How would you characterize the spirit of Leviticus?

As the old proverbial sez Umm. Wow. Perhaps you can explain how mentioning sodom in such a negative way in post #31 can not be misinterpreted as an attack on all gay people?

Unless of course you are taking the media defence .. I didn't actually mention your name, therefore it was not aimed at you ... which is the pathetic bullying way of inflictng pain and degradation and getting away with it. School playground tactics, that.

Hitler didn't mention many gay people or Jews by name, but he still locked an awful lot of them up, and even managed to kill .. ehm ... 6 MILLION of them, on some arbitrary hate basis.

Duh! Of course I have issues. I'm gay and don't like to have people spouting hate speech at me and will fight it at all points and at all costs ... and if that is 'an issue', boy am I glad. Remember, without people like me fighting hatred like yours, people like you would most probably not be allowed to be on the planet ... I take it you ARE an aspie ... since you feel so uncomfortable about it that you can't bring yourself to admit it in your user profile. Mind you, you seem to have something of a history on this site with all of your ... 54 ... posts ... viz:

... anyway ... next...

I take it that the spelling of the first word was not intended to be biblical type speech? Anyway ... dismissal in such a patronising way does nothing to help you sound any more loving and understanding ... just saying, like!!

Well spotted there Heyoka.

No?

FNORD!!!! tsk tsk. These people were willing to have you dropped in a sulphur pit. Goodness! I know it's nearly Christmas an all, but are you really electing to be a turkey? lol. And btw, I aint thin skinned. I can just conduct a well constructed argument on a rational basis with underlying principles of happiness and delight in other people's views. If that's thin skinned ... well ... wateva

Goderators:
Since Heyoka seems to have a history of being involved in demonising people on this site, and of being involved in flame wars, perhaps s:he needs to be warned, or maybe even banned? As for Fnord ... I'll just build up the case file

I believe that a lot of suffering and evil has been caused in the name of religion.

I say that as an Irishman, a bisexual, a heathen, a deviant and a blasphemer.

Oh I soooooo love the Irish. What a lovely accent ... but really Pika ... you didn't have to tell us all that ... I mean ... you could have left out the heathen and blasphemer given that you had already owned up to being Irish. It kinda comes in the package!!! lololololololol

Warning ... this was a joke y'all. No offence intended ... and I do love the Irish ... I'm precisely one eighth Irish myself.

I never thought I'd see the day, but I'm going to come to Fnord's defense here regarding "post 31".

You may not be aware of it, Buck, but Fnord's an atheist, or at least not religious. He wasn't quoting the bible at me - he was offering a possible answer to a question I'd posed to cindy. Might I also point out that his comment made after the quoting appears to be 'tongue-in-cheek' as it were.

Secondly, I'm queer and while i have had a hard time trying to pin Fnord down on where he stands on homosexuality when it's against the law, I took no offense from his quote because of the above.

I realize that the 'Sodom story' is an oft used attack on me and you by bigots who attempt to hide behind the christian god as they spew their hatred, so I can understand how you might be hypersensitive to the use of the word 'Sodom', but in this case that hypersensitivity has led you astray, methinks.

Well, I am prepared to be proved entirely wrong here ... let Fnord confirm and I won't apologise then, I'll apologise now, in advance. Hate to be wrong (as you might have noticed!), but it is just as pointless to be wrong and not apologise. On the other hand, Fnord's later comment about thin skinnedness sets me to presupposing you may be wrong, but I do hope it's me that's in error! Mind you, Cindyc's simple acceptance of his propositions seem to indicate she has also bought it hook, line and sinker. Why's there not a 'confused' smiley here??!!

Sorry to get picky and technical here but it's not the word sodom that bothers me. It's its use in conjunction with the city so named, in a biblical context, which imbues it a huge semantic proposition. Given my apparent irony bypass on this one ... though I honestly can't see how, but that's just the circular nature of it! ... I may have come to the wrong conclusion.

In my defence ... I feel I need one ... I would say this ... always stab the mugger before the bugger stabs you. It's a general basic human instinct, after all, you can't remake yourself alive after they've killed you.

So, come on Fnord ... confirm or deny what ZodRau has indicated ... and in the case of a confirmation, here are my apologies in advance.

rolls on floor, belly up, waiting for the kicking, hehe

Sory to get picky and technical, but I didn't use the word "sodom" at all. I used 'Sodom' - which, when capitalized like that, refers to the city so named. :p

Apology accepted lolololol I think we're on the same page, though!

Okay, I'll call your bluff.

The Bible never says that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality.  It says Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of "wickedness" -- it doesn't specify what type of wickedness.  The only mention of homosexuality in connection with Sodom is the scene where the men of town asked Lot to hand over his guests so that they could have sex with them.  Lot referred to this as "wicked" because a) the guests were under his protection and they took the laws of hospitality very seriously in those days (seriously enough that Lot was willing to offer them his daughters rather than endanger his guests), and b) gang rape is a bad thing no matter which gender it's being performed on.

From the Wikipedia entry on "Sodomy":

(bolding mine)

(bolding mine)

All that aside, in Fnord's quote Sodom is merely one of several "evil" cities listed.  Why those cities were so bad is not stated.  The focus of the quote is what would happen to cities that mistreated the Apostles.  To say that the inclusion of one word in that quote is an attack on all gay people is an overreaction to say the least.

But if the word "Sodomy" is derived from "Sodom," then what sin were the Gomorrans guilty of?

CelticRose, if gang rape is such an evil, why was Lot prepared to hand over his daughters?

I also abhor the circular argument that says "My God is the only real God. I have a book here that I believe was inspired by my God, therefore my God is the only real God." Then the spouter of such illogicality, when it is pointed out to them, tells the doubter to read the book - then they'll believe, too. Despite the probability that the doubter is a doubter precisely because they have read and studied said book extensively.

Whatever the religion of the proponent of the circular argument, they do not seem able to see the contradiction.

Anyway, I have a book all about an amazing deity. I think that everyone here should read it and then you'll believe, too.

Lol.  

Interesting how people focus on Sodom while Gomorrah gets forgotten, particularly since there's no real distinction made between the two in the Bible.

CelticRose, if gang rape is such an evil, why was Lot prepared to hand over his daughters?

The law of hospitality was a really big deal in those days.  If someone was a guest under your roof, and therefore under your protection, it was unthinkable to knowingly allow them to come to any harm.  To Lot, handing over his daughters was the lesser of two evils.  Sounds weird to us, but that was the culture at the time.

I also abhor the circular argument that says "My God is the only real God. I have a book here that I believe was inspired by my God, therefore my God is the only real God." Then the spouter of such illogicality, when it is pointed out to them, tells the doubter to read the book - then they'll believe, too. Despite the probability that the doubter is a doubter precisely because they have read and studied said book extensively.

Whatever the religion of the proponent of the circular argument, they do not seem able to see the contradiction.

Anyway, I have a book all about an amazing deity. I think that everyone here should read it and then you'll believe, too.

Exactly when did I say I believed that the Bible was inspired by God?  buckthesystem was reacting to a particular word in a quote from that text, so I discussed the text and the historical use of the word.

For the record, I do not believe that the Bible is the true word of God.  It has become distorted over the centuries, parts of it were written and/or edited by committee, and it is inaccurate.  God only knows how much truth is left in that text.

Depends on who you ask, really.

For example:

"Saying that the last recorded acts of the Sodomites -- the demands for same-gender sex -- are proof that they were destroyed for homosexuality is like saying that a condemned man cursing his guards on the way to his execution is being executed for cursing the guards. Sodom was judged worthy of destruction before the incident with Lot and the angels." Inge Anderson

And

"The Genesis passage is very clear, that the sin of Sodom that brought on the destruction of the city was indeed linked to homosexuality." R. Albert Mohler

For the entire argument from both sides, see this.

From the perspective of a homosexual who has had the R. Albert Mohler version flung at them repeatedly, it doesn't really matter why the christian god may have supposedly actually destroyed Sodom - what matters is there's a not too small and very vocal collection of christians who believe it's because Sodom was full of queers, and use this to justify all manner of hateful and even homicidal acts.

So again, while I don't think it was Fnord's intent to trigger this reaction from Buck, it's not too unsurprising that this happened.

Sorry, CelticRose! Only the first sentence was (sort-of) directed at you (it was meant rhetorically) - all the rest was just musing! I know full well the culture was different then, which is why it is fun to point out the dissonance.

I get annoyed only with the crowd who tell us that every word of their Holy Book (whichever one) has to be taken as literally true and applied to our modern lives. These books generally reflect the times and mores of long-gone peoples and bear nothing but a passing resemblance to modern societies which are, in general, far more equitable and pleasant than those they replaced over the millenia.

Those people also refuse to acknowledge the contradictions in their Holy Books and quite possibly never read them; instead, they rely on the interpretation of Holy Men and Women.

I'm not saying that there is no value in religion. I am saying that there is no value in surrendering one's critical faculties and allowing the words of other people, written, printed or spoken, to come between oneself and one's connection with the world.

Whether one believes in a spirit realm or not; whether one believes in god(s) or not; neither matters so much as that one should come to that belief through thorough examination of one's life and experiences, not through intellectual laziness or fear.

I have been to many scripture studies... and I love what I have learned at them...

mostly answers (though I don't answer out loud much to people like those tiggerthewing mentions)...

such as St. Paul.  (I am a woman who might be called a feminist (dumb label) but I loathe labels - Of course men and women are equals... but feminists would not have me I am sure because I stay home to raise my kids... LOL

Apparently women with "feminist pride" have a problem with St. Paul...

Why ?- because when he was speaking to the phoenicians or whomever he said a woman (paraphrasing of course) should not cut her hair, and should not speak at the pulpit in a church (synagogue really) in the days of the early church....

There were many reasons he said that to "THEM" at that time...

St. Paul told each region he visited something different.. . (true)depending on the customs THERE at THAT exact time... he tried to relate to his audiences...  he was trying hard to not move too fast with his messages.. subtle changes, slowly would more likely not get such a backlash from the more conservative people LOL - but St Pauls's main message was inclusiveness.. - Jesus for MEN and WOMEN - equally,,, (my opinion - yes and on an atheist thread)

anyway, the point is - each human can translate what ever they hear or see depending on their experiences,life, upbringing, biases...

and we are all correct.