Lying about Scripture

[Villager]

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

What meaning was that?

 

[Shermana]

What meaning was that?

Direct intercourse between a man and a woman, of which it was not until 1929 that the word was first used to imply such. Only recently has the word taken on the meaning to imply "erotic relations" altogether.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=sex&searchmode=none

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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?

Is this a trick question?

 

[ohhcuppycakee]

"God helps those who help themselves." Lol, this is a famous ghost quote of Jesus (PBUH) that Benjamin Franklin said.

 

[Villager]

Direct intercourse between a man and a woman, of which it was not until 1929 that the word was first used to imply such.

So what did Paul mean when he wrote 'Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones' back in 58?

 

[Shermana]

So what did Paul mean when he wrote 'Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones' back in 58?

Romans 1:26 is referring to "Greek style" relations, unless of course you think "Greek style" with a woman is "natural relations".

 

[Villager]

Romans 1:26 is referring to "Greek style" relations

Which were? Are?

 

[Shermana]

Which were? Are?

Sigh, I saw this a mile away.


If you really don't know what I'm talking about and can't figure out what I'm referring to, then you're too sheltered for this conversation. If you're asking just for me to get into dirty details, here's a link to do the dirty work.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEoQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpeople.brandeis.edu%2F~brooten%2FArticles%2FPatrisitc_Interpretations_of_Romans_1_26.pdf&ei=vdeaTuDzEYSYiQKusLzCDQ&usg=AFQjCNEQ-YUinBqQfXWxA__13oM946a6AQ&sig2=BGo7C6bFzn6StUkmiSF7MQ

"Unnatural heterosexual intercourse".

The "Likewise" in 1:27 refers to men who did the same "unnatural" act with each other, and specifically implies that its between each other, unlike 1:26.

 

[yourgraceisenough]

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.

If it is unsubstantiated yes....

if not it is fine...

 

[asa120]

well e good question there is e probleme not just in the adds in the scriptures but in the originality of the scripture them selves
as for lesbianisme i shre that jesus peace be upon him will condem it
jusus codeme homosexuality all forms of it

 

[Villager]

Sigh, I saw this a mile away.

Like I saw that.

you're too sheltered for this conversation

Sheltered? So is lesbianism not the innocent relationship advertised? Goodness me.

I'm not so naive as to be taken in by the word 'patristic', anyway.

dirty details

So lesbianism is wrong. Paul was right about 'shameful lust'.

But anyway:

The "Likewise" in 1:27 refers to men who did the same "unnatural" act with each other, and specifically implies that its between each other, unlike 1:26.

The 'likewise' shows that there was physical relationship between women.

Though you are quite right- if in the wrong way. Modernism does indeed see sexuality as a merely animal function, whereas even fifty years ago the qualities that make humanity human, more than animals, were recognised, and valued. O tempora! O mores!

 

[Rakhel]

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.

what the hell are you talking about. "What you had was not a Bible..." I wasn't a practicing Jew at the time(I wasn't much of a practicing Christian either, but that is beside the point). I was attending a Christian church, and was holding my mother's bible, which she got from her grandmother, who was a solider in the Salvation Army.
What I had was as much a bible as what my friend had. However, mine was decades older then his. so of course it was going to be missing those last 12 verses of Mark.


Telling me what I had and didn't have.

 

[Villager]

what the hell are you talking about.

What indeed! My apologies, it was your friend who had the faux Bible, and you who had the better one. I didn't read carefully enough.

so of course it was going to be missing those last 12 verses of Mark.

I certainly misunderstood your post, but I don't think you understood mine. Older Bibles don't lose pages from the end of Mark. From the end of Revelation, yes, unless they are really abused!

Longer Bibles are worse ones, not better. They are not Bibles at all, properly speaking, because men have added their own words to the words of their maker, and have not dared to take their maker's words away; though only for fear of losing the trust of those whom they wish to deceive.

 

[Rakhel]

I didn't say he had a false bible either. I am say that mine didn't have the last 12 verses of Mark because there was something in those last verses the editors didn't like. Then years later, they decided that their predecessors were wrong in nott including those verses and put them back in.

 

[Walkntune]

Jesus didn't say that. Isaiah did.

Wheeeeew! So glad you cleared that up.I would have been out of line with the OP.

 

[Awoon]

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.

Thank you for an answer. But I dont read the word "sin" in your definition, which seems to be what Christians get hung up on.

 

[Shermana]

Like I saw that.

Sheltered? So is lesbianism not the innocent relationship advertised? Goodness me.

I'm not so naive as to be taken in by the word 'patristic', anyway.

So lesbianism is wrong. Paul was right about 'shameful lust'.

But anyway:

The 'likewise' shows that there was physical relationship between women.

Though you are quite right- if in the wrong way. Modernism does indeed see sexuality as a merely animal function, whereas even fifty years ago the qualities that make humanity human, more than animals, were recognised, and valued. O tempora! O mores!

Did you totally snip out the "Unnatural heterosexual relations" just to annoy me? Did you say you didn't understand what "Greek style" was just to annoy me too? Thank you for proving your ability to Shuck and Jive and pretend like I said something I didn't, that's truly funny. I'm not the only person who said it was not referring to Lesbians, Augustine said the same thing among others, but hey who cares about that. You completely shucked the link just because it had the word "Patristic". So I'm guessing you think it's "Natural relations" for a man to pile a woman in her exit only tube then. Do you not think it's "Shameful/unnartural relations" to pound the fudgehole as long as its a man and a woman? That would be why it says "Likewise" and why it specifically says that the men turned to each other, whereas it doesn't say the "Woman turned to each other", because the "Likewise" refers to the same "Greek style" activity, except the men doing it with other men. I"m not the first poster to notice something's wrong with your responses here. I liked how you didn't even understand what the word "sex" originally meant. If anything this proves the intelligence and debate quality of those who think the Bible condemns lesbians. So if you want to believe that it's "Natural relations" to do the nasty in the back door as long as its with a man and a woman, have at it. It's just the far greater source of disease and bacteria, but hey at least its not Lesbianism!

 

[Muffled]

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!

I encountered that argument once and reminded the person that the New Testment was added on to the Old Testament.

The Revelation passage is misintepreted. It refers only to the book of Revelations since prophecy could not be deciphered if it were changed.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I think leaving it out does a greater misservice. Although the text can't be authenticated that does not mean that it isn't authentic. However it would be just as bad to leave it in without brackets and footnotes to mention the lack of authentification.

 

[Muffled]

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.

It is easy to dwell on the physical karma that sin evokes but the psychological damage is relevant also. Then there is the social dmage as well. The wages of sin is death.