Homosexuality - Rebel Priests defy Pope on Blessing Same-Sex Unions

[sky]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

I saw your comments regarding who wrote Leviticus and I too thought it was written about the time of the Babylonian Captivity.

As for reading books to get enlightenment, there is a point at which one one goes beyond books and scholarly nuances on language.

Ramana Maharshi once said: Instructions are needed until one has surrendered completely (to That which lies beyond). Until then, one can continue trying to decipher books written over 2000 years ago.

Pointless carrying the Raft around when you reach the other side

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

Homosexuality should be a "non-issue". Period.

Why do you consider it important to understand the Elohists and the Yahwists. The historian Will Durant --- objective --- has indicated that there were probably 4 schools of thought involved in writing the Bible. Feel free to decipher and differentiate.

As I was studying Genesis in Hebrew, it dawned on me that the first creation account was written by one person/group that used Elohim and the second creation account was written by one person/group that used Yahweh. It became clear to me that these creation accounts where the opinions of various people/groups. This pattern is displayed thorough the Old Testament. What made it interesting is 'others' did not see it. How many times have people ridiculed the Bible because it has 2 creation accounts, 2 flood accounts, etc. which in many cases, do not complement each other? And then, how many people have noticed that the creation accounts, etc. are just opinions from diverse persons/groups?

The more I studied, the more the first 5 books of the Bible appeared to me as being written in a style that was the forerunner of the style the Talmud would be written in.

I see the Old Testament, especially the first 5 books, apparently in a different light then virtually everybody else does and from my perspective it makes as much 'sense' as the Talmud does to me. Unfortunately, I have never found others that felt the same way but then, I have never met anybody who has studied the Bible in Hebrew and who has noticed what I have noticed.

By recognizing the writings of the Elohists and Yahwists and being able to differentiate the views of each group, changes completely our understanding of the Bible. The Bible is not rigid as some dogmatically insist on but is instead more interesting then one can imagine.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

I saw your comments regarding who wrote Leviticus and I too thought it was written about the time of the Babylonian Captivity.

As for reading books to get enlightenment, there is a point at which one one goes beyond books and scholarly nuances on language.

Ramana Maharshi once said: Instructions are needed until one has surrendered completely (to That which lies beyond). Until then, one can continue trying to decipher books written over 2000 years ago.

If you suspect Leviticus was written during the Jewish Dysplasia to Babylon, then this should be an 'eye opener'. Tradition claims the first 5 books of the Bible were written by Moses but now some suspect they were written in more recent times. Many have centered on the books being written during the Jewish Dysplasia to Babylon. If they were written during this time period, it would change the presentation and view of the first 5 books of the Bible tremendously.

There is much 'evidence' that the first 5 books were written during the Jewish Dysplasia to Babylon but discussing those subjects generally open up a huge 'can of worms' and I suspect that is why it is not 'talked' about.

As for your comment "As for reading books to get enlightenment, there is a point at which one one goes beyond books and scholarly nuances on language." But in this case, if we put Leviticus in a different perspective then most people use and try to recognize that Paul, before becoming a follower of Jesus, was operating what looks like a Yahwist perspective, then, to me, everything 'makes sense'. As one saying goes something like this "Why condemn a book if you haven't read it" comes in to play.

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by Altair

This reads like you want to congratulate yourself.

I don't know too much about the differences. From what I've read, there's a different view on god: An anthropomorphic god versus the 'you are gods'. And the angels used as messengers. Maybe John knows more. He's a bit of a bible nerd.

There's no need to congratulate one's self on doing what ANYONE can do --- namely, "Be still and KNOW that I AM God" (Psalms 46:10) as opposed to "Read all about it". (That comment does, however, say a lot about how YOU think.) I am only restoring the natural normal state; I can't comment on what state you've gotten yourself into especially when you state that you have what sounds like a very unpleasant "gagging" reaction to various aspects of God's creation.

If you haven't had the direct VALIDATING experiences, then perhaps you are looking in the wrong places --- trying to decipher what is being written by the Elohimists, the Yahwehists, and whoever else incorporated their beliefs into the Biblical texts.

Since reportedly "man is made in the image of God", it should not be surprising that a "ye are gods" makes sense to me .... but ..... that "ye" is most assuredly a different, purified "ye" than what PASSES as the norm in today's society. This goes far deeper than the anthropomorphism that you have suggested in your post.

Perhaps you can get past your "gagging" reaction to seeing two LOVING men kissing .... and go past the superficial outward appearances which seem to disturb you so much to the point of "gagging".

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by sky123

Pointless carrying the Raft around when you reach the other side

One cannot rule out the possibility that some people still need the raft as they continue to encounter troubled waters.

[Native spirit]

Please stick to topic


Namaste

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

As I was studying Genesis in Hebrew, it dawned on me that the first creation account was written by one person/group that used Elohim and the second creation account was written by one person/group that used Yahweh. It became clear to me that these creation accounts where the opinions of various people/groups. This pattern is displayed thorough the Old Testament. What made it interesting is 'others' did not see it. How many times have people ridiculed the Bible because it has 2 creation accounts, 2 flood accounts, etc. which in many cases, do not complement each other? And then, how many people have noticed that the creation accounts, etc. are just opinions from diverse persons/groups?

The more I studied, the more the first 5 books of the Bible appeared to me as being written in a style that was the forerunner of the style the Talmud would be written in.

I see the Old Testament, especially the first 5 books, apparently in a different light then virtually everybody else does and from my perspective it makes as much 'sense' as the Talmud does to me. Unfortunately, I have never found others that felt the same way but then, I have never met anybody who has studied the Bible in Hebrew and who has noticed what I have noticed.

By recognizing the writings of the Elohists and Yahwists and being able to differentiate the views of each group, changes completely our understanding of the Bible. The Bible is not rigid as some dogmatically insist on but is instead more interesting then one can imagine.

Thank you for you excellent clarification regarding why you pursue your Biblical studies as you do: "By recognizing the writings of the Elohists and Yahwists and being able to differentiate the views of each group, changes completely our understanding of the Bible." Your point is very well taken.

Many years ago, I asked EXACTLY the same questions(s) that you raised in your post: " ...how many people have noticed that the creation accounts, etc. are just opinions from diverse persons/groups?" Even objective historians like Will Durant came to the same conclusion that you did --- namely that the Bible contains "opinions from diverse persons/groups" and he actually identified four (4) groups which suggest at least four (4) different authors.

As least the Talmud clearly states that the commentaries are "opinions" as the "opinions" often contradict each other completely with Rabbi Shammai representing the conservative literal interpretations of the Bible and Rabbi Hillel interpreting the Bible more from a "living document" more liberal point of view. (This is not unlike the opposing opinions expressed by judges on the United States Supreme Court where case decisions often have a majority opinion as well as a dissenting minority opinion.)

Thanks again for the clarification, as I now have a better understanding of why you study the Bible as you do.

P.S. This is very related to the topic on this thread as the Pope's position that homosexuality is a "sin" is based on certain passages from the Bible and hence the reliability of the Bible on this issue is very germane to the subject at hand. However, Native Spirit is correct that some of us, including me, do wander off the topic at times so it is good that we are reminded to stick to the topic.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

There's no need to congratulate one's self on doing what ANYONE can do --- namely, "Be still and KNOW that I AM God" (Psalms 46:10) as opposed to "Read all about it". (That comment does, however, say a lot about how YOU think.) I am only restoring the natural normal state; I can't comment on what state you've gotten yourself into especially when you state that you have what sounds like a very unpleasant "gagging" reaction to various aspects of God's creation.

This isn't relevant. I've never said anything about ''gagging'', the only time I recall the word is when Gem mentioned it, and I was in agreement with Gem's views. I don't really care what word he uses when I agree with his overall opinion. I don't care if that bothers you. People have different preferences and opinions, you go and watch what you like and I will watch what I like.

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

If you haven't had the direct VALIDATING experiences, then perhaps you are looking in the wrong places --- trying to decipher what is being written by the Elohimists, the Yahwehists, and whoever else incorporated their beliefs into the Biblical texts.

That's an ego boost right there... ''You haven't had a direct, validating experience but I have''.

Here's the actual context behind the Elohist/Yahwist discussion between me and John: we talked about it before in other threads. The Bible consists of different sources. John brought it up here and I think that's interesting because using this approach one could pick a more free/liberal perspective or a more hardline perspective on this particular topic. What is shows is that people use the Bible differently, and this returns in every discussion here in the Christianity forum.

I'm not a believer but it will be interesting to see how you folks work it out, and whether a believer is justified in ignoring Leviticus and other parts of the Bible, as Jesus in the NT is still believed to be the incarnation of God and praying to the God of the OT. Even so, there are clear differences in style and emphasis by these sources so it's a matter of debate.

This should be the heart of the topic here, and then we can also ask if the pope, as a leader of the religion, is justified or not in what he said.

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

Since reportedly "man is made in the image of God", it should not be surprising that a "ye are gods" makes sense to me .... but ..... that "ye" is most assuredly a different, purified "ye" than what PASSES as the norm in today's society. This goes far deeper than the anthropomorphism that you have suggested in your post.

The Yahwist source uses an anthropomorphic god, the Elohist source does not.
I think Leviticus is also part of the Yahwist sources.

Originally Posted by Still+Waters

Perhaps you can get past your "gagging" reaction to seeing two LOVING men kissing .... and go past the superficial outward appearances which seem to disturb you so much to the point of "gagging".

Again, irrelevant.

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by Altair

This isn't relevant. I've never said anything about ''gagging'', the only time I recall the word is when Gem mentioned it, and I was in agreement with Gem's views. I don't really care what word he uses when I agree with his overall opinion. I don't care if that bothers you. People have different preferences and opinions, you go and watch what you like and I will watch what I like.



That's an ego boost right there... ''You haven't had a direct, validating experience but I have''.

Here's the actual context behind the Elohist/Yahwist discussion between me and John: we talked about it before in other threads. The Bible consists of different sources. John brought it up here and I think that's interesting because using this approach one could pick a more free/liberal perspective or a more hardline perspective on this particular topic. What is shows is that people use the Bible differently, and this returns in every discussion here in the Christianity forum.

I'm not a believer but it will be interesting to see how you folks work it out, and whether a believer is justified in ignoring Leviticus and other parts of the Bible, as Jesus in the NT is still believed to be the incarnation of God and praying to the God of the OT. Even so, there are clear differences in style and emphasis by these sources so it's a matter of debate.

This should be the heart of the topic here, and then we can also ask if the pope, as a leader of the religion, is justified or not in what he said.


The Yahwist source uses an anthropomorphic god, the Elohist source does not.
I think Leviticus is also part of the Yahwist sources.



Again, irrelevant.

You raise many of the same points that BigJohn raised in one of his last posts, and I have responded to it. As you duly noted in your post, "The Bible consists of different sources" and the reliability of those sources as it pertains to homosexuality (in this particular thread) "should be the heart of the topic here", as you also stated. We are in agreement on those points.

As for your "gagging" reaction when you see two LOVING men kissing, don't assume that it "bothers" me. It doesn't bother me in the least though I do feel compassion towards you when you reveal what seems like a very unpleasant condition.

Lastly, do not assume that you know what is in my mind when I refer to "direct VALIDATING experiences". I am not going to comment on that statement of yours as Native Spirit would correctly remind us that this would be going off topic into a possibly lengthy psychological diversion. Having said that, however, your "gagging" reaction would probably be a lot more revealing .... but, in keeping with the topic of this thread, I am not going to go there either.

Let's continue to focus on the reliability of the Biblical sources which serve as the foundation for the Pope's declaration that homosexuality is a "sin" and that consequently same-sex unions cannot be blessed by the Roman Catholic Church.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

You raise many of the same points that BigJohn raised in one of his last posts, and I have responded to it. As you duly noted in your post, "The Bible consists of different sources" and the reliability of those sources as it pertains to homosexuality (in this particular thread) "should be the heart of the topic here", as you also stated. We are in agreement on those points.

As for your "gagging" reaction when you see two LOVING men kissing, don't assume that it "bothers" me. It doesn't bother me in the least though I do feel compassion towards you when you reveal what seems like a very unpleasant condition.

Lastly, do not assume that you know what is in my mind when I refer to "direct VALIDATING experiences". I am not going to comment on that statement of yours as Native Spirit would correctly remind us that this would be going off topic into a possibly lengthy psychological diversion. Having said that, however, your "gagging" reaction would probably be a lot more revealing .... but, in keeping with the topic of this thread, I am not going to go there either.

Let's continue to focus on the reliability of the Biblical sources which serve as the foundation for the Pope's declaration that homosexuality is a "sin" and that consequently same-sex unions cannot be blessed by the Roman Catholic Church.

Well FWIW, creating an image about people you disagree with clearly allows you to present yourself as ''tolerant'' and ''virtuous''. That's why you continuously bring that nonsense up out of nowhere even when it isn't in any way relevant to the discussion.

If you want to focus on the scripture than by all means, do so. There are passages about this topic in Leviticus and stuff that Paul wrote. How would a Christian deal with that? Would they accept the Bible is fallible and written by different authors? If yes, then we may have a case for gay acceptance, especially if one believes Paul wasn't really inspired by the holy ghost and the OT is about a different God than the one Jesus prayed to. This would also come closer to a Gnostic point of view. But if Jesus is the incarnation of God and every bit of the Bible is connected and ''holy'' than it becomes more difficult doesn't it.

I've noticed this 'conflict' returns across different threads in the Christian forum. Does one take the Bible as a holy book or not, that is the question.