Votes on Gay Rights Never Match Public Opinion.

**USArmyParatrooper** · 05-11-2012, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by Matt Algren

Reverend Dr. Laurence Keene: "I have a soft spot in my heart for literalists because I used to be one. However, when someone says to me, 'This is what the Bible says,' my response to them is, 'No, that’s what the Bible reads.' It is the struggle to understand context and language and culture and custom that helps us to understand the meaning of what it is saying."

Archbishop Desmond Tutu: "The Bible is the word of God through the word of human beings, speaking in the idiom of their time. And the richness of the Bible comes from the fact that we don't take it as literally so, that it was dictated by God.”

This explanation is also a conundrum. It relies on the premise that in omnipotent deity perfectly wrote his mandated doctrine for mankind to live by, and he wrote it in an ambiguous way that is easily and quite often misinterpreted. In fact those interpretations have always been and are currently being debated by religious scholars. Right now liberal religious leaders are in a heated debate with socially conservative ones about god's acceptance of gays and homosexuality.

These interpretations conveniently change with culture. There are verses in the Bible that are unquestionably bigoted, violent and/or misogynistic. But today those verses are conveniently ignored, or explained away as "this is what it really means."

None of this at all is indicative of a perfectly written document. Certainly not one that was written by an omnipotent being.

**Matt Algren** · 05-11-2012, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by USArmyParatrooper

This explanation is also a conundrum. It relies on the premise that in omnipotent deity perfectly wrote his mandated doctrine for mankind to live by, and he wrote it in an ambiguous way that is easily and quite often misinterpreted. In fact those interpretations have always been and are currently being debated by religious scholars. Right now liberal religious leaders are in a heated debate with socially conservative ones about god's acceptance of gays and homosexuality.

These interpretations conveniently change with culture. There are verses in the Bible that are unquestionably bigoted, violent and/or misogynistic. But today those verses are conveniently ignored, or explained away as "this is what it really means."

None of this at all is indicative of a perfectly written document. Certainly not one that was written by an omnipotent being.

...which is the point. It wasn't written by an omnipotent being.

**thehod** · 05-11-2012, 10:28 AM

Because the Bible has got fuck all to do with God and everything to do with man.

**USArmyParatrooper** · 05-11-2012, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by Matt Algren

...which is the point. It wasn't written by an omnipotent being.

Of that we agree. I addressed that as well in previous posts.

**Matt Algren** · 05-11-2012, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by thehod

Because the Bible has got fuck all to do with God and everything to do with man.

And, more to the point, fuck all to do with civil laws in a non-theocratic government.

**Kieran_Frost** · 05-11-2012, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by USArmyParatrooper

This explanation is also a conundrum. It relies on the premise that in omnipotent deity perfectly wrote his mandated doctrine for mankind to live by, and he wrote it in an ambiguous way that is easily and quite often misinterpreted. In fact those interpretations have always been and are currently being debated by religious scholars. Right now liberal religious leaders are in a heated debate with socially conservative ones about god's acceptance of gays and homosexuality.

These interpretations conveniently change with culture. There are verses in the Bible that are unquestionably bigoted, violent and/or misogynistic. But today those verses are conveniently ignored, or explained away as "this is what it really means."

None of this at all is indicative of a perfectly written document. Certainly not one that was written by an omnipotent being.

You seem to want it to be either/or and it's not. It's the idea of God; written down by man. So the IDEAS are worth knowing, since they come from God; but the WORDING (i.e Man's influence) is not. Basically... take from it what YOU believe is the ideals of God, and hope you're living God's wishes. It's about faith, after all

Originally Posted by Matt Algren

Reverend Dr. Laurence Keene: "I have a soft spot in my heart for literalists because I used to be one. However, when someone says to me, 'This is what the Bible says,' my response to them is, 'No, that’s what the Bible reads.' It is the struggle to understand context and language and culture and custom that helps us to understand the meaning of what it is saying."

Archbishop Desmond Tutu: "The Bible is the word of God through the word of human beings, speaking in the idiom of their time. And the richness of the Bible comes from the fact that we don't take it as literally so, that it was dictated by God.”

AMAZING quote, thank-you. This is exactly what I have been trying to say, but far more eloquently.

**USArmyParatrooper** · 05-11-2012, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Kieran_Frost

You seem to want it to be either/or and it's not. It's the idea of God; written down by man. So the IDEAS are worth knowing, since they come from God; but the WORDING (i.e Man's influence) is not. Basically... take from it what YOU believe is the ideals of God, and hope you're living God's wishes. It's about faith, after all

It IS either or. Either "God" had a hand in it or he did not.

If he did not, why on earth would you have so much faith in what is written as to base your religion around it?

What makes the authors more credible than some cult leader in Ohio?

**7thangel** · 05-11-2012, 11:16 AM

jeebus, why don't you take it to the threads dedicated to it?
you're no longer discussing it as it relates to the thread and the issue. now it's just a derailment for sake of it

**Shellhead** · 05-11-2012, 11:19 AM

Historically, the Bible has caused so much trouble that you could make the case for it being written by Satan.

**Kieran_Frost** · 05-11-2012, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by USArmyParatrooper

It IS either or. Either "God" had a hand in it or he did not.
If he did not, why on earth would you have so much faith in what is written as to base your religion around it?
What makes the authors more credible than some cult leader in Ohio?

God idea's = bastardised by a flawed man. It isn't either/or. "Bastardised" doesn't mean completely changed, it means adapted. At the core, most of the time, the "concept" is still sound (still God's idea; just not verbalised in the exact way it was intended).

**jesse_custer** · 05-11-2012, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by USArmyParatrooper

Certainly not one that was written by an omnipotent being.

We could make this debate really interesting by claiming that it was inspired/written by God, who is imperfect.

**USArmyParatrooper** · 05-11-2012, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Kieran_Frost

God idea's = bastardised by a flawed man. It isn't either/or. "Bastardised" doesn't mean completely changed, it means adapted. At the core, most of the time, the "concept" is still sound (still God's idea; just not verbalised in the exact way it was intended).

As to the question posed, it is either or. Did God have direct involvement in the contents of the Bible? In the explanation you just gave the answer would be "no." Regular men wrote the contents based on what they believed. Again, what makes their opinion more credible than the countless other opinions that are out there?

**thehod** · 05-11-2012, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by USArmyParatrooper

As to the question posed, it is either or. Did God have direct involvement in the contents of the Bible? In the explanation you just gave the answer would be "no." Regular men wrote the contents based on what they believed. Again, what makes their opinion more credible than the countless other opinions that are out there?

2000 years of killing anyone who disagreed with them.