syo
Well-Known Member
Jesus never wanted to shed blood.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Cherry Picking... especially interested in theist views
- Thread starter Dan Mellis
- Start date
None of the abominations are explained, but there is a hint that it would cause Jews in the bronze age to become like the nations around them. An 'Abomination' means its something the Jewish men aren't supposed to do for reasons which are not explained to us. The word appears and is used to describe things they aren't allowed to do, but it doesn't describe everything illegal. Eating the wrong food is an abomination. Murder is just illegal and evil.
The punishment for abomination is also unclear. All abominations carry grave sentences (always death) for them that might contradict one of the great ten commandments which is do not murder, and the covenant of Noah says that no man shall be killed unless he has killed someone. The result is a legal system it seems in which someone who does these abominations is excluded but not killed physically. They probably are legally considered dead. Whether they can be brought back to life I do not know. We are all guessing, because it is from so long ago. My guess is (everything I have said is a guess) they were kicked out of the community unless they agreed to reform, but I don't know. If they hadn't murdered it would be illegal to kill them.
Speaking from experience as a moderator it is sometimes a good idea to report a post that accuses you directly of lying. Its complicated, but we try to discourage that since there is no defense. Its declaration that civil conversation with you is not possible. If somebody really thinks you're lying we'd prefer that they simply add you to their ignore list instead of trying to cause a vicious I'm-right-You're-wrong match. They're just creating work for us and scaring other people away from conversation. Accusations of lying are sometimes considered considered trolling, preaching or insulting. Technically you are allowed to lie and to disagree as long as you don't troll, because we just can't police truth very easily. Yes if somebody is really being a super liar its possible we'd let somebody call them that, but usually its not allowed.
Last edited:
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
syo
Well-Known Member
For revolution, in my opinion. No murder, no killing.
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
Thanks for the advice re being accused of lying. I'm not sure I'd report it in the instance I'm talking about as they didn't outright say "you're lying," but said that "your quotes lie," which doesn't really make sense and I was happy to rebut that. It's still useful though.
As for the section I've quoted from your reply, it seems like a stretch to me. I haven't found any evidence that they mean that metaphorically - and the contradiction in the commandments is more indicative (for me at least) of a rule of thumb rather than a strict rule.
It just makes more sense. The quote you pulled is the generalisation, but a specific usually overrules a generalisation. It makes more sense to say that they mean 'you shouldnt kill anyone unless they've killed someone else... unless theyre gay then fair one the punishment for that is death'.
There's also a lot more evidence through history of literal death sentences than metaphorical ones. In those cases that we could compare to a metaphorical "youre dead to us" sentence, theres usually a specific term for it like shunning, banishment or excommunication.
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
That seems unlikely. Cludgels are much, much cheaper and much more effective for revolution without murder. Swords were incredibly expensive for the proletariat in ancient times. Otherwise, if push came to shove (which it undoubtedly would during a revolt) all they'd be able to do is look menacing.
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
Not a problem! Nobody knows everything and I imagine that the male G spot isn't exactly dinner party conversation...
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
iam1me
Active Member
The scriptures are multi-faceted. Just because God decrees something does not mean that God actually desires it or that it is the best thing. For instance: divorce is permitted under the Mosaic Law even though God does not desire it.
Matthew 19:3-9 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’a]">[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’b]">[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Justice is good and holy, but it is not the best or most desirable outcome.
James 2:12-13 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
Thus when interpreting scripture, the scope of that scripture is in fact the entirety of the scriptures. Scripture interprets scripture, as it were. What does God truly desire? What is the true intent of the law in question? It is not enough to look at a verse in isolation to come away with a proper understanding of what is being said.
With regards commandments calling for death for various sins, there is nothing wrong with these on their own. They teach that these are sins and not to do them. The wages of all sin is death in the end. However, that is also a very limited understanding of what is called for from us. For it is not God's desire that people be put to death, but that they repent of their sinful ways and be forgiven. It is God's desire that we do what is right and good rather than make sacrifices. It is God's desire that all be saved. And you would only be able to approach these commandments from this perspective if you took the time to study the whole of scripture and understand the overall will of God rather than picking out isolated texts.
The scriptures speaks in both ideals and reality. For while they show us the ideal, they also address the reality that people are sinful and don't live up to those ideals. Justice is good, mercy is better, and living righteously to begin with is the ideal.
syo
Well-Known Member
Why keep it? we have jesus.
Jesus never attacked homosexuals. He said he came for the sinners. He never killed them.
That's an old game - disqualify the unbeliever's opinion with any of a number of claims. I've been collecting them for some time. This list begins with a few paraphrasings followed by a couple dozen quotes. The answer given you happens to be number one. Also, see [48] :
[1] You took the scripture out of context.
[2] You don't understand literary criticism
[3] It's an allegory, not literal.
[4] It's literal, not an allegory.
[5] Scripture is only transparent to those with a child's perspective
[6] Scripture is only transparent to biblical scholars
[7] You are not filled with the Holy Spirit
[8] That's the mystery of it all. "God works in mysterious ways"
[9] Man's mind is too puny to grasp the immensity of God's truth and justice.
[10] You were obviously never a "true christian"
[11] You don't have enough faith. You have to believe to understand.
[12] You can't criticize the bible because you don't believe or understand it.
[13] Why do we think we can pretend to know God?
[14] Scripture always interprets scripture
[15] Ever heard of biblical hermeneutics?
[16] You are not TRULY with truth and sincerity seeking God.
[17] You have to know how to translate Hebrew and Greek
[18] You are using a completely unsupportable transliteration of Scripture
[19] You have clearly not studied the ancient peoples who wrote those things or you would not come up with the conclusions you have.
[20] Sorry, but attending a church for a few years doesn't make you any sort of Biblical expert.
[21] Stop scripture mining.
[22] You have to be familiar with the technical terminologies in the bible before you can comprehend it.
[23] Even Satan can quote scripture.
[24] In any other field, like medicine, engineering, technology, electronics, software, computer, unless you have qualifications and experience, you are not allowed to open you mouth.
[25] You have no reference in the knowledge of God to know our experience in Christ Jesus. The Word has to be embedded in one's heart, and that can come from God only.
[26] You're asking me to give you a four year bible study course on Topix?
[27] Dont fall in the trap of being a one verse wonder. You need to understand the passage and true meaning of the verse.
[28] You're only making a fool out of yourself trying to argue over something that you are not Blessed to understand.
[29] When you read scripture, one has to discern WHO that particular verse was written to..The believer or the Non believer. If we cant understand that then YES, the bible would seem to be very contradicting.
[30] A doctor, lawyer, scientist, or engineer are so used to reading their professional documentation literally, that metaphor, allegory, parables, hyperbole, and analogies are like another language unto themselves.
[31] You are not bright or educated enough to spew against Bible
[32] I would question the person who thinks that you understand even one page of any Bible. Without first learning the language how could you.
[33] Your arguments are so full of errors and misconceptions I don't even wanna touch it.
[34] You and others like you can't understand because you're not permitted to unless/until you repent and confess Christ as LORD.
[35] The power of the gospel is designed to frustrate the wisdom of the wise.
[36] It's so damn cute when atheists reach for their Bible to make their point. I love it!
[37] Your biased interpretation of the text is not the absolute interpretation that is required.
[38] It requires theological understanding. You don't have that. I do.
[39] We cannot and must not apply modern concepts to ancient cultures. It causes failure to understand.
[40] It takes humility to understand the Bible
[41] You get your biblical passages from Atheist web sites.
[42] A copy/paste from Biblehub does not make one a biblical expert.
[43] Don't bother quoting Scripture to me, atheist. You don't even know what you're doing.
[44] Your lack of belief in God coupled with your lack of experience with God means you are not qualified to comment on God.
[45] He believes he is qualified on the basis that he has been inside a church and picked up a bible.
[46] The word of God can not be understood no matter how many times it is read without the help of the Holy Spirit.
[47] Out of context arguments are presented by narrow minds that refuse to take in the bigger perspectives and the greater all encompassing truths.
[48] You're cherry picking scripture.
[49] You can't just read the Bible to understand it, you need to study the scriptures.
[50] You don't know what Jesus was talking about. Typical atheist.
[51] If you are going to quote Scripture for support for your claims then you need to tell me what the context is.
[52] Your ignorance of the Bible, its laws and customs and what applies to Christians today is embarrassing. You should be red faced for making this comment in public.
[53] You have no biblical expertise, your word on the Bible is strictly a layman's opinion.
[54] You want to convince me you have knowledge of the Bible. 1) Provide 5 examples of slave liberation in the Old Testament. 2) King Saul was merciful to the merciless and subsequently merciless to the merciful. Explain.
[55] You are a heretic with little if any understanding of Scripture. If you did study the Bible it was in a Laurel and Hardy College in Tijuana
[56] Like I say there are no errors in the bible only skeptics that can't read and comprehend.
[57] You're a Biblical ignoramus.
[58] You need Jehovah’s approval to understand His word.
[59] Please don't say, 'how can I trust it? The Bible contradicts itself'. That will only be evidence to me that you don't understand what it's ancient writers meant, and don't want to.
[60] I guess the issue here is, one of us has studied the original languages of the Bible, and has a degree in biblical studies and religion.
[61] How can people read the Christian Bible backwards and expect to get reasonable results.
[62] “The scriptures are "the words of the wise" and you need wisdom to understand them.”
[2] You don't understand literary criticism
[3] It's an allegory, not literal.
[4] It's literal, not an allegory.
[5] Scripture is only transparent to those with a child's perspective
[6] Scripture is only transparent to biblical scholars
[7] You are not filled with the Holy Spirit
[8] That's the mystery of it all. "God works in mysterious ways"
[9] Man's mind is too puny to grasp the immensity of God's truth and justice.
[10] You were obviously never a "true christian"
[11] You don't have enough faith. You have to believe to understand.
[12] You can't criticize the bible because you don't believe or understand it.
[13] Why do we think we can pretend to know God?
[14] Scripture always interprets scripture
[15] Ever heard of biblical hermeneutics?
[16] You are not TRULY with truth and sincerity seeking God.
[17] You have to know how to translate Hebrew and Greek
[18] You are using a completely unsupportable transliteration of Scripture
[19] You have clearly not studied the ancient peoples who wrote those things or you would not come up with the conclusions you have.
[20] Sorry, but attending a church for a few years doesn't make you any sort of Biblical expert.
[21] Stop scripture mining.
[22] You have to be familiar with the technical terminologies in the bible before you can comprehend it.
[23] Even Satan can quote scripture.
[24] In any other field, like medicine, engineering, technology, electronics, software, computer, unless you have qualifications and experience, you are not allowed to open you mouth.
[25] You have no reference in the knowledge of God to know our experience in Christ Jesus. The Word has to be embedded in one's heart, and that can come from God only.
[26] You're asking me to give you a four year bible study course on Topix?
[27] Dont fall in the trap of being a one verse wonder. You need to understand the passage and true meaning of the verse.
[28] You're only making a fool out of yourself trying to argue over something that you are not Blessed to understand.
[29] When you read scripture, one has to discern WHO that particular verse was written to..The believer or the Non believer. If we cant understand that then YES, the bible would seem to be very contradicting.
[30] A doctor, lawyer, scientist, or engineer are so used to reading their professional documentation literally, that metaphor, allegory, parables, hyperbole, and analogies are like another language unto themselves.
[31] You are not bright or educated enough to spew against Bible
[32] I would question the person who thinks that you understand even one page of any Bible. Without first learning the language how could you.
[33] Your arguments are so full of errors and misconceptions I don't even wanna touch it.
[34] You and others like you can't understand because you're not permitted to unless/until you repent and confess Christ as LORD.
[35] The power of the gospel is designed to frustrate the wisdom of the wise.
[36] It's so damn cute when atheists reach for their Bible to make their point. I love it!
[37] Your biased interpretation of the text is not the absolute interpretation that is required.
[38] It requires theological understanding. You don't have that. I do.
[39] We cannot and must not apply modern concepts to ancient cultures. It causes failure to understand.
[40] It takes humility to understand the Bible
[41] You get your biblical passages from Atheist web sites.
[42] A copy/paste from Biblehub does not make one a biblical expert.
[43] Don't bother quoting Scripture to me, atheist. You don't even know what you're doing.
[44] Your lack of belief in God coupled with your lack of experience with God means you are not qualified to comment on God.
[45] He believes he is qualified on the basis that he has been inside a church and picked up a bible.
[46] The word of God can not be understood no matter how many times it is read without the help of the Holy Spirit.
[47] Out of context arguments are presented by narrow minds that refuse to take in the bigger perspectives and the greater all encompassing truths.
[48] You're cherry picking scripture.
[49] You can't just read the Bible to understand it, you need to study the scriptures.
[50] You don't know what Jesus was talking about. Typical atheist.
[51] If you are going to quote Scripture for support for your claims then you need to tell me what the context is.
[52] Your ignorance of the Bible, its laws and customs and what applies to Christians today is embarrassing. You should be red faced for making this comment in public.
[53] You have no biblical expertise, your word on the Bible is strictly a layman's opinion.
[54] You want to convince me you have knowledge of the Bible. 1) Provide 5 examples of slave liberation in the Old Testament. 2) King Saul was merciful to the merciless and subsequently merciless to the merciful. Explain.
[55] You are a heretic with little if any understanding of Scripture. If you did study the Bible it was in a Laurel and Hardy College in Tijuana
[56] Like I say there are no errors in the bible only skeptics that can't read and comprehend.
[57] You're a Biblical ignoramus.
[58] You need Jehovah’s approval to understand His word.
[59] Please don't say, 'how can I trust it? The Bible contradicts itself'. That will only be evidence to me that you don't understand what it's ancient writers meant, and don't want to.
[60] I guess the issue here is, one of us has studied the original languages of the Bible, and has a degree in biblical studies and religion.
[61] How can people read the Christian Bible backwards and expect to get reasonable results.
[62] “The scriptures are "the words of the wise" and you need wisdom to understand them.”
When one is accused of taking something out of context, I find it helpful to confirm that what is meant is that something relevant has been left out that changes the apparent meaning of the words quoted, and if so, what context does he think changes the meaning of what has been provided. Then I give an example: "There is no God" has been removed from the scripture that says, “The fool says in his heart, ' There is no God' ”, which clearly changes the meaning to the exact opposite of its apparent meaning after contextomy.
In your example from the Old Testament, all you need do is ask what context that has been omitted reveals that that scripture doesn't mean what it appears to mean. That's usually the end of that.
The usual meaning of cherry picking is selecting evidence that one thinks supports his position, while ignoring or otherwise attempting to invalidate that which appears to contradict him. The classic example is the creationist who goes through the Genesis creation account and picks out the items consistent with the scientific account, such that the universe had a beginning, or that there were birds before people, and ignores all of the omissions (universal expansion, inflationary epoch, etc..) and errors (woman from a rib), a fallacy often called the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy : "an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are stressed. From this reasoning, a false conclusion is inferred."
But not good ethical guidance. Sure, it say to not lie, murder, or steal, and it says to be charitable and kind to one another, but isn't that part of most if not every ethical system? The problem with biblical ethics is that it includes things for which there is no good reason to call them immoral, and it leaves out many ethical principles that it ought to include.
I realize that this is to be expected, since moral guidelines evolve, which is the reason we must look elsewhere more moral guidance. The Bible won't tell you that slavery is wrong, or that democratic societies and guaranteed person freedoms are morally superior to despotic governments. The Bible considers it immoral to work on the Sabbath, or to not worship its god, but has no difficulty declaring women second-class citizens. The biblical god makes a moral error in the flood story, when it chooses to indiscriminately kill almost every living thing for its own error in creating man imperfectly.
Here's another example of a flawed moral pronouncement. I'd say that I've enjoyed sex without conception many more times than I've created life, and I would reject any moral code that would try to guilt people for enjoying something as harmless and pleasurable as safe, legal sex.
Sin can be seen a third way - nonexistent, at least in the literal, religious sense of the word. Sin to a Christian means essentially any violation of the commandment of the Christian god. If it doesn't exist - and it is relatively easy to demonstrate that it cannot exist as described in scripture owing to it being assigned mutually exclusive qualities at the same time, a logical impossibility - then sin doesn't exist, either.
This is why I prefer the rational ethics of secular humanism to received religious dicta. There is no reason to marginalize or demonize homosexuality or homosexuals. It's irrational, hateful, and damaging. Much more ethical is showing tolerance and acceptance. There are good reasons to do so, and no rational reason not to.
But that's the difference between rational ethics and the seemingly arbitrary commandments of religious systems like Christianity. The secular humanist needs a reason to believe what he does - a reasonable reason.
Also, the secular humanist has a different goal - maximizing the opportunity to pursue happiness as each individual conceives it for the greatest number. That is not the purpose of the shalts and shalt nots of the Bible, which is to instruct people how they are commanded to behave to be in compliance with God's will - a very different purpose, and one which has no meaning to the unbeliever.
Last edited:
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
You find it hard to interpret that two men who have sex should be put to death. What do you find easy to interpret?
Jumi
Well-Known Member
I agree that lots of it in the OT is either something that is a no-brainer or bad as often interpreted. The highlights are in the NT and quoted as something Jesus says.
I'm not a Biblist and I do not advocate that it should be the only ethical guidance one can have, such a view would be very rare where I live. Most Christians are just doing the cherrypicking that I said that everyone does whether they admit it or not.
What the so-called OT teaches is mostly just stuff that is best thought of as historical and semi-historical viewpoints of the cultures that produced it. The flood and such are interpretations of a people who found no reason to their plight, but what the priests of the time used with the same opportunism alarmists use today. Shootings and terrorism are seen as being caused by something intangible, immoral thing... why? Because people dislike the "immoral thing" and find it a convenient excuse to make a judgment of "immoral" people.
syo
Well-Known Member
If jesus sheds blood then we are all doomed. I don't dare to think Jesus as cruel. Jesus is all we've got.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
When a person do accept the way of living by a religious teaching this person also say yes to the guidelines that was put down by the founders of the religion, but it is free to do as you please, if you do not wish to follow any religious practice that is totally ok too. Personally i see good in every religion that exist, and yes ofcourse i do not stand for the wicced or evil some people chose to do.But they do it out of their own free will, just like devotees of different religions do this kind of practice out of their free will.
Often in religious practice that is taken very serious the person even choose to live in celebasy. and that is fine too.But for those who wish to follow a religion there will be guidelines that feel hurtful in the beginning becuse it is the person who need to change, not the teaching. And it is very common that some people do not wish to change but then how can they follow a teaching? Teaching is made to make human being better, not worse. And yes in many religions today there are people who take advatage of it and use it for evil. Those people arepeole we should stay away from.