Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

I am surprised...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

    Nope, just your average conservative church.
    Sure doesn't sound like any average conservative church I've ever been a part of.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • For anyone who might be interested on the Hebrew bible and "homosexuality"

      From Joel Baden's The Historical David. 2013, Harper Collins p.73

      Many scholars have raised the possibility that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship. Certainly the Bible comes close to saying so. Over and over we are told that Jonathan loved David. And while frequently the word “love” in the Bible and the rest of the ancient Near East has a nonromantic meaning of “covenant loyalty”—this is probably what it means when it says that Saul loved David, for example—the use of the word in the case of Jonathan seems to go beyond that. Jonathan does not just “love” David: “Jonathan’s soul became bound up with the soul of David” (1 Sam. 18:1). Jonathan “delighted greatly in David” (19:1)—the same Hebrew word used in Genesis to describe Shechem’s desire for Jacob’s daughter Dinah (Gen. 34:19). When Jonathan dies, David laments for him in these words: “More wonderful was your love for me than the love of women" (2 Sam. 1:26).

      The comparison to the love of women can hardly have a political connotation; this is as close to an expression of romantic attachment between two men as we find in the Bible. There is nothing historically objectionable about the idea that David and Jonathan were lovers. We need not suppose that David was gay, in our modern understanding.

      It is clear enough that were we to apply such contemporary labels, we would be more justified in calling him bisexual, considering his multiple marriages and explicitly sexual attraction to Bathsheba. But any such terms—homosexual, bisexual—are inappropriate when describing people in the ancient world. Sexuality as we understand it today is a social construct, a category imposed on people to define them within a larger cultural system. No such categories or constructs existed in the ancient world. There was no notion of a person being “gay” or “straight.” People engaged in heterosexual or homosexual acts in various degrees. Much of the time these were, by the standards of their contemporary societies, entirely unobjectionable—consider the famous example of Alexander the Great. Even the Hebrew Bible, despite what many people think, has virtually nothing to say on the matter—only two verses in Leviticus, from the hand of a priestly author with a particular agenda who did not speak for the entirety of ancient Israelite culture. If David and Jonathan were lovers, there is no indication that anyone at the time would have batted an eye over it, much less been morally outraged—certainly the Bible seems to be unbothered by its own hints in that direction.


      "It ain't necessarily so
      The things that you're liable
      To read in the Bible
      It ain't necessarily so
      ."

      Sportin' Life
      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

        uh no. Homosexuality is condemned in multiple places in the NT also, and it falls under "sexual immorality" not "ritual purity" - it is a moral code.
        We are discussing old Testament ritual purity. The term for ritually impure used for food, clothing, etc., is the exact same one used in the OT for homosexuality.

        NT is a different issue and leftbto various interpretations on when there it actually talks about homosexuality itself.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

          The interpretation does not rest on that one word.
          Yes, I am yet again aware of the gymnastics you and other christians do to make it make sense to your chosen personal morality and worldview.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
            ...]Many scholars have raised the possibility that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship.
            Absolute rubbish. It's liberal scholars reading into the text what simply isn't there.
            That's what
            - She

            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
            - Stephen R. Donaldson

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              That the same word is used in general to describe something does not mean that it is the same thing.

              I'll bet if you try you can come up with a half dozen examples of just that sort of thing.
              It does, in fact, in this case. Homosexuality was seen as a ritual uncleanness.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                Homosexuality cannot be "condemned in multiple places in the NT" as the term was not coined until the nineteenth century [and by yet another German]! Paul's views on prostitution and what he considered to be sexual immorality are more complex.
                Not some of your better work.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                  Answered before, but the law has not passed. It still exists, and we can still study and learn from it, but we are no longer bound by it since we are under a New Covenant through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
                  So then - There are two conditions, only one of which must be met. And the New Covenant could not apply while the Old remained in force. And note - the law is an integral part of the provisions of the covenant.
                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                    Yes, I am yet again aware of the gymnastics you and other Christians do to make it make sense to your chosen personal morality and worldview.
                    It's been the unified view of the church for just shy of 2000 years.
                    That's what
                    - She

                    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                    - Stephen R. Donaldson

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post

                      Absolute rubbish. It's liberal scholars reading into the text what simply isn't there.
                      The same type of people have tried to bring homosexuality into the relationship that Jesus had with His disciples, John in particular.

                      Absolute rubbish, and the latter is pure blasphemy.


                      Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post

                        It's been the unified view of the church for just shy of 2000 years.
                        There is no "the church". "The church" consists of countless denominations, many of whom do not consider one another part of "the church" because they disagree on innumerable points.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
                          We are discussing old Testament ritual purity. The term for ritually impure used for food, clothing, etc., is the exact same one used in the OT for homosexuality.

                          NT is a different issue and leftbto various interpretations on when there it actually talks about homosexuality itself.


                          Leviticus 18:22
                          You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

                          Leviticus 20:13 If there is a man who sleeps with a male as those who sleep with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they must be put to death. They have brought their own deaths upon themselves.

                          Seems pretty clear cut to me. It's a sexual act that is condemned. Meaning it is immoral.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                            There is no "the church". "The church" consists of countless denominations, many of whom do not consider one another part of "the church" because they disagree on innumerable points.
                            There is a "the church". There also have been heretics trying to claim either to be part of, a restoration of, or THE church itself. There are several core doctrines that unite us and separate them. Has been that way for 2000 years.
                            That's what
                            - She

                            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                            - Stephen R. Donaldson

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post



                              Leviticus 18:22
                              You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

                              Leviticus 20:13 If there is a man who sleeps with a male as those who sleep with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they must be put to death. They have brought their own deaths upon themselves.

                              Seems pretty clear cut to me. It's a sexual act that is condemned. Meaning it is immoral.
                              But it don't say "homosexuality", Bucko!!!! In English OR German.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post



                                Leviticus 18:22
                                You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

                                Leviticus 20:13 If there is a man who sleeps with a male as those who sleep with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they must be put to death. They have brought their own deaths upon themselves.

                                Seems pretty clear cut to me. It's a sexual act that is condemned. Meaning it is immoral.
                                I just started reading a piece regarding those two passages, The Meaning and Continuing Relevance of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in which the author, right before getting into the "The Larger Context of these Proscriptions," mentions how some are trying to...

                                reinterpret these texts by saying that they 1) refer to a pagan practice of temple prostitution, and thus condemn idolatry, not immorality, or they 2) are part of the Levitical Holiness Code which provisionally applied to the nation of Israel, but no longer to Christians or the church. In other words, there is nothing intrinsically sinful about homosexual practice, instead it was wrong only under certain conditions.





                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                165 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                383 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X