╌>

torah | If a man lies with a male verse must be put in context - J.

  
Via:  CB  •  2 years ago  •  105 comments

By:   Rabbi Mychal Copeland (J.)

torah | If a man lies with a male verse must be put in context - J.
Leviticus 20:13 is continuously plucked out of Scriptures by both Jews and Christians who claim that these are the timeless words of God. Yet every religious tradition evolves over time.

Leave a comment to auto-join group Christian State of Mind

Christian State of Mind

Point of personal privilege: Special thanks to the Newstalker who added this article to my understanding. This is what we are here for to aid and advise one another when/where/and as often as we can do so!


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



By Rabbi Mychal Copeland | May 12, 2016

Kedoshim

Leviticus 19:1-20:27

Amos 9:7-15

rabbi20mychal20copeland.jpg?w=126&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C200px&ssl=1

If there were one verse I could remove from the Torah, it would be this: "If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death" (Levitcus 20:13).

These words are misused and overused by Jews and Christians alike. Just this year, nearly 200 anti-LGBT bills have been proposed around the country under the guise of religious freedom.

Whether or not this verse and its counterpart from last week's Torah reading (Lev. 18:22) are quoted directly, these shared biblical prohibitions are the basis for many attempts at curtailing freedom for lesbian, gay and bisexual people.

As much as I may wish that this verse would disappear from our canon, in Judaism we never remove a text or even ignore it. We struggle and argue with it. And these Levitical texts are still called upon as guides to sexual practice.

How can we make sense of this problematic verse through a contemporary lens and better understand the context in which it was formulated?

First and foremost, Leviticus 20:13 should be rejected as a teaching with any real-world application on the grounds that our contemporary sexual ethics are not congruent with those of the Torah.

The biblical and early rabbinic worldview did not envision women and men with personal autonomy over their sexual lives. Sex before marriage was off-limits. Rape was not considered a crime, and young women were married off to their rapists. Wasted seed (including masturbation) was a lost opportunity for procreation.

The understanding of same-sex acts and the formation of LGBT identities have changed dramatically since the origin of this prohibition; it is anachronistic to expect this ancient text to offer wisdom to the modern world about same-sex love and intimacy.

Placed in historical context, this text is thought to recall a polemic distinguishing Israelite behavior from surrounding nations and cultic practices, perhaps not forbidding same-sex intimacy but rather an ancient ritual akin to a spiritual orgy.

Viewed from a different angle, the text arguably tells us more about a concern in ancient Israel with overturning rigid gender roles than about same-sex attraction. In the historical context of male-male sex at that time, when one man assumed the role of a woman by taking on a perceived subjugated role as passive receiver, the existing gender hierarchy was upset, and the power structure was threatened. From this historical perspective, the verse isn't just homophobic; it is also misogynistic.

Myopically selecting only this text overlooks the overarching messages of love and human dignity in the Torah. Any individual prohibition should not violate our foundational concepts — that every person was created in the image of the Divine and that we were once strangers. Other teachings even within the Holiness Code in which these verses are embedded emphasize loving our neighbors as ourselves and not hating our brothers or sisters in our hearts.

Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, wrote, "Most people would tell you that religions are the keepers and preservers of unchanging, eternal truths. They would be wrong."

Leviticus 20:13 is continuously plucked out of Scriptures by both Jews and Christians who claim that these are the timeless words of God. Yet every religious tradition evolves over time. We no longer subscribe to laws about slavery or stoning rebellious children to death, yet we refuse to allow this one to evolve as well.

In Judaism we do not erase Torah verses, but we struggle. We need to argue with this text. We need to present a counter-teaching each and every time it arises in our annual cycle of readings, each time we hear these words chanted on Yom Kippur.

Something must be said about these verses so that no adult, child or teenager who is sitting in our pews hears these prohibitions without also hearing them placed in their proper historical context and challenged by the people around them.

Rabbi Mychal Copeland is the director of InterfaithFamily Bay Area.

9_mug_mychal_copeland-e1542043461224.jpg   Rabbi Mychal Copeland

Rabbi Mychal Copeland is spiritual leader at Congregation Sha'ar Zahav in San Francisco and author of "Struggling in Good Faith: LGBTQI Inclusion from 13 American Religious Perspectives."


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
CB
Professor Principal
1  seeder  CB    2 years ago
Something must be said about these verses so that no adult, child or teenager who is sitting in our pews hears these prohibitions without also hearing them placed in their proper historical context and challenged by the people around them.

We need to begin digging for proper historical context, in hopes of finding it!  :)

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2  seeder  CB    2 years ago
If there were one verse I could remove from the Torah, it would be this: "If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death" (Levitcus 20:13).

Leviticus 20:13 is for today?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  CB @2    2 years ago

Some other things to consider. Notice that there is no such law forbidding women from lesbian sex. That should give you pause. Also, all the laws of Leviticus are equal, so why the focus on 20:13?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.1  seeder  CB  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1    2 years ago

You are implying lesbianism was not an abhorrent thing in ancient Israel, yes? And since it was not against the law one can deduce it, lesbianism, 'happening'?  Hmmm.

Because men have real fear of what other men might do to them if given an inkling of an opening? Better to outlaw homosexuality and drive it 'out' of the kingdom. Or at the least, cause it to exist as "unmentionable"? Of course, I am opining here.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  CB @2.1.1    2 years ago

That is correct. Lesbianism is allowable and I am sure, as, with most things human, it happened. 

And it is OK to opine. It is a rather frustrating topic.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.3  seeder  CB  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.2    2 years ago

Very interesting. There is plenty, I mean, plenty of ongoing talks and actions taken regarding LGBTQ rights in Israel today.  It would seem the whole nation is not on one accord in its disapproval of homosexuality. There is actual normalization of homosexuality in Israel today!  I wish to understand the arguments on both sides. Stay tuned!

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
2.1.4  bccrane  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1    2 years ago

all the laws of Leviticus are equal, so why the focus on 20:13?

Because the consequences of 20:13 are unequal.

This article claims to be putting 20:13 into "context" forgetting about the most important context fact, demons (diseases) travelled quickly through male on male and then into the female population and was something they recognized had to be stopped and therefore God's law, there was no other cure, of eliminating the threat from demons, at the time, by death was the only option. 

As for lesbian sex, women bathed the men and other women and was known that woman on woman contact did not create and spread demons and this form of contact was natural and not punishable under 20:13 of God's law.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  bccrane @2.1.4    2 years ago

Doesn't matter what kind of homosexual sex man/man or woman/woman...neither of those are going to create babies and I'm pretty sure fertility and lots of babies were important to the early Hebrews

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Ender  replied to  bccrane @2.1.4    2 years ago

What demons were there during biblical times?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @2.1.6    2 years ago

Venereal diseases? Of course, I think syphilis came from the new world. AIDS wouldn't show its ugly head for another 2000 years. Anal warts?

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
2.1.8  bccrane  replied to  Ender @2.1.6    2 years ago

It wasn't known then that diseases were mainly from germs, bacteria, parasites, and viruses, so the common explanation was demons.  For instance the "not eating pork" thing was to avoid the demons which we now know as trichinosis.

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
2.1.9  bccrane  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.5    2 years ago

Not sure where you were going with this (unless you were equating babies with demons, then LOL), but yes having babies was a part of self defense, for all armies came through the womb.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.10  seeder  CB  replied to  bccrane @2.1.4    2 years ago

What does this mean? Diseases pass between people—susceptible people.  Perhaps, I am not considering something (important)?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.11  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.2    2 years ago
Lesbianism is allowable and I am sure It is a rather frustrating topic.

I don't think my degree of frustration is the same as yours on that topic.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.12  Trout Giggles  replied to  bccrane @2.1.9    2 years ago

Meaning that the many laws of the Torah were all about protecting the population. Dietary laws against  pork and shellfish were to guard against illness and death...think trichinosis and E coli infections. Marriage laws and sex laws were to get people to procreate and create people for the protection of the Hebrews and increase their numbers.

This isn't rocket science if one uses critical thinking

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3  Ender    2 years ago

I take no mind to any of it as parts of the bible itself were taken from other ancient writings.

7 Bible Stories and Texts With Roots in Ancient Literature

The remarkable similarity of several bible stories and texts to other, often older, narratives has been a controversy amongst scholars for generations.

The bible itself was mostly taken from the Jewish Torah, which makes me shake my head at people that claim to be Christians and read the bible religiously yet hate Jewish people...

The New Testament does not actually say homosexuality is a major sin. It throws it in the same category as with things like adultery.

I posted an article about what the New Testament actually says. Only three passages could be considered about homosexuality and one of them refers to 'male prostitutes' and not necessarily being gay.

So in my view the people that make a big deal out of being gay and use religion as a reason are full of hot air and making up their own narrative.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4  seeder  CB    2 years ago

Similar to the Sodom and Gomorrah violence, there was an incident involving  the tribe of Benjamin and a Levite traveler and his concubine . Here again, there is an undefined or underdeveloped mixture o f sexual tension leading to violence and in-hospitality ; the writer/translators label speak of the occurrence as "depravity." Ultimately it led to all out war by eleven tribes of Israel against Gibeah and the tribe of Benjamin. The worse fallout afterwards being the tribe of Benjamin is cursed severely with inability to receive wives from the other tribes!

Judges 19-20 .

All over men wanting to know another man?  Or, kill a visitor to the city? Or, having so disrespected a fellow Israelite and his concubine with ravishing of her body?

This is important, because similar to the infamous and defining act in Sodom, this too has impacted the surrounding world's view of homosexuality.

What didn't the Benjaminite tribe surrender their errand brothers to the other tribes for judgement?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
5  Drakkonis    2 years ago

I read Rabbi Copeland's article several times. While I understand what her views are, I can't help but feel a sort of horrified incomprehension as to why she holds them and still considers herself a Rabbi in light of those views. Or why she bothers with the Torah at all, as her views and approach are so antithetical to it. It makes me wonder what, exactly, she has faith in? I find it hard to believe that the answer would have something to do with either God or the Torah. In fact, the article comes across as an example of what we might read if an atheistic humanist decided to go undercover as a Rabbi for the purpose of weaning people off of faith in either God or the Torah.

I say this because there's not a trace of a hint she considers the Torah as God's word in her article, but plenty of evidence as the Torah simply being a collection of thoughts and ideas held by the culture of the time. Thoughts and ideas not relevant today. In other words, it seems that, for her, God's word doesn't shape society, society shapes God's word. 

First and foremost, Leviticus 20:13 should be rejected as a teaching with any real-world application on the grounds that our contemporary sexual ethics are not congruent with those of the Torah.

She goes on to say, (erroneously, in my opinion), that the verse has been misinterpreted but that isn't even relevant to this statement. Whether it is or isn't misinterpreted is trumped by her first and foremost reason for rejecting Leviticus 20:13. It isn't even whether it's God's word or not. It's that it is incongruent with "contemporary sexual ethics". First and foremost. I guess God doesn't get a vote. 

I wonder what she makes of the other sexual crimes of incest, bestiality and adultery? 

But then, perhaps because she has 'Rabbi' tacked onto the front of her name, she attempts to make a biblical argument. Sort of. Not really. 

So, how does she suggest we look at this issue, this verse, in order to get to truth? She suggests the following.

How can we make sense of this problematic verse through a contemporary lens and better understand the context in which it was formulated?

This suggestion makes no logical sense. How does one use a contemporary lens to understand an ancient context? In order to understand the context, one necessarily has to understand it in the context of that time. How did the people of that time understand Leviticus? Attempting to view it through a contemporary lens must only serve to distort the context. 

The understanding of same-sex acts and the formation of LGBT identities have changed dramatically since the origin of this prohibition; it is anachronistic to expect this ancient text to offer wisdom to the modern world about same-sex love and intimacy.

Again, 'contemporary sexual ethics' is the actual standard is the ground upon which she argues from and the contemporary lens in which she views it, not as a question of how God views it. More, if this verse is anachronistic in modern application, what about the other sexual prohibitions? Incest? The major reasoning against it in contemporary culture isn't religious, it is medical. Pedophilia? We're already seeing the language change on that one, too, in order to make it not so bad. We're beginning to see the term "minor attracted persons" rather than pedophile. 

Placed in historical context, this text is thought to recall a polemic distinguishing Israelite behavior from surrounding nations and cultic practices, perhaps not forbidding same-sex intimacy but rather an ancient ritual akin to a spiritual orgy.

Thought to? Perhaps? Thought by whom? And when? I've looked at this before. I can't find anything to suggest that this has been anything but a recent revisionist idea. 

Viewed from a different angle, the text arguably tells us more about a concern in ancient Israel with overturning rigid gender roles than about same-sex attraction. In the historical context of male-male sex at that time, when one man assumed the role of a woman by taking on a perceived subjugated role as passive receiver, the existing gender hierarchy was upset, and the power structure was threatened. From this historical perspective, the verse isn't just homophobic; it is also misogynistic.

Well, I'd agree with the 'arguably' part. This view is not a historical perspective. It is exactly what she describes it as. A description of historical events through a contemporary lens. It is simply revisionism. It also suggests that this, and by extension, the rest of the Torah, is actually just social mores and customs of the times rather than the word of God. This is evidenced by the highlighted part of the quote. She does not treat the subject as having been decided by God but, rather, by patriarchal men in order to preserve their power. She doesn't explain exactly how this would upset the power structure and Roman and Greek culture did not seem to perceive this to be particularly threatening to theirs. 

Myopically selecting only this text overlooks the overarching messages of love and human dignity in the Torah. Any individual prohibition should not violate our foundational concepts — that every person was created in the image of the Divine and that we were once strangers. Other teachings even within the Holiness Code in which these verses are embedded emphasize loving our neighbors as ourselves and not hating our brothers or sisters in our hearts.

And completely ignores why God detested the practices of the cultures He drove out before Israel. It ignores why He forbade Israel from marrying outside their culture so as not to be contaminated by their practices. It completely ignores who's actually in charge. And, most of all, it completely misses the relevance of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. 

Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, wrote, "Most people would tell you that religions are the keepers and preservers of unchanging, eternal truths. They would be wrong."

Okay? Um. And? Is this supposed to mean something? Carry some sort of weight? 

Leviticus 20:13 is continuously plucked out of Scriptures by both Jews and Christians who claim that these are the timeless words of God.

Exactly the opposite. We leave it in scripture. She's the one who literally said she wants to pluck it out. 

Yet every religious tradition evolves over time. We no longer subscribe to laws about slavery or stoning rebellious children to death, yet we refuse to allow this one to evolve as well.

We don't 'subscribe' to laws about slavery because, like children growing up, we eventually learned how God values and sees people. We do not or would not stone children to death because that law wasn't intended for anyone not a Jew living under Mosaic law. And, I think, even they didn't stone disobedient children to death. At least, there's not a recorded account of it in the Bible. But it wasn't the penalty that was the important part of that law in the first place. It was an indication of how important God took the issue of a child spurning their parents. And I am specifically using the word 'spurn.' No one, past or present, took the law to mean normal, average disobedience every child shows. 

Something must be said about these verses so that no adult, child or teenager who is sitting in our pews hears these prohibitions without also hearing them placed in their proper historical context and challenged by the people around them.

To me, she simply reminds me of the snake in the Garden. Did God really say....? Did He really mean....? All I see is a humanists revision of what the Bible is and means. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @5    2 years ago
I say this because there's not a trace of a hint she considers the Torah as God's word in her article, but plenty of evidence as the Torah simply being a collection of thoughts and ideas held by the culture of the time.

You are reading a common Jewish position (except of course for the fundamentalists).   As with Christianity there are plenty of interpretations and they are not consistent with each other.   And there are popular Jewish views that hold only select portions of the Torah are actually divine.  This wildly varied corpus of interpretations does not surprise me in the least;  it is exactly what I would expect.

Note also that the original Hebrew for Leviticus 20:13 stated that no man should have sex with another male.   Scholars have had a field day with the switch to 'male' instead of repeating 'man'.   'man'-'male' vs. 'man'-'man'  Interpretations abound ... who is actually correct ... are any correct?

I guess God doesn't get a vote. 

Deliver THE true interpretation so that we can see God's vote.    Ultimately this is what it all boils down to.    Human beings can debate religious works endlessly and clearly can devise very sophisticated interpretations to accomplish their goals.   But none of this matters because there is no method for determining which interpretation (of countless many) is correct (or if any are correct).

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.1  seeder  CB  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    2 years ago

Friend TiG, for the sake of argument, pun not intended, people who hold to a belief in God's existence have to thoroughly and 'exhaustively' search for a conclusion-if only of sorts-to pressing questions. It is one of the character 'traits' of the beast we have in holding to these books!  That is, believers are compelled to study and restudy these books which inform us of what it means to be a (true) believer.  Without the Bible (books), which at times are over-taught/over-wrought yes—we would have no way to express what is happening between our 'believing' selves! The books, therefore are foundational.

That said, it is the extremes/ists which make it difficult for others, such as atheists and even some believers to simply "breath" without the daily suppression and smothering of their words, acts, and policy-making 'prescriptions' for non-religious people!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  CB @5.1.1    2 years ago
... people who hold to a belief in God's existence have to thoroughly and 'exhaustively' search for a conclusion-if only of sorts-to pressing questions.

Certainly.   Searching is one thing.   Concluding truth with certainty is quite a different matter.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.3  seeder  CB  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.2    2 years ago

Certainty would cancel out faith! Inadvertently, you may have established why certainty has been left out: because certainty, by definition, would encompass all answers and end all questions!

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
5.1.4  GregTx  replied to  CB @5.1.3    2 years ago

Why would certainty cancel out faith? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  CB @5.1.3    2 years ago

But certainty is NOT left out.   Those who hold that their interpretation is truth (and all others are mistaken) illustrate this.   This is gnostic theism and it is quite common.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
5.1.6  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.5    2 years ago
This is gnostic theism and it is quite common.

Unless you are using your own interpretation of 'gnostic theism'. that is not what gnostic theism is. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @5.1.6    2 years ago

Very common terminology;  I did not invent it:

  • Gnostic theism:   certainty that one's (god) belief system is correct
  • Gnostic atheism:  certainty that no god exists
  • Agnostic theism:   belief system holding that a particular god exists but with recognition that it could be wrong
  • Agnostic atheism:  not convinced that any god exists but with recognition that a god might exist

CB just expressed agnostic theism in his comment.   I routinely express agnostic atheism in mine.

But agreeing on terms is not important.   What is important is understanding the meaning of the term as used.

Thus, if you prefer:

TiG@5.1.5But certainty is NOT left out.   Those who hold that their interpretation is truth (and all others are mistaken) illustrate this.   This is [insert term here] and it is quite common.
 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
5.1.8  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.7    2 years ago

I didn't mean that you invented it. I meant from your world view. From mine, the term has a different meaning. It would mean knowledge about God that did not come from scripture or the gospel. NT writers spend considerable time working against the earlier forms of it. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @5.1.8    2 years ago

As noted, I am encouraging us to not get into debate on a term.   The term was never the point.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.10  seeder  CB  replied to  GregTx @5.1.4    2 years ago

Hebrews 11:1  Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

and,

Certainty is 'the thing' seen.

(To see a thing is not to have faith in its existing; it is to 'hold' it in plain sight of everyone.)

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
5.1.11  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    2 years ago
As with Christianity there are plenty of interpretations and they are not consistent with each other.

I think you're missing my point, which isn't interpretation. It's that she doesn't seem to concern herself with what God might actually think about the subject. Rather, it seems to be how do we shape the Bible so that it better reflects the desires, values and mores of contemporary society. That is, because society (or a portion of it) doesn't view LGTBQ issues the way they did we need to discard that portion or reinterpret it until it does support those views. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @5.1.11    2 years ago
Rather, it seems to be how do we shape the Bible so that it better reflects the desires, values and mores of contemporary society.

Is that not interpretation?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1.13  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Drakkonis @5.1.11    2 years ago

Quick question. Do you eat pork?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.1.14  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.13    2 years ago

I bet he eats shrimp, too

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.15  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.14    2 years ago

Gets a haircut, wears certain fabrics...

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
5.1.16  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ender @5.1.15    2 years ago
"Gets a haircut, wears certain fabrics..."

Might even work on the Sabbath. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
5.1.17  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.13    2 years ago
"Quick question. Do you eat pork?"

I'm not so sure that can be a determining factor, Perrie.   Pork is the meat of choice here, and I've made and eaten cheeseburgers from ground pork - a DOUBLE sin.  But I come by it honestly.  My mother made sure her dishes were always Kosher so my grandparents could eat in our home, so she cooked our bacon on paper plates in the microwave oven.  LOL

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1.18  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.1.17    2 years ago
I'm not so sure that can be a determining factor, Perrie.

It is. I'll get to why once I get an answer if I get an answer.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
5.1.19  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.18    2 years ago

Looks to me that you won't.  I wonder why.....

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
5.1.20  Drakkonis  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.13    2 years ago

Does your question relate to the Rabbi's priorities concerning her "interpretation" of the OT? 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1.21  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Drakkonis @5.1.20    2 years ago

Yes, it does.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
5.1.22  Drakkonis  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.21    2 years ago

Yes. I eat pork.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
5.1.23  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Drakkonis @5.1.22    2 years ago

So, now I will explain.

There are 613 laws in the Torah. Each law is equal. So the laws on eating known as Kosher are as important as obeying the Sabbath, what to do with having your rude child stoned to death or obeying the Sabbath or the one about a man bedding a man. Yet, most Jews don't obey the Sabbath, as prescribed in the Torah, don't have their rude children stoned to death, and even eat unkosher food. The thing about being Jewish is that while these rules exist, two other factors weigh in. One is that god doesn't expect people to be perfect and two, that these laws are open to interpretation and debate. The discussions on the laws are in the Talmud and the Mishna. But make no mistake, being gay is no more or less a sin, than not keeping Kosher or not punishing a rude child by stoning. 

The fact that some Christians focus on male homosexuality, while totally disregarding the other laws makes no sense to Jews. The law regarding homosexuality, while there, has no more weight to it, than being Kosher. Furthermore, there are other laws in the Torah, that say no man may judge another, and no man may disavow another from the community for breaking the Torah's laws. Hence how this rabbi could have come to the conclusion she did.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
5.1.24  Drakkonis  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.23    2 years ago
So, now I will explain.

First, I respect you. I appreciate that you make this place available. I think you do a more than commendable job of remaining mostly neutral. This is not flattery. Not a trace of it, in fact. I say this because I want you to know that this reply is what I would say to you if we had this conversation face to face. That is, what I will reply isn't simply because I can hide behind anonymity. Everything I say is what I believe and not an attack on anyone or any people. Especially you. I'm only expressing what I believe or think. 

That said, at first, you said pretty much what I assumed you would say, based on your question. Yet thinking about it, I wonder if you meant something a bit deeper than "why do you cherry pick laws?" You speak of Jewish reaction to the laws as well. So that is what I will focus on, for the most part, although I will also speak of why Christians view the law differently than Jews. Also, if memory serves, I believe you also are Jewish? Not that it makes a difference to what I will say, but if you are, I'm not trying to be offensive. 

There are 613 laws in the Torah. Each law is equal.

You state this as a given and then proceed to explain your argument from there. I do not believe it is true. If all laws were equal, why do not all of them carry the death sentence for failure? If a man lies with another man, the sentence is death. But what happens if an animal a Jew is allowed to eat dies? 

Leviticus 11  39 “ ‘If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches its carcass will be unclean till evening.  40 Anyone who eats some of its carcass must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up the carcass must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening.

Again, if they are equal, why the different penalties? God clearly doesn't see them as all equal. 

Yet, most Jews don't obey the Sabbath, as prescribed in the Torah, don't have their rude children stoned to death, and even eat unkosher food.

While the study of Jews isn't a hobby of mine, meaning I'm not an expert, yes, that's the impression I have, generally.

The thing about being Jewish is that while these rules exist, two other factors weigh in. One is that god doesn't expect people to be perfect and two, that these laws are open to interpretation and debate.

I think that this is less than precise. So much so that it ends up being untrue. God does expect us to be perfect because He created us to be so, else why did He bother with the law in the first place?

Genisis 17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the  Lord  appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless,

Isaiah 64:6 We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

Leviticus 19:2 “Speak to all the congregation of the people of Israel and say to them, You shall be holy, for I the  Lord  your God am holy.

Why does He punish? The more accurate truth is that God does expect us to be perfect but knows we can't be on our own dime, so He stepped in to provide a way. 

From the Christian's point of view, the first step in that way was to, first, choose a people for Himself, which He did through Abraham, and then later, by giving his descendants the law. The reason God did so wasn't because Abraham was especially deserving but, rather, God wanted to save people. So, He chose a people to be His representatives among the nations. They were supposed to follow the law and, thereby, provide an example of a people who actually followed God and the result thereof. 

But the Jews were as human as anyone else and failed, just like any other people would have. Even so, God still expects perfection and is working toward that end. The difference between Jews and Christians is how that perfection is achieved. By Jews, I mean those at the ultra-orthodox end of the spectrum. In spite of thousands of years of evidence to the contrary, they still think they can achieve it themselves. Whereas the Christian thinks we cannot and can only have faith that the one person who did achieve perfection, Jesus, will make us like himself if we devote our lives to him. That is, it is God perfecting us, not ourselves by following rules, which is a self-focused endeavor. It is faith, not works, in other words, that God will make us something new.

and two, that these laws are open to interpretation and debate.

From what I have seen, yes, that seems to be what Jews think. I don't understand why. I don't know whether it's a stereotype or not, but it seems like there's a reason why Jews tend to go into law practices. Concerning homosexuality, it seems that, until relatively recently, Jews considered homosexuality to be a sin, as it related to males. Concerning females, it seemed to revolve around whether or not it interfered with their virginity concerning marriage to males. To put it briefly, it seems like much of what is considered Jewish "interpretation and debate" is actually trying to find ways around God's laws. One reference I read was a debate about whether two women rubbing their sex against each other violated their virginity! 

The discussions on the laws are in the Talmud and the Mishna. But make no mistake, being gay is no more or less a sin, than not keeping Kosher or not punishing a rude child by stoning. 

I don't agree, nor do I think the Bible does. 

The fact that some Christians focus on male homosexuality, while totally disregarding the other laws makes no sense to Jews.

Aside from the fact we don't "totally disregard the other laws" I don't find this surprising. Nor should you, if you understood Christianity. From our perspective, Jews taught the world that no one can follow the law and, thereby be justified by it, not even God's chosen. You seem to recognize this on some level, hence your statement that God doesn't expect us to be perfect, even though I believe it is wrong. 

Jesus was the ultimate Jew, as far as we are concerned. He fulfilled the law the way it was meant to be. Yet the Jews of his day killed him for it. That isn't an indictment of Jews. It wouldn't matter who it was. It would have turned out the same. Humans are humans. 

But, to me, it seems the biggest difference between Jews and Christians is that Jews seem to think the law is all, whereas Christians think Jesus is. From my perspective and, I believe, most Christians who have more than a simple, surface level understanding of the faith, this means God is the focus rather than the law. For the Christian, the subject of whether two women rubbing their sexes together would disqualify them as virgins would never occur to us because such a question completely misses God's intent for men and women. In fact, virginity isn't even relevant. What is relevant is the heart. Regardless of what he or she has done in the past, what is their heart now? 

So, no. we don't totally disregard the other laws. We completely understand that the homosexual, the adulterer, the disrepector of parents deserve death. So does every thought that doesn't align with God's will for our lives. It is unacceptable in His kingdom. I was going to say it is our recognition of such that saves us, but it isn't. We recognize it but it is really our faith in God's mercy, through Christ, that saves us. It is us, standing on the edge of a ten-mile-high cliff, knowing we are guilty and stepping off and asking God to save us in spite of it. Not through the law but His mercy through His Son who paid the penalty for our rebellion. 

Hence how this rabbi could have come to the conclusion she did.

Could have, but didn't. As I pointed out. Her "first and foremost" consideration was that the Bible didn't conform to "contemporary sexual ethics." I'm not twisting her words or her meaning. I would not because I believe in truth, so a lie would not serve me. Perrie, just look at what she said. Nothing at all that she said concerned what God actually thinks. She simply speaks of the subject from a purely human perspective. If you believe in truth as something more than something simply subjective, then reread what she said. Is what she said simply to validate a humanistic perspective or whatever you know of God? 

I have more to say, but this is long enough. I will await your reply.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.25  seeder  CB  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.23    2 years ago
no man may disavow another from the community for breaking the Torah's laws.

I find this most important in Judaism. People are not dismissed, thrown out, or attritioned out of the Jewish community. Why? Because Judaism respects that Jewish portion of the individual. Compare that to church doctrine of, "once saved-always saved" -but somehow there is the mystery of being "declared" unsaved and dismissed, thrown out, or attritioned. Churches even split into two over homosexuality, even while using the services and talents of homosexuals who are 'knowingly' closeted.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.26  seeder  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @5.1.24    2 years ago
God does expect us to be perfect because He created us to be so, else why did He bother with the law in the first place?

You know better than this. You have written so much about the whole, "righteousness is like a filthy rag,. . . " - Isaiah and "by the law no one is justified" - Paul, so if the law itself can not extend "perfect" to humans that keep it without blemish, you simply can not believe this! So why write it here and now? I take notice of it.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.27  seeder  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @5.1.24    2 years ago
Whereas the Christian thinks we cannot and can only have faith that the one person who did achieve perfection, Jesus, will make us like himself if we devote our lives to him. That is, it is God perfecting us, not ourselves by following rules, which is a self-focused endeavor. It is faith, not works, in other words, that God will make us something new.

So you admit humans can not perfect themselves! And I will go a step farther, faith can not perfect humanity while in the flesh either. The Christian expresses that s/he is 'hidden' in Jesus Christ and that done by God allowing it to be so. Thus, our righteousness or instances of lack thereof are not 'remembered' by God!

That is, God has no expectations of you or me apart from Jesus (according to Christian doctrine) that matters for individual 'good.' God only sees Jesus or not see Jesus in the Christian! Human perfection is moot.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.28  seeder  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @5.1.24    2 years ago
I would not because I believe in truth, so a lie would not serve me. Perrie, just look at what she said. Nothing at all that she said concerned what God actually thinks.

And yet, you would tell us that God hates divorce, but allows for this thing to occur and do so to the 'ng' degree since before Jesus' time because of the hardness of humanity's hearts. That is, a stubbornness to be rid of an offending spouse! Why? Because at some point: life has to be conformed to being 'livable.'

Thus, divorce is permitted. And once a concession is made, it opens up a way for additional concessions. . . .

No disrespect intended here, but Christians can't say that God does not change-when traditions are being made all along the way by humans to make failing marriages uncoupled! Additionally, it blows out your "perfection" theory of humanity too! That is, church people can be just as "screwy" as pagans when it comes to separation and divorce.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
5.1.29  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @5.1.27    2 years ago
So you admit humans can not perfect themselves!

You don't understand the point, apparently. What I said was directed at the idea that God doesn't expect us to be perfect. What I said was in relation to that. It was not whether we can be perfect on our own. Do you see the difference? 

That is, God has no expectations of you or me apart from Jesus (according to Christian doctrine) that matters for individual 'good.' God only sees Jesus or not see Jesus in the Christian! Human perfection is moot.

This is the sort of half-truth that skews your theology into something deceiving. It suggests that, once accepting Christ as personal savior, you're golden, because it is Jesus' life the Father sees rather than our imperfections. While this is true as stated, this isn't the whole picture because God does have expectations concerning the saved. 

Salvation isn't about not going to Hell. It isn't about not being held guilty for the bad things we do. It isn't about getting into heaven. Those things are the result of salvation but they are not salvation. 

To understand salvation, one has to understand what Jesus did and, more importantly, why. Jesus lived a perfect life and fulfilled the entirety of the law but he did not do so for the sake of fulfilling the law so he could be perfect before his Father. He did it for another reason that is so important it cannot possibly be overstated. A truth so stupendous that it is almost too hard to hold the full implications of it. In fact, I doubt anyone has ever understood it in totality. 

He did so because he loved his Father. 

Just reading that doesn't see like it's all that stupendous, does it? That's because we read it with our human understanding. Our human experiences. It's hard to understand what it really means. I will try to explain it, but words can't do it justice.

Before coming into the world, Jesus was with God, was equal with God and was God. Everything the Father is, Jesus also was. Holy in a way we can't really conceive of. In coming into the world, he took all that off as if it were a garment and hung it in his closet, so to speak, and condescended to be born a mere human being. 

But more than simply being born a human being, it is why that really is stupendous. Jesus, the God who is almighty, perfect and holy would be born as a human being for the purpose of intentionally taking on himself the penalty for every sin, every unworthy thought or attitude, every despicable act, hatred, unkindness and all else, even though he was innocent of them all. Completely and unambiguously innocent in thought and deed, he willingly went through life knowing he was his Father's sacrificial lamb. 

Jeffrey Dahmer claimed to have found Christ before he was murdered. Whether he was or not I cannot say. But, imagine that through some means, you were able to witness all that he did. Could see the terror of his victims and experience their horror at what was befalling them. Imagine being able to see into the sewer that was Dahmer's soul. If Dahmer did indeed accept Christ, then God put all of that horror on Jesus. He did this for everyone. Everyone who ever lived for every single sin ever committed throughout history. 

He did so because he loved his Father and his Father asked him to do so. 

Can you imagine that? Can you comprehend that? I can barely grasp the edges of the concept. God the Father, who is love incarnate, asks His innocent Son to take the sins of the world upon himself so that He can restore the relationship He desires with the ones who will cause so much suffering to His One and Only Son. All the terrible wrath of an infinite God rested on his Son for our sake. 

So, how does all this relate to your claim that "That is, God has no expectations of you or me apart from Jesus (according to Christian doctrine) that matters for individual 'good.' God only sees Jesus or not see Jesus in the Christian! Human perfection is moot."?

It is this. Salvation that God accepts is recognition on the part of the individual that they are wrong in just about every way one could apply the term. They are wrong in thought and heart and desire. They want the wrong things in life, have done the wrong things to pursue them and wrong in trying to justify it all. It is the realization of all of this and their helplessness in ever atoning for any of it. 

And the next part of the explanation of salvation is where you are wrong. The expectation that God has of those who want salvation is not simply to admit to being wrong but, more importantly, to be made into the image of Jesus. Salvation is the realization that Jesus' sacrificial death on our behalf is the redemptive part of salvation but the other half of salvation is the sanctification process that his life calls us to. The redemption portion happens in an instant. The sanctification takes a lifetime and is never fully realized. 

It is the willing participation in the sanctification process that God expects those who claim salvation. Without it, there's just the admission that we are wrong without the desire to be changed. It is the 'get out of jail free' card that so many accuse Christians of. That is the reason Jesus will tell some that he never knew them. They wanted the redemption without having to come to him for being made into his image. And that image is the complete and total denial of self for love of the Father and doing His will. 

This is why I oppose your claim to brotherhood. Everything you say implies that people are fine right where they are at and what they are doing because Jesus died for their sins. This isn't true. If God were fine with where they are at, Jesus wouldn't have needed to die. The only other option is that you mean that God sent Jesus so that we can continue the things that Jesus died for. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.30  seeder  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @5.1.29    2 years ago
So you admit humans can not perfect themselves!
What I said was directed at the idea that God doesn't expect us to be perfect. What I said was in relation to that. It was not whether we can be perfect on our own. Do you see the difference?

No need to ask me a question. Reread my quote in bold above and you should discern that I agree-humans are imperfect in their being, because flesh is designed to be imperfect and 'self-contained.'

Your attempt is to try to make a difference without a distinction. It is superfluous.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.31  seeder  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @5.1.29    2 years ago
While this is true as stated, this isn't the whole picture because God does have expectations concerning the saved. 

Is it true as stated or do you want to supply this 'whole picture' of expectations you are omitting in your rush to 'judgement'? What is the unpardonable sin, Drakk'? And. how many unpardonable "sin" is there?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.32  seeder  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @5.1.29    2 years ago
Everything you say implies that people are fine right where they are at and what they are doing because Jesus died for their sins. This isn't true. If God were fine with where they are at, Jesus wouldn't have needed to die. The only other option is that you mean that God sent Jesus so that we can continue the things that Jesus died for. 

Untrue. For two reasons plain and simple.

1 . I have never stated people are fine right where they are. As you can tell by your own celibate life; you are so because of some spiritual purpose , or clarity , or sanctification (setting apart) that it grants your person.

Why would I be celibate in a world that now offers me same sex relationships if I was accepting the world and its people as "fine as they are" without any consideration of a spiritual reflection, meaning, or application?

Do you know how shallow your reasoning about my 'condition' in Christ is?

Furthermore, what I have exhaustively explained to you and will continue to do so is this: Boys and girls, men and women who are in the 'world,' by definition, have not 'inked' any spiritual agreement to abide by faith in God/Jesus. And so what are you comparing the worldly people to when you vainly insist you don't take account of them in your comments, but you foolhardily and vainly attempt to condemn me as though I am telling t he churches to abandon its doctrines of faith ?

I have told you time and time again: As a fundamentalist you can keep your doctrines—in-house/in-church. But you can not give it to the nation, the world, outside of the Church. That should be sufficient for you to understand, for even Paul did not write to the world, but penned letters to the Churches.

Then, I continue to illustrate for you in multiple comments that the Church with its scores of denominations and schisms over 'points' of doctrine does not even fully agree on what it believes. Case in point: You are conservative, fundamentalist, Christian and well, I am Christian and nondenominational.

Yet, I will not bother to 'degroup' you from the body of Christ, because you are not my 'servant' to do so. I would be in manifest error to join you in such shallow 'digs' at the heart of another person!

2. You need to understand what it is you 'deliver' with your platitudes about God . Going forward I will start pointing them out in your comments. Either, "God can not fail" or :

John 10: 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 (d)My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are (e)one.” Source:

Now, I believe this and trust that God knows the 'end from the beginning' and is rather adept at knowing whom is worthy of 'the call' that is placed upon them. I don't need to 'cuddle' the Divine. I don't need to wring my hands and pound by head, I don't need to crawl around and live in self-doubt. If any man, woman, boy, or girl is destined to be spiritual reborn-God will hold that spiritual 'door' open for him/her without tiring—even at the time of death. And, well you can imagine what kind of fool it would take from our perspective as believers anyway to reject such an offer when death is the only option.

You can believe this and move on to those otherwise complaints you can rack up against believers who differ through the 40,000 versions of Christian 'outlets' you don't belong to; and, above all stop trying to tell people who is 'fit' to be a Christian. That is well above your believer status and spiritual pay-grade.

The reason you claim I am not in the "brotherhood" is because of your self-righteous and spiteful spirit that refuses to be corrected even when it is the only path left for you to head down.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
5.1.33  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @5.1.30    2 years ago
No need to ask me a question.

Your post indicates otherwise. In fact, the post I am currently responding to indicates you still don't understand. The subject is whether God expects something from us, not whether humans can be perfect by their own efforts. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.34  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @5.1.29    2 years ago
God the Father, who is love incarnate, asks His innocent Son to take the sins of the world upon himself so that He can restore the relationship He desires with the ones who will cause so much suffering to His One and Only Son. All the terrible wrath of an infinite God rested on his Son for our sake. 

Just have to comment on this.

God sends Jesus to 'take on' all the sins of humankind and die under torture so that God can restore the relationship He had with his creations.   That was God's best idea.   The all-knowing, all-seeing entity created flawed human beings knowing full well that in a few thousand years he would wipe them out almost to extinction and then after they repopulate He would sacrifice his Son hypostasis to enable Him to forgive His creations for the sins He knew they would commit.

It continues to fascinate me that this rings true to people.   Of course an omnipotent God could instantly forgive all sins and restore the relationship at His will.   He did not need a human sacrifice to enable the ability to forgive and restore.   Thus the Jesus hypostasis taking human form, etc. is pretty much all show.   One can argue that this show was necessary for God to effectively communicate what He was doing and that it simply seems absurd to us because we cannot understand the mind of God.   Sure, that speculation is possible and unfalsifiable so it remains.   But, as I noted, it is fascinating that this very awkward 'solution' rings true to people.   This is one of the key factors that illustrated, to me, that religions are man-made.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.35  seeder  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @5.1.33    2 years ago

In your mind only, apparently. Of course, God expects something from you, me, and everybody: Faith leading to good works (prepared before the beginning of the world).  It is subject matter you 'dropped' into discussion rather abruptly and should be cursory dealt with, but you continue in wanting to write a 'treatise' about it.

The topic is: "torah | If a man lies with a male verse must be put in context - J."

Whereby a Jewish Rabbi wonders why Leviticus 20:13 can not be contextualized for the new testament 'era' in a manner consistent with some other old testament verses which have been revised (modernly contextualized). For instance. Christians do not honor the Sabbath; the day of rest for believers in Jesus is Sunday owing to Helios, the Roman God of the Sun.

Do you understand?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.36  seeder  CB  replied to  CB @5.1.35    2 years ago

And would you share a clarifying point on what the Bible teaches about God's mind and "Sun day" as a worship day! Because Exodus 31:15-17:

15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

And yet, you shared on a recent article corresponding to this one, that Messianic Jews are no longer to follow after the laws of Moses or covenants of old. So it is "sun day" - the man-made day of worship for believers only now for everybody?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.37  seeder  CB  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.34    2 years ago

TiG, the concept is this: There is a 'court' room, a kingly court in Heaven. Much as you imagine royal court being held in movies about kings, thrones, lords, ministers of the realm, and peasantry. Well, the King issues decree that carry the force of law. When the king's order is violated - there is a (high) cost to be dealt out. Thus, in the case of 'ministering spirits' in the other realm of Heaven; when they see humanity's activities which are effectively in violation of God's directives—the spirit world asks: Can God not follow God's own statement of consequences for disobedience.

That is, "Has God not said that the soul that sins shall surely die?" Yes, God said this through Ezekiel (18:4).  And, yet God has made provisions to rescue 'some' through grace and acceptance of the Son.

Subsequently, God has not lied for indeed sin has been 'paid for in full.' In a manner prescribed by the King (God self).

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
5.1.38  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.34    2 years ago
Of course an omnipotent God could instantly forgive all sins and restore the relationship at His will.   He did not need a human sacrifice to enable the ability to forgive and restore.

I think it is things like this that perplexes me most about you. You claim to follow evidence where it leads and champion critical thinking, yet say things like this. 

Of course...

As if what you are about to say is beyond contestation and that anyone should be able to recognize it.

...an omnipotent God...

Meaning the only relevant factor in your consideration concerning this is simply power. It doesn't take into account whether such a thing is possible, logically, let alone whether such a thing would even be moral. 

...God could instantly forgive all sins and restore the relationship at His will.

Which would be completely without demonstratable meaning and demonstrates the shallowness with which you address the issue. It is simply a reflection of what you personally think an omnipotent being would do if it were you and was concerned with sin. It seems to completely escape you how meaningless such a thing would be and that you yourself don't even believe your own comment. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.39  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @5.1.38    2 years ago
As if what you are about to say is beyond contestation and that anyone should be able to recognize it.

Yes.

Meaning the only relevant factor in your consideration concerning this is simply power. It doesn't take into account whether such a thing is possible, logically, let alone whether such a thing would even be moral. 

I did not state that power is the only relevant factor.   I mentioned power to illustrate that there was nothing preventing God (as defined) from acting immediately and directly.    And that should be obvious.

Which would be completely without demonstratable meaning ...

You write that as if you had not read this from me:

TiG@5.1.34Thus the Jesus hypostasis taking human form, etc. is pretty much all show.   One can argue that this show was necessary for God to effectively communicate what He was doing and that it simply seems absurd to us because we cannot understand the mind of God.   Sure, that speculation is possible and unfalsifiable so it remains.

And I will write again that it is fascinating that this very awkward 'solution' rings true to people.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.40  TᵢG  replied to  CB @5.1.37    2 years ago
But, as I noted, it is fascinating that this very awkward 'solution' rings true to people.   This is one of the key factors that illustrated, to me, that religions are man-made.

Following the analogy, does a King sacrifice his heir so that he can demonstrate to all his subjects that he forgives their misdeeds?    

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
5.1.41  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.39    2 years ago
You write that as if you had not read this from me:

You write this as if it explains or adds validity to your claim. If so, I'm at a loss as to how it achieves this since no logical explanation for the assumption is given. You simply claim it is true. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.42  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @5.1.41    2 years ago

I wrote it because I stated in my comment what you subsequently explained to me.    I gave your answer, in effect, before you gave it.

And what ' claim ' are you referring to?    Are you denying that an omnipotent God has the ability to instantly forgive?   Or that an omnipotent God has no alternative way to communicate same other than human sacrifice of an hypostasis?

This story reads much like the lore that preceded it.   For example, the creation of the universe per the Greeks:

In the beginning, there was only Chaos, the gaping emptiness. Then, either all by themselves or out of the formless void, sprang forth three more primordial deities: Gaea (Earth), Tartarus (the Underworld), and Eros (Love). Once Love was there, Gaea and Chaos – two female deities – were able to procreate and shape everything known and unknown in the universe.

Chaos gave birth to Erebus (Darkness) and Nyx (Night). Erebus slept with his sister Nyx, and out of this union Aether, the bright upper air, and Hemera, the Day, emerged. Afterward, feared by everyone but her brother, Night fashioned a family of haunting forces all by herself. Among others, her children included the hateful Moros (Fate), the black Ker (Doom), Thanatos (Death), Hypnos (Sleep), Oneiroi (Dreams), Geras (Old Age), Oizus (Pain), Nemesis (Revenge), Eris (Strife), Apate (Deceit), Philotes (Sexual Pleasure), Momos (Blame), and the Hesperides (the Daughters of the Evening).

...

Source:

I am sure you consider it fascinating that so many ancient people believed stories like the above.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.43  seeder  CB  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.40    2 years ago

Continuing in the analogy: This king is unique and divine! Thus,

Matthew 22:
23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24  “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. 25  Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26  The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27  Finally, the woman died.
2 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven , since all of them were married to her ?

29  Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30  At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31  But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you,

32  ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? [GOD] is not the God of the dead but of the living .

And this:

John 6, 63 The Spirit gives life ; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 

A sacrifice of this heir is not death but a return to his former state in the presence of LIFE itself. It can be deduced that nothing God declares or permits in God's presence is ever dead!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.44  TᵢG  replied to  CB @5.1.43    2 years ago
This king is unique and divine!

The story reads, to me, like the lore that preceded it; a bit tamer but still fantastic.   See @5.1.42

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
5.1.45  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.42    2 years ago
And what ' claim ' are you referring to?

The one addressed.

Of course an omnipotent God could instantly forgive all sins and restore the relationship at His will.   He did not need a human sacrifice to enable the ability to forgive and restore.

Are you denying that an omnipotent God has the ability to instantly forgive?

If you mean the God depicted in the Bible, then yes. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.46  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @5.1.45    2 years ago

Why would you think that an omnipotent entity does not have the ability to instantly forgive?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.47  seeder  CB  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.44    2 years ago

I am sorry for the 'lore,' but that is not what we are doing here. BTW, some of those tellings could be 'of Satan' preceding God in establishment of a 'thing,' or Satan's Children with their 'books, or of God doing outreach to other nations and tribes. I have no way of knowing (or even caring). For instance, as I was sharing with Drakk' we, humans, use what we have for varying purposes. The Romans views Sunday as Sun-day (a day unto the Sun God) and the Church viewed it as First-day of the week and the day upon which Jesus rose.

So there is much interlocking, intersection, and parallel to what happens in this world. Being ancient, it is difficult sometimes to piece together the past even for the trained experts. Thus, I don't worry overlong in matters well out of my grasp of understanding or proof!

Remember this! I make a point of saying that the Bible, specifically the New Testament is the book used by Christians. We 'draw' spiritual insights from it. However, even from within the pages of the Bible are numerous mentions of books that did not make the bible 'cut.' So it is not that Christians are saying they know it all from what is shared. We simply say our based is founded on this set of collected and bound together books - this Bible!

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
5.1.48  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.46    2 years ago
Why would you think that an omnipotent entity does not have the ability to instantly forgive?

Because there is more than one aspect of God to consider. Omnipotence is simply one of them. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.49  TᵢG  replied to  CB @5.1.47    2 years ago
So it is not that Christians are saying they know it all from what is shared.

Some seem to.   Would you find it curious if a human being held that the Bible is perfect and that any perceived error, etc. that one would naturally expect given its history of authorship can be explained with proper context and that this explanation is the only one that is true?

From my vantage point, I see many people who are totally convinced that their interpretation of the Bible is the singular truth.   I have yet to come across an interpretation that is clean, consistent and devoid of apologetic mechanisms designed to smooth/cover the 'holes' of imperfection.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.50  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @5.1.48    2 years ago
Because there is more than one aspect of God to consider. Omnipotence is simply one of them. 

That does not answer my question.   The fact that omnipotence is one of many factors does not in any way explain why an omnipotent entity is unable to instantly forgive.

It seems you are trying to again argue what I already stated upfront ... that God ostensibly chose to use a grand presentation with human sacrifice, etc. because He held that this was the best way to communicate.

As noted, that is possible albeit not very satisfying (in terms of a convincing story).    But the fact still remains that an omnipotent entity does indeed (by definition) have the ability to instantly forgive.  

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
5.1.51  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.50    2 years ago
That does not answer my question.

Actually, it does. You just deny it. You are taking one term, omnipotence, and making an argument based on that alone. Such an argument doesn't take into account who God is as a person. In other words, it is the same old argument made by everyone who thinks omnipotence means the ability to do whatever one can imagine, such as making a rock too heavy for God to lift. 

The fact that omnipotence if one of many factors does not in any way explain why an omnipotent entity is unable to instantly forgive.

If I understand what you said here, given what I believe to be the absence of punctuation, then, no. It doesn't explain it. This would be because we haven't discussed those other factors. Something I see no point in doing as long as you have this idea that omnipotence means that God can do anything you can imagine. That is, after all, what your argument rests on. 

It seems you are trying to again argue what I already stated upfront ... that God ostensibly chose to use a grand presentation with human sacrifice, etc. because He held that this was the best way to communicate.

I don't know why you would think so, since I have not said anything that has any relation to communication. 

But the fact still remains that an omnipotent entity does indeed (by definition) have the ability to instantly forgive.  

Then your definition of omnipotence is simply the ability to do whatever can be thought of, whether it is logically possible or not. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.52  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @5.1.51    2 years ago
In other words, it is the same old argument made by everyone who thinks omnipotence means the ability to do whatever one can imagine, such as making a rock too heavy for God to lift. 

Not even remotely close.   There is nothing logically impossible about God choosing to instantly forgive sins.

Something I see no point in doing as long as you have this idea that omnipotence means that God can do anything you can imagine. That is, after all, what your argument rests on. 

Given you have now thrice claimed that I am redefining omnipotence to include doing the impossible while you equate 'instantly forgiving sins' as 'impossible', my conclusion is that you have no answer.   Best to just go with that instead of pretending I made an illogical demand (which I clearly did not do).

I don't know why you would think so, since I have not said anything that has any relation to communication. 

Good grief Drakk:

Drakk@5.1.38Which would be completely without demonstratable meaning and demonstrates the shallowness with which you address the issue. 

You noted, as I had in my comment preceding yours, that God simply forgiving sins would be an act without the 'show' (demonstrable meaning).   In other words, your argument for why God engaged in this grand display of an hypostasis taking human form, living as a human, acting perfectly, loving the Father perfectly, and then finally suffering and dying for everyone's sins, etc. was done to ensure people would get His meaning.    This is normally considered part of communication.

Normally, the way this goes, you will now tell me that I have misunderstood your meaning while citing specific words on which you have imposed special, 'esoteric' meaning and then neglect to provide your 'intended' meaning.

Then your definition of omnipotence is simply the ability to do whatever can be thought of, whether it is logically possible or not. 

Omnipotence does, by definition, include the ability to instantly forgive sins.   You can instantly forgive someone; surely God could do so as well if He chose to.    That is not a logically impossible act such as 'making a rock so big He cannot lift it'.    Why continue, yet again, with this silly response?   

I know what is coming; this goes back to my 'shallow' hermeneutics — I just am not sufficiently skilled to understand the 'true' meaning and (of course) you will not be able to explain the 'true' meaning because, after all, there is no way I could understand it.   Not a great argument:  'the truth is there but you are not sophisticated enough to see it'.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.53  seeder  CB  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.49    2 years ago

In answer to your question: Yes. I would find that curious. And, yes there can be more than one 'answer' to the question. That said, the Bible writers did have one way of looking at the world in mind (one truth). The problem, I see anyway, is there is a lack of 'disciplined' writing done and no follow-ups to 'flesh' out possible confusing, incomplete statements. To be fair, the books of the Bible are standalone books which have been collected and "kneaded" into one. And from that follows placement and that largely determines how believers SHAPE their understanding of the Bible as a whole.

Apologetics is a needful peripheral exercise and form of deep study of the Bible to get/give a fuller orb of what biblical texts means, how it came to be, who the 'players' are and who they were thought to be apart from the biblical texts, places, biblical logic and reasoning applied for understanding, educating untrained readers about their 'material,'  better informed witnessing, and most important apologetics aids in  blunting, pushing-back against, or ending some poorly reasoned 'critiques' from lesser informed critics. Thus, apologetics is a noble profession, in my opinion.

As far as people being totally convinced of their interpretations, that is allowed, because of the methods involved in retrieving, confirming, and 'stitching' this collection of books together. Remember this: A majority of the writers did not design their writings to be 'umbrella' writings. The writers, appear to me anyway, to be writing shall we say, "as the spirit moved them" and for the periods, times, and visions 'opened' to them.

It took thousands of years for councils to gather together, affirm, and bind into books - the Bible we have today. With that understanding, no one writer, not even Paul (who thought the 'time was short' for the church age in his day), understood any of the modern world. When you consider this reasoning, it is easy to see why we, today, are having a heck of a time processing and reprocessing new revelation and inspiration from a very old collection of unique books!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.54  TᵢG  replied to  CB @5.1.53    2 years ago
The problem, I see anyway, is there is a lack of 'disciplined' writing done and no follow-ups to 'flesh' out possible confusing, incomplete statements.

And of course I agree that because of the way the Bible was constructed, it is natural that it would be errant.   Although you stopped at incomplete, I think your point natural extends into contradictions, logical mistakes, critical omissions and errors.

Apologetics is a needful peripheral exercise and form of deep study of the Bible to get/give a fuller orb of what biblical texts means, ...

Hermeneutics is an attempt to secure true meaning.   Apologetics (related but different) is an attempt to explain (and defend) the Bible in a manner that makes consistent sense (in at least one dimension).

Thus, apologetics is a noble profession, in my opinion.

I am in favor of biblical scholarship in general.   The Bible (as well as the Qur'an) are the most popular religious books today so it makes sense for us to understand them as best we can.

It took thousands of years for councils to gather together, affirm, and bind into books - the Bible we have today. 

This alone should cause one to question the divinity of the Bible.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.55  seeder  CB  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.54    2 years ago

Because of how we acquired our 'collection' of bible books, because we tend to think of the bible as accumulated wisdom ('plied through' by added generations) in which new generations comes 'onboard' and finds the books well-established, the books have powerful influence and are proven to have changed and literally saved many lives!

Is that "divine" - I would say so!

That said, Christian maturity, means I, we, should not ignore truth of how we came about these books we consider sacred. Many hands and minds were involved-obviously. We should sincerely state "the obvious" incomplete concepts, changes and omissions, and finally, after all is said and done - state that our bible, life-changing and full of hope, love, and charity - Is what it is. I liken the last 'part' to something God is said to have told Moses in answer to the question:

Exodus 3:13 And Moses said unto God, “Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel and shall say unto them, ‘The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you,’ and they shall say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say unto them? 14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am.” And He said, “Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.’”
 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
5.1.56  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.52    2 years ago
There is nothing logically impossible about God choosing to instantly forgive sins.

The problem, TiG, is that you make this statement based solely on the insistence that it is true because such would be omnipotent by definition.

Omnipotence does, by definition, include the ability to instantly forgive sins.   You can instantly forgive someone, surely God can do so as well.

Except that no definition of omnipotence includes a description of any specific act of any kind let alone instantly forgiving. Using ourselves as examples of being able to instantly forgive doesn't work in the same way saying we create things, just like God does, doesn't work because creation means different things when applied to each. We, for instance, don't create ex nihilo. 

Good grief Drakk:

You missed the point. The idea that Christ's sacrifice was not necessary but, rather, a means of communication on God's part is your idea, not mine. Nothing I've said relates to such a concept. Especially as simply a means to communicate something. In fact, I'm pretty much ignoring that part of your argument because you haven't even given evidence that God could just instantly forgive, an assumption necessary for your 'communication' idea. 

Given you have now thrice claimed that I am redefining omnipotence to include doing the impossible while you equate 'instantly forgiving sins' as 'impossible', my conclusion is that you have no answer.

You are redefining omnipotence. It would be easy enough to prove me wrong. Provide a link to some credible source, like a dictionary, that states God instantly forgiving sins is omnipotence. You won't, of course, because you already know it is not part of the definition of omnipotence. 

The reason you say that omnipotence does, by definition, include the ability to instantly forgive sins is that you are treating the subject shallowly. You are simply speaking in terms of a concept, without regard to any other relevant factors. Because you only consider the omnipotence aspect of God you don't see a reason He cannot instantly forgive or understand why such a thing would be impossible. Because you do not, your thinking is shallow. There is more to God than omnipotence. You conclude that I have no answer in spite of my having already told you this before. 

I know what is coming; this goes back to my 'shallow' hermeneutics — I just am not sufficiently skilled to understand the 'true' meaning and (of course) you will not be able to explain the 'true' meaning because, after all, there is no way I could understand it.

It isn't a matter of skill. It's simply that you aren't questioning your own position, even when I tell you it's wrong and why. Instead, you just rest on your idea of what you think omnipotence would mean concerning forgiveness and look no farther. This is shallow, since it would be ridiculously easy to do the research as to why God can't just simply forgive everyone. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.57  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @5.1.56    2 years ago
The problem, TiG, is that you make this statement based solely on the insistence that it is true because such would be omnipotent by definition.

There is absolutely nothing incorrect about an omnipotent entity having the ability to instantly forgive.   

Except that no definition of omnipotence includes a description of any specific act of any kind let alone instantly forgiving. 

You need the definition of omnipotence to enumerate all possible acts??    

We, for instance, don't create ex nihilo. 

So what?   Irrelevant.   You are denying that an omnipotent entity has the ability to instantly forgive.   Truly amazing.

You missed the point. 

Yeah, a predictable (and predicted) response.

It would be easy enough to prove me wrong. Provide a link to some credible source, like a dictionary, that states God instantly forgiving sins is omnipotence.

Just amazing that you choose to write such nonsense to me.    I did not claim that the act of God instantly forgiving sins = omnipotence.   I claimed that a sentient entity (God) that is omnipotent is 'all-powerful' and thus certainly has the ability to instantly forgive sins.

Just stop with this nonsense.   

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
5.1.58  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.57    2 years ago
There is absolutely nothing incorrect about an omnipotent entity having the ability to instantly forgive.

Sure, as long as we take the meaning of omnipotence to mean the ability to do whatever we can think of, whether logically possible or not. So far, that's all the reasoning you have given for your position. 

You need the definition of omnipotence to enumerate all possible acts??

No. I need it to be no more or less than what it is. 

So what?   Irrelevant.

Then why did you bring it up as a point in your argument? 

I did not claim that the act of God instantly forgiving sins = omnipotence.

Omnipotence does, by definition, include the ability to instantly forgive sins.

And, finally...

Just stop with this nonsense.

I will take your advice. There's no point in continuing this, since by now I'm sure you've done at least a cursory search as to why God can't just instantly forgive sins and yet, you continue to argue that He can. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.59  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @5.1.58    2 years ago
Sure, as long as we take the meaning of omnipotence to mean the ability to do whatever we can think of, whether logically possible or not.

You keep (merely) insisting that instantly forgiving sins is impossible.   That is irrational.

No point attempting to discuss this with you given you are being absurdly evasive.   

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
5.1.60  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.59    2 years ago
You keep (merely) insisting that instantly forgiving sins is impossible.   That is irrational.

I've given you what you need to know to know that your position is wrong. 

Because there is more than one aspect of God to consider. Omnipotence is simply one of them. 5.1.48

Don't blame me because you refuse to find out or consider what those things are. 

No point attempting to discuss this with you since clearly you are just in evasion-mode.

Hmm. Curious, since I'm sure that you have, by now, looked up why God can't simply instantly forgive sins or, if you haven't, are intentionally not finding the answer for yourself. Seems like the evasion is yours. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.61  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @5.1.60    2 years ago
Curious, since I'm sure that you have, by now, looked up why God can't simply instantly forgive sins

It is not logically impossible for an entity to forgive.   Mere human beings can do so.   An omnipotent entity certainly could forgive sins and do so instantly.

To merely insist that it is beyond that capability of an omnipotent entity to instantly forgive sins —if that is what the entity wishes to do— is ridiculous. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.62  seeder  CB  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.57    2 years ago
 I claimed that a sentient entity (God) that is omnipotent is 'all-powerful' and thus certainly has the ability to instantly forgive sins.

Yes, an all powerful God can forgive sins; as Judge, God can rule on the state of mankind and this planet as a whole. However, what would be the 'fall-out' to the reputation of God (in heavenly places)? The bible speaks of God as being in-charge of all—including a realm of spirits. That being the case, the bible (Revelation 12) describes a war in heaven of some kind which God is involved in. . . how can this be?! We don't know, yet it is in the Revelation 'book' and so it becomes a factor in how we view God/spirits/heaven.

Subsequently, we can say that there is a certain kind of 'politics' which occurs in the spirit realm, though I, we, have no true way of measuring how deep, wide, or pervasive it is!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.63  seeder  CB  replied to  CB @5.1.35    2 years ago

Now that you sharing with TiG has ended, can you return to this one? Or, does your resolute silence means you don't care to respond to difficult questions about your 'shakeable' faith/works 'connection'? I do realize that I am reaching with my questions, because you have a knack for making sure questioning does not get to close to your 'safe zone' of understanding and acceptance. What else can I do? Nothing it seems but keep 'reaching out'!

Answer the question: Why do Christians such as yourself demand a 'return' or hold to Leviticus 20:13, but have never honored the sabbath day once in their entire recorded life history(ies)?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.64  TᵢG  replied to  CB @5.1.62    2 years ago

My point was that the story is so anthropocentric (so tied to the views of ancient men ... e.g. blood sacrifices) that it argues ancient fiction.   A common apologetic explanation for this anthropocentric saga is that God expresses his ideas and acts in a manner that best communicates with ancient people.   How convenient ... the Bible reads as though written strictly by ancient men because God targeted that specific audience (except in cases where a direct read is 'wrong' and requires sophisticated exegesis to understand God's meaning).  So, following this, God chose human sacrifice as the clearest way to make His point.   And, He equated Jesus as His son to tap into our natural instinct to protect our offspring.    What greater act for God than to allow His ‘only begotten son’ to suffer and die for everyone’s sins?   … so it goes …

My take is that this is yet another example of the Bible showing itself to be the work of ancient men writing in direct accordance with their perspectives and knowledge.   It reads like the product of ancient men with no hint of divine guidance.   Some of us do not find this to be odd.

Bottom line, an omnipotent entity can choose to instantly forgive if that is its will.   Obviously.   But biblical authors were in the control and awe business so a much grander story was required.   Thus we have the crucifixion and the subsequent apologetics which argue that God’s desire was to teach and thus He decided to engage in the crucifixion saga to accompany His forgiveness.  

Of course, God had all sorts of options to ensure people understood the implications of His forgiveness.    But apologists will argue that the human sacrifice saga is what God determined was best and who are we to challenge God’s choice?

Christian apologetics … an endless justification that relies upon ‘the Lord works in mysterious ways’ as its ultimate foundation.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.65  TᵢG  replied to  CB @5.1.63    2 years ago
Answer the question: Why do Christians such as yourself demand a 'return' or hold to Leviticus 20:13, but have never honored the sabbath day once in their entire recorded life history(ies)?

(hint on what might be coming):  'death penalty'

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.66  seeder  CB  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.64    2 years ago

And yet, there is no proof of it not being the case. This is what puts all of 'it' into the realm of faith. Keep in mind, the Torah teaches that God dwelt among the Israelites (until God did not), so in that sense, faith was not a requirement. Since then, faith (belief in what can not be seen, but what can be accessed in one's spirit) is operating in the lives of believers.

That is why I keep stating: Our gospel, its "contract," with the books: Is what it is.

As with everything in this world, we know only what we know and to the rest we either throw up our hands, shrug our shoulders, or WAIT patiently for such a time as more information/or revelation is extended.

In your case, as an unbeliever who particularly and frequently engages or 'brushes up against' religious subject matter there is something I find fascinating about—you. That is, for all your 'getting' you still remain 'un-GOT' by faith in God!

But know this God is patient. As long as there is breath in you; the possibilities for you finding answers or 'landing' in the same 'spot' you protest/contest others to 'rest' and place their hope in can occur.

God is patient, TiG. And that is okay. Should it 'happen' to you, do not despair just remember men like Francis Collins and the Like who one day found themselves in a moment of 'surrendering' to the logic/illogic of God (if you will allow it to be put that way).

One more thing: about the logic of the Bible and of this life. . . . Do remember that everything in our world appears to execute with SPECTRUMS. That is, if there is LOGIC on one end then ILLOGIC is its opposite. So yes, both of these, are happening in the world around us and are being explained in the Bible too!

That is, evidently, God allows illogic to exist!  Otherwise, why would there have ever been consideration by men given to 'other' gods or that which is not god taking time up as God? Illogical, eh?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.67  TᵢG  replied to  CB @5.1.66    2 years ago
And yet, there is no proof of it not being the case.

Of course not, one can only go by what is most likely based on our knowledge (and logic).   We cannot prove that no little green men occupy Mars, but the (substantial) evidence thus far suggests that no such beings exist.

That is, for all your 'getting' you still remain 'un-GOT' by faith in God!

The more I learn, the less likely I find the Bible to be divine ... and the less likely I see any of the world's religions having clue one about our sentient creator (if one exists).

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.68  seeder  CB  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.67    2 years ago
The more I learn, the less likely I find the Bible to be divine

LOL! This is normal for someone in your 'condition,' TiG. For many of us, me included, what we thought about the Bible before 'the call' on us was, well, nothing. I sat the book aside for years! That is, I cared not of it. Or, if "we" did read it-it was hit and miss-some pages impacting us, 'splattering us,' but others holding no message, or sage words whatsoever. Indeed, we had ever reason to ignore those impressions from the bible or simply say I don't know and walk away.

As believers, we strongly feel we have no choice/no option except to incorporate the whole of the text unabridged into our worldview. That's where the 'rub' begins. .  . .

Ultimately, the Bible: It is what it is (the only 'book' of its kind)!

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
5.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Drakkonis @5    2 years ago

Surely you are aware, Drakkonis, that there are many branches of Judaism, and those who might be exceptionally literal about the Torah, i.e. the Chassidic Jews, the ultra-Orthodox, are a mere minority.  Most western Jews have become much more modern and liberal in their interpretations of the Torah and Talmud, and many customs and traditions are more loosely adhered to, if at all.   Rabbi Copeland may be at a liberal extreme of such branches for all we know and is as entitled to her interpretations of Judaism generally as you are of whatever faith or non-faith that you do or do not follow.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.2    2 years ago

Also, some may not understand that many Jews are agnostic theists (and there are agnostic atheist Jews too):

FT_21.05.13_JewishAmericans01.png?w=640

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
5.2.2  Drakkonis  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.2    2 years ago
Surely you are aware, Drakkonis,

Yes, I'm generally aware. My comments reflect my attitude towards the Bible, Jewish or otherwise. I wonder why anyone who doesn't take it as it claims itself to be, God's word, would bother with it at all. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @5.2.2    2 years ago

Good point.   This is like my observation of Ken Ham.   In spite of all my criticism of Ham, he is at least very consistent and logical given his opening premise: he holds that the Bible is the Word of God.   He then holds that any interpretation other than literal is man infusing 'his' own views.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
5.2.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Drakkonis @5.2.2    2 years ago

IMO, I think many people seek a sense of security that is achieved by adhering to something, some religion (or atheism or agnosticism), some political party, the citizenship of some nation, an extended family loyalty, etc.   Since Judaism is passed on by birth from a Jewish mother, becoming a Jew exists whether or not one chooses to identify with it, although some do not, and some convert to it although conversion to Judaism is purposely not made an easy task (a complete opposite from Evangelical proselytizing) - did not Ivanka Trump convert to Judaism?  I don't know if Chelsea Clinton did when she married a Jew.  Seems that daughters of Presidents have good judgment.  LOL

A story from history is that in order for Benjamin D'Israeli to serve as Prime Minister of England he had to convert to Christianity, although he never forgot his ancestry.  A story exists, although not proven, that when his opponent Gladstone made a remark in Parliament about D'Israeli's ancestry, D'Israeli is reputed to have replied:  "While your ancestors were painting themselves blue and hiding in caves, mine were priests in the Temple of David."

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
5.2.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Drakkonis @5.2.2    2 years ago
"I wonder why anyone who doesn't take it as it claims itself to be, God's word, would bother with it at all."

Maybe because if one is in a hotel room and not interested in anything that's on TV, at least they have a work of fiction to keep them amused. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.6  seeder  CB  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.2.5    2 years ago

Wow Buzz, that was generally insulting. . . . :)

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.7  seeder  CB  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.2    2 years ago
Rabbi Copeland may be at a liberal extreme of such branches

Hi Buzz, I just delved into her religious life and this is her worldview:

About Rabbi Copeland:

Reconstructionist View

The Reconstructionist movement has rejected the traditional halakhic view in all areas relating to the issue of homosexuality; all restrictions on homosexuality are deemed to be null and void.

Consequently, the Reconstructionist movement ordains homosexual Jews as rabbis and cantors .

The Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association permits Jewish homosexual marriages and homosexual intermarriages (Reconstructionist Commission, 1993).

A summary of a Reconstructionist approach to homosexual marriage and the relationship between homosexual marriage and civil rights has been outlined by Alpert (2003), who makes the case that same-sex marriage is a religious value, because it includes a stable and committed relationship. Furthermore, she acknowledges that same-sex couples are motivated by the same reasons as heterosexual couples to marry within the Jewish tradition (p. 37).

A statement by the Reconstructionist movement proclaims:

We were the first movement to publicly address this issue in our 1988 report on homosexuality. In addition we were the first movement to accept openly gay and lesbian students into the RRC (Reconstructionist Rabbinical College). We retain an unwavering commitment to forming inclusive communities, welcoming to gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered Jews, as well as multicultural families, Jews of color, and other groups traditionally excluded from full participation in Jewish communal life. Issues relating to the gay and lesbian family are included in religious school curricula. Our Rabbis are free to perform same-sex commitment or marriage ceremonies if it is their practice to do so. (The Reconstructionist statement on same-sex marriage may be viewed at: )

A Reconstructionist wedding ceremony for same-sex couples utilizes a ketubah; however, these particular marriage contracts d o not follow the traditional stipulations and some of them may, therefore, become disqualified as valid Jewish wedding documents by other Jewish denominations.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
5.2.8  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  CB @5.2.7    2 years ago

I consider the Reconstructionist movement to be at the far end of liberal Judaism.  It's not my cup of tea.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.9  seeder  CB  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.2.8    2 years ago

I understand perfectly. However, you did not offer us your view (yet). Now, I have to ask a direct question here: Does the reconstructionist 'view' take you too far out of your understanding (of religious sensitivity)?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
5.2.10  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  CB @5.2.9    2 years ago

Never really thought about it, and I don't think I will. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.2.11  seeder  CB  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.2.10    2 years ago

Options!  I love it!

 
 
 
Waykwabu
Freshman Silent
5.3  Waykwabu  replied to  Drakkonis @5    2 years ago

👍

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.3.1  seeder  CB  replied to  Waykwabu @5.3    2 years ago

You too? Why can't you accept this Rabbi's credentials (on face value)? I mean I glean from Drakk's comment a distrust for her 'standing' in the religious community.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6  seeder  CB    2 years ago

Penetration may be the 'thrust,' pun intended, of what is so disturbing to religious leaders about homosexuality? Interesting.

Moses ben Maimon (1135‑1204) (known as Maimonides or Rambam) wrote:

Mishneh Torah (Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 21:8).

“For women to play around with one another is forbidden and belongs to ‘the practices of the Egyptians’ concerning which we have been warned, ‘You shall not copy the practices of the land of Egypt’…But though such conduct is forbidden, it is not punishable by lashing since there is no specific prohibition against it and in any case no sexual intercourse takes place at all. Consequently, such women are not forbidden to the priesthood on account of unchastity, nor is a woman prohibited to her husband because of it, since this does not constitute unchastity. But it is appropriate to flog such women since they have done a forbidden thing. A man should be particularly strict with his wife in this matter, and should prevent women known to indulge in such practices from visiting her, and her from going to visit them.”

Apparently, women having sex together in Ancient Israel were it done then was 'reasoned' to not be an act of "penetration." Of course, in modern times, the techniques of lesbianism have seen shifts in products and gratification.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7  seeder  CB    2 years ago
In several Talmudic passages homosexuality is discussed in sexually explicit ways. The descriptions used to explain these sexual acts include the distinction between so-called “natural” and “unnatural” intercourse.

Both “natural” and “unnatural” intercourse relies on penetration as the defining moment of the sexual activity. Thus, in the Rabbinic perspective, male homosexuality was limited to sexual acts of penetration. Two males engaging in intimate relations only actually commit homosexual acts at the time of penetration.

The mental and emotional feelings of the homosexual participants are not taken into account. One act out of the many components of the relationship, the act of penetration, would be the difference between an acceptable relationship and a punishable offense (Roth, 1993, p. 29).

According to Rabbinic literature, the defining moment of homosexuality is “penetration.”

Similarly, according to halakhah, a heterosexual marriage is not complete or valid until “penetration” occurs. Expanding on this idea, it could be argued that the prerequisite of penetration could be a factor in establishing a complete and valid homosexual marriage.

Understanding this Talmudic texts, the problem with homosexuality is not being homosexual (in mind and spirit) or performing certain 'discreet' acts, it was the penetration of one male by another male. Technically, that leaves the door open to quite a number of other activities. And let's be even clearer, the "penetration" in mind here corresponding to heterosexual sexuality is anal sex.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8  seeder  CB    2 years ago

Kiddushin: A Short Definition of Marriage in Judaism

In Judaism, marriage has been viewed as God’s plan for humanity; thus, it is an institution with cosmic significance. It is considered a sacred bond between a man and a woman, legitimized through divine authority.

The usual purpose of a Jewish marriage is to create a family and to perpetuate society. Reciprocal marital rights and duties are designed to sustain the marriage. In the Hebrew Bible, marriages were arranged by the fathers; the sections dealing with the patriarchs and the matriarchs of Israel are filled with examples of finding the right wife for a son or the right husband for a daughter.

The marriage involved a  mohar  (payment) by the bridegroom or, rather, the father of the bridegroom paid this price in money and/or in kind to the father of the bride. A period of engagement preceded the marriage and the wedding festivities lasted for a week. The marriage ceremony was based upon the rules regulating transfer of property rights.

Marriage in Biblical Israel was an alliance between two families or clans for the purpose of producing legitimate heirs. Women could not initiate a divorce and polygamy was permitted. In the post-biblical period, in Rabbinic literature, the payment by the bridegroom developed into a different type of legal transaction. The wife was awarded more protection when the institution of  ketubah  (marriage contract) was established. The  ketubah  set forth the rights of the wife to monetary payments upon termination of the marriage by divorce or death.

Now, one can begin to see why men marrying together would 'shake things up' in Judaism! There are quite a number of 'needy' and obligatory factors in play in getting married in Israel.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9  seeder  CB    2 years ago

Here is the latest in republicans/conservatives messing around in homosexual lives/marriages, while claiming they are being challenged/attacked and, of course, they have to be "brave" to get/keep religious EXPRESSION paramount:

original

As you can see, being a republican in congress is anything but FREE to think for yourself! The "Family Research Council" has put these politicians on 'blast'! A lying bunch of frauds who only know how to take away liberties-even from themselves if need be to get what they want!

 
 

Who is online

Vic Eldred


31 visitors