1. 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!

Homosexuality in the Bible

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by linwood, Oct 7, 2004.

  1. s2a

    s2a Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,255
    Ratings:
    +588
    Religion:
    Really?
    Hello Evandr2,

    When I inquired:
    Perhaps you'll be the first (all others previously entreated have evaded lending any specificity in reply) to name which version/translation of Scripture as THE definitive version. (I can't promise any valued door prize, but you may earn a bit of due credibility and respect in so doing).

    By your quoted commentabove , you obviously regard (by amorphous implication) some "older" version of Scripture as [being] definitive and ultimately authoritative.

    In order to fairly rebut your faith-based perspective/rationale, it would be only fair (and incumbent upon you) for you to qualify which translation/version (name names please) of the particular BIble you deem as authentic "Scripture".

    I hope you won't disappoint, or evade in lending specificity. I just want to insure that we're all playing on the same level field. I anxiously await your declaration/qualification as to which version/translation of Scripture you deem as valid and "true".

    If you will, we'll progress from that point...


    You offered:
    Forgive me, but when you said; "For a vast number of Christians that point is prayer and the King James Version of the Bible."--was that intended as some general observation, or as definitive answer to the question posed?

    Is it your position that the KJV translation is the "definitive and ultimately authoritative" version of Holy Scripture, and remains the singular and inerrant testimony of "God's Word"?

    Help an infidel and unbeliever to know (beyond any reasonable doubt) which English translation of the Bible is the only "true" version worth referencing and quoting.

    Thanks. Your unequivocal and specified reply is appreciated.
     
  2. Ezzedean

    Ezzedean Active Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    449
    Ratings:
    +69
    I can show religious text that claim to be from God which state otherwise though... I highly doubt that any form of sexual act or marriage that doesn't involve producing life is something God does not want to happen, and I'm also sure that anal sex (which is highly practiced by homosexual men) is something God does not want.. considering it is the most deadly form of intercourse. The story of Sodom and Gamora should be the icing on the cake... in both the Bible and the Quran.

    Off to bed.

    Peace and Blessings
     
  3. Ezzedean

    Ezzedean Active Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    449
    Ratings:
    +69
    Before I get jumped... I could care less if a guy wants to have sex with another man, it's their problem not mine. I believe it's a sin.... so is smoking dope. Now I hang out with plenty of people who smoke dope, I believe what they do is wrong but I wont stop hanging out with them because of it. Homosexuality is something I will teach to my child as being un-natural and a sin, just like any other sin...

    Peace
     
  4. Evandr2

    Evandr2 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    141
    Ratings:
    +19


    Yes, I guess I do have to say that the KJV of the Bible is the definitive version of scripture by which the great majority of Christianity culminates their search for scripture. I am no statistician but it certainly would seem that way, however, for me that would be a very unimportant and wholly irrelevant piece of information.

    I love it when a plan comes together and believe me when I say that I can see the great plan of our Heavenly Father coming together and it is a beautiful thing yet a frightening thing to contemplate for the wicked.

    As a Mormon I have what I believe is unique in all of Christianity. A revealed plan that makes perfect sense, fits together with concert like harmony and without ambiguity, answers all my ecclesiastical and temporal question without any smoke and mirrors, leaves me with a feeling of assurance from the Holy Ghost that I am on the correct path without asking me to accept vague answers to important questions. I belong to a religion where I will learn the same thing in Japan as I would in the bijou, as I would in England, as I would in the North Pole, as I would anywhere in the world.

    The Bible? The Bible is a wonderful text and worthy of my search and understanding but it is inherently flawed for the understanding of this generation. It contains the Gospel of Jesus Christ so far as it has been translated correctly but it sets it forth in a language that was not meant for me, or the understanding of my generation.

    I believe... no, I KNOW, that the Book of Mormon was written by ancient prophets who were given by revelation to see our time and it contains a language plain to be understood by our people in so much that we cannot error in knowing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I know and understand that the Doctrine and Covenants is a text written by divine revelation to modern day prophets for the pure and direct establishment and administration of the one and only true church on the face of the earth in that it is the only one that holds all the keys of the Holy Priesthood as dispensed by the hands of Jesus Christ Himself.

    Scoff if you must at my bold declaration but this is my testimony to you and the reason that I do not place nearly as much importance on knowing and understand the Bible as most of today's Christians do. My intense interest in the Bible is more of a curious and reparatory nature in which I receive great pleasure. I have, in the Book of Mormon, a complete text with regard to the gospel of Jesus Christ in as much as Christ has revealed it to any of mankind in any time and more so now than ever before. It is as pure as the Bible was when penned by the original authors yet it contains more information. If and when you understand the Gospel as laid out in the Book of Mormon you will be able to see clearly past the flaws that have entered into the Bible over the past several hundreds of years.

    Vandr
     
  5. s2a

    s2a Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,255
    Ratings:
    +588
    Religion:
    Really?
    Hello Evandr2,

    You said:

    But, as you say, you already possess your own faith. Which version or translation is deemed "definitive" to you may now be (or seem to be) personally unimportant or moot, may yet be of significant relevance and import to an unbeliever. After all, who wants to seek "ultimate truth" from a flawed and errant source?

    It's difficult to be seriously frightened by a myth or fantasy itself. It's the dutiful adherents and loyalists of such tales and claims that pose the most frightening considerations of human actions and behavior. The Bible is just a book. It's what people believe about that book (as undeniable truth) that tends to cause consternation and concern amongst the "wicked". I do not fear divine retribution, for I retain no acceptant belief (faith) in divine entities. I no more fear some descent into Hades, than I do coal in my stocking from Santa.

    So...why do bad things happen to good people?

    Hmmm. Why would God craft (or direct others to write) such a relevatory work, so as to be (so ultimately) prone to misinterpretation, flaw, or incomprehension?

    The KJV was (commissioned, then) first published in 1611 (that's sixteen centuries after the attributed time and accountings of Jesus' alleged existence).

    William Shakespeare's first published work ("Venus and Adonis") appeared in 1609.

    Today, there are over 500 different English translations of the Bible.

    Today, there are no alternate "interpretational" English translations of any of Shakespeare's works.

    Is literary clarity and understanding impossible, or even difficult to attain after 400 years?

    Biblical apologists readily exercise special pleading in defense/explanation of the numerous diversity of Scriptural "interpretations" that exist today. Met many apologists of Shakespeare's works lately? Would you car to speculate why this is so?

    Most certainly, the scholars, exegetists, linguists, and devoutly inspired adherents to "modern" translations of Scripture (like the NASB, NIV, NLT, ASV, ESV, and even the NKJV) would counter that prospective "error" is not only possible, but inherent in poor transcriptions (into modern English) of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

    I acknowledge your testament of faith.

    I do not scoff at your testimony, but rather your apparent inability to justify your claim. I would agree that "most of today's Christians" have little, to no understanding of whatever Biblical translation of Scripture offers, declares, commands, or attests--as being either "Truth", or "God's Word". If they did, I "believe" that the totality in numbers of Christian adherents would experience even a more rapid decline than is evidenced today.

    One might say the same of vapid and self-indulgent romance novels...

    Your evangelistic testimony is noted regarding the relativistic merits of Mormonism. Bear in mind that I attribute neither merit of evidentiary fact nor immutable truth to Biblical Scripture claims. Bunk is bunk, and enhancement of bunk is essentialy enhanced bunk.

    I acknowledge and appreciate your candor and forthright testament that you regard the KJV as penultimate Scriptural authority (and veritable translation) of "God's Word", for most self-professed Christians are either unable or unwilling to assert any definitive claim as such.

    If you deem the KJV as being the "definitive version of scripture", that's fine with me. At least I'll know which source to reference in any further deliberative discussions of Scripture betwixt us.

    Just know that I know that:
    1) No original manuscript of any biblical book exists today. NONE.
    2) The meanings of some biblical texts are unknown or uncertain: since some Hebrew and Greek words have only appeared once in the Bible, and nowhere else in ancient literature.
    3) The Codex Sinaiticus and Dead Sea Scrolls are contemporary to the last 200 years, and such revelations/insights are not part of the KJV.
    4) Many (if not most) modern Biblical scholars differ/dispute/disagree as to what (or how many) passages in Scripture were/have been either added/modified/edited before/during/after the KJV was published.

    If reasonable doubt as to either the guilt or innocence of an accused heretic were to be established by (or predicated upon) the KJV alone, would such a source and attributed testimony survive the scrutiny of modern law, impartial justice, and testable facts as presented evidence?

    If not, why not?

    If so, how so (and why isn't such an authoritative source credibly applicable today)?
     
  6. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    36,883
    Ratings:
    +5,475
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Dear S2A:

    What do your posts have to do with "Homosexuality in the Bible?" Your posts are cluttering up what has been a very good debate.

    Your arguments about Christianity are pitifully misinformed. The number of misconceptions used as argument in your abysmally long and convoluted posts defy any kind of adequate response. Your arguments cannot serve to debunk Christianity, because the arguments make so many incorrect assumptions about Christianity to begin with. These incorrect assumptions are then used as the target for "why Christianity doesn't work." Of course Christianity doesn't work that way! It was never meant to! Like Don Quixote, you fancy yourself a knight on a quest to beat back the Christian dragon...but you're only tilting at windmills here. Sorry.
     
  7. Evandr2

    Evandr2 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    141
    Ratings:
    +19
    Hello s2a

    I do believe that we understand each other's stance. I understand that you cannot pick fruit from a tree that has never grown and you take the stance that I cannot pick fruit from a tree that does not exist.

    One of us is wrong and will rue the day when we both discover who it is. As things stand now we both think it is the other....we shall see.

    Your question leaves too much to interpretation, one man's heretic is another man's sage. The term heretic is typically used to disparage or malign those people who "choose" to present or hold ideas which are contrary to popular opinion, traditional or mainstream thought or orthodoxy, belief, and/or the status quo of any practice or branch of knowledge.

    The first thing to consider is who is doing the accusing and what makes them right. That alone could keep the courts tied up for generations.

    The KJV of the Bible would have to be disallowed as a source of reference because it could be argued that it is not the original text and even then it becomes a matter of interpretation.

    Such a case in a just court of law would never end.

    Aside from all that, such an accusation of heresy would imply that societal law backs it up with established paramaters. That would require that church and state be inseperably entwined. We both know how disastrous history has proven that to be.

    Vandr
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. s2a

    s2a Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,255
    Ratings:
    +588
    Religion:
    Really?
    Hello sojourner

    You inquired:
    Reference post #218, and your own subsequent "clutter" within this thread. I have lent you answer to posts you have directed towards myself.

    Sez you. You'll forgive me my lack of deference for any expertise or authority you feel you are due regarding your baseless assessments of my arguments. I remain well-informed enough to know your characterizations are pitfully self-serving.

    Of responses on your part, that much is clear.

    I have no interest in debunking Christianity. That is your incorrect assumption, and why you consistently fail in rebuttal.

    Quixotic allusions employed yet again? Is that the full extent of your classic literature knowledge? Maybe you could characterize me as fanatically pursuing some great white whale next time, wielding some dull harpoon...

    ...at least it would be different.

    My input regarding "Homosexuality in the Bible"?

    I am of the conclusion that Biblical Scripture categorically condemns homosexuality as a sinful abomination against God.

    I am also of the conclusion that concepts of sin, eternal damnation, and claims of divine entities are pure bunk.

    How's that?

    "...hell is an idea first born on an undigested apple-dumpling; and since then perpetuated through the hereditary dyspepsias nurtured by Ramadans."

    - Chapter XVII, Moby Dick
     
  9. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    36,883
    Ratings:
    +5,475
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Great! Thank you for proving the claims in my last post that you are pitifully misinformed about Christianity. Only the most shallow reading can reveal scripture to "categorically condemn homosexuality as a sinful abomination against God."

    Similarly, eternal damnation is certainly not within the realm of my understanding of God's grace.

    I am appalled that so many use the Bible to condemn others, when, clearly, the Biblical story is about love and acceptance of the unlovable and unacceptable. It is sad that so many claim God's grace to be inadequate to the task of mitigating human sinfulness.
     
  10. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    I disagree. I think that the condemnation of homosexual acts is explicit in both the OT and NT.

    It's a shallow application and interpretation of the entire NT that causes homosexuals to be the object of hatred and discrimination in the Christian churches today.
     
  11. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    36,883
    Ratings:
    +5,475
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    s2a said that the scriptures "categorically condemn homosexuality." That is a far different thing than saying, "There are a few scriptural passages that explicitly condemn homosexual acts."

    There are only a few isolated passages of scripture that deal with the condemnation of homosexual acts. Over and against the preponderance of scriptural call for forbearance, inclusion and acceptance, these few passages are hardly evidence that "the scriptures categorically condemn homosexuality." Quite the contrary! I think the scriptures more adequately categorically defend forbearance than condemnation.
     
  12. s2a

    s2a Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,255
    Ratings:
    +588
    Religion:
    Really?
    Hello sojourner,

    After angellous_evangellous replied to you:

    You said [to angellous_evangellous]:
    I stand by my statement.

    angellous_evangellous (a self-identified Christian) seems to concur with my statement.

    Aren't you now going to characterize angellous_evangellous as being "pitifully misinformed" and/or being a purveyor of "misconceptions" regarding Christianity?

    You continued:
    Indeed so.

    And God's Commandment [as "spoken" to Moses] of "Thou shalt not kill" appears only twice in Scripture (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17). That one made God's "Top Ten" list. I would consider that accounting to be "only a few isolated passages of scripture". Is repetition the key to properly understand God's earnest sincerity, or Scriptural truth? If a biblical commandment/dictate/law is only mentioned a couple of times throughout Scripture, does your God suggest/infer that minimal mentions are therefore to be construed as minimally important, or welcome to invitations of subjective interpretations? [That's not purely rhetorical; your considered reply is invited].

    Amongst mere mortals such as ourselves, perhaps.

    What elements of "forbearance, inclusion and acceptance" do we read in Leviticus 20:13?
    "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

    Not only does God decree a penalty of death for such a sin, but he even allows
    absolution for the executioners that carry out the death sentence. How convenient.

    And just in case there were any folks left in the audience that thought there was some "wiggle room" for personal interpretation of the above passage, the Lord punctuated His point in saying (just a few passages down) in Leviticus 20:22...

    "Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them..."

    I sense little equivocation in His declaration.

    .........................................

    You directed for my direct consideration in separate post:

    Am I to understand that quoting Scripture verbatim is to therefore render a shallow reading of same? I'm just relating what is says...you're trying to impart your own perspective of what it means on some presumed "deeper" level. No doubt, that's what your God meant to instigate in Leviticus 20:13...apologetic personal interpretations of what He "really meant" to say.

    So your understanding represents the totality of Christian reflection, thought, and interpretation?

    Perhaps my fault lies in not fully appreciating your personal understanding and interpretational faith. But then, there are literally hundreds of Christian sects in the US alone, each espousing their own unique "understanding of God's grace". Perhaps adherents of these differing sects might readily identify you as holding "misconceptions", and as being "pitifully misinformed"...

    Deuteronomy 29:17-29 (The KJV translation is the loveliest):
    "And ye have seen their abominations, and their idols, wood and stone, silver and gold, which were among them) Lest there should be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from the LORD our God, to go and serve the gods of these nations; lest there should be among you a root that beareth gall and wormwood; And it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst: The LORD will not spare him, but then the anger of the LORD and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the LORD shall blot out his name from under heaven.

    And the LORD shall separate him unto evil out of all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this book of the law: So that the generation to come of your children that shall rise up after you, and the stranger that shall come from a far land, shall say, when they see the plagues of that land, and the sicknesses which the LORD hath laid upon it; And that the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning, that it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath: Even all nations shall say, Wherefore hath the LORD done thus unto this land? what meaneth the heat of this great anger?

    Then men shall say, Because they have forsaken the covenant of the LORD God of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them forth out of the land of Egypt: For they went and served other gods, and worshipped them, gods whom they knew not, and whom he had not given unto them: And the anger of the LORD was kindled against this land, to bring upon it all the curses that are written in this book: And the LORD rooted them out of their land in anger, and in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them into another land, as it is this day.

    The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
    "


    Whee!

    I get such a warm and fuzzy feeling every time I read that Chapter...

    I wonder where all those unlovable, unmitigated, and unacceptable notions of intolerance and righteously entitled and justified indignations arise...in order to "do all the words of this law."...

    If only I could "truly" understand...
     
  13. s2a

    s2a Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,255
    Ratings:
    +588
    Religion:
    Really?
    Hello Evandr2,

    You said:
    Interesting analogy,,,and frubals for that. ;-)

    Tell you what. If you pass on first, please return from the vast beyond and let me know fer sure, will ya? ;-)


    When I said:
    If reasonable doubt as to either the guilt or innocence of an accused heretic were to be established by (or predicated upon) the KJV alone, would such a source and attributed testimony survive the scrutiny of modern law, impartial justice, and testable facts as presented evidence?

    You replied:
    A lovely philosophical bent, but I was speaking to the more popular, colloquial application of "heretic" within the realm of generic Christian orthodoxy (akin to 2 Timothy 2:18-18).

    I concede that "apostate" would have been more apropos in contextual application 'tho...


    Within most similar meaning and context, a skeptic might find comfortable surroundings...

    No wonder there is no dearth of available lawyers...;-)

    ...or unsubstantiated/uncorroborated evidence...

    Sure it could. Burdens of proof beyond reasonable doubt are the standard to be met.

    Indeed.

    But your implication suggests that impartial justice is impossible under a government predicated upon religious dogma and pretexts of law!
    That's positively revolutionary in all it's legal/moral/ethical ramifications!
    The "law of man" supersedes all claims/impositions of any "divine Law" within a just society?
    You...you...radical!
    Leftist!
    LIBERAL!
    SECULARIST!!!!

    ;-)

    Why should it be then, that politically-motivated and agenda-driven evangelical Christians constantly seek to remove those untidy barriers of constitutionally established separations between religion and government?

    If only some Christians would remind these more avid evangelicals that it's the very existence of a secular government that has preserved and protected religious liberties--within our nation--longer and more diligently than in any other time or place in recorded human history.

    The Constitution allows every citizen to practice their own religious values and ethics beyond any interference from federally imposed oversight or regulation. If your faith prohibits the consumption of shellfish, it's neither the pervue, concern, nor interest of government to either endorse or prohibit such a personalized practiced adherence.

    Yet the KJV version of the Ten Commandments should be somehow legislated and mandated to be imposed and displayed in pluralistically public places for the "common good"?

    Perhaps the federal government should ban (even criminalize) the consumption of all shellfish in the US...or better yet, insist that all US citizens must buy and take home an allotted amount of shellfish each week. Of course you don't have to eat the shellfish once it's purchased and in your fridge--you're welcome to pretend it's not there, and merrily endure it's eventual unwelcome odor and unavoidable presence, because...after all...it's all for your own good.
     
  14. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    But I also said on that same post:

    And now we have an example as to what I was referring to:

    Repetition is an indicator of importance, but something does not need to be repeated for it to be important. What is useful in repetition is clarity. If something is not clear the first time, it may be elaborated on in another place, giving clarity to both.

    The Bible's various condemnations of homosexual acts are not without serious problems. For one thing, they are all vague, and difficult to parse with a measure of exactness. There's a loophope for a minimalist in every instance.

    I am of the opinion that the ancients - both Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans knew full well about homosexuality (being defined as people who are only attracted to the opposite sex) and some people chose to write in support of it and some people wrote against it.

    A shallow application and interpretation of the text will apply these ancient condemnations to our current situation without first considering how homosexuality was approached in ancient times (differently, of course, in the OT and NT), what exactly was forbidden, and the different circumstances that we face today.

    This is a horrible example. Taken from a law that sends men out of the camp for night ejaculations and women for their menstral cycles, the forbidding of homosexuality seems trite. Are we going to say that God considers these things impure today?

    Yes.

    The Scripture does not "say" what it does not "mean." Thoughtless proof-texting can prove anything which is why we have so many idiot Protestant denomenations.

    Remeber you are reading the translation (a subjectiveinterpretation in itself) from a text thousands of years old from a culture that is foreign.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    36,883
    Ratings:
    +5,475
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    AE: Thank you.

    s2a: Deal with it.
     
  16. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    : hamster :

    :sheep:
     
  17. s2a

    s2a Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,255
    Ratings:
    +588
    Religion:
    Really?
    Hello angellous_evangellous,

    When I offered:

    And God's Commandment [as "spoken" to Moses] of "Thou shalt not kill" appears only twice in Scripture (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17). That one made God's "Top Ten" list. I would consider that accounting to be "only a few isolated passages of scripture". Is repetition the key to properly understand God's earnest sincerity, or Scriptural truth? If a biblical commandment/dictate/law is only mentioned a couple of times throughout Scripture, does your God suggest/infer that minimal mentions are therefore to be construed as minimally important, or welcome to invitations of subjective interpretations? [That's not purely rhetorical; your considered reply is invited].

    You replied:
    Which par example, I indicated.

    Does "Thou shalt not kill" seem vague or unclear? If so, what is the source of such an obfuscation? Are the contradictory examples of adherence to that commandment resident within the Bible itself, or borne within the necessity of accommodation for mortal man's rationalizations of murder "in the name of God"...as service to His Will?

    As I am a both skeptic and atheist, you'll get no argument from me on that point.

    I disagree. Leviticus 20:13 seems very straightforward to me. In what instance/example is this articulation from the Lord Himself "vague", or difficult to measure? I indulge no parsimony regarding the passage itself. Apologists are welcome to introduce alternate "explanations" as they see fit, but from my perspective...they merely serve to muddy the clear waters.

    A cute axiom, but not especially enlightening nor elucidating in lending clarity as regards "truth".

    Your opinion is noted. But weren't the authors (and subsequent revisionists) of Scripture supposedly divinely inspired in their works? I would not disagree that common mortals such as myself might be prone to personal bias, prejudice, or favor (especially in matters of divinely lent spiritual revelation, or simple "understanding")...but then I am no claimed recipient of divine instruction, direction, or accepted subservient divine purpose.

    Do clarify matters then, won't you? Is Scripture vague, problematic, and inexact as a manifested product borne of God's Will...or man's?

    Perhaps you could illustrate Chapter and Verse that delineates the differences between "then", and now---outlining what "exactly" is forbidden, and what Scripturally referenced "circumstances" validate/support a contrarian argument in opposition to Leviticus 20:13; that "clearly" suggests that Leviticus 20:13 is no longer a valid or merited "understanding" or interpretation of supposed initial intent and meaning?

    When I inquired:
    What elements of "forbearance, inclusion and acceptance" do we read in Leviticus 20:13?
    "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

    Not only does God decree a penalty of death for such a sin, but he even allows
    absolution for the executioners that carry out the death sentence. How convenient.

    And just in case there were any folks left in the audience that thought there was some "wiggle room" for personal interpretation of the above passage, the Lord punctuated His point in saying (just a few passages down) in Leviticus 20:22...

    "Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them..."

    I sense little equivocation in His declaration.

    Your lent characterization, absent any delineated counterpoint, offers little. "Horrible" in what way? "Horrible" that it might be construed at face value (as many believers do); or "horrible" that such "rules" have no salient application in a 21st century civic sensibility?

    It's not for me to say. I'm no apologist, nor do I possess the requisite revelatory faith to "testify" my personalized understanding of "accurate" or "infallible" Biblical "truth". I do know that many believers routinely cite such Scripture as incontrovertible "truth", spoken by the Lord thy God Himself. I possess no "sin meter" that can measure relative amounts of impurity within all acts Scripturally decreed as sinful.

    I can readily observe that many self-professed Christians do not abide (or even contemplate) the "laws" laid down in Exodus, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy. In a modern and "civilized" culture of applicable/enforceable--pluralistically secular--methodology of both laws and dispensational justice, I "understand" why such ancient Biblical laws are, um...."inconvenient" today. What I find lacking, is the pointed and referenced Scriptural support/foundations that determinedly condones setting these ancient "laws" aside...beyond some personalized testimony/faith that states (in essence), that: " I don't believe that God considers/feels the same way today".

    [Ya know, if this earthly existence was a just football game, and I accepted that your God not only invented the game, but was also responsible for establishing the rules of play, and was final authority as referee--I don't think I'd question a flag thrown on the field for being offsides. In TRW, athletes may argue with the referee's call, and complain that the assessed penalty was unfair; or that the "old rule" was antiquated, and should no longer be applied (to them). Oddly enough, such arguments never prevail, and the penalty stands as called.

    To be sure, I wouldn't condone stoning rebellious teens to death in the public square as a matter of just and enforceable law; but then, I'm an atheist, and prone to reject Biblical declarations of righteous dispensations as pure bunk. What I don't find amongst the most ardent Christian adherents, is a Scripturally-derived and readily referenced disputation as to why a pious and god-fearing society shouldn't exercise a more strict adherence to Levitical Law.

    If Scripture is to be construed as vague, unspecific, or editorially unsound--consistently subject to either revision or reinterpretation--then what valid (or ultimmate) claim can be reasonably asserted as to Scriptural authority, authenticity, or relevance in matters of unmitigated/unimpeachable/absolute "TRUTH"?


    When I asked:
    Am I to understand that quoting Scripture verbatim is to therefore render a shallow reading of same..."

    Your thusly offered characterization of the many variant Protestant sects...not mine. I neither support nor defend any especial favorites in this regard. I refrain from characterizing any Protestant sect as being MORE (or less) "thoughtless" or idiotic in application and practice of acceptably adherent dogma over another.

    Not particularly difficult to recollect a point I often present myself in apt discussion.

    Am I to understand that both unavoidable and inherent flaws in any efforts to exact accurate transcription/translation of ancient (and non-existent) texts are more powerful testaments of fact and immutable truths, than more recent and compelling (testable and measurable) evidence-based conclusions?

    You are invited to provide your most "thoughtful" text-proofing of Scriptural/Biblical claims that you acknowledge are lacking in either primary referenced source or definitive translation.

    To claim that an "unbeliever" can't "understand" the self-acknowledged [as being]: ambiguous; unclear; or untestable/unmeasurable...begs the same question as to why pious adherents attest to the "truth" of a book that [most unabshedly] exhibits all these inestimable traits itself.
     
  18. s2a

    s2a Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,255
    Ratings:
    +588
    Religion:
    Really?
    Is religious faith a testament of: the empirical; the evidenced; the measurable; or the quantifiable....or a declaration of belief in emotional appeals and qualities that defy such evaluations? Can we measure piety, faith, or belief? Is there a reliable test of these qualities that may provide an answer beyond a reasonable doubt? Can "redemption" be categorically determined and validated by some method? Does any version/translation of the Bible present any unequivocal determination of fact that is testable, measurable, or readily quantifiable?

    If the answer to these questions is "no", then of what superior notions does Scripture readily or ultimately testify as "truth"?
     
  19. s2a

    s2a Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,255
    Ratings:
    +588
    Religion:
    Really?
    Hee.

    I'm still at the table, with lots of chips.

    I invite you to play your own hand.

    Check, raise, or fold.
     
  20. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    36,883
    Ratings:
    +5,475
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    You can eat your chips -- and ask for more.

    Deal with it.
     
Loading...