Ask a Protestant and a Catholic to each do a sermon from Tobit, Judith, First and Second Maccabees, The Book of Wisdom, or Ecclesiasticus. Which one could do it out of their Bible?
Also, thanks Simplicio. The first theory does make the most sense since the Gospel of Matthew was (allegedly) written for the Jewish audience.
I do know about the Apocrypha, but I apologize for speaking a bit loosely.
But it does raise the question, are there any doctrinal differences that caused new denominations to arise, that are based in large part on any of those books? I’m not talking about Protestants just demoting them from the canon, I’m talking about something in them that a denomination not using them considers heretical, or that a denomination that does use them considers essential.
In my observation, theists constantly take their own scripture out of context or with a twisted interpretation in order to support one point or another. This is where we got things like support for enslaving blacks and opposition to masturbation and homosexuality, and if you go further back the existence of the devil and of hell.
Atheists may cherry pick and shew interpretations occasionally, but as has been mentioned, there’s not all that much a need to. The bare text alone can be pretty damning on its own.
I’ve noticed that when atheists quote a verse that looks bad it is in response to a Christian saying something like how full of love the Bible is. There are lots of verses which are nasty in their own right, and one could argue that it is the Christian distorting the verse to make it look not so bad.
Forgetting about “bad” verses, as someone who grew up Jewish it is quite clear that Christians have made a career of distorting OT verses. There are tons that are at the very heart of Christian theology which require quite a bit of adjustment and addition to fit, starting with the identification of Satan with the serpent and continuing onwards.
Mostly atheists quote the Bible to demonstrate its absurdity. Read Tom Paine for an excellent example.
Presuming the cause of death was exsanguination, how likely is it that he’d have been able to manage “cr[ying] out in a loud voice”?
I don’t disagree with your point, but you could have used better examples. Biblical support of slavery (of any variety of Gentile) and opposition to homosexuality require no twisted interpretation.
Paedobaptism and prosperity theology may require more eisegesis.
Well, I was talking about the biblical support evoked by american southerners to defend the enslaving of black people specifically, which required more twists than a twizzler but was pulled off anyway. And it’s my understanding that the ostracization of homosexuality has been based on pointing at an unknown word the original text and declaring “that means homosexual sex”. That doesn’t sound like an honest read of the text to me.
It is the case that there were slaves around back in the time of the bible, but I haven’t heard that fact used in defense of modern slavery.
I think you are referring to a disputed word in 1 Corinthians. But there are verses in the Mosaic Law which are straightforward. They not only condemn homosexual acts; they make them a capital crime.
Lev 18:22 — “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
Lev 20:13 — “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”
Both verses from the New American Standard translation.
Maybe you’re thinking of lesbianism? As I recall, you have to do a lot of interpreting of one Bible verse to find anything against lesbians. But the prohibitions against male homosexuality are very clear.
Yes, but without it being reaffirmed in the Old Testament, this could be ignored as being replaced by Jesus’ message to love one another. An overly simple way to describe it is that Christians only use verses in the Old Testament that are reaffirmed in the New.
Unfortunately, Romans 1:26-27 is a bit more explicit without needing to use the term:
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. [27] In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
I guess the above verses don’t explicitly condemn lesbianism, as they don’t specify what “unnatural relations” the women are participating in, but the words “in the same way” at the start of verse 27 does imply that they are doing the same thing the men are doing.
BTW, the way to get around these verses is to interpret Paul as talking about specific practices currently happening in the Roman world, and that the relations referred to idol worship, and not the modern form of homosexual relationship. This is similar to how the verses prohibiting women from talking in church or teaching a man are interpreted.
It could mean one can interpret the Bible any way to suit their own reasoning, since John called himself" the Apostle Jesus loved" could be taken that Jesus was homosexual, because in our times that would, or could mean that.
Okay then; I stand corrected. Thanks folks.
So, the literal interpretation would be that it’s okay if you do it standing up.
It’s impossible to do standing up, seriously. Just get a paper towel tube and attempt a few different trials at different heights and you’ll quickly come to that conclusion.
Doggie style, on the other hand, is both doable and apparently permitted.