Not what the Bible means to you...

[tbubb1]

Here's something my youth pastor taught a week or so ago. I'm just wondering what you guys make of it:

People look at the Bible and say ok, now what does that mean to me? That's not how the Bible is to be read. One should read the Bible, think "Okay, now what does this mean?" and then "how can I apply that to my life?"

The Bible has only one meaning, think about it.

What do you all think?

[Topher]

Here's something my youth pastor taught a week or so ago. I'm just wondering what you guys make of it:

People look at the Bible and say ok, now what does that mean to me? That's not how the Bible is to be read. One should read the Bible, think "Okay, now what does this mean?" and then "how can I apply that to my life?"

The Bible has only one meaning, think about it.

What do you all think?
Who decides this ONE meaning? Protestant, Jews, Catholics? :confused:

At best it can be interpreted personally.

[Capt Ann]

One should read the Bible, think "Okay, now what does this mean?" and then "how can I apply that to my life?"

The Bible has only one meaning, think about it.

What do you all think?I think your youth pastor's a smart guy!!

Good lesson, PTD!

[CosmicFish]

The Bible has only one meaning, think about it.
I'm no Bible expert, but I disagree with this.

* The biblical Jesus spoke in parables. Parables can be interpreted in more ways than one. How do you determine which is the correct way?

* There are hundreds or even thousands of different Christian churches. They are differentiated from each other by the fact that they all have a slightly different interpretation of the Bible. If the Bible has only one meaning, why so many different churches, all believeing their interpretation is the correct one?

In my opinion, if the Bible wanted to present itself as having only one meaning, then it would have to be presented in language which was very straightforward and totally unambiguous. Admittedly, that would be no mean feat, but as far as I can see it makes no attempt to do this at all.

[Capt Ann]

He who has ears......... :D

[aikiMac]

I'm no Bible expert, but I disagree with this.

* The biblical Jesus spoke in parables. Parables can be interpreted in more ways than one. How do you determine which is the correct way?

* There are hundreds or even thousands of different Christian churches. They are differentiated from each other by the fact that they all have a slightly different interpretation of the Bible. If the Bible has only one meaning, why so many different churches, all believeing their interpretation is the correct one?

In my opinion, if the Bible wanted to present itself as having only one meaning, then it would have to be presented in language which was very straightforward and totally unambiguous. Admittedly, that would be no mean feat, but as far as I can see it makes no attempt to do this at all.
Step 1: Make yourself a Jew living at the time the various "books" of the Bible were written.
Step 2: Get a friend to read the books out loud to you.
Step 3: Listen to the books as they are read out loud.

Do that, and then come back and tell me how many different meanings there are.

If you haven't done that, then you would be making a public fool of yourself for talking about that which you know nothing. ("As far as I can see it makes no attempt to do this at all.") :rolleyes: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have me wondering how often you give theologians the benefit of the doubt.

[aikiMac]

I'm American and I live in America. Because I'm American and I live in America I celebrate Thanksgiving every 4th Thursday in November. Not all countries celebrate Thanksgiving. Brazil, for example, does not have this holiday. I know this because my brother married a girl from Brazil. If someone were to talk to me about Thanksgiving, or even mention the word, my mind would fill with 1000 different details about the holiday. Not so my sister-in-law. She has almost no experience with this holiday and therefore thinks almost nothing about it when the subject comes up.

My sister-in-law could turn this around with a Brazilian holiday. Brits could make a similar comparison with British holidays, and Canadians with Canadian holidays, and so on all around the globe.

The gospels speak of a holiday called Passover. Jesus died at Passover. To a Jew, the holiday has meaning. Lambs are killed, cooked, and eaten for the Passover meal. The historian Josephus records that in the year 61 AD there were 255,600 lambs killed in Jerusalem on Passover day, for the Passover meal. Imagine the scent. Imagine 255,600 barbeques going in 255,600 backyards in one city. The word "Passover" would have meaning to a person who smelled that smell every single year of his life, just like "Thanksgiving" has meaning to Americans and other holidays have meaning to people in all the many other countries around the globe. Now hear John the Baptist call out that Jesus is "the lamb of God." That phrase has meaning in that context.

In the New Testament era, if a slave struck his Roman master, then every slave in the household would be killed. In the year 66 AD a particular slave killed his master Pedanius Secundus. There were 400 slaves in that household. The Roman Senate debated whether or not to make an exception in the law for this one incident on account of the sheer number of slaves to be killed. Ultimately the Senate did not make an exception. All 400 slaves were crucified together in a single arena. Imagine all those crosses in one arena. Imagine a body on every cross. Now hear the words of Jesus as he tells you that if you want to be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, you must become slave to all. That's some serious vulnerability, being slave to all! Listen to Jesus speak about "taking up your cross and following me." It has some meaning now, eh?

The Gospel of Mark tells a story of Jesus calming a storm on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus was asleep in the stern of the boat when the winds turned violent, the waves got big, and the boat started filling with water. Jesus remained asleep until his disciples shook him awake. He then stood up, shouted at the weather to subside, and the storm stopped. That means nothing to us city people who don't ride in boats. The story takes on some meaning, however, if you know that the boat was probably 27.5 feet long by 7.5 feet wide and 4.5 feet deep. Think about how it would have to turn into the waves to avoid capsizing. Think about the roller-coaster ride Jesus would be having in the stern of that boat. Think about the disciples frantically pouring water out of the boat in buckets as the waves splashed over the side. They did not wake up Jesus for him to shout at the sea. They woke up Jesus for him to bail water out of the sinking boat. Now think about the demons in the sea. Yes, demons lived in the sea. That was the mythology of the area. The words that Jesus shouted at the sea were the same words that would be used in an exorcism. Interesting. The calmness Jesus had, and his ability to sleep through this storm, takes on new meaning when one considers this cultural context.

One of Jesus' parables is about a lost sheep. Pharisees were ridiculing Jesus for hanging out with "sinners." Jesus responded, "Who among you, if you were a shepherd with 100 sheep, if he lost one sheep, would not go off in search of it?" Etc. Where was Jesus? At a party at the house of a sinner. Where were the Pharisees? Outside. They were not invited. How then was Jesus talking to them? He obvioiusly left the house and joined them in the street. Certainly a crowd of sinners followed their guest of honor out of the house to hear what was going on with the snobby Pharisees. Now add this: shepherds were low life people in those days. They couldn't be witnesses in a Jewish trial because of their reputation for dishonesty and regularly violating the Sabbath law. Translated, the parable becomes something like this: Popular new preacher is talking to a group of snobby Baptist preachers and says to them, "What pimp among you, if one of his hookers was kidnapped, wouldn't go after her?"

And on and on and on. The stories take on rich meaning when you read them in the context they were written in.

[CosmicFish]

Step 1: Make yourself a Jew living at the time the various "books" of the Bible were written.
Step 2: Get a friend to read the books out loud to you.
Step 3: Listen to the books as they are read out loud.

Do that, and then come back and tell me how many different meanings there are.Are you talking about just the New Testament here, or the Old as well? If it's just the New then I'd say there are obviously many different interpretations. Capt Ann just posted "He who has ears......... :D" That sentence in itself implies that there is more than one meaning - one for the casual listeners and one for those who know to listen for the more subtle meanings in the parables.

If you haven't done that, then you would be making a public fool of yourself for talking about that which you know nothing. ("As far as I can see it makes no attempt to do this at all.") :rolleyes: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have me wondering how often you give theologians the benefit of the doubt.I'll admit I've never done that (read it from the point of view of a conteporary Jew). I'll be honest, it's simply never occurred to me. When I've read the bible or discussed it with Christians I've always been told that (from a Christian's point of view) the Bible was written for everyone - those at the time it was writtten, and those who, like us, are living 2,000 years later on. Given which, the Bible has always been read by me and those I know (believers or otherwise) with the assumption that it was speaking to everyone, not just the Jews who were around at the time.

As far as giving theologians the benefit of the doubt. I'm less inclined to these days, but that was not always the case. Just so you know where I'm coming from: As a kid I was always very interested in the whole question of "how did we get here?" and "why are we here?" I used to devour all sorts of books on religion - orthodox, unorthodox, pseudo-religious or even downright occult, etc. None of them I gave the benefit of the doubt to. Both my parents brought me up as an atheist, but I've never really been able to give atheism the benefit of the doubt either. They would go on about the harmful dogma in religion, but "there is no God" always struck me as being dogma too.

When I was 19 I joined a group of fundamentalist Christians. I spent six months with them because they told me they could prove that the Bible was God's word beyond all doubt and I really wanted to see if they could. I did my best to approach it with an open mind but, ironically, they turned out to be less sincere about it than I was. I'd turn up to a Bible study with a notebook full of questions and they'd sigh and they'd just dismiss the lot without listening to them - they'd insist we go watch a film or something, and "bond". Other times we'd be debating for some time and we'd get to a point where I thought I'd finally got them nailed down on some subject and was going to get some kind of sensible answer out of them, and they'd come back with a stunner like: "*deep sigh* *intense stare* How have you been struggling with masturbation lately? Because as you know, sin hardens the heart and will prevent you from seeing the truth clearly." I'd be close to tears with frustration at this point. Anyway, point being - no benefit of the doubt there either.

You'll probably want to point out that the above was a cult, and they were, but I'm the kind of guy that always stops to debate with evangelists (those that will actually debate, and not just shout at you), and never shuts the door on Jehovah's Witnesses. I've never once met one that's even come close to convincing me that the Bible was literal truth or had one clear interpretation. And when I debate with them, I try to put my preconceptions to one side and actually try to understand them, as well as putting across my own opinions.

As for making a public fool of myself, well all I can say is this: I'm 35 now and inevitably a little more cynical that I was as a teenager. My experiences with religion has left me feeling that if I ask the same questions I'm just going to get the same answers again. But that childlike part of me that still wants to know the answers, so I still debate with the evangelists and I still post up on religious threads. If I encounter someone like you who knows more than me, and I end up making a fool of myself, then well, I can handle that. If I learn something in the process, or gain a new angle or some new idea to think over then I reckon it's worth being made to look a fool for a while.

[aikiMac]

Are you talking about just the New Testament here, or the Old as well? If it's just the New then I'd say there are obviously many different interpretations. Capt Ann just posted "He who has ears......... :D" That sentence in itself implies that there is more than one meaning - one for the casual listeners and one for those who know to listen for the more subtle meanings in the parables.
Both, but the NT is the part that gets twisted these days. Go read the "he who has ears" verses (yes, there's more than one). I think you'll get a different take on what Jesus was saying than what you're proposing here. I know it comes up several times in Mark's gospel. (Tangent: It takes me 75 minutes to read Mark's gospel out loud, beginning to end. Mark's gospel is supposed to be read out loud.)


I'll admit I've never done that (read it from the point of view of a conteporary Jew). I'll be honest, it's simply never occurred to me. When I've read the bible or discussed it with Christians I've always been told that (from a Christian's point of view) the Bible was written for everyone - those at the time it was writtten, and those who, like us, are living 2,000 years later on.
Well, yes, by it's terms the Bible is for all people who come later. For example, the last few verses of Matthew's gospel literally say this. ("Go into all the world ...") But you try writing something biographical WITHOUT using language loaded with cultural experiences. I believe it's impossible! Try writing an instructional essay on morality WITHOUT descibing issues of today. I believe its impossible. Now, let me pose some problems that I'm having, and pose some questions to you about things going on in my life, and you then try to answer them WITHOUT using words pregnant with specific, cultural, and social nuances. That one I know is impossible!

The implication is immediate: you, me, everyone will miss something very, very important if we don't read it in the setting from which it was written.


Given which, the Bible has always been read by me and those I know (believers or otherwise) with the assumption that it was speaking to everyone, not just the Jews who were around at the time.
Sure, it was intended for posterity, but each part was written in response to something happening in the lives of particular Jews or Gentiles, depending on which book we're talking about. Don't leave that part out. Paul's two letters to the Corinthians, for example, were written to actual living breathing Corinthians in response to actual problems and questions in their lives. Ditto his other letters -- real people, with real issues in their real lives. Ditto the gospels and the other books. Don't leave that part out. If you leave that part out, you'll miss the whole reason Paul, or whoever, wrote each letter. If you miss the whole reason Paul or whoever wrote a letter, then there's no way you can say that you know what he did or did not mean.


They would go on about the harmful dogma in religion, but "there is no God" always struck me as being dogma too.
Heh heh heh! I love you, man! :love: That's so cool!


And when I debate with them, I try to put my preconceptions to one side and actually try to understand them, as well as putting across my own opinions.
You're speaking my language now. :D


If I encounter someone like you who knows more than me, and I end up making a fool of myself, then well, I can handle that. If I learn something in the process, or gain a new angle or some new idea to think over then I reckon it's worth being made to look a fool for a while.
That attitude ain't foolish at all.

[tbubb1]

The implication is immediate: you, me, everyone will miss something very, very important if we don't read it in the setting from which it was written.
w00t.

[Poogle]

I have to confess I'm somewhat surprised to see this being spoken about here, following what I've read in the threads discussing whether or not the Bible has changed substantially since it was first written. Obviously the question of how closely our existing Bibles resemble the original manuscripts is a valid question, but it was so obvious that the question that needed addressing was not whether the words on the page had changed, but whether their meaning (i.e. the audience) had changed, and I don't seem to recall anyone bringing that up at any point.

Fairly obviously if you want to interpret the Bible you have to work out what was being said to the Jews back when it was written. It's like the Bible is a map, showing you the path from here, through the mountains, lakes, and rivers, to the promised land. Except that we've only got the path, and no backdrop upon which to place it. We can overlay it on existing maps, but all the mountains, lakes and rivers have shifted in the meantime, and the path seems to take us right through an ocean. We'd have to study old maps, and fromthem see how the old path takes us through the tricky terrain. We'd have to analyse how it is that this path takes us safely through, and apply these methods for traversing the land to the maps we have nowadays. Without the study of the old maps to put the Bible's 'route' in context, you might as well get a kid to draw a load of squiggles on your map and try to follow them. This is what I unfortunately see most religious people that I know doing most of the time. I think God would give us a fair bit of credit if we determined the 'rules' for ourselves, and found our own way to the promised land, without having to deduce all the 'paint-by-numbers' methods that he gave our ancestors. To me, referring to the Bible for guidance is kind of like borrowing your older brother's exercise books at school to help you with your homework. Rather than just working out the answers, you have to look at his book, and figure out how the teacher has renumbered the questions when she gave them to you. Once you've worked out which is which, and written down the answers, it was almost as hard work as figuring them out for yourself, but cos you've copied them, you know you've got them right. (As long as your brother got them right, but you know which ones he got right, cos the teacher ticked them. You're in a bit of a pickle for the ones that your brother got wrong tho, cos you've no idea what the answers are.) You still get enough tick marks though, and so you pass. If you figure it out yourself, you risk getting them all wrong if you've misunderstood, but the teacher would be much more pleased with you for trying to do it all yourself, and would probably by less impressed by your efforts to 'get the right answer' if it didn't involve you thinking to yourself about which answer is right and why it's right.

[tbubb1]

but the teacher would be much more pleased with you for trying to do it all yourself, and would probably by less impressed by your efforts to 'get the right answer' if it didn't involve you thinking to yourself about which answer is right and why it's right.

but we can't do it on our own, that's one of the big points of the bible.

[Topher]

but we can't do it on our own, that's one of the big points of the bible.
Why not. I'm sorry i dont buy into that.

[aikiMac]

Why not. I'm sorry i dont buy into that.
Yes, we all know that you reject the Bible and the God behind the Bible. We know that already. You're not telling us anything new, and you're not adding anything constructive to this discussion.

[Topher]

Why can Christians "..do it on our own" and where does the Bible state this?

[aikiMac]

Why can't Christians "..do it on our own" and where does the Bible state this?
Your question is ill-formed. Instead of asking "why can't Christians do it on their own?" you should be asking "why can't people do it on their own?" It's not very nice to suggest that Christians are weaker than their fellow human beings, especially on a global public website.

People can't do it on their own because people cannot consistently act and think in morally good ways. This is stated in various ways in Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Micah, John's gospel, Acts, Romans, and most likely elsewhere in the Bible as well.

[kmguy8]

aikiMac,

i think you are coming down a little condescending to HJS. If I wre the Mod here I'd warn you.

ok, the OT is a collection of parables. they follow an older logical form and are designed for interpretive thought. (often ignored by bible-thumping idiots). Proff of this is the torah, which is a collection of rabinical minds discussing the various themes of the stories. The stories were designed to be mulled over and discussed and often are not based at all in historical fact. (however, a fair many are indeed well documented events).

old hebrew had no tenses... i go to movie, i will go to movie, i went to movie.. all in the same "i go movie" when it was translated to greek much of the order of things changed. also the thought pattern in old hebrew differs from modern western reasoning..

in the west most proofs say A then B, hence A' thus B'. this is simply a culturally ingrained comparision often used to prove ideas or reasoning. ancient hebrew used A then B, relates to B' gives inference to A'.

when unscholarly western pastors read english bibles (third language at best) we often loose sight of the themes being taught in the story.

here is an example you can do at home. get some crayons because you are going to color your bible (download and print if this makes you uncomfortable). red is violence, yellow love, blue compassion, purple anger, green jealousy... (you can alter this slightly based on your chosen chapter.

"highlight the text" according to theme and see what emerges... the stories are laid out to be viewed in this fashion... oh yeah, this will only work perfectly in the OT (i suggest starting with first and second samuel) then move from there.. you can also do this to genesis with startling effect...

new testement coloring will reveal the western logic and once you have read the bible this way for some time you will get a feel for how poorly it has been written by comparision (not infering anything there).

best of luck.. please do try it... let me know what happens..

[wrydolphin]

Do you mean that you can't interpret the Bible on your own or that you can't live life without leaning on God? Just to clear things up, because it seems to me as though it was said that Christians can't read the Bible on their own.....

[Topher]

You're question is ill-formed. Instead of asking "why can't Christians do it on their own?" you should be asking "why can't people do it on their own?" It's not very nice to suggest that Christians are weaker than their fellow human beings, especially on a global public website.

People can't do it on their own because people cannot consistently act and think in morally good ways. This is stated in various ways in Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Micah, John's gospel, Acts, Romans, and most likely elsewhere in the Bible as well.
But surely you can only think in certain moral and immoral ways if you subscribe to the religion which determines these ways. Therefore only Christians can/do follow the moral ways as stated in the Bible. I don’t believe in the 10 commandments for example, but me not following them isn’t a sin, nor would I be ‘punished’ for it.

[tbubb1]

Do you mean that you can't interpret the Bible on your own or that you can't live life without leaning on God? Just to clear things up, because it seems to me as though it was said that Christians can't read the Bible on their own.....

Christians are not reading the bible on their own. A christian is someone who has put their faith in Jesus, so they believe he is living in them. If someone is a christian they aren't considered alone .

[Capt Ann]

Why can Christians "..do it on our own" and where does the Bible state this?
Homer, was this a typo, and you meant 'why can't Christians do it on their own?" Because I think, if I'm following the thread, the whole point is that none of us can come to God on our own, none of us can please God on our own, and none of us can earn or deserve God's tolerance of our lives, let alone His blessing or approval, on our own.

As far as where the Bible states this.....I'm not sure just how much info you want. This is a general theme throughout the entire Bible. Please forgive me if I've totally misread your question, because I'm going to take a go at answering it. First, I'd like to limit this discussion to the fact that no one can reach God on their own, without Jesus Christ (all other aspects of ‘doing stuff on our own’ to be discussed later).

The Bible makes it clear that we must be holy to see God:
Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. (Hebrews 12:14)

This makes sense, because God Himself is holy, and the standard we must reach is His standard, not ours (i.e., we must be good like God Himself is good, not just 'good' compared to other people around us)
but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy”. - 1 Peter 1:14-15

The things that we do wrong (willful disobedience; sin) have separated us from God:
Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save, or his ear dull, that it cannot hear; but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear. For your hands are defiled with blood and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies; your tongue mutters wickedness. No one enters suit justly; no one goes to law honestly; they rely on empty pleas, they speak lies, they conceive mischief and give birth to iniquity. -- Isaiah 59:1-4, but please read the whole chapter)

We could try to 'be good', but our best attempts are still totally wicked, steeped in selfishness and saturated with self-will.
We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. --Isaiah 64:6Note: the Hebrew phrase translated 'polluted garment' actually refers to a soiled cloth worn by a woman during menstruation. Yuck!

It isn't just a few people that have been separated from God by willful disobedience: we all stand equally guilty, and therefore equally condemned:
God looks down from heaven
on the children of man
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after God.
They have all fallen away;
together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one. --Psalm 53:2-3
for fall have sinned and fall short of the glory of God --Romans 3:23

All of us have disobeyed. All of us have rebelled. Because of it, our best attempts at doing good are like a used Kotex. So what does God do? Does He condemn us all to hell? Lock us up in eternal torment and throw away the key? No:
The Lord saw it, and it displeased him
that there was no justice.
He saw that there was no man,
and wondered that there was no one to intercede;
then his own arm brought him salvation,
and his righteousness upheld him. -- Isaiah 59:15-16Knowing this, please read Isaiah chapter 53 to see who/what that 'arm of the Lord' is, and what He did to bring salvation.

Here Jesus spells it out really clearly:
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. -John 14:6

And again,
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.
So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. --John 10:1-10

His disciples repeated it:
“…let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well. This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” -- Acts 4:10-12

And Jesus expressly stated it here:
“Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.” --John 15:4-6

That’s just an overview, but there are many other places where it states emphatically that we cannot do this on our own, apart from God. Again, this only deals with how we cannot approach God, cannot know God, and cannot please God by ourselves, or on our own terms.

Now, about other questions, such as:
Can I finish college without God’s help?
Can I succeed in my career apart from God?
Can I write symphonies without God’s help?
Can I solve wave equations or calculate boundary conditions for an expansion in spherical Bessel functions without God’s help?
Can I do anything at all apart from God’s help?
I honestly never really asked these questions, because the truth is that I wouldn’t want to do any of these things without God here with me. He is my best friend, my lover, and my Lord.

[Capt Ann]

old hebrew had no tenses... i go to movie, i will go to movie, i went to movie.. all in the same "i go movie" when it was translated to greek much of the order of things changed. also the thought pattern in old hebrew differs from modern western reasoning..
>
>
new testement coloring will reveal the western logic and once you have read the bible this way for some time you will get a feel for how poorly it has been written by comparision (not infering anything there).

I have done studies of specific books exactly like that. You should see the book of "Proverbs" in one of my copies of the Bible--very colorful! And the study was very instructive.

However, I must disagree with your conclusion regarding the New vs. Old Testament. It's not that one is better or worse, or poorly or well written. Neither is the New Testament embued with Western logic, since it was written (primarily) by middle-easterners with solid eastern (Hebraic) mindsets and worldviews. The languages are different, as you pointed out. The syntax in Hebrew is such that it is very easy to miss cues for tense or other things. In fact, I would say that ancient Hebrew is the perfect language for hiding things.

On the other hand, ancient Greek is the single most precise language I have ever studied. There are 18 different words for "the"!!! Each noun takes a different ending, depending on if it is the subject, the direct object, indirect object, or something else (technical terms are 'nominative, accusative, dative, and genitive, and they have much more exact definitions than what I've just outlined). Tenses and cases are also extremely clear. In any Greek text, it is unmistakably clear who does what to whom. In other words, ancient Greek is the perfect language for making something clear.

By using these two languages, some things were seen and seen again, but never understood, and heard and heard over again, but never comprehended. Then, in the New Testament, they were explained and made clear.

I think most of the Bible is pretty easy to understand, when you put both parts (old and new) side by side, and use one as a key to unlock the other.

[aikiMac]

But surely you can only think in certain moral and immoral ways if you subscribe to the religion which determines these ways. Therefore only Christians can/do follow the moral ways as stated in the Bible. I don’t believe in the 10 commandments for example, but me not following them isn’t a sin, nor would I be ‘punished’ for it.
In the context of reading the Bible, all three of your sentences are false. That matters because this is a thread on reading the Bible. :eek: So, do you want to learn about the religion followed by, what, most of the people on the planet? (A lot of people worldwide, anyway!) Or do you just want to argue that what they say is in the Bible is not really in the Bible? If you want to learn about what is in the Bible, there are people on MAP who will gladly teach you, but you will have to ask with "an empty cup." Your three sentences above are not "empty cups."

[holyheadjch]

To base your life on a book just seems blind to me. I dont kill, not because the bible says so, but because my morality, which is mine alone tells me that is wrong. People use religion and particularly the bible, as a crutch, removing the need for them to make any difficult decisions on their own. If God exists and if I have to stand before him when I die, I would hope to be judged on the basis of my character and not on my blind adherence to the teachings of a book.

[aikiMac]

If God exists and if I have to stand before him when I die, I would hope to be judged on the basis of my character and not on my blind adherence to the teachings of a book.
We've never met, so I'm not saying this as a personal remark. Take it as an open question to think about: Maybe your character is low.

Maybe you missed the mark. And maybe nothing you can do tomorrow can make up for yesterday's failures. If this is so -- and I leave it as an "if" for now -- then your character is permanently blemished, and we have a serious problem on our hands.

Sure, we could substitute me for you in the hypothetical above. Or we could substitute my next-door neighbor, or anyone else.

The text of the Bible, both OT and NT, set forth some objective, external standards. I'll bet my last dollar that you have violated those standards at some point in your life. Ahhhh -- now it gets very uncomfortable. I'll stop now. I think you can fill in the gaps and realize where this discussion goes.

[Poogle]

I would like to think that God won't let people of 'poor character' into heaven anyway.

Otherwise what do we end up with? Heaven full of some good people, and some bad people, with the only thing in common being that they are less questioning than I am. I don't think God is only going to take non-cynics into heaven, because I refuse to belief that a God who would bestow intelligence upon me would punish me for using it.

[aikiMac]

I would like to think that God won't let people of 'poor character' into heaven anyway.
He doesn't. You're overlooking the "Jesus" part of the story in the NT, and the "God credited it to him as righteousness" part in the OT. You gotta read those parts of the book before you say the story is stupid, 'cause if you don't read those parts, you don't even know what the story is. :eek:


because I refuse to belief that a God who would bestow intelligence upon me would punish me for using it.
Is it a mark of intelligence to reject something if you do not know what you are rejecting? :confused: (You gotta decide that one on your own. I leave it to you.)

[kmguy8]

maybe your character is low?????????

*disappointed with MAP for having a mod like this one*

edit - afraid of getting banned so i deleted my true feelings about this post

[aikiMac]

You read the TOS when you signed up, kmguy. If you think I'm a bad Mod, you should do what the TOS says to do.

You know, if you don't want to discuss religious doctrine in a forum dedicated to the discussion of religions, there are 53 other forums on MAP where you could participate.

[tbubb1]

aikimac isn't just picking at one particular person but everyone.
that's what the bible teaches-- we've all fallen short of glory.
We've all "missed it". At some point or another and will continue to do so.

[Poogle]

Is it a mark of intelligence to reject something if you do not know what you are rejecting? :confused: (You gotta decide that one on your own. I leave it to you.)

I'm not the one rejecting anything. I refuse to believe that he will punish me for using it, but that doesn't mean I believe he won't. I hope he won't, but that's up to him, if he exists. I'm not going to bury my brain in a grave and them wait till I'm 70-something and then climb in with it.

If you read any of my other posts, you'll notice a) that I make it very clear that I know that I do not know whether or not God exists, b) that I cannot submit to what is just a belief, especially when it would so fundamentally alter my life, in that I would have to just give up on life and my search for God by shutting my eyes and pretending I believe he's sitting next to me, and c) that I consider myself to be exceptionally intelligent.

[aikiMac]

c) that I consider myself to be exceptionally intelligent.
Aye, I remember you as the only person who took seriously the research done into the historicity of Easter. You won me over. My comment was directed at you drawing a conclusion before understanding what assumptions the other side is working off. Your specific objection a few posts up makes sense only if one rejects very basic beliefs in Christianity. This is, you know, a thread on the Christian Bible so an assumption of basic beliefs in Christianity is warranted. (Turn it around: If I were to reject your foundational assumptions, then everything you believe will suddenly seem stupid to me, right?) Maybe this would be a good time to circle back to the basic, foundational, beliefs in Christianity upon which the various doctrinal statements rest. I dunno.

[Strafio]

The thing is, if he didn't understand what he was "rejecting", would God be so cruel to punish him for his ignorance?

[aikiMac]

The thing is, if he didn't understand what he was "rejecting", would God be so cruel to punish him for his ignorance?
That's an interesting question. Let's make it hypothetical.
How realistic is the assumption that Person X doesn't know that he has done some bad things in life? In keeping with the topic of the thread, the context for "bad things" is Christian morality. The list of bad things includes: don't steal, don't tell lies, don't wish someone dead, don't be greedy for other people's stuff, don't break your wedding vows, .... That's a start.

[Poogle]

The thing is, if he didn't understand what he was "rejecting", would God be so cruel to punish him for his ignorance?

According to the Bible, I would imagine so. But we are, all of us, ignorant. I don't deny that. What we are ignorant of, tho, that varies from person to person. I know more than the average human being because I have a list of things that I know I know nothing about. So I'm already ahead. They say half of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at.

If God does exist, I hope that he won't condemn me for questioning what I am told by men. I do not question God. I am not unwilling to put my faith in God. I am unwilling to put my trust in the human beings who act mediators. I do not see the virtue in faith in the words of men. I really don't. I only have a human's word for it that the Bible is the word of God. But neither do I see the sin in hope. I hope God will not punish me for wanting to truly know him rather than the picture painted of him by the humans I do not trust, or by the humans who put their faith in humans I do not trust. Unfortunately, my conversation with God to date has been something of a monologue. I'm still waiting on him, I think.

(P.S. I'm a girl...)

[Poogle]

Aye, I remember you as the only person who took seriously the research done into the historicity of Easter. You won me over. My comment was directed at you drawing a conclusion before understanding what assumptions the other side is working off. Your specific objection a few posts up makes sense only if one rejects very basic beliefs in Christianity. This is, you know, a thread on the Christian Bible so an assumption of basic beliefs in Christianity is warranted. (Turn it around: If I were to reject your foundational assumptions, then everything you believe will suddenly seem stupid to me, right?) Maybe this would be a good time to circle back to the basic, foundational, beliefs in Christianity upon which the various doctrinal statements rest. I dunno.

Do you mean that God does intend us to forgo the use of our intelligence, at least as far as to abstain from questioning the things that we are supposed to take on faith, such as 'Jesus lived' and 'Jesus was risen from the dead', etc?

You see, if it's the Bible that tells us not to question, remember that it's the Bible I'm questioning. It's not that I reject the idea that one should believe without questioning, it's that I find it impossible to believe that one should believe without question. It's perfectly possible that one should believe without question, and that my inability to see the virtue in faith is due to my flawed sight, rather than the virtue not actually being there. As always, I simply don't know. But in order to believe without question, I need to believe that believing without question is the right thing to do. Which I don't. I believe that I haven't the foggiest what the right thing to do is, and I intend to keep searching all my life, until I do know, or until I die.

[aikiMac]

According to the Bible, I would imagine so.
I'm not convinced that is correct. The theologian and author CS Lewis believed that the first couple chapters of Romans speaks of two paths to heaven: one for those who have heard the story of Jesus, and one for those who have not. Alas, though, only the first path is open to you.


They say half of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at.
Then I'm a genius, heh heh! There's a lot of things I'm dumb at. :D


If God does exist, I hope that he won't condemn me for questioning what I am told by men.
In the book of Acts (it comes right after the 4 gospels in the NT), Paul did some preaching in a town called Berea. The people there did not believe him. They went back to the Hebrew Bible (recall that the NT wasn't written yet) and verified everything that Paul was saying. They checked up on the news reports about Jesus and verified everything that Paul was saying. Only after verifying everything did they believe Paul.

The punch line is that they were highly praised by Paul for doing this.


I am unwilling to put my trust in the human beings who act mediators.
Aren't we all? Neither the writers of the OT nor the writers of the NT taught trust in people.


I do not see the virtue in faith in the words of men. I really don't. I only have a human's word for it that the Bible is the word of God.
If the Bible is not the word of God, then it is no better than any other classic writing. Divine origin is a foundational assumption of the Christian faith, and Christians openly acknowledge this. The Apostle Paul candidly stated that if the Bible is not the word of God, then nothing he preached was true. (I think it's in 1st Corinthians?) That's a serious statement for Paul to make. 'Course, he believed that Easter was sufficient proof of the divine origin of the Bible. He said that also. Easter is sufficient proof, but whether Easter happened or not is a separate question.

[aikiMac]

Do you mean that God does intend us to forgo the use of our intelligence, at least as far as to abstain from questioning the things that we are supposed to take on faith, such as 'Jesus lived' and 'Jesus was risen from the dead', etc?

You see, if it's the Bible that tells us not to question, remember that it's the Bible I'm questioning.
Forgo intelligence -- no. "Renew your minds" and "come, let us reason" are statements that come to mind. Luke, the gospel writer, went around interviewing people before he wrote his gospel. He thunk it through.

Abstain from questioning -- no. If this was so, Paul's writings in the NT would be a few paragraphs long at best. So would Peter's writings. Note also the Bereans, mentioned above.

[Strafio]

Yeah. Aikimac's not saying to just take his word for it.
He's saying look into it and you'll find it to be true.
After all, if something is true then you shouldn't need to give up reason and intellect to believe in it.

[tcgohan]

"For behold, my bethren, it given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark of night." -moroni 7:15

It may not be from the bible but it does illustrate that even in scripture mans intellect is made to be used, not just for reason but for living morally.

[Topher]

Homer, was this a typo, and you meant 'why can't Christians do it on their own?" Because I think, if I'm following the thread, the whole point is that none of us can come to God on our own, none of us can please God on our own, and none of us can earn or deserve God's tolerance of our lives, let alone His blessing or approval, on our own.

As far as where the Bible states this.....I'm not sure just how much info you want. This is a general theme throughout the entire Bible. Please forgive me if I've totally misread your question, because I'm going to take a go at answering it. First, I'd like to limit this discussion to the fact that no one can reach God on their own, without Jesus Christ (all other aspects of ‘doing stuff on our own’ to be discussed later).

Thanks for replying.

I guess my reply would be that if you need to follow a religion to find God - which one? :confused: I presume that there is only one God, yet many religions have different approaches, doctrines and dogma to reach this God, usually claiming to be the correct one. If someone was looking for God, why should they go to Christianity and not Islam, Judaism or Hinduism...?

It could be said that each religion simply sees a different interpretation of the one God, but then, whose interpretation is right and/or why should someone go to one over the other. And why are the “words of God” in the Christian Bible not relevant in other religions. If the “words of God” as in the Bible were so clear and true, wouldn't all religions follow in them?

:)

[Topher]

In the context of reading the Bible, all three of your sentences are false. That matters because this is a thread on reading the Bible. :eek: So, do you want to learn about the religion followed by, what, most of the people on the planet? (A lot of people worldwide, anyway!) Or do you just want to argue that what they say is in the Bible is not really in the Bible? If you want to learn about what is in the Bible, there are people on MAP who will gladly teach you, but you will have to ask with "an empty cup." Your three sentences above are not "empty cups."
Maybe i missed the part where i argued what is in the Bible :p

If i do appear argumentative at times then i assure you i'm not. I just have a tendency to seek evidence for almost everything. :eek: :D I cannot place a large part of my mind and life in that of something which is written in a book, especially when I cannot be sure of it. That certainly doesn’t mean I’m not interested in the topic.

[Topher]

To base your life on a book just seems blind to me. I dont kill, not because the bible says so, but because my morality, which is mine alone tells me that is wrong. People use religion and particularly the bible, as a crutch, removing the need for them to make any difficult decisions on their own. If God exists and if I have to stand before him when I die, I would hope to be judged on the basis of my character and not on my blind adherence to the teachings of a book.
Well said :Angel: :D

[Topher]

Is it a mark of intelligence to reject something if you do not know what you are rejecting? :confused: (You gotta decide that one on your own. I leave it to you.)
Is it a mark of intelligence to accept something if you do not know what you are accepting, or even exists? :confused:

For that matter, i'm not really rejecting anything, i just think it is irrelevant.

[Topher]

In the book of Acts (it comes right after the 4 gospels in the NT), Paul did some preaching in a town called Berea. The people there did not believe him. They went back to the Hebrew Bible (recall that the NT wasn't written yet) and verified everything that Paul was saying. They checked up on the news reports about Jesus and verified everything that Paul was saying. Only after verifying everything did they believe Paul.

The punch line is that they were highly praised by Paul for doing this.

So in essence they validated the word/assumptions of Paul, on the words/assumptions in a book? Which in essence means their conclusion/belief in Paul is an assumption assumption.

[tcgohan]

I guess my reply would be that if you need to follow a religion to find God - which one? :confused: I presume that there is only one God, yet many religions have different approaches, doctrines and dogma to reach this God, usually claiming to be the correct one. If someone was looking for God, why should they go to Christianity and not Islam, Judaism or Hinduism...?


There is only one god of this world. I think(I'm not a theologist though) the division came as people tried to justify viewpoints or argued piddly little nuances such as "Do you pray on one kee or two?". There is of course the big argument separating Christianity from other religions is "Did Jesus Christ exist and was/is he the son of God?"
I personally feel that any religion is great as long as it promotes people being good people, this excludes most forms of satanism. Taoism is one of the most enlightened religions (imho as it was explained to me). The wuji before taiji concept I find simply awesome. Basically it states that before the universe came to existance there was something or nothing, we don't know so we're going to call it the Void. Then there is The Way which everyone needs to find and follow for themselves. I know taoism can become complicated in the worshipping of multiple dieties but you don't have to worship them if you don't want to. Taoism doesn't need a god. But I'm not a taoist.

I have had experiences that could not have happened without the Lord, but they are mine and not yours and anything I tell you of them will mean nothing to you. It's like chi, those who have felt it don't debate wether or not it exists, although they constantly speculate what, exactly, it is. If your looking to connect with god, try reading the bible not just with an open mind but with an open heart.

[tcgohan]

So in essence they validated the word/assumptions of Paul, on the words/assumptions in a book? Which in essence means their conclusion/belief in Paul is an assumption assumption.

Reality is an assumption. :D

"You think that's air your breathing now?"- Morpheus

"Why, oh, why didn't I take the blue pill?"-Cypher

[aikiMac]

So in essence they validated the word/assumptions of Paul, on the words/assumptions in a book? Which in essence means their conclusion/belief in Paul is an assumption assumption.
No. The words in the book were not assumptions. They were demonstrated true in history. The words of Paul were not assumptions either. They were demonstrated true in history. That was the point of what the Bereans did.

[Topher]

No. The words in the book were not assumptions. They were demonstrated true in history. The words of Paul were not assumptions either. They were demonstrated true in history. That was the point of what the Bereans did.
True history as in a resurrection and a virgin birth? ;)

There's so much tripe in the Bible (from my perspective) that i honestly dont know what is fable and what is accurate.

Anyway, what did Paul postulate?

[aikiMac]

True history as in a resurrection and a virgin birth? ;)

There's so much tripe in the Bible (from my perspective) that i honestly dont know what is fable and what is accurate.

Anyway, what did Paul postulate?
We've been over this before in another thread. A priori you disallow supernatural events. You've said it many times. I see no benefit in repeating the discussion.

[holyheadjch]

We've never met, so I'm not saying this as a personal remark. Take it as an open question to think about: Maybe your character is low.

Maybe you missed the mark. And maybe nothing you can do tomorrow can make up for yesterday's failures. If this is so -- and I leave it as an "if" for now -- then your character is permanently blemished, and we have a serious problem on our hands.

Sure, we could substitute me for you in the hypothetical above. Or we could substitute my next-door neighbor, or anyone else.

The text of the Bible, both OT and NT, set forth some objective, external standards. I'll bet my last dollar that you have violated those standards at some point in your life. Ahhhh -- now it gets very uncomfortable. I'll stop now. I think you can fill in the gaps and realize where this discussion goes.

Perhaps my character is low, my occupation is certainly a morally controversial one, and I most certainly have violated the standards set out in the bible. So lets say my character is permanently blemished, what now? I'm going to hell for sure, along with every single one of my colleagues, and according to the bible, every person on this earth who doesn't follow the teachings set out in the bible. Heaven must be an empty and incredibly boring place.

[Strafio]

Unless you had the sense to get to know the bouncer (Jesus), who'll have a word with the boss and get you forgiven. Ofcourse, Mohammad said that he also can get a word with God but he's just a blagger out to scam you! ;)

[aikiMac]

... and according to the bible, every person on this earth who doesn't follow the teachings set out in the bible. Heaven must be an empty and incredibly boring place.
:confused: Define "teachings set out in the Bible."
It's not about the "you shall do X; you shall not do Y." It's about the "are you even a little bit sorry?"

I expect that heaven is quite full of people. Count up all the people from Adam and Eve until now. Big number.

Oh, the happiest people I've ever known are Christians. Imagine that.

What is your occupation anyhow? (User profile only says "student.")

[Strafio]

:confused: Define "teachings set out in the Bible."
It's not about the "you shall do X; you shall not do Y." It's about the "are you even a little bit sorry?"

I expect that heaven is quite full of people. Count up all the people from Adam and Eve until now. Big number.
If that's the case then more or less everyone will be in heaven (I doubt there is anyone who isn't even the slightest bit sorry for bad things they've done) and whether you're a Christian or not is almost irrelevant.

[holyheadjch]

ok, if I was gay, which is a thing no one should have to apologise for, yet is taught as being evil in the bible, would that get me thrown into hell?

"Religion is the opium of the masses" Christians are so happy because they believe they have a great big safety net that will catch them if they fall. Ignorance is bliss.

I'm an Engineer

[CosmicFish]

Oh, the happiest people I've ever known are Christians. Imagine that.
And by an interesting coincidence, the happiest people I know are atheists and agnostics. ;)

[aikiMac]

If that's the case then more or less everyone will be in heaven (I doubt there is anyone who isn't even the slightest bit sorry for bad things they've done) and whether you're a Christian or not is almost irrelevant.
Silly man, you know the part you're leaving out! :p


I'm an Engineer
What's wrong with that job? I almost double majored in mechanical engineering. Took a minor in physics instead.

[holyheadjch]

I aint engineering coffee pots and desk fans

[Strafio]

Silly man, you know the part you're leaving out! :p
My bad!!! Reminds self to make friend's with heaven's bouncer
What did you say his name was again... it began with a "J" I think... ;)

[Strafio]

ok, if I was gay, which is a thing no one should have to apologise for, yet is taught as being evil in the bible, would that get me thrown into hell?
No one's blaming you for the "attraction".
It's only if you commit the acts that it's considered a sin.
Incidently, that's the difference between a good Christian and a bigot. A good Christian might hate homosexuality but it's only a bigot that hates homosexuals.

"Religion is the opium of the masses" Christians are so happy because they believe they have a great big safety net that will catch them if they fall. Ignorance is bliss.
They'd say you have your own opiates that are you are taking comfort in, stopping you from looking at the real issues and concerning yourself on what will happen to you after this life is through. I guess there's perspectives on everything...

[aikiMac]

Ref. to post #60: Would that all non-Christians see the issues so clearly.
Thanks.
Must be the philosophy training, eh?

[Strafio]

Yeah. Plus my submersion in the Christian Union.
Know thine enemy! ;)

:Angel:

[Poogle]

No one's blaming you for the "attraction".
It's only if you commit the acts that it's considered a sin.
Incidently, that's the difference between a good Christian and a bigot. A good Christian might hate homosexuality but it's only a bigot that hates homosexuals.

That's a major problem that I have with Christianity. The whole hating homosexuality thing. Apart from 'the Bible says so', what is wrong with loving someone who is the same gender as you? I thought that Jesus said that loving your God and your neighbour are the most important things, not hating homosexuality. A find a lot of people use the get-out clause 'if you loved God you wouldn't be a homosexual'. But you don't choose your sexuality.

[Ikken Hisatsu]

wait- i thought being gay or a pedophile was almost a requirement to be a card carrying bible thumper these days? or is that just for catholics?

[Poogle]

We've already established in another thread that in order to understand the message of the Bible, you have to take into consideration the fact that it was written for Jews who lived a couple of millennia ago. Is it not possible that the reason homosexuality was declared 'sinful' was for a reason unrelated to homosexuality itself?

There are loads of examples in the Bible of rules that Christians today don't seem to have a problem with breaking, and I don't think it's because they aren't as clear as the homosexuality one. For example, Leviticus clearly states that it's wrong to neuter animals, but I've never seen a Christian claiming to hate the terrible sins that vets commit. And then there's the famous mixed fabric law. Now, I'm sure Christians get asked that all the time, and I'm sure you have a well-rehearsed answer to it, but I have never heard a satisfactory answer. Incidentally, I do know where the whole 'not mixing fabrics' thing came from, and people seem willing to dismiss it on those grounds, but any suggestions that the reason for homosexuality being 'wrong' is based on a misconception just gets answered with 'well, God still says it's wrong, and we can't just decide to ignore God because we've decided his reasons for calling it wrong don't apply to us anymore'.

What say you to this?

[Topher]

We've already established in another thread that in order to understand the message of the Bible, you have to take into consideration the fact that it was written for Jews who lived a couple of millennia ago. Is it not possible that the reason homosexuality was declared 'sinful' was for a reason unrelated to homosexuality itself?

There are loads of examples in the Bible of rules that Christians today don't seem to have a problem with breaking, and I don't think it's because they aren't as clear as the homosexuality one. For example, Leviticus clearly states that it's wrong to neuter animals, but I've never seen a Christian claiming to hate the terrible sins that vets commit. And then there's the famous mixed fabric law. Now, I'm sure Christians get asked that all the time, and I'm sure you have a well-rehearsed answer to it, but I have never heard a satisfactory answer. Incidentally, I do know where the whole 'not mixing fabrics' thing came from, and people seem willing to dismiss it on those grounds, but any suggestions that the reason for homosexuality being 'wrong' is based on a misconception just gets answered with 'well, God still says it's wrong, and we can't just decide to ignore God because we've decided his reasons for calling it wrong don't apply to us anymore'.

What say you to this?
Here is a site which analyses 3 possible homosexual relationships, as written in the Bible itself :o

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm

While were on the subject of the Bible, Bible passages that are immoral by today's religious and secular standards (http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl.htm)

[Strafio]

I think that a Christian "hates" homosexuality the same way I hate smoking.
The same way I don't like what smoking is doing to my friends, don't like the smell of smoke etc. they see homosexuality as kind of morally corrupt...
A confused mind doing what isn't good for it.
There is more than just taking the Bible's word for it, take a look at Homer's list of passages to see where people don't.

There was a Christian guy who tried to argue that homosexuality had been deemed wrong by God because of all the health problems caused gay sex. It wasn't conclusive, and I'd bet that the healths problems associated with normal sex wasn't hugely smaller, but it showed that he wasn't simply robotically following dogma.

[comw]

This may seem of topic but lets see where im going with it:-

First of all I want do "prove" that the bible is not flawless - im not having a go but people need to read it on their own and then look at it in the light of what they have read. for example was Lot a righteous man? He was saved from gommorah when God destoryed it and Peter (letters but i've fogotten which one) Hold him up as being a example of righteous man. however (just looking at the story in the bible NO Outside sources here) when the inhabitants of gommorah wanted to meet (and in fairness abuse) the people that Lot was entertaining as honoured guests they were offered instead Lots 2 virgin daughters to do with as they will. - not really the nicest thing to do (ill get back to this - work calls)

[Poogle]

I think that a Christian "hates" homosexuality the same way I hate smoking.
The same way I don't like what smoking is doing to my friends, don't like the smell of smoke etc. they see homosexuality as kind of morally corrupt...
A confused mind doing what isn't good for it.
There is more than just taking the Bible's word for it, take a look at Homer's list of passages to see where people don't.

There was a Christian guy who tried to argue that homosexuality had been deemed wrong by God because of all the health problems caused gay sex. It wasn't conclusive, and I'd bet that the healths problems associated with normal sex wasn't hugely smaller, but it showed that he wasn't simply robotically following dogma.

It sounds to me like he was just trying to invent some sort of justification for following dogma. If he'd thought about it, he'd have realised that a) lesbian sex is much less likely to spread disease than heterosexual sex and b) unprotected heterosexual sex is much more likely to spread disease than protected heterosexual sex, and so all the women should go and find themselves a lesbian lover, and those that can't bring themselves to do so should ignore what the catholics say and stick to condoms.

[Matt Molloy]

I posted this a long time ago. It's all over the internet in one form or another but it seemed relevant given the last few posts. If not, then it's at least amusing.

Cheers,

Matt. :D

Selectively Observant Christians

Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to people
who call in to her radio show. She pronounced that homosexuality is an
abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned in any circumstance. This is what one listener allegedly wrote in a letter to her:
Dear Dr. Laura

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge
with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22
clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the
specific laws and how to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates
a pleasing odour for the Lord Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbours.
They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how
do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to
kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g)Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle
room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27.
How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to
death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep
with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you
can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
un-changing

[Strafio]

Haha! Did she give a response? :D

It sounds to me like he was just trying to invent some sort of justification for following dogma. If he'd thought about it, he'd have realised that a) lesbian sex is much less likely to spread disease than heterosexual sex and b) unprotected heterosexual sex is much more likely to spread disease than protected heterosexual sex, and so all the women should go and find themselves a lesbian lover, and those that can't bring themselves to do so should ignore what the catholics say and stick to condoms.
Well, when we accept that something is right/wrong, we don't always have perfect justification. He reasoned by the fact that other things the bible said was wrong had reasons (like we all agree on murder etc) that the others have reasons too, just not as obvious.
And his reasoning did assume that "gay sex" meant anal sex.

So although his reasoning was flawed, he was thinking in reasons rather than taking it purely dogmatically. Or maybe if he carries on with this "reasoning" attitude, he'd find that the "no homosexuality" rule was for a society different to today's...

My real point is is that Christians rarely believe "xxxxxx is wrong just because the Bible said so". They reckon that the Bible is correct in it's conclusions of what's right and wrong, but these conclusions can be shown rationally too. Likewise, people can believe in science dogmatically, believing in a scientific fact "because the scientists said so and the scientists are right about <insert facts here>".

So whether people have "faith" in science or the bible (I'm not saying that the two are contradictory by the way) will be more down to if it can be demonstrated that it works. Experiments for example, or that it's scientists who invented all these machines, gives us our early "faith" in science.
Likewise, if someone comes to a Christian Church and is amazed by the people who are there, then they might see evidence of the Christian God and that the Bible "works", which might give them faith...

[Poogle]

So why not just throw out the Bible and do what is considered morally 'right' in society? If you're only going to take the things from the Bible that make sense to you, then what's the point in using it at all, apart from as a list of 'things to consider the morality of'?

To me, the homosexuality issue seems to be as absurd as the 'don't plant two types of crop in the same field' rule. Ok, so you can get STDs from it. But you can get horrendous emotional trauma from being forced to live your life denying your true feelings because someone who needs to shut up and get on with praying is telling them that it's 'wrong' and will get them sent to hell. And those idiots who were outside that couple's wedding telling them how evil they were for consolidating their relationship with an 'official' declaration of their love for each other. It's none of their fricking business, and there's no reason for them to go and ruin someone's special day because they can't read their Bible properly.

[Strafio]

Well, there's a lot more to the Bible than just "what is right and wrong".
Also, you don't start just knowing what's right from wrong and you usually need some sort of moral guidelines to start with. For instance, my moral guidelines started with "what mummy says is wrong" and gradually built it from there. I'm sure you've got yours too.

Others take theirs from the Bible.
Although I they give it a bit more authority than I would, I respect that they've got their reasons. I mean, their faith in it must've come from somewhere. I do agree with a lot your points though. Being a bossy militant won't get you anywhere.

A Christian might dislike homosexuality the way I dislike smoking but I'd respect that a smoker has their own decisions to make for better or for worse. A good Christian will respect a homosexual likewise. Some "Christians" do have a go at homosexuals but I think they're a loud minority, and it's more their bad personality than their Christian beliefs that's speaking.

[tekkengod]

A Christian might dislike homosexuality the way I dislike smoking but I'd respect that a smoker has their own decisions to make for better or for worse. A good Christian will respect a homosexual likewise. Some "Christians" do have a go at homosexuals but I think they're a loud minority, and it's more their bad personality than their Christian beliefs that's speaking.

Reguardless of who would be in question, anyone who lives eats and breathes their belliefs and constantly and "religiously" as that derives their personality from such beliefs, be it religious beliefs OR otherwise.

[Strafio]

Yeah, but living their beliefs wouldn't shift the disapproval of homosexual behaviour to dislike of homosexuals. I'm sure there's plenty of "habits" that you dislike but you wouldn't hate a person for having them.

I mean, you hate Christianity but you don't hate aikiMac and Captn Ann. :)

[tekkengod]

Yeah, but living their beliefs wouldn't shift the disapproval of homosexual behaviour to dislike of homosexuals. I'm sure there's plenty of "habits" that you dislike but you wouldn't hate a person for having them.

I mean, you hate Christianity but you don't hate aikiMac and Captn Ann. :)

Thats true. :) But i think it worked in reverse, it started out as a "hate" or maybe just a SUPREME dislike and as times has changed, its become more socially acceptable.

[AZeitung]

Who decides this ONE meaning? Protestant, Jews, Catholics? :confused:

I don't see why the Jews should get a say, since they don't use the bible.

[Topher]

The OT is their Bible, correct.

Some Christians on MAP say the OT is the word of God, yet when people question them on some issues, they claim that Jesus "changed" the law, and the revised version is in the NT. This seems quite selective according to ones personal beliefs.

If the word of God is in the OT, then Jews should have their say, right?

[aikiMac]

The OT is their Bible, correct.

Some Christians on MAP say the OT is the word of God, yet when people question them on some issues, they claim that Jesus "changed" the law, and the revised version is in the NT. This seems quite selective according to ones personal beliefs.

If the word of God is in the OT, then Jews should have their say, right?
Yes to the first, yes to the last. As to the middle, I sort of answered it in the judgment thread. (In a sense I dodged it, but, I think you'll understand why.)

[Topher]

Yes to the first, yes to the last. As to the middle, I sort of answered it in the judgment thread. (In a sense I dodged it, but, I think you'll understand why.)
No i don’t understand why.