Alternative Spirituality

» spiritalk - Compassion

In response to Compassion posted by BrianTubbs:
Like most bible quotations you pick and choose. It is one of the most misconstrued and misinterpreted volumes in existence today...because it is contradictory.

I have no hostility...the phrase you quoted gives all their right to worship as they please. When is it recipricated?

God bless, J

-- posted by spiritalk

» spiritalk - Hold on Spirittalk

In response to Hold on Spirittalk posted by BrianTubbs:
On a different approach...last night's version of ER on TV was all about a gay couple and the lack of rights in serious matters...such as power of attorney to decide medical issues. (In Canada there is such a thing as a power of attorney with regard to making medical decisions for a partner and it can hold up in court...but what about with family members who are homophobic?)

Civil rights for homosexuals are being bashed and abused in many ways. It was a TV show to be sure...art imitating life? or life imitating art?

BTW in no way did my post say anything about what the church should or shouldn't do. (I have my opinions on its position...they were not expressed). What I addressed was the LAW. We have recently accepted Gay marriages and they are civil. This is merely leveling the field for gay and non-gay rights. And yes, there were a lot of disparages that are being corrected.

God bless, J

-- posted by spiritalk

» Brian Tubbs - Misquoting the Bible

In response to Compassion posted by spiritalk:

I agree with you that the Bible is probably the most misquoted volume in literary history.

As to the contradiction issue, I really believe that virtually all of the "contradictions" alleged by critics are the result of people not accepting the Bible for what it is - and reading it as it should be written.

For example, take one of Paul's letters. There weren't chapters and verses in the original autographs. Those were man-made additions. What they lead to are people lifting different verses out of Romans here and there, and then comparing them, and doing so with other books, and so on and so forth. Do that enough times - and you WILL have seeming contradictions.

But Paul's letters (Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, etc) should be read ALL THE WAY THROUGH - from start to finish. That's how they were written. THAT is how they should be read. Most people don't do that, though, because we're lazy.

The Bible itself, though it was written over 1,000 years by approx 40 different authors, should be read all the way through in order to understand its overall point. Not many people do that, including many who profess to believe IN the Bible.

In my opinion, people don't have the right to say they believe in the Bible unless they've read it - all of it.

And people don't have the right to say the Bible contradicts itself unless they've read it all the way through.

-Brian

p.s. I'm guessing, Spiritalk, that you HAVE read the Bible, and I mean that as a sincere guess. So, this posting is NOT really intended as an indictment of you.

» spiritalk - Misquoting the Bible

In response to Misquoting the Bible posted by BrianTubbs:
You mentioned 40 authors...in any space and time, 40 people will have varying opinions. That is just common sense. Consider...the story of 6 blind people examining an elephant and giving their opinion of what it is...was it the tail, the trunk, the side, etc. etc.?

The bible is as it exists at present. To forgive it the errors is to look for excuses. There are contradictions..it is the nature of the situation.

God bless, J

-- posted by spiritalk

» pink101 - Civil Rights

.
Civil Rights are either for all people or they are for none.
.
We cannot differentiate who has access and who does not.
.
Our civil rights are found in the U.S. Constitution and as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is simple and straight forwardly presented for our inspection.
.
One of the emerging problems seems--in my mind--to be caused by the push for special privilege by various religious groups. No group deserves a special place in the sun. There is far too much of it already for anyone to be pushing for more. More leads to more and that leads to more and more. The idea that some of us are more equal than others is wrong.
.
The problems of minorities seeking more equality that others is wrong. But, minorities do need protection from the demans of some majority groups. It is healthy for us to discuss the issues involved.
.
Have you ever been in a school classroom where the Bill of Rights has been the subject for education? Neither have I. But, we need it. Too many of our thoughts are influenced by the bias of this or that group. Time for understanding.
.

-- posted by pink101

» spiritalk - Civil Rights

In response to Civil Rights posted by pink101:
It is another document with gender bias. And the restriction of certain people is based on narrow interpretation of a small minority of the populace.

"All men were created equal"...if you take it generically and include woman, why didn't they have the vote for so long? Why couldn't a woman run for office?

God bless, J

-- posted by spiritalk

» Brian Tubbs - I have to jump in on this...

The Founding Fathers were a lot more progressive than they're given credit for. True, they were people of their time, but they did move the country forward - substantially so - in many areas, including civil rights. If you disagree, may I (shamefully) plug an article I wrote for the old Suite101 American Revolution section. You can find it in the archives at...

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/us_f...

But onto the issue of text itself....

In order to maintain a viable, consistent framework, you have to have a meaningful legislative process. Our government is set up based on the separation of powers. The legislative branch makes the laws. The executive branch carries out the laws. And the judicial branch interprets and applies the laws.

Now, according to classic jurisprudence (the model endorsed by our Founding Fathers), the courts were to interpret and apply the laws according to their legislative intent. This was the predominant view all the way up into the 20th century. Abe Lincoln: "The intent of the law-giver is the law."

So, if we disagree with a law on the books, the solution is NOT for the courts to redefine or reinterpret it. The solution is to change the law or repeal the law via the legislative process.

» Migisi - Civil Rights

In response to Civil Rights posted by pink101:

.
.
The problems of minorities seeking more equality that others is wrong.
.
This, as I see it, is a common misperception. I see a logical conflict in the notion that the gay community is seeking ~more equality~. Can one group have more rights than another, and still claim there's 'equality'?
.
What I hear most asking for is simply the ~same~ rights that straights enjoy. They are entitle to that, as citizens, IMO. I'm not hearing them ask that they be allowed to do anything more than what straights are permitted by law to do.
.
Women and blacks didn't ask for special treatment - just ~equal~ treatment. I remember the 'more equality' argument, and other religious and fear-based rationale, being used to oppose equal rights for them too.
.
If the gay community can't find any church that is willing to provide for their spiritual needs, they can create their own.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Bible Contradictions

In response to Misquoting the Bible posted by spiritalk:

J, perhaps we can open a different thread over in Protestantism or at the front page of Mind & Soul about the Bible contradictions. That's a deep subject.

But to quickly address what you wrote. Of course, 40 people have 40 different opinions. Probably more opinions than that. :-) But evangelical Christians claim that the Holy Spirit divinely inspired those 40 authors, thus making it possible for the Bible to become a cohesive whole. So...is God capable of overcoming human deficiency? That is the question. I believe God is.

» spiritalk - Bible Contradictions

In response to Bible Contradictions posted by BrianTubbs:

Therein lies the problem....what about what was left out? Who decided what was valid and what was not?

Yes, it is a large subject. I wouldn't ever want to argue verse by verse. The reason: I know too many people who get comfort from its pages.

The bottom line is...the more it is evaluated the more it uncovers the mis-representations, etc.

God bless, J

-- posted by spiritalk