To the editor:
Kudos to Steve Craven for his letter of Jan. 29, dealing with homophobic religious fundamentalists who quote obscure passages from the Old and New Testament to put the fear of God in us.
I’d like to add one more example of the hypocrisy exhibited by these biblical “scholars.” Have you noticed that the words of Jesus according to the Gospels make no mention of homosexuality? One would suppose that if it’s such a horrendous sin, Jesus would have condemned it. One thing that Jesus does condemn in at least two Gospels is the topic of divorce (Matthew 5:32; Mark 10:11,12). Why isn’t there a law in Kansas forbidding divorce?
Our political and religious leaders are missing a sure bet. Quote those verses and refuse to grant divorces in Kansas and we will make history. Next time someone starts quoting from the book of Leviticus to condemn homosexuality, surprise them by mentioning the divorce passages. My experience has been that they either change the topic or they walk away.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
doubterthomas (anonymous) says…
Anna Slemmer.....
to say that Jesus never talked about the sin of homosexuality is stretching things a bit. True, he does not speak of it in the printed scriptures. Then again, all of the words of Jesus are not recorded either. He had the old covenant scriptures at his disposal. If a new law regarding the approval of homosexual practices was to be introduced, I'm fairly sure he would have let some folks know. Regarding divorce, Jesus condemned divorce in the way the cultural at that time was handling it, i.e., for any reason at all. I mean, a man could divorce his wife simply because he was tired of her. Jesus wanted a stop to that. He made it clear that you don't just divorce your husband or wife for any reason. If there is unfaithfulness, yes, there are grounds for divorce. If a person is in an abusive relationship or dissertion takes place, there are grounds for divorce. The bible is far from obscure when dealing with sin. The passages are right in your face.
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…
Yet homosexuality wasn't important enough to even make the top 10 list of things not to do.
wounded_soldier (anonymous) replies…
That could be because it was not practiced during that time to the extent it is now. People knew then that love and sex was practiced between husband and wife of opposite gender. We have forgotten that and now participate in things that are unnatural.
repaste (anonymous) replies…
Think it has been around as long as men have.
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) replies…
WS: Perhaps, but I'd suggest a study of history. Start with the Greeks, for whom some of these practices are named, then move on to the Romans. Abuse of children, male and female is an ancient tradition. It continues with our 'friends' in Afghanistan in horrific fashion. Check it out. In one sense, homosexuality was more open in ancient times. One had the wife, the catamite and the concubine available, sometimes all in the same day. St. Augustine himself had a concubine, which was considered acceptable in the day.
Fretster (anonymous) replies…
Got any proof of that, w_s? No?
Didn't think so.
jaywalker (anonymous) replies…
I love how you and doubterthomas just make shiitake mushrooms up! Excellent chuckles, thank you!
jaywalker (anonymous) replies…
Of course, my comment is for wounded.
gatekeeper (anonymous) replies…
Oh boy..... You really are ignorant about history, aren't you? Statements like the one you made proof positive that our schools are failing us. Really, google the subject, then come back here for an educated discussion.
BTW, the Bible is cool with lesbians.
LarryNative (anonymous) replies…
Wounded, you may want to refer to your Bible and find the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis.
aryastark1984 (anonymous) replies…
Larry. Have you actually read the story since Sunday school. It is actually the most disturbing story in the Bible. After the rabble shows up at Lot's door, seeking to rape the Angel of the Lord (who is disguised as a traveler) who is staying with Lot, Lot tells them "hey don't rape this stranger, instead rape my virginal daughters (see quoted passage below: King James version of the Bible).
I find it hard to take a biblical passage seriously when the message seems to be "homosexual rape, bad. Rape of women, well that is ok."
And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, and said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Yes.
It's a very weird story for folks to use as some sort of moral compass, and conclude what they do from it.
Jimo (anonymous) replies…
Thank you "doubterthomas" for demonstrating that anyone with enough contempt for facts can argue their way out of any inconvenient truth.
The only one "stretching things a bit" is you.
"Then again, all of the words of Jesus are not recorded either."
As Ole Herb Cain was a sayin just a few moons ago, "I don't have any evidence for this but ...." I'm going to say something incredibly stupid anyway.
"If a new law regarding the approval of homosexual practices was to be introduced, I'm fairly sure he would have let some folks know."
How does even a cursory review of the Gospels allow anyone to miss its message so completely? I'd keep my eyes peeled for a 2x4 wanting to hit you.
esteshawk (anonymous) replies…
'he does not speak of it in the printed scripture" Even though the printed scriptures are not Jesus' words (they are Pauls and Johns and Marks and Matthews), are you implying that Jesus said something that was not written down, but you know what He said?
asixbury (anonymous) replies…
By the way, the words of the New Testament were not written by Mark or Matthew either. Bible history will teach you, that those books were not penned until many years after the disciples were dead. The only books that historians know by whom they were written, without a doubt, were Paul's epistles and maybe John's. The "committee" (I use this term because I cannot remember the actual name) that decided which gospels to include in the bible, attributed the chosen ones to the disciples to give them credence. Historians have no record of who actually started the stories; back then, they were passed down in the oral tradition.
I like your point, though. Who are we to say what "God" or "Jesus" thought?
aryastark1984 (anonymous) replies…
It was called the Council of Nicea (not sure of the spelling).
asixbury (anonymous) replies…
Thank you!
voevoda (anonymous) replies…
Non-Biblical ancient texts actually hint that Jesus had a homosexual relationship.
cait48 (anonymous) replies…
I actually prefer to believe that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. He was a Jew and called "rabbi". One had to be married at that time to obtain that status under rabbinical law. (Part of the reason that Paul never gained it. He was too much of a misogynist to ever get married.) It was part of the game rules. At least that edition of the Hebrew Games Workshop rules.
gatekeeper (anonymous) replies…
Thank you! I love seeing that there are a few others that have a clue about ancient history and the Bible. Yes, Jesus would have been married.
Gandalf (anonymous) replies…
Don't forget muhummad was a pedophile
parrothead8 (anonymous) replies…
The Bible should have nothing to do with the law. Christianity is a way to live your own life, not a way to force others to live as you want them to. Even Jesus would agree with that.
mr_right_wing (anonymous) replies…
Little too late for that...sure you can take public displays of the 10 commandments down; but that is the basis of our laws. I really have no problem with laws against stealing and killing of the innocent.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
So we should have laws against adultery, lying, coveting, etc. if that's the case.
But we don't.
cait48 (anonymous) replies…
Buzzz! Wrong answer, Mr. Wing. Our legal and judicial system are based on English Common Law.
littlexav (anonymous) replies…
Which, to be fair, has deep connections to English Ecclesiastical courts. But you're right - our laws are based on Common Law, not "God's Law." Although Rick Santorum would *love* to change that.
UNIKU (anonymous) replies…
The bible is clearly a work of fiction written to dupe mindless cattle....Grimm is right up there with Mathew, Mark, Luke & John
Kookamooka (MJ Browne) says…
The bible was the main reason I gave up. Its the most confusing book on the shelf and everyone has their own "take" on what God meant. If God is all powerful, why couldn't he just spell it out? Where are the divine men from the 21st century who God could use to write another, clearer, more user-friendly, extension of the Bible-with footnotes?
wounded_soldier (anonymous) replies…
Maybe He did send a clearer message, you just haven't read it.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Maybe it's a collection of various myths by many different authors with different agendas that was poorly edited together.
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) replies…
+1. Take Genesis, for example. There were two competing groups of priests who manufactured this book. That's why god is in the sky at times, and in other sections, he strolls through the garden just to chat and visit. I believe they were called the Yahwist, and the Elohists. The two versions were written about 100 years apart and blended together, somewhat clumsily, later on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JEDP
deathpenaltyliberal (anonymous) replies…
Liberty_One for the win!
deathpenaltyliberal (anonymous) replies…
Liberty_One for the win!
dowser (anonymous) replies…
I couldn't agree more. At last we agree on something.
Herecomesthewaterweasel (anonymous) replies…
That is some mad pwning Liberty, Bravo.
LarryNative (anonymous) replies…
Yes. And when there is an unknown answer, like George Michael said "You gotta have faith, faith, faith"
Yeoman2 (anonymous) replies…
The reason the Bible is so confusing is that it was compiled by a commettee commissioned by King James of England in 1611. It was the solumnm duty of the members of that commsiion to organize scriptures that were acceptable to the king in the form of a bible. Many such scriptures were not used. All were written by mortal men, which gives you some idea of the nature of the finished product. And the finished product better damned well agree with the king's take on things or you could lose your head.
We have no way of knowing whether these "scriptures" are authentic, or even relate to things that actually happened. Belief in the Bible is a matter of faith, not fact.
So I would not anguish too much over things you read in the Bible. As one character in the George Gershwin opera "Porgy and Bess", "The things that your liable to read in the Bible, they ain't necessarily so".
asixbury (anonymous) replies…
Constantine organized the first committee to narrow-down the hundreds of gospels into a few "acceptable" ones. King James narrowed it down even more. His committee changed Mary Magdalene's description to mean "witch," when it was not that way before. This, interestingly enough, coincides with the inquisition. Good points!
voevoda (anonymous) replies…
While the King James *translation* of the Bible interpreted passages variously, the text of the Bible itself, in the original Hebrew and Greek, had been established centuries earlier, by the 5th century.
Of course, those early committees selected which texts would be included and which texts would not be. Some texts that many people believed to be authentic were omitted.
gatekeeper (anonymous) replies…
WRONG! Go online to National Geographic and read the article from the Dec issue on the Bible. They have a nice timeline you need to check out.
asixbury (anonymous) replies…
Which part are you saying is wrong? What I wrote was completely accurate.
pavlovs_dog (anonymous) replies…
Oh! You mean Gov. Brownback and Gov. Perry?
grammaddy (anonymous) says…
If God is all powerful, why didn't He write it himself?Then there would be no doubt about what he wanted.
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
Actually, there are text that are repressed by the Catholic church that indicate that Jesus and several apostles engaged in homosexual activity. Heck, when Jesus was arrested, the soldiers found him with a young man wearing only a sheet. But when they tried to arrest him, he slipped away and left the sheet behind. Why would there be a naked man there when the churches today claim it was an angel?
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) replies…
RB: Stop that. They made political decisions long ago to decide what was 'officially from god' and what was not. Editing is important.
rtwngr (anonymous) replies…
This has to be one of the most bigoted, anti Catholic entries I have ever read or heard. Nothing you have said is based in any fact. Everything you have written is a fanciful discrediting of an institution that you disagree with probably because it requires being accountable to something other than yourself.
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) replies…
I hold no grudge against what used to be called "The Church." It is well established that there were political battles in the early church and it took quite some time to get the bible settled out and approved. Heck, there was blood on the floor after the great ESSENE teacher's death for decades, perhaps centuries, as they settled policy matters amongst themselves. One of the first debates was about the man/god thingie. Was he 1 drop god and the rest human? Was he 1 drop human and the rest god? Was he 50/50 god-man? This dispute kept them at each other's throats for quite some time. When what are now called the Catholics stand for social justice and the poor, I have their back. When they engage in oppression, I am not as impressed.
Ragingbear (anonymous) replies…
I would suggest you read up on your apocryphal scriptures. Especially the Gnostic texts. They are actually aknowledged by the Catholic Church as legitimate, just not included in their bible.
FalseHopeNoChange (anonymous) replies…
It's only "hate" if a normal person talks nasty about a Liberal ideology.
Besides, at prayer breakfast Obama said that Jesus wanted to tax the rich. Funny thing is Ba'al felt the same way.
Gotland (anonymous) replies…
It's odd there are no cries of "separation and church and state" from the lefties when Obama invokes Jesus in reference to federal policy.
gatekeeper (anonymous) replies…
BS. I'm liberal and cringe when I hear ANY politician refer to anything religious. Keep it all separate.
Fretster (anonymous) replies…
There was nothing hateful in Raging's post. Period.
I really despise dishonesty.
voevoda (anonymous) replies…
FalseHopeNoChange,
You've confused Ba'al and Jesus. Jesus is the one who a) told the rich that they couldn't get to heaven unless they gave up their wealth; and b) told people to pay their taxes, even if they didn't think it was legitimate.
AreUNorml (anonymous) replies…
being accountable to an imaginary friend is like taking no personal responsibility at all.
voevoda (anonymous) replies…
rtwngr,
See Mark 14:51-52: "Among those who had followed Jesus was a young man with nothing on but a linen cloth. They [the soldiers] tried to seize him; but he slipped out of the linen cloth and ran away naked." Since the passage is in the Catholic Bible, I guess that it's not "anti-Catholic" to point it out and speculate as to its meaning.
mloburgio (anonymous) says…
Biblical Contradictions
http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20C...
BornAgainAmerican (anonymous) says…
God made Adam and Eve...not Adam and Steve.
phoggyjay (anonymous) replies…
That is such a funny, original comment... did you just make that up? I almost can't finish what I want to write... because I'm... laughing... so... hard...
Anyway, I talked to Adam and Steve and they told me to tell you its your turn to bring the whips, handcuffs and beef jerky for afterwards, because they are sick and tired of spending all their hard earned cash on a submissive "Born again" who only repays with his/her services. Not even a good job at that (according to Adam and Steve), but don't let them know that I told you what they told me in confidence, mkay?
By the way, your avatar makes no sense. When was the last time anything was "Made in the USA?"
Ragingbear (anonymous) replies…
If god didn't make homosexuals, then who did? Satan? I didn't know he had the power to create anything. Of course Satan is evil, and God made him. He was an angel, so unlike men he did not have free will either.
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
Someone told me that homosexuals were created by heterosexual acts. Of course, that's just a rumor.
Gandalf (anonymous) replies…
I think they were created by Mother Nature.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
Man made God ... and Adam and Eve and Steve.
appleaday (anonymous) says…
I thought God made everybody.
FalseHopeNoChange (anonymous) replies…
No. Anunnaki made everybody.
mommatocharlie (anonymous) replies…
yup
lawslady (anonymous) says…
Anyone can find Biblical suport for any position they want to take. Any posistion. Because human being tend to see (or want to see) what they are looking to find.
Jesus is reported to have said that all the law (all of it) could be summed up in two commandments; Love God. Love your neighbor. If you claim to follow him, please try to keep that rule foremost in your mind, as you postulate and argue and mince words and judge others.....
jaywalker (anonymous) replies…
Now that deserves a +1!
Yeoman2 (anonymous) replies…
Ditto!
tange (anonymous) replies…
The Holy Rorschach?
http://tinyurl.com/78m3wbp
gatekeeper (anonymous) replies…
thank you!!!! i was always taught that the only lesson to be learned from the Bible was to BE GOOD and do no harm to others.
StirrrThePot (anonymous) says…
LOL @ the notion that homosexuality "wasn't practiced in history like it is today"
That's rich.
"Adam and Steve"
1990 called, it wants its lame homophobic comment back. It also said to go back to Biology class and actually pay attention this time.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Ban marriage = no more divorces....
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) replies…
Make everything legal = no more crime
Yeoman2 (anonymous) says…
If you believe in a Divine Power, whatever you call "Him" or "It" or whatever, that Power created all of us. If you do not have any beliefs, just how do you justify bashing homosexuals???
So just who are you or Phred Phelps to pass judgement on the Divine Creation?
And what business is it of anyone's as to who prefers what sex? I think only those who live in Pomona have any dedicated interest in this topic.
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NQdmG...
Gotland (anonymous) says…
Whether Jesus took a position on homosexuality is irrelevant in our society. We can create laws based on our system. Those laws can prevent or allow same sex people to marry. If you want to change the law, advocate for it and get it through congress.
doc1 (anonymous) says…
Too bad most of the bible is made up hoopla and a huge part of it has been scientifically proven wrong.
thebigspoon (anonymous) replies…
Which parts are those, doc? Not arguing, but I'd be interested in knowing.
esteshawk (anonymous) replies…
Start with the age of the earth, then move on to the creation of humans. Geology and biology have shown Genesis wrong. Think that's not true? Geological theory is proved every time you buy gas, and biology every time you see a pharm ad.
littlexav (anonymous) replies…
Creation of the world? Even the Bible tries telling it two ways, so which one is right? Neither one, according to standard models of physics.
Parting the Red Sea? No way. Immaculate conception? Literally not possible. Water into wine? In your dreams.
ksyellowdog (anonymous) says…
More of God's Laws with a few questions. Maybe some of you Christians can reply.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.15: 19-24). The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev. 24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?
I know you have Christians have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
An American Atheist
asixbury (anonymous) replies…
Love this!
phoggyjay (anonymous) replies…
Now that was funny
BornAgainAmerican (anonymous) replies…
Where is Agnostick to deliver moral platitudes for not crediting teh source? This thing is all over the internet.
What say you Ag?
Agnostick (anonymous) replies…
Find the source, and I'll credit it. Do you know, without doubt, who wrote that?
Major fail for you... major laugh riot for me.
mommatocharlie (anonymous) replies…
ummmwe are living in the new covenant times, not the OT. With the coming of Christ came the new covenant, and God's instructions were updated
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Then Christians shouldn't use the OT to condemn homosexuality.
Yeoman2 (anonymous) replies…
I stand vindicated before God and Man!!!!!!!!!!!!
esteshawk (anonymous) replies…
Amen, brother!
mr_right_wing (anonymous) replies…
Matthew 7:6
it would be a waste of time, you have no intention of listening to any explanation...your baiting folks for the sole reason of ridicule.
Why does this even matter? Your an atheist..??
ksyellowdog (anonymous) replies…
What matters is how each perceives their own role in society. I prefer to remain humble while most Christia I know seem to proselytize at the drop of a pin. Most should shun such activities, if they want friends.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Paraphrasing something from an earlier thread:
http://bit.ly/ySJeuM
No municipal, county, state, or federal office, representative, official, or dignitary should hand out a "marriage license." They should only hand out something like "License of Domestic Partnership" or "Certificate of Civil Union." Such a certificate would be perfectly legal and binding for your doctors, hospitals, lawyers, accountants, government officials at all levels, tax preparers, real estate agents and game wardens.
Those that want an actual piece of paper that says "Marriage Certificate" can consult with the priest, minister, reverend, rabbi, mullah, chief, shaman, witch doctor, tribal council, cruise ship captain, airline pilot, Bodhisattva, or 24-hour-wedding-chapel-Elvis of their choice.
Hong_Kong_Phooey (anonymous) says…
This is hilarious. It's like watching people argue about the color of air. One thing I do know, the Bible says "judge not lest ye be judged," and it seems the religious folk often forget that lil' gem when it comes to homosexuality. Of course, they also like to pick and choose which of God's rules he actually meant (sorry, gays), and which ones were just kind of... guidelines to be discarded as one sees fit (sweet, I can get a divorce and declare other people's sins to be worse than my own!!).
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
Air is blue. Just look at the sky in the daytime for proof of that.
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) says…
"We can't leave our values at the door. If we leave our values at the door, we abandon much of the moral glue that has held our nation together for centuries and allowed us to become somewhat more perfect a union."
Who said this yesterday at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC?
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obam...
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) replies…
In 2008, Obama declared that his nomination was the world's most historical moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal. Someone needs to remind the theologian-in-chief that there was only one person who walked on water, and he did not occupy the Oval Office. Let's end this national nightmare in November and elect a true leader.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
Um, where exactly did he declare this?
What? He didn't? Oh, I see, you just made it up.
How pathetic when you have so little to stand on that you have to make stuff up about what people said.
Might as well get used to the knowledge that Romney likely isn't going to be elected and Obama will serve a second term. You really don't want to give up another four years of your life being this angry, do you?
Gandalf (anonymous) says…
Why is it people who claim that life is too complex to be created without intelligent design, have no problem with a god springing from nothing complete with supernatural powers?
baa?
math?
fhnc?
tange (anonymous) replies…
For many, intelligent design is contained beneath the highest or widest supported ceiling.
/ or convoluted within the nearest cranium
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
Or, that life is too complex to be created without intelligent design, but then insist that it must fit into a simple plug/socket gendered dichotomy without variation.
ivalueamerica (anonymous) says…
In Leviticus 27:6 a monetary value was placed on children, but not until they reached one month old (any younger had no value). Likewise, in Numbers 3:15 a census was commanded, but the Jews were told only to count those one month old and above - anything less, particularly a fetus, was not counted as a human person. In Ezekiel 37:8-10 we watch as God re-animates dead bones into living soldiers, but the passage makes the interesting note that they were not alive as persons until their first breath. Likewise, in Genesis 2:7, Adam had a human form and a vibrant new body but he only becomes a fully-alive human person after God makes him breathe. And in the same book, in Genesis 38:24, we read about a pregnant woman condemned to death by burning. Though the leaders of Israel knew the woman was carrying a fetus, this was not taken into consideration. If indeed the Jews, and the God who instructed them, believed the fetus to be an equal human person to the mother, then why would they let the fetus die for the mother's crimes? The truth is simple. A fetus is not a human person, and its destruction is not a murder
ivalueamerica (anonymous) says…
And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse: But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband: Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell; And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. 5:19-22
This is the part that fooled me. I get the idea that if the woman has been unfaithful, then the magic bitter water will do something awful to her. But I wasn't sure just what. What does it mean to have your belly swell and your thigh rot? But then I saw the footnote in the NIV that said it meant this: "cause you to be barren and have a miscarrying womb."
Armored_One (anonymous) says…
Just a few chuckles for anyone interested.
Scientologists would have the best chance of meeting Jesus were he to make a visit. Religious piety to teh point of claiming divine inspiration or prophetic ability tends to get one put into a mental institution. Scientologists, with their claims of psychology being a hoax, would, by default, be more capable of accepting a returned Jesus than any sect of Christianity.
Those that keep shouting that Freddy Phelps is NOT a represenative of God should really stop agreeing with him. He's flat stated that homosexuality is a sin with automatic damnation to Hell. Either it's a sin and you agree with Freddy P. in principle, or it's not a sin and Freddy doesn't speak for God. You really can't have both.
BornAgainAmerican (anonymous) replies…
The bible says homosexuality is a sin and an an abomination. Judgement is reserved by for the Almighty. It is not my place, or any other man's place, to judge. So in a sense, all Christians agree with Fred. What we do not agree with is his rush to judgement and his despicable demonstrations.
Armored_One (anonymous) replies…
Really, Born? You don't agree with "his rush to judgment", but yet less than 50 words previously, you stated that the Bible is the full and complete source on this topic AND said it is not your place to judge, with the implied lack of judgment that the Bible might be wrong.
Dancing around a topic accomplishes nothing other than not answering a question.
Oh, and by the by, I was raised Roman Catholic.
Reverse the situation. Assume you are the homosexual and the homosexual is the one, proverbially, deciding if you should enjoy the same legal rights they have.
Is it correct, as an American, to deny one group of American the same legal rights as another group of American citizens? I could care less about your faith, or even mine in this instance. This is not a theocracy, so God's Law is a red herring with the simple exception of guiding the individual's moral choices.
There was a time, not so long ago, when the topic of marriage was controvertial. Read up on it. The arguments used then echo loudly in harmony with the arguments of today against homosexuals.
At least homosexual are allowed at the lunch counter, so to speak.
BornAgainAmerican (anonymous) replies…
Please show me where I said the "bible is the "complete source on this topic". But the bible is what I believe. You are welcome to your opinion, but please respect mine.
I really did not see a question in your post, but I will repeat my comment pertaining to part of your post re Fred Phelps. Christians agree with Phelps when he says that homosexuality is a sin. What we don't agree with is his rush to judgement and despicable demonstrations.
I will not condemn homosexuals for their choices, but neither can I support them. Surely you can see the difference between Phelps and main stream Christians. If not, then I can't help you.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Have you actually read the story in the Bible?
Do you believe that Lot was a noble and righteous man for offering his virgin daughters to be raped?
What about all of the other various parts of the OT that condemn a variety of things - do you condemn all of them as well?
If not, why not?
What is this narrow, almost obsessive focus on homosexuality?
BornAgainAmerican (anonymous) replies…
"Have you actually read the story in the Bible?"
Why would you feel the need to ask? Of course I have read it.
"Do you believe that Lot was a noble and righteous man for offering his virgin daughters to be raped?"
I believe that ALL men have sinned and fallen short. Even those in the bible. Forgiveness by the Creator is always available. The thief being crucified on the cross alongside Jesus is such an example.
"What is this narrow, almost obsessive focus on homosexuality?"
Homosexuality was cited in the LTE as an example of hypocrisy. Remember? And AO was making a point of it. I was responding to AO's post. Why do you obsess over anyone who makes comments that do not support homosexuality?
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Nice non-answer there.
The Bible, if one is using the OT, lists a large number of various things that one shouldn't do, that are "unclean", etc.
If one believes in the Bible as gospel truth, including the OT, then it would logically follow that one would follow Kosher dietary prescriptions, etc.
Also, one would condemn a large number of habits as "unclean".
And, yet, we don't see that from most Christians. They don't follow the dietary laws in Leviticus, they ignore the passages about many habits, and yet they focus on and condemn homosexuality.
It seems odd, and not logically consistent, to me.
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) replies…
Cheeseburgers being illegal, for one.
Armored_One (anonymous) replies…
Last I knew, the punishment for sin was eternity in Hell. Unless I missed a memo or two, I don't think that has changed much, either.
You say you cannot condemn this person or that, but if you condemn them with a sin, you condemn them to Hell. That is the proverbial poster child for judgment, assuming they haven't changed the definition on that particular word.
My point is not whether you should march in Gay Pride parades or wear rainbow bracelets.
My point is you, as a singular American, are entitled, by LAW, to certain provisions, protections and luxuries. Not allowing homosexuals to have that exact same access is no different than white's only drinking fountains and lunch counters.
To use good 'ol Freddy as an example in a different context, I am all for his civil right to free speech. I despise his methods and wording, but I am all for his RIGHT.
Not to put too fine of a point on it, does God's Law trump civil law in a country NOT run according to God's Laws?
BornAgainAmerican (anonymous) replies…
I don't have the power to send anyone to Hell AO.
Likewise, I cannot wave my hand and bestow legal rights to homosexuals. I have but one vote and I cannot sanction gay marriage by voting to pass such a measure. It is contrary to my beliefs and I will not be an enabler for sinners.
Armored_One (anonymous) replies…
So you believe discrimination based on sexual preference is not only acceptable, it's correct?
Or am I reading it wrong when you say you will not vote to give American citizens the same legal rights you possess?
jafs (anonymous) replies…
The answer to that question appears to be yes.
At first, he claimed he would neither vote to deny nor grant rights, but then acknowledged that he would vote to deny same-sex marriages.
BornAgainAmerican (anonymous) replies…
I don't have the power to send anyone to Hell AO.
Likewise, I cannot wave my hand and bestow legal rights to homosexuals. I have but one vote and I cannot sanction gay marriage by voting to pass such a measure. It is contrary to my beliefs and I will not be an enabler for sinners.
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…
"The bible says homosexuality is a sin"
Yet not important enough to warrant including it in the Ten Commandments. Odd.
"I will not condemn homosexuals for their choices, but neither can I support them."
Great. No one is saying you should do either, but denying them equal rights is condemning them. Allowing them equal rights isn't supporting them. It's removing a discrimination. There is a difference.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Nicely said.
But that sort of distinction seems to be a bit too subtle for religious believers.
They don't seem to understand that they're free to believe what they like, but that doesn't give them the right to discriminate.
BornAgainAmerican (anonymous) replies…
@ Jesse:
"Yet not important enough to warrant including it in the Ten Commandments. Odd."
You'll have to take that issue up with Moses and God Almighty. The bible still says what it says. Homosexuality is a sin and an abomination.
What's really "odd" is your contention that a vote for gay marriage is not a vote to support homosexuality. Rather you see it is a vote to "remove discrimination". A vote to remove discrimination enables homosexuals to practice a lifestyle that I cannot support due to my beliefs. Sorry, but your reasoning is flawed and fails the intellectual honesty test.
Armored_One (anonymous) replies…
The Bible openly condones slavery, both Old and New Testament.
Your argument is a a sad joke if you don't condone slavery as well as condemnation of homosexuality.
And yes, I can't wait to see your argument to defend your adamant declaration that your faith alone is a good enough reason to deny an American citizen the same legal freedoms you enjoy.
Fretster (anonymous) replies…
A_O, why isn'st BAA answering you?
Hmm, why is that BAA? Why?
Got an answer?
This question making you mad yet?
Why so may posts removed lately, BAA? Do you hate the TOS? Anger issues? Inability to understand real logic? What is it, exactly?
Such anger, just wait for the screaming response from BAA........
BornAgainAmerican (anonymous) replies…
Ya' got no game son.
Armored_One (anonymous) replies…
I was hoping for a more expansive response.
I suppose that I was asking for too much.
BornAgainAmerican (anonymous) replies…
The above comment was not intended for you AO. There is no comparison between homosexuality and slavery. Homosexuality is an unatural act and defies the laws of nature and God. It is an abomination and a sin. Slavery was a common practice in biblical times and I do not know of any passages that either condemn it or condone it. The bible only speaks of slavery as it existed in those times. Our lives and cultural norms change over time and this one in particular has changed in the culture of the United States. Although we now (in the US) view slavery as wrong, it has never been a sin. Big difference.
Armored_One (anonymous) replies…
SO God's Law supercedes Man's Law? I am assuming that is the basis of your argument.
I don't have a problem with your faith. I have my own. I don't even want you to privately and/or personally condone something that goes against your faith.
During the Civil War, slavery was defended by zealous preachers in the South. Their reasoning was that even Jesus refused to denounce slavery as unjust, even if it was the slavery of the Jew.
Simply because a book says something is wrong doesn;t make it wrong. Yes, the Bible is a book. It was assembled during the Council of Nicea shortly after Constantine I became baptised and realized that Christianity was about as fractured a faith as possible and still be a faith. Records of the Council show that a number of books, including several accounts and writings of Jesus, were excluded. In short, the Bible was assembled by popular vote.
My mention of slavery was taken the wrong way. I never said it was a sin. There are at least a dozen more passages that support slavery than there are denouncing homosexuality.
My question, which I guess you overlooked, is how can you, in good faith, say slavery is wrong, which is contrary to God's word in at least 5 passages I can remember, but say homosexuality is wrong, which is only mentioned 4 or 5 times, at best?
Either the word of God is tantamount or you only endorse it when it happens to coincide with your opinion.
ivalueamerica (anonymous) replies…
The same place the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination it also says wearing clothes of mixed fibers is as well and I know you have at least one poly-cotton blend in your closet. Should we then use scripture to allow you to go to prison.
And at the end of the day, I consider poly-cotton blend a much greater threat to humanity and marriage than I do homosexuality.
mr_right_wing (anonymous) says…
First, there is no such thing as 'obscure passages' anywhere in the Bible. I am a 'fundy' and not all of us (thanks for the blanket statement) are 'homophobic' I fear no 'gay' person, and more importantly I hate no 'gay' person...they are sinners like me who need a pardon from that sin. The point on divorce is absolutely right; the two choices God provides (through his word) are reconcilliation or seperation. Man and wife are a picture of Jeus Christ and the church (the bride of Christ), and I'm very glad, as much as we diserve it, God cannot divorce us!
mr_right_wing; putting the 'FUN' back in 'fundy'!
Kookamooka (MJ Browne) says…
All that "faith talk" sounds crazy. And people who quote Bible verses might as well be quoting football statistics-they are equally irrelevant. How people let that dusty old relic of literature rule their lives for two millenia is the real miracle. Glad to hear more people are putting on their thinking caps and questioning its authority. Let's hope everyone wakes up before Brownback makes all the women in Kansas his handmaidens.
FalseHopeNoChange (anonymous) replies…
Crazy "faith talk" like Ba'al's?
Obama on Taxes: What Would Jesus Do?
Republicans aren’t the only politicians who can play the religion card. President Obama tied Christianity to his policy proposals—specifically taxes—at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday. Obama argued that the wealthiest Americans should be expected to pay higher taxes because “I think that it’s going to make economic sense, but for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’ teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.’” He went on to insist that “we can all benefit from turning to our Creator, listening to him. Avoiding phony religiosity ... this is especially important right now, when we’re facing some big challenges as a nation.”
(from a source)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2...
mommatocharlie (anonymous) replies…
somebody else said " From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
sad_lawrencian (anonymous) says…
It's only a matter time before Brownback and the GOPs ban divorce in Kansas. I think I'm going to start calling Brownback 'Emperor Sam'.
Armstrong (anonymous) says…
Ahhh, love the sounds of the hysterical left. More poor me and I'm a victim please !!!!
Fretster (anonymous) replies…
Everything sounds dumb to the willfully stupid.
tange (anonymous) says…
Eye candy for <3D thinkers given to perseveration...
http://www.moillusions.com/wp-content...
/ it's just math
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) says…
Long after all of the great great great great great grandchildren of the posters here are all long dead and forgotten in their graves, the Bible will still be being read.
Gandalf (anonymous) replies…
Hopefully only by historical scholars.
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
Do you think they will be reading the Marquis de Sade's writings for moral guidance instead?
Gandalf (anonymous) replies…
Nope, judging from the right wingers and Evilsam, moral guidence from the bibe is turning Kansas into brownbackistan.
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
Actually, considering the way things are going, there won't be a future to worry about.
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) replies…
See the C-Street Cult, Doug Coe, for examples. They discarded the bible long ago; it's 'jesus plus nothing' and the Great ESSENE is nothing more than a businessman/unionbuster. That's Sam's position; he just won't talk about it much any more.
tange (anonymous) replies…
Judge ye not the Bible by those who read it reflected in dark mirrors.
/ they just get if backwards and can't make out the words for their own reflections
verity (anonymous) replies…
So true.
tange (anonymous) replies…
I cannot attest to the truth of my assertions, but the vote of confidence is appreciated.
Armstrong (anonymous) replies…
It's theses kinds of posts Gandalf that make you such a valued poster
Gandalf (anonymous) replies…
Let's see who are the people who claim their moral guidence is inspired by the bible.
Brownback Coyler Gilmore
Cain Boehner Moreno
Gingrinch Phelps Baa
Bachman Oneal math
Santorum Seidlicki fhnc
etc......the list goes on and on.
Armstrong (anonymous) replies…
At least they have morals, which is much more than can be said about some.
tange (anonymous) replies…
Authority-based morality is suspect, at best.
Gandalf (anonymous) replies…
Pease define the "morals" of gingrinch, phelps, cain and oneal! LOL
tolawdjk (anonymous) replies…
Gingrinchian morality: "Divorce is an Obamanation unless you can trade up to younger and prettier to further your political career."
Armored_One (anonymous) replies…
Should we compile a list of "moral" guidances in Christianity and then use said list to find the same references in other, older religions?
Nah, would hate to make people step outside of their comfort zone.
Armored_One (anonymous) says…
Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities. -Ayn Rand
Was never fond of Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged, but in all honesty, Ayn Rand was right.
Do you want your rights decided by a popular vote? Maybe an abolishment of religion in this nation should be put up for a popular vote. Or perhaps a vote on which religion should endorsed.
No, I didn't think you would enjoy something like that.
Remember when people said that interracial marriages would be the death of marriage? Didn't seem to impede me from getting married, or my parents, or my grandparents. Gay marriage isn't the end of anything other than gay dating. In 20 to 30 years, this will be a non-issue, pure and simple. The next generation will take over, and thankfully, they aren't as bigotted as my generation and my parents' generation.
Beside, I though that marriage was simply a ceremony in a religious institution, not the piece of paper you have to have that actually matters. I really can't believe that Americans, who take great pride in being tolerant to the point that illegal immigrants have the same legal rights as natural born citizens, will gladly look at a natural born citizen and tell them that they are not entitled to the same rights as other Americans.
THAT is the death of American values, my friends. No American is a lesser citizen than any other American citizen.
There is no "Gay Agenda". There is simply a rectifying of an injustice. Slaves were not 3/5 of a person and neither are homosexuals.
Or are you saying the Constitution of the United States of America should be rewritten to say that only heterosexuals are a whole and complete citizen? I'm only asking because it is what you are saying, so why not make it the actuality.