You missed a word. "Ignorant." Or maybe "uninformed."
Well, you're half right. I don't hate gays, but I feel I need to set the record straight. It's a shame you guys get [Ignorant and uninformed] when someone states an opposing view.
Hating is not bad. Bad is to use power to punish those who's views you do not agree with...
RamFel has guts to speak his mind in the face of "political correctness".
Here comes a meaningless flurry of "bigot, hater, etc".
You missed a word. "Ignorant." Or maybe "uninformed."
Hey, I'm not the one saying it's OK to be gay. Why don't you go after those "gay is OK" rumor spreaders?
Well, you're half right. I don't hate gays, but I feel I need to set the record straight. It's a shame you guys get combative when someone states an opposing view.
Now God didn't create Adam and Eve, then think to himself 'hmmm, something's missing", then snap his fingers, "I know! Gays! I'll create gays!"
Then proclaim to the gays, "go forth and find other men, to couple with them", as if he were thinking "go forth, but don't multiply"!
Now, you know my view on why it's unnatural.
The procreation argument.
But let me put it another way. Let's look at it from another angle.
If homosexuality is natural, then no father should fear the possibility that their son will be gay. Yet fathers do!
When expectant couples talk about the baby that's coming, and talk about what they want (boy or girl), they don't say that they want a gay child. No, they want a normal healthy boy or girl. Are they guilty of hatred against gays?
And if, as you claim, being gay is natural and normal, then I should be able to tell some dude that I think he's gay without getting my lights punched out, right? I mean, it's natural, right?
So does that make the common person a hateful homophobe? No. They just don't really believe it's natural. They're just not really really believing!
I think you just want everybody to accept something that they can't. It goes against a deeply rooted belief that it's just wrong.
RamFel has guts to speak his mind in the face of "political correctness".
Here comes a meaningless flurry of "bigot, hater, etc".
Don't you know it.
This was not the case even 50 years ago. You are also trying to say the states interest in the majority is the same for a minority OF a minority. Less than 4% to 10% as compared to 50% of 90%. DO the math.
I don't have to prove any absolute or causation as the "raw" numbers tell the story.
I disagree, I think your argument is.
Most is not an entire group now is it? This does not change the fact that most applied to this thread is accurate. Do I need to list names?
Do we need to pull out a law dictionary to show the difference between "most" and "all?" We have a word for that as well.
My statement was completely accurate.
Read my reply. I am not going to retype a post that you linked to. Just follow it back and don't jump to inaccurate conclusions.
Yes you mite be wrong and yet you state it as fact?
I was not interpreting God, I was stating what the Bible says, bluntly.
I never said you were...
If you call yourself a Christian, you should know the holy book your religion is based on.
In Leviticus 18:22, it is written: "And you shall not cohabit with a male as one cohabits with a woman; it is an abomination." I don't see any mention of prostitution?
And in Leviticus 20:13, it is written: "And if a man cohabits with a male as with a woman, both of them have done an abominable thing; they shall be put to death; their blood falls back upon them." Again no prostitution?
OK so you would rather misrepresent what I said to fit in better with your wrong reply, OK.
No I am not saying "faith" is logical.
So again faith can be logical. This is not saying faith IS logic as they are polar opposites. This does not mean that one cannot be grounded in the other as I said and showed an example.
And you need to read what I said in context before jumping to conclusions. Hell ask for a clarification at least.
Wrong. The two of you, generally, do not argue this from an ignorant position. Your positions have some merit, are religiously based, for the most part and, in general, do not spread misinformation. You both tend to debate honestly. Not one of those characteristics apply to RamFel's postings.
You're fair and I respect you for it.
If I must try to debate this from a scientific view, I'll first gather a ton of scientific arguments against it. Though, scientifically, we cannot prove morality either right or wrong with science. Even if I were to make a strong scientific argument, that I created with effort, I think it would be totally disregarded because science doesn't prove, and people won't care.
I thought you were all about the logic. It seems that you have conceded that your stance is based on emotion, which doesn't lend itself to empirical data.
I am not certain how this would be considered emotional rather than logical?
There are so many errors in the interpretation of these passages. One has to understand the section of the Torah that they were taken, what the context was, and the translations of the actual words. These passages cannot stand by themselves and mean what they were supposed to mean.
Here are the passages:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
"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."
The section of the Torah that this was taken from refers to codes of holiness and purity. It describes ways that God wants the Hebrews to be different from the Pagans. The passages that surround these two include passages about bestiality and incest, other unclean/unholy acts that were performed by Pagans. Now, we must first look at the word "abomination". This is taken from the Hebrew word "to'ebah". The actual translation of this is NOT abomination, but ritually unclean, something that fits perfectly with the codes of that section of the Bible. So, we now have it not an abomination, but just something that is ritually unclean.
Next, since this passage is included in the codes of holiness section, it refers to acts that Pagans do, that God wants the Hebrews to separate from. One of these acts is engaging in anal sex with male prostitutes. Now, even if we look at the issue, globally, Hebrew translations refer to anal sex acts; no mention of homosexual orientation or homosexual relationships are mentioned. At all.
Now, moving on to the actual words. Since Hebrews believed that the Torah was spoken directly to Moses from God, one must wonder why the passage reads like this:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." If God was saying something against homosexuality in men, He would have just said this: ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind: it is abomination." Why the "as womankind" part? Think about it. A man should not lie with another man as if HE were a woman. Sexuality in the Torah is always presented as male dominant/female subservient. Hebrew scholars see this as meaning that if men have sexual relations, NEITHER shall be passive ("as womankind"). Also, since this was a norm of the time, this does not apply to today, anyway.
So, what can we conclude from the actual Hebrew interpretations and the context of what was being discussed? Firstly, the entire section refers to holiness codes, separating the Hebrews from the Pagans. Secondly, the word "abomination" is not accurate; ritually unclean IS accurate. This eliminates any punishment. Thirdly, only anal sex, probably in the context of male prostitutes is prohibited; homosexual orientation has no mention and has no such prohibitions. Fourthly, IF homosexual behavior does occur, neither man can be the passive (woman) in the relationship. Fifthly, this only applies to ancient Hebrews. Sixthly, lesbian relationships are not mentioned at all and, therefore have no prohibitions.
Now, there is MORE evidence that the prostitution theory holds water. Leviticus 18:3 says this: "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances." God is saying that the Hebrews are NOT to behave like the Pagans (Canaanites and Egyptians). In both cultures, ritual gay sex with male prostitutes was common.
So, in conclusion, MY religion interprets these Biblical passages very differently than yours. MY religion sees nothing wrong with homosexuality based on the context of the passages, the cultures of the times, and the actual translations of the words. Based on these passages, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits the gay sexual orientation, nor SSM.
Your "clear tenets" are nothing of the sort.
But, lets be honest, homosexuality is unnatural..
A man having 6 toes per foot has an "un-natural" attribute as well.
Irrelevant. It is now. That state's interest is in an institution, no individual behavior.
As do my raw numbers in regards to heterosexual relationships.
And you'd be wrong about that.
Name names. I reject your position on this as incorrect.
I read it as I read it. If I read it wrong, I am requesting that you re-explain it. Your choice whether you do or not.
It's what I observe.
Nope. You were interpretting. I posted the interpretation that my religion uses. Your interpretation is no more accurate than mine.
So this statement was the "general" we?
There are so many errors in the interpretation of these passages. One has to understand the section of the Torah that they were taken, what the context was, and the translations of the actual words. These passages cannot stand by themselves and mean what they were supposed to mean.
Here are the passages:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
"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."
The section of the Torah that this was taken from refers to codes of holiness and purity. It describes ways that God wants the Hebrews to be different from the Pagans. The passages that surround these two include passages about bestiality and incest, other unclean/unholy acts that were performed by Pagans. Now, we must first look at the word "abomination". This is taken from the Hebrew word "to'ebah". The actual translation of this is NOT abomination, but ritually unclean, something that fits perfectly with the codes of that section of the Bible. So, we now have it not an abomination, but just something that is ritually unclean. [color-red]<---- is ranked up there with incest and bestiality? OK so having sex with sheep is the same as having anal sex with men, got it.[/color]
Next, since this passage is included in the codes of holiness section, it refers to acts that Pagans do, that God wants the Hebrews to separate from. One of these acts is engaging in anal sex with male prostitutes. Now, even if we look at the issue, globally, Hebrew translations refer to anal sex acts; no mention of homosexual orientation or homosexual relationships are mentioned. At all.<---They had no word for homosexuality, but we get the idea.
Now, moving on to the actual words. Since Hebrews believed that the Torah was spoken directly to Moses from God, one must wonder why the passage reads like this:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." If God was saying something against homosexuality in men, He would have just said this: ""Thou shalt not lie with mankind: it is abomination." Why the "as womankind" part? Think about it. A man should not lie with another man as if HE were a woman. Sexuality in the Torah is always presented as male dominant/female subservient. Hebrew scholars see this as meaning that if men have sexual relations, NEITHER shall be passive ("as womankind"). Also, since this was a norm of the time, this does not apply to today, anyway.
So, what can we conclude from the actual Hebrew interpretations and the context of what was being discussed? Firstly, the entire section refers to holiness codes, separating the Hebrews from the Pagans. Secondly, the word "abomination" is not accurate; ritually unclean IS accurate. s eliminates any punishment.<---Those that were in Sodom and Gamorah mite disagree.Thirdly, only anal sex, probably<---This 1 word sums that up well in the context of male prostitutes is prohibited; homosexual orientation has no mention and has no such prohibitions. Fourthly, IF homosexual behavior does occur, neither man can be the passive (woman) in the relationship. Fifthly, this only applies to ancient Hebrews. Sixthly, lesbian relationships are not mentioned at all and, therefore have no prohibitions.<---No question it applies only to the ancient Hebrews. It does support the NT and it's own prohibitions on homosexuality.
Now, there is MORE evidence that the prostitution theory holds water. Leviticus 18:3 says this: "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances." God is saying that the Hebrews are NOT to behave like the Pagans (Canaanites and Egyptians). In both cultures, ritual gay sex with male prostitutes was common.
So, in conclusion, MY religion interprets these Biblical passages very differently than yours. MY religion sees nothing wrong with homosexuality based on the context of the passages, the cultures of the times, and the actual translations of the words. Based on these passages, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits the gay sexual orientation, nor SSM.
Your "clear tenets" are nothing of the sort.
In the Hebrew Bible... the Torah, the translation refers to anal sex.. NOT homosexuality. Nothing about homosexual orientation is mentioned... only this one particular behavior. Now, we know that sexual behavior and sexual orientation are two very different things. Further, one must understand that this section of Leviticus refers to holiness/purity codes, codes that were to separate the Hebrews from Pagans. Pagan priests, at the time, practiced anal intercourse. It was included in the section that also included incest and bestiality
Nope. I dismiss the irrelevant and only address what you got wrong.
Your example was personal and not global and therefore is not relevant to proving anything... except to you.
Which is what I did and what you did.
What most folks don’t understand or appreciate, is that the Hebrew language is built on stem and root words. This allows many words to have multiple meanings. If you speak Hebrew, you come to realize that every time you read Torah, you notice new nuances in the passages. This is its brilliance. Torah is not static as it seems to be in English translations but rather, the Hebrew words flow in many different directions like water rivulets down a hill.Thank you for that. Thank you so much. I've often wondered what a Jewish interpretation of those passages would look like. The literalism of so many Christian scholars basing their interpretations of specific words, usually from the KJV, has always made me think, "Well, is that what 'abomination' really means in terms of a direct translation of the Hebrew?"
Yours has been the best post on this entire subject that I've read on DP. Thanks again.
What most folks don’t understand or appreciate, is that the Hebrew language is built on stem and root words. This allows many words to have multiple meanings. If you speak Hebrew, you come to realize that every time you read Torah, you notice new nuances in the passages. This is its brilliance.
It's not an appeal to nature when someone clearly states they define natural as something existing in nature and thus you show them that it occurs in nature. Learn what a fallacy is before you try throwing it out as if it has weight