Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Manchu wrote:I have always wondered what the Lord was writing in the sand when the Pharisees were trying to trap him.

Wasn't it "Im with stupid --->"?

Hey, you never know.

Jesus was pretty snarky at times.

Manchu wrote:I have always wondered what the Lord was writing in the sand when the Pharisees were trying to trap him.

I think he was listing his sins that he shared with the people around him.

It's just a little detail that stands out. The Pharisees (the lawyers, you might say) are standing there demanding some kind of complicated legalistic debate. And Jesus just starts writing in the sand with his finger. The "lawyers" keep badgering him until he says something which totally undermines their question. These lawyers have a "jury" with them, too: the people, the woman's peers, are there and they have handed down a verdict of guilty. So the Pharisees demand that Jesus, acting as the judge, hand down the sentence, namely death. But instead of condemning her, Jesus tells the people to be the judges themselves -- and to judge themselves whether they can be judges.

And there's this tension at that moment. Will the people ignore Jesus? Will they go ahead and kill the woman, goaded on by the lawyers? Will they attack Jesus, too, for daring to say this? This is a dramatic moment of confrontation but the Lord kneels back down and once more writes in the sand. The Pharisees and the people have tried to put together a court, drawing on their understanding of their cultural laws, and want to force Jesus to condemn the woman. But Jesus concisely and quietly repudiates their law and their court. This gentleness in the face of a mob is astounding. Jesus has certainly acted as a judge before the people but the accused is not the one the people thought.

Saint Ambrose believed the Lord was writing the names of the accusers in the sand, condemning the ones who wanted to condemn the woman. And as they left by and by I suppose, following Ambrose, that Jesus erased their names. Jesus was not just reminding the people that they were sinners but also that they had received mercy. After all, every single one of the people left and so recognized themselves as a sinner and yet they had not been killed by their neighbors like they wanted to kill the woman. Had they been spared just to condemn another? Jesus writing in the sand was sparing them again. He did not only save the woman who would have been killed but he saved her would-be murderers as well.

I actually rather like that argument...

Interesting thought, Manchu.

LoneLictor wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:I love how he's quoting Leviticus and raging against lesbians. As far as I can see it only deals with men sleeping with men, so what gives?

He just hates women, too.

Some of the people who contributed to the Bible really hated women.

http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Bbl/Sexism/Sexism.html

And the people doing the editing, don't forget them. They put in what they wanted - excuses to keep women as property - and removed everything they could that was to the contrary. Post-ressurection, Jesus revealed himself to Mary Magdalene before anyone else. This implies he thought she was something very special... and then the early Church went deleted her writings from the bible and tied her to the whore who washed Jesus' feet. Tells you a lot about how the people running the early Church thought right there.

I think it would be hilarious if someone discovered that Jesus had been gay. The Religious Right would have a collective stroke! Hey, he was a Roman... well, not 'citizen', which means something very specific to Romans, but he lived under a Roman government influeneced by Roman culture, where homosexuality was hardly unusual. He was apparently unmarried despite being in his mid-30s, which was HIGHLY unusual for people of the period - and hung out with a bunch of guys. All we're missing is the fantastic sense of style to make it a slam-dunk.

EDIT: RibbonFox... assuming that is actually your pic for your avatar... I do have to say you look pretty good, if a bit skinny. But then I prefer curvy girls so I'm probably not the best one to judge.

@Vulcan; Yes that is me, I have no need to fib when it comes to avatars. I'm not ashamed of whom and what I am. As for curves, I'm as flat as an aircraft carrier. The curse of being born male with out the funds to grow...curves. What money I have goes on food, bills, and some times my little plastic men habbit

Manchu wrote:It's just a little detail that stands out. The Pharisees (the lawyers, you might say) are standing there demanding some kind of complicated legalistic debate. And Jesus just starts writing in the sand with his finger. The "lawyers" keep badgering him until he says something which totally undermines their question. These lawyers have a "jury" with them, too: the people, the woman's peers, are there and they have handed down a verdict of guilty. So the Pharisees demand that Jesus, acting as the judge, hand down the sentence, namely death. But instead of condemning her, Jesus tells the people to be the judges themselves -- and to judge themselves whether they can be judges.

And there's this tension at that moment. Will the people ignore Jesus? Will they go ahead and kill the woman, goaded on by the lawyers? Will they attack Jesus, too, for daring to say this? This is a dramatic moment of confrontation but the Lord kneels back down and once more writes in the sand. The Pharisees and the people have tried to put together a court, drawing on their understanding of their cultural laws, and want to force Jesus to condemn the woman. But Jesus concisely and quietly repudiates their law and their court. This gentleness in the face of a mob is astounding. Jesus has certainly acted as a judge before the people but the accused is not the one the people thought.

Saint Ambrose believed the Lord was writing the names of the accusers in the sand, condemning the ones who wanted to condemn the woman. And as they left by and by I suppose, following Ambrose, that Jesus erased their names. Jesus was not just reminding the people that they were sinners but also that they had received mercy. After all, every single one of the people left and so recognized themselves as a sinner and yet they had not been killed by their neighbors like they wanted to kill the woman. Had they been spared just to condemn another? Jesus writing in the sand was sparing them again. He did not only save the woman who would have been killed but he saved her would-be murderers as well.

Would the argument and outcome have been any different if the woman was a murderer? Would Jesus have even stepped in at all?

I've never understood where 'turning the other cheek' ends and living in a lawful society begins.

Hazardous Harry wrote:Would the argument and outcome have been any different if the woman was a murderer? Would Jesus have even stepped in at all?

I think he would have. That is the message of Christianity, at least.

I've never understood where 'turning the other cheek' ends and living in a lawful society begins.

I don't think those things are mutually exclusive. But to the extent that they seem to be, there is a difference between a court and a church.

Manchu wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:Would the argument and outcome have been any different if the woman was a murderer? Would Jesus have even stepped in at all?

I think he would have. That is the message of Christianity, at least.

So a Christian society would turn a blind eye to any crime? This essentially sounds like a happy-go-lucky sort of anarchy.

I've never understood where 'turning the other cheek' ends and living in a lawful society begins.

I don't think those things are mutually exclusive. But to the extent that they seem to be, there is a difference between a court and a church.

If murderers go free and crimes go unpunished they do sound mutually exclusive. I don't think I need to tell you that there's a huge difference between justice and mercy, which is part of the attraction to the movement in the first place I guess.

However if you are saying that churches have always been separate from courtrooms I'd disagree. Biblical law is quite clearly that, law. Either the bible provides us with a guideline on how people and society should act and behave or its completely irrelevant.

I don't think you know about the thing that you are talking about. Christians, or at least Catholics, don't really speak about "biblical law." We have Church law, which is a matter of running an institution. And the canons are in no way a matter of "sacred text" and no one conceives of them as revealed by God. It is merely a matter of legislation. As for Christian societies being anarchic, unless you are completely ignorant of history, you will know this is not the case. But that does not mean that civil authority and religious authority are synonymous in a Christian society. You seem to want to take Jesus as a political figure, a man who came to show us how to build a perfect state. That was what the Jews expected, too.

I find people like this pastor ridiculous. He's just quoting stuff out of the bible to suit his needs. Yes, Christianity frowns upon gay marriage, but it also tells us not to judge others does it not? So why should we be the ones to cast the first stone so to speak if according to the Bible everyone has done some wrong? Being a Christian I'm actually offended by what that pastor is saying even if I feel LGBT are doing wrong things, but then again aren't we all?

Christianity, if you purely take views from the bible, does not "frown" on gay marriage. It has no opinion on the subject unless you interpret it one way or the other-- the very concept of gay marriage did not exist back then as we know it now. There were concepts of gay unions, some even permanent, but marriage was something different back then than it is today. Even the modern heterosexual marriage did not exist back then truth be told, and the writers of the bible would be find even the "nuclear family" to be alien to what they know of.

And that's just gay men. I'm fairly certain that the idea of two women marrying would just confuse them.

Of course, it's easy to make the argument of condemnation based off of the modern text, and easy to make the argument of inclusion based off of the original text. Which you use is a matter of politics usually, rather than religion.

Manchu wrote:I don't think you know about the thing that you are talking about. Christians, or at least Catholics, don't really speak about "biblical law." We have Church law, which is a matter of running an institution. And the canons are in no way a matter of "sacred text" and no one conceives of them as revealed by God. It is merely a matter of legislation. As for Christian societies being anarchic, unless you are completely ignorant of history, you will know this is not the case.

Of course it isn't, because they imposed law on the people living within their Christian society. This would happen to include punishing murders, adulterers and sodomites, which seems contrary to the whole concept of turning the other cheek.

But that does not mean that civil authority and religious authority are synonymous in a Christian society. You seem to want to take Jesus as a political figure, a man who came to show us how to build a perfect state. That was what the Jews expected, too.

Then if the teachings of Jesus cannot be used to build a perfect society doesn't that prove his teachings are completely irrelevant with regards to matters of state, and should be entirely a matter of personal opinion rather than a guideline how people should behave in a society?

Melissia wrote:Christianity, if you purely take views from the bible, does not "frown" on gay marriage. It has no opinion on the subject unless you interpret it one way or the other-- the very concept of gay marriage did not exist back then as we know it now. There were concepts of gay unions, some even permanent, but marriage was something different back then than it is today. Even the modern heterosexual marriage did not exist back then truth be told, and the writers of the bible would be find even the "nuclear family" to be alien to what they know of.

Maybe it didn't have an opinion on gay marriage, but Paul arguably did have a low opinion of "soft men" (or however you wish to translate Arsenokoitai). The subject of what this word means is largely up for debate, so you're correct in that regard. But what do you mean by modern heterosexual marriage? Lex Julia laid out the laws for marriage in fairly explicit terms.

Melissia wrote:And that's just gay men. I'm fairly certain that the idea of two women marrying would just confuse them.

If by them, you mean Romans at large, it would disgust them.

Melissia wrote:Of course, it's easy to make the argument of condemnation based off of the modern text, and easy to make the argument of inclusion based off of the original text. Which you use is a matter of politics usually, rather than religion.

I'm not sure what you mean by modern vs. original, but the epistles in both the Greek and the Vulgate contain condemnatory language. The Septuagint closely followed the Hebrew in it's condemnatory language as well. Despite what Steven Greenberg claims, the Hebrew is not nebulous in Leviticus. What he has going in his favor is an argument of context that depends on the power dynamics between the two males in question. That however, does not take into account the kind of homosexual relationships we have today-- a subject on which both the Hebrew and Greek testaments are silent, because such relationships were largely unknown at the time.

Hazardous Harry wrote:Then if the teachings of Jesus cannot be used to build a perfect society doesn't that prove his teachings are completely irrelevant with regards to matters of state, and should be entirely a matter of personal opinion rather than a guideline how people should behave in a society?

The teachings of Christ are a matter of conscience, not opinion. Doesn't Jesus enjoin us to render under Caesar what is Caesar's? Doesn't he tell us that his kingdom is not of this earth? Does the Great Commandment sound like an enforceable matter of criminal or civil law to you? And do you not remember how he commends us to obey: "if you love me, keep my commandments"? I can hardly believe that you would take the ravings of an irascible charlatan like the "pastor" in question as authentic Christian teaching over and against the clarity of the Gospel.

Manchu wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:Then if the teachings of Jesus cannot be used to build a perfect society doesn't that prove his teachings are completely irrelevant with regards to matters of state, and should be entirely a matter of personal opinion rather than a guideline how people should behave in a society?

The teachings of Christ are a matter of conscience, not opinion. Doesn't Jesus enjoin us to render under Caesar what is Caesar's? Doesn't he tell us that his kingdom is not of this earth? Does the Great Commandment sound like an enforceable matter of criminal or civil law to you? And do you not remember how he commends us to obey: "if you love me, keep my commandments"? I can hardly believe that you would take the ravings of an irascible charlatan like the "pastor" in question as authentic Christian teaching over and against the clarity of the Gospel.

I don't think the pastor is in the right here, but isn't the bible contradictory if in one instance it argues that we should adhere to the laws of the land, like paying taxes and perhaps not killing gay people, but then extolling the virtues of people like Daniel who defied the law to continue to follow god's teachings and show worship to God?

I'm honestly confused here. How did Jesus ask us to treat murderers and thieves, because the teachings of a man who does't seem to hold justice in a very high regard isn't the sort of man I'd listen to.

deathholydeath wrote:Maybe it didn't have an opinion on gay marriage, but Paul arguably did have a low opinion of "soft men" (or however you wish to translate Arsenokoitai).

But Muscular Manly Men Making Manly Man-Love to Muscular Manly Men is a-okay?

Arsenokoite, from what I've read, referred to temple prostitution and was listed in a series of "economic sins" or sins for money.

deathholydeath wrote:The subject of what this word means is largely up for debate, so you're correct in that regard. But what do you mean by modern heterosexual marriage?

Easy access to divorce, equal partnership between men and women, both men and women working for a living, stay at home dads as the moms work. Heck, divorce alone was strongly and undeniably condemned by the texts and it's considered acceptable today.

A man who divorces his wife is far stronger condemned by biblical texts than a homosexual.

deathholydeath wrote:If by them, you mean Romans at large, it would disgust them.

I doubt they'd care that much, although society was rigidly misogynistic back then so who knows?

As it is, aside from possibly Sappha (and that is less of a lover and more of a woman taking on the role of tutor to younger women in the same style as the man did to a younger man in Rome), the concept was pretty nonexistent back then.

deathholydeath wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by modern vs. original, but the epistles in both the Greek and the Vulgate contain condemnatory language.

The vulgate was politically translated and is not the oldest known records of the texts. As for the epistles, even Paul didn't condemn homosexual sex directly. In other epistles (Matthew, for example), it's suggested that homosexuals can and will get in to heaven so long as they follow the two greatest commandments..

deathholydeath wrote:The Septuagint

Doesn't matter to Christians. That is the old covenant, not the new one. No one who argues from the old testament actually follows all of its laws any more any way, and we have no need to listen to hypocrites do we?

Melissia wrote:But Muscular Manly Men Making Manly Man-Love to Muscular Manly Men is a-okay?

The relationship between same sex lovers in ancient Rome was based on power dynamics. It was acceptable for a man of higher position to act as the *ahem* "top" but never the "bottom."

Melissia wrote:Arsenokoite, from what I've read, referred to temple prostitution and was listed in a series of "economic sins" or sins for money.

Possibly, that's why I said the term was nebulous.

deathholydeath wrote:The subject of what this word means is largely up for debate, so you're correct in that regard. But what do you mean by modern heterosexual marriage?

Melissia wrote:Easy access to divorce, equal partnership between men and women, both men and women working for a living, stay at home dads as the moms work. Heck, divorce alone was strongly and undeniably condemned by the texts and it's considered acceptable today.

Divorce is not acceptable in Catholic doctrine, and Catholics account for roughly 50% of the world's Christian population.
Most scholars today consider the concept of holy prostitutes the result of the overactive imaginations of 19th century writers.
Under the law of the late empire, women had the right to divorce. The divorce rate was actually quite astronomical in late western Rome. The other things you listed have more to do with women's role in the culture at large, but I see your point.

Melissia wrote:A man who divorces his wife is far stronger condemned by biblical texts than a homosexual.

Again, the idea of homosexuality as such did not exist.

deathholydeath wrote:If by them, you mean Romans at large, it would disgust them.

Melissia wrote:I doubt they'd care that much, although society was rigidly misogynistic back then so who knows?

It has more to do with the Roman view on oral sex. Oral sex was considered shameful, a practice fit only for the deliberate humiliation of prisoners and slaves. If you're at all interested in the Romans views on sex and homosexuality, I'd check out Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity by Craig A. Williams. It's a pretty entertaining read.

deathholydeath wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by modern vs. original, but the epistles in both the Greek and the Vulgate contain condemnatory language.

Melissia wrote:The vulgate was politically translated and is not the oldest known records of the texts. As for the epistles, even Paul didn't condemn homosexual sex directly. In other epistles (Matthew, for example), it's suggested that homosexuals can and will get in to heaven so long as they follow the two greatest commandments.

If you're referring to Matt 8: 5-13 and the interpretation of pais, that's a highly contested view. Also the references to eunuchs in chapter 19 are generally considered to refer to asexuals or men who wish to remain celibate. Not marrying was considered... odd by the standards of the time.

deathholydeath wrote:The Septuagint

Melissia wrote:Doesn't matter to Christians. That is the old covenant, not the new one. No one who argues from the old testament actually follows all of its laws any more any way, and we have no need to listen to hypocrites do we?

Paul's views on the law are also rather nebulous:

Romans 3:31 wrote: Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

It's easy to contest that quote with some of Paul's other quotes on the subject. What did he really think? We may never know.
Paul's rather confusing views on the subject of the Law are the basis for Christians' odd relationship with the Hebrew bible.
Much of the basis for conservative Christian condemnation of homosexuality comes out of reading into the text, rather than reading out from it as well as the blase assumption that the concepts we associate with homosexuality existed or mattered to the inhabitants of the Roman territories.
Anyway, it's clear we have entrenched views on the subject, so perhaps we should just get back to flaming this "pastor"?

I was actually referring to the "eunouchos" term in the original greek, which didn't actually explicitly or exclusively refer to castrated males and often referred to homosexuals as well (the comparison given that a man introducing himself as a "eunouchos" is like introducing yourself as a hair dresser from san francisco), as they were trusted to guard the wives whenever the husband was not (castrated males were not so trusted as they could still have sexual activity with women).

Thus, the meaning of those who are "born eunouchos" (homosexuals), versus those who are "made eunouchos by men" (castrated), and those who "are eunouchos in the name of heaven" (monks and other such non-sexual members of religious society). This is disputed of course, but most of the time those who say that "eunouchos" only means castrated never actually pay attention to the meaning of the word during the time of writing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

It has more to do with the Roman view on oral sex.

So women using dildos or strap-ons (yes, they did exist back then... long before then even) on each other would be okay?

Melissia wrote:I was actually referring to the "eunouchos" term in the original greek, which didn't actually explicitly or exclusively refer to castrated males and often referred to homosexuals as well (the comparison given that a man introducing himself as a "eunouchos" is like introducing yourself as a hair dresser from san francisco), as they were trusted to guard the wives whenever the husband was not (castrated males were not so trusted as they could still have sexual activity with women).

Thus, the meaning of those who are "born eunouchos" (homosexuals), versus those who are "made eunouchos by men" (castrated), and those who "are eunouchos in the name of heaven" (monks and other such non-sexual members of religious society). This is disputed of course, but most of the time those who say that "eunouchos" only means castrated never actually pay attention to the meaning of the word during the time of writing.

I never said it referred solely to castrated men. I only wrote that it designates men who do not desire women. Born eunochos could also mean someone born without the desire for women, or anyone else. An asexual.

Melissia wrote:So women using dildos or strap-ons (yes, they did exist back then... long before then even) on each other would be okay?

Given the views on women at the time it would probably be viewed a bit like dogs humping in the dirt. Curious but not terribly disgusting.

Maybe, but it isn't oral sex, heh.

Actually they'd probably think "hey look she's trying to act like a man" or something.

deathholydeath wrote:I never said it referred solely to castrated men. I only wrote that it designates men who do not desire women. Born eunochos could also mean someone born without the desire for women, or anyone else. An asexual.

There really wasn't any evidence it meant asexual, as eunouchos was used in combination with references of homosexuality on the part of the eunouchos (especially recieving), and was associated with stereotypical homosexual traits at the time.

Of course, this means that the bible contradicts itself in some ways if you interpret Paul in certain ways.

Hazardous Harry wrote:How did Jesus ask us to treat murderers and thieves, because the teachings of a man who does't seem to hold justice in a very high regard isn't the sort of man I'd listen to.

Again, what are you listening for? Jesus for president? Jesus the cop?

Melissia wrote:Maybe, but it isn't oral sex, heh.

Actually they'd probably think "hey look she's trying to act like a man" or something.

That's the most likely conclusion-- something odd, but not terribly disgusting.

Melissia wrote:

deathholydeath wrote:I never said it referred solely to castrated men. I only wrote that it designates men who do not desire women. Born eunochos could also mean someone born without the desire for women, or anyone else. An asexual.

There really wasn't any evidence it meant asexual, as eunouchos was used in combination with references of homosexuality on the part of the eunouchos (especially recieving), and was associated with stereotypical homosexual traits at the time.

Of course, this means that the bible contradicts itself in some ways if you interpret Paul in certain ways.

It doesn't help that we have at least two, possibly three or more people writing epistles using Paul's name

Manchu wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:How did Jesus ask us to treat murderers and thieves, because the teachings of a man who does't seem to hold justice in a very high regard isn't the sort of man I'd listen to.

Again, what are you listening for? Jesus for president? Jesus the cop?

I'm not listening for a particular brand of Jesus, I'm asking how he thinks we should treat criminals.

One of my favorite comics...

Yes, the old covenant was rather restrictive, wasn't it?

A lot of those rule were actually created to allow ancient jews to differentiate themselves from those around them

No cheeseburgers either.

Keatonic wrote:One of my favorite comics...

What do all of these things have in common?