Four years later...

[Non Catenatum]

More than that, he supports their right to do it to the hilt.

I'm not sure if I still need to clarify, but my overall view is this: only those who claim to follow God should be held accountable by any other person to live according to His laws.

In other words, my interpretation of Scripture is not liberal in the Episcopalian sense, condoning gay pastors and so forth. If you claim to believe Scripture, I think it's inexcusable to blatantly disregard it, especially for a pastor.

But, the government isn't about forcing Biblical morals--just those which are, mostly, universal and logical. Since I believe in a democracy, and not a theocracy, I would vote in favor of gay marriage.

[Soldier of Entropy]

What if they are a Judeo-Christian who takes the bible as a set of guidelines which can change over time?

[The Vortex Empire]

I wasn't here when you were, but it's nice to see a creationist actually doing some research and realizing that they were wrong for a change. Now if only we could get the rest of them to do this. Good luck with college.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

What if they are a Judeo-Christian who takes the bible as a set of guidelines which can change over time?

They wouldn't have the same belief mechanism that he does, and therefore, their beliefs would presumably fall under the same category as those of atheists; when Christians refer to Christians, they generally mean "my own denomination", not all Christians, since for all the Chick tracts out there even the craziest fundie will rarely advocate burning Catholics at the stake for obeying the antichrist and similar shit.

[Non Catenatum]

What if they are a Judeo-Christian who takes the bible as a set of guidelines which can change over time?

It is not our duty to keep others moral--but in all things, I think it is our duty to ask for consistency. If you claim to believe in the Bible as the inspired word of God, I would challenge your continued homosexuality. If you openly claim to follow Christ in a Biblical way, you've warranted the criticism. With others who have never claimed to follow the Bible, there's no reason to judge. That would include those who do not hold the Bible as universally true.

I'm not advocating a wishy-washy "right for you, wrong for me" attitude either. A sin is a sin. But Biblically speaking, it's the duty of Christians alone to keep from sinning. If unbelief itself is a sin, there's no point in making white-washed tombs out of people.

[Feil]

Well, hello, Mr. Amusing Name . Here's a rope to hang y - ahem! - a question for you:

What about biblical commands that demand that the Christian actively do something evil, rather than passively refrain from an active sin? Like, say, suffering not a witch to live, killing your child if he leaves your religion, and so forth?

[Non Catenatum]

Well, hello, Mr. Amusing Name Razz. Here's a rope to hang y - ahem! - a question for you:

What about biblical commands that demand that the Christian actively do something evil, rather than passively refrain from an active sin? Like, say, suffering not a witch to live, killing your child if he leaves your religion, and so forth?

The Levitical law (which is where these laws were found) was given to the Hebrews in forming a theocracy. They were the "nation of God", and failed miserably. The moral issues of those extremes (which I'd be happy to discuss) are besides the point--the nation of Israel was to be a theocracy.

The "Christian"/New Testament stage, if I could call it that, is when that post-Christ message was extended to all people. That's a radical shift from a strict theocracy to a faith-based belief system. And when you read about the missionary trips of Paul and the like, the emphasis was always to extend the gospel. All the condemnation (in every Epistle) was written to churches which claimed to be following Christ.

[Surlethe]

I'm curious: why do you think that Paul's letters should be taken as infallible? That is, after all, the only place in the NT where the condemnation of homosexual behavior (once, and the translation is uncertain) and premarital sex occur.

PS- Have you applied to join the KAC yet?

[TithonusSyndrome]

Well, hello, Mr. Amusing Name Razz. Here's a rope to hang y - ahem! - a question for you:

What about biblical commands that demand that the Christian actively do something evil, rather than passively refrain from an active sin? Like, say, suffering not a witch to live, killing your child if he leaves your religion, and so forth?

The Levitical law (which is where these laws were found) was given to the Hebrews in forming a theocracy. They were the "nation of God", and failed miserably. The moral issues of those extremes (which I'd be happy to discuss) are besides the point--the nation of Israel was to be a theocracy.

The "Christian"/New Testament stage, if I could call it that, is when that post-Christ message was extended to all people. That's a radical shift from a strict theocracy to a faith-based belief system. And when you read about the missionary trips of Paul and the like, the emphasis was always to extend the gospel. All the condemnation (in every Epistle) was written to churches which claimed to be following Christ.

So I guess then you don't put much stock in Matthew 5:17 where Jesus says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law (of Moses), or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

Otherwise, though, grats on the improvements.

[Anguirus]

Hello there! It takes some guts to come back to a place like this and admit you were wrong, so good for you!

Obviously you and I will disagree on any number of things, but since you don't think the government should screw around with me and mine for being non-Christian, I think we can get along.

[Non Catenatum]

I'm curious: why do you think that Paul's letters should be taken as infallible? That is, after all, the only place in the NT where the condemnation of homosexual behavior (once, and the translation is uncertain) and premarital sex occur.

I feel like this is leading to SLAM and a new thread should be started...I do believe in the infallibility of the Epistles, but that explanation isn't necessary on this issue:

Were homosexuality never even mentioned, it would hardly change anything. The Biblical framework for marriage, as seen in the Old Testament and verified by Jesus (as well as Paul), is that between a Man and a Woman. This is always associated with sex, and everything else is considered "immorality" or an "abomination". Christ confirms this in his teaching, going a step further to say that even to lust after another woman is to "commit adultery in your heart."

So homosexuality isn't the point--it's all sex outside of the Biblical framework of marriage, created in the Old Testament, but verified in the new. The infallibility of the Epistles isn't as much the point.

[Non Catenatum]

So I guess then you don't put much stock in Matthew 5:17 where Jesus says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law (of Moses), or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

I'd completely agree. Jesus didn't nullify the moral code set in the law of Moses--He came from the same God, and was the ultimate fulfillment of that law. That is not in the sense that His law is simply another set of rules to add to the list, but that He fulfilled the purpose of the law--to bring redemption to sinners. Where the law failed (if I may paraphrase Romans 6 and 7) is that it restricted sinful behavior, but still did not create "good" people in the positive, only by negation ("not bad").

That isn't to say that all of us are meant to live by the legal system of the Israelites. Only that the same God decreed them both.

[Feil]

No, where the law failed is that it was evil. Or does murdering your daughter because she was raped in a city*, murdering your son for leaving your religion, murdering a witch for being "oh noes, teh scary!", committing genocide because people were not of your religion, and taking their young women for sex slaves not strike you as bad?

*EDIT: semi-inaccurate. See below. This edit function is handy!

[Non Catenatum]

No, where the law failed is that it was evil. Or does murdering your daughter because she was raped in a city, murdering your son for leaving your religion, murdering a witch for being "oh noes, teh scary!", committing genocide because people were not of your religion, and taking their young women for sex slaves not strike you as bad?

I agree that it was too brutal. But theologically, that's not the failure I was talking about. (By the way, I'm familiar with the witch law and others like it, but where is the murdering of sons and daughters? I do believe you, I've just never heard that argued before.)

The law correctly showed that all sin is intolerable to God. But where it failed is that those who follow it will always, always be blatant hypocrites. If death is what a sinner deserves, then the law was, in a sense, accurate. But, as Christ said, just as the law condemned murderers and adulterers, those who even think murderous and lustful thoughts are guilty the same. So all, by the law, would be condemned to death. That brutality, and failure to accept the imperfection of mankind, is where the law failed. It targeted those who committed specific sins, but all, by the law, would be guilty, and all would die.

Which is, of course, where Jesus' famous "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" quote, applies to.

[Surlethe]

I'm curious: why do you think that Paul's letters should be taken as infallible? That is, after all, the only place in the NT where the condemnation of homosexual behavior (once, and the translation is uncertain) and premarital sex occur.

I feel like this is leading to SLAM and a new thread should be started...I do believe in the infallibility of the Epistles, but that explanation isn't necessary on this issue:

Were homosexuality never even mentioned, it would hardly change anything. The Biblical framework for marriage, as seen in the Old Testament and verified by Jesus (as well as Paul), is that between a Man and a Woman. This is always associated with sex, and everything else is considered "immorality" or an "abomination". Christ confirms this in his teaching, going a step further to say that even to lust after another woman is to "commit adultery in your heart."

What says the converse of the implication "marriage -> sex" is true? Of course, Christ's teaching about lust (aside from its prima facie absurdity, which requires rationalization) presumes marriage: adultery is a violation of the marriage contract, and does not apply to premarital sex.

As for only between man and woman, I'd need to see an explicit quote for that, too. And even then, I still might not take it, because the Old Testament law has no moral authority in and of itself, just like Paul.

[CaptJodan]

I agree that it was too brutal. But theologically, that's not the failure I was talking about. (By the way, I'm familiar with the witch law and others like it, but where is the murdering of sons and daughters? I do believe you, I've just never heard that argued before.)

The law correctly showed that all sin is intolerable to God. But where it failed is that those who follow it will always, always be blatant hypocrites. If death is what a sinner deserves, then the law was, in a sense, accurate. But, as Christ said, just as the law condemned murderers and adulterers, those who even think murderous and lustful thoughts are guilty the same. So all, by the law, would be condemned to death. That brutality, and failure to accept the imperfection of mankind, is where the law failed. It targeted those who committed specific sins, but all, by the law, would be guilty, and all would die.

Which is, of course, where Jesus' famous "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" quote, applies to.

Why couldn't god come up with a set of rules that didn't lead to failure and have to make revisions, then? You do believe in the infalibility of God, I take it?

[Faqa]

By the way, I'm familiar with the witch law and others like it, but where is the murdering of sons and daughters?

For the daughter, the logic is that if she was raped in a city, she could've cried out and therefore gotten help. Ergo, it wasn't rape if it's in a city, and the woman should face the consequences of adultery/pre-martial sex. Usually death, as I recall.

This is as opposed to the countryside, where it can be assumed that even if the woman HAD cried out, no one would have heard her. Ergo, if she says it's rape, her word is taken at face value.

Feil wins an out-of-context award. As though you need lack of context to make the Bible look bad.

[Feil]

All verse numbers from KJV, yours might be off by a few numbers.

Deut. 22 : 23-24 (28-29 are also loads of fun)

Deut. 13 : 6-10 and Exod. 22 : 20 (right next to the "suffer not a witch", passage, as it happens)

I've read the book you claim to believe. Have you?

[Feil]

For the daughter, the logic is that if she was raped in a city, she could've cried out and therefore gotten help. Ergo, it wasn't rape if it's in a city, and the woman should face the consequences of adultery/pre-martial sex. Usually death, as I recall.

That one, aye. Should have checked the quote before referencing it, and made note of that.

Still, it's an absurdly stupid bit of "logic". Anybody with half a brain can look around and see that crying out for help is hardly a guarantor of help, even in this age, when generally women don't get legally beaten and raped by their husbands any more.

[Non Catenatum]

I agree that it was too brutal. But theologically, that's not the failure I was talking about. (By the way, I'm familiar with the witch law and others like it, but where is the murdering of sons and daughters? I do believe you, I've just never heard that argued before.)

The law correctly showed that all sin is intolerable to God. But where it failed is that those who follow it will always, always be blatant hypocrites. If death is what a sinner deserves, then the law was, in a sense, accurate. But, as Christ said, just as the law condemned murderers and adulterers, those who even think murderous and lustful thoughts are guilty the same. So all, by the law, would be condemned to death. That brutality, and failure to accept the imperfection of mankind, is where the law failed. It targeted those who committed specific sins, but all, by the law, would be guilty, and all would die.

Which is, of course, where Jesus' famous "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" quote, applies to.

Why couldn't god come up with a set of rules that didn't lead to failure and have to make revisions, then? You do believe in the infalibility of God, I take it?

The law, as I see it (which is with little authority) can be seen as a lesson. No one is perfect, and the nation which claimed to be God's people proved to fail as miserably as everyone else. Those who are glorified, even in Jewish tradition, all proved themselves to be sinners who failed the law, but trusted God instead.

The problem, of course, with this idea, is that it brings into play the ethics of an "object lesson", as I see it, lasting so long that those who were a part of it would never see the results. I can't say I have the philosophical authority to reason through the ethics of that.

But all of that is to say, whatever motive and by whatever course, the new covenant is given to the Gentiles as well as the Jews--the Gentiles who were never a part of an organized nation, and never followed the Jewish law. When Gentiles even begin ritual circumcision, Paul criticized them for trying to use Jewish custom (which was commanded in the Old Testament) for salvation, when they have been offered salvation through faith.

Today, I see Christians making the same mistake. They argue that we are a "Christian nation" which should follow "Christian values". I don't see it. Personal salvation was always completely separated from the theocracy of the Israelites.

[Faqa]

Still, it's an absurdly stupid bit of "logic". Anybody with half a brain can look around and see that crying out for help is hardly a guarantor of help, even in this age, when generally women don't get legally beaten and raped by their husbands any more.

Not disagreeing with you on the cocktarded logic. As I said, the Bible does not need help in looking bad.

Though, think of it. A woman's virginity, in that era, was not her business. It was a COMMODITY, and a valuable one, because it was what ensured to the husband that any kids she had were his, and no one else's. And in a society where certain bloodlines have more power, an attack upon the validity of a bloodline has great power.

In that context, setting up a VERY exact, strict and harsh set of laws upon virginity makes at least some sense.

[Feil]

Though, think of it. A woman's virginity, in that era, was not her business. It was a COMMODITY, and a valuable one, because it was what ensured to the husband that any kids she had were his, and no one else's. And in a society where certain bloodlines have more power, an attack upon the validity of a bloodline has great power.

In that context, setting up a VERY exact, strict and harsh set of laws upon virginity makes at least some sense.

Right, so we should really be going after the document that established the laws that made a woman's virginity a commodity, not after the Bib - Oh. Yeah.

---

EDIT:

Today, I see Christians making the same mistake. They argue that we are a "Christian nation" which should follow "Christian values". I don't see it. Personal salvation was always completely separated from the theocracy of the Israelites.

I gotta say it....

Amen!

[Darth Wong]

I'm not sure if I still need to clarify, but my overall view is this: only those who claim to follow God should be held accountable by any other person to live according to His laws.

That seems reasonable. One quibble, however:

In other words, my interpretation of Scripture is not liberal in the Episcopalian sense, condoning gay pastors and so forth. If you claim to believe Scripture, I think it's inexcusable to blatantly disregard it, especially for a pastor.

Since the Bible contradicts itself on numerous points (and please don't tell me you're one of those people who thinks there are no contradictions in the Bible), isn't it impossible to follow it without disregarding parts of it?

[jegs2]

I was just Googling my old username (creationistalltheway) to take a stroll down memory lane. This site had the most hits, so I've been reading archives for a while.

Welcome back.

[Non Catenatum]

Since the Bible contradicts itself on numerous points (and please don't tell me you're one of those people who thinks there are no contradictions in the Bible), isn't it impossible to follow it without disregarding parts of it?

It depends what contradictions you have in mind. Even as an inspired text, it was still written and translated by fallible men. This means certain contradictions do occur, as far as I can see:

- Minor historical details, especially in the chronology of events
- Details which are of no importance to the main, God-inspired point (like pi being roughly 3 instead of 3.14159...as if measurements were exact enough to replicate pi in the first place)
- Differences in commandments between the Old and New Testaments--these are contradictions at face value, but since we're talking about two different recipients to two different Laws, it's not the problematic sort of contradiction.

Nothing, as far as I know of, contradicts the thrust of any part of the Bible--this is what I think "God-breathed" is really about. God gave His message directly to human beings, so any important message wouldn't be screwed up. No one's going to write "remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy" and mean "do whatever the hell you want on Saturday". Similarly, I'd trust the authors at what they set out to do. On the Historical books, I'd be confident that the authors would check their history. In the Gospels, which are eyewitness accounts decades after the fact, I'd expect them to agree on the words of Christ, which were preached and re-preached by the apostles and validated by one another. But with the specific chronology (I know there's quite a bit of discrepancy in the Resurrection story), that doesn't bother me, or even surprise me.

The exception to this, is, of course, anything written by someone claiming to be a Prophet. Unlike Moses recording the history and laws of Israel, or the Gospel writers recollecting the teachings and actions of Jesus, the prophets did not speak about God, but directly from Him. If there are any contradictions within the prophets, that would be a serious problem, in my book.

Edit: Just to add a qualifier: A disconcerting contradiction in the words of God would not need to be made hyper-literal before being a contradiction. I've seen plenty of Christians and atheists do this with verses referring to the earth as a "circle" or the "sun rising". The fact that some Christians can actually draw flat-earth or geocentric implications from that is laughable. By the way, to all the flat-earthers out there (no one here I'm sure), if you want to take "circle" that literally, you'd need to make a case for a 2-D universe. A "flat earth" would be a cylinder as long as it has any depth, and God clearly said "circle".