• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The crap selective Biblical literalism has fostered

You can't win this argument by being more Christian, my friend. If it is not in his selective Bible mythology/text, it doesn't exist. He's demonstrating how SBL works, you see.

There's hundreds if not thousands of specific topics in the Bible. If people aren't being selective in discerning scriptures on homosexual sin apart from scriptures on temple sacrifices then they are doing the recipients of their survey a serious disservice.

And the real mythology is thinking that God approves of illicit gay sex sin. So do enjoy your fairy tales.
 
If you read things in context, That is Paul's opinion on the punishments that God gave those people because were practicing pagan rituals. In Levelitcus, that is specifically referring to anal sex.

It's like this: everyone knows that everyone can understand English if you talk slowly and loudly enough. It's the same with the Bible. If you're not understanding, all that is required is thumping the Bible harder. If it is thumped hard enough, you'll understand.
 
How do you know that they are wrong and you are right? Christian A always insists that he is right and Christian B is wrong. And they both quote scripture to back up their positions.

It all has to do with Exilic history, and the reasons the book of Leviticus was reduced to writing in the first place; none of which had anything to do with Christianity or the 21st century CE.


OM
 
1 Corinthians 2:14

Shrug. That does not change the fact your doctrine is not sound.. and throwing a quote out there when your doctrine is unsound just proves it
 
Correct...homosexual acts were of pagan origin and have always been forbidden among God's people...acts that some of God's people at that time adopted...they were wrong then and they are wrong now, in God's eyes...

IT appears the point is going right over your head, because you are making assumptions that are neither in my post, nor in the original passage in Romans.
 
There's hundreds if not thousands of specific topics in the Bible. If people aren't being selective in discerning scriptures on homosexual sin apart from scriptures on temple sacrifices then they are doing the recipients of their survey a serious disservice.

And the real mythology is thinking that God approves of illicit gay sex sin. So do enjoy your fairy tales.

Ooh, my fairy tales are all goodness and light. It's your fairy tales I have a problem with..
 
IT appears the point is going right over your head, because you are making assumptions that are neither in my post, nor in the original passage in Romans.

lol...it appears you stepped right into that one...;)
 
Ooh, my fairy tales are all goodness and light. It's your fairy tales I have a problem with..

Well, one of these days I hope you skeptics will trot out your evidences that God and his moral laws are fairy tales. Seems all you can do is throw baseless claims like that against the wall and then do a Sukie dance trying to celebrate your perceived wisdom.
 
lol...it appears you stepped right into that one...;)

No.. I didn't. However, if you want to discuss the passages in context, with commentary to the original greek for the Romans, and look at the various commentary of the Jewish Rabbi's in the case of levitucs, I woulld be more than happy to discuss it. However, meaningless one line comments, lists of sound bits, and cut/pastes from the JW web site are not impressive.
 
No.. I didn't. However, if you want to discuss the passages in context, with commentary to the original greek for the Romans, and look at the various commentary of the Jewish Rabbi's in the case of levitucs, I woulld be more than happy to discuss it. However, meaningless one line comments, lists of sound bits, and cut/pastes from the JW web site are not impressive.

Neither is your opinion...
 
No.. I didn't. However, if you want to discuss the passages in context, with commentary to the original greek for the Romans, and look at the various commentary of the Jewish Rabbi's in the case of levitucs, I woulld be more than happy to discuss it. However, meaningless one line comments, lists of sound bits, and cut/pastes from the JW web site are not impressive.

Uh oh, that sounds like substance... ;)
 
Well, if you want to figure it out, I suggest a conclave of experts be assembled, say, in Nicea, and they can legitimize some texts and hereticisize others, then we'll all know for sure.

They made a hash of it the first time a around, didn't they.
 
But that is exactly what you are doing.


How very ironic.

I suppose ironic is one word for it....

[1] Judge not, that ye be not judged.
[2] For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
[3] And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
[4] Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
[5] Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
-- Matthew 7:1-5​

Now either the above passage is rightly interpreted figuratively with regard to motes and beams, or it's rightly applied literally thus.
-- Figurative application --> Insofar as one is necessarily stained with various sins, the beams, one mustn't judge others.
-- Literal application --> Beams and motes are specific physical things, in which case the proscription doesn't apply to non-motes and non-beams.
Now, one can invoke literal or figurative patristics, but in doing so, one implies the corresponding approach to Biblical interpretation, and thus one must be consistent with regard to the rest of the Bible. I don't care with tack one takes; I care that one is consistent in taking it.
 
Last edited:
It all has to do with Exilic history, and the reasons the book of Leviticus was reduced to writing in the first place; none of which had anything to do with Christianity or the 21st century CE.


OM

This makes sense. But many Christians would disagree with you regarding the relevence of Leviticus and other OT classics to 21st Century Chrisitianity, not to mention their importance in insuring the health and wellbeing of one's immortal soul. Would they be the fake Christians?
 
This makes sense. But many Christians would disagree with you regarding the relevence of Leviticus and other OT classics to 21st Century Chrisitianity, not to mention their importance in insuring the health and wellbeing of one's immortal soul. Would they be the fake Christians?

They would be subscribers to dogma. The historical context however is different. I was mentored for years by a zealous Levite (as in Leviticus); that guy knew his business.


OM
 
I suppose ironic is one word for it....

[1] Judge not, that ye be not judged.
[2] For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
[3] And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
[4] Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
[5] Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
-- Matthew 7:1-5​

Now either the above passage is rightly interpreted figuratively with regard to motes and beams, or it's rightly applied literally thus.
-- Figurative application --> Insofar as one is necessarily stained with various sins, the beams, one mustn't judge others.
-- Literal application --> Beams and motes are specific physical things, in which case the proscription doesn't apply to non-motes and non-beams.
Now, one can invoke literal or figurative patristics, but in doing so, one implies the corresponding approach to Biblical interpretation, and thus one must be consistent with regard to the rest of the Bible. I don't care with tack one takes; I care that one is consistent in taking it.

That is illogical thinking and why context has to be considered, to determine if the meaning is literal or figurative...it is not all or nothing, as is the case for most things in life...
 
Well, if you want to figure it out, I suggest a conclave of experts be assembled, say, in Nicea, and they can legitimize some texts and hereticisize others, then we'll all know for sure.

lol...yeah, that worked out so well the 1st time...

Are you, Elvira, a Christian? Do you not ascribe to the Nicene Creed? To the extent you do, it, the Council of Nicea, "worked out" pretty well.

As for the development of the Christian canons, though that isn't really what Nicea was all about (defining what be and be not canonical texts is part of what, for example, the Council of Trent was about), it did occur by the process NWRatCon describes, which is to say a bunch of dudes got together and decided which texts to include and which to reject. Among Christian belief systems, those decisions, by and large, have endured, as shown by the fact that Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Bibles are, with relatively minor exception, the same.
 
They made a hash of it the first time a around, didn't they.

Indeed; and I'm seeing hash made right here, too!

Here's the thing: all Bibles, especially those produced today, are translations of translations of translations. More is lost in those translations than captured, and various translators inserted their own biases in the process of translation. If a word(s ) had two (or more) meanings, they'd pick the one that fit their predilections rather than what necessarily was closest to the contextual or original meaning. Worse, Aramaic doesn't have vowels, so words were often mistaken for other words. As an illustration, reed, red, rude,and ride would all be "rd," but the context might suggest a meaning (or might not). Any modern bible that is based on the King James version is rife with these errors (books have been written on the subject). Finally, ancient writers were not literal, but spoke in allegorical language. The truths were not in the words but in the concepts and themes (Jesus did this all the time himself). And since these texts were a) based on oral traditions, and b) translated centuries after they were originally transcribed, social and cultural understandings were lost in the process. What, for example, is meant by malakoi, which, literally means "soft". Is it code for homosexuality? Effemity? Or being too lax?

Modern readers are thus more confident in their own inerrancy in their interpretation than they are in the inerrancy of "God's word." Jesus spoke to that hubris, too. They wouldn't like what he had to say.
 
Last edited:
They would be subscribers to dogma. The historical context however is different. I was mentored for years by a zealous Levite (as in Leviticus); that guy knew his business.


OM

It would seem to an outsider that the "dogma" to which they subscribe is not consistent with the thrust of Christ's teachings. Especially to the extent that they see following this dogma to be a condition of salvation.
 
I suppose ironic is one word for it....

[1] Judge not, that ye be not judged.
[2] For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
[3] And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
[4] Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
[5] Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
-- Matthew 7:1-5​

Now either the above passage is rightly interpreted figuratively with regard to motes and beams, or it's rightly applied literally thus.
-- Figurative application --> Insofar as one is necessarily stained with various sins, the beams, one mustn't judge others.
-- Literal application --> Beams and motes are specific physical things, in which case the proscription doesn't apply to non-motes and non-beams.
Now, one can invoke literal or figurative patristics, but in doing so, one implies the corresponding approach to Biblical interpretation, and thus one must be consistent with regard to the rest of the Bible. I don't care with tack one takes; I care that one is consistent in taking it.

That is illogical thinking and why context has to be considered, to determine if the meaning is literal or figurative...it is not all or nothing, as is the case for most things in life...
Red:
...If one must use passages of the Bible as the or as part of the basis one uses to legitimate ones temporal judgments of others, of course, one must hold to the notion that it's not all or nothing as goes whether Bible passages are linguistically literal or figurative.
 
I don't care w[hich] tack one takes; I care that one is consistent in taking it.
If you're sailing around in circles, though, you're probably taking too many tacks. ;)
 
Are you, Elvira, a Christian? Do you not ascribe to the Nicene Creed? To the extent you do, it, the Council of Nicea, "worked out" pretty well.

As for the development of the Christian canons, though that isn't really what Nicea was all about (defining what be and be not canonical texts is part of what, for example, the Council of Trent was about), it did occur by the process NWRatCon describes, which is to say a bunch of dudes got together and decided which texts to include and which to reject. Among Christian belief systems, those decisions, by and large, have endured, as shown by the fact that Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Bibles are, with relatively minor exception, the same.

I am a Christian who subscribes to what the Bible teaches, not what some 3rd century crowd of men thought it said...there is no hellfire, there is no immortal soul, there is no trinity taught in the Bible...
 
I am a Christian who subscribes to what the Bible teaches, not what some 3rd century crowd of men thought it said...there is no hellfire, there is no immortal soul, there is no trinity taught in the Bible...

But, but, but... If you're using the bible they created, how do you reconcile that? Seriously, I can't fathom that.

Where do the Gnostic Gospels fit?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom