Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bible interpretations hypocritical? (Semi Gay marriage related)

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 5 2004 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a U.S. radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, 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 of the other specific Bible laws and how to follow them:

1. 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?

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. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed 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 Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

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?

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, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.



I know this letter has been circulating around the internet for years, and I know it has been posted on here several times. The problem is, however, whenever it is presented, it is "debunked" by religious zealots. Their usual "debunking" is "Things in the bible are not always meant to be taken literally. Times change and, like everything else, things become outdated."

The problem I have with this "debunking" is that whenever someone proposes allowing Gay marriage, those same religious zealots respond quoting a passage from the bible saying "A man shall not lie with another man as he does with a woman" or something along those lines. Why does the arguement that "Things change, ideas become outdated, and the bible isn't always meant to be taken literally" get thrown out the window only when being applied to the issue of Gay marriage?

So which is it? If you are going to take the book of stories...err sorry, Bible...literally, then I should be allowed to own slaves and should be allowed to sell my future daughter into slavery. If it is not meant to be taken literally, than who is to say that the part that says homosexuality is an abomination is to be taken literally?

Can someone please clarify or is this just another textbook case of religious hypocrisy?




posted on May, 5 2004 @ 01:38 PM
link   
the so-called religous zealots will tell you that some things change and are outlawed- such as slavery- while others are not practical.

BUT, watch an interview with one, and NEVER do they bring up any bible passages besides where it would state that gay marriage is wrong.

it's a game of he-said-she-said with the holy-rollers, and they'll use any low blow tactics they can to win an argument, even if it means lying by not telling the whole story.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 01:41 PM
link   
How about: "Option 3"

This was a set of rules and practices for an ancient civilization. The rules may or may not make sense for modern civilizations (just as the practice of marrying multiple wives worked out okay when we were a nomadic or early agrarian society, when men died off quickly from accidents or animals and you needed many people to work one area of land -- but under today's society, it's financially impossible for most men to support four nonworking adult women plus twenty children.)



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Who exactly are you to say when the Bible's word is to be changed, who and when it applies to, and its intent?

Either the Bible's (God's) rules changed and became outdated, allowing you to use this reasoning on the "gay marriage" quote

or

The Bible's (God's) word doesn't change and the "Gay marriage" passage is to be taken literally as well as things such as the slavery part.

You can't have it both ways.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I agree with everyone here. And to expound on the issue I have some thoughts.

I have been listening to Kristjian radio the past few weeks to get a nice lot of things together to help my wife understand why I am not Kristjian. Here are a fe topics I have so far.

In the Bible, lambs and a few other animals are to be sacrificed to purify one of there sins and wash them away, so to appeal to Jesus/God more. Many times, the pastor is to slay the animal. Yet today, when an animal is sacrificed, Kristjians automatically say it is a satanist that did it. Why?

The Bible states that only men are to be leaders of s church (priest, pastor, deacon etc etc). Women can be teachers of the word, such as study groups etc, but not pastors. Only men. Yet today, there are many female pastors. Why?

"God" states that for a man, God comes first, then family. For a woman, God comes first, then she is to serve her husband first and formost. Then everything else. These days, the church does not teach this. Why?

These things are very few of many that make me not like the religion for myself. Others are free to do what they wish without any negativity from me. However, I am one who, when I am going to follow something, I am going to follow through all the way. If I cannot follow these few rules, there are many others I will not be able to follow, therefore, I am not a true Kristjian.

Another thing that gets to me too, is that God wants us to prove our love to him by going to church, giving to the church, spreading his word, and loving and abiding to him and his rules. Yet, if we want proof of his love to us, he will not give it (don't even talk about the crusifixion, I will ignore that as an answer).

Any thoughts?



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cutwolf
Who exactly are you to say when the Bible's word is to be changed, who and when it applies to, and its intent?

Either the Bible's (God's) rules changed and became outdated, allowing you to use this reasoning on the "gay marriage" quote

or

The Bible's (God's) word doesn't change and the "Gay marriage" passage is to be taken literally as well as things such as the slavery part.

You can't have it both ways.


ir's like the constitution- open for interpretation if necessary, but most of the rules and such set forth wre devised for life 200+ years ago.

which means you can have it both ways.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 04:51 PM
link   
If you can interpret one thing loosely, do not turn around and use the arguement that some things are suppoed to be taken literally. After all, who determines what rules are to be taken literally and which are open for interpretation? Or do the religious zealots simply pick and choose whichever best fits their agendas?



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 05:18 PM
link   
thats the point i tried to make in my first post.

they pick and choose. which is why you don't hear about slaughtering an animal to your god, but you do hear about their opposition to gay marriage.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 08:03 PM
link   
I think a lot of these questions can be answered by saying that the church has become corrupt, just like the bible says it would (tried to look for the verse but couldn't find it).

It's not the teachings of the church that should be followed, it's the teachings of the bible.

Also, Jesus died for our sins - we do not need to do animal sacrafices anymore.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mountain Man
I think a lot of these questions can be answered by saying that the church has become corrupt, just like the bible says it would (tried to look for the verse but couldn't find it).

It's not the teachings of the church that should be followed, it's the teachings of the bible.

Also, Jesus died for our sins - we do not need to do animal sacrafices anymore.

OK, so what about these other points? They were not covered by Jesus' death. Should people still be practicing them as well?

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

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

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?

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)



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 09:02 PM
link   
How about Option 4:

I remember a Catholic priest once told me that Leviticus is not referring to homosexuality but pagan fertility rights. I did a quick search and found that others are of the same opinion. Kind of puts a different spin on it, doesn't it. Here's the link. www.truluck.com...:22



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 09:35 PM
link   
In the old testament, sacrifices were an ongoing part of daily rituals - this is the way that people served God. However, when Jesus Christ died, satisfied the old covenent. Hence, no longer was it necessary to sacrifice a lamb, because the ultimate lamb had been sacrificed. Similarly, most of the laws and rules (save of course The Ten Commandments) were simply customs unique to that culture. In anno Domini time, these rituals are not praciticed as they were in the Old Testament.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Just say no to superstition!!! Clearly, there is no actual "reason" in the bible, it is based simply upon belief and NOT proof of any kind. While labyrinthine convolutions of meaning are interpreted, due to biblical bias, vague symbolism perpetuates the ancient tome. Perhaps political manipulation can explain how the text became so utterly muddled.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 11:50 PM
link   
As some of the others have stated, Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses on the cross, meaning we are no longer under it. We are under the law of Messiah, the things that are taught in the New Testement are the things which we are suppose to live by.

Homosexuality is still condemned in the New Testement.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
(NKJ)

Plus Dr. Laura Schlessinger is an Orthodox Jew, she dosn't believe in the New Testement, therefore she is not referring to the Bible.

Jeremiah 31:31
31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah--
(NKJ)

This New Covenant is what Jesus fulfilled, hence the New Testement.

If you seriously want to understand the solution, Covenant Theology is what you need to understand. I'll supply a link to a good article by Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum. He is a Messianic Jew, meaning he Jewish but believes in Jesus as Messiah.

The Law of Moses & the Law of Christ



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by StationsCreation
As some of the others have stated, Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses on the cross, meaning we are no longer under it. We are under the law of Messiah, the things that are taught in the New Testement are the things which we are suppose to live by.

Homosexuality is still condemned in the New Testement.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
(NKJ)

Plus Dr. Laura Schlessinger is an Orthodox Jew, she dosn't believe in the New Testement, therefore she is not referring to the Bible.

Jeremiah 31:31
31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah--
(NKJ)


More superstitious drivel!!! Mere pretentious yet ambiguous authoritarianism, fodder of the world's largest cult.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by StationsCreation
Homosexuality is still condemned in the New Testement.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
(NKJ)


I do not agree. You are referencing a relatively modern word (homosexual) that was NEVER used in the ancient Greek text of the bible. In fact the word "homosexual" didn't even appear in bibles until the 20th century. The actual word that was used was "arsenokoites," which is not an actual greek word but a combination of "bed" and "male." It is speculated that this references a male prostitute who services females clients, a practice that was common during that era. It should also be known that the word "arsenokoites" is found no where else in the bible.

I find that because the bible has been bastardized to such a degree over the past 2000 years that it should be taken with a grain of salt. I mean lets get real here, how could a message of love, peace and redemption eventually become replaced by such intolerance and hatred.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Mistakes were made, apologies were given.


[Edited on 6-5-2004 by StationsCreation]



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Bleys, thankyou for your hospitable rebuttal.

Just looked up the word in question, my dictionary says as follows:

G733
arsenokoitēs
Thayer Definition:
1) one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G730 and G2845

Edit:
The word is also used in:

1 Timothy 1:10
10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,

Its the same word, arsenokoite.

Also the word:

G4205
pornos
Thayer Definition:
1) a man who prostitutes his body to another’s lust for hire
2) a male prostitute
3) a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator

Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from pernemi (to sell, akin to the base of G4097)
Citing in TDNT: 6:579, 918

This word is the word used for prostitution. It's in the same verse as arsenokoite. So Paul wouldn't use two words that meant the same thing in the same verse.



[Edited on 6-5-2004 by StationsCreation]



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Feeling is mutual my friend. I hope the fact that I'm a raving atheist doesn't change that opinion.

However, I continue to maintain that you are using a modern, theological definition of the ancient Greek text. Considering when the New Testament was being written the word "erastes" and "eromanos" should have been used if Paul was outright condemning homosexuality. The fact that he didn't is telling. He, instead, combined two separate words, neither originally a reference to same sex relations.

A more appropriate definition of arsenokoites would be: "one who subjugates another to their will, for example one who commits rape or incest." I find this to be more in line with Christ's teachings.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 02:11 AM
link   
According to what I could find about the term "asenokoites", there is not a clear definition of what the word means. Below is an excerpt that attempts to clarify what Paul may have meant when he used the word.


The best way to learn the meaning of this word is to look at its usage in other contexts. The problem is that we primarily find arsenokoites in lists, which give us little information as to the meaning of the word. A search of the Thesaurus Lingua Graecae (TLG) database as of 1997 shows 73 usages...The few contexts in which we find these words do not require that the word means "all (active) homosexuals".

In most of the TLG listings, the order is fairly standard:

pornoi, moixoi,
malakoi, (arsenokoitai),
kleptai, pleonektai, methusoi,
loidoroi, or arsenokoites
andrapodistais kai epiorkrois

Translated, the pattern is as follows:
temple prostitutes, adulterers,
the morally weak (malakos), arsenokoites,
thieves, the greedy, drunkards,
the foul-mouthed or arsenokoites,
slave traders, perjurers.

In the TLG lists, the division is not very clear, other than they seem to start off with sexual sins, then include malakos and possibly arsenokoites, before passing on to sins of social injustice and impropriety. If this were all we had, then we would not know on which side to classify arsenokoites: whether sexual, social or some mixture of the two. However, there are two non-TLG texts, both of which are early usages of arsenokoites:

"Do not steal seeds. Whoever takes for himself is accursed (to generations of generations, to the scattering of life). Do not arsenokoites, do not betray information, do not murder. Give one who has laboured his wage. Do not oppress a poor man."
[The Sibylline Oracle: 2; in Martin, 120]

"And let the murderer know that the punishment he has earned awaits him in double measure after he leaves this (world). So also the poisoner, sorcerer, robber, swindler, and arsenokoites, the thief, and all of this band..."
[The Acts of John: 36; in Martin, 121]

In neither of these texts do we find any hint of sexuality. While we may think that we know that arsenokoites is some type of sex related sin, translating it as "homosexual" in these lists makes no sense. It just doesn't fit with the other categories.

Now, if the placing of arsenokoites in the TLG texts in between the sexual sins and social sins is not an accident, we would know that arsenokoites somehow related to sexual injustice. This interpretation is compatible with all the lists quoted. For example, the placement of arsenokoites just before slave trader is particularly appropriate, since homosexual slaves were normative in classical societies. The interpretation of arsenokoitai in terms of homosexual subjugation and/or exploitation, rather than referring to all homosexual behaviour, seems appropriate from these contexts.

This translation for arsenokoites fits well within two other TLG texts, both of which are early uses of the word. The first is from the Apology of Aristides, chapters 9 and 13...Similarly, in Hippolytus' Refutatio chapter 5, we are told the story of the evil angel Naas, and how he committed adultery with Adam in the Garden...Hippolytus then compares this story with that of Zeus and Ganymede [Petersen, 284]. In both of these stories an aggressor forcibly takes advantage of a weaker individual.
Dover later mentions two texts, one by Ibykos fr. 289, and...The Hymn of Aphrodite 202-206, which interprets the story of Zeus and Ganymede as rape by drawing the parallel between it and that of Dawn and Tithonos [Dover, 197].
www.geocities.com...

The term seems to have been a condemnation of sexual assault against another, or of sexual slavery/slave trading. There is no clear evidence to validate the theory that arsenokoites means homosexuality, in general.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join