Selective understanding...

[Thinking Aloud]

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

That bible quote is Leviticus's law, not Gods. I agree I don't know what that is doing in the bible? Its abused and misused though. I've yet to see anything in the bible directly from God on the subject or many others some more conservative Christians are claiming.

[Svartalf]

?

That, sir, is what happens when sheeple of no brains talk about religious matters they haven't the slightest understanding about.
Leviticus purports to be The Law (Heb:Halakhah, where the initial ha is actually the definite article) as given straight to Moses by God.
And OT is part of the bible, which has been confirmed many many times by religious scholars as divinely inspired.

If that guy is too dumb to even get why the Jewish Scriptures were put in there, I guess that short of a full course of molybdotherapy, as nice hot mug of STFU is what the dorctore ordered for him.

Also, the thread title is misleading, there is no selective when there's no understanding to start with.

[Atheist-Lite]

The point is to excuse prejudices not to be theologically on the dime.

[Rum]

When I was a Christian (thankfully many years ago) it was commonly understood that the writers, translators and updates were all 'inspired' by the holy spirit. My little group used to pray for god to help us understand what he really intended if we struggled with any obscure, ambiguous or otherwise hard to get to grips with bits.

Discussion about ambiguities arising from internal contradictions, loss of meaning due to poor or ambiguous translation, or for that matter the gap between the events (in the case of the gospels) between reported events and when they were written down was pretty firmly discouraged.

Never let facts or rationality get in the way of a good religion, eh?

[Svartalf]

Well, there's the whole debate one whether Jewish Law has any relevance yet... though if it has, I like the conservatives who shout fire and brimstone and invoke this or that bit of OT law, but routinely flout most mitsvot... which their own stance implies are still valid and binding.

As for the person quoted in OP, that's a cretin, without even a need for an H.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

That bible quote is Leviticus's law, not Gods. I agree I don't know what that is doing in the bible? Its abused and misused though. I've yet to see anything in the bible directly from God on the subject or many others some more conservative Christians are claiming.

God mades the rules. Leviticus wrote them down. End of story.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well, there's the whole debate one whether Jewish Law has any relevance yet... though if it has, I like the conservatives who shout fire and brimstone and invoke this or that bit of OT law, but routinely flout most mitsvot... which their own stance implies are still valid and binding.

As for the person quoted in OP, that's a cretin, without even a need for an H.

"I will not change one jot or tittle of the laws." Jesus H. Christ. If he says they stand, they stand, Xtians.

[Svartalf]

Damn, I'm uncut, therefore not a real chretin... good thing, because I like cheese and cream with my meat.

[Audley Strange]

Wait a minute, don't those old culties have some sex laws where sex is only meant to be for procreation and therefore vaginal penetration by a penis. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean that gay sex is fine as long as it isn't some guy fucking a post op trans-sexual with their homage to vag?

[apophenia]

From what I understand, and this from a 4 hour presentation, the sin (abomination, meaning a ritual sin - don't ask), but the crime was in receiving, as you were playing the role of the woman, and abdicating or perverting your role as the man and the rock around which a family was built. But it gets rather complex, and most Christians are talking out their ass when they mouth off about the biblical position on homosexuality.

[Svartalf]

Actually, in the Jewish view of things, the giver is as guilty as the receiver, because, while Jews are very tolerant on a lot of horseplay, emission of semen should only be inside a woman (remember Onan?)... a traditional Jew will enjoy a BJ, but has to finish inside the lady's nether mouth.

Since sex between men cannot even lead to a procreative act, it is an absolute abomination (remember, even if you take some of the levitical laws as supposed to apply only to the priest class, that one is repeated in several places, and assorted with a mandatory death sentence for both participants [Lev 20.13]).

This is in sharp contrast with the Mediterranean view where the 'active' partner still is regarded as retaining a modicum of 'virile' nature (though in ancient Rome and Greece, a man whose preference lay with grown men, or boys of non servile birth outside of the strict bounds society put on such relationships was apt to get in serious trouble... from Infamy and exclusion of political life to a full vendetta if he had defiled somebody's son).

Norse society had a similar view, as the supreme insult "arg", while being generally translated as "unmanly" or "effeminate", strongly connoted taking it up the shitter and either liking it or being too much of a weakling/coward to do anything about it. The use of that word was literally fighting words, as if anybody accused somebody else of it, the accused party was to challenge him to duel on the spot. A failure to do so implying that the accusation was true, and that as such, the accused was 'less than a man' and could freely be killed by anybody without his family being entitled to claim compensation or vendetta rights. Also, the very use of the word made the user liable to full outlawry, the most severe punishment in a lawsuit happy society where killing was a private matter, and the death penalty as such was unknown. There are no cases I found of a guy being called so for giving it there... then again, a guy who kept company with effeminates would most certainly have suffered from a low repute, and possibly be accused of sharing his friends' preferences unless he was such a formidable fighter nobody dared cross him.

[mistermack]

Those middle eastern types have been at it for years, and still are. Jews AND arabs.

That's why they are so keen on circumcision. Shit under the foreskin gets uncomfortable.
( so I'm told ).
That doesn't make you effeminate. Anyone can fuck a woman. But it takes a REAL man to fuck a man.

[Brian Peacock]

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

That bible quote is Leviticus's law, not Gods. I agree I don't know what that is doing in the bible? Its abused and misused though. I've yet to see anything in the bible directly from God on the subject or many others some more conservative Christians are claiming.

Declaring an honest faith acts to permit all and any particular interpretation of the Bible; "My interpretation is the only true/correct one," as it were.