People, please read this... (re: Same sex mariage)

Nice post zealot (not being sarcastic at all). I will try and keep my reply short, but want to do better than 1 or 2 lines. It'll come within 3 days.------------------
holmes

I realize your post was long, but I don't think that is a bad thing, especially as this is a controversial subject. I happen to believe this was the best post you ever made on the subject and convincing to a certain degree.Let me start by saying there was a miscommunication. I did understand Lev 20 as applying to ANYONE in Israel, including foreigners. To my mind this is what underscored the difference between 18 and 20. One was referring to practices of Jews when outside Israel (where they will encounter such behavior at houses of worship), and the other about how worship was going to be handled in Israel (or any Jewish temple?). You know what? That was a beautiful outline. I think that it is not an absurd interpretation to defend.As the Bible is as much about how one interprets as what is actually written, the outline of Lev being broken into two sections is plausible (almost like the 10 commandments having two sections: man towards God and Man towards man).I am going to grant you that I cannot directly argue against the POSSIBILITY that it is valid.However I can argue that just because your interpretation is plausible, does not mean that there are no other plausible interpretations.(FOR EXAMPLE: I do not see the reason to have split Lev where you did, except with an end in mind. Lev 18 certainly seems to follow the same language as those preceeding it. Perhaps a better break would come after 18. That is where the language shifts a bit more into what seems like everyday practices.)And I will argue that the interpretation I originally described (a holistic Lev for priests) has a bit more support than yours.I will continue this argument be addressing the points you made in your post... Clear your mind for a second and then reread that statement (especially knowing that abomination is best defined as "ritually unclean"). What this appears to say is that you should keep God's religious ordinances, and not those ritually unclean customs that other faiths in other lands practice.Since Lev has so far only been talking about actions in the temple or in services to God, I think it is jumping the gun to interpret the statement as moving beyond that. Its use of "ordinance", "abominable", and "custom" in particular suggest parts of ritualized behavior and NOT about personal conduct which might happen to be allowed by nonproscription under law. It is true Lev only mentions one specific (ritual with regards to Molech), but this does not mean the rest are not involved in ritual sexual behavior. If anything it may just show that sacrificing one's own child is specific to Molech.The region is pagan which means many deities. Lev 18 fronts the proscriptions by noting that these are the typse of things the Jews found in Egypt and Canaan. I believe this is the same thing as noting "Molech" in specific with regard to child sacrifice.Is there a reason to believe differently?And as far as strictly sexual offences (uncleanliness), this was dealt with earlier and appears to have only involved masturbation and sex with unclean women.Lev 15:32- This is the law of him that hath an issue, and of him whose seed goeth from him, and is defiled therewith;Clearly seed goeth from him during homosexual intercourse. Why was this then not mentioned during the description of the law regarding when seed goeth from him?The appearance is that this section deals with the purely sexual acts which make one unclean, and Lev 18 and 20 deal with the ritual acts themselves (sex acts offered to God to gain his approval) which are unclean. Actually, doesn't it state that these sacrifices are for breaking commandments? That is why I defined breaking commandments as sins. Well somethings are unable to be fixed, but I will grant the above for sake of argument. I think this shows you may not be understanding what my interpretation is getting at.You are correct that up till 18 it is talking about rituals, and what can be rectified by ritual. 18 is talking about specific rituals found elsewhere and that they are unclean in and of themselves. It is not the same as saying if you become unclean you must do X before entering the temple. It is saying you cannot do these unclean things in the temple at all. I realize this is a repeat but I think it is important. You have given no support for why we are to switch at Lev 18 to believe it is referring to something other than religious practices. The terminology of "ordinance", "abomination", and "custom" seem more related to religious practice and law than everyday law. I don't believe there is any evidence of cultures having such ordinances as "Everyone in this land is free to have sex with pigs", nor customs of "when entering a farm you have sex with a pig". However there were religious ordinances and customs along these lines. The only homosexual activity which would conceivably fall under "ordinance" and "custom" was religious prostitution. The commandments told the people what was right and wrong in daily life. Leviticus contained instructions to the priests on how to conduct their affairs (in their temples and services).In fairness it does instruct priests on guidance/moral teachings to their members, and this is restricted to behavioral guidance that does not require mention of cleanliness or "Pagan"-ness (lev 19).So to kind of recap, leviticus is for priests... ritual and cleanliness in ritual is a concern for those running the temples (and in Israel... the entire country), so that the help of God is not lost. While I can see this interpretation, it seems to me that Lev states when it is dealing with ritual instruction (it says abomination) and when it is talking about moral guidance (by priests) in every day life (it simply says "Thou shall not X")Your given examples appear to support what I am saying. Well this was kind of my point. What started as ritual cleanliness was broadened into general proscription which creates an identity for the Jewish people. I have already said that some of the authors I read suggested that very possibility, and which may be the reason (practice not theology) which led to later mistranslations. But the question remains was it ritual male prostitution that was being condemned or general homosexuality. As it is I do not believe anyone asks that homosexuality be blessed by God, as I am unsure who asks that heterosexual sex be blessed by God.I have said, given the general negativity toward same sex sexuality, it would seem odd for God to bless a same sex union. Then again David and his pal seem blessed as a same sex union (whether or not sex was involved in their relationship). Thus would God bless a spriritual union between members of the same sex (if it happens to involve sex)? Good question.The same sex union rituals for the early Xtian church tends to suggest He could.All of this considered, God does not seem to be CURSING homosexual sex acts, as many modern Xtians seem to want him to do. from: Religious tolerance | 404 Page Not Found Is there a reason not to believe this? This is incorrect (2 examples I was referring to)...
11:20- All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.11:23- But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.I would hasten to add that the very example you gave of the use of abomination in leviticus 18 (and 20?) show that all the behavior described within is ritual uncleanliness. And again by this I mean not that a person is made unclean by such acts and so must be made clean before attending temple, but that it is unclean ritual. Well first of all you are mixing up verses from different chapters. While 19 involves moral guidance to the masses, 18 and 20 do not.You will note that 18 and 20 are instructions to priests when addressing Israel and the Children of Israel.In contrast, Chapter 19 is specifically noted as instruction to the priest about what to tell the CONGREGATIONS of the Children of Israel. Is this not extremely suggestive to you? Chapter 19, the only chapter that seems to have simple "thou shalt/shalt not" commandments free of relationship to cleanliness (specifically ritual cleanliness) has the specific word "congregation" which means to the people they are discussing general every day issues with.By the way sleeping with one's mother can, and has been, a part of ritual sexual practice. Especially in the orgiastic rites incest is not something considered "taboo". Egyptians in particular (though not orgiastic) used incest (yes between mother and child) as part of the religious maintenance of the Pharoah's unique Godlike stature. Heheh, back then a family that prayed together, played together.Seriously though, I would like you to consider what the beginnings of 18&20 mean, when compared to 19 which is the only one to say "this is for the congregation". The difference in language of the chapter appears to reflect a difference in audience and subject matter as well. I think it is overly simplistic to state that because the name of a specific deity is used only once, that that one statement is the only reference to a ritual act.Lev 18 mentions where the other "ritually unclean" practices may be found. It is a very strong possibility that more than one deity used those other practices... or a particular deity with many names used a variety of practices.The argument being advanced (by me) is that the text wasn't trying to fool anyone... most notably the priests to whom leviticus is pretty clearly addressed. It states when it is talking about "ritual uncleanliness". It mentions when it is discussing ordinances and ritually unclean customs. I, and many others, feel this distinction is quite clear.Why would God waste time identifying 19 as having to be told to congregations and not do so for 18 and 20, if they were all to be told to the same audience and for the same purpose?I hope that I have given you some concrete reasons to review your own interpretation of Lev.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 10-29-2003]

But be honest neither do Xtians, and I would be heavily that you do not as well. This is not meant to be sarcastic or as a joke.Wearing clothes of two fabrics is considered bad, as well as having one's hair cut (in a rounded way). These have nothing to do with sacrifice, so according to you they still stand.I'll make you a bet that any church I walk into is filled with people (including the priests) that have their hair cut and are wearing clothes with more than one fiber. The only exceptions might be the Amish and the Quakers. Why can these go away, but others cannot?------------------
holmes

I was disappointed with this latest post, though I am unsure if it was because of anything intentional on your part. It seems much of it was you talking straight past what I was saying. I suppose this is why you felt we were on a "different page."Let me start by repeating the argument at hand.You are saying that part of Lev is about ritual (sacrifices, etc), the other about holiness in common life. Lev 18 and 20 are identical to 19 in that they are speaking of things which should not be done in ordinary life.I am saying that Lev is an instruction regarding the construction of the "church" of God on Earth. Admittedly I should not have been as free in my use of the term "priest" in my discussion. Some are directed at them. Some are at the leaders and planners of Jewish society, especially as it spreads (this is my best interpretation of the Children of Israel). And when noted... the congregations.In Lev there are rites of sacrifice (some as offerings, some as penitence), there are rules of cleanliness (which affect persons, and so their ability to act in the church), there are instructions regarding what should be taught to the congregations for how to live a righteous life, and there are rules about the use of sex (among other things) in the course of temple rites and celebrations.It is odd to act as if everyone knew what was correct worship of God at that time. Very odd. If so, then why did he have to detail anything at all?To my mind the answer is quite obvious, and given the historical setting it ought to be obvious to you as well, regardless if you accept my larger interpretation of the text.The Israelites had at that time begun to assemble their nation and were about to begin solidification of the temples of God on Earth. They had experienced more than one pagan culture and their religious practices, which could easily corrupt the Jews' idea of what proper practices were. Lev laid down the law then and there... at the inception of what would be the true "church"... what was good and what was not.Sex was not always a daily part of worship in other religions, but it was almost always SOME part of religious practice. You are right that Yaweh was not a fertility god, and that is why Lev was instructing that sex was not a proper part of his rituals.I was not in any way shape or form trying to say sex was "not allowed in temple". I was saying that the leaders of the Jews were to know and keep out of practice ritual sexual activity. And that is what I meany by ritually unclean. It was unclean as a ritual, not one would become unclean and so cannot take part in ritual.It was disappointing to see that you brought up another practice... sleeping with another man's wife... and act incredulous at it's implications for religious ritual. This was routine part (incidental) of orgiastic rites (try to be at an orgy where that doesn't happen). And no it does not then give an okay to have sex with one's wife in church. It should be obvious such a proscription (against sex with one's wife) would remove ritual blessings for procreation for an heir, or other rituals regarding the sexual uniting of a couple (marriage?).I hope my position makes a bit more sense now. If anything, it seems to me that you've proven my point. By the nature of who is to be addressed you have already shown that your breakdown of Lev into two sections is less than probable (ie shouldn't every chapter after 18 be to the same audience?). The use of the PHRASE "congregation of the children of Israel" (it was not just congregation) shows there is a difference between the two. And the next chapter's use of "again", shows that it is returning to a previous audience, specifically that audience addressed in 18. This line of argument is also a little odd, given that later you demand that we not use the literal meaning of koiteh and instead use its slang for "fucker". Which are we to go with?The historical setting was Jews surrounded by PAGANISM, and so references to ORDINANCES AND CUSTOMS (it was not just customs) would be religious ones, not everyday behavior. The word ABOMINATION, since it has the meaning of unclean ritual would seem to fit that idea, rather than general "wickedness".And since you bring up the septuagint, I figured you might find this interesting...from http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section05.html I KNOW the quote comes from a liberated Xtian's collection, but that does not mean it is wrong (even if they are ridiculously biased... or devout along the lines of anabaptists... I find it hard to say). If you want to bring evidence against it, please do, but no more ad hominem (as you did for the religious tolerance quote). You must purge yourself of this bias first, then look at the words from a fresh vantage point. If he is talking about rituals which offend him, then that is what he is talking about. You can't presume he must mean more. In this case it is paganism which is the threat to God, it is hardly everyday behavior. Paganism is what he seems to be addressing. I always get confused as to who is more important, Jesus or Paul. Paul rails against fornication and prostitution... Jesus saves the prostitute (saying everyone is equally with sin). So is everyone saved through Jesus (and therefore a gay is as bad as a fornicator and so saved as long as they worship jesus), or does everyone have to listen to Paul and amend their ways before getting to heaven.This aside, you will note that Corinthians goes on at length regarding many different sins. The most reviled appears to be FORNICATION.I have already said it may be the case the Paul wrote from the practice of elevating ritual cleanliness sanctions to every day behavior, and even the broadening of male prostitution to all male-male sex acts. I have also said that male-male sex clearly falls into the fornication category. So your quote gives my interpretation, nothing but more support!The POINT is that the original OT references were specifically addressing male temple prostitution which was existed at rival pagan temples. The QUESTION raised by this realization is whether homosexuality itself was railed at in some specific form as separate from heterosexual fornication, and so treated differently.It still seems to me that Paul was addressing male prostitutes in his references, since other homosexual conduct would be addressed by the broader category of "fornication." He does make separate references to female prostitutes, why not male ones? Other than your incredulity, you have given NO reason to support this claim. I gave a pretty solid line of reasoning for my position, given the nature of paganism. All I see in a reference to Molech is a specific reference to one of the major competing religions at the time with perhaps some singularly distinguishing practices.You will note that Lev 20 is not solely sexual in nature. While it deals with "whoring after Molech" (which would seem to indicate paid sex as part of ritual), it also discussed not having familiars and consulting wizards.I might add that Lev 20 upgrades the "uncleanliness" of sleeping with a woman in her period from something which can be cleansed, to something which gets one cut off completely. This appears to be doing as my interpretation suggests, noting that within Israel the punishments for performing unclean rituals, and things which make one unclean for ritual are much greater than outside Israel. I hope you understand the difference now, about what I was talking about with regards to ritual uncleanliness versus uncleanliness of ritual. Really? Then why does Lev exist at all?You and I may know that sex has nothing to do with Xtian worship because we both have grown up in a culture set by 1000+ years of Xtian domination and indoctrination about what proper worship is (to Judeo-Xtians).AT THAT TIME, most people grew up around PAGANS, and the domination of PAGAN CULTURES, and that meant people had been indoctrinated with a view that sex could be a part of worship. You really have to remember the audience Lev is address to and what experiences they came out of.God mentions this specifically in Lev 18. He states that they have seen these practices (which appear to be references to religious practices), and that they are not to be done.It also confuses me why you would take the line that they all understand what they need to do to be holy, but have no clue what is expected of them in daily life. You brought up sacrifices to cleanse sins, and when I responded about those specific sacrifices, you lecture me that I am mistaken because there were sacrificial offerings as well? This was unfair.My point was that for sacrifices dealing with penitence (or cleansing) of sin, sin was defined in Lev as having broken commandments. That was all. You were mistaken and I hope I've explained the proper interpretation I am making. It is about the construction of his temple, his church, in short the Judaic religion (as set forth on proper sacrifices, cleanliness regarding temple, rituals which are forbidden to practice, and teachings to the congregation regarding how to live properly). You misunderstood me. I did not say "gay marriage" I said "same sex union". Such rituals were not about adoption (and looking at the rituals I think that is pretty clear). It is more about becoming "brothers" or more appropriately "blood (or spritual) brothers." I even mentioned with regards to the example of David that it was whether sex was involved OR NOT.The point of my statement was if men were allowed bonding on a spritual plane, would he disallow this even if sex were involved?And I said this was a good question. You do not see Xtians which say God curses homosexuals as wanting God to do so.Yet you see Xtians which say God does not curse homosexuals as wanting God to bless it.Do you see a strange disconnect? You appear to believe anyone outside of your interpretation as having an agenda, while those within are pure. Your bias is showing heavily here. You may not like some things the site as to say, but I gave you a specific reference. If there was something wrong with what was written I would love to see the evidence.As it is your citations simply proved mine correct. Perhaps you should read more carefully. It is stated that Koitai means "bed". One of your refs even admits that Luke uses that term as neutral for bed.However it can be used as Greek slang for "fucking", or "fucker".What's funny is that the quote I gave did not hinge at all on which definition one used. It pointed out that OT references which were pretty clearly those to male prostitutes (qadesh) were translated into the Septuagint as arsenokotai. So that was probably also what terminology Paul was using. Especially as no Greek material dealing with homosexual sex acts ever used such a term.Please address the facts and logic and not resort to ad hominem. I would agree with this statement (and admit I should not have used "priests" so freely, rather the leaders/founders of Jewish cities and temples).If your interpretation is correct then why are some instructions to "the people" about how to live a holy life, addressed specifically to priests? Why does Lev19 make a distinction between congregation of the Children of Israel, versus just the Children of Israel? And why does Lev 21 start with "again", which seems to be requiring the reader to turn away from the current audience to speak to a previously addressed audience (which was noted as Children of Israel, rather than congregation of)?I did take the time to read through your refs, and interestingly enough found mainly support for my own. I wish you would address the actual statements in refs I give, rather than who might have done the writing, especially when it appears you didn't bother to read past the first sentence.You can do better. I've seen it.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 11-02-2003]

Not sure how we've moved off topic. I certainly have not seen any admins mentioning this.Unfortunately for you, if my argument is that the reason many Xtians believe what they currently believe, is due to an early mistake in interpreting scripture, your telling me what many Xtians currently believe is neither an argument... nor is it informative.In short, it is a waste of time, especially when I have already said that I understand why Xtians who use only English/Latin translations believe as they do and are correct BASED ON THAT TRANSLATION. You cannot use this argument. The above instruction (semen/menstruation) was only given to the Israelis in Lev. You cannot use Lev to say the people already knew what was required of them regarding how unclean sex was, such that another part of Lev (which was taught concurrent with the earlier chapt) could not be about limits on sex as form of worship.You also miss the importance of my argument. While some may know very well what is not supposed to be part of ritual, it is easy to 1) slip back into old habits, 2) accept doing certain rituals (outside temple) just to blend into other cultures they will encounter (outside Israel), and 3) adopt certain pagan rituals in order to help assimilate them into Judaism.Ironically, all of this can be seen in Xtianity. 1) Portions of the myth regarding Jesus himself was taken from other baptismal cults (including the cannibalistic communion ritual). 2) Jesus went to other faiths and tried them out (most notably John the baptist), as many Xtians today go to other religions and practice their rites just to understand them better. 3) The Xtian church found it could not fight the rampant pagan habits (holidays and rituals) and so adopted them into Xtian practices. Certainly if you celebrate Xmas, as MOST XTIANS DO, you are celebrating a pagan holiday which has been assimilated into Judeo-Xtian teachings. And if one is Catholic, just think about all the saints!If anything Lev, as my argued interpretation suggests, would show the wisdom of God in knowing people don't all KNOW what is expected of them, and due to human fallibility that they could FORGET, especially as a matter of expedience. First you say they knew about worship and so Lev18&20 could not be about worship, and then that they had no clue at all (which was my point).The statement above is my argument. And just because and earlier chapter on cleanliness dealt with sex, does NOT mean a latter chapter could not be about use of sex in ritual.Perhaps you are unclear about the nature of pagan rituals and celebrations. You could have strict rules of cleanliness inside temples and then periods of abandon, where laws of cleanliness would no longer apply during celebration (which may take place well outside of temples). Uhmmmm... property rites. The ten commandments are pretty clear that one cannot commit adultery. When unbound by marriage the Bible contains plenty of situations where family members have sex with family members, even unto the wrath of God if they do not.How did they know not to have slaves (as common conceptions of Xtianity demand)? Whoops, back then they did not have that proscription either.Do not mistake current social custom, with those of long long long ago. Not sure what you meant by "you offense", it better not be that I am a liar. I did say that I do not usually go to gay web sources. I even admitted at the outset that this was from a possibly "biased" source. This was just something I had recently stumbled across and found it interesting since you always mention the septuagint.Which is why your next commentary makes no sense to me at all. The quote I posted and the link I gave said the same thing as YOU. Apparently you did not even read their "dribble", which as it turns out was using the septuagint AS THE PROPER SOURCE in order to make its argument.It was not saying the septaugint was less accurate, rather that if you believe that it is most accurate then the "abomination" regarding homosexual sex, is actually "unclean ritual".All this brings up an interesting problem in how to deal with biased sources.The Nazis practiced very skewed science. Like you, they dismissed ALL arguments by people they felt were in error in some parts. This was an error on THEIR part. This was a bias.Yet, if I heard a Nazi scientist say "1+1=2" I could not dismiss this statement as fallacious just because Nazis are biased and so make mistakes. This is to commit the same mistake as them.While both my citations may be from biased sources, and they may in fact be incorrect, one does not automatically follow from the other. They made concrete statements which can be investigated objectively (unlike their 33% comment you use to reject everything else they say).So here I stand in a quandary. You just told me to reject them and all they say because they are biased, yet they just said the same thing as you... which you would have known if you had read the quote or the link. So am I no longer supposed to trust YOU or anything YOU say, or are you going to give them a break and actually deal with their factual statements?In fact, what should other readers take away from this? If you do not cut them a break, why should any readers ever cut your "dribble" a break? Once again, I am at a loss. You appear not to have read what I said. Otherwise you would know I agree with the above statement. It is not that the ritual is to another God which makes it offensive to God, but that that ritual in and of itself is an offense to God. I get this quite clearly.Look at the other rituals which are offensive to God, offensive to the point of him killing you if you do them. Yet clearly burning such things in common life would not be an offense. Cain and Abel are a great example. Cain's offering offended God. Why? Who knows the tastes of a God?During the part on sacrificial offerings he dealt with what are good and what are offensive offerings.During the part on sexual ritual or ceremonial practices, he deals with what are offensive ceremonial practices (apparently none are good). There are (especially to Xtians). These are handled under the larger blanket of fornication. I have already said this. Clearly all proper sex is with a wife, and a wife alone.The question is if there were references to homosexual acts in specific. In the English/Latin translations there are. But evidence points to the fact that such translations are not accurate to the Hebrew/Greek, which were only referencing ritual male prostitution. Such acts carried much higher penalties, because they were not simply sex outside of marriage, they were offensive rituals to God.Why can you not address the facts presented to you? Your points were strawmen, so yes there is no point in continuing with them.You say Paul wrote them out plainly, indeed he did. He used the Greek word Arsenokoitai, which is used in the Septuagint to translate "male prostitute" in other passages. Pretty clear isn't it?As far as Paul being a fraud I did not say this. My question was meant to provoke a realization that TO MOST XTIANS it is the obedience to Christ which is most important, regardless of how one lives. We are all sinners according to God and freed through Christ. A homosexual can just as easily be forgiven as a thief or a prostitute or...I don't believe any homosexual has said that homosexual sex is without sin, but rather it is just the same sin everyone else is commiting during life. They have the same claim to salvation at the end.Now some Xtian sects do not believe this and say only one who has lived a righteous life throughout will get into God's kingdom. Well then they are following Paul. They knew what to do, they did not know what to do, they did know what to do...Your position has become merely ad hoc. If you had held on, and defended, your initial position of a dual nature Lev I would have had more respect for your efforts. Now this is interesting.First of all, is God really as ignorant of genetics as you are?Incest does not lead to genetic disorders. At least if a family is not rife with underlying genetic conditions the offspring will not have genetic problems.If anything, incest is a good way to improve the strength of a bloodline. This is used in breeding.The problem comes with longterm interbreeding. There must be inputs of new blood from time to time to keep the line from "degenerating". But first and even second interbred generations have been shown to have no real statistical increase in genetic abnormalities.Second, if this were true, how do you account for humankind arising from Adam and Eve? And puh-lease do not bring up the fall of man. Cain and Abel were not mentioned until after that. This is not to mention the rebirth of mankind from Noah's family...Noah's FAMILY. Can you please explain the logistics where incest did not occur? Well... are you asking me or telling me? Your previous post attempted to skewer me by insisting I read the intros of each chapter to find who the audience was.So I do so and point out it is inconsistent with your 2part Lev interpretation, and this is what I get? Now I am NOT supposed to believe the intro is designed for the intended audience. Or rather that the audience is unimportant because it will always be for the people?This is another example of ad hoc reasoning.It appears my interpretation is the only one holding up (not changing) under examination. Futility is arguing against the facts, by way of ad hoc ad hominem and guilt by association. I'm sorry you have chosen this route.Perhaps it would feel less annoying if you did not worry about what conclusion you were forced to come to by nature of the facts, and instead embraced the debate as important in and of itself.First you would realize I (and those links I provided) were not saying what you thought they said, and that the immorality of sexual activity to the Xtians does not hinge on whether English translations regarding "homosexuals" were more accurately translated to "male temple prostitutes."Second you would realize you may still make a case against Xtian homosexual marriages, though along different lines. I think this argument would be relatively weak given the historical flexible nature of Xtianity, but not impossible. While I understand this issue, if true understanding of the Bible is important to you, it seems odd to suddenly undercut a source which may be giving you valuable information. Ahhhh... the Lord works in mysterious ways does he not?Perhaps He is telling you EvC should be a more important, rather than a less important part of your life.If you came to preach, and explore Biblical Text only with yes men, then I suppose EvC is not for you. But that will be a poor approach to understanding the Bible wherever you end up spending your time.And as for your snide comment that you will check up to see if I have been studying Lev (if I choose to do so), I can only say that the evidence points to my having studied Lev much more than you.Heck, I don't even bitch about having to read the Bible and other sources to come to a better understanding of Lev, even complimenting the fact that someone (namely YOU) brought up an interesting 2part Lev interpretation for debate.To a scholar such things should be a joy, even if unable to participate because of time pressures.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 11-04-2003]

????? You have been given evidence of this by more than me Zealot.In response you keep bringing up the septuagint. So I showed you some refs on the Septuagint. You have done nothing but use ad hominem and guilt by association, to address their points.How can your faith be confirmed? If it was, why don't you show those strong refutations to everyone else? You aren't talking about me. I have not posted anything from another forum, particularly to belittle Xtians. Or are you saying this is what I must do in order to get you to respond? I'm debating with you Zealot, not them, and you are the one leaving now that your argument is crumbling before you (with the expressed intention of finding a like minded audience), not me.If you've seen my fights with schraf, zhimbo, and rrhain you will realize I'm not for yes men, even among people that agree with evolution. Ironically, with rrhain I was standing up for the fact that David might not be gay, and that homosexual sex and marriage may not be acceptable (ie it is immoral) to the Xtian God. No, what I did not have was YOUR understanding of Lev. This is the point of having a debate. As the evidence of debate seems to have shown, while you really understand what many modern Xtians are saying, you have very very little knowledge of Lev, and even worse no real logical support for your position.If you did, you would have had no real problem addressing points which attacked your 2-part Lev interpretation... which I said I found interesting (though ultimately problematic).I still haven't even gotten around to the definition of Children of Israel... given elsewhere in the Bible... which supports my position and NOT YOURS. Well now this is interesting. The UNIVERSAL Xtian understanding? Or did you mean to say the MAJORITY Xtian understanding. I think the point has been made that Lev's role and understanding is changing, specifically in light of increased Biblical scholarship (esp. into Hebrew texts), and changing societal norms (which similarly erased the Bible's support for slavery).The point of debate is not for both parties to accept the other's side as true, or even possible (at the outset). The point of debate is to be open to evidence and logic so that if one loses one is willing to accept the conclusions of evidence and logic.I have been willing to accept that the specific Biblical condemnation of homosexuality in English texts was legit. I am still willing to accept that outcome. Show me the evidence and logic, but don't expect me to just swallow whatever you are shovelling.You are the one who has not been willing to address my points nor the points of quotes I have presented. You can chuck the quotes if their "bias" makes your "bias" unable to cope with handling what they say. Then simply deal with my points.You are the one who seems unwilling to follow logic or evidence anywhere. Where have I not been open to discussion? I accepted that your 2-part Lev could be possible, but wanted evidence. You had no evidence, or at best very shoddily used logic to paste together separate facts into a shanty of evidence. It was easily blown over. Am I supposed to help you?I presented my position (a singular purpose Lev), as well as evidence. I cannot help that you have not presented good enough evidence to rebut this.In honest debate that usually means my position "wins". Now I find out it means I am not open to discussion? Really? Then you are completely incompetent in research or reading comprehension.Check out my debates with rrhain and schraf. With the former I have defended some Xtian positions, and the latter I have stabbed at feminist fundamentalism (with no mention of Xtianity... sometimes I do but not always).In ID debates I sometimes take a stab at the Xtian fundies, but then it is not regardless of content discussed. The content is regarding Xtians who allow their desires get the better of them in honest debate, or the scientific analysis of evidence. In particular Johnson's Discovery Institute. 1) Judge not, less ye be judged.2) Give a man a fish and he eats for one day, teach a man to fish and he feeds himself for a lifetime.3) Now there's a man with an open mind, you can feel the draft over here... My choice? Great. Then you will start presenting evidence to support your 2part Lev interpretation. This includes evidence to rebut the problems I have pointed out.In addition, you will review those rather short quotes and do some research to find out if they are indeed correct. It might even be nice for you to do some research (which was suggested at the beginning) regarding errant translations from the Hebrew.Then I will present evidence and logic to support my case, or rebut the points you made. It will continue in such manner until it appears that my evidence and logic are not solid, at which time I will abandon my position.Sound good?------------------
holmes

Chapters after 20 were addressed solely to priests which is in direct conflict with your 2 part Lev interpretation.Your interpretation of the "Children of Israel" as "all people" is incorrect. The term is more narrowly defined early in Exodus, and as I have pointed out refers to those who will move beyond Israel to found new communities. This is found directly before Lev in Exodus. Uhmmmm, the point was to show that your quote showed equal ignorance? And it led up to a joke. Sorry it wasn't funny.And quoting me to show my bias... This is NOT true? Some of those very Lev passages were used to disregard medical science and allowed buboes to kill, where lancing may have helped. What does this have to do with ripping Xtianity? In that thread I pointed out that the supposed "xtian" calendar doesn't actually square with Xtian reality anyway, and was advocating use of the JEWISH calendar! I assume a xtian would have no problem with that, right?I really think the Jewish calendar may be one of the best calendars in current use to adopt as a matter of convenient notation of years (the monthly cycle might have to change though) so as to best understand history. This opinion comes from studying the Bible and its connections with other faiths in the region. I admitted up front that I do not believe your religion is real. That does not prevent me from reading your texts and understanding what they say.In fact my DOUBT regarding your religion is one of the reasons I am not going in with a bias toward what it says regarding sexuality. It would be like you worrying what some sanskrit text says about circumcision. Its a document that you study to see what it says... no big deal. Having experience with other cobbled together texts, and their study, this is my conclusion. What is amazing to me is that you would even doubt this.Perhaps you need to read the history of your Bible. It was not written by one hand, it IS made up of diverse writings that were brought together into a single volume (and there are other texts which could have been in there) when a Roman Emperor paid for 50 "final" copies, so a "final" copy was created.Without question the New Testament is from diverse writers with sometimes conflicting versions of the same event. It was noted in Rome at the time that some were directly taken from other religions at the time and patched in to make a cohesive story.Eventually you will start figuring this out when you study a history of the Bible, and the writings of others during its creation. Because it is important to most of recent Western History and Culture. Why study any other culture's writings or artifacts... like Mayans and Persians and ancient Chinese?Because I am curious?You can argue that it must say what you believe it to say, because that is how you understand it. That is a valid approach. However there are others that do deny your position with equal faith. I could care less which ends up being right, and simply offer historical and cultural insight into that document.Sorry to be one of the messengers.------------------
holmes

Oh yeah, I forgot to point out that this was not me you are referring to. I said the mistranslations may have been understandable based on broadened practice of the proscriptions. There was increased intolerence of sex at the time of "translation" which may have helped things along (in the broadening) but that is not the definitive reason.And I said man lies with mankind does mean homosexual sex. While Rrhain is correct that the concept of "homosexuality" (that is having gay sex as a lifestyle) did not exist back then, specific sexual practices which we know of today as "homosexual sex acts" happened, and obviously they could point these out.In all of this, I believe you are talking to Rrhain and not me.------------------
holmes

What I said is that "Chapters after 20 were addressed solely to priests". I did not say "All chapters" or "The majority of chapters". I did not have to quantify this at all to make my point, so I did not. And since there was more than one chapter, I used the word "Chapters". Its really that simple.So now let us deal with this. You admit two chapters are addressed to priests. This is in conflict with your 2part Lev interpretation, especially if I am to take seriously your earlier admonishment to me that I had to use the intros to determine who the audience is. That admonishment by the way is something I completely agreed with, and is part of why I have the interpretation I do.So how do you reconcile this issue? Actually I was unaware of when the "final" version of the bible had been canonized, until last month. There was a riveting documentary on the History channel, regarding the history of the Bible.According to this documentary, the Romans did not "infest" the Bible (and neither did I claim this). The fact of the matter is that before all the writings were collected they were spread throughout the "world" and held to varying degrees of importance.This is why there were many meetings by religious leaders to decide what would become "official" or not.If you have any problems with this so far, I would like to know what form you think the Bible took in its very early days?While these leaders were deliberating a Roman emperor (Xtian by the way) wanted to have some official copies. I am not suggesting it was money that motivated their decisions to finalize or what to include in the final copy. But what they had was an important motive for speeding up their deliberations... they would not only have a final copy (which is what they wanted anyway), but it would be in the hands of the emperor of Rome, which would lend great weight to their religion (and its spread throughout Rome).If this is in doubt, please feel free to post contrary evidence. If you want, I will look up the name of the documentary. Dionysus, Bacchus, Mithra etc etc... existed LOOOOOOOONG before Xtianity. I would hasten to add that they were not failing in their time either. If anything it is pretty suggestive that elements of these popular religions were added to spice up the emerging Xtian religion (kind of like how Catholicism adopted saints and pagan holidays).This is a real problem Zealot. Catholic and Protestant scholars have had to deal with it, and cannot shut it away by trying to turn the tables. Right now the best arguments given for this reality is:1) The Devil tried to sow confusion and doubt by creating these religions in advance of the coming of Christ, so that it would make Xtian doctrine look like it borrowed from them.2) The originators of these earlier religions were right on in that they were feeling what was to come (Christ) and so began his worship even before he arrived. So it was kind of a precognizance of the Xtian religion, or the power of Christ rippling back through time to these spiritual individuals.My opinion is that, whether Christ was really the "son of God" or not, the writers of the New Testament threw in local legends (maybe even believing them to be true). We have seen this happen with Catholicism, why could it not happen back then? I already told you I was raised Xtian, lived in a religious town (wheaton), and went to a religious affiliated school where I had to study Xtianity.While I never felt the faith, I did not finally come to the position I hold now until after my time at that religious school.And since then I have retained interest in what it says, based on my historical curiosity as well as having to interact with Xtians and Xtian theology.It may very well be that it is my lack of faith, which does not allow me to see the "true word". But I certainly managed to get good marks from all the clergy I dealt with, regarding scripture. Actually it is improving my knowledge and removing ignorance which is the single most important thing to me. Having tried many different methods (and still try them out from time to time) I settled on methodological naturalism as the best method for obtaining knowledge.The Bible will stand or fall on its own empirical merits. I should add that its moral teachings do not affect whether it is "real" or not anyway. I might find them distasteful, and so all the more reason I don't share its faith, but that tells me nothing about whether it is correct. Nor would I care.This is just the same as you probably not caring whether the Mayan religion distinguished between homosexual acts and ritual homosexual acts.Can we return to the points at hand?------------------
holmes

I wish you would be. What difference does it make if it is one, or all of the chapter? The problem is you said one set is for priests, the other for the general public. Any deviation makes this incorrect.Mine was that Lev was setting up the church of God, and was addressed to founders of the church and settlements (including priests in parts). What we see is consistent with this interpretation. Maybe. Okay? What does this have to do with anything? The writings were still collected and finalized at that point. I dunno if God had a hand in it or not. If you are trying to imply that someone recently made up Dionysus or Bacchus or Mithra etc etc etc, and the tenets of their faith, then what can I say?Let's just say I take them as seriously as the Xtian theologians wrestling with that problem. If you have some evidence of a mass conspiracy of artifacts and traditions, I'd love to see that. Well I am having one right now. The fact that logic and evidence gets shot down by adherents using "you're evil" does not endear them to me.Frankly, it was an "angry and jealous" god which turned me off, or never allowed me in. Yes. I said that homosexuality as a lifestyle was not condemned (directly) as a sin (though I still feel it would fit under fornication). Homosexual acts were directly condemned as sin... when in the act of worship (ie male temple prostitutes). I already said it is possible to make this argument without referring to homosexuality in specific.I think I'm getting the picture now. This isn't really a debate. You are simply trying to call me names and see how long I will answer you.If your argument is going to be I am evil so I am wrong, or I am not a Xtian so I am wrong, and you are going to keep mixing up what I am saying anyway, I am done with you.Go back to your video games zealot.------------------
holmes