This is topic Homosexuality in the Bible in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=027179

---

Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
 
Some of you may recall that some time ago, I posted a topic called "The Sin of Sodom" concerning the actual reason for the destruction of Sodom.

At the time, I also stated that I would be covering, in turn, each of the Big Eight.

I'm finished.

However, the text is too large (and too full of html) to effectively post on Hatrack, so I have placed it on the web here:
Homosexuality in the Bible

Please, give me feedback. Where is my essay strong, what are its weakpoints? Where could I explain more? Am I missing anything?

As always, I appreciate the input of each and everyone one of you.

Thank you,
HRE
 

---

Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
 
As a side note to all this I just want to throw in if anyone here knows about the biblical influence that the Assyrians had on the bible.
 

---

Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
 
What you're basically saying, HRE, is not that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality (because it does). You're saying that it can't be taken seriously because it's "absurd" and Paul's a bigot.

If you're just going to say that the Bible is a pile of crap, you could just say so and not waste your time and mine.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Thanks for compiling that information. I learned a lot and I look forward to the discussion that will ensue.

quote:

---

Stop drinking water and drink only alcohol; it is good for your stomach (1 Tim 5:23)

---

My high school history teacher taught us that the sanitation conditions in ancient times often make it safer for one to drink wine than water.
 

---

Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
 
daggonee, I'm sorry you got that message; what I'm trying to say is that the references to homosexuality are mostly in the parts of the Bible that are usually dismissed and ignored, and that Paul isn't a reliable source for much of anything.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Well, in all honesty, Paul was a bigot. So were the other writers of the Bible. So were the vast majority of all humans until 1900 or so, and a very considerable portion up until 1950, 1960. Not just on homosexuality, but also on race, gender, and religion.
 

---

Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
 
Beren, I don't know what Bible you are using, but I suggest you throw it away and get a good translation. Here's what the NIV says:

quote:

---

Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.

-- 1 Timothy 5:23

---

quote:

---

No longer drink water exclusively, but (44) use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.

-- 1 Timothy 5:23

---

quote:

---

Drink water no longer exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.

-- 1 Timothy 5:23

---

quote:

---

Sodomite = homosexual, right? Wrong. This is a mistranslation in modern times, one of the many that crop up upon close inspection. The Hebrew word in question is qadhesh, feminine form qedheshah. It literally means "temple prostitute", and nothing more.

---

quote:

---

-Wear clothing of two clothes (any nylon/cotton blend, etc.) (19:19)

---

If you're going to nit-pick, get it right. The ONLY forbidden cloth mixture is wool and linen. Nylon and cotton, and any other mixture, is perfectly fine.

quote:

---

-Trim your beard (19:27)

---

quote:

---

-Go to a church if you are a dwarf, blind, lame, flat-footed, hunch-backed; if you have bad vision, birthmarks or other blemishes, a flat nose, damaged testicles, or anything "superfluous". I guess God doesn't like the disabled. (21:16-21)

---

quote:

---

-Curse, or you will automatically be stoned to death (24:16)

---

quote:

---

Believe me, the list goes on and on and on. So, anyone who cites Leviticus against homosexuality either A) has not read Leviticus and has no idea of its absurdity, or B) knows what Leviticus says, but doesn't want you to know.

---

Buddy, I live these laws you are so glibly mistranslating and mocking. I know full well what Leviticus does and does not say.

And just for that, I won't tell you where the multiple spelling and usage errors are.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Digs, I quoted that from HRE's website. I thought you read it as well?
 

---

Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 
HRE, that was a nicely researched piece. I have read stuff like this before, especially the bits about the other things we shouldn't do according to the Bible, like not eat shellfish or trim one's beard (I got the latter but not the former). The "Paul is a bigot" thing is a newer tact. Clearly, people like Digging Holes has a hard time when OTHERS point out what is picked and what is discarded but have no problem doing it themselves. What is difficult is taking what is now considered ONLY a holy text and breaking it down into what it really is...an amazing historical text with political, historical, sacred, and practical applications and uses. Taken as a sum of amazingly diverse parts, one can look at why things were included at the time (some for simply health codes) and think, okay, that makes sense then but thanks to modern sanitation and food preparation, those laws don't make sense.

But really, who DID decide in churches today which of those old "thou shalt nots" to keep and which to throw out? Why is one infallible truth (such as God hates Homosexuals...oh wait, only the "sin" not the "sinner") and others quaint anachronisms? Why do most Christian men shave and find no problem with that but take other things so literally or, as HRE pointed out, have to dig a bit to support it? It is easy to say "ah, he hates the whole Bible so let's not discuss it" and dismiss it as Digging Holes has suggested but it is clear that for someone like HRE to be so well read on various versions of the Bible that maybe, must maybe, some people can mine the book for the wisdom and truth without having to succumb to ancient prejudices and practices that are clearly contrary to the teachings of the churches namesake. Maybe.

Good stuff. I think the Bible is really in need of rescuing from the literalists and those who pervert one of histories most important books to make it so "sacred" that its mysteries can't be discussed without insinuation of blashemy.

fil
 

---

Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
 
Oh. I see. Yes, that was just after I threw my hands up in disgust.

You know, HRE, if you can only riducule the bible by grossly misquoting it, I must say that it only weakens your case. Oh, I'm sorry? What case was that? Nothing...
 

---

Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
 
digg, thanks for showing the other translations. For most of the verses I checked a few, but not that one.

Apologies, rivka. The temple prostitute part came from the King James Dictionary of Biblical terms, which I sourced.

As for the Levitican laws, I acknowledge that I have not studied them extensively and my interpretation is probably off. I'm heading for bed, so I can't change it now, but I'll do so in the morning.

Seriously, if my interpretation is wrong, it only makes me happy to see some logic in there. Thanks for that. BTW, what is wrong with linen/wool blend?

And, much as I may have offended you (for which I am deeply sorry, you seem like a really cool person), would you please show me my spelling and usage errors?

Pretty please?

With sugar on top?
 

---

Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
 
As to hating the Bible:

I really enjoy the Bible. I read it often, and I have read it from cover to cover. I find the Gospels to be the most inspirational works I have ever read.

However, that does not make them infallible.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
The reason for the linen/wool admixture prohibition is discussed as length. Short version: God says so. Long version: there are many possible things we can learn from it (it comes from the two (incompatible) sacrifices and natures of Kayin (Cain) and Hevel (Abel); one is animal derived-and one plant-derived; it is actually a very special mixture and may only be used in the Temple clothes of the Priests) -- but still, it all boils down to: God says so.

As far as the spelling/usage issues, that would require me rereading it. I'm not sure if I'm willing to do so, but I will contemplate the possibility.

[ September 06, 2004, 12:48 AM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
 
HRE, you claiming to like the Bible is in stark contrast to your article. In it, you use gross generalizations, misinterpretations, deliberately falsified translations and just plain ignorance to demolish it. And all for what? You say one thing, and do another. That either means you're a liar, or very confused. I'm not sure which to pick.
 

---

Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 
Digging Holes, you claiming to like the Bible is in stark contrast to many Christian practices. In them, people typically use gross generalizations, misinterpretations, deliberately falsified translations and just plain ignorance to support it. And all for what? You say one thing, and do another. That either means you're a liar, or very confused. I'm not sure which to pick.



fil
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
HRE, you might consider leaving this out of your essay:

quote:

---

To the point: these two verses are the most often cited against homosexuality. When you hear these verses, however, I can promise you that the speaker is one of two things: ignorant of the Bible, or a deceiver.

---

It might be hard for people to keep an open mind when they feel they are being attacked. I think you make some good points in your essay. Given the sensitive nature of the topic, there is no need to punch up the rhetoric.
 

---

Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
 
Well, fil, it's nice to know that I'm guilty for something that someone I don't know seems to have done, according to you. Thanks for pointing that out. I suppose that if caucasians were once part of the nazi party, that makes me one too, right? I was criticizing HRE's article as it applies to himself. You, on the other hand, are wasting server space. And I am wasting space in even replying to you.

Will it never end?
 

---

Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
 
No, it will never end! Bwahahahaha...actually, you were generalizing and saying that HRE was demolishing the Bible...when in fact, he was making a case for why using the Bible as the defining reason to hating gays might be a bad idea and not well supported in the text. He in fact pointed out that far from demolishing the Bible he loves the book and finds great inspiration in it. So one bit of hyperbole leads to another.

fil
 

---

Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
 

quote:

---

Go to a church if you are a dwarf, blind, lame, flat-footed, hunch-backed; if you have bad vision, birthmarks or other blemishes, a flat nose, damaged testicles, or anything "superfluous". I guess God doesn't like the disabled

---

quote:

---

As for the Levitican laws, I acknowledge that I have not studied them extensively and my interpretation is probably off. I'm heading for bed, so I can't change it now, but I'll do so in the morning.

---

quote:

---

The reason for the linen/wool admixture prohibition is discussed as length.

---

rivka, a question (I ask you because I'm both lazy and I want to rely on a good source):

Is it that the laity shouldn't use cloth made from blended wool and linen, or is it prohibited to wear both at the same time (even if they are separate cloths)? So, say, is it okay for me to wear my linen shirt and linen skirt along with my pretty grey and dark rose striped wool scarf (which I am doing right now and feeling a little nervous about )?

Thanks! Just checking for accuracy, not that I'd be taking off my scarf right now and waiting for an answer ... tucking it away in a desk drawer ...
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

daggonee, I'm sorry you got that message; what I'm trying to say is that the references to homosexuality are mostly in the parts of the Bible that are usually dismissed and ignored, and that Paul isn't a reliable source for much of anything.

---

quote:

---

22Then the apostles and elders and the whole church in Jerusalem chose delegates, and they sent them to Antioch of Syria with Paul and Barnabas to report on this decision. The men chosen were two of the church leaders[6] --Judas (also called Barsabbas) and Silas. 23This is the letter they took along with them:

"This letter is from the apostles and elders, your brothers in Jerusalem. It is written to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. Greetings!

24"We understand that some men from here have troubled you and upset you with their teaching, but they had no such instructions from us. 25So it seemed good to us, having unanimously agreed on our decision, to send you these official representatives, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27So we are sending Judas and Silas to tell you what we have decided concerning your question.

28"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these requirements: 29You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or eating the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well. Farewell." (NLT)

---

And if anyone wants to argue that homosexuality (as described in Leviticus) does not fall under the category of "sexual immorality," go ahead. But stop trying to pretend that we're selectively interpreting things on purpose. That's what the apostles and elders, the first generation of Jesus-followers, the immediate and present personages, decided. We're not being inconsistent, we're doing the best we can to follow the guidelines we were given.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Yep.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Sara, take the scarf back out. First of all, I could wear the combination you mentioned, as long as I did not sew or pin the linen and wool together. More here.

Second of all, this is not one the Noachide laws, so (according to Jewish law) only Jews are required to keep it.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Rivka, I can't speak on the reliability of this source, but it states that

quote:

---

The application of Noachide law to many general areas is relatively clear. Homosexuality is forbidden, as is adultery and bestiality.

---

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
rivka, I will acknowledge a good measure of relief.

quote:

---

Even the smallest amount is forbidden. For example, if you have a wool suit and the label is sewn on with a linen thread, it is forbidden to wear the suit until the linen thread is removed. You may not wear a wool jacket with a linen patch on the elbow, or anywhere else.

The prohibition of shatnez applies to any sort of material, whether it be used for socks, shoes, gloves, pajamas, etc., and to any period of time, no matter how brief. We may not even try on clothing that has shatnez to see if it fits.

---

Wow. This practice of the faith is one of serious dedication. Thank you for the cite and for the clarification, rivka. I will not search my woolen scarves for linen-threaded labels, but I will think of you when I wear them. *smile

[ September 06, 2004, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Dags, that's an excellent source. (Actually, I didn't know it was available online now! Great!)

But yes, one of the Noachide Laws (more accurately, categories) is gilui arayot -- sexual immorality. And that would include such things as adultery, incest, bestiality, and homosexuality (although possibly only male homosexuality).
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
*laugh* In actual practice, men get the brunt of the shatnez issues. It is quite common for men's wool suits to have issues with linen linings and such, while fairly rare for women's garments (with the exception of wool overcoats, which us SoCallians don't worry much about) to have that concern.

My cousin does shatnez checking -- I call him if I'm not sure if something needs to be checked. Anyway, I wear mostly cotton and synthetics. It's too warm for wool here most of the year! And both wool and linen often need to be dry-cleaned. (Not too practical with three kids, not too mention when you're as much of a klutz as I am. )
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Oh, I misunderstood what you were referring to when you said it wasn't one of the Noachide laws. You meant the linen/wool thing, not homosexuality.

That's what I get for not rereading a few posts when I come back into a thread.

Dagonee

[ September 06, 2004, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
*wonders what Dagonee thought Sara was DOING with that scarf*
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Whatever it was, it was definitely kosher.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Equae, I sense a bit of circular reason in your argument.

You say that Homosexuality is immoral according to the bible because there is New Testament condemnation of Sexual Immorality, and that must include Homosexuality because there is a bible verse in the New Testament that has a condemnation of Sexual Immorality, and that must include homsexuality because....

My limited study of the Bible, and history of Biblical times seems to point out the competing religions used sex as a religious service, (the oft mentioned Hill Shrines and Baal festivals). Taken in the context of the other practices condemned in your quote, those sexual services available from the Ishtar/Aphrodite temples is what is more likely being condoned. Eating foods from the alter--Sacrilidge. Strangled foods were commonly the alter foods as well.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Taken in the context of the Noachide laws, though, it is very consistent. One would assume that the Jewish leaders of the new Church were aware of these laws when they considered this issue.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
 

quote:

---

However, it is permitted to wear a linen garment over a woolen garment, or vice versa, since they are not attached to each other

---

Wait, so rivka as long as theyre not attached by a thread it's ok? Are you sure? I always thought that if you're wearing wool tzitzit your not allowed to wear anything with linen.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Hi, Jaime. Peanut gallery here (no reliable source of knowledge), but from rivka's link, it appears that no connector is permitted, though otherwise okay. That is, no pins or glue or tape holding the cloths together, not even areas that don't touch the body.
 

---

Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
 
Yah, it's just for some reason I always thought that if I were wearing wool tzitzit I'm not allowed to wear linen regardless of whether it's connected or not...that link would've made my life alot easier if I saw it before the summer started...
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Jaime, I know people who WON'T wear anything linen while wearing wool tzitzis; but my understanding is that is not the halachah. (And the site I linked to is very good and has well-researched and well-written articles, written by someone I used to know many many moons ago.)

Ask me the next time I'm wearing wool tzitzis, and I'll find out for sure.
 

---

Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
 
Are you sure it's not different customs maybe or do all customs follow the same law? Just curious but are you Sephardic or Ashkenazi, or do you follow Chasidic customs?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I am not aware of any differences in custom regarding shatnez. I myself am Ashkenazi, and not Chassidish; the web site I linked to is written by a Karlin-Stalin chassid.

[ September 06, 2004, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
 
Dan, I was arguing against a specific point in HRE's essay. The part where he says that since christians don't follow other parts of Leviticus, why do we argue against homosexuality based on Leviticus.

In the section that I quoted, the argument was not over morality in general. It was over just how much of Jewish religious law were the Gentile believers supposed to adhere to. Not morality - Torah. Did these Gentiles have to become fully Jewish, from circumcision right through? No. but they could not eat meat offered to idols, meat that came from strangled animals, and they had to avoid sexual immorality.

I'm not saying anyone has to believe in the Bible's teachings. I'm just sick of that particular argument being used. It just doesn't hold water.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
EL I understood what you were saying. You argued it quite well. What my response is simply "Sexual Immorality" and "Homosexuality" is not identical. Prostitution, Promiscuity, Beastilaity, Incest, Rape and Sexual Practices in conjunciton with other religions would fall into that category.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
OK, I got a question for those of you familiar with the Hebrew. I brought this up before in the old Sodom thread, but no one knew the answer then.

# Deut. 23: 17

17 ¶ There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

OK, it has been said here that the translation of "sodomite" is wrong--that it should be temple prostitute--then corrected again to say just prostitute. But look at the above from the King James Version. It has the word "whore" already, I am guessing that means prostitute. And it connects it with females. Then it says "sodomite" and connects it with males. Are these male prostitutes? Somehow I seriously doubt it, considering the beliefs and culture of the time. It makes *so* much more sense for it to be referring to homosexuality.

But I don't know the original Hebrew, so I will wait patiently for someone to explain this to me.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Somehow I seriously doubt it, considering the beliefs and culture of the time."

You don't think male prostitutes existed at the time? *blink* Catamites weren't exactly rare, y'know.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
See, I thought of this too. From my point of view, which is admittedly pretty ignorant, I can't see that any women would be in a position to purchase a prostitute, and in the times I can't imagine that they'd want to. I can only imagine that a male prostitute would be purchased by another man.

[ September 07, 2004, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
*blinks right back at Tom*

What's a Catamite?

*goes to do research*
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Ah, I guess that makes sense. A male prostitute for other males? I didn't really think of it that way. But then, doesn't this verse refer to homosexuality?
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
That's the assumption.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
To Dan: Forgive me for making an innane and perhaps completely stupid point, but if sexual immorality doesn't necessarily include homosexuality, then why would it include bestiality? I'm just curious at the reasoning behind that.

I guess it depends on what your reasons are for drawing a line in the sand. What sexual practices should be forbidden and why? Everyone has their own reasons. I know why my religion is against homosexuality. Bestiality too. Sex is only ever to be between a married man and woman, because that is the only kind of sex that can continue into the eternities. Period. That's just "the way it is" from the standpoint of my faith.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Eaquae,
You've partially restored my faith in Christians on Hatrack. I've all but thrown the council of jerusalem in people's faces in homosexuality debates (i.e. I've consciously lied saying that it invalidated the anti-homosexual stuff from the Old Testament) in the past three years or so and so far, except for Ralphie who posted the actual passage at one point but not in rebttal to me, and dkw, who I imagine knew I was lying, but for whatever reason (I imagine graciousness) didn't want to point it out, no one has given the slightest indication that they knew anything about this extremely important facet of Christian development.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
MrSquicky: This isn't a defense of Christians or an accusation or anything, but I just want to say that in every church I've ever been to, they have given the excuse that we don't follow the old laws because we live by faith and not by laws.

After doing some personal study I realized that that didn't seem completely accurate, since Jesus said that he didn't come to change the laws.

Not long ago, Rivka taught me about the laws for Gentiles versus the laws for Jews. It was a real eye-opener for me. While the people in postions of leadership in my church were right in the idea that I didn't have to follow the Jewish ordinances, they didn't have a clue why. I got the feeling that their real reason was that it would just be too much trouble. So far, I've never had a church leader tell me what Rivka showed me, or what EL mentioned.

But, the important point is that it was in the Bible, and that it was my own fault for not studying it and learning it for myself. I'm learning more each day to put my faith in the Bible and to second-guess everything I hear in church.

/thought-rant
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
bev--its consent and coersion. There is no such thing as informed consentual, non-coerced sex with a sheep, from the sheep's point of view.

(Bestiality in the pasture is just Baaaaahd sex)
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
What if someone could get a sheep to be attracted to them? Would it be okay, then?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

I've consciously lied saying that it invalidated the anti-homosexual stuff from the Old Testament

---

You've about destroyed my faith in you.

Consciously lying as what, some sort of test?

Sheesh.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
It must come with the territory. Ced fancied himself a psych/sociologist, too.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 

 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 

quote:

---

What if someone could get a sheep to be attracted to them? Would it be okay, then?

---

quote:

---

I don't think sheep ever consent to being sheared, but I have never heard of anybody preaching about the evils of wool.

---

quote:

---

Ah, I guess that makes sense. A male prostitute for other males? I didn't really think of it that way. But then, doesn't this verse refer to homosexuality?

---

bev, it seems (from my perspective) that whether it is the male-male sexual interaction or something else (prostitution, extortion, pederasty) about the interaction that is wrong is, in fact, at the heart of many disagreements about biblical condemnation of homosexual acts.

This is in part due to arguments over translation of terms, in part due to disagreements about context, and in part due to different sides speaking about different things without being aware of it. So, in other words, I think the confusion isn't only yours. (I'll go ahead and claim it, too.)
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 

quote:

---

Really? I know several vegans who are against eating any animal product, and many of them are also against using any animal product because of the animal's inability to consent. (I think it's an exploitation thing.)

---

Yep, for some people the rigor of their beliefs prohibits dairy products, honey, and so forth. Maybe more people than many of us realize.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
If you check the Vegan Website at www.vegansociety.com it talks about the use of products that contain animal by-products.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
I have several friends who won't wear silk because it is made from animal byproducts (even if the cocoons are empty and discarded by the time they are processed).
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Dag,
"Some sort of test" Kind of. I don't have a problem with lying in certain cases. I called it a shibboleth. It let me know if people were serious about their religion, and I really don't think it influenced the debate any. Especially since I repeatedly told people to go look at the passage I was misrepresenting.

These people were lying to me and to the rest of the board by saying that they were serious about their religion. I claimed something that wasn't true and if they were serious about the religion, they would know wasn't true. For anyone who did know the religion, this was a pretty good test. I really don't know of another way to do it.

I would never intentionally misrepresent a fundmanental part of my argument, but I really don't have a problem with throwing out little side tests like that. I think it is part of my training, both in debate and in psychology. If you're in a good program, you've gotten very similar training as a lawyer.

Ehh...I don't have ethical problems with it. I won't lie with the primary intent to deceive, but I don't have a problem doing it with the intent to uncover a deception. If that honestly makes you lose respect for me and you won't do it yourself, when you're a prosecutor, don't use any evidence obtained by the police by lying during their interrogations.

edit: This is also something I rarely do, and that I don't do at all with people whom I respect.

[ September 07, 2004, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Sara: OK.

It just still seems illogical to me to say, given the evidence at hand, that the Bible does not teach against homosexuality. Even if it is not conclusive, it just seems more likely that it does teach against it--appealing to objective reason.

I am not one that discounts Paul as a misogynist. While I do think that some of his comments on women were shaded by the culture of his day and personal opinion (particularly being silent in church and only asking one's husband), I think most of them (about women) are in perfect harmony with my religious beliefs.

I have no problem with the concept of "picking and choosing" because we all do that of a necessity. For those who faith in God and scripture, we have to create a framework in our minds of understanding how things fit together. If two things seem to be in conflict, we try our best to understand why. We do this in science too. The anomaly doesn't discount the premise when the majority of the evidence agrees. We look for reasons for the anomaly.

I believe I have found some very sound reasons for why Paul said what he did about women staying silent without it automatically discounting everything else he said. He even said that that was his opinion--therefore not absolute truth.

Paul said some mighty fine things--he is a favorite of mine. But he was also a product of his society--and I don't hold it against him.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
MrS -- of course you don't do that to people you respect. Nobody would.

You were treating people here with disrespect.

I have to say that I'm dissapointed.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 

quote:

---

I have several friends who won't wear silk because it is made from animal byproducts (even if the cocoons are empty and discarded by the time they are processed).

---

To my knowledge, silkworm cocoons, once "empty and discarded", are virtually worthless for making silk as the fibers have been broken by the exiting silkworm moth. So silk production, by necessity, calls for the killing of millions of silkworm larvae each year.

(For the record, I don't really have a problem with that.)
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
You know how movies always say, "no animals were harmed in the making of this film"? Do they care about earthworms? Just wondering....
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
porter,
I doubt everyone's religious commitment, because I feel I have ample reason to do so. I set up a situation that would show me the people whose religious commitment I should rspect. Almost everyone failed. In my mind, they don't deserve my respect.

Like I said to someone when we were discussing something similar to this, I don't give respect out free like the prize in a cereal box, but I do give it out. It's just that I think people have to earn respect.

So answer me, in this situation, should I respect these people's knowledge of the Bible? I started out not accepting the sincerity of their beliefs. They confirmed my doubts.

People on this site regularly question people who disagree with them sincerity, to my mind, with little result. I set out to test my doubts. I don't see how this is less disrespectful than saying "Oh you only believe that because of..." and it's worlds more effective.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Squicky, what was this "test" you speak of? And not that I care, but did I "fail" in your mind?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Almost everyone failed. In my mind, they don't deserve my respect."

Ah. You just lost mine, then.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I don't see how it's less disrespectful, either.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
MrS: I find it interesting that you would judge someone's respectability based on a single piece of information.

I'll use myself as an example, because I'm the only person I know.

I am FAR from being the best Christian on the planet, and I know that I have a lot more to learn about my own religion, and how to apply it. I also know that I am bad at living my own religion in my life and I'm constantly working on improving it.

So does that mean I don't measure up to your standards? Does that mean you don't respect me? Because a month ago I wouldn't have known what EL told you, but there's a good reason why.

I'm still learning, and so is everyone else.

How ridiculous to "test" someone based on a piece of information that you know about my religion. "Well," you think, "If they don't know this, then they obviously don't know enough to impress me."

It's possible to be sincere about your religion and still be in a learning process. The important thing to remember is that they aren't going to learn it from you, because you don't actually believe any of it.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
PSI,
It's not just a matter of one piece of information, nor is it a matter of disrespecting the person, although that enters into it.

People claimed to be against homosexuality because of their strongly held religious beliefs. As part of this debate, there was often a lot of back and forth about Levitical laws, to which I responded with the same information that Equae did, that the Council of Jerusalem, which is recorded in the Bible (I even gave the book and chapter), decided that the Levitical and Mosaic laws, except for the ones that we are now specifying, are no longer considered binding on Christians.

I more or less threw this in the face of the Christians arguing that Leviticus justified their position. Now, not only didn't they seem to know about the Council of Jerusalem in the first place, as this would have obviated the need to respond to the "look at all these other laws that you don't follow" argument, but I confirmed it by claiming that the council removed the homosexual prohibitions too and then told them exactly where to look to see what I was talking about.

Despite claiming that their beliefs came from their rigorous understanding of the Bible, they didn't know about one of the biggest influences on Christian laws that was recorded directly in the Bible. When told of this Council and how it supposedly invalidated their argument, none of them looked it up. They certainly didn't let it affect their thinking any, as they used the exact same arguments in the next gay debate, where I again brought this up and they again didn't have any knowledge of this council.

Now, I ask you, should I respect these people's knowledge of the Bible or their claim that they believe homosexuality is wrong because of their comprehensive knowledge of the Bible? Also, since I told them that there was a part of the Bible (which was real) that said that the Old Testament laws no longer held (which was true), except for the ones listed here, and I told them where to find it and I told them that there current position was out of line with this part of the Bible and yet they didn't even look it up, should I believe them when they say that it is very important to them to live by the rules in the Bible?

This is not a matter of learning. They made a claim that they believed that they could reasonably believe that homosexuality is wrong because of the rules in the Bible. I think I had pretty much taken away all basis for this claim by showing they had neither sufficient knowledge nor interest in the actual content of the Bible.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
If I'm understanding you, you are saying that you showed them a piece of scripture that contradicted what they were claiming, but they didn't give it the time of day?

If so, I would say that you played fair, and they didn't.

I was under the impression that you misrepresented your position in order to "trick" them into revealing their ignorance.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Squick, you're missing the obvious possible explanation that they relied on your representation of the scripture in question.

Now, I'm a nasty suspicious bastard, and I'd have checked. But you're faulting them for believing you.

Of course, now that you've admitted doing this, anyone who does believe you is at fault.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Mr. Squicky, I can think of several reasons you might not have gotten the response you were fishing for other than ignorance. Especially in a forum based on voluntary discussion – in my case it was because I was usually more interested in discussing other parts of your posts. (I did wonder why you seemed to have such a bee in your bonnet about the “Council of Jerusalem,” though.)

Now, I agree with you that there are a lot of people in this country who are woefully ignorant of the religion they claim to believe in, but I don’t think that it’s possible to classify a non-response to your bait as proof of such ignorance.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
MrSquicky -- you yourself said that you wouldn't do that to people you respect. Then, surprise surpise, you didn't respect them after they responded to your non-respectful question.

I'm reminded of the idiot practice that a lot of kids did in high school. Tell somebody a lie and wait to see if they believe it. If they do, then laugh at them for being so stupid as to believe such an absurd thing.

Whenever people did that, it just taught me that those people cannot be trusted.
 

---

Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
 
I think you're missing an obvious fact, Mr. Squicky. Obvious, at least, to any Christian. And that fact is simply that belief and faith are most assuredly NOT based on a rigorous understanding of the Bible. If that were the case, not even theologians with multiple doctorates in their field could have faith, because they never agree with each other.

Faith is not something that you build up by becoming more intellectual and memorizing biblical facts. Faith is a gift from God, pure and simple. I believed before I knew anything at all (it didn't even occur to me to read the Bible right away!). The learning process starts after that, and lasts a lifetime. So you have basically just proven that you have not an inkling of understanding about what christianity really is.

[ September 07, 2004, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: digging_holes ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Well, there is a difference between saying, "I don't know if the Bible says homosexuality is wrong" and saying, "The Bible says it's wrong!" The second implies that you consider yourself learned, at least in that particular area.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Dag,
But they didn't accept my description of scripture. The next itme this came up, they made the same claims regarding Levitical laws as before, which, had they believed my description, would have be invalidated.

dkw,
I agree that this was an option, though, since I got responses specifically talking about this objection though without any mention of the Council of Jerusalem, I thought that my interpretation was much more reasonable. And yes, I did flap it like an injured wing. I much prefer having discussions where I can trust that the other people are being honest with me, but that doesn't mean I'm going to blindly trust them.

Porter,
If you think that this is an equivilent to lying to someone to laugh at them for believing you, I don't know know what else I can say to change your mind. That's not what I did. I've been doing this for at least 2 years now, and this is the first I've mentioned it, except in one private conversation. I can assure you, my emotion wasn't mocking, but sadness. I wasn't trying to trick people to make them look foolish. I was interested in knowing who I could have an actual conversation grounded in the Bible with.

holes,
I've never criticized someone for having religious faith. What I did here was in no way attacking people's faith, unless you're saying that they believed that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong was told to them in communication with God.

They characterized their belief as being rooted in the Bible. I showed that not only wasn't this true, but also that they didn't really look to the Bible in any case.
 

---

Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
 
Mr. Squicky, are you telling me that because I don't know ALL the bible, then what I DO know about it is not valid (i.e., because I may not know about The Council of Jerusalem, or the Sermon on the Mount, or whatever else, then I am not able to comprehend when the Bible says "Do not lie with another man as you lie with a woman)? Please explain your reasoning to me, it seems pointedly and deliberately unsound, not to mention nonsensical.

You and some others around here seem to be going to extreme lengths to try to convince people that the Bible is not really saying what it is, in fact, saying. Well, guess what. It does.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Rationalize all you like. You lied in what was supposed to be a friendly discussion, simply to test a pet theory, when you could have easily gotten the same effect by merely pointing to the relevant scripture and characterizing it accurately.

They, presumably, thought they were telling the truth, even if they were mistaken.

It's interesting that you started this little sidetrack by saying "You've partially restored my faith in Christians on Hatrack." Group categorization is not very mature thinking, is it?

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Dag,
Have I ever made any bones about the fact that I don't trust the majority of Christians or that I feel that I have reasons for this distrust?

As for rationalizing, do you have an objection that I haven't answered satisfactorly? And, do you honestly think if I asked "Hey, are you people taking this into account?" I would have gotten anywhere near the same information? (That's a trick question too, as I did that on a couple of occasions).

The only criticism you seem to have is that I lied, which is a big no no. I don't share this belief. I don't have ethical problems with lying per se when it is used as a tool to uncover the truth. As I said, if you do, you've chosen the wrong profession.

holes,
My contention is that, if you don't know one of the basic defining things of how Christians are supposed to treat the rules that they are supposed to live by, then yes, you can't be trusted to tell me what the rules of te Bible say. This was a huge deal and is directly applicible every time that the Levitical laws argument comes up.

By further contention is that, if, after being told about this huge pivot point for all of Christianity that you didn't previously know about, you don't then go look it up and read about it, you don't really put a great deal of importance into what the Bible actually says.
 

---

Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
 
Really. Tell me, Mr. Squicky. What does the Bible actually say?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Squick, the problem is I've now got no reason to trust anything you post. None.

And I used to, so it's very sad.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Dag,
No, the sad thing is that you have plenty of reason to trust what I post, but that you won't or at least will make a show of not trusting it.

The sad thing also is that you won't talk about what my actual point is. Aren't you concerned that people don't know the Bible, even while claiming strenuously that they do?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"The next itme this came up, they made the same claims regarding Levitical laws as before, which, had they believed my description, would have be invalidated."

I think you're missing another possibility: that they ignored what you had to say the first time, and/or gave you the benefit of the doubt.
 

---

Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
 
Dag, it's a quite dramatic of you and very unforgiving because of its absolute quality.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I wasn't there. I have only your word for it. You are now known to lie to make points. So I have no basis for commenting on your recollection of the events in question.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Dag, it's a quite dramatic of you and very unforgiving because of its absolute quality

---