gays are deformed ....

[Kulindahr]

What the Bible teaches is that slavery is a perfectly acceptable institution. That's the teaching directly about the kind of people in question, slaves. You can claim that some kind of subtle reading of another part invalidates this, but if you do that then really you open yourself up to anyone being able to claim invalidating any part of the Bible they don't like.

That position is true only for the fundamentalist. The prophets show how the Bible is to be read: by principles. The principles can't be used to "claim invalidating any part of the Bible they don't like", because the guidelines are there that must be followed -- for example, even in the Old Testament, mercy superseded the Law.

For those who actually read the Bible in an objective fashion, the principles it espouses re: slavery are transparent and very clear in their repulsiveness. What Galations is particularly sharp in is noting how the OT Law was NOT invalidated and is still an example worthy to aspire too (which is of course utter hogwash). Basically, the jist is, even though salvation cannot be granted through the Law, it is still a good moral code.

That requires using an "objective fashion" akin to reading a laundry list.

I don't know what you're reading in Galatians to support that; it's the book that says plainly to not submit to any teaching that says you have to follow all kinds of rules.

But if you don't like it, just turn to Paul's ultimate statement about the Law for Christians: "All things are lawful". While that was said by someone else to begin with, he agreed that it was true.

On the contrary, slavery was able to linger for those 15 centuries in no small part because of the Bible's message on it. It took that long for man to realize it was wrong because religion and the Bible was so central to society for so long that to question it was blasphemy.

Again, only to fundamentalists, who ignore the principles -- really, who ignore the wisdom literature ("the writings") completely, as well as major parts of the New Testament.

Your approach, which is just what the 'evangelicals' who refuse to be consistent use, is a classic case of refusing to see the forest for the trees -- even when the forester has said to stop paying attention to the trees, and understand the forest!

 

[hotatlboi]

That position is true only for the fundamentalist. The prophets show how the Bible is to be read: by principles. The principles can't be used to "claim invalidating any part of the Bible they don't like", because the guidelines are there that must be followed -- for example, even in the Old Testament, mercy superseded the Law.

No I can still invalidate any part using that approach.

Example: one of Jesus's principles was undeniably love. Therefore my reading is that any God who's main message is love would never condemn someone to eternal torment. Therefore, I reject the doctrine of hell, even though the Bible explicitly states that it exists. What I just did is no different than you rejecting the instructions about slavery because they go against your 'principled' reading.

All you've basically said is, if you can find a broad principle in one section of the Bible that would seem to invalidate the specific teaching in another part, then it's perfectly fine to throw that specific teaching out. Now, because the Bible is so contradictory, you can basically use that to invalidate any part of it.

I don't know what you're reading in Galatians to support that

verses 19-22

What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.

Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

The Law is still represented as from God and still an example of righteousness, just not something that has the power to grant salvation.

 

[Kulindahr]

No I can still invalidate any part using that approach.

Example: one of Jesus's principles was undeniably love. Therefore my reading is that any God who's main message is love would never condemn someone to eternal torment. Therefore, I reject the doctrine of hell, even though the Bible explicitly states that it exists. What I just did is no different than you rejecting the instructions about slavery because they go against your 'principled' reading.

Sorry -- hell is a matter of fact, not of instruction.
You have to look at a different principle to find the resolution, and it lies in the word "choose", used by Moses, the Prophets, and Jesus: hell is where people go who choose not to have God around.

All you've basically said is, if you can find a broad principle in one section of the Bible that would seem to invalidate the specific teaching in another part, then it's perfectly fine to throw that specific teaching out. Now, because the Bible is so contradictory, you can basically use that to invalidate any part of it.

The Bible is "so contradictory" only if you impose outside standards on it.

 

[poolerboy]

It only opens the door to having people treated as people.

They already are. The only thing that's attacked is the sin (hate the sin not the sinner, remember?). Under your system of erosion things like fornication and idol worship (the things gentiles are supposed to avoid per the passage you cited earlier) would also meet that standard. If you're fine with it by all means go ahead, but don't expect that argument to be that persuasive.

The Bible is "so contradictory" only if you impose outside standards on it.

You can make that exact same argument for nearly any text so as to avoid blatant discrepancies. The reason the contradictions exist is because each book of the Bible (even just of the New Testament itself) was written by independent authors in different times and different regions. Only centuries later did they decide to lump a lot of them together (while excluding many others), call it a "canon" and pretend that what one book says another is in total agreement.

 

[Telstra]

The problem is human should not speak for god.
Lets god be the judge and not human.

Human should not judge another human in the name of god full stop.

 

[hotatlboi]

Sorry -- hell is a matter of fact, not of instruction.
You have to look at a different principle to find the resolution, and it lies in the word "choose", used by Moses, the Prophets, and Jesus: hell is where people go who choose not to have God around.

Why is the specific information given regarding hell immune from your 'principled' rejection but the instruction given concerning slavery is not?

Your logic is completely broken.

 

[Kulindahr]

Why is the specific information given regarding hell immune from your 'principled' rejection but the instruction given concerning slavery is not?

Your logic is completely broken.

Because there's a difference between facts and instruction.

Instruction changes depending on the level of advancement. Facts remain the same.

 

[Kulindahr]

They already are. The only thing that's attacked is the sin (hate the sin not the sinner, remember?). Under your system of erosion things like fornication and idol worship (the things gentiles are supposed to avoid per the passage you cited earlier) would also meet that standard. If you're fine with it by all means go ahead, but don't expect that argument to be that persuasive.

If the 'evangelicals' practiced "hate the sin, love the sinner", they'd be out in droves voting in favor of gay marriage and other matters they oppose.

Fornication can't be "eroded" because it's listed explicitly as instructions given by God for the Gentile Christians, as is idol worship. Idol worship wouldn't be eroded anyway; that requires abandonment of God in the first place.

But the erosion is also stemmed by the Ten Words (often called 'Commandments'). Those are principles; everything else in the Books of Moses constitutes an "application for the time".

 

[poolerboy]

If the 'evangelicals' practiced "hate the sin, love the sinner", they'd be out in droves voting in favor of gay marriage and other matters they oppose.

And how do you figure that exactly?

Fornication can't be "eroded" because it's listed explicitly as instructions given by God for the Gentile Christians, as is idol worship.

So is homosexual behavior. This is why the slavery analogy fails. It assumes parity where none exists. Slavery was not an explicit instruction though there was a system of regulation. Homosexual behavior on the other hand was an explicit target both in the Old and in the New Testament.

Idol worship wouldn't be eroded anyway; that requires abandonment of God in the first place.

I take it you've never heard of Asherah then.

Berakhti et’khem l’YHVH Shomron ul’Asherato

But the erosion is also stemmed by the Ten Words (often called 'Commandments'). Those are principles; everything else in the Books of Moses constitutes an "application for the time".

That distinction so as to avoid the Torah yet keep the Decalogue is purely traditional and not textual.

 

[hotatlboi]

Instruction changes depending on the level of advancement.

And we're back to the most illogical position I've ever seen you take on relgion. Assuming you actually believe the things in the OT happened, that the people saw the awe inspiring works of an almighty God that are described, WHY THE FUCK WOULDN'T HE HAVE JUST TOLD THEM WHAT WAS RIGHT AND WRONG? Why the need to issue such immoral directives and then hold them as a standard of perfection even into the NT time?

He didn't have this problem you seem to conjure up with people not being able to accept moral commandments because they were "too good for the time" at the beginning of the tale. He plainly told Adam and Eve what was wrong. They ignored it, so they suffered the consequences.

Once again, you have to posit a completely absurd reading of the Bible to maintain its divinity. The overwhelmingly more simple explanation is that bronze age man didn't have the morality that we do today. Since man is the author, not God, it makes perfect sense that the HUMAN condition improved over time, not that God adapted to man's improving standards.

But the erosion is also stemmed by the Ten Words (often called 'Commandments'). Those are principles; everything else in the Books of Moses constitutes an "application for the time".

wait, lmao, so now it's certain facts AND certain instructions that are immune to your philosophy of 'principled rejection' of the parts of scripture you don't like.

 

[Kulindahr]

And how do you figure that exactly?

Denying people the free exercise of their rights is not loving.

So is homosexual behavior. This is why the slavery analogy fails. It assumes parity where none exists. Slavery was not an explicit instruction though there was a system of regulation. Homosexual behavior on the other hand was an explicit target both in the Old and in the New Testament.

No, homosexuality isn't -- there's just abstaining from idols and things strangled, and fornication, and blood(shed) -- that's it.

I take it you've never heard of Asherah then.

Berakhti et’khem l’YHVH Shomron ul’Asherato

So?
To bow down to the asherah poles, they had to abandon God.

That distinction so as to avoid the Torah yet keep the Decalogue is purely traditional and not textual.

[/QUOTE]

When the first word of a set of ten is descriptive, and not prescriptive, it sets the framework for the rest.* All the regulations in the books of Moses are in a prescriptive context, but the Ten Words begin descriptively: the first Word is "I AM the Lord your God".
So the other nine are also descriptive; they declare the characteristics of the people God will make of His people.




*If I had my Hebrew texts handy, instead of in storage, I could cite you the rule on that.

 

[Kulindahr]

And we're back to the most illogical position I've ever seen you take on relgion. Assuming you actually believe the things in the OT happened, that the people saw the awe inspiring works of an almighty God that are described, WHY THE FUCK WOULDN'T HE HAVE JUST TOLD THEM WHAT WAS RIGHT AND WRONG? Why the need to issue such immoral directives and then hold them as a standard of perfection even into the NT time?

He didn't have this problem you seem to conjure up with people not being able to accept moral commandments because they were "too good for the time" at the beginning of the tale. He plainly told Adam and Eve what was wrong. They ignored it, so they suffered the consequences.

Once again, you have to posit a completely absurd reading of the Bible to maintain its divinity. The overwhelmingly more simple explanation is that bronze age man didn't have the morality that we do today. Since man is the author, not God, it makes perfect sense that the HUMAN condition improved over time, not that God adapted to man's improving standards.



wait, lmao, so now it's certain facts AND certain instructions that are immune to your philosophy of 'principled rejection' of the parts of scripture you don't like.

1. God worked with people as He found them -- that's made plain.

2. With Adam and Eve, you've made a shift across a phase change; the same parameters don't apply.

3. I maintain no "absurd reading"; I maintain what's there.

The problem is that you're coming from outside, imposing an alien framework on the Bible and expecting sense from it. That's akin to trying to force the Periodic Table to fit into the ancient scheme of "four elements" -- it doesn't work.

 

[Telstra]

quote:
That's akin to trying to force the Periodic Table to fit into the ancient scheme of "four elements" -- it doesn't work.

mmm comparing chemicals with four elements (earth, air, fire and water) is interesting !!!


Anyway different opinions are ok. But once people start making laws on others according to their opinions thats where the troubles start.

 

[poolerboy]

Denying people the free exercise of their rights is not loving.

True, although I would come back to the comment I made earlier about how homosexuality is viewed as just one of many things that these believers see as ruining society. One of these individuals once analogized it to drug usage and saw denying drugs from those they loved as an ethical move because they didn't want to see them (as well as society) go down a road to perdition and is why they point to therapy because they want what's "best" (in their mind) for them. Hence, love the sinner hate the sin. Moreover Christian intervention in people's personal lives isn't merely restricted to sex as you well know.

No, homosexuality isn't -- there's just abstaining from idols and things strangled, and fornication, and blood(shed) -- that's it.

A few concerning homosexual behavior:

O.T.
Leviticus 18:22

Leviticus 20:13

N.T.
1 Corinthians 6:9–10

1 Timothy 1:8–11

So?
To bow down to the asherah poles, they had to abandon God.

I see you didn't look up this phrase: "Berakhti et’khem l’YHVH Shomron ul’Asherato."

That translates to "I have blessed you by YHVH of Samaria and His Asherah." Another inscription found in relics is "Blessed be Uriyahu by Yahweh and by his Asherah; from his enemies he saved him!"

Asherah was believed to be the consort of Yahweh not a separate deity to worship. These Israelites rather incorporated the belief. Now, you could disagree all you want about how it conflicts with your own beliefs et cetera. But this is separate from how these deities were worshiped and believed in by early Jews. The same can be said about how Catholics incorporate other beliefs into Christianity and still consider themselves very Christian.

When the first word of a set of ten is descriptive, and not prescriptive, it sets the framework for the rest.* All the regulations in the books of Moses are in a prescriptive context, but the Ten Words begin descriptively: the first Word is "I AM the Lord your God".
So the other nine are also descriptive; they declare the characteristics of the people God will make of His people.


*If I had my Hebrew texts handy, instead of in storage, I could cite you the rule on that.

Interesting how the language promotes esotericism: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." The question hardly ever gets raised about what a Christian is to think about the other "prescriptions" having been commanded at one point. Even accounting for social and historical context, doesn't the appearance of such gems such as Deut 21:18-21 give you at least some pause as to the morality and/or authenticity of the text? And is there ever a statute of limitations on such cruelty (legal or ethical)?