[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

It's OK to teach to punish unbelievers as long as they're given hundreds of years of warnings about the punishment?

Is it Ok? that depends on what set of morals you subscribe to. But since the old testament is not about teaching us to punish "unbelievers" , for me the answer would be no, it's not ok. But you're free to be of another religion in which it is ok.

On another subject if the question is: "is it ok for god to punish people?" or "for god to teach punishment on whoever"; If there is a god he can do whatever he likes and it's ok.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

My point being that you are jumping to conclusions and I am waiting for the Army to conduct its investigation.

How is citing a news article that exists "jumping to a conclusion"?

So far you've yet to prove a single thing reported about the shooter related to radical Islam isn't accurate. His ties to a radical cleric who today called him a 'hero'- you've yet to disprove. Everything outlined on the OP's list- what he said (confirmed by what I posted) the fact that the FBI investigated him for making extremist statements, the fact that he was shouting "Allahu Akbar! as he killed people (oh but wait, killing people can't be called the act of an extremist in your crazy book), etc.

Meanwhile, talk about jumping to a conclusion- what do you call all the "stress" and Pre-TSD bullcrap that the yellow journalism rags have been floating from day one, and people like you have been buying hook line and sinker?

You're just upset that the facts thus far back the OP, not your spin.

The interesting thing is, why is it you feel you have to spin any of this in the first place? What is it about facing up to radical Islamic beliefs turning to violence that makes you go into PC damage control mode? Is it that it further exposes that you've been willfully wrong about most of the conflicts involving radical Islam all along?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Are you serious? More people are murdered in each central american country each week by supposed devout Catholics than in 2 years in the US by muslims. When I worked for the government my desk was littered every morning with more than I could read about the massacres in central america. They have all kinds of
religious "catholic" rituals they do that resemble exactly what you hear about muslims doing.

Just because your favorite news doesn't tell you about it doesn't mean it isn't happening all over. unfortunately news just isn't the same if someone isn't yelling " Allahu Akbar !" To me the stuff that goes on in central america makes what "terrorists" do look like child's play. And it shouldn't even need to be said that the term 'terrorist' is just a rhetorical term to demonize rally people against anyone who rebels/disagrees/interferes with the European/American way of doing business. And it fits as a nice label for those muslim bad guys that nobody understands.

Religion isn't the motivation for terrorist attacks. People who don't fit in resort to criminal acts. And logically they need to reconcile their actions with their religion.....all people find a way to reconcile their actions with their religion and morals, whatever those actions may be.

While I agree with the premise of your response (this is more socioeconomic than religious), what are the names of the Catholic terrorist groups with international ties and networks operating out of Central and South America? Another point, can I not cite the Catholic Voice or the Catholic Reporter or any other prominent Catholic outlet in denouncing these acts openly?

See... groups with some 50-100 people are considered street gangs, bands of thugs. There are comparable pockets of extremely high crime rates in the US as well. That's not really what k2director is talking about. If it is, then you'd also have to consider the religious affiliation of those committing crimes in the US to make the statement. Again, what are the names of the Catholic terrorist groups operating out of Central and South America?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Foolish atheist dog.

Sometimes I don't know why I bother.

Isn't it frustrating when someone who doesn't understand your religion and wasn't indoctrinated with the accepted interpretations is being critical of elements of it out of context?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Is it Ok? that depends on what set of morals you subscribe to. But since the old testament is not about teaching us to punish "unbelievers" ,

Agreed, but the elements are there for some fanatic to believe he is being directed by God to kill sinners. The text can be subject to a wide range of interpretations. Just as the vast majority of Muslims *aren't* running around killing non-Muslims.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Isn't it frustrating when someone who doesn't understand your religion and wasn't indoctrinated with the accepted interpretations is being critical of elements of it out of context?

Especially while you're trying to celebrate the slaying of the infidel pigdogs your brother took out last week.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

How is citing a news article that exists "jumping to a conclusion"?

So far you've yet to prove a single thing reported about the shooter related to radical Islam isn't accurate. His ties to a radical cleric who today called him a 'hero'- you've yet to disprove. Everything outlined on the OP's list- what he said (confirmed by what I posted) the fact that the FBI investigated him for making extremist statements, the fact that he was shouting "Allahu Akbar! as he killed people (oh but wait, killing people can't be called the act of an extremist in your crazy book), etc.

Meanwhile, talk about jumping to a conclusion- what do you call all the "stress" and Pre-TSD bullcrap that the yellow journalism rags have been floating from day one, and people like you have been buying hook line and sinker?

You're just upset that the facts thus far back the OP, not your spin.

The interesting thing is, why is it you feel you have to spin any of this in the first place? What is it about facing up to radical Islamic beliefs turning to violence that makes you go into PC damage control mode? Is it that it further exposes that you've been willfully wrong about most of the conflicts involving radical Islam all along?

You again misunderstand my position. As I have said over and over, as the facts start to come in, I am fully willing to believe that Hasan might have decided to commit murder in the name of his religion. I am not interested in "disproving" anything -- although, as I and others have pointed out, the specific things you mention above have been in dispute. Regardless of that, whether or not the facts ultimately support your beliefs about Hasan, what I object to is k2director's (and yours, to the extent you came in to back him up) original unsupported claim about Hasan based entirely on circumstantial evidence and a bias against his faith in general. Evidence collected after the fact, like your Nov. 10 article, is irrelevant to this point. Again, the investigation may ultimately prove you right, but I think it is important to point out that the original claims in this thread were made without evidence because if those kinds of unsupported claims are made time and time again and left unchallenged, we're ultimately on a track to many more problems than this single incident.

The interesting thing to me is, why do you personally feel that you have to come to a conclusion regarding Hasan when the investigation has barely been underway? How does it help you to "know" either way right now?

[ghporter]

Today's paper has a story indicating that nobody has conclusive evidence that Hassan said anything while shooting. No video, no audio, no "untainted" recollections. The police officer that took him down said that Hassan was silently shooting people...

Further, the commanding general of Ft. Hood has stated that he does not believe the attack was religiously motivated (also in the news story this morning). Since he undoubtedly has far more information about this event than any of us (and than any news commentator or legislator), I defer to his judgment on this matter. Unless something truly undeniable comes up, for me this is still a case of an attack with an unknown motive.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

By the way, did this jihadist pretend to shoot a bunch of people too?

Come on I know you're smarter than this.

I can almost sense that your PC-meter is just dying to find something to feign outrage over and your knee is probably poised to smack your own chin, but it's not complicated. ANYONE who does that.

:whoosh:
Look, if his religion doesn't matter to your proposed solution, then you are on "our" side of this little debate, the PC side: him being Muslim doesn't inform our decisions. It's his actions that matter (the incriminating ones), not his faith. That's pretty much the PC side in a nutshell.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

While I agree with the premise of your response (this is more socioeconomic than religious), what are the names of the Catholic terrorist groups with international ties and networks operating out of Central and South America? .......

See... groups with some 50-100 people are considered street gangs, bands of thugs.

To start, Mara Salvatrucha 13 is one of the catholic terrorist groups with international ties and networks operating out of central and south america. Oh wait. but we always hear of them referred to as a street gangs with 50-100 members, not a terrorist group.

I have never heard of MS 13 referred to by the government as a terrorist group. But they frequently would refer to Al qaeda as a gang. LIke I said the word we categorize them with is simply rhetorical....and to me they are the same.

MS13 is over a million members just like Al Aaeda, was started by old guerilla fighters just like al qaeda.
Primary source of income comes from narcotics, just like Al Qaeda. Gang initiating rituals similar to Al Qaeda. Uses acts to incite fear just like Al Queda.

One of MS13's things is to kidnap babies and force family and community members to watch while they carve it up alive, ultimately chopping it into pieces. This is how they maintain control. Other babies are kidnapped and gutted so they can be stuffed with drugs and sent across the border so peaceful hippies and get a fix. This money is channeled through different groups. Much of it channeled through Brazil to Al Qaeda who also has a strong hold in Brazil.

Often there is religious symbols carved into the dead babies. The members sometimes say chants to Mary while committing their ritualistic crimes. None of this is condoned by the Catholic church, just like trafficking drugs to finance Al Qaeda isn't condoned by Islam.

My point, I think, is that each person has their own personal religion, using organized religion as the foundation and base of what they believe. But ultimately people choose the lifestyle/culture they want to live 1st, choose their morals first......... Then twist their subscribed religion until it fits into what morals and culture they've chosen to believe; Until it fits into the lifestyle they are comfortable with... Obviously if some muslim is having a bad life not fitting into the direction the world is going, he will define the circumstances that make him unhappy as "evil" and hence he's now justified with his personal image of God.. Just like with any religion.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Especially while you're trying to celebrate the slaying of the infidel pigdogs your brother took out last week.

Exactly my point. You complaining about people being critical of and not understanding Christianity isn't much different from you being critical of and not understanding Islam.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Exactly my point. You complaining about people being critical of and not understanding Christianity isn't much different from you being critical of and not understanding Islam.

Do you consider yourself enough of an expert to say for certain that he doesn't understand it?

[OAW]

When it's all said and done, whatever this individual's motivations were is irrelevant to the question of whether or not this was a "terrorist" act. Defining "terrorism" is a dubious endeavor at best, but most agree that it involves the targeting of civilians with violence in order to achieve an ideological objective. Perhaps the evidence will reveal that Hassan's actions were religiously motivated. Perhaps he just snapped. Perhaps it was a bit of both. In any event, the fact that he targeted his fellow soldiers rules out the "terrorism" angle. Without question he was a traitor, and he should be punished accordingly.

OAW

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Do you consider yourself enough of an expert to say for certain that he doesn't understand it?

When he says that Christians have varying beliefs while Muslims are uniform in *their* belief, I think I can say that, while he might understand the *text* of the religion, he very clearly doesn't understand that the *interpretations* of that text can vary from person to person (just as it does for Christianity) and that a *few* will interpret that text in order to justify horrible acts (just as some who call themselves "Christian" have done).

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Isn't it frustrating when someone who doesn't understand your religion and wasn't indoctrinated with the accepted interpretations is being critical of elements of it out of context?

Except those of us who are knowledgeable know what the interpretations of the radical Islamists are. I am student of religions. And I also know for a fact that I can debunk any specific claims that olePigeon wishes to make against my holy texts.

[loki74]

Wow, long time no post! Somehow, though I feel like not a lot has changed around here though... lol

In my opinion, it's pretty clear-cut and common sense that yes, this man's Muslim faith is the specific determining factor in his decision to take the lives of innocent people. I won't deny that it's possible that he would have done the same thing were he not Muslim (all other factors held identical), but it seems pretty far-fetched to me. Especially if this guy is yelling the same things that Muslim terrorists yell when carrying out terrorism. I'd say it's beyond a reasonable doubt, but not beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I think what's really at question here is not whether or not his faith had an impact on his actions. It's the mass media's refusal to admit that maybe they did. I don't think this should be a religious discussion or a psychology discussion or what have you. I think this is a media bias discussion.

Since we seem to love them so much, I think I'll pose a hypothetical:
Suppose a devout Christian man, who has exhibited extremist behavior in the past, goes on a killing spree, and as was previously proposed, yells "in the name of Jesus!" (or whatever) with each life he takes. Do you think the media would scramble for every explanation other than the fact that he's an extremist Christian? Or would they boldly print, "Fundamentalist Christian Goes on Rampage," and proceed to give juicy details about this man's religious background?

Don't want to offend anyone, but I think you're in denial if you answer in the former...



Now, there's another point I'd like to raise, even though it's not related to the media bias which I think is the most relevant topic in this thread.

Concerning the point that he had "Pre-TSD," I don't seem to recall this sort of incident among Japanese Americans who had to go kill other Japanese in WWII. The opposite reaction, in fact, took place. If history is telling us anything, why aren't Muslim Americans joining up and making the second "Purple Heart Brigade?" Would this not be a function of the cultural values imparted by being either Muslim or Japanese? And I know I'm comparing a faith to a nationality here, but since both forces very strongly impart values and are strong factors for identity, I think the point stands.

[Big Mac]

The story was initially about the shooting, but you're right loki that it quickly became about the mainstream media's coverup of the Islamic component. You see the bias with clarity when you watch the editor of Newsweek talking about how he was hoping and praying that it the shooter would have been anyone other than a Muslim. These people would prefer to revise the truth rather than report it because they want to whitewash and apologize for radical Islam. It's sickening.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

To start, Mara Salvatrucha 13 is one of the catholic terrorist groups with international ties and networks operating out of central and south america. Oh wait. but we always hear of them referred to as a street gangs with 50-100 members, not a terrorist group.

Can you cite anything at all to me that references MS-13 as a "catholic terrorist" group??? Their hand signs include a "devil's head" configuration and one of the more prominent tattoos is that of "devil's horns" both of which they picked up from heavy metal influences. They originated out of LA in the US with the desire to simply protect salvadorans from other Mexican and African-american gangs my friend. They've since moved into Central America, but they don't "operate out of there". Some of them may be catholic which I've already explained, this doesn't mean they are a "catholic" terrorist group or even a "catholic" gang. Their catholicism has nothing to do with their stated identity, name, or their stated agendas. This is not a political entity with political motivations. This is a "gang" in the classic sense as well as the criminal sense.

Al Qaeda on the other hand is referred to as the "base of jihad" and their desire to "restore Islam" through Sharia law is well-documented. They issue fatwas declaring outright war with the US and their motives are most specifically political/religious in nature. You will find absolutely zero by way of religious motives being expressed as having any official capacity in MS-13. Zero.

I have never heard of MS 13 referred to by the government as a terrorist group. But they frequently would refer to Al qaeda as a gang. LIke I said the word we categorize them with is simply rhetorical....and to me they are the same.

They may be the same to you. They are the same to really no one else.

One of MS13's things is to kidnap babies and force family and community members to watch while they carve it up alive, ultimately chopping it into pieces. This is how they maintain control. Other babies are kidnapped and gutted so they can be stuffed with drugs and sent across the border so peaceful hippies and get a fix. This money is channeled through different groups. Much of it channeled through Brazil to Al Qaeda who also has a strong hold in Brazil.

They're cutting up babies and sending drugs in their dead bellies? What the?!? This sounds horrible to be sure. Can you provide a link that explains this in more detail? Why would you use homicide to traffic drugs directly? This would be more stupid than horrific to be honest with you.

Often there is religious symbols carved into the dead babies. The members sometimes say chants to Mary while committing their ritualistic crimes. None of this is condoned by the Catholic church, just like trafficking drugs to finance Al Qaeda isn't condoned by Islam.

While the majority of Muslims oppose Al Qaeda's terrorism, they support many of the fundamental goals of Al Qaeda. What are the fundamental goals of MS-13 that the Catholics support???

My point, I think, is that each person has their own personal religion, using organized religion as the foundation and base of what they believe. But ultimately people choose the lifestyle/culture they want to live 1st, choose their morals first......... Then twist their subscribed religion until it fits into what morals and culture they've chosen to believe; Until it fits into the lifestyle they are comfortable with... Obviously if some muslim is having a bad life not fitting into the direction the world is going, he will define the circumstances that make him unhappy as "evil" and hence he's now justified with his personal image of God.. Just like with any religion.

Again, I'm in general agreement with you. It's just that you managed to cite one example to make the point and it turns out it's really not an example at all. In fact, it really kind of hurts the point you're trying to make here.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

When he says that Christians have varying beliefs while Muslims are uniform in *their* belief, I think I can say that, while he might understand the *text* of the religion, he very clearly doesn't understand that the *interpretations* of that text can vary from person to person (just as it does for Christianity) and that a *few* will interpret that text in order to justify horrible acts (just as some who call themselves "Christian" have done).

What I'm saying is that Christians who're fully "on the book" won't kill anyone and are thus no threat (I can't speak for the so-called Christians who aren't), while muslims who're fully "on the book" are a threat.

Nothing to do with uniformity of belief. Everything to do with fullness of belief.

The further an individual gets into Christianity, the less of a threat he becomes.
The further an individual gets into islam, the more of a threat he becomes.

"Turn the other cheek" vs "kill the infidel pigdogs".

[Big Mac]

Hey Doof, out of curiosity are you saying real Christians can't serve in a country's armed forces?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And I also know for a fact that I can debunk any specific claims that olePigeon wishes to make against my holy texts.

Well that came out of nowhere.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Hey Doof, out of curiosity are you saying real Christians can't serve in a country's armed forces?

My jury's out on that one. Obviously, defensive and humanitarian purposes I'm fine with. But our leaders don't stick to that so I'd guess I'd have to swing slightly to "no, they can't".

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

What I'm saying is that Christians who're fully "on the book" won't kill anyone and are thus no threat (I can't speak for the so-called Christians who aren't), while muslims who're fully "on the book" are a threat.
...
The further an individual gets into islam, the more of a threat he becomes.

And, here's the problem with your assertion. I know several Muslims who seem to feel that they're fully "on Book" but haven't killed any unbelievers and are opposed to the actions of terrorists who claim to be Muslim.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

My jury's out on that one. Obviously, defensive and humanitarian purposes I'm fine with. But our leaders don't stick to that so I'd guess I'd have to swing slightly to "no, they can't".

Then here I'm fine with your position. As long as you're consistent in saying that all members of a religion shouldn't serve in the military. On this I'd be inclined to agree with you, since followers of a religion hold themselves more accountable to the articles of their faith than to the orders of their military leaders.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

And, here's the problem with your assertion. I know several Muslims who seem to feel that they're fully "on Book" but haven't killed any unbelievers and are opposed to the actions of terrorists who claim to be Muslim.

There's a world of difference between actually being on book and feeling like you are. For example, many Christians are quite sure that their religion forbids premarital sex and homosexuality, when in fact, going by the Bible, the former is patently false and the latter is highly doubtful and only partly true at best.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

There's a world of difference between actually being on book and feeling like you are. For example, many Christians are quite sure that their religion forbids premarital sex and homosexuality, when in fact, going by the Bible, the former is patently false and the latter is highly doubtful and only partly true at best.

Then, I would submit that *nobody* is truly "on Book". Even the Catholic Church is off-Book.

[lpkmckenna]

Being "on book" is impossible since the numerous works within contradict each other.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Then, I would submit that *nobody* is truly "on Book". Even the Catholic Church is off-Book.

The Catholic Church is an interesting exception in that it doesn't even claim to be sola scriptura.

[Wiskedjak]

then, WHO is "on Book"?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

then, WHO is "on Book"?

Very likely, no one. But ultimately only god knows, if he exists.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

then, WHO is "on Book"?

Very few.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Very few.

Would you consider yourself to be "on book"?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Would you consider yourself to be "on book"?

Not at the moment. Nearly, but not quite.

[BadKosh]

I guess this guy can't be an islamic terrorist because of the PC factor. I wonder if Obamas secret Islamic background has anything to do with any of this?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I wonder if Obamas secret Islamic background has anything to do with any of this?

How can it be a secret if you know about it?

[besson3c]

Maybe he just spilled the beans?

Way to spill the beans Badk0sh, you bean spiller.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

My point, I think, is that each person has their own personal religion, using organized religion as the foundation and base of what they believe. But ultimately people choose the lifestyle/culture they want to live 1st, choose their morals first......... Then twist their subscribed religion until it fits into what morals and culture they've chosen to believe; Until it fits into the lifestyle they are comfortable with... Obviously if some muslim is having a bad life not fitting into the direction the world is going, he will define the circumstances that make him unhappy as "evil" and hence he's now justified with his personal image of God.. Just like with any religion.

Okay, let's go with this. People have x y and z that are convenient for them, and they will "twist" their given religion into fitting these things. Are you going to tell me that all religions are equally pliable in this regard? Are they all equally easy to twist? I'm gonna have to say that I don't think they are.

And while I believe it happens, I don't think your explanation here is universal. I can personally attest that my faith causes a constant revision of my morals, not the other way around. And I'm sure there are many who will explain the same experience.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I guess this guy can't be an islamic terrorist because of the PC factor. I wonder if Obamas secret Islamic background has anything to do with any of this?

Nah, man, it's his secret alliance with Martians.

[ort888]

So what benefit is it to the media to downplay the whole muslim aspect of this?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

There's a world of difference between actually being on book and feeling like you are. For example, many Christians are quite sure that their religion forbids premarital sex and homosexuality, when in fact, going by the Bible, the former is patently false and the latter is highly doubtful and only partly true at best.

Both of those claims involve your own interpretations and how you decide to "go by the Bible."

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by loki74 

Okay, let's go with this. People have x y and z that are convenient for them, and they will "twist" their given religion into fitting these things. Are you going to tell me that all religions are equally pliable in this regard? Are they all equally easy to twist? I'm gonna have to say that I don't think they are.

I'm going to say that all religions are equally twistable, because, in my opinion, that is the entire point of religion: to be twistable such that the believer is able to use their god to justify acts that would normally be considered wrong.

[Big Mac]

That's a mighty strange view you've got there, Wiskedjak. You think the entire point of religion is for followers to be able to distort it for their purposes? How do you justify that view?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Both of those claims involve your own interpretations and how you decide to "go by the Bible."

Sure. For example, I decide to go by what the text actually says with the simplest interpretation I can justify (i.e., I read it like any other written work).

One thing that always bothers me is that people are willing to feign ignorance about what plain words mean when they're in a "holy book." If I said any other book — say a math textbook — was "open to interpretation" in the same way, people would think I was a retard, a whackjob or a pretentious twit.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's a mighty strange view you've got there, Wiskedjak. You think the entire point of religion is for followers to be able to distort it for their purposes? How do you justify that view?

Sorry. I think the entire point of religion is for leaders to exploit people's natural need to explain the unknown in a way that allows those leaders to distort the opinions of their followers.

As for justification ... see every war ever fought based on religion.

Tell me, what do *you* think the purpose of Islam is?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Sure. For example, I decide to go by what the text actually says with the simplest interpretation I can justify (i.e., I read it like any other written work).
One thing that always bothers me is that people are willing to feign ignorance about what plain words mean when they're in a "holy book." If I said any other book — say a math textbook — was "open to interpretation" in the same way, people would think I was a retard, a whackjob or a pretentious twit.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, premarital sex between parties permitted to marry results in automatic marriage. Actual prohibition of the act itself is found through exegesis, I will agree to that extent, but if you think general promiscuity is therefore allowed you're not reading the same text.

As for homosexuality, the act is condemned pretty clearly in Leviticus, and I don't see how one can claim otherwise.

As for the validity of scriptural interpretation, I'll tackle that in a future reply.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Tell me, what do *you* think the purpose of Islam is?

I can give you the religious answer that I give, but that wouldn't be respected. From a purely utilitarian standpoint I believe the original purpose of Islam was to unify the Arab world under an Abrahamic belief system, and Mohammed's goal eventually morphed into world domination. Yes, religion does have an aspect of control, but unless you're talking about a code only setting up a system of behavior, like Confucianism (which is a religion that lacks the supernatural), control is only a component.

[besson3c]

I thought we are supposed to discard Leviticus because it is in the Old Testament?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Sure. For example, I decide to go by what the text actually says with the simplest interpretation I can justify (i.e., I read it like any other written work).

One thing that always bothers me is that people are willing to feign ignorance about what plain words mean when they're in a "holy book." If I said any other book — say a math textbook — was "open to interpretation" in the same way, people would think I was a retard, a whackjob or a pretentious twit.

The difference is that calculus is always calculus, but when a story from a culture that existed some 4000 years ago has gone through time and a couple of translations, there's obviously going to be some disagreement on the intended meaning.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

In the Hebrew Scriptures, premarital sex between parties permitted to marry results in automatic marriage. Actual prohibition of the act itself is found through exegesis, I will agree to that extent, but if you think general promiscuity is therefore allowed you're not reading the same text.

As for homosexuality, the act is condemned pretty clearly in Leviticus, and I don't see how one can claim otherwise.

I never claimed the Bible was down with promiscuity. That's certainly not the case. Also, sex doesn't automatically equal marriage under the law IIRC. The woman's father has the right to decide whether there will be a marriage after sex.

And yes, male homosexuality is forbidden in Leviticus. Lesbianism isn't. But besides that, it's made quite clear that the Law of Moses was thrown out as part of the New Covenant. The only unambiguous mention of gays in the New Testament actually has it given as a punishment for sin.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I thought we are supposed to discard Leviticus because it is in the Old Testament?

But Big Mac is a Jew, so the Old Testament is all there is.

[Big Mac]

To pick up where I left off, Chuckit, your approach to scripture is to rely on the plain meaning as much as possible. I respect that - indeed, Judaism teaches that the plain meaning of a Torah verse always has value.

However, there are problems with relying on the plain reading. I don't know if you're a Hebrew scholar or at what level you understand Biblical Hebew, but may be relying on a translation, and some translations are poorer than others. For example, I can easily point you out a number of wrongly translated words in the KJV, sometimes just inaccurate and inconsistent translations and other times purposeful mistranslations used to impute Christian theology where it does not exist. Maybe modern Christian translations are better - I don't know for sure because I've only looked at the KJV in relation to the Hebrew and kosher Hebrew translations. But anyway, if you don't know what the underlying text is saying, how do you know your simple meaning/understanding is accurate? (Yes, I know Muslims make a similar claim about the Koran, and what they say is true to an extent but not to the significant extent they claim, IMO.)

Aside from translation problems, Judaism recognizes a body of divine instruction as well as an accumulated store of divine knowledge through the historical application of the Torah - the Oral Torah/the Talmud. We do not study the written Torah isolated by itself. Within that body of accompanying knowledge, there are some clear rules of Scriptural exegesis that are logical and obvious and aid in understanding the text in logical ways. I refer specifically to the Baraita of Rabbi Ishmael as one example.

As for Chuckit's reference to the Law of Moses being thrown out, his original argument was about Christian doctrine, but I thank you Laminar for pointing out that we don't consider the Torah thrown out. It is, in fact, nonsensical for any believer in the Hebrew Scriptures to also believe that it was discarded or is no longer in force: A great many times throughout the Torah G-d declares His laws to be eternal statutes for all generations and furthermore that nothing should ever be added to or subtracted from the Torah. And Jeremiah's New Covenant prophecy is clearly referring to a time to come when the Torah will be inscribed in our very being so that we will be incapable of sinning. The advent of Christianity did not, by any stretch of imagination, fulfill that prophecy - Pauline Christianity explicitly violated it in 613 different ways. But we're getting far off-topic with this line of discourse.