Stoning those Homos! Christian Theism

[RedSunrise]

I think this is the right section. I supposed the religion section would work, but I don't want crazy people from that section in here :rolleyes:

A lot of theists point to god when defining morals. "If we are animals, we must act like animals. If we are created from god, we must act like god" To sum what most seem to indicate. Is it true that we need god for morals? Some would say no. The response to that is, "You aren't coming up with your own morals, you are just using the ones god wrote on your heart" or something like that. But this doesn't make sense... Unless god is giving us different morals is different places:

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Lev. 20:13 - 1) This kind of idea is held throughout the "law". Sleep with someone besides your wife? Death. Your wife isn't a virgin (and it wasn't you)? Death to her. Rape someone? You must marry them. (Which TBH seems nasty to the poor girl)

The modern Christian usually points to Jesus to release them from the bind, "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (John. 8:7 - 2) Ok, I can understand that, but how do we derive any law from this? Although, the rest of the New Testament does align with this kind of statement, the real world does not. Should we not punish murderers or rapists? I am not blameless, so I cannot judge them.

There are four possible options that I see:

1. Say that this only applies to adultery. (Why shouldn't we stone homosexuals then?)
2. Say that the Old Testament no longer applies. (That contradicts the bible)
3. This only applies to capital punishment.
4. Ignore/Come up with a random out of context verse to explain.

What do you think? To me it seems like society is fine coming up with its own morals versus having to use some of the bibles...

On top of that, what about rape? Assuming you choose option three: "If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days." (Deut. 22:28 - 3)

Jesus permits and agrees with this! It isn't capital punishment, so we can judge the man. Yet, from some reason... These laws aren't followed.

What do you think? This is a small rant, because a Christian friend of mine was driving me crazy. :mad: But I think I have most of the ideas covered.

1 - http://bible.com/114/lev.20.13.nkjv
2 - http://bible.com/1/jhn.8.7.kjv
3 - http://bible.com/114/deu.22.28.nkjv

[argeiphontes]

I think this is the right section. I supposed the religion section would work, but I don't want crazy people from that section in here :rolleyes:


In general, religious people aren't crazy...



What do you think? This is a small rant, because a Christian friend of mine was driving me crazy. :mad:


...but they can drive you crazy because they want to impose religious rules on society. That's unsound because any religious ethics is just an appeal to authority. There is no reason for anyone outside the religion to accept any religious rule. Any debate about the specifics belongs to the realm of theology, and not philosophical ethics.

It's great that religious people want to be more ethical these days, but people's religious beliefs should not be the basis of laws and rules for everyone else.

[RedSunrise]

In general, religious people aren't crazy..

Agreed. But that is in the "opposing ideologies" section. Which is the only section on the forum that allows.... ummmm.... bible-beaters Oh I hate using terms like that :( If I recall the forum rules correctly it is at least.



...but they can drive you crazy because they want to impose religious rules on society. That's unsound because any religious ethics is just an appeal to authority. There is no reason for anyone outside the religion to accept any religious rule. Any debate about the specifics belongs to the realm of theology, and not philosophical ethics.

It's great that religious people want to be more ethical these days, but people's religious beliefs should not be the basis of laws and rules for everyone else.

Yes! It drives me mad! :laugh: I knew someone who said, "Government needs to enforce moral law" That feels like totalitarianism to me :rolleyes:

[Tim Cornelis]

2. Say that the Old Testament no longer applies. (That contradicts the bible)
What do you think?

I think this is a relatively valid response.
Judaism is based on the Laws of the Old Testament (613 commandments, the Law of Moses, the Old Covenant). In Christianity, the Old Covenant is replaced by the New Covenant, by Jesus' blood. With the crucifixion of Christ, the Old Covenant was nullified. Now, evidently, this contradicts the Bible but the Bible is riddled with contradictions as it saith that the covenant is eternal and will last until the end of times .*
Whenever Christians appeal to the Old and New Testament to justify their bigotry they contradict the basis of Christianity. For instance, hatred of homosexuality and not allowing women the right to public office (Dutch Reformed Political Party) is justified by the New Testament, e.g. 1 Corinthians 14:34 (which explicitly mentions the Law). New Testament passages on homosexuality seem likewise derived from the Old Covenant. With it nullified, these passages cannot be the basis of Christian morality.

* (warning, big ass image)

http://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/biblecontradictions-reasonproject.png

[RedSunrise]

I think this is a relatively valid response.
Judaism is based on the Laws of the Old Testament (613 commandments, the Law of Moses, the Old Covenant). In Christianity, the Old Covenant is replaced by the New Covenant, by Jesus' blood. With the crucifixion of Christ, the Old Covenant was nullified. Now, evidently, this contradicts the Bible but the Bible is riddled with contradictions as it saith that the covenant is eternal and will last until the end of times .*
New Testament passages on homosexuality seem likewise derived from the Old Covenant. With it nullified, these passages cannot be the basis of Christian morality.


That confuses me too... If the bible is the ultimate truth/infallible, then how can it contradict itself? Then it is no longer infallible meaning you can pick and choose what you believe, so in the end god could be a giant monkey and parts of the bible could still be true. At least, that is what I see.
Great pic! Going to look over that later.

To address bold:
Why is the old testament in the bible then? What is its purpose, but to be tossed aside? And no where in the new testament does it say that the teachings of Jesus override the law

[Remus Bleys]

People aren't homophobic because the bible tells them so, they are homophobic for vastly different reasons that the ancient israelites were. Using the bible to justify anti lgbt sentiment is more like an afterthought than a root.

[consuming negativity]

That confuses me too... If the bible is the ultimate truth/infallible, then how can it contradict itself? Then it is no longer infallible meaning you can pick and choose what you believe, so in the end god could be a giant monkey and parts of the bible could still be true. At least, that is what I see.
Great pic! Going to look over that later.

To address bold:
Why is the old testament in the bible then? What is its purpose, but to be tossed aside? And no where in the new testament does it say that the teachings of Jesus override the law

This is a mischaracterization of what Christians have believed throughout history and also a mischaracterization of what Christians believe even today.

First and foremost, biblical literalism as a thing is only relatively recent - the last couple centuries, with most of it being a product of the 1900s. Christian scholars - for the most part - do not see the Bible as infallible or even the word of God - it is the testament of several people who didn't know Jesus as to his life and works. Like literalism, the infallibility of the Bible is a relatively new idea, and it isn't standard/mainstream doctrine.

As for being contradictory - of course it is. It was written by multiple people about someone they had never met, and then pored through by Constantinople to edit, cut, and paste whatever they wanted into it in order to tell the story that they thought best. Coupled with a lack of of literacy among anyone but priests and nobles of the time, you can see how these would be issues only surfacing recently now that more people can read than ever before. And, like most other religious texts, it is widely open to interpretation with no answers necessarily being wrong or right.

Even the Qur'an, which is believed by all Muslims to be the direct words of God, is challenged by the more progressive Muslims as being a text "of its time" that should not be considered wholly prescriptive in the modern era. So it's no wonder that something significantly "looser" has a wide variety of interpretations and a lot of internal contradictions. But in honesty, I think you made a mistake by having this conversation in a section of the forums inaccessible to mainstream Christians who could give you their perspective.

[The Jay]

People aren't homophobic because the bible tells them so, they are homophobic for vastly different reasons that the ancient israelites were. Using the bible to justify anti lgbt sentiment is more like an afterthought than a root.

This may be the case for most but when I was religious I thought that being gay was wrong even though I held nothing against them for any other reason. Luckily, I'm over that.

[Remus Bleys]

This may be the case for most but when I was religious I thought that being gay was wrong even though I held nothing against them for any other reason. Luckily, I'm over that.

Hm. I'm stumped. On one hand I guess there probably is people homophobic simply because their religion has told them so, but I can't help but feel there was another dynamic at play, considering there are homophobic religious people who stopped being homophobic but retained their Christianity. But I have no clue as to the specifics on homophobia (cuz I don't really like hand waving with intentionally vague terms like material conditions) so I guess you could be right. Id like to hear more though, did the anti lgbt sentiment go away as your religion was, before or after?

[The Jay]

My father was neutral on the gay matter but I was a biblical literalist. The fact that he was neutral likely shied me away from the anti-lgbt methodology. He thinks that he's a biblical literalist but he isn't actually so.

[Sea]

I can't be the only one here with a certain overrated Bob Dylan song stuck in my head...

People aren't homophobic because the bible tells them so, they are homophobic for vastly different reasons that the ancient israelites were. Using the bible to justify anti lgbt sentiment is more like an afterthought than a root.This is very true, but for someone to follow the bible to the utmost, they must be a homophobe; the Lord commands it.

[Klaatu]

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.
Some "abominations" from the Bible:
__________________________________________________ ____________

Consumption of PORK is an abomination (You are so doomed, Bob Evans!)

Isaiah 66:17
“Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst,
eating pig's flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to an end together, declares the Lord."
__________________________________________________ ____________

Inaccurate weighing scales, clocks, blood-glucose meters, vehicle speedometers
and thermostats are an abomination.

Proverbs 20:10
"Unequal weights and unequal measures are both alike an abomination to the Lord."
__________________________________________________ ____________

Banksters and pawn shops, be advised that usury is an abomination

Ezekiel 18:13
"lends at interest, and takes profit; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done
all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself."
__________________________________________________ ____________

Watch out Catholic Church, airborne particulate matter may be your downfall!

Isaiah 1:13
"Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me."
__________________________________________________ ____________

Any religious icon (for example, a crucifix) is an abomination

Deuteronomy 27:15
“‘Cursed be the man who makes a carved or cast metal image, an abomination to the Lord,
a thing made by the hands of a craftsman, and sets it up in secret.’

__________________________________________________ ____________

[greenforest]

During Jesus' time, it was only the Sadducees to carry out stoning; the Pharisees, and other sects influenced by them, did not.

The Jewish sect(s) to which Jesus' followers belong were influenced by the stream of thought that included the Oral Law, but they (Jewish followers of Jesus) didn't incorporate the Oral Law into their body of sacred scripture.

As a result, these contradictions seem more apparent in Christianity than in Rabbinic Judaism which also doesn't advocate stoning.

I personally don't buy the explanation of a New Covenant replacing the Old Covenant; Paul's theology was complex, and new analysis of his writing now advocates he continued to follow Mosaic Law himself.

All this contradicts the New Testament and makes it difficult to explain why a New Covenant replaces Mosaic Law when Acts 15 requires Jewish Christians to continue following the laws of Moses.