GeorgeW

My pastor (PCUSA who I don't think is Litvish) has proposed the same thing. He thinks that the prohibition was related to wasted seed. This is why masturbation was also forbidden, i.e. wasting valuable seed. It is not coincidence that the Hebrew word for seed and semen are the same. George

Good points. But, it does make a "wit of sense" if one is selectively using biblical texts to give authority to basic homophobia. I don't think that homophobia is motivated by religious texts, rather religious texts are used to justify it. George

You have earned pride. Job well done. George

Unfortunately, we do have the ability to prevent any starvation from occurring in the world, but it is there. Many diseases that could be prevented or treated still persist. We have the ability to provide health care to every living American, but a substantial portion of our citizens oppose this. Technology can help, but it isn't sufficient by itself. George

I agree. We have had technology since the first humans emerged. The technology of paleolithic stone tools was surely more influential on early hominids than smart phones are to us today. Hopefully, we have learned a little along the way, but, IMO, the fundamental nature of humans is essentially the same since the development of modern humans (50-200,000 years ago). George

Nick, I am not and, given my already undoable book queue, probably will not. But, I would be most interested in your reaction as well as that of others. George

Another example of a fundamentalist belief without Biblical support is abstinence from alcohol. When I was a child in the small-town South, many Protestants thought that drinking was sinful. Yet, a word count of 'wine' in the Bible gets 303 hits. And, many of the heroes were said to drink wine. In fact, Jesus himself is reported to be a wine maker when a party came up short. So, while abortion has no Biblical support and drinking alcohol lots, these are considered sins by Fundamentalists. How can we explain this if the Bible is the source of Fundamentalist attitudes? George

Zaida, a P.S. Abortion stands along with homosexuality as one of the headline Fundamentalist issues. And, interestingly, there is not a single explicit mention of this in the Bible. And, one passage in the OT that is pertinent, suggests that the fetus is the property of the parents. So, it would be hard to argue that Biblical texts motivate their position. George

Zaida, interesting point about the general (3,000 to 6) Biblical theme. IMO-- stated ad nauseam here -- the focus on social issues (including homosexuality), reflects the worldview of conservative Christians. The salient point is 'conservative,' not 'Christian.' Conservatives in non-Christian contexts have quite similar views. Fundamentalism, I think, is a reaction to a rapidly changing world by those who are uncomfortable with change. George

I find that fishing metaphor particularly annoying. I have never heard it cited in support of anything and only in opposition to social programs, government or private. I am in hopes that Mr. Muir will respond with a list of positive actions society should take that 'teach a person to fish.' In the U.S. now, we are witnessing significant reductions in education programs. If we are going to cut education back, how are the poor going to "learn to fish?" George

Bruce, I have not read the essay, so I would not attempt to comment on it. However, I have heard this aphorism many times and will comment on it. I have found that those who often cite this, do so in opposition to various government programs, but do not, at the same time, propose alternate programs for teaching people to fish. The same people who cite this often oppose government-funded programs for training, public education and the like. Perhaps you are different. I would be interested to hear a list of fishing-training programs that you support, not just what you oppose. Also, I fail to get the connection between deism and this topic. Perhaps you can elaborate on that as well. George

Nick, I think the salient phrase in your post is "in the name of Biblical inerrancy." I don't think that Biblical inerrancy is the underlying motivation for hateful views. The Bible does not make people racist, sexist or homophobic. There are racist and homophobic people who have never read the Bible and others who are atheists. As an example, we cannot fault the Bible for anti-homosexual laws in the USSR or Red China. These laws were promulgated by radical atheists. IMO, the role the Bible can, but not necessarily, play is in giving an authoritative justification for one's views on these subjects. But, it doesn't follow that one who views the Bible as authoritative need be hateful in their views. And, those who use it for authoritative justification began with a hateful predisposition. George

Excuse me but it does not logically follow that a discussion of the Hebrew meaning of a word means that the writer(s) are "quoting scripture as 'proof' . . ." I meant no such thing and I read no such assumption into the comments that I was responding to. George

Steve, I am not sure exactly what you mean by commentary. There are a couple of what I would call 'references' that I find useful for the NT. They approach the texts more objectively and take no theological position. So, I don't know that they would represent a "progressive point of view." One is "The Five Gospels" published by the Jesus Seminar (also available from Amazon). The Jesus Seminar Fellows identify what they think (from an academic point of view) is authentic to Jesus in the texts. They often have 'commentary' on why they think a particular passage is authentic or not. Another is "The Early Christian Reader" by Mason and Robinson. This examines all the texts of the NT as well as some non-canonical early Christian texts. Each text is preceded by a section discussing the context of the writing, the likely author, the place, the intended audience, etc. Then, the text is highly footnoted with comments about the meaning (for the author's intended audience), etc. George

Wayseer, I'm with JSS in that raising the matter gives legitimacy to the fundamentalists in that there is 'something' to defend. I am not sure that Bishop Spong believes that raising the issue of homosexuality is counter-productive as he has expended a lot of ink and cyber-ink to this subject. Also, at least in the U.S., benign neglect of the issue would not be, IMO, a productive strategy. We recently revoked ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ in the military. This was the result persistent effort on the part of many people. Further, the issue of same-sex rights to marriage or civil union remains a hot issue. Without active proponents, this will go nowhere soon. While I don’t think the Bible or religion is the cause of homophobia, it is used by some to give it authority and legitimacy. So, I think it is worthwhile to challenge this authority. George

Don, I did a little more checking and found the word for a male cult prostitute is qadesh (feminine qedesha). This can be found in Deut. 23:18, 1 Kings 14:24 and a couple of other verses. I don’t see any indication that prohibitions in Leviticus refer to cult prostitution. George

I looked at these verses and saw nothing unusual or interesting. The Hebrew words are 'ish 'man,' zakar 'male' and 'isha 'woman.' They seem pretty mundane to me. George

Don, "And it is my impression that the Hebrew word that the KJV translated as "mankind" was actually intended to describe such a person as a male cult prostitute." I am interested in the Semitic languages including Hebrew. If you can cite a specific passage with this word, I would like to check it out. If you are interested, I would be happy to report back what I find. George