I cant be the only one...

[madame_zora]

Lascap, I couldn't agree more. I find it inconceivable that people could use Jesus to give legitimacy to hatred. Jesus never mentioned homosexuals, which must mean it wasn't very important to him. Paul mentioned them plenty, but he disliked women as well. I think it's sad that there's enough religion in the world to make people hate each other but not enough to make them love. Once again, the ONLY commandment Jesus gave us when he came was "Love one another as yourselves". Pretty simple stuff.


GBO, I find it rather pointless to debate you on the Bible or it's intention since YOU are obviously the one who is "picking and choosing" out of what little you have read, with the eyes of scorn. I can't find one instance of Jesus condemning anyone to eternal damnation, so I don't know what you're talking about. If I am wrong, show me, don't just elaborate your opinion of how horrible the Bible is. Also, I NEVER called the author of Revelation a lunatic- you added that. I was merely informing you that it was a dream, since you obviously didn't know. I said "It was a dream described by John" and later I said "dreams are not things of stationary reality". YOU said "imagined nightmares of a lunatic". PLEASE stop perverting my words! It's not fair to me to have to defend myself against things I never said and it bogs down our discussions to have to correct you. As for the Gospels, I have no idea if they're true, it's just what those four men said about what they saw, each from their own perspective. MY objection to believing the whole of the Bible without discernment is the very fact that the books are written by so many different authors, with different intentions, and at vastly different times. I can't remember with accuracy, but I think Revelation was written several hundred years after Jesus's death, so it's not a "continuous story", and that was my point. During the time that book was written, there was a style of writing called "apocalyptic writing" where a lot of simile and metaphor were used to make a point or colour the literature of the time. It is possible that that particular book was influenced by that writing style, I wasn't insinuating that he was crazy. If you think about the changes that have come about here in America in two hundred years, imagine how much a story could change in four! If just because a book is included in the Bible it is to be believed, we must seriously consider how the Bible was formed. It was a council, approx. 400 years after Jesus's death, collecting everything they could find written about his life, then voting on what was to be included and what was not. Some people believe that there were actually things Jesus himself wrote that were not included! I personally don't have a clue, but I'm not going to believe every word in every book just because some group of guys bound them together! THEREFORE- I believe what makes sense to me, trying hard to read with discernment and understand what God was trying to accomplish and what messages Jesus himself was trying to convey. NOT what the apostle Paul wanted to say, or any other guy- their opinions are no more important than my own. Their opinions are tainted with the will of men, and are source in whole for the hatred in the world. Yes, it does make a difference where the words come from and from whose mouth. I read those books more for historical backdrop than for information of how to form my opinions. Jesus and God are more important to me than the apostles, yeah, Peter was the one who denied even knowing Jesus to save his own skin and Judas turned him in to the Romans for money- they were only human.

Would you believe every entry in any collection of short stories? Probably not, but people fail to admit that that's exactly what the Bible is! The four gospels were written around similar times by the apostles, Acts describes what the apostles did after the death of Jesus, the letters are mostly written by paul and a few various others, and Revelation was a dream of someone named John. How do these things connect? They're all ABOUT Jesus, not BY him.

 

[schlozski]

madame_zora, GBO

First of all I am not a theologist either. However, I am a Christian and am in a Christian organization that believes in the blessed union of GLBT people. (So, it's kind of angering that you have been lumping all Christians into one category) You can quote the Bible to death but, every person is going to quote the Bible differently. Take for instance when homosexual activities are being mentioned; some people believe that this is not attacking gay men but rather condemning rape. (I'd also like to point out that I don't know the verses in the Bible but I can get them in a week or two.) At another point the Bible uses the term homosexual, one theologian believes this means "gay men" another theologian believes it means, "male prostitute." Two different terms, two different interpretations. Lastly, the Bible was written basically 2000 years ago (I don't care when it was actually written but...approximately) In those 2000 years there have been many many revisions, language interpretations and adding/deleting parts of the Bible. Meaning that there are many different writing themes that have been added while the Bible has been (so to say) updated.

Also, back to much earlier pages of this conversation when talking about elections. People are going to vote for what is going to benefit them the most. Presidential candidates don't have to be intelligent they just have to have good marketers.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Nov 16 2004, 01:57 AM
Jesus never mentioned homosexuals, which must mean it wasn't very important to him. Paul mentioned them plenty

Actually, that's not true. There was no word for 'homosexual' in Hellenistic Greek, which was the version of Greek that the New Testament was written in. The two references that are usually cited are pretty easy to explain. (I am Catholic, therefore the translation I use is that of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. I don't know the wording of the KJV.)
Romans 1:27 - "and the men gave up natural intercourse with women and burned with lust for one another." I have certainly never 'given up natural intercourse with women'. I have never engaged in intercourse with women. I am 100% homosexual. I am not sexually attracted to women, and intercourse with women is in no way 'natural' to me. Also, St. Paul was from a culture where men only had sex with their wives; that was what was considered 'natural'. For these men to 'give up natural intercourse with women' could only mean that these men were married, but went outside of their marriage vows to seek out sexual relationships with men. That is adultery, which was forbidden by Jewish law. Roman citizen or not, Paul was still Jewish.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "Do not deceive yourselves: no fornicators, idolators, or adulterers, no sodomites, thieves, misers, or drunkards, no slanderers or robbers will inherit God's kingdom." The CCD version has the word 'sodomites' where the Authorised version has 'homosexuals'. The Greek words arsenokoitai and malakoi were lumped together and translated as 'homosexuals' ... but is that what those words mean? We don't know what St. Paul meant by malakoi. Malakos meant 'soft' literally. He might mean 'effeminate'; he might mean 'morally lax'. Neither interpretation carries any implication of sexual activity. Arsenokoitai is a word hard to interpret. It is a word peculiar to the Hellenistic era, and is of rare occurrence. It literally means 'those who lie with men'; does that mean 'men who lie with men'? The Greek language makes this difficult to answer. All first declension nouns have the plural ending -ai regardless of gender. Arsenokoitai might be interpreted as either the plural of arsenokoites (masc.) or arsenokoite (fem.); both are possible. For what it's worth, all uses of the word apart from the New Testament have referred to women, not men. In any case, it did not mean 'homosexuals', nor did it mean 'sodomites', for that matter. What St. Paul specifically meant is a guess, at best. Maybe he meant promiscuous people?
So much for St. Paul saying 'plenty' about ass pirates.

I was merely informing you that it was a dream, since you obviously didn't know.

How I wish that The Revelation of John were not a part of the canon. I am not denying its inspiration, but it scares people needlessly. It is an apocalyptic piece written at the end of the first century A.D. by John of Patmos. This was probably not St. John the Evangelist (a.k.a. St. John the Divine), but very possibly a disciple of his. Was it actually a dream? Probably not. Dreams were a literary convention often used to introduce an apocalypse. Such literature was never meant to be taken literally. Apocalyptic literature made much use of symbols and numbers. It was written in a 'secret code', as it were. It undoubtedly made much sense to the First Century Christian community. That was persecuted group who had to rely on oblique references to avoid detection by the non-initiates. When Christianity was legalised by Constantine, there was no need to use the 'secret code' any more, so much of it was lost to future generations. Christians no longer had to hide their beliefs. We can understand some of the references: The Lamb was Christ as Redeemer, the Son of Man was Christ as Prophet, the Woman in the desert was the Church, the Whore of Babylon was Rome, etc. But many of the details are not known to us. The theories and interpretations of modern scholars are by no means certain. Apart from the fundamentalists, most agree on this point: it is not about the end of the world at all. The Christians at the turn of the first century weren't concerned with the end of the world. They were looking for a change in their world; they hoped for an environment where they could worship free of persecution. So much for movies like The Omen and Seventh Seal, I guess.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Nov 16 2004, 01:57 AM

GBO, I find it rather pointless to debate you on the Bible or it's intention since YOU are obviously the one who is "picking and choosing" out of what little you have read, with the eyes of scorn.

First of all I resent that. Just because I haven't read the Bible completely doesn't mean I have read "little." I resent more the fact that you find it pointless to debate me for such a reason, if that were true then you should have more incentive to debate me, so you could properly educate me on the subject. Show me what I've missed, you dismiss me instead, apparantly you're only concerned with winning an argument than coming to an understanding and showing me the errors of my way.

Also, I NEVER called the author of Revelation a lunatic- you added that. I was merely informing you that it was a dream, since you obviously didn't know. I said "It was a dream described by John" and later I said "dreams are not things of stationary reality". YOU said "imagined nightmares of a lunatic". PLEASE stop perverting my words! It's not fair to me to have to defend myself against things I never said and it bogs down our discussions to have to correct you.

I'm sorry if I got your words incorrect but thats the impression I got from what you said. I was mistaken and I'm sorry, i was mearly trying to demonstrate they way I saw your belief as "picking and choosing" based on those concepts that you like and don't like.
Also, I don't think I'm picking and choosing what I believe, because i don't believe anything written in the bible blindly. I don't believe anything just because it says so. There are some things in which I think could have possibly happened and there's no reason why I should doubt them. I think its reasonable to believe that Jesus once lived, but coming back fromthe dead seems like an elaboration. My main point is that if you accept Jesus as the son of god, and that the Bible is divinely inspired then it makes no sense to disregard some of the things written in the Bible. If you believe some things because they make sense to you regardless of a divine mandate then that makes more sense and you have every right to believe what you want. the reason we started this theological discussion is because you said something to the effect that many christians aren't following the "real god" because the real god is a peaceful god. You sited the Bible as your evidence of this peaceful god and I pointed out that the bible doesn't completely describe such a god. Sorry if this wasn't the case, but my memory is a little hazy at times. All I was sayign is that you can't expect people to accept your god just because you say so, you have to demonstrate that this god actually does exist and that they are somehow wrong in following a different god. I'm sorry if i have offended you, I always enjoyed our discussions and it makes em very sad that it declined to the point of ad hominem attacks.

[post=263860]Quoted post[/post]​

 

[GottaBigOne]

Also, I don't think the Bible is horrible, i never said that, you added that.

I can understand how you see the hyprocrasy in many christians who use the Bible in order to give them an excuse to hate gays, i agree with you on that. My only problem is that in order to argue with them id rather not use the Bible, id rather use reason, and demonstrable truth.

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne@Nov 16 2004, 04:45 AM
Also, I don't think the Bible is horrible, i never said that, you added that.

I can understand how you see the hyprocrasy in many christians who use the Bible in order to give them an excuse to hate gays, i agree with you on that. My only problem is that in order to argue with them id rather not use the Bible, id rather use reason, and demonstrable truth.

[post=263880]Quoted post[/post]​

GBO, you sure nailed me on that one! You didn't say the Bible was horrible, I guess I did the same thing I was frustrated with you for, so I'm sorry about that, my friend. I hope you know how much I value your insights, we are often closer to the same type of thinking than this thread would reveal.

The reason why I said it was pointless to debate you on this was that I was simply trying to state something that I thought would be pretty easily understood, I had no intention of going into a Bible training session, ala "Tender" when this thread started. The fact that you have not read some of the things that would have made it clearer did not make me want to delve into it that deep. Most people find it undesireable to debate with someone who is not familiar with the material- they may be willing to inform, but not debate, see the difference? Example- would you be very interested in hearing someone's opinion of a movie they hadn't seen? Even though they'd seen the trailers and read a few reviews, there would be a lot of background information they would not be privy to and you would first have to explain the whole movie to them before they could debate with you adequately. That's all I meant, I was not trying to dismiss you intellectually- I was just admitting the limits of my enthusiasm.

We are on the same side in that we don't believe anything blindly. I felt I defended my position adequately as to why I believe some things and not others, since you just don't want to see it, I can't make you, c'est la vie. I wish you'd reread my argument there, it was pretty solid. I don't believe in the least that the Bible was "divinely inspired". I know for a fact that it was voted on by a council, which I clearly stated- therefore manmade, therefore up for scrutiny. See, I think we are pretty close on this.

DMW, thanks so much for the elucidation on apocalyptic writing, I really appreciate your input here. I didn't realise that even the word "dream" was not literal! Knowing that it is in a kind of code certainly puts a new spin on things, but I never read any more into Revelation than a slightly interesting story. I also have no idea why it was included, especially having been written so long after. I have actually had people argue with me that it was not John the apostle! Oh well, blind following is an insult to the Lord, in my opinion, as much as contempt prior to investigation. I always feel elated to learn something new here.

I personally dislike Paul because of his mysoginistic views, which is pretty understandable. I can't conceive of my creator loving my male counterparts more than me, I couldn't feel that way about my own children so it doesn't make sense to me. That doesn't make me right, but that's how I feel. What Jesus said here was, (and I paraphrase) "Women should RESPECT their husbands, and husbands should LOVE their wives". I hope I got this right, but I'm pretty sure the bigger onus was actually placed on men!

Also, it was good to bring up that much of what has been translated as being against homosexuality was really more against adultery or rape. Oh yeah, while we're on the subject, there are TONS more references to the evil of adultery than any vague reference to homosexuality, even mistranslated. How many heteros commit adultery? Somewhere around 70% judging from the divorce rate! Now who's the sinner??? Simple answer, we all are. No one group's sin is grater than the others' so why can't we stop judging each other, leave it in the hands of God like he says and follow his commandment to love one another?

FWIW, I have resigned from calling myself a Christian at the moment, because I am taking time to review my beliefs and educate myself further. I have loved God and the church for many years, but now feel that my love requires more of me than to regurgitate used material. Perhaps my quest will bring me back to where I started, but wherever I get to, I am certain it won't be a place where queers can't marry!

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by schlozski@Nov 16 2004, 02:26 AM
madame_zora, GBO

First of all I am not a theologist either. However, I am a Christian and am in a Christian organization that believes in the blessed union of GLBT people. (So, it's kind of angering that you have been lumping all Christians into one category) You can quote the Bible to death but, every person is going to quote the Bible differently. Take for instance when homosexual activities are being mentioned; some people believe that this is not attacking gay men but rather condemning rape. (I'd also like to point out that I don't know the verses in the Bible but I can get them in a week or two.) At another point the Bible uses the term homosexual, one theologian believes this means "gay men" another theologian believes it means, "male prostitute." Two different terms, two different interpretations. Lastly, the Bible was written basically 2000 years ago (I don't care when it was actually written but...approximately) In those 2000 years there have been many many revisions, language interpretations and adding/deleting parts of the Bible. Meaning that there are many different writing themes that have been added while the Bible has been (so to say) updated.

Also, back to much earlier pages of this conversation when talking about elections. People are going to vote for what is going to benefit them the most. Presidential candidates don't have to be intelligent they just have to have good marketers.

[post=263864]Quoted post[/post]​

Sorry, dude, I didn't mean to overlook your post! I apologise if I appeared to lump all Christians together, when we started this diatribe I said "many Christians", but since it's gone on so long I'm sure that idea got lost. I know a good many Christians who are capable of forming their own opinions on these ideas, many can be found here. I am surely the last person to want to categorize everyone into the same pigeonhole. I truly belive that it is not only possible, but imperative to respect the rights of everyone while loving the Lord. We must also remember that there are religions other than Christianity in America who deserve the same rights to religious freedom.

You make a brilliant point about marketing, I feel certain that's what defeated us this election. By "us" I mean all us left-wing nutjobs who believed "We find this truth to be self-evident, that all men were created equal".

Thanks for being brave enough to jump in here, I'll look forward to more of your posts. Welcome!

 

[schlozski]

Sorry, dude, I didn't mean to overlook your post!

It's ok...I have been lurking for a few years now.

DMW, I'm not Catholic so a lot of the doctrines that you have posted were not the same ones that I have read. The only reason I know some of the arguments is because the church body to which I belong (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) has had a 2 year churchwide study on sexuality (decision 2005). The verses that you brought up were not from the CCD, they were from several different translations. So, although you have your opinions from the theologians from Catholic Church (I don't know how much time was spent on their end), I would have mine from Lutheran theologians which have spent a great deal of time putting together every conceivable way of translating the verses of the Bible that bring up homosexuality. I said earlier that it would take me a few weeks to dig up all of the information on the study (but I believe http://www.elca.org/faithfuljourney/ has some of the info.) You said yourself that translating from Greek is difficult and I couldn't agree with you more which is why there are so many different denominations of Christianity.

Alex

 

[GottaBigOne]

I totally understand what you are talking about Madam. Try to keep in mind that since I don't agreew ith you in principle don't insult me by saying that it must be because I don't understand the material or aren't familiar enough with it. I am very familiar with the Bible. I'll admit that most of my information comes from second sources, i.e. books about the bible, but I don't think that necessarily precludes me from understanding it. my arguments against you weren't about the fundamental ideas in the bible, i do understand how Jesus was sent back to fix what humans had misunderstood about God, I do not debate that. When you originally said that the new testament sheds a more peaceful light on God I thought you meant the entire new testament so I brought up revelation to show how he is just as violent and desirous of war as usual. You don't accept revelation so I said you were picking and choosing. Picking and choosing is definately not a bad thing i don't know how it got the negative connotation in this thread. Picking and choosing based on skepticism and healthy discrimination is a very good thing, it reveals a free mind. My point about picking and choosing is this; most people say the Bible should be followed by all because it is the word of god. If it is indeed the word of god then it must be taken entirely, there is not compromise with dvine mandate. I know you dont subscribe to this, but you did insist in soem way that people should be following your idea of god and you sited that it was a "commandment" to love one another. I say give us a rreason to love one another, because if you dismiss that jesus was god or that the bible should be accepted as gods word then there is no reasn for us to follow it blindly. Give arguments to support tolerance, and love, and brotherhood, not just that the "real" message of the bible is such. I understand that you were speaking to the hypocrasy in some christians, and how you saw that they weren't really following christ in how they act toward homosexuals. I agree wtih you. If peopel really wanted to follow christ they'd follow ome of his more difficult "commandments" Jesus asks us to abandon all our earthly possesions so that we would more ably enter the kingdom of heaven. When a rich man ass him what he can do to attain the kingdom he says (loosely quoted, as i do not have a bible handy) "Abandon all your riches, and your ties to this world, and follow me." How would all the richest of these christians would give all their money away and await the second coming?? None, I would venture to guess. Soem would say that his message was corrupted by the people who wrote it down. Then I would say how can you accept anything as true that read from the Bible then? I say accept what you want, follow it, and if you think that it should be accepted by others then argue for those things, but using the Bible as evidence just doesn't work. I told you over that phone conversation that I now accepted some of the things that Jesus prescribes but not because he said it. jesus actually wasn't the first person to introduce the idea of universal love as a solution for the worlds problems; it's the idea i accept, not Jesus. You actually gave me shit for changing my view of jesus and accused me of becoming what you seem to despise.

 

[GottaBigOne]

I found these quotes on a website. They have nothing to do with gay marriage but i thought they were interesting. The second one has a lot to do with the main topic of this forum.



One is presuming (is one not?) that this is the same god who actually created the audience he was addressing. This leaves us with the insoluble mystery of why he would have molded ("in his own image," yet) a covetous, murderous, disrespectful, lying, and adulterous species. Create them sick, and then command them to be well? What a mad despot this is, and how fortunate we are that he exists only in the minds of his worshippers. -christopher hitchens-

"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled." -- Ezekiel 23:20-21


Also, madam you seemed to miss my point about the crucifixion. That was definately a very violent act, have you seen "The passion of the Christ"? hehe. My point was this: If god was not the violent sort, then his plan for salvation would not have included such a horrific situation. He is all powerful so he could have done it some other less violent way. You say that God wanted to become man and experience all the hardships that man endures, but you forget that God created man, and made him and the world the way it is, so again if he didn't want hardship and violence and evil he would not have created it. And, if he created us in his image, and we are violent evil creatures then he is just as vile. My main point is that your idea of God doesn't exist in a vacuum, the context is very important. Your idea is a very uplifting one, and very good, but its a little idealistic. You can still choose to just accuse me of not understanding the "whole picture" ad maybe I don't, but I think that my arguments stand for themselves, i hope you can show me where I'm wrong, i'm not just preaching, i am willing to listen to a valid refutation.

p.s. I would also argue that the crucixion is in no way a valid means to salvation. If i were to murder someone, would it be just to send a innocent little girl to jail for my sentence? Would having someone else pay for MY sins be right? What about those I sin against? If I beat the living shit out of someone, or killed their mother, would it make them feel better to know that someone other than the killer, someone completely innocent was being tortured on my behalf? I feel that the only person who can forgive me my sins is the person I sin against. People will say that every sin is a a sin against god, so god can forgive you. That is valid if indeed god exists, that has yet to be shown.

 

[GottaBigOne]

As for the passage where jesus talks about hell, i found an instance here. I'm not sure about the translation, but it is there.


But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of HELL FIRE. (Matthew 5:22)(emphasis added)

 

[Phenix]

What a thought provoking thread! Thanks GBO & Madame Zara, et.al.

I am a theologian (M.A. Systematic & Historical Theology; M.A. Pastoral Ministry, Berkeley, 1998) & a "progressive" Roman Catholic. I am in private practice on the West Coast, as well as globally via the Net, as a Chaplain (Industrial & individual) & a Inter-Faith Counselor whose main focus is people in spiritual transition, confusion or crisis. Based on the bit of knowledge I've acquired in the world of academia, I thought I'd just throw a couple things into the mix for all of us to ponder.

GBO, Karl Barth, among the most significant & influential Protestant theologians of the 20th Century (German) said something very telling and I've never forgotten this quote:

"The Bible does not support the view that God is God in the same way at all times."

No, indeed it doesn't, which is exactly what you've been saying, and, from a slightly different angle is exactly what Zara is saying. However, does this admit of "change" in the Godhead, Eternal Mystery, the ONE? I don't believe it does, nor did Plato, upon whom early Church theologians (NeoPlatonists) relied heavily for the philosophical constructs they layered onto this loose flowing thing call the "Jesus Movement".

In fact, what do you think was among the most difficult tasks facing the Early Church Fathers in the first several centuries of "Christianity"? Not persecution, although that was always a danger. No, it was formulating the Doctrine of the Trinity, followed immediately with the Doctrine of Jesus' "both/and" Nature.

How could God be One yet Three? Again, they took their cues from ancient Greek philosophy, because whatever they came up with could admit no change in the Godhead. These bishops were muddled. They had the God of Israel, Yahweh, Elohim, the Lord, together with various references to God's Breath "pneuma in Greek; spiritus in Latin", personified in much Hebrew literature as feminine (sophia = wisdom) already witnessed to in the Pentateuch & Prophets, and now all of sudden, Gods' Son, Jesus of Nazareth, "the Christ" or Messiah or "anointed one" comes along and they're forced into a difficult situation. They had to "explain" as best they could a phenomenon they never expected to deal with on paper. The ancient Greek theory of "emanations" helped them incredibly, and one of the Fahers likened the Trinity to the Sun and its rays (The Sun never changes, even though it emits rays; nothing essential to the Sun is altered or lost in the emission.)

The theological history told by the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures is not about God changing "Her" mind, rather it's about the ways in which God has broken through to humankind and changed their minds. And he has done this in every Religion & belief system since humans first became self conscious enough to recognize "something" greater than themselves, the possibility or presence of something Wholly Other.

Yahweh's relationship with the Hebrews was unique & out of it came monotheism, a radical concept in the highly polytheistic ancient near east. But if one pays close attention, throughout the history of the Hebrews right up to the end of the first century CE, there have been prophets and avatars calling the people back into right relation with God, condemning hypocrisy, social sin, the class system, etc. The major & minor Prophets (as well as many Psalms) are full of statements in which "God" says through the prophet: It is not your animal sacrifices or grain offerings that I want; those do not make me happy; I want your sacrifice to be one of Praise and Thanksgiving" (psalm 50). Before the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth, another avatar burst on the Palestinian scene, The Baptizer, John. John preached a baptism of repentance; Jesus preached a baptism of forgiveness.

Also, the majority of liberal Christian theologians, no longer feel the Church is aided by an "atonement theology" (i.e., Jesus atoning for our sins through his execution). It simply doesn't resonate to the world we live in, and if not discarded all together, then must be understood in new ways. The historical/cultural context in which the Gospels were originally circulated as oral traditions and only much later written down, was 1st century Judaisim and its theologies of atonement (e.g., sacrifice, slaughtering a lamb at Passover, the "scapegoat", etc.). From this perspective, one can understand how to Jews in the 1st century who were followers of the "Crucified One" this translated into Jesus, the Lamb of God, taking away the sins of the world, which I firmly believe Jesus "the Anointed One" did, although not by dying as an insurrectionist. Publicly tortured & executed in the most barbaric fashion in the Roman Empire. Jesus's whole ministry was one of compassion, acceptance, love and forgiveness. He ate and drank with "sinners", remember? The poor and disenfranchised and the marginalized, the sick, women, children. He validated their worth as human beings by acknowledging them; Jesus took away the sin of the world, by the way he lived his life, by modeling a new relationship with God whom he called "Abba" (Daddy in Aramaic). He lived to remind people that they are made in God's image and hence are not without power, are not to be shunted aside in classist religious & political hierarchies. In fact part of the Mystery of the Uncreated Creator is born in each of us. He said, "The Kingdom of God is within you." God is both wholly other & more intimate than anything could be to a person. Jesus came not to save humankind from its sins, but from themselves. God isn't responsible for the state the world is in, WE ARE, because part of being created in "God's image" means we have the gift of FREE WILL, we choose how we're going to be in the world, or as we'd say in theology, what our "fundamental option" will be. Will we be Light or Christ to each other or Darkness?

The creation story in Genesis is a myth and bares striking resemblances to other ancient near eastern creation stories. It is ultiimately an explanation of the Unexplainable, but people wanted more than anything to understand why there was Evil in the world. It's an incredible story on its own terms as MYTH, reading it Literally is simple ignorance. If one is going to mine the Hebrew & Christian Scriptures for their wisdom (i.e., God's inspired words) then one must learn to overlook inconsistencies as part of human frailty. As was mentioned, these books were compiled over the course of 4, 000 years and are theological in nature, not literal or chronological. God doesn't change, our understanding of God changes, and so it goes. Humans make mistakes, copyists make mistakes, and that's all we have, the best copy of thousands of copies. There is no original.

And this isn't unique to Christianity, countless avatars long before Jesus Christ were saying the same things in a different way: Buddha, Confucius, Plato, Celtic & Norse pantheons, etc. They are with us today: MLK Jr. Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, to name just a few. God is described as being "the same, yesterday, today, and forever." This does not admit change.

One caution: the "New" testament only supercedes the "Old" testament if you're a Christian, inasmuch as Christians believe that Jesus came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. To a Jew, the distinctions of "old" and "new" are an insult. Hence, the preference in scholarly circles today to speak of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures.

GBO, you used a good example of ancient Israelite belief "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", but Jesus who was a Rabbi, pious and utterly devoted to Judaism, said no, "love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you, if someone strikes you on the right cheek, give him your left as well." Now this is RADICAL.

Finally, let's make sure we take Paul with a grain of salt. Paul had his own agenda too, and because he was a historical figure, he used the conventions of his time to make certain points. For example, the unequal relationship between men and women, "Husbands love your wives; wives be obedient to your husbands", etc. Moreover, and you already brought this out a bit, the words Paul used in Greek which became "homosexuals" in the KJV were referring to the repugnance both Romans and Jews had for an ancient Greek tradition wherein it was an acceptable, expected practice that an older married man would mentor a younger man and that it would involve a sexual aspect with the older taking the domininant role and the younger the passive or receptive role. These relationships went on for a time and then the young man would go off on his own to marry, be a soldier, have children, etc.. Paul also used words referring to "male prostitutes" not "gay guys". That's why the Bible cannot be used to prove the "sinfulness" or abnormality or perversity of the GLBT world. What we know today as the "Gay World" would have been unrecognizable to Paul; it was the furthest thing from his mind in those passages, because nothing like it existed at that time.

And therein lies the danger. We must let history speak on its own terms, not the terms the we put back on it through 21st century eyes. For example, the "Religious Rights" attempt to recast the Founding Fathers as "born again Christians". (I won't go into it here; just read a good unbiased scholarly account of these men and their religious beliefs and you'll get what I mean)

Lastly, when the canon of Christian Scripture was definitively closed in the late 2nd/early 3rd centuries, "Revelation" barely made it in it was so controversial. John, the author was not Joh the Apostle was not St John the Divine (a 15th century priest & mystic), but a simple Christian who rather than being killed during persecution was exiled to the Isle of Patmos. From there, he tells us he "was in the Spirit" on the Lord's day (not asleep or dreaming necessarily) and had a vision which he was told to write down. The literary genre is called "apocalyptic" and derives mainly from the Hebrew Scriptures (e.g., Ezekiel, Daniel, etc.). John's Revelation was simply an elaborate system of signs and symbols to all persecuted Christians that everything would ultimately be okay. Christians would have understood the code, the Romans wouldn't have. Hence, it was written to deliberately confuse the Romans (should a copy fall into their hands) and would leave nowhere and no one at whom to point a finger. Very clever, wouldn't you agree? John of Patmos was writing his brothers and sisters in Christ to cheer them up in the face of horrendous adversity. It wasn't easy being a Christian prior to Constantine...but then look at what happended to Jesus of Nazareth, a model of passive resistance. He spoke "Truth" and those in power were so threatened by it they had him murdered. It's a dirty job being a Son of God, folks , but somebody's got to do it! Remember, Jesus is also supposed to have said, "Know ye not that ye are gods?" Now think about that one!

 

[GottaBigOne]

Great insight Phenix, you make a lot of very good points, and I agree with your assessment of the Bible, I wish more people read it the way you do and were just as educated. My main point in this discussion was that to site the Bible as the last authority on anything is not only wrong, but dangerous. It is obviously fraught with human error, and I don't understand how people miss that. If you accept that the Bible is infallible, then you have to accept everything was my point. I know Madam Zora does not accept the Bible as the literal word of god so I was not talking about her. I was mearly making a comment on how she seemed to say that the "True" message of the Bible could be known. There are many messages in the Bible and I think it's close to impossible to know the "true" one. Reason and logic might help us, but then we don't really need to Bible as mandate, just research. This is the attitude she subscribes to so I am a little confused as to how she didn't see that's what I was getting at, she saw how I wasn't accepting the Bible as all good, so she thought I was saying the Bible is all bad.

There are many good things that come out of religion especially if it turns out to be true and God does exist, there are however many horrible things that eminate out of it as well, the doctrine of sin as an example, intolerance as another.

 

[madame_zora]

Phenix, tremendous post! I will be looking forward to hearing as much from you as you care to share, on this and all things. It is good to hear from one who has studied the subject so much, as I have only scratched the surface.

GBO, we are having difficulty communicating to each other for some reason, but as I said before I think we are not far off. Just as you are frustrated with me in seeing your posts innaccurately, I feel the same way. I never said I disregarded Revelation, but I saw it for what it was- which is NOT a literal account of anything. Prior to now, I had thought it was an account of a dream, now I see that it is even less than that. I neither disregard or accept wholesale anything in the Bible or any other printed literateure, I feel I am saying this for the umpteenth time now!

I do think it's fair to expect people who ARE followers of the Christian faith to seek out the SPIRIT of God revealed through the Bible, as that is THEIR reference, I was not saying it was my foundation for living! As it is impossible to take any one phrase, sentence, or even book word for word as literal, the actual individual words are not of much value unless considered from a "backing up and assessing" standpoint. As Phenix so aptly pointed out, the books of the Bible were oral traditions long before they were scribed, so to take any of them literally, word for word, is simply idiotic. I feel I have spent too much time saying that over and over while you insist it's all or nothing. It's a dead horse. Perhaps it is egotistical of me to assume that the things I see as obvious would be obvious to others, but many of us here have done that with the current political climate of late so I didn't feel I was reaching too far. In my first post to you I started with the idea that to be able to glean anything of value from the Bible, one had to be able to accept a LOT of inconsistancies, remember? That's why I felt (and feel) that not having read the whole thing would limit your perspective, not that you would have no insight at all. I am not qualified for or interested in giving Bible classes, as you suggested I should, nor did I offer. I have no idea what you've read and what you haven't, so it is hard to have a serious debate with you on the subject. Yes, I was put off by your referencing Jesus to me on the phone. I am sure that has had an impact on this discussion. I also felt strongly from most of these posts that the adamantly atheist GBO I know and love was back in full glory, so now I'm just confused and sad. And worn out. Finally.

 

[GottaBigOne]

That was the weirdest thing about the conversation we had on the phone. All I was saying on the phone about jesus is that my "all or nothing" mentality that you pointed out had changed. I used to feel that since there are obvious lies in the Bible, the whole thing shouldn't be taken seriously. I still do not believe that the Christian God exists, i am as adamantly atheist as ever, the only that has changed is that I don't disregard the concept of universal unconditional love anymore. I think its an ideal, and that it doesn't really exist, but I think the fact that its a goal for some people is a beautiful thing. The closest thing to divinity i can think of would be the self-sacrifice depicted in the the passion play, i see it as an act of love and if it actually happened the way it is said, then it was misguided of jesus to think that it would change much, it has changed history, but I think the basic message he had was tainted by his theism. I feel like it was there, and people have taken it from the Bible, but all the other things, like hellfire, sin, and an afterlife fucked it up. I realize that a lot of times when I was using the word "you" in these posts I should have been using "one" as in: if one wants to believe everything in the bible to be divine.... I know your stance on christianity, i wasn't addressing you.

I think a big part of the problem was when you said " Lets just assume that God exists." For me thats a huge assumption, and I couldn' get my mind in the right gear in order to adaquately have a dialogue.

(FUCK, I hate my spelling)

 

[madame_zora]

GBO, I knew that would be an unpleasant assumption for you! Sorry for posing an uncomfortable premise, I was not trying to incite an argument. Some of the things I feel about the Bible I find to be self-evident for anyone who has studied it much, but then again I could be completely full of shit as I so often am. I likened it to the political debates we've been having here because I also find some of my opinions on that to be obvious even though apparently there are those who don't. I know we are both fairly impassioned on our views and although we are sometimes close on our opinions, for us "close" can still seem miles away.

I liked you better as a firm Atheist because I felt more confidant that I knew where you were coming from. Now that you're reassessing you opinions at the same time I am, it makes for confusing conversations- which I'm sure is all that happened here. Do you even realize how many times you referenced "all or nothing" views of the Bible in this thread? Despite not completely feeling that way anymore, you are still saying it a lot. I can only guess that I must do that too since my own views are not firm. As always, I very much appreciate the opportunity to sharped my mind against yours, as well as the incredible insightfulness of other members like Phenix, DMW, and Schlozski.

Phenix, your post has been resonating in my head ever since I read it, and despite trying to maintain my cool it has really shaken me up more than a bit.
It's one thing to believe in some peripheral way that the Bible is more folklore than fact, but it's quite another to have that thought be made obvious by one who apparently has put in the time and effort to research it to the point that it deserves.
Now, just because it's folklore doesn't mean that the lessons given aren't valid ones, but it does necessitate very careful discernment. The only solace I have is that I had begun that already and now feel better about that decision, but I had at first thought there was at least a possibility that I was wrong. It was VERY gratifying to hear that such an educated man agreed with me about Paul, his words have always had a ring of "untruth" to me, or at least the impression of being more politically deliberate than the words ascribed to Jesus. I am deeply grateful to you for sharing your opinions as well as your sources for them, it has given me some very new info to consider.

 

[13788]

BetterThanAverage: I'm one of the many gay men who consider myself spiritual but not religious. I was raised Catholic (and all that that implies), but it was an... unpleasant experience for me. No need to go into that. In my teens, I rediscovered my Christianity, and became very involved in the church - not Catholic this time, but a kind of generic Christian church, I guess you could say. As I became more aware of my sexuality, however, I realized that the church, as it was configured, had no place for me. Believe me when I say that I don't paint all Christians with the same "prejudiced" brush, but most of those who have undertaken a mission to persecute me have done so under the banner of Christ.

I have, then, been forced to find my own way. I have explored many religions, but found that most organized religions, like Christianity, don't want me, unless I'm willing to shut up and sit in a corner and soak up their wisdom. I'm not.

I was drawn, for awhile, to the more metaphysical spirituality of Science of Mind, Course in Miracles, etc. I found it more accepting, and still find much comfort there. These forms of spirituality seem to take the teachings of all the great masters, Jesus, Buddah, Mohammed, etc., and leave out the rhetoric of hate that so many religions seem to build into their framework. The fear of "otherness."

Anyway, this is all to say, I guess, that I have come to believe that the teachings of all of our major religions are "folk tales." You take what you need/want/believe from them, and you leave the rest. Kind of a religious buffet, I guess. If I haven't heard it directly from God (whoever or whatever he/she/it is), then anyone else's interpretation of God's message is just that to me, an interpretation.

To take this all back to where this thread started, I think it's just the word, "marriage," that scares people. And I don't know why that is, but it obviously carries a huge emotional charge. I think, as someone else has said in this thread or another (sorry, I don't remember who or where right now. Bad poster), that the State needs to take itself out of the marriage business altogether. The State can confer any rights and privileges it wants on anyone or any combination of people that it wants. The State, however, has no business in a religious institution like marriage and, likewise, the church (any church) has no business pushing its own beliefs on the state.

Do I have a point? Not really. Just rambling here. But this thread has intrigued me from the beginning, and I wanted to add my 2 cents.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Madam, I was not aware that I had been making "all or nothing" comments on this thread. The thing I was trying to say is that if the belief that the Bible is god's word is accepted then it makes no sense to disregard those parts that you don't agree with. You agree with me, because you see that many christians disregard the main message of Jesus Christ, namely, love one another. The assumption of God's existence threw me for a loop because I feel that if the Bible is not the main source of an argument for god and that its just human interpretation and error, then how can we tell for ourselves accurately whats bullshit and whats not? When I said I don't accept anything in the Bible I was mistaken, I accept some of the concepts, the only thing I don't accept is that there is a god, at least not without proof. And I don't accept the things in the Bible, just because it says so. I ahte when people use "Because the Bible tells me so" as an argument. You can quote the Bible, but then for me you must demonstrate how whatever the Bible says is true. I admit God might exist, but in the way that phenix describes; the godhead from which everything else eminates. I have found no good argument that this godhead cannot exist. I have found no good argument that he/she must exist either so i take a position of agnostic atheism. Having read about such a concept though it seems to me to be the product of philisophical discussion, an idea, a very good one, but just a guess. I know there are hard questions for the atheist to answer, and that positing a god as an answer to existence is the "easy" way out. I am however not looking for the easiest answer but the right one, the only way I can arrive at truth for myself is by using my reason and logic. Some arguments point to a creator, all of them fall short of convincing me. They may very well be right, but I'll have to deal with the incorrect uncertainty that I have. I'd rather be uncertain and wrong, then certain and wrong. (I wish our president felt the same way) Thank you for realizing that I do have an open mind and that my previous beliefs were not set in stone and unshaking, i think that is a very dangerous and idiotic way at arriving at truth. The only way we can know that we are closer to being right is that we are farther away from being wrong, and admitting that you were once wrong is the first step in the process of truth gaining. Humans can never know the truth about God no matter how hard we try because God is defined as the unknowable, if you know God, then it is not God that you are knowing. This search for thruth that we are on will never be resolved, we can only inch closer and closer a step at a time. Don't feel uneasy because you're beliefs are insecure, take comfort in knowing that that insecurity keeps you free. It keeps you free to be able to think and react in whatever way you want in any situation, which is what your consciousness truly is; its free because it lives in the now. It's not determined by past convictions, or future aspirations. It lives and feeds on the present and is free. I'm sure you've read Sartre so you know what i'm getting at. If we arrived at fnal truth one day and knew everything about everything, what would have to live for? It's the search thats worth while, not the attainment of the goal. Its the attempt at divinity thats divine, not Jesus. Jesus is an example of how we should try to live, to love one another, and give up material indulgance, and not persecute those who are weak. The one biggest mistake I can see in the Gospels is that Jesus made it a commandment to love one another as he has loved us. How can you command love? Once commanded it stops being the special wonderful thing it should be. It becomes insincere and false. Unconditional love is a gift, not a fullfillment of an order. To obey the order to love is to pervert the very essence of love. When Jesus was being nailed to the cross and he asked the "father" to forgive them because they know not hwat they do, he wasn't doing it because he would get hellfire if he didn't or even so maybe they would take him down from the cross. There can be no incentive to that kind of love, the greatest kind of love. its an absolutely FREE gift, with no strings attached. There can't be a reason you give it, its just something you give because it is the greatest gift you can give someone else. If everyone acted this way then yes there would be a good result, there would be peace and harmony in the world. But even that can not be the reason you give it, because ultimately its a selfish motivation. You can't give a person that love in order to change them, because if you want them changed how much do you really love THEM. For God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son. If God were omnipotent and could create any world he wished and chose to create this one, its because he loves it the way it is and the way it might someday be but its this way for a reason.
I'm reading "Atlas Shrugged" and stumbled across this sorry if its a little out of context, but I think it's meaning is preserved:

"Now you see, that's the cruelty of conscientious people. You wouldn't understand it- would you?-if I answered that real devotion consists of being willing to lie, cheat and fake in order to make another person happy-to create for him the reality he wants, if he doesn't like the one that exists."
"No," he said slowly, "I wouldn't understand it."
"It's really very simple. If you tell a beautiful woman that she is beautiful, what have you given her? It's no more than a fact and it has cost you nothing. But if you tell an ugly woman that she is beautiful, you offer her the great homage of corrupting the concept of beauty. To love a woman for her virtues is meaningless. She's earned it, it's a payment, not a gift. But to love her for her vices is a real gift, unearned and undeserved. To love her for her vices is to defile all virtue for her sake-and THAT is a real tribute of love, because you sacrifice your conscience, your reason, your integrity and your invaluable self-esteem."
He looked at her blankly. It sounded like some sort of monstrous corruption that precluded the possibility of wondering whether anyone could mean it; he wondered only what was the point of uttering it.
"What's love, darling, if it's not self-sacrifice?"

 

[GottaBigOne]

BTA, thanks for getting the thread on topic again, it seems we always digress into a religous discussion when talking about it because basically thats where the argument lies. The only reason most people have a problem with homosexuailty is because the see it as immoral. They fail to realize that immoral doesn't necessarily equal illegal. Many would view adultery to be immoral, but it is legal, pornography is immoral to some, but its legal, so is profanity, and drug use. there were many who said that the state has no business being in the business of marriage I was the first to point it out on this thread I think. This whole brew-ha-ha could have all been avoided had church and state stayed seperate.





btw, I have no idea what the correct spelling of "brew-ha-ha" is. I'm sure Jonb knows, he knows everything....

 

[13788]

BetterThanAverage:

Originally posted by GottaBigOne@Nov 17 2004, 01:29 PM
They fail to realize that immoral doesn't necessarily equal illegal.

[post=264091]Quoted post[/post]​

They also do not seem to realize that the very concept of immorality changes drastically over time. It was once considered perfectly acceptable (including in the Bible) to sell your daughter. Probably would be frowned on now. Public stonings have also gone out of vogue. Life evolves, we evolve, society must evolve as well, and it does. Just not as quickly as I would like.

BTW, it's brouhaha (in case Jonb isn't handy).