There is no point by point revoke for every single law drawn up

But some things ARE explicitly revoked: Dietary laws and circumcision. If there was a point to fixing these, why not explicitly fix the much greater wrong of homophobia?

why would there be when it clearly states that only the two principles apply. The old law is history.

For the third time, please point me to the passage in the bible which explicitly revokes the prohibition on homosexuality. I’m looking for something unambiguous.

If such a passage truly exists then it confirms that at the very least that pretty much anything in the old-testament can be considered irrelevant or redundant.

Remember that my original point was that the bible is a book full of bronze-age superstition and questionable morals. I think we’ve proved beyond any doubt that the old-testament’s opinion of homosexuality is very questionable. Your only defense is that the old testament’s advice on the matter is irrelevant and redundant.

So let’s just assume then that we can agree that the old-testament got it completely wrong on this topic. If the old-testament has been shown to be redundant and irrelevant book of superstitious bronze-age nonsense then all you have left is the new-testament. Let’s hope there’s something better in it!

I think it is you who is in the muddle. The verse you quote states that for each of those, the result is that you would not inherit God’s kingdom -

Your interpretation of this passage is dishonest and also completely out of line with the way that Christians have traditionally understood the text.

The author of 1st Corrintians is listing a bunch of “wicked” wrongs. This is not just an arbitrary list of random wrongs but a list of acts which the author considers so severe as to deny the inheritance of God’s kingdom.

There’s no evidence at all that the author thinks it’s OK to be gay. He’s just as homophobic as previous generations … just not quite as murderous.

Even you must be forced to ask, why did the author list homosexuality amongst a bunch of wicked acts which really are crimes? Only a fool could escape the conclusion that the author intended us to make an association between theft, fraud and homosexuality. It’s clear that in the author’s opinion homosexuality really was a crime: He thinks that homosexuals are criminals. It’s slander by association.

The question is, can any of this homophobic slander be justified? Today we know that homosexuality does not harm society. We do not need to be “protected” from homosexuality since it’s just a sexual preference.

only you have managed to come to the conclusion that they are ‘punishable in the harshest possible terms’.

That’s not my conclusion, but a historical fact. People have been executed for theft. People have been executed for being gay. Execution is a harsh punishment. The old and new testament passages on homosexuality have been used as a justification to persecute homosexuals for thousands of years.

By the way, were you going to respond to my point on moral relativism? You previously implied that these harsh punishments were somehow appropriate for the Israelites. I was hoping you’d admit that killing gays for being gay was as inappropriate then as it is now.

I think it is you who is in the muddle. The verse you quote states that for each of those, the result is that you would not inherit God’s kingdom – only you have managed to come to the conclusion that they are ‘punishable in the harshest possible terms’.

I suggest you read things a little more clearly.

I can see I’m wasting my time…

>>But the old testament does… really explicitly clearly. Now here’s your second chance. I double-dare you to state the obvious truth that this is utterly wrong, insane and immoral:

It is wrong according to the new Testament. A law applied to Israel and revoked completely by the new covenant. No need for a ‘double-dare’

Why would it be a joke when it was one of many punishments given to protect and preserve a fledgling ancient nation (Israel) that now, thousands of years later, are not applicable as a result of a new covenant?

You really disapointed me: This reeks of moral relativism, and gay-panic homophobia.

If killing gays for being gay is morally abhorrent now, why can you not admit that it has always been morally abhorrent. You seem to imply that killing gays was somehow justified to “protect” the Israelites from some unstated threat… but what? How exactly did the gays threaten Israel in a way that justified such a bizarre and draconian punishment.

Some things are always wrong: It’s like torture – there’s absolutely no time when it’s justified. There’s no exception – it’s something that’s always wrong.

If you had the courage to see what was plainly obvious you’d say that the old-testament got it wrong and the new-testament did little or nothing to correct this grievous slander, and in fact by continuing to harshly condemn people for silly reasons continued to make the situation worse.

You will find explicit revocations of dietary and circumcision laws, but can you state precisely which part of the explicitly new-testament revokes the death penalty for homosexuality? I bet you cannot because no such section exists.

Let us say for argument that this passage or principle really does exist, what are we to make of the New testament’s view of this practice:

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

The author of 1 Corinthians lists homosexuality in the same category as theft, fraud and slander – all serious crimes which would be punishable in the harshest possible terms. The author is in a moral muddle.

I admit that it’s a slight improvement to go from condemning homosexuals to death to simply slandering them as criminals – but it’s all still bigotry. There’s no rational basis to fear or punish homosexuality and yet there is plenty of irrational homophobia in both old and new testament.

Now let us recap: I mentioned homosexuality as an example where the bible has clearly outlived it’s usefulness as a moral guide. Do you still insist that the bible has anything useful to say on this topic?

It is wrong according to the new Testament. A law applied to Israel and revoked completely by the new covenant. No need for a ‘double-dare’

>>The funny thing I often hear from Christians is that any time they are presented with an inconvenient truth from the old-testament they claim it does not apply because it’s over-rulled by the new, but in most cases (as in this one) there’s nothing explicit or implied to justify this statement. If you can arbitrarily ignore any passage of the old-testament on a whim then you can pretty much dodge any contentious issue you like!

The reason you hear it a lot, is because it is also a fundamental teaching of the Bible. (Remember what I told you before about an appreciation of the entire thread of the Bible) The old law was completely revoked by the new covenant. This is explicit in the Bible. There are, though, only two timeless principals that stand from the old-law: Love your Neighbor, and Love God. That is all. This is not an arbitrary selection as you would like to portray it.

>>Which passage in the new testament informs readers that god was only joking about that “putting to death” of gays bit?

Why would it be a joke when it was one of many punishments given to protect and preserve a fledgling ancient nation (Israel) that now, thousands of years later, are not applicable as a result of a new covenant?

So now your justification for saying that the Bible contains Bronze-age superstition was that it was actually written in the Bronze-age era? Amusing.

No, I also gave explicit examples of stuff that is obvious superstitious nonsense and stuff which is obviously morally questionable. Taken together with the universally agreed fact that the book was written mostly during the bronze-age, this perfectly justifies calling the Bible a book of “bronze-age superstition of questionable moral value”

I think all of that is non-controversial. The only bit you are offering an argument for is it’s purported relevance to the modern world.

>>So what did you show… well the bible is as as relevant

as

Shakespeare.
You still don’t get it, do you? This was a comparison, an example etc. Doh!

The word “as” is often used in the English language to signify a comparison. I’m saying that both the bible and the works of Shakespeare are important works of literature. That’s a kind of cultural relevance but it’s role is rightly diminished compared to it’s role in the middle-ages.

As I clearly stated, the new testament does not state death as a punishment.

But the old testament does… really explicitly clearly. Now here’s your second chance. I double-dare you to state the obvious truth that this is utterly wrong, insane and immoral:

“If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

The funny thing I often hear from Christians is that any time they are presented with an inconvenient truth from the old-testament they claim it does not apply because it’s over-rulled by the new, but in most cases (as in this one) there’s nothing explicit or implied to justify this statement. If you can arbitrarily ignore any passage of the old-testament on a whim then you can pretty much dodge any contentious issue you like!

Which passage in the new testament informs readers that god was only joking about that “putting to death” of gays bit?

Safer territory? Haven’t I just dealt with just about every single point you have mentioned – including Homosexuality?

I hardly think enthusiastic involvement in your site constitutes some comments on a couple of your posts. Although maybe it is by the standards of this site As someone once famously said about the blogosphere: “Never before have so many written so much to be read by so few.” My intention was to point out that there is maybe more to the Bible than your blanket tarring of it as out of date rubbish. Maybe the few that stumble on your post get more than one side of the argument as a result.

So now your justification for saying that the Bible contains Bronze-age superstition was that it was actually written in the Bronze-age era? Amusing.

>>>Questionable moral value: Check… there is plenty to question, especially in the old testament. Even you agreed that the idea of killing gays for being gay is at least “thorny”. You certainly win a prize for understatement of the year!

You’ve twisted what I said. I agreed that it is a thorny issue, but not for the reasons you say. As I clearly stated, the new testament does not state death as a punishment.

It was never my intention to demonstrate that the Bible’s principles were unique – merely relevant.

>>So what did you show… well the bible is as as relevant as Shakespeare.
You still don’t get it, do you? This was a comparison, an example etc. Doh!

Your arguments consist of fudging the issues and trying to shift the question onto safer territory. When presented with an issue you usually respond with irrelevance and vagueness… that is the source of your silliness.

Let’s recap what triggered your enthusiastic involvement with this web-site: I originally stated that my problem with the bible was that it was full of “bronze-age superstition of questionable moral value with little or no relevance to the modern world”.

Lets break this down:

* Bronze age: Check… much of the bible was written during the period we refer to as the bronze-age.

* Superstition: Check… it’s a cornucopia of myth and obvious nonsense.

* Questionable moral value: Check… there is plenty to question, especially in the old testament. Even you agreed that the idea of killing gays for being gay is at least “thorny”. You certainly win a prize for understatement of the year!

This reminds me of a famous quote:

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

I think your inability to call-out the obvious evil in killing gays for being gay is a very tangible demonstration of this truth. Why is it that you cannot admit that it is utterly reprehensible to kill a person because of their sexual preference, something which is utterly harmless and could not possibly be criminal? I asked you so many times and the best you could come up with is the admission that it’s “thorny“…

So think you have become a living demonstration of how useless the Bible is as a source of moral guidance.

… why not just admit that it is completely fucking immoral to kill people because of their sexual preference?

Errr, I seem to recall you called my Hamlet comparison silly. That wasn’t a failure to substantiate, but a failure in your understanding in how the comparison worked. You failed to say why you thought that didn’t work; lazily resorting to calling it silly.

You say my arguments don’t make sense – how? All you have said is that there are apparent double standards in the Bible (where you have failed to understand the purpose of the new covenant) and now you point out that I avoided the issue of homosexuality. The new testament is fairly clear about this – and no, it doesn’t involve stoning/killing anyone over it. Paul lists a homosexual as one who would not inherit the Kingdom of God. Simple as that. And yes, it is a thorny issue – no denying that.

It is so easy to throw the accusation ‘delusional’ isn’t it? I did not ‘pretend’ that you didn’t ask the question, I chose not to respond when you mentioned it, picking up other more significant points, as they stood out to me as being more worthy of debunking.

You say the quote above is a further example of me resorting to irrelevance. That made me chuckle. Do you have to have everything thing explained to you? The Muggeridge quote is a reference to your original post. The fact that you think that the Bible is full of stone age superstition. Do you recall? There is relevancy for the modern day – the sermon on the mount being a very good example. Muggeridge was a man who was clearly capable of grasping this – a man who was an agnostic himself.

By the way, how many times is it that I’ve mentioned the thorny issue of homosexuality i the the bible. You did not respond once. It’s a classic example of somebody who is in denial, in this case you are pretending I never even asked the question!