Gay Marriage: The Latest Salvo

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
441

Zap,

I just wanted to point out that none of us can rely on the English version of the bible to fully understand what it might intend, I wasn’t trying to bash you in any capacity.

How many translations, or retranslations have occurred, is a very very significant issue. Are ANY of the original languages used to record the contents of the bible still alive today? Are they the same as they were at that time?

The best that I think we can do is to get knowledgeable linguists to give us their best interpretation combined with possible alternative meanings.

However, this implies the gospel is much less the gospel and more of an educated guess, which can be problematic for those that like to interpret it as the literal word of God.

I don’t think God’s intention and meaning can be perfectly determined by text that is thousands of years old in languages that aren’t commonly used anymore.

An omniscient God would realize this would occur, and would then have been making the judgement to trust us to think and reason, as that is the path we once chose for ourselves. Is it not the major transgression first made by mankind and never reversed?

Therefore, to me, it is guidance, but not dogma. Of course, some guidance is easier to understand and accept without second guessing, such as the commandments. Where it helps people learn to respect each other and live together in reasonable peace it is doing it’s job.

Where it counters those activities, it is misused.

The fact we have minds and can reason is not something we should overlook in our considerations of these matters.

–

Sasquatch, you are both turning a mountain into a molehill and molehill into a mountain. See above…

442

While I find the Bible a fascinating historical document that contains a lot of wisdom, I do not base my entire personal philosphy on it.

Ultimately it was written by man to control or guide man. Whether the men that wrote it had divine inspiration is debatable.

I could easily believe the Bible discourages homosexuality, not because God hates it, but rather because the very act of gay sex (like masturbation) contributes little to society.

Reproduction within marriage generally “helps” society.

Reproduction outside marriage can be more of a drain on society.

BTW, I think marriage is between a man and woman and should remain that way, I also believe that homosexuals in a committed relationship should have some form of civil union that affords similar benefits.

It is not discriminatory to legally recognize the differences between the sexes or else men could go to womens prisons.

443

I would have to believe that the Bible has already been translated by ‘knowlegable linguists.’ It has been interpreted by many in many different languages. At this point in time it can’t be changed or retranslated any more than it already has.

This is why it is so easy to interpret many ways. There exists no 'literal’word of God to base your personal philosophy. The outline is there should you choose to follow.

A molehill huh. You are free to interpret and twist and analyze everyones thoughts and posts, but you are not held as accountable. Your question was both asked and answered before you asked. vYou tried to find issue where none existed and I merely pointed that out.

Now we are unable to discuss the bible because there exists no definitive-absolute literal translation of the book?! That is the beauty of the Bible. It gives you the destination, but you are free to take different paths to end at the same.

Please afford others the opportunities and liberties you seem so often to take.

444

And you claim I’m full of myself? Did you read the rest of your blather? I’ve proferred a viewpoint, agree or disagree. Leave me out of it, if you can.

Anyhow, the bible has undergone major rewrites – sometimes those rewrites were at the behest of one group or another, and they had an agenda.

The public consumption bible may or may not be a fair translation according to today’s experts. That is the point of getting as close to the source as possible and seeing what it really appears to say.

445

[quote]vroom wrote:
I would have to believe that the Bible has already been translated by ‘knowlegable linguists.’ It has been interpreted by many in many different languages. At this point in time it can’t be changed or retranslated any more than it already has.

And you claim I’m full of myself? Did you read the rest of your blather? I’ve proferred a viewpoint, agree or disagree. Leave me out of it, if you can.

Anyhow, the bible has undergone major rewrites – sometimes those rewrites were at the behest of one group or another, and they had an agenda.

The public consumption bible may or may not be a fair translation according to today’s experts. That is the point of getting as close to the source as possible and seeing what it really appears to say.[/quote]

There exist many translations from near the text as those for public consumption. Once again you go all defensive because someone dare post a differing viewpoint than yours or dare challenge one of your ‘assumptions.’

Everything you want to argue is because of someone elses perception. The truth is that very literal translations are available and those are what I believe ZEB and 100 meters to be arguing. You can put your usual twist and self-righteous attitude in your post all you want, but quit trying to argue meritless points as if nobody else has considered them. This is not the Readers Digest version here. We all know that.

How does that or my post make me full of myself. Why–because I asked a question wrt your post? It’s interesting how you claim to be here to learn, but throw away any info that doesn’t coincide with your philosophy. All of my points were as valid asany of yours, yet mine are blather and yours are gospel.

Once again, all I ask is that we are afforded the same opportunity to twist logic as you do on all of your posts.
Like lok at your logic on this post. I claim the Bible has been literally translated and you bring up that some are not literal. Well dah–but it HAS beem translated properly many times, and it’s interpretations are still varied by many. What part of that is ‘blather.’

446

[quote]There exist many translations from near the text as those for public consumption. Once again you go all defensive because someone dare post a differing viewpoint than yours or dare challenge one of your ‘assumptions.’

Everything you want to argue is because of someone elses perception. The truth is that very literal translations are available and those are what I believe ZEB and 100 meters to be arguing. You can put your usual twist and self-righteous attitude in your post all you want, but quit trying to argue meritless points as if nobody else has considered them. This is not the Readers Digest version here. We all know that. [/quote]

Defensive? What the hell is it that you think I’m trying to say?

As usual, you have no actual clue about what my point is, so you just go and figure I must be arguing against your viewpoint in some way.

Moron.

447

[quote]vroom wrote:
There exist many translations from near the text as those for public consumption. Once again you go all defensive because someone dare post a differing viewpoint than yours or dare challenge one of your ‘assumptions.’

Everything you want to argue is because of someone elses perception. The truth is that very literal translations are available and those are what I believe ZEB and 100 meters to be arguing. You can put your usual twist and self-righteous attitude in your post all you want, but quit trying to argue meritless points as if nobody else has considered them. This is not the Readers Digest version here. We all know that.

Defensive? What the hell is it that you think I’m trying to say?

As usual, you have no actual clue about what my point is, so you just go and figure I must be arguing against your viewpoint in some way.

Moron.[/quote]

I see you choose to sink to that level again vroom. I will not.

You stated that…“the Bible has under gone many rewrites…by many groups who had agendas.”
“the public consumption Bible may or may not be fair.”

Those are exactly the points I brought up in my post and argued, yet your only answer is to claim that ONCE AGAIN, everybody puts words in your mouth and misinterprets what you say. That everyone else is to stupid to follow your ‘logic.’

I’ll say again-- many ‘true’ interpretations exist. Your strawman statement that some are not literal, while true, bears no weight in the argument that true ones do exist.

Your last comment shows the class with which you seem to handle those that don’t fall in line with your bullying tactics. My last 3 posts have not been pejorative or derogatory in any way towards you, just citing factual errors or half-truths in your statements. It appears you are a great giver, but not so good of a taker in your quest for truth and logic.

It just seems odd to me that you always cry the same argument about being misunderstood. Once or twice maybe—but evertime–by everybody!

448

[quote]ZEB wrote:
100meters:

Unfortunately we agree on so little regarding the Bible that anytime one of us uses an example to make our point regarding the main subject of debate (Sodom and Gomorrah) we tend to create mini debates within the main debate.
I’m sorry about that; it’s not my intention to be deliberately argumentative. I have actually learned a great deal from this debate with you and I want to thank you for that opportunity. As they say iron sharpens iron!

Rather than engage in several mini side debates I suggest that we stick closely to the topic at hand.

Sodom and Gomorrah:

I’m glad that you see that the men of Sodom did not gather around Lots house to “to F them up.”
[/quote]
If I implied greetings, I didn’t mean to. Here to know means (IMO) gain further knowledge of , check out. Not hey how ya doin! This is the typical usage of the word—again if to know meant have a homosexual orgy with strangers this would be the only such usage in the bible. The odds are much better that based on what we know of the sodomites via scripture—that they didn’t like strangers in their town, and didn’t trust outsiders. It was enough for them just having Lot there, but Lot not being a citizen and hosting strangers was more than enough to get the sodomites in a tizzy. I think for sure violence is a likely scenario here, And if we assume that your right and raping is their intent—that would still be an act of violence, not an act of homosexuality (your dog humps another dog to establish dominance, not because he’s gay—samething in prison—there is nothing in this scenario that would inform a lesbian couple as to what god thinks about homosexuality) But to be clear, this would be an activist reading of the text, and a unique usage of to know. Regardless there is nothing about Sodom that refers to sexual orientation. Gay couples aren’t heterosexual men who are paying for sex, or violently raping other heterosexual men. Gay couples are 2 people of the same gender who love each other. God is absolutely silent about homosexuality (gayness).

To know with the daughters would have heterosexual connatation that yada has 10 times in the bible. To put my contradiction into perspective:
translators 2000 thousand years from now find this written statement. I love my dog. I love my wife. Will they assume that I banged my dog and my wife or will they refer to normal usage of the words?

I’m happy to disagree on the what the sodomites intentions were with the angels. It has no bearing whatsoever on the story of sodom or homosexuality. Its clear that Sodom was going to be destroyed before this incident. Were the Sodomites sadits? Yes! Wicked! Idol worshippers—and all related sins? Yes! Cruel and unkind to strangers and outsiders? Absolutely! Raping strangers? Possibly. Was the town destroyed because somewhere in the city 2 women who loved each other were living togeather, or having loving relations with each other? NO! Readers, try to walk away from the story of sodom as it is written and believe that it condemns any type of orientation, Its just not possible. You can accept everything Zeb says as truth and still not come to the conclusion that God cares about the sexual orientation of people inside the city. Homosexuality no matter how you phrase it, just isn’t a concern for the biblical writers. The moral of Sodom, be kind to others(strangers, outsiders, etc.—today this would be gays, liberals on this board, etc.)

OK next discussion ZEB! I agree to disagree!

449

Well, I hate to tell you this, but what you are focusing on, the points you brought up in your post and argued, is not really the point of what I was saying.

That material is background, foundation, basis, support or introduction. However, I suppose if it is “Reader’s Digest” level material, as you say, and readily accepted, then that makes the point I was making incredible hard to argue against - if anybody can actually figure out what it was.

Thanks. That is good to know.

450

[quote]vroom wrote:
Those are exactly the points I brought up in my post and argued, yet your only answer is to claim that ONCE AGAIN, everybody puts words in your mouth and misinterprets what you say. That everyone else is to stupid to follow your ‘logic.’

Well, I hate to tell you this, but what you are focusing on, the points you brought up in your post and argued, is not really the point of what I was saying.

That material is background, foundation, basis, support or introduction. However, I suppose if it is “Reader’s Digest” level material, as you say, and readily accepted, then that makes the point I was making incredible hard to argue against - if anybody can actually figure out what it was.

Thanks. That is good to know.[/quote]

SO-

The foundation, basis, and support of your argument is not arguable. How you come to your conclusions, points, opinions matters not.

It goes directly to your point of the ‘literal’ interpretation of the Bible and God–which you are arguing.

And you used it as a basis, foundation and support for said argument.

I didn’t suggest that it was Readers Digest level material. I claimed proper and true interpretations of the Bible exist–as well as those that may be agendized. Re read my post–that’s exactly what I said. You seem to push words in others mouths as well. And you interpret my posts based on your personal dislike rather than on content.

So your condescending tone and rhetoric really shows your lack of maturity and understanding. You won’t discuss my statements, you’d rather put down and criticize and change the subject. It most certainly not make your argument easily defended–in fact it shows the strawman you threw out to counter those interpretations by ZEB and 100 meters to be indeed just that. Baseless and off the track of the argument.

But I know you will have some answer for me. Probably my lack of comprehension skill or something similar and old and rather unwitty.
Rest assured that none of my self-worth rests with you agreeing with me or responding in civility. I take your lack of respect and personal criticisms with the grain of proverbial salt for which they are worth.

451

ZEB

Nice posting. The way you write itout and explain it makes great sense. I do believe that the Bible reads as anti homosexual. The act–not the person. I just don’t see that as the end all-be all of the argument.

Again, I disagree with homosexuality and the marriage issue, but for more-- less theological reasons.

I can see some of 100’s points and your discussion has been insightful. I always appreciate quality banter. And you are 2 heavyweights going toe to toe that’s for sure.

Thanks for the lesson.

ps thanks for the PM

452

I’m really not sure what you are aguing about. You apparently chastised me for wasting space with the foundational material, since it was a given in your eyes. Now, you saying I’m claiming it isn’t arguable?

Well, which is it? A given? Or totally wrong? If its a given, you strengthen my conclusion. If its wrong, then lets look at it. Maybe eventually we can even move past it and onto the point it possibly supports?

453

[quote]vroom wrote:
The foundation, basis, and support of your argument is not arguable. How you come to your conclusions, points, opinions matters not.

I’m really not sure what you are aguing about. You apparently chastised me for wasting space with the foundational material, since it was a given in your eyes. Now, you saying I’m claiming it isn’t arguable?

Well, which is it? A given? Or totally wrong? If its a given, you strengthen my conclusion. If its wrong, then lets look at it. Maybe eventually we can even move past it and onto the point it possibly supports?[/quote]

There you go again. I never once said anything you said is a given.

You argued that you can’t argue the Bible because of lack of interpretation. That those that have interpreted it have had agendas.

I disagreed and stated that there exists many ‘true’ interpretations of th Bible. Not all brought down to Reader’s Digest level.

I stated that Zap’s original question as to the Greek interpretation was asked and answered by Zap before you added “I don’t believe any Bible text was originally English.” You said I made a ‘mountain out of a molehill’- whatever the hell that means then went on a half page post to Zap to explain it.

Now you say I chastised you for wasting space with foundational information.
That I suggested it was a given.

Again totally false. It wasn’t wasted space–it was poor logic and I’ve explained it severasl times. Why would I say that something i suggest to be of poor logic is a given? I didn’t. I brought it up because you used it as a strawman argument to Zap, ZEB and 100’s Biblical discussion. Again all these have been done above.

I don’t expect you to see it vroom, I would expect if you choose to respond to me or anyone else, that you read the post and srgue the post, not the person.

Peace vroom–enough said. I won’t/can’t make you see your weakness of logic/argument. It’s just not in you.

On to the next topic please.

454

Ah, okay, now I get it. Look, I’m not trying to be difficult. I don’t interpret what I said as the above at all.

So, I’ve misunderstood what you’ve been saying to me because you and I weren’t going in the same direction at all.

455

[quote]vroom wrote:
You argued that you can’t argue the Bible because of lack of interpretation. That those that have interpreted it have had agendas.

Ah, okay, now I get it. Look, I’m not trying to be difficult. I don’t interpret what I said as the above at all.

So, I’ve misunderstood what you’ve been saying to me because you and I weren’t going in the same direction at all.[/quote]

over and out
we’ve made progress

456

[quote]vroom wrote:
You argued that you can’t argue the Bible because of lack of interpretation. That those that have interpreted it have had agendas.

Ah, okay, now I get it. Look, I’m not trying to be difficult. I don’t interpret what I said as the above at all.

So, I’ve misunderstood what you’ve been saying to me because you and I weren’t going in the same direction at all.[/quote]

Like that’s a first?

457

How the heck did I strawman anyone? I certainly wasn’t arguing with Zap. I was off on a tangent about the best way to get at the information… and went somewhere of my own with this idea, which was originally based on his own question or comment.

I didn’t say anybody was wrong, or that people couldn’t argue the way they were or any of that. I’m not sure how the heck you come up with this stuff…

On to what I was talking about, would you suggest you have a better way to get to the original meaning, than using the original text? If so, how and why?

That’s what I started with, and if you can avoid concluding what I meant by it, perhaps we can simply look at that on it’s own merits first?

458

[quote]vroom wrote:
I didn’t. I brought it up because you used it as a strawman argument to Zap, ZEB and 100’s Biblical discussion. Again all these have been done above.

How the heck did I strawman anyone? I certainly wasn’t arguing with Zap. I was off on a tangent about the best way to get at the information… and went somewhere of my own with this idea, which was originally based on his own question or comment.

I didn’t say anybody was wrong, or that people couldn’t argue the way they were or any of that. I’m not sure how the heck you come up with this stuff…

On to what I was talking about, would you suggest you have a better way to get to the original meaning, than using the original text? If so, how and why?

That’s what I started with, and if you can avoid concluding what I meant by it, perhaps we can simply look at that on it’s own merits first?[/quote]

Seeing as we can’t use the original text as so, the best we have are the various versions available.

This goes back to my original statement. To suggest that any discussion involving interpreting the Bible now has no basis because we can’t be sure of it’s original intent is flawed. Who do you think wrote the original Bible? It has been translated since day one. Never an original text.

Or do you believe that God wrote a guide to man at some point?

The Bible has always been by man for man, never a literal translation of anything. To ask for this is totally flawed logic.

That is the basis for arguing/dicussing the merits of your argument about literal vs translation.

===

Prof

That really added to the text. Thank you so much for your time and valuable input. You actually agreed with my quote and vrooms agreement with it. It’s the first thing we sort of agreed on in some time and you waited till then to try to be witty.

You failed.

459

Okay, however, it is my understanding, perhaps flawed, that there are written documents that formed the basis of the modern bible.

460

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Prof

That really added to the text. Thank you so much for your time and valuable input. You actually agreed with my quote and vrooms agreement with it. It’s the first thing we sort of agreed on in some time and you waited till then to try to be witty.

You failed.[/quote]

Right, and I am so hurt. I spent way too much time trying to figure out exactly what it was you are arguing about, and as usual, it is the most insignificant aspect of the discussion that you found fault with. The bible has been translated. Words we use now don’t even have an equivalent to words used at the time many of these books were actually written. Vroom’s original comment was simply that the Bible was not written in English. This got your nuts in a twist for some reason and now we have nearly two full pages of an argument about what? Whether we can use words from much earlier translations to truly understand what was meant? That is what this whole argument is about? But I failed? Dear Lord, I’m glad I failed at not dragging out something like that for pages on end for no reason.

I would think that only someone lost in traditional bias would avoid at least wanting to know if we got it right on a few issues. Since homosexuality was the basis of the argument, I do find it odd that these passages don’t seem to add up to a biblical hatred of that particular sexual orientation. Regardless of my personal beliefs, if someone is going to make an argument about this as the basis for their political beliefs on the issue, it should withstand cross examination. It doesn’t seem to do that very well, and THAT should be the argument…not whatever you and Vroom have been going back and forth on for way too long now. I’m glad I failed at that…really.