Re: Praise Jesus
[ QUOTE ]
EXTREMELY UNLIKELY TO BE CORRECT intepretation of scripture (by the way, this is the only type of interpretation that exists)
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Especially when the phrase 'correctly interpreted scripture' is almost a non-sequitur.
[/ QUOTE ]
These statements don't make any sense. Some interpretations are clearly more correct than others. Or are you saying that from the phrase "Thou shalt not kill" one can interpret this to mean "Killing is good stuff" and this is equally valid as the alternative interpretation "killing is bad"? Do you really think that the authors of ancient works really had no intent behind their writings? That they just chose their words at random? Clearly, not every interpretation is a valid one. And some interpretations are very likely to be correct or valid, despite your claims to the contrary.
[ QUOTE ]
The point is, these lawmakers were allowed to make an absurdly unfair law simply because they happened to understand that God hates sodomites, and quite a lot.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sodomites refers to residents of the city of Sodom. The phrase was not altered to mean anal sex (or whatever context the Georgia law uses it as) until much later. It was COINED From the Biblical story. The story itself does not mean "thou shalt throw a 17 year old in jail for 10 years for having oral sex in the 21st century". It is ludicrous to have such a law in this day and age based on that Biblical story, this much I agree with. This, again, is the fault of the legislators and that idiot prosecutor. It has nothing to do with the Bible, religion, and especially Jesus (I have NO idea how the thread title "Praise Jesus" could relate to this story in any way).
The problem is allowing lawmakers to interpret scripture as they see fit and apply it to today's age however they want. It is NOT a problem with religion itself, it is a problem with how some people use and/or follow religion. It has nothing to do with Jesus at all, as your thread title suggests. It has nothing to do with the Bible itself either. Unless you want to claim that simply interpreting something in a ridiculous way means that the original object of interpretation is automatically "bad" and is the thing at fault. If this is the case, then we better get rid of all philosophy because I'm pretty sure someone has used a bad interpretation of some philospher at some point in history [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img].
|