What's the deal? - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-19-2002, 05:32 PM   #46
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer
That doesn't mean that everything that the Mosaic Law prohibited is now okay, though.
Of course not. There are many provisions of the Mosaic Law that would easily violate Jesus' pronouncement to "Love God and love one another." But it isn't the Mosaic Law that makes these things prohibited now. It is the violation of love that makes them prohibited.

Quote:
All I'm saying is, I don't think homosexual activity would have merited capital punishment in the old Mosaic Law if it weren't harmful or somehow wrong in God's eyes. And if this were so, than any homosexual activity, even between a monogamous couple, would violate one of Jesus's two commandments. It's not obvious that this is so, but it's a possibility.
Allow me to be a bit more specific on the matters of Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law and the books that wrote about it all emanate from the same time period: post-exilic Judaism, where the Persian Empire frees the diaspora and allows them to return to their homeland that they haven't been to in probably 200-300 years. That period of time doesn't seem that long to us in the era of mass communication, but this is the ancient times: this is an immensely long period of time to them. Considering that every book in the OT, with the exception of parts of Genesis, come from the post-exilic period onward, there are some problems.

Why is the Mosaic Law so harsh? Quite honestly, these books were written to reassert authority over a Jewish population that has never known Jewish authority. The bombastic language of Leviticus is evident. There are constant assertions that "I am the LORD your God" and whatnot in these texts. There is even hard evidence of historical revisionism. In terms of Jewish slavery in Egypt, as depicted in Exodus, there is flat out no physical evidence to even back this story up, even with all the very ancient artifacts dug out of ancient Egypt, which is older than the Bible by many thousand years. Considering the post-exilic audience that felt enslaved, this story of "conquer in the face of adversity" would likely have been very popular. However, this isn't even my point.

My point is that I don't believe that the Mosaic Law was ever written, nor was it ever condoned by God Himself. It was the post-exilic period that the nature of God was forever changed, due to influence from the Persian dualistic religion, Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism is the origin of the concept of a loving God, the origin of the concept of angels, the origin of the concept of Satan (Ahriman, or "Shaitan"). In other words, there is a distinct transformation between the ancient worldview of God, who is a violent warlord with specific demands on his people (otherwise they are killed), and the Zoroastrian view of a loving God, which so heavily influenced post-exilic Judaism that it populates the post-exilic Bible. Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are all written by the same sect, whom I believe was a dying breed of tyrant, holding onto the ancient worldview of a violent God all the way until the end.

Regardless, the Dead Sea Scrolls also show evidence of an evolving Bible, whereas the Mosaic Law is "larger" in our current texts than in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Quote:
Who am I to suggest that homosexual activity is emotionally or spiritually destructive? Nobody. I don't have a complete understanding of human sexuality, but I think that the Mosaic Law serves as a warning here.
St. Paul gives plenty of warning himself on following the Mosaic Law. Shall I trust the older OT or the newer NT?

Quote:
(Aside: regarding the context of modern homosexuality, I have heard from people who are not religious that there is a significant part of the gay population of America that wants to legalize same-sex marriage for the express purpose of legitimizing their sexual practices--"serial monogamy", orgies and the like. Not a majority, but a significant part.)
This reminds me of arguments for women's suffrage in the 19th-20th centuries. Going back and forth, one side argued that women shouldn't have the right to vote, because of their inherent weakness and due to St. Paul's pronouncements "proving" that women were merely subordinate to their husbands, so their vote shouldn't count. The other side, while well-intentioned, was equally ridiculous: women should vote because of their kind nature; that their votes would somehow be more caring of the real issues than men's votes. The flat out reason for women's suffrage, to me, was not because women were somehow kinder than men, nor should women be banned from voting, because they weren't as "strong" as men. The right for women to vote should have only been because they are human beings with a right to express their opinion, just like men, who were never granted the right to vote out of any other reason than they were male.

Consequently, homosexuals should be given the right to legal marriage (church marriage should, indeed, be left to the individual churches) if only because they have just as much a right to the legal rights of marriage as anyone else. Heterosexual marriage isn't certainly done for the most noble of reasons; why else would over half of marriages end in divorce? Why should homosexual marriages, somehow, be placed at a higher standard that not even heterosexuals can maintain?

I do have my issues with the gay population at-large, especially the promiscuous aspect, but that certainly isn't a trait specific to homosexuals. The average individual, for instance, has over nine sexual partners in their lifetime. We are absolutely no different than you guys; it is just that our sexuality is paraded like a joke in the media, which, by now, I would hope you realize is not realistic in regards to anything.

Quote:
All right, now I'm really upset. A snide, condescending, superior comment like that doesn't belong in what has been by and large a calm debate. There are folks who have studied this stuff much more than you or I who hold opinions on both sides.
Oh? So when I use the Bible to condemn you, it is "condescending," but when the Bible is used to condemn me, it is somehow okay? It was certainly not my intention to be condescending, but can you perhaps see my point of view in regards to why the Bible is often such a hurtful book?

Quote:
I leave you with one final question: if a monogamous, loving, sexual relationship between two men is pleasing in God's eyes, why isn't a monogamous, loving, sexual relationship between siblings?
"Siblings." An anomaly. Now why don't we go for something a bit more common, and equally forbidden in the Bible: cousins. In the OT, although I do forget where specifically, it forbids marriage all the way to like the 18th cousin or something like that. I can guarantee it is over 10th. Yet, in most states, you can marry your third cousin, and, in some, you can even marry your first cousin. Even marrying your third cousin can cause severe genetic abnormalities, but I don't see these marriages being banned. In fact, in the Catholic Church, for instance, marrying one's cousin is officially banned, but you can petition the church for a "dispensation"--essentially, a paper that bends the rules--that allows you to marry even your first cousin without any immorality. In fact, it is blatantly clear that society flat out ignores many prominent prohibitions in the New Testament:

--St. Paul makes *several* pronouncements against circumcision, declaring as harshly that anyone circumcized is directly going against Jesus Christ. Yet, most Westerners are circumcized.

--Jesus makes very harsh pronoucements against divorce for any reason, but, due to a blatant mistranslation in the KJV, many feel they can divorce due to a spouse's adultery.

Matthew 5:31-32 (KJV): "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.' But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (except for adultery) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

"adultery" = "porneia" = "blood mixing" / incest

Yup, back to my favorite mistranslated word, "porneia," which (I must give some credit to the Catholic Church) is at least consistently translated as "unlawful marriage" (see Acts 15:20), but is still incorrect. Jesus' "exception clause" in Matthew allows for divorce in the case of an incestuous marriage. All these harsh pronoucements against incest, and, yet, you are still allowed to marry a close cousin. Tsk tsk! Besides, I don't see many states or even Protestant churches that check to see if the divorce is due to adultery or not. "Irreconcilable differences" is not even an excuse to Jesus, even if you use the mistranslation in the KJV.

--St. Paul makes very strict pronoucements against women, going so far as to say that a woman is to never instruct over a man. Yet we still have all these female teachers.

And YET, we still have this insistence on keeping the Draconian pronoucements in the Bible against homosexuals, despite the fact that all the Draconian pronoucements against the heterosexual world is blatantly ignored by both religion and society. A double standard tinged in intolerance? You bet.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-19-2002, 05:42 PM   #47
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:54 PM
Re: Re: Re: What's the deal?

Quote:
Originally posted by Spiral_Staircase
I agree with Paul here that the law does not save us. But that doesn't mean that the law was wrong.
In Romans 7:7 (the start of a fascinating passage) Paul says, "What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."
You must be VERY careful when quoting St. Paul and "the law." He uses this word deceptively on purpose, especially in Romans, an epistle written to Jewish Christians in Rome. St. Paul was decisively anti-Jewish Christian, as his ministry was geared to Gentile converts. Romans can be divided into three sections: the beginning, which St. Paul mockingly tries to draw in the Jewish Christians and their sensibilities; the middle, where St. Paul starts with the deceptive "law" references, where he tries to trick the Jewish Christians into thinking he's referring to the Mosaic Law when he's really referring to the Golden Rule; and the end, where St. Paul flat out rejects the Mosaic Law.

If you read all of his epistles, St. Paul does finally define what his "the law" references refer to...and it refers to the Golden Rule. This is a *common* mistake in dealing with St. Paul, who emphatically believed that salvation was on faith alone. The Mosaic Law, in contrast, was unnecessary legalism to him.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 12:36 AM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 11:54 PM
Melon, you still haven't answered my final question: why do you think incest is morally wrong (if that is indeed your view)? If you commit yourself to the view that the Mosaic Law has been replaced completely with the commands "love God" and "love your neighbor," why is it clear that incest violates one of these two commands? (If it's because of the possibility of having genetically unhealthy children, assume that the couple does not reproduce, whether it be because of a vasectomy, menopause, contraception, whatever.)
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 03:43 AM   #49
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 11:54 PM
I am now breaking two oaths.

I first promised to never address or acknowledge melon again, and I have since promised to never return to this overly biased forum. I am now temporarily breaking both promises.

I am fully aware of the consequences: melon will likely report me to the administrators, and Sicy will likely gloat in being right that my absence was temporary. I will no doubt appear to be a hypocrite, uncapable of making promises he can keep.

I really don't care, because the reason I'm breaking these oaths is that important.

Before the criticism comes, I will remind you that Oskar Schindler lied to protect the lives of over one thousand Jews. I'm not comparing myself to Schindler, but I believe there are good reasons to break one's word.

I choose to break my word to defend God's Word.


Melon, you are twisting the Word of God.

Before I focus on the most egregious lie, here are some of the other more objectionable assertions:

You assert that the philosophy of the fallen nature of man is a product of the Dark Ages, "completely unsubstantiated in the Bible," despite numerous well-known verses such as Romans 3:23 ("For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God") - and Romans 5:12:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

You assert that the "cult of marriage" began aroun A.D. 1100, despite the fact that Christ confirms the institution of marriage in Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:7.

You VERY WRONGLY assert that Acts 15:19-20 overturns the Mosaic Law. Rather, James urges to write the Gentiles to KEEP THE MOSAIC LAW - as is clear in verses 19-21, Today's English Version:

"It is my opinion," James went on, "that we should not trouble the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead, we should write a letter telling them not to eat any food that is ritually unclean because it has been offered to idols; to keep themselves from sexual immorality; and not to eat any animal that has been strangled, or any blood. For the Law of Moses has been read for a very long time in the synagogues every Sabbath, and his words are preached in every town."

You also VERY WRONGLY assert that Galations 3:10-14 (among other verses) invalidates Mosaic law. Those under the Mosaic law are not cursed because the law is wrong: they are cursed because they do not perfectly follow it - they rely on it for salvation when it demands impossible perfection. "'Cursed be everyone who does not persevere in doing all the things written in the book of the law."


All that said, the most infuriating statement was this comment about the Mosaic Law (which you compared to the words of David Koresh):

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
My point is that I don't believe that the Mosaic Law was ever written, nor was it ever condoned by God Himself.
WRONG.

The following is a list of verses - certainly not comprehensive - in which Jesus Christ confirms or builds upon the Mosaic Law. The New Testament verse gives the relevent words of Christ; the corresponding Old Testament verse is the Scripture He is quoting or referencing.

Matthew 4:4 - Deut. 8:3
Matthew 4:7 - Deut. 6:16
Matthew 4:10 - Deut. 6:13
Matthew 5:21 - Ex. 20:13; Deut. 5:17
Matthew 5:27 - Ex. 20:14; Deut. 5:18
Matthew 5:43 - Lev. 19:18
Matthew 15:4 - Deut. 5:16,; Ex. 21:17 ("God commanded...")
Matthew 18:16 - Deut. 17:6
Matthew 19:4 - Gen. 1:27, 5:2
Matthew 19:5 - Gen. 2:24
Matthew 19:18 - Ex. 20:13-16
Matthew 19:19 - Ex. 20:12-16; Deut. 5:16-20; Lev. 19:18
Matthew 22:32 - Ex. 3:6, 15
Matthew 22:37 - Deut. 6:5; 10:12; 30:6 ("Love thy neighbor")
Matthew 22:39 - Lev. 19:18

Mark 7:10 - Ex. 20:12; Deut. 5:16; Ex. 21:17
Mark 10:6 - Gen. 1:27, 5:2
Mark 10:7-8 - Gen. 2:24
Mark 10:18 - Ex. 20:12-16; Deut. 5:16-20
Mark 12:26 - Ex. 3:6, 15
Mark 12:29 - Deut. 6:4
Mark 12:30 - Deut. 10:12, 30:6
Mark 12:31 - Lev. 19:18

Luke 4:4 - Deut. 8:3
Luke 4:8 - Deut. 6:13, 10:20
Luke 4:12 - Deut. 6:16
Luke 18:20 - Ex. 20:12-16; Deut. 5:16-20
Luke 20:37 - Ex. 3:1-6

Two things are worth noting: first, in Matthew 15:4, Jesus Christ attributes the commandment to honor one's parents not to Moses or the priests, but to GOD HIMSELF.

Also, Christ's two great commandments (love God; love your neighbor) ARE QUOTES FROM THE MOSAIC LAW.

And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. - Deuteronomy 6:5.

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. - Leviticus 19:18.

THIS is the Mosaic law you condemn, that which you compare to the rantings of David Koresh.

There are at least two dozen Gospel verses in which Jesus Christ directly condones, confirms, fulfills, or expands upon the books of Moses. Jesus Christ apparently points to the Mosaic Law as a thing to be believed - not as a thing He follows as a good rabbi, but as a thing He created as God Almighty.

And yet you say it was never "condoned by God Himself."

So.

Is Jesus Christ not God, or are three of the four Gospels utterly riddled with lies about Jesus? Are you unaware of these quotes? Or are you simply willfully lying about the Bible?

There is no telling if/when your complaints to the admin's result in my banning, so I will be honest: I believe you're knowingly, willfully lying about the Bible, and I seriously wonder about a Christian who is capable of such an act.

Lawrence
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 06:32 AM   #50
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 03:54 PM
Perhaps you might like to edit Bubba so your post contains no personal slant and your reply can be carried on its own merit and your view appreciated for what is is, leaving no cause for complaint. I say this as you seem to think what you said will warrant a complaint and all. Why bring it on needlessly.
__________________
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 08:10 AM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: full of sound and fury
Posts: 3,386
Local Time: 05:54 PM
In the spirit of this thread's original topic, I accept that Bubba has a right to put forth opposing views. But sheesh, Bub, couldn't you for once doff your self-righteous attitude? I wonder if you speak this way in real life. (edit: I write all this in response to the first 6 paragraphs of Bub's reply).

melon, I greatly appreciate your alternative interpretation of Genesis 19. I shall discuss it further with my Christian friends to see what we come up with.

foray
__________________
foray is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 08:41 AM   #52
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: foray's kitchen drawer
Posts: 431
Local Time: 04:54 PM
melon, how do you explain

1 Corinthians 6
Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

foray
__________________
famous rungi is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 08:55 AM   #53
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 09:54 PM
Well I DONT think the 10 Commandments
became
the 10 Suggestions after the time of Christ ,now did they?

In other words, Christ said love God first, your neighbor 2nd..
BUT did NOT eradicate the 10 Commandments..
I mean were still NOT suppose to lie,cheat and steal correct as dictated in the 10 Commandments?
Christ came along to teach a higher law and fine-tune the old one(keeping the 10 Commandments and getting rid of some of the Mosiac traditional ones)

That's my read on it
Word.

DB9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 09:08 AM   #54
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 11:54 PM
Angela:

I have no idea what precisely is so objectionable about my post, what you mean by a personal slant.

My post is certainly no more controversial and objectionable than melon's posts, which compare the first five books of the Bible to the rantings of David Koresh:

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
As I've read, the writers of the Mosaic Law were not mainstream Jews, but a fanatical splinter group, which is why I believe the Talmuds spent so much time voiding the Mosaic Law. It would perhaps be comparable to people 2500 years later taking the texts of David Koresh and believing them to be representative of all of Christianity.

foray:

If I didn't acknowledge the fact that I was breaking my agreement to ignore melon and my promise to leave, someone else (probably melon or Sicy) would have done it for me - and made it (rather thant the content) the focus of the discussion. To preempt such a digression, I decided to introduce my post with a humble acknowledgement that I know full well what promises I'm breaking and the likely consequences.

I got all that out in the open at the very beginning, admitting everything. I don't see what's self-righteous about that at all.

Bubba
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 10:08 AM   #55
War Child
 
Spiral_Staircase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA
Posts: 679
Local Time: 10:54 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's the deal?

Quote:
Originally posted by melon


You must be VERY careful when quoting St. Paul and "the law." He uses this word deceptively on purpose, especially in Romans, an epistle written to Jewish Christians in Rome. St. Paul was decisively anti-Jewish Christian, as his ministry was geared to Gentile converts. Romans can be divided into three sections: the beginning, which St. Paul mockingly tries to draw in the Jewish Christians and their sensibilities; the middle, where St. Paul starts with the deceptive "law" references, where he tries to trick the Jewish Christians into thinking he's referring to the Mosaic Law when he's really referring to the Golden Rule; and the end, where St. Paul flat out rejects the Mosaic Law.

If you read all of his epistles, St. Paul does finally define what his "the law" references refer to...and it refers to the Golden Rule. This is a *common* mistake in dealing with St. Paul, who emphatically believed that salvation was on faith alone. The Mosaic Law, in contrast, was unnecessary legalism to him.

Well, I disagree on this. The reason I quoted that verse was to show that Paul is very clearly refering to O.T. law. He goes so far as to quote it. He says that the law says "Do not covet" - a direct quotation from O.T. law.

As Paul concludes his letter to the Romans, he quotes several commandments from the O.T. law and says that it is summed up in (not replaced by) this rule: love your neighbor as yourself (another quote from the O.T. law).
__________________
Spiral_Staircase is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 10:32 AM   #56
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 11:54 PM
Precisely right, Sprial.

It helps bring new light to something foray said about my post:

Quote:
Originally posted by foray
In the spirit of this thread's original topic, I accept that Bubba has a right to put forth opposing views.
Foray, the views I just expressed are "opposing views" only insofar as they oppose what melon says. But look at widely accepted translations of the Bible, mainstream biblical scholars, and the theological beliefs held by a large number of Christians (particularly evangelical Protestantism).

Outside of this thread, my beliefs are in the mainstream of Christianity. They are not "opposing views," but thanks anyway for defending my right to express them.

Once again, these beliefs are as follows:

- That Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12 (among other verses) confirm the fallen nature of man.

- That Jesus Christ confirms the divine institution of marriage in Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:7.

- That, in Acts 15:19-20, James urges the writing of letters that confirm practicing at least parts of the Mosaic Law.

- That the Pauline Epistles (Galations 3:10-14 and other verses) confirms the Mosaic Law, not as the path to salvation, but as the delineation of God's impossible standard - a standard that necessitates New Testament grace.

- Most importantly, that Jesus Christ (God Incarnate) confirms the validity of at least parts of the Mosaic Law in over two dozen verses across three of the Gospels.

Bubba
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 05:07 PM   #57
Sizzlin' Sicilian
Forum Administrator
 
Sicy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 69,297
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Well.. hello Bubba. Cant say I'm surprised to see you here, and addressing melon once again.

Melon had the decency to ASK me if he can reply to you.

He has been told he can reply after I discussed it with Elvis... BUT if either party resort to personal attacks, both memberships will be considered for termination.

That's that.
__________________
Sicy is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 05:12 PM   #58
Creator of the Blue Crack
 
Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 4,008
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Sicy
Well.. hello Bubba. Cant say I'm surprised to see you here, and addressing melon once again.

Melon had the decency to ASK me if he can reply to you.

He has been told he can reply after I discussed it with Elvis... BUT if either party resort to personal attacks, both memberships will be considered for termination.

That's that.
Sicy forgot one detail...

I own you both

Behave.
__________________
I created this place. I hyped a band.
Now I own an ad agency. We hype brands.
All roads for me lead back to U2. Ain't it grand.
FB me. IG me. Tweet me.
Elvis is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 05:21 PM   #59
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by famous rungi
melon, how do you explain

1 Corinthians 6
Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

foray
"Male prostitutes" and "homosexual offenders" refers to a common Greek practice of older men ("homosexual offenders" or "malakos," meaning soft, ignorant, and is a degrading term towards females) having sex with young boys ("male prostitutes" or "arsenokoitai"). As translated, you can certainly see the problem--we're talking about two different issues. Pedophilia and prostitution is different than modern homosexuality. The root words support this claim, which is in the footnotes of a Catholic Bible I own (ironically, while still containing the same bad translations).

"homosexual offenders" = "arsenokoitai"

Root: the Septuagint (ancient Greek) translation of Leviticus 18:22. "Arseno" referring to husband or "ish" and "koitai" referring to "zakar."

Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Now to reduce the key words back to their original translation:

"'Ish' shall not lie with 'zakar' as those who lie with 'ishah'. It is 'toevah'"

Ish = husband
Ishah = wife
Toevah = ritual condemnation

The dubious word in question is "zakar." If the writers insisted on making it a blanket condemnation of same sex relations, it would have said "'Ish' shall not lie with 'ish.'" Instead, it uses the more dubious "zakar," which is believed to be a word in reference to a male temple prostitute, as this was a very popular cult ritual back then. Again, the question is whether this passage is in blanket condemnation of homosexual activity or the pagan implication it had to have sex with a male temple prostitute, as it was the belief of these pagan religions that to be close to the gods was to engage in large temple orgies. These, however, were not wholly homosexual in activity, but, rather, bisexual.

St. Paul, himself, writes many pronouncements against idolatrous practices, so this explanation is at least plausible.

Of course, please do not tell me you believe everything St. Paul says. I do believe you are female, are you not? St. Paul pronounces that you are subordinate and not fit to instruct over men. Shall we enforce that provision as well?

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-20-2002, 05:26 PM   #60
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
Well I DONT think the 10 Commandments
became
the 10 Suggestions after the time of Christ ,now did they?
Read over the Ten Commandments. What do all of them have in common? They tell you to love your neighbor! In fact, not only does Jesus' Golden Rule cover all of the Ten Commandments and more, He put an extra burden onto us to love our enemies as well. The Ten Commandments say nothing about hating one's enemies, which was morally acceptable in the Old Testament.

Love is more than just "lustful thoughts" and an orgasm at the end. True love, as espoused by Jesus, tells you to put others before yourself--everything that the Ten Commandments tell you. That is the "love" I am referring to. The Ten Commandments are frankly superfluous to even mention with the Golden Rule.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com