Slog
News & ArtsSunday, May 6, 2012
Religion Slog Bible Study: Special Bullshit Edition
Posted by Goldy on Sun, May 6, 2012 at 7:00 AM
Romans 1:26-27
That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God.
1 Timothy 1:9-10
For the law was not intended for people who do what is right. It is for people who are lawless and rebellious, who are ungodly and sinful, who consider nothing sacred and defile what is holy, who kill their father or mother or commit other murders. The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders, liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching
Discuss.
1
Interesting that nobody is proposing a constitutional amendment. Outlawing adultery. As for one against adultery, well we tried that.
2
Have never gone NEAR the Bible (intentionally). Stay away from Christers and Godders...and managed to live a wonderful, giving, productive, fulfilling life without them. I am 56. With some luck, I'll make it through life anyway. My best to everyone.
4
Even though I've just had my first cup of coffee, that line about men "burning with lust" for each other got me all hot and bothered. Made me want to go out and find a man to burn with lust over. Thanks, Bible!
7
What is the difference between "sexual sin" and adultery? And what is the difference between practicing homosexuality and being a male prostitute?
8
Well, the second two are pretty straightforward. The original text was not in English, and the words that Paul used do not translate as "homosexuality" from the original language. You have to go through a variety of translations, each progressively less accurate, to reach them.
The originals were in Greek, and Paul (or whoever wrote what was subsequently attributed to Paul) would have had the entire Greek vocabulary for same-sex activity and relationships, which were hardly foreign to the Greeks of the time. Instead made up words of his own that aren't used pretty much anywhere else.
It's too involved for this thread answer, but use the Google to look up arsenokoitai and malakoi and you'll get an idea of the scholarly discussion of it. No reputable Bible scholar believes that Paul was attempting to discuss committed same-sex relationships in those lists, any more than the fact that adultery is included means he intended to ban all heterosexual activity.
The first quote is trickier, but if you notice, the assumption is that you are dealing with heterosexuals who were punished by God with homosexual lusts for other sins, not otherwise moral people who happen to be naturally homosexual, much less addressing the idea of naturally bisexual people.
This falls roughly into the same category as the idea of Sodom and Gomorrah, where gang rape is discussed as though it had anything to do with normal gay relationships.
The originals were in Greek, and Paul (or whoever wrote what was subsequently attributed to Paul) would have had the entire Greek vocabulary for same-sex activity and relationships, which were hardly foreign to the Greeks of the time. Instead made up words of his own that aren't used pretty much anywhere else.
It's too involved for this thread answer, but use the Google to look up arsenokoitai and malakoi and you'll get an idea of the scholarly discussion of it. No reputable Bible scholar believes that Paul was attempting to discuss committed same-sex relationships in those lists, any more than the fact that adultery is included means he intended to ban all heterosexual activity.
The first quote is trickier, but if you notice, the assumption is that you are dealing with heterosexuals who were punished by God with homosexual lusts for other sins, not otherwise moral people who happen to be naturally homosexual, much less addressing the idea of naturally bisexual people.
This falls roughly into the same category as the idea of Sodom and Gomorrah, where gang rape is discussed as though it had anything to do with normal gay relationships.
9
Suffering within... unfulfilled desire of all who desire.
No kingdom of god... unfulfilled desire of all who desire it.
The law is for... liars? That's everyone. I hope.
No kingdom of god... unfulfilled desire of all who desire it.
The law is for... liars? That's everyone. I hope.
10
Oh, those pesky modern translations add words that were not in use in First/Second Century. Like, 'homosexual', which was not used in publication until 1869! Haters and liars changed all that.
The Romans verse is NOT part of an admoniton to not do bad, but a story about what might occur. But haters and liars are easily confused.
The Romans verse is NOT part of an admoniton to not do bad, but a story about what might occur. But haters and liars are easily confused.
12
Paul was a closeted Gay man and like so many closeted Gay men in power he spoke against what he feared the most, his own inner desires.
13
Interesting that in the Timothy excerpt slave traders are included in the list of the immoral. Does this contradict or supersede other biblical references? I wonder if this single reference is said to negate all other not-condemnations elsewhere.
Also: Did anyone notice the sheer number of available translations at the linked biblegateway.com site? It made me think about our childhood game of telephone.
Also: Did anyone notice the sheer number of available translations at the linked biblegateway.com site? It made me think about our childhood game of telephone.
14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSr…
Matthew Vines speaks on the theological debate regarding the Bible and the role of gay Christians in the church. Delivered at College Hill United Methodist Church in Wichita, Kansas on March 8, 2012. Transcript: http://matthewvines.tumblr.com.
Matthew Vines speaks on the theological debate regarding the Bible and the role of gay Christians in the church. Delivered at College Hill United Methodist Church in Wichita, Kansas on March 8, 2012. Transcript: http://matthewvines.tumblr.com.
15
@8 I used to take comfort in that kind of scholarship, but now it seems like so much contortion, trying to salvage the Bible from those who misuse it as a weapon. Currently it feels to me like all the intricate arguments necessary to get around the misogyny et al. aren't worth the trouble. (Never mind that the living sacrifice metaphor of salvific Christology seems outdated at best.)
16
This link breaks down all of the "clobber passages" from the New Testament used to condemn homosexuality. It notes where definitions are necessary and provides both a conservative and liberal interpretation of the scripture:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hombib…
It's one of my Go-to resources.
This link breaks down the discussion around what Paul/the author meant when using the word "arsenkatoi," which is first found in Pauline writings and only afterwards used to reference those ideas. The idea that Paul was writing about our modern conception of homosexuality just doesn't make sense when you consider all of the facts.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/homars…
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hombib…
It's one of my Go-to resources.
This link breaks down the discussion around what Paul/the author meant when using the word "arsenkatoi," which is first found in Pauline writings and only afterwards used to reference those ideas. The idea that Paul was writing about our modern conception of homosexuality just doesn't make sense when you consider all of the facts.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/homars…
18
Take a look at a few different translations. Pick one from the pop-up menu near the top of each linked page (you may have to press the Search button immediately above if it doesn't automatically refresh to the new selection). Goldy most often uses the New Living Translation for its closeness to modern vernacular; the King James is always a good comparison. You won't have to go very far before running across differences where you will suspect that an "agenda" is at work rather than an honest scholarly choice, and that's just in the short historical space between the King James and the NLT.
Read the King James version of Romans 1:26-27, and you might readily conclude that the bible is inveighing not against homosexuality, but against those who fail to be patient and use lots of lube (as Dan always advises).
Read the King James version of Romans 1:26-27, and you might readily conclude that the bible is inveighing not against homosexuality, but against those who fail to be patient and use lots of lube (as Dan always advises).
19
@8
Just for you, I'mma crack out the Big Liddel, otherwise known as the "Great Scott."
So arsenokoitai: arsenos -> male; koitadzw-> I put to bed. I see some ambiguity there. Of course, Paul could simply be using his own set of tropes, or perhaps is trying to speak politely in mixed company, or perhaps is trying to form offensive pejoratives for dramatic effect. Keep in mind that much of the common parlance of homosexual love in ancient Greece (eromenos,erastes, ta paidika, etc) speaks mostly of pederasty. When the Athenians tended to speak of adult homosexual activities, they typically treated it as male prostitution. It seems the notion of committed, unabashed, and egalitarian homosexual relationships was not yet well-formed, despite its apparent preponderance.
Now, on to malakos. Yeah, I thought this was familiar, shows up in Homer frequently. It's usual meaning is simply "soft" of things to touch. Of people "mild, gentle." Also, "morally weak, cowardly, lacking in control, effeminate." It's funny that back then as with today, people seem to think personal discipline is necessary not to become a cock-voracious queen of the highest order, perhaps reveals some of the nature of the writers of the bible. For my own part, it's never been a struggle for me not to seek men to fuck in the ass. My "lack of self control" has much more to do with spending sprees and alcoholism. Seems Paul was probably a gay-bashing homo himself.
Also, according to Foucault, we should have some understanding that the sense of "sexuality" was not formed, at least in the west, until approximately the 19th century, and certainly not the sense of homosexuality. People described homosexual behaviors and acts, but they never really had sense of underlying identity of homosexual.
More...
Just for you, I'mma crack out the Big Liddel, otherwise known as the "Great Scott."
So arsenokoitai: arsenos -> male; koitadzw-> I put to bed. I see some ambiguity there. Of course, Paul could simply be using his own set of tropes, or perhaps is trying to speak politely in mixed company, or perhaps is trying to form offensive pejoratives for dramatic effect. Keep in mind that much of the common parlance of homosexual love in ancient Greece (eromenos,erastes, ta paidika, etc) speaks mostly of pederasty. When the Athenians tended to speak of adult homosexual activities, they typically treated it as male prostitution. It seems the notion of committed, unabashed, and egalitarian homosexual relationships was not yet well-formed, despite its apparent preponderance.
Now, on to malakos. Yeah, I thought this was familiar, shows up in Homer frequently. It's usual meaning is simply "soft" of things to touch. Of people "mild, gentle." Also, "morally weak, cowardly, lacking in control, effeminate." It's funny that back then as with today, people seem to think personal discipline is necessary not to become a cock-voracious queen of the highest order, perhaps reveals some of the nature of the writers of the bible. For my own part, it's never been a struggle for me not to seek men to fuck in the ass. My "lack of self control" has much more to do with spending sprees and alcoholism. Seems Paul was probably a gay-bashing homo himself.
Also, according to Foucault, we should have some understanding that the sense of "sexuality" was not formed, at least in the west, until approximately the 19th century, and certainly not the sense of homosexuality. People described homosexual behaviors and acts, but they never really had sense of underlying identity of homosexual.
20
I'm so over sweating over the translation of bible passages anymore. We know what people believe about what it says. The more you point out the historicity, the truth about what used to be there that isn't now, the "real meaning" behind the bible, the more blank looks you get and the more "you're going to rot in hell" you get. I'm done with that foul book. There are so many more books to get much better advice from. So many more books that are sublime.
I'm through trying to find the sublime in the bible. I was through with it a long time ago, even now that I learn more about it. Why hunt and sweat for something worth shit when you can so easily find the sublime elsewhere, from people who are doing stuff right now?
I'm through trying to find the sublime in the bible. I was through with it a long time ago, even now that I learn more about it. Why hunt and sweat for something worth shit when you can so easily find the sublime elsewhere, from people who are doing stuff right now?
22
There is certainly a lot of bullshit in the Bible and hardly enough sage advice to make up for it, if any amount of good advice could make up for all those truly hateful stories and morals.
Even if the Bible actually was "true" with whatever that would mean considering all the internal inconsistencies, it still would be a hateful book about a hateful deity that demands constant praise and obedience. Fuck that guy.
Even if the Bible actually was "true" with whatever that would mean considering all the internal inconsistencies, it still would be a hateful book about a hateful deity that demands constant praise and obedience. Fuck that guy.
24
We know what people believe about what it says.
Full-fucking-stop. This is what Dan was saying before everyone got all hot and bothered.
We know how the Bible is interpreted by most Evangelicals, by the Focus on the Family, by the faculty of Oral Roberts, and by the countless 'Pray-the-gay-away' Programs. These groups aren't a fucking joke, they're well-organized, well-funded, and they know what they want: the imposition of their narrow view of sexuality upon the United States.
All of you apologists need to open your eyes. You think these folks care about your view of an all-inclusive Christianity? No! Maybe they'll play nice in an attempt to get your vote, but failing that, they'll run your asses right out of the group. And they can afford to. They outnumber you. They have more funding than you. They don't need you. They are the people that Dan was railing against, not you.
25
Goldy, for starters, you are using a very crappy paraphrase Bible. The language of the NLT is so "modernized" that it can no longer be accurately described as a translation.
With the I Corin. and I Tim. passages, this is important. In I Corin., the passage is more accurately translated from Greek as: "... nor those who hire street prostitutes, nor those who hire temple prostitutes, nor those who have a mistress, nor those who prostitute themselves to men, nor those who hire male prostitutes...." The translation for I Tim. is very similar. Paul is actually condemning the commidification of sex and the breaking of vows, not sex itself and certainly not homosexuality.
In the Romans passage, you commit a very common error. The passage starts with "That is why," or in more commonly, "Therefore." Paul is drawing a conclusion here. What is the context? You have to go all the way back to the start of the chapter to find out that Paul is condemning idolatry. What is being condemned here is not homosexuality per se. You also omit what comes after this passage, the part where Paul equally condemns "every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip" and about how the people just menioned "are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too." A perfect description of today's Talibangelicals who screech condemnation against gay men and women who do NOT turn away from what is, for them, natural relations.
More...
With the I Corin. and I Tim. passages, this is important. In I Corin., the passage is more accurately translated from Greek as: "... nor those who hire street prostitutes, nor those who hire temple prostitutes, nor those who have a mistress, nor those who prostitute themselves to men, nor those who hire male prostitutes...." The translation for I Tim. is very similar. Paul is actually condemning the commidification of sex and the breaking of vows, not sex itself and certainly not homosexuality.
In the Romans passage, you commit a very common error. The passage starts with "That is why," or in more commonly, "Therefore." Paul is drawing a conclusion here. What is the context? You have to go all the way back to the start of the chapter to find out that Paul is condemning idolatry. What is being condemned here is not homosexuality per se. You also omit what comes after this passage, the part where Paul equally condemns "every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip" and about how the people just menioned "are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too." A perfect description of today's Talibangelicals who screech condemnation against gay men and women who do NOT turn away from what is, for them, natural relations.
26
It's a side issue, really, but most scholars are convinced that Paul didn't write the Timothy letters, based on textual studies. It makes more sense to conclude that someone else wrote them, perhaps some important church figure, many decades after Paul's death, once the church was better established, and used Paul's name to give his new doctrines authority.
28
A few paragraphs later, Romans 2 starts with:
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
Notice it says the SAME things, not similar... whoever uses Romans 1 to condem you had better admit to doing the SAME thing or else they don't really believe the Bible; they are just using it to further their worldly agenda.
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
Notice it says the SAME things, not similar... whoever uses Romans 1 to condem you had better admit to doing the SAME thing or else they don't really believe the Bible; they are just using it to further their worldly agenda.
29
A few paragraphs later, Romans 2 starts with:
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
Notice it says the SAME things, not similar... whoever uses Romans 1 to condem you had better admit to doing the SAME thing or else they don't really believe the Bible; they are just using it to further their worldly agenda.
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
Notice it says the SAME things, not similar... whoever uses Romans 1 to condem you had better admit to doing the SAME thing or else they don't really believe the Bible; they are just using it to further their worldly agenda.
30
@13: I always link to Biblegateway.com because it makes it so easy to flip through the many available translations, and it is fascinating to see the differences. For example, the way some recent translations have reinterpreted Exodus 21:12-27 to support an anti-abortion position.
That said, debating the accuracy of translations kinda misses the point. Most Christians don't read the Bible in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, but in the vernacular of whatever text is standard in their church. And that is the relevant text through which most Christians understand their religion.
Whatever the accuracy of the translation, the bibles used by most American Christians contain a handful of passages in both the Old and New Testaments that can be reasonably understood to be anti-gay. What Christians do with these passages—whether they choose to totally dismiss them as they do the passages prohibiting pork but endorsing slavery, or perhaps choose to quietly accept them as regrettable but forgivable sins, as they do their own personal lies and infidelities—is up to them. But these passages are there.
The point is, to blame, excuse, or defend one's bigotry based on the accuracy of a particular bible translation is a cop-out. The Bible is large enough and allegorical enough to be used to justify almost any outrage, and if that's how you choose to to use it, the fault is yours, not that of some sloppy translator.
That said, debating the accuracy of translations kinda misses the point. Most Christians don't read the Bible in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, but in the vernacular of whatever text is standard in their church. And that is the relevant text through which most Christians understand their religion.
Whatever the accuracy of the translation, the bibles used by most American Christians contain a handful of passages in both the Old and New Testaments that can be reasonably understood to be anti-gay. What Christians do with these passages—whether they choose to totally dismiss them as they do the passages prohibiting pork but endorsing slavery, or perhaps choose to quietly accept them as regrettable but forgivable sins, as they do their own personal lies and infidelities—is up to them. But these passages are there.
The point is, to blame, excuse, or defend one's bigotry based on the accuracy of a particular bible translation is a cop-out. The Bible is large enough and allegorical enough to be used to justify almost any outrage, and if that's how you choose to to use it, the fault is yours, not that of some sloppy translator.
31
History records some very successful homosexuals including Alexander the Great and Roman Emperor Hadrian. So I suppose god has been caught with his panties down.
32
MALE prostitutes; female prostitutes are ok. But they're separating prostitution from sexual sin.
33
Question for any former or practicing Christians - what happens at Bible Study at most churches?
From reading these comments about how the Bible must be understood from a background well-versed in ancient history and language, what do lay people get out of church Bible Study groups? Is there any formal instruction or anyone with the background in history to guide them?
Or is it just the normal church membership, free to interpret or mis-interpret it as they see fit?
From reading these comments about how the Bible must be understood from a background well-versed in ancient history and language, what do lay people get out of church Bible Study groups? Is there any formal instruction or anyone with the background in history to guide them?
Or is it just the normal church membership, free to interpret or mis-interpret it as they see fit?
34
Some weird old lady and a young guy who was way too desperately smiley were talking across me in the line at the post office the other day. They got to talking about church, and he said he went to Mars Hill, and she said she liked Mars Hill okay except that she didn't care for the new-fangled music.
Anyway, she handed him a little printed tract from her purse, and tried to hand me one too. I smiled and said a polite "No thank you," and she shook her head and muttered disbelievingly, "No thank you, hm."
A minute later, as the younger guy was leaving, she looked at him and indicated me and said, "Well, it's okay, look at that purple shirt, he'll be there soon enough." I was reading Twitter on my phone and not really paying attention, so it wasn't until a couple minutes later that I realized I didn't know exactly where "there" was meant to be. Am I going to hell because I was wearing a purple shirt? Is that gay? Or am I going to church, because purple is kinda like pink and Mark Driscoll is a pink-shirt-bro kind of a guy?
I mean, I do engage in sexual sin, for sure, but I am not sure what that has to do with a lavender Walls western-cut work shirt.
Anyway, yeah, Bible people are weird. You can draw all kinds of crazy-ass conclusions with the wacky stuff in it.
Anyway, she handed him a little printed tract from her purse, and tried to hand me one too. I smiled and said a polite "No thank you," and she shook her head and muttered disbelievingly, "No thank you, hm."
A minute later, as the younger guy was leaving, she looked at him and indicated me and said, "Well, it's okay, look at that purple shirt, he'll be there soon enough." I was reading Twitter on my phone and not really paying attention, so it wasn't until a couple minutes later that I realized I didn't know exactly where "there" was meant to be. Am I going to hell because I was wearing a purple shirt? Is that gay? Or am I going to church, because purple is kinda like pink and Mark Driscoll is a pink-shirt-bro kind of a guy?
I mean, I do engage in sexual sin, for sure, but I am not sure what that has to do with a lavender Walls western-cut work shirt.
Anyway, yeah, Bible people are weird. You can draw all kinds of crazy-ass conclusions with the wacky stuff in it.
35
Thanks for running this extended series, Goldy. I think lots of us who have been reading it got your point: stop leaning on the bible as an excuse and take some personal responsibility for becoming a less bigoted person. It's an idea Republicans could endorse, if they could shake free of some of the nuts!
I think a lot of the people who've continued to read and comment on these threads do so not because they miss your point, or disagree with it. My guess is that most of the commenters on this thread buy into it. (Obviously there are exceptions: seattleblues has yet to confront his inner darkness). But, the bible is interesting, and sunday's on slog are slow, so why not get into a spirited discussion of translations! Or to answer DocAwesome's question, in a room full of educated and intelligent people who can sustain a certain detachment from their subject, bible study can be a lot of fun!
Unfortunately, there is a twisted version on Goldy's lesson that pervades in many churches: "yes, it is very true the bible is confusing and full of seemingly creepy and mutually contradictory messages. The prudent person, therefore, relies on a trained professional, his pastor, to tell him who he should be bigoted against."
I think a lot of the people who've continued to read and comment on these threads do so not because they miss your point, or disagree with it. My guess is that most of the commenters on this thread buy into it. (Obviously there are exceptions: seattleblues has yet to confront his inner darkness). But, the bible is interesting, and sunday's on slog are slow, so why not get into a spirited discussion of translations! Or to answer DocAwesome's question, in a room full of educated and intelligent people who can sustain a certain detachment from their subject, bible study can be a lot of fun!
Unfortunately, there is a twisted version on Goldy's lesson that pervades in many churches: "yes, it is very true the bible is confusing and full of seemingly creepy and mutually contradictory messages. The prudent person, therefore, relies on a trained professional, his pastor, to tell him who he should be bigoted against."
36
@33,
I used to team co-write Bible studies for both small and large women's groups. Scripture was interpreted by the use of other scripture. And with the approved of commentaries and dictionaries. The study had to be approved before it could be printed and used.
Some Bibles (often called study Bibles) come with chronology, maps, study notes, cross-reference system, parallel passage notation in sectional headings, concordance, and essays on specific sections and topics. Goldy links to the New International Version (NIV) which is described as transdenominational, and to be the work of Biblical scholars who all confess the authority of the Bible as God's infallible word to humanity.
Another Bible study option is BSF (Bible Study Fellowship). http://www.bsfinternational.org/
I'm going to skip over all the discussion of both ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew, and just state that the word "homosexual" first appearance in the Bible was in the New Revised Standard (RSV) Bible in 1946.
I hope that helps.
I used to team co-write Bible studies for both small and large women's groups. Scripture was interpreted by the use of other scripture. And with the approved of commentaries and dictionaries. The study had to be approved before it could be printed and used.
Some Bibles (often called study Bibles) come with chronology, maps, study notes, cross-reference system, parallel passage notation in sectional headings, concordance, and essays on specific sections and topics. Goldy links to the New International Version (NIV) which is described as transdenominational, and to be the work of Biblical scholars who all confess the authority of the Bible as God's infallible word to humanity.
Another Bible study option is BSF (Bible Study Fellowship). http://www.bsfinternational.org/
I'm going to skip over all the discussion of both ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew, and just state that the word "homosexual" first appearance in the Bible was in the New Revised Standard (RSV) Bible in 1946.
I hope that helps.
38
humanists and fundies in a bible smackdown.....
lucky thing hell is big enough to accommodate
them both.
lucky thing hell is big enough to accommodate
them both.
39
@38, does the idea of people different from you being tortured forever make you hard? You seem pretty excited about it. Very moral, I'm sure.
40
36
isn't that special.
god has a special place in his heart for false prophets who pervert scripture to reassure the degenerates that they are just fine.....
isn't that special.
god has a special place in his heart for false prophets who pervert scripture to reassure the degenerates that they are just fine.....
41
39
tortured?
you ARE a paranoid little pussy, aren't you....
listening to Danny and the fundies argue about who knows the bible better, THAT is hell.
tortured?
you ARE a paranoid little pussy, aren't you....
listening to Danny and the fundies argue about who knows the bible better, THAT is hell.
42
@40: And you know this how? I guess you think you know exactly what God's will is, huh? And so you see nothing wrong with usurping God's authority and trying to run things yourself.
44
40
Perhaps you should share your concern with BSF and Zondervan who publish the NIV Bible. I co-wrote studies for evangelical protestant churches and their pastoral staff gave approval before they were published.
You seem to enjoy being both nasty and judgmental; truly Christ-like in your posts. I'm sure the "god," that you pronounced has a "special place" for me, must delight over your fine example of loving your enemies. Seeing as you are supposed to follow his example and emulate him.
Enjoy your day.
Perhaps you should share your concern with BSF and Zondervan who publish the NIV Bible. I co-wrote studies for evangelical protestant churches and their pastoral staff gave approval before they were published.
You seem to enjoy being both nasty and judgmental; truly Christ-like in your posts. I'm sure the "god," that you pronounced has a "special place" for me, must delight over your fine example of loving your enemies. Seeing as you are supposed to follow his example and emulate him.
Enjoy your day.
45
@41, sorry, brodangles, but I just cannot take seriously a guy who still uses "pussy" as an insult after the age of 13. Dan's terrified by vaginas, too, but he manages not to broadcast it every time he posts something.
Besides, he's gay. What's your excuse?
Besides, he's gay. What's your excuse?
46
Since all of this only applies to Christians, I have to inssist that they look to their own lives and I will look after mine.
47
Whenever the troll goes completely off the rails like today, I always hear the voice of "Larry the Basement Dweller" (by the late Tom Keith), of Prairie Home Companion.
48
I don't "practice homosexuality" because I consider myself quite proficient at it now. Does that still count?
52
Kim in portland, thank you. So people arent really turned loose free to interpret the Bible without some knowledgeable guidance?
53
That particular part of Romans is simply about the abandonment of God and the worship of false idols (breaking of 1st commandment).
When this is done, God simply says, "fuck it" and allows the Romans to descend into chaos. Chaos, it seems, involves a little ass-play.
Big whoop.
Y'all should use The King James version of the bible, as well as provide some context for these out of context verses you're pulling out of your asses.
They might help to make them a bit more understandable.
When this is done, God simply says, "fuck it" and allows the Romans to descend into chaos. Chaos, it seems, involves a little ass-play.
Big whoop.
Y'all should use The King James version of the bible, as well as provide some context for these out of context verses you're pulling out of your asses.
They might help to make them a bit more understandable.
55
@ Dr Awesome,
Of course they can read it on their own, How many do is another question. How many do without using an approved study guide or suggested concordance or study Bible is yet another question.
My experience is that people want to be told how to interpret scripture, because they wish to preserve their church's (or denomination where they were raised) theology. My experience is that they wish to confirm what they already "know". Lastly my experience is that most new believers want advice from their pastor as to what is the "right" Bible and what is the "right" interpretation of difficult passages. Others may have very different experiences. But, my experience is that most of the people I know who attend Bible study groups do it through their church or some group like BSF because they want to know that their group has their church leaders approval. They specifically want approval that their study is theologically sound and that it agrees with what they already believe to be true. And, that is just as important or more important than the actuall books or passages that will be studied.
I hope that I explained that well.
Of course they can read it on their own, How many do is another question. How many do without using an approved study guide or suggested concordance or study Bible is yet another question.
My experience is that people want to be told how to interpret scripture, because they wish to preserve their church's (or denomination where they were raised) theology. My experience is that they wish to confirm what they already "know". Lastly my experience is that most new believers want advice from their pastor as to what is the "right" Bible and what is the "right" interpretation of difficult passages. Others may have very different experiences. But, my experience is that most of the people I know who attend Bible study groups do it through their church or some group like BSF because they want to know that their group has their church leaders approval. They specifically want approval that their study is theologically sound and that it agrees with what they already believe to be true. And, that is just as important or more important than the actuall books or passages that will be studied.
I hope that I explained that well.
56
55
that, of course, is true of all.
'enlightened' humanists come to slog to have their bigotries and prejudices reinforced and validated.
that, of course, is true of all.
'enlightened' humanists come to slog to have their bigotries and prejudices reinforced and validated.
59
God may have known how to build an amazing, intricate, finely detailed universe out of some old quarks and strings he had laying around, but he hired the most incompetent technical writer in all of history to explain the gizmo.
60
People need to understand that these quotes are from Paul who was struggling with his own sexual identity and not from God. You only need to consider that Paul puts slave traders in the sinful pile when both the God of the OT & Jesus both make statement in support of slavery.
I know, inconsistency in the Bible, who would have thought it possible?
I know, inconsistency in the Bible, who would have thought it possible?
62
The Bible is an ancient mythology that is no more true than any other collection fables from Greece, Rome, Egypt, etc. (The Bible borrows heavily from other religions) It's a very flawed work of an ancient people, full contradictions, factual errors, silliness, violence, and just plain bullshit.
63
@60: There is clear condemnation of slavers (if not slavery) in Exodus 21:16. "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."
64
The Apostle Paul may have been the first Christianist homophobe, and as we now know, he was probably homosexually oriented himself. Really, he was sick, sick man.
66
65, The truth is worth repeating. The Bible is a book of ancient myths, and is a flawed work of mankind. It has no more truth to it than any other ancient mythology, and the much of the Bible is stolen from other religions.
68
@66
The myths in the bible are not only borrowed from other religions, they show up independently in other religions as well.
Maybe some of the basic truths about the human condition were figured out long ago and we're all ignoring them because we think we know more than people who have dedicated their entire lives to delving into this topic.
I know you're smarter than Plato and all, but Socrates might be slightly more insightful than you, no?
The myths in the bible are not only borrowed from other religions, they show up independently in other religions as well.
Maybe some of the basic truths about the human condition were figured out long ago and we're all ignoring them because we think we know more than people who have dedicated their entire lives to delving into this topic.
I know you're smarter than Plato and all, but Socrates might be slightly more insightful than you, no?
69
I was gonna say the Bible is full of bullshit ...but that's not fair to the rest of the bullshit.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
SL Letter of the Day: Let Me Think... by Dan Savage
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Leviticus 20:9 by Goldy
-
GOP Congressman: We Have to Ban Abortion Because Fetuses Are Masturbating In There by Dan Savage
-
War Reporter Michael Hastings, Dead at 33 by Ansel Herz
-
Less Than a Quarter of Americans Have Confidence in Newspapers by Eli Sanders
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (69) RSS