Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What's your educational background?
What's your educational background?
Primarily degrees in business with minors in history. I teach business and history classes at the college level in Oregon and previously in Arizona. I have studied the Bible from historical, linguistic, and cultural perspectives for over 25 years
I'm going to go ahead and Assume that Ravi is Incapable of Countering my OP or making the case that Jesus was Pro-Gay or Pro-Gay Marriage.
Noted... Coward.
peace...
Bwahahaha if she doesn't respond she is a coward and if she does she is "stalking" you!
Jesus said, "whatever you did to the least of these, you did to Me"
I am still here...
And it is still a FACT that God Defined Marriage and Man and Woman and Jesus Repeated it...
It also a FACT that 100% of the time that Homosexuality is Referenced in the Old and New Testaments it is called Sin and Abomination.
In Levitical Moral Law in Chapter 18 it is listed with Beastiality and Spoken of in Stronger Terms by God.
Well actually....no...it's not. Leviticus 18:22 for example is written "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee." The literal translation is "And with a male you shall not lay layings of a woman"
Now...no one has any idea what it means to "lay layings" so using Midrash (that convenient tradition the Church uses to...ahem....interpret things that don't make sense or are missing) they just tossed in three little words "as with the" and translated it "And with a male you shall not lay (as with the) layings of a woman". Ok well now it makes sense but unfortunately that's not what is written.
Secondly the word used to describe the alleged sin is "toeyvah" which can mean abomination. When used in the context of ritual, however, it is more accurately translated as "unclean"...."ritually improper", "ceremonially impure", etc. When you consider that at Leviticus 18:21 it begins discussing rituals practiced to Moloch and you put 18:22 in context with 18:21 (as fundamentalists generally refuse to do) then whatever act 18:22 is warning against, it is in reference to pagan ritual and as such the transgression would not be considered an "abomination" but would simply be "ritually improper". Sexual activity in pagan ritual including orgies, homosexual acts male or female, etc were pretty common in those days. In fact the temples kept prostitutes in their employ so people could properly fulfill their ritual obligations to the gods. Rituals to Moloch frequently involved this kind of stuff.
So in other words if you a) take 18:22 out of the context of 18:21 and look at the verse in isolation, b) ignore the cultural context of the times and the sexual activities involving pagan ritual, and c) add words to the original scripture to...ahem..."clarify it (in other words change it completely)...then yes; 18:22 condemns male-male homosexuality as an abomination. And indeed, that's precisely what the Church has done.
If you look at it in context, consider the culture of the day, and read the verse as it's written then actually it doesn't say a word about condemning homosexuality at all...at least not in the context that we are talking about in this day and age. The best someone could argue is that it might since the verse itself makes no sense, but in context it would only be in regard to pagan ritual anyhow. The Church will tell you to ignore those who point out these truths and tell you they are Satan's minions who will be leading to into hell (which of course is another one of the Church's bullshit creations but that's another story) pretty much because the Church is interested in power, control, money, and obedience and accurate reporting of the word of God has very little to do with it.
So there goes that 100% thing you were talking about 'cause the Leviticus argument that it condemns homosexuality is a bunch of bullshit. Now....want me to discuss Paul's bullshit verses or have you gotten the point?
Let me recommend for you a fine book that explains all this in far more detail:
And God Said by Dr. Joel M. Hoffman
Yes, please. I would like you to discuss Paul's bullshit verses. Mucho gracias.
that's a thread unto itself and I actually went into it very deeply on another thread. Let me just copy what I wrote there. It will save me the time of writing it all out again.Paul is a very problematic source of information for a lot of reasons (which I will explain thoroughly if anyone is really that interested) and frankly in my research I have gotten to the point that if it's written by Paul I generally take it with a huge grain of salt if not ignore it completely.
But sometimes Paul talks about "the effeminate" and "unnatural sexual acts" and how being effeminate is an affront to God, etc. Again we have have to understand some cultural points here. Paul was a Roman and in Roman culture (or Greek or frankly just about any culture of the time) they distinguished greatly between the dominant role in homosexual activity and the feminine role in homosexual activity. It was perfectly fine and natural to be the dominant male in homosexual activity. But the feminine male was a position reserved for young boys and slaves. It would be considered a social abomination; completely unnatural for a grown man to assume the feminine role.
In other words, in regards to homosexual relations it was no problem at all to be the pitcher; you just couldn't be the catcher. Now in the 21st century we don't distinguish between the two forms of homosexual roles. We tend to lump them together: gay is gay no matter what role you take and to suggest that there is a difference between the dominant role and the feminine role is ridiculous. But that is according to our 21st century perception. To Paul...a Roman....that would make perfect sense and indeed would be the precise way that he was brought up to think.
Well the reason for (conflict in interpretation) has a lot to do with political history and struggles for power and that's been going on since the moment Jesus died. I mean Peter and Paul were certainly battling between themselves for power. At the end of 2 Peter, for example, Peter has some rather nasty things to say about Paul. Essentially he says: "you know...Paul....he's a good guy and a brother, but you might not want to pay a whole lot of attention to what he says 'cause he has a tendency to screw it up". Some might view Peter's comments a bit differently but given the history between the two that's how I view it at least. Peter says Paul "understands according to the gifts God has given him". Wow...there's a lot of ways to take that comment, you know? And in reality it created two different sects among many others: those who sided with Peter and those who sided with Paul.
When Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire he kind of settled that battle in Paul's favor. This makes a lot of sense because Paul's writings are a) very vague, ambiguous, and open to a lot of interpretation, and b) generally endorsed (when translated to do so at least) a far stricter model of society and behavior. Well, Constantine was a Roman Emperor and what a Roman Emperor wants most of all is order and obedience and Paul's approach was far more conducive to Constantine's goals and could be far more easily manipulated to create the society a Roman Emperor would want.
So when you trace back all these different beliefs based on (largely at least) the same or similar scriptures it can usually be linked to some form of political power struggle within the church that eventually caused a split, or the adoption of one approach over another.
...it's also important to remember that Paul had a real bad habit of changing his story according to what suited him best at the time. For example, when talking to Jews he would claim to be of Jewish descent and then at other times he claimed to be a member of the Sanhedrian, then at other times he claimed to be nothing more than a Roman citizen.
And these weren't simply times in his life where his philosophy had developed to a point where suddenly he found that he identified more with one group than the other. He flipped flopped around more frequently than a porn star based upon what was best for him according to the circumstances he was presently dealing with. So the argument can certainly be made that Paul was at best a bullshit artist, and at worst a lying sack of shit. This is just one problem that I, and a lot of Biblical scholars, have with Paul.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9, for example, Paul used the Greek word "arsenokotai" to describe a group of people that God finds unsavory. The problem is no one knows what "arsenokotai" means. The word is found in no other scriptures or any kind of writing from that time, the context doesn't help because Paul was throwing out a list of things that were unsavory but completely unrelated to each other; we don't know what the fuck it means. We do know that the Greek term for homosexuality at the time was "pederasstie" so it seems that if Paul was referring to homosexuals he simply would have used that word. So why is "arsenokotai" translated into "homosexuals"? Damn good question. No one knows and the church hasn't been too eager to explain itself.
What's your educational background?
Primarily degrees in business with minors in history. I teach business and history classes at the college level in Oregon and previously in Arizona. I have studied the Bible from historical, linguistic, and cultural perspectives for over 25 years
oops
I'm going to go ahead and Assume that Ravi is Incapable of Countering my OP or making the case that Jesus was Pro-Gay or Pro-Gay Marriage.
Noted... Coward.
peace...
Bwahahaha if she doesn't respond she is a coward and if she does she is "stalking" you!
Jesus said, "whatever you did to the least of these, you did to Me"
And what does that mean, oh wise Bible scholar?
Does that mean that we are to allow serial killers?
What's your educational background?
Primarily degrees in business with minors in history. I teach business and history classes at the college level in Oregon and previously in Arizona. I have studied the Bible from historical, linguistic, and cultural perspectives for over 25 years
oops
I am still here...
And it is still a FACT that God Defined Marriage and Man and Woman and Jesus Repeated it...
It also a FACT that 100% of the time that Homosexuality is Referenced in the Old and New Testaments it is called Sin and Abomination.
In Levitical Moral Law in Chapter 18 it is listed with Beastiality and Spoken of in Stronger Terms by God.
Well actually....no...it's not. Leviticus 18:22 for example is written "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee." The literal translation is "And with a male you shall not lay layings of a woman"
Now...no one has any idea what it means to "lay layings" so using Midrash (that convenient tradition the Church uses to...ahem....interpret things that don't make sense or are missing) they just tossed in three little words "as with the" and translated it "And with a male you shall not lay (as with the) layings of a woman". Ok well now it makes sense but unfortunately that's not what is written.
Secondly the word used to describe the alleged sin is "toeyvah" which can mean abomination. When used in the context of ritual, however, it is more accurately translated as "unclean"...."ritually improper", "ceremonially impure", etc. When you consider that at Leviticus 18:21 it begins discussing rituals practiced to Moloch and you put 18:22 in context with 18:21 (as fundamentalists generally refuse to do) then whatever act 18:22 is warning against, it is in reference to pagan ritual and as such the transgression would not be considered an "abomination" but would simply be "ritually improper". Sexual activity in pagan ritual including orgies, homosexual acts male or female, etc were pretty common in those days. In fact the temples kept prostitutes in their employ so people could properly fulfill their ritual obligations to the gods. Rituals to Moloch frequently involved this kind of stuff.
So in other words if you a) take 18:22 out of the context of 18:21 and look at the verse in isolation, b) ignore the cultural context of the times and the sexual activities involving pagan ritual, and c) add words to the original scripture to...ahem..."clarify it (in other words change it completely)...then yes; 18:22 condemns male-male homosexuality as an abomination. And indeed, that's precisely what the Church has done.
If you look at it in context, consider the culture of the day, and read the verse as it's written then actually it doesn't say a word about condemning homosexuality at all...at least not in the context that we are talking about in this day and age. The best someone could argue is that it might since the verse itself makes no sense, but in context it would only be in regard to pagan ritual anyhow. The Church will tell you to ignore those who point out these truths and tell you they are Satan's minions who will be leading to into hell (which of course is another one of the Church's bullshit creations but that's another story) pretty much because the Church is interested in power, control, money, and obedience and accurate reporting of the word of God has very little to do with it.
So there goes that 100% thing you were talking about 'cause the Leviticus argument that it condemns homosexuality is a bunch of bullshit. Now....want me to discuss Paul's bullshit verses or have you gotten the point?
Let me recommend for you a fine book that explains all this in far more detail:
And God Said by Dr. Joel M. Hoffman
I'm going to go ahead and Assume that Ravi is Incapable of Countering my OP or making the case that Jesus was Pro-Gay or Pro-Gay Marriage.
Noted... Coward.
peace...
Bwahahaha if she doesn't respond she is a coward and if she does she is "stalking" you!
Jesus said, "whatever you did to the least of these, you did to Me"
And what does that mean, oh wise Bible scholar?
Does that mean that we are to allow serial killers?
Way to miss the point, WHORE TEASER. 
Hmm. I should stop. If I have a weakness, it's that I get furious when I see people use religion as a means for judging others. Especially my religion.
But I should exercise more restraint and understanding. There is no need to be insulting or potentially embarrass people.
So to Mal, Newby and anyone else who might have been offended by my antics in this thread, I apologize.
You apparently get furious even when people aren't using religion as a means for judging others - but are rather commenting on it in an abstract way.
That's what's funny here - you demanding that people address your emotion while pretending that you're being intellectual, and accusing them of cutting and running after they have addressed you but have failed to agree that your umbrage has merit.
Hmm. I should stop. If I have a weakness, it's that I get furious when I see people use religion as a means for judging others. Especially my religion.
But I should exercise more restraint and understanding. There is no need to be insulting or potentially embarrass people.
So to Mal, Newby and anyone else who might have been offended by my antics in this thread, I apologize.
You apparently get furious even when people aren't using religion as a means for judging others - but are rather commenting on it in an abstract way.
That's what's funny here - you demanding that people address your emotion while pretending that you're being intellectual, and accusing them of cutting and running after they have addressed you but have failed to agree that your umbrage has merit.
It's called narcissism, and he has it in spades.
I am still here...
And it is still a FACT that God Defined Marriage and Man and Woman and Jesus Repeated it...
It also a FACT that 100% of the time that Homosexuality is Referenced in the Old and New Testaments it is called Sin and Abomination.
In Levitical Moral Law in Chapter 18 it is listed with Beastiality and Spoken of in Stronger Terms by God.
Well actually....no...it's not. Leviticus 18:22 for example is written "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee." The literal translation is "And with a male you shall not lay layings of a woman"
Now...no one has any idea what it means to "lay layings" so using Midrash (that convenient tradition the Church uses to...ahem....interpret things that don't make sense or are missing) they just tossed in three little words "as with the" and translated it "And with a male you shall not lay (as with the) layings of a woman". Ok well now it makes sense but unfortunately that's not what is written.
Secondly the word used to describe the alleged sin is "toeyvah" which can mean abomination. When used in the context of ritual, however, it is more accurately translated as "unclean"...."ritually improper", "ceremonially impure", etc. When you consider that at Leviticus 18:21 it begins discussing rituals practiced to Moloch and you put 18:22 in context with 18:21 (as fundamentalists generally refuse to do) then whatever act 18:22 is warning against, it is in reference to pagan ritual and as such the transgression would not be considered an "abomination" but would simply be "ritually improper". Sexual activity in pagan ritual including orgies, homosexual acts male or female, etc were pretty common in those days. In fact the temples kept prostitutes in their employ so people could properly fulfill their ritual obligations to the gods. Rituals to Moloch frequently involved this kind of stuff.
So in other words if you a) take 18:22 out of the context of 18:21 and look at the verse in isolation, b) ignore the cultural context of the times and the sexual activities involving pagan ritual, and c) add words to the original scripture to...ahem..."clarify it (in other words change it completely)...then yes; 18:22 condemns male-male homosexuality as an abomination. And indeed, that's precisely what the Church has done.
If you look at it in context, consider the culture of the day, and read the verse as it's written then actually it doesn't say a word about condemning homosexuality at all...at least not in the context that we are talking about in this day and age. The best someone could argue is that it might since the verse itself makes no sense, but in context it would only be in regard to pagan ritual anyhow. The Church will tell you to ignore those who point out these truths and tell you they are Satan's minions who will be leading to into hell (which of course is another one of the Church's bullshit creations but that's another story) pretty much because the Church is interested in power, control, money, and obedience and accurate reporting of the word of God has very little to do with it.
So there goes that 100% thing you were talking about 'cause the Leviticus argument that it condemns homosexuality is a bunch of bullshit. Now....want me to discuss Paul's bullshit verses or have you gotten the point?
Let me recommend for you a fine book that explains all this in far more detail:
And God Said by Dr. Joel M. Hoffman
Good post. We could have a blast debating theology.
It is important to know that most Old Testament references to homosexual type activity was in reference to mob activity and general unacceptable/sinful behavior that would be condemned by YHWH. Sexual orientation was not addressed in either the Old Testament or New Testament as those ancient cultures seemed to be unaware of its existence. As you have competently pointed out, it is always a mistake to try to interpret the scriptures through the prism of 21st Century language and culture and equally a mistake to judge people of those times by our current sense of morality.
Those who attempt to use the Scriptures to endorse or to condemn homosexuality are almost always going to get it wrong. I have looked at it every way but sideways and simply cannot make a case for that either way.
It is a safe bet, however, that whether polygamous relationships were condoned, or monogamous relationships were addressed, the Bible did see marriage as being between a man and a woman. So it has been in all cultures in all of recorded history. In today's culture with so many not embracing or accepting authority of the Scriptures, however, the Scriptures are not that practical to use in making the whole case for the traditional definition of marriage. But considering JudeoChristian influence on American laws, history, heritage, and culture, they are an important part of the mix.
It is important to know that most Old Testament references to homosexual type activity was in reference to mob activity and general unacceptable/sinful behavior that would be condemned by YHWH. Sexual orientation was not addressed in either the Old Testament or New Testament as those ancient cultures seemed to be unaware of its existence. As you have competently pointed out, it is always a mistake to try to interpret the scriptures through the prism of 21st Century language and culture and equally a mistake to judge people of those times by our current sense of morality.
Those who attempt to use the Scriptures to endorse or to condemn homosexuality are almost always going to get it wrong. I have looked at it every way but sideways and simply cannot make a case for that either way.
It is a safe bet, however, that whether polygamous relationships were condoned, or monogamous relationships were addressed, the Bible did see marriage as being between a man and a woman. So it has been in all cultures in all of recorded history. In today's culture with so many not embracing or accepting authority of the Scriptures, however, the Scriptures are not that practical to use in making the whole case for the traditional definition of marriage. But considering JudeoChristian influence on American laws, history, heritage, and culture, they are an important part of the mix.
Well in today's culture we would look at a bunch of men hanging out and sleeping together in the nude as homosexual activity but to them it was perfectly normal. So even though they were "married" to women, marriage had a far different meaning to them than it does to us. The rules were different, what was considered acceptable was different, etc. So what I am getting at is that even the word "marriage" has been defined different ways by different cultures. Have there been ancient cultures where men "married" men? Well....not in the way we think of it, but according to the way they thought of it...I think there are several examples throughout history where you could at least make the argument that the same effect was happening regardless of what word was used to describe it.
It is important to know that most Old Testament references to homosexual type activity was in reference to mob activity and general unacceptable/sinful behavior that would be condemned by YHWH. Sexual orientation was not addressed in either the Old Testament or New Testament as those ancient cultures seemed to be unaware of its existence. As you have competently pointed out, it is always a mistake to try to interpret the scriptures through the prism of 21st Century language and culture and equally a mistake to judge people of those times by our current sense of morality.
Those who attempt to use the Scriptures to endorse or to condemn homosexuality are almost always going to get it wrong. I have looked at it every way but sideways and simply cannot make a case for that either way.
I agree completely. I would certainly not try to make the case that the Bible "condones" homosexuality, but contrary to what the Church would have you believe it really doesn't seem to make a case one way or the other. But again, that's a cultural thing. The concept certainly existed at the time but the attitudes about it were totally different than what they are today and culture dictated a lot of that: being in the masculine role as opposed to the feminine role in homosexual activity, gang sodomy of a conquered king in the town square as a show of power, pagan sexual rituals, etc. Those are completely different things than a loving, caring, homosexual relationship and on that kind of homosexual relationship the Bible is flat out silent.
It is a safe bet, however, that whether polygamous relationships were condoned, or monogamous relationships were addressed, the Bible did see marriage as being between a man and a woman. So it has been in all cultures in all of recorded history. In today's culture with so many not embracing or accepting authority of the Scriptures, however, the Scriptures are not that practical to use in making the whole case for the traditional definition of marriage. But considering JudeoChristian influence on American laws, history, heritage, and culture, they are an important part of the mix.
Well I guess it kind of depends on how you look at it. For the most part I would agree according to ancient Jewish culture upon which Christianity is based. But even the concept of "marriage" was different then and depended on the culture. Spartan men, for example, did marry women but they spent most of their time (including sleeping together) with the other men in the barracks. Not that's not to suggest that they were engaged in homosexual orgies in the barracks, but I would liken it to walking around the men's locker room except pretty much all day.
I think you do make a very strong point that in American society we base our system of morals on Judeo-Christian values and so to some degree what they did in Athens is irrelevant...BUT (and this is where a lot of the problems come in)....many of the stories in the Bible are taken from other cultures and modified according to what was happening culturally and politically at the time. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah for example has roots to a far older tale from central Africa and the authors of the Bible simply took that story, reworked it to fit their current climate, and went with it. So in that sense, yeah you DO kind of have to look at those other cultures as well to get a real good feel about where they came from.
If same sex marriage didn't exist in biblical times, why did it get outlawed in 340 AD?
Hmm. I should stop. If I have a weakness, it's that I get furious when I see people use religion as a means for judging others. Especially my religion.
But I should exercise more restraint and understanding. There is no need to be insulting or potentially embarrass people.
So to Mal, Newby and anyone else who might have been offended by my antics in this thread, I apologize.
You apparently get furious even when people aren't using religion as a means for judging others - but are rather commenting on it in an abstract way.
That's what's funny here - you demanding that people address your emotion while pretending that you're being intellectual, and accusing them of cutting and running after they have addressed you but have failed to agree that your umbrage has merit.
You apparently get furious even when people aren't using religion as a means for judging others - but are rather commenting on it in an abstract way.
That's what's funny here - you demanding that people address your emotion while pretending that you're being intellectual, and accusing them of cutting and running after they have addressed you but have failed to agree that your umbrage has merit.
It's called narcissism, and he has it in spades.
It is easy to have one's character revealed when safe behind the anonymity of the internet. You never have to admit you're wrong, never have to try to treat people whose views you don't like, with civility or understanding, and can be as hostile and petty as you want without consequence. You certainly never need to apologize. Hell, you can even sling petty insults and attacks at people who have just apologized to you, if that's the kind of person you are! All consequence free. Interesting dynamic, isn't it?
So there is one obvious flaw in your post Amelia.
No one addressed the challenge, that they just interpret what they want in the Bible and throw some stuff out. Not Mal, Newby and certainly not you.
So that would be what is called a "lie". That's okay. Not uncommon here.
But I certainly could have handled it better and I always try to have the character to admit my errs and apologize if I have acted out of character. Fortunately, my Teacher made it clear that He didn't come for the self-righteous but instead for those that the self-righteous would look down upon.
Like many threads, this one has deteriorated to an exercise in pettiness and hostility. Time to unsubscribe - better ways to spend one's time.
I'm going to start another one entitled "What All Christians Do".
It will discuss the fact that all Christians take a little bit of the Bible literally, throw some out and interpret the rest in a way that makes them comfortable.
I doubt you, Mal or newby would want to participate in such a thread but you're welcome to join in if you like.
No argument that marriage was in a different context in those ancient cultures than is how we regard it in our own culture now. But nevertheless, regardless of how it was regarded, historically, in all cultures, until now, it has been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman. So the debate is not what marriage has always been, but whether we will redefine marriage now to be something different than it has always been.
Are you aware of the Tall el-Hammam Excavation Project in Jordan? I personally know a number of local people who have spent some weeks working on that project. Some have made several trips. One is in charge of it at different times. Most are now convinced or at least allow for the possibility that they are excavating the ancient city of Sodom. It has been fascinating to watch. If I was younger I would be eagerly going on some of the digs.
What's your educational background?
Primarily degrees in business with minors in history. I teach business and history classes at the college level in Oregon and previously in Arizona. I have studied the Bible from historical, linguistic, and cultural perspectives for over 25 years
What's your educational background?
Primarily degrees in business with minors in history. I teach business and history classes at the college level in Oregon and previously in Arizona. I have studied the Bible from historical, linguistic, and cultural perspectives for over 25 years
oops
