In article <f54565ff1c834b2f1570078030e9d9df@news.secureusenet.com>,
*...@....com says...

Hello.

Before I go any further, I would like to make it clear that I do not find
homosexuality wrong, I do not consider it a sin, and I oppose
discrimination no matter at whom it's directed.

I found your post very interesting. That said, I would like to respond
to a few points you made. At least, I think you made them -- it's a
little difficult to tell who said what in this post.

:What our friend is overlooking, is that her reasoning falls flat on its

:when put under scrutiny. Homosexuality is totally unnatural and against
:God's order of things? Okay...
:
:Slavery is condoned in the Bible. That's part of God's order of things I

:to assume.

Is it condoned? I see it being REGULATED. But fundamentally, the Hebrew
Bible seems to oppose the idea, even if it permits the institution to
continue. Exodus 21:16 mandates a death sentence for anyone who sells a
person into slavery. Deuteronomy 23:16 prohibits returning a runaway
slave to his master. So, theoretically, had all the slaves in Israel
organized and run away, slavery would effectively have been abolished,
since they could not have been returned to their masters, and no new
people could have been sold into slavery.

Slavery was common in many cultures prior to and during the period in
which the Tanakh (and I'm going to use that term to distinguish the
entire Hebrew Bible from the Christian Bible) was being written and
codified.

Sometimes the Torah's laws are revolutionary -- for example, in the idea
that a husband owes his wife sexual satisfaction. (Incidentally, this
ruling protects less-favored wives in a society that allowed polygamy --
a man could not take a young, attractive second wife and ignore his older
wife.)

Sometimes, however, the Torah's laws are evolutionary -- they attempt to
impose ethical strictures on preexisting societal systems or conditions,
but they do not attempt to overthrow them entirely.

I believe that this is the case with the Torah's approach to slavery.
Slavery was a preexisting condition, upon which much of the economic and
social structure of the people probably depended. Had the Torah come out
and said: "Slavery is wrong, and henceforth forbidden," there is a
possibility that it would have been ignored. So, instead, it attempts to
make the system more humane, sets in place protections for slaves, and
institutes rules that make the situation more difficult to perpetuate or
expand.

Various cultures have taken many different approaches to and views of
slavery, but as slavery is, by its very nature, dehumanizing, many have
taken the view that slaves are somehow less human, or at least of less
inherent worth than their masters. Killing another man's slave was often
regarded as on a level with killing his animal.

The Torah rejects this view. A master who kills his slave is subject to
death (Exodus 21:20); as far as the Torah is concerned, the value of
their lives is equal. A master who causes his slave to lose a limb, or
even a tooth, is obligated to free him, (Exodus 21:26) which again
emphasizes the slave's humanity. Again, a runaway slave cannot be
returned to his master.

The book of Exodus can be read as one long anti-slavery polemic.

As a Christian, you are probably not particularly interested in what the
Talmud has to say, but I am going to mention a few things here. The
Talmud is the written form of an oral tradition of Biblical
interpretation. We don't know from when the oral tradition dates --
tradition says it was given to Moses at Sinai, along with the written
Torah, but I don't expect you to believe that.

In explaining how to apply the Torah's laws, it often attempts to extend
the attitudes the Rabbis believed underlay the laws into practical
applications. Deuteronomy 15:14 and Leviticus 25:39 forbid a master to
rule over a Hebrew slave harshly. Basing its ruling on these passages,
the Talmud says that if a master sleeps on a bed with pillows, the slave
must be given an equally comfortable bed. If the master has only a
single pillow, he must give it to the slave. The body of laws regarding
the treatment of Hebrew slaves is so extensive that the Talmud concludes
that one who acquires a Hebrew slave has acquired a master.

This is not to say that the Bible's attitude toward slavery is what we
today would consider acceptable -- you will note that in my last
paragraph, I talk about Hebrew slaves as opposed to just slaves. The
Torah can be chauvinistic at times -- Hebrew slaves had greater rights
than non-Hebrew slaves. But this is perhaps to be expected: Hebrew
slaves generally became slaves in a system that more closely resembled
indentured servitude, while n n-Hebrew slaves generally were acquired
through warfare. Also, there are some rules that slightly undermine the
humanitarianism of most of the laws.

Nevertheless, I think it misses the spirit of the Torah's laws concerning
slavery to say that it "condones" or "approves" of it.

:Pulygamy is condoned in the Bible. That too is a part of God's order of
:things.

Polygamy is ALLOWED in the Tanakh. But one might notice that Biblical
LAW and Biblical NARRATIVE are in conflict here. Biblical law allows
polygamy; Biblical narrative uncompromisingly portrays it as causing
misery. While we read about many unhappy polygamous marriages, we do not
read of a single polygamous marriage that is described as happy. The
only polygamous marriages that are NOT depicted as unhappy are those that
are not described.

One might also note that the ideal situation in, say Genesis, seems to be
monogamy. G-d doesn't create Adam, Eve, and Julie; He creates Adam and
Eve. A man "clings to his wife" not to his "wives." The first
polygamist is Lamech, a descendant of Cain and a generally unsavory
character, not someone one would use as a role model.

Once again, this appears to be a case where the Torah's laws prefer to
regulate a preexisting system rather than attempt to overthrow it and
institute something new.

It is worth noting, however, that just because narrative is narrative and
not law, it does not mean it can be ignored. Ultimately, the narrative
sections of the Tanakh influenced Jewish life more than the legal ones:
of the over 1000 rabbis of the Talmudic era of whom we have records, not
one practiced polygamy.

:Concubinage is condoned in the Bible. We are to also assume that it is a
:part of God's order of things.

See above.

:Sharon: You're right. That's what I was pointing out. This term 3045

:and
:"know" has multiple meanings.
:
:Very rarely was it used in Genesis for "sexual contact". In fact, if you
:read the scriptures, you soon see, they begin being more definitive in
:latter scriptures on the word, i.e, "known man, by lying with him"... to

:"know" is not enough.

The verb "to know" in Hebrew does indeed have multiple meanings. But I'm
not sure that it's accurate to say it's "rarely" used in Genesis for
"sexual contact." I got out my Stone Tanach and went through the first
10 uses of "y-d-[ayin]" -- three of them refer to sexual contact. 30% is
not exactly "rare."

And the sexual sense of the verb is still very much present in modern
Hebrew, where one cannot use yodea/yodaat to indicate that one knows
someone [in the English sense]. Instead, one says that one is
"acquainted with" someone -- makir/makirah.

:automatically translated into the men of
:Sodom wanting sex with the strangers.
:
:There's a lot more to it, and it's not that simple.

There is a lot more to it, and it ISN'T that simple. First of all,
NOWHERE is it clear that Sodom's misdoings were homosexual SEX -- the
most specific thing that could be said about the passage is that the mob
outside Lot's door wanted to commit homosexual RAPE. In a broader sense,
they definitely wanted to violate common rules of hospitality.

I think, however, that one can stay with the idea that the mob wished to
commit homosexual rape, without quibbling over the meaning of y-d-[ayin],
as an EXAMPLE of the types of sins the people were committing.
Nevertheless, I think the modern-day interpretation that Sodom was
destroyed because of consensual homosexual sex taking place there ignores
(perhaps intentionally) what would be a normal textual interpretation.

G-d notes, in a soliloquy, that Sodom and Gomorrah are exceptionally
evil. We then are given a scene in which we see an example of this -- a
mob of residents demands that Lot turn over his guests to be raped, and
practically assaults Lot trying to get to them. Lot, the most righteous
of the residents, proves the extent of the city's moral depravity -- the
most righteous man in the city is still one who will offer up his own
children to be raped. Lot tells his sons-in-law that the Lord is about
to destroy the city, and the sons-in-law laugh at the word of G-d.

So far, so good. We've been told by G-d that the city is sinful, and
we've been given a scene in the city that demonstrates just how nasty the
residents are.

If this were the only reference to Sodom in the Bible, it would still
seem narrow minded to assume that homosexuality was THE sin of Sodom,
rather than just an example of the depravity of the city, in which rape
appears to be a common occurrence.

And, it should be noted, it's not exactly right to say that
"homosexuality" was the sinful part of what happened. The scene doesn't
describe a gay bathhouse. It describes a mob that wants to gang-rape a
couple of strangers.

But that's not the extent of the story. Ezekiel 16:49-50 speaks of the
city's "haughtiness", laziness, and their refusal to help the poor even
though they were rich (and Genesis 13:10 concurs regarding their wealth).
This suggests that the Jews of his time interpreted the story as
indicating that Sodom was generally sinful, not specifically homosexual.

And it seems to have been this general climate of sinfulness that led G-d
to destroy the city. He doesn't give into Abraham's pleas -- rather, he
evacuates the few righteous residents of the cities, then destroys them.
The Jewish interpretation of this is that if good people are outnumbered
enough by bad people, they will not be able to influence the bad people
and may end up being corrupted themselves. In fact, an old Jewish
folktale about Sodom expresses this idea (and, it might be noted, does
not even mention homosexuality):

A good man moved to Sodom, and went through the city telling people to
change their ways. They ignored him, but the more they ignored him, the
more vociferous he grew. One day, a young boy asked him why he bothered,
pointing out that the man had already been there for a long time, and he
had failed to affect even one person's behavior.

"When I came," the man explained, "I yelled in hope that the people of
Sodom would change. Now I yell so that THEY don't change ME."

Jewish law rules that if a Jew finds him or herself living in a city with
almost no righteous people, he or she must leave immediately. And
ultimately, from these other references, it seems that the problem in
Sodom was just that: general lack of righteousness. So G-d destroyed
the city, not because he was so disgusted by homosexuality that he went
on a fire and brimstone kick, but because its evil was like a cancer with
the potential to spread.

Anyway, that's a long-winded interpretation, I guess, but it seems
awfully narrow-minded to assume that the "sin of Sodom" was
homosexuality.

--
Best regards,

Abby

You feel guilty because you were programmed by the WWC and you turned into
an atheist. You're no Deist

You feel guilty because you were programmed by the WWC and you turned into
an atheist. You're no Deist, you're a sick puppy craving attention, and a
lying ***** to boot.

You feel guilty because you were programmed by the WWC and you turned into
an atheist. You're no Deist, you're a sick puppy craving attention, and a
lying ***** to boot.
I never emailed you asking you to argue with Lester. I have a record of
*all* emails and posts I've sent. Show me a copy of this email.
I'm not pissed at Lester. It's he who plonked me because I quoted the

(fool that he is, the discussion warranted quoting scripture in general,

just "christian")

If anybody emailed anybody it was you who emailed me and told me *all*

your nazi murderer ex-hubby, and even sent newspaper clippings to that
effect (I don't forget anything sharon), and tried to get my snail mail

so that you could (supposedly) send me one of your stupid paper crosses.

Yes I defended Ernie's right to be as crazy as he wants to be and to claim
whatever he wants, and would do so again. Not because I agree with him,

because I disagree with idiots like you who threaten to call the police

the feds on people for exercising their freedom of expression, especially

a forum whose existence is already threatened... At least Lester and

posts are in context to the topic discussed in this (alt.bible.prophecy)
newsgroup, yours aren't.

I never said I didn't like you, I said you're an imbecile. I can't bring
myself to dislike people I pity. But the fact that I pity you doesn't stop
me from pointing out that you don't make any sense, you're off topic,

redundant, your sources never support your off the wall statements, and

spend quite a bit of time talking to yourself.

If I didn't like you I wouldn't have spent so much time coaching you on

to survive usenet.
So don't give yourself so much credit darling, I don't dislike you, I

of you as a rabid mangy dog (*****) who should have her puppies taken from
her before she turns on them. (If it wasn't for your dad they would have

now), and who should be locked up for your own protection and our peace of
mind.




"sharon" <*...@....com> wrote in message
news:83a4c8b8fc485627cef60d6a763eba09@news.secureusenet.com...

"Baba Dadá" <penny_lane_nospam@hotbox.ru> wrote in message
news:bq9mg7$1vsoaq$1@ID-206257.news.uni-berlin.de...

If you want to argue with atheists (which is ludicrous in itself

considering

that you actually *are* an atheist, but feel too guilty about it to

admit

Why should there be "guilt" involved in admitting a person is an atheist
Baba?
If that's the truth --- why be ashamed of your beliefs?
Only_a_christian would say something like that. An atheist wouldn't

to this "guilt" factor you speak of. What do all the preachers tell you
Baba, that Atheists "really believe down deep" don't they? Ah yes,

a

sin... so they deny god... but down deep they believe, and for that

feeling this 'guilt'.

But I'm not an atheist... I'm a Deist... I believe in God, for that

I'm not an atheist. I'm just not a braindead, book-worshipping idolator.

Bibliolatry. I won't bow down to the Bible, or organized religion.
Of course you don't like me. I personally don't care either.

Good for you, don't "hang" on the bible, and don't come spew your nonsense
on a newsgroup about bible prophecy.

Are the nazis still trying to kill you?
You seem to forget that you've broadcast your life story to anybody that
would give you the time of day.

How are those three little bastards anyway?
You're what, 36 years old now?

Are you still selling little paper crosses to get by?

Still live with your daddy?

Are the police still ignoring your many complaints?

Are you still on welfare?

Did you run out of meds?

schizophrenia right?

In article <6c0f7c65683749c626c683bca1be538b@news.secureusenet.com>,
*...@....com says...

:I wish I hadn't wasted my time, trying to defend a Jew against
:racists.

Hello, Sharon.

I can't speak with certainty on this, since I didn't see the original
posts, but if you were trying to defend a Jew against racists -- thank
you. It doesn't happen very frequently on Usenet -- in general, the
antisemites come and troll Jewish groups, and non-Jews generally don't
say anything because they figure we can take care of ourselves.

And generally, we CAN take care of ourselves, but it warms my heart when
a non-Jew steps in and says to the attacker, "This is wrong!" When the
victims of prejudice defend themselves, it can easily be seen as acting
not out of principle, but because the victim has a personal stake in it.
When an objective observer with no personal stake steps in, it *IS* out
of principle, and that's something to be applauded.

Prejudice is wrong, period, but that simple fact becomes clouded when the
only people to protest it are perceived to be acting out of self-
interest.

So thank you, and I'm sorry that the recipient of your kind and ethical
action did not respond with greater civility. We're not all like that,
and your altruism gives me greater hope that Jews and non-Jews can move
past their largely nonexistent differences and get back to work making
the world a better place.

--
Best regards,

Abby