Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2015 - 08:50am PT
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
Jun 29, 2015 - 10:11pm PT
Wow anger issues much?
I'm intolerant of intolerance.
And please quit teaching high school science.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2015 - 10:05am PT
|
The disturbing part of this brouhaha to me is this ... The Supreme Court has overreached its Constitutional Authority
Really? That's the thing that you believe really disturbs you about this?
The most fantastic thing about this last statement is that people appearing to be intelligent claim to believe it.
And really? :-)
Human belief creation processes are understandable, in the same way that human skin color creation processes are understandable. We just don't understand them - we use the wrong criteria in trying to understand them. Our intelligence is not solely created and rooted in our cerebral cortexes, and our beliefs' value to us transcends their truth value. Our beliefs are just a tool for a larger purpose, like the melanin in our skin.
For me, our misunderstanding of the purpose of someone else's false belief is the thing that really seems fantastic! But that kind of belief doesn't work to our advantage, so please, carry on :-)
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2015 - 10:22am PT
|
If you want to know what the bible really said about all this, you have to look carefully, not just cite stuff from the King James version. To with (and this stuff can be BORING):
Leviticus
Two passages that are far more significant than the story of Sodom and Gomorrah occur in what Isaac Asimov called ‘the dullest book in the Bible’ – Leviticus. This third book of what Christians call the Old Testament is basically a set of things that, unlike their Canaanite neighbors, Israelites and Judeans were forbidden from doing. It accounts for the bulk of the 636 Biblical laws and regulations designed to make the Jewish nation distinct from those among whom they lived.
These are of two types, rules that are concerned with moral sin and rules related to ritual cleanliness. Moral sin involves rebellion against God and is the more serious of the two. Uncleanliness for Hebrews was caused by touching something forbidden or doing something forbidden (such as eating pork); though generally less important, some of these were also major enough to involve the death penalty.
If translated word for word, Leviticus 18:22 is roughly ‘And with mankind you shall not lie beds (plural noun) a woman/wife (singular noun).’ This final two-noun phrase is unclear in the original Hebrew; it is shared with Leviticus 20:13 (yet sometimes translated differently in the two verses), and it doesn’t occur anywhere else in the Bible. Although ‘beds of a woman’ seems to be the consensus for its meaning, other prepositions and relationships are also possible. The obscurity of this phrase opens the way for a wealth of different translations among which, out of tradition, a single basic line of thought characterizes English translations.
Leviticus 18:22
KJV: (King James Version, 1611): Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination.
LB: (Living Bible, 1971): Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin. (Notice the clear, unjustified extension of the verse to include lesbians; lesbian behavior is entirely absent from the whole of Hebrew scriptures.)
NIV: (New International Version, 1973): Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
MSG (The Message, 1993): Don’t have sex with a man as one does with a woman. That is abhorrent.
NLT: (New Living Translation, 1996): Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin. (Again, a clear, unjustified extension of the verse to include lesbians.)
NET (New English Translation, 2005): You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the term ‘abomination’ was an intentionally bad translation, given how far it differs from the meaning of the original Hebrew. It is used with a set of different situations in the King James Bible, all of which are tallied here.
The Living Bible and its revision, the New Living Translation, by using the word ‘homosexuality’ (for which there was no linguistic or cultural equivalent in Hebrew times) add two further errors. First, they add lesbians to the condemned group with utterly no justification for doing so. Second, since ‘homosexuality’ includes not just homosexual acts but also the mere fact of being oriented toward the same sex, the translations condemn both. These two translations say that it is a sin to be the way God created gays.
Moloch, copy of an illustration from 'Oedipus Aegyptiacus' by Athanasius Kirchner, Rome 1652
Depiction of Moloch
Alternatively, the verse could be interpreted to produce ‘And with a male you shall not lie [in the] beds of a woman,’ which is to say that if two men are going to have sex, they cannot do it in a bed belonging to a woman, i.e., which is reserved only for heterosexual intercourse.
Both this verse and the other from Leviticus (see below) appear in a holiness code that applied to Israel rather than to gentile Christians in an age of grace. Both occur in the clear context of opposition to the practices of the local fertility god Moloch; verse 21 sets the stage for this one by forbidding people from allowing their children to be burned in sacrifice to Moloch, verse 23 prohibits intercourse with animals (the idol of Moloch was in the form of a bull with a man’s head and shoulders, so this verse too may refer to idol worship). At the time, in order to get a conviction, Jewish law required four (male) witnesses, so whatever the action condemned in Leviticus was, it was likely a public event (there are no instances recorded in the Talmud of anyone being brought before the Sanhedrin and charged with homosexual activity). Worship of other gods provided a context where sex is very public, and there are 59 other places in the Bible where the worship of other gods is called an abomination (in the KJV). How could these two verses not apply to temple prostitution?
The probability that ritual prostitution is the context of these two verses is underlined by a later mistranslation of the Hebrew word qadesh, which appears in Deuteronomy (23:17), 1 Kings (14:24, 15:12 & 22:46), and 2 Kings (23:7). Literally the word means ’holy one’; it is clearly used in these verses to refer to a man that engages in ritual (pagan) temple prostitution in order to encourage the god(s) to make the earth and its creatures more fertile. By analogy many scholars interpret the verses in Leviticus as specifically referring only to sexual activities in a pagan temple ritual.
In the King James Version the word qadesh was translated for the first time as ‘sodomite,’ a word that at the time generically referred to any person who engaged in ‘unnatural’ sexual acts of any type. The New King James and 21st Century King James translations inaccurately retain the word ‘sodomite’ even though today it refers specifically only to males who engage in anal sex; most other Bibles more accurately translate it as cult, shrine, or temple prostitute.
The exact meaning of the original passage in Leviticus is therefore unclear. Translators face a choice between alternative prohibitions of:
homosexual behavior by either sex
sexual behavior between two men
sexual behavior between a man and a married man (or perhaps three people, including at least one man and one woman)
just anal sex between two men
just pagan temple ritual sex (between two men?)
sexual activity between two men in a woman’s bed
Be aware that post-King James translations fixate on the first two. This has had a self-perpetuating effect; a Bible that strays significantly from this hate message won’t sell, which means it won’t get published. Deviating from traditional interpretations would certainly generate a lot of media hype, which would temporarily boost sales because of the publicity generated, but it would also block the use of the translation by many if not most purchasers of large numbers of Bibles. We’re stuck with this, guys.
Leviticus 20:13 is very similar to Leviticus 18:22 in its use of the same unclear phrase as mentioned. Otherwise it is different from the first citation only because it appears to add the death penalty – though the phrase that does this could as accurately be translated ‘they shall be cast out of society.’
Bible scholars believe that Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20, which deal with similar material (mostly a prohibition of sex with any close relative – though the most frequent form of incest, sex of a father with his own daughter, is not specifically mentioned) came from different sources , and both are included in the Bible even though they cover similar ground in order to get the ritualized punishments Leviticus 20 contains.
Leviticus 20:13
KJV: (King James Version, 1611): If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
LB: (Living Bible, 1971): The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves.
NIV: (New International Version, 1984): 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.
MSG (The Message, 1993): If a man has sex with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is abhorrent. They must be put to death; they are responsible for their own deaths.
NLT: (New Living Translation, 1996): The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act, and are guilty of a capital offense.
NET: (New English Translation, 2005): If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.
Is the death penalty supposedly assigned to practicing homosexual males – though not among the Ten Commandments – somehow more important than the proscription in the Commandments against working on the Sabbath? Or perhaps more important than the death penalty assigned to someone who curses his/her parent (Leviticus 20:9) or who commits adultery (Leviticus 20:10)?
This passage could fairly well be translated ‘If a man has sexual intercourse with another man in the bed of a woman (or as part of a cult-like ritual), the two shall be cast out of society.’ You can see how this would not appeal to rabid fundamentalists.
Literalist fundamentalists also overlook the fact that, though there are many laws in Leviticus that limit female sexual behavior, female same-sex behavior is ignored here and everywhere else in Hebrew scripture (unless the text is mis-translated, as the LB and NLT do – possibly having concluded that God just forgot to put his objections in the infallible Bible; infallibility does not preclude mistranslation).
In spite of the fact that the mistranslation of to’evah into English obscures the fact that these verses do not apply to a moral sin, at first glance (especially given the general unanimity of translations in basic meaning), the passages really seem to condemn gay behavior in the strongest possible terms. That a similar condemnation to death applies to disrespectful children is beside the point; the target audience is the people of Israel, and the subject is pagan shrine rituals, and the passages are simply irrelevant either to homosexual orientation or homosexual behavior in an age of grace under Christ.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2015 - 11:23am PT
|
Righto Largo. Pretty boring stuff, but I slogged through it with ya.
The probability that ritual prostitution is the context of these two verses is underlined by a later mistranslation of the Hebrew word qadesh, which appears in Deuteronomy (23:17), 1 Kings (14:24, 15:12 & 22:46), and 2 Kings (23:7). Literally the word means ’holy one’; it is clearly used in these verses to refer to a man that engages in ritual (pagan) temple prostitution in order to encourage the god(s) to make the earth and its creatures more fertile. By analogy many scholars interpret the verses in Leviticus as specifically referring only to sexual activities in a pagan temple ritual.
I've been wondering more about the why, than the where and how the prohibitions developed.
So it was an anti-influence peddling proscription. Thus Citizens United and Obergefell both fly in the face of the Bible.
|
|
overwatch
climber
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2015 - 11:25am PT
|
not the usual cut and paste or stupid meme nice job Mr long
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2015 - 11:43am PT
|
The most fantastic thing about this last statement is that people appearing to be intelligent claim to believe it.
fantastic - imaginative or fanciful; remote from reality
That thing that you observe - that apparently intelligent people believe this - it's real - it's part of reality - it's not "remote from reality". That we don't think that it should exist in reality - that it's fantastic - is a measure of our lack of understanding, not a measure of the "wrongness" of its existence. It makes sense, we just don't understand how. Fantastic! :-)
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2015 - 12:09pm PT
|
Read it and weep.
I read it. And laughed.
Same old same old. Gay marriage is the lever that "the elites who drive the gay agenda" will use to tip America into the pits of hell.
Where does this kind of nonsense come from? Who are "the elites who drive the gay agenda"? The Koch Brothers? The Illuminati? The Aliens in the Ark on the Moon?
The main thrust of the piece is that the commonly held belief that same-sex marriage "won't hurt me" is wrong. And the evidence for this? Why, gay marriage is a mockery of all that is right and decent! Yup. It's wrong because it's wrong!
And then, in case we need any more convincing that same-sex marriage is evil and wrong, he presents the stunning fact that "Gay couples in many cases aren’t monogamous." Well Klimmer, if non-monogamy by couples in many cases is a reason to deny the right to marriage, then I guess you're in favor of banning heterosexual marriage, too. Right?
Come on, man. You're a science teacher. If you encountered a scientific publication that used logic like this to support the author's hypothesis, you laugh so hard you'd all but crap your pants. How can you possibly take an article like the one you posted sersiously?
Edit to add: Okay, I've checked out the second link you posted, and am now shaking in fear becaues “the gay and lesbian community...will want to keep coming and taking away the freedoms that we have.” And since this comes from no less an authority than The Reverend Franklin Graham, I guess that means it must be true.
|
|
SC seagoat
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, Moab or In What Time Zone Am I?
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2015 - 12:11pm PT
|
This whole gay marriage debate is about opening up the lifelong monogamous bond of matrimony to a community that often doesn’t desire a lifelong monogamous bond. Do you understand what’s going on here? They don’t want marriage as it currently is; they want to change it into something else.
Oh my Kilmmer you do pick doozies. What would Mr. Trump have to say about life long monogamy?
Chipmunks are penguins and how does that relate to Jack Shit? Where do you find these articles. Wild. Wild. Wild.
Susan
edit: I think my post was "333" which is half of "666". I guess I'm only half baked.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2015 - 12:37pm PT
|
Glad to see you're back, El Cap.
John
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2015 - 12:39pm PT
|
Churches are the left’s next target in the gay-marriage war
By Rich Lowry
June 29, 2015 | 8:31pm
http://nypost.com/2015/06/29/churches-are-the-lefts-next-target-in-the-gay-marriage-war/
Ahhh ... DMT, actually I'm not divorced. Not yet.
Is being divorced a sin? G-d certainly hates divorce. But often there is perpetrator and then there is a victim in divorce, the victim is the one who didn't want the divorce. G-d doesn't hold the victim to blame (depending on the circumstances, obviously every divorce is unique).
With no fault divorce a spouse can leave a marriage for any reason. "You sneezed wrong. I'm leaving you." NFD, thank you NOW Feminist activist lawyers and judges for bringing us NFD further plunging our country into Hell. And now we have GAY marriage. Nothing HAPPY about it at all.
G-d will not be mocked. He will not be fooled. Sin has consequences. Does the end result of Sodom and Gomorrah come to mind for anyone? Yes there really was a Sodom and Gomorrah. They found it with its evidence of cosmic destruction from above. It is a sign to all nations and generations to come.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2015 - 12:58pm PT
|
here's a homosexual family you'all will prolly love.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
i guess when one's life revolves around proving their sexual orientation, that is all they know what to teach.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2015 - 01:06pm PT
|
Sorry Largo is wrong.
Homosexuality throughout the entire good book (OT and NT) is a sin, both for males and females. He doesn't understand Judaism and how the Jews and the Jewish prophets write. A sin for one sex is a sin for the other sex to, unless it has to pertain to an ordinance of one sex specifically. In Hebrew they expect you to use sensible reasoning. They often don't state the already very obvious. Many parables use one sex to relate a story, yet the applicable Jewish midrash applies to all man, male and female obviously.
He only picked Leviticus. Many other Books of the entire Bible do indeed spell it out for both sexes. Homosexuality is a sin for both sexes. Always was and always will be. It's a no brainer.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2015 - 01:21pm PT
|
Lots of quoting from the Bible on this thread. Seems to me that the Quran, the Vedas, the Book of Mormon, Dianetics and the Confucian Documents, just to name a few, are every bit as reliable.
|
|
looking sketchy there...
Social climber
Lassitude 33
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2015 - 01:27pm PT
|
Bigotry in the name of religious belief is no less bigotry -- and some might argue even more despicable.
|
|
d-know
Trad climber
electric lady land
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2015 - 01:33pm PT
|
Pick and choose
how you see fit,
but THE GODESS
OF LOVE has
returned.
Informative post Largo,
thank you.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2015 - 01:41pm PT
|
It's a no brainer.
"And I say to you, whoever divorces HIS wife, except for sexual immorarity, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery"
jesus
Sexuality is pretty big in the bible, mostly cause it's the root of lust.
But let us stay focused on the bigger issue at hand; and THAT IS the breakdown of the family. Which we should ALL agree is the #1 cause for 99% of the problems our great country is facing today:(
There has been a cancerous delusion that has been spreading rampently for the past 60yrs that Marriage is nothing more than a business arangement. And a bad business arangement should be, and is easily terminated.
We're losing the honor of committing to one spouse for a lifetime. What happened to "for better, or for worse"? We've thrown it aside for "be happy, or get out"!
We need to look around for those who have spent 40,50,60+ yrs in Marriage and ask them; "What's most gratifying in Life?" A society should hold up experince's as role models, not new idea's.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2015 - 01:45pm PT
|
just to name a few, are every bit as reliable.
So you've read them? Please enlighten us:)
|
|
looking sketchy there...
Social climber
Lassitude 33
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2015 - 01:51pm PT
|
But let us stay focused on the bigger issue at hand; and THAT IS the breakdown of the family. Which we should ALL agree is the #1 cause for 99% of the problems our great country is facing today:(
No, I do not agree with your premise; neither "should" everyone.
But, if you accept that (1) there is a breakdown of the family, and (2) this is the root of nearly all of our problems, then it should follow that strengthening families should be a high priority. Permitting committed parents to marry can only strengthen families.
This logic eludes some fundamentalists as they have an inherent fear of families that do not mirror their own.
And, being able to terminate a dysfunctional, abusive or otherwise acrimonious "family" is often better for children and society.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!