Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   People, please read this... (re: Same sex mariage)
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 226 of 234 (65125)
11-08-2003 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Zealot
11-07-2003 7:50 AM


zealot writes:
You referred to Blatant Latin homophobic mistranslations. I found none such... you then chose to deny 'man lies with mankind' was a direct homosexual reference. Instead the argument was 'there was no such thing as homosexuality back then'.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Zealot, posted 11-07-2003 7:50 AM Zealot has not replied

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 234 (65310)
11-09-2003 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Silent H
11-07-2003 2:09 PM


Chapters after 20 were addressed solely to priests which is in direct conflict with your 2 part Lev interpretation.
Do you actually think that no-one checks up what you post ?
Indeed of chapters 21-27, only 2 refer to priests. Where do you pull this from ?
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.
Haha. The Bible expert. After all your previous posts, do you really think I'll be surprised at any of your assumptions favour an inaccurate / roman 'infested', mythical based bible
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.
Even dawn on you that failing religions would have to incorporate Biblical stories to maintain their following ... I guess not
For someone that believes the Bible as trash, you sure spend alot of time reading up on it. Unfortunitely with your previous post , you demonstrated you just dont understand it. Make no mistake, you never will understand it, unless you ask God to explain it to you.
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?
Shall we hit close to home ? Proving the Bible wrong is the single most important thing to you. You know that should the Bible be true, you would indeed be considered a grave sinner. Called opportunity cost. Is it worth it to sacrifise your current lifestyle for a possibility of an afterlife in Heaven, or is your current lifestyle too important to you ?
Your bias and Christian phobia is very apparent. Sorry to have to be the one to tell you that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Silent H, posted 11-07-2003 2:09 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by NosyNed, posted 11-09-2003 11:32 AM Zealot has not replied
 Message 229 by Silent H, posted 11-09-2003 12:47 PM Zealot has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 228 of 234 (65313)
11-09-2003 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Zealot
11-09-2003 11:04 AM


Zealot writes:
Haha. The Bible expert. After all your previous posts, do you really think I'll be surprised at any of your assumptions favour an inaccurate / roman 'infested', mythical based bible
Since you seem to be saying Holmes is wrong why don't you demonstrate that he is. You simply attack him and not what he has to say. That's not furthering the discussion at all.
Proving the Bible wrong is the single most important thing to you
I can't speak for anyone else but I think you are waaaay overstating this. lol. Proving the Bible wrong is unlikely to be in Holmes' top 10, 100 or even 1,000 things. It may be what you worship but it just isn't more than an interesting area of diverting discussion for some of us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Zealot, posted 11-09-2003 11:04 AM Zealot has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 229 of 234 (65320)
11-09-2003 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Zealot
11-09-2003 11:04 AM


zealot writes:
Indeed of chapters 21-27, only 2 refer to priests. Where do you pull this from ?
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?
zealot writes:
Haha. The Bible expert.
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.
zealot writes:
Even dawn on you that failing religions would have to incorporate Biblical stories to maintain their following ... I guess not
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?
zealot writes:
For someone that believes the Bible as trash, you sure spend alot of time reading up on it.
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.
zealot writes:
Proving the Bible wrong is the single most important thing to you.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Zealot, posted 11-09-2003 11:04 AM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Zealot, posted 11-09-2003 7:57 PM Silent H has replied

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 234 (65466)
11-09-2003 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Silent H
11-09-2003 12:47 PM


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 how do you reconcile this issue?
Be clear about your statements. Indeed make a point of noting that only 2 chapters are addressed to priests. They are indeed addressed to priests not regarding ritual sacrifise.
They are laws for priests. Try read them.
PS Chapter 21 ends with
24 And Moses told it unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel.
Interesting.
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).
Think perhaps God could have lead the mans decisions via the Holy Spirit ? Afterall he was a man of faith
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).
And ? What is the historical accuracy of texts regarding these God's/Myths ? You accept their accuracy pretty quickly, but do you not assume they could have been edited to fit in with Christianity or dare I say, insinuate the religion was based on Pagan religions ?
PS.. I know what you will believe.
Just for interest sakes. If I write a book in 2003 about a Pagan religion about a man called Masus, which escaped from Egypt in 3000 BC, does also mean Christianity is crock ? I suggest you treat those fables with the same degree of criticism you regard the Bible with..
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?
Read the opinions of famous Biblical Scholars and critics. I'll give you some if you really want.
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.
This why you hate Christianity ? Bad experience ?
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.
Without God you will not understand it. Like a 3d poster. You have to learn to squint properly before it makes sense. Sorry, but it works like that.
Actually it is improving my knowledge and removing ignorance which is the single most important thing to me.
Nope. Go back and find out why you hate Christianity. I'm sure you already know why. You need to clear your mind before you can rid yourself of bias.
Can we return to the points at hand?
Haha, last you posted you agreed that the act of homosexual sex was sinfull, but that the bible mentioned nothing about the actuall lifestyle of homosexuality as being a sin.
If you need me to explain to you why God cant bless a union based on a sinfull sex act, then you need to spend more time analysing the Bible. It will come to you eventually.
Oh yeah, try reading Matthew also. Jesus mentions something about divorce and the Law, and how in the begining man was made for woman.
PS: Regarding 'Judge not... etc' , I suggest you read 1 Corinthians again. These biblical paradoxes have a way of becoming clear the more you read and *pray* (sorry .. to see that 3D puzzle, you need to cross your eyes.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Silent H, posted 11-09-2003 12:47 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2003 8:11 PM Zealot has not replied
 Message 232 by Silent H, posted 11-09-2003 10:36 PM Zealot has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 231 of 234 (65469)
11-09-2003 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Zealot
11-09-2003 7:57 PM


(sorry .. to see that 3D puzzle, you need to cross your eyes.)
A most appropriate analogy. For the Bible to make sense, you have to look at it with vision obscured.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Zealot, posted 11-09-2003 7:57 PM Zealot has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 232 of 234 (65488)
11-09-2003 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Zealot
11-09-2003 7:57 PM


zealot writes:
Be clear about your statements.
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.
zealot writes:
Think perhaps God could have lead the mans decisions via the Holy Spirit ?
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.
zealot writes:
What is the historical accuracy of texts regarding these God's/Myths ? You accept their accuracy pretty quickly
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.
zealot writes:
Bad experience ?
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.
zealot writes:
Haha, last you posted you agreed that the act of homosexual sex was sinfull, but that the bible mentioned nothing about the actuall lifestyle of homosexuality as being a sin.
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).
zealot writes:
If you need me to explain to you why God cant bless a union based on a sinfull sex act, then you need to spend more time analysing the Bible.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Zealot, posted 11-09-2003 7:57 PM Zealot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by NosyNed, posted 11-09-2003 10:44 PM Silent H has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 233 of 234 (65491)
11-09-2003 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Silent H
11-09-2003 10:36 PM


Zealot:
(from web of online dictionaries)
One who is zealous, especially excessively so.
A fanatically committed person.
Zealot A member of a Jewish movement of the first century A.D. that fought against Roman rule in Palestine as incompatible with strict monotheism.
I don't think I need to add anything to that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Silent H, posted 11-09-2003 10:36 PM Silent H has not replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 234 of 234 (65493)
11-09-2003 10:56 PM


And I think with that, its as good a time as any to close this thread. Anyone who wants to continue is welcome to start a new thread with a link back to this one.
------------------
AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024