View Full Version : Elton John: Religion Promotes 'Hatred and Spite' Against Gays
Prince of the Poodles
11-12-2006, 00:01
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228860,00.html
"I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people," John said in the Observer newspaper's Music Monthly Magazine. "Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays."
He is completely correct.
I dont know about the founding teachings of Islam, Bhudism, or Hinduism, but I do not know of any time Jesus taught that it was ok to treat gays the way many Christians do, or to even label it sin.
Of course there are the old testament passages, but it is my understanding Jesus did not agree with a lot of the things taught in the old testament. In fact, was not the old testament included in the bible just to document the foretelling of the coming of Jesus? Isaiah ascending to the clouds on a chariot or something... its been a long time since religion class...
Anyway, what are your opinions?
Crazed Rabbit
11-12-2006, 00:21
I think those using Christianity as an excuse to hate gays are in the wrong.
Some might say they are sinful, as are many people and actions, but that is different from hating them. Has religion led to more people hating gays? I think people like Fred Phelps just use and distort Christianity to justify their hate.
Unfortunately, some people forget the importance of love.
Crazed Rabbit
The bible speaks of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and of them being destroyed by fire and brimstone due to the homosexual activities, sins and general depravities occuring there. This is probably where the anti gay sentiment comes from, at least partially anyway.
Actually, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is not named, and is the subject of debate. Big misconception people have about that passage.
The people of S&G perform two sinful actions in the passage: They demand that the visitors (angels) be brought out and "known" (likely meaning "raped"). Lot refuses and offers his virgins as mob rape meat, but the crowd refuses. Needless to say, things end badly for the crowd.
Anyway, there are two primary sins shown: Desire to rape a stranger, and cruelty toward visitors. And it's not even really clear that these are the sins for which S&G perish.
The only clear reference to homosexuality in the Bible is in Leviticus, right next to the rules about keeping menstruating women in a tent and killing people who collect sticks on the Sabbath.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-12-2006, 01:04
Actually Caravel, God fire-bombed Sodom and Gomorrah.
http://www.chick.com/tractimages29692/1052/1052_15.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages29692/1052/1052_16.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages29692/1052/1052_17.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages29692/1052/1052_18.gif
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1052/1052_01.asp
I think those using Christianity as an excuse to hate gays are in the wrong.
Some might say they are sinful, as are many people and actions, but that is different from hating them. Has religion led to more people hating gays? I think people like Fred Phelps just use and distort Christianity to justify their hate.
Unfortunately, some people forget the importance of love.
Crazed Rabbit
I agree.
Personally, I can not understand gays, neither am I used to them or their sight and might never get used to it, but I do not hate them.
I don't even think it is right and it may be a sin, I am not sure about that, but hate is something entirely different and doesn't really have a justification anywhere for reasons already given.
edit: Sasaki, that comic is partly wrong on the story, because the angels didn't blind them IIRC and one could say it's meant to spread hatred, but Jesus said that men should leave the judgement to God and not judge people themselves.
I thought it was something like that. As usual it is how the church chooses to interpret the bible to fit it's own agenda that is the problem. So really the problem isn't religion, but certain religious institutions as always.
Crazed Rabbit
11-12-2006, 01:46
I hate chick tracts. They are a lesser version of fred phelps.
(Also, they hate Catholicism)
CR
CrossLOPER
11-12-2006, 02:09
I dont know about the founding teachings of Islam, Bhudism, or Hinduism, but I do not know of any time Jesus taught that it was ok to treat gays the way many Christians do, or to even label it sin.
Mind you, though Christianity places much emphasis on the teachings of Jesus, those teachings are not the only ones in the Bible. There's also the part about public stonings and stuff, but those are related more to criminal activity and not necessarily sins.
IRONxMortlock
11-12-2006, 02:09
Bhudism doesn't have anything against homosexuality as far as I know. In all the Bhudist countries I've visited the people seem openly tolerant towards gays.
Unfortunately, some people forget the importance of love.
Exactly, this should be applied across the board on every issue. We will make a much better world with love than with fear and hate.
Byzantine Prince
11-12-2006, 02:10
I don't give a crap what celebrities think
Byzantine Prince
11-12-2006, 02:13
The only clear reference to homosexuality in the Bible is in Leviticus, right next to the rules about keeping menstruating women in a tent and killing people who collect sticks on the Sabbath.
I loled. :laugh4:
Crazed Rabbit
11-12-2006, 02:26
Of course, Elton said "From my point of view I would ban religion completely," so he's not exactly the most tolerant.
CR
Prince of the Poodles
11-12-2006, 02:56
Yea Elton almost constantly makes an ass of himself. Hes got a point though.
Actually Caravel, God fire-bombed Sodom and Gomorrah.
http://www.chick.com/tractimages29692/1052/1052_15.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages29692/1052/1052_16.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages29692/1052/1052_17.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages29692/1052/1052_18.gif
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1052/1052_01.asp
~:mecry:
right next to the rules about keeping menstruating women in a tent
Very wise words.
:smash:
AntiochusIII
11-12-2006, 03:14
I could never figure out if that stupid website is a satire or the real thing. So I don't know if I should be mildly amused at the attempted humor or outraged that anyone could have a thing against Bruno.
Jesus.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-12-2006, 03:16
Real thing.
AntiochusIII
11-12-2006, 03:22
Real thing.Ah, that confirms my suspicion then.
That these people are so terrible at what they do that I'm wondering if little Susy is meant to be some sort of BS little scaremonger poster girl of the Great Evangelions* or a satirical tool against that very same Great Evangelions.
*:tongue:
Sasaki Kojiro
11-12-2006, 03:23
I could never figure out if that stupid website is a satire or the real thing. So I don't know if I should be mildly amused at the attempted humor or outraged that anyone could have a thing against Bruno.
Jesus.
Oh, and on that note, here's a video where Bruno interviews Pastor Quin (the gay converter!!):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teVqE5xx8aQ
Too funny.
Just to be crystal clear (http://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-bible-text/Ge-19.html) about Sodom and Gomorrah (I hate it when people put things in that aren't there):
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: [a mob gathers] And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. [bring out those handsome guests and let us rape them] And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. [Lot says, "Hey, not my guests, but check out these two hot daughters of mine] And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. [Mob gets violent and pushes on the door] But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door. [angels blind the crowd]
Previous to this passage, all we know is that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah had "sinned," and that the sin was "grievous." That's it, that's all we've got on them.
Lot's daughters, on the other hand, are positively kinky (http://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-bible-text/Ge-19.html):
He dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. [let's get dad drunk so we can make babies with him] And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. [Lot did the nasty with his girl while drunk] And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. [older says to younger: I did it, you should too] And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. [same deal: get dad drunk and do the nasty] Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
Nobody ever pays attention to the kinky incest at the end of the Sodom and Gomorrah story. Their loss.
Zalmoxis
11-12-2006, 06:59
Actually Caravel, God fire-bombed Sodom and Gomorrah.
http://www.chick.com/tractimages29692/1052/1052_15.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages29692/1052/1052_16.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages29692/1052/1052_17.gif
http://www.chick.com/tractimages29692/1052/1052_18.gif
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1052/1052_01.asp
Do those people really take themselves seriously? I'm laughing and crying and I'm sure there are no words to describe how ridiculous that website is.
Ser Clegane
11-12-2006, 08:14
I hate chick tracts.
Don't say anything bad about chick tracts :stare:
I love'em :snobby:
Seriously, I laugh tears when I read them - but unfortunately it is too easy to forget that these are meant serious and that they are by no means representtative for the views of religeous poeple in general and Christians in specific.
Samurai Waki
11-12-2006, 08:16
Jesus sums up my view on homosexuals pretty well, and clearly.
In Romans he was asked which two of the ten commandments are the most important, and basically Jesus replied "Love God. Love each other. And the rest of the commandments fall into place."
Now mind you, this isn't word for word in the Bible, but I couldn't find the right reference...
Banquo's Ghost
11-12-2006, 10:16
Y'know, if Lemur had led my Bible Study classes, I would have paid a lot more attention.
:laugh4:
doc_bean
11-12-2006, 11:52
I read the title and immediately thought: so does Elton John.
EDIT: also the S&G stories are messed up, who offers his daughters to an angry mob ?
Banquo's Ghost
11-12-2006, 14:32
EDIT: also the S&G stories are messed up, who offers his daughters to an angry mob ?
The kind of father beloved of God, apparently.
Kralizec
11-12-2006, 15:47
The Old Testament is full of bizarre stuff. Nobody today would claim that God would approve of incest or genocide, or at least I hope not :inquisitive:
Seamus Fermanagh
11-12-2006, 16:14
Jesus sums up my view on homosexuals pretty well, and clearly.
In Romans he was asked which two of the ten commandments are the most important, and basically Jesus replied "Love God. Love each other. And the rest of the commandments fall into place."
Now mind you, this isn't word for word in the Bible, but I couldn't find the right reference...
"and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with they whole mind, and with thy whole strength. This is the frist commandment. And the second is like it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
-- St. Mark 12:30-31
Similar passages appear in St. Matthew 22:37-40 and St. Luke 10: 27-28, and are thought of collectively as "The Great Commandment."
The Old Testament is full of bizarre stuff.
I must confess, that's why it's my personal favorite. I know, I know, the New Testament has all of the really useful stuff about conducting yourself with love and humility. But the OT has all of the freaky-deaky passages.
I would argue that the Orgahs who believe that the New Testament shifts the focus from law to love are absolutely correct. In the lemur's interpretation, Jesus swept away the literalism and legalism that had calcified Judaism, and replaced them with love, mystery and humility.
Donations can be sent to the First Church of Lemurs (http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_jones.htm).
Adrian II
11-12-2006, 18:31
Religion is the favourite vehicle of drunk drivers the world over.
It has been invoked to justify a wide range of aberrant views and practices including political extremism, social ostracism and anti-scientism. Besides, most religions have incorporated much older elements inherited from the cultures that preceded their rise.
Islam for instance is used to justify pre-Islamic or locally developed customs even though these are not explicitly covered by the Quran. A well-known example is female circumcision.
One need only look at the difference between, say, Mexican Catholicism and Scottish Presbyterianism in order to see that Christianity, too, has incorporated a lot of local and often pre-Christian traditions.
Homophobia has been a feature of most pre-modern cultures. Vedic India was a notable exception. It has been incorporated into most modern religions, some strains of Buddhism being the most notable exception.
In the socially mobile western societies of today, homophobia tends to be a typical affliction of people with little education and low social status, regardless of religion or lack thereof.
Religion is the favourite vehicle of drunk drivers the world over.
It has been invoked to justify a wide range of aberrant views and practices including political extremism, social ostracism and anti-scientism. Besides, most religions have incorporated much older elements inherited from the cultures that preceded their rise.
Islam for instance is used to justify pre-Islamic or locally developed customs even though these are not explicitly covered by the Quran. A well-known example is female circumcision.
One need only look at the difference between, say, Mexican Catholicism and Scottish Presbyterianism in order to see that Christianity, too, has incorporated a lot of local and often pre-Christian traditions.
Homophobia has been a feature of most pre-modern cultures. Vedic India was a notable exception. It has been incorporated into most modern religions, some strains of Buddhism being the most notable exception.
In the socially mobile western societies of today, homophobia tends to be a typical affliction of people with little education and low social status, regardless of religion or lack thereof.
Wise words.
So the obvious extension to Elton John's comments would be to ban people, then there will never be any more silly beliefs.
yesdachi
11-13-2006, 16:48
There are all sorts of reasons I promote hatred and spite for Elton John but being gay is not one of them. ~D
Tachikaze
11-13-2006, 17:56
It would be a better world if people practiced personal spirituality and ignored religious dogma.
It would also be a better world if people put as much effort into ending war as they currently do ending homosexuality.
Mithrandir
11-13-2006, 18:04
It would be a better world if people practiced personal spirituality and ignored religious dogma.
:bow:
Vladimir
11-13-2006, 19:58
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228860,00.html
He is completely correct.
I dont know about the founding teachings of Islam, Bhudism, or Hinduism, but I do not know of any time Jesus taught that it was ok to treat gays the way many Christians do, or to even label it sin.
Of course there are the old testament passages, but it is my understanding Jesus did not agree with a lot of the things taught in the old testament. In fact, was not the old testament included in the bible just to document the foretelling of the coming of Jesus? Isaiah ascending to the clouds on a chariot or something... its been a long time since religion class...
Anyway, what are your opinions?
As a Christian I'm just posting to say I hate you.
Call me: 867-5309 ~:flirt:
Homosexuality is BAD in that it stifles population growth which in the old days means manpower to fill out your armies. That is the practical reason why the homosexuals are bad thing is included in Christianity. There are other social and health concerns as well but I won't get into those. If you take a closer look (IIRC of course), there is nothing against bisexuals or girl on girl action. As far as gays and Islam (the others I don't know about"), look at how they are treated in the more extreme Islamic cultures.
Edit: But who am I, a lowly peasant to argue with a Knight? Gah! I can't stand people that take entertainers so seriously!
Kralizec
11-13-2006, 20:09
there is nothing against... girl on girl action.
Who would claim such a crazy thing :dizzy2:
Ianofsmeg16
11-13-2006, 20:21
People claim to hate gays, then watch Lesbian porno...If it was up to me, it'd be the hypocrites that were going to hell...
Homosexuals aren't people to be hated or ridiculed, if you do that you're no worse than Hitler. As for my opinion, as long as they don't come on to me, what they do in their private time is exactly that private.
yesdachi
11-13-2006, 20:25
As for my opinion, as long as they don't come on to me, what they do in their private time is exactly that private.
But many gays don’t limit their gay to private time and wish to have equality and be treated without ridicule bla bla bla. And that brings about the confrontation with the people that find their gayness disgusting.
People claim to hate gays, then watch Lesbian porno...If it was up to me, it'd be the hypocrites that were going to hell...
.
I think thats a bit unfair, the people who are really against gays (mainly the ones who are religious/brought up to it are against lesbians aswell.... there are some hypocrits though :wall: :2thumbsup:
Devastatin Dave
11-13-2006, 20:47
As MRD would say... "This thread's so gay".
:beam:
Adrian II
11-13-2006, 21:17
Homosexuality is BAD in that it stifles population growth which in the old days means manpower to fill out your armies. That is the practical reason why the homosexuals are bad thing is included in Christianity.Um, not really...
Homosexuality has been among the oldest, most primitive taboos of mankind, together with incest, adultery and such. It is easy to understand how such taboos arose in prehistoric tribes of hunter/gatherers who were often no more than extended families and who, for their own preservation, depended on sufficient numbers of healthy off-spring. In that sense, you are onto something.
In historic societies the motivations for proscribing homosexuality seem to have been very diverse and mitigated by degree and circumstance.
In ancient Greece, homosexuality was allowed and even recommended, but only within the well-discribed boundaries of 'manliness'.
As for ancient Rome, there are records of full same-sex marriages, accompanied by all the requisite (marital) rites including the bridal veil. Even though such practices were generally frowned upon by the public, they were not forbidden - yet.
In the West, the real crush came with the rise of Christianity which had adopted the homophobic mores of the Jews. The Jews originally had homosexual temple prostitutes (see for instance Kings II, 23:7), but from King Joshua on they developed anti-homosexual precepts primarily in order to dissociate themselves from the Assyrians (who had homosexual priests) and later from the Hellenist elites in the lands of Mozes.
The early Christian church seems to have proscribed homosexuality mainly on account of what was then called the "barren coitus" of homosexuals, which did not produce any new adherents of the faith. Producing new recruits for the army of God seems to have been a more important preoccupation for the nascent church than feeding anyone else's armies.
As for Asian societies, that is a different story altogether...
P.S. In an interesting parallel to the Jews, both the Soviet Union and nazi-Germany criminalised homosexuality (and dealt quite severely with homosexuals even within their respective party ranks) mainly for political reasons, i.e. to oppose themselves to (the remnants of) the 'decadent' societies that both preceded and geographically surrounded them. In nazi-Germany this was tied to the supposed 'unnatural' sexual leanings of Jews, in the Soviet Union to the supposed decadence of the western or international 'bourgeoisie'. The case of the Soviet Union is particularly relevant to Elton John's remarks, because its regime was deeply and overtly anti-religious.
Devastatin Dave
11-13-2006, 22:01
Hey Adrian, good to see you again.:2thumbsup:
Vladimir
11-13-2006, 22:21
Explain how this:
Homosexuality is BAD in that it stifles population growth which in the old days means manpower to fill out your armies. That is the practical reason why the homosexuals are bad thing is included in Christianity.
Is
Um, not really... [true]
After you said this:
The early Christian church seems to have proscribed homosexuality mainly on account of what was then called the "barren coitus" of homosexuals, which did not produce any new adherents of the faith. Producing new recruits for the army of God seems to have been a more important preoccupation for the nascent church than feeding anyone else's armies.
The early Christian church was that of the Roman empire which was suffering severe manpower shortages hence the practical reason why homosexuality was condemned. This was state sponsored religion which of course was (at least partially) intended to produce more recruits for the army of Man. Remember that many of them were trying to create God's empire on Earth. Fight for the Empire, Fight for God, were intertwined.
A related example is that of the early Mormon church which practiced polygamy partially in an effort to increase their "flock". I'm not sure what views that the sect of Christianity, chosen by Constantine, had on this subject but I suspect that the foundation was there.
On a less serious note, people should really check out these “God hates fags” freaks. There was one extreme anti-homosexual preacher recently that admitted to having sex with a guy (masseur sp?). Another good example of these freaks is a video that someone posted in the Backroom video thread(?). When the Aussie comedian started hitting on him he immediately hid behind his wife and she had to defend him. There’s something wrong with these people (and celebrities with too much money too :yes: ).
Adrian II
11-13-2006, 22:34
Hey Adrian, good to see you again.:2thumbsup:Yo Dave, I have missed you (in the manly sense and all) and it's good to see you back. I will probably regret this confession five seconds from now when you scorch my hide with your Southern whip again, but hey...
:laugh4:
The early Christian church was that of the Roman empire which was suffering severe manpower shortages hence the practical reason why homosexuality was condemned.I see what you mean, Vladimir, but with the early church we usually indicate the immediate successors of Jesus, and the fact that they were a persecuted minority under the Roman Empire will have been an extra impetus to proscribe homosexuality in the ranks.
As for the Romans, they seem to have been rather tolerant of homosexuality even in times when they were short of manpower. If fact, when, even during their heyday, were they not short of manpower?
And yeah, I sure enjoyed the Ted Haggard episode. That was some magnificent reality tv! :smash:
Homosexuality is BAD in that it stifles population growth which in the old days means manpower to fill out your armies. That is the practical reason why the homosexuals are bad thing is included in Christianity.
Rubbish. Completely. Celebate monks and priests anyone?
Adrian II
11-13-2006, 22:46
Rubbish. Completely. Celebate monks and priests anyone?I think you have your time-lines wrong.
Peter, the first Pope, was married, and in the early church married priests seem to have been a common occurrence. The Council of Elvira (306) notably established that a priest who sleeps with his wife on the night before Mass will be dismissed! Only in 385 did Pope Sircius decree that priests may not sleep with women. As for Christian monasticism, that only began toward the end of the 3rd century with St. Anthony. By that time Christianity was demographically 'secure'.
Devastatin Dave
11-14-2006, 04:23
Rubbish. Completely. Celebate monks and priests anyone?
Tell that to the chior boys!!! Baaaaaazing!!!!
:laugh4:
"Yo Dave, I have missed you (in the manly sense and all) and it's good to see you back. I will probably regret this confession five seconds from now when you scorch my hide with your Southern whip again, but hey..."
Ahh Man, I was hoping with my Southern whip I could finally beat you into submission and sweep me off my feet, marry me somewhere in Denmark, then we'd fly down to wherever the hell Modanna got her a little black baby, adopt (buy) one or two for ourselves, and after a long night of intense butt-lovin' we could confess our love for one another at the Org Wedding Chapel of Tolerance. But of course, that might just be a wierd fantasy of mine, or the 12 pack of Coors I just drank!!!:whip: :laugh4:
If that ain't siggy material, I'll slap the yellow of my mother-in-laws face!!!:laugh4:
Tachikaze
11-14-2006, 09:00
In historic societies the motivations for proscribing homosexuality seem to have been very diverse and mitigated by degree and circumstance.
In ancient Greece, homosexuality was allowed and even recommended, but only within the well-discribed boundaries of 'manliness'.
As for ancient Rome, there are records of full same-sex marriages, accompanied by all the requisite (marital) rites including the bridal veil. Even though such practices were generally frowned upon by the public, they were not forbidden - yet.
As for Asian societies, that is a different story altogether...
It was common for Japanese daimyo, Oda Nobunaga and Takeda Shingen among them, to have young male lovers.
People today seem to forget that marriage and love were normally separate in the past. Lovers were not for procreation, but for romance, emotional support, and/or fun. Therefore, whether they were same-sex or not was not biologically important. In fact, it had the advantage of making accidental issue impossible.
Spouses were for family-making and clan alliances.
Vladimir
11-14-2006, 15:33
If that ain't siggy material, I'll slap the yellow of my mother-in-laws face!!!:laugh4:
Probably not what you intended but hey :2thumbsup: . A signature about a signature, classy!
Homosexuality is BAD in that it stifles population growth which in the old days means manpower to fill out your armies. That is the practical reason why the homosexuals are bad thing is included in Christianity. There are other social and health concerns as well but I won't get into those. If you take a closer look (IIRC of course), there is nothing against bisexuals or girl on girl action. As far as gays and Islam (the others I don't know about"), look at how they are treated in the more extreme Islamic cultures.
That is utter bovine feces. If gays are bad because they canot re produce then where does that put infertile people? What about celibite monks and the fact that priests cannot marry? I think you need to think that through. And if people join the army and get killed they cant produce children anyway, so thats a pretty rubish argument.
Now, please do go into those "other" socila and health concerns. It would be interesting to see how lame they are. Gays and anal sex is not the only way to get infections, more straight guys have an infection then gays, and we have inventions such as the condom which stops the transfer of infections.
Now, these social problems with gays not getting accepted very well mainly comes from right wing Christian zealots anyway.
And the bible isnt against girl on girl? Haha the hypocrisy is really biggining to show. Theoretically the bible should be against girl on girl as well as it is still a form of homosexuality.
Adrian II
11-14-2006, 17:01
Now, please do go into those "other" social and health concerns.I have survived many a thread on this issue in the past. It usually boils down to the statistical argument that certain health risks are inherent to homosexuality, versus the historical or sociological argument that those health risks are due to the prolonged repression of homosexuality by mainstream society. We will see.
It would be interesting to see how lame they are. (..) Haha the hypocrisy is really beginning to show.If you are out to convince anyone of your particular views, you are getting off on the wrong foot.
Devastatin Dave
11-14-2006, 17:24
Check out the CDC website. Its unfortunate, but true, homosexuals tend to have more STD's. Its not homophobic, its fact. A very dear friend of mine had HIV and it developed into full blown AIDS. He was gay and his life choices were, let's just say, not very healthy. Granted I've known many responsible gays in my life but I've known a lot more that lived in less than safe ways. Sorry for the serious post, but its near the 9th anniversery of Mark's death and I was just missing him...
On a lighter side, I want Tachi to be Adrian and I's flower girl for our ceremony. Anyone wanna be the #### ring bearer?:laugh4:
Sasaki Kojiro
11-14-2006, 17:31
Actually, heterosexuals have more std's.
compared to people who are asexual. Wasn't this comparison fun and informative?
yesdachi
11-14-2006, 19:40
I am not sure of the statistics but the few gay friends I have seem to have more health issues (nothing a trip to the “free” clinic wont cure) than all the straight friends I have combined.
I am not sure how to say this but I don’t have an issue with homosexuality (I went to an art school after all ~D) but I do have an issue with the lifestyle that seems to be so prevalent among homosexuals, gays/men in particular. It makes it rather difficult to even stay friends with some because I don’t approve of the infidelity and the freedom with which they choose and then choose again their partners. Friends my age running around like a bunch of horny teenagers without any scruples. The only gay or lesbian couples I know that seem to have any morels are much older.
It is easy to see where religious (hypocrites that they may be) people have problems with homosexuals. I don’t think it is the actual act of being gay most people take issue with (as long as I don’t have to watch the hairy butt sex I’m ok with it :laugh4:), rather the “sinful” lifestyle that is paraded around by the vocal minority of gays. I don’t care how religious you are you couldn’t sit and talk with my aunt and aunt for five minutes and hate them, they are great people, it’s the partner jumping encouragers of infidelity that don’t care what they are spreading around and demand equality that most people don’t like. If every gay or lesbian couple were like my Aunts, same sex marriage and equality for homosexuals wouldn’t even be an issue but the vocal minority is ruining it for the rest.
Of course with out the vocal minority what would be on daytime talk shows.
Of course with out the vocal minority what would be on daytime talk shows.
So do you watch a lot of Jerry Springer? :laugh4:
yesdachi
11-14-2006, 20:31
So do you watch a lot of Jerry Springer? :laugh4:
Years ago I went to a taping of the Jenny Jones show because the Springer shows audience was full!!! BTW the topic for the show I went to was “Women who want their men back”, it was fascinating in a way that made me want take a shower after it was over, it’s a dirty feeling that just wont wash off.:laugh4:
Tachikaze
11-14-2006, 20:47
Check out the CDC website. Its unfortunate, but true, homosexuals tend to have more STD's. Its not homophobic, its fact. A very dear friend of mine had HIV and it developed into full blown AIDS. He was gay and his life choices were, let's just say, not very healthy. Granted I've known many responsible gays in my life but I've known a lot more that lived in less than safe ways. Sorry for the serious post, but its near the 9th anniversery of Mark's death and I was just missing him...
On a lighter side, I want Tachi to be Adrian and I's flower girl for our ceremony. Anyone wanna be the #### ring bearer?:laugh4:
I suppose you will want me to wear pigtails.
Years ago I went to a taping of the Jenny Jones show because the Springer shows audience was full!!! BTW the topic for the show I went to was “Women who want their men back”, it was fascinating in a way that made me want take a shower after it was over, it’s a dirty feeling that just wont wash off.:laugh4:
When I was stationed at Fort Lewis, during our lunch hour, the brigade mess hall had Television sets so that soldier could watch TV while they ate, and before the Corps commander placed Jerry Springer on the, "it can not be shown at lunch in the messhall list" the soldiers in my brigade got me hooked on watching Jerry Springer.
Its a sick addiction that someday I must get treated - but like you its a dirty feeling that just doesn't go away. The material of Jerry Springer though does fit into the subject of this thread. It seems to me that Elton John needs to desperately appear on the Jerry Springer Show.....:laugh4:
I suppose you will want me to wear pigtails.
With pink ribbons weaved into your hair, and a big pink flower on the top of your head....
"I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people," John said in the Observer newspaper's Music Monthly Magazine. "Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays."
He is completely correct.
I dont know about the founding teachings of Islam, Bhudism, or Hinduism, but I do not know of any time Jesus taught that it was ok to treat gays the way many Christians do, or to even label it sin.
Of course there are the old testament passages, but it is my understanding Jesus did not agree with a lot of the things taught in the old testament. In fact, was not the old testament included in the bible just to document the foretelling of the coming of Jesus? Isaiah ascending to the clouds on a chariot or something... its been a long time since religion class...
Anyway, what are your opinions?
Hello Prince,
I don't think Elton is the best choice for a considered opinion on religious doxa when it comes to sexual ethics.
As far as the Judeo-Christian Tradition is concerned: many posts seem to err in failing to properly frame the stance. The canon does not make any utility argument. There is no being gay is bad because it does not lead to breeding more believers etc. Rather the judgment is deontic meaning the act(s) themselves are condemned as unnatural or a defilement or a debasement in clear terms. The rhetoric is a simple example of the Divine appeal to authority. Deity makes judgment: act X is wrong. The subject is then left to conform or rebel, accept or reject.
Adrian II
11-14-2006, 22:00
Hello Prince,
I don't think Elton is the best choice for a considered opinion on religious doxa when it comes to sexual ethics.
As far as the Judeo-Christian Tradition is concerned: many posts seem to err in failing to properly frame the stance. The canon does not make any utility argument. There is no being gay is bad because it does not lead to breeding more believers etc. Rather the judgment is deontic meaning the act(s) themselves are condemned as unnatural or a defilement or a debasement in clear terms. The rhetoric is a simple example of the Divine appeal to authority. Deity makes judgment: act X is wrong. The subject is then left to conform or rebel, accept or reject.Actually, no. The question that I and others addressed is when and how certain precepts entered the canon in the first place. The reasons for their entry into the canon may well have been utilitarian, though not necessarily of a military nature.
Anyway, try telling the above to Redleg when he is on Jerry Springer with pigtails and pink flowers in his hair, complaining that Dev Dave left him for a pinko Dutch social democrat.
I know, I know, if this thread does down I am as guilty as the next man...
:whip:
Anyway, try telling the above to Redleg when he is on Jerry Springer with pigtails and pink flowers in his hair, complaining that Dev Dave left him for a pinko Dutch social democrat.
I know, I know, if this thread does down I am as guilty as the next man...
:whip:
You forgot to add the dress - a nice knee length one that is a pink flower pattern.
Actually, no. The question that I and others addressed is when and how certain precepts entered the canon in the first place. The reasons for their entry into the canon may well have been utilitarian, though not necessarily of a military nature.
Assuming a utility that is absent from the text begs the question.
Adrian II
11-14-2006, 22:34
Assuming a utility that is absent from the text begs the question.It does not. Because canons are man-made.
Let me put it this way.
When church leaders decided to enter "Deity says: act X is wrong" into the canon, they may have had all sorts of reasons to do so. They may have found it perfectly legitimate to ascribe their own utilitarian stance to the deity, in the disguise of a divine judgment.
Besides, we should not forget that divine judgments and precepts may fall into disuse or be interpreted differently in different periods for all sorts of extraneous reasons. The vicissitudes of the Roman Catholic doctrine of indulgence are a prime example of the latter.
Kanamori
11-14-2006, 23:34
I don't really understand how the Old Testament comes in at all, isn't it descriptive of laws that apply only to Jews because of their sacrament with God? In other words, isn't the New Testament stand-alone and the Old Testament being only for context? Maybe God wants different rules for Christians and Jews.:shrug:
Anyway, from what I've seen, there are the gays that look to be bisexual and just like having sex w/ tons of people, maybe they are just drawn to promescuity, and there are those that form 'deep' personal connections. How ever they want to show themselves, limp wrists, femmy hip walks, crazy accented speech, or just as a normal person, the worst that it could be is funny. (The best that I've ever seen was at Holborn, more 'hip' than... something w/ lots of 'hip'... It has to hurt for a guy to do that often. I've only seen women walk in a way like that at clubs.)
Assuming a utility that is absent from the text begs the question.
It does not. Because canons are man-made.
This does not respond to the noted question begging. The texts (Tanakh and New Testament) constitute the doctrinal foundation for sexual ethics within the Judeo-Christian Tradition. The verdicts in the texts regarding homosexuality are not utility based. To assume a utility posture to conclude a utilitarian conclusion does not address the rhetorical stance and begs the question.
Let me put it this way.
When church leaders decided to enter "Deity says: act X is wrong" into the canon, they may have had all sorts of reasons to do so. They may have found it perfectly legitimate to ascribe their own utilitarian stance to the deity, in the disguise of a divine judgment.
Besides, we should not forget that divine judgments and precepts may fall into disuse or be interpreted differently in different periods for all sorts of extraneous reasons. The vicissitudes of the Roman Catholic doctrine of indulgence are a prime example of the latter.
The conditionals above illustrate the point i.e. "may". One should not assume an extra textual intention. To do so reflects sloppy thinking or an agenda. These are not things one of your high standing would want to be associated with. :2thumbsup:
I don't really understand how the Old Testament comes in at all, isn't it descriptive of laws that apply only to Jews because of their sacrament with God? In other words, isn't the New Testament stand-alone and the Old Testament being only for context? Maybe God wants different rules for Christians and Jews.:shrug:
The Elton comment indicted all religion. Judaism is a religion. The Tanakh is the oldest written aspect of Judaism and contains the forms of sexual ethics for the faith.
The Old Testament was always considered holy writ by the Jesus Movement. There are multiple instances of disciples and the Christ citing passages from the Old Testament. This remained the case with primitive Christianity. The Old Testament as scripture therefore predates the compilation of the New Testament by hundreds of years.*
As far as different rules applying to Jews and Christians: there are pronounced differences. Even so, the Jesus Movement first occurred within Judaism. The moniker Christian was applied from without and was originally derisive. Further, the early identifiable Christian position was one of fulfillment and expansion of the covenant, but this did not apply to a change in sexual ethics. A simple illustration Romans 1: 25-28, 32:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient...Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
*The New Testament is a product of the Fourth Century.
I dont know about the founding teachings of Islam, Bhudism, or Hinduism, but I do not know of any time Jesus taught that it was ok to treat gays the way many Christians do, or to even label it sin.
Yes religion does do what the thread title says, but so what? The connotation in the original post is as if religion doing that is a bad thing, but it's not. The problem lies squarely with those committing the abominable lives; not with them being told the truth.
As for the comment in the quote here: completely incorrect. The Bible, God, and all the Prophets, Apostles, and Jesus himself were abundantly clear about that "gayness" is an abomination that is not to be tolerated, in every book of the Bible both Old and New. The Koran message is equivalent to this.
The Bible, God, and all the Prophets, Apostles, and Jesus himself were abundantly clear about that "gayness" is an abomination that is not to be tolerated, in every book of the Bible both Old and New.
Are we talking about the same Jesus and the same Bible? 'Cause my King James must be defective if what you're saying is true.
Yes religion does do what the thread title says, but so what? The connotation in the original post is as if religion doing that is a bad thing, but it's not. The problem lies squarely with those committing the abominable lives; not with them being told the truth.
As for the comment in the quote here: completely incorrect. The Bible, God, and all the Prophets, Apostles, and Jesus himself were abundantly clear about that "gayness" is an abomination that is not to be tolerated, in every book of the Bible both Old and New. The Koran message is equivalent to this.
Care to quote the passages in the New Testament that states homosexuals are not to be tolerated. What the New Testament states is that homosexuals can not enter heavan, that the act condemns them in the eyes of God, but that there is hope when one repents their sins. The New Testament does not state stone homosexuals, in fact Jesus stated this about sinners in a parable in Luke.
Luk 15:30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
Luk 15:31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
Luk 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
The message of Jesus is forgiveness and redemnation - not damnation, we as man can not be the judge of one's acts in the spritual sense - it is up God to determine that judgement. The message of Jesus states that the laws of man will be enforced by man - those that violated the laws of God will be judge by God, not by man.
Someone seems to have skip the lessons on forgiveness and the other main theme in the bible. Since someone needs a little reminder about what Jesus stated about sin and sinners.
Luk 6:27 ¶ But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
Luk 6:28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
Luk 6:29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the [one] cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not [to take thy] coat also.
Luk 6:30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask [them] not again.
Luk 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
Luk 6:32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
Luk 6:33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
Luk 6:34 And if ye lend [to them] of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
Luk 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and [to] the evil.
Luk 6:36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
Luk 6:37 ¶ Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Luk 6:38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
Luk 6:39 And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?
Luk 6:40 The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.
Luk 6:41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Luk 6:42 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.
Luk 6:43 ¶ For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Luk 6:44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.
Luk 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
Luk 6:46 ¶ And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
Luk 6:47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
Luk 6:48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
Luk 6:49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.
Under christian doctrine homosexuality is a sin, but it does not mean that I has a christian should hate and be intolerant of that sinner.
Claudius the God
11-15-2006, 05:46
it is my understanding Jesus did not agree with a lot of the things taught in the old testament.
on the contrary:
) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.
2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever. "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)
3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)
3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)
4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)
5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)
6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole. The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell. (Matthew 5:27)
7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.” This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18
8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).
9) “...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35
Adrian II
11-15-2006, 07:33
One should not assume an extra textual intention.Of course one should. This has always been part and parcel of Bible criticism, as of all text criticism. Only litteralist believers, i.e. those who believe that certain 'holy textst' are literally God's word, will disagree.
Of course one should. This has always been part and parcel of Bible criticism, as of all text criticism. Only litteralist believers, i.e. those who believe that certain 'holy textst' are literally God's word, will disagree.
As explained such a view begs the question and is therefore a logical fallacy. Any Biblical criticism that operates along such lines loses its value. Textual criticism must deal with the text. My friend, consider what you are advocating: to assign an extra textual intention is to move beyond any verifiable schema.
Regarding literalism: allegorical or metaphorical alternative readings typically apply to physical descriptions i.e. The Flood story. Admonitions or behavioral edicts for example: "Thou shall not commit adultery" have typically been taken to mean what the words literally express. To argue otherwise would be to eviscerate the entire text and would be anachronistic.
Adrian II
11-15-2006, 13:17
As explained such a view begs the question and is therefore a logical fallacy. Any Biblical criticism that operates along such lines loses its value. Textual criticism must deal with the text.Let us not resort to fallacy accusations when what we have here is simply a misunderstanding on your part.
I spoke of Bible criticism and text criticism in general, which is a much wider category that textual criticism (which is internal to the text).
Bible criticism encompasses textual criticism, but also historical criticism. Historical criticism is the attempt to answer questions such as " Who wrote this text, and when? To whom was it addressed, in what circumstances, etcetera?"
It is my contention that both Old and New Testament are man-made and that it is essential for a full understanding of their meaning that we pursue such questions.
Let us not resort to fallacy accusations when what we have here is simply a misunderstanding on your part.
I spoke of Bible criticism and text criticism in general, which is a much wider category that textual criticism (which is internal to the text).
Bible criticism encompasses textual criticism, but also historical criticism. Historical criticism is the attempt to answer questions such as " Who wrote this text, and when? To whom was it addressed, in what circumstances, etcetera?"
It is my contention that both Old and New Testament are man-made and that it is essential for a full understanding of their meaning that we pursue such questions.
Recall my initial point: "(M)any posts seem to err in failing to properly frame the stance. The canon does not make any utility argument." The focus is textual: the actual stance of the text and its rhetoric. To assert an intent that runs contrary to the rhetoric of the text lacks any force beyond the assertion itself. This is what leads to the question begging.
Historical critiques are both interesting and valuable, but the relevant point here is the core sexual ethical beliefs of two faiths. Those beliefs are found in the text(s). To assert a view that ignores or actually runs counter to the text(s) is problematic.
Adrian II
11-15-2006, 23:28
Recall my initial point: "(M)any posts seem to err in failing to properly frame the stance. The canon does not make any utility argument." The focus is textual: the actual stance of the text and its rhetoric. To assert an intent that runs contrary to the rhetoric of the text is problematic and lacks any force beyond the assertion itself. This is what leads to the question begging.
Historical critiques are both interesting and valuable, but the relevant point here are the core sexual ethical beliefs of two faiths. Those beliefs are found in the text. To assert a view that ignores or actually runs counter to the text is thus problematic.I see that we are in full agreement after all.
Now let me take our line of reasoning one step further.
The practices of churches, social movements, political parties and regimes often diverge from their stated beliefs, sometimes intentionally so. In such cases, the stated beliefs (usually ensconced in official documents) serve various purposes that are not avowed in the texts themselves.
An infamous example would be the Soviet Constitution promulgated under Stalin in 1936. It guaranteed freedom of speech, assembly and religion, as well as a host of economic and social rights. However, it lacked all the legal trappings to enforce those rights. In practice it was nothing more than a propagandistic cover for the massive breaches of said rights.
Texts say only what they say, nothing more. But people, when promulgating texts, more often than not want to convey messages that may be at odds with their statements. In the case of the Soviet Constitution, the real message to the Russian people was this: we have such power over you that we can guarantee your every human, civil and social right on paper in the firm knowledge that you will never be able to claim or use it in any way whatsoever.
The true nature of the message, of course, could only be understood within the concrete historical context in which is was sent. If future archaeologists ever find that Societ Constitution without having access to any other sources on the period or country involved, its regime and its practices, they will surely conclude, at face value, that the Soviet Union was a full-fledged democracy.
Similar divergences, albeit less extreme in most cases, have existed within almost any human movement at any stage of history. They have existed throughout Biblical history and church history. By way of a religious example I already mentioned the Catholic doctrine of indulgence; in the High Middle Ages this doctrine was clearly reduced to a money-making scam on the part of the church of Rome, disguised as bona fide theology.
As for the original subject of the thread: with regard to the Bible, being a man-made compilation of man-made texts, its injunctions against homosexuality may well have served other purposes than the avowed purpose of promulgating God's revelation. The thought is worthwhile to explore.
I see that we are in full agreement after all.
Now let me take our line of reasoning one step further.
The practices of churches, social movements, political parties and regimes often diverge from their stated beliefs, sometimes intentionally so. In such cases, the stated beliefs (usually ensconced in official documents) serve various purposes that are not avowed in the texts themselves.
An infamous example would be the Soviet Constitution promulgated under Stalin in 1936...
I don't disagree with any of the above: the political arena and religion are perfect examples of the point. Even so, opposition to homosexuality within the Judeo-Christian Tradition appears deontic. This is demonstrated by the canon, the larger general theological posture and by (I would think) the average believer. If one asked a given a parishioner about their opposition to homosexuality one can easily imagine responses like: it's a sin, it's depraved, unnatural etc. I cannot recall ever seeing such arguing the problem is because of some utility issue.
As far as the historical origin of the opposition: given the antiquity of the text(s). It's difficult to make an argument that is different from the rhetoric of the texts. What would one appeal to?
Adrian II
11-16-2006, 20:38
Even so, opposition to homosexuality within the Judeo-Christian Tradition appears deontic.Overall, I would say yes. It ahs always been tied into an extensive system of obligations and interdictions that would make little sense on their own. The interdiction of homosexuality can not be understood without looking into its logical relationship to other sexual injunctions. In this case, for instance: if it is man's duty to procreate, then homosexuality must obviously be a no-no.
It's difficult to make an argument that is different from the rhetoric of the texts. What would one appeal to?Historical circumstance. There is at least some basis for conjecture of how the system came about, how and when particular rules were introduced into it, and why they were apparently quite strictly enforced in one period and not in another.
Jaweh, as opposed to most other deities, had very particular ideas about sexuality. He rained down sexual interdictions on the poor Jews. Nakedness in a variety of situations was punishable by death, the male member was 'hideous', semen was 'unclean' and so were women half the time.
Many of these interdictions were handed down after the Jews' return from Babylonian captivity, when their sense of tribal unity must have suffered from outside influences. The Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians and other neighbouring peoples often had naked temple services, some had homosexual rites or a homosexual priestly caste, etcetera. Thus Jaweh was likely to cast The Ban on such customs for reasons of tribal unity (or dare we say: power-politics?). This is consistent with many other precepts where Jaweh tells the Jews not to build their altars from stone, not to build them with steps, etcetera. He does not want to be even remotely associated with Ishtar and all the rest of the neighbourhood cabal.
If one asked a given a parishioner about their opposition to homosexuality one can easily imagine responses like: it's a sin, it's depraved, unnatural etc. I cannot recall ever seeing such arguing the problem is because of some utility issue.Somehow, I suspect that few parishioners would simply agree to the statement that 'homosexuality is forbidden because God says so'.
In my experience, believers will enumerate all sorts of practical reasons to justify the interdiction, in many cases utilitarian reasons (hygiene, procreation, domestic stability). Motivations not unlike the ones that may have moved our prehistoric ancestors to issue the interdict.
Don Corleone
11-16-2006, 20:48
I always thought that Christian condemnation of homosexuality stemmed from St. Augustine's proper usage doctrine(forget the exact name for it, and it might have actually been Thomas Aquinas...). Namely, each and every act a human can commit, each and every thing under the sun has a definitive purpose under God. As the logical operator creating all things in the universe, God assigned a purpose to every being, every object and every act. Sexual immorality of the form of coitus barrenus (which does not distinguish between homosexuality, premature withdrawal, mastrubation, using birth control or sexual relations between a married couple that knows they are barren) is sinful because the sole purpose for sexual relations is the creation of human souls. By wearing a condom, or sleeping with Vinnie, your gym buddy, you're precluding God's natural plan for sex in the first place. As such, it is an act of rebellion (as are all sins at the end of the day). The way modern theologians have absolved barren couples and birth control has been to proclaim that sex has two purposes: procreation AND the strengthing/supporting of marital bonds through physical mutual-gratification. Based on this understanding, I have to come down on Adrian's side in this, the extra-contextual rationale for the contextual proscription is relevant to the discussion.
Essentially, Pindar, you're making the argument that the why has no siginficance if it isn't explicitly mentioned within the text that prohibits it. I suppose you could make the argument that asking why when you weren't told is a form of rebellion in and of itself, but as human beings, we're wired to do that. It is also this extra-contextual reasoning that allows us to make judgements about which biblically proscribed behaviors we will sternly enforce, and which we don't. Last I checked, even the most ardent fundamentalist Christians were not calling for the death penalty for perjury, but in fact, Leviticus calls for just that.
Don Corleone
11-16-2006, 21:02
As for the idea that it's okay, as a Christian to despise homosexuals and to seek to make their lives miserable... :dizzy2:
I might have more respect for you Navaros if you at least wore the hypocritical figleaf that Fred Phelps and his gang do claiming that their constant indignation and rancor are in fact acts of love for the sinner, that by making the sinner miserable enough, they might encourage him to turn back. I heartily disagree with this approach, and I strongly suspect that in the hearts of the Fred Phelps of the world, it's little more than a cover for their actions. But at least they take the time to make the defense.
You have no right to summarily dismiss your sinful brothers and sisters, not only because you yourself are a sinner, but because Christ himself says as you judge, so shall you be judged: with mercy, mercy and with anger, anger. Did you miss the part where he called on us to approach each other always with love in our hearts?
Sexual immorality of the form of coitus barrenus (which does not distinguish between homosexuality, premature withdrawal, mastrubation, using birth control or sexual relations between a married couple that knows they are barren) is sinful because the sole purpose for sexual relations is the creation of human souls.
Anyone notice the small, yet vital assumption underpinning this whole argument?
These scripture-writers should have done a-level critical thinking before setting out to write a holy book...
Goofball
11-16-2006, 23:18
Yes religion does do what the thread title says, but so what? The connotation in the original post is as if religion doing that is a bad thing, but it's not. The problem lies squarely with those committing the abominable lives; not with them being told the truth.
As for the comment in the quote here: completely incorrect. The Bible, God, and all the Prophets, Apostles, and Jesus himself were abundantly clear about that "gayness" is an abomination that is not to be tolerated, in every book of the Bible both Old and New. The Koran message is equivalent to this.
I guess this is as good a time as any to modify and insert (in an act of blatant humor-stealing) this old gem from my email:
Dear Navaros,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them:
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not to Americans.
Can you clarify? Why can't I own Americans?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that, even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there "degrees" of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev. 24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Adrian II
11-16-2006, 23:26
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?I like this one best for the succinct payline. But I have seen this stuff before. Freethinker site? There are Dutch versions, too.
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
:laugh4:
Tachikaze
11-17-2006, 16:26
I guess this is as good a time as any to modify and insert (in an act of blatant humor-stealing) this old gem from my email:
Thanks for posting that insert; it's great.
Even so, opposition to homosexuality within the Judeo-Christian Tradition appears deontic.
Overall, I would say yes. It ahs always been tied into an extensive system of obligations and interdictions that would make little sense on their own. The interdiction of homosexuality can not be understood without looking into its logical relationship to other sexual injunctions.
The deontic thrust is tied to an appeal to authority. It can be understood alone and requires no other referent.
It's difficult to make an argument that is different from the rhetoric of the texts. What would one appeal to?
Historical circumstance. There is at least some basis for conjecture of how the system came about, how and when particular rules were introduced into it, and why they were apparently quite strictly enforced in one period and not in another.
Conjecture is not an evidentiary standard however interesting. The rub remains the canon is not utilitarian in this regard. Any sincere effort to confront the issue must take account of the rhetorical posture of the belief system and not give in to the allure of other options.
If one asked a given a parishioner about their opposition to homosexuality one can easily imagine responses like: it's a sin, it's depraved, unnatural etc. I cannot recall ever seeing such arguing the problem is because of some utility issue.
Somehow, I suspect that few parishioners would simply agree to the statement that 'homosexuality is forbidden because God says so'.
In my experience, believers will enumerate all sorts of practical reasons to justify the interdiction, in many cases utilitarian reasons (hygiene, procreation, domestic stability). Motivations not unlike the ones that may have moved our prehistoric ancestors to issue the interdict.
Actually, I think the vast majority do agree homosexuality is a sin and it's a sin because God says so. Now, a secular fellow who does not accept that kind of appeal to authority could push that stance and a parishioner getting nervous and defensive may put forward some other ideas, but the doctrinal bedrock remains the authoritative aspect uber alles. I would suspect this difference in experience you've had is the result of broaching the subject from the outside: a secular interlocutor by definition rejects the basis of the devotional life.
I always thought that Christian condemnation of homosexuality stemmed from St. Augustine's proper usage doctrine(forget the exact name for it, and it might have actually been Thomas Aquinas...).
The Judeo-Christian condemnation of homosexuality predates Catholicism chronologically and extends beyond the theology of one sect.
Essentially, Pindar, you're making the argument that the why has no siginficance if it isn't explicitly mentioned within the text that prohibits it.
No, that is not my position. What I have argued is a utility rational is problematic because it is absent from the core referent of the belief system (the Tanakh and New Testament). The Bible makes a deontic appeal. For example Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination." The statement is categorical: it is an abomination. The persuasiveness is a separate issue.
Goofball
11-17-2006, 19:58
The deontic thrust is tied to an appeal to authority. It can be understood alone and requires no other referent.
Does that ever sound gay...
Adrian II
11-17-2006, 20:55
Conjecture is not an evidentiary standard however interesting.A conjecture is an educated guess, in this case about the origin of a text. As such it is superior to axiomatic notions, for instance on divine authorship.
Besides, it is impossible to approach the Bible -- to have any sort of understanding of it -- without such assumptions, be they axiomatic or not. Without them, the Bible makes no sense whatsoever.
You are no doubt familiar with pragmatic language theory. As a lawyer you would have to be. But others may not, so let me explain. Pragmatic language theory says that any human utterance (or lack thereof) is a form of communication, the meaning of which can be determined solely by context, i.e. circumstance and history. Without context, messages have no meaning in the proper sense; we can interpret them in any way we fancy.
Suppose I find a scrap of modern notebloc paper in my backyard with the hand-written words: "This is an evil generation." I will probably smile and throw it away, assuming it is either a joke or a heartfelt cry of a contemporary about my own generation or the next.
Of course, if I want to, I can try to find out who wrote it, starting with the neighbors. Lo and behold, the teenage boy next door appears to have written the statement; he wrote it after he heard it on a CD of his favourite rock group, as part of a song that suggests his generation is more exciting and rebellious than previous ones. In this context, 'evil' means 'innocent, juvenile fun'.
However, if I read the same statement in Luke 11:29, it has different meaning because of its context, i.e. its circumstance (the statement occurs in a Bible which I bought) and its history (the nearly one thousand years of the Biblical epoch). I know that the statement is attributed to a man named Jezus whilst he is preaching about Jonah and Nineve, and that the story of his preaching, in turn, is communicated by a certain Luke somewhere around the year 100.
If I want to, I can deepen my understanding of Jezus' statement by looking into all sorts of context, from the archaeology of Nineve through the non-Biblical writings of Luke's contemporaries. The outcome will probably be that in this context, 'evil' means 'stubbornly and self-righteously sinful'.
In short: in order to understand any particular utterance, it is essential to know who conveys what to whom. This is known as the pragmatic triangle. It turns out that within this triangle, the actual message conveyed is rarely identical to the verbal (or textual) message alone. And if it is, we only know that it is because we are aware of the context, not simply because 'it says so'.
Hence my insistence on the historical origin of Biblical interdictions. Without knowledge (or at least assumptions, preferably in the shape of an educated guess) of its context, no Biblical text has meaning in the proper sense of the word.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-17-2006, 21:24
In short: in order to understand any particular utterance, it is essential to know who conveys what to whom. This is known as the pragmatic triangle. It turns out that within this triangle, the actual message conveyed is rarely identical to the verbal (or textual) message alone. And if it is, we only know that it is because we are aware of the context, not simply because 'it says so'.
Hence my insistence on the historical origin of Biblical interdictions. Without knowledge (or at least assumptions, preferably in the shape of an educated guess) of its context, no Biblical text has meaning in the proper sense of the word.
Interesting post. Brings back all sorts of flashbacks about Habermas, Lyotard and Saussure (I tend toward the communicative constructivism of Habermas myself). In the strictest sense, of course, no "text" has meaning of itself, meaning is only evoked in the mind of the reader/listener as they grapple with that text. I would suggest that a reader/listener can easily use the Bible without a knowledge of any of its historical context or the prevailing assumptions that underlay the language it uses to create meaning -- though how well is up to evaluation.
I should note, however, that virtually every Priest to whom I have listened more than a time or two has gone to significant lengths to introduce aspects of historical/cultural context of Israel during the period before/during the life of Jesus in order to make clear the message of the gospels as well as other readings. It would seem that the Catholic Church here in America takes your stance on the matter -- at least to that extent.
Adrian II
11-17-2006, 21:36
Interesting post. Brings back all sorts of flashbacks about Habermas, Lyotard and Saussure (I tend toward the communicative constructivism of Habermas myself).That, in turn, reminds me of my two years of Psychology (which I dropped for History) and Paul Watzlawick in particular. I am not as radical as he though, but W. and Bateson filled an important gap in psychotherapy.
Yes, the ministers of various Christian denominations I heard would, in their sermons, bring to mind the circumstance in which a Biblical story, parable or ruling arose. Thus enabling a comparison with contemporary circumstance and the relevance of the story, parable or ruling for our day and age.
Does that ever sound gay...
Go stand in the corner. :whip:
A conjecture is an educated guess, in this case about the origin of a text. As such it is superior to axiomatic notions, for instance on divine authorship.
I think we are talking passed each other. Let me see if I can flush out my point more clearly:
1) The Judeo-Christian Tradition condemns homosexuality (CH).
2) This condemnation is found in the canon which is foundational to the respective belief systems.
3) The form of the condemnation is deontic.
4) A deontic stance is not utilitarian as they are mutually exclusive.
5) Therefore because of 3) and 4): the condemnation is not utilitarian.
6) To opt for a utilitarian explanation of CH is to ignore the canon: see 2).
7) To ignore the canon is to fail to engage the thrust of CH rhetoric.
8) Therefore from 6) and 7) this constitutes are failure to engage CH.
The above is not concerned with the origin of the text, only the rhetoric of the text. The origin (whether secular or inspired) does not impact the CH judgment which is found in the text(s). The above does not require either a devotional or secular positioning: whether one believes the canon begins with Charlton Heston coming down the mountain, priestly revision during the reign of King Josiah, a Babylonian Captivity context, or a completely secular and politically driven understanding is irrelevant to the point. In short, my argument is formal (looking at the form of the CH argument).
However, if I read the same statement in Luke 11:29, it has different meaning because of its context...In short: in order to understand any particular utterance, it is essential to know who conveys what to whom.
My position does not ignore or disavow textual context, quite the contrary. To argue a non-textual context is causative of CH is problematic and does beg the question.
Interesting post. Brings back all sorts of flashbacks about Habermas, Lyotard and Saussure (I tend toward the communicative constructivism of Habermas myself).
Habermas of course is playing off of Gadamer's work who is a better read and not tainted by the folly of the Frankfurt School.
Adrian II
11-18-2006, 03:53
3) The form of the condemnation is deontic.I think this is the point after which we diverge. In my (pragmatic) view, the form of the condemnation does not equal the message that is sent. The message is the injection of that condemnation into a particular text, at a particular time (in as much as we can establish that moment) and by a particular author. We can not possibly exclude that his motivation to do so may have been utilitarian.
In some instances (again, the indulgence doctrine is a clear case) there is ample evidence of such motivation. In the case of post-Babylonian Jewry the evidence is thin and occasionally tenuous, I admit. But hey, I wasn't around at the time. I am not that old!
Go stand in the corner. :whip:Don't send him into the corner. Goofball loves that sort of thing. :inquisitive:
3) The form of the condemnation is deontic.
I think this is the point after which we diverge. In my (pragmatic) view, the form of the condemnation does not equal the message that is sent.
OK, we can look to the text(s) to see. Here are a few simple examples from the Tanakh and New Testament:
"Don't have sex with a man as one does with a woman. That is abhorrent." Leviticus 18:22
"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." Leviticus 20:13
"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Romans 1:27
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders." 1 Corinthians 6:9
"(U)nderstanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine," 1 Timothy 1: 9-10
"(J)ust as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." Jude 1:7
The above are not utilitarian pronouncements. They are straight forward deontic judgements.
Don't send him into the corner. Goofball loves that sort of thing.
Hmmm, just a lashing then? :whip: Maybe he likes that too. ~:doh:
Tachikaze
11-19-2006, 19:53
It's funny that so many people put such importance on the opinions of a group of old scribes in the Fertile Crescent so long ago, an era with a different culture; different values; different lifestyles; different economy; and different understanding of science, causation, chemistry, nature, society, and familial relations.
I choose to live life according to the dictates and necessities of my own time, place, and society, and my understanding of the world, which is based on many centuries of accumulated worldwide knowledge and experiences not available to the authors of the Jewish and Christian holy books.
The "hate and spite" of ancient religions should have been put behind us a long time ago.
Adrian II
11-19-2006, 20:40
The above are not utilitarian pronouncements. They are straight forward deontic judgements.As stated before, we fully agree on that. I was rather hoping we could move on from the medium to the message, because it is the message that counts if we want to properly understand the Bible.
The priestly author of Leveticus was probably part of a minority cabal. The contemporary status of the text is dubious at best, because there are indications from the Bible itself, from other written sources as well as from archaeology that the Jews didn't adhere to most of the 'laws' laid down in it. Observance of them would have likely resulted in collective suicide (see the list provided by Goofball above). For all we know it may have been a proposal by an overly zealous neophyte that was dismissed because the man was rightly considered insane.
Comparison with modern anthropological data indicates that the lists of animals that may or may not be eaten by Israel is inspired by primitive taxonomy, based on the outward appearance of the mentioned animals (hoofs, foraging habits) as well as local occurrence (note that Leviticus does not say whether the llama or hippopotamus are to be eaten). The list of east/don't eats has all the hallmarks of an exercise in theological rigour that bears little connection to daily life.
His injunctions against homosexuality are in the same genre. Look at the first one you mentioned: "Don't have sex with a man as one does with a woman. That is abhorrent." Tell me, my friend - physically speaking, is it even possible to have sex with a man as we do with a woman? I think not. This gaffe can only be explained if we assume a lack of basic knowledge about bodily functions on the part of the author. This alone reflects negatively on the quality of the text as a whole.
In my view, an issue that is of much greater interest to our understanding is the question why - for what reasons, utilitarian or otherwise - Leviticus was later incorporated into the Jewish and Christian canons.
Hmmm, just a lashing then? :whip: Maybe he likes that too. ~:doh:I have no doubt that the two of you will, um, hit it off! :smash:
(I am sorry, but Gregoshi started all this. :shame:)
It's funny that so many people put such importance on the opinions of a group of old scribes in the Fertile Crescent so long ago (..)Funny, is it? Do you ever wonder why they do so? I am not a believer in any God or supernatural force or presence whatsoever, but I understand very well why these 'scribes' continue to fascinate people.
The 'accumulated wisdom' that the world has gathered since is often no more than a plagiarism of those old 'opinions', clothed in the garb of contemporary scribes. Preferring bad copies to the original, and failing to even duly acknowledge that original - now that is funny to my mind.
The "hate and spite" of ancient religions should have been put behind us a long time ago.Hate and spite have always been with us, regardless of religion, and they probably always will be.
Prince of the Poodles
11-19-2006, 23:24
Yes religion does do what the thread title says, but so what? The connotation in the original post is as if religion doing that is a bad thing, but it's not. The problem lies squarely with those committing the abominable lives; not with them being told the truth.
As for the comment in the quote here: completely incorrect. The Bible, God, and all the Prophets, Apostles, and Jesus himself were abundantly clear about that "gayness" is an abomination that is not to be tolerated, in every book of the Bible both Old and New. The Koran message is equivalent to this.
The problem lies with the Christian concept that we are all made in God's image, yet many Christians (dont get me started on muslims) prejudge me and choose to hate me for something that I have no control over.
If your God is real, then he made me the way I am. I choose to act on it or not, but he created me to be attracted to males.
Did he screw up? Did he intend for me to have a life without love? Does it make him laugh that little me is down here suffering because im attracted to guys when I shouldnt be? Or maybe, just maybe, is your interpretation of his wishes is not entirely accurate?
I have to say, if salvation and heaven is attained by believing in a deity that predestines people to a life of "sin" or misery.. im not really sure there is anything up there I want. :shame:
Surely if man is created in this Christian god's image, that must mean this god is sexually active (considering how obsessed with sex humans are). So presumably there are more gods around for him to be sexually active with...
Polytheists. :inquisitive:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-20-2006, 16:49
The world is a garden, God the gardener. Mrs God doesn't care whether his potatos have blight or not.
I once put this question to a theologin, who's uncle is a Bishop. He said:
"For a man to lie with another man is an abomination" refers to the act because one of them has to take the role of a women, which is debasing.
Which is exactly the same stance as the Greeks and Romans had.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-20-2006, 17:21
"For a man to lie with another man is an abomination" refers to the act because one of them has to take the role of a women, which is debasing.
So women are inferior to men? Nice.
So women are inferior to men? Nice.
If you're looking at this with your historical lenses on, the crucial distinction isn't between man and woman, it's between penetrating and being penetrated. For the Romans the act of penetration was manly and robust. Didn't really matter what you were penetrating, the important thing was to pitch, rather than catch. To be penetrated, on the other hand, was submissive and womanly, and therefore contemptible.
You can see a modern version of this ethos in prison.
I'm not sure how this messed-up ideology played in ancient Greece, but I feel certain one of our better-read Orgahs can fill in the blanks ...
Sasaki Kojiro
11-20-2006, 19:55
If you're looking at this with your historical lenses on, the crucial distinction isn't between man and woman, it's between penetrating and being penetrated. For the Romans the act of penetration was manly and robust. Didn't really matter what you were penetrating, the important thing was to pitch, rather than catch. To be penetrated, on the other hand, was submissive and womanly, and therefore contemptible.
You can see a modern version of this ethos in prison.
I'm not sure how this messed-up ideology played in ancient Greece, but I feel certain one of our better-read Orgahs can fill in the blanks ...
Well it's still the same thing, yes?
Man=penetration=ok
women=penetrated=repugnant
It's certainly a repulsive thought process that grooves together nicely. What interests the lemur is that more than focusing on old-fashioned woman-hating, the penetrator/penetrated ethos seems to almost be gender-blind. If a woman straps on an assistive device and penetrates a man, she becomes vigorous and worthy, while he loses face. Or would the ancients have seen it that way?
It's funny that so many people put such importance on the opinions of a group of old scribes in the Fertile Crescent so long ago, an era with a different culture; different values; different lifestyles; different economy; and different understanding of science, causation, chemistry, nature, society, and familial relations.
Of course, for a parishioner the works you brush aside as the opinions of old scribes are considered holy writ. This means the content is considered to touch the Divine and the value transcends culture and time.
The above are not utilitarian pronouncements. They are straight forward deontic judgments.
As stated before, we fully agree on that.
Good! Then I assume you have no issue with my previously noted proposition 3).* We should agree on the issue: utility judgments are flawed when discussing the sexual ethic of the Judeo-Christian Tradition as demonstrated by the canon.
I was rather hoping we could move on from the medium to the message, because it is the message that counts if we want to properly understand the Bible.
The examples I gave are the message.
The priestly author of Leveticus was probably part of a minority cabal. The contemporary status of the text is dubious at best, because there are indications from the Bible itself, from other written sources as well as from archaeology that the Jews didn't adhere to most of the 'laws' laid down in it. Observance of them would have likely resulted in collective suicide (see the list provided by Goofball above). For all we know it may have been a proposal by an overly zealous neophyte that was dismissed because the man was rightly considered insane.
Whether one opts for Moses as the author of Leviticus or assume the author was from a minority cabal: whether one believes ancient Jewry adhered to the various dictates of scripture or no, does not impact the rhetorical structure of the canon in the least. The rhetorical stance is clear. It is deontic. To ignore that point in deference to some other utility inspired view is to fail to engage the issue. It is also to leave oneself open to positions that may very well be agenda ridden.
His injunctions against homosexuality are in the same genre. Look at the first one you mentioned: "Don't have sex with a man as one does with a woman. That is abhorrent." Tell me, my friend - physically speaking, is it even possible to have sex with a man as we do with a woman? I think not.
Penetration is the standard I believe. This is only permitted with a women one has wed.
In my view, an issue that is of much greater interest to our understanding is the question why - for what reasons, utilitarian or otherwise - Leviticus was later incorporated into the Jewish and Christian canons.
Leviticus has always been in the first tier of holy works for Jewry. It is part of the Torah where the law is put forward and thus the core of the faith. There are no examples of its being separate from the first five books.
If your question why the sexual ethic was put forward? The text explains this: "Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things (previously mentioned sexual abominations: homosexuality, beastiality etc.): for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants." Lev. 18: 23-25
* 1) The Judeo-Christian Tradition condemns homosexuality (CH).
2) This condemnation is found in the canon which is foundational to the respective belief systems.
3) The form of the condemnation is deontic.
4) A deontic stance is not utilitarian as they are mutually exclusive.
5) Therefore because of 3) and 4): the condemnation is not utilitarian.
6) To opt for a utilitarian explanation of CH is to ignore the canon.
7) To ignore the canon is to fail to engage the thrust of CH rhetoric.
8) Therefore from 6) and 7) this constitutes a failure to engage CH.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-21-2006, 07:29
It's certainly a repulsive thought process that grooves together nicely. What interests the lemur is that more than focusing on old-fashioned woman-hating, the penetrator/penetrated ethos seems to almost be gender-blind. If a woman straps on an assistive device and penetrates a man, she becomes vigorous and worthy, while he loses face. Or would the ancients have seen it that way?
One wonders. I'm not sure todays society views a woman with a strap on as "worthy" but if they do it's probably a result of the female empowerment movement which is fairly recent.
Adrian II
11-21-2006, 12:58
Penetration is the standard I believe. This is only permitted with a women one has wed.That would imply that homosexual acts other than penetration are permitted by the canon. Do you really believe that?
I think this shows why the difference between text and message is important when it comes to understanding a text. Biblical texts have a history (including the etymology of the words used) and they have been written down in a particular context that gave them their original meaning. Without specific knowledge of that history and context, all we are left with in the way of interpretation is your 'I believe'.
On a side-line, it might be worthwhile to explore the etymology of the word 'abomination' in the oldest extant text. Are we sure that it did not originally carry a utilitarian connotation?
Leviticus has always been in the first tier of holy works for Jewry. It is part of the Torah where the law is put forward and thus the core of the faith. There are no examples of its being separate from the first five books.This baffles me. Are you suggesting the Torah simply dropped from the sky intact sometime after the Babylonian captivity?
The word 'Jew' originated during the captivity, i.e. before the compilation of the Pentateuch. There were Jews before there was the Jewish canon as we know it now. The five books were a selection from a much larger corpus of ancient and newer texts, including various prophecies, hymns, genealogies, etcetera. They were all separate before the Jewish priesthood compiled a definitive selection of five books.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-22-2006, 01:27
That would imply that homosexual acts other than penetration are permitted by the canon. Do you really believe that?
Any other acts are viewed the same. One man gets gratification, the other gives it. The one doing the giving is debased because that is what women are for. In Greece a boy without a beard was allowed to gratify and older man who had a beard. Once you got the facial hair you went off and found your own boyfriend.
Athens and Sparta had a ridiculous double standard in this regard. If nothing else you can say the Jews were consistant.
Besides, the whole utility arguement falls down because even rampent homosexuals in previous eras had wives and children. More recently, look at Oscar Wilde.
In the ancient world homosexuality and procreation were not mutually exclusive. In fact homosexuality only came into existence about 200 years ago.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228860,00.html
He is completely correct.
I dont know about the founding teachings of Islam, Bhudism, or Hinduism, but I do not know of any time Jesus taught that it was ok to treat gays the way many Christians do, or to even label it sin.
Of course there are the old testament passages, but it is my understanding Jesus did not agree with a lot of the things taught in the old testament. In fact, was not the old testament included in the bible just to document the foretelling of the coming of Jesus? Isaiah ascending to the clouds on a chariot or something... its been a long time since religion class...
Anyway, what are your opinions?
Elton's wrong.
Religion generally promotes hatred and disdain, not only against gays but against everyone who's different from you.
ICantSpellDawg
11-22-2006, 19:06
Elton's wrong.
Religion generally promotes hatred and disdain, not only against gays but against everyone who's different from you.
life generally promotes the same. as does everything in it. singling religion out for the failings of all ideological systems is sort of short-sighted.
That would imply that homosexual acts other than penetration are permitted by the canon. Do you really believe that?
You asked: is it even possible to have sex with a man as with a woman. I put forward penetration as the common sexual element. As far as the canon is concerned and if you look at say Lev. 18:22 the predicate "lie" is shakab which implies sexual relations which is broader than penetration.
On a side-line, it might be worthwhile to explore the etymology of the word 'abomination' in the oldest extant text. Are we sure that it did not originally carry a utilitarian connotation?
I don't understand your line of thinking here. The adjective "abomination" expresses an idea or attribute of a thing, but does not in and of itself convey utility. This is the case in English as well as Hebrew. In its simplest form it is simply the Y of an X is Y.
This baffles me. Are you suggesting the Torah simply dropped from the sky intact sometime after the Babylonian captivity?
Judaism is a revealed religion. Part of what this means is metaphysical/ethical knowledge claims are sourced to the Divine. Leviticus is considered revealed, handed down from Moses: complete. This is how the text is presented.
The word 'Jew' originated during the captivity, i.e. before the compilation of the Pentateuch. There were Jews before there was the Jewish canon as we know it now. The five books were a selection from a much larger corpus of ancient and newer texts, including various prophecies, hymns, genealogies, etcetera. They were all separate before the Jewish priesthood compiled a definitive selection of five books.
Jew is the English transliteration traced back to the Latin and Greek iudeus and ioudaios respectively and simply means Judean. This can refer to those from the Kingdom of Judah which was the Southern kingdom after the division following Solomon's death. This kingdom existed from the 8th Century predating the captivity. Were one to reject this notion then there is no explanation for why the returnees would be referred to as Judeans (Jews) as opposed to Ephriamites or Rubanites etc. Regardless, this is periphera and does not relate to sexual ethics rhetoric.
There are no examples of the Torah in general or Leviticus specifically not being considered canonical.
The point remains: the sexual ethics stance is deontic. This is demonstrated by the text(s). To engage the position requires engaging the rhetoric of the position.
Adrian II
11-22-2006, 19:28
The point remains: the sexual ethics stance is deontic. This is demonstrated by the text(s). To engage the position requires engaging the rhetoric of the position.We would be like those future archeologists who may one day dig up the 1936 Soviet Constitution and conclude from it that the Soviet Union was a full-fledged democracy.
TosaInu has called for last drinks. Let us toast to our next engagement. ~:cheers:
We would be like those future archeologists who may one day dig up the 1936 Soviet Constitution and conclude from it that the Soviet Union was a full-fledged democracy.
Do not confuse historicity with rhetoric.
TosaInu has called for last drinks. Let us toast to our next engagement. ~:cheers:
~:cheers:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-27-2006, 19:31
We would be like those future archeologists who may one day dig up the 1936 Soviet Constitution and conclude from it that the Soviet Union was a full-fledged democracy.
TosaInu has called for last drinks. Let us toast to our next engagement. ~:cheers:
You mean like the current archaologists and classicists who believe all Tyrants were evil baby-eaters.
I'm sorry but that point falls flat on its face. I repeat, homosexuality does not preclude pro-creation, you could be a rampent homosexual and still have a wife and kids. Leviticus is concerned with issues of masculinity and it mirrors pretty much every other culture. The difference is that the Jews went the whole hog and decided that if you can't be the submissive partner then you can't make someone else be the submissive partner.
Adrian, I understand that you are a total athieist but you can't just reduce religion down to utility. In this case it was used to justify social mores.
Modern Example, I will not wear pink hotpants because I find the idea immasculating and shameful, however there is no utilitarian reason for me not to do so.
Oh, btw, I found evidence for the existance of Jesus and Essene Dead Sea Scrolls.
Adrian II
11-28-2006, 00:57
Adrian, I understand that you are a total athieist but you can't just reduce religion down to utility. In this case it was used to justify social mores.That is exactly what I have been saying all along in this thread.
I pointed out that utilitarian arguments were probably not the reason for the interdiction of homosexuality throughout most of Christianity, although we can not exclude them in some instances. Pindar countered by saying that yes, we could exclude them altogether. Hence our discussion.
Oh, btw, I found evidence for the existance of Jesus and Essene Dead Sea Scrolls.And you are telling us just like that?
I am looking forward to your thread in the Monastery! :bow:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-28-2006, 01:13
Ah, you don't remember.
It should read:
Oh, btw, I found evidence for the existance of Jesus in the Essene Dead Sea Scrolls.
You challenged me about nine months ago to find any evidence for the historical existance of Jesus. Then you dropped off the face of the Earth. In the mean time I did some digging and reading. Some Essene Scrolls refer to a profit and a "man of a lie," both were persecuted by the Romans. the "man of a lie" was apparently executed in a gruesome way. It has been suggested that the first was the John the Baptist and the second Jesus the Christ.
Its not proof but its quite a convincing arguement.
I pointed out that utilitarian arguments were probably not the reason for the interdiction of homosexuality throughout most of Christianity, although we can not exclude them in some instances. Pindar countered by saying that yes, we could exclude them altogether. Hence our discussion.
I came in late but it doesn't look that way re-reading the thread. I'll take your word for it.
Adrian II
11-28-2006, 01:24
Ah, you don't remember.I certainly do! Several members took up my challenge, you were the most persistent and announced you were going to do your own research on the matter. :2thumbsup:
Tachikaze
11-28-2006, 18:43
Do you ever wonder why they do so? I am not a believer in any God or supernatural force or presence whatsoever, but I understand very well why these 'scribes' continue to fascinate people.
The 'accumulated wisdom' that the world has gathered since is often no more than a plagiarism of those old 'opinions', clothed in the garb of contemporary scribes. Preferring bad copies to the original, and failing to even duly acknowledge that original - now that is funny to my mind.
Fascination is one thing, but they were just human beings with opinions of what should be socially acceptable. Did they know any better than any of us? Did they have the benefit of our 2500 additional years of historical and social scientific observation?
Accumulated wisdom includes scientific observation and the 2500 subsequent years of careful study of the natural, psychological, and social world. It includes knowledge of the Western hemisphere, of thousands of cultures unknown to the Biblical scribes, of the universe outside the atmosphere of our planet. It includes and whole new set of post-industrial lifestyles that require a new way of thinking about human relationships (e.g. modern romance and dating, extended bachelorhoods, etc.).
I pointed out that utilitarian arguments were probably not the reason for the interdiction of homosexuality throughout most of Christianity, although we can not exclude them in some instances. Pindar countered by saying that yes, we could exclude them altogether. Hence our discussion.
I came in late but it doesn't look that way re-reading the thread. I'll take your word for it.
My position is found in post 62:
"As far as the Judeo-Christian Tradition is concerned: many posts seem to err in failing to properly frame the stance. The canon does not make any utility argument. There is no being gay is bad because it does not lead to breeding more believers etc. Rather the judgment is deontic meaning the act(s) themselves are condemned as unnatural or a defilement or a debasement in clear terms. The rhetoric is a simple example of a Divine appeal to authority. Deity makes judgment: act X is wrong. The subject is then left to conform or rebel, accept or reject."
I then put the stance in clearer terms on post 95 where I broke it into a basic argument:
1) The Judeo-Christian Tradition condemns homosexuality (CH).
2) This condemnation is found in the canon which is foundational to the respective belief systems.
3) The form of the condemnation is deontic.
4) A deontic stance is not utilitarian as they are mutually exclusive.
5) Therefore because of 3) and 4): the condemnation is not utilitarian.
6) To opt for a utilitarian explanation of CH is to ignore the canon: see 2).
7) To ignore the canon is to fail to engage the thrust of CH rhetoric.
8) Therefore from 6) and 7) this constitutes are failure to engage CH.
Fascination is one thing, but they were just human beings with opinions of what should be socially acceptable. Did they know any better than any of us? Did they have the benefit of our 2500 additional years of historical and social scientific observation?
For a parishioner, the prophets of the Judeo-Christian Tradition were not simply giving opinion on social acceptability, but the Divine Will. Such trumps all other criteria including any chronology of sexual norms. From such a perspective they did/do know better.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-28-2006, 22:14
Fascination is one thing, but they were just human beings with opinions of what should be socially acceptable. Did they know any better than any of us? Did they have the benefit of our 2500 additional years of historical and social scientific observation?
Accumulated wisdom includes scientific observation and the 2500 subsequent years of careful study of the natural, psychological, and social world. It includes knowledge of the Western hemisphere, of thousands of cultures unknown to the Biblical scribes, of the universe outside the atmosphere of our planet. It includes and whole new set of post-industrial lifestyles that require a new way of thinking about human relationships (e.g. modern romance and dating, extended bachelorhoods, etc.).
What about all the extinct cultures the Biblical scholars were familiar with?
You assume man has changed in those 2,500 years, he hasn't
2,500 years ago if two men couldn't agree they either got in a fight or had the chief decide, which usually left them both wanting. Today instead of chiefs we have lawyers but the principle is the same.
I do not know a single heterosexual man who sees being sodamised as manly.
Adrian II
11-28-2006, 22:43
Accumulated wisdom includes scientific observation and the 2500 subsequent years of careful study of the natural, psychological, and social world.My dear Tachikaze, I wish it would. If only science would enhance wisdom, we would be so much better off.
Alas, science often blinds us to the accumulated wisdom of the world.
Hubris! :yes:
My dear Tachikaze, I wish it would. If only science would enhance wisdom, we would be so much better off.
Alas, science often blinds us to the accumulated wisdom of the world.
Hubris! :yes:
I agree. Unfortunately, the same can be said for dogmatism.
Adrian II
11-29-2006, 00:31
I agree. Unfortunately, the same can be said for dogmatism.It is nice to discover that we can agree on something once in a while, isn't it?
Modern science, for all its advances, has not broken out of Plato's cave yet.
It is nice to discover that we can agree on something once in a while, isn't it?
Yes, but even when we don't I always find you a reflective well reasoned interlocutor. ~:cheers:
Adrian II
11-29-2006, 16:09
Yes, but even when we don't I always find you a reflective well reasoned interlocutor. ~:cheers:Likewise. Though I have to say that sometimes your compact English phrasing is hard to grasp for a non-native speaker like me. But hey, it beats sudoku. ~:cheers:
Tachikaze
12-01-2006, 18:17
Wigfirth: What about all the extinct cultures the Biblical scholars were familiar with?
You assume man has changed in those 2,500 years, he hasn't
2,500 years ago if two men couldn't agree they either got in a fight or had the chief decide, which usually left them both wanting. Today instead of chiefs we have lawyers but the principle is the same.
We live in a world more closely related to the societies since the Bible was written than during its time. We have our own ways of handling families, romance, and other relationships that did not exist for those Jewish scholars. There might be common principles, but scholars in other parts of the world haven't agreed with the Biblical ones, so the answers to society's questions can't be completely universal.
To say that the Biblical scholars knew all that was needed and that everything is still the same makes all philosophical concepts since 500 BCE meaningless. The people who wrote the Bible were from one small world in the Middle East in their own time with their own particular needs in their dry-climate, agrarian, pre-industrial lives.
Universal?
The cultures of China, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam have societies based on the teachings attributed to Kung Fu Tse (Confucious). The teachings are very distinct from those of the Jewish writers. Confucianism was built on Taoism and Buddhism and followed by a development of philosophies by scholars through the ages that built on the original concepts.
And, by the way, I have seen nothing forbidding homosexuality in Kung Fu Tse's philosophy.
The Chinese are are just one example showing global variations on social norms. I don't know why special importance is given to the writers of the Bible over the thousands of other scholars and observers of human nature worldwide that preceded them, were their contemporaries, or lived since them.
We live in a world more closely related to the societies since the Bible was written than during its time. We have our own ways of handling families, romance, and other relationships that did not exist for those Jewish scholars. There might be common principles, but scholars in other parts of the world haven't agreed with the Biblical ones, so the answers to society's questions can't be completely universal.
If someone asserts an X as a moral standard and another disagrees with the assertion that does not invalidate the initial assertion in and of itself. Leviticus is quite clear in noting contrary sexual standards and rejects them as flawed (abominations). A deontic stance means the X is universal in its application or rectitude, not adherence.
To say that the Biblical scholars knew all that was needed and that everything is still the same makes all philosophical concepts since 500 BCE meaningless.
If the above is reduced to sexual ethical stances, which is what I assume "all that was needed" refers to, then contrary views would be rejected, quite right. If a Persian courtier is into male love the traditional Jew would be obligated to reject such as contrary to the Divine Will. If a San Francisco based gay advocate puts forward the joys of gay love an Orthodox Jew living in the Bay Area would similarly sees this as contrary to the order of Heaven. The stance is not dependent on chronology or geography.
Universal?
The cultures of China, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam have societies based on the teachings attributed to Kung Fu Tse (Confucious). The teachings are very distinct from those of the Jewish writers. Confucianism was built on Taoism and Buddhism and followed by a development of philosophies by scholars through the ages that built on the original concepts.
And, by the way, I have seen nothing forbidding homosexuality in Kung Fu Tse's philosophy.
Confucianism certainly is very different from Judaism. Confucianism is not built on Taoism or Buddhism. You could make that argument with Neo-Confucianism. Confucius' Analects do not mention homosexuality, but Confucianism is very clear on reinforcing gender roles: transvestitism for example is verboten. Similarly, a man assuming a female role would be rejected i.e. the sexual passive role. In addition, one could note the Confucian deference to the family and state whereby one is expected to adhere to the wishes (standards, laws, etc.) of one's superiors. Homosexuality is considered taboo in China and was illegal under the Qing Dynasty for example. None of this is relevant to the basic topic however.
The Chinese are are just one example showing global variations on social norms. I don't know why special importance is given to the writers of the Bible over the thousands of other scholars and observers of human nature worldwide that preceded them, were their contemporaries, or lived since them.
These two statements demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. Difference is not relevant. The rhetoric of the Judeo-Christian Tradition is not an appeal to social norms. Quite the contrary. It is a rhetoric based on an appeal to the Divine Will via prophets. The stance does not revolve around the number of adherents or popularity. What is contrary to Divine judgment is condemned.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.