Good to see that's irony. My rather long experience of AO, have teached me that we canno't be sure that any comments here should be taken seriously or not
maybe its a figurative death relative to the church. as far as the church is concerned (by my understanding), exocommunicated people are no longer with us.
How can you tell which bits of the Bible are figurative and which aren't, then? Are we allowed to use our powers of interpretation on any bits we like? So it's not all literally true, then? It's not a question of absolutes at all, I take it, and (say) the first Chapter of Genesis might (I'm playing Devil's advocate, of course) be kinda metaphorical?
But now I'm even more confused. This must make things very difficult for fundamentalist Christians, surely?
Either homosexuals should be put to death and Genesis (say) is spot on, or the bits about putting gay people to death require a modern interpretation that we might just as well apply to Genesis (say.)
My rather long experience of AO, have teached me that we canno't be sure that any comments here should be taken seriously or not
That's the scary part.
My comment above about putting inmates to death because they cost too much was pure sarcasm in response to the comment kraig911 made. Nothing more. Nothing less.
How can you tell which bits of the Bible are figurative and which aren't, then? Are we allowed to use our powers of interpretation on any bits we like? So it's not all literally true, then? It's not a question of absolutes at all, I take it, and (say) the first Chapter of Genesis might (I'm playing Devil's advocate, of course) be kinda metaphorical?
But now I'm even more confused. This must make things very difficult for fundamentalist Christians, surely?
Either homosexuals should be put to death and Genesis (say) is spot on, or the bits about putting gay people to death require a modern interpretation that we might just as well apply to Genesis (say.)
Er: Fangorn? Help me here.
good questions hassan
its odd how some focus on gays and bible versus against them (since some feel its the last group "okay" to attack) while ignoring the same verses for "straight" people such as: leviticus 20:10
"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."
how many guys do you know that "sleep around" ? they're sinning against god just as much as the gay people they love to attack and feel better than.
sin is sin...
but before you can even get to that you have to start with the right foundation meaning choosing the RIGHT bible to start with. there are many diffrent ones out there and if you read the wrong one you will start off wrong.
for instance:
bible 1: "in the begining was the word, and the word was
with god, and the word was god."
bible 2: "in the begining was the word, and the word was
with A god, and the word was A god."
see the diffrence? just adding one letter changes the whole meaning of the verse.
some things in the bible are meant to be literal and some are not. (for instance the "great whore" does not refer to a 50 foot tall hooker) some things are meant for only some people (the "law" for jews at that time for instance) and some things were meant at the time they were written (and not later) or a future time. (refrences to the 3rd temple on the jewish temple mount are future)
so when you read a verse in the bible you must look at it in the proper context. what time period was it written? who was it written for? etc.
for instance in one part of the bible it says all men must die. yet in a later part the apostle paul tells of the future "snatching away" of the church which we call the "rapture" meaning those belivers who are alive will not die, but be "caught up" to heaven. so if you read the first one without knowing the background of the second one it looks like a contradiction, but isn't.
someone of a diffrent belief once told me to "prove" christianity. and i felt that there was enough correct information out there for a sincere person willing to dig a little to find it. and that with all that info out there if he wasen't willing to do that, no amount of persuasion from me would ever cause him to listen. everyone has free will and can choose to belive or not...
plus i belive some of these apparant "contradictions" were put in there to test people. such as those who are looking for a loophole to not belive, will find them and use them as an excuse to not belive...
...so are you saying we should stone adulterers to death too?
Quote:
Originally posted by futuremac
but before you can even get to that you have to start with the right foundation meaning choosing the RIGHT bible to start with. there are many diffrent ones out there and if you read the wrong one you will start off wrong.
Well that makes things much simpler doesn?t it? We can?t just pick up a bible. We have to pick up the RIGHT bible. How do you determine which bible is a RIGHT bible? And who determines what bible is RIGHT? I?m sure whoever does this, does it with COMPLETE OBJECTIVITY, and in no way bases his decision on his own personal views.
Okie-dokie. Do the other laws of Leviticus only apply to Hebrew men, then? What about the Commandments themselves? I'd be really interested to see which bits of the Old Testament still apply to the vast majority of Christians alive today in Africa, South America, Europe, Asia and the Pacific.
I'd be really very interested indeed to know exactly where in the Bible it says that only homosexual Hebrews should be put to death. Chapter and verse would be cool! Ta.
Below are further comments/analysis on Lev. 20:13. This is not exhaustive but should answer the particular questions that have arisen.
To look at the verse by itself is to violate one of the primary principles of biblical study: context.
In its broadest concept, we must put Lev. 20:13 into the context of government. Israel was a theocracy with no separation between "church" and state. The civil government was maintained by the tribe of Levi (the Levites) from whom also came the Priests who served in the temple. One of the prime principles of Biblical/Mosiac Law was that God alone has absolute power. The powers to prosecute/punish were prescribed by God and were limited. Those powers granted to the family could not be presumed by the "state" and vice versa. Thus, if a son committed murder, a father did not have the authority to punish his son for this crime; it was the responsibility of the state. And if a family did not observe the dietary laws, the state had no authority to prosecute. God and God alone could (and will) prosecute the fullness of the Law. The state and the family were given specific areas to enforce but not the totality.
The state of Israel allowed "foreigners"?those outside the covenant?to reside in Israel provided the foreigners did not build a temple to their false gods nor proselytize, that is, lead Hebrews astray. Thus, the keeping of the first two commandments ("I am the Lord thy God who lead thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, thou shalt have not other gods before me" and "Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image . . .") were generally to be kept by the covenant people (Israel) and enforced by the state. Those outside of the covenant would be judged by God alone.
That said, we look at the whole chapter of Lev. 20, which begins with a judgment against Moloch worship?a particularly brutal paganism that involved the burning alive of infants. Lev. 20:2 reads in part "Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or the strangers that sojourn in Israel. . . ." and ends by condemning to death whoever participates in this brutal and heinous practice. The passage makes a point of including the foreigners because the norm would be to leave them to their own devices. But no children were to suffer this brutal fate within the powers of the Hebrews, period.
The rest of the chapter continues in much of the same vein, admonishing against the worship of false gods and the related practices and is an application of the first and second commandments (cited above). And the versus dealing with sexual crimes (vs. 10 to 21) are also applications of the second commandment given that these were common practices within the pagan communities that surrounded Israel. Thus we have in verse 23: And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. And further in vs. 26: And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the Lord am holy and have severed you from other people, that ye may be mine.
Thus, homosexuality is not so much a violation of the seventh commandment (Thou shalt not commit adultery) but of the first and second (a violation of God?s created order and thus a setting up of a false order and false god). One cannot covenant with God and continue to violate these two commandments. The act of covenant, both in the old and new testaments, is to bind oneself to God, the keeping of His commandments (by His Grace and Holy Spirit), and walking as a holy and separate people. That was the calling of Israel and it is the calling of the Church.
So the prosecution of Lev. 20: 13 would not be against the unbelievers who commit sodomy. They shall meet their judgment in due time before the throne of God where they will be called to account. No, Lev. 20:13 applies to those within the Church who practice what God calls an "abomination" and what St. Paul refers to as the "burning out of man." Thus, it is the pedophile priests within the Roman Catholic church and the open homosexual priests within the Episcopal, Methodist, and Lutheran churches who should be put to death under this commandment. At the very least, they should be cast out of the church as the unbelievers they truly are, to live under the condemnation of eternal death with the rest of the pagans.
And the versus dealing with sexual crimes (vs. 10 to 21) are also applications of the second commandment given that these were common practices within the pagan communities that surrounded Israel. Thus we have in verse 23:
snip
Thus, homosexuality is not so much a violation of the seventh commandment (Thou shalt not commit adultery) but of the first and second (a violation of God?s created order and thus a setting up of a false order and false god).
Pagans did the gay thing; pagans were breakers of the first and second commandment, therefore the gay thing is a breaker of the first and second commandment.
Syllogism. A classic "Elephants are grey, Fangorn is grey, therefore Fangorn is an elephant" under which anything naughty popular by unbelievers can be seen as a primal crime and is, by your extension, applicable to Christians. And why just homosexuality? And where is your evidence, either in or outside the bible, that the local pagans were rainbow warriors any more then the Covenant Crew? Your evidence above is the word 'thus' and no more.
The point is you maaaaay just stretch to the interpretation you have reached. But it is clearly interpretation as it is a non-literal reading of the text.
Hassan's point still stands; I would love to see a direct answer to it.
Pagans did the gay thing; pagans were breakers of the first and second commandment, therefore the gay thing is a breaker of the first and second commandment.
Syllogism. A classic "Elephants are grey, Fangorn is grey, therefore Fangorn is an elephant" under which anything naughty popular by unbelievers can be seen as a primal crime and is, by your extension, applicable to Christians. And why just homosexuality? And where is your evidence, either in or outside the bible, that the local pagans were rainbow warriors any more then the Covenant Crew? Your evidence above is the word 'thus' and no more.
The point is you maaaaay just stretch to the interpretation you have reached. But it is clearly interpretation as it is a non-literal reading of the text.
Hassan's point still stands; I would love to see a direct answer to it.
Nonliteral?! I would HATE to have you in an English lite class.
I did answer his question. I put the verse in context. If you want more, go do some research on your own time. I am done.
Comments
Originally posted by DiscoCow
That's ironic.
Another nail in the coffin.
Good to see that's irony. My rather long experience of AO, have teached me that we canno't be sure that any comments here should be taken seriously or not
Originally posted by thuh Freak
maybe its a figurative death relative to the church. as far as the church is concerned (by my understanding), exocommunicated people are no longer with us.
How can you tell which bits of the Bible are figurative and which aren't, then? Are we allowed to use our powers of interpretation on any bits we like? So it's not all literally true, then? It's not a question of absolutes at all, I take it, and (say) the first Chapter of Genesis might (I'm playing Devil's advocate, of course) be kinda metaphorical?
But now I'm even more confused. This must make things very difficult for fundamentalist Christians, surely?
Either homosexuals should be put to death and Genesis (say) is spot on, or the bits about putting gay people to death require a modern interpretation that we might just as well apply to Genesis (say.)
Er: Fangorn? Help me here.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
My rather long experience of AO, have teached me that we canno't be sure that any comments here should be taken seriously or not
That's the scary part.
My comment above about putting inmates to death because they cost too much was pure sarcasm in response to the comment kraig911 made. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
How can you tell which bits of the Bible are figurative and which aren't, then? Are we allowed to use our powers of interpretation on any bits we like? So it's not all literally true, then? It's not a question of absolutes at all, I take it, and (say) the first Chapter of Genesis might (I'm playing Devil's advocate, of course) be kinda metaphorical?
But now I'm even more confused. This must make things very difficult for fundamentalist Christians, surely?
Either homosexuals should be put to death and Genesis (say) is spot on, or the bits about putting gay people to death require a modern interpretation that we might just as well apply to Genesis (say.)
Er: Fangorn? Help me here.
good questions hassan
its odd how some focus on gays and bible versus against them (since some feel its the last group "okay" to attack) while ignoring the same verses for "straight" people such as: leviticus 20:10
"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."
how many guys do you know that "sleep around" ? they're sinning against god just as much as the gay people they love to attack and feel better than.
sin is sin...
but before you can even get to that you have to start with the right foundation meaning choosing the RIGHT bible to start with. there are many diffrent ones out there and if you read the wrong one you will start off wrong.
for instance:
bible 1: "in the begining was the word, and the word was
with god, and the word was god."
bible 2: "in the begining was the word, and the word was
with A god, and the word was A god."
see the diffrence? just adding one letter changes the whole meaning of the verse.
some things in the bible are meant to be literal and some are not. (for instance the "great whore" does not refer to a 50 foot tall hooker) some things are meant for only some people (the "law" for jews at that time for instance) and some things were meant at the time they were written (and not later) or a future time. (refrences to the 3rd temple on the jewish temple mount are future)
so when you read a verse in the bible you must look at it in the proper context. what time period was it written? who was it written for? etc.
for instance in one part of the bible it says all men must die. yet in a later part the apostle paul tells of the future "snatching away" of the church which we call the "rapture" meaning those belivers who are alive will not die, but be "caught up" to heaven. so if you read the first one without knowing the background of the second one it looks like a contradiction, but isn't.
someone of a diffrent belief once told me to "prove" christianity. and i felt that there was enough correct information out there for a sincere person willing to dig a little to find it. and that with all that info out there if he wasen't willing to do that, no amount of persuasion from me would ever cause him to listen. everyone has free will and can choose to belive or not...
plus i belive some of these apparant "contradictions" were put in there to test people. such as those who are looking for a loophole to not belive, will find them and use them as an excuse to not belive...
Originally posted by futuremac
sin is sin...
...so are you saying we should stone adulterers to death too?
Originally posted by futuremac
but before you can even get to that you have to start with the right foundation meaning choosing the RIGHT bible to start with. there are many diffrent ones out there and if you read the wrong one you will start off wrong.
Well that makes things much simpler doesn?t it? We can?t just pick up a bible. We have to pick up the RIGHT bible. How do you determine which bible is a RIGHT bible? And who determines what bible is RIGHT? I?m sure whoever does this, does it with COMPLETE OBJECTIVITY, and in no way bases his decision on his own personal views.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Okie-dokie. Do the other laws of Leviticus only apply to Hebrew men, then? What about the Commandments themselves? I'd be really interested to see which bits of the Old Testament still apply to the vast majority of Christians alive today in Africa, South America, Europe, Asia and the Pacific.
I'd be really very interested indeed to know exactly where in the Bible it says that only homosexual Hebrews should be put to death. Chapter and verse would be cool! Ta.
Below are further comments/analysis on Lev. 20:13. This is not exhaustive but should answer the particular questions that have arisen.
To look at the verse by itself is to violate one of the primary principles of biblical study: context.
In its broadest concept, we must put Lev. 20:13 into the context of government. Israel was a theocracy with no separation between "church" and state. The civil government was maintained by the tribe of Levi (the Levites) from whom also came the Priests who served in the temple. One of the prime principles of Biblical/Mosiac Law was that God alone has absolute power. The powers to prosecute/punish were prescribed by God and were limited. Those powers granted to the family could not be presumed by the "state" and vice versa. Thus, if a son committed murder, a father did not have the authority to punish his son for this crime; it was the responsibility of the state. And if a family did not observe the dietary laws, the state had no authority to prosecute. God and God alone could (and will) prosecute the fullness of the Law. The state and the family were given specific areas to enforce but not the totality.
The state of Israel allowed "foreigners"?those outside the covenant?to reside in Israel provided the foreigners did not build a temple to their false gods nor proselytize, that is, lead Hebrews astray. Thus, the keeping of the first two commandments ("I am the Lord thy God who lead thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, thou shalt have not other gods before me" and "Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image . . .") were generally to be kept by the covenant people (Israel) and enforced by the state. Those outside of the covenant would be judged by God alone.
That said, we look at the whole chapter of Lev. 20, which begins with a judgment against Moloch worship?a particularly brutal paganism that involved the burning alive of infants. Lev. 20:2 reads in part "Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or the strangers that sojourn in Israel. . . ." and ends by condemning to death whoever participates in this brutal and heinous practice. The passage makes a point of including the foreigners because the norm would be to leave them to their own devices. But no children were to suffer this brutal fate within the powers of the Hebrews, period.
The rest of the chapter continues in much of the same vein, admonishing against the worship of false gods and the related practices and is an application of the first and second commandments (cited above). And the versus dealing with sexual crimes (vs. 10 to 21) are also applications of the second commandment given that these were common practices within the pagan communities that surrounded Israel. Thus we have in verse 23: And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. And further in vs. 26: And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the Lord am holy and have severed you from other people, that ye may be mine.
Thus, homosexuality is not so much a violation of the seventh commandment (Thou shalt not commit adultery) but of the first and second (a violation of God?s created order and thus a setting up of a false order and false god). One cannot covenant with God and continue to violate these two commandments. The act of covenant, both in the old and new testaments, is to bind oneself to God, the keeping of His commandments (by His Grace and Holy Spirit), and walking as a holy and separate people. That was the calling of Israel and it is the calling of the Church.
So the prosecution of Lev. 20: 13 would not be against the unbelievers who commit sodomy. They shall meet their judgment in due time before the throne of God where they will be called to account. No, Lev. 20:13 applies to those within the Church who practice what God calls an "abomination" and what St. Paul refers to as the "burning out of man." Thus, it is the pedophile priests within the Roman Catholic church and the open homosexual priests within the Episcopal, Methodist, and Lutheran churches who should be put to death under this commandment. At the very least, they should be cast out of the church as the unbelievers they truly are, to live under the condemnation of eternal death with the rest of the pagans.
Originally posted by Fangorn
And the versus dealing with sexual crimes (vs. 10 to 21) are also applications of the second commandment given that these were common practices within the pagan communities that surrounded Israel. Thus we have in verse 23:
snip
Thus, homosexuality is not so much a violation of the seventh commandment (Thou shalt not commit adultery) but of the first and second (a violation of God?s created order and thus a setting up of a false order and false god).
Pagans did the gay thing; pagans were breakers of the first and second commandment, therefore the gay thing is a breaker of the first and second commandment.
Syllogism. A classic "Elephants are grey, Fangorn is grey, therefore Fangorn is an elephant" under which anything naughty popular by unbelievers can be seen as a primal crime and is, by your extension, applicable to Christians. And why just homosexuality? And where is your evidence, either in or outside the bible, that the local pagans were rainbow warriors any more then the Covenant Crew? Your evidence above is the word 'thus' and no more.
The point is you maaaaay just stretch to the interpretation you have reached. But it is clearly interpretation as it is a non-literal reading of the text.
Hassan's point still stands; I would love to see a direct answer to it.
Originally posted by Harald
Pagans did the gay thing; pagans were breakers of the first and second commandment, therefore the gay thing is a breaker of the first and second commandment.
Syllogism. A classic "Elephants are grey, Fangorn is grey, therefore Fangorn is an elephant" under which anything naughty popular by unbelievers can be seen as a primal crime and is, by your extension, applicable to Christians. And why just homosexuality? And where is your evidence, either in or outside the bible, that the local pagans were rainbow warriors any more then the Covenant Crew? Your evidence above is the word 'thus' and no more.
The point is you maaaaay just stretch to the interpretation you have reached. But it is clearly interpretation as it is a non-literal reading of the text.
Hassan's point still stands; I would love to see a direct answer to it.
Nonliteral?! I would HATE to have you in an English lite class.
I did answer his question. I put the verse in context. If you want more, go do some research on your own time. I am done.
Originally posted by Placebo
From death penalty to a discussion of homosexuality. Interesting.
Says the man with a From: field like THAT ...
Originally posted by Fangorn
Nonliteral?! I would HATE to have you in an English lite class.
I did answer his question. I put the verse in context. If you want more, go do some research on your own time. I am done.
*paraphrases* SCREW YOU GUYS, I'M GOING HOME!