So it turns out yet another anti-gay Republican turns out to be gay.
Do you think it’s true what they say, that those who shout loudest about how they hate gays are just protesting a wee bit too loudly? Is the hate expressed by Republicans toward gay people really just the projected hate expressed by Republicans toward their gay selves? Would the world be a whole lot better off if Republicans stopped inverting and then projecting their personal insecurities into the public sphere?
And yes, I expect everyone who cites the Bible to tell me when they last ate shellfish.
Oh, and where’s the “hm, perhaps we should go get someone to translate the older versions of the Old Testament again” reaction?
First woman on Earth editted out of this book of supposed undeniable truth.
It’s bad enough that the second half puts down so much of the first half as false and irrelevant (despite NOT having THAT removed), but that bits still possibly relevant have been altered or taken out completely?
Oh, and where’s my “you’re right, the Bible tells us, quite clearly, to spoil children” reply?
Actually, I don’t think spoiling children would turn out half as bad as most people make out (done in a certain way), but I don’t hear many fundamentalists insisting that we spoil kids…
Whoops. Looks like the Biblical literalists Meghan and BenRig cannot explain their selective sinfulness. They’re blasting other people for sinning, but then they’re arguing for cultural relativism to explain away their own sins.
Meghan,
I’m not making any assumptions I’m just going on what you said yourself. OK, you don’t hate them…you just think that they are an abomination, an affront to god and humanity, someone who should not be out in public for you or your children to see…but hate…no, no, no, Christians never hate.
The bible (and you) propagates a “one size fits all†when it’s necessary to look at individuals independently when making you bigoted decisions. It’s not as simple as loving the child but hating that he stole some candy. The act of stealing doesn’t define who the child is.
The act of love (for the most part) is an expression of ones love. I’m supposing you experience this with your partner. Being attracted to the opposed sex and having a desire to express yourself with the opposed sex defines you as heterosexual. The same is true for homosexual. The act of sex IS one of the components that define you as who you are personally. So to say that you love the person but hate the act is Bullshit, they are one in the same for this situation.
You may not “hate†them but now the argument is about semantics and not what you are propagating, based upon a religious faith and not personal opinion. Because from the other thread you have no real personal stake in oppressing these people. You are only mimicking what your religion is telling you to feel. Sad.
Sorry I piss you off but it’s not you that I’m pissed about…it what you believe in. Is there a difference? You seem to think so.
Pauly
Leviticus 4:1-5 …
1 The LORD said to Moses,
2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘When anyone sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD’s commands–
3 “‘If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, he must bring to the LORD a young bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed.
4 He is to present the bull at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting before the LORD. He is to lay his hand on its head and slaughter it before the LORD.
5 Then the anointed priest shall take some of the bull’s blood and carry it into the Tent of Meeting…
… Boy, wouldn’t that make a great tent revival!
Although yes, HareTrinity, sometimes goats are called for, too.
They seemed to kill all manner of livestock for sins, didn’t they?
It’s the intolerance I can’t stand. What’s wrong with sacrificing a little clownfish in the name of God every now and then, huh? I mean, why is the Bible so uptight about stuff like that?
Is a bull sacrifice natural, but a clownfish sacrifice artificial, Meghan? Is that what God thinks?
Guys, guys. You’re losing sight of the Christian position:
1. The Bible is the word of God and we should follow it in our lives.
2. Except for most of the Bible (the Old Testament), which we don’t really have to follow any more because of Jesus, but we still quote from all the time.
3. And except for anything in the New Testament that relates to society at that time instead of ours, which is pretty much the whole thing, really.
4. But besides that, the Bible is the word of God and we should follow it in our lives.
So there you have it. Now crack open those Bibles, kiddies, and live your lives accordingly!
Ohhh, right. Thanks for clearing that one up for us, Vegas. [Insert
here]
Hello again, I have to say that I never cease to be amazed by the ignorance of the Bible that you all seem to share.
Random42, you seem to think that I made the implication that the Bible was easy to understand and interpret. If this was true I and other Christians would not spend lifetimes in church studying and interpreting the Bible. Also, I will not be taking your websites into consideration because (1) one of your sites was a Lutheran site and I’m not Lutheran so I therefore would have no need to understand the Lutheran way of interpreting the Bible and (2) I don’t need your help in the areas of theology, I’m firmly based and you not so I’m quite sure that your sources of Biblical knowledge would be of no interest to me.
J.Matthew, Paul was not the only one to declare homosexuality to be wrong, if you don’t know this then you haven’t been paying attention very well. Also I’d like to put to rest some issues that some people just won’t let die.
Mark 7:18-19
So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?”
This is straight from the mouth of Jesus, and if Jesus is the Son of God this would mean that God is proclaiming that pork, and of course, shellfish would now all be ok to consume. Now please let this issue die.
Pauly, I really don’t understand why it is so hard to believe that I don’t hate homosexuals, your putting words into my mouth is unfair and what you said may be true for some Christians but not me so keep your hatred for Christians to yourself. And as for what you said about homosexuality being part of a person, that may be true, and they can be homosexual in their minds all they want if thats part of who they are then so be it, but the moment they act on those feelings as a homosexual then they are sinning. It’s not a sin to be homosexual in my opinion, it’s a sin to act on the feelings that one has as a homosexual.
Junga and J.Matthew, you two seem to be the biggest talkers with the smallest knowledge of what you’re talking about concerning this issue, J.Matthew I’m not sure if you know that there was no need for sacrifices after Christ died on the cross because he was the ultimate sacrifice and you’re just having a laugh because you made a funny or if you just don’t have a clue what you’re talking about but this is the second idea you’ve had about the Bible that has been completely off in this one blog. And Junga, the people in the Old Testament were the sinners and God was the forgiver of sins. I mean if you’ve done something wrong and you are answering to an authority, you’re not going to be the one that decides how to deal with it, the authority is.
And Vegas, certainly can’t forget your comment, nice sarcasm, really added a mature tone to the conversation…
“We do not explore what it COULD mean because there is no question about it, it means what it simply means and twisting it around to making it say what you want it to say makes it completely meaningless!!!!!!!!!!”
That was a quote from you, Meghan, about the Bible, and it was where I got my idea that you think it’s easy to understand. Mostly the “there is no question about it, it means what it means”. If there is no question about its meaning, it must be simple. Surely you’ve sat through literature classes or read other threads here and seen how easy it is for people to get confused about something’s meaning.
And why should the guy being a Lutheran matter? He’s a knowledgeable Christian, intelligently looking at the meaning of the Bible, which you also read. Besides, I was more concerned with conveying how the Bible has been mistranslated, which surely you don’t have to be Lutheran to see. And you’re rather prejudiced about sources, aren’t you? Wonderful attitude to have in a debate. Aren’t we supposed to be listening to and carefully considering the viewpoints of others? You know what? The Lutheran minister- he and I don’t agree about homosexuality. However, I found his talk on the subject interesting, and it shed light on the other side of the debate. I’m not going to go around dismissing people because they don’t agree with me. I’ll dismiss them if they don’t have their facts straight or if they can’t make a coherent argument, but I’m only hurting myself if I ignore those who disagree with me. Also, what do you mean that you’re firmly based and I’m not? Are you assuming that I’ve never made a study of Christianity, or that I’m incompetent to discuss this because I’m not Christian? Please, tell me, so that we can discuss this.
And what about Pauly’s comment indicates that he (she?) hates Christians? Being sarcastic about Christians never hating? Well, we all know that some do. Look at Pat Robertson, or that vile Dr. Dobson. Sure, you can say they aren’t true Christians, but then I submit that Islamic extremists aren’t true Muslims, and we need to stop characterizing them as such. Or do you mean the bit where he (she?) calls you on the pain that your… is distaste better than hatred? whatever… for homosexuality causes. That pain doesn’t come from love, Meghan, and anyone going around saying that homosexuality is sinful needs to face the fact that their distaste or whatever is hurting a lot of people. And it’s not just the Matthew Shephards of the world, though God knows there are too many of them. There are also the kids who are constantly picked on, the people trapped in heterosexual sham marriages, people like my friend Kate who lived with a father she _really_ didn’t get along with because her gay mother had no chance at getting custody of her as a child, and every person who couldn’t fully embrace his or her sexuality out of fear of the bits that are “gay”.
…And my reply?
“Spare the rod and spoil the child” = Bible telling us to spoil kids, yes/no?
All the inconsistencies of the Bible and its very questionable background? They mattering yet?
After all, I, like Random42, have noticed that since this began you’ve changed your mind about the Bible meaning exactly what it says.
And what, exactly, was false about Vegas’ summary?
Wait a minute, Meghan. Are you seriously telling junga that because Jesus was sacrificed like a goat that there is no more sin? Sounds like a pretty morally relativist point of view to me: What’s wrong one day and sends you to hell is not the next day. “God” gets to declare eternal damnation at one moment, and then the next, no more eternal damnation. I mean, come on, where are the moral standards to that??? Are we really supposed to want to become Christians now, because you’re explaining that human sacrifice placates the gods?
Nice point, Mother Davis… Never noticed the human sacrifice links with Jesus’ death making everything okay… Hm… Interesting.
okay you all…you seem to all vary in your remarks so I’ll take them one by one…
1. The issue of ‘cultural relativism’ in the New Testament. I hate to repeat myself, but circumsicion was instituted by God to set apart ISRAEL (this is important) from other nations. When Jesus came, they had a new distinction–their belief in him, and the fact that Jesus gave Christianity to ALL nations. Thus, the need for circumsicion, to identify ISRAEL, was unneeded because Christianity had been extended to include all nations. You all are proceeding from the wrong assumptions. Circumsicion was instituted to remind the JEWS of who they were–God’s people, as opposed to those who were not God’s people, such as the Amalekites, Canaanites, etc. Christianity was extended to all nations and this identification, or sign of covenant, was no longer needed. The old sign was replaced by a new sign; belief in Jesus Christ. Please explain how this is ‘relativistic’.
2. ‘Sexism’
The issue of sexism in circumsicion is rather easy to refute. In cultures of that time, men were viewed as the head of the family, and women simply as part of that family. In fact, there are references in the Bible to ‘circumsiced households’. If the man was circumsiced, the woman was considered so too. Besides, I am sure it was not (and still is not by most people) considered sexist to circumsice. I mean, I doubt some liberal Jewish woman came walking along, took one look at a boy being circumsiced, and said ‘Hey, I wanna do that too!’ Kidding aside…
Haretrinity, you really need to learn when to drop something. You’re STILL arguing about the ‘hat as covering’? Your little rebuttal to my essay was pointless—the Bible defines long hair as a covering. Read it, haretrinity. It was you who made up the idea of a ‘hat’. The Bible says ‘hair’. what are you trying to argue about here?
I read your links, and most of their arguments are based on faulty assumptions. Their argument that ‘fornication’ did not include such as masturbation was correct, as the Bible is silent on the subject of masturbation. According to this same website, the Bible says evil is what is in the mind at the time. Consider what most people think during masturbation. The Bible would define that as thinking ‘lustfully’. As for the original meaning of ‘uncleaness’, the site uses this to disprove the KJV usage of it in 1 Corinthians, which has been proven to be less accurate than the NIV when shown next to the earlier Greek and Hebrew translations. The entire site lends its time to attempting to debunk the KJV, making almost no mention of the NIV. The NIV was originally written BECAUSE the KJV was deemed erroneous. Oh, and the site makes almost no mention of the other languages into which the Bible was translated–such as Hebrew. As for the arguments of mistranslation–they are based on false assumptions, such as assumptions ‘about what Paul would more likely have used’, or what the site deems obvious.
The arguments of ‘three homosexual cases in the Bible’ are refutable, but would take up quite a lot of space to do so. Suffice it to say that in all three examples, the site makes 3 logical errors.
1. They base their arguments on modern English definitions, or difficult KJV passages (such as the word ‘clave’, which would obviously have a different meaning in English than Hebrew) They make no attempt at debunking the NIV on this issue which makes me wonder, could they not debunk it?
2. They make false assumptions. They ASSUME that ‘soul’ means ‘body and spirit’. Where is the logical argument for this? They also assume people wore no undergarments. Where do they back this up? And it only says Jonathan took off his robe and then gave it to David, along with his tunic etc. It does not say he took off his tunic AND gave it to David, just that he gave it to him. And besides, in those times giving one’s personal possessions to another indicated a deep friendship. This was a common practice (see parable in new test., ‘If someone asks for your robe, give him your tunic as well’). The site is making the assumption that this was a sexual act. As for ‘kissing’, the site made no mention that kissing was an act of welcome, much like shaking hands today. They assume that ‘kissing’ is here meant sexual. They assume that the translation of ‘chesed’ means mercy. Their excuse is that that definition is the ‘most common’. What kind of argument is that?
In sum, this site is preceding from the assumption that God can contradict himself, because they did not give a satisfactory argument against Romans 1, the most obvious anti-homosexual argumetn in the Bible.
Well I have to go. My carpal tunnel is bothering me, and I am late for work again…
umm…haretrinity? youre making the assumption that God wanted parents to spoil their children. That would violate His own Ten Commandments. (honor your father and mother).
you all are also assuming that Jesus’ death was as a ‘sacrifice’. C.S. LEwis in the book ‘Mere Christianity’ makes the point that it was not a sacrifice, but a ‘debt to be paid’. Much like a friend would help pull you out of a debt, Jesus pulled us out of one in that he took on our punishment, i.e. separation from God, on the Cross (you dont think he shouted ‘My God, my god, why have you forsaken me’ just for shock effect, do you?). If you’d like to argue on the semantics of that ‘punishment’, please do. I am more than ready.
sorry for rush, in some places Bible should be NT
Actually, which site did you go to? I’m assuming it was the religioustolerance.com one, because that fits the best. They do make frequent use of the NIV, along with the KJV. I’m guessing these are two of the most common translations, so it would make sense to use quotes from them. They aren’t debunking those translations. They are using the original Greek and Hebrew texts, and their translations seem accurate, as far as my long-forgotten ancient Greek skills and my middle Liddell can establish. I admit that his credentials don’t list his language skills, which would be good to know for this. However, the author’s tanslations seem to be mirrored by the other site, whose author is a seminary professor in New Testament studies.
As to the three homosexual couples in the Bible, well, in general, I’m opposed to looking for these sorts of relationships in the past. It’s so hard to know what is and what isn’t, looking through our highly biased vision. I mean, on reading Shakespeare’s sonnets, it seemed pretty obvious to me that he liked the men, but my Brit Lit teacher scoffed at this, saying that “men were very close then” and “he could have meant the world” in the case of a masculine pronoun. I’m sorry, but “your thing to my one thing nothing” is very sexual, in the slang of his day, but this debate could go on forever. Meanwhile, back at the ranch… But your refutations are not wholely accurate. The clave thing, first. The author clearly says, “The Hebrew word translated here as “clave” is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24…”. He’s not using the KJV translation; he’s using the actual Hebrew. I also don’t think he meant that kissing had to be sexual. I think he was more disputing the end of the passage, which was translated in the NIV as “but David wept the most”, though he does make a remark that apparently the authors of the Living Bible couldn’t even abide two men kissing and made it into them shaking hands. He was mentioning a theory that some theologians apparently hold that David was getting an erection in this bit. The proper translation of that passage appears to end in “until David grew great”, so I can see where they get that. Not necessarily what was meant to be portrayed here, but an interesting commentary on how translators push their own agendas, all the same. The link, by the way is http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm
The argument for spirit meaning “body and soul” is given in the passage, too, by the way. “Most translations use the term “soul” rather than “spirit” to describe the bond. They speak of an “immediate bond of love”, their souls being “in unison,” their souls being “knit”, etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that “soul”, in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit.” Is there anyone familiar with ancient Hebrew religious beliefs who could say if this was accurate?
And, finally, Romans I: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc.htm In what ways is this argument unsatisfactory?
Meghan,
I recanted my position that you hated anybody. You just follow and believe in the bible. Cool. The bible, of which you follow and believe in say, that homosexuals are abominations and an affront to god and humanity.
So with that could you answer my very simple question? Is there another reason why you think that gay people are an abomination? You can no longer use the tactic that you do not think that gay people are abomination but the act of being gay is. Because YOU are unable to separate yourself as a straight person from the act of being straight. Again it’s not a “one size fits all†sin.
Now you have be confronted with you own faith. Do you accept the challenge of my question or will you commit the greatest atrocity known to Christianity and not defend you position in the church. Will you fall from grace? Answer the question. You answer could be; “No Pauly, I have no other reason to think the way I do or for the reason to oppress these people other than that “the bible tells me soâ€Ââ€Â. I will accept that answer. But will you? Will God?
I know why I piss you off more than most Meghan. I was where you are now and I didn’t fall from grace…I jumped. And I jumped because I couldn’t come up with any personal reasion for oppressing the people that the bible tells me to oppress. As the woman that you are, haven’t you seen and asked why the bible oppresses you?
By the way…Pauly is a boys name…Paulie would be for female.
I don’t think that Meghan or BenRig have addressed Mother Davis’s point. You can’t just cite C.S. Lewis as saying that Jesus was not a human sacrifice. The patterns inherent in the Bible, including the parallels with Abraham and his knife at the throat of his little boy, show that the cultural understanding is clearly one of human sacrifice. You have to argue against the ideas in Mother Davis’s claim, not just deny them with a quote from a prominent defender of Christianity.
When it comes to moral relativism, I think Mother Davis has a really unique point that I’ve never heard before. I don’t think you really understand what she’s said. Let me try to explain it a little more.
I think that what Mother Davis means is that when Christians cite God as the source of morality, they’re really arguing for moral relativism. The American Heritage Dictionary defines moral relativism as the idea that “A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.”
Well, in the case of Christianity, that person to which morality is relative is God. So, according to the Christian perspective, God can change morality whenever he wants to. God could make cannibalism moral if he chose to, according to Christians. He’d just have to send down a new stone tablet.
Well, when God declared that on the day before Jesus was crucified sinners were damned to hell, but on the day after Jesus was crucified, sinners were just fine with him, that’s really arbitrary, isn’t it?
I mean, a murderer who dies on one day gets eternal punishment, but a murderer who dies on another day gets a chance for redemption – where’s the justice in that? The difference doesn’t have anything to do with the relative moral worths of the murderers’ cases. It just has to do with God’s statement that “Yesterday, the moral rules of the universe were one thing. Today, I declare them to be another thing.”
This kind of moral relativism runs throughout the Bible. At one time, God orders the people of Israel to slaughter entire populations, but later, God turns around and gives a new order: Thou shall not kill. What made it morally okay to kill at one time but not morally okay to kill at another time? God said so, and that’s all.
So, if a Christian is asked by God to sacrifice his son on an altar by slitting his throat, the consistent Christian’s response has to be, “Okay God, if you say so, it must be the moral thing to do.”
Rig,
You are not addressing the quetion I posed to you about cultural relativism. I, and others, asked Meghan a very direct question about selectively following the rules laid out in the Bible (including the New Testament):
Why do you follow the New Testament’s condemnation of homosexuality but ignore it’s condemnation of bare-headed women praying in church?
Meghan still has not answered. But you attempted to answer on her behalf, and I quote:
“someone, michael i believe it was, brought up Paul’s mentioning of hair coverings for women. michael (and haretrinity and anyone else latched onto this ridiculous argument), if you read the book (1 Corinthians) properly, you will see it was addressed to the early church in Corinth. Jewish culture then considered any woman without a hair coverning sexually promiscuous, thus, wearing a head covering signified respectability (much like a woman who walked down the streets today topless would be considered morally loose). ”
In a nutshell:
Does the rule clearly laid out in I Corinthians 11:5 apply to Americans today?
No.
Why not?
Because the culture is different now.
That’s the very definition of “cultural relativism,” and you are using it in your interpretation of the Bible.
I took some pains to explain carefully to you why, although a later passage in the Bible refers to a woman’s hair as a “covering,” that can not possibly negate the law as articulated in I Corinthians 11:5-6. You don’t seem to have taken the trouble to figure this out, in the absence of which “Know when to drop it” does not really constitute a valid argument.
Why you are obscuring the issue of cultural relativism with a theoretical discussion of circumcision, identity, and covenant (not even based on the Bible but instead on your own arbitrary claims about what these things REALLY meant), is beyond me.
Meghan, the question you still have not answered remains: Why do you defy the law of the New Testament as articulated in I Corinthians 11:5, yet claim to uphold the New Testament?
We still don’t have a straight answer from you.
Random42,
I have gone to a Lutheran school, I have learned what Lutherans believe and many of their beliefs are different from mine, that is why I choose not to take your Lutheran site into consideration, I simply already have and although they are also Christians and they study the Bible as well, I am aware of what that site says and I have no need to further investigate their denomination. I’m not closed minded about any denomination. I am not prejudiced against sources but I find that web sites like http://www.religioustolerance.com just wouldn’t have a very clear view on the Bible and the way I believe. And all I meant when I said that I am firmly based and you’re not was that I have faith in God and I am firmly grounded in my faith and you don’t seem to have any. And as for Pat Robertson and Dr. Dobson, I have never heard of Pat Robertson so I can’t say anything about him but I truly believe that Dr. Dobson is a wonderful Christian, I could be wrong, only God can know but that is what I think. And I as a Christian do not want to hurt anyone, that is the last of my intentions, you have to understand that according to my faith they will go to hell for their actions, according to my faith I am helping them by being kind and loving but also telling them that God says what they are doing is wrong. My intentions aren’t to hurt, I’m a very loving person and hurting someone would be the last thing I want to do and that is why I tell them what the Bible says about their lifestyle.
HareTrinity,
It’s a lose loser situation for me here, spare the rod and spoil the child, well if I said that that isn’t true you’d accuse me of being a child abuser…don’t just FIND things to criticize. Let me elaborate on my Bible interpretation theory and revise it just a little bit. The words of the Bible have one meaning and they can be upfront and be easy to understand and they can be hard to understand and take hours of studying them to understand, PARDON MY EARTH SHATTERING MISTAKE.
And regarding Vegas statement, for one thing he presented his statement in a childish manor. He exploited assumptions made throughout this thread about Christians and what parts of the Bible they believe. It’s not even worth my time to explain it to such a COMPLETE IDIOT! If someone else that is WORTH MY TIME would like to know then I would be more than happy to explain it to them.
Mother Davis, I realize that you are a writer on this site so I will try to use some decorum when I say this but it is VERY difficult, I never ever even IMPLIED that there was no more sin after Jesus died, and I never even said that you won’t sin after you believe in Jesus. I don’t have a clue where you got that idea but everyone sins, and everyone is going to hell for that sin unless they believe in Jesus and repent of their sins, according to my belief. Is that better?!?!
Pauly, gays are an abomination because it was not meant to be this way, God made Adam and Eve, he didn’t make Adam and John and he didn’t make Eve and Mary. I realize that this statement is Biblically backed but it is the simplest to understand.
Peregrin Wood,
If God made cannibalism moral, he wouldn’t be God, God would not be God if he sent a stone tablet down that said “Ok it is now ok to be a homosexual.” Furthermore, you mentioned how God condemns killing but also sent the Jews into battle. God never sent the Jews into battle with a Christian nation, he allowed them to take the land by force because the nations were wicked and pagan.
Now if I might make an observation followed by a suggestion. This argument is going nowhere and neither of the sides of this argument are going to convince the other sides of anything, lets get back to politics and quit attacking religion shall we?
Meghan,
I have placed my question to you in a clear, blunt way. But (unlike Vegas and, I might add, yourself) I have never resorted to name-calling. Neither has JClifford nor JMatthew, as far as I have seen. Why do you deem us unworthy of a response?
You are quite right, we are getting nowhere. Let me suggest that it’s because you simply will not give us straight answers to our questions.
I’m sure you don’t realize it, but many of your comments are extremely inflammatory.
For instance: You say it’s right and proper that God allowed the Jews to take away other peoples’ land by force, because those people were wicked and “pagan.” Please think about what you have just said: It’s a justification for religiously based ethnic cleansing.
Justifications for ethnic cleansing are going to get you some very pointed responses here. And rightly so.
I think that this discussion is going in a very interesting, and very productive, direction. It’s just not going your way, Meghan.
I think you’ve just revealed an awful lot about the mindset of right-wing Christians, maybe more than you wanted to reveal.
It’s more than genocide. It’s about playing God – with God himself.
Do you realize the logical implications of what you just said?
Well, first of all, it’s illogical. You say that God would not be God if he declared that homosexuality was okay or commanded people to perform acts of cannibalism in the way that he commanded people to slaughter entire populations of people. But, would God be God if he were not omnipotent? You’re saying that God is not omnipotent at all. You’re saying that God is a weak, limited being who is in many cases incapable of translating his will into reality. Doesn’t that just demote God into a relatively powerful spirit being, kind of like a jumbo-sized poltergeist or something? That’s not very literalist of you.
Then, I take note of where you find God’s limits to be. God stops being able to be omnipotent whenever he defies the moral vision of Christian fundamentalists. That means that Christian fundamentalists get to define who God is. That means Christian fundamentalists are creating God and controlling him to suit their particular moral fancies.
Boy, if that isn’t moral relativism, I don’t know what is.
… and Meghan, daring to question the moral model of one particular religion is not the same as attacking it – unless you think that Christianity cannot survive unless no one is allowed to criticize it. Besides that, even if we were attacking, we’d only be attacking Christianity, not religion in general. Don’t you think it’s kind of arrogant of you to consider Christianity to own the entire category of religion?
The equivalent would be for you to accuse us of attacking politics just because we were criticizing the policies advocated by one political party. You seem to have the basic logical misunderstanding of category and instance. Just because all pigs are mammals doesn’t mean that all mammals are pigs.
BenRig,
Actually, honouring your parents has nothing to do with how they treated you. Be you spoilt or abused, it doesn’t matter in the case of that commandment.
I think Random42 and Michael stepped in for me on your first reply, too, though let me know if anything’s left out. And I’m pretty sure I left the hat thing alone quite a while ago.
And when it comes to descriminating against groups, didn’t Jesus say you should have your OWN reasons, not just do so because the Bible said so?
Meghan,
See the comment where Michael says that someone’s going to give you a bit of a talk for the implications of “cleansing” cultures though force? Yeah, I’m going to do that.
“Pagan” means “not Jewish, Christian, or Muslim”. Originally the word meant “village people”.
Christianity stamped out many ways of life in the name of a book; this was NOT trying to “help” them, it was, in many cases, the combined use of death penalty, scapegoating, and threats.
The Virgin Mary replacing Athena temples, dragon turned into devil representatives, and many, MANY, old believes shoved cruelly to one side.
Nations of wicked village people “converted”. Tudor-time style; “you’re this or you die”.
And your God can cease to be God now? When he sent down his son and said “animal sacrifice is no longer called for”, that’s somehow completely different from if he changed his mind again and tried to get back his human sacrifices?
And all because a sacrifice happens in retrospect doesn’t make it less of a sacrifice. All because Jesus, as a human, “sacrificed himself” doesn’t mean it’s not a human sacrifice.
And the reference of wine to blood and such; that’ll be older than you expect, too.
Plus; Adam, Lilith and Eve.
Adam and Eve… Heh… The unavoidable incest in Genesis is always something I found a little odd, especially as incest can result in birth defects and such.
Incest really isn’t very natural, so it’s odd that God decided Eve should have sex with her son, really, don’t you think?
Anyway; back to the “wicked and pagan nations”; are you telling me it’s therefore okay to forcibly convert people?
You said yourself that you wouldn’t try to force your beliefs upon others, such as homosexuals, and yet later on you say it’s alright for people to do so.
Let me know when you can justify knowing which bits of the Bible are obvious and which bits are not and require time taken for interpretation.
Also; no intentions of calling you a child abuser; I want to know HOW the Bible DOESN’T say that parents SHOULD spoil their children.
And… This is hard to proofread without the preview… Hopefully you’ll withdraw your comment about how some nations were wicked (though I would love to hear you back this one up) and pagan (I’d also like you to justify your use of the word, since it implies being pagan gives people the right to attack you).
If you don’t, I’ll get around to the essay on racism and why it’s not nice. Okay? Okay.
As if some of the pagan nations at t the time weren’t already MORE peaceful than those that “took the land by force”…
I’m only human. I make judgements from time to time. But, when people use the bible to bolster their own morality and to condemn others, I feel this is evil. ‘The measure you give will be the measure you get.’ The biggest winners or the 2004 election were the people that enjoy preventing gay people from having equal rights to marriage.
‘Love thy neighbor as thy self.’
‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’
‘Judge not that ye be not judged.’
‘Whosoever cares for the least of these etc……’
We do not vote to impose our morality. Bush, however, was sure spreading it on thick, preaching his message of bigotry, hate and intolerance. It had nothing to with the lies to justify this war, people dying (including children), or loosing 300 tons of explosives, dressing up in a flight suit, the outright corruption, the economy, or even healthcare. This election all distilled down to this… where you stand as far as abortion, marriage amendment (gays) or… “They’re takin’ our gunnns.”
Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally. Meghan Malone you have said the bible is to be taken at face value (literally) then you claim that you interpret it?
Meghan and BenRig you should become Amish and stop driving fuel burning cars. Also refrain from using electric lights, nor use drugs to prolong life. Just put your faith in God’s hands. No TV, Microwave ovens – defiantly no Football games, (it’s just barbaric) Cell Phones, computers, polymers, plastics and radioactive uranium 238 warheads. Just throw them all out! LETS GET RID OF THE MATCH! Who ever heard of such a thing, I mean two elements are brought together byway of friction to make fire. (devils work -witchcraft- be still my heart!) If God wanted us to have fire, he would send down a bolt of lighting to strike a tree. Why even go to public school? Just stay at home and read the bible by candlelight. (did someone say candle?) The Bible has been translated thousands of times. With each translation giving a new meaning to a passage (spin if you will). Why does God need a Bible? It created heaven, earth, the galaxies and the universe but it has to depend on men to write it’s laws. How condescending and self-important our race is. Doesn’t it make sense that God, in it’s wisdom, would have made laws chemically written in our DNA? (science?) It always tickles me when people quote around Christmas: “Remember the reason for the season.” The reason for the season per many religious scholars was because the Christian church could not get enough pagans to follow their religion so they had Christ being born around the winter solstice. It’s a miracle! It all has to do with faith and what people believe to get through life. One thing I have always wondered, if there was an evil force in the world, wouldn’t it make different groups of people think they alone have the secret to the creator? Then have each of them shun and kill those who do not believe like they do. God has the intelligence to create a nursery for suns but can’t accept variations in beliefs? Of course it is easier to believe “only we’re right†when we are destroying the gift of Earth. But, hey we have a president that says the ‘science’ just doesn’t support the warming of the planet. Well to wage war in our time, he sure does apply ‘science’ as an end to his means. What did he land on the Aircraft Carrier with, Angel wings? Next standing on the flight deck in a G suit, or was he walking on water with no ‘science’ beneath his feet… Hubris Hypocrisy.
I will end with this Matthew 6: ‘Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them. 2 ‘Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets. that they may be praised by men. Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret. The hypocrites love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners.’
Alright, guys, I need some help here. I’ve never had troubles getting simple points across before, and I’m sort of floundering. I don’t know what I’m doing wrong, and I’d really like for anyone to tell me what’s up. I hope that it’s not my fault, but if it is, please, please let me know, so I can fix it. The websites that I gave links to were supposed to show the discrepancies between many of the translations of the Bible and what it actually said. I knew that a website like religioustolerance.com would make many people have a knee-jerk “NO!” reaction, so I added one by a conservative Lutheran that said the same thing. I did not mean them as the Lutheran point of view on the passages in the Bible related to homosexuality, though I did find them interesting. I meant them to show what the original Hebrew and Greek said in these passages, which seem to show a different meaning than most people give them. How can I better convey that?
And, Meghan, it’s sort of the point to listen to the points of view of others on a topic you’re debating. I’ll listen to your points of view of homosexuality, but so far you’ve given me nothing but the Bible, and when I tried to talk to you about that, you give me, “but you’re not a Christian”. Actually, you tell me that I don’t seem to believe in anything, which is ridiculous and insulting. I’ve been examining religions since I was five, which is a hell of a lot longer than many people. I can’t believe you would dismiss anyone that easily. You know what? No, I don’t believe in God- not your Judeo-Christian father figure in the sky, anyway. But I still study your beliefs, and not only because Christianity pervades this culture. It’s also because it adds something to my own beliefs, whether it’s firming up my opposition to some things or shedding new light on my thoughts about others. Have you ever read Plato’s Meno? Do, please, and watch how quickly a young man’s strong convictions unravel under questioning.
And, fine, you don’t want to hurt anyone. It’s not working, the way conservative Christians are behaving. You aren’t saving anyone; in fact, you are condemning some teenagers to suicide. What happened to “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”? What happened to living quiet lives in God’s service and letting your actions speak, not your words? Doesn’t that sway more people than telling them they’ll burn in hell? I’m an unbaptised unbeliever, so by your religion, I’m heading there, too. And I promise you, my lovely Christian friends I’ve talked about, who never say anything more to me than “God has a plan” when my life is rough, bring me far closer to wanting to be a Christian than any fiery sermon promising me eternal damnation if I don’t mend my sinning ways ever did.
And, as a former pagan with many current pagan friends, I heartily applaud everything everyone has said about that.
Did you know that incest is the one universal taboo that anthropologists have found? It’s the only thing that exists in every known culture. Of course, the specifics vary a bit, but no where is it okay for there to be parent/child relations. Really screws the kid up, every time.
Except in tribes where they don’t consider the children and mothers to be related (there is one)… But then, they don’t consider that incest. Plus, there are hormones acting against incest… Hm…
Sassafras kid,
Can’t recall ever hearing from you before, but you just made a great first impression on me. Very nicely put; I hope your words get through to them.
Good point, random. Of course you have to take the other person’s point into account in a debate. When someone says, “I’m not going to even consider that because it goes against what I already believe,” you’re not really going to get much of anywhere.
…Did we win?
Y’know, if we did, maybe we should set up a little page ready for later arguments of this sort.
I know Irregular Times already has things like that somewhere, but we could make a bigger thing about it, see if any more questions are hiding.
I am one who is guilty of the greatest of sins. I am guilty of blasphomy. Problem is that I am also the prophesized leader of at least a small region of christains, if not all (arrogent I know). God literally told this priest that I would lead for god(what a line!). Furthermore, I am annoited and baptized. This was done by the leader of a protestant (I think) preacher at Home Church in San Jose, Cali. Now, I am a very virulent agnostic. I use the term “virulent” because of orthodox christian interpretation of all who are not. I try to change minds away from orthodox beliefs.
Anyways, I am here to clear things up. I does not matter what a sin is. It only matters whether we are hurting one another. We do this by condeming one another. I do this, that is sure. I feel bad, but like christians, I feel a mandate by god to do so. Does that make it ok? But I still do it, I just try to be really polite about it.
Anyways, this is not about whether being gay is a sin. Why should anyone care who is sinning unless those sins cause harm to those who are concerned? (Because the bible tells us so) It must be direct for justification.
What we are talkling about is overcompensation. When we feel bad about our actions we do things to make them right. It would be nice to think that the republicans are just overcompensating for their guilt of being flaming homos, but that is not likely the case. I think that the admistration is taking religious people for a ride, at least in a certain respect. I believe that many to most of the actions of so called conservative christian republicans are really a huge contradiction to their belief in love. If you love your child, you will grant them freedom when they have come of age. Instead, we as a society, are acting like overbearing parents who cannot handle our childrens lifestyles. We speculate with disgust on their behavior and try to calulate on how we can compell the desired behavior. This is were morally defined laws come into play. Morallity has no place in law because we are adults. Adults have the right to make life choices. What adults do not have the right to do is force their decisions on to others. How would you like it if I made you follow my moral assumptions? You would not.
majority opinion, beliefs, and tradition do not make right. People used to think that a lot of things were right, and yet they are now considered to be attrotious.
I do not think that god would need physical traits to decipher who whas its follower. Much of the bible is a farce that was ment to empower the state. See how it works. It still is…Please feel free to tell me how my claims and comments are illogical and crazy filled with argumentative fallicies.
I will be around more as time passes. I have just found this place and this is my first comment. I must depart now, as my time is limited.
Thank you….
Well, it sounded logical enough, Bongstar420, just… Not really that much in the way of claims? I think they were there, but it’s a bit hard to pick them out from the opinions.
Ahh,somewhere up there one of the Christians pointed out the trinity.The doctrine of the trinity truly reveals the nature of God.
What I’m saying is that if God/Jesus/Holy Spirit are one being then Jesus and the Holy Spirit are guilty of the same abominations as the God of the Old Testament.Read and tremble poor Believers:
“Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ….”
……….Ephesians 6:5
The New Testament says slavery is just fine.
“Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”
……….Numbers 31:17 (Moses)
God/Jesus/Holy Spirit wants the Israelites to kill all the women and children of this particular village and take the vigins as sex slaves.
“The men of Judah captured another ten thousand (men) alive and took them to the top of the rock and threw them down from the top of the rock; and they were all dashed to pieces.”
……….2 Chronicles 25:12
The men of Judah executed 10,000 prisoners of war.Chosen people indeed.
“Samar’ia shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.”
……….Hosea 13:16
Kind of ads a new spin on God being against abortion.
“Slay and utterly destroy after them, says the Lord, and do all that I have commanded you.”
……….Jeremiah 50:21
Remember that thanks to the wonders of the Trinity,Jesus,The Prince of Peace,is saying these things.
“For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.”
……….Exodus 20:5
How can a jealous God be perfect?
Also I believe this is why I have such poor vision.My great-grandfather was a mean old bastard.
“Then they (the Israelites) utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, sheep and asses, with the edge of the sword.”
……….Joshua 6:21
Men.Women.Children.
“And the Lord our God gave him over to us; and we defeated him and his sons and all his people. And we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed every city, men, women and children; we left none remaining…”
……….Deuteronomy 2:33
Men.Women.Children.
Imagine the children watching their parents being slaughtered.Or even better,imagine your child being hacked to death with a sword right in front of you.All brought to you by Jesus.
“…Men’ahem sacked Tappuah and all who were in it and its territory from Tirzah on; because they did not open it to him, therefore he sacked it, and ripped up all the women in it who were with child.”
……….2 Kings 15:16
Abortion is murder,right?
“Behold the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger…Whoever is found will be thrust through and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes, their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished.”
Is this that Rapture thing you people keep going on about.Which one of the trinity do you think came up with the idea to ravish wives?
“‘Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women…’”
……….Ezekiel 9:5
Kill the young men.Kill the maidens.Kill the children.Kill the women.
God/Jesus/Holy Spirit
I have more but I think I’ve made my point.Millions of people are worshipping three genocidal maniacs.No wonder the world is so violent.
You poor Christians,you didn’t even know did you?I bet you had never even read these verses, have you? They don’t talk about those in Sunday school do they? These verses don’t lend themselves to be written on those cute plaques you find at the cute little local Bible store that has angel windchimes and every CD Micheal W. Smith put out,do they?
Now tell me again about your loving God.