Where's the line between doubting and question in innocent curiosity? The bible describes us as sheep, but I fail to recall whether we were supposed to try to follow that line of thinking or not. I have a feeling that blindly following as sheep is a bad thing, that's what animals do, and the bible thinks we should be separate from animals, then questioning why we are told to do this or that shouldn't be a bad thing. It doesn't necessarily mean you disagree. Though I'd suppose even that is a sin as far as the bible is concerned.
I do find it so very typical and convenient that the bible's legitimacy is so completely uncertain and unprovable whether it is or not. The lack of proof proving it or disproving it to true certainty means that both arguments are equal, but no true answer can ever really be found while we exist in this mortal realm, or until Jesus returns (whenever that's supposed to be). There are other things in the bible there isn't the same level of dispute about I'm sure, such as gender equality, as the bible pretty much says 'men are superior' but the law says we're supposed to be equal and dispute for that is pretty one sided as far as I can see. How different is this rather unclear reference? All it says is 'as you would with a woman'. Does that mean not at all, or just you can't think they're a woman or act the same way (since there's no likelihood of pregnancy or such, so you can't ahve sex with them with the same intent), and is lesbian sex fine then, since there isn't an equal statement saying women should not sleep with women like they would with men? The specific denotion of women in that statement also means that it can't be applicable to both genders as it is.
I personally find the bible and on-high pope/catholics etc. too unreliable to take seriously as a personal belief (and it's disagreement with what I feel are bog-standard theories such as evolution, despite it being 'proved' to work as far as I can see through knowledge of genes etc. that's pretty undeniable. The view of it like an object/stages rather than as a flowing process like a river likely doesn't help, since it's not really a 'thing' with an applicable label like evolution, yet it often is viewed as such). The fact that saying no to evolution from the Catholic church has changed somewhat also would seem to say that now the rest of the bible is questionable? Particularly since you should only really trust the word of God rather than the pope or what anyone else says, yet the only word of God we have, the bible, could be any amount edited from the original text.
Maybe part of the bible's point is being inspecific though. Various points can be interpereted in almost infinite ways (such as the alleged 'anti-gay' statement). Just because you interperet it differently from what the pope says (who, according to the bible, has just as much say as yourself since 'everyone is equal' apparently), how can they say you are not a Catholic and they are? Your statement is just as valid, so you're belief is just as Catholic as theirs. Just because the masses believe on way or another, that doesn't mean they are right, but it doesn't mean they're wrong either. That guy who said God told him to have nine wives or something? His belief is no less valid than anyone else's, unless he's lying on purpose obviously. Just because the masses disagree, it doesn't make his faith any less legitimate than any pope, animal or otherwise (whatever the difference is).
This thread could theoretically go on forever, just because there is no right or wrong answer to be found. There may be some changed viewpoints, but nothing else. As well as the pretty rock-solid beliefs on either side here. I don't agree with Splat, yet that doesn't make him less valid than myself, but I'm no more valid than him either.
|