The rise of the religious left in America

[Littlefingers In The Air]

If you're talking 1 Corinthians, a person could make the argument that it's actually the Apostle Paul telling folks that fornicators won't inherit the kingdom of God. Because that was basically from a letter Paul wrote to the church in Corinth.

I'd counter that someone saying that is making a valid point but because the Bible is the Word of God and because he allowed Paul to write that, He Himself must be in agreement. God will not allow corruption to His Word because the Word of God must always be true.

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. (Isaiah 40:8 KJV)

[Sci-2]

I'd counter that someone saying that is making a valid point but because the Bible is the Word of God and because he allowed Paul to write that, He Himself must be in agreement. God will not allow corruption to His Word because the Word of God must always be true.

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. (Isaiah 40:8 KJV)

You don't see this as circular reasoning?

Seems to me you're saying the text is correct because the text says it will be correct. Doesn't Islam say the same thing?

"Conviction is not enough. Someone must be deceived. So what assures that someone is someone else?"

[sologdin]

Word of God must always be true.

scriptural authority for that proposition?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

man and man is a clear implication that God is against same sex sexual relations.

No it isn't. The Bible goes to great length to describe which sex acts are forbidden. Lesbian Sex is not among them.

And the above scripture I quoted I provided from 1 Corinthians sites fornicators as those who won't inherit the kingdom of God. So I don't know how you'd argue that God is not telling us we shouldn't fornicate.

The term "fornicators" does not need to mean those having pre-marital sex. Particularly in the context of the rest of the bible in which pre-marital sex is not forbidden. Other translations have it as simply "sexual immorality".

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Seems like it's condemning lesbianism.

In the context of the rest of the Bible, it seems to be condemning incest and bestiality.

Forbidden sex according to the bible (Leviticus 20):

Having sex with your father's wife

Having sex with your daughter in law

A man having sex with another man

A man having sex with a woman and her mother

Bestiality (for men and women)

Sex between siblings

Sex with a woman on her period

Sex with your aunt

Sex with your brother's wife

Now, do you think that they were having such an epidemic of Mother-Daughter 3 ways that it warranted special proscription, but lesbian and pre-marital sex was so rare as to not deserve a mention? I would think that if the Almighty specifically didn't want people to have sex before they got married he would have said so, since he was providing this big ol' list.

[MisterOJ]

I'd counter that someone saying that is making a valid point but because the Bible is the Word of God and because he allowed Paul to write that, He Himself must be in agreement. God will not allow corruption to His Word because the Word of God must always be true.

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. (Isaiah 40:8 KJV)

Right, but the Bible is pretty much all a man-made thing, when you think about it. Who wrote the verse you quoted in the Old Testament? A man.

Now I'm not saying the Bible is bad or anything. It's not. But when you get right down to it, it's all just a big collection of books and so on that people have put together over the years. It's man made. I believe much of it is divinely inspired, but I don't think you have to just look at the Bible as it stands today and just be like, "Yep. That's the way it's always been, that's the way God intended."

I believe if God truly wanted the Bible to be His perfect authority here on earth, He would have made it differently. There's too much in there that just doesn't quite jive. So, you take the book. Look at it as a whole. Think about what life was like at the time it was written and use your God given intellect to suss out the truth.

But really, if you just follow the example and teaching of Jesus. You can't go wrong.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

You don't see this as circular reasoning?

Seems to me you're saying the text is correct because the text says it will be correct. Doesn't Islam say the same thing?

"Conviction is not enough. Someone must be deceived. So what assures that someone is someone else?"

Well, I'm speaking from my belief that God exists and that God Himself is speaking through the Bible. So to me, God is saying His word will always be true, via the text. I don't view the Bible and Gods opinions as mutually exclusive.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

Right, but the Bible is pretty much all a man-made thing, when you think about it. Who wrote the verse you quoted in the Old Testament? A man.

Now I'm not saying the Bible is bad or anything. It's not. But when you get right down to it, it's all just a big collection of books and so on that people have put together over the years. It's man made. I believe much of it is divinely inspired, but I don't think you have to just look at the Bible as it stands today and just be like, "Yep. That's the way it's always been, that's the way God intended."

I believe if God truly wanted the Bible to be His perfect authority here on earth, He would have made it differently. There's too much in there that just doesn't quite jive. So, you take the book. Look at it as a whole. Think about what life was like at the time it was written and use your God given intellect to suss out the truth.

But really, if you just follow the example and teaching of Jesus. You can't go wrong.

I'm in agreement with you for the most part and the Bible itself has scriptures that back up what you're saying. But we're asked to show our love by keeping his commandments. And Jesus said, as I quoted, that the law would never pass until it had been fulfilled.

Now, one might argue Jesus' last words on the cross are Him saying that the law has been fulfilled, but I believe He was speaking of His assignment to give us a chance at salvation, not about the law. Still, you're right, Jesus is our ultimate example and the Holy Ghost a comforter. So that's what we should bank everything on at days end.

[Ser Greguh]

So ... scripture can be used to justify any political position, and those who use it to justify one position condemn those that use it to justify an opposite position of reading the scripture wrong. Stop the presses.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

So ... scripture can be used to justify any political position, and those who use it to justify one position condemn those that use it to justify an opposite position of reading the scripture wrong. Stop the presses.

My point exactly. Jesus would have scratched his head at using scripture politically. If anyone could and should have done so it was him, but he deliberately avoided commenting on politics at all.

[sologdin]

but the Bible is pretty much all a man-made thing, when you think about it. Who wrote the verse you quoted in the Old Testament? A man

it's more complicated than the writing. there's the selection process: why these four gospels but not the other ones? there's the translation process: why "shall have eternal life" rather than the more literal "may have eternal life"? and there's the interpretive process, as the thread amply demonstrates.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

Word of God must always be true.

scriptural authority for that proposition?

Of course.

Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; (Titus 1:1, 2 KJV)

Clearly, this is establishing that God cannot lie, and as the Bible is His word, we can rest assured that everything it says is true. Though you would then need to think of the possibility of those who canonically constructed the Bible using it to try and corrupt people.

[Sci-2]

Well, I'm speaking from my belief that God exists and that God Himself is speaking through the Bible. So to me, God is saying His word will always be true, via the text. I don't view the Bible and Gods opinions as mutually exclusive.

But via this logic it seems you can believe in just about any scripture that asserts it's own correctness.

I mean, you're essentially saying this one text somehow manages to stand outside the bounds of history and culture, despite all the history and culture we see influencing what goes into it.

But clearly this requires a leap perhaps larger than faith in God, so I don't see why progressive Christians should have to take every part of the Bible literally.

Heck, the Ophidians suggested it was the snake that Jesus was the reincarnation of, that Yaweh is the tyrant Christ seeks to free mankind from.

eta:

it's more complicated than the writing. there's the selection process: why these four gospels but not the other ones? there's the translation process: why "shall have eternal life" rather than the more literal "may have eternal life"? and there's the interpretive process, as the thread amply demonstrates.

+1.

Sometimes I think we should start a charity giving out free copies of Bakker. Other times I think that will drive the world mad.

[TheLoneliestMonk]

Heck, the Ophidians suggested it was the snake that Jesus was the reincarnation of, that Yaweh is the tyrant Christ seeks to free mankind from.

considering how blatantly contradictory the old and new testaments are (by that I mean the new testament says not to do shit the old testament tells you to do), this makes sense. THANK YOU JESUS CHRIST, SON OF SATAN, FOR SAVING US FROM THE EVILS OF GOD.

[Galactus]

I agree.

But what I find difficult to understand is how the religious left can proclaim to still be adherents of him, while not really caring much about the far more important message which is YOURE GONNA DIE ETERNALLY IF YOU DON'T CONVERT.

Sure, you might have a full belly tonight, due to us giving you some bread, but if you don't convert, you will BURN ETERNALLY.

What I'm commenting on, is not what humanity at large chooses to do with that message. But what people who profess to be Christians do with that message.

Because much of the religious left proclaim to be Christians and do charity because Jesus told them to, but don't really care about the whole reason he says he came here in the first place.

I just find it somewhat paradoxical.

Because people will believe, or not, as they see fit. You cannot force a man to believe. Setting a good christian example is all you can do.

And charity, in any case, is not something you do because you expect some kind of reward, that would defeat the point.

I think a lot of people (left and right) kind of miss out how radical Jesus' teachings were. They pretty much by design make it impossible to function in temporal society.

[Ser Greguh]

THANK YOU JESUS CHRIST, SON OF SATAN, FOR SAVING US FROM THE EVILS OF GOD.

That would make a badass t-shirt right there.

[Penguin king]

I agree.

But what I find difficult to understand is how the religious left can proclaim to still be adherents of him, while not really caring much about the far more important message which is YOURE GONNA DIE ETERNALLY IF YOU DON'T CONVERT.

Is that actually Jesus's original message though or is it something that has developed over 2000 years of memetic evolution? Join us or suffer for all eternity is a pretty powerful recruitment message.

Jesus himself seemed quite preocupied with the physical and emotional suffering of those around him. He healed the sick, fed the poor, stood up for the ostracized and the dispossed. There are no first hand accounts of Christ written during his lifetime, every gospel of the bible was written after the fact. The question of what his true message was is very open to debate.

[Galactus]

Is that actually Jesus's original message though or is it something that has developed over 2000 years of memetic evolution? Join us or suffer for all eternity is a pretty powerful recruitment message.

Jesus himself seemed quite preocupied with the physical and emotional suffering of those around him. He healed the sick, fed the poor, stood up for the ostracized and the dispossed. There are no first hand accounts of Christ written during his lifetime, every gospel of the bible was written after the fact. The question of what his true message was is very open to debate.

It should be noted that while the gospels are relatively late, Paul is actually almost contemporaneous (as in, within a single lifetime) the thing of course is that trying to puzzle out Jesus' teachings from Paul's letters is about the same as trying to figure out the US constitution from the minutes of the Winnebago city council.

[TheLoneliestMonk]

Is that actually Jesus's original message though or is it something that has developed over 2000 years of memetic evolution? Join us or suffer for all eternity is a pretty powerful recruitment message.

Jesus himself seemed quite preocupied with the physical and emotional suffering of those around him. He healed the sick, fed the poor, stood up for the ostracized and the dispossed. There are no first hand accounts of Christ written during his lifetime, every gospel of the bible was written after the fact. The question of what his true message was is very open to debate.

there's a whole lot about that in the old testament though.

[Galactus]

there's a whole lot about that in the old testament though.

Not really, the original testament barely mentions hell. It's more "Obey your God or he'll smite the fuck out of you." The concept of damnation is pretty much something that develops between the OT and the NT.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

My only thought is that I don't think Jesus would object to government programs that seek to help people. Indo think he would object to people believing that because those services exist their personal responsibility to help their fellow man is abrogated.