LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

It also says fornicators, adulters, and liars should be put to death. There are verses that plainly say that it is NOBODY'S place to put any sinner to death. There's no confusion over translation.

Jesus said plainly "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." The people who ignore that are committing gross dereliction of duty.

It was an honor

OK... let's run though this again: Good King James on this...

And Wooty: in short, it's up there with getting stoned for adultery... something that's just so passée, darling, ever since we learned not to cast the first stone, lest we be judged.

To be honest, those passages scream a standard Judean "We're so not Babylonian. We're so not Babylonian. We're so not Babylonian." panicky attitude that was a response to... well... Babylonian occupation... that you've got to ask questions about when it crept into Leviticus.

Also, keep in mind that the Gospel According to King James is subject to some truly stupendous mistranslations, as it took quite a winding route to get to English.

edited 23rd Oct '12 7:47:21 AM by Euodiachloris

Then the bastard had to go and say "sin no more". So for 2000 years we've been told to "sin no more". Sometimes with violence instead of talking.

Jesus was no bastard. The point I'm making is that he gave clear instructions on how to share the Word. That some people ignore it is a result of their own limp egos and need to bully; not the Scripture.

Morg, please hear what I'm saying, the ONE thing that AN Ybody can agree on is that the Bible's central theme, it's underpinning premise, it's ENTIRE POINT is that you must demonstrate God's love to everyone. It's the one thing that doesn't require special readings or translations or guesswork.

edited 23rd Oct '12 7:56:39 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

<sighs> Paul was up there in the ego bit... Sometimes, I'd like a time machine and go back to work out exactly who wrote what, when.

'Cos, you'd have to go some for me to agree that Timothy was written by the same guy who wrote Corinthians. And, parts of the Gospels are also suspect. -.- In short, we don't actually have Jesus' words. Just what people wanted to record about what he said, through their own filters.

And, heck... you could say that about the whole sodding book: God's words? Nope: lots of people's opinions on what God's words are supposed to be over a massive range of time.

edited 23rd Oct '12 7:57:10 AM by Euodiachloris

Do we want to make a "How should we interpret the bible" topic? It's an recurring theme in this thread and probably deserves its own topic.

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran

Well, maybe I don't agree with that Max. Maybe some people don't look at the bible and see the love of some all powerful being.

Honest question to the thread; is there really, truly, a way to read the Bible and think that violence against anyone is somehow justified??

It was an honor

Yes, there is because plenty of people do so think that the Bible justifies violence. And there's more passages saying that women should not speak in church than about homosexuality and they're more vehement, and not just thrown into a list of hygiene laws.e

You're inconsistent and you're just claiming to things that are normal in your culture instead of what the book actually says or advocates.

edited 23rd Oct '12 8:26:46 AM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

That's the thing: the Bible can be and is used to back up violence, discrimination and hate towards any group you care to target. Because of the shift over time and the sheer number voices making their opinions manifest, any position is possible within any cultural framework you care to name. <sighs>

Inconstancy is about the only constant throughout the collected books. The general shift in tone is towards a saner, more socially sympathetic world view as you go along (with the odd backslide)... but, the other stuff is still very much there.

edited 23rd Oct '12 8:35:56 AM by Euodiachloris

Your point being?

I'll repeat my position again. You, and others, read the Bible from the point of view that it's an old book full of odd translations and things taken out of context. I consider to be written exactly as it should be written, with the final word as valid that the first.

Every single stance I have on every subject is based on reading something in the Bible and then asking "Is this refuted anywhere else, or is is confirmed?" There is no inconsistency that I'm aware of.

And Shima, if I wanted to "go along with my culture" I'd say divorce was okay, there's no big deal in pre-marital sex, and gays were born that way. I don't take kindly to the suggestion that when convenient I abandon Scripture for the sake of not being the odd one out.

I follow my conscience and I follow the Bible. The extent to which something is a cultural norm is a secondary consideration.

Okay, refined question. Assume a person has no strong opinions on gays, women's rights, whatever. Can a neutral person who regards the Bible as only a really weird book, read it and come away thinking it advocates violence for any reason other than self-defense?

edited 23rd Oct '12 8:37:24 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

It's the other way around, Starship. I've backed all my statements with facts and analysis. You just refute them with facts not counting. I'm not sure what you want any more, but I've done my homework on this.

You're not following your Bible when it comes to Homosexuality. You're taking one line out of context and refuse to deal with it in the total context of the entire book. It seems to be a common issue with you. You pick and choose and ignore whole verses and then hold the whole thing up as sacrosanct. You can't have it both ways.

What you're doing is picking and choosing to persecute things you don't like that the book doesn't care about and then ignoring the things that the book explicitly says are sinful. You assume that the Bible can't support anything you view as immoral so you just try to ignore those bits.

You are forcing your morality on the Bible. You are not following it.

edited 23rd Oct '12 8:45:20 AM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

Can a neutral person who regards the Bible as only a really weird book, read it and come away thinking it advocates violence for any reason other than self-defense?

Speaking from personal experience, yes. That's why I'm not a big fan of it.

@Starship: Yes. It is a very violent book. Even the New Testament is, if you take some of the later books into account.

The God of the Bible is very much a vengeful one, and not so great in the compassion and love department, honestly.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Take a good, long read of the Book of Joshua. You can read it as endorsing genocide, amongst a lot else. And, heck: The Book of Obadiah is also rather... out there with some of the suggestions on what to do with unbelievers. And, any of the prophets, really: none of them were shrinking violets when it came to fire and brimstone on those they were, quite frankly, quite willing to persecute.

To my mind, Joshua is the major case of What the Hell, Hero?, even beyond the rest in scope, though, as it quite clearly goes counter some of the commandments that were supposed to have been handed down on the Mount, but has the good old "but, it's OK this time, 'cos God said we could do this for a good cause, honest guv'" thing going on.

edited 23rd Oct '12 8:55:53 AM by Euodiachloris

I have no doubt you've done your homework on this. But I don't see how that relates to my view that the Bible is sacrosanct and my belief that my thoughts and attitudes are consistent with that assumption.

The Bible says in multiple places that being homosexual is wrong, not to be done, an abomination, etc. There is no verse saying "That doesn't apply anymore," or "This is only wrong under these conditions."

If there is, I'm not aware of it.

Perhaps you can show me where I've disagreed with anything the Bible has called sin, or called something sinful the Bible hasn't. And perhaps you can find examples of anybody, anytime, anywhere I've "persecuted".

Now I believe I have said, "I like pre-marital sex, a lot, and it really doesn't harm anyone. But, the Bible says it's wrong, therefore it is." "I don't see the big deal with women talking in Church, but the Bible says you shouldn't do that, so I guess you shouldn't do that." "The Bible says homosexuality is wrong. I guess it is. But, the Bible makes it clear that it's not my place to judge or enforce anybody's sexuality so I shouldn't."

I have no problem with you thinking I'm wrong. I might very well be. But I consider listening to the Bible sometimes, but not others a serious infraction, not to mention an example of cowardice. I don't do that.

If I have, please show me where that I might be made aware.

edited 23rd Oct '12 9:59:29 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

@Euo, DG, Morg - This is....a bit disturbing. My whole life I thought the Bible rivalled a Disney movie for preaching a message of "Guys we can get along and be AWESOME!"

This is......sobering. I'm going to have to do some chewing on this.

edited 23rd Oct '12 10:09:28 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

@Starship

I don't pretend to be an expert, and I accept that my information might be wrong, but if I'm correct, deaths by the will of God in the bible 2,476,633 while deaths as a result of the Devil's actions are 10.

It's not that hard for me to see how someone could walk away from the Bible thinking it advocates violence.

"You are never taller then when standing up for yourself"

Unwavering acceptance of the text is bibliolatry. You're worshipping the book, not the god. I'm a freaking atheist and even I can tell the difference.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

The Bible does not say in multiple places are wrong. It's mentioned once to be a cultural taboo. It's mentioned once that it's a bad thing to change your sexuality from what you know in your heart to be your true self. Those are the only mentions in the entire book.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

With all due respect Taoist, I don't really think you know what you're talking about. The Bible makes it clear that you are not to discard any part of the Bible or add anything to it. It is all God's Word, and is to be obeyed.

Now, the thing you might be referring to is the Rules Lawyering that Jesus constantly rebuked the Pharisees for; where you nitpick somebody for not following some rule or obeying some verse, and forgetting that the well-being of people, whether saint or sinner, is the overarching commandment of the entire Scripture.

You say "cultural taboo" and "not be true to oneself". The words on the page, such as they are, are "abomination" and "do not lie with a man as you would with a woman." You are willing to allow for translational drift and 'context'. As I've stated before, unless you can show me a passage along the lines of "This is a contextual thing" or "This is a cultural taboo" then I consider that your opinion and no more.

It was an honor

Mary was married to Joseph, not God. An actual bastard . *

Unless he was son of Joseph, not son of God...

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

Okay, at the risk of blasphemy, that was pretty hilarious. Mo FW.

It was an honor

Slight issue: both the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls kind of show that that, is, at best, a guideline. The Bible has been edited many, many times. And added to many, many times.

And, if it's going to continue being a living document, will be in future, or lose relevance. <shrugs>

And, the word "abomination" has a different spin, depending on which language it's in. And, who chose the interpretation.

edited 23rd Oct '12 12:51:20 PM by Euodiachloris

In retrospect, that was a poor word choice (obvious joke is obvious).

edited 23rd Oct '12 1:00:19 PM by Morgikit