Lying about Scripture

[angellous_evangellous]

As a matter of curiosity, do you think that it is dishonest to plainly say that Jesus (or another religious leader) said something that they plainly did not say?

As a scholar - and indeed as a human being - I think that it is the greatest offense to lie about the text and thus attribute that content the authority of the religious figure.

For, Jesus said nothing about lesbianism, at least as far as we know. If someone were to say that Jesus condemned lesbianism, that's not merely a misinterpretation of something that is written, but an outright fabrication. And the liar merrily goes about his business giving the divine authority of Christ to the liar's own fabricated views.

So the question is this: is it immoral to lie about a text and use it to harm/ insult others?

This is a profound blasphemy to me and I wonder if I'm blowing it out of proportion.

 

[outhouse]

As a matter of curiosity, do you think that it is dishonest to plainly say that Jesus (or another religious leader) said something that they plainly did not say?

yes its dishonest

So the question is this: is it immoral to lie about a text and use it to harm/ insult others?

yes it is.

it sspeaks of ones charactor

This is a profound blasphemy to me and I wonder if I'm blowing it out of proportion.

No its OK


its best to keep people honest as many with a motive will skirt their own values to promote their belief.

 

[Awoon]

The writers of the "gospels" put many words in Jesus' mouth. You as a scholar should know that and list them in this forum.

 

[InChrist]

As a matter of curiosity, do you think that it is dishonest to plainly say that Jesus (or another religious leader) said something that they plainly did not say?

As a scholar - and indeed as a human being - I think that it is the greatest offense to lie about the text and thus attribute that content the authority of the religious figure.

For, Jesus said nothing about lesbianism, at least as far as we know. If someone were to say that Jesus condemned lesbianism, that's not merely a misinterpretation of something that is written, but an outright fabrication. And the liar merrily goes about his business giving the divine authority of Christ to the liar's own fabricated views.

So the question is this: is it immoral to lie about a text and use it to harm/ insult others?

This is a profound blasphemy to me and I wonder if I'm blowing it out of proportion.

[FONT=&quot]It is wrong and dishonest to say Jesus said words He actually did not say in order to come up with a teaching or doctrine which contradicts the whole of His word, since we are to take the whole counsel of God. But I think it is just as wrong to condone a behavior simply because Jesus never specifically mentions a certain word or behavior. Christ did not directly address the issue of homosexuality but He also never directly addressed things such as pedophilia, bestiality or incest, does that mean that He must think these behaviors are acceptable? Yet, He made it perfectly clear that a sexual union was only intended to be between a man and a woman.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matt.19:4)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]When it came to blasphemous sins, Jesus often referred to Sodom and Gomorrah as a rule of measure. "It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city." (Mark 6:11) "But I say unto you, “That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee." (Matt. 11:24)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Judging from Jesus’ own words, it is clear to see that he did (does) not approve of homosexuality. The God of the Old and New Testament is one and the same and homosexuality is condemned in both. If God designed sexual relations to be within marriage and marriage to be between a man and a woman, then lesbianism would also be as wrong as male to male sex. I believe this is consistent with the holiness of Jesus Christ.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]You may think this is insulting, but I don't see it that way. If God designed humans to function a certain way then I believe His way is best and anything else is harmful. The truth is always the most loving, even if it is difficult to hear.
[/FONT]

 

[Shermana]

The OT only bans male-male relations. There is no concept of "homosexuality", there is no concept of "sexuality", there is only a concept of "defilement' and "ravaging'. Women can't ravage. Two women can't really do much damage to each other.

Also, Jesus DID directly address pedos, he said it's better for them to drown themselves than to "offend" (the word means to "ensnare", which has a few meanings, but "Catch and harm" is one of them) a child.

 

[Walkntune]

Isiah 5
20Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

 

[Awoon]

Male-male relations were considered unclean. That is all. Lobster is unclean. Do Christians eat Lobster?

 

[Rakhel]

Isiah 5
20Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Jesus didn't say that. Isaiah did.

 

[TheKnight]

I'm going to have to agree with you Angellous. Not only is it blasphemous (in a sense, I don't know if I'd apply blasphemy to it), but it's extremely demonstrative of a person's ignorance. It takes a severe amount of ignorance to say that a purportedly divine figure said something they did not say.

 

[Shermana]

Male-male relations were considered unclean. That is all. Lobster is unclean. Do Christians eat Lobster?

The word "Unclean" is highly misunderstood. Some "unclean" things don't constitute death penalty, some do. The word is more "Abomination" which means "obscene horror to avoid at all costs which filthies your soul", there are obviously different degrees of such abomination.

On a related note, The notion that Christians are allowed to eat whatever want often runs into trouble when I ask them if a missionary is allowed to partake in a Cannibal's meal offering. The answers range from running away from the question to admitting their willingness to be cannibalistic.

 

[Kathryn]

As a matter of curiosity, do you think that it is dishonest to plainly say that Jesus (or another religious leader) said something that they plainly did not say?

As a scholar - and indeed as a human being - I think that it is the greatest offense to lie about the text and thus attribute that content the authority of the religious figure.

For, Jesus said nothing about lesbianism, at least as far as we know. If someone were to say that Jesus condemned lesbianism, that's not merely a misinterpretation of something that is written, but an outright fabrication. And the liar merrily goes about his business giving the divine authority of Christ to the liar's own fabricated views.

So the question is this: is it immoral to lie about a text and use it to harm/ insult others?

This is a profound blasphemy to me and I wonder if I'm blowing it out of proportion.

No, you're not blowing it out of proportion.

This reminds me of when I found out that for about 1500 years nearly every bible had 73 books in it, not 66.

But the same preachers preaching from that shortened collection also would misuse the phrase in Revelation about not removing one word or letter from the bible - on pain of HELL FIRE!

 

[Rakhel]

This reminds me of a church outing I went on once. It was one of those weekend retreat things. We had been given a verse to read and reflect on but I had run into a problem. The bible I had didn't have that particular verse while the bible my friend had did.
If I remember correctly, I think it was those last few verses of Mark.

 

[InChrist]

The word "Unclean" is highly misunderstood. Some "unclean" things don't constitute death penalty, some do. The word is more "Abomination" which means "obscene horror to avoid at all costs which filthies your soul", there are obviously different degrees of such abomination.

On a related note, The notion that Christians are allowed to eat whatever want often runs into trouble when I ask them if a missionary is allowed to partake in a Cannibal's meal offering. The answers range from running away from the question to admitting their willingness to be cannibalistic.

If a missionary was following the leading of the Holy Spirit they would know when to eat and when not to eat that which they were being served. For conscience’ sake, if human flesh was served by a Cannibal it would be refused and used as an opportunity to share the gospel and God's perspective on taking human life.


If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake. But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the LORD’s, and all its fullness.” “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience? But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks? 1 COR. 10:27-30

 

[Shermana]

This reminds me of a church outing I went on once. It was one of those weekend retreat things. We had been given a verse to read and reflect on but I had run into a problem. The bible I had didn't have that particular verse while the bible my friend had did.
If I remember correctly, I think it was those last few verses of Mark.

You should have asked them to drink poison to demonstrate whether they were true believers.

 

[bigbadgirl]

After 2000 years and the fact that Jesus never wrote anything, how can you tell one way or the other?

 

[Villager]

If someone were to say that Jesus condemned lesbianism, that's not merely a misinterpretation of something that is written, but an outright fabrication

Not necessarily. One can state explicitly, or implicitly. If it is possible to argue that Jesus made implicit reference to lesbianism, there is no necessary fabrication or mendacity. And of course the argument against any sexual relationship outside the marriage of one man with one wife is cited by Bible scholars, and was indeed mentioned by Jesus himself.

But it is a false paradigm that separates, or attempts to drive a wedge between, Jesus and his apostles. Christians accept apostolic precept just as much as they do the words of Jesus, and even if there was no Jesus, even if there were no apostles, they might well find lesbianism unacceptable. Maybe it's people who do that who become Christians. It's a basic human right to be able to do that.

Isn't it?

 

[Shermana]

If it is possible to argue that Jesus made implicit reference to lesbianism

It's not possible. Jesus was not referring to Lesbianism when he was talking about marriage, the context was completely about divorce. Any attempt to garner that he was referring to sexual relations between women completely avoids the very message of what he was saying about divorce. Women don't and can't have "sex" with each other. The ancient world didn't consider Lesbians to be "having sex". There's no actual violation or physical desecration.

Well, maybe if one of them has oral herpes.

 

[Villager]

The bible I had didn't have that particular verse while the bible my friend had did.
If I remember correctly, I think it was those last few verses of Mark.

I was only your friend who had a Bible (maybe). What you had was not a Bible, because it held material that is known to be spurious, but publishers ignore the advice of scholarship, publish, and don't care if they are damned!

The Bible has very rarely been snipped, presumably because somebody, somewhere, would miss a favourite verse. But, under one pretext or another, it has been augmented, and in every case with specious comments designed to introduce heresy, to contradict the Bible itself. So there are lies aplenty about Scripture, but there are lies within Scripture, as supposed.

And that's before consideration of the tangled issue of translation. Or 'translation', which can be highly imaginative.

 

[Villager]

Women don't and can't have "sex" with each other.

Really? Do they chat and drink tea?

 

[Shermana]

Really? Do they chat and drink tea?

The problem here is that the word "sex" has been "modernized" away from its original meaning.