h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

But if it's the word of God, and there's no rational change does that change the fact the fact that its an abomination in the eyes of God?

Not my place to answer that since I don't believe it's the Word of God etc. But the silent-women thing is also the Word of God, no, and that has become obsolete due to societal changes.

There is an argument for a rational change... Most early Christians were Jews who had, until then, lived under Jewish Law, which explicitly banned homosexuality (and forbade wearing two types of cloth, etc). If you've been brought up with that strict Law in mind, and have always considered homosexuality a sin, it's going to be difficult to change your mind. So why put up another obstacle to gaining converts, especially as you're a struggling new religion already being persecuted?

In the modern world, society at large has lost this particular prejudice, and so it could be argued that the Church no longer needs its protectionist stance. In fact, this stance could actually be a barrier between church and society.

The very fact that we can have this discussion about interpreting the Scripture proves my point about an element of doubt existing. By my sense of justice, homosexuals must be given the benefit of that doubt.

Is there still no doubt at all in your minds, Caleb & Josh?

I think Ross has raised this before, but it stand repeating. I don't have a copy of the Bible to hand, but Leveticus says something like:

It is an abomination for a man to lie down with another man as if with a woman.

FACT: This does not state that homosexuality is an abomination.

It does state that anal sex between men is an abomination. Meaningful relationships between men, and indeed other kinds of sex between men, are not mentioned. If it was truly meant as an exhortation not to be gay, the wording would be very different. And lesbians, of course, are free to do as they choose under Leveticus. The only way the passage could be read as a wholesale condemnation of homosexuality is if your are already prejudiced to read it that way.

As I think was mentioned elsewhere, the entire book reads as a handy survival manual for the desert. Without condoms, anal sex does carry health risks; above and beyond other kinds of sex. Whereas the male and female sexual organs are designed for that kind of use, the rectum isn't and you do actually run the risk of infection. When the Bible was written, condoms were unheard of. Now we have them. It is possible to engage in anal sex with no greater risk than many other forms of sex. Hence, (nodding to Two-Bit), society has moved on in that respect and the passage is no longer relevant.

Two Bit is correct. The reason that passages on women are taken into historical context is because the forced ignorance of women is history. Homosexuality is still the same as it was when Paul was alive.

By the way, Queex, your point is correct. However, if you will read my earlier posts, you will see that homosexuality is condemned throughout the Bible, not just in Leviticus. And men can certainly have meaningful relationships with one another. They simply must not have sex. King David, when mourning for his friend Johnathan says, "your love was better than that of a woman." God does not require men to love each other less. We are simply forbidden from sexual immorality.

Two Bit is correct. The reason that passages on women are taken into historical context is because the forced ignorance of women is history. Homosexuality is still the same as it was when Paul was alive.

By the way, Queex, your point:

"FACT: This does not state that homosexuality is an abomination. It does state that anal sex between men is an abomination."

is correct.

However, if you will read my earlier posts, you will see that homosexuality is condemned throughout the Bible, not just in Leviticus. And men can certainly have meaningful relationships with one another. They simply must not have sex. King David, when mourning for his friend Johnathan says, "your love was better than that of a woman." God does not require men to love each other less. We are simply forbidden from sexual immorality.

Two Bit is correct. The reason that passages on women are taken into historical context is because the forced ignorance of women is history. Homosexuality is still the same as it was when Paul was alive.

By the way, Queex, your point:

"FACT: This does not state that homosexuality is an abomination. It does state that anal sex between men is an abomination."

is correct.

However, if you will read my earlier posts, you will see that homosexuality is condemned throughout the Bible, not just in Leviticus. And men can certainly have meaningful relationships with one another. They simply must not have sex. King David, when mourning for his friend Johnathan says, "your love was better than that of a woman." God does not require men to love each other less. We are simply forbidden from sexual immorality.

Three identical posts? How did that happen?

Oh, my teeth (or lack of teeth) are better now. Ste, I wouldn't suggest taking your wife out in public when she's on that medicine.

<>

What reasoning does the bible give for being forbidden from sexual immorality? In a historical context, i suppose you could argue that it causes the spread of STDs but that's hardly relevant now. With today's sexual health education and availability of condoms etc. this is irrelevant. Why should homosexuals be forbidden from sexual relationships?

'Forced ignorance of women' was a society problem.

It still occurs in parts of the world; in itself it's not changed.
In our society it is unacceptable because have altered, not the issue itself.

Society has also altered so that homosexuality is no problem.

Dear Josh,

When I burn a sacrificial bull on the altar, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is that my neighbor claims the odour is not pleasing to him & is phoning the Environmental Health. Should I smite him?

The thing is, I don't know if the Lord's taste in singed bovines is history, like the forced ignorance of women, or if it's the same as it was in Moses' time, like homosexuality.

Yours etc...

Ah, repetition.
humour being the best weapon and all...

but also: how can Leviticus be the recipe for a perfect world if so much of it is no longer culturally relevent? as has been demonstrated.

Mandragora - cheers, just read the backlog and found the full Old Testament Agony Aunt thing. I saw it in a magazine and promptly lost it.

I lurk here from time to time as the show of patient argument in the face of provocation is v. impressive.

It also says in the bible that if a man has damaged balls, or even worse no balls, then he will not be let into heaven.

Theres no justification for that, its just plain mean, I think men with testicular cancer have enough to deal with, without spitefulness from the so called all-forgiving God.

The God and Goddess are probably real in one form or another, but a book is just a book.

"Homosexuality is still the same as it was when Paul was alive." - Yes, and women are still the same as well; they haven't suddenly become intelligent.

It's the ATTITUDE to women that has changed. Attitudes to homosexuality have also changed, and therefore shouldn't the biblical instructions be placed in their proper historical & cultural context? (ie ignored)

There's hardly any similarities between modern culture and the biblical cultures, so by your argument there should be hardly any relevant instructions from scripture. In fact you take many biblical stories literally, and it's no coincidence that the bits the Church doesn't like are the bits that are culturally irrelevant. It's cherrypicking, pure and simple. And bear in mind that the Bible is supposed to be the Inspired, Timeless Word of God.

It's not just Christians who do this, BTW, so don't think I'm picking on you. Go and read the instructions to the Jews about Jubilee. (Leviticus 25 is a good starting point) They're supposed to have a big party every 50 years, drink alcohol, cancel all debts, release all prisoners, return all land to its original owner and generally wipe the slate clean. When was the last time THAT happened?

No doubt, Kaz, you can provide a reference to go with that bizarre statement.

Dear cashlessness,

You don't need to sacrifice bulls any more because the Ultimate Sacrifice was hung on a cross a couple mellinia ago. You can replicate this 'pleasing odour' by worshipping Him. Let's not confine our study of the Bible to a couple isolated verses, shall we?

Sincerely,
Josh

"It's the ATTITUDE to women that has changed. Attitudes to homosexuality have also changed, and therefore shouldn't the biblical instructions be placed in their proper historical & cultural context? (ie ignored)"

The attitude is not the point. The actual intelligence level of women has changed. If we allowed women to go to school, yet they refused to be educated, what would have changed? Nothing. They would still need their husbands to clarify things. And we have not declared Paul's exhortations void when we put them in their historical context. The rule that women ought not ask their husbands questions in the middle of the sermon is still in effect. We do not put things in historical perspective so that we can say 'That doesn't matter; this one does; this one doesn't...' Everything in the Bible matters.

"Go and read the instructions to the Jews about Jubilee."

Sounds great, huh? We studied Jewish holidays in Sunday school a year or so ago. Jubilee sounds like the most fun of the bunch. Keep reading through the law of Moses and you'll see that the Isrealites sure had lots of parties and holidays. Are you suggesting that we should carry on this tradition? I'm all for it, but I don't know how our governments would feel about that. The reason Jubilee worked is that everyone participated. You'd have trouble getting Bill Gates's to consent, I think. There are a lot of little factors like that to work out, but I'm ready!

Deuteronomy 23:1
"No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD.

Alji

"The actual intelligence level of women has changed" - complete nonsense. Utter rubbish.

Women weren't taught because it was felt they were subordinate to their men. They were told to be silent in Church and to not "usurp authority over a man." These are the timeless commands of NEW Testament Scripture, as I've said before and listed quotes before. To set aside those commands is to recognise that the place of women in society is now different, and that sexism is discredited.

If that is accepted, it can then be argued that the place of homosexuals in society is also different, and that consequently the relevant Scriptural commands can also be set aside. If it's good for the goose, then it's good for the gander. You can't be inconsistent in the application of Scripture and then expect to have your views respected.

With regard to Jubilee, I was pointing out how Jews no longer obey a scriptual command because it would be inconvenient to do so. Just like the Church and Women. If it can be done for women, it can be done for homosexuals.

BTW, I'm off on holiday now, so I won't be around for a couple of weeks.

See ya.

Geoff

Josh,



How do you work this out? Do you really mean it? Are you now adding sexism to your list of isms/phobias?

You seem to confuse education with intelligence - intelligence is inate to each individual and doesnt change very much.

Education, experience and wisdom are things that come with age - something you will hopefully recognise as you get older.

Alji you are fantastic!!!!!!!!! I had completely forgotten where I had read that, but it stuck in my mind as a cruel and completely bizarre statement! Thank you so very much.

Eat that Josh