IN HONOR OF FALLWELL
OTHER STUFFBible verses that even fundamentalists don't take literally...
Here are some verses which come directly from the Bible that even fundamentalists do not take literally for today, proving that they selectively pick and choose verses out of context which justify their pre-existing prejudice against gay and lesbian people. Take a look for yourself...
"Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." (1 Corinthians 14:34)
This verse says that women can't speak in church. Period. It is completely ignored today. Applying this verse to the modern day church would be ancient, absurd and nonsensical.
When it comes to the verses about homosexuality, however, fundamentalists suddenly insist that they must be interpreted literally, word for word!
When it comes to this verse, however, they admit the facts. They acknowledge that it was only meant for that day. The truth is that the Apostle Paul wrote this verse because, during his time, women and men sat on opposite sides of the church aisle. Women would yell questions across the aisle to their husbands, causing a disruption of the service.
It would be all too easy for a fundamentalist who disliked women to use this verse to exclude women from participating in the service, just as fundamentalists who dislike gay people currently misuse those seemingly anti-gay scriptures to exclude people who are gay.
Realizing that a particular scripture was only relevant for its time (and should not be applied literally to our modern day) is an interpretational option that is conveniently ignored when it comes to the verses which discuss homosexuality.
"Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering." (1 Corinthians 11:13-15)
Upon visiting any fundamentalist church, you will discover that more than a few women have short haircuts. This verse, however, indicates that women should have long hair, as their "head must be covered."
It has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it? Arab fundamentalists require women to put a veil over their heads and punish them if they do not. The fact of the matter is that the length of your hair has nothing to do with your spiritual condition.
"If any man takes a wife, and goes in on her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, 'I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin..." (Deuteronomy 22:13,14)
"But if ... evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones..." (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)
If a man discovers that a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night, all the men in town can murder her by flinging stones at her young female body as she screams in pain.
Is this the word of God? Hardly.
The command to stone to death a young girl who is not proven to be a virgin on her wedding night is simply an ugly man-made rule of murder that found its way into the Biblical text.
WHY are fundamentalists so afraid to admit the obvious, that such verses like the one listed above are simply not the Word of God? How mature is one's faith if one cannot even admit that a verse which commands that young girls be stoned to death isn't the Word of God?
Here are the facts . . .
The belief in Biblical times was that if a woman was indeed a virgin, she would bleed on her wedding night because her first sexual intercourse would result in the breaking of the hymen, the thin tissue that covers the vagina. This blood was considered the "evidence" of her virginity that the scripture speaks of.
Medical science has since discovered that the hymen is often already broken in many young girls because of their participation in athletic sports and things like horseback riding. Quite tragically, this indicates that many girls who actually were virgins on their wedding night were nonetheless stoned to death because they were ignorant of this scientific fact. Little did many young girls in Biblical times know that their wedding nights would end in their own murder.
"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched." (Mark 9:43)
While fundamentalists insist (due to their pre-existing bigotry) that all seemingly anti-gay scriptures be taken literally, without exception, they admit that the above verse was not meant to be taken literally even though the words above were spoken by Jesus Himself.
This proves that fundamentalists are willing to say that certain scriptures weren't meant to be believed literally, even those which contain the actual words of Jesus Christ!
"One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the congregation of the Lord." (Deuteronomy 23:2)
If you were born to an unwed mother, the Bible says that you shouldn't be allowed in church. Do "Bible-believing" fundamentalists follow this rule? Nope. They acknowledge that this verse was meant for a different time.
Yes, even fundamentalists acknowledge that certain scriptures were only meant to be applied to the particular time and place in which they were written.
When it comes to those scripture verses which seem to speak against homosexuality, however, they suddenly and indignantly demand that every word be followed to the letter and applied to our modern day!
The idea of refusing membership in the church to a child born to an unwed mother is seen as being unreasonable today, even though the scripture instructs it. The idea of quoting scripture to abuse people who are gay and lesbian is just as unreasonable and antiquated.
"Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ." (Ephesians 6:5)
"Slaves, obey your human masters in everything; don't work only while being watched, in order to please men, but work wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord." (Colossians 3:22)
"Slaves are to be submissive to their masters in everything, and to be well-pleasing, not talking back ." (Titus 2:9)
"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel. " (1 Peter 2:18)
Slaves should obey their masters? Hardly. Slavery was one of the most offensive institutions to ever befall humanity. Sadly, the scriptures condoned it, and, as you can see from the above verses, demanded that slaves obey their masters...even cruel ones. Are those verses the "Word of God?" Of course not. They are merely reflective of cultural biases which found their way into the Biblical text.
"So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avengeditself its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stoppedin the middle of the sky and delayed going down for about a full day." (Joshua 10:13 NIV)
The great astronomer Galileo was jailed by religious authorities when he asserted that the Earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around, as the above verse suggests. If the Bible were the "inerrant, literal Word of God," as people like Jerry Falwell claim, surely God would have known that it was the Earth, and not the sun which had stopped.
In February of 1616, religious authorities asked a commission of theologians, known as the Qualifiers, about Galileo's claim that the Sun is at the center of the planets' motions and does not move, and that the Earth is not at the center and does move.
On February 24, 1616, the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture...".
Conclusion
When it comes to the scriptural verses which seem to be against homosexuality, fundamentalists boldly declare their belief in the "infallible, inerrant Word of God", demanding that every single word be taken literally, without exception. But when it comes to the awkward verses listed above, they become much less sure of themselves. So much less sure, in fact, that they don't follow what their own Bible says.
"Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."
(Matthew 22:37-40)
Rox said:
Very good, Tracy!
One observation though. There are still a very small number of Christian denominations that have split services, where the women sit apart from the men and are not allowed to speak. Some Amish and Mennonite communities are still like this in their churches. I worked with a young woman once who wore her hair--it fell nearly to her knees--bundled at the back of her head. It had to do with the "glory" of her hair, mentioned above, but was worn up because she wasn't supposed to be proudful of that glory. The hem of her skirts fell well beyond her knees (It was 1971, when mini-skirts were the rage!), and she was not allowed to wear short sleeves above her elbows. I worked with her at the Wichita Clinic. She was a lovely girl and very sweet. For me, personally, her religion went a little beyond what I would have wanted to be a part of.
Of course the Bible was written by men! Very fallible men, at that, who liked keeping their women beneath their thumbs. After all, that's what the Bible says to do. I've argued this with Nathan, and he doesn't see it, but as a woman reading the Bible, I certainly have.
Now think about WHY women were considered this way.
One observation though. There are still a very small number of Christian denominations that have split services, where the women sit apart from the men and are not allowed to speak. Some Amish and Mennonite communities are still like this in their churches. I worked with a young woman once who wore her hair--it fell nearly to her knees--bundled at the back of her head. It had to do with the "glory" of her hair, mentioned above, but was worn up because she wasn't supposed to be proudful of that glory. The hem of her skirts fell well beyond her knees (It was 1971, when mini-skirts were the rage!), and she was not allowed to wear short sleeves above her elbows. I worked with her at the Wichita Clinic. She was a lovely girl and very sweet. For me, personally, her religion went a little beyond what I would have wanted to be a part of.
Of course the Bible was written by men! Very fallible men, at that, who liked keeping their women beneath their thumbs. After all, that's what the Bible says to do. I've argued this with Nathan, and he doesn't see it, but as a woman reading the Bible, I certainly have.
Now think about WHY women were considered this way.
Vaughn Tolle said:
A general observation on the "keeping the women under the thumb of men" tone of the Old Testament and parts of the New Testament. I concede that culturally, that was the way it was at that time. It seems to me, however, that in the Gospels' reporting of his teachings, Jesus didn't take this approach, and from watching/reading discussions of theologians, women were quite active in the early Church.
Paul (Saul) however, IMHO, as a Jew, saw a power vacuum after the death of Jesus and before the Gospels were placed in writing, and he, being educated to a higher degree than the Disciples, stepped in to stop this through his epistles, many of which, if not near all, predate the appearance of the Gospels in written form. I believe Paul saw early Christianity as just an evolution of Judaism, and wanted to maintain as much of the Mosaic law as he could, while rising to power as a leader of this new branch of Judaism.
I also believe this concerned the remaining Disciples. I have read theological writings holding that the Gospel of Mark, given its date and tone, was written specifically to counter the influence of Paul and his epistles on the early church. Having read the Gospel of Mark on more than one occasion, together with the other Gospels and the remainder of the canon known as the New Testament, I believe this is more true than false.
To paraphrase a comment by Thomas Jefferson, Paul was the first person to subvert the teachings of Jesus. This is, to my mind, the reason he, in the Jefferson Bible, did not include the writings of Paul (among other things). What passes as Christianity today, especially in the so-called fundamental denominations, should be, IMHO, called "Paulinity".
I'm no theologian, nor am I learned in the languages making up the writings of the fallible men who were the scriveners of the Bible. The above represent some of my thoughts, in a very shorthanded way, as developed over the decades of consideration of things related to Judeo-Christian belief and practice.
Paul (Saul) however, IMHO, as a Jew, saw a power vacuum after the death of Jesus and before the Gospels were placed in writing, and he, being educated to a higher degree than the Disciples, stepped in to stop this through his epistles, many of which, if not near all, predate the appearance of the Gospels in written form. I believe Paul saw early Christianity as just an evolution of Judaism, and wanted to maintain as much of the Mosaic law as he could, while rising to power as a leader of this new branch of Judaism.
I also believe this concerned the remaining Disciples. I have read theological writings holding that the Gospel of Mark, given its date and tone, was written specifically to counter the influence of Paul and his epistles on the early church. Having read the Gospel of Mark on more than one occasion, together with the other Gospels and the remainder of the canon known as the New Testament, I believe this is more true than false.
To paraphrase a comment by Thomas Jefferson, Paul was the first person to subvert the teachings of Jesus. This is, to my mind, the reason he, in the Jefferson Bible, did not include the writings of Paul (among other things). What passes as Christianity today, especially in the so-called fundamental denominations, should be, IMHO, called "Paulinity".
I'm no theologian, nor am I learned in the languages making up the writings of the fallible men who were the scriveners of the Bible. The above represent some of my thoughts, in a very shorthanded way, as developed over the decades of consideration of things related to Judeo-Christian belief and practice.
Rox said:
VT, in spite of my pitifully worded rant, I believe you're right.
Pre-Christianity, women had power. No more than men, as I see the sexes as equal at that time. But each gender had its own strengths. Christianity and especially the Bible changed that, giving men the power. That's just my take on the little reading I've seen.
As for Paul/Saul, I get the feeling he was extremely homophobic and probably had early sexual encounters with maybe both sexes (and perhaps even others of God's Animal Kingdom?) that scared the crap out of him. I'm kidding, of course. Or maybe not.
I stumbled upon something yesterday that I thought my fit into some of Tracy's comments. I'll retrieve and post it next.
Oh, and I've also heard that the original word in the original Bible writings that we've come to believe is translated as "virgin", may not have meant that in all respects. But I always use a grain of salt when I hear things. Possible? Yes. Probable? I enjoy sitting on the fence on many things. ;)
Pre-Christianity, women had power. No more than men, as I see the sexes as equal at that time. But each gender had its own strengths. Christianity and especially the Bible changed that, giving men the power. That's just my take on the little reading I've seen.
As for Paul/Saul, I get the feeling he was extremely homophobic and probably had early sexual encounters with maybe both sexes (and perhaps even others of God's Animal Kingdom?) that scared the crap out of him. I'm kidding, of course. Or maybe not.
I stumbled upon something yesterday that I thought my fit into some of Tracy's comments. I'll retrieve and post it next.
Oh, and I've also heard that the original word in the original Bible writings that we've come to believe is translated as "virgin", may not have meant that in all respects. But I always use a grain of salt when I hear things. Possible? Yes. Probable? I enjoy sitting on the fence on many things. ;)
Rox said:
With all the wet weather we've been having, the ducks are getting friendly. One particular pair has been hanging around our neighborhood, and for the past two days, they've decided they like to stop at our house for a visit. It couldn't be because the grandkids LOVE tossing them bread crumbs.
As we fed them on Wednesday, they came to within about a foot and a half of us. But only the female was taking the crumbs. The male stood behind her, muttering quiet quacks. I told him I didn't speak Duck, but he didn't bother to reply. And I got to wondering if ducks are monogamous or just what, so I checked Wikipedia yesterday. Below is what I found.
**Mallards form pairs only until the female lays eggs, at which time she is left by the male. The clutch is 8–13 eggs, which are incubated for 27–28 days to hatching with 50–60 days to fledging. The ducklings are precocial, and can swim and feed themselves on insects as soon as they hatch, although they stay near the female for protection. Young ducklings are not naturally waterproof and rely on the mother to provide waterproofing. Mallards also have rates of male-male sexual activity that are unusually high for birds. In some cases, as many as 19% of pairs in a Mallard population are male-male homosexual (Bagemihl 1999).
When they pair off with mating partners, often one or several drakes will end up "left out". This group will sometimes target an isolated female duck — chasing, pestering and pecking at her until she weakens (a phenomenon referred to by researchers as rape flight), at which point each male will take turns copulating with the female. Male Mallards will also occasionally chase other males in the same way. (In one documented case, a male Mallard copulated with another male he was chasing after it had been killed when it flew into a glass window (Moeliker 2001[2]).**
That kinda blows the idea that homosexuality is chosen. Then I checked out a link that went along with it. I'm tellin' ya, my eyes got bigger as I read, and my mouth dropped open wide. And wider.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality
As we fed them on Wednesday, they came to within about a foot and a half of us. But only the female was taking the crumbs. The male stood behind her, muttering quiet quacks. I told him I didn't speak Duck, but he didn't bother to reply. And I got to wondering if ducks are monogamous or just what, so I checked Wikipedia yesterday. Below is what I found.
**Mallards form pairs only until the female lays eggs, at which time she is left by the male. The clutch is 8–13 eggs, which are incubated for 27–28 days to hatching with 50–60 days to fledging. The ducklings are precocial, and can swim and feed themselves on insects as soon as they hatch, although they stay near the female for protection. Young ducklings are not naturally waterproof and rely on the mother to provide waterproofing. Mallards also have rates of male-male sexual activity that are unusually high for birds. In some cases, as many as 19% of pairs in a Mallard population are male-male homosexual (Bagemihl 1999).
When they pair off with mating partners, often one or several drakes will end up "left out". This group will sometimes target an isolated female duck — chasing, pestering and pecking at her until she weakens (a phenomenon referred to by researchers as rape flight), at which point each male will take turns copulating with the female. Male Mallards will also occasionally chase other males in the same way. (In one documented case, a male Mallard copulated with another male he was chasing after it had been killed when it flew into a glass window (Moeliker 2001[2]).**
That kinda blows the idea that homosexuality is chosen. Then I checked out a link that went along with it. I'm tellin' ya, my eyes got bigger as I read, and my mouth dropped open wide. And wider.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality
Vaughn Tolle said:
Rox, per my Judaism professor (rabbi), the word in Hebrew from Isaiah that is the basis for the virgin birth while properly translated into English as "virgin" had a connotation of young woman, not a sexual virgin. The English language at the time of the translation of the KJV used "virgin" more in the former sense as opposed to the latter, as I understand it. Thus, while Jesus was born to Mary, a "virgin", the connotation was that He was born to Mary, a young woman, not to Mary, who had not experienced vaginal sex.
As to the wikeipedia link you provided, I'm and I've for many years been aware of much of that material. Thus, my feeling that the "choice" argument is just so much male bovine feces. As I recall from my many readings, the incidence of homosexuality among at least males of various mammalian species runs roughly in the same percentages as in the human species. My untested hypothesis on this topic is that the incidence of homosexuality in mammals, at least, is an evolutionary trait designed to avoid overpopulation of the species, so the species may survive.
At one time, before so many studies were performed, it was thought that homosexuality was limited to the primates. As demonstrated by the Wiki article you linked, it is not so confined, nor is it necessarily confined to mammals.
Just read what I "typed". My apologies for the pedantic tone thereof.
As to the wikeipedia link you provided, I'm and I've for many years been aware of much of that material. Thus, my feeling that the "choice" argument is just so much male bovine feces. As I recall from my many readings, the incidence of homosexuality among at least males of various mammalian species runs roughly in the same percentages as in the human species. My untested hypothesis on this topic is that the incidence of homosexuality in mammals, at least, is an evolutionary trait designed to avoid overpopulation of the species, so the species may survive.
At one time, before so many studies were performed, it was thought that homosexuality was limited to the primates. As demonstrated by the Wiki article you linked, it is not so confined, nor is it necessarily confined to mammals.
Just read what I "typed". My apologies for the pedantic tone thereof.
Vaughn Tolle said:
A bit more on my peculiar interests. Had I been able to master Calculus, I'd likely not be a lawyer. Most likely, I'd be a professor of Biochemistry, Chemistry, Genetics, or some similar discipline. Genetics is a field of constant interest to me, thus my belief as a high school student that, based upon my research for my Senior English research paper entitled "The Correlation Between Premarital Sex and Adultery", that homosexuality was indeed a nature vs a nurture thing. (Yes, there were many sources I read in preparation of said paper that had absolutely nothing to do with my topic, but I didn't know that until I read the same.) I broached that in open discussion once in class, much to the delight of my English teacher and the total dismay of the Principal, but that's the subject for another thread.
I have come to the belief that there are many things in the human experience that arise from biochemical interaction as opposed to behavioral choices. The same are not always 100%, but rather propensities dictated by genetic makeup, proteins generated from the DNA encoding, etc., such as my belief (for which I almost was thrown out of Biology) that alcoholism was genetically based vs. a choice to go get loaded daily. Later, as I read more, I learned that among males of species homo sapiens, there is believed to be two distinct types of alcoholism: that which is genetically based (w/early onset, if you will, of beginning the drinking of alcohol in the early adolescent years), and that which develops from abuse of alcohol later in life, an effect of underlying psychological difficulties (addictive personality, depression, etc.).
Oh, well, my pedantic tone returneth. I'm waiting for a download to complete so I might finish the "last project of the week" for a client so I might leave early. It's about done, so back to the mines for me!
I have come to the belief that there are many things in the human experience that arise from biochemical interaction as opposed to behavioral choices. The same are not always 100%, but rather propensities dictated by genetic makeup, proteins generated from the DNA encoding, etc., such as my belief (for which I almost was thrown out of Biology) that alcoholism was genetically based vs. a choice to go get loaded daily. Later, as I read more, I learned that among males of species homo sapiens, there is believed to be two distinct types of alcoholism: that which is genetically based (w/early onset, if you will, of beginning the drinking of alcohol in the early adolescent years), and that which develops from abuse of alcohol later in life, an effect of underlying psychological difficulties (addictive personality, depression, etc.).
Oh, well, my pedantic tone returneth. I'm waiting for a download to complete so I might finish the "last project of the week" for a client so I might leave early. It's about done, so back to the mines for me!
WSClark said:
Recent studies have shown that nearly ten percent of males sheep are homosexual. That "ten percent" figure pops up frequently in discussion of bi/homosexuality? Perhaps that is the norm in the animal kingdom, of which, we are a part.
Rox said:
Not so pedantic at all, VT. Interesting. My oldest was fascinated with human anatomy and also some with genetics. But the practice in school in genetics studies was to use their own family to show the eye color, hair color, etc., and she ended up making some of it up. With a mother who is adopted and a father who knew very little about his mother and her family (we later were in touch with her), my poor daughter had some problems tracing back more than one generation.
I've always accepted that the majority of homosexuality is biological. We had a male cat that would jump anything (probably more bi than homo) and a boar that refused to mate with the gilts and sows. Ralph had one blue eye and one brown and was soon replaced by Jack P da (the) Boar. ;)
I've always accepted that the majority of homosexuality is biological. We had a male cat that would jump anything (probably more bi than homo) and a boar that refused to mate with the gilts and sows. Ralph had one blue eye and one brown and was soon replaced by Jack P da (the) Boar. ;)
Loading....