Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Checking for validity of supposed early christian gay marriage rite
LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 651
From: Jareth's labyrinth
Joined: 03-12-2006


Message 91 of 124 (485705)
10-10-2008 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Rrhain
10-07-2008 3:21 AM


Turkey Jews
In other words, you're a cafeteria Christian
Just as you are a salad-bar Jew?
You take the passages you want to follow and ignore the rest
Pot callin' the kettle black.
If you truly want to follow te law...
As if you ever did, or even know what it means...
and Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of the law would be changed till all be fulfilled, then it all goes together.
If you paid attention to what I wrote in message 46 (hint-Moral Law) and checked up on the verses I listed down, you would see what total nonsense you just wrote.
BTW: Its pretty smug advice to tell someone how to follow the Law when you disregard any section of it when it conflicts with your own personal politics.
a Christian cannot use one part of Leviticus as justification for condemnation when they ignore another part.
Don't know much about Christianity, do you? Ad who gives you the rigt to tell Christians how to follow their beliefs??
Have you never been to a Jewish deli
Slap on the head; I just remembered a National geographic that talked about Jews eating turkey among many other things.

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Rrhain, posted 10-07-2008 3:21 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Taz, posted 10-11-2008 12:51 AM LudoRephaim has not replied
 Message 100 by Rrhain, posted 10-11-2008 2:40 AM LudoRephaim has replied

  
LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 651
From: Jareth's labyrinth
Joined: 03-12-2006


Message 92 of 124 (485706)
10-10-2008 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Rrhain
10-07-2008 3:58 AM


Ding diddgong
Indeed, but yours hang upon the answer to mine.
BLLLCrap
Incorrect. its the other way around.
Not according to the sources (written by people who for a fact know Hebrew) wrote. Even the Jewish study Bible doesn't state that the acts ivolved were ritual, but about the wasting of seed.
Once again, you act like Ken ham; all bark, no bite.
Things that are Toeyvah are ritually bad. Things that are Zimah are inherently bad.
Prove it (ie you cant, because you ignore the evidence to the contrary.)
And it doesn't occur to you to question them? To take more than just their word for it?
Just like flat Earthers say about scientists and historians who state that the world is round? Or young Earth Creationists who questio the validty of Geologists who state tha the world is over 4 billion years old?
Do you question Atomic theory? Do you have to get a degree in physics before you finally accept it?
What about the theory of gravity?
Germ theory?
You absolutely question the translations and intrpretations of both Homer's Iliad and Oddyssey, and wont be convinced that what they are proven to say is true until you get a degree in ancient Greek??
Will you not believe in Dinosaurs until you see a dinosaur bone for yourself, and run numerous chemical and other tests to confirm that it is a true dinosaur fossil and not a natural broken (albiet strangely formd) stone?
You expect me to take your single word over the words of numerous Hebrew scholars that dissagree with you, that take the text for what it really says, what is so obvious to those that can read (even in braille) ?
I never said that.
But it would be consistent with your views if you did. It seems that you were hinting at such.
It doesn't matter how many people claim that they did, none of those things are true.
So if Ken ham states "No matter how many scientists and Historians claim that the Earth is over 4 billion years old, thatdoes not make it true.", would you concur with that?
But just because the sexual activity is between two people of the same sex does not mean that there is a blanket restriction on such.
You would say the same on Beastiality?
(Having Computer trouble. I might not make it back. Hope to respond later.)
Edited by LudoRephaim, : No reason given.

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Rrhain, posted 10-07-2008 3:58 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Rrhain, posted 10-11-2008 3:08 AM LudoRephaim has replied

  
LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 651
From: Jareth's labyrinth
Joined: 03-12-2006


Message 93 of 124 (485707)
10-10-2008 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Rrhain
10-07-2008 3:58 AM


It is interesting that you mention the kashrut state of Turkey.
Comparison between sexual and dietary mores? Apples n' Oranges.
They just need more supervision.
!
You want to supervise gays having sex??
Something you have not told us, Rrhain? Ho many times have you seen that movie "Birdcage"?
Since what we consider "homosexuality" simply did not exist as a concept at the time,
So once again, are you saying that there were no gay people in the ancient world?
The common sense interpretation is that since it is not described as "zimah", it is not something that is inherently evil.
So beastiality (ie animal cruelty) and child sacrifice are not inherently evil?
You seem to have forgotten that Abraham was told to sacrifice his child and didn't blink.
Considering his pagan background (he was originally from Ur), the fact that the majority of the Law wasn't written yet (ie that part about "thou shall not Murder") and the fact that God didn't reveal the whole Torah to Abraham (once again, "thou shall not murder" and "dont sacrifice your children to Molech'), it is not so surprising at all.

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Rrhain, posted 10-07-2008 3:58 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Rrhain, posted 10-11-2008 3:45 AM LudoRephaim has replied

  
LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 5083 days)
Posts: 651
From: Jareth's labyrinth
Joined: 03-12-2006


Message 94 of 124 (485708)
10-10-2008 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by ICANT
10-10-2008 9:34 AM


Finally
Hello there ICANT
ICANT Responds To Rrhain
Why should I take your word as fact?
Welcome to my world!

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by ICANT, posted 10-10-2008 9:34 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 95 of 124 (485713)
10-10-2008 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by ICANT
10-09-2008 2:34 PM


Re: How does "toeyvah" relate to "zimah"?
The problem with your web site is that it takes it's definition from Strong, whose translations were influenced by the theology and the attitudes of the Christian religion.
YOu really need to ask a Rabbi, not a Christian interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by ICANT, posted 10-09-2008 2:34 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 10-10-2008 10:28 PM ramoss has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 96 of 124 (485722)
10-10-2008 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by ramoss
10-10-2008 8:49 PM


Re: Source
ramoss writes:
YOu really need to ask a Rabbi, not a Christian interpretation.
Why should I ask a Rabbi?
Am I supposed to believe a man who does not believe Messiah has come?
I know several and they don't know Armaic and Chaldee Hebrew.
They do know modern Hebrew.
The Definition in Message 83 are from Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828.
You don't like that source try this one Here.
abomination:
1. anything abominable; anything greatly disliked or abhorred.
2. intense aversion or loathing; detestation: He regarded lying with abomination.
3. a vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, habit, etc.: Spitting in public is an abomination.
Here
Sin
1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.
Here
Scorner
1. open or unqualified contempt; disdain: His face and attitude showed the scorn he felt.
2. an object of derision or contempt.
3. a derisive or contemptuous action or speech.
You won't like these any better.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by ramoss, posted 10-10-2008 8:49 PM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Rrhain, posted 10-11-2008 4:17 AM ICANT has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 97 of 124 (485730)
10-11-2008 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by LudoRephaim
10-10-2008 7:41 PM


Re: Turkey Jews
LudoRephaim writes:
Just as you are a salad-bar Jew?
Pot callin' the kettle black.
As if you ever did, or even know what it means...
etc....
Just curious. Do you try to engage in serious conversation or you just like to make smart-ass comments?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by LudoRephaim, posted 10-10-2008 7:41 PM LudoRephaim has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 98 of 124 (485731)
10-11-2008 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by ICANT
10-10-2008 9:34 AM


ICANT responds to me:
quote:
I gave you the actual Hebrew Word.
And what part of "rattling off synonyms" do you not understand? You have to go beyond the individual words for the larger context.
quote:
I then gave you the dictionary meaning
And what part of "argumentum ad dictionary" not being a valid argument did you misunderstand? Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive. You need to go beyond the individual words in order to see the larger context.
quote:
You then tell me your version of what the words mean.
I did. You even quoted it. Were you not paying attention? "Toeyvah" are things that are bad in a ritualistic sense. They have to do with intent, purpose, and underlying motivations. "Zimah," on the other hand, are things that are inherently bad no matter what. Murder is always bad and that's why it's described as "zimah."
quote:
Why should I take your word as fact?
You shouldn't. I never said you should. I simply asked for LudoRephaim to describe the difference. I then refused to accept argument ad dictionary, which is what you're engaging in.
Here's another one: What's the difference between "bdelygma" and "anomia"? Isn't it interesting that the passage in question uses "bdelygma" rather than "anomia"?
quote:
So what part of your anatomy did you get your definitions from?
The linguistic centers of my brain. What part did you get yours from? Now that we have the stupid comments out of the way....
quote:
Where did you get your degree in Chaldee and Armaic Hebrew?
I don't have a degree in English, either. Does that make me incapable of discussing English?
quote:
u tell me murder is always described as "zimah"
I didn't say that. It would help if you would respond to what I actually said, not what you wish I said.
quote:
I can't find where the penalty for murder was given.
Since I never mentioned anything about penalties, I am curious as to why you are bringing it up?
quote:
Would you please explain to me how my having sex with my wife is in a ritualistic sense.
It is contained in the word "wife." Jewish visions of married couples are that sex is a blessing and should be eagerly and joyously engaged in. The mishnah is that men of independence are supposed to perform their husbandly duties to their wives every day. Not because of any sort of commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" but simply because sex is fun and the sharing of intimacy forms a strong bond with your partner.
quote:
What part of "Thou shall not" do you not understand?
I understand it quite well. The problem is the object of that statement is not what you think it is. "Thou shalt not"...? What? What is it that we are not supposed to do? Engage in pagan fertility rites? OK. When was the last time you heard about priests having sex?
quote:
What part of "they shall surely be put to death" do you not understand?
I understand it quite well. The problem is that the trigger for the punishment is not what you think it is. "They shall surely be put to death"...? Why? Why are they to be put to death? Because they engaged in a pagan fertility right? OK. When was the last time you heard about priests having sex?
quote:
There are no exception's made for any reason.
Fine. When was the last time you heard about priests having sex? Last time I checked, gay people don't have sex with priests as a general rule.
quote:
There was such a thing a male and male sex back then.
Of course. Since when did sex between people of the same sex equate to "homosexuality"? If that were the case, then the military is full of gay people. Is that what you're saying?
quote:
So what is the concept of gay people about if it is not sex?
The emotional part. One can be gay without ever having sex and one can have sex without being gay.
quote:
Would you please take these words and explain to me where it is talking about temple prostitution?
I already have.
Hint: Who is "Molech"?
Hint: Might the fact that the verse follows admonitions regarding Molech have some effect upon how it ought to be interpreted?
This is why I keep saying you need to look beyond individual words. Get your nose out of the dictionary and pay attention to the context.
ve.et-za.khar lo tish.kav mish.ke.vei i.sha to.e.va hiv:
And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman
What on earth does "lay lyings" mean? A case can be made that it's saying you're not allowed to have sex with a man in the same bed as you have sex with a woman, given other ritualistic passages in Leviticus regarding the forbiddance of mixing things (seed in a field, fibers in cloth, food on a plate).

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by ICANT, posted 10-10-2008 9:34 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 99 of 124 (485732)
10-11-2008 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by New Cat's Eye
10-10-2008 10:25 AM


Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:
You gave me no indication that you intend to honestly debate.
(*chuckle*) As if you ever do. I stand by everything I said. I really do mean what I say. The questions I ask are not simply (hah!) rhetorical. I really do want to hear the answers to them.
quote:
First off, the part where you supported your assertion.
The fact that there is no word for "homosexual" in the language would be a big part of it. The fact that all of the passages that refer to same-sex sexuality in the text are in reference to pagan rituals would be another big part of it. When we don't find any descriptions of things that we would call "homosexuality" and don't even have any words to describe it, that would seem to indicate that the concept didn't exist. Now, I'm not that big of a fan of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (I find it to be more psychological than linguistic...choices of words influence thought because of the psychological choice of words, not by the linguistic forcing of thought), but I do go the other way: Thought influences words. If you don't have the thought, you don't have the words. And when we find a distinct lack of words that have connection to certain concepts, that's a pretty good sign that the people just didn't think that way.
Take a look at our own language: We have a distinct color term for the shade of light red known as "pink." We don't have a term for the similar shade of light blue. That doesn't mean it is impossible to talk about shades of light blue, but look at the linguistic gymnastics we have to go through in order to do it: "Sky blue," "baby blue," "robin's egg blue." Note that we keep coming back to a more basic term, "blue," and adding qualifiers to it. We just don't think that way. While "pink" has managed to separate itself from "red" so that we consider it different and come up with a different term for it, we haven't done so for other colors.
Or, more accurately, we made our decisions about where the color breaks are. Not all languages have the same breaks. There are languages with only two color terms: "Black" and "white." This doesn't mean they can't discuss color. It means that they always refer to color by referencing an object...just as English uses "turquoise." The term refers to the rock which happens to have the color we mean.
Ancient Greek doesn't have a color term for blue. And yet, Athena has blue eyes. This will commonly get translated as "grey-eyed Athena," but that's because there is no term for "blue" and the translators are trying to be faithful.
They just didn't think that way. Thus, there are no words to use to describe the thought they don't have.
quote:
Secondly, that they did have man-on-man sex and that homos have man-on-man sex so to say that they had no concept of it is misleading.
You are confusing mechanics for sexuality. I didn't say they had no concept of sex taking place between people of the same sex. I said they had no concept of what we would call "homosexuality." There is more to being gay then the physical process of sexual activity. One can be gay and never have sex. And one can have sex with someone of your own sex and not be gay.
quote:
Strange how there are so many people that don't seem to share your interpretation of what "homosexuality" means....
Indeed, but I think a good starting point is to let the gay people speak for themselves. When we listen to the words of gay people telling us that they knew they were gay before they had sex, when we hear them speak of their emotional bonds, it becomes clear that there is more to it than simply checking for the ratio of X to Y chromosomes.
Are you suggesting you didn't know if you were attracted to the appropriate sex until you actually had sex? That kinda begs the question of why you would have bothered having sex if you weren't attracted until after the fact. That could lead one to think that your first sexual act was not voluntary, but that's going a bit far afield.
quote:
That's why I fucking asked, you dumbass.
And when you were told that it wasn't "simple," why did you insist upon it? Notice that we're still talking about it. I didn't say "simple." You did. And when I told you that no, I didn't mean "simple," you continued to harp on it. And now that you've been told that really and truly, I didn't mean "simple" in any way, you're still trying to make it appear as if I did.
The words you're looking for are, "Oops. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth."
quote:
quote:
You put words in my mouth and now you're complaining that I'm not accepting your changing of my words. I didn't say "simply different," so why on earth did you respond as if I did?
I didn't.
(*sigh*)
See, the thing about the internets is that your words stick around. We can go back and take a look at what you said:
Message 78:
Rrhain writes:
The passages are there to tell Jews how their ritualistic practices are different.
Message 80:
Catholic Scientist writes:
Simply different?
Now, did I say "simply"?
No, I didn't.
Did you say "simply"?
Yes, you did.
Ergo, you put words in my mouth. I didn't say "simply" different. You did. I then corrected you to let you know that no, I didn't mean "simply" different. And yet, here we are still going on about a word that you inserted into my statement.
If you truly wanted to have that "honest debate" you mentioned at the beginning of your post, it would help if you would hold up your end of the bargain.
quote:
I asked if you were saying that the passage just says they are different or if there more to it than that.
And I said there was definitely more to it than that.
Message 81:
Rrhain writes:
Since when is "different" ever "simple"?
But apparently that wasn't good enough for you. You wandered off into argumentum ad dictionary. And did you choose to define "different"? No...you chose to define "simple."
Message 82:
Catholic Scientist writes:
Sim*ply: -adverb
merely; only: It is simply a cold.
But apparently, even you realized the silliness of this because you went on:
Catholic Scientist writes:
And then with the context of the following sentence, you can see that I was implying that it there is something more there than just saying they are different.
But if you truly believed this, why did you define "simple"? The bone of contention seems to be the word "different," which I directly said in my response to your claim of "simply different" was not to be interpreted as something "merely" or "only." When I used the word "different," I was referring to something on a very large scale. Given that the topic is Judaism, it would seem to be inherent as Judaism is, in part, about otherness, distinction, and being "different." The Law is there to define the Jews as separate from the rest of the world. There's a reason why they are called the "chosen" ones.
Since when is "different" ever "simple"?
But no, this simply (hah!) won't do. Gotta keep harping on it. Gotta make it look like I was the one that screwed up. Yeah, you asked a question and got a direct answer, but the answer contradicted the ad hominem you were trying to make! Can't let that happen. Let's keep on whining about it instead of saying, "Oops. My mistake. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth," and moving on.
quote:
You could have just responded with this
You mean you entered a conversation about the meaning of Judaism without doing any homework on the subject? You decided to participate in a thread about the foundational Law of a religion without even bothering to read the Law in question?
Remember when you were commenting about having an "honest debate"? Don't you think that preparing for the conversation is part of it? Don't you think identifying the fact that you don't know much about the subject you are engaging in would make for a better response?
quote:
“gay” is an adjective and “homosexuality” is a noun.
And here we go with the argumentum ad dictionary. Indeed, the two are different parts of speech. That's irrelevant, though. The concept that the two are referring to is the same thing: Identification with people of your own sex.
quote:
I was assuming that there’s more to “homosexuality” that just “gay sex”
Yeah...what did you say it involved? Oh, that's right.
Message 82:
Catholic Scientist writes:
talking with a lisp while having limp wrists, generally acting like a girl and saying "fabulous" a lot
And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
Of course, there's the problem that no, you weren't assuming that there was more to "homosexuality" than just "gay sex." Instead, that is precisely what you were claiming:
Message 82:
Catholic Scientist writes:
I wouldn’t say that the passage refers to “homosexuality” but that it does refer to gay sex.
"Gay" sex is the sex that takes place between gay people. Sex between people of the same sex is not necessarily "gay" sex because you don't have to be gay to have sex with someone of the same sex.
Oh, and then there's the fact that right after this very claim of yours that you don't mean it, you directly state that you do!
Catholic Scientist writes:
Rrhain writes:
The passage refers to sex between two males. Surely you aren't saying that all sex between people of the same sex are "gay," are you?
Pretty much.
So the military is full of gay people, is it? Then why is there such a brou-ha-ha over "morale" since the forces are overflowing with gay people?
And then you say it again:
Catholic Scientst writes:
Rrhain writes:
It happens to be between people of the same sex, but that doesn't make it "gay."
I don’t believe that.
So when you said that you were assuming that there was "more to 'homosexuality' than just 'gay sex,'" that wasn't exactly true? You didn't really mean it?
quote:
Your position is that perfectly straight men would go buttfuck the priest as a fertility ritual
We know that straight men routinely had sex with each other (is there a particular reason why you immediately fantasize about intercourse when you think of having sex with another man? Are you trying to tell us something?) Sparta had an entire culture based around it. Are you saying all the men in Sparta were gay? Then how on earth did they have children? Everyone was bi?
quote:
But then, if I was gay, I guess I’d have that bias too.
And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
And notice the implication that I'm gay. I still haven't said one way or the other, but let me quash one rumor:
I'm not going to have sex with you, whether it be "buttfucking" you or some other form of sexual activity (yes, there are others), so please stop asking.
quote:
quote:
Only if you also claim that all the other passages describing straight sex as abomination "add weight to the claim that god has a problem with straight sex." Do you?
Yes.
Where? You have talked about the "consequences" of same-sex marriage, but you have never mentioned the "consequences" of mixed-sex marriage. So if you truly believe that there is "a problem" with straight sex, we should have seen at least one post by you of such.
Help us out. Remember: The internets keep your words alive. Go back and search for it because I can't recall a single time you have ever laid into mixed-sex sexual activity the way you do same-sex sexual activity. And since there are nearly 100 times more admonitions against mixed-sex sexual activity, one would think that it would be the topic more commonly discussed.
Remember when you were claiming to what an "honest debate"? That wasn't exactly true, now, was it?
quote:
Maybe when you twist the passages that reference gay sex into NOT being about gay sex like you do to the story of Lot.
Where is same-sex sexual activity ever mentioned in the story of Lot? Are you saying the entire crowd was made of gay people? Then how on earth did they have any children? If they were there for sex, why did they become enraged when Lot offered them sex?
Most specifically, why did the townspeople demand to interrogate the strangers? They certainly didn't ask to have sex with them.
quote:
But you assume that people are playing dumb when they’re not.
No, it isn't assumption. It's justified conclusions based upon direct statements. Like when you claim to mean one thing and then immediately contradict it in the very next sentence. Like when you harp upon the word "simply" when I never used it. Like when you immediately jump to insults when discussing gay people and then claim that you are engaging in "honest debate."
Let's not play dumb about you playing dumb.
quote:
I had an honest question that I thought you might be able to honestly answer.
And I did:
Since when is "different" ever "simple"?
Apparently, you didn't like the answer.
quote:
You'd rather be an asshole.
No, I'd rather have an "honest debate," but that requires two people. If you're not going to hold up your end of the bargain, why should I?
Edited by Rrhain, : Fixing typos

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-10-2008 10:25 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Phat, posted 10-11-2008 3:33 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 100 of 124 (485734)
10-11-2008 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by LudoRephaim
10-10-2008 7:41 PM


LudoRephaim responds to me:
quote:
Just as you are a salad-bar Jew?
I don't recall mentioning my religious proclivities. I am very careful to keep them to myself. I don't want people responding with, "Well, of course you'd say that. You're an X." I want them to respond to what I actually write and not what they think I should have written.
quote:
Pot callin' the kettle black.
Since I haven't mentioned anything about my religious background, I am hard pressed to determine how it is you know if I am being unfaithful to the text.
quote:
As if you ever did, or even know what it means
Well, considering that I've been the one quoting the original text and you've just been sniping that you don't trust that I even quoted the Hebrew accurately (which is something you could easily look up for yourself), I think it's a safe bet that I at least know more about the Law than you do.
quote:
If you paid attention to what I wrote in message 46 (hint-Moral Law)
Hint: The Law is based in deeds, not words. Thinking good thoughts doesn't count for squat, which you would know if you understood the Law. "Moral Law" is meaningless. It is a Christian dodge to get around the Law.
quote:
Its pretty smug advice to tell someone how to follow the Law when you disregard any section of it when it conflicts with your own personal politics.
Politics? Where did I say anything about politics in this thread? And what section of it am I disregarding?
Be specific.
quote:
Don't know much about Christianity, do you?
Well, let's say that I know the difference between what Christians actually do and what Christ said should be done. Again, I'm not going to tell you my religious background. It truly is irrelevant. The veracity of my statements are not altered by whether or not I am a follower of the religion.
quote:
Ad who gives you the rigt to tell Christians how to follow their beliefs??
I do. Or, more accurately, the book that I can read does. When Christ says that not one jot, not one tittle of the Law shall be changed till all be fulfilled, then it would seem that those who profess to be Christians would be bound to follow the Law. That is, unless you are saying that all has been fulfilled.
Hmmm...maybe that's the trouble: All has been fulfilled (Jesus did say that it was going to happen in the lifetime of those who were standing before him), the world has ended, this is hell, and that's why you're so cranky.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by LudoRephaim, posted 10-10-2008 7:41 PM LudoRephaim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by LudoRephaim, posted 10-17-2008 12:18 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 101 of 124 (485735)
10-11-2008 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by LudoRephaim
10-10-2008 7:56 PM


LudoRephaim responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Incorrect. its the other way around.
Not according to the sources (written by people who for a fact know Hebrew) wrote.
Then we have a problem because my sources contradict yours.
Zimah means, not what is objectionable for religious or cultural reasons, but what is wrong in itself. It means an injustice, a sin. For example, in condemnation of temple prostitutes involving idolatry, "toevah" is employed (e.g. 1 (3) Kings 14:24), while in prohibitions of prostitution in general a different word "zimah," appears (e.g. Lev. 19:29).
The import of the word abomination is not as serious as present-day clergy would have us believe. The Hebrew word "toevah" is less condemnable than another word "zimah".... "Zimah" applies to something intrinsically wrong, evil and was translated by KJV translators as "wickedness" and by Moffatt (q.v.) as "foul vice."
The word "zimah" refers to something which is inherently evil, simply on its own; the evil is intrinsic to something labeled as "zimah."
The Hebrew word that is translated into the English word “abomination” is toevah. This word can mean uncleanness, impurity, dirtiness or taboo; that which is culturally or ritually forbidden. This is important when you know that there is another Hebrew word, zimah, which refers to something that is wrong in and of itself, an injustice or sin.
And here's something else: What's the difference between "bdelygmia" and "anomie"? Those are the words used in the Septuagint. There is a similar dichotomy there in the Greek: "Bdelygmia" refers to ritual sin while "anomie" refers to inherent sin. And just like how the passage in question refers to "toeyvah" in the Hebrew, it refers to "bdelygma" in the Greek. Why would the Greeks engage in the same use of a word for ritual sin when there were words for inherent sin available? Especially since they refer to other sins in the Torah as "anomie" so there is no question that they had it in mind?
Now what?
quote:
You absolutely question the translations and intrpretations of both Homer's Iliad and Oddyssey
(*chuckle*)
I will let this part of my background out: Just how old do you think I was when I first read Homer's works? I'll give you a hint: When I was finally in a class where they were assigned reading, I was very upset to find that the assigned text was a condensed, simplified, prose version of the texts. That meant we weren't really going to be discussing it in any detail.
quote:
quote:
I never said that.
But it would be consistent with your views if you did.
And that has relevance why? This isn't about what I believe. I find it interesting that you are trying so hard to make this personal.
quote:
It seems that you were hinting at such.
Except I wasn't. That's why I pointed out that I never said that.
quote:
You would say the same on Beastiality?
Huh? What does bestiality have to do with same-sex sexuality compared to mixed-sex sexuality?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by LudoRephaim, posted 10-10-2008 7:56 PM LudoRephaim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by LudoRephaim, posted 10-17-2008 1:51 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 102 of 124 (485737)
10-11-2008 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Rrhain
10-11-2008 2:28 AM


The Linguistic Mechanics Of Rationality
You would make a good teacher. You have the patience of Solomon and you seem to relish pointing out errors in other peoples thinking. I used to not like you (in an internet sort of way) but now I find that I usually enjoy reading your posts.
As far as linguistics goes, I have been prodded into reading that enjoyable old book by Hayakawa, Language In Thought & Action although I am still reading it and am exploring not only the updated fifth edition but, at Jars urging, am reading the venerated old 2nd edition as well.
The meaning that people attach to words is an interesting field of study.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Rrhain, posted 10-11-2008 2:28 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 103 of 124 (485739)
10-11-2008 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by LudoRephaim
10-10-2008 8:09 PM


LudoRephaim responds to me:
quote:
Comparison between sexual and dietary mores?
Of course. The point is that it shows us what to do when we have a moral code that is faced with a question that wasn't even conceived of when the code was developed.
The Second Amendment says you have a right to bear arms. Does that include a nuclear device? I think it's safe to say that the authors never considered the possibility of a weapon so great that it could destroy a town. It is informative to find out how we work with the code to have it apply to situations it wasn't originally created to handle.
quote:
Apples n' Oranges.
Huh? Have you not read the Law? The dietary restrictions are just as important. Have you never sat Seder? There is an entire ritual you carry out to ensure that there is no leavening or leavened item of any kind in the house and after you have made a physical inventory, you say a prayer to handle the possibility that you've overlooked something.
It is that important. There's a reason that those who take the dietary restrictions seriously have two sets of dishes and some even go so far as to have two dishwashers so as to ensure that meat and dairy never touch. Have you not seen all the symbols on the food showing that it is pareve? It is extremely important.
Deuteronomy 14:3: lo to.khal kol-to.e.va:
Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing.
There's that word "toeyvah" again.
quote:
You want to supervise gays having sex??
Huh? There you go again trying to make it personal. Notice the thinly veiled homophobia, too. And you seem to have missed the point: It is the straight people who need more supervision.
quote:
Something you have not told us, Rrhain?
Indeed, there is plenty. Just like I haven't revealed my religious proclivities, I haven't revealed my sexual ones, either. I don't want a response of, "Of course you'd say that, you're an X." It is better for you to respond to what I actually say and not what you wish I would say.
Besides...it lets us know just who the bigots are. Notice the expectation that I would necessarily be insulted.
That said, I will let you know this:
I'm not going to have sex with you, so please stop asking.
quote:
Ho many times have you seen that movie "Birdcage"?
Which one? The original is pretty good. The remake had some moments but lost all of its charm due to the miscasting of Williams and Lane.
Again, notice the homophobia: Apparently only gay people can like certain movies. I wonder what that says about Williams and Hackman and Azaria, considering that they were in it.
quote:
So once again, are you saying that there were no gay people in the ancient world?
No. I'm saying the concept of "gay people" didn't exist. They didn't break down the world that way. That doesn't mean behaviour didn't happen. It means that the significance of the behaviour was not the same as it is now.
quote:
So beastiality (ie animal cruelty) and child sacrifice are not inherently evil?
Huh? Since the passages are referring to ritual practices, then of course the text is going to use words that invoke the images of ritual practices. It isn't like people were having sex with animals and sacrificing their children as a matter of course.
Since you bring up animal cruelty, wouldn't animal sacrifice fall under that rubrick? I should point out: Judaism makes a distinction between the killing of animals for one purpose and the killing of animals for another purpose. And I'm not talking about kosher butchery practices. I mean the very concept of killing an animal in the first place. There are rituals that need to be performed if you're going to do it at all.
quote:
Considering his pagan background
Irrelevant. Abraham wasn't a pagan.
quote:
the fact that the majority of the Law wasn't written yet
So there was no sin until Moses? Too, it's strange how Noah seemed to understand what "clean" and "unclean" meant, then.
quote:
the fact that God didn't reveal the whole Torah to Abraham
So? Don't you think god knew what the Law was even if Abraham didn't? Why on earth would god demand a child sacrifice? Even in jest?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by LudoRephaim, posted 10-10-2008 8:09 PM LudoRephaim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by LudoRephaim, posted 10-17-2008 2:27 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 104 of 124 (485745)
10-11-2008 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by ICANT
10-10-2008 10:28 PM


ICANT responds to ramoss:
quote:
quote:
YOu really need to ask a Rabbi, not a Christian interpretation.
Why should I ask a Rabbi?
Because a person schooled in Judaism will be more likely to understand the intent of Jewish texts written by Jews for Jews than one who is not schooled in Judaism.
quote:
Am I supposed to believe a man who does not believe Messiah has come?
With regard to what Judaism means? Yes.
quote:
I know several and they don't know Armaic and Chaldee Hebrew.
And would a Christian who doesn't know any be a better source of what Judaism means than a Jew?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 10-10-2008 10:28 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by ICANT, posted 10-12-2008 10:22 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 106 by Phat, posted 10-13-2008 11:08 AM Rrhain has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 105 of 124 (485907)
10-12-2008 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Rrhain
10-11-2008 4:17 AM


What the Rabbi said
Rrhain writes:
quote:
Am I supposed to believe a man who does not believe Messiah has come?
With regard to what Judaism means? Yes.
I took your advice and checked with a Rabbie. He told me to go Here
and this is what I found.
The Jewish philosopher Rabbi Maimonides made a list of the 613 commandments he found in the Jewish Bible, and they have since become a standard list of what God requires of Jews. The 613 mitzvot are listed below, with their biblical references.
157. 	Not to have homosexual sexual relations Lev. 18:22 
158.	Not to have homosexual sexual relations with your father Lev. 18:7
159. 	Not to have homosexual sexual relations with your father's brother Lev. 18:14 
I also found this
(19) not to have sexual relations with another male;
(20) not to have sexual relations with one's father;
(21) not to have sexual relations with one's father's brother
Rrhain writes:
And would a Christian who doesn't know any be a better source of what Judaism means than a Jew?
No. But one who does would.
God Bless,
Edited by ICANT, : Inserted missing verse.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Rrhain, posted 10-11-2008 4:17 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Rrhain, posted 10-14-2008 3:01 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 110 by ramoss, posted 10-15-2008 12:39 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024