I've just got to ask. If you cannot take the bible out of context, then how does it relate to modern times? If (as I assume you assert), the laws, strictures and relevance of the bible can only be fully opertative and understood by those who lived at the time of it's original promulgation, then how can a fundamentalist Christian live a truly faithful life in modern times?

Would such an adherent reject all the baggage of the 21st.century and be required to live an existance as close to that of, for example, a goatherder in Galilee to be closer to a true understanding of the Bible?

Disease. Potential livestock and human infection. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh yeah, the same justification for barbaric Kosher practices. :rolleyes: Love between the same sex is bad, mkay. But, making animals die a slow and cruel death is good, mkay. And the punishment when a man lay with a man is death, mkay. I've decided I have less and less religious tolerance everyday. :rolleyes:

But, seriously, what disease and human infection? Besides, isn't this rule made during the time when they likely thought some sort of "demonic evil" would have resided in the animal due to its involvement in this "abomination." Lotta good those beliefs have done. Let's leach it instead -- that'll fix it right up, and then we won't waste the food. :rolleyes:

Christian doctrine has always been modified according to values and needs of the day

Look at the ten commandments as the most classic example:

Thou shalt not kill
- except when the King orders you to be a soldier, and then its Ok
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."
- except if you're a catholic or its a poster of a 'rock' star.
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates..."
- except if you're a doctor, fireman, cop etc...

I could go on, but you get the point...

Thou shalt not read crappy books, and thou shalt do as thou pleases.

(Johnny 1:11)

:D

A couple of questions.

Yorick, you have mentioned that love and sex are separate things. Which is fine. Homosexual couples wanting to marry don't actually ask society to acknowledge that they are having SEX, but to acknowledge the LOVE they have for each other. Yet your personal stance is to deny them that right - in a way, allowing them to have sex but not love ?

To those people who justify heterosexual marriage based on procreation, two comments. First one from my personal case - I have been married for 17 years, and we are trying to have a second baby, but not successfully so far. Yet, the doctors didn't find anything wrong with either of us - thus the possibility exists that maybe we can't have a baby together but maybe we could with other partners. So, if you base your view of the validity of marriage on 'nature' and procreation, even in potential, you should logically advise us to divorce and find other partners, no ? ;)

Second comment is that actually two men can not procreate but two women can - a baby can occur from two ovulas, and that baby is necessarily a female. Should then female/female marriage be allowed but not male/male marriage ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

I've just got to ask. If you cannot take the bible out of context, then how does it relate to modern times? If (as I assume you assert), the laws, strictures and relevance of the bible can only be fully opertative and understood by those who lived at the time of it's original promulgation, then how can a fundamentalist Christian live a truly faithful life in modern times?

Would such an adherent reject all the baggage of the 21st.century and be required to live an existance as close to that of, for example, a goatherder in Galilee to be closer to a true understanding of the Bible? </font>[/QUOTE]Because when taken in context it's extremely relevent. By knowing the problems they faced, you understand the solutions far better.

Take David. Some of his psalms were written when his own sons were leading wars against him. To kill and dethrone their own father! Yet in spite of his hopeless situation, of losing everything - kingdom, family and possibly life - he was still praising God and having faith he would get pulled through it all o.k. Which he was.

It is precisely by understanding the context that bible achieves relevence.

Men with long hair shouldn't preach? Understand the context. It would have been held to ridicule in the Greek city the recommendation was made. Rather than literally interpreting it and cutting your hair to follow it's letter, you can look at the sprit of it, which is, do all you can to not do things that will alienate the audience you are seeking to preach to. Instead of a dated idea about hiar, we have an idea of breoader scope and relevence.

Same with the "don't let a woman preach" Paul said to a particular church in Greece that didn't educate it's women. Read that as being: "Don't let someone who don't know what they're talking about preach." Understand the culture, and the issue, and you understand the solution.

Pauls letters were specifically written to people of a particular time and place, but the problems the churches faced are faced in many chruches today. The problems of humanity have not radically changed. Human natuyre is still the same. We all still need love. Get emotionally hurt. Have desires and dreams, career ambitions and the like.

We need to look at the things which speak into our current situation when looking at the bible.

Incorrectly reading the bible is a big reason why people either feel daunted by it, or misinterpret it and get caught in a cult for example.

If you attemot to read it vcover to cover, you're asking for trouble. It's not meant to be read like that.

I always recommend starting with the Gospel of John, and then moving to the letter to the Romans.

They are brilliant.

[ 08-08-2003, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

It's not about not allowing anything, it's about a society as a whole, choosing to encourage male-female family building. Society. The family building benefits extend right down to care of the elderly by their proginy.

Besides, it's the other way round. Men can love each other. Why should I be discriminated against for not manifesting my love for my best male friends sexual,y? Why should another two males receive encouragement purely because they express their love physically and I don't? You are advocating the deification of SEX, not the deification of love.
Anyone that dares suggest my love for other men is not "real love" because I'm not sleeping them, is proving my point to the letter.


So, why should I be discriminated against?

The reality is, Judeo/Islamic/Christian societies elevate one type of relationship. Not forbid others.

This is precisely why an alive, functioning church is of such value to people. It provides a safe community where love - real genuine affection abounds. Without the pressures of sex, long term relationships develop in a short amount of time. We can become like family very quickly. Also, by removing the sex element, it becomes more about what you can give people, rather than what can you take. People are not as suspicious of a man, believing him to be seeking to bed every woman(or man) he approaches in conversation.

Americans don't live in any of those societies, unless you discount the constitutional seperation of church and state.

Even if we did, Homosexual civil unions are forbidden (except in Vermont) so I am unsure what you are talking about. Until recently homosexual sex was also forbidden ( against the law) so you are wrong there also.

Society as a whole hasn't chosen anything like that. Gays can adopt as well as become foster parents. Besides, individuals make choices, not societies.