Cherry Picking... especially interested in theist views

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If jesus sheds blood then we are all doomed.

Correction: if Jesus sheds blood and exists, we're all doomed.

I don't dare to think Jesus as cruel. Jesus is all we've got.

The Gospels are full of Jesus happily promising all sorts of horrors for the people he disapproves of.

 

[syo]

Correction: if Jesus sheds blood and exists, we're all doomed.


The Gospels are full of Jesus happily promising all sorts of horrors for the people he disapproves of.

Isn't it the other way round? People disapproving jesus?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

I mean, what context am I missing here?

Depending on the interpretation, some context that might be assumed:

- the verse was part of a set of commandments given specifically to the Hebrews, so it doesn't necessarily apply to all people.

- the New Testament says that believers have "died with Christ" to the "Old Law," so they're released from it.

- other passages in the Bible describe God as kind, loving, and merciful, so any interpretation of this passage has to take the other passage into account.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Isn't it the other way round? People disapproving jesus?

No, I don't think so. Jesus is the one making the threats.

 

[Dan Mellis]

The scriptures are multi-faceted. Just because God decrees something does not mean that God actually desires it or that it is the best thing. For instance: divorce is permitted under the Mosaic Law even though God does not desire it.

Matthew 19:3-9 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’a]">[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’b]">[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
​

Justice is good and holy, but it is not the best or most desirable outcome.

James 2:12-13 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
​

Thus when interpreting scripture, the scope of that scripture is in fact the entirety of the scriptures. Scripture interprets scripture, as it were. What does God truly desire? What is the true intent of the law in question? It is not enough to look at a verse in isolation to come away with a proper understanding of what is being said.

With regards commandments calling for death for various sins, there is nothing wrong with these on their own. They teach that these are sins and not to do them. The wages of all sin is death in the end. However, that is also a very limited understanding of what is called for from us. For it is not God's desire that people be put to death, but that they repent of their sinful ways and be forgiven. It is God's desire that we do what is right and good rather than make sacrifices. It is God's desire that all be saved. And you would only be able to approach these commandments from this perspective if you took the time to study the whole of scripture and understand the overall will of God rather than picking out isolated texts.

The scriptures speaks in both ideals and reality. For while they show us the ideal, they also address the reality that people are sinful and don't live up to those ideals. Justice is good, mercy is better, and living righteously to begin with is the ideal.

You say that gods desire and what he had written in the bible are different. As far as I can tell, the bible is the only thing that you have to judge god's will, so how can you make this conclusion? Why have it written in the first place?

If a god wanted people to live righteously, why make the definition and rules surrounding righteousness so hard? More to the point, why make us flawed and sinful, then judge us for being flawed and sinful?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You say that gods desire and what he had written in the bible are different. As far as I can tell, the bible is the only thing that you have to judge god's will, so how can you make this conclusion? Why have it written in the first place?

About the bit I highlighted:

- if the Bible is true, then the highlighted statement is false. There would - or at least could - be other sources.

- if the Bible is false, then it wouldn't provide any insight into God's will.

 

[stvdv]

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

I mean, what context am I missing here?

2 important conclusions:
1) Man can not have sex with man in the same way as with woman, so the whole verse means nothing (is untrue)
2) God, being omniscient, could never have made such a mistake, so this proves that the Bible is NOT 100% truly God's word

 

[stvdv]

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

I mean, what context am I missing here?

In scriptures "death" is used as "being not enlightened". Indulging in sex for fun (not making babies) means "not enlightened" ... so "death" is used

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In scriptures "death" is used as "being not enlightened". Indulging in sex for fun (not making babies) means "not enlightened" ... so "death" is used

That's a... creative interpretation.

"Put to death" would mean "cause someone to die." So if "death" means "being not enlightened," do you think that "putting someone to death" means "beating them until they lose their enlightenment?"

 

[pearl]

So

More like making a judgment without the whole picture.

 

[stvdv]

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

I mean, what context am I missing here?

Maybe it's a glimpse into Aids. Homosexuals (new infections in US) are more vulnerable to getting aids (blood contact when having Aids can lead to Aids to death):
HIV/AIDS Statistics News

• Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. Of newly infected men, approximately 50 percent are black, 30 percent are white, 20 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(4)

 

[stvdv]

That's a... creative interpretation.

"Put to death" would mean "cause someone to die." So if "death" means "being not enlightened," do you think that "putting someone to death" means "beating them until they lose their enlightenment?"

Maybe it's more like "facking to death" .... "fack their brains out"
Anyway, the Bible is written years after AND it's a known fact that mediums can misinterpret what they hear and use other words

I wrote this because I remembered this short story, I read like 20 years ago:
A monk asked his master how many times sex was allowed for him as a married man (with his wife). Master answered "1 child is sufficient". Monk freaking out exclaimed "but Master we live in the same house every day". Okay once a year is okay the Master replied. The monk still a bit in shock uttered "but Master we live in the same room". Then have sex once a month the Master said. But we sleep in the same bed, that's too hard, can't we have it on a weekly basis? To which the Master replied "then you better get into your coffin straight away".
remark: Master of course is not judging sex. But when monk asked what is best for spiritual path the Master just gives his answer.

In France even masturbation is called "La petite mort":
La petite mort - Wikipedia
La petite mort (French pronunciation: [la pətit mɔʁ], the little death) is an expression which means "the brief loss or weakening of consciousness" and in modern usage refers specifically to "the sensation of post orgasm as likened to death."

 

[Skwim]

so as we throw stones.....and cherries at each other.....

isn't God and heaven watching?

If he is I don't think he cares.

.​

 

[Dan Mellis]

Depending on the interpretation, some context that might be assumed:

- the verse was part of a set of commandments given specifically to the Hebrews, so it doesn't necessarily apply to all people.

- the New Testament says that believers have "died with Christ" to the "Old Law," so they're released from it.

- other passages in the Bible describe God as kind, loving, and merciful, so any interpretation of this passage has to take the other passage into account.

So heavens rules of entry are different for some people? Why?

If the old testament is no longer applicable, why bother with the Commandments?

If your god is loving and forgiving, how can you reconcile that with the concept of hell? Especially if you also believe he's all powerful and all knowing, and created us. By that logic, he created humans but made them flawed and gave them all sorts of 'immoral' predelictions. He also knew whether or not each person would repent (this also debunks the whole free will thing, as if he created us but also knew what we'd do, how do we have free will?). Then, when we die, he judges every person he created for being exactly how he created them and behaving exactly how he knew they would.

Loving father, or megalomaniacal tinkerer?

 

[Dan Mellis]

About the bit I highlighted:

- if the Bible is true, then the highlighted statement is false. There would - or at least could - be other sources.

- if the Bible is false, then it wouldn't provide any insight into God's will.

If the bible is false, how on earth do we get to "god exists?" If the only interaction he 'had' with mortals is false?

 

[Dan Mellis]

2 important conclusions:
1) Man can not have sex with man in the same way as with woman, so the whole verse means nothing (is untrue)
2) God, being omniscient, could never have made such a mistake, so this proves that the Bible is NOT 100% truly God's word

Oh c'mon, we know what is meant by that. To try and twist it any other way is disingenuous.

If it isn't 100% gods word, how do we tell what is and isnt correct? The whole thing becomes unreliable as a source.

 

[Dan Mellis]

In scriptures "death" is used as "being not enlightened". Indulging in sex for fun (not making babies) means "not enlightened" ... so "death" is used

Could you point to some passages which you believe indicate that? Thanks

 

[Dan Mellis]

Maybe it's a glimpse into Aids. Homosexuals (new infections in US) are more vulnerable to getting aids (blood contact when having Aids can lead to Aids to death):
HIV/AIDS Statistics News

• Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. Of newly infected men, approximately 50 percent are black, 30 percent are white, 20 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(4)

Or maybe that's because it started in the homosexual community, and the easiest way of transmission is through sex, so the rate of it leaving the homosexual community is reduced.

For all we know, the gay community was just unlucky that it started there. That seems more likely than some divine punishment or prediction.

 

[sealchan]

Hi all,

Especially interested in the Theist response to this; it's not meant to be a sneery sort of thread. I'm genuinely curious.

I've been in some debates on here where I've quoted scripture and been told I'm lying or deliberately misinterpreting the text. My view is that things like this are pretty hard to misinterperet...

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

I mean, what context am I missing here?

The question is, seeing how the above (and other morally questionable concepts) is written in the bible, and the bible is supposedly written by people who were channeling god or were inspired by god, how do you choose which bits are correct and why not just remove the bad bits?

I mean, if you believe it was a product of its time and doesnt really apply (why would that happen if god inspired it) why not just take it out as irrelevant? It gives bad guys a platform to spew hatred...

As I am sure you know, and hence your OP is a bit facetious, many believe the Bible is untouchable and therefore they have to either "don't ask, don't tell" about the evil stuff God speaks in it or they bend their hearts and minds sufficiently in order to justify it, even using it as justification for persecuting those who sincerely find themselves to be homosexual through no act or choice of their own. Such lack of openness to the sincerity of others is a form of willful ignorance I think.

Way, way back buried deep in the Bible are traditions that used to create partially practical, partially impractical limits around the satisfaction of the instinctual desires. These limits, I think, provide psychological focus so that eating isn't mere gluttony and sex isn't the same. Culture, in general, is a cooperative effort of a group of people to meet their individual needs without treading on each other. I can only speculate myself but perhaps same sex "fooling around" was seen as a distraction to the opportunities for intimacy that a man would have with his wife. If a man was ensured to relate sexually with his wife he would also be sure to attend to his family. Maybe yesterdays same sex encounters were often today's form of pornography for married men who didn't want to create illegitimate children.

Today I think that the varieties of sexual orientation are clearly not individual perversions but expressions of the variety of what God has created. This scripture is morally wrong at this point.

I have argued that scripture has been, for at least a couple of reasons, frozen into a static document. However it grew out of a creative effort and was inspired by a body of existing oral and written myth. If the Biblical stories had been allowed to remain in creative flux, no doubt this particular item would likely have been removed.

 

[InChrist]

Hi all,

Especially interested in the Theist response to this; it's not meant to be a sneery sort of thread. I'm genuinely curious.

I've been in some debates on here where I've quoted scripture and been told I'm lying or deliberately misinterpreting the text. My view is that things like this are pretty hard to misinterperet...

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

I mean, what context am I missing here?

The question is, seeing how the above (and other morally questionable concepts) is written in the bible, and the bible is supposedly written by people who were channeling god or were inspired by god, how do you choose which bits are correct and why not just remove the bad bits?

I mean, if you believe it was a product of its time and doesnt really apply (why would that happen if god inspired it) why not just take it out as irrelevant? It gives bad guys a platform to spew hatred...

I believe the entire Bible is the Word of God. While all of it gives insight, wisdom, and understanding about God and human nature, etc., not every word, verse, or passage is applicable for every person, situation, or time.
It is important to ask the questions...who, what, when where, and why, while reading the scriptures to discern the intended purpose and audience. The law you quoted was from the OT and was specifically given for the nation of Israel during the time period before the cross of Jesus Christ. The behavior of practicing homosexuality is still a sin mentioned throughout the scriptures, but the practice of stoning for breaking that law was specific to Israel at that time.

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15