<p>
</p>
<p>It is this condescending attitude that irks religious people. I find it more rational to believe in a higher: the evidence of an existence of someone higher than us is all around us. </p>
<p>[I have to confess that I am not a religious person myself, but there is nothing irrational about believing in God]</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I fail to see how this is the same: Can you point anywhere in any religious text that says you should not marry any other race other than your own? For a lot of religious people being of the same religion is far more important than what race you are.</p>
<p>Your belief system as described in post 141 sounds more like your personal faith or spirituality, not religion, tega.</p>
<p>This thread is about to jump the shark, if it hasn’t already. Soon someone may bring in the analogy to the nazis and we’ll have hit Godwin’s law.</p>
<p>Before an official shark-jumping post . . . </p>
<p>I think I have posted one previous reference to Scripture among my 1000+ posts; now I will bring my total to triple that. With regard to post #137, it is probably not too hard to find components of any religion that can be mocked. </p>
<p>Working on the Sabbath is addressed in Mark 2:23-28. (Brief version: It’s ok.) To generalize, Matthew 22:36-40 covers the Greatest Commandment. Actually, there are two. Part of the first: “Love the Lord . . . with all your mind.” I take that to mean something. (If there is a Greek scholar out there, he/she can probably give the connotative meaning of the Greek.) The second: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you combine the two of these, the questions in the West Wing episode are easy to answer—including the implicit one.</p>
<p>Right-wing, fundamentalist Christians are not the only Christians. There is actually a substantial Christian left, although that doesn’t get much press.</p>
<p>
Doesn’t this approach, though, suggest that if you are chucking part of it then you have to chuck it all? That seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water.</p>
<p>
To go even further off topic, but this is one of my pet peeves…this is supposed to be so clever, but it’s really quite ignorant. The Bible has different kinds of rules in it–some of them are broad moral rules (and a lot of those, including the idea that homosexuality is sinful, are in the New Testament as well as the Old Testament). Others are particular rules meant to be applied to a particular theocratic society living in a particular place. And are any real footballs made of pigskin these days? (I would also note that this speech wouldn’t have seemed nearly so clever if the character were mocking an observant Jew for keeping kosher.)</p>
<p>There is a lot of history and are some lovely poetic books in the Old Testament, but there is a lot that should be chucked, IMO! QuantMech’s post shows where the old laws were replaced with the new, simplified version.</p>
<p>I think what a lot of people don’t get is that many of the rules in the Old Testament essentially became irrelevant when the Temple was destroyed, and when Israel disappeared as a nation. Others–such as the kosher rules–are still observed by a lot of Jews.</p>
<p>Excuse me, Hunt, but where do you get the idea that the biblical prohibition on certain sexual practices is a broad moral rule rather than a fussy, ignorable one? The one instance with which I am most familiar is in the middle of the Leviticus “Holiness Code”. It speaks only to men having sex with men, seems to apply only to anal sex between men, doesn’t address homosexual women at all, and is cheek-by-jowl with stuff like the prohibition against wearing blends of different fibers. Which, by the way, is still adhered to by Orthodox Jews along with all of the other rules of Kashrut with which people are more generally familiar. My understanding is that, historically, the ban on anal sex among men related to cultic practices in other sects that the Jews were trying to suppress.</p>
<p>And if you are looking for a broad moral principle, not working on the Sabbath is pretty high up there. It’s not a technicality, and was enforced (far more strictly than any prohibitions against homosexuality) well into the modern era.</p>
<p>The fact is, most of us choose which Biblical admonitions to interpret as moral precepts, and which to disregard in favor of convenience. I don’t have a problem with that, but it means we have to take responsibility for our choices.</p>
<p>Hunt:
According to wiki, footballs are still made of animal hide: [Football</a> (ball) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Football (ball) - Wikipedia”>Football (ball) - Wikipedia)
</p>
<p>And FYI, there have been plenty of discussions of the biblical underpinnings of the Kashrut laws. They were generally considered health codes. And there are many varying degrees kashrut that people follow, sometimes because what made sense centuries ago is not relevant today. Could be applied to the modernizations of other biblical interpretations. But thats another story. </p>
<p>Back to your regularly scheduled bantering…</p>
<p>
I’ve read this idea, but I have to say that I don’t really find it to be very credible. I have no problem with people rejecting the rules of the Bible, but in this particular case, I find efforts to torture the text to make it “not really” condemning homosexuality to be unpersuasive. Also, it is (in my opinion) pretty clearly condemned in the New Testament, which is not really much concerned with things like different fibers.</p>
<p>And I do think not working on the Sabbath is a broad moral principle, and that it’s an interesting question whether Christians should observe it or not. It’s one that Jesus himself at least bent, though. I would also note that there are some principles that are actually stricter in the New Testament than in the old–the availability of divorce, for example.</p>
<p>I guess that what I would say about this is that there are plenty of people who take the Bible seriously, and who try pretty hard (with the help of their religious leaders) to follow the moral precepts of their religion. This isn’t easy, and part of what makes it hard is figuring out which rules to apply, and how. I just don’t like the facile suggestion that somebody who is trying to do this is a hypocrite because he eats shrimp.</p>
<p>Edited to add another (smaller) pet peeve:
I know a lot of people think this, but I think it’s just post hoc reasoning. Some of those rules may or may not result in better health, but I think that they, like a lot of the other rules, are primarily designed to emphasize the separateness of the Jews from the other peoples around them.</p>
<p>And about footballs: <a href=“http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/829/why-is-a-football-called-a-pigskin[/url]”>http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/829/why-is-a-football-called-a-pigskin</a></p>
<p>Does anyone else think its a little early in the morning for graphic conversations like this??</p>
<p>Any interpretation of biblical content would de facto be post hoc reasoning. Don’t think there are too many people still around today who could tell us first hand what was intended in these writings centuries ago.</p>
<p>Perhaps p3t, if she chose to post here, could comment on the history of Kashrut laws. However, its really irrelevant and this is now all so off topic (from whatever the topic might have been) that perhaps its time to stone this thread and take it out of its misery.</p>
<p>There are so many internal contradictions in the Bible I don’t think anyone could follow all its precepts even if one had a mind to do so.</p>
<p>Therefore, there must always be selective adherence. If this is so, why not select those parts that embrace the entire human family? Why cling to admonitions that exclude some of our brothers and sisters and moralistically judge their behavior?</p>
<p>As JHS put it, there is individual responsibility in those precepts selected and adhered to.</p>
<p>In terms of public policy there is no justification for using the Bible as an authority.</p>
<p>For me personally there is no reason to uniquely embrace the Bible as the received word of God. Its contents parallel wisdom literature from many cultures. For me, the Bible is not the received word of God in any way (but my personal conviction are not of extreme relevance here – just mentioning it.) Even if it is, it is obviously filtered through the limited understanding of human beings or it wouldn’t contain so many contradictions.</p>
<p>Oh, and I think this thread continues because people want to discuss the issues contained in it. I don’t see the problem there.</p>
<p>This thread, if it continues, really does not belong in the parents forum.</p>
<p>Hunt, I do not find clear condemnation of homosexuality. But, I’m not a great biblical scholar. Can you provide me with those references? PM is fine by me.</p>
<p>Hunt, I accept that Leviticus bans anal sex between men. (I am not familiar with the New Testament prohibition.) I just don’t know on what basis you turn it into a moral principle – it’s just one in a string of fairly specific prohibitions, without much explanation. There are other rules that do clearly relate to broader moral principles, but you can tell because they are discussed in those terms. Since this one has no potential application to women, I have a really hard time reading a principled condemnation of homosexuality into it.</p>
<p>In context, Leviticus 18 starts with the admonition to abandon practices that were associated with Egypt and the tribes in Canaan. There then follows a laundry list of incest prohibitions, with some glaring omissions: nieces are fair game, and it’s not clear one’s own daughter is proscribed if you have divorced her mother, or her mother has died. (My point is not that Leviticus says it’s OK for fathers to have sex with their daughters; it’s that this specific chapter isn’t where you find a principled incest prohibition as opposed to a bunch of technical rules that somehow relate to Egypt.)</p>
<p>Then there’s a prohibition against having sex with women while they are menstruating. Ooops! I violate that one from time to time!</p>
<p>Then it says not to immolate your children as sacrifices to Moloch. I agree with that wholeheartedly, and follow it very strictly. Curiously, it does not state a general principle against immolating your children as sacrifices to any god other than Moloch, or just immolating your children, period. But I’m happy to generalize this one.</p>
<p>Then it says not to lie with a man as you would with a woman, because, essentially, it’s gross. Also, no sex with animals. Even women – and this is the only prohibition in the whole chapter directed to women – aren’t allowed to have sex with animals.</p>
<p>And the closing makes clear, once again, that the point is to reject practices common in Egypt and Canaan. It also specifies that the prohibitions are applicable to Jews and to resident aliens – which of course implies that they aren’t necessarily universal moral principles, just local laws. Obviously, I believe there are some universal moral principles reflected in there, such as not committing incest or sacrificing your kids, but the passage itself doesn’t convince me that everything in it is a universal moral principle. Heterosexual sex during menses and homosexual anal intercourse have exactly the same status in it. How much are you willing to stake on that?</p>
<p>One could argue indefinitely on how strictly religious Christians, Jews, Muslims, or members of whatever other group must follow the guidance in their respective scriptures.</p>
<p>But I don’t see the relevance to college choice – unless the college is sponsored by the religious group.</p>
<p>At a public college or a non-religious private one, it does not seem reasonable to expect ethical rules derived from a specific religion and not necessarily endorsed by American society as a whole to be enforced. The usual expectation is simply that the college should make an effort not to place students who follow religious rules in a position where they have to violate them or face serious consequences (e.g., colleges usually provide students who cannot take an exam on their Sabbath for religious reasons with an opportunity to take the exam on an alternate date rather than failing the exam). </p>
<p>Expecting a non-religious college to enforce a “moral principle” that much of American society does not endorse – such as condemnation of homosexuality – does not seem reasonable.</p>
<p>The New Testament prohibition comes from 1 Corinthians 6:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It perplexes me a little that people always quote Leviticus instead. But of course this one has no mention of women either, so I guess I’m safe there. Ha.</p>
<p>Violating Marian’s implied injunction, I will just briefly note that the majority (there are statistics on this) on male same-sex encounters do not involve anal sex, i.e. they are not synonymous.</p>