General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWatching MHP smack down Joe Watkins every time he tried to claim the Bible bans homosexuality
was a thing of beauty. Every time the good Reverend tried to say certain proclamations were made, she said,'Nope. Not true.'
He finally had to fall back on that reliable hater Paul. She gave him the skank eye for that. (IMHO Paul needed another trip on the road to Damascus,)
She also smacked him down when he said that Jesus backed the Old Testament Levitical views.
Guess what Joe? There is a New Testament because of Jesus, and it's not a rerun of the first one.
If you don't believe, fine. However, fighting these religious ideas with different interpretations is necessary in a country as religious as this one. It is a crucial front in many battles that those like MHP are equipped and willing to fight.
Colbert King wrote a great column in the WaPo about how the Bible has been used to deny many people their rights:
'Equality Is Bigger Than The President'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/equality-is-bigger-than-the-president/2012/05/11/gIQAyjjNIU_story.html?wprss=rss_colbert-king
xchrom
(108,903 posts)glowing
(12,233 posts)Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)realized she has been and is a seminary student(when she can fit it in.) I'd bet cash money that she could run circles around him on any religious topic.
Tennessee Gal
(6,160 posts)~snip~
Think about it this way: If school desegregation amendments had been placed on state ballots in the 1950s, separate but equal might still be the law of the land in the South. Fortunately, state-sponsored segregation was not put to a popular vote. That question went before the U.S. Supreme Court. The nine justices unanimously, and rightly, decided in 1954 that state laws creating separate schools for white children and black children were unconstitutional.
The case for same-sex unions also belongs in the courts, not the polling place. At issue is the right of homosexual couples to be treated the same as straight couples under the U.S. Constitution.
At the heart of those defense of marriage measures storming through state legislatures and ballot boxes is discrimination and a certainty of knowing Gods will.
~snip~
Nobody knows God's will.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)Keep on truckin' though. Rock it. Shit, most Christians aren't going to read Leviticus simply out of laziness, so it doesn't matter what it says.
Gman
(24,780 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)She is an excellent advocate and maker of advocates.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)of manuscripts, in different languages, by different authors, from different time periods and is rife with transcriptions errors and contradictions.
How one can base a life philosophy or government policy on documents of such questionable heritage is beyond me, and I simply have no trust in the judgment of those who do.
SoutherDem
(2,307 posts)To the religious fundamentals the bible was "written" by god. Paul, Matthew, John, et al, were the instruments but not the authors, like ghost writers, or a word processor. The bible to them is infallible. Some go so far as to say even one translation, usually King James is the only "real" bible.
This group will also dismiss biblical archeologist and scholars if they have opinions different to their own. I have known ministers who will say their interpretation of the bible is better than that of those who have really studied the bible, even to the point of feeling god will give the real knowledge to those who he chose and if you need to go to a seminary to study the bible you were not chosen tone a minister.
Anyone who has ever had a person show up at your door to "spread the word" start with the assumption that that little leather bound book they carry has no errors. They also assume everyone believes that book was written by god.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)(or said) they were speaking as the instruments of god. In fact there are so many transcriptions with minor variations and scribe generated "typos" that in many cases, it is difficult to determine who wrote what.
Biblical archeologists and scholars deal with facts. But some dutiful soul needs to interpret the text so that the bible can be printed up and sold as the word. Lets the tales begin in the name of the almighty dollar.
SoutherDem
(2,307 posts)and when did "facts" ever get in the way of religion?
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)Except to say that facts and religion do not mix well.
nonoxy9
(236 posts)And where were you watching this? Sounds like a great debate!
Btw, Paul's quotes in Romans had to do with pagan rituals, not homosexuality. And many more of his quotes against women and others have been struck down as added by later editors, because they don't fit his overall style and message. I think Paul was a good guy.
Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)MHP is Melissa Harris Perry. She has a show on MSNBC at 10am on Sat and Sun. She discusses any topic that crosses her mind, and she invites a wide variety of people to be on her show.
She was a professor at Princeton, but now she is at Tulane. She got married and her husband is from Nola.
Ilsa
(61,698 posts)"Professor Harris-Perry received her B.A. in English from Wake Forest University, her Ph.D. in political science from Duke University and an honorary doctorate from Meadville Lombard Theological School. And she studied theology at Union Theological Seminary in New York. She lives in New Orleans with her husband, James Perry, and is the mother of a terrific daughter, Parker."
http://melissaharrisperry.com/about.html
nonoxy9
(236 posts)eallen
(2,954 posts)Not only did Paul take the lead in spreading Christianity across the Roman world, but he was the major author of the New Testament, including its earliest books. The gospels were written later, to spread the need for a definitive story of Jesus among the churches that Paul guided. Without Paul, it is doubtful that there would be a Christian religion, beyond some small, ancient Jewish sect that soon would have been forgotten. Or had it lasted, there is no telling what it now would look like.
Paul wrote the word and spread the word. The historical Jesus is unknown, lost in the myst of history. The Jesus we know is the Jesus that Paul's church fashioned.
Mind, I'm not saying you should like or believe Paul. Any more than I'm saying you should like or believe Joseph Smith. I'm just pointing out that excising Paul from Christianity is much like excising Joseph Smith from Mormonism.
Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)Always like to learn!
madmom
(9,681 posts)...WOW! Just WOW! Here's someone else who actually studied some bible scripture. Hats off to Michelle Blackledge: "Of the 22 times in the Bible where Paul is referred to as an "apostle", only twice is he referred to as an apostle by someone other than himself! These two instances came from the same person. Not from Yahshua, or any of the original apostles, but from Paul's close traveling companion and personal press secretary Luke. Both accounts are found in Luke's record of the Acts of the Apostles, (chapter 14:4,14). Here Paul is referred to as an apostle along with Barnabas. By this time in the story, Luke would have been very accustomed to Paul calling himself an apostle, and he would no doubt have been in agreement with Paul's assessment of himself. By these statistics alone, it is evident that Paul is by far his own biggest fan... and his side kick Luke was his number two fan. This leaves no one else anywhere in the Bible going on record recognizing his apostleship!"
But we have the account of Jesus' appearance and conversion of Paul...oh wait, that was Paul's own account. Hmmm, me thinks this would not stand up in a Jewish court of law since accepted testimony requires TWO witnesses at a minimum and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Seeing as that was Jewish law and Jesus never broke with Jewish law, wouldn't the savior have ensured two independent witnesses were available to testify in order to legitimize Paul's claim. The cop out answer from apologists is that we have to take it on faith (Sorry but that explaination employs faulty circular logic and it serves no purpose besides making the speaker/writer feel self important.) Seeing as no such testimony of any of the witnesses present at his conversion ever made it into the bible, it sort of negates his own, self-serving testimony. Self serving confessions or revelations weren't allowed you see. And since his doctrine departed radically from what Jesus was reported to have preached and taught to his other disciples, do we really know if Paul's testimony wasn't all just a big old power grab by Saul (Paul's old preconversion nom de plume). There is even some evidence that old Saul was working as a collaborator with the Romans. Of course that kind of talk just totally destroys some people's world so they will totally close there eyes and ears at this point if they haven't already done so, then turn off their frontal lobe and begin muttering "lalalalala...I can't hear you!"....
Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)He was an apostle in that he spread the word of Christianity. However, I never thought he was in the Gang of Twelve.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)And at that time knowing how to read and write made you very educated - nearly god like. No one would dare question you, what you were writing, or even what you were saying when you called yourself and apostle.