|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
 |
« Reply #46 on: 12:01:40, 04-07-2007 » |
|
Well, I'm not religious at all, and certainly can see the sinister sides to most world religions and especially the institutions that lay claim to them (though in most respects it might be best simply to view the Vatican, say, as a political institution). But this sort of anti-religious fundamentalism that Dawkins and indeed many liberals subscribe to is very wrong-sighted. Such things as greed, exploitation and inequality are the real perils in the modern world - all things about which the Bible has a fair amount to say, some of it quite reasonable..... Sometimes I've found that the most vehemently anti-religious people are those that specifically hate those aspects of both Christianity and other religions - they don't accord easily with me-generation values of narcissism and consumerism.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
harmonyharmony
|
|
« Reply #47 on: 12:07:02, 04-07-2007 » |
|
It might also be interesting to point out that the Bible has less to say about male homosexuality (and, IIRC, absolutely nothing explicitly about female homosexuality) than it does about dietary restrictions, cleansing rituals, the place of women, divorce and remarriage (e.g. the Gospels have Christ giving some fairly damning instructions on divorce (even though they are contradicted in other Gospels) but absolutely nothing on homosexuality).
If the Church can get its head around that little list and judge them to be compatible with a Christian lifestyle, I'm sorry but I cannot accept that they are actually aiming to be Christlike, which is after all what Christianity is supposed to be about.
A. I'm bisexual who has had a relationship with a man.
B. I'm a Christian and see no incompatibility.
C. I'd just like to say good for you Don B. May you have years of happy conjugation with your partner.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'is this all we can do?' anonymous student of the University of Berkeley, California quoted in H. Draper, 'The new student revolt' (New York: Grove Press, 1965) http://www.myspace.com/itensemble |
|
|
|
Lord Byron
|
|
« Reply #48 on: 12:10:50, 04-07-2007 » |
|
the bible is fiction
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lord Byron
|
|
« Reply #49 on: 12:13:41, 04-07-2007 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
harmonyharmony
|
|
« Reply #50 on: 12:28:48, 04-07-2007 » |
|
the bible is fiction
Well, that all depends on how you define 'fiction' doesn't it? I believe that the people who wrote the various books in the Bible honestly believed in what they were writing. The 'historical' sections were attempting to chronicle in written form, various stories that had come to them in the form of oral histories or diverse and often conflicting written histories. The prophecies and letters were written by people who were expressing their (or their interpretation of God's) own opinions and their own interpretations of what the Old Testament. I'm not sure that they can be described as fiction any more than the letters page of a newspaper can. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'is this all we can do?' anonymous student of the University of Berkeley, California quoted in H. Draper, 'The new student revolt' (New York: Grove Press, 1965) http://www.myspace.com/itensemble |
|
|
|
Don Basilio
|
|
« Reply #51 on: 12:40:33, 04-07-2007 » |
|
The opening chapter of Genesis is a magnificent hymn on the wonder and the mystery of creation. It is clearly not meant to be taken literally (God creates light on Sunday, but only gets round to creating the sun and stars on Tuesday.)
To think that its only importance is its literal descriptive accuracy shows a breathtaking lack of understanding of how literary texts work, and an astounding failure in artistic sensitivity. Biblical fundamentalists who are only interested in its literal meaning are obviously straight.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.
A time to weep, and a time to laugh: a time to mourn, and a time to dance
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #52 on: 12:41:45, 04-07-2007 » |
|
an astounding failure in artistic sensitivity. Biblical fundamentalists who are only interested in its literal meaning are obviously straight.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
Don Basilio
|
|
« Reply #53 on: 12:53:33, 04-07-2007 » |
|
American literalists are often very enthusiastic about C S Lewis' The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. They don't make the connection that if that work can be of great value (personnally I think it overated - I prefer The Hobbit and The Screwtape Letters) and fictional, then why can't parts of the Bible?
I suggest Lord B reads the book of Job. It is written as a tale: whether there was not any such person saying such things in history is completely irrelevant.
According to the first three gospel writers, Jesus often told stories, without giving any explanation. The point about the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan is not that there acutally was a man who fell among thieves, or a man with two sons...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.
A time to weep, and a time to laugh: a time to mourn, and a time to dance
|
|
|
|
Don Basilio
|
|
« Reply #54 on: 12:56:43, 04-07-2007 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.
A time to weep, and a time to laugh: a time to mourn, and a time to dance
|
|
|
|
pim_derks
|
|
« Reply #55 on: 13:02:04, 04-07-2007 » |
|
Such things as greed, exploitation and inequality are the real perils in the modern world
So they were in the old world.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"People hate anything well made. It gives them a guilty conscience." John Betjeman
|
|
|
|
Milly Jones
|
|
« Reply #56 on: 13:03:55, 04-07-2007 » |
|
The only thing I've seen in the Bible about homosexuality being forbidden was the Old Testament in Leviticus...Leviticus 18 v. 22.... quoted here from the Collins Good News Bible : "No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that." (Leviticus has all the old hygiene and food laws etc. in it ).
However in the New Testament didn't Christ say that from his time onwards that there are only two commandments? Love God and love your neighbour?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We pass this way but once. This is not a rehearsal!
|
|
|
|
harmonyharmony
|
|
« Reply #57 on: 13:13:55, 04-07-2007 » |
|
The only thing I've seen in the Bible about homosexuality being forbidden was the Old Testament in Leviticus...Leviticus 18 v. 22.... quoted here from the Collins Good News Bible : "No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that." (Leviticus has all the old hygiene and food laws etc. in it ).
However in the New Testament didn't Christ say that from his time onwards that there are only two commandments? Love God and love your neighbour?
There's a bit in one of Paul's letters where he says something along the lines of 'no homosexual offender will ever inherit the kingdom of heaven', but there's a bit in one of Paul's letters where he says that women should always cover their heads in church and never hold any positions of authority within the church. Christ says that he is bringing these two new commandments, not that he's replacing the old laws. According to the gospels, he observed the old law and it has always seemed to me that he was explaining that the two new commandments were the fundamentally important principles of the entire Old Testament. That if you love one another, you won't steal, kill, abuse, oppress, etc. each other. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'is this all we can do?' anonymous student of the University of Berkeley, California quoted in H. Draper, 'The new student revolt' (New York: Grove Press, 1965) http://www.myspace.com/itensemble |
|
|
|
TimR-J
Guest
|
|
« Reply #58 on: 13:16:40, 04-07-2007 » |
|
The opening chapter of Genesis is a magnificent hymn on the wonder and the mystery of creation. It is clearly not meant to be taken literally Particularly as the second chapter of Genesis features a second version of the creation of man that, er, appears to contradict the first one! That's the saddest thing about Biblical literalism - two creation stories, four Gospels...: plurality of viewpoint is built into the Bible itself, it's almost designed not to be taken literally. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Don Basilio
|
|
« Reply #59 on: 13:19:16, 04-07-2007 » |
|
Milly - I'm sorry to say that the opening of Paul's letter to the Romans has extensive tut tutting about men and women having hanky panky. (It is the only passage in the NT which mentions female homosexuality.) However, as you say, it is a subject that the gospels never mention.
For positive role models of same sex love in the Bible there are David and Jonathan (with a love supassing that of women) and Ruth and Naomi (where you go, I will go.)
I'm not very happy with the idea that Christianity is just a matter of loving God and your neighbour. That can so easily lead to sentimental self delusion. The love requires an element of discipline.
It seems to me that sex provides almost unlimited opportunities for people to be nasty to each other, so it needs treating carefully. But that applies to straight and gay alike. The idea that marriage is the ideal for all Christians only came in with protestantism in the C16.
Thank you Tim RJ
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.
A time to weep, and a time to laugh: a time to mourn, and a time to dance
|
|
|
|
