Checking for validity of supposed early christian gay marriage rite

This all presupposes that all religious beliefs are relative...none being any more true than any others. And I suppose that for all intents and purposes that is how we need to approach the topic, seeing as how we are all otherwise on an even level.For any of us to insist on special revelation may in fact be our belief and perspective, but we need to think like the other guy and see it from their perspective or we will never be able to advance any of our respective arguments.I could tell each and every one of you that Harvey the White Rabbit speaks exclusively to me...but until you experience Harvey for yourselves, he is just another voice among many...and you may never have heard him.

Phat responds to me:

quote:

---

This all presupposes that all religious beliefs are relative

---

Incorrect. It presupposes internal consistency on the part of the foundational material. It presupposes that the people who developed the foundational material are the ones best able to understand what was meant.As a good example, take the following image:Yes, this is a fairly infamous image. People were decrying it as blasphemy, a clear indication that the artist was denigrating religion. It is Serrano's Piss Christ. So many layers to how one would react to it. If you didn't know the title, how would you view it? And now that you know the title, you wonder what it might mean. Indeed, the artist took a jar of his own urine, submerged a plastic crucifix in it, and took a picture of it.Pissing on god, right?In fact, nothing could have been further from the truth. The artist was actually denigrating religionists who would carry out horrible acts in the name of Christ. The image is not conveying Serrano's view but rather is an icon of what he sees other people doing: Taking Christ's message and pissing all over it. It certainly looks beautiful...the golden "god rays" enveloping the image of Jesus in a soft-focus glow...but the reality is something very different.Now, you don't have to agree with his point, but the point is definitely consistent with what was presented and if the author claims that was the point, then that was the point. We don't get to contradict him.

quote:

---

none being any more true than any others. And I suppose that for all intents and purposes that is how we need to approach the topic, seeing as how we are all otherwise on an even level.

---

No, not really. That is, you don't have to presuppose "none being any more true." The only thing you need to do is treat the material with respect, acknowledge that it is complete in and of itself, and let it be the guide for what it means rather than imposing your own demands upon it.There is a difference between acceptance of an argument and taking an argument seriously.Of course, with respect to the texts of the Jewish and Christian faiths, we don't have any original copies of any of them and the people who wrote them are nowhere to be found. Any attempt to definitely state that "This means that" will be very difficult to justify and we should not be surprised to find different interpretations.Take the image above. Without knowing the title or the author, what it is other than a picture of a crucifix bathed in golden colors? And if all you knew was the name, it could be understood why a certain interpretation might come about.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

I took your advice and checked with a Rabbie.

---

"Rabbi," but that's a spelling flame.That said, which Rabbi did you go to and why were you told to go there? They are not universally accepted. Note, the problem is not the connection to the verse. It's what the verse means. Take, for example, what is said to be the mitzvot about not having sex with your brother's wife. How does that connect to Onan who, because his brother died, was to impregnate his sister-in-law and was smote because he pulled out? Note, he was obligated to have sex with his brother's wife, but Leviticus says no. He was smote not because he had sex with her but because he failed to complete the act. So how to reconcile the two?Leviticus 18 does have restrictions on sexual activity. But just as we have been saying: It isn't so much a question of sex in general as it is ritualistic practice.When was the last time you heard of priests having sex?Edited by Rrhain, : No reason given.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I consulted Rabbi Aronson whom I have met several times in my involvement with The Friends of Israel.He suggested the web site Here I quoted the 3 laws 157, 158, and 159 from.I see you did your usual ignore the evidence presented and put your own spin on the discussion. There are a lot of thou shalt not, in Leviticus 18. One being: This verse does not make any exceptions. It only states that it shall not take place.Rrhain is the only one I see or can find that is making and exception for man on man sex.The penalty for doing what is forbidden is found in: The Bible does not say what Rrhain says.
The present day 613 law's as compiled by Rabbi Maimonides does not say Leviticus 18 says what Rrhain says.I gave you what the Hebrew says.
You did not like it and suggested I consult a Rabbi.
I did and apparantly you did not like what I reported from a website of his suggestion. Message 105
Now if you have sources that present your view other than Rrhain says so this would be a good time to present them.If not there is no reason to reply to this message.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I don't see where that web site talked about the meaning of Toevah at all

Read again what you have written and say that to yourself in the mirror without laughing. 1. You ignore the literal meaning of the passage
2. You ignore the hebrew scholar evidence to keep your own belief.
3. You believe that you are correct and Bible scholarship is wrong.How do I know you are untruthful to the text? Your writing posts. And twisting it. If you knew the Law, you wouldn't butcher it. Its based on God's truth, not your political inclines. Man-made ethics doesn't count for squat, unless you cherry pick/twist/lie about the Law. Yes, your political presuppositions regarding a text you should t least believe that God inspired, not you. The whole of Leviticus 18. Just as there is a difference between what Reform Jews actually do and what the Torah says should be done? Do you know Koine Greek? Aramaic? Like shooting fish in a barrel;"Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going in him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean'. After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about the parable. "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Dont you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.).Mark 7:14-19and what were those unlcean foods Jesus was talking about?ta tatatatatAHHHH:Drum roll:Here it is Johnny!LEVITICUS 11!See what opened minded Bible study can do?More to follow, at a later time...Edited by LudoRephaim, : No reason given.Edited by LudoRephaim, : No reason given.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

What sources? You didn't quote where your supposd "scholarly" quotes came from. And every libby response libby "scholars" make has been responded to in some of the sources I quoted. You didn't even put the crednetials of your "sources", nor put forth as many (You haven't really at all). Then you should have got a more literal translation from your local library or bookstore (order it if it is not there) and then you would have had more fun. I owned a literal translation of the epic of Gilamesh before i had to by the paraphrase for a class including it into the writing ciriculla.So i ask again; Do you not trust all translaions of Homer's iliad and odyssey? Would you not trust it unless you had a Phd in Greek language?? Becuase you debate against the facts and reality when it comes to levitical passages on homosexuality (in this context against sexual sins)yet do nothing when beastiality is mentioned in the same passage, in a similar way.Do you think that people who sleep with animals should only not act out their formof sexual pleasure in a ritual fashion, yet should not repent of their deeds in their everyday secular lives?? If you twist one aspect of the Torah, why not all of it? The latter is not condemned entirely in Leviticus 18 but strictly regulated; the latter, along with Beastiality, are condemned.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

So your okay with man-on-animal sex as long as it is not in a ritual manner? have you ever followed the Law and not your own heart? Do you follow the dietary Laws?and of course you forget that to a Christian, the dietary laws are not followed as in Old Testament times (see Mark passage I quoted, as well as Acts 15). Which I've shown from scholarly sources that it can mean more than just something ritually impure (begging the question; is it okay to eat any of the foods listed in Leviticus 11 as long as no ritual is thus attached??) When someone ignores the facts like you do, it must be personal. Thank God, since i'm not gay to begin with. You, perhaps on the other hand... Oh yes, that is true, until Israelite religion came along (Dennis Prager, "Judaism's sexual revolution: Why Judaism (and Christianity) rejected Homosexuality", crisis 11, no.8 (September 1993), 25-32. So no one had sex with animals in the past for the sick pleasure? No one killed their children for other than religious reasons? Neither animal sacrifice nor killing animals for food or clothing would fall under it. The latter was a necessary thing at the time. And it wasn't done with abject cruelty (there's a difference between sliting a sheep's throat and having it torn apart by attack dogs.)nor was it done for cruelty's sake (it was a religious ritual after all). Abraham was raised under Judaism? His father (Terah) was a worshipper of God and God alone? UR of the Chaldees and Haran were Godly cities??Evidence, please. It was a sin to have the death penalty until after the flood of Noah (see all of Genesis chapter 4, compare to 9:1-6). Eating Meat was not allowed until after the end of the Flood (See Genesis 1:29-30, compare to 9:1-3). And even though Murder has always been a sin (see once again Genesis 4), Abraham was entirely ignorant as to how God felt about child sacrifice (You notice that God DID stop the sacrifice from happening). Abraham may not have even known about the Cain and able story, and certainly didn't have the revelation of God that Moses had, were human sacrifice (ahem Murder) is more clearly spelled out. So Noah followed the same dietary code that the later Mosaic law put forth? Noah was an israelite (hint; Jacob, also called "Israel" was born many a moon after Noah flood, let alone Noah's very own conception, and Abraham and his father were likewise born at a much later age thatn the pre-flood time) ?? Has it not occurred to you that since Noah lived at a different time, land, etc that he might have come from a culture that demanded different dietary laws than the ones Moses put down centuries, perhaps millenia afterwards? You do know that people during that time were forbidden to eat meat, something the dietary laws of Moses (Leviticus 11) allow within certain limitations (see Genesis 1:29-30, 9:1-3,Noah followed Mosaic dietary laws? Noah considered animals mentioned as forbidden to eat in Leviticus "unclean", even though he never had access to the Book of Leviicus (came about a bit later than his time)? Sources, please. And you say I dont know the Law? It was to test Abraham's faith and allegiance. And as you forget (as well as ignore), Abraham was from UR, a pagan city with a Pagan culture, and nowhere in the Bible does it say that Abraham was always a follower of God nor that he neevr followed any other God (a strong possibility which you refuse to accept). And as you also forget, the sacrifice was not carried out.Edited by LudoRephaim, : No reason given.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

I gave you what the Hebrew says.

---

No, you didn't. You gave me what a particular English translation says. There's a difference.

quote:

---

You did not like it and suggested I consult a Rabbi.

---

And I know others rabbis who disagree with yours. So now what?

quote:

---

Now if you have sources that present your view other than Rrhain says so this would be a good time to present them.

---

I already have. What this argument comes down to is a conflict between sources. I'm not expecting anybody to change their minds. I simply wish to point out that even among people who are supposed to know what's going on, they don't agree on what the text means.So now what?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I just went back through all your posts to me and I did not find one source for any of your statements.Now if I missed them would you please point them out to me. So I can see what the difference is. Here is the Hebrew for you. Here is a list of 3 laws of the 613 from that text:You can find all 613 Here. That is what the expert says who is a Jew and has been schooled in Judaism and is an accepted authority.From Message 104I did what you asked. You say we have a difference between our sources.I don't know that because I haven't seen yours yet.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

Here is a list of 3 laws of the 613 from that text

---

Your list includes the word "homosexual." Since there is no such word in Ancient Hebrew, since there is no such concept at the time, where did that come from?

quote:

---

That is what the expert says who is a Jew and has been schooled in Judaism and is an accepted authority.

---

Did you just try to pull argument from authority? Yes, I understand that there are those who think this. You will note that I have never said otherwise.There are those who disagree with just as strong credentialing as you are trying to do here. Neither Reconstruction, Reform, nor Conservative Judaism holds the same attitude regarding gay people as what you are presenting here.When there are gay rabbis, doesn't that indicate that perhaps the interpretation you are insisting upon isn't universal? Reform Judaism, the largest group here in the US, actually officiates over weddings between couples of the same sex.As the Central Conference of American Rabbis wrote: They go on: Why does your interpretation get to outweigh all the others?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I don't have an interpertation.As I understand it we were talking about what the Bible says about man having sex with a man. You have made a very very big play on the word To'evah.It would have been nice to have a link to your quotes as required by EvC rules.Never the less from your quote: So anything that is To'evah is Patur, assur, which is sinful and prohibited.Leviticus 18:22 says man having sex with man is to'evah according to the definitions in your quote it is sinful and therefore prohibited.From your quote: These are listed as a suggestion.Take notice who put forth these suggestions, the CCAR Ad Hoc Committee.Not God.Man don't get to change the rules to his liking.You admonished me to get information from a Rabbi. I gave you information that is considered the standard for Orthadox Judaism.Rabbi Maimonides's full name was Moses ben Maimon; in Hebrew he is known by the acronym of Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, Rambam.Maimonides was the first person to write a systematic code of all Jewish law, the Mishneh Torah. He lived from 1135 - 1204.His 613 mitzovt is accepted by Orthodox Judaism today. You are presenting teachings that are less than 130 years old as being what the Bible and Judaism taught the past thousands of years.You can believe anything that will tickle your ear telling you what you want to hear.But when you or anyone else stand at the judgment you will not be judged accordingly to what you think or believe the Word of God says, nor what you have been taught it says. You will be judged according to thus saith the Lord God.You do know what the consequences are if you get it wrong.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Normally, I'd stay out of this, but the following comment caught my attention. Do you honestly think your god is as petty as you make it out to be?

Hi Taz, We were talking about the God that told Moses to write the text's
in Leviticus 18:22 and the 613 laws given to the Jews.If that God exist do you think He will judge man according to what man thinks or what He said?May I point out that I have never been under those laws and will not be judged accordingly.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

I don't have an interpertation.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?It's a piece of text translated from another language of a story thousands of years old and you think there is no interpreting to do? All text requires interpretation. That's what communication is about.Your quotations used the word "homosexual." There is no such word in Ancient Hebrew and no concept of such, either. Therefore, to translate the text and use the word "homosexual" necessarily requires an act of interpretation. It might be right, but it will need to be strongly justified.Compare this to the translations of the Illiad that describe Athena as having blue eyes. There is no word for "blue" in Ancient Greek, but they were able to describe things that were blue. The phrase is more commonly translated as "grey-eyed Athena," but there is no word for "grey," either. One must interpret the text in order to give it meaning.

quote:

---

As I understand it we were talking about what the Bible says about man having sex with a man.

---

Indeed. That requires interpretation.

quote:

---

It would have been nice to have a link to your quotes as required by EvC rules.

---

When you become a moderator, you can quote rules to me. See, this is where "interpretation" comes in. Methinks you are trying to pull Rule 5 on me: My interpretation is that this is not to mean that links are required. It is to say that if you are going to put forward a link, it must not be the only thing you say. This is what makes it in harmony with Rule 7: I gave you the source. Are you incapable of looking up the sources on your own?It would appear you have a different interpretation. Ah, but you don't have an interpretation. Then how on earth did you manage to make any sense of the words?

quote:

---

So anything that is To'evah is Patur, assur, which is sinful and prohibited.

---

No. Did you not read the information given? Patur/assur is different form to'evah.

quote:

---

These are listed as a suggestion.

---

Indeed. The CCAR is working within their faith to come up with an interpretation of the text. You seem not to like their conclusions. Why is it your interpretation gets to trump theirs?

quote:

---

Take notice who put forth these suggestions, the CCAR Ad Hoc Committee.

​

Not God.

---

And god wrote the Bible? God translated it into English for you?Hint: If you're going to say that god "inspired" the human authors of the Bible, why can't god be "inspiring" the CCAR?

quote:

---

Man don't get to change the rules to his liking.

---

And why are we to conclude that the CCAR are the ones "changing the rules" as opposed to your sources?

quote:

---

You admonished me to get information from a Rabbi.

---

No, I didn't. I admonished you to listen to what Jews have to say. You picked a couple. Is that really the best way to determine what the entirety of the religion has to say about a subject? Last time I checked, Judaism wasn't exactly that hierarchical as other religions are. There is no equivalent of a "pope" in Judaism. In fact, one of the traditions of Judaism is that you are responsible for your relationship with god. Middlemen only get in the way (that's part of the reason why Jews reject Jesus: His claim that the only way to god is through him is a direct contradiction of the first commandment.)

quote:

---

I gave you information that is considered the standard for Orthadox Judaism.

---

And I didn't contradict you. All I said was that other branches of Judaism disagree. I then asked why that gets to trump the others.

quote:

---

But when you or anyone else stand at the judgment you will not be judged accordingly to what you think or believe the Word of God says, nor what you have been taught it says. You will be judged according to thus saith the Lord God.

​

You do know what the consequences are if you get it wrong.

---

BZZZZT!Pascal's Wager. I'm so sorry, ICANT. Johnny, tell him what parting gifts he has!Well, Bob, ICANT has won himself a lifetime of anguish in someone else's hell! Yes, that's right. After spending all of his life fighting against Satan and worshipping the Christian god, ICANT gets a reward of going straight to Hades for his hubris. He'll be sentenced to solve a series of puzzles for which the instructions can be read in many ways. Every attempt to glean more information will be met with "Since it would just be a waste of my time to tell you, I won't." Of course, every proposed solution will conflict with something in the contradictory instructions. This being for his continued insistence that those around him are unworthy of explanations.But, he won't get hungry because he'll have an afterlife-time supply of Rice-a-Roni®, the San Francisco Treat.You didn't really think that the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.