Quote:
Originally posted by chavos
I believe in the separation of church and state...one of the fringe benifits of ex-athiesm...but there is nothing that says that only a literally presented Bible could be presented in a classroom setting (consititutional issues notwithstanding). Why let the fundies have a corner on Christianity?
|
I let you drag me somewhat off topic on this one. I'm not discussing the morality of Christians who follow the Bible. I'm discussing the morality of the Bible itself. I'm not going to be drug around in a subjective debate arguing the meaning of parts of the Bible so we're dealing with the literal interpreations of the text itself.
Quote:
|
That verse is taken out of context. First of all, you didn't include the full Parsha, or reading, that would have originally framed ANY debate on the subject. Nor did you make any reference to the traditions of critical analysis that have grown around that and other related passages. Nor did you include any of the surrounding verses to give it anything resembling context. This is called proof texting, and doesn't fly far in most circles.
|
Bullshit. I fail to see how
Leviticus 20:13 states: "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they should surely be put to death....". was taken out of context when surrounded with a list of other forbidden behaviors.. "They are abominations and should die" is homophobia no matter what way you look at it.
Quote:
|
Quite simply, there is a fair amount of social taboos in Mosaic law, and most Christians do not adhere to them. -snip-
|
I'm not discussing the Christians themselves. I'm discussing the Bible alone. I won't be drawn into a debate over a bunch of subjective interpretations.
Quote:
|
As a question...how do you think the bible is studied and debated amongst the church? This list is intended, as i understand it, to undermine the legitimacy of the Bible as a document to teach about ethics and morality. My reubuttal goes to the presumption that only a morally "clean" work can teach the subject. I disagree-it is in the challenge and conflict that it is truly taught. Not to say it should be required reading (except in a literature or comparative religions class) in public schools, but the assumptions you make to get to that point are galling.
|
Again, I'm not discussing Christians themselves. I'm dealing with the morality of the Bible and the Bible alone. There is no room for subjective interpreations of it in a debate over such.
Quote:
Leviticus 20:13 states: "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they should surely be put to death....". The passage is surrounded by prohibitions against incest, bestiality, adultery and intercourse during a woman's period. But this verse is the only one in the series which uses the religious term abomination; it seems also to be directed against temple prostitution.
-from http://whosoever.org/bible/
|
The passage is just one of the items in a list of prohibitions of certain sexual behaviors. It is in no way taken out of context.
Demonstrate why they're referring to temple prostitution.
Quote:
|
It is certainly not oversight that makes them able to reconcile themselves to God...it's not nice to imply that.
|
I'm not discussing Christians. I am discussing the Bible and the Bible alone.