theology: leviticus 20:13

[silverwhisper]

what's your understanding of the scripture leviticus 20:13?

the bible quoth (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=lev%2020:13;&version=31;):
if a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. they must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
i read this and can't help but take from it the message that the reader is enjoined to commit genocide against male homosexuals.

how do you interpret it?

ed

[Origen]

Well, lawfully execute.

It was a tribal law carried out by elders and not without trial.

[Mouser]

How do I interpet it?

Don't commit sodomy. It's not good for your spiritual growth.

People who do are killing themselves spiritually.

[Mouser]

Well, lawfully execute.

It was a tribal law carried out by elders and not without trial.

Capital crimes (requiring a sanhedrin of 23 minimum) were extremely difficult to prosecute.

[Origen]

Capital crimes (requiring a sanhedrin of 23 minimum) were extremely difficult to prosecute.

The effect, over human history, of knowing that God wants homosexuals dead has an impact that makes this sound somewhat evasive.

[silverwhisper]

mouser: i was hoping you might weigh in. can you explain a bit more about the issues in convening the reason for the number of sanhedrin and their role? esp b/c i'm fairly certain many people interpret the scripture as i am.

[Wook]

How do I interpet it?

Don't commit sodomy. It's not good for your spiritual growth.

People who do are killing themselves spiritually.

I can see that intermpretation but it does nothing to exclude ed's take on it. In fact it is entirely possible for a believer to concurently hold both POV's on the matter.

[Mouser]

The effect, over human history, of knowing that God wants homosexuals dead has an impact that makes this sound somewhat evasive.

And Sabbath violators. Don't forget the Sabbath-violators.

They're also liable to the death penalty.

And much more numerous.

Yet you rarely hear people jumping up and down about that.

[Origen]

And Sabbath violators. Don't forget the Sabbath-violators.

They're also liable to the death penalty.

And much more numerous.

Yet you rarely hear people jumping up and down about that.

Do you honestly wish to hold to the incredible good influence of the Bible, and all that is good and right that derives from it, while denying the dark side of that influence?

[Mouser]

mouser: i was hoping you might weigh in. can you explain a bit more about the issues in convening the reason for the number of sanhedrin and their role? esp b/c i'm fairly certain many people interpret the scripture as i am.

The courts were convened in odd numbers for obvious reasons, and a Small Sanhedrin was 23. The Full Sanhedrin was of 71, and was required if an official was on trial (the King or the High Priest, for example).

The basic court was a court of three and could decide non-capital cases.

In any case, the judges needed to be qualified through a certification process similar to the one that takes place today, and based upon merit as defined by those who already hold that "certification."

The process in a Jewish court is not adversarial. The judges question the witnesses in an effort to ascertain the Truth of the case, and the rules for a capital case are different from that of a non-capital case.

For example, once a judge declares a preference for acquittal, he may not change his mind. Witnesses must have actually seen the crime taking place, and are easily discredited based upon contradictory evidence or character flaws (such as gambling or a bad business reputation).

Rabbi Akiva, who is regarded as having been the greatest of all the sages is often quoted as saying, "If I were on the Sanhedrin [for a capital case] there would never be a capital conviction."

[Mouser]

Do you honestly wish to hold to the incredible good influence of the Bible, and all that is good and right that derives from it, while denying the dark side of that influence?

I understand that there are those people who want to perform vile acts and use their reading of the Bible to excuse or justify these acts.

[Origen]

I understand that there are those people who want to perform vile acts and use their reading of the Bible to excuse or justify these acts.

But the Bible is never at fault, nor encourages that sort of activity, in your view?

[Mouser]

But the Bible is never at fault, nor encourages that sort of activity, in your view?

No.

In my view, people are a fault if they fail to live up to the standards set by their Creator.

[Rallan]

what's your understanding of the scripture leviticus 20:13?


i read this and can't help but take from it the message that the reader is enjoined to commit genocide against male homosexuals.

how do you interpret it?

ed

How do I interpret it? Pass me the shrimp cocktail and a cheeseburger with bacon, and I'll tell you exactly how I interpret Levitical law :)

[Wook]

No.

In my view, people are a fault if they fail to live up to the standards set by their Creator.

Are you of the opinion that the bible is from god or written by men?

[Origen]

No.

In my view, people are a fault if they fail to live up to the standards set by their Creator.

So you see no fault in the Christian scriptures when it comes to encouraging anti-semitism?

[BattleNymph]

So is this a bash religion thread or a bash Mouser thread? Or a bash Salah thread?

[silverwhisper]

it's not intended to be a bashing thread of any kind, as you should know.

[Rallan]

So is this a bash religion thread or a bash Mouser thread? Or a bash Salah thread?

For me it's a let's celebrate all the fun ways of breaking Levitical laws thread. Life without double-bacon cheeseburgers or anal sex just wouldn't be worth living :)

[David Argall]

Rabbi Akiva, who is regarded as having been the greatest of all the sages is often quoted as saying, "If I were on the Sanhedrin [for a capital case] there would never be a capital conviction."
Which of itself is sufficient grounds for excluding him from any such Sanhedrin.

[Origen]

So is this a bash religion thread or a bash Mouser thread? Or a bash Salah thread?

Oh, a one-line question! Yay!

Let me guess. Religion isn't a subject you care about, and therefore have nothing more than quips to contribute?

[StarkDaddy]

homo

:D

[Origen]

homo

:D

Buttpuncher.

[Wook]

You guys are fags?

:sawink2:

[carmachu]

You guys are fags?

:sawink2:

Origen and ed are. Dont you recall BN asking who would be a good match of Origen? ed won as the proper bottom...

[Origen]

You guys are fags?

:sawink2:

I wish I knew how to quit you, ****.

[Wook]

I dunno watching Org and Starkdaddy play "Who get's to top ed!" games while ed sits there with a blindfold, ball gag and black leather bananna hamock on sounds entertaining.

:sawink2:

[BattleNymph]

Buttpuncher.

That isn't a quip Mr. Pot? :lol:


I want to know what to expect when I post here. Is this a thread designed to attack those with a belief system that includes the bible? Is it designed to draw out those who may have something against homosexuals? Is it because ed is curious about what people think on this subject? If it's the latter then I'll post what I think. If it's the former why bother.

[Origen]

I dunno watching Org and Starkdaddy play "Who get's to top ed!" games while ed sits there with a blindfold, ball gag and black leather bananna hamock on sounds entertaining.

:sawink2:

*Origen calmly reaches over, grabs a #2 pencil, and quietly stabs both of his eyes out*

*Then he sets the pencil back, and twiddles his thumbs*

[StarkDaddy]

BN, stop...

[Origen]

I want to know what to expect when I post here. Is this a thread designed to attack those with a belief system that includes the bible? Is it designed to draw out those who may have something against homosexuals? Is it because ed is curious about what people think on this subject? If it's the latter then I'll post what I think. If it's the former why bother.

Oh, three more questions! Yay!

How about you express an opinion, and see how it plays out?

It's a radical idea, I know.

It's not the quips, incidentally. It's the lack of anything else substantive.

If that's all I should expect, I will dial back my expectations accordingly, and you won't hear anything else from me.

[carmachu]

That isn't a quip Mr. Pot? :lol:


I want to know what to expect when I post here. Is this a thread designed to attack those with a belief system that includes the bible? Is it designed to draw out those who may have something against homosexuals? Is it because ed is curious about what people think on this subject? If it's the latter then I'll post what I think. If it's the former why bother.


POst what you think. I think that was the original intent of the thread....but you know how it is here, its stated on the top of the page here...

[BattleNymph]

Oh, three more questions! Yay!

How about you express an opinion, and see how it plays out?

It's a radical idea, I know.

You're keeping track? Wow, I didn't think I had that much influence with you. :D

What the hell, I'll live dangerously for a minute.

My opinion on this scripture is that the ancient jews dealt with most things that they felt were destructive in their society with capitol punishment. Their leaders believed that homosexuality was destructive to their society hence.....

Being Christian, I get the caveat that Jesus taught a different and more benevolent way. :D

[Rallan]

I dunno watching Org and Starkdaddy play "Who get's to top ed!" games while ed sits there with a blindfold, ball gag and black leather bananna hamock on sounds entertaining.

:sawink2:

I think I owe it to Origen to show proper restraint and taste and just not ask the question that popped into my head. But that would be nice so I'll just ask anyway:

So what happens to the loser?

[Wook]

I want to know what to expect when I post here. Is this a thread designed to attack those with a belief system that includes the bible? Is it designed to draw out those who may have something against homosexuals? Is it because ed is curious about what people think on this subject? If it's the latter then I'll post what I think. If it's the former why bother.

There are plenty of people, even here, and IRL who would advocate that the interpretation that ed posited is the correct one. I have met them. I'm even related to some of them. His question, while uncomfortable for more reasonable believers, is a valid one.

[Origen]

You're keeping track? Wow, I didn't think I had that much influence with you. :D

Counting question marks isn't exactly rocket science.

What the hell, I'll live dangerously for a minute.

My opinion on this scripture is that the ancient jews dealt with most things that they felt were destructive in their society with capitol punishment. Their leaders believed that homosexuality was destructive to their society hence.....

Being Christian, I get the caveat that Jesus taught a different and more benevolent way. :D

Much better.

[BattleNymph]

BN, stop...

Not unless you ask nicely.

[StarkDaddy]

Crom frowns upon niceness.

[carmachu]

Crom frowns upon niceness.


*pokes with a stick*

Come on, you havent been in crom's good graces for a bit now.....you can ask nice...

[BattleNymph]

Crom frowns upon niceness.

That's true. Then NO, I won't stop. :sagrin:

[StarkDaddy]

Lament for me, please.

[Origen]

Lament for me, please.

Let him contemplate his sins upon the Tree of Woe.

[Archaelos]

what's your understanding of the scripture leviticus 20:13?

i read this and can't help but take from it the message that the reader is enjoined to commit genocide against male homosexuals.

how do you interpret it?


Seems fairly straightforward, those who commit certain acts are acting in a manner which deserves death. That said, prooftexting is often dangerous. Consider, that while the Christian is reminded that the "wages of sin is death", he is also enjoined that only "he who is without sin should cast the first stone." Further, as an act of demonstration, the only person present who fit the bill, Christ himself, declined to cast that very stone, stating that he did not bring such condemnations. By both instruction and example then, we find that while many deserve death, those capable of passing accurate judgment are quite limited.

[silverwhisper]

BN queried
i want to know what to expect when i post here. is this a thread designed to attack those with a belief system that includes the bible? is it designed to draw out those who may have something against homosexuals? is it because ed is curious about what people think on this subject?
if you really have to ask, that says more about you than it says about me.

[BattleNymph]

if you really have to ask, that says more about you than it says about me.

That I was feeling snarky and trying to pick a fight? Yup, pretty much. :D

[Mouser]

So you see no fault in the Christian scriptures when it comes to encouraging anti-semitism?

I view the Christian scriptures as written by ordinary people, not prophets.

[Mouser]

Are you of the opinion that the bible is from god or written by men?

What do you mean by "The Bible?"

[silverwhisper]

i'm fairly certain ****'s intended meaning was the jewish bible, for purposes of this discussion. you clearly don't view the christian bible or its constituent books as having been the word of god--i think that's clear even to the most obtuse person, mouser.

[Mouser]

i'm fairly certain ****'s intended meaning was the jewish bible, for purposes of this discussion. you clearly don't view the christian bible or its constituent books as having been the word of god--i think that's clear even to the most obtuse person, mouser.

I've met some extremely obtuse people in my lifetime, so I always try to make it clear.

Is this going to become a discussion of the nature of prophecy?

[silverwhisper]

that wasn't my intention but i can't speak for ****.

[Mouser]

Well, the best source for that would be "Derech Hashem" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derech_Hashem) by Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzatto.

Personally, I like Feldheim's translation, and they include extra essays in the back.

[Origen]

I view the Christian scriptures as written by ordinary people, not prophets.

For the purposes of this discussion, that doesn't matter. Texts are texts, and being written by men or demons or angels or God doesn't matter. Only that those who follow them believe that they were written by God. You've said yourself that the scriptures lend themselves to misunderstanding without the benefit of certain cultural and interpretive fixtures in your own upbringing. I simply take the next natural step and suggest that God take responsibility for constructing them in such a way to be so easily misunderstood, and misapplied.

[Mouser]

I simply take the next natural step and suggest that God take responsibility for constructing them in such a way to be so easily misunderstood, and misapplied.

In my experience, any text can be misapplied, no matter how explicit or direct.

[Kalzazz]

Well, according to a certain GURPS DM, it means that being gay is not good and means clerical powers arent happening, but lesbian clerics are fine

[Wook]

What do you mean by "The Bible?"

Those scriptures that you regard as holy. Are they of divine origin or written by men?

[Mouser]

Those scriptures that you regard as holy. Are they of divine origin or written by men?


The scriptures I regard as holy are of divine origin.

Some more directly than others.

[BattleNymph]

Is God not responsible for that too?

Only if you believe God to be responsible for each and every one of our actions. In which case, why bother.

[silverwhisper]

isn't this the crux of the problem of free will?

[BattleNymph]

How can He not be? That whole omnipotent, omniscient, creator of all thing kind of implies it.

Guess it depends on which dogma you're following. In Christian dogma he gave us agency which by it's nature means he doesn't control us. And therefor our understanding or lack thereof.

[Wook]

The scriptures I regard as holy are of divine origin.

Some more directly than others.

Then as the guy in charge how does god not bear responsibility for the actions taken as a result of those scriptures? If not all at least part.

[BattleNymph]

Christian dogma does not appear to be terribly internally consistent. What does agency mean? Can you give a clear, logical articulation of the concept? Given that He made it all, knows it all and it can change it at will, any concept of human agency seems pretty lame in comparison.

The concept of Agency, as I understand it (my understanding not necessarily being of sufficient scope), is very simply the ability to make choices.

If he knows it all and can change it, he chooses not to so that we can make that choice instead, with all it's inherent responsiblity and concequences.

[happykat]

what's your understanding of the scripture leviticus 20:13?


i read this and can't help but take from it the message that the reader is enjoined to commit genocide against male homosexuals.

how do you interpret it?

ed
It could mean that practicing homosexuals should be shunned, not literally killed. (ever heard the phrase, "You're dead to me!")


Personally, I think its crap. I also don't think the source of the scripture is God, but who can say for sure?

[Origen]

In my experience, any text can be misapplied, no matter how explicit or direct.

Evasion.

The Jewish Bible has said in no uncertain terms that male homosexuals deserve death. It is not a metaphor. It is not a misunderstanding. The message is loud and clear, and it has contributed to our understanding of those of whom it speaks for thousands of years.

I'm not addressing what the New Testament says, because, at the moment, that's not what we're talking about. I apply the same understanding to its texts, and I think responsibility lies with God for how he chooses to communicate.

[carmachu]

(ever heard the phrase, "You're dead to me!")


Yes, actually. Its been used in our family a couple times.....Its not just shunned, its literally cut off, because you are literally considered dead and gone...

[Wook]

It could mean that practicing homosexuals should be shunned, not literally killed. (ever heard the phrase, "You're dead to me!")


Personally, I think its crap. I also don't think the source of the scripture is God, but who can say for sure?

I'm generally of the opinion that the books are written by people and derrive from oral tradition. They may been inspired, as in struck by their personal muse, because of some close encounter with the divine but they were not posessed by god and given to write said book in it's exact format.

[silverwhisper]

HK: that expression is predated by this text by milennia.

[Wook]

HK: that expression is predated by this text by milennia.

But not the concept of being cast out. I don't know if the idioms were the same but the concept at least exist back then. Whether or not it has any bearing on the idioms of back then is going to remain unknown to us.

[silverwhisper]

sure, the concept is, but the assocationis entirely linguistic through killing and death, ****. don't be silly.

[Mouser]

Evasion.

The Jewish Bible has said in no uncertain terms that male homosexuals deserve death. It is not a metaphor. It is not a misunderstanding. The message is loud and clear, and it has contributed to our understanding of those of whom it speaks for thousands of years.


That's true.

And should a person be convicted of sodomy, he would be subject to capital punishment.

[Origen]

That's true.

And should a person be convicted of sodomy, he would be subject to capital punishment.

So male homosexuality is a crime worthy of death, correct? Literal, physical death

[silverwhisper]

i'm not an etymologist, chimaera, but english as a recognizable language's only been around a hair over a milennia, give or take, IIRC. it could have been adopted from another language, but we need the tools of a proper linguist to unravel this usefully, i think. i find it quite unlikely that it's been translated across multiple languages through human history into english.

[Mouser]

So male homosexuality is a crime worthy of death, correct? Literal, physical death

So is violating the Sabbath.

[Archaelos]

The concept of Agency, as I understand it (my understanding not necessarily being of sufficient scope), is very simply the ability to make choices.

If he knows it all and can change it, he chooses not to so that we can make that choice instead, with all it's inherent responsiblity and concequences.

I would stress the necessity of responsibility and consequence. Free choices that have no intrinsic value don't constitute agency; only choices which have the possibility of real, meaningful consequence do. If one believes in theocratic free will, then it is imperative that God be limited, either by choice or by logical necessity. I would add that the conception of "omniscience" and "omnipotence" are additions made by Greek philosophy, and not inherent in either Jewish nor Christian teachings of God. In my reading, both the Jewish and Christian scriptures indicate voluntary self-limitations on God's actions and ability to act.

[Origen]

So is violating the Sabbath.

But nobody can be faulted for NOT following that particular admonition, and I would simply lay the responsibility at the feet of the text if they did.

Now, again:

So male homosexuality is a crime worthy of death, correct? Literal, physical death?

Yes or no?

[Mouser]

But nobody can be faulted for NOT following that particular admonition, and I would simply lay the responsibility at the feet of the text if they did.

Now, again:

So male homosexuality is a crime worthy of death, correct? Literal, physical death?

Yes or no?

Yes. Male homosexuality is a crime worthy of literal, physical death.

[Origen]

Okay. Thank you for your candor.

ed, you were wondering what it meant. With the caveat that we're talking about a capital crime and a court, which are valid points that Mouser raised if the whole of the text is to be considered, that is what it meant.

[silverwhisper]

mouser quoth
yes. male homosexuality is a crime worthy of literal, physical death.
i may sig this.



origen: in which case, since the implication of any law exceeds well beyond the confines of any single court if it is to be of any use (considering that for most systems of law to work, ignorance of the law is no excuse), it's quite clear then that the way in which i first posited reading the scripture is entirely justifiable.

my thanks, sir.

[Mouser]

how do you interpret it?


Well, then, I interpret it in the way I indicated, and there is room for that understanding, in addition to the literal interpretation involving witnesses, courts, and jurisprudence.

[Salah_ad_Din]

i may sig this.


Oh yeah? Well sig this troutboy

:troutslap:


What Mouser is trying to say, I think, is that there's a link between death and sin. In the case of the law given through Moses, some sins were deemed worthy of immediate death. Homosexuality is one of those, but so are a number of things commonly practiced and accepted today. Just because Mouser believes that working on the Sabbath is worthy of literal, physical death doesn't mean that he's ready to start shooting sabbath breakers.

As for the rest, it's wrong to apply part of the law and ignore the rest. The problem is not the law, but people picking and choosing which parts to apply, most often unfairly.

For this reason, because I am not worthy to judge or condemn, I am glad that Christ freed me from the law. I'm not under an obligation to seek execution of anyone for stuff that's no worse than what I've done.

I bemoan Christians who look into the law to condemn some sins and ignore the rest of it. Either live under it as Mouser does, or leave it alone. Don't try to use it when it's convenient to condemn others.


Salah-ad-Din,
Jesus freak

[silverwhisper]

[bows]

i was afraid your warcrack addiction was starting to sap your formidable post-fu, salah. :>

something in your last paragraph reminded me of something a now-absent friend once said of using the bible as a weapon. i was struck by the similarity of the sentiment.

[Wook]

I bemoan Christians who look into the law to condemn some sins and ignore the rest of it. Either live under it as Mouser does, or leave it alone. Don't try to use it when it's convenient to condemn others.

So very sigged. :sagrin:

[Wook]

Ah, okay. I personally don't find it unlikely for that particular metaphor to have wended its way through the ages from language to language (in fact, I think it highly likely), but duelling on the basis of our disparate senses of plausibility is unlikely to establish much. I'll see if I can dig anything up.

Well I know the idea of shunning someone extends all the way back to at least Athens where they actually had exile as one of the ways they'd handle a leader who became too powerful and entrenched.

[Wook]

I'm pretty sure that the concept of exile and casting out goes back for as long as people have formed social groups.

So am I but I was thinking in terms of what we have evidence/documentation of....

[hidufel]

No.

In my view, people are a fault if they fail to live up to the standards set by their Creator.

The problem with htat statement, mouser, is that for most people, the only path to the standards set by their creator, is that bible, and its passages.

So accordingly, that person, trying to live up to the standards of his creator as taught to him in leviticus, is justified in going on a killing spree and snuffing out the lives of homosexuals everywhere.

Is that what your saying?

[Rallan]

Only if you believe God to be responsible for each and every one of our actions. In which case, why bother.

Think of it as an extra incentive. Now being naughty isn't just being naughty, it's your destiny! :)

[BlueNinja]

So accordingly, that person, trying to live up to the standards of his creator as taught to him in leviticus, is justified in going on a killing spree and snuffing out the lives of homosexuals everywhere.

Is that what your saying? I think he has to bring along his 22 buddies with him to convene the proper religious court to convict them first. Then it's properly justified. :th_dblthumb2:

[Wook]

The problem with htat statement, mouser, is that for most people, the only path to the standards set by their creator, is that bible, and its passages.

So accordingly, that person, trying to live up to the standards of his creator as taught to him in leviticus, is justified in going on a killing spree and snuffing out the lives of homosexuals everywhere.

Is that what your saying?

No. He's saying that every homosexual everywhere could, or maybe should, be dragged before a capital crimes court of the sanhedrin and killed if convicted which is apparently very difficult to get a conviction out of. In fact Mouser may not even extend that beyond jewish homosexuals. i dunno but I'm pretty confident about that first part.

[BattleNymph]

Gotcha... sorry for the condescension. :)

You know, lying is a sin..............:th_angelsmiley4:

[Rallan]

The concept of Agency, as I understand it (my understanding not necessarily being of sufficient scope), is very simply the ability to make choices.

If he knows it all and can change it, he chooses not to so that we can make that choice instead, with all it's inherent responsiblity and concequences.

Except of course that He knows it all and made it knowing exactly how it would turn out. In that case, Neil Armstrong didn't grow up to be an astronaut because of his own decisions, Neil Armstrong grew up to be an astronaut because God chose to make the universe in one particular way knowing that Neil Armstrong would end up being an astronaut, instead of making a universe with slightly different starting conditions which He knew would've led to Neil Armstrong being a gardener or a train driver or a homeless guy.

[hidufel]

No. He's saying that every homosexual everywhere could, or maybe should, be dragged before a capital crimes court of the sanhedrin and killed if convicted which is apparently very difficult to get a conviction out of. In fact Mouser may not even extend that beyond jewish homosexuals. i dunno but I'm pretty confident about that first part.
Eh... I'm playing catch up here. made the post after reading the first page thinking id read the thread.

Yeah i see where mouser explained himself further. Thats a pretty harsh line to take.

[BattleNymph]

Except of course that He knows it all and made it knowing exactly how it would turn out. In that case, Neil Armstrong didn't grow up to be an astronaut because of his own decisions, Neil Armstrong grew up to be an astronaut because God chose to make the universe in one particular way knowing that Neil Armstrong would end up being an astronaut, instead of making a universe with slightly different starting conditions which He knew would've led to Neil Armstrong being a gardener or a train driver or a homeless guy.

Perhaps in some religions viewpoint. Fortunately, not in mine. :)

[BattleNymph]

Well, I was condescending and I am genuinely apologetic for it, so no sin. At least, not on this count. If you think you have reason to doubt my honesty, I'd be quite interested in knowing what it is.

Gees.....way to dash my attempt at humor at your expense. *sighs and wanders off bereft*

[Rallan]

Eh... I'm playing catch up here. made the post after reading the first page thinking id read the thread.

Yeah i see where mouser explained himself further. Thats a pretty harsh line to take.

I dunno. I get the feeling from that reminder of his about the sabbath that he's taking an obtuse legalistic point of view to piss people off and/or make them think.

HINT: you'll be hard-pressed to find any jewish society anywhere on the planet that follows all the laws of Leviticus and other such oldschool justice to the letter. For example, I can't recall Mouser ever seriously arguing for the execution of people who work on the sabbath.

[BattleNymph]

I provide ample material for mockery; the options are varied and manifold. I tend not to appreciate vacuous questioning of my honesty, intellectual or otherwise. It's an issue I take very seriously.

*wanders back just long enough to apologize*

I'm sorry. I was truly just joking. Your honesty is one of the things I admire about you actually.

[Wook]

Ithe options are varied and manifold.

For instance your reference to some singular car exhaust sputtering out polution... :sawink2:

[BattleNymph]

No harm, no foul... I was pretty sure you were horsing around. I just that I'd let you know that it was a sore point now, rather than in a more heated context.

S'all good :)

Thanks for the warning. :)

[Wook]

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about... really. Help?


Manifold is the word for the entirel exhaust pipe chain that comes off the black to the back of the car where it spits out polution. (aka exhaust fumes...) It may also have the use you put to but I would think the word you were looking for was manied but I dunno. My vocab is usually 1-2 pegs ahead of most people I meet and deal with but around here I'm somewhere between average and sub par. :sawink2:

[Salah_ad_Din]

I'm not Mouser, but I feel pretty confident in saying that he would only apply the law to Jews, and so this death penalty would be applicable only to Jewish homosexuals tried in a Sanhedrin court.

The seven Noahide laws are for goyim -one of which is against adultery. This has been broadened to include homosexuality by some. Even then, though, there is not a court system and death penalty associated with breach of the Noahide laws by goyim.

Mouser please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Salah-ad-Din,
Jesus freak

[Mouser]

The seven Noahide laws are for goyim -one of which is against adultery. This has been broadened to include homosexuality by some. Even then, though, there is not a court system and death penalty associated with breach of the Noahide laws by goyim.

Mouser please correct me if I'm wrong on this.


One of the Seven Noachide Laws requires that gentiles have a set of courts and laws to enforce the other six Noachide laws.

[Salah_ad_Din]

*slaps forehead* I had forgotten that one.

Does the law against adultery for goyim include all homosexuals acts or only those of married men?

Salah-ad-Din,
Jesus freak

[Parzival]

I am glad that Christ freed me from the law.According to the OT, and (at the very least) the gospel of John, the Messiah was the Word made flesh. The very literal embodiment of the law.
Choosing to follow the law, does not free you from the law.
<shrug> There are parts of the law that are specific to the Abrahamic covenant, to which we are not party. That the New Testement gives specific exemptions for gentiles from most dietary restrictions and circumscision is a ringing endorsement of this view. (The bar against Gentiles honoring the Sabbath in exactly the same way as the Jews was already explicit.) But with this precedance, it's also difficult to argue that things not exempted should have been.

I suppose I should give my view on the matter.
Despite Mouser's protestations, life was cheap in olden days.
While there *is* a strain of mercy in Judism that starts with Abraham pleading with God over Sodom and Gomorrah, there's no evidence that a people who had just spent generations enslaved under the Egyptians, had wandered fourty years in the desert, and were busy carving themselves a nation out of populated areas (including by divinely-ordered genocide) would have been nearly as circumspect as he tries to put forward. <shrug> I have trouble believing a devestating plague explained by a census improperly taken would have been accepted if there were more conveniant scapegoats available.

IMV, it's very clear from the Bible (both OT and NT) that (male) homosexual acts are sinful. As are all the other deviations generally assumed to fall under the "sexual immorallity" section of the Noahide laws. Including, but not limited to, necrophilia, bestiality, incest, and adultery.

The priesthood trying to stamp out such practices is understandable, perhaps even desirable. But with the amount of power they had, any enforcement would naturally tend towards draconian.

[silverwhisper]

did you just use "the word" to mean something other than the reference in genesis 1:1? or are you referring to some other usage w/ which i was previously unfamiliar?

[Parzival]

I was thinking more of John 1
1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
<skip a bit, brother>
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
<shrug> But there are other examples of this in both testaments.

<grin> This is a touchy issue, I'll try to explain without setting Mouser off.

The Jews have a very reverent view of the Torah. From Wiki:
For Jews, the Torah is traditionally accepted as the literal word of God as told to Moses. For many, it is neither exactly history, nor theology, nor legal and ritual guide, but something beyond all three. It is the primary guide to the relationship between God and man, and the whole meaning and purpose of that relationship, a living document that unfolds over generations and millennia.Because the Torah is of God, and the conduit through which man must come to God, it is itself regarded as at least quasi-divine.

The messiah is noted to be the embodiment of "the word" or "the law" (meaning: the Torah) in both the Old and New Testaments.

It's from this fount that the Arian "heresy" also springs. If the Word is only quasi-divine, Arius is absolutely and unavoidably right.
But if the Word is both "God" and "of God", then Arius was absolutely and unavoidably wrong.
<shrug> The question isn't debated any longer, not because of the lack of merit of Arius' case (there are any number of passages that support his stance), but because it's much nicer to be a servant of God, than a servant of God's servant.

There are a number of on-going debates within Christianity about this. (And will be for the forseeable future.) Here's an extremely quick and dirty summary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament#Christian_view_of_the_Law
Salah made a controversial claim from the extreme end of the spectrum. <grin> I, obviously, inhabit the other extreme.

But back to the matter at hand.
We Christians can defer questions of punishment to the secular authority. "Render unto Ceasar" and all that. Starting existance as an repressed underground movement helps.
But in a democracy, we are also the secular authority.
We are caught on the Athens-Jerusalem split where we spend a lot of our time arguing morality and power.
<shrug> I don't think anyone would argue that homosexual acts should be punished when adultery is not.
But under the noahide laws, should we be punishing adultery? Jerusalem says yes. Athens, OTOH can be argued either way, and a bit more easily against than for.

I'm rather blathering on, aren't I?

[BattleNymph]

So, does it say anything anywhere about female homosexuality? It seems to be pretty specific to male with the scriptures quoted here.

[Detritus]

So, does it say anything anywhere about female homosexuality?
That it's totally hot. Somewhere in the back, I think.

[BattleNymph]

That it's totally hot. Somewhere in the back, I think.

So you'd rather watch some fem on fem action than have a fem on Det action? :satanlook:

[Detritus]

So you'd rather watch some fem on fem action than have a fem on Det action? :satanlook:
I'm not sure how you conclude this based on the original statement.

[BattleNymph]

I'm not sure how you conclude this based on the original statement.

I'm just askin' not concludin'.

[Detritus]

So that question just popped out of the vacuum?

Acknowledging the hotness of F/F action doesn't imply a preference for a lifelong vow of chastity in favor of voyeurism. It's just hot. Duh.

[BattleNymph]

So that question just popped out of the vacuum?

Acknowledging the hotness of F/F action doesn't imply a preference for a lifelong vow of chastity in favor of voyeurism. It's just hot. Duh.

No it's not. Not from where I'm sitting anyway. I'd rather see you and Chim naked actually.

[Detritus]

But that would be a sin.

[Detritus]

There is that.

[BattleNymph]

It would also be oogy... Sorry, D, I love you like the brother I strangled in utero, but we got a groovy, platonic kind of love.

Ah see, now why would it be odd for me to be oogy about getting it on with another woman? eh?

And noone's answered my actual question.

[Detritus]

Ah see, now why would it be odd for me to be oogy about getting it on with another woman? eh?
No one asked you to do it. All I said was 2 girls = hotness.

[BattleNymph]

No one asked you to do it. All I said was 2 girls = hotness.

True, true.

Here, just to show I'm down with that... *sends two girls to Det. Sure they're polyethylene but it was all I could come up with in a pinch.....* :D

[Detritus]

True, true.

Here, just to show I'm down with that... *sends two girls to Det. Sure they're polyethylene but it was all I could come up with in a pinch.....* :D
If I can scotch-tape a picture of your face to one of them, I'm good. :p

Was there a scriptural discussion in here somewhere?

[BattleNymph]

If I can scotch-tape a picture of your face to one of them, I'm good. :p

Was there a scriptural discussion in here somewhere?

Well you have one on the calender. :mischievous:


As to scriptural discussion......... nevermind. :)

[MrNexx]

I dunno. I get the feeling from that reminder of his about the sabbath that he's taking an obtuse legalistic point of view to piss people off and/or make them think.

HINT: you'll be hard-pressed to find any jewish society anywhere on the planet that follows all the laws of Leviticus and other such oldschool justice to the letter. For example, I can't recall Mouser ever seriously arguing for the execution of people who work on the sabbath.

What about those who wear wool-polyester or wool-cotton blends? That's a death sentence, too.

[Mouser]

What about those who wear wool-polyester or wool-cotton blends? That's a death sentence, too.

No. Not a death sentence.

And it's "Linen & Wool" exclusively.

[Rallan]

What about those who wear wool-polyester or wool-cotton blends? That's a death sentence, too.

Dude, I'm breaking enough laws as it is. Don't lets bring up more death sentences for me :)

[MrNexx]

If I can scotch-tape a picture of your face to one of them, I'm good. :p

Was there a scriptural discussion in here somewhere?


I think it's been abandoned in favor of the biblical.

And I seem to have been wrong about God's hatred of the wool-poly blend. But at least we know that God Hates Shrimp (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/).

[Parzival]

BN: Never specifically mentioned.
<shrug> Not that this necessarily means such an act is moral. I don't recall cannibalism being specfiically addressed either. But the silence makes it clear that the OT, at least, regarded it as less serious. (The concept of degrees of sin has problems, though, especially in the NT.)

At the time the book was written, polygamy and arranged marriages would have generally seen the biological imperatives addressed. Whether it was her preference, or no.