Ya know how religious conservatives are always pointing to the Bible to explain how being gay is a sin? And that God hates us? And how it’s written right there in the scripture? Of course, the Bible was written by man and, as such, includes plenty of nonsensical euphemisms and rules. The picking and choosing of which of these Biblical mandates to follow can be quite difficult for anti-gay zealots, so we appreciate this handy how-to video.
choosy haters
Biblical Scripture the Carrie Prejeans of the World Choose to Ignore
Help make sure LGBTQ+ stories are being told...
We can't rely on mainstream media to tell our stories. That's why we don't lock Queerty articles behind a paywall. Will you support our mission with a contribution today?
Cancel anytime · Proudly LGBTQ+ owned and operated
Dennis
Let it rock! Awesome post, and ANY rational person whould immediately see the hypocrisy inherent in persecuting gays via the Bible..
Unfortunately, ration, reason, and religion often can’t co-exist in evangelical’s minds. They feel free (entitled, really) to cherry pick and choose from the Bible in order to justify persucuting ANYTHING they are against, while ignoring anything that might challenge them. (It’s a mental disease really, “I need to feel better than other people, and the Bible is the weapon that allows me to do so”…)
I understand that spirituality and religion are not the same thing, but a hard-core Jesus freak isn’t interested in reason, it’s a pathology.
Zack
Death to Religion!
James P. P.
all religion is ‘pick and choose’. period.
we live in a world of justifying selfishness… and just like some guys can justify only sleeping with married men or barebacking, some people can justify the hell out of religion and faith in the almighty.
one thing that strikes me odd – the old testament is old… and when Jesus came he was the “new law”… taking over for the old. so Christians who resort to ANYTHING in the old testament other than for “historical purposes” (and i use that term lightly) are ignoring the nature of Jesus’ purpose in creating a new religion SEPARATE than that of the old testament…….. and thus anyone quoting that part of the good book are falsely using the bible
but there i go thinking logically again….
dgz
@James P. P.:
good point. HOWEVER, as many in our community often ignore, prohibitions on homosexuality appear in the New Testament as well. granted they come from the letters of Saul/Paul and not Jesus, but they’re there.
as for clothing, shellfish, etc: Jesus’ followers were attracted to his stance *against* out of control cleansing practices favored by the Sadducees and Pharisees. and another NT passage specifically allows for the eating of shellfish by Christians, while there is no similar “dream-sequence” passage allowing for gay sex.
i’m just sayin, we can’t repaint Christianity as pro-gay sex just because we want it to be.
stevenelliot
Firstly any reference to homosexuality in the new testament is by Paul who was a gay and woman hater. Coptic Christians had no problems with females presiding over religious services, but Paul put a halt to it. Paul has also been noted as maybe being a latent homosexual who used homophobia to cover his tracks.
Secondly, religious nuts picketing a Red Lobster wont bring in donations to fill their coffures. Its a profitabilty decision to go after homos, nothing more.
dgz
@stevenelliot: i’m not saying Paul wasn’t crazy — he wrote the acid-trip called Revelations, after all. i’m just disputing the idea that the Bible can be fixed by deleting Leviticus.
and the Coptic Christians were all burned to death for heretical views.
as for the profitability motive… maybe. but i’m inclined to think that the religious nuts would still hate me if i gave them $$$.
Jaroslaw
DGZ – as others have pointed out, Jesus was well aware that same sex everything was going on in Greece, Rome, SS prostitution was taxed etc. If HE didn’t say a single word about it, it must not have been too important.
Alec
Not that I care that much about what a 2,000 year old corpse once thought about same-sex relationships, but so what if he had condemned homosexuality? His thoughts on wealth and capitalism are abundantly clear, but that hasn’t stopped the mega churches from fawning over the party of the rich.
If practicing Christians were honest, they’d admit that it is virtually impossible to practice their religion in the modern world. The hang up on sexuality is one of the few areas where the religion doesn’t completely impede economic development, so they promote it even while making a mockery of it (see, for example, the various ways in which they tolerate heterosexual divorce).
Of course, Christianity is slowly but surely dying out in the West. In a hundred years most of Europe will be post-Christian. I’m sure something will come along to fill the void, but I’m not going to concern myself with a dying religion.
dgz
@Jaroslaw: you’re right. but Jesus wasn’t preaching to Gentiles; he focused his message to poor Hebrews almost exclusively. and, we all know that modern-day Christianity is about a lot more than Jesus.
i also think it’s a stretch to say Jesus was pro-gay just because he didn’t condemn it (on record). after 2030-some years of anti-homosexual Christian doctrine, the amount of revisionism required to make the Bible LGBT-inclusive would be staggering.
but i’m very grateful to the churches that try.
strumpetwindsock
@dgz:
John wrote Revelations, actually.
The politician Tommy Douglas referred to the Bible as a “bull fiddle” that you could play any tune you wanted on. Like many, he used it to promote social reform for workers and the poor. He was right.
Almost as important as the selective application of the law is the misunderstood context of many of the words.
“Abomination” did not mean something that would get you condemned to Hell, it was simply a “loathsome act” – usually in refererence to whatever the gentiles did.
Likewise, in the New Testament, “sin” did not mean an evil act, but “missing the mark” – an archery term. You could try to do something good, and if it turned out less than perfect it was still a “sin”.
strumpetwindsock
@dgz:
But the fact remains he didn’t say anything about it.
Likewise the fundamentalists’ entire argument about protecting marriage has no biblical foundation.
And the philosophy of the “rich is good” christians contrasting with what Jesus taught about more than anything else – poverty and social welfare.
Their dogma notwithstanding, it is important to go back to their book and point out the discrepancies.
dgz
@strumpetwindsock: complete agreement from me. as for Hell; the Jews didn’t even have it, or Heaven for that matter, just Sheol. and you’re right about Revelations… ‘sbeen awhile since i studied the Good Book 😉
all i’m saying is that pointing out discrepencies in Leviticus isn’t the be-all, end-all for converting crazies into the responsibly religious. Leviticus is just an easy target, until you come up against an educated crazy who can point to the NT passage that allows eating shrimp, for example. they shouldn’t be able to beat us by excerpting, and we can’t beat them by excising.
TANK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
Sean H.
I’m surprised they didn’t see fit to mention that women are required to sacrifice two turtle doves after every blood discharge. And are not allowed to be in the house with a man during said discharge. I also think the bible says something about women offering political opinions, and how that’s not exactly encouraged.
Jaroslaw
DGZ – there is a great book called What does the Bible really say about homosexuality by Daniel Helminiak. (a Catholic priest no less!)
Among many good things in there, he dissects the story about Jesus’ healing the slavemasters “boy.” It is pretty clear to me when you look at ALL the facts, the term the owner uses is a term of endearment, not just “servant”, it means MY BOY etc. Pretty clear Jesus understood there was more to this relationship….
Anyway, get the book and let me know what you think. It is deep stuff, not just wishful thinking.
dgz
@Jaroslaw: yessir, i’ll check it out. thanks for the tip.
TANK
Yes, this is nothing new. I don’t understand why people think that it’s effective criticism to use the pick and choose argument against fundamentalist christians or, like most christians, those who think that homosexuality is incompatible with christianity. They can justify anything…there’s no rational requirement for them or those who seek to make the bible gay friendly.
That anyone looks to these absurd fairytales for guidance after they’ve been educated as to their likelihood and inconsistency within accounts found in the bible, is a real window into character.
TANK
IT does require supressing instinct to not believe in a god or supernatural forces. First, studies indicate that we’re born dualists (believing that the mind or soul is separate from the body), and children start to attribute agent causation and teleological processes to random chance and events in which no sentience was involved at extremely young ages. We’ve evolved for this: to make sense of things in terms of agent causation. And thus…religion springs.
AlanInSLC
most texts in either the new or old testiment are translated according to current uses of words, rather than the use of the word at the time it was written as definitions and uses have changed over the many hundreds of years. When speaking on that of homosexuals, the terms that are used to state that homosexual acts are sinful are incorrectly deciphered and are typically meant to represent prostitution not homosexuals. Even in the few instances that do represent man on man sexual acts, it is more a sin for a man to be lessened to the level of a woman (since women were concidered lower than men) by alowing their bodies to be used like a womans, than it is to love and be with another man.
John
We should have people all over the united states go into the RED LOBSTER, SIZZLER and other restaurants where Sunday churchgoers go to eat after church and put flyers on everyones cars saying “DID YOU ENJOY THE SHRIMP TODAY? YOU ARE GOING TO HELL”….I don’t think enough people know about these rules the way they know about the man not doodling other men the way we are supposed to doodle a woman. I want billboards shouting “DID YOU WEAR POLYESTER AND COTTON TODAY? YOU ARE GOING TO HELL” etc…I really wish we could start a loud campaign of using the bible against those who use it against us.
Dabq
They all ignore that book of fairy tales and fables and twist parts of it to the issue they feel that they have to hate.
As long as that book of myths is in the room, this country will never have 100% equality.
TANK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCgUJdsliEM
TANK
@TANK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M4i0mwBuoM
Dr. Pedantic
DGZ and Strumpetwindsock: Actually, it’s Revelation, not Revelations!
It’s hard to get people to give up their hypocrisy just by pointing it out. And the Leviticus thing is great, but there are indeed about three passages in the New Testament that also appear to homosexuality. However, many scholars say those aren’t even correct interpretations, and at least in one place Paul appears to have coined a new word, which has been translated as referring to homosexuality even though Paul could have used the existing word for homosexuality if that’s what he was talking about. There’s information on all of this at the website for Evangelicals Concerned.
If you want to point out New Testament hypocrisy, how about Jesus saying that to look at a woman with lust in your heart is the same as adultery? Or even better: that if you divorce for any reason other than adultery, and then re-marry, then that’s a sin? Jesus was a lot more concerned about straight divorce than about gay marriage…
So while I understand that many people blame “religion,” remember that there are plenty of religious people, including devout Christians, who are on our side. We can’t paint all “religion,” or even all Christianity, with the same broad brush.
Having said all that…..I love the video!
Jaroslaw
Dr. Pedantic – not sure if you’re referring to this or not when you mention Paul coining a new word – but the word “homosexual” did not exist until 1865 or so. Bibles prior to 1940 something referred to the “effeminate” not to homosexuals.
There are entire scholarly discussions on precisely what effeminate as well, and I don’t think it really meant homosexual either, or at the very very least, exclusively that word: homosexual/gay/same sex attracted.
Bryan
As someone once said: heterosexuality isn’t normal, it’s just common.
M. Bergeron
he wrote the acid-trip called Revelations, after all.
The Apocalypse of St. John was writen by Paul? Really?
Zserilyn
@Dr. Pedantic: Still, the ones against us are mainly using religion. And the devout Christians on our side believe something is wack with some people’s religion (even if it is similar to their own).
My mother said that some of the rules of the Bible don’t apply anymore because the Bible was written so many years ago. I told her about the cutting and and clothes (both of which I haven’t heard had been changed in the New Testament) and she said that it was alright to pick and choose what to believe out the Bible.
That made me a bit of a nonbeliever.
There’s also 32 different kinds of animals we aren’t supposed to eat (according to Leviticus). I only heard one that we can eat, according to the New Testament. So, sorry, no four-legged poultry. (what the hell is a four-legged poultry?)
strumpetwindsock
@Dr. Pedantic:
@Jaroslaw:
Also significant – the most common term for homosexuality at the time the KJV was translated – “inversion” is not used at all. If they wanted to have a clear condemnation why would they not use the right word?
Richard
Colin Farrell and Dallas Roberts (1:07) from ‘At Home at the End of the Universe’ FTW!
guydads
Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7:1 “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
kevin (not that one)
Both Paul and Jesus were products of the Pax Romana. Greek and Roman influences pervaded the society they lived in, especially that of Paul. Men having sex with men was common and normalized in the larger cities that both men travelled to, so they KNEW about TEH GAYZ.
In the Gospels, which were written several decades after Jesus’s death, the early Christian authors do not attribute any homophobia to him. Jesus, from what we’ve been able to piece together, was well-versed in Jewish Scripture and knew the Torah so well that he referenced it many times in his teachings.
Paul, a former Pharisee, also knew it as he was an enforcer of Jewish ethics. Both men rejected various rules in the Torah, so it’s likely they weren’t hung up on the details of the Torah, which there are many. If homosexuality was such a sin to Jesus, he and/or his followers would have mentioned it. In fact, from then until now, the church would’ve re-written the Gospels to include obvious criticisms of homosexuality, like they did in Timothy to subjugate women (attributing it to Paul) or re-writing the end of Mark to give the resurrection greater significance.
Jesus’s “the sabbath was made for man”, the parable of the Good Samaritan, his statements on what’s “unclean” are all very obvious rejections of Torah, even though he is also quoted as saying as he was not “here to replace the law but to fulfill it.”
Paul, likewise, rejected Torah/Mosaic Law when it came to associating with Gentiles. This was the whole reason there was a blow-up between him and Peter. Gentiles were uncircumsized and therefore it was forbidden to associate and eat with them.
Paul’s letters to the Romans and other congregations were not orders to follow, but his scolding them for being so disfunctional and falling back to their pagan (read: pantheistic) ways. I don’t think Paul was a homophobe and some, like the Rev. John Shelby Spong, believe Paul was gay.
Modern biblical literalism, such as what we’re exposed to, is really just biblical revisionism. It also shows a true lack of understanding from Christians who consistently quote Leviticus as if that book meant anything at all to the early Christian Church – who, even though they were Jewish and wished to remain so, had obvious theological differences with what’s written in it.
rick
i often write letters to the editor on gay issues. i have quoted jesus and have been informed by the right that the words of paul supercede the words of jesus.
strumpetwindsock
@kevin (not that one):
Plus, according to the gospels, the pharisees spend much of their time trying to trip Jesus up on points of the law. He was well-versed in them, but more importantly, he taught to see beyond them.
And how he handled the situation when that woman was about to be stoned to death probably indicates his attitude toward others’ shortcomings.
Although paradoxically, he also pointed out that not one word of the law will pass away – figure that out.
@rick:
That’s ridiculous.
It’s like that joke about the workman in the rafters of a catholic church who decides to play a joke on an old praying woman and calls down “Hello, it’s Jesus Christ calling you..”
He does it a few times and gets no response until he finally yells it out, then she replies
“Shut up! I’m talking to your momma!”
Alec
@kevin (not that one): Paul also recommended celibacy, since he thought the world was coming to an end (so much for inerrancy). I’m pretty sure he would have been opposed to same-sex relationships. Even if Romans is dismissed or downplayed for whatever reason (and I don’t believe the other passages touch on homosexuality), Paul was a typical Jewish/Christian world denier who probably believed all sex was fundamentally bad and unclean, in his heart of hearts.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock: @rick:
This is true, Rick. Christians worship the word of Paul, not Jesus. It’s surprising that they haven’t renamed christianity to pualianity, actually.
Alec
@guydads: Yes he was a big proponent of celibacy. He also wasn’t a fan of women (clothed or otherwise, one suspects, in keeping with a long Christian tradition). Probably, as I mentioned above, because he believed the world was going to end. Again, so much for inerrancy.
getreal
I love this video Evangelical christians ignore everything in Leveticus except the blurb about homosexuality. They do everything else in the passage themselves they ae just bigots it has nothing to dow with the bible as this video shows. For the record I am christian and was raised that homosexuality is part of God’s pan just like heterosexuality.
strumpetwindsock
@Alec:
Plus he spent all his time trying chastising and correcting all the other sects that were different than his dogma.
In a way he didn’t change much from the way he was before his conversion.
mikebuc
As the great Bill Maher likes to point out, the Old Testament is full of stories about talking snakes, men living inside of whales, and two of every animal species on earth being marched onto a single boat. It’s all about as believable as Dr. Seuss.
Johanna
@dgz:
Okay, just to clear up a few points:
Paul did NOT write Revelations, a prophet going by the name of John, not the same author of the Gospel or letters of John
Second, the letters in which “Paul” makes his most misogynistic and homophobic arguments, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus, are generally agreed not to be written by him
Third, Alec is completely correct in saying Paul was apocalyptic; ironically enough, so was Jesus. The “family values” movement should take a good look at the New Testament, because Jesus at one point is quoted as saying one must hate their entire family to follow him; as others have stated, Paul was only for marriage in instances that one could not remain celibate.
In regards to women, the authentic Pauline epistles refer to women as disciples, apostles, saints, and portray them as actively participating in worship (don’t believe me – look up Junia, Prisca, and Phobe in the context of Paul) – it wasn’t until the 2nd Century CE that women began to become oppressed after the world didn’t come to an end and a hierarchy needed to be formed.
Last of all, the term “sodomite” has nothing to do with gay sex, but rather degradation and rape. I bring this up because it’s the common term used when people argue that Paul was against gay relationships. To truly understand the term you have to read the story of Lot in the Hebrew Bible – basic summary is he takes in two strangers, whom unbeknownst to anyone are messengers from God, and the men of the town try to break into his house to rape them. He offers them his daughters instead (the custom then was that if you took in a stranger you did everything you could to protect them – these are also the same two daughters who later have sex with their father to continue his line). The townspeople didn’t want to rape the men because they (the townspeople) were gay – rape was a common weapon back in those days to degrade your enemies, regardless of age or sex.
Anyway, I’ll stop my rant for now – except to say (before anyone takes a cheap shot at it) that I’m agnostic, and one of the many reasons I no longer subscribe to organized religion is because of the Christian church’s treatment of the gay community.
TANK
It’s funny to say that “so was jesus” (with respect to any comparison between paul and jesus) when jesus left no written records nor did any of the apostles who knew him directly…Paul converted two years after jesus’ crucifixion and had nothing to do with (avoided) the apostles who allegedly knew him directly. Paul basically created “christ” and we worship paul’s creation. In fact, really the only accounts we have of jesus come from paul’s “visions”…isn’t that funny?
TANK
@TANK:
“alleged” crucifixion, I’d like to add. I think it could very well be that jesus…was just more of paul’s overactive imagination.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
The strongest evidence is that the gospels of Matthew and Mark (the oldest one) were actually written by the two disciples.
The authorship of John’s Gospel is less clear. Luke of course was a later writer who never knew Jesus (if he existed).
And there is also Josephus’ non-biblical account.
You’ll be pleased to know, TANK, that the original version of MARK did not include a resurrection. That was a later addition.
But as to Paul’s role, I agree he virtually created the early Christian Church, since in the Gospels Jesus never asks anyone to worship him or to create a new church.
And the church was further twisted when Constantine decided which books were to be included in the Canon and which were apocryphal.
But not everything in the gospel came form Paul; there are other and better sources.
TANK
The strongest evidence is that the gospels of Matthew and Mark (the oldest one) were actually written by the two disciples.
This is all false. It’s not called the gospel of matthew and the gospel of mark, but the gospel according to matthew and the gospel according to mark. Nothing of these men is known beyond what is written in the gospels themselves, and no one knows a thing about the person who wrote these gospels, or the people who did. It is assumed that the gospel of mark is the oldest because it is the most primitive, and doesn’t include anything about the virgin birth or the sermon on the mount…these were added later by newer gospels. So once again, no aposlte who knew jesus directly left a written account. ANd paul certainly didn’t know jesus correctly…there’s simply no account at all. And further, nothing written in the bible can confirm or disconfirm the existence of the historical jesus.
The authorship of John’s Gospel is less clear. Luke of course was a later writer who never knew Jesus (if he existed).
Actually, the other of all of the gospels is simply a mystery.
And there is also Josephus’ non-biblical account.
And this is simply not a credible source. Josephus’ account is fraught with inconsistency and vagueness.
You’ll be pleased to know, TANK, that the original version of MARK did not include a resurrection. That was a later addition.
DIdn’t include the virgin birth, the sermon on the mount, the lord’s prayer…didn’t include a lot of things.
But as to Paul’s role, I agree he virtually created the early Christian Church, since in the Gospels Jesus never asks anyone to worship him or to create a new church.
I think he did that…I think he also chose which gospels would make it into the NT as well.
And the church was further twisted when Constantine decided which books were to be included in the Canon and which were apocryphal.
A lot like saul.
But not everything in the gospel came form Paul; there are other and better sources.
Well, we just don’t know that.
TANK
@TANK:
author…correcting your errors takes a lot of out of a person, strumpet…as they are many.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Go check some bible study sources, since you certainly won’t accept it from me.
It is believed that Mark, the oldest gospel, was likely written by Mark, or by Peter’s companion, also named Mark. In any case, it is not an accepted theory that Paul cooked the entire new testament up in his head.
Luke’s gospel, for one, is much more hellenistic, and quite different than Paul’s writings.
I’m not disputing that the gospels had miracles galore grafted on to make Jesus look like Mithra and other deities. But even though Paul invented the Christian Church, he was not the only source for the gospels.
The New Testament was set by Constantine at the Council of Nicea.
TANK
Go check some bible study sources, since you certainly won’t accept it from me.
Oh, I have, and you’re just wrong…nothing is known of mark or matthew outside of what is written in the gospels about them. And it is not believed that mark wrote the gospel according to mark by anyone other than a christian like you… The fact is that no human being knows a single thing about who wrote mark or matthew. There isn’t any evidence outside of the gospel itself, and the gospel itself never states that mark wrote the gospel according to mark…nor matthew…Go read up on this. This is amateur hour.
It is believed that Mark, the oldest gospel, was likely written by Mark, or by Peter’s companion, also named Mark. In any case, it is not an accepted theory that Paul cooked the entire new testament up in his head.
You’re right. IN fact, the historical jesus was for most of christianity just believed because the bible said it “True”…LOL!
TANK
Paul was the editor in chief of the NT.
TANK
@TANK:
And, and “you’re right” just applied to “it is not an accepted theory that Paul cooked up the NT”…not that mark wrote the gospel according to mark. That is, as I explained, simply rubbish.
TANK
And one more correction…the gospel according to mark that we have access to is based upon an earlier document, or the “original mark” which is no more…and was lost a long, long time ago. We don’t know who wrote the original and no evidence as to who wrote the revised mark (most gospels were revised, expanded upon…altered). And the gospel of john is admitted by the church by the church to be an interpretation of the life of christ, and not an historical document…
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Paul was the editor in chief?
He didn’t even write all the letters that bear his name, and the new testament did not begin to take form until hundreds of years after his death.
Your notion that the entire new testament came from him is not supported by scholarship.
There is of course conflicting evidence about the authorship of many of the books (likewise the gnostic gospels and apocrypha). Some cases are stronger than others, but they certainly do not all point to Paul.
Anyone who is interested should go and check it out for themselves because I don’t want to waste my time discussing this issue with someone who will not accept evidence put in front of him.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Actually I get it….
You must have shelled out for that “God Who Never Was” book, right? Or “Jesus Never Existed”.
Maybe I should send you my old copy of “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail”.
You can use it to cross-reference when you’re doing your research watching “Angels and Demons”.
Anyway, I’m off. Good night.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
Not at all. Everything I’ve written is backed up by scholarship. And the original NT was determined by PAUL. No doubt about it. It was revised after his death and has been countless times since his death…you lose.
TANK
@TANK:
Paul chose which gospels made it in and which didn’t. And the gnostic gospels are highly contested…the mark of true desperation to bring them up to support your point.
TANK
The biggest insult to the truth of all is strumpet’s vacuous and false assertion that mark wrote the gospel according to mark, which isn’t even verified in the gospel, itself just a copy of an earlier text that is gone…passing it off as some historically sound fact when no one knows who wrote a single word in the gospel according to mark…not a single word can be attributed with any degree of warrant to any “mark”. And then to state that Paul didn’t intentionally distort and destroy documents that didn’t conform to his view of the christianity when HE CREATED THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH is utter nonsense. In fact, it’s highly likely. You have a problem with the truth. I realize having your deeply held christian faith called into question can be hard, but the truth is more important than your fairytale of choice.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Sorry… just got up for a cookie.
I’m not contesting the possibility that Jesus may not have existed. I’ve made reference to it a few times myself, and I know the miracles were added in for show.
It’s just this Paul as primary source and editor thing you’re on about that has no foundation of evidence.
And it’s funny that you’re arguing so hard for the New Testament to be a fabrication while claiming that the myth of the slavery in Egypt is the gospel truth – even though there is no evidence other than the book of Genesis, no archaeological or other written evidence, and no evidence that the Egyptians kept a mass of slaves.
Back to bed now.
TANK
Your notion that the entire new testament came from him is not supported by scholarship.
This is not my view. You not won’t anything supporting this to make the claim. THis is the view you’re now attributing to me. More falsity.
TANK
@TANK:
rather, you won’t find anything I’ve written thus far supporting the strawman you’re attempting here. Go eat your cookie and toddle off to bed. You’ve been put in your place.
TANK
It’s just this Paul as primary source and editor thing you’re on about that has no foundation of evidence.
There’s no evidence that paul had anything to do with which texts were passed down in history and which weren’t? Really? I think you’re a fool if you stand by this claim. Paul, as creator of the christian church, likely saw things he didn’t like attributed to jesus, and edited them.
TANK
I’m kidding, strumpet. Given our previous exchanges, I think you’re a fool regardless. And you’re a falsity generator.
James P. P.
wow… so much to comment on. so much is correct and explained in a non-angry way. and that make me happy. (so much is not, but at least we haven’t progressed to name calling…)
i will say this, although John is credited for writing Revelation (as the title is “The Revelation to John” or “The Apocalyptic according to John”) there is some continuing argument about the authorship, since the writing style is SO different.
it could also be that the writer was freaking old, living in a cave, and eating sarpa salpa, a hallucinogenic fish found in the area……. who knows.
whereas Jesus never talked about homos, Paul (or whoever wrote under Paul’s name) did. but this was mainly because people were getting SO distracted with sex, money-making, whatever that they were not focusing on the preaching work which all of “Paul’s” writings were generally about “focus on the fucking preaching work” and “how to maintain religious structure in 100 steps or less”. Baptists love Paul.
the idea of Christianity (as i mentioned) was to be separate from everyone else. some may argue the interpretation of the scriptures may not actually include homos, but there again comes my observation that we can justify anything if we try hard enough. lol.
good discussion though.
Jaroslaw
Strump – regarding your comment about the KJV using the word inversion for homosexual – remember the idea that homosexuality was a life orientation was not commonly thought of; there were “same sex” attractions, same sex activities…but it was not thought of as a person’s primary orientation.
I wish I could remember the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic word that was being translated into “effeminate” prior to all this, but the point is whatever it is; it couldn’t be translated into homosexual then or now because the word “homosexual” and the thought processes behind it didn’t exist at the time the Bible was written.
strumpetwindsock
@Jaroslaw:
Yes, I know. I was referring to the English word used at the time it was translated in the 1600s.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh2.htm
If they had wanted to make a clear condemnation they could easily have used that word in Corinthians for arsenokoitai or malokois. Luther translated arskenokoitai as pedophile (knabenschaender).
And a breakdown of a few translations of Leviticus, and the original.
http://scripturetext.com/leviticus/20-13.htm
They don’t point it out on this page, but it is interesting that the old Luther Bible translates it as “boy” (Knabe), not “man”.
Check out some of these passages at biblegateway.com to see some of the variations in translation and interpretation (there is some commentary as well).
strumpetwindsock
@strumpetwindsock:
I should add that Luther’s translation wasn’t entirely correct, because the term arskenokoitai, (like sodomite) covers a lot of things.
Just trying to point out
a) not all translations say the same thing
b) if the English translators (not just James’ people) had wanted to condemn homosexuality specifically, they had the word to do it, and they did not use it.
Alec
@strumpetwindsock: That’s interesting. Is there any explanation for Luther’s variation, apart from poor language skills?
strumpetwindsock
@Alec:
Unfortunately we can’t ask him, but is interesting that he steered the translation toward pedophilia in Leviticus and Corinthians.
I do know that the word they were translating covers a lot of things – not specifically pedophilia, but not specifically homosexuality either.
For that matter, the word used in a lot of translations – sodomy – didn’t specifically mean oral and anal sex and bestiality (as we understand it today).
I’m not a biblical scholar, but it doesn’t seem our focus on the passage as a condemnation of homosexuality is any more accurate than Luther’s equally narrow interpretation condemning pedophilia.
Alec
@strumpetwindsock: For Corinthians. I was more curious about Leviticus. That seems flat out wrong.
Zach009
After reading these posts my overactive imagination got the best of me. I started thinking. Let us say a man named Jesus existed. From History we know he started the Judeo-christian movement. Supposed or real we don’t know, but for sake of argument and my post we will say this is true.
Do you suppose maybe he had political views and his “apostales” agreed with him. He mad alot of sense to them. He and his group didn’t like how the government and religious beliefs were going. Do you suppose him and his group cooked up this entire theme.
There movement was to change views and opinions. So he offered his life in his belief to show his followers how much this meant to him at the time. Kind of like a suicide bomber, but without the harm of others just himself.
I have read also that Jesus was a nomad. Traveling the world. Knowing other cultures and beliefs. So is it so hard to believe through understanding science back then he was able to trick people in believing he had the abiliies to perform “magic” and “illusions”.
This man and his followers wanted to change the world. To do so would take a grand scale of events. So now religion has morphed into what it is today and after his death his disciples finished writing the Bible. Maybe he knew what,the rest of the book he was writing to change the world, was going to be because that was the plan.
And looking now his plan succeeded. he has impacted the world in a huge way and it still continues today.
Providing all of my hypothesis is true of course.
So I guess what i am saying He may have been an actual man and nothing more. A man with a vision to change the world for the better as he saw it in his eyes at the time. If that’s the case he wouldn’t have anyway of knowing how much he tore the world apart.
TANK
If you’re interested in a good discussion of whether or not the historical jesus existed, earl doherty’s the jesus puzzle is pretty good at presenting a novel and pretty decent argument against the historical jesus.
Nonetheless, we have three conflicting views of jesus in the early gospels…mark: son of a man…matthew: son of a god…TANK: son of a bitch…John: god himself. And it’s true that no one knows who originally wrote the gospels…or, likelier, which teams of people wrote them as they were passed down and edited…destroyed, etc.
If jesus existed at all, I’m pretty sure that he was born a jew lived as a jew and died a jew, preaching some form of reform judaism. Nothing is really original to jesus, anyway, as far as what he taught.
Zach009
No not really interested in a discussion about if he existed or not.
I am just saying if he did exist the entire story could be just a fabrication. He wanted to change the world with a radical movement and gave his life for it to make his story more concrete.
Watch the documentary “The Lost Tomb of Jesus”
Very insightful documentary. It goes through the evidence that a man named jesus actually lived back then with all the relatives stated in the bible. They give mathmatecial probability of how many families back then could have lived with those exact names.
It was very educational as wel as entertaining.
Do I believe he existed? The answer is not so cut and dry as yes and no for me. I don’t know if he existed, but there is surely enough evidence to convince me that a man named jesus existed. Do I believe it? Not thouroughly, because I haven’t finished thinking about it one way or the other and I will probably always think about it for the rest of my life.
If he did exist he sure wrote a great work of fiction that affected the entire world in a profound way.
TANK
He didn’t write down anything, actually. And there’s no evidence that any of his immediate apostles did, either. In any event, that wasn’t directed at you.
The entire story could be a fabrication? DOes this include the virgin birth? What’s the probability of could be in a virgin birth (which refers to mary, actually)?
Zach009
The “virgin birth” could be a lie or it could be true. It is possible for a woman to get pregnant with her hymen intact. Who knows how much information they had of science back then. lol. Could be alot more than we thought they knew.
If the “virgin birth” is true then that would have to mean that Joseph and Mary were political activists. So maybe Jesus was the product of thier political activism and he believed what he believed because of them. Maybe he wasn’t told the entire truth.
However, if it is a fabrication made up by Jesus himself to support his claim we will never know the truth.
I am just hypothesizing about the possibilites and trying to take a realistic approach to things and cut out all the bible “magic” mumbo jumbo.
It is not impossible for me to believe that Jesus and his followers were as radical as some religious groups today.
TANK
The “virgin birth” could be a lie or it could be true.
And that’s when sane people look away in disgust. You have lost all credibility with that one sentence. I suppose you also believe in miracles that in violation of all biological fact, but also the laws of physics, too…another crazy person.
Zach009
I think it is hilarious how groups start out with noble intentions and end up being just like the people they are against.
Any group when youo disagree with them, they don’t want an intelligent conversation they only see one side of the coin. You have to look at both. When you disagree with them they attack.
They take a radical approach that mishapes the view they are trying to present. They put word’s in people mouths. For instance if oyu don’t agree with them on a certain topic then,acoording to them, you don’t believe this other point over here. Usually that other point has nothing to do with anything but is warped to fit thier needs.
I will never be a part of any organized group becuase of this. I look at boths ides of the coin.
So organized religion is out for me. GLAAD is out of the question for me too as they are just as radical as the other side. They try to be a spokesperson for the gay community and yet misrepresent themselves and others day in and day out.
TANK
Blah blah blah. You entertain the possibility of the virgin birth… You are a crackpot. Your mind is so open that it contains nothing… Maybe they could have performed invitro fertilization back then according to you…maybe the flintstones was documentary footage, too…but even if that crazy insane lunatic fantasy of yours were true, it’s still inconsistent with the virgin birth.
strumpetwindsock
The virgin birth is most certainly one of the things tacked onto the story to give Jesus credibility.
There were a number of egyptian and greek gods who had virgin births.
As a matter of fact though, parthenogenesis is a documented fact. In a minority of cases women have given birth without the aid of a man (though this is not the same as God impregnating a woman).
@Zach009:
@TANK:
And on that point I agree with you TANK. Jesus did not start Christianity (again, if he existed). According to the scriptures he promoted a reformation of judaism, not worship of himself.
Zach009
@TANK: See you are just like what I described above. You took a sentence out of context and attacked me and obvisouly you did not read the follow up sentences. Are you incapable of inferring?
I said “The virgin birth” could be a lie or it could be true.
You have to look at the entire post. It is a percieved truth. It is medically possible for someone to be pregnant with her hymen still intact. The perception of “virginity”.
Yes the laws of Physics and biology through the eyes of the naive in an ancient time could be viewed as being miracles.
There are lots of unexplained phenomena that occur that science can’t explain. I do not rule out the possibility of anything. I open my mind to think outside the box.
I am just making theories. To say I have lost credibility is absurd on your part since I never stated to be an expert about anything. I am just throwing things out there for anyone to ponder.
Zach009
@strumpetwindsock: I never said Jesus started christianity. I never said he started worship of himself. I simply stated that it is believed he started the Judeo-Christian movement which is a different form of Judaism and christianity.
Zach009
@TANK: I see you are incapable of having an intelligent conversation without throwing rude remarks and comments. Next poster please. 🙂
TANK
As a matter of fact though, parthenogenesis is a documented fact. In a minority of cases women have given birth without the aid of a man (though this is not the same as God impregnating a woman).
There are no known cases of naturally-occurring mammalian parthenogenesis in the wild.
Yuo said minority causes…which ones? Weekly world news doesn’t count as a source.
TANK
cases
TANK
@Zach009:
This is just idiocy. That you think it could be true or could be a lie even is absurd. Jonah could have lived in the belly of a great fish for years, too…daaaaaaa
strumpetwindsock
@Zach009:
Not trying to take a round out of you… just trying to clarify things.
But when you speak of the Judeo-Christian movement that implies the Church which worships Jesus. And nowhere did he tell anyone to worship him. He was preaching radical change, but it was a change within Judaism.
TANK
In fact, to worship a jew as jesus was if he existed at all–he would have considered blasphemy. For it is blasphemy in judaism to worship false idols. So it’s likely would, who created “christ son of god/god” would have been considered a heretic by jesus.
Zach009
@TANK: You obviously are not understanding what I am saying. You can be a percieved virgin and still be pregnant. Did I say “GOD” did it? No I did not, that is your assumption of what I meant because that is what you have stuck in your head when you read about the “virgin birth”.
Are you sure you know how to read properly. lol.
TANK
@TANK:
it’s likely Paul would have been considered a heretic by jesus if jesus existed as anything more than just a figment of his imagination, rather.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Nevertheless, the belief is that it can happen on rare occasions.
But do you really want to go down this blind alley?
I have already said that it is not the same as God impregnating a woman, and the “virgin birth” is most certainly a fabrication to make Jesus appear like other deities.
TANK
@Zach009:
LOL! So you’re talking to yourself.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
Who believes this? Christians? Of course they believe it..they believe in all sorts of things that are inconsistent with the laws of nature (miracles). LOL! How about a text book case, please. “nonetheless” No, not “nonetheless”…you back those crackpot crazy statements of yours up with facts.
Zach009
@strumpetwindsock: I understand what you are saying, totally. However, that is the precise reason people get into arguments because they read into things someone did not say. You can’t imply that is what I meant because I did not say it.
TANK
@Zach009:
I have difficulty believing that you understand anything. LOL! I suppose if sufficient adjustment were made to the jonah and the fish story, he lived in a “wooden model” fish for a few years…idiot.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Since you seem to be here to score points rather than discuss the issue:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/sex2.htm
If the Lancet is a reputable enough journal, they published a study of alleged parthenogenesis in the 50s.
Of course, Jesus’ birth could not have been parthenogenesis. If it were, he would have been female.
TANK
@TANK:
In other words, a boat.
strumpetwindsock
Can we get back to the issue at hand now?
Zach009
@TANK: Yes, where your concerned I am talking to myself. You do not have an open mind to discuss anything rationally, irrationaly, logically or illogically.
I can see your ignorance.
strumpetwindsock
@Zach009:
I should clue you in, since he is not saying it directly.
TANK thinks that the Jesus story is a work of fiction created by Paul.
Zach009
@TANK: Know one is talking about the Jonah and the fish story. I see how unintelligent you are having to call people idiots from the safety of your desktop or laptop.
You seem not to be able to understand what I said and all you want to do is argue with someone on the computer. It must be bad day for you. Hope your life gets better, bro!
TANK
@Zach009:
Be open minded! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
bwahahahaha.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
Don’t speak on my behalf, lesser. I entertain that as a plausible situation (he created jesus’s divinity, after all)…and he could have edited the gospels, too–which is actually likely. THey could have been based on a number of different people (life of brian theory). I do, however, think that there’s scant historical evidence supporting the claim that the historical jesus existed, and I’m skeptical about it.
Zach009
@strumpetwindsock: Yes I see that. I too stated the bible is a work of fiction.LOL.
He just wants to argue. However, the probablity of Jesus and that exact family being actual human beings is possible.
Wacth “the Lost tomb of jesus” great documentary as I stated above.
How it is a work of fiction is the question.
Maybe Paul did write it but based it on a real living family at the time.
Maybe it was dictated by an actual man named Jesus. No one really knows, but it is fun to come up with possibilites and theories.
strumpetwindsock
@Zach009:
“Maybe Paul did write it but based it on a real living family at the time.”
As I said further up this thread, there is no scholarly basis for that argument.
Go check it out yourself, but don’t be bullied into making allowances by someone who is speculating without anything to back it up.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
There’s just as much a scholarly basis for this as there is that the apostle mark wrote the new mark, as you claim. Anyway, read up on this (esp. the doherty book), as you’re in sore need of some lessons on “scholarly bases”.
Zach009
@strumpetwindsock: So you guys by the assumption that you need facts for “what if” statements.
Do not read a post and take one sentence to try and scrutinize. You have to look at the entire post not just one sentence.
See in a paragraph we have what is called a main statement and then supporting statements.
Since my theories are a series of “what ifs” I do not need either nor do I need facts to back it up because I am not trying to convince anyone that this is true. I am not stating fact of any kind. I am simply stating “what if”.
If you know anything about psychology then you know in order to think logically you have to think illogically.
TANK
@Zach009:
What if your mother drank large quantities of alcohol whilst preggers with you? Would that explain the deficits?
If you know anything about psychology then you know in order to think logically you have to think illogically.
ROTFLMAO!
Zach009
@TANK: Obviously you have never been a student and have never taken psycholgy in your life.
TANK
@Zach009:
Yeah, that’s right. Psychology baffles me. IT’s so confusing…and inexact.
Zach009
@TANK: Wow, what a faggot you are being! Now I have stooped to your level. *Big HUGs. 😉
Zach009
@TANK: Actually psychology is not as “inexact” as you might think.
Zach009
@TANK: Ok tank! Now i am in the mood to argue. lol. So you pic the topic tell me which side of it you are on and I will take the other side of it no matter what it is. Unless your not game?
TANK
@Zach009:
yeah? Fuck’s my keys and wallet, then?
TANK
@TANK:
where you left them. See, that’s a tautology…very exact.
Zach009
@TANK: Yeah and you present no point. So what topic do you want to argue about?
Zach009
@Zach009: BTW. You your questions were incomplete sentences.