Isn't the so called "fundamentalism" the only true religion?

[hakkarin]

Originally Posted by NoCapo

There are specific interpretations of any given faith tradition that call for things that we as a society condemn, but there are also interpretations of those same faith that do not.

For example, there is the nutjob out in California who was preaching that Christianity demands execution for homosexuals. On the other hand there is my local Lutheran pastor, a lesbian, who believes that Christianity demands no such thing.

Originally Posted by Vizio

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.....you are like many others that really need to grasp the idea of "context".

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)

Then Zimri, who commanded half of the royal chariots, made plans to kill him. One day in Tirzah, Elah was getting drunk at the home of Arza, the supervisor of the palace. Zimri walked in and struck him down and killed him. This happened in the twenty-seventh year of King Asa's reign in Judah. Then Zimri became the next king. Zimri immediately killed the entire royal family of Baasha, and he did not leave a single male child. He even destroyed distant relatives and friends. So Zimri destroyed the dynasty of Baasha as the LORD had promised through the prophet Jehu. This happened because of the sins of Baasha and his son Elah and because of all the sins they led Israel to commit, arousing the anger of the LORD, the God of Israel, with their idols.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination."

In what context exactly can these quotes be painted in positive light? Are they some kind of metaphors? Metaphors for what?

Originally Posted by whoppers

Whether it is Judaism, Christianity or Islam, religions evolve and the adherents evolve along with them - as do their interpretations of what came before.

If people are free to just interpret their faith however they want to, what is even the point of religion? If people don't want to live according to a clearly defined set of rules why not just dump the religion and do as they please?

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by hakkarin

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)

Then Zimri, who commanded half of the royal chariots, made plans to kill him. One day in Tirzah, Elah was getting drunk at the home of Arza, the supervisor of the palace. Zimri walked in and struck him down and killed him. This happened in the twenty-seventh year of King Asa's reign in Judah. Then Zimri became the next king. Zimri immediately killed the entire royal family of Baasha, and he did not leave a single male child. He even destroyed distant relatives and friends. So Zimri destroyed the dynasty of Baasha as the LORD had promised through the prophet Jehu. This happened because of the sins of Baasha and his son Elah and because of all the sins they led Israel to commit, arousing the anger of the LORD, the God of Israel, with their idols.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination."

In what context exactly can these quotes be painted in positive light? Are they some kind of metaphors? Metaphors for what?

I don't frequently agree with Vizio, but he has hit the mark on this one. I think you may be misunderstanding his usage of context. From what I gather, he is illustrating that all passages in these ancient texts were written for specific peoples in specific cultural and historical contexts, backgrounds and situations. He is not claiming they are positive for US now. The Jeremiah example, for instance, was from a prophetic oracle intended ONLY for the Judahites living in Exile at that time. It has absolutely no bearing on moderns whatsoever. In fact, it was probably Persian propaganda (of which Jeremiah has been accused, rightly in my opinion).

This is the context he is speaking of - the ancient near eastern (ANE) context in which these works were composed.

I think the problem is when some Christians think the Bible was some eternal work that was written for the generations to come, and that every passage can be applied to a modern believer.

The examples you give were meant for people living in that ancient time, whether we find them abhorrent of not. As such, they are not very helpful for anyone living today.



If people are free to just interpret their faith however they want to, what is even the point of religion? If people don't want to live according to a clearly defined set of rules why not just dump the religion and do as they please?[/quote]

I do agree with your sentiment, but my point was that religions evolve. The Protestant idea of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) as the ultimate arbiter of how the faithful should live, is a fairly recent innovation (600 years or so), and it prevents religions from evolving and gives the false impression that one should read the Bible as if it is an eternal guidebook to live by.

[hakkarin]

Originally Posted by whoppers

From what I gather, he is illustrating that all passages in these ancient texts were written for specific peoples in specific cultural and historical contexts, backgrounds and situations. He is not claiming they are positive for US now. The Jeremiah example, for instance, was from a prophetic oracle intended ONLY for the Judahites living in Exile at that time. It has absolutely no bearing on moderns whatsoever.

Even if so, don't these texts show that god told a bunch of people to go commit horrible acts? Doesn't that still make god a douchebag? If I told another dude to go kill someone but did not expect the same of you, I would still be a criminal would I not?

[bulmabriefs144]

Originally Posted by hakkarin

(Copy pasted below to discuss)

In what context exactly can these quotes be painted in positive light? Are they some kind of metaphors? Metaphors for what?

If people are free to just interpret their faith however they want to, what is even the point of religion? If people don't want to live according to a clearly defined set of rules why not just dump the religion and do as they please?

They aren't metaphors. They're awkward translations.

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

I have no context for that. If a man still prophesies sounds like the context is false prophecy, one not called by God. Leading people astray into some weird cult is bad news. I would say the punishment is a bit harsh, though. Okay, to get context, you will need to start back at Zechariah 11, where it talks about the flock intended for slaughter.

"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)

The context is war. Babylon had a sour history with Judaism, some of which involved the Babylonians conquering them and trying to force them to worship Babylonian religion, and forsake their own.

In some sense, this war is STILL going on.

Now, compare this to passages of the Quran, which are pretty much long passages of unfocused hatred (not just in context of war) of anyone not Muslim. Seriously. We all need to be able to get past this anger with each other. It's been long enough.

Then Zimri, who commanded half of the royal chariots, made plans to kill him. One day in Tirzah, Elah was getting drunk at the home of Arza, the supervisor of the palace. Zimri walked in and struck him down and killed him. This happened in the twenty-seventh year of King Asa's reign in Judah. Then Zimri became the next king. Zimri immediately killed the entire royal family of Baasha, and he did not leave a single male child. He even destroyed distant relatives and friends. So Zimri destroyed the dynasty of Baasha as the LORD had promised through the prophet Jehu. This happened because of the sins of Baasha and his son Elah and because of all the sins they led Israel to commit, arousing the anger of the LORD, the God of Israel, with their idols.

This is punishment for idolatry. Last I checked, it's part of the ten commandments. It's violent yes, but this is a description of events during a violent time.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination."

If this is talking about homosexuality, wouldn't they say "A man shall not lie with a man, nor a woman with a woman, it is abomination"? They didn't though. They said you shall not lie with man as with woman."

This means one of two things:

• Bisexuality is out. Be faithful to your lover.
• Do not lie with a man, as though they were a woman.

Let's talk about what this second one means. We have the New English Translation saying this:

You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.

Okay, this is more clear. How does one have sex with a woman? Penetration. As in, oral sex, even oral homosexual sex, is okay. Anal sex? Is unclean. Since Judaism is all about cleanliness, this follows. This also adds up with the spread of AIDs, and how you get it.

Having sex with someone who has HIV. In general:

• Anal sex is the highest-risk sexual behavior. Receptive anal sex (bottoming) is riskier than insertive anal sex (topping).
• Vaginal sex is the second highest-risk sexual behavior. (Use condoms please! And don't sleep around)
• Having multiple sex partners or having other sexually transmitted infections can increase the risk of infection through sex.

We are told sexual immorality (infidelity) is a big issue. And sure enough typically the reason why vaginal sex is a good way to get AIDS is only when someone has already been exposed with AIDS has slept around with that person. Homosexuality is not the sin. Anal sex, and especially anal rape is the sin. Promiscuity and unfaithfulness is the sin. In fact, it is a recurring theme that whenever people were unfaithful or did perverse sex acts (read: kinky, not gay), God visited plagues and other disasters on them. So, stop going after gays please, and let's do something about these players and rapists.

Alternative definitions of this passage.

http://stopbibleabuse.org/biblical-r...leviticus.html

The exact meaning of the original passage in Leviticus is therefore unclear. Translators face a choice between alternative prohibitions of:

• homosexual behavior by either sex
• sexual behavior between two men
• sexual behavior between a man and a married man (or perhaps three people, including at least one man and one woman)
• just anal sex between two men
• just pagan temple ritual sex (between two men?)
• sexual activity between two men in a woman’s bed

Be aware that post-King James translations fixate on the first two. This has had a self-perpetuating effect; a Bible that strays significantly from this hate message won’t sell, which means it won’t get published. Deviating from traditional interpretations would certainly generate a lot of media hype, which would temporarily boost sales because of the publicity generated, but it would also block the use of the translation by many if not most purchasers of large numbers of Bibles. We’re stuck with this, guys.

Typical liberal churches choose the pagan temple ritual sex but the two before it seem more likely. In any case, it seems obvious that at some point we need to clean house with the Bible and figure out what these passages mean, and nuke the King James Version.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by hakkarin

Even if so, don't these texts show that god told a bunch of people to go commit horrible acts? Doesn't that still make god a douchebag? If I told another dude to go kill someone but did not expect the same of you, I would still be a criminal would I not?

You're not a god heh heh.

Listen, I'm not some religious apologist here. I could care less if you think God is a douchebag - he DID do some terrible things, with a caveat to that last statement: there is a huge problem with being anachronistic and reading ancient texts and expecting our own modern cultural expectations to be reflected within them. It doesn't work and you'll always reach an impasse of your own devising.

The post above me (by bulma) assumes that the answer to this "problem" is bad translation, or a reliance on the KJV. No serious scholar of the Ancient Near East relies on the KJV and uses it as an excuse to "explain" away difficult passages in the Hebrew Bible. The Bible frowned upon homosexuality, as did most other Ancient Near Eastern peoples of the time - and no "stop abusing the Bible" website can change that through clever argumentation. Terrible? Sure, to our modern eyes. But it's not a modern collection of books, and we shouldn't expect to read them in that manner.