Apparently the floods were the governments fault.

[peterb]

It is fairly clear.

See Levitikus 18 on wikipedia


Now if you believe the Bible to be the Word of God.... While we'd like Christianity to be a fluffy Jesus is Love above-all-else-athon, I can see how interpreting it based on the words clearly written on the page is a reasonable interpretation too. I completely disagree, but there it is.

Leviticus is Old Testament - which is pre Christ and therefore pre-Christianity. The Old Testament is primarily concerned with Jewish tradition.

[opel80uk]

Good grief. What other way can you interpret the following?

18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22 KJV)[1]
20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)[2]

i absolutely disagree with the above, but I'm stumped as to how you can take anything other than the obvious meaning out of it.

Oh Dear. Religious scholars are locked in never ending debate regarding the interpretation of various books. For example, what you have quoted is Old Testament Law and when Jesus was Crucified, Old Testament Law was replaced by the Law of Christ. In fact, Old Testament Law is widely accepted as only having ever been applicable to Jews, not Christians anyway.

It really is quite an interesting topic, whether you are religious or not, (Many prominent Atheists are very well versed in such topics) so might well be worth informing yourself with it, especially if you are going to quote from it.

[wasabi]

So just because it's written down, doesn't make it black and white.

A: UKIP bloke isn't Jewish and
B: if religion types get a free pass to interpret anything any way they want, what point is there in it?

[santa claus]

This is all going to end in tears.

[peterb]

This is all going to end in tears.

Not more rain

[wasabi]

For you to tell such people what they believe is pretty offensive really - we wouldn't accept a religious person telling an atheist what to believe, so why is the reverse acceptable?

I stated what their holy book says and asked how it could be interpreted differently.

[peterb]

I stated what their holy book says and asked how it could be interpreted differently.

And as another thread descends into a spat - probably time to close it. Pity - it might have developed into an interesting discussion.

[Saracen]

It is fairly clear.

See Levitikus 18 on wikipedia


Now if you believe the Bible to be the Word of God.... While we'd like Christianity to be a fluffy Jesus is Love above-all-else-athon, I can see how interpreting it based on the words clearly written on the page is a reasonable interpretation too. I completely disagree, but there it is.

Oh, I did read that entry in Wikipedia, and quite a few other religious and non-religious sites too, before posting.

Re: that Wikipedia entry, the para following the references points out ....

The two verses have historically been interpreted by Jews and Christians as clear blanket prohibitions against homosexual acts. More recent interpretations focus on its context as part of the Holiness Code, a code of purity meant to distinguish the behavior of Israelites from the Canaanites.[3][4]

The emphasis in bold is mine.

But it reinforces my point.

And what, exactly, is "the Bible"?

I have at least half a dozen here, but take just three ....

- King James
- NIV
- Jerusalem Bible

If you examine them closely, you will find differences, not just in exact content, but in both translation and interpretation.

That Jerusalem bible is a 1966 translation and, essentially, has a Catholic flavour, which I acquired (in a really nice leather binding, book-wise it's a thing of beauty) from Westminster Cathedral about 35 years ago. The King James is a reprint of the old 'school' reference version, and the NIV is one I acquired during a year or two spent with what might be disparagingly referred to as the happy-clappy brigade .... which, I must say, was much more fun than the other two.

Anyway, the point .... they are ALL interpretations. All of them.

They are all translations, and translations of collections of fragments passed down initially by word of mouth and a very few written fragments, but then translated from Hebrew, Aramaic, and so on. And religious scholars have been arguing over exactly how to interpret many parts, for centuries. Partly, it's about the exact translation of specific words, but in many cases, such as those Leviticus passages, it's about what those words meant in the cultural context of the times in which they'd been used.

Ever studied literature? I mean, relatively modern literature? If you read Dickens, with a reasonable understanding of the state of late 19th Century England, you will get a deeper understanding of his meaning than without. At one level, they're ripping good (or not, depending on taste) stories. On another level, they're a biting social satire, and social condemnation, with more than a hint of a reforming agenda.

And Dickens is easy compared to, oh, James Joyce. Trying reading "Portrait ...." without an understanding of Irish politics and, more importantly, Catholic idiom and allegory, and you're going to be really struggling.

And that's child's play compared to understanding, say, Chaucer in the original, which for nearly all practical purposes is a foreign langauge, despite being in English. And that is about half the elapsed time, without the potential for distortion of the hundreds of years of verbal passing down, in merely an ancient form of our own language.

One example of difficulties in "translation and interpretation" ....

"Thou shalt not kill" is a form, and a somewhat archaic form at that, that most of us raised as Christian would recognise. But there are a number of extremely well educated scholars that insist a better translation, in a modern idiom, would be "You must not commit murder".

The difference between killing and murder is significant, especially given that the "murder" option includes a requirement for illegality, which is, of course, a variable given that legal definitions vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. So, if "murder" were to be the correct interpretation, what legal jurisdiction? That prevailing in Jerusalem at the time of Christ, or that where the killing/murder took place, at the time of the act of killing. Certainly, if it's "murder" then that Commandment does not even preclude the death penalty, because in states where that is legally sanctioned, it's not murder. On the other end of the spectrum, you cannot kill even if it is the only way to save your life, that of your family, or even hundreds or thousands of others. Fot instance, suppose shooting a suicide bomber or terrorist is the only way to stop him/her blowing up a cafe, or a school, or a plane? A strict and exception-free interpretation of not 'killing" means assuming God's will is for hundreds to die, when it could be prevented, at the hands of an extremist, or even madman.

If scholars, those that do understand social contexts of the time, at least as well as anyone does that wasn't there, and that can read Aramaic, Hebrew, etc, can't agree on precise interpretations, even of a major commanment, what chance do the rest of us stand with Leviticus 18?

[peterb]

As the thread still has potential to remain interesting - provided the debate remains within HEXUs rules - i.e., avoiding personal insults - I am reopening it.

However, if it again descends into the snide comment territory it will be closed again - permanently. There is a useful 'report post' function that may be used if a member objects to comments made by another.

[wasabi]

If scholars, those that do understand social contexts of the time, at least as well as anyone does that wasn't there, and that can read Aramaic, Hebrew, etc, can't agree on precise interpretations, even of a major commanment, what chance do the rest of us stand with Leviticus 18?

All good points.

I understand perfectly well how the Bible can be interpreted many different ways. I went to an old-fashioned religious Irish grammar school and studied classics to A level. I have also read the New testament several times cover-to-cover in Greek.

To quote myself:

'I can see how interpreting it based on the words clearly written on the page is a reasonable interpretation too' (quoting me, my emphasis)

So Mr UKIP isn't allowed to interpret the Bible, only the Hexus forum members of a PC leaning can?
Then call him a 'bigot' and a 'moron' rather than deal directly with the possibility that he might actually just be reading his choice or religious text with the plainest meaning?

Again - I don't have any deist beliefs whatsoever and strongly disagree with him. However the cultural blindside we have, where we cannot criticize the actual core doctrines of a religion, is odd.

Anyway - thanks for one of the more informed posts on the thread.

[csgohan4]

All good points.

I understand perfectly well how the Bible can be interpreted many different ways. I went to an old-fashioned religious Irish grammar school and studied classics to A level. I have also read the New testament several times cover-to-cover in Greek.

To quote myself:

'I can see how interpreting it based on the words clearly written on the page is a reasonable interpretation too' (quoting me, my emphasis)

So Mr UKIP isn't allowed to interpret the Bible, only the Hexus forum members of a PC leaning can?
Then call him a 'bigot' and a 'moron' rather than deal directly with the possibility that he might actually just be reading his choice or religious text with the plainest meaning?

Again - I don't have any deist beliefs whatsoever and strongly disagree with him. However the cultural blindside we have, where we cannot criticize the actual core doctrines of a religion, is odd.

Anyway - thanks for one of the more informed posts on the thread.

Whatever one's interpretation that is one thing, however it is another to impose their beliefs onto others, patronsing and undermining other sections of the human race.

What happened to tolerance and humility?

Would a non believer be happy if a christian came up to them and said they would be going to Hell ?

It's easy being a Christian but living a Christian life is harder. I wonder if we dig into Mr UKIP he would have a 'plank' in his own eye. People shouldn't judge others, noone's perfect, even his bible teaches that. The fact that he does is even more evident he is using religion for his own agenda.

[kalniel]

Problem is you go from a reasonable idea that Mr UKIP is just giving his own interpretation here:

So Mr UKIP isn't allowed to interpret the Bible,

To the wholly unreasonable idea that his interpretation somehow represents the core doctrine of a religion here:

However the cultural blindside we have, where we cannot criticize the actual core doctrines of a religion, is odd.

Stating his opinion is in agreement with the core doctrine of Christianity (as also here:

His views are entirely consistent with what his religion teaches though

is what I take issue with - it's simply not the case.

[Rob_B]

UKIP weather is indeed amusing, nice to see it gaining traction.
https://twitter.com/ukipweather

The threads on religion always get pretty close to the bone don't they ?

[wasabi]

Would a non believer be happy if a christian came up to them and said they would be going to Hell ?

Not very. I get pairs of annoying people in suits round the door every other weekend trying to ram some of this cobblers down my throat. Still better than Southern electric conmen trying to trick me into signing up to their services on the back of a scam though.

Whether you account for The Apocrypha, or possible revisionism at the Council of Nicea (disputed), most Christians believe the whole 'bible' to be the literal word of god. And not just the New Testament.

I don't get the PC anger at the idea that a bunch of superstitious hillbillies several thousand years ago decided gays should be killed, and chucked their (by modern standards) illiberal ideas into their holy book.

Problem now is, do we simply say it isn't the literal word of god? The whole tower of cards quickly comes tumbling down if you do that.

[peterb]

Whether you account for The Apocrypha, or possible revisionism at the Council of Nicea (disputed), most Christians believe the whole 'bible' to be the literal word of god. And not just the New Testament..

Most? 90%, 80%?

I would suggest few actually consider the Bible to be a literal word of God (and there are different versions of the Bible anyway - the version that "the pairs of men in suits" use is markedly different from that used by the Catholic or Protestant Churches.)

There are the fundamentalists in the States who consider the first five books to be a literal description of the creation of earth - more enlightened consider it to be a parable - and as a parable one could argue that the sequence of events - if not the literal timing (depends on the interpretation or translation of a day) to be fairly prescient - darkness - big bang - light - generation of conditions to allow life - evolution of life - dawning of enlightenment of the human species.

As for your contention that homosexuality would be frowned upon - that could be explained by the fact that almost be definition, homosexuality will not result in procreation, and therefore the strength and ongoing growth and survival of the tribe.

By the same token, the restrictions on diet also make sense in an age where refrigeration was unknown, the risk of food poisoning was v(and still can be) very real from shellfish or pork or the cross contamination from meat to dairy products.

And that is not justifying any prejudice against homosexuality today.

[csgohan4]

I think anyone can have their own religion, but if you impose onto others forcibly or in an unwanted manner, that's where you have crossed the line.

When people don't take no for an answer, they deserve everything they get.

Religion doesn't harm people, people do, they use religion as an excuse for their actions. Interpretation is still a human thing and human nature to destroy for their own greed.

On a seperate note, there was a nationl survey done in the U.K years back and a large proportion put 'Jedi' as their religion lolz. Lightsabers FTW