Which makes more sense? (Bible/Abrahamic debate)

[an anarchist]

I want to make this thread to pose a style of argumentation against a Bible literalist belief system. Perhaps my argumentation can be applied to Abrahamic religion in general, but my frame of reference in my corner of America is Christian Bible literalists. Therefore, the arguments I pose will be geared towards addressing that belief system in particular.

My basic line of reasoning that I use as defense/offense against literalist philosophy is the following.

I first ask "What makes more sense?" Then, I can juxtapose what the Bible says against a contradicting belief. Then I ask again, does it make sense that an Omnipotent/benevolent God said/commanded this, or does the alternative make more sense.

The idea is to first "glance" at it I suppose. Make a surface level immediate answer. What does your gut tell you? Then, inspect the choices more closely, and see if you still agree with your initial choice.

This can be done repeatedly with the Bible on a multitude of topics. The point is to show that taking the Bible literally does not make sense.

For the OP, I will provide an example of this.

I ask the following: which makes more sense?

1: Leviticus 20:13 was written indirectly by an Omnipotent and loving God through His most revered prophet, Moses.
(Leviticus 20:13 NIV: If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.)

2: The ancient Hebrews had some homophobic attitudes and wrote them down.

The Bible literalists claim that Leviticus was written directly by Moses and that Moses was a prophet of literal God. They try to tip-toe around the horrendous things the Bible calls for (e.g. "We are supposed to love the sinner but hate the sin. Jesus changed things.). But their base claim is that the Bible is directly from literal God.

To me, as a gay man, it makes more sense that Leviticus 20:13 was written by a homophobic individual, rather than a loving God.

I don't even have to think hard about this one.

To conclude... Christians in America cannot kill homosexuals. However, in times not so distant past, Muslims killed homosexuals on the basis of Islam. Currently, homosexuality is outlawed in various Islamic countries.

That's an example of why I view it as important to push back against religion. The Bible openly calls for my death. The believers in America cannot legally kill me, but if they could, who knows?

 

[Link]

This is what Quran says about it:

وَاللَّذَانِ يَأْتِيَانِهَا مِنْكُمْ فَآذُوهُمَا ۖ فَإِنْ تَابَا وَأَصْلَحَا فَأَعْرِضُوا عَنْهُمَا ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ تَوَّابًا رَحِيمًا | Should two among you commit it, chastise them both; so if they repent and reform, let them alone. Indeed Allah is all-clement, all-merciful. | An-Nisaa : 16

Islam has a death penalty for adultery and apostasy too, but these contradict the Quran.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sophomoric bible-bashing. I hate worthless reruns.

 

[an anarchist]

Sophomoric bible-bashing. I hate worthless reruns.

Sophomoric thread-bashing. I hate worthless reruns.
(You do this practically on all my threads lol I always expect you to be among the first to respond, typically with snideness )

 

[dybmh]

my frame of reference in my corner of America is Christian Bible literalists

Good. That's very important to state up-front.

Questions: Are you sure that your frame of reference is complete? Could it be incomplete? And, even if it is accepted, granted, for the sake of discussion/debate, that your frame of reference is incomplete, could it be, that what seems to you to be a tiny gap, is actually a huge chasm in your understanding of the the state of mind-and-heart ( both ) of the Christian literalist?

I first ask "What makes more sense?"

Ah. Excellent. There's at least two different versions of "making sense". Making sense can be intellectually satisfying. Making sense can be emotionally satisfying. Arguably, there's a third. Making sense can also be aesthetically pleasing. This is a sort of making sense in an artistic manner.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[an anarchist]

This is what Quran says about it:

وَاللَّذَانِ يَأْتِيَانِهَا مِنْكُمْ فَآذُوهُمَا ۖ فَإِنْ تَابَا وَأَصْلَحَا فَأَعْرِضُوا عَنْهُمَا ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ تَوَّابًا رَحِيمًا | Should two among you commit it, chastise them both; so if they repent and reform, let them alone. Indeed Allah is all-clement, all-merciful. | An-Nisaa : 16

Islam has a death penalty for adultery and apostasy too, but these contradict the Quran.

Thank you for adding this.

Am I wrong though about people being killed in Islamic countries for being homosexual? What everyone where I'm at is told is that you'll get thrown off of rooftops for being gay. I've seen this echoed online. But am I wrong? I don't know, I would like your take.

And you separate Islam from the Quran, something i have not done, simply because I am uneducated on the matter.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

(You do this practically on all my threads lol I always expect you to be among the first to respond, typically with snideness )

1. There is a reason why my responses may seem repetitious.
2. It was an honest and informed response.

 

[Link]

I think Quran has subscription legislation. It says for Jews to judge by their standards, the Christians by theirs, and other religions by theirs.

Some stuff there has to be intersection. For example, murder and stealing should be universally punished. Now should non-Muslims doing fornication or gay acts be punished? This is a good question. If Mohammad (s) was true that he was not here to dispute, and let people have their religion and ours our religion, then he can't force all legislation on non-Muslims. And indeed we see he can judge or turn away from people and let them judge by their own religion, he has the choice of discretion per Quran.

If some religions don't deem homosexuality or bisexuality wrong, what happens to them?

These issues of justice were lost because our Imams (a) didn't rule. What are left of justice is sayings here and there and major thing is the letter of Imam Ali (a) to Malikal Ashtar.

 

[Link]

Thank you for adding this.

Am I wrong though about people being killed in Islamic countries for being homosexual? What everyone where I'm at is told is that you'll get thrown off of rooftops for being gay. I've seen this echoed online. But am I wrong? I don't know, I would like your take.

And you separate Islam from the Quran, something i have not done, simply because I am uneducated on the matter.

I think they ignore Quran because they follow their scholars, and their scholars won't let go of the past legislations.

 

[dybmh]

Sophomoric bible-bashing. I hate worthless reruns.

You don't get it. It's you who are being shallow and immature instead of considering that you are at fault for what you are lacking. Because of this, you lash out. You did this recently in one of my philosophy threads. Jay, it's you. You don't get the Torah, so you criticize it. You don't get a thread, you criticize it. You don't understand a post? You criticize it. You don't understand the why God permits things like the holocaust and the death of your friends? You criticize and hate God because of it. But! You desperately want to be seen as Jewish. This causes a conflict, and the only way to resolve it is to erase and replace the Torah with some other religion, creating a straw-man ( conjuring a demon ) for the purpose of knocking it down. Then your mind and heart can be somewhat at ease.

If you don't understand something, why not ask questions, or go somewhere else? Why do you need to hate on other people? Why cast shade? Why Yuck our Yum? Why rain on our parade? It's so stupid. Can't you find something else to keep the blood pumping in your veins?

 

[an anarchist]

Questions: Are you sure that your frame of reference is complete? Could it be incomplete? And, even if it is accepted, granted, for the sake of discussion/debate, that your frame of reference is incomplete, could it be, that what seems to you to be a tiny gap, is actually a huge chasm in your understanding of the the state of mind-and-heart ( both ) of the Christian literalist?

I think I have a good understanding of the Christian literalist mindset, as I was raised one. I was a zealous Christian most my life, and most of my family still is. I definitely have a huge chasm in my understanding of the diversity of religion, though.

My understanding is definitely incomplete, but how much so? How representative are literalist Christians of the average and diverse Non-Christian religious population? I think there are definitely common variables that can be found. Then there are different perspectives. Example, I think every religious person is wrong. And a good chunk of religious people hold their religious beliefs above any other category of belief. I believe this generally skews judgement and logic. That is just my perspective, however.

Ah. Excellent. There's at least two different versions of "making sense". Making sense can be intellectually satisfying. Making sense can be emotionally satisfying. Arguably, there's a third. Making sense can also be aesthetically pleasing. This is a sort of making sense in an artistic manner.

I think it's best to leave it up to the person answering "What makes more sense". The purpose is to purposefully challenge a rigid belief system in order to open someone's mind to alternatives.

 

[an anarchist]

It was an honest and informed response

Perhaps it was this time.

But it's like the boy who cried wolf. You typically respond to my threads in a condescending matter, and your reply to this thread reads with a condescending connotation. Of course I'm going to assume snideness, because there is a pattern.

I would prefer to have intellectual conversation rather than bat down constant insults to my OP's.

 

[an anarchist]

It was an... informed response

The response literally added nothing to the subject/topic. There was no information in your response

If anything, it is just a distraction from the OP that has taken up multiple replies now.

So you are wrong. I don't want you to be misinformed and think you added something of value to this thread.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

I want to make this thread to pose a style of argumentation against a Bible literalist belief system. Perhaps my argumentation can be applied to Abrahamic religion in general, but my frame of reference in my corner of America is Christian Bible literalists. Therefore, the arguments I pose will be geared towards addressing that belief system in particular.

My basic line of reasoning that I use as defense/offense against literalist philosophy is the following.

I first ask "What makes more sense?" Then, I can juxtapose what the Bible says against a contradicting belief. Then I ask again, does it make sense that an Omnipotent/benevolent God said/commanded this, or does the alternative make more sense.

The idea is to first "glance" at it I suppose. Make a surface level immediate answer. What does your gut tell you? Then, inspect the choices more closely, and see if you still agree with your initial choice.

This can be done repeatedly with the Bible on a multitude of topics. The point is to show that taking the Bible literally does not make sense.

For the OP, I will provide an example of this.

I ask the following: which makes more sense?

1: Leviticus 20:13 was written indirectly by an Omnipotent and loving God through His most revered prophet, Moses.
(Leviticus 20:13 NIV: If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.)

2: The ancient Hebrews had some homophobic attitudes and wrote them down.

The Bible literalists claim that Leviticus was written directly by Moses and that Moses was a prophet of literal God. They try to tip-toe around the horrendous things the Bible calls for (e.g. "We are supposed to love the sinner but hate the sin. Jesus changed things.). But their base claim is that the Bible is directly from literal God.

To me, as a gay man, it makes more sense that Leviticus 20:13 was written by a homophobic individual, rather than a loving God.

I don't even have to think hard about this one.

To conclude... Christians in America cannot kill homosexuals. However, in times not so distant past, Muslims killed homosexuals on the basis of Islam. Currently, homosexuality is outlawed in various Islamic countries.

That's an example of why I view it as important to push back against religion. The Bible openly calls for my death. The believers in America cannot legally kill me, but if they could, who knows?

Why are you labelling ancient Iron Age people "homophobic"? The concept wasn't even in their vocabulary. I think you are oversimplifying the situation in order to fit your contemporary worldview

 

[an anarchist]

Why are you labelling ancient Iron Age people "homophobic"? The concept wasn't even in their vocabulary. I think you are oversimplifying the situation in order to fit your contemporary worldview

The word is applicable to people of the past.

Homophobia basically means you find homosexuality icky. It is not a term that is only applicable to modern people.

The author of Leviticus was homophobic obviously. He called for the death of homosexuals. This makes him quite categorically homophobic.

You say I'm "oversimplifying the situation". Can you expand on this? It makes me think of this part of the OP.

They try to tip-toe around the horrendous things the Bible calls for (e.g. "We are supposed to love the sinner but hate the sin. Jesus changed things.).

 

[Balthazzar]

I want to make this thread to pose a style of argumentation against a Bible literalist belief system. Perhaps my argumentation can be applied to Abrahamic religion in general, but my frame of reference in my corner of America is Christian Bible literalists. Therefore, the arguments I pose will be geared towards addressing that belief system in particular.

My basic line of reasoning that I use as defense/offense against literalist philosophy is the following.

I first ask "What makes more sense?" Then, I can juxtapose what the Bible says against a contradicting belief. Then I ask again, does it make sense that an Omnipotent/benevolent God said/commanded this, or does the alternative make more sense.

The idea is to first "glance" at it I suppose. Make a surface level immediate answer. What does your gut tell you? Then, inspect the choices more closely, and see if you still agree with your initial choice.

This can be done repeatedly with the Bible on a multitude of topics. The point is to show that taking the Bible literally does not make sense.

For the OP, I will provide an example of this.

I ask the following: which makes more sense?

1: Leviticus 20:13 was written indirectly by an Omnipotent and loving God through His most revered prophet, Moses.
(Leviticus 20:13 NIV: If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.)

2: The ancient Hebrews had some homophobic attitudes and wrote them down.

The Bible literalists claim that Leviticus was written directly by Moses and that Moses was a prophet of literal God. They try to tip-toe around the horrendous things the Bible calls for (e.g. "We are supposed to love the sinner but hate the sin. Jesus changed things.). But their base claim is that the Bible is directly from literal God.

To me, as a gay man, it makes more sense that Leviticus 20:13 was written by a homophobic individual, rather than a loving God.

I don't even have to think hard about this one.

To conclude... Christians in America cannot kill homosexuals. However, in times not so distant past, Muslims killed homosexuals on the basis of Islam. Currently, homosexuality is outlawed in various Islamic countries.

That's an example of why I view it as important to push back against religion. The Bible openly calls for my death. The believers in America cannot legally kill me, but if they could, who knows?

If everyone were homosexual, there would have been no offspring. I suppose it worked two fold. An acknowledgement of need to procreate and acknowledgment that the pleasure of sexual relations are pleasurable but not without consequence, some of which would be far reaching if everyone were homosexual. I have no idea if anyone was actually put to death, but I'm guessing some were left out of the procreative lifestyle if woman were so turned off by the homosexual life that they wouldn't consider having sex with them, which may have played out in some communities. Beyond this, I have no idea. I do know that without ability to produce children humans fade into nothing, becoming among the next ousted species on earth. If this is homophobic, then I'm guilty. I'm with the mothers who produce children. Whether this is accepted coming from a man who honors motherhood and who understands that opposites do attract is beside the point. It's true. I'm not gay, bi, trans, curious or anything beyond what I am. I'm a straight male and it's not my place to judge anyone for their chemistry or attraction. There must be a reason for it, otherwise it would not be. This doesn't change my own position as a straight male.

 

[InChrist]

I want to make this thread to pose a style of argumentation against a Bible literalist belief system. Perhaps my argumentation can be applied to Abrahamic religion in general, but my frame of reference in my corner of America is Christian Bible literalists. Therefore, the arguments I pose will be geared towards addressing that belief system in particular.

My basic line of reasoning that I use as defense/offense against literalist philosophy is the following.

I first ask "What makes more sense?" Then, I can juxtapose what the Bible says against a contradicting belief. Then I ask again, does it make sense that an Omnipotent/benevolent God said/commanded this, or does the alternative make more sense.

The idea is to first "glance" at it I suppose. Make a surface level immediate answer. What does your gut tell you? Then, inspect the choices more closely, and see if you still agree with your initial choice.

This can be done repeatedly with the Bible on a multitude of topics. The point is to show that taking the Bible literally does not make sense.

For the OP, I will provide an example of this.

I ask the following: which makes more sense?

1: Leviticus 20:13 was written indirectly by an Omnipotent and loving God through His most revered prophet, Moses.
(Leviticus 20:13 NIV: If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.)

2: The ancient Hebrews had some homophobic attitudes and wrote them down.

The Bible literalists claim that Leviticus was written directly by Moses and that Moses was a prophet of literal God. They try to tip-toe around the horrendous things the Bible calls for (e.g. "We are supposed to love the sinner but hate the sin. Jesus changed things.). But their base claim is that the Bible is directly from literal God.

To me, as a gay man, it makes more sense that Leviticus 20:13 was written by a homophobic individual, rather than a loving God.

I don't even have to think hard about this one.

To conclude... Christians in America cannot kill homosexuals. However, in times not so distant past, Muslims killed homosexuals on the basis of Islam. Currently, homosexuality is outlawed in various Islamic countries.

That's an example of why I view it as important to push back against religion. The Bible openly calls for my death. The believers in America cannot legally kill me, but if they could, who knows?

The Bible does not openly call for your death. You are not rightly dividing, reading, or understanding the scriptures correctly. Questions to keep in mind while reading the scriptures are; who, what, when, where, and why?. Not all of the commands in the Bible were written for all people for all time. The passage you’ve quoted in Leviticus give to Moses was specifically for the children of Israel. It was one of many laws to set them apart as a nation and to keep them pure from the surrounding tribes and nations.
I think you should learn to properly read the scriptures before you go on blurring everything or anything contained in the Bible together.


Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodlines
2 Timothy 2:14-16

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If everyone were homosexual, there would have been no offspring.

The passage you’ve quoted in Leviticus give to Moses was specifically for the children of Israel.

The other possibility, of course, was that the authors of Leviticus reflected the homophobic concepts of the extant culture.

 

[an anarchist]

The Bible does not openly call for your death.

Moot point. It still called for the death of homosexuals, and was a contemporary text when it was written.

You are not rightly dividing, reading, or understanding the scriptures correctly. Questions to keep in mind while reading the scriptures are; who, what, when, where, and why?. Not all of the commands in the Bible were written for all people for all time. The passage you’ve quoted in Leviticus give to Moses was specifically for the children of Israel. It was one of many laws to set them apart as a nation and to keep them pure from the surrounding tribes and nations.
I think you should learn to properly read the scriptures before you go on blurring everything or anything contained in the Bible together.

Well, I can frame the question slightly differently.

Which makes more sense?
1: Leviticus 20:13 came from a literal and loving God. This literal and loving God demanded the death of any of his "sacred" tribe members who were gay.
2. Leviticus 20:13 was written by a homophobic individual, not God.

Do you suppose the excuse you offered is a valid excuse? It is not. "It was one of many laws... to keep them pure" you said. Lame and homophobic excuse. Again, I quote the OP.

The Bible literalists claim that Leviticus was written directly by Moses and that Moses was a prophet of literal God. They try to tip-toe around the horrendous things the Bible calls for (e.g. "We are supposed to love the sinner but hate the sin. Jesus changed things.). But their base claim is that the Bible is directly from literal God.

 

[dybmh]

typically with snideness

@Jayhawker Soule , how long was it, in minutes, between your complaint about me sniping at you, and your post which was sniping at someone else? I'll check. You complained at 8:26 AM PDT, then you did the exact same thing at 9:21 AM PDT. 55 minutes. That's hypocrisy at it's finest.