All right then, let's take this from the top.
When it comes to distinguishing between man and god, I only believe one of these things actually exists, so for me, that's the relevant part of the equation. Now if you believe otherwise, good for you, enjoy that, just don't predicate your arguments on other people believing it. As such, praying to god to stop those members of his followers that are doing completely the wrong thing would be a remarkably insincere gesture on my part, not to mention certainly seeming to be pointless, as I don't see him stepping in to stop Westborough Baptist for example, in response to the presumably numerous prayers sent to him by believers that aren't actually crazy assholes.
If your only looking at half the equation I wouldn't expect you to come up with a complete answer. Why do you blame God for the things that some people do? I don't construct my arguments around other people believing it nor am I required to do such. I build my arguments around what I believe and attempt to explain them to people who may question them.
I never mentioned rape or none consenting partners. You seem to have come up with that on your own. The entire rest of your rant seems based on this notion and therefore doesn't apply to anything I said. So despite your suggestion for me to "fuck off" perhaps you should reread my comment and attempt again to dismiss the comparison with some reasoning and facts.
The process of the law works both ways. You seem to believe its ok when it works out favorably to your personal views but deem it as corruption and dictatorship under the same process when it does not. Ignoring the hypocrisy of those statements. "A handful of dictators" do you mean the elected officials representing the will of the electorate? I don't doubt the laws regarding societies beliefs on murder are not beliefs shared by murderers. Were those laws passed by a handful of dictators deciding to be the arbiters of moral law as well? You don't seem to understand the intent of the law or approve of the process unless it aligns with your own moral reasoning. Ironically this is the outlook and attitude of real dictators you express so much distaste for in your writing.
You depute the harm of homosexuality, you reject the authority of God to dictate his own terms. Thus its no more surprising that you reject homosexuality as sin then a thief who deputes the harm of stealing and rejects the authority of society to dictate his behavior as wrong to recognize his behavior as sin. I find it interesting you acknowledge the necrophilia argument on the behavior of an individual having influence on other individuals not involved but don't accept this reasoning from a social standpoint on homosexuality. You dismiss STDs as counting because they can happen among straight people. In most cases this would require one party to be unfaithful to their spouse which is also deemed sin according to God. Thus your exception leads you right back to the original problem of sin. I think STDs misses the point however as even in completely monogamous relationships among homosexual individuals this would still be considered wrong from a Christian standpoint. I'm glad you acknowledge this in your writing and I think we can agree on that aspect of it but again I think STDs has more to do with sexual promiscuity then the validity of homosexual behavior. You seem to infer that if AIDs is Gods punishment for gays then God must be an jerk. I don't believe nor have I seen anything to indicate that God created STDs and inflicted it upon the world to wipe out the homosexual population. Rather it would seem God is acutely aware of the mechanical machinery of his creation and knows how it goes wrong when used in ways it was not intended. He kindly warned us. Again all of this misses the point because it has to do with sexual promiscuity no homosexuality in the so called ideal relationship between lifelong consenting partners. We have evidence that people are born with all kinds of conditions and inclinations. This does not somehow validate those actions. Pedophiles by all indications are "born that way," murderously violent sociopaths are "born that way," politicians may even be "born that way." Biology does not validate unacceptable behavior especially if that biology is flawed as Christians believe and these sad and unfortunate cases in world would seem to indicate. I'd also point out much of the "evidence" you speak of is heavily disputed. I don't personally care because I don't have a PhD in genetics to throw my two cents in one way or the others so lets just assume that the evidence does support this claim but lets not delude ourselves that it is a disputed assumption we are making. "the idea of"curing" homosexuality has failed time and again," Except for in cases where people report it hasn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-gay_movement. Even without this point I'd also point out that there are thousands of conditions which cannot be cured. This does not change them from being conditions of disease. Why do you think God is making them that way? What makes you think God plays an active role in genetics at all? Do you think he interacts with other physical properties of the world like pushing rain clouds around and shaking the earth for earthquakes? As far as people being damned we are all in the same boat. Christ offered salvation from this condition because all men are sinful and in need of salvation to be made right with God. Sin is what condemns us whether it be sexual, homosexual or otherwise.
I believe God created people with an innate sense of morality. Christianity explains this morality and brings it to a higher standard to fulfill and transcend it. God isn't impressed with our flawed internal morality we've all fallen short of perfection. God offers forgiveness and sanctification which no amount of human morality can obtain.
I would dispute that any significant institution of the Judeo Christian faith claim to be above reproach. Granting the possibility that such could be the case however I fail to see any backing for this in scripture and thus would be forced to conclude that such individuals or institutions are not behaving in accordance with scripture and therefore could not be aptly implied to be behaving in a Christian fashion. People are corrupt. What of it? We are discussing the ideals of Christianity not the failure of those ideals carried out by flawed human beings.
I'm not sure where you see inconsistency. Perhaps you could point it out to me and I'd be happy to give you my account on it. I learn and grow constantly in my faith it is a life long process. I don't preclude Gods ability to beam instructions into peoples head I'm just not aware of him doing such in my case and would be very skeptical of the message if I were. I don't think the bible is fueling my moral gut feelings but I do think it assists me in shaping my response to those feelings. In most cases yes the bible is pretty cut and dry. Things like revelations remain controversial because it is so "revolutionary" that its very hard to understand beyond the gist of what is written. Almost nothing of Christian practice is taken from this book however as it is seen as a prophetic work that will be better understood when the time comes. I disagree with the conclusion that because something appears as morally repugnant it must either be flawed or god = asshole. If the reader had perfect moral reasoning we might be able to conclude this thought but as human beings are flawed we come with flawed reasoning and morality making discernment on something we object to reading a somewhat difficult proposition and certainly more complicated then the "either or scenario" which you present. You can accept things on a lot of levels. Authority, experience, reasoning, and so on but in any case that doesn't assure us that we are right in accepting or rejecting the idea. If the bible was edited by flawed hand they certainly seem to have some strange notions of what is self serving. If I was redacting or adding to the bible I'd change it almost entirely. I can't think of a single case where communicating Gods law in the bible ended up being beneficial to the writer. In most cases it got them killed, imprisoned, and tortured because people don't typically like hearing that God doesn't approve of what they are doing. This is true for all the prophets, Christ and the apostles which followed. In my experience most people are not willing to die standing by what they say and write knowing it is a lie. The worst actions of the Church around the dark ages did not result from the Church changing the text of the bible but rather ignoring what was already written and indeed when you examine the cases of the prophets, Christ, and the apostles in the bible they had the same issues in their day. Looking around today we haven't really changed from what I can tell.
I'm glad we agree human beings are not perfect.
We are getting a little off topic with reproductive rights in society so I'll try to rope us in by relating it to biblical principles so we can evaluate both without loosing sight of either one. In the bible God commands behavior concerning sexual relationships. Individuals are faced with a choice to either follow these commands or reject them. As individuals we are responsible for our choices either way. If you go out and have sex and a child is conceived then that child is the responsibility of you and whoever you conceived it with. It shouldn't have anything to do with me. However, if a democratic government decides to use my money in any way to assist or harm you in your responsibilities to that child then I immediately become involved and have a financial interest regarding that use of those funds. If someone is trying to use those funds to encourage you to have a baby and get food stamps or have an abortion or maternal care it is very much in my interest to be involved with my money represented in the government. Where no such system exists then I really have no business in your private affairs as it doesn't directly or indirectly affect me financially. Without such a system you are responsible for your choices to the people involved primarily whoever had the child with and the child itself. Ultimately if God exist you will presumable answer to him for your choices not me. I can still talk with you about your choices and encourage you regarding those decisions but ultimately it is your decision and you alone with be responsible for the consequences. Under the system of governance which is involved in those choices for or against them I and everyone else who is taxed also become responsible for those consequences. The bible from what I can tell doesn't seem to promote or demote such systems of government but it does advocate fidelity, restraint, and responsibility which are inherent in such choices. I hope that helps to clarify but if there is a point you want to know about specifically let me know so I can expand on it.
I'd agree with your statements about church and state for the most parts with a few caveats. I'd stress that history is important especially on the foundation of something concerning a movement or a ideology. "Diproporionate influence" is kind of an oxymoron but I get what you are saying and I agree. I'm glad to see you acknowledge the influence Christianity had on the formation of the nation in its early stages and that such a formation of the nation we have today may not have come about under a different system or may be radically different from what we have today. It has always struck me as strange that Christ did not go to the rulers of his time but rather they came to him or he was dragged before them and they either accepted or rejected his claims. The same is true of the apostles the best example in Paul being brought before Nero. As far as the best possible consensus sometimes its slavery in democracies or election of dictators who pursue policies of extermination of Jewish people or "great social leaps forward" resulting in the death of millions. I'd also like to point out that the separation of church and state is in every case a delineation of the institutions of the church and the state not the religious and legal aspect influencing decisions of each other.
Religions are more often ideals that shape our worldview not just collections of those people with such moral views issuing statements. A religious person elected to office will act in accordance with their worldview which is why it is important to evaluate worldviews when analyzing candidates to try to determine the candidate who will reflect your worldview or at least what you believe be better of the available options. In example I'd much rather a Buddhist be in office then a Muslim or an atheist but even a Muslim or an atheist would be better then a satanist or anarchist. I am highly skeptical of politicians espousing Christian ideals because I don't think the bible supports politically religious leaders it certainly calls their motives into question and demands a higher level of scrutiny. That's not to say there shouldn't e Christian politicians but rather their Christianity should guide their choices not become the platform they are running on.
When you say "I'm pretty sure [God] didn't put all the words in the heads of the various people who wrote it." What makes you pretty sure of this? "Homophobia" isn't an example of God encouraging people to do awful things. On the contrary Christ demanded that his followers show love and compassion to individuals. Christ does maintain that homosexuality is wrong when concluding it is not an acceptable sexual relationship. There are no meaningful "variations of content from the countless translations from ancient Hebrew to Latin to English, the new stories added to the original root Jewish texts over time, the possibility of revisions in the dark ages when only the priests understood the Latin the texts were written in and had the sole means to reprint it,"
Lets take these one at a time because this is by far the most inaccurate and misleading thing I've seen you write thus far so I want to address it specifically. One if there is a variation in content arising from translation then that is not an accurate translation and would be rejected the same as any other work that is translated. If on the other hand their is an omission or addition identified that too would be rejected and easily identified in comparing these works to each other. We still have Latin and Greek copies of the text so identifying this kind of thing is pretty easy and its also extremely rare to find meaningful differences beyond one line commentary, misspelling and punctuation errors. I am not aware of any "new stories added to original root Jewish text over time." I'd ask you to cite such a story so I can look into it. Conjecturing that some conspiracy occurred across the dark ages among the monks most of whom we have every reason to believe had deep religious motivation not to alter in any way the text they were attempting to literally faithfully duplicate and in many cases had no literal understanding or means to make such revisions even if they wanted to and would also requires us to ignore the the process of scrutiny the monks had in place to prevent such occurrence. Even granting all of that conjecture and theory we would still have to provide an example of where such a thing occurred and had meaningful effect. I know of no such instance indeed though it has been a while since I have reviewed them in depth I believe I am only aware of 5 possible 7 minor errors/commentary depending on how scrict you want to be that have been identified only 2 of which have meaningful possible theological ramifications which could be argued either way but otherwise have no meaningful addition or remission the text. This was why the dead sea scrolls were such an important religious and archaeological find because for decades these theories of possible tampering and phantom boogie men rouge monks were speculated and the dead sea scrolls obliterated them. This very much does get into the supposed variations of content from the countless translations because we go back to the earliest copies we have which are in Hebrew and Greek. There is literally no other document, account, or story, so faithfully replicated and documented as the bible. (Please go back and read that sentence again to let it sink in).
leviadragon99 said:
"The point is, the bible is a patchwork quilt, the fact that there is a new testament and an old one also immediately dismisses the notion that there is one true reliable bible that people should have been looking to either back then or now, if the new testament is the "true" one then people didn't have it a certain length of time ago and couldn't have followed it to stop them doing atrocities, and if the old testament is more true, then why does the new one even exist?"
I don't even know where to begin in addressing this statement but to start by saying you may wish to understand what it is you are saying before you say it. The new testament is a fulfillment of the old testament. The entire old testament is a testimony of mans fall from grace with God and Gods promise that he would provide a perfect sacrifice for mans sin and create a way for man to become right with God. The new testament is a testament on how Christ fulfilled this promise. You need to be familiar with the old testament to understand why the new testament fulfills it. If you reject Christ as having fulfilled it as some Jews still believe today then you reject the entire new testament and only have the old testament are still waiting for it to be fulfilled. No one that I've ever heard of rationally accepts the new testament and rejects the old testament as Christ and the apostles spend considerable amount of time explaining it and why Christ fulfills it.
"But if you think there is one perfect version... which one?" The one we have.
"Which translation, which edition, which testament?"
Do you understand what a translation is? Translations typically rely on expert translators in Greek or Hebrew to translate the text into whatever language they are performing the translation. English. I prefer my bible editions with commentary or footnotes for reference and study NIV, NASB, NES what have you I'll take KJV if I absolutely must but I have a harder time reading it because of the changes in language over time. I may learn something from any edition I pick up. I am not aware of any translation that doesn't accept both the old testament and the new testament.
I'd encourage you to look into the matter yourself on what the text contain rather then relying on what other people to tell you what they want you to believe it contains. If you still have questions which if you are studying it seriously you very well may have then seek expert consultation with other people and examine their arguments concerning the text on their own merits and your own reasoning.
I'm telling you catholic and protestants have the same 66 books with the same content in each bible but depending on your division of Catholicism you may have additional books that you believe are inspired works called the deuterocanonical books which have been recognized as separate additions from the Jewish bible the same as apocryphal literature. I'm not aware of disagreement surrounding those books involving the 66 books we both share and agree as canon of the bible. The same when I walk into a baptist, catholic, or Presbyterian church there is no disagreement between me and the people of that Church because of the means they use to bolster and strengthen their faith. We are all there because of the things we agree on in those 66 books. Even if I walked into a Jewish temple I wouldn't have any disagreement over the old testament but we would disagree over the new testament because they reject Christ having fulfilled the old testament and I believe he did but we are still in agreement over those 37 books of the old testament. I want to stress this is very different from someone who makes intentional omissions, revisions, and changes the translation of any document related to the bible to benefit themselves. Those report they follow Christ but refuse to follow his teaching are not followers of Christ. We refer to these people as cults. The LDS Church and JW are well documented example of this because you can go back to those original documents and point out the changes made and the reasons for them are obvious. Few people take the time or effort to do this which is why part of the reason they are so prevalent. It is not easy to acknowledge that ones worldview is built upon a perversion of the truth but I have seen people accept the facts when presented to them.
The demand for celibacy comes from a recommendation from Paul. You can read it for yourself in 1 Corinthians 7:25-40. It is not a command but a strong and earnest recommendation which Paul acknowledges as his own recommendation and not being from God. The catholic church chooses to follow the recommendation whereas protestants don't require it. It really is as straight forward as that go read it and let me know if you have any questions. There isn't some kind of dispute between catholic clergy and protestant ministers it is a personal choice based on a recommendation.
The bible isn't responsible for misinterpretations made by other people concerning it. The bible is very clear in black and white terms that homosexual behavior is wrong the in the same way that all sexual behavior outside of the defined boundaries of marriage are wrong. Before we go down the path of gay marriage the bible also defines marriage as between a man and a women. I think homosexual behavior gets more attention because it is more outwardly obvious and a socially disputed issue of our time. Like straight individuals having sex with multiple partners or non committed sex between individuals these all fall under the same rules as being sin. Yes that includes divorced individuals who get remarried while their original spouse is alive (Though there are some technicalities unfaithfulness and abuse with this last one it is still lumped with the rest).
As far as following the bible there are a lot of things I don't like about it and if I didn't think them through would probably change if I was writing my own revision of the bible. I don't like being told what I can and cannot do, I don't like authority of God over my life, I don't like having to recognize that my behavior may be immoral, wrong or sinful, I don't like having to tell people I am sorry and make amends when I'd rather just write them out of my life, I don't like trying to show the love of Christ to a homeless guy that smell of urine and is attempting to physically assault me. Like the purpose of all good authority over our lives there are aspects that we may not like or agree with in the moment but that are beneficial for us in the long run. Running PT in the military and getting yelled or having my day regimented to me were not particularly things I wanted to go through or do but have been beneficial in the long run. In the same way when my boss calls me into the office and demands an explanation for my actions I don't particularly enjoy having to be accountable even when I am right or when I'm told to do something I may not particularly like doing I certainly don't appreciate the concept of authority at those moments.
Being in a position of authority myself I understand the other side of that dynamic and the importance that authority plays in our lives. Even without being in authority or ever experience that side of authority it is not hard to articulate the need for it in our lives begrudgingly as I may be admitting it. That is why even if I may not like things in the bible I submit to its authority over my life. I continue to question it but if I don't like the answers I get I still follow its teaching. This is different from saying I disagree with the principle or the morality of the teaching itself. I am not saying that nor do I believe that concerning the bible.
Concerning homosexuality you asked me "how the hell did you come to the conclusion you did?" Laying out my experience with homosexuality I should clarify that ever since day one of my college studies I've known and been approached by guys seeking a homosexual relationship with me. Some of them have been good friends some of them were new acquaintances, some of them were work colleagues, some of them are people I socially frequent with to this day and would consider me their best friend. I struggled for a long time with the conundrum of homosexuality and aligning it with my concept of morality in that two consenting adults who are not harming other should be free to do as they wish and for those who reject Christianity I still believe that from a social standpoint. The same as I would for any of the other examples I gave of sexual immorality previously. They will ultimately answer to God for their choices and not to me if their choices don't affect me. The issue becomes different if someone claims to be a follower of Christ but openly lives a life rejecting the teachings of Christ.
As a Christian there is a lengthy process of removing this hypocrisy from a group of believers and yes I've had to talk that talk and walk that walk even when it cost me dearly but I think that your question relates more to those who have rejected Christ and his teachings and remain outside of the Church.
In essence correct me if I am wrong you want to know why I think homosexual behavior is considered sin by God. Well this is pretty straight forward. I believe Christ is God. Christ defined the only acceptable sexual relations as marriage and defined marriage as between a man and a women. In looking for a reasons as to why this is the case I find that like in every other case of sexual immorality people are damaged by unfulfilled and hurtful relationships. The many homosexual people that I have known despite their best efforts to convey the exact opposite are very lonely damaged people resulting from their homosexual relationships. Many are quick to deny this when initially pointed out to them the same as most people with most sin but I have had many of them tell me later in candid moments that my assessment was correct and they express mourning and regret. Again these sins are unlike others which inflict harm primarily on other people which is not to say that they don't but rather that the primary nature of the sin is self harming. I think that 1 Corinthians 6:18 aptly articulates this when it says "All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body." Like anyone who cares for someone God doesn't desire for us to harm ourselves or others but rather to have fulfilling and meaningful relationships. This doesn't seem to be easy for people to hear regardless of whether they are homosexual or straight. Usually by the time it is being addressed they are so enamored with the feeling of the sin they don't believe it could possible be wrong. I hope that helps to explain my conclusion. It has not been an easy issue for me because of what it has cost me to follow this teaching but from my own experience despite my personal bias and desires. I am forced to conclude it is a sound teaching.
I agree the crimes of people in positions of authority within the church are more then reason for outrage and anger as are all crimes in any position in any institution. We have already agreed that the church in composed of human beings who are flawed and sinful so I'm not sure what your reason for citing this is other then to perhaps insult or offend. I'm not catholic and I'm not insulted or offended by your posting this but I really can't see additional motives behind it beyond attempted shock value. The bible strongly indicates that the institution of the Church as we know it will become corrupted and fall away from the teachings of Christ. This is why it is important to remember that the Church is composed of a body of believers not a some men in robes or a building. I hope the individuals involved will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Beyond that I'm not sure what you are advocating and I seriously have to question why.
I told you I am a follower of Christ as accounted in the scripture. I don't take issue with Catholics or protestants as I've shared fellowship with both groups. They both acknowledge and accept Christ and I therefore consider them brothers and sisters of my family. You are essentially asking me "Ok your cousin is a catholic and your aunt is protestant your father is God and your mother is the church so which are you protestant or catholic?" The question is flawed because it equivocates on an either or scenario that doesn't exist for me. Since when and where is the pope ok with gay marriage? All that I am aware of is some comments made in passing to a reporter that we need to treat gay people with love. Which echoes the words of Christ and biblical teaching for the last two thousand years. Hardly a revelation of change. He said nothing about their behavior or gay marriage. Even if he had it wouldn't come as a total shock as we've well establish the flawed nature of man even in leadership positions of the church and yes the pope is in need of Christs forgiveness the same as me or you. I do believe he may have a better understanding of the scriptures and perhaps even a better relationship with Christ then myself but this is speculation on my part. The most sinful pagan imaginable with a repenting heart seeking Christ is closer to God then the most religious figure imaginable with a unrepentant heart who rejects Christ.
At the end of the day I have no doubt that the Nazis felt the same about their ultimate solution. If you accept relativistic moralism you have to accept that your "good guys and bad guys" are only conditions of your own perspective perspective and may by change of circumstance easily reverse roles. The 21st century was plagued by this kind of thinking and it is no coincidence that it was aptly prophesized by Nietzsche and others that it would be the most bloody era of human history to date. As Ayn Rand aptly commented "You can avoid reality but you cannot avoid the consequences of reality." If your beliefs are so prejudice and ingrained in your mind that you must label and dismiss others who do not agree with them before hearing them out and rationally considering their arguments you are blind and deaf by your own choice. It would seem by your own statement that your mind was decided before you asked your questions. The truth will not be able to be spoken or shown to you and even if it lies in your path and you stumble head over heels across it you will not be able to recognize it. Jesus often said let those who have ears hear and let those who have eyes see. He wasn't making meaningless statements and gestures to the blind and deaf.
I hope the response answers some of your questions and prompts more to come. I don't want you to take offense to my comment but I'd rather you take offense to a hard truth and learn something regarding the truth in the statement then to cordially remains numb to the gospel. I do encourage you to look into meaning and reasons for the old and new testaments even of only for your own benefit in future conversation concerning them. It is hard to take people seriously in a moderate depth of understanding a topic when they make statements that convey a poor understanding pf basic principles on the subject. My mission however is to meet you at whatever understanding you may have and attempt to elevate that understanding in sharing the love and compassion of Christ. If you can perceive it I rejoice. If you reject it I move on and continue to pray for you.
I will watch for your response. I apologize if I am slow to respond. The heart is will but the time is limited.