Are u going to leave USA now?

[Saint Frankenstein]

Evolution is the polar opposite of teleology. It cannot be invoked by natural law proponents. In fact, evolution is what demonstrates that natural law arguments are the opposite of self-evident.

I don't see how that is.

 

[Jainarayan]

I don't think you understand the subject. The definition of "natural" in Natural Law means that things have teleological meaning, that they have a purpose. You can say that this purpose is the cause of nature, through pure evolution, or the cause of nature's God. Doesn't matter.

What teleology or purpose is served by oral sex or masturbation?

Here we have it, as usual when it's expedient...

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What teleology or purpose is served by oral sex or masturbation?

Here we have it, as usual when it's expedient...

None.

 

[Jainarayan]

None.

So then they violate natural law.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So then they violate natural law.

Mmhmm.

 

[sun rise]

I'll give a pass on the food issues because of Peter's alleged vision in which Jesus told him that any food is fit to eat. But that does not eradicate all the other injunctions in Leviticus. Jesus said not one jot or tittle would be stricken from the law until Heaven and Earth pass away. Moreover, he said he came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. So I don't see how Christians can pick and choose from Leviticus. Seems to me that all the other injunctions are still binding on them.

My experience is that some Christians focus on the two greatest commandments, that of love, and on the fundamental message of the Sermon on the Mount. Others don't.

 

[Jainarayan]

My experience is that some Christians focus on the two greatest commandments, that of love, and on the fundamental message of the Sermon on the Mount. Others don't.

And that's really what all he said when it comes right down to it. There's a book called The Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta, by Swami Prabhavananda. It's a look into what Jesus was really saying, and very eye-opening. It's a shame that a Hindu master can produce a more coherent analysis of Jesus's teachings than many other Christians writers, with maybe a few exceptions.

 

[sun rise]

And that's really what all he said when it comes right down to it. There's a book called The Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta, by Swami Prabhavananda. It's a look into what Jesus was really saying, and very eye-opening. It's a shame that a Hindu master can produce a more coherent analysis of Jesus's teachings than many other Christians writers, with maybe a few exceptions.

Thanks for that book reference. I'm going to take a serious look at it.

 

[gsa]

I don't see how that is.

Because evolution is not progressive. There is no "aim" to natural selection.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Because evolution is not progressive. There is no "aim" to natural selection.

Yes, there is. Those with the genes that are more advantageous reproduce and pass them on and the ones who don't, don't reproduce and their lineage dies out. So the "purpose" of natural selection is to better enable the species to survive.

 

[catch22]

Sojourner, please try to respond to me in one post. Chasing down your 12 posts addressing me is convoluted and time consuming.

I didn't miss the point. My point was that, if homosexual preference is simply like color preference, then you have no other argument. If, however, homosexual preference is more than that, then the initial comparison simply isn't cogent.

Aaaaand... according to Christian thought, how is homosexual orientation "missing the mark?" How is it a "transgression against God's law? God's law doesn't address homosexuality. If one is being true to one's self, how is it missing the mark?

You are operating on a different set of definitions, or a different premise, I think. All your identity hyperbole is distracting from the simple truth of the matter.

Nope.

Nope. None of those reference the natural homosexual orientation.

Show me a homosexual relationship that doesn't involve sexual acts, then? How do you really draw a line, here? Since the bible doesn't describe a very modern concept, all the jargon about sexual acts between same-sex individuals is talking about something else!?

Here's your big mistake. They aren't describing what we know as that lifestyle now, for we understand that lifestyle and what motivates it far differently than they did.

It doesn't really matter. This isn't an issue rooted in psychology, as modern psychology considers homosexuality "normal" as far as anyone else is concerned. Physically, mentally, whatever. So your identity vs sexual acts between two same-sex individuals isn't even a valid position from which to posit.

Give up on the orientation stuff. It's just a pig with lipstick.

Of course not. Because you're missing the point that homosexuality is an identity, not merely an act. Acts are sin. Identities are not.

Sin is in the heart. See Matthew ch. 15. What comes out of a man is tainted, not what goes into his body. We are literally depraved from the inside out. You need not just act in order to sin. You have no understanding of what sin is, do you? Don't you know what Jesus was saying in Matthew 5:28?

Yes it is. So stop throwing it around like an old sock. Be specific about what you target, and be careful that you're not identifying any person as sin.

He doesn't have sin with regard to his orientation.

Homosexuality isn't a condition from which one can "suffer," any more than one's skin color or one's religious expression.

Sin is a condition in which we suffer. We're sinners first, before anything else. Sexual acts between same sex partners is sin. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. Marriage is comprised of one man and one woman. Anything else falls under sexual immorality, a sin. Did you read 1 Corinthians 6?

I suppose in your fantasy world homosexuality isn't a sin, in the event the partners in said relationship never have sexual contact or sexual desires for one another. You win there. But then, they probably wouldn't be homosexuals... would they? So what are we talking about, now?

What's clear is that, since there's no language, there's no concept for the orientation called "homosexuality." People weren't "homosexual" back then. Therefore the texts aren't talking about homosexual acts. They're simply referring to acts that were considered to be "unnatural." That's clear to everyone but you, apparently.

Show me a homosexual relationship that doesn't involve sexual contact in any fashion? There's a line in the sand the Bible is making clear. It alludes to the lifestyle or identity, whatever jargon you insist on perpetuating modernity has fabricated, concerning the concept of same sex relationships. If it doesn't use the language you expect, as I've said at least 10 or 15 times now, there wasn't a concept then as there is now for them to describe historically.

No, same sex preference is not a sin until the mind, heart, or body makes it into one. The same is true for the murderer, thief, adulterer, or any other sinner abiding in the bible and not giving into their temptation to do what is sin.

Therein lies the whole problem: reading the texts at face value, gleaning an "interpretation" from such reading and calling that "interpretation" "truth." When the texts are read at "face value," a full understanding generally isn't obtained.

My motivation is that people understand what the writers actually meant, and then make a determination as to whether that meaning is cogent to the human condition today, and, if so, in what way. It just isn't as simple as saying, "the bible condemns homosexuality." Because it doesn't, if the texts are read properly.

Break down and identify the true meaning of the various passages I have cited, then. I'd be interested to see your exact definition of their meaning. Apparently most of the world and most of history has gotten it wrong, so enlighten the world.

If it's as I suspect (noted above: acts vs. identity being separate), don't waste any more of my time. Thanks.

Actually, I do "want to read what it says" -- not what some cursory, modern understanding of an interpretation of ancient and foreign languages might suggest. If that's how you want to read the texts and continue to propagate an unfair judgment of our homosexual sisters and brothers, based upon an inadequate interpretation of the texts, then I'm going to have to continue to speak against such judgment.

You are stuck between the world and truth. Your guilt distracts you from truth. No one here is condemning homosexuals. By refusing to understand the Bible, you're hurting yourself and them in the process.

Read John 8 from 2 through 11. This time in history isn't a time of condemnation, it's a time of repentance. "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more." Or, sorry, am I not reading this right? I can't seem to get any other passage right, either!

In what way is homosexual expression/orientation harmful to either party (assuming both are consenting adults)? (To say, "Because the bible is against it" would represent circular logic). If you can name one valid way that homosexual orientation or expression is harmful to either party, I'll leave you alone. But it has to be valid.

There's evidence for it. I know Matt and his work is pretty solid, have a look:

Does being gay harm anyone? | Statistics on homosexual promiscuity and disease | CARM

While he doesn't outright say it (at least that I saw), this all alludes to my original premise of it being a spiritual condition. There are some physical concerns and interesting bits (much lower lifespans, more health issues for example), but this all rings clear of spiritual conflict, as I see it.

Aside from this, you could easily google and see plethoras of health-related issues concerning the lifestyle. For example, just recently, the issue of bacterial meningitis. While not a "gay" disease by any means, it highlights the dangers of the "lifestyle." Similarly, AIDS/HIV, which is not a "gay" disease, has higher risk in that particular community due to the method of it's effective deployment (risk is higher for male homosexuals in unprotected scenarios, exponentially higher promiscuity rates).

(source: CDC - HIV/AIDS - Gay and Bisexual Men's Health

Promiscuity is one of the big factors, here. This is all well documented and well known. Take a look at Adam Isaiah Green's U of T study in 2010. Also Pepper Schwartz, Ph.D. and James Witte, Ph.D in their book "The Normal Bar: ..." Here's a quote:

“About half of all gay male couples in America allow infidelity based on the rules the couple negotiates together. While this is incomprehensible to many people in heterosexual and lesbian relationships…many of these couples seem to be able to maintain long-term, highly committed, and happy relationships without being monogamous.”

It's a notoriously less monogamous group than any other, and it has increased risks as a result. There's a reason the Bible promotes one man, one woman, and highlights adultery as a bad thing. It's not merely a "cuz I said so" factor so much as a "I made you, I know what works best. This is what is best for you." Listen or don't, no one can decide for you. I can only show you the gospel and hope for the best. There's risks and penalties for disobedience, whether overtly acted upon by the Lord or not; I reckon most is the unforeseen side effects humans don't perceive until it's too late, such as STIs and what not.

To use a heterosexual example where promiscuity is a problem: HPV and cervical cancer in women.

It's really hard to get a sexually transmitted disease between two virgins who mate for life. That is God's model. Just saying.

 

[Tumah]

As a note, anyone who quotes Leviticus on ones prohibition should to be complete including all the other things that are included in a very extensive list. Cherry picking through the list of 76:

A couple clarifications:

3. Eating fat (3:17)

This is not a blanket prohibition against fat. There are two types of fat, "שומן (ShUMaN)" and "חלב (HeLeV)". The latter one, which refers to suet is the one being prohibited here.

12. Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6)

If you look at the context, G-d is specifically telling Aaron and his sons not to allow their hair to become unkempt as a response to the death of their sons/brothers.

23. Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4)

That's just dumb. Curches didn't exist until after Jesus' time. How could Lev. be saying to go to church?

24. Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5)

That's just dumb. Curches didn't exist until after Jesus' time. How could Lev. be saying to go to church?

42. Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9)

This law only applies to Jews living in Israel. The law is being said to the Israelites and it states, "in your land."

43. Picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10)

As previous.

48. Holding back the wages of an employee overnight (not well observed these days) (19:13)

This is observed among Jews.

56. Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19)

As with regards to fields.

60. Trimming your beard (19:27)

It actually says destroying, not trimming. Trimming is permitted.

61. Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27)

It says rounding, not cutting. There is a different word that means regular hair cutting.

75. Selling land permanently (25:23)

As per 25:2, this only applies to Israelites in Israel.

 

[Kirran]

@Tumah, do you not sell land permanently, not reap to the edges of the field, not pick up grapes, etc, seeing as you're a Jew in Israel? I'm curious.

 

[Tumah]

@Tumah, do you not sell land permanently, not reap to the edges of the field, not pick up grapes, etc, seeing as you're a Jew in Israel? I'm curious.

I don't own any land, so I couldn't ether way.But either way, most of the agricultural Laws apply only when the Jubilee is in effect and the majority of Jews are living in Israel, which is not the case today. Of those, some have Rabbinical enactments that still require them today even though they are not Biblically required.
So basically, the answer is that whichever ones still apply through Biblical or Rabbinical mandate are kept today by those [religious] who own agricultural land. So for instance, this year is a Sabbatical year. The religious farmers are not taking care of their crops at all. We stopped watering our house plants. etc. Although this is only a Rabbinical Commandment, as the Biblical Sabbatical year applies only when the Jubilee is in effect.

 

[sojourner]

All your identity hyperbole is distracting from the simple truth of the matter.

It isn't "hyperbole." Homosexuality is both an orientation and how one identifies sexually (which is a HUGE aspect of our total identity). That is "the simple truth" of the matter.

Show me a homosexual relationship that doesn't involve sexual acts, then? How do you really draw a line, here?

I know several homosexual couples who don't engage in sex acts. The act isn't the orientation -- or the identity.

Since the bible doesn't describe a very modern concept, all the jargon about sexual acts between same-sex individuals is talking about something else!?

That's the Whole. Problem. The bible doesn't describe a modern concept, yet we twist what it says into some modern concept, instead of just leaving it in the past. All the bible is talking about is perverted sex-acts -- not love, not orientation, not relationship, not identity. To the biblical writers, there could be no "normal" homosexual act. We know differently now, so the biblical injunctions are no longer cogent.

It doesn't really matter. This isn't an issue rooted in psychology, as modern psychology considers homosexuality "normal" as far as anyone else is concerned.

Right! Therefore, the whole issue isn't cogent, and those who think the bible condemns homosexuality need to leave that primitive thinking in the past (just as the reasonable ones have left the 6-day creation in the past) and move on.

So your identity vs sexual acts between two same-sex individuals isn't even a valid position from which to posit.

Yes it is. Because homosexuality is an identity, just as heterosexuality is an identity. It's those who insist that it isn't an identity to need to join the 21st century and the rest of society.

Give up on the orientation stuff. It's just a pig with lipstick.

Give up on the sin stuff. It's just a pig with lipstick.

Sin is in the heart.

No it's not. love is in the heart. Sin is somewhere in the flotsam in between.

We are literally depraved from the inside out.

God made humanity "very good." We each contain God's very very Breath. Doesn't sound depraved to me. Sounds more like you've been reading waaaaay too much Augustine and Calvin.

You have no understanding of what sin is, do you?

An Mdiv with honors and an ordination from a mainstream denomination say that I, indeed, do have an understanding of what sin is. Don't get uppity.

Sin is a condition in which we suffer.

Ok.

We're sinners first, before anything else.

We're good human beings first, before anything else.

Sexual acts between same sex partners is sin.

Only if you have a flimsy understanding of the meaning of the texts that deal with homosexual acts.

Sex outside of marriage is a sin.

Now they can get married. Problem solved; biblical injunction nullified.

Marriage is comprised of one man and one woman.

Not anymore. Several governments now say so -- as well as several upstanding denominations.

I suppose in your fantasy world homosexuality isn't a sin, in the event the partners in said relationship never have sexual contact or sexual desires for one another.

What about homosexuals who are married? And what about those who do have sexual desires for one another? There are lots of men and women who desire each other -- that's supposedly a sin, too, since Jesus said that if we even lust after a woman, we've already committed adultery. (Psssst!! Ever hear of the term "hyperbole?" I know you have -- you just used it. Try it again. It actually works here.)

Show me a homosexual relationship that doesn't involve sexual contact in any fashion?

I could show you several.

there wasn't a concept then as there is now for them to describe historically.

If there wasn't the concept at that time, then it doesn't pertain to us now, when there is a concept.

No, same sex preference is not a sin until the mind, heart, or body makes it into one.

Same for heterosexuality. But, as I've said, since the SCOTUS has made its ruling, that little problem has been solved.

The same is true for the murderer, thief, adulterer, or any other sinner abiding in the bible and not giving into their temptation to do what is sin.

Nope it's not the same. At all. Because theft, murder and adultery are crimes. Homosexuality is not.

If it's as I suspect (noted above: acts vs. identity being separate), don't waste any more of my time. Thanks.

As I've said all along, identity wasn't a factor in the texts, because they were unaware that homosexuality is an identity. Since we now know different, anything the bible says about homosexual acts must be taken with a grain of salt, predicated, as it is, upon ignorance.

You are stuck between the world and truth.

You're projecting.

Your guilt distracts you from truth.

You're projecting.

No one here is condemning homosexuals.

You're judging them -- calling them "sin."

I can't seem to get any other passage right, either!

This is the first thing you've said that I agree with. Tremendous.

While he doesn't outright say it (at least that I saw), this all alludes to my original premise of it being a spiritual condition. There are some physical concerns and interesting bits (much lower lifespans, more health issues for example), but this all rings clear of spiritual conflict, as I see it.

Aside from this, you could easily google and see plethoras of health-related issues concerning the lifestyle. For example, just recently, the issue of bacterial meningitis. While not a "gay" disease by any means, it highlights the dangers of the "lifestyle." Similarly, AIDS/HIV, which is not a "gay" disease, has higher risk in that particular community due to the method of it's effective deployment (risk is higher for male homosexuals in unprotected scenarios, exponentially higher promiscuity rates).

(source: CDC - HIV/AIDS - Gay and Bisexual Men's Health

Promiscuity is one of the big factors, here. This is all well documented and well known. Take a look at Adam Isaiah Green's U of T study in 2010. Also Pepper Schwartz, Ph.D. and James Witte, Ph.D in their book "The Normal Bar: ..." Here's a quote:

“About half of all gay male couples in America allow infidelity based on the rules the couple negotiates together. While this is incomprehensible to many people in heterosexual and lesbian relationships…many of these couples seem to be able to maintain long-term, highly committed, and happy relationships without being monogamous.”

It's a notoriously less monogamous group than any other, and it has increased risks as a result. There's a reason the Bible promotes one man, one woman, and highlights adultery as a bad thing. It's not merely a "cuz I said so" factor so much as a "I made you, I know what works best. This is what is best for you." Listen or don't, no one can decide for you. I can only show you the gospel and hope for the best. There's risks and penalties for disobedience, whether overtly acted upon by the Lord or not; I reckon most is the unforeseen side effects humans don't perceive until it's too late, such as STIs and what not.

To use a heterosexual example where promiscuity is a problem: HPV and cervical cancer in women.

None of this is proof that homosexuality is harmful. It's evidence that a promiscuous lifestyle is harmful. Up until now, homosexuals have been forced into promiscuity by being pushed to the fringes of society. When homosexuality becomes truly a societal norm, the promiscuity will diminish. This is like trying to pin crime on skin color, simply because there are more blacks than whites in prison. It has nothing to do with skin color, and everything to do with systemic dehumanization of black people -- just like you're doing with homosexual folks.

BZZZZZZZZZZT!!! Sorry... you've failed to show that homosexuality is inherently harmful. But we have some lovely parting gifts for you, including the home version of our game: "Religious Reason Takes a Holiday." Now, turn to the audience and say, "I am not smarter than a 6th grade homosexual!"

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

My experience is that some Christians focus on the two greatest commandments, that of love, and on the fundamental message of the Sermon on the Mount. Others don't.

Christianity's definition of love is not the unconditional, lovey-dovey concept that the current culture promotes. To truly love someone is to tell them the truth and help them along the road to Salvation, since that is the true purpose of this life. Sometimes loving someone means telling them things they will find painful or that they don't want to hear.

 

[sun rise]

A couple clarifications:


This is not a blanket prohibition against fat. There are two types of fat, "שומן (ShUMaN)" and "חלב (HeLeV)". The latter one, which refers to suet is the one being prohibited here.

If you look at the context, G-d is specifically telling Aaron and his sons not to allow their hair to become unkempt as a response to the death of their sons/brothers.

That's just dumb. Curches didn't exist until after Jesus' time. How could Lev. be saying to go to church?

That's just dumb. Curches didn't exist until after Jesus' time. How could Lev. be saying to go to church?

This law only applies to Jews living in Israel. The law is being said to the Israelites and it states, "in your land."

As previous.

This is observed among Jews.

As with regards to fields.

It actually says destroying, not trimming. Trimming is permitted.

It says rounding, not cutting. There is a different word that means regular hair cutting.

As per 25:2, this only applies to Israelites in Israel.

My post was addressed to those who focus on one prohibition from Leviticus as translated into English which can involve translation distortions. I will also accept your assertion that this does not apply to Christians which underlines the point I was trying to make that singling out prohibitions in the Old Testament is going off the mark.

In fact at least a lot of your comment depends on what version of the Christian Bible you read. The Torah says one thing. Translations often say something else including things which are quite different than the original.

Per the CEV Bible During this time she must not touch anything holy or go to the place of worship. So if a Christian read the CEV Bible, he would consider a church to be a place of worship.

And, again per the CEV Bible: I forbid you to shave any part of your head or beard or to cut and tattoo yourself as a way of worshiping the dead.

 

[sojourner]

Christianity's definition of love is not the unconditional, lovey-dovey concept that the current culture promotes. To truly love someone is to tell them the truth and help them along the road to Salvation, since that is the true purpose of this life.

Speaking truth can be accomplished unconditionally. Read 1 Cor. 13 for a real good definition of unconditional love.

 

[Tumah]

My post was addressed to those who focus on one prohibition from Leviticus as translated into English which can involve translation distortions. I will also accept your assertion that this does not apply to Christians which underlines the point I was trying to make that singling out prohibitions in the Old Testament is going off the mark.

In fact at least a lot of your comment depends on what version of the Christian Bible you read. The Torah says one thing. Translations often say something else including things which are quite different than the original.

Per the CEV Bible During this time she must not touch anything holy or go to the place of worship. So if a Christian read the CEV Bible, he would consider a church to be a place of worship.

And, again per the CEV Bible: I forbid you to shave any part of your head or beard or to cut and tattoo yourself as a way of worshiping the dead.

I hear what you're saying. That's a pretty horrible translation there. Seems like it should be called an interpretation rather than a translation.

 

[Pegg]

Ha, try being a homosexual lol.

Yeah well I know they cop a lot of abuse and persecution which I believe is very wrong. No one has the right to harm or even verbally abuse them.