A Bible question!!!!

[Ben Kenobi]

I think he meant it is best to read the Bible in different order some times... after all, its a collection of books. It's like saying you read a collection of books about the History of the World cover to cover, when sometimes you just want to read about WW2.

Pretty much. That's the most profitable way to read it. Spend an hour, read a book, let it percolate for awhile.

[Ben Kenobi]

Then listening to the wackos justifying their hatred and biases based on obscure or ambiguous excerpts was the last straw. Good men don't need a book to tell them what's right or wrong. Only bad men need it so they can pretend they're good.

Apparently the Nuns didn't teach you that no one is good but God. Odd that.

[rah]

The nuns made up a lot of ****. Odd that.

You're one of the biggest hypocrites I know that does crap and uses the bible to justify your hatred.

[Robert]

The old testament has some amazing stuff in it.

Heheh, sometimes I'm like: "What is that doing in my bible?"

[Robert]

After going to catholic school for 8 years and reading it every day, I've had more than enough of all that crap to last a life time. Listening to the Nuns explaining what they thought it meant was quite irritating. Then listening to the wackos justifying their hatred and biases based on obscure or ambiguous excerpts was the last straw.

I can imagine that....

Good men don't need a book to tell them what's right or wrong. Only bad men need it so they can pretend they're good.

It's not the purpose of the Bible to tell you what is right or wrong.
Right and wrong are dynamic concepts that can't be equally applied to very different people in very different societies in very different times and contexts.

The point of the Bible is that even if people are told what right and wrong are, even then they fail to build a good society.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're one of the biggest hypocrites I know that does crap and uses the bible to justify your hatred.

Question, sir. If it's in the bible, isn't it my obligation to teach what the bible says, not make stuff up to suit my prejudices? I don't see how teaching that sodomy is sinful is bigotted anymore than teaching that fornication is also sinful. I teach both..

[Robert]

And pretty much all the Old Testament blood and gore bits you are told to ignore. Doesn't make them any less amazing to read.

Unfortunately they're often written down in a very minimalistic style...
Entire nations are killed in only a couple of words. They authors did not really try to write things down with a sense of drama

[Dinner]

Not just no but hell no. I have no interest in bronze age fairy tales or stories of mass murder done by "loving" deities.

[Robert]

Question, sir. If it's in the bible, isn't it my obligation to teach what the bible says, not make stuff up to suit my prejudices? I don't see how teaching that sodomy is sinful is bigotted anymore than teaching that fornication is also sinful. I teach both..

Where does the Bible tell you that you have to teach that sodomy is sinful?
As far as I'm aware you're told to spread the gospel. Pete says that you're not supposed to make christianity/christ look evil by interfering with other peoples business.

Sodomy in the Bible is a very difficult subject.
Sodomy in Biblical times was used by the powerfull to surpress their servants. It is known that kings sodomised their slaves 'to show who was the new boss'.
Sodomy in later Biblical times was used by inhabitants of cities to 'welcome' strangers.
Then there was sodomy where men just ignored their wives and children for days and had these long lasting orgies.

Lastly there's sodomy where some people have the nature to be attracted by people of their own sexe.
but that's something that's only accepted in the past couple of decades.
The sodomites in biblical times weren't homophiles. They were just heterophiles with wives and kids.
It is only a question if the Bible talks about homophiles or if it's adressing one of the many heterophile sins of those days.

Difficult questions, and in modern times you can add the 'is the Bible not just dated' question to that. And they do not deserve simplistic answers like the ones you're handing out. Homophiles of our time and day do not deserve that either. We're talking about humans.
Add to that other difficult subjects like slavery which is not rejected in the Bible either. I doubt that you will now support slavery b/c the Bible doesn't reject it. It also shows that Biblical subjects are to be read in a certain circumstance and context and time.

Time traveling morals of past days to our days is a very bad way to read the Bible.
Spreading morals instead of the gospel is the worst thing to do.
Unfortunately that's what most christians try to do though

[Ben Kenobi]

Where does the Bible tell you that you have to teach that sodomy is sinful?

I teach as much of it as I can. I certainly don't say just that, but the bible does say that sodomy is sinful and I think it's important to teach what the bible teaches without holding back for political correctness. Sexual sins are common in today's society and people need to know what the Church teaches if they are going to be confirmed.

As far as I'm aware you're told to spread the gospel. Pete says that you're not supposed to make christianity/christ look evil by interfering with other peoples business.

Nonsense. Christ demands repentence which means that you turn away from your former life of sin. If you don't know what is sinful, how can you then repent?

Sodomy in the Bible is a very difficult subject.

As is the trinity. Doesn't meant that difficult subject shouldn't be taught.

Lastly there's sodomy where some people have the nature to be attracted by people of their own sexe.

And the bible is pretty clear that this is sinful irregardless of our natural inclinations.

The sodomites in biblical times weren't homophiles. They were just heterophiles with wives and kids.

Again, nonsense. Sodom wasn't like this at all when they tried to rape an Angel sent from heaven and God rained fire down on Sodom to destroy it entirely after Lot escaped.

It is only a question if the Bible talks about homophiles or if it's adressing one of the many heterophile sins of those days.

Romans is pretty clear. It condemns laying with a man as you would with a women. Makes no distinction between those who have a compulsion and for those whom simply do it once, it just says that sodomy is sinful.

Difficult questions, and in modern times you can add the 'is the Bible not just dated' question to that.

I suppose we can add Christ crucified to that argument. The bible is just a bunch of myths and Christ a fairy tale. I don't see how you can cut at parts and argue that the rest is vital but that little spot you cut out to protect the sin you do like fits just fine.

Sin is sin, that's all there is to it. No need to make it complicated.

And they do not deserve simplistic answers like the ones you're handing out. Homophiles of our time and day do not deserve that either. We're talking about humans.

And people sin all the time. What are people going to listen to? What you've said here or the simply statement that sodomy is sinful. The problem with convering up sins is that it denies people the opportunity to repent, and in the end is far worse than the pain of confrontation.

Add to that other difficult subjects like slavery which is not rejected in the Bible either. I doubt that you will now support slavery b/c the Bible doesn't reject it. It also shows that Biblical subjects are to be read in a certain circumstance and context and time.

I am an objectivist. The bible permits slavery, but does not condone it and encourages slaves to escape from their masters. Christianity teaches that no man can have two masters, Christ and someone else, so that the true master of slaves is Christ. They are no longer truly slaves to their earthly master, once they become one with Christ.

Time traveling morals of past days to our days is a very bad way to read the Bible.

Alas, it is not I, but you, who is time travelling and carving out an exception for certain sins that you feel ought be condoned.

Spreading morals instead of the gospel is the worst thing to do.

There is no distinction between the Gospel and the good news, between morality and Melchizedek. Morality is the Gospel. Morality condemns us all, but the Gospel proclaims that our sins have been forgiven.

If you have nothing to be forgiven for, then the Gospel is worthless to you.

[Robert]

You fail to understand my point.
Then you respond to it nonetheless. The latter is even worse then the first.

Now reread my post and first try to understand it.
Let's start with the easiest one:

Where does the Bible tell you that you have to teach that sodomy is sinful?

Let's make it even easier and rephrase it like this:

Where does the Bible tell you that you have to teach moral laws to non christians?

Don't answer by explaing why you think that it should be done, but explain where you are told to do so.

[Ben Kenobi]

Don't answer by explaing why you think that it should be done, but explain where you are told to do so.

Ah, I see where you are mistaken. I teach at a parochial school.

I did say this- I guess you missed this.

people need to know what the Church teaches if they are going to be confirmed.

I was a bit perplexed by you Plomp, but I understand now.

[Robert]

Some miscommunication there....
My question is not about what you teach on the parochial school but about what you 'teach' to non-christians.
And that's of course only question #1

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah, that's what I thought.

I tend to lean more towards the weak anthropic principle, evidence of God in nature and the way the universe works.

But I don't have a consistent style. It really depends on the circumstances and the person.

Where does the Bible tell you that you have to teach that sodomy is sinful?

Well I wouldn't teach that to an unbeliever unless explicitly asked that question, ie, what does Christianity believe about X. The reason for the different approaches is that Christians need to know their faith and why their faith teaches it. An unbeliever needs to know the basics, who is God, who is Christ.

Does that answer your question Robert? I'm not trying to be evasive here. I didn't realize until just now what you were asking.

[Robert]

Does that answer your question Robert? I'm not trying to be evasive here. I didn't realize until just now what you were asking.

Yes.
Christians are mainly known these days as being anti-gay.
For some reason most of us have a very simplistic vision, which is quite easy, usually b/c they're not gay themselves anyway and it's always easier to voice a very black/white moral rule that doesn't hurt yourself in anyway.

If people ask me what I think about homosexuality I'll tell them that I'm a happy hetero and that it's none of my business to have a moral opinion on something that concerns others and touches the core of their being.
If people really push me to answer I'll say what I told you, it's not possible to translate biblical moral values to our day and age.

Your answers to all other questions I raised are simplistic.
You tend to have a very black/white way of reasoning. I do not see this black/white way of reasoning anywhere in Jesus teachings. All I can conclude from Paul is that the decadency of the Roman empire was something christians should stay away from.

last thing I would want is that gays get the idea that christianity is not for them. In christ there's no difference between man and woman, owner and slave, rich and poor, gay and straight. And yes, that last one has been added by me. But I am absolutely positive that back then they had no idea about the possibility to have a homosexual orientation. Sodomy was just a form of decadency among drunk men.