Some questions for the truly Biblical

[pantonality]

I know some on this forum accept the Bible as inerrant and providing valid guidance for life today. I realize these questions are rhetorical and point out aspects of the Bible that do not apply to life today. However, if we accept that the Bible is in any way imapplicable to mdern life then we have to accept that judgment is required regarding where to draw that line. You cannot have it both ways, if I can't own Canadians (see question #1), then you can't ascribe to a homophobic outlook and use the Bible as justification. Besides I enjoy lobster, I just can't usually afford it.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev.11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14).


So i hope this will provide food for thought for all of us. The way I see it is that words and writing codify beliefs and mindsets that should be open to change. The whole not trimming the hair on your temples is an example of a fashion from thousands of years ago that is so passe that only a fanatic would adhere to it. Yet such people are out there doing just that as a demonstration of their religious devotion. I must confess to having had the hair on my temples (and elsewhere) trimmed last month (maybe I need to do that again soon). Am I really in danger?

Steve

[thalbergmad]

Awaits the 96 page reply by pianistimo.

[jason2711]

1) your friend is misinformed, Canadians are acceptable, providing they were captured/sold and bought outside of Canada

2) depends on which country you're selling her in... I'm guessing the USA so my advice is to auction her off on Ebay

3) the woman should live with you if you are to have contact with her.  Keep a check on her supply of sanitary towels.  If the number is diminishing, you know she is in this unclean period.

4) yes... smite them good

5) its probably best to report them to the police... if you kill them without backing you may be subject to the eye-for-an eye rule in found in exodus 20-21

6) no, every abomination is equally as abominable

7) no wiggle-room, it must be 20/20 (i have 20/20 vision in one eye only, and rue the fact that i am unable to approach the altar)

8 ) decapitation... their impure hair style will no longer taint their soul that way

9) providing the gloves are not leather... yes

10) incineration would be acceptable

[Derek]

christianophobe.     Wouldn't it be funny if christianity became the mainstream culture again and we started a big witch hunt of christianophobes rather than homophobes? Turning the tables can be the sweetest vengeance. Yes yes, I know that already happened, but after we go into the dark ages again by subscribing to corrupt modernist populist moralities, something savage and brutal will have to whip us into shape again in order to become civilized once more.

I figured it'd be more productive to make people laugh than to actually have a discussion.

[pianistimo]

these threads do bring humor to ones day.  but, literally, the question remains - why did God allow slavery?  if you think about it, we're all slaves in one sort or another unless you're at the top.  you go to work.  are you really a worker when they fire a couple people and make you work twice as hard to keep your job (taking on their jobs plus your own)?  will a world economy equalize everyone, or will it still put people who think alike at the top, and people who disagree at the bottom (or just do them in).   if one day you were asked to put a chip in your arm or hand, would you just follow orders?  of course, twentieth century slaves aren't whipped (that i know of). 

i think God must have known basic human nature.  to rule is to have some authority - and hopefully have a sense of justice.  to be ruled is to assume that you like the way things are and are not planning a revolution because your needs are not met.  i don't know if there actually can be an agreeable government where everyone is TRULY equal - except in God's kingdom to come (where those who wish to be leaders are told to serve the others).  usually, it's the slaves that serve the masters.  Christ gave us an example of leadership that is totally the opposite of most forms of government.  to find out the needs and even wants of the people governed and meet them quickly.  to converse with them a lot.  to find ways to make life manageable instead of complicated. 

i do kind of think the world would be a better place if it were more agricultural again and people knew how food got to the table.  eliminating unnatural foods might actually help people have less cancer.  and, if the bible was followed as an example of how one keeps clean we wouldn't eat 'unclean' meat (i understand the arguments, but most unclean meat is the scavenging kind of animal - cleans the ocean floor like shrimp, lobster, crab)  if people didn't eat this - would they have less cancer?  i don't know.  God makes the rules.  i don't think this particular rule is a mortal sin - just a health precaution.  and, notice, it was given only to israel.  and, in the milleneum, i don't think meat will be eaten at all.  the world will be at peace in a much deeper way and the animals will be at peace with us and visa-versa.

for cleanliness - i think God was allowing women time to 'refresh.'  the womb is an awesome creation, but needs time to cleanse itself (which is what a menstrual cycle does).  a woman may develop infection if she isn't given time to allow the bodies natural cycles to cleanse herself.  and, it gives a man something to be disciplined about - and a way to show a woman consideration - to still be loving and kind and not expect sex every moment.  women just like being close, talking, sharing, kissing, etc. but not always (especially when you are tired) sex.  i think it makes it better when you do have it.  that's just my take - and some women may disagree.  especially with the advent of condoms which don't carry risk of infection unless they break.  but, you still have the idea of being patient and not demanding a lot.  in fact, giving her more consideration - maybe cooking a meal or doing something for her when she's not feeling so well.  if you think about it, if the woman isn't pregnant, she's losing 1/9th of a baby's blood - which could make a person anemic if they don't take enough nutrition in and aren't cared for.

i do believe there are degrees of abomination...but this is speaking only from biblical readings and not according to the laws we live by today.  if i speak what the bible says, it would say that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God (unless they change).  are they any worse than thieves, liars, adulterers, fornicaters, sabbath breakers, etc.  i don't think so.  that's why Christ died for us.  to save us from our sins.  but, if we keep on sinning --there isn't anymore sacrifice when God says there is no more.  the door shuts, and we are looking for some oil to light our lamps at a time when we could have already had some oil in them.  if your light goes out, just ask for some more right now (unbelief).  there's a place where someone asks God to 'help their unbelief.'  that would mean that they realize it's not in themselves to do right always.  patterns and habits are often hard to break.  i think eating shellfish is a minimal habit to break and one that would be much lower on the list than a man trying to overcome his tendency to enjoy being like a female, or a female trying to be like a male.  it's just unnatural in God's creation.  that's all.  it's trying to make something what it naturally isn't.

many things to be curious about in terms of what things we think are completely natural to our minds.  there's a scripture about 'the natural man.'  this is the romantic era's version (where people turned away from the church for guidance and direction in their lives and made their own way).  now, in the 20-21st century, we are 'modernist' but have many 'dillemas' medically, morally, socially, etc.  so our knowledge is still modified by that factor that only the bible can answer.  if we will be judged by God for what we do, then we take the idea that discipline can be good.  if we don't judge ourselves, we're told that someday we will be judged by our words and deeds.  (as they 'follow with us')  of course, we can't just excuse ourselves from the world and go off into a convent or cave.  so, we have to make some decisions as to what would be culturally acceptable where we live, and ask God to cover our sins if someone offers us some food or drink that we normally wouldn't eat or drink.   the only thing that is not allowed is to eat 'food offerred to idols, fornication, and drinking blood.'  basically, avoiding people who worship demons instead of God. 

things that we see on ourselves (ie makeup, tattoos, hair coloring, styles) can't hide our basic selves.  and, if you grow in Christ, you start trying to make yourself after his image of male/female.  there are certain things that probably don't matter so much to God as our character.  say, if a person looks like a motorcycle gang member, but takes care of someone along the road - or a woman has extremely short hair, but acts in a feminine way - he and she probably won't be judged by the lesser law, but the weightier matters of the law.  since God himself says there are 'weightier matters' we have to judge for ourselves what they are.  i think it's basic love to God and neighbor.  and, if God told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more, it proves there may be more recovered prostitutes, homosexuals, alcoholics, murderers (where there is remorse), whatever in God's kingdom than seemingly 'righteous' people.  He came to heal the 'sick' - and not those who are 'well' or seem to be without humility.

ps i do think of these things as having a 'cure.'  many times you can trace tendencies of these sins to the sins of others on a person's childhood.  for instance; abuse, losing a parent, having difficult circumstances and not being helped at time of need, medical problems, mental problems undiagnosed, and sometimes lack of grandparents or family structure to 'fill in' - latchkey children, street kids, whatever!  God sees all those pains and circumstances and can work a way into anyone's heart to obtain healing in the most unusual and sometimes dramatic ways (with prayer).  psychologists seem to focus on the past - but christianity focuses on the now and in the future (forgiving the mistakes or mistakes of others in our past).  when you change your focus from 'this is impossible' and say 'i can do all things through Christ, who strengthens me...' then you are saying you believe your problems have a cure and that it is possible to live a better way - and share a better way with your own family.  you focus on them, and making things the best you can - relying also on Christ to hold you up when you feel down.  listening to music that is uplifting can change a 'switch' in your mind from depression to cheerful looking forward to whatever future God has for you.  ultimately, it is for you to be with Him and not alone!

[pantonality]

Well Pianistimo, don't think I didn't notice that you've tried to sidestep my primary issue. So let me reiterate it. For those who believe in Biblical inerrancy any softening is not allowed based on modern hygiene, science or whatever. It seems to me you've written a lot without saying whether you accept or not everything in the Bible. Frankly I believe rigid adherence to religious doctrine to be something people do out of fear. They fear what society might become if people eat shellfish. OK maybe not, but they'll often adhere anyway. How silly is that?

For example to equate modern working life with slavery is a stretch of Gumby proportions. Ancient slaves had no control over their lives and were subject to the whims of their masters. Are you saying you would willingly switch places with an ancient slave. I'm guessing the answer is no. My arguments haven't even touched on the issues of pay and living quarters. Do modern working people sometimes feel like they don't have control over their lives? Perhaps, but they have choices they're not usually considering. They can leave their jobs, they can move, they can get more education. Their children won't be taken away, nor will they be raped by their bosses (at least not without the potential for legal consequences). They won't be whipped or physically abused. Ancient slaves knew nothing of legal recourse and everything about fear of the master.

Your point about knowing where food came from is valid, but trust me you don't want your neighbors raising pigs, chickens or cows. I live in Iowa, even in Des Moines we're pretty close to the farm. In fact on a damp spring day the smell of money (that's pig manure) can waft for 10 miles or more. I know when it's spread out in the country we can smell it in the parking lot at work. If you don't live in the farm belt you may have missed this quaint experience.

Your comments about unclean meat belie an ignorance of the subject. The most tainted seafood is not from lobsters it is from Tuna (the top of the foodchain tends to accumulate toxins, especially Mercury). Scavengers may take in rotting meat, but their digestive systems are accustomed to defeating the pestilence therein. Predators have no protection against environmental toxins because they didn't evolve in an environment that had them (until very recently).

It seems you accept the Biblical precept of no sex during menstruation, OK so do I.

Basically I also agree that when our time comes that the deciding factor will be how much love we demonstrated in our living. I see that in you in your posts here. I see you making great efforts to defend your spirituality. I hope you don't mind too much my questions. I'm not trying to lead anyone astray into the clutches of the devil (something I don't believe in). I'm asking you to examine and question beliefs that you may have simply accepted without question because that's what you were taught. When one examines antiquated belief systems in the light of their impact on the world the one thing that sticks out to me is that rigidity doesn't work. YMMV.

[BoliverAllmon]

Through the blood of Christ, we are free from the Old Testament Law. Christ gave us two commandments. Romans clearly outlines this. There is no modern "softening" of the word.

[prometheus]

Without checking, isn't that list totally plagerised off evilbible.com? I remember seeing it before. I particulary liked the american football joke.

Why did God allow slavery?

How can you ask this question? Surely the bible says God does. But I don't understand how a person can believe in a God that allows or even supports slavery.

If you think about it, we're all slaves in one sort or another unless you're at the top.  You go to work.

Is this is the argument made by Robert E. Lee?

Of course, twentieth century slaves aren't whipped (that i know of).

They are.

I think God must have known basic human nature.

Didn't god create human nature?

Sites like www.evilbible.com make me wonder. Does information like this stop people from reading the bible or does it make them accept the bible, turning them into tyrant worshipping people? There can be no doubt, the god in the old testament is a tyrant. He even orders genocide and ethnic cleansing, at least according to the old testament. I find it totally absurd that the theistic god would do something like that. It's just an attempt of the writers of the bible to justifiy these atrocities.

[BoliverAllmon]

why is it absurd? every leader of every country goes to war at some point or another. In the Old Testament the country of Israel are ruled by a theocracy, therefore God is not acting unjustly, but as a necessary ruler. Now though through the crucifixion of His Son Jesus, He has given the rule over all kingdoms to the devil. He no longer performs those so called "atrocities" because He is not in charge of any country. His people are in every nation on earth, and not a single nation.

[prometheus]

Uuh?

Because every human leader goes to war, God should go to war also?

Yes, many people went to war. Many people were killed. But does this mean going to war is a good thing?

Can you give me one example, lets take an example from history so there will be no political bias, where a country went to war which is in your view justified or a good thing?

This is really morality on the lose. You are saying it is a leader's responsiblility to plunge her country and her people into war? Its their jobs to do so? Well maybe you can expect it, it does seem to happen with few exceptions, but surely you can't mean it is the right thing to do. Not even if her own people profit from it, which even when a war goes perfectly is almost never the case. And because people are immoral, which is because of Lucifer(?), God is justified to be immoral also? Huh?

Plus, if your power is unlimited, so is your responsibility. If not, you have too much power and should give it up. (Surely God could decreate herself, she is supposed to be imnipotent, right?)

In the Old Testament the country of Israel are ruled by a theocracy, therefore God is not acting unjustly,

I don't understand. Being a theocracy justifies things? So if Iran nukes Israel tomorrow that would be justified? I guess that isn't what you meant. I guess you meant God didn't rule Israel. I agree with that, though the idea that a society is controlled by clerics wants to suggest God does rule the country. Otherwise a theocracy would make no sense. The justification for a theocracy is that God rules the country.

Now though through the crucifixion of His Son Jesus, He has given the rule over all kingdoms to the devil. He no longer performs those so called "atrocities" because He is not in charge of any country.

Hmm, now I am beginning to doubt my interpretation again. So God was ruling Canaan/Israel?
I don't really get this. God gave rule to the world to Lucifer so we no longer see him performing atrocities?

His people are in every nation on earth, and not a single nation.

What does this mean? You mean that God no longer exterminates cities, or orders his people to do so, because jewish people might be among the victims? That's not only absurd, and extremely racists(well we can argue about that), it also contradicts the thing you said just before this.

[pianistimo]

this is a complete rehash of an earlier thread.  God means what he says.  sin=death.  death also came to the israelites when they disobeyed God in the OT.  you'll notice that God's fairness extends over all people and not just the people that choose to obey him now.  he sends rain on the wicked and the just.  but, in the beginning he gave equal chances to all to listen to his voice.  the men of sodom wouldn't listen despite many warnings.  God does nothing without first speaking through his prophets.  if God allowed certain peoples to continue in their 'idolatry' they wouldn't stop at sodomy and would continue into animalistic ideas.  God won't allow his creation to be destroyed like this, and in all situations (including the ones we are starting into today - whether combined by sex or in a lab) destroys creations that are not what he desires.  creations with seed that is pure according to human, animal, bird, fish, whatever.  he doesn't like cross mixing because it messes up the genetics of whomever is being mixed up.  also, He despises witchcraft because they 'drink blood' and offerred human sacrifices.  when something isn't going to benefit the children involved, he spares the whole lot - whether by allowing slavery or by war.  this seems to be injustice to those that don't believe there is such a thing as sinful behavior. 

but, as soon as one enemy was destroyed, another would rise up against israel.  why so many enemies?  because they saw the blessings of God on israel and instead of obeying God, waited for a chance to just take the blessings.  they didn't realize they could have had them too, if they would believe in the 'one true' God instead of many false gods.  the book of 'ruth' is one of the few examples (i suppose there are many more in the NT) where a 'gentile' recognizes the power of the true God and trusts that He will look over and protect her if she follows Him.  God does not go around destroying his sheep - but he protects them from enemies when they stay near Him.  just as a shepherd can only protect those sheep that stay in a flock.  israel would stray very far from God as time went on - and that protection became 'grafted' onto any who obey God's voice whether gentile or jew.  Christ doesn't make distinction and grants protection from sin and death to those who accept His life as saving.  BoliverAllimon is right about everything - including satan being the 'god of this world.'  if God was intervening right now - a lot of people would be dead.  is this unfair?  how can you challenge God?  he says he is saving a 'day of wrath.'  can we stop it if we don't like the idea?  no.  so, better to be on the right side than destroyed.

as far as farm life, i understand the smells very well.  it is a little bit hard to go to town when you just gathered eggs.  my mom used to have  little farm with goats, sheep, chickens, duck, geese, horse, and whatever whim she added from year to year.  i used to think she was crazy, but now appreciate the little things like what a warm egg feels like, or how fast you have to get the milk to the fridge before it starts tasting wierd.  she was really a good 'goat lady' because she kept them really clean and the milk tasted like cow milk does in the store.  the reason most people think goat milk is yukky is because they don't keep the goats clean and the milk isn't strained and refrigerated right away.  when you have animals, you have one up on the economical expenses of organic gardening.  that's your compost for the year.  even though it smells, you dig it under, and your soil is like gold.  most people go and buy fertilizer, not knowing that chemical fertilizer sometimes burns the soil - unlike natural where if you put more on - it's ok - it just makes the soil richer. 

when you don't grow up near farming communities, you miss out, too - on the natural experiences of births of animals, how to care for them, learning responsibility, learning about their little eccentricities, and sometimes on having lots of really great pets.  i think my love of animals came from having so many at a young age.  my mom must have been  unusual compared to many mom's because i had lots of pets. a gerbil, a canary, a dog, (no cats), a horse, and sometimes helped with her animals.  i had a pet goose that was really sweet too.  it used to walk from it's fenced in area up a hill and around a corner.  it would meet me every day after school and 'walk me home.'  really funny how much animals can love. 

sorry to be so longwinded.  that last paragraph could be omitted.  i just don't think God is unfair when you see how really patient He has been the last 2000 years.  i mean, He could have let us do ourselves in maybe 25-50 years ago.  we're living on borrowed time according to iran.  i don't think God is the enemy.

[timothy42b]

these threads do bring humor to ones day.  but, literally, the question remains - why did God allow slavery? 

pp,
It would be easier to respond if you would limit the length and the number of unrelated points a bit.

I think I understand why you do this.  In my church the sermon has a coherent theme, based on the scripture for the day, and the preacher makes the point, expands on it, and finishes, somewhat like music has theme, development, recapitulation, and coda.  The intent is to teach and inspire.  But I often find myself in an evangelical church for musical reasons, and they don't do this at all.  They string together hours of unrelated good thoughts in an attempt to create an experience.  Different intent, different execution.  Same with the music - our traditional hymns usually had a pedagogical purpose, theirs solely aims for an emotional response.  Thus the horribly unmusical but beloved "Praise Band." 

You can't sidestep it.  The Bible does support slavery.  Slavery is evil.  In the past organized Christian religion relied on the Bible and supported slavery;  today largely it does not. 

How do you account for this?

Two ways.  If you consider the Bible to be inerrant and man to be created fully formed, then you have to claim the Bible does not say what it clearly does say.  This is called apologetics. 

Or, you can take the approach that the Bible was written by flawed men, doing their best (and with some assistance by the Holy Spirit) to understand the nature of God.  Over time, we have improved and come closer.  Thus, we now understand both God and some moral issues better than we once did, though we are still imperfect and have far to go.  We now know that slavery is evil.  We didn't know that when "we"  (men) wrote the Bible.  In the future we will learn even more.  I suspect we will horrified at the way we abused homosexuals in the name of Jesus, for example.  Time and the Holy Spirit will tell. 

[pianowelsh]

Ok you want its simple. CONTEXT RULES! When you read scripture its like reading any other book you dont randomly dive into any chapter and say oh look this is the crux and essence of the book - blah! You read the whole thing you follow through the arguments and you get to know the characters.  ie God Lead his people out of slavery (Egypt) He sent his son to free us from slavery of sin and death.etc etc The general theme being freedom in Trusting him. There are easy explainations for each of the above points which you can read for yourself with a bit of cross referencing.  HOWEVER the obvious point is that you have quoted exclusively Levitical Law!! This was given to the Patriachs of the Jewish faith! As born again believers we are not under Law but under Grace as Bolliver said. We are not saved by our righteous observance of laws and sacifices.  We are saved by the ONE sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and we are accceptible because we wear his Righteousness not our own.   OK we need to remember God gave the rules in the first place for a reason His stance om sexual imorallity and keeping the sabbath holy etc etc are unchanged they are still important to him and as Christians we should be those that honour him.  But it is He NOT us who will judge in finality and He can because He is totally without sin.  Hope this was on topic enough and clear enough??

[pianistimo]

agreed with pianowelsh, and also, i think also that it is our concept of slavery that is flawed.  God himself says that in His kingdom there are many 'offices.'  and, another parable says that the man that increased His investment he gave a certain number of 'cities' to.  but, God's government and man's government are totally different.  today, we think of simply being ruled as slavery because there are many aspects of government that enslave us (even in free countries).  it is called bureaucracy.  control of interest rates and banking practices, control of your privacy, control of children (what is taught in public school and who goes in the army and where), control of thoughts (what is on internet). basically, you are enslaved WITHOUT even being really aware of it.  this is slavery, imo, and yet we live in the 'freest country.'  if we knew what being free was about - we'd praise God!

i don't deny we appreciate having services such as medical, education, protection (army) - but you have to admit there are flaws that enslave us.  God's ways are simple and direct and accomplish His will which is perfect.  we don't always understand this perfect will because of our reasoning.  for instance, i think he allowed slavery as a curse (not a blessing) when the assyrians, or romans took over because unlike the israelites which granted freedom after a certain number of years of service (7?) they were continual slaves.  rights to 'aliens' (peoples of other countries) were also made in israel if they wished to assimilate into the system (although the romans did come up with this later).  no system of slavery would be deemed appropriate to us - but, ultimately we serve whomever is ruling.  if Christ is ruling in His kingdom, then we cannot say that we will be 'above' Him, but if we love Him that's ok.  we are willing servants (more than slaves) of His government.  if the government is 'upon His shoulders' that means He's carrying us.  more weight than most rulers want.  usually we carry our rulers.  I think Christ's sacrifice shows us what He thinks leaders and rulers should be like.  not slave masters, but wise and allowing those that do His will to rule with Him.  He will not allow evil.  it will be eradicated like tares growing in wheat at His second coming.  can we control what He considers pure?  no.  so we have to ask for mercy to be covered by His blood. 

timothy42b, agreed about too much diversion sometimes.  it is a flaw i have and very similar to the analogy you made of praise bands, and yet, there is an element of encouragement when you just get together and make music to relax and unwind and praise God.  you can't really find fault with it - but for a concise message - you might have to wait for the person over in the corner to speak.  the one that's a scholar and rarely says a word.  usually you can't understand them anyway (just kidding) so you get back to the praise band worship afterwards.  what i don't like is when the microphones are off and you get too much feedback or not enough or a wierded out sound (like most of the sound is coming from one side and not all the speakers.  then - you have praise band minus 4.  or, one of the singers is off key.  you can't just tell people they can't sing with you because they sound bad.  but, what is praise to God is just our getting along.  so, i guess it doesn't matter if the praise band is really not what it's cracked up to be.

*personally i prefer the organ/piano/choir idea.  but, whenever i hear a really good  praise band (like a family esp) i tend to enjoy it just as much.  interesting how voices can blend like a family -if well chosen.  for instance 'the tops' were on pbs the other night.  i think that's the name.  anyway, even after all these years, the blend was so cool and nice!   

[ahinton]

Those who regards both testaments of the Bible as first and foremost historical documents (with the inevitable risk of potential errors, omissions and bias that such documents may be expected to incorporate) will have a different take on it from those who see it first and foremost as a major example of Holy Writ.

The latter group of people is also more likely to include a larger proportion of those who reckon to object to the adaptation or outright rejection of certain of its tenets as some kind of easy and convenient get-out for the claimed purpose of "bringing the Bible into the present century", thereby somehow undermining its validity.

Irrespective of how the Bible or any similar document may be taken by scholars, Christians, agnostics, atheists or people of faiths other than Christian, what is clear is that any laws, commandments, recommendations etc. for conduct of human life that are enshrined in it will have been with reference to the time of writing and could no more be expected to hold good indefinitely than to be unexceptionally applicable to all human societies; however, we nowadays have far greater knowledge of history and experience of all the world's societies than was the case in the period across which the Bible as we know it was written, so we have, I believe, vastly less excuse than the contributors to that multi-author symposium that we know as the Bible to regard Biblical law, commandment, recommendation, etc. as immutable for all time.

The questions concerned (and others like them) may indeed offer some degree of entertainment, but what really matters is that, as societies develop, the laws by which they abide will likewise necessarily metamorphose; this may not always have positive consequences, but it is nevertheless inevitable. Due and universal recognition of this unstoppable "ceaseless pattern of change" (as Tagore would have called it) may not necessarily undermine the Bible or similar documents as historical treatises, but it may well help to undermine the spread of certain aspects of rigid fundamentalism, the negative and potentially dangerous effects of which are an increasingly grave and widespread concern to many people today.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

that's what the romans said about Christ's teaching, but the let the sanhedrin make the case since it was their own laws that Christ was expounding on.  pilate washed his hands - but we know that it was controversial even back then.  it reforms governments and therefore is controversial.  to say that God is STILL the Creator of this world is a threat to world governments.  especially the part that mentions His return as King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.  (may not say president, but we get the idea).

what i think is dangerous is what is actually happening today.  no one has the capacity to take on a world government without massive change and a certain amount of warfare.  the cost of peace is usually at the expense of the 'weaker' masses of society.  Christ came to heal the sick, weak, wounded, those elements of society that are neglected and usually considered unimportant in a world government. 

[ahinton]

As born again believers we are not under Law but under Grace as Bolliver said.

But "we" are not all born-again believers - or indeed believers of any other type.

We are not saved by our righteous observance of laws and sacifices.  We are saved by the ONE sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and we are accceptible because we wear his Righteousness not our own.

"We" (again) as in those Christians who believe what you write here, but not necessarily as in anyone else.

OK we need to remember God gave the rules in the first place for a reason His stance om sexual imorallity and keeping the sabbath holy etc etc are unchanged they are still important to him and as Christians we should be those that honour him.  But it is He NOT us who will judge in finality and He can because He is totally without sin.  Hope this was on topic enough and clear enough??

That's the unavoidable and apparently omnipresent "we" yet again; I do not wish to appear combative here, but I do feel that it is important for contributors to a thread about Biblical matters to recognise that there are many who have read and studied the Bible who do not necessarily subscribe to or live by any or all of its contents. "We" must therefore be taken to mean "pianowelsh and all those who think in the way that pianowelsh does".

Best,

Alistair

[BoliverAllmon]

Uuh?

Because every human leader goes to war, God should go to war also?

Yes, many people went to war. Many people were killed. But does this mean going to war is a good thing?

Can you give me one example, lets take an example from history so there will be no political bias, where a country went to war which is in your view justified or a good thing?


I don't understand. Being a theocracy justifies things? So if Iran nukes Israel tomorrow that would be justified? I guess that isn't what you meant. I guess you meant God didn't rule Israel. I agree with that, though the idea that a society is controlled by clerics wants to suggest God does rule the country. Otherwise a theocracy would make no sense. The justification for a theocracy is that God rules the country.

Hmm, now I am beginning to doubt my interpretation again. So God was ruling Canaan/Israel?
I don't really get this. God gave rule to the world to Lucifer so we no longer see him performing atrocities?

What does this mean? You mean that God no longer exterminates cities, or orders his people to do so, because jewish people might be among the victims? That's not only absurd, and extremely racists(well we can argue about that), it also contradicts the thing you said just before this.

US going into WWII that was justified.

God's eyes see things differently than we do. His judgment is perfect, though it doesn't always seem that way to us.  We may see it as atrocities, but they are punishment and judgment being handed out. Don't think of it as war, but as a capital punishment. He has warned those nations time and time again about their sinful life, but they still refused to repent. Because of this, He had to punish them.


about the racism.

God's people are no longer the Jews. Jesus spoke two parables about a wedding that showed that the Jews were no longer His people, but now anyone and everyone has the opportunity to be with God. His people are the Christians. God still wipes out cities and punishes people. I believe 9/11 and hurricane katrina are examples of that. God will do whatever it takes to get our attention.

boliver

[ahinton]

God still wipes out cities and punishes people. I believe 9/11 and hurricane katrina are examples of that. God will do whatever it takes to get our attention.

So was God piloting both of the planes on 9/11? Was His motive in engineering the demolition of the twin towers just to get attention for Himself? Whatever His motivation, did He intend to "wipe out" and/or "punish" those who happened to be in or near those towers and, if so, why - and why those particular people at that particular time? Did God ensure that humans in the area devastated by the effects of hurricane Katrina omitted to ensure the building of adequate sea defences before it struck? (and let us not forget that far more damage was wreaked by floodwater than by the wind itself on that occasion). I'm sorry - this either doesn't stand up at all or I am seriously misunderstanding something...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

i believe we are 'cursed' as a nation and we haven't seen the last of God's judgements against us.  unless we repent and turn to Him, i think that there will be more. witness the unending fires, mud slides, tornadoes, hurricanes.  of course, we have caused pollution which allows the variation of temp of the sea and air to be able to wreak havoc, but the timing - it's God's timing.  we live 'in the last days.'  if you didn't recognize it when the twin towers fell down, or when katrina hit (and devastated so many people - some of whom may have been readying for a Mardis Gras parade prior).  we have no ability to judge ourselves anymore so God is allowing it to be done.  this is a time for serious contemplation and return to God so the blessings that we still have may remain for a little while longer and more people come to see the saving power of God before it is too late (armaggedon).  it was prophecied that all the nations would be at war at Christ's return.

[ahinton]

i believe we are 'cursed' as a nation and we haven't seen the last of God's judgements against us.  unless we repent and turn to Him, i think that there will be more. witness the unending fires, mud slides, tornadoes, hurricanes.  of course, we have caused pollution which allows the variation of temp of the sea and air to be able to wreak havoc, but the timing - it's God's timing.  we live 'in the last days.'  if you didn't recognize it when the twin towers fell down, or when katrina hit (and devastated so many people - some of whom may have been readying for a Mardis Gras parade prior).  we have no ability to judge ourselves anymore so God is allowing it to be done.  this is a time for serious contemplation and return to God so the blessings that we still have may remain for a little while longer and more people come to see the saving power of God before it is too late (armaggedon).  it was prophecied that all the nations would be at war at Christ's return.

I'm not sure if your post here was intended to any extent to include a response to mine, but in any event I assume from what you write that you are an American and that you accordingly feel that the events you describe are indicative that God has assumed some kind of negatively judgemental stance in respect of your nation. Were that to be the case (and I do not believe it for one moment), I wonder a number of things. Firstly, why would he so single out America? Secondly, does He or does He not, in your view, care about the consequences for the decent citizens of America, God-fearing or otherwise, of the havoc for which you appear to hold Him directly responsible? If "we" have caused problems on this planet that risk causing or aggravating the natural disasters you cite, how can the timing of those disasters be God's? Also, you seem to be either vacillating between, or uncertain about, what you believe God is "allowing...to be done" and that which He is actually doing. There have been ample natural disasters all over the world in the past few years, some of which may have been caused or aggravated by human activity over the years and others of which (earthquakes, in particular) are due to geological faults that have been present for many centuries. There is, for example, the San Andreas fault in your country which, to me, is not at all indicative that those who live near it on the west side have somehow incited the wrath of God more than those who live on the east side have done - a fact perhaps further supported by the occurrence of the twin towers episode on the latter. Furthermore, natural disasters on a large scale have occurred on this planet over millions of years; why should anyone therefore seek to find a vengeful God behind only those that have occurred during its recent history while humans have inhabited it?

No - what I recognised when the twin towers collapsed included, though was not limited to - the following. A pair of human suicide bombers were prepared to fly planes into them in the hope and expectation of bringing about such collapse and the inevitably resulting multiple deaths, for reasons best known, if at all, to them and to those under whose orders (if any) they committed this atrocity. The standard of building of those towers - which had, after all, been threatened years before 9/11 - may not have been adequate in the circumstances. The number of people claimed as having been killed as a result of that event - including those on the ground as well as those in the towers themselves - is quite astonishingly small when one contemplates the numbers of people that were usually in those buildings at the time that they were attacked. When Bill Clinton was first seen in the area after it had happened, someone was quoted as saying "the President's here; where's George Bush?". 9/11 was only the most devastating and spectacular of a number of activities of a type that we have become accustomed to having reported to us under the umbrella of terrorism which have taken place in recent years; I do not believe that God has a similar, albeit smaller, grudge against the Spanish, the Dutch, the English or any other racial or national group from counties that have witnessed such events - do you? If so, do you see anyone as being wholly exempt?

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

you bring up some good questions.  this will give me at least a days thought (thanks mr. hinton).  sometimes i wonder a few of these questions myself - so i'll only answer the ones i think i understand.  of course, as with many subjects i've studied - i can sometimes be way off.  let me ponder the meaning of our existence. 

a couple of years ago my sister-in-law made the connection between legos being put together and taken apart.  i don't think it is quite that simple, but if we aren't putting together an economic system that is fair - and is hurting the poor - then maybe the twin towers were a representation of the 'trade' system (babylon) and how we have fallen into babylon's hands.

 

[pantonality]

Here's a thought, What if God loves everyone, no matter what?

There have been some things written in this thread that I find hard to believe caring thinking individuals would write. PP's "Cursed as a nation" and Boliver's ideas on war being the two I wish to address in this post.

But first let's talk about Levitical law vs. Grace. It's been written here that humans are no longer bound by Levitical law because of Jesus sacrifice. Well if that's the case why do evangelical peachers bring up Leviticus every time they want to condemn homosexuality? You can't have it both ways either Levitical law applies or it doesn't. If the law of the universe is really "do unto others..." then why are these peachers condemning people for how they express love? Do they want to be condemned for how they express love (maybe they are remember Jimmy Swaggart?). All discussion of natural vs. unnatural is not based on New Testament scripture and certainly not on Jesus' teaching.

Then PP wrote about the USA being cursed as a nation. She would prefer to see the hand of God behind the attacks on the twin towers and hurricanes than the hand of man. So I will explain how it was the hand of man that caused both (PP please be aware that the Tsunami and earthquakes have not happened in the USA in recent years). We are indeed sowing what we reap.

Osama Bin Laden was a freedom fighter in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. President Reagan supported the Mujahadeen (now the Taliban) in their fight because it served what he perceived as the USA's purpose. And it worked the Soviet Union collapsed. But once you train a killer it's very hard for them to reintegrate into a normal society, especially when you do nothing to support rebuilding the country once it's been destroyed by war. Afghanistan is still a wreck and probably grows as much opium as any country in the world because they know they can sell it for big money. The USA participated in destroying that country and did nothing to help them once our purpose was served. Please note the difference between that war and WW II, we rebuilt Europe after WW II because it served our purpose to stem the spread of communism.

Boliver made some comments about war. War is a creation of man. I believe one of man's purposes is to overcome our use of violence to resolve disputes. This fits in with the "love your neighbor..." theme. Was WW II really justified? It's certainly held up as an example of a "Good War." My father fought in that war and during a recent visit he explained that he's decided that war is about the worst possible way to resolve disputes. Now I don't expect any of you to accept that just because my 86 year old Dad said it, but it made me think. We all believe (and history seems to support) that Hitler was bound and determined to use violence as were the Japanese. Both those countries were destroyed by that war and rebuilt by the USA (and other Allies) as a way of stemming the spread of Communism. They certainly reaped what they sowed. It would seem that history supports the notion that if the good guys win the war and help rebuild the countries destroyed in that war then peace will prevail for a while. This is another example of reaping what you sow. It very well could be one reason why we haven't experienced the prosperity we enjoyed previously.

As for hurricanes, we've been pouring CO2 into the atmosphere for so long that we're now beginning to see real change in global temperatures. However because it doesn't suit their purpose some would conclude that the USA is cursed from such events rather than reaping the natural consequence of what we've sown. This is the same ignorant thinking about history that would equate modern working life with slavery. Please people take your head out of ancient religious texts and open your eyes to what you're doing in the world. Such comments might lead me to conclude that reading the Bible seems to dull analytical thinking. I don't really want to believe that.

I fully expect PP to say something like, well I don't really understand or know about all of this so I won't comment on it. Well get yer head out of the Bible and into a history or science book fer Chissakes!!!! And please not a whitewash piece of crap that'll tell you about intelligent design. You are proving that Marx was right about religion being the opiate of the masses.

[pianistimo]

dear pantonality,  i respect your thoughts just as much as mr. hinton.  there are many sides to everything (multifaceted) and i don't know many of the sides.  so, i tend to agree with the simpler version 'you reap what you sow.'

here's a thread i've been perusing which brings up the idea of the wisdom of God vs the wisdom of man.  www.mic.ul.ie/stephen/vol7/friendly.pdf

then of course, there is also the biblical record of the flood and other natural catastrophes that God did allow because of evil.  He has said he will not allow the flood to reoccur, but in revelations does mention homosexuality as 'evil' and that they will not inherit the kingdom of God.  neither will murderers, adulterers, etc. so there's no really big distinction between sinners (since being angry with your brother without cause = murder) and saints - other than accepting Christ as a savior.  i think what we find difficult is why innocent children sometimes suffer (if we accept the idea that sinners sufferring is probably a just consequence).  i can't honestly say that i have any sort of answer, other than God gave us 'rulership' over this world, and we have mismanaged.  many things are our fault (as pantonality pointed out) and God doesn't always rescue every situation.

what i find amazing IN MY OWN life and MY OWN experiences, is that with belief and prayer you do see divine protection sometimes in your children's lives.  i don't want my sins to affect my children and pray also for their lives as they grow to adulthood.  i fully accept the consequences of my sins (but trust that they will be minimized according the mercies of God).  we all reap consequences of what we do, good or bad, in this life  - but, if we believe there are no consequences, then we don't really believe in good or evil.  i think that evil does exist and that we are experiencing 'evil' in greater proportions because satan knows he only has a 'short time.' 

*perhaps a few of the multi-faceted problems:

satan's doings
the demon's doings
God's doings
His righteous angel's doings
man's doings
natural disasters (which i do believe personally to be allowed by God since He created the world the way it is)

**agreed about war being a sort of 'last-resort' that never works out the way we think it's supposed to.  that's also an area of divine providence (who wins - weather related stuff - weapons functioning/not - codes broken/not broken - information gleaned at certain times - people rescued/not rescued)  it seems sometimes to be totally random, and at other times providential.  didn't roosevelt try to stay out of the war for a while and then was brought into it with pearl harbor?  if the germans had won, no one would have been rescued from the death camps, france would be a part of germany (as would many other countries), and the germans who were oppressed by their own leader could not live according to what they believed was right (many protected jews and believed that killing people was not right).  there has to be a better way than bombing people, but we haven't found the way to peace yet.  i think only God holds the answer.  He will rule 'with a rod of iron.'  this sound heretical - but i think it's the only way a government can function peacefully.  He says how it will be, and it is that way.  micah 4:3 'and He will judge between many peoples and render decisions for mighty, distant nations.  then they will beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they train for war.'

[ahinton]

To "Pianistimo" - the Bible is nowhere as old as humanity. Humanity is nowhere near as old as this planet. Natural disasters as we curently understand them have occurred on this planet pretty much since its beginnings (except to the extent that the events concerned would not constitute "disasters" per se before the dawn of human life in the way that they do now, because human lives are now affected by such events). As I mentioned, I cannot figure how or why God would recently get involved in causing or allowing such natural disasters in order to wreak revenge on humanity when such events had been going on since long before the dawn of humanity.

As to those events that are recognised as acts of terrorism, I likewise cannot figure why God would cause or allow these to occur with a similar intent to wreak havoc on humanity when the acts are carried out by individual humans or groups of humans exercising their free will.

Poor God! He's surely getting the blame for a lot of negative events. I would not blame him if he ran away from such ascriptions and into the comforting knowledge of the dedication to Him of Bruckner's Ninth Symphony...

To "Pantonality" - do please try to keep this a wholly civilised discussion, from which your final paragraph rather tends to depart...

Best,

Alistair

[musik_man]

I'd like to point out that slavery in OT Jewish society bears little resemblance to the modern racial slavery that you are thinking of.  Every seven years in the Jubilee festival, all slaves were to be released.  It was really more of an indentured servitude.  As far as the issue of slavery in general, acting like Christianity is responsible for it is bs.  Slavery is a human institution that has existed for all history in all cultures.  It was first abolished in Western culture.  The people who did the most work for said abolition were *gasp* evil dance-hating Puritans.  Only the Judeo-Christian view of man having God-given rights makes slavery a moral wrong.  It's now so deeply ingrained in Western culture that people forget its religious roots.

Pantonality, the law was not abolished by Christ.  He was quite explicit on this point.  "I have not come to abolish the law but to fufill it."  The sins laid out in OT law still lead to spiritual death and nothing will change that.  The specific items involving 'unclean' acts or things are, however, gone.  It is explained in Acts.  Most of those things had a specific purpose of preventing disease in ancient civilization.  Their abolition does not make any sin a non-sin(and anyway, there are plenty of passages in the NT that label homosexuality as a sin.)

OBL was not a freedom fighter in Afghanistan.  It's a common misconception.  He became a terrorist after US troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia(at said government's request) during the Gulf War.  He found the concept of infidels on the holy cities of Mecca and Medina offensive.  So in a sense we are 'responsible' for OBL, but only cause the guy is a nutcase.

The rejection of war can't really be justified by Christianity.  Christ makes clear that we are to seperate God and government. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."  Additionally the concept of turning the cheek is an individual  act.  A Christian should never meet personal violence with more violence; however, a nation doesn't have the same luxury.  There is no way WWII could have been avoided peacefully.  Appeasment of Hitler was done in Austria, Czechoslovakia,and when he militarized the Rhineland.  How much further should we have gone to satisfy him?

Finally, for your comments to Pianistimo, don't be overconfident in your knowledge.  I'm a huge frickin' nerd, who spends way too much time reading about history, politics, and economics and I know that I know jack-sh*t.  Virtually everyone who has tried to understand man has failed miserably(Marx, Freud, Hegel, Kant, Greeks, Rand, etc.)  Marx may have called religion an opiate, but you're living in a fantasy world if you think that there's much difference between Marx, Freud, or Rand and religion.  The only difference is a thin veneer of 'objectivity.'

[pantonality]

OBL was not a freedom fighter in Afghanistan.  It's a common misconception.  He became a terrorist after US troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia(at said government's request) during the Gulf War.  He found the concept of infidels on the holy cities of Mecca and Medina offensive.  So in a sense we are 'responsible' for OBL, but only cause the guy is a nutcase.

Afghanistan started to be a problem before the 1rst Gilf War as this link indicates. OBL was part of that effort and participated in fighting against the Soviets. I would appreciate it if you're going to dispute facts that you back up the assertion.

https://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/10/1425222

Finally, for your comments to Pianistimo, don't be overconfident in your knowledge.  I'm a huge frickin' nerd, who spends way too much time reading about history, politics, and economics and I know that I know jack-***.  Virtually everyone who has tried to understand man has failed miserably(Marx, Freud, Hegel, Kant, Greeks, Rand, etc.)  Marx may have called religion an opiate, but you're living in a fantasy world if you think that there's much difference between Marx, Freud, or Rand and religion.  The only difference is a thin veneer of 'objectivity.'

First off if PP was offended by my comments at the end of my last post I apologise. I realized after the fact that I was perhaps a bit harsh, but I found her position uninformed in the extreme and that frustrates me. So for getting frustrated and being less civil than I prefer to be I apologise. However, my advice to her stands.

I don't try to understand man, nor God. But to my perception far too many use blind adherence to a book to turn a blind eye to the obvious. The hurricanes of the last two seasons constituted the most powerful Atlantic season on record. That would tend to discredit the view that this is just a cyclical swing. It may be a cyclical swing, but the severity of that swing has been enhanced by global warming. So while some view recent natural events as signs that the end times are near, others view it as the natural consequence of mans actions.

Finally, (and I'm sure this will get a response from some) please don't mention Ayn Rand as having any credibility. He has as  much credibility with me as L. Ron Hubbard. IMO, both of them took advantage of human gullibility.

[musik_man]

Pantonality, quick search show I'm wrong about OBL, sorry.

[westley]

Since all of the laws Pantonality cited come from the old testament, wouldn't his questions be more reasonably directed to Jews?

[prometheus]

I also laughed when I saw Rand listed with those other people, especially Kant.

Well, at least Musik_man knows some of the points of OBL, because my experience is most people don't. OBL is probably not honest in his true motives, but at least he doesn't need to lie to get support from the people. It is sad that the things OBL says make so much more sense than the things W Bush says.
It is also funny that the actions of the US actually played into the hand of OBL. OBL main point was the US troops in SA. Actually it is more the support for the tyranny in SA which the US has to support because it is essential to the oil production/price. But now most of the troops are in Iraq, so they are out of SA.

Another thing is that Saddam Hussain has been removed. Hussain has always fought against fundamentalist islam, and we all know how brutal he was. Shi'ite clerics now rule Iraq. Most of them are from Iran. So democracy will turn Iraq into an Iran-like state.
The US&UK tried to prevent the elections in Iraq, but they just couldn't do this because of the large scale non-violent protest, driving force behind this being Ayatollah Sistani.

When Iraq is a democratic shi'ite Islamic state it will be on friendly terms with Iran. And the people just over the border in SA, belonging to the same ethnicity, will also want these freedoms. This will be a nightmare for the western oil-based economy.

Third, the US just opened Al Quada recruitment offices all over Iraq when they started to bomb it. Most of the people in Iraq want the americans out. And the few susceptible to becoming a Mudjahadin do so because it is so easy and natural. Face it, the US acted just like OBL presented the US to be; war based on lies, ability to persuade other western countries to follow eventhough they must have realised the lie, torture by US soldiers, attempts to stop democracy in Iraq, opening of the Iraq economy to US company take-overs, etc.
The funny thing is that the information about the link between Hussain and Al Quada was gained through rendition(means torture). The Niger Yellowcake story was probably constructed by the Mossad, through there is no definitive evidence about who fabricated the evidence and the WMD 'proof' comes from Iraqi disserters who had all to gain from Hussains removal.

It is funny when people say 9/11 is a punishment of God. Thats what Mohammed Atta though he was doing, carrying out the wrath of God. Isn't it kind of strange to have to agree with Atta, out of all things, on his act of terror?

[musik_man]

You may not like Kant being listed with Rand, but at least Marx deserves it.

OBL doesn't dislike the SA gov't because it's tyrannical.  He'd prefer a much stricter government.  He thinks it isn't Islamic enough.  If the US somehow turned SA democratic, he'd probably be much angrier than he is now.

BTW most polls of the Iraqi ppl do not show that a majority want the US out now.  In fact I can't remember any where that position had majority support.

[timothy42b]

  Their abolition does not make any sin a non-sin(and anyway, there are plenty of passages in the NT that label homosexuality as a sin.)

I am not computer literate enough to do multiple quotes, so I might post twice.

musikman, I don't think your statement can be supported.  There is nowhere in old or new testament where homosexuality is condemned or even recognized.  There are plenty of places that condemn gay sex by straight people, as well as promiscuity, adultery, etc., by straight people, but nowhere is there any hint that a homosexual orientation was possible.  Apparently this was just not within the consciousness of the writers.  There are three long term same-sex relationships that are not just condemned but lauded, and that possibly included a sexual relationship (not at all clear, but almost certainly David and Jonathan did, there are hints it was considered a marriage). 

A careful reading of OT and NT does find plenty of admonitions against various sexual activities, but as far as we can tell the writers did not know what homosexuality was.  Maybe they didn't have any back then, I dunno.  Or maybe the writers had led sheltered lives, or were too inhibited to talk about it.  But it isn't there. 

[timothy42b]

that's what the romans said about Christ's teaching, but the let the sanhedrin make the case since it was their own laws that Christ was expounding on.  

Umm, no.

The Romans crucified him as an insurgent and possible threat to their stability.  They weren't shy about this, they had no human rights groups watchdogging them, and preferred to take no chances. 

They allowed the Jewish trial solely to be sure they weren't going to offend the Jews enough to possibly cause more trouble.  They must have breathed a sigh of relief when the Jews concurred, but there were probably going to do it anyway.

All these years the Jewish people have taken the rap for something the Romans did.  Heresy was punished by stoning, always.  Crucifixion was only for insurgents. 

[timothy42b]

The rejection of war can't really be justified by Christianity.  Christ makes clear that we are to seperate God and government. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."  Additionally the concept of turning the cheek is an individual  act. 

This is totally false.  There was no separation of church and state at this time.  Misunderstanding this (and it is common) causes you to totally miss the point of that story, and much of the tension between Romans, Jews, and Christians.  Caesar WAS divine and that's why his image was on the coin and on the top of the Jewish temple.  That's why the question was a trap for Jesus.  Every Jew at the time would have understood this, it is only we who will miss it because we don't have the context. 

[pianowelsh]

Im sorry for the regular use of 'we'  But the topic is questions for the 'truely biblical'. Its a safe assumption to make that a high portion of which will be believers.  I MUST answer the issue which came up about evangelical preachers speaking from Leviticus and us Being under Grace.  It is not EVERYONE who is under Grace - let me be very very clear.  There is still judgement to come.  many people still live trying to be good enough by the laws.  Christians (born again believers) are now under Grace because of Christ and therefore there is no condemnation for them.  However The law as it stand was given by God and was given as a 'schoolmaster' or teacher - to bring us to Christ.  Christ is the fulfilment of the Law because He came in Love to pay for what we could never attain under the law.  Preachers still need to preach this because as is obvious many people dont trust Christ for salvation and they try and live good deccent law abiding lives on their own - which Christ says isnt enough.  He said ' I am the way the Truth and the Life NO one comes to the father except through me'.
There are many reasons why a preacher may speak from the Levitical law. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for life and sound doctrine (2Tim).  There is also an element that as 'new creations' Christians 'put off the old man' which means by the power of the Holy spirit they dont do things which they used to which were sinfull (this is a gradual process) and is ongoing till the born again believer comes face to face with God when he return or calls us home (Phil 1:6). Christians still need reminding of the views God has on sin by the old covenants because it reminds us that He treats sin seriously and that it shouldnt be in the lives of those who have been made new by him. That is where Christian repentance comes in. When Christians become aware of sin in their lives they take it back to God, confess it and leave it behind and move on. 'if we confess our sins he is faithfull and just to forgive us our sins and cleasnse us from all unrighteousness' (im sorry i forget the verses)

The bible does condem homosexuality in both OT and NT. Particularly in Levitical law.  I dont believe what you say about the concept of beoing gay was outside the consciousness of the writer. For a start I believe the bible to be completely inspired by God (who is all knowing) But also Luke(NT author) was Greek and Paul also did missionary journeys in parts of Greece - they knew the prevelent homosexual stance that was current and they taught against it suing such terms as 'flee from sexual immorality'.  I think they were quite clear on it.  They also really knew their old testament law inside out so to dismiss anything written in the OT would be inappropriate really.

[pianistimo]

timothy42B,

you haven't stated scripture to back up your claims on several points.  i have never seen a scripture talking about anything but a close friendship between david and jonathan - and unless a person has a different mind to see something that is not written - david (a man of God) would not be doing something like this with his best friend.  they shared many things together just as Christ shared ideas, experiences, etc. with the disciplines.  calling david a homosexual is tantamount to calling Christ one (because David was a man after God's own heart).  the only mistake that David made was the one over Bathsheba (and the killing of her husband).  David openly confessed and openly repented.  that is why he was a great king over israel.  he was not 'gay.'  if he was feminizing himself and other men, they'd have  not had the strong army they did and gained as much power.  in fact, it was a huge INSULT back then to be feminized.  (ie. the cutting off of one's robe, etc - and david also repented of doing this to saul even though saul had done a lot of taunting to david).

straight and gay are recent terms.  in the bible, sexual sins such as homosexuality were referred to as 'dog' like behavior.  otherwise our pets would be excluded from the kingdom of heaven.  rev. 22:15 'outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.'  the bible doesn't make distinction between sinners - it says we should change and become like our Father in heaven.  that's why we need the bible to show us what IS sin.  there is no distinction here between gay and straight.  that is modern law - allowing both to marry and making provision.  i'm not God and in this government i certainly wouldn't go around trying to stop people who are intent on getting married.  it's not for us to judge others - just ourselves.  there are names for other types of sin too, so i don't think the bible is 'making fun' or jesting about a sin.  in fact, in other translations 'dog' is written 'homosexual.'  but, in these recent times it is harder to find that translation becase people don't like it.

the ten commandments are a simple thing - and yet everyone makes the bible to be complicated.  it's loving God and loving your neighbor that counts.  if you give someone aids that's not loving them.  if you know that homosexual behavior might cause their lives pain and grief  - (because of mutiple partners oftentimes) - then that is not truly loving your neighbor.  people say 'well, they consented.'  but, taking responsibility mean s not even asking someone to do something that might be risky behavior (this includes much more than one sin).  there are so many things that people are dared to do in college.  i wish there were more people around to protect many young people from mistakes that might make them wish they hadn't made even one mistake.  basically, abstinence.  separate dorms for women and men.  things like that.  where the women are avidly protected by the guys and the women don't taunt the guys.  basically, the type of arrangement on christian campuses.  of course, that would be infringing on freedoms and rights, but what about the rights of people to go to college without leaving sick or abused?  i think the people who are most affected are young people who haven't thought things through.

ok. as i see it, whatever sins we have, we are told that that is NOT freedom in the bible.  II peter 2:19 'promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved.'  before this verse, in verse 5 it talks about the days of noah (where the cities of sodom and gommorah were destroyed).  we know that lot was asked by the men of the city if they could have sexual relations with what they thought were two men visiting him.  instead they were angels, and they caused the blindness of all who were around the house.  anyway, noah's flood was a disaster that God says (and i believe it literally) He caused.  and, if the last days are similar to noah's time, then we will have similar societies. 

other things besides homosexuality are mentioned in I peter 4:3 'sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousels (swingers), drinking parties, and abominable idolatries.'  this is 'old english' but covers basically what happens at nightclubs.  people go in looking for trouble.  what is unfortunate is that girls think they'll find a decent guy there and end up getting murdered at 20.  recently in philadelphia there was an awful rape and murder and the girl was only 20 or 21.  she, strangely, was getting her criminal justice degree (about to graduate), and was brutally raped and murdered after a couple drinks and leaving ALONE.  so, we are told in the bible, to avoid places like that altogether.  if more women were allowed to see what happens to these victims, they wouldn't put themselves at risk in a place where people openly get drunk. 

if we change ourselves and our behavior we see many scriptures that praise people who were previously sinners.  james 2:25 mentions rahab the harlot also justified by works (believing int he true God after seeing her own rescue).  she protected the men of God that came to her and listened and believed even though they predicted the fall of her own city.  she didn't have faith in man, but in God, so her sins are now covered.  there is much hope in the bible for sinners. 

*it is interesting to note that the first sin committed after the flood was homosexuality.  after noah awoke from having some wine (probably stressed after all that had happened previously with the flood) - he 'knew what his youngest son had done to him.'  gen. 9:24  at that point he said 'cursed be canaan;a servant of servants he shall be to his brothers.' he also said, 'blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem; and let canaan be his servant. may God enlarge the tents of japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let canaan be his servant.'  so the first blessing and curses have to do with the descendents of this situation.  but, after Christ, these blessings and curses were put individually on sinners and those who repented.  we are 'slaves to sin' if we keep on sinning is my point. 

[ahinton]

Im sorry for the regular use of 'we'  But the topic is questions for the 'truely biblical'. Its a safe assumption to make that a high portion of which will be believers.

Your apology is accepted (by me, anyway), but I must still insist that there is no incontrovertible proof that a high proportion of those who have read all or part of the Bible will necessarily be believers - nor will all "believers" (if by that term you mean all those who believe in God, i.e. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, etc.) necessarily accept at face value every word that is found in the Bible or indeed interpret each phrase in it in precisely the same way. Furthermore, there is the translation aspect; so far in this thread no one has (I think) alluded to the various translations that it has undergone since its original emergence, in specific terms of the subtle metamorphoses of nuance and inflection that the original texts will inevitably have undergone over the past centuries. Whilst it is natural to expect to accept that priests, clergy and regular churchgoers will be "believers" in one sense or another, there is far less certainty in repsect of professional and amateur theological scholars or those whose Biblical interest is primarily as an enduring work of literature.

There is still judgement to come.  Many people still live trying to be good enough by the laws.

I daresay they are, but not every "believer" - let alone everyone who has read all or part of the Bible - shares your view about, or interpretation of, the "judgement" of which you write.

Christians (born again believers).

Why do you write as though all Christians are "born again believers" and what precisely do you mean by your particular use here of the term "born again"?

are now under Grace because of Christ and therefore there is no condemnation for them.

Is your claim about "no condemnation" here intended to mean that, because the kind of Christian you describe is "now under Grace", he/she is exempt from the kind of "judgement" of which you just wrote - and regardless of how he/she conducts his/her life?

However, the law as it stands was given by God and was given as a 'schoolmaster' or teacher - to bring us to Christ.

Now, instead of "we", you write "us"; who is this "us"? One may reasonably presume that you mean "Christians", since you write of the law being given by God to bring us to Christ. But is this supposed to mean that God gave non-Christian believers in Him a different law? - or the same Law but for the purpose of bringing them to Mohammed, Krishna or some other prophet instead of to Christ?

Christ is the fulfilment of the law because He came in Love to pay for what we could never attain under the law.  Preachers still need to preach this because as is obvious many people dont trust Christ for salvation and they try and live good decent law abiding lives on their own - which Christ says isn't enough.  He said ' I am the way the Truth and the Life NO one comes to the father except through me'.

Again, I can see how this would work for Christians, but what about non-Christian Bible scholars? - especially of the kind that is represented by a Muslim I know who has said (albeit somewhat controversially, perhaps) that, for him, every devout Muslim worthy of the name must have read the Bible and accept the value of Christ's teachings. What does it mean not to "trust Christ for salvation" and short-changing Christ by merely trying to "live good decent lives" on one's own? I don't understand this. Where and how does Christ claim that living a life in accordance with his teachings  "isn't enough"?

When Christians become aware of sin in their lives they take it back to God, confess it and leave it behind and move on; 'if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness'.

Now this, I think, is where it is "not enough"; I know several Roman Catholic Christians who, whilst they have, by formal confession, sought and received absolution from and forgiveness for what they regard as sins that they have committed, but who have nevertheless felt that the absolution and forgiveness of God does not alwasy necessarily confer upon them a feeling that they can so absolve and forgive themselves. In other words, like so much else that you and other "born again" Christian fundamentalists write, a sincerely held belief in God does not of itself necessarily confer upon the believer an easy, clear-cut, black-and-white recipe-book to account for every one of life's eventualities in our ever-changing and ever increasingly changing world. By so saying, I do not seek to undermine the sense of constancy that is a cornerstone of such belief - merely to point out that such constancy isn't everything, even to a believer.

The bible does condem homosexuality in both OT and NT. Particularly in Levitical law.  I don't believe what you say about the concept of being gay was outside the consciousness of the writer. For a start I believe the bible to be completely inspired by God (who is all knowing) But also Luke (NT author) was Greek and Paul also did missionary journeys in parts of Greece - they knew the prevelent homosexual stance that was current and they taught against it using such terms as 'flee from sexual immorality'.  I think they were quite clear on it.  They also really knew their old testament law inside out, so to dismiss anything written in the OT would be inappropriate really.

Whilst it was not me that raised the subject of the Biblical stance/s on homosexuality, it is clear that this matter has already raised arguments from others, so I think that it is incumbent upon you to clear the air, if you can, by quoting a few examples to support your belief that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible; for example, if, as you contend, Luke and Paul "knew the prevalent homosexual stance that was current", your statement that "they taught against it using such terms as 'flee from sexual immorality'" is of itself insufficiently specific in its failure to justify a synonymity between "homosexuality and sexual "immorality".

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

I'd rather get back to debating original sin, a more fruitful discussion than homosexuality.  (oops, bad pun?) 

But I have to make one point. 

Lev is about straight guys visiting male temple prostitutes. 

Everybody knows this.  Judaism has known this for 3,000 years, responsible Christian Biblical scholars for almost 2,000 years.  There is no disagreement on this point, this is not controversial.  Only lay people don't seem to know, and they should. 

So using Lev as an argument against modern day homosexual orientation either displays massive ignorance or massive lack of integrity. 

Stop doing that! 

[prometheus]

OBL doesn't dislike the SA gov't because it's tyrannical.  He'd prefer a much stricter government.  He thinks it isn't Islamic enough.  If the US somehow turned SA democratic, he'd probably be much angrier than he is now.

As I said before, I do not know OBL's true motives. Probably he just cares about power, like all leaders. But the reason he gets support is because the tyranny in SA, they steal the oil from the people and sell it to the west, making absurd amounts of money. Wheneter OBL has an alternative that is better for the people doesn't matter. He speaks out against the brutal monarchy and thus gets support, or sympathy. Remember, almost all 9/11 hijackers were saudi's. But the saudi monachy gets strong military support from the west, in particular the US. This is not strange, a rebellion civil war in SA could potentionally stop all oil production. Just ask an economist what it would mean if SA stopped producing oil.
Surely OBL will like this.

BTW most polls of the Iraqi ppl do not show that a majority want the US out now.  In fact I can't remember any where that position had majority support.

The secret poll dome by the Britisch MoD, that was leaked to the Telegraph, rightwing newspaper, 8-2005:

• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.


https://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml

Once of the most recont poll done by WPO, 1-2006:

    * 80% of the country thinks that the US wants long term bases
    * 76% of the country thinks that the US would not withdraw even if it was asked by the Iraqi government to do so.
    * 70% of the country wants the US out in 2 years or less.
    * 47% of the country, including 88% of Sunnis approve of attacks against US forces

https://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=hmpg1

I am told this kind of information doesn't get reported in the US mainstream media, so that may be why you never heard about it.

[timothy42b]

timothy42B,

you haven't stated scripture to back up your claims on several points.  i have never seen a scripture talking about anything but a close friendship between david and jonathan - and unless  

You either haven't read Samuel or you are blinding yourself to what it says.

There are many references.  Here are a couple.  (oops, another pun)  1 Samuel 18: 3-4.  Jonathan strips naked to make a covenant with David.  Nudity was NOT casual then.  1 Samuel 18: 20-21.  Saul offers his daughter Michal in marriage which will make David his son-in-law for the second time.  Because he is essentially "married" already to Jonathan.  Or 1 Samuel 20:41, which says they kissed until David wept - except in Hebrew it says they kissed until David had an erection.  Translators were a little uncomfortable and made an adjustment here.  

That enough for you?  There are more.  None are definitive but when you add them up they tell a story.

And David WAS a man of God.  Which tells you that God did not disapprove of this relationship, and neither should you.  

[ahinton]

And David WAS a man of God.  Which tells you that God did not disapprove of this relationship, and neither should you.  

OK, but was it not "pianowelsh" rather than "pianistimo" (whom you quote) that expressed dissent over this?

Best,

Alistair

[musik_man]

This is totally false. There was no separation of church and state at this time. Misunderstanding this (and it is common) causes you to totally miss the point of that story, and much of the tension between Romans, Jews, and Christians. Caesar WAS divine and that's why his image was on the coin and on the top of the Jewish temple. That's why the question was a trap for Jesus. Every Jew at the time would have understood this, it is only we who will miss it because we don't have the context.

The question came up in the context of paying taxes to the Roman government.  Christ said that they should.  This implies to me that one' responsiblilities to God and government are not the same.

The trap was, that the Roman occupation was unpopular with the Jews.  Jesus could answer in favor of the government, and lose their respect, or answer against it, and get himself in trouble with the Roman authorities.  As usual, the person trying to trick Jesus gets an answer that gets around his trap while stating the truth of the issue.  Jesus does this all the time, especially to the disciples.

Timothy, I can't see how anyone can read the NT and OT bans on male/male sex as not banning homosexuality.  "And the Lord sayeth, thou shalt not lie with another man, unless thou really wanteth to."

Prometheus, you link to a 'secret' poll that give wildly different results than any other poll without listing it's methodology questions etc.  I'm gonna ignore that.  Things like how questions are asked, sample size, and how the sample size were selected are necessary to interpret any poll.  To give a couple examples, many media outlets regularly report that a vast majority of Americans prefer abortion rights; however, they group Americans who want most abortion restricted with exceptions for incest, rape, and the mother's life, with pro-abortion numbers.  This is highly misleading, and you'd only find out by looking at the poll in question.  That's not to mention other items, such as polls in the 2004 election that were misleading because they oversampled democrats or republicans or independents, or ones that were worthless because they polled adults instead of likely voters.  Push polling also vastly distorts results and I'd need to see the questions to evaluate that one.

The second poll has all the things that I require.  Unfortunately, it also proves my point.  Only 35% want the US to withdraw within 6 months(as opposed to 70% that want them out within 2 years.)  Logically, that means that <35% want them out now, clearly less than a majority.

Your interpretation of radical Islam and US foreign policy in the light of oil is rather strange.  It's like reading a Marxist writer where 'capitalism' has been replaced by 'oil.'  History isn't driven by one factor(if the US wants oil, why not just drop the sanctions on Iraq?  Why threaten Iran with sanctions over its Nuclear program?) , even if it does make your views very convienent.

[stevie]

fart

[pianistimo]

dear timothy42b,  (sorry guys, this is not about iraq - just for a moment)

i samuel 18:4 is about jonathan recognizing that david is next in line for kingship.  the robe is not his inner garment, but his outer show that he is the son of a king.  he gave it to david because david told him, and he believed, that he was annointed by samuel to BE the next king.  the trust that they had was enormous because it meant that jonathan was in agreement to this and proved it by giving him his 'robe.'

there is NOTHING about jonathan being naked there!  also, right after that, michal (saul's daughter was offerred to david as a wife).  if david was going to be snared by jonathan, saul would have used him.  nothing about snaring him that way - even though saul did not like david (probably knew that his position was going to be taken away).

as far as 'second time' to be an son-in-law.  saul's first daughter 'merab' was pledged to david.  vs. 19 'when merab, saul's daughter, should have been given to david, that she was given to adriel the meholathite for a wife...'  so they are discussing how to resolve a problem that was pre-agreed and the vow was broken by saul (who said that if david won a certain battle, he'd have her as a wife).

*my take on the original sin, which differs from traditional catholic doctrine, is that the 'fall of man' was in regard to choosing for himself what was good and evil and not SEX.  married sex was blessed and considered good ('a man should cleave to his wife') this was mentioned before the tree incident.  if married sex was bad, then people would be listing scriptures that confirmed this.  perhaps what is confusing to people is not male/female sex - but male/female female female female sex  (as with jacob and rachel and leah and their handmaids).  but, i suppose if abraham was going to be the father of many nations, he'd have to have a few children and his children would have to have a lot more.  in the book of timothy, a 'bishop' is required to have a good record and part of that was to have only 'one wife.'  ok.  that sounds better!  now, how did those OT guys get all the fun and the NT ones have to settle for one wife?  i don't know.  maybe the OT ones didn't even want more than one - but ended up 'having to fulfill their duties.' 

there's definately a cultural thing going on - and many things don't 'jive' always to our expectations of women's rights - but we do see that the woman who is most loved usually has her son get the rights of a firstborn.  the bible is very much male oriented - and yet, if read carefully, also makes provisions for women to have more freedom in the NT.  God doesn't seem to go into as many 'unclean' strictures, otherwise the women who was afflicted with hemmorage would never have touched  Christ's robe.  and, women WERE around Christ to hear his teaching.  in fact, He wanted them to be taught.  He even told Mary to stop her putzing around in the kitchen and come and  listen like Mary was.  this is very different and new for the women of that time (expected to clean and have babies).  so, I think freedom has to do with keeping the law, and yet, being aware of cultural times (as we live in today). not to offend people, and still to keep the intent of the law. 

[prometheus]

Prometheus, you link to a 'secret' poll that give wildly different results than any other poll without listing it's methodology questions etc.

That's because that poll was done by the British ministery of defence, it was supposed to be kept secret while they claim everything is going ok.

I'm gonna ignore that.

Not a smart thing.

Things like how questions are asked, sample size, and how the sample size were selected are necessary to interpret any poll.

Sure, but this is the UK MoD asking the questions.

That's not to mention other items, such as polls in the 2004 election that were misleading because they oversampled democrats or republicans or independents, or ones that were worthless because they polled adults instead of likely voters.  Push polling also vastly distorts results and I'd need to see the questions to evaluate that one.

What about the polls that show Bush voters think he supports Kyoto?

The second poll has all the things that I require.  Unfortunately, it also proves my point.  Only 35% want the US to withdraw within 6 months(as opposed to 70% that want them out within 2 years.)  Logically, that means that <35% want them out now, clearly less than a majority.

Sure, but a large majority thinks plans, or planned, the US tol stay permanently, doesn't     believe the US will leave when asked and endoreses their government to take a more firm stand about a time table for withdrawal.

Your interpretation of radical Islam and US foreign policy in the light of oil is rather strange.  It's like reading a Marxist writer where 'capitalism' has been replaced by 'oil.'

How so and what is wrong with this? Do you deny the importance of oil in our western economies? What's wrong with this reasoning? And why is it strange? Maybe you find it strange and not to your liking, but that is not important.

History isn't driven by one factor(if the US wants oil, why not just drop the sanctions on Iraq?  Why threaten Iran with sanctions over its Nuclear program?) , even if it does make your views very convienent.

Wow, wait.
First of, the sactions were totally insane. They had no justified purpose. They totally destroyed the Iraqi economy, many people died as a result and maybe more important, it crippled the population so an attempt to overthrow Hussain was impossible. Why did the US do this? Because Hussain stopped listening. Firstly, after the first war against Iraq they descided not to overthrow Hussain. Then, during the shia rebellion, just after the war, the US refused the shia acces to captured Iraqi arms. The rebellion was squeeled. Not only did the US not support it, they indirectly supported Saddam Hussian, 40000 dead and one of the cases against Hussain in the trial. Reason for this? Stability.

Second, the US doesn't need the oil. It needs to control it. It needs to deny it from the Europe, Russia, China, India, etc. Also, the fact that Hussain started to sell oil for euros seems to be an issue, but I am not really sure about this because I am not an economist, so I can't verify this myself. Fact is the US did switch it back to dollars.

During the sanctions Iraq did not export any oil, so it was denied from everyone. But the sanctions were unmaintainable because so many civilians died as a result. Remember the infamous quote of Albright in 60 minutes: "We think the price is worth it." Which she later retracted because of the commotion it created. But this shows the general idea. And this was the Clinton administration. So the oil for food program was put into place. This program was utterly corrupt, which shows the relevance of oil.
A dozen companies and countries were aware of the corruption and made lots of money. Of course a lot of money went to the Kuwait military. Most of the 20 billion dollars of oil Hussain has stolen went to Jordan and Turkey, US/UK allies. The US/UK lust allowed it.

As for Iran, they will open a International Oil Bourse for trading oil in euros. I don't really get your point. If Iran stopped exporting oil then this would be good for the US since Iran isn't really favorable towards the US compared to other countries. Why do you think Russia and China oppose the sanctions?
As for Iran's nuclear weapons. Surely they must not be allowed to produce one. But where did they get their technology from? From Pakistan. And the guy that sold the technolgy to Pakiston stole it in Holland, Abdul Qadeer Khan. According to the Dutch prime minister of that time they knew he was stealing nuclear secrets. But the CIA asked Holland to let him go so they could shadow him and collect more information. The secrets he stole went to Pakistan, and probably North Korea, Iran and maybe others. There has been absolutely no pressure on Pakistan, who already have nukes and didn't sign the non-proliferation treaty. While Iran has and doesn't have any nukes. Same for North Korea, Israel and India. Actually, Bush went to India just a few days ago to sign a very controversial nuclear agreement. Let me not quote officials defences on the cases of Pakistan and India, because they are just laugheble. Of course concerning Israel the question is never asked. They stole techonolgy from the US and they they mentally destroyed, or at least that is what they attempted, Mordechai Vanunu after he disclosed informaton about the Israeli nukes.

[musik_man]

Prometheus, for all that you wrote, you didn't really respond to my objection to your poll.  Do you draw deep conclusions from polls where you don't have all the information?  If you do, you're gonna be misled on a host of subjects.  This doesn't even only apply to polls.  Let's take the example of the Lancet study that claimed 100,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the war.  That's what the media told you.  In reality the study concluded that there was a 95% confidence interval that between 2,000 and 200,000 Iraqis had died.  The media just grabbed the middle of this figure and ran with it.  Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of statistics would know that you can't do that.  Obviously, data with such a ridiculously huge variance is worthless.  It's extremely easy to lie with statistics, so one needs to take every poll and every study with a grain of salt.

As for the second poll, you linked to it to disprove my statement that the majority of Iraqis don't want us out now.  It shows the exact opposite.  What else it shows isn't relevant in evaluating whether what I said was right.

The problem with your theory is that you interpret everything with regards to oil.  Any action is explained by oil, not because evidence suggests that oil caused it, but because you think it causes everything.  You have a hammer, so everything is looking like nails to you.  Do you deny the possibility that little factors such as US national security, international relations, and US public opinion affected US policy in the middle east?  It seems that way from what you say.

I agree that Iraqi sanctions were a mistake.  I have grave doubts about sanctions in general.  What I meant to show was that the US cannot be motivated by cheap oil in these decisions as they lower the oil supply.  Oil is a fungible commodity.  All oil from everywhere is the same.  It makes no difference to my car if I stick in Venezuelan or Saudi oil.  This means that oil's price is set on the world market.  If Iran won't sell oil to the US it does absolutely nothing to the US.  Other countries such as Russia or China buy up Iranian oil, instead of say Venezuelan oil.  This causes a drop in demand for Venezuelan oil, which is made up for by the US.  Whenever oil is mentioned on the news, they don't do regional prices.  There is one oil price for the world.  It is set by total supply and total demand.  Who's selling to whom makes no difference.  It's impossible reconcile the US's sanctions in Iraq and their willingness to sanction Iran with any theory that says that the US is soley motivated by oil.

[ahinton]

"Gaul is divided into three parts" as the old (originally Latin) phrase has it; well, it seems that this thread is similarly divided, albeit into two - in the blue corner, Osama Bin Laden, well oiled and fighting an allegedly Islamic fundamentalist cause from a notably "in absentia" position and, in the red corner, Almighty God, being called upon to fight for a born again Christian fundamentalist cause. May he who has neither oil nor sin cast the first accusation of "never the twain shall meet"...

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

First. I didn't say the Iraqi's want the US out tomorrow. I said that that the will of the people of Iraq is contrary to the interest of the US. So bringing democracy in Iraq is not in the US intrest. Which is supported by the facts because the US and the UK tried to stop the elections.

I don't really understand your objection to polls. You don't need to compare polls to 'the truth' but to other polls. The polls were once much more favorable. Also, hostility against the US and the UK in Iraq could be bigger than the polls show. I could show you more polls, made by the most respected polling institutions. They show the same thing over and over.
Why would the UK MoD shoot itself in the foot by manipulating the poll? The MoD wants to know how hostile the people in Iraq are towards them for strategic reasons. And then they want to keep it secret if it turns out negatively towards their campaign.
How could you just ignore this data because it might not be totally accurate?
Plus, this is not unexpected. One would predict this would happen and the polls seem to confirm the predictions. There is no way that a democratic Iraq, or Iran, or Palastine, is going to be contructive towards US interests. So there is no way that the US would champion democracy in those areas, well at least not consciously.

Second, I didn't say oil was the only reason. You are making a straw man. You asked how the Irak sanctions and the possible Iran sanctions fitted with the influence it has on oil so I talk about oil. I am not saying the US wants to enact sanctions because of oil. Frankly, I am not even sure why the US invaded Iraq. There were probably many people involved in the descision and they probably had many different reasons. Of course the main point is that Bush lied about the official reason.
Also, you need to take a corporation-viewpoint, thats were the money is made. Denying the oil to other powers is a long term goal. If it doesn't matter than why were the Iraq oil contracts with Europe and Asia declared non-void. And why is the oil production now run by corporations and not nationalised, as it was under Hussain? And you are going to tell me these corporations won't make any profit? Thats their only goal. If they wouldn't make any profit they would have no real reason to be in Iraq.
It isn't a question about how the control over oil is going to be effective. That is complicated. The oil price may not get too high or too low. Plus you have to consider the flow of petrodollars, etc. But when you control the oil you can influence this in whatever way you think is best.
Also, the oil market is not a free market. For example, China cannot buy US oil corporations.

Also, it doesn't really matter if the policy makers are right about oil. If you observe the US policy makers and their comments, and if you look back at the released internal documents of the 40's, you'll see oil is an important consideration in policy-making. Note again, I am not saying that controlling oil is essential. I am saying it can be a motive the US had to invade Iraq. And there aren't many motives that hold under critical thinking.

[musik_man]

'Third, the US just opened Al Quada recruitment offices all over Iraq when they started to bomb it. Most of the people in Iraq want the americans out.'

You did say that Iraqis want the US out of their country.  You also did state the Iraqi democracy isn't in the interests of the US.

You still miss the fundamental fact about polls.  It is indeed necessary to compare polls to the 'truth.'  When you poll, you take results for a small sample, and extrapolate the views of a larger population.  No pollster is gonna ask all 25million Iraqis, they only do a small group maybe on the order of 1,000.  A large part of what statistics deals with is figuring out how close the results of the sample(which you know) are to the results for the whole population(which you don't.)  The poll doesn't directly tell us what the Iraqis think.  It tells us what the sample population thought.  These don't necessarily correspond, and knowing the items I asked for allow me to make sure that they in fact to correspond.  Without knowing things like sample size, how the sample group was chosen, how the questions were framed, the data is untrustworthy.  There's a whole branch of math/science devoted to statistics and it is extremely relevant to interpreting the results. 

You said earlier that US support for SA stemmed from a need for cheap oil and then stated how the US actions in Iraq affected America's supply of oil.  I apologize for misreading your position, but from your earlier post, I hope you can at least see why I was confused.

Now you are saying that the US doesn't want cheap oil, but instead wants to enrich oil companies.  These are completely different subjects.  So now you've gone from having a similar arguement to Marxists to having a Marxist arguement.  The US gov't is only a puppet of corporations!  Your arguement is as bad as the one that WWI occured so that arms manufacturers could make a dime.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with the second part.  The US is trying to control the world's oil supply so that it can use it as a strategic weapon against our enemies?

Oil isn't quite a free market because of OPEC, but that doesn't change the fact that oil is fungible.  The only way the US government could manipulate the oil market is if it controled a huge share of the world market(the US gov't itself controls only the oil in the strategic oil reserves which is only a 6-month supply I believe) and was willing to cut supply drastically.  Now this would raise the price of oil worldwide including in the US precisely because oil is fungible.  The US cannot selectively target the oil supply to a particular country by manipulating the market.  It could only do this through items like worldwide sanctions or a naval blockade.

[timothy42b]

OK, but was it not "pianowelsh" rather than "pianistimo" (whom you quote) that expressed dissent over this?

Best,

Alistair

I'm sorry, my fault for being careless.  I'll try to proof read before posting.