Question about spirituality

[Rainbowmum]

You are probably wondering what a pagan knows about this.

Believe it or not I was raised religious , right down to private schools and the nuns.
I understand where you are coming from , but resenting God for human error is a tad bit cruel.

No offense meant.

Unfortunately so many gospels were removed from the bible that we have now, that we may never know the whole truth.
Perfect example , no where in the bible is it forbidden to practice Pedophilia.

Coincidence ? I think not.
They literally dissected the bible , once again mans error not Gods.

When ever I am in doubt of anything , I remember one particular scripture.

Matthew 12:31

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

What the church did when picking and choosing what stays in and what stays out, is a sin against the holy spirit, they have manipulated Gods words and mislead millions.

Rather than argue the point with the doctrine of the church, remember this, Jesus died for all our sins , at not time did he say except for the gay community , or the prostitutes, or..........

Never forget there is a huge difference between Jesus , who lived as a man and knows how hard it is to be human , and Christ which is they way the church manipulate the masses.

Revelation 22:19

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

[azulai]

The interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah as being about inhospitality is not revisionism. It actually comes from the traditional Jewish interpretation and our rabbinic midrash. Early rabbinic readings place the sin of Sodom as its cruelty and arrogance. Reading of the Hebrew meaning of the word “know” is not interpreted as know in a sexual sense but as hatred and violence against the stranger, and the mistreatment of the weak.

Even read in the scriptures themselves the interpretation by the prophet Ezekiel (from the Hebrew):

Ezekiel 16:49 Only this was the sin of your sister Sodom: arrogance! She and her daughters had plenty of bread and untroubled tranquility; yet she did not support the poor and the needy.

Jewish interpretation of the texts did eventually evolve to include general sexual immorality but the focus was always on violent behavior. There is one reference to sex between men in midrash of the story found in Israel dating roughly to the second century but when another manuscript of the same midrash was discovered (of Babylonian origin) it was found not to have the reference. The general consensus is that the reference of sex between men was an addition and the result of Jews living under Roman rule and addressing pagan practices.

But this never becomes the focus of Jewish interpretation of the story of Sodom. Even in the 13th C there are rabbis who interpret it as not being kind to neighbors or the poor.

In Halakhah (Jewish law) there is a term, middat Sedom, meaning to have Sodomite character. This is defined as one who does not help another in need, especially when being generous would cost nothing of you.

The Jewish scholarly interpretation of the giving of Lot's daughters and demanding of the strangers isn't seen as a sex act but as rape, an act of violence and humiliation.

Leviticus, I've written about before. It is tied to Josiah's Holiness Code and an understanding of what unclean means to Jews. King Josiah was instilling religious reform. Jews were constantly battling the influence of Canaanite influences on their culture. The Assyrian fertility practices had made their way into Judaism. He wanted the Assyrian Temple prostitutes banned from the Jewish Temple (they actually had a special room, see 11 Kings 23:7). Men would go and masturbate in front of a statue of Baal or make a “deposit” into the male or female priests/priestesses of Ishtar (or Asharah). It's no coincidence that the Assyrian word for “holy one” is qadesh yet in ancient Hebrew the words qadesh (m.)/qdeshahu (f.) mean male/female temple prostitute/whore. So, yeah, the laws have nothing to do with homosexuality, but with temple prostitution. Why was this such a big deal? At that time, sex was needed to produce Hebrews; that small tribe needed to grow.

But religious Jews (especially the Ultra Orthodox) follow 613 mitzvot (commandments) and these laws are binding.

If one line is selected and causing all this heartbreak and hatred, why are Christians not following the other, 612?


+++++
To archubbycub:
I respect that you have your faith, but Christianity as you experience in Church is very far removed from the teachings of the man, Jesus. It's based more on the writings of Paul and early Church theologians and all the resulting dogma as they tried to take a Jewish guy and turn him into a universal “savior.” Paul was a self-loathing Hellenistic Jew who invented “Christ.” The book, Acts of the Apostles, is full of the first political struggles within your Church.

Jesus was a Jew and he wasn't a particularly good one. He really got on the nerves of the Pharisees because he was a kind of hippie/rebel. He was preaching love, Confucius's Golden Rule and not following the rules/traditions. Things like not keeping the Sabbath free from work/harvesting, encouraging people to pray in secret rather than in groups of 10 men and ignoring ritual hand washing before meals were some of the causes of the arguments he had with the Pharisees because he wasn't respecting the traditions. Tradition is a very big deal in Judaism. But, to some of the people of his day, he was charismatic and enticing. Encouraging people to have a personal relationship with God was pretty radical. You have a religion where the sacred name cannot be uttered, and this man is saying call God, Daddy. lol.

If you read your Bible, and really want to focus on the few things that scholars believe are attributable to the historical Jesus, then study the Lord's Prayer, the Sermon on the Mount, the parables and things like that. I think those are at the heart of the message of the itinerant preacher, Jesus.

I personally don't think Jesus was trying to start any new religion. He probably went into the desert (maybe smoked something funny :tongue: ) and had “a moment” of enlightenment where he wanted to get people to stop focusing so much on the letter of the law but instead, the heart of it. I don't think he was a bad guy, but I don't think he was in any way divine. He was in no way unique, as there are numerous healers and sages of the same period of time (Hanina ben Dosa, Honi the Circle Maker and Honi’s grandsons).

I think Jesus was wondering where God was in his religion, maybe all he saw were rules. He was just calling the Pharisees out. He was trying to make them use their hearts, instead of blindly following things the way they always were.

Think about the parable of the Good Samaritan. The Pharisee leaves the guy for dead so that he doesn't break the rule and become unclean. When laws and rules take precedent over the value of someone's life, something is wrong. Sound familiar???

So to me, if you are disillusioned with what you have been taught you are following in the tradition of this person you admire: Jesus. You are questioning laws and rules that don't make sense to you. What's wrong with using your head? What's wrong with using your heart? Maybe you are outgrowing your childhood religion and growing into something more meaningful. To me, he is more to be admired as a man than as a god.

God. Well, is the only way you know this being through a book? There are many conflicting characteristics of “god” in the scriptures. These stories are based on the oral traditions of a BRONZE Age people. These stories were gathered and woven together in an attempt to unite 12 tribes into one entity. Each tribe was associated with a different god coming from Egypt and that's why we get the different characteristics/confusion--from actual polytheism being morphed into monotheism.

One story that has always fascinated me was the Akedah, the binding of Issac. So much emphasis is placed on the testing of Abraham, but as a kid my thoughts kept turning to Isaac. We read Genesis 22:19 and see:

Abraham then returned to his servants, and they departed together for Beer-sheba; Abraham stayed in Beer-sheba.

The end. End of story. But, where is Isaac? Of course Jewish interpolation says he was immediately sent off to study. lol. I was never satisfied with that answer. My mind was thinking, what if Abraham actually did engage in the rituals of the time? Child sacrifice. :biggrin: What if he blindly followed a tenet of his religion and command of his God and sacrificed his son?

The point I'm trying to make is these are very poorly written stories. The next event is the death of Isaac's mother, Sarah and he is never mentioned. This is divine text?

Another story that always bothered me was the killing of Uzzah (2 Samuel 6: 6 – 7).

But when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out for the Ark of God and grasped it, for the oxen had stumbled. The Lord was incensed at Uzzah. And God struck him down on the spot for his indiscretion, and he died there beside the Ark of God.

Who is this being that smites someone for saving the Ark from falling? WTF? I would have instinctively done the same - reached out to grab the ark. I would be dead. How is this a loving God? How does this make sense? I would think that was being respectful, not letting it fall.

Again, is the only way you know this being through a book? I guess I want to ask you how else do you experience the divine? This being? Is it only through rules of a church? A book? What other people tell you?

IIRC you have children. The love you feel for them? What is the love you have as a father? How do you define love?

What is the legacy of your faith that you are giving to your children? Is it going to be blindly following rules? Is it going to be fear and damnation? Or is it going to be about love, kindness, compassion, and being true to yourself? Are you going to want them to question? Do you want them to follow their own journey? What do you want them to learn when they look at your life?

You have to start with you.

Shalom!

[archubbycub]

Thank you all! You've really given me some things to think about.

[Pix]

The interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah as being about inhospitality is not revisionism. It actually comes from the traditional Jewish interpretation and our rabbinic midrash. Early rabbinic readings place the sin of Sodom as its cruelty and arrogance. Reading of the Hebrew meaning of the word “know” is not interpreted as know in a sexual sense but as hatred and violence against the stranger, and the mistreatment of the weak?

Where I was raised the Bible is considered the Word of God and being divinely inspired it cannot be translated wrong (well there are those who believe only the King James version counts and all others are fake, I forget why) so the Bible is LITERALLY true, and many take pride in believing it even when it doesn't make sense (and believe that it will make perfect sense once in Heaven). So if I'd been imbued with a belief in their god at a vulnerable age then I'd likely believe it as it's literally presented with all other explanations such as yours being wrong at best and an attempt to pervert it at worst, in which case I'd likely be one of those unfortunate gays who committed suicide over it as I believed I was cursed and deserved it.

That said, if I'd been raised Jewish (excepting the more orthodox sects of course) then maybe I'd have been immune to that. But I consider myself fortunate to have been raised religion-free (and btw, I was a lot nicer than many kids with religion). But I'll check with Strong's Concordance to see if it agrees with you.

Of course I'm aware that the Bible contradicts itself (it's rare that it doesn't) on this matter, but the default position is, if possible, all the reasons given are true, just not the ones you want to count and discarding the rest.

In Halakhah (Jewish law) there is a term, middat Sedom, meaning to have Sodomite character. This is defined as one who does not help another in need, especially when being generous would cost nothing of you.

Yes, many Christians like to quote Romans 1 on why gays are liars, murderers, and the like as well as being gay, that is a Sodomite in being gay and being unkind and cruel and deceitful. They're one and the same (in the traditional view, as opposed to the liberal one).

As Westboro Baptist say (as do plenty of other Christians based on Romans 1) God doesn't hate you because you're gay, you're gay because God hates you.

Personally, I like what ZJ has to say on this:

The Jewish scholarly interpretation of the giving of Lot's daughters and demanding of the strangers isn't seen as a sex act but as rape, an act of violence and humiliation.

See, I just can't understand the concept that had the mob raped Lot's virgin daughters (who may not have even been teens yet given how quickly a girl lost her virginity to her owner back then) is somehow "hospitable" and the Bible seems clear to me (just as it does to so many Christians) that if the men had raped the little girls instead of demanding men to rape then the city would've been spared. Granted, the angels don't explicitly state this, but they don't admonish him for his vile offer nor do they punish him with the rest so they do implicitly express this.

Otherwise, the angels would've done something closer to what we're supposed to do in our more civilized age and remove the children from such a despicable father (if Lot was the best Sodom had then ALL the adults should've been destroyed and the angels take the children to better parents). In any case, Lot gets no award for hospitality in my book as offering your own daughters to be gang raped nullifies you for consideration (and since the angels has no problem with it I don't believe your interpretation). And NO Father of the Year Award for Lot either!

Granted, I know we're supposed to hold God to much lower moral standards than we hold ourselves (so it's ok if God ordains someone's wives to be raped as a spectator sport and child to be killed as in 2 Samuel 12:11-18, for example), but I skipped that training, and Lot isn't God anyway. :tongue:

If one line is selected and causing all this heartbreak and hatred, why are Christians not following the other, 612?

I've observed one way to upset many East Texan Christians in the "dry counties" (meaning that there are severe restrictions to outright prohibitions on the selling of alcohol, though even the "wet counties" aren't allowed to sell alcohol on Sunday morning, assuming they can sell on Sunday at all, because it's seen as a vice and they like to quote some Bible verse against polluting the body, with a few throwing in verses that are supposed to mean any mind altering drugs are part of the sin of witchcraft, which deserves death) is to bring up Jesus turning water into wine as a divine miracle.

Of course a few like to say that "wine was healthier than water back then and so it was ok" (kinda contradicting themselves on God's Word is Eternal, but that's just SSDD), but they're very selective on this type of reasoning. For example, I asked a Baptist preacher who tried to turn my family against me (as I'm a lesbian) why Christianity couldn't just adapt as it had over marriage for a long time (for example, accepted interracial marriage when once Christians did not, also Protestants and Catholics, let alone Christians and Jews), and even in the Bible as it used to allow for polygamy and his response was to say some Biblical truths were eternal (and had been misunderstood in some cases, but not when it comes to condemning gays) and as for polygamy he said something like, "so many died back then it was necessary, but when life became more stable God changed it to the nuclear family." I instantly replied with, "And now that the world is facing the problems of overpopulation I'm sure he'd be ok with birth control and homosexuality," but he wasn't impressed as his reasoning only counted when he wanted it to (kinda like little kids arguing over who's shot with pretend guns count).

But again, I'm making a note look for Strong's again to see if it agrees with you. If it doesn't then I won't say you're wrong, just that I wouldn't have considered your claim a possibility if I'd been unfortunate enough to have been raised a fundie Christian (as so many in my area were, including, I'm sure many gays who became suicidal in large part due to their religious upbringing).

[azulai]

Where I was raised the Bible is considered the Word of God and being divinely inspired it cannot be translated wrong (well there are those who believe only the King James version counts and all others are fake, I forget why) so the Bible is LITERALLY true, and many take pride in believing it even when it doesn't make sense (and believe that it will make perfect sense once in Heaven). So if I'd been imbued with a belief in their god at a vulnerable age then I'd likely believe it as it's literally presented with all other explanations such as yours being wrong at best and an attempt to pervert it at worst, in which case I'd likely be one of those unfortunate gays who committed suicide over it as I believed I was cursed and deserved it.

Well, we have our “fundies” too :biggrin: and it is very difficult for orthodox LGBT. Suicide rates are very high but kept hushed. Similarly there is child abuse and rape, and the victim is shamed into keeping silent. At school I've gone to a few of the Jewish LGBT group get togethers, I don't really fit because I'm no longer a religious Jew, but I have gotten to know a few guys who were sent by their Jewish parents to Christian Gay Reparative Camps. Their stories are insane. As they did not “change” they are totally cut off from their family but they still identify as Orthodox.

That said, if I'd been raised Jewish (excepting the more orthodox sects of course) then maybe I'd have been immune to that. But I consider myself fortunate to have been raised religion-free (and btw, I was a lot nicer than many kids with religion). But I'll check with Strong's Concordance to see if it agrees with you.

I wasn't immune. I was brought up conservative Jew and it did take its toll as I was very devout. There's no doubt in my mind that you were nicer. Strong's Concordance is a Christian tool and I don't think he had any rabbinical input to his work. There is also no cultural context to the words IIRC. I'm definitely interested in what you find.

What I have is yada//yadha, “to know” or “to become acquainted with” occurs 943 times. Of those 943 times only 10 refer to heterosexual intercourse, so it's rarely used in the sexual sense. If you take it to mean homosexual intercourse in the Gen 19 passage, this would be its only such use. (The usual word for homosexual behavior is shakhabk/shakabh which is not used here either.)

The Jewish scholarly interpretation of the giving of Lot's daughters and demanding of the strangers isn't seen as a sex act but as rape, an act of violence and humiliation.

See, I just can't understand the concept that had the mob raped Lot's virgin daughters (who may not have even been teens yet given how quickly a girl lost her virginity to her owner back then) is somehow "hospitable" and the Bible seems clear to me (just as it does to so many Christians) that if the men had raped the little girls instead of demanding men to rape then the city would've been spared. Granted, the angels don't explicitly state this, but they don't admonish him for his vile offer nor do they punish him with the rest so they do implicitly express this.

If the passage is read in English translation with modern sensibilities, not in Hebrew with the cultural mores of the time in place (where young females had very low value much less any status), then sure the whole story is a WTF. That's why I wish people would question instead of taking these obvious stories as literal. mile:

So in the tradition I was raised, it is not a story about wanting males for homosexual pleasure. It's the arrogance of wanting these males as seen in the context of the greater value placed on males in that time than on females, male rape being seen as a greater crime than female rape, and the sanctioning of rape for use on a conquered or foreign enemy that brings upon their destruction. Instead of offering protection and hospitality to strangers, they wanted to subject them to an act of violence and humiliation.

Midrash is Jewish commentary on the scriptures, I'm not sure if I made that clear. These very ancient commentaries, long before the birth of Christianity, do not connect this passage with homosexuality. Contextually hospitality or lack of it meant life or death for travelers; it was a very dangerous time. Christianity has taken the story out of its contextual period and given it the “current” interpretation. There is a parallel story in Judges 19 that you might want to review which again ties into the sin of inhospitality.

But again, I'm making a note look for Strong's again to see if it agrees with you. If it doesn't then I won't say you're wrong, just that I wouldn't have considered your claim a possibility if I'd been unfortunate enough to have been raised a fundie Christian (as so many in my area were, including, I'm sure many gays who became suicidal in large part due to their religious upbringing).

I understand what you are saying. Neither of us is wrong, and anyway, I don't feel like that is the point of our discussion. But what I previously tried and apparently failed to show is that interpreting the story of Sodom's great sin as inhospitality predates any Christian understanding of the text and is not revisionism done by homosexual activists. It is the traditional Jewish interpretation of the text. I highly doubt any of this could change a fundie's mind as I think they feel their reading supersedes anything Jewish.

To me, without knowing that there are other interpretations out there LGBT Christians are at the mercy of what they have been told is the only reading of the text. I've met many Christians who have never read the New Testament much less the Old. They only go by what they are “taught.”

I do want to point out that the gospels of Matthew and Luke portray Jesus as saying: (taken from an online KJV)

Matthew 10:14-15 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Luke 10:10-12 But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.

Is there an undertone of knowing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was related to inhospitality? I don't know what the accepted interpretation of these passages is, as I haven't studied the gospels in any great detail but I wanted to throw this out there.

Thanks for talking about this with me, Pix, as I find it all pretty interesting.

[mrk2010]

Omg azulai I love your biblical posts they always bring a tear to my eye. :-) I'm not biblical in the slightest but I do go to church whenever there's a wedding funeral or a christening but ai find the whole think a bit boring. Jesus I went to a catholic wedding once and I'm sure they read the whole bible. Tbh I think all of the religious sermons could be cut down, just have the two people say their vows, why they love each other and whack the ring on the finger. Or at a christian just whack the baby in the font let it have a swim and then it's done without all the religious spiel. I just find the whole religion thing a bit much I'm a man of science but I think it's a bit too much to not believe in anything, maybe there is an afterlife but who knows till we are dead. As for if there is a god isn't there some sort of biblical phrase like "god loves everybody", and I'm sure if he does he loves gays too.

As for the bible I think , most of its shit and it's stories to make people feel better like that man did with his fables like "the hare and the tortoise". Cause let's face it Mary being a virgin? She probably played "hide the biblical sausage" with Joseph and that's where Jesus came from. Just a quick question is the Joseph out of the bible story (Jesus dad) the same one as the one with the magic rainbow coat? Brcaise I saw that musical ages ago and just wondered if that was like before he met Mary.

[archubbycub]

Just a quick question is the Joseph out of the bible story (Jesus dad) the same one as the one with the magic rainbow coat? Brcaise I saw that musical ages ago and just wondered if that was like before he met Mary.

No there was several hundreds of years seperating Joseph of the Old Testament (the one with the technicolor dream coat) and Joseph of the New Testament (Nazareth's premiere carpenter).

[Sylph]

Gee... I always thought there was a distinct difference between spirituality and religion...

I myself am quite spiritual, bording spooky vodoo [j/k], but am not religious at all really. I worship nothing, pray to nothing, but repect and adore everything.

I'm an Agnostic, which people think is a person trying to play both sides of the fence, which I guess can be seen as such, but I believe it's a person who's surpassed the limitations of both unwavering religion and blasphemous rebellion that is known as anti-religious, or as we call it; Secular.

I see or try to see the beauty in all things; nature, the enigma known as Human being, everything. I believe people are too disconnected from Spirituality in the truest sense of the word and tend to flock to religion, so that they can at least look organized, or abandon both completely, living a life with neither, which is fine.

I'm not saying go outside and sniff flowers and hug trees, but I implore people to take the time to watch out for a small bug in the road or appreciate the trees that are giving you the oxygen you so vitally need. Enjoy the luxuries and pleasantries of life, but also remember you aren't the only form of life and would be nothing without the other, equally important, forms of life.

This is how I see spirituality, not being a tree hugging lunatic, but an appreciater of all things beyond the here and now and the physical.

You don't have to be a crazy witch or anything, just try and share a connection with the things around you. :]

Just my $1.50

[East]

not being a tree hugging lunatic,

The people who beleive in saving trees so passionately are hardly lunatics. I would venture to say they are more connected to nature than any of the rest of us who claim to be. Taking action is nothing to be ashamed about.

[Pix]

Strong's Concordance is a Christian tool and I don't think he had any rabbinical input to his work. There is also no cultural context to the words IIRC. I'm definitely interested in what you find.

I'm about to go to the library so I looked this up to get the info again. IF the local library has a copy I'll look into it today and share what I find. If not then I'll have to search around which will probably take awhile (it's not high priority or anything).

As for those KJV passages, I believe the standard interpretation (at least where I grew up) would be if they didn't listen to the Christian gospel (which included hating gays) then it would be worse than Sodom because without God they would degrade as described in Romans 1, including homosexuality (that Baptist preacher I mentioned pretty much said this outright, btw, who said America was becoming Sodom in accepting homosexuality as well as in many other negative ways as well and God would punish our country unless we found God, which meant putting down the gays as well as becoming more like Iran in about every way).