Why is it so important to refute Christianity?

But Mesquite, it goes back again to what I've said before at least on other threads. It is all in whether the Bible is taken literally with 21st Century understanding, or whether it is studied critically through the eyes of those who wrote it. The literalists will read an anti-homosexual context. The historian sees that all reference to homosexuality as a sin is in the manner in which it is exhibited--lewd, lacivious, or whatever--that would be equally a sin if it involved heterosexual behavior.

In the passage you referenced for instance, the men of Sodom wished to rape Lot's guests. That was a no no then as much as it would be now.

Now you could legitimately be indignant that Lot was willing to send his daughters out to the mob if they would leave his male guests alone. This also serve to illustrate the culture of the time when a man of honor gave every deference to a guest, but women were expendable.

Intellectual honesty does not allow one to pluck a verse or two from the Bible as proof that homosexuality is a sin while ignoring a whole bunch of other ancient laws and rules.

The fact that some do that should not be either a condemnation of the Bible or condemnation of Judaism or Christianity.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But Mesquite, it goes back again to what I've said before at least on other threads. It is all in whether the Bible is taken literally with 21st Century understanding, or whether it is studied critically through the eyes of those who wrote it. The literalists will read an anti-homosexual context. The historian sees that all reference to homosexuality as a sin is in the manner in which it is exhibited--lewd, lacivious, or whatever--that would be equally a sin if it involved heterosexual behavior.

I appreciate the fact that you are able to read the bible and see something completely different than what is written. The problem is that a large organized and vocal part of the Christian population does take the bible literally. As I also pointed out on another thread Patrick Henry College is an example of that narrow view with a focus on the US government.

Foxfyre wrote:

In the passage you referenced for instance, the men of Sodom wished to rape Lot's guests. That was a no no then as much as it would be now.

I only used that example because it was in today's newspaper. There are many more direct and violent quotes to choose from such as:

Le20:13
13 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.
Le20:18
18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

The above passages to me, look to be rooted in pure ignorance, but they are looked at by others as divine. Shocked

Foxfyre wrote:

Now you could legitimately be indignant that Lot was willing to send his daughters out to the mob if they would leave his male guests alone. This also serve to illustrate the culture of the time when a man of honor gave every deference to a guest, but women were expendable.

Intellectual honesty does not allow one to pluck a verse or two from the Bible as proof that homosexuality is a sin while ignoring a whole bunch of other ancient laws and rules.

Do you really think that intellectual honesty is much of a factor to the average reader of the Bible?

Foxfyre wrote:

The fact that some do that should not be either a condemnation of the Bible or condemnation of Judaism or Christianity.

If one has to go through major hoops in order to get a more correct understanding than plain language, then the book has a definite problem.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Intellectual honesty does not allow one to pluck a verse or two from the Bible as proof that homosexuality is a sin while ignoring a whole bunch of other ancient laws and rules.

The fact that some do that should not be either a condemnation of the Bible or condemnation of Judaism or Christianity.

Is the following verse outside of the
rheam of cultural context and setting and
able to stand on what it says?

Hebrews 13:8 (Amplified Bible)
Jesus Christ (the Messiah) is [always] the same,
yesterday, today, [yes] and forever (to the ages).

Are the following verses also outside of the
rheam of cultural context and setting ?
Do they say what they mean and mean what
they say? Or can we hedge around and claim
they do not fit our cultures political correctness,
which is so much in vogue? Are they to diverse
and all inclusive and may offend someone who
finds themselves listed here? Can we finally
take these particular New Testament Bible verses
as the literal authentic, means what it says, Word
of God, without any context and cultural excuse?

1 Corinthians 6 (Amplified Bible)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous
(not in right standing with God) and the
wrongdoers will not inherit or have any
share in the kingdom of God? Do not be
deceived (misled): neither the impure
and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor those who participate in homosexuality,
10 Nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor
greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor
foulmouthed revilers and slanders, nor
extortioners and robbers will inherit or
have any share in the kingdom of God.

0 Replies

^^^^

Thus, once again is illustrated the problem with interpretation/translation.

Quote:

Are the following verses also outside of the rheam (huh?! ) of cultural context and setting ?

Yes.

Quote:

Can we finally take these particular New Testament Bible verses as the literal authentic, means what it says, Word of God, without any context and cultural excuse?

No.

There are many translations that do not even include the term "homosexuality".... Indeed, the term seems to originally have been "catamites and sodomites".

It could be argued that these terms are very specific in their reference to the participants in pederasty, as opposed to any and all "homosexuality".

However, if you wish to discount/disregard any translation that does not fit in with your views (that pesky "plucking of verses"), I would possibly reverse my answers to your questions.

"...of catamites and sodomites,
of cabbages and kings." Wink

0 Replies

Mesquite writes:

Quote:

Quote:
Do you really think that intellectual honesty is much of a factor to the average reader of the Bible?

LOL, now you see I have both the Christians and the athiests mad at me. Smile

I think it is as incorrect for athiests to pluck verses from the Bible as a "gotcha" as it is as incorrect of Christians to pluck verses from the Bible as a "gotcha". And I think those who do that are usually less interested in being intellectually honest as they are in making their point though it does not automatically follow that the 'proof texters' are not sincere in their beliefs.

It is my belief that the Bible as a whole is remarkable literature and I do believe much of it is inspired by God, else it would not have endured and it would not have such a profound effect on so many. I do believe accurate translation requires that it be read through the culture and understanding of those who wrote it. Studying how to do that has in no way shaken my faith and in fact has strengthened it.

And I also think those who are more Bible literalists and see things differently than I do are in no way 'inferior' as Christians.

In fairness to both Mesquite and Zgreat who are oddly on the same side of the fence re homosexuality and the Bible, I think the Apostle Paul, being a devout Pharisaic Jew, may very well have viewed homosexuality as an aberration or unnatural. This more likely arose from his culture, however, rather than any personal propensity for homophobia. He also often mentioned sexual immorality in general meaning heterosexual sex. It is also obvious that he was not against sex.

Paul frequently included lists of sins and lists of virtues in his writings that were intended as emphasis and not intended to be all inclusive. Thor is also correct that 'homosexuals' in the original text is more correctly translated 'sodomites' literally translated as those who perverted sex in lewd and improper ways. Whether sodomy included the modern secular definition, I honestly cannot say. The main thing is, however, is that Christians were expected to conduct themselves better than did the pagans, and that was Paul's whole point with his lists. At no point did he list homosexul behavior first on a list, nor did he specifically discuss it or mention it apart from a list that would suggest it was an issue of primary importance for him.

It seems to me that even if one believes homosexuality is a sin, it is disingenous to make it more of an issue than the other items on those lists such as gluttony, gossiping, etc. etc. etc.

I do not believe homosexuality as a rule is a choice and therefore I do not believe being homosexual is a sin. I think the vast majority of Christians share my view. I think the Apostle Paul, given his considerable reasoning abilities, and given what we know now that his culture did not know, would not now think being homosexual made somebody a sinner even if he did think that in his time.

Had we been born in a different time we could very well have believed that the earth was flat or that frogs cause warts or that the ends of cucumbers are poisonous or that dark skinned people are subhuman or any of the other wierd notions that were taught throughout human history.

0 Replies

Can you similarly address mesquite's citations of Leviticus? To forgive such grounds for execution on the grounds of cultural differences is relativism taken to its extreme, and its inclusion in the Bible reflects poorly, in my opinion, on people who would use the book as their spiritual guide -- especially if they use it almost exclusively, as many seem to do.

Personally, I do not think that adherents of the Bible picking and choosing "gotcha" passages is at all equivalent to the similar use of such tactics by those who refute them. If someone puts forth the notion that the Bible is the word of God, then the burden of proof -- that is, that the whole thing is internally consistent and is consistent with a God who would be deserving of even a mite of respect if he were human -- is on the literalist. Any citation which undermines either consistency is a powerful argument against the literalist.

0 Replies

My opinions about the passage in Leviticus or any other passage plucked from the Bible and used by the anti-religious as 'proof' to support their bigotry and/or prejudices or used by the religious as 'proof' to support their bigotry and/or prejudices are already stated here as well as I know how to state them. I wish I could find words to explain it better.

I disagree that bigotry and prejudice is somehow justified on one side and not justified on the other.

0 Replies

As you wish. I, too, view the Bible as the voice of a people (peoples, actually) over time, but since I don't see any of it as divinely inspired, I see passages that advocate execution for gay sex and expulsion for hooking up during menstruation as reprehensible -- and, frankly, it frightens me that a goodly portion of the population does view it as the inalterable word of God. And that goes for Yahweh, Allah, and Vishnu, for that matter.

And I fail to see how plucking passages from a text equates to "bigotry and prejudice" on either side. If someone will assert that they base their worldview on a text -- be it the Bible, the Constitution, or The Sun Also Rises -- that text is open to examination.

0 Replies

But Patiodog, had you lived in those times, you would likely not see it as contemptible. I think it foolishness to apply 21st century morality to peoples that lived two to four thousand years ago as I think it foolishness to assume that what is written in the Bible always means in 21st Century English what it meant then. But I do not see as evil those who do not share my views.

The uncompromising and irrational contempt that some express toward the religious, particularly expressed toward those who profess Christianity, I cannot believe is anything other than bigotry and/or prejudice. I agree, however, that the Bible is fully open to examination and examined it has been and will continue to be. I just wish those who do so could do so conscientiously and with an open mind.

0 Replies

Fox,

You said:

Quote:

It is my belief that the Bible as a whole is remarkable literature and I do believe much of it is inspired by God, else it would not have endured and it would not have such a profound effect on so many.

I'll give you that the Bible is remarkable literature - there's no doubt in anyone's mind about that one - I think.

Your belief that "much of it is inspired by God" is based on its popularity and endurance. Using that same rationale, couldn't many things, good and bad, be inspired by God?

In two thousand years, will Darwin's theories have the same validity in your eyes, because they'll have endured 2000+ years? Or will creationism always trump darwinism because it was the answer that society arrived at first? (it will be 4000+ years at that time)

If we were to apply that line of thinking to anything, progress wouldn't be able to occur. As the first, and oldest, answer would be right in the eyes of God.

When l'm problem solving I find that it is very rarely the first option that is the best solution. However, that first option usually opens doors to the next ones...

Have a great day Smile

-Jer-

0 Replies

I think Darwin's theories will endure because they are rational and empirical, geographical, biological etc. evidence continues to support them. Did Darwin figure out all that there is to know or will yet be learned or discovered; in other words did he get everything exactly right? Reason forces me to believe there are still unanswered questions and we still have much to learn.

I feel the same way about the Bible.

Both Darwin and the Bible require a measure of faith to believe; however if people are not fanatical about Darwin's theories and the Bible is studied as I advocate it be studied, there is no conflict between the two.

Should the Bible be taught as science? Of course not. It is not and was never intended to be a scientific document. Should science dismiss the Bible as superstitious nonsense? I think given the lack of proof for that view, that is equally as foolish.

But then I think Paul had it exactly right that Christians only know a tiny fraction of what there is to know of God, and I think we only have a tiny fraction of the science that we will eventually have.

When minds are kept open on both fronts, the possibilities are wonderful and exciting to contemplate.

0 Replies

Quote:

I think it foolishness to apply 21st century morality to peoples that lived two to four thousand years ago...

And vice versa: it is foolish to apply the morality of peoples who lived two to four thousand years ago to the 21st century -- and yet that is precisely what the most vocal and powerful of Christian groups attempt to do.

Like Jer, I don't disagree that the Bible is several remarkable pieces of literature for their time, though on the whole they don't run toward my taste. And if the most vocal proponents of Christianity that I hear from -- the Vatican and the American Christian right -- would bring a larger body of literature into their arguments and lobby on the basis of rational ethics rather than on pseudo-Biblical notions of sin and redemption, I'd be more inclined to listen attentively.

0 Replies

I'll admit I cringe when the nightly news puts on a Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson as representative of the Christian view or a mob of angry Christians show up to intimidate women at an abortion clinic. Media accounts rarely tell how these represent a tiny fraction of the Christians throughout the world. So the impression is made that all Christians are like that when in fact very few Christians are like that. You just don't see the mainstream Christian on the nightly news.

Likewise the Vatican evolved from 2000 years of history and, while I believe Pope John Paul to be a sincere and devout man, he inherited a Church doctrine devised in part by centuries of popes and monarchs who came up with edicts to reinforce their own powers. And while the Pope is still the spiritual figurehead of the Roman Catholic Church, it should be instructive that few Catholics agree with every catechism or papal ruling.

Do athiests wish to be stuck with accusations that Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, or any of the other famous athiests of our time represent the athiestic viewpoint? Some religious point to them as representative of results of athiesm.

Like I said, there are strong assumptions from both camps and this sometimes fosters strong bigotry and prejudice in both camps.

0 Replies

Quote:

Do athiests wish to be stuck with accusations that Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, or any of the other famous athiests of our time represent the athiestic viewpoint? Some religious point to them as representative of results of athiesm.

Absolutely not. The reason I respond to this thread is because I feel the need to refute the sort of "Christianity" that is represented by Falwell and his ilk and by the papacy et al (fighting the distribution of condoms in third world nations is unconscionable, as far as I am concerned). Though I disagree with your conclusions, you are quite reasonable and well-spoken. Unfortunately, that is not always the case of those who would try to influence the public sphere.

0 Replies

Nor is it from the anti-religious group either, Patiodog. But despite our respective beliefs and perspectives, there is no reason not to be friends.
I have appreciated the reasonable and respectful rebuttal from your camp here too. Smile

And now I gotta get back to work.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Mesquite writes:

Quote:
Quote:
Do you really think that intellectual honesty is much of a factor to the average reader of the Bible?

LOL, now you see I have both the Christians and the athiests mad at me.

I think it is as incorrect for athiests to pluck verses from the Bible as a "gotcha" as it is as incorrect of Christians to pluck verses from the Bible as a "gotcha". And I think those who do that are usually less interested in being intellectually honest as they are in making their point though it does not automatically follow that the 'proof texters' are not sincere in their beliefs.

When I pluck verses from the Bible it is most definitely to make a point, and that point is that the Bible is not a reasonable source for moral direction. It is simply too loaded with absurdity for that purpose. The only way I know of to point that out is by example. Fortunately the Bible has an abundance of examples to use.

In my previous post I only used two examples from Leviticus 20. There are only 27 Verses in Leviticus 20, and by my count 10 death sentences.

Then moving on to Leviticus 21 we have more fine prose where God seems to have a fondness for virgins, and a dislike for physical imperfections.

Quote:

It is my belief that the Bible as a whole is remarkable literature and I do believe much of it is inspired by God, else it would not have endured and it would not have such a profound effect on so many. I do believe accurate translation requires that it be read through the culture and understanding of those who wrote it. Studying how to do that has in no way shaken my faith and in fact has strengthened it.

I would say that it does have a little something for every taste; porn, violence, love, hate, war, peace, direction.

Quote:

And I also think those who are more Bible literalists and see things differently than I do are in no way 'inferior' as Christians.

In fairness to both Mesquite and Zgreat who are oddly on the same side of the fence re homosexuality and the Bible

Whoa, which side of the fence is that? I suspect we are on the same side re what is meant by the text and opposite sides re its worthiness.

Quote:

Had we been born in a different time we could very well have believed that the earth was flat or that frogs cause warts or that the ends of cucumbers are poisonous or that dark skinned people are subhuman or any of the other wierd notions that were taught throughout human history.

A book that had divine guidance should surely have corrected such notions.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I'll admit I cringe when the nightly news puts on a Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson as representative of the Christian view or a mob of angry Christians show up to intimidate women at an abortion clinic. Media accounts rarely tell how these represent a tiny fraction of the Christians throughout the world. So the impression is made that all Christians are like that when in fact very few Christians are like that. You just don't see the mainstream Christian on the nightly news.

It is the influence of that "tiny fraction" in the U.S. ( I am not sure of the tinyness) that gives me concern.

Quote:

The Bible College That Leads to the White House
The campus is immaculate, everyone is clean-cut and cheerful. But just what are they teaching at Patrick Henry College? And why do so many students end up working for George Bush?

by Andrew Buncombe

The whole story

0 Replies

Unless you can show me how these young people are subversive, unAmerican, bent on overthrowing government, etc. etc., I just don't see a problem Mesquite. Interestingly, the writer doesn't show the college affiliation of the other interns. Should be be frightened if it turns out six or seven or eight are from Harvard or Yale?

I don't want to politicize this discussion, but it could make an interesting debate in the Politics forum.

0 Replies

I am still wishing to know why a person should be kept out of governmental jobs just because they hold a particular religious belief? So what if they don't believe in and work to oppose certain things which they see as wrong (abortion, gay marriage, just to name a couple)? Don't people coming from other colleges where they are taught from a liberal viewpoint get into government and work to promote their views as right (again, such as abortion and gay marriage)? So if you wish to rail against one, why are you not railing against the other?

I have read many college commencement speeches, and in nearly all of them, young people are told to go out and change the world. Should this only apply to graduates who choose not to base their beliefs on Christian principles?

Or maybe I just don't understand your fear of people in government who hold moral values different than your own.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Do athiests wish to be stuck with accusations that Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, or any of the other famous athiests of our time represent the athiestic viewpoint? Some religious point to them as representative of results of athiesm.

That would be pretty hard to do since atheism doesn't have a viewpoint. The only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in gods. You can't do anything "in the name of atheism" and Lenin, Stalin, etc. never claimed to. You do find Christians claiming to do things "in the name of God" though.

I will agree with you that you shouldn't tar Christianity with a broad brush. Everyone has their own views and their own ideas, it isn't fair to expect everyone to think like the insane apologists and TV evangelists do.

0 Replies

Why is it so important to refute Christianity?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know