Originally posted by rosebeforetime
Those laws in the old testament were given to them because they were doing a lot worse things before they got the law. God didn't like everything they did, He just let them have their own way with some things. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, He made a woman and a man to be together for better or for worse. Those laws are put there to show how bad we really are.

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. Romans 1:26,27

Here we go again.....

A follower of the bible needs to follow the whole bamboozle, not pick and choose. God made man and woman, for better or worse?? That is alluding to monogamy, which wasn't the case in early biblical times.

And how bad are we, really??

Aside from murder, theft and other other 'personal' attacks, sex is not morally wrong. The Xtians are sooooo fascinated by libido, it's almost laughable.

How 'bout this: Worry about yourself, and leave me the heck alone!

Hey Marg6043:

"Amadeus, I've never heard you talk like this before..."

Sorry, Marge, I was just trying to have a little fun for a change..so many people take the ritual To'qeboth ("abominations") and blatant sexist-racism of the Bible so seriously, I have to laugh a little at them once in a while if they think they are upholding some kind of eternal divine morality by following the precepts in the Jewish "scriptures".

As I've said before on these threads, I hardly think the "Bible" is a wholesome place to look for any kind of humane morality in the 21st century West.

People living in Democracies simply don't live (or even think) like that and any encouragement to start "moving civilisation backwards" needs to be stopped dead in its tracks right now.

The kind of fear-baseed "US versus THEM", xenophobic racist ("we are the chosen people" cf: "we are the Master Race") mentality that we read in the Bible (both OT and NT) might have seemed to have worked well for all those primitive semi nomads lost in the desert throwing Urum and Thummim dice around for the next tent stakeout all those thousands of years ago, primitives near savages who needed every son they could count among them to fight their nomadic tribal wars--- but we in the overpopulated West are not part of that Weltanschauung----and anyone who thinks that the confused and reactionary "morality" in the Bible has relevance for modern man needs to go back and read the text a little more carefully next time.

Even in their watered down English translation if that's all they can read. But it's much harsher in Paleo Hebrew.

Today, we, in the West at least, don't tend to condone RACIAL GENOCIDE any more (read the vomit in the book of "Joshua" in whatever versions you care to consult (LXX, MT, Pe#ta, DSS) for a taste of what "the Bible says" about how to deal with non Yahwistic residents of Canaan like the people of Ai).

The Torah itself is even worse when it comes to Morality. Read the genocidal extermination policies explicit in Deuteronomy chapter 20 or the orders "to exterminate" from YHWH in chapter 13 ---a morality which led the Ultra Orthodox "Dr" Chasidic Rabbi Baruch Goldstein to scream verbatim while he opened fire with his American Made Automatic Weapon in Hebron on the morning of 25 Feb 1994, killing 29 people in cold blood?

Dr Goldstein thought he was "upholding the morality of G-d" when he started screaming verses from Hezekiel chapter 8 and 9 and then starting shooting all those who "were facing the east" in the Mosque that Friday morning...or as Hezekiel said, "Show no Pity, Murder them all..."

Some Morality to live by !

Even David, (whom the clan -god YHWH says, "Behold my Servant David, a MAN AFTER MY OWN HEART!") lived by a different MORALITY than what the Bible later included in its texts: clearly David himsefl did not keep the Mosaic Law (of the Torah) any more than a gentile dog because---clearly--- there was at his time, no "recogniseable" Mosaic law (i.e with what we have today in the Masoretic Text) during that period in Israelitish history.

So therefore there is no Mosaic Universal Law that was handed down from the beginning, just different moral codes that kept getting refined over time.

This curious non-observance of even basic tenets of the later Torah (which must have meant a different set of Ordinances in early days from what was later put into the Masoretic "received" text of the Jews that we can read today) might explain why Moses felt free to make Jebusite bronze snake idols in the desert to worship (and even, to add insult to injury, place them on top of poles !) or why Aaron felt free to make golden calves out of earings, or also might explain why David, 300 years later, felt free to walk around wearing the linen "ephod" of the Levitical Priests---when he was of the tribe of Judah---and then go and dance half naked in front of the Ark of the covenant,--a taboo relic which only the Levetical priests could approach--- and might also explain his "abominabale" sexual practices with prince Jonathan (read II Samuel 1:30 etc for a taste of David's court love poetry to another male)---makes sense ONLY if there was no book of Leveticus in force at the time which listed all those ritual toqeboth ("abominations", " hateful things to YHWH")

The so-called "morality" which people extract from "the Bible" comes from the late reactionary "laws" that came to be written AFTER THE EXILE (post 587 BC) by priests who were trying to re-constitute Judah in some form or fashion after Israel was destroyed by first Assyria (721-701 BC) and then Babylon (BC 601 to BC 587).

The wandering Israelites in the early days at first needed healthy male bodies for their military and later for their rebuilding projects, so bi-sexuality-homosexial practices were not encouraged and later after the Babylonian Exile, they became "ritually toq'ebah" ---but these forbidden practices (not only were Canaanite remeniscent but..) had a very practical aspect to them as well... it produced no sons and wasted "seed" as someone pointed out--in a culture where every male counted in order for their decimated communities to survive.

Similarly, various 'practical reasons' which reflect a dying/struggling "remnant" community may lie at the root of the superstitious ritual toqeboth morality in the tiresome book of "Leveticus" with all the abomination (to'qeboth) laws i.e. why certain "laws" were passed after the Exile (i.e. avoidance of pork and seafood for example)...

But we live in the modern age of refrigeration, and are not struggling to survive in terms of numbers in the West, so most of these superstitious to'qeboth have no validity to the modern 21st century citizen today...

In fact, most of the dubious "morality" of the Bible (that is besides all the blatant genocidal racism and overt sexism in the text) such as the condoning of Slavery and Polygamy, and the relegation of females to chattel, as well as on the other hand, the prohbition of such practices as masturbation (i.e. the Sin of Onan) or sowing diverse seeds in the same field, or mixing cotton and linen together in the same garment (which would naturally affect the modern garment industry) should tell you how worthless and useless these documents are for modern man in the West to live by any more.

Yet how many so called Fundamentalist Christians today (who cannot even read Paleo Hebrew) pick and choose some of these silly To'qeboth out of books like Leveticus and throw them into people's faces as examples of how to "live by God's Law"...

It really is too much of a Joke...which is why I make so much fun of the whole subject at times !

But don't get me wrong, Marge. The subject underneath is deadly serious. Especially for those 29 Palestinians that Rabbi Goldstein "exterminated" in the name of the clan-god of Israel to uphold the pseudo morality of such worm eaten texts as a Torah which would dare to encourage such heinous crimes against humanity as we see perpetrated in "Israel" today....

Amadeus,

Let me tell you I enjoy reading your post and sometimes I have nothing else to say but just sit back and enjoy the reading.

Marriage is a control mechanism used by religion to propagandate itself.

Think about how it applied to ages past. Most eveyone wants to have sex, but wants to be accepted within the rules of a society so they get married. Now when you get married you are buying into the values/morals/beliefs of whatever religion that applies. Those are ideas that you pass on to your offspring. Being that childhood is such an impressionable stage of ones life they buy into it as well and the religion aquires new members that don't tend to question what they are lead to believe is 'basic reality'.

Now take the Christian religions for example. Both birth control and abortion are taboo so there are going to be many more children because people are not going to stop having sex. Hence marriage to have sex, the beliefs of that religion (because of the imprinting of the parents) are passed on to those children, contraception is frowned upon by the religion in order to have more followers of that religion, the religion grows and becomes more powerful because of a larger member base.

Of course as we, as a society, grow distant from religion, these control factors become less manipulative and the religion loses power because it loses people that allow themselves to be controled by it.

(this is in response to the above)

But I do believe in kindered spirits, soul mates, even one soul having been split in two... that fits my wife and I perfectly. Everything I am, she is not, and vice versa. Together, we do make one person, combining many different traits and characteristics.

I honestly don't think marriage is or ever was a tool by the Church. North American Indians married, as well as other religious sects... and to control sex? The Essenes were celibate, but were allowed to intermingle with members of the opposite sex, and they transcribed the Dead Sea Scrolls.

But anyway, no one really has answered a previous question... why can't gay or lesbian couples recieve the same benifits of a heterosexual marriage? Because they choose to live differently? Fine, so be it... but don't be suprised if you see a gay man and a lesbian marry-ing each other, so they can be considered "right" in the eyes of Bush, and have an open marriage to boot, not to mention the tax breaks and insurances.

Originally posted by soothsayer
(this is in response to the above)

But anyway, no one really has answered a previous question... why can't gay or lesbian couples recieve the same benifits of a heterosexual marriage? Because they choose to live differently? Fine, so be it... but don't be suprised if you see a gay man and a lesbian marry-ing each other, so they can be considered "right" in the eyes of Bush, and have an open marriage to boot, not to mention the tax breaks and insurances.

maybe a better question would be.....
where in the constitution does it give the gov't the power to bestow preferential treatment (those benefits that you are speaking about) to one group of people?
just what are those benefits?
how many of those benefits were put there as an attempt to alleviate problems that previous "preferential treatment" had caused...like social security....which would have never been needed is women weren't initially stuck into a predetermined role as housewife, mother, servant?
or are a blatant denial of rights to begin with....like visitation rights to the seriously ill......maybe the last people I want in my hospital room while I am dying is my family.....who would make me nervous as all heck, maybe I would prefer my friend who is a Reikki master and capable of at least alleviating some of the discomfort!

We are willing to fight tooth and nail to become one of the "elite" worthy of this or that benefit, but chose not to say a word about how, according to our constitution at least, we should all be treated equal in the eyes of the government to begin with.

doom...you researched bush and dominon theology?? you know what they believe and how they are trying to pass those lies off as real gospel/christianity?

this would make a damn good thread....kingdom theology and other false teachings that are in most american churchs.....just like the extreme muslism who believe they must take over the world before apocolpse time....same deal with dominon theology....only this time its false christains taking over the world and hugging apostate isreal in the process!! their version of the kingdom of heaven is a lexus and a bank load of cash

didnt jesus say my kingdom is NOT of this world??? how on Gods green earth did these FREAKS get so much faith out of people who should have been reading there bibles ??

Originally posted by Amadeus
The Bible is hardly the place to look for good moral role models..especially dubious role models like David.....

What was it that King Saul shouted to his princely little girlie boy son who preferred to sleep with a male lover David over his own little wifeykins?

"Thou son of a Perverted and Rebellious Female !!! Don't you know that you have CHOSEN TO MARRY the SON OF JESSE (aka David) to the CONFUSION (read: cross dressing abomination) of YOUR MOTHER'S NAKEDNESS---TO SAY NOTHING OF YOUR OWN CONFUSION?

HOW WILL YOUR DYNASTY BE ESTABLISHED IF YOU PERSIST IN THIS WAY, AS LONG AS THE SON OF JESSE LIVES???!"

Seems Jonathan and David were doing (shall we say) a little more than just holding hands and exchanging underwear and armour.

Read 1 Samuel chapter 20:30-32 in English (it's better in paleo Hebrew though) :

weird, my KJV translation of the bible of 1Sam 20:30-
"Then Saul's anger was kindled agianst Jonathan, and he said unto him, 'Thou son of the perverse and rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of they mother's nakedness?"

First off, it isnt talking about marrying David. the word marry isnt even in the verse you just quoted supposedly. second son of perverse and rebellious woman is the equivalent of calling him our modern son of a female dog. Saul is accusing him of siding with David, because of Sauls jealousy of David. It goes on to say that as long as David prospers Jonathans throne is not secure.