Counterarguments to Leviticus 20:13

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Elok
But you started the bloody threadjack with your "three questions" way back when! And as I said, the "quote from the old book" was an answer by our standards.

Sorry, MrFun, but I can't start a thread exlusively to settle a beef, and PMs are too easy to ignore. This crap has to end. I might as well point out that you too are a "religionist" referencing an old book, and this isn't really a threadjack, as he's attacking the validity of the subject of the thread, Leviticus being part of said old book.

You have a beef?

That is really too bad.

Well, I am sorry (to the thread starter) if our tete-a-tete disrupted things.

But now Mr Elok is dead set on some kind of catharsis.

My take on the thread is clear as daylight:

The bible is an outdated old book that should have been dumped in the trash of history.
But people still want to run our societies in the info age based on these creaking, primitive scribblings.

There, I'm on topic.

Now, Mr Elok.
Are you ready to leave off?

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm prepared to admit that not all comes from the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, given that most documents had fallen apart by the time that an English version was written.

And none of the documents that we have for that time period come from the originals. The bible is pretty good in that they have copies of manuscripts from the 2nd century, for the New Testament, and for the Old Testament, they have the dead sea scrolls.

[Ben Kenobi]

The bible is an outdated old book that should have been dumped in the trash of history.

So, then we should also dump out Plato, Aristophenes, Aristotle, Socrates, Sophocles, and all the Greeks, because their works are old and outdated? How many Scholastics do we see today?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Elok
But you started the bloody threadjack with your "three questions" way back when! And as I said, the "quote from the old book" was an answer by our standards.

Sorry, MrFun, but I can't start a thread exlusively to settle a beef, and PMs are too easy to ignore. This crap has to end. I might as well point out that you too are a "religionist" referencing an old book, and this isn't really a threadjack, as he's attacking the validity of the subject of the thread, Leviticus being part of said old book.

Well I look forward to any discussion in regards to Leviticus in regards to the fact that it applied only to priests (OT term).

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So, then we should also dump out Plato, Aristophenes, Aristotle, Socrates, Sophocles, and all the Greeks, because their works are old and outdated? How many Scholastics do we see today?

If the ideas are outdated, yes.

And that goes for other 'holy' tomes too, such as the koran and bhagavad-gita.

[Ben Kenobi]

Not a very good argument, Mr. Fun.

Section starting from Lev 19:1

The LORD said to Moses, "Speak to the entire assembly of Isreal and say to them: 'Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy.' "

He addresses, not just the priests, but the whole of Israel. There are parts of Leviticus that are devoted to priestly conduct, but Lev 20:13 is not among them.

[Ben Kenobi]

curtsibling:

If the ideas are outdated, yes.

And that goes for other 'holy' tomes too, such as the koran and bhagavad-gita.

So what is the criteria for an idea to be outdated? It cannot be just age, because that would mean we would have to discard the writings of the Greeks.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So what is the criteria for an idea to be outdated?

Things he doesn't like.

[Verto]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Things he doesn't like.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Not a very good argument, Mr. Fun.

Section starting from Lev 19:1

The LORD said to Moses, "Speak to the entire assembly of Isreal and say to them: 'Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy.' "

He addresses, not just the priests, but the whole of Israel. There are parts of Leviticus that are devoted to priestly conduct, but Lev 20:13 is not among them.

Leviticus 20:1

"The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Say further to the people of Israel: Any of the people of Israel, or of the aliens who reside in Israel . . ."

This is very similar to the section you quoted, but this one is introducing the same section of the famous quote homophobics like to use.
Howeveer, it seems that since Leviticus is mostly concerned with priests, that when God addressed all of people of Israel, he wanted all of them to know how their priests ought to conduct themselves.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How many Scholastics do we see today?

None, because it turns out they were wrong. Earth the center of the universe? Hahahahahahaha!

[Ben Kenobi]

Howeveer, it seems that since Leviticus is mostly concerned with priests,

There is a world of difference between 'mostly', and solely concerned with priests.

The passage in question, is directed to the people of Israel. When God speaks concerning priestly conduct, he explicitly clarifies his statement.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


There is a world of difference between 'mostly', and solely concerned with priests.

The passage in question, is directed to the people of Israel. When God speaks concerning priestly conduct, he explicitly clarifies his statement.

I need to go back and reread the entire section that includes the favorite passage of homophobics before I can continue our discussion.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
curtsibling:



So what is the criteria for an idea to be outdated? It cannot be just age, because that would mean we would have to discard the writings of the Greeks.

I look forward to you requesting to be treated according to the medical theories of Galen.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The passage in question, is directed to the people of Israel. When God speaks concerning priestly conduct, he explicitly clarifies his statement.

So Americans and Europeans are the people of Israel?

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by curtsibling


I got no discussion from anyone.

All I got was a quote from an old book, accompanied by egostistical smugness.
Instead they regurgitate dogma.
I asked some questions, and didn't get any sort of answer, apart from evasion and lame abuse.

My point that most religious people don't want to answer certain questions was soundly proven.



My point is done and dusted.

Now if you want to continue, it must be in another thread.

You know the rules about thread-jacking.

Both Elok and Berserker answered your questions; instead of engaging them on those answers, you ignored them in an effort to get a rise out of me. You then claim that no one has given you "any sort of an answer", and that we are being hostile to you for no good reason.

Your motives are clearly to entertain yourself by disrupting the conversations of those you dislike.

...

Ben, Elok, Dinodoc & Co., don't play his game. He just wants to see you get worked up over his Grand Pronouncements, because it makes him feel important. I wouldn't respond here again at all, but I hate to see you all wasting time and effort on this -- save it for the more open-minded individuals who are prepared to discuss things reasonably.

[Elok]

Okay, Curt, now you really are displaying ignorance. The coming of Christ redefined "the people of God" as inclusive of non-jews. Try to have some awareness of the major themes of the book you criticize, for crying out loud.

And you have not yet said why the Bible's age is an automatic disqualifier. I said it before: as a primarily moral text, the subject it addresses, human nature, has not significantly changed in the intervening years.

[Elok]

Oh, and in response to MrFun:

Let me make clear from the start that I am not screaming for the blood of gays or anything. I'm merely playing devil's advocate.

With that said, most of the distinctions between the behavior of priests and that of laity, in the Orthodox tradition at least, are tied to the sacramental duties of the clergy or their position within the community, not just as some higher standard of morality. God ostensibly calls all to sainthood. For example, the thing about celibacy (in parts of the Christian, not Judaic, tradition) is due partly to the need of Priests to be ever attentive to the troubles of their flock, and to minimize conflicting responsibilities. In Orthodoxy, it's that married men may join the priesthood, but priests may not marry, because of the need to avoid the scandal and awkwardness of one's parish priest and father confessor being one's ex-boyfriend, among other things. Regardless, the idea there is not that marriage is a vulgar thing as such, only that it is best treated with caution by the priesthood.

Also, how do you reconcile that idea with the concept of chastity? Do you envision homosexual marriage, or is gay sex not considered fornication by your view of things? Just wondering.

[Ben Kenobi]

He just wants to see you get worked up

Am I getting worked up?

His arguments just make him a tougher nut than most to crack. Just takes a little more patience, and perseverence.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Elok
Let me make clear from the start that I am not screaming for the blood of gays or anything. I'm merely playing devil's advocate.

AHAH!
So you acknowledge Christianty is a Satanic belief!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Elok
Oh, and in response to MrFun:

Let me make clear from the start that I am not screaming for the blood of gays or anything. I'm merely playing devil's advocate.

With that said, most of the distinctions between the behavior of priests and that of laity, in the Orthodox tradition at least, are tied to the sacramental duties of the clergy or their position within the community, not just as some higher standard of morality. God ostensibly calls all to sainthood. For example, the thing about celibacy (in parts of the Christian, not Judaic, tradition) is due partly to the need of Priests to be ever attentive to the troubles of their flock, and to minimize conflicting responsibilities. In Orthodoxy, it's that married men may join the priesthood, but priests may not marry, because of the need to avoid the scandal and awkwardness of one's parish priest and father confessor being one's ex-boyfriend, among other things. Regardless, the idea there is not that marriage is a vulgar thing as such, only that it is best treated with caution by the priesthood.

Also, how do you reconcile that idea with the concept of chastity? Do you envision homosexual marriage, or is gay sex not considered fornication by your view of things? Just wondering.

Obviously, I do not view gay sex as a sin, nor as fornication.

And right now, I'm pressed for time with my graduate studies, and unfortunately, before I can argue with your contention that the moral laws in Leviticus apply to clergy as well as lay people, I need to go back and reread the section and analyze it.

[Elok]

In case I touched a nerve, let me emphasize that I meant "fornication" in the original sense of "sex outside of marriage," i.e., I was asking if you thought of gay sex as literal sex for canonical purposes, and within the context of marriage/adultery conventions.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Am I getting worked up?

His arguments just make him a tougher nut than most to crack. Just takes a little more patience, and perseverence.

Isn't pride a sin?

I seem to remember it comes before a fall.

[Ben Kenobi]

Isn't pride a sin?

True. Still waiting for curtsibling though.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Elok
In case I touched a nerve, let me emphasize that I meant "fornication" in the original sense of "sex outside of marriage," i.e., I was asking if you thought of gay sex as literal sex for canonical purposes, and within the context of marriage/adultery conventions.

I have to refamiliarize myself with this part of the Bible more, before I can give a full, satisfactory answer.

[Elok]

I know, I wasn't pressing you for an answer, I just didn't want to come off like a total insensitive ****er...