---
Gerry McDaniel (Moderator)
3:44 AM on February 07, 2012
Joshua Elms - The thing I like most about progressives is that their egos write checks their brains can't cash. In regards to Same sex sexual behavior you wrote, "Men who openly slept with men did so for religious reasons, as described in the much-quoted (out of context) Leviticus 18:22" You verified that in stating "sex with temple prostitutes was wrong for Jews to do. It was something the cults of Ishtar and Diana and other fertility goddesses and gods practised and as such, was forbidden to the Hebrew people as a way of separating them from the surrounding cultures. Sex with male temple prostitutes was seen as MORE wrong ..." You then wrote, "Leviticus 18 references specifically the prohibited practices that the Hebrew Covenant with God forbids as regards religious practices." The problem with this view is that the chapter is book ended with references to cultural not religious practices. It begins with a long statement on incest a cultural practice. There is in the whole chapter only one religious reference vs. 21. Nowhere does the phrase 'temple prostitute' appear. Now temple prostitution was widespread in the Ancient Middle East but it is more probable that temple sexual practices were simply following the general sexual practices of the culture than vice versa. You promote the temple prostitution narrative because it fits your ideology not the facts. The fact is that same sex attraction has been a part of the human experience for a long time and this same sex attraction was incorporated into many ancient religious rites. Lev 18 & 20 are general prohibitions on certain sexual practices; adult consensual incest, adultery, homosexual practices, and bestiality.
---
Leviticus 18:1-3 - The LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the LORD your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices."
See that, there? "Practices." Leviticus is ALL about the separation of the Hebrew people from the cultural practices - religious and otherwise - of the nations around them. Now, let's look at the quotes of mine that you used and actually use the FULL quote, not the parts you think make your point for you:
You quote me as saying "Men who openly slept with men did so for religious reasons, as described in the much-quoted (out of context) Leviticus 18:22" (Note the incomplete ending to my statement in your quote. But, hey. Let's look at the ENTIRE quote, both the preceding statement that sets up the context and then the REST OF THE SENTENCE that you so conveniently ignore in making your fallacious 'point', since we like honesty in debate, not cherry-picking:
"There is no Biblical equivalent of gay couples as we understand them today, because until recently, there was not enough science, research or cultural awareness to EXPLAIN such a thing, though it most certainly existed. Men who openly slept with men did so for religious reasons, as described in the much-quoted (out of context) Leviticus 18:22, or as a display of power and control over other men, as well as to humiliate and demean those over whom one was displaying such power, as described in the famous Sodom & Gomorrah scene - which Jesus mentioned and explicitly stated the sin that got those cities burned...and 'the gays' played no part in it - and throughout the history of antiquity."
Wow. JUST like the Bible, the meaning of what I said changes when you look at the entire picture rather than a snippet that you can take out of context!
Now, here's another example of your egregious 'debate' style of taking things utterly out of context:
"You verified that in stating 'sex with temple prostitutes was wrong for Jews to do. It was something the cults of Ishtar and Diana and other fertility goddesses and gods practiced and as such, was forbidden to the Hebrew people as a way of separating them from the surrounding cultures. Sex with male temple prostitutes was seen as MORE wrong ...'"
Again, you conveniently leave out the part of the statement that tosses your entire argument out the window. Let's see, what was the REST of that statement? Oh, right! "thanks to the prevailing cultural mores of the time which declared that being "a man" was the best thing you could be, and submitting to another man was a sign of weakness. Thus, willingly doing so was a sign of perversion, not - as we know it to be now - a normal, natural thing observable across nearly every classification of animal."
So, AGAIN you use half-truths in a pathetic attempt to make it seem as if I was making your point for you. You are right, I certainly DID say the words you say I did. Your problem is that I said OTHER words too, and THOSE words don't help you at all, so you ignore them. Making your entire argument intellectually dishonest and fallacious, and revealing your intent not to have open, honest debate, but to browbeat and lie your way to a win. Typical regressive behavior.
Let's go on to your next post, Gerry:
---
Gerry McDaniel (Moderator)
3:54 AM on February 07, 2012
Joshua Elms - Sooo (as I rub my eyes and utter a deep sigh) did same sex attraction exist in the Ancient world or did men have sex with men to simply fulfill a religious obligation that Hebrews were religiously forbidden to do?
As I stated in my previous post (You know, the one you deliberately misquote?), Leviticus 18 does not make any reference to homosexual relationships as we understand them today because those things were not acknowledged as a real, valid thing. Much like the way that germs were not acknowledged and everyone knew demons caused the flu. The Bible is not - and never should be - the basis of laws in this land because the Bible was written by men (not God) in a time when there was not nearly the amount of actual world knowledge that we have today.
See that, there? I answer you by acknowledging that yes, gay men existed in ancient times, because OF COURSE they did. They simply were not acknowledged or recognized for what they were thanks to the lack of education and understanding of the time - just like how diseases were blamed on demons because no one understood germs. AMAZING what reading comprehension can do for you, Gerry.
And finally, here we have the little cherry on your cake:
---
Gerry McDaniel (Moderator)
4:09 AM on February 07, 2012
Joshua Elms - The Bible is a "map" of the moral reality we live in. Most of the landmarks described on the map you think are accurate representations of the objective moral order. Things like; murder, stealing, lying, are wrong. Almost all the sexual practices that Bible describes as wrong you believe are objectively ...more
Joshua Elms - The Bible is a "map" of the moral reality we live in. Most of the landmarks described on the map you think are accurate representations of the objective moral order. Things like; murder, stealing, lying, are wrong. Almost all the sexual practices that Bible describes as wrong you believe are objectively wrong as well, incest, adultery, bestiality, etc. As a map it is more than sufficient and is accurate enough in it's descriptions of objective moral values that we can use those values as a firm foundation for law. Make no mistake it is the values themselves and not the descriptions of them that are the basis of Western law. In semantics there is an old saying, "The map is not the territory" You get stuck on the map and don't look deeper to the territory the map is describing. Typical intellectual shallowness so common among Liberals- SIGH (As i rub my eyes.)
---
The Bible is a map for YOUR moral reality. Not for anyone who doesn't acknowledge it as such. Incest is objectively wrong, NOT because some sky daddy told a nomad that it was. Bestiality is not objectively wrong because some sheepherder decided it was. BOTH are wrong, objectively, for medical, ethical, sociological and psychological reasons. Not ONE of which is tied in any way to your book of mythology. Homosexuality, which is more than simply the act, despite you and those like you DESPERATELY trying to frame it as such, is NOT objectively wrong by any non-religious standard. Study after study proves this, and the shifting majority realizing this also reflects that. Your Bible is less and less vital to most Americans, not because the message of it is less valid, but because people like you consistently misrepresent that message to validate your hates and bigotry, and people are getting tired of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment