1
   

Can someone address this PLEASE?

 
 
Heywood
 
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2004 02:28 pm
STILL waiting for an answer:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=19606


Come on, people. There has to be at least ONE bible quoter who can help make sense of this. Its a legitimate question thats being raised. Don't punk out and dodge the question.

Heres the question for those who don't want to check the link:

Here's the conflict:
A person makes an assumption (homosexuality is bad), because the Bible claims it in XYZ passage.
Thus, they claim the assumption is true.
Using that reasoning (the bible's literal claim of XYZ passage is correct), one may then make other assumptions as posted in the "Dr. Lara letter".
HOWEVER, these additional assumptions, taken from the same source are terrible indeed.
So why are SOME biblical claims valid, while OTHERS are not, if taken from the same source?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 7,101 • Replies: 132
No top replies

 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2004 02:34 pm
There's nothing wrong with saying that a source is not always right (or not always wrong).

The only error is the reliance on said source as a fallacious appeal to authority.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2004 02:57 pm
Well, here is a flaw in your assumption: You claim that SOME biblical claims are "valid", while OTHERS are not, although taken from the same source. What we have here is a value judgement, influenced by changing times, completely unproveable, as to the question of right and wrong. To me, the bible, and all other treatises of law and morality, should be seen as a malleable guide, to serve the best interests of the people. Abuse of what may be perceived as 'unchangeable', IMO, robs us of our humanity. Let's also take from your post the use of the word 'assumptions', i.e., not 'truth'. I don't want to ramble, but I do feel that people are much more comfortable with their assumptions, as it makes them feel safe somehow. A little injection of truth these days would be welcome to me.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2004 02:59 pm
Psst...don't get me involved in a debate about what is truth, because all you will get is my opinion. Laughing
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2004 02:59 pm
For instance, the constitution of the United States is clearly wrong in that it has heretofore concerned itself with matters of delineating the powers of government when it should concern itself with delineating the legalities of domestic partnerships. Wink
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2004 05:14 pm
First of all, I did love the letter. A little sarcasm goes a long way. Anyway, from a christian standpoint (and I say A christian standpoint, not THE christian standpoint) there were far to many errors in the books which make up the early bible, and the interpretations thereof, and so forth, which is why Christ came to give the new law. Saying, essentially, "Yes, I know it is WRITTEN that you should hate your enemies, but I came down here to correct that. The new law is love even your enemies." And he expounded on many other corrupt or incomplete dontrines all throughout the sermon on the mount. So yeah, a lot of the bible is garbage.
0 Replies
 
Portal Star
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2004 06:30 pm
Re: Can someone address this PLEASE?
Heywood wrote:
STILL waiting for an answer:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=19606


Come on, people. There has to be at least ONE bible quoter who can help make sense of this. Its a legitimate question thats being raised. Don't punk out and dodge the question.

Heres the question for those who don't want to check the link:

Here's the conflict:
A person makes an assumption (homosexuality is bad), because the Bible claims it in XYZ passage.
Thus, they claim the assumption is true.
Using that reasoning (the bible's literal claim of XYZ passage is correct), one may then make other assumptions as posted in the "Dr. Lara letter".
HOWEVER, these additional assumptions, taken from the same source are terrible indeed.
So why are SOME biblical claims valid, while OTHERS are not, if taken from the same source?


This is part of the appeal of contradictory mass - religions - people can take what they like and leave what they don't, then pretend all of their actions are backed by a divine source. It makes it whatever the weilder wants it to be.

Ex: Jesus's/Mohammed's peaceful preaching "Turn the other cheek, etc." , but other statements that tell their followers to wage war.
0 Replies
 
Heywood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2004 08:30 pm
I'm glad to get other people's opinions on this, this particular issue is one of the major sticking points that gives me trouble with the whole "religion" thing.

It's definitely worth talking about, IMO.

In any case, I would love for someone who regularly quotes from the Bible to hit this topic.

BTW, good point, cavfancier. I think you see what I mean though. Not so much that some passages are "valid" while others are not, but that some passages are "accepted" and indicative of Gods will, while others could hardly be argued as such (like the examples given in the Dr. Lara letter). Poor choice of words on my part Very Happy
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2004 08:46 pm
I quote from the bible all the time. Just not on this website. And I stick to the useful stuff. You know... nothing before matthew.
0 Replies
 
Heywood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2004 11:37 am
Ok. I throw my hands up to the whole thing.

It's pretty apparent that I'm not going to get anything from those people (above comments excluded).


Thanks for demonstrating the hypocracy. I'm going to make a note of the "Dr. Laura" Bible quotes and toss it into the face of the next person I hear start an argument with "The Bible says..." Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2004 11:46 am
Here, Heywood, ya wanna have some fun along those lines, check THIS out.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2004 11:49 am
Heywood, you might also want to include the thought that perhaps general societal prejudice and inbreeding is probably more likely to be responsible for such behaviour than 'god's will (and/or) word'. Of course, I don't have any evidence to cite that religious fanaticism and inbreeding are related (heh heh) but it's a solid working theory, from what I have researched.
0 Replies
 
solar
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 04:01 pm
my question too
I figure if we just live by the 10 commandments.
Maybe get one of those bibles where everything Jesus says is written in red and just read those parts. Throw the rest away.
It would be pretty much near heaven on earth. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 04:19 pm
Well, I am not really a Christian, but I like to occasionally quote the Bible since the King James Version has such poetic parts to it. I can't answer your question Heywood, except with another -- Where did you get the idea that Christians had to be logical? I've never thought of it as a logical religion, but one that is based on revealed truth which is received on faith. Lots of shifting sands there.

I certainly agree that you are exactly right -- it is totally ridiculous to use one part of Leviticus to prove some pet point and then ignore all the rest of its pronouncements.

I looked in Timber's excellent link at my favorite book (Ecclesiastes) and was gratified, I admit, to see that it was called "By far, the best book in the whole Bible." Wonderful when I read something that agrees with my own feelings. Very Happy That's true faith at work.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 05:17 pm
Re: my question too
solar wrote:
I figure if we just live by the 10 commandments.
Maybe get one of those bibles where everything Jesus says is written in red and just read those parts. Throw the rest away.
It would be pretty much near heaven on earth. :wink:


Well, which is it? Jesus or the 10 commandments?
0 Replies
 
solar
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 05:37 pm
both
I suspect Jesus kept the 10 commandments.
Unless, he did something I don't know about.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 05:46 pm
As a Jew, he likely observed a lot of the old laws. But if you cut anything he didn't say out of the bible, you cut out the ten commandments. I'm certainly no biblical scholar, but I do seem to remember that it was Charlton Heston who came down off the mountain with the big rocks.
0 Replies
 
solar
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 06:24 pm
Embarrassed Looks like we'll have to do a rewrite :wink:
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 06:46 pm
I hope that's the royal "we." I don't think most believers would like to see me rewrite the book (though I'd do a damn sight better than some have done, probably)...
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2004 10:10 pm
The Gospel According to Patiodog. I'd read it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Can someone address this PLEASE?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 08:01:46