[Saquist]

Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain

Ok. I can see the logic from your perspective but I may not necessarily agree with it. Also are you claiming that scientists that don't agree with your perspective are biased?

Now that I'm at home I pull this directly from the archive.

It says in this quote from translator J. W. Watts "And gradually light came into existence." (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) "light diffused" verse 3 in Rotherham's Emphasized Bible.

Geologist Wallace Pratt
"If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis."

I've always wished that scientist would or could be just as objective as the scientific method but there is no doubt in my mind from the perspective of my research that the society of science has quite the grudge ..not just against religion but the Bible itself.

Over the years it's become clear that many scientist have taken up either one of three positions. Evolution must be true, Evolution may be part of life but not the creator or all things, or Evolution is completely and utterly wrong. The vast majority fall in the first category even though the proof is not present...only evidence support all the sides none of them are proven...yet...we don't hear them say this....

They're always given their opinion over exaggerating the extent of the evidence.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by janeway72

I totally agree. This thread has really made me think and make decisions about what I believe and what I think about the Bible. It's actually been really difficult but it has been very good for me. Before I was always just toeing the party line about the in-errancy of the Bible while having deep misgivings about it

That's great and there is absolutely nothing wrong with being Christian, believing that Jesus is the Christ, the messiah, the son of God and disagreeing with the opinions of some of his followers or like Jesus himself, disagreeing with parts of the Old Testament.

And this brings us back to the beginning of the thread, people covering up the crimes of others to preserve the "greater good", the reputation of an organization. This block-thinking rarely leads to something good whereas self-critique, critique of an organization one works for or critique of parts of one's faith (although in my opinion neither Paul the apostle nor the pope is core-Christian in any way, core-Christian is Jesus Christ, simple as that) are not just important but fortfiy oneself, one's company or one's faith. Critique not out of desire to destruct but out of of love, because one cares for the integrity of oneself, one's company or one's faith.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by Saquist

Now that I'm at home I pull this directly from the archive.

It says in this quote from translator J. W. Watts "And gradually light came into existence." (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) "light diffused" verse 3 in Rotherham's Emphasized Bible.

Geologist Wallace Pratt
"If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis."

I've always wished that scientist would or could be just as objective as the scientific method but there is no doubt in my mind from the perspective of my research that the society of science has quite the grudge ..not just against religion but the Bible itself.

Over the years it's become clear that many scientist have taken up either one of three positions. Evolution must be true, Evolution may be part of life but not the creator or all things, or Evolution is completely and utterly wrong. The vast majority fall in the first category even though the proof is not present...only evidence support all the sides none of them are proven...yet...we don't hear them say this....

They're always given their opinion over exaggerating the extent of the evidence.

Funny, last time I read it the first chapter of Genesis wasn't about geology. That's the point you miss, it is not a book about everything. Religion is not about facts, it is about faith, about one's connection to God, about questions like why are we here, what shall we do, etc., questions that some rocket turner or petri dish dude cannot answer.
Yeah, any halfwit can become a scientist and dig out bones or play with bacteria in a lab but only few people, in the case of Jesus a prophet resp., adopting the Christian point of view, the son of God, can talk about the things that really matter.
Jesus' parables matter infinitely more than the idle question of historic accuracy (which is quite a lunatic question in the case of Genesis anyway as we know that it couldn't have happened this way) of any bible content. Did Jesus have medical knowledge or did he have the ability to perform wonders? It doesn't matter, all that matters is that he helped people in need.

That our physical ancestors have been apes has absolutely nothing to do with these spiritual questions, just like it doesn't matter whether we come out of a womb or out of an egg to answer questions like where we come from and where we go to. Biology and religion/spirituality simply have nothing to do with each other.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by janeway72

Jesus spoke in Aramaic. It has been assumed by all Biblical Scholars that the NT was written down initially in Greek. They came to this conclusion because a) the earliest manuscripts we have are in Greek and B) Greek was the lingua franca of the time, despite the fact that the Romans were in charge, Greek was still the main language spoken in the Roman Empire.



I don't have a problem with the things that Jesus said. Not one thing I have argued with was documented in the Gospels. My problem is with the writings of Paul. The Pauline letters were chosen by the Church as "legitimate." scripture. A letter written to a Church in Corinth in 40-50AD may contain good advice but it is not the words of Jesus, it is the words of one of his followers. In the same way that I do not believe the Pope speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra, I do not believe that Paul was infallible. If a bunch of Bishops in the 4th Century want to believe that, it is their business. The use of the Pauline letters in the Church and the fact they are used to encourage slavery, homophobia and sexism is the kind of pharisaism Jesus denounced regularly.

You said before:

Eve is a mythological being. There is no proof of her existence and science has proved that humanity is older than 6000 years old. Methuselah lived to be 969. That would be like living from the early medieval times until now. It's hardly likely.

Aside from the Negative Proof Fallacy there is a connection that is recognized between Adam and Eve. Are you saying that because Jesus didn't speak of Eve only Adam that she must not have existed?

From what I've listened to it seems you only deem Jesus' perspective of value. You've told me that you think the Laws in the Hebrew scriptures were unfair to gays despite the laws being handed down by God himself. You've also told me that Paul was an anti-gay propagandist and his books...apparently all of them are some sort of conspiracy of the Catholic Church against gays. To be honest I'm not real sure from what direction you're coming from.

Jesus doesn't stand alone.
As much as I try to sympathize with you Janeway and as knowledgeable as you seem, it is as though anything that excludes homosexuality you've already dismissed. While I can understand why places Jesus over God is questionable in my eyes.

The Bible tells us that he and his Father are one and that he thinks only God's thoughts, that he is in complete agreement with his father, he quoted scripture endlessly from what had come before.

From every way I've tried to see your perspective there is always a contradiction. I'm not sure the bible is what you need it to be. The bible does not condone homosexuality. It's never relented on that ideal. The omission of it by Jesus can't possibly be used as an endorsement. It's irresponsible from my perspective. You might just assume just because mother never said you couldn't take the care that you can even though the father said absolutely not. It literally seems like you're playing the Son against the Father as though Jesus' word was more important or rather his lack of word is more important than the Father's Law.

I've never dealt with anyone with an agenda that quite this determine to apply it to the scriptures. Normally people abandon the scriptures if what they feel they are is rejected by the scriptures.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by horatio

Funny, last time I read it the first chapter of Genesis wasn't about geology. That's the point you miss, it is not a book about everything. Religion is not about facts, it is about faith, about one's connection to God, about questions like why are we here, what shall we do, etc., questions that some rocket turner or petri dish dude cannot answer.
Yeah, any halfwit can become a scientist and dig out bones or play with bacteria in a lab but only few people, in the case of Jesus a prophet resp., adopting the Christian point of view, the son of God, can talk about the things that really matter.
Jesus' parables matter infinitely more than the idle question of historic accuracy (which is quite a lunatic question in the case of Genesis anyway as we know that it couldn't have happened this way) of any bible content. Did Jesus have medical knowledge or did he have the ability to perform wonders? It doesn't matter, all that matters is that he helped people in need.

That our physical ancestors have been apes has absolutely nothing to do with these spiritual questions, just like it doesn't matter whether we come out of a womb or out of an egg to answer questions like where we come from and where we go to. Biology and religion/spirituality simply have nothing to do with each other.

I haven't missed anything Horatio and I don't think there is any humor in it at all. I take these things quite seriously and there is no point that you've revealed so far that I've missed.

I know that the bible rightly says that Faith is the assured expectation of thing hoped for the evident demonstration of realities though not yet beheld. I know that the Job was humbled by God's knowledge of the Earth and his intimate knowledge of us and those are realities that I have beheld.
I've seen the facts and I've research the scriptures continuously I listen to the many thoughts no matter how foreign.

Yet most importantly, I listen for consistency for truth and for logic. I've never strayed from that search pattern and I've never neglected the need for truth. You know from me more than most that there is no gray. It either is or isn't. Just like a computer will only see on or off zero or one. So if the truth is in the bible I have found it but if it isn't then I will continue my search until I do but I do not stop search and I do not rest on my laurels in some half witted pretense of philosophy.

I've seen the facts. They don't lie but humans certainly do. They'll over estimate micro evolution and slander that which they don't understand before they will ever listen. It is the most consistent human trait, ego. You should all assume that I am wrong and behave that you've never heard what I've told you and go and explore these things, discover on your own. Who knows what a waits you.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by Saquist

YAside from the Negative Proof Fallacy there is a connection that is recognized between Adam and Eve. Are you saying that because Jesus didn't speak of Eve only Adam that she must not have existed?

From what I've listened to it seems you only deem Jesus' perspective of value. You've told me that you think the Laws in the Hebrew scriptures were unfair to gays despite the laws being handed down by God himself. You've also told me that Paul was an anti-gay propagandist and his books...apparently all of them are some sort of conspiracy of the Catholic Church against gays. To be honest I'm not real sure from what direction you're coming from.

Jesus doesn't stand alone.
As much as I try to sympathize with you Janeway and as knowledgeable as you seem, it is as though anything that excludes homosexuality you've already dismissed. While I can understand why places Jesus over God is questionable in my eyes.

The Bible tells us that he and his Father are one and that he thinks only God's thoughts, that he is in complete agreement with his father, he quoted scripture endlessly from what had come before.

From every way I've tried to see your perspective there is always a contradiction. I'm not sure the bible is what you need it to be. The bible does not condone homosexuality. It's never relented on that ideal. The omission of it by Jesus can't possibly be used as an endorsement. It's irresponsible from my perspective. You might just assume just because mother never said you couldn't take the care that you can even though the father said absolutely not. It literally seems like you're playing the Son against the Father as though Jesus' word was more important or rather his lack of word is more important than the Father's Law.

I've never dealt with anyone with an agenda that quite this determine to apply it to the scriptures. Normally people abandon the scriptures if what they feel they are is rejected by the scriptures.

There is no contradiction as Jesus himself "updated" the old covenant and replaced the ten commandments and all the extra laws that were added afterwards with two rules, love God and love your fellow human beings.
He didn't precisely spell out which old rules are right or wrong, it's not as simple, but he showed his disciples that they should think for themselves: no harvesting at Sabbath makes no sense if you are hungry. He showed that there are silly rules which have nothing at all to do with his two rules and the two things he tried to teach and live, love and forgiveness.
Janeway just continues along these lines and determines that homophobia doesn't go together with love and forgiveness. Besides, homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom which implies (in the connection with evolution, so you won't buy this argument) that homosexuality is something natural, i.e. God has created us like this, roughly 95% heterosexuals and 5% homosexuals.

So yeah, it is perfectly valid to read the bible like this, focusing upon the new covenant, just as it is perfectly valid to read the bible in your way, studying all the texts including Old Testament intensively. Nothing wrong with having more liberal and more orthodox incarnations of a religion, it makes material for good discussions.

[janeway72]

Originally Posted by Saquist

You said before:


Aside from the Negative Proof Fallacy there is a connection that is recognized between Adam and Eve. Are you saying that because Jesus didn't speak of Eve only Adam that she must not have existed?

I'm saying that the story of Adam and Eve has to be mythological. The Bible says they were the first man and woman on earth. They had 3 sons, who then went on to marry. Who did they marry? There was only the 3 sons and their mother and father. The vast majority of Christians I know believe that Genesis 1-11 are mythological. They are stories which explain a greater truth. I'm not saying that humanity did not rebel against God. But the story of Adam and Eve are stories that explain to ancient people that humanity rebelled against God.

Originally Posted by Saquist

From what I've listened to it seems you only deem Jesus' perspective of value. You've told me that you think the Laws in the Hebrew scriptures were unfair to gays despite the laws being handed down by God himself. You've also told me that Paul was an anti-gay propagandist and his books...apparently all of them are some sort of conspiracy of the Catholic Church against gays. To be honest I'm not real sure from what direction you're coming from.

God also handed down the law that you should not eat pork products or shellfish, you should not wear a polyester/ cotton mixed shirt, women are unclean during their menstruation and that homosexuals should be put to death. Show me a Christian today who has not contextualised those laws for modern day. Jesus instituted the New Covenant! The Levitical laws are Old Covenant

I did not say Paul was an anti-gay propagandist. Paul wrote at a time where two men or two women did not live in loving relationships. Paul was speaking out against Pederasty, which we would nowadays call Paedophilia. I have to say you are reading what I am saying and then making up what you think I am saying. I would not say that the Pauline letters are a conspiracy. They were written to struggling Churches in the 1st century and are valid as that. They can also be seen as valid scripture but they should not be taken above the words of Jesus.

Originally Posted by Saquist

Jesus doesn't stand alone.
As much as I try to sympathize with you Janeway and as knowledgeable as you seem, it is as though anything that excludes homosexuality you've already dismissed. While I can understand why places Jesus over God is questionable in my eyes.

The Bible tells us that he and his Father are one and that he thinks only God's thoughts, that he is in complete agreement with his father, he quoted scripture endlessly from what had come before.

Jesus is God. He is neither greater nor lesser than the father or the Holy Spirit. Jesus was God in human form, so yes, I do believe that his words are stronger than anything that came before or after since he was God interacting directly with humanity as a human. And yes, I am probably blinkered when it comes to the topic of homosexuality. It is the only acceptable form of discrimination left.

Originally Posted by Saquist

From every way I've tried to see your perspective there is always a contradiction. I'm not sure the bible is what you need it to be. The bible does not condone homosexuality. It's never relented on that ideal. The omission of it by Jesus can't possibly be used as an endorsement. It's irresponsible from my perspective. You might just assume just because mother never said you couldn't take the care that you can even though the father said absolutely not. It literally seems like you're playing the Son against the Father as though Jesus' word was more important or rather his lack of word is more important than the Father's Law.

I've never dealt with anyone with an agenda that quite this determine to apply it to the scriptures. Normally people abandon the scriptures if what they feel they are is rejected by the scriptures.

You are right, nowhere does the Bible condone homosexuality. And you are right, the omission of it by Jesus does not necessarily assume that it is OK. However, you then have to look at everything else that Jesus said and did. we are now under a New Covenant of love for one another not under the Old Covenant of the Law. Are you trying to tell me that you obey every single law in Leviticus. Somehow, I suspect that is not the case.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by horatio

There is no contradiction as Jesus himself "updated" the old covenant and replaced the ten commandments and all the extra laws that were added afterwards with two rules, love God and love your fellow human beings.

I question this.
Did he replace the ten commandments... That's not what I read.
Replace? Those are Commandments.

He didn't precisely spell out which old rules are right or wrong, it's not as simple, but he showed his disciples that they should think for themselves: no harvesting at Sabbath makes no sense if you are hungry. He showed that there are silly rules which have nothing at all to do with his two rules and the two things he tried to teach and live, love and forgiveness.

Jesus never called his father's Laws "silly" that's your modifer, Horatio. Jesus had the utmost respect for his father and that is well documented. Jesus denounced the inflexibility to which the Pharisees apply the Law. He also denounced all the Pharisees traditions which were not part of the Law.

Janeway just continues along these lines and determines that homophobia doesn't go together with love and forgiveness.

However it's not homophobia. That's a propaganda tool. That's Fear mongering and it's a political agenda. God put down rules for sexual reproduction and he clearly list it along side what is unclean. There is no fear there.

Besides, homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom which implies (in the connection with evolution, so you won't buy this argument) that homosexuality is something natural, i.e. God has created us like this, roughly 95% heterosexuals and 5% homosexuals.

There has has been absolutely no definitive proof that homosexuality is anything more than a behavior. No genetic link has been found other than aberrant hormonal deviations from the standard human and even then it is not a direct cause. It's entirely circumstantial. Even worse Horatio, such claims to a Gay Gene have been withdrawn (recently by the scientific community with embarrassment). I've concluded that this VERY premature conclusion with poor support was entirely politically inspired.

But how precarious an argument this would be if true!
You're saying that if it is genetic then it must therefore be God's will, that it's justified. But we die because of genetics, people are deformed because of genetics, people are sick because of genetics, we grow old because of genetics and the bible makes clear none of those things are what he intended for Mankind. What makes homosexuality so special as to excluded from these non desirables even if it was genetic?

So yeah, it is perfectly valid to read the bible like this, focusing upon the new covenant, just as it is perfectly valid to read the bible in your way, studying all the texts including Old Testament intensively. Nothing wrong with having more liberal and more orthodox incarnations of a religion, it makes material for good discussions.

Focusing on the New Covenant is one thing.
That I can appreciate. Undermining the Foundation of the Law Covenant because it says something you don't like...that's another. It undermines all that Jesus stood for and his desire to do his fathers will. It invalidates Jesus very name which means Jah is salvation.

Originally Posted by janeway72

I'm saying that the story of Adam and Eve has to be mythological. The Bible says they were the first man and woman on earth. They had 3 sons, who then went on to marry. Who did they marry? There was only the 3 sons and their mother and father. The vast majority of Christians I know believe that Genesis 1-11 are mythological. They are stories which explain a greater truth. I'm not saying that humanity did not rebel against God. But the story of Adam and Eve are stories that explain to ancient people that humanity rebelled against God.

Yet if you believe in Jesus and he spoke of them as real having caused man's current condition then where do we start to suppose this is myth and metaphor? Incredulity? That's not measurable, it's not quantifiable. Something evident has to turn reasonable deduction toward doubt what is it? What contradiction have you found to demote the creation account of Genesis?

God also handed down the law that you should not eat pork products or shellfish, you should not wear a polyester/ cotton mixed shirt, women are unclean during their menstruation and that homosexuals should be put to death. Show me a Christian today who has not contextualised those laws for modern day. Jesus instituted the New Covenant! The Levitical laws are Old Covenant

It depends on what you mean by contextualized.
God told Noah that man may eat of any beast after the flood, only it's blood not to ingest. Later for his people he determined what was clean to eat. Even later God instructs to eat designated unclean meats, saying, "stop calling unclean what I have made clean". That's a very clear principle.

And the bible has never back down from it's stance on homosexuality or blood for that matter. Jesus never said a lot of things but it didn't condone the action. He said not to judge but that doesn't mean an endorse of anything. Look at it closely. Jesus knew that Jerusalem would be destroyed and that the Jews would be spread away from their home.

In Israel...THE NATION of Israel the Law empowered those to take action to preserve the nation from outside religious thinking, invasion and corruption. Now withOUT that nation Jews nolonger had any authority over anyone. They had to get rid of the attitude of taking action (judging) on those that commit wrong. Because in Israel Judging meant the ability to punish which belonged to kings or judges or heads (authority). There was no longer any authority because Israel would soon not exist and at the time Israel was under ROMAN rule so really there was no authority to judge but it doesn't mean those things were now right.

I did not say Paul was an anti-gay propagandist. Paul wrote at a time where two men or two women did not live in loving relationships. Paul was speaking out against Pederasty, which we would nowadays call Paedophilia. I have to say you are reading what I am saying and then making up what you think I am saying. I would not say that the Pauline letters are a conspiracy. They were written to struggling Churches in the 1st century and are valid as that. They can also be seen as valid scripture but they should not be taken above the words of Jesus.

I don't know what you're saying.
You've told me you follow Jesus Christ but those that followed his example are wrong in your eyes, and I haven't found out why yet other than you find the teachings homophobic. I'm struggling to find the common thread in that I've only found a common spot but it's floating, it doesn't appear to be based on anything.

If it's says anything against same sex encounters you've have found away to denounce it including God, Jesus' father, which frankly troubles me to hear from any Christian.

Jesus is God. He is neither greater nor lesser than the father or the Holy Spirit. Jesus was God in human form, so yes, I do believe that his words are stronger than anything that came before or after since he was God interacting directly with humanity as a human. And yes, I am probably blinkered when it comes to the topic of homosexuality. It is the only acceptable form of discrimination left.

Ah...I see. The Trinity.
According to Jesus, Janeway, he is lesser than God. He actually says that.
This is the crux of the schism I've detected and I'm sure that you know that. That worries me because you've out right cancelled out about all but the Gospels in Greek Scriptures but here you've adopted a doctrine that is strictly Catholic in origins and according to the Catholic encyclopedia they recognize that this doctrine does not appear anywhere in the scriptures especially the gospel. (I can supply the reference if you wish)

But most confusing is that you've in one hand denounced more than half of the Greek scriptures because of their connection to the chruch yet here supporting a doctrine of church. (I'm not sure if I got this all right and if I haven't then I most certainly apologize but I'm stumped. I can't find your consistency and it's preventing me from understanding your use of reasoning. Certainly the Trinity doctrine explains a lot though. Is there anyway you can clearly and concisely relate your position on all of this?

You are right, nowhere does the Bible condone homosexuality. And you are right, the omission of it by Jesus does not necessarily assume that it is OK. However, you then have to look at everything else that Jesus said and did. we are now under a New Covenant of love for one another not under the Old Covenant of the Law. Are you trying to tell me that you obey every single law in Leviticus. Somehow, I suspect that is not the case.

But Janway( I'm Pleading here..)
The Bible relates well before Leviticus about God's view on homosexuality. It's one of those common threads in the bible from Post Law Code, Israel and Congregational Eras. It's a pattern, it's consistent in all areas. You don't have to look only at the Law Code for that principle.

[horatio]

First of all, homophobia does literally mean "fear of homosexuals", it is just the conventional term to describe any form of opposition towards homosexuality, just like antisemitism is the conventional term to describe opposition to Judaism.

There are homosexual penguins and plenty of other homosexual animals (which makes the gay gene discussion superfluous, there obviously is one). It is natural and it makes sense to have a small fraction of the population that is not responsible for reproducing and raising children but for other stuff (like raising children whose parents died). Take bees or ants, there you have a similar mechanism (albeit biologically implanted a bit deeper by making the majority of the bee population unable to reproduce).

You can take Paul's anti-gay stuff in the bible literally or you can do it like Janeway, think about the circumstances and interpret it as a recommendation for early Christians to get back to their long-term relationships and stop screwing young boys.
My Jesus (who just exists in my head) has just one thing to say about love and sex: it belongs together. He would want people of the same sex to live in a long-term relationship just like people of the opposite sex, he would want them to care for each other and not just f**k each other.

I have no problem with your homophobia and I don't have a problem with the justification of your opinion via the bible ... just stop calling folks who don't share your homophobia or your particular faith bad Christians.
If you think that your literal view upon everything is the only valid one, feel free to go ahead, it's not like you are forced to believe in religious pluralism. But don't complain when you get called a fundamentalist who see the trees and not the forest.
You have talked about God forbidding homosexuality, about the scientific value of Genesis and not once about anything that Jesus has said or done, not once about the core of the gospels, his simple to understand yet hard to practice message of love and forgiveness.
In my opinion people like Mother Teresa have lived a life similar to that of Jesus, full of work for the poor, love and indifference towards personal uncomfortability and suffering ... and to me there is more truth in this than any epistle or any other biblical text of minor relevance.

[Enterprise Captain]

Well it's been fun and enlightening but I can see it's starting to go in circles. Saquist your logic is sound if one starts out from your perspective that the Bible is meant to be translated literally. The Creationists logic is also sound if you look at their reasoning. Like I stated before Spock once said "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end." Your inability to see past your own perspective is where you fail in my opinion. If you're fine with justifying homophobia with scripture that's your choice but I can not. If you can justify laying blame on the entire Catholic Church again that's your choice but I can not. When people make statements like this:

Originally Posted by Saquist

Eve made a mistake in the Garden of Eden that doomed mankind.
Would you make the same mistake or would you learn from it?
I chose to learn from the mistakes of others.

It implies there is only one "correct" perspective and in my opinion it's statements like this that give religion a bad name.