General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Muslims are no Different, or why Bill Maher’s blood libel is Bigotry [View all]merrily
(45,251 posts)It is either a prophesy that God will kill them or, if the words are attributed to God, a promise that God will kill them. Otherwise, it would say, you shall put them to death--and "surely" would not appear in the command. For example, Thou shalt not commit adultery doesn't say Thous shalt surely not commit adultery.
I don't know of any command that assumes all humans will surely obey it. Even the command to kill the Amalekites was not obeyed to the letter by the Israeites (and God was supposedly pissed off that the Israelites left some survivors).
Again, granted, it is heinous for words attributed to God to go even that far as to homosexuals, but it is most important for the benefit of homosexuals, I think, to realize that the Bible is not ordering Jews or Christians or any humans to kill homosexuals. (unless you have other wording to that effect).
Amalekites aside, the Bible usually says God will judge and punish, as opposed to deputing humans to murder for the alleged love of God. I think that is a very important point for those who value gay people make to zealots.
I realize it also may help gays and women to attack the Bible, esp. the words attributed to God, but pointing out that God is NOT telling Christian zealots (or any zealots) to murder gays come first in my priorities. The reason being-aside from the overarching issue of life and death-- that I feel it somewhat more likely that I can drive home that point than that I will be successful in getting anyone to disavow the Bible entirely. For example, adultery is one of the Big Ten, yet Jesus stops the stoning by humans of the adulterous woman. Whether Jesus thinks "a just God" will have no option but to condemn her to hell is another question, but Jesus clearly thinks it is not for humans to punish her. Why would homosexuality, not even one of the Big Ten, be different.
And that is something I can argue to even the most rigid Christian. In fact, the more literally the Christian wants to take the Bible, the better I can do with my textual argument. Sadly (for me), I don't have the clout of that person's pastor, but maybe I can at least raise doubt. If I use the "your God is a bloody murderer with no redeeming qualities" approach though, I am not going to get anywhere. For just one thing, there is the "God is merciful, but just" meme.
BTW, I like to compare everything with the first King James translation. I am sure the King's translators had an agenda, but I have no idea what it was and it's probably moot now. I have seen more modern translations make modifications to the Bible that are very much lined up with the agenda of the religious right, esp. as to gays and women. So, I like to compare wording with a translation published when neither of those things was controversial (because no one was pushing back on behalf of gays or women).