We Can Quote the Bible Too
And while we're engaging in literal interpretation of Old Testament scriptures, why can't I own a Canadian?
Filed under:
Have something to say?
Anyone may start a new forum topic!
Recent Comments
| lisala: Excuse me? |
Recent Posts
Archive
July 2010
(7)
June 2010
(9)
May 2010
(8)
April 2010
(4)
March 2010
(7)
February 2010
(5)
January 2010
(4)
December 2009
(1)
November 2009
(5)
October 2009
(3)
September 2009
(2)
August 2009
(4)
July 2009
(2)
Comments
I love this, lisala!
I love this, lisala! Fantastic point. There are literally thousands of things in the Bible--from wearing jewelry to cutting hair to killing first borns to selling kids into slavery--that are so reprehensible; if we found them to be the "word of God" today, we'd pretty much be barbarians. I just love how people think they can pick and choose what they want to follow out of their own religious texts--and not only that, but then apply them to LAW. Ridiculous.
And have you ever actually
And have you ever actually read all of the Bible? The are too many people from both religious and anit-religious groups who grossly misinterpret religious texts. The Bible has stories with great wisdom and moral lessons and not all of it is to be taken literally, and it is certainly not to be taken out of context by a religious zealot or a rabblerousing atheist.
Err . . .
I suspect you were responding to Sarajean, and you seem to have woefully missed her point, since you agree with her about the Bible being taken out of context.
Brilliant!
Brilliant!
The law of Moses doesn't
The law of Moses doesn't apply to us? Awesome! I'm going to go steal something, lie about it and then sleep with my neighbor's husband. Since I'm forgiven and all...
Who is "us"?
Well, if you're a Jew, the law of Moses certainly does apply—and that modern New Testament stuff doesn't.
I note in passing for Christians and others who missed it—the ten commandments are quite firmly embedded in the New Testment so coveting thy neighbor's wife is still right out. But then, so is divorce. So are all manner of sexual practices that, oddly, you don't hear about unless someone's critiquing same-sex marriage (yes, Virgina, the prohibitions against sodomy, oral sex, and masturbation are there for everyone).
There is one major thing You
There is one major thing You are forgetting, or rather don't know:
The law of Moses doesn't apply to christians today.
"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John."
- Luke 16:16 (New International Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2016:16&version=NIV
"Christ is the end of the law"
- Romans 10:4 (New International Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom.%2010:4&version=NIV
And little do You pay attention to the word of Jesus and Paul:
"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart"
- Matthew 5:28 (New International Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt.%205:28&version=NIV
"The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; [...] those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."
- Galatians 5:19,21
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal.%205:16-21&version=NIV
Live the way You like to live, I'm not judging, but don't say You are christians, if You don't follow, or acting directly against, the teachings of Christ.
And If You use the bible, then study it first, and be sure to use it right.
Umm, no you don't
You don't seem to understand the point of the post.
Morover, you don't seem to understand the texts you're quoting.
The point of the post is that the Bible is not to be read out of its historical context, a point you seem have missed in an excess of religious zealotry. The point of the link in the post to "Can I buy a Canadian" is that if you're going to take some OT laws intended for the Levites, than you are obligated to take all of the OT laws. Either you follow the old covenant or the new; you don't get to make your bargain with G-d.
Regarding the injunction to "study the Bible," I have. I am a trained textual scholar and have read most of the OT in Hebrew, and all of the Bible in Koine, and, of course, in Latin. I've also looked at the very different manuscript traditions, and followed the bizarre textual emendations and editorial changes zealots have practiced upon the Bible, particularly the NT.
I'm about ready to start insisting any one who wants to quote the Bible at me better do it in the original, and tell me which ms. tradition they're following--it makes a difference.
And, finally, I'm not a Christian, so I don't really feel obliged to follow your abjurations.
Have a nice day.
Oh here we go...(I say as I
Oh here we go...(I say as I look forward to an excellent arguement)
to quote lisala:
I think lisala should. It's only fair.
As much as I dearly hope that biblical interpretation not be an issue at all in secular life at all (and modern life for that matter), there is simply no escaping the fact that biblcal interpretation remains a bitter fighting ground for many issues and probably will for the forseeable future. Lisala's comment, and post, strike to the heart of the issue - which is that biblical interpretations from the right always always err on the side of reckless judgement rather than error.
Which is the greater sin? Assuming god is on your side and falsely condemning someone, or allowing that the bible is vague (at best) and reserving judgement for god? Ask yourself: would god be more angry at: that you destroy his creation in error or that you let a sinner go, out of your own sense of letting life live. Its really not much more complicated than that.
The law doesn't apply?
Then why is this there? Jesus came not to destroy the law...one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled
-->
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:17-19
-->
The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Luke 16:16-17
Oh for crying out loud--look;
Oh for crying out loud--look; if you're going to cite NT or OT law as opposing same-sex marriage, then you'd best not be:
Wearing clothing of mixed fibers
Enjoying a non-Kosher diet (notice that the kosher laws are not revoked in the NT; those OT laws that are revoked are specifically identified)
Sacrificing turtle-doves on the birth of a son
Following all the NT tenets regarding divorce
And yes, you absolutely are bound by the laws forbidding anal sex, and oral sex.
And don't forget tithing, or the Jubilee, either.
As for me, I'm off to shop for a Canadian.
I know this was a long time ago...
However, I was trying to point out a blatant contradiction: one passage says the emo Jew Jesus came to fulfill the law while another passage quoted by the post I was replying to says he came to abolish the law.
The Old law, the law of
The Old law, the law of Synogogia, that is, Jewish law, versus the New Law, Ecclesiastica, the Christian church, embodied in Christ.
It's exceedingly contradictory; what we have is Christian right interpretation picking and choosing which laws they want to keep, and which they want to abolish.
everyone should be free to
everyone should be free to interpert the bible as they wish...and believe as they wish...belief is a personal matter, or should be.
It's hard to believe that all the worlds people that don't believe in one religion or another are going to burn in hell because they were not living under the same "enlightenment" as you or me.
Gods don't kill people...People with gods kill people.
Gods don't kill
Gods don't kill people...People with gods kill people.
Have you talked to followers Mao Stalin and Hitler about your thoughts on this subject matter? They may disagree with you. And about 300 million dead and counting, thanks to China, would also take issue with your insight. Or maybe a quick visit to Tibet may be inorder. Oh I forgot you probably blame the Pope for Rowanda and Congo as well.
Brilliant!
Guess again.
Hitler was, or at least expressed that he was, strongly Christian. He also believed Christianity to be an important part of his new world order.
I'll give you Mao and Stalin, but even then you're tearing down a straw man. It wasn't said that ONLY people with gods kill people, merely that people with gods kill people.
And it's not like there are a lot of wars where people go in thinking god is on the other side. Religious fanaticism leads to intolerance, bigotry and a slew of other problems.
Atheism, by definition is not a set of beliefs, although I've met some militant atheists, for sure.
Still, try not to ignore the point in favour of an angry and inaccurate retort. Thanks.
Actually...
Hitler was strongly Roman Catholic. But he DEFINITELY was a theist.
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2"
Godwin's Law
Other than exemplifying the inexorable connection between teh Internetz and Godwin's Law, is there any actual, like, you know, point to this digression?
1. The Bible is a collection of sacred documents to many people, even though they can't actually read the closest primary source for those scant documents that we have (two manuscripts of the entire OT and NT that are not medieval), and, more often than not, don't really read or comprehend the standard translations.
2. To others of us, the Bible is a fabulous collection of literature, mythology, and archaic law codes.
3. The references in the bible wrt to homosexuality are, in fact, references to specific sex-acts, rather than to the concept of homosexuality itself. The same acts are just as sinful for heterosexual people.
4. I fail to see, in a nation where separation of church and state is a matter of law, why the Bible has anything to do with civil law and marriage--which, in legal terms--is a matter of contract and property law.
5. No one is proposing to make churches perform, recognize, acknowledge or celebrate same sex marriages. We've got that separation of church and state thing going. We just want to pay the same taxes, and have the same benefits under the law, that everyone else has.
6. So, frankly, I think it makes sense for those who take the "marriage-is-a-sacrament" argument to sod off. They don't really have a text to stand on.
yes there is
First, Godwin's law doesn't apply because this wasn't an eventual breakdown where people called each other or compared each other to nazis; so your premise is wrong.
Second, the references to Hitler were in response to the ignoramus above who blah-blahed about Mao, Hitler, Stalin in response to the guy who mentioned people with Gods killing people.
Third, the further digression was a correction of the second guy who clearly only had a vague knowledge of what Hitler believed which, given the person above him, had suddenly become at least slightly germaine to this discussion.
Fourth, I personally have absolutely no problem with homosexuality and I believe in the sanctity of two people loving each other regardless of sex; however, the references in the old testament are ambiguous, at best, and depending on how you translate them, can refer to either ritualistic homosexual sex acts within a temple or holy ground, or merely the homosexual sex acts themselves. Whether or not it condemns them entirely is up for debate, and everything depends on a translation. Not many people are translating with fluent Aramaic directly from the source, so this point is moot. Still, it can be argued either way, and that's from someone who has actually studied the source and many translations therefrom.
Fifth, I completely agree that in a nation based on the notion of separation of Church and state that the bible has no bearing on the legality of said issues. Having said that, there are some valid concerns in terms of language and definitions that would cause some fairly serious issues with the current jurisprudence should same-sex marriage go on the books. Or rather, at the least, there would be a daunting amount of work involved and a number of issues to deal with. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done; I'm just pointing out that it's not all bullshit bigotry.
Sixth, paying the same taxes and having the same benefits are things that should definitely happen regardless, however, I think the requirements for tax-benefits and other benefits should be more stringent for everybody. There are issues with the system now and, if we're addressing the shortfall of the law in terms of homosexuality, we should address the shortfall in terms of fraud. I realise this is not the issue at bar, but it should be addressed.
Finally, they do have a text to stand on as well as some specious legal arguments. It's merely that the text is irrelevant by law, and the arguments, while valid, are easily resolved. Telling the "marriage-is-a-sacrament" people to sod off is counter-productive, because ultimately the goal should be to have that sacrament extended to anyone who loves another person deeply and completely. Antagonising the opposition is not the path to success.
Now maybe we can all just get on with our lives, mmmkay?
Ben
Only Half
Half-truths and taking things out of context is not witty. It just shows your ignorance towards the subject. You and those that think this is brilliant, are blatantly dogmatic of you own beliefs. It would be best to recognize that societies without monotheistic religion are barbaric and have created much more suffering in human history. Trying to create a caricature of religious people just shows your lack of open mindedness.How about bringing us all together, pointing out what is great about religious people, highlighting what you have to contribute, if anything, and letting us who don't have a religion live in peace with those who do practice religion.
My beliefs?
Alexander dePlata wrote:
Half-truths and taking things out of context is not witty. It just shows your ignorance towards the subject. You and those that think this is brilliant, are blatantly dogmatic of you own beliefs.
Excuse me? My "own belief" is that G-d makes queer people too. My own belief is that love is not something to be turned away from. My own belief is that consenting adults should be free to love each other whether they are the same sex or not. My own belief is that two people who love each other and are consenting non-consanguinieous adults should be able to create a life and a home and a familty together with all the legal and social rights and protections under the law that two heterosexual people have.
It would be best to recognize that societies without monotheistic religion are barbaric and have created much more suffering in human history.
This is a patently idiotic and ahistorical assertion. Nazi Germany had a single deity--Hitler. And really, "barbaric?" Anyone speaking an Indo-European language who refers to the Greeks, the Romans, the Etruscans as "barbaric" is on very shakey ground.
Trying to create a caricature of religious people just shows your lack of open mindedness.How about bringing us all together, pointing out what is great about religious people, highlighting what you have to contribute, if anything, and letting us who don't have a religion live in peace with those who do practice religion.
Maybe because it's the conservative Christian religious right who tend to tell me I'm going to go to hell for loving another woman? Who tend to wrench Biblical texts out of all context and reason--and pick the ones they want to honor and ignore the ones that discomfort them?
Or maybe we should talk about the sexual hypocrisy of it all? That those who attempt to cite Biblical passages as opposing same-sex marriage fail to realize that the purity laws behind those passages also apply to them?
I'm perfectly willing for people to practice their own faith. I very much support the separation of church and state--but I don't see why their religious beliefs should be forced upon me.
For those people who are actually interested, Religous Tolerance has a decent discussion of homosexuality and the Bible here. They cover pretty much all sides.
Why is it best to recognize a lie?
Monotheistic religions foster societies that are violent and bigoted. Misogyny is largely a monotheistic trait.
Monotheistic religions came from nomadic peoples whereas people in better circumstances tended to be more tolerant and also have more gods.
The problem with religion is that it fosters an acceptance of blatant lies. Once people get used to being ok with blatant lies, then it's not that hard for them to accept plenty of other lies. Hence, Republicans.
Again, this is a sweeping
Again, this is a sweeping ahistorical condemnation.
It's roughly as logical as saying "We should forbid water drinking. Water carries bacteria."
Uh...
Water DOES contain bacteria, and, in many places, you SHOULDN'T drink the water.
Fail.