Cherry Picking... especially interested in theist views

[exchemist]

Hi all,

Especially interested in the Theist response to this; it's not meant to be a sneery sort of thread. I'm genuinely curious.

I've been in some debates on here where I've quoted scripture and been told I'm lying or deliberately misinterpreting the text. My view is that things like this are pretty hard to misinterperet...

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

I mean, what context am I missing here?

The question is, seeing how the above (and other morally questionable concepts) is written in the bible, and the bible is supposedly written by people who were channeling god or were inspired by god, how do you choose which bits are correct and why not just remove the bad bits?

I mean, if you believe it was a product of its time and doesnt really apply (why would that happen if god inspired it) why not just take it out as irrelevant? It gives bad guys a platform to spew hatred...

Because it is more honest to leave it in.

To a Christian, the OT is superseded, where applicable, by the NT. Christ explicitly updates or replaces the old law of Moses with new (at the time) principles. There is plenty in both the OT and NT that can be seen at this distance as a product of its time.

That is one reason why the thinking believer always applies a degree of interpretation to the words, many passages of which are open to different interpretations in any case, as is often true of literature. Religion is not a static ossified thing: people think about it and develop it.

 

[InChrist]

Firstly, the male body has a receptor which appears to be designed for nothing else but anal stimulation (sorry, graphic).

It does not appear that way at all because the female body has the same anatomy and it is not a receptor, but an organ for the elimination of waste matter.

 

[iam1me]

You say that gods desire and what he had written in the bible are different. As far as I can tell, the bible is the only thing that you have to judge god's will, so how can you make this conclusion? Why have it written in the first place?

It's not that what is in the scriptures is different than what God desires - it's that to have a proper understanding of what God desires you need to read the whole of scripture vs picking out isolated passages.

As another example, take all the sacrifices in the Law. Do you imagine that because God commanded such sacrifices that therefore he desires them? No, he does not.

Isaiah 1:10-20
Hear the word of the Lord,
you rulers of Sodom;
listen to the instruction of our God,
you people of Gomorrah!
11 “The multitude of your sacrifices—
what are they to me?” says the Lord.
“I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
of rams and the fat of fattened animals;
I have no pleasure
in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
12 When you come to appear before me,
who has asked this of you,
this trampling of my courts?
13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
I cannot bear your worthless assemblies.
14 Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals
I hate with all my being.
They have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I hide my eyes from you;
even when you offer many prayers,
I am not listening.
Your hands are full of blood!


16 Wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds out of my sight;
stop doing wrong.
17 Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.a]">[a]
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.


18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,”
says the Lord.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient,
you will eat the good things of the land;
20 but if you resist and rebel,
you will be devoured by the sword.”
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.
​

If a god wanted people to live righteously, why make the definition and rules surrounding righteousness so hard? More to the point, why make us flawed and sinful, then judge us for being flawed and sinful?

There is nothing hard about comprehending what is right and good. We are fully capable of fulfilling the Law. We sin because we ourselves choose to sin. We choose to act selfishly, we choose to be greedy, we choose to rape and to pillage, etc. We are just as capable of doing what is right.

Deuteronomy 30:11-20
Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it. 15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. 17 But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, 18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess. 19 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live 20 and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So heavens rules of entry are different for some people? Why?

No idea. But I know that a reasonable case can be made that the Bible says they are.

If the old testament is no longer applicable, why bother with the Commandments?

And only one of the three versions of the Ten Commandments at that.

Again: no idea.

If your god is loving and forgiving, how can you reconcile that with the concept of hell?

I can't, though as an atheist, I don't feel the need to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The nature intended it was needed a person of each gender Male and Female to make a baby, from the beginning (Adam and Eve) they was not supposed to enjoy the sexual part except for when giving new life.

Plenty of mammals go into heat... i.e. they only become aroused when they're fertile. This isn't the case in humans; we can become aroused even when sex would not lead to pregnancy.

Plenty of mammals - including some of our closest "cousin" species - have overt ovulation: when the female is fertile, there's an obvious outward physical sign. This isn't the case in humans; for us, it's generally impossible to tell from outward signs that a female is ovulating.

So... if we were to assume that we were designed, we could infer from our design that we're made to have non-procreative sex most of the time.

(Tip of the hat to @MysticSangha - the person who I first heard these points from)

 

[Spirit of Light]

Plenty of mammals go into heat... i.e. they only become aroused when they're fertile. This isn't the case in humans; we can become aroused even when sex would not lead to pregnancy.

Plenty of mammals - including some of our closest "cousin" species - have overt ovulation: when the female is fertile, there's an obvious outward physical sign. This isn't the case in humans; for us, it's generally impossible to tell from outward signs that a female is ovulating.

So... if we were to assume that we were designed, we could infer from our design that we're made to have non-procreative sex most of the time.

(Tip of the hat to @MysticSangha - the person who I first heard these points from)

First of all i would like to say, we can not look at our self as animals, we as human race is spiritual beings (capable of understand spiritual law) sexual arousal is actually an attachment and not a need. Sex is not needed to live in a very happy and healty relationship

 

[exchemist]

So the swords he wanted people to buy were
to be for like ceremonial purposes?

Where does this come from?

 

[Dan Mellis]

As I am sure you know, and hence your OP is a bit facetious, many believe the Bible is untouchable and therefore they have to either "don't ask, don't tell" about the evil stuff God speaks in it or they bend their hearts and minds sufficiently in order to justify it, even using it as justification for persecuting those who sincerely find themselves to be homosexual through no act or choice of their own. Such lack of openness to the sincerity of others is a form of willful ignorance I think.

Way, way back buried deep in the Bible are traditions that used to create partially practical, partially impractical limits around the satisfaction of the instinctual desires. These limits, I think, provide psychological focus so that eating isn't mere gluttony and sex isn't the same. Culture, in general, is a cooperative effort of a group of people to meet their individual needs without treading on each other. I can only speculate myself but perhaps same sex "fooling around" was seen as a distraction to the opportunities for intimacy that a man would have with his wife. If a man was ensured to relate sexually with his wife he would also be sure to attend to his family. Maybe yesterdays same sex encounters were often today's form of pornography for married men who didn't want to create illegitimate children.

Today I think that the varieties of sexual orientation are clearly not individual perversions but expressions of the variety of what God has created. This scripture is morally wrong at this point.

I have argued that scripture has been, for at least a couple of reasons, frozen into a static document. However it grew out of a creative effort and was inspired by a body of existing oral and written myth. If the Biblical stories had been allowed to remain in creative flux, no doubt this particular item would likely have been removed.

I apologise if it comes off as facetious - it wasn't meant to. I had assumed that what you said is correct about the "untouchable" bible, but I wanted to avoid falling into that trap and actually hear the arguments rather than what I've been raised with and what I've heard influential atheists say.

 

[Dan Mellis]

First of all i would like to say, we can not look at our self as animals, we as human race is spiritual beings (capable of understand spiritual law) sexual arousal is actually an attachment and not a need. Sex is not needed to live in a very happy and healty relationship

I disagree - I think the only way we can think of ourselves is as animals. Are you happy to concede that evolution by natural selection is the most likely explaination of our existence? We neednt go into what caused evolution.

If you do, then at what point did we cease to be animals and start being something else? Biologically, we are almost exactly the same as other species of ape. We're just more intelligent.

If you're a creationist, I'm afraid that's a stumbling point that I don't think we can talk or way around...

 

[exchemist]

I disagree - I think the only way we can think of ourselves is as animals. Are you happy to concede that evolution by natural selection is the most likely explaination of our existence? We neednt go into what caused evolution.

If you do, then at what point did we cease to be animals and start being something else? Biologically, we are almost exactly the same as other species of ape. We're just more intelligent.

If you're a creationist, I'm afraid that's a stumbling point that I don't think we can talk or way around...

You're trying to pick a fight, aren't you?

 

[Dan Mellis]

I believe the entire Bible is the Word of God. While all of it gives insight, wisdom, and understanding about God and human nature, etc., not every word, verse, or passage is applicable for every person, situation, or time.
It is important to ask the questions...who, what, when where, and why, while reading the scriptures to discern the intended purpose and audience. The law you quoted was from the OT and was specifically given for the nation of Israel during the time period before the cross of Jesus Christ. The behavior of practicing homosexuality is still a sin mentioned throughout the scriptures, but the practice of stoning for breaking that law was specific to Israel at that time.

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15

Ok, well regardless of the punishment, is homosexuality still a sin? Because to me, that is a product of its time and no longer applies today. After all, we have to consider the who, what, when where and why...

While we're at it, what about adultery? Surely that's up to the people involved? I think we can safely dismiss that one. Idol worship? Well, at a time where there was so much uncertainty in life there was a need to all pull together under one banner. Now though, it doesnt matter as much. We can worship whatever we like as long as we still believe.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic - I'm just making a point. I know that a lot of the stuff in there was obviously a product of the time, but my point is that argument can be applied to any part of any scripture - and to the notion of god itself.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I disagree - I think the only way we can think of ourselves is as animals. Are you happy to concede that evolution by natural selection is the most likely explaination of our existence? We neednt go into what caused evolution.

If you do, then at what point did we cease to be animals and start being something else? Biologically, we are almost exactly the same as other species of ape. We're just more intelligent.

If you're a creationist, I'm afraid that's a stumbling point that I don't think we can talk or way around...

I am a Buddhist I do not belive in the creation of man in the way told by sciece in evolution fro ape to man. My view is that we have always been man/ woman.
And no i do not think Big bang is the beginning that is only a restart of rebirth of the universe. As a buddhist i see that we can get reborn even as animals or higher spiritual beings. So no i do not belong in creationists groupe when it comes to spiritual belief

 

[tigrers2019]

Hi all,

Especially interested in the Theist response to this; it's not meant to be a sneery sort of thread. I'm genuinely curious.

I've been in some debates on here where I've quoted scripture and been told I'm lying or deliberately misinterpreting the text. My view is that things like this are pretty hard to misinterperet...

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

I mean, what context am I missing here?

The question is, seeing how the above (and other morally questionable concepts) is written in the bible, and the bible is supposedly written by people who were channeling god or were inspired by god, how do you choose which bits are correct and why not just remove the bad bits?

I mean, if you believe it was a product of its time and doesnt really apply (why would that happen if god inspired it) why not just take it out as irrelevant? It gives bad guys a platform to spew hatred...

The Leviticus chapters 18 and 20 do not teach what many have been taught to believe. The ancient Hebrew word translated into the English [abomination] is the Hebrew word towebah . There are 3 Hebrew words that have all been translated into English as [abomination]. The Hebrew word 'towebah' means the most severe idolatry to God Himself. It means religious idolatry.
The other 2 Hebrew words of the Old Testament translated into English refer to disgusting things of less severity. It is these other 2 words that most people have been led to believe was the word for 'abomination' in the 2 Leviticus chapters of 18 and 20.
What this means is that the Israelites were being warned to stay away from the pagan temples where sex to the deity was the worship involving not only hetero sex but also same sex and even beastiality.
Since this kind of worship no longer exists, we can only speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent.

I was in a discussion on this very issue concerning Leviticus 18 and 20 and the word for 'abomination'. My opponent tried to make the argument that though the ceremonial religious concept has passed, the moral concept of abomination in these chapters remained. I asked my opponent that if he believed that, then would he be sinning if he made love to his spouse in what was left of one of these ancient pagan temples. He would not answer my question.

 

[Dan Mellis]

It does not appear that way at all because the female body has the same anatomy and it is not a receptor, but an organ for the elimination of waste matter.

Say what you like, the prostate gland (exlusive to males) is a route to orgasm in a very similar way to the female g-spot. You should give it a go. Just take it easy though at first.

 

[Dan Mellis]

It's not that what is in the scriptures is different than what God desires - it's that to have a proper understanding of what God desires you need to read the whole of scripture vs picking out isolated passages.

As another example, take all the sacrifices in the Law. Do you imagine that because God commanded such sacrifices that therefore he desires them? No, he does not.

Isaiah 1:10-20
Hear the word of the Lord,
you rulers of Sodom;
listen to the instruction of our God,
you people of Gomorrah!
11 “The multitude of your sacrifices—
what are they to me?” says the Lord.
“I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
of rams and the fat of fattened animals;
I have no pleasure
in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
12 When you come to appear before me,
who has asked this of you,
this trampling of my courts?
13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
I cannot bear your worthless assemblies.
14 Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals
I hate with all my being.
They have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I hide my eyes from you;
even when you offer many prayers,
I am not listening.
Your hands are full of blood!


16 Wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds out of my sight;
stop doing wrong.
17 Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.a]">[a]
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.


18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,”
says the Lord.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient,
you will eat the good things of the land;
20 but if you resist and rebel,
you will be devoured by the sword.”
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.
​

There is nothing hard about comprehending what is right and good. We are fully capable of fulfilling the Law. We sin because we ourselves choose to sin. We choose to act selfishly, we choose to be greedy, we choose to rape and to pillage, etc. We are just as capable of doing what is right.

Deuteronomy 30:11-20
Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it. 15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. 17 But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, 18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess. 19 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live 20 and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
​

This is all getting away from the original point - you're claiming what is sinful and justifying it with scripture. My question is, how can you justify this, but ignore other things such as references to slavery and the correct price at which a woman should be sold? There's no gray area there.

 

[Audie]

Where does this come from?

our friend said jesus would never countenance killing

so we find that-

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

So if suggested, if not for killing perhaps for ceremonial purposes?

 

[Dan Mellis]

You're trying to pick a fight, aren't you?

Not at all - I'm just trying to point out flaws in the arguments.

I try to avoid creationism argument becausr the evidence is there, and easily accessible. If someone is convinced the opposite way, then the only way that conversation ends is in a fight and I'm only interested in productive, informative discussion.

This is a debate forum... it's kind of a given we will disagree but the manner in which we do can be directed and kept civil.

 

[InChrist]

Ok, well regardless of the punishment, is homosexuality still a sin? Because to me, that is a product of its time and no longer applies today. After all, we have to consider the who, what, when where and why...

While we're at it, what about adultery? Surely that's up to the people involved? I think we can safely dismiss that one. Idol worship? Well, at a time where there was so much uncertainty in life there was a need to all pull together under one banner. Now though, it doesnt matter as much. We can worship whatever we like as long as we still believe.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic - I'm just making a point. I know that a lot of the stuff in there was obviously a product of the time, but my point is that argument can be applied to any part of any scripture - and to the notion of god itself.

According to the scriptures, yes homosexuality and adultery are still sinful. What does being a "product of the times" have to do with anything? If there is a Creator who designed humans to function in a way which brings health and life as opposed to disease and death then functioning properly would apply for all times.

 

[Dan Mellis]

I am a Buddhist I do not belive in the creation of man in the way told by sciece in evolution fro ape to man. My view is that we have always been man/ woman.
And no i do not think Big bang is the beginning that is only a restart of rebirth of the universe. As a buddhist i see that we can get reborn even as animals or higher spiritual beings. So no i do not belong in creationists groupe when it comes to spiritual belief

Fair enough interesting to hear your views as a buddhist, I had no knowledge of that. However, we've reached a fundamental disagreement - thanks for keeping it friendly!

 

[Spirit of Light]

Fair enough interesting to hear your views as a buddhist, I had no knowledge of that. However, we've reached a fundamental disagreement - thanks for keeping it friendly!

Even we disagree on some issues in life does not mean we must fight to be the one with "right" view Buddhists do try to be accepting all people even we do not always agree with everyone. When it comes to gender related and sexual issues i try to see people as just that, People. I can admit that i have not always been the best in not judging others, but i come to the point in my practice that i have enough with my self, so other people can do as they feel is right for them, without me judging them