ICANT responds to me:
quote:
I don't have an interpertation.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
It's a piece of text translated from another language of a story thousands of years old and you think there is no interpreting to do? All text requires interpretation. That's what communication is about.
Your quotations used the word "homosexual." There is no such word in Ancient Hebrew and no concept of such, either. Therefore, to translate the text and use the word "homosexual" necessarily requires an act of interpretation. It might be right, but it will need to be strongly justified.
Compare this to the translations of the Illiad that describe Athena as having blue eyes. There is no word for "blue" in Ancient Greek, but they were able to describe things that were blue. The phrase is more commonly translated as "grey-eyed Athena," but there is no word for "grey," either. One must interpret the text in order to give it meaning.
quote:
As I understand it we were talking about what the Bible says about man having sex with a man.
Indeed. That requires interpretation.
quote:
It would have been nice to have a link to your quotes as required by EvC rules.
When you become a moderator, you can quote rules to me. See, this is where "interpretation" comes in. Methinks you are trying to pull Rule 5 on me:
Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
My interpretation is that this is not to mean that links are required. It is to say that if you are going to put forward a link, it must not be the only thing you say. This is what makes it in harmony with Rule 7:
Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.
I gave you the source. Are you incapable of looking up the sources on your own?
It would appear you have a different interpretation. Ah, but you don't have an interpretation. Then how on earth did you manage to make any sense of the words?
quote:
So anything that is To'evah is Patur, assur, which is sinful and prohibited.
No. Did you not read the information given? Patur/assur is different form to'evah.
quote:
These are listed as a suggestion.
Indeed. The CCAR is working within their faith to come up with an interpretation of the text. You seem not to like their conclusions. Why is it your interpretation gets to trump theirs?
quote:
Take notice who put forth these suggestions, the CCAR Ad Hoc Committee.
Not God.
And god wrote the Bible? God translated it into English for you?
Hint: If you're going to say that god "inspired" the human authors of the Bible, why can't god be "inspiring" the CCAR?
quote:
Man don't get to change the rules to his liking.
And why are we to conclude that the CCAR are the ones "changing the rules" as opposed to your sources?
quote:
You admonished me to get information from a Rabbi.
No, I didn't. I admonished you to listen to what Jews have to say. You picked a couple. Is that really the best way to determine what the entirety of the religion has to say about a subject? Last time I checked, Judaism wasn't exactly that hierarchical as other religions are. There is no equivalent of a "pope" in Judaism. In fact, one of the traditions of Judaism is that you are responsible for your relationship with god. Middlemen only get in the way (that's part of the reason why Jews reject Jesus: His claim that the only way to god is through him is a direct contradiction of the first commandment.)
quote:
I gave you information that is considered the standard for Orthadox Judaism.
And I didn't contradict you. All I said was that other branches of Judaism disagree. I then asked why that gets to trump the others.
quote:
But when you or anyone else stand at the judgment you will not be judged accordingly to what you think or believe the Word of God says, nor what you have been taught it says. You will be judged according to thus saith the Lord God.
You do know what the consequences are if you get it wrong.
BZZZZT!
Pascal's Wager. I'm so sorry, ICANT. Johnny, tell him what parting gifts he has!
Well, Bob, ICANT has won himself a lifetime of anguish in someone else's hell! Yes, that's right. After spending all of his life fighting against Satan and worshipping the Christian god, ICANT gets a reward of going straight to Hades for his hubris. He'll be sentenced to solve a series of puzzles for which the instructions can be read in many ways. Every attempt to glean more information will be met with "Since it would just be a waste of my time to tell you, I won't." Of course, every proposed solution will conflict with something in the contradictory instructions. This being for his continued insistence that those around him are unworthy of explanations.
But, he won't get hungry because he'll have an afterlife-time supply of Rice-a-Roni®, the San Francisco Treat.
You didn't really think that the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you?
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2
