Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Bible verses you won't hear at Church
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Have we had this from Ezekiel
New International Version (Ezekiel 23 v19&20)
Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
I read a lot from Cracked.com which is a real hoot... The 9 Most Badass Bible Verses
I thought I would add at this point The 6 Raunchiest, Most Depraved Sex Acts (From the Bible)
and
The 5 Most Ridiculously Unjust Religious Afterlives.
just for the 'hell' of it
0 -
Evangelical Alliance Ireland wrote: »Because we don't believe that artificially redefining the word 'marriage' is a positive step. Instead I advocate a more radical, less intrusive, and more equal approach to marriage.
I am not happy to see anyone treated as second class. That is why, on Wednesday night on TV3's 'People's Debate with Vincent Brown' I stated that I want to see same sex couples and heterosexual couples have exactly the same legal recognition and rights under Irish law.
There is more than one way to skin a cat.
My suggestion was that the concept of Civil Partnership (EAI publicly spoke out in support of the CP Bill) can fully meet the State's interests in dealing with issues of property, taxation, inheritance etc. There is no logical reason why the State should regulate marriage at all. Indeed, removal of all references to marriage in Irish law would enhance the status, of unmarried couples (who otherwise may remain as second class citizens under the proposed redefinition of marriage.
The Church does not own marriage. Neither does the State. For most of western history marriage was a community event that required no state license and no priest. Returning marriage to the community will allow for greater equality than the referendum currently being envisaged. The State does not regulate how families mark other major rites of passage, and there is no reason for it to regulate marriage either.
Under my proposals, anyone could celebrate marriage as they see fit. Muslims could hold a ceremony in a mosque and declare two people married. A church could hold a ceremony and declare two people married. A local LGBT group could hold a ceremony and declare two people married. We would be free to define marriage differently if we choose, so no-one rams their definition of marriage down anyone else's throat, and all our 'marriages' have exactly the same standing in law - just as currently applies to other rites of passage such as christenings, bar mitzvah's, or a group of humanists conducting a ceremony to celebrate the birth of a child. Of course, if we want the government to put its seal of approval on our 'marriages' then we are all free to enter a Civil Partnership, heterosexual couples and same sex couples alike on an equal footing.
Now, I am offering a solution that means the government does not have to artificially redefine language, but neither does anyone force their religious (or non-religious) views on anyone else. Can you please explain how I am treating anyone as a second-class citizen? Otherwise I would appreciate it if you would withdraw that untrue accusation.
If you're honest you'll admit that everyone picks and chooses their interpretations of anything to fit their worldview. Don't you think other posters in this thread are deliberately looking for the worst possible interpretations of Bible verses and picking and choosing accordingly?
By the way, I don't think gays are any more bad than I am, but I don't like shellfish.
Can you explain something? Are these proposals your own personal views or an official position of your organisation. You see, the thing is that I can't find any mention of these proposals on your website. Further, EAI made a submission to the constitutional convention which contains none of what you speak of above. It simply contains the same old fallacious, dishonest and mistaken arguments that we have seen time and again.
With regard to changing the legislation surrounding marriage in this country, the primary thrust of your organisation's argument (at least according to its submission) is that legalising gay marriage would be bad because it would mean redefining marriage. However, nowhere do you explain why redefining marriage is inherently bad? Furthermore, whatever way you decide to look at it, opposing same-sex marriage for semantic reasons is a logically fallacious argument (either an appeal to tradition or an appeal to common practice).
In your submission you also mention (twice in fact) that you fear your rights (under Article 18 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights) will be infringed should same-sex marriage be legalised. However, you make no attempt to recognise the ongoing infringement of the rights of gay couples. Since you're familiar with the UN Declaration then you probably read Article 1 which states:
" All human beings are born free and equal in dignityand rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
and also the relevant section of our own constitution Article 40.1:
"All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law."
therefore if a freely consenting adult male and a freely consenting adult female have the right to be married and call it marriage then all freely consenting adults must be endowed with the same rights. To grant people the same legal rights but then not call it marriage is to maintain an inequality. To quote Orwell: "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others." This is what Cabaal referred to in his post as second-class citizens.
Now, in your position statement on the Civil Partnership Bill one of your stated reasons for your oppostion to same-sex marriage is that:
"The Christian Scriptures make it clear that God's purpose for his gift of sex is that it would be the ultimate physical expression of love between a man and a woman in the context of the covenant of marriage."
However, this is really an indefensible position.
Firstly, I should clarify that contrary to Catholic teaching (Humanae Vitae) there is no basis in scripture for sex within marriage being restricted to procreative acts. Both the OT (Proverbs 5:15-19) and NT (1 Corinthians 7:3-5) encourage sex within marriage for purposes other than simply procreation.
Without this restriction, therefore, the only restriction on sex is that it happen within the context of marriage. So the question becomes, should marriage be restricted to heterosexual couples. The answer, unless you want to come across as a hypocrite, is no.
And here's why.
There are only a finite number of references to homosexuality in the Bible and even combined, they don't add up to an argument against gay marriage.
Obviously the most oft-quoted passage in the Bible concerning gay marriage is Leviticus 18:22, and by extension Leviticus 20:13. However, two things are already apparent.
Firstly, Leviticus is a penal code listing offences and their accompanying sentences. The two can't really be divorced from each other. So if you're going to advocate homosexuality as bad on the basis of 18:22, then you should also advocate the punishment in 20:13.
*CAVEAT 1: It could be argued that the heavy-handedness of the punishments outlined in the Pentateuch represent a frontier law outlook necessary in biblical times which need not be maintained today. However, there are two problems with this argument. Firstly, on your own website under "What We Believe" you state that:
"The divine inspiration of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and their consequent entire trustworthiness and supreme authority in all matters of belief and behaviour."
So therefore, if the scriptures are divinely inspired then these offences and their punishments were in some way dictated by God. Therefore, as Christians aren't you bound to honour them?
Secondly, it is made abundantly clear in both the Old and New Testaments that the whole law should be followed without exception.
"Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you."
Deuteronomy 4:2
"May my tongue sing of your word, for all your commands are righteous."
Psalms 119:172
"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:18-19
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
2 Timothy 3:16-17
Secondly, there are other offences and punishments in Leviticus which the overwhelming majority of Christians completely ignore while loudly shouting about 18:22, prohibitions against planting two different crops side by side (19:19), divination (19:26), eating pork (11:7), eating shellfish (11:12), eating blood (17:10), tattoos (19:28).
Also, while we're on the subject of Leviticus, just how bad exactly can homosexuality be? After all, only two verses in the entire book are devoted to it. Mould is obviously far more dangerous and offensive to God's sensibilities since a whopping 36 verses are devoted to dealing with it.
For the moment we'll move to the New Testament but we'll get back to the OT in a bit.
So what prohibitions are in the NT against homosexuality. Well, unsurprisingly most of the noise against homosexuality comes from Paul. Unsurprising not only because of Paul's significant contribution to the NT in terms of volume but also because of Paul's pretty warped sense of morality.
He outlines his stance in several verses but particularly:
"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: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
Romans 1:26-27
"But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust."
1 Timothy 8:11
Of course, just like Leviticus above, most people don't put a lot of stock in what Paul has to say about morality. After all, how many Christians really follow Pauline doctrines like:
" A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."
1 Timothy 2:11-12
"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."
Ephesians 5:22-24
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in every respect, not only when they are watching – like those who are strictly people-pleasers – but with a sincere heart, fearing the Lord."
Colossians 3:22
"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
*CAVEAT 2: I should point out here that some of the quotes above come from forged writings. In particular Ephesians which is now part of the group known as the Deutero-Pauline epistles and 1 Timothy, part of the pastoral epistles which were actually written between 130-155CE. However, since most Christians still adhere to traditional authorship for these epistles, the overall point stands.
Now, to turn to the one story which is referenced in both the New and Old Testaments as a commentary against homosexuality: the sin of Sodom. Many modern Christians interpret the sin of Sodom as homosexuality. However, this is not explicitly stated in the story. Moreover, we have passages like this:
"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."
Ezekiel 16:49-50
and this:
"The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.”
Judges 19:23-24
which show that the authors of the OT meant to describe inhospitality and rudeness to guests as the sin of Sodom and not homosexuality. Indeed the passage from Judges above is a close parallel of Genesis 19.
After all this there doesn't seem to be much of a solid justification for opposing SSM in the bible. But wait there's more. We also have to consider the inherently contradictory nature of the Bible. Take this passage for example:
"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. "
1 Samuel 18:1
or this:
"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."
2 Samuel 1:26
The story of David and Johnathan is widely regarded (or at least was by early Jewish oral tradition) as a homosexual relationship, one which seemed to find some degree of acceptance within the society of the time. It is commented in the Mishnah:
“Whenever love depends on some selfish end, when the end passes away, the love passes away; but if it does not depend on some selfish end, it will never pass away. Which love depended on a selfish end? This was the love of Amnon and Tamar. And which did not depend on a selfish end? This was the love of David and Jonathan."
So, is there a solid justification for opposing SSM in the bible? Well as I said, no, unless you wish to come across as a hypocrite.
Oh, and one minor but rather irksome final point. In your organisation's submission to the constitutional convention you make the rather bold but wholly false claim that:
"Since heterosexual marriage has been the basic building block of virtually every society ..."
No, it hasn't. It is clear from the context of the rest of your statements particularly this:
"The Christian Scriptures make it clear that God's purpose for his gift of sex is that it would be the ultimate physical expression of love between a man and a woman in the context of the covenant of marriage."
that your operational definition of marriage is heterosexual and monogamous. So already you're off to a bad start. If we look at all societies as a function of marriage type and identify the dominant marriage type in every society, we see that monogamous heterosexual marriage is in a small minority:
However, even if we extend the argument to all heterosexual relationship types, the claim is still wrong. There were a not insignificant number of societies throughout history where homosexual unions were seen as being on a par with heterosexual unions. In particular many of the cultures of the near East had a permissive attitude to homosexuality with the Mesopotamian Almanac of Incantations containing prayers which favoured on an equal basis the love between a man and woman and between a man and a man.
Homosexuality in the Ancient Near East, beyond Egypt[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
Homosexuality in Ancient Egypt
Similarly permissive attitudes existed in Greece and Rome until the passing of the Theodosian code in 342CE. However, most importantly of all is the fact that Christianity itself has not had a historically coherent position against same-sex marriage.
"Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John."
http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html
Boswell's 1979 is available here: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.asp
Thanks to Bannasidhe for the links. Original post can be found here.
Now, as for the main topic of this thread and your point that:
"Nevertheless, I am an incurable optimist and cherish the hope, quite possibly misguided, that you might rethink your original claim and consider that some churches make honest attempts to look at 'difficult' passages of Scripture and incorporate them into teaching people to behave decently and humanely rather than ignoring them or explaining them away."
the one thing I'd like to know, far from dealing with passages that appear to be difficult on a casual read (i.e. those with barbaric and primitive attitudes), why do churches not deal with the facts which are far more problematic to the overall claims of your religion.
For example, why is it not discussed that the virgin birth "prophecy" is a wilful misinterpretation by the author of Matthew's gospel which takes a quote-mined passage out of context, coupled with a mistranslation and attempts to pass it off as messianic prophecy? Why do churches not deal with the fact that a lot of the scriptural basis for our information about Jesus comes from anonymous and forged writings? Why do churches not highlight the many factual errors made by the Gospel writers when discussing passages intended to be historical accounts (e.g. Mark Chapter 5)? Why do churches attempt to gloss over inconsistencies in the bible with baseless proclamations (e.g. the identification of Bartholomew with Nathanael has no basis in any extant document other than to resolve the discrepancy between John and the synoptics)? Why don't churches deal with the wide gaps in theology between the Old and New Testaments (especially the lack of an afterlife or heaven in the OT and the change in the nature of Satan from OT to NT)?
There are far more fundamental issues with the scriptures than those verses which portray the barbaric and inhumane attitudes of the biblical authors. However, outside the realm of academic scholarship there is no significant attempt made by Chrisitan churches to deal with these issues.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Sorry for the delay in responding, I had to wait for the admins to change my subversive screen name, then my wife and I were travelling to our holidays with my daughter and her girlfriend/partner.Can you explain something? Are these proposals your own personal views or an official position of your organisation. You see, the thing is that I can't find any mention of these proposals on your website. Further, EAI made {URL snipped because I can't post URL's - I'll refrain from any puns in case they get taken seriously} which contains none of what you speak of above. It simply contains the same old fallacious, dishonest and mistaken arguments that we have seen time and again.
I'm not going to spend hours answering everything that you've cut and pasted, but since the issue of EAI's approach to same sex marriage is already under discussion in this thread I'll elaborate somewhat. Like most people, the members of our organisation consider what is going on in society and, based on the information they see and hear, their views can change and evolve.
I recently took over the role of Executive Director of Evangelical Alliance Ireland. Part of my brief is to redefine the organisations 'voice' and deal with public announcements, the media etc.
EAI is not a papacy that can presume to make dogmatic pronouncements on every detail of life. We represent several hundred churches and a few thousand individuals who share certain common beliefs and values. The very nature of evangelical Christian belief (based on a personal experience of Jesus Christ and on one's own interpretation of the Scriptures) means that trying to organise evangelicals, just like organising atheists, would be akin to herding cats.
Therefore I am taking the approach of encouraging debate and dialogue within our movement, and seeing disagreement and dissent as a sign of healthy thinking rather than as a problem. We have some in our ranks who are pretty homophobic, and we have others who are in favour of gay marriage and can't see what all the fuss is about. The majority lie in between those two extremes - they hold to a definition of marriage that is not sufficiently broad to include same sex relationships, but they also want the rights of all members of society to be respected and don't want anyone to be discriminated against or marginalised.
Therefore we are working on a discussion document (which most likely will be published in book form before next year's referendum) in which I reiterate the core values that we are trying to uphold, and which puts forward my proposal that Civil Partnerships should apply equally to all, and that marriage should be returned to the community as a non-legal rite of passage which all are open to practice as they see fit. That would be true marriage equality. We have invited a range of people to respond to and participate in this document - evangelical Christians, those of other denominations, theologians, atheists, media pundits and representatives of the LGBT community. The Board of EAI have approved this strategy and it is underway.
So, although EAI are happy for me to take my non-legislative approach to marriage, it is not their official position. Their official position is that we want to help create a civil discussion on the subject and that we will encourage our members to be a part of this providing that they respect our core values.
Our core values in respect to the same sex marriage debate would include the following:
1. We see marriage as having a unique and special meaning which should not be artificially redefined.
2. We believe in the separation of Church and State. This cuts both ways. The Church should not expect the laws of the land to reflect Church dogma or Christian standards of personal morality, but neither should the State interfere with religious matters in the Church.
3. Evangelical Christians should have compassion for the marginalised and the underdog in society, and therefore we should not support laws or structures that victimise and demean others.
Sometimes evangelicals, like all people, struggle to reconcile and balance our core values. That, except for the extreme dogmatist (religious or secular), is not always easy and we can make mistakes.
For example, when we issued a statement supporting the Civil Partnership Bill we were striving to be true to value number 3 as listed above. We took a terrific backlash in criticism (and loss of funding) because many people felt we had not maintained value number 1.
The submission to the Constitutional Convention was focussing on value 1, so you now want to use that as a stick to beat us with because you feel we haven't honoured values number 2 or 3.
Again, most of the rest of what you posted about same sex marriage is pretty irrelevant to me because I'm not particularly interested arguing with you to try to convince you to share our opinion about the definition of marriage. In fact that's where this whole debate is going wrong. Tolerance does not mean that you expect everyone else to share your view of marriage. Tolerance means that you recognise that people hold different views, that they have the right to disagree with you, and that you seek out a way in which we all avoid trying to ram our views down other people's throats.
I believe that my suggestion that all references to marriage be deleted from the Irish statute book is a fair and just way for people of different views to respect one another. It would produce a much greater marriage equality than the likely wording of the referendum that will be laid in front of the electorate next year.
So, to get back on topic, I originally entered this thread to point out that a verse which was posted as "bible verses you won't hear at Church" was untrue because it is referred to in churches, and done so in a way that encourages Christians to work for the good of society. And, despite Cabaal's untruths about me (which he has signally failed to retract) I contend that EAI's approach to the same-sex marriage debate is good for society. Whether or not you happen to agree with my definition of marriage, are you saying that it is bad for society if people of different opinions engage in civil discussion and try to find a way in which we can respect one another and build a more tolerant society?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Deleted User wrote: »Nick, I'm extremely interested in Evangelical thinking / philosophy.
I don't think this is the correct thread for it, but I'm wondering if you'd be kind enough as to do a Q&A type thread for us on here at some stage? There is a lot of information available (and misinformation) regarding interpretations of scripture / what is verbatim and what is not etc, and I think it could be a very interesting (especially if decorum could be kept) thread that might open up some other thoughts for debate?
I would be very open for that, but I suspect it might turn into a lynch mob.
Imagine you're on a train and you overhear a conversation where people are saying something untrue about someone you know. The wisest course of action is probably to mind your own business. Any intervention, no matter how reasonable you feel it to be, is going to be construed as sticking your nose in where it's not wanted. I'm starting to get that feeling. 0 -
I would be very open for that, but I suspect it might turn into a lynch mob.
Imagine you're on a train and you overhear a conversation where people are saying something untrue about someone you know. The wisest course of action is probably to mind your own business. Any intervention, no matter how reasonable you feel it to be, is going to be construed as sticking your nose in where it's not wanted. I'm starting to get that feeling.
I'm not sure that's quite true. I spent some time in Kentucky in 2009, I was very much a "novelty" in the city I was living in as I was pretty much the only Irish person that anyone in that city had ever met/talked to. I answered their questions and 'morbid' fascination as much as I could, even the frankly crazy questions! ( "Do you know Claire?" for example
). I would contend that an Evangelical poster in A&A is something like that, a 'novelty' amongst the norms, and would hope that if you could find the time to engage with people here it could be a massively mutually beneficial endeavor.
I would hope that if we actually set up a Q&A thread, and a level of respect and honesty was maintained, that the opportunity to bridge an 'information gap' would be very good for this area of boards.ie, and perhaps useful to yourself in terms of what you might look to draw attention to when dealing with skeptics / new members.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement