The Bible, interpreting it, and swinging

It is my observation that fundamental religion mantra is the direct result of "Cherry Picking" verses from the Bible. A web site ( A Bible study on Sin (Part-6A) ) explains how 667 sins are all validated through Bible verses. The summation is that try as one might, reaching Heaven by living a "Biblical Life" is next to impossible.

If a couple can make a non-monogamous lifestyle work, it is probably no worse a "Sin" than any of the others on the list. Those who proclaim sex outside of marriage will send them straight to hell obviously have never explored all of the other things they are or are not doing in their life. For the record, I am part of the fundamental religion family but obviously have evolved a more enlighten individual.

It is my observation that fundamental religion mantra is the direct result of "Cherry Picking" verses from the Bible. A web site ( A Bible study on Sin (Part-6A) ) explains how 667 sins are all validated through Bible verses. The summation is that try as one might, reaching Heaven by living a "Biblical Life" is next to impossible.

 

If a couple can make a non-monogamous lifestyle work, it is probably no worse a "Sin" than any of the others on the list. Those who proclaim sex outside of marriage will send them straight to hell obviously have never explored all of the other things they are or are not doing in their life. For the record, I am part of the fundamental religion family but obviously have evolved a more enlighten individual.

I come from a very traditional protestant Christian background, so while I haven't read the Bible cover to cover, I know my shit (thanks, Mom). Memorizing various books of the Bible is on my bucket list. It would come in handy when dealing with overzealous bible-thumpers.

Anyway, I love sitting around shooting the shit with my Mom and my Aunt, drinking tea, eating soda crackers with apples and cheese, and solving all the world's problems from the kitchen table. Except when we get talking about religious stuff. I have to be very careful about what I say; there are many things I simply can't agree with them about anymore. For example, homosexuality being a sin. Extramarital or premarital sex. Baptism = get into heaven free card, and no baptism = hell. I just...you know? Can't go there with them.

My Aunt says she takes the Bible literally; she has to, she says. I don't have the heart to contradict her, but I'm biting my lip and thinking how impossible her endeavour is. You just...CAN'T take it literally. It's written to a 2000+ year old audience, by dozens of authors, written over hundreds of years, and patchwork-quilted together by a bunch of misogynistic, politically driven, very human men whose opinions were coloured by the time and culture from which they came...AND then translated into hundreds of languages and versions. The guy who broke the bible down into chapter and verse did so riding half asleep on the back of a donkey. If that doesn't tell you to take it with a grain (or pound or two) of salt, I don't know what does.

"Bible study", where I come from, is not about studying the Bible so much as it is about assimilating and regurgitating on command the commonly held pre-existing interpretations thereof. Now don't get me wrong, I would love to study the Bible. But let's actually study it, because it does contain great truth and lots of life lessons. You miss out on the message between the lines if you just try to take it literally.

Off my soapbox now.

My Aunt says she takes the Bible literally; she has to, she says. I don't have the heart to contradict her, but I'm biting my lip and thinking how impossible her endeavour is. You just...CAN'T take it literally. It's written to a 2000+ year old audience, by dozens of authors, written over hundreds of years, and patchwork-quilted together by a bunch of misogynistic, politically driven, very human men whose opinions were coloured by the time and culture from which they came...AND then translated into hundreds of languages and versions. The guy who broke the bible down into chapter and verse did so riding half asleep on the back of a donkey. If that doesn't tell you to take it with a grain (or pound or two) of salt, I don't know what does.

A couple of months ago I did a Day on Campus at a Quaker seminary because I was thinking of getting my Masters in Religion Studies (I already have a bachelors in it). (I'm not Quaker, but as seminaries go they were the most appealing in my area.) Anyway, we got to sit in on a couple of classes, including a Bible Study course. It was very interesting listening to a seminary professor explain that the Bible simply can't be "taken literally." Even when you get past the various translations issues (as she pointed out with the ambiguous meanings of various Hebrew words), you're still left with the fact that the Bible open and unabashedly contradicts itself, sometimes within the same passage. One of my fellow visitors, obviously from a American Conservative background, almost turned purple. It was a hoot.

It's written to a 2000+ year old audience, by dozens of authors, written over hundreds of years, and patchwork-quilted together by a bunch of misogynistic, politically driven, very human men whose opinions were coloured by the time and culture from which they came...

The basic error in this statement is that the bible IS the word of God. Man may have written it but it was given to man by God himself. This makes this statement false.

The issue of translation is very accurate. It is only a translation of the word of God and very much politically driven and written by very human authors.

That being said... I don't necessarily take the bible literally. If God and Jesus intended us to do so you would not have so many parables.

A couple of months ago I did a Day on Campus at a Quaker seminary because I was thinking of getting my Masters in Religion Studies (I already have a bachelors in it). (I'm not Quaker, but as seminaries go they were the most appealing in my area.) Anyway, we got to sit in on a couple of classes, including a Bible Study course. It was very interesting listening to a seminary professor explain that the Bible simply can't be "taken literally." Even when you get past the various translations issues (as she pointed out with the ambiguous meanings of various Hebrew words), you're still left with the fact that the Bible open and unabashedly contradicts itself, sometimes within the same passage. On of my fellow visitors, obviously from a American Conservative background, almost turned purple. It was a hoot.

That would be very interesting to have the discussion on the contradictions. I believe that the bible is perfect... Have been taught so... As the word of God it must be perfect. If there are contradictions why is there not an army of people out bringing these contradictions out to the front. I also might suspect that the contradictions, if they so exist, are from translation errors... Not in the word of God.

This post is only meant in the spirit of conversation and argument... Not based on any particular belief or knowledge on my part.

Maybe it is a good idea to take the discussion about the bible (when needed) to a different forum/topic, like The Cafe or Vanilla Life, as I don't read an overall religious reason for the mentioned article? I don't want to hurt anyone here, as I know this can be a tough subject, but it seems a bit off-topic to me.

I was just thinking the same thing, MrDiscover. We're definitely getting off topic, and I apologize for stirring stuff up with my rant.

If one of the mods can break this thread off somewhere around my rant, and place it elsewhere, that would be great.

That would be very interesting to have the discussion on the contradictions. I believe that the bible is perfect... Have been taught so... As the word of God it must be perfect. If there are contradictions why is there not an army of people out bringing these contradictions out to the front. I also might suspect that the contradictions, if they so exist, are from translation errors... Not in the word of God.

Recalling what the instructors ultimate point was (remember this was a seminary class), what she was ultimately saying was that when examining Biblical text, you had to look at the whole next and look at it in the cultural and historical context in which it was written. You can't just look at one passage in isolation, but have to look at how it interacts with the rest of the text and how the ideas within the text existed within the context of the time and place when they were written. Doing so does not necessarily invalidate the idea that the Bible is the Word of God but rather argues the (in my view, sensible) position that the Word of God cannot be reduced to a series of sound bites. Rather, to understand it, you must look at the whole rather than the parts.

Additionally, in the instructors view, the fact that the Biblical text contradicts itself does not mean the text is in error. Rather it means that the issues the text is addressing are complex and must be viewed with an intelligent, critical eye. Again, it must be examined as a whole and in light of it's cultural, philosophical and historical context.

Finally, as an aside, there are in fact hosts of people who will and do frequently trot out Biblical contradictions as "proof" that the text is wrong/invalid or whatever. More of us, myself included, choose instead to respect the text as a religious, philosophical and cultural document and respect the beliefs of those who follow it, even if we do not share them.

I don't claim to be a biblical scholar. I haven't read it cover to cover, except a children's version when I was young.

That said, I find the contradictions combined with not just translation but also cultural translation to be something that invalidates the concept of non-monogamy as sin. If we presume that adultery means having sex with someone other than your spouse, the Bible contradicts that. There are multiple plural marriages scattered throughout the Bible, not to mention concubines. But, even the word 'adultery' isn't exactly clear.

For my part, I view swinging as not being a sin. The people participating are doing so of their own free will, and the spouses of those people are also aware of and condoning of the behavior. From any non-abstract view, there is no victim. With no victim, there is no sin. There is an abstract view, which some support from the Bible, that the act itself is a sin without there being any victim. I don't agree with this view due to multiple contradictions with it within the Bible.

Bible aside, there is substantial evidence that humans are not monogamous. If God made us as non monogamous, why would he have us live a life supposedly free of sin but forever denied our true nature? Denying our true nature means a life permanently separated from the highest happiness we can succeed. To be clear, monogamy is a social construct, not a genetic one.

In a world where there is so much hate, so much war, so much poverty, so much starvation, it seems to me the act of having sex with someone, even if it is a sin, absolutely pales in comparison to the abject atrocities that are committed in the name of God.

I frequently pray to God for the guidance to choose the right path, the right answers to swinging within the context of my marriage with my amazing, wonderful wife. I don't need a parting of the Red Sea to give me a sign as to whether I'm on the right course or not. But, if after so many years of being involved in swinging I have yet to receive even a smidgen of a sign that we're on the wrong path, but rather the opposite in that it has strengthened our marriage and made us happier, it is hard for me to reconcile my prayers for guidance with thinking this is a sin.

It is my opinion, that to understand the Bible and what it means to mankind, one must not only study the Bible, but study history and understand why the Bible was written.

In 325AD, The Roman Emperor, Constantine, convened a meeting of scribes in a city named "Nicaea." Constantine had legalized Christianity and wished to have a book written which would outline how God should be worshiped. A notable caution to the scribes was that the end result would need to not be too different from Roman culture, in order for the Roman people to accept it. Yes, a system of multiple Gods would be abandoned for a single God. That, alone, was quite a leap.

One of the most difficult problems to surmount was that Mary Magdalene had been a very important part of Jesus' team, if not indeed, his wife. The Christianity which Jesus taught, was strongly influenced by "The Divine Feminine." The answer was simple, omit Mary Magdalene's gospel along with others that have since been labeled "The Gnostic Gospels." The scribes who advocated their inclusion were probably exiled, a punishment worse than the death penalty in the Roman Empire. The Gnostic Gospels were lost until 1945 when they were unearthed in Egypt.

The Divine Feminine was a problem for Constantine because women were just one step above slaves in Roman culture and he wanted to maintain that attitude. For instance, men sat in the bottom tier of seats at the Coliseum, where the view was best, while women and slaves sat in the very top. Constantine couldn't afford to have women deemed to be wise, as had been Mary Magdalene, in the new Christian Church.

Therefore, the epistles of Saul of Tarsus, a known misogynist, were included while the Gnostic Gospels were not. Saul is the one who introduced the sinfulness of sex to Christianity. Some historians have suggested Saul was a very unattractive man. He may have even been a hunchbacked dwarf. In any case, he was not the sort of man about whom women have hot dreams.

Other than "Thou shalt not commit adultery" Jesus was pretty much mute on sexuality. He said not a word about homosexuality, for instance. That he was married seems obvious because he was allowed to preach in the synagogues and single men were not. That he was married to Mary Magdalene seems likely since he spent most of his adult life with her. That they had children seems likely as well. It must be admitted, though, that we can never be sure.

I believe Jesus would at least have understood swinging even if he would not have condoned it himself. What he might have thought in light of today's almost foolproof birth control, is anybody's guess.

Even if the Bible is the inerrant word of God, interpretation is everything; it's not a simple Life and Afterlife for Dummies manual. Therefore, we have all the disagreements. Why did God write it so? Is He testing us?

In 325AD, The Roman Emperor, Constantine, convened a meeting of scribes in a city named "Nicaea." Constantine had legalized Christianity and wished to have a book written which would outline how God should be worshiped. A notable caution to the scribes was that the end result would need to not be too different from Roman culture, in order for the Roman people to accept it. Yes, a system of multiple Gods would be abandoned for a single God. That, alone, was quite a leap.

Mostly Constantine, who by all accounts was not himself a Christian, wanted his clerks, who by in large were, to stop arguing about points of doctrine and focus on the business of keeping records for the Empire. The principle business of Nicaea was deciding which of the various and highly antagonistic factions of Christianity would prevail.

Mostly Constantine, who by all accounts was not himself a Christian, wanted his clerks, who by in large were, to stop arguing about points of doctrine and focus on the business of keeping records for the Empire. The principle business of Nicaea was deciding which of the various and highly antagonistic factions of Christianity would prevail.

My resident Latin scholar (teacher) tells me you're right, Lionheart. Constantine finally agreed on his death bed to become a Christian.

My resident Latin scholar (teacher) tells me you're right, Lionheart. Constantine finally agreed on his death bed to become a Christian.

If I remember correctly, he was either a devotee of Sol Inviticus or Mithras... probably both, since Mithras was very popular among the Roman Legions and one of the virtues of polytheism is that one doesn't have follow only a single deity. His wife and mother, if I recall, were both Christian and by some accounts badgered him into converting on his death bed. It's also entirely possible, perhaps likely, that he was personally inclined toward Christianity in life but needed to keep certain religious affiliations, like the aforementioned Mithras, to please his soldiers.

Lionheart72 said:

If I remember correctly, he was either a devotee of Sol Inviticus or Mithras... probably both, since Mithras was very popular among the Roman Legions and one of the virtues of polytheism is that one doesn't have follow only a single deity. His wife and mother, if I recall, were both Christian and by some accounts badgered him into converting on his death bed. It's also entirely possible, perhaps likely, that he was personally inclined toward Christianity in life but needed to keep certain religious affiliations, like the aforementioned Mithras, to please his soldiers.

My son would like to invite you to the next meeting of the Oklahoma Latin Nerds Club, Lionheart. (There are some cute Latin teachers who are members.) He told me Helena, Constantine's mother, is known to have influenced Constantine greatly in getting Christianity legalized and would assume she also influenced his conversion but isn't sure of that.

Roman religion was in great turmoil at the time with many sects at odds with each other, which probably contributed to the success of Christianity.

Gotta go now; I promised my son I'd grade some Latin quizzes for him. I understand Cornelia is happy now because she has moved to a country house.

I am going to append this to this post since it seems to apply to the topic name but if it deserves its on please make it so.

In your opinion, with some factual basis, what does the bible say about monogamy. Does it demand it... Or does it allow it?

What are your thoughts folks?

Being raised in a very religious family, I have done more than a little research on this topic. I couldn't understand why in the old testament men had multiple wives but it just stopped in the new testament with no explanation as to why. If you also really search the Bible, there is actually very little information regarding sex and what is and isn't 'allowed'. What are big issues now were almost overlooked in the Bible: homosexuality for instance is almost ignored in the Bible, yet the Romans openly allowed it. Over the years, depending on who was in charge and what their beliefs were, the Bible was 'edited' and spelling mistakes and/or translation issues have changed what the Bible said. While the Bible may have been from God, it hasn't remained untouched or unchanged by man.

Here's something that I previously ran across and bookmarked regarding marriage and monogamy:

Monogamy Isn't Biblical, It's Roman

Being raised in a very religious family, I have done more than a little research on this topic. I couldn't understand why in the old testament men had multiple wives but ...

But what I don't understand is why never, ever are women allowed multiple husbands or just plain sex partners. One of the reasons I gave up on religion. If God wants me back, She'll need to contact me directly.

But what I don't understand is why never, ever are women allowed multiple husbands or just plain sex partners. One of the reasons I gave up on religion. If God wants me back, She'll need to contact me directly.

Patriarchal inheritance... if sons inherit from fathers, you need to know who the father *is* and the only way to ensure that is to ensure the women only had one sex partner. Cultures with matrilinear inheritance didn't have this "problem." My Classics professor in college subscribed to the theory that the misogynistic cultures of Greece, Rome and the Fertile Crescent were the result of a massive social backlash against a Paleolithic matriarchy.

Oh, and I'll ask Her to give you a call.

Patriarchal inheritance... if sons inherit from fathers, you need to know who the father *is* and the only way to ensure that is to ensure the women only had one sex partner. Cultures with matrilinear inheritance didn't have this "problem." My Classics professor in college subscribed to the theory that the misogynistic cultures of Greece, Rome and the Fertile Crescent were the result of a massive social backlash against a Paleolithic matriarchy.

 

Oh, and I'll ask Her to give you a call.

Now that there are birth control and paternity tests, time for religions/society to make the update.

Very good point!

Now that there are birth control and paternity tests, time for religions/society to make the update.

Which I honestly believe is why there is a certain movement in our culture today to suppress access to birth control.

I have a book on the history of sex (my mother got it for me, which should tell you all you need to know there). One chapter includes the testimony of a medieval French village woman who had been having an affair with her parish priest. The priest would give her a "magic charm" (probably an herbal prophylactic) which prevented her from getting pregnant. She asked the priest how the charm was made. He refused to tell her, stating that if she knew how to make the charm herself, she would then be able to have sex with any man she wished, instead of only being able to safely have sex with him (and presumably her husband).

I think of this chapter almost every time I listen to the news recently.

... I have a book on the history of sex...

Wow, that covers a lot of time, a couple hundred million years, I believe. Must be a thick book.

I suppose there were reasons, not necessarily good reasons but reasons, for all the goings-on around sex in the past. Life was brutal, humans and prehumans did what they did under the circumstances. But times and situations have changed for the better. No longer is the human species or a tribe/nation dependent upon having females pump out as many offspring as possible from first menses until she died. There is contraception, paternity tests, sophisticated property management. For those reasons, people especially women, have the right to enjoy sex in whatever or all of it variations as desired. Chastity, monogamy, (in my case I've had sex with fewer than a handful of men, but two or three at a time), or out and out promiscuity.

We are slowly making progress despite the reluctance of religions. It used to be that if a fellow from the village crossed the river to another village, killed the men, raped the women, enslaved the children, and stole the wealth, he would be welcomed back as a conquering hero. No longer; now he is a war criminal. That's progress.

Couplers: Back then, women really had NO way of earning a living so they couldn't 'afford' to have multiple husbands. If a husband died, the woman needed to get married again as quickly as possible (especially since women were not allowed to own property or livestock). Also women were truly second class citizens found well behind men (a dowry was in many ways a 'payment' for the man to take a woman as his wife). As for God, she is surly a woman...otherwise life would be just like pornographic movies and men, not women, would be able to have multiple orgasms .

Adultery and marriage in biblical times was an ownership issue.

Adultery was only wrong for a married women, never for a married many as long as the "other women" was single - not owned by a man.

A married man could have as many wives, concubines and "common prostitutes" as he wished or could afford as long as not a another man's property (wife).

Marriage was based on a financial deal with the father. Once the bride price was paid sex before marriage was common since no longer damaged goods once the father got his negotiated price. Couples often had sex while waiting till age 12-13 to marry.

In other cases the bride and groom sometime first met each other on the marriage day. Marriage had nothing to do with love but a financial deal by families.

Today we don't own our wives and concubines (for breeding) and women have the same rights to pleasure as men. Swinging is based on mutual consent not ownership of the man.

Much of what is in the bible is cultural and has no relevance today, not to mention the zillions of direct contradictions. The bible (which was decided upon what writings to include by men) claims only to be "useful" never the "word of god". God would not be so confused in the zillions of direct contradictions.

Some of the problems are obviously biased translations.. i.e. porenia translated fornication is a total lie in translation that totally changed the original meaning.

Decades ago I was a Lifestyles convention speaker along with some members of our Phoenix couples group topic "swinging Christians not a biblical conflict" Although dated and have not updated for years due to other interests lots of info at Liberated Christians Polyamory, Swing, Biblical, Sybian Cyber Center

Lionheart72 said:

Even when you get past the various translations issues (as she pointed out with the ambiguous meanings of various Hebrew words), you're still left with the fact that the Bible open and unabashedly contradicts itself, sometimes within the same passage.

What contradictions are in the Bible you ask?

Ask and ye shall receive. (Though this is far from a complete list.)

CONFLICTING VERSES (short sample there are zillions more)

God dwells in light (1 Timothy 6:16)

God dwells in darkness (1 Kings 8:12)

---

John the Baptist is Elias (Matthew 11:14)

John the Baptist isn't Elias (John 1:21)

---

A brother will marry his brother's widow (Deuteronomy 25:5)

Such a thing is unclean (Leviticus 20:21)

---

Think not that I come to send peace on earth: I came not to send

peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34)

... all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. (Matthew

26:52 & Revelations 13:10)

---

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, even the Son of man which is in

heaven. (John 3:13)

...and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. (2 Kings 2:11)

--

If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. (John 5:31)

I am one that bear witness of myself... (John 8:18)

[Jesus Christ was the speaker in both of these quotes]

----

Love God. (Deuteronomy 6:5; 11:1 & 13 & 22; 19:9; 30:6 & 16, Joshua

22:5; 23:11, Psalms 31:23, Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27)

Fear God (Leviticus 25:17, Deuteronomy 6:1 & 13 & 24; 10:12 & 20;

31:12-13, 1 Samuel 12:14, Psalms 33:8; 111:10; 115:13; 128:1; 147:11,

Luke 12:5, 1 Peter 2:17)

Love and fear God (Deuteronomy 10:12)

There is no fear in love. (1 John 4:18)

----

If a man vow a vow unto the Lord or swear an oath... he shall do

according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. (Numbers 30:2)

But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven... nor by

earth. (Matthew 5:34-35)

--------

Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to regin. (2 Kings

8:26)

Fourty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. (2

Chronicles 22:2)

----

God is seen (Exodus 24:9-11, 33:11 ("face-to-face"), 23

("hinderparts"); Genesis 32:24-30 (both seen and physically touched);

John 14:7; Numbers 14:10, 16:19, 42; Deuteronomy 5:4 (face to face)

God is unseeable (John 1:18 (has never been seen), 5:37 (can't be

seen/never seen); Exodus 33:20 (death for seeing His face); 1 Timothy

6:16)

---

God is heard (Exodus 33:11 (direct physical conversation); Genesis

3:9-10, 22:1-2, 11-12, 15-18; Acts 9:7; Numbers 12:5-8, 14:10-11,

16:20, 23-24, 44-45; 1 Kings 19:12-18)

God is not heard (John 5:37 (never heard)

---

And God saw everything that he made, and behold it was very good.

(Genesis 1:31)

And it repented the Lord that he had made man on earth, and it grieved

him at his heart (Genesis 6:6)

---

God rested (Genesis 2:2, Exodus 20:11 & 31:17, Hebrews 4:4)

God never rests (Isaiah 40:28)

---

Do not murder/kill (Exodus 20:13, 23:7; Leviticus 19:18, 24:17,

Matthew 19:18)

David orders a cold-blooded murder (II Samuel 1:15)

David sings of slaughtering children (Psalms 137:9)

Moses orders killing (Numbers 31:17-18 (wanton slaughter), Exodus

32:26-27 (3,000 die)

Elijah -- most holy of the prophets -- kills (1 Kings 18:22 & 40

(kills 450); 2 Kings 1:10-14 (102 men), 2:23-24 (causes 42 children to

die))

God kills or orders it done (Ezekiel 14:9; Acts 5:5 & 10; Genesis

19:24-25, 22:2; Exodus 21:14, 15, 16, 17, 23, 29, 22:18, 19, 20, 24,

23:27, 32:27; Leviticus 20:2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 27, 21:9,

24:14-16 & 23, 21, 26:17, 22, 29; Deuteronomy 13:5, 9-10, 21:18-21,

22:21; Numbers 16:31-33, 35, 21:6, 31:1 , Matthew 15:4)

_--

Those that seek me early shall find me. (Proverbs 8:17, Luke 11:9-10)

Then shall they call upon me but I will not answer; they shall seek me

early, but shall not find me. (Proverbs 1:28)

---

Shaving of beards is not allowed (Judges 8:5, Leviticus 19:28)

Long hair is shameful (I Corinthians 6:14)

---

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.

(Matthew 5:16)

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them.

(Matthew 6:1)

---

Jesus dies at the 6th hour (John 19:14-30, Luke 23:44-46)

Jesus dies at the 9th hour (Matthew 27:46-50, Mark 15:25-37)

---

God sees everything (Proverbs 15:3, Job 34:21-22)

God does not see everything (Genesis 18:20,21)

---

David's throne was forever (Psalms 89:34-37)

David's throne was not forever (Psalms 89:44)

David's throne will be given to another (Luke 1:32)

---

Israel had 800,000 fighting men & Judah 500,000 (2 Samuel 24:9)

Israel had 1,100,000 and Judah 470,000 (1 Chronicles 21:5)

---

The Lord made David number the people (2 Samuel 24:1)

Satan made David number the people (1 Chroncles 21:1)

---

David took 1700 horsemen (2 Samuel 8:4)

David took seven thousand horsemen (1 Chronicles 18:4)

---

Be angry (Ephesians 4:26)

Don't be angry (Ecclesiastes 7:9)

---

Michal had no children (2 Samuel 6:23)

Michal had 5 sons (2 Samuel 21:8)

---

Abraham had 2 sons (Galations 4:22)

Abraham had only 1 son. (Hebrews 11:17)

Abraham had at least 7 children (Genesis 22:2 & Genesis 25:2, 6)

---

Incest is quite bad (Deuteronomy 27:22, Leviticus 20:17)

One may commit incest for specific purposes (Leviticus 21:3)

Abraham commits incest (Genesis 20:11,12)

---

Paul's attendants heard the miraculous voice (Acts 9:7)

Paul's attendants hear nothing (Acts 22:9)

_________________________________________________________________

Christ = God ("I and my father are one." John 10:30)

Christ & God are not equal ("My father is greater than I." John 14:28)

---

Honor thy father and mother. (Exodus 20:12, Matthew 15:14, 19:19)

If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, and wife,

and children, and bretheren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also,

he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)

For I come to set a man at varience against his father, and the

daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her

mother in law. (Matthew 10:35)

---

Thou shalt not steal (Exodus 20:15; Leviticus 19:11; Deuteronomy 5:19,

24:7; Matthew 19:18)

Steal the wealth of besieged cities (Genesis 34:27-29, Deuteronomy

20:13-14)

---

There shall no evil happen to the just. (Proverbs 12:21)

God will allow evil to happen to the just (Hebrews 12:6, Job 1:12)

Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted

of the devil. (Matthew 4:1)

---

Jesus is omnipotent (Matthew 28:18)

Jesus is less than omnipotent (Mark 6:5)

_________________________________________________________________

What scientific inconsistencies?

Let's see... Rabbits whom chew their cud LEV 11:6 (No doubt an extinct species of rabbit.) The world having "corners". (Unless, perhaps mountain peaks count as some sort of "corner"?) Insects having 4 legs. (No doubt the evolutionary predecessors to the modern cockroach... ) Having Jesus being born before the person whose rule he is supposedly born during has even been made ruler. There are more, but surely one gets the point by now...

The mother of Abijah:

2CH 11:20 Maachah the daughter of Absalom

2CH 13:2 Michaiah the daughter of Uriel

When did Baasha die?

1KI 16:6-8 26th year of the reign of Asa

2CH 16:1 36th year of the reign of Asa

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?

2KI 8:26 22

2CH 22:2 42

Who was Josiah's successor?

2CH 36:1 Jehoahaz

JER 22:11 Shallum

The differences in the census figures of Ezra and Nehemiah.

What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?

MAT 27:28 scarlet

JOH 19:2 purple

Many Many Many more shown at

A List Of Biblical Contradictions

Give 1,000 chimps, 1,000 typewriters, 1,000 years, and one of them will type a major novel. What I mean by that is, if you look hard enough and translate different words or phrases, differently, you can always find Biblical justification for just about anything you want..........So what? What matters is, if you are a member of an organized religious sect or creed. If so, the meaning that is accepted by THAT religion is the one you should follow. That is, if you have any integrity, at all. You have the right to believe what you want, but if you join any group you should adhere to the tenets of that group. I put it to you. Can you be a good Catholic and a swinger? Or a good Baptist? I think not, and I'm betting that your Priest/pastor would tell you the same.

But what I don't understand is why never, ever are women allowed multiple husbands or just plain sex partners. One of the reasons I gave up on religion. If God wants me back, She'll need to contact me directly.

Actually, there have been some examples of women having the upper hand, Couplers. I'm thinking of the Amazon warrior societies. In the case of the Plains Indians a woman could divorce her husband simply by telling him she wanted to, or as Monahseetah, the daughter of Cheyenne chief Little Rock did, shoot him in the knee. Unfortunately, Little Rock had to return the horses he had gotten in trade for her. Her husband complained that she was hard to live with.

In the Time the bible was written STDs were around. If you picked one up you were stuck with it. Virgins have no STDs and therefore were favored, if you had more than one wife most likely they were virgins also. Unless you married your dead brothers wife but that would be ok as she had kept only to him. it does not address concubines like many kings had, incest as it is acknowledged in the bible to keep the blood line alive. There are a great many other areas that are left out.

The Bible is a guide to life. It has diet recommendations, work rules, guides for happiness that when violated cause anger, jealousy, envy and death.

I would think the Adultery is the most quoted part against swinging. But then the definition of adultery is the pursuit of another spouse with the intent of making the spouse yours. This omits the cultural practice of having more than one wife and certainly does not encompass swinging as both partners know and approve. There is no "coveting or attempt at ownership" as that is not the intent.

It does not matter what version of the bible you pick but if you want the real intent then you must go to the original source. The current sources are edited, and interpreted and then reinterpreted.

God gave us a brain and an imagination. He gave us free will. Many will dispute that you even have free will but you have the capacity of choice and that of thinking.

Sex is the single most powerful thing on this planet. Sex done correctly is a source of love, comfort, happiness and has many blessings. Used incorrectly it is a source of shame, fear, pain, and angst. We avoid the latter and promote the former.

Alura said:

Actually, there have been some examples of women having the upper hand, Couplers. I'm thinking of the Amazon warrior societies. In the case of the Plains Indians a woman could divorce her husband simply by telling him she wanted to, or as Monahseetah, the daughter of Cheyenne chief Little Rock did, shoot him in the knee. Unfortunately, Little Rock had to return the horses he had gotten in trade for her. Her husband complained that she was hard to live with.

Thank you for the examples, but note that they are not from traditional EuroAsian cultures.

One thing that did come to mind, is that societies seem to be universally much more tolerant of lesbian activities than of male homosexuality. I assume, however, it is because that unlike men, women can engage in mutual orgasmic satisfaction without diminishing their reproductive, or even sexual capabilities; there is no "spilling of seed" (you don't see eggs popping out when a woman cums); and property interests aren't at stake. I suspect that even the most traditional, vanilla of men range from just not caring to being turned on if their woman/wife is getting it on with (an)other women.

Thank you for the examples, but note that they are not from traditional EuroAsian cultures.

Yeah, it's hard to love the EuroAsian cultures.

One thing that did come to mind, is that societies seem to be universally much more tolerant of lesbian activities than of male homosexuality. I assume, however, it is because that unlike men, women can engage in mutual orgasmic satisfaction without diminishing their reproductive, or even sexual capabilities; there is no "spilling of seed" (you don't see eggs popping out when a woman cums); and property interests aren't at stake. I suspect that even the most traditional, vanilla of men range from just not caring to being turned on if their woman/wife is getting it on with (an)other women.

Actually, as I understand it, the stigma against male homosexuality was simpler and more insidious than that... a gay man was condemned for taking a "woman's role" in sex. Doing so was seen as weak and "unmanly." Essentially, the stigma against gay men was also all about misogyny.

Actually, as I understand it, the stigma against male homosexuality was simpler and more insidious than that... a gay man was condemned for taking a "woman's role" in sex. Doing so was seen as weak and "unmanly." Essentially, the stigma against gay men was also all about misogyny.

I never understood why straight guys would have any animosity toward gay men. The more gay men get it on with one another, the more women are left for the straight men.

I never understood why straight guys would have any animosity toward gay men. The more gay men get it on with one another, the more women are left for the straight men.

I've heard lots of theories, my favorites being that the most aggressively anti-gay guys are actually suppressing their own homosexual impulses, or that straight men are afraid gay men will treat them like straight men treat women. I think both of those could be a factor, but ultimately I think the behavior is essentially a form of bullying... abusing people who are identifiable different as a way to seize "power" in social situations.

Among the Lakota, there were "Winktes." They were guys who did not choose to be warriors or hunters but preferred to stay in the village to cook, sew, gather, and tend the children; in other words, to do women's work. They were appreciated by the women because they usually had superior strength and were thus able to lift heavy loads (such as a bison quarter) onto the community cooking fire. The braves were known to sleep with them from time to time. In general, a winkte was honored as one who had superior "medicine."