Thread: Love

From what I understand, it was punishably by death by LAW...

I would LOVE to see where you found that.

You need to spend more time reading the 'good' book.

20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
15:33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
15:34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

Those are the most direct ones. There are plenty of less direct ones as well.

From what I understand, it was punishably by death by LAW...

Nope, it's in the bible. Now go out there and kill some homosexuals or you're not a true Christian!

[Removed an unneeded sarcastic comment]

Photo, I must say and not ashamed to admit that for now, you have me on this one. This is going to take some researching. The only thing that I can say is (besides Numbers 15:32) is the wages of sin is death but turning from sin, accepting Jesus and being save bring eternal life after death. I'll have to get back to you on this one. Good point though

Photo, I must say and not ashamed to admit that for now, you have me on this one.

I'm impressed you had the honesty and integrity to admit this. Well done. (Seriously)

It's stuff like those passages that clearly show it to be a contradictory work that cannot have been written by an omnipotent perfect all-loving being.

Some try to get around this by claiming that our relationship with God has changed, yet if you read other passages you get stuff like the following

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

UM has put it quite eloquently when he says:

the Bible is NOT the word of God... It is a book that was written by humans, and some of it is wrong even though it contains some good suggestions and guidelines.

The Bible has both good parts and bad parts. Pieces of wisdom that still hold true in our current era (such as the golden rule), as well as guidelines that were never good. The contradictory nature allows almost any world view to be supported.

But certainly it cannot be used as a moral guide to anything, because if we took our morals from it, they'd also be contradictory (and very evil in some places). And the only way we can judge suggestions like "kill all homosexuals" as being bad is via an outside source of morality.

The fact remains, when you read it in detail you can see the book for what it is: an illogical and inconsistent book written by primitive men came up with a few good ideas, but many more bad ones.

I don't have time at the moment to go in to greater detail over this subject, particularly the parts where Jesus maintains that the Old Testament is still valid, so that's all I'll say for now.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

In other words, the Bible is NOT the word of God... It is a book that was written by humans, and some of it is wrong even though it contains some good suggestions and guidelines. Is that right?

Is the Bible a single, internally consistent work with a single author of ultimate authority? No. That's precisely what I was talking about a few posts back:

The teachings of any religion are foremost tools, not truths. Mistaking their nature, we too often put them on pedestals in museum cases and set guards around them, when their purpose is to be taken up and used.

Are its origins still worthy of respect, being the distillate spiritual lore of half a dozen distinct eras antecedent to our own? Yes. None of it is "wrong" unless put to the wrong use.

I have plenty of criticisms of Christianity, and monotheism in general, and I've voiced more than a few in this forum, but it is a functioning wisdom tradition--functioning in the sense that individuals can use its practices and teachings to connect and live in accord with the source of being--and Christ was one of humanity's greatest spiritual adepts. In my thinking, monotheism, and Christianity in particular, are the pop music of religion and spirituality; much of it is off base, ill crafted and prone to repetitive error, but it's broadly accessible and you can dance to it.

I'll take the swing beat of Buddhism or the complex orchestrations of the Tao, myself, and some earth-shamanic jams when I can get them, but I don't look down on people shaking it to Britney or Jay-Z if it's getting them where they want to be.

Are its origins still worthy of respect, being the distillate spiritual lore of half a dozen distinct eras antecedent to our own? Yes. None of it is "wrong" unless put to the wrong use.

I wouldn't say respect is the right word to choose there, but obviously it had a profound effect on culture for the past few thousand years. To not recognise its role in shaping the world as it is today would be foolish.

Wrong in the context you use here is a moral judgement, but I'd disagree with your assessment that the Bible is not wrong in this area. There is plenty of teachings that can be described as being morally reprehensible, regardless of whether anyone actually tries to justify their views with it or not.

it is a functioning wisdom tradition--functioning in the sense that individuals can use its practices and teachings to connect and live in accord with the source of being

You can't really. If you were to use the practices, you would be doing stuff like killing homosexuals. It's only through an outside source of morality that you can judge some parts to contain wisdom, and other parts to be repulsive. So really, parts of it can only be used as a distillation of our modern moral framework, but you can't use it as the source of it. At least, you can't in any modern society anyway, unless you are prepared to suffer a heavy penalty for your crimes.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

I wouldn't say respect is the right word to choose there, but obviously it had a profound effect on culture for the past few thousand years. To not recognise its role in shaping the world as it is today would be foolish.

Wrong in the context you use here is a moral judgement, but I'd disagree with your assessment that the Bible is not wrong in this area. There is plenty of teachings that can be described as being morally reprehensible, regardless of whether anyone actually tries to justify their views with it or not.

You can't really. If you were to use the practices, you would be doing stuff like killing homosexuals. It's only through an outside source of morality that you can judge some parts to contain wisdom, and other parts to be repulsive. So really, parts of it can only be used as a distillation of our modern moral framework, but you can't use it as the source of it. At least, you can't in any modern society anyway, unless you are prepared to suffer a heavy penalty for your crimes.

You're creating a catch 22 here that simply doesn't apply to how most Christians (or people of any faith, really) use scripture in their lives. Using your approach, the only 'real' Christianity would be a giant cosplay mashing up Israel c. 3000BC with first-century Rome, and anyone with a healthy, well-adjusted Christian faith is doing it wrong. Certainly, there are some wacky compound-dwellers taking the former approach, but most Christians are able to use Leviticus to better understand the origins of their faith without picking up a rock or pitching all the bacon in the trash. Indeed, the councils of at least two mainstream denominations, well versed in the books of the Bible, their historical context and interpretations, have deemed it acceptable to honor the callings of clergy with same sex partners.

For most (obviously not all) religious people, the goal is not some ultimate social order or the accumulation of brownie points, but a heartfelt relationship with the central mystery of their faith. Scripture is valuable only insofar as it supports this aim. There are many who believe they've found the One True Way, but more and more people of various faiths are acknowledging the parallels between The Lord, The Tao, Allah, Nirvana and Brahma, for instance, and the love and altruism associated with deep absorption in any of the above.