SCOTUS Rules 5-4 for Gay Marriage

[mossrose]

What is noteworthy is that it’s very rude to say that about people you do not know. Christianity may well be the rudest religion on the planet.

Rude? At least we aren't chopping off your head if you don't believe as we do!

Good grief! Do you even read what you write? If so, how do you do it with a straight face!

[Christianbookworm]

Rude? At least we aren't chopping off your head if you don't believe as we do!

Good grief! Do you even read what you write? If so, how do you do it with a straight face!

Wait... rudeness>homicide????? Something don't add up...

[RumTumTugger]

Wait... rudeness>homicide????? Something don't add up...

CBW FF is a troll harmless but a troll nonetheless he is not to be taken seriously just laughed at for his stupid comments.

[Christianbookworm]

CBW FF is a troll harmless but a troll nonetheless he is not to be taken seriously

I know. It was still a stupid comment!

[RumTumTugger]

What is noteworthy is that it’s very rude to say that about people you do not know. Christianity may well be the rudest religion on the planet.

I will take that as a badge of honor FF for my Lord was called worse and I am but following him in telling the Good news that your Sin does not have to separate you from God there is a way and it is accepting the free Gift God Lovingly offers through Jesus's death on the cross for our sins. You can dishonestly call us names but that does not change the TRUTH we are showing God's Love in sharing the Good News.

[firstfloor]

Wait... rudeness>homicide?????

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slackti...e-and-exclude/

This is one reason why, as far as influence is concerned, setting an example by admirable deeds is far more powerful than pronouncing two-a-penny ridiculous faith claims.

[Cow Poke]

But what you seem unable to comprehend along with others who claim religious certainty is that, in your analogy, other people are not drowning but waving.

Because they don't understand their peril.

It comes over as extremely and offensively arrogant.

Because they are blinded by the god of this world, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

[Cow Poke]

What is noteworthy is that it’s very rude to say that about people you do not know. Christianity may well be the rudest religion on the planet.

Yeah, cause we go around sawing the heads off of people, burning them alive, and drowning them in cages.



oh, WAIT -- that's 'the religion of peace' that does that!

[Cow Poke]

Is this the same guy who advocates killing children? THAT isn't kinda sorta rude?

[Starlight]

When David did that, and when he did his census... he was punished by God both times. The text is honest about David's shortcomings but it doesn't show him getting off scot free when he does sin.

On the contrary. The text depicts David doing a loooot of things that modern Christians would regard as sinful. Various war crimes, oathbreaking, etc. He is almost never condemned for it. For the most part that's probably just due to different moral standards at the time: Neither David nor the writer regarded what he was doing as sinful.

I seriously doubt the author would just put a casual reference to him engaging in homosexual behavior and just move on.

Homosexual behavior was widely accepted in the ancient world. I don't think David, nor the writer of Samuel saw anything wrong with it.

You're presuming that David and/or the writer of Samuel were familiar with and accepted (your interpretation of) the Levitical passages on the subject. However, scholars tend to date the composition of Leviticus (as we have it now, at anyrate) later than when David lived. So at the time David lived, what would later become the anti-gay passages of Leviticus might have been sitting in a scroll in a priests' library somewhere gathering dust, and known to no one. Scholars also think that Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomaic history of which the book of Samuel is a part of, were produced by a group of prophets who were in religious opposition to the group of priests who produced Leviticus. The law codes in Deuteronomy contains no generic condemnation of homosexuality - they are quite specific to condemning only the forms of it used in foreign religious worship. So there is every reason to think that the writer of Samuel didn't hold the view that homosexuality itself was wrong.

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014....SRTJy3AR.dpuf

That's not a bad source. Although it is amusing that after surveying the evidence the author leaps to the conclusion that he does in a way that doesn't seem overly warranted.

I admit that any attempt to ever say what proportion of scholars hold to any particular view is quite subjective. However I note that you link cites 5 scholars who think that the passage is not homosexual, 7 that do, and 1 who is neutral. He cites Kinsey's 1948 work as the initial turning point, which is okay in a sense I guess. However it wasn't really until the late 80s that a flood of scholars began to take the idea seriously... the number of works published in the last 30 years or so in which the writers take the view that the bible here depicts a homosexual relationship, have exploded.

I find this site one of the most useful for pretty thorough literature reviews on the subject. His surveys of the evidence tend to be fairly comprehensive.

[RumTumTugger]

Is this the same guy who advocates killing children? THAT isn't kinda sorta rude?

no it was starlight

[Cow Poke]

no it was starlight

Ah... they often seem so much alike.

Nevertheless - my apologies to FF.

[Mountain Man]

Homosexual behavior was widely accepted in the ancient world.

It may have been, probably in the same way that child sacrifices and bestiality were "widely accepted". Maybe that's why God's condemnation of these practices was harsh and unambiguous.

...scholars tend to date the composition of Leviticus (as we have it now, at anyrate) later than when David lived.

Which "scholars"?

[shunyadragon]

Which "scholars"?

I believe that Leviticus is composite compiled post-exile unknown authors like most of the Pentateuch with some possible sources pre-exile.

Source: http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/leviticus.html

Roland J. Faley writes: "In its present form, Lv is post-exilic, the work of the Priestly school during the period of cultic reorganization after the Exile's termination (538). The Holiness Code, which had taken on some additions during the Exile, was once more re-edited and became the nucleus of Lv. To it were added the sacrificial code (chs. 1-7), the ordination rite (chs. 8-10), and the legal purity code (chs. 11-16). Chapter 27, dealing with the commutation of vows, comes from a still later edition. The purpose of Lv was to supply directives on all aspects of religious observance for the post-exilic community, especially as they related to the Temple liturgy." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, p. 67)

John H. Hayes writes: "The book of Leviticus itself now contains twelve major sections with each section marked off by a summarizing statement. These major summary statements appear in 7:37-38; 10:20; 11:46-47; 12:7b-8; 14:54-57; 15:32-33; 16:34b; 21:24; 23:44; 24:23b; 26:46; and 27:34. (Some sections also have minor internal summaries; see 13:59; 14:32). This division into twelve sections no doubt reflects the use of twelve as a symbolic number both indicating completeness and pointing to the twelve tribes of Israel. Before this material was edited into its final form, some of the twelve sections may have existed as separate and independent collections. For example, chaps. 1-7 or a shorter version of this material could have constituted a document serving as a small handbook on sacrifice." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 157)

Jay G. Williams writes: "Documentary critics, recognizing the preponderant interest in cultic matters in Leviticus, have assigned virtually the whole of the book to the P source and thus have dated it in the exilic or post-exilic period. If one means by this that the book took final shape at this time, such dating can be accepted. Certainly Chapter 26 bears evidence of post-exilic authorship, for it alludes to the captivity of the people and the desolation of the land. (26:27ff) It must also be recognized, however, that like the other books of the Torah which also were put in final form at a fairly late date, Leviticus is based upon much older material which may have been edited during or after the exile but which surely was in use long before the fall of Jerusalem. Leviticus must be seen, not as the creation of a particular age, but as the final form of a tradition which developed over the centuries. Within its pages we can find not only hints of post-exilic times but very ancient descriptions of rites and customs." (Understanding the Old Testament, pp. 116-117)

© Copyright Original Source

[Mountain Man]

I believe that Leviticus is composite compiled post-exile unknown authors like most of the Pentateuch with some possible sources pre-exile.

Source: http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/leviticus.html

Roland J. Faley writes: "In its present form, Lv is post-exilic, the work of the Priestly school during the period of cultic reorganization after the Exile's termination (538). The Holiness Code, which had taken on some additions during the Exile, was once more re-edited and became the nucleus of Lv. To it were added the sacrificial code (chs. 1-7), the ordination rite (chs. 8-10), and the legal purity code (chs. 11-16). Chapter 27, dealing with the commutation of vows, comes from a still later edition. The purpose of Lv was to supply directives on all aspects of religious observance for the post-exilic community, especially as they related to the Temple liturgy." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, p. 67)

John H. Hayes writes: "The book of Leviticus itself now contains twelve major sections with each section marked off by a summarizing statement. These major summary statements appear in 7:37-38; 10:20; 11:46-47; 12:7b-8; 14:54-57; 15:32-33; 16:34b; 21:24; 23:44; 24:23b; 26:46; and 27:34. (Some sections also have minor internal summaries; see 13:59; 14:32). This division into twelve sections no doubt reflects the use of twelve as a symbolic number both indicating completeness and pointing to the twelve tribes of Israel. Before this material was edited into its final form, some of the twelve sections may have existed as separate and independent collections. For example, chaps. 1-7 or a shorter version of this material could have constituted a document serving as a small handbook on sacrifice." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 157)

Jay G. Williams writes: "Documentary critics, recognizing the preponderant interest in cultic matters in Leviticus, have assigned virtually the whole of the book to the P source and thus have dated it in the exilic or post-exilic period. If one means by this that the book took final shape at this time, such dating can be accepted. Certainly Chapter 26 bears evidence of post-exilic authorship, for it alludes to the captivity of the people and the desolation of the land. (26:27ff) It must also be recognized, however, that like the other books of the Torah which also were put in final form at a fairly late date, Leviticus is based upon much older material which may have been edited during or after the exile but which surely was in use long before the fall of Jerusalem. Leviticus must be seen, not as the creation of a particular age, but as the final form of a tradition which developed over the centuries. Within its pages we can find not only hints of post-exilic times but very ancient descriptions of rites and customs." (Understanding the Old Testament, pp. 116-117)

© Copyright Original Source

That doesn't actually support Dimbulb's assertions.