And the refusal to surrender to them as a form of dangerous emotional illness.

Was anyone else suprised when NPR, after a week of heartwarming gay marriage articles "came out" this morning with a pro gay marriage editorial?

I should say that the essay was by Scott Simon, so perhaps he and not NPR is responsible. I wish I could provide a link, it hit all the usual liberal points, but dwelt most on how we will all accept it and see it as normal in a few years.

It should also be noted that Mr. Simon's NPR biography states that he enjoys rooting for the French soccer team.

The same source documents (Old Testament) state that Yahweh orders the stoning to death of individuals who mix fibers in cloth, eat shrimp, and work on the Sabbath. I assume you support these policies, too, as a defense of the argument against picking and choosing which of God's laws you intend on obeying.

Misanthropyst: I don't remember whole cities getting torched for eating shrimp cocktail, or for experimenting with cotton-wool blends.

Chris, That's probably because you've never read the fine print:

Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)

Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9) Have you ever done that?

If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10). I wonder if Dr. Laura would like that one to be enforced?

If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)

If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)

If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16). I guess you should kill the animal since they were willing participants. Are they crazy?

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)

Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)

If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)

People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)

Absurd paleolithic creation mythology. Of course people pick and choose which rules to follow. It would be the height of fatuousness not to.

Mr. Misanthropyst:

These laws were given in the context of forcing Israel to separate and be different from the Canaanites, who were cursed. But do not forget (in Deuteronomy 9) that God flatly tells the Israelites they are not blessed for anything in and of themselves - they are just as unrighteous as any other group. It is mercy alone that makes them 'chosen'.

Misanthropyst: I still don't see anything about burning cities for eating shellfish or blended fabrics in your quotes. Pray tell, what am I missing? Do I need to read them at an angle, and only every fourth word?

And I should note that burning wizards and psychics fails to arouse my ire.

Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)

Seems pretty clear to me.

"Misanthropyst: I don't remember whole cities getting torched for eating shrimp cocktail, or for experimenting with cotton-wool blends."

So you think you are off the hook, eh Chris? So unless God actually sends fire and brimstone down on Red Lobster, you think that God doesn't mean what he says? Don't you think God may reserve some of his judgement for Judgement?

This sounds like the kind of theology an adolescent boy might come up with. "But, so like when you said 'don't do that' dad, like, I didn't think you meant, like, 'Dont DO THAT', you know?"

Oh, Robert, Robert, Robert:

I think your reading comprehension is failing you again. (What is it, precisely, about religious discussions that does that to you? Nothing else seems to throw you off.) I was being snide. Deal.

Want a more involved theological discussion? Fine. First, the word is "Judgment." Second, I'm not a rabbinical scholar, so I yield on the fine points of this, and simply address this from a Christian point of view (I am totally unqualified to produce an apology for Jewish thought on homosexuality). You're right: God certainly reserves Judgment every day. Mass murderers, abortionists (but I repeat myself), adulterers, atheists, rapists, slavers, kidnapers, child molesters, monsters of every stripe and inclination imaginable, make it to peaceful graves every day without spontaneously combusting; turning to pillars of salt; having Seas collapse upon them; suffering deadly, ruinous plagues that kill them only after extraordinary pain; or, in the words of one particular fellow, having millstones placed about their necks as they are tossed into the sea. So, yes: God catches you coming and, much more often, going.

Obviously, I was being facile, although there was something of a point in my humor. God might lay out all sorts of prohibitions, and punish only a few through cataclysm; that does not mean that the ones that don't result in cats-and-dogs-living-together episodes don't merit (and receive) punishment. But, since you took issue with my remarks: Maybe, just maybe, there's something really bad about man-man love that God felt needed to be, er, fleshed out, by burning two cities to the ground in a rain of fire and sulphur and whatnot. Maybe -- just maybe -- that suggests that he took this unusual step, stepped up the whole Judgment thing, to make a point. Maybe not; but to carry your analogy to the point, one does not spank one's child for every infraction, but one does spank (except in Canada, I guess?) one's child for the worst offenses, to reinforce how very bad those offenses are.

Now, since we're way outside of Jewish theology here (and, lawyer I am, I want to reiterate that nothing I say should be construed in such a way as to infer that I'm holding myself out as an expert on the Torah, Jewish thought, theology, or practice), I'll just finish with a Catholic point: There can be no doubt of the Bible's importance in laying out the ground rules; but, first, you really need to read the New Testament to see what changes happened because of some carpenter in Judea a few centuries ago, and, second, Tradition, enlightened by God, carries forward those things that matter, and discards those that do not. In two thousand years, only heretics have pronounced doom and destruction on those Christians who eat meat and milk in the same meal; but there's been a pretty consistent strain of saying homosexual acts are bad for a good little while now.

It's 2 a.m., and I have a doozy of a hearing Monday morning, so I'm leaving this be for now. Do share with me the large, adolescent gap in my reasoning, I pray.

Jeff: Read the whole question.

Actually, you're sure to be interested to know that the mixed fabrics denoted are flax (i.e., linen) and wool, only.

Which is interesting, sort of, because the holy garments worn by the priests in the temple were made from---guess what?---linen and wool (as are, in some cases, I believe, the four cornered fringed garments that orthodox Jews continue to wear to this day).

Now why might that be?....

Anyway, to get back to the real world, it's definitely thumbs up for those polyester-cotton jobs, which might appear to indicate that God loves (and foreordained?) Disco, even if there are some among us who (risking divine ire?) might dare disagree.

P.S. It can all seem pretty grim and severe (especially that part about cursing your parents, which we all know can be great fun), but there are cogent reasons for some of the injunctions mentions, though a bit of reflection might be required to discern them.

And by the way, the "People who have flat noses..." bit refers not to just anybody but to Aaron's progeny, that is, the priests (might as well be accurate, though I would agree that the lack of accuracy really shouldn't---and doesn't---prevent anyone from "expressing themselves").

So if Joseph is considered righteous for refusing the advances of Potiphar's wife, where does that leave King David?

As I recall David never met a temptation he didn't like, whether it was his bisexual love of King Saul's son Jonathon or his obsession with the beautiful Bathsheba (obsessed to the point of arranging her husband Uriah's death). Though he humbly accepted God's rebuke (by way of the prophet Nathan), he kept Bathsheba anyways, adding her to his harem.

His son Absalon's revolt and death not withstanding, David generally continued to find favor in the eyes of the Lord. He became a king greater the Joseph could have imagined and is the direct ancestor of the Messiah.

I sense a lack of consistency here.

Kind of reminds one of a Greek god---or several---with all those faults.

A complex, imperfect character?

An example of how not to (as well as how to) behave?

Some say, beware of poet-warriors. (And musicians to boot.)

Might we make allowances for his troubled childhood? The youngest of seven brothers? A red-head? As a youngster, face to face in battle with an ugly pimply giant, whom he was forced to slay and then behead? Can you imagine the trauma?

The favorite of King Saul, whom King Saul in his derangement later tried to kill? Forced to find refuge with his sworn enemy and save himself by playing the fool?

Publicly derided by his wife Michal?

All those ornery, rebellious, even traitorous children?

These days, he would have appeared on Oprah, written a kiss and tell novel, and enjoyed far more than the allotted 15 minutes....

His punishment, according to tradition, was that he was not allowed to build the Temple.

Chris,
Thanks for your lengthy reply. I was being snide myself, and didn't expect such an involved response to my drive-by remarks.

I'm sure that the theologians of the Church have worked long and hard at reconciling every inconsistency between the OT and NT, between different books in the OT, and between differing accounts of the same events in both the OT and NT, and also between the differing interpretations that the Church has taken on these matters since. I have no doubt that all of the assumptions, qualifications, presuppositions and conclusions fit together with a flawless framework of inductive and deductive logic.

But the problem is that you could build any number of theological frameworks on top of the Bible, equally valid and correct from a logical standpoint, to justify almost any set of moral values. Just as any good lawyer could argue either side of a case, any theologian can justify his own personal moral values via Biblical exegesis. Which kida defeats the whole purpose of Revalation, which is for God to communicate his will to man unambiguiously so that man is not forced to rely on his own fallen, corrupt, subjective moral sense.

Biblical literalists realize this. Anything but a strict, literal reading of the Bible is clouded by human rationalization, and therefore suspect. Too bad that a literal interpretation makes no sense.

A lesser degree of immorality? Next thing you know, Absolute Truth will be a casualty.

Chris:

"Mass murderers, abortionists (but I repeat myself), adulterers, atheists, rapists, slavers, kidnapers, child molesters, monsters of every stripe and inclination imaginable..."

On behalf of all atheists, thank you so much for including us among such illustrious company.

Brit:

Chris is obviously a dangerous extremist. Moderate, inclusive folks like me see you as no worse than shoplifters or tax evaders.

Peter speaks like a gentleman.

Chris speaks volumes.

"Mass murderers, abortionists (but I repeat myself), adulterers, atheists, rapists, slavers, kidnapers, child molesters, monsters of every stripe and inclination imaginable..."

He left off bloggers, lawyers and theologians.

Robert: As regards lawyers, if I didn't say it ahead of time, I've long expected to go to Hell. (I hope for Heaven, and rather suspect I'll get Hell.) Maybe (or maybe not) for being a lawyer; but don't think I'm lumping you in where I don't go.

And, without further jeopardizing my standing as a gentleman, please allow me to say that your analysis is somewhat wanting; but as I'm now coming off some deeply un-gentlemanly conduct from another attorney, with whom I suspect I'll be sharing a spit in Asmodeus's oven at some point, I hesitate to answer for fear that my temper is not under control, and I honestly don't want to be offensive.

Brit: As they say, you can't win if you don't play. I had about five other lines typed in after that, but see my last sentence to Robert above. I note that I included adulterers, too, if it makes you feel any better.

Peter: You're too hard on shoplifters.