posted
"Somehow I seriously doubt it, considering the beliefs and culture of the time."
You don't think male prostitutes existed at the time? *blink* Catamites weren't exactly rare, y'know.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I thought of this too. From my point of view, which is admittedly pretty ignorant, I can't see that any women would be in a position to purchase a prostitute, and in the times I can't imagine that they'd want to. I can only imagine that a male prostitute would be purchased by another man.
posted
Ah, I guess that makes sense. A male prostitute for other males? I didn't really think of it that way. But then, doesn't this verse refer to homosexuality?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Dan: Forgive me for making an innane and perhaps completely stupid point, but if sexual immorality doesn't necessarily include homosexuality, then why would it include bestiality? I'm just curious at the reasoning behind that.
I guess it depends on what your reasons are for drawing a line in the sand. What sexual practices should be forbidden and why? Everyone has their own reasons. I know why my religion is against homosexuality. Bestiality too. Sex is only ever to be between a married man and woman, because that is the only kind of sex that can continue into the eternities. Period. That's just "the way it is" from the standpoint of my faith.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eaquae, You've partially restored my faith in Christians on Hatrack. I've all but thrown the council of jerusalem in people's faces in homosexuality debates (i.e. I've consciously lied saying that it invalidated the anti-homosexual stuff from the Old Testament) in the past three years or so and so far, except for Ralphie who posted the actual passage at one point but not in rebttal to me, and dkw, who I imagine knew I was lying, but for whatever reason (I imagine graciousness) didn't want to point it out, no one has given the slightest indication that they knew anything about this extremely important facet of Christian development.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky: This isn't a defense of Christians or an accusation or anything, but I just want to say that in every church I've ever been to, they have given the excuse that we don't follow the old laws because we live by faith and not by laws.
After doing some personal study I realized that that didn't seem completely accurate, since Jesus said that he didn't come to change the laws.
Not long ago, Rivka taught me about the laws for Gentiles versus the laws for Jews. It was a real eye-opener for me. While the people in postions of leadership in my church were right in the idea that I didn't have to follow the Jewish ordinances, they didn't have a clue why. I got the feeling that their real reason was that it would just be too much trouble. So far, I've never had a church leader tell me what Rivka showed me, or what EL mentioned.
But, the important point is that it was in the Bible, and that it was my own fault for not studying it and learning it for myself. I'm learning more each day to put my faith in the Bible and to second-guess everything I hear in church.
quote:What if someone could get a sheep to be attracted to them? Would it be okay, then?
I'd hate to have to argue in a courtroom on either side of that one, but sure. If you can somehow prove that this animal is a willing participant, then go ahead. Is there anyone here who would be willing to say that a young child can be a willing participant? Because neither the young child nor the animal have the same capabilities of decision making as a mentally healthy adult human. Perhaps the difference is that the animal has already reached its maximum decision making capability, while we know that the child is in an immature state.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A sexually active adult animal has sex. Children are not even sexually mature, and in our culture we protect pubescent youth because they are not prepared emotionally for the consequences of sex.
Does a female sheep give her consent to a male sheep? I don't know. Maybe she doesn't. Maybe all sheep sex is a form of rape.
So bestiality is immoral because of consent issues? I don't buy that. Either you think it is immoral because it disgusts you or you have feelings about what sex "should be" or you shouldn't have a problem with it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think sheep ever consent to being sheared, but I have never heard of anybody preaching about the evils of wool.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. the problem with banning bestiality solely on animal protection grounds is that we do a lot to animals without consent, and generally the utility of the activity being done isn't an element in animal protection.
quote: I don't think sheep ever consent to being sheared, but I have never heard of anybody preaching about the evils of wool.
Really? I know several vegans who are against eating any animal product, and many of them are also against using any animal product because of the animal's inability to consent. (I think it's an exploitation thing.)
Isn't BtL a vegan? Do we have any around that can give their opinion?
quote:Ah, I guess that makes sense. A male prostitute for other males? I didn't really think of it that way. But then, doesn't this verse refer to homosexuality?
bev, it seems (from my perspective) that whether it is the male-male sexual interaction or something else (prostitution, extortion, pederasty) about the interaction that is wrong is, in fact, at the heart of many disagreements about biblical condemnation of homosexual acts.
This is in part due to arguments over translation of terms, in part due to disagreements about context, and in part due to different sides speaking about different things without being aware of it. So, in other words, I think the confusion isn't only yours. (I'll go ahead and claim it, too.)
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Really? I know several vegans who are against eating any animal product, and many of them are also against using any animal product because of the animal's inability to consent. (I think it's an exploitation thing.)
Yep, for some people the rigor of their beliefs prohibits dairy products, honey, and so forth. Maybe more people than many of us realize.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you check the Vegan Website at www.vegansociety.com it talks about the use of products that contain animal by-products.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have several friends who won't wear silk because it is made from animal byproducts (even if the cocoons are empty and discarded by the time they are processed).
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, "Some sort of test" Kind of. I don't have a problem with lying in certain cases. I called it a shibboleth. It let me know if people were serious about their religion, and I really don't think it influenced the debate any. Especially since I repeatedly told people to go look at the passage I was misrepresenting.
These people were lying to me and to the rest of the board by saying that they were serious about their religion. I claimed something that wasn't true and if they were serious about the religion, they would know wasn't true. For anyone who did know the religion, this was a pretty good test. I really don't know of another way to do it.
I would never intentionally misrepresent a fundmanental part of my argument, but I really don't have a problem with throwing out little side tests like that. I think it is part of my training, both in debate and in psychology. If you're in a good program, you've gotten very similar training as a lawyer.
Ehh...I don't have ethical problems with it. I won't lie with the primary intent to deceive, but I don't have a problem doing it with the intent to uncover a deception. If that honestly makes you lose respect for me and you won't do it yourself, when you're a prosecutor, don't use any evidence obtained by the police by lying during their interrogations.
edit: This is also something I rarely do, and that I don't do at all with people whom I respect.
It just still seems illogical to me to say, given the evidence at hand, that the Bible does not teach against homosexuality. Even if it is not conclusive, it just seems more likely that it does teach against it--appealing to objective reason.
I am not one that discounts Paul as a misogynist. While I do think that some of his comments on women were shaded by the culture of his day and personal opinion (particularly being silent in church and only asking one's husband), I think most of them (about women) are in perfect harmony with my religious beliefs.
I have no problem with the concept of "picking and choosing" because we all do that of a necessity. For those who faith in God and scripture, we have to create a framework in our minds of understanding how things fit together. If two things seem to be in conflict, we try our best to understand why. We do this in science too. The anomaly doesn't discount the premise when the majority of the evidence agrees. We look for reasons for the anomaly.
I believe I have found some very sound reasons for why Paul said what he did about women staying silent without it automatically discounting everything else he said. He even said that that was his opinion--therefore not absolute truth.
Paul said some mighty fine things--he is a favorite of mine. But he was also a product of his society--and I don't hold it against him. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have several friends who won't wear silk because it is made from animal byproducts (even if the cocoons are empty and discarded by the time they are processed).
To my knowledge, silkworm cocoons, once "empty and discarded", are virtually worthless for making silk as the fibers have been broken by the exiting silkworm moth. So silk production, by necessity, calls for the killing of millions of silkworm larvae each year.
(For the record, I don't really have a problem with that.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know how movies always say, "no animals were harmed in the making of this film"? Do they care about earthworms? Just wondering....
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
porter, I doubt everyone's religious commitment, because I feel I have ample reason to do so. I set up a situation that would show me the people whose religious commitment I should rspect. Almost everyone failed. In my mind, they don't deserve my respect.
Like I said to someone when we were discussing something similar to this, I don't give respect out free like the prize in a cereal box, but I do give it out. It's just that I think people have to earn respect.
So answer me, in this situation, should I respect these people's knowledge of the Bible? I started out not accepting the sincerity of their beliefs. They confirmed my doubts.
People on this site regularly question people who disagree with them sincerity, to my mind, with little result. I set out to test my doubts. I don't see how this is less disrespectful than saying "Oh you only believe that because of..." and it's worlds more effective.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, what was this "test" you speak of? And not that I care, but did I "fail" in your mind?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrS: I find it interesting that you would judge someone's respectability based on a single piece of information.
I'll use myself as an example, because I'm the only person I know.
I am FAR from being the best Christian on the planet, and I know that I have a lot more to learn about my own religion, and how to apply it. I also know that I am bad at living my own religion in my life and I'm constantly working on improving it.
So does that mean I don't measure up to your standards? Does that mean you don't respect me? Because a month ago I wouldn't have known what EL told you, but there's a good reason why.
I'm still learning, and so is everyone else.
How ridiculous to "test" someone based on a piece of information that you know about my religion. "Well," you think, "If they don't know this, then they obviously don't know enough to impress me."
It's possible to be sincere about your religion and still be in a learning process. The important thing to remember is that they aren't going to learn it from you, because you don't actually believe any of it.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI, It's not just a matter of one piece of information, nor is it a matter of disrespecting the person, although that enters into it.
People claimed to be against homosexuality because of their strongly held religious beliefs. As part of this debate, there was often a lot of back and forth about Levitical laws, to which I responded with the same information that Equae did, that the Council of Jerusalem, which is recorded in the Bible (I even gave the book and chapter), decided that the Levitical and Mosaic laws, except for the ones that we are now specifying, are no longer considered binding on Christians.
I more or less threw this in the face of the Christians arguing that Leviticus justified their position. Now, not only didn't they seem to know about the Council of Jerusalem in the first place, as this would have obviated the need to respond to the "look at all these other laws that you don't follow" argument, but I confirmed it by claiming that the council removed the homosexual prohibitions too and then told them exactly where to look to see what I was talking about.
Despite claiming that their beliefs came from their rigorous understanding of the Bible, they didn't know about one of the biggest influences on Christian laws that was recorded directly in the Bible. When told of this Council and how it supposedly invalidated their argument, none of them looked it up. They certainly didn't let it affect their thinking any, as they used the exact same arguments in the next gay debate, where I again brought this up and they again didn't have any knowledge of this council.
Now, I ask you, should I respect these people's knowledge of the Bible or their claim that they believe homosexuality is wrong because of their comprehensive knowledge of the Bible? Also, since I told them that there was a part of the Bible (which was real) that said that the Old Testament laws no longer held (which was true), except for the ones listed here, and I told them where to find it and I told them that there current position was out of line with this part of the Bible and yet they didn't even look it up, should I believe them when they say that it is very important to them to live by the rules in the Bible?
This is not a matter of learning. They made a claim that they believed that they could reasonably believe that homosexuality is wrong because of the rules in the Bible. I think I had pretty much taken away all basis for this claim by showing they had neither sufficient knowledge nor interest in the actual content of the Bible.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I'm understanding you, you are saying that you showed them a piece of scripture that contradicted what they were claiming, but they didn't give it the time of day?
If so, I would say that you played fair, and they didn't.
I was under the impression that you misrepresented your position in order to "trick" them into revealing their ignorance.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Squicky, I can think of several reasons you might not have gotten the response you were fishing for other than ignorance. Especially in a forum based on voluntary discussion – in my case it was because I was usually more interested in discussing other parts of your posts. (I did wonder why you seemed to have such a bee in your bonnet about the “Council of Jerusalem,” though.)
Now, I agree with you that there are a lot of people in this country who are woefully ignorant of the religion they claim to believe in, but I don’t think that it’s possible to classify a non-response to your bait as proof of such ignorance.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky -- you yourself said that you wouldn't do that to people you respect. Then, surprise surpise, you didn't respect them after they responded to your non-respectful question.
I'm reminded of the idiot practice that a lot of kids did in high school. Tell somebody a lie and wait to see if they believe it. If they do, then laugh at them for being so stupid as to believe such an absurd thing.
Whenever people did that, it just taught me that those people cannot be trusted.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're missing an obvious fact, Mr. Squicky. Obvious, at least, to any Christian. And that fact is simply that belief and faith are most assuredly NOT based on a rigorous understanding of the Bible. If that were the case, not even theologians with multiple doctorates in their field could have faith, because they never agree with each other.
Faith is not something that you build up by becoming more intellectual and memorizing biblical facts. Faith is a gift from God, pure and simple. I believed before I knew anything at all (it didn't even occur to me to read the Bible right away!). The learning process starts after that, and lasts a lifetime. So you have basically just proven that you have not an inkling of understanding about what christianity really is.
posted
Well, there is a difference between saying, "I don't know if the Bible says homosexuality is wrong" and saying, "The Bible says it's wrong!" The second implies that you consider yourself learned, at least in that particular area.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, But they didn't accept my description of scripture. The next itme this came up, they made the same claims regarding Levitical laws as before, which, had they believed my description, would have be invalidated.
dkw, I agree that this was an option, though, since I got responses specifically talking about this objection though without any mention of the Council of Jerusalem, I thought that my interpretation was much more reasonable. And yes, I did flap it like an injured wing. I much prefer having discussions where I can trust that the other people are being honest with me, but that doesn't mean I'm going to blindly trust them.
Porter, If you think that this is an equivilent to lying to someone to laugh at them for believing you, I don't know know what else I can say to change your mind. That's not what I did. I've been doing this for at least 2 years now, and this is the first I've mentioned it, except in one private conversation. I can assure you, my emotion wasn't mocking, but sadness. I wasn't trying to trick people to make them look foolish. I was interested in knowing who I could have an actual conversation grounded in the Bible with.
holes, I've never criticized someone for having religious faith. What I did here was in no way attacking people's faith, unless you're saying that they believed that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong was told to them in communication with God.
They characterized their belief as being rooted in the Bible. I showed that not only wasn't this true, but also that they didn't really look to the Bible in any case.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Squicky, are you telling me that because I don't know ALL the bible, then what I DO know about it is not valid (i.e., because I may not know about The Council of Jerusalem, or the Sermon on the Mount, or whatever else, then I am not able to comprehend when the Bible says "Do not lie with another man as you lie with a woman)? Please explain your reasoning to me, it seems pointedly and deliberately unsound, not to mention nonsensical.
You and some others around here seem to be going to extreme lengths to try to convince people that the Bible is not really saying what it is, in fact, saying. Well, guess what. It does.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rationalize all you like. You lied in what was supposed to be a friendly discussion, simply to test a pet theory, when you could have easily gotten the same effect by merely pointing to the relevant scripture and characterizing it accurately.
They, presumably, thought they were telling the truth, even if they were mistaken.
It's interesting that you started this little sidetrack by saying "You've partially restored my faith in Christians on Hatrack." Group categorization is not very mature thinking, is it?
posted
Dag, Have I ever made any bones about the fact that I don't trust the majority of Christians or that I feel that I have reasons for this distrust?
As for rationalizing, do you have an objection that I haven't answered satisfactorly? And, do you honestly think if I asked "Hey, are you people taking this into account?" I would have gotten anywhere near the same information? (That's a trick question too, as I did that on a couple of occasions).
The only criticism you seem to have is that I lied, which is a big no no. I don't share this belief. I don't have ethical problems with lying per se when it is used as a tool to uncover the truth. As I said, if you do, you've chosen the wrong profession.
holes, My contention is that, if you don't know one of the basic defining things of how Christians are supposed to treat the rules that they are supposed to live by, then yes, you can't be trusted to tell me what the rules of te Bible say. This was a huge deal and is directly applicible every time that the Levitical laws argument comes up.
By further contention is that, if, after being told about this huge pivot point for all of Christianity that you didn't previously know about, you don't then go look it up and read about it, you don't really put a great deal of importance into what the Bible actually says.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, No, the sad thing is that you have plenty of reason to trust what I post, but that you won't or at least will make a show of not trusting it.
The sad thing also is that you won't talk about what my actual point is. Aren't you concerned that people don't know the Bible, even while claiming strenuously that they do?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The next itme this came up, they made the same claims regarding Levitical laws as before, which, had they believed my description, would have be invalidated."
I think you're missing another possibility: that they ignored what you had to say the first time, and/or gave you the benefit of the doubt.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't there. I have only your word for it. You are now known to lie to make points. So I have no basis for commenting on your recollection of the events in question.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(I'll go ahead and claim it, too.)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
