The clitoris is not the work of Satan.Given the misogyny -- sometimes extreme -- filling much of the Bible, I suspect that its lack of such a denunciation is merely due to its authors not being familiar with the existence of the clitoris.
No, I really don't think that's how it works. Otherwise, Christianity would die out quickly, no?Regardless of whether you think that's how it works, that's how the Bible says it should work. Read 1 Corinthians 7 if you continue to doubt me.
IF you accept the words of Paul as God's revelationYes, if you ignore the repulsive parts of the Bible, the Bible is not repulsive.
What are you talking about? That's clearly not what it says in any English translation I checked.First of all, I'm guessing that you didn't read very far into 1 Corinthians 7. Specifically, I'm guessing that you gave up at around verse 9.
It does say that it's "good" not to marry (I didn't see "best" in any translation I looked at, which is what you said in your original post). It then goes on basically to concede that this is unrealistic, and it instructs people to marry to avoid sin.
The passage quite explicitly tells people to marry. The passage certainly gives the sense that Paul's personal preference is for people to remain chaste and single, but he's saying that marriage (and sex within marriage) is a legitimate option.
I think I'm missing something here. Are you saying the Bible is repulsive because you don't like some parts of it?No; I'm saying the Bible is repulsive because it says some repulsive things while claiming to be the word of the creator of the universe.
It's not possible that some parts in it make a lot of sense, and could be prescribed as guiding principles?First of all, I'm not sure how you think that follows from what I said. Ignoring that, though:
I wouldn't go calling Beatles albums repulsive because of George Harrison's weird sitar songs.Sheesh, talk about false equivalence. Something purporting to be the word of the creator of the universe saying that gays deserve to be killed or that women should remain silent is equivalent to there being a song that you don't like on an album?
I'm not seeing it. Look at the hedge in verse 7, and then look how he clarifies in verse 10 when he's speaking for god. Plus, he only ever says it's "good" not to marry, not that it's best.Come on, you're acting as if I was directly quoting the word "best".
I'm sorry, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Are you claiming that these letters of Paul's are not part of the Bible?I said that the Bible says that it's best not to marryNo, Paul said that in one of his letters.
Paul believed that Christ would return in his lifetime and the lifetime of the people he was addressing.Yes, I'm well aware that Paul believed a lot of inane things.
That's not what you said, but fair enough.Really. What did I say?
This passage has long been considered problematic by Biblical scholars, since it appears to place the birth of Jesus around the time of the census in AD 6, whereas the Gospel of Matthew indicates a birth during or just after the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC, ten years earlier.[14] In addition, no other sources mention a world-wide (accurately, "the world under the authority of Roman"[15]) census which would cover the population as a whole; those of Augustus covered Roman citizens only;[16] and it was not the practice in Roman censuses to require people to return to their ancestral homes.[17]posted by Miko at 11:03 AM on October 20, 2008
Most modern scholars explain the disparity as an error on the part of the author of the Gospel, concluding that he was more concerned with creating a symbolic narrative than a historical account,[18] and was either unaware of, or indifferent to,[19] the chronological difficulty. Many also suggest that the Gospel of Matthew account is invented.[20]
Others, especially in the past when Biblical inerrancy was more or less taken for granted by scholars, have attempted to reconcile the accounts. For the most part this has involved the suggestion of an earlier census carried out, or begun, during the reign of King Herod. It may have been in response to this problem that Tertullian, writing around AD 200, stated that the census had been taken by Gnaeus Sentius Saturninus (legate of Syria, 9-6 BC) rather than Quirinius.[21]
my first point was that arguing over scripture¡ªwhich is mostly fiction¡ª is ultimately absurd. And I think that stands as obvious.I took you to mean absurd as in wholly pointless, valueless, ridiculous. And not only do I disagree that the point is obvious, I also disagree that arguing over scripture is absurd, as that would rule out the many good things that have come from it, or at least more sober considered versions of it.
« Older Fired Up? Ready to Carve! | visual connections Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 1:55 PM on October 19, 2008 [2 favorites]