quote:Are you planning on trying that cooking method, or just noting that you theoretically could?
I don't have any specific plans, but it will almost certainly happen at one point or another, since all of our milk comes from the mothers of the kids we'll be eating in three months.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I meant the boiling in milk thing specifically. It's not a way I've ever prepared meat.
I have a curry recipe that calls for boiling milk with curry, onions and pre-browned chicken at one point.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had no idea Mormons were allowed caffeine in any form. That does explain why my fairly devout Mormon buddy who was in my college percussion department seemed to be about 1 step away from flat-out mainlining Dr. Pepper. I think he worshipped Dr. Pepper about as much as anyone can without having an actual shrine to it in his bedroom. He used to go into long diatribes about how Texas Dr. Pepper uses cane sugar instead of corn syrup, and it tastes so much better. He wasn't planning to go on a mission, but I think he might actually have been more open to being a Dr. Pepper missionary than an LDS missionary.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I'm 99.99% sure that chaya was added to the prohibition at the same time as fowl. Midivrei soferim. Which is sort of stronger than standard rabbinic, but still not d'Orayta. In other words, even chaya meat/chaya beheima is d'rabbanan.
Out of curiosity, could you translate the Hebrew?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
chaya = wild animal beheima = domesticated animal mideivrei soferim = doesn't really translate, but literally: from the words of the scribes d'orayta/d'oraysa = biblical law d'rabbanan = rabbinic law
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In terms of most day-to-day practice, nothing. In emergencies or other special cases, there are some differences.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're very careful to distinguish between what was actually commanded at Sinai, and what was added by the rabbis. The reason for this is that there is a very serious prohibition against adding something to the Torah (or taking something away from it). We're allowed to have additional rules, but they must never be confused with the rules God gave us.
The biggest day-to-day difference would probably be the issue of what to do if there's a doubt. For example, there's an obligation from the Torah to recite a prayer called Shema Yisrael every day, twice a day (for men). If a man isn't sure whether he said it or not, he should go ahead and do so, because in the case of a doubt about a commandment from Sinai, we tend towards the strict. But if it was a rabbinic requirement, like the requirement to say a blessing before eating, then it's different. If I'm eating something, and it occurs to me that I don't remember if I said the blessing or not beforehand, I assume that I did, because in the case of rabbinic requirements, we tend towards the lenient.
In terms of levels, the real levels are the various levels of Torah prohibitions, which are sorted by the punishment specified for them in the Torah. There are things that have a punishment of death, which are considered extremely serious prohibitions. And there are those which are simply "thou shalt not"s, which are considered less severe (though equally binding). All rabbinic laws fall into the category of simple "thou shalt not"s, because they derive their authority from the Torah's commandment not to turn away from the instructions of the Sages.
I apologize for using the jargon before. I wasn't sure anyone was really interested, and I was just answering rivka's question.
Oh, one other thing. Midivrei Soferim are laws that are technically rabbinic (insofar as they are not from Sinai), but as I understand it, they were created by very, very early Sages, like Ezra early, which makes them very major league relative to other rabbinic laws. Again, like Rivka said, there's not a lot of practical difference anyway, except in exceptional cases.
posted
I'll just assume that it had something to do with my typo of "interesting" instead of "interested".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe that (sorry!) sexuality for any purpose other than in the interest of continuing this process of life is harmful to the strength of the relationship with the spouse and the child, and therefore sin.... I am kind of annoyed by the attitudes of and toward sexual lusts in general; it is an indicator of our flawed culture that many of us treat sex as a happiness generator rather than a family creator.... If I accepted JK Rowling's definition of homosexuality, I'd be gay! I "fell in love" with a Swedish transfer student in seventh grade...
In all seriousness, have you considered the possibility that you might be gay? Your post here, for a lot of reasons, really triggers my gaydar.
But that's exactly my point: cultural gaydar picks up white noise as some abnormal sexual orientation or another. It can take the form of a bigot calling someone he doesn't like gay, or a gay-rights propagandist trying to recruit to his cause.
So for a lot of reasons, your response is somewhat self-destructive. It reestablishes the myth that homosexuals are late bloomers that misinterpret their feelings, it disproves the claim that a homosexual man is not capable of having a good relationship with a woman, and it proves how weak sexual hormones are compared to the human will.
I didn't tell you my life's story in that post. Even if I really am gay, the "gay and proud" community would be very swift to disown me. It took me a while to figure out the nature of my relationship with that student in seventh grade, but there are several good reasons that it very much resembles the Dumbledore-Grindelwald relationship, but is not homosexual. If you really want me to rattle them off, I could, but it might take a while for me to write. Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
3P0, I'd previously refrained from posting on this, but it feels to me as though your responding to Tom's comment legitimates it as a topic for discussion.
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:So for a lot of reasons, your response.... disproves the claim that a homosexual man is not capable of having a good relationship with a woman, and it proves how weak sexual hormones are compared to the human will.
How does Tom's post do these things? I don't see that in it at all.
quote:Even if I really am gay, the "gay and proud" community would be very swift to disown me.
Why is that?
quote:It took me a while to figure out the nature of my relationship with that student in seventh grade, but there are several good reasons that it very much resembles the Dumbledore-Grindelwald relationship, but is not homosexual.
Tom can correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt that what you said about the guy you had a crush on in 7th grade was the element of your post that most strongly pinged his gaydar.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: I believe that (sorry!) sexuality for any purpose other than in the interest of continuing this process of life is harmful to the strength of the relationship with the spouse and the child, and therefore sin (not inherently a religious term).
So, no sexual congress for post-menopausal married couples? Or couples where the woman has had a hysterectomy? Or where one partner or the other has been found to be infertile, for one reason or another?
...If that's what you're saying, frankly, I think that's dead wrong.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon: it disproves the claim that a homosexual man is not capable of having a good relationship with a woman,
Just about everyone is capable of having a "good" relationship with just about anyone else.
But gay men aren't capable of having an honest romantic relationship with women, because that would require a sexual attraction that they just don't hold for any woman.
quote:and it proves how weak sexual hormones are compared to the human will.
That's awfully easy for those people whose sexual hormones don't impel them to do things that some parts of soceity vehenemantly oppose to say.
You live 15 years hiding the fact that you love the person you love, and then you can preach about how easy it is to deny your feelings because someone else tells you to for no good reason.
quote:Even if I really am gay, the "gay and proud" community would be very swift to disown me.
Don't sell yourself short. If I may, as a member of the "marriage is for people who are in honest romantic relationships" community, I would confiscate your membership card to that community too, had you ever been a member. Because you seem to prefer the "people should marry people they don't really love" community instead.
Not to sound snobbish, but that's a community I'd never marry into. It's just common sense.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon: it disproves the claim that a homosexual man is not capable of having a good relationship with a woman,
Just about everyone is capable of having a "good" relationship with just about anyone else.
But gay men aren't capable of having an honest romantic relationship with women, because that would require a sexual attraction that they just don't hold for any woman.
quote:and it proves how weak sexual hormones are compared to the human will.
That's awfully easy for those people whose sexual hormones don't impel them to do things that some parts of soceity vehenemantly oppose to say.
You live 15 years hiding the fact that you love the person you love, and then you can preach about how easy it is to deny your feelings because someone else tells you to for no good reason.
quote:Even if I really am gay, the "gay and proud" community would be very swift to disown me.
Don't sell yourself short. If I may, as a member of the "marriage is for people who are in honest romantic relationships" community, I would confiscate your membership card to that community too, had you ever been a member. Because you seem to prefer the "people should marry people they don't really love" community instead.
Not to sound snobbish, but that's a community I'd never marry into. It's just common sense.
To address your first point, that proves I'm not gay. Because I actually DO have a sexual tug toward my girlfriend. I just fight it to keep my brain at a relative level of sanity so that I can really show myself to her, instead of the clouded, stupid monster that wants nothing but to indulge in sexual fantasies.
To address your response to the "sexual hormones effect on human will" clause, I'll just say that I believe that logic has precedence over feelings. Having known at an early age how sexual immorality can destroy families, damage lives, and drive otherwise sane men to do drunken, outrageous things, I approach anything sexual with extreme caution. So I have been "hiding" ever since prepuberty, but I haven't been holding my morals for no good reason.
To address your last paragraph, I will fervently deny that I am a card-carrying member of the "people should marry people they don't really love" community. I do think that our definitions of "really love" are divergent at this point, however. I'm somewhat reluctant to identify with "marriage is for people who are in honest romantic relationships", but that may just be because our definitions of romance are divergent as well.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: To address your first point, that proves I'm not gay. Because I actually DO have a sexual tug toward my girlfriend.
The claim was unfounded and silly. You would do best to ignore it. People will suspect they have touched a nerve.
quote:I just fight it to keep my brain at a relative level of sanity so that I can really show myself to her, instead of the clouded, stupid monster that wants nothing but to indulge in sexual fantasies.
TMI. The more you talk about your personal life, the more other people will comment on your personal life. Is this really what you want?
quote:To address your response to the "sexual hormones effect on human will" clause, I'll just say that I believe that logic has precedence over feelings.
Right. And it was logic that led you to broadcast the strength of your sexual feelings on a message board, to be read by dozens of strangers.
Way to hold your feelings in check there. You are asking millions of people to deny themselves those feelings forever, and you can't even keep those feelings from spilling on to a message board.
quote: Having known at an early age how sexual immorality can destroy families
Well, that’s the sticking point. You are wired such that the kind of sexual activity you were taught to call "moral" is the kind you are interested in. Other people are wired differently, so though their feelings are little different from yours: they care about and love their partners just like you do, you have labeled their actions “immoral”. It's like telling lactose-intolerant people that its "immoral" not to have milk and cheese with every meal.
quote:To address your last paragraph, I will fervently deny that I am a card-carrying member of the "people should marry people they don't really love" community.
So whom do you think that a gay man should marry? There are millions of them out there, and your comment about them having "good" relationships with women made me think that you were suggesting that they do that.
But if I was wrong, and you think that gay men simply shouldn't marry anyone, then I was wrong.
quote: I'm somewhat reluctant to identify with "marriage is for people who are in honest romantic relationships, but that may just be because our definitions of romance are divergent as well."
So you would marry a woman knowing that she did not honestly love you romantically, according what whatever your definition of “romantic” is?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: To address your response to the "sexual hormones effect on human will" clause, I'll just say that I believe that logic has precedence over feelings. Having known at an early age how sexual immorality can destroy families, damage lives, and drive otherwise sane men to do drunken, outrageous things, I approach anything sexual with extreme caution. So I have been "hiding" ever since prepuberty, but I haven't been holding my morals for no good reason.
This paragraph sounds more like an example of misleading vividness than an example of logic taking precedence over feelings. I'm sorry that you seem to have experience with one extreme but retreating into a shell over the whole issue isn't rational.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that you can love someone and have a good marriage with less sexual attraction. Of course, this is affected by my memory of how I felt at 9 months pregnant and the first few months after having the baby. I also think that sexuality is not binary and shouldn't be presented that way. The Kinsey scale makes a lot more sense to me.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: This paragraph sounds more like an example of misleading vividness than an example of logic taking precedence over feelings.
I think that's a mischaracterization. He hasn't indicated that the sort of violence and trauma he describes is particularly likely; just that, for him, its so undesirable that he avoids even the unlikely event. It's a statement of utility, not probability. As such, one might challenge his utilities (relative costs of various courses of action), but probably not his logic.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I also think that sexuality is not binary and shouldn't be presented that way. The Kinsey scale makes a lot more sense to me.
I also think that the Kinsey scale should be used with at least two separate issues: physical attraction and emotional/bonding attraction. I know people who simply can't feel any emotional attraction with men, but are attracted to them physically. And vice versa.
It's a lot more complicated than most people assume.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Note, it is actually three independant surveys, so once you complete one section, you have to Page Back to complete the next.
Sadly, some of the accumulated statistics were lost by Homestead.com, but an interesting bit of information appear in the survey.
Straight boys will allow themselves a lot more gay feeling and tendencies and still call themselves straight than gay boys.
It's been a while since I looked at the information closely, but I think straight boys will allow themselves to have 20% gay tendencies and still call themselves straight. Gay boys on the other hand will only allow themselves 10% straight tendencies before they stop calling themselves gay.
The survey asks three questions -
What is your gender identification? boy, girl, other, etc...
What are you sexual tendencies? This is about feelings and desires regardless of whether you act on them.
What is your sexual preference? Tell me who and what you are? Rather than identify people by a complex list of cirteria and question, I simply let people tell me who they are.
If you don't want to add to the survey, simply right click on "View Results" and open them in a new Tab or Window. Then you can easily compare the results.
And just for fun, mostly for the guys, I have another survey -
posted
Edited to add that the gay marriages have begun!
quote:SAN FRANCISCO — With a series of simple “I dos,” gay couples across California inaugurated the state’s court-approved and potentially short-lived legalization of same-sex marriage on Monday, the first of what is expected to be a crush of such unions in coming weeks.
The weddings began in a handful of locations around the state at exactly 5:01 p.m., the earliest time allowed by last month’s decision by the California Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage. Many more ceremonies will be held on Tuesday when all 58 counties will be issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
RUN FOR THE HILLS! THIS IS GONNA DESTROY THE COUNTRY!!!!!
quote:To address your first point, that proves I'm not gay. Because I actually DO have a sexual tug toward my girlfriend. I just fight it to keep my brain at a relative level of sanity so that I can really show myself to her, instead of the clouded, stupid monster that wants nothing but to indulge in sexual fantasies.
I don't get it. So indulging in sex for reasons other than procreation makes one insane or stupid? And if that's the case, is a magic switch flipped at the time of marriage such that sex no longer makes one insane?
posted
Very interesting thread, and I have just read it beginning to end. As always, I very much appreciate Hatrackers' discussions on political/social topics. Your community, with commendable articulation, presents BOTH (*cough, I mean SEVERAL) views of the topic(s) being discussed.....and you mostly all seem to remain friends through the process. Bravo!
In this thread, you have discussed many things including support/opposition to gay marriage, civil unions, the definition and meaning of marriage in general, and even Jewish food codes.
Usually, I casually lurk here at Hatrack, as I have for the past several years (*sheepishly divulges). But I feel impelled to post here. I am not a savvy enough Hatracker to determine whether my post constitutes need of a new thread, as it may slightly shift the discussion (should anyone reply that is). So please inform me if a new thread would be more appropriate, and gladly I will shift to a new one.
I wish to present for discussion two hypothetical but very likely real situations relating to gay marriage, both from a first-person point of view.
For the first situation, I proceed on the premise that gay marriage will remain or become legal in some states (whether or not CA will continue to be among them), while other states will prohibit gay marriage.
-------------------------------------- SITUATION 1 I am a gay married man/woman who has worked for 15 years at a furniture plant. My spouse and children and I have a retirement plan and medical insurance benefits provided through my work. For fiscal reasons, the plant recently announced it was moving to another state. I along with my coworkers have been offered to retain our jobs (with moving perks even!) if we will relocate to the area where the new plant is being built.
Here's my dilemma: the state where the new plant will be located does not recognize gay marriage, meaning that they will not recognize the validity of my family. My employer will still honor retirement and insurance benefits for my spouse and children, but I realize that in the new state I will NOT have all other rights as I do currently. ( See list of rights not afforded to civil unions that are provided by marriage in MattP's previous post. )
Thus, I am being forced to choose between my livelihood and my marriage. What do I do?...... -------------------------------------------
This situation smells of a very reasonable court case that would be directed at a federal court level as to whether or not states must recognize other states' marriages.....
What do you think is appropriate/legal for such a situation?
________________________________________________________________________ SITUATION 2 I am a college student living with a roommate in a state where gay marriage is legal. We realize that state benefits for married college students are much better than for single students.
Though neither I nor my roommate are gay, we decide to get married and collect the larger benefits to help us through school. Then, at the end of college, we will get divorced. (Of course, though we live together, our marriage never involves physical intimacy. But, hey, we sure will get a lot more money for school!)
Friends tell us that we are being dishonest, but we tell them, "Hey, we live together, right? Besides, we know heterosexual married couples who for whatever reason are not physically intimate, yet their marriages are still recognized. How are we any different?" -----------------------------------
Let me make it clear that I DO NOT believe that the second situation is ethical or moral. I think it is wrong for someone to knowingly falsely exploit the system. Yet, sadly, from my experience, when it comes to money, many folks do just that.
How would/should a state proceed in such a situation?.......
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
1) I think all states in America should be expected to recognize any civil contract between two parties. Barring that, it seems to me that any state which refuses to recognize gay marriage will be at an obvious disadvantage when it comes to hiring employees; ergo, I expect that sort of foolishness to wither within a generation (although of course it doesn't mitigate the difficulties experienced by this one.) Once that genie's out of the bottle, it's essentially out of the bottle everywhere -- which is a good thing.
2) The state should proceed in the same way it would proceed if the parties were involved were of different genders. My mother married her second husband because she wanted to benefit from his insurance.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am a college student living with a roommate in a state where gay marriage is legal. We realize that state benefits for married college students are much better than for single students.
Though neither I nor my roommate are gay, we decide to get married and collect the larger benefits to help us through school. Then, at the end of college, we will get divorced. (Of course, though we live together, our marriage never involves physical intimacy. But, hey, we sure will get a lot more money for school!)
Friends tell us that we are being dishonest, but we tell them, "Hey, we live together, right? Besides, we know heterosexual married couples who for whatever reason are not physically intimate, yet their marriages are still recognized. How are we any different?"
I hear fear about this a lot and I think it's unwarranted. As a female, I've had multiple male roommates. I'm certain that getting married for benefit/ convenience reasons never crossed any of our minds. Most people regard marriage as something to be treated seriously.
There's going to be a handful of people that abuse the system, but I don't think that's sufficient to ruin it for all those who have legitimate relationships.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Barring that, it seems to me that any state which refuses to recognize gay marriage will be at an obvious disadvantage when it comes to hiring employees...
Really? The numbers we usually use are 1-3% of the population are exclusively gay. They're probably the bulk of the folks getting married. About half of the country is married, so if gay folks run about the same, we can expect between .5-1.5% of the population to be married gays.
If your state doesn't offer benefits to them, you're only discouraging at most 4.5 million people from living there. If 90% of people never experiment with homosexuality, you've got 270 million people who will never even think about that set of issues. Straight people would have to boycott certain states because of the issue before there would be enough impact to make a bit of difference at the state level.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
AvidReader, to clarify, your numbers would suggest that 3% of population is exclusively gay and another 7% "experiments" with homosexuality. So 10% total. Is this correctly what you mean? When you say the numbers "WE" use, what group is meant by "WE"?
Of the 7% who are not exclusively gay, do you mean they are bisexual or they merely "experiment" and then gravitate or return back to a heterosexual life?
I understand your point about how many people may never think about that set of issues as part of their immediate lives. If this were the only way that employees were affected by the issue, then by mere lack of strength of numbers, as you rightly suggest it would make little difference at the state level.
But I would suppose that most straight employees know other people who are gay, and I would dare go so far as to suppose that a large portion of straight folks have gay friends and/or family members. I would suppose that if presented with a situation as described above, many straight people could easily begin to boycott states in support of their gay friends and/or family members. So, such boycotts are plausible circumstances.
The situation as described above is not so much a numbers game (meaning proportion of population) as it is an individual rights question. No matter the number of people who may be affected by such a situation, the question remains about how a court would balance a person's livelihood against their right to a fully recognized marriage and family.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gays, on average, happen to be better educated than non gays. That may skew the percentage of desirable employees upwards from a figure that only represents the percentage of the total population that gays make up.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: So 10% total. Is this correctly what you mean? When you say the numbers "WE" use, what group is meant by "WE"?
Here on Hatrack, those seem to be the generally accepted numbers. I've never been sure on the 10%, but I'm assuming it's some combination of bisexuals and experimenters. So another 3.5% might be unwilling to live somewhere at certain times in their lives (though with the number of girls I knew of who tried it only half-seriously in high school, I wonder).
As for this:
quote: ...most straight employees know other people who are gay, and I would dare go so far as to suppose that a large portion of straight folks have gay friends and/or family members. I would suppose that if presented with a situation as described above, many straight people could easily begin to boycott states in support of their gay friends and/or family members.
I suppose I have less faith in people than you do. The most common moral refrain I hear is "I don't want to get involved." You'd have to be awful close to that friend or family member to put their civil rights ahead of your own comfort and well-being. I don't believe most Americans would care enough.
The court is the real question. Would they overturn the Defense of Marriage Act if challenged?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Your second scenerio would be great if it weren't for Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26,27 and 1 Cor 6:9,10. Christians would have to ignore God to tell their kids it's ok to engage in a homosexual relationship. That's an awful lot to ask of them.
I agree that kids should feel safe discussing anything they're struggling with with their parents. But being comfortable with yourself doesn't necessarily mean acting on your urges. It's not fair, but God was pretty clear about His disapproval. If a person would rather indulge themselves than obey God, that's their business (and applies to a whole lot more than just homosexuality - including my own fornication).
Everyone picks their own sins. It just doesn't make them stop being sins.
It doesn't have anything to do with the legal aspects of marriage; I just wanted to be clear about my response to Earendil18.
I don't recall God writing any of the passages mentioned. I do believe these tracts were written by God's followers, a very important distinction often forgotten for some reason. Yes, one's faith as a Christian, becomes potentially diluted if you start picking and choosing which aspects of the Bible are palatable to you, but I don't think God's particularly impressed w/one's leaving of their powers of reason elsewhere as well.
We have to suss out, for ourselves, whether we believe these words to be the direct word of God, or the word of God's humanly flawed messengers. I tend to view it as the latter. If God's message is a message of love as brought to us through Jesus, I've never, ever been able to find any kind of justification for the persecution, ostracism, or loathing (you're sexuality and the love you feel for your partner is evil and an abomination, but we swear you aren't! we really swear! We hate the sin, not the sinner!)in anything Jesus said, or for that matter in the faith as represented by Jesus, his teachings and his life and death.
Forgive me if I come across as irritable or a jerk in this, but this sort of thing tends to push my buttons, and it's one of the few issues I can't compromise on, much like racism.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by graywolfe: I don't recall God writing any of the passages mentioned. I do believe these tracts were written by God's followers, a very important distinction often forgotten for some reason.
You say that like it's a fact. God did write Leviticus. Or dictated every word, verbatim, to Moses, which is the same thing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by graywolfe: I don't recall God writing any of the passages mentioned. I do believe these tracts were written by God's followers, a very important distinction often forgotten for some reason.
You say that like it's a fact. God did write Leviticus. Or dictated every word, verbatim, to Moses, which is the same thing.
Perhaps suggesting it is a fact is a bit presumptions, but it's certainly more reliable, in my view, than believing that Leviticus is a word for word representation of commands and speech God may have given to Moses. Bear in mind, I view the entire bible as being inspired by God through very fallible human beings. That belief certainly doesn't coincide w/the beliefs of many others here, but there's a heckuvalot more evidence on the side of inspiration, than on the side of direct conversation.
However, as you said yourself, I have posted in a way that suggests my opinions are facts, of course they aren't, I just view them as being based on reason and my own flawed writing, rather than faith.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I believe the Bible is another aspect of God. Yeah, occasionally Moses ends up with horns or something, but I've never heard about the important bits being mistranslated. If the Guy can create an entire universe because He wants to, I trust Him to watch over a book for a few thousand years.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Even if I really am gay, the "gay and proud" community would be very swift to disown me. It took me a while to figure out the nature of my relationship with that student in seventh grade, but there are several good reasons that it very much resembles the Dumbledore-Grindelwald relationship, but is not homosexual. If you really want me to rattle them off, I could, but it might take a while for me to write. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
