Can someone address this PLEASE?

I've been thinking of writing my own gospel. Or, that is, the gospel according to myself... by Scoates. There will be a lot of pictures.

I'm a big fan of the bald guy in the saffron robe who knocks you down in the mud and laughs...

Thanks a bunch, Timber. The next person who tries to stuff religion down my throat with Bible quotes is going to get a few selective passages tossed right back at them.

Maybe I'll keep quoting until I get them to finally say "you just have to have faith", then walk away

....then again, maybe I wont.

Heywood, you just have to have faith. And abandon logic. If logic is getting in the way of you, and accepting corrupt passages of the bible, then it is obviously the logic which must go. Also, stop eating shellfish.

Not a clear link to click on to, what ere your point of view.

Heywood writes:


Would you believe I write and teach this stuff? What Heywood is describing is called "proof texting" or plucking a verse or verses out of the Bible to prove a particular point. Of course only the verses that support a particular thesis are plucked and any that oppose it are avoided. Most serious Bible scholars pretty well deplore this practice.

The problem is that there are too few serious Bible scholars talking about these things in forums like this. There are many who know the Bible almost by heart but have never studied it from its source. They may be devout and sincere, but they read and quote the Bible from a 21st Century perspective and understanding. To know what the Bible says, however, we have to read it within its full context and history and through the eyes of those who wrote it. Only when we know what the text meant to those who wrote it can we know what universal truths are there for today.

Actually there are quite a few member of this board who have read the Bible cover to cover several times and have read the original sources.

To the best of my knowledge, none are theists though.

Craven writes:


Speaking from personal experience, reading the Bible alone, including the earliest manuscripts available, apart from the history, culture, and point of view of the writer/writers will invariably lead to wrong conclusions about the intention of the content.

Bump.
(For no particular reason. Just found this and it was interesting...)

Funny I missed that, please do expound on this. Should be interesting on the "right" and "wrong" conclusions you speak of are arrived at.

I've always found those who take the Bible literally to be a trip. More than a few times I've been given "Jack Chick" propaganda pamphlets.

Basically, no matter how wonderful a person you are, your going to burn for eternity if you don't follow his one particular brand of religion. I decided to look him up, and found a website with all of his cartoons. Its an absolute bugout.

Give it a look-see:
http://www.chick.com/catalog/tractlist.asp

I think he's the perfect example of why people shouldn't try to use the literal word of the Bible to support their beliefs. Its quite amazing. Personally, I'd love to see a debate between him and someone who knows about all the contradictory aspects of the good book. It would certainly proove interesting.

Two Cents:
Dr. Laura cuts no ice with me. She repudiated her conversion to Judaism.
Fine by her, but it gives her a lot less authority on the struggle to deal with religion and reality.
I'm not a Christian, because Christianity is too confusing for me.
I'm an Orthodox Jew and I never try to shove things down anybody's throat regarding religion. It's forbidden to do so in Judaism.
(However, get me started on politics or the Middle East and their religion, well....)
That being said, Torah observant Jews don't rely on the literal written Torah. We also have the tradition of 3,000 years of interpretation called the Oral Torah.
Thereby negating most of the (very funny) Dr. Laura's responder's objections to things he quoted from the Torah that simply aren't relevant because he doesn't "understand" what the "laws" he was quoting mean.
Regarding homosexuality specifically? The Torah calls it an abomination and the Rabbis agree that G-d said not to "have relations with a man like you do with a woman." Is it the worst thing you can do? No.
Many Rabbis would say that the sin of slander or "the evil tongue" is much worse.

However, you've got me curious as to how Christians do deal with this. Is it THE big sin? Is the sin to eradicate as in the "hill to die on?"
What is the Christian thing about gay marriage?

(Whereas many of my conservative friends disagree with me, I just can't get excited about whether or not homosexuals get married. If "marriage" is a religious thing, then the government should stay out of it and then who cares? They are (not) married depending upon what you believe...
If "marriage" is a cultural (secular) thing, then who cares? Let 'em get "culturally" married. I don't get it.)

Well to begin with, Dr. Laura never responded to that letter because she never got it. It completely misrepresents her very public opinions and statements about homosexuality which few people actually disagree with including most gays that I know anyway. The letter is an Urban Legend.

Nor is Dr. Laura Christian. She is Jewish and has not repudiated her conversion to Judaism. She is not the least bit homophobic or anti-gay. There are reasons some militant gay activists hate her but these are unrelated to this thread.

Only some of the most narrow fundamentalist Christians are usually the homophobic, anti-gay group; however these get an inordinate amoung of press. To think all Christians are in agreement on anything, much less any issues related to homosexuality, does the diversity within Christianity a grave disservice.

As far as what the Bible says on homosexuality, virtually all texts related to the subject deal with social perversions that would be perversions whether done by straight or gay. You will find virtually nothing in the Bible that even addresses sexual orientation, probably because the ancient Jews probably didn't understand it enough to recognize it.

This is a categorical falsehood. The Bible condemns simple homosexuality more times than "social perversions that would be perversions whether done by straight or gay", and the claim you made only makes sense if you mean that the Bible condemns homosexual sex, even when the participants are straight. This would be a very underwhelming point.

Leviticus 18:22:

[i]V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee.[/i] "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman." [b]Leviticus 20:13:[/b] [i]V'ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk'vei ishah to'evah asu shneihem mot yumatu d'meihem bam.[/i] LB: (Living Bible): "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves." KJV "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." NIV: (New International Version) "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Romans 1:26-27:

[b]26[/b] For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: [b]27[/b] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1Corithians 6:9-10:

[b]9[/b] Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, [b]nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind[/b], [b]10[/b] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

That there says quite clearly that male homosexuals don't go to heaven. Of course, it does also say that other heterosexual activities result in a barring from heaven but the homosexuality it condemns specifically does not "deal with social perversions that would be perversions whether done by straight or gay". It's very specifically addressing homsexual sex, in fact, many translations other than the KJV are explicit in this regard. Based on the proscription of "effeminate" men I'd argue that it's also addressing homosexuality itself. Other translations also translate this verse as proscribing homosexuality.

"men who practice homosexuality," (ESV); "those who participate in homosexuality," (Amplified); "abusers of themselves with men," (KJV); "practicing homosexuals," (NAB); "homosexuals," (NASB, CSB); "homosexual perversion," (NEB); "homosexual offenders," (NIV); "sodomites," (NRSV); "liers with mankind," (Rhiems); "homosexual perverts." (TEV)

Er - what are these, please?:

" social perversions that would be perversions whether done by straight or gay."

I figured nailing down that definition would come up. lol

I took it to mean some notorious prevarication among Christians who do not wish to kill gays but instead of disavowing the passages seek to find alternative interpretations.

See, killing gays is too obviously extreme even for most Christians, but instead of acknowledging the error of these scriptures they seek to redefine them through linguistic gymnastics.

For example, when the Bible condemns homosexual sex, they look for ways it can be interpreted as not being general homosexual sex but specific taboos.

So when it forbids lying with a man as with a woman they rationalize it as forbidding homosexual sex in a woman's bed for example, which is clearly just a matter of good manners (failure to exhibit said manners means death of course).

Sometimes when the Bible condemns homosexual sex they rationalize it as, say, condemning "pagan" sex.

Thing is, there are a bunch of passages where such ambiguity is possible.

For example, the frequent claim that Jesus never condemned homosexuality can be challenged because he did in fact condemn certain multiple-meaning words.

I don't include them because it's possible that he meant one of the other non-homosexual meanings.

But Foxfyre bought into the rationalization too far, and not all the homophobia in the Bible can be explained away with her defense.

I've read the texts and the context and all that she stipulates to avoid being "invariably lead to wrong conclusions about the intention of the content" and I don't think she has, because she's making demonstratably false claims.

Some of the passages are infamously rationalized as not being against homosexuality per se but rather social taboos of the time that happened to include homosexuality.

So for example, taking the "pagan" explanation, the proscription was of the "pagan" practice and not of homosexuality.

Riiiight, but that doesn't explain the other passages.

Oh, but those will have explanations too. Instead of condemning homosexuality the Bible is condemning homosexuality in a woman's bed.

Riiiiight.

The prevarication is supported with intellectually vacuous attempts to find linguistic loopholes.

You would not believe the linguistic gymnastics that some go to to try to explain away the Bible's intolerance, and ultimately even if we accept their revisionism, they are still left with very clear Biblical gay bashing that they can't explain.

But hey, at least they get props for not wanting to kill gay people, and I prefer that they try to rationalize their acknowledgement that it would be wrong with the scriptures they cling to instead of goin' out and killing gays or somesuch.

I have to give them credit there, even if the Bible says gays should be killed most Christians are civilized enough to not actually go out and attempt to kill gays, this is very considerate of them.

It's still lamentable that they seek to rationalize the primitive scriptures, when the primitive nature of such exhortations should serve as an indication of the mentality whose product they subscribe to.

Heck, you'd think they'd just be better of saying that they disagree with the call to kill gays and such.

Makes more sense and is so 20th century.

Thank you for this link, the cartoons are delightfully narrowminded, bigoted, arrogant, inane and so utterly devoid of any objectivity or tolerance that it made for some quite amusing reading. I pity the people who truly believe this since it apparently involves fearing death and damnation all your life (and starting as a child), while about 99% of the rest of humanity is out to get you. Fear rules!

If these believes are ever brought into practice on a state level, it would truly be hell on earth for those who beg to differ.

I'm sticking with my story on this one Craven. You can 'prove' just about anything you want with the Bible by prooftexting as you are doing in your post above. But the serious Bible scholar who incorporates all text into the known history, beliefs, customs, and practices of the ancient Jews at the time the passages were believed to have been written generally comes out with a very different interpretation than you get by plucking verses that are inflammatory when considered alone.

You can allude to a distortion of the text but can't illustrate it.

Just like your claim that was debunked came with no substantiation either. <shrugs>

Below you'll make yet another dubious claim without including substantiation....



The religious ones usually do but that is hardly surprising. They like to stick to their stories too.

Thing is, this is a claim you are throwing out with no substantiation, it sounds good to you to say that so let's see if you have any backup:

Who are these serious Bible scholars you speak of? I would like to have a look at their exegesis.