Reading only part of the Bible

[EstimatedProphet]

My sister is a fundamentalist, but not one of the ones that goes to picket gays and things like that. Nevertheless, she is a fundamentalist, and believes that the Bible is literal truth, and that the statements in it are commandments-no metaphor, no translation errors, ec. Jesus wrote the book down under the command of King James. You know the type.

So, she refuses to read the Catholic Bible. It has several books that the King James version does not. I asked her why, and she said she was afraid of it, because the information in those books missing from the KJV was misleading.

This got me to thinking: all the books in the Bible have different origins. The New Testament books were gleaned out of writings that came from different times and different people. They came from all over the place. There has been a lot of argument as to whether some different books should be included (the Apocrypha comes to mind), or should have been excluded (there's a lot of theologions that say that Revelations should have been left out, because it confuses the message more than clarifies it). With all this going on, how can someone claim to have any kind of accuracy in their beliefs, or any kind of understanding of their relationship with God? How can someone believe that the Bible is inerrant, when they refuse to look at specific books that had just as much of a valid origin as the books they do read?

[rfkrfk]

1. missing books, not part of CURRENT King James bible n/t

[Wapsie B]

2. Conservative fundies won't even touch the Revised Standard Version.

Try to find it in some of these "Christian" book stores.

[EstimatedProphet]

3. Right

[EstimatedProphet]

23. Yeah, now I get it. D'OH!

[xchrom]

4. it's past time for a new

revison -- one that certainly excludes revelations{hardly christian that} and begins to look fresh at some of the previously excluded works -- bring back some of gnostic scripture, etc.

and keep the door open to add more recent works.

[EstimatedProphet]

5. I agree

And several others do too I believe

Fundamentalists wouldn't get it though-they believe the Bible was written in 1641 in England.

[BlueCaliDem]

6. I'm a liberal, and a Christian...and some would even call me a

..."fundamentalist", because I've chosen to believe that the Bible is not written metaphorically, but is literal as it is The Word of God, and that it's as complete as He deemed it necessary for how mankind should live; using the past as example of what to do, and what not to do.

Take into account that according to the Bible, Jesus was a liberal too, so I believe I can call myself one. :D

If you are to believe (as I do) that there are some "books" missing from the King James or other versions of the Bible as we know it, I've concluded for myself they're irrelevant to the message the Bible is trying to convey which is, to live as Christ has to the best of our ability.

The key message is, NOT to force others to come to your way of seeing things, but merely to present your case for them to choose.

As the Bible's shown in just about every book, God inspired the authors to write down what He wants us to know in order to live a happy, secure, prosperous life, which includes sane advice for marriage (between a man and woman); how to see government (separation of church and state), to faithfully pay our dues (give unto God what is God's); Satan is a real entity (the "devil"; the man-slayer); demons are real (fallen angels during the Great Deluge); Death absolves all sin, and that our "soul" is a combination of body, and spirit (at death, the body returns to the ground and the spirit returns from where it came--God's "memory" awaiting the resurrection), and questions about any "afterlife" (the dead is conscious of nothing), in other words, our soul doesn't survive and live on after the "life force" has left it.

Yes, there are probably books missing from the Bible. I've seen a documentary about this, but the scrolls found are irrelevant to the message the Bible's supposed to convey; usually telling of Jesus' mother, Mary, who had more children after him, and even one that tells that she remained a "virgin" even after his birth and that the "sisters and brothers" mentioned briefly in the Bible are half-siblings from Joseph's prior marriage.

In another scroll, it tells of Adam and Eve's son Caine, taking his wife who was his sister, now, I understand this would make one wanna :puke:, but bear in mind that when God created the first man, and his woman, he created them perfectly, therefore taking a sister to further the lines of mankind was then, in that time, okayed.

Kind of like creating a new breed of, say, dog to create the breed lines of today.

These don't bring anything to the message, however, because after the "laying with" between Lot's daughters with him (after Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction) God forbade the pairing of family members; allowing it only that one last time because there were no other people around for the two daughters to be with.

When reading the Bible people need to take into account the message that it's trying to convey. The Bible, as I understand it to be, is more a guide book for mankind on how to live a long, happy, and prosperous life as best we can in this world that Satan has won from Adam, the first man.

That's why, when Jesus came, he was also called "the Second Adam"; to undo the mistake Adam had made, because as the Bible says, "The earth was created for man, and Man for the earth".

That's why, in accordance with the Greek scriptures (New Testament) I don't believe that when people die, they go to any Heaven, since Heaven was created for the Angels, and it's their realm--and add to the fact that, thinking rationally here, if we did go to Heaven after death, would there be a need for any Resurrection on earth?

When Jesus spoke about "you" and "going to Heaven", he spoke solely to his chosen disciples. Add to that, when Lazarus' sister rushed up to him when he came to visit her brother who had been dead 4 days in order to resurrect him, she never mentioned "I know I'll see him in Heaven", but rather "I know I'll see him in Resurrection".

However, throughout the entire Bible, it's clear, from Genesis to Revelation, that God has blessed us with "free will", and has stated that because of that, he can't interfere with our choices--choices we all will be individually "judged" for.

Reading the message in the Bible makes sense, and to me, it reads like a complete volume of books.

Sure, there are missing books, but as I've noted above, they aren't necessarily relevant regarding the message God wants all Christians to follow, but the premise is, we are all individuals; special in his "eyes", and each given free will to make our own choices, and as we know, with that "privilege" comes responsibility.

But Jesus himself urged, and encouraged mankind not just to take whatever texts for truth, but to study, and compare, and derive as much information as one can even from secular sources; to get a broader understanding and to arm yourself with knowledge so you won't easily fall for distortions and dogma, and outright lies by, say, any false prophets like...Bush, for example.

[Zenlitened]

8. Sorry. "The bible says marriage should be between a man and a woman"...

... doesn't sound the least bit liberal to me.

:puke:

[BlueCaliDem]

10. Never claimed the Bible is Liberal.

I claim I am.

You got the two mixed up.:eyes:

[Zenlitened]

11. Uh, no. I didn't get the two mixed up.

Dig?

...in order to live a happy, secure, prosperous life, which includes sane advice for marriage (between a man and woman)

:eyes:

[BlueCaliDem]

13. Nope. Still don't see it. FYI, I was paraphrasing what's written...

...in the Bible.

Never said exclusively.

Never claimed I was "A liberal Christian", either.

I claimed, I am a Liberal AND a Christian.

One doesn't exclude the other.

So yeah. You did get the two mixed up.

Dig?

[Zenlitened]

16. Well, your paraphrase of what your bible says ...

... is quite troubling indeed.

It almost seems like an interpratation, although I'm sure someone who considers their bible the literal word of god wouldn't presume to put words in his mouth.

You never said "exclusively"? You didn't have to. It was pretty strongly implicit in what you wrote:

...God inspired the authors to write down what He wants us to know in order to live a happy, secure, prosperous life, which includes sane advice for marriage (between a man and woman); ...

Unless of course you're saying that god left out some common sense when he was "inspiring the authors," or dropped the ball completely.



(P.S. You say you never claimed you were a liberal christian? Who did? :shrug: )

[BlueCaliDem]

25. Troubling? It's more like you're being offense, and in that state of..

...mind, you've completely missed the gist of it. <sigh>

The message I was trying to convey, was that the Bible is merely a guide for mankind to follow if they CHOOSE, IF they truly want to live a happy, prosperous life since the God of the Bible claims to know what mankind needs for these things.

I only gave a few examples. You can choose to take it, or leave it. It's really that simple.

What I've failed, was to nuance: in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the Bible IF you choose that life's path.

I'm sorry I don't clarify each and every word in my posts, but you'll just have to tolerate it, or choose to ignore my posts to avoid feeling "troubled" unnecessarily.

"You never said "exclusively"? You didn't have to. It was pretty strongly implicit in what you wrote:
"...God inspired the authors to write down what He wants us to know in order to live a happy, secure, prosperous life, which includes sane advice for marriage (between a man and woman); ..."

Okay, before we delve into some heated "god-accepting", "god-rejecting" gotcha debate, my post was written from a Christian's POV.

To repeat myself again, I am a Liberal, and a Christian.
The "liberal" side of me is to understand that not everyone sees life the way I've chosen to see it; that God's greatest gift is free will, therefore, freedom to choose, and that I have no right to judge other peoples' decision, so I don't.

The "Christian side" of me is to choose to live my personal and private life in accordance with Christ's teachings to the best of my ability; to raise my children in accordance with that, but to remind them, that we are all individuals, and we are capable of making our own choices, and that we show the same due respect to others even when they don't agree with us, in accordance to Christ's teachings.

Color me insane.

"Unless of course you're saying that god left out some common sense when he was "inspiring the authors," or dropped the ball completely.

No. I'm not implying that. I forgot to inject into my paraphrase:

""...God inspired the authors to write down what He wants us to know in order to live a happy, secure, prosperous life, which includes, but is not limited to sane advice for marriage (between a man and woman); ..."

(P.S. You say you never claimed you were a liberal christian? Who did? )

You, through strong implication when you noted the "marriage between a man and woman" thing (paraphrasing again), then added: "Doesn't sound the least bit liberal to me." because you responded to a post in which I claim I'm a liberal and a Christian; bringing into question through implication, that my belief in the Bible cannot qualify me to be a liberal as well.

Sorry, but that's just not true.

[Zenlitened]

27. But there's the problem. What the bible sets forth leads...

... if taken literally... to a world wracked with violence and hate. That's why so many people have decided, for example, that gays and lesbians really aren't an abomination to the lord. Really aren't deserving of murder in a hail of stones.

Taken literally, and in its entirety, your bible is no guide at all. It's just too filled with contradictions. That's why people interpret it, pick and choose which parts they want to take seriously, and which parts they want to discards as relics of another time.

But hey... I'm no bible scholar. I'd love to see the part where your god comes out and says he's cool with gays and lesbians, says gays and lesbians deserve the same civil rights as everyone else. 'Cause, you know, it's pretty direct in saying they deserve to die.

And I still don't get your aim in linking "sane advice for marriage" to marriage "between a man and woman." Isn't the implication, to the reader, that marriage between any one else is not sane?

That's the part that doesn't sound liberal to me.

Regarding who's claimed what:

(P.S. You say you never claimed you were a liberal christian? Who did? )

You, through strong implication when you noted the "marriage between a man and woman" thing (paraphrasing again), then added: "Doesn't sound the least bit liberal to me."

You've totally lost me there. How did my sentence, noting the dichotomy between bible-based marriage laws and liberalism, somehow morph into a fusion of christianity and liberalism? :shrug:

[BlueCaliDem]

51. It's only a problem if the stories in the Bible are taken out of context..

...by those who think they are "better" than those who are different than they.

Yes, the Hebrew Scriptures tell of bloody wars, and death, but if you read the stories carefully, you'll see that through it, it's not God, but mankind that chose to do these wars.

Free will, remember?

There are wars that were instigated by folk that don't abide by what the Bible calls, "true God", and the Hebrews then had to defend themselves against them; there were wars that God told Hebrews (his chosen folk) to fight in order to get the land he promised them.

I believe that the Bible is a kind of historic book in the sense that it tells us where we've come from, and what happens to those who disobey the laws of God, why Jesus was necessary; who he was.

A kind of "those who choose to ignore history are doomed to repeat it" kind of thing.

That's why so many people have decided, for example, that gays and lesbians really aren't an abomination to the lord. Really aren't deserving of murder in a hail of stones.

And they aren't. They are just as precious and dear to Him as every other, according to the Bible. See, if the act of homosexuality is a sin, then it's no greater a sin then say, the act of stealing, or the act of lying, or the act of gossiping, or even gluttony.

ALL sin is equal save one: the sin of denouncing God as the only true God.

That's what the Bible tells us, but I refuse to judge, and/or condemn any person for their choices; for who they are, because I'm a sinner like everybody else, and am living in a glass house because of it.

Taken literally, and in its entirety, your bible is no guide at all. It's just too filled with contradictions.

I don't believe it is, IF read within the context of the message it's trying to convey which makes for a very good guide. At least, that's my experience, and my personal opinion.

That's why people interpret it, pick and choose which parts they want to take seriously, and which parts they want to discards as relics of another time.

As long as it's done with good intentions, and what benefits all people, not just themselves, I believe. I don't see the harm in that.

But hey... I'm no bible scholar.

Neither am I.

I'd love to see the part where your god comes out and says he's cool with gays and lesbians, says gays and lesbians deserve the same civil rights as everyone else. 'Cause, you know, it's pretty direct in saying they deserve to die.

{Rom. 5: 12,17,19}: "Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned--...By the trespass of the one man death ruled as King....Through the disobedience of the one man many were constituted sinners."

And:

{Rom. 3:23; 6:23}: All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...The wages sin pays is death."

As I've tried to explain above, all sin is equal in God's view--save ONE: the sin to denounce and deny God's sovereignty. Jesus said this.

It's true that the Bible tells us that the act of homosexuality is a sin, but so is lying, and they're equal as far as He's concerned. Everyone who exercises in the act of homosexuality, sins, just like everyone who's ever lied does, and the wages of sin, is death.

God doesn't love gays and lesbians any less than he does people who lie, or people who steal, or people who gossip viciously about a fellow human-being. He does however expect us to strive to correct our sins.

Now I know you don't like reading this, and I'm sure this'll turn you off BIG TIME since I understand your passion for gay rights, but that's what He desires. It's up to us to choose whether we agree or not.

So in essence, I've got equal rights, civil or otherwise, as does my openly gay brother. I've got no right to judge, nor does another have any right to judge me.

However, at least it's some solace to me, that I'm no less of a sinner in His eyes than any other human-being on earth. I guess there is strength in numbers.

Look, the God of the Bible knows we aren't perfect. He understands we try hard to do what's right, but sometimes we just can't help telling a "white lie", for example, or not give back the money a less observant cashier accidentally gives back that she/he shouldn't, but it's the trying He wants to see, and it's worth repeating: we have free will to choose what we want, and what we don't want to do.

And I still don't get your aim in linking "sane advice for marriage" to marriage "between a man and woman." Isn't the implication, to the reader, that marriage between any one else is not sane?

That's the part that doesn't sound liberal to me.

Now I get it.

Okay, I meant to express: "sane advice for marriage" not "advice for a sane marriage". I guess that's where I'd been confusing. "Sane marital advice" in the sense how a man should treat his wife, and how a wife should treat her husband, and how they, as parents should raise their children.

Since I believe God created man and woman, He understands our needs with respect to each gender. This is just advice, not any law, and it's no secret that men are more physical, and women, more emotional.

The advice He gives for a strong marriage, is for a man to treat his wife as he would his own body, i.e. he'd never beat his body; never starve it; never leave it unclothed exposed to the elements, etc.

Women should show gentle patience when correcting their husband; utilizing her higher emotional senses to cajole gently rather than to yell and whine, and force an issue.

I admit, as a wife, I've failed more than I care to remember in that respect, but I try. My husband, abiding by that advice, sees to it I shop as much as I want for whatever I want and if my hair doesn't sit right, he tells me (which isn't always taken with gratitude, I confess).

It's worked for more than 25 years. We met when he was 16 and I, 17, and have been together ever since.

You've totally lost me there. How did my sentence, noting the dichotomy between bible-based marriage laws and liberalism, somehow morph into a fusion of christianity and liberalism?

I thought I'd explained it to you in my last post, since my perception was, that because I'd claimed (and still claim) that "I'm a Liberal, and a Christian", I received your post pointing out my "The Bible and marriage" issue, and then your sole response to it: "Doesn't sound the least bit liberal to me." as if to accuse that because I noted that the Bible's sane (meaning: good) advice on marital issues (since the Bible speaks of marriage only between a man and a woman, I noted that) I can't be a Liberal.

It sounded as if you were merging the two into a "liberal Christian" stamp of me, and I tried to correct it by answering that I am a Liberal, AND a Christian; trying to separate my liberal views for society from my personal Christian beliefs.

I'm doing this all by memory so I hope I've cleared up some confusion here.

[Zenlitened]

57. Sounds like an awful lot of rationalizing, compartmentalizing...

... logic-chopping, blame-shifting and semantics are involved in taking the bible "literally."

:crazy:

[BlueCaliDem]

63. And it appears like there's an awful lot of rationalizing...

....compartmentalizing, logic-chopping, blame-shifting, and creative semantic work involved in rejecting the Bible in it's entirety just cuz it points out things we don't like.

The knife cuts both ways hee-ya.

But hey! I need to remember it's useless to try to change a set mind, huh?

[Zenlitened]

65. Now, now. No need to feel so frustrated.

Besides, I don't reject the bible in it's entirety.

Boiled down, there's probably about seven or eight pages in there with some useful instruction. Maybe even a dozen.

[BlueCaliDem]

68. I apologize. I'm only human. n/t

[Zenlitened]

59. P.S. re "It's true that the Bible tells us that the act of homosexuality..

.. is a sin." Equivalent to lying, stealing, cheating, etc.

So right there, we have a falsehood in your bible.

Fine, no prob -- lots of falsehoods in there, and lots of people have managed to recognize them and discard them.

They recognize that there is no way to read that bible as "literal truth," in its entirety and -- to put it bluntly -- still be a decent person.

They've had to pick and choose, edit and interpret, and outright reject some of what they read in there as flat-out wrong.

Happens all the time.


As for...

...Women should show gentle patience when correcting their husband; utilizing her higher emotional senses to cajole gently rather than to yell and whine, and force an issue.

I admit, as a wife, I've failed more than I care to remember in that respect, but I try. My husband, abiding by that advice, sees to it I shop as much as I want for whatever I want and if my hair doesn't sit right, he tells me (which isn't always taken with gratitude, I confess).

[BlueCaliDem]

66. I guess an argument on this topic from opposite sides can be made...

...that makes sense, and it's clear where you stand: rejecting the Bible because, as you see it, it isn't condoning of the act of homosexuality--which was your major hang-up from the get-go--seeing and hearing then wrongfully concluding that being a "bible reader" is synonymous to being a judgmental bigot which gives you the perfect excuse to just reject the book in it's entirety.

FYI? Being overly sensitive and "touchy" about any remark you deem "anti-gay" won't win you any hearts and minds. Now, you can claim you could give a flying f*** about how other people think, but we both know better.

...act of homosexuality..
.. is a sin." Equivalent to lying, stealing, cheating, etc.

So right there, we have a falsehood in your bible.

That would depend on your criteria for what constitutes a "falsehood", I'd argue.
One person's lie, is another person's truth. One person sees stealing, a negative thing, another person perceives it as a show of cunning. See, it would depend on that party's perception and criteria that brings them to their final conclusion--with or without a court of law intervening.

The Bible tells us that God sees the act of homosexuality as a sin, while the men and women who practice it sees it as their human right to engage in love although it's contrary to how God wanted it from the beginning when he created man, and woman--there's no denying the male, and female bodies were created differently--for a purpose.

You would argue this is flat-out wrong, but the Bible writings professes that God believes its right.

Knowing that mankind had a mind of their own; knowing that prejudice, egotism and fear of the unknown is part of human nature (after watching centuries of it that ultimately ended in all those bloody battles and wars), He first gave Moses the Ten Commandments, and then sent His son, Jesus, to reiterate the message, that ALL of us are sinners (according to the standards determined by God) and NONE have the right to judge another because we all live in glass houses.

Is that wrong? Or is it right?

Being gay is not a choice, I know. But deciding whether or not to engage in the act of homosexuality, is, but as I've tried to tell you, the choice is left to that person, and that person alone.

Aside from my brother being openly gay, I have no bones to pick in this issue simply because I know, that as a Christian, I have no right to make my mind up of a fellow sinner just as long as their acts don't harm others.

Fine, no prob -- lots of falsehoods in there, and lots of people have managed to recognize them and discard them.

Yes. People do cherry-pick to suit their own, personal beliefs--on both sides of any issue. There's no denying that happens, but is it what God intended when He inspired the very scriptures at the center of the debate?

They recognize that there is no way to read that bible as "literal truth," in its entirety and -- to put it bluntly -- still be a decent person.

Given that their recognition is based upon their own set of criteria, of course. I, however, believe that if anyone today can live by the rules set by the Ten Commandments, and by Christ's teachings that support it; understand his true message--a message of love "for those lesser among us" to "not judge lest ye be judged"; to not force an issue, but debate it in a tone of respect for another's beliefs...I think we'd be a whole helluva lot more "decent" than we are today.

Heck! I believe that mutual respect and understanding for your fellow man/woman/child is the foundation of what "decent" is all about. Just think about it: if every man, woman, child, regardless of race, creed, gender, and/or religious beliefs, show their fellow man not of their way of thinking, the love for tolerance, understanding, forgiveness and humble compassion that Jesus taught we should show, there'd be NO wars; NO murder, NO crimes against humanity, NO hunger, for starters!

How you structure your relationship is your choice, of course.

Of course.

But in the context of expressing my hopes and dreams for human society, I'd argue that this bible gives an outmoded view of male-female relationships.

And I'd argue that the Bible's view of the male-female relationship is as relevant today, as it was then. Although society has slowly loosened up to allow commonwealth relationships, it's no secret that women prefer the more secure relationship a marriage brings with it.

This is just how we were "programmed", if I just use the basic of the male and female psyche as basis. Another argument to support this fact, is the fact that being gay isn't a choice, but rather an inner need born into the individual.

It's also no secret that men aren't as monogamous as they should be (Harems being a man's invention throughout the ages), and women instinctively know this, and that's why, I believe, women want the more secure relationship a marriage is supposed to offer.

advocate that we as a society continue to evolve upward from shallow, bible-based stereotypes that limit men and women alike to rigid gender roles, while ignoring -- and by implication, devaluing -- other types of relationships entirely.
I'd argue that the bible has dropped the ball on this issue, too.

A good, though somewhat biased advocacy, I would argue, because it merely presents ONE point of view, imo.

Since before Genesis was written, to present day, we haven't even been able to evolve out of our biased, prejudiced, hate-mongering basic "Neanderthal" selves, and until we learn the true message of God through his son Christ, the simple but difficult to achieve message of love and respect for our fellowman/woman/child no matter who they are; to not judge a fellow man/woman/child because of our selfish arrogance, and to understand through Christ we are ALL equals here...until we learn these things, there's no sense in fighting for the equality we all crave.

I'd argue then, that not the Bible, but humankind across the globe has dropped the ball on this one, for failing to heed the simple request by Jesus, that "He without sin, cast the first stone".

Or, to be more contemporary: Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[Zenlitened]

69. Well, now you're showing your stripes, aren't you?

My concern for gay and lesbian civil rights is merely a "hang-up," in your view.

You're feeling frustrated in this discussion because the argument you peddle holds no water, so you accuse me of being "touchy." Nice bit of projection, that.

You're swinging the bible like a sledgehammer with the "god says homosexuality is a sin" angle. I feel sorry for your brother. He can be gay, you say, but only if he cripples himself for your god.

And you justify all this, throughout the whole arc of the discussion, with talk of "what god wants." You say "don't judge" but you jump right in to declare what god has declared off-limits. And you declare the quest for equality and decency irrelevent until everyone shapes up and toes the line you've marked out on behalf of this god of yours.

Poison, all of it. As I think you've made abundantly clear.

[BlueCaliDem]

78. Apparently not, but you've sure shown yours now.

I've been trying to show "my stripes" from my very first post, but you still don't get it. For a moment in one of your responding posts, I had hope, but by your own responses now I see you couldn't see past your own set biases towards me.

Pity.

My concern for gay and lesbian civil rights is merely a "hang-up," in your view.

Never claimed such a thing. I wrote it was a MAJOR hang-up.

You're swinging the bible like a sledgehammer with the "god says homosexuality is a sin" angle.

See what I mean? I never said "god says homosexuality is a sin", I wrote that the ACT of homosexuality is considered a sin in response to your querie to show you "god is cool with gays and lesbians". I also tried to explain, over and over again, that everyone is a sinner, and that every sin is seen as the same--save ONE--to show you that God, though not "cool with" the act of homosexuality, still loves gays and lesbians as He does the rest of us sinners.

And that "swinging the bible like a sledgehammer" bit is really over the top, don't you agree? Well, I guess not since you wrote the silly metaphor.

I feel sorry for your brother. He can be gay, you say, but only if he cripples himself for your god.

I doubt my brother would welcome your sympathy, and I'm sure he doesn't need it since he lives openly, and free with equal civil rights as any other citizen of the Netherlands, and--pay attention here!--he can even marry his life's partner not only at his local municipality but even in the Catholic Church!

"Cripple" himself for my God? That's just so ridiculous a statement.

And you justify all this, throughout the whole arc of the discussion, with talk of "what god wants."

I'm not trying to "justify" anything, because I don't need to. I thought I was responding, and answering to the best of my ability your honest, sincere queries, but you've shown me that was a fool's errand, and a clear waste of time because you'd already made up your mind.

If you'd taken the time to read my posts, perhaps you would've understood that, since I was trying to explain that striving for a relationship with God would require knowledge of the Bible--understanding it's been said it's "His" book; inspired by Him, and that's how we "get to know Him"--it boils down to whether you elect to accept Him, or refute Him.

The whole message I've tried to convey was: Free will.

And that, and that alone, are those "stripes" you believe I've "finally" shown.

It's all about personal choice because what people need to understand is that striving for a relationship with Him is like any other relationship: up close and personal, and between you, and Him. You feel you don't want, OR need a relationship with Him, then don't, but no one has the right to draw up "conditions" for Him if they choose to have a personal relationship with Him, because fact of the matter is, He doesn't need us, and whether sooner or later, we do come to realize, we do need Him.

It's that simple.

You say "don't judge" but you jump right in to declare what god has declared off-limits.

I don't judge, because I fully understand, I don't have that right, as I've written time and again, and my "jumping right in to declare what god has declared off-limits" as you put it is merely attempting to point out what He wants from us for us, as it's written clear as day in the Bible.

Again. Free will is the key here. Don't like what you hear? Ignore it. It's really that simple, but if you were looking for me to change God's written word to suit your position, I'm sorry. I just can't. I don't have that right.

And you declare the quest for equality and decency irrelevent until everyone shapes up and toes the line you've marked out on behalf of this god of yours.

I don't "declare" anything. I opined. It's no secret that the reason why gays in the United States still don't have full equal civil rights is because of people who call themselves Christians, but who show prejudices and intolerance toward anyone "not like them". People like the so-called "moral majority" crowd who claim they are Christians, but then act very unChristian-like towards their fellow men and women--and this is NOT a judgment, but an opinion based in my reading of the gospels; the "christian part" of the Bible.

Poison, all of it. As I think you've made abundantly clear.

Yeah, because it's "poison" to want to strive to evolve and rise above our petty biases, and hatred, and prejudices so that we can finally understand, rich or poor, black or white, gay or hetero, we are ALL "sinners" and therefore ALL equal in the "eyes" of God, and because of it, understand, we have NO RIGHT to judge a fellow man/woman/child.

Yeah, that would be a poisonous thing to do. Better to continue with the status quo.

[Zenlitened]

81. A well-crafted cop-out.

Your previous words speak for themselves, now matter how pretty a little tune you try to sing now.

And this "we are all sinners" routine, particularly as it's inflicted on gays and lesbians, is one of the most repulsive, toxic, vile attacks ever foisted by christians. NOTHING about being gay is a "sin." Not the orientation, not the act of making love. NOTHING.

Your bible is WRONG. Again.

You can go 'round and 'round about how yuou're not judging, you're merely "pointing out what he wants" etc. etc. But what the hell is the difference? You have this imaginary man in the sky, with a dusty old tome where you can pluck out any and every sort of endlessly redacted gibberish, and declare it's What God Wants, it's What Gods Wills. As if any of this is actual fact. "He said it, I didn't."

A beautiful scam, I have to admit.

Yeah, I'll continue on with my Major Hangup, as you so arrogantly put it, about seeing gays and lesbians one day achieve equal rights in this country.

But don't feel you've wasted your time on a "fool's errand" here. You started out by drawing a distinction between liberalism and christianity, and while I don't have enough information to know whether you're a liberal or not, I'm certainly convinced by now that you're a christian.

[trotsky]

61. Read the stories carefully? Are you kidding me?

How much more carefully can I Samuel 15 be read?

2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

A direct command from GOD ordering genocide, down to COMPLETELY INNOCENT BABIES. But Saul refused to slaughter EVERYTHING:

9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.

Ooh did that make God angry.

10 Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying,
11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.

So Samuel made things right.

32 Then said Samuel, Bring ye hither to me Agag the king of the Amalekites. And Agag came unto him delicately. And Agag said, Surely the bitterness of death is past.

33 And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.

Exactly how can this be put in "context"?? And what of free will? Saul chose (i.e., exercised his free will) not to slaughter everything in his sight, and incurred God's wrath.

The bible is full of despicable stories like this that cannot be rationalized as coming from a holy and good being.

[BlueCaliDem]

71. No, not kidding you.

The story you (and I thank you for it) posted at length here, when not taken out of context is the run up to the reason why God had punished Saul--for disobedience to His directive; a directive to exert punishment on those that harmed the people of Israel.

God, through Samuel, anointed Saul king of Israel, and Saul, if you read the whole story, was fighting one war after another; one bloody war after another, and although it doesn't say it specifically (nor does it deny it), I'm sure he had men, women, children and their livestock killed in some, if not all, of these wars.

{1 Sam. 15: 1,2,3}: "Then Samuel said to Saul: "It was I whom God sent to anoint you as king over his people Israel, and now listen to the voice of the words of God. This is what Yahweh of armies has said: 'I must call to account what Amalek did to Israel when he set himself against him in the way while he was coming out of Egypt. Now go, and you must strike down Amalek and devote him to destruction with all that he has and you must not have compassion upon him, and you must put them to death, man as well as woman, child as well as suckling, bull as well as sheep, camel as well as ass."

But as you pointed out, Saul refused to follow God's order. Why? It's not like he's never killed men, women, and children before in his many other wars that wasn't ordered by God, right?

The point made here is that Samuel, who was a prophet and who had direct contact with God trusted that God knew what He was doing, but Saul second-guessed Him, which makes for a poor king of a people of the one true god, which was Israel.

The people of Israel had the responsibility to be better than the surrounding tribes; to show by strength and power to the world why they were "the chosen people" of God.

Saul showed an act of defiance borne out of his personal greed as shown here {Samuel speaking to Saul after reminding him of God's directive}:
{1 Sam. 15:19} " So why is it you did not obey the voice of Yahweh but went darting greedily at the spoil and doing what was bad in the eyes of Yahweh?"

It's not like Saul's never had whole villages and people destroyed, trotsky, but why, when ONE TIME God asks him to do what he normally always did, he instead refused by allowing not only Amalek (the one God deemed to judge and punish) to live, but his well-fed flock as well?

Greed.

God wanted to punish Amalek and because he was leader of his people who did wrong by Israel, his people were not allowed to survive--or they might retaliate against Israel.

Saul took it upon himself to choose to defy God's directive thereby endangering the existence of the people of Israel, out of arrogance, and greed.

IOW, God was punishing Amalek and his people for their king's decision to harm the chosen people of God, and when Saul failed to execute the punishment, God was justifiably incensed.

See, just because we have free will, and can make choices, doesn't mean these choices are always the ones God wants from us. Being that it's understood in the Bible that He is the Supreme Being above all, He should be obeyed even if we don't agree (compare that to laws that make marijuana illegal.

It's no secret that every birth of every nation happened with lots of blood, innocent and not innocent. Israel was no different.

I guess even God knows that you have to break an egg to make an omelet.

[trotsky]

72. "I guess even God knows that you have to break an egg to make an omelet."

Wow.:wow:

You have no problem whatsoever with genocide, as long as God ordered it.

Amalekite women, children, and babies, livestock and pets - ALL deserved death for the actions of whatever leaders were in charge at the time they allegedly (remember, this is the Israelites writing this account - the victors get to write history) dissed the Israelites?

You scare the shit out of me. You really do.

[beam me up scottie]

76. Hey! I recognize that reasoning!

I just saw it on FSTDT!

"if god told me to kill my kids (if i have them), then without hesitating I will....especially after I look at the bills....lol jk....murdering kids is wrong unless God really tells you to do it."

Nick X, Myspace

[BlueCaliDem]

77. I see you don't only take Biblical stories out of context to suit...

...your "argument" (which, in this case, is nothing more than trying to discredit a book you apparently don't and won't even try to understand), but now you take MY words out of context and try to attack me with it?

trotsky:
The bible is full of despicable stories like this that cannot be rationalized as coming from a holy and good being.

BlueCaliDem04:
I guess even God knows that you have to break an egg to make an omelet.

To even think let alone lower yourself to accuse me of "having no problem with genocide as long as God ordered it" is WAY out of line, bud.
WAY out of line.

My post regarding the over 3000 year old war was NOT about my personal feelings regarding any war, and to outright accuse me of condoning ANY death of ANY person "just cuz God ordered it" is--to use your own word--despicable, but apparently not beneath you.

You scare the shit out of me. You really do.

Yeah well, I have that effect on people who can't seem to maintain a level of civility during a discussion, and have to resort to baseless and false accusations against me because they refuse to face the possibility that their opinions just might not be "kosher".

Live with it.

[trotsky]

80. Your own words speak for themselves.

You spent that whole post explaining that God wanted EVERYTHING dead, and that what was really horrible about the story is that Saul didn't want to kill everything but keep some of the best spoils for himself.

Greed versus wholesale slaughter of a population, including innocent BABIES. According to you, the former is a horrible insult to your god, but the latter is A-OK. You expressed no distress whatsoever about the slaughter (even pointing out quite matter-of-factly that your god ordered many of them!), but you DID attack Saul's greed.

And now, rather than address this moral discrepancy, you've chosen to attack me. That says all I need to know.

[Silent3]

83. It's yourself you're kidding

You're looking right in the face of a truly horrible God, and blithely accepting feeble excuses for His behavior.

"God was justifiably incensed" because Saul didn't want to be as bloodthirsty and sadistic as God required for "just" retribution?

Babies being slaughtered for the offenses of their parents is "justice"?

Not wanting to be a part of enforcing that brand of justice is what's wrong here?

If Saul was being "greedy" by keeping some of the livestock, the solution to Saul's greed is killing children who are innocent of both the offenses of Saul and their parents?

Saul has already killed children, so what the hell, why not slaughter a few more?

I guess even God knows that you have to break an egg to make an omelet.

And if the "egg" happens to be a baby's skull, ah, well, it's a good because it's God's Will after all.

There is NO CONTEXT that justifies any of this.

[MikeH]

85. This illustrates the problem with the Bible as God's "Absolute Truth"

I respect that people get spiritual nourishment and guidance from the Bible.

I have a major problem with people justifying, minimizing, or explaining away the barbarity of an act because it is attributed to God, or commanded by God, because the supposedly infallible Word of God says so.

I think the Bible is subject to human fallibility just like anything else that has ever been written. This includes the fallibility and limitedness of the moral judgments of the people who wrote the Bible.

[Zhade]

42. Plenty of us don't need that to be happy and prosperous.

Just a thought.

[BlueCaliDem]

44. True. And there are plenty who do, and what I see time and again

...when they "find god" is that they get overzealous to a dizzying Pat Robertson height, so to speak.

Look, it's all about choice. It's what makes YOU, personally, feel comforted, happy, prosperous, complete.

If the Bible, or the Koran, or Torah or just a couple of hours one time a week of aroma therapy does it for you, then it's a good thing, just as long as your choices never harm another person, and that we try to understand that what works for me, doesn't work for them, and to respect that.

I choose Christianity because it does it for me and mine (though I don't go to church and I don't preach to guests).

To get back on topic, the Bible is complete enough for me to help me find the answers I need for everyday problems that occur from time to time.

I don't need those additional "missing books" because I believe they're irrelevant to the message the Bible is trying to convey.

[jonnyblitz]

14. leviticus says we are worthy of death (gays) so i guess people

like the Rev Fred Phelps are just being true to the bible when they spew their bile.

[Zenlitened]

17. I guess so.

Maybe they mean "Repent or Burn in Hell!" in a loving, liberal sort of way? :shrug:

[beam me up scottie]

26. I guess that makes him less hypocritical than the literal apologists.

After all, they're just following god's instructions, aren't they?

[BlueCaliDem]

28. Rev Phelps has no right to judge. It's not up to him, or anybody...

...else to condemn another person for choices they make, and for which they, and only they, will be responsible for.

The Bible warns us against "wolves in sheep's clothing" and false prophets.

Whether Phelps is one is not for me to judge, but imo, his own judgmental outcries are even MORE egregious, since he calls himself a christian.

Leviticus was written before Christ's Crucifixion, and that's why Christians are told to "live as Christ"; to follow his teachings if they strive to be true Christians, because through his death on the cross, all sin was forgiven throughout the world, and for generations to come--though it's incumbent upon us who believe to strive to avoid sin as best as we can, in accordance with the teachings of Christ--including but not limited to not "bearing false witness".

Christ claimed to be "the way. The truth. The light"; claimed that "no one comes to the Father except through me".

Who is Phelps to judge anyone unless he was, like Christ, "without sin"?

[Zhade]

43. Being gay isn't a choice, so your point on judgement is moot.

NT!

[BlueCaliDem]

45. Being gay isn't, that's true. Deciding whether or not to "come out"

...or to remain "in the closet" is.

And yes, it's debatable (moot), but that's a debate for another time, another thread, another forum.

FYI, my closest, most beloved older brother is openly gay; has been with his life's partner since 1986 and they live in liberal country the Netherlands where they could, if they chose, get legally married, and are both devout Catholics.

Just an FYI in case you might get the impression I'm a bigoted fundie christian.

[lindisfarne]

12. The bible also calls for stoning a woman who is not a virgin at marriage

and says that in the case of a woman's husband dying, a brother of the husband must marry her.

If you take the bible literally, you must also support these practices? And in the case of contradictions in the Bible, how do you resolve them?

A list of some biblical contradictions is here
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

[BlueCaliDem]

29. But Jesus (Christ) was against stoning, and condemned it, remember?

Look, if you're a Christian, you go by what Christ taught, not by what men set in rules before him. That's why it was necessary for him to come and clarify "the truth".

Jesus is anti-death penalty, and showed this when he stopped a stoning of a married woman for having an affair. Would he condone stoning of a woman because she wasn't a virgin at marriage? Of course not.

His message was forgiveness, not punishment.

Moses, for example, condoned divorce. Jesus corrected this, saying that divorce is not a law of God, but of man (Moses).

He explains this here: Matt. 19: 8,9: " said to them: Moses, out of hardheartedness, made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but such has not been the case from the beginning. I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of fornication (extramarital affair), and marries another commits adultery."

If you take the bible literally, you must also support these practices?

If you choose to take the Bible literally, and you're not a Christian, then yes.
But if you strive to be a Christian, then you do as Christ did; do as he tried to teach, and killing another human being was against his teachings of compassion, forgiveness, and understanding.

And in the case of contradictions in the Bible, how do you resolve them?

That would, I believe, depend on how relevant those contradictions are in your life as a striving Christian today.
Incest was condoned WAY in the beginning when mankind wasn't riddled with diseases and deformation at the gene level, but condemned when there were enough people on earth so it wasn't necessary anymore.
I mean, how relevant are those ancient contradictions to you as a person who strives to be a Christian?
I gave an example of a Biblical contradiction above with a very contemporary issue in the "divorce" example, but in order to understand these contradictions, you need to understand the message of the Bible, and understand what you, as a striving Christian must learn in order to call yourself a Christian without red ears.

[beam me up scottie]

32. How can one who "chooses" to take the bible literally NOT be a christian?

Sounds to me like you think you have the right to decide who is and isn't a christian based on YOUR interpretation.

[BlueCaliDem]

47. Simple. False Prophets. The "Anti-Christ". Do these ring a bell?

How can false prophets seduce the masses (think Jim Jones) of believers without knowledge of the bible in order to cherry-pick and twist the scriptures to suit his own, insane cause?

Pat Robertson must know the Bible cover to cover, and yet he calls for the assassination of democratically elected Hugo Chavez, and supports the war in Iraq where probably over a hundred thousand innocent people were wiped out?

Wasn't it the Pope at that time who blessed Hitler in his "crusade" to punish the Jews?

Don't they (didn't he) all claim to be christians?

My interpretation? Perhaps. But tell me...Did Christ tell the masses surrounding him to kill themselves so they could go to heaven with him?
Jim Jones asked his followers to.

Did Christ call for the death of Herod who ultimately got him crucified? Or had the other 11 disciples attack and execute Judas who he knew would betray him? Did he support Judas' urging to start a war against the oppressive government, as Judas had hoped?
Pat Robertson did a similar thing against Chavez, and still supports Bush's wars.

Did Christ call for the deaths of all Jews because some were afraid of his teachings and wanted him executed?
The Pope did when he blessed Hitler in his war.

These people take the Bible literally, but do they show, by their actions, "Christ-like" behavior and attitudes?

You choose.

[beam me up scottie]

48. I'm not your god, I can't judge who's christian and who isn't.

Apparently, you can.

The fundies believe that the bible is the literal word of god yet you claim they're not christians.

And since you have no proof that Jesus ever said or did any of those things, I think you're using your own interpretation of the bible to exclude people you dislike and disagree with from your club.


How christian of you.

[BlueCaliDem]

50. But apparently you have NO problem judging me.

Look, I've tried my best to remain respectful when I respond to your posts though yours carried a flair of disdainful sarcasm, and when I give you sincere answers from a Christian's POV, all I feel you're trying to do is play a childish game of "gotcha!"

It's true that Jesus never wrote a word himself, and it's true I wasn't alive when he was, so technically you're right when you accuse me of having no proof he's ever said any of "those things" save what's written in the gospels, but by the same token, you have no proof, other than your own opinion, that he didn't, now do you?

I think you're using your own interpretation of the bible to exclude people you dislike and disagree with from your club.

First off, I abhor clubs. I don't even belong to any established religion because they do nothing more than confuse.
Second, I think that the whole purpose of your posts was to ridicule and show disrespect for those YOU dislike and disagree with; those who DARE profess to be people who believe in a god they can't touch and see yet DARE claim to be "liberals"; those who believe that the Bible isn't the book of evils.

If your choice is to continue to pick and choose texts out of the Bible to serve your own biases in support of your disdain for it by playing games, hey, your right, and I will respect your choices nonetheless--and have proven it thusfar.

But the very least you could do is respect my choice NOT to continue playing your game any longer.

How christian of you.

Wow. And here I thought you've claimed an inability to judge who's Christian or not--I mean, that is what you've written in the post I'm responding to, isn't it?

Okay. I played ONE LAST round of "gotcha".

Sue me. :hi:

[beam me up scottie]

55. You confuse morality with being christian.

IIRc, to be christian, one needs only to believe in the christian god.

If one had to follow all of Jesus' teachings, there wouldn't be any christians.

Being a christian is NOT synonymous with being moral and christians are ethically no better than anyone else.


The point of my post was to illustrate that ALL of you practice cafeteria christianity.

As for the rest of your post:
:

[trotsky]

62. Jesus is against the death penalty?

Now there's a lie.

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
-Luke 19:27

[BlueCaliDem]

73. Before you accuse me of lying maybe you should read the WHOLE story...

...starting at Luke 19, and you'll see that at verse 11, Jesus was telling one of his parables.

{Luke 19: 11}: "While they {the people who gathered around him} were listening to these things he spoke in addition an illustration, because he was near Jerusalem and they were imagining that the kingdom of God was going to display itself instantly."

It was an illustration, or more commonly known, parable.

Jesus knew that they were nearing Jerusalem, and that the people following him were expecting to see the kingdom of God appear instantly. {see end of Luke 19: 11}, so he proceeded to tell this parable.

It was about a rich man regarded by his slaves as being "harsh".

The part that you cite in verse 27 is an example of what will happen to those who defy God, and the sovereignty of His son, Jesus; the rich man is God, and the enemies he calls to him to be punished, are those who wanted Jesus discredited and destroyed the moment he began to gain notoriety.

{2 Thess. 1: 8} "He brings vengeance upon those who (by choice) do not know God, and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus."

The fact that the Bible tells that Jesus stopped the stoning of an adulteress when the law demanded that she die by stoning for that act is only ONE example of Jesus being against the death-penalty, imo.

[trotsky]

74. Yes, I am well aware it was a parable.

It's a parable OF THE STORY OF JESUS.

So you have an example of Jesus being against the death penalty, and I have an example of him being for it.

[Zhade]

24. How can you possibly take something to be literally true...

...when so many of its claims are counterfactual and demonstrably untrue - like, say, the age of the earth, and the idea of a worldwide flood - and contradicts itself in literally (yuck yuck) thousands of ways?

See, I can understand believing SOME of it. But all of it, literally true, when a lot of it has been proven NOT to be true? :crazy:

[BlueCaliDem]

30. I take literally those things that make sense in my life...

...and what science has ultimately proven to be true. Those not yet proven by science, I still reserve judgment on; those supposedly disproved by science, I wait a while longer since science usually corrects itself a few times over time.

My life doesn't better if the great deluge had, or had not happened; whether Noah took a pair of every animal we see now today, or whether or not the serpent in the Garden of Eden was a talking snake, or a talking gekko, or that the "fruit" was an apple, pear or banana.

My life, however, betters when, even in my anger, I can say I'm against the death penalty; believing this is "good". It betters when I can show my children to avoid jumping from bed to bed without any respect for their bodies that's so precious to them, and what should be.

It's a misunderstanding of those who believe the Bible serves as a historical record of the earth, and writings of science, and are looking for ways to discredit it this way.

The Bible was never meant to be that.

It's is a collection of books written over an almost 16 century period by over 40 people inspired by God, to help mankind navigate his/her life seeking harmoney, happiness, and prosperity at all levels of their lives.

But through the whole collection of books, from the Hebrew to the Greek scriptures, it's clear that all the disaster, and anger, and death was a creation of mankind, and that God, disappointed by their black hearts, left them over to their own devices--and viola!

We're now facing another war with Iran that will enter the world into it's third global war.

[Zhade]

41. Allegedly inspired by an unproven god.

Can't let that fact go unnoticed.

Thank you for clarifying your position. You are not a literalist, however, if you reject anything from the bible. At least, not a literalist as the term is understood to mean.

I suppose we could say you're a "semi-literalist".

And you and I share the same worry about Iran. This isn't a crisis.

[BlueCaliDem]

46. I guess that's where the "christian" part of me enters the fray...Faith.

I believe in a yet through science, unproven god, and have faith that He exists.

I guess it's not unlike the faith I had, that after 9-11, Bush would've truly done the right thing.

Okay, he didn't but the faith (or at the very least, benefit of the doubt) was there until he destroyed it.

To date, the faith I have in this yet scientifically-unproven god that allegedly exists somewheres, has not disappointed me.

Perhaps I am a semi-literalist. I guess I still have a lot of "the unbelieving Thomas" in me, but when it comes to my belief that Yahweh does exist, and that his son is Jesus the Christ, and that the Bible was inspired by Him, there's no "semi" about it. I believe these things with all my heart.

But that's the Christian in me.

As for Iran...Israel has already said that they plan to attack Iran with nukes within the next 3 to 6 months, and if the United States doesn't stop them, we're looking at a global war.

Hopefully this is just saber-rattling.

Read this "enlightening" piece by a reporter at the Huffington Post.

[NMMNG]

52. Just wondering

Yes, there are probably books missing from the Bible. I've seen a documentary about this, but the scrolls found are irrelevant to the message the Bible's supposed to convey;usually telling of Jesus' mother, Mary, who had more children after him, and even one that tells that she remained a "virgin" even after his birth and that the "sisters and brothers" mentioned briefly in the Bible are half-siblings from Joseph's prior marriage.

In another scroll, it tells of Adam and Eve's son Caine, taking his wife who was his sister, now, I understand this would make one wanna , but bear in mind that when God created the first man, and his woman, he created them perfectly, therefore taking a sister to further the lines of mankind was then, in that time, okayed.


How are these scriptures any less relevant than, say, the tale of Moses' daughters getting him drunk and sleeping with him so they could get pregnant? Or the endless lists of who beget who? Or the pedantic "purity codes" of Leviticus, which are by and large ignored today (except for the one about gays, which people seem to adhere to like it's written in stone).

I should think that if the Bible was "divinely inspired" that people would consider it an abomination to dismiss one sentence of it as irrelevant, let alone entire books.

[renter]

56. Maybe I can help...

I am a Christian. California Blue Dem has given many good posts above. The Bible was written by man inspired by God for the good of man. Let me give you an analogy. Democratic Underground is a website inspired by man for the good of us all. Yet posters are subject to, I believe the moderators? And/or an individual named Skinner? The posters post inspired by today's liberalism and yet there are many disagreements. Some big, some little, and some are "kicked out of DU heaven into non-DU hell" forever:(.
Posters on DU wish to make the world a better place under, from what I can read,
mostly secular ideas and rules/law. THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN. That is why I am sadden over the negative and depressing tones of the majority of posts, except the lounge of course:). GOD IS PERFECT. The way to come closes to happiness and joy is to follow his way. It doesn't make human sense at times, but no purely secular means of government have succeeded, In fact they have been horrible failures. I believe the main hostility toward Christianity on Democratic Underground is the fact that Republicans have managed to take away the Bible from Democrats. If an idea is believed by my enemy, it MUST be wrong. No it is not, such narrow-mindedness is wrong. Your enemy may have a good idea, it is up to progressives to make it better and educate people on this. People do good not because they are forced to, but because they want to. The Bible supplies this morality to want to do good.
The Bible was written in three languages, by about 40 different authors, over a span of about 1,500 years. With the same theme--God's relationship with man and man's relationship with God and with his fellow man. There is no other book that consists of this amazing line of thought by so many authors, over such a long period of time. The Bible is the most widely read book in the world, and at the same time the easiest and the hardest to understand. As California Blue Dem has mentioned the books that were left out of the Protestant Bible give some supporting evidence of God but not of sufficient nature to alter the message. An analogy would be a book or movie review from a trusted friend. Your friend will leave out some minor things that do not alter the story.
There is, at first, an uncomfortable reality that a presence I cannot really understand is better than I am. There is a certain humility in this that opens my eyes and ears. And my heart. There is a small phrase in the Bible that states "Be still, and know that I am God." Personally for me, a wonderful verse.
Thank you, and may all of you have a good day.

[MikeH]

88. Not necessarily

I believe the main hostility toward Christianity on Democratic Underground is the fact that Republicans have managed to take away the Bible from Democrats.

I do not think that is true. There are a lot of things in the Bible, and with Christianity, that many people, including myself, have serious problems accepting as absolute truth, and for reasons that have nothing to do with politics or the Republicans or the religious right. I myself have expressed some of my difficulties with things in the Bible in other posts.

The Bible supplies this morality to want to do good.

I consider that to be very highly questionable. We see a lot of fundamentalists and religious right people who are very hateful.

I myself was once a Christian, and gave up on it largely because in practice I found it to be by and large not at all helpful to me in enabling me to better deal with my personal issues and frustrations. (And again, this has nothing to do with politics or the Republicans!)

There is a small phrase in the Bible that states "Be still, and know that I am God." Personally for me, a wonderful verse.

I have no problem with that. I respect that people can get spiritual nourishment from the Bible, or from any other holy or inspirational book.

[rug]

89. Skinner is God?

Well. I'll be damned.

[MemphisTiger]

64. I am a liberal and a Christian as well, but I don't take the

word a "literal" I think it's the word of God, but there are some serious metaphors in the book. Look at the Jesus parables for metaphors. Many of these mosaic laws were the old covenant and were overturned with the new covenant meaning the coming of Jesus. That's why Christians can eat shellfish and Jews still can't. This list can go on for a while, but take the Bible in it's entirety not just the old testament or new testament. Also, to understand the meaning you have to understand what was going on at the time in history. Most of Pauls letters were in response to churches at the time acting outside of what God intended. Therefore, you must study church history as well as the word of God.

[tjwmason]

7. My copy of the K.J.V. has all of the books in.

Remind her that the K.J.V. is more properly called the Authorised Version, because it was to be the official Bible translation for the Church of England (which is part of the same body as ECUSA), the so called apocrypha were placed between the Old and New Testaments. It was only later that printers started to omit them, which they did simply to save on paper.

That said, I tend more to use Bp. Challoner's revision of the Douay Rheims, which uses the Septuagintine order of the books.

This is precisely why I have an intellectual issue with the fundies (and indeed other protestants who work on the basis of sola scriptura), the Bible as we know it was created by the Church - there were loads of other writings around, many of which were read earnestly by many parts of the Church it was many centuries before we had a specific set of writings which we could call "The Bible".

[EstimatedProphet]

18. Actually, no, it doesn't have all the books

1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, and Sirach are missing from the KJV, as is Baruch. These were books that were excluded from the KJV.

This is precisely why I do agree with your post. The fundamentalists look at the KJV as inerrant, but on what grounds can they say that? It isn't complete. It requires one to believe that scripture was written either in error or to misbelieve, and so the Bible was "purified" by removing those books. I can't accept that, if scripture is supposed to be inerrant, then it was errant in its original form.

[tjwmason]

20. I'm sorry but you're wrong.

I've got my copy of the K.J.V. open beside me now - this is how it translates the openning of I Maccabees.

"And it happened, after that Alexander son of Philip, the Macedonian, who came out of the land of Chettiim, had smitten Darius king of the Persians and Medes, that he reigned in his stead, the first over Greece."

The K.J.V. merely placed the so-called apocrypha between the Testaments. With some later printings omitted them entirely.

As I said, remember that the purpose of the K.J.V. was not some American fundies, but rather the Church of England. That same Church of England has many readings from the "apocrypha" in her lectionary, that same Church of England specifically encourages the reading of these books in the 39 Articles.

Just because a printer has decided to omit the books doesn't mean that they weren't there originally. They were, I can see that because I've got the book in front of me.

[EstimatedProphet]

21. AH! I got you now. Sorry.

I didn't see what you were getting at before.

However, that gets right back to my original question: how can someone who has only seen the KJV with the Apocrypha omitted believe that the book is inerrant?

[tjwmason]

22. Couldn't agree with you more there n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

9. Oh yes, and I forgot...the King James Version is incomplete...

...because of superstition and to avoid "taking god's name in vain", his original name was left out, and replaced with "lord", or "Almighty" or something to that effect, when it should read "Yahweh"--or letters to that effect, since the ancient Hebrew "tentragrammaton" show four letters "JHVH" or "YHWH" which means "He Causes to Become", today known as "Jehovah" or "Yahweh", as the ancient Jews used to call God.

"How can someone believe that the Bible is inerrant, when they refuse to look at specific books that had just as much of a valid origin as the books they do read?

The Bible itself says so:

(2 Tim. 3:16): "All scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousnous, that the man of God mau be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."

(Rev.1:1): "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show His slaves the things that must shortly take place."

(2 Samuel 23: 1,2): The utterance of David the son of Jesse...The spirit of Yahweh it was that spoke by me, and his word was on my tongue.".

(Isa. 22:15): This is what the Sovereign Lord, Yahweh of Armies, has said."

Being that you, and I and every other human being on earth is blessed with free will, it's our responsibility to research with an open mind; read all secular and other ancient texts even, and to make our own, individual choice how we'll digest this info before we come to some conclusion.

Free will. Your choice. Your responsibility.

The Bible tells us so.

[EstimatedProphet]

19. Which by your own definitions means the KJV is not literal AND complete

If it not literal AND complete then it cannot be inerrant.

[BlueCaliDem]

49. My KJV had eliminated God's name completely, replacing it with..

..."great lord", and "God Almighty", and other surrogate titles.

I believe some KJV (depending on what print) have included His name here and there, but in the ancient Hebrew, and Greek Scriptures, His name appears in those same texts consistently, so in that, I believe the KJV is incomplete.

And yes, Jesus did speak in parables (example: the poor man Lazarus and the rich man who both eventually die), so no, that can't be taken literally, but where it isn't supposed to be taken literally, the Bible clearly shows.

Are there books missing? Perhaps. Some ancient scrolls, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, tell more detailed accounts of what's already partially in the Bible, like, the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters, for example.

Then you need to ask yourself.

Why were the Scriptures written? Why did people risk their lives and those of their families to keep them safe? What relevance and purpose does the Bible serve me in my life?

Then ask yourself, if you think you know the answers to the above questions, do the missing books of the Bible enrich the book, or do they add no information of any significance to it?

Inerrant? That would depend on what you want the Bible to offer you.

If you approach it from a strictly scientific POV; to, perhaps, want to prove there was, or wasn't the possibility of some great deluge, then maybe you can conclude it's prone to error.

I approach the Bible with questions that are relevant to my life, my marriage, my family, children and my view of others, and it hasn't disappointed me.

[MikeH]

79. If it is helpful to you, good

I approach the Bible with questions that are relevant to my life, my marriage, my family, children and my view of others, and it hasn't disappointed me.

If that is true for you, I respect that. Good for you.

I, for one, definitely can not say the same thing. I once took Christianity and having a relationship with Christ seriously, and found that it was not of help to me in enabling me to better deal with any source of pain, frustration, or unhappiness in my life. I particularly did not get any help from the Bible or from Christianity that enabled me to better deal with my father when he was close to being emotionally and psychologically abusive. (He has since died.) That being the case, I do not consider myself to be a Christian any more, and am happy about absolving myself of any obligations that are specifically imposed by the Christian faith (as opposed to those that are incumbent on any good person).

I consider the Bible to be fallible just like anything else that has ever been written. I respect that some people get spiritual nourishment from it. To me it is one of many books that have been written throughout history, albeit one that is and has been very important to many people, and has had a profound influence on our society and civilization (whether for better or for worse, or some of both).

I now would consider myself to be a deist. Deists believe in a Creator, who might be called God, but do not believe in any alleged special revelation from him. They consider any alleged revelation (the Bible, the Koran, etc.) to be at best second-hand, or hearsay. And about that I agree with them.

[EstimatedProphet]

82. OK, but...

I approach the Bible with questions that are relevant to my life, my marriage, my family, children and my view of others, and it hasn't disappointed me.

That's not inerrancy. I respect your faith, but I am getting the feeling that it is not your faith we're talking about here. I'm talking about the people that believe that the Bible is the complete literal truth.

Dinosaurs? They aren't mentioned in the Bible. Except for the "great lizards", so that must be them.

Adam and Eve HAD TO BE the origin of the human race.

The earth was literally flooded, and it literally lasted 40 days and 40 nights.

The Bible is basically a history book, and was recorded without error.

That's inerrancy. And frankly, in addition to being IMO a cartoonish way of looking at the Bible, it can't be valid if the people that believe it refuse to look at other, valid books simply because they aren't now carried in the KJV.

[Bill McBlueState]

60. using the Bible to prove it's true

Are you saying that the Bible's claims about its own truthfulness can be used to show that it *is* true?

[Igel]

15. Post #7 pretty much nailed it.

Does the church have any authority? Is what Jesus ordained corporate, at least in part, or entirely left to the individual?

Tradition has it that Christ left authority to the church, 'the Body of Christ' or his 'corpus' (hence the word 'corporate'). It used that authority to distinguish among the mass of manuscripts that were written or produced within a few decades of Jesus' death; the canon was largely in place and intact by ~150 AD or thereabouts, with some regional variation, and some congregations accepting mss at odds with others generally accepted as correct. Some mss are completely at odds with the current text of the Bible; a couple are obviously the target of some of the language in the current text.

The early church fathers divided the books into three categories. The first: Approved for setting doctrine. This included the OT as accepted by the rabbis of their day, as well as gospels and letters (and, ultimately, the Apocalypse). The goal: anti-patriarchal activists aside, it unified the doctrine, so people from one congregation wouldn't travel 50 miles and find themselves denounced as heretical. Get all the denunciations over at once, and restore some sort of doctrinal unity to a church that was ultimately riven by heresies.

The second: Not approved for setting doctrine, but suitable for edification. Lic. Apocrypha. Think of this as a sop thrown to those who accepted some of the more popular, but ultimately, rejected books. The same kind of reasoning that led to Sunday worship, Easter, and Christmas. Luther's "only the Bible" and like thinking ultimately knocked the Apocrypha out of the canon completely. The third category: Heretical writings. (Ultimately the Qur'an was also deemed in this category, and Islam denounced as a heresy.) Remember that "heresy" just meant "faction" or "party", with error (or perceived error) being responsible for such factions.

If there is no corporate authority vested in the church, then all action, belief, worship is solely individual; people may gather for worship or helping the poor, but there is no call to assemble, no basis for any requirement for joint action, no basis for commonality of interpretation or belief. There is also no basis for anybody to tell another that s/he isn't Christian, or is misinterpreting things.

[InaneAnanity]

31. Jesus says this

Luke 19:27

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

I guess me and bmus should be dead, according to Christ.

[beam me up scottie]

33. Watch it, IA ...

Don't make them use this:

[WhollyHeretic]

34. Uh-oh, I think I might need to get a better firewall

:hide: :nuke:

[beam me up scottie]

36. Firewalls? We don't need no steekin firewalls!

We've got Pascal's Wager!

[trotsky]

37. WHO IS USING MY SMITE KEY?

How dare you, bmus?!?!?

[beam me up scottie]

39. AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !

[beam me up scottie]

35. And we won't really be dead, just going someplace warm.

Really warm, remember?

As I understand it, it is not that God is "willing to send lots of people to eternal torment." God wants every human to love Him and to come to Him. But he gives us each a choice. Unfortunately, lots of people will condemn themselves to the pit.

[trotsky]

38. Yes, we condemn ourselves

by not being convinced by pedophiles, hatemongers, hypocrites, and holier-than-thou types that their brand of truth is the REAL truth.

[beam me up scottie]

40. I can see why some of them need to redefine so many words.

christian, atheist, skeptic, truth, literal, fact, logic, reason, etc.

[funflower]

53. Bizarro. A hundred years of Sunday School, and I never heard that one.

What a weird thing to say.

:wtf:

[crikkett]

58. Aw comon, you don't think he was serious do you?

Jiminy Crikkett. Some people just can't take a joke.

[kwassa]

70. This is your interpretation of this parable

Because it is not Christ speaking for himself in this quote, but the king in the parable speaking for himself.

[Popol Vuh]

54. I have questions for people

who believe the bible is "literal truth".

Do they really believe in a talking snake? How do they reconcile the bible's major problem in Genesis about the first people (Adam & Eve), where there's no account of Eve bearing any daughters to account for the propagation of the human species? Did the one living son do it with his mother Eve or something? If there were "other" people, then why does the bible say that Adam & Eve were the first man and woman? If this story is the "literal truth", it certainly doesn't make any sense.

How do they account for the fact that Jesus' story is identical to several other people in different religions and hundreds and hundreds of years prior to Jesus?

How do they feel about the glorifying of genocidal slaughter of hundreds and thousands of peoples -- men, women, and little children that the bible records about Moses and other bible heroes?

[MemphisTiger]

67. I can only speak for myself, but I think they mean it's

God talking through man and it's completely the word of God, not man's interpretation of what God told them. I think that's where the "literal" part comes from. I don't think the talking snake was real, I guess God could have done that if He wanted to, but why? I think it was another person who is slimey, like a Karl Rove. Read my other post above and you'll hear my other thoughts on this subject.

[EstimatedProphet]

75. They account for it the same way as in Intelligent Design

God made a miracle.

A talking snake? Sure it's true. Satan made that.

Eve bore no female children? God miracled the problem away.

People who believe that the Bible is literally true simply make things up to rectify where it clearly isn't.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

84. I heard an interesting remark from a former fundamentalist the other day

In the Episcopal, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and other mainstream churches, the Bible readings for worship services (one each from the Old Testament narratives or prophecy, the Psalms, the Gospels, and the rest of the New Testament) are on a three-year cycle. If you attend church every Sunday, you get the high points of the Bible every three years. If you attend every day (or follow the daily lectionary at home), you get through the whole Bible in the same amount of time. The clergy traditionally preach on one of the lessons designated for the day. Only in unusual circumstances (9/11, for example) would they preach on something else. They sometimes even joke about preaching on passage A because they have no idea what passage B is talking about, but they rarely deviate from the preaching on one of the lessons for the day.

In a fundamentalist church, the clergy preach on whatever they feel like, whenever they feel like. So if a fundie preacher can easily use selective readings and sermons to persuade his congregation that whatever his agenda is, it's in the Bible.

[MikeH]

86. Reminds me of something in Screwtape Letters

C. S. Lewis was one of my favorite authors when I was a Christian, and I still like much of his writings (even if I don't completely agree with absolutely everything he says).

One of the preachers that Screwtape recommends has deserted the lectionary and the appointed psalms, and revolves endlessly around the little treadmill of his favorite psalms and lessons. And thus no truth should reach his flock with which they are not already familiar.

One of my pastors, when I was going to church, noted that a lectionary forces preachers to deal with topics that they may otherwise be uncomfortable with.

So it is interesting that it is the fundamentalist preachers who preach whatever they feel like.

(Note: the word "lectionary" is not accepted by the spell check.)

[and-justice-for-all]

87. Hate to break it to you....

But the fact of the matter is that NOTHING in any Xtiandom writing has absolutly NOTHING to offer. What you are reading is writings from relgions that predate Xtiandom, so basicly your reading pledgerised materials:

THE MYTH OF THE RESURRECTION: S T O L E N.

The resurrection is a common theme found in numerous completely different religions throughout the world. Symbolic of a descent to the underworld and a later return. Ishtar's/Inanna's descent and return(she was resurrected from the dead), Osiris, Siva's death and resurrection, Persephone's descent into the underworld and return, the list goes on and on and is based upon the seasons. The dark half, dead part of the year (winter) and the light half, growing season of the year (summer). This theme has been repeated over and over again in nearly every religion preceding xianity. Xianity is a very new religion in comparison to other religions it stole from that predated it by thousands of years.

And something else for you:

"The Latin cross was not a part of xianity until the 7th century and not fully acknowledged until the 9th century. Primitive churches preferred to represent the nazarene with the lamb. The lamb, by the way is another stolen symbol. The sacrificial lamb of Easter is represented by the sign of Aries the Ram." (which begins on March 21st of every year). The Lamb was also carried by Hermes and Osiris." In addition, Odin, Krishna, Marsyas, Dodonian and Zeus also hung from trees. Set was “crucified” on a “cross” known as a furka."