People, please read this... (re: Same sex mariage)

Fine, but people like me, or homosexuals for that matter, are going to believe that it's as normal a preference as liking mint ice cream.The larger question is, when it comes to making the rules that we all have to live by - that is to say, laws - why does your opinion trump mine, or the homosexuals themselves? If they want to get married, why do you get to tell them "no"?I'd say a pathological need to make others conform to your own standard of personal behavior is a "sick mentality".

quote:

---

Not only that but he specifies that the only things that are unclean are "murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander".

---

Ah. So the thing about clothing made from two different kinds of fabric is under the "cleanliness" category? I thought it was under the "shalt not" category. I must be mistaken, Zealot - so, tell me then, what is the process for becoming clean again after wearing clothes from two different kinds of fabric, or pulling a plow by two different kinds of animals, or anything of the sort?By the way, I should remind my slaves to be good to their masters, as Paul says...------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

You're bordering on just childishness Rei. I've answered your question, so your reply is simple ignorance.But wait shall we see where you go once you've been answered. NoseNed, from this you might see why it's annoying if someone has little interest in an actuall discussion, merely focussed on mockery.Holmes, working on your post at the moment. Cheers

Zealot, I agree that there is a tone of mockery. Both sides engage in that a bit too frequently ( me too ). Let's all just take them in stride and show how grown up we are by ignoring these little rhetorical florishes, shall we?However, Zealot, I read a great deal about how we are supposed to use the Bible for some many things. There seem to be individuals who feel that there is nothing else they need to read.As well, there seem to be as many interpretations as there are people doing the interpreting.In that context it seems to make sense to have to spend time probling and re-trying to get what someone is saying about it clear.So far what I have gotten is a sense that the OT has been in some way "overridden" by the new testament. At the same time other parts of the OT are still to be followed firmely. I think it fair that there be some confusion under these circumstances.Myself, I still haven't seen a clear, one-piece, concise statement of what in the OT is no longer applicable and what is. This needs to have the reasoning behind the split as well. I'll I recall seeing posted is a part of a sentence or two that isn't nearly as detailed as the original statements about what was and what was not sin.I don't recall, for example, seeing anything about slavery being added in as a bad thing or that the specifics about treatment of slaves are not longer valid. I have been told that less than two centuries ago the prevailing view of large numbers of Christians in the US was that the bible explictity made slavery the "natural order" of things. What reasons did they use for that belief and what reasons would one use to refute them? It is hard to understand how both views can be so firmly based on the same biblical text isn't it?Again, back to the mockery. I have tried to convey to some of the believers the concern that I have had expressed to me by a number of Christians (both acquaintences and close friends) about what fundamentalism does to the religion as a whole. The views of these people are the views of the majority of Christians you know.When individuals use the Bible to try to support statements that are demonstratable wrong and when some of them (selected web sites for example) lie about things to support that they bring mockery on the Bible and the whole religion.This is, in my mind, exactly parallel to the kind of aversion that the fundamentalist islamists being on Islam when they commit attrocities in the name of Allah. It is paralled by the death threats that the newly ordained bishop has received because he is gay. You don't think those threats came from athiests do you? Or from united church members?

Thanks. I'll try and keep this one short, however its something which is pretty difficult even at the best of times for me Which one was which ? Hopefully that is what we are all here for. Hi, if you look at the chapters in detail, you might see they tend to follow a certain pattern.
Lev 17 : "1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons, and unto all the children of Israel ..."Lev 18: "1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel ..."
Lev 19: "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel ..."
Lev 20: "1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel ... "Lev 21: "1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them ... "
Lev 22 : "1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto Aaron and to his sons..."
Thus you can see specific instructions and to whom they were addressed to. Lev 17 is addressed to the Priests, 18, 19, 20 (19 and 20 seems almost to be one passage with the 'again, thou shalt say'), then 21-22 are addressed to the priests.Further down in your post you stated.

quote:

---

Well first of all you are mixing up verses from different chapters. While 19 involves moral guidance to the masses, 18 and 20 do not.
You will note that 18 and 20 are instructions to priests when addressing Israel and the Children of Israel.
In contrast, Chapter 19 is specifically noted as instruction to the priest about what to tell the CONGREGATIONS of the Children of Israel. Is this not extremely suggestive to you? Chapter 19, the only chapter that seems to have simple "thou shalt/shalt not" commandments free of relationship to cleanliness (specifically ritual cleanliness) has the specific word "congregation" which means to the people they are discussing general every day issues with.

---

Lev 18 is addressed to the Children of Isreal, while 19 mentiones the word 'Congregation' (`edah'), this doesn't seem to hold any significant reference (although I could be wrong), especially since the next , chapter (20) continues with "Again, you shall say to the children of Israel:".
I've not listed all the uses of the word 'edah' in Lev, although it pretty much seems to be used loosely as you will see.
http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/freqdisp.cgi?...
eg: Lev 24:14 Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.I agree with you that there is no mention of 'unclean', but keep in mind that unclean, does not neccesarily imply 'Ritually unclean.'
The definition of it is unclean,
1. impure
a.ethically and religiously
b.ritually
c. of placesMy second point is that both 19 and 20 have the same verse.Lev19:37: Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the LORD.
Lev 20:22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. I have little doubdt that 18 and 20 are have to do with customs. Indeed it sais so in the text. Lev 19 however (as you agree) 19 had less to do with 'aborations' and more with things that people clearly do wrong/ Who's to know you're not suppose to wear garments of different types of clothing ? Should you be put to death for this ? This (unlike Lev 18 and 20) were not reasons God would have had people killed for.As you can see, 18 and 20 are addressed to the 'Children of Israel', not the priests. If indeed these were all wrong (only because they were done for worship of another God ), God would have addressed this to the Priests.Lev 18:20 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife' ... this suggest sexual sin, not ritual sin.Either way, the important thing here is that God states all these sins as reasons the land got defiled. Customs he found dispicable. Not customs he found dispicable because they were not done in his name, but acts of sin dispicable to him due to their nature.
He is not addressing the specific worshipping of another God, he's addressing things that people did, which he found dispicable about the people. Homosexual sex , being just one of them. I could do that, but then I would have to go ignore all the other possibly definitions of the word 'Tow`ebah' . Here we come full circle as to which translator we should use to teach us Hebrew.You're correct in asuming that you could use 'ritually unclean', however as you will see, all the sins in Lev 18 and 20 would then be considered ritually unclean. By ritually unclean, it seems you are suggesting they are ONLY unclean in a 'ritual' sense, but acceptable in common day use. I fail to see God being so upset about sex being unclean only when used in Rituals, but perfectly acceptable in normal life.Indeed, in the new testament.In 1 Corinthians chapter 5, we find what the Apostle Paul taught the believers at Corinth about judging individuals within their Church. The background of this particular passage involves a man who was a member of their Church and living in open immorality with "his father's wife" (vs.1). Apparently the woman was the man's step-mother and because of his esteemed position in the community, this blatant sin was being ignored.1 Cor 5 vs 1 " It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. 2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. "This shows us that that in the Christian sense (and indeed Judaic as Paul was a Jew first and foremost) , they believed Levitical laws to hold true.PS: Paul as you probably know use to be a very fundamental Jew, to the extent that he persecuted Christians. Thus we can see Jews would have lived up to the Levitical Laws. (atleast those concerning sexual immorality). Yes,
I still fail to see why God would allow no sexual acts during worship, yet then make a point of being specific as to which acts are not to be performed during worship. Quite likely some of these could be ritual acts ( in other religions ), but as God is not addressing this text to priest , but to the people, or indicates that this has to do with worshipping Him at the temple, we come to believe that the acts (whether done ritually or sexually) are wrong in everyday life.Worshipping as you can see is very specific, and not sexual.Are you suggesting it would have been acceptable to have straight intercourse with your wife while in the temple, as long as it was not considered an 'aboration' as in Lev 18 ?As I've pointed out that +-1 000 years later these sexual laws would still be in place in the Judaic and Christian community. We can thus only assume that (as you said) either it had become laws for common life, or most likely laws originating as common laws. If any chapter has anything to do with being ritually unclean its Lev 15!Lev 15: 16 "And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even."There is no punishment for this. He is unclean until the evening. He cannot worship because he is unclean. This chapter is about being ritually unclean, and how to get back to being clean.
Again note though, that none of this is done at an altar while worshipping. These are all about becoming unclean in every day life, same as Lev 18 is about sinning in every day life. Holmes, there was NO sex at worship. Christianity is not a fertility cult . How to worship properly is dealt with clearly in preceding chapters. You have to realise sex had absolutely nothing to do with worship. Indeed, as you read Lev, you might notice how any signs of sex (eg: Lev 15) leaves you ritually unclean, thus you cant go into the temple. No.
Lev 3: 1 And if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace offering, if he offer it of the herd; whether it be a male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the LORD.Lev 2 is about a grain offering.
Not all sacrifises were about being unclean. Unless I'm mistaken you are suggesting that Lev is just about life in the temple ??We seem to be on a different page here. None of these had to be done in the temple to be unclean. Look at Lev 13 and 14 regarding skin disease and mildew. These have nothing to do with the temple at all. A house becomes unclean! There was NO sex in the temple, no unclean animals.Basically its saying that if you're in the field, and there is a pig, you are not allowed to touch it. Becoming unclean has nothing to do with being in the temple at the time. Anything specific to the temple or worship is mentioned explicitly. Seems we have had vast differences of opinion. If you are suggesting Lev is all about temple life, where did you get this idea may I ask ? No offense, just curious if it was part of Bible study. Nope Holmes, Lev is about various things. Specifically when addressing priests, it states it at the start of the chapter with 'Aaron and his sons' or 'priests'.1-17 is not about 'Life in the temple' and 18-27 about life outside. 1-17 is just more specific (according to Christian belief) about ritually unclean. There would be nothing unclean in the temple, no sex. If however you become unclean at your house, then you cant go inside the temple. People would go to the temple, sorta like people go to church. Indeed when you sin and offer a burnt offering, these are the commands.Lev 1: 3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.He is not to enter the tabernacle unclean. No. Not at all. See above. When specific reference is made to priests, the text starts with 'Aaron and his sons' or 'Priests' Sorry Holmes but I'm starting to think you haven't read the text. While Lev was indeed written FOR the Priests, they were instructed on preaching to the people of Israel, NOT JUST how to perform ceremonies in the temple.Israel = Country
Temple = Holy place (much like a church would be today)There were commandments specific for worship in the temple and commandments for the people for everyday life. Which authors , what books ? DO they make the assumption that Levitical law was only 'In the temple' ? David was straight. Again, when confronted with the text , some seem to be able to pick and choose what suits their argument. Probably same author as 'Jesus was gay'. David was God's 'beloved'. There were none Holmes. One author, one book. Both Catholic and local law very strictly opposed homosexuality, thus reading 'adoption' into 'gay sex marriage' is again just a ploy. Hey they call eachother 'brother' ... must be gay. I dont see any Christians doing so either. aagh religioustolerance.orgShall we try Koitai = "coitus" rather ?Personally I have no time for that site. It claims to be a Christian site, but claimes 33% of Catholic Priests have homosexual orientations http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-3/msg00135.htmlI would prefer if you read that and make up your mind. Too long to discuss.Either way, please be ware of that site. ReligiousTollerance seem to be in conjunction with Liberal Christians ect. Perhaps you can have a look at a more Liberated Christians Polyamory, Swing, Biblical, Sybian Cyber Center
Apparently a pastor there that has 3 somes with his wife and another man. In fact there is no such thing as adultery to them. In those verses, the word 'Sheqets' is used to mean abomination, not 'Tow`ebah' "Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons" or "Priests" Is used to instruct the priests. You have, and also taken 2 1/2 hours out on my sunday ! Jokes.PS: Please try and read about the overview of Lev. Indeed if the entire Lev was about sins in the temple, I could see your point, but its not temple specific. The seperate 1-17 chapters are a suggestion of the 'Worshipping' sections with 18-27 'Living a Holy life.' That does not mean 1-17 is about instructions to the priests regarding life in the Temple. To enter the temple, you had to be clean.Look at the opening and closing paragraphs of each chapter to see who its intended for. The Priests or the People ?cheers

My only suggestion is to join a church and Bible study or buy a book on the matter if you're not satisfied with my answers. I could recommend some if you'd like.Your best bet however would be to read on what Jesus said and indeed the behaviour of his desciples AFTER his death and ressurection. You might note that until his death not all things were as they should be. Many people call themselves Christians. That some are pastors engaging in swing parties, is pretty upsetting. Either way we all have to make our own choices and will be judged by them.Usually a good sign (I find) of a Christian, is someone that's willing to change his beliefs around his faith, even though he/she might not like what is sais, and not the other way around.When Christianity has noticeable social and economic benefits, you will find many proclaiming they are close to God. You been following this discussion ? Anyway, we know not all 'Christians' will be saved.Matthew 24:11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.This might give you a little hint as to what to look out for.7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.cheers

I was disappointed with this latest post, though I am unsure if it was because of anything intentional on your part. It seems much of it was you talking straight past what I was saying. I suppose this is why you felt we were on a "different page."Let me start by repeating the argument at hand.You are saying that part of Lev is about ritual (sacrifices, etc), the other about holiness in common life. Lev 18 and 20 are identical to 19 in that they are speaking of things which should not be done in ordinary life.I am saying that Lev is an instruction regarding the construction of the "church" of God on Earth. Admittedly I should not have been as free in my use of the term "priest" in my discussion. Some are directed at them. Some are at the leaders and planners of Jewish society, especially as it spreads (this is my best interpretation of the Children of Israel). And when noted... the congregations.In Lev there are rites of sacrifice (some as offerings, some as penitence), there are rules of cleanliness (which affect persons, and so their ability to act in the church), there are instructions regarding what should be taught to the congregations for how to live a righteous life, and there are rules about the use of sex (among other things) in the course of temple rites and celebrations.It is odd to act as if everyone knew what was correct worship of God at that time. Very odd. If so, then why did he have to detail anything at all?To my mind the answer is quite obvious, and given the historical setting it ought to be obvious to you as well, regardless if you accept my larger interpretation of the text.The Israelites had at that time begun to assemble their nation and were about to begin solidification of the temples of God on Earth. They had experienced more than one pagan culture and their religious practices, which could easily corrupt the Jews' idea of what proper practices were. Lev laid down the law then and there... at the inception of what would be the true "church"... what was good and what was not.Sex was not always a daily part of worship in other religions, but it was almost always SOME part of religious practice. You are right that Yaweh was not a fertility god, and that is why Lev was instructing that sex was not a proper part of his rituals.I was not in any way shape or form trying to say sex was "not allowed in temple". I was saying that the leaders of the Jews were to know and keep out of practice ritual sexual activity. And that is what I meany by ritually unclean. It was unclean as a ritual, not one would become unclean and so cannot take part in ritual.It was disappointing to see that you brought up another practice... sleeping with another man's wife... and act incredulous at it's implications for religious ritual. This was routine part (incidental) of orgiastic rites (try to be at an orgy where that doesn't happen). And no it does not then give an okay to have sex with one's wife in church. It should be obvious such a proscription (against sex with one's wife) would remove ritual blessings for procreation for an heir, or other rituals regarding the sexual uniting of a couple (marriage?).I hope my position makes a bit more sense now. If anything, it seems to me that you've proven my point. By the nature of who is to be addressed you have already shown that your breakdown of Lev into two sections is less than probable (ie shouldn't every chapter after 18 be to the same audience?). The use of the PHRASE "congregation of the children of Israel" (it was not just congregation) shows there is a difference between the two. And the next chapter's use of "again", shows that it is returning to a previous audience, specifically that audience addressed in 18. This line of argument is also a little odd, given that later you demand that we not use the literal meaning of koiteh and instead use its slang for "fucker". Which are we to go with?The historical setting was Jews surrounded by PAGANISM, and so references to ORDINANCES AND CUSTOMS (it was not just customs) would be religious ones, not everyday behavior. The word ABOMINATION, since it has the meaning of unclean ritual would seem to fit that idea, rather than general "wickedness".And since you bring up the septuagint, I figured you might find this interesting...from http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section05.html I KNOW the quote comes from a liberated Xtian's collection, but that does not mean it is wrong (even if they are ridiculously biased... or devout along the lines of anabaptists... I find it hard to say). If you want to bring evidence against it, please do, but no more ad hominem (as you did for the religious tolerance quote). You must purge yourself of this bias first, then look at the words from a fresh vantage point. If he is talking about rituals which offend him, then that is what he is talking about. You can't presume he must mean more. In this case it is paganism which is the threat to God, it is hardly everyday behavior. Paganism is what he seems to be addressing. I always get confused as to who is more important, Jesus or Paul. Paul rails against fornication and prostitution... Jesus saves the prostitute (saying everyone is equally with sin). So is everyone saved through Jesus (and therefore a gay is as bad as a fornicator and so saved as long as they worship jesus), or does everyone have to listen to Paul and amend their ways before getting to heaven.This aside, you will note that Corinthians goes on at length regarding many different sins. The most reviled appears to be FORNICATION.I have already said it may be the case the Paul wrote from the practice of elevating ritual cleanliness sanctions to every day behavior, and even the broadening of male prostitution to all male-male sex acts. I have also said that male-male sex clearly falls into the fornication category. So your quote gives my interpretation, nothing but more support!The POINT is that the original OT references were specifically addressing male temple prostitution which was existed at rival pagan temples. The QUESTION raised by this realization is whether homosexuality itself was railed at in some specific form as separate from heterosexual fornication, and so treated differently.It still seems to me that Paul was addressing male prostitutes in his references, since other homosexual conduct would be addressed by the broader category of "fornication." He does make separate references to female prostitutes, why not male ones? Other than your incredulity, you have given NO reason to support this claim. I gave a pretty solid line of reasoning for my position, given the nature of paganism. All I see in a reference to Molech is a specific reference to one of the major competing religions at the time with perhaps some singularly distinguishing practices.You will note that Lev 20 is not solely sexual in nature. While it deals with "whoring after Molech" (which would seem to indicate paid sex as part of ritual), it also discussed not having familiars and consulting wizards.I might add that Lev 20 upgrades the "uncleanliness" of sleeping with a woman in her period from something which can be cleansed, to something which gets one cut off completely. This appears to be doing as my interpretation suggests, noting that within Israel the punishments for performing unclean rituals, and things which make one unclean for ritual are much greater than outside Israel. I hope you understand the difference now, about what I was talking about with regards to ritual uncleanliness versus uncleanliness of ritual. Really? Then why does Lev exist at all?You and I may know that sex has nothing to do with Xtian worship because we both have grown up in a culture set by 1000+ years of Xtian domination and indoctrination about what proper worship is (to Judeo-Xtians).AT THAT TIME, most people grew up around PAGANS, and the domination of PAGAN CULTURES, and that meant people had been indoctrinated with a view that sex could be a part of worship. You really have to remember the audience Lev is address to and what experiences they came out of.God mentions this specifically in Lev 18. He states that they have seen these practices (which appear to be references to religious practices), and that they are not to be done.It also confuses me why you would take the line that they all understand what they need to do to be holy, but have no clue what is expected of them in daily life. You brought up sacrifices to cleanse sins, and when I responded about those specific sacrifices, you lecture me that I am mistaken because there were sacrificial offerings as well? This was unfair.My point was that for sacrifices dealing with penitence (or cleansing) of sin, sin was defined in Lev as having broken commandments. That was all. You were mistaken and I hope I've explained the proper interpretation I am making. It is about the construction of his temple, his church, in short the Judaic religion (as set forth on proper sacrifices, cleanliness regarding temple, rituals which are forbidden to practice, and teachings to the congregation regarding how to live properly). You misunderstood me. I did not say "gay marriage" I said "same sex union". Such rituals were not about adoption (and looking at the rituals I think that is pretty clear). It is more about becoming "brothers" or more appropriately "blood (or spritual) brothers." I even mentioned with regards to the example of David that it was whether sex was involved OR NOT.The point of my statement was if men were allowed bonding on a spritual plane, would he disallow this even if sex were involved?And I said this was a good question. You do not see Xtians which say God curses homosexuals as wanting God to do so.Yet you see Xtians which say God does not curse homosexuals as wanting God to bless it.Do you see a strange disconnect? You appear to believe anyone outside of your interpretation as having an agenda, while those within are pure. Your bias is showing heavily here. You may not like some things the site as to say, but I gave you a specific reference. If there was something wrong with what was written I would love to see the evidence.As it is your citations simply proved mine correct. Perhaps you should read more carefully. It is stated that Koitai means "bed". One of your refs even admits that Luke uses that term as neutral for bed.However it can be used as Greek slang for "fucking", or "fucker".What's funny is that the quote I gave did not hinge at all on which definition one used. It pointed out that OT references which were pretty clearly those to male prostitutes (qadesh) were translated into the Septuagint as arsenokotai. So that was probably also what terminology Paul was using. Especially as no Greek material dealing with homosexual sex acts ever used such a term.Please address the facts and logic and not resort to ad hominem. I would agree with this statement (and admit I should not have used "priests" so freely, rather the leaders/founders of Jewish cities and temples).If your interpretation is correct then why are some instructions to "the people" about how to live a holy life, addressed specifically to priests? Why does Lev19 make a distinction between congregation of the Children of Israel, versus just the Children of Israel? And why does Lev 21 start with "again", which seems to be requiring the reader to turn away from the current audience to speak to a previously addressed audience (which was noted as Children of Israel, rather than congregation of)?I did take the time to read through your refs, and interestingly enough found mainly support for my own. I wish you would address the actual statements in refs I give, rather than who might have done the writing, especially when it appears you didn't bother to read past the first sentence.You can do better. I've seen it.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 11-02-2003]

quote:

---

quote:

---

Ah. So the thing about clothing made from two different kinds of fabric is under the "cleanliness" category? I thought it was under the "shalt not" category. I must be mistaken, Zealot - so, tell me then, what is the process for becoming clean again after wearing clothes from two different kinds of fabric, or pulling a plow by two different kinds of animals, or anything of the sort?

---

​

You're bordering on just childishness Rei. I've answered your question, so your reply is simple ignorance.

---

How about this, Zealot. Instead of accusing me of "childishness", how about you be mature and answer the question as to why you think that a violation of wearing clothing made from two different kinds of fabric or having a plow pulled by two different kinds animals has to do with ritual cleanliness? And I'll ask you again: Are we Israelites?

quote:

---

quote:

---

By the way, I should remind my slaves to be good to their masters, as Paul says...

---

​

NoseNed, from this you might see why it's annoying if someone has little interest in an actuall discussion, merely focussed on mockery.

---

It is to prove a point, Zealot: essentially none of the old testament, and Paul's commandmens that relate to it, are in the slightest bit relevant to the modern world. And there's a number of reasons for this, of which not the least is the fact that the OT commandments were to the Israelites, that commentary on social issues becomes irrelevant when the social issues are completely different in the future, and a number of other reasons.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Holmes, sorry. Going to dissapoint you now and not fully respond to your post.There is a reason for this. Main reason is that I dont have time! I've spend a mother load of time researching specific phrases, biblical interpretations and considering your opinions earnestly, to see whether plausable or not.In light of that and the fact that we've managed to go pretty much off topic, I have little choice but to summarise and explain to you what most catholics/protestant Christians believe. The solo reason I include these denominations is because they are what the vast majority of christians believe in.If you choose to want to follow ANY path that denounces levitical laws, you will find that MANY people will argue your side.1. Levitical laws dont apply anymore, due to the sacrifise of Christ.
2. Levitical laws dont apply anymore , due to it's time in history.This argument is by no means limited to homosexuals, but indeed some 'Christians' , whether sincere or not , follow this approach.Now I'm gonna pick very certain parts and If we disagree then there is no point in discussing this any further. Your view is different from mine (and the vast majority of Christians). There was 1 Tabernacle. Remember the movie 'Indiana Jones and the Lost Ark', that was the Ark that was stored in the Tabernacle/Temple. It was manned by the tribe of Levites (hence the name of the book Leviticus [ given its name when translated to the septiguint]). People would come to THIS temple to be cleansed of their sins and offer sacrifises to God.Only 1 temple so far, only 1 Ark. I can agree with virtualy everything you said so far with the exception of"and there are rules about the use of sex (among other things) in the course of temple rites and celebrations."YES, WE know other Pagan nations had sexual rituals, but there were NONE for the Israelites. There is NO use of sex in the temple.Holmes, if you spilled semen on yourself you are unclean. If you are still bleeding from menstrating you are unclean. Please you MUST realise that to be with God, there is NO sex involved. They DIDN'T! They had no clue as to how to worship, nor a clue what was right or wrong in daily life! They had to be taught EVERYTHING from scratch. That is the entire reason God made SUCH intensely strict rules. Not only were you unclean for eating an unclean animal, but even for touching such an animal you were unclean! God wanted to make them realise just how perfect a life they had to live to be His people. NOT JUST in worship, but everyday life!All the examples in Lev are about what makes you unclean in every day life! WHY ? Because God is pure and cannot abide sin. Look at what He did to Aaron's sons!You could not approach God in an unclean fashion! And as you can see by the multitude of examples, virtually ANY signs of sex made you unclean, and not worthy to approach God. NO. For your statement to be true you are assuming1. There must have been some level of ritual sex at the tabernacle.
2. Because of that, God then went and made it specific to the people WHICH sexual worshipping acts were wrong.I can't for the life of me, see why God would spend 2 chapters out of 27 telling the Israelites (not the priests !) what type of sexual activity at the temple (ritual) would be wrong, WHEN there is NO SEX of ANY SORT at the temple !Tell me , How did the Israelites know they weren't allowed to sleep with their mothers/sisters/father's wives in everyday life. These are people that do not know God's specific laws. They know the 10 commmandments, BUT THATS IT !Im going to give you a URL. You can use it to study up on Lev. if you so choose.http://www.homestead.com/biblestudiesnet/list2.html Holmes, you offense, but I recall you once saying you did not like going to gay web sources. Liberated/Liberal Christians are unfortuniely a joke. Try learn from people without a noticeable bias or reason to read the text in a certain way.If you want to tell me that a 2 300 year old translation was ALSO gay bias, feel free, but remember its about 1300 years older than the Masoretic text and WIDELY recognised as more accurate. I don't particularly have time to drift off topic to answer that quote, especially not if you want to tell me the Septiguint is less accurate. Why would I possibly be biased ? Shall we even assume he is talking about rituals offending him. WHY do they OFFEND HIM ? Because they are NOT in His name ? NO. These would be rituals that offend him (to the extent that the penalty is death) BECAUSE of the nature of the ritual, NOT the God the ritual is made against. Did you know what certain worship rituals were similar to Pagan rituals ? yet, why does God not mention those here ? baptism ? No.Instead the text is about SEXUAL customs or rituals that are so wicked that they deserve the death penalty. Why is it so impossible for you to believe that there are just plain certain sexual immoralities (As Jesus made note of in the NT) that were just not accepted ? 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.What do you think ? Should we tell homosexuals that you can follow Christ AND get to Heaven ? Don't you think it would be just a little cruel for a man to have issues with being gay, be told its ok , only to find out when he's dead.. 'sorry, you were deceived' ? Believe what you want to believe.1.Even if Paul spells it out for you, clearly there is no way in the bible that you would interpret it as having ANYTHING to do with actual plain gay sex.2. Even if believed Paul was talking about homosexuality, shall we just try and convince ourselves that Paul was a fraud ?3. Jesus is more important that Paul. Paul was a bigot and a homophobe.*** No point in even trying is there ? WHy would he ? Because it's wicked. I have male friends I'm very close to Holmes. I'm very close to my father and brother. Heck, I give them all a hug when I see them. Sexual attraction however is not a factor , no matter how much I care for any of them. I AGREE! Sex (some) was part of Pagan worship, but God made it clear to the priests what would involve worship AT THE TABERNACLE ! There was one tabernacle, one ark. The priests knew what they had to do, and they instructed the people what actions (every day life) would make them unclean and what they had to do to become clean so they could be close to God again. But every day actions ALSO needed to be addressed and clearly SEXUAL IMMORALITY would be something very important. Comon Holmes, Genetic Disorders for one. God has to tell people ... its NOT OK to have sex with your close family! Nothing to do with worshipping Him. The priests were to tell the people ? Whenever they preached, it would be what they had to preach. DEF: "congregation, gathering" . It means people gathering together. Nothing more. That people were congragated together at that point, is very much irrelevant.20.. Just sais 'again say to the people' .. IE: Say more to them. Sorry Holmes, I dont have time to deviate from discussions to answer questions from blatantly biassed websites. Like I said , when you statistically claim 33% of Catholic Priests are gay, please don't expect me to read any of their dribble and have meaningfull discussions with their views. When you try and convince others that God doesn't mind sexual immorality, dont expect others to take you seriously.Excuse my annoyance Holmes, but again I've spent 2 hours , in what seems futility, discussing this topic with you. I dont have 2 hours to spend every night and I touch type !If you have anything new to add to this discussion, let me know, otherwise I suggest you say your final say and make a conclusion. As it is, there is nothing else left to discuss in this topic.My view is that you will always be able to fall back on erroneous translations as your line of defense, and that goes for any Biblical phrase, OT or NT.If you are sincere in your study of Lev. I suggest you study the chapter from a protestant/catholic point of view. You can still use the strong version of KJV Grow in Faith with Daily Christian Living Articles to look up the translations. Not all protestants follow Lev Law, but atleast you can see what they believe the interpretations were about.Otherwise, feel free to stick to your views. I feel I have given them adequate consideration and will actually take to mind some of your views and consider their interpretations. However unfortunitely you seem to be based in what is commonly the 'anti Mosaic Law' category ie: Jesus saves all sinners. Yes Jesus saves all sin, but you must acknowlege and repent your sins, something which you cant do if you dont believe it's sinfull.In either case, at this point I'm sad to say I have set my priorities straight, and there seems little point spending my evenings arguing (not discussing) biblical text.I will however read your conclusion, but you get the last say as cant afford to be an active poster at EvC anymore. EvC was meant to be a very insignificant part of my weekly ruitine, but sad to say its taken too much time.Look forward to occasionally reading your posts in future and seeing how your study of Lev is going (if you so choose to do).Stay well..Z

I've answered this , and posted references to where I've answered this question. You chose to play dumb and contribute nothing to the discussion. Note.. I've actually spent time responding in full detail to those with semi valid points. Every Christian has heard this argument. It's futile. Again, not every 'Christian' will go to Heaven.Levitical Laws apply. Those specified by Jesus. Any Christian that tells you otherwise is either sadly mislead, or trying to mislead you.7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.Christianity that adapts to it's environment is not a faith. I dont preach that adultery is better than homosexuality. I accept all God's laws and dont 'adapt' my faith , to suit my personal lifestyle.Guess what, I spend 2 1/2 years abstaining from having sex with my girlfriend (now wife). Any idea how tempting it was to tell myself that God would understand if we didn't wait until married ?There is no bias in me Rei. I'd be a liar if I told you it was ok to be gay, and unfortunitely being a popular guy , is not what being a Christian is all about.stay wellZ

Not sure how we've moved off topic. I certainly have not seen any admins mentioning this.Unfortunately for you, if my argument is that the reason many Xtians believe what they currently believe, is due to an early mistake in interpreting scripture, your telling me what many Xtians currently believe is neither an argument... nor is it informative.In short, it is a waste of time, especially when I have already said that I understand why Xtians who use only English/Latin translations believe as they do and are correct BASED ON THAT TRANSLATION. You cannot use this argument. The above instruction (semen/menstruation) was only given to the Israelis in Lev. You cannot use Lev to say the people already knew what was required of them regarding how unclean sex was, such that another part of Lev (which was taught concurrent with the earlier chapt) could not be about limits on sex as form of worship.You also miss the importance of my argument. While some may know very well what is not supposed to be part of ritual, it is easy to 1) slip back into old habits, 2) accept doing certain rituals (outside temple) just to blend into other cultures they will encounter (outside Israel), and 3) adopt certain pagan rituals in order to help assimilate them into Judaism.Ironically, all of this can be seen in Xtianity. 1) Portions of the myth regarding Jesus himself was taken from other baptismal cults (including the cannibalistic communion ritual). 2) Jesus went to other faiths and tried them out (most notably John the baptist), as many Xtians today go to other religions and practice their rites just to understand them better. 3) The Xtian church found it could not fight the rampant pagan habits (holidays and rituals) and so adopted them into Xtian practices. Certainly if you celebrate Xmas, as MOST XTIANS DO, you are celebrating a pagan holiday which has been assimilated into Judeo-Xtian teachings. And if one is Catholic, just think about all the saints!If anything Lev, as my argued interpretation suggests, would show the wisdom of God in knowing people don't all KNOW what is expected of them, and due to human fallibility that they could FORGET, especially as a matter of expedience. First you say they knew about worship and so Lev18&20 could not be about worship, and then that they had no clue at all (which was my point).The statement above is my argument. And just because and earlier chapter on cleanliness dealt with sex, does NOT mean a latter chapter could not be about use of sex in ritual.Perhaps you are unclear about the nature of pagan rituals and celebrations. You could have strict rules of cleanliness inside temples and then periods of abandon, where laws of cleanliness would no longer apply during celebration (which may take place well outside of temples). Uhmmmm... property rites. The ten commandments are pretty clear that one cannot commit adultery. When unbound by marriage the Bible contains plenty of situations where family members have sex with family members, even unto the wrath of God if they do not.How did they know not to have slaves (as common conceptions of Xtianity demand)? Whoops, back then they did not have that proscription either.Do not mistake current social custom, with those of long long long ago. Not sure what you meant by "you offense", it better not be that I am a liar. I did say that I do not usually go to gay web sources. I even admitted at the outset that this was from a possibly "biased" source. This was just something I had recently stumbled across and found it interesting since you always mention the septuagint.Which is why your next commentary makes no sense to me at all. The quote I posted and the link I gave said the same thing as YOU. Apparently you did not even read their "dribble", which as it turns out was using the septuagint AS THE PROPER SOURCE in order to make its argument.It was not saying the septaugint was less accurate, rather that if you believe that it is most accurate then the "abomination" regarding homosexual sex, is actually "unclean ritual".All this brings up an interesting problem in how to deal with biased sources.The Nazis practiced very skewed science. Like you, they dismissed ALL arguments by people they felt were in error in some parts. This was an error on THEIR part. This was a bias.Yet, if I heard a Nazi scientist say "1+1=2" I could not dismiss this statement as fallacious just because Nazis are biased and so make mistakes. This is to commit the same mistake as them.While both my citations may be from biased sources, and they may in fact be incorrect, one does not automatically follow from the other. They made concrete statements which can be investigated objectively (unlike their 33% comment you use to reject everything else they say).So here I stand in a quandary. You just told me to reject them and all they say because they are biased, yet they just said the same thing as you... which you would have known if you had read the quote or the link. So am I no longer supposed to trust YOU or anything YOU say, or are you going to give them a break and actually deal with their factual statements?In fact, what should other readers take away from this? If you do not cut them a break, why should any readers ever cut your "dribble" a break? Once again, I am at a loss. You appear not to have read what I said. Otherwise you would know I agree with the above statement. It is not that the ritual is to another God which makes it offensive to God, but that that ritual in and of itself is an offense to God. I get this quite clearly.Look at the other rituals which are offensive to God, offensive to the point of him killing you if you do them. Yet clearly burning such things in common life would not be an offense. Cain and Abel are a great example. Cain's offering offended God. Why? Who knows the tastes of a God?During the part on sacrificial offerings he dealt with what are good and what are offensive offerings.During the part on sexual ritual or ceremonial practices, he deals with what are offensive ceremonial practices (apparently none are good). There are (especially to Xtians). These are handled under the larger blanket of fornication. I have already said this. Clearly all proper sex is with a wife, and a wife alone.The question is if there were references to homosexual acts in specific. In the English/Latin translations there are. But evidence points to the fact that such translations are not accurate to the Hebrew/Greek, which were only referencing ritual male prostitution. Such acts carried much higher penalties, because they were not simply sex outside of marriage, they were offensive rituals to God.Why can you not address the facts presented to you? Your points were strawmen, so yes there is no point in continuing with them.You say Paul wrote them out plainly, indeed he did. He used the Greek word Arsenokoitai, which is used in the Septuagint to translate "male prostitute" in other passages. Pretty clear isn't it?As far as Paul being a fraud I did not say this. My question was meant to provoke a realization that TO MOST XTIANS it is the obedience to Christ which is most important, regardless of how one lives. We are all sinners according to God and freed through Christ. A homosexual can just as easily be forgiven as a thief or a prostitute or...I don't believe any homosexual has said that homosexual sex is without sin, but rather it is just the same sin everyone else is commiting during life. They have the same claim to salvation at the end.Now some Xtian sects do not believe this and say only one who has lived a righteous life throughout will get into God's kingdom. Well then they are following Paul. They knew what to do, they did not know what to do, they did know what to do...Your position has become merely ad hoc. If you had held on, and defended, your initial position of a dual nature Lev I would have had more respect for your efforts. Now this is interesting.First of all, is God really as ignorant of genetics as you are?Incest does not lead to genetic disorders. At least if a family is not rife with underlying genetic conditions the offspring will not have genetic problems.If anything, incest is a good way to improve the strength of a bloodline. This is used in breeding.The problem comes with longterm interbreeding. There must be inputs of new blood from time to time to keep the line from "degenerating". But first and even second interbred generations have been shown to have no real statistical increase in genetic abnormalities.Second, if this were true, how do you account for humankind arising from Adam and Eve? And puh-lease do not bring up the fall of man. Cain and Abel were not mentioned until after that. This is not to mention the rebirth of mankind from Noah's family...Noah's FAMILY. Can you please explain the logistics where incest did not occur? Well... are you asking me or telling me? Your previous post attempted to skewer me by insisting I read the intros of each chapter to find who the audience was.So I do so and point out it is inconsistent with your 2part Lev interpretation, and this is what I get? Now I am NOT supposed to believe the intro is designed for the intended audience. Or rather that the audience is unimportant because it will always be for the people?This is another example of ad hoc reasoning.It appears my interpretation is the only one holding up (not changing) under examination. Futility is arguing against the facts, by way of ad hoc ad hominem and guilt by association. I'm sorry you have chosen this route.Perhaps it would feel less annoying if you did not worry about what conclusion you were forced to come to by nature of the facts, and instead embraced the debate as important in and of itself.First you would realize I (and those links I provided) were not saying what you thought they said, and that the immorality of sexual activity to the Xtians does not hinge on whether English translations regarding "homosexuals" were more accurately translated to "male temple prostitutes."Second you would realize you may still make a case against Xtian homosexual marriages, though along different lines. I think this argument would be relatively weak given the historical flexible nature of Xtianity, but not impossible. While I understand this issue, if true understanding of the Bible is important to you, it seems odd to suddenly undercut a source which may be giving you valuable information. Ahhhh... the Lord works in mysterious ways does he not?Perhaps He is telling you EvC should be a more important, rather than a less important part of your life.If you came to preach, and explore Biblical Text only with yes men, then I suppose EvC is not for you. But that will be a poor approach to understanding the Bible wherever you end up spending your time.And as for your snide comment that you will check up to see if I have been studying Lev (if I choose to do so), I can only say that the evidence points to my having studied Lev much more than you.Heck, I don't even bitch about having to read the Bible and other sources to come to a better understanding of Lev, even complimenting the fact that someone (namely YOU) brought up an interesting 2part Lev interpretation for debate.To a scholar such things should be a joy, even if unable to participate because of time pressures.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 11-04-2003]

Your argument was bad translations. I've still seen none of those having had a good look at the strong Hebrew translations. If anything, you have simply confirmed my faith in the textual translations. I joined EvC on a recommendation from someone else. Reason was to discuss science, not religion. I belonged to another forum where the Admins ,sadly, were blatantly biassed. Thus I left. Fortunitely for EvC, the Admin/s are pretty good. When however I see a blatantly biassed post such as someone taking quotes from another forum and posting it here to belittle Christians, I find it difficult not to respond , perhaps a flaw of mine. Ironic you mention yes men. Take a carefull look around you Holmes. You didn't seem to understand the fundamental basics of Lev. It was actually a sincere comment, if it came out wrong , I appologise. It's the universal Christian understanding of Lev. I brought up. If you choose not to accept it, there is little point in discussing it any further. Much like there is little point discussing Evolution, if one chooses to flat out deny the existance of mutation. It would be a enjoyable discussing the Biblical text with someone open to discussion. Unfortunitely when I click on your name, all I see are stabs at Christianity, regardless of the content discussed."give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine." (Matt. 7:6).Your choice.

????? You have been given evidence of this by more than me Zealot.In response you keep bringing up the septuagint. So I showed you some refs on the Septuagint. You have done nothing but use ad hominem and guilt by association, to address their points.How can your faith be confirmed? If it was, why don't you show those strong refutations to everyone else? You aren't talking about me. I have not posted anything from another forum, particularly to belittle Xtians. Or are you saying this is what I must do in order to get you to respond? I'm debating with you Zealot, not them, and you are the one leaving now that your argument is crumbling before you (with the expressed intention of finding a like minded audience), not me.If you've seen my fights with schraf, zhimbo, and rrhain you will realize I'm not for yes men, even among people that agree with evolution. Ironically, with rrhain I was standing up for the fact that David might not be gay, and that homosexual sex and marriage may not be acceptable (ie it is immoral) to the Xtian God. No, what I did not have was YOUR understanding of Lev. This is the point of having a debate. As the evidence of debate seems to have shown, while you really understand what many modern Xtians are saying, you have very very little knowledge of Lev, and even worse no real logical support for your position.If you did, you would have had no real problem addressing points which attacked your 2-part Lev interpretation... which I said I found interesting (though ultimately problematic).I still haven't even gotten around to the definition of Children of Israel... given elsewhere in the Bible... which supports my position and NOT YOURS. Well now this is interesting. The UNIVERSAL Xtian understanding? Or did you mean to say the MAJORITY Xtian understanding. I think the point has been made that Lev's role and understanding is changing, specifically in light of increased Biblical scholarship (esp. into Hebrew texts), and changing societal norms (which similarly erased the Bible's support for slavery).The point of debate is not for both parties to accept the other's side as true, or even possible (at the outset). The point of debate is to be open to evidence and logic so that if one loses one is willing to accept the conclusions of evidence and logic.I have been willing to accept that the specific Biblical condemnation of homosexuality in English texts was legit. I am still willing to accept that outcome. Show me the evidence and logic, but don't expect me to just swallow whatever you are shovelling.You are the one who has not been willing to address my points nor the points of quotes I have presented. You can chuck the quotes if their "bias" makes your "bias" unable to cope with handling what they say. Then simply deal with my points.You are the one who seems unwilling to follow logic or evidence anywhere. Where have I not been open to discussion? I accepted that your 2-part Lev could be possible, but wanted evidence. You had no evidence, or at best very shoddily used logic to paste together separate facts into a shanty of evidence. It was easily blown over. Am I supposed to help you?I presented my position (a singular purpose Lev), as well as evidence. I cannot help that you have not presented good enough evidence to rebut this.In honest debate that usually means my position "wins". Now I find out it means I am not open to discussion? Really? Then you are completely incompetent in research or reading comprehension.Check out my debates with rrhain and schraf. With the former I have defended some Xtian positions, and the latter I have stabbed at feminist fundamentalism (with no mention of Xtianity... sometimes I do but not always).In ID debates I sometimes take a stab at the Xtian fundies, but then it is not regardless of content discussed. The content is regarding Xtians who allow their desires get the better of them in honest debate, or the scientific analysis of evidence. In particular Johnson's Discovery Institute. 1) Judge not, less ye be judged.2) Give a man a fish and he eats for one day, teach a man to fish and he feeds himself for a lifetime.3) Now there's a man with an open mind, you can feel the draft over here... My choice? Great. Then you will start presenting evidence to support your 2part Lev interpretation. This includes evidence to rebut the problems I have pointed out.In addition, you will review those rather short quotes and do some research to find out if they are indeed correct. It might even be nice for you to do some research (which was suggested at the beginning) regarding errant translations from the Hebrew.Then I will present evidence and logic to support my case, or rebut the points you made. It will continue in such manner until it appears that my evidence and logic are not solid, at which time I will abandon my position.Sound good?------------------
holmes

You referred to Blatant Latin homophobic mistranslations. I found none such. I referred to both the Masoretic and Septuagint to review the translations. They confirmed my beliefs.Only difference was that you then chose to deny 'man lies with mankind' was a direct homosexual reference. Instead the argument was 'there was no such thing as homosexuality back then'.Evidence you call it ?Lev 18-20 was specifically addressed to the people, not priests, yet you insists it wasn't.What is the point af discussing it with you ? See the thread starter. How many Christians on this site ? You'd think if I wanted to find a like minded audience I would go somewhere else huh ? Instead I argue against a lesbian , a bisexual and whatever Rrhain is.PS: When someone chooses to question even the most elementary facts , there is little point in continuing a discussion. Try the Christian understanding of Lev. I see no difference between the English translation of the Maseritic text and the English KJV or the English translation of the Septuagint.
They all say the same thing. This shows to me you haven't the first clue of Christianity. I've provided those already. Your choice was blatant denial.Shall, I'll spend yet another 2 hours wasting my time, trying to help you come to an understanding, when you will question even the most simplistic verses ?Or shall I just copy and paste a selection of quotes from you on this site in an attempt to view your bias ?Shall we try the latter ?"Historically some of the worst diseases in Western history (the major plagues) were exacerbated by Xtian ignorance regarding disease and how to treat it, thus hitting them much harder than they had to.""The deal is that our (by which I mean the western world's) current calender/dating system is based on Xtian mythology and while not intolerable to continue using, does seem somewhat clunky and pointless.""I do not view the Bible as the work of God. I view the Bible as the work of men. Much more than that, it seems that the disjointed and inconsistent passages are actually cobbled together "fables" and "myths" from earlier sources.""Become rambling? The Bible IS rambling. It looks suspiciously like other pieces of literature that are accumulations of many previous works patched together to look as if it is one story."**If you see the Bible as 'disjointed and inconsistent passages' why do you even waste people's time trying to discuss it ?Just forget about it, move on with your life and accept that other people might not have difficulty understanding it, thus they might have different opinions.However, trying to convince me that you're actually interested in coming to a truth regarding the text is futile. I see no point in wasting anymore time discussing Biblical text with you.

Chapters after 20 were addressed solely to priests which is in direct conflict with your 2 part Lev interpretation.Your interpretation of the "Children of Israel" as "all people" is incorrect. The term is more narrowly defined early in Exodus, and as I have pointed out refers to those who will move beyond Israel to found new communities. This is found directly before Lev in Exodus. Uhmmmm, the point was to show that your quote showed equal ignorance? And it led up to a joke. Sorry it wasn't funny.And quoting me to show my bias... This is NOT true? Some of those very Lev passages were used to disregard medical science and allowed buboes to kill, where lancing may have helped. What does this have to do with ripping Xtianity? In that thread I pointed out that the supposed "xtian" calendar doesn't actually square with Xtian reality anyway, and was advocating use of the JEWISH calendar! I assume a xtian would have no problem with that, right?I really think the Jewish calendar may be one of the best calendars in current use to adopt as a matter of convenient notation of years (the monthly cycle might have to change though) so as to best understand history. This opinion comes from studying the Bible and its connections with other faiths in the region. I admitted up front that I do not believe your religion is real. That does not prevent me from reading your texts and understanding what they say.In fact my DOUBT regarding your religion is one of the reasons I am not going in with a bias toward what it says regarding sexuality. It would be like you worrying what some sanskrit text says about circumcision. Its a document that you study to see what it says... no big deal. Having experience with other cobbled together texts, and their study, this is my conclusion. What is amazing to me is that you would even doubt this.Perhaps you need to read the history of your Bible. It was not written by one hand, it IS made up of diverse writings that were brought together into a single volume (and there are other texts which could have been in there) when a Roman Emperor paid for 50 "final" copies, so a "final" copy was created.Without question the New Testament is from diverse writers with sometimes conflicting versions of the same event. It was noted in Rome at the time that some were directly taken from other religions at the time and patched in to make a cohesive story.Eventually you will start figuring this out when you study a history of the Bible, and the writings of others during its creation. Because it is important to most of recent Western History and Culture. Why study any other culture's writings or artifacts... like Mayans and Persians and ancient Chinese?Because I am curious?You can argue that it must say what you believe it to say, because that is how you understand it. That is a valid approach. However there are others that do deny your position with equal faith. I could care less which ends up being right, and simply offer historical and cultural insight into that document.Sorry to be one of the messengers.------------------
holmes