papermachesatan

the link to the original author's post on another board

Fake Alias

lol this is a joke right?

papermachesatan

These guys went through the Bible(King James Version) and listed every example of murder, cruelty to animals, etc. etc. hehehe

chavos

and they didn't even bother to realize that Kings and Judges are the nearly duplicates....not to mention that listing the Song of Solomon as Porn on a board like this...an act so ironic subverts itself entirely.

So it's funny and all, but it really doesn't serve much of a point. Most of the other Christians i see on this board seem quite aware of the violence implicit in our tradition, and have consciously dealt with this. I personally wonder if a book with less of these things could really encompass the human search for meaning...

papermachesatan

I quoted the entire thing directly from their board.

Many of them are examples of murder, cruelty from your very own God. It's mainly targeted to those who would cite the Bible as a source of morality while conveniently ignoring many of it's more ghastlier messages..

I personally wonder why anyone would follow a book that actively promotes slavery, racism, religious intollerance, misogynism, etc. etc.

human

Personally, because of one key teaching, "Love your neighbor as yourself" seriously, how can that go wrong? Lots of wrong has been done in the name of many different deities, but a lot of good has been done as well. Unfortunatly, a lot of people take the bible literally, which ends up with a lot of harm done, but until you've read it once or twice, really read it, slow down on the passing of judgement. Those were different times.

Also, I've read this before, feel the defense should get a shot. Crimes have been committed, but if the prosecution wishes to lay those charges, the defense would like the jury to keep in mind every dawn and sunset, the love in your wife/husband's eyes, Chasey Lain, the Rocky Mountains, the Great Barrier reef, shall I go on?

papermachesatan

The Bible does has some useful stuff but similiary, some of it's teachings are slavery, racism, religious intollerance, misogynism, etc. etc. Those very things were justified by the Bible. That's what can go wrong.


I'm not refering to the crusades, the inquisition, etc. etc. I'm refering to actions that OCCURED WITHIN THE BIBLE.

The messages are still there. A list of Old Testament's injustices.


Because various humans have committed injustices, God's innocent. I'll be sure to tell the jury that next time I kill someone.

rodimus

if God were real enough to be brought up on charges he would smite you for trying. not like it would bother him according to your list. lol

Stare At The Sun

hmmm, for some odd reason, im reminded of the first TNG episode, where Q puts the crew on trial for all humanities crimes..

Mojo_PeiPei

Most of those quotes were from the old testament, Christians have more to do with the New Testament (Jesus and his teachings).

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

THE MAC GOD

He's God... he can do what he wants... DUH.

__________________
Why continue fighting? Is it for Love? Illusions. All as artificial as the Matrix itself, although only a human mind could invent something as insipid as Love.

Killconey

As a work of satire, I laughed the entire way through. The people who came up with this are geniuses. As an actual religious accusation, it falls quite short.

Lets all agree for the purpose of my argument that a righteous Yahweh exists and that he exterminated all of those people? What of it? He is all knowing and all good, so he automatically knows who deserves life and who deserves death. If he acts on that knowledge, that's acting more like a judge than a murderer (insert whining of liberals here about the death penalty being murder anyway).

In regards to slavery, one only has to look at the conditions laid forth in the Bible about slavery and compare them to other societies at the time and to modern practices. Slavery meant servitude in the Israelite culture. Yahweh commanded that the slaves be treated with all respect and fairness. There was even a clause (albeit a rarely followed one) that commanded that all slaves be freed after seven years of servitude unless the slave loved his master so much that he became a slave for life. When this happened, the slave was largely considered a part of the family. In other societies at the time, slaves had no rights, were savagely and cruelly treated and had no way out of their life. Modern slavery and the slavery in America before the Civil War also falls short of the Jewish example.

As to the pornography, those are funny references but they were not at all intended in the way that you suggest just like the naked tribal women on the Discovery Channel aren't meant for jerking off

papermachesatan, you have provided me with hours of entertainment. I will pass your link on to all of my Christian friends and we will all proceed to laugh at how great your post is. Our beliefs, however, won't be changed.

__________________
Look out for numbers two and up and they'll look out for you.

papermachesatan

If the Old Testament is no longer invalid, why do Christians still cite things like Leviticus 20:13(re: Homosexuality)? Did Jesus say that the Old Testament is crap? Why can you pick and choose what parts of the book you like and don't like?

papermachesatan

I don't think it was meant to be actual religious accusations.

Exodus 32:14. Moses talks God outta killing a bunch of people for worshipping idols. If he automatically knows who deserves life and death, why would he listen to a mere human like Moses?

So it's okay that they're regarded as subhuman as long as they're not being abused?

Well that makes all the difference! Because other places were worse, the jewish example is good?

I'm glad you found it humourous. I'll relay it to the creators of it. I've posted it on other boards and I virtually kicked a bees nest when I did that.

Mojo_PeiPei

I am not picking and choosing anything, but its common knowledge (or should be) that the old testament is exclusivly Hebrew, the first five (the Torah) are fundamental to the religion. The New testament are the CHRISTIAN BOOKS, written by the founding fathers' on the teachings of Jesus, the history and teachings of the early church, and a prophecy that is shrouded in mystery (revelations).

to answer

I would say yes the old testament is invalid. It all was written well over 2000 years ago and for the most part, minus the 10 commandments which should be always be regarded, everything is obsolete in the context of our time or out of context in which they are written.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

papermachesatan

So the Old Testament is not valid for Christians? Why is it still quoted in christian sermons?

And if the particular part of Christianity you follow ignores the Old Testament, then this post shouldn't bother you at all.

Mojo_PeiPei

Well sir you bring up good points, I suppose I am partially playing devil's adovcate. But as it goes I am a Roman Catholic, and the old testament has never come up for me, I think its more for the cafeterian catholics.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

MacGnG

lol, I'm sure God would have a good defense and a really good lawyer.

interesting though, never thought of this

chavos

Paper-

1. Question in the form "Why do Christians do X?" are generally invalid. There is no monolith of "Christians" who do all the same things.

2. The Old Testement is not a monolith of belief either. This is a collection of scriptures, many different authors and editors. Simple proof texting, eg: "Leviticus says that gays are bad" is a reckless use of such a text. There are many GBLT Christians who still find significant meaning in both testaments. Just because they, or anyone else for that matter... don't find God's voice in passages that advocate violence, etc...does not mean that they are unfaithful to the tradition.

You level the arguement that it's "picking and choosing." Okay. That's what the church fathers did to come up with the list of book that would make it anyhow. They listened to what they felt God was saying, and choose what books represented their faith. I respect their choices. I do not consider myself absolutely bound by them. I too, must "Listen to what the Spirit is saying" (Revelations 2:11)

3. Moses, etc... I suggest Bill Moyer's "Genesis" as reading on the very human portrait of God in the Pentatuch. Having spent a fair amount of time learning the NT, over the last year, i've taken time to attend Jewish Torah study, and to learn more about this...and i've found it fascinating. As i was hinting earlier, the inclusion of a very human portrait of God, the realities of violence, and all the other things that get mentioned in the list are all part of the tapestry of the search for meaning. Yeah, it's challenging. Yes, it is a conflict for the believer to sort out. Yes, it looks messy and inoperable to the outsider. But the complexity allows the mind and soul to really get to work on trying to understand the mystery...in ways that a straight forward text could never inspire.

bermuDa

I'd only charge god with neglect.

__________________
I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

papermachesatan

Most mainstream Christian denomiations have not rejected the Old Testament from my understanding.

Right.
Levitictus 20:13:
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.



You don't interpret the Bible literaly then, which makes debate difficult. No debate can occur if you view the Bible from the subjective point of view. I should have clarified that earlier.

Subjective interpretation of the Bible. We can't debate over that heheh :P

chavos

Sorry? I don't know anyone who can take the whole book literally...and so its all degrees of subjectivity. The most literal readers i find are athiests, much me in my early days. Closing off debate to moderate viewpoints is a cheap trick...just because it's "difficult" does not mean it's not valid.

I'm not happy...that's quite disrespectful.

Not to mention, you did nothing to disprove my point! Proof texting, such as taking ONE VERSE out of context, and not reading it in light of the critical discourse on that text...is not a very respected way of reading the OT. Works for arguementative athiests and fundamentalists....but that's about it.

Furthermore, if you for some reason doubt the conviction of GBLT Christians, and their sincere faith in BOTH testaments...you're sorely mistaken. whosoever.org is a good resource online...and i can get links to Jewish GBLT groups too, if you so like.

Me neither. Just because i don't think that a few passages in the Law aren't reflective of God, does not mean i don't find significant value in those texts.

I respectfully disagree. The debate you seem to want cannot occur, as your assumptions frame the debate in ways to exclude a large number of viewpoints...but i believe a worthwhile debate can, and has occured.

guypunkr

In case you have all forgotten... Only God can judge, it has never been, is not, and never will be, our place to judge in the same way that he does...

papermachesatan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by chavos
The origins of my interest in this debate come from various political debates over whether God belongs in the classrooms, whether the Bible is neccessary for a soceity to be morally upright, etc. As a result, I tend to start out assuming the Bible is being taken litterally. If it's not, if your assesment of it's lessons as a source of morality is subjective, then no such debate can occur because the Bible would then mean different things to different people prohibiting it as a source for law by which non-christians would be regulated by as well. Only the basic laws that are neccessary for maintaining civilization could be in place.


Levicitus 20:13 was most certainly NOT taken out of context. It rather clearly stated that homosexuality was wrong and the offenders should be executed.

I don't doubt that that there are dedicated GBLT Christians but they would most certainly have overlooked that particular part of the Old Testament, wouldn't they?

Debate over subjective interpretations?

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?

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.

Quite simply, there is a fair amount of social taboos in Mosaic law, and most Christians do not adhere to them. There is quite a debate over whether that particular passage is done away with after Christ's coming, but since niether of us know Hebrew, that's going to be a very tough one to argue intellegently. But it should be noted that there is a strong tradition of carefully reading these legalisms (Note that most fundamentalists don't keep kosher, even though the Gospel of Matthew seems to uphold it in 5:19).

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.

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/

It is certainly not oversight that makes them able to reconcile themselves to God...it's not nice to imply that.

papermachesatan

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.

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.


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.


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.


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.

I'm not discussing Christians. I am discussing the Bible and the Bible alone.

chavos

Yeah...i get that. You want to have a debate not worth having. Nobody can take the whole thing literally. So, it's like saying that Agatha Christie novels are evil because people die in them.

Again...you miss the fact that this book is not, and cannot be placed in a vacuum. I'm not going to make an arguement for slavery, homophobia, or religious violence. They are horrible, sinful things...

But it misses the point to take the bad out of context. And that's what that list is. It's a total exercize in seeing the forest for the trees....

Thank you. But if you'd read the material i'd posted, you'd see that there is a very good reason for making the distinction. The original hebrew is not entirely reflected in the English translation. I'm not going to repeat myself...feel free to read what i've already said. But i'm done with this debate. You've shown a consistant lack of respect...and i have no obligation to take your shit.

papermachesatan

Irrelevant. We're not debating about the Christians, we're debating about the events portrayed in the Bible. The only thing we're debating about is the Bible. Not the Christians who can't follow it word for word in life.

Hardly. The Bible holds slavery, racism, mysgonism, etc. in a favorable light and demonstrates God killing, etc. For that reason, God depicted by the Bible is evil.

Slavery: Levicitus 25:44-46. God instructs the Israelites to take slaves.
Racism: Genesis 24:1-4. Abraham forces his servant to swear not to marry a Canaanite.
Homophobia: the already discussed Levicitus 20:13.
religious violence: Exodus 19:12. If you touch Mt. Sinai, you'll be put to death.

If you don't deny that these things haven't occured then you admit that the Bible is inherently immoral because it advocates completely immoral behavior.

Levicitus 20:9
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
Was that taken out of context?

Levicitus 20:15
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
Was that taken out of context? Kill the animal for being raped?

20:16
And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Was that taken out of context? Kill the animal for being raped?

I could go on and on. I won't bother arguing over the homosexuality in the Bible anymore. I'll just say you're right about the homosexuality being described in Levicitus 20:13 refers to temple prostitution. I don't need to dwell on homophobia on the Bible to make my point: The Bible itself describes many many injustices and cruelty in a favorable light.

Honestly, cry about it. Concession accepted.

Hanxter

I try very hard to stay away from discussion on politics & religion.
It can be a volotile subject to say the least.

So on that note, I'll say this...

While I've not not read all the posts in this thread, I see nothing philosophical growing here - just two people getting into a pissing contest.

So please folks - let's try to keep it civil - ok? THANX!!!

livewirerc

I'm a Christian and I have read both the old testament and new testament a number of times. I don't have any formal education, but I'll try to voice my opinion on the whole "god hates homosexuality" argument nonetheless.

Basically, in the old testament God was interested in keeping his people (the israelites) separate, pure, and procreating. To this end he outlawed anything that would enable his people to be "tainted" by foreign religions, philosophies or beliefs such as not allowing them to marry outside the tribe, and putting to death all who opposed the israelites. He also wanted to grow his people in numbers and so he outlawed all sexual acts that did not lead to procreation. Beastiality, homosexuality, "onanism" (pulling out, basically), etc. were all outlawed, as were most forms of incest (so as to keep 'em "pure" and free of eventual genetic weaknesses).

If you think of it in those terms, it makes a lot more sense. At least to me it does.

I think that the Old Testament still is applicable, but needs to be viewed through the filter of the New Testament. Christ did not come to abolish the old law, but to fulfill it. He was able to take 10 commandments and boil 'em down to 2 that covered everything. He was able to take the letter of the law and imbue it with the true spirit of the law. An example is when he said that it was said "Do not commit adultery" but that any man who looks lustfully at a woman has commited adultery in his heart. The Old Testament is definately relevant and a good recording of where our beliefs came from, but at the same time we are not bound by that covenant because Christ brought us a new one. That definately doesn't mean that the old should be completely discarded.

Lebell

First,

I agree with Hanxter that meaningful discussion has long ceased between Papermachesatan and Chavos, as they can't even agree on the basics for their discussion.

So please either agree to disagree or tone it down a notch, fellas.


Second, I agree with Chavos that Paper is wed to as literalistic an interpretation and reading of the Bible as ultra fundamentalist Christians are, and ultimately, this is a disservice to the book. This is simplistic in the least and ignores hundreds of years of Biblical scholarship and understanding.

From a review of What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by by Helminiak, Daniel A., Ph.D. , John S. Spong


John Spong also wrote Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism : A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture

And while I haven't read this book, it is on my wish list.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

sportsrule101

[QUOTE]Originally posted by papermachesatan
[B]Irrelevant. We're not debating about the Christians, we're debating about the events portrayed in the Bible. The only thing we're debating about is the Bible. Not the Christians who can't follow it word for word in life.

You argue that which you don't know, the old testament is not to be taken literal, many of the events and command actions were acceptable and needed to that culture, not necessarly acceptable to todays standerds. Just as some stuff we do today won't be acceptable to later generations down the road. The old testament is to be strained through what is taught in the New testament. Some of what is taught in the NT is not directly applicable to today, because culture has changed some, when that is the case commen sense is needed, and help from a knowledgeable person in the areas of greek and hebrew is useful. Also don't take what is written in certain versions, as a correct translation of what was original written. Most translations help the transition from greek to english easier to understand be changing words, and there order around, rather than take a literal translation from greek word to english word.

papermachesatan

So God = a form of a modern day White Supremist?

That does make sense given that the Bible displays racism, cruelty, and senseless violence(i.e. Levicitus 20:15, 2 Kings 2:23-24, etc.), etc. in a favorable light.

papermachesatan

I'm well aware that more and more of the examples of brutality, cruelty, etc. etc. in the Bible are ignored by the Churhes as soceity progresses for the sake of avoiding the alientation of it's members.


Can you bring a better translation to the table? Because unless you can point out where the examples of racism, cruelity, senseless violence, etc. that I can post were actually mistranslations, there's no reason to operate on that logical fallacy(appeal to ignorance).

papermachesatan

Not to be flippant, disrepectful or anything of the sort, but I'm not sure where I exactly stepped out of bounds except for the swear words and the "Honestly, cry about it" line(which I apologize for).

papermachesatan

The only way to debate the morality of the Bible is to debate it as is. When you provide your subjective interpretation of it, you're providing that part of the Bible thats been combined with your own sense of morality. I'm disinterested in debating *your* morality.

Erthmeld

Ok given that I'm an athiest I have little to add to these arguements but a slightly humorous acronym. CUI; creation under the influence, a non-moving violation that should result in at least 4 points on his deity liscence...

I will apologize in advance for this sad display of religious humor.

Gene C.

Lebell

Understanding who wrote the Bible and why is not "subjective", it is fundamental to understanding ANY ancient text.

So with all due respect, I'm not interested in debating with you either, since you've demonstrated you do not understand anything about which you speak.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

cheerios

PMS: (god damn, ok, won't acronymize your name anymore, sorry), anyway, you can't address the bible literally. no more than you can any piece of literature. when we sit in class and talk about Shelley and Brönte (is that right? I thought there was an accent in there somewhere)... we don't talk about "well, the monster killed people, so he's evil" that's too black and white. we talk about how Shelley intended the monster to reflect the mistakes that Victor himself had made, and the oppression of women at the time, or some such, etc etc... ANY literature needs to be looked at through the eyes of someone in the period in which it was written. no piece of writing is valid without cultural and periodic context.

Also, words, they are nothing. what matters is what people read into them. If I read the bible (which I never have, cover to cover, I will admit), and it means one thing to me, then that's what it means. The fact that it doesn't mean the same thing to you has no bearing on it's meaning in my life. Debates about literature are ALWAYS about interpretations of the story, not it's "literal" meaning, which is, actually, a really vague idea, in general. i mean... who's to say that the hebrew word for abomination really means that? Unless you speak hebrew (god i hope that's the right language) you're relying on someone who's translated this thing, over and over.

Point? Relax, man. You aren't gonna change any minds here, and there's no way to walk away with a clear victory on something so subjective as the morality of the bible. if you'd like to discuss it further, that's fine, but please, remember that NO one can win, and NO one has a monopoly on TRUTH in this discussion. hense, it's philosophy.

edit: awesome link, Chavus... i'm down to Leveticus, and that's the best answer to those passages I've ever seen. now if someone can explain the "no masturbting" thing to me, all the veils will have been lifted!

chavos

I swore i'd quit. But debate is like crack...there are no quitters, just people in various stages of recovery.

I wholeheartedly agree with Lebell...knowing the society in which a faliable and human text was born can help show us why such injustices are included and shown in a holy light. I don't condone them...but i won't throw baby out with bath water. Guilt by association is a logical falliacy...and hyperliteralization is just as distorting. I just would like to know how it is "subjective" to want to know what the passage meant to those who wrote it, and what its meant to the community since.

That said, i don't see much profit in going in to the particular passage further...the link i posted from whosoever.org has about the best discussion of the "hammer" passages that you're bringing up, paper. Read it if you care to. And thank you for your apology...i don't mind that you disagree with me...i had the exact same objections a few years back. I just prefer to keep the discussion civil.

Cheerios-I'm always glad to share that site-It's one of the most scholarly and complete discussions i've seen of GBLT relations with the church that i've seen online...