I must say this at the beginning. Parts of this blog seem offensive, but you need to read the whole thing because it all makes sense in the end. I plead with you to read the entire thing. No matter how much I seem to offend you and point my finger at you, do realize that every time I seem to be pointing out a problem in your life, I’m pointing out the crisis in mine. If anything, this blog helps me to realize that I need to do a better job at living for Christ.
Also, I must assume that my readers believe in the Bible and everything it rightly and truly (not distortedly) affirms.
Our pastor preached on homosexuality, and I must admit that it was quite mind-opening. He said the issue that tears apart the church the most is homosexuality, and I must again say that he is right. Christians are more likely to disagree with homosexuality that any other issue in the American culture.
One thing I think people forget is how prominent homosexuality has become to the culture, and also in the church. Some denominations ordain homosexual pastors/bishops/insert-your-own-title-here, wish only the best for homosexual couples.
Other churches go to the other extreme. Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas believes that the reason soldiers are dying in Iraq is because God hates America because of how we have accepted homosexuality. Fred Phelps, the pastor at Westboro Baptist, believes that the reason things go wrong in the world is because of the hateful God who sits in heaven and pours nothing but wrath onto those who turn away from him.
God is anything but that.
Christianity has been stigmatized and given a very generous brushstroke with the words “We hate gays and lesbians” on our foreheads. Whenever homosexuality is brought up in a church, it is most likely to be followed by screams of hatred and damnation.
The problem with this view is that when Christians state their views on homosexuality, they become known as bigots and close-minded people. Christians become the bad guys, the people who are out to do away with anything that has to do with homosexuality. The domino affect then takes place, and homosexuals and Christians find themselves in a war, though neither side knows who fired the first shot.
As always, for the truth about Christianity, I must go to the Bible to show what it really has to say about this issue that has divided people more than racism.
Now, I must say that I myself don’t always like what the Bible says. There are times when I wish I wasn’t looking in the mirror of my life, and seeing what kind of person I’ve become and how far away that is from what I want to be. I must, however, pray that I will be given a soft heart to accept what God is trying to say to me, and only then do I find myself able to live my life to the fullest.
The Bible mentions homosexuality six times, and the first few times, the stories are disturbing no matter how you slice it.
The first time is in Genesis. A man named Lot was allowed to host two angels for the night. During the evening, before they went to sleep, “all the men in the town, young and old” (as the Bible records) showed up at the door and pleaded with Lot to allow the angels to come out so the mob could have sex with them. Lot knew that sodomy was a sin, so he suggested that the mob be given his two virgin daughters instead of the angels.
I must say that Lot is the epitome of hypocrisy. While he knows that homosexuality is a sin, he somehow rationalizes in his mind that giving his two daughters to the mob to be gang raped is better, or at least less sinful. Here is where Christians go way wrong. We somehow rationalize in our minds that God winks at our sin, but sends all homosexuals to hell, neither of which are true. We believe, because we have received the gift of forgiveness from the blood of Jesus, that God no longer cares how we treat other people, and he allows us to sin as much as we want. After all, we’re going to heaven right? We have our fire insurance...Homosexuals have every right to point out Christians’ hypocrisy, and Christians (myself included) need to do a better job of living rightly.
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is stretched too far and is blown way out of proportion. Christians use this example to support the crazy idea that the only sin in Sodom was homosexuality, and it had gotten so bad that God could not help but rain fire from the sky. It is also not a story that promotes hospitality, saying that we must be hospitable, or else God will strike us dead. Instead, Jude gives the real reason. The story is written down to say that God can save us through anything (Lot and his family escaped) by the blood of Jesus. Sodom and Gomorrah, along with the neighboring towns, were recorded to have every kind of sexual perversion. Jude pleads with us to live in the grace God offers. We are told not to cheapen the price that was paid for our lives on Cavalry
Ten times out of ten, when Christians start talking about homosexuality, they mention Leviticus 20:13, the second passage.
“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.”
In essence, the penalty for homosexuality in the Old Testament was death through stoning.
We forget, however, to read the rest of the chapter.
If a son was rebellious and was constantly doing what his parents had told him not to, that was also redeemable through a stoning of the rebellious son. This is just one example that I’m sure everyone can relate to
The thing Christians forget about the Old Testament Law (given in Leviticus) is that every sin a person committed was redeemable through death. Theft, murder, adultery, homosexuality, deception, dishonoring one’s parents, it all falls into the same boat.
This is, again, pointing the finger at me. I am a sinner and I deserve to die. Period.
One thing that we must remember is that the entire Law points to Jesus as the only one who can forgive our sins and completely do away with them. The Law shows how pathetic we are as human beings, are sinful and separated we are from God, but that’s what it shows, and it’s only there to show. The Law is a mirror to show how dirty our faces are; it’s not the washcloth to wash our faces with. The Law is there so we can say, “Yes I am a sinner, and I deserve to die. But, Jesus did away with my sin through his death, so I don’t have to worry about the past or what I’ve done before. Jesus forgave it; it’s time for me to live right.”
The third passage is very similar to the story of Lot. A man is traveling with his mistress and he spends the night at another man’s house. Again, “all the men in the town, young and old” came to the door and asked to have sex with the man’s guest. (On a complete side note, as my pastor was preaching on this, he made the comment, “This seems to have been a problem back then!” Very funny!) This time, the man, instead of giving his guest to the mob, again offers his virgin daughter, but instead sends out his guest’s mistress and she is gang raped by the mob. She eventually dies with her hand on the door of the house, serving as a warning for the rest of humanity.
This passage is highlighted by a beginning phrase: “During this time, Israel had no king.” There was no leader to bring Israel into right relationship with God, and the people went crazy with perversions. Not only was the mob in the wrong, but also the man and his guest. Again, this passage point at homosexuals and Christians, asking both how they are living.
The last three passages go hand in hand, so read the entire thing, and it all makes sense.
In Romans, the New Testament and the fourth passage, Paul, the author, is painting a picture. He is explaining that there is nothing that we do or don’t do that gets us into heaven. We can’t not commit this sin or that sin and get into heaven; neither can we pay so much money or pray for so many hours to get into heaven. Paul is saying that God’s acceptance is only given through the free gift of grace; nothing we could give would ever amount up to what God offers.
Paul starts with the world around us. We all see the beautiful creation the world has to offer, and that speaks of someone who created it. Because we humans know that there is something that controls the world and our fate, we feel compelled to worship something. Instead, however, of worshiping the creator of all, we worship the things around us and our desires.
“So God abandoned them,” Paul writes, “to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did violent, degrading things with each others bodies. They traded the truth about God for a lie, and so they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise, amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires.
“Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of the sin, they suffer within themselves the penalty that they deserve.”
Here is where all Christians stop. Nobody goes on and reads the rest of the chapter. You must remember that Paul didn’t write in verse numbers or write in where chapters should begin or end; that came later. The passage goes on to say why else God abandoned man.
“Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do the things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness and sin: greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, gossip. They’re backstabbers; they’re haters of God; insolent, proud, boastful; they invent new ways of sinning; they disobey their parents. They refuse to understand; they break their promises; they’re heartless and have no mercy. They know God’s justice requires that those who do those things deserve to die yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage other to do them too.”
This passage goes hand-in-hand with another passage in I Timothy, the fifth passage.
“We know that the Law is good when it is used correctly. Don’t wield the Law as a sword, as a weapon. The Law is an arrow that points to Jesus and shows us how much we need him. For the Law was not intended for people who do what is right. It is for people who are lawless and rebellious, who are ungodly and sinful, who consider nothing sacred, and defile what is holy, who kill their father or mother or commit other murders. The law is for those who are sexually immoral or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders, or liars or promise-breakers, or do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching that comes from the glorious good news entrusted to me (Paul) by our glorious God.”
The sixth passage goes along with the passage above. I Corinthians again lists the sins of the world, of which all Christians are a part of.
“Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourself. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, who commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality or are thieves, or greedy people, drunkards, or abusive people, or cheat people: none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.”
“None of these.” Read that again: “None of these.”
This next verse says it all.
“Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy. You were made right with God by calling on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God.”
Paul knew that all people can change, whether they are willing to admit it or not. We all can change and be made right with God. Drunks can change. Disobedient children can change. Crack addicts can change. Greedy people can change. EVERY SINGLE PERSON CAN CHANGE!!!!!!!
It all depends on whether or not we accept God’s forgiveness.
Though the Bible is clear on the fact that homosexuality is a sin, it is also very clear point by the way it is mentioned. When Paul writes about the sin of homosexuality, he doesn’t say, “I will list the sins of the world, starting with the greatest: homosexuality…” nor does he say, “I will list the sins of the world, starting with the minor sins and working to the greatest: lying, stealing…..and finally, homosexuality.”
Paul knows that homosexuality is as bad of a sin as telling a white lie. God does not rank sins; he doesn’t look down from heaven and say, “Oh my word! That sin is terrible! That’s definitely the worst. Oh please, you’re worried about that little sin? Don’t worry about it; it’s not that big of a deal.”
No, we’re all sinners. We’ve all done wrong, and one sin is enough to separate us from God forever.
So, what does this mean for Christians? We follow the example of Christ. Jesus hung out with prostitutes, drunks, tax collectors, the most hated people in all of Israel. He accepted them for who he knew God had created them to be, not the masks that they wore or the sins they hid behind.
We need to communicate God’s truth with grace. So many times we tell the truth, but it comes across as condescending or condemning. Other times, we give so much grace that we almost seem to say that sin is okay and God doesn’t care if we sin or not. We must make it very clear that God looks at homosexuality the same way he does lying or gossiping, and we all have done that.
Truth without grace is like trying to pound a nail to hang a picture up with a sledge hammer; it will blow through the wall. Truth with too much grace is like trying to pound the nail in with a sponge; the job will never be done.
Paul goes on to say that “all have fallen short of God’s glorious standard of living.” Though Paul mentions homosexuality, it is on the very bottom of a list of numbered sins about heterosexual sins. Lying, breaking promises, and being a gossip are sins listed way more than homosexuality, and yet we make a much bigger deal about it.
I was separated from God before. I lived on the outside of His amazing blessings and I know what it’s like to feel rejected by God, like you’re being cast out. I then realized that God does not hate people, but he loves us all with an unfair, jealous love. He will fight for our heart; he wants nothing less than for us to be raptured away in the beauty of his love. He knows that we cannot live out life as he wants on our own, so he shows us his grace by giving us his unfair love. His love is not limited by successes or failures; it is only limited when we refuse to accept it because we feel that we’re too good for God or we can’t understand why he would do something so amazing.
We must simply accept it, and he will do the rest.






So basically what you're saying is that Christian people shouldn't be judging homosexuality so heavily because everyone sins and homosexuals are sinners just like everyone else?
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
My Latest Blog Posts
Essentially, yeah. I'm more than happy to admit that I'm a sinner, and God doesn't make some wins worse than others, so why should we?
You know, it always bugged me when people would use the Leviticus verse about homosexuality, but then when confronted with the mixed textiles and shellfish laws that are also found in the same book, they go on about how those are "no longer relevant" or how they don't apply to the modern world. Why is it that this one verse applies, but the entire rest of the book is irrelevant? It doesn't work that way.
One thing I'd like to suggest, too, is looking into the Bible in the language(s) it was originally written in. I've seen a number of things about "re-translating" it because it was originally translated using politically and emotionally charged words that the original languages either didn't even have words for, or had different words than what was used in the original writings. It'd be interesting to see how the more specific interpretations changed with different translations.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I'm not sayingthat the entire Old Testament should be thworn outm, but used for what I explained it should be used for - to show us that we all need Jesus.
Well I have to agree with you. sin is sin. Murder, cussing, homosexuality... its all the same. It took me a long time to understand this. I had an abortion when I was 23 and it has tortured me for years. It wasn't until I actually went through a counseling course where I realized that sin is sin. Jesus's blood has paid for all of my sins past present and future, the requirement is that I realize it and acknowledge that fact. He loves me just the way that I am. The fact that I know and have to admit and repent for my sins allows me to realize that the sins of others are just that, they are their own faults. Everyone has them. What we are supposed to do is show the love of Christ to all. We through out the seed, that is our job.
Good post!
I don't believe in sin or hell. It's doesn't make sense that hell exists or that certains acts are sins. There is no clear line to define what is wrong and what isn't. And it doesn't make sense that good people who don't believe in Jesus go to hell and pedophiles who repent do not.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
My Latest Blog Posts
So is there such a thing as "wrong"? If not, then maybe the guy who built a house-torture-chamber should be let off his charges. Maybe the Holocaust was nothing but someone acting on what he thought was right. Maybew what the terrorists did on 9/11 was normal, and should not be considered murderous and cruel.
Maybe, but where is justice?
In a world where there are no rights and wrongs, no one would ever survive. If murdering was not wrong, then why don't we do it all the time? Why don't we kill the people who just plain annoy us? Why not?
If justice is to exist, and we all are thankful that it does (it's what keeps us alive), then there has to be right and wrong.
People don't need a book (or a religion, for that matter) to give them morals.
Maybe the Holocaust was nothing but someone acting on what he thought was right.
Actually, that was pretty much the case. Son_of_disaster actually went into quite a bit of detail on Hitler.
Maybew what the terrorists did on 9/11 was normal, and should not be considered murderous and cruel.
No worse than us dropping bombs on them. I find it pretty self-righteous of America to think that our supposed "defending/promoting democracy" is any better than them defending what they consider to be right (in that case, their own sovereignty, and in an extreme sense, Islam).
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
You're absolutely right - people don't need a book to know what is right and wrong. Humans should (naturally) know what is right and wrong by the way our society operates. However, much of the laws our nation has adopted are in the Bible, and the Bible acts as a guide for Christians.
Oh yes...the laws against murder and whatnot. Those are basic morals. Pretty much all the laws stem from the concept of the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
Name me one Constitutional law (ie - law that abides by the Constitution, doesn't necessarily have to be in the Constitution), that does not have basis outside of the Bible or Christianity.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Not only is our Constitution based on Christian beliefs... most of the world is in one aspect or another. The history of Jesus has been prophesied, and proven time and time again. The Big Bang, well not so much. I have studied both sides in depth. So that leaves the fact that I cannot find any faults in the Bible at all. The Bible never contradicts itself, and the things in it have come to be. With that being said, then that would mean what is written in the Bible is true. That sin is the act of doing something evil. We are given the guide for doing right, and we are told that no human can do it because of our sinful flesh. When Eve ate the apple in the garden of Eden, she open mankinds eyes to believe that there were bigger things than God. That apple was given to her by Satan. His realm is this earth. This is his playground to build his army. Jesus Christ told us, that it was finished when He died on the cross. He had given us a way to forgiveness from God. It was through Him. Through believing in Him and giving Him yourself. People encounter all sorts of sin in their lives, jealousy, hatred, addiction, lust, murder, etc... one is not anymore important than the other because for every person there is one that haunts them more than others. So say I don't have a problem with addiction, but I lust after every hot guy that passes.... that doesnt make me better than a drug addict, and so on. we are all the same. Realizing your sin, and confessing that you need a saviour is the key to forgiveness. It is about sincerity of the heart and mind.
The bible tells us that seeds will be thrown out, some will land on hard ground and the birds will eat them. Some will land in rocky soil sprout grow and die, and some will land in good soil and grow and bloom and be fruitful. Those seeds are people...
Jeanna Marie
With all due respect, your assessment of the basis of our Constitution is poorly informed. Honestly, it never ceases to amaze (and disturb) me how pervasive this sort of religiously-motiviated historical revisionism has become in our citizens. In fact, our Constitution is NOT based on "christian beliefs," as only the barest minimum of actual historical study reveals. For example...
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." ~ The Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, 1796
This treaty was written at the direction of our first president and founding father, George Washington, widely and publically circulated througout the Country, passed unanimously by the Senate during the fifth sitting Congress of the United States, and signed into Law by our second president John Adams (also a founding father). Notice especially the words, "not, in any sense." There could hardly be a more direct and utter rejection of your assertion from a more credible authoritative source than this.
In fact, the most direct basis of our Constitution was the Common Law, a fact about which Thomas Jefferson wrote of at length. In one of his letters (to Dr. Thomas Cooper in 1814) concerning specifically this question, Mr. Jefferson noted the following...
"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement of England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law ... This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it ... That system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians."
The arrogance of this comment is truly unbelievable. Even today at the height of its influence, christianity only represents about 1/3 of the world's population, making your attribution of the influence of your religion at best a serious overstatement.
Based on your comments thus far, I find your claim to have "studied both sides in depth" to be unlikely. Perhaps you would be so kind, then to provide us with an example of this "proof" that you speak up, supported objectively in a scholarly context?
Then honestly, you couldn't have looked very hard.
Let's see...the typical protestant bible contains 66 books, while the catholic version has 73 and the Greek orthodox usually count 78. The Ethopian bible has the most, I think at 81. That's at least 15 whole books worth of "contradition" that can be found without even cracking a cover. And, that's only scratchin the surface. There are numerous (dozens if not hundreds, actually) literal contradictions in these texts, such as...
"And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen." (1 Kings 4:26)
"And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem." (2 Chronicles 9:25)
Only in bible-math does 40,000 = 4,000.
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:16)
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli." (Luke 3:23)
I guess Joseph had two daddies...
"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:25-26)
In this version of the creations story, "god" made the animals first, then man.
"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." (Genesis 2:18-19)
But in this version, "god" makes man first, and then the animals.
For a book that is supposedly "true," the bible says a lot of decidedly untrue things. For example, Leviticus 6:11 says that rabbits chew their cud, which of course they don't. Leviticus 11:19 and Deuteronomy 14:18 refer to the bat as a kind of bird, and Genesis 3:14 says that snakes eat dust. It is easy to see why a primitive person might think that these things are true, but today we know that they are not.
And while we're at it, there are also numerous thematic contraditions in the various biblical accounts. For example...
"The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon." (Psalms 92:12)
"The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come." (Isaiah 57:1)
Sometimes the themes of the bible seem almost schizophrenic.
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am." (Genesis 22:1)
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."(James 1:13)
Either "god" tempts men, or "he" does not. If one of these verses is true, then the other is false.
And, here's my favorite...
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." (Proverbs 26:4)
"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." (Proverbs 26:5)
The best part is that these two verses are literally right next to each other.
The bottom line is simple. Anyone who says that "the bible" is infallible, perfect, or without any internal contradition has obviously never actually read the bible, and certainly never actually studied the material in a serious fashion.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Okay, well let me try to shed some light on some of the contradictions. First of all the 40,000 horse thing... if you look up roman history and such you will see that chariots carried 10 horses and three men per each team. so there were 40000 horses for the stalls, 4000 stalls for the chariots and horses. Each stall had ten horses and one chariot. so therefore 4000 chariots equal 40000 horses... if you read the verses again they read perfect. Soloman had 40000 horses in small stalls, then 4000 stalls for the whole team.
secondly about Joseph having two fathers. This is not a contradiction either. In this time period it was normal to concider a father in law as a father. Which is the case here. Heli is actually Mary's father. And Jacob is Joseph's father. Therefore it is perfectly normal to say that Heli is Joseph's father. This lineage is given to show that both Mary and Joseph actually are tied back all the way to Abraham. This is how it goes to say that Jesus is a son of Jacob and of Abraham. When God told Abraham that he would be the father of many nations, Jesus is who he is talking about.
Also, where you are talking about the animals. If you do the in depth research about this, God made the animals and scattered them on the earth. When He is making animals for Adam, he is making them all for Adam to name, this is a gift from God to Adam. This is not in the bible saying that God had just created the animals at this point. He is letting ADAM name them.
ABbout tempting There is a semantic difference between "test" and "tempt". An examination of a complete English dictionary will verify this. Note that some of the meanings carry positive connotations, while some carry negative connotations. This is a fact and not debatable.
In Gen 22:1 the root of the Hebrew verb rendered "tempted" in the KJV (and the more idiomatically-true-to-the-meaning "tested" in the NIV) is nasah . The reader should check the various Hebrew lexicons (such as the Brown, Driver, and Briggs lexicon) to see that both "test" and "tempt" are appropriate renderings of this verb. As with any mode of human communication, context determines the shading being used. And, McKinsey falls into the fallacy of basing an argument for error on an English translation (one close to 400 years old!) instead of referencing the Hebrew.
In James 1:13 the verb peirazo is used here. Check the various Greek lexicons to see that there is a wide range of semantical meanings, both positive and negative, attached to this word. Again, context determines the meaning.
The reader is urged to examine the usage of peirazo in Matt 4:1,3, 16:1, 19:3, 22:18,35, Mar 1:13, 8:11, 10:2, 12:15, Luke 4:2, 11:16, 20:23, John 6:6, 8:6, Acts 5:9, 15:10, 16:7, 24:6, 1 Cor 7:5, 10:9,13, 2 Cor 13:5, Gal 6:1, 1 Th 3:5, Heb 2:18, 3:9, 4:15, 11:17,37, James 1:14, Rev 2:2,10, and 3:10 to see that there are plenty of different nuances of this verb in the Greek, contrary to our subject's claim.
So before you want to go throwing out accusations like "Anyone who says that "the bible" is infallible, perfect, or without any internal contradition has obviously never actually read the bible, and certainly never actually studied the material in a serious fashion." maybe you should continue studying, you just might learn something.
I am sure that you assume all of these contradictions in the same manor you claim we make our statements. Logical fallacy blah blah blah... and I do not mean that disrespectfully. I am just saying that reading the bible in full with an open mind... is enlightning.
Your next contradiction: Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." (Proverbs 26:4)
"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." (Proverbs 26:5)
It is always important when using Biblical quotes to show fallacy that you read 1-5 verses around them so you know what the whole point is. This is a prefect show of how Christians are supposed to act according to God. Answer not a fool according to his folly lest thou be like him... this means do not throw stones as a way to tell someone that they are doing wrong, in that sense you are just like them... but answer a fool according to his folly les he be wise in his own conceit, this means to show him the error of his ways with love and understanding. It goes on to say
26:9 Like a thorn that goes into the hand of a drunkard is the proverb in the mouth of fools.
That means using God's word to attack people is wrong, it pushes them away. But teaching and showing with love and kindness and understanding. It also gives reference to Matthew 16:1-4. Take a look.
Going to end for now I have to go get kiddos from school.
:-)
Jeanna
Jeanna Marie
My goodness...
It is rare that I encounter a christian who has ever bothered to refer to a "lexicon" of Greek and Hebrew vocabulary. This should be fun. Just to be clear, I tend to prefer Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, as it is generally considered a definitive source by both theological and non-theological scholars (and I have included a link to the online version I use).
Unfortunately, the original language in these verses does not support the interpretation you suggest.
1 Kings 4:26 recounts the relevant phrase as 'arba`iym 'eleph 'urvah cuwc, which translates as 'arba`iym (forty) 'eleph (thousand) 'urvah (stalls) cuwc (of horses). 2 Chronicles 9:25 uses the exact same phrase, except for the number, i.e. 'arba` 'eleph 'urvah cuwc, or 'arba` (four) 'eleph (thousand) 'urvah (stalls) cuwc (of horses). The explanation you offer is apologetic, and does serve to explain the error in the original texts, but that doesn't change the fact that the error exists. If one has to turn to sources outside of "the bible," (whose contents as I pointed out, even the various sects of christianity cannot agree upon) then one cannot legitimately claim that the "the bible" is in and of itself without error or inconsistency.
This is also a common apologetic response, but it remains that the two genealogies presented for Jesus are wildly inconsistent with one another. Even if one glosses over the fact that it was not the practice of the time to even bother to record matrilineal lines (making your interpretation unlikely), it seems rather questionable to suggest that a line being traced through the father would deviated into the matrilineal line for a single generation (or even several), then switch back. When one studies the surrounding passages, the errors become even more pronounced, especially when one notices that Matthew lists twenty-eight generations from David to Jesus, while Luke lists forty-three. No matter how you slice this one, it appears that either at least one of these genealogies is incorrect, or at least one of the writers responsible for these passages made a serious oversight in his research.
I am sorry, but the texts in the original languages do not make this distinction. Perhaps you are once again referring to a non-biblical source to clear up the obvious contradiction in the biblical accounts. The order of events in Genesis 1 and 2 are quite clear.
It seems to me that you are splitting a very fine hair with these verses. The Hebrew nacah in Genesis 22:1 and the Koine Greek peirazo in James 1:13 both carry the same range of meaning in their respect definitions. I agree that both can mean "to test," "to try," "to prove," and "to tempt," depending on the context of the usage. Both of these verses, however, are utilizing the terms in the context of a moral testing of some sort (which is why the vast majority of English sources translate these words as "tempt" in both of these verses). In Genesis 22, "god" instructs Abraham to commit an evil act...i.e. to take his son to the mountain and kill him as a burnt offering. "He" does this to test Abraham's willingness to obey his commands. This is clearly a "temptation to do evil.". In James 1, "God" says that "he" does not "tempt" men to do "evil," but that is exactly what happened in Genesis 1, even though "god" relented at the last moment.
I must admit that I jumped to a conclusion about you, and for that I apologize. However, as my comments above demonstrate, and I quite able to carry this discussion to whatever level of scholarly discourse in which you wish to engage. To be honest, you have piqued my interest, now. It is rare that I get the opportunity to discuss these subjects with a religious person that appears to have some actual knowledge behind their opinions.
I would propose to you that I am one of the very few people that you will meet here that has actually read the whole bible, in multiple translations and languages. In fact, it was a close study of the bible that led me, ultimately, to abandon the christian faith of my youth. The utterly amoral tales of bloody murder in the name of "god," and the countless commandments from the alleged deity therein to kill in "his" name was something that I found utterly irreconcilable with any concept of "goodness" as I understood (or understand) the term. My eventual evolution into an atheist was unrelated to the particular dogma, but rather a simply realization that all theistic arguments (and certainly not just the christian ones), without exception rely upon a series of logical fallacies that begin with begging the question of the existence of supernatural forces and beings.
That's all very interesting, but I really have to wonder how you got that from "the 1-5 verses around" this contradictory couplet.
"26:1 As snow in summer, and as rain in harvest, so honour is not seemly for a fool. 26:2 As the bird by wandering, as the swallow by flying, so the curse causeless shall not come. 26:3 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool’s back. 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. 26:6 He that sendeth a message by the hand of a fool cutteth off the feet, and drinketh damage. 26:7 The legs of the lame are not equal: so is a parable in the mouth of fools. 26:8 As he that bindeth a stone in a sling, so is he that giveth honour to a fool. 26:9 As a thorn goeth up into the hand of a drunkard, so is a parable in the mouth of fools. 26:10 The great God that formed all things both rewardeth the fool, and rewardeth transgressors."
Notice that the proverb instructs "a rod for the fool’s back," which seems to contradict your claim that a christian should "not throw stones as a way to tell someone that they are doing wrong." Now, I do admit that the Proverbs are (somewhat intentionally, I suspect) obscure, and that your interpretation is interesting.
I do have to note, however, that you avoided a number of my examples, and the subject of the basis of our Constitution entirely. I hope that you will deign to revisit those points as well, as this engagement thus far already proved far more enjoyable that I could have hoped.
TTFN,
Blackout
"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything." ~ Robert A. Heinlein
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
You have indeed interested me as well. It is rare that you meet an athiest that can tell you why they are an atheist without babbling about things. I am pleased to meet you and I attend to address all of these topics after I put my kids to bed tonight for sure!!
:-)
Jeanna Marie
Well as far as lexicons and the such go, this is one area I suppose I have come to learn that I must be educated in or else I feel foolish when people start to throw out things to disprove the Bible.
As far as perfered copies go, I stick with the New King James Version.
As for the first contradiction... I have to stand by that. I understand the concept of apologetic, but at the same time, I feel like if I am asked to explain something... then I do it not apologetically... to excuse the errors, but to explain that they are not errors.
In the NKJV
I KINGS 4:26 states:
Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots and twelve thousand horsemen.
Now there is also a note there that states Following Masoretic Text and most other authorities; some manuscripts of the Septuagint read four like 2 Chronicles 9:25.
This states Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots. Since I read what you wrote, I have gone back and done more reading... take a look at what I found, this was interesting info...
http://www.bombaxo.com/numbmult.html
Also, before I get into the rest, I just wanted to take a moment, and say a few other things. When I was a child I began praying every night. I also felt a security when I prayed, although I wasn't very familiar with Christianity at all. My parents did drugs and fought alot, althought they loved their children. I was not mistreated by any means. Anyway, I started going to church when I was a teenager because I felt pulled there. I learned about Jesus, and I accepted Him as my saviour. It was years before I ever understood what that meant, but I knew He was always with me. I am telling you all of this because, there are many things that I do not understand about the Old Testament. But what I do know, is that we were created... I know that because I have gone over and over The Big Bang, and evolution, etc and none of it adds up. It is like a religion in itself.
Now about Joseph and his father... there actually was good reason to put in the mother's lineage there... The reason is because Jesus was a son of Abraham... well with God being His father... Joseph is not his father... Therefore the only way He is genetically connected to Abraham is through His mother Mary. Which is why her lineage is included at this point.
You also say,
[In fact, it was a close study of the bible that led me, ultimately, to abandon the christian faith of my youth. The utterly amoral tales of bloody murder in the name of "god," and the countless commandments from the alleged deity therein to kill in "his" name was something that I found utterly irreconcilable with any concept of "goodness" as I understood (or understand) the term.]
I have to ask, what was your Christian faith of your youth like? How were you raised? The tales of bloody murder you refer to are you speaking of Jesus? And the commandments to kill in his name? Could you give me examples because I got a bit lost here.... I am asking because it will help me better understand your stance on it.
About the proverb 26, yes, the proverbs read as songs, and poems, so each person is supposed to take what they can from them. I see what we have here not as a contradiction, but dilemma—an indication that when it comes to answering fools, you cannot win—because they are fools, and there is no practical cure for foolery (as this citation demonstrates). So: It is unwise to argue with a fool at his own level and recognize his own foolish suppositions, but it is good sometimes to refute him soundly so his foolishness is confirmed by your silence. That is what I meant by acting out of love and kindness, when they do what they do and act the fool, all you can do is reach out in love.
As far as rabbits go, I do not know anything about rabbits, so I am not going to touch that one. I have heard that they regurgitate partially eaten food however and chew it to get the nutriants out of it. they also partially digest stuff, so there is often food left in their poop that they chew. But other than that, I have no explanation on it except I am not willing to risk my soul on rabbits eating habbits. :-)
Now about the Constitution, well going all the way back to the actual State Support of religion are the original State Charters:
Virginia: http://www.undergodprocon.org/pdf/VirginiaCharter.pdf
New York: http://www.undergodprocon.org/pdf/NewYorkCharter.pdf
Georgia: http://www.undergodprocon.org/pdf/GeorgiaCharter.pdf
You can find the rest of the states there as well... now on to the Constitution: I read your document you refered me to earlier and I understand what you are saying. I do agree that the country was correct in seperation of church and state.
I found this to help explain what I was trying to say earlier...
At the same time, the framers of our Constitution did not want America to become a theocracy. They did not believe in a theocratic state. The framers of our Constitution did not want clergymen to pick the Presidents and set government policy. This is not to say, however, that they saw no role for religion in government. The framers most certainly did believe that religion and religious values should influence the government and its policies. George Washington's first Proclamation as President made this abundantly clear. On the day that Congress finished its work on the First Amendment, they called on Washington to issue a Proclamation to the people of the United States to thank God for the freedoms we enjoy. A week and a day later the President's opening paragraph in his Proclamation said: "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor . . ."2 The words "to obey His will" are fatal to any suggestion that George Washington and the framers of our Constitution believed in "secularism." In America, religious values influence government policy through the vote of the people.
this can be read in full at: http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/04-29-05.asp
Now I will close with this: Mark 4:12
Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, and their sins be forgiven them.
John 3:3 Most assuredly I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
3:12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
He who believes in Him is not condemned but he who does not believe is condemned already because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
3:21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.
All right, closing for now. I hope you are well!!
...so I am going start a new thread for this discussion, below (two, actually...one for the biblical questions, and another for the Constiutional ones).
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
So, there is such a thing as right and wrong then. The word "sin" is better replaced by using "injustice" (same meaning).
It doesn't make sense to say that every sin is an injustice. Injustice is defined as a violation of the rights of others. So how is homosexuality a sin (read injustice)? Whose rights does it violate? And how is defying your husband (if you're a wife) or your father (if you're a son) an injustice, when its an exercise of your own rights?
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
My Latest Blog Posts
That's not how it's supposed to be read. It's an injustice towards God, whom you must believe in in order to understand this. It's complicated, and I don't expect you to understand let alone agree, but that's how I live.
I don't think that one has to believe in "god" in order to understand the arguments of theism. It is more accurate to say that it is difficult for those who do not believe in supernatural beings to suspend the usual process of reason and logic which would normally govern a rational conversation. I don't mean to be offensive, here, as you have obviously take great care to remain pleasant in this discussion, but the fact remains that your arguments are conclusory, and essentially circular in a logical sense. If those arguments don't make sense without appealing to the authority of an unverifiable source, then it stands to reason that they probably just don't make sense...period.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Well, at least someone else says that I'm staying pleasant! I've been trying to stay humble and not get in peoples' faces like the crazy Christians!
And you have it right. One must have faith (which cannot be factually proven with hard evidence) that God exists in order to believe my argument, so I guess there's just one loophole!
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), it is a pretty BIG loophole, especially if your goal is to convince anyone of the validity of your arguments who does not already sit next to you in the same pew on Sunday mornings.
The other aspect of the point that I was making (and to use a metaphor that you might appreciate), is that an argument that relies upon an appeal to authority, but which cannot stand on its own merits when bereft of that support is like unto a "house built upon the sand." A good argument needs no support outside of its own reasoning and the direct evidence which can be objectively obtained to demonstrate its validity. If one's argument cannot be supported without the appeal, then one's argument is flawed.
This flaw is the central, unavoidable error in quite literally all theistic assertions. Anyone may assert the support of a conveniently unreachable authority to support their positions. And in that regard, I tend to find such beliefs as predicate your arguments no different (and no better) than those who believe in the existence of bigfoot, or alien reptiles from another dimension.
I am however tolerant of beliefs that do not lead those who share in them to reach out and seek to harm other people. Unfortunately, the religion of christianity in particular has not proved itself to be so benign, especially when it comes to the treatment of gay and lesbian people. To quote another passage that you might appreciate, "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" There are exceptions, to be sure, but as a movement christianity has a very poor track record (both ancient and modern) regarding its treatment of gay and lesbian people.
Trying to find ways to interpret the biblical texts in order to recast christianity in a more tolerant mold is admirable from a human perspective, but unless that re-invention includes an explicit rejection of the basic theology that spawned that inhumanity in the first place, it seems a bit disingenuous, no matter how well meant.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
“Unfortunately, the religion of christianity in particular has not proved itself to be so benign, especially when it comes to the treatment of gay and lesbian people… There are exceptions, to be sure, but as a movement christianity has a very poor track record (both ancient and modern) regarding its treatment of gay and lesbian people.”
You’re absolutely right. Christianity does not have a very good track record when it comes to the treatment of homosexuals, and that has unfortunately scared the unbeliever’s perceptions of Christianity. The problem comes in, however, when man steps in.
People mess things up, and I think we all can attest to this. Something that is perfectly fine can be taken to extremes. Alcohol is a perfectly fine thing, in moderation. When taken to the extreme, it can hold one captive with the chains of alcoholism, it it doesn’t kill him before. Sex is a perfectly fine thing, but when it leads to STDs, teenage pregnancy, AIDS, and rape, it then becomes an addiction with no limits.
Christianity, in the bare bones of the true doctrine, should accept people. Keyword: people. Of course, there are behaviors taken part in by believers and unbelievers alike that are not in line with the Bible, but God does not discriminate against the person. He created that person; he only wants the best for him.
“Trying to find ways to interpret the biblical texts in order to recast christianity in a more tolerant mold is admirable from a human perspective, but unless that re-invention includes an explicit rejection of the basic theology that spawned that inhumanity in the first place, it seems a bit disingenuous, no matter how well meant.”
I don’t know if you meant this comment to be concerning the content of my blog, but I’ll assume you did.
I’m not changing Scripture to be more appealing to the masses. I’m only giving Scripture the credit it deserves. People so often only give parts of verses, meant to support their arguments, and it falls apart. The Bible did not originally have chapters and verses, so we were expected to read the entire passage in the context it gives.
For example, people take Jeremiah 29 out of context so often. I can’t tell you how often I have read the verse, “’For I know the plans I have for you,’ declares the Lord. ‘Plans to prosper you and not to harm you; plans to give you hope and a future.’” I wrote that without referring to anything! I see it on graduation cards, journals to teenagers, every place people see fit to write this verse.
Sadly, this verse does not apply to me, or to you, or to anybody you know. This verse applies to the Jews who were alive at that time. Though this verse is an awesome promise, God’s providence and sovereignty are given elsewhere to Jews and Gentiles alike.
The problem is that this sounds very much like an excuse that is based (once again) on the same appeal to authority which we discussed above. From the perspective of one who does not share in your beliefs regarding the existence of supernatural powers, it seems to me that "man" is always going to be a part of the equation, and the real question is whether or not the underlying philosophy of your religion provides an effective deterrant to the negative actions in question. Historically speaking, the evidence would seem to suggest that it does not, though as admitted above, there are exceptions that open the door to the posibility, however unrealized it seems to be in the general population of christian adherents.
Fair enough. But, this begs the question of who is it that is "messing things up" in the relationship between gay people and christians? I would suggest that there is no evidence that would support the idea that being gay leads inherently to any negative consequence. The dangers which follow from extreme activity are essentially the same whether the perpetrator of those actions are gay or straight. That in turn leads me to question whether or not the scriptural denouncements against homosexuality you referenced are truly reasonable, regardless of the interpretation of degrees which seems to be the thrust of your blog.
The "true" doctrine? On what basis do you claim to know which verses from "the bible" (much less the numerous and often radically different collections of texts to which the various christian attribute that title) represents the "true doctrine?"
There may be PARTS of "the bible" that support your opinion in this, but there are just as many (and I would argue MORE) that do not. Without engaging in "cherry picking," it seems rather difficult to argue that the scriptural basis of christianity is not discriminatory. I mean, its pretty difficult for me to comprehend how a book that very plainly condemns me to death for the "crime" of having sex with my husband isn't a prescription for discrimination.
As one of the few people you are likely to meet here that has actually read the "whole" bible (numerous translations and in more than one language), I can say that when I look at "the bible" as a whole work, I am not convinced that it offers the tolerant message that you are suggesting.
I think you may be missing the real point of contention, here. On a theological level (momentarily suspending my disbelief in supernatural agencies), the "god" of the Jews referred in the old testament is the same "god" of the christians referred to in the new testament. Judaism, islam and christianity all share the same "god," (i.e. the "god" of Abraham). As such, if one permits the premise that "the bible" is in any way, shape or form an accurate explanation of the character of that alleged being, then the pronouncements of that being are legitimately subject to consideration, regardless of the particular people to which those pronouncements may have been directed.
For example, when the old testament says (in Leviticus 20:13) that "if a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them," I find that instruction equally abhorrent regardless of whether or not it was intended to apply to me, today. Such murderous commandments represent an inherent part of christian theology, because they are attributed by the christian bible to the christian "god." In order for me, as a non-christian to even begin to take your argument seriously, you would have to first denounce that commandment as a false pronouncement that does not in "fact" originate with the "god" you claim to worship.
On a more practical (and thus less religious) level, I honestly couldn't care any less about the scriptural basis of your opinions about gay and lesbian people. Your opinion is your opinon, and you have a right to it. However, when you express that opinion to me, I have to respond by saying that while your version of christian theology may be less brutal than the usual anti-gay mania that seems to dominate the christian movement, it is no less offensive in its basic pronouncement that there is something inherently "wrong" with gay people. I wonder how you would feel if someone came up to you, out of the blue, and launched into a tirade explaining how they thought your relationship with your wife (or girlfriend or whatever) was inherently evil. Even if they went on to explain, "hey, even though you're committing a spiritual crime by loving on another, I don't think people should be mean to you," do you think you would be very forgiving of the sheer temerity and arrogance of judging your relationship without even having taken the time to get to know you or your partner personally?
Its nice (and I suppose a step in the right direction) for you to try to come to a place where your religious prejudices are tempered by some common human compassion. The bottom line however is that you're still making the exact same sort of judgment as your more fanatical brethren. Without ever having met me, you have categorized my relationship with my husband in the same list as lying, stealing and even murder (in your own words, "God does not rank sins"). I find that presumption to be not only intellectually flawed, but inpersonally dismissive not to mention down right rude. I do understand that you are trying to reach out in the spirit of kindness, but from my perspective, a turd covered in sugar still tastes like $#!%.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
"From the perspective of one who does not share in your beliefs regarding the existence of supernatural powers, it seems to me that "man" is always going to be a part of the equation, and the real question is whether or not the underlying philosophy of your religion provides an effective deterrant to the negative actions in question."
But this theory can be applied top anything. Communism, for example, is a perfect way to rule a country. ON PAPER! When a dictator actuallt institutes communism as the ruling party, however, people are not going to simlpy roll over and die - they fight. The problem with communism is that you're hoping that the people you rule will obey and respect you, when it actuality they may not.
"...this begs the question of who is it that is "messing things up" in the relationship between gay people and christians?"
I wrote about this. Christians and homosexuals find themselves in a war, with neither side knowing who fired the first shot. Technically, homosexuality was around before Christianity, but Christianity stems from Judaism, which is the first religion to take a stand against homosexuality. No one is necessarily at fault - we just disagree.
"I would suggest that there is no evidence that would support the idea that being gay leads inherently to any negative consequence."
Being anything can lead to negative consequence. Being a Jew leads to negative consequence when in Saudi Arabia or Nazi Germany. Being a meth addict leads to negative consequence when in a police station. Being Christian leads to negative consequence when in Sudan, and, sadly, being homosexual leads to negative consequence when in a church. One's beliefs will always have an opposite, and we must simply learn to deal with that fact.
I am not saying, however, that we should all agree with everything. If we did that, we'd be a walking logical fallacy. In order to preserve our right to disagree, we do end up not agreeing with something, and in effect, hurting someone's opinion. It's impossible to please everybody, and we must learn to live with that.
"I mean, its pretty difficult for me to comprehend how a book that very plainly condemns me to death for the "crime" of having sex with my husband isn't a prescription for discrimination."
Okay, so if you're a gay guy, then yes - the OLD TESTAMENT LAW does require death. It also requires death for rebellious children, the making of clothing with two different kinds of material and on and on. I can't help that this is what the Bible says, but that's what the OLD TESTAMENT says. The New Testament is the part of the Bible that applies to today. The Old Testament was for the Jews before Jesus came. Now that he came, we are no longer held to the Law. We must simply follow the precepts given in the New Testament.
"For example, when the old testament says (in Leviticus 20:13) that "if a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them," I find that instruction equally abhorrent regardless of whether or not it was intended to apply to me, today."
This is completely understandable. At the same time, I find it hard when I read, "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and...stone him to death." Or even, "A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this." The Old Testament Law is for the Jews, and it cannot be applied to today. Jesus did away with the Old Testament Law, and it no longer has any hold on how we live. The Law, instead, points to Jesus as the things we truly need to live our lives rightly.
"Your opinion is your opinon, and you have a right to it. However, when you express that opinion to me, I have to respond by saying that while your version of christian theology may be less brutal than the usual anti-gay mania that seems to dominate the christian movement, it is no less offensive in its basic pronouncement that there is something inherently "wrong" with gay people."
I can't help that the Bible says it's wrong to live out a homosexual life. I also can't help that the Bible says it's wrong to lie, cheat, murder, gossip, take part is divisions of the church - I just can't help it. That's what it says, and I'm just trying to prove that the Bible does not say what everybody else says ("Homosexuals are going to hell!").
"Its nice (and I suppose a step in the right direction) for you to try to come to a place where your religious prejudices are tempered by some common human compassion."
This isn't quite right. Honestly, if I was left alone to my human characteristics, I would be one of the crazy maniacs who scream and shout damnation to gays. I have, however, been changed by the blood of Christ, and it is throught that change that I can truly say that God does not hate homosexuals, only homosexuality; he does not hate liars, he hates lying; he does not hate murderers, only murder. God wants us to live rightly, and we live rightly through our ACTIONS. Now, our actions can have affect on our lifestyle, and it is when our choices become our lifestyle that he becomes concerned.
"Without ever having met me, you have categorized my relationship with my husband in the same list as lying, stealing and even murder (in your own words, "God does not rank sins"). I find that presumption to be not only intellectually flawed, but inpersonally dismissive not to mention down right rude. "
You're right, I haven't met you. I have no idea what kind of a person you are. You could be a mass-murderer for all I know, but I think I've come to the conclusion that you're not. :) But I can't separate what the Bible says from what I believe - it's the same thing. I just want to make sure that people know exactly what the Bible says about homosexuality.
...So I will reply to this, below.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Unfortunately, the NKJV is not a primary source, nor is it considered a definitive translation, even in christian circles. In fact, there are a number of serious criticisms of this version, such as the fact that it is rendered in an invented dialect. For example, the "English" in the NKJV has never been spoken as an actual language, and it blends modern terminology with a psuedo-archaic syntax (designed to "sound" Jacobean, but not actually following the rules of that language, either). Also, the authors of the NKJV specifically ignored the findings of modern scholarship, and intentionally limited their translation to texts that were available at the time of King James, even though there were extant copies of some of the core texts for which earlier copies had since been discovered, and which contradict the later (and thus obviously edited) texts that were available in the17th Century.
Unfortunately, your presentation thus far seems to follow the more or less typical tactic of reconciling these errors though interpretation, rather than addressing the hard reality of the actual, objectively apparent contents of these texts. Based on your earlier assertion that you "cannot find any faults in the Bible at all" and that "The Bible never contradicts itself," (emphasis mine) you have set a rather high bar before yourself that your arguments must hurdle over in order to satisfy your premise. Such absolute exhortations set a standard that permits no degree of error and leaves no room at all for ambiguity. If you will excuse my enjoyment as an atheist, that is the beauty of having this kind of discussion with an believer in biblical inerrancy (which unless I am misinterpreting your position, you are). The basic position sets an essentially impossible standard for the apologist to meet, while her opponent need only find "a single hair out of place" in order to utterly invalidate that argument.
Regardless of which English version of the bible you use, you're going to run into difficulties since the simple fact is that all translations are inherently inaccurate to one degree or another. This isn't a criticism of the translators, per se. It is just the unfortunate reality of trying to convey the complexities of theme and connotation that are peculiar to one language into the no less complex but equally peculiar expressions of another. That's why I try to temper my interpretation of these texts with an understanding of their original linguistic context (or at least, as close to the original as the surviving historical record permits).
With that in mind, I must once again point out that the contents of the original texts do not actually support the interpretation (or the translation) that you suggest. In order to reach your version, one has to translate two identical Hebrew phrases into two radically different English ones. I would also suggest that the source you provided seems to support my observation that at least one of these passages represents an (albeit deliberate) error. To quote your own source, many of the numbers regarding population, spoils, tributes, offerings, troops and the like are "impossibly large," and that "clearly the numbers were altered in a deliberate manner." The bottom line is that at least some of the numbers reported in the extant texts are false. That these errors were deliberate (which itself is a wildly speculative claim), doesn't make them any less inconsistent between the various cannonical books that report them. Also, the mere fact that one has to turn outside "the bible" to reconcile these discrepancies itself satisfies a challenge to the claim that "The Bible never contradicts itself."
Well, I hate to bring up the "Logical fallacy blah blah blah...," but there seems to be such a fallacy (several actually) at work in your beliefs. Actually, I think you make an excellent point in this comment (though probably not the one your meant to make). One of the reasons that religion superstitions are so difficult for people to disabuse themselves is that they are taught through a process of indoctrination, usually in early childhood when there is an inequality of intellectual power and a tendency to accept pronouncements of authority without question. And without making too many assumptions about your childhood, the church seems to have appealed to a psychological need in you that your parents were failing to fulfill. As such, it is to be expected that you would tend to defend that institution (and its beliefs) in the way similar to that of a child to a parent. Such loyalty is even admirable, to a point, but it does not however serve as an adequate substitute for objective reasoning in a discussion of the actual, objective validity of those beliefs.
You say that you "know that we were created," but how do you know that, really? You might believe that, but unless you have some actual, objective evidence that points to the existence of a supernatural (or even an alien) creator, it seems intellectually disigenuous for you to claim to "know" anything of the sort. Such beliefs are predicated upon a very basic logical fallacy, known as "begging the question." This is the kind of irrational foible that leads me to question the basic thought process behind the whole business of theism. No matter how much apology one offers for a particular religous argument, it all eventually traces back to the same, purely speculative assumption.
If that is the case, then why does the other geneology not make the same deviations in the lineage? And considering the huge departure from common practice of only tracing lineages through the patrilineal lines, how does one reconcile the oversight of even mentioning that such a deviaiton supposedly occured? Also, how would one determine this based on the contents of the cannonical texts, in any case? And don't forget, how also does one reconcile the huge difference in the number of generations between the two accounts? At best, these geneologies are shoddily reported, and since one cannot reconcile them with the information internal to the actual texts, I must again point to this as a supportable challenge to the claim that "The Bible never contradicts itself."
I was raised in a devout protestant family (roughly one-half of which was southern baptists, and the other half united methodist). I have several male family members who were ministers, and many of the women in my family were Sunday school teachers. I attended a private christian academy for my primary education, and was active in my church from a very early age. My family has was very well educated, and I was encouraged to study the bible in both a theological and scholarly context. I was not "religiously abused" and my family was not psychotic in their adherence to their religious beliefs. My objections to the contents of the bible, and the brutal and bloody "godhead" it described came completely from my study of those texts. I have actually written a blog on the particulars behind Why I can't be a christian. If you read that, you should have a pretty good understanding of the motivation behind my moral rejection of religion of christianity.
Fair enough.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
So I decided to elaborate on a point that got brushed over. As I pointed out above...
Going into a little more detail, the following books are common to the canons of most modern christian and jewish sects: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, the minor prophets (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi...which in the Hebrew Bible are contained in a single book). The roman catholic canon, however, contains a number of additional books, that the jewish and protestant sects reject, such as the books of Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ben Sira, Baruch, and significant additional sections in the books of Jeremiah, Daniel and Esther. The eastern orthodox church also includes the books of 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, the Prayer of Manasseh and an additional Psalm. The Russian and Ethiopian orthodox branches include 2 Esdras in their common canon, and the Ethiopian orthodox adds another Psalm, the book of Jubilees and Enoch, and 1-3 Meqabyan. The Peshitta canon adds four more Psalms and the book of 2 Baruch, but rejects portions of John and all of 2 Peter, Jude, and the book of Revelation. The canonization of the new testament is a little more consistent, but it is interesting to note that the new testament wasn't actually dogmatically canonized until 16th-17th Centuries. The roman catholics issued their new testament canon in 1546 (The Council of Trent), and the Anglicans, Calvinists and Eastern Orthodoxies followed suit in 1563 (The Thrity-Nine Articles), 1647 (The Westminster Confession of Faith) and 1672 (The Synod of Jerusalem), respectively.
So my question to you is this...based on the fact that the major christian sects of the world can't even agree on what books are actually a part of the bible, how do you propose to support a claim that "the bible" co