Thumbs up for Episcopalians - Rationality creep in religion.

[MidGe]

I am impressed and welcome the episcopalian decision to appoint Katherine Shori as prelate.

When asked if it was a sin to be homosexual, she replied: "I don't believe so. I believe that God creates us with different gifts. Each of us comes into the world with a different collection of things that challenge us and things that give us joy and allow us to bless the world around us.

"Some people come into this world with affections ordered toward other people, and some people come into this world with affections directed at people of their own gender."

I am neither a theist nor an homosexual, not that either really matters. The fact is that there seem to be a hope for the world great religions to start dealing with reality in a compassionate and rational way.

Just a matter for the other to follow suit now. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[benjdm]

While I'm glad for her position......

I can hear other denominations already: "See !! This is what happens when you put a woman in a leadership position, contrary to the bible !"

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
While I'm glad for her position......

I can hear other denominations already: "See !! This is what happens when you put a woman in a leadership position, contrary to the bible !"

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Ah, for universalism of religion! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Peter666]

"The fact is that there seem to be a hope for the world great religions to start dealing with reality in a compassionate and rational way."

I think you mean in a neurotically compassionate rather than rational way.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I am impressed and welcome the episcopalian decision to appoint Katherine Shori as prelate.

When asked if it was a sin to be homosexual, she replied: "I don't believe so. I believe that God creates us with different gifts. Each of us comes into the world with a different collection of things that challenge us and things that give us joy and allow us to bless the world around us.

"Some people come into this world with affections ordered toward other people, and some people come into this world with affections directed at people of their own gender."

I am neither a theist nor an homosexual, not that either really matters. The fact is that there seem to be a hope for the world great religions to start dealing with reality in a compassionate and rational way.

Just a matter for the other to follow suit now. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

brings out the best in the loony toones as well.

I see saint peter is already ranting.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
"The fact is that there seem to be a hope for the world great religions to start dealing with reality in a compassionate and rational way."

I think you mean in a neurotically compassionate rather than rational way.

[/ QUOTE ] I pray(as a athiest (infinate odds)) that God doesn't reward you at all. And I'm ignoring you, hypocrtically fuucker.

When this "*** You are ignoring this user ***
" is next to peter's name all is good.

[guesswest]

Obviously it's great to see christians of any denomination accepting gays, but two things:

1. Her use of the word 'affections' really gets under my skin for some reason.
2. It's yet another thing to add to the list of things which are directly prohibited by the bible which the church chooses to ignore - at what point do you just throw out the book?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously it's great to see christians of any denomination accepting gays, but two things:

1. Her use of the word 'affections' really gets under my skin for some reason.
2. It's yet another thing to add to the list of things which are directly prohibited by the bible which the church chooses to ignore - at what point do you just throw out the book?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is/was wrong that some denomination did/do not accept gays. They are part of your god design, at the very least.

I am not sure about the riling from "affection/s".

No need to throw the whole book out, just expunge those passages that clearly contradict a god of love and you may get closer to the truth you are seeking (or not seeking, as the case maybe /images/graemlins/smile.gif ).

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]


No need to throw the whole book out, just expunge those passages that clearly contradict a god of love and you may get closer to the truth you are seeking (or not seeking, as the case maybe /images/graemlins/smile.gif ).

[/ QUOTE ]

Or just craft a new treatise more inline with the values and considerations of modern sensibilities, and of course congruent with this "God of love". The book is obvious crap when it has rules with man made asterisks all over the place.

Am I the only one who read that part at the end of the bible, "Whosoever alters this work or any letter thereof will have some really bad stuff happen to them"?

IF YOU MUST AMEND A STATIC DOCTRINE, THE DOCTRINE IS FALSE, AND ON IT'S OWN TERMS.

Cam

[MidGe]

Cam,

I think there is place for gradualism, or maybe it has a better chance of succeeding. I agree with your statements.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The fact is that there seem to be a hope for the world great religions to start dealing with reality in a compassionate and rational way."

I think you mean in a neurotically compassionate rather than rational way.

[/ QUOTE ] I pray(as a athiest (infinate odds)) that God doesn't reward you at all. And I'm ignoring you, hypocrtically fuucker.

When this "*** You are ignoring this user ***
" is next to peter's name all is good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, does the truth hurt? There, there little one. It will be much worse after death.

[Prodigy54321]

on one side, I like that she is taking a stance in support or gay relationships because religion isn't going anywhere for at least a while, so I hope that it stops influencing policy on this topic..

on the other hand..I'm very annoyed by people who mold religion to suit what society sees as acceptable...if there were a god, I doubt he would be changing his mind along with us.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously it's great to see christians of any denomination accepting gays, but two things:

1. Her use of the word 'affections' really gets under my skin for some reason.
2. It's yet another thing to add to the list of things which are directly prohibited by the bible which the church chooses to ignore - at what point do you just throw out the book?

[/ QUOTE ]

Where exactly is it prohibited in the Bible?

[ QUOTE ]
Bible passages describing same-sex marriage:
There are none! You can scan from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation, and not see even a single same-sex marriage mentioned.

The Bible does contain:

Three stories of loving, same-sex relationships in the Bible involving David, Ruth and Daniel. But there is no indication that any of the three involved sexual activity.
A dozen or so oft-quoted passages about homosexual behavior in the Bible. Because conservative and liberal Christians interpreted the Bible very differently, they reach totally different conclusions about their meaning: Many conservative Christians interpret these passages as stating unambiguously that all homosexual behavior is forbidden, is an abomination, and is hated by God. It does not matter whether it is in the form of casual sex with a stranger, or sex within a committed, monogamous relationship. It is all sinful. Some consider it an "ordinary" sin -- in the same league as all other incorrect behavior, like lying, cheating or stealing. Others consider it such a serious sin that it will prevent gays and lesbians from attaining Heaven after death, even if they had previously been saved.
Many liberal Christians largely ignore English translations of the Bible which are often heavily biased against homosexuality. They prefer to refer to the original Hebrew and Greek. They frequently interpret these passages as condemning: Homosexual rape (Genesis 19; Judges 19:14).
Homosexual ritual sex in Pagan temples -- a religious taboo (Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13).
Homosexual prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7).
Heterosexual men and women going against their basic nature and engaging in homosexual Pagan orgies (Romans 1:26).
Men who sexually molest boys -- and the boys that they abuse (1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:9).
Bestiality: Men engaging in sex with males of another species -- angels in this case (Jude 7).

But on the topic of sexual activity within a loving, committed, monogamous homosexual relationship, many religious liberals view the Bible as being completely silent.


One of the very few beliefs on which conservative and liberal Christians agree is that there are no definitive statements in the Bible which deal directly with same-sex marriages (aka domestic partnerships, civil unions, holy unions, etc.)

The books in the Christian Scriptures were all written before 100 CE (according to most conservative Christians) or 150 CE (according to most liberal Christians). The concept of homosexuality as a sexual orientation that could lead to a committed, long term relationship was not developed until the late 19th century. Thus, one can not expect to find biblical references to same-sex marriage. There are no references to planes, trains or automobiles, either.



[/ QUOTE ]

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


No need to throw the whole book out, just expunge those passages that clearly contradict a god of love and you may get closer to the truth you are seeking (or not seeking, as the case maybe /images/graemlins/smile.gif ).

[/ QUOTE ]

Or just craft a new treatise more inline with the values and considerations of modern sensibilities, and of course congruent with this "God of love". The book is obvious crap when it has rules with man made asterisks all over the place.

Am I the only one who read that part at the end of the bible, "Whosoever alters this work or any letter thereof will have some really bad stuff happen to them"?

IF YOU MUST AMEND A STATIC DOCTRINE, THE DOCTRINE IS FALSE, AND ON IT'S OWN TERMS.

Cam

[/ QUOTE ]

I recently finished the book "Misquoting Jesus." There's not a person in America who is reading a Bible that isn't filled with 1000's of alterations and manipulated translations.

[guesswest]

Well, that's how I read Leviticus - but regardless, the only point I'm making is that as society has changed there are now scores of activities prohibited by the bible which the christian church has chosen to selectively ignore in order to better fit contemporary mores. Either the bible is authoritative doctrine or it's not, if person x can ignore passages to suit their needs then they can't say anything about person y treating different mandates the same way.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
on one side, I like that she is taking a stance in support or gay relationships because religion isn't going anywhere for at least a while, so I hope that it stops influencing policy on this topic..

on the other hand..I'm very annoyed by people who mold religion to suit what society sees as acceptable...if there were a god, I doubt he would be changing his mind along with us.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's quite possible for religon to be correct and change without god having ever changed his mind.

It would be a very strange god that wanted a society that had progressed to have the same rules as a primative one.

chez

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, that's how I read Leviticus - but regardless, the only point I'm making is that as society has changed there are now scores of activities prohibited by the bible which the christian church has chosen to selectively ignore in order to better fit contemporary mores. Either the bible is authoritative doctrine or it's not, if person x can ignore passages to suit their needs then they can't say anything about person y treating different mandates the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is there's nothing in the Bible that specifically says homosexual marriage is wrong. Furthermore, scholars believe that the Bible has positive homosexual figures.

Many of the passages which people use to prove the Bible is anti-homosexual are completely misinterpreted.

I suspect if I had a dollar for every person who says the Bible says Homosexual marriage is wrong who didn't realize that the Bible doesn't speak to it at all; I'd be quite wealthy.

There are many church leaders who have studied the Bible who can argue with good conscience that God would accept homosexuals.

[kurto]

Note: If you're refering to this part of Leviticus:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." 8

I dated a woman many years ago who was good friends with a Rabbi. He would tell me interesting things about Judiasm and the Bible/Torah, etc.

Regarding this passage, he said that to understand it, you have to understand the culture at the time it was written. Back then, women were considered unclean. Particularly when they menstrated. You weren't supposed to look at or touch a woman during her period. Her bed was considered unclean.

He said that this was a prohibition of having sexual relations with a man in the bed of a woman.

I always thought it sounded odd, but then, its no odder then believing women were dirty.

The literal translation of Leviticus from Hebrew is: "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"

With a little research, I found support for the Rabbi's interpretation. This is from religioustolerance.org (which lays out the views of all sides of just about any debate in any religion)

[ QUOTE ]
The verse is, unfortunately, incomplete. Its precise meaning is unclear. The phrase "lay lyings" has no obvious interpretation. Attempts have been made to make sense out of the original Hebrew by inserting a short phrase into the verse. For example:

The Net Bible® translation 1 inserts two words to produce "And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman." A man must not have sexual intercourse with another man as he would normally have with a woman. i.e. anal intercourse between two men is not permitted. From this literal, word for word translation, they produce a smoother English version: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman."
An alternative translation would insert a different pair of words to produce: "And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman." That is, two men must not engage in sexual behavior on a woman's bed. Presumably, they must go elsewhere to have sex; a woman's bed was sacred and was to be reserved for heterosexual sex.


[/ QUOTE ]

Needless to say, what is undeniable is THERE IS NO AGREEMENT as to exactly what the correct interpretation is, even amongst religious scholars.

The average laymen reads his Bible and doesn't realize that language has been added. What they read is not an actual translation.

Here are various translations (conservative) of the passage:
[ QUOTE ]
Some translations are:

ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."
KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".
LB: (Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"
Net Bible: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act." 1
NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.
RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination .


[/ QUOTE ]

The funny thing about the use of the word homosexual is:
[ QUOTE ]
The word "homosexual" was first used in the very late in 19th century CE. There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text.

[/ QUOTE ]

[revots33]

I agree with the thumbs-up. My recent breaking point with Catholicism (I'm now leaning toward agnosticism) was prompted by my church's letter-writing campaign to approve an amendment banning gay marriage.

It is the height of hypocrisy, if you look at the Catholic church's recent priest child-sex scandals, almost none of which involved female victims. Any Catholic who doesn't admit there are a large number of homosexual clergy in their church either is willfully ignoring it, or needs to have their gaydar adjusted.

[Peter666]

The problem with using the Bible as a sole authority is that you can interpret it anyway you wish.

I need not go into the clear moral teachings of the early Church Father's in regards to homosexual activity which always was clearly condemned.

What should be recognized is that Episcopalians are the American offshoot of Anglicans, who emerged because Henry VIII wanted a divorce to marry Anne Boleyn. It's not surprising that a religion which emerged partly due to a man's lust follows the principle of conforming to any person's subjective lusts or opinion.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
on one side, I like that she is taking a stance in support or gay relationships because religion isn't going anywhere for at least a while, so I hope that it stops influencing policy on this topic..

on the other hand..I'm very annoyed by people who mold religion to suit what society sees as acceptable...if there were a god, I doubt he would be changing his mind along with us.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's quite possible for religon to be correct and change without god having ever changed his mind.

It would be a very strange god that wanted a society that had progressed to have the same rules as a primative one.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That's certainly true for some religions, and always true of 'god' - but it can only be true of christianity if christianity rejects the bible as it's perfect and authoritative doctrine.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
Note: If you're refering to this part of Leviticus:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." 8

I dated a woman many years ago who was good friends with a Rabbi. He would tell me interesting things about Judiasm and the Bible/Torah, etc.

Regarding this passage, he said that to understand it, you have to understand the culture at the time it was written. Back then, women were considered unclean. Particularly when they menstrated. You weren't supposed to look at or touch a woman during her period. Her bed was considered unclean.

He said that this was a prohibition of having sexual relations with a man in the bed of a woman.

I always thought it sounded odd, but then, its no odder then believing women were dirty.

The literal translation of Leviticus from Hebrew is: "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"

With a little research, I found support for the Rabbi's interpretation. This is from religioustolerance.org (which lays out the views of all sides of just about any debate in any religion)

[ QUOTE ]
The verse is, unfortunately, incomplete. Its precise meaning is unclear. The phrase "lay lyings" has no obvious interpretation. Attempts have been made to make sense out of the original Hebrew by inserting a short phrase into the verse. For example:

The Net Bible® translation 1 inserts two words to produce "And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman." A man must not have sexual intercourse with another man as he would normally have with a woman. i.e. anal intercourse between two men is not permitted. From this literal, word for word translation, they produce a smoother English version: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman."
An alternative translation would insert a different pair of words to produce: "And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman." That is, two men must not engage in sexual behavior on a woman's bed. Presumably, they must go elsewhere to have sex; a woman's bed was sacred and was to be reserved for heterosexual sex.


[/ QUOTE ]

Needless to say, what is undeniable is THERE IS NO AGREEMENT as to exactly what the correct interpretation is, even amongst religious scholars.

The average laymen reads his Bible and doesn't realize that language has been added. What they read is not an actual translation.

Here are various translations (conservative) of the passage:
[ QUOTE ]
Some translations are:

ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."
KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".
LB: (Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"
Net Bible: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act." 1
NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.
RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination .


[/ QUOTE ]

The funny thing about the use of the word homosexual is:
[ QUOTE ]
The word "homosexual" was first used in the very late in 19th century CE. There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Great post - I wasn't aware of a great deal of that. It's entirely possible that you're right with regards to what the bible says about homosexuality.

I feel like my overlying point still stands tho. There are scores of things prohibited/condoned by the bible which the church now rejects because they're inconvenient to modern society - slavery, working on the sabbath, eating shellfish etc. Either the bible is an authority or it's not, if denomination x can pick and choose for the sake of convenience, they can't reject denomination y as heretics for ignoring the mandates they don't like.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with using the Bible as a sole authority is that you can interpret it anyway you wish.

I need not go into the clear moral teachings of the early Church Father's in regards to homosexual activity which always was clearly condemned.

What should be recognized is that Episcopalians are the American offshoot of Anglicans, who emerged because Henry VIII wanted a divorce to marry Anne Boleyn. It's not surprising that a religion which emerged partly due to a man's lust follows the principle of conforming to any person's subjective lusts or opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]


Peter,

I am starting to completely argree with you that God doesnt want anyone to be homosexual, and that they are all going to burn.

I think Im born again!!

My main problem is, much like, you, I really enjoying buying prostitutes. What is a good counter argument for when all those gays (who WILL burn!) call me a hyopcrite for my actions?

Thanks,

-CMI

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with using the Bible as a sole authority is that you can interpret it anyway you wish.

I need not go into the clear moral teachings of the early Church Father's in regards to homosexual activity which always was clearly condemned.

What should be recognized is that Episcopalians are the American offshoot of Anglicans, who emerged because Henry VIII wanted a divorce to marry Anne Boleyn. It's not surprising that a religion which emerged partly due to a man's lust follows the principle of conforming to any person's subjective lusts or opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]


Peter,

I am starting to completely argree with you that God doesnt want anyone to be homosexual, and that they are all going to burn.

I think Im born again!!

My main problem is, much like, you, I really enjoying buying prostitutes. What is a good counter argument for when all those gays (who WILL burn!) call me a hyopcrite for my actions?

Thanks,

-CMI

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you are a hypocrite, but for a lesser evil. So take it like a man.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Great post - I wasn't aware of a great deal of that. It's entirely possible that you're right with regards to what the bible says about homosexuality.

I feel like my overlying point still stands tho. There are scores of things prohibited/condoned by the bible which the church now rejects because they're inconvenient to modern society - slavery, working on the sabbath, eating shellfish etc. Either the bible is an authority or it's not, if denomination x can pick and choose for the sake of convenience, they can't reject denomination y as heretics for ignoring the mandates they don't like.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you for the most part. If it is the absolute word of God, it certainly wouldn't change (unless God changed his mind).

Though its a little dry, the book "Misquoting Jesus" raises a lot of interesting questions. Basically, the book is written by someone who was a Biblical literalist. He believed everything in the Bible was unquestionable and the word of God. The author went to seminary school to become a Biblical scholar. The more he studied, he developed a problem: how could he be a literalist and accept the Bible as the word of God... if the Bible everyone was reading wasn't a direct translation? In studying the Bible and its endless translations, he realized that there were 1000s of differences/changes and alternations in the Bible. whole passages and stories that people know were added 100s of years after the Bible was assembled. Even stories from the 4 Gospels varied in their tellings of the same story.

The guy who wrote the book started as a 'hard core' scriptural literalist, and because of his studies of the Bible, now is agnostic. Interesting.

But... back to the original point... it would be nice if the Bible was the absolute authority. The problem is throughout history and until today, people cannot agree on which version of the Bible is correct or exactly how to interpret the scriptures.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you for the most part. If it is the absolute word of God, it certainly wouldn't change (unless God changed his mind).

[/ QUOTE ]
I know i'm repeating myself but this sentiment is commonly repeated and is incorrect.

Its situation dependent and something that is absolutely wrong in one situation could be fine in another situation without any change of mind.

I've never heard anyone quote anything from the bible that supports the idea that god didn't intend things to change over time.

It is possible for non-lunatic interpretation of the bible to be the word of some god, and that god intented things to change over time.

Its also possible for the all religons to be the word of a single consistent god that also blesses atheists, but that's another issue.

chez

[guesswest]

I just don't see how you can get that from reading the bible chez - the bible doesn't concede that ethics is in flux. It describes actions as wrong or right, sanctioned or rogue. And that's the problem, morality changes and should change because it's a reaction to the environment, but because of the black or white nature of scripture the only way to make those changes is selectively ignoring sections of scripture. The church is largely ignoring the notion that we shouldn't work on the sabbath, and that's one of the ten commandments! That's not 'interpretation' that's denial.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see how you can get that from reading the bible chez - the bible doesn't concede that ethics is in flux. It describes actions as wrong or right, sanctioned or rogue. And that's the problem, morality changes and should change because it's a reaction to the environment, but because of the black or white nature of scripture the only way to make those changes is selectively ignoring sections of scripture. The church is largely ignoring the notion that we shouldn't work on the sabbath, and that's one of the ten commandments! That's not 'interpretation' that's denial.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its nothing to do with ethics being in a state of flux. You can have a fixed system of ethics and still have different rules for different stages of development.

if you tell your kids they must be in bed by 7 or they must go to school or ..., it doesn't mean they have to do so when they grow up, or that the parent changed their mind.

chez

[guesswest]

With all due respect (meant sincerely as a fan of your posts) - that's pure sophistry, and not a legitimate comparison. The bible frames it's dictates as unchanging and universal and it does so explicitly. If it said 'you can ignore the bits you don't like when you get sick of them or feel like they're no longer important' it'd be different. If christianity wants to claim the bible as authoritative doctrine it can't do so selectively, or at the very least should it choose to do so it must recognise it's position is entirely arbitrary.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
With all due respect (meant sincerely as a fan of your posts) - that's pure sophistry, and not a legitimate comparison. The bible frames it's dictates as unchanging and universal and it does so explicitly. If it said 'you can ignore the bits you don't like when you get sick of them or feel like they're no longer important' it'd be different. If christianity wants to claim the bible as authoritative doctrine it can't do so selectively, or at the very least should it choose to do so it must recognise it's position is entirely arbitrary.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I think your missing my point

I'm pointing out the fallacy in the argument that concludes with god changing his mind. That argument is balony. I wasn't extrapolating from that, that we can pick and choose as we like.

Isn't christianity reliant on a god that has different rules for humanity as it develops? my point is that that does not mean he changed his mind

chez

[guesswest]

If god can change his mind (and you'd assume he'd be able to) - then the bible is also false, because it presents it's mandates as timeless and universal. And I mean specific actions, not principles.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
If god can change his mind (and you'd assume he'd be able to) - then the bible is also false, because it presents it's mandates as timeless and universal. And I mean specific actions, not principles.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dispute that. The presentation as timeless and universal is an illusion caused by a manner of speaking that is unavoidable when dealing with children.

Didn't Jesus dispense with some 'timeless and universal' rules? did he add any new ones?

Even if not (I'm no bible expert) there's no way from the bible to logically dismiss the possibilty of it happening in the future - even without god changing his mind.

chez

[guesswest]

Right, there's no way of ruling out the possibility that these mandates might be changed by a second coming or somesuch. But until that happens, the bible instructs certain actions and prohibits others - end of story. It doesn't just provide abstract moral rules that we can interpret and apply, it talks to particulars that are condoned and prohibited. There is no 'interpretation' involved in prohibiting work on the sabbath, it just says you can't do it, ever. There is no wiggle room there and no amount of language and complex argument can get around that fundamental basic logical 1->2. So either you reject the bible as perfect/authoritative, or you engage in this hyprocrisy whereby you cherry-pick instruction x and ignore instruction y.

There are, I'm sure, individual christians, and probably even small denominations, that reject the bible as such an authority. But no major church body does this, they all selectively ignore the bits they don't like while maintaining that the bible is a true and complete authority.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you for the most part. If it is the absolute word of God, it certainly wouldn't change (unless God changed his mind).

[/ QUOTE ]
I know i'm repeating myself but this sentiment is commonly repeated and is incorrect.

Its situation dependent and something that is absolutely wrong in one situation could be fine in another situation without any change of mind.

I've never heard anyone quote anything from the bible that supports the idea that god didn't intend things to change over time.

It is possible for non-lunatic interpretation of the bible to be the word of some god, and that god intented things to change over time.

Its also possible for the all religons to be the word of a single consistent god that also blesses atheists, but that's another issue.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

But if the Bible is supposed to be the authoritive word of God, then we can only use the Bible to determine what is right. The Bible supported slavery. The church doesn't teach it now. Unless God released an update, how is one to determine that what was okay in the eyes of God in the year 200AD is now wrong?

If God were to expect change, how is to communicate to us when what is written in the Bible no longer applies?

On a note related to this thread: If God expected things to change and this is agreed by the religious, how can they argue they look to the old testament for his beliefs on Homosexuality and assume that this hasn't changed as well?

This opens everything up to interpretation where again, everyone can interpret the Bible to believe whatever they want and everyone can be right. In which case, the Bible is somewhat worthless.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, there's no way of ruling out the possibility that these mandates might be changed by a second coming or somesuch. But until that happens, the bible instructs certain actions and prohibits others - end of story. It doesn't just provide abstract moral rules that we can interpret and apply, it talks to particulars that are condoned and prohibited. There is no 'interpretation' involved in prohibiting work on the sabbath, it just says you can't do it, ever. There is no wiggle room there and no amount of language and complex argument can get around that fundamental basic logical 1->2. So either you reject the bible as perfect/authoritative, or you engage in this hyprocrisy whereby you cherry-pick instruction x and ignore instruction y.

There are, I'm sure, individual christians, and probably even small denominations, that reject the bible as such an authority. But no major church body does this, they all selectively ignore the bits they don't like while maintaining that the bible is a true and complete authority.

[/ QUOTE ]
sounds reasonable but I hope you realise that I never said suggested anything to disagree with that. However it doesn't follow from that that even if its the work of god then the rules are intended to be followed in a rigid manner, maybe god wants us to learn something from the tension between a set of authoratarian rules and our moral sense.

chez

[guesswest]

It's possible, of course, that god authored or somehow sourced the bible and wasn't straight with us - whether he commanded poorly conceived moral direction out of love, with some greater purpose, or for his own entertainment. But if that is the case the bible is still something completely different to what the established church claims it is and accordingly their present use of it is still hypocritical for all the same reasons.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
It's possible, of course, that god authored or somehow sourced the bible and wasn't straight with us - whether he commanded poorly conceived moral direction out of love, with some greater purpose, or for his own entertainment. But if that is the case the bible is still something completely different to what the established church claims it is and accordingly their present use of it is still hypocritical for all the same reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes they may be hypocrites or they might believe the bible is incomplete or commonly misinterpreted. I don't follow their arguments but presumably some claim stuff like that.

Or they may be very good at believing inconsistant propositions. Is believing the bible to be complete and immutable and yet mallable, any more bizarre than believing in stuff like the holy trinity.

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
It's possible, of course, that god authored or somehow sourced the bible and wasn't straight with us - whether he commanded poorly conceived moral direction out of love, with some greater purpose, or for his own entertainment. But if that is the case the bible is still something completely different to what the established church claims it is and accordingly their present use of it is still hypocritical for all the same reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets make clear that "the" bible is a convenience of speech. There is no such thing. Amongst the various denominations of christians there are different authoritative bibles (with different contents). Also, the interpretation of the bible is very different. Some believe it has to rely on the knowledge of scholars (god's favourites) othet that the King James is definitive etc...

The most intetresting is to examine how the bible was put together and sepcially the eclesiastical and political manoeuvring during that time (for reasons of power, prestige and economic gain -- but no doubts with god's infleunce /images/graemlins/smile.gif ).

I would find it much more credible that a god would not hide itself behind the guiles of men. That the direct personal knowledge and experience so many christians claims can be judged/assessed directly by the way they interpret and accept the bible according to their hearts rather to the letter. Why else would your god have given you a heart and at the same time make it so much a matter of chance whether you find the one true word. Let's say that I would accept more readily christians that would claim that the word of god is to be find inside themselves than in an external instrument politicised and ambigous even as to its content. It may be the work of the devil! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's possible, of course, that god authored or somehow sourced the bible and wasn't straight with us - whether he commanded poorly conceived moral direction out of love, with some greater purpose, or for his own entertainment. But if that is the case the bible is still something completely different to what the established church claims it is and accordingly their present use of it is still hypocritical for all the same reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets make clear that "the" bible is a convenience of speech. There is no such thing. Amongst the various denominations of christians there are different authoritative bibles (with different contents). Also, the interpretation of the bible is very different. Some believe it has to rely on the knowledge of scholars (god's favourites) othet that the King James is definitive etc...

The most intetresting is to examine how the bible was put together and sepcially the eclesiastical and political manoeuvring during that time (for reasons of power, prestige and economic gain -- but no doubts with god's infleunce /images/graemlins/smile.gif ).

I would find it much more credible that a god would not hide itself behind the guiles of men. That the direct personal knowledge and experience so many christians claims can be judged/assessed directly by the way they interpret and accept the bible according to their hearts rather to the letter. Why else would your god have given you a heart and at the same time make it so much a matter of chance whether you find the one true word. Let's say that I would accept more readily christians that would claim that the word of god is to be find inside themselves than in an external instrument politicised and ambigous even as to its content. It may be the work of the devil! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Your argument is the same which in my mind disqualifies just about all the religions.

My brother is a Southern Baptist and believes his church preaches the only correct religion. All other religions are wrong.

I asked him something to the effect of: If you were born in a Muslim nation, you would be taught from the day you were born that your religion is correct and all others are wrong. Do you think God is so cruel that the people who are raised with one religion and are never exposed to your beliefs, are going to burn in hell forever simply because of where they are born? That God randomly decides to send some people to heaven if they are lucky enough to be raised with his beliefs and the majority of the people in the world who don't share or are even exposed to his church, are to be punished for it.

He simply said that he knew his faith was right.

"so those people who have never even been exposed to your particular Faith are all going to hell?"

"Yes," he said.

So, his God is running a geographical lottery... the small percentage in his church have eternal bliss. Everyone else burns.

What a loving God he has.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets make clear that "the" bible is a convenience of speech. There is no such thing. Amongst the various denominations of christians there are different authoritative bibles (with different contents). Also, the interpretation of the bible is very different. Some believe it has to rely on the knowledge of scholars (god's favourites) othet that the King James is definitive etc...

The most intetresting is to examine how the bible was put together and sepcially the eclesiastical and political manoeuvring during that time (for reasons of power, prestige and economic gain -- but no doubts with god's infleunce /images/graemlins/smile.gif ).

I would find it much more credible that a god would not hide itself behind the guiles of men. That the direct personal knowledge and experience so many christians claims can be judged/assessed directly by the way they interpret and accept the bible according to their hearts rather to the letter. Why else would your god have given you a heart and at the same time make it so much a matter of chance whether you find the one true word. Let's say that I would accept more readily christians that would claim that the word of god is to be find inside themselves than in an external instrument politicised and ambigous even as to its content. It may be the work of the devil! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You're preaching to the choir - certainly 'the' bible is a fluid concept and biblical content a mess of historical selection, translation etc. That's the point really. No christian denomination, or at least no mainstream one, accepts the bible they choose to adhere to as anything other than the perfect and direct word of god. As such, if they want to remain credible, they have to recognise that the moral claims they make based on section a of scripture while ignoring section b are hypocritical - or at the very least concede that their use of scripture is entirely arbitrary.

And chez - being 'good at believing in inconsistent propositions' is the same as 'being good at getting it wrong'.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
You're preaching to the choir - certainly 'the' bible is a fluid concept and biblical content a mess of historical selection, translation etc. That's the point really. No christian denomination, or at least no mainstream one, accepts the bible they choose to adhere to as anything other than the perfect and direct word of god.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope I am not preaching, and I am not sure about choir when it comes to independent thinking people. I guess, in a sly way, I wanted to make the extra point that strength of christianity (in number of adherent) is a bit of a misconception and surely not indicative of it being "the" truth. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
And chez - being 'good at believing in inconsistent propositions' is the same as 'being good at getting it wrong'.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree but many religous (and non-reliogus) people seem very happy to believe wrong stuff.

It boils down to that even if the bible is the word of god:

People may correctly or incorrectly believe it be incomplete.
People may misinterpret it.
People may be hypocrites.

Some parts certainly seem more open for interpretation than other parts and yet the biggest outcries are go with the least clear bits. e.g.

'Thou shall not kill' seeems pretty absolute and yet so many christians find ways to justify a wide range of killing up to and including mass slaughter. Many of the rest seem content to let it go (not the mass slaughter bit).

but homosexuality/female priests etc. which any prohibition of is tenuous to say the least, and the pack starts howling.

chez