighbors property (anyone guilty?), and many many others. Many do not believe the Bible is accurate and thus choose to ignore it. That's fine with me.

I do hope you consider a Cadillac next time though.

Nullix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

12/12/2008 05:34:46 PM · #1696

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Mousie:
Sicne I never had a relationship with or worshipped God, I could be seen as getting a pass. And should!

Even if you did know God - you'd still get a pass. I think some here confuse sin with damnation. They might be associative terms but are not necessarily so. The damnation/destruction of Sodom was the refusal to repent - not sin. Everyone sins. We may have different ones - but none are without sin. So what. If salvation is important to you (and it may not be), then get to know God. He'll give you a pass on any sins you might be guilty of - when you ask for forgiveness. If salvation is not important to you, then don't sweat it. The unbelievers may be right.

As far as a man lying with a man - the bible says it is one of many sins - along with adultery (anyone guilty of that one here?), lusting after a neighbors property (anyone guilty?), and many many others. Many do not believe the Bible is accurate and thus choose to ignore it. That's fine with me.

I do hope you consider a Cadillac next time though.

Can I get an, "Amen!"

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

12/12/2008 06:36:03 PM · #1697

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Is there any publication that is considered by most Biblical scholars to be a reasonably useful guide for the average lay person to live by?

Nope.

12/12/2008 10:12:45 PM · #1698

I'd also like to note:

I am not a sinner.

There is no sin in my philosophy, only unfortunate or immoral acts. No sin.

How many times must I be told that I am a sinner, when the concept isn't even valid in my worldview?

I've repeatedly asked people not to call me a sinner in these threads, even by implication (e.g. "no one is without sin"). That is an imposition of your personal beliefs onto my character, and of the worst kind. It's intellectual violence, and I find it deeply insulting. I've mentioned this previously as well.

Will religious types never tire of shoving their 'lifestyle' down everyone else's throats? Flaunting it, as it were?

12/13/2008 03:05:16 AM · #1699

Originally posted by Mousie:

The interesting point about that is that from what I can figure, that's not really an attack on you, or me, personally.

It's just a statement of how the Christian belief system works in that we are all descendents of Adam & Eve, and therefore a product of original sin.

So there is no other option, as I understand it.

It's one of the basic tenets that I reject.

I just have so much issue with starting life behind the eight ball......8>)