Natural Rights

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Garnet

A lot of folks have no issue with gay people marrying one another. But the ones who are making a stink about it are doing so because of their faith.

By that you presumably mean religious tenets; but you may rest assured that there are plenty of people who understand that rather than homosexuality being immoral because the Bible says it is, the Bible says so because it IS so.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Farren

And "Thou shalt worship no other god but me" strikes me as pretty unreasonable.

That's because you haven't yet felt the consequences of the alternative. The Jews certainly did, if the OT is substantially correct about their history from Moses through the Babylonian captivity.

[Farren]

yguy I'll come back to your preceding post later. But I have to say this.

Belief entails considering an idea about the world to be true.
Hope entails desiring a possibility to be true. And
Faith entails believing in something to the extent that even the complete absence of evidence, or contrary evidence, will not change that belief.

I have faith in my close friends, sometimes, in the face of evidence that they may fail or don't have the qualities I believe they have. But I have no faith in most authority figures.

Nor do I need any in order to conform to the social contracts they may enforce.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Farren

Faith entails believing in something to the extent that even the complete absence of evidence, or contrary evidence, will not change that belief.

I think what you are referring to here is called, "blind faith." Yea, even Jesus referred to the "blind leaders of the blind." ~ Matthew 15:14

I have faith in my close friends, sometimes, in the face of evidence that they may fail or don't have the qualities I believe they have. But I have no faith in most authority figures.

I have "faith" that the sun will shine tomorrow. Whereas if we refer to a God which is invisible, and yet He does exist (in spirit), then it may require a different kind of faith, other than one which is "blind."

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Farren

I mean the whole story of the Jews wandering in the desert for forever and a day. Probably a lot of poetic license in there.

And "Thou shalt worship no other god but me" strikes me as pretty unreasonable.

As a means of unification (as if with one mind), such a commandment would be quite helpful. Whereas if "the mind" were reasonable, it only stands to reason that the rest of body should follow suit. This would apply even more-so if one's survival were at stake.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Farren

I mean the whole story of the Jews wandering in the desert for forever and a day. Probably a lot of poetic license in there.

There are no "ten commandments."

However I prefer the earliest version which demands child sacrifice--particularly around this annoying holiday season.

And "Thou shalt worship no other god but me" strikes me as pretty unreasonable.

You need to dump the KJV.

FYI.

Evidences in a moment.

And there is no Santa Claus.

--J. "Bah-Humbug" D.

[Doctor X]

I have learned to keep copies of researched answers to topics that arise on a number of sites--such as the Decalogue, the Documentary Hypothesis, whether or not Exodus or the Conquest happened, et cetera. I have updated some details.

This was originally compiled whilst I watch'd the New England Patriots defeat some guys from a southern state in the Super Bowl. . . .

To which, I will add, what irony given the fact I revised this whilst they crushed some guys from Pennsylvania.

{So . . . long . . . ago . . . }

Further revision comes as I listen to Phil hammer out "Apocalypse in 9/8" live. A fitting melody this late evening. . . .

The Decalogue

Well, it required a sacrifice of a small child--Staff did not post that warning against Girl Scouts sellers for no reason--upon the battlements, but the Patriots prevailed which allows me to cracketh my Friedman to address those Pesky Roughly 10 Commandments.

First, a brief introduction to whom the writers were according to Friedman's summary of the Documentary Hypothesis. His second source provides a nice summary of the arguments for multi-authorship in a 31-page introduction, whilst providing the texts of the Pentateuch divided into the authors. This makes seeing how the Redactor blended the J and P versions of the Flood Myth much easier, for example. I will not get into possible layers of authorship, though it appears that the main authors represent the work of individuals rather than committees or schools. D is usually divided into two authors, and Friedman argues for the same author writing at different periods. Friedman details theories on the dates for these authors in his references.

J: is the "Jahwist" author, known for his use of YHWH for the name of the deity. He never uses Elohim, though individuals in the J stories may. Friedman demonstrates the connection between J and Judah which I will not summarize for space.

E: is the "Eloist" author, known for his use of Elohim for the name of the deity. "Elohim" is actually plural--"gods"--and while the traditions may preserve truly polytheistic conceptions, by context the name refers to at least a deity more important than the others. Just to cause confusion, E will switch to YHWH after he appears to Moses and identifies himself as such. Friedman identifies E as a Shiloh Levite priest, possibly descended from the Mosaic line, named Bob [Stop that.--Ed.]. Right, again, he devotes about a chapter to the evidence for this.

D: is the Deutronomistic author, who, according to Friedman, writes a lot of the OT--Deuteronomy-Joshua-Judges-1 & 2 Samuel-1 & 2 Kings. He has similar attitudes as E--hates Aaronid priesthood: "In his introduction and conclusion to the book of Deuteronomy, he mentioned Aaron only twice: once to say that he died, and once to say that God was mad enough to destroy him in the matter of the golden calf." Long . . . long . . . long story short, Friedman suggests he is Jeremiah or, more likely, Jeremiah's scribe Baruch.

D generally uses JE, but does quote P to reverse P. For example, the book of Jeremiah contains quotes from P. It ". . . reverses the language of the P creation story, denies that God emphasized matters of sacrifices in the day that Israel left Egypt. Jeremiah knew the Priestly laws and stories. He did not like them, but he knew them."

P: is the "Priestly" author. He uses JE and follows the stories. Indeed, he uses Elohim like E, though, according to Friedman, his style is so identifiable, he was easy to separate from E. Also, the "Elohim" stories have "doublets"--repeated material--which suggests two authors. Friedman identifies him as an Aaronid priest, or one serving their interests. P promotes Aaron and diminishes Moses:

P was written as an alternative to JE. The JE stories regularly said: "And Yahweh said unto Moses. . . ." But the author of P often made it: "And Yahweh said unto Moses and unto Aaron. . . ."

Again, Friedman goes into detail. Here is a fun one for you Creation Fans:

. . . in the twin stories of the flood . . . the J version said that Noah took seven pairs of all the clean (i.e., fit for sacrifice) animals and one pair of the unclean animals on the ark. But P just said that it was two of every kind of animal. Why? Because, in J, at the end of the story Noah offers a sacrifice. He therefore needs more than two of each of the clean animals or his sacrifice would wipe out a species. In P's perspective, however, two sheep and two cows are enough because there will be no portrayals of sacrifices until the consecration of Aaron.

R: is the "Redactor" who put together the texts. Interestingly, he does not significantly "harmonize" the stories--removing repetitions or even conflicts--and contributes little "new" material.

All of these authors contribute to the texts that we know as the "Ten Commandments." Now, let us define who wrote what:

E Writer: Ex 15:25b-26

There he [YHWH--Ed.] made for them a statute and an ordinance and there he proved them, saying, "if you will diligently hearken to the voice of YHWH your god, and do that which is right in his eyes, and give heed to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases upon you which I put upon the Egyptians; for I am YHWH, your healer."

okay . . . not much there. According to Friedman, the long E section of rules, Ex 21:1-27; 22:1-30; 23:1-33, is considered based on an earlier "Covenant Code" source. I will not quote that in its entirety, but it starts with rules for slaves, then lists the death penalty for various offenses including striking Mum and Dad, "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth," murderous oxen, then various torts such as leaving holes for oxen to fall in and negligent fire safety, more death penalty, this time for Wiccans and people who like farm animals, then lending rules, forbiddance of blasphemy and cursing your chieftain, then the demand for child sacrifice, then sacrifice of the first-born of other animals . . . ZZZZzzzzzzzzZZZZZzzzzzzZZZZzzzzz . . . oh and do not boil that kid in his mother's milk while you are at it. One can try to pick and choose the artificial "ten" rules from the later P and D decalogues, but this will require passing over much of the material. One will also have a great time trying to fit them onto two "tablets" or "tables!" J fans will have a similar problem.

It is E who will have Moses do the "smash the tables" thing. Moses finds out about Aaron and his Golden Calf:

Ex 32:15-16; 19 And Moses turned, and went down from the mountain with the two tables of the testimony in his hands, table that were written on both sides; on the one side and on the other were they written. And the tables were the work of god, and the writing was the writing of god, graven upon the tables. . . . And as soon as he came near the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, Moses' anger burned hot, and he threw the tables out of his hands and broke them at the foot of the mountain.

Interestingly, the E material prior to this section--Ex 24:9-15--separated by lengthly P material, has Moses, Aaron, and their Merry Men see "the god of Israel":

Ex 24:9-11 Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the god of Israel; and there was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld god, and ate and drank.

Thus, we are to believe that Aaron and various others decided right after literally seeing "the god of Israel" that they needed to create their own false deity! This is polemic.

J Writer: Ex 34:14-28

The YHWHistic "Decalogue," like the E's, is actually a small part of a section of commandments. YHWH starts giving commandments right at the beginning of the chapter. Ex 34:1b has the Redactor explaining the problem that the J story does not have Moses smash the tablets.

YHWH said to Moses, "Cut two tables of stone like the first; and I will write upon the tables the words that were on the first tables, which you broke.

Friedman suggests that the E writer wished to raise doubts about Judah's central religious shrine--it could not have had the original tablets:

The Temple in Judah housed the ark that was supposed to contain the two tablets of the Ten Commandments. According to the E story of the golden calf, Moses smashes the tablets. That means that according to the E source the ark down south in the Temple in Jerusalem either contains unauthentic tables or not tablets at all.

The author of E, in fashioning the golden calf story, attacked both the Israelite and the Judean religious establishments. Both had excluded his group.

Nothing sets the "10 Commandments" apart in the J text. The J text that is similar to the Decalogue of the other writers is:

"(for you shall worship no other god, for YHWH is a jealous god), lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and when they play the harlot after their gods and sacrifice to their gods and one invites you, you eat of his sacrifice, and you take of their daughters for your sons, and their daughters play the harlot after their gods and make your sons play the harlot after their gods. You shall make for yourself no molten gods. The feast of unleaven bread you shall keep. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, at the time appointed in the month Abib; for in the month Abib you came out from Egypt. All that opens the womb is mine, all your male cattle, the firstlings of cow and sheep. The firstling of an ass you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. All the first-born of your sons you shall redeem. And none shall appear before me empty. Six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; in plowing time and in harvest you shall rest. And you shall observe the feast of weeks, the first fruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end. Three times in the year shall all your males appear before YHWH god, the god of Israel. For I will cast out nations before you and enlarge your borders; neither shall any many desire your land, when you go up to appear before YHWH your god three times in the year. You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left until the morning. The first of the first fruits of your ground you shall bring to the house of YHWH your god. You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk."

And YHWH said to Moses, "Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." And he was there with YHWH forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote upon tables the words of the covenant, the words. [The RSV admits to using "ten commandments" for the Hebrew "words."--Ed.]

and is considerably longer than ten! Good thing Former-Chief Justice Moore did not choose this version or E's Covenant Codes! Fans wilt note that this version contains the J version of my favorite commandment--child sacrifice! In this version, J allows "redeeming" the first-born whereas in the E commandment--considered part of the "Covenant Code"--no such redemption is allowed [Ex 22:29b--Ed.].

Where are our other favorite commandments? No sabbath rule, no, "thou shalt nots"--kill/murder, covet, bear false witness--though, as with the E Covenant Code, be careful about boiling kids in their mother's milk . . . and do not offer the blood of the sacrificed on leaven bread.

P Writer: Ex 20:2-17

Similarly, these are not called the "10 Commandments" in the text, and they are rather longer than ten. P, a big Aaron fan since the writer is considered part of the Aaronid priesthood, adds Aaron to the story. The introduction: "And god spoke all these words, saying," is the Redactor who brought together the combined JE with P:

"I am YHWH your god, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before/besides me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I YHWH your god am a jealous god, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. You shall not take the name of YHWH your god in vain; for YHWH will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. Remember the sabbath day to sanctify it. Six days you shall labor and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath day to YHWH your god; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; because in six days YHWH made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and he rested on the seventh day. Therefore YHWH blessed the sabbath day and sanctified it.[Probable R--Ed.] Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which YHWH your god gives you. You shall not kill. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's."

again, quite a bit of writing with little correspondence to the J version. Apparently, YHWH dictates different versions. I "corrected" the RSV version to Friedman's translation, because he notes that P quotes his own creation story. In his later work, Friedman changes his mind a bit and suggests that it, ". . . does not appear to belong to any of the major sources. It is likely to be an independent document, which was inserted by the Redactor," (Friedman, The Bible). D, as seen below, prefers to cite the D reason for keeping commandments--he got you out of slavery. Friedman notes that a Dead Sea Scroll text combines both reasons [All Souls Deuteronomy Scroll--Ed.]. Frankly, his earlier treatment of the passage makes just as much sense:

The differences between the Ten Commandments as they appear here and in Deuteronomy 5 indicate that there was an original text of the Ten Commandment--which appears to have been a part of E originally--that was elaborated upon by the person who produced P in typical P terminology, and by the person who produced Dtr1 in typical D terminology (Friedman, Who).

The P version is also dependent upon Hosea (Cohn):

Hos 13:4 I am YHWH your god since your days in Egypt, you know no god(s) [Elohim—Ed.] but me, and besides me there is no saviour.

Cohn explains that Hosea is, “. . . the oldest document of the Yahweh-alone movement,” and, “. . . what the Book of Hosea portrays is an official religion that is polytheistic, and which is therefore abomination by Yahweh, . . .” (Cohn).

D Writer: Deut 5:6-17

[Perpetually dying Moses summons "all Israel" to re-state the commandments.--Ed.] "'I am YHWH your god, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before/besides me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I YHWH your god am a jealous god, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. You shall not take the name of YHWH your god in vain: for YHWH will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as YHWH your god commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath day to YHWH your god; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your manservant and your maidservant may rest as well as you. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and YHWH your god brought you out from there with a strong hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore YHWH your god commanded you to observe the sabbath day. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with you, in the land which YHWH your god gives you. You shall not kill. You shall not commit adultery. Neither shall you steal. Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor. Neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife; you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's.'

Again, no mention of this "ten commandments." Notice the different reasons for keeping the sabbath in the D and P versions. We can also see D quoting P material while dropping the P creation reference.

The reason for the differences, then, are different authors with different agendas.

--J.D.

References:

Cohn N. Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come: The Ancient Roots of Apocalyptic Faith. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.

Friedman RE. Who Wrote the Bible?. 2nd Ed. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1997.

Friedman RE. The Bible with Sources Revealed. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2003.

[Iacchus]

All this history, without the mystery, is pretty dead. Hence we have an "invisible" God, who doesn't like us to make graven images, and therefore (as with the Roman Catholic Church) take His name in vain. If this invisible God does exist, then we need time set aside, such as the Sabbath, in order to reflect upon this. How else should we expect to worship Him? If, however, this God doesn't exist, then it is all for naught, except perhaps that it provides the basis (in our spare time) for philosophical reasoning ...

[liquidrage]

Originally Posted by yguy

By that you presumably mean religious tenets; but you may rest assured that there are plenty of people who understand that rather than homosexuality being immoral because the Bible says it is, the Bible says so because it IS so.

I'm very confused by this statement. Either the Bible is the word of God and morality is given as is with no explanation needed or given. Or the Bible is not the word of God and the morality expressed in the Bible is open to questioning.

Are you attempting to make a comparison to the Bible's treatment of shellfish? Where one could consider that shellfish can cause sickness and therefor worked its way into religion?
However, if you were to take that approach I would assume you would then wind up considering it a differentiation from Greek culture were homosexuality was widely practiced.

You seem to imply the latter which would need to be supported in such a way as to show a negative effect on survival.

[Doctor X]

"The Bible" does not say homosexuality is immoral.

yguy has had this explained to him previously; he just does not want to accept it. When "the Bible" contains things he does not like, he merely flees from it.

Also, oddly enough, the various dietary rules were not because of some health reason per se but to re-enforce rather artificial distinctions between "us" and "them." Rather complicated subject, but there you go.

Finally, "the Bible," itself, rather denies it is the "word of god"--to which one should always ask "which god" given the polytheistic history of the religions reflected in the texts--and that includes the "New Testament."

"Lying pen of scribes" as one passage proclaims.

FYI. . . .

--J.D.

[Iacchus]

Sodomites? Or, do you think God destroyed Sodom (according to the Bible) due to "rampant" homosexuality? Of course it does mention, before its destruction, the attempt to sodomize God's host ... albeit that is more akin to "rape."

[liquidrage]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

"The Bible" does not say homosexuality is immoral.

That's pretty much irrelevant as the Bible says a lot of things people don't accept, and doesn't say a lot of things people accept. And by that I mean, it's open to interpretation, sound or not. And that is ignoring potential issues with translation/transliteration.

In this case though it looks like he has a belief that homosexuality is inherently immoral, and the Bible, logically, reflects that. In which case he should easily be able to state the inherent issues with homosexuality.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by liquidrage

That's pretty much irrelevant as the Bible says a lot of things people don't accept, . . .

To you perhaps, but to those who contend the Bible says a certain thing or, worse, that it is "inerrant and every word true," it proves most relevant.

Look at yguy's quote: he is claiming the text states something it does not state. Granted, he does not like accepting that.

And by that I mean, it's open to interpretation, sound or not.

That depends on the particular text: it is rather clear.

And that is ignoring potential issues with translation/transliteration.

It is quite clear in the respective languages--translation is what muddled things.

In this case though it looks like he has a belief that homosexuality is inherently immoral, and the Bible, logically, reflects that.

Which it does not. It may not seem an important point to you but it is to him since he uses the biblical texts as a crutch and excuse for his prejudices.

In which case he should easily be able to state the inherent issues with homosexuality.

As his quote shows, he cannot. He falls back on an ipse dixit fallacy: "the Bible says it's immoral because it is immoral." This protects him, psychologically, from having to actually think about whether or not it is immoral.

Since the Bible does not state it is "immoral;" his crutch is made of wet toilet paper.

--J.D.

[Iacchus]

I think the problem we have with homosexuality is when we begin to portray it as something that is normal, to the extent that men and women were not "naturally" designed for each other and, that it is something the whole society should engage in. This provides the basis for much confusion, and perhaps the basis for moral decay ... in the sense that we are promoting and thus embracing an aberration. Perhaps this is what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah?

[Farren]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

I think the problem we have with homosexuality is when we begin to portray it as something that is normal, to the extent that men and women were not "naturally" designed for each other and, that it is something the whole society should engage in. This provides the basis for much confusion, and perhaps the basis for moral decay ... in the sense that we are promoting and thus embracing an aberration. Perhaps this is what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah?

I think the problem with even thinking like that is that such an idea has no relationship to reality.

It has always astonished me that there are straights who honestly believe someone can "turn" gay, as if it was, say, the same as developing a fetish for stockinged legs.

I have probably asked upwards of a thousand clueless and homophobic straights the same question: "Could you ever see yourself being influenced by cultural forces to spend the rest of your life in same-sex relationships?" and the answer is always a resounding "NO!"

How someone can reconcile that blindingly obvious realisation - that our sexual identity goes to the root of our being and is cannot be altered by culture or curiousity - with the idea that other people are really straight and became gay so they could run with the cool kids - is beyond rational understanding. For God's sake, the self-evident absurdity of such a view is right there in your own reactions people!

And I speak as an outlier, a straight guy who has had gay sex just for the sake of experimentation. I didn't enjoy it and there is no way in hell I'm gonna spend the rest of my life doing it. Its so fucking obvious that gay people are inherently, congenitally gay, not freakin' straights following a trend.

The "if we treat this as normal everyone will do it" line is not just offensive for it's bigotry. Its offensive for its Sheer. Fucking. Mind-Numbing. Stupidity.

Gays are born gay. Their sexuality has no negative influence on the proper functioning of society, and society should therefore stay the fuck out of their sex lives.

[liquidrage]

The problem we have with homosexuality is that it is simply sex for pleasure and that has been openly discriminated against for centuries in much of western culture due to Christianity's influence.

And X, while I don't disagree with what you're saying, I think it's still irrelevant in this context. You're discrediting the source from a scholarly standpoint. But most religious views doesn't exist due to research.

What I'd like to here from yguy is what his "IS" is. If it's simply the divine right of creating morality, then his statement is circular. If he feels there's an inherent issue with homosexuality outside of a divine moral source saying so, I'd love to hear it.

[Iacchus]

Yes, everyone has both their male and female aspects, attributable to the fact that we all have a mother and a father, not a mother and a mother, nor a father and a father. And yes, it is possible to magnify/amplify the one aspect over the other. If you don't believe this is so, then we shouldn't frown on such things as child molestation and pedophilia. And, while these may not directly be attributable to homosexuality (notwithstanding that it may be repressed), it does show how we/our children are susceptible to other people's sexual views, through the trauma and lasting impression that it leaves.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Farren

Gays are born gay. Their sexuality has no negative influence on the proper functioning of society, and society should therefore stay the fuck out of their sex lives.

No, I don't have any problems with homosexuals per se', just so long as it's not continually shoved in front of my face. Meaning I have the same right not to be exposed to such nonsense myself.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Farren

Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with homosexuality; it was about failure to provide hospitality--a major "no-no" in the region.

FYI. . . .

I think the problem with even thinking like that is that such an idea has no relationship to reality.

Since homosexuality occurs naturally in the animal kingdom, that rather sinks such claims right then and there.

And I speak as an outlier, a straight guy who has had gay sex just for the sake of experimentation.

Fag.







And I want the negatives back. . . .

Its so fucking obvious that gay people are inherently, congenitally gay, not freakin' straights following a trend.

Not to tangent, but whether or not people are "born gay," "choose to be gay" or some combination, it really is not anyone's business.

Right:

Originally Posted by liquid

The problem we have with homosexuality is that it is simply sex for pleasure and that has been openly discriminated against for centuries in much of western culture due to Christianity's influence.

No to the first part and yes to the second part; unless you are trying to state that the perception of opponents is that it is "simply sex for pleasure."

And X, while I don't disagree with what you're saying, I think it's still irrelevant in this context. You're discrediting the source from a scholarly standpoint. But most religious views doesn't exist due to research.

I understand your point; I am merely dealing with someone like yguy who tries to use text to support a prejudice. It is akin to my claiming that the Declaration of Independence states I, personally, have the inalienable right to be Nicole Kidman's Snuggle-Bunny. I may have a "right to that opinion/belief," but it, sadly, remains wrong. So when I try to cite the D of I as a basis for my stalking, I fail.

Normally, one would not waste the time trying to rebut a fool opinion like that; however, yguy is not the only one with that misconception, and he certainly is not the only one to claim the Bible says what it does not to justify a personal or even cultural prejudice.

When a couple of people start agreeing with my reading of the D of I then, sadly, one has to rebut it. Sort of why every-so-often we have to remind people that, yes, men did land on the Moon.

What I'd like to here from yguy is what his "IS" is.

Good luck.

--J.D.

[Farren]

People are not born paedophiles. People are born gay. There is substantial biological evidence for a gay physiology*. There is none for a paedophile physiology.

Paedophila is a mental fetish. Homosexuality is a biological predisposition. The one tells us nothing about the other.

*Differences in the size of sexuality influencing-nodes in the brain between straight and gay men. Differences in the size of the corpus collosum between straight and gay men (the corpus collosum is larger in gay men than straight men, and larger still in straight women).

[Farren]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

No, I don't have any problems with homosexuals per se', just so long as it's not continually shoved in front of my face. Meaning I have the same right not to be exposed to such nonsense myself.

What, you mean the way 90% of movies, tv shows and everyday behaviour shoves straight sexuality in gay faces? Since homosexuality is a congenital condition of an organism, this is exactly the same as saying "I've got nothing against black people. I just don't like them walking around being black in public". And its just as bigoted and irrational.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with homosexuality; it was about failure to provide hospitality--a major "no-no" in the region.

Failure to provide hospitality to whom? ... the angels who came to destroy it? Sorry, I don't recall the full story in detail. This is, however, one of the things that stood out in my mind.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Farren

What, you mean the way 90% of movies, tv shows and everyday behaviour shoves straight sexuality in gay faces? Since homosexuality is a congenital condition of an organism, this is exactly the same as saying "I've got nothing against black people. I just don't like them walking around being black in public". And its just as bigoted and irrational.

So, anyone who believes heterosexuality is "normal" is automatically a bigot? Yes, this is the kind of sheer nonsense I'm talking about. While, thus far, all I've stated is that homosexuality is an aberration. Now, how we deal with that aberration, is another story.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Farren

Differences in the size of sexuality influencing-nodes in the brain between straight and gay men. Differences in the size of the corpus collosum between straight and gay men (the corpus collosum is larger in gay men than straight men, and larger still in straight women).

This evidences--thanks--is really not very good.

So what happens to a woman who has agenesis of the corpus collosum? Is she a lesbian? What about a man who has agenesis of the corpus collosum?

See the problem?

Not saying it is wrong, but be careful.

--J.D.

[Farren]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

So, anyone who believes heterosexuality is "normal" is automatically a bigot? Yes, this is the kind of sheer nonsense I'm talking about.

No, someone who thinks "not the norm" automatically means "reprehensible" or "offensive to the eye" is a bigot. Especially when its perfectly obvious they don't apply that standard to a million other things that aren't the norm. Are the minority of people who actually like that Malaysian fruit that smells like rotting flesh evil? Is it wrong for them to eat it in the public eye? What an amazingly absurd argument.