Attempt to override the constitutional amendment process

[Natoma]

Lets try not to be ridiculous. They change the word to a word following the same meaning. WRT to the context within the rest of leviticus 20 i'd say the the current translation hold consistant.

The reason why I say this is because of the fact that the descriptions used for simply "having sex" are different. In one condemnation, it's "shall take" and in another it's "lie with" and in another it's "committeth adultery."

Hell the Catholic Bible is different than the bible I grew up with in the Pentecostal denomination of Protestantism. As I've said from the beginning, there are problems with this.

How is it paradoxical? If a man forces another man to have sex, as he would force a woman to have sex, they have committed abomination. That is one way to read it, and I don't see the paradox.

I really don't see why. Feel rape was not an accpeted behavior in the OT. Hense the OT provides ways to redeem oneself.

Yes, it provides ways to redeem oneself through economic means of restitution because women are deemed as property. Men are not however, which is why there is no redemption for this particular act against a man vs a woman.

God does tell mankind to go forth and multiply, but god also gives the scripture that thou shalt not kill, and in other scriptures tells the israelites to pillage and burn and destroy their enemies completely.

No. He states though shall not commit murder. There is a great difference.

let us also not forget characters such as Onan were killed by God for refusing to procreate.

Well you'll have a disagreement with pax on that one, i.e. regarding murder and kill.

And AFAIK, Onan was killed because he refused to follow the law which said that you have to take your brother's wife and marry her if your brother died. During that time you, and actually even today in some circles, you're not truly married until you consummate the marriage. He didn't do so since he did not complete the sex act with her. When he pulled out it may as well have been masturbation, which of course is why some catholics construe this to be a condemnation of masturbation. hehe.

And of course, if we get into the writings of the New Testament, one can say that Jesus just did away with the rules of the OT, defying them by his new dispensation, i.e. love, rather than the old dispensation of law. So it depends on how you want to look at it, as I said in my original post in these matters.

Of course we could but that would rely on Jesus being the real messiah from the start. I'd have to say evidence would be firmly against his messiah-hood from the get go.

I'm not arguing for or against this, before anything gets started.

I'm just saying this within the confines of the christian religion, which of course if you are a christian, means that you believe in the messiah-ness of Jesus.

Legion, the point is that you could use either Qal or Niphal and it would work as well. I don't know what the original used word was. Do you?

Again this is why we have literary and historical context.

If you do not know what the original terminology was then you must admitt your argument isn't based on any sound reasoning. It is outside the vast majority of religious thought and it is not corroborated anywhere else in the bible.

Infact your "evidence" is nothing more than a silent indicator of your circular reasoning. IN order for the Saddam and Gomorah story to be an indicator of your assumption you must first operate with the assumption lev 20 only refers to male rape.

Oh lord. Legion, what did I say in my original post on this matter?
I said from the get go that there are problems with the translations of the texts that cause dissent among christians on these matters. I also said that trying to create some logical non-contradictory line of reasoning by using the bible is nary impossible, in large part because of the problems with literal readings of the bible, as well as translated readings taken in context.

Also, where do you get that men who were penetrated were looked down upon as women? I don't recall that part.

Then i'd suggest you do external research into the historical treatment of gays by the hebrews dating all the way up to the times of the alledged jesus.

When I said "I don't recall that part" I was referring to not recalling this assertion from the bible.

Legion I never said that the Pope condoned or didn't condone those early marriages. I said that I didn't know, and frankly neither do you.

No, i do not know for a fact but there inlies the beauty of context. We know that the NT was heavily against homosexuality. If the Pope were attempting to keep with the thinking of the time then he would indeed be against the practice of saddamy. Let us not forget throughout the Catholic churches' they condemn many men and woman of the practice of saddamy. This includes the infamous Marquis De Sade.

The NT is heavily against homosexuality? Legion the only place it's mentioned is in Romans, in one verse. Jesus never mentions homosexuality btw, and Jesus is the basis of the NT.

All I said from the very beginning was that there were translation problems. Some translate the texts to mean one thing, others translate it to mean another. There are various versions of the bible that one can look at, i.e. Old English, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, Modern English, and Greek.

You assert there are translation problems but do not relate them to the nature of this very discussion. You haven't provided a single shread of evidence to suggest that this passages were mistranslated. You just go from post to post assert this very issue as though it were fact without the slightest grounds.

The words you provided for the phrase "to lay" present their own translation problems Legion, because there are multiple definitions that could be used and be contextually accurate. I mean, you talk about not providing a single shred, and yet the original article I gave you to read, you just said it was utter bullshit and left it at that. C'mon now. :?

Anyway I'm going to bed. Later.

 

[Legion]

Jephthah slaughtered the people of Ammon in the name of the lord.

:? then you might as well call all victories in battle human sacrifices to the Lord.

II Kings 16:3

Behold, I will take away the posterity of Baasha, and the posterity of his house; and will make thy house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat.

I don't see sacrifice mentioned anywhere.

Actually II Kings 16:3 says "But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel." And nowhere does it say that god was angry with him for this particular act.

This would suggest the very act is an abomination.

II Kings 21:6

The sacrifice? Not necessarily. In fact it seems like the spells and wizards and graven images, spoken about in the next verse, could have easily angered god

I would say more than likely it did as necromancy was a form of pagan behavior at the times. It is easily gathered from the incident that both acts are associated and condemned by God.

I Kings 13:1-2

The priests were being offered as well as the bones to be burnt upon the altar.

Are you forgetting I Kings 13 serves as a warning to Jerboam about his religious misconduct?

II Kings 17:17

No it says that they sent their sons and daughters into the fire. Then it says that they sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the lord, to provoke the lord to anger. Is this any different than those that let themselves fall into a reprobate mindset? Is it necessarily a condemnation of human sacrifice? No.

Yes, please read the passage again.

17And they caused their sons and daughters to pass through the fire, practiced witchcraft and soothsaying, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke Him to anger.

Notice the commas which indicate a series of behaviors followed by the reaction of God which was anger.

Is this a condemnation of human sacrifice. Most definately.

Jeremiah 7:31

31 And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.

This verse is clearly against human sacrifice.

It just says that he commanded them to not burn their sons and daughters in this instance. It doesn't say that this is a wholesale condemnation of human sacrifice.

He is clearly condemning it through context and emphasis:

31 And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.

It appears the emphasis of the negative nature of this behavior is evident in the rejection of it and the matter of it not entering into his heart or mind.

A search engine, be it on the internet or a CD-ROM, is a search engine. Anyway, this is moot.

No, not at all. You most definately could find cranks saying any number of things on the internet when intercutting bible and human sacrifice.

I've said from the beginning that these are translation problems. You and I disagree on this matter, and frankly biblical scholars disagree on this and many other matters of the bible.

Natoma try as you might to degrade this matter to a relative state there is little reason to believe these matters are mistranslations. More likely they are matters taken completely out of context by yourself in order to attempt at proving a point. A point i might add defeats your very proposal: that the church did infact at one time condone gay marriage. You have yet to provide any evidence for this and as the matter stands all evidence is against you. How your relativistic state supports your argument is beyond me. You assert what you believe lev 20 could be stating but then retort to my rebuttle with "well its a mistranslation." I can't help but be dumbfounded by this. Do you not realize the very reasoning could be used against you to defeat your argument rendering your entire support claim moot and irrelevant?

What did I say on the last page to you? Translation problems can lead to problems in deciphering the contextual meaning of the text.

If we run with this line of reasoning then its more than likely you are wrong in your thinking. Lets be honest. The mistranslation bit is a convient ruse to escape the obvious indictment: homosexuality was in no way a condoned behavior within the Judaism or Chrisitanity. Your argument substantiates nothing and only detracts from your positive claim. You are arguing against yourself everytime you use this device.

You're trying to say that it must be this way and cannot be taken in any other way shape or form, and I'm saying that's not necessarily true. That is all I've said from the very beginning.

I am pointing out that its a sad thing that you are a wrong. You are running with context in an effort to misconstrue the meaning of lev 20 and other homosexual references in the bible. You therefore conviently dismiss Paul's condeming statements which were clear and to the point. You are omitting Paul's words only because they prove a conundrum to you.

 

[pax]

Its clearly thou shall not 'kill'. There is no context surrounding the commandment to mean other wise and there shouldnt be as the author could have easily used thou shall not murder...

The same scholar who addressed this also addressed sodom and gomorrah. Nowhere is there mentionned that it was destroyed by god because of homosexuality. It does say that it was a society of rapists tho...

If I can find this online Ill link to it...

 

[Natoma]

Natoma try as you might to degrade this matter to a relative state there is little reason to believe these matters are mistranslations. More likely they are matters taken completely out of context by yourself in order to attempt at proving a point. A point i might add defeats your very proposal: that the church did infact at one time condone gay marriage. You have yet to provide any evidence for this and as the matter stands all evidence is against you. How your relativistic state supports your argument is beyond me. You assert what you believe lev 20 could be stating but then retort to my rebuttle with "well its a mistranslation." I can't help but be dumbfounded by this. Do you not realize the very reasoning could be used against you to defeat your argument rendering your entire support claim moot and irrelevant?

If we run with this line of reasoning then its more than likely you are wrong in your thinking. Lets be honest. The mistranslation bit is a convient ruse to escape the obvious indictment: homosexuality was in no way a condoned behavior within the Judaism or Chrisitanity. Your argument substantiates nothing and only detracts from your positive claim. You are arguing against yourself everytime you use this device.

I am pointing out that its a sad thing that you are a wrong. You are running with context in an effort to misconstrue the meaning of lev 20 and other homosexual references in the bible. You therefore conviently dismiss Paul's condeming statements which were clear and to the point. You are omitting Paul's words only because they prove a conundrum to you.

You keep saying I haven't provided any evidence whatsoever, and when I do, you just say it's bullshit and pass it off as ridiculous, offering up no tangible argument in return.

http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm

And as for the mistranslations, I have said that these could be mistranslations or taken out of context to mean these particular things, when looking at the context of the society that existed at the time of these writings. I said from the get go that there were problems with this because of the fact that the bible can be translated in myriad ways. I don't understand why you're dumbfounded by this when I made this very point myself even before you brought it up as a reason for being dumbfounded. Boy that was a handful......

Today, Unitarians perform gay marriages today in part because of their translations of the bible wrt gays and god. Today, Catholics do not. They take the same text and see different things. Is this what I've been saying from the get go? Yes.

In fact that's what I was basing part of my reasoning on the problems with christianity in the first place. Obviously there were people that performed gay marriages in early christianity, i.e. catholicism. Is this the case today everywhere? No. But that wasn't the point at all. You're running off on these tangents that don't have anything to do with what I posited in the first place with that article, and my own musings on this topic.

 

[Legion]

The reason why I say this is because of the fact that the descriptions used for simply "having sex" are different. In one condemnation, it's "shall take" and in another it's "lie with" and in another it's "committeth adultery."

No, they aren't different. They follow exactly the same line of context. Adultery is simply a word which provides for lying with another man's wife.

Lev 20:10 uses commit
Lev 20:11-13 uses "lie with"
Lev 20:14 uses marry
Lev 20:15-16 uses approaches/mates

The proper contexts continues throughout the rest of the verse.

Notice "to lie with" is used in the same context as acts consensual sex

11The man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. 12If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death. They have committed perversion. Their blood shall be upon them.

Why do you suppose they'd use similiary context for lev 20:13 if it meant to rape?

The the matter of "to committ" is also wrt to consensual sex:

10"The man who commits adultery with another man's wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.

Hell the Catholic Bible is different than the bible I grew up with in the Pentecostal denomination of Protestantism. As I've said from the beginning, there are problems with this.

Irrelevant. Your argument wrt their adherence to scripture is not relevant to the matter concerning whether or not the church codemned homosexuality, which infact they did.

Yes, it provides ways to redeem oneself through economic means of restitution because women are deemed as property. Men are not however, which is why there is no redemption for this particular act against a man vs a woman.

Which says nothing supporting your point. The fact remains your translation of lev 20:13 is incorrect, by your own admittance, as rape is not a condoned behavior regardless of the sex.

Well you'll have a disagreement with pax on that one, i.e. regarding murder and kill.

wouldn't be anything new. His entire of view of christianity is a subjective venture into selective reasoning. He picks and chooses what he wants to believe based on some ambiguous standard.

And AFAIK, Onan was killed because he refused to follow the law which said that you have to take your brother's wife and marry her if your brother died. During that time you, and actually even today in some circles, you're not truly married until you consummate the marriage. He didn't do so since he did not complete the sex act with her. When he pulled out it may as well have been masturbation, which of course is why some catholics construe this to be a condemnation of masturbation. hehe.

Natoma, do not misconstrue what actually happened. The law, which you should have looked up, was to provide your brother a child in the event he couldn't as death prevented him. Onan refused to father his brother's child (hell i would to the bitch was a slut and Onan knew it). He was killed as he did not do unto his brother as the law commanded.

Did you at all read the story? It was mainly about the progression of the line of Judah.

I'm not arguing for or against this, before anything gets started.

I'm just saying this within the confines of the christian religion, which of course if you are a christian, means that you believe in the messiah-ness of Jesus.

WHich is irrelevant to the topic. Not all christians believe he did away with the laws and only one completely myopic would refuse to acknowledge such groups as the Messienic Jews.

Oh lord. Legion, what did I say in my original post on this matter?
I said from the get go that there are problems with the translations of the texts that cause dissent among christians on these matters.

What you originally stated was that the church at one point condoned homosexual marriages. This is patently false. You also attacked my suggestion the Catholic church wasn't the original church. You also suggested that it was the only church for a long period of time. Needless to say i find your argument contradictory.

I also said that trying to create some logical non-contradictory line of reasoning by using the bible is nary impossible, in large part because of the problems with literal readings of the bible, as well as translated readings taken in context.

What you were stating is a moot point as it does not reflect the bulk of church history. Regardless of the translation Christian churches have, throughout their history condemned homosexual marriage/homosexuality. However you choose to see the text in context is truly irrelevant to the history of the matter.

When I said "I don't recall that part" I was referring to not recalling this assertion from the bible.

You probably won't catch other matters concerning Hebrew societies within the bible as well. The bible does not convey all the society constructs of the day.

The NT is heavily against homosexuality? Legion the only place it's mentioned is in Romans, in one verse. Jesus never mentions homosexuality btw, and Jesus is the basis of the NT.

Here again is Rom 1 condemnation of homosexuality:

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

I'd say this constitutes speaking heavily against the behavior.

Christians dogma as of late has been heavily fixated on studies of revelation and the second coming. Within these studies is revealed the character/concept the Antichrist. What does the bible say about him/it? Not much at all yet there is much emphasis they he/it is bad. Christians regard this matter with the utmost concern. There is more in the NT with regards to the negative nature of homosexuality then there is this Antichrist.

The words you provided for the phrase "to lay" present their own translation problems Legion, because there are multiple definitions that could be used and be contextually accurate. I mean, you talk about not providing a single shred, and yet the original article I gave you to read, you just said it was utter bullshit and left it at that. C'mon now. :?

Hardly, as you can see within the contexts of lev 20:11-13 they are using "to lay" in the same context. Lev 20:11-12 are both refering to consenual sex. Why wouldn't lev 20:13 be?

 

[Legion]

Its clearly thou shall not 'kill'. There is no context surrounding the commandment to mean other wise and there shouldnt be as the author could have easily used thou shall not murder...

First off there is a great deal of context. The matter refers to killing humans and not animals. Also, the "kill" translation is based off a mistranslation of ratsak which means to murder.

Notice Numbers 35:15-27 translate ratsack as "murder."

The same scholar who addressed this also addressed sodom and gomorrah. Nowhere is there mentionned that it was destroyed by god because of homosexuality. It does say that it was a society of rapists tho...

If I can find this online Ill link to it...

God does not mention he destroyed it for one sin in particular. It is however mentioned that the act of carrying on in a homosexually manner is considered wicked:

Genesis 19:4-8

4Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally." 6So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, 7and said, "Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! 8See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof."

The matter concerning male rape is nothing more than an act of splitting hairs.

I will be waiting for you to post your fringe "scholar's" information.

 

[Legion]

You keep saying I haven't provided any evidence whatsoever, and when I do, you just say it's bullshit and pass it off as ridiculous, offering up no tangible argument in return.

http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm

Interesting that you say this but you have yet to provide any historical context to support your claims. You have only attempted to resolve this issue by rendering it into a matter of relative translations which is entirely irrelevant to the original subject which was the churches condoning of homosexual marriage.

So yes, i can safely say you haven't provided evidence. What you have posted is a fringe "scholar's" way left field interpretation which is completely contradictory to the views of the majority of religious scholars. This isn't supporting your claims.

And as for the mistranslations, I have said that these could be mistranslations or taken out of context to mean these particular things, when looking at the context of the society that existed at the time of these writings. I said from the get go that there were problems with this because of the fact that the bible can be translated in myriad ways. I don't understand why you're dumbfounded by this when I made this very point myself even before you brought it up as a reason for being dumbfounded. Boy that was a handful......

OMG, how abolsutely irrelevant. How can you hand me this and expect me to swallow it? First of all it doesn't matter whether the churches' translation is incorrect or not the fact remains Christianity as a religion stands firmly against homosexuality religiously and historically. So right from the start your original argument goes right out the door.

Secondly, you have suggested they may be mistranslations but given the context of culture and scripture they are more than likely accurate.

Today, Unitarians perform gay marriages today in part because of their translations of the bible wrt gays and god. Today, Catholics do not. They take the same text and see different things. Is this what I've been saying from the get go? Yes.

What relevance does this have to the historic condemnations of homosexuality? None. I would dispute the issue of Unitarians being christian (as the name implies that is not a prerequisite) if it weren't completely irrelevant to your original statement:

You do realize the christian religion used to sanctify gay marriages?

In fact that's what I was basing part of my reasoning on the problems with christianity in the first place. Obviously there were people that performed gay marriages in early christianity, i.e. catholicism.

Obviously according to your fringe "scholar"? This manner of conduct, if it did in fact occur, happened outside of the bounds of catholic doctrine and the support of Rome. Historically the church was against acts of sadomy and prosecuted. I found what you were suggesting to be completely left field.

Is this the case today everywhere? No. But that wasn't the point at all. You're running off on these tangents that don't have anything to do with what I posited in the first place with that article, and my own musings on this topic.

No, your point was this:

You do realize the christian religion used to sanctify gay marriages?

Your statement is completely inaccurate as it implies something that was common place. This is infact not so by your own admittance thusly you have defeated your original argument.

 

[pax]

He's def not a fringe scholar and from what Ive read in BR (sister mag of BAR) the scholarly consensus is both that the word means kill and not murder and the soddom and gomorrah story inferes rape and not homosexuality per se.

Its not unusual to see a word translated into other meanings elsewhere. 'Hell' for example in most english bibles is translated from up to 4 different words most of them referring to the grave. So refering from another passage the same term doesnt mean it means something else. The hebrew word for murder (I wish I knew it right now I read that article a few years ago) is very specific but its not the same as the word for kill.

Most english bibles are badly translated but the most literal ones say its thou shalt not kill...


Personally I read the bible in french a few times and only once in english and was amazed at how different the english ver was (NKJ)... Its much more frightening to see hell everywhere in the english ver...

My standards on moral and other interpretations are indeed personal but pretty well grounded in what Ive read and been taught over the years by some religious and secular groups. I think you'd be at pains to shows me morally conflicted in regards to moral and biblical teachings...

 

[DemoCoder]

When will humans get past arguing over ancient fiction? I could care less what the bible, koran, torrah, or whatever says. I will not be governed by millenia old fiction, I will be governed by what our generation decides. We have a right to self government, to a code of ethics and morals decided by men today, not decided by tribalists and mystic nuts from 2000 years ago.

It's just really depressing. We live in a world where people commit mass murder and bigotry in the name of religion. (and I'm not just talking about Muslims)

 

[Gubbi]

Seconded

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[digitalwanderer]

When will humans get past arguing over ancient fiction? I could care less what the bible, koran, torrah, or whatever says. I will not be governed by millenia old fiction, I will be governed by what our generation decides. We have a right to self government, to a code of ethics and morals decided by men today, not decided by tribalists and mystic nuts from 2000 years ago.

It's just really depressing. We live in a world where people commit mass murder and bigotry in the name of religion. (and I'm not just talking about Muslims)

AMEN!!!! 8)

 

[Joe DeFuria]

When will humans get past arguing over ancient fiction? I could care less what the bible, koran, torrah, or whatever says. I will not be governed by millenia old fiction, I will be governed by what our generation decides. We have a right to self government, to a code of ethics and morals decided by men today, not decided by tribalists and mystic nuts from 2000 years ago.

That's all well and good...

However, what separates a 200 year old document, from a 2000 year old one, other than a few years?

I mean, the bible has been "shaped and formed" by different sects and branches to meet the "morals of the day". How is that different than the constitution, the original document that is no more or less "ancient fiction" to me?

 

[digitalwanderer]

However, what separates a 200 year old document, from a 2000 year old one, other than a few years?

One was written by a committe of men to govern themselves with and the other is a horribly mangled translations of who only knows what that purports itself to be the word of God....which if that was the case you'd REALLY think that God would have made his words a bit more clear and understandable, as well as not so totally ludicrous!

 

[Joe DeFuria]

One was written by a committe of men to govern themselves with and the other is a horribly mangled translations of who only knows what that purports itself to be the word of God....which if that was the case you'd REALLY think that God would have made his words a bit more clear and understandable, as well as not so totally ludicrous!

They are both generations removed from our current society, and yet both supposed to be used as a "moral foundation" for today's society.

One purports to be the moral word of God though written by men. The other purports to define morals or "truths," not defined by men, but as self-evident and endowed by "their Creator". (The Declaration of Independence sets the tone for the Constitution: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.")

You talk as if the Constitution is unambiguous and clearly understandable, and not open to interpretation? You would think that a bunch of men could just spell it all out, and not be so totally ludicrous such that today it seems every issue is amost a constitutional crisis.

 

[digitalwanderer]

You talk as if the Constitution is unambiguous and clearly understandable, and not open to interpretation? You would think that a bunch of men could just spell it all out, and not be so totally ludicrous such that today it seems every issue seems to be a constitutional one.

The Constitution is INTENTIONALLY ambigous and open to interpretation, that's part of it's design. It's also a living document in that it gets changed and modified to better reflect the times.

The bible is hopelessly out of date, out of touch, and out of context...you can pretty much read anything into it you care to.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The Constitution is INTENTIONALLY ambigous and open to interpretation, that's part of it's design. It's also a living document in that it gets changed and modified to better reflect the times.

No, that is only ONE point of view about the Constitution. Some argue that it's not to be touched except extreme circumstances, and should never be "interpreted", only read "to the letter." Some argue that it's not "touched enough", and doesn't reflect our times. (Such as the second amendment.) There are "strict constitutionalists" who argue about the letter of the law needing to be followed, and on the other side there are "activists" which argue about the "spirit" of the law.

Same with the Bible. SOME say that it is only to be used in "strict interpretation, taken to the letter." Others say it's more like a "guideline" to be used as a reference but open for looser interpretation.

The bible is hopelessly out of date, out of touch, and out of context...you can pretty much read anything into it you care to.

The same can be said, and has been said, about the Constitution. It all depends on who you ask.

 

[digitalwanderer]

The Constitution is INTENTIONALLY ambigous and open to interpretation, that's part of it's design. It's also a living document in that it gets changed and modified to better reflect the times.

No, that is only ONE point of view about the Constitution. Some argue that it's not to be touched except extreme circumstances, and should never be "interpreted", only read "to the letter." Some argue that it's not "touched enough", and doesn't reflect our times. (Such as the second amendment.) There are "strict constitutionalists" who argue about the letter of the law needing to be followed, and on the other side there are "activists" which argue about the "spirit" of the law.

Same with the Bible. SOME say that it is only to be used in "strict interpretation, taken to the letter." Others say it's more like a "guideline" to be used as a reference but open for looser interpretation.

The bible is hopelessly out of date, out of touch, and out of context...you can pretty much read anything into it you care to.

The same can be said, and has been said, about the Constitution. It all depends on who you ask.

One was made by man to govern man, one was made by who-only-knows to control man....simple enough for ya Joe?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

One was made by man to govern man, one was made by who-only-knows to control man....simple enough for ya Joe?

(First off...what's the difference between "control of" and "governing of" man? Both the same to me.)

They were both penned by men.

They were both inspired by "something greater than man".

They are both designed to define right and wrong, based on this inspiration.

Simple enough for you?

 

[digitalwanderer]

(First off...what's the difference between "control of" and "governing of" man? Both the same to me.)

"Control" means to lead and order around, "govern" means to rule and settle differences.

They were both penned by men.

Yup.

They were both inspired by "something greater than man".

Nope, that's an opinion and not a fact Joe.

They are both designed to define right and wrong, based on this inspiration.

Again, no. One is designed to tell right and wrong, one is designed to govern.

Simple enough for you?

In an incorrect kind-o-way, yeah.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

"Control" means to lead and order around, "govern" means to rule and settle differences.

Most would say that God is ruler, and settles differences (judges), and is not controlling. I don't recall the bible ever asserting that God controls our will. Some would say that government is controlling and limiting freedom. No difference.

They were both inspired by "something greater than man".

Nope, that's an opinion and not a fact Joe.

Not according to the Declaration of Independence, Digi.

Again, no. One is designed to tell right and wrong, one is designed to govern.

You've got it all wrong.

You can only govern based on a moral code of right and wrong. The constitution does not govern, Digi. The constitution lays the foundation for laws to be written in order to govern. The constitution defines "right and wrong", while federal, state, and local laws, within the confines of right and wrong defined by the Constitution, define how we are governed.

The bible tells us "right and wrong", just as the constitution does. And each "chuch" has it's own "laws" based on their own interpretation of the bible that "governs" that particular church. Just as each state has it's own set of laws, that governs that particular state.