Um... about not sleeping with in-laws... it might not be sexually unhygienic... but, the social impact on the family would be... rather toxic, I'd imagine.

Sound psychology: don't sleep with your partner's parents or siblings (this bit, outside of accepted cultural norms of sibling marriage, of course), or you'll be sorry.

edited 24th Oct '12 10:03:53 AM by Euodiachloris

What the green one said.

Hm, interesting. So the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, and yet the law says you cannot yell "Fire" if there isn't one. Cherry-picking?

In general, burning several thousand tons of oxygen will destroy a bunch of stuff. But funny enough, that's how you send a Saturn V rocket to orbit. And sending a rocket to orbit would seem to be a contradiction of the laws of gravity. Cherry-picking?

edited 24th Oct '12 10:07:38 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

I'm going to have to conclude that being divinely inspired doesn't grant people useful insights or make them better people, otherwise the Old Testament would have a lot more germ theory and a lot less genocide.

Yup: the whole book of Joshua can be argued to sum up to this: "You know those commandments and Health and Safety Laws? Well, screw 'em while we get land and wives! God said we could!" And, to be honest, it's often followed by, "Well, you might have been wrong about some of that (but took the wrong lesson home), 'cos look at the punishment God's just landed on your arse..."

edited 24th Oct '12 10:13:02 AM by Euodiachloris

@Carc

That's nice and all, but I'm 100 % homosexual. What, should I ban sexual thoughts about other girls out of my head and live forever alone? XD

If so, then it's hardly fair that other people can have romantic and sexual relationships and I don't.

Maxima, if you're not going to seriously reply, don't bother. You know exactly what I mean here. Those are all really poor examples of what I'm talking about.

Not only are they unrelated, but we're talking about a Book written by humans with different opinions of what they think God says. Unless you can provide an actual analogy that is literally similar to this, stop ignoring what I mean and stop dodging the question. You keep doing this.

People who are saying it's cherry picking to not follow all the Old Testament laws are forgetting that the New Testament explicitly teaches that Christians, especially Gentile Christians, are not subject to the letter of the Old Testament law.

@Hydronix: How can you interpret "lie with a man as you would with a woman" as not referring to two men having anal sex (a homosexual act)? It refers to a specific type of homosexual act, which I believe from the context is probably related to some sort of non-Jewish worship as the verse preceding forbids the sacrifice of children to Moloch, but it's still homosexuality. Not homosexuality as in "all forms of homosexual desire and relations, ever", but homosexuality as in "a type of sexual relation between people of the same sex".

@Euo: I wasn't arguing that there wasn't good reason for the prohibitions; I was just pointing out that the context wasn't really hygiene, as such.

And, mental hygiene within a social context isn't part of Health and Safety, now? <blinks> Since when?

Also, all the boring bits about what various people should wear (and the measurements) and what the tabernacle's proportions should be... scream... standardisation issues (partially for safety: if the Ark of the Covenant and everything to go with it got too bleeding heavy, nobody would be able to transport it from A to B). As well as the list of names of who heads which bit of the tribe: organisational issues and procedures. AKA social issues.

I do not believe it is about homosexuality, but humiliation from Slavery or anal being hygienic. The fact it's man on man is about as meaningless as the earlier Mother/Daughter thing being about homosexuality, when it's about Incest.

It could be interpreted that way, sure. But I do not agree it has a thing to do with it at all. And that it's just as unrelated as the Mother/Daughter stuff.

Anal in itself is not going to kill anyone, except for hygiene problems. Man on Man is not going to kill anyone either. I call bull on it really about homosexuality being persecuted, and only about humiliation and/or hygiene issues.(the humiliation is specific to the slavery thing, to note)

You should know me well enough to know I dodge nothing. And on matters as important as Christian faith, I am very serious, unless I'm specifically being clever or witty. I believe my analogy was apt.

I'm not discussing whether or not you believe the Bible is some old Book that came together over thousands of years of editing or if it's God's own Word as written through the people he instructed to write it. I've addressed that point already.

Now, you say those are poor examples. How so? If one approached the law, science, history, and even recipes in the same manner in which they latch on to a section of the Bible and willfully ignore the rest, you'd get some hilarious cocked-up results. Kind of like the ones you get when you go "But Leviticus says this." - "Yes, but there's more." - "Fuck that; Leviticus says this."

edited 24th Oct '12 10:24:36 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

Bingo. And, "no hanky-panky with the kids" is in the same bracket as power-issues.

The assumption about homosexual relationships for the time period was usually of a much older man using some form of force on a much younger one. If anything, that whole section is actually suggesting that rape is bad, regardless of gender. For the time, it's a totally radical concept, as young men being used as catamites was a common "coming of age" practice in the region... whether they truly wanted it, or not.

If anything, it's an interesting study in how slavery might have played a major part in the Hebrew mindset... and the rules they wished to follow once, apparently, leaving it.

edited 24th Oct '12 10:33:18 AM by Euodiachloris

@Euo: *blinks back* I really hadn't thought of it in those terms. I guess I was using a too literal meaning of "hygiene".

@Maxima: Since when is alternate interpretations in anywhere near similar to... saying gravity won't allow it to work? That's not even cherry-picking.

Cherry-picking only works when you choose one thing over another where they already both exist. Gravity and the Space Shuttle did not exist at the same time they thought of the idea.

The constitution bit would work... if it directly contradicted itself. Cherry-picking requires two things to actually not work together. And them to both exist when trying to cherry pick it. You have yet to give an example of this, which is why I don't believe you really get what I mean at all. Or you're using a fictional example with the Star Trek thing. It needs to be an actual book/or something that exists in real life.

To note, I am not calling the Bible fictional here, but really, Star Trek... compared to the Bible? I don't even watch Star Trek. I have read the Bible. Please use an analogy that is not from a clearly fictional work, and make sure it contradicts itself directly.

edited 24th Oct '12 10:33:25 AM by Hydronix

Problem is not all Christians see it that way. I've actually had at least one Christian try to tell me that all same-sex...sex was essentially rape.

edited 24th Oct '12 10:35:41 AM by Morgikit

Okay, I grant you that perhaps cherry-picking wasn't the word. But the parallel I'm trying to illustrate is valid.

It's a mistake to read something, anything, in piecemeal and think you can accurately judge what is or isn't being said.

Leviticus calls for homosexuals to be stoned, yes. Along with fornicators, liars, etc. The Bible is replete with passages saying that judgment is God's and God's alone. If you really want to go there, even when advocating for such Nero-like punishment, notice it's still ONLY in the context of "I'm God, and I'm telling you to do this." As in, even then, it's wasn't okay to be all like "I think gays are icky. I'm gonna Kill 'em All!"

That is a rather....unique....interpretation.

edited 24th Oct '12 10:36:06 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

That's partly because that's the smell the texts written at that time give off (particularly if you have also been taught to read only the parts of it that give it off strongly in the light that all sex for fun, ever, is wrong).

Many of the prophets were trying to actively fight those catamite issues I posted: temple prostitution wasn't just female. Nor was it solely a Greek, Egyptian, Caanite or Edomite thing. The whole bleeding Middle East of the day was full of stuff like that. So... each prophet waxed lyrical against other practices that weren't HEBREW enough (for his definition of "Hebrew"). At top volume.

edited 24th Oct '12 10:41:09 AM by Euodiachloris

No, it is certainly not fair. And, obviously, it is not your fault in the least that you were born with a strong attraction towards some actions that (under that interpretation) are best avoided and with no attraction whatsoever towards their non-sinful analogues.

But, not to be callous, unfair things happen quite routinely in this fallen universe. It is a great pity (again, under that point of view, which is not mine) that this happened to you; but if homosexual acts are wrong and you are attracted to them and not to heterosexual ones, then you should probably strive for a life of chastity (which would be trying at times, sure, but would certainly not be a Fate Worse Than Death — it is actually quite low in the hierarchy of the ills that can befall a person). Others, as for their part, should have sympathy and respect for your plight, and — quite obviously — not ever dare to think ill of you should you not fulfill this ideal (after all, all of us routinely betray the Christian ideal in a thousands of small but significant ways, often with far worse excuses than that).

edited 24th Oct '12 10:45:22 AM by Carciofus

I think we're talking about two different things here; I'm telling you that you've been cherry-picking like every other person who reads the Bible and uses it in any fashion. That cannot be denied since it's a pure truth.

As for that, as I said earlier, I don't believe that's what God even meant either. Especially when Anal in that area was used for humiliation. It also never mentions women in that particular context of supposed homosexuality. Normally I'd agree that it wasn't acknowledged, except they actually do talk about women on women earlier, but in the specific context of incest.

All in all, I believe the context is specifically unhygienic anal and at worst, humiliation. Humiliation being punishable by death makes a lot more sense than loving another man, really. Especially since women on women is in no way condemned, which is just as much homosexuality, and people clearly knew about this, since polygamy was also legal which means that women on women normally happened.

Long story short, I do not believe it ever meant homosexuality in the first place. Now, I do believe there was a part where Paul condemns it, but that's one passage I haven't gotten to.

If god wanted to be man's judge, jury, and executioner by himself, why would he even tell his followers to execute people?

And, you expect some guy to think "Um... I want power, and... I'll just calmly ignore that, thanks" not to spring up?

That's essentially what the Book of Kings is about: God† going "Right, if you really want a single guy in charge and all that... I'll give it you. But, you'll regret it."

And, a bit later... "See? The Kingdom divided in two and you both got taken over by others. Told you it was dumb. Wishing you'd stuck with the Judges, now, aren't you?"

†In the voice of several prophets, historical narrative after the fact... or whatever.

edited 24th Oct '12 10:49:52 AM by Euodiachloris

Hydronix, polygamy (at least of that time) generally would not include woman-on-woman. The man would only sleep with one woman at a time. Likewise, the mother/daughter passage isn't talking about a man having sex with the mother and daughter at the same time.

edited 24th Oct '12 10:48:54 AM by Nocturna

@ Hydronix: Paul's condemnation is heterosexuals acting as homosexuals in a list of decrying people from turning away from what they know in their hearts is true about themselves. It's about being slutty whores for purposes of fashion and going against who you know you are. Not about being gay.

edited 24th Oct '12 10:50:05 AM by shimaspawn

No, I expect the all knowing creator of the universe to be consistent. Silly me.

I think I've pointed out that I don't see the Bible as that. <confused>

Nocturna: Or they didn't directly see it. Except telling me that never happened in some way(including threesomes) is pretty much something I cannot accept as true. Why? Because it's bull. Of course it happened.

And yes, people would know about it if it happened. I've heard that line before and I still don't believe it at all. People are not that stupid. Rumors fly around. Gossip happens. If it happens, it's known. And it happened.

@Shima: Ah. Which means homosexuality itself is not condemned, but those who fake their sexuality to look better is condemned. What it means is that if a homosexual tried to act like a heterosexual, that in itself would be the sin, not being a homosexual alone. Thank you, Shima.

edited 24th Oct '12 10:52:51 AM by Hydronix