Ah, good point. I didn’t notice that.
When it comes to beliefs, doesn’t forcing go both ways?
I am still interested in the concept of sin. In the Bible, homosexual acts were labeled a sin, meaning missing the mark of the ideal. Another poster noted he finds nothing wrong with homosexuality. What say you? Can you think of why scripture (and ancient mankind) thought it missed the mark despite the fact it appears to have been fairly prevalent in those days as well?
How do you mean? If I am tolerant of homosexuality, how does that force anything onto you?
Sure. But as I am certain that you are aware, there are many injunctions in the Bible that have been jettisoned by modernity. So the question becomes, is the Bible infallible? If so, shouldn’t we also worry about, say, football games on a Sunday?
I am not talking about you and me, personally. For example, if someone is tolerant of homosexuality, should that person expect all others to be tolerant as well? If so, to what extent should that tolerance extend?
My focus is on why ancient man thought it a less than perfect arrangement.
As far as Sunday goes…my grandparents were able to remember working hard six days a week, and Sunday was their only down time. Today, we don’t work nearly as hard as they did the other six days. When (many) people do work Sundays, they still have two weekdays off.
I have a feeling if there came a time where we all had to work hard six days a week to survive, we might agree all should have a day off.
As for homosexuality–and all of the Commandments–rules were generally set up for the good of the community. They were followed more closely is tribes and small communities; they appear to have been followed more loosely (if at all) in the large cities. I am pondering/asking how the rule for homosexuality evolved–and whether those reasons are still in play today.
And no, I don’t expect you to be tolerant, but I do expect that you respect the rights of the ‘sinner’ in the secular world. I personally don’t consider that to be forcing you to be tolerant, but I suspect that you might feel differently.
Grin. I don’t think you do see. I’ve worked for an openly gay boss (great man); a groups of teens openly homosexual always knew when I subbed at their school, they had a safe/quiet place to go for lunch. I am not talking about me (or anyone else) personally, so enough about us. I am talking about the division in society. How tolerant should society be? Should there be a line?
I am referring to the injunction against touching the skin of a pig on the sabbath.
Interesting. Rules set up “for the good of the community” certainly doesn’t have the feel of a divine decree. It feels man made.
As far as how/why the rules have evolved, we would first need to know the reason for the injunction in the first place.
As you have noted, homosexuality was present at the time, so this prohibition seems unique to this new sect. However, we also know that “the word of God” has undergone numerous revisions, most notoriously for our purposes in the 15th century. So can we be certain that we have the unvarnished Word? If not, shouldn’t we err on the side of comity towards our fellow man?
My answer remains the same. Incidentally, I meant you(c) in the previous post, but hoped I wouldn’t need to enter it repeatedly.
To restate: I expect you(c) to respect the rights of the sinner in the secular world. I don’t see this as forcing you(c) to be tolerant, but suspect that you(c) see it differently.
Then we are definitely on two different trains of thought. I am speaking of society/community in its entirety.
If you care, which I doubt, we do not see it “differently”. We are not even speaking about the same thing. However, it was fun trying. Hope you are having a fine day, too.
Here we get into being Clean. That would be another discussion.
Or made for man? I can go either way with that. In either case, what makes it better for the community? I am guessing disease was probably one factor. But were there others?
All Commandments were based on love of God or love of fellow man. So, if we begin with it was love of ones neighbors in the community, why the injunction about homosexuality? What made it more loving to refrain?
Something I (personally) do think about. Vaccines and masks are being forced on us in our day and age for the good of the community, for love and care of our fellow man. I am (vehemently) against either or both being mandated. This being the case, had I lived in ancient times, I know how I would feel about prohibiting homosexuality merely because of disease. That’s why I wonder about whether there were other factors.
I can only guess, but I suspect population growth was also a concern?
Concern about disease? That sounds like a human concern, not a divine mandate.
You miss my point.
If all of these injunctions are divine mandate, why are we picking and choosing which to adhere to? Shouldn’t they all be equally revered and honored?
Perhaps, but the trouble I have with this is that the Greeks and Romans resolved that by marrying and continuing homosexual liaisons on the side.
Could be both. Commandments, after all, were for the good of mankind.
The Ten Commandments Moses said were from God. Just like any middle school class, give a simple command and everyone wants to know more–how much, how little, which way. Mankind added over six hundred more to the originals to explain the proper way to observe them.
With Jesus and Christianity came the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Orthodox Judaism didn’t see it that way. Laws were to be obeyed precisely because obedience was the ideal. One didn’t ask why, one simply obeyed. Obedience was considered a great virtue.
From the Jewish perspective breaking any Law was as serious as breaking The Law. The Jesus begins teaching, “Sins (a miss in keeping the Law) are forgiven.” But he also adds that sin begins from within, from thoughts or from the heart. Any sin begins way before the actual act.
The philosophical discussion might be whether a person draws the line at the act–or whether the line is drawn at the first thought. In Catholicism, many confessed sins are still thoughts yet to be acted upon. (A good many are also acts.)
Are we really picking and choosing, or have we decided all is permissible? As I have said many times before, most are in favor of rules, yet most also wish to allow themselves to be the exception to that rule.
That is why I asked how tolerant should a society become? I don’t know about your area, but in mine there are enough who are for doing away with any stigma attached to minor/underage sexual attractions.
But back to your question, should all of Biblical law be honored?
Here is where things get silly. People want to point out that since dietary law has pretty much be set aside, so should laws regarding sexual behavior.
Let’s stick with laws governing sexuality: Sex is to be had only within the confines of marriage. No premarital sex, no adultery, no divorce, no sex between unattached consenting adults, no prostitution.
What percentage of heterosexuals do you suppose would agree to all of the above? These are the only ones who should have a say on homosexuality or pedophilia–otherwise it is moral sexual laws for thee but not for me. Now say that those few who have observed all the sexual moral laws are okay with those who stray a little, maybe premarital sex or divorce. If they are okay with some sexual morals being loosed, then automatically sexual moral should be loosed for homosexuality, etc. If they are okay with some immorality even though they wouldn’t enter into it themselves, by definition they are okay will all immorality.
All I am saying is stop with “no touching the pig on a Sabbath” and stick with laws regarding sexual morals, otherwise it just sounds desperate, and there is no need for that.
Well that’s certainly convenient for you, isn’t it? You can sanction behavior that you find objectionable, claim a divine mandate, and ignore the hypocrisy inherent in the position.
I reject this line of thinking in full. Feel free to practice your religion any way you see fit, and God bless. Just keep your religious nose out of everybody else’s business.
Which leads me back to my original position: