Spat on a gay guy in photography class…

[amerikajin]

Brill's article summed it up pretty well, I thought.

 

Generally, my attitude on sexuality is that as long as it's not rape or the sexual abuse of children, then what goes on in the privacy of someone's bedroom is their business and nobody else's. If a guy gets turned on by another guy, so be it. A fan of the 69? Have at it. Wanna try having sex with your partner while holding on to a ceiling fan? Knock yourself out. I don't think homosexuality is a sin. Nor do I think that sex between two gay lovers constitutes a threat to public health.

 

Live and let live.

[ldybg51]

[font=century gothic][/font][color=olive][/color]

 

The question first of all was NOT do the laws of Leviticus apply to the 21st century. It was wether or not God said anything about it. And He did, in Leviticus. And another thing. I am so totally affronted and offended that you would call someone insane because they go by the Bible. I can't imagine why you would call more than half the world insane. Dyer, I am a christian and I try to live up to the standards of the bible. This in no way makes me insane. I have my own values and ethics and beliefs. I will not critisize anyone for thiers. Yes it is everyones business what they want to do in thier own bedroom. But that does not make it 'not a sin'. If you are using the term loosely, as in Geesh, Its not a sin to go to bed early.....then so be it. In MY belief (so that noone can say, well thats just what you believe) IF the Bible says that it is not right, then it is a sin. God did not say, Well folks Im giving you these laws and such so that you can follow them for now but you know what, later like in the 21st century, well, shoot just throw them out the window...do what you will...

 

And the things that do not stand in the old testament today are the things that the new testament "re-lawed" if you will. And one of the main things was having more than one wife. OT allowed it, NT does not. So, if you wanna pick apart the new testament and try to find where Jesus said hey, men can sleep with men after all and I deem it not an abomination, then let me know when you find it.

 

If you arent a christian, that is fine, I don't hate you. To each his free will, But never, ever call anyone insane because of his moral, religous beliefs. And believing in the bible old testament or new is what most christians are about.

 

I will not respond again in the hopes that noone else will say anything else negative about christianity or the like. I really want to like all people on here.

[ldybg51]

[font=century gothic][/font][color=green][/color]

[jenny]

you're really off the mark here. dyer is one of the most spiritual people on here. he has studied the bible extensively, and defended christianity from all manner of attacks, including some from me.

 

believing in the bible does not mean believing in all sections of it as literal (rather than figurative) truth.

 

as for your comment about homosexual love, let's tackle that tommorow.

[ldybg51]

[font=century gothic][/font][color=green][/color]

 

Okay, I found an article that I believe was one you were speaking of. It brought me off my soapbox. To each thier own. Im sorry to have preached. I will not dislike anyone for thier beliefs. (i may dislike you for your personality but never your beliefs) The previous post is what I believe. I am not trying to push this on anyone. I just do not want anyone calling me insane because I take ALL of the bible literally. Sorry guys.

 

Carry on.

 

NO Tommie, Dont spit on little sarah anymore. Go stand in The Corner.

[ldybg51]

as for your comment about homosexual love, let's tackle that tommorow.

 

What comment?

 

believing in the bible does not mean believing in all sections of it as literal (rather than figurative) truth.

 

But I guess because I choose to believe in all of it then I am insane.

 

you're really off the mark here. dyer is one of the most spiritual people on here. he has studied the bible extensively, and defended christianity from all manner of attacks, including some from me.

 

Just going by what he put into words. I was only offended by that and only made reference to the fact that I was offended by being called insane. Nothing offbase, just what i read is all. But I am glad to hear he has defended christianity. I guess thats why I put most christians go by the bible, because I know that not all believe the same way I do.

[jenny]

this one:

 

o, if you wanna pick apart the new testament and try to find where Jesus said hey, men can sleep with men after all and I deem it not an abomination, then let me know when you find it.

 

does this mean, in the absence of jesus's explicit blessing of homosexuality, that you consider it an abomination?

[ldybg51]

No, Gods own words.

 

Men lying with men is an abomination... Holy Bible, King James Version. Leviticus 18

[jenny]

Originally posted by ldybg51

But I guess because I choose to believe in all of it then I am insane.

 

nope, i don't think you're insane. i don't think i said that. i was simply underlining the point that not everyone, whether christian or jew, who believes in the bible believes it to be the literal truth.

[ldybg51]

i was simply underlining the point that not everyone, whether christian or jew, who believes in the bible believes it to be the literal truth.

 

I do understand this completely. That is why I didnt say that anyone had to. Hence the reason I was defending my self against dyer for implying that because i did believe in ot i was insane.

 

I only defended against that. I did not say that i would think anyone else insane for believing in only parts of it.

 

Dang it, youve made a liar out of me. I said only one post 4 or 5 posts ago

[jenny]

lol - you're right. i misspoke. you did make it clear that you would only hold yourself up to the literal standards of the bible, so i concede this point.

 

isn't this fun ?

[ldybg51]

Man oh man, I love this. See, this is why Im addicted. I can be wrong and RIght!

[amerikajin]

>>>No, Gods own words. <<<

 

The problem I have with some of "God's" arguments expressed in the Bible is....God didn't write the bible. People did.

 

And from that point, the debate gets further complicated.

[ldybg51]

This is true. Thats why we have what is called Faith. It is believed that the Lord was speaking to people and this is what they wrote. So no he didnt write it but if you are, i say IF strongly, going by what the bible says...then the lord spoke to these people, (and it is said he literally spoke to some of them, others it was dreams and visions) then you would say that He meant what they said....

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by ldybg51

And another thing. I am so totally affronted and offended that you would call someone insane because they go by the Bible.

 

I didn't call you insane. I'm a devout Roman Catholic (who are, contrary to the belief of some, Christians), and turn to the Bible for many spiritual questions. I merely stated a damn FACT, that Leviticus was NOT intended as a moral guidebook. Rather, it was a book pertaining to the LAWS and regulations of the tribe of Levi, or more specifically the priestly caste of the ancient Jews. It must be taken WITH the context into the Pauline examinations of the spirit of the law, per Jesus' demand of us.

 

So, if you wanna pick apart the new testament and try to find where Jesus said hey, men can sleep with men after all and I deem it not an abomination, then let me know when you find it.

 

Please note that Jesus also never said "don't hack people up into little bits and eat them". Additionally, God (nor the Bible) never called men sleeping with men an abomination--that's an ENGLISH translation of the Hebrew word yehtobah (phonetics) which means "ritually unclean"---it's like eating pork or shellfish.

 

I will not respond again in the hopes that noone else will say anything else negative about christianity or the like. I really want to like all people on here.

 

Please understand that I'm a Christian, and YOU jumped to the conclusion that I was calling Biblical study insane. Rather, I was saying that it's insane to apply the laws of Leviticus to a free nation in the 21st century. I have studied the bible, many of it, I have turned to the hebrew texts because they are more accurate in conveying the intended messages, while translations distort truth. I've also studied the Context of Leviticus, including its intent and purposes.

 

I spend hours each week in religious study. If you choose to blindly accept passages from an english, simplified translation of what humans wrote under God's influence, be my guest. Don't dare imply that I'm weak in my faith because I struggle to understand what it is I'm believing.

[ldybg51]

Anyone who would think that the laws of Leviticus apply to a soveirgn 21st century nation is quite insane.

 

Okay, I made it up and assumed.

 

And I NEVER implied you were weak in your faith hon, I said If you arent a christian that is fine, Just dont IMPLY that anyone is insane for thinking that the laws of leviticus apply to the 21st century.

 

Please understand that I'm a Christian, and YOU jumped to the conclusion that I was calling Biblical study insane.

 

Calling biblical study insane. Are you insane You just put words in my mouth. Show me and everyone else where I said you called biblical study insane. I dont even think I said anything that could even be remotely skewed to that effect. I said you called people who believe in ot insane. but i probably should have said implied again because i got that from the one statement and its surrounding statements.

 

I merely stated a damn FACT, that Leviticus was NOT intended as a moral guidebook

 

fact ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)

n.

Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

 

Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.

A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.

Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.

A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.

Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

 

Idiom:

in (point of) fact

In reality or in truth; actually.

 

That my friend was not a damn FACT. It was an opinion. Im ashamed at you Dyer for using that word loosely

 

 

 

Please note that Jesus also never said "don't hack people up into little bits and eat them". Additionally, God (nor the Bible) never called men sleeping with men an abomination--that's an ENGLISH translation of the Hebrew word yehtobah (phonetics) which means "ritually unclean"---it's like eating pork or shellfish.

 

I never said that he DIDNT say anything, I said that he did. And you being so intelligent and so accustomed to the human language, and self impied Bible scholar, then you should know that It means the same thing, God didnt like it, whoever he was talking about, if he says for the Levinites not to do it then In My Opinion he didnt want me or anyone else to do it either. If you are only going to pertain the bible to the people and places it was written about then you can never pertain the bible to us. But if you believe that God wanted the bible written for us so we could follow his will then you believe in his ideas, no matter who they were for at the time. I would never say, Laura, I wont like you if you hurt a cat, but Joe you go ahead I dont mind if you do it.

 

If you believe in the bible and i am not telling anyone to, then this is what you go by, Gods implications, not the exact phrasing he uses.

 

I have turned to the hebrew texts because they are more accurate in conveying the intended messages, while translations distort truth. I've also studied the Context of Leviticus, including its intent and purposes.

 

This is admirable, please share with me sometimes as I really am interested in the truths of the Bible.

 

 

 

I spend hours each week in religious study. If you choose to blindly accept passages from an english, simplified translation of what humans wrote under God's influence, be my guest

 

I am a simple christian and I know what I believe. I love God and want to do what my heart tells me is right.

 

If you want go back and reread my post. I in no way implied that anyone else had to believe what i believe or put anyone down for what they do or do not believe in. That it was MY beliefs I was stressing. Actually I made several reference to the effect that this was not the case. I also made several reference to the fact that I was only defending myself against being called insane. And although you didnt directly call me insane, it was implied.

 

im·ply ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pl)

tr.v. im·plied, im·ply·ing, im·plies

To involve by logical necessity; entail: Life implies growth and death.

To express or indicate indirectly: His tone implied disapproval. See Synonyms at suggest. See Usage Note at infer.

Obsolete. To entangle.

 

do not be offended by anything Dyer, reread my post and you will see that I never said anything negative about you.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by ldybg51

Just dont IMPLY that anyone is insane for thinking that the laws of leviticus apply to the 21st century.

The laws of Leviticus, as I stated before, were not intended to be moral guides for the common people. Because of their relevance to the aescetic priestly caste of the Ancient Jews, it is INSANE to use them as a basis for a free nation in today's world.

And you being so intelligent and so accustomed to the human language, and self impied Bible scholar, then you should know that It means the same thing, God didnt like it, whoever he was talking about, if he says for the Levinites not to do it then In My Opinion he didnt want me or anyone else to do it either.

It hardly means the same thing, puh-leaze. The Levites were aescetics, they practiced self-denial. They were NOT to engage in sexual activity unless it would produce children, that's the way they lived (read: historical fact, ancient jewish priests were not permitted to engage in sex unless its intention was procreative, this was even prior to the bible being written down). Now, within the confines of a marriage, we do NOT restrict sex to merely procreation, rather it's a way for the husband and wife to unite before God as well.

 

The reason gay sex is ritually unclean, yhetobah, is because it cannot produce children. Neither can lying with a pregnant woman, nor a woman who is menstrauting--also yhetobah--or as King James called it, an ABOMINATION. It happened, of course, but just like eating shellfish and pork ---OTHER ABOMINATIONS-- one needed to be cleansed of it before performing religiuos ceremonies--which is the reason it was placed in Leviticus, and not say, Sirach or the Mosaic law.

If you are only going to pertain the bible to the people and places it was written about then you can never pertain the bible to us.

This is a rude implication that I'm not applying the Bible to my own life, simply because I research the historical context of paticular scriptures.

If you believe in the bible and i am not telling anyone to, then this is what you go by, Gods implications, not the exact phrasing he uses.

All we have is the words that he gave us. You choose the English words, which is a man's attempt to simplify the various forms of the Hebrew text. How can you claim to be privy to God's implications? Why do you assert gay sex is more morally wrong than eating shellfish?

 

The truth is we as a society find gay sex kinda yucky, but some of us just love shellfish. So we decide that God truly meant homosexuality is an ABOMINATION unto him, while we ignore his laws on shellfish.

 

And although you didnt directly call me insane, it was implied.

I imply little, if I thought you were insane, I would have no trouble stating it. My comment about biblical insanity pertained DIRECTLY (with no other implications) to legislating laws that pertained to a priestly caste 5000 years ago.

do not be offended by anything Dyer

If you're truly concerned with not offending me, please stop pasting dictionary definitions of words into your posts, I'm quite capable of understanding things I write myself, and will turn to the dictionary on my own initiative if I don't understand the words of others.

[ldybg51]

Then understand that yes you certainly did state that people who will apply leviticus to the 21st century is insane. Guess What I DO. therefore I took this to mean you would call me insane.

 

This is a rude implication that I'm not applying the Bible to my own life, simply because I research the historical context of paticular scriptures.

 

Im about to cut and paste definitions. Pertain and apply are not at all the same. I truly did believe in your knowledge of the english language and therefore I was in no way implying that you are not applying the bible to your own life.

 

 

Im not claiming to be privy to Gods implications, I am claiming to have read the 'simple' little people version of the bible and it was freakin' IMPLIED not to do it.

 

I have not asserted Gay sex to be anything at all to do with shellfish. Frankly havent said a damn word about it being anymore wrong than any other sin. It just so happened to be part of a topic. Shellfish was not. I said that I try to live my life by what I believe the bible to be telling me and that if anyone else does not want to or does not believe in it then fine.

 

The only thing I said about you was You implied some people to be insane because miracle of miracles im not the only one who applies new and old testament and all its aspects to all the aspects of our lives. It just seems to me the easiest most simple way to do what God wants.

 

 

You and all your biblical knowledge have come here and got offended when I was not downing you for any of your ways studies, yet for some messed up reason you want to believe I was. The only thing I said In reference to you was SOME PEOPLE APPLY ALL THE BIBLE TO THIER LIVES, AND THE 21st CENTURY, OT / NT /LEVITICUS, ALL OF IT, THIS DOES NOT MAKE US INSANE. (This is not yelling just highlighting) That was my only message to you. Simply that. The rest of my message was a discourse on MY beliefs and I stated very plainly that it was MY beliefs and expected noone else to believe them.

 

And in the first place, the only reason I even said anything at all about it, was not because of Gays OR shellfish but because someone said that God didnt say anything about it in the bible. I was simply pointing out that It was definitely mention, as words of the Lord. You put words in my mouth again. Come to think of it you are assuming alot of things that were said that just simply were never said. You are letting your knowledge get you upset.

 

You have come here presuming alot and taking offense where there is no room to take any.

 

I simply defended myself, then stated my beliefs on a particular subject.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by ldybg51

Then understand that yes you certainly did state that people who will apply leviticus to the 21st century is insane.

NO! The personal applications are your own prerogative, I specifically clarified that I was talking about LEGISLATION, which is why I specified applying it to a FREE nation, that is, a nation that does NOT have to be "ritually clean to perform Ancient Jewish religious ceremonies" in order to be morally correct.

 

Does this change your previous post?

 

You're free to interpret the Bible how you wish. However, you specifically asked us to SHOW you where God didn't say it was abomination, and I pointed out the glaring discrepency. Leviticus was not written to instruct common people about moral issues, it just wasn't--not by man, and ergo, not by God.

[ldybg51]

NO! The personal applications are your own prerogative, I specifically clarified that I was talking about LEGISLATION, which is why I specified applying it to a FREE nation, that is, a nation that does NOT have to be "ritually clean to perform Ancient Jewish religious ceremonies" in order to be morally correct.

 

You must be tons smarter than me and maybe you are just trying to be, but you NEVER said any of this. At least not in a language I can understand. It was not prerogative. It was very clearly stated Dyer. It was right there in your post. Plain as day. I swear. I simply took you at face value. I took you for your words. If this is not what you intended then just simply say that. Stop trying to make excuses for something that you didnt word right. But you did say it Hon you really did.

 

You're free to interpret the Bible how you wish. However, you specifically asked us to SHOW you where God didn't say it was abomination, and I pointed out the glaring discrepency. Leviticus was not written to instruct common people about moral issues, it just wasn't--not by man, and ergo, not by God.

 

Glaring for you maybe, you..you..you Bible scholar you. You didnt show me where it wasnt said you showed me where it was said differently. What you did try to show me was that God did not intend for us to apply it to our lives. And that is okay if you want to do that. I have only been trying to make two points here.

 

1) your exact words

2) These are my beliefs. If you believe something else, fine but these are mine.

 

I was just sharing my beliefs and you have to try to tear them down with your biblical knowledge. Im sorry but you did not succeed. I still will follow ALL of the Bible to the best of my knowledge and will. I will still believe that having sex with the same sex is wrong, not enough to keep one out of heaven but a sin, the same as eating shellfish, and *clear throat* affairs outside of marriage. (im guilty of this, do i asked to be judged, no, do I judge, no, as i have stated over and over and over again)

 

You keep on as you are, you are doing good. I will keep on as I am. I am doing just fine too. I can feel Gods acceptance in my heart and see it in the many answers to my many prayers.

[amerikajin]

>>>This is true. Thats why we have what is called Faith.<<<

 

There's good faith, there's blind faith, and there's faith in between. What makes the men who wrote the Bible any more credible than, say, me or you? To have faith in what Jesus said, don't we also have to have faith in the people who wrote these accounts?

 

Don't get me wrong, ladybug. I'm not trying to dissuade you of your faith or virtues. I think spirituality and spiritual exercise are good things when in pursuit of the meaning of humanity and its existence; it departs from such good when it is used as a coersive tool to impose their will upon others, and far too often I find that to be true of organized religion.

 

I'm not a Christian, though I find many of Christ's teachings to be good moral principles upon which to build a healthy society. I've yet to read anything in the New Testament, though, that claims homosexuality is an abomination or a sin. I've only heard people continally misinterpret the literal meanings of the texts to make that assertion.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by ldybg51

It was very clearly stated Dyer. It was right there in your post. Plain as day. I swear. I simply took you at face value.

 

"Most of the OT isn't moral handbooks, but rather laws indicitave of the time. Anyone who would think that the laws of Leviticus apply to a soveirgn 21st century nation is quite insane."

 

I could see where this could cause some confusion. I first established that Leviticus was laws of the time. I then mentioned our nation being a free one, and a modern one. I then said the laws didn't apply. This is where the confusion is. I meant that they should not apply to our laws, which is why I later specified that I was talking about legislation, but you continued to pretend that I was calling you insane. Please, please, please, PLEASE, believe that if I thought you were insane, I would have no trouble saying it clear, I leave very little to the imagination.

 

What you did try to show me was that God did not intend for us to apply it to our lives.

No, not at all. The laws of Leviticus can be beautifully appllied to our lives, in terms of the sanctity of sex in general, between a man and his wife. What I was trying to say, primarily, is that these laws aren't moral handbooks, that's not why they were written. So someone needs to recognize the difference between what was intended for the common people, and what was intended to keep the priests from being sexually liberal. Secondly, I was trying to correct your assertion that God specifically condemned homosexuality as an abomination--this was the translation of King James, and that I was informing you, not in a rude way, only to share something that I've learned--that the original author of Leviticus used a word meaning "ritually unclean".

[ldybg51]

Thats what I meant by faith. We have to have Faith that this is what God intended. That he was the one speaking through these people.

 

And what I meant about ot v/s nt. IN MY OPINION (and a many others that I know of) for crying out loud is this:

 

If something is said to be wrong in the old testament and then the new testament does not 're-law' (for lack of a better term that I can think of) it to be okay, then it is still wrong.

 

I myself have gathered from reading my little ole english bible, that jewelry and such were wrong in the ot but okay in the new. Bigamy is the main one I have come across. okay in old, not okay in new. So because it (homosexuality) was not said to be 'okay now' in the nt then I myself still believe it to be wrong.

 

IMHO

 

Its just that I cannot, and this is not going by any single bible passage, but the bible as a whole, i just cannot see how God would intend for that to happen or how he can 'okay' it. It was not his original plan for man and woman. And god does not make mistakes. hes perfect. if thats how he planned it then thats how it should be. he doesnt have to change his mind on anything because all he does is perfect. Its humans who arent perfect. God did not want divorce either, but he gave his reasons why we could, because man was sinners and adulterers. If God does not like lying, cheating, disobeying parents, adultery, taking his name in vain, and all the other 'simple' things then how could he 'be okay' with homosexuality. I know that all sins are the same in Gods eyes and that actually seems to me to make my point a little stronger. Just the way i see it is all. I just know that God is perfect and just doesnt mess up. so why would he make Man and woman so perfectly fit for each other. (bodies anyway, we all know our minds clash at every twist and turn) IF he didnt want man and woman only together.

[dyermaker]

1. Please clarify the re-lawing of eating shellfish, because I enjoy it.

 

2. Please tell me if you think the laws of God should be used to base the laws of a free nation.

 

3. Please recognize that I was not calling you insane.

 

4. Please clarify what "taking God's name in vain" means to you.

[amerikajin]

>>>And god does not make mistakes. hes perfect. <<<

 

Is God "perfect" or merely superior to us? Define "perfect"? If God is perfect, why did he need to go back and revise His Law? Did he make a mistake? Did he get bored?

 

My own belief is that there is a Creator, but I have a hard time believing that the Creator is a man, and I have an even harder time believing that the Creator is perfect. We find imperfections all over the place, all of which are the work of God. No doubt, God is infinitely more powerful and more complex than our little minds can fathom, and that's what I'm getting at here. My honest belief is, God is so much more powerful than us, we're having one hell of a time relating to him/her, and I don't think we're a helluvalot closer to doing so now than we were 2,000 years ago.