Against Nature?

Inerrancy is just not a question... It shouldn't be in any form of Biblical scholarship! It's just wrong and the sooner people learn to deal with that, the better.

Allan.

On a larger issue - the inerrancy, interpretation, accuracy etc of the Bible -

Here's a little experiment, for anyone who has had a direct spiritual experience - whether a vision, a dream, God speaking to them directly, something more concrete or less.

Try putting it down in words. Just try capturing the entirety, every nuance, every flavor of meaning, the precise and exact experience, conveying all and exactly all of the data your senses acquired.

Can't be done. Language is finite, God and experiences of God are not. Language can't even completely convey finite things.

Go ahead, try it. Write a description of red, without refering to anything that is red, that inerrantly communicates to any reader, sighted or not, what 'red' is.

Look at all the miscommunication that occurs between people from the same basic culture, speaking the same basic language, with the opportunity to question and clarify.

Now you want to insist that you know what a text written over the course of hundreds of years, several thousand years ago, means exactly - with so much assurance that you are entitled to hurt people?

Better repent of that too.

Sharon

It was so kind of you to provide an actual source for your prejudice against other people.

I have to ask, do you know that the Bible was not written in English?

Most of the New Testament was written in Greek, with a sentence or two of Aramaic here and there.

So, you drag out I Corinthians 6:9-11, which in its original language contains two words - arsenokoite and malakoi, that conservative translators for some seven hundred years have been translating as referring to homosexuality.

There's a problem though. Neither word actually means 'men who have sex with men'. And greek of Paul's time and place did have two words that did and do mean 'men who have sex with men' - erestes and erenamos. Paul did not use either one. He made up arsenokoite, and malakoi means 'soft, fine'.

It is as if I wrote a condemnation of people who smoke, and instead of using the word 'smokers', I used a made-up a word 'coffeebreakwhitepuffmakers' and 'ignition'. Then a couple of centuries later, people start condemning the eating of toasted marshmallows at work. Sheesh.

Ponder that for an hour or two. Let it sink in. Paul did not use either of the two words his audience - the people he was writing directly too - would have understood as a reference to people attracted to those of their own gender.

Paul did not use the words that conveyed the concept we use the word homosexual for. He used two entirely different words. He chose not to use the words that would convey the idea you are insisting on.

What he really meant? That's subject for considerable debate. But it is clear he didn't mean men who have sex with men, for he used neither greek word for that concept.

When you insist that homosexual lovemaking is a sin, you sin against me and my partner, and millions of other humans as well, by declaring that the most beautiful and intimate, unitive expression of our love is worthy of eternal torture. That is a truly hideous claim to make, one that violates something Jesus said was one of the Greatest Commandments - love your neighbor as yourself.

I forgive you, but still must ask that you sincerely repent.

Norrie Hoyt,

Hey, I haven't forgotten you. I have, however, given my offer to you some thought and am wondering if it makes much sense to repeat many of the external evidences you've most likely already considered, and rejected. I'm reminded of the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus. As you probably remember, the rich man, suffering the torment of hell, sees Abraham and Lazarus in the distance. He pleads with Abraham to send Lazarus (who also has died) to warn his brothers, who he says will listen to Lazarus. Abraham's reply: "They have Moses and the Prophets...if they do not listen to them, they will not be convinced, even if someone rises from the dead."
I would have argued for a creator with things such as the tilt of the earth's axis, the distance of the earth from the sun and the moon, the conditions on earth necessary for life to exist, etc., etc. I would have argued against evolution with examples such as the human eye, the existence of a conscience, the existence of such unnecessary things as humor, laughter, guilt, etc., etc., etc. Ultimately, I believe that for those who die apart from Jesus Christ, all of these things will simply be icing on the cake. The most condemning evidence against most of those people will be that the biblical God, who I believe created them and everything else, told them how things are, and, in refusing to accept the truth, made a liar out of God. I know that's pretty heavy, but that's what I believe. However, I'll be pleased to discuss this with you further if you'd like to. In any event, I agree with you that I want to preserve our friendly posts. Just let me know. Take care.

For those referencing St. Paul's anti-feminine passages, please read Professor Crossan's book, In Search of Paul and other contemporary books about Paul's epistles. For example, the passages "Women are to keep silent in church" and
"Women are not to teach or to have authority over men" were not from St. Paul but were written by followers/pseudo-Pauls with an anti-feminine agenda common in the first century CE. (1 Timothy 2: 8-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36)

I realize that feminism was a long way in the future during Paul's day, and I grew up in churches that believed that the words of Paul were just as eternal and universal as Jesus' "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

Words such as:
"Women are to keep silent in church."

"Women are not to teach or to have authority over men."

"Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands in all things." Even with the subsequent, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church, and gave himself for her.", it still speaks of women as servile to men, not equal servants of the Christ.

"It is better to marry than to burn."

Paul saw women as extensions of Eve, with weaker minds than men, and who could be more easily tempted and who would lead men astray.

Let's face it, women's lib was nowhere in sight back then, and if you read the text in entirety, you'll see that Paul is saying that women could be a distraction to men who are at the important work of prayer. Paul never says that women aren't important to God's work, and he even writes about a few who did discipling. Clearly, spreading the word of God and teaching the start-up churches was of utmost importance to Paul, and he felt that he had no time for women. Likewise, he felt that men would be able to concentrate better on the teachings of the early church without distraction. But he doesn't say that there is no place for women, or that men should never marry, or that women are evil. I do think that taking sentences here and there can make it sound that way, though.

Paul made it pretty clear that, as far as he was concerned, celibacy would be the path for all if it were up to him. And let's face it, while the society at large was male-dominated, Paul's ideas and attitudes regarding women who were supposedly his sisters in the faith did not speak of divine kinship, but accused all women of being temptresses who would distract men from the work of God. Paul had no real use for women, and this woman has no use for him.

I think that so much from Paul is included because of who he was and who he became. It was a mighty big step to go from powerful Jew persecuting the Christians to believer and apostle. Hearing from someone like that might be considered pretty important. Also, he was the apostle who took on a huge load of bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles, and that was the biggest part of what God was doing at that time.

As far as Paul and sex, I really don't think that he thought sex and marriage were bad for everyone. I think he just made it a point to make it clear that it was ok for people if they didn't want to be in relationships, since that was looked down upon in those times.

Anonymous:
I guess my question is, considering how it came to be, why would you consider the whole anthology to be the inerrant word of a god, any more than the collection that I described above, simply because a couple of centuries ago (give or take a few decades), a group of clerics sat down and voted on what would and would not be canon? It's not like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were taking shorthand in red ink as Jesus spoke.
And I put little credence in anything Paul said. How can you look to a man like Paul for wisdom concerning marriage (hetero or homosexual) when he had so many issues with any kind of sexuality? He wasn't wild about hetero marriage - he considered it a palliative for those who were too horny to be able to control themselves and he considered marrying and making babies a waste of time and a distraction from the preparing for the Second Coming. My reading of his letters leads me to believe that he would have been just as happy if my sex had simply disappeared. The fact that so much of Christianity is Pauline in nature is one of the many reasons I left it.

BUT, if you believe that it is all the Word of God, it doesn't matter how many people actually did the writing. What's nice for us is that it has all been put together into one package; many different stories, letters, commandments, and histories, that God wants us to know.

Anonymous:
You missed what I was saying - whether intentionally or not, I don't know. What I was trying to say was that since the Bible was not written as one single work, but compliled from many different works, there is no reason to look up it as a unified whole. It would be like taking part of a Dr. Suess story, one of my dad's letters to my mom from when he was in the service, some Leonard Cohen lyrics, and a partial stanza from a Pablo Neruda poem, binding them together between two covers, and calling the resulting anthology a unified guide to life. While there is much that can be learned from all of the above-mentioned texts, it would be ridiculous to say that because I find relevance and meaning in one or two of them, I must follow them all.

Lepitopteryx,

I understand that there are many Christians who don't believe that the entire Bible comes from God, and that is a shame that they were taught that way. The fact that the wording has been edited differently over the ages is what has caused so much turmoil and creation of denominations. It is precisely because of this that I take the extra time to study the literal translations from original texts (or at least as original as possible).

The ancient Hebrew and Greek texts used specific wording and language that meant one thing but was sometimes translated later to fit a belief or agenda. People should always go to the source as much as possible.

Anonymous: I know many Christians who do not believe that everything in the Bible was intended to be taken literally, or even that everything that was chosen as canon was meant by the writers to be universally applied. They realize that, even though it does contain much wisdom, it was assembled and edited by a group of clerics who had their own agenda. You don't have to believe that every word in the Bible is objective literal truth to be a Christian.

John Conelly,

Christians do not turn off their minds when they come to know Adoni, it is quite obvious however, at that point, they have been trying to paddle the boat with a toothpick.

I Corinthians 1:17-31 - Jewish New Testament - Translation by David H. Stern

For the Messiah did not send me to immerse, but to proclaim the Good News - and to do it without relying on "wisdom" that consists of mere rhetoric, so as not to rob the Messiah's execution-stake of its power. For the message about the execution-stake is foolishness to those in the process of being destroyed, but to us in the process of being saved, it is the power of God. Indeed, the Tanakh says,

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and frustrate the intelligence of the intelligent."

Where does that leave the philosopher, the Torah-teacher,or any of today's thinkers? Hasn't God made this world's widom look pretty foolish? For God's wisdom ordained that the world, using its own wisdom, would would not come to know Him. Therefore God decided to use the "nonsense" of what we proclaim as His means of saving those who come to trust in it. Precisely because Jews ask for signs, and Greeks try to find wisdom, we go on proclaiming a Messiah executed on a stake as a criminal! To Jews this is an obstacle, and to Greeks it is nonsense; but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, this same Messiah is God's power and wisdom! For God's "nonsense" is wiser than humanity's "wisdom".

John, I used to live in the authority of my own opinion too. To live in the light of God's love and wisdon is a far superior experience.

Lepidopteryx,

My comment to Mr. Crossan was from one Christian to another, based on the belief that the Bible is the Word of God. If you believe that, then it is all true and relevant, and all of it is to be believed. If you don't believe that, then for you it's merely a book full of stories, and its relevancy depends on whether or not you like what you read.

It truly is a matter of faith (ooo, there's that word that makes so many people cringe...) The fact is that people believe in all kinds of things; bigfoot, aliens, psychics, astrology, gods and goddesses, witchcraft, scientific theories... And some believe that Jesus was God in man. People have their own reasons for choosing what to believe.

The previous post is mine - forgot to enter my name.

Anonymous: "Well, you can't pick and choose what you do and don't believe from the Bible, can you Mr. Crossan?"

Why not? It's not as though the Bible was written as one unified text. It was assembled by what amounted to a committee from many writings by many different authors many of whom were long dead by the time the Bible as you now know it came to be debated and voted on. If I have any other anthology of short stories and poetry, am I obligated to read each and every word of the contents, and to give each item equal consideration and credence? No. I read those that I like, that make sense to me; I will likely read them repeatedly. Those that turn me off, I am not obligated to read.

If you believe the Bible is the Word of God, then you can't pick and choose what you believe. If you don't believe it's God's Word, then you just consider it a suggestion, which justifies your choosing what you want to believe.

There are 4 gospels because 4 different people decided to write about it; note all of the similarities between them.

As for no archaeological proof of Moses having existed: there are millions and millions of people who have lived and died without leaving archaeological proof. The fact that the Jews worshipped God and not Moses would be a big reason why you don't find monuments built for him.

You have no proof that the OT is a bunch of tall tales, just as I have no proof that it's not.

When you pick bits and pieces of the Bible out, you can easily take things out of context to make it sound like something else (just as people often do with comments and speeches). You have to read the whole context within which your quotes reside to know exactly which laws are being referred to. And referring to commandments is different that referring to laws.

Part of the problem here is that people are using English translations. These things make much more sense when you go back to the original language that was used and translate that literally. My personal experience with that has been that I have been given a much more thorough understanding of the scriptures by seeing what was originally written as opposed to the differences in translations.

Jihadist

Many thanks for your kind words. Your posts which reflects a mind sharp as a razor's edge is an absolute delight to read too. I'm so happy that you are a Muslim woman sharing your brilliant thoughts on this thread, like Victoria. It is important for more people to get to know female progressive Muslims who can participate powerfully in inter-religious dialogue and work towards finding common ground with people of all faiths and none.

You guessed right I'm from India - from the state of Kerala (I mentioned it on several threads actually but probably not in the ones to which you have been contributing). Kerala by the way has had Muslims from the eighth century and they constitute 24.7% of the Kerala population. In Kerala because of the Abrahamic faith denominator Christians and Muslims feel a special bond, or at least some fundamentalist Hindus are convinced that we work closely together in Kerala. I left Kerala when I was eight years old, have been mostly an observer since, and couldn't verify that Hindu claim.

Among Indian writers, you forgot to mention the Indian born Sulman Rushdie. As to the world famous Arundhati Roy - her mother is from Kerala. Roy identifies herself only as being from Kerala although her father is a Bengali Hindu, because she did not know her father and lived with her mother in Kerala until the age of 17. Her mother had moved back to Kerala, supposedly separating from her father, shortly before/after she was born. I'm not well informed about her pesonal details. But the mixture of Bengali and Malayalee has given her an extra portion of beauty and intelligence, that is for sure.

"Well, you can't pick and choose what you do and don't believe from the Bible..."

Why not? We pick and choose what we believe everywhere else: TV, newspaper, friends, history books, rumor, even science. Picking and choosing what we believe is of the essence to human cognition.

Of course, picking and choosing means keeping your brain turned on. I'm aware that picking up the Bible means choosing to shut down the brain for many people. I'm also aware that this has nothing to do with a search for the truth. (You can't search for the truth with your brain turned off, can you?)

I'm pretty sure that if these people did actually do any mental test for the truth in the Bible, and realized it wasn't there, their world would come crashing down. I'm not sure why this is, though.

Any ideas?

Anonymous. Maybe another illustration. Is it good to be rich?

The Bible, your word of God says no, it is a very bad thing.

Matthew 19:23-24 Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Luke 6:24 Woe to you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.

James 5:1 Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.

Except in the places where your Official Word of God says yes, it is a blessing to be rich and a reward to the Righteous.

Psalm 12:1, 3 Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord .... Wealth and riches shall be in his house.

Proverbs 15:6 In the house of the righteous is much treasure.

The last post was mine.

Anonymous

OK. You tell me. What part of the Bible should I believe? Is long hair good or bad?

Maybe that's not fair, so let's just stick with the New Testament, your inviolable Word of God. How does it answer the following question?

Does a good Christian have to obey all of the laws enumerated in the Old Testament?

The answer is Yes. According to:

Matthew 5:18-19
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.

Luke 16:17
It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

The answer is No. According to:

Luke 16:16
The law and the prophets were until John [the Baptist]. Since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached.

Romans 6:14
Ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Romans 7:4, 6
Ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ .... We are delivered from the law, that being dead.

Romans 10:4
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Galatians 5:18
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Ephesians 2:15
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.

Colossians 2:14
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances ... nailing it to his cross.

To reiterate:

Hello Anonymous,

The major problem is the belief by some that the OT and NT are somehow the words of God. If they were the words of God there would be only one NT gospel not four and note the lack of attestation amongst the four Gospels of the NT.

There also is no archeological evidence that the Moses of the OT ever existed. The scribes who wrote the OT, embellished many old Jewish tales/legends/myths to fit their concept of Monad and to keep the general tribal communities in line with oral tradition/guilt. The trails/trials of Noah, Abraham, Job and Moses were concepts for tribal nomads/peasants/shepherds/ordinary folk living in the age of illiteracy, short life spans, hardships, diseases, and "dirt poor" living conditions. Mankind has advanced and these concepts although wise for the ages, are not historical.

The Bible also relies on itself for authenication. “I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would you or anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran”

Anonymous

I suspect that Professor Crossan feels free to reject the portions of Paul's writings that he knows to be forgeries.

Soja

Thank you for that clarification. My bad:)
It is always a pleasure to read your posts here. Very clear, cool and considered.

Are you from the Indian subcontinent? Only an Indian can write the way you do. The best writers in English now are Indians, from VS Naipaul to Vikram Seth to Arundhati Roy to Monica Ali.

And an Asian -

Respecfully yours

Jihadist

John Crosson wrote:
"What Paul said about gendered hair-length and gendered sexuality was--for him--from "nature" in both cases. So "nature," for Paul, came from God on both hair and homosexuality. I prefer to think Paul was wrong on both and God wrong on neither."

Well, you can't pick and choose what you do and don't believe from the Bible, can you Mr. Crossan? And if you say that what Paul said came from God, and that Paul was wrong, then you are saying that God was wrong. Exactly what kind of a Christian are you Mr. Crossan?

JIHADIST

It is not JD Crossan's idea that we are created in the image and likeness of God. It comes from the Bible - Genesis, Chapter 1, verse 27: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

The understanding that God created every human being in his image and likeness is fundamental to Christianity, and that is the basis of human dignity no matter who we are. And when one understands the whole verse fully, one sees that God gave women an equal standing - male and female he created them - equal and complementary. Any second class status given to women is man made and cultural, and has to do with abuse of male power rather than God's plan.

Christianity believes in the free will too. But unlike the Muslim belief which you mention (that human beings are born sinless), Christianity holds the belief that we are born with a fallen nature and must work our way back to God through Jesus Christ. One only has to look around to notice that human beings are far from perfect, and that goodness remains first and foremost merely a potential. Why would parents have such a difficult time teaching children virtue if goodness were so natural? Even as adults, at every turn when we are called upon to make choices, human beings seem to have a really hard time making the right choices and being good. None of it comes naturally to us, for we must sacrifice our lower nature with its sensual desires and inflated ego needs to manifest our higher nature, which is created in the image and likeness of God. Only self-righteous hypocrites steeped in self-deception claim that being good is natural and easy, while saints honestly admit their temptations and struggles and acknowledge their reliance on the mercy of God to resist temptation and on God's wisdom to make the right choices.

I see the "bible thumpers" are back at it.

To repeat my op-ed about "holy" books:

1. Abraham is the reported founder of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Based on all we know now, Abraham was at best a combination of three separate individuals with 1.5 million Conservative Jews no longer believing he existed at all. (ditto for all the characters in the OT).
references: National Georgraphic review on Abraham and http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. The founders of Christianity and Islam were both illiterate. i.e. neither one proofread or approved the NT or the Koran so we are taking the word of scribes and embellishers with their own and sometimes militaristic and anti-female agendas.
references: NT exegetes from the last two hundred years, Karen Armstrong's reviews of Islam and http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

3. Christianity is based on the gossip about the sayings and ways of Jesus, the whim of Pilate, the false prophecy of the imminent second coming, and the sword of Constantine.
references: NT exegetes and their conclusions/books from the last two hundred years.

Conclusion: The Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions have very little foundation to rely on.

(from the first web reference)

"New Torah For Modern Minds

Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now.

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document.

I Corinthians 1:17-31 - Jewish New Testament - Translation by David H. Stern

For the Messiah did not send me to immerse, but to proclaim the Good News - and to do it without relying on "wisdom" that consists of mere rhetoric, so as not to rob the Messiah's execution-stake of its power. For the message about the execution-stake is foolishness to those in the process of being destroyed, but to us in the process of being saved, it is the power of God. Indeed, the Tanakh says,

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and frustrate the intelligence of the intelligent."

Where does that leave the philosopher, the Torah-teacher,or any of today's thinkers? Hasn't God made this world's widom look pretty foolish? For God's wisdom ordained that the world, using its own wisdom, would would not come to know Him. Therefore God decided to use the "nonsense" of what we proclaim as His means of saving those who come to trust in it. Precisely because Jews ask for signs, and Greeks try to find wisdom, we go on proclaiming a Messiah executed on a stake as a criminal! To Jews this is an obstacle, and to Greeks it is nonsense; but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, this same Messiah is God's power and wisdom! For God's "nonsense" is wiser than humanity's "wisdom".

Jihadist,

As always, it's good to hear from you.
Some thoughts, in no particular order:

*Rummy was a very amusing stand-up comic who
entertained while people died. Sorry to dispute you, but "my bad" is awful.

*British mystery and detective novels are the best, as are British invectives.

*Webster's is no longer the best, most consulted, and most prestigious American Dictionary. The American Heritage Dictionary is.

*Please, do yourself a favor and keep up to date. When you're in a bookstore take a look at the AHD. I think you'll love it. Among its many virtues are its usage notes, beautiful printing, and legibility.

As always, best wishes to you.

Norrie Hoyt

I speak in British English prounouciations and usage too, apart from the inimitable accent and idiomatic, idiosyncratic English of my homeland.

I say "can't" with a broad "a". I use "dustbin" instead of garbage can, "flat" instead of apartment, and "lift" instead of elevator for example. Obviously I get many "excuse mes?" and "sorrys?", from older American folks and "say whats?" or just "huhs!?" from younger ones. I can understand the older ones better as they are past using faddish English.

'My bad' is not too bad a trendy innovation of American English. I still don't understand what Rummy (Rumsfeld,) your former Secretary of Defence, said at his press conferences, e.g. "there are the known knowns" etc. That is either avant-garde poetry, or bureaucratese to obtuse and confuse.

I had read about Spiro Agnew too, a former Vice President of the US, who came up with phrases such as "the nattering nabobs of negativism". Margaret Thatcher is wonderful too. She said this about a British Chancellor of the Exchequer - "Some chancellors are fiscal. Some chancellors are monetary. This one is just plain cheap".

We are partial to British inventive invectives, being a former British colonised land and still prefer reading materials from Britain by British authors and writers. More people tune in to BBC than CNN.

All Anglo-Saxon dictionaries are easily available in my homeland. Apart from Oxford English dictionary, I have an American Webster English dictionary. I last got both in 2000 and has not bought updated versions since.

I never had an American Heritage dictionary. Webster is older, more prestigious and reputable among American dictionaries. After all, Mr. Webster was the first to Americanise, pardon, Americanize spellings from British English such as, "colour" to "color", and "centre" to "center" etc.

BA'AL

You are fast becoming my favourite scientist and secular humanist. An atheist with heart, passion, morals, ethics, humaneness and cool reason even when there are disagreements is hard to find in these On Faith threads.

As for St. Paul and hair length, as Prophet Muhammad PBUH had long hair that he tied, St. Paul would not have liked him at all. And the Prophet is a straight too.

Christian Taliban is a good one. Here I was thinking of Muslim Pat Robertsons:)

SOJA

I don't agree with JD Crossan that we are created in the likeness of God at all. But I will leave it at that. Must be the Muslim mindset that God did not create man in Its image; God give man free will; man is born sinless and will be held accountable for what s/he do and did not do in life, be it good or bad. Or, if you prefer, evil and/or sinful in place of bad.

Victoria,

You may have noticed that I like to recommend books to people. Here's one for you: THE COLLABORATOR OF BETHLEHEM.

The author is Matt Beynon Rees, a Welshman, who until recently was Time Magazine's Jerusalem Bureau Chief. It was published this year, 2007, and has gotten great reviews. The Library Journal's starred review said: "[An] outstanding debut,,,Powerful."

It's a detective/mystery novel but its real strength is its vivid portrayal of the West Bank town of Bethlehem, its people and their lives, at the present time. I'm about half-way through and it's fascinating. I think you'd enjoy it.

I Corinthians 6:9-11:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicaters, nor idolitors, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkerds, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
King James Version of the Holy Bible

Praise be to God for His Son Jesus Christ, who died for our sins, rose again and prepared the way; (through repentance and belief); so that we can be forgiven, born again, not in the desires of our old sinful nature, but in a new nature: cleansed, and set free from the power of sin and death.

IN THE MATTER OF: "MY BAD" VS. THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE:

MY GOD! [GOVERNMENT WARNING: Expression only to be to taken metaphorically, not literally!!!]

I REALLY AM OUT OF IT! I'd never heard the expression (and am glad I hadn't). I checked with my ever au courant wife before posting, and she hadn't heard it either. And she was Chief-of-Staff for a recent, serious Presidential candidate!

My 30-year-old son, however, says it's been around "forever" (maybe 10-15 years) and that "it's everywhere."

Thanks, John Conolley, for telling me what it means. And, yes, Victoria, I do have a "television machine" and watch a lot of it, but try to avoid the verbal slums. My wife, however, watches all kinds of junk TV and she still never came across "my bad."

I just took the advice I gave above to Jihadist [to get the 2006 edition of The American Heritage Dictionary] and, My God! [Government warning: see above] it was there! I nearly fell over.

Thank you all for trying to keep me afloat in the contemporary scene.

Victoria

Good to "hear" from you again. I have "seen" you around and have enjoyed reading your well thought out posts- as always. We even crossed paths on Kakar's thread, but perhaps you didn't read my response.

Many thanks for telling me about the Catholic theologians' take on Paul and the tests on homophobes with the interesting results. It does seem that homophobes are urgently in need of education. I think Jon Meachem and Sally Quinn are doing a terrific job with this forum (taking on the most sensitive issues of our time), and I hope that this forum will serve the purpose of educating homophobes to a small extent, and the ripple will spread. Psychiatrists after all did their best to "cure" homosexuals and declared them healthy instead.

Norrie, dont you own a television machine?
(im just teasing you- i wish i was outside of the ifluence of expressions like 'my bad' myself-

soja- long time no see- there are some catholic theologians who have postualted the theory that the often referred to "sin of the flesh" that plaqued paul so continuously but was never actually defined by him- may have been his own sexuality-

hence is preoccupation with the issue-
i was watching a program on my television machine on pbs (public television) about a study done with college boys-
first they were administerd psychological tests that determined if they had homophobic traits-

then they were wired up to monitor responses and shown homosexual pornography- ( i mean they were WELL wired ALL over) and the results were amazingly consistent- more consistent than one would expect from any behavioral study- not to a man but close-
the homophobes reacted visibly- and physically-
one young man was in such a state of denial that his exited state was clearly apparent to any who would see- and he denied it. period.

i thought it was an interesting test- and when i encounter vehement protestations against it-
well its something i always knew anyhow-

peace

Dear Professor Crossan

I agree fully with your implication that we human beings created in the image and likeness of God have the duty to read Scripture using our minds and reason - to differentiate between eternal spiritual truths and the social, cultural context based on which some passages are written, and in this case by Paul on homosexuality. As a Christian, first of all I base my ethics and morals on the New Testament and the life of Christ, after all Christians don't follow most of the instructions given in Leviticus. Secondly neither the Ten Commandments nor Jesus makes a mention of homosexuality. To me it is not clear whether Paul condemned homosexuality per se or only heterosexuals resorting to homosexual practises for hedonistic reasons and unethical homosexual practises.

It is tragic when "zealous" Christians and moralists of all stripes, lump such behaviour as addiction, incest, paedophilia, bestiality, rape, murder etc (which anyone without being a rocket scientist can conclude has to do with hurting the person concerned and/or another innocent victim) under the same category as monogamous homosexual relationship between two consenting homosexual adults. The zeal with which they advocate that homosexuals should remain celibate all their lives, denying themselves any kind of sexual pleasure and meaningful relationship, equal dignity and rights as a human being, is equally incomprehensible.

It is so vital to have Catholics like you speaking up on behalf of those whose voices are likely to be ignored or carry less weight. For additional information on homosexuality from a medical point of view please read the article by Bazemore PH, Wilson WH, Bigelow DA:

http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3359.htm

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

The last post is mine.

Professor Crossan is correct about Paul not liking men with long hair. Against that, however, we find the following:

Numbers 6:5
No razor shall come upon his head. He shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair on his head grow.

Judges 13:5
For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son [Samson]; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite.

1 Samuel 1:11
I will give him [Samuel] unto the Lord all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head.

"My bad" is a way of saying "my mistake." It's everywhere, and it grates on my ears something furious. The origin of it is in basketball, where it's short for "my bad point." (Or something like that. I don't play basketball, myself.)

Jihadist,

BIG MISTAKE: THE EDITION OF THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY THAT YOU SHOULD GET IS 2006 - YES, 2006!

Not 1996. SORRY!

Jihadist,

Hello!

I'm not grading your posts - you could grade mine. Yours are terrific! And I'm not a Presbyterian, lapsed or otherwise. I think a great-grandfather was, but fortunately that religious strain withered and dropped off long ago from my family tree.

As for your speaking, I bet you have a very mellifluous accent, not like, but just as soothing as Caribbean English. If we can't understand someone's accented speech, we also say "Sorry?". Have you run into that response?

In all seriousness, I'd like to recommend THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 1996 edition, to you. It's a beautifully printed volume and is so up-to-date that I didn't know the meanings of many of its recently added words.

It devotes three column inches to a usage note on "ain't", a word that first appeared in 1778. You can get it the dictionary at Amazon for about $35 U.S., which is a real bargain. If it's closer to you, Amazon U.K. probably has it too. As your friend, I'll tell you: YOU MUST GET IT!

What in heaven's name is "my bad"?! Haven't heard it. Are you sure it's American? If it is, it must be one of those dreadful, illiterate Southernisms.

You may have learned British English, but, as you know, American English is the wave of the recent past and of the future. Ride that wave, lady!

SEEMORE

9/11 is murder.

And back to Islam 101:

I use "Jihadist" to take up a dare from a friend in these On Faith threads. Jihad has different meanings in Islam (greater Jihad - internal or personal striving or struggle to be and do better; lesser Jihad - armed striving or struggle against transgressors, tyrants).

Mujahid is the correct term for a person actually engaged in armed struggle. Mujahidin the plural. Jihadist is a western media bastardisation which alternately amuse and bemuse us as it is now as abused and misunderstood as swastikas - a religious symbol of Hindus, Jains and Buddhists, coopted by the Nazis and associated with them.

I got some flak from some posters in On Faith for using "Jihadist" for reasons best known to them.

NORRIE HOYT

You were an English major too? And a lawyer, a former or lasped Presbyterian grading my posts in English now? Neither shaken nor stirred as I never have any problems with my French, but the French did. Likewise for English. Not a problem for me, except that many Americans and English are a bit deaf. I have to repeat what I've said, for they are always asking either - say what? say again? excuse me? pardon?

Truth is, I've stop referring to the dictionary for spellings for a long time now. I learnt and am supposed to use British English spellings, but have been mixing them up with American spellings lately.

My English grammar and usage has also been picking up some Americanisms, such as "my bad", "ain't". It's infuriating me somewhat, to be mixing up limeys and yankees, but can't help it. Globalisation with an "s" or globalization with a "z" is unstoppable.

Seemore,

I'd be happy to hear (read, actually) "...what [you] could demonstrate to [me] in the form of 'external evidences' for a God..."

Before we get to that though, let's pause for a moment and consider a couple of caveats about your going ahead. I'm worried that our cordial relationship might founder in the dialogue you propose. I wouldn't want that to happen.

You need to know a bit more about my religious thinking. When I was six years old, I told my Congregational Sunday School teacher that her religious teachings were in effect "a load of
c--p." [I didn't use those words.]

She calmly and carefully asked me if, despite my disbelief, I didn't think that those religious teachings hadn't made the world better over the centuries?

I told her "yes" so as to not hurt her feelings and to get out of the situation, but I really didn't believe it. And I didn't even know about the Holy Inquisition at that time.

Since then I've loved to read about religion and to debate it, in public and within myself, but my beliefs, though evolved, haven't really changed from the time of that incident sixty-five years ago.

So, while I hope to have an open mind, my prediction is that the points you'll make will bounce off me like cannonballs off Old Ironsides.

I think I've come across and been subjected to every conceivable religious argument and they've all been for naught as far as converting me to theism.

I listen to the Jehovah's Witnesses when they arrive on my doorstep, debate with them, and once gave them a contribution.

[The J.W.'s have real perseverance. I live in the boonies; even UPS has trouble finding my place. Curiously, the Mormon missionaries have never shown up, even though Joseph Smith, the Founding Prophet, lived in my town as a boy - he was born in the adjoining town. Maybe the L.D.S.'s faith isn't as strong as the J.W.'s.]

So, Seemore, go ahead, give me your best shot, but please don't be disappointed if it glances off my intellectual-emotional force field and doesn't penetrate to my center. We can still be internet friends - I hope.

Best wishes.

"Christian Taliban" - what a great expression - a humorous alternative to Andrew Sullivan's "Christianists". Thanks, Ba'al.

I can't resist quoting Mark Twain again: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Franco knows it, too, which is why he's thrashing around grabbing at science one second and rejecting it the next. The rational part of his mind knows he's hanging from a cloud.

Franco, the fact that you operate on faith and faith alone could not be more obvious. Therefore it is pointless to argue with yo (which is why I don't). It is about as arguing with a wall -- or any other member of the Christian Taliban.

Franco – I do understand that you operate on faith. What I don’t understand is how in one breath you can present scientific and historical facts – based on information from “thousands of scholars and archaeologists” and then in the next breath reverse yourself using a completely faith-based argument – “My expert is God… Man's wisdom is God's foolishness.”

Why not avoid the bogus and sensational claim about “thousands of scholars and archaeologists” and just say that you don’t care what the facts are, you rely on faith no matter what.

When believers do this kind of thing, I can’t help but think they are either fooling themselves or trying to fool me, which I don't think is moral and ethical from either a religious or a secular point of view.

Although the thoughts I've expressed may not have an effect on your attitudes or behavior, I hoping some Christian readers will consider these issues before they make claims based on their faith.

For all of you who addressed me: Why is it so hard for you to understand that I operate on faith? Why not give me the credit of my conviction? What, pray tell, gives you the superior argument? I would quote more from the Good Book, but you have no interest in it. You'd rather place your faith on people who are imperfect. I respect your convictions, please respect mine. This blog is all about opinions from imperfect people, no one, even the one who announced she was a lawyer (as if her occupation has some superior standing) Oh, by the way, I am a Vietnam Combat Veteran :)) ... and a conservative and Christian who has this "weird immature" belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God. One day we will all know. I'd rather be on the right side!

Norrie Hoyt,

That was an excellent presentation of your views and I apprectiate your taking time to share them with me (and, who knows, maybe hundreds or thousands of others, as well). You expressed astonishment at my interest in your opinions. I'll be totally up-front with you. On one very real level, I'm extremely inquisitive and have a near insatiable curiosity about how people came to be where they are in life. On a lot deeper level,however, I want the best for you and everyone I meet. Unlike many of the world's religions, the God of Christianity makes claims on His creation, or so I believe. I also believe that He has given us a great deal of information about both Him and us through His written word and through His incarnation over 2,000 years ago. The last thing I want to do is rain on your parade, but if your mind is indeed open and you'd be open to seeing what I could demonstrate to you in the form of "external evidences" for a God, I'd love to try. The "internal" hunch you described is way out of my league--in my vernacular, that is the provence of the Holy Spirit. Anyway, I'll check back for a reply and, if there isn't one by the end of the weekend, I'll consider that your very polite way of saying, "No thanks."

Seemore,

Thanks for your post!

I'm really an agnostic despite the impression my response to Nonibrahamic gave that I'm an atheist.
I was having a little fun with his questions.

I think it's possible that some being or energy-bundle, that could reasonably be called a God, is behind everything.

But for me to believe in a God, one of two things would have to happen. I'd have to have an internal hunch, intuition, epiphany, mystical experience, or something similar, that instantly converted me to that belief. Or, I'd have to see external evidence that convinced me that a God did exist.

None of these things has happened, so here I am with no God-belief, but, I hope, an open mind on the question.

I understand the great intuitive hold of the argument that things don't make themselves, no car without a designer, and so on. But I think that people overlook what random happenings can create over unimaginably long periods of time. Remember the old saw about putting 25 or 25,000 monkeys in a room and letting them type randomly for 25,000 years? One of them will produce Hamlet. Starting with the Big Bang, I think we got to where we are now via that process.

As for the Big Bang and why it happened, science hasn't figured it out definitively yet, but today's physicists have some pretty interesting ideas about it.

I don't call myself a Buddhist, but I'm very close to being one. Classical Buddhism believes that there are an infinite number of universes that have always existed and will continue to exist forever. Buddhist cosmology does not believe in a God or in a Creator of the universes. The universes are simply eternal and were not brought into existence by anything. Hard to believe, but not as hard for me to believe as that a Yahweh-like diety exists.

I'm agnostic as to that Buddhist cosmology, too. I have no opinion on whether the universes it postulates actually exist.

I love and do accept most of the Buddhist ethical beliefs, and try to follow them most of the time. I think they're superior to those of Judaism and Christianity in that they extend compassion and loving-kindness to all beings, not just humans.

That's pretty much where I'm at. I can't really fathom why you were interested, but I appreciate your interest.

Hope you enjoy this part of the blogosphere - just don't spend all your time on it (that's really advice to myself that I just projected onto you!).

Best to you.

Norrie Hoyt,

You're nice--thanks for the post!

Forgive me for asking something that you've probably expressed before, but since I'm the new kid on the block, I missed it. You're obviously an intelligent and thinking person. Without going into why I think you'd be wise to believe in my God, I'm very curious: Why do you believe there is no God (Now that I think about it, Jihadist, I don't have any reason to believe this applies to you afterall--sorry!)? My faith tells me that people naturally ignore God. But how can you look at the earth, the universe, or even yourself in the mirror and not see evidence for an intelligent creator? You've probably heard this analogy, but if I suggested to you that the automobile you drive wasn't created, but just either happened or evolved, you'd think I was nuts, and rightfully so. I'd submit to you that the chances of everything happening in the universe without a designer is even more unlikely. And though I don't want to get started on a debate over evolution, how does anyone with an honest, intelligent mind claim that it's more likely that all of the conditions for life which exist on earth more likely resulted from life somehow originating from non-life than by the actions of an intelligent designer? Help me out here, NH--enlighten me.

Jihadist,

Thanks for the nice post. By the way, are you a Muslem and, if so, is there any truth to your name in, shall we say, a 9/11 sense?

What I have to say to Norrie Hoyt below applies to you, too.

Of course apologists will criticize Professor Crossan for "cherry picking" his passages, but this one from Paul about hair length is one I will remember for the next time this comes up.

Franco (or Mr. Franco):

Do you really believe that Paul was incapable of error? Thinking about some of the great questions is far more rewarding than blind acceptance. If God had demanded such unquestioned allegiance to a book, we would not have needed education beyond Bible memorization.

Would a loving God not want his creatures to reason and try to understand his universe? It is hard to believe He would want people to blindly accept every word of a book written more than 1,700 years ago. Have humans not learned anything, with God's help, during that span of time?

Should we wholeheartedly accept every word of the Old Testament or those of the New Testament? They are very different versions of life and truth.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Romans 1:26-27

I never said that "any notion of common morality" is off limits.

Children and the weak are to be protected whenever possible. Love your neighbor as God loves her/him and love yourself too as God loves you. Kill other humans only in self defense and in just wars. Try to alleviate suffering. Take care of your family and yourself first. Do no harm to other people. Don't steal. Respect the individual. Help people when you can. Be honest with people when you can. Tell your family every day that you love them. Respect God's creation.

Sorry; gotta go ... perhaps to be continued ... or send e-mail to msfbecfin AT excite DOT com

Mark in Irvine:

So what, precisely, are you saying? That all that which is natural is to be accommodated? If not, what natural behaviors do fall outside your sphere of tolerability, and on what basis do you draw any line, since any notion of common morality is off limits?

Franco says: “There are literally thousands of scholars and archaeologists that will dispute all your claims. end of this discussion”

Then he says: “My expert is God. He speaks to me daily in a still small voice. Man's wisdom is God's foolishness. My faith is unshakeable. Someday we will all stand before Him to give an account. End of this discussion.

Franco – did you mean “God” when you said “thousands of scholars and archaeologists?” If so, I wish you had said that first, because otherwise it seems deceptive, even unchristian, to say “1000s” of anything when you really mean God. When you stand before God, he might ask you to account for that.

Another question – what if you went in for a medical evaluation and your doctor assured you that thousands of medical experts agreed that your condition required major surgery, and you found out later that he really meant God had told him that in a still, small voice?

I suspect that there's more to homosexuality than what body parts fit into what other body parts and whether children can result from the consequent emission of precious bodily fluids, if any. There's an emotional component too, mutual nurturing, financial and other support, comfort, cooking, ride-sharing, should-to-cry-on and so on.

If you want to restrict marriage to two people who are physically capable of procreating, you can do that, but there are a lot of couples, including people of the two different genders, who aren't capable or choose not to procreate.

If we want to encourage the propagation of the species (which we do), fine, but why punish other people who can't or don't want to share in the process? What do two people who choose not to procreate give to society that two gay people who can't procreate (with each other) don't or can't give?

I suppose as social policy one might decide to reward "people like us", who pair up heterosexually and reproduce, with tax breaks, pats on the back, and so on, in the hopes that people who don't want to pair up that way will eventually "go away". Conservatives, at least religious ones, seem typically to condemn the idea of Darwinian "natural selection" and the extinction of species that goes with it, but interestingly they seem to warmly embrace the idea of "social Darwinism" in which the "good people" (like us) win out over [survive] the "not good people (who aren't like us).

If procreation is the "sine qua non" of respect for and recognition of pairings-up of humans, there are a lot of pairs that can't or don't who are getting a lot of social rewards they seemingly don't deserve.

WDC:

If the identification of “what is natural” (which is how this discussion started) depends on what occurs “naturally” in “nature”, then homosexual behavior is “natural” because it happens – in humans and in animals. People do it; people want to do it; it’s not just pedophiles who do it; we all do it (well, maybe not all of us), or at least it is (and has been) a common occurrence from “the dawn of time” as far as we can tell. It is not just an invention of the 20th (or 19th or 18th) centuries. If it didn’t happen, this discussion would never be taking place.

You mention “the never-ceasing search for loopholes which results in, ultimately, the scrapping of Christ's actual teachings altogether on the grounds that ‘the central message’ is ‘love’ -- which conveniently means whatever the speaker wishes it to mean at any given moment.”

Actually, it often seems that the Bible CAN mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean at the moment. Witness the hoary Levitican proscription against "men lying with men as they do with women" which, we are told, remains "the law" even though the Levitican condemnations of the wearing of garments made of two different fabrics (e.g., cotton and silk), the consumption of shellfish, and working on Sunday (to name but a few) are no longer "the law". Where is it writ that the first remains the law and the others do not?

If homosexuality doesn’t work for you, then don’t do it. If it works for the other guy or girl, who are you to tell her/him not to do it? Sure, you can find plenty of stuff to rely on if what you want to do is to tell the other person not to do it. The question is, however, what is the “authoritative” (rather than the authoritarian) basis for your condemnation, prohibition etc.?

If it’s the Bible, fine, but accept that not everybody accepts it as an authoritative source of moral guidance. And as such, in a free society (which the USA is, or is supposed to be, after all), maybe you shouldn’t be trying to use the Bible to prevent someone else from doing what s/he wants.

Why do you want to get involved in the other guy’s life anyway? To help him? Fine, but if s/he doesn’t think your attitude, ideas are helpful, maybe you should just back off. In fact, what is it that you are trying to do? Help, surely, in your fashion. What about condemn, prohibit, punish? A lot of what passes for discussion in topics like this seems to boil down to venting over the fact that the speaker isn’t in a position to impose his view on the other readers – which sounds a lot like punishment to me.

Oliver Wendell Holmes once said “The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market”. Abrams v. United States (1919) 250 US 616, 630-31 (Holmes, J. dissenting). Someone else has expanded the idea more recently as follows (in a different context): “The core idea here is that in all areas of decision making – including not only whether to support a particular political candidate but also whether to have children, enlist in the army, contribute to one’s church, buy a Saab, or go to law school – the “best” way for individuals to reach the best decisions for themselves is for them to consider all competing ideas, opinions, and perspectives, without governmental interference.” Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism, Geoffrey R. Stone (Norton 2004), page 8 [which I happen to be reading, but which concerns itself with something entirely different].

In a free society, perhaps the “natural progression of things” is to have fewer restrictions on the individual when her/his actions don’t adversely affect others. I don’t think you can define “actions [that] adversely affect others” honestly in a free society without limiting the definition to physical harm or “intentional infliction of emotional distress” (referring to the law again). The fact that your neighbor’s gayness grosses you out (or offends your “religious” sensibilities) and you don’t want your kids to see it doesn’t qualify as an “action that adversely affects others” for these purposes.

Maybe we are headed toward a “libertarian utopia”, and maybe not everybody will like it. Maybe you’d prefer a society where nobody was homosexual; my gay neighbor probably wouldn’t like it very much. Just as you wouldn’t like living in a society that forced you to engage in homosexual behaviors.

You can’t legislate who other people are, or what they think, want, feel, say, or do (except within reasonable limits), and have a free society. You can certainly live your life according to the dictates of your religious beliefs. If you want to live in a society where your religion dictates what the other guy can and can't do, fine, but I don;t think it will be in the US. And you'd better hope that whoever comes into power has the same religion as you do.

Jihadist,

Your English is better than that of most American English speakers. You could teach many of the posters here a lot about it.

As for spelling: my mother was an English teacher, my father was a book editor and publisher, my grandmother was a librarian and I majored in English in college. And I have to consult the dictionary for spelling almost every time I post something.

So I wouldn't worry about your spelling. Most Americans can't spell anything at all anymore.

Cheers!

Nonibrahamic,

From your questions, I gather you know the answers already.

All your questions have the same answer:

NOT APPLICABLE (N.A.)

God's in the same place and state as the newly-dead bird lying in my front yard: nowhere, nothing, nada, zilch, etc., etc., etc. ad infinitum.

Regards.

Questions:

1. What is God's gender ?
2. Why does God have a gender ?
3. If God spoke, what language is it in ?
4. Why does he/she/it speak in that language ?
5. Why is God so obsessed about sex ?
6. Why is God always angry ?
7. Who did God bad to make God so angry ?
8. Why does God have human emotions ?
9. Why does God worry so much about Earth ?
10. Does God do similar things on other planets ?
11. Why did God suddenly create earth 6000 years ago ?
12. If God loves humans (NT) why is God so vindictive ?

WICCAN

I owed you a new keyboard? Computer keyboard? Music keyboard? How? When? Why?

SEEMORE

I agree with Norrie Hoyt. Some posts in the On Faith thread ain't worth a bucket of warm spit. Many are very thoughful and informative.Some are just plain bait.

Watch out for the trolls and or/advocates for certain lines who posted the same thing everywhere without saying much on the topics or questions raised.

We do need levity for sanity with regard to some of the posts. Roll with it and have fun too. Of course you can always stop reading On Faith.

As for me, I'm in to practice my English grammar and spelling too, being a non-native speaker. Apart from reading what Christians, atheists and others in between, both panelists and posters, think and say on religion in the context of current issues. Very educational in fact. I am just really finding out how complicated and diverse Christianity is in its dogma, theology and beliefs.

Mark in Irvine:

Hey. It seems to me that you are actually making several different arguments which in fact have little to do with one another. On the one hand, the role of law in regulating personal behavior (essentially, if your behavior poses no risk to others, then it is none of the state's business). This is the libertarian ideal towards which, in the few short years since the Lawrence decision, we are rapidly speeding, despite 200+ years of prior jurisprudence to the contrary. I cannot imagine how the laws against drug use, bestiality, or prostitution will withstand the inevitable court challenges to come. It may turn out that we all love the coming libertarian utopia. Then again, it may not.

Your second argument seems to concern social mores, as distinct from the formal law: the bad people who decry the behavior of others as "abominations" that deserve to be punished by death. Well, good for you, though condemning that sort of thing is a fairly easy point to score. But societies evolve infinite sorts of ways, other than the law (which is always a blunt instrument), and other than hellfire and brimstone, to encourage some behaviors and discourage others.

To continue the example of alcoholism: Cultures that tolerate, make excuses for, and joke about excessive drinking end up with more of it, not surprisingly, and more of their people end up full-blown alcoholics. Whether an individual's pancreas and enzyme actions predisposed him to alcoholism, the fact is, picking up a drink is a choice, aided and abetted -- or not -- by the culture around him.

The third argument you seem to be making is that it is un-Christian for anyone to expect that anyone else act in a way that is contrary to his nature: the round peg/square hole argument. I am sorry to say this, you seem like a nice person, but this is simply nonsense. Chastity for the unmarried, and fidelity within marriage, do not, I daresay, come naturally to most people, and yet it is to this that *all* Christians are called. Christ was a radical, not some New Age nitwit. He did not say "Follow your bliss." He said "Follow me."

Not suprisingly, this is not a hugely popular program. Hence the never-ceasing search for loopholes which results in, ultimately, the scrapping of Christ's actual teachings altogether on the grounds that "the central message" is "love" -- which conveniently means whatever the speaker wishes it to mean at any given moment.

Off the subject, but I went to a Servite high school!

What Paul said about gendered hair-length and gendered sexuality was--for him--from "nature" in both cases. So "nature," for Paul, came from God on both hair and homosexuality. I prefer to think Paul was wrong on both and God wrong on neither.

FINALLY. A direct and intelligent statement about the question and about the complete fallibility of humankind.

The sad truth is, many women have been killed and have suffered because of the anti-feminine interpretations of scriptures by males.

How many people have been harmed or killed "in the name of GAWD" because they follow their "god-given" sexual orientations.

Homosexuality is normal in the animal kingdom.
Live with it.
It's "god-given".
And we are simple animals.

WDC:

What do Christ or the Bible say about alcoholism (not drunkenness) or diabetes?

Kidding aside, in order to live, the alcoholic needs to lay off the sauce, right? And the diabetic needs to moderate the intake of dessert. Do we tell them that they're an abomination and should die a painful death by stoning because they take a nip every now or pick up a package of Oreos on the way through the grocery store? Do we tell them that they're an abomination and should die a painful death by stoning because they are genetically programmed to overdo the drinking, or because their pancreas doesn't regulate the metabolization of sugar in the blood? Certainly not. We try to help them learn how to live with their conditions. The less Christian (or humane) of us reject and shun the alcoholic, because we're better than s/he; the truly evil among us offer the alkie a drink and put lots of fabulous desserts in front of the diabetic and then promote their consumption. Both conditions present a risk of physical illness and death if proper caution is not taken. Just as a homosexual person runs a risk of physical illness and death if s/he engages in unprotected/unsafe sex with an HIV positive person, or if s/he disregards the need to avoid sex with a PWA/HIV+ person. But a homosexual person who is not promiscuous, maybe one who is in a committed monogamous relationship, doesn't run that risk, just as there are physical, medical and other risks that you wisely choose to avoid. We don't put legal restrictions on alcoholics or diabetics or epileptics, unless, like with driving, the condition presents a risk to the safety of people around them. Alcoholics and diabetics and epileptics are free to work, date, marry, reproduce, visit their hospitalized family members in the hospital, inherit and bequeath property from their family members; they pay taxes (like the rest of us) and they are able to enjoy the same freedoms (and restrictions) the rest of us do. It is the potential risk to other people which sometimes justifies restrictions on people with innate conditions (such as epilepsy). Homosexual people don't present any of these or similar risks to anyone. I'm not talking about the pedophile, or the HIV+ person who has sex with others and doesn't tell them. And if the homosexual condition is innate, then simply having a homosexual teacher in school certainly isn't going to make some kid a homo. Sure, it might give the kid who is predisposed to be homosexual the idea or feeling that it is OK to BE homosexual, if s/he has/sees a teacher who is gay and manages to carry on in life without problems. Life isn't all as simple as we'd often like it to be. But it doesn't work, and is actively un-Christian (thinking of God's/Christ's self-sacrificing love) and inhumane, to force people who are unlike us to fit into the simple round holes we have carved for ourselves, when they are square pegs.

The Bible is obsolete. It was an adequate explanation for the pre-science era, but no longer. One can see this conclusion very clearly in the modern world. It's fine for those who want to hang onto the old explanation, whatever gets you through the night, but ancient religions are increasingly irrelevant.

Franco gibbered:
"Concerned: My expert is God. He speaks to me daily in a still small voice. Man's wisdom is God's foolishness. My faith is unshakeable.

Someday we will all stand before Him to give an account. End of this discussion"

You know, they can do amazing things with medication nowadays.

Mark in Irvine: Alcoholism is biologically based. So is diabetes. Should we, in the name of "Christ's message," celebrate the alcoholic's specialness when he's on a bender, or the diabetic's fifth helping of dessert?

Mr. Crossan's entire argument is based on things that Paul, an imperfect human, said. Paul isn't THE ONE who said that homosexuality is wrong, God said it way before Paul's time. If you want to talk about homosexuality and the Christian faith, you have to go back to what God said, not Paul. So Paul didn't like long hair on guys; a lot of people didn't back then. (a lot of people still don't!) But that wasn't a law of God, and shouldn't be used in comparison to His Word.

Norrie Hoyt:

Thanks for the encouraging words. I'm just trying to be "part of the solution" rather than "part of the problem".

MII

Mark In Irvine,

Your's is a very fine, thoughtful statement. It's good to find a Christian posting here who comprehends the central message of Christ's teaching.

Thank you.

Franco,

You wrote: "Concerned: There are literally thousands of scholars and archaelogists that will dispute all your claims. end of this discussion"

Using my badminton analogy posted above, saying "game over' ("end of this discussion") is contrary to the fair-play rules of this place.

It's taking your marbles and going home when you feel yourself at a disadvantage. You should have kept the game going by responding to Concerned as he requested, by citing authorities in your favor.

Best wishes.

When "Concerned The Christian Now Liberated" remarks that "homosexuality [is] a biological deficiency" [read "deficiency" as "condition"], s/he acknowledges that the condition is present at birth. Scientists are checking into this, I believe. In order for CTCNL to be intellectually consistent and honest, s/he must therefore also acknowledge that the individual so born is one of God's creations, and "perfect" as such, just as is the individual with innate color blindness, Rh negative blood type, freckles, myopia (my personal favorite), hirsuteness, Downs syndrome, predisposition to musical talent or a husky/scrawny build or athletic ability, and so on. Is it not wrong, then, to deny the person in question the natural expression of his innate person-hood (which God created, right?), even if we don't personally share the same trait as the PIQ, or if we find it not to our liking in some way (ranging from mild dislike to absolute revulsion)? It would seem, too, that if Christ's message to us is to love ourselves and our neighbors the way He loved us (and he loved us the way we are, the way God created us, right? He gave his life for us after all, with all our imperfections - who among US would do the same thing?), then we should love each other with whatever imperfections or dissimilar traits we all have, rather than devote a lot of energy punishing each other for those imperfections, traits, etc. The Bible can be (and was and still is) used to justify all sorts of inhumanity to man, including many of the "just punishments" it contains that normal, civilized humans now reject, such as putting to death the person who works on the sabbath, and so on. If we are to take Christ's message seriously, then we should give homosexual people the "benefit of the doubt" (as Christ did for all of us), and stop justifying our hatred for them by resort to the Bible. Anything less than this is human hubris and nothing to do with God's love or Christ's teachings.

Concerned: My expert is God. He speaks to me daily in a still small voice. Man's wisdom is God's foolishness. My faith is unshakeable.

Someday we will all stand before Him to give an account. End of this discussion

Seemore,

Welcome to this patch of the blogosphere. I've been here for a few months. It's fun but it's also addictive. I hope you have the time to spare for it. I don't but I do it anyway. Some would probably call that sinful.

It seems to me that everything that's posted here, unless it refers to the history or stated doctrines of religion (which might be verifiable), is simply personal opinion.

That's the fun of this place: you create your own thought-universe and toss your personal opinions out. Then somebody else bats them back. It's like badminton - lots of fun. Presumably a good time is had by all.

Enjoy!

Franco,

Ok, lets see some references to contemporary experts who support your current thinking.

Concerned: There are literally thousands of scholars and archaelogists that will dispute all your claims. end of this discussion

Franco,

As per National Geographic's Genographic project:
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

" DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.
"Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.
Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.
It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

Franco, (as noted previously)

1. Abraham is the reported founder of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Based on all we know now, Abraham was at best a combination of three separate individuals with 1.5 million Conservative Jews no longer believing he existed at all. (ditto for all the characters in the OT).
references: National Georgraphic review on Abraham and http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. The founders of Christianity and Islam were both illiterate. i.e. neither one proofread or approved the NT or the Koran so we are taking the word of scribes and embellishers with their own and sometimes militaristic and anti-female agendas.
references: NT exegetes from the last two hundred years, Karen Armstrong's reviews of Islam and http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

3. Christianity is based on the gossip about the sayings and ways of Jesus, the whim of Pilate, the false prophecy of the imminent second coming, and the sword of Constantine.
references: NT exegetes and their conclusions/books from the last two hundred years.

Conclusion: The Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions have very little foundation to rely on.

(from the first web reference)

"New Torah For Modern Minds

Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now.

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document."

Seemore: Bravo!

I'm relatively new to the blogosphere, but the posts I read above just now, as well as others on this site over the past couple of weeks,convince me that many of you are engaged in conversation which is based on nothing really more than personal opinion, often shaped by personal bias. Want to have a conversation that ends up back where it started, i.e., a lot of words spoken, but not much really said? Discuss the reliability of the Bible--that should do it. Do you really and truly want to know, really know, whether the Bible is reliable? Then study the life and claims of its central character, Jesus Christ. If you study that, with a desire to get to the bottom of what's really true and what isn't, there you will find your answer. In the meantime, enjoy the endless philosophizing!

There is a profound difference between reading the Bible as a revelation of God's will--a process that requires an open mind and heart--and using the Bible as a weapon in a debate on social issues. The former allows us to grow in our relationship with our creator; the latter attempts to limit God in ways that elevate mankind. All of us who read and quote scripture should regularly ask ourselves, "Which process are we using?"

Concerned: You make many claims above. Show proof!

Hello Anonymous,

The major problem is the belief by some that the OT and NT are somehow the words of God. If they were the words of God there would be only one NT gospel not four and note the lack of attestation amongst the four Gospels of the NT.

There is no archeological evidence that the Moses of the OT ever existed. The scribes who wrote the OT, embellished many old Jewish tales/legends/myths to fit their concept of Monad and to keep the general tribal communities in line with oral tradition/guilt. The trails/trials of Noah, Abraham, Job and Moses were concepts for tribal nomads/peasants/shepherds/ordinary folk living in the age of illiteracy, short life spans, hardships, diseases, and "dirt poor" living conditions. Mankind has advanced and these concepts although wise for the ages, are not historical.

The Bible also relies on itself for authenication. “I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would you or anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran”

Dear Concerned, now liberated ( Whatver that means) I am not impressed by how many books one writes. I am impressed what God says in His.

mavaddat; Well ok, let just cut out pieces of the Bible we don't like. Just keep those that suit our way of life!

Franco I am with you. Clearly the Bible is the absolute truth and inerrant word of God.

Jim is obviously crazy. I feel bad for him.

In fact I feel badly for anyone who questions the authenticity and inerrancy of a book written by hundreds of authors, thousands of years ago and has been translated (with complete accuracy of course) hundreds of times.

How could a sane person question that?

Good job, Franco. Keep cherry picking.

Jim & Jihadist,

Thank you for your wonderful posts!

Franco stated: “The focus on this blog appears to be the inerrancy of the Holy Bible. You either believe it is the word of God or you don't.”

----Regarding the literal interpretation of the Bible, I see no basis upon which anyone, can support this claim. Even if one were to grant (and there is no reason to do so) that the Bible (of any era and/or translation) were inerrant, it would be of little help, as there is no way any person living in modernity can ever hear and/or understand the scriptures as people of two-thousand years ago (or ten-thousand) would have heard them. Saying the bible is the literal word of God says a great deal about the person making the claim and nothing of importance about the Bible or God.

“God created me and thus He makes the rules in my life. Homosexuality is a sin; He said so in his word. I have no interest of what man/woman believes.”

---As pointed out by many others on this blog, cherry picking the Bible to support ones claims about anything is rather easy. You may not have any interest in what man/woman believes, but your personal interpretation of scripture is not infallible. You may believe that you and/or your church have a lock on the correct reading of scripture, but there are likely millions of other faithful Christians who would argue otherwise.

“Opinions are like, you know what, everybody has one!”

---I’ve heard this remark from many people over the years, but a moment of reflection will reveal that virtually no person would accept its implications. While most of us have opinions, all opinions are clearly not created equal. I’d doubt very much that my medical advice would be taken seriously by anyone except a fool, as I have no expertise in medicine. Likewise, years of scholarship lend weight to the opinions of those who have taken the time to do the work. The opinions of scholars and/or experts in a particular field of study are not to be taken without criticism; however they should be given the weight and consideration they deserve.

More "fodder" for concluding that the OT was written about mythical, ancient nomads that roamed the desert for forty years without a clue as to what direction they were going in.

And more "fodder" for concluding that there are significant problems with the "accepted" foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

I repeat:

And what has history, scriptural text reviews and archeology taught us about these foundations?

1. Abraham is the reported founder of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Based on all we know now, Abraham was at best a combination of three separate individuals with 1.5 million Conservative Jews no longer believing he existed at all. (ditto for all the characters in the OT).
references: National Georgraphic review on Abraham and http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0401torah.asp

2. The founders of Christianity and Islam were both illiterate. i.e. neither one proofread or approved the NT or the Koran so we are taking the word of scribes and embellishers with their own and sometimes militaristic and anti-female agendas.
references: NT exegetes from the last two hundred years, Karen Armstrong's reviews of Islam and http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

3. Christianity is based on the gossip about the sayings and ways of Jesus, the whim of Pilate, the false prophecy of the imminent second coming, and the sword of Constantine.
references: NT exegetes and their conclusions/books from the last two hundred years.

Conclusion: The Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions have very little foundation to rely on.

To Jihadist-

Blessed are the jesters, for they will help us see our folly.

But you still owe me a new keyboard...

Hello Jim,

I have no idea what you are talking about like Victoria, but, let me try to help you on some of the other specific laws found in the holy scripture and how to follow them in these times:

You : When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

Me : send them some meat from the sacrificed bull. That should appease them.

You : I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

Me: Your daughter can sell herself, give herself to the man who bought the most dinners at the best restaurants. Her selling price is the ability of the man willing to secure her future best. She's going to be slaving for him in housework and sex for the rest of her married life to him.

You : I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

Me : When a woman says no, assume that she either don't like you, is too tired to have sex, have a headache, or is having her menses and would not want to mess the bedsheets.

You : Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

Me: It depends on the price, which depends on the legality of entry. Illegal Mexicans are cheaper than legal Canadians.

You : I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

Me : Yes you can, but the state law will come after you for murder.

You : A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Me: If you are allergic to shellfish, don't eat them. If your are allergic to homosexuality, don't engage in them. Either will give you rashes.

You : Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Me : With glasses you no longer have any defect in sight. So proceed to the altar of God.

You : Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

Me: They should die with their trimmed hair buried with them.

You : I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

Me: Yes you may, but the gloves must not be pigskin.

You : My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).

Me: Your uncle can practice alternate crop planting. And his wife should not wear polyester at all. That's tacky!

You : He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

Me : Yes, get the whole town together and everyone get stoned on bong. Cremation is already practiced. And the whole family can burn down together for sleeping with in-laws.

JIM- its hardly the end of a debate- but a scholar should have a comprehensively round opinion- in order to be respected as a scholar-

as im not a christian or a jew i havent the slightest interest in how you follow them or dont-

do you actually have an opinion on the subject?

youve actually rather proven my point but i guess you didnt get it-

But though Philo considers slavery unnatural, so does he judge pederasty:
"the Sodomites threw off from their necks the law of nature and applied themselves to deep drinking of strong liquor and dainty feeding and forbidden forms of intercourse. Not only in their mad lust for women did they violate the marriages of their neighbours, but also men mounted men without respect for the sex nature which the active partner shares with the passive ... Then, as little by little they accustomed those who were by nature men to submit to play the part of women, they saddled them with the formidable curse of a female disease" (on Abraham 135-6).

It's true! Long before Paul, God decreed his attitude toward homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. Thank you, Victoria, for finally pointing this out.

I was wondering, however, if I might get your opinion regarding some of the other specific laws found in the holy scripture and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Mr Crossan- you are aware as a scholar that homosexuality was dealt with long before paul ever appeared arent you?

We know your personal feelings about pauline scripture- how do you reconcile your faith from the perspective of leviticus and deuteronomy?

also we never did find out what particular sin of the flesh plagued paul so tremendously-

some of your co-religionists have suggested his homophobia may have been a personal issue-

Franco, we've all read the Bible. There's nothing that says Paul is infallible. Looks like you are the one that needs to re-read his Bible!

Franco,

I recommend you read any or all of Professor Crossan's 20 books on the NT.

A sampling can be found at:

http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf and http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf.

Mr Crossan,

Thank you for being short and to the point.

Mr Crossan: Quite an accusation to say Paul was wrong on homosexuality. If you believe the pauline conversion on his way to Damascus, then you believe he was God's messenger. How could he be wrong!! For that matter, what else was he wrong about? and who decides? Sir, you need to read your Bible.

I don't know if it is my Christian upbringing or just something innately built into my psyche but homosexuality and gay unions are very disturbing. Is homosexuality a biological deficiency? Probably and I hope some day they find a cure.