That "Dr. Laura" letter...

hobitbob wrote:

But in other threads you have stated that you believe the bible to be 100% true, and have referred to it as an historical document. You see the dichotomy here. You cannot have it both ways.

yes, 100% true:

the validity of historicity and prophecy as well as the 'true' value/integrity of the parables/symbolism being as scripture from God....

0 Replies

Far be it from me to interrupt a good argument (!)....BUT...

All of the scriptures quoted in the above letter are from Exodus and Leviticus, two of the first five books of the Old Testament, also known to the Jews as the Torah. Even the Jews no longer observe some of these laws. So perhaps the evolution of religious thought/tradition with respect to these issues began with the Jews and predate Christ? Do we have a religious historian on here who could answer this? I find it very interesting how religions evolve.

0 Replies

Eva, the key lies in your characterization of "the evolution of religious thought." This is exactly what is at play. Many examples of Torah were not being followed as early as the third centruy BCE. The problem lies with modern day fanatics who are either ignorant of, or prefer to ignore the way religions change over time.

0 Replies

The fact is the religious fanatics will take whatever part of the bible they consider most likely to allow them to sell their brand of snake oil.

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

Eva, the key lies in your characterization of "the evolution of religious thought." This is exactly what is at play. Many examples of Torah were not being followed as early as the third centruy BCE. The problem lies with modern day fanatics who are either ignorant of, or prefer to ignore the way religions change over time.

however, with Christianity, it is as the bible says, the church will 'grow up' over time, much like a person

0 Replies

Where, exactly, in the bible did you find that statement?

0 Replies

micah wrote:

Phoenix32890 wrote:
Quote:
luckily, God has granted us both discernment and scripture to determine which ones are valid....with a seeking and prayerful heart, one can discern.

Micah- So, from what you are saying, Christians pick and choose from the scriptures. Now what happens, when equally seeking and prayerful people, pick and choose different parts of the scripture as truth, and ignore different parts?

well...that is what is happening today...a huge majority of Churches agree on the essentials....

there is nothing wrong with debating the little parts.....

if you'd like, i could post those essentials and with a bit of searching you could verify those with many Church Doctrines around the world....

the essentials are the important thing here...

Debating the little parts caused the Catholic - Protestant wars. Even little parts (a sentence, even) can cause a lot of controversy when you base your entire existence upon a book full of sentences.

Do you know about the Catholic - protestant wars? There are some details of what they did to each other too grotesque to mention, all in the name of the lord.

0 Replies

Christian on Christian violence was nothing new to the 17th century. A Crusade was called against the "Heretics" in Southern France in the 13th Century. In the later eleventh and twelfth centuries Latin Christians routinely killed the Orthodox Christians they encountered on the way to the Levant. Sad

0 Replies

Thank you for the healthy discussion.

I'm still waiting for the "golden argument" that can justify such a rational of following the literal interpretaion of the bible, but it hasn't cropped up yet.

In any case, please don't back down (on either side). Who knows, maybe if we're lucky, we'll be able to come to some sort of consensus.

Let me put it this way... I would LOVE to just dedicate my life to religion, but the arguments against it are just so damn solid that it stops me from doing so. The whole "have faith" claim can only carry so far before it makes any rational thinking human say "Uh... what the f*ck is up with THAT?" know what I mean?

0 Replies

if you'd like, i can give you a Christians view on some things...but one thing at a time...if you'd like, pick one, and i'll try and give you an answer..

0 Replies

Start with the issue presented in this post (the letter) if you think you can hack it....

0 Replies

Come on, people. Don't let this thread die. Its a good issue posted in the original message, and it hasn't been touched by anyone who likes to "bible quote".

Are they throwing in the towel on this (ignore it, it'll go away eventually)? Its starting to look that way....

0 Replies

Heywood, it's very simple: the Bible is literally correct whenever it says what you want it to say. Everything in the Bible that contradicts your tenets is deemed to be symbolic, superceded, mistranslated, misinterpreted, or must be considered in "historical context." :wink:

Micah, what is the current "Christian view" of these passages?

Quote:

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (1 Cor.14:34-36)

Quote:

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing" (1 Tim.2:11-15)

0 Replies

Two points: The bible also says Thou shalt not commit adultery. Your wife gets that mad?? Assuming that you don't know yourself.

Also, in many cases they were very "effecient" with the laws. The eatting of shellfish was prohibited because many of them caused death if not cooked properly.

0 Replies

Thalion wrote:

Also, in many cases they were very "effecient" with the laws. The eatting of shellfish was prohibited because many of them caused death if not cooked properly.

Clearly, the hazards of uncooked shellfish are worthy of a cautionary word from God himself. Silly unbelievers.

I'm pretty sure he would have spoken out against the widespread slavery that has scourged humanity throughout the ages, but he just didn't have the space. Uncooked shellfish takes priority over that. Hallellujah.

0 Replies

I'm getting in late on this thread but the lively debate inspires me to contribute my two cents worth.

1) The letter quoted by Heywood has been circulating on the internet for at least a couple of years now and has been pronounced pretty much an urban legend. It was never sent to Dr. Laura except in a form copied off the internet. (The letter is amusing and I think it was intended to be amusing when written.)

2) The letter, however, does underscore a persistent and erroneous impression of Dr. Laura's views on homosexuality. Dr. Laura has always consistently stated that homosexuality is neither a choice nor a fault/sin of the person who is gay or lesbian. She has consistently denounced any form of gay bashing. Where she comes under criticism is that she does believe homosexuality is an anomaly of nature as there is no gene pool for it and, therefore, she holds open a possibility of a 'cure' at some point for those who want that. She also believes children do best with a loving mother and father in the home and opposes same sex adoption of children unless there is no alternative for the child.

3) The Bible verses quoted by Heywood are examples of 'proof texting' deplored by serious Bible scholars. You can prove just about anything you want with carefully selected Bible verses. However, if the verses are placed within their full context and history and understood through the eyes of those who wrote them, you usually come away with a very different impression of the intent.

0 Replies

That "Dr. Laura" letter...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know