The Bible; The Unabridged-Version

[Dr.Who]

I have challenged you again and again to show me how I am wrong word by word, but the only time you tried was when you argued that only Ezekiel was to eat the polluted bread and I quoted the scripture that proved you to be wrong. It's easy to shout "No sir, no sir!" but it's difficult to actually make a valid case. Please note that you have been trying to make a case against gay marriage for quite a while now and you have yet to come up with any substantive argument except that NO ONE should get benefits from the government.

I have been more than patient in discussing any issue with you and often use direct quotes from the bible. You have misqoted the bible much more often than you quote it correctly Feel free to start a thread on anty issue you want discussed from the bible word for word rather than making general accusations about.

I have not so much been making a case against gay marriage as I have been saying that your case for it is usually silly.

 

[Dr.Who]

Part of the problem is that there are 20-11 different Bibles and translations, I have been using the most popular Bible in history: the King James. All of the things I have said are based on complete scriptures in I Samuel and II Samuel. Nothing has been taken out of context and coupled with some other scripture, as you imply.

I Samuel 18:1-4
1And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

2And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.

3Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.

4And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

And so we have here two souls knit together just as is done in a marriage, David was taken into the house of his "friend" and not allowed to go home, just as was done with a wife. Jonathon stripped off everything, robe, garments, and even his weapons. He was naked.

In I Samuel 19:1-7 Jonathon risks angering his father Saul to try to talk Saul out of killing David, and he succeeds.

In I Samuel 20:30 30Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?
This scripture suggests that Saul discovered Jonathon's attraction to David and was very angry. The reference to having chosen in confusion, unto confusion of thy mother's nakedness, again suggests an inappropriate sexual interest, does it not?

I Samuel 20:31-34 31For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die.

32And Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said unto him, Wherefore shall he be slain? what hath he done?

33And Saul cast a javelin at him to smite him: whereby Jonathan knew that it was determined of his father to slay David.

34So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did eat no meat the second day of the month: for he was grieved for David, because his father had done him shame.
Saul throws a spear at his own son, why? Because he was as angry about his gay son as many Christian father's are today. And Jonathon grieved for the man whose soul is knit with his own, the man condemned to death by Jonathon's own father.

I Samuel 20:41 41And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

Please note that my quote was faithful to the very letter of the wording in the Bible and not twisted nor quoted out of context in any way.

David's own comment about their relationship is perhaps the most telling of all in II Samuel 1:25-26 25How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places.

26I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

You still combined elements from two different stories as if they were one and read into it your own meanings. I have done enough on this one topic that any reasonable person would no longer make the claim you are making. And contrary to your claim I have used direct quotes from the bible to do it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You still combined elements from two different stories as if they were one and read into it your own meanings. I have done enough on this one topic that any reasonable person would no longer make the claim you are making. And contrary to your claim I have used direct quotes from the bible to do it.

And once again your response is "No sir, no sir" instead of proving your point from scripture. All the scriptures I used are in Biblically chronological order and faithfully quoted despite your naysaying.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

the first thing I noticed is that you claim there are 1049 laws in which special privileges are granted to heterosexual couples and the site you linked says something very different. the site you linked says there are 1049 laws in which marital status is a factor.

The second obvious thing to notice is that the site you linked did not provide any list of the 1049 laws. It did have a list of the 13 categories and then a discussion.

According to the methodology they arrived at their number by doing a word search of the legal code using the term "marr"

Then right there in page 2 in the 5th paragraph they state that no conclusion can be drawn about the effect that the laws on married people versus single people. Wait! It is not even a study of the effect of laws on gay people. Gay people happen to be single but so are all the rest of the single people. According to that study they may be treated just as well as all the rest of the single people in the world.

You are still welcome to start a thread and to list a specific law to discuss favors married people and harms gays in a discriminatory way. I bet there are some. I bet there are not 1049 legitimate ones.

Two points: one, none of the laws about marriage are able to be accessed by gay people because they are specifically singled out for the denial of legal marriage. Point two, yes, single people are in the same boat EXCEPT they are allowed to marry their loved one LEGALLY and have access to all the laws pertaining to legally married people, a right which is still denied to gay people.

I'm not in charge of the GAO website, but I do have a copy of the laws, if you will supply me with an email address I will post the whole lot of them to you--I hesitate to post them here on the discussion site because they take a number of pages to print.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have been more than patient in discussing any issue with you and often use direct quotes from the bible. You have misqoted the bible much more often than you quote it correctly Feel free to start a thread on anty issue you want discussed from the bible word for word rather than making general accusations about.

I have not so much been making a case against gay marriage as I have been saying that your case for it is usually silly.

If you don't provide proof that I am misquoting the Bible "much more often than (I) quote it correctly" then I am calling you a liar. Pony up, Who.

Your only defense seems to be resorting to calling it silly because you have been proven wrong with every one of your arguments.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Boswell was both biased and wrong:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/2rites.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=10381.0

I read one of the actual "ceromonies" that he himself used as evidence and within it is the clear evidence that is is not a sexual union.

"That their love [agape] abide without offense or scandal"

The word love here "agape" never us used to describe either a romanitic or a sexual love - only a self-sacrificing love.

And another of his "proofs":

bless also these thy

servants, N. and N., joined together not by the bond of

nature but by faith and in the mode of the spirit [ou

desmoumenous desmi physeis alla pisteis kai pneumatikos

tropi], granting unto them peace [eirene] and love [agape]

and oneness of mind.

From your first citation:
Boswell was not able to show that any high church body gave approval to such a use of the rite, but was able to show, as most critics allow, that the rite was both fairly widespread [he had about 70 manuscripts], and that it probably was used by some same-sex couples to give some outward sign to their relationship.

The late 18th century Orthodox law text known as the Pedalion or Rudder does indicate that the ceremony was [ab]used in this way. From a much earlier date, St. Theodore of Studium in his Reform Rules seems to relate the ceremony to marriage. (A note here, the [ab] in the above quote is not attributed and thus we don't know if it was added by the original author or was more recently inserted.)

[I should note that I had made this observation, in an unpublished paper, some time ago. Alice Mary Talbot of Dumbarton Oaks strongly doubted that interpretation, but it is supported in the forthcoming translation and commentary on the Life by Angeliki Laiou, also of Dumbarton Oaks.

These saints were tortured and martyred late in the third century AD. when they refused to worship the emperor's idols. In their biography by Simeon Metaphrastes (available in J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 115, pp. 1005-1032) they are described as sweet companions and lovers to each other."

From your second citation:
For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. The evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort.

It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ. By Jim Duffy is a writer and historian.

I've read Boswell's work Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, and while the pro-homosexual bias is obvious, it is still impossible to simply dismiss his work out of hand. Regarding the article you posted, I think it distorts things terribly, as it makes Christian history sound like modern day San Francisco during a gay pride march. If there were indeed pockets of acceptance of homosexuality, they were by far the exception to the rule. As to how much of what Boswell says is accurate, I don't know.

What I can tell you is that I found his exegesis of the relevant Scriptural passages to be interesting, though not wholly convincing. I don't really know enough about the medieval history aspects of his work to even venture a guess. For myself, the more important lesson of his book is that tradition isn't always what you assume that it is, and that we need to learn to not think of history as a black and white thing, as though all the subtlety, diversity and profound complexity of human beings and human society exist only in those alive today. by Asteriktos

What intrigued me was that this last citation goes on to quote a bunch of people who universally debunked Boswell's work, but only in two or three sentence paragraphs and they gave no sources--but claimed that there WERE sources.

Just as with many Christian points of dogma it appears that there is much argument about what is really true, and as many Christians have pointed out to me, that not all Christians can be judged by the actions of others--which means that nobody knows with certainty.

This was a good post, Who, but seems like a lot of work to do just so that you can use this flimsy discussion to continue denying gay people legal marriage. There is no LOVING OTHERS AS YOURSELF in denying rights to others what you enjoy for your own.

 

[Dr.Who]

Two points: one, none of the laws about marriage are able to be accessed by gay people because they are specifically singled out for the denial of legal marriage. Point two, yes, single people are in the same boat EXCEPT they are allowed to marry their loved one LEGALLY and have access to all the laws pertaining to legally married people, a right which is still denied to gay people.

I'm not in charge of the GAO website, but I do have a copy of the laws, if you will supply me with an email address I will post the whole lot of them to you--I hesitate to post them here on the discussion site because they take a number of pages to print.

Umm, so just start a thread on the important ones. Starting a new thread would be better than destroying the topical integrity of all the other threads you participate in.

 

[Dr.Who]

From your first citation:
Boswell was not able to show that any high church body gave approval to such a use of the rite, but was able to show, as most critics allow, that the rite was both fairly widespread [he had about 70 manuscripts], and that it probably was used by some same-sex couples to give some outward sign to their relationship.

The late 18th century Orthodox law text known as the Pedalion or Rudder does indicate that the ceremony was [ab]used in this way. From a much earlier date, St. Theodore of Studium in his Reform Rules seems to relate the ceremony to marriage. (A note here, the [ab] in the above quote is not attributed and thus we don't know if it was added by the original author or was more recently inserted.)

[I should note that I had made this observation, in an unpublished paper, some time ago. Alice Mary Talbot of Dumbarton Oaks strongly doubted that interpretation, but it is supported in the forthcoming translation and commentary on the Life by Angeliki Laiou, also of Dumbarton Oaks.

These saints were tortured and martyred late in the third century AD. when they refused to worship the emperor's idols. In their biography by Simeon Metaphrastes (available in J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 115, pp. 1005-1032) they are described as sweet companions and lovers to each other."

From your second citation:
For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. The evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort.

It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ. By Jim Duffy is a writer and historian.

I've read Boswell's work Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, and while the pro-homosexual bias is obvious, it is still impossible to simply dismiss his work out of hand. Regarding the article you posted, I think it distorts things terribly, as it makes Christian history sound like modern day San Francisco during a gay pride march. If there were indeed pockets of acceptance of homosexuality, they were by far the exception to the rule. As to how much of what Boswell says is accurate, I don't know.

What I can tell you is that I found his exegesis of the relevant Scriptural passages to be interesting, though not wholly convincing. I don't really know enough about the medieval history aspects of his work to even venture a guess. For myself, the more important lesson of his book is that tradition isn't always what you assume that it is, and that we need to learn to not think of history as a black and white thing, as though all the subtlety, diversity and profound complexity of human beings and human society exist only in those alive today. by Asteriktos

What intrigued me was that this last citation goes on to quote a bunch of people who universally debunked Boswell's work, but only in two or three sentence paragraphs and they gave no sources--but claimed that there WERE sources.

Just as with many Christian points of dogma it appears that there is much argument about what is really true, and as many Christians have pointed out to me, that not all Christians can be judged by the actions of others--which means that nobody knows with certainty.

This was a good post, Who, but seems like a lot of work to do just so that you can use this flimsy discussion to continue denying gay people legal marriage. There is no LOVING OTHERS AS YOURSELF in denying rights to others what you enjoy for your own.

The evidence does need to be weighed. On the one side there is Boswell and on the other side there is everyone else.

Sure he could still be right based on the numbers of people alone who are on both sides. But a reasonable reading of the evidence shows that he is a horrible scholar with an agenda to push even when the evidence does not support it well enough.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The evidence does need to be weighed. On the one side there is Boswell and on the other side there is everyone else.

Sure he could still be right based on the numbers of people alone who are on both sides. But a reasonable reading of the evidence shows that he is a horrible scholar with an agenda to push even when the evidence does not support it well enough.

An exellent response, Who, you are no one's dummy. First you admit that he may be right and there is no proof one way or the other and that he has evidence and other scholars on his side.

Then in your next paragraph you push your agenda (just like you accused Boswell of doing) by claiming that the other side of the argument is not "reasonable", and then you attack him personally and renege on the admission you made in your first paragraph.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Umm, so just start a thread on the important ones. Starting a new thread would be better than destroying the topical integrity of all the other threads you participate in.

I would not start a new thread on this strictly because of your response to my citation of other sources. It won't matter what I post, you will claim that it's not valid without seriously looking at it. You did this with the work of Dr. Louanne Brizendine who used her lifework and more than 1000 peer-reviewed papers by other scientists to write a book called THE FEMALE BRAIN. You did the same thing with Dr. Chappell's work, you couldn't even be bothered to watch her video presentation on the web. YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW. And all the sources in the world will not educate you with that kind of attitude.

I read your citations, probably more closely than you do. I use your citations to clarify my position and to point out that even YOUR citations don't support your arguments very well--and in some cases contradict them.

You are very much like my two brothers, they already have ALL God's knowledge in their particular version of the Bible and they cannot go beyond that. Of course they don't agree with each other and they certainly wouldn't agree with you--except in your attacks on me, they would agree with that. Maybe you guys should get together and go bowling.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Dr. Who,
Everyone of those more than 1049 laws is important, so important that the Federal Government went through the process of writing and enacting them for the benefit of married couples. For you to decide with no examination that most or even some of them aren't really important is nothing but you talking through your hat.

The salient point is that ALL of these laws by the fact of using the word "marriage" have arbitrarily and with religious malice aforethought excluded gay people--and only gay people. Why is it that murderers on death row can marry? Drug dealers, pedophiles--shoot if anybody should be denied marriage it should be pedophiles so that they cannot raise children to molest. It doesn't matter what kind of useless scum a person is, if they aren't gay they can get married legally and access the rights and privileges that are summarily denied to all gay couples.

 

[Dr.Who]

An exellent response, Who, you are no one's dummy. First you admit that he may be right and there is no proof one way or the other and that he has evidence and other scholars on his side.

Then in your next paragraph you push your agenda (just like you accused Boswell of doing) by claiming that the other side of the argument is not "reasonable", and then you attack him personally and renege on the admission you made in your first paragraph.

You have managed to completely turn around the intent of what I have said yet again.

His conclusions are completely wrong. He has brought forth a few bits of evidence that appear to support his case at first glance but virtually all the other scholars weigh it and conclude exactly opposite of the way he does.

It is completely consistent then to "push the agenda" that he has drawn the wrong conclusion and that he is a horrible horrible scholar.

 

[Dr.Who]

I would not start a new thread on this strictly because of your response to my citation of other sources. It won't matter what I post, you will claim that it's not valid without seriously looking at it. You did this with the work of Dr. Louanne Brizendine who used her lifework and more than 1000 peer-reviewed papers by other scientists to write a book called THE FEMALE BRAIN. You did the same thing with Dr. Chappell's work, you couldn't even be bothered to watch her video presentation on the web. YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW. And all the sources in the world will not educate you with that kind of attitude.

Her materials are not available on-line. No surprise that I did not read it.

I have a standing policy to watch no video whether I agree with it or not. I have told many others that they can just post a link or a quote from some text.

I read your citations, probably more closely than you do. I use your citations to clarify my position and to point out that even YOUR citations don't support your arguments very well--and in some cases contradict them.

That would be because I actually post citations that lead to words.

You are very much like my two brothers, they already have ALL God's knowledge in their particular version of the Bible and they cannot go beyond that. Of course they don't agree with each other and they certainly wouldn't agree with you--except in your attacks on me, they would agree with that. Maybe you guys should get together and go bowling.

I have no doubt that is the way it feels to you. I hope that changes for you some day.

 

[Dr.Who]

Dr. Who,
Everyone of those more than 1049 laws is important, so important that the Federal Government went through the process of writing and enacting them for the benefit of married couples. For you to decide with no examination that most or even some of them aren't really important is nothing but you talking through your hat.

We won't know how important those laws are unless we discuss them. You are free to post the most significant ones or perhaps I will choose to start a thread and post the silliest ones. Maybe not, I just don't care that much. I have bigger and more important battles that if won will gain rights for gays in the process anyway.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You have managed to completely turn around the intent of what I have said yet again.

His conclusions are completely wrong. He has brought forth a few bits of evidence that appear to support his case at first glance but virtually all the other scholars weigh it and conclude exactly opposite of the way he does.

It is completely consistent then to "push the agenda" that he has drawn the wrong conclusion and that he is a horrible horrible scholar.

That's funny, the quotes from YOUR OWN source didn't say that. I twisted it? Hello? I posted the quotes from your source that disagreed with you and I noted that the quotes by people who DID agree with you were a couple of sentences long and gave no sources or credits. YOUR citation quoted people with long paragraphs citing authors and books that don't support your position.