Why do Christians like to fixate so much on homosexuality?

Page 6 of 15 [ 237 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 15  Next

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Feb 2011, 10:40 am

Philologos wrote:
"inferred from Genesis Ch. 9,"

This is not the Constitution, it is the court interpreting the Constitution.

Even if it is the Supreme Court - the equivalent, that is - 'it is not the same thing.



Correct. The seven laws of Noah were gotten as midrash from the written Torah and are the product of Rabbinic interpretation of TNKH. They are part of the oral tradition.

ruveyn



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

09 Feb 2011, 11:57 am

Here are the relevant bits from Genesis 9

Quote:
1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

6 “Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.

7 As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.”


Okay, we get to eat pork chops. Hooray.

...and possibly...

Quote:
20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked.

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,

“Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.”

26 He also said,

“Praise be to the LORD, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
27 May God extend Japheth’s territory;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.”

Poor Canaan. He had nothing to do with it--it was his dad, Ham, who happened to see his grandpa drunk and naked. It isn't as if either Ham or Canaan had done anything wrong--it's not as if either of them had tried to rape Noah. it was Noah's fault for being drunk and naked. Boy, and this Noah was supposedly so much of a Goody-Two-Shoes that God had to save him and him alone.


Now for the 7 Laws of Noah:

1) to establish courts of justice: not there

2) not to commit blasphemy; not there

3) not to commit idolatry; not there

4) not to commit incest and adultery; not there

5) not to commit bloodshed; that is there

6) not to commit robbery; not there, but, at that point, there was hardly anyone worth robbing

7) not to eat flesh cut from a living animal. okay, I conceed that one.

Is there an official version of the Seven Laws of Noah that we may read? When did the equivalent of the Supreme Court hand this down?

I gather that the 7 Laws of Noah are not to be regarded as "inspired", and therefore not really something that Christians would care about. It might even be less than the Apocrypha.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Feb 2011, 1:35 pm

pandabear wrote:
Here are the relevant bits from Genesis 9

Quote:
1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

6 “Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.

7 As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.”


Okay, we get to eat pork chops. Hooray.

...and possibly...

Quote:
20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked.

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,

“Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.”

26 He also said,

“Praise be to the LORD, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
27 May God extend Japheth’s territory;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.”

Poor Canaan. He had nothing to do with it--it was his dad, Ham, who happened to see his grandpa drunk and naked. It isn't as if either Ham or Canaan had done anything wrong--it's not as if either of them had tried to rape Noah. it was Noah's fault for being drunk and naked. Boy, and this Noah was supposedly so much of a Goody-Two-Shoes that God had to save him and him alone.


Now for the 7 Laws of Noah:

1) to establish courts of justice: not there

2) not to commit blasphemy; not there

3) not to commit idolatry; not there

4) not to commit incest and adultery; not there

5) not to commit bloodshed; that is there

6) not to commit robbery; not there, but, at that point, there was hardly anyone worth robbing

7) not to eat flesh cut from a living animal. okay, I conceed that one.

Is there an official version of the Seven Laws of Noah that we may read? When did the equivalent of the Supreme Court hand this down?

I gather that the 7 Laws of Noah are not to be regarded as "inspired", and therefore not really something that Christians would care about. It might even be less than the Apocrypha.


I know that a lot of conservative Christians believe that Ham took "advantage" of the old man while he was drunk, saying that it was "implied."
And racists use this text to justify slavery.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

09 Feb 2011, 1:53 pm

It's true that the bible calls for death for many things. If God wants you to kill your daughter if she's not a virgin on her wedding night and then kill your son because he engaged in intercourse with another man, why suggest that one behavior is especially disliked? He wants them dead either way.

Disrespectful children are also to be killed, as are women who are raped in the city and yet don't yell loud enough to attract attention.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

09 Feb 2011, 3:21 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
I know that a lot of conservative Christians believe that Ham took "advantage" of the old man while he was drunk, saying that it was "implied."
And racists use this text to justify slavery.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


If Ham raped Noah while he was drunk, his punishment could be for rape and incest rather than happening to be the wrong gender.

As far as slavery, there are many more passages in the bible that condone it (including in the New Testament). This passage just justifies treating black people as inferior to white people.



Pistonhead
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,732
Location: Bradenton, Florida

09 Feb 2011, 4:15 pm

They're closet homosexuals 'nuff said.


_________________
"Some ideals are worth dying for"
==tOGoWPO==


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Feb 2011, 4:36 pm

Pistonhead wrote:
They're closet homosexuals 'nuff said.


That's pretty much what I think.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

09 Feb 2011, 4:54 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Pistonhead wrote:
They're closet homosexuals 'nuff said.


That's pretty much what I think.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Yeah, there was a good documentary on this subject called, "Outrage". It covered a number of vocal anti-homosexual leaders who later turned out to be gay.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

09 Feb 2011, 5:47 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
I know that a lot of conservative Christians believe that Ham took "advantage" of the old man while he was drunk, saying that it was "implied."
And racists use this text to justify slavery.



The Bible does not mince words like that. If Ham had raped Noah, then Genesis would have clearly said so, instead of saying that all he did was take a peek and tell his brothers.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

09 Feb 2011, 5:50 pm

LKL wrote:

If Ham raped Noah while he was drunk, his punishment could be for rape and incest rather than happening to be the wrong gender.

As far as slavery, there are many more passages in the bible that condone it (including in the New Testament). This passage just justifies treating black people as inferior to white people.


"Black" people? Where do you get that either Ham or his son Canaan were "Black?"

I think that bit was inserted to justify the later Israelites capturing and enslaving the residents of the Holy Land, who weren't Black.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Feb 2011, 5:57 pm

pandabear wrote:
LKL wrote:

If Ham raped Noah while he was drunk, his punishment could be for rape and incest rather than happening to be the wrong gender.

As far as slavery, there are many more passages in the bible that condone it (including in the New Testament). This passage just justifies treating black people as inferior to white people.


"Black" people? Where do you get that either Ham or his son Canaan were "Black?"

I think that bit was inserted to justify the later Israelites capturing and enslaving the residents of the Holy Land, who weren't Black.


Exactly. But you can't make sense to a rabid racist.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Nambo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,882
Location: Prussia

09 Feb 2011, 7:01 pm

pandabear wrote:
LKL wrote:

If Ham raped Noah while he was drunk, his punishment could be for rape and incest rather than happening to be the wrong gender.

As far as slavery, there are many more passages in the bible that condone it (including in the New Testament). This passage just justifies treating black people as inferior to white people.


"Black" people? Where do you get that either Ham or his son Canaan were "Black?"

I think that bit was inserted to justify the later Israelites capturing and enslaving the residents of the Holy Land, who weren't Black.


It was Hams other son, Cush who is thought to be the originator of the Black race, there is a scripture somewhere that says something like, "or can a Cushite change the colour of his skin".
Nowhere was Cush given a punishment of slavery.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Feb 2011, 7:36 pm

Nambo wrote:
pandabear wrote:
LKL wrote:

If Ham raped Noah while he was drunk, his punishment could be for rape and incest rather than happening to be the wrong gender.

As far as slavery, there are many more passages in the bible that condone it (including in the New Testament). This passage just justifies treating black people as inferior to white people.


"Black" people? Where do you get that either Ham or his son Canaan were "Black?"

I think that bit was inserted to justify the later Israelites capturing and enslaving the residents of the Holy Land, who weren't Black.


It was Hams other son, Cush who is thought to be the originator of the Black race, there is a scripture somewhere that says something like, "or can a Cushite change the colour of his skin".
Nowhere was Cush given a punishment of slavery.


Again, exactly; but you can't talk sense to a rabid racist.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Natty_Boh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Dec 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 756
Location: Baltimore County

10 Feb 2011, 10:01 am

If 'fixation' means 'obsession' (pandabear): most Christians don't fixate on the issue. However, most Christians, and indeed most people, will match intensity for intensity on an issue once it's been raised. My take is that it's a generational thing: for my age group (speaking generally again), homosexuality only really stands out in regards to the marriage question. The legal reshaping of the concept of marriage matters - otherwise, homosexual behavior is no better or worse (depending on one's view) than a whole host of other sexual behaviors, why single it out?

If 'fixation' means 'opposition' (Waltur): most Christians don't fixate on the issue. Per se. Most Christians are saying "marriage is this, therefore it cannot also be this." A positive belief in something brings with it the negative corollary of rejecting whatever contradicts it. We don't oppose for opposition's sake, but for the sake of "traditional" marriage.


_________________
For men are homesick in their homes,
And strangers under the sun,
And they lay their heads in a foreign land
Whenever the day is done."


waltur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

10 Feb 2011, 2:21 pm

Natty_Boh wrote:
If 'fixation' means 'obsession' (pandabear): most Christians don't fixate on the issue. However, most Christians, and indeed most people, will match intensity for intensity on an issue once it's been raised. My take is that it's a generational thing: for my age group (speaking generally again), homosexuality only really stands out in regards to the marriage question. The legal reshaping of the concept of marriage matters - otherwise, homosexual behavior is no better or worse (depending on one's view) than a whole host of other sexual behaviors, why single it out?

If 'fixation' means 'opposition' (Waltur): most Christians don't fixate on the issue. Per se. Most Christians are saying "marriage is this, therefore it cannot also be this." A positive belief in something brings with it the negative corollary of rejecting whatever contradicts it. We don't oppose for opposition's sake, but for the sake of "traditional" marriage.


what is it about allowing men to marry men that threatens the marriage i have with my wife?

keep trying. you're still doing it wrong.

edit: also, fixation doesn't mean "opposition" and i can't seem to find my post on this thread that you're responding to. or were you just addressing that toward me because you know i look down on you for your bigoted stance? regardless, if your "traditional" marriage is threatened by allowing people to marry members of their own sex, your problem is not marriage law.


_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)


Natty_Boh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Dec 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 756
Location: Baltimore County

10 Feb 2011, 2:47 pm

waltur wrote:
what is it about allowing men to marry men that threatens the marriage i have with my wife?

keep trying. you're still doing it wrong.


It will impact what we as a society consider marriage to be, in form and in purpose. Whether it will have any effect on your particular marriage is your call.

Quote:
edit: also, fixation doesn't mean "opposition" and i can't seem to find my post on this thread that you're responding to. or were you just addressing that toward me because you know i look down on you for your bigoted stance? regardless, if your "traditional" marriage is threatened by allowing people to marry members of their own sex, your problem is not marriage law.


Rereading, it looks like I misunderstood you. Apologies.


_________________
For men are homesick in their homes,
And strangers under the sun,
And they lay their heads in a foreign land
Whenever the day is done."