Islam: Our Partners in Peace...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

I don't believe I addressed whether I liked or disliked what the Bible says. I did address the context that quotations and usage should be applied. As an Atheist, you should have ZERO opinion on all this..none of it is real to you.

---

On the contrary, I'm perfectly entitled to an opinion. However unreal the underlying fact of the existence of God might be, the religious history, dogma, and polemic are all too real.

So here is what I don't get. We have two people in this thread competing as to who can quote the bible better and who is the real true christian.

Oddly enough, there are only two people trash talking and name calling in this thread.

The rest of us, no matter how opinionated have been tolerant and somewhat respectful, even if passionate to a fault.

So the rest of us skeptics and non-believers have been acting in the way Christians teach of Jesus life and how we should all act.

This is one of the reasons so many people are turning away from the church or whatever organized religion they have belonged to.

This below is just from half a page of one of the top true Christians here that are tolerant, forgiving, cheeky turning hypocrites. Maybe provoked, but where is the forgiveness and compassion for others?

"Quote -Sir T >azzhole, Your stupid ass, you are pathetic, stuff them straight up your sorry butt, Your sorry ass can't even follow your own advice,
Peabrain, peahead, bitter revengeful pathetic fool you are , Beezle bub, <

Real nice christian talk. You should really take a good look at who you want people to see you as, good hearted christian is very questionable for both

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ajani

Ah 'Sticks to quote one of my favourite films "you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore"...

However your mix of sarcasm and wit is so extreme that I'm often perplexed as to what your actual point is....

---

My point, my good man, is that the most pious among us are behaving with very little decorum which in turn is causing this small portion of the thread to become a microcosm of the larger theme. Damn allegorical if you ask me.

Whatever one professes to believe is their right of self determination. That some would use sacred or holy texts as supportive evidence is to be expected. My issue arises when individuals parse or edit texts to fit an agenda. My issue further arises when individuals use said excerpts to judge, belittle, demean, or otherwise impart a less than/greater than value appraisal on others when they themselves declare purposeful ignorance to areas of their own reference material that would refute their own behavior.

We all fall short.

Let those that condemn others to damnation for lack of adherence to a text conform to the demands of the whole text. I want to hear these people in advocacy for slavery, I want to read demands for public stonings, and I want a call for the return to vengeful barbarism because if someone can see these things in written form and not recognize the hypocrisy then they're no better than the fundamentalist across the way.

And that makes them an asshole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobsticks

My point, my good man, is that the most pious among us are behaving with very little decorum which in turn is causing this small portion of the thread to become a microcosm of the larger theme. Damn allegorical if you ask me.

Whatever one professes to believe is their right of self determination. That some would use sacred or holy texts as supportive evidence is to be expected. My issue arises when individuals parse or edit texts to fit an agenda. My issue further arises when individuals use said excerpts to judge, belittle, demean, or otherwise impart a less than/greater than value appraisal on others when they themselves declare purposeful ignorance to areas of their own reference material that would refute their own behavior.

We all fall short.

Let those that condemn others to damnation for lack of adherence to a text conform to the demands of the whole text. I want to hear these people in advocacy for slavery, I want to read demands for public stonings, and I want a call for the return to vengeful barbarism because if someone can see these things in written form and not recognize the hypocrisy then they're no better than the fundamentalist across the way.

And that makes them an asshole.

---

:thumbsup:

Well said...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobsticks

...

Whatever one professes to believe is their right of self determination. That some would use sacred or holy texts as supportive evidence is to be expected. My issue arises when individuals parse or edit texts to fit an agenda. My issue further arises when individuals use said excerpts to judge, belittle, demean, or otherwise impart a less than/greater than value appraisal on others when they themselves declare purposeful ignorance to areas of their own reference material that would refute their own behavior.

We all fall short.

Let those that condemn others to damnation for lack of adherence to a text conform to the demands of the whole text. I want to hear these people in advocacy for slavery, I want to read demands for public stonings, and I want a call for the return to vengeful barbarism because if someone can see these things in written form and not recognize the hypocrisy then they're no better than the fundamentalist across the way.

And that makes them an asshole.

---

Indeed, and this was the point I tried to made with Terrence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

Indeed, and this was the point I tried to made with Terrence.

---

I'm not sure why you would aim your poison pen at Terrence (I haven't read the last couple of pages as yet). I know you disagree on fundamentals but he seems less likely to use his belief system as a blanket condemnation for others.

He seems to have some issue with specific individuals but that's a work in progress. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobsticks

I'm not sure why you would aim your poison pen at Terrence (I haven't read the last couple of pages as yet). I know you disagree on fundamentals but he seems less likely to use his belief system as a blanket condemnation for others.

He seems to have some issue with specific individuals but that's a work in progress. :p

---

Bottom line is, if you're gonna Talk the Talk, you have to Walk the Walk. You can't preach it one way and live it another. That goes for everyone if you believe in it. You can't turn the other cheek for some and not others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobsticks

I'm not sure why you would aim your poison pen at Terrence (I haven't read the last couple of pages as yet). I know you disagree on fundamentals but he seems less likely to use his belief system as a blanket condemnation for others.

He seems to have some issue with specific individuals but that's a work in progress.

---

Read up, 'Sticks. Sir T. was uttering a typical "liberal" Christian clap-trap rational that injunctions, such as stoning adulterers, are wrong today but were somehow OK back in Leviticus times. So maybe stonings are OK today in Afganistan or Pakistan due to cultural differences? Where does does this relativistic thinking end?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

Read up, 'Sticks. Sir T. was uttering a typical "liberal" Christian clap-trap rational that injunctions, such as stoning adulterers, are wrong today but were somehow OK back in Leviticus times. So maybe stonings are OK today in Afganistan or Pakistan due to cultural differences? Where does does this relativistic thinking end?

---

Feanor, you have this twisted. I was pointing out a disconnect that allows for the condemnation, but not the punishment. If the punishment for being homosexual or an adulterer is stoning, then why aren't Christians applying the punishment along with the condemnation? If literal Christians are going to use the Levitical law to point out one's sins, then the punishment that comes with it should be allowed as well.

I never addressed whether stoning was right or wrong, I was addressing the disconnect that allows for the condemnation, but skips the punishment. Preachers love to condemn gay's, but don't talk about adultery much. This is probably because many of them have either engaged in adultery, are currently in it, or perhaps contemplating it. The deflection is pretty palpable.

I was also pointing out that today's Christian does not seem to know Biblical history, or the cultures and conditions the Bible was written in. If they did, they would not apply Levitical law to anyone but those of the Jewish faith. They also don't seem to understand that the Bible is written in very descriptive rich languages that defy English translation. So when it is translated to English, don't be surprised that the translation stray's away from the original text when closely examined. While studying the Bible, I had two Bible scholars tell me the King James translation of the Bible is riddled with poorly translated wording, and is perhaps compiled from transcripts that have been altered over the years by different scribes.

The point that I am making about all of this is, if God and Jesus didn't condemn it, we should not either. God and Jesus named a lot of things they disliked, but homosexuality was not one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobsticks

I'm not sure why you would aim your poison pen at Terrence (I haven't read the last couple of pages as yet). I know you disagree on fundamentals but he seems less likely to use his belief system as a blanket condemnation for others.

He seems to have some issue with specific individuals but that's a work in progress. :p

---

It's not my job to judge or condemn anyone. That is not the job of any Christian walking on this earth.

I really don't have any issues with anyone on this board, but some sure have issues with me. And yes, I am a work in progress, just like every Christian alive should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

It's not my job to judge or condemn anyone. That is not the job of any Christian walking on this earth.

I really don't have any issues with anyone on this board, but some sure have issues with me. And yes, I am a work in progress, just like every Christian alive should be.

---

Not me. I've given up trying to make myself a better person. I just strive not to get any worse.:thumbsup:

Everyone else is who they are. I don't try to change them. That only gets them upset.:sosp:

Wow, how 'bout the sh*t goin' on in this thread, huh?

Woe be unto y'all!

Well, maybe it was less a matter of twisting than make a different point, however ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Feanor, you have this twisted. I was pointing out a disconnect that allows for the condemnation, but not the punishment. If the punishment for being homosexual or an adulterer is stoning, then why aren't Christians applying the punishment along with the condemnation? If literal Christians are going to use the Levitical law to point out one's sins, then the punishment that comes with it should be allowed as well.

I never addressed whether stoning was right or wrong, I was addressing the disconnect that allows for the condemnation, but skips the punishment. Preachers love to condemn gay's, but don't talk about adultery much. This is probably because many of them have either engaged in adultery, are currently in it, or perhaps contemplating it. The deflection is pretty palpable.
...

---

So what should we do? If we don't like the punishment, should be ignore the crime? It seems to me the contemporary liberal Christian sensibility is to pick what we like and ignore or rationalized the rest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

...
I was also pointing out that today's Christian does not seem to know Biblical history, or the cultures and conditions the Bible was written in. If they did, they would not apply Levitical law to anyone but those of the Jewish faith. They also don't seem to understand that the Bible is written in very descriptive rich languages that defy English translation. So when it is translated to English, don't be surprised that the translation stray's away from the original text when closely examined. While studying the Bible, I had two Bible scholars tell me the King James translation of the Bible is riddled with poorly translated wording, and is perhaps compiled from transcripts that have been altered over the years by different scribes.
...

---

To be sure, there are better translations than the KJV, and they capture more of the nuances of the original. But it turns out you can't explain away much by just saying that it "defies translation".

Sure, it sounds like all the picky Levitican rules were aimed at the Hebrews. But they were the ones who wrote Leviticus. (For that matter, it reads like it was only addressed to men, not women.) But if God's dispensation now extends to the Gentiles, why not his rules? If such-and-such is "detestable" in the case of the former, why not the latter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

...
The point that I am making about all of this is, if God and Jesus didn't condemn it, we should not either. God and Jesus named a lot of things they disliked, but homosexuality was not one of them.

---

Oh, come on ...

Leviticus 18:22, (New International Verison): "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." (There is no qualification about this applying only to male temple prostitutes.)

Leviticus 18:29&30: "Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them."

Leviticus 20;13 "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Don't pretend that the Bibles says something other than what it says. This isn't a mistranslation; it isn't reasonable to suppose it only applies to the Hebrews or only to consorting with temple prostitutes.

If you don't like what the Bible says, pitch the Bible, don't rationalize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

Well, maybe it was less a matter of twisting than make a different point, however ...


So what should we do? If we don't like the punishment, should be ignore the crime? It seems to me the contemporary liberal Christian sensibility is to pick what we like and ignore or rationalized the rest.



To be sure, there are better translations than the KJV, and they capture more of the nuances of the original. But it turns out you can't explain away much by just saying that it "defies translation".

Sure, it sounds like all the picky Levitican rules were aimed at the Hebrews. But they were the ones who wrote Leviticus. (For that matter, it reads like it was only addressed to men, not women.) But if God's dispensation now extends to the Gentiles, why not his rules? If such-and-such is "detestable" in the case of the former, why not the latter?



Oh, come on ...

Leviticus 18:22, (New International Verison): "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." (There is no qualification about this applying only to male temple prostitutes.)

Leviticus 18:29&30: "Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them."

Leviticus 20;13 "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Don't pretend that the Bibles says something other than what it says. This isn't a mistranslation; it isn't reasonable to suppose it only applies to the Hebrews or only to consorting with temple prostitutes.

If you don't like what the Bible says, pitch the Bible, don't rationalize.

---

Some things don't translate, but you are right that there are things that really can't be rationalised away... Unless by stoning they really meant a "stern talking to" and we just mistranslated it :biggrin5: