As I said earlier, the OT has nothing to do with it. Here’s what St. Paul says:
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9–10).
“But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted” (1 Timothy 1:8–11).
The only way to get Christians to stop being homophobes, is to convince them that St. Paul is irrelevant. An easy task, presumably, since he was such a shady character. But the thing is: if you’re gullible enough to believe that there’s an invisible man in the sky, then you’re gullible enough to believe that Paul has personally met him.
The term translated ‘homosexual’ there is, I think, arsenokoites is unclear in meaning, but it probably connotes anal sex, rather than anything about orientation. (Some heterosexual couples engage in that practice too, and not all gay men do). There’s a long tradition of interpreting it that way, for example the 6th century Patriarch of Constantinople said “some people even commit this sin with their wives”.
Αρσενοκοιτης (arsenokoites) literally means “he who lies with a male” (αρσενικος = male (adjective), κειτομαι = I lie), with the masculine “-ης” ending denoting that the subject is also a male himself. No particular sexual practice is implied in the word.
Aren’t god’s laws integral to religion? Can you just say “I like the gospel, but god’s law is irrelevant to me, because the gospel is important enough for me”. If god didn’t want us to hate gays, then why did Paul write these things? Were they his personal opinions, which god does not endorse? If so, then why are his epistles included in the canon?
I struggle with that one, too. It was a council of men. Learned men, granted, but men nonetheless and therefore subject to human frailties. I read and value the bible, and I have faith, but I also have a brain and I read with discernment and I take into account information from all sources, though not equally weighted.
Of course they are integral to religion, but they are a part of it. Jesus said the greatest commandment (or, law) is to love one another as yourself, and love God with all your heart and mind and strength - though he didn’t say it in that order.
To me it is a balance, a struggle if you will, between law and gospel. Yes we have to live by laws, but yet we are also forgiven. I could go out in the next minute and commit a heinous act, and if I did and asked God for forgiveness, and truly was repentant, God would forgive me. One some level it doesn’t make sense, but that’s (part of) the message of the bible.
I believe you have to read and get to know the entire bible, and understand its books in their contexts, and interpret the whole message of God. To pick isolated verses and point to those and yell, “Foul! 15 yard penalty!” could be like hiding behind your mama’s skirt.
One of the great things about Paul was that he persecuted and tortured and killed Christians, and yet he converted. If you understand his journey, then maybe that’ll help you to understand (and okay, not accept) Christianity.
That makes sense. For instance, the books of the Apocrypha, while non-canonical, are still of some value. Same for the Nag Hammadi manuscripts: they are even less valuable…but not utterly worthless. I think a good Christian should also have some (perhaps minimal, but non-zero) familiarity with the Koran, some Hindu texts, some Buddhist ideas, the Book of Mormon, Science and Health, etc. etc.
We might disagree as to how to assign relative weights and values…but it’s wrong, in my opinion, for anyone to throw away other people’s books and texts completely.
I think I really do have a pretty good understanding of Christianity. Not a great understanding, but, like many atheists, I can score pretty well in Bible quizes.
You’re right, alas, that I will never come to an acceptance of it. There is too much that I consider morally unacceptable.
I did in my youth but I also read history too, hard to miss that the ancient Egyptians ignored that bit about the universal flood.
Speaking of picking verses, I found this about the commandments that shows how picked they were a long time ago:
Even though it is tradition that there are ten commandments (usually pointed and starting on Exodus 20:2) there is no clear stop for the commandments in the chapter! After some chitchat with Moses about the scary special effects, the commandments do continue:
Followed by Judgements that do sound like commandments also!
Including the famous:
And many rules that deal with slavery and God not finding anything wrong with that barbarous institution, I see why those rules are not mentioned any more.
“Love thy neighbor” aka the Golden Rule is really not very original nor restricted to Christianity, in fact it’s just common sense for good social behaviour. I sure can live with that rule, but why should I follow Jesus (or Paul) to acknowledge this simple code?
See, that’s what I can never understand. You admit that it doesn’t make sense, yet you live by the tenets of this religion (I suppose from your writings). How anyone could do that (and that applies to all religions and religionists) is totally beyond my understanding.
Just like Trinopus, I have quite a good grasp of the Bible, having read it a few times entirely, and I couldn’t make head or tail what the “whole message” of the thing would be. It’s such a hodgepodge of writings from different times and authors, from very different religious perspectives and written with different intentions that it’s impossible to (at least for me) to derive a common message from it. Even if you take the New Testament as a separate part, you cannot reconcile the many contradictions (and I don’t mean minor things like how often Petrus denied Jesus or what Jesus’ last words were and such) and inconsistencies. Paul’s theology is certainly a different kettle of fish than that of the canonical gospels, where John’s gospel in turn is very different to the other three. I know, theologians, some really great minds, have been doing mental gymnastics for 2000 years to work around that, but I just have to laugh when I think about all the wasted time spent with that futile exercise.
You know, that has always bugged me. By your definition above, a Nazi who had been at Dachau (or Treblinka or any of the death camps) and performed horrid, amoral actions, but then (truly) repented of his sins, accepted Jesus as his savior, and lived a truly good Christian life in service to God would be forgiven of his sins and welcomed into Heaven.
Meanwhile the thousands of Jews he slaughtered, men, women and children, having not repented of their disbelief in Jesus Christ and never asking God (your God) for forgiveness of their unwillingness to follow his way (the Christian way, which, of course, is the only correct way to heaven), are condemned to Hell for all eternity.
At least that’s the way I read it. And it is seriously ******* - up, IMHO.
But I am willing to consider any well-reasoned rebuttal…
That is not quite what I said. I said that on some level it does not make sense. More below.
If you don’t get it, I guess it’s okay. Maybe you shouldn’t worry about it. Understanding its whole message includes grappling with the balance of law vs gospel. It sounds like you have tried to understand it. Kudos to you. And it seems you’ve made up your mind. Okay.
Maybe it’s easier to “get” with prior indoctrination. If one has been trained to already believe, then seeing things in a certain light becomes that much easier.
Sorry, you’re right, I didn’t want to twist what you said. But for me the fact that parts of it, big parts I have to say, make no sense is absolutely a sufficient condition to dismiss it as a guide to live my life.
I certainly don’t worry at all about it, because I never read the Bible to get anything in a religious sense, but from the neutral stand of a raised Catholic become atheist who hadn’t read much of it in his youth when I was still some kind of religious. I just wanted to know what the fuss is all about, learned to love some parts of it as great literature and interesting pseudo-historical writings and come back to it everyonce in a while. And you know, because, know your enemy ;). And as Bryan Ekers said, why should there be a common message to get from the Bible when it’s a compilation of numerous, very different texts from different times and different traditions, written in different languages and compiled long after it was written by people who had a certain agenda? Does the whole of recorded Greek mythology have a common message? Of course not, why should it. So why should the Bible?