|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Checking for validity of supposed early christian gay marriage rite | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
LudoRephaim responds to me:
quote: Indeed, but yours hang upon the answer to mine. Until you answer mine, we cannot progress. We are talking about what the text says and to do that, we have to understand all the words in it as well as the context in which it exists and the phrasings that are used to determine meaning.
quote: Incorrect. It's the other way around. Things that are "toeyvah" are ritually bad. Things that are "zimah" are inherently bad.
quote:quote: And it doesn't occur to you to question them? To take more than just their word for it?
quote: I didn't say that. I simply said that the understanding of what the passage means is very different from what people commonly say it means. Mae West never said, "Why doncha come up and see me some time," Bogart never said, "Play it again, Sam," and Gore never said he "invented the internet." It doesn't matter how many people claim that they did, none of those things are true. That doesn't mean there is absolutely no connection between what was actually said and what people claim was said, but it does mean that if we're going to do things like read god's mind, then we had better be sure we are referring to the actual quotes in complete context. Clearly, the text is referring to a sexual prohibition. 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. As the joke goes, there are four (or six, depending on how you translate) passages restricting same-sex sexual activity while there are over 300 passages restricting mixed-sex sexual activity. That doesn't mean god loves straights less than gays. They just need more supervision. It's interesting that you mentioned the kashrut state of turkey as it is a somewhat illustrative point. The Bible makes a clear statement about four-legged animals with regard to traits but when it refers to birds, it provides a list: These birds are not kosher, leaving the impression that all others are. But then what to do about New World birds? None of the birds from the New World, like turkey, were mentioned because they weren't known about. But does that make bald eagles kosher? The response has been no, they aren't. While bald eagles aren't mentioned, they are so much like the birds that are (being birds of prey) that they are considered included: Eagles are not kosher. Turkeys, on the other hand, are much like birds that are solidly kosher. Thus, they are also considered kosher. Since what we consider "homosexuality" simply did not exist as a concept at the time, we cannot simply claim that the passages referred to in the Torah are necessarily referring to what we, in modern times, call "homosexuality." It might, but it cannot be taken for granted. We have to examine the text in order to see. And what we find is that the passage you cite is in a field of passages regarding ritual behaviour. That should make us take a look at what it is that is being condemned.
quote: Nice try, but that's my point to you: The common sense interpretation is that since it is not described as "zimah," it is not something that is inherently evil.
quote: (*chuckle*) Because being gay is the same as bestiality and child sacrifice on a functional level. Remember, there was no such concept as "being gay" at the time. You seem to think that the issue is that if it isn't considered a sin, then it is something that should be done. You're ignoring the fact that the pagan that the Jews were separating themselves from were doing it for ritualistic practices, themselves. You didn't sacrifice your child just because you felt like doing it. You did it in order to appease your god. The passages are there to tell Jews how their ritualistic practices are different. And by the way: You seem to have forgotten that Abraham was told to sacrifice his child and he didn't blink. He was sad, but it never occurred to him to say, "But that's something god would never do!" Yes, god stops him, but I am asking to look at this from Abraham's point of view: God is asking for a child sacrifice so that's precisely what he sets out to do. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote: The ritualistic part. It is in reference to the fertility rites of the pagans. Remember, there is no concept of what we would call "homosexuality."
quote: You're missing the point. Didn't you read the post? Remember how I talked about the kashrut of turkey and eagles? How they aren't listed in the Bible since, being a New World birds, they weren't known? How that didn't stop them from applying the concepts of what was understood to those birds? So, shouldn't we do the same for this new concept of "homosexuality"? The passage is referencing ritualistic sex and when was the last time you heard of people having sex with priests? Oops...sorry about that.
quote: Since when is "different" ever "simple"? Let's not play dumb.
quote: Yes...ritually disallowed. Again, what we consider "homosexuality" simply did not exist as a concept at the time. Thus, we cannot simply claim that the passage refers to what we, in modern times, call "homosexuality." Having sex with the priest is different than having sex for love. When was the last time you heard of people having sex with priests? Damn it...did it again. Sorry.
quote: The fact that the former is about forming a human relationship while the latter is about a fertility rite. Most gay people don't have sex for religion. When did you last hear of people having sex with priests? D'oh! Why do I keep saying that?
quote: Indeed, but one would have to be playing dumb to think that that was all there was to it. By this logic, mixed-sex sexual activity is even more problematic because the Bible goes on and on about how you're not supposed to do it. Only four passages restricting same-sex sex while there are more than 300 restrictions on mixed-sex sex. This doesn't mean god loves straight people less. They just need more supervision. Again, there was no concept of what we would call "homosexuality" back then. To think that this passage, therefore, refers to what we would call "homosexuality" is disingenuous at best. There might be something, but it isn't to be found in this bare passage. It's talking about ritual sex and when was the last time you heard about people having sex with priests? OK...I'm not really joking about it. When was the last time you heard about sex for religion? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote: What part of "no concept of what we call 'homosexuality'" are you having trouble with?
quote: Indeed...there was no concept of you back then. Now that we have the stupid comments out of the way....
quote: As if that were the only thing involved in being gay. And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
quote: Oh? You speak for all of Christianity? Strange how there are many sects that don't seem to share your interpretations of pretty much any passage you care to name. The official position of the Catholic church is that evolution is the only scientific explanation we have for the diversification of life on this planet. Compare this to certain Protestant sects that still insist the entire universe is only 6000 years old.
quote: I'm sure your personal habits give you great joy. What relevance do they have here?
quote: But what is the justification? The passage in question is about having sex with a priest. When was the last time you heard about priests having sex? Since you've wandered into Christianity, let's look at the word Paul coined: arsenokoites This word is literally a compound Greek word consisting of "male" ("arsenos") and "temple prostitute" ("koitos"). So again, I have to ask: When was the last time you heard about priests having sex?
quote: First: Argumentum ad dictionary is not an argument. Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive. Second: You will note that you were the one who said "simply different," not me. Therefore, what makes you think I was using "different" SIMPLY (hah!) to mean distinct, dissimilar, variant, other, or nondescript? The Law exists not "simply" to define Jews from other groups. It is to hammer home the point that they are not other groups. They are the chosen ones. There is a purpose to the defining characteristics of identity. So as I said: Since when is "different" ever "simple"?
quote: The fact that you italicized the word you put in my mouth does not change the fact that you were putting words in my mouth. I didn't say "simply," so why do you think I should accept your rephrasing?
quote: And as I responded, the idea that "different" is ever "simple" is naive. 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?
quote: Yes. Now, the question is not if English is a first or second language. The question is simply if you are capable of recognizing if a word does or does not appear in a sentence:
Rrhain writes: The passages are there to tell Jews how their ritualistic practices are different. Do you see the word "simply" or any other variation of that word in there? No? Then why did you stick it in? And when I corrected you, pointing out that no, I didn't mean "simply," why did you insist upon it? When you read my mind, do you have to sit and concentrate or do thoughts simply pop into your head unbidden?
quote: So you when you said, "Simply different," you didn't mean "simply"? So if you didn't mean "simply" and I didn't mean "simply," I'm at a loss to understand why you brought it up and why you're continuing to harp on it.
quote: Why? The passage is about temple prostitution. Are you saying gay people only have sex for god? When was the last time you heard about priests having sex?
quote: Once again, you speak for all Christians? Strange how there are many sects that don't seem to share your interpretations of pretty much any passage you care to name. At any rate, if you think sex outside of marriage is a sin, there's a simple (hah!) solution.
quote: You do realize that you just contradicted yourself. If it isn't about "homosexuality," then it cannot be about "gay" sex because "gay" and "homosexuality" are the same thing. 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?
quote: But it isn't "gay sex." It's "ritual sex." It happens to be between people of the same sex, but that doesn't make it "gay." Remember: There is no concept of "gay" at the time. How can the passage be about something they didn't conceive of?
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? All the passages in the Bible regarding sex between people of the same sex are in reference to sex with priests. When was the last time you heard of priests having sex?
quote: Didn't you read my post? What part of "fertility" are you having trouble with?
quote: (*chuckle*) If it is inappropriate when I do it, what might that indicate about how to respond when you do it? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT responds to me:
You seem to be stuck in argumentum ad dictionary. Understanding a language is more than just rattling off synonyms. You need to get to deeper concepts. You need to go beyond individual words and get to usage. "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: What "smoke screen"? If sex between people of the same sex were always bad, why isn't it described as "zimah"? The point is that there were common phrasings that were used to describe things that are never to be allowed. Those phrasings are not used. Since they are not used, why interpret it as if they were? If they had meant it, they'd have said it. Since they didn't, why second guess them?
quote: Since the entire concept of gay people didn't exist then, why would we expect to find such in the Bible? As I pointed out regarding turkeys and bald eagles and whether or not they were kosher, there was no concept of such. They're New World birds. They were not known of. The laws regarding the kashrut of birds is a specific list: These birds are not kosher. Well, what does that mean with regard to New World birds? They took the concept of why the birds in the list were not kosher (they were birds of prey) and applied them to the New World birds. Bald eagles, being predators, are not kosher. Turkeys, who aren't birds of prey, have an extra toe, have a crop, and have a gizzard that can be peeled, are kosher. So since there is no concept of "gay" in the Bible, how should we treat it when we finally do come to the realization that there are people who fall in love with people of their own sex? The only admonitions against same-sex sex in the Bible have to do with temple prostitution. Since gay people generally don't have sex in order to achieve the blessings of god for a good harvest, what do we do now? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT writes:
quote: That's not what Jesus says. Not one jot, not one tittle of the law shall be changed till all be fulfilled. Are you saying all has been fulfilled? You seem to be a follower of Paul, not Jesus. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT responds to me:
quote: And what part of "rattling off synonyms" do you not understand? You have to go beyond the individual words for the larger context.
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: I don't have a degree in English, either. Does that make me incapable of discussing English?
quote: I didn't say that. It would help if you would respond to what I actually said, not what you wish I said.
quote: Since I never mentioned anything about penalties, I am curious as to why you are bringing it up?
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: The emotional part. One can be gay without ever having sex and one can have sex without being gay.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote: (*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: 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: 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: 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: 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: (*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: 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: -adverbmerely; 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 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: And I did: Since when is "different" ever "simple"? Apparently, you didn't like the answer.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
LudoRephaim responds to me:
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: Politics? Where did I say anything about politics in this thread? And what section of it am I disregarding? Be specific.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
LudoRephaim responds to me:
quote:quote: 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: (*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: 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: Except I wasn't. That's why I pointed out that I never said that.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
LudoRephaim responds to me:
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Irrelevant. Abraham wasn't a pagan.
quote: So there was no sin until Moses? Too, it's strange how Noah seemed to understand what "clean" and "unclean" meant, then.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT responds to ramoss:
quote:quote: 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: With regard to what Judaism means? Yes.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phat responds to me:
quote: Incorrect. It presupposes internal consistency on the part of the foundational material. It presupposes that the people who developed the foundational material are the ones best able to understand what was meant. As a good example, take the following image: Yes, this is a fairly infamous image. People were decrying it as blasphemy, a clear indication that the artist was denigrating religion. It is Serrano's Piss Christ. So many layers to how one would react to it. If you didn't know the title, how would you view it? And now that you know the title, you wonder what it might mean. Indeed, the artist took a jar of his own urine, submerged a plastic crucifix in it, and took a picture of it. Pissing on god, right? In fact, nothing could have been further from the truth. The artist was actually denigrating religionists who would carry out horrible acts in the name of Christ. The image is not conveying Serrano's view but rather is an icon of what he sees other people doing: Taking Christ's message and pissing all over it. It certainly looks beautiful...the golden "god rays" enveloping the image of Jesus in a soft-focus glow...but the reality is something very different. Now, you don't have to agree with his point, but the point is definitely consistent with what was presented and if the author claims that was the point, then that was the point. We don't get to contradict him.
quote: No, not really. That is, you don't have to presuppose "none being any more true." The only thing you need to do is treat the material with respect, acknowledge that it is complete in and of itself, and let it be the guide for what it means rather than imposing your own demands upon it. There is a difference between acceptance of an argument and taking an argument seriously. Of course, with respect to the texts of the Jewish and Christian faiths, we don't have any original copies of any of them and the people who wrote them are nowhere to be found. Any attempt to definitely state that "This means that" will be very difficult to justify and we should not be surprised to find different interpretations. Take the image above. Without knowing the title or the author, what it is other than a picture of a crucifix bathed in golden colors? And if all you knew was the name, it could be understood why a certain interpretation might come about. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT responds to me:
quote: "Rabbi," but that's a spelling flame. That said, which Rabbi did you go to and why were you told to go there? They are not universally accepted. Note, the problem is not the connection to the verse. It's what the verse means. Take, for example, what is said to be the mitzvot about not having sex with your brother's wife. How does that connect to Onan who, because his brother died, was to impregnate his sister-in-law and was smote because he pulled out? Note, he was obligated to have sex with his brother's wife, but Leviticus says no. He was smote not because he had sex with her but because he failed to complete the act. So how to reconcile the two? Leviticus 18 does have restrictions on sexual activity. But just as we have been saying: It isn't so much a question of sex in general as it is ritualistic practice. When was the last time you heard of priests having sex? Edited by Rrhain, : No reason given. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT responds to me:
quote: No, you didn't. You gave me what a particular English translation says. There's a difference.
quote: And I know others rabbis who disagree with yours. So now what?
quote: I already have. What this argument comes down to is a conflict between sources. I'm not expecting anybody to change their minds. I simply wish to point out that even among people who are supposed to know what's going on, they don't agree on what the text means. So now what? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT responds to me:
quote: Your list includes the word "homosexual." Since there is no such word in Ancient Hebrew, since there is no such concept at the time, where did that come from?
quote: Did you just try to pull argument from authority? Yes, I understand that there are those who think this. You will note that I have never said otherwise. There are those who disagree with just as strong credentialing as you are trying to do here. Neither Reconstruction, Reform, nor Conservative Judaism holds the same attitude regarding gay people as what you are presenting here. When there are gay rabbis, doesn't that indicate that perhaps the interpretation you are insisting upon isn't universal? Reform Judaism, the largest group here in the US, actually officiates over weddings between couples of the same sex. As the Central Conference of American Rabbis wrote:
We do hereby resolve that, that the relationship of a Jewish, same gender couple is worthy of affirmation through appropriate Jewish ritual, and further resolved, that we recognize the diversity of opinions within our ranks on this issue. We support the decision of those who choose to officiate at rituals of union for same-sex couples, and we support the decision of those who do not. They go on:
A suggestion for a working model of a taxonomy for Reform Jews to evaluate sexual relationships and behaviors follows. Sexual behaviors could be evaluated as falling into one of six categories: Qadosh ("holy"): a relationship/behavior that is both ritually sanctified and in consonance with the Reform Jewish sexual values as articulated by the CCAR Ad Hoc Committee on Human Sexuality. Examples: heterosexual and homosexual couples who have undergone a marriage or commitment ceremony and who also conduct their sex lives in accordance with these Reform Jewish sexual values. Musar ("ethical"): a relationship/behavior that is in consonance with Reform Jewish sexual values or that exhibits commitment to specific aspects of those values but that has not been ritually sanctified. Examples: couples who live together without undergoing marriage or commitment ceremonies and who conduct their sex lives in ways that exemplify the ideals put forth in the Reform Jewish Sexual Values, the practice of safe sex, masturbation by people infected with HIV. Mutar ("tolerable") a relationship/behavior that does not violate Reform Jewish sexual values and that includes emotional involvement but not yet a permanent commitment and/or behavior that may be preferable to other sexual outlets. Examples: masturbation, mutually consensual sex within a monogamous and developing relationship. Lo Kasher ("not proper"): a behavior/relationship that does not exhibit Reform Jewish sexual values but that is performed between two consenting adults. Examples: consensual sex between people who are not in the process of developing a committed relationship, sexually suggestive dress that does not fulfill the value of tz'niyut ("modesty"). Patur ("sinful") or assur ("prohibited"): a behavior/relationship that violates or contradicts the Reform Jewish sexual values. Examples: adultery, promiscuity. To'evah ("abhorrent"): a behavior/relationship that is Patur or assur and also abusive, violent, or coercive, or violates certain historic Jewish and human societal norms. Examples: rape, sexual abuse, pedophilia, incest, bestiality, exploitation. Why does your interpretation get to outweigh all the others? 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024