Gay Rights And The Bible

[AnnaG]

Nevermind, Cliffy. He'll just wiggle, contort, and spin around the facts.

Anyway, as MHz pointed out before, the bible is actually 3-faced; it sats one thing, then offers a conflicting comment, then a third connent tries to reconcile the first two comments. So "men who lay with men" are bad, but then they aren't so bad, but then they are both because they are human and we are supposed to "love our neighbor" as we love ourselves. So I think out of all that "clarity", the Bible doesn't say anything about rights, just that we shouldn't "judge, lest we be judged" and let this god thing handle the judging.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Nevermind, Cliffy. He'll just wiggle, contort, and spin around the facts.

Anyway, as MHz pointed out before, the bible is actually 3-faced; it sats one thing, then offers a conflicting comment, then a third connent tries to reconcile the first two comments. So "men who lay with men" are bad, but then they aren't so bad, but then they are both because they are human and we are supposed to "love our neighbor" as we love ourselves. So I think out of all that "clarity", the Bible doesn't say anything about rights, just that we shouldn't "judge, lest we be judged" and let this god thing handle the judging.

Anna, you joined the forum just recently, you were not involved in any of the religious discussion so far.

But I have always said that the Bible (and Koran for that matter) is a very amorphous book, it says contradictory things at the same time. When people read Bible, they read their prejudices into it.

And it is so easy to do. No matter what your views, your prejudices are, you will find support for that in the Bible. You think gays are sub human and should be persecuted? No problem, Bible says gays will not go to Heaven; Leviticus prescribes death penalty for gays. You think gays are same as other human beings and deserve the same rights and same respect? No problem, there is ‘love thy neighbour’.

You think women are subhuman, inferior to men? Bible agrees with you, it says that woman must be submissive to man, that man will rule over woman. You think women deserve equal rights? No problem, Bible agrees with you, it says we are all God’s children.

Indeed, how can more than a billion people, with widely different cultures, languages, histories, widely different worldview, how can they all agree that Bible is the word of God? It is difficult to get two people to agree on anything, how can one billion people agree on something?

They agree on it precisely because Bible is an amorphous book, it says what the reader wants it to say. Same goes for Koran.

 

[AnnaG]

Anna, you joined the forum just recently, you were not involved in any of the religious discussion so far.

But I have always said that the Bible (and Koran for that matter) is a very amorphous book, it says contradictory things at the same time. When people read Bible, they read their prejudices into it.

And it is so easy to do. No matter what your views, your prejudices are, you will find support for that in the Bible. You think gays are sub human and should be persecuted? No problem, Bible says gays will not go to Heaven; Leviticus prescribes death penalty for gays. You think gays are same as other human beings and deserve the same rights and same respect? No problem, there is ‘love thy neighbour’.

You think women are subhuman, inferior to men? Bible agrees with you, it says that woman must be submissive to man, that man will rule over woman. You think women deserve equal rights? No problem, Bible agrees with you, it says we are all God’s children.

I think that was my point.

Indeed, how can more than a billion people, with widely different cultures, languages, histories, widely differ t worldview, how can they all agree that Bible is the word of God? It is difficult to get two people to agree on anything, how can one billion people agree on something?

They agree on it precisely because Bible is an amorphous book, it says what the reader wants it to say. Same goes for Koran.

Good point. I think sometimes people agree depending upon the subject. If it fits their subjective worlview (conditioning, dogma, brainwashing, whatever the term you prefer), then they agree, if not, then .....

 

[MHz]

You don't get it at all do you. It is the bible that is in error.

What you are doing is no different. Life is out there. You need to get out more often. See and talk to people with different ideas, broaden your horizons. Life is for living, not waiting for rewards in a fictitious afterlife.

LOL what a piece of work you are. You are in error about what you say the Bible means. Even if you view it as fiction you still can't make heads or tails out of it.
Save you advice for those who ask for it, really I have no use for anything you say. You are talking about areas you have no knowledge of and yet you still just have to say something no matter how stupid it makes you look.

 

[AnnaG]

Anyway, even academic Christians can't agree on what is in the Bible let alone laymen, so until they hash it out so what is left is concise, lucid, and not loaded with superstitious guck (IOW, Les's 2-page pamphlet. I think he's being overly generous at 2 pages. lol), then I find it tough to accept at any more than face value.
I think it's a bit hypocritical to say I would put my faith in a god that is supposed to be all-knowing and wise and the like, but stick my face out and presume to judge what that same god built. But, then all humans are hypocrites one way or another. The nicer ones try to improve on being good humans, though.

 

[MHz]

Anyway, as MHz pointed out before, the bible is actually 3-faced; it sats one thing, then offers a conflicting comment, then a third connent tries to reconcile the first two comments. So "men who lay with men" are bad, but then they aren't so bad, but then they are both because they are human and we are supposed to "love our neighbor" as we love ourselves. So I think out of all that "clarity", the Bible doesn't say anything about rights, just that we shouldn't "judge, lest we be judged" and let this god thing handle the judging.

Let's clear up some minute points. Everything all the topics Scripture covers is never found in anyone place. You need at least 3 different passages that cover the same subject before you get the true story.
Your example is about gays. Very true the OT calls for them being stoned to death. That is the same sentence for a lot of other crimes also. Death was the only prison they had back then, like it or lump it that is the way it was. There is nothing in the NT that says being gay is suddenly okay, in fact it defines adulterers as including a lot more than being just men. The woman adulterer was told to go and sin no more, why would you not think that applies to gays as well?
Rather than waste your time and mine the NT also gives Christians the right (actually duty) no to associate with 'known sinners' who have no intention of ever repenting past sine or making any attempt to stop. Commonly called 'leaven' . A child rapist is a sinner, love thy neighbor does not mean I have to let him into my house.
So God is going to forgive a lot of sinners, that does not mean He changes even one Law, it means they change their behaviour.
Even forgiving somebody has it's limits, 70 x 7 is a lot of times a person is to be forgiven but it is a limit that can be passed, at that time you can not forgive them.
If you want to get spiritual advice from Cliffy or SJP go for it, as with all thing milage will vary with the quality of that advice. Since they both dislike God that is the path they will want you too follow. Go for it, God can certainly undo any and all of their 'works', you may not like His method but then that isn't an issue with Him, allowances for the 'more difficult ones' is already in place. Don't take this as advice as it is only an observation and you are all familiar with each other anyway so what would be the use of trying to go indepth in what the Bible says with you.

 

[MHz]

Anyway, even academic Christians can't agree on what is in the Bible let alone laymen, so until they hash it out so what is left is concise, lucid, and not loaded with superstitious guck (IOW, Les's 2-page pamphlet. I think he's being overly generous at 2 pages. lol), then I find it tough to accept at any more than face value.

Here is some advice from the translators of the 1611 edition of the KJV. It basically say if somebody promotes something in Scripture you have to verify it by reading the actual passage yourself. No use doing anything at all if you are not willing to take that step. That is why they left no foot-notes (later in their preface than the quote just below).

Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising anything ourselves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others, deserveth certainly much respect and esteem, but yet findeth but cold entertainment in the world. It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks: and if there be any hole left for cavil to enter, (and cavil, if it do not find a hole, will make one) it is sure to be misconstrued, and in danger to be condemned.

 

[Ron in Regina]

If you do not see your post in this Thread, that would be due to this
Thread being about "Gay Rights and the Bible," and not about any
personal attacks between members. Any posts in the last day that
had absolutely nothing to do with the Thread topic (and that's 27
posts) have been removed.

 

[In Between Man]

This is your just and loving god? Job's is a story of entrapment.

Here's a great conversation about the story of Job. Please read it to the end. Len apparently a satanist, at least not a believer, and Matt is a Christian:

Len: You were interested in talking to me?
Matt: Someone said you were interested in talking to me. No biggie. Are you a satanist?
Len: Nah, I doubt you could answer my questions any better then the other guy.
Matt: Try me.
Len: I don't know if I am a Satanist per say. But, how about you start by explaining
the book of Job to me. How is the God portrayed in Job, a merciful and just one?
Matt: God wanted the angels, Lucifer included, to come before him. God pointed out Job. Lucifer complained, God gave him permission to afflict him. Lucifer did... Job didn't sin in rebellion....Lucifer was wrong. God is sovereign. He can do as He wishes.
Len: Why would a merciful God give Satan permission to afflict a faithful servant?
Matt: Why not? Isn't it merciful to even let Job live who is a sinner?
Len: Is that "just" and "merciful?"
Matt: Hasn't God been offended?
Len: Job was not a sinner.
Matt: Yes he was... Let's look at this for just a minute.
Len: Job was a faithful servant.
Matt: Yes... but he is human. Humans sin. Are you saying he never sinned?
Len: As a matter of fact, if you read Job, then you know that he was one of the most faithful of God's servants. That is why he was chosen. So God could win his little bet with Satan.
Matt: Okay. No problem there. Are you saying that Job never sinned?
Len: No. But he was a FAITHFUL servant, was he not?
Matt: Yes, but that does not mean he wasn't a sinner.
Len: He was faithful, and a "merciful" God gave him into the hands of Satan? Are you kidding me? That is "just" and "merciful?"
Matt: Okay, let's start from the beginning. God is holy, right?
Len: Sure.
Matt: Has God ever sinned, or can He sin?
Len: Nope.
Matt: God is just, right?
Len: Nope.
Matt: Then you are accusing him of sinning, right? If He is sinless, then He is just. If He is not just, He is a sinner. Which is it? Is He sinless and just or is He a sinner and not just?
Len: No. Sin is an act against God. He can't sin, that would be a conundrum, would it not?
Matt: Yes it would. God cannot do anything wrong, correct?
Len: Don't even give me this "whatever God does is right" bull. No, he is not always just. Sinning and being "unjust" are two different things.
Matt: If He is not just, then you are accusing him of doing wrong.
Len: I am accusing him of wrong doing.
Matt: So you are judging God then, correct?
Len: Of course.
Matt: So you, a mere person, a sinner, is telling me that you know that God does wrong.
You are sitting there telling me that you are judging God, correct?
Len: Yes. I am. Am I gonna go to hell now? Are you going to judge me?
Matt: I'm not judging you. You are judging God. On what basis do you justify judging God?
Len: I judge God on his actions. I judge him as I would judge anyone else. If he were a human, he would not be seen as "just and merciful." Damn right I am judging God.
Matt: So, it is not okay for me to make a judgment on you, but it is okay for you to judge God Almighty?
Matt: Well?


Nice checkmate Matt;-)

 

[In Between Man]

If you do not see your post in this Thread, that would be due to this
Thread being about "Gay Rights and the Bible," and not about any
personal attacks between members. Any posts in the last day that
had absolutely nothing to do with the Thread topic (and that's 27
posts) have been removed.

Oops! Sorry Ron! Didn't see this! My last post is off topic unfortunately. It is related to the bible though. Somehow we started talking about the story of Job and one of the bigger boys really let me have it. So I kinda snuck back in posted a late rebuttal.

Again, sorry bout dat, my bad...

 

[AnnaG]

Let's clear up some minute points. Everything all the topics Scripture covers is never found in anyone place. You need at least 3 different passages that cover the same subject before you get the true story.
Your example is about gays. Very true the OT calls for them being stoned to death. That is the same sentence for a lot of other crimes also. Death was the only prison they had back then, like it or lump it that is the way it was. There is nothing in the NT that says being gay is suddenly okay, in fact it defines adulterers as including a lot more than being just men. The woman adulterer was told to go and sin no more, why would you not think that applies to gays as well?
Rather than waste your time and mine the NT also gives Christians the right (actually duty) no to associate with 'known sinners' who have no intention of ever repenting past sine or making any attempt to stop. Commonly called 'leaven' . A child rapist is a sinner, love thy neighbor does not mean I have to let him into my house.
So God is going to forgive a lot of sinners, that does not mean He changes even one Law, it means they change their behaviour.
Even forgiving somebody has it's limits, 70 x 7 is a lot of times a person is to be forgiven but it is a limit that can be passed, at that time you can not forgive them.
If you want to get spiritual advice from Cliffy or SJP go for it, as with all thing milage will vary with the quality of that advice. Since they both dislike God that is the path they will want you too follow. Go for it, God can certainly undo any and all of their 'works', you may not like His method but then that isn't an issue with Him, allowances for the 'more difficult ones' is already in place. Don't take this as advice as it is only an observation and you are all familiar with each other anyway so what would be the use of trying to go indepth in what the Bible says with you.

Have to find and read three different parts before you make any sense of what the Bible says? Or the way you put it, "You need at least 3 different passages that cover the same subject before you get the true story. " And you call that clear? lmao
I am different than Sir Joe ond Cliffy. I don't hate any god. I just find them imaginary and useless. It's the Bible I dislike because it ISN'T clear and concise and it matters not the reason why it isn't.
What I asked is whether the sillybook has anything in it about rights or not. I'll take anyone's interpretation for an answer.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Nice checkmate Matt;-)

Not even close. Casuistry worthy of a Jesuit, clearly written by somebody on Matt's side who makes no attempt to represent Len's perspective intelligently. Examine Matt's assumptions and what the writer lets him get away with, starting with Matt's fourth statement, and the lame responses he puts in Len's mouth.

 

[MHz]

Have to find and read three different parts before you make any sense of what the Bible says? Or the way you put it, "You need at least 3 different passages that cover the same subject before you get the true story. " And you call that clear? lmao
I am different than Sir Joe ond Cliffy. I don't hate any god. I just find them imaginary and useless. It's the Bible I dislike because it ISN'T clear and concise and it matters not the reason why it isn't.
What I asked is whether the sillybook has anything in it about rights or not. I'll take anyone's interpretation for an answer.

Well, if an event happened and you talked to one person you would have some sort of idea of what happened. If you talk to three different people do you have a more complete picture. There might even be statements that don't exactly match up. Ever see the show 'crash', the story-line is about several individuals that all have a common point in the future.
Revelation has 3 story-lines that deal with two separate groups of people. The common point in time is Christ's arrival with power and glory.
One group is the ones who believe in God and are more or less attempting not to do harm to others. The other group doesn't care if they harm others, their rights are far more important than any others.
The way the believers see His arrival is the way Re:10 is written (as an outline, passages in other books can fine tune that summary).
The way the sinners at that time see His arrival is the way Re:16 is written (as how they are punished for being sinners so late). It doesn't cover how they are retrieved later, 1,000 years is how long their punishment lasts. Finding the passages that determine how they fare later is not easy are blatant, yet they are there, like this one verse, no time is given (it is OT so it is generalized).
Eze:38:8:
After many days thou shalt be visited:
in the latter years thou shalt come into the land that is brought back from the sword,
and is gathered out of many people,
against the mountains of Israel,
which have been always waste:
but it is brought forth out of the nations,
and they shall dwell safely all of them.

For this part there are at least two complet chapters in two books that verify that even the sinners who are punished are saved and on Heaven before retrieval is impossible. Scripture is also quite clear that if you mess up after being invited into Heave that the fiery lake is still very much in existence, but because God and Christ are the Shepherds none will ever be lost, no matter how many new people are born.

If this seems long, it hasn't even scratched the surface. If you want east, read the NT and put the book away. What you learn on that first read is that Christ will 'fix things' when He comes. Not everybody wants to know all the fine details about how that will take place. For the ones that do it takes a lot of reading and a lot of scratching the head because of the very issues you mention. Having somebody show you where to start is not cheating, buying a book that explains things so you don't have to do any reading is cheating.
For example, use some free Bible software that allows you to search for specific words and enter 'that day'. The OT verses pretty much all refer to one single day. The very first day of His return. Once you go to the specific passages that the verses are from you are wiser and those passages will lead you to other 'things'.
For instance, how do you determine who the rider of the white horse is. It is almost impossible to search that out by doing what I just suggested. The anser might just pop up when you are reading about some other subject. I've concluded who it is based on that the rider is said to have a bow, just a bow. I can suggest something but it is up to you to decide if the two verses mesh or are in conflict. This verse does go with a bow and this would make the rider God Almight and the white horse would be the Holy Spirit. God doesn't reclaim mankind by himself, He sens somebody to do it for Him. This is who He sends.
Isa:49:2:
And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword;
in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me,
and made me a polished shaft;
in his quiver hath he hid me;

If you don't like the fact that God can and will say, "Alright that is enought, off to your room for (X amount of time) and when I let you out no more (whatever action was happening). In our lives that might not be enough punishment and the child 'sins' again. When He does it, one punishment is enough, nor does He not follow through on what rules He lays out. We might be wishy, washy and not follow through. That leads to children not listening to the parent.
Quite frankly why would you expect it to be easy to raed and understand? Almost every 4th sentence has a new reference mark so people can find a certain verse if they want.

If gays are so 'afraid of what God thinks about their lifestyle' why not quietly look it up instead of posting on a thread like this. In the few years I have been posting on this site it must be at least the 19th thread that daels with the very same subject. Perhaps finding an answer to that question is not the only motive even though it should be.

Longer than I intended but I hope it clears up the 'at least 3 references' comment.

 

[AnnaG]

Ok. I understood most of that.
Why would I expect it to be easy to read and understand? I would have thought that to be obvious. But, I will explain it to you: so I could analyse it, see if there was anything in it worth considering, perhaps even find some help in it. Otherwise you may as well give a Chinese or Thule child a book written in that weird stuff people speak while performing hiphop. It's illogical. If I were some god or other and felt the need to have a book of rules and whatnot instead of just zapping it into every person's programming, I would at least make the book easy to understand.

 

[Cliffy]

Have to find and read three different parts before you make any sense of what the Bible says? Or the way you put it, "You need at least 3 different passages that cover the same subject before you get the true story. " And you call that clear? lmao
I am different than Sir Joe ond Cliffy. I don't hate any god. I just find them imaginary and useless. It's the Bible I dislike because it ISN'T clear and concise and it matters not the reason why it isn't.
What I asked is whether the sillybook has anything in it about rights or not. I'll take anyone's interpretation for an answer.

Anna, it is impossible to hate something that doesn't exist. Just because i point out that the god of the bible is one nasty piece of work, doesn't mean I hate him. That would mean I'm insane and... well it might be true but... dog doesn't exist. The Earth, however, is tangible. Since all life here lives on the Earth, I figured she might just be the source of life. That is why when a cataclysmic event wipes out 90% of all life on her, she arranges to have a new set of species that are more suited to the present conditions to develop.

 

[Cliffy]

Ok. I understood most of that.
Why would I expect it to be easy to read and understand? I would have thought that to be obvious. But, I will explain it to you: so I could analyse it, see if there was anything in it worth considering, perhaps even find some help in it. Otherwise you may as well give a Chinese or Thule child a book written in that weird stuff people speak while performing hiphop. It's illogical. If I were some god or other and felt the need to have a book of rules and whatnot instead of just zapping it into every person's programming, I would at least make the book easy to understand.

Have you read Lord of the Rings? In a thousand years from now, people will read it and think that that is what life was like a thousand years before them. They may even embellish it into a holy book of rules dreaming up all sorts of meanings that pertain to their life and times. I think you get my drift.;-)

 

[AnnaG]

Have you read Lord of the Rings? In a thousand years from now, people will read it and think that that is what life was like a thousand years before them. They may even embellish it into a holy book of rules dreaming up all sorts of meanings that pertain to their life and times. I think you get my drift.;-)

I doubt they will actually. There is too much other info around that points to "The Hobbit" and the "LOTR" as being fictional. I believe the preface in "The Silmarillion" (The "Bible" of the hobbit stories, so to speak) says something to that effect even.
But, yes, I get your drift.

heheheh I get called "Hobbit" sometimes because of my feet. They aren't hairy, but I can ski.

 

[MHz]

Ok. I understood most of that.
Why would I expect it to be easy to read and understand? I would have thought that to be obvious. But, I will explain it to you: so I could analyse it, see if there was anything in it worth considering, perhaps even find some help in it. Otherwise you may as well give a Chinese or Thule child a book written in that weird stuff people speak while performing hiphop. It's illogical. If I were some god or other and felt the need to have a book of rules and whatnot instead of just zapping it into every person's programming, I would at least make the book easy to understand.

It is a subject based writing, you only have to analyse things that are not easy to understand.
Did you ever have to read some high-school math subjects more than once before 'you got it'?
You can't have it both ways, a subject that is easy to understand does not have to be 'studied'?
Making it hard to understand (a little here, a little there)also made it downright impossible to tamper with. If you had one Bible (even an electronic one will do) by the time the pages are dogeared you will know most of what God gave us to know about 'things'. If you keep it in pristine condition you will know as much about God as when you first acquired it.
What condition is yours in?

 

[MHz]

Just because i point out that the god of the bible is one nasty piece of work, doesn't mean I hate him.

It is certainly a fixation on how powerful He is when enforcing His rules. Don't eat and you will not die was the rule that was broken. Everything after that is just part of what goes on when there is something called death. You can't do anything about it, He can, get used to it not changing when you demand it be changed.
What is killing somebody before they will die (for God alone) if you can and do restore what you took? You never post anything about things like this verse below, as this one example so how do you show you do not hate Him.

Re:21:4:
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes;
and there shall be no more death,
neither sorrow,
nor crying,
neither shall there be any more pain:
for the former things are passed away.

 

[AnnaG]

It is a subject based writing, you only have to analyse things that are not easy to understand.
Did you ever have to read some high-school math subjects more than once before 'you got it'?

Not really. It was college math that made me leaf around the books a lot.

You can't have it both ways, a subject that is easy to understand does not have to be 'studied'?

.......... unless your memory isn't photographic.

Making it hard to understand (a little here, a little there)also made it downright impossible to tamper with.

Jeeeezz, why don't text writers think of that? That'd make school sooooo much easier.:roll:

If you had one Bible (even an electronic one will do) by the time the pages are dogeared you will know most of what God gave us to know about 'things'. If you keep it in pristine condition you will know as much about God as when you first acquired it.
What condition is yours in?

Which one?
As I said, if a god had any sense it would just preprogram everything into people in the first place and never mind the cryptics to see if they can figure it out.