What kind of clarification would you accept?

Matt Powell [the so-called Christian preacher] is hardly the first Christian moralizer to bring to the fore passages from Leviticus (and elsewhere) and propose that they be put into effect. He has heathen brothers in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and elsewhere who have similar ideas.

Gay Christians found there were satisfactory methods of disposing of scriptures like this without rejecting the whole Bible. There are, in fact, quite a few passages in the Bible--various authoritative pronouncements--which very few people feel obligated to consider.

Why doesn't God come down and clear up any misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations of his text? Why doesn't He tell us what he actually meant by these verses, and how to live by them? — chatterbears

A Christian ought to know that God, in the second person of the Trinity, did clarify what he meant: "Love one another as I have loved you." Agape.

I'm pretty sure that the creator of the universe fully understood what the likelihood was that humankind would get and keep any message straight, so to speak: close to nil. Look, if the Jesus couldn't adequately clarify things, (and Jesus was God)... well, there you have it.

I'm not quite sure why Mr. Powell's problem is. He could be self-hating, or maybe he is just a hateful bastard looking for targets.

A clearer route to dealing with God's information management problems would be to recognize that God is our creation, not the other way around, and no one should ever be surprised that we are inconsistent. As Kant said, "Nothing straight was ever constructed with the crooked timber of mankind."

[

Why doesn't He tell us what he actually meant by these verses, and how to live by them? — chatterbears

I asked Him about this ages ago, and He explained it like this: "Life would be very dull if all the answers were given in advance, like a crossword puzzle that's already filled in." Thus saith the Lord.

Is it a better world if God came on the evening news - stopped the world spinning for an hour and cleared up all the confusions ?

Do we become a world of saints, or a world of sheep?

Some might argue he isnt real enough to do so.

What kind of clarification would you accept? — Txastopher

Enough clarification to not allow different people to interpret things differently.

Look, if the Jesus couldn't adequately clarify things, (and Jesus was God)... well, there you have it. — Bitter Crank

Jesus seemed to make things worse. Telling slaves to obey their masters, which seems to be an indirect condoning of slavery. If he did not condone it, he would have said, "Masters, free all of your slaves"

I asked Him about this ages ago, and He explained it like this: "Life would be very dull if all the answers were given in advance, like a crossword puzzle that's already filled in." Thus saith the Lord. — unenlightened

Nobody wants all the answers. I want clarification for the word he has presented as the most meaningful doctrine of all time. It would be like a crossword puzzle without any indication of what to fill the puzzle with. It would be like a crossword puzzle saying, " #1 Across is 9jfj093k90f09k290kkf0 " - When a passage can be interpreted in an endless amount of ways, the understanding of that passage becomes irrelevant. Because it is then about who has the right interpretation, rather than who has the correct message and who lives by the correct message. Because if God gave us the correct message, we still don't necessarily have to abide by his message. But at least we would know what he actually meant and wants us to live by. Right now, we just have millions of believers who form different religions and sects based on what they think God means.

Is it a better world if God came on the evening news - stopped the world spinning for an hour and cleared up all the confusions ?

Do we become a world of saints, or a world of sheep? — Rank Amateur

We become a world of informed people. As I stated before, just because God clears up what he really meant by his message, doesn't mean people would follow him. Satan is a perfect example of this, as Satan had more evidence than we ever would of God's existence, as well as God's plan and God's wants. Yet Satan still went against what God told him, and is now neither a saint or a sheep.

Some might argue he isnt real enough to do so. — SherlockH

If God is real, he either doesn't care about spreading his message in the most accurate and well-received way as possible. Or, he plays favorites and only reveals his true message to certain people of specific religions and denominations.

We become a world of informed people. As I stated before, just because God clears up what he really meant by his message, doesn't mean people would follow him. Satan is a perfect example of this, as Satan had more evidence than we ever would of God's existence, as well as God's plan and God's wants. Yet Satan still went against what God told him, and is now neither a saint o — chatterbears

God stops the world from turning tells people all that eternal bliss stuff if you love one another is right, and the alternative, well not so good.

Who is not a follower now? Well everyone who is not an idiot is, but is there any choice now? Does it have any value? Is it paradise or prison? Do your 80 years, get your ticket punched. Are you still a human being with any kind of free will? Does your acts of kindness even matter now, if there is no choice not to.

How is it that so few people have noticed that Christianity only works if the world is about to end imminently?

Telling slaves to obey their masters, which seems to be an indirect condoning of slavery. If he did not condone it, he would have said, "Masters, free all of your slaves" — chatterbears

Maybe you are think of Paul: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Ephesians 6:5

So my question stands. The creator of the universe believed that his messaged would be most accurately accepted by inspiring a book that would be misinterpreted over centuries. And instead of coming down and clearing up the genuine confusion that some believers have, he allows the confusion to continue. This confusion causes further conflict between believers themselves, and creates a larger gap between the non-believers. — chatterbears

The deeper you delve into Christianity the more you'll find that its mystique is both its strongest and weakest link. And you're right to be flummoxed by the bits that don't fit. But, I don't see how you can be a Christian and pick and choose what you like, a la Thomas Jefferson. In the end you'll end up with people like in the OP who don't see a way out of the predicament and endorse damn near everything.

The creator of the universe believed that his messaged would be most accurately accepted by inspiring a book that would be misinterpreted over centuries. — chatterbears

The bible doesn't mention the universe. nor does it mention anything God believes. The bible is a collection of books written by people on their interpretation how people should act.

Why doesn't God come down and clear up any misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations of his text? — chatterbears

Why assume God doesn't? I see God doing so all the time, it's just that many people refuse to listen.

If God is real, he either doesn't care about spreading his message in the most accurate and well-received way as possible. Or, he plays favorites and only reveals his true message to certain people of specific religions and denominations. — chatterbears

Yes, He has revealed His true message to me, and to anyone who will listen:

Lo, and God spake unto them saying, "Play nice, children." But some of them pretended that they were His special favourites, and that He had said privily to them that He did not like those with ye carrot tops and spread like falsehoods about Him.

And low, He came down to Earth and declared that that was all bollocks, and all he wanted was for everyone to play nice together, and have ye good time, and in His own person He shewed it plain, that ye should continue to play nice even if they crucify you.

And though He showed it and said it many times, yet they continued to make up more bollocks, and low, Jesus bloody wept.

Why assume God doesn't? I see God doing so all the time, it's just that many people refuse to listen. — Tomseltje

Example?

People pick and choose from the Bible from all sides.

Can you really not lose respect for MLK if you have disdain for Joel Olsteen?

Olsteen runs around telling people, “God wants you to be rich!!!”

Where did he get that from? The Gospel according to Goldman Sachs?

Jesus was pretty clear that his followers were to put aside concern for earthly treasures and start building heavenly treasures.

How exactly can King be excused for invoking Christianity to call for economic justice, ie a call for a fair share of earthly treasure he was told to eschew?

His Lord did not have a place to lay his head and had his ass nailed to a cross. A lot of his followers seem to think their cross is managing a mortgage and 401k plan...

What kind of clarification would you accept?
— Txastopher

Enough clarification to not allow different people to interpret things differently. — chatterbears

Let's say God did appear and said that, "yes, homosexuals should be euthanised". Would this make you change your mind?

Who is not a follower now? Well everyone who is not an idiot is, but is there any choice now? Does it have any value? Is it paradise or prison? Do your 80 years, get your ticket punched. Are you still a human being with any kind of free will? Does your acts of kindness even matter now, if there is no choice not to. — Rank Amateur

I don't understand what this has anything to do with what I said. If God cleared up the confusion in the Bible from believers interpreting it differently, why would that violate anyone's free will?

Maybe you are think of Paul: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Ephesians 6:5 — Bitter Crank

Either way, the New Testament condones slavery. Correct?

In the end you'll end up with people like in the OP who don't see a way out of the predicament and endorse damn near everything. — Buxtebuddha

Agreed.

Why assume God doesn't? I see God doing so all the time, it's just that many people refuse to listen. — Tomseltje

Give an example of this?

Let's say God did appear and said that, "yes, homosexuals should be euthanised". Would this make you change your mind? — Txastopher

I would then have the proper knowledge as to what he (God) means. And anyone who goes against that, would clearly be wrong in how they interpret his message. I wouldn't follow God's commands, because I don't want harm anyone. But if he came and cleared up all this confusion between religions, at least we wouldn't have religious people fighting with each other on what they think God says. It would create a better world overall, and much less conflict between religious groups. Religion would become 1 True religion, instead of thousands of interpretive ones.

I don't understand what this has anything to do with what I said. If God cleared up the confusion in the Bible from believers interpreting it differently, why would that violate anyone's free will? — chatterbears

If God made Himself unequivocally known, Pascal's wager becomes a sure thing.

Let's say God did appear and said that, "yes, homosexuals should be euthanised". Would this make you change your mind?
— Txastopher

I would then have the proper knowledge as to what he (God) means. And anyone who goes against that, would clearly be wrong in how they interpret his message. I wouldn't follow God's commands, because I don't want harm anyone. But if he came and cleared up all this confusion between religions, at least we wouldn't have religious people fighting with each other on what they think God says. It would create a better world overall, and much less conflict between religious groups. Religion would become 1 True religion, instead of thousands of interpretive ones. — chatterbears

So what you're saying is that you want god to appear and clarify his wishes, but if he demands anything that you don't like, you won't do it. What do you need the clarification for? Either god is the ultimate moral authority or he isn't. If he is, you do what he says. If he isn't, his clarification is redundant.

What kind of clarification would you accept? — Txastopher

Don't know. Maybe show up for supper on occasion? We're personable hosts, supper's on us. Oh, and grant me omnipotence for a bit, the fun I'd have. :) All-knowing includes knowing such stuff.

Let's say God did appear and said that, "yes, homosexuals should be euthanised". Would this make you change your mind? — Txastopher

Maybe an appropriate response could be: "Well, you best get on with your dirty work, then."
According to some stories, I guess it wouldn't be the first time.

Either way, humans clearly aren't reliable.
Sathya Sai Baba claimed to be a Shiva avatar, and has 100,000s of followers (actually might be in the millions) across the globe, some of whom claim to have witnessed him doing supernatural magic. Some Abrahamic religious folk, on the other hand, claim it's all demonic, followers bound for the grand BBQ. Go figure.
Suppose I was to take the countless fantastic supernatural human babble serious. My head would be filled with just about anything imaginable, mutually incompatible, incoherent babble.

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. — Thomas Jefferson (1787)

If God made Himself unequivocally known, Pascal's wager becomes a sure thing. — Rank Amateur

Assuming s/he/it made their demands and identity clear, and that no trickery was afoot.

Either way, the New Testament condones slavery. Correct? — chatterbears

The New Testament was written a certain time and in a certain place, and the New Testament writers were restricted in their thinking by the reality that they knew. As it happens, 21st century philosophy bloggers blog in a certain time and a certain place, and are restricted in their thinking to what they know. Just as what we natter on about here should not be taken as the foundation of all future thought, the New Testament is not the foundation of all future thought, either. Slavery disappeared in much of the Roman Empire (as it collapsed) because it no longer made economic sense. It didn't make any difference to Christians whether Paul accepted or condoned slavery, or not.

Similarly with respect to homosexuality. "Homosexuality" as such is a modern (mid-19th century) concept. Men desiring and having sex with other men has been in existence for a long time--long before, and long after, the New Testament was written. Paul had his view; at other times, in other places, (not just in the present) sex amongst men was was viewed more tolerantly than at other times.

in my own life, the official public attitude towards sex amongst men has changed greatly since the 1950s. Westerners have moved from viewing it very negatively to viewing it with at least slightly positive connotations. Many heterosexual people now accept it as normal and healthy. There have been previous episodes of relative acceptance (and condemnation) between Roman times and the present.

What applies to the issue of slavery and homosexuality (both peripheral issues in the NT) doesn't apply to the NT as a foundational document of the faith. The church was already in existence when the NT was composed, and the church had a hand it composing and editing it. It doesn't matter what anybody in the New Testament thought about peripheral issues like slavery, prostitution, adultery, eating pork and shellfish, temple worship, or lots of other stuff. What mattered to the New Testament writers is that Jesus was the risen Christ, and that the job of the church was to continue the ministry of the Apostles. Period.

under the assumption he is real that seems to be the case. Under the assumption he is not we really have nothing to talk to. However the notion had to come from sonewhere so clearly at one time something gave people an idea there was something there. Yet I dont understand the reasoning for the disappearance of that thing.

Example? — Kamikaze Butter

Every time people talk to each other with the result that they better understanding each other.

Give an example of this? — chatterbears

Answer the question?

I may have to rewrite my book in order to clear up any misunderstandings.

Regards,

God

If God made Himself unequivocally known, Pascal's wager becomes a sure thing. — Rank Amateur

Quite the opposite. Blaise Pascal said that it is not possible to prove or disprove that God exists. Therefore, it is better to bet that God exists. If God made himself unequivocally known, Pascal's wager would be irrelevant and not applicable.

So what you're saying is that you want god to appear and clarify his wishes, but if he demands anything that you don't like, you won't do it. What do you need the clarification for? Either god is the ultimate moral authority or he isn't. If he is, you do what he says. If he isn't, his clarification is redundant. — Txastopher

People think I am Christian, or a God believer. I am in fact an Atheist. My morality is based on secular principles, so I wouldn't adhere to a God, whether he exists or not. I need the clarification, if a God actually exists, for the people who believe in him. His believers have created wars and segregation throughout the centuries, mostly based on what they think God means or wants for humanity. One church interprets God's word in one way, while another church interprets God's word in another way. In the US, a vast majority of the population are God believers. Many of these people have used their religious beliefs to enact laws that discriminate against people, based on what they think God wants. Beliefs inform your actions, and if your beliefs aren't even accurate, maybe God should come down to clarify that for his believers. As stated before, this would cause much less confusion, much less harm and much less segregation among believers.

What mattered to the New Testament writers is that Jesus was the risen Christ, and that the job of the church was to continue the ministry of the Apostles. Period. — Bitter Crank

For clarification purposes, are you Christian? My question/statement was still not addressed. It blatantly clear that the old testament endorses slavery, such as in Exodus 21. And the new testament doesn't seem to have any problem with slavery as well. So as a general idea, the Bible condones/endorses slavery. Correct?

Answer the question? — Tomseltje

Your question was asking me why I assume he hasn't. I never assume he hasn't, I have stated I am not convinced he has. If you have proof/evidence that he has, please provide it. You claim he has, so I asked for an example.

When the bible was written, thousands of yeas ago, the ancient people did not have all the modern medical bells and whistles to treat STD's. Therefore, if you got a STD, such as AIDS, nature would have to run its course. This could lead to discomfort at best or birth defects and death at worse. Gay behavior, back in the day, was a disease waiting to happen; sodomy, with very serious consequences for the community. There was no medical way to deal with it. However, the ancients understood the cause and affect and addressed behavior.

Picture the 1980's, but without any modern medicine, when the Gay community was dropping like flies due to AIDS. If this had been thousands of years ago, these deaths would have been seen as a sign from God, that this particulate behavior was not acceptable; wage of sin was death. Modern medicine allows humans to cheat the cause and affects of nature.

I can eat rocks if I had the resources to hire dentists and internal medicine doctors to keep me going. Then, since I appear to be doing fine, with this prosthesis, I assume rocking eating is natural, without any permanent consequence. Medicine makes money off unnatural choices.

Those who are taught to think in terms of revisionist history, try to apply the modern cheating of nature to the past, before human knew how to cheat with science and medicine. The revisionists historians wonder why the caveman did not do a Google search and find a free clinic. Revisionist history thinking then leads to questions that make the common sense of the past, appear irrational.

If you read the old Testament, you don't find anything written, similar, about lesbians. The reason is, this was not a main highway to serious diseases, that could then spread to the community.

We could run a national experiment, where we stop producing condoms and we stop treating all STD's for one year. We will try to simulate the past and let nature run its course. We can then observe what happens and come up with national guidelines, in terms of the cause and affect of behavior and the willful path needed to avoid sickness and death for the community. Then we compare this to the bible. God already made the path of health, clear in terms of the natural world. He was not addressing the artificial world of medical prosthesis and revisionist history.

If God made Himself unequivocally known, Pascal's wager becomes a sure thing.
— Rank Amateur

Quite the opposite. Blaise Pascal said that it is not possible to prove or disprove that God exists. Therefore, it is better to bet that God exists. If God made himself unequivocally known, Pascal's wager would be irrelevant and not applicable. — chatterbears

Seems we are in violent agreement. Well except for that "quite the opposite part"

People think I am Christian, or a God believer. I am in fact an Atheist. My morality is based on secular principles, so I wouldn't adhere to a God, whether he exists or not. — chatterbears

Wow! You really are dogmatic. So if God did put in an appearance, as per your request, you still wouldn't believe in him.

I need the clarification, if a God actually exists, for the people who believe in him. — chatterbears

They must be overjoyed with your concern for them.

His believers have created wars and segregation throughout the centuries, mostly based on what they think God means or wants for humanity. — chatterbears

People have always interpreted religious texts in order to rationalise their prejudices. People do exactly the same with any texts; scientific, philosophical, legal etc.that presume to speak with authority. We have an entire professional class of jurists dedicated to the constant interpretation and reinterpretation of the law, supposedly, the ne plus ultra of unambiguous language. What makes you think that anything god could say would not be open to convenient interpretations and provide yet more material for confirmation biases?

When the bible was written, thousands of yeas ago, the ancient people did not have all the modern medical bells and whistles to treat STD's. Therefore, if you got a STD, such as AIDS, nature would have to run its course. This could lead to discomfort at best or birth defects and death at worse. Gay behavior, back in the day, was a disease waiting to happen; sodomy, with very serious consequences for the community. There was no medical way to deal with it. However, the ancients understood the cause and affect and addressed behavior. — wellwisher

This has got to be one the most ill-informed posts of all time.

As Txastopher noted, a most ill-informed post. Maybe not of all time, but still...

If you read the old Testament, you don't find anything written, similar, about lesbians. The reason is, this was not a main highway to serious diseases, that could then spread to the community. — wellwisher

Ancient Jews did not have a vector model of disease (like, mosquitos being a vector or carrier of malaria). That people were a vector of disease was, likewise, not part of their world view. Being "unclean" or having a very vaguely defined 'leprosy' was as much a spiritual matter as it was a physical matter. Some ancient Greek and Roman physicians had a slightly better understanding of disease, but not much.

We have a specific definition of leprosy. Ancient people had no good way to distinguish between all the various kinds of skin rashes and infections. Real leprosy did exist at the time, and was a serious disease then as now, but lots of other things were counted as leprosy too.

People would not have a clear understanding of disease causation, disease transmission, and cure for another 1700 years, at least. Robert Koch tied up the loose ends of infection as recently as 1875.

The Jewish lawmakers of the millennium prior to the common era were concerned about the social and spiritual health of the community. Strange acts (a man lying with men as with women, etc.) violated social and spiritual norms. Of course, 'homosexuals by our definition' existed in all times, but homosexual behavior didn't have a defined role in Jewish society the way it did in Greek or Roman society.

Which sexually transmitted diseases were prevalent among ancient Jews isn't clear. AIDS certainly was not, syphilis was most likely not; gonorrhea--maybe, warts, yes. Gonorrhea and warts are both diseases whose visible presence can disappear after the acute stage. For that matter, so can syphilis' acute symptoms. Any sequelae would be counted as another disease. Not only would be counted as another disease, would have to be counted as another disease, because they had no way to connect early symptoms to symptoms several months or years later.

Read more history of the ancient world; investigate ancient ideas of disease. Get an understanding of the difference between "spiritual and community health" and "physical health".