| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/09/2009 09:58:10 PM · #1976 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Be a little wary 'tooz of that link with the six biblical passage. While I'm not saying it's an opinion held by nobody, there are holes that you can drive the proverbial truck through. The writer obviously has as much of an agenda as anybody else and one needs to be wary in that regard. |
I'm quite aware. Just as I was always aware in church that the pastors paid particular attention to the parts about giving 10% of your income.
I think that's just the point though. How is he any less believable than anyone else? And if so why? Because he's gay? All religious and political leaders have agendas.
My point stands. The bible can be stretched and made to support any view in people that are willing to turn off critical thinking and just blindly follow. I'd be interested to know what you think is the biggest hole for this truck?
tooz? To Oz. :) |
|
|
|
04/09/2009 11:37:11 PM · #1977 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
How is he any less believable than anyone else? And if so why? Because he's gay? All religious and political leaders have agendas. |
He's less believable because you can poke large holes in his writing with little difficulty. I'll give you a really quick example.
Genesis 19:5 says (in the KJV he quotes): And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know (yada) them.
The author's first statement is: "Know" simply means know! No hint at homosexuality exists in the original Hebrew.
We do see that the word "yada" has lots of meanings in hebrew. The author indicates it is used 943 times in the Old Testament, which is probably true, but he goes on to say, "The Hebrew word YADA "to know" is never used in the Old Testament to mean "to have sex with"." and later says, "...Simply because YADA does not mean to have sex." He does mention Genesis 4:1-2 ("And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain...") but writes it off because this is "followed by saying that later she gave birth to his brother Abel without any reference to YADA." This in itself seems pretty weak, but the straightforward counter to his argument is simply found 3 verses after Genesis 19:5.
And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, and said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known (yada) man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as [is] good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
While Lot's offer is pretty offensive to us, it's clear he's offering his virgin daughters up instead of his guests. There is no way in my mind the word "yada" in 19:5 is not connected with Lot's "yada" in 19:8. And there is no way Lot's yada means anything other than sexually. I have a copy of the Oxford Bible Commentary, a wonderful gift from Louis, which is a purely scholarly commentary on the Bible. It has no religious preconceptions (which makes me disagree with it often). Anyway, even the OBC says "It is strongly stressed in 19:4 that every male individual was involved in the homosexual attack intended against the two angels."
So the author seems to read what he wants to read and ignore what he wants to ignore.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2009 11:47:13 PM · #1978 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So the author seems to read what he wants to read and ignore what he wants to ignore. |
Yes we all do that as well. Exactly my point. All religious people do that. They HAVE to in order for things to make sense because there are so many contradictions.
On the passage though, even if what you are saying that that "to know" really did mean to "have sex" that's still rape. And rape is wrong. That still isn't saying that homosexuality is wrong.
What about the parts where he says the other parts of Leviticus aren't followed? I used that argument a lot and it almost always gets COMPLETELY ignored or written off as "not wearing 2 types of fabric, that isn't relevant any more!". And then when I follow up and say, "well if that isn't, why is the part that you think is about being gay?" and then that's when I REALLY get ignored. Because there is no answer. That's how it works. Whoever wants to just can open up a bible and use it to support their claims for whatever and say "you can't argue with that, its the word of GOD!"
Well yes. Who am I, a lowly human to debate with the word of GOD? And then the debate is over because anything I say is against God. |
|
|
|
04/09/2009 11:50:01 PM · #1979 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So the author seems to read what he wants to read and ignore what he wants to ignore. |
That seems to be a common problem with most people and the bible, they read what they want to read and ignore what they want to ignore. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 12:01:23 AM · #1980 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So the author seems to read what he wants to read and ignore what he wants to ignore. |
That seems to be a common problem with most people and the bible, they read what they want to read and ignore what they want to ignore. |
What was that? That seems to be a common problem with the bible, they read what they want to ignore? ;) |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 01:28:38 AM · #1981 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So the author seems to read what he wants to read and ignore what he wants to ignore. |
Yes we all do that as well. Exactly my point. All religious people do that. They HAVE to in order for things to make sense because there are so many contradictions.
On the passage though, even if what you are saying that that "to know" really did mean to "have sex" that's still rape. And rape is wrong. That still isn't saying that homosexuality is wrong.
What about the parts where he says the other parts of Leviticus aren't followed? I used that argument a lot and it almost always gets COMPLETELY ignored or written off as "not wearing 2 types of fabric, that isn't relevant any more!". And then when I follow up and say, "well if that isn't, why is the part that you think is about being gay?" and then that's when I REALLY get ignored. Because there is no answer. That's how it works. Whoever wants to just can open up a bible and use it to support their claims for whatever and say "you can't argue with that, its the word of GOD!"
Well yes. Who am I, a lowly human to debate with the word of GOD? And then the debate is over because anything I say is against God. |
This is your rebuttal? Up above you used the word "debunked" (To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of) to describe the strength of this guys argument. I clearly showed how at least portions of his argument were directly contradicted by passages that were merely sentences away from the reference verses. All you can do is backpeddle and approach the argument from a different angle? (it was the RAPE that was wrong, not the homosexuality) and then move on to his second passage (but we don't follow all the other laws in the OT...which actually would imply that we are bad at following the other laws NOT that homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible).
Yes, people do tend to have agendas, but that doesn't mean that some arguments are easier to make and some are harder to make. Trying to make the argument that homosexuality is not frowned upon in the Judeo-Christian tradition is a VERY HARD argument to make. Our author fails pretty miserably at it. I only pointed out the contradictions in the first passage because we can easily see the shoddy quality of his logic.
Message edited by author 2009-04-10 01:29:27. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 11:51:19 AM · #1982 |
| By the way, I just want to add that I'm not trying to make the argument that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so (you can take that or leave it). I am trying to counter the argument that "Christians are ignorant for thinking homosexuality is wrong because if they'd read their own Bible they'd see even that doesn't say it is". I think that argument is weak. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 12:09:05 PM · #1983 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
tooz? To Oz. :) |
OHMIGAWD!!!!! DUH, Jeb! LOL!!!
I always wondered and somehow never made the connnection! LOL!!!
Off to see the lizard.....I'm on Island Time!
Too many margaritas for too long!
LOL!!
|
|
|
|
04/10/2009 12:10:18 PM · #1984 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So the author seems to read what he wants to read and ignore what he wants to ignore. |
8>)
|
|
|
|
04/10/2009 12:19:24 PM · #1985 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Trying to make the argument that homosexuality is not frowned upon in the Judeo-Christian tradition is a VERY HARD argument to make. |
I really don't think anyone can legitimately dispute that.....the problem is the level, and that we really don't have the greatest grasp on the level of acceptable change simply because though some people are easily willing to accept that you can eat pork now, they can't get next to same sex attraction. The levels of acceptibility seem to be skewed, IMNSHO.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2009 12:20:33 PM · #1986 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
By the way, I just want to add that I'm not trying to make the argument that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so (you can take that or leave it). I am trying to counter the argument that "Christians are ignorant for thinking homosexuality is wrong because if they'd read their own Bible they'd see even that doesn't say it is". I think that argument is weak. |
I agree, but by the same token, I also feel that the more stringent adherents get a tad carried away with their level of (in)tolerance.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2009 12:31:32 PM · #1987 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
By the way, I just want to add that I'm not trying to make the argument that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so (you can take that or leave it). I am trying to counter the argument that "Christians are ignorant for thinking homosexuality is wrong because if they'd read their own Bible they'd see even that doesn't say it is". I think that argument is weak. |
I agree, but by the same token, I also feel that the more stringent adherents get a tad carried away with their level of (in)tolerance. |
I agree with you Jeb in the sense that homosexuality isn't somehow "the worst sin in the world". To the Christian, it's sin like any other and doesn't need it's own level of hell and it's own level of intolerance. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 12:42:11 PM · #1988 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
By the way, I just want to add that I'm not trying to make the argument that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so (you can take that or leave it). I am trying to counter the argument that "Christians are ignorant for thinking homosexuality is wrong because if they'd read their own Bible they'd see even that doesn't say it is". I think that argument is weak. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I agree, but by the same token, I also feel that the more stringent adherents get a tad carried away with their level of (in)tolerance. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I agree with you Jeb in the sense that homosexuality isn't somehow "the worst sin in the world". To the Christian, it's sin like any other and doesn't need it's own level of hell and it's own level of intolerance. |
I have a question, and it's genuine curiosity as oppesed to trying to trap anyone, are there subjects/actions that 2000 years later are generally accepted as not sinful that were back in the day?
I understand that theoretically pre-marital relations aren't a great example, but they are societally much more acceptable now than then.....I realize that could look like a whokle breakdown of social moes, yadda, yadda, but how about ergotism?
It was called St. Anthony's Fire and was one of the Great Plagues.....surely God's wrath and all.....8>)
Obviously, it was since learned that it was a grain fungus, but that certainly changed the thinking about vengeance being wreaked upon us.
So.....I guess my question is.......what would be a Christian and scholarly example of the level of sin/morality that has changed since Jesus's time?
|
|
|
|
04/10/2009 01:24:22 PM · #1989 |
| You suppose God had a reason for allowing or placing, which ever the case may be, the grain fungus upon us? Possible isn't it? |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 01:55:26 PM · #1990 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
So.....I guess my question is.......what would be a Christian and scholarly example of the level of sin/morality that has changed since Jesus's time? |
Look at the seven deadly sins and think about how badly we think of them today. Remember these are the unforgivable sins.
Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy and Pride.
We still have issues with lust and wrath. Gordon Geko convinced Wall Street that greed was good. We coach our kids to take pride in their achievement. Advertising is usually a tool designed to elicit envy. Look at the average American's issues with weight and the rise of diabetes and see if we take gluttony seriously. Id go on but Im feeling too lazy to deal with sloth.
Jews in Europe during the middle ages were barred from owning land, but were wealthy because they were allowed to loan money. Christians could borrow money, but charging interest on a loan was usury, and not allowed to Catholics.
the list could go on and on, but ....sloth. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 02:22:16 PM · #1991 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
So.....I guess my question is.......what would be a Christian and scholarly example of the level of sin/morality that has changed since Jesus's time? |
Look at the seven deadly sins and think about how badly we think of them today. Remember these are the unforgivable sins.
Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy and Pride.
We still have issues with lust and wrath. Gordon Geko convinced Wall Street that greed was good. We coach our kids to take pride in their achievement. Advertising is usually a tool designed to elicit envy. Look at the average American's issues with weight and the rise of diabetes and see if we take gluttony seriously. Id go on but Im feeling too lazy to deal with sloth.
Jews in Europe during the middle ages were barred from owning land, but were wealthy because they were allowed to loan money. Christians could borrow money, but charging interest on a loan was usury, and not allowed to Catholics.
the list could go on and on, but ....sloth. |
Is Jeb asking what's not a sin now for Christians that was 2000 years ago? or just society in general. Last time I checked, all seven of those are still wrong.
Usury always has controvery because some feel it meant "any interest" while others felt it meant "exorbitant interest". |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 02:26:21 PM · #1992 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So the author seems to read what he wants to read and ignore what he wants to ignore. |
Yes we all do that as well. Exactly my point. All religious people do that. They HAVE to in order for things to make sense because there are so many contradictions.
On the passage though, even if what you are saying that that "to know" really did mean to "have sex" that's still rape. And rape is wrong. That still isn't saying that homosexuality is wrong.
What about the parts where he says the other parts of Leviticus aren't followed? I used that argument a lot and it almost always gets COMPLETELY ignored or written off as "not wearing 2 types of fabric, that isn't relevant any more!". And then when I follow up and say, "well if that isn't, why is the part that you think is about being gay?" and then that's when I REALLY get ignored. Because there is no answer. That's how it works. Whoever wants to just can open up a bible and use it to support their claims for whatever and say "you can't argue with that, its the word of GOD!"
Well yes. Who am I, a lowly human to debate with the word of GOD? And then the debate is over because anything I say is against God. |
This is your rebuttal? Up above you used the word "debunked" (To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of) to describe the strength of this guys argument. I clearly showed how at least portions of his argument were directly contradicted by passages that were merely sentences away from the reference verses. All you can do is backpeddle and approach the argument from a different angle? (it was the RAPE that was wrong, not the homosexuality) and then move on to his second passage (but we don't follow all the other laws in the OT...which actually would imply that we are bad at following the other laws NOT that homosexuality is not condemned in the Bible).
Yes, people do tend to have agendas, but that doesn't mean that some arguments are easier to make and some are harder to make. Trying to make the argument that homosexuality is not frowned upon in the Judeo-Christian tradition is a VERY HARD argument to make. Our author fails pretty miserably at it. I only pointed out the contradictions in the first passage because we can easily see the shoddy quality of his logic. |
I'll be the first to admit I don't know much about the bible. Why? Because I consider it a huge waste of time. No, that's not the reason, I waste time a lot. :) I tried to read it a few times and everything I read made my insides hurt. And most of the passages of heard for some reason or another (grad speeches while photographing, going to church with friends, etc) made me feel much the same. I couldn't wrap my brain around how anyone reads this and thinks its literal truth, or even metaphorical truth. I think it's all utter bull shit. There are some good stories, and some good advice but on the whole I just don't buy it. And I don't buy it as a tool for people to wave around and say they have a direct connection with God because of it.
So yea, I try to fight fire with fire and I often "fail" because well... I don't really CARE what the bible says. So yes, that was my rebuttal. And all your rebuttal did was make fun of mine. Woo HOooo. You win. You know more about the bible. That was never even a contest.
You still didn't answer my question though. Why aren't there protests around clothing factories with people and signs saying "god hates fabric blends!"
Why? Because it has NOTHING to do with God or the Bible. That has been my point this whole time and all you have done is just nit pick on every word I've said. "Debunked" yea. The Bible and religions interpretations of it has been debunked a lot but no one listens to it anyway. Dinosaurs? Evolution? The Earth not being the center of the Universe? If the religious groups finally do concede to science, they just gloss over it later and focus on other parts of the religion. So everyone should just get over it and move on and stop trying to tear down every scientific advance that goes "against God".
And whether the Bible says being Gay is wrong or not, it shouldn't affect the laws I live under. Because there is no REAL justification for banning gay marriage, every just hides behind that F*ing book. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 02:31:20 PM · #1993 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
So.....I guess my question is.......what would be a Christian and scholarly example of the level of sin/morality that has changed since Jesus's time? |
Look at the seven deadly sins and think about how badly we think of them today. Remember these are the unforgivable sins.
Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy and Pride.
We still have issues with lust and wrath. Gordon Geko convinced Wall Street that greed was good. We coach our kids to take pride in their achievement. Advertising is usually a tool designed to elicit envy. Look at the average American's issues with weight and the rise of diabetes and see if we take gluttony seriously. Id go on but Im feeling too lazy to deal with sloth.
Jews in Europe during the middle ages were barred from owning land, but were wealthy because they were allowed to loan money. Christians could borrow money, but charging interest on a loan was usury, and not allowed to Catholics.
the list could go on and on, but ....sloth. |
Is Jeb asking what's not a sin now for Christians that was 2000 years ago? or just society in general. Last time I checked, all seven of those are still wrong.
Usury always has controvery because some feel it meant "any interest" while others felt it meant "exorbitant interest". |
Please tell me if there are any morbidly obese people out there protesting gay marriage, gays in the military, etc. I bet there are more than a few. What are we at now? 60% obesity? Sounds like a much bigger problem than the gays (estimates from 1-10%). And that is a health epidemic, not just a "moral" issue.
I'm gunna go protest a McDonalds now. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 02:48:44 PM · #1994 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I don't really CARE what the bible says. So yes, that was my rebuttal. |
This is a much more honest response and one I actually respect more. It's your choice to take it or leave it and obviously there are lots of people who leave it. My only friendly advice is not to stick your neck out with statements about homosexuality and the Bible being "debunked" when you admit openly you don't know much about the Bible. In Rant it pays to play a tight game and only talk about stuff you really know about (at least on the factual side, we're all open to opinions).
Message edited by author 2009-04-10 14:49:35. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 02:59:46 PM · #1995 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Is Jeb asking what's not a sin now for Christians that was 2000 years ago? or just society in general. Last time I checked, all seven of those are still wrong.
Usury always has controvery because some feel it meant "any interest" while others felt it meant "exorbitant interest". |
Well first century Christians used to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays, as a tool to prove the spirit's power to control the flesh, which devolved into eating fish on Fridays, which just petered out completely. Is that the sort of used to be sin you were after?
I would say usury follows the same devolution. From the time Christ threw the moneylenders out of the temple, his followers felt interest was a sinful way of earning a living.
To take interest for money lent is unjust in itself, because this is to sell what does not exist, and this evidently leads to inequality, which is contrary to justice. Now, money was invented chiefly for the purpose of exchange. Hence, it is by its very nature unlawful to take payment for the use of money lent, which payment is known as interest.
Thomas Aquinas
Now a days a good Christian can run a credit card company and charge 29% interest and neither go to jail nor be barred from communion.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2009 03:02:14 PM · #1996 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Now a days a good Christian can run a credit card company and charge 29% interest and neither go to jail nor be barred from communion. |
I'd have some "friendly" words for him... ;) |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 03:05:19 PM · #1997 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I don't really CARE what the bible says. So yes, that was my rebuttal. |
This is a much more honest response and one I actually respect more. It's your choice to take it or leave it and obviously there are lots of people who leave it. My only friendly advice is not to stick your neck out with statements about homosexuality and the Bible being "debunked" when you admit openly you don't know much about the Bible. In Rant it pays to play a tight game and only talk about stuff you really know about (at least on the factual side, we're all open to opinions). |
That is the point. I've tried so many arguments being honest, open, and saying "lets put the bible aside and talk about this from a legal perspective" and it DOESN'T WORK. The minute I want to leave the Bible out I'm an idiot or a heathen and I get the explanation that the Bible is the "ultimate truth", life must circle around it, God's law is higher than man's law, and therefor it CANNOT be left out of the discussion. Basically I get into losing fights because the other side is "the Bible is right, I believe the Bible, so I'm right." The end.
So obviously I try to disprove their point with their own book and yet I still get sh*t all over because I don't think that way, never will. It's a losing battle.
I try to talk about stuff I know about and I'm immediately discredited for one reason or another. Did you SEE the massacre that occurred when I started a feminist debate? The word feminist got out there and soon I had psychos coming in yelling at me about being a "man hater" and there was no reasonable discussion to be had after that.
The same goes when I say I don't care what the bible says. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 03:24:43 PM · #1998 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
The same goes when I say I don't care what the bible says. |
yup, you are right. It is almost impossible to debate moral issues in this country without reference to the New Testament. But that is true to a lesser extent to the writings of the founding fathers, or The school of Aristotle, or a score of other books that make up the cultural cannon.
You are still young, try the Bible again. Read the Koran. Heck toss in the TaoTeChing and the Talmud. They may not be the direct word of God, but they are the basis of understanding which shapes our world. Next time you are in a book store check out the NIV Bible. It has a ton of footnotes and commenetary to try to make clear what the writings are about. If you still can't take it, try again in 5 years. Jews arent supposed to read the Talmud till they are 45 years old. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 03:42:42 PM · #1999 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
The same goes when I say I don't care what the bible says. |
yup, you are right. It is almost impossible to debate moral issues in this country without reference to the New Testament. But that is true to a lesser extent to the writings of the founding fathers, or The school of Aristotle, or a score of other books that make up the cultural cannon.
You are still young, try the Bible again. Read the Koran. Heck toss in the TaoTeChing and the Talmud. They may not be the direct word of God, but they are the basis of understanding which shapes our world. Next time you are in a book store check out the NIV Bible. It has a ton of footnotes and commenetary to try to make clear what the writings are about. If you still can't take it, try again in 5 years. Jews arent supposed to read the Talmud till they are 45 years old. |
This is what I did when I was her age, actually. Bible, Talmud, Koran, even the Book of Mormon, plus the Tao, the Greek philosophers, and thye more modern philosophers. It seemed to me if I wanted to understand the issues that face us currently ("us" being western civilization) I needed to understand the moral/ethical underpinnings of the various flavors of civilization and religious thought, or at least be familiar with them. Best couple years I ever spent, inh many ways, from a growth-to-maturity point of view.
I have a hard time understanding people who essentially debunk all religions as nonsense without taking the time to study any of them critically, given that it is these religious urges that have driven the growth of civilizations and empires since time immemorial. How curiously short-sighted :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2009 03:48:16 PM · #2000 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I don't really CARE what the bible says. So yes, that was my rebuttal. |
This is a much more honest response and one I actually respect more. It's your choice to take it or leave it and obviously there are lots of people who leave it. My only friendly advice is not to stick your neck out with statements about homosexuality and the Bible being "debunked" when you admit openly you don't know much about the Bible. In Rant it pays to play a tight game and only talk about stuff you really know about (at least on the factual side, we're all open to opinions). |
That is the point. I've tried so many arguments being honest, open, and saying "lets put the bible aside and talk about this from a legal perspective" and it DOESN'T WORK. The minute I want to leave the Bible out I'm an idiot or a heathen and I get the explanation that the Bible is the "ultimate truth", life must circle around it, God's law is higher than man's law, and therefor it CANNOT be left out of the discussion. Basically I get into losing fights because the other side is "the Bible is right, I believe the Bible, so I'm right." The end.
So obviously I try to disprove their point with their own book and yet I still get sh*t all over because I don't think that way, never will. It's a losing battle.
I try to talk about stuff I know about and I'm immediately discredited for one reason or another. Did you SEE the massacre that occurred when I started a feminist debate? The word feminist got out there and soon I had psychos coming in yelling at me about being a "man hater" and there was no reasonable discussion to be had after that.
The same goes when I say I don't care what the bible says. |
Ya, I can understand the frustration that must exist on both sides of that conversation. You are frustrated because the other person says "I believe the bible so I'm right." But of course you are saying, "I don't believe the Bible and so I'm right." which is frustrating to the other person. When you try to compromise and say, well, what's right for you is right for you and what's right for me is right for me you run into Moral Universalism and that compromise is rejected.
I'm not sure what to tell you. It's gonna be a fact of life. |
|
