I brought up the violence advocated in the bible to make the point that when the bible endorses immoral things like violence, homophobia, and prejudice it is not being figurative. There is no hidden message in Lev 20:13 when it says "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."
So, you are suggesting that Leviticus, which is part of Jewish law for the people of Israel some thousands of years ago, is prescribed for all people, in all place, in all times? I don't recall that from the Bible.
It doesn't stop with the Old Testament either. The New Testament continues these statements. There is no hidden, mystical message when 1 Tim 1:9-10 equates homosexuals with those who kill their fathers and mothers. There is no hidden message in Rom 1:26-27 when it says men with men shall receive a due penalty for their error.
Actually, 1 Timothy 1:9-10 does not equate homosexuals with people who murder their mothers and fathers: it says that the law is made for sinners, and not for the righteous.
Also, you may note the issue of translation in the passage.
And yes, the Romans passage says that homosexuals will receive their due penalty: so what? It does not say "go forth and hate homosexuals", and even if it did, the sayings of Jesus have a bit more bearing than the commentary of others and Jesus taught to love thy neighbor as thy self. Jesus did not qualify that statement with "except for gays."
Before you try to make arguments with minutiae, perhaps paying attention to the core teaching would be a good idea. If you cannot grasp the basics, the more complex issues will be out of reach.
My point is that you have an uncanny inability to see the other side of the coin when it comes to religious doctrine, specifically the Judeo-Christian tradition, and that affects our debate. You arguments in denial of the bible's moral inadequecies are the most apologetic things I've ever heard.
So, in essence, you are saying you disagree with me. No offense, but that's pretty obvious. Restating the fact that we disagree does not contribute to our discussion. I could just as easily accuse you of not being able to "see the other side of the coin"; me doing so would accomplish nothing.
It is philosophically primitive because of its endorsement of supernaturalism, its unverified claims, it's ethical inferiority, and because of its archaism. I call it primitive because its claims are an expression of the intellectual infancy of our species.Depending on the context in which it is used, primitive is not always a derogatory word, but in this case it is.
Ah, so now the Bible is philosophically primitive for some other reasons... interesting shifting premises, hue-man.
"You said that Christians, because of the bible, believe that homosexuals are going to Hell. I showed you how this is untrue based on the Bible. Sorry, but reading the book is probably best if you want to make arguments based on the book."
My point is that many Christians believe that homosexuals are going to hell because of their religious doctrine! The bible condemns homosexuals right alongside murderers. Stop with the apologetics! I gave you verse after verse of the bible condemning homosexuality as a sin.
Did you skip the verse where it says all sins are equal in the eyes of God? Convenient, eh? Now recall: as all men are sinners, and as all sins are equally sinful (there is no hierarchy of sins), being a homosexual is no worse than coveting or any other sin that most of us commit on a daily basis.
So, even if homosexuality is a sin, homosexuals are, according to the Bible, no worse than anyone else alive.
I didn't say anything about redemption. Redemption comes after condemnation, not the other way around. The idea of redemption does not invalidate my statement about homosexuals being condemned to hell.
This is the first of my comments on this topic that you responded to:
Right, I brought up redemption because it is relevant to the conversation. And yes, redemption does invalidate your statement: because of redemption, no one is condemned to Hell.
You are missing sight of the whole point of discussion. My point that the bible contains the three things I stated is true, and I gave you the damn verses as reference. Why can't you just admit that the bible condemns homosexuality as a sin, and even claims that such an offense is punishable by death?
Except there is no homophobia, instead certain passages sight homosexuality as a sin. They two are not the same. Second, you said prejudice, and then provided no support. Then self-righteousness and again no support.
Didymos, your mystical, metaphorical interpretation of the bible is the common tactic of that intellectual tapdance that we call theology. The bible makes direct references to the afterlife; a place where all are destined to go after death, not the spiritual peace of mind or spiritual chaos that you're going for. The last time a Jahovah's witness knocked on my door I told them that heaven and hell are not real, and that the only heaven and hell there was, was right here on earth; the chaos or peace that man makes for himself and his fellow man. That is not what she meant when she asked me about hell.
The Bible does mention an afterlife, but the afterlife mentioned is not Heaven and Hell. It's Sheol (my spelling is probably off). You were right when you said the only Heaven and Hell exist here on Earth: it's odd, don't you think, that Jesus said the same thing?