Why religion is the problem

http://www.affirmation.org/scriptures/heterosexual_jewish_rebbes_view.shtml

Is a tortured way out to reconcile the 21st century zeitgeist with the scripture.
___________________________
Wrong. As ever. Look up "Zeitgeist" and have someone explain the site to you.

SEcular types:

http://www.affirmation.org/scriptures/heterosexual_jewish_rebbes_view.shtml

Is a tortured way out to reconcile the 21st century zeitgeist with the scripture.
___________________
No, it doesn't, you shameless moron. Look up "zeitgeist," idiot. And find someone with endless patience to teach you Talmud.

Is it any wonder that no one on this blog wants nothing to do with this fool.

Tom Flynn,

On the Tanakh prohibition against male rape, not "homosexuality," a construction that did not exist among the ancient Jews, see also ANY Oxford Study Bible. Lev may, then, become clearer to you.

The regional prevalence of male rape of weaker men, usually defeated combatants, has long been known to scholars, as has the meaning of Lev. on this. Archival sources abound. But, see, for instance "The Contending of Horus and Seth," available on the web.

Tom,
Correction in my last post I disagree that God condones slavery. He wants us to be free in Him. Sorry for the typo!
Blessings

Tom,

I disagree that God did not detest slavery. I searched the NIV and found the word 22 times from the NIV translation. Most discuss God's freeing the Jews from Egypt for example: "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery." (Exodus 20:2) This is hardly condoning slavery. God did not want his people enslaved in Egypt or in sin, he wanted them to be free in His love and service.

In the new Testament, the arguement against slavery, by which we all were or are held captive to our sinful nature, expands by the Holy Spirit through Paul's letters. "I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness." (Romans 6:19)

Just as Bob Dylan writes, "we all gotta serve somebody." Whether it be the government, our mortgage payment, or an addiction we are enslaved to something or someone. Jesus Christ offers us an exchanged from slavery to sin to a life of service to God. I have chosen that path and am a slave to God and am enjoying a freedom that words cannot describe.

I believe if you make an honest read of the bible you will see that God wants us free from both human and self enslavement. He wouldn't have asked His Son to endure such pain and suffering or many apostles and saints to die horrible deaths if he didn't want you and I to be truly free in Him.

Tom, you and I are fellow slaves and God wants you to change Masters. You can start with an admission to yourself that you are not truly free until you serve the one true God.

Blessings

http://www.affirmation.org/scriptures/heterosexual_jewish_rebbes_view.shtml

Is a tortured way out to reconcile the 21st century zeitgeist with the scripture. Again this is a case of progressive believers who are unable to give up their scripture, finding a tortured way to reconcile the scripture. This all is born out of the fundamental premise that the scripture is some kind of revelation of the all merciful deity or an inspired work of deity so inherently inerrant. Life would be so simpler and easy if we can give up the presumption of inerrancy of the scripture in the first place. This makes it easier for people to follow the zeitgeist. Lets face these books were written over 2500 years ago, with what went fro knowledge at that time. They are bound to be large number of falsities, given the progress in knowledge in the intervening years. Sooner the progressives do that sooner we will overcome these kind of moral dilemmas.

Is it your position that, to draw just one example, the Old Testament's Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination," is either not drawn directly from Jewish scripture or should be understood merely as an admonition against male-on-male rape in warfare? Color me skeptical.

Tom Flynn

Posted by: tomwflynn
___________________________________________

I agree with you Mr. Flynn, the entire chapter 18 preceding 18:22 is talking about revealing the nakedness of various kith & kin. From that to inject soldier on soldier rape suddenly in 18:22 boggles my mind. There is not a sentence or even a phrase about war in chapter 18, to buy in to latter day revisionism that 18:22 refers to soldier on soldier rape. The whole chapter 18 is concerned about who cannot see whom naked and ho can fornicate with whom. Question of war just does not appear anywhere. That claim indeed tests the listener's credulity. Unfortunately this is the refuge all apologists take when the scriptural or cultural abominations are brought to light. This universal be it be Christian, Hindu, Jewish or Islamic for that matter Buddhist. I have been told by Hindus the same garbage about caste system, until I started pointing to the passages from the very 1st chapter of Manu. This is a case of latter day progressives unable to give up on their vile scripture. But then all scripture is vile by 21st century standards of zeitgeist.

Tom Flynn:

Re: Your post to me

Here is a decent enough source for the moment.

http://www.affirmation.org/scriptures/heterosexual_jewish_rebbes_view.shtml
_______________________________________
The overwhelming majority of Christians, cultural or believing, no nothing of the "Scriptures," their NT (sic) supposedly supersedes.

The late Edward Said remarked often that the sine qua non of imperialism is the theft of a minority group's culture and heritage and the subsequent explanation of what it "means" to those oppressed people.

On this imperialism and the harm it has done to Christian morality, not to mention Jews, see the eminent Catholic theologian,
Rosemary Ruether, Faith and Fratricide.

What I posted to you on Lev, etc., is common knowledge. The unfortunate imperialistic distortions of the Christians is irrelevant. They need to get out of my face and out of my Congress. That is relevant, and of it, I am convinced.

Over the weekend, I crossed state lines into New Jersey to attend the Civil Union of two of my friends. This was the second Civil Union. For me, there were no differences between the two Civil Unions and any of the weddings that I attended and yet society sees a difference. Here in Pennsylvania, gay and lesbian couples can’t even get a Civil Union let alone get married. The timing for this week’s Washington Post’s, “On Faith” topic is perfect.

Let’s face facts here, the main reason why there is so much opposition to gay rights and gay marriage is because of the Bible. Sure we can argue about people being afraid of those who are different and talk about cultural biases, but without a doubt it all comes down to religion and religion’s influence on our culture. If the Bible didn’t say that a man lying with another man was an abomination and they should both be put to death, we would now be having this discussion right now about gay marriage.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://exm.nr/9deB80

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

Wakeup 3, thanks for your reply. I'm concerned about the latitude you as a believer seem to permit for "cultural truth." In the view of most Christians, God is all-powerful and his truths abide forever. So if God found slavery offensive in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, it is puzzling at best that he seemed willing to accept it under any circumstances at earlier times. We're told that God inspired Jeremiah to confront his contemporaries with deeply inconvenient truths, so why did God set the bar so much lower for himself when the question concerned slavery? If God exists and is as Christian scripture portrays him, why don't we see him, or even one of his prophets, declaring that slavery was wrong in, say, the 3rd century B. C. when such a declaration would truly have been a wondrous thing? Or did God believe that slavery as an incident of conquest was OK then, only to change is mind by the 1830s or so? Obviously, those of us who are comfortable viewing scripture and religion as human constructs need a twinkle in their eye when discussing the development of moral convictions across history. More orthodox believers, however, face a genuine problem in explaining why God's position on an issue we now view as a slam-dunk moral absolute was so different depending when we look in the past.

Tom Flynn

Tom,

The slavery examples from the Bible are historical facts describing a common occurence when one culture won military victory over the other. When God emancipated the Jews from their bondage at the hands of the Egyptians, He was freeing them to follow Him rather than be held captive under the thumb of oppressive rulers. God wanted better for man than any enslavement. However, as the apostle Paul wrote, if one happened to be a slave, he encouraged serving his or her master faithfully until emancipation as a testimony to faith in God's sovereignty. God asks us to serve him so that our example may lead others to a life in Christ by our faithful example.
Your interpretation mistakes a cultural truth and an attitude of service to God for acceptance of enslaving others. You could not be more wrong. There are hundreds if not thousands of Christians today risking their lives and their fortunes to free enslaved women and children around the world who are being held for sexual purposes. Without their efforts many would still be suffering. I know I will not convince you otherwise but to credit the love of God through Jesus Christ to a secular humanist movement is inaccurate at best and in my view diabolical and deceptive.

Thanks for your response however.

To wakeup3,

I'm quite aware of the history of English abolitionism, which to my mind demonstrates abolitionism's early lack of dependence on Christian teaching. While activists like Wilberforce, Granville Sharp, Hannah More, and Charles Middleton were all to greater or lesser degree religious enthusiasts (or in Middleton's case a minister), it's remarkable how little evidence there is for any necessary link between their Christian beliefs and their abolitionism. Middleton's abolitionism was based in part on his first-hand knowledge of the treatment of slaves in the Caribbean; he was also influenced by the method that made abolitionists of most of the others on this list, namely, reading antislavery tracts penned by other liberal ministers. Dig far enough, and when you find the origins of this liberal-Christian abolitionism you'll find divines drawing new ideas about human freedom and dignity from the secular Enlightenment culture and injecting them into a Christian tradition where they previously did not exist. Not surprisingly so, since Christian scripture has no particular reservations regarding the ownership of one human being by another.

To FarnazMansouri2,

Is it your position that, to draw just one example, the Old Testament's Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination," is either not drawn directly from Jewish scripture or should be understood merely as an admonition against male-on-male rape in warfare? Color me skeptical.

Tom Flynn

I truly wish it were possible that religious institutions will see the light, and stop demonizing gay people. But I really believe that the hatred and intolerance is SO deeply ingrained (because the Bible gives them permission to be homophobic) that it will take decades to purge. Some of these people continue to quote Leviticus to condemn gays, even though we all know that every other verse in that book isn't followed by anyone. We also know that Sodom and Gomorrah was about inhospitality. Yet these people don't see the hypocrisy of their actions. How can you possibly expect these people of faith to change their mindset when they're incapable of even the smallest amount of self-analysis?

Mr. Flynn,

I suggest you reconsider history sir regarding the influence of Christianity on the abolition of slavery especially the efforts of William Wilberforce in in England not to mention its influence on the the founding of America, our education system, and the Civil Rights Movement all of which were efforts to free men from the bondage of slavery and the bondage of sin.

Also, I believe you will find the religion of Islam is less tolerant of homosexuality than what you portray of Christianity and Judaism in your piece. While God finds homosexuality detestable, he gives all mankind (including you brother) a pathway to eternal life through His son rather than Allah who demands death.

Call on Jesus Mr. Flynn and he will change your life!

Blessings

Gay Rights opponents are entitled to their opinions as anyone else in this country; however, we have to tone down the hateful and violent tone by which most homophobic ministers rant their position.

Enclosed is an article which hit the Internet this morning concerning Bishop Eddie Long and the rumbling that's going on in his New Birth Missionary Baptist Church over allegations he had sex with four young men in his church.

Bishop Eddie Long Scandal Takes Toll on Church Members:
http://www.sandiegocountynews.com/2010/10/12/bishop-eddie-long-scandal-takes-toll-on-church-members/

Tom Flynn:

You write:

"Jewish and Christian scripture hold an unwaveringly negative view of homosexuality. Moreover, they hold this view consistently. One can find contradictory verses regarding almost any subject, but not homosexuality. It's an abomination and no scriptural passage suggests otherwise. Indeed, the condemnation of male homosexuality is one of the few topics on which Jewish and Christan scripture contain no contradictory statements whatever."
________________________________
You are completely incorrect. Unfortunately, like many cultural and observant Christians you are profoundly ignorant of Judaism, yet feel absolutely confident of the right to comment upon it.
As executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism and editor of its magazine Free Inquiry, you need to offer those interested in secular humanism, an informed, educated voice.

In fact, the Tanakh has nothing to say about "homosexuality," since the construct did not exist. What the Tanakh takes aim at is the male on male rape, usually by soldiers of men in defeated armies. See any Oxford study Bible on this. Conservative and Reformed Judaism, both recognize gay marriage and routinely ordain gay rabbis. The synagogue that I occasionally attend is presided over by a lesbian.

It is largely because Jews have objected to the Tanakh's being used to support lunatic Christian homopohobes that most homophobic Christian clergy now confine their Biblical justification for hatred to the NT (sic).

It is true that Modern and Traditional Orthodoxy do not recognize gay marriage, do not ordain gay rabbis. Arguably this results from medieval Christian influence, a point to which I will return.

The Hasidim, who are Orthodox, are separate sects, outside of mainstream Judaism and they, the men whom Catholic Palidino, addressed do not accept gayness, owing I think to the same confusion. On this point, I'd like to add that even the Hasidim generally vote Democrat and that a very large Hasidic community, the Lubovitcher, are leaning toward Cuomo.

The New Testament (Greek) was written at a time when man-boy love was still in its Greek heyday. You know--sex abuse of the type Plato praises. However, it was beginning to be seen for what it was and beginning to be an embarrassment. Among Greek Jews, it was disgusting since it violated the Tanakh's proscription against male on male rape. The three angels of Sodom of whom the homophobic Christians love to write were threatened with rape.

At all events, the NT generalized from male rape to gay sex. See below for Highlights from the "Scriptures" of the Religion of Love (sic).

Continues below

Continued:

Unfortunately, early and medieval christian influence on Jews along with other more disgusting historical facts too numerous to go into here led many into the hateful path of rejecting homosexuality, confusing the Tanakh, taking the Christian literalist (and idiotic) reading on some points. This is entirely nonJudaic as many Conservative and Reform Jews have pointed out to their erring brothers, since Judaism is interpretative (non)foundationally. The Bible (Tanakh)is, in fact, internally foundational.

On these grounds, some headway is being made with some Orthodox Jews on the issue of homosexuality.

As an atheist, I value knowledge and accuracy. Kindly consider the value of the foregoing the next time you post.

continued

NT Higlights on Gayness (REligion of Love Strikes Again)

NT HIGHLIGHTS on Gays (Religion of Love strikes again.)

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (TNIV), Paul says:
“ Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Realizing that law 1 is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 1:10 sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, 2 kidnappers, liars, perjurers – in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching. 1 Tim 1:9-10

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

What's worse is that religious leaders invent lies to justify the Biblical prohibition such as the horribly offensive conviction that gays choose to be gay. How convenient. These self-righteous dictators are a Google-click away from bias-free scientific resources which have all but concluded that homosexuality is certainly not a choice but a harmless, biological coincidence brought about by a combination of genetics, biology, and environment. But that reality is too inconvenient. And what true believer wants to compromise their own blissful little delusion aboub Biblical infallibility by reading facts that contradict Bronze-age idiocy? Meanwhile, gay teens by thousands have killed themselves. Apparently, it really isn't that easy to "change." Interestingly, gay animals don't feel the need to do so either. So not only is religion the obstacle to gay equality, but it is also a gross manipulator of truth, a dissemintaor of needlessfully harmful information, and not to mention, an accomplice to murder.

Religious heterosexuals seem to have figured out a way to ignore and bypass all of the biblical laws that apply to THEM and THEIR sexuality.

They'll 'figure this out,' too.

Just as soon as the Sunday collection plate beings to suffer.