Last Thursday I met an old friend round the pub to catch up. I hadn't seen him in far too many years and have known him since I was six years old. It was fun to spend an evening with someone who lived nearly all of your life in a parallel fashion. The common experiences of living in the same neighborhood and going to the same schools for K-12 really warmed my heart and made me feel very connected to my wonderful memories of my childhood.
We talked about a great many subjects, politics, sex and religion among them. When he was younger, he was pretty hardcore Democrat but has since become more Republican and conservative. I guess that's what a few years at Bethel College will do for you! But he's still got a ton of common sense as he spent much of the night laying into the far right, the Tea Party, and, yes, even Christian conservatives. He would likely be labeled a RINO by today's incarnation of the Right and banished for lack of purity.
The statement that really drove this point home and one that completely blew me away came from our discussion about the Bible. I gave him my usual line about the Bible being wrong about some things to which he replied, "Mark, the Bible isn't wrong. It's just that some of it was right for that generation."
Wow.
And no shit.
He cited the rules on pork, for example, as being simple common sense because they didn't have a way to keep it fresh. Those rules applied for that time. The same was true, he felt, for homosexuality and I've talked about this previously. Back at the time the Bible was written, sex was much different than it is now. People were far cruder and roman orgies were rampant. Young boys were abused and people had much less control over themselves sexually than we do today. In short, there were no Neils and Steves who have been life partners for 20 years and have adopted children from Central America.
There are many universal truths in the Bible that span generation to generation. Loving thy neighbor, the Ten Commandments, serving the poor, helping the sick, not judging others, and being as peaceful and loving a person as you can be. Then there are the beliefs that were only true for that time...the ceremonial laws about food, appearance, and dress...the subjugation of women...sexual mores...attitudes about slavery...anyone with a brain realizes that those things applied to that time but not ours.
Of course, these days I think that those without a brain should just go right on thinking that those laws still apply to today. I used to think they should just let go of those beliefs but I realize now that I am older and wiser that people like that need those the threat of hellfire to keep them from raping a young boy on crystal meth in a hotel room. Their loss of control translates into a clear and present danger to our culture and are quite clearly beyond all help.
After all, we are a culture that helps the disabled, right?
9 comments:
People always want to ban those things that they are most tempted by. They feel powerless against those temptations, so they claim publicly that they want to "protect" everyone else by outlawing the temptation.
You see it with sex -- both gay and straight, drinking, drugs, smoking, gambling.
It's really their own weakness and lack of self-control that's behind their desire to control everyone else.
It gets worse when they try to punish those that tempt them: they beat up gays, imprison drug users and bookies. They denigrate and mistreat women, to degrade them in an attempt to make them less tempting.
They try to depict the temptations as tools of the devil, but really they are the monsters because they cannot control their basest impulses.
Yes, these "vices" cause social ills when they become addictions. But addicts are sick people, and they should be treated for addiction before it leads to real crimes. By stigmatizing these behaviors we force people to hide them, where they fester underground until they become debilitating and a full recovery is much more difficult.
Some religions try to be more compassionate and follow that prescription: love the sinner, hate the sin. But far too many religions demand draconic punishments for perceived moral failings that become enshrined in secular law.
It's really their own weakness and lack of self-control that's behind their desire to control everyone else.
I'd say that sums up NMN quite well:)
It certainly sums up Nikto's stance on guns, too. And yours as well, if to a lesser extent -- maybe. Maybe.
Which side of the former conversations here were more likely to want to ban things and control people?
The Mark side that wants to ban guns?
The Mark side who defends banning foods?
The Nikto side that wants to ban over the counter drugs?
etc, etc....
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Marky is always so funny when he claims he can read minds.
Time to brink back some questions:
My question, "Who were these laws given to?" was an attempt to get you to look at that context. Since you have REFUSED to do so, I will have to do it for you.
Every single one of those laws you quoted was given to one particular group of people, with only one minor variation. And in every case (with one minor exception) who that group is was explicitly stated just prior to each set of laws. So let's look at those references you gave. (Note: I am changing the order of the references you gave to match their order in the Bible.) Can you spot the pattern?
Context: Then the LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them,”
— Leviticus 1:1–2
Leviticus 11:6-8 (eating unclean animals)
and
Leviticus 11:10 (eating shellfish)
BTW, you said:
eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.
English translations can hide some of the subtlety of the original language here. But even in English there is a significant clue in understanding the context. Look at the actual verse:
‘But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you,’
— Leviticus 11:10
Compare that to the Levitical law against homosexuality:
‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.’
— Leviticus 18:22
Do you see something missing in that description as an "abomination"? Those two little words, "to you," define the scope of who is to apply that definition of "abomination". For shellfish, it limits that definition to "the sons of Israel." There is no such limitation to "abomination" when applied to homosexuality, which makes it a universal judgement.
Also, most English translations use "detestable" in the passage about shellfish. (The KJV and WEB are the only exceptions I found.) This is because the Hebrew word usually translated "detestable" in Leviticus 11:10 & 11 is different than the word usually translated as "abomination" in Leviticus 18:22.
from March 10, 2013
One final thought:
It's really their own weakness and lack of self-control that's behind their desire to control everyone else.
I didn't write the Bible. Nor has any person currently walking this planet. So why the silly argument based on the assumption that we did?
After all, we are a culture that helps the disabled, right?
Yes, but letting the mentally handicapped teach is probably a step too far.
Larry brings the Boom!
Post a Comment