Love the Christian, but not the Christianity.

[AvalonXQ]

May I ask, do you believe all of Paul's views on Jesus' teachings in the Bible are correct? After all, Jesus himself never condemns homosexuals, and there have been some arguments that he in fact approved of them. Paul, on the other hand, brings in several very bigoted opinions that don't seem to have any basis in the actual teachings of Jesus.

Yes, I believe the whole Bible is the Word of God. And Paul's teachings form a large part of what Christians are expected to understand and obey.

 

[AvalonXQ]

So then why did God put the curse on women at all if he didn't have a problem with it being circumvented? Wouldn't God, in his divine knowledge, have known these drugs would be developed and administered at one point? Why should all the women in the world who came before such drugs, or who live in areas without access to them, be subjected to such a curse and not someone like me simply because I have the fortune to be born in America in the 1980s? Why would God create a curse that would not be applied equally, as opposed to making sure no such drugs would ever work, or just not having the curse to begin with? Why should rural or non modern women be subjected to the curse and not me just because of the luck of my birth?

The curse applies to everyone. Some people are better able to overcome it than others.
The curse is an obstacle; it doesn't actually have to be effective against everyone in order to serve its purpose (to create a difficulty that didn't exist before).

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's okay to expend effort to surmount the effects of God's curses. In fact, it's expected and encouraged. God likes it.
It doesn't thwart His will at all.

A curse is a consequence. Maybe it's your god's will that we sin and not worry about the consequences as well.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Christians are to obey Christian commandments, as expressed in the New Testament. Jewish commandments from the Old Law don't apply to us.

But you're okay with the fact that in the past, your God ensured that all raped virgins became Jaycee Duggard (whose case has been universally condemned as horrific beyond all imagination) and had to marry their rapists?

You're okay with the fact that this was the best way God could come up with to make sure a woman "ruined" by being raped was still taken care for? As opposed to, you know, just making a law that said all raped virgins would still be considered virgins, would not be considered spoiled in any way, and maybe adding in some extra incentives to make sure she was taken care of and not ostracized by her community?

Doesn't the fact that "rape victims marry their rapist" is the BEST solution God could think up reflects His utter incompetance as a problem solver?

 

[AvalonXQ]

But you're okay with the fact that in the past, your God ensured that all raped virgins became Jaycee Duggard (whose case has been universally condemned as horrific beyond all imagination) and had to marry their rapists?

You have misread the Bible.* The result of premarital consensual sex was marriage. The result of rape was death.


*I don't blame you; it's a mistranslation in the NIV.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Now, you and I might disagree with the wisdom of a shotgun wedding, but it was probably what fit best in with these people's culture at this time.
There's a reason these rules weren't carried forward for us, though.

 

[bookitty]

The curse applies to everyone. Some people are better able to overcome it than others.
The curse is an obstacle; it doesn't actually have to be effective against everyone in order to serve its purpose (to create a difficulty that didn't exist before).

See, this is one of those areas in which science wins.

Christianity says "Childbirth is painful because you're all dirty sinners." and "Hey, 50% of the planet, you're paying the price in pain and death, for the single action of one woman. And oh yeah, the menfolk get a free pass because they aren't responsible if they are tempted (And yes, please feel free to extrapolate what that means.)"

Science says "Childbirth is painful because our enormous brains need enormous heads. It isn't anyone's fault." and "Hey, btw, we've developed medicine that will help reduce both pain and death."

 

[bookitty]

Now, you and I might disagree with the wisdom of a shotgun wedding, but it was probably what fit best in with these people's culture at this time.
There's a reason these rules weren't carried forward for us, though.

And yet we "carry forward" the idea that homosexuality is a sin?

 

[AvalonXQ]

See, this is one of those areas in which science wins.

No. This is one of the many areas where science is a blessing, if you don't try to use it as a hubristic excuse to curse God.

... and if you think the men didn't get cursed, you clearly haven't read the passage.

And yet we "carry forward" the idea that homosexuality is a sin?

If we read the Bible we do. Have you?

 

[Mirrorglass]

Yes, I believe the whole Bible is the Word of God. And Paul's teachings form a large part of what Christians are expected to understand and obey.

Fair enough, I suppose. Your views are fairly consistent internally, at least. If you understand why I consider your God, and by extension, anyone who preaches His word, evil (or to be more accurate, harmful to the human race as a whole), then I'm satisfied with this conversation.

 

[AvalonXQ]

If you understand why I consider your God, and by extension, anyone who preaches His word, evil (or to be more accurate, harmful to the human race as a whole), then I'm satisfied with this conversation.

As long as you also understand why I don't consider you or anyone else evil, I'm satisfied as well.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

It's okay to expend effort to surmount the effects of God's curses. In fact, it's expected and encouraged. God likes it.
It doesn't thwart His will at all.

Where does it say that in the Bible? I'm not doubting you that it's in there. I was Catholic and I used to teach catechism, but I definitely don't remember the whole thing cover to cover.

From what you're saying, then these curses aren't actually punishments at all, they're challenges God sent to man. Because the point of punishment is to, well, punish. If we can sneak out of these punishments and not get in trouble for it, they serve no purpose. It's like grounding your kid and then knowing and approving when he sneaks out the bedroom window. They aren't designed to punish us.

So what kind of sadistic God gives humans the challenge of not making child birth excrutiating?

 

[Mirrorglass]

As long as you also understand why I don't consider you or anyone else evil, I'm satisfied as well.

Yes, I have a fairly good picture of your worldview on this matter. I think you truly believe you are doing a favor to the people you judge. You are entitled to your opinion, and while I hope you may one day change it, I do not truly expect you to, and will try to be respectful of your beliefs where they aren't doing direct damage to others. I will still question and argue your beliefs where they differ from mine, of course, but it is not meant as an attack against you personally.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The idea that it's ok to avoid the punishment by using science is strange to me. Does this mean that god's punishment only applies to the impoverished?

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

You have misread the Bible.* The result of premarital consensual sex was marriage. The result of rape was death.


*I don't blame you; it's a mistranslation in the NIV.

From King James version:

"Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. "

From the American Standard version:

"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 22:29 then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days."

From the New American Standard Version:

"then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days."

From the New King James Version:

"If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days."


edit: oh wait, just found this in KJV:

"But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. " which is separate from what I posted, "If he LAY with her"

so Avalon, I will give you that one if you follow the KJV (which is not the version of the Bible I had or learned from). Thanks for pointing that out to me, that is definitely good information. Do you have insight as to why the KJV version differs from the NKJV? The use of the word "seize" in the NKJV implies non consent to me.

 

[Gregoire]

Gregoire said in response to POST # 5
"You do realize that scholars agree this story was not part of the "original" writing of whoever wrote John. It was actually added later."

154 responds:

You do realize that many "scholars" are merely men seeking to justify their unbelief, like most everyone here, and that their "results" are not "gospel," but challenged opinion, and that you apparently lap up their "findings" without question or challenge or skepticism?
Please do so.

Not so. But since you don't know me, I understand why you might think this.

Let me be clear. I investigate claims which are new to me before accepting them. I have doing that all my life. As a skeptic I agree all of us our us are subject to our own biases. So one always has to be careful.

So the key here is to look at the evidence.

Based on my reading:

1) The story is not found in the oldest and best Greek manuscripts of John.
2) The writing style is very different from the rest of the writing in John.
3) The story contains a lot of words and phrases not found in the rest of John.

But I still didn't accept this totally. I wanted to see if there were any counter arguments from people who actually could read the ancient Greek.

So I asked a believer I know is Biblical scholar from the very conservative Dallas Theological Seminary about what was the consensus was on this issue ( along with a great many other questions as well).

I asked him questions as objectively as I could to avoid any chance of "leading the witness" as they say in court. Although I think he would have been open about what he believed anyway.

The answer was very clear: the overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars now accept that this story in John was added later. He agreed that the evidence I had come across was indeed correct.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

The idea that it's ok to avoid the punishment by using science is strange to me. Does this mean that god's punishment only applies to the impoverished?

Good question. That's what it seems like. Avalon? What's your take? As I state in post 212, this idea implies that pain in childbirth was a challenge to mankind rather than a punishment.

In reality though, bipedalism is why childbirth is horrible. Yes, we have giant heads, but that's not the main problem. The main problem came when the human pelvis evolved in order to become bipedal. Bipedalism requires a specific shape of the pelvis, obviously. But we couldn't both have that pelvis AND have enough space to pass our giant headed babies through easily. So the price of bipedalism = painful and dangerous childbirth for women.

Anthropologists have long argued that many Bible stories have an element of truth or historical relevence to them. This is one such case. Even though both man and woman sinned, in Genesis, only the woman was punished with the pain of childbirth, man was not given a similar eternal physical punishment (aside from, of course, banishment from the Garden and death, but women were subject to that as well). And in real life, even though men and women BOTH became bipedal, it was only the women who evolved to suffer physically for it as we do.

 

[bookitty]

No. This is one of the many areas where science is a blessing, if you don't try to use it as a hubristic excuse to curse God.

... and if you think the men didn't get cursed, you clearly haven't read the passage.



If we read the Bible we do. Have you?

Yes, both as a believer and afterward.

The Bible says homosexuality is a sin, equal to that of liars and those who perjure (Timothy something, if memory serves) or those who worship false idols or have sex outside of marriage (Corinthians)

If all sins are equal, then anyone who has told a lie or had casual sex is as sinful as someone who is gay. We're all gonna burn. If some sins are worse, there is nothing in the Bible that counts homosexuality among them. Not to the degree that homosexuals should have less rights than the adulterer. Even Jesus spoke out against adultery.

 

[CORed]

Or what's more, I would have them stop expecting people who are not members of their religion to follow their religious rules. I would have them not seek a theocratic government in which laws exist which compell non Christians to follow Christian religious rules.

I don't see Jews trying to illegalize pork for everyone. I have never had a Jew suggest to me that I should not eat pork because it is against their religious rules.

For that matter, as you said, I would not have Christians self appoint themselves as being divine enough to know WHICH of the biblical rules should be enforced...so that homosexuality is targetted, but not blaspheming, despite blasphemy being far more mentioned in the Bible than homosexuality.

The funny thing is, the biblical passages most often cited as the reason for condemning homosexuality are in Leviticus right there with the dietary laws, such as not eating any animal that has a cloven hoof but doesn't chew cud (pigs), or the prohibition against mixing meat and dairy foods. I don't know of any Christian denomination that even follows the dietary laws (though I wouldn't be surprised if there is one somewhere), but for some reason, many Christians seem to think that the prohibition on homosexuality should be extended to non_Christians as well as Christians. AFAIK, the New Testament has little or nothing to say about homosexuality.

 

[Complexity]

I'm giving honest answers. I don't know what more you want.

I want you to be other than you are, and better than you are.