Via Infinito: Donnchadha: Out of context Bible quotes get greenlights now?

Your comment reminds me of this. (Possibly NSFW)


Excellent.

Genesis 1:28 "...and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth..."



BUT WE DON'T WANT THE IRISH!

The Bible is hot and all, but it's no masterpiece like 50 Shades of Grey.

Ryker's Peninsula: The Bible is hot and all, but it's no masterpiece like 50 Shades of Grey.

Get busy child.

-God

Or the secular version: fark me regularly, or I go after your best friend.

Not bad advice, but I don't see why I need the Bible to tell me that. Common sense if you are trying to be in a monogamous relationship.

Pretty sure if  subby wants to keep this in context they'll include the next verse: "try not to suck any dicks on the way out to the parking lot".

No wait, that was Crystal Method.

I always mix those two up.

Christian farkers show us where Jesus touched you and why we should take the bible seriously...

Donnchadha: Out of context Bible quotes get greenlights now?

In context with the whole passage, the idea is still the same. Have a lot of sex with your spouse so they don't cheat on you.Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something.

Of course, Paul does then get into the "I'd rather you all be celibate" thing later so...

hubiestubert: [lh6.googleusercontent.com image 640x512]

And to be fair, if Christina Hendricks is doing a reading...

[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 640x480]

I would beget with her all night long

Donnchadha: Out of context Bible quotes get greenlights now?

Someone thought we needed some god to go with all the guns being greenlit.

Cymbal: Not bad advice, but I don't see why I need the Bible to tell me that. Common sense if you are trying to be in a monogamous relationship.

Common sense isn't all that common, unfortunately.

"The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband gives authority over his body to his wife."

-The Previous Verse

The loosest interpretation of the Bible as it relates to sex... evar.

/you bet your brown cherry it's NSFW

if you read the stuff around that verse, it basically means the following:
yes, abstaining is good... it lets you focus on spiritual matters. however, depriving your spouse might drive them to sin, so don't do it.

Donnchadha: Out of context Bible quotes get greenlights now?

It's one of the explicit marriage rules of the new testament, set down by the guy that wrote about a third of said new testament, who was explicitly given the authority and duty to write such rules down in a very unambiguous fashion by Jesus himself, in person. Like the other epistles, it's a list of hard and fast rules for Christians which, if you disobey and don't confess/repent, cause you to be hurled into a lake of fire and denied resurrection/eternal life.

So... there's the context for you. Kinda surprised you didn't know that already, most people in western nations have at least a passing familiarity with the overall structure and authorship of the new testament, Christian or not. I mean, I'd say subby's assumption that most people at least know enough to look up the context pretty quick on Google is probably a valid one.

//I agree it's a bit random for a thread topic, though.

"Eat the fat and drink sweet wine".

A verse that'll drive your Mormon cardiologist nuts.

Donnchadha: Out of context Bible quotes get greenlights now?

In case you've never noticed, this is Fark. The only time scripture gets quoted here is out of context, usually so someone can twist it to their purposes. Kind of like is pointed out here:

whistleridge: The problem with taking the Bible literally is that you run into all sorts of contradictions. For example, you have the fun bits mentioned in the link, but you also have the bit that says:

"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it." 

Are  yougoing to make yourself a eunuch for Christ,  subby? Like this guy did?

Whistleridge rightly points out that the passage is taken out of context, and that, taken literally, idiots mutilate themselves (whistleridge was actually kinder in his assertion than I'm inclined to be--it was actually a somewhat common practice in the early church, largely due to Origen and others' interpretation, which relies heavily on an anti-Semitic, Western view of Christ--but seems to contradict Torah, since castrated men were expelled from the assembly of Israel, priests who has been castrated could not perform the sacrifices or even enter into parts of the Temple, and animals that had been castrated were unfit for sacrifice).

The passage in Matthew 19 the quoted scripture is taken from refers to marriage, divorce, and celibacy... but hey, why read it for yourself and use the brain God gave you when it's so much easier to listen to some fool tell you what it says and means (and yes, unfortunately, there are more people who stand in pulpits and twist the bible to suit their purposes than there are people who are agnostic or atheist who do it--why do you think there are so many agnostics and atheists in the world)?

serial_crusher: Via Infinito: Donnchadha: Out of context Bible quotes get greenlights now?

Your comment reminds me of this. (Possibly NSFW)

Meh, while the imaginary guy in that video is an idiot, this particular quote pretty obviously applies to married couples.

I lke the parts after it though:
I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7But I wish everyone were single, just as I am. Yet each person has a special gift from God, of one kind or another.
8So I say to those who aren't married and to widows-it's better to stay unmarried, just as I am. 9But if they can't control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It's better to marry than to burn with lust.

Is that where they got the idea for priests to be celibate?  Sounds like this guy just got tired of all the rejection.

Actually, I think the Catholic Church should have read past verse 8

Jim_Callahan: Donnchadha: Out of context Bible quotes get greenlights now?

It's one of the explicit marriage rules of the new testament, set down by the guy that wrote about a third of said new testament, who was explicitly given the authority and duty to write such rules down in a very unambiguous fashion by Jesus himself, in person. Like the other epistles, it's a list of hard and fast rules for Christians which, if you disobey and don't confess/repent, cause you to be hurled into a lake of fire and denied resurrection/eternal life.

So... there's the context for you. Kinda surprised you didn't know that already, most people in western nations have at least a passing familiarity with the overall structure and authorship of the new testament, Christian or not. I mean, I'd say subby's assumption that most people at least know enough to look up the context pretty quick on Google is probably a valid one.

//I agree it's a bit random for a thread topic, though.

Out of my husband and his five sisters, I doubt more than 1-2 of them have any idea about that, and their mom was raised Catholic before she lapsed as an adult. She never saw the point in indoctrinating them (no matter your flavor, there is a certain amount of that, especially with Catholics).

Yeah, the fact that parts of the Bible are sex positive, (in the specific context of a heterosexual marriage where the husband is in charge) is not exactly a secret. However, Paul was still pretty negative about sex in general, and was massively hung up on standards of sexual purity. A few verses later in Chapter 7, he says:

Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

......

I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs-how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world-how he can please his wife and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit.

......

So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.

Paul, like most of the apostles in the first century, believed that the world was about to end, and that therefore a Christian should devote his whole life to evangelism and remaining holy until the end came. Paul in particular believed that marriage was at best a distraction from serving God, but was an acceptable compromise if it prevented people from lusting or having premarital sex. These verses fetishizing celibacy are among those considered to be a rationale for the mandatory celibacy of the Catholic priesthood and monastic orders. Paul here is pretty clear that your sex drive is a weakness, and that those who are able to suppress it to serve God are doing better than those who aren't. Even leaving out the myriad scandals that the Catholic church has been involved in, I still shudder to think of the lives that have by reluctantly deciding that complete abstinence is a higher calling.

Moreover, in the preceding two chapters, Paul lays down a pretty hard line against anything he blanketly terms "sexual immorality," ("pornia" in Greek.) In chapter 6 (I'm excerpting), he says:

....Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men [the exact context/translation here may or may not be referring to temple prostitution] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.....

...The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!

...Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

And, back in chapter 5, Paul describes how to deal with fellow Christians who are "sexually immoral:"

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

So, while Paul may have thought that married sex was "just okay," he was pretty adamant that any kind of non-married sex was the moral equivalent of idolatry or thievery, and that as a Christian you ultimately have no rights over what you do with your own body. Moreover, he commanded his followers that anyone who didn't adhere to his purity code wasn't allowed into community unless they completely repented, and that until that time they were to be completely shunned. "Do not even eat with such people," he said. The instructions in 1 Corinthians have been used as a authoritarian bludgeon to marginalize and people for the last 2000 years. You'll have to excuse me if I don't get on-board with all the "hip" pastors who quote selectively from 1 Corinthians 7 so that they can boost attendance with with an "edgy" sermon series on "godly sex."

And lo, he was witness to her valley of temptation, yet he was denied her fruit. Therefore he fell upon his knees and punished himself. But he was blinded for his transgressions and hair grew from the palms of his hands.

Martian_Astronomer: Yeah, the fact that parts of the Bible are sex positive, (in the specific context of a heterosexual marriage where the husband is in charge) is not exactly a secret. However, Paul was still pretty negative about sex in general, and was massively hung up on standards of sexual purity. A few verses later in Chapter 7, he says:

Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

......

I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs-how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world-how he can please his wife and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit.

......

So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.

Paul, like most of the apostles in the first century, believed that the world was about to end, and that therefore a Christian should devote his whole life to evangelism and remaining holy until the end came. Paul in particular believed that marriage was at best a distraction from serving God, but was an acceptable compromise if it prevented people from lusting or having premarital sex. These verses fetishizing celibacy are among those considered to be a rationale for the mandatory celibacy of the Catholic priesthood and monastic orders. Paul here is pretty clear that your sex drive is a weakness, and that those who are able to suppress it to serve God are doing better than those ...

Of course, all of this depends on whether or not you care about what Paul has to say in the first place.

/I mostly do not.

The various translations to me have different meanings.

New Living: "Satan won't be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

King James: "that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."

They both seem to be warning about problems associated with "lust buildup". NL implies Satan might tempt you to relieve it by raping someone or jus witht manual relief.

KJ instead implies that even if you can control your actions, Satan might tempt you in your dreams and cause an involuntary nocturnal emission which I guess is a big no-no. After all, God killed Onan because he didn't deposit his semen in a vagina.

And thus did Jesus say: "No Fat Chicks"

_{From the Gospel of Pat Robertson}

Martian_Astronomer: men who have sex with men

Also, as a quick aside on the homosexuality issue: My understanding of the liberal/progressive Christian view on these verses was that the Greek word that Paul uses to describe homosexual acts tends to imply homosexual acts that took place as part of pagan religious ceremonies, and not necessarily monogamous homosexual relationships. For the sake of argument I can concede that Paul may not have been familiar with the idea of loving gay relationships, but it's a tremendously irresponsible leap to then claim that Paul "totally would have been okay with it if he'd just known some gay people."

If Fark had some kind of Like/Insightful/Thumbs Up system I'd be clicking on it for Martian_Astronomer's post.

Martian_Astronomer: I still shudder to think of the lives that have been harmed by reluctantly deciding that complete abstinence is a higher calling.

Martian_Astronomer: The instructions in 1 Corinthians have been used as a authoritarian bludgeon to marginalize and control people for the last 2000 years.

I really need a personal copy editor.

Marine1: Of course, all of this depends on whether or not you care about what Paul has to say in the first place.

/I mostly do not.

Hey we have that in common! Brofist!