Ponderings on Biblical Tyranny

[Emproph]

Before I get lambasted online by those 'who know God better,’ I was wondering if anyone here has heard the following points raised before, or answers/explanations to them?

I’m always wondering how 'Bible believing bigots' get around these, or better yet and worse for that matter, how they do not attempt to or even desire to get around them. I’m not attempting to trounce the Bible here, Just those who would use it to trounce others, and yes the 'irony' of not considering the right-to-take-away-my-rights to be a legitmate right IS lost on me.. ( now that's sarcasm)

So in regard to the use of the Bible to condemn homosexuality and to the claim of Biblical inerrancy in order to do so, I'm wondering what they say to things like:
-How is it possible for something absent malice to be evil?
-Is evil actually understood to be arbitrary and not exclusively the love of evil?
-If God is Love, how can it ever be evil to share?
-How is it possible to determine inerrancy without actually being inerrant?
-Where in the Bible does it even suggest that one’s interpretation of it should also be considered inerrant?

Most importantly and interesting to me, how can the Bible be assumed to be divinely inerrant when there’s a warning on the last page not to change it?
REV 22:18,19 (New KJV)
“A WARNING”
18 “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;” 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book.” (Italics and bold mine)

Seems literal enough for me, but if the Bible, of which Revelations is a part, can ONLY be inerrant, then a warning not to cause error, would be an error. The only other explanation I can see is if the warning itself is an error, which of course, according to the concept of inerrancy, is impossible. Meaning that according to the Bible itself, it is impossible to consider the Bible free from the possibility of error. Am I missing something?

And isn’t it called the King James Version because he’s the one who edited it to avoid breaking papal law? Where does that fit in to the inerrancy debate?

I'm thinking the problem lies in not recognizing the difference between believing one knows, and actually knowing, and I have no doubt I’ll get a different ‘simple’ convoluted explanation from every Jerry, Pat, James and Joyce I ask, I’ve just never heard these particular questions raised before.

The purpose of mentioning all this comes from the understanding that the Bible needs to be removed from or at least properly confronted in the general public debate. Much if not most of the prejudice against gays originates from the assumption that it’s not possible to be born gay, understandable until one learns better. Continuing such a position ‘because the bible says so’ is arbitrary and therefore irrelevant, yet many continue to cling to this position because it is thought to be ‘inerrant.’

Justifying bigotry as being in defense of religious freedom solely based on an assumption of inerrancy is an attack on MY religious freedom to believe otherwise. So I guess my question is, why isn’t the simple truth of this argument being presented and discussed more in the mainstream debate?

[Catt of the Garage]

Hmm.

Not that I wish to grasp the opportunity to volunteer myself as a "Bible-believing bigot", but I'll have a go at proposing a few answers. Some of these are my own opinions, and some are theories as to the way others think, particularly the very extreme literalists. I hope these help you in your debates:

1. It is perfectly possible to commit evil without malice; otherwise we would not have provisions in law for crimes such as negligence. Irresponsibility or selfishness can give rise to evil as easily as can malice. And if you are a Christian and have devoted your life to God, to act in a way that is unloving or disrespectful towards him, or to disobey him, is also an evil, whatever your motivation.

Some people think homosexuality is an act of disobedience, and therefore evil. The logic is understandable, and for someone like that to change their mind you have to convince them that God has not outright prohibited homosexuality (there are plenty of biblical arguments). If someone is foaming at the mouth and shouting "Abomination!", however, there isn't a whole lot of logic going on in there. You need to talk to these people about humility and about resounding gongs, but I'm afraid you may not get very far.

2. The vast majority of Christians believe in the objectivity of good and evil - evil in itself is bad, not just the love of it. But there are lots of different opinions on how evil is defined, and the Bible contains a great many rules which we do not understand the reason for and we have to be discerning. For example, murder is evil because it is unloving. End of story. But for an Israelite in Old Testament times, eating shellfish or lasagne would also have been evil, not because shellfish or lasagne themselves are inherently evil, but because God had commanded them not to, and obeying him was an act of love and faith in his goodness.

IMHO, where a lot of people get confused is in thinking that because there has been a prohibition against something at some point in Biblical history, that thing is itself evil, where in many cases it is not as simple as that - eg. homosexuality or shellfish. When it comes to biblical literalism, the prawn salad argument is very powerful. So is the Great Commandment in Matthew 22v37, and Peter's vision in Acts 10:9-23 - you are not impure, are you? God has made you clean.

3. Depends what you're sharing, doesn't it? Purely love? Great. A sandwich? Brilliant. Sex? Not so simple. For example, adultery is clearly wrong, because when you are married your body does not only belong to you but also to your spouse, so you are sharing something that is not yours to give away. What about casual sex? You are a free agent but it is still very complicated, because sex can harm as well as benefit, so if you are sharing something harmful then it is not loving.

A lot of Christians are speaking from a standpoint similar to a married person. They have devoted their lives, sexuality and all, to God, and so to them, to use sex in a way which he does not approve of is wrong. Again, if you want to have an intelligent conversation with someone like that you have to centre the argument around the question of whether God really does disapprove of homosexual practice or not. It's not a foregone conclusion. Check out the Bible study on truthsetsfree.net.

4&5 - lol! I love your questions. The answer to the first one is that it isn't possible, and there are so many people in the world who need to be hit around the head with a rock with that carved upon it - yes, the Bible may be inerrant, but we are not, so each and every one of us has got something wrong in our interpretation of it. However, each and every one of us also has our head up our own backside to a greater or lesser extent, so people are apt to be very blind to this fact.

The answer to the second question is "nowhere". As far as I am aware most people's belief in the Bible's inerrancy is based upon the statement in 2 Timothy 3:16 about scripture being "God-breathed". People who believe that the Bible is so easy to understand that their interpretation is bound to be correct are up a tree, IMO. In places it is very difficult to understand.

As for your last point about the note at the end of Revelation, I think that's interesting too, but I've never thought about it before so I can't give you a smart answer to that one.

King James the Sixth and First was the one who authorised the first English translation of the Bible, hence why it bears his name.. I have heard various accusations regarding its accuracy but none of them centred on the fact that his name was on the cover, so that argument probably won't get very far. I certainly don't think it is the most accurate translation in the world but you'd have to do some research as to why and in what way.

Your thought about not recognising the difference between knowing and thinking you know is a very valid one; from some people you probably will get just a regurgitation of unexamined beliefs, but there are many others out there who are bible-believing but are not dyed-in-the-wool bigots. Keep arguing - centre your arguments around truth, justice, the need for humility and the fact that God is love - and some of these people might start to really think.

[revtj]

I just relish the fact that King James was a 'mo! (YES, it's true!)

[Catt of the Garage]

Where do you get that from? Never heard that theory.

[Emproph]

Thanks Catt, that gives me some pause to reflect, or should I say ‘paws’ to reflect... -And thanks for the much needed encouragement to believe I might actually be able to get others to ‘think.’ -Don't worry though, it's hard succumb to the mires of expectation when one's original point revolves around the destructive nature of assumption.

there are many others out there who are bible-believing but are not dyed-in-the-wool bigots.

I think recognizing the necessity of that discernment in particular is one of the major challenges to effectively understanding what’s possible and what’s not in regard to the issue of ‘winning hearts and minds.’

And I looked up Carter Heyward too thanks to revtj. She’s right up my alley Catt, here's a link. ( God I love playing with words)

The Carter Heyward quote with a couple other brief yet compelling excerpts from the same book.
http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/quotes/innersol.html

[pnggrad79]

King James was a 'mo? Really, where did you find that out? If he was, then why did he leave all those references to homosexuality in the Bible?

[revtj]

Yes, I know it was a big surprise to me also. I first read about it in Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (the book). Then I did a little research. Seems he liked pretty young men around him in his court and was, uhm, well, what we gay men would call a top.

Why the KJV is the most homophobic translation is a puzzle. It could be that there were so many in the church who hated King James, especially clergy, who wanted more independence for the church. It could also be simply, as in Shakespeare, that a "sodomite" was the lowest insult to sling at a man. I assume you know the word 'faggot' also derives from this same period of history when gay men were regularly burned at the stake.

What insanity it is to elevate the pre-modern cultural norms of King James or Moses to an absolute social standard!

[Legion]

I quote Emproph:
"Most importantly and interesting to me, how can the Bible be assumed to be divinely inerrant when there’s a warning on the last page not to change it?
REV 22:18,19 (New KJV)
“A WARNING”
18 “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;” 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book.” (Italics and bold mine)

Seems literal enough for me, but if the Bible, of which Revelations is a part, can ONLY be inerrant, then a warning not to cause error, would be an error. The only other explanation I can see is if the warning itself is an error, which of course, according to the concept of inerrancy, is impossible. Meaning that according to the Bible itself, it is impossible to consider the Bible free from the possibility of error. Am I missing something?"


I would say you are missing at least one somethings, if not several. In this remarkable bit of literature you have attacked the doctrine of biblical innerrancy using a passage of Scripture, which is logically inconsistent and self-defeating.

[SolInvictus]

Hello again Legion:

the Bible is a gathering of sacred texts officially sanctioned by Constantine the Great and later the Catholic Church. Many other texts circulated before and after known collectively under various titles: the Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi Texts, and the Apocrapha. Groups of men chose what would be "edited" to become the Bible, thus the concept of it being inerrant seems very unlikely.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Legion

In this remarkable bit of literature you have attacked the doctrine of biblical innerrancy using a passage of Scripture, which is logically inconsistent and self-defeating.

Precisely my point, “A passage of Scripture” that directly implies the possibility of error is “logically inconsistent” with the claim of Biblical inerrancy.

Originally Posted by Legion

I would say you are missing at least one somethings, if not several.

Which is why I asked, to show I wasn’t just assuming I couldn’t be wrong.
-So I re-ask, what specifically is it that I’m missing?

-I'm not questioning "remarkable literature," I'm questioning what I perceive to be the absence of very unremarkable logic.

[Legion]

To SolInvinctus
It only seems unlikely if you don't acknowledge God's sovereignty. Do you always draw the line at "unlikely"?

To Emproph
You misunderstand me. My point was that it is an inconsistent and invalid argument to use a passage of Scripture to support the potential falsity of the said passage. In other words, you are trying to prove that your evidence is potentially false.
I appreciate your concern over the absence of unremarkable logic in my arguments, though the reason my logic is unremarkable is that it is almost entirely self-evident and very, very basic.

[NonLemming]

LOL, Oh Brother!

[SolInvictus]

Legion:
Once again, you are using the ethos method. Unlikely suggests the possibility of error; I try to keep an open mind & unlike you, I do not state my view is the absolute truth. Consider the facts from history & then form an opinion.

You're in my Prayers,
In Christ's Love

[Legion]

I meant it when I asked if you always draw the line at unlikely. Christ is unlikely. Life is unlikely. The resurrection of the dead is unlikely. Most of what transpires within the pages of the Scriptures is unlikely in human terms. At what point do you distinguish between truth and error? And on what basis? Do you base your Christian faith on a materialistic and rationalistic assessment of Scripture's likelihood?

[SolInvictus]

Legion:
Like anyone, I follow my heart in relation to facts & logic to form a belief system. Like Nathan said in a previous post, I follow where the Spirit leads.
When I was in the fundamentalist mindset (yes, I was one long ago), life was broke down into: sin, unworthy, absolutes good/bad; however, I came soon to realize that life does not function in absolutes. The universal meanings & stories of sacred texts are found within each & the Bible, in my opinion, is not the sole source of positive spiritual guidance & teachings.

If you get the chance, read these other texts. Hindus have the Bhagavad Gita (Song of the Lord), Upanishads, and the Vedas. These are beautiful texts & describe a close personal relationship with God. The Dhammapada of Buddhism is similar to the New Testament in the Bible in that they share a common sharing of the message for universal compassion, tolerance, and love.

The problem therein develops how can they all be wrong/right? Why would God only have one source of texts to enlighten/teach others?

[Legion]

Originally Posted by SolInvictus

Legion:
Like anyone, I follow my heart in relation to facts & logic to form a belief system. Like Nathan said in a previous post, I follow where the Spirit leads.
When I was in the fundamentalist mindset (yes, I was one long ago), life was broke down into: sin, unworthy, absolutes good/bad; however, I came soon to realize that life does not function in absolutes. The universal meanings & stories of sacred texts are found within each & the Bible, in my opinion, is not the sole source of positive spiritual guidance & teachings.

If you get the chance, read these other texts. Hindus have the Bhagavad Gita (Song of the Lord), Upanishads, and the Vedas. These are beautiful texts & describe a close personal relationship with God. The Dhammapada of Buddhism is similar to the New Testament in the Bible in that they share a common sharing of the message for universal compassion, tolerance, and love.

The problem therein develops how can they all be wrong/right? Why would God only have one source of texts to enlighten/teach others?

Only one book contains the path of salvation.
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh to the Father, but by me." -John 14:6

[Emproph]

Legion, what is your score?
How many are you, more importantly how many of them recognize how many there are?
Each of us is a Nation State.

Intelligence is the ability to ORDER importance.

What truth do you fear you will lose if the Bible is with error? That’s the only question.

Does it mean that the reality of Love is no longer true or does it mean your personal salvation is no longer true?

Or is it that you’re so afraid there just might not be life after death of any kind that you are unwilling to even question it?

Have you considered these questions. If you haven’t it would make great sense as to why those who insist upon Biblical inerrancy do so with such fervor. Worse even then being wrong for a supremacist mind would be the fear of eternal cessation after death. O my F—ing God, Biblical inerrancy equals life after death. The inerrancy of the Bible is the only thing that is separating you from the conviction that there is no life after death. Is that what I am to understand?

Biblical inerrancy is needed to avoid the fear of the intolerable fear of the uncertainty of death. Yea, Nay?

[SolInvictus]

Legion: you didn't really answer my question. If anything, you avoided it.
By using a verse from a sacred text to support your claim is weak & lacks a reasonable response.

If you really want to get into semantics, that verse can be interpreted in many different contexts. If taken as fact literally, then Jesus could be interpreted as being Truth in context of not lying: by serving God in whatever incarnation, introduces the seeker to inner truth or common humanity. "Unto the father but by me" can be taken as we must ask him permission before going to our father or any father. The problem w/ taking the Bible literally is that it offers many interpretations & is devoid of being taken in the proper context from the cultural & historical perspective of the time.

When not taken literally, you can still believe God, and such the unity & diversity of God in the many sacred religions. If you are trying to prove myself & others wrong on this forum; its not working.

Besides, Jesus also says "may they all be One as I am in you and you in me."
We should be united in Christ, not divided. God's love is represented by the many religions, traditions, and many different individuals & cultures of the world. By denying the diversity of God, the individual may only see one side & miss the entire message.

In Christ's Love & Peace to You Legion.

[Legion]

Emproph:
If the Bible is in error I stand to lose everything. Yet I do not seek the "safety" that the World would try to sell me. He that seeks to save his life will lose it, said Jesu. The safety of this world is a lie and it leads only to death. There is a peril to walking the narrow path, yet a surety as well, because we do not make the journey in our own strength. To live the Christian life one must be willing to accept danger and to thrive on adventure. Life is not safe. Dragons and highwaymen lie in wait along the road. Tempests and fallen trees plague the way. Rather than hedging our bets and seeking comfort in dreary pluralism, the Christian must embrace the joyful arduousness of the One Way.

Hey SolInvictus:
Before continuing, it must be understood that I reject your nervous and shrill syncretism ENTIRELY. There are certainly many "sacred texts" in an anthropological sense, yet only one that is truly sacred, only one that is truely True, that being the Bible. There is no "diversity" of truth. There is one Way and one Truth. The Bible is extremely exclusive, clearly designating other religions (along with their various texts) as being false. Nor is Christianity unique in this regard. Most "sacred texts" are mutually exclusive. Christ does not compromise with idols and demons. The gospel of Christ is in essential conflict with any other religion. I am sorry to say that I cannot explain to you God's motives behind revealing Himself in the way that He has. I imagine it is not for mankind to understand the mysteries of God's eternal wisdom, or to plumb the depths of His counsel. It is our part to obey.

I suppose you find this very droll, and all rather rustic and backwards. I have tried to explain things and wish I could do better. But the Gospel is foolishness to the gentiles unless the Holy Spirit precedes it. If you are content with your shallow semantics and feel-good pluralism, then please ignore me from now on. If, however, you feel that your worldview could stand to benefit from discussing with me/us/the ninja-elf, then carry on.

[SolInvictus]

Ok Legion:
when speaking in the form of "us" and "we" designates more than one person. I apologize for any rudeness, but do you multiple personalities? If this is the case, please make an appointment w/ the psychiatrist.

Secondly, I live a very happy life, thank you. Do you? You haven't convinced me of anything, and I feel sorry for you. Exclusion, hatred, and discrimination always result in negative consequences. May God help you find peace.

In Christ's Love