[Closed] Anyone read the Bible?

It's a very effective method of controlling the masses, same as any religious 'text'.

Now you could deny all this - you could say that physics is wrong. But to do so while using a computer that relies on quantum electrodynamics to work is ridiculous.

Biblical top trumps. Quantum Electrodynamics beats god on logic.... And everything else.

OT >>> NT

I thought the NT was a grouping of texts written by several different authors, and grouped together after a vote to see what was included?

over just 40 days would really churn up the soil layers and muck up the dating systems used currently

Winner! Winner! chicken dinner!

Of course a great and all powerful being could have created the universe as was, only 6000 years ago 🙂

The two different creation stories in Genesis are not supposed to be taken literally

I keep hearing this, and I think it's sneaky.

Our 21st Century brains (mostly*) look at the biblical account of creation and go "well, that's clearly bonkers, it must be allegorical and not intended to be taken literally." But isn't this just a modern retro-fit? It was surely intended to be taken literally, it was an explanation of how the world worked, before we had any idea of how the world worked.

(* - American Fundie Creationists aside)

Also I'm meant to hate little owls. If the bible is about love, why is it preaching hatred of cute little owls.

There's something pretty messed up about a text that wants me to hate this -
[img] [/img]

everything orbits us as it says on the bible

What? Making a point like that requires evidence; let me know which passage you got that one from..

Looking at how long light takes to reach us to date it is a very logical way to date the universe, but if God created it all as I believe he did, then he also created physics, so could bend the rules with his power to put light where and when he wanted it (Gen 1 v 3 "Let there be light, and there was light"). This seems like a really pathetic argument, but as it says in Matthew 19 v 26, "With God all things are possible".

STW in puny human minds attempt to rationalise the (non) existence of God shocker. 😯

I have a few questions, and things I would like to discuss, but not sure which sort of church to go to (Choice of many) and how well priests/vicars/ministers will take to some of my questions which may come across a little naice and/or rude?

Let me save you some time.

"God moves in mysterious ways."

I believe the Bible is true, and that includes creation. It also includes the famous flood when Noah was around, and the huge forces that would come into play with the whole world being covered in water over just 40 days would really churn up the soil layers and muck up the dating systems used currently. I'm not sure what astronomical observations you're on about, any examples would be useful.

Well I'm out, been there before with someone who was convinced there was an arc. He quoted massively dodgy contexts of how such a boat could exist.

Didn't you study physics A level?

The Christian faith isn't about control, or at least it's not supposed to be. Read the four Gospel accounts of the things Jesus said and did, he came to liberate not incarcerate.

To those asking which parts are meant to be true - well you read different genres of literature every single day and you can make up your mind about what you're reading. You understand that a novel is fiction, you understand that a newspaper or history text book is someone's version of the truth. You understand that a Haynes manual is simply a book of instructions to follow for a set task.

It's the same with the Bible. Did the writer of the Genesis creations acounts expect them to be taken literally? I doubt it very much, so what point was he/she trying to make? Did Matthew, Mark and Luke expect their readers to believe they were reading factual accounts? Quite probably. Whereas John is more a spiritual interpretation of the events of Jesus' life.

Just because a story isn't 'true' doesn't mean it doesn't have a true meaning.

and everything orbits us as it says on the bible

I don't think it does, you know. It's implied - there's references to the Sun "standing still" during some event or other, suggesting it was moving in the first place, and several variations on a theme that say the Earth is fixed. But I don't think it explicitly asserts that the Sun orbits the Earth. Correct me if I'm wrong.

One gem that [i]is [/i]in the Bible is that the Sun and Moon are both lights. And of course there's the whole creationist "day 1, create light; day 4, create light source" thing, which always makes me chuckle.

Cougar, chances are that Genesis 1 was written during the Jewish exile in Babylon. This was, for its day, a pretty scientific civilisation. Our 21st Century minds which have been heavily influenced by Greco-Roman ways of thinking are unable to cope with stories that have meaning, but are not 'true' in the sense we think of truth. Look back in history at what some of the great Christian writers have said about Genesis 1 and I think you'll find it's about a 50/50 on whether it's meant to be literal or not.

ahh, why is the expectation on athiests to prove the bible wrong or that god is a fictional character. surely it should be the christians proving that its true/he does exist?!

with that in mind, whats the evidence god does exist and the bible is true?

over just 40 days would really churn up the soil layers and muck up the dating systems used currently

But remarkably in all that churning - over the entire planet from the top of mountains to deserts to under the ocean - amazingly it managed to lay down the fossils in exactly the right order so the whole historical timeline makes sense.

And, worse, the same churning happened to lay stuff down in the right order to prove the theory of evolution.

In answer to the original question: Nope.

Philconsequence - to quote the great Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon 'Defend the Bible?! I'd sooner defend a caged lion. Unleash it and it will defend itself.'

Of course a great and all powerful being could have created the universe as was, only 6000 years ago

Of course. But this was all thrashed out during the Enlightenment 300 years ago - if we live in a Universe which has no need of a God (it runs on celestial clockwork which does not require divine intervention) then does God exist?

Following the same argument, it's impossible for you to prove to me that you're not a figment of my imagination.

why is the expectation on athiests to prove the bible wrong or that god is a fictional character.

Nobody can prove that God is a fictional character. Atheists can exercise scientific rationalism over the content of the Bible - as if dismissing the details somehow dismisses the whole - but nobody can prove the non existence of God... It's a faith thing, dude.

EDIT: my personal standpoint is agnostic...

There was a mahoosive flood on Mars, maybe that was where pre-Noah "earth" was. Therefore the Earth was "created" after the ark landed on the current Earth. Hints of Scientology there. 🙂

What? Making a point like that requires evidence; let me know which passage you got that one from..

The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
psalms 93:1

Psalm 96:10

King James Version (KJV)

10 Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

1 Chronicles 16:30

King James Version (KJV)

30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Anything is possible I could be god or you or we could all possibly live in the navel of the pie monster who looks like Elvis.
its not very likely though just becausi just worte it down and i have faith in it

Philconsequence - to quote the great Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon 'Defend the Bible?! I'd sooner defend a caged lion. Unleash it and it will defend itself.'

Yes, and look at all the fun we've had when that happens. Religious wars, persecution, Inquisitions, burning at the stake, etc etc.

gonefishin - The Biblical rules on justice attempt to restrain the human desire for punishment to become revenge. Humans left to themselves strive for revenge, and so punishment becomes over the top. Take the practice of necklacing fas an extreme example, a person accused of a sometimes fairly petty crime has a tyre forced down over them and is then set alight. The book of Exodus is ostensibly about the formation of a new religious community which is supposed to stand apart ethically from it's pagan neighbours, and so Yahweh insists that punishment is fair and not excessive. I've just preached my way through Exodus, so if you want to listen to some of the sermons log onto

That't not relevant to the point I was trying to make. You cannot say (I appreciate it wasn't you that said that) that books of the bible agree with one another when within the same book there is a contradiction; killing is either allowed or it's not. To try to argue away such contradictions by saying things like "well it depends on how you do the translatation" and "it's about making the punishment fit the crime" is little more than post hoc rationalisation.

Looking at how long light takes to reach us to date it is a very logical way to date the universe, but if God created it all as I believe he did, then he also created physics, so could bend the rules with his power to put light where and when he wanted it (Gen 1 v 3 "Let there be light, and there was light"). This seems like a really pathetic argument, but as it says in Matthew 19 v 26, "With God all things are possible".

Deus ex machina statements don't help you win debates, they just serve to highlight the weakness of your argument.

Just because a story isn't 'true' doesn't mean it doesn't have a true meaning.

I couldn't agree more. And as a source of anecdotal stories about how to be nice to one another, you could do worse than the Bible (so long as you read the right bits of it, anyway).

Where it falls down for me is when it's presented as FACT, often in capital letters just like that, and people come up with increasingly desperate and implausible explanations for how this can possibly still be the case as our knowledge and understanding as a species increases.

Saying 'god did it' doesn't actually answer any questions. Replacing "where did the universe come from?" with "where did god come from?" doesn't get us any further, it's essentially the same question, it just then means we can hand-wave an answer by saying our minds can't comprehend how god works, or something equally convenient. Why not just cut out the middle man there and accept that there's some things we simply don't know yet?

Yes, and look at all the fun we've had when that happens. Religious wars, persecution, Inquisitions, burning at the stake, etc etc.

The Bible's message has been abused by men, alright. That doesn't denigrate the original message.

Yes, ben, but the Bible itself says we are to keep our eyes fixed upon Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith. If Christians truly did that then we wouldn't have those sorts of things. The problem is like all humans, some Christians want everyone to think like they think, they want everyone to respect them and when they have power they use force to acheive that.

The Bible's message has been abused by men, alright.

The Abrahamic religions do definitely seem to have a problem with women, yes - but you can't blame the interpretation of the bible's message when the bible itself is so hard-line on things like capital punishment, slavery and adultery.

you can't blame the interpretation of the bible's message

You can state, though, that there is a big difference between the Bible's message and actions taken by powerful individuals and groups that used the Bible to provide the required measure of righteousness.

Cougar, I totally agree and I get very upset at Christians who rant and rave and get upset about things that they really shouldn't. However, churches, in the UK at least, are generally made up of people in their sixties and above, they have been used to 'Christendom' and they struggle to cope with the concept that not everyone believes in or respects Christianity.

There are a couple of great books out there at the moment 'A new kind of Christianity' by Brian McClaren and 'Reading the Bible after Christendom' by Lloyd Pietersen. Unfortunetly the older generation of Christians often refuse to engage with material like that for fear it will weaken their faith.

when the bible itself is so hard-line on things like capital punishment, slavery and adultery.

And homosexuality.

You can state, though, that there is a big difference between the Bible's message and actions taken

Only if you're selective about what you take from the Bible. Pretty much everyone agrees that Leviticus should be ignored, for instance.

The worst thing in the world, as history has shown, is someone willing to take their religious text literally.

“Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.”
? Christopher Hitchens

And homosexuality.

Indeed. One is tempted to ask, especially after so many abuse scandals, why the church is so obsessed with sex?

bencooper - but do they really have a problem with women, Judaism and Christianity at least? Again have you actually read the Bible yourself? The story of the Hebrew midwives, Pharoah's daughter, Moses' mother and his sister conspiring together to keep Moses alive. The story of the Judge Deborah, the story of Rahab the innkeeper, the story of Ruth and Naomi, the story of Queen Esther, the story of Abigail disobeying her husband and so saving his life. How about Jesus' own attitude to women; the woman at the well, Mary Magdelene, his vindication of Mary the disciple over Martha the housewife - I could go on. Sorry, but it's men (and I mean male human beings) which are sexist, not the God spoken about in the Bible.

but do they really have a problem with women, Judaism and Christianity at least?

Have you read Gensis?

Sorry, but it's men (and I mean male human beings) which are sexist, not the God spoken about in the Bible.

Can you lot have a chat amongst yourselves and decide whether the bible is the word of god or some stuff that some men wrote down? Once you've got a consitant story then perhaps debates will become a lot more meaningful without you lot changing the goalposts every time an awkward point gets raised.

What passages in the Bible specifically deal with homosexuality as we see it now? Erm, none. What references do the four gospels make to homosexuality at all? Erm, none. Just because 'the church' is hung up on sex, doesn't mean that it's supposed to be.

What part of Genesis gonefishin, the part where Adam, Eve and the serpent are [i]all[/i] punished because they [i]all[/i] did wrong?

the Bible itself says we are to keep our eyes fixed upon Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith. If Christians truly did that then we wouldn't have those sorts of things.

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
[i]Deuteronomy 13[/i]

And try and read the whole thing, don't pick and choose,

But the Bible itself is a selective edit, and lots of stuff didn't make the final cut:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels

Rusty, are you a Jew living in the wilderness having just escaped from slavery in Egypt? If not then I wouldn't worry about it.

What part of Genesis gonefishin, the part where Adam, Eve and the serpent are all punished because they all did wrong?

No the bit where Eve gives Adam the apple and causes the fall from grace, that bit.

To those asking which parts are meant to be true - well you read different genres of literature every single day and you can make up your mind about what you're reading. You understand that a novel is fiction, you understand that a newspaper or history text book is someone's version of the truth. You understand that a Haynes manual is simply a book of instructions to follow for a set task.

It's the same with the Bible. Did the writer of the Genesis creations acounts expect them to be taken literally? I doubt it very much, so what point was he/she trying to make? Did Matthew, Mark and Luke expect their readers to believe they were reading factual accounts? Quite probably. Whereas John is more a spiritual interpretation of the events of Jesus' life.

Why were the four Gospels chosen and not the Gnostic texts? why not the gospel of Mary or of Thomas?

Understand why they were ommited.

this leaves you to pick and choose which bits you want to be

Nah, it's not as random as that. There's a key message.

bencooper - but do they really have a problem with women, Judaism and Christianity at least? Again have you actually read the Bible yourself?

Look at the massive schisms over the idea of women priests or bishops. Look at those old men who got together to vote for another old man to be pope. Yes, they do have a problem with women. Yes, I have read the Bible - what about the story of Samson (brought low by a woman), the story of the man who offered his daughter up to be raped by a mob (Judges somethingorother), what about Paul calling for women to submit themselves to their husbands?

Nah, it's not as random as that. There's a key message.

Okay, what's the key message? Chapter and verse, please.

gonefishin - I wasn't primarily referring to the Bible having being written by male human beings, but primarily to them being the ones who have had the power over the centuries to be the ones interpreting it for the masses.

Rusty, are you a Jew living in the wilderness having just escaped from slavery in Egypt?

Okay, what's the key message? Chapter and verse, please.

Hmm... BC, you've read the Bible and you don't know what the key message is?

What would Rex Harrison say?

[img] [/img]

Hmm... BC, you've read the Bible and you don't know what the key message is?

No, I honestly don't. The key message seems to be that of a computer virus - "make multiple copies, disseminate widely, do not alter".

The reason I was asking for chapter and verse is that I have the sneaking suspicion that what you think of as the key message isn't actually written down anywhere in the Bible.

the older generation of Christians often refuse to engage with material like that for fear it will weaken their faith.

If reading a book can weaken your faith, it's a pretty poor faith and probably could use a bit of weakening.

It's an interesting point, but it seems so massively alien a concept to me. If I held a religious belief I'd [i]want[/i] it challenging, because if I'm right then it gets reinforced (and of course, I'd expect it to be right, that's what faith is); and if it's wrong then I get to find out what is right and I've not wasted a metric buttload of time praising and hallelujahing to a work of fiction and a bloke in a frock.

Beliefs and theories [i]should[/i] be challenged, it's how we learn things.

I have the sneaking suspicion that what you think of as the key message isn't actually written down anywhere in the Bible.

Interesting. I'll double check that.

Done.

“You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? (Matthew 5:43-47 )

bencooper - Samson is not meant to be a Biblical hero. Paul also calls husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church, as well as calling all Christians to submit to one another out of reverence to the Lord.

Regarding the issue of women in leadership, as I understand there are three houses in the Church of England; Bishops, Preists and Laity. Both the Bishops and Priests voted in favour of women bishops but the Laity didn't get quite a high enough vote. All three houses needed to be in agreement for the motion to carry. Actually the majority of people who voted, voted in favour. Baptists have been ordaining women for over 100 years and we don't have bishops, or priests for that matter.

if it's wrong then I get to find out what is right and I've not wasted a metric buttload of time praising and hallelujahing to a work of fiction and a bloke in a frock.

That's the whole problem. It's pretty hard for some people to admit that 29" is a fad, so imagine how hard it is to admit that your whole spiritual basis is wrong 😉

Cougar, again we are in agreement. But we are post-modern thinkers (or perhaps even post-post modern!) The majority of churchgoers are stuck in modernity where the overarching 'truths' they have grown up with cannot be challenged or questioned.

It's pretty hard for some people to admit that 29" is a fad, so imagine how hard it is to admit that you're whole spiritual basis is wrong

Don't bring Singlespeeds into this.

camo16 - ah, okay, "love everyone" is the overall message. And it's a good one. Maybe that should be at the front in bold type or something, otherwise people might miss it amongst all the other stuff.

Okay, I'm kidding - but the basic problem is that either you take your religious text as gospel, in which case you are a dangerous fanatic, or you selectively take from it and reinterpret it, in which case what basis do you use for your editing?

My feeling is that most people are basically decent, so nice religious people take the nice bits from the Bible and ignore the rest - they impose their values on the Bible, not the other way around.

And of course evil bastards can find plenty of justification in the Bible for their views as well.

I love you, bencooper.

😀

Maybe that should be at the front in bold type or something, otherwise people might miss it amongst all the other stuff.

People had more time and patience in the olden days. Surely, you can't blame the Bible for a short attention span?

kja78, you really are turning yourself inside out trying to justify your position. What has not being a biblical hero go to do with anything? It is another case of a man being brought down by a woman, you know like you asked for.

As for your examples about the CofE and the baptist comunity almost accepting women as equals in the church, why not mention the catholic church. It seems odd to not mention the fact that women are excluded from the preisthood in what is the single largest christian church, well other than the fact that it doesn't support your argument.

One is tempted to ask, especially after so many abuse scandals, why the church is so obsessed with sex?

You put a bloke in a dress, tell him he can't have sex with women, and surround him with pubescent boys in nighties. It's only going to go one way really, isn't it.

What passages in the Bible specifically deal with homosexuality as we see it now? Erm, none.

Quite a few, it'd seem. See:

http://christianity.about.com/od/Bible-Verses/a/Bible-Verses-Homosexuality.htm

How about Leviticus 20:13 for a start?

"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."

Judges 19:16-24 is fun too. Bloke takes in a traveller for the night, and later a gang turn up on his doorstep demanding a spot of organised buggery. The old chap tells them his house guest's bottom is exit only, and offers up his virgin daughter for a bit of gang rape instead.

I think we all learned a valuable lesson here.

Seems Genesis 19:1-11 is ostensibly the same story, only with a bit of smiting and mass blinding thrown in for good measure.

Rusty, are you a Jew living in the wilderness having just escaped from slavery in Egypt? If not then I wouldn't worry about it.

Hang on a minute. We were told a minute ago that these stories were supposed to be allegorical. Which is it?

😉

People had more time and patience in the olden days. Surely, you can't blame the Bible for a short attention span?

Of course in the olden, olden days this wasn't an issue - the Bible was in Latin which no-one bar a few priests could read, so everyone was reliant on someone else's interpretation anyway. Who knew if your priest wasn't making stuff up ("The Bible says you should give me all your money") - in fact wasn't that Martin Luther's point?

Well, people having a "conversation" with a few people who have an imaginary friend.

It's going entirley as predicted so far.

in fact wasn't that Martin Luther's point?

And you say Christians are sex obsessed. 😉

Taking advantage of translation issues is, again, not the fault of the Bible, but of those who sought to continue (or abuse) its message.

Both the Bishops and Priests voted in favour of women bishops but the Laity didn't get quite a high enough vote. All three houses needed to be in agreement for the motion to carry. Actually the majority of people who voted, voted in favour.

This is correct, surprisingly the House of Laity has the highest percentage of women members.

If they're the representatives of god here on Earth and doing as his will commands, shouldn't they have all voted the same way?

Well, people having a "conversation" with a few people who have an imaginary friend.

Chapeau, sir.

Aren't we all imaginary friends here?

If they're the representatives of god here on Earth and doing as his will commands, shouldn't they have all voted the same way?

Are they representatives of God, though? Apart from the Pope, these guys/gals are just elected members of the clergy, aren't they?

If they're the representatives of god here on Earth and doing as his will commands, shouldn't they have all voted the same way?

Pesky free will, again

Sorry, but it's men (and I mean male human beings) which are sexist, not the God spoken about in the Bible.

What about that bit in Genesis, where the Christian God supposedly said to Eve (who he thoughtfully constructed from a rib as an afterthought), "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you"?

As much as I love and desire Mr Toast, he doesn't rule over me (nor me over him).

EDIT: Oh, and the bit where women are supposed to go into seclusion when they're on the rag and blokes aren't allowed to talk or look at them, and afterwards the women are supposed to burn doves to 'purify' themselves. They should totally put that in a Bodyform advert...

Oh, and the bit where women are unclean after childbirth, but the 'unclean' time is shorter if they've had a boy.

Or the bit where Lot offers up his virgin daughters and his concubine for rape. Or the bit where he has sex with his daughters.

Are they representatives of God, though? Apart from the Pope, these guys/gals are just elected members of the clergy, aren't they?

Or did god give them a hand in picking? in which case why did they need to vote or have more than one person doing the picking?

Aren't we all imaginary friends here?

Touché 😉

Funnily enough, I am good mates with a minister in the church. We don't discuss religion, ever. He tell me about stuff he does (binding people in holy monotony (his words!), telling a family their son has killed himself, stuff like that), I tell him about stuff I do (building weird bikes, exploring old shipyards, stuff like that).

We get on very well. He's a thoroughly decent bloke. I'm sure he'd be a thoroughly decent bloke even if he was an atheist.

If they don't represent god but they picked the pope, how can the pope be a representative of god? what if they picked the wrong guy?

I believe that, at times like this, a bit of faith is required.

I don't see how I'm turning myself inside out. The Bible is full of stories of women bringing men down, yes. This is a good thing. That's my point. God calls women to subvert the unacceptable male dominated society in which the Bible was written.

Why not mention the Catholic Church, well I'm not a Catholic for a start. But from what little I do know, what goes on in local churches comapared to what the media chooses to tell you about denominational hierachies are often not the same thing. I think that the Roman Catholic Church, and the Church of England, and many other denominational heirachies lost the plot a long time ago when it comes to issues of leadership. Jesus said 'Whoever wants to be first should be slave to all'. By that reckoning the true 'leaders' of the Catholic church are not the ones living in palaces in Rome.

Cougar - If you'd like to read an essay I wrote entitled 'A Biblical attitude to Homosexuality' you'd be very welcome, it deals with the passages of scripture you've quoted. I did offer the last time there was a discussion on STW about the church and homosexuality but on one person actually read it.

We get on very well. He's a thoroughly decent bloke. I'm sure he'd be a thoroughly decent bloke even if he was an atheist.

Good news! I reckon you're right...

I'm not Christian, but I have big problems with atheism, especially aggressive atheism, given that our minds are not particularly impressive in galactic terms and we're so easily distracted by nice MTBs, the weather and Dannii Minogue.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_women/1co11_04.html

the old testament is full of woman hating

3 pages in 4 minutes

the lord doe sindeed work in mysterious if predictable ways

'A Biblical attitude to Homosexuality' you'd be very welcome, it deals with the passages of scripture you've quoted. I did offer the last time there was a discussion on STW about the church and homosexuality but on one person actually read it.

given that our minds are not particularly impressive in galactic terms

As for aggressive aethism I am never really sure what this means. For sure some peole dislike the message and the believers more than others but it is an importnat issue - i find it used as a bit of a lazy slur tbh used to charicature folk.

the old testament is full of woman hating

the lord doe sindeed work in mysterious if predictable ways

I don't know. The gratuitous image of Rex Harrison from the Agony and the Ecstasy on page 4 came as a big surprise to me.

Mrs. Toast - How about the bits where both Jesus and Paul state catergorically that Christians are not bound by Old Testament Law? In fact Jesus was touched by a woman who had a permanent menstrual bleed and didn't consider himself to be unclean, indeed he alone in the society was kind to her, and showed she was valued.

As for Lot and his daughters, as with many things in the Bible it is recorded as 'history' but not neccessarily as a good thing. It seems to me that Lot wasn't thinking straight and was desperate for the two angels (if that's what they were) not to be raped. As it was, the angels prevented Lot from giving his daughters to the men of the town, and struck them down with blindness to protect Lot's family.

Lot and his daughters lived in a time when not having children or family was a disgrace and so slept with him to get pregnant, again though, the Bible doesn't comment on whether they were right to do this.

As for aggressive aethism I am never really sure what this means.

It means getting in touch with your inner Woppit.

The Bible is full of stories of women bringing men down, yes. This is a good thing.

Because they're strong, dynamic characters easily equal to their men, or because women are deceptive harlots and not to be trusted?

Cougar - If you'd like to read an essay I wrote entitled 'A Biblical attitude to Homosexuality' you'd be very welcome, it deals with the passages of scripture you've quoted. I did offer the last time there was a discussion on STW about the church and homosexuality but on one person actually read it.

Sure. Email in profile, I'll take a look at least. Whether I read it all depends on how long and tedious your writing is. (-:

Why not mention the Catholic Church, well I'm not a Catholic for a start.[\quote]

Well you're not a member of the CofE either but you saw fit to talk about them.

But from what little I do know, what goes on in local churches comapared to what the media chooses to tell you about denominational hierachies are often not the same thing

Well I can tell you what used to go on in the very recent past, women are considered suitable for general menial work, like cleaning the church and looking after the priest but nothing more than that. [s]How about answering MrsToast's points or have you written an essay about how what the bible says on those matters isn't really what the bible says on that too?[/s] edited for cross post.

How about the bits where both Jesus and Paul state catergorically that Christians are not bound by Old Testament Law?

You asked for "biblical" examples and that is what you got. To now say that "oh the old part doesn't count" is a pathetic attempt to change the goalposts when you don't like the responses you got.

 

I don't think the Church is obsessed with sex, it is pretty much the only area that the mainstream media reports about, so many conclude that it is all that is discussed.