Ebony

Well, it sounds to me, Kevin, that you and God (if he does exist) are at an impossible impasse! You not only want proof but are demanding that it given to you on your terms ...

(reply)
Actually I’m not asking for proof of God, not on my own terms or any terms because I am convinced he doesn’t exist. When I did believe in God I accepted his existence on faith. (faith in the words of what I was told by others) when I lost this faith, I eventually lost a desire for any type of communication with God.

The point I was making is, if I were to change my mind concerning the existence of God it would probably be because of something that is on my own terms, but I am not expecting nor am I asking for evidence of something I am convinced doesn’t exist, I am perfectly content recognizing that I don’t have all the answers.

(quote)
because He seems to operate under the notion that the proof of His existence is already out there

I think that’s unfortunate. If there were proof of his existence, I am sure at least one of the billions of believers out there would have provided such proof so everybody would know the truth concerning God rather than all the confusion and division that exist now, thus far it hasn't happened.

Vox

For the record, Kevin, I don't blame you for becoming an atheist. I believe in god, but that's probably because I derive comfort in that belief. My belief is not something I try to hold onto. It's something I recognize, and see no reason to fight. But you and I have much more in common than you'd think, given our history.


I am more or less a "deist." I believe in God, but expressly reject any idea that there is a text inspired by him. His existence, and his plan for us, is more or less evident in nature, including in certain inevitabilities that arise when we interact with one another.

(reply)
I think your concept of God sounds more realistic than most.

Kevin

It seems to me that today's debate over literal vs. figurative interpretation is just the modern permutation of a tension that has existed for as long as Christianity.  Tertullian, regardless of how we'd try to characterize his views, takes from the Adam & Eve story the notion that women are the "devil's gateway."  And from what I'm reading, it appears that Philo's rejection of a literal read of the Genesis account is in response to those who thought otherwise.  And what about the School of Antioch?  They felt in no uncertain terms that these accounts should be taken strictly literally. 


At best, there have been those who felt one way and those who felt the other, all throughout the ages.  But it does seem to me -- just my observation -- that if there's a difference between then and now, it's that the non-literalist movements of today are often motivated, at least in some significant part, by things like a reaction to science, or by political considerations.  We see Paul, in his letter to the ROmans, mercilessly bashing homosexuality among Greek scholars.  But what we get from liberal theologians today is a tortured attempt at showing why he wasn't really doing that.  "Oh, he meant straight people who engage in gay sex, not people who were naturally homosexual."  "Oh, he means people who engage in gay sex after they reject the Abrahamic god and start worshipping idols, not people who engage in gay sex while still worshipping God." 


These are, quite frankly, absurd claims.  They reek of the desperation of people who feel they must try to harmonize the idea of Paul's inerrancy with their belief in acceptance of homosexuality.  The more I read, the more convinced I've become that this just can't be right.  In short, for me it has become easier to believe in an "invisible God," as Kevin puts it, than to believe that the Bible was not to be read simply as written.  And the corollary for me is that, since it can't logically be read that way, I reject it as the word of God -- although not necessarily as ancient wisdom literature. 

Well, look, the word "homosexual" may not have had a counterpart in the lexicon of his day, but this can't mean that no one had ever heard of the concept of men sleeping with men, consensually or otherwise.  And if he himself coined the word "arsenokoitai," is that word really all that much of a mystery?  If anything, the fact that it's not a known word -- meaning that Paul may have coined it -- makes it even more likely that he was condemning --- I'll use the term, "men who willingly sleep with men."  That's what the term breaks down to -- "man-layers," more or less; if it's a word he coined, it probably wouldn't have taken on much more specialized a meaning than that. 

Personally, translation is subjective if no care is taken to analyze text in its cultural context.  But we have the power to turn the light onto ourselves, and control for our biases.  We're not hopelessly enslaved by our cultural context.  We can apply a reasoned analysis to a translation. 

And I should point out, the text I was referring to, Romans 1:27 and its environs, doesn't use either of those "mysterious" terms.  The "contextual" interpretations you tend to come across turn on other things, not any word or term he used to denote the person who commits the acts he's bashing. 

BTW, I really appreciate your points in your last two paragraphs!  If I'm ever in your area, I would love to check out a sermon of yours, or a class.  But I guess it would have to be a sermon, because the only time I'd set foot in that ice-box you call home would be during your summer break! LOL!!

Neocarl
(quote)

Kevin,

Have you seen this?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgBxvoLFgWY

These are some of the same questions I often ask.

(reply)
Thanks! Very powerful video. I used to think I was the only one who thought of these type of questions; it's refreshing to see others do as well. Some of the most brilliant people I know are believers, yet when an idiot such as myself brings up such obvious questions, they act as if such questions never entered their minds, never could understand that.

K