Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

12/19/2009 07:45:03 PM · #3201

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
... they just take out the parts of the Bible that they don't like and continue to call themselves Christians.

Seems like you are doing much the same ...

There is not a single verse of the Bible that I disagree with, actually. How am I taking out parts that I don't like?

Louis

Nikon D800

12/19/2009 07:48:17 PM · #3202

Seems we have our own Edward Current, without the satire. "We have to pick what type of Christianity is real -- mine -- and which isn't (all the others)."

12/19/2009 07:52:24 PM · #3203

Originally posted by Louis:

Seems we have our own Edward Current, without the satire. "We have to pick what type of Christianity is real -- mine -- and which isn't (all the others)."

If you're referring to me, I have to argue with you. I don't claim to have "my own" type of Christianity. My faith is based 100% on the Bible and I will continue to adjust my life according to the Bible until the day I die. Like I just said, there is not a single verse of the Bible that I disagree with.

In other words, I don't manipulate the Bible to fit myself, I manipulate myself to fit the Bible.

Message edited by author 2009-12-19 19:52:52.

12/19/2009 08:04:20 PM · #3204

Originally posted by Louis:

Seems we have our own Edward Current, without the satire. "We have to pick what type of Christianity is real -- mine -- and which isn't (all the others)."

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

That's exactly what you do.

You manipulate the Bible, dodge the questions, and use what suits you to continue a reprehensible tradition of hate, persecution, and lies......all in the name of God.

The least you could do is be honest and state that you're choosing to be discriminatory, and not blame it on some 2000 year old writings.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/19/2009 08:13:29 PM · #3205

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Louis:
Seems we have our own Edward Current, without the satire. "We have to pick what type of Christianity is real -- mine -- and which isn't (all the others)."

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If you're referring to me, I have to argue with you. I don't claim to have "my own" type of Christianity. My faith is based 100% on the Bible and I will continue to adjust my life according to the Bible until the day I die. Like I just said, there is not a single verse of the Bible that I disagree with.

In other words, I don't manipulate the Bible to fit myself, I manipulate myself to fit the Bible.

That's exactly what you do.

You manipulate the Bible, dodge the questions, and use what suits you to continue a reprehensible tradition of hate, persecution, and lies......all in the name of God.

The least you could do is be honest and state that you're choosing to be discriminatory, and not blame it on some 2000 year old writings.

How have I manipulated the Bible?

What have I said that suggests that I hate, persecute, and lie?

What have I said that makes you think I'm discriminatory?

I would like to know how you've come to these conclusions.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

12/19/2009 08:20:53 PM · #3206

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
... they just take out the parts of the Bible that they don't like and continue to call themselves Christians.

Seems like you are doing much the same ...

There is not a single verse of the Bible that I disagree with, actually. How am I taking out parts that I don't like?

Maybe any of the parts which purport that there was no Earth prior to 4004 BC? Or perhaps the entire Old Testament?

"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned, forgive, and ye shall be forgiven." ~ Luke 6:37

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ ... " ~ Galations 3:28

"Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." ~ Genesis 1:29-30

I don't see an exception made for this one ...

Message edited by author 2009-12-19 20:22:27.

12/19/2009 08:34:07 PM · #3207

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
... they just take out the parts of the Bible that they don't like and continue to call themselves Christians.

Seems like you are doing much the same ...

There is not a single verse of the Bible that I disagree with, actually. How am I taking out parts that I don't like?

Maybe any of the parts which purport that there was no Earth prior to 4004 BC? Or perhaps the entire Old Testament?

"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned, forgive, and ye shall be forgiven." ~ Luke 6:37

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ ... " ~ Galations 3:28

"Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." ~ Genesis 1:29-30

I don't see an exception made for this one ...

What Bible verse says that there was no Earth prior to 4004 BC?

If I've said anything that makes you think I'm judging... then you've misunderstood me.

Galations 3:28 is generally understood by Bible scholars as meaning that all gender superiority should cease (i.e. men and women should treat each other equally) because men and women are equally loved by God. This verse, based on the majority of Bible scholars interpretation, has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.

As for the deadly nightshade. That is a poisonous plant which produces death. Death, and all forms of evil, did not exist before the fall of man, which is told about in Genesis chapter 3. After the fall, God said this:

Genesis 3:17-18

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

The reference to "thorns and thistles" shows that harmful plants were put on earth as punishment for Adam. Before the fall, Adam and Eve could eat any plant they wanted without worry, but after the fall God wanted Adam to work for his food. Another possible interpretation is that because there was no death before the fall, poisonous plants would not have been harmful for Adam to eat. Those are just two ideas.

12/19/2009 08:53:15 PM · #3208

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

How have I manipulated the Bible?

Those selective translations.....

I didn't just pick the best translation to prove a point. I just think the ESV is the best translation in general, and is the translation that I use as my daily Bible.

So.....since you like that one best, that's what we're going with.....the one that actually says homosexual.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

What have I said that suggests that I hate, persecute, and lie?

What have I said that makes you think I'm discriminatory?

I would like to know how you've come to these conclusions.

I said that you perpetuate the hate, persecution, and lies that your religion upholds by your acceptance of it.....you have to in order to be that good Christian.

I just can't deal with that whole line of garbage about how Christians are so much better to others than anyone else....you wrote this earlier....

In theory a Christian should treat a person better than anyone else would treat that same person....

Unless of course, they're gay, right?

You never did answer the question about whether you have any gay friends, know any gay people, or responded to whether or not you'd look 'em in the eye and tell them that their very existence condemns them to Hell because that's what you truly believe.

Look, I'm sorry if I come across as rabid, but it makes me nuts that seemingly intelligent people who if it weren't for this 2000 year old, highly controversial book, would be downright decent and compassionate people.....and I always thought that one of the major points of that book was to not judge, be accepting and compassionate, and do your best to do the right thing. Then you guys turn around and torment an entire segment of society in one of the most cruel and cold ways possible.....you tell people they are wrong in their very existence.

How can you *DO* that??????

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

12/19/2009 08:57:58 PM · #3209

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Galations 3:28 is generally understood by Bible scholars as meaning that all gender superiority should cease (i.e. men and women should treat each other equally) because men and women are equally loved by God.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

The reference to "thorns and thistles" shows that harmful plants were put on earth as punishment for Adam. Before the fall, Adam and Eve could eat any plant they wanted without worry, but after the fall God wanted Adam to work for his food. Another possible interpretation is that because there was no death before the fall, poisonous plants would not have been harmful for Adam to eat. Those are just two ideas.

"Generally considered?" "Possible interpretation?"

What happened to "The Literal Word of God"?

You don't mean to tell me that it's possible that some of the translations might be suspect?????

This is the exact reason that makes me have problems with proponents of the Bible......it's vague when you need it to be, yet completely clear when you need it to be.

Right....

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

12/19/2009 09:07:27 PM · #3210

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

No problem. These are the two passages in the new testament that are clearest. Please don't lash out on me for posting this... I didn't make this stuff up, I'm just copying and pasting.

Romans 1:26-27 English Standard Version

1 Corinthians 6:9-20 English Standard Version

You do know, right, that Paul never knew Jesus. In fact, while Jesus was alive, Paul persecuted Jesus' followers. He did not convert to Christianity until after the crucifixion. Therefore, anything Paul states or writes is Paul's interpretation or opinion of second hand gospel (news). I refuse to use this as a primary source for the teachings of Jesus; it is like playing telephone. Do you have anything else?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/19/2009 09:08:01 PM · #3211

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

There is not a single verse of the Bible that I disagree with, actually.

Uh, oh... you just surrendered all credibility.

Matthew 28:2 An angel arrived during an earthquake, rolled back the stone, then sat on it (outside the tomb).
Mark 16:5 No earthquake, only one young man sitting inside the tomb.
Luke 24:2-4 No earthquake. Two men suddenly appear standing inside the tomb.
John 20:12 No earthquake. Two angels are sitting inside the tomb.

You can't possibly agree with each of these statements because they don't agree with each other!

The Bible is riddled with ridiculous statements and obvious contradictions.

When you make a statement like, "There is not a single verse of the Bible that I disagree with," it becomes instantly clear that you either haven't read it or you only believe the parts you want to believe (exactly what Jeb's been saying).

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/20/2009 12:47:40 AM · #3212

Johnny, just a word of advice. I wouldn't fight the fight. It's not worth it. I think you can see by some of the replies that the experience with the Bible on this thread is pretty superficial with lots of misunderstanding about how translations work, textual criticism, or what the Bible even says. They've had these conversations before (believe me, I was there) and it all falls on deaf ears.

Mark 4:12.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/20/2009 01:10:58 AM · #3213

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think you can see by some of the replies that the experience with the Bible on this thread is pretty superficial with lots of misunderstanding about how translations work, textual criticism, or what the Bible even says.

Perhaps especially by those who claim to believe and follow every word of it literally ... :-(

FWIW: The Restored New Testament: Poet and scholar Willis Barnstone has created a fresh translation of the New Testament, restoring likely Hebrew forms of names, and emphasizing the poetry of the work. We speak with him about the endeavor.
Guests:

â�¢ Willis Barnstone, scholar, translator of The Restored New Testament and distinguished professor emeritus of comparative literature at Indiana University

Originally posted by Publisher's Synopsis:

From acclaimed scholar Willis Barnstone, The Restored New Testamentâ��newly translated from the Greek and informed by Semitic sources.

For the first time since the King James Version in 1611, Willis Barnstone has given us an amazing literary and historical version of the New Testament. Barnstone preserves the original song of the Bible, rendering a large part in poetry and the epic Revelation in incantatory blank verse. This monumental translation is the first to restore the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew names (Markos for Mark, Yeshua for Jesus), thereby revealing the Greco-Jewish identity of biblical people and places. Citing historical and biblical scholarship, he changes the sequence of texts and adds three seminal Gnostic gospels. Each book has elegant introductions and is thoroughly annotated. With its superlative writing and lyrical wisdom, The Restored New Testament is a magnicent biblical translation for our age.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/20/2009 01:35:50 AM · #3214

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Or perhaps the reasoned, and intelligent responses that are offered here as to the glaring, inconsistent, and sometimes inhumane things "recorded" should be considered rather than attribute all to much importance to writings that upon scrutiny, simply do not hold up.

The choice to ignore the inconsistencies, direct contradictions, and outright errors is on you......but don't expect others to let it slide.

From Donald Morgan:

The Bible consists of a collection of sixty-six separate books. These books were chosen, after a bit of haggling, by the Catholic Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.--more than three hundred years after the time of Jesus. This collection is broken into two major sections: The Old Testament, which consists of thirty-nine books, and The New Testament, which consists of twenty-seven books. (Catholic Bibles include additional books known as the Apocrypha.)

The Old Testament is concerned with the Hebrew God, Yahweh, and purports to be a history of the early Israelites. The New Testament is the work of early Christians and reflects their beliefs about Jesus; it purports to be a history of what Jesus taught and did.

The composition of the various books is thought to have begun around 1000 B.C., and to have continued for about 1,100 years. Much oral material was included. This was repeated from father to son, revised over and over again, and then put into written form by various editors. These editors often worked in different locales and in different time periods and were often unaware of each other. Their work was primarily intended for local use and it is unlikely that any author foresaw that his work would be included in a "Bible."

No original manuscripts exist. There is probably not one book which survives in anything like its original form. There are hundreds of differences between the oldest manuscripts of any one book. These differences indicate that numerous additions and alterations, some accidental and some purposeful, were made to the originals by various authors, editors, and copyists.

Many biblical authors are unknown. Where an author has been named, that name has sometimes been selected by pious believers rather than given by the author himself. The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are examples of books which did not carry the names of their actual authors. The present names were assigned long after these four books were written. And--in spite of what the Gospel authors say--biblical scholars are now almost unanimously agreed that none of the Gospel authors was either an actual disciple of Jesus or even an eyewitness to his ministry.

Although some books of the Bible are traditionally attributed to a single author, many are actually the work of multiple authors. Genesis and John are two examples of books which reflect multiple authorship.

Many biblical books have the earmarks of fiction. For example, private conversations are often related when no reporter was present. Conversations between God and various individuals are recorded. Prehistoric events are given in great detail. When a story is told by more than one author, there are usually significant differences. Many stories--stories which in their original context are considered even by Christians to be fictional--were borrowed by the biblical authors, adapted for their own purposes, given a historical setting, and then declared to be fact.

If the Bible were really the work of a perfect, all-powerful, and loving God, one would reasonably expect it to be obviously superlative in every respect--accurate, clear, concise, and consistent throughout--as compared to anything that could possibly be conceived by human intellect alone.

Fundamentalists, in fact, hold this to be true. Using a circular argument, they say that because the Bible is without error or inconsistency, it must be the work of God, and because it is the work of God, it must be without error or inconsistency. It seems not to matter which proposition comes first, the other is thought to follow.

Notwithstanding the fundamentalist viewpoint, however, the Bible does contain a number of real problems. And some of these problems are absolutely fatal to its credibility.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

12/20/2009 01:39:12 AM · #3215

Perhaps we should get back to

johnnyphoto's original point, with which I mostly agree:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I'm a Christian, and I don't have anything against homosexuals. In my opinion Christian marriage is different from the legal social contractual marriage that is recognized by the government. I don't really care if the government allows gay marriage because I believe that a Christian heterosexual marriage is different from a gay marriage, or a Christian gay marriage, or a secular heterosexual marriage, etc... Marriage is just a word. All Christians should accept that just because the government or secular society calls something "marriage", that doesn't change the definition or meaning of Christian marriage.

Advocates of "gay marriage" are only asking for equal rights/recognition under the (secular) law by the government(s) -- I don't think any of them are asking any religion to change its own values or interpretation of any relationship. Since the prohibition of same-sex marriage can only be justified by invoking the religious teachings of certain sects, it seems rather clear to me that such laws violate the "establishment" clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the right to equal protection/treatment under the law conferred under the Fourteenth, which only refers to "citizens" and makes no reference as to gender.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

12/20/2009 01:49:27 AM · #3216

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I think what comes across poorly is that your thought process on this issue begins with the assumption that homosexuality is wrong (because your faith tells you it is). For you, that it's wrong is a given. If that's your assumption from the beginning, aren't you in essence just sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "The Bible says it's bad"? You seem to believe you're breaking out of that [faith] box, and maybe you want to break out of it when you think about this issue, but you haven't done so thus far.

If the fact that I merely disagree with you comes across "poorly" then I guess it's a lost cause. Doesn't your post here make the very same assumptions you accused me of? For you, the idea that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality is just as much a given and an assumption. I won't go down this road because it's fruitless. If you think my actually thinking about things and tossing them back and forth is equivalent to me sticking my fingers in my ears then that's your shortcoming, not mine. We ALL have our base assumptions. When is the last time you have challenged yours?

Jason, the coming across poorly part has nothing to do with me or anybody else disagreeing with you. It has everything to do with the quality of your argument and the waters you're wading through. Are you at all comfortable telling Jen that women shouldn't have the same rights as men without first making a good case for it? Would a sharp object tossed your way not be compelling enough?

Message edited by author 2009-12-20 01:53:11.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/20/2009 02:00:02 AM · #3217

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I think what comes across poorly is that your thought process on this issue begins with the assumption that homosexuality is wrong (because your faith tells you it is). For you, that it's wrong is a given. If that's your assumption from the beginning, aren't you in essence just sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "The Bible says it's bad"? You seem to believe you're breaking out of that [faith] box, and maybe you want to break out of it when you think about this issue, but you haven't done so thus far.

If the fact that I merely disagree with you comes across "poorly" then I guess it's a lost cause. Doesn't your post here make the very same assumptions you accused me of? For you, the idea that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality is just as much a given and an assumption. I won't go down this road because it's fruitless. If you think my actually thinking about things and tossing them back and forth is equivalent to me sticking my fingers in my ears then that's your shortcoming, not mine. We ALL have our base assumptions. When is the last time you have challenged yours?

Jason, the coming across poorly part has nothing to do with me or anybody else disagreeing with you. It has everything to do with the quality of your argument and the waters you're wading through. Are you at all comfortable telling Jen that women shouldn't have the same rights as men without first making a good case for it? Would a sharp object tossed your way not be compelling enough?

That made absolutely no sense Richard.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

12/20/2009 02:07:23 AM · #3218

Wow! I go and play a game of Risk and I have four posts to respond to... This is going to take me a while! Especially considering I'm outnumber 4 to 1.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That's exactly what you do.

You manipulate the Bible, dodge the questions, and use what suits you to continue a reprehensible tradition of hate, persecution, and lies......all in the name of God.

The least you could do is be honest and state that you're choosing to be discriminatory, and not blame it on some 2000 year old writings.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
How have I manipulated the Bible?

Those selective translations.....

I didn't just pick the best translation to prove a point. I just think the ESV is the best translation in general, and is the translation that I use as my daily Bible.

So.....since you like that one best, that's what we're going with.....the one that actually says homosexual.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
What have I said that suggests that I hate, persecute, and lie?

What have I said that makes you think I'm discriminatory?

I would like to know how you've come to these conclusions.

I said that you perpetuate the hate, persecution, and lies that your religion upholds by your acceptance of it.....you have to in order to be that good Christian.

I just can't deal with that whole line of garbage about how Christians are so much better to others than anyone else....you wrote this earlier....

In theory a Christian should treat a person better than anyone else would treat that same person....

Unless of course, they're gay, right?

You never did answer the question about whether you have any gay friends, know any gay people, or responded to whether or not you'd look 'em in the eye and tell them that their very existence condemns them to Hell because that's what you truly believe.

Look, I'm sorry if I come across as rabid, but it makes me nuts that seemingly intelligent people who if it weren't for this 2000 year old, highly controversial book, would be downright decent and compassionate people.....and I always thought that one of the major points of that book was to not judge, be accepting and compassionate, and do your best to do the right thing. Then you guys turn around and torment an entire segment of society in one of the most cruel and cold ways possible.....you tell people they are wrong in their very existence.

How can you *DO* that??????

If you look at my post again, you will see that I did not just pick one translation, but rather posted multiple translations.

As for your second response, if you think the Bible requires people to perpetrate hate, lies, and discrimination in order to be good Christians, then you have completely misunderstood the message of the Bible. I mean, really completely misunderstood it. I really don't know what to say to that, except that I'm sorry you have been misinformed about the gospel. It seems that you have so much distaste for Christianity that you are completely blind to what it actually says.

I never said that a Christian person is better than another person. What I actually said was that if a Christian was perfect, meaning they followed the Bible perfectly, then they should treat people better than anyone else because a perfect Christian would treat others as Christ himself did. Christ laid down his own life for others, which is the ultimate sacrifice and the ultimate human expression of love. But, I also admitted that no Christian is actually perfect, nor will any Christian ever be perfect. I believe that I have said at least once so far, that I firmly believe everyone is equally horrendous and sinful. Romans 12:3 says, "3For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you." So, I live by that and I try to be as humble as possible and think of others more highly than myself. And again, Philippians 2 says the following:

2then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. 3Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to deathâ��
even death on a cross!

Next...
Do I have any gay friends? No.
Do I know some gay people? Yes.
Would I look a gay person in the eye and tell them they are going to hell? No, I actually would never tell that to anyone's face. In addition, I do not believe that gay people will go to hell simply because they are gay.

Matthew 7:1
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged.

Matthew 7:2
For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Luke 6:37
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

Again, I don't think I've said anything to suggest that I'm not compassionate, or that I am judgmental. It seems that you just dislike the Bible, and therefore dislike me. I'm sorry that you believe these things about me. Honestly, I'm frankly shocked and offended that you would assume such things about me without even having met me! Those are some harsh accusations.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Galations 3:28 is generally understood by Bible scholars as meaning that all gender superiority should cease (i.e. men and women should treat each other equally) because men and women are equally loved by God.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The reference to "thorns and thistles" shows that harmful plants were put on earth as punishment for Adam. Before the fall, Adam and Eve could eat any plant they wanted without worry, but after the fall God wanted Adam to work for his food. Another possible interpretation is that because there was no death before the fall, poisonous plants would not have been harmful for Adam to eat. Those are just two ideas.

"Generally considered?" "Possible interpretation?"

What happened to "The Literal Word of God"?

You don't mean to tell me that it's possible that some of the translations might be suspect?????

This is the exact reason that makes me have problems with proponents of the Bible......it's vague when you need it to be, yet completely clear when you need it to be.

Right....

When I used the word literal, I was using it to explain the differences in Bible translations. Anytime you translate one language to another, there are many ways to do so. You can paraphrase, or translate word for word. Understanding the Bible is no different than understanding any other ancient text. You have to consider the context. You need to look at who the author was, what their purpose was, who their audience was, what the geographic location was, what the time frame was, etc... There are parts of the Bible that are completely clear, and there are other parts that can be interpreted in different ways. In seminary, we use the term "exegesis" when we examine Biblical texts. The term basically means that you try to understand what the text means as the original author intended it at the time it was written. Since those authors have been dead for a long time, the vague parts of the Bible can definitely have more than one possible interpretation. But, the parts of the Bible that are extremely vague are the old testament prophecies, not the parts that tell us how to live. Those parts are easily understood and very specific.

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

No problem. These are the two passages in the new testament that are clearest. Please don't lash out on me for posting this... I didn't make this stuff up, I'm just copying and pasting.

Romans 1:26-27 English Standard Version

1 Corinthians 6:9-20 English Standard Version

You do know, right, that Paul never knew Jesus. In fact, while Jesus was alive, Paul persecuted Jesus' followers. He did not convert to Christianity until after the crucifixion. Therefore, anything Paul states or writes is Paul's interpretation or opinion of second hand gospel (news). I refuse to use this as a primary source for the teachings of Jesus; it is like playing telephone. Do you have anything else?

I do know that Paul never met Jesus in person, and I did know that he persecuted Jesus' followers and did not convert to Christianity until after the crucifixion.

Did you know that old testament Jewish law forbade gay sex?

Leviticus 18:22
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Leviticus 20:13
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.

Did you know that before Paul became a Christian he was a Jew? This means he would have known this command from the old testament very well. Did you know that Jesus was a Jew, and thus he would also have known that command very well? Well, Jesus ministry took place throughout the land of Israel. This means, that Jesus was ministering to Jews, people that already knew gay sex was against God's will. Since the Jews already knew that gay sex was against God's will, then they wouldn't have been having gay sex, so Jesus wouldn't have needed to tell them to stop. Jesus came to bring a new law, he did not come to repeat the old law, and he didn't need to repeat the old law to those who already knew the old law. Also, Paul's ministry took place in areas outside Israel. Acts 18:6, "But when the Jews opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles." Paul was the apostle to the gentiles. Gentiles are people who were not Jews. So, since the gentiles weren't Jews, then they didn't know or practice Jewish law, which means they didn't know that God commanded not to have gay sex. Some of the gentiles were participating in gay sex, so Paul told them to stop. And... so what if Paul never met Jesus in person. Paul worked closely with Jesus' disciples, which lived with him for many years. So I think Paul would get a pretty good idea about Jesus' teachings from the other disciples.

Follow the logic there?

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
There is not a single verse of the Bible that I disagree with, actually.

Uh, oh... you just surrendered all credibility.

Matthew 28:2 An angel arrived during an earthquake, rolled back the stone, then sat on it (outside the tomb).
Mark 16:5 No earthquake, only one young man sitting inside the tomb.
Luke 24:2-4 No earthquake. Two men suddenly appear standing inside the tomb.
John 20:12 No earthquake. Two angels are sitting inside the tomb.

You can't possibly agree with each of these statements because they don't agree with each other!

The Bible is riddled with ridiculous statements and obvious contradictions.

When you make a statement like, "There is not a single verse of the Bible that I disagree with," it becomes instantly clear that you either haven't read it or you only believe the parts you want to believe (exactly what Jeb's been saying).

First of all, the authors of the four gospel books were not present at the tomb (only the two Mary's were) and so they heard what happened second hand. Also, the gospels were not actually written down for a few decades after the events actually happened. The gospels are believed to have been written between 55 and 70 AD. There are minor discrepancies throughout the gospels. Instead of looking at the few minor discrepancies (none of which have the slightest relevancy regarding how Christians should live) why don't you look at the fact that four different authors wrote the same story on their own, 20-40 years after the events happened (when the authors were probably in their 70s), and the stories are 99% the same.

Wow, that took a while. I hope you can get through all that and make sense of it. Seriously though, some of your comments shockingly offensive as I said above. I've enjoyed the discussion so far, but it's been getting really personal lately, and I don't appreciate all the assumptions you've been making about me and the accusations. I'd love to keep the discussion going but I'm not going to stick around if I'm going to be judged like that.

Message edited by author 2009-12-20 02:29:37.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

12/20/2009 02:10:15 AM · #3219

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I think what comes across poorly is that your thought process on this issue begins with the assumption that homosexuality is wrong (because your faith tells you it is). For you, that it's wrong is a given. If that's your assumption from the beginning, aren't you in essence just sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "The Bible says it's bad"? You seem to believe you're breaking out of that [faith] box, and maybe you want to break out of it when you think about this issue, but you haven't done so thus far.

If the fact that I merely disagree with you comes across "poorly" then I guess it's a lost cause. Doesn't your post here make the very same assumptions you accused me of? For you, the idea that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality is just as much a given and an assumption. I won't go down this road because it's fruitless. If you think my actually thinking about things and tossing them back and forth is equivalent to me sticking my fingers in my ears then that's your shortcoming, not mine. We ALL have our base assumptions. When is the last time you have challenged yours?

Jason, the coming across poorly part has nothing to do with me or anybody else disagreeing with you. It has everything to do with the quality of your argument and the waters you're wading through. Are you at all comfortable telling Jen that women shouldn't have the same rights as men without first making a good case for it? Would a sharp object tossed your way not be compelling enough?

That made absolutely no sense Richard.

What doesn't?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

12/20/2009 03:04:46 AM · #3220

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I've enjoyed the discussion so far, but it's been getting really personal lately, and I don't appreciate all the assumptions you've been making about me and the accusations. I'd love to keep the discussion going but I'm not going to stick around if I'm going to be judged like that.

You'd better not stick around, then. You can't express a passionate belief in Christianity/the Bible in here and NOT get attacked. Don't ask me why, that's just the way it is.

R.

12/20/2009 03:22:48 AM · #3221

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

If you look at my post again, you will see that I did not just pick one translation, but rather posted multiple translations.

All of which conveniently have the word homosexual in it with the interpretation which best suits your particular prejudices.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

As for your second response, if you think the Bible requires people to perpetrate hate, lies, and discrimination in order to be good Christians, then you have completely misunderstood the message of the Bible. I mean, really completely misunderstood it. I really don't know what to say to that, except that I'm sorry you have been misinformed about the gospel. It seems that you have so much distaste for Christianity that you are completely blind to what it actually says.

Of course it does! How else can you reconcile the slavery aspects, the indiscriminate killings, the polygamy, and the myriad of other completely unacceptable ways of being that are intolerable in this day and age.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I never said that a Christian person is better than another person. What I actually said was that if a Christian was perfect, meaning they followed the Bible perfectly, then they should treat people better than anyone else because a perfect Christian would treat others as Christ himself did. Christ laid down his own life for others, which is the ultimate sacrifice and the ultimate human expression of love.

Yeah, that's the story you're preaching, but it's hearsay, and unprovable. Not to mention that you're automatically taking the stance that your religion is better than Judaism, the Islamic faith, Catholicism, Buddhism, and the rest of the world's faiths, and yet you have no proof that yours is any better. If my friend Mohammed tries to live his life by adhering to his teachings as well as you, what makes you any more right than he? And I'm not just asking for your view, can you prove that your way is the right way?

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Do I have any gay friends? No.
Do I know some gay people? Yes.
Would I look a gay person in the eye and tell them they are going to hell? No, I actually would never tell that to anyone's face. In addition, I do not believe that gay people will go to hell simply because they are gay.

Then it's not a sin, right?

You might feel differently if you were to actually have social interaction with some good and decent people who have the same trials and tribulations in life as you......going to work, making the house payment, paying their bills, getting their car worked on......but they just happen to be gay. This does NOT affect you, or your life, so how is this any issue for concern?

So if you're not judgemental, you don't think that gays are going to Hell, and you know upon disovering that they are people just like you and I, then how can you reconcile the teachings of the Bible about that any more than the killings, the pork and shellfish rules, or the slavery & polygamy? Surely you can see that there have been biblical views that *had* to change, and that clinging to the ones that are hurtful and destructive DOES perpetuate lies and hate.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Again, I don't think I've said anything to suggest that I'm not compassionate, or that I am judgmental. It seems that you just dislike the Bible, and therefore dislike me. I'm sorry that you believe these things about me. Honestly, I'm frankly shocked and offended that you would assume such things about me without even having met me! Those are some harsh accusations.

Don't assume anything, or extrapolate what you want to attach some kind of hatred to me. I don't dislike the Bible, I *do* dislike the way Christians use it to suit their needs to pass judgement on others, all the while saying they're not judgemental, BUT......"You're doing it wrong, that's against The Word, and your an immoral sinner.".

What is that if not judgemental?

I have not yet stated that you are judgemental or hate and lie, I merely propose that you perpetuate that of Christians by your rigorous adherence to archaic and unsuitable concepts that have no place in modern life. Dislike you? I don't even know you, but I do not care for your ideals as it pertains to people I love and care about.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

By that last passage, you state yourself that literal isn't a valid word to use when talking about the Bible.

There's that slight issue with interpretation......since there was no direct contact, there is absolutely no way that the subtleties and nuances that personal contact could have been passed on. Do you propose to tell us that "The Word" was passed along verbatim and unerringly? Surely you're not that foolish. So then it MUST be assumed that there were differences. Just as you assume that the main intent was passed on.

See that's the problem when you go into your explanations of translation and interpretation. You have to have whomever you're discussing it with take as a given what you want them to accept as interpretation, and that which you want them to accept as literal.

It just doesn't work that way.......since you can prove neither, it isn't logical to accept your viewpoints, nor is it accurate.

Another of the points that you glossed over was this one:

If the Bible were really the work of a perfect, all-powerful, and loving God, one would reasonably expect it to be obviously superlative in every respect--accurate, clear, concise, and consistent throughout--as compared to anything that could possibly be conceived by human intellect alone.

There are just so many things about the Bible that have made it the controversial work that it is for centuries. Why would you NOT expect anyone who would look at it logically and historically to question it, especially when the glaring inconsistencies arise?

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Just as you can cherry-pick and produce these sideways answers, we can continue to shoot them down. That isn't getting us anywhere.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Wow, that took a while. I hope you can get through all that and make sense of it. Seriously though, some of your comments shockingly offensive as I said above. I've enjoyed the discussion so far, but it's been getting really personal lately, and I don't appreciate all the assumptions you've been making about me and the accusations. I'd love to keep the discussion going but I'm not going to stick around if I'm going to be judged like that.

Nobody's judging you, we're just shooting back at you for making ridiculous bald-faced statements that you make because of your faith.

Do you really think that it gives anyone here any great pleasure in these never-ending discussions?

The bottom line is.......stand up for what is right and do not blindly follow something that just doesn't wash. Nobody's asking you to give up your faith, or to suddenly become a gay rights activist. But perhaps look at what has come to be known as not sinful, not harmful, and what all too many loving, decent, and caring PEOPLE have to live with because of the hate and lies that have been perpetuated on them for centuries.

If you're the good, decent, and caring individual that you profess to be, then go out into the world, be not afraid to keep your eyes and ears open to this world around you, and make up your own mind based on what you experience in actual interaction with these fine people rather than adhere rigorously to teachings that will be proven to be as wrong as the pork, seafood, polygamy, and slavery issues.

From the general impression that you've given me, I don't expect that you'll change, but I do hope that a glimmer of doubt will have been instilled as to your concept of the decency and humanity of so many of our gay brethren. Maybe you'll have the chance to learn that possibly what you know today in your heart and mind will not withstand the test of actual love, compassion, and the decent and right thing to do.