Won't somebody please think of the lesbians?! and other thoughts.

[stan1980]

My point was that it also says in the Bible that eating prawns is wrong.

Oh right, i see your point. Well if christians eat prawns, then yes they are hypocrites. Just like a Rabbi would be a hypocrite for eating pork. A Christian surely shouldn't disregard certain parts of Gods word if they are true to their faith. I can see why they do as parts of it are ridiculous, but i'd still say that makes them a hypocrite.

I am not a Christian, and I don't believe in God. Yet I believe that there are some true things written in the Bible, as well as many false ones. Does that make me a hypocrite?

It doesn't make you a hypocrite, for the simple fact you've said you are not a Christian. You have a license to believe or disbelieve whatever you like in the bible.. i don't see how a Christian can have that same license.

 

[cantata]

Oh right, i see your point. Well if christians eat prawns, then yes they are hypocrites. Just like a Rabbi would be a hypocrite for eating pork. A Christian surely shouldn't disregard certain parts of Gods word if they are true to their faith. I can see why they do as parts of it are ridiculous, but i'd still say that makes them a hypocrite.

...

It doesn't make you a hypocrite, for the simple fact you've said you are not a Christian. You have a license to believe or disbelieve whatever you like in the bible.. i don't see how a Christian can have that same license.

Who says that a Christian has to believe that the Bible is God's word? What exactly does "God's word" mean? I think it's possible to be a Christian and yet to believe that the Bible is a flawed human-authored document.

If they claim to believe that the whole Bible is 100% literally divinely authored, then yes, it is hypocritical for them to eat prawns or have gay sex. But if they believe that it's a document written by flawed human beings about God, then I don't see the problem.

 

[sidhe]

Oh right, i see your point. Well if christians eat prawns, then yes they are hypocrites. Just like a Rabbi would be a hypocrite for eating pork. A Christian surely shouldn't disregard certain parts of Gods word if they are true to their faith. I can see why they do as parts of it are ridiculous, but i'd still say that makes them a hypocrite.



It doesn't make you a hypocrite, for the simple fact you've said you are not a Christian. You have a license to believe or disbelieve whatever you like in the bible.. i don't see how a Christian can have that same license.

You're confusing "Christian" with "Bible-Literalist." There's overlap between the two, but you've also got Christians like Borg, Spong, and such who are taking a post-modern hermeneutic to the Bible to great effect, and are profoundly not Bible-Literalists.

A Christian (in my definition) is one who believes in Jesus as Messiah (however they interpret that), not one who believes every word of the Bible.

 

[stan1980]

If a Christian accepts the bible is wrong in places, then they're surely admitting the bible is an unreliable source, therefore it must follow that they should then be questioning whether the story of Jesus is just a fabrication. I find it hard to understand how this part isn't questioned by Christians, when they know the Bible is an unreliable source.

 

[sidhe]

If a Christian accepts the bible is wrong in places, then they're surely admitting the bible is an unreliable source, therefore it must follow that they should then be questioning whether the story of Jesus is just a fabrication. I find it hard to understand how this part isn't questioned by Christians, when they know the Bible is an unreliable source.

Some do question the story of Jesus, but still maintain faith in it. That's rather the point of "faith." There are also "Ethical Christians," who put less emphasis on whether the NT is true, and more on the social ethics of Jesus (pacifism, forgiveness, etc.).

From what I can tell, you're filtering the Bible through a Literalist perspective, which is problematic. Viewed as legend, myth, and theological reflection (rather than a literal account of history), using modern (or post-modern) literary criticism, the Bible makes much more sense, IMHO.

 

[cantata]

If a Christian accepts the bible is wrong in places, then they're surely admitting the bible is an unreliable source, therefore it must follow that they should then be questioning whether the story of Jesus is just a fabrication. I find it hard to understand how this part isn't questioned by Christians, when they know the Bible is an unreliable source.

The Bible contains many different kinds of document. It is not a single book with a single author, but a composite of several centuries-worth of text including genealogies, polemics, prophecy, proverbs, wisdom, erotic poetry, history, mythology and theological exposition (among other things). It is perfectly reasonable to accept that some of these texts are likely to be more accurate than others. Some are not even intended to be 'accurate' - can proverbs be accurate? Can erotic poetry be accurate? Is mythology or prophecy intended to be accurate, or to make theological and moral points?

Leviticus, as I'm sure you know, contains many rules that God apparently revealed to Moses to deliver to the Jews. These rules include an injunction not to eat shellfish, and details about what you should do if you discover a mildewed brick in your house. A lot of people believe now that these are a mixture of folk wisdom and practical rules for surviving as a people in exile in the desert. It is not insane or hypocritical of a modern-day Christian to reject at least some of these rules on the grounds that they were not intended to be used forever and many are no longer applicable.

Romans, which was written by St Paul, contains one of the most popular passages used to condemn homosexuality. Paul was not Jesus, and nor was he writing a history of Jesus' life. His letters are a theological exposition on the life of Christ. They are, arguably, one person's opinion, and likely to be flawed.

Usually, when history is found in the Bible, it is history seen through the eyes of Christian faith. The four canonical Gospels each contain at least a measure of historical truth, in my considered opinion as an atheist student of theology. But they are not pure histories; they were not written by eyewitnesses, and they also clearly contradict one another at certain points. However, for many Christians this is not the point, because they are also theological documents. For the Christian, there is faith that the theology of these books is good and right. That means that where the Gospels might compromise on historicity as a means to make a theological point, the wise Christian can evaluate them as they were intended to be understood: as stories written to preach the Good News, and not as blow-by-blow 100% accurate accounts of every detail of Jesus' life.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Oh right, i see your point. Well if christians eat prawns, then yes they are hypocrites. Just like a Rabbi would be a hypocrite for eating pork. A Christian surely shouldn't disregard certain parts of Gods word if they are true to their faith. I can see why they do as parts of it are ridiculous, but i'd still say that makes them a hypocrite.



It doesn't make you a hypocrite, for the simple fact you've said you are not a Christian. You have a license to believe or disbelieve whatever you like in the bible.. i don't see how a Christian can have that same license.

Hey Stan. You're misunderstanding Christianity. And you're also misunderstanding Judaism in that case. If you read up on the Torah in Wikipedia you'll have a fascinating read. For example they write:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeviticusLeviticus Begins with instructions to the Israelites on how to use the Tabernacle, which they had just built (Leviticus 1-10). This is followed by rules of clean and unclean (Leviticus 11-15), which includes the laws of slaughter and animals permissible to eat (see also: Kashrut), the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16), and various moral and ritual laws sometimes called the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-26).

As you can see, there is ritual law and there is moral law. They are sometimes intermixed a bit so it is important to study hard and be discriminating.

 

[Merlin]

If they claim to believe that the whole Bible is 100% literally divinely authored, then yes, it is hypocritical for them to eat prawns or have gay sex. But if they believe that it's a document written by flawed human beings about God, then I don't see the problem.

I disagree.
It's not an issue of "the whole Bible is 100% literally divinely authored" but rather whether the Christian is living under the law or under grace.
Either may apply even though the Bible is "100% literally divinely authored"

 

[selfinflikted]

As you can see, there is ritual law and there is moral law. They are sometimes intermixed a bit so it is important to study hard and be discriminating.

That's a nice try, but I've asked time and time again for someone to support this position of "moral law vs ritual law" biblically. So far, no one has been able to meet the challenge.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Hetero over here with a naive question. Why is that that male homosexuals have to penetrate one another for sex? Why not just jack eachother off? That seems to work for the lesbians, why not the dudes?

Sorry to be crude, just didn't know how else to put it.

 

[cantata]

Hetero over here with a naive question. Why is that that male homosexuals have to penetrate one another for sex? Why not just jack eachother off? That seems to work for the lesbians, why not the dudes?

Sorry to be crude, just didn't know how else to put it.

Not all gay men have penetrative sex, and they certainly don't *have* to have penetrative sex. However, many enjoy it - it's no more complicated than that. Many lesbians enjoy anal and vaginal penetration with fingers, tongues, sex toys, vegetables &c., as well as mutual masturbation. Gay people do what feels good, just like heterosexual people do. No one *has* to do anything!

 

[ArchaicTruth]

I saw some posts earlier looking at how Christians who think homosexuality is ok are hypocrites. I may point out that is not true, reminding you all that to be Christian is to be a follower of "Christ", not a follower of the "Bible", which probably constitutes almost as many lies as a fiction book.

 

[selfinflikted]

Hetero over here with a naive question. Why is that that male homosexuals have to penetrate one another for sex? Why not just jack eachother off? That seems to work for the lesbians, why not the dudes?

Sorry to be crude, just didn't know how else to put it.

Well, the best way to overcome naivety is to ask questions, so you're off to the right start. As mentioned previously, gay men do not have to have penetrative sex to, well, have sex. In fact, I know quite a few couples who do not engage in said practice. There are countless ways for gay men to "do it". Also, lesbians often do have penetrative sex with one another, albeit with the aid of certain sexual toys.

 

[IzzyPop]

Anal penetration feels good?

Yeppers. If done properly...enough warm up and lube.

 

[cantata]

I disagree.
It's not an issue of "the whole Bible is 100% literally divinely authored" but rather whether the Christian is living under the law or under grace.
Either may apply even though the Bible is "100% literally divinely authored"

Yes, that's fair enough. Either way, though, I don't think it's hypocritical of Christians to think that homosexuals can go to heaven.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Yeppers. If done properly...enough warm up and lube.

Interesting. Somehow I would think it would take a few quarts of oil to make it not painful, especially if it was a penis. And maybe a few hundred miligrams of hydrocodone. But to each is own I guess.

 

[selfinflikted]

Interesting. Somehow I would think it would take a few quarts of oil to make it not painful, especially if it was a penis. And maybe a few hundred miligrams of hydrocodone. But to each is own I guess.

Well, it certainly isn't for everyone, that's for sure. Just as an aside, it's not a homosexual thing exclusively. More heterosexuals practice anal sex than do homosexuals.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Well, it certainly isn't for everyone, that's for sure. Just as an aside, it's not a homosexual thing exclusively. More heterosexuals practice anal sex than do homosexuals.

Yes, I realize this. I think it's probably more common with homosexual males than heterosexual males, though. Females who allow themselves to be penetrated in the rear by a penis, well I just have no idea what they must be thinking.

 

[sidhe]

Interesting. Somehow I would think it would take a few quarts of oil to make it not painful, especially if it was a penis. And maybe a few hundred miligrams of hydrocodone. But to each is own I guess.

You'd be surprised. Too much lube can cause as many problems as not enough. It's a balancing act, really.

 

[cantata]

Yes, I realize this. I think it's probably more common with homosexual males than heterosexual males, though. Females who allow themselves to be penetrated in the rear by a penis, well I just have no idea what they must be thinking.

Yes, that's probably true, although I think a lot of straight men would enjoy it if they got the nerve to try it; the associations with homosexuality put a lot of people off.

Like I say, for a lot of people it feels good. Isn't it beautiful, the wondrous diversity of human nature? *sighs happily*