Denying science in the classroom

[Redux]

So is homosxuality a sin or not? I know I keep going back to this because this is a huge issue with Christians. They work so hard to keep marriage between man and woman and try and keep these people from adopting, etc. If you all agree that the bible should not be taken literal, have the guts to admit homosexuality is not a sin and they should be allowed to marry each other.

Boy dogs hump other boy dogs all the time. And a movie I saw a long time ago comfirmed all dogs go to heaven. So no, homsexuality cannot be a sin.

 

But fur realzies, I agree with ya.

[Landlord]

Therein lies my question LOMS ... do you "believe" that ... or do you "know" that?

 

I think the former is true for most, and I respect that. Where I struggle is that I can respect your beliefs, but "knowing" to me has to be fact based. And as has been hashed out above, the bible is pretty loose on how it can be interpreted. It's certainly not fact. I look at it more as a "guide".

 

All semantics I know, but it hangs me up. I appreciate that many feel fulfilled with religion, and consider it a core part of their being. I personally however struggle with anyone telling me that the bible is fact.

 

 

 

I definitely do not know that. I make zero fact claims or scientific claims about Jesus, or God, or Christian faith. It's not 'rational' thought based on empiricism or materialism or anything of the sort. But, rational thought isn't the only school of legitimate thought.

 

 

Anyone interested in more... "loose" or progressive Bible scholarship I would recommend checking out Pete Enns. He's a Bible scholar with a phd from Harvard among other fancy degrees, and a fantastic writer.

 

 

 

 

Peter Eric Enns (born January 2, 1961) is an American biblical scholar, theologian, and writer. He has written widely on hermeneutics, the relationship between science and religion, Christianity and evolution, and Old Testament interpretation. Outside of his academic work Enns is a contributor to the Huffington Post and Patheos.[1] He has also worked with Francis Collins' BioLogos Foundation.[2] He is perhaps best known for his book Inspiration and Incarnation, which challenged conservative/mainstream Evangelical methods of biblical interpretation.[3][4][5] He is also notable for his book The Evolution of Adam, in which he questions the belief that Adam was a historical figure.[6][7] and his most recent books The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It and The Sin of Certainty: Why God Desires Our Trust More than Our 'Correct' Beliefs.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Enns

[Landlord]

So is homosexuality a sin or not? I know I keep going back to this because this is a huge issue with Christians. They work so hard to keep marriage between man and woman and try and keep these people from adopting, etc. If you all agree that the bible should not be taken literal, have the guts to admit homosexuality is not a sin and they should be allowed to marry each other.

 

 

1. The Bible should not be approached literally as a carte blanche interpretation. There are certainly parts of the Bible that are meant to be taken at face value, I think, but there is no one-size-fits-all means of interpreting the Scriptures. Again - different authors, different time periods, different cultures, different audiences, different agendas.

 

2. I don't know, but I don't think so. My personal albeit limited understanding of Scripture leads me to believe that authors of books of the Bible had no comprehension of sexuality the way we do today.

 

3. Gay people should absolutely be allowed to marry each other, to adopt babies, and live their lives freely.

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe we should split this into a new thread.

[NM11046]

 

Therein lies my question LOMS ... do you "believe" that ... or do you "know" that?

 

I think the former is true for most, and I respect that. Where I struggle is that I can respect your beliefs, but "knowing" to me has to be fact based. And as has been hashed out above, the bible is pretty loose on how it can be interpreted. It's certainly not fact. I look at it more as a "guide".

 

All semantics I know, but it hangs me up. I appreciate that many feel fulfilled with religion, and consider it a core part of their being. I personally however struggle with anyone telling me that the bible is fact.

 

 

 

I definitely do not know that. I make zero fact claims or scientific claims about Jesus, or God, or Christian faith. It's not 'rational' thought based on empiricism or materialism or anything of the sort. But, rational thought isn't the only school of legitimate thought.

 

 

Anyone interested in more... "loose" or progressive Bible scholarship I would recommend checking out Pete Enns. He's a Bible scholar with a phd from Harvard among other fancy degrees, and a fantastic writer.

 

 

 

 

Peter Eric Enns (born January 2, 1961) is an American biblical scholar, theologian, and writer. He has written widely on hermeneutics, the relationship between science and religion, Christianity and evolution, and Old Testament interpretation. Outside of his academic work Enns is a contributor to the Huffington Post and Patheos.[1] He has also worked with Francis Collins' BioLogos Foundation.[2] He is perhaps best known for his book Inspiration and Incarnation, which challenged conservative/mainstream Evangelical methods of biblical interpretation.[3][4][5] He is also notable for his book The Evolution of Adam, in which he questions the belief that Adam was a historical figure.[6][7] and his most recent books The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It and The Sin of Certainty: Why God Desires Our Trust More than Our 'Correct' Beliefs.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Enns

 

I like that - rational thought isn't the only legitimate thought. Thank you.

[JJ Husker]

So is homosexuality a sin or not? I know I keep going back to this because this is a huge issue with Christians. They work so hard to keep marriage between man and woman and try and keep these people from adopting, etc. If you all agree that the bible should not be taken literal, have the guts to admit homosexuality is not a sin and they should be allowed to marry each other.

To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what all is really a sin and what isn't. I've got some ideas on the subject and if pushed I could come up with my answer or my religion's answer but those answers may or may not be right. The one thing I am sure of is that God knows what is in people's hearts and that he will do the right and just thing. The other thing I am sure of is that too many people waste their time focusing on other people's problems instead of worrying about themselves.

 

And to NM's question about believing or knowing......it isn't referred to as "faith" because anyone knows for sure. Unfortunately, there sure are a lot of people who treat many of the related issues like fact. If God could be proven or disproven scientifically, we wouldn't have need for this discussion.

[Moiraine]

So is homosexuality a sin or not? I know I keep going back to this because this is a huge issue with Christians. They work so hard to keep marriage between man and woman and try and keep these people from adopting, etc. If you all agree that the bible should not be taken literal, have the guts to admit homosexuality is not a sin and they should be allowed to marry each other.

My stance on homosexuality is, IF it's a sin, God and the "sinner" can deal with it. Gay people aren't harming anyone as long as it's all consensual. People should only interfere with other people's "sins" if they're hurting someone else.

 

Now on whether it's a sin or not... it really seems weird to me that it's not okay to put your own body parts on another consenting adult's body parts. As long as you're not chopping them up first. I'm talking attached body parts here like tongues and genitals and the like.

 

A part of me thinks the authors of those books of the Bible just wanted Christianity to spread by promoting sex that makes babies.

[Mike Mcdee]

So is homosexuality a sin or not? I know I keep going back to this because this is a huge issue with Christians. They work so hard to keep marriage between man and woman and try and keep these people from adopting, etc. If you all agree that the bible should not be taken literal, have the guts to admit homosexuality is not a sin and they should be allowed to marry each other.

I've always operated under the premise that the Bible was written by fallible men who could write their own biases into scripture. Also, the Bible has more than one contradiction in the scripture. In these instances of confusion and contradiction, I'd rather error on the side of compassion and understanding. If God is who I believe he is, I'm confident there will be understanding from him as well.

[knapplc]

 

 

 

I don't really care what some fallible human priest or pastor tells me about Bible interpretation.

 

The Bible says if a woman dresses like a man it's an abomination. And God was cool with Elisha calling on a couple bears to kill 42 kids because. they made fun of his bald head.

 

Intepreting all of it literally isn't logical.

 

Literal interpretation is just lazy. It's the biggest copout way of reading the Bible possible. If we are to take the Bible literally, does that mean that God has an anthromorphic mouth with which he uttered Hebrew words to create the universe? It says He spoke.

 

 

If we take the Bible literally, does that mean that God became human via a virgin birth, then died on the cross atoning for all the sins of all humans for all time?

 

You really have to be careful with this interpretation talk. If you can interpret this verse, why can't you interpret that verse?

 

 

So, you're claiming that it all has to be taken literally or none of it can be true? And that begs the question, which books actually constitute the Bible. Mere men have determined which books belong and which don't and many Christian religions differ from one another in this regard.

 

Why can't God have become human via a virgin birth but not have created the world in 6 literal days? Are you telling me I can't believe the former without believing the latter, because I don 't believe it happened in 6 days.

 

And please don't fall back on what this or that specific religion teaches as dogma. Religions are run by men and men make mistakes. In my mind that means we are all on our own to interpret the Bible. I don't believe any one religion known to man has it pegged exactly right and I doubt that any one person has it all figured out. I'm quite sure nobody commenting in this thread does, including myself.

 

One thing I'm sure we can agree on is that people who interpret it literally are bound to be wrong about much of it. I just don't see how a person arrives at the all or none point you constantly talk about. With that approach, it's no wonder a person can't believe any of it.

 

 

Yes, absolutely I'm saying that. Because if you get to pick and choose which parts are real and which are just stories, where does that end?

 

It's not about any specific religion, it's about that book being a source of anything. For the Bible to be a real source of information it has to be real, all of it. Because if any of it is not true, you're saying all of it, potentially, is not true.

 

I get that people don't like to think about this, but this is the reality of the Bible. It has to be all true, or none of it is worth spending your time on.

 

And yes, I understand that various men at various times picked and chose which parts of it to include. Yes, I understand it was compiled out of stories over millennia. I absolutely understand that. That's why I don't believe it's a real book about a real god. It can't be, based on the very objections being raised in this thread.

[RedDenver]

Yes, absolutely I'm saying that. Because if you get to pick and choose which parts are real and which are just stories, where does that end?

 

It's not about any specific religion, it's about that book being a source of anything. For the Bible to be a real source of information it has to be real, all of it. Because if any of it is not true, you're saying all of it, potentially, is not true.

 

I get that people don't like to think about this, but this is the reality of the Bible. It has to be all true, or none of it is worth spending your time on.

 

And yes, I understand that various men at various times picked and chose which parts of it to include. Yes, I understand it was compiled out of stories over millennia. I absolutely understand that. That's why I don't believe it's a real book about a real god. It can't be, based on the very objections being raised in this thread.

I completely disagree here. If something isn't literally true, does not mean it has no value. If that were the case, then fiction would be meaningless and not worth your time; in fact, all of art would be meaningless.

 

For me, the bible is a larger version of the parables told by Jesus. We know the parables aren't a literal retelling of a real event; they are stories meant to show us a greater truth. The rest of the bible is the same way, stories meant to reveal a greater truth. What we learn from the bible is more about our own interpretations than about the exact words on the page.

[knapplc]

If you can pick and choose which parts are real, none of it has validity.

[RedDenver]

If you can pick and choose which parts are real, none of it has validity.

Jesus tells the parable of the prodigal son, which is obviously not an account of real events. Should I learn nothing about forgiveness from it?

 

Not all of Aristotle's or Socrates's work has turned out to be true. Does none of it have validity?

 

I reread Ender's Game every few years or so and get something new out of it each time. Are the questions of global utility vs individual freedoms any less valid because they are raised by fiction?

 

“We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth at least the truth that is given us to understand." -Pablo Picaso

[knapplc]

If you're telling me the Bible is just a bunch of stories with good moral values, I'm cool with that.

 

If you're telling me the Bible is useful as the foundation of a religion, that doesn't make sense.

[JJ Husker]

If you can pick and choose which parts are real, none of it has validity.

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I am failing to logically come to the same conclusion.

 

We absolutely know for fact that at least some of the historical facts contained in various books of the Bible are true. What you are saying is if there is anything that is not true, then none of it can be believed. That is not a logical conclusion. Personally, I think it was written in various manners, some literal and some simply as a way to explain concepts or tell a story but not literally. Additionally, many parts need to be considered in the context and time frame they are being written.

 

Unfortunately I think a lot of people take every utterance literally and that contributes to some of the interpretations that obviously are counter to what would be considered Christian behavior. I also think people get hung up on sin and what constitutes a sin. There are all kinds of sins, I don't understand the preoccupation with figuring out if homosexuality is a sin or not. My guess is that it is in some cases and not in others, just like heterosexual sex. It's not man's job to judge others. People need to worry about themselves. Too many point out the sliver in your eye but ignore the log in their own eye.

[knapplc]

I am failing to logically come to the same conclusion.

 

 

OK. Which of these stories is true:

 

Creation in six days

Noah's Ark (Also, unrelated, an excellent song by Marit Peters)

Job

Ruth/Esther

Elijah and the prophets of Baal

Balaam's Ass

Jesus' virgin birth

The tongues of fire at pentecost

Peter & the sheet of food

Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus

 

For every story that isn't true, please explain, using the Bible's own words, how we are to know they are not "true" stories, but parables or lessons.

[Landlord]

knapp, you keep throwing around the words 'true' and 'real', and I really am not even sure what you mean by them.

 

Stories like creation/adam & eve, the tower of babel, noah's ark, et al I personally don't think are a dry, academic recording of actual history the way you would read in a history 101 book, if that is what you are asking. Because ancient cultures had no mindset of unbiased recording of events in that way. I still, however, think those books are inspired, as well as, "God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.."

 

I just think their intention and literary form lends itself to something more nuanced than 'right' or 'wrong'. I think they are fully right in the way they were intended to be. Again, what does that even mean?