The Bible & Sex & Relationships

River

Active member
Does the Bible offer reliable guidance on sex and human relationships? Or is it a confused mess of poor translations and terrible misunderstandings?

Let's begin here.:

Homosexuality in the Christian Scriptures
Passages from the Christian
Scriptures (New Testament)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hombiblnt.htm
 
Does the Bible offer reliable guidance on sex and human relationships? Or is it a confused mess of poor translations and terrible misunderstandings?

Let's begin here.:

Homosexuality in the Christian Scriptures
Passages from the Christian
Scriptures (New Testament)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hombiblnt.htm


Why are you beginning your thread by quoting something other than the Bible itself? If you want to make serious inquiry about the Bible, then I encourage you to quote It, not extraneous sources.

Otherwise, to be more accurate, why pose a mock question? Just start a thread that states, "The Bible is wrong when it comes to sex and human relationships, based on my new-age, liberal sources."
 
Why are you beginning your thread by quoting something other than the Bible itself? If you want to make serious inquiry about the Bible, then I encourage you to quote It, not extraneous sources.

Otherwise, to be more accurate, why pose a mock question? Just start a thread that states, "The Bible is wrong when it comes to sex and human relationships, based on my new-age, liberal sources."

I would not evaluate the relative merits of ancient or medieval alchemy, in coparison with modern chemistry, by restricting myself to passages from The Emerald Tablet by Hermes Trismegistus.

The "extraneous sources" do quote from the Bible. I felt no need to repeat those passages here.
 
I would not evaluate the relative merits of ancient or medieval alchemy, in coparison with modern chemistry, by restricting myself to passages from The Emerald Tablet by Hermes Trismegistus.

The "extraneous sources" do quote from the Bible. I felt no need to repeat those passages here.

Of course not, because those are all literature in the same subject and class.

The Bible stands alone, and should only be interpreted with reputable sources that have stood the test of time, and only then under the most astute scrutiny.

You may have had quotes but unless you use an unbiased source for them, like a Bible site, your true intent is obvious. It is okay to be biased, but own it.
 
You may have had quotes but unless you use an unbiased source for them, like a Bible site, your true intent is obvious. It is okay to be biased, but own it.

A Bible site? You're saying that "a Bible (web)site" would be unbiased?
 
http://biblehub.com/

A site that contains the Bible online. In essence, the Bible itself, yes.

There does appear to be significant variability in translations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament

This fact does not square well with the presumption that there is one thing known as The Bible (in English -- or perhaps anywhere). And if there is much variability, how can one defend the claim to Biblical inerrancy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

Another problem ... what about Biblical apocrypha? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha

What is The Gospel of Thomas? -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas
 
Last edited:
picture.php


Here's a website that says "Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon.":

http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html

But that's about as plausible as saying "Ultimately, it was God who decided to suddenly and all at once create the whole universe in about a week's time and labor, including Adam and Eve ... and the Grand Canyon.

God must not want us to look carefully at either animal bones or animal fossils -- or animals at all, espedially our fellow mammals. For the moment we do so in all seriousness we become delerious with notions of similitude and difference. ;)

Oh, and animals have nasty wet brutish loud (and wet) sex in dark fecund jungles!
 
Last edited:
I don't trust the Bible much. I think it has some interesting passages, and some useful passages. Most of it is sorely outdated, and as true as Greek mythology.

I suppose the most useful Biblical passage is the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Not only is that good advice; it's well-known advice which increases its usefulness.
 
It's a pretty poor fit, isn't it. :(
 
PRINCETON, NJ -- The large majority of Americans -- 77% of the adult population -- identify with a Christian religion, including 52% who are Protestants or some other non-Catholic Christian religion, 23% who are Catholic, and 2% who affiliate with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.Dec 24, 2012
In U.S., 77% Identify as Christian - Gallup
www.gallup.com/poll/159548/identify-christian.aspx
 
http://biblehub.com/

A site that contains the Bible online. In essence, the Bible itself, yes.

As a Christian I whole heartedly disagree with this assumption. Most Bible websites have a clear bias towards evangelical Christian historical translations. I use them for knowledge, but apply my own understanding to the scripture based on how I view other scriptures.

As for the issue of homosexuality there are only two clear scriptures which forbid it. In the Old Testament it is clear that priests are not supposed to do it and for the sake of cleanliness. They aren't supposed to do a lot of things, including anal sex, eating pork, wearing clothes from different fabrics, etc.

The only person in the New Testament that forbids it is Paul. But there is a discrepancy between Paul's beliefs on what played out in Sodom and Ghamorah and how Jesus and most other Biblical writers saw it. I tend to side with Jesus and the others. The sins of Sodom and Ghomorrah had nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with a people who were selfish, inhospitable, and desiring to rape any visitors who walked through the gates. I am not one who believes in the 100% perfection of the Bible though. Paul, in my opinion, was a great man, and a great teacher. But based on his writings he was also prone to many sexist and homophobic realities of the time and I don't follow all of his teachings.

As for poly relationships, the Bible doesn't say much. There are certainly polygamous relationships and the Bible does the exact opposite of condemning them. It does talk about sex being the joining of two flesh, which could mean a lot of things and comes from an era when birth control wasn't exactly prominent, so any vaginal sex could very easily bring children into a relationship. So any sexual relationship would have to take this into account. That is where I see the joining of two fleshes coming into play. Others who believe in traditional marriages and relationships would tend to lean toward "flesh" meaning "souls" which I find to be problematic for multiple reasons. One being that if they wanted to say souls, then they likely would have said souls. Also, this wouldn't jive with all the great Biblical heroes who clearly had more poly relationships like David and Solomon. God's only warning to Solomon who by all accounts wise the wisest man in history according to the Bible, was that he not do to much.
 
Last edited:
Can we agree that Solomon did too much? :eek:
 
Many were probably hostages meant to secure treaties. It was common practice. I give you 15th daughter as your wife to secure your friendship and good will.
 
Yes, it wasn't poly that was his downfall. It was gluttony. He never seemed to have enough. Over 900 wives and concubines as well as an ungodly amount of wealth.

At the time of Solomon, the Hebrews were a small struggling goatherding tribe. The idea of him being wealthy and "wise" was a heroic myth embellished after the Babylonian conquest.

He may well have existed. He may well have had a few "foreign" wives who worshipped the Queen of Heaven, Astarte.
 
Did he in fact have an opulent temple built (I wonder)?
 
Back
Top