|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 1:45 am
rmcdra Nebulance rmcdra Nebulance rmcdra I don't see how you say that I'm picking and choosing. I am agreeing that marriage is A-OK but I am recognizing that it a teaching of Tradition and current Scripture that supports this rather than Paul. Why does this seem to upset you? It's still part of Christianity. So what if Paul didn't say it, it's still inspired scripture? Whoa! I didn't not saying you're picking and choosing... are you talking to me? You didn't upset me. confused sorry I misread a post. @Mei tsuki7 I believe Paul is talking in allegory when he is talking about the roles of men and women. Is it just in 1 Timothy where he speaks of this or is it in other letters of his? Part of 1 and 2 Timothy being accepted as Canon were to refute heretical sects such as the one I am a part of and it was common practice during that time to slap the name of an important figure to documents you wanted to support certain stances. The other big one is Ephesians 5, where it talks about wives submitting to their husbands. What do you mean when you say he's talking in allegory, btw? What's his point, by your interpretation? Since this text was written to refute different heretical sects theres also a hidden symbolism in the passage of men being over women. As IMR pointed out, women are equated to intuition and men are equated to reason. It's basically saying that intuition is not to be superior to reason. The significance of this is that intuition is how one receives gnosis. Some gnosis though if not kept in check or worked out before teaching can lead to some pretty drastic and wild things, such as the spirit being superior to the body. While this is true, some people that gain this knowledge will take it to the extreme and do things that are not consistent with Christ's Love such as commit suicide believing it to be a sure-shot to heaven. While there there was a strong opposition to gnosis as a form of salvation, gnosis in general as a supplement was not looked down upon. When I see this passage I see it as a warning to keep one's intuition in check with reason so not to be lead astray. Given the text in question, what one needs to keep from being lead astray from is the teachings of the Church of Rome. Was this being written to refute those heretical sects, though? Before you said it was accepted as canon to refute them. And yeah, I could see that symbolism underlying the passage. I don't see how that gets us out of taking it literally, as well, though. Btw, women/men as intuition/reason in the Bible is one I haven't heard before (and I'm always glad to learn about a new perspective! biggrin ). Is there any scriptural basis for this apart from the built/formed difference in Genesis?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 2:21 am
Nebulance Was this being written to refute those heretical sects, though? Before you said it was accepted as canon to refute them. According to Elaine Pagals and her research, yes it was written to refute heretical sects, support a cultural view based on Roman society, and support interpretations of Christ's teachings as presented by the Church of Rome. Edit: Though I will give you that Pagals has a tendency to extrapolate more that what evidence can suggest. Quote: And yeah, I could see that symbolism underlying the passage. I don't see how that gets us out of taking it literally, as well, though. The idea of taking it literally stems from the idea as above, like below, and as below like above. Everything in the Heavens is a model of the Earth and everything of the Earth should be made to model the Heavens. It was a cultural view in Greek and Roman society that men were superior to women, this culture view was believed to be modeled after the Heavens, so Heaven, or at least the path to Heaven, should reflect this as well. Quote: Btw, women/men as intuition/reason in the Bible is one I haven't heard before (and I'm always glad to learn about a new perspective! biggrin ). Is there any scriptural basis for this apart from the built/formed difference in Genesis? Besides Genesis, this was a traditional view in Jewish Mysticism. It was believed that there were two types of knowledge, man's knowledge and God's knowledge. That man's knowledge was achieved through reason and God's knowledge could be achieved through intuition. The creation story in Genesis reflects this in that by partaking of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge we gained the knowledge of God and hence are morally responsible for our actions. It was by Eve that the fruit was obtained and Adam that it was condoned*. Since Christianity stems from Judaism, its not to far of a stretch that such teachings would show up in Christianity. *Since I'm sure this is going to come up the serpent has historically been a symbol representing Wisdom in Judaism and it's surrounding cultures. The serpent is equated with Satan in Christianity because of a verse in the Apocrypha text of either the 1 or 2 Book of Wisdom. How the Books of Wisdom is interpreted in Judaism though I'm not sure though it is technically considered part of the Old Testament.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 2:27 am
rmcdra Nebulance Was this being written to refute those heretical sects, though? Before you said it was accepted as canon to refute them. According to Elaine Pagals and her research, yes it was written to refute heretical sects, support a cultural view based on Roman society, and support interpretations of Christ's teachings as presented by the Church of Rome. Quote: And yeah, I could see that symbolism underlying the passage. I don't see how that gets us out of taking it literally, as well, though. The idea of taking it literally stems from the idea as above, like below, and as below like above. Everything in the Heavens is a model of the Earth and everything of the Earth should be made to model the Heavens. It was a cultural view in Greek and Roman society that men were superior to women, this culture view was believed to be modeled after the Heavens, so Heaven, or at least the path to Heaven, should reflect this as well. Quote: Btw, women/men as intuition/reason in the Bible is one I haven't heard before (and I'm always glad to learn about a new perspective! biggrin ). Is there any scriptural basis for this apart from the built/formed difference in Genesis? Besides Genesis, this was a traditional view in Jewish Mysticism. It was believed that there were two types of knowledge, man's knowledge and God's knowledge. That man's knowledge was achieved through reason and God's knowledge could be achieved through intuition. The creation story in Genesis reflects this in that by partaking of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge we gained the knowledge of God and hence are morally responsible for our actions. It was by Eve that the fruit was obtained and Adam that it was condoned*. Since Christianity stems from Judaism, its not to far of a stretch that such teachings would show up in Christianity. *Since I'm sure this is going to come up the serpent has historically been a symbol representing Wisdom in Judaism and it's surrounding cultures. The serpent is equated with Satan in Christianity because of a verse in the Apocrypha text of either the 1 or 2 Book of Wisdom. How the Books of Wisdom is interpreted in Judaism though I'm not sure though it is technically considered part of the Old Testament. Cool info... So was 'Wisdom' cursed to be bruised by the offspring of the woman?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 2:44 am
Nebulance Cool info... So was 'Wisdom' cursed to be bruised by the offspring of the woman? Think of it this way. Wisdom is a dangerous thing. It can bite you when used improperly and those that don't recognize it as such can trample over it. The offspring of intuitions will always be in a perpetual conflict with Wisdom. Because new ideas derived from intuition can be "bitten" by wisdom and wisdom can be trampled upon by those new ideas. The serpent does not have legs because legs would suggest that its something that is obvious where as the slithering suggests that there is something very subtle about the nature of Wisdom and it just can sneak up on us sometimes very unexpectedly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 10:47 am
In Medias Res IV Since when is it a sin? Better yet, since when does a toevah have ANYTHING to do with Christians? Oh Leviticus, the most raped book on Earth. From the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth. He also created humans male and female. He could have made he and he or she and she. I don't believe he had homsexuality in mind for his designed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 12:00 pm
quietstorm 2 In Medias Res IV Since when is it a sin? Better yet, since when does a toevah have ANYTHING to do with Christians? Oh Leviticus, the most raped book on Earth. From the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth. He also created humans male and female. He could have made he and he or she and she. I don't believe he had homsexuality in mind for his designed. You know... Ruth and Naomi had a little bit of lesbianism going on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 12:43 pm
quietstorm 2 In Medias Res IV Since when is it a sin? Better yet, since when does a toevah have ANYTHING to do with Christians? Oh Leviticus, the most raped book on Earth. From the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth. He also created humans male and female. He could have made he and he or she and she. I don't believe he had homsexuality in mind for his designed. If it appears anywhere on earth it was by his design because he designed the earth. Nothing on earth is not his design. He created everything and that includes homosexuality. EDIT: By saying he didn't design something on earth that makes him not omnipotent or omniscient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 1:46 pm
quietstorm 2 In Medias Res IV Since when is it a sin? Better yet, since when does a toevah have ANYTHING to do with Christians? Oh Leviticus, the most raped book on Earth. From the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth. He also created humans male and female. He could have made he and he or she and she. I don't believe he had homsexuality in mind for his designed. He made it that way so there could be more humans after the first ones. It seems to me, your problem with same-sex couples is that they can not produce children, correct? So are you also against infertile couples? Is it a sin that for a man who can never have children to be in love with a woman? Are they somehow not included in God's plan?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 1:55 pm
the Leviticus laws were a diatribe against enemy religions.
the Canaanites had prostitutes of both sexes as part of worship; it must have encouraged attendance!
but then of course the yahweh people had to oppose such observances.
so those texts are against "pagan" worship practices and not against gay sex per se.
Paul was an irascible old man who would never have attracted a wife, so what does he know about marriage or sexual relationships? nothing helpful!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 3:58 pm
Mei tsuki7 quietstorm 2 In Medias Res IV Since when is it a sin? Better yet, since when does a toevah have ANYTHING to do with Christians? Oh Leviticus, the most raped book on Earth. From the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth. He also created humans male and female. He could have made he and he or she and she. I don't believe he had homsexuality in mind for his designed. If it appears anywhere on earth it was by his design because he designed the earth. Nothing on earth is not his design. He created everything and that includes homosexuality. EDIT: By saying he didn't design something on earth that makes him not omnipotent or omniscient. This is the fallacy that claims God is not omnipotent because there is evil in the world. He didn't design evil, but He allowed it, because to do otherwise would interfere with our free will, which is more important. God didn't design murder, either, but that doesn't make him not omnipotent or not omniscient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:02 pm
Riiko..Izawa quietstorm 2 In Medias Res IV Since when is it a sin? Better yet, since when does a toevah have ANYTHING to do with Christians? Oh Leviticus, the most raped book on Earth. From the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth. He also created humans male and female. He could have made he and he or she and she. I don't believe he had homsexuality in mind for his designed. He made it that way so there could be more humans after the first ones. It seems to me, your problem with same-sex couples is that they can not produce children, correct? So are you also against infertile couples? Is it a sin that for a man who can never have children to be in love with a woman? Are they somehow not included in God's plan? You ignore the fact that God could have created humans to procreate asexually (just Eve-- who needs to add in the complication of fertilization?). The point that He created them male and female is still a valid one. This of course leads into a discussion of evolution and creation, which is way off-topic. I just wanted to point out that the male/female distinction is not necessary for reproduction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:06 pm
chessiejo the Leviticus laws were a diatribe against enemy religions. the Canaanites had prostitutes of both sexes as part of worship; it must have encouraged attendance! but then of course the yahweh people had to oppose such observances. so those texts are against "pagan" worship practices and not against gay sex per se. Paul was an irascible old man who would never have attracted a wife, so what does he know about marriage or sexual relationships? nothing helpful! Oh yes, Paul could never have attracted a wife... he just happened to be one of the most charismatic men in history! lol The point is that (most) Christians take his letters in the New Testament to be part of their sacred scripture, so an argument from his words in Romans is very relevant. I, for one, am tired of people twisting the Bible and denying that it says what it indeed says. If you don't want to follow it, fine, but stop saying you're following it when you're not!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:07 pm
Nebulance chessiejo the Leviticus laws were a diatribe against enemy religions. the Canaanites had prostitutes of both sexes as part of worship; it must have encouraged attendance! but then of course the yahweh people had to oppose such observances. so those texts are against "pagan" worship practices and not against gay sex per se. Paul was an irascible old man who would never have attracted a wife, so what does he know about marriage or sexual relationships? nothing helpful! Oh yes, Paul could never have attracted a wife... he just happened to be one of the most charismatic men in history! lol The point is that (most) Christians take his letters in the New Testament to be part of their sacred scripture, so an argument from his words in Romans is very relevant. I, for one, am tired of people twisting the Bible and denying that it says what it indeed says. If you don't want to follow it, fine, but stop saying you're following it when you're not! Leviticus means exactly what Cheesie has said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:18 pm
Nebulance Riiko..Izawa quietstorm 2 In Medias Res IV Since when is it a sin? Better yet, since when does a toevah have ANYTHING to do with Christians? Oh Leviticus, the most raped book on Earth. From the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth. He also created humans male and female. He could have made he and he or she and she. I don't believe he had homsexuality in mind for his designed. He made it that way so there could be more humans after the first ones. It seems to me, your problem with same-sex couples is that they can not produce children, correct? So are you also against infertile couples? Is it a sin that for a man who can never have children to be in love with a woman? Are they somehow not included in God's plan? You ignore the fact that God could have created humans to procreate asexually (just Eve-- who needs to add in the complication of fertilization?). The point that He created them male and female is still a valid one. This of course leads into a discussion of evolution and creation, which is way off-topic. I just wanted to point out that the male/female distinction is not necessary for reproduction. Okay. So how does pointing out that reproduction can happen asexually support your point. Are you trying to say that females were made for males and that homosexuality is unnatural? I'd like to point out, unnatural doesn't equal bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:20 pm
In Medias Res IV Nebulance chessiejo the Leviticus laws were a diatribe against enemy religions. the Canaanites had prostitutes of both sexes as part of worship; it must have encouraged attendance! but then of course the yahweh people had to oppose such observances. so those texts are against "pagan" worship practices and not against gay sex per se. Paul was an irascible old man who would never have attracted a wife, so what does he know about marriage or sexual relationships? nothing helpful! Oh yes, Paul could never have attracted a wife... he just happened to be one of the most charismatic men in history! lol The point is that (most) Christians take his letters in the New Testament to be part of their sacred scripture, so an argument from his words in Romans is very relevant. I, for one, am tired of people twisting the Bible and denying that it says what it indeed says. If you don't want to follow it, fine, but stop saying you're following it when you're not! Leviticus means exactly what Cheesie has said. I haven't studied it enough to dispute that... I rest my argument mainly on Romans 1 (what the Christian part of the Bible has to say on the subject).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
