Look at the logic

[Morrigu]

In NKJV, Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus said "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'".

This seems so clear to me that Jesus is talking about a man and woman being married together and not a homosexual relationship. There are other verses supporting this, but I do not know everything.

Now if two men cannot be married to each other, and two women can't be married to each other, then they can only be with each other in a non-sexual relationship. If they have sex then it is fornication. Sex outside of marriage is sin. It all seems pretty simple to me.

So while homosexuality is not the worst sin (since all sin is evil in the eyes of God, does it really matter which one is worse?), why do we have pastors who are openly gay preaching the ways of sin as if it was righteous?

Can we please discuss this logically?

It must be quite pleasent to live in a world of black and white morality.....

Everything so defined, everithing has an answer. But, can we make this discusion about the real world instead?

As much as you love that book, you have to admit that you are only holding one of the many translations, interpretations, compilations, and some may say manipulations of it.

I could begin a debate about how Truth is not absolute. Been there, done that, never leads me anywhere.

I could give you my experiences as a gay man, and how life is on the other side, the thing is i know you will not listen, so it's pointles.

You seem absolutly secure about how right you are, and that puts me in a difficult position to make you understand that the entire world is NOT ruled by the bible, that I accept your beliefs, but do not want them for myself, that I dont mind the way you live your life because you cause me no harm.
And if the gay comunity does the same, how hard is it for all of you to just accept us, and just not mind that we pursue happiness in our own ways.

Heaven, Hell. In the now and here it doesn't matter, they are just words, and as much power words have, they only have it because we allow them to. The reality is that in your pursuit of happiness and fullfilment, you are frustrating ours. And that is moraly wrong.

You are represing us with your actions at the same time that you "love" us with your speech. "Hate the sin, not the sinner". The contradiction creates a state of represion not unlike the one that we managed to free ourselves from in the past decades. That is why you are not listened to, that is why that speech is attacked, your speech wants to throw us back into that dark and depresing closet where homosexuality spent all those centuries.

We are not taboo anymore. And we don't want to be.

So, instead of talking you about the nature of truth, instead of talking you about mi life experiences, i give to you MY truth. MY speech, in the most respectful manner I have. I would like the same from you.









....








Another post, another answer:

There is not some inherent contradiction between Scripture and the things of nature. Scripture already makes it clear that people are sexually attracted to one another -- fornication is an issue that is mentioned several times throughout the Bible. Dismissing the theological assumptions of Scripture (its inerrancy specifically) does not support your argument. It unravels Christianity entirely and consequently makes God unknowable. If you are to assert that the Bible is simply a book, then its meaning becomes relative to the reader. Are you willing to suggest that Christianity is relative? Does God define theology or do men?

Men do. The bible, like many others, is just a constructed law, that people choose to follow. The nature of this human law goes against many of the basic points of human nature, wich is based in primal impulses.

Laws are built with reason, and can have as many shades of gray as the culture wishes. You are taking the constructed laws for people of thousends of years past and trying to aply them to the present, many things will be lost or imposible to accomplish. Or do you follow the entire bible, old and new testament to the letter? that today would be akward at most, considering the many customs and rituals inefective today that explained in the bible and are sanctioned with death penalty if not followed.

It is a book. And in my world view it does not mean there is no Divinity, it just means that yhwh is just one of the many attempts to interpret and understand that sublime aspect of nature still out of our understanding.

Look, i really would like to understand how is it that giving 2 men or 2 women who love each other the right to marry and create a life together would be a menace to your people or your beliefs.

I really would, not from the bible, but from all of you. What is it that you fear so much?

 

[AmericanCatholic]

Men do. The bible, like many others, is just a constructed law, that people choose to follow. The nature of this human law goes against many of the basic points of human nature, wich is based in primal impulses.

The Bible is constructed insofar that it speaks to a thing other than itself. It's purpose is to be a testimony to God's work. Of course, that testimony could not be separated from any other testimony if we do not accept its inerrancy. Regardless, the Bible is not the sole source of theology. Theology itself, anyway, originates from God. That is the only way we can be confident of our conclusions. Certainly, our understanding of theology, just like physics or any other science, is limited by the available means of our reason. Physics, for example, does not originate from men -- we do not create physics. We observe the workings of the universe and ascribe particular names to things. We do likewise with theology. God creates theology -- we observe it.

Laws are built with reason, and can have as many shades of gray as the culture wishes. You are taking the constructed laws for people of thousends of years past and trying to aply them to the present, many things will be lost or imposible to accomplish. Or do you follow the entire bible, old and new testament to the letter? that today would be akward at most, considering the many customs and rituals inefective today that explained in the bible and are sanctioned with death penalty if not followed.

There are certainly shades of gray and things unknown. This is not because theology or God are incomplete, but because our understanding of those things are limited. Our understanding generally improves with time. Such is also the case even with the words of Scripture. I do not have the time presently to go into the details of why particular things in the Bible are not followed and why others are followed, so suffice it to say that such things have been discussed and reasoned conclusions formed. We can discuss that matter specifically in another thread if you would like.

It is a book. And in my world view it does not mean there is no Divinity, it just means that yhwh is just one of the many attempts to interpret and understand that sublime aspect of nature still out of our understanding.

If you accept that there is a 'Divinity' as truth, then you also ought to accept as truth everything else which flows from said divinity. The particular details of what does and what doesn't flow from it can be discussed another time because the current point I am making is that there is a God (or "Divinity") of a particular nature, and that those things which come from said God are just as true as the God from which they come. I note that you are an agnostic, and at point in my life I dabbled in those ideas as well. What I learned is that uncertainty is something that is a part of human nature; but such uncertainty ought not to provide obstacles to our continued search for answers. The Truth is out there.

Look, i really would like to understand how is it that giving 2 men or 2 women who love each other the right to marry and create a life together would be a menace to your people or your beliefs.

That is a very accusative and defensive question. There is no doubt that people of the same sex love one another, and not always sexually. It is not a question of love. It is a question of theology. As I said previously, theology is a science, founded on faith and defined by reason, and it is the consequences of particular theological claims by the homosexual community which are at odds with mainstream Christianity. It is not the fact that there are homosexuals, and that there are those who take part in homosexual acts. Nor is it the belief that homosexual acts are sinful, because the Church itself was created for sinners. It is because certain theological claims by the homosexual community are revisionist in nature, and necessarily so.

 

[marksman315]

Then why even bring it into a debate against gay rights? In most debates about same-sex marriage or homosexual relationships someone has to drag out the tired, unfounded talking point about how homosexuals discredit themselves because they are sexually promiscuous. I'm saying that the behaviors of an isolated group should not be used as a basis to discriminate against the rest, otherwise you'd have to pass laws saying that "swinging bachelors" or prostitutes shouldn't be allowed to legally get married.

I brought this up because it is very odd that just because people are committing sin that they should be given a perceived way out that still is sin. Now if their way out was not sinful then that would make sense.

You know I've never sat in a church in which the pastor didn't engage in some sort of behavior in his private life that completely contradicted what they preached against at some point on Sunday mornings.

I believe you are right, however, that still does not make what they do "right". If the leader who is "preaching God's word" is not following it then they should not be preaching it. How can you believe someone who says "do as I say and not as I do"?

 

[Morrigu]

The Bible is constructed insofar that it speaks to a thing other than itself. It's purpose is to be a testimony to God's work. Of course, that testimony could not be separated from any other testimony if we do not accept its inerrancy. Regardless, the Bible is not the sole source of theology. Theology itself, anyway, originates from God. That is the only way we can be confident of our conclusions. Certainly, our understanding of theology, just like physics or any other science, is limited by the available means of our reason. Physics, for example, does not originate from men -- we do not create physics. We observe the workings of the universe and ascribe particular names to things. We do likewise with theology. God creates theology -- we observe it.ims by the homosexual community are revisionist in nature, and necessarily so.

However, we do create mythologies. Theology is a science just not a hard not a science, its a discipline of thought, a discipline of study of god from a religious point of view so it is subjective and open to debate and shifts of paradigm.
Mostly what we have comonly are Myths. We elaborate tales, complex stories, allegories that stand for what we believe, or against what we fear they inspire us, and move us. And allegories is the region of both fiction and myth, each with different but similar motives. One makes us wonder about our world and reflect on it, and the other teaches us about it. But the way you see the world, is yours only, the way you read the bible is yours only. Any truth there is is filterd by your own truth, so in that sense there is no capital truth in this world, for even the bible, the khabbala, the Quoran, and other were written by people interpreting the divine feeling, their aproaches to the sublime. No religion is over the other, because none of them can go beyond themselves.
So you see, even if the scriptures originated from some moment of ilumination they where filtered down and whatever divine was in tehm got mixed with mith, whatever truth the people of ancient times elaborated, and reflected upon got mixed with myths, and allegories. We observe the writtings of man, that were also compiled and selected by other men centuries after, and later translated by men again. Never forget that.

There are certainly shades of gray and things unknown. This is not because theology or God are incomplete, but because our understanding of those things are limited. Our understanding generally improves with time. Such is also the case even with the words of Scripture. I do not have the time presently to go into the details of why particular things in the Bible are not followed and why others are followed, so suffice it to say that such things have been discussed and reasoned conclusions formed. We can discuss that matter specifically in another thread if you would like.

Look, I do not believe in a revealed "Truth". Because all cultures have constructed their own truth acording to the context where they are, however i do believe in a Divinity, or Divine force feeding the universe. I believe that any moment of ilumination comes from reflection and effort, not revelation, no chosen ones, only those who earn it.
Now, why do I bring this up. Because the law of people thousands of years ago does not aply to culture today, today gay rights can be asked for without reciving a stoning(at least in this parts of the world), children can disobey their parents without being killed over it. You can eat shrimp... se where i am going? In their time all the laws had a specific purpose and where right in their context. I believe that what is divine in ANY sacred book is its poetry, but that is another subject.
You let myths rule your world, I let thoughts and actions rule mine.

If you accept that there is a 'Divinity' as truth, then you also ought to accept as truth everything else which flows from said divinity. The particular details of what does and what doesn't flow from it can be discussed another time because the current point I am making is that there is a God (or "Divinity&quot of a particular nature, and that those things which come from said God are just as true as the God from which they come. I note that you are an agnostic, and at point in my life I dabbled in those ideas as well. What I learned is that uncertainty is something that is a part of human nature; but such uncertainty ought not to provide obstacles to our continued search for answers. The Truth is out there.

The Truth is out there, yes but we cant know it. Its, sublime and beyond what we can understand, so we fill in the great blank that is left to our understanding with what we imagine, or reflect upon, or deduce, or create. And what comes from that is no less real because it was made by us.

That is a very accusative and defensive question.

Fair enough, yes it is, I think you can understand why.

There is no doubt that people of the same sex love one another, and not always sexually. It is not a question of love. It is a question of theology. As I said previously, theology is a science, founded on faith and defined by reason, and it is the consequences of particular theological claims by the homosexual community which are at odds with mainstream Christianity. It is not the fact that there are homosexuals, and that there are those who take part in homosexual acts. Nor is it the belief that homosexual acts are sinful, because the Church itself was created for sinners. It is because certain theological claims by the homosexual community are revisionist in nature, and necessarily so.

Like I said, theology is not a hard science. It is and has always been open for paradigm shifts, and open for reinterpretation. It's all about the context, its all about the paradigm.

 

[marksman315]

A claim not shared by all Christians. Like I said, it depends on which interpretation, translation, and compilation one adheres to. Some combinations are pro-gay, some are anti-gay, some are neither.

I say this because I believe their is absolute truth. Many people make up their own "truths", and usually to suit themselves.

How? You were making the point that, because same-sex couples can't get married, they can only have sex outside marriage, which is sinful. I rejected the "gays can't marry" premise with, "[N]owhere does the Bible say that same-sex couples can't get married." To argue otherwise would require you to condemn everything that wasn't explicitly condoned in the Bible; since this is absurd, I assume it is not the stance you take. Thus, because same-sex marriage is not explicitly condemned (nor, indeed, condoned), the onus is on you to justify your condemnation of it. As point out above, it is not even clear whether the Bible condemns homosexuality at all.

According to your interpretation, I can thoroughly beat someone nearly to death, but not kill them, and that is ok? I'm pretty sure that it does not explicitly say anywhere in the Bible that I can't do that. I see that we have opposite views in logic when it comes to ommission and inclusion. While I respect your views, I whole-heartedly disagree.

If your idea of 'fun' is homosexual sex, you might want to take an introspective moment.

You took me way out of context. I was writing that from the perspective of someone having a sexless marriage whether it be straight or gay. I'm not accusing you of being straight or gay so you can stop doing that with me.

On the contrary, you are: you are free to choose from a variety of equally valid translations, each one with its own set of possible interpretations. Though you can cite your sources, they are as arbitrary as anyone else's.

I agree, the choices are arbitrary. I just felt that you were attacking me for even listing it.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

However, we do create mythologies. Theology is a science just not a hard not a science, its a discipline of thought, a discipline of study of god from a religious point of view so it is subjective and open to debate and shifts of paradigm.

All sciences are open to debate because they are based upon observation. That does not make the conclusions any less valid. Even gravity is still subject to debate when it comes to its particulars, and that is something that everyone takes for granted. Theology is likewise a science because it is based upon human observations of an established truth. Yourself admits to a vaguely defined divine essence -- I doubt you have any more evidence to it's existence, nature, or purposes than any Christian here. My point is that you already accept the things which I have said concerning theology.

But the way you see the world, is yours only, the way you read the bible is yours only.

On the contrary, if we have established already that there exists a divinity, however defined, then we further know that anything which originates from it is likewise true. Theology, therefore, is not relative to what you or I or any other person believes -- it exists in its own form independent of how we perceive it. Thus, the I "see the world" and the way I "read the Bible", if true, is not mine "only" -- it is everyone's who likewise accepts it. So while differences may exist in the particulars from person to person, there exists a general agreement on the nature of the thing in question. The size of the Church lends credence to this point.

Any truth there is is filterd by your own truth, so in that sense there is no capital truth in this world, for even the bible, the khabbala, the Quoran, and other were written by people interpreting the divine feeling, their aproaches to the sublime. No religion is over the other, because none of them can go beyond themselves.

Your argument is self-contradictory if you are to assert that your statements are true in the absolute sense. But if you do not admit as much, then you consequently must concede that a particular religion or faith is "over the [others]". As we have already established that there is a divine thing, and that things which originate from the divine thing are themselves true, then a religion which originates from the divine thing is also true. Religion is simply theology in practice. Theology comes first.

So you see, even if the scriptures originated from some moment of ilumination they where filtered down and whatever divine was in tehm got mixed with mith, whatever truth the people of ancient times elaborated, and reflected upon got mixed with myths, and allegories. We observe the writtings of man, that were also compiled and selected by other men centuries after, and later translated by men again. Never forget that.

Yet the original message of Scriptures remains fundamentally the same, preserved by the Church through its history. On the one hand it is asserted that the Church has changed through time, but on the other hand the Church is criticized for retaining doctrines which are "out of step" with contemporary society. Which is it?

Look, I do not believe in a revealed "Truth".

Then on what basis can you assert there exists a "Divinity" and how do you possibly know it?

I believe that any moment of ilumination comes from reflection and effort, not revelation, no chosen ones, only those who earn it.

Have you never read the history of Christian theology? Just because early Christians are old and dead, does not mean they were dopes.

Because the law of people thousands of years ago does not aply to culture today, today gay rights can be asked for without reciving a stoning(at least in this parts of the world), children can disobey their parents without being killed over it. You can eat shrimp... se where i am going? In their time all the laws had a specific purpose and where right in their context.

Two-thousand years ago people believed the earth was flat. Five hundred years ago people believed the earth was the center of the universe. Five years ago people believed Pluto was a planet. My point is that our understanding and observations improve with time. Even while you judge past laws to be insufficient, you nonetheless assert their sufficiency in purpose. Theology, as a science, likewise improves. Yourself admits that knowledge comes from reflection, thought, and effort. Why do you presume that theology lacks as much?

You let myths rule your world, I let thoughts and actions rule mine.

If you do not believe that your divinity can be known, how can you make any confident assessment regarding its nature?

The Truth is out there, yes but we cant know it.

Then how can you even know that?

Like I said, theology is not a hard science. It is and has always been open for paradigm shifts, and open for reinterpretation. It's all about the context, its all about the paradigm.

Without an absolute foundation for your beliefs, it's a wonder that you can make such absolute statements.

 

[Morrigu]

Allright, i can at least admit when someone ripps me a new one.

Just to make it clear, i was concerned with the absolutist tone of my post, but i wrote it on a hurry (Its exams week here in Chile, so I'm not in my best moments).

However you gave me enough to think for a while Sir. Give me a few days to patch that endless rambling that was my previows post so we can continue in PM's If you wish

 

[marksman315]

It must be quite pleasent to live in a world of black and white morality.....

Everything so defined, everithing has an answer. But, can we make this discusion about the real world instead?

As much as you love that book, you have to admit that you are only holding one of the many translations, interpretations, compilations, and some may say manipulations of it.

I could begin a debate about how Truth is not absolute. Been there, done that, never leads me anywhere.

I could give you my experiences as a gay man, and how life is on the other side, the thing is i know you will not listen, so it's pointles.

You seem absolutly secure about how right you are, and that puts me in a difficult position to make you understand that the entire world is NOT ruled by the bible, that I accept your beliefs, but do not want them for myself, that I dont mind the way you live your life because you cause me no harm.
And if the gay comunity does the same, how hard is it for all of you to just accept us, and just not mind that we pursue happiness in our own ways.

Heaven, Hell. In the now and here it doesn't matter, they are just words, and as much power words have, they only have it because we allow them to. The reality is that in your pursuit of happiness and fullfilment, you are frustrating ours. And that is moraly wrong.

You are represing us with your actions at the same time that you "love" us with your speech. "Hate the sin, not the sinner". The contradiction creates a state of represion not unlike the one that we managed to free ourselves from in the past decades. That is why you are not listened to, that is why that speech is attacked, your speech wants to throw us back into that dark and depresing closet where homosexuality spent all those centuries.

We are not taboo anymore. And we don't want to be.

So, instead of talking you about the nature of truth, instead of talking you about mi life experiences, i give to you MY truth. MY speech, in the most respectful manner I have. I would like the same from you.

I can respect your feelings and your beliefs about truth. I can respect this because you are not calling yourself a Christian and trying to justify what is considered sin in the Bible as an act or way of life that has no meaning or consequences.

My issues with this subject are with the people who claim faith in Christ, but yet try to come up with their own versions of truth when it seems so obvious in the Bible as to what truth is. Since we have two different versions of truth based on our beliefs or lack of beliefs, then you are correct that our cases for and against will not matter for each other.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

Allright, i can at least admit when someone ripps me a new one.

Just to make it clear, i was concerned with the absolutist tone of my post, but i wrote it on a hurry (Its exams week here in Chile, so I'm not in my best moments).

However you gave me enough to think for a while Sir. Give me a few days to patch that endless rambling that was my previows post so we can continue in PM's If you wish

Not a problem. Or, if you'd like, we can continue by e-mail. Whatever works. Debate is the stuff of life.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Of course, that testimony could not be separated from any other testimony if we do not accept its inerrancy.

Not even the Bible claims to be "inerrant", nor is it a component of any Creed I know... why do you believe it to be inerrant?

 

[ChaliceThunder]

God creates theology -- we observe it.

I don't think so. Certainly we think we observe he workings of God.

But theology is completely and solely the invention of human beings, in our quest to think more deeply on God.

(of course, in a way, theology is perhaps the greatest heresy of all, because it represents man's feeble attempt to define the One who is completely and utterly UNdefinable!)

There are certainly shades of gray and things unknown. This is not because theology or God are incomplete, but because our understanding of those things are limited. Our understanding generally improves with time.

Very well put.

This applies to the whole gay question. We have learned, over time, that homosexuality is part of a continuum of normal sexual orientation - something which was not known when the books of the bible were gathered together from various sources.

The Truth is out there.

And it has set many of us free!

 

[ChaliceThunder]

My issues with this subject are with the people who claim faith in Christ, but yet try to come up with their own versions of truth when it seems so obvious in the Bible as to what truth is. Since we have two different versions of truth based on our beliefs or lack of beliefs, then you are correct that our cases for and against will not matter for each other.

Christians always have, and always will have differing views of "the truth."

That is the first lesson you must learn.

Please do not assume that, because you believe it to be one way, you have the one and only version of it. That is egotistical (some might even say arrogant) in the extreme.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

Not even the Bible claims to be "inerrant", nor is it a component of any Creed I know... why do you believe it to be inerrant?

St. Paul asserts that Scripture is sufficient for particular things; and so if we are to trust in its sufficiency, it must be inerrant in those things. Otherwise, it would insufficient.

But theology is completely and solely the invention of human beings, in our quest to think more deeply on God.

I disagree. Theology is a matter of observations, whatever their origin, to describe particular aspect of the universe around us; in this case, God. It is not to say that our theological understanding is complete, but that theology shares with the other sciences the same general nature and purpose. God is real. Theology describes God and the things of Him. Thus, the conclusions of theology, when effectively formed, are likewise real. If the nature of God is perfect, and theology describes that nature and His perfection, then the theological conclusion is not the invention of human beings, but instead is the realization of a particular aspect of God knowable to men. Certainly, there are many tricks, obstacles, and even outright deceptions in the theological community, but these things plague all the sciences.

This applies to the whole gay question. We have learned, over time, that homosexuality is part of a continuum of normal sexual orientation - something which was not known when the books of the bible were gathered together from various sources.

I agree in part. Certainly, our understanding of homosexuality scientifically has improved our theological understanding of the issue. But improvement in understanding does not always result in pluralism; and so we are nonetheless still left with serious discussions on how homosexuality and related issues fit into the wider array of theological concepts. So while homosexuality may be tolerable in orientation, it does not necessarily translate into acceptance in act, or in marriage.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

I disagree. Theology is a matter of observations, whatever their origin, to describe particular aspect of the universe around us; in this case, God. It is not to say that our theological understanding is complete, but that theology shares with the other sciences the same general nature and purpose. God is real. Theology describes God and the things of Him. Thus, the conclusions of theology, when effectively formed, are likewise real. If the nature of God is perfect, and theology describes that nature and His perfection, then the theological conclusion is not the invention of human beings, but instead is the realization of a particular aspect of God knowable to men. Certainly, there are many tricks, obstacles, and even outright deceptions in the theological community, but these things plague all the sciences.

I guess we will agree to disagree then. God is God - God did not write theology. We, in response to God, write about our own impressions and experience with the nature of God.

I agree in part. Certainly, our understanding of homosexuality scientifically has improved our theological understanding of the issue. But improvement in understanding does not always result in pluralism; and so we are nonetheless still left with serious discussions on how homosexuality and related issues fit into the wider array of theological concepts. So while homosexuality may be tolerable in orientation, it does not necessarily translate into acceptance in act, or in marriage.

And yet, for many of us, it is far more than just accepted - it is the way God has made us and blessed us. Marriage between us is already a fact - it just has yet to be recognized by many governments and churches - but that does not mean that is does not already exist.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

St. Paul asserts that Scripture is sufficient for particular things; and so if we are to trust in its sufficiency, it must be inerrant in those things. Otherwise, it would insufficient.

Thats your personal interpretation, its not a universal Christian belief.

You are welcome to have your own interpretations, of course, but don't expect everyone to share them unless they are unimpeachable. The fact the Bible has errors in it knocks that "inerrant Bible" idea on the head for me

 

[AmericanCatholic]

The fact the Bible has errors in it knocks that "inerrant Bible" idea on the head for me

What errors are in the Bible?

 

[catlover]

Every gay that got HIV, did it in the privacy of their own bedroom, and that doesn't affect the rest of us -- right???

"Five percent of the entire population (in DC) is infected... that's comparable to countries like Uganda or South Africa," Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNN for the recent "Black in America" documentary.

According to this report, if black Americans made up their own country, it would rank above Ethiopia (420,000 to 1,300,000) and below Ivory Coast (750,000) in HIV population. Both Ethiopia and the Ivory Coast are among the 15 nations receiving funds from the President's Emergency Plan For Aids Relief. The United States has given about $15 billion to PEPFAR nations in the past five years. Tell us: What's your experience being black in America?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/07/29/black.aids.report/index.html

Maybe you can put something in your blog about the above report...maybe the next group of people you can scape goat for AIDS are the African-Americans in D.C.

But after logging onto CNN.com Tuesday and seeing the bold headline: "1 out of 2 with HIV in U.S. is black, report says," nothing else really mattered

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/29/martin.aids/index.html

 

[Morrigu]

What errors are in the Bible?

you are not serious right?
You mean you believe in teh bible literally?
Well that changes everything... you weren't talking about the teachings of the bible, but the actual words written in it, right?


re reads previous posts.... damn it, i really need to improve my english, I misunderstood what you wrote almost entirely...

 

[AmericanCatholic]

you are not serious right?
You mean you believe in teh bible literally?
Well that changes everything... you weren't talking about the teachings of the bible, but the actual words written in it, right?


re reads previous posts.... damn it, i really need to improve my english, I misunderstood what you wrote almost entirely...

It is not possible to understand the Bible by reading the thing as a whole literally. So -- no -- I do not literally believe in the Bible in the fundamentalist sense.

 

[KCKID]

What errors are in the Bible?

Bible Errors and Contradictions - P. Wesley Edwards
(updated 1-Sept-2004)

Bible debates, perhaps more than any other debate topic, can become lost in endless details of interpretation and subtle questions of translation. It can easily seem that to get into the debate at all requires one to be a Biblical scholar. Fortunately, this is not the case, particularly when dealing with fundamentalists who claim that the Bible is free of error and contradiction.

The claim of Biblical inerrancy puts the Christian in the position of not just claiming that the original Bible was free of error (and, remember, none of the original autograph manuscripts exist) but that their modern version of the Bible is the end result of an error-free history of copying and translation beginning with the originals. Such a position is so specific that it allows one to falsify it simply by reference to the Bible itself. For example, Gen 32:30 states, "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." However, John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..." Both statements cannot be true. Either there is an error of fact, or an error of translation. In either case, there is an error. And if there is an error, then infallibility of the Bible (in this case the King James Version) is falsified.

A typical defense used here is to look up the meaning of the original Hebrew / Greek, read that one of the words can have multiple meanings, and then pick the meaning that seems to break the contradiction. For example, the Christian might argue that "seen" or "face" means one thing in the first scripture, and something completely different in the second. The logical flaw in this approach is that it amounts to saying that the translator should have chosen to use a different word in one of the two scriptures in order to avoid the resulting logical contradiction that now appears in English—that is, the translator made an error. If no translation error occurred, then an error of fact exists in at least one of the two scriptures. Appeals to "context" are irrelevant in cases like this where simple declarative statements are involved such as "no one has seen God" and "I have seen God." Simply put, no "context" makes a contradiction or a false statement, like 2 = 3, true.

If one is prepared to allow for the possibility of translator or transcriber errors, then the claim of Biblical inerrancy is completely undermined since no originals exist to serve as a benchmark against which to identify the errors. Left only with our error-prone copies of the originals, the claim of infallibility becomes completely vacuous. Pandora's Box would truly be open: You could have the Bible say whatever you want it to say by simply claiming that words to the contrary are the result of copying or translation/interpretation errors, and nothing could prove you wrong.
Let's look at several more of these context-independent contradictions and errors of fact.1


Contradictions

2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death"2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul"

2 Samuel 8:3-4 says "David smote also Hadadezer...and took from him...seven hundred horsemen..."1 Chronicles 18:3-4 says "David smote Hadarezer...and took from him...seven thousand horsemen..."

1 Kings 4:26 says "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots..."2 Chronicles 9:25 says "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots..."

2 Kings 25:8 says "And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month...Nebuzaradan...came...unto Jerusalem"Jeremiah 52:12 says "...in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month...came Nebuzaradan...into Jerusalem"

1 Samuel 31:4-6 says "...Saul took a sword and fell upon it. And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead and...died with him. So Saul died..."
2 Samuel 21:12 says "...the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa."

Gen 2:17 says "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die [note: it doesn't say 'spiritual' death]Gen 5:5 says "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Matt 1:16 says, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..."Luke 3:23 says "And Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"

James 1:13 says "..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."Gen 22:1 says "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..."

Gen 6:20 says "Of fowls after their kind and of cattle [etc.]...two of every sort shall come unto thee..."Gen 7:2,3 says "Of every clean beast thou shall take to thee by sevens...Of fowls also of the air by sevens..."

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Gen 32:30 states "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..."

Factual Errors

1 Kings 7:23 "He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."Circumference = Pi() x Diameter, which means the line would have to have been over 31 cubits. In order for this to be rounding, it would have had to overstate the amount to ensure that the line did "compass it round about."

Lev 11:20-21: "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."Fowl do not go upon all four.

Lev 11:6: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud..."Hare do not chew the cud.

Deut 14:7: " "...as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof."For the hare this is wrong on both counts: Hare don’t chew the cud and they do divide the "hoof."

Jonah 1:17 says, "...Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights"Matt 12:40 says "...Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly..." whales and fish are not related

Matt 13:31-32: " "the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree."There are 2 significant errors here: first, there are many smaller seeds, like the orchid seed; and second, mustard plants don't grow into trees.

Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them."Unless the world is flat, altitude simply will not help you see all the kingdoms of the earth.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------