Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 03-25-2009, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Gay also contradicts the law to GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY.

Isn't it odd that the same god who created the biology that results in homosexuality also made a law against it? What a dick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Homosexuality is seen throughout geo-history, and is a syndrome of humanity as a whole.

It is no more a "syndrome" than heterosexuality and no more restricted to the human species than handedness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

I wonder how Moses could have conjoured the copious listing of names, dod and dob's - of generations of mankind for 2500 years - and get every name scientifically authentic of its period.

You have yet to provide any sort of credible support for this assertion.

Do you imagine no one can see that it has no basis other than your faith?

dog-on · 03-25-2009, 08:22 AM

I just want to know what the deal is with running naked guy...

steve_bnk · 03-25-2009, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

It is alway possible Moses conciously conjoured up the whole thing in the inererest of bringing his people togethjer. Same could be saod of Mohammed.

I wonder how Moses could have conjoured the copious listing of names, dod and dob's - of generations of mankind for 2500 years - and get every name scientifically authentic of its period. I doubt such a feat was emulated by Mohammed or Jesus! :wave:

Moses didn't r write the book. If you read through it carefuky there are genral patterns of time. I';d say those ho wrote the book of Moses peiced it togetehr form oral history and/or other documents.

The time '40 days' appears often. I was told by a Jew that it meant 'a long time'. It rained forty days and forty nights, Jesus was in the desert for 40 days. Numbers had signifigance to the ancient Jews.

JaronK · 03-25-2009, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Isn't it odd that the same god who created the biology that results in homosexuality also made a law against it? What a dick.

You know, I'm not sure he did.

I mean, you've got "Man shall not lie with another man" but that line is not only a bit dubious in meaning, it's in the same part of Leviticus that was dropped later (along with not wearing clothes of two different kinds). You've got a bit of later Paul stuff that's basically "don't have sex for pleasure" which is a direct contradiction of the Psalm of Solomon and definitely not the word of god. And then you've got the David and Jonathan, which if you actually read it is a gay love story that looks like it's straight out of a romance novel.

That's kind of why I wanted to collect them all together to look at all the references. I don't think the Bible say what a lot of people say it says.

JaronK

semiopen · 03-25-2009, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Sodom and Gomorah seems mostly against non consensual homosexuality. Leviticus is probably negative but can be interpreted to be less serious than the translations make it appear.

Lesbianism is prohibited by rabbinic law, but not by the Hebrew Bible so far as I know. Not sure why Christians don't like it, general principles maybe.

Is it safe to say that in the practicing Jewish community hiomosexuality is treated as with the Christians?

The ultra orthodox don't like homosexuality but I'm not aware of any harrassment. Modern Orthodox and further to the left are ok with it. This seems to travel hand in hand with women's issues, where for example women are allowed to be rabbis. In my town, there was a lesbian rabbi, when I heard about it, it seemed like no big deal; but it turns out she had to leave.

It seems that people are generally tolerant.

JaronK · 03-25-2009, 01:11 PM

It also depends on the community. Reform Judaism has very little descrimination, for example, and is generally fine with female (and lesbian) rabbis. Then again, I'm based near San Francisco, where homophobia is far less prevalent, so my experience may not be the norm.

JaronK

andrewcriddle · 03-25-2009, 01:22 PM

As well as the passages already mentioned one should also note 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:9-11.

Although there is dispute about how the Greek terms involved (MALAKOS and ARSENOKOITHS ) should be translated and understood.

Andrew Criddle

JaronK · 03-25-2009, 01:24 PM

Hmm, I'm totally unfamiliar with those two. Thanks.

JaronK

storytime · 03-25-2009, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaronK

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

No - it does not say that.

Are we reading the same book?

Sam 18:3-4 "Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his apparel, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle."

Note that's the King James translation, which does a strange translation of the word they call "covenant." The word is not the same word as the "covenant" between the Isrealites and God... rather, it's the word for a marriage contract. And it goes on from there.

Quote:

In fact, all wrongs by David were fastediously challenged by the then Prophet Nathan [who represnted the law of the land], who confronted david with the charge of adultry before the people, and placed a severe sentence on him. Gay would not have been tolerated in that space-time.

You're assuming gay wouldn't be tolerated. What if it was, especially with a king who also had many wives? There's been much debate about the "Man shall not lie with another man as he would with a woman" bit, whether it means men can never be sexual together or whether it means something else entirely (such as men shall not treat other men as women in bed, which is a power dynamic issue). Remember, the Romans were fine with homosexuality in certain ways and the Greeks were even more so.

With that said, the line about Saul's upset with Jonathan's "choosing" (and here the word meaning a long term choice) David does speak to Saul not liking the arrangement.

JaronK

Why would covenant not indicate alliance? Would a king have married another man?

storytime · 03-25-2009, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

...more accurately, for the benefit of those writing the rules.

E.g. LOVE THE STRANGER, DO NOT LIE TO THE STRANGER; EQUAL RIGHTS TO THE INHABITANT AS THE STRANGER; etc, etc. Know of anther religion which dares the same?!

Quote:

E.g., the later European blood libels was a direct lift off from a Roman writer, while the Protocols of Zion, a horrific falsehood from later christianity, is an example of what can emerge via devious manouverings, and that the people can believe it as gospel for centuries. ================

The idea of totally wiping out your enemy - to include the innocent - precedes Christianity. Can you guess where these commands come from?

"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy."

"...do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..."

This displays the absolute veracity of the hebrew writings - its not a candy coated book [like other scriptures who never malign their own!], and it does not shy away from the truth. Most of the charges by others are lifted from the Hebrew writings itself. But mostly, it is distorted, and half sentences are selected. There were some wars where prisoners were forbidden, for supersticious reasonings - Israel would have met the same faith had she lost [check the history of all wars pre-3000]. In this particuar war, it was strictly self defense, and incurred only after a peace offer was rejected, and unconditional death was responded with.

There was never any stealing of lands by the israelites - all their wars are related to one particular land only, denied them by a host of nations throughout history. Today, both christianity and islam are laying claim to Jerusalem - each positing a contradicting portrayal of history and charges against the Jews. Both cannot be right!

If there was peace in the land wasn't Moses commanded to "vex" (provoke) unrest, iow, create an enemy and for the purpose of starting war, and so that the Israelites could overpower and take the land?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-25-2009, 08:22 AM	#32
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	I just want to know what the deal is with running naked guy...

03-25-2009, 01:11 PM	#36
JaronK Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: California Posts: 1,710	It also depends on the community. Reform Judaism has very little descrimination, for example, and is generally fine with female (and lesbian) rabbis. Then again, I'm based near San Francisco, where homophobia is far less prevalent, so my experience may not be the norm. JaronK

03-25-2009, 01:22 PM	#37
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	As well as the passages already mentioned one should also note 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:9-11. Although there is dispute about how the Greek terms involved (MALAKOS and ARSENOKOITHS ) should be translated and understood. Andrew Criddle

03-25-2009, 01:24 PM	#38
JaronK Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: California Posts: 1,710	Hmm, I'm totally unfamiliar with those two. Thanks. JaronK

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.