Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → CA Prop 8 proponents wish to nullify all existing same-sex marriages
1234
CA Prop 8 proponents wish to nullify all existing same-sex marriages
2008-12-21, 10:49 AM #81
Quote:
When your government is controlled by the same people that believe in said book, the government is indeed discriminating. You can blame the sheeple that voted them in to power but when you have a seemingly neverending cycle of ignorance that goes back generations & generations, you can hardly blame the people whose very education & way of life is dictated by said government.
It was passed by a ****ing REFERENDUM. The 'sheeple' didn't vote in people who passed this, they passed it all by themselves.

Quote:
Either Jon'C is quoting in satire or is truely religious. If its the latter I am actually shocked.
Either one of those, or he knows that you can find wisdom in the bible without believing in God.
2008-12-21, 10:59 AM #82
It's not sheeple vs government you know. The government isn't some alien life form or anything, it's made up of sheeple too =p
You can't judge a book by it's file size
2008-12-21, 12:43 PM #83
Originally posted by JM:
Either one of those, or he knows that you can find wisdom in the bible without believing in God.


Sure, using the word 'wisdom' in the loosest possible sense.
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. " - Bertrand Russell
The Triumph of Stupidity in Mortals and Others 1931-1935
2008-12-21, 1:00 PM #84
No, just using it in a not-blinded-by-bias sense.
2008-12-21, 1:26 PM #85
No, JM is right, there is plenty of wisdom to be found in the New Testament. The Old Testament, however, :gonk:
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2008-12-21, 1:41 PM #86
Also has some good bits if you realize that it's mostly allegory, and the only people who take things like Genesis literally are fundy christians.
2008-12-21, 2:19 PM #87
Originally posted by Emon:
No, JM is right, there is plenty of wisdom to be found in the New Testament. The Old Testament, however, :gonk:


I find the bits about the Sons of God quite inspiring.
Why do the heathens rage behind the firehouse?
2008-12-21, 4:12 PM #88
Originally posted by Wookie06:
There are other ways for governments to provide similar priviledges to gay couples that do not, at the same time, force an unwilling society to accept a redefined definition of marriage.


There may be. However:

A- Why? It isn't as though we had to make up a new term for interracial marriages once they were allowed. Hey maybe we should call them Cross-Species Liaisons instead, just so none of the religious types opposed to White-dilution get offended.

B- There is a hell of a lot of things that go with marriage than just a handful of privileges here and there. This is a big and serious deal. In fact:

Quote:
http://www.hrc.org/issues/5540.htm

"General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. 2004

An update to the 1997 GAO report (1,049 Federal Benefits for Married Couples) found that 120 new statutory provisions involving marital status were enacted since the last report, and 31 were repealed or amended to remove marital status as a factor. The new total is 1,138."


This is a big gorram revision control issue. Which would make more sense even just from an inhuman logistics level? Include homosexuals as applicable for federal/legal status of 'marriage' or create a duplicate status with another 1138 identical rights and benefits?


p.s. If you're serious about the issue, buy a shirt and spread the word: http://www.cafepress.com/hrc1138
Also, I can kill you with my brain.
2008-12-21, 4:46 PM #89
I've been trying to find out when interracial marriage (or 'miscegenation') was legalised in the UK, but casual googling tells me nothing. Does anyone know? I'm fair interested.
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. " - Bertrand Russell
The Triumph of Stupidity in Mortals and Others 1931-1935
2008-12-21, 4:47 PM #90
South Africa is the usual example for inter-racial marriage laws.
2008-12-22, 3:57 AM #91
Quote:
It doesn't. The people do. First, get rid of this idea that the government and the people are separate entities.


I'm not following you. You make a distinction between the government & the people & then you tell me to stop treating them like separate entities. It wouldn't be a rare occurrence for a government to act independently & against the will of the people (minority or majority). If you're referring to this one instance, we may be in agreement, but if you're being general, I'd be forced to disagree.

Quote:
Second, stop trying to personify amortized leadership, and stop expecting politicians to behave to a higher standard than the 'common' man.


There are so many baseless assumptions in the few sentences since my post that I'm confused as to whether or not you're even referring to me. My apologies if you're not. What's wrong with one expecting their politicians to have an ability for logic that surpasses that of the common person? If politicians are a mirror of the common person, we're in sad shape indeed. I would like to think that we should strive as a society to vote for individuals that are superior to us in a variety of arenas.

Quote:
Third, the Bible was compiled around the year 300 AD and was first translated from Greek into German by Martin Luther in 1521.


This has little to do with the origins & authors. Not to mention the borrowed stories that pre-date Christianity.

Quote:
Modern translations are taken from the original Greek (being the only part that is of actual consequence to real Christians; the Talmud is terribly irrelevant and Paul made it quite clear in his letters that Christians are to avoid perpetuating Jewish myths).


I would think that the concept of "real Christians" would be relative. In other words, many fundamentalists would claim that they're real Christians. The problem with Paul is that he actually didn't make anything clear. As a matter of fact, this is the problem with the entire bible. Very little of it is clear, very little of it can be proven & just about all of it can be taken both literally or figuratively. This is why it continues to survive as more than an artifact. Christians have moving the goal post down to an art.

Quote:
Fourth, it's not discriminatory. You can quote parts of the Bible out of context to give it a discriminatory intonation, though.


I don't see how anyone who has read the Old Testament could say that with a straight face. Every time someone points out something ridiculous in the bible, there's someone that comes along & claims that it's taken out of context or that your interpretation of scripture is invalid. The fact that there's a disproportionate amount of discriminatory things to take out of context in itself should give rise to suspicion. No matter how you interpret scripture, there's no way to deny that the bible explicitly states that homosexuality is a sin (it was even one of the few sins used as justification in destroying Sodom).

Quote:
The Bible condemns homosexual intercourse because it's unclean and unsafe. Leviticus was written before we knew how to suture a perforated colon or, indeed, before the invention of soap. Laying with a man as you would with a woman would have been a really bad idea 1000+ BC.


That's an interpretation. I find it difficult to believe that a god that states that men that lie with men should be put to death (Leviticus 20:13) is all that concerned with their health. Are you telling me that God's penalty for being unhealthy is death? I'd hate to see what he'd do with drug addicts.
? :)
2008-12-22, 4:43 AM #92
Doesn't the bible also say that homosexuality is an atrocity to the lord?
ORJ / My Level: ORJ Temple Tournament I
2008-12-22, 4:59 AM #93
It also says in Revelations that the sky will fall more than once.

The blokes that wrote that bit must've been on something gooooooood.
2008-12-22, 5:19 AM #94
The bible says a lot of things, many of which are flat out ignored in todays society, even by 'true christians'.
But the gay thing (or some of it) they really focus on.
You can't judge a book by it's file size
2008-12-22, 5:19 AM #95
the sky falls quite frequently, we call it rain.
Detty. Professional Expert.
Flickr Twitter
2008-12-22, 6:21 AM #96
Originally posted by Deadman:
The bible says a lot of things, many of which are flat out ignored in todays society, even by 'true christians'.
But the gay thing (or some of it) they really focus on.


And Leviticus has all the somewhat bizarre dietary guidelines (all things in the water that do not have scales or fins are an abomination, or something like that). Leviticus also tells you that you cannot plant a field with two kinds of seed, or wear clothes made from two different types of material. And you're also not allowed to trim your sideburns.

I'm fully aware that the NT clearly invalidates some of the rules in Leviticus (like not eating pork), but unless it invalidates all of them then Christians are still bound by a whole host of crazy (like children disrespecting parents must be put to death).
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. " - Bertrand Russell
The Triumph of Stupidity in Mortals and Others 1931-1935
2008-12-22, 8:56 AM #97
quite frankly the old testament is still not fully understood to this day. much of what is in Leviticus is it self taken out of context.

the bits about clipping the hair on the sides of you head and the edges of your beards, as well as cutting your body/tattooing, are most likely referring to not taking up the mourning customs of natives when the Israelite's went into a new land.

honestly people may never really know what the exact meaning of the old testament is or who exactly it was intended for. which is why i think for the most part it is a terrible idea to create laws based solely on pieces of it.

i think that if christians took a closer look at what jesus said are the two most important commandments things would be in much better shape:

Quote:
35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:

36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2008-12-22, 9:42 AM #98
They mention the stars falling. You can then turn that into nuclear particles as they might look like stars falling.

Back then, they had no idea what a plane was, so they probably called it a bird. They had no idea what technology was, so they used words to describe them as best they could.
2008-12-22, 10:02 AM #99
Hey look! More personal interpretation, way to twist ;)
You can't judge a book by it's file size
2008-12-22, 10:11 AM #100
Originally posted by Mentat:
This has little to do with the origins & authors. Not to mention the borrowed stories that pre-date Christianity.
The origins and authors of the individual books has little relevance against a refutation to an argument about transcription and translation errors. The original individual books of the New Testament were written in Greek, which is well-known to the concerned scholars.

It's impossible to say the same about the archaic Hebrew and Aramaic dialects used in the Old Testament, but this is an irrelevant observation because the Old Testament exists in the Bible only as a means to establish context. Christians are not meant to follow Hebrew legalism and Jesus explained this very clearly.

Quote:
I would think that the concept of "real Christians" would be relative. In other words, many fundamentalists would claim that they're real Christians.
What makes you think any sort of logic will stop a stupid person from being stupid? For example, stupid people can make the claim that atheism is inspired by scientific reasoning even though elementary logic says that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The only way you can abuse science to justify a religious perspective other than agnosticism is by corrupting it with emotion.

Quote:
The problem with Paul is that he actually didn't make anything clear. As a matter of fact, this is the problem with the entire bible. Very little of it is clear, very little of it can be proven & just about all of it can be taken both literally or figuratively.

Um... actually the problem with your argument is that Paul actually did indeed make everything quite clear by the very nature of his contribution to the Bible. Your proposed ambiguity simply isn't there. The Pauline Epistles are letters to followers, containing clear instructions on how they should teach others to be Christian and establish churches. They also comprise 14 of the 27 books of the New Testament. I don't understand how a person who has actually read the Bible could possibly claim that Paul didn't make his points clear.

In my personal opinion, the only book in the New Testament with a significant amount of ambiguity is the Book of Revelation. Or, as it should be titled, the Epistle of Revelation. i.e. a letter. Which Martin Luther thought was apocryphal even in an age where Biblical literalism was all the rage. Which contemporary scholars believe was an encoded letter about overcoming 1st century persecution (666 = Emperor Nero) and it just so happens that the current Pope agrees with them.

Quote:
This is why it continues to survive as more than an artifact. Christians have moving the goal post down to an art.
I disagree, but for semantic reasons. You are absolutely correct in the sense that people who self-identify with Christianity evade personal responsibility, but I would not describe these people as Christian.

Our modern culture of crass consumerism and entitlement undermines any effort we can make to be good people, regardless of what religion we follow. Our attitudes can be described with this simple phrase: "Ask for forgiveness, not for permission."

Christianity doesn't work that way and it never has, but the 'wicked among you' that Paul was talking about think they've found a way to game the system. Contemporary Christian belief is that you need to regret your actions in order for God to forgive you. If you are truly remorseful for something, you would never repeat your actions whether you were forgiven for them or not. Sunday Christians think a little wine and a little bread once a week will cure them of the multifarious villainies they commit every week from 9 AM to 5 PM Monday to Friday, every month and every year of their lives. They leave Church and then steal and lie with their Blackberries on the car ride home. Have you ever watched a porno where the chick is wearing a crucifix? What the hell is up with that?

The current decline of Christianity in the first world is largely attributed to this kind of poor representation. Would you feel the same way about Christianity if the Christians you had encountered in your life were better people? Here's a pretty good example of Paul being clear on the subject:

"In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us."

Quote:
I don't see how anyone who has read the Old Testament could say that with a straight face. Every time someone points out something ridiculous in the bible, there's someone that comes along & claims that it's taken out of context or that your interpretation of scripture is invalid. The fact that there's a disproportionate amount of discriminatory things to take out of context in itself should give rise to suspicion. No matter how you interpret scripture, there's no way to deny that the bible explicitly states that homosexuality is a sin (it was even one of the few sins used as justification in destroying Sodom).
You should actually read Genesis if you're going to try this crap. The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah are left unspecified; homosexuality is just the only one that's illustrated in narrative. All the Bible says is that their sin is extreme and there's a massive public outcry that inspires God to take action. Nobody who has actually read Genesis believes that the homosexuality had anything to do with it.

How about using Genesis 38 to justify calling masturbation a sin, eh? "he spilled his semen on the ground [...] What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also." Uptight pseudo-Christians have been using this one for centuries, even though it's actually about a guy who refuses to get his sister-in-law pregnant in accordance with Hebrew law.

Quote:
That's an interpretation. I find it difficult to believe that a god that states that men that lie with men should be put to death (Leviticus 20:13) is all that concerned with their health. Are you telling me that God's penalty for being unhealthy is death? I'd hate to see what he'd do with drug addicts.
It's not an interpretation, you just don't understand the ancient Hebrew perspective on justice. The consequences are extreme because the objective is to deter rather than punish.

Someone who tries to argue against the Bible without actually having read it is just as bad as a Christian who argues for the Bible without actually having read it. You're just as much of a dick whether you get your talking points off of godhatesfags.com or from the God Delusion. If you want to have an intelligent discourse on biblical theology you should actually learn the subject matter.
2008-12-22, 10:15 AM #101
Originally posted by Darth_Alran:
quite frankly the old testament is still not fully understood to this day. much of what is in Leviticus is it self taken out of context.

the bits about clipping the hair on the sides of you head and the edges of your beards, as well as cutting your body/tattooing, are most likely referring to not taking up the mourning customs of natives when the Israelite's went into a new land.

honestly people may never really know what the exact meaning of the old testament is or who exactly it was intended for. which is why i think for the most part it is a terrible idea to create laws based solely on pieces of it.

i think that if christians took a closer look at what jesus said are the two most important commandments things would be in much better shape:


But right there, you've just singled out a Bible quote that happens to support the ideals of a liberal democracy. There's no reason to think that 'Love they neighbour' is more important than
Quote:
30:17 The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it.


And think not that it is just Old Testament craziness, Jesus condemns the Jews didn't kill their disobedient children
Quote:
Mark 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:


And Jesus is especially vengeful on those that 'know not God'
Quote:
Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ


And let's not even get started on the acid-inspired Revelations. My favourite is the utterly bizarre Luke 8:27-37 (it's fairly long so I won't paste it). Jesus heals a man possessed by devils by sending the devils into some pigs, and the pigs run off a cliff and drown. The townsfolk weren't too impressed with this, and asked Jesus to leave, and Jesus cursed them. Hehe.

Anyway, the point of this is that you can support any viewpoint whatsoever using the Bible, and this is no coincidence. The Bible is not supposed to be a comprehensive moral philosophy, nor any sort of succinct personal guidance (unless you're an arsonist, the Bible tells you how to burn pretty much anything). The purpose of the Bible was to perpetuate a new religion, and inseparable from religion is power. The ability to proselytize anyone is a great power, and this schizophrenic variation in mood is a key feature of any religious text to ensure its mass-appeal and longevity.

The fact that the Bible mixes both the placid and sentimental together with the savagely cruel and violent (and everything in between) means that everyone can find some meaning that appears to be 'deep' and 'personal'. And this is also precisely the reason why when making any decisions, whether it be government or individual, the Bible is utterly worthless and vapid.
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. " - Bertrand Russell
The Triumph of Stupidity in Mortals and Others 1931-1935
2008-12-22, 10:45 AM #102
Just for amusement, here is a list of all the verses that reference Sodom and its sins. Annotated by the original author, from here:
http://www.rdrop.com/~jimka/sodom.html


Quote:
Genesis 13:13: But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly. (Nope, no homosexuality mentioned there)

Genesis 18:20: And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous. (Nope, no homosexuality mentioned there)

Genesis 19:13: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD. (Nope, no homosexuality mentioned there)

Deuteronomy 29:17-26: And ye have seen their abominations, and their idols, wood and stone, silver and gold, which were among them...And that the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning...like the overthrow of Sodom...which the LORD overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath...Wherefore hath the LORD done thus unto this land? What meaneth the heat of this great anger? Then men shall say, Because they have forsaken the covenant of the LORD God of their fathers...For they went and served other gods, and worshipped them, gods whom they knew not, and whom he had not given unto them. (Just idolatry and false gods; nope, no homosexuality mentioned there)

Deuteronomy 32:32-38: For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter...And he shall say, Where are their gods, their rock in whom they trusted, Which did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink offerings? let them rise up and help you, and be your protection. (idolatry again; nope, no homosexuality mentioned there)

Isaiah 1:9-23: Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah. Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah...How is the faithful city become an harlot! It was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers. Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water: Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them. (hmmm... murder, greed, thievery, rebelliousness, covetness; nope, no homosexuality there)

Isaiah 3:8-15: For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongue and their doings are against the LORD, to provoke the eyes of his glory. The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves. For ye have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses. What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? (mistreating the poor; nope, no homosexuality mentioned there)

Isaiah 13: 11-19: And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible...And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. (haughtiness, yes, but no homosexuality.)

Jeremiah 23:10-14: For the land is full of adulterers; for because of swearing the land mourneth...For both prophet and priest are profane; yea, in my house have I found their wickedness, saith the LORD...And I have seen folly in the prophets of Samaria; they prophesied in Baal, and caused my people Israel to err. I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah. (adultery, lying by priests and prophets; nope, no homosexuality in there)

Jeremiah 49:16-18: Thy terribleness hath deceived thee, and the pride of thine heart...Also Edom shall be a desolation: every one that goeth by it shall be astonished, and shall hiss at all the plagues thereof. As in the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah. (evil and pride, but still no homosexuality)

Jeremiah 50:2-40: Declare ye among the nations...say, Babylon is taken, Bel is confounded, Merodach is broken in pieces; her idols are confounded, her images are broken in pieces...thou hast striven against the LORD...for she hath been proud against the LORD...As God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbour cities thereof, saith the LORD; so shall no man abide there, neither shall any son of man dwell therein. (there's that idolatry and pride again, but still no homosexuality)

Lamentations 4:3-6: ...the daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness. The tongue of the sucking child cleaveth to the roof of his mouth for thirst: the young children ask bread, and no man breaketh it unto them. They that did feed delicately are desolate in the streets: they that were brought up in scarlet embrace dunghills. For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hands stayed on her. (cruelty, failure to tend the young and the poor, but still no homosexuality)

Ezekiel 16:49-50: Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. (Well THAT's pretty clear, huh? But what are we missing in that list? Oh yeah...homosexuality)

Amos 4:1-11: Hear this word, ye kine of Bashan, that are in the mountain of Samaria, which oppress the poor, which crush the needy, which say to their masters, Bring, and let us drink. I have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand plucked out of the burning: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD. (oppression, mistreating the needy...still no homosexuality)

Zephaniah 2:8: I have heard the reproach of Moab, and the revilings of the children of Ammon, whereby they have reproached my people, and magnified themselves against their border. Therefore as I live, saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, Surely Moab shall be as Sodom, and the children of Ammon as Gomorrah...This shall they have for their pride, because they have reproached and magnified themselves against the people of the LORD of hosts. (there's that pride again, and the intimation of inhospitality, but still no homosexuality)

Well, so much for the Old Testament's linkage of Sodom with homosexuality. Maybe the fundamentalists were referring to something in the New Testament? Let's see...

Matthew 20:11: And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. And when ye come into an house, salute it...And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet...Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Jesus said these words; they draw a comparison to inhospitality, but there's still no homosexuality there)

Matthew 11:19-24: The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners...Then began Jesus to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not. Woe unto thee, Chorazin! Woe unto thee, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes...And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day...But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. (They ridiculed Jesus and treated him with utmost inhospitality, refusing to repent...but still no mention of homosexuality)

Mark 6:10-11: And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Another repetition of the instruction against inhospitality, but still no mention of homosexuality)

Luke 10:10-12: But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say. Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city. (There's that inhospitality reference again, but still no homosexuality mentioned)

Luke 17:26-29: And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. (still no mention of homosexuality)

2 Peter 2:6: And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example unto those that after should live ungodly. (Ungodly? Is that idolatry again? It sure isn't homosexuality)

Jude 1:7-8: Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. (Awww...this one comes SO close, but no cigar; the Greek word translated here as "fornication" is "porneia" and had a distinctly heterosexual connotation; and the "strange flesh" was a reference to angels or "sons of God" that WOMEN had sex with [see Genesis 6:1-4] according to Jewish tradition; still no mention of homosexuality)
Also, I can kill you with my brain.
2008-12-22, 11:22 AM #103
Originally posted by Mort-Hog:
There's no reason to think that 'Love they neighbour' is more important than
Yes there is, if you're a Christian.

God's covenant - or the Old Testament in general - was invalidated when Jesus formed a new covenant. I don't quite understand the point of what you're saying, though. Are you claiming that no part of the Bible is more important or correct than the rest? If so, you kinda missed the point of the whole New Testament.

Originally posted by Mort-Hog:
And Jesus is especially vengeful on those that 'know not God'


Okay Bible translation education time.

It is impossible to create a perfect and flawless translation from any language into another. The language itself is colored by cultural memory. For example, a Greek text would use fire and heat to describe punishment from above as a sort of allegory for Hades. In English it's okay to describe someone as "a Judas" if they are treacherous, but a literal translation into Japanese would be meaningless.

The KJV is a really bad translation of the Bible and when someone quotes from it to prove a point they're unequivocally trying to pull a fast one. Nobody quotes from or studies the KJV anymore. It was a shoddy translation from shoddy edited manuscripts that was created for the express purpose of supporting the Episcopal church. Except where the translation was massaged to mean what it shouldn't, the KJV translation is ignorant of metaphor, allegory and the very culture the text was written to: the Greeks. This is why so many modern Christians sound so stupid: because they spend most of their time talking about Hades.

The passage Mort-Hog is actually quoting is 2 Thessalonians 1:8 (the 2 is significant). Here is the passage in a literal translation:

"8in flaming fire, giving vengeance to those not knowing God, and to those not obeying the good news of our Lord Jesus Christ;
9who shall suffer justice -- destruction age-during -- from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his strength,
10when He may come to be glorified in his saints, and to be wondered at in all those believing -- because our testimony was believed among you -- in that day;"

Ooh, flaming fire. Scary. Sounds like Hades. Well, here's the same passage from the NIV:

"8He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power 10on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you."

The NIV is a new translation performed in a much more democratic and scientific way. Instead of using Roman Catholic transcripts, the translators went back to earlier and less-edited versions. The Old Testament was even sprinkled with bits from the Dead Sea Scrolls. They tried very hard to strike a balance between literal translation and the translation of metaphor, to preserve as much as the actual meaning as possible.

It's still a little funny-sounding but it's a lot clearer. You could revise it further to sound less ominous: for example, what is everlasting destruction but 'nothingness'? And, really, without equivocating, what religion doesn't involve at least some degree of condemnation for non-believers? The important part here is that God will punish the non-believers. If it were really violent it would say that Christians should.

Quote:
My favourite is the utterly bizarre Luke 8:27-37 (it's fairly long so I won't paste it).
Matthew, Mark and Luke are all utterly bizarre, and technically Luke is incomplete (Acts is supposed to be part of it). As far as Biblical scholars can tell, Matthew and Luke plagiarized from Mark with some random sayings and phrasings thrown in from another text that hasn't been discovered yet. No single apostle was witness to all of the events they documented and chances are pretty good that the only literate one from the bunch was John.

The truth here is that the Gospels were written and tweaked and edited over the years to appeal to a particular subset of the population. They added more extravagant miracles and harsher language and even made parts of it sound scary like the Old Testament so the Jews wouldn't feel like they were turning their back on the wrathful God.
2008-12-22, 11:42 AM #104
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Yes there is, if you're a Christian.

God's covenant - or the Old Testament in general - was invalidated when Jesus formed a new covenant. I don't quite understand the point of what you're saying, though. Are you claiming that no part of the Bible is more important or correct than the rest? If so, you kinda missed the point of the whole New Testament.


My understanding is that while certain specific parts of the OT is invalidated, Jesus specifically states that he is not out to invalidate the entire OT.
Quote:
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.


Have I misunderstood this? I understand the difficulty in translation of both language and meaning, and you clearly know more about it than I do so I bow to your superior wisdom, but it doesn't change how historically these Bible passages have inspired so much fear and violence. It may indeed say that it is God who will punish, but plenty of Christians have taken that duty up for themselves and slaughtered in the name of God.
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. " - Bertrand Russell
The Triumph of Stupidity in Mortals and Others 1931-1935
2008-12-22, 11:51 AM #105
(I've checked with the NIV, the only difference is that the word 'destroy' is changed to 'abolish')
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. " - Bertrand Russell
The Triumph of Stupidity in Mortals and Others 1931-1935
2008-12-22, 11:57 AM #106
In this meaning, "testament" is better understood as meaning "agreement" or "deal", rather than "witness" or "account". The Old Testament involved dietary rules, sacrifices, and the like; the New Testament involves the account of the person and work and Jesus.

The New Deal often states that the purpose of the Law (the old deal) was to show that humans are imperfect (evidenced by their failure to completely and consistently comply with the law), and to cause them to realize their need for a saviour. The New Deal records what that saviour did for them, ad proposes the new plan.

In Christian teachings, those who lived under the Old Deal recognized their imperfection, and made sacrifices as a symbol of looking forward to the actions of the saviour (the Messiah), while those under the new deal look back on the actions of the saviour. Both the Old Deal and New Deal are focused on human imperfection and the need for salvation.

The Old Deal had many rules that are no longer necessary under the New Deal, due to the fact that the saviour has already come and gone. New traditions have been implemented, however, such as baptism and Holy Communion, which are also both symbols of the actions of the saviour.


It is unfortunate, as you mentioned, that many people claim to be agents of God's wrath and commit atrocities in the name of their religion. Really, it's quite a large misunderstanding. The New Deal certainly does not condone condemning unbelievers or "sinners". John 3:17, the verse immediately following the most well-known Bible verse, is very clear about Jesus not being about condemnation.

Sadly, many ignorant and misguided people have either misused, misunderstood, or manipulated something originally intended for good to justify acts of evil. To be fair, though, many people do the same with a great many things - medicines, sex, alcohol, patriotism, providing for one's family.

[A prime example of misguided people - the whole homosexual marriage issue - the New Testament (Old as well) makes it clear that while homosexuality is considered sin, so are many other things - drunkeness, lying, laziness, slander, adultery, and so on - a certain few people, though, decided that homosexuality was "worse" than other sins, though nowhere in the New "Deal" is that indicated. Certain people are just more vocal about certain issues than others, and as the saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.]
2008-12-22, 12:08 PM #107
Originally posted by Mort-Hog:
My understanding is that while certain specific parts of the OT is invalidated, Jesus specifically states that he is not out to invalidate the entire OT.


In Ancient Greek:

Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας: οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι

The literal translation for πληρόω is 'to make full' or 'to fulfill' which isn't terribly descriptive since in English the most direct meaning for that term is "confirm" or "enforce" or something along those lines. But if you translate to the colloquial definition of πληρόω you get "complete," "finish" or "end [a period of time]."
2008-12-22, 12:38 PM #108
Originally posted by Mort-Hog:
But right there, you've just singled out a Bible quote that happens to support the ideals of a liberal democracy. There's no reason to think that 'Love they neighbour' is more important than


well... i think that jesus saying that it is the second greatest commandment and that all of the law and the prophets hing on it and the first greatest commandment... would be a, shall we say, at least decent indicator that it may be one of the more important "commandments"

Quote:
And think not that it is just Old Testament craziness, Jesus condemns the Jews didn't kill their disobedient children


actually... he was condemning the hypocrisy of the pharisees, not telling them they should have killed their children.

i do agree with you partially though. i dont think that at least the U.S. government should be making laws and regulations based directly out of the bible, or any other religious text.
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2008-12-22, 12:47 PM #109
This is relevant to your interests:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Lawsuits,_California_Proposition_8_(2008)
Also, I can kill you with my brain.
2008-12-22, 4:31 PM #110
Jon'C: I was a Christian fundamentalist (Pentecostal) for quite a few years of my life. Your assumption that I haven't read the bible is unfounded. However, this doesn't exactly make me a biblical scholar, I'll admit. I'll respond to everything else as I have time.
? :)
2008-12-22, 4:46 PM #111
Joncy is the third-last person I expected to defend Christianity.
2008-12-22, 10:04 PM #112
I don't think he's defending as much as explaining.

And I'm so used to being surprised by Jon`C that he doesn't surprise me anymore.
2008-12-23, 6:23 AM #113
John 11:35 (and not in any of your new-fangled translations)
TAKES HINTS JUST FINE, STILL DOESN'T CARE
2008-12-23, 6:54 AM #114
Quote:
John 11:35 And the LORD said unto thee, for ****'s sake stop quoting the bible


.
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. " - Bertrand Russell
The Triumph of Stupidity in Mortals and Others 1931-1935
2008-12-23, 7:21 AM #115
I believe mine is the most relevant quotation of them all.
TAKES HINTS JUST FINE, STILL DOESN'T CARE
2008-12-23, 7:39 AM #116
If only you said it
You can't judge a book by it's file size
2008-12-23, 7:54 AM #117
Don't be such a lazy **** and look it up.
TAKES HINTS JUST FINE, STILL DOESN'T CARE
2008-12-23, 7:59 AM #118
Don't be such a lazy *** and type it/paste it.
You can't judge a book by it's file size
2008-12-23, 8:22 AM #119
No.
TAKES HINTS JUST FINE, STILL DOESN'T CARE
2008-12-23, 8:22 AM #120
Originally posted by Deadman 11:35:
Don't be such a lazy *** and type it/paste it.


Indeed.
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. " - Bertrand Russell
The Triumph of Stupidity in Mortals and Others 1931-1935
1234

↑ Up to the top!