Comments on: Richard Hackley: The My Big, Black Cock Interview http://www.mybigblackcock.com/archives/104 Witness the glory. Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:12:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: acidtwist http://www.mybigblackcock.com/archives/104/comment-page-1#comment-17 acidtwist Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.mybigblackcock.com/?p=104#comment-17 Okay. That... freaked me out immensely. The Bible is purported to be the Word of God, yet it was written by humans. Obviously, then, there must be some element of human influence on the Biblical writings. For example, the New Testament radically differs from the authoritarian tone of most of the Old Testament. How can anyone rationalise a human-authored book as the only guide to life? It seems as though Mr. Hackley's Biblical 'note-taking' is not that much different from his earlier marijuana-fuelled scribbles. In the end, all interpretations of the Bible come from the reader's own mind. It's up to individual people to decide what/who God is. Incidentally, two matters concern me here: the automatic use of 'He' to describe God, (which seems to me ridiculous since God, according to the Bible, exists as a genderless deity), and the dismissal of homosexuality as a valid Christian life choice. I cannot believe that God will not accept people for their personal worth, rather than reject them for loving their own gender. - an ex-Catholic schoolchild :D Okay. That… freaked me out immensely. The Bible is purported to be the Word of God, yet it was written by humans. Obviously, then, there must be some element of human influence on the Biblical writings. For example, the New Testament radically differs from the authoritarian tone of most of the Old Testament. How can anyone rationalise a human-authored book as the only guide to life?

It seems as though Mr. Hackley’s Biblical ‘note-taking’ is not that much different from his earlier marijuana-fuelled scribbles. In the end, all interpretations of the Bible come from the reader’s own mind. It’s up to individual people to decide what/who God is. Incidentally, two matters concern me here: the automatic use of ‘He’ to describe God, (which seems to me ridiculous since God, according to the Bible, exists as a genderless deity), and the dismissal of homosexuality as a valid Christian life choice. I cannot believe that God will not accept people for their personal worth, rather than reject them for loving their own gender.

- an ex-Catholic schoolchild :D

]]> By: Richard Hackley http://www.mybigblackcock.com/archives/104/comment-page-1#comment-18 Richard Hackley Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.mybigblackcock.com/?p=104#comment-18 Dear Acidtwist (SaRaH jAnE?): Thank you for reading the interview and posting some well written comments. Here are some responses for you to consider. RE authorship of the Bible: your comments are logical, and I'm sure shared by many. Here is some more logic: in fairness to the Bible, and to the possibility that it might be God's Word, we must give the Bible a chance to speak for itself regarding its authorship. Here are perhaps the two principal verses: 2 Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." 2 Peter 1:21, "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men [and some women as well] of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." There were, as you stated, many writers of the Bible. This accounts for the wide variety of styles, vocabularies, figures of speech, etc. But, if the verses above are true, there was only one author. As for the change of tone between the Old Testament and the New, I believe it was mostly due to moving from OT law (bondage) to NT grace (freedom). If a lie is serious about deceiving people, it will claim itself to be true. Truth will, of course, also claim itself to be true. So the presence of the claim to be true is, in a sense, valueless. So how do we tell truth from lie? About the only thing I know to do is look for statements (made by the doctrine you are questioning) that can be tested. See if they produce the promised results. RE interpretations of the Bible: again, a verse: 2 Peter 1:20, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." The major point of this verse (emphasized by the words "Knowing this first..") is that God says, "Don't privately interpret it." This means me, you ... everyone. The good news is that by saying this, he is also saying that the correct interpretation is available to us. I will not engage in a debate over who has the correct interpretation of the Bible. I know I have some. I also know I don't have it all. I also know I have some incorrect, on which God will correct me when I am mature enough to receive it. RE God as 'he': again, you are right. God is a genderless deity. When writing of him, we have basically three pronouns to choose from: he, she or it. Or, we can skip the use of pronouns and repeatedly use 'God', 'the Lord', etc, as you did in your comments. But even the writers of the Bible sensed how awkward such constant and unwavering repetition can be at times. My preference is 'he' because: 'it' seems to make God an inanimate object without intelligence; 'she' sets up some confusion regarding the impregnation of Mary. Mary provided the egg. But who provided the sperm? Another woman? Calling God 'she' would give this impression. Jesus, knowing that God is genderless, repeatedly refered to him as 'Father'. RE homosexuality: if the Bible is not God's Word, then let's hope you're statement about our personal worth is correct. If the Bible is God's Word, then we have a savior, who, among many other benefits, provides us an alternative to depending upon our personal worth. We can accept the righteousness he earned for us, rather than trusting whatever we earned on our own is enough. It is the Bible (not me) that does not validate homosexuality as a proper choice for a Christian. Romans 1:26-27 is vivid on this matter. What the Bible does validate is honesty. A homosexual Christian who believes Romans 1:26-27, but cannot seem to discard his homosexuality, can still have a productive Christian walk with God if he will be honest with God. The remaining paragraphs of my original answer attempted (perhaps poorly) to make this point. Dear Acidtwist (SaRaH jAnE?):
Thank you for reading the interview and posting some well written comments. Here are some responses for you to consider.

RE authorship of the Bible: your comments are logical, and I’m sure shared by many. Here is some more logic: in fairness to the Bible, and to the possibility that it might be God’s Word, we must give the Bible a chance to speak for itself regarding its authorship. Here are perhaps the two principal verses:

2 Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God…”
2 Peter 1:21, “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men [and some women as well] of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

There were, as you stated, many writers of the Bible. This accounts for the wide variety of styles, vocabularies, figures of speech, etc. But, if the verses above are true, there was only one author. As for the change of tone between the Old Testament and the New, I believe it was mostly due to moving from OT law (bondage) to NT grace (freedom).

If a lie is serious about deceiving people, it will claim itself to be true. Truth will, of course, also claim itself to be true. So the presence of the claim to be true is, in a sense, valueless. So how do we tell truth from lie? About the only thing I know to do is look for statements (made by the doctrine you are questioning) that can be tested. See if they produce the promised results.

RE interpretations of the Bible: again, a verse:

2 Peter 1:20, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

The major point of this verse (emphasized by the words “Knowing this first..”) is that God says, “Don’t privately interpret it.” This means me, you … everyone. The good news is that by saying this, he is also saying that the correct interpretation is available to us. I will not engage in a debate over who has the correct interpretation of the Bible. I know I have some. I also know I don’t have it all. I also know I have some incorrect, on which God will correct me when I am mature enough to receive it.

RE God as ‘he’: again, you are right. God is a genderless deity. When writing of him, we have basically three pronouns to choose from: he, she or it. Or, we can skip the use of pronouns and repeatedly use ‘God’, ‘the Lord’, etc, as you did in your comments. But even the writers of the Bible sensed how awkward such constant and unwavering repetition can be at times.
My preference is ‘he’ because:
‘it’ seems to make God an inanimate object without intelligence;
’she’ sets up some confusion regarding the impregnation of Mary. Mary provided the egg. But who provided the sperm? Another woman? Calling God ’she’ would give this impression. Jesus, knowing that God is genderless, repeatedly refered to him as ‘Father’.

RE homosexuality: if the Bible is not God’s Word, then let’s hope you’re statement about our personal worth is correct.
If the Bible is God’s Word, then we have a savior, who, among many other benefits, provides us an alternative to depending upon our personal worth. We can accept the righteousness he earned for us, rather than trusting whatever we earned on our own is enough.
It is the Bible (not me) that does not validate homosexuality as a proper choice for a Christian. Romans 1:26-27 is vivid on this matter.
What the Bible does validate is honesty. A homosexual Christian who believes Romans 1:26-27, but cannot seem to discard his homosexuality, can still have a productive Christian walk with God if he will be honest with God. The remaining paragraphs of my original answer attempted (perhaps poorly) to make this point.

]]>