I no longer buy into religion...... Heaven and hell
I'm so tired of people creating hate throwing religion in the picture. I have questions, lots of them. What is the right religion to go with? What bible do I try and live by? I often want to murder myself because religion has me to believe I'm doomed anyways because of my sexuality! But suicide is supposed to be a sin! So I'm supposed to live my life in misery all in the name of god? I can't kill myself, I can't be the gender I feel I am. Of all the bibles out there, who knows which one is right! Just about every religion has their own ideas and these things called doctrines. Then they all put each other down! You could argue to go with your heart to which bible or religion to turn to. But that would be the same as tearing pages out of the bible to suit your life style! That would be a sin! You have no answer because deep down you know there is no answer. If you have an answer, it's probably what you were raised as. I have such an open mind, I can see the big picture here! Who's to say islam is wrong? You sneer at the thought thinking "I could never be part of them even if I was born and raised among them". But do you truly know that? Christians are raised not to kill, while other religions find killing and war acceptable including some so called christian religions! Pick and choose, pick and choose!!!! I choose not to believe! I do believe there is a god, but I can't believe it is so hard to find this being with all the crap in this world. My morels are simple and to the point though my mind is deep and complex. I love everyone regardless of their race, color,creed,sexual orientation,nationality,fat,skinny,tall,short,purple,grey,gr een and everything in between! I will not kill, unless my life is in danger! I have a devine animal right to protect myself and my loved ones! I have my flaws, hell, we all do! I've struggled for years to get to this point and still, still I feel engulfed in guilt and visions of burning in hell never to love again.
below is a blog post I never posted on thoughts that goes hand in hand with this one.
HEAVEN AND HELL
Heaven And Hell
Posted at 6/29/2008 10:39 PM and is filed under Transgender blog
It seems that no matter what I do in my lifetime, there is always going to be some flaw! Before I found myself, I was very conflicted! I was always feeling blue, out of place, and out of sync with society. Since finding my self as a female, I have been happier and more at ease. I have been more at peace! Even people in my life notice a marked improvement in my attitude and general outlook. But as time marches forward, I am beginning to have recurring thoughts of being condemned by god! I can't imagine god condemning someone if they have a good heart and descent morels! Society and religion has it so engraved in my head that I'm doomed for being myself. I really don't know if I will burn in hell or not. I have chosen to be myself in an attempt to increase the quality and happiness in my life. I don't follow religion as I see religion as corrupt and some religions even spreading hate and non diversity! Think about that for a second! Every religion just about tells you to stay away from other religions because they are the wrong faith! Who do you go with?! What religion is right with god? I'm 38 years old and finally found happiness, and yet I still feel pigeon holed by religion and society! Not directly, just the frickin seeds they planted in my head! A muslim I was talking to that I worked with made a remark about christianity being a method of control and conformity. Hmmmm, kind of makes me stop and think. No I'm not going to be a muslim, I'm just very open minded when I listen to people. Does insanity simply mean non conformity? Because I was born a man but feel like a lady I have mental problems as defined by the so called experts! Kiss my ass! People always have to put a label on other humans! LIVE AND LET LIVE!!! I'm a fairly meek person that is not a criminal. I love people, I'm compassionate, I see a stranger crying and I want to give them a hug and help them! I cry tears of happiness almost every other day! I swear to you I really do! I have never once experienced this level of happiness in my entire life till I realized I was a woman! But wait a minute, I'm a sinner! I'm going to burn in hell...............
I'm not posting this to try and convert you or make you believe a certain way, but this is my outlook on religion as well as my own personal "religious" (I personally hate that term) beliefs.
First off, I'm a Transgirl, but I'm also a Southern Baptist Preacher's Kid and a born again believer in my Lord Jesus Christ. I accepted God's gift of salvation when I was 7 years old, and even then I was already experiencing gender dysphoria, though I was not aware that was the case. I wasn't entirely unlike all the other boys. I enjoyed Ninja Turtles, X-Men, Comic Books, and even a bit of sports just as a way to hang out with my dad. Some of this was encouraged, conciously and subconciously, by my parents. Some of it was my own legitimate interest, like any other tomboy. I'm not really much of a tomboy, but I wouldn't be the first femme with a few tomboy traits. ;) As much as I enjoyed those things, my favorite things to do were to play with dolls with my girl friends and play house with my girl friends. I watched the girl-"oriented" shows like Sailor Moon and She-Ra just as much as the boy-oriented shows.
As I grew up, my faith in God grew. Alongside that, my femininity grew and prospered. I never lost my tomboyish interests in geeky things like video games and the like, but more than half of the ones I played were only played multiplayer as a tagalong with whatever boy a few years older than me I had latched onto that year, like you might see a younger sister do around an older brother. Considering my desire for siblings, this is probably not that surprising either.
My interests shifted more and more into clothes, Bishy-filled RPGs, Shoujo Anime, and just flat out being a girl. My overall confusion grew and grew. I started to realize that I wasn't a straight man, but a lesbian woman, despite my physically male body. I began searching my Bible, not for information advocating or condemning my being a woman; but rather studying the information in the Bible regarding homosexuality, specifically anything pertaining to being a lesbian. Though I was effectively presenting as an effiminate man and was still unaware of what "transgender" was, I knew that my being with a woman was homosexuality and I had to come to terms with that trait of myself and my religious beliefs. I was lucky in one way. I grew up as a preacher's kid, but particularly the kid of a pastor who was rather scholarly and encouraged that in me. My mum is also scholarly (she's actually working on her degree to become a theology scholar right now) and also encouraged this. I had full access to all of their research material as well. I began studying not just the words in the various translations I have of the Bible, but I began searching out the original words, from the original languages. I began to research the cultures as they existed in the times the Bible's events take place. I began comparing the translations with the original language and culture and found the inconsistencies, both in many modern translations as well as in many modern interpretations.
You see, many people interpret what they read in the Bible based purely on modern culture. Now, there are many areas in the Bible where one should apply modern cultural ideologies to the concepts portrayed there, but if one loses the context of the original culture, one loses the true meanings of many of the things in the Bible. One such example is the Greek Word in the New Testament that is consistantly translated as "Homosexual" in most every modern English translation. The actual Greek Word literally means "soft men" and the connotations of the word in the original cultural context is men who are weak willed, who are easily swayed, highly open to suggestion, and unwilling to ever take a stance on anything. "Modern" (going back hundreds of years, though) interpretation of "soft men" implies effiminate men, who are the stereotype of gay men, but this stereotype did not exist in the time the New Testament was written, especially within the Greek language, a language born out of a culture that revered male homosexuality and even, in many ways, condemned heterosexuality as a necessary evil.
Sadly, the vast majority of modern society does not consist of scholars, and most people would never think to consider that the cultural context 2000 years ago may have been different than the modern cultural contexts.
On this note, I must say that it is far better to do your own study into what the Bible says on issues such as ->-bleeped-<-, homosexuality, and the like rather than depending on the voices of self-proclaimed Christians who care less about what the Bible legitimately says than they do about maintaining their own concept of the "status quo."
As for other religions, I cannot speak for I have not spent enough time in study of their views on these issues.
And to conclude all I have said, I am at this time a self-identified Christian transwoman in the process of transitioning, hopefully no more than a few months away from going full-time, and has absolutely no reservations about her status as a transwoman nor as a lesbian as it pertains to her eternal salvation and future existence in heaven as one of God's beloved daughters.
hi scarboroughfair. all the questions you ask are so valid and so complicated...and most are just too vast to fit under one answer anyway. i kind of see it this way: God is way too big to be pidgeonholed into one dogma, or even type of existence. He's pretty smart you know...speaks alot of languages. he speaks christian and jew, he speaks buddhist and hindu...and on and on...he speaks more languages then i've ever even heard of. so when He speaks to someone other then myself in a language i don't understand...it's no biggie...it's not me He's trying to get thru to when He speaks to them...it's them, so of course He speaks in a language they understand.
i think it's really true...God is everywhere you look and everywhere you listen. just because i've not been there or i don't speak the language doesn't mean He isn't right there doing just what He's doing with me with them. and may He bless you with...
Okay, out of respect for some of the religious individuals here, I have removed the post originally posted as my reply. It isn't that I don't actually hold such opinions, but I should consider thinking of a more tactful method for delivery.
Now allow me to explain the OP to those who may have difficulty understanding the reasoning behind it:
The person who opened this thread adheres to a very specific interpretation of the Bible. She does not perceive the issue as being one of whether or not an invisible being actually created the universe. She holds her religion to consist of the entire book. Now, when you present her with philosophical explanations for the origin of the universe or the idea of an afterlife, such as those often used by liberal Christians, you may as well reveal them to a person who has never heard of them before. Because she comes from a very strictly Protestant background, she was reared to believe that she should follow the words contained within the Bible in their exactitude. She was not reared with vague platitudes or distant promises. She was reared on the premise that she should follow the instructions contained within this text with the greatest integrity that she can muster.
Having lost her ability to do this, it would be no easier for her to become a more liberal-minded Christian than it would be for her to become an atheist. From her position, they are one and the same. In fact, becoming an atheist may at the very least allow her to salvage some of her sense of integrity. Either way, this is probably a very difficult time for her.
Now, I have heard atheists compared with radical protestants quite a lot. In fact, I feel that I can actually take this as a compliment, in a perverse sense. You see, the radical protestant, who believes in a very thorough adherence to the Bible, must have a great deal more intellectual discipline than one who follows a less demanding sect. He or she must understand thoroughly that this text does not change itself or its meaning based upon individual differences or personal disagreement. To be able to do this in so thorough a way requires a great deal of moral courage, and it requires a great deal of sacrifice. Their way is to adhere to these passages and have faith in their truth even when they are viciously attacked or ridiculed for doing so.
I saw one stand and preach at my college once, and I saw something there that most people probably wouldn't notice. What I saw was a man who stood his ground and shouted what he truly believed to be the truth, even while facing ridicule, insults, and often tears from a multitude of onlookers. He didn't seem to take any joy in much of what he said. He did seem to feel that he was fulfilling a duty of some kind. In spite of sharing the opinion of others that he was nonetheless perfectly annoying, I had to admire this man on some level.
I actually contrast him with another fellow who seemed superficially to be similar. You see, there was actually another man who came earlier who did not arouse this emotion in me. In fact, I felt that he simply took joy in hurting others. He even went on the attack against the Jews, and it seemed to be out of viciousness that he attacked and derided a young Jewish boy who tried to defend the honor of his people. The feeling that I got about this man was confirmed when I caught him saying, at the end of the day, "I love doing this. I wish I could do it every day." It's not that I can't tell the difference between a truly hateful bigot and a truly dedicated adherent. It's generally as plain as the nose on their faces.
So next time anyone present tries attacking atheists, as a group, by comparing them to radical Christians, here is what I have to say in response: I would never claim to have as much moral courage and loyal faith as a truly devout member of this group. It's not an easy thing to be. I feel no insult in being likened to them.
They're still wrong though.
In any case, unitarian theology is going to be just as weird and alien to this woman as the idea that you can reverse aging by walking backwards. No offense intended. Her religious background is just very different from what yours probably was.
QuoteThe person who opened this thread adheres to a very specific interpretation of the Bible. She does not perceive the issue as being one of whether or not an invisible being actually created the universe. She holds her religion to consist of the entire book. Now, when you present her with philosophical explanations for the origin of the universe or the idea of an afterlife, such as those often used by liberal Christians, you may as well reveal them to a person who has never heard of them before. Because she comes from a very strictly Protestant background, she was reared to believe that she should follow the words contained within the Bible in their exactitude. She was not reared with vague platitudes or distant promises. She was reared on the premise that she should follow the instructions contained within this text with the greatest integrity that she can muster.
Having lost her ability to do this, it would be no easier for her to become a more liberal-minded Christian than it would be for her to become an atheist. From her position, they are one and the same. In fact, becoming an atheist may at the very least allow her to salvage some of her sense of integrity. Either way, this is probably a very difficult time for her.
I don't see how one has to do with the other.
As I stated, I was raised as the son of a Southern Baptist Pastor. Southern Baptist pretty much epitomizes the extreme fundamentalist Christian. I was raised with the concept of strict adherence to the Bible, and I still believe firmly in that.
There is a difference, however, between strict adherence to the Bible and strict adherence to what a man behind a pulpit tells you is in the Bible.
There is absolutely nothing preventing someone from maintaining strict adherence to the Bible and still taking the time to read and study the Bible in depth, even studying the original languages and cultures. In fact, strict adherence to the Bible demands that one does this, as the Bible itself says to question everything as well as to study its texts.
And doing as I have said does not make one a "liberal-minded Christian." It makes one an intelligent human being capable of thinking for one's self as God created us to do (Free-Will).
I stand just as firmly rooted in my faith and beliefs as the man you referenced preaching at your college, and have stood firm against an intense amount of ridicule, insults, and more; but I have no trouble reconciling who I am with what God wants me to be and what the Bible tells me is so because I *have* studied the Bible myself, as the Bible commands me to do, rather than just accepting whatever words I hear from the man behind a pulpit.
Here are some ramblings you may find interesting that I put together a while back that may be related to this topic
Holly spirit, the essence of the Oneness of infinity, infinity is but a place where time and space does not exist. It is the fabric of creation from all the way back from original thought, or the word spoken in the ether of creation as Albert Einstein has has once quoted Reality? now there is an perplexing conundrum, I think it's conception is as varied as each human being perceives it. Reality is about as multifarious as Truth, where we can only perceive only bits and pieces of it in the physical world and again those bits differ greatly from one individual to an other.
This reality is not really what it appears to be, in the sense of being solid or concrete, it is more made of is different densities in the grids of the Holographic universe, a very well designed hologram. As for the Holly Spirit or the tapestry upon which the fabric of creation was stitched upon. The Holly spirit is the grid upon which all of creation and all quantum realities is connected to including us. If one really believed and wanted to, you can use to grid to connect with your Creator or the Creators emissaries and messengers, many refer to them as the angels others as Beings of light and even other human being.
With their superior intelligence and highly evolved state of being, why would they find it necessary to utilize what they would find it necessary to utilize the archaic languages of this world in order to communicate with us?.As evolved as they would be to the point where
they could be here from billions of miles away in the blink of an eye in either energy form or why not send their thoughts telepathy, this way it would limit complexity of trying to learn our individualised complex languages where they could simply communicate with us by utilising your own thought processes.
I also agree much that not all of the understanding of even just very far past this planets atmosphere do we know much its elements let alone what's beyond our ionesphere. Books, oh but yes, by all means they are the stepping stones until learning that these are nothing more
then stepping stones that will lead you to the ****doorway*** but that is as far as the books get you. One needs to step through the doorway that leads beyond out present limited knowing and awareness if one wishes to learn more of the mysteries.
The beginning of the rest of our journey to truth and reality. this you will find is the rest of the journey is within the inner-self, if you really desire to look deep within.
Take what you will and leave what does not resonate.
Cindy
Yes, Katrina. This insistence upon intensive Bible study is actually derived from the early Puritans. You would do well to study the history of the Baptist faith if you haven't already done so. It's very interesting.
I would refer you to one book in particular that you might want to read: it's entitled, Puritanism and the Rise of Modern Science: The Merton Thesis. It may strike you with a little pride in your religious background, actually. Puritanism and its descendant sects really aren't far divorced from scientific thought. In fact, I would say that scientific humanism is really more of a sort of secular protestantism. They're like the same kind of fish in a different barrel.
Quote
Quote from: Silk on October 11, 2008, 03:34:20 PM
They're still wrong though.
now there's a conversation stopper.
Quote from: Silk on October 11, 2008, 03:58:52 PM
Yes, Katrina. This insistence upon intensive Bible study is actually derived from the early Puritans. You would do well to study the history of the Baptist faith if you haven't already done so. It's very interesting.
I would refer you to one book in particular that you might want to read: it's entitled, Puritanism and the Rise of Modern Science: The Merton Thesis. It may strike you with a little pride in your religious background, actually. Puritanism and its descendant sects really aren't far divorced from scientific thought. In fact, I would say that scientific humanism is really more of a sort of secular protestantism. They're like the same kind of fish in a different barrel.
Actually, it's not derived from the Puritans. In fact, if you knew anything about the Southern Baptist Church, you'd be aware that the bulk of it does not promote intensive study of the Bible as it should, and that the concept is something that is only now resurfacing after nearly two thousand years, with the exception of small groups and individuals at various points during the past two thousand years.
Christians who do intensive study of the Bible is not, however, limited to any one denomination either. The mandate itself is derived from the Bible itself, dating back to when it was originally written, before, even the various books of the Bible were compiled into a single volume.
I also find your "study the history of the baptist faith" statement highly offensive. I have already given you a basic synopsis of my "credentials" and it is highly offensive of you to assume that, despite that, I have not studied the history of the denomination I grew up in.
Despite that, I also do not consider it to be my "religious background." I do not consider myself a part of the SBC and only loosely associate myself with the BGCT.
Quote from: pennyjane on October 11, 2008, 04:06:47 PM
Quote
Quote from: Silk on October 11, 2008, 03:34:20 PM
They're still wrong though.
now there's a conversation stopper.
No. In fact, it has led me to some very interesting conversations with highly educated people. When another person has something to say, I become the listener, for a person who has done a truly extraordinary amount of reading and introspection never really becomes dull to listen to. You see, when I make such strong statements to a relatively enlightened individual, he or she is generally interested in knowing why. Our disagreement tends to get strangled to death somewhere in the immense amount of detail that there is on this subject matter, and we part ways with an eagerness to further enlighten ourselves on it.
We also find that we have a great deal more in common than the original premise of our discussion would suggest, for what it truly revealed was not that we were members of opposite parties but that we were both eager scholars of the same subject matter who had somehow come to differing conclusions.
Posted on: October 11, 2008, 05:22:29 pm
Quote from: Princess Katrina on October 11, 2008, 04:37:03 PM
Quote from: Silk on October 11, 2008, 03:58:52 PM
Yes, Katrina. This insistence upon intensive Bible study is actually derived from the early Puritans. You would do well to study the history of the Baptist faith if you haven't already done so. It's very interesting.
I would refer you to one book in particular that you might want to read: it's entitled, Puritanism and the Rise of Modern Science: The Merton Thesis. It may strike you with a little pride in your religious background, actually. Puritanism and its descendant sects really aren't far divorced from scientific thought. In fact, I would say that scientific humanism is really more of a sort of secular protestantism. They're like the same kind of fish in a different barrel.
Actually, it's not derived from the Puritans.
You are absolutely right. It would be more accurate to state that Baptist Christianity is a sect of Puritanism that adopts antipedabaptist views. Properly, they should also teach seperation of church and state, freedom of conscience, and religious tolerance. This is the Baptist Christianity founded by Roger Williams, in any case. Although opponents of infant baptism existed long before the time of Roger Williams, his church had a profound influence on Baptist Christianity as it is practiced in the United States.
QuoteIn fact, if you knew anything about the Southern Baptist Church, you'd be aware that the bulk of it does not promote intensive study of the Bible as it should, and that the concept is something that is only now resurfacing after nearly two thousand years, with the exception of small groups and individuals at various points during the past two thousand years.
This was a major part of the Protestant Reformation. The idea was widely circulated during the time period, and much of it was done for the sake of bothering the Catholics.
QuoteChristians who do intensive study of the Bible is not, however, limited to any one denomination either. The mandate itself is derived from the Bible itself, dating back to when it was originally written, before, even the various books of the Bible were compiled into a single volume.
And, at one point, it was widely discouraged by the RCC. As I understand (and do correct my history here if you know better), they felt you needed a church father there to interpret it for you. This was one of the reasons that the KJV, in spite of its imperfections, was such a revolutionary event in history.
QuoteI also find your "study the history of the baptist faith" statement highly offensive. I have already given you a basic synopsis of my "credentials" and it is highly offensive of you to assume that, despite that, I have not studied the history of the denomination I grew up in.
I haven't assumed a thing. I just really like to chatter about this subject matter. It is a subject of great interest for me.
QuoteDespite that, I also do not consider it to be my "religious background." I do not consider myself a part of the SBC and only loosely associate myself with the BGCT.
I identify a great deal with my roots, and I feel very proud of them.
Quote from: Princess Katrina on October 11, 2008, 01:21:57 PM
You see, many people interpret what they read in the Bible based purely on modern culture. Now, there are many areas in the Bible where one should apply modern cultural ideologies to the concepts portrayed there, but if one loses the context of the original culture, one loses the true meanings of many of the things in the Bible. One such example is the Greek Word in the New Testament that is consistantly translated as "Homosexual" in most every modern English translation. The actual Greek Word literally means "soft men" and the connotations of the word in the original cultural context is men who are weak willed, who are easily swayed, highly open to suggestion, and unwilling to ever take a stance on anything. "Modern" (going back hundreds of years, though) interpretation of "soft men" implies effiminate men, who are the stereotype of gay men, but this stereotype did not exist in the time the New Testament was written, especially within the Greek language, a language born out of a culture that revered male homosexuality and even, in many ways, condemned heterosexuality as a necessary evil.
What is your correct interpretation of this passage? And why? 27 in particular strikes me as quite explicit and clear in it's meaning.
Note while I was raised christian I am now an atheist and don't believe this stuff, just asking because what it says doesn't look like it can be reconciled with meaning rejection of "soft men".
Rom 1:24-27 KJV
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 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:
27
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.
hi nikki. i think you must have some interest in scripture remaining, or you'd probably just leave it alone, not bother with it. as a former christian i'm sure you're aware of how difficult it is to take the christianity out of the christian. if you really are interested in reconciling scripture with homosexuality may i recommend a great book written on the subject by rev jeff minor. it's titled "the children are free." in here he deals with the passage you quote and several others as well. if you're interested it's worth a look.
Quote from: Nikki on October 11, 2008, 06:16:36 PM
Quote from: Princess Katrina on October 11, 2008, 01:21:57 PM
You see, many people interpret what they read in the Bible based purely on modern culture. Now, there are many areas in the Bible where one should apply modern cultural ideologies to the concepts portrayed there, but if one loses the context of the original culture, one loses the true meanings of many of the things in the Bible. One such example is the Greek Word in the New Testament that is consistantly translated as "Homosexual" in most every modern English translation. The actual Greek Word literally means "soft men" and the connotations of the word in the original cultural context is men who are weak willed, who are easily swayed, highly open to suggestion, and unwilling to ever take a stance on anything. "Modern" (going back hundreds of years, though) interpretation of "soft men" implies effiminate men, who are the stereotype of gay men, but this stereotype did not exist in the time the New Testament was written, especially within the Greek language, a language born out of a culture that revered male homosexuality and even, in many ways, condemned heterosexuality as a necessary evil.
What is your correct interpretation of this passage? And why? 27 in particular strikes me as quite explicit and clear in it's meaning.
Note while I was raised christian I am now an atheist and don't believe this stuff, just asking because what it says doesn't look like it can be reconciled with meaning rejection of "soft men".
Rom 1:24-27 KJV
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 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:
27 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.
First off, toss the KJV. The King James Version is an obscenely terrible translation that was edited to fit the personal views of King James where he disagreed with what is actually in the original text. I would maybe say it's "better than nothing," but even then, I'd rather someone not have a Bible than have the KJV.
Before I bother getting the passage out of other translations, as well as a literal translation direct from the original Greek text, let me say that this is one of many passages where people focus on the homosexuality involved and ignore the primary issue involved.
There are many passages against sexual immorality, which can loosely be defined as any sexual act performed outside the "confines" of marriage. Note, specifically, the use of the word "lust." They were not expressing love for each other, nor having sex as part of their love for each other. They were merely fulfilling lustful desires with no concern for consequences and no descrimination of who they had sex with, more than just men with men.
On the note of consequences, there was a legitimate reason for an anti-anal sex note on the grounds of the unsanitary nature. In that time period, they did not have condoms. They could not have "safe anal sex." The primary anti-gay (specifically males) passage from early in the old testament is arguably for that very purpose as there is an incredible amount of rules in the pentateuch that has to do with sanitary precautions to prevent/avoid disease and the spread thereof.
Now, here's a translation I frequently use because it's an "easy to read" translation. I do not recommend it as an "only translation used," however, because it often paraphrases a little more than it should. It's called the New Living Translation. We'll see if it does in this particular case when I compare it to other translations, including a direct, literal translation.
"
24So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies.
25Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen.
26That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.
27And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned the lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved." ~Romans 1:24-27, NLT
First off, I'll again say it's more to do with general sexual immorality than anything else. Note, again, the use of the word lust.
The fact that they were performing homosexual acts is mentioned more as an historical fact. Like it or not, there is an accuracy in referring to homosexual acts as "unnatural." Even from an athiestic, evolutionary standpoint, humans are physically designed for heterosexual sex, not homosexual sex. Those of us who are lesbian or gay have to derive alternative methods of pleasing our lovers. The term "natural" is frequently used nowadays, in many ways as a result of the rise of gay pride, to refer to that which does occur in nature, which would be an appropriate way to use the term. However, the term is just as appropriately applicable as referring to a process following the course it is designed to for.
Now, here's the passage out of the New International Version.
"
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions." ~Romans 1:24-27, NIV
Again, note that it states "lusts." Also, it states "sexual impurity." In the Jewish faith, at least back then (I don't know how much modern Jews hold with this), performing the sexual act with anyone left you impure for the rest of the day, and that includes sex with your own husband or wife within a heterosexual marriage.
I'm also going to comment on "received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions." They were performing sexual acts that are, from a health standpoint, quite risky, and one can presume from the passage that they spread diseases among each other in this situation, which, as I mentioned, was an issue not to be overlooked since they had no method of safe sex.
Okay, now a direct literal translation, though I'll correct the word order for English.
"
24Therefore God also gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
25who exchanged the truth of God in the lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the One having created, who is blessed to the ages. Amen.
26On account of this God gave them over to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for the use against nature,
27and likewise also the males leaving the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lusts for one another, males with males committing shamelessness and getting back in themselves the penalty which was fitting for their error." ~Romans 1:24-27, Original Greek
I'll also note here that, except in the NLT, none of these specify the women having lesbian sex. One can presume they were having lesbian sex based on the clear statement that the men were having gay sex, but we do not actually know if they were having lesbian sex, using toys to masturbate, or maybe even performing acts of beastiality. We just know that they were not having sex with the men. Whatever they were doing, they were
all giving in to purely lustful desires and not coupling out of love for each other.
That particular passage is also the only passage in the Bible that even hints at lesbian sex, at least that I've found, and as I stated earlier, I have studied the Bible extensively in regards to what it says about lesbian sex since I was identifying as lesbian before I even realized I'm female.
Also, in specific note to your question about the word consistantly translated as "homosexual." That word is not used in the passage you cited, not in any of the translations, even.
Quotefrom Phaedrus, Plato
Soc. At the Egyptian city of Naucratis, there was a famous old god, whose name was Theuth; the bird which is called the Ibis is sacred to him, and he was the inventor of many arts, such as arithmetic and calculation and geometry and astronomy and draughts and dice, but his great discovery was the use of letters. Now in those days the god Thamus was the king of the whole country of Egypt; and he dwelt in that great city of Upper Egypt which the Hellenes call Egyptian Thebes, and the god himself is called by them Ammon. To him came Theuth and showed his inventions, desiring that the other Egyptians might be allowed to have the benefit of them; he enumerated them, and Thamus enquired about their several uses, and praised some of them and censured others, as he approved or disapproved of them. It would take a long time to repeat all that Thamus said to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts. But when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.
Phaedr. Yes, Socrates, you can easily invent tales of Egypt, or of any other country.
Soc. There was a tradition in the temple of Dodona that oaks first gave prophetic utterances. The men of old, unlike in their simplicity to young philosophy, deemed that if they heard the truth even from "oak or rock," it was enough for them; whereas you seem to consider not whether a thing is or is not true, but who the speaker is and from what country the tale comes.
Phaedr. I acknowledge the justice of your rebuke; and I think that the Theban is right in his view about letters.
Soc. He would be a very simple person, and quite a stranger to the oracles of Thamus or Ammon, who should leave in writing or receive in writing any art under the idea that the written word would be intelligible or certain; or who deemed that writing was at all better than knowledge and recollection of the same matters?
The problem I have with the Bible, the Qur'an , the Bhagavad Gita or any other "holy" text is that people believe that what applied to ancient societies remain the eternal truth for us 2000 or 3000 years later. The Old Testament was directed toward nomadic people Asia Minor. The New Testament toward those that suffered as slaves in the Roman Empire. If I want to get literal about it, the first commandment reads, Exodus 20:2 reads:
2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
How does this apply to me? There were no Hessens or Celts or Saxons enslaved in Egypt during the time of Moses or ever. Why should I accept the word of St. Paul? He never knew Christ while he was alive and had no ideas how he would have ministered to his flock.
I don't need a book to tell me that LGBT people can be just as good or bad as anyone else. Sexual orientation or gender identity don't define good and evil. I'm not an atheist either. I have a personal spirituality closest to Wicca. We make our own heavens or hells here on earth and have future incarnations to try until we get it right.
Quote from: Claire de Lune on October 11, 2008, 07:40:06 PM
Quotefrom Phaedrus, Plato
Soc. At the Egyptian city of Naucratis, there was a famous old god, whose name was Theuth; the bird which is called the Ibis is sacred to him, and he was the inventor of many arts, such as arithmetic and calculation and geometry and astronomy and draughts and dice, but his great discovery was the use of letters. Now in those days the god Thamus was the king of the whole country of Egypt; and he dwelt in that great city of Upper Egypt which the Hellenes call Egyptian Thebes, and the god himself is called by them Ammon. To him came Theuth and showed his inventions, desiring that the other Egyptians might be allowed to have the benefit of them; he enumerated them, and Thamus enquired about their several uses, and praised some of them and censured others, as he approved or disapproved of them. It would take a long time to repeat all that Thamus said to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts. But when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.
Phaedr. Yes, Socrates, you can easily invent tales of Egypt, or of any other country.
Soc. There was a tradition in the temple of Dodona that oaks first gave prophetic utterances. The men of old, unlike in their simplicity to young philosophy, deemed that if they heard the truth even from "oak or rock," it was enough for them; whereas you seem to consider not whether a thing is or is not true, but who the speaker is and from what country the tale comes.
Phaedr. I acknowledge the justice of your rebuke; and I think that the Theban is right in his view about letters.
Soc. He would be a very simple person, and quite a stranger to the oracles of Thamus or Ammon, who should leave in writing or receive in writing any art under the idea that the written word would be intelligible or certain; or who deemed that writing was at all better than knowledge and recollection of the same matters?
The problem I have with the Bible, the Qur'an , the Bhagavad Gita or any other "holy" text is that people believe that what applied to ancient societies remain the eternal truth for us 2000 or 3000 years later. The Old Testament was directed toward nomadic people Asia Minor. The New Testament toward those that suffered as slaves in the Roman Empire. If I want to get literal about it, the first commandment reads, Exodus 20:2 reads:
2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
How does this apply to me? There were no Hessens or Celts or Saxons enslaved in Egypt during the time of Moses or ever. Why should I accept the word of St. Paul? He never knew Christ while he was alive and had no ideas how he would have ministered to his flock.
I don't need a book to tell me that LGBT people can be just as good or bad as anyone else. Sexual orientation or gender identity don't define good and evil. I'm not an atheist either. I have a personal spirituality closest to Wicca. We make our own heavens or hells here on earth and have future incarnations to try until we get it right.
Well, the belief of Christianity is supposed to be that the Old Testament, in regards to laws, becomes nothing more than a guideline for us, not a binding text. We follow what still applies appropriately, but we are not required to follow any of it in order to be Christian or be saved. Sadly, the majority of Christians seem to have missed that part of the Bible and do not understand that reasoning.
Much of the Old Testament that is not law is prophecy of the coming of Jesus Christ, according to Christian belief. According to Jewish belief, for which the Old Testament pertains more directly, it is prophecy of a Messiah who has not yet come. For Islam...well, imo, islam gets a tad complicated in this regard.
I will make one significant correction, btw. The Israellites were only nomadic from the time of the Exodus until the end of the Pentateuch (which ends with Deuteronomy). From the time of the Judges onward, they lived in what is now modern Israel, except for certain times when they were effectively exiled from their nation after it was conquered by Persia, during which time they were still not nomadic.
Additionally, the text is not inherently directed
at such and such people as it is largely, especially in the case of the Old Testament, an historical account of the people of Israel and serves the same purpose of any historical account of any people.
As for the New Testament, the jews were not slaves of Rome. They were Roman Citizens. The New Testament is also not directed explicitly at people of that time, though there are things that have become obselete with significant cultural change.
However, the primary significance of this is that there is only one fundamental truth in the Bible that must be believed in order to be a Christian. That fundamental truth is that Jesus Christ is the son of God and died on the cross for our sins, rising three days later, thus washing us all who accept the gift of salvation clean of the taint of sin so that we might spend eternity in Heaven with God. One who does not believe this fundamental truth is not a Christian. One who does believe it is a Christian. That is
the defining belief of Christianity. Everything else is largely superfluous and far too open to interpretation to be a "fundamental truth."
Quote from: pennyjane on October 11, 2008, 06:35:04 PM
hi nikki. i think you must have some interest in scripture remaining, or you'd probably just leave it alone, not bother with it.
I suspect Nikki (not that I'm entitled to speak for her!) may have the same or a similar frustration that I do regarding LGBT people and religion - I will never understand why they are so desperate to join a club that devotes so much of it's energy to excluding them and wiping them out.
Quote from: Imadique on October 11, 2008, 08:04:14 PM
Quote from: pennyjane on October 11, 2008, 06:35:04 PM
hi nikki. i think you must have some interest in scripture remaining, or you'd probably just leave it alone, not bother with it.
I suspect Nikki (not that I'm entitled to speak for her!) may have the same or a similar frustration that I do regarding LGBT people and religion - I will never understand why they are so desperate to join a club that devotes so much of it's energy to excluding them and wiping them out.
I, personally, despite being a devoted Christian, do very much oppose "religion," or at least what it has become. Your club description is horribly apt. For far too many people it has become nothing more than a social club.
Becoming a believer, of whatever faith, however, should not be seen as joining a club. It is about the faith and the belief, not who else believes the way you do, and presumably if your religious beliefs do match up, at a fundamental level, with those of a faith whose "social club" side make a practice of bigotry against the LGBT community, you aren't actually trying to be part of the social club since you yourself are not a bigot against the LGBT community, aye?
Katrina, I'm aware that the Jews were not always nomadic but they were keepers of sheep that required that they be moved from pasture to pasture through the seasons.
Christianity was largely a religion of the slaves in its earlier days. The Jews time as Roman citizens did not last long after Christ's death on the cross. The diaspora began circa 70 AD when Rome crushed a Jewish rebellion, burned the second temple, slaughtered males over 16, enslaved the remaining women and children and scattered them to the far corners of the empire. There are a number of people that believe these were the events referred to in Revelation.
What it takes to be a Christian is of no concern to me, as I am not.
Okay. New International Version, guys. Come on.
Quote25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
And this version is really quite true to the original text. I also find that it has the least direct disagreement with other versions, passage for passage. Now, if you were to take passages twenty-five, twenty-six, and twenty-seven from the NIV translation of Romans I, it would be plausible to suggest that, according to the NIV, the Bible prophesied the advent of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, delivered through the vehicle of unnatural and generally unclean sexual practices. In this case, homosexuality is a direct act of God intended for punishing a society that has fallen to idolatry and come to take its creator for granted.
On another note, you could also read "dishonorable" to mean something more akin to "embarrassing," denoting more that the business of homosexuality would result in teasing and probably loss of social status. This is definitely the case for most homosexuals. Even if you could get past all of the deliberate negativity that society heaps upon it, it's unspeakably embarrassing for most of us even without that. You could also say it's embarrassing that some of us are being dropped into the wrong bodies as with transsexualism, but that's a whole nother can of worms.
Under this understanding, it would be more appropriate for biblical literalists to focus simply upon honoring and glorifying their immortal God. It would reflect a much more accurate understanding of the Bible, as understood through the NIV. If this approach by itself doesn't eliminate homosexuality, it should at the very least result, over the long-term, in nullifying any harm that could be wrought by it. For example, the gays could suddenly decide they like living the married life and create such a high demand for newborns that it puts the abortion industry directly out of business, thus killing two birds with one stone.
i'm with katrina. my chrisianity has very little to do with religion, it's about my personal relationship with God. if i was the only one in the world who believed as i do then i would be a church of one.
i like the club reference. unfortunately, as katrina says, it is more of that sort of thing to many. at least they are in contact with the Word and hopefully get something out of their time spent in the club. God loves us all.
It behooves me to add that, in the chapter of First Corinthians following Chapter Six, which is often cited by Christians as proof that Homosexuals are doomed to eternal damnation, Paul states very clearly that marriage is intended specifically to prevent the more egregious uncleanliness of rampant fornication. He obviously doesn't approve of sexual activity at all, and he seems to regard it as a distraction from religious observance. You can agree or disagree with Paul on this subject (or my interpretation of him), but sex within marriage is clearly a grudging concession, not a command.
Well, if I understand Paul correctly, then it stands to reason that he would rather homosexuals live in faithful marriages than to behave in the more unseemly manner of rampant fornication.
By the way, I have cross-referenced much of what I've garnered from the NIV with several other versions of the New Testament. As far as I can tell, my interpretations are at least reasonably well-supported. I loooooove to cross-reference.
Unfortunately, I have a great deal of difficulty gaining acceptance for my views. A lot of people out there are deeply prejudiced against atheists. It shows even here. Sometimes, religious individuals see the intention of hostility where perhaps I was simply too bold. Sometimes they see some kind of insult or slight where I was just chattering excitedly over one of my pet subjects. Prejudice against atheists is very real. Unfortunately, it's often overlooked because, in the context that it appears, the atheist is often treated as the the transgressor. We're seen as attacking other people's views where all we intended to do was defend our own. When we cite a strength in our convictions, we're treated as if we're being arrogant or supercilious, yet such strength of conviction is praised in Christians and members of other faiths. It's not meant as some insult against you that I feel utterly unconvinced that there is any truth at all to Christianity. Sometimes you'll take it that way, though. After all, your society has taught you to hate me. You just don't realize that it's hate. They never do.
Quote from: Silk on October 11, 2008, 09:02:12 PM
Okay. New International Version, guys. Come on.
Quote25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
And this version is really quite true to the original text. I also find that it has the least direct disagreement with other versions, passage for passage. Now, if you were to take passages twenty-five, twenty-six, and twenty-seven from the NIV translation of Romans I, it would be plausible to suggest that, according to the NIV, the Bible prophesied the advent of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, delivered through the vehicle of unnatural and generally unclean sexual practices. In this case, homosexuality is a direct act of God intended for punishing a society that has fallen to idolatry and come to take its creator for granted.
On another note, you could also read "dishonorable" to mean something more akin to "embarrassing," denoting more that the business of homosexuality would result in teasing and probably loss of social status. This is definitely the case for most homosexuals. Even if you could get past all of the deliberate negativity that society heaps upon it, it's unspeakably embarrassing for most of us even without that. You could also say it's embarrassing that some of us are being dropped into the wrong bodies as with transsexualism, but that's a whole nother can of worms.
Under this understanding, it would be more appropriate for biblical literalists to focus simply upon honoring and glorifying their immortal God. It would reflect a much more accurate understanding of the Bible, as understood through the NIV. If this approach by itself doesn't eliminate homosexuality, it should at the very least result, over the long-term, in nullifying any harm that could be wrought by it. For example, the gays could suddenly decide they like living the married life and create such a high demand for newborns that it puts the abortion industry directly out of business, thus killing two birds with one stone.
Actually, the most literal translation would be the New American Standard (NAS), short of having an exactly literal translation such as I have in my Greek-English Interlinear New Testament.
There is one other issue regarding translations that further invalidates the KJV. More modern translations are translated from older manuscripts, in other words, manuscripts that are closer to the original, if not themselves the original manuscripts. KJV is translated from relatively recent manuscripts, which are more likely to have been edited or modified in some way.
Quote from: Princess Katrina on October 11, 2008, 10:36:13 PM
Quote from: Silk on October 11, 2008, 09:02:12 PM
Okay. New International Version, guys. Come on.
Quote25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
And this version is really quite true to the original text. I also find that it has the least direct disagreement with other versions, passage for passage. Now, if you were to take passages twenty-five, twenty-six, and twenty-seven from the NIV translation of Romans I, it would be plausible to suggest that, according to the NIV, the Bible prophesied the advent of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, delivered through the vehicle of unnatural and generally unclean sexual practices. In this case, homosexuality is a direct act of God intended for punishing a society that has fallen to idolatry and come to take its creator for granted.
On another note, you could also read "dishonorable" to mean something more akin to "embarrassing," denoting more that the business of homosexuality would result in teasing and probably loss of social status. This is definitely the case for most homosexuals. Even if you could get past all of the deliberate negativity that society heaps upon it, it's unspeakably embarrassing for most of us even without that. You could also say it's embarrassing that some of us are being dropped into the wrong bodies as with transsexualism, but that's a whole nother can of worms.
Under this understanding, it would be more appropriate for biblical literalists to focus simply upon honoring and glorifying their immortal God. It would reflect a much more accurate understanding of the Bible, as understood through the NIV. If this approach by itself doesn't eliminate homosexuality, it should at the very least result, over the long-term, in nullifying any harm that could be wrought by it. For example, the gays could suddenly decide they like living the married life and create such a high demand for newborns that it puts the abortion industry directly out of business, thus killing two birds with one stone.
Actually, the most literal translation would be the New American Standard (NAS), short of having an exactly literal translation such as I have in my Greek-English Interlinear New Testament.
Oh, that's a very good version. Unfortunately, one of the problems with the more literal translations is that some of the idiom of the time-period comes across as gobbledy-gook to us here in the 21st Century. Unfortunately, translators sometimes go a little too far in this, and it just results in further confusion. For example, it really isn't necessary to assume that the destruction of Sodom was over male homosexuality, but the simple assumption that "knowledge" is always being used as a euphamism for sexual intercourse has the Sodomites LITERALLY saying, "so we can have sex with them." In some cases, it would be more helpful to the reader to simply add a footnote explaining various theories regarding meaning and usage.
What I like about the NIV is that, in most places, it finds a healthy middle-ground between literal translation and a more intuitive understanding as to meaning. Then again, it's also received some degree of criticism for this. In any case, I finally settled on this version primarily through cross-referencing it with the other translations that are available through Bible Gateway.
QuoteThere is one other issue regarding translations that further invalidates the KJV. More modern translations are translated from older manuscripts, in other words, manuscripts that are closer to the original, if not themselves the original manuscripts. KJV is translated from relatively recent manuscripts, which are more likely to have been edited or modified in some way.
Surely. KJV was still a major accomplishment in its time, though. In spite of its imperfections, it does have historical value.
Quote from: pennyjane on October 11, 2008, 06:35:04 PMhi nikki. i think you must have some interest in scripture remaining, or you'd probably just leave it alone, not bother with it.
Oh yah... I got "some interest" remaining somewhere on the same level or more scathing than my interest in McSame/Palin, Bush, <pick your own evil>. I will admit there could be a god, super natural beings are by definition not falsifiable by natural beings. I'm of an atheist of the 'i know no god and don't want to look' brand not the 'there is no god brand' which is just as loony as anyone that believes just as strongly that there is a god. Maybe if I wasn't brainwashed in a private christian school for 13 years(plus 3 church services a week in a hard core literal bible(KJV) independent fundamental baptistic in doctrine 6000 year old earth church) Maybe if I didn't grow up believing the feelings and needs(trans-related) I felt so strongly and didn't understand were a sin. Maybe I didn't live in an America where based on 2004 exit polls 83% of voters specifically identified with a bible believing religion and only 10% of voters identified as non-religious. Maybe if I could spend money without passing implied but very false claim I trust in god(*snorts*). Maybe if I could graduate from a freaking public university without my professor shoving his religion into my face and my TEXTBOOK that I wasted my money on. Maybe if I thought I could transition in West Virginia without facing the full on religious hatred of the bible belt. Maybe if I could go to a bar and dance without the music every week telling me I should be praying. Maybe if <self moderates her language> religion wasn't in my face every <self moderates her language> day of my life then I could just live and let live and show no more interest in religion than I do in Parcheesi.
I believe religion is the invention of primitive men as a crutch to cope with death and hard problems in life. I believe those same reasons are why such antiquated prescientific notions are still popular. I believe religion is the single biggest cause of hatred and war in the world, it has gone from a benign crutch to a devastating evil wrecking emotional/physical harm and death on humanity.
Quote from: pennyjane on October 11, 2008, 06:35:04 PMas a former christian i'm sure you're aware of how difficult it is to take the christianity out of the christian.
It can be difficult to undo any belief you grew up with whether it's religion or racism. Starting at the age of 21.5 it took me approximately 1.5 years to go from complete no doubts belief since the age of 5 to complete no doubts disbelief and confident atheism.
Quote from: pennyjane on October 11, 2008, 06:35:04 PMif you really are interested in reconciling scripture with homosexuality may i recommend a great book written on the subject by rev jeff minor. it's titled "the children are free." in here he deals with the passage you quote and several others as well. if you're interested it's worth a look.
I'm not at all interested, even if it can be reconciled scripture isn't about homosexuality or jewish history or any other side topics in it. It doesn't matter how many fringe topics you reconcile at the end of the day it's about a god I don't believe exists. I was interested in how Katrina reconciled it for herself. I'm not convinced by her explanation but it's not me that has to be convinced only herself.
I HATE religion. I wish I didn't feel that strongly but I do. That evil has wrecked havok on my life and outright destroyed and ended many more. I have all the religion forums on this site ignored because when I first started using unread posts I was getting involved in so many religious arguments it was making this site emotionally draining instead of helpful. Am I interested in religion? YES Every bit as interested and for the same reasons as I'd be interested in rattlesnakes if I had one rattling it's tail beside me. Religion is a toxic poison and it is every bit as much in my face as it was when I voluntarily exposed myself to it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Post Break
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the forum software combined my posts and I want it to be very clear my rant at being accused of continued christianity because I didn't stick my fingers in my ears and hum is not directed at or related to Katrina's posts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Post Break
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on: October 12, 2008, 12:28:50 am
A couple points.
Quote from: Princess Katrina on October 11, 2008, 07:38:50 PM
Like it or not, there is an accuracy in referring to homosexual acts as "unnatural." Even from an athiestic, evolutionary standpoint, humans are physically designed for heterosexual sex, not homosexual sex. Those of us who are lesbian or gay have to derive alternative methods of pleasing our lovers. The term "natural" is frequently used nowadays, in many ways as a result of the rise of gay pride, to refer to that which does occur in nature, which would be an appropriate way to use the term. However, the term is just as appropriately applicable as referring to a process following the course it is designed to for.
This is a fundamentally wrong view of atheist and/or evolutionary perspectives. First I am not a Genetically Engineered organism. My glasses were designed. My organs were not. Evolution is not a design process it does not seek any goal. It creates nothing and has no purpose. Evolution doesn't experiment, choose, discard or perform any function that comes from intelligent processes. Evolution is merely a human description of how competition weeds out organisms insufficiently able to compete for needed resources in their current environment. Anything that occurs in nature without unnatural intervention is by definition natural. Homosexuality does occur in nature even if you exclude humans. Homosexuality is by definition natural. I should also note that humans are Homo sapiens, humans are a part of nature and any human behavior is also as natural as any behavior observed in birds.
Quote from: Princess Katrina on October 11, 2008, 07:38:50 PMAlso, in specific note to your question about the word consistantly translated as "homosexual." That word is not used in the passage you cited, not in any of the translations, even.
That's why I picked the passage. It doesn't use a word it uses a description.
Hi, Nikki, I can feel the resentment and pain very well, it is quite familiar to me. I left the church when I was 16 and never looked back. I just developed my own faith and beliefs but I do believe that there is a design to all that exists on this plane of reality.
I will stop sharing about my personal beliefs at this point and will sum up by quoting my love, Wing Walker. She has told me on many occasions that many of us have been sold "bad religion." I believe that the only type of belief system that is worth anything is the type that resonates with your own inner being.
My religion is science and the metaphysical and many other pieces of information collected through the years, That's why I call it my "patch work faith." In this faith there is no condemning God or is there any satan type and his minions or demons outside of the ones we allow to dwell in our own minds.
But then, who listens to me anyway? I'm just a stupid old woman who knows nothin' anyway. I never studied the Bible, and I don't even know a whole lot about finding what is where in the book, except for bits and peices that I still have retained in memory. Yet I have my peace. I have what I need to know in my heart.
I have love and I exchange this love with my beloved and any one else I am involved with in the outside world. Even if someone should call me a s**t h**d this, too, shall pass and pass it does. I have no guilty conscience and I have dealt with the demons of my past, both real and those that were planted there by others in my past. I live to be the happiest and best me as I can be each day. Each day that my eyes open to see the light of day is a blessing.
Cindy
The fact that there are choices in choosing religions in its self proves there is no "right" religion.
In regards to heaven an hell an sin an sinners an .. all that.
I am going to be exceptionally brief.
I have STRONG reason to believe Heaven exists, Hell exists and Personal Hells exist. I do not believe in "Sin", I honestly think that is a manufactured concept. I do not believe, and I have STRONG reason to believe as I do, that gender nor sexuality is that big of a deal out side of this layer of existence. In short, I have yet to have anything take offense in anyway to what this life is, nor have I heard of any such "problems". I conclude so much of what is said to be wrong is simply religion or individuals trying to gain a foothold in people's lives. I have VERY STRONG reason to believe what I have done in this life in regards to transsexual transition is NOT wrong. I have VERY STRONG reason to believe that my sexual orientation (I identify as Bisexual with a VERY strong lesbian streak) is a non issue. I have VERY STRONG reason to believe that my polygamous nature is natural and a non issue. (Diversity is something to be cherished, not damned.)
I advise that there is more value in the wonderment of life, than the fear of retribution after life. But, of course, this is just my understanding of things. When in doubt, if you want to really know what the divine thinks, why not ask? (An I do mean ask the divine, not the human layer's claiming to represent such.)
To clarify what I mean by ask the divine. INTEND to "talk to God" or at least some heavenly divine being of authority, and talk. Make sure you LISTEN! --- In a technical note, when I personally call up "Heaven" I establish a connection first before conversation. This, to me, is some... very old chant/prayer I think. It is automatic to me unfortunately so I really have no basis to explain. Regardless, keep the notion of establishing contact in mind if you feel that such is needed. Also, in short, odds are strong that just intending and then speaking your mind may have effect.
In case it is not obvious, in my view if you want to know God, well, throw out the books and the human understanding then look within and LISTEN. I am very ... grumpy in regards to religion in general however so please keep that in mind.
Namaste.
Hi Kimberly hon I believe we are pretty close to being on the same page.
look within and LISTEN.
Cept I don't get grumpy much or if I do it only lasts at most about all of 15 minutes. I can't hang on to any type of negativity for to long because it hurts to much because I am feeling my own negative energy and the other person negative energy I got grumpy at as well.
Yes it is through the inner self that one places that intergalactic phone call to what ever Higher Power you believe in.
Cindy
Here's what I know--I've never been bothered once by Bubba in a pick up truck, but I've been treated badly over and over again by "Christians." On the first day I came to work post-surgery, one of the god-squadders refused to come to work that day on account of me. Others with whom I was on friendly terms before, haven't spoken a single word to me since that day. I guess it is as Betty Bowers, America's Greatest Christian, says: Jesus told them to hate me.
Then there's the loving bosom of my family, pious christians all, who kindly informed me that i was destroying God's creation, that I had a disorder and was morally ill. And that was just from the 2 or 3 who actually kept speaking to me, at least for a while.
As far as I can see, "god", to a great many people, is remarkably like themselves, favoring the things they want to do anyway (be heterosexual, be conventional, feel better than the heathens) and who scorns that which they scorn (those morally ill gay and trans people). How very handy. Like a big celestial stamp of approval on all of their biases and prejudices.
And that bible bit about how God disapproves of homosexuality? The bible also says that unruly children should be put to death, but that one doesn't get brought up so much. But it's in the bible, people, the literal word of gawd. Let's sharpen up those machetes. What? Now it isn't to be taken literally? Huh?
And those terrorists we hear about all the time, those wonderful folks who flew jets into the twin towers and the pentagon? They did it for god. But they're arabs, so very different from us, here, right? Puh leeze. More violence, hatred and useless suffering has been brought about in the name of religion than any other reason. As the poem says, "sullied be thy name."
Having written all of the foregoing, I want to add that I have experienced the Divine in my life on a daily basis, and would have died years ago without that Love. But religion? No thank you. Keep that crap away from me.
Stealth
Quote from: Silk on October 11, 2008, 10:55:14 PM
Quote from: Princess Katrina on October 11, 2008, 10:36:13 PM
Quote from: Silk on October 11, 2008, 09:02:12 PM
Okay. New International Version, guys. Come on.
Quote25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
And this version is really quite true to the original text. I also find that it has the least direct disagreement with other versions, passage for passage. Now, if you were to take passages twenty-five, twenty-six, and twenty-seven from the NIV translation of Romans I, it would be plausible to suggest that, according to the NIV, the Bible prophesied the advent of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, delivered through the vehicle of unnatural and generally unclean sexual practices. In this case, homosexuality is a direct act of God intended for punishing a society that has fallen to idolatry and come to take its creator for granted.
On another note, you could also read "dishonorable" to mean something more akin to "embarrassing," denoting more that the business of homosexuality would result in teasing and probably loss of social status. This is definitely the case for most homosexuals. Even if you could get past all of the deliberate negativity that society heaps upon it, it's unspeakably embarrassing for most of us even without that. You could also say it's embarrassing that some of us are being dropped into the wrong bodies as with transsexualism, but that's a whole nother can of worms.
Under this understanding, it would be more appropriate for biblical literalists to focus simply upon honoring and glorifying their immortal God. It would reflect a much more accurate understanding of the Bible, as understood through the NIV. If this approach by itself doesn't eliminate homosexuality, it should at the very least result, over the long-term, in nullifying any harm that could be wrought by it. For example, the gays could suddenly decide they like living the married life and create such a high demand for newborns that it puts the abortion industry directly out of business, thus killing two birds with one stone.
Actually, the most literal translation would be the New American Standard (NAS), short of having an exactly literal translation such as I have in my Greek-English Interlinear New Testament.
Oh, that's a very good version. Unfortunately, one of the problems with the more literal translations is that some of the idiom of the time-period comes across as gobbledy-gook to us here in the 21st Century. Unfortunately, translators sometimes go a little too far in this, and it just results in further confusion. For example, it really isn't necessary to assume that the destruction of Sodom was over male homosexuality, but the simple assumption that "knowledge" is always being used as a euphamism for sexual intercourse has the Sodomites LITERALLY saying, "so we can have sex with them." In some cases, it would be more helpful to the reader to simply add a footnote explaining various theories regarding meaning and usage.
What I like about the NIV is that, in most places, it finds a healthy middle-ground between literal translation and a more intuitive understanding as to meaning. Then again, it's also received some degree of criticism for this. In any case, I finally settled on this version primarily through cross-referencing it with the other translations that are available through Bible Gateway.
QuoteThere is one other issue regarding translations that further invalidates the KJV. More modern translations are translated from older manuscripts, in other words, manuscripts that are closer to the original, if not themselves the original manuscripts. KJV is translated from relatively recent manuscripts, which are more likely to have been edited or modified in some way.
Surely. KJV was still a major accomplishment in its time, though. In spite of its imperfections, it does have historical value.
I agree. The KJV definitely has historical, and literary (the language is beautiful) value. Beyond that, not so much.
I also agree that the NIV is a very good translation. I, personally, don't own an NAS because I have original Greek and Hebrew texts for when I need a literal translation, as well as various reference materials for the study of individual Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words, and the NIV is what I would recommend to most people who intend to have only one translation of the Bible (I would've originally suggested the NLT until I started doing my research on Homosexuality and found that the NLT is far too presumptive in its wording, changing even places that explicitly say "man with man" and putting the word "homosexuality," thus encompassing lesbians in with gay men when the original text does no such thing).
The omition of Lesbians from every mention of homosexuality in the Bible is one of the things that lead me to question whether the Bible was speaking directly against homosexuality or certain other consequences and sinful traits that could be said to frequently manifest themselves among men who have sex with men.
I was recently informed that men who have sex with men, whether gay or straight in their actual orientation, are not allowed to give blood. This is because of the high percentage of HIV/AIDS victims who are, not just gay men, but men who have had sex with other men. Lesbians, or any other woman who's had sex with another woman, is by no means forbidden when it comes to giving blood because only a
very small percentage of lesbians have HIV/AIDS. The chances of lesbians passing HIV/AIDS to each other is extremely low. Not impossible, but incredibly low. There are other diseases this holds true for as well, though I couldn't give you an explicit list of them as HIV/AIDS is the only one I've learned anything about.
Every instance of man+man sex in the Bible is a case of men indiscriminately having sex with each other, with
multiple partners.
The only instance that could be said not to be that is not actually an instance of men having sex, but merely a declaration that men are not to lay with each other as they would with a woman, because it is
unclean. Now, to be absolutely clear, for a man to lay with another man as with a woman, that can really only be describing anal sex, the closest gay men have to vaginal sex. If you can't see how that is unclean, especially in a time with virtually no sanitation tools/abilities, you might need your eyes checked. :P
Now, obviously, there can be multiple interpretations of the passages I refer to. Every Christian is well within his right to interpret the Bible as he sees fit, especially in America. That is one of the hallmarks of the first amendment. I, personally, and I try to share this method with everyone I meet regardless of their religious orientation, prefer to study the Bible with applications of historical and anthropological evidence, literary criticism, and logic mixed with my Faith that God is a Just and Loving God.
QuoteThis is a fundamentally wrong view of atheist and/or evolutionary perspectives. First I am not a Genetically Engineered organism. My glasses were designed. My organs were not. Evolution is not a design process it does not seek any goal. It creates nothing and has no purpose. Evolution doesn't experiment, choose, discard or perform any function that comes from intelligent processes. Evolution is merely a human description of how competition weeds out organisms insufficiently able to compete for needed resources in their current environment. Anything that occurs in nature without unnatural intervention is by definition natural. Homosexuality does occur in nature even if you exclude humans. Homosexuality is by definition natural. I should also note that humans are Homo sapiens, humans are a part of nature and any human behavior is also as natural as any behavior observed in birds.
On the contrary, there is nothing wrong with my statements.
Evolution is a system of advancement for the existence of life. New models are created, seemingly at random, when certain conditions are met. That new model then either succeeds and reproduces to create more or it dies and is discarded. The purpose of evolution is to weed out the models that cannot survive in the environment in which they live and produce newer, better versions that can survive.
Homosexuality runs 100% counter to the natural process of evolution. It does not procreate and send its kind on into the next batch of creatures, to become its own species within that group.
Now, the only way to distinctly separate homosexuality from evolutionary concepts is to note that homosexuality does
not appear to be even remotely hereditary, though I don't know how much testing can be said to have been done on this. However, it is not common for homosexuals to produce children of their own genes, thus not passing their genetic code to the next generation, and thus not passing on any possibly new traits that might work towards the evolutionary advancement of the species.
My argument, however, was not that we are inherently unnatural. My argument was that we can be legitimately defined as unnatural as there are two appropriate ways of using the words natural/unnatural in that context.
Human bodies are designed, through an extensive evolutionary process whose purpose was to create the "ultimate life form" (not that we necessarily are such), for heterosexual reproduction. It is literally impossible for a human male to have sex with a human male and produce a child. It is literally impossible for a human female to have sex with a human female and produce a child. The natural process that the aforementioned Biblical text referred to when it said they "left the natural use" was heterosexual sex for the purpose of producing children, which was also a far more important thing from a societal standpoint due to the shorter lifespans and lack of massive population.
Personally, though, as an infertile lesbian who has a strong desire to be a mother, I see myself as a perfect candidate to provide a home for many orphans who would otherwise grow up without the benefits of a proper home, thus fulfilling a positive role in my society and for my species.
Katrina
You may be accurate about "theistic evolution" a god directed process that is supposed to allow science and religion to co-exist. But that is not by any stretch of the imagination an accurate description of science only evolution. From an atheistic perspective your view of evolution is so off base and so fused with your religion I don't know where to begin.
gosh nikki. i'm so sorry for pushing your button like that. it certainly wasn't meant as an accusation just an observation...apparently misguided. i apologize sincerely.
i wish life weren't so miserable for you and hope that you do find someplace to get some comfort and hope. maybe the right person will come along to offer it to you. may all things go well for you.
QuoteI was recently informed that men who have sex with men, whether gay or straight in their actual orientation, are not allowed to give blood.
This really annoys me. You see, it doesn't take into account at all the idea that most gay men have very clean sex lives. In fact, only half of them, as compared to a third of heterosexual men, have ever had anal sex at all. The highest rate of HIV and other illnesses is actually among African American women, yet I don't see them being being turned away. The justification behind the rule is not applied even-handedly, and I see it as a direct and intentional diss against the gay community.
QuoteEvery instance of man+man sex in the Bible is a case of men indiscriminately having sex with each other, with multiple partners.
Yes. In fact, if you refer to the first few passages of First Corinthians, chapter seven, you will find Paul stating clearly that marriage is a CONCESSION designed STRICTLY to prevent broader sexual immorality. This was apparently an opinion that he drew after PREVIOUSLY holding the opinion that sex is universally unclean. Now, if we go by Paul's reasoning, then shouldn't we promote gay marriage for exactly the same purpose?
QuoteThe only instance that could be said not to be that is not actually an instance of men having sex, but merely a declaration that men are not to lay with each other as they would with a woman, because it is unclean. Now, to be absolutely clear, for a man to lay with another man as with a woman, that can really only be describing anal sex, the closest gay men have to vaginal sex. If you can't see how that is unclean, especially in a time with virtually no sanitation tools/abilities, you might need your eyes checked. :P
I can only imagine doing butt-sex without having a long, hot shower afterward to clean up the mess.
QuoteHomosexuality runs 100% counter to the natural process of evolution.
I'm tellin' ya, genetics really isn't that clean-cut. I've been a student of the sciences for years. Sometimes a major illness can result from the deletion of a single nitrogenous base from the gene needed for the sequencing of an unassuming metabolic protein. Other traits are extremely complex and polygenetic. Natural selection is a very useful theory, and it actually has a bit of a "well, duh" quality to most serious researchers in the field of genetics. However, the reality is not so cut and dried.
QuoteIt does not procreate and send its kind on into the next batch of creatures, to become its own species within that group.
My boyfriend is the father two honor students. This happens to gay men a lot more than you might think. That's really beside the point, though. Remember, reality isn't nearly as cut and dried as you might think. Sometimes a genetic trait can have both positive and negative attributes.
Sometimes, whether an attribute is positive or negative depends upon individual ingenuity: for example, a person who is affected with high functioning autism can either fail altogether at life, or he could decide to be crafty and put some of the positive attributes of some of the milder forms of autism to work for him. There are just no guarantees in whether a phenotype is going to be advantageous or deleterious. Again, reality is NEVER as cut and dried as theory suggests. This is something we're taught in organic chemistry, and organic chemistry is arguably the most intensely rigorous of all scientific disciplines. That is, it's really really hard, and you can end up very very dead if you make a serious mistake in the wrong place at the wrong time. Our TAs sometimes seem to be jerks because they regularly have to throw people out of the lab for being the least bit out of line with the codes of conduct, and they don't take errors lightly. In all seriousness, when an organic chemist tells you that science is usually NOT all that cut and dried, you'd better believe it. We're in a very paranoid line of work, and we can't take anything for granted.
QuoteNow, the only way to distinctly separate homosexuality from evolutionary concepts is to note that homosexuality does not appear to be even remotely hereditary,
http://www.livescience.com/health/080617-hereditary-homosexuality.html
Again, it's not really that cut and dried. There are a number of different theories circulating about how homosexuality is even possible.
The story gets even weirder if you examine other species, though. You see, homosexual intercourse is even more common in bison than in humans. In fact, it's so prevalent that male/male couplings sometimes outnumber male/female couplings. The same phenomenon has been observed in giraffes and African elephants.
Strict heterosexualism is not the only strategy that can possibly work in nature. There are just too many variables that simply aren't obvious to the naked eye.
Now for a timeout!
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cheesebuerger.de%2Fimages%2Fmidi%2Fsportlich%2Fa078.gif&hash=f92a87c1b2898eeb35fdb5805ff8c47f589eb1c5)
Quote from: Princess Katrina on October 11, 2008, 10:36:13 PM
Actually, the most literal translation would be the New American Standard (NAS), short of having an exactly literal translation such as I have in my Greek-English Interlinear New Testament.
There is one other issue regarding translations that further invalidates the KJV. More modern translations are translated from older manuscripts, in other words, manuscripts that are closer to the original, if not themselves the original manuscripts. KJV is translated from relatively recent manuscripts, which are more likely to have been edited or modified in some way.
Umm, I have really tried to stay out of this, I really have. Of course I do not wish to try to act as anyone else's conscience. However, there are some facts which are relevant to this discussion.
First, you are right in that the NASB is the most literal translation ever produced. That makes it an excellent study Bible if one is interested in finding out the original meaning (which should be the main point here.) It does, however, have some drawbacks. As has been mentioned, idioms are sometimes difficult to understand. This also makes it helpful to check other translations, or better, go back and study the Greek (which I usually do). The NIV is a very good translation insofar as it accomplishes what it sets out to do. It was never meant to be a literal translation. Rather, it was translated by using a process called dynamic equivalence, which tried to translate meanings of phrases, rather than meanings of words. It makes for a very smooth reading work, but sometimes misses the exactness of the words. So there are trade-offs.
Now the 1611 KJV is an amazing work for its time. It remains one of the greatest literary masterpieces ever produced. And it represents the very pinnacle of scholarship for its day. And yes, it's true that many thousands more manuscripts and fragments have been found and translated since that time. But this gets problematic. The KJV is translated from a Greek New Testament usually called the Textus Receptus. Virtually every other translation was done with more updated manuscripts. Now there is a division in the scholarly world on this point: Just because a manuscript is older, does it necessarily follow that the manuscript is closer to the original? In a word, no. Age may increase the probability of accuracy, but does not actually guarantee lineage of the particular fragment or text.
This is why there is a popular new translation called the New King James Version (NKJV) translated from the Textus Receptus. However, most of the others do prefer the Nestle-Alland version, which contains the latest discoveries (and is still being updated.)
It is probably obvious from the above which version I prefer, and what my beliefs are, but I will not participate any longer in trashing each other in the name of religion, or in the name of freedom from it. Both, IMHO are telltale signs of bigotry and hatred.
OK, resume the weeping and gnashing of teeth........
Peace, all!
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi
Quote from: Kristi on October 12, 2008, 06:38:34 PM
Now for a timeout!
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cheesebuerger.de%2Fimages%2Fmidi%2Fsportlich%2Fa078.gif&hash=f92a87c1b2898eeb35fdb5805ff8c47f589eb1c5)
Quote from: Princess Katrina on October 11, 2008, 10:36:13 PM
Actually, the most literal translation would be the New American Standard (NAS), short of having an exactly literal translation such as I have in my Greek-English Interlinear New Testament.
There is one other issue regarding translations that further invalidates the KJV. More modern translations are translated from older manuscripts, in other words, manuscripts that are closer to the original, if not themselves the original manuscripts. KJV is translated from relatively recent manuscripts, which are more likely to have been edited or modified in some way.
Umm, I have really tried to stay out of this, I really have. Of course I do not wish to try to act as anyone else's conscience. However, there are some facts which are relevant to this discussion.
First, you are right in that the NASB is the most literal translation ever produced. That makes it an excellent study Bible if one is interested in finding out the original meaning (which should be the main point here.) It does, however, have some drawbacks. As has been mentioned, idioms are sometimes difficult to understand. This also makes it helpful to check other translations, or better, go back and study the Greek (which I usually do). The NIV is a very good translation insofar as it accomplishes what it sets out to do. It was never meant to be a literal translation. Rather, it was translated by using a process called dynamic equivalence, which tried to translate meanings of phrases, rather than meanings of words. It makes for a very smooth reading work, but sometimes misses the exactness of the words. So there are trade-offs.
Now the 1611 KJV is an amazing work for its time. It remains one of the greatest literary masterpieces ever produced. And it represents the very pinnacle of scholarship for its day. And yes, it's true that many thousands more manuscripts and fragments have been found and translated since that time. But this gets problematic. The KJV is translated from a Greek New Testament usually called the Textus Receptus. Virtually every other translation was done with more updated manuscripts. Now there is a division in the scholarly world on this point: Just because a manuscript is older, does it necessarily follow that the manuscript is closer to the original? In a word, no. Age may increase the probability of accuracy, but does not actually guarantee lineage of the particular fragment or text.
This is why there is a popular new translation called the New King James Version (NKJV) translated from the Textus Receptus. However, most of the others do prefer the Nestle-Alland version, which contains the latest discoveries (and is still being updated.)
It is probably obvious from the above which version I prefer, and what my beliefs are, but I will not participate any longer in trashing each other in the name of religion, or in the name of freedom from it. Both, IMHO are telltale signs of bigotry and hatred.
OK, resume the weeping and gnashing of teeth........
Peace, all!
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi
Honestly, the reason the NKJV is so popular is there are countless diehard fundamentalist Christians who believe the KJV is the only valid translation of the Bible (I've even heard some of these people actually say "The KJV was good enough for Paul, so it's good enough for me..."), and the NKJV takes the text of the KJV and modernizes the English, making it easier to read. Most modern people with a relatively minimal education are not particularly adept at reading the KJV. In many cases, it's nearly as bad as the Roman Catholic Church of the middle ages where all Biblical texts were in Latin and only the local Priest could read latin, thus only the local Priest knew what the Bible actually said. Luckily, the majority of people this fact applies to are dying out and the more recent generations are, at the very least, diving into the NKJV so that they can actually comprehend what they're reading, even if it is not an ideal translation to begin with.
As for the statement about texts and accuracies, that is true. It is not guaranteed that an earlier copy is more accurate than a more recent copy. However, the probability is significant and highly relevant. There is also the note I made about the KJV being heavily edited in favor of King James' views. Of course, this does happen in all translations, such as my previous reference to the Greek word that gets translated as homosexual, and is why I'm highly in favor of actually studying the original Greek, at least on issues one finds highly relevant and potentially contrary to their very existence.
Why throw out a text based on people telling you it condemns you when it may very well turn out that they don't know what the hell they're talking about, eh?
QuoteKatrina
You may be accurate about "theistic evolution" a god directed process that is supposed to allow science and religion to co-exist. But that is not by any stretch of the imagination an accurate description of science only evolution. From an atheistic perspective your view of evolution is so off base and so fused with your religion I don't know where to begin.
No, my statements have nothing to do with theistic evolution. Evolution is a process. It follows rules/natural laws the same as any other process in the universe. This has nothing to do with the existence of God or any other potential "intelligent designer." It is merely how the universe works. Now, these natural laws do appear to decay over time and the orderliness of the processes move into disorder; but the laws still apply.
I will happily accept an apology for accusing me of having a view of evolution that is fused with my religion, however. You see,
I don't personally believe in the Theory of Evolution. I believe in adaptation, and that it does incorporate a broad scope that includes aspects of the Theory of Evolution, but I do not personally believe in the whole of evolution as dictated by the
Theory, neither from a theistic standpoint nor otherwise.
Additionally, the purpose of my statements was
not to expound on my belief of the origin of the species, but rather to note why homosexual acts would have been referred to as
unnatural by the people of the time the Bible was written, and why they do have a certain amount of legitimacy in referring to it with that terminology.
@Silk, you are right that things are not so nearly cut and dry as I stated them, but my statement was meant to elaborate on the general reasoning of laymen, those who do not have the benefit of being hip deep in the scientific details governing genetics and other biological issues, which goes even further when you began viewing it from the perspective of a people who lived 2000 years ago, when barely a fraction of anything remotely like modern genetics was even known.
The time period in which the text was written would also preclude any form of
in vitro fertilization. For a homosexual (male) couple to impregnate a surrogate mother would require extramarital sex (assuming the couple could become married in the first place, but I won't get into my views on that right now) in that time period. It would also
require at least one of them to have heterosexual sex. Likewise, a lesbian woman in that time period would have to have allowed a male to have heterosexual sex with her. These actions would've been expressly forbidden in the time the texts were written, even if full homosexual activity was allowed. In fact, homosexuals would've been even less likely to procreate in that time period, in that particular society anyway, had their homosexual status been completely allowed, including homosexual marriages.
It is primarily modern science and culture that is making the possibility of gay men and women to procreate, at least within a predominantly Judeo-Christian society.
Greek Society, of course, viewed homosexuality in a way that made it a perfectly acceptable practice that did not involve marriage, nor did it in any way prevent gay men from procreating. However, Greek society also seemed to be more in favor of bisexuality than homosexuality, as these men partaking in gay-male sex were more often than not married to women. Whether or not the men were specifically gay, hetero, or bi did not seem to matter. Culture made bisexuality the ideal, to promote the "beautiful" act of a man with a man along with the procreative act of a man with a woman.
Quote from: scarboroughfair on October 12, 2008, 05:50:06 PM
Quote from: Jordan on October 12, 2008, 02:34:00 AM
The fact that there are choices in choosing religions in its self proves there is no "right" religion.
That is what I'm thinking. I felt a lot of guilt for who I am and religion was one of the many hurdles I had to deal with.
I believe there is a god. I'm just frutrated at the fact that man has to be so controlling and dictating to me how I am supposed to be.
Yes, we need laws to keep society in order, I just think religion divides it.
Agreed, man's and woman's need to classify and understand and Own a grasp on something is pathetic.
There may very well be a God, but he laughs at those who feel they need to worship him.
He would not create something only to have us feel the need to worship him.
Let alone choose among his/her/it creations which of those are worthy to join him post death based on actions through out this life.
Quote from: Princess Katrina on October 12, 2008, 09:44:21 PM@Silk, you are right that things are not so nearly cut and dry as I stated them, but my statement was meant to elaborate on the general reasoning of laymen, those who do not have the benefit of being hip deep in the scientific details governing genetics and other biological issues, which goes even further when you began viewing it from the perspective of a people who lived 2000 years ago, when barely a fraction of anything remotely like modern genetics was even known.
I could explain it to them in a matter of hours if they were reasonably bright and I spoke the language.
QuoteThe time period in which the text was written would also preclude any form of in vitro fertilization.
Women weren't given a choice in these things. Particularly in ancient Rome, they had approximately the same status as slaves. The fact that most of the gay "bottoms" of ancient Rome actually were slaves was just parallel to the norm for the time period. Consider pederasty as practiced in ancient Greece: the age structure of these "pederastic" relations was actually identical to that of normal marriages. The gays have generally followed the customs and expectations of their societies if allowed to live prosperously.
QuoteGreek Society, of course, viewed homosexuality in a way that made it a perfectly acceptable practice that did not involve marriage
It actually wasn't really accepted in all periods of Greek history. The gays have sort of had their ups and downs in that society.
QuoteHowever, Greek society also seemed to be more in favor of bisexuality than homosexuality, as these men partaking in gay-male sex were more often than not married to women.
This was probably true mostly in the upper echelons of society, in which men were under intense pressure to marry and bear children. The case with my own lover was similar. He bowed to social pressure and married a woman even though it left him feeling unhappy and unfulfilled.
Quote from: Princess Katrina on October 12, 2008, 09:44:21 PM
Honestly, the reason the NKJV is so popular is there are countless diehard fundamentalist Christians who believe the KJV is the only valid translation of the Bible (I've even heard some of these people actually say "The KJV was good enough for Paul, so it's good enough for me..."), and the NKJV takes the text of the KJV and modernizes the English, making it easier to read. Most modern people with a relatively minimal education are not particularly adept at reading the KJV. In many cases, it's nearly as bad as the Roman Catholic Church of the middle ages where all Biblical texts were in Latin and only the local Priest could read latin, thus only the local Priest knew what the Bible actually said. Luckily, the majority of people this fact applies to are dying out and the more recent generations are, at the very least, diving into the NKJV so that they can actually comprehend what they're reading, even if it is not an ideal translation to begin with.
For the most part I agree with you, but the discussion does go a bit deeper than that. I agree that those "King James Only" people are experts in circular reasoning at best. And I am certainly not one of them. Nor do I particularly like the NKJV. But it does what it sets out to do, which is not to just update the language of the KJV. Rather, it is a modern translation of the Textus Receptus. Now to be fair, I sometimes compare both Greek versions, and honestly, there are not a whole lot of differences that make significant doctrinal issues. However, the Book of Revelation was simply a re-translation from the Latin Vulgate, and that does cause me a lot of concern. It also does show some editorializing. At the same time, relying heavily on the works of Origen (who had quite an agenda) as well as codices like Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus (which was a uncial manuscript) has its own problems, These are far from being original autographs, and were produced in circumstances which raises red flags for me.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi
Quote from: Princess Katrina on October 12, 2008, 09:44:21 PMNo, my statements have nothing to do with theistic evolution. Evolution is a process. It follows rules/natural laws the same as any other process in the universe. This has nothing to do with the existence of God or any other potential "intelligent designer." It is merely how the universe works. Now, these natural laws do appear to decay over time and the orderliness of the processes move into disorder; but the laws still apply.
Purpose requires a purpose giver. Design requires a designer. Evolution isn't a process it's the observed result of random mutation and competition for resources. When you talk about purpose or design in evolution you are talking about theistic evolution. Organisms don't even exist to reproduce, they simply exist. Most organisms reproduce simply because reproduction is required for a species with a finite individual lifespan to continue to exist past the lifespans of it's members. There is nothing wrong with or against evolution in an organism that doesn't reproduce.
Quote from: Princess Katrina on October 12, 2008, 09:44:21 PMI will happily accept an apology for accusing me of having a view of evolution that is fused with my religion, however. You see, I don't personally believe in the Theory of Evolution. I believe in adaptation, and that it does incorporate a broad scope that includes aspects of the Theory of Evolution, but I do not personally believe in the whole of evolution as dictated by the Theory, neither from a theistic standpoint nor otherwise.
Belief is not required to have a view. I don't believe in your god but I still have a view of it. You don't believe in evolution but you still have a view of it. Your talk of purpose and design in evolution clearly shows the way your religious beliefs have warped your understanding of evolution. Maybe instead of being so arrogant as to tell me what atheistic views of evolution are then demand an apology when corrected, you should listen and understand.
You don't even understand what I believe, yet you feel qualified to tell me what is and is not natural or legitimate within my beliefs?
Of all the bibles out there, who knows which one is right!
I]I've yet to find the Stagehand's Bible (yes, there is one) incorrect. Though its not a holy source. The BASEBALL-ALMANAC is darn good to, but only holy in bars, where it ends all baseball agurments. Period. But no bible is holy everywhere, so its got a leg up on that account.
I'm pretty sure that they ain't got a begat between them.
new translation called the New King James Version (NKJV) translated from the Textus Receptus. That one or the other is better or worse (I'm picking worse) is only New Testament stuff. The Old - really old - Testament is still being used by the people who wrote it, in the language of their people. So, while I would suggest the Owen Lattimore translation for the New Testament, the Hebrew bible is the real thing, not a rip off.
I could explain it to them in a matter of hours if they were reasonably bright and I spoke the language.
No, you could not. They saw the world very differently. They have no vocabulary, no language, no concept of cause and effect to understand modern science.
Greek Society, of course, viewed homosexuality in a way that made it a perfectly acceptable practice that did not involve marriage, nor did it in any way prevent gay men from procreating.
And what Greek society is that? When? Are you talking about classical Athens? Or say, the Greek society of the middle ages?
AND....
And, and .... and
SCIENCE IS NOT RELIGION. Not even in the same park. Its not apples and oranges. It's rocks and life. Two different deals. Thou shalt not compare them.
Quote from: tekla on October 13, 2008, 12:04:18 AMI could explain it to them in a matter of hours if they were reasonably bright and I spoke the language.
No, you could not. They saw the world very differently. They have no vocabulary, no language, no concept of cause and effect to understand modern science.
Well, that was partially a bit of braggadoccio on my part, but the fact is that I could probably actually get pretty far in such an endeavor. I'm incredibly gifted in the effective use of language. You're not dealing with some naif here who just doesn't get things like cultural barriers. I actually know what I'm talking about here.
Furthermore, the people who actually wrote the Bible were probably among the most intellectually gifted individuals of their time. Simply the fact that they were literate during that age suggests a higher than usual degree of intellectual curiosity and cognitive flexibility. Such a person would be far more receptive to alien ideas than the average guy. It might be a hard set of concepts to communicate, but I would be dealing with some of the finest minds of the age. It wouldn't be an insurmountable challenge at all, particularly for a person with such talents and gifts as my own.
Like I said, if I were dealing with an individual from that age who was reasonably bright, I could probably explain at least the basics of genetics within a relatively short time. Granted, it would be more challenging to get this through to someone of average intelligence.
QuoteAnd what Greek society is that? When? Are you talking about classical Athens? Or say, the Greek society of the middle ages?
After the Muslims took over?
QuoteSCIENCE IS NOT RELIGION. Not even in the same park. Its not apples and oranges. It's rocks and life. Two different deals. Thou shalt not compare them.
Unless thou art Christiaan Huygens!
"The world is my fatherland, science is my religion."
Amen!
Well, that was partially a bit of braggadoccio on my part, but the fact is that I could probably actually get pretty far in such an endeavor. I'm incredibly gifted in the effective use of language. You're not dealing with some naif here who just doesn't get things like cultural barriers. I actually know what I'm talking about here.
Umm, how do I say this politely? I don't. That is not braggadoccio, it's ignorance. The past is NOT like the present, except in different clothing. Its an entirely different way of thinking.
Look, you look out the window and see a tree. You think of things like "roots' 'leaves' 'photosynthesis' 'genus phila.' A person in say 12th Century times would see that tree and think it was a lesson from god. That every living thing was on earth to teach a lesson about life. Check out some of the Middle Ages' Bestiaries and see what I mean. Its not science, its allegory and morals.
This reflected the belief that the world itself was the Word of God, and that every living thing had its own special meaning. (wiki, and a rather good article to start with)
You come talking 'modern science' and classification and method to them they would think you are talking jibberish.
Furthermore, the people who actually wrote the Bible were probably among the most intellectually gifted individuals of their time. Simply the fact that they were literate during that age suggests a higher than usual degree of intellectual curiosity and cognitive flexibility.
Got any proof of that? Oh no, as it turns out the Bible followers spend centuries wiping all that other stuff off the face of the earth, like the burning of Great Library at Alexandra for one. The reason its called the Dark Ages is because of the huge volume of information that was lost. Its like I took all the music of the 1960's and got rid of it, leaving only 1910 Fruitgum Company, and that becomes the standard. For the record, I think that the Qur'ān is better written as a complete work, far more stylized, and some of the best stuff in the Bible, like the Flood Story, was just lifted whole cloth from Epic of Gilgamesh during the captivity in Babylon. Because we know the Hebrews did not have that story before the captivity, but had it with them on their return.
some of the finest minds of the age
Were trying to make gold our of lead, when they weren't Kowtowing to that whole 'Divine Right of Kings' crap. Oh, and burning witches. So good luck with Theodoric of York and all. I don't think that Monty Python (massively and extremely well educated beyond what most Americans can even understand - Graham, John and Eric were at Cambridge together, while Terry Jones and Michael were at Oxford) was that far off in the Holy Grail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g)
It wouldn't be an insurmountable challenge at all, particularly for a person with such talents and gifts as my own.
Modesty and humility chief among them I'm sure.
Science is not my religion. Nor do I know any scientists (and I worked for several years at a DOE Lab, so I know a few) who think of it that way. Exactly the opposite. Religion, i.e. things based on faith rather than proof, I ain't got none of.
tekla, that Hol Grail bit is completely off topic!
Let's get back to the New Testament.
Life of Brian (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bumfnms6ovA)
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me, you don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes, we are all different!
Man in Crowd: I'm not...
The Crowd: Shhh!
Ahh yes, blessed are the cheesemakers.
Perhaps, Silk, given the incontrovertible nature of your great wisdom, learning and the ineffability of your 3rd year in college you might have become a prophet, a master, teacher in that world you wish to go to and explain in ten minutes the learning of the modern world.
Of course, one truly must expect the price that could come from that as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krb2OdQksMc&feature=related
Quote from: tekla on October 13, 2008, 10:24:18 AMUmm, how do I say this politely? I don't. That is not braggadoccio, it's ignorance.
It could also be an historical perspective that you were not previously aware of. Whether or not I'm sufficiently conversant in it to discuss it intelligibly with a person who has a PhD in the subject is a different matter altogether.
QuoteThe past is NOT like the present, except in different clothing. Its an entirely different way of thinking.
1) The clothing wasn't all that different either. Don't believe what you see in the picture books. It's true they didn't have trousers then, save for a few nomadic horsemen and Chinese infantry, but they liked for their clothes to fit and keep them warm. The styles, tools and available materials were different, but their priorities were largely the same.
2) The degree to which their thinking differed would depend entirely upon their background and mine.
QuoteLook, you look out the window and see a tree. You think of things like "roots' 'leaves' 'photosynthesis' 'genus phila.' A person in say 12th Century times would see that tree and think it was a lesson from god.
No. He'd see a tree, and he could probably instruct you in several different methods for getting its roots out of the ground if he had any agricultural background. If he were formally educated in the subject, he could probably explain it to you in terms of trigonometric functions. He'd probably know more about the subject overall than you do.
QuoteYou come talking 'modern science' and classification and method to them they would think you are talking jibberish.
That wouldn't be an ideal place to start. I was thinking of beginning with simple analogies.
QuoteGot any proof of that? Oh no, as it turns out the Bible followers spend centuries wiping all that other stuff off the face of the earth, like the burning of Great Library at Alexandra for one. The reason its called the Dark Ages is because of the huge volume of information that was lost. Its like I took all the music of the 1960's and got rid of it, leaving only 1910 Fruitgum Company, and that becomes the standard.
This actually started with Emperor Justinian I. He was also responsible for shutting down the schools of philosophy. Justinian was nothing but a tyrant, pure and simple. There was nothing more to him. He comes from the same bag as Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, and Kim Jong Il. It was because of his handiwork and that of others like him that the Catholic Church became as corrupt and evil as it did.
Quotesome of the finest minds of the age
Were trying to make gold our of lead, when they weren't Kowtowing to that whole 'Divine Right of Kings' crap. Oh, and burning witches. So good luck with Theodoric of York and all.
When the schools of philosophy were still open, the thinking was getting pretty advanced.
QuoteScience is not my religion. Nor do I know any scientists (and I worked for several years at a DOE Lab, so I know a few) who think of it that way.
Christiaan Huygens!
"We might rise from this limited Earth and,
looking from above, thinking, whether nature all its
splendour and glory had wasted to this heaply of dirt.
So we will, like traveller in other far away lands,
get a better judgement about the things at home and
form judgement of any thing by its worthiness.
What the world calls great we will admire less and
all the nullities most of the people set their heart on
we despise noble, because we will know, that myriads of
settled and equally good fitted worlds like ours exist."I want to have his baby! Christian Huygens is probably at least distantly related to a goodly percentage of all of today's nerds, geeks, hackers, and MIT wizz-kids.
QuoteReligion, i.e. things based on faith rather than proof, I ain't got none of.
The degree to which this is actually true tends to vary, actually.
However, scientists don't go about "proving" things. This is the first thing you're taught in an undergraduate biology course.
Posted on: October 13, 2008, 01:32:57 pm
Quote from: Nichole on October 13, 2008, 11:59:52 AM
Perhaps, Silk, given the incontrovertible nature of your great wisdom, learning and the ineffability of your 3rd year in college you might have become a prophet, a master, teacher in that world you wish to go to and explain in ten minutes the learning of the modern world.
Of course, one truly must expect the price that could come from that as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krb2OdQksMc&feature=related
I win.
Quote from: Nikki on October 12, 2008, 10:56:50 PM
Quote from: Princess Katrina on October 12, 2008, 09:44:21 PMNo, my statements have nothing to do with theistic evolution. Evolution is a process. It follows rules/natural laws the same as any other process in the universe. This has nothing to do with the existence of God or any other potential "intelligent designer." It is merely how the universe works. Now, these natural laws do appear to decay over time and the orderliness of the processes move into disorder; but the laws still apply.
Purpose requires a purpose giver. Design requires a designer. Evolution isn't a process it's the observed result of random mutation and competition for resources. When you talk about purpose or design in evolution you are talking about theistic evolution. Organisms don't even exist to reproduce, they simply exist. Most organisms reproduce simply because reproduction is required for a species with a finite individual lifespan to continue to exist past the lifespans of it's members. There is nothing wrong with or against evolution in an organism that doesn't reproduce.
I'm sorry, but
where are you getting this ridiculous view? A purpose does
not require a "purpose giver." The eyes serve the purpose of providing us with sight. The penis serves the purpose of releasing liquid waste from the body as well as transferring sperm from the male body into the female body. The nervous system serves the purpose of transmitting signals to and from the brain. None of this has anything to do with someone giving it a purpose. It is merely the purpose these parts serve.
Physical Laws of the Universe follow in the same way.
Quote from: Nikki on October 12, 2008, 10:56:50 PM
Quote from: Princess Katrina on October 12, 2008, 09:44:21 PMI will happily accept an apology for accusing me of having a view of evolution that is fused with my religion, however. You see, I don't personally believe in the Theory of Evolution. I believe in adaptation, and that it does incorporate a broad scope that includes aspects of the Theory of Evolution, but I do not personally believe in the whole of evolution as dictated by the Theory, neither from a theistic standpoint nor otherwise.
Belief is not required to have a view. I don't believe in your god but I still have a view of it. You don't believe in evolution but you still have a view of it. Your talk of purpose and design in evolution clearly shows the way your religious beliefs have warped your understanding of evolution. Maybe instead of being so arrogant as to tell me what atheistic views of evolution are then demand an apology when corrected, you should listen and understand.
You don't even understand what I believe, yet you feel qualified to tell me what is and is not natural or legitimate within my beliefs?
Let me give this to you in simple terms.
My boyfriend is an agnostic, who leans heavily towards an atheistic view. He is not absolutely certain that there is no God, but he is inclined to believe there is no God. He also believes in, and has spent a good bit of time studying, evolution. It ties into his field of study, which is Psychology. His view on evolution
does not incorporate theistic views,
at all. He, himself, can tell you that evolution has a purpose, and it has
nothing to do with whether or not there is any kind of intelligent designer.
Now, let me clarify something for you. I am not the one lacking understanding here. You owe me a profound apologize for
your arrogance and your
ignorance, as well as your insults. Are you really dumb enough to believe people are incapable of viewing something without it being colored by their own personal beliefs?
Posted on: October 13, 2008, 02:41:14 pm
Quote from: Silk on October 13, 2008, 09:42:53 AM
Quote from: tekla on October 13, 2008, 12:04:18 AMI could explain it to them in a matter of hours if they were reasonably bright and I spoke the language.
No, you could not. They saw the world very differently. They have no vocabulary, no language, no concept of cause and effect to understand modern science.
Well, that was partially a bit of braggadoccio on my part, but the fact is that I could probably actually get pretty far in such an endeavor. I'm incredibly gifted in the effective use of language. You're not dealing with some naif here who just doesn't get things like cultural barriers. I actually know what I'm talking about here.
Furthermore, the people who actually wrote the Bible were probably among the most intellectually gifted individuals of their time. Simply the fact that they were literate during that age suggests a higher than usual degree of intellectual curiosity and cognitive flexibility. Such a person would be far more receptive to alien ideas than the average guy. It might be a hard set of concepts to communicate, but I would be dealing with some of the finest minds of the age. It wouldn't be an insurmountable challenge at all, particularly for a person with such talents and gifts as my own.
Like I said, if I were dealing with an individual from that age who was reasonably bright, I could probably explain at least the basics of genetics within a relatively short time. Granted, it would be more challenging to get this through to someone of average intelligence.
I don't know about the Old Testament, but most of the New Testament was
technically written by scribes, who copied down what the attributed authors dictated to them. It is not a given that they were all completely literate (at least two of the original twelve Disciples were mere fisherman).
QuoteAnd what Greek society is that? When? Are you talking about classical Athens? Or say, the Greek society of the middle ages?
Your absurd, intentional misunderstanding shouts troll.
QuoteSCIENCE IS NOT RELIGION.
Science is not inherently religion, though like anything, it is entirely possible to worship it as religion.
That aside, it is not inherent that science and religion run contrary to each other.
QuoteLook, you look out the window and see a tree. You think of things like "roots' 'leaves' 'photosynthesis' 'genus phila.' A person in say 12th Century times would see that tree and think it was a lesson from god. That every living thing was on earth to teach a lesson about life. Check out some of the Middle Ages' Bestiaries and see what I mean. Its not science, its allegory and morals.
One issue with your example is that we're not comparing the Middle Ages with modern time. We're comparing 2000+ years ago with modern times. Frankly, southeastern Europe was more intellectually advanced 2000 years ago than it was 1000 years ago. It was the Greeks who discovered concepts like the atom and pythagoreon theorum. They would be more likely to comprehend modern concepts of genetics than scholars of the middle ages, though I am highly inclined to say it would take far more than a few hours to explain it to them, unless you found one who was possibly the greatest intellectual genius of all time.
QuoteGot any proof of that? Oh no, as it turns out the Bible followers spend centuries wiping all that other stuff off the face of the earth, like the burning of Great Library at Alexandra for one. The reason its called the Dark Ages is because of the huge volume of information that was lost. Its like I took all the music of the 1960's and got rid of it, leaving only 1910 Fruitgum Company, and that becomes the standard. For the record, I think that the Qur'ān is better written as a complete work, far more stylized, and some of the best stuff in the Bible, like the Flood Story, was just lifted whole cloth from Epic of Gilgamesh during the captivity in Babylon. Because we know the Hebrews did not have that story before the captivity, but had it with them on their return.
Again, Tekla, you're obsessing over the Dark Ages. If you'd actually bothered to
read the discussion going on, you would realize that we have not once mentioned what people in the dark ages would think.
The most recently written books of the Bible were written just under 2000 years ago.
Considering your the only one who has reached for the word dumb, you can consider the discussion over effective immediately. But I was under the impression you were a lesbian.
Quote from: Princess Katrina on October 13, 2008, 02:59:42 PMMy boyfriend...
In the interest of removing a bit of the heat and a lot of the targeted name-calling and reporting by other members calling for an end of it, the thread is now locked.
I win.
Nichole
I think it is time to tone down the retoric and personal insults.
Lets try to keep this topic civil.
Sarah L.