The Bible as Hate Literature?

[jegs2]

back that up, give us chapter and verse that supports that claim.

I already have.

As has already been quoted, the NT and Paulio says otherwise

What enforcement authority did Paul have? In fact, he was tried and put to death for his belief. I pointed out that the OT penalty for sin no longer held sway. Roasting in eternal Hell for you sin is another matter entirely.

regardless fine the bible isnt hate literature towards the gay man, it still is towards women, blacks, and all nonwhite non jews

Okay..........

[NapoleonGH]

really? cuz what you quoted did NOT say anything like "The laws of the prophets only applied to the theocracy in israel" or anything near there.

furthermore, paul has the enforcement of WRITING MOST OF THE NT, he is for all intenets and purposes the father of christianity, christianity being more his word than jesus's

[jegs2]

really? cuz what you quoted did NOT say anything like "The laws of the prophets only applied to the theocracy in israel" or anything near there.

Then try reading it again. I said (and I'll type really big just for you), THE PENALTIES FOR BREAKING THOSE LAWS (SIN) NO LONGER APPLY. The law is still in effect. The fact that you break a law and get away with it does not invalidate the law.

furthermore, paul has the enforcement of WRITING MOST OF THE NT, he is for all intenets and purposes the father of christianity, christianity being more his word than jesus's

Wrong.

[UltraViolence83]

If you really think about it, Dune could be considered "hate lit" too. After all, it depicts the persecution of the Zensunni Wanderers (Fremen)...And then glorifies Paul Atreides Muad'Dib's jihad against the greater Imperium.


On a side note, I think I know why the monotheistic religions of the world look on sex as sin. You see, they were formed in the desert, by desert cultures. And what's scarce in the desert? That's right! Water! And what's human bodily fluids made of, and what do you need more of (fuel) after strenous activity not necessary for survival (non-reproductive sex)? Water again.

I believe that these laws came forth as an ethics code for those who need every drop for survival. That's why you'll find that such cities as Babylon and Sodom-Gammorah were decadent in the eyes of the Israelites. Then again, they (city-dwellers) lived in somewhat well-to-do cities, not huts in a field. They could afford to waste.


Also, the ancient Hebrews were pricks.

[Rye]

If you really think about it, Dune could be considered "hate lit" too. After all, it depicts the persecution of the Zensunni Wanderers (Fremen)...And then glorifies Paul Atreides Muad'Dib's jihad against the greater Imperium.


On a side note, I think I know why the monotheistic religions of the world look on sex as sin. You see, they were formed in the desert, by desert cultures. And what's scarce in the desert? That's right! Water! And what's human bodily fluids made of, and what do you need more of (fuel) after strenous activity not necessary for survival (non-reproductive sex)? Water again.

I believe that these laws came forth as an ethics code for those who need every drop for survival. That's why you'll find that such cities as Babylon and Sodom-Gammorah were decadent in the eyes of the Israelites. Then again, they (city-dwellers) lived in somewhat well-to-do cities, not huts in a field. They could afford to waste.

I think that's well one of the best theories i've heard...like with them not eating pork because at the time it made sense, as pigs were usually full of cross-species diseases.

Also, the ancient Hebrews were pricks.

Circumcised pricks.

[Darth Wong]

Who cares whether you interpret the Bible to call for murdering homosexuals today, or only in the past? By stating that homosexuality is reprehensible, regardless of whether it says you're allowed to punish it yourself, that portion of the Bible qualifies as hate literature. It's like arguing that the line "Jews are all evil" is somehow not hateful, because it does not explicitly call for genocide.

[Queeb Salaron]

Who cares whether you interpret the Bible to call for murdering homosexuals today, or only in the past? By stating that homosexuality is reprehensible, regardless of whether it says you're allowed to punish it yourself, that portion of the Bible qualifies as hate literature. It's like arguing that the line "Jews are all evil" is somehow not hateful, because it does not explicitly call for genocide.

But under that argument, WEREN'T Jews evil?

[NapoleonGH]

And yet in Romans, Paul says that homosexuality is STILL considered a capital offense.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Emphasis mine. The Bible's stance on homosexuality did NOT change with the New Testament.

And if you read the entire Bible, you learn that all sin is worthy of death:

Romans 3:23 - "for all have sinned and fall sort of the glory of God,"

Romans 6:23 - "For the wages of sin [is] death...

However, in the same verse, we read, ...but the gift of God [is] eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
From that, we can see that sin remains what it is --> SIN, and its wages are death. However, the grace of Christ is what brings Salvation, and through Christ, sin no longer holds the power to condemn. Does that mean that we can sin all we want and not expect punishment? No, there are temporal laws in effect that punish such crimes as stealing, murdering, purgery and the like. Paul also viewed things under Mosaic Law, which did condemn homosexuality (along with many other "capital" offenses), although I don't know whether or not Israel (under Roman occupation) continued to stone homosexuals and kids who rebelled against their parents to death.

Hmm thats funny, Look not a single one of your bible quotes says "the old laws no longer apply" as i asked you to provide, OHH whats that, yes thats right, you're wrong. So then YOU said, "the penalties...yada yada yada" im sorry but can you tell me which gospel YOU wrote?

[jegs2]

Hmm thats funny, Look not a single one of your bible quotes says "the old laws no longer apply" as i asked you to provide, OHH whats that, yes thats right, you're wrong. So then YOU said, "the penalties...yada yada yada" im sorry but can you tell me which gospel YOU wrote?

You seem incredibly dense. Are you Darkstar under a different user name? When did I ever say the laws don't apply? I said that TEMPORAL penalties for breaking those laws don't apply in any nation of which I'm aware. What that means is that I cannot drag you away and have you stoned to death by the people for sleeping with an animal or whatever else Mosiac law penalized with death. Do you understand now? I really don't know how much more clear I can be...

[helpful hint mode] Try reading before replying and you'll find you look less foolish. [/helpful hint mode]

[Hethrir]

Firstly, it sucks a little being in a different time zone...i come back the next day, and all the threads are populated!

Commandments for love and the Golden Rule don't help much when you have twisted ideas of love and what is good. E.g. crusaders that think, 'if I were living my life like that I would rather be killed' a la Alien

Refer back to love thy neighbour as thyself. It's very sad that such a thing happened, but did they display the fruits of the Spirit?

14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

If not, then obviously they weren't Christian. My Bible tells me I MUST love everyone.

Perhaps they are (either party) forgetting the difference between dis-liking the person and dis-liking the behaviour.

"Love the sinner, but hate sin" and "God loves the sinner, but hates the sin".
I've heard those lines from intolerant homophobic fundies as a Weasel Word defense against accusations of biggotry quite a few times. I hope that that is not what you are saying, because the difference I see with with this "dis-liking the person and dis-liking the behaviour" type of reasoning is that between a homophobe and a homophobe apologist.

slow down! Refer back to the fruits of the Spirit. I'll reitterate my point. I have to love everybody, and I won't treat homosexuals any differently to anyone else. Let's look at what Jesus did:

10 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Jesus used to hang out with the tax collectors (who given the time period were generally thieves) and all types of people that the pharasies would never go near. If Jesus displayed such an attitude ( intolerant homophobic fundies etc...), would they all have eaten dinner with him? If i'm to follow Christ, i will go out and show these people the same love the He showed them.

Sorry about using the "intolerant homophobic fundies" quote there. I did not mean that you were saying Jesus was like that, but i am merely showing that Jesus was not that. And please, i am really looking forward to keeping this at a nice friendly level

[Hethrir]

sorry, duplicate post

[Sir Sirius]

Hethir are you saying that there is something wrong with homosexuality, but that you "love" homosexuals inspite of this?

[jegs2]

Hethir are you saying that there is something wrong with homosexuality, but that you "love" homosexuals inspite of this?

That's what he is saying.

Consider how Jesus handled the following situation:

John 8:1-11
But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" "No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

He did not condemn the sinner, instead forgiving her. But he told her to leave her sin, in the end.

[Darth Wong]

How is this any different from a white supremacist like Arminius, who spouted all kinds of vile bigotry about non-whites but stressed that he did not promote violence against them?

[Yuri Prime]

Parents may be subjected to criminal charges if they refuse to allow their children to attend classes that teach about and promote homosexual behavior.

I find this a little strong. I'd like to know more about what it says here because it's worded wierd. I'd support removing a parent's ability to disown their kids for being homosexual, but promoting homosexual behavior to kids sounds a litte strange.

[jegs2]

How is this any different from a white supremacist like Arminius, who spouted all kinds of vile bigotry about non-whites but stressed that he did not promote violence against them?

Upon what does he base his bigotry? As Jesus said, "He who would be first among you must be a servant to all." Doesn't sound like Arminius is following the teachings of Jesus.

[Darth Wong]

I find this a little strong. I'd like to know more about what it says here because it's worded wierd. I'd support removing a parent's ability to disown their kids for being homosexual, but promoting homosexual behavior to kids sounds a litte strange.

That's the reporter's bias. These classes would only teach that it's not evil. Some people see that as "promoting" it.

[Darth Wong]

How is this any different from a white supremacist like Arminius, who spouted all kinds of vile bigotry about non-whites but stressed that he did not promote violence against them?

Upon what does he base his bigotry? As Jesus said, "He who would be first among you must be a servant to all." Doesn't sound like Arminius is following the teachings of Jesus.

I agree that Jesus (as described in the book) was a nicer guy than Arminius. However, I was referring specifically to the assertion that it's OK to say "gays are evil" (which is basically what it means to say that homosexuality is a sin) and then deny that it's hateful because it doesn't call for actual violence. I suppose you could argue that EVERYONE is evil according to the doctrine, but the Bible makes a point of singling out certain acts for specific condemnation, and homosexuality is one of them.

As you say, Paul is not Jesus, so his confirmation of this attitude is not necessarily a reflection upon Christians. However, the question is not whether Christians are all hatemongers; the question is whether the Bible contains any hateful sentiments, and by including the OT, it does.

[Sir Sirius]

Hethir are you saying that there is something wrong with homosexuality, but that you "love" homosexuals inspite of this?

That's what he is saying.

Saying that I have nothing against homosexuals, but that homosexuality is sinfull (or wrong, evil Etc.), is about the same as saying that I have nothing agaisn't blacks, but their skin color is sinfull (or wrong, evil Etc.).

He did not condemn the sinner, instead forgiving her. But he told her to leave her sin, in the end.

Do you think that homosexuality is sinfull? And if it is a sin do you belief that it is wrong?

And would you consider a man who says that Jews are demi-humans to be a racist, even if he does not advocate violance or any other type of discriminatory action to be taken against the Jews inspite of his views? (For the sake of arqument let's pretend that we know for a fact that he does not wish any harm to come to the Jews based on his views.)

[jegs2]

Saying that I have nothing against homosexuals, but that homosexuality is sinfull (or wrong, evil Etc.), is about the same as saying that I have nothing agaisn't blacks, but their skin color is sinfull (or wrong, evil Etc.).

I disagree. A black man cannot change his skin color. Homosexuality is an act, and according to the Bible it is a sin. However, having sex outside of marriage, stealing, lying, cheating, thinking hateful thoughts against another, and wanting something belonging to someone else are also equally sins. There is no relevancy between one's skin color and a commission of sin.

And would you consider a man who says that Jews are demi-humans to be a racist, even if he does not advocate violance or any other type of discriminatory action to be taken against the Jews inspite of his views? (For the sake of arqument let's pretend that we know for a fact that he does not wish any harm to come to the Jews based on his views.)

Again, ethnicity, skin color or other physical characteristics with which one is born hold no bearing on the commission of sin. I fail to see the relevancy there. As for the racist, he has hatred in his heart and therefore is commiting sin.

I hold no hatred for those who commit sins (or I would indeed be a hate-filled person), but I do not condone the sin with which one chooses to live (including the sins to which I myself cling).

[Queeb Salaron]

Saying that I have nothing against homosexuals, but that homosexuality is sinfull (or wrong, evil Etc.), is about the same as saying that I have nothing agaisn't blacks, but their skin color is sinfull (or wrong, evil Etc.).

Careful. When you take in in context of Christianity, homosexuality IS objectively sinful. The debate here is whether or not that assertion of sin is right or not. Essentially, I think he was saying that CHRISTIANS say that homosexuality is wrong, and while he is a Christian, he sees nothing wrong with homosexuality. That is, if I understood his backpedaling second post.

And would you consider a man who says that Jews are demi-humans to be a racist, even if he does not advocate violance or any other type of discriminatory action to be taken against the Jews inspite of his views? (For the sake of arqument let's pretend that we know for a fact that he does not wish any harm to come to the Jews based on his views.)

::Raises his hand:: I would. Especially in a Christian mindframe, thought is as good as deed. Jesus said as much when he described the similarities between coveting and adultery.

[Rye]

I disagree. A black man cannot change his skin color.

Michael Jackson

Homosexuality is an act, and according to the Bible it is a sin.

It's also caused by a gene passed down on the mother's side.

However, having sex outside of marriage, stealing, lying, cheating, thinking hateful thoughts against another, and wanting something belonging to someone else are also equally sins. There is no relevancy between one's skin color and a commission of sin.

This is why the bible is absurd. It lumps homosexuality in with things which hurt people, when homosexual relationships of people i know have lasted longer than several heterosexual relationships. They can be as loving, beautiful or as destructive as any heterosexual relationship.

Again, ethnicity, skin color or other physical characteristics with which one is born hold no bearing on the commission of sin. I fail to see the relevancy there. As for the racist, he has hatred in his heart and therefore is commiting sin.

And when homosexuals have love in their heart that wishes to be expressed physically and consensually, they are also committing a sin?

I hold no hatred for those who commit sins (or I would indeed be a hate-filled person), but I do not condone the sin with which one chooses to live (including the sins to which I myself cling).

Yep, seems only god can get away with sin then, because it's not real sin when he does it.

[jegs2]

Michael Jackson

We see how well that has turned out

It's also caused by a gene passed down on the mother's side.

I've heard that theory was unproven. Even if the tendancy is there, then the behaviour can yet be controlled. Moreover, if one ascribes to evolution, then would not that tendancy be weeded out of the gene pool in order to allow continuation of the species (two men cannot biologically have a baby, nor two women)? BTW, if you have a link on that genetic theory, I'd be interested to see it.

This is why the bible is absurd. It lumps homosexuality in with things which hurt people, when homosexual relationships of people i know have lasted longer than several heterosexual relationships. They can be as loving, beautiful or as destructive as any heterosexual relationship.

I expect the Bible to be nothing but absurd to the non-believer. In fact, I would expect the non-believer to view the Bible as nonsense, which is why your opinion on it doesn't at all surprise me.

And when homosexuals have love in their heart that wishes to be expressed physically and consensually, they are also committing a sin?

Yes. And if you are straight, love a woman and have sex with her outside of marriage, you are also commiting just as great a sin.

Yep, seems only god can get away with sin then, because it's not real sin when he does it.

That leads to a whole other can of worms, but needless to say, I beg to differ.

[jegs2]

One important addendum to this is that I do not expect any non-Christian to follow any of God's laws. How can they? Since I don't expect it, I don't confront non-Christians with what I perceive as sin, for to the non-believer, there is no such thing as sin. It isn't my place to judge them. Christians don't get off so easy, for I hold them to the standard they have claimed to share.

While not a very good analogy, I'll use the military. From a soldier who has been trained and indoctrinated, I expect a different standard than the civilian who has never been immersed into the military culture.

[Rye]

I've heard that theory was unproven. Even if the tendancy is there, then the behaviour can yet be controlled. Moreover, if one ascribes to evolution, then would not that tendancy be weeded out of the gene pool in order to allow continuation of the species (two men cannot biologically have a baby, nor two women)? BTW, if you have a link on that genetic theory, I'd be interested to see it.

Well, as i said it's passed down on the mother's side, so such a gene would not get weeded out from female offspring. Plus although there is a tendency there, i see no reason as to why it's bad, as it is in nowhere near the same league as violence say. Morelikely it was just turned into a crime because the jews wanted more kids, this would also explain the no sex other than for children attitude.

I'll attempt to find a link to it...

I expect the Bible to be nothing but absurd to the non-believer. In fact, I would expect the non-believer to view the Bible as nonsense, which is why your opinion on it doesn't at all surprise me.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it nosensical, i just shouldn't think that it was meant to be deified. It's some rather odd stories lumped together with meanings to them, that should siffice.