Dok And Peppy's Mass Debate

Hmmmm. You can't say what the bible's about anymore than you can say what it isn't about. It's a collection of often unrelated texts written by different people at different times with different ideas. Therefore, you can believe whatever the hell you like and find justification for that belief somewhere in the bible. Which is precisely the problem. It's also the reason that it's impossible for anyone to say conclusively what is or isn't christian. Christianity is an entirely subjective choice of belief system, based on whatever aspects of the bible you find personally appealing. It's like a religious pick 'n' mix.

 

well I've never read the bible and I don't intend to, I have heard a lot of peoples impresions of it and while it can be used as something to hide behind and justify prejudice and evil that's not what it's actually for. One of the big problems is that it's been revised, added to, had bit's taken away from it, been lost and found so many times that we're not actually dealing with a religious book at all and more a 'book of excuses'.

I was using the bible here more to mean something that christians rally behind rather than the book itself, should have made myself clear 0~(

 

I've read most of it, so i've a fair idea what I'm talking about

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. With a bit of bullshit thrown in for good measure. The bible is not a book written by one person. It's a collection of texts written by many people over hundreds of years. It's impossible for you to say it is or isn't 'for' something, because you can't generalise about a series of texts that are so diverse.

As well as the message of tolerance and peace that you might find in the gospels, there's also plenty in the bible to justify hatred and intolerance. Stoning homosexuals to death, for example. Oh, and women who wear men's clothes. St Paul's a bit of a misogynistic twat as well, and not so easy to dismiss as he's new testament (xtians often like to tell you that the old testament doesn't count because the new testament represents a break with history and is god's 'new covenant' with mankind).

Obviously the serious tinkering that's taken place (as well as good old fashioned poor translation) creates a whole set of issues all of its own. For example, the wedding in canaan is widely believed to have been christ's own wedding, before the texts were later edited to expunge any idea of christ having a boner. Also, "Jesus of Nazareth" is likely to be a mistranslation of "Jesus the Nazarene" - the Nazarene's being a political sect dedicated to the violent removal of the Romans from Palestine. Bit like the PLO when you think about it

However, most of the old testament is largely untouched, as are large tracts of the post-gospel new testament. The major revisions that appear to have taken place within the bible relate specifically to the life of jesus, as portrayed in the gospels. Realistically, more has been done to alter the tone of the bible in terms of the texts that have been entirely excluded - like the apocryphal gospels (the gospel of st thomas being a particularly good example).

The problem is you're trying to generalise about something which can not be generalised about. Talking about the bible as a single literary work is entirely pointless in the context of any moral debate.

 

lol, I agree!! As I said I was only using it as a symbol for refering to christianity which was misleading of me.

I should really take the time to read it but I've never really wanted to, I started on it many years ago and gave up as it was over my head at the time.

I don't think the bible should be regarded as a holy text really, like you say, it's a collection of writings from different people over a massive period of time originally written in different languages (I think, might be wrong on that one). It's also been changed to suit certain agendas, one of the best excuses for this was translation, I heard say (can't for the life of me remember where though) that there were many deliberate translation errors around the beginning of the 13th century used to justify the crusades, apparently st. Franciss put up a bit of a fuss about it but it's all written so long ago it's unlikely to be an unadulterated story anyway.

One of the things you can say about the bible though is that it's roots are in love of fellow man blah blah blah (by roots I mean teachings of jesus, not actual text) but it has become a major source of segregation, just goes to show that the church is more a form of control than a source of spiritual guidance.

 

Well you need to stop talking about the bible then! However, in that context, I still disagree with you. Christianity means many different things to many different people, and there's nothing to support your interpretation of christianity over anyone elses. All are equally valid (although some are less distasteful than others!).

But this is factually incorrect. If you were to say the teachings of jesus have their roots in the love of fellow man, then that would be reasonable. But you can't say the bible has its roots in the love of fellow man. Remember, the bible and the teachings of jesus are two entirely different things. The old testament was written before jesus was even a twinkle in the big 'uns eye.

 

(quotey quotey)
Christianity means many different things to many different people, and there's nothing to support your interpretation of christianity over anyone elses. All are equally valid (although some are less distasteful than others!).
(quotey quotey)

That's a subjective look yeah but christianity is following christ, it's the church that have turned christianity into something else which is why I argue that they are two seperate things, the bible landing firmly on the side of the church.

in fact, I don't argue it at all, I firmly state it!

oh dear, I'm going off topic on the already off topic debate!

 

Firstly, in following christ, you're following someone who considered himself firmly rooted in the old testament tradition of judaism. So it's impossible to try and say christianity is "just about following christ", because even that comes with a whole load of biblical baggage attached.

Secondly, there's plenty of room for debate when it comes to what actually constitutes the teachings of christ and what he actually stood for. Your interpretation of that is no more or less subjective than anyone else's, and so to believe that your particular brand of christianity is any more valid than a born-again's is an equal arrogance to that of the fundie.

 

oi, what do you mean my brand of christianity! You sound like you think I've gone over to the dark side!

 

It's only a matter of time!

Ksssssshhhhh.... kwhhhhhhhh........Ksssssshhhhh.... kwhhhhhhhh

 

I've told you I'm not interested in that kind of role play before!

 

I'm sorry. All I could make out through the gimp mask was "mwphmmmmphmmm". Think we'd better review that safety word.....

 

Found an interesting site interpreting the bibles view on homosexuality... it argues the case that the homosexuality hasn't been condemed by the bible and infact Jesus never even mentioned it. It blames peoples interpretation.

""Nowhere does the Bible actually address the idea of persons being lesbian or gay. The statements are, without exception, directed to certain homosexual acts. Early writers had no understanding of homosexuality as a psychosexual orientation. That truth is a relatively recent discovery. The biblical authors were referring to homosexual acts performed by persons they assumed were heterosexuals.""​

also​

""A chief text used to condemn homosexuality is the Sodom story (Genesis 19:1-29), often interpreted as showing God's abhorrence of homosexuality. In the story, two angels, in the form of men, are sent to the home of Lot in Sodom. While they are there, the men of the city “both young and old, surrounded the house - everyone without exception” and demanded that the visitors be brought out “so that we might know them.” (Genesis 19: 4-5) Lot begged the men to leave his guests alone and take his daughters instead. The men of the city became angry and stormed the door. As a result, they were all struck blind by the angels.​

There are several problems with the traditional interpretation of this passage. Whether or not the intent of the men of Sodom was sexual, the inhospitality and injustice coming from the mob, and that generally characterized the community, were “the sin of Sodom.” (Ezekial 16:49-50, Isaiah 13:19, Jeremiah 49:18; 50:40) Jesus himself refers to the inhospitality of Sodom. (Luke 10:10-13) If the men were indeed homosexuals, then why would Lot offer them his daughters? What is threatened here is rape. The significant point, then, is that all rape is considered horrible by God. The story deserves another reading.​

It should be noted that not all of the men of Sodom could have been homosexual or there would have been no need to destroy them. If they had all been homosexuals, they would have all died off leaving no heirs. Quite likely, they were a mixed group of evil men attempting to be abusive to people who were different. Ironically, lesbian and gay people are often the victim of that same sin.""​

and

""Although the traditional interpretation of the Sodom story fails as an argument against homosexuality, there are several other Old Testament passages that do condemn homosexual acts. Again, it should be noted that these passages do not deal with same-sex orientation nor is there any reference to genital love between lesbian or gay persons.""

Also could I add that most quakers do not condemn homosexuality.

 

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."

Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

Romans 1:26-27: "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their woman exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

There's plenty in the bible to support the idea of homosexuality as a sin. It's all about interpretation and context though. For example, Deuteronomy says how it's a sin for a woman to wear a man's clothes. Don't see the fundies so keen to promote that particular old testament law! Presumably, they accept that it's a relic of its time, which makes their ready acceptance of the condemnation of homosexuality nothing more than a selective act of bigotry.

 

That's the thing... the bible is so contradictory that I really can't take it seriously.

I take what you said about dicounting the old testatment and just following Jesus is flawed as Jesus himself was heavily routed in the Old Testament, but I also found this:

(Matthew 19:10-12) Jesus opposed divorce in opposition to the abuses experienced by women. It is in the context of marriage that Jesus said “some eunuchs were born so; others had been made eunuchs and still others choose to be eunuchs for the Kingdom's sake.” Jesus' remarks about celibacy and castration are clear, but a male child being born without testicles is a rare birth defect. It is only in our day that the Kinsey Institute has demonstrated that sexual orientation is likely determined prior to birth. It could well be that those to whom Jesus refers as being “born eunuchs” are the people we call lesbian or gay.

and

Episcopal priest Dr. Tom Horner has written that the Gospels imply in two places that Jesus' attitude toward lesbians and gays would not have been hostile. (Jonathan Loved David, p. 122) The first is found in the story of Jesus healing the Centurion's servant. (Matthew 8:5-13) The word used for the servant is “pais,” which in the Greek culture referred to a younger lover of an older, more powerful or educated man. Clearly, the story demonstrates an unusually intense love, and Jesus' response was wholly positive

Maybe christians could read this and reconsider their view of homosexuality, or at least see that the issue is not black and white.

p.s. Do you think Sal could split this debate off the initial dub-reggae topic? Might be an idea...

 

Absolutely. This is my whole point. Christianity is entirely subjective. Different christians make different choices about what parts of the bible they choose to believe and they make different choices about how they translate these beliefs into their everyday lives. You can certainly find justification for homophobia in the bible, but to accept that as part of your faith is an act of choice, not a biblical fact.

 

quote thingy
I take what you said about dicounting the old testatment and just following Jesus is flawed as Jesus himself was heavily routed in the Old Testament
quote thingy

Francis of assisi was also heavily rooted in the old testament but both him and his followers vow to a life of voulentary poverty and hospitality to all people. Just because they were rooted in the old testament doesn't mean it was something they followed to the last word. Juesus even managed to make a new religion after being rooted in the old testament, if he'd followed and agreed with every word of it then there wouldn't be christanity.

 

I thought that was the safety word!

 

OK, I don't get it... explain to me why God's word in the old testament is wrong... but Jesus' (son of god) word in the New Testament is right.

Also what are people that follow the old testament but not the new called?

Confuddled, Clairexxxx

 

Don't think anybody said it was? That point arose from you arguing that christ and the bible were unrelated. Which clearly, they're not.

Oh no he didn't. Jesus never gave any indication that he thought of himself or his followers as anything other than jews. The 'new religion' was formed by those who came after him. In fact, there's much evidence that the early christians saw themselves as a branch of judaism, not a different religion.

 

Jews.

Subjective interpretation. Although christians will tell you christ represents a "new covenant", and therefore a break with the law of the old testament. Although that doesn't stop them referring back to it when they want to slander homosexuals. Conveniently.