Me Myself
Back to my username
So you are totally pro slavery then? just like OT and NT?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Bible and Homosexuality
- Thread starter InfidelRiot
- Start date
So you are totally pro slavery then? just like OT and NT?
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
No, it's not. There is only ONE combination of forbidden textiles. No other combination is forbidden but wool and linen. Poly-Cotton is perfectly permissible.
You have an interesting way of showing that.
Further, I find it interesting that when the Torah hints at something broader, people who mock the commandments focus on the smaller issues which may be damning of the Torah belief system, like slavery, even though I've discussed it quite thoroughly. But for something that is very specific in its application, the people who mock the commandments decide that it must mean a much broader application.
If you choose to continue to mock Christians for hypocrisy for focusing on the sinfulness of homosexuality but for ignoring blended textiles, make sure you specify linen-wool combinations, or you will come out as ignorant as you are trying to prove the person you are mocking to be.
That much, I'll agree with.
Last edited:
I will respond to the main body of your post after my lunch (I typically post on down time at work); but I just wanted to comment quickly that it's impossible to know so far from our brief interactions: I'm the first kind (though I may ask follow-up questions and give reasons for continuing skepticism).
This matter of intention is a salient meta-point about the ethics of discussion, so I just want you to know that my intentions aren't to mock theism, to ask "gotcha" questions to theists, etc. but rather just to inspect worldviews,their foundations, and compare them to my own -- and perhaps offer reasons for my skepticism if I have any. (Also, to learn, and to be convinced myself if I find my opponent's argument compelling!)
Last edited:
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
Good to know. Now I'll know how to focus when answering further questions.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Well, I do have to go to the bank, but are you sure you wouldn't rather say "I believe that the bible condemns homosexuality in both the old testament and the new testament?"
Because I assure you the way your statement is phrased is invalid.
If you insist on saying that the bible does "condemn homosexuality" I suppose I can go through the whole song and dance again to illustrate how your statement is invalid. You might just want to scroll through and read my posts on the topic; go read arguments for and against homosexuality in the bible and then rephrase.
If you realize that your beliefs are based on interpretations and translations of the bible, it would give much more truth to your claims.
I can accept faith based arguments as long as those arguments acknowledge that they are faith-based.
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
Really? My bible is the New Jerusalem Bible and Leviticus 19:19 says "you will not wear a garment made from two kinds of fabric". I understand that you may feel that your bible is better than mine and maybe it is. But I have quoted my bible, not yours and I have not made the error you say I have.
I believe with all my heart that if the writers of the OT had seen Polyester, they would have considered it an abomination.
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
It is essentially correct, except for one very important thing.
The specific word used for "mixture," שַׁעַטְנֵז , only appears twice in all of Tanach, and both of them are in the Pentateuch. Now, you could be forgiven for being confused if the only reference you had was the verse in Leviticus. But the word שַׁעַטְנֵז - Sha'atnez - which does mean mixture is brought to light, and so defined in Deuteronomy 22:11
"You shall not wear a mixture of wool and linen together." שַׁעַטְנֵז צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים
The word שַׁעַטְנֵז only occurs twice in all Tanach, in Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11, and in Deuteronomy, the word שַׁעַטְנֵז - mixture - appears in conjunction with the words for wool and linen, it is logical that the שַׁעַטְנֵז in Leviticus is the same as the שַׁעַטְנֵז in Deuteronomy.
And if you make mention of any other combination of textiles, it will show off your ignorance. You may choose to display willful ignorance, but be aware that it is ONLY ignorance that would make you say anything other than the commandment as it is or ever was observed, both in ancient times and now.
Eh. God is a lot more forgiving than that.
Last edited:
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
Maybe you are correct. But you are talking about Hebrew and Deuteronomy when we are talking about Leviticus only. I can't get this guy to answer questions concerning one book in the bible so I'm not really interested in quibbling over cross referencing Hebrew text from multiple books. I understand that you find my use of Poly-Cotton blend to be inaccurate. Since polyester didn't exist thousands of years ago I pretty much thought that was a given but since its so very important to you let me set the record straight.
I fully admit that the bible has never said anything negative about polyester and my use of the Poly-Cotton blend in place of the linen-wool blend was insulting, offensive and down right rude. I apologize to Poly and Ester, no hard feelings I hope.
Everyone in the High School band prays you're right.
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
A better translation would be to sell as a bond servant. There were strick rules on she was to be treated. Certainly it should not have come to this.
This law would be similiar to husbands being able to give thier wives a bill of divorce. Jesus said "Moses gave you this law because of your hardness of heart, but from the beginning it was not so""
These people were hard hearted and constantly rebelling against God for 40 years.
Remeber when Israel asked for a king which God never intended. God told Samuel to let them do it even though it was not his perfect will
Jesus under the new covenant declared all foods clean and Peter was told the same thing in his vision
Jews who are still living under the covenant of Moses would still be bound to keep all the laws including the dietary ones as I would.
The main purpose of the dietary laws wasnt diet, it was to teach the people to discern between the clean and the unclean
Last edited:
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Hey, I'm agreeing with you.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
This is not aimed at Harmonious in particular. I generally like her posts and her position. But I think that a belief labeling homosexuality as "wrong" for everyone constitutes a harmful attitude toward those who are perceived as different. A person may safely believe that homosexuality is wrong for her or himself. But to assert that it is wrong for someone else is treading on thin ice. That Harmonious chooses not to act out on that belief is admirable -- and I applaud that choice.
Anytime we make that kind of moral judgment for others we begin down a slippery slope, whose descent we may not be able to control. I used to be where Harmonious is. I used to think that homosexuality was wrong for everyone, but I chose not to act on that belief. I found that carrying that judgment affected my relationships and my stances on social justice issues that ranged beyond homosexuality and into other areas of difference. Once it becomes OK to judge one group, it can easily become OK to judge any group. And the justifications for doing so can become increasingly suspect.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
I would say that Jesus was a liar. MOSES didn't give the Jews ANY law. God did. Moses merely taught what God dictated.
Further, if you have ever heard, witnessed, or experienced a toxic marriage, disallowing divorce from such a thing is TRUE cruelty. If anyone is creating hardness of heart through suggestion, I would say it was Jesus. Not God, and certainly not Moses.
If the only complaints the Jews had in 40 years were those listed, they were far more complacent with their lot than people are today.
Otherwise, the Jews were doing exactly what God wanted them to be doing.
Except that God commanded the Jews to establish a king upon entering the land. It's in Deuteronomy.
No. The main purpose of the dietary laws is to show obedience to God.
Unless you truly believe that God is so cruel as to set rules of cleanliness so that only the Jews can live healthily and condemn the rest of the world to sickness and death.
If you believe that, then you have OTHER problems.
Last edited:
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I'm not worried about you infringing on the rights of others. What I take issue with is the apparently fuzzy thinking I'm perceiving, which seems incongruent with your usual posts. I don't understand how something can be wrong for everyone, but yet saying that "they can do what they want" somehow seems to absolve you of any judgment based upon belief. Isn't the judgment of wrongdoing still present -- even as background static? And doesn't that static color how you view other human beings? Are homosexuals OK or aren't they? I think that, when it comes right down to it, the most honest thing that can be said is, "It's not right for me," or even "It's not right for good Jews."
To state unequivocally that it's wrong for everyone is to make homosexual orientation merely an act that one either does or does not do, rather than the way a person is -- and is made -- by God, if you're a religious person. When we begin to deny what a person is, we begin to deny their personhood. when we begin to deny their personhood, it's only a short hop to begin to deny basic rights. I think that's what's going on in the marriage debates. Those on the "con" side don't see homosexuals as full human beings -- whether they admit that, or not. Then it becomes a matter of infringing upon one's rights.
waitasec
Veteran Member
i fully agree with you. of course you have the right to your beliefs
i guess what we are all trying to do here is to come to an agreement.
curious though...why do you suppose same sex couples have their rights violated? could it be that their mis treatment stems from beliefs that a) it's unnatural and unhealthy or b) it is a sin? when it comes to the moment when you are in the voting booth and you are in a position to affect someones life, because you believe it is a sin, would you vote to violate their right? that is where the issue lies, i believe.
Last edited:
Harmonious
Well-Known Member
Yup. The acts of homosexual liaisons ARE wrong. But at the same time, I'm acknowledging that the only reason I believe this is so is my religious beliefs.
I believe that people who believe in Jesus as anything special and important are wrong, too. As a matter of fact, they are just as wrong as homosexual acts, one focusing on the sin of idolatry, one focusing on the sin of immoral sex.
But there's not a heck of a lot I could or should do, as we have freedom of religion, which is freedom FROM religion. And if people don't wish to believe as I do... So?
No. People are good people until they prove to be bad. I believe this across the board.
They are okay. Absolutely. But what they desire is NOT okay, if they do something about it.
I understood the orator in the OP. I understand why homosexuals feel left out. But then again, I'm not the one who came up with the laws in Leviticus, or any of the Torah. And I don't think the law should change because people don't like what they say.
No. I can say "It's not right."
But I always say that people have the right to be wrong.
That is taking a wrong assumption and running with it. It isn't the orientation that is sinful (although it is, if you believe Jesus, who declared that thinking of sin is the same as sin. Luckily, I don't). People feel as they feel, and desire who and what they desire.
I don't believe that homosexual orientation makes a person bad, sinful, or less of a person.
Unfortunately, acting on those desires and creating the liaisons is the problem, and that is what is sinful, an abomination, and all the rest.
PLEASE take note. Every time I've mentioned homosexuality in the context of sinfulness and wrongness, I have not mentioned that the homosexuals themselves are wrong, but the LIAISONS. The sex, the unions, the marriage to someone of the same sex.
You want to say that saying that this activity is wrong will breed contempt. Perhaps it may in some people. I know for a fact that it has in other people. However, Torah law ALSO says to treat people with love, kindness, and to not hurt them with words.
On a day to day basis, homosexuality doesn't come up in my general conversations. Some of my best friends are gay, and sometimes we talk about the challenges they face, living as Orthodox Jews, especially since they are surrounded by people who - very well intentionally - try to set them up with girls. These friends of mine are more concerned with the people who don't pay attention to the Torah laws against gossip, and make them feel bad, and treat them as lesser people. Their concern is more against people in the community who used to be friends, and when said friends sussed out their "secret" decided they were no longer comfortable to have them around their children.
Stupid people are often hurtful, as sometimes they don't know better. Sometimes they do, and they are just jerks.
Be that as it may, I think that gay people who share my belief system are very strong people who deserve to be admired for their tenacity to do what they feel is right.
The fact that other people may say that they shouldn't have to worry and should be immediately indulged is not my concern.
People who don't share my belief system will do as they want. They have the right to be wrong. And I will fight for their right to be equal, even if they are wrong.
I've never denied what a person is. I have never denied anyone I've met belief in their personhood. (That includes my former husband.)
I believe that all people deserve to be loved and treated with respect. That not withstanding, as I said in an earlier post, there are some times of love and marriages that are sinful and wrong. I listed several, and I'll list them again. Marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew is wrong and sinful. Marriage between siblings is wrong and sinful. Marriage between parents and their children is wrong and sinful. Marriage between people of the same sex is wrong and sinful.
The incest between siblings and parents and children, besides the squick factor, has further basis in biology for why it shouldn't happen. Intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews and homosexual liaisons I object to for purely religious reasons.
Does participating in what my belief system declares as a forbidden union make them less as human beings? No. Does that take away the sin if they indulge? Also, no.
Other people don't agree with me. I know this. They are free to believe I am wrong.
There is a difference between saying that someone is wrong and saying that someone isn't a full human being.
You will never hear ME say, or even imply, that people who are wrong are lesser human beings.
You will also never hear ME say, or even imply, that people who have desires that are sinful are lesser human beings. I don't believe they are.