On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Carla Hunt wrote: @> >@> >> Warning: Discussion of religious viewpoints here. If such is @> >@> >> unpleasant, don't read further @> >@> >> @> >@> >> @> >@> >> * @> >@> >> @> >@> >> @> >@> > @> >@> >> * @> >@> >> @> >@> >> @> >@> >> @> >@> >> @> >@> >> * @> >@> >> @> >@> >> @> >@> >> @> >@> >> @> >@> >> * @> >@> >> @> >@> >> @> >@> >> @> >@> >> @> >@> >> * @> >@> >> @> >@> >> @> >@> >> @> >@> >> @> >@> >> * @> >@> >> @> >@> >> @> >@> >> @> >@> >> @> >@> >> Hopefully this is enough. @> >@> >> @> >@> >> My comments interspersed. @> >@> >> @> >@> >> ; and C), an undue emphasis on the legalisms and @> >@> >> @> >@> >>> bloodthirstiness of the Old Testament, as applied literalistically @> >@> >>> and with preference for texts that support certain prejudices and @> >@> >>> phobias. The folks that condemn homosexuality are perfectly @> willing @> >@> >>> to eat lobster or wear blended fibers, even though those are both @> >@> >>> condemned with equal harshness. @> >@> >>> @> >@> >> @> >@> >> Wrong. There is a clear and distinct difference drawn especially in @> >@> >> the New Testament between the Levitical proscriptions that were @> >@> >> intended to set aside the Jewish nation, which were superceded by @> the @> >@> >> actions of Jesus and his disciples (Gospels), and specifically @> deemed @> >@> >> un-necessary for Gentile believers (book of Acts and following), @> and @> >@> >> the specific sins that were explicitly proclaimed wrong in both Old @> >@> >> and New Testaments, (sexual immorality being the one referred in @> this @> >@> >> thread.) @> > @> >The only serious injunction against homosexual behavior (if it is one; @> >interpretations of the original Hebrew differ) in Leviticus names it as a @> >ritually unclean act rather than a moral sin. If you decide to throw out @> >the ritual uncleanliness laws, you need to throw out all of them. The @> >prohibition against homosexual sex isn't a commandment in the same sense @> >that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is; it's part of the set of laws specifically @> >given to the Isrealites and no other people. @> @> it's actually mentioned in the new testament - i'm afb, i wish i could @> give you book, chapter and verse. i remember being very surprised because @> i had always heard the argument to which i think you are referring - that @> these were laws from the old testament that only applied to those of the @> hebrew faith. i was also surprised it was so precise. it doesn't use @> whatever the then modern-day term was for homosexual or anything that @> might be misinterpreted, it described the act of a man with a man. Well, let me know if you find it. I think Romans is the closest you're going to get. @> >Sure, one can take that approach. But if one does, then one must advocate @> >stoning, polygamy, slavery, and also one must abide by all the kosher @> >laws, etc. Then that person will have a consistent world-view. If you're @> >>not doing that, though, you are interpreting the Bible and removing @> >certain things that you think don't apply. @> @> are you sure not over-emphasizing the old testament? didn't jesus kind of @> bring in a new law? do unto others, love your nieghbor as yourself, let @> he who is without blame cast the first stone - that kind of stuff. Hey, I'm down with loving thy neighbor. In fact, I'm advocating that people who love their neighbors be allowed to continue to do so, even if it makes certain other parties uncomfortable. But an argument proceeding from the basis of "everything in the Bible is the literal truth and every commandment must be followed to the letter" must acknowledge /all/ parts of the Bible, not just the ones that are about love and bunnies and miracles. That argument can't acknowledge that any part of the Bible is wrong or out of date, because of course that destroys the whole basis on which one is arguing. As soon as we say "this part of the Bible is open to interpretation, let's decide that what Jesus said means we can eliminate parts A and B but not C", we've gone beyond "everything in here is true" and into the realm of "let's decide what's true based on some external principles", because Jesus did not in fact pull out the books of the Torah and go through them with a red pen. (Although I think I saw a Coptic gospel once that... no, no, I must've just imagined that.) @> >Also: If God has the power to do X, that does not mean that God is @> >obligated to do X. In fact, saying that one understands the mind of God @> is @> >a bit prideful, wouldn't you think? Perhaps God put those things into the @> >Bible for inscrutable reasons that have nothing to do with the commands @> >actually being obeyed; God might want everyone to be atheists, for @> >instance. You never know. God's plan is not for mortals to understand. @> @> i don't claim to know the mind of god. i do think it would be strange @> that god would want people to be atheists, not when he created them for @> companionship (thinking of genesis, adam and eve talking with him in the @> garden). If the barrier to entry is "strange", there's an awful lot of stuff in the Bible that I'm going to have to discount right from the get-go. God does a lot of strange things. Why not that one? There's lots of reasons God might want us to all be atheists. Self-reliance, for instance. And learning to love one's fellow beings for unselfish reasons. (That is, if an atheist who doesn't believe in an afterlife at all does something virtuous or self-sacrificing, you know that he's not doing it in the hopes that he'll get to heaven.) And to induce us not to commit suicide. And so on. @> to be honest, i believe this whole life is an exercise in choice. you @> can choose to believe Of course anyone may believe what they like. But those beliefs are also translated into actions, and once that has happened they become a matter of public concern. I am not likely to be happy, for instance, if someone responsible for leading me through the woods believes that fairies will come to help him if he gets lost. I would prefer that my political leaders not believe similarly insane things. @> >@> it's no better or worse than another sin since a sin is a sin is a @> sin. @> >@> there were different punishments for different sins, but i think that @> >@> may have been more deterrent than a measure of how bad they were. @> > @> >So... it's your interpretation that that's the case? Even though the @> Bible @> >contains evidence to the contrary? Interesting. @> @> easy, this is just a discussion. it is my interpretation but i'm not so @> arrogant as to believe i can't be wrong. instead of belittling my view, @> challenge it. what evidence are you talking about? Heh. I wasn't mocking you. Just pointing out an inconsistency in your argument. Again, once one starts interpreting the Bible, the "everything in the Bible is true" argument gets chucked right out the window. As for the evidence, I'm talking about your own statement. You said that sins are punished differently, but you believe that they're the same anyway. So why would things that are the same merit different levels of punishment? But there's more than that; the entire book of Leviticus specifically deals with two types of sin: moral failing and ceremonial uncleanliness. It then subdivides each by severity. That suggests that there are, in fact, different kinds of sin. Assuming you think there's anything to Leviticus, anyway.