Counterarguments to Leviticus 20:13

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by curtsibling


I got no discussion from anyone.

All I got was a quote from an old book, accompanied by egostistical smugness.
Instead they regurgitate dogma.
I asked some questions, and didn't get any sort of answer, apart from evasion and lame abuse.

My point that most religious people don't want to answer certain questions was soundly proven.



My point is done and dusted.

Now if you want to continue, it must be in another thread.

You know the rules about thread-jacking.

Both Elok and Berserker answered your questions; instead of engaging them on those answers, you ignored them in an effort to get a rise out of me. You then claim that no one has given you "any sort of an answer", and that we are being hostile to you for no good reason.

Your motives are clearly to entertain yourself by disrupting the conversations of those you dislike.

...

Ben, Elok, Dinodoc & Co., don't play his game. He just wants to see you get worked up over his Grand Pronouncements, because it makes him feel important. I wouldn't respond here again at all, but I hate to see you all wasting time and effort on this -- save it for the more open-minded individuals who are prepared to discuss things reasonably.

[Elok]

Okay, Curt, now you really are displaying ignorance. The coming of Christ redefined "the people of God" as inclusive of non-jews. Try to have some awareness of the major themes of the book you criticize, for crying out loud.

And you have not yet said why the Bible's age is an automatic disqualifier. I said it before: as a primarily moral text, the subject it addresses, human nature, has not significantly changed in the intervening years.

[Elok]

Oh, and in response to MrFun:

Let me make clear from the start that I am not screaming for the blood of gays or anything. I'm merely playing devil's advocate.

With that said, most of the distinctions between the behavior of priests and that of laity, in the Orthodox tradition at least, are tied to the sacramental duties of the clergy or their position within the community, not just as some higher standard of morality. God ostensibly calls all to sainthood. For example, the thing about celibacy (in parts of the Christian, not Judaic, tradition) is due partly to the need of Priests to be ever attentive to the troubles of their flock, and to minimize conflicting responsibilities. In Orthodoxy, it's that married men may join the priesthood, but priests may not marry, because of the need to avoid the scandal and awkwardness of one's parish priest and father confessor being one's ex-boyfriend, among other things. Regardless, the idea there is not that marriage is a vulgar thing as such, only that it is best treated with caution by the priesthood.

Also, how do you reconcile that idea with the concept of chastity? Do you envision homosexual marriage, or is gay sex not considered fornication by your view of things? Just wondering.

[Ben Kenobi]

He just wants to see you get worked up

Am I getting worked up?

His arguments just make him a tougher nut than most to crack. Just takes a little more patience, and perseverence.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Elok
Let me make clear from the start that I am not screaming for the blood of gays or anything. I'm merely playing devil's advocate.

AHAH!
So you acknowledge Christianty is a Satanic belief!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Elok
Oh, and in response to MrFun:

Let me make clear from the start that I am not screaming for the blood of gays or anything. I'm merely playing devil's advocate.

With that said, most of the distinctions between the behavior of priests and that of laity, in the Orthodox tradition at least, are tied to the sacramental duties of the clergy or their position within the community, not just as some higher standard of morality. God ostensibly calls all to sainthood. For example, the thing about celibacy (in parts of the Christian, not Judaic, tradition) is due partly to the need of Priests to be ever attentive to the troubles of their flock, and to minimize conflicting responsibilities. In Orthodoxy, it's that married men may join the priesthood, but priests may not marry, because of the need to avoid the scandal and awkwardness of one's parish priest and father confessor being one's ex-boyfriend, among other things. Regardless, the idea there is not that marriage is a vulgar thing as such, only that it is best treated with caution by the priesthood.

Also, how do you reconcile that idea with the concept of chastity? Do you envision homosexual marriage, or is gay sex not considered fornication by your view of things? Just wondering.

Obviously, I do not view gay sex as a sin, nor as fornication.

And right now, I'm pressed for time with my graduate studies, and unfortunately, before I can argue with your contention that the moral laws in Leviticus apply to clergy as well as lay people, I need to go back and reread the section and analyze it.

[Elok]

In case I touched a nerve, let me emphasize that I meant "fornication" in the original sense of "sex outside of marriage," i.e., I was asking if you thought of gay sex as literal sex for canonical purposes, and within the context of marriage/adultery conventions.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Am I getting worked up?

His arguments just make him a tougher nut than most to crack. Just takes a little more patience, and perseverence.

Isn't pride a sin?

I seem to remember it comes before a fall.

[Ben Kenobi]

Isn't pride a sin?

True. Still waiting for curtsibling though.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Elok
In case I touched a nerve, let me emphasize that I meant "fornication" in the original sense of "sex outside of marriage," i.e., I was asking if you thought of gay sex as literal sex for canonical purposes, and within the context of marriage/adultery conventions.

I have to refamiliarize myself with this part of the Bible more, before I can give a full, satisfactory answer.

[Elok]

I know, I wasn't pressing you for an answer, I just didn't want to come off like a total insensitive ****er...