 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8326
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| RevJP wrote: | | We are talking about scripture which specifically states something is an abomination, where is there room for varying interpretation? Either you accept His Word or you reject it. You cannot take only that which agrees with what you like and reject that which doesn't. |
RevJP, there is ALWAYS room for interpretation. If there's one thing I've learned during all my time on this discussion board, it's that even people with the best of intentions come up with some pretty crazy interpretations of the Bible.
For example, it is completely and utterly clear that Jesus was totally against people EVER using violence UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, but I've seen plenty of interpretations on this board trying to say that it's ok for Christians to use violence in certain situations...
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | For example, it is completely and utterly clear that Jesus was totally against people EVER using violence UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, but I've seen plenty of interpretations on this board trying to say that it's ok for Christians to use violence in certain situations... |
Like Christ in the temple with a whip?
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | I disagree. Nowhere in any scripture are same-sex relationships condoned or indicated as being acceptable. |
The Bible doesn't condone cars, either. Remember how that doesn't mean that it's against them?
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As you well know FFT, the topic at hand is a bit different than cars and refrigerators and the like.
Scripture specifically condemns homosexual activity and it is painfully obvious that 'loving, same-sex relationships' incorporate said activity. Subsequently there is no room for 'different interpretation'.
Kinda like stealing, scripture says 'do not steal', all the justifications in the world about why one steals, how one steals, blah blah blah... do not reverse the fact that stealing is a sin.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Scripture specifically condemns homosexual activity and it is painfully obvious that 'loving, same-sex relationships' incorporate said activity. |
The New Testament does, sure. The Old Testament condemns ritual homosexual activity. The New Testament condemnation could easily have been nothing more than a misinterpretation, intentional or no. Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality that I've seen.
| RevJP wrote: | | Subsequently there is no room for 'different interpretation'. |
If it were really that simple, sure. It's not.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ekspiulo
Ferret
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 123
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree that the bible says that it is in fact worse than normal sins like stealing for a woman to wear pants or tennis shoes.
Fortunately for most cross dressers it is merely a contemporary trend that women wear high heeled shoes and men don't. When they were invented they were for men, as God intended.
Would you consider a man wearing in a knee length skirt, high heels, and tight well coordinated shirt a cross dresser? Maybe. Would you hold it against him?
God wouldn't.
What if the skirt was plaid and you called it a kilt?
http://www.knowledgeproblem.com/archives/000915.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-heeled_shoe#Men_and_heels
On the topic of transgenders, RevJP can you provide any scriptural support for the idea that gender is fixed and unchanging?
Also on another note, the above question is serious in a biblical context where such things have to be cited and demonstrated, but in the real world the question is absurd. Who has the authority to say what someone's gender will be, when he or she is an adult, at the time they're born. A doctor could give his best opinion and try and make it as objective as possible by defining it according to certain objective factors such as genitalia or genetic composition. This is very socially useful and will probably perpetually remain so, but when push comes to shove and a person says, "I'm a woman" or "I'm a man" under what authority does one tell that person they're wrong?
_________________
"The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job." - Sam Harris |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Rattlesnake
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 447
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | For example, it is completely and utterly clear that Jesus was totally against people EVER using violence UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, but I've seen plenty of interpretations on this board trying to say that it's ok for Christians to use violence in certain situations... |
Like Christ in the temple with a whip? |
If Jesus experienced things we experience then anger is one of them. Violence, when it physically injures someone, is what Jesus was against. Whom did Jesus hurt with the whip? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Rattlesnake
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 447
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ekspiulo wrote: | I agree that the bible says that it is in fact worse than normal sins like stealing for a woman to wear pants or tennis shoes.
Fortunately for most cross dressers it is merely a contemporary trend that women wear high heeled shoes and men don't. When they were invented they were for men, as God intended.
Would you consider a man wearing in a knee length skirt, high heels, and tight well coordinated shirt a cross dresser? Maybe. Would you hold it against him?
God wouldn't.
What if the skirt was plaid and you called it a kilt?
http://www.knowledgeproblem.com/archives/000915.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-heeled_shoe#Men_and_heels
On the topic of transgenders, RevJP can you provide any scriptural support for the idea that gender is fixed and unchanging?
Also on another note, the above question is serious in a biblical context where such things have to be cited and demonstrated, but in the real world the question is absurd. Who has the authority to say what someone's gender will be, when he or she is an adult, at the time they're born. A doctor could give his best opinion and try and make it as objective as possible by defining it according to certain objective factors such as genitalia or genetic composition. This is very socially useful and will probably perpetually remain so, but when push comes to shove and a person says, "I'm a woman" or "I'm a man" under what authority does one tell that person they're wrong? |
I would like to also add that gender is NOT merely just what you see OUTWARDLY. There's more to one's gender than what genitalia he or she has. In regards to the clothes, clothing is a cultural thing invented by man. God, as far as I know, did not specify which types of clothes are specifically to be worn by which gender. For if God does not look on the outward appearance and looks on the heart then clothing is not an issue for "him". Nor is race or how the love between same sex persons looks outwardly.
Last edited by summertime on Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:29 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Rattlesnake
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 447
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | As you well know FFT, the topic at hand is a bit different than cars and refrigerators and the like.
Scripture specifically condemns homosexual activity and it is painfully obvious that 'loving, same-sex relationships' incorporate said activity. Subsequently there is no room for 'different interpretation'.
Kinda like stealing, scripture says 'do not steal', all the justifications in the world about why one steals, how one steals, blah blah blah... do not reverse the fact that stealing is a sin. |
Rev, you seem very unconcerned about context. You seem to only care about what words you see on the pages and that's it. Everything has a context, but you seemingly only care about what is easiest to discern: the ACTUAL words in the bible. Context may be too difficult and time consuming for you to mess with. Ask yourself, "If scripture condemns homosexual activity, in what context does it do so?" If you believe it condemns ALL homosexual activity then provide sound reasons for that conclusion. While you're at it, pick up THE CHILDREN ARE FREE and use it as a study guide on this issue. Or, better yet, go to www.jesusmcc.org and stop fighting your need to grow spiritually. Because right now, you come across like you're condemning Jesus for breaking the Sabbath when he let the disciples pick corn from the fields. "It says so right here that no one is to work on the Sabbath!" I'm sure Jesus would have a sufficient response for your as he did for those accusing him. I also love the wayyou skip over things I've addressed in my response to you while you only respond to what you want to respond to. Leaving me to wonder what you think about the rest of what I've said in any given post. Oh, well. Life goes on. Do we have to agree on all things? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Rattlesnake
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 447
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Actually no, I don't get your point. Perhaps if I lived in a trailor park by a junkyard I might hear a mother say something like that to her kid, but I doubt it. |
To take words read or spoken at face value without considering context leads to taking a text out of context which leads to a pretext. If you read the words in the example I gave you about the mom wanting to kill her child in the same way you read the bible then your conclusion would be, without considering the context and intent behind her words, that she was literally intending to kill her child. If you don't get that point then you either need time to get it or you are in denial to changing and growing and/or your eyes are covered. By the way, why do you have to be in a trailor park by a junkyard in order to hear a mother say that? Is that the only place you ASSUME someone would say that? Obviously, that's not true since I've heard it elsewhere. What else could you be incorret about in your assumptions, Rev? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8326
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | For example, it is completely and utterly clear that Jesus was totally against people EVER using violence UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, but I've seen plenty of interpretations on this board trying to say that it's ok for Christians to use violence in certain situations... |
Like Christ in the temple with a whip? |
I've also held a whip before, but I never used it on anyone. Show me the verse where it says that Jesus hurt people with the whip.
Besides, it really doesn't matter whether or not Jesus ever used violence. He didn't, but let's pretend that He did. Even if this were the case, it's no big deal. Jesus is the son of God. His teachings were for mortal humans, and not for Himself. Jesus and God can do whatever they want. It's humans that are not supposed to ever use violence. That is very clear from Jesus' teachings.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2673
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:27 am Post subject: Actually P123... |
|
|
The case of the whip in the temple caused economic harm, and emotional harm but probably not physical harm.
The levites had set up a system for Jews outside of Israel to buy the required ritual items, to exchange their foreign coins for the coins required under law to give and they made a huge profit at this. For a foreign born Jew who wanted to attend temple as part of his duties would have to bring with him sheep, oxen, other ritual sacrifices and gold shekels. Decreasing the likelyhood they could afford the trip. The service the Levites offered was a legitimate transaction just not in the temple courts.
Jesus' condemnation of these practices in the temple was certainly not personally violent, he just hit them where it hurts more, their pocketbooks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Rattlesnake
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 447
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:36 am Post subject: Re: Actually P123... |
|
|
| dim12trav wrote: | The case of the whip in the temple caused economic harm, and emotional harm but probably not physical harm.
The levites had set up a system for Jews outside of Israel to buy the required ritual items, to exchange their foreign coins for the coins required under law to give and they made a huge profit at this. For a foreign born Jew who wanted to attend temple as part of his duties would have to bring with him sheep, oxen, other ritual sacrifices and gold shekels. Decreasing the likelyhood they could afford the trip. The service the Levites offered was a legitimate transaction just not in the temple courts.
Jesus' condemnation of these practices in the temple was certainly not personally violent, he just hit them where it hurts more, their pocketbooks. |
RevJp, I hope you are read this. If what dim12trav says is true, this is an example of what I am trying to tell you: That the bible does not tell you information like this outright. You have to seek for it. It's found in historical sources on the bible and other sources. The bible does not have to implicitly tell you in its pages what the whip represented in order for it to be true. Everything you need to know is not all in the bible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| summertime wrote: | | If what dim12trav says is true, this is an example of what I am trying to tell you: That the bible does not tell you information like this outright. You have to seek for it. It's found in historical sources on the bible and other sources. The bible does not have to implicitly tell you in its pages what the whip represented in order for it to be true. Everything you need to know is not all in the bible. |
I have to warn you, that is not a slippery slope you're going to be comfortable with. You start learning things like how Yahweh was just a minor god in a larger pantheon until some of his priests decided to go it on their own.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Rattlesnake
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 447
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | summertime wrote: | | If what dim12trav says is true, this is an example of what I am trying to tell you: That the bible does not tell you information like this outright. You have to seek for it. It's found in historical sources on the bible and other sources. The bible does not have to implicitly tell you in its pages what the whip represented in order for it to be true. Everything you need to know is not all in the bible. |
I have to warn you, that is not a slippery slope you're going to be comfortable with. You start learning things like how Yahweh was just a minor god in a larger pantheon until some of his priests decided to go it on their own. |
No discomfort whatsoever. You just do what should be done with all things: separate the wheat from the chaff in regards to what you hear and read. God is not limited to just any one man's perception of God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
