politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It does.
If Paul cities the old testament you explained, then him not using "as with a women" - since scripture doesn't waste words - means these are two different (negative) statements about homosexuality.
What you left out, is the part where it says both shall be killed.
Ok, so in that case, what's the male slave to do?
He cannot disobey his master, as the bible tells that he should always obey him.
But, if he is raped, he will be killed.
That doesn't seem very fair, or even neutral about homosexuality. It's negative.
In that case, what about the part in the new testament?
That was supposedly written for us, right? It doesn't use the "as with a woman" phrasing.
Yet it also clearly has negative things to say about homosexuality.
Because that's not relevant to the discussion. But since you brought it up, remember that I explicitly mentioned that the context is "cultures that would be alien and barbaric to us now." So let's keep that context in mind. Chattel slavery was normal.
So, what is punishment for having sex with an animal? A slave is like an animal. It has been made unclean and unfit. But in this case there is a very specific prophetic context that we'll touch on shortly.
Since we're on the topic of familial/household abuses, note that the concept of "consent" does not exist here. Re-read Leviticus with that in mind, especially when reading about having sex with the neighbors wife, the daughter-in-law, or the father's wife (which is not necessarily your mother). Consent is not a prerequisite to any of these offenses.
Now also remember, I said these two things:
One thing neither of us has addressed here is the WHY. You shifted from Lev 23 to 20, but missed this: the scripture spells that out the WHY clear as day just a few verses later...
"Therefore you shall observe and obey all of my rules and all of my rulings so that the land where I am bringing you to live will not spit you back out."
YHWH/God is not arbitrary, I think there's a good chance we can agree on that. So, YHWH placed a specific context on these rulings and edicts... the preservation of the Israelites, YHWH's own people, during their wanderings after exodus from Egypt.
Yes, you got all of this right. Again, the slave is chattel and is handled like any other property. By modern sensibilities this is horrific, but this is a historical document that is not by, for, or about us (westerners living thousands of years later in an unimaginably different world and culture). You must consider the original intended purpose of the command within it's own context, you cannot remove it from that context without fundamentally changing both it's meaning and purpose, which is what modern Christianity has done.
Paul was a rabbi of the Pharisaic school, of which Jesus/Yeshua was also a member. His statements do not modify or supercede the Torah or the teachings of Jesus, but merely reiterate them. Paul was further challenged by working with Hellenists... yet another culture that would be alien to us, and decried a wide variety of activities he saw as sexual abuses; from temple prostitution, to slave abuse, to pederasty. And note that he did not demand that anyone engaging in those things be "put to death" - but to change their ways.
Now, remember this, because it is VITAL:
Whenever you read scripture - any of it, even Paul - and even if you ignore all the other teachings of Yeshua Hamashiach, remember this one and contemplate what it means for all other teaching before or after Yeshua's ministry.
It is relevant to the discussion. Because it shows that the old testament thinks homosexuality is bad, which you deny.
You're not really making the case for a loving god and bible here.
What you have made the case for however, is that the bible views homosexuals as animals, as lesser than people.
All the while, you claim that the bible doesn't save negative things about homosexuality.
If you think so, you clearly haven't read the bible, at all.
And it was paramount that all homosexuals be killed, to safeguard these wanderings.
You can shift and twist the context all you like, it's there clear as day: the bible says a lot of negative things about homosexuals.
Reiterate them? So the parts about slavery being completely ok and fine is jesus' teaching reiterated?
Good to know. Everybody sets him up as a swell guy and a hippy, but it turns out he supports slavery.
Which again, show that homosexuality was put in a negative light. According to the bible, it's a sin that must be changed.
It explicitly says homosexuals cannot get into heaven, after all.
Thatfully, I don't have to go to ministrations or read of bigoted supernatural tales to delude myself into thinking I'm a good man, so I'll skip that, thanks.
Agreed.
I think you misunderstood. I'm not a christian criticizing atheism, I'm an atheist criticizing christianity.
I'm refuting the propaganda that the bible is actually a good book with good morals that some christians like to spread.