Homophobia: The truth is out there.

Ezekiel 4:13 "And the Lord said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles whither I will drive them."

Some people will present the Bible in a disingenuous way to make their god sound less monstrous, but above is the quote and it says "the children of Israel", not just Ezekiel.

I personally believe (yes, Pandora, it's just an opinion!) that all those quotes from the Bible do not so much reflect GOD's words and wishes, but a few leaders in the Biblical times, who USED the pretence of "word of God" to get their own, very human interests (for greed, control, prejudice, etc. . .), satisfied.

Not much different from today's religious leaders, really!
 
Werbung:
I personally believe (yes, Pandora, it's just an opinion!) that all those quotes from the Bible do not so much reflect GOD's words and wishes, but a few leaders in the Biblical times, who USED the pretence of "word of God" to get their own, very human interests (for greed, control, prejudice, etc. . .), satisfied.

Not much different from today's religious leaders, really!

I concur, the Bible is riddled with things attributed to God that no self-respecting god would do, I think. Hating gay people is just one example. Ordering rape, genocide, and slavery are others.
 
Ezekiel 4:13 "And the Lord said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles whither I will drive them."

Some people will present the Bible in a disingenuous way to make their god sound less monstrous, but above is the quote and it says "the children of Israel", not just Ezekiel.


First of all lets not use a version that uses an archaic language and was translated in 1611.

The NIV translates that verse this way (anyone who wants can see this verse or any other translated in a half a dozen ways to compare and contrast by going to http://bible.cc/ezekiel/4-12.htm):

"The LORD said, "In this way the people of Israel will eat defiled food among the nations where I will drive them."

Which is completely consistent with what I said: That Ezekiel was told to eat to bread as a warning to the people (children of Isreal) that they would in the future have to eat bread cooked like that. Contrast the words "will" which mean in the future with the verse that speaks to Ezekiel:

"Eat the food as you would a loaf of barley bread; bake it in the sight of the people, using human excrement for fuel.” 13

This verse is in the present tense and is a command.

At the link above one can also find comments from theologians (often non-christian theologians) like this one:

"Thou shalt bake it with dung - Dried ox and cow dung is a common fuel in the east; and with this, for want of wood and coals, they are obliged to prepare their food. Indeed, dried excrement of every kind is gathered. Here, the prophet is to prepare his bread with dry human excrement. And when we know that this did not come in contact with the bread, and was only used to warm the plate, (see Ezekiel 4:3), on which the bread was laid over the fire, it removes all the horror and much of the disgust. This was required to show the extreme degree of wretchedness to which they should be exposed; for, not being able to leave the city to collect the dried excrements of beasts, the inhabitants during the siege would be obliged, literally, to use dried human ordure for fuel. The very circumstances show that this was the plain fact of the case. However, we find that the prophet was relieved from using this kind of fuel, for cow's dung was substituted at his request. See Ezekiel 4:15. "
 
First of all lets not use a version that uses an archaic language and was translated in 1611.

The NIV translates that verse this way (anyone who wants can see this verse or any other translated in a half a dozen ways to compare and contrast by going to http://bible.cc/ezekiel/4-12.htm):

"The LORD said, "In this way the people of Israel will eat defiled food among the nations where I will drive them."

Which is completely consistent with what I said: That Ezekiel was told to eat to bread as a warning to the people (children of Isreal) that they would in the future have to eat bread cooked like that. Contrast the words "will" which mean in the future with the verse that speaks to Ezekiel:

"Eat the food as you would a loaf of barley bread; bake it in the sight of the people, using human excrement for fuel.” 13

This verse is in the present tense and is a command.

At the link above one can also find comments from theologians (often non-christian theologians) like this one:

"Thou shalt bake it with dung - Dried ox and cow dung is a common fuel in the east; and with this, for want of wood and coals, they are obliged to prepare their food. Indeed, dried excrement of every kind is gathered. Here, the prophet is to prepare his bread with dry human excrement. And when we know that this did not come in contact with the bread, and was only used to warm the plate, (see Ezekiel 4:3), on which the bread was laid over the fire, it removes all the horror and much of the disgust. This was required to show the extreme degree of wretchedness to which they should be exposed; for, not being able to leave the city to collect the dried excrements of beasts, the inhabitants during the siege would be obliged, literally, to use dried human ordure for fuel. The very circumstances show that this was the plain fact of the case. However, we find that the prophet was relieved from using this kind of fuel, for cow's dung was substituted at his request. See Ezekiel 4:15. "


I am glad that you are admitting that the Bible has been changed so often both through translations and interpretation, that there is just no way it can possibly be the LITERAL word of God, and that it is today mostly men's interpretation that is strongly influenced by cultures, era, language, and. . .human will!

Basically, for me, this is the key point of this whole discussion! Almost any "spin" can be put on the Bible.
 
Your implication is that it is never to be taken literally. There are times when it should be taken literally like when it says that Jesus walked down a road and times when it should be taken figuratively like when it says that Jesus is a door.

Yes, literally when it says you should love your neighbor as yourself. Figurative when it talks about miracles. When you read about universal floods and the entire human race springing from two individuals, it is to be taken as allegory.
 
First of all lets not use a version that uses an archaic language and was translated in 1611.

The NIV translates that verse this way (anyone who wants can see this verse or any other translated in a half a dozen ways to compare and contrast by going to http://bible.cc/ezekiel/4-12.htm):

"The LORD said, "In this way the people of Israel will eat defiled food among the nations where I will drive them."

Which is completely consistent with what I said: That Ezekiel was told to eat to bread as a warning to the people (children of Isreal) that they would in the future have to eat bread cooked like that. Contrast the words "will" which mean in the future with the verse that speaks to Ezekiel:

"Eat the food as you would a loaf of barley bread; bake it in the sight of the people, using human excrement for fuel.” 13

This verse is in the present tense and is a command.

At the link above one can also find comments from theologians (often non-christian theologians) like this one:

"Thou shalt bake it with dung - Dried ox and cow dung is a common fuel in the east; and with this, for want of wood and coals, they are obliged to prepare their food. Indeed, dried excrement of every kind is gathered. Here, the prophet is to prepare his bread with dry human excrement. And when we know that this did not come in contact with the bread, and was only used to warm the plate, (see Ezekiel 4:3), on which the bread was laid over the fire, it removes all the horror and much of the disgust. This was required to show the extreme degree of wretchedness to which they should be exposed; for, not being able to leave the city to collect the dried excrements of beasts, the inhabitants during the siege would be obliged, literally, to use dried human ordure for fuel. The very circumstances show that this was the plain fact of the case. However, we find that the prophet was relieved from using this kind of fuel, for cow's dung was substituted at his request. See Ezekiel 4:15. "

Dried cow dung has been used as a fuel for centuries. Nothing strange at all about that. As for baking bread with excrement, that would have to have been the meaning.
 
men who protest too much are apparently secretly gay, and also like to share biblical recipes for crap?

Wow the truth IS strange. Lol.
 
I am glad that you are admitting that the Bible has been changed so often both through translations and interpretation, that there is just no way it can possibly be the LITERAL word of God, and that it is today mostly men's interpretation that is strongly influenced by cultures, era, language, and. . .human will!

Basically, for me, this is the key point of this whole discussion! Almost any "spin" can be put on the Bible.

Translations are not perfect but they never result in a change in the original any more than a poor photocopy creates a poor original. A translation may not literally be the word of god but the existence of translations in no way effects whether or not the originals are the word of God.

Likewise, an interpretation is just what you or I or someone thinks when they read either a translation or an original of any document in existence. When someone interprets something poorly that does not mean that the original is not the word of God.

Is our understanding of the original less than perfect? Yes. For a variety of reasons. That does not mean that the original or even our translations and even our interpretations lack any merit.

Yes, spin can be put on just about anything. sometimes that spin is wrong and sometimes an interpretation is closer to truth. Sometimes real close to truth.
 
Yes, literally when it says you should love your neighbor as yourself. Figurative when it talks about miracles. When you read about universal floods and the entire human race springing from two individuals, it is to be taken as allegory.

Those would be your interpretations. Interpretations that if we listed a thousand you and I and many people probably would agree upon most of the time.

Love your neighbor as yourself. Yes I agree it should be literal. Except that it is a simile. Aren't all similes meant to be taken figuratively? So it is a a figurative language used to express a literal truth?

Universal floods. I agree that we should not see a literal universal flood in the bible. But I do think that we should see a large local and literal flood.

Entire human race from two individuals. Are you a proponent of multiple lines of evolution creating the human race? Did one line of evolution take place in Africa and then another line of evolution created humans in Asia?
 
Those would be your interpretations. Interpretations that if we listed a thousand you and I and many people probably would agree upon most of the time.

Yes, those are my interpretations.

Love your neighbor as yourself. Yes I agree it should be literal. Except that it is a simile. Aren't all similes meant to be taken figuratively? So it is a a figurative language used to express a literal truth?

Absolutely. It is a simile, yes, and it does express a literal truth.

Universal floods. I agree that we should not see a literal universal flood in the bible. But I do think that we should see a large local and literal flood.

It could be story of a local flood, could be a rewrite of the Epic of Gilgamesh, or it could be a fable. We don't know which, nor does it really matter. What isn't possible is a literal universal flood.

Entire human race from two individuals. Are you a proponent of multiple lines of evolution creating the human race? Did one line of evolution take place in Africa and then another line of evolution created humans in Asia?

No, I don't think there were multiple lines of evolution. Were that the case, there would be a lot more genetic diversity in the human genome. One line of evolution does not mean only two individuals starting the human race, however.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top