A serious question for the religious types about gay and trans people

[Wirey]

Yes it is wrong. Not about everything, but lots and lots of stuff.
Not because the original authors and audience were stupid or evil. They were just primitive.
Modern people know so much more than they did. So when Scriptures contradict modern ideas, from speciation to marriage, just claiming to believe that God says something else doesn't change the facts. You're wrong to believe that the earth is a few thousand years old. You're wrong to believe that my marriage is immoral because we are gay.
Claiming to speak for God isn't at all credible.
Tom

The trick is to select only the portions of the bible that agree with your world view, and claim the ones that don't are the ones that are outdated. For example, I don't care who's screwing whom, but I really don't like the Blue Jays, so I interpret the passage where Noah releases the dove to mean that the Blue Jays are evil and all their fans engage in carnal relationships with dead squid. See, like that, it's easy!

 

[randomvim]

Exodus 21:

And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed.

Completely clear. Gay = bad, selling daughter for sex = good. Gotcha.

Not everything by Jewish tradition is God given nor what God wants. some is cultural based which changes over time.

 

[columbus]

Not everything by Jewish tradition is God given nor what God wants. some is cultural based which changes over time.

That includes the gay stuff.
Tom

 

[Wirey]

Not everything by Jewish tradition is God given nor what God wants. some is cultural based which changes over time.

So the bible contains elements that God doesn't want but are scripture anyway?

 

[randomvim]

I'm not telling anyone what to do, so you can't accuse me of controlling anyone.

1. anyone can accuse anyone for anything.

2. my question was for clarifying the statement. some one was controlling someone else but I wasn't sure who you refer to

 

[randomvim]

Sorry, that's not homosexuality, that's referring to promiscuity between any two or more people.

which includes homosexuality.

 

[Brickjectivity]

We are not under the Old Testament law, so eat anything you desire. These food laws were used to prevent people from getting sick from food poison because there was no way to prevent this from happening back then.

They could have just cooked them, and the nations around them ate these foods without any problems. They are like the commands not to weave two kinds of thread together -- practically pointless, because mixing threads yields superior cloth, lowers costs and extends the range of colors.

The Catholic church is the biggest deceiver of mankind. The Catholic church is nothing more than a man made church teaching false doctrine.

Humble shepherd David's own brothers accused him of arrogance. The Roman Catholic church and the Catholic church are two different things, because one is an administrative unit and the other includes all the people who are disciples of Jesus. David did do some bad things, and he experienced setbacks and denouncements because of them. He also caused a division and civil war. As a murderer it was not possible for him to build the temple, but he still contributed.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes it is wrong. Not about everything, but lots and lots of stuff.
Not because the original authors and audience were stupid or evil. They were just primitive.
Modern people know so much more than they did. So when Scriptures contradict modern ideas, from speciation to marriage, just claiming to believe that God says something else doesn't change the facts. You're wrong to believe that the earth is a few thousand years old. You're wrong to believe that my marriage is immoral because we are gay.
Claiming to speak for God isn't at all credible.
Tom

That depends. God can't be proven, and I don't see how older religious text (not just the Bible) can be wrong in all of their morals because they aren't up-to-date with modern ideas. However, I value the past because it's my foundation to the present. I just don't use the Bible for that foundation.

Going by believers' point of view, regardless if it's not modern, their criteria makes it right/logical. We should judge religious right and wrong morals on the religion's criteria not our own.

I actually don't understand how modern means right, really. We put too much thought into that "new" exposition when we find the 90's Toyotas could have last us for more years if we spent the same amount of money for its care rather than a brand new car and the expense to care for it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

which includes homosexuality.

Homosexuality refers to sexual orientation between two people of the same gender.

It has nothing to do with the Bible..

 

[randomvim]

There is nothing in your post giving me a reason to think my 20+ years marriage to Doug is in any way incorrect.

People expecting me to accept their opinions about the writings of some primitive bronze-age people are not in the least convincing.
Actually, I find it solid evidence that they didn't know any more ethics or God than they did about atomic physics.
Tom

why would you consider an opinion that would or could in your own opinion damage or threaten life as you know it?

 

[randomvim]

Homosexuality refers to sexual orientation between two people of the same gender.

It has nothing to do with the Bible..

if we base it on the term that didn't exist when Bible was compiled or any year prior. I would agree. however, as it is described - sodomy is included as an act of homoaexuality along with other activities or sexualities
no?

 

[randomvim]

I don't use English bibles. I use the Hebrew Tanach. And you in my opinion are remaining an ignoramus with your insistence that you are right while lacking anything in the way of Scriptural proof (or reading comprehension skills...) to back you up.

But I like your world view: "Stop worrying about all the technical strains. Someone else did all the thinking for you, so you can just sit back and relax."
Spoken like a true Christian.

I didn't know a translation qualified as someone else thinking for you.

but what is so different between your translation or what you say the translation is vs. what I read in a given Bible? some translation is incorrect no matter what but many go I to the explanation and habe "works cited"

better yet why should I consider it so different?

 

[columbus]

Going by believers' point of view, regardless if it's not modern, their criteria makes it right/logical. We should judge religious right and wrong morals on the religion's criteria not our own.

I completely disagree.
I will judge morals by my own standards. They are based on as much information about what works for the whole family of Humanity as I can get.
No, don't expect me to take seriously the ethical opinions of people who still believe that the Bible is from God because I know it is not. It is just too wrong about too many things.
Tom

 

[randomvim]

That includes the gay stuff.
Tom

Yes and No. discipline and how to react is human. lust is sin. Over all same sex activities are considered a sin. various reasons how and why apply.

 

[randomvim]

So the bible contains elements that God doesn't want but are scripture anyway?

No. scripture includes parts that are historical explanation or describes law. Bible is complex and reasons for x is different amongst Jewish and Christian. one should study further to look into explanations that go into what is law, why it is law, and how law changed over time.

 

[columbus]

I didn't know a translation qualified as someone else thinking for you.

Then you don't know much about translation.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Yes and No. discipline and how to react is human. lust is sin. Over all same sex activities are considered a sin. various reasons how and why apply.

This is just proof that the Bible is wrong. The concept of sin fluctuates enormously, depending on what some human wants it to mean.
Tom

 

[Unveiled Artist]

if we base it on the term that didn't exist when Bible was compiled or any year prior. I would agree. however, as it is described - sodomy is included as an act of homoaexuality along with other activities or sexualities
no?

I was asking Shava, how does this have to do with homosexuals, though?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I completely disagree.
I will judge morals by my own standards. They are based on as much information about what works for the whole family of Humanity as I can get.
No, don't expect me to take seriously the ethical opinions of people who still believe that the Bible is from God because I know it is not. It is just too wrong about too many things.
Tom

Just saying see things in other peoples' shoes not just your own. At least that's how I can see why people say what they do and the logic behind it. If I kept to my own views and shut out everyone else, I wouldn't learn anything.

 

[randomvim]

They could have just cooked them, and the nations around them ate these foods without any problems. They are like the commands not to weave two kinds of thread together -- practically pointless, because mixing threads yields superior cloth, lowers costs and extends the range of colors.

Depends - mixed threads can and have also been sold as being one kind of thread. I am not an expert and unsure who would be thousands years ago, but if I cant tell how different threads feel when used together vs 100% same {plus how something looks} then anyone could sell me cheap stuff at higher price.

this is fraud today and I think people would be pissed at it yesterday.

Though the law is delved into - the why isn't greatly explained. Theological study I think is required.