RE: How Do You View The Bible? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


SoftBonds -> RE: How Do You View The Bible? (3/8/2012 4:45:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Earlier tonight, I was looking at an Amazon thread for a book related to homosexuality. Naturally a poster had quoted Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Being gay, I sighed a bit and wondered how to respond. Explain how the ancient sense of homosexuality as a willful, defiant act was different from our modern understanding of an innate orientation? Point out that the Levitical holiness code includes any number of other abominations now largely ignored (shrimp, anyone)?

Then arose a reply that's lurked in the shadows of my brain, but which I'd never quite put to words before. Yes, I said, Leviticus says that. But so what? Why in 2012 should we be bound by--and impose on others--the prejudices of a patriarchal, pre-scientific tribe wandering in the desert several thousand years ago? I hit submit, and it felt incredibly freeing, as if I'd finally come out to myself, after a lifetime of churchgoing, about my uncertainty about how to regard the Bible.

I've definitely never been a literalist. My Catholic school training emphasized that the Bible had to be seen in its cultural context, and the Episcopal Church (where I've spent much of my adult life) sees Scripture as one pillar of understanding, the others being tradition and reason. The Unitarians, with whom I've worshipped the past few years, see the Bible as a source of wisdom, but not necessarily any more inspired than the Tao Te Ching or Mary Oliver.

So I'm curious: How do other folks see the Bible? Is it a cultural artifact, a moral guide, a source of inspiration? Does it deserve more regard than, say, the Koran? Should it inform our public policy and, if so, how?

Thoughts?


DC, you need to read the quote, and not try to impose any bias on it.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
It is very clear, and I can't believe so many Xtians get it so wrong.
If you want to have sex, you have to pick what you want to do with who. If you get anal sex from a man, you can't have anal sex with a woman. If you have oral sex with a man, you can't have oral sex with a woman. Vaginal sex is clearly something you can only do with the opposite sex...
The bible doesn't say a man can't bugger a man, just that if a man buggers another man, he shouldn't bugger women.

Edit: Don't see what this biblical rule has to do with whether someone is gay or straight, but it must suck to be Bi and Xtian...




PeonForHer -> RE: The Authority of the Bible? (3/8/2012 4:47:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
If that god saw homosexuality as abhorrent, why is it an instinctual trait in the animal kingdom? I would think a god who did not like homosexual behavior never would have instilled that into the animals. There is the disconnect for me. Which leads me to believe the translation is the error and man made.


Honestly, when it comes to observations like this, and a multitude of others (like the one about God disliking rich men, stated clearly in the Bible but ignored by almost every bible-thumper) it does make it look like a waste of time and energy even discussing a lot of what's in the Bible anymore. Frankly, a massive bulk of it is nonsense at best and dangerous nonsense at worst.




Rule -> RE: How Do You View The Bible? (3/8/2012 4:50:10 PM)

lol.

Clever. But not what the author intended, I suspect. Hmm, are you perchance a lawyer? You have the aptitude.




tazzygirl -> RE: The Authority of the Bible? (3/8/2012 5:14:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
If that god saw homosexuality as abhorrent, why is it an instinctual trait in the animal kingdom? I would think a god who did not like homosexual behavior never would have instilled that into the animals. There is the disconnect for me. Which leads me to believe the translation is the error and man made.


Honestly, when it comes to observations like this, and a multitude of others (like the one about God disliking rich men, stated clearly in the Bible but ignored by almost every bible-thumper) it does make it look like a waste of time and energy even discussing a lot of what's in the Bible anymore. Frankly, a massive bulk of it is nonsense at best and dangerous nonsense at worst.



I do not recall that passage. Where is it?




PeonForHer -> RE: The Authority of the Bible? (3/8/2012 5:23:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
I do not recall that passage. Where is it?


I was thinking of this line:

http://bible.cc/mark/10-25.htm





GotSteel -> RE: How Do You View The Bible? (3/8/2012 5:58:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
See? Now, that's how I see mountain climbing/rapelling ropes LOL


Just don't breathe the fumes, that shit will give you cancer.


P.S. Who's going door to door handing out dynamic rope and how do I get on their route?




tazzygirl -> RE: The Authority of the Bible? (3/8/2012 6:06:58 PM)

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

That in no way says god hates rich men.

The saying was a response to a young rich man who had asked Jesus what he needed to do in order to inherit eternal life. Jesus replied that he should keep the commandments, to which the man stated he had done. Jesus responded, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." The young man became sad and was unwilling to do this. Jesus then spoke this response, leaving his disciples astonished.

The "eye of a needle" has been interpreted as a gate in Jerusalem, which opened after the main gate was closed at night. A camel could only pass through this smaller gate if it was stooped and had its baggage removed. This story has been put forth since at least the 15th century, and possibly as far back as the 9th century. However, there is no evidence for the existence of such a gate.

Variations on this story include that of ancient inns having small entrances to thwart thieves, or a story of an old mountain pass known as the "eye of the needle", so narrow that merchants would have to dismount from their camels and were thus were more vulnerable to waiting brigands.




SternSkipper -> RE: How Do You View The Bible? (3/8/2012 6:10:30 PM)

quote:

Shrimp* is one of the many proscriptions in Leviticus that people who are keen to cite the whole "no gayness" thing as a biblical directive are happy to ignore, Skip.


So how bad would it be to lie with a magazine?

And personally, I find it offensive that people have dragged my tasty little friends into a whole sex/culture thing when they should really only be dragged through a sweetened tomato sauce socked with horseradish.
But that's just me. You Brits ,ight prefer your shrimp 'stuffed'.

quote:

One would hope that they've not had to stone a daughter to death because she was raped, but they're already ignoring enough that forgetting that bit won't cause any further cognitive dissonance.


Pretty bad parenting if you ask me.
more shrimp?

I'm SternSkipper and I approve this message... But I have had a lot of pharmaceutical opiates today/// so ah ... caveat emptor




SternSkipper -> RE: The Authority of the Bible? (3/8/2012 6:21:29 PM)

quote:

This story has been put forth since at least the 15th century, and possibly as far back as the 9th century. However, there is no evidence for the existence of such a gate.



High security, checked baggage, little gates...
Sounds like there may have been early biblical attempts at creating an atmosphere of 911-like hysteria

I'm SternSkipper and I have no idea why I am conscious... but I approve this message I think




MrBukani -> RE: The Authority of the Bible? (3/8/2012 7:06:45 PM)

[image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Haga_Sofia_RB3.jpg[/image]
where is the first?




MrBukani -> RE: The Authority of the Bible? (3/8/2012 7:11:37 PM)

first is a cathedral
second mosk

[image]http://www.traveljournals.net/pictures/l/29/294193-great-mosque-cathedral-of-cordoba-cordoba-spain.jpg[/image]
now a cathedral in cordoba spain.




tazzygirl -> RE: The Authority of the Bible? (3/8/2012 7:12:33 PM)

That may get yanked for being too big.




dcnovice -> RE: The Authority of the Bible? (3/8/2012 7:13:27 PM)

quote:

where is the first?


Hagia Sophia in Istanbul?




dcnovice -> RE: The Authority of the Bible? (3/8/2012 7:15:10 PM)

quote:

If you are trying to sort out if it should be meaningful to you, personally, only you can answer that for yourself.


True enough, ftp. But I'm intrigued by what others have to say on the topic.




PeonForHer -> RE: The Authority of the Bible? (3/8/2012 7:15:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

That in no way says god hates rich men.

The saying was a response to a young rich man who had asked Jesus what he needed to do in order to inherit eternal life. Jesus replied that he should keep the commandments, to which the man stated he had done. Jesus responded, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." The young man became sad and was unwilling to do this. Jesus then spoke this response, leaving his disciples astonished.

The "eye of a needle" has been interpreted as a gate in Jerusalem, which opened after the main gate was closed at night. A camel could only pass through this smaller gate if it was stooped and had its baggage removed. This story has been put forth since at least the 15th century, and possibly as far back as the 9th century. However, there is no evidence for the existence of such a gate.

Variations on this story include that of ancient inns having small entrances to thwart thieves, or a story of an old mountain pass known as the "eye of the needle", so narrow that merchants would have to dismount from their camels and were thus were more vulnerable to waiting brigands.





Do you have a citation for that? It's true: from what I've found there's no evidence for the existence of such a gate.

I said 'dislike', not 'hate'. I presume that God isn't big on 'hating', as such. But a minor quibble.

I've found this at http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/needle.html:

"It is more probable, however, that Jesus was illustrating something actually impossible, rich man meaning a person selfishly bound up in his riches. That such was the meaning of Jesus is becoming more and more the accepted theory among Bible scholars. In Mark 10:24 it is recorded that Jesus said: "How hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!" After relating the parable of the sower, Jesus, according to Mark 9:19, said: "And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful." Luke 18:22 tells us that Jesus told the ruler who was rich but who had kept the commandments: "Yet lackest thou one thing. Sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven." There are other passages in the Gospels illustrating the same attitude toward worldly riches.

Also, the most plausible explanation, for me, is this:

"The original Greek tells not of a camel, but a rope ... When it was translated into Latin, kamilos (rope) was confused with kamelos (camel).

In fact, the original Greek says kamelos (camel), not kamilos (rope). The latter is found in a few late manuscripts/lectionaries, mostly 11th century or later, and in one 9th or 10th century manuscript. The oldest manuscripts are unanimous in reading kamelos, i.e., camel.

. . . .

And even with the largest 6 inch needles that were used for sewing rugs and tents, it would be impossible to force one of these large ropes through the needle's eye. (From: A New Accurate Translation of the Greek NEW TESTAMENT into simple Everyday American English by Julian Anderson) Julian Anderson is a retired professor of Classical and Biblical Greek, Seminary professor, Lutheran pastor, and successful publisher of Bible study materials."


(http://www.angelfire.com/wy/Franklin4YAHWEH/camelthroughneedle.html)

More on that site on the similarity of words for 'rope' and 'camel' in different languages. But the gist if it does seem to be: to one degree or another, you weren't morally upright if you were rich.








SternSkipper -> RE: The Authority of the Bible? (3/8/2012 7:18:11 PM)

So you"re saying Shrimp is served here? How is it prepared?
[image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Haga_Sofia_RB3.jpg[/image]




MrBukani -> RE: The Authority of the Bible? (3/8/2012 7:24:44 PM)

with chili probably and turkish fruit I guess...
I bet they have good fish in Contantinopel or Instanbul as mi turks sai.




tazzygirl -> RE: The Authority of the Bible? (3/8/2012 7:35:51 PM)

quote:

More on that site on the similarity of words for 'rope' and 'camel' in different languages. But the gist if it does seem to be: to one degree or another, you weren't morally upright if you were rich.


And I see it as a rich person has obligations and responsibilities tied to the money. Look at Romney and Bain. Did he care about the people he was putting out of business as he was making money for Bain and the stockholders, as well as himself?

And yet I cannot say the same about Gates, a man who had an enormous personal wealth, and who gave much to many charities.

Hard to serve two masters... ok... for some... I know a few girls who can do that... lol




fucktoyprincess -> RE: The Authority of the Bible? (3/8/2012 8:04:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

If you are trying to sort out if it should be meaningful to you, personally, only you can answer that for yourself.


True enough, ftp. But I'm intrigued by what others have to say on the topic.


If you're asking if people of that time were anti-homosexual, I imagine that they were. And I imagine part of the (but not the only) reason was wanting to ensure as much procreative activity as possible. You essentially have a new religion being born, and I'm sure the interest of the people who created it was to get as many followers possible as soon as possible to ensure its longevity.

What that has to do with embracing one's homosexuality or bisexuality today is beyond me. And how this anti-homosexual stance in the scriptures should affect any type of political policy is beyond me, too.

The current scriptures that exist in almost every religion are things which men at one point determined would go into the scriptures. And many things that were known to have existed were left out. So what you know as the bible is already a modified version. So, at the end of the day, I think what is there is either meaningful to you, personally, or not. But it is historically inaccurate to say that it is complete. It is what was decided to be the scripture at a certain point in time, and no more and no less. Christopher Hitchens goes through this quite well in his book. It is worth a read.

As the scriptures are known to be incomplete and the decision of what stayed and what left was arbitrary, I'm not sure what weight anyone ought to place in any of it - unless it matters to you personally.

And my opinion of what pieces of it matter (none) should not necessarily inform you of what pieces of it should matter to you personally.




pyroaquatic -> RE: The Authority of the Bible? (3/8/2012 9:30:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyGold


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
You can lie with womankind as with mankind, but not with mankind as with womankind.

Does that help? [:D]

K.


I'm a perv, Dear.  I'll bet I've got something in the toybag that makes it possible.  [:D]



Ummm, last I checked most men don't have vaginas. Does that make his comments clearer?

~LG


Surely we can pretend. The mind is stronger than the curse of the body. errr....




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875