The Bible - Is it really the book for me? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-27-2005, 03:10 AM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:45 AM
Quote:
Tyranny of the majority is not and never has been either a legal or moral justification.
That is the difference between a democracy and a liberal democracy.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 06:18 AM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 05:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
That is the difference between a democracy and a liberal democracy.

yes..i am totally against the former and totally FOR the latter
__________________

__________________
AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 06:52 AM   #33
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 05:45 PM
That wasn't my point, A_Wanderer; my point was that keeping a certain law because its 'traditional' to do so is not a particularly strong reason to keep it, especially when social attitudes are changing as we speak.

The best example cited in the article is the classic one - slavery. Just because its traditional and many people believed in its institution does not mean its right, and is not in itself a legal justification.

It doesn't matter. Change is inevitable and it will happen.

Ant.
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 10:06 AM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 12:45 PM
Ant, I understand where you're coming from, but with all due respect there's a big difference between slavery and marriage (maybe not for some people, but you know what I mean )
Slavery was never sacred. Marriage is. Plus, you'd be asking me to change the definition of something as important to me as my relationship with my wife and have it include a relationship that has not been proven to be based on genetics. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but that's just me. I'm not demanding things be changed just on my single opinion. That's just where I'm coming from. I respect where you're coming from as well.
Now, with that said, let's all get back to the Bible, which is what this thread is about.
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 10:15 AM   #35
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen
Ant, I understand where you're coming from, but with all due respect there's a big difference between slavery and marriage (maybe not for some people, but you know what I mean )
Slavery was never sacred. Marriage is. Plus, you'd be asking me to change the definition of something as important to me as my relationship with my wife and have it include a relationship that has not been proven to be based on genetics.


civil marriage is not sacred. to call it such is a violation of church and state. maybe you view it as such as a Christian, but to legislate from that viewpoint is inconsistent with the foundation of the country.

you really think that gay people getting married would ask you to change the definition of your marriage? did you ever think to yourself, "gee, it's because im a man and she's a woman that this is so special!" isn't it about the love you share, not your genitalia? are you willing to say that two men are incapable of loving each other in the way that you love your wife?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 10:38 AM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen
Melon great questions. I'll admit ignorance here! I actually wondered about the situation with Cain and his wife when I read Genesis a while back (I even put a ? in my Bible next to that.), but I never looked into it. I wanted to answer your question and I found a Web site that did. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c004.html covers it extensively. For space and time reasons, I'll just let you and others check the site out.

As far as the Noah's Ark issue (another good question by the way) the site goes into GREAT length explaining this. It's incredible. I can tell you from my own knowledge of Genesis that Noah didn't have to collect the animals, they came to him under God's guidance. The site even answers your question about salt water and freshwater fish in this case. It also looks at how all the world's animals fit into the ark, how Mt. Everest was covered in water and whether or not the ENTIRE Earth was flooded. It also answers how animals from Australia made it to the ark. Check these sites out. I think you'll find them to be way more in-depth than you would've ever thought. It also addresses your point on the Black Sea.
I think this site will give you the historical, scientific and logical explanations you (and I'm sure others) were looking for.
This is why it is called "mythic speech" (not to be confused with "myth"). If you construct large arguments based on faith and things that we cannot empirically see, then it is impossible to disprove the argument outright.

It is an interesting argument based solely on Biblical fundamentalism. However, I also added some historical background outside the Bible. It is believed that OT Judaism has two distinct periods:

1) Judaism as an offshoot of Sumerian worship of their sun god, Elohim. Elohim is mentioned once as the name of "God" in Genesis, and Abraham, the father of Judaism, is said to be from Ur, the capital of Sumer. This "Elohist" Judaism would likely be the religion of the Sadducees in the NT. "God" here is typical of most early gods: a warrior God with strict expectations for his people, and strict punishment for disobedience. The "afterlife" was also a lot "gloomier" in Sheol, which seems quite similar to the Greek concept of "Hades." In both instances, death meant you parted with your memories and knowledge, as that was seen as part of the body, not the soul.

2) Judaism melding with Persian Zoroastrian beliefs. Zoroastrianism had a preoccupation with "good vs. evil" with their being no gray area. It is also the likely originator of Messianic beliefs, along with being the originator of heaven, hell, angels, and "Judgment Day." It is also where we get the idea of a "loving God," rather than a warrior God. The name, "Satan," is a derivative of "Shaitan," another name for the evil Zoroastrian god, "Ahriman." Satan, however, is reduced to an evil angel, rather than a god in Judeo-Christianity. This, however, may explain why Satan is attributed with such wide powers over humanity for such a non-deity; his attributes were originally created for a god. This secondary period of Judaism is the religion of the Pharisees (as the name comes from "Parsi" or Persian).

As the Christian Old Testament is taken from the Pharisees' texts, it is difficult to surmise exactly what early Judaism would be like. I must admit, as well, that I don't know much about "Kabbalah," but I've heard claims of it being similar to early, "Elohist" Judaism combined with the Talmud.

Quote:
And Irvine, the site also has great stuff on the Christian perspective of homosexuality, and answers questions such as "What's wrong with being gay?" "Are people born gay?" "What does the Bible say about same sex marriages?" and "Can a gay or lesbian person go to heaven?"
But here's the thing: that's solely the traditional interpretation of the Bible. I also vehemently disagree with it. Each culture overemphasizes parts of the Bible and distorts it to suit their ideology. Early Christianity was greatly obsessed with idolatry and idolatrous practices.

Our modern obsession with same-sex behavior is actually medieval in origin, due to the rise of "Christian stoicism" with St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Thomas Aquinas over a span of a few hundred years. Their "natural law" arguments were based on the assumption that all pleasure was from Satan. Thus, same-sex behavior was not condemned on the basis of the Bible; it was condemned because they perceived it as the ultimate act of irresponsibility and pleasure (because the sex acts could never result in pregnancy). Plus, this had to do with their belief that "sperm" were little humans and that women just had the "incubating waters." This belief was meant to be demeaning to women to say that they had no place in the creation of life; they only held it in place to grow.

However, that was not the full target of their wrath. All sex was to result in pregnancy. Period. And even then, a married couple was not to enjoy it at all. A woman was not allowed to show any pleasure, and a man was not supposed to look as if he was enjoying it at all. To look lustfully upon your spouse was evil. Later Christian stoicism went as far as to say that all fetuses were inherently male and Satan's interference made some fetuses female.

As a side note, the first five centuries of Christianity were very different. There were female priests, but the Christian stoics' hatred of women compared them to "pagan priestesses" (forgetting, of course, that pagans also had male priests) and eliminated them on that basis. It was also very homoerotic. We know this, due to a Christian stoic book written around this time describing the early Christian church as being very very gay. If the Bible was meant to be anti-gay, I would think that early Christians would, of all people, have known it. Instead, these very bigoted interpretations of the Bible against women and homosexuals are mostly the product of the medieval Christian stoic movement.

Do notice, of course, that most of the Christian stoic beliefs that limited heterosexual male activity has long since been rescinded (but only for about 100 years or so). Of course, humans being humans that they are, loosely kept the Christian stoic beliefs about women and homosexuals to justify their prejudices. Now that most of the erroneous beliefs about women have eroded, it's time to shed light on the erroneous beliefs about homosexuals.

You cannot justify judgment against homosexuals on the basis of the Bible. Period. It is not my fault that translators took liberties on the original source texts to strip out the context of idolatry that most of those "condemnations" are really about.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 10:39 AM   #37
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen


And Irvine, the site also has great stuff on the Christian perspective of homosexuality, and answers questions such as "What's wrong with being gay?" "Are people born gay?" "What does the Bible say about same sex marriages?" and "Can a gay or lesbian person go to heaven?"

Irvine, before I go any further, I want you to know I have the utmost respect for you as a person and I respect your views, no matter how much they may differ from mine. We've had some great discussions and I treasure those. First of all, I don't have to use the Bible to object to gay marriage from a legal standpoint. I, as a member of the vast majority of people who are heterosexual, don't think a small minority of people should change the very definition of something as sacred as marriage for everyone else. Call me close-minded if you well, but that's how I feel. Also, I didn't call homosexuality sinful, God did. I know that sounds harsh, but it's true. There's no denying that.
I know this all sounds harsh to you, and I'm sorry for that. You know I respect you greatly. You seem like a nice person too, and I'm confident that if we did meet, we'd get along well. I know there's more to a person than their sexuality. To be honest, I'd love to observe your life and better understand what you go through. I have no doubt there are homosexuals out there who deeply care for their partners, but I have to go with what God tells me in his word over a human's perspective. And frankly, God's word is clear enough on this matter that there's nothing really to "interpret."
i did take a look at that site, and it is very difficult for me to accept a line of thought on homosexuality that denies what is so central about it: it is involuntary. it is not a choice. and to, again, reduce homosexuality to simply behavior -- so we can discriminate, because we need to differentiate between homosexuality and race and gender.

also, marriage isn't sacred. it is a civil contract. you might view it as sacred, a marriage performed in a church and recognized by the church might be sacred, but civil marriage is decidedly secular.

how is loving someone a sin? i might perform acts that are sinful by most definitions -- sleeping with a prostitute, etc. -- but why does a loving, romantic relationship require heterosexuality? are you going to assert that homosexuality is, in all ways shapes and forms, inferior, by definition, to heterosexuality

i also get frustrated when you say "i have to go with what God tells me." if God told you the sky was red, would it then be red? i understand faith, but when it conflicts with reason, which wins out? this might be a fairly fundamental divide between the secular and the religious -- how much do you trust your own powers of reason. i would also say that to use the parental "because God says so" line of justification shuts down any possibility of argument and discussion between people. in a modern liberal democracy, we don't govern by faith, we govern by reason. we don't govern based upon asserted truths and received wisdom; we create arguments.

i did some reading last night, and found some interesting things.

basically, your argument is this: homosexuality is a chioce; there is no difference between orientation and acts. it is a contingent quality of a human being, like lying or kleptomania, and it is behavior that can then be controled with proper guidance. this is supported by the fact that in the bible, there is no mention of homosexuality. there is only sexuality, which is definitionally man/woman. there is no mention of homosexuality as an inherent, involuntary human condition. there is not even a word for it, nor a word taht could even be vaguely translated as such; there are only a handful of injunctions against same-gender sexual acts which have been deemed to be a perversion of the only acceptable condition for intercourse to take place: male-female intercourse in marriage.

but how persuasive is this argument? and this goes back to the "sky is red" analogy -- we can't really debate faith; but we can debate the essential argument the Bible is putting forth.

in Biblical writing, sexual conduct is a matter of social and familial and tribal obligation, and has little to do with morality, as we would understand it today. the injunctions against adultery are thus far more profound and common and insistent than the injunctions against homosexual acts. yes, homosexual acts are mentioned, but there are no homosexual people in the Bible's eyes, so all homosexual acts are inherently destabilizing of the family and of the community.

many modern scholars -- John Boswell -- have argued (as have people in FYM) that Sodom does not refer to the sin of homosexual sex but to inhospitality to strangers; similarly, Boswell argues taht the King James Versino of the Bible erroneously translates the term "kadeshim" as "sodomite," when it should properly be understood as "temple prosititue."

as for the NT, there is not a single reference to homosexual acts in any of the four Gospels. so now we have Paul. Boswell points out that there are mistranslations -- two words translated later to imply homosexuality are more accruately rendered as "wanton" and "Male prostitute." there is still the line that calls "men with men working that which is unseemly."

what's the reason behind Paul's statement? it's important to point out the phrase "natural use" -- it is a sin to spurn the natural use of one's body for members of the same gender. fine. Paul views the perversion of heterosexuality to be a crime against the nature of the people involved.

but we should note this is not a crime against nature, but the nature of the heterosexual. could this condemnation apply to people who are by their own nature homosexual? Paul is inequipped to answer this question, since his assumption is that everyone is heterosexual. but we know -- EVERYONE knows -- that some people are involuntarily homosexual; if Paul's point is not to act contrary to one's nature, then by this logic, the person whos i by his own nature homosexual would be acting against his nature by engaging in heterosexual acts.

it's all much more complicated than anyone wants to admit.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 10:41 AM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 12:45 PM
Irvine, my wife and I got married at our county courthouse before we did our actual wedding ceremony. When the judge read everything for us to be married from his government-prepared script, he read that "marriage is a sacred institution created by God between a man and a woman." He also brought up that we were doing this before God. (I was blown away at all of this myself.)

Yes, I do think allowing homosexuals to get married in the same way heterosexuals do would change the definition, if not the value of my marriage. It's in our biological makeup for a man and woman to be attracted to each other, have a sexual relationship and have a family together. It's not that way for homosexuals. There's no proof of homosexuality being genetic. So you'd be linking a natural relationship with an unnatural one under the same definition. Plus, like I stated before, even the civil union we had included God in it. If every major religion sees homosexuality as a sin against God, why would homosexuals want the same thing? Again, this is my PERSONAL view. I'm not trying to attack anyone and I respect you for having your own personal view. I know this is a touchy subject, and I don't mean to offend anyone. I'm just making my argument.

I'll welcome your response Irvine, but I really think we shoudl get back to the thread topic after that. I'll just let you respond and let's all move on. OK?
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 10:45 AM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:45 PM
And if you don't believe me, read this:

http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salam...times/opt3.htm

It doesn't touch on specifically what I touched on. On the contrary, it talks about same-sex unions in the medieval times, which are not a theory, but a fact!

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 10:48 AM   #40
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen
It's in our biological makeup for a man and woman to be attracted to each other, have a sexual relationship and have a family together. It's not that way for homosexuals. There's no proof of homosexuality being genetic. So you'd be linking a natural relationship with an unnatural one under the same definition.

do you see the contradiction here?

you're claiming that your heterosexuality is biologically based, but that homosexuality isn't. is there proof of heterosexuality being genetic? yes, it makes logical sense that men and women be attracted to each other, and it also makes sense that we recognize this relationship as can (but does not always) produce children. but why does the recognition of one relationship have to come at the denigration of the other?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 11:01 AM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen
Irvine, my wife and I got married at our county courthouse before we did our actual wedding ceremony. When the judge read everything for us to be married from his government-prepared script, he read that "marriage is a sacred institution created by God between a man and a woman." He also brought up that we were doing this before God. (I was blown away at all of this myself.)
The Catholic Church would refuse to acknowledge this kind of marriage and would say that no marriage took place. Period. My point is not to denigrate your marriage, but to point out that religion--even major religions--have the full right to recognize or not recognize the marriages of their choice. If same-sex marriages occurred, what is to stop all the churches who disagree to say that no marriage took place? The Catholic Church does this all the time with heterosexual marriages.

Quote:
Yes, I do think allowing homosexuals to get married in the same way heterosexuals do would change the definition, if not the value of my marriage. It's in our biological makeup for a man and woman to be attracted to each other, have a sexual relationship and have a family together. It's not that way for homosexuals. There's no proof of homosexuality being genetic. So you'd be linking a natural relationship with an unnatural one under the same definition. Plus, like I stated before, even the civil union we had included God in it. If every major religion sees homosexuality as a sin against God, why would homosexuals want the same thing? Again, this is my PERSONAL view. I'm not trying to attack anyone and I respect you for having your own personal view. I know this is a touchy subject, and I don't mean to offend anyone. I'm just making my argument.
"There is no proof that homosexuality is genetic." There is no proof that heterosexuality is genetic. It is just assumed based on biology. The fact remains that science knows very little about what causes sexuality. What it does know, however, is that the traditional view of nature is very very very off-base.

If God created solely Adam (XY) and Eve (XX), how do you explain XY females? Yes, they exist. Contrary to Christian stoic logic, fetuses are known to be, by default, be female. Every early fetus has both male and female sex organs. Males solely exist, due to the coordination of fetal hormones (both with the mother and the fetus) to destroy the female sex organs and the presence of the Y chromosome is supposed to trigger hormones to create a male.

Genetically, however, this is a complicated and easily corrupted process. XY females exist when the hormone to destroy the female sex organs works, but the hormone to express "maleness" does not. Hence, by default, the XY fetus will grow up to look like a woman, but will be infertile. The testicles never drop and are usually destroyed internally. There are always rumors that Jamie Lee Curtis is an XY female, but, regardless, we know they exist.

Consequently, there are also intersexuals of either XX or XY sex chromosomes. The hormones to destroy either the male or female sex organs do not work, and, hence, a child is born with vestigial male AND female sex organs.

Where is science looking to discover sexuality? Precisely during this sexual differentiation period during the third month of pregnancy. You can say that homosexuality isn't genetic, but logic already very much points at this stage in development, and logic dictates that it would actually be quite illogical if homosexuality *wasn't* genetic. The thing to realize, of course, is that if the right amount of hormones and genes aren't coordinated EXACTLY during this third month, all sexuality is fixed and cannot be changed. They know this in regards to intersexuals and XY females. It is not a matter of going in to do fetal surgery to correct it. On the contrary, it cannot be corrected.

This is, in my view, precisely where the origin of sexuality is.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 11:08 AM   #42
Babyface
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2
Local Time: 05:45 PM
Another valid point: the argument for proof that homosexuality is genetic is peripheral to the argument of whether or not gay people are "born that way." Whatever the cause of homosexuality, almost every scientific study ever conducted has indicated that gay people ARE born that way, to my knowledge, at least.

The only reason anyone would deny that virtually all the evidence points to the fact that gay people are born that way would be to have closed your mind to the subject, and to deliberately choose to fairly evaluate the existing proof.
__________________
dickma is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 11:14 AM   #43
War Child
 
Do Miss America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Ryan's Pocket
Posts: 738
Local Time: 11:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen

Yes, I do think allowing homosexuals to get married in the same way heterosexuals do would change the definition, if not the value of my marriage.
Wow, how extremely selfish and smalled minded of you.

I'll choose to ignore the rest of your post for it shows a true lack of understanding, but let me ask you why two women getting married would change the value of your already existing marriage?

Does everytime someone gets married and then divorces within a week, uses marriage to get rich, or uses marriage to be a legal citizen also devalue your marriage with your wife? Or do only gays devalue your marriage?
__________________
Do Miss America is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 11:21 AM   #44
Babyface
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2
Local Time: 05:45 PM
That is - choose *not* to fairly evaluate the proof. My bad not proofreading.
__________________
dickma is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 11:58 AM   #45
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:45 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Do Miss America


Wow, how extremely selfish and smalled minded of you.

I'll choose to ignore the rest of your post for it shows a true lack of understanding, but let me ask you why two women getting married would change the value of your already existing marriage?

Does everytime someone gets married and then divorces within a week, uses marriage to get rich, or uses marriage to be a legal citizen also devalue your marriage with your wife? Or do only gays devalue your marriage?

outstanding points, DMA.

i'd say Britney, J-Lo, and Elizabeth Taylor have done far more to weaken and degreade marriage than any gay person.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com