Friday, September 18, 2009
Homo / Hetero / Religion Gay People Can Quote The Bible Too
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Via The High Definite.
Share via
4
Not to mention going to hell if you eat a nice plate of mussels or a cheeseburger. Oh, and that execution--stoning.
5
Come on people, Christians always cherry pick which bible verses they want to use. And you know there is that one passage in the bible in one of the books that allows us to do that. Sadly, no one can ever remember which verse that is. But someone in the bible clearly said: "You shall pick whatever words you would like to so that you may suit your own petty goals" It's something like that.
6
Unless the girl and her mother are willing to come forward, @3, your comment has to be regarded as an anonymous smear, and we're yanking it for that reason—as well as being off topic.
7
@6 Thanks, Dan! I agree. It's completely unsubstantiated bullshit until proven otherwise, and good luck doing that @3. Anything that begins with the storyteller being three degrees removed from it is usually bullshit.
10
i'm not opposed to using the bible against the beliefs of christians... but what translation is that? the problem is, this makes no impact on your average christian because that's not really what the standard texts say. first off, there is a huge ellipse in there (13-21). secondly, that it doesn't say the marriage is invalid. it says that if the father and the bride lie and say she's a virgin when she's not, then the husband can bring the matter up (where if guilty the bride will be stoned) if he wants, or not. it actually never says the marriage is invalid, nor automatically imposes an execution.
it is completely barbaric BUT it doesn't say what that sign purports it to say.
it is completely barbaric BUT it doesn't say what that sign purports it to say.
11
Homer: Your mother has this crazy idea that gambling is wrong. Even though they say it's okay in the bible.
Lisa: Really? Where?
Homer: Uh ... Somewhere in the back.
Lisa: Really? Where?
Homer: Uh ... Somewhere in the back.
12
Don't give them any ideas. Christ on a cracker.
My favorite Bible Quote to throw in the faces of the homobigots is from the New Testament [Mark 7:15]:
Now, Jesus may have been talking about kosher laws at the time. However, he was a cryptic user of parables. He may not have been talking about shellfish. He may have been talking about another man.
Caveat... Tops: You may be in some trouble when it comes time to ejaculate.
My favorite Bible Quote to throw in the faces of the homobigots is from the New Testament [Mark 7:15]:
Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "
Now, Jesus may have been talking about kosher laws at the time. However, he was a cryptic user of parables. He may not have been talking about shellfish. He may have been talking about another man.
Caveat... Tops: You may be in some trouble when it comes time to ejaculate.
13
Atheists these days are become worse ignorant blowhards than fundamentalists. What's causing that?
14
Yeah, and some Christians like to cherry-pick the verses about Jesus being all lovey and stuff, but then there's Matthew 10:34-36, where he says:
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
Which I guess is justification for parents kicking out and disowning their gay kids.
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
Which I guess is justification for parents kicking out and disowning their gay kids.
15
No more waiting for crumbs
Sherry Wolf, author of Sexuality and Socialism: History, Politics and Theory of LGBT Liberation [1], makes the case for demonstrating in Washington at the National Equality March on October 11. Sherry is currently on a speaking tour of the East Coast [2].
September 18, 2009
THE NEWS this week that New York Rep. Jerry Nadler has proposed legislation to repeal the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) would have been sufficient to quell the demands of LGBT activists one year ago.
Today, Nadler's bill is a welcome step. But the fact that it comes seven months into the presidency of a man who promised to repeal DOMA--and amid comments from Democratic leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that getting rid of the federal anti-marriage equality law isn't a "priority"--highlights the molasses pace of LGBT rights legislation and the bankruptcy of the incrementalist strategy that has guided the LGBT movement for decades.
Like the moribund Equal Rights Amendment campaign for women's constitutional equality--initiated in 1923, reintroduced in 1972 and never passed by the required 38 states--LGBT gradualists have argued for a state-by-state legislative approach to winning change.
Enough begging for crumbs. If we want equal rights for LGBT people in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states, we have to demand it from the federal government--and that means getting out and marching on October 11 in Washington, D.C.
That's what Generation Twitter and thousands of others--via Facebook, street heat and word of mouth--have been expressing in protests across the country since the passage last November of California's anti-equal marriage referendum Proposition 8.
President Barack Obama's own equivocation these last months shows the limitations of an electoral strategy--and the importance of struggle.
He is the first president to publicly utter the word transgender and to honor the anniversary of the 1969 Stonewall riots last June. Yet his Justice Department first insultingly upheld and then opposed DOMA. And Obama continues to drag his feet on repealing "don't ask, don't tell"--a policy that its own author, Gen. Colin Powell, calls for ending.
The relationship between LGBT activists and the Democratic Party has been a dysfunctional one. The Democrats court LGBT votes and money, but offer few gains and a fair share of abuse in exchange.
Notably, openly gay Rep. Barney Frank has refused to sign on to Nadler's DOMA repeal bill, saying, "It's not anything that's achievable in the near term." Frank, quite busy these days shoveling bailout money to the Wall Street bankers, was also instrumental in tossing transgender people out of proposed employment non-discrimination legislation in 2007.
For LGBT activists wooed by the Democrats, ditching the more militant strategy that won a hearing in the first place for a "don't rock the boat" approach is the price to play.
Thirty-five years have passed since gay civil rights legislation was first proposed in Congress, yet LGBT people remain an unprotected class of citizens. Whereas the denial of the rights of gays to work for the federal government, for example, was enacted with the stroke of a president's pen in Executive Order 10450 in 1953, no such swift action has been taken to overturn decades of institutional discrimination.
When Bill Clinton was in the White House, it wasn't until nearly six years into his presidency that he Executive Order 11478, providing partial relief for lesbian and gay federal employees--not including 3 million military personnel.
But the fact that his action left intact sodomy laws (finally overturned by the Supreme Court in 2003), anti-same-sex marriage legislation (which he signed), the military's unequal status for LGBT people (which he introduced!), and never mentions the rights of those who are transgender, exposes the failure of the electoral route for winning civil rights for sexual minorities.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WE'VE GOT to strike while the iron's hot. Today, political tectonic plates are shifting rapidly, and groups and individuals need to get on board or step aside to let a new generation push ahead for full equality.
When Harvey Milk's protégé Cleve Jones put out the call for the National Equality March on Washington in October, almost every major LGBT group balked, arguing that there wasn't enough time, and a march wasn't the right strategy.
But the force of events and popular sentiment compelled organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) to endorse this march. It's a positive sign that HRC feels the pressure to endorse--while grassroots activists shaping the march haven't watered down its demand for full equality now.
Unlike marches of the recent past, this one will not be brought to you by Miller Beer, Citibank or any other corporate entity. Its bare-bones budget is posted on its Web site [3], and celebrities like Cyndi Lauper and Lady Gaga are volunteering their services and paying their own way. It's grassroots all the way.
New activists are showing the way forward. When Black lesbians Aiyi'nah Ford and Torian Brown were kicked out of a Silver Springs, Md., diner for embracing, they called a protest in late August--and then got involved in building the march on Washington. A police raid on the Rainbow Lounge bar in Forth Worth, Texas--carried out on the night of the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall rebellion--sent patron Chad Gibson to the emergency room. Outraged LGBT folks called a protest--and now they're also building for the October 11 march. So are the local LGBT people in Atlanta, who responded with protests after an early September raid at the Eagle bar.
All of these actions have made international news and are forcing authorities to apologize and change policies.
Many transgender people, accustomed to being pushed into the shadows, have thrown themselves into building this march--from veteran Florida activist Donna Lee, who serves on the steering committee, to newer radicals like Dove Paige Anthony in Chicago's Join the Impact. Trans voices will be heard from the stage as well.
Whether the National Equality March draws tens of thousands or many more is hard to tell since so many established media outlets are ignoring it--though CNN, MSNBC and the LGBT cable network LOGO have agreed to give it exposure.
No matter how many turn out to march on October 11--or attend the vast array of workshops the day before--it will help punctuate a turning point for LGBT civil rights.
And a new network of activist groups will emerge from this march: Equality Across America. As Massachusetts activist Gary Lapon puts it, "We are not simply organizing to protest, but protesting to organize."
The new mood for LGBT equality is a reflection of a generation that grew up with unprecedented cultural exposure to sexual and gender variance, yet lives with draconian laws and organizational strategies that asphyxiate dynamism and shut down debate. No more crafting our demands to suit the tepid conservatism of a bygone era. We want it all!
President Obama, this is our Rosa Parks moment. When will you allow LGBT people sit at the front of the bus?
More...
No more waiting for crumbs
Sherry Wolf, author of Sexuality and Socialism: History, Politics and Theory of LGBT Liberation [1], makes the case for demonstrating in Washington at the National Equality March on October 11. Sherry is currently on a speaking tour of the East Coast [2].
September 18, 2009
THE NEWS this week that New York Rep. Jerry Nadler has proposed legislation to repeal the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) would have been sufficient to quell the demands of LGBT activists one year ago.
Today, Nadler's bill is a welcome step. But the fact that it comes seven months into the presidency of a man who promised to repeal DOMA--and amid comments from Democratic leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that getting rid of the federal anti-marriage equality law isn't a "priority"--highlights the molasses pace of LGBT rights legislation and the bankruptcy of the incrementalist strategy that has guided the LGBT movement for decades.
Like the moribund Equal Rights Amendment campaign for women's constitutional equality--initiated in 1923, reintroduced in 1972 and never passed by the required 38 states--LGBT gradualists have argued for a state-by-state legislative approach to winning change.
Enough begging for crumbs. If we want equal rights for LGBT people in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states, we have to demand it from the federal government--and that means getting out and marching on October 11 in Washington, D.C.
That's what Generation Twitter and thousands of others--via Facebook, street heat and word of mouth--have been expressing in protests across the country since the passage last November of California's anti-equal marriage referendum Proposition 8.
President Barack Obama's own equivocation these last months shows the limitations of an electoral strategy--and the importance of struggle.
He is the first president to publicly utter the word transgender and to honor the anniversary of the 1969 Stonewall riots last June. Yet his Justice Department first insultingly upheld and then opposed DOMA. And Obama continues to drag his feet on repealing "don't ask, don't tell"--a policy that its own author, Gen. Colin Powell, calls for ending.
The relationship between LGBT activists and the Democratic Party has been a dysfunctional one. The Democrats court LGBT votes and money, but offer few gains and a fair share of abuse in exchange.
Notably, openly gay Rep. Barney Frank has refused to sign on to Nadler's DOMA repeal bill, saying, "It's not anything that's achievable in the near term." Frank, quite busy these days shoveling bailout money to the Wall Street bankers, was also instrumental in tossing transgender people out of proposed employment non-discrimination legislation in 2007.
For LGBT activists wooed by the Democrats, ditching the more militant strategy that won a hearing in the first place for a "don't rock the boat" approach is the price to play.
Thirty-five years have passed since gay civil rights legislation was first proposed in Congress, yet LGBT people remain an unprotected class of citizens. Whereas the denial of the rights of gays to work for the federal government, for example, was enacted with the stroke of a president's pen in Executive Order 10450 in 1953, no such swift action has been taken to overturn decades of institutional discrimination.
When Bill Clinton was in the White House, it wasn't until nearly six years into his presidency that he Executive Order 11478, providing partial relief for lesbian and gay federal employees--not including 3 million military personnel.
But the fact that his action left intact sodomy laws (finally overturned by the Supreme Court in 2003), anti-same-sex marriage legislation (which he signed), the military's unequal status for LGBT people (which he introduced!), and never mentions the rights of those who are transgender, exposes the failure of the electoral route for winning civil rights for sexual minorities.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WE'VE GOT to strike while the iron's hot. Today, political tectonic plates are shifting rapidly, and groups and individuals need to get on board or step aside to let a new generation push ahead for full equality.
When Harvey Milk's protégé Cleve Jones put out the call for the National Equality March on Washington in October, almost every major LGBT group balked, arguing that there wasn't enough time, and a march wasn't the right strategy.
But the force of events and popular sentiment compelled organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) to endorse this march. It's a positive sign that HRC feels the pressure to endorse--while grassroots activists shaping the march haven't watered down its demand for full equality now.
Unlike marches of the recent past, this one will not be brought to you by Miller Beer, Citibank or any other corporate entity. Its bare-bones budget is posted on its Web site [3], and celebrities like Cyndi Lauper and Lady Gaga are volunteering their services and paying their own way. It's grassroots all the way.
New activists are showing the way forward. When Black lesbians Aiyi'nah Ford and Torian Brown were kicked out of a Silver Springs, Md., diner for embracing, they called a protest in late August--and then got involved in building the march on Washington. A police raid on the Rainbow Lounge bar in Forth Worth, Texas--carried out on the night of the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall rebellion--sent patron Chad Gibson to the emergency room. Outraged LGBT folks called a protest--and now they're also building for the October 11 march. So are the local LGBT people in Atlanta, who responded with protests after an early September raid at the Eagle bar.
All of these actions have made international news and are forcing authorities to apologize and change policies.
Many transgender people, accustomed to being pushed into the shadows, have thrown themselves into building this march--from veteran Florida activist Donna Lee, who serves on the steering committee, to newer radicals like Dove Paige Anthony in Chicago's Join the Impact. Trans voices will be heard from the stage as well.
Whether the National Equality March draws tens of thousands or many more is hard to tell since so many established media outlets are ignoring it--though CNN, MSNBC and the LGBT cable network LOGO have agreed to give it exposure.
No matter how many turn out to march on October 11--or attend the vast array of workshops the day before--it will help punctuate a turning point for LGBT civil rights.
And a new network of activist groups will emerge from this march: Equality Across America. As Massachusetts activist Gary Lapon puts it, "We are not simply organizing to protest, but protesting to organize."
The new mood for LGBT equality is a reflection of a generation that grew up with unprecedented cultural exposure to sexual and gender variance, yet lives with draconian laws and organizational strategies that asphyxiate dynamism and shut down debate. No more crafting our demands to suit the tepid conservatism of a bygone era. We want it all!
President Obama, this is our Rosa Parks moment. When will you allow LGBT people sit at the front of the bus?
17
10, Stoning a non virgin is not presented as an option:
I'm pretty sure that stoning a girl to death invalidates the marriage.
Another, interesting thing just before this passage:
If the husband lies about his wife's virginity, the husband must pay the girl's father? And the girl must remained married to this lying husband for life? Nice huh.
Deuteronomy 22
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.
I'm pretty sure that stoning a girl to death invalidates the marriage.
Another, interesting thing just before this passage:
17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver [b] and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
If the husband lies about his wife's virginity, the husband must pay the girl's father? And the girl must remained married to this lying husband for life? Nice huh.
18
On my post at 17, That first line should say "Not stoning a non virgin isn't presented as and option.
21
The placard on display in the photo IS NOT the actual scripture passage. Here's the passage:
13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver [b] and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.
Just remember, this is a 2500 year old text. Is it any surprise it might seem a little primitive? If you've read the Bible, you'd know there is a ton of this kind of stuff in it. But only the most off-the-wall snake-charming fundamentalists would give a passage like this any credence.
I'm not sure the context of the placard-carrying photo, but obviously it's a photo of someone who's against religion and not afraid to misquote the Bible for his purposes.
Dan, I know you're not interested in being fair to religion, but out of respect for those of us who are progressive Christians it'd be great if some day you'd at least stop passing on untruths like the one on the placard.
More...
13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver [b] and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.
Just remember, this is a 2500 year old text. Is it any surprise it might seem a little primitive? If you've read the Bible, you'd know there is a ton of this kind of stuff in it. But only the most off-the-wall snake-charming fundamentalists would give a passage like this any credence.
I'm not sure the context of the placard-carrying photo, but obviously it's a photo of someone who's against religion and not afraid to misquote the Bible for his purposes.
Dan, I know you're not interested in being fair to religion, but out of respect for those of us who are progressive Christians it'd be great if some day you'd at least stop passing on untruths like the one on the placard.
22
@17 i never said it wasn't. but it is an option to bring up the issue. and the marriage isn't "invalidated" -- it's "until death do us part".
the sign says the a bride has to be a virgin or the marriage is invalid.
the verse does not say that. in fact, later in the chapter it says a woman who is raped outside of is without sin. non-virgins can marry. this is about lying and saying a woman is a virgin when they are not.
and the husband does not need to report this. once he does, then it would seem the stoning is not optional. but the text does not require it be reported.
the sign says the a bride has to be a virgin or the marriage is invalid.
the verse does not say that. in fact, later in the chapter it says a woman who is raped outside of is without sin. non-virgins can marry. this is about lying and saying a woman is a virgin when they are not.
and the husband does not need to report this. once he does, then it would seem the stoning is not optional. but the text does not require it be reported.
24
Maybe we can add it as a rider to the Protect Marriage Act of 2010 ballot measure being promoted here in California?
25
@21 The context of this picture is countering people trying to use this "stone-age" (really bronze age or something... they weren't cavemen) text to justify their hate. So its painting them as hypocrites since you see them campaigning against gay marriage, but not against non-virgin females (or as KJV delightfully puts it, "whores") marrying.
27
@3
Hate to see that effort wasted, Emerald Dad- plug a Republican into that little story (maybe Susan?) as the villian and I'm sure we can let it run...
Hate to see that effort wasted, Emerald Dad- plug a Republican into that little story (maybe Susan?) as the villian and I'm sure we can let it run...
28
22, The scriptures say exactly that. Bringing the daughter to her father's door to be stoned, rather than killing her at her husbands home is giving the daughter back to the father. Not to mention a stoning the girl pretty much means the marriage is over.
29
@17 it seems to imply that its a problem for the whole village if whores get married. So maybe it doesn't require it, but it does let his village down to not report what a skank he married and ensure her death.
Trying to find loop holes like you seem to enjoy doing is in the finest rabbinical tradition. I'm sure the same logic could be used to find a biblical OK for homosexuality.
Trying to find loop holes like you seem to enjoy doing is in the finest rabbinical tradition. I'm sure the same logic could be used to find a biblical OK for homosexuality.
31
This comment thread does nothing but reinforce the obvious: anyone (not just Christians) can cherry pick parts of the Bible to justify their own agenda and confirm their own bias.
33
@23 rob - the original verses are outdated and unlikable. but how is that sign accurate? the original text does not say what the sign claims it does.
and if you want to get all biblical: people continue to forget that the old testament laws were basically rendered invalid come the new testament - except a those that were reiterated. most food restrictions, for instance, were done away with. so was stoning a woman for adultery, which is very similar to the OT "law" depicted on this sign. so the stoning and shellfish arguments may sound clever to anyone who doesn't "believe" in the bible, they are basically without weight to someone who does believe.
and if you want to get all biblical: people continue to forget that the old testament laws were basically rendered invalid come the new testament - except a those that were reiterated. most food restrictions, for instance, were done away with. so was stoning a woman for adultery, which is very similar to the OT "law" depicted on this sign. so the stoning and shellfish arguments may sound clever to anyone who doesn't "believe" in the bible, they are basically without weight to someone who does believe.
34
@21 I don't see your point.
Christians love to cherry pick phrases from the bible and put them on signs to prove whatever ludicrous political point they are trying to make. Maybe you should talk to them and not Dan about who is respecting moderate christians.
Christians love to cherry pick phrases from the bible and put them on signs to prove whatever ludicrous political point they are trying to make. Maybe you should talk to them and not Dan about who is respecting moderate christians.
35
to refute the idea that a non-virgin should be executed: joseph (of joseph and mary) found out mary was pregnant after marrying her but BEFORE an angel appeared to him. he was going to divorce her quietly EVEN THOUGH he thought she lied about being a virgin.
in other words: under old testament law you did not have to execute a woman who lied about being a virgin. but you could under certain circumstances if you wanted to do so.
in other words: under old testament law you did not have to execute a woman who lied about being a virgin. but you could under certain circumstances if you wanted to do so.
36
33, I repeat, the sign is accurate. It reflects exactly what the scripture says.
From the NT. Jesus speaking of OT laws:
Plus, it's silly to think that a perfect God would ever need to change his laws. It's saying he didn't get them right in the first place.
Since Jews don't believe in the NT, should they be allowed to stone non-virgins?
From the NT. Jesus speaking of OT laws:
Matthew 5:18-19
18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Plus, it's silly to think that a perfect God would ever need to change his laws. It's saying he didn't get them right in the first place.
Since Jews don't believe in the NT, should they be allowed to stone non-virgins?
37
rob -
who is the sign trying to convince? you? i don't think so. it's trying to convince a fundamentalist. i can continue if you like, but the sign will not convince a fundamentalist. it won't even convince an evangelical.
who is the sign trying to convince? you? i don't think so. it's trying to convince a fundamentalist. i can continue if you like, but the sign will not convince a fundamentalist. it won't even convince an evangelical.
38
35, Again, the scripture referenced by that sign says the stoning must happen.
I will concede that the Bible is full of contradictions, but that doesn't change what the scripture in question says.
I will concede that the Bible is full of contradictions, but that doesn't change what the scripture in question says.
39
There's one little problem with that sign: plenty of Christianists would be perfectly happy to execute (female) non-virgins.
40
Countering Christian ignorance of the Bible with your own ignorance of the Bible doesn't really prove anything. In-frequent is the one who actually knows what he's talking about here. If you're not going to make an informed, effective argument, what's the point of making an argument in the first place?
41
your supporting verse has little to do with what the original sign says. the original sign states that a marriage is invalid if the woman is not a virgin. the OT does not give this rule at any point, and certainly not in the verse selected.
women who were once married and widowed could marry. this verse does not say they should be stoned. mary was pregnant and wasn't going to be stoned. bathsheeba was not stoned. there are many examples.
women who were once married and widowed could marry. this verse does not say they should be stoned. mary was pregnant and wasn't going to be stoned. bathsheeba was not stoned. there are many examples.
44
37, You are right. Christians cherry pick to find what they can use to attack people they hate, and follow only the scriptures that are convenient to them. They just ignore what they don't want to follow.
45
@35, joseph found out mary was pregnant after they were betrothed, but *before* he married her. he was going to "divorce" her ('put her away queity' IIRC) because the breaking of the betrothal contract required futher legal action. but they were not yet married.
and @22, it says a woman who is raped outside as in out in a field is without sin. it also says that a woman who is raped in a town should have screamed louder, and is guilty.
and @22, it says a woman who is raped outside as in out in a field is without sin. it also says that a woman who is raped in a town should have screamed louder, and is guilty.
46
@37: You miss the point of the sign entirely.
The sign maker is saying that you can quote and contort the bible to basically make it say what you want it to say. We can chatter on and on about what the real message is or whether or not it's a direct or indirect quote, but the truth remains absolute fact: people take the bible toward their own context for nefarious purposes all the time.
Trying to validate or invalidate the content of his sign means you guys are simply missing the idea.
The sign maker is saying that you can quote and contort the bible to basically make it say what you want it to say. We can chatter on and on about what the real message is or whether or not it's a direct or indirect quote, but the truth remains absolute fact: people take the bible toward their own context for nefarious purposes all the time.
Trying to validate or invalidate the content of his sign means you guys are simply missing the idea.
48
Rob, non virgin women could be given in marriage in Isreal, and their marriages were valid under the law. In Jesus's geneology three non virgins are mentioned, Rahab the prositute from Jerico, Ruth from Moab, and Bathsheba mother of King Solomon. Not to mention that the law demanded, that a man marry his brother's widow and provide an heir for the dead brother, in the instance that the deceased brother had not produced his own heir.
The issue in the Deut. passage has to do with divorce. Infidelity was the only valid reason under patriarchal Jewish law. If a man wanted to get rid of his wife he had two options, prove she was unfaithful or prove she was a liar with regard to her virginity. The burden of proof was on her. If the issue was adultry, she was taken to the priest, if she claimed innocence she was forced to drink a concoction that would render her infertile and yet to appear pregnant-like (enlarged abdomen and thin spindly thighs). If her physical appearance remained the same, she was "vindicated". If the issue was her lack of virginity, then the procedure outlined in Deut. was followed.
But, your right the law sucked, and if she was found innocent in both cases she was stuck with a real "winner" for a husband. That's what life was like then, she was property, either her husband's or her father's, and she had no legal rights of her own.
The issue in the Deut. passage has to do with divorce. Infidelity was the only valid reason under patriarchal Jewish law. If a man wanted to get rid of his wife he had two options, prove she was unfaithful or prove she was a liar with regard to her virginity. The burden of proof was on her. If the issue was adultry, she was taken to the priest, if she claimed innocence she was forced to drink a concoction that would render her infertile and yet to appear pregnant-like (enlarged abdomen and thin spindly thighs). If her physical appearance remained the same, she was "vindicated". If the issue was her lack of virginity, then the procedure outlined in Deut. was followed.
But, your right the law sucked, and if she was found innocent in both cases she was stuck with a real "winner" for a husband. That's what life was like then, she was property, either her husband's or her father's, and she had no legal rights of her own.
49
48, Yes, Kim the Bible is full of contradiction, but this sign is referencing one scripture. It is accurate.
50
@45 i think you are right about that; good catch. i'm not sure that changes the idea, though, that non-virgins could marry under OT law, including deut 22.
@46 maybe you are right and i am missing the point. if the point is that you can contort old passages to say things they don't really say, then perhaps it is succeeding. (except that i didn't get it on a first pass.) but who are they trying to convince? still the fundie? i think it would just make me mad were i (still) a fundie. i would say things like this: "Why do they have to lie to get people to vote for their issue?"
@46 maybe you are right and i am missing the point. if the point is that you can contort old passages to say things they don't really say, then perhaps it is succeeding. (except that i didn't get it on a first pass.) but who are they trying to convince? still the fundie? i think it would just make me mad were i (still) a fundie. i would say things like this: "Why do they have to lie to get people to vote for their issue?"
51
Hernandez and Baconcat are correct. Any person can take an eight second sound bite and twist it to say what they want, the Bible is no different.
If the sign encourages critical thinking, than it has achieved the goal for which it was created.
If the sign encourages critical thinking, than it has achieved the goal for which it was created.
52
@32,
I still thought yours was funny.
Nevertheless... for coming in second place, that's a paddlin'
I still thought yours was funny.
Nevertheless... for coming in second place, that's a paddlin'
53
Is there ever a case where a girl lying about her virginity should be stoned? This verse says it must happen. Sure Christian's like to play the NT card, even though the NT quotes Jesus as saying the OT laws are in effect until Heaven and Earth disappear., and the fact that only a flawed God would need to change his rules.) What about Jews, since they don't believe in the NT, should they be allowed to stone a girl under these circumstances?
54
Also.
Where does it say the person holding the sign is gay?
I contend it used to be atheists would choose their words carefully and wouldn't pop off with utter nonsense; they'd take the time to check their facts. Now it's like: eh, that's truthy enough for me. I'll hold up a sign with some words on it even if I don't know what I'm talking about.
Where does it say the person holding the sign is gay?
I contend it used to be atheists would choose their words carefully and wouldn't pop off with utter nonsense; they'd take the time to check their facts. Now it's like: eh, that's truthy enough for me. I'll hold up a sign with some words on it even if I don't know what I'm talking about.
57
The law indeed stunk big time.
To me the real winner of" Fighter for women’s rights and their psychological health" is :
"If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed,
and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father fifty skelels of silver, and she shall be his wife, and he may not put her away all of his days (Deut:22; 28-29)"
Lets just force a girl to marry her rapist and live happily ever after... There are people who dare call themselves christians that now, today seriously think that rule SHOULD BE enforced, let alone wanting to deny gays their rights... (Sweet Lord thank you for not giving LC any daughters! :)
Sad, but here is the clear difference between dead religion that Jesus rebuked and Living Faith that treats all people equally and with love.
(highfives Kim)
To me the real winner of" Fighter for women’s rights and their psychological health" is :
"If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed,
and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father fifty skelels of silver, and she shall be his wife, and he may not put her away all of his days (Deut:22; 28-29)"
Lets just force a girl to marry her rapist and live happily ever after... There are people who dare call themselves christians that now, today seriously think that rule SHOULD BE enforced, let alone wanting to deny gays their rights... (Sweet Lord thank you for not giving LC any daughters! :)
Sad, but here is the clear difference between dead religion that Jesus rebuked and Living Faith that treats all people equally and with love.
(highfives Kim)
60
My favorite biblical injunction is the ban on mixed fibers in clothes. I'm waiting to use that on a religious wacko.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/le…
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/le…
61
@50: It's meant to convince people that bible verses can be contorted, nothing more. It's for the reader to make up his own mind. The fundamentalists will say "that's wrong, here's why" and land himself in a rhetorical pitfall because he's done work to backup his opposition while still contorting biblical verses. The pro-family/pro-equality side will say "oh, see, I agree", and some will perhaps stop focusing on the empty arguments made on those signs the fundamentalists carry because, well, they're empty.
The bible has always been about personal guidance, not blindly quoting for convenience. If you take parts and not the whole, you're really just destroying the purpose of it as a religious text and rendering your argument invalid because you are showing a blatant disregard for both context and personal interpretation. Which is why the bible should be read, not quoted on a sign or bumper sticker.
The bible has always been about personal guidance, not blindly quoting for convenience. If you take parts and not the whole, you're really just destroying the purpose of it as a religious text and rendering your argument invalid because you are showing a blatant disregard for both context and personal interpretation. Which is why the bible should be read, not quoted on a sign or bumper sticker.
62
Well, at least i am happy to report, Rob, that I have friends who are adherents of Judaism, bother Reformed as well as Messianic, any nobody believes in stoning a non-virgin anymore.
But why go far, there are many dead religionists among Christians as well :))
But why go far, there are many dead religionists among Christians as well :))
63
Rob, you're as frustrating as LC, both of you pull things completely from it's context. Without context quotes means nothing, they are just words twisted to say what you want. This is true with the Bible as well, no single scripture stands on its own, and is not understandable without the context its found in. It appears beyond both of you to understand that sometimes rules and laws existed (and presently exist) because of the circumstances in which the people found themselves living in, and later those laws were removed because they were no longer necessary. This is true now (example the HIV travel ban, and the effort to overturn it now), just as it was true throughout history. Therefore, some of the rules, laws, and standard of conduct that were necessary for the twelve tribes of Israel to survive in the OT were not required in the NT. Hence, why the mass slaughtering of bulls, goats, lambs, and doves is no longer practiced today. Hence, why most of the rules, laws, and standard of conduct found in Leviticus are outdated (some 600+ aren't practiced by Christians, and practicing Jews don't follow every single one either). I wish I could, but I can't help either of you, you both are so very certain you know everything.
It's my poverty, but I'm unwilling to dance in circles with you today, you're a smart man, but your unwilling to accept that in this instance you don't have the complete picture.
Points to you for trolling me, but now I'm out of here.
It's my poverty, but I'm unwilling to dance in circles with you today, you're a smart man, but your unwilling to accept that in this instance you don't have the complete picture.
Points to you for trolling me, but now I'm out of here.
64
62, They don't stone virgins because they choose to ignore that passage. There's plenty of scripture in the NT that most Christians ignore as well.
Do you believe that women shouldn't braid their hair, or wear gold. Should women remain silent in church. Should a woman never hold authority over a man?
Do you believe that women shouldn't braid their hair, or wear gold. Should women remain silent in church. Should a woman never hold authority over a man?
65
63, I think you are getting the point of "We can quote the Bible too."
The HIV ban is a law made by man. Man as an imperfect being can make flawed laws. Biblical law is supposedly divine, and perfect, from a perfect God. A perfect law would always remain so. What changed so much that God would need to sent Jesus to throw out so much of God's previous laws? Do you really believe that a perfect, all powerful God would care about bull sacrifices? How could such sacrifices ever be needed for survival?
The HIV ban is a law made by man. Man as an imperfect being can make flawed laws. Biblical law is supposedly divine, and perfect, from a perfect God. A perfect law would always remain so. What changed so much that God would need to sent Jesus to throw out so much of God's previous laws? Do you really believe that a perfect, all powerful God would care about bull sacrifices? How could such sacrifices ever be needed for survival?
66
@55—I totally agree! I'm so grateful my parents spared me all of this nonsense, and seriously sympathetic to those who are confused/conflicted/angered/etc. by it all.
67
@37 I don't think the sign is trying to convince fundementalist christians that they're wrong. it's trying to convince normal humans with fully functional brains that fundementalist christians are ignorant dumbshits. And it works!
68
@61. i'm not so sure. maybe. rob certainly thinks that's what the text actually says sans twisting.
i can see that a person can make the argument that this is just showing how you can twist scripture, but i don't think that's what it's doing. to remove all doubt the sign might say, look we can twist scripture too. this would, in my mind, be a far more effective sign.
as is, there are no circles to jump through for the fundie to explain this away. kim explains it away fairly quickly. the text just doesn't say that, and there is no support for that contextually.
therefore, it's just not a very good example, and hence, not a very good sign. that is my opinion, so there's not much point in arguing it. if you think the sign is good and effective, i can understand that as well. my past experience and reasoning posted above just leads me to believe it will not be an effective too to convince (or even get thinking) the fundie crowd.
i can see that a person can make the argument that this is just showing how you can twist scripture, but i don't think that's what it's doing. to remove all doubt the sign might say, look we can twist scripture too. this would, in my mind, be a far more effective sign.
as is, there are no circles to jump through for the fundie to explain this away. kim explains it away fairly quickly. the text just doesn't say that, and there is no support for that contextually.
therefore, it's just not a very good example, and hence, not a very good sign. that is my opinion, so there's not much point in arguing it. if you think the sign is good and effective, i can understand that as well. my past experience and reasoning posted above just leads me to believe it will not be an effective too to convince (or even get thinking) the fundie crowd.
69
I remember an orthodox jew explaining to an orthodox rabbi how the OT doesn't prohibit homosexuality, just anal sex, so it was okay to be gay as long as he didn't have anal sex. I don't know anything about jewish law, but the rabbi was convinced.
71
68, You can't argue that it doesn't require a girl who lies to her husband about being a virgin to be stoned. Again I'll ask, should Jews be allowed to stone a girl if she lies about her virginity?
72
@64
Rob you are indeed a very smart man. and I wholeheartedly agree with majority of your posts, but here I am not sure i get your arguments, sorry.
No, to answer your question, the Bible doesnt say not to wear gold. Only, as Kim said, if you take the verses completely out of context. Then yes, you can have the Bible say anything.What it's saying - gold and hairstyling is not what makes a woman truly beautiful, and wearing it for that purpose is useless. Kindness, faith and loving heart do.
Also the Bible doesn't say that woman has to be silent in church. There are women in the Bible that organized churches in their homes, served as deaconesses, we are encouraged to bring the Gospel out. And such women are praised by the same Paul! i dont see how one can do all those things and remain quiet or not take authority over men, it would be impossible.
Rob you are indeed a very smart man. and I wholeheartedly agree with majority of your posts, but here I am not sure i get your arguments, sorry.
No, to answer your question, the Bible doesnt say not to wear gold. Only, as Kim said, if you take the verses completely out of context. Then yes, you can have the Bible say anything.What it's saying - gold and hairstyling is not what makes a woman truly beautiful, and wearing it for that purpose is useless. Kindness, faith and loving heart do.
Also the Bible doesn't say that woman has to be silent in church. There are women in the Bible that organized churches in their homes, served as deaconesses, we are encouraged to bring the Gospel out. And such women are praised by the same Paul! i dont see how one can do all those things and remain quiet or not take authority over men, it would be impossible.
73
70, The Bible should be viewed as a record of what people believed when they wrote it. It's a work of an ancient people, trying to explain a world they didn't understand, and should be regarded as such. It's a book of ancient superstition based laws, and rituals and nothing more.
74
@71. rob, continuing this would be like arguing with a table. (is that the appropriate insult du jour?) the sign says the wife has be a virgin or the marriage is invalid. that is not what Duet 22 says, neither actually nor contextually, nor is it what the OT or NT says. what part about that is not clear? you are either being intentionally obtuse, or are just accidentally arguing unfairly. either way, i agree with kim, at this point it's like talking with LC.
75
72, Um wrong. That is you just ignoring what you don't want to follow.
1 Timothy 2
9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
1 Peter 3:3
3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
1 Timothy 2
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
76
74, You know you don't have a point to argue. Funny how you're repeatedly avoided answering my question. Thanks for playing.
77
re: shellfish, fabric, homosexuality, and the bible.
here's the deal with OT law (experts feel free to correct me if i am wrong. i'm talking about you, kim).
the law was valid in the OT. it included things like prohibitions against eating tasty shellfish, sewing certain fabrics together, having sex outside marriage, etc. the law was used as an example of what it would take to be holy, like god (or adam and eve before the fall). the thing is that any sin makes you fail as a someone who keeps the law. since all people sin, all people feel short of the standard of god. god does not allow sinners into heaven.
but it turns out that there really isn't a law after all; there is just god's holiness. the law tried to outline what holiness could look like (with some general health regulations thrown in for good measure). the law actually existed to show people that they were unholy. anyone who follows the law would fail.
the law outlines that death is the result of sin. so, in effect, death is paying for sin. but not just any death: only sinless death. the animals sacrificed are examples of this. jesus, in short, was the perfect sacrifice because he was without sin, by the law probably, but actually by the real standard of holiness. if you believe in jesus (however you'd like to put it) and allow him to be your sacrifice, you can be considered holy, and enter god's presence in heaven.
so jesus says he came to fulfill the law and the prophets. the law is not done away with, but for "those who believe in jesus," the law is, in effect, no longer binding. this is why most christians celebrate church on a day other than the sabbath. so you can see how one can take this to mean that god didn't change his mind, but that there is a continuum, much like a parent changes the rules for their children as they grow older.
where you have any debate all at is is when certain rules are restated in the new testament. it does not take much twisting to understand what these say (in the mind of a fundie):
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
NIV 1 Cor 6:9-11
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
NIV Rom 1:27
9 We are aware that Torah is not for a person who is righteous, but for those who are heedless of Torah and rebellious, ungodly and sinful, wicked and worldly, for people who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral — both heterosexual and homosexual — slave dealers, liars, perjurers, and anyone who acts contrary to the sound teaching 11 that accords with the Good News of the glorious and blessed God.
CJB 1 Tim 1:9-11
...not to mention all the sex outside of marriage is wrong stuff. note the last verse also working in the idea that the law is for the sinners idea.
(sure, you can argue that these are translation errors, or paul's opinion alone, but that won't carry much weight with a fudie either: the bible is infallible!)
this means, in short, that the "shellfish!!!" and "different fabrics!!!" arguments mean nothing to a modern christian. in fact, by default, and OT verse will likely be disregarded by habit. but since homosexuality gets a little shout out in the NT, it's still considered law by the fundies.
yes! there can be plenty of contradictions and arguable assertions in what i wrote above. but generally speaking this is what the fundie believes. that means certain "gotcha!" quips do not hold much weight. they may seem clever to the choir, but then the choir only ends up with the ineffective argument as well. (perhaps i'm too hard on the shellfish argument... perhaps that is enough to get someone thinking about why god would reintroduce some laws and not others... but even so, that is pretty much sunday school 201 faire.)
More...
here's the deal with OT law (experts feel free to correct me if i am wrong. i'm talking about you, kim).
the law was valid in the OT. it included things like prohibitions against eating tasty shellfish, sewing certain fabrics together, having sex outside marriage, etc. the law was used as an example of what it would take to be holy, like god (or adam and eve before the fall). the thing is that any sin makes you fail as a someone who keeps the law. since all people sin, all people feel short of the standard of god. god does not allow sinners into heaven.
but it turns out that there really isn't a law after all; there is just god's holiness. the law tried to outline what holiness could look like (with some general health regulations thrown in for good measure). the law actually existed to show people that they were unholy. anyone who follows the law would fail.
the law outlines that death is the result of sin. so, in effect, death is paying for sin. but not just any death: only sinless death. the animals sacrificed are examples of this. jesus, in short, was the perfect sacrifice because he was without sin, by the law probably, but actually by the real standard of holiness. if you believe in jesus (however you'd like to put it) and allow him to be your sacrifice, you can be considered holy, and enter god's presence in heaven.
so jesus says he came to fulfill the law and the prophets. the law is not done away with, but for "those who believe in jesus," the law is, in effect, no longer binding. this is why most christians celebrate church on a day other than the sabbath. so you can see how one can take this to mean that god didn't change his mind, but that there is a continuum, much like a parent changes the rules for their children as they grow older.
where you have any debate all at is is when certain rules are restated in the new testament. it does not take much twisting to understand what these say (in the mind of a fundie):
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
NIV 1 Cor 6:9-11
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
NIV Rom 1:27
9 We are aware that Torah is not for a person who is righteous, but for those who are heedless of Torah and rebellious, ungodly and sinful, wicked and worldly, for people who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral — both heterosexual and homosexual — slave dealers, liars, perjurers, and anyone who acts contrary to the sound teaching 11 that accords with the Good News of the glorious and blessed God.
CJB 1 Tim 1:9-11
...not to mention all the sex outside of marriage is wrong stuff. note the last verse also working in the idea that the law is for the sinners idea.
(sure, you can argue that these are translation errors, or paul's opinion alone, but that won't carry much weight with a fudie either: the bible is infallible!)
this means, in short, that the "shellfish!!!" and "different fabrics!!!" arguments mean nothing to a modern christian. in fact, by default, and OT verse will likely be disregarded by habit. but since homosexuality gets a little shout out in the NT, it's still considered law by the fundies.
yes! there can be plenty of contradictions and arguable assertions in what i wrote above. but generally speaking this is what the fundie believes. that means certain "gotcha!" quips do not hold much weight. they may seem clever to the choir, but then the choir only ends up with the ineffective argument as well. (perhaps i'm too hard on the shellfish argument... perhaps that is enough to get someone thinking about why god would reintroduce some laws and not others... but even so, that is pretty much sunday school 201 faire.)
78
77,
Matthew 5:18-19
18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:18-19
18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
79
@76 hello table.
1. i said that under this law a wife found to have lied about her virginity could be stoned, but did not have to be. i gave plenty of examples apart from the actual words of the text. that is the answer to your question, and i answered many times above. but i'm glad you are now including that it is the lie + action (not just the action) that creates the capital offense. how have i not answered this question you teabagger?
2. this verse does not say what the sign reads, that a marriage is only valid if the wife is a virgin. it flat out does not say that at all in any way or any sense, and there is no twisting or context necessary.
1. i said that under this law a wife found to have lied about her virginity could be stoned, but did not have to be. i gave plenty of examples apart from the actual words of the text. that is the answer to your question, and i answered many times above. but i'm glad you are now including that it is the lie + action (not just the action) that creates the capital offense. how have i not answered this question you teabagger?
2. this verse does not say what the sign reads, that a marriage is only valid if the wife is a virgin. it flat out does not say that at all in any way or any sense, and there is no twisting or context necessary.
81
whatever rob. i can see that you are just trolling me. it makes me sad that your efforts do nothing to support what is an important cause.
i believe it is better to be equipped to talk with those who disagree with you, and it's better to know their arguments better than they do. i can see we differ on this view, and i will let that be that.
i believe it is better to be equipped to talk with those who disagree with you, and it's better to know their arguments better than they do. i can see we differ on this view, and i will let that be that.
82
81, Why do you refuse to answer the question? Should Jews be allowed to stone a girl if she lied about being a virgin to her husband? It's what their scriptures say.
83
Rob, I can't stay around here, I've got too much on my plate, but I'll try over lunch. Help me here, and try and grasp that not every law, rule, etc. that existed in the OT and NT, are laws given by God. Flawed men added to the law. More importantly try and understand that the 10 commandments are the Biblical laws, that Jesus says remains and he summed them into two laws: 1)Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. 2) Love your neighbor as your yourself. Those two laws contain the entire 10 commandments, this is the divine perfect law, and it's immutable. All the rest of the laws, for lack of a better word were flexible and in some instances less permanence, i.e. they were situationally dependent.
The Bible is a love letter, that is it's primary purpose and main reason for its existence. The laws within the Bible exist for human purposes, so that humans understand that they, themselves, are not God. They exist to highlight the difference between God who is holy, just, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immutable, good, kind, patient, loving, and humans who at their best moments are far from perfect. We believe that in order to live in relationship with God humans have to be perfect, therefore all sin and failure to keep the 10 commandments has to be punished. The OT rules of sacrifice existed to cleanse the people, the animals had to die. Jesus was the last lamb and the last scape goat, the last sacrifice. God (who is three persons in one) knew that no bull, lamb, etc. could cleanse perfectly, that no flawed human can live perfectly, but that God the Son, who is Jesus, is perfect and that his death is acceptable cleansing for all people and for all eternity. Hence, no bull sacrifices for Christians, but you will need to ask someone of Jewish faith why they don't perform the sacrifice presently.
That's the love story, that God in his perfection knew that no human could become equal in perfection on their own, made himself the punishment required to make every human perfect. The caveat is that we each have accept that Jesus bore our individual imperfections. The Good News is that the offer remains open to every single person who walks the earth.
I hope that helps. Have a good weekend.
84
To add to my post at 82, Your argument is that virginity isn't necessary for a marriage to be Biblically valid, but that doesn't address that it calls for a girl to be killed if she lies about it. For the sake of argument let's say that you are right on the validity part. The Bible still calls for the death penalty for lying about virginity. Why do you insist on arguing on just the one issue?
We'll also stipulate that the NT outdates this rule for Christians. What about Jews? Why should they ignore this religious law requirement?
We'll also stipulate that the NT outdates this rule for Christians. What about Jews? Why should they ignore this religious law requirement?
85
I'm sorry, I can't understand any of this. The Bible was written in Aramaic after all, and you're all going to be stoned for eating shellfish and pork.
87
83, That's a lot of flowery talk, but really answers nothing. You are basically saying that nothing in the Bible can be trusted as being Gods law because man added to it, and thus we can't discern what was written by whom.
Why, even before Jesus, would an all perfect God require the slaughtering of animals to forgive sin? Why would an all powerful God care about such scarifies? Why would an omnipotent God need to create Jesus just to change God's own laws of forgiveness.
Why, even before Jesus, would an all perfect God require the slaughtering of animals to forgive sin? Why would an all powerful God care about such scarifies? Why would an omnipotent God need to create Jesus just to change God's own laws of forgiveness.
88
No Rob, your be obtuse. Read it again, stop being so black and white, I gave you the immutable Biblical laws. I gave you the reason for the laws, and for the creation of the sacrificial system. The animal sacrifices were symbolic and ended with Jesus sacrificing himself. God didn't create Jesus, Jesus is God.
If God wanted nothing but compliant followers, then he would not have made us in his image, he'd have made us all Labradors. It's a love story, love between God and his people. That's why we aren't compliant Labradors, we are humans. Would you really love, your lover, if he was nothing but a compliant yes man, following on your heals without thought or question?
I answered all your questions in my "flowery talk", and you didn't try to comprehend them in the three minutes you to read it and to respond.
I sincerely tried to answer your questions, but you seem to want to play games. Enjoy them. I've got better things to do. If you're ever serious we can try again.
If God wanted nothing but compliant followers, then he would not have made us in his image, he'd have made us all Labradors. It's a love story, love between God and his people. That's why we aren't compliant Labradors, we are humans. Would you really love, your lover, if he was nothing but a compliant yes man, following on your heals without thought or question?
I answered all your questions in my "flowery talk", and you didn't try to comprehend them in the three minutes you to read it and to respond.
I sincerely tried to answer your questions, but you seem to want to play games. Enjoy them. I've got better things to do. If you're ever serious we can try again.
89
Most Christians believe that Jesus' death "accomplished" the fulfillment of all the Law's requirements. So the OT laws were "in force" until his death and resurrection, at which point they were considered fulfilled and no longer binding. The NT says that what the Law couldn't do, God did in Jesus, and so the requirement of the law is fulfilled or accomplished (Romans 8:3-4).
What good does a bull sacrifice do God? None, really--but it wasn't mainly for God. That's the point. We don't discipline our kids just for our sake--we discipline them so they learn to live in society and not have problems down the road. God gave the rules and rituals to the people not because he needed them, but because they did.
Paul goes on in Romans to explain that God's law was not imperfect but rather that its "perfection" showed our failings. God did not have to repeal his laws because they were imperfect-rather, the fact that we failed to comply with the Law showed that we needed God's help all the more.
I am not Jewish, though I had a long friendship with a Jewish couple I worked with for several years, and I've done some reading and studying with them. They don't have the temple, so they obviously can't practice their full worship service according to the Law, so they had to make allowances for that and substitute new rituals for those they can no longer fulfill. Any Jewish readers, please feel free to correct me on that.
The early church had a meeting to decide which, if any, of the old laws needed to continue to be followed, since non-Jews were starting to come into the group. Specifically, circumcision was being touted as a requirement.
In the discussion that resulted, the early church leaders acknowledged that it had been impossible to follow the laws "which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear" (Acts 15:10)
In the end, the only rules they set for the new disciples were to abstain from four things: 1-things sacrificed to idols; 2-eating blood; 3- eating animals that were strangled; and 4-fornication. (Acts 15:28-29) This made it possible for the Jewish-heritage Christians to socially interact with the Gentile-heritage Christians, since those four things were still abhorrent to the former.
More...
What good does a bull sacrifice do God? None, really--but it wasn't mainly for God. That's the point. We don't discipline our kids just for our sake--we discipline them so they learn to live in society and not have problems down the road. God gave the rules and rituals to the people not because he needed them, but because they did.
Paul goes on in Romans to explain that God's law was not imperfect but rather that its "perfection" showed our failings. God did not have to repeal his laws because they were imperfect-rather, the fact that we failed to comply with the Law showed that we needed God's help all the more.
I am not Jewish, though I had a long friendship with a Jewish couple I worked with for several years, and I've done some reading and studying with them. They don't have the temple, so they obviously can't practice their full worship service according to the Law, so they had to make allowances for that and substitute new rituals for those they can no longer fulfill. Any Jewish readers, please feel free to correct me on that.
The early church had a meeting to decide which, if any, of the old laws needed to continue to be followed, since non-Jews were starting to come into the group. Specifically, circumcision was being touted as a requirement.
In the discussion that resulted, the early church leaders acknowledged that it had been impossible to follow the laws "which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear" (Acts 15:10)
In the end, the only rules they set for the new disciples were to abstain from four things: 1-things sacrificed to idols; 2-eating blood; 3- eating animals that were strangled; and 4-fornication. (Acts 15:28-29) This made it possible for the Jewish-heritage Christians to socially interact with the Gentile-heritage Christians, since those four things were still abhorrent to the former.
90
I think that religions and religious texts are works of art that you can interpret in any way you please.
On the note of religious law vs. state law, I totally think they should be separate. This country was supposed to be founded on freedom of religion (or lack thereof).
Anyway, isn't that why we're supposed to be mad at the Taliban and Afghanistan, because of all their Sharia law and whatnots?
On the note of religious law vs. state law, I totally think they should be separate. This country was supposed to be founded on freedom of religion (or lack thereof).
Anyway, isn't that why we're supposed to be mad at the Taliban and Afghanistan, because of all their Sharia law and whatnots?
91
@ Kim @48:
Well, that law was not just for the Patriarchs, it's for all Christians:
The Catholics at least pay lip service to that law (part of the reason why Massachusetts has the nation's lowest divorce rate). Other so-called Christians, including fundamentalists, evangelicals, whatever, just ignore it, cherry-picking even the words of Jesus.
The issue in the Deut. passage has to do with divorce. Infidelity was the only valid reason under patriarchal Jewish law.
Well, that law was not just for the Patriarchs, it's for all Christians:
Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Luke 16:18
The Catholics at least pay lip service to that law (part of the reason why Massachusetts has the nation's lowest divorce rate). Other so-called Christians, including fundamentalists, evangelicals, whatever, just ignore it, cherry-picking even the words of Jesus.
92
As far as modern Jews stoning lying non-virgin wives--stoning was the ancient culture's means of execution. If they were going to execute someone today, it'd probably be the gas chamber. Not sure--I'd have to check Israel's capital punishment.
As to whether or not they adhere to literal interpretations, you'd best talk to an Orthodox rabbi. I don't believe they'd go for the death penalty, though I do think they'd nullify the marriage. But I'm not Jewish, so I don't really know.
As to whether or not they adhere to literal interpretations, you'd best talk to an Orthodox rabbi. I don't believe they'd go for the death penalty, though I do think they'd nullify the marriage. But I'm not Jewish, so I don't really know.
93
kk in seattle @ 91,
I'm aware, but I was specifically addressing the Deut. passage and that period of history of the twelve tribes of Israel.
I'm aware, but I was specifically addressing the Deut. passage and that period of history of the twelve tribes of Israel.
95
This is well worth the 4 minutes. Punchline about half-way through.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntC0PNHFR…
Another hilarious video has the relevant punchline about 45 seconds in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszX…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntC0PNHFR…
Another hilarious video has the relevant punchline about 45 seconds in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszX…
97
i just want to be clear here:
using bible verses incorrectly makes you seem as stupid to anti-gay/evangelical/fundamental/etc christians as birthers/truthers/obamaishitler/etc people seem to you.
i know "incorrectly" may seem subjective.... but you must consider that for many verses there exists two things:
1) the actual words of the verse (in an accepted translation)
2) the generally understood context and meaning of that verse as defined by christians
if your sign, ad, or video disregards BOTH 1 and 2, then it will not be thought-provoking to anyone. instead, you will come off -- to the christian -- as someone who does not know what you are talking about. it does not matter how well-reasoned you think your argument is, you cannot disregard both the actual words and the generally understood context.
using bible verses incorrectly makes you seem as stupid to anti-gay/evangelical/fundamental/etc christians as birthers/truthers/obamaishitler/etc people seem to you.
i know "incorrectly" may seem subjective.... but you must consider that for many verses there exists two things:
1) the actual words of the verse (in an accepted translation)
2) the generally understood context and meaning of that verse as defined by christians
if your sign, ad, or video disregards BOTH 1 and 2, then it will not be thought-provoking to anyone. instead, you will come off -- to the christian -- as someone who does not know what you are talking about. it does not matter how well-reasoned you think your argument is, you cannot disregard both the actual words and the generally understood context.
98
When our Lord Jesus Christ came to this Earth he spilled his precious blood for our sins in the crucifix, by doing so everyone who now comes to know Him and accept Him as hers or his personal Saviour is elevated to a closer relationship with the Holy Father through Him. As such, we as new creatures in Christ no longer need to communicate with our Father by submission to Torahnic Laws as the Hebrews did before Christ glorious birth, but instead it is through our acceptance, understanding and passion for his Son that we now can gain a closer relation with Him.
As it concerns this passage it is when the relationship of the man and the woman who wish to enter in holy union is sealed in the name of Christ ( through a wedding in the Church and with all their loved ones as witnesses) that the real value in the relationship starts to count. As the Bible says:
"For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh" Ephesians 5:31
That means they are no longer two, but one flesh in the eyes of the Almighty Himself. And that's whats important in the eyes of the Lord, just as any other sinner who has come to him is born a new and all his past errors are forgiven. So are those who come to him to take part in his most sacred institution on this Earth (the family). We all have stray away and we all have the capacity of being transformed by the master potter, for it is He who has the power to do so and the last word in our lives if we open up our hearts to Him.
As it concerns this passage it is when the relationship of the man and the woman who wish to enter in holy union is sealed in the name of Christ ( through a wedding in the Church and with all their loved ones as witnesses) that the real value in the relationship starts to count. As the Bible says:
"For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh" Ephesians 5:31
That means they are no longer two, but one flesh in the eyes of the Almighty Himself. And that's whats important in the eyes of the Lord, just as any other sinner who has come to him is born a new and all his past errors are forgiven. So are those who come to him to take part in his most sacred institution on this Earth (the family). We all have stray away and we all have the capacity of being transformed by the master potter, for it is He who has the power to do so and the last word in our lives if we open up our hearts to Him.
99
@75 ;)
Well, if i am "ignoring" those verses then at least i am glad i in good company - there were many women mentioned in the NT that also "ignored and not followed" them.
I wonder why does Paul praise those women ? You mean to say he praises them for disobeying his own words and orders?
Well, if i am "ignoring" those verses then at least i am glad i in good company - there were many women mentioned in the NT that also "ignored and not followed" them.
I wonder why does Paul praise those women ? You mean to say he praises them for disobeying his own words and orders?
100
The fact is, Christian marriage, what it is today has only been in existence for about 500 years. Marriage what it is today was created by man, it has evolved and changed since the beginning of written history and the beginning of human existence. Marriage can and will evolve to whatever we let it become.
I believe it is time for same sex marriage.
Allowing same sex marriage will in no way threaten or destroy the institution of marriage, all these people want to do is have something to hold onto for their very own and use it to say that we are not good enough or worthy enough to marry, these people are the true evil.
How many straight right winged Christians an politicians get caught being adulterers, or being pedophiles?
I believe it is time for same sex marriage.
Allowing same sex marriage will in no way threaten or destroy the institution of marriage, all these people want to do is have something to hold onto for their very own and use it to say that we are not good enough or worthy enough to marry, these people are the true evil.
How many straight right winged Christians an politicians get caught being adulterers, or being pedophiles?
101
Well, you can believe gay people are going to burn in hell for having butt-secks or just being gay....as well as all the people who wear cotton-poly blends, eat at Red Lobster, and enjoy bacon for breakfast.....or you can dislodge your head from your netherparts and recall the bible was written by illiterate bronze age sheperds who drank way to much wine and believed the world was flat & warts were caused by demons.
102
I usually like to get stoned and then eat shellfish and pork.
Seriously though, could we switch from arguing aboutthe Hebrew/Christian bible to arguing about the Edda? The Edda has as much social relevence and Thor's way cuter than Jesus.
Seriously though, could we switch from arguing aboutthe Hebrew/Christian bible to arguing about the Edda? The Edda has as much social relevence and Thor's way cuter than Jesus.
103
Rob, @97 is right, and you are wrong. Nothing in that verse says that a virgin can't enter into a valid marriage, and claiming that it says that just makes the sign wielder look dumb or dishonest.
As for your question about Jews stoning those who lie about their virginity:
1) Jews, like others, are subject to US law. So no.
2) Jewish law has a lot of context. One important piece of context around the death penalty (aka stoning) is that it requires solid evidence, and a valid court. Under the law as it's been interpreted for more than 2000 years, the accuser would have to produce two witnesses who could testify that they saw the violation of the law. In this situation, I think the husband would have to produce at least one other witness that they had sex on the wedding night and the unstained sheet that he is bringing forward was actually the sheet that they used. And he'd have to bring the sheet and the witness to a court that hasn't existed since the diaspora. So no, Jews can't execute a woman who lies about her virginity even under Jewish law.
Well, I guess if the husband brought some witnesses into his bedroom on his wedding night, and if they warned the woman that the penalty for lying about her virginity was death (another piece of context - a warning prior to committing the crime is generally required for the death penalty to apply). And if she asserted to them that she was a virgin, and THEN the witnesses saw that she didn't stain the sheet. And then if the husband brought the witnesses and the sheet to the (defunct) Sanhedrin, well, yes, then she could be executed under Jewish law. The thought makes me quake with terror at the unfairness of it all.
As for your question about Jews stoning those who lie about their virginity:
1) Jews, like others, are subject to US law. So no.
2) Jewish law has a lot of context. One important piece of context around the death penalty (aka stoning) is that it requires solid evidence, and a valid court. Under the law as it's been interpreted for more than 2000 years, the accuser would have to produce two witnesses who could testify that they saw the violation of the law. In this situation, I think the husband would have to produce at least one other witness that they had sex on the wedding night and the unstained sheet that he is bringing forward was actually the sheet that they used. And he'd have to bring the sheet and the witness to a court that hasn't existed since the diaspora. So no, Jews can't execute a woman who lies about her virginity even under Jewish law.
Well, I guess if the husband brought some witnesses into his bedroom on his wedding night, and if they warned the woman that the penalty for lying about her virginity was death (another piece of context - a warning prior to committing the crime is generally required for the death penalty to apply). And if she asserted to them that she was a virgin, and THEN the witnesses saw that she didn't stain the sheet. And then if the husband brought the witnesses and the sheet to the (defunct) Sanhedrin, well, yes, then she could be executed under Jewish law. The thought makes me quake with terror at the unfairness of it all.
104
How come no one (in most Biblical discussions like this) ever mentions that the Bible was written, then edited (and transcribed and translated over and over), by men. Men whose Biblical work reflected their culture, as well as their personal and political ambitions.
And how about all those beloved, "immutable Biblical truths" that were actually decisions made at Councils of Nicea (and the like)?
For example: Among other things, it was the guys at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD that that declared Jesus was a deity (even though Jesus never said it), changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, and allowed the advocates of Pauline scripture to win out politically so that only four Greek Gospels were kept in the Bible (out of the 200-something that had been circulating up to that point - which reflects how the diversity of our early Christian traditions were squashed as heretical).
This information is easy to confirm in both liberal and conservative sources. In my mind, all this suggests that everything in the Bible is suspect -- as "Gods Word" anyhow.
And how about all those beloved, "immutable Biblical truths" that were actually decisions made at Councils of Nicea (and the like)?
For example: Among other things, it was the guys at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD that that declared Jesus was a deity (even though Jesus never said it), changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, and allowed the advocates of Pauline scripture to win out politically so that only four Greek Gospels were kept in the Bible (out of the 200-something that had been circulating up to that point - which reflects how the diversity of our early Christian traditions were squashed as heretical).
This information is easy to confirm in both liberal and conservative sources. In my mind, all this suggests that everything in the Bible is suspect -- as "Gods Word" anyhow.
105
It never ceases to baffle me why anything from the bible is accepted as a justification for any sort of legislation. We are not a christian theocracy, we are a secular nation that touts itself as welcoming in people of all faiths. This country was founded as an escape from religious persecution yet here we are trying to impose religious law upon millions of people who have no connection with the system of beliefs they stem from.
106
@105 YES! I'm always so confused when people wave bible quotes at rallies! A quote from my 75 year old neighbor Phil has just as much authority. "My neighbor sez those gays are pretty okay folks." Who can argue with that????
107
Has anyone noticed that in these quotes, it talks about the father taking the virginity of the daughter? It's all a bunch of radical crap. I can't believe this conversation is taken so seriously. Really, even fighting the scripture is validating it's word. I'm all for the underlining spirituality behind religous ideas, because much of it is just general rules for life. BUT the majority of worlds religions have the same details on how to love and live together, and that is important, but unfortunately, most of them also have instructions of how to hate. Let's all get to the big picture people. It's supposed to be about unconditonal love.
108
@98 - You could switch the word "wife" to the word "spouse" and the meaning of the verse wouldn't change at all.
Think about it.
Think about it.
109
@ Hernandez #40- the writings in the bible, especially the new testament, lends itself to vast interpretations, all of which are used to validate a sect's or one's own belief and circumstances. It also incorporated old jewish laws, some of which were abandoned in order to entice gentiles to join the new faith, hence the new testament. There were many interpretations garnered from the old script. It wasn't until King James decreed an 'official' interpretation, that we came to what is almost generally accepted as the 'real' bible. Originally, the bible was not intended for the masses to read, but for the bishops and priests to use it to scare the illiterate and ignorant masses into conformity. The masses can, for the most part, read now, however some christians rely on the interpretations passed down over the centuries as the 'truth'. On the other hand, others are more open to critical thinking and interpretation, rather than following the status quo. So to say "countering christian ignorance with one's own ignorance of the bible doesn't prove anything" really is a misstatement. A fair statement would be: The bible is subjected to interpretation. and by it's own means, promotes ignorance. No one can 'correctly' say what it means and does not mean.
113
[Rev. Lovejoy, counseling Marge] "Get a divorce."
[Marge] "But isn't that a sin?"
[Lovejoy] "Marge, just about everything is a sin. Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically, we're not allowed to go to the bathroom."
Many more Simpsons theology quotes at:
http://tinyurl.com/nbs2xe
[Marge] "But isn't that a sin?"
[Lovejoy] "Marge, just about everything is a sin. Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically, we're not allowed to go to the bathroom."
Many more Simpsons theology quotes at:
http://tinyurl.com/nbs2xe
114
Cato the Younger Younger @5 cherry-picking is a necessity in all the faiths dependent on the bible since not only are passages often in conflict with each other, but exact meaning of some of the original Hebrew (or in the case of the New Testament, the original Greek) is lost to time, as is much of the context, so the translators who write the various versions are invoking a lot of guesswork and personal opinion (and in some cases, as in the story of Sodom, intentionally mistranslating the bible to suit either contemporary agendas, or to reflect public opinion).
In several hierarchical churches, such as the Roman Catholic Church, in Orthodox Judaism and the Church of Latter Day Saints, high-level councils review controversial passages to choose a uniform interpretation, and they define which passages are more relevant to contemporary civilization than not. (The Catholics, for example, condemn capital punishment and Israelite expansionism, even though both are commanded in the Old Testament). In Protestant faiths, however, the responsibility is on the individual to realize God's will, hence to decide for himself or herself which passages are relevant. The ministries they follow can only guide by offering a second opinion. Some such miniseries, though (such as the Southern Baptist Convention) can be rather forceful with their positions.
Cherry-picking is a necessity in all forms of personal spiritual development. Many Buddhist parables (or kōans) point this very thing out, whether a master is dismissed in his beggar robes but welcomed in his vestments, or the same master is obeyed blindly by his students without a second (critical) thought; one doesn't follow or revere Buddha because he is Buddha or wears fancy clothes, but because what he says resonates with the listener as wise and good.
So the various Christian sects that condemn homosexuality aren't being douche-bags for cherry-picking scripture; they're douche-bags for poorly choosing which scripture they cherry-pick.
More...
In several hierarchical churches, such as the Roman Catholic Church, in Orthodox Judaism and the Church of Latter Day Saints, high-level councils review controversial passages to choose a uniform interpretation, and they define which passages are more relevant to contemporary civilization than not. (The Catholics, for example, condemn capital punishment and Israelite expansionism, even though both are commanded in the Old Testament). In Protestant faiths, however, the responsibility is on the individual to realize God's will, hence to decide for himself or herself which passages are relevant. The ministries they follow can only guide by offering a second opinion. Some such miniseries, though (such as the Southern Baptist Convention) can be rather forceful with their positions.
Cherry-picking is a necessity in all forms of personal spiritual development. Many Buddhist parables (or kōans) point this very thing out, whether a master is dismissed in his beggar robes but welcomed in his vestments, or the same master is obeyed blindly by his students without a second (critical) thought; one doesn't follow or revere Buddha because he is Buddha or wears fancy clothes, but because what he says resonates with the listener as wise and good.
So the various Christian sects that condemn homosexuality aren't being douche-bags for cherry-picking scripture; they're douche-bags for poorly choosing which scripture they cherry-pick.
115
Regarding the sign, I don't think displaying hard passages in protest of (homophobic use of) the anti-gay clobber passages is going to be very effective. Indeed it may incline some to push for tighter adherence through legislation to Mosaic law. Christians know, even fundamentalist ones, that they cherry-pick scripture, or loosen interpretation through context regarding those that disagree with contemporary secular mores. If we must quote scripture, I'd rather see ones that illustrate the hypocrisy of bigoted behavior, such as Matthew 25:40 or 1 John 4:20
More importantly, lest we forget, the bible does not have any authority in the US, and by playing the scripture game lends it authority in the debate. When it comes to the law of the US, we fall back on the precedent of the Lemon test, which acknowledges that dogma alone is not enough reason to proscribe a commodity or behavior.
More importantly, lest we forget, the bible does not have any authority in the US, and by playing the scripture game lends it authority in the debate. When it comes to the law of the US, we fall back on the precedent of the Lemon test, which acknowledges that dogma alone is not enough reason to proscribe a commodity or behavior.
116
the thing about Christianity is that its dogma, superstitions & bizarre voodoo are not compelling, or even interesting. If Christians were honest, they would admit that it is all a house of cards, created by ancient bigots intent on controlling the masses...which come to think of it, is what all religions seek to do today.
all organized religions are essentially the same...they are about power & spreading their brand name.
Penn & Teller are right on...Christians cannot cherry pick what they like or don't like about the Bible. Either *all* of it is the 'infallible word of God', or it isn't.
so what if some of its cuddly platitudes sound good ("Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"...well - no shit!). Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
if there is anything to it, the Christian God is one weird dude for sure.
enough already!
all organized religions are essentially the same...they are about power & spreading their brand name.
Penn & Teller are right on...Christians cannot cherry pick what they like or don't like about the Bible. Either *all* of it is the 'infallible word of God', or it isn't.
so what if some of its cuddly platitudes sound good ("Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"...well - no shit!). Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
if there is anything to it, the Christian God is one weird dude for sure.
enough already!
117
..and then there are all of the Christians who DON'T cherry-pick verses from the Bible. You know, the ones who don't think gay people are going to hell? To bad none of them get written up on Slog.
118
Gay people continues to openly misrepresent contexts they can find to justify their sexual addiction and shortcoming.
This is exactly how these gay people are brainwashing, passing WRONG information to weak minded boys and men the can find just to get their ANUS.
ANUS is NOT for sex.
ANUS is for SHIT
People standup and tell gay people and the government NO to this disgusting and confusing way of life.
People stop encouraging gay lifestyle by sympathizing, they know what they’re doing and know way their going.
Gay lifestyle will totally destroy the family structure.
Gay lifestyle will destroy our boys and girls (its happening now).
Gay lifestyle will totally destroy the value and purpose of man and woman.
Say No To Gay Agendas.
Think of your Sons and Daughters, Nieces and nephews, is this the type of lifestyle you wish for them. If you don’t Stop Gays, Gays will Stop you.
People,
If you see GOOD say its GOOD.
If you see BAD say its BAD.
Its BAD for a man to Sex another man (likewise woman)
Gay is BAD, its the living truth.
** No haters please **
This is exactly how these gay people are brainwashing, passing WRONG information to weak minded boys and men the can find just to get their ANUS.
ANUS is NOT for sex.
ANUS is for SHIT
People standup and tell gay people and the government NO to this disgusting and confusing way of life.
People stop encouraging gay lifestyle by sympathizing, they know what they’re doing and know way their going.
Gay lifestyle will totally destroy the family structure.
Gay lifestyle will destroy our boys and girls (its happening now).
Gay lifestyle will totally destroy the value and purpose of man and woman.
Say No To Gay Agendas.
Think of your Sons and Daughters, Nieces and nephews, is this the type of lifestyle you wish for them. If you don’t Stop Gays, Gays will Stop you.
People,
If you see GOOD say its GOOD.
If you see BAD say its BAD.
Its BAD for a man to Sex another man (likewise woman)
Gay is BAD, its the living truth.
** No haters please **
119
Apparently, ceeng @118 you didn't get the memo pointing out that by far, men and women have more anal intercourse then gays.
I find it ironic that you would request No haters please after such a post. What the heck did you think you were doing? Sharing Jesus' love?
So:
So where is this brainwashing occurring that infects weak minded boys and men with the gay? That's more of a tactic used by organized churches than by sexual minorities?
How does a lifestyle being disgusting and confusing (to you) make it any less legitimate? To be sure, your own is disgusting and confusing to others in this world.
How will the Gay lifestyle totally destroy the family structure? Or destroy our boys and girls? Or totally destroy the value and purpose of man and woman? Please be specific. Y'know, they said these things about the radio and the tandem bicycle, once.
Oh, and what is, exactly the gay lifestyle, since it's not just anal sex? Show tunes and M&Ms in toll house cookies?
So far, I've not seen a single reason not to let kids be raised by and around gays. Not one. In fact, from what I've seen, conservative Christians and overeager evangelists are, by far, more dangerous.
I think you need to study more before spouting off on SLOG topic boards, ceeng. Indeed, you sound terrified, but I think gays as a group are a pretty tame bunch. They're not going to eat you or court your children.
I find it ironic that you would request No haters please after such a post. What the heck did you think you were doing? Sharing Jesus' love?
So:
So where is this brainwashing occurring that infects weak minded boys and men with the gay? That's more of a tactic used by organized churches than by sexual minorities?
How does a lifestyle being disgusting and confusing (to you) make it any less legitimate? To be sure, your own is disgusting and confusing to others in this world.
How will the Gay lifestyle totally destroy the family structure? Or destroy our boys and girls? Or totally destroy the value and purpose of man and woman? Please be specific. Y'know, they said these things about the radio and the tandem bicycle, once.
Oh, and what is, exactly the gay lifestyle, since it's not just anal sex? Show tunes and M&Ms in toll house cookies?
So far, I've not seen a single reason not to let kids be raised by and around gays. Not one. In fact, from what I've seen, conservative Christians and overeager evangelists are, by far, more dangerous.
I think you need to study more before spouting off on SLOG topic boards, ceeng. Indeed, you sound terrified, but I think gays as a group are a pretty tame bunch. They're not going to eat you or court your children.
120
Hey @118- Am I gay because I'm a women and I let my boyfriend fuck my anus? Did he and I somehow get recruited without me realizing it???! Holy shit. Those fucking gays. They snuck into my sex life and I didn't even notice! Thank you so much for bringing it to my attention that my anus is for shit not sex. I'll never have anal sex again!!!
*Please, note the sarcasm
*Please, note the sarcasm
121
One more thing, @118, you say that "Gay lifestyle will totally destroy the family structure".
I think the biggest injustice against gay people is that we aren't THANKING them for adopting so many unwanted children- children who would otherwise grow up without a family, or suffer an even worse fate if they are from an impoverished country.
So, THANK YOU gay men, for SAVING so many children and providing them with a family. You are my HEROES!
And if any of you think that letting a child remain an orphan is better than having that child live with a gay family, then you are too fucked up to be reasoned with and will burn in "hell".
I think the biggest injustice against gay people is that we aren't THANKING them for adopting so many unwanted children- children who would otherwise grow up without a family, or suffer an even worse fate if they are from an impoverished country.
So, THANK YOU gay men, for SAVING so many children and providing them with a family. You are my HEROES!
And if any of you think that letting a child remain an orphan is better than having that child live with a gay family, then you are too fucked up to be reasoned with and will burn in "hell".
122
We are a secular nation, so why get in a pissing match about a two thousand year old collection of stories that has been manipulated through the centuries to promote whatever political agenda the publisher's boss was pushing at the time? And if you are going to get into Bible quoting, which version are you going to use? King James or Douay-Rheims? Or is there another version out there now that I'm not aware of?
Besides, the country is full of people who can't spell or do math, but have the Bible memorized. They may not know what it means, but they have it memorized. There's no point in getting into it with them, because they're like vending machines, scripturally speaking.
Besides, the country is full of people who can't spell or do math, but have the Bible memorized. They may not know what it means, but they have it memorized. There's no point in getting into it with them, because they're like vending machines, scripturally speaking.
123
@122 - There are a lot of other versions now, all of which have signifcantly better scholarship that either of those versions. Evangelical Protestants (the ones who aren't fundamentalists) tend use the New International Version. Mainline Protestants (mainly Lutherans, Episcopalians, and some Methodists and Presbyterians) use the New Revised Standard Version. Catholics in the US use the New American Bible - elsewhere they use either the Jerusalem Bible or the NRSV.
And totally agree with you on that last point - even speaking as a Christian. I tend not to trust people who quote me chapter and verse from memory when trying to make a theological argumemt for or against something. They tend to be close-minded and unwilling to listen to the other side of the issue.
And totally agree with you on that last point - even speaking as a Christian. I tend not to trust people who quote me chapter and verse from memory when trying to make a theological argumemt for or against something. They tend to be close-minded and unwilling to listen to the other side of the issue.
124
And then there's the story, both in Matthew and Luke where the big leather-daddy MP Captain, his golden helmet shining like the disc of the sun (both the original Greek and the Latin translation use "centurion" literally meaning an officer who commands a hundred men) who comes up to Jesus and asks him to heal his fuckslave (Matthew uses "pais", meaning the boy who empties my chamber pot, Luke uses "dolomos" meaning manservant, and the Latin uses "catamite" meaning fuckslave).
Jesus doesn't condemn the Captain for keeping a fuckslave, rather he commends him for his faith and heals the fuckslave.
There's also the story about the merchant beaten and naked by the roadside who is rescued by faggot. (All original and early sources use "Samaratin" meaning a member of a nearly extinct sect of Judaism who maintains disgustingly liberal views about the roles of women and the assholes of men).
It's clear from this that Jesus' opinion of perverts who are otherwise good people apart from their perversity is essentially positive. There's really no other valid way to interpret it. If you want to use the Bible to justify discriminating against gay people, you have to ignore the Gospel.
Jesus doesn't condemn the Captain for keeping a fuckslave, rather he commends him for his faith and heals the fuckslave.
There's also the story about the merchant beaten and naked by the roadside who is rescued by faggot. (All original and early sources use "Samaratin" meaning a member of a nearly extinct sect of Judaism who maintains disgustingly liberal views about the roles of women and the assholes of men).
It's clear from this that Jesus' opinion of perverts who are otherwise good people apart from their perversity is essentially positive. There's really no other valid way to interpret it. If you want to use the Bible to justify discriminating against gay people, you have to ignore the Gospel.
126
I pity a lot you gay people, reading some of your postings here. Completely baseless and always manipulative. This is what you do best, manipulating anything around you just to get a fellow man to sex you. Look at all your interpretation of the Holy Scripture; it is only devil/evil that will twist the HS in this form, saying what its not. Why all this, just for you to brainwash a fellow man for sex, just for your bodily pleasure.
#120:
You are a useless girl for you to allow your gay boyfriend to sex you in the anus. I guess your still single, no real descent man will marry you for you are worthless. Only gay, bi-sexual person can marry you but it will be a useless life because there will be no value to your marriage life. Change now and leave a beautiful life for you have a real things to pleasure a man and yourself NOT YOUR ANUS.
To you people learning or thinking of gay life, run away from this lifestyle it will destroy you and your family. Think of your mom, dad, brothers and sisters, they will be devastated, it’s a useless way of life. Sober yourself and read some of the postings here, these hardcore gays will do anything to get you.
Run away from any gay person you know or practicing gay lifestyle.
Do not accept any offers no matter how bad things might be for you now.
Talk to someone.
Man Most Not Sex Another Man.
Woman Most Not Sex Another Woman.
A-Word-Is-Enough-For-A-Wise.
#120:
You are a useless girl for you to allow your gay boyfriend to sex you in the anus. I guess your still single, no real descent man will marry you for you are worthless. Only gay, bi-sexual person can marry you but it will be a useless life because there will be no value to your marriage life. Change now and leave a beautiful life for you have a real things to pleasure a man and yourself NOT YOUR ANUS.
To you people learning or thinking of gay life, run away from this lifestyle it will destroy you and your family. Think of your mom, dad, brothers and sisters, they will be devastated, it’s a useless way of life. Sober yourself and read some of the postings here, these hardcore gays will do anything to get you.
Run away from any gay person you know or practicing gay lifestyle.
Do not accept any offers no matter how bad things might be for you now.
Talk to someone.
Man Most Not Sex Another Man.
Woman Most Not Sex Another Woman.
A-Word-Is-Enough-For-A-Wise.
127
I am sad to see so many false Christians who haven't got to that part in John--"in the Lord's place, there are many dwellings." He is making a place for us--all of us--and those who don't follow the Lord's compassion are simply not following Him.
And thus, it follows that God created the gays not for *you* to judge them and cast them out as sinners, but for you to be judged in your compassion and your recognition of all his children and his Creation.
And thus, it follows that God created the gays not for *you* to judge them and cast them out as sinners, but for you to be judged in your compassion and your recognition of all his children and his Creation.
128
The more I see/read from evangelist Christians (note lower case) the more it appears the new atheists are correct: religion is destructive to reason, and contrary to the development of civilization.
130
Hey! FINALLY - we have a new troll! Thanks, ceeng. Your total lack of sense and grammar and spelling has made my day. "I pity a lot you gay people", indeed. (Guffaw.)
@Alinka@57: FTW! That would be a much better quote to put on a poster. Either that or "Let he who is without sin" or "For God so loved the world ... what have YOU ever given the world, fucker?"
@Alinka@57: FTW! That would be a much better quote to put on a poster. Either that or "Let he who is without sin" or "For God so loved the world ... what have YOU ever given the world, fucker?"
131
While the sign at the top of this article may not be pristine in its accuracy, it makes a good point that I think some religious people honestly don't realize: namely, that many of their own legally-protected behaviors are biblically condemned.
It's a good lesson for them to learn, because it therefore follows that perhaps gay people should be have the same legal protections that straight people have, and leave the bible out of it. I don't think these arguments work on many deeply evangelical people (there is always some technicality or excuse), but religious folks who are 'ill at ease' with gay people often realize that U.S. law and the bible don't mix well for them or anyone else. The double-standard becomes gradually evident to them, and while they often won't admit it the change begins to happen inwardly.
Personally, my favorite to use is Mark 10: 11:" And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her."
That's Jesus Christ himself speaking. So many people in this country are divorced and remarried, and upon seeing this passage a lot of folks realize that a biblical standard regarding marriage and divorce would be insufferable.
It's a good lesson for them to learn, because it therefore follows that perhaps gay people should be have the same legal protections that straight people have, and leave the bible out of it. I don't think these arguments work on many deeply evangelical people (there is always some technicality or excuse), but religious folks who are 'ill at ease' with gay people often realize that U.S. law and the bible don't mix well for them or anyone else. The double-standard becomes gradually evident to them, and while they often won't admit it the change begins to happen inwardly.
Personally, my favorite to use is Mark 10: 11:" And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her."
That's Jesus Christ himself speaking. So many people in this country are divorced and remarried, and upon seeing this passage a lot of folks realize that a biblical standard regarding marriage and divorce would be insufferable.
132
126: There's something seriously wrong with you, sir/madam. Only someone who sees them self as worthless and useless, tries to bully others by calling them worthless and useless. I pity you.
133
Most christians in America do not actually practice christianity anyway - they are practicing a political system for the repression of others. We can see this from their very un-christian behavior in political and social matters.
For this reason, most of these so-called 'churches' are not really religious and therefore should not be treated as tax-exempt religious organizations. In fact, most of the problems we have in this country right now would go away if we did away with tax exemptions for religious organizations altogether. Most of them are just political lobbying organizations and/or cynical business schemes to separate the gullible from their money.
For this reason, most of these so-called 'churches' are not really religious and therefore should not be treated as tax-exempt religious organizations. In fact, most of the problems we have in this country right now would go away if we did away with tax exemptions for religious organizations altogether. Most of them are just political lobbying organizations and/or cynical business schemes to separate the gullible from their money.
134
As a Christian -- and a gay man -- I have no problem with using Bible verses against the forces of repression, be they Christian or otherwise. But you should know that Christians make -- and have made since the first century -- a distinction between Jewish law (of which this injunction is part) and those aspects of it which the followers of Jesus may be morally bound to follow. See, e.g., Acts 15.
135
ceeng @118 & 126: I thought the Bible also notes that judgement is reserved for God? As for your opinion, I will agree to disagree with you; it is not my place to belittle your personal beliefs. Also, I don't think any gay person would be upset if you were to "run away from [their] lifestyle," and leave them alone.
Personally, I have trouble believing that anyone would "choose" a life of persecution from those like yourself; thus my belief is that no one "chooses" to be gay. I am a bit saddened by the general casualization of marriage amongst straight people, and on this basis I find it difficult to justify denying a gay couple the right to marriage based solely on sexual orientation.
Personally, I have trouble believing that anyone would "choose" a life of persecution from those like yourself; thus my belief is that no one "chooses" to be gay. I am a bit saddened by the general casualization of marriage amongst straight people, and on this basis I find it difficult to justify denying a gay couple the right to marriage based solely on sexual orientation.
136
#135:
I am not judging anyone for am not God but make no mistake as you and I share this world/community and you’re bringing BAD or EVIL behavior, I will try to help to stop it. It is WRONG, DISGRACEFUL, DISGUSTING, BEASTILISH, MORONIC for a Man To Lay Another Man (why not a chimpanzee or dog they have ANUS too).
It is WRONG and DISGRACEFUL for a man change and act like a woman (for you’re not a woman) NO MAN IS CREATED TO CHANGE HIMSELF TO A WOMAN.
It is EVIL for a PERSON TO BE IN DISGUISE (TRANSVESTITES), A man with penis and a breast and face makeup paints like a woman. Why would a man do this to himself?
Why would a man look up to another man or woman seeing that this is ANUS for SHIT and still deep inside it. It is the wrong place to look for body pleasure. (Why don’t you take a mug and get your drinking water from your toilet, its clean right?)
Every gay person learnt/practiced this act from/with someone and you got hooked.
And now you’re telling the world God created you that way. PLEASE STOP!
Also please guys stop this MAN MARRYING MAN IDEA nonsense. This is the height of shamelessness. Man and man marrying looks like a Hollywood movie. Please it sends a very bad message to out children.
GAY LIFE is the MOST SHAMEFUL LIFE A MAN CAN LEAVE in THIS WORLD.
This lifestyle is condemned in the Holy Bible and the Holy Koran
#134, practice what you preach. You cannot be a Christian and still leaving in the most condemned, shameful and degrading homosex life. You most pick one; it’s your choice, the ball on your court now. What you will do is entirely up to you and that’s what am talking about.
Gay people help yourself and the mankind. Homosex life is nothing but a wasteful and unfruitful lifestyle just for a five minutes body pleasure.
Please STOP destroying our sons and daughters for (Bad thing is the easiest thing to learn). The destruction and devastation the HOMOSEXUALITY will bring to this world is just starting, the effect will be in the future and all of us here will not be round to see it first hand. Unfortunately, it’s our children that will bare the cross.
Read #118 again.
You can kick this shameful addiction, find and talk to honest person that can help you.
EVERY ADDICTION IS POSSIBLE TO KICK
They are hundreds of support groups that can help you such as this site:
http://www.gaytostraight.org/Home.asp
Take the first step now.
Thanks.
More...
I am not judging anyone for am not God but make no mistake as you and I share this world/community and you’re bringing BAD or EVIL behavior, I will try to help to stop it. It is WRONG, DISGRACEFUL, DISGUSTING, BEASTILISH, MORONIC for a Man To Lay Another Man (why not a chimpanzee or dog they have ANUS too).
It is WRONG and DISGRACEFUL for a man change and act like a woman (for you’re not a woman) NO MAN IS CREATED TO CHANGE HIMSELF TO A WOMAN.
It is EVIL for a PERSON TO BE IN DISGUISE (TRANSVESTITES), A man with penis and a breast and face makeup paints like a woman. Why would a man do this to himself?
Why would a man look up to another man or woman seeing that this is ANUS for SHIT and still deep inside it. It is the wrong place to look for body pleasure. (Why don’t you take a mug and get your drinking water from your toilet, its clean right?)
Every gay person learnt/practiced this act from/with someone and you got hooked.
And now you’re telling the world God created you that way. PLEASE STOP!
Also please guys stop this MAN MARRYING MAN IDEA nonsense. This is the height of shamelessness. Man and man marrying looks like a Hollywood movie. Please it sends a very bad message to out children.
GAY LIFE is the MOST SHAMEFUL LIFE A MAN CAN LEAVE in THIS WORLD.
This lifestyle is condemned in the Holy Bible and the Holy Koran
#134, practice what you preach. You cannot be a Christian and still leaving in the most condemned, shameful and degrading homosex life. You most pick one; it’s your choice, the ball on your court now. What you will do is entirely up to you and that’s what am talking about.
Gay people help yourself and the mankind. Homosex life is nothing but a wasteful and unfruitful lifestyle just for a five minutes body pleasure.
Please STOP destroying our sons and daughters for (Bad thing is the easiest thing to learn). The destruction and devastation the HOMOSEXUALITY will bring to this world is just starting, the effect will be in the future and all of us here will not be round to see it first hand. Unfortunately, it’s our children that will bare the cross.
Read #118 again.
You can kick this shameful addiction, find and talk to honest person that can help you.
EVERY ADDICTION IS POSSIBLE TO KICK
They are hundreds of support groups that can help you such as this site:
http://www.gaytostraight.org/Home.asp
Take the first step now.
Thanks.
137
ceeng @136 I only read your first paragraph. The minute you refer to something as, oh, WRONG, DISGRACEFUL, DISGUSTING, etc. etc. ad nauseum, you're making a judgment. Ergo, you're being judgmental.
You are too blind to your own issues to be able to effectively assess those of others. Go, take a chill pill, dude.
You are too blind to your own issues to be able to effectively assess those of others. Go, take a chill pill, dude.
138
dictionary defines wife as a woman joined in marriage to a man; and this sign indicates that marriages are only valid if there is a wife and she is a virgin.
140
As Shakespeare wrote, "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." The point is, regardless of its historical context, the Bible is a piece of ancient literature. While it's respectable if some people choose to live by its teachings, the Bible is open to interpretation and is malleable to each man's values. The fault of anti-gay discrimination lies not in the Bible, but in the people who take every written word as THE truth, when those words may just be a part of A truth that no longer works for today's society.
141
Christians often use Scripture (as they should) to back up their beliefs about same sex relations or unions and this is someone's counter. This really upsets me. First of all, this is OBVIOUSLY not a QUOTE since there are two short sentences based on 9 verses of scripture. Secondly as Christians we know that we are not held accountable for Old Testament law/customs/traditions. Jesus dying on the cross for our sins absolves us of the guilt for our sins if we repent. Deuteronomy IS in the Old Testament therefore if anyone did this today it wouldn't be justified through God or by the laws of the land. This person probably just picked a verse that would spark controversy and alienate Christians even more from non-believers. Also I don't think this is a very accurate paraphrase. Really, what the verse is saying is if the woman lies to the man by agreeing to marry him, knowing she is not a virgin, and the man finds out and publicly accuses her of this then and only then can she be stoned if the man so chooses. You can't just pick bits and pieces out of the Bible. This person may not have known that this passage is not applicable to life today, or maybe they did and just wanted to spark controversy. Either way using this to portray God or Christians as malice/unloving/hateful people backfires once you know the context of the Scripture and Old Testament itself. But just as we, as Christians, are supposed to use the knowledge of the Scriptures that we have to help the world, we are not to judge them or condemn them to hell for by doing so we are just as bad as them labeling us as self-righteous Christians. We are to hate the sin NOT the sinner. I think people get the wrong idea of Christians altogether because of the few who stand up "in the name of the LORD", but who are not proclaiming His word. It is weird how people can be more accepting of someone who committed murder and repented than someone who engages in homosexual activity. Are they not both sins? They are and God forgives all sins. Anyhow, sorry for the rant. I just think people have the wrong idea about ACTUAL followers of Christ and what we believe.
More...
Most Commented on Slog
-
Slog Somehow Overlooked... by Dan Savage
-
VivaVulva Viagra! by Dan Savage -
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
"Let his days be few... Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." by Dan Savage
-
Feeling Sorry for Carrie Prejean by Dan Savage
-
Last Night's Colbert Report by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (141) RSS