Should the Bible be banned?

[Soldier]

Ooops... I looked it up and yup, I did have some of the details wrong -- this apparently is Samuel Book 1 Chapter 15, btw. Saul is commanded by God (speaking through Samuel) to whip some Amalekite butt because generations ago the Amalekites attacked the Israelites as they were fleeing Egypt. Samuel whips lots of Amalekite ***, "But Saul and the people spared [king] Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs." So I was wrong about the women and I was wrong about it being only Saul's decision. I also see in Samuel Book 1 Chapter 16 that I was wrong about the plague -- instead, this incident is why God has Samuel replace King Saul with King David, because Saul is no longer trustworthy.

I think I was getting kind of confused with Kings Book 2 Chapter 16, where King Menahem attacks the city of Tiphsah and has all the pregnant women "ripped up". God didn't command that one, but Menahem was one of the approved and uncensured kings, so apparently He didn't have a problem with it, however...

Anyway, I don't mean any of this to suggest by any means that the Bible is any worse than, for example, the Koran, in terms of atrocities being either commanded or implicitly sanctioned. It's only that it can't be whitewashed over that these elements are undeniably there, in a book which is presented as the inspired and infallible story of God and His chosen people / followers, and it really, really bugged me that some posters were claiming that the Bible only EVER mentions wrongdoing in order to condemn it.

I follow your meaning, don't worry. As I said, I don't completely understand all of it. And as with the Koran, one must keep things in perspective - look at the overarching themes, and don't twist and pervert the faith in order to persecute...anyone.

[lochinvar]

The one element of the Bible that I find most disturbing is God's sanctioning of the "ethnic cleansing" of Palestine so that the children of Israel can possess it.

[Soldier]

Could you give me a citation (general area, at least) so I can look more into that?

Not doubting you, just lazy.

[jBirch]

Moonitic: A short response.

This discussion has not been, for the most part, "pro" vs. "con" of Christianity. Most of it has revolved around the inconsistancies of the Christian faith as it is currently practiced, and a challenge to the believers to resolve the inconsistancies. That challenge has ranged from the borderline adversarial on the one hand to merely a request for clarification on the other.

Let's face it: the Bible, taken on its face, doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. For every passage that seems to lean one way, you can find a passage that leans the opposite way. Therefore, insisting that all of it must be the true, inspired, revealed word of God is inconsistent--either that, or God seems to have changed His mind quite a bit during the time it was written.

These inconsistencies exist for Islam and Judeism also, but these are small faiths compared to Christianity at least
here in the US.

And this is but one way to read the Bible and live by its words. Spend some time living around fundamentalist religions, people who truly study the bible and really listen to exactly what the words are trying to say. It's fascinating (and a little scary) to hear someone defend and espouse a literal interpretation of the book, inconsistencies and all.

To a fundamentalist (to categorise), the entire book is the Word and no part is more important then the rest. When Paul said don't have sex with boys, he meant it. It's not a historical comment to be taken in context. It's the Word of God! Don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't kill, listen to your parents (and as a parent, be listened to), go to church and try to help your neighbours out. There is no reason to not kill other then God said not to. It's quite liberating to hear.

There are no inconsistencies in the Bible that need to be reconciled. If God tells you to murder a city in one passage and says don't kill in another, then, if God says go kill that city then do so and don't worry about not killing. It's God! He tells you what to do and you don't question it. If God says "if you engage in gay sex then sometimes you go to hell", then don't risk it! Don't engage in gay sex.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that there are many ways to look at the Bible. The fact that I agree with your position vis-a-vis the way to read the Bible, doesn't make it the only correct one.

[esskreemr]

Then why is this the most oft cited piece of divine text that proves the penalty for homosexuality? And, an etymology question: why does the word Sodomy (obviously derived from Sodom) mean anal sex?

The only reference to anal sex concerning Sodom is when the group of men, who knew what the "men" in Lot's house had come to pass judgement, confront Lot. One verse. They did not anally rape Lot, they did not anally rape Lot's two virgin daughters (who Lot offered to the men), they did not anally rape Lot's wife. Actually, there is no description of them anally raping anyone. Perhaps it was a fecetious jest. Perhaps the "men" in Lot's house were somewhat effiminate and liked to wear pink robes. Again it is verrrry unclear.

There are many parts to "God's Word" that have been misinterpreted, established as religious doctrine, and then retracted. Take Mary Magdelene. Intitially the Catholic Church saw her as a prostitute who Jesus befriended. The Cath. Church has since retracted that interpretation and made her into a Saint. Seems like a little more than taking a few words out of context. If you believe the Gnostic Gospels (written down 200 years after Jesus's death), Mary was the Mother of Jesus's baby establishing a bloodline descended directly from Christ himself. Think that would be a threat to the hierarchy of the church?

[Soldier]

So...what exactly was your answer to that question?

And I don't see why a line descended from Jesus (even if it still existed today) would be a threat to the Church; what set him apart, was not something that would be carried genetically. Even if it could be, it would be bred to nothingness by now.

[esskreemr]

So...what exactly was your answer to that question?

And I don't see why a line descended from Jesus (even if it still existed today) would be a threat to the Church; what set him apart, was not something that would be carried genetically. Even if it could be, it would be bred to nothingness by now.

The Catholic Church's power would be seriously breached. The Pope is basically a vessel of God's power on earth. The power that such a bloodline, if verified, would hold could be far reaching. Even the Muslims see Jesus as a prophet. The implications of a bloodline that traces itself back to Jesus would have intense ramifications on the edified structure of a few religions.

Others, like the Quakers, wouldn't even notice...

[Soldier]

I disagree - you are assuming that Jesus' authority would necessarily be carried in his line. If you posit that Jesus' power and perfection was directly from God, then it is not something that would be passed on genetically. If his power and perfection was due to immaculate conception, then that would also be pretty much gone by now - generations upon generations of breeding with regular humans.

Wrong question, anyway. jBirch asked, "why does the word 'sodomy' refer to anal sex?" I was wondering what exactly your answer to that was.

[jBirch]

I disagree - you are assuming that Jesus' authority would necessarily be carried in his line. If you posit that Jesus' power and perfection was directly from God, then it is not something that would be passed on genetically. If his power and perfection was due to immaculate conception, then that would also be pretty much gone by now - generations upon generations of breeding with regular humans.

No, he's assuming that the existence of a bloodline disputes the official version of Jesus' life and that is a threat to the primacy of the Pope as appointed by St. Peter. Further, you may believe that Jesus' bloodline is irrelevent, but there are others to whom the genetic decendents of Jesus' would be instantly infused with divine spirit. That attributes power to the mere relationship to Jesus and acts to rival the Church. Less so now then it was during the era of Kings' divine right to rule.

[Soldier]

It...could...dispute the official version of his life; I do not know that the official version specifically excludes the possibility of his marriage. It doesn't say anything about it; but I don't know that it rules it out, either.

In any case, I was simply pointing out that under another, probably equally valid, set of assumptions, it may not be a threat at all.

[fencerchica]

I disagree - you are assuming that Jesus' authority would necessarily be carried in his line. If you posit that Jesus' power and perfection was directly from God, then it is not something that would be passed on genetically. If his power and perfection was due to immaculate conception, then that would also be pretty much gone by now - generations upon generations of breeding with regular humans.

Wrong question, anyway. jBirch asked, "why does the word 'sodomy' refer to anal sex?" I was wondering what exactly your answer to that was.

Despite the association with anal sex, I believe the term "sodomy" has at certain times in this country (including the present in several southern states such as Georgia IIRC) been defined as any... non-traditional... form of sex, even if occurring between a man and a woman, and certainly not only including anal sex but specifically oral sex as well, heterosexual or homosexual.

[Maeve_Mari]

I disagree - you are assuming that Jesus' authority would necessarily be carried in his line. If you posit that Jesus' power and perfection was directly from God, then it is not something that would be passed on genetically. If his power and perfection was due to immaculate conception, then that would also be pretty much gone by now - generations upon generations of breeding with regular humans.

Wrong question, anyway. jBirch asked, "why does the word 'sodomy' refer to anal sex?" I was wondering what exactly your answer to that was.

The Biblical sin of Sodom wasn't homosexuality or anal sex -- it was rape, greediness and poor hospitality, and the legal basis of sodomy is not about homosexuality, but about oral and anal sex. "Sodomy is most commonly legally defined as any contact between the genitals of one person, and the mouth or anus of another. The word has its origins in Christianity. It is sometimes used to mean sexual deviation, though in legal contexts it is defined as above. In medieval Europe, intercourse between a male field worker and a noble woman was legally considered "sodomy," as it was thought to cause a poor harvest. The history of the concept of sodomy is tied to the Church in most every case."

The use of "sodomy" arose from the Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The sin demonstrated in the story was not homosexuality, as it is commonly misinterpreted, but was an extreme lack of hospitality illustrated by rape: the men of Sodom attempted to sexually violate the "male" strangers Lot was harboring. It was said by the prophet Ezekiel that the sin of the city of Sodom (which was destoryed for it) was that the city was "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned, they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." (Eze.16:49,50, NIV)

The phrases "sodomy" and "sodomite" have been collectively misunderstood and the Biblical story dealing with Sodom misrepresented, and colloquially "sodomy" is instead used to mean someone who is sexually perverse, and often, homosexual.

Accoring to minister Dr. Theodore Hayes, the full story of Sodom and Gomorrah is "included in Chapters 18-19 in Genesis, though "proofers" use only verses 1-28 of chapter 19, especially verse 5. Lot, himself a visitor in the city and upholding ancient Hebrew norms of hospitality, sought to protect God's angels from the entire male population of the city (v. 4) who wanted to "know" them (v. 5). Some translations' footnotes indicate, without evidence, this means the men were homosexual. Where does the scripture say that? Or is that really a translator bias?

"Some would have us believe that the word translated "know" means just that, without sexual connotation (Editor's Note: It should also be noted that the Hebrew word which is translated as "to know," occurs almost one thousand times in the Hebrew Scriptures, and in only ten occurrences is used to indicate sexual intercourse). That would solve a multitude of problems, but the fact that Lot offered to substitute his virgin daughters (v. 8) for the men to do with as they would has a sexual meaning from my perspective. What they had in mind pure and simple was anal rape. Most people stop reading here, convinced that homosexuality was the cause of Sodom's destruction. Or was it? Consider the following: John S. Spong reports that according to ancient Middle Eastern practice, any persons away from their own tribes were totally at the mercy of the tribe they visited. A popular way to remind male visitors of their vulnerability was to force them to perform as females in the sex act. Nothing could be more insulting nor demonstrate more readily the power of the townspeople. The same behavior was inflicted upon the losers in battle by the victors.

Were any of the men homosexual? Possibly. But the passage does not say that 'our homosexuals want to know them.'"

http://www.scarleteen.com/gaydar/sodomy.html

[lochinvar]

The one element of the Bible that I find most disturbing is God's sanctioning of the "ethnic cleansing" of Palestine so that the children of Israel can possess it.

Could you give me a citation (general area, at least) so I can look more into that?

Not doubting you, just lazy.

The entire book of Joshua, for starters. Also the first parts of Judges, and sections of Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.