"There had been abuse in my family. But it was mostly musical in nature."

[weaktwos]

One of the things that has always amazed me about staunch religious supporters is that they believe, without question, that the Bible is the world of God.

However, it was written and translated and deciphered over thousands of years. So much can be misinterpretted, left out, or mistaken.

God him or herself doesn't publish the translations directly, but through humans.

Now since when have humans been noted for consistent, spot-on communication? Hells bells. People can read the same news reports, live in the same neighborhood, and still have different opinions about what's going on around them.

And between the time Jesus walked this earth and the time we started publishing Bibles for mass distribution, we had the Dark Ages, where any number of documents could have been burned. One of them being a whole book of retractions. God could have said:

"I've changed my mind. I was drunk when I rattled off Leviticus. I was hung over, too. Hence all the 'vomiting from the earth' references. It's not so bad, a man laying down with another man. It's just not nearly as hot as two women, but the Lord digresses. Really, just be good for each other, and all love is good. Except fornicating with livestock. That's just a bad idea."

It could happen.

Comments

[annessence.livejournal.com]

Hahahahaha!

I wonder if people really care about gay marriages or if this is just the 'cause' of the year. I think ALL marriages should be banned.

"Look, if you want to get married, bring 2.3 squalling brats into the world and then get divorced with the other 50% of your married peers, fine; but don't expect the government to step in and do anything to help you sort custody, child support, or who's filing what on your taxes next year."

Basicly...

[cotharyus.livejournal.com]

It's because there are still people who know how to read (or at least can reasonably translate) the old scrolls. You might also be interested in picking up a book like Bible Code - all the little things there *could* just be a coincidence, but that'd be a whole lot of 'em. Also think about life on this planet for a minute. What's the only thing on the planet lighter in solid form that in liquid? Think about it. Then imagine what would happen if that one substance followed the same rules as everything else.

Re: Basicly...

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

I'll check out the Bible Code. However, we still don't know all that we lost during the Dark Ages...some scrolls could indeed be missing.

And why doesn't God come out with a quarterly newsletter/scroll? Just like we've changed with the times, God has to have a few new comments that are current.

Re: Basicly...

[eyow.livejournal.com]

It's because there are still people who know how to read (or at least can reasonably translate) the old scrolls.

Ah...but how do we know that their translations are accurate?

[ratbastrd.livejournal.com]

THe fact that there are differet versions of the bible pretty much invalidates that whole "word of god" thing, I think.

Re:

[cotharyus.livejournal.com]

Oh - different versions? You mean like king james, new standard version, etc? It's all roughly the same thing - it's just like using babblefish to translate something you can't read into something that you can understand.

Re:

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but as you'll see in an earlier post, I was looking in sections of the Bible that are supposed to (according to some vocal anti-gay folks)have comments about homosexuals(one of them being Corinthians 9-11), and I couldn't find a reference to homosexuals in there, unless they fall under the umbrella of "fornicators", which means all of us straight unmarried folks are on the outs, too. There's just way too much room for ambiguity, here.

Re:

[cotharyus.livejournal.com]

Right - fornication, by definition, is sexual activity out of wedlock. Now, I have no room to talk. Before I got married, I was oversexxed, and under paid - and I *liked* it (I'm not perfect, see?) and I personally don't feel like thats much better than same sex relationships - I'm not going to nitpick anything, it's an opinion. If it came down to vote, I'd vote my opinion. It's because it's what I feel is right. Thats the same reason I don't write off homosexuals or "fornicators" or anyone else - A) I'd be the world's biggest hypocrite B) I don't think it would be right to get mad and rail at these people.

Re:

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

When I researched the history of the word "fornicator", it's usage, back in the 1200--1300s when its first documented use was discovered, implied sex between a man and a woman out of wedlock. Not homosexuals. (I own a copy of of the Oxford English Dictionary, which goes back to word usage through history). That's just an interesting side note.

But as you say, that's your opinion, on the issue of homosexuals. Now a whole bunch of people have opinions around this issue, and there's room for argument on both sides. So my take on this is that the government should not take a restrictive stance on this issue based on an argument that's religious in nature and not civil.

Re:

[cotharyus.livejournal.com]

I see where you're coming from. Honestly. However, I think the issue that the government is looking at is from a standpoint of recognizing legal status for things like ...family insurance. Of course I'm all about being like "fuck the insurance companies" - I think they should all be shot. Which I can't say about other groups of people we're talking about because the polititions have protection.

[dangermouse74.livejournal.com]

hehe reminds me of the telephone game :-)

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

That's what it is. :-)