Some Things to Consider When Discussing the So-Called Sin of Homosexuality
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The other day, my friend and colleague Keith Giles engaged in a lively debate with the folks from G220 Radio on the topic of homosexuality and the Bible. The three hosts took the stance that the Bible condemns all non-heterosexual romantic relationships, while Giles argued for full affirmation of the LGBTQ+ community. After listening to the show in its entirety, I wanted to offer some initial thoughts on the topic by providing 10 things for us to remember when confronting the issue of homosexuality and the Bible.
1 The Bible is Not Simply a Set of Dos and Don’ts
Many folks approach the Bible as if it is univocal, written by a guy named “God,” and meant to be used as a rule book for life. This is not a good idea. In fact, it’s rather immature. But more than that, it is a dangerous notion. Why? Because the Bible, in all its ambiguity and obscurity, can pretty much be used to say whatever one wants it to say. For instance, if one wants to justify racism and slavery, I’m sure the Bible can be used in their favor (see Exodus 21:2–6; Leviticus 25:44–46). If one wants to justify patriarchy, again, it can, and has been, used for that. The same thing goes for justifying the ostracization and demonization of the LGBTQ+ community. The Bible has been wielded like a two-edged sword to do all these things, especially by those who use it as God’s rule book for life.
2 The Bible Doesn’t ‘Clearly Say…’
The Bible is clear about some things. I’ll concede that. For the most part, however, it is not. How could it be? There are an unknown number of writers, editors, and redactors, and they are all spread out over a span of multiple centuries, millennia even. They have dissimilar cultural contexts and rarely share the same theologies. Hence, even if one writer makes something clear, another may just come along and muddy up the waters for us. Case in point, take a look at how two prophets, Elijah and Hosea, view Jehu’s slaughtering of the entire house of Ahab:
2 Kings 9: The wicked house of Ahab, who was a member of the northern kingdom of Israel, is slaughtered by Jehu after Elijah anoints him for such a task.
Hosea 1: A handful of generations later, Hosea says that the house of Jehu will be punished for what they did to the house of Ahab.
To that end, the only thing that is clear about large portions of the Bible is that things aren’t so clear. We must remember that.
3 Context, Context, Context
With everything, context is crucial. If we fail to acknowledge the cultural, political, and theological context with which the many writers of the Bible are speaking from, then we’ll always miss the point. Well, maybe not always: a broken clock is right twice a day, after all. But, you get the point: we simply should not be using our English Bibles to prooftext our way through an argument or debate without first addressing what is going on behind the scenes. This will be important come points 5 through 9.
4 Everyone Cherry-Picks
A common charge against those who affirm the LGBTQ+ community is that we cherry-pick the Scriptures. But guess what? Everyone I’ve ever met cherry-picks the Bible. Even Conservatives. That’s okay, though, because even Jesus and Paul did it. The question, then, is how are we going to cherry-pick the Bible? Are we going to pick the cherries that command us to take up arms against our enemies or the ones that tell us how we should love and bless them? Are we going to pick the cherries that excludes others or includes them? The ones that drive a stake between people or the ones that bring unification and reconciliation?
My point, then, is simply that we need to admit this prior to having discussions on such important matters.
5 Genesis 19? Let’s Not Even Go There
Now we are getting into the heart of the matter. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah, found in Genesis 19, is a favorite cherry some folks go to condemn homosexuality. It’s bizarre, but true. Why is it bizarre? Because it has nothing to do with homosexuality. Not only does the prophet Ezekiel not mention homosexuality in his list of the “sins of Sodom,” but if you actually read the story, you’ll notice the context has nothing to do with what we would call “homosexuality.” Plain and simple, what is going on here is an attempted gang rape by all the people of Sodom, down to the last man. And sure, that’s a no-no. But, again, it has nothing to do with homosexuality.
6 Levitical Law and Its Application
Another favorite cherry some folks pick in order to condemn homosexuality is Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Respectively, they read:
Lev 18:22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination
Lev 20:13: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Simple, right? It can’t get much clearer than that. Well, hold on now. In order to address this, I’ll quote something my good friend and Hebrew scholar, Mark Stone, wrote on my Facebook wall a while back:
“Even if one were to grant that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 were referencing ‘homosexuality’ in a sense comparable to our modern understanding (and that is a big ‘if’), the book’s own self-reported scope mitigates universal application. These purity laws only apply to nations inhabiting the ‘holy land,’ and are only applicable if you are physically present in the land. Otherwise they are not applicable.”
He continues:
“In both 18:22 and 20:13, the Hebrew idiom mishkeve ‘isha (‘lie with a woman’) is possibly a technical phrase used only for illicit heterosexual relations, not regular, healthy, non-incestuous and non-adulterous sex. Scholars have also argued that the strange Hebrew phrasing likely refers specifically to male-male anal intercourse, not any other male-male sexual contact. The concern would have been the mixing of two ‘unclean’ substances—viz., semen and excrement—and therefore represented more a ‘cleanliness’ taboo than a moral judgment. This is not unlike other cleanliness taboos, like mixing semen and menstrual blood. All that to say, the Hebrew syntax and vocabulary is bizarre and complicated and most clearly refers to something much more specific than generic, male-male sexual intimacy.”
And finally, regarding the specific sort of relationships actually being prohibited in Leviticus, Stone concludes:
“Leviticus 20:13 specifically forbids that a ‘male’ (‘ish) have sex with a ‘male’ (zachar). This is curious, as the two words both mean a generic male. Why use the different vocabulary? The best way to understand the curious shift in vocabulary is to read it in the broader context (this also applies to 18:22). Essentially, the use of zachar is to clarify that all the ‘male versions’ of sexual abominations enumerated in the previous (and likely forthcoming) verses are also proscribed. Ergo, the homosexual prohibition applies to sex with father, son, and brother and to grandfather-grandson, uncle-nephew, and stepfather-stepson, but—and this is the crucial bit—not to male-male sexual intercourse in general. To make such a claim is blatant eisegesis, not to mention grossly anachronistic. This applies mutatis mutandis to female-female as well.”
See what I mean? As I said, we need to always dig deeper into the broader context of what was going on at the time of these writings.
7 WWJD
What would Jesus do? Well, I’m not 100% sure, but I do know he never talked about homosexuality. That said, he did talk about marriage, namely in Matthew 19. And the type of marriage he talked about was between a “male and female.” Guess what, though? There is a context. And that context is divorce, not a grand expose on proper sexual orientation.
What’s going on is that the Pharisees, like they were wont to do, are trying to trap Jesus by using their Scriptures against him. So, what does he do? He uses the Scriptures back against the Pharisees. Typical Jesus, am I right? However, to take Jesus’ response and then apply it to our post-Enlightenment understanding of “homosexuality” would be completely out of context, not to mention grossly anachronistic.
‘Nuff said.
8 Maybe Romans Doesn’t Say What You Think It Says
Here’s where anti-LGBTQ+ folks think they’ve won the argument—with Romans. The passage du jour, of course, comes from 1:26–27, and reads:
“For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse with unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”
Uh oh! It’s clear, Paul is not down with homosexuality. The wrath of God is coming down against the gays.
Well, again, not so fast.
First off, if Pauline scholar Douglas Campbell is correct, then the passage that runs from Romans 1:18–32 is not even Paul; rather, it is Paul writing as the false teacher he is rebuking. In other words, Paul is being rhetorical. If that is the case, then, we can’t even use the list of vices mentioned in the text as proof for any sort of moral or immoral behavior.
However, even if we don’t go so far as Campbell does (I do, though), then what we must realize is that Paul isn’t even talking about what we would call “homosexuality.” Again, context. What’s really going on here has nothing to do with gay men or women joining together in a loving, non-coercive union. Instead, the context, as Steve Chalke points out, is “idolatry, promiscuity and shrine prostitution.”
9 Corinthians Is More Complex Than You May Think
Now we get to what is probably the most difficult passage in all the New Testament—1 Corinthians 6:9–11. The NIV translation reads:
“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were.”
The problem with this translation is this: “men who have sex with men” is a poor and incomplete understanding of the Greek terms malakoi and arsenokoitai.
Malakos, on the one hand, can be translated as “soft” or “effeminate.” As New Testament scholar David Bentley-Hart points out in his recent New Testament translation:
“A man who is malakos is either ‘soft’—in any number of senses: self-indulgent, dainty, cowardly . . . physically weak—or ‘gentle’—in various largely benign senses: delicate, mild, etc. Some translators of the New Testament take it here to mean the passive partner in male homoerotic acts, but that is an unwarranted supposition.”
Arsenokoitai, on the other hand, is a bit more difficult to translate, given that Paul sort-of made up the word. Again, here’s Bentley-Hart on what the word may possibly mean:
“Precisely what an arsenokoites is has long been a matter of speculation and argument. Literally, it means a man who ‘beds’—that is, ‘couples with’—‘males.’ But, there is no evidence of its use before Paul’s text . . . It would not mean ‘homosexual’ in the modern sense of a person of a specific erotic disposition, for the simple reason that the ancient world possessed no comparable concept of a specifically homoerotic sexual identity; it would refer to a particular sexual behavior, but we cannot say exactly which one.
My guess at the proper connotation of the word is based simply upon the reality that in the first century the most common and readily available form of male homoerotic sexual activity was a master’s or patrons’ exploitation of young male slaves.”
Again, with that context in mind, it’s no wonder Paul denounced such coercive acts. But that’s just it; this is about coercion, not necessarily what we would today call “homosexual.”
10 Without Love, We Are A Clanging Gong
All of this brings me to my last point. We as Christians should, above all else, love others. I know many will claim that denouncing homosexuality is the loving thing to do, but it isn’t. End. Of. Story. How can I so boldly say this? Well, simple: I know and love tons of LGBTQ+ folks who can pass the 1 Corinthians 13 love test:
They are patient, they are kind. They aren’t envious, they do not boast, and are not proud. They don’t dishonor others, are not self-seeking, are not easily angered, and keep no records of wrong. They do not delight in evil but rejoice with the truth. They always protect, always trust, always hope, and always persevere.
That’s how I see it, anyway. Perhaps you disagree. My former self would disagree with the current me, so I understand that it’s all a process.
Peace, and may we better learn how to love others as we want others to love us.
Tags
Who is online
461 visitors
We've had a couple of interesting conversations (O... M... G...!!!) in recent days, about interpreting the Bible and about homosexuality and the Bible.
This is both.
Why anyone would turn to the bible for information or advise about homosexuality is beyond me. It's as if some people are incapable of having their own original thoughts (or actual knowledge) on the matter.
Or anything for that matter. I can't remember the last time I asked a Bronze-age goat rapist for advice on anything.
I don't understand either... and that's why the topic interests me.
Part of it may be that many people are afraid of thinking. Serious thinking - like about the implications of homosexuality in a bisexual species - requires effort, and engenders responsibility. Lots of people want neither.
It's easier to "take instruction" from somewhere.
That is quote worthy.
I like it.
Sure... except for the minor detail that it doesn't apply...
Religion is good at keeping people from thinking logically or critically. It's easier for a baby to be fed than feed itself.
Especially when one is indoctrinated.
It seems to me, from all that I read here on NT, that Anti-Religion is good at keeping people from thinking logically or critically.
All you anti-religion, anti-Bible people go completely bananas, spouting nonsense that would embarrass you in any other context. Why?
What is so important about religion that you abandon the intellectual rigor that you hold important elsewhere?
Quite the contrary.
What "nonsense" are you referring to? If there is nonsense, it usually comes from religious sources.
More like it's religion that abandons (or at least dissuades) intellectual rigor. Some of us simply oppose that.
Please explain to me the logic of using citations from the Bible to disprove God. For that to work, you must accept the Bible as authoritative. Which is certainly not your intention.
I never said the bible disproves god. But then, neither does it prove there's a god.
Whose "authority" exactly? And on what basis is it authoritative? A bunch of Bronze-Age goat herders? The bible itself is basically a collection of fables and stories.
Same idiotic argument brain-dead, right wing, Trumpist fundies use. The person we are using bible quotations on generally DOES accept the bible as authoritative, so we point out that they are wrong even by their own professed beliefs. Honestly Bob, it pains me to see you twist yourself into grotesque contortions in your desperate attempts to legitimize Christianity. You may not be as smart as you think you are, but you are DEFINITELY smart enough to see through the 'god' fairytale. Clinging to the foolish superstitions of our ignorant, prehistoric ancestors, makes one a fool, period.
You repeat "goat-herder". Why?
Because you are accepting the Biblical context.
Apparently, you haven't been paying attention. I don't know how you define "Christianity" here, but surely not as I do.
Because goat herders is what they essentially were.
Apparently, even Christians define Christianity differently.
Letting a baby feed itself is usually stupid, likely fatal. Would you really let a baby pick out its own food? Or would it be smarter to seek wise, experienced guidance - like from a parent?
But that's the fun part of having a brain! Especially when alcohol is involved. I can get pretty philosophical when I'm drinking.
I see you as a Red letter Christian (I may be wrong). And I say that because you have compassion for others.
thinking drinking thinking drinking..........
I certainly agree that religion shouldn't mix with politics, but I'm not part of any movement. I'm "Christian" because I was born that way... but my interpretation of Christ is kinda sorta personal... and open to revision at any time...
And I think that's cool, Bob.
Bob, I think you're taking some of this personally when in reality you're the sort of theist that an atheist would never criticize or ridicule.
Oh, no... certainly not. I'm fairly secure in my own mind.
What bothers me has nothing to do with me, except that I dislike seeing intelligent people being stupid. It's odd to see people who try to be rational on almost all topics, but behave completely differently when the topic is religion.
The Bible is a book. Duh. Its words can be interpreted in many ways. Duh. Some of those interpretations are not compatible with the origins of the book. Not "duh" at all - if the reader doesn't know about the Bible - its origins, context, evolution, ...- they cannot read it accurately. To be a bit more purist, if they're not reading koinè Greek, they're not reading accurately.
The Bible had multiple authors, over centuries, with differing agendas. Then it was copied and translated over and over by people with yet other agendas. If the reader doesn't know those agendas, their reading is at risk...
This kind of problem is not specific to the Bible. There are lots of works that need exegesis. Shakespeare, for example...
It's a book. It has no magical power to impose stuff on... anyone. There are a lot of idiots who say that their idiocies come from the Bible. Hey! They're idiots! No one accepts what they say about... anything... except what they say about the Bible. WTF! Why dumbly accept a reading of the Bible by idiots?
So... if the problem is the idiots, then let's address the idiots!
If those idiots were using Harry Potter as the basis for the sharia laws which they've managed to sneak into our secular laws would you try to reason with those idiots, have a rational and educated debate on the various interpretations and translations of Harry Potter, or would you simply ridicule the basis on which those idiots base their sharia laws?
Looks like my post went right over your head.
I certainly wouldn't waste my time on Harry Potter. I'd be preoccupied with the idiots. They're the ones who are doing stuff. The book is their tool, not their master.
you are aware they base their actions and other tools in usage upon that book (the source), right ? so if you have a leak in your apartment - you just mop up the mess all the time and don't try to fix the leaking pipe (the source), right ?
They say the Bible is inerrant. And apparently you agree with them.
I don't.
Here's what i stated:
while you are busy going after the "idiots", others are busy discussing the book (the source). I guess not everyone fixes leaking pipes, they just keep mopping up the mess it makes like you would rather do.
It seems to be both despite the fact that most fundamentalists know very little about it.
The book is not magic. It does nothing. But you're right in a way.
Some people, claiming to "know what the Bible means", usurp it to spread their own ideas... and some people, afraid to think for themselves, allow those usurpers to master them...
Indeed. So why treat it as anything more than a quaint set of ancient writings?
Perhaps because "quaint" is not the most precise adjective...
On what grounds can one logically take anything in the Bible as divine truth?
Dunno.
Personally, I wouldn't try.
I disagree with "quaint" because there's a connotation of superciliousness that doesn't feel right for a Book about God... regardless of whether one agrees with its content.
Agreed. I wonder if someone will provide a thoughtful answer to the question.
Probably not, since there's a considerable disconnect between "logically" and "Bible as divine truth".
"Primitive" is definitely more apropos.
... and "Bronze / Iron Age Pastoral" would be a whole lot more accurate.
I think there are some good guidelines to living in the Bible. In both the Old and New Testaments
Can we compromise on "Bronze / Iron Age Pastoral Goat Rapists" ?
Just one:
I'd certainly be open to the idea, if you have some evidence that goat-raping was a typical activity...
There's some really good poetry in the Psalms, too
So I've been told. I'm poetry-illiterate, though, so I have no opinion of my own.
I'll quote a modern Christian who grew up in a pastoral setting: "When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule."
Yeah... That'll do...
Yes there are. But does anyone know if any is a principle of objective morality? We can evaluate each principle subjectively but how can the Bible serve as a source for objective morality?
... or any other source, for that matter...
I've been following "objective morality" in the other thread. It's been interesting, but, to my mind, inconclusive.
The idea that " 'moral' is what most people think is moral" is problematic. It's circular logic, obviously, and very contextual. Unfortunately... I don't have anything better to propose.
"Objective" means that there must be an independent standard against which something can be measured. If the standard is man-made, then it is not "independent", as is clear from the way "what is moral" has differed with place and epoch.
Calling on God to give us a moral code would be great... if She answered. But if what we got back was in fact just the words of the High Priest... ...
Not simple...
Objective morality is one of those things that each person defines for themselves. At least that's what I've seen over my 56 years
Ironic is it not?
Agreed. It would be -at best- an approximation.
Unfortunately too many people think the words of men in ancient books are divine communication of objective morality.
Yup....
A good friend of mine who is a devout Christian and hobby bible scholar explained to me a while back that the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah and similar passages were really talking about a lawless town(s) where anything goes, and that it wasn't really directly about homosexuality as people like to think. I'm inclined to go with his interpretation. Certainly not at all about homosexuality in any real way. It does however reference violence and non consensual sex (rape). Which doesn't define homosexuality in any way.
Personally, I feel the bible is such an outdated anecdotal text (allegedly) that much of it can be safely ignored anyway, even if you are a believer, which I certainly am not.
This is also probably the case for Paul's Letter to the Romans. In a hodge-podge, Paul lists multiple signs of moral collapse... among them women deserting their husbands and men committing homosexual acts. Interestingly, nobody ever condemns runaway wives because of these verses...
I hadn't considered that letter, but it makes a lot of sense when put in that context.
I've also read it interpreted as a lack of hospitality - visiting strangers were treated poorly. I believe Middle Eastern cultures are reputed to take their obligations to shelter and provide for their guests very seriously, so attacking a guest certainly would have been a sin.
That also makes sense.
The real message is that you're only a righteous man if you're willing to let your virginal daughters be gang-raped by an angry mob, and if you pretend to be drunk or asleep when you later on have sex with those same kids.
By the way that aspect (the offering of Lot's daughters to appease the mob) would be a strong indication that the fable isn't about homosexuality at all.
It seems to me that you, personally, are so intent on trashing the Bible that you've completely lost perspective. You know that that sentence is silly, but you posted it anyway.
You're firing at the wrong target. The dangerous fools who really do read mayhem into the Bible deserve our scorn. The Book that they are misinterpreting as egregiously as you have just done is not responsible for the deeds of some nutcase readers.
According to the Bible, did Lot offer up his two daughters to be raped?
Yes.
According to the Bible, did god allow Lot and his family to live?
Yes.
Therefore, god either must have found this action to be righteous, or at the very least found it to be not very troubling.
Really, Bob, this penchant of yours for insisting that everyone interpret everything as you do is a bit silly and tiresome. If you only want statements made on your seeds with which you agree, why don't you just write articles instead, and leave them closed to comments?
Not at all. I was trying to avoid your being intellectually incoherent.
But if you wish to behave exactly like the most primitive of fundamentalists... be my guest!
Really, Bob, this penchant of yours for insisting that everyone interpret everything as you do is a bit silly and tiresome. If you only want statements made on your seeds with which you agree, why don't you just write articles instead, and leave them closed to comments?
Yep, makes you wonder why some non believers are so obsessed with the Bible and all things religion, while the rest of us simply ignore it. Same goes for all things gay. But every forum has a few clueless blowhards who consider themselves mentally superior and display their ignorance on a daily basis.
Not at all. I was trying to avoid your being intellectually incoherent.
But if you wish to behave exactly like the most primitive of fundamentalists... be my guest!
If we can't discuss the Bible based on what is actually written in the Bible, then how do we do so with "intellectual coherence"? I don't discuss any other book by rewriting it first.
The reason the nonbelievers here point out the obvious problems with morality tales in the Bible is the fact that many believers insist on claiming that it is a good source of morality. Some of it is. Much of it is not, and some parts actually promote cruelty of a caliber I hope never to witness. I choose not to ignore the negative portions. To ignore them would be intellectually dishonest.
When you discuss any other book, you don't start by accepting it as true. Lots of novels present themselves as true, and you play along despite knowing that it isn't really true. You discuss the ideas a book expresses. You probably aren't shocked if there are contradictions.
Why do you treat the Bible differently?
Is it special for you in some way? Either it is just another book (to be treated like any book)... or there is something supernatural about it. You behave as if you consider it miraculous...
If you have a problem with the nutcase fundamentalists who declare that their nutcase behavior is commanded by God, as written in the Bible... well... so do I.
But in that case, you probably should be directing your vehemence at them, rather than at the Book they are abusing.
those ideas come from..... ??? ..... i would say the words in the actual book, correct ? so again:
because it looks like you, along with many of the religious, are trying to rewrite the book first to present your version of the ideas and make it palatable for everyone else, instead of discussing the actual words that formulate those ideas whether they are good or bad.
What an absurd statement to make to a nonbeliever.
Yeah, but those rapists were sinners, since they didn't force their victims to be their wives.
OK...
If you really think you can extract an occasional verse and draw vast conclusions... then I wish you a very nice life.
i am simply reading the written words in the bible. It's the same thing millions do everyday - they read words in a book or online in an article etc. you can try discussing the actual written words or you can rewrite them to suit your interpretation and make it more palatable so you can feel more righteous for your beliefs - i personally could care less either way, i just choose to read the actual written words.
we all know that's what is written - but if you have a secret decoder ring then you can figure out the "real secret message" and not be bothered with the actual written words (or so i'm told)
i am simply reading the written words in the bible.
Exactly. And that's a mistake. You aren't competent to read it. It's from a different world. Each word has been recopied and re-translated again and again.
Without an exegesis your reading will be wrong.
Ahhh, who cares? They're just women, right? They aren't even decedent from dirt like us men. If it wasn't for man, they wouldn't even be here.
Is this the level of your thinking?
Or have you never heard of an exegesis?
Wow.......
i'm not competent ? please tell everyone the list of people who are competent and what the requirements are to be competent to read the bible.
the fact that each word has been recopied and re-translated repeatedly should give you pause about the bible and it's corresponding religions/beliefs
careful now, are you sure you are "competent" to be able to read that book and understand those written words ? there's probably a hidden secret message somewhere and non believers just can't see it without that decoder ring.
i simply read the written word and am aware of homosexuality, especially in ancient cultures like Greece and Rome etc. If you think you know better - then explain it to everyone. Thanks
Only to the extent that it pervades even secular society to the extent that it has caused great harm to women, minorities and non-adherents. It would be a different matter entirely if its only impact were constrained to the lives of bible believers.
No Bob, I'm just looking at what the fable actually says, both literally and from an historical context where a gracious host in a desert climate and the preservation of familial lineage were both imperatives. It seems that it's bible believers who prefer to view that fable through rather twisted rose-colored glasses......and that's even without discussing what the Great Sky Fairy did to Lot's wife (which in the fable is also the excuse given for Lot having sex with his kids).
A book pervades society? Seriously?
All by itself?
Amazing....
Its impact is quite pervasive.
Ummm..... No.
I don't pretend to "know all about" the Bible. When I want to understand an excerpt, Google is my friend.
I know enough not to read a three-thousand-year-old text without exegesis.
Sure... It jumps up from the lectern and whacks people over the head! Huge impact!
oh wait... did you perhaps mean that figuratively?
now you refuse to explain it - but still maintain that you know the written word isn't true and you know the actual meaning , while non believers such as myself are not "competent" enough to actually read the written word of the bible , correct ?
What?? Where did I say anything like that?
It's hard to converse with someone who makes up stuff that isn't said... and doesn't listen to what is said...
3.1 - you list what you think is the meaning of Romans and state two things about it, yet are curiously silent on homosexuals being put to death, seems like you surely know the meaning
3.2.3 - since you know the sentence is "silly" as posted (which is the written word) then you must be aware of the secret "meaning" in order to make that judgement
3.2.16 - since the "written word" is "mistake" and i'm "incompetent" in reading it - you are suggesting you know the actual meaning, otherwise you wouldn't be able to "competently" make that judgement
i can continue if you wish if you are still unable to recall where you said "anything like that". so now are you saying you don't know the actual meaning but you know the written word isn't true ? can you make up your mind ? it'd surely be very helpful.
So... at no point do I claim to "know". I would not, because I know I am not competent to do so.
Nor would I try to explain The Inferno, or Dubliners... because I am not competent on those works either. Truth to tell, my literary erudition fills only a very small thimble.
The Bible interests me because it is unique. It - and its precursors - have held people's attention for thousands of years. That is a singularly long time.......
Because the topic interests me, I read the articles of exegesis that appear in one or the other of the blogs I follow. Thus I am aware of the traps that exist in reading without explanations. Once in a while, as with this article, I seed one of these exegesis articles so that others may also see the risks involved in superficiality.
But... as always... you can lead a mule to water but you can't make him drink...
Why don't you provide us with a copy of the Bible that you're reading that evidently is so different from the Bibles we've read? You know, the one that's all rainbows and glitter and love and has nothing worthy of being "bashed'? Or tell us how you're reading the passages that we're reading, and your interpretation of them? Because frankly, the OT, and to a much lesser degree, the NT, have plenty of passages that would tend make one question the goodness of the god they're supposed to be featuring.
Destroying all life on Earth except one family and a tiny fraction of animal life is, to most people, not especially moral, and certainly not loving or gracious. Same with ordering genocide and rape. Same with killing the innocent firstborn of Egypt. And yet we're told, by what claims to be the authoritative text on the subject, that that's the sort of hobbies this god has. And that anger - it's not a bug; it's a feature. That's one of his "good" qualities.
But hey, you just keep on calling us silly for reading the actual words in the actual books, rather than discussing your own special edition of the Bible that hasn't been and apparently won't be released, that apparently either skips that whole drowning the innocent people thing, or gives a good reason for why he did it.
Bob, I don't believe the Bible. The reason I discuss the Bible as it's written is because I think a lot of people are taking their morality from it, and trying to influence others to do the same, without recognizing that it contains some pretty shitty morality. Some of that shitty morality can be seen today - attitudes toward LGBT people, for example, and women. I'm not going to look at it through rose-colored glasses. The Abrahamic religions in general have all allowed for oppression, because of the actual words in their scriptures. Your personal non-literal reading of the Bible does nothing to negate that, because it's personal to you, rather than shared by all followers, and not supported by the words on the page.
very interesting... you would follow a religion spawned from a book you are not competent to "know" nor "read" and still believe in the main character as a living mystical entity that you worship, correct ?
indoctrination for many thousands of people, not holding attention voluntarily.
yes that's true, so many mules yet there's still a lot of water. So tell me what are the qualifications one needs to be able to read the bible "competently" from cover to cover.
Seems like no one is competent to discuss this issue - according to you and including yourself who likes to cast aspersions on everyone else, who doesn't see it the way you do.
Derogatory. Removed - PRF
Derogatory. Removed - PRF
Derogatory. Removed - PRF
This is the fourth violation in a week, so you have earned a two day vacation starting at 10:48 MST today and ending the same time on the 14th.
This thread will be locked pending Bob's return.
well:
yes, it seems as if Ignorance is Bliss, huh ?
Look... You wouldn't attempt to quote Shakespeare... or James Joyce... or ... basically any author... without exegesis.
Here you have a book that is thousands of years old, from a society that was totally different, written in a different language, translated many times, copied many times... And you are comfortable reading it without assistance??
OK. Be happy!
very good question... yet you have this book... and:
i'm not sure about you - but i'm pretty comfortable reading written words (especially since these words contained in the book are in plain English), i've been doing it for quite awhile.
no problem, i'm almost always happy in general
Ad hominem is all you have, huh?
No, not really. Some passages are certainly difficult. They require outside study to comprehend context, idiom, and other issues. And certainly we can disagree about the ultimate significance or meaning of some passages. But I think it's going way too far to suggest that the Bible can reasonably support any interpretation - not if the analysis is honest and informed.
What do you think would happen if a consortium were established for the purposes of re-writing the bible, to remove the ambiguity that arises from interpretation of writings from an unfamiliar culture? I don't think it would go so well.
didn't the Council of Nicaea have a similar purpose ? (concept of unification and removing ambiguity for issues concerning the religion and the bible, etc)
Absolutely. I believe that is how the canon of scripture was established to begin with. Man discerned what bits of babble were inspired by the hand of god, and what wasn't - without a single bit of advice from god himself!
Therein lies much of the problem. Even if you believe the bible to be divinely inspired of an infallible God it has to be dissected, interpreted and disseminated by very flawed fallible humans that you cannot trust to be "honest and informed".
They say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What power is more absolute than believing you're interpreting the word of God? So even if someone starts out with good intent, as they gather more followers and believers and their power grows over the lives of thousands, then tens of thousands, then possibly millions, they cannot help but be effected and corrupted by it, interpreting the word to always present themselves in the best light, otherwise they lose their grip on that power. It's why there have been so many who claimed to be the conduit through which God was interpreting his message but end up fleecing so many. Some studies have estimated that religion in America today makes up $1.2 TRILLION of our economy with an annual income of $378 billion. And that's just the US, the rest of the worlds religions no doubt control many hundreds of billions more. That's far more power and influence than they should ever have had but to me proves how corrupt they are. If the Jesus of the bible existed and did come back today, there is no doubt he would be whipping them all overturning the tables of the money changers and those selling his fathers faith like a commodity.
I took advantage of the suspension to finally get started on a couple projects that I've been putting off... and they're taking more time than I imagined. So I'll be busy and not present very much. But I'm unlocking the articles on the presumption that everyone has already forgotten them.