# Reading > Religious Texts >  does religion/God give people a voice?

## cacian

politics does
education does ish
literature does

institutions such as these democratic in nature allow for certain voices to be heard and expressions to be formed but does religion hear or is it just heard?

----------


## cafolini

When you are on high cacianate zolpidem, it might take on a personality and you can hear the voice.

----------


## The Kid

Sure it does. I take lots of inspiration from Liberation Theology. It's one of the main reasons I returned to Catholicism.

Do you remember El Salvador? Certainly one of the most admirable deeds of the Catholic church.

If I remember correctly there once was a man named Gandhi who found his voice through religion.

----------


## The Atheist

> politics does
> education does ish
> literature does
> 
> institutions such as these democratic in nature allow for certain voices to be heard and expressions to be formed but does religion hear or is it just heard?


Very much more the latter than the former.

That's pretty much why the Roman church is still sexist and homophobic.

I think The Kid is confusing religious people being _able_ to have a voice. Of course they do, as he notes with Gandhi, and I'll throw in MLK as a bonus.

But does religion listen? No.

The litmus test would be how quickly religions change, and going by the Romans and their issues above, the literalists who would have us teach creationism, the outright lunacy of the Westboro church, the insane Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia, and sharia law itself, I don't think there could be much argument that religion listens very, very infrequently.

----------


## Delta40

Good people will do good things. Bad people will do bad things. But to get good people to do bad things, you will need religion.

----------


## Volya

> Good people will do good things. Bad people will do bad things. But to get good people to do bad things, you will need religion.


I don't think this is true since (in my opinion) religion itself is not a bad thing. It is only religious institutions that sometimes convince people to do bad things, but I think this is true of any large organization, be it political or religious.

Plus there are not really any 'good' or 'bad' people, most are just somewhere in-between where they'll respect and follow their morals until it becomes too difficult.

----------


## cacian

i think you will find that religions apart from telling others to commit heinous crimes it also tells the majority to bury their heads in the sand. a bit like a monk. he or she lives apart and in obscurity and no one knows what goes on behind their close doors. the role of a monk is literally to live securely and remotely from everyday life. there is no real practical reason to why they are and frankly the mind boggles.why so many men or women congregate together in such secular manner and in such unnatural way in the name of a god. it is spooky. 
i believe religion also encourages the majority to care for no one but one being.
religious people are intellectually inactive ie dormant in that their mind is solely to serve and pray for a being that they do not see. they have no real intellectual input towards the global society. a bit like a dormatt. they just lay about unthinking. it is off putting. 
religion's primary purpose is to teach people to become lazy intellectually.

----------


## cafolini

> i think you will find that religions apart from telling others to commit heinous crimes and it also tell the majority to bury their heads in the sand. a bit like a monk.he or she lives apart and in obscurity and no one knows what goes on behind close doors. the role of a monk is literally to live securely and remotely from everyday life. there is no real practical reason to why they are and frankly the mind boggles to why so many men or women congregate in such secular manner and in such unnatural way in the name of a god. it is spooky. 
> religion also encourages the majority to care no one but for one being.
> religious people are intellectually inactive ie dormant in that their mind is solely to serve and pray for a being that they do not see. they have no real intellectual input towards the global society. a bit like a dormatt. they just lay about unthinking it is off putting. their impact on life and society in generally is non existent.
> i think religion teaches people to become lazy intellectually.


So, if they have no significant impact, what's the point in arguing against them? Cacianate Zolpidem? Don't be ridiculous.

----------


## The Kid

> I think The Kid is confusing religious people being able to have a voice. Of course they do, as he notes with Gandhi, and I'll throw in MLK as a bonus.
> 
> But does religion listen? No.





> i think you will find that religions apart from telling others to commit heinous crimes it also tells the majority to bury their heads in the sand. a bit like a monk. he or she lives apart and in obscurity and no one knows what goes on behind their close doors. the role of a monk is literally to live securely and remotely from everyday life. there is no real practical reason to why they are and frankly the mind boggles.why so many men or women congregate together in such secular manner and in such unnatural way in the name of a god. it is spooky. 
> i believe religion also encourages the majority to care for no one but one being.
> religious people are intellectually inactive ie dormant in that their mind is solely to serve and pray for a being that they do not see. they have no real intellectual input towards the global society. a bit like a dormatt. they just lay about unthinking. it is off putting. 
> religion's primary purpose is to teach people to become lazy intellectually.


My friends, there is something that I am saying that you seem to not hear. I am not confused; I have personal experience in this matter.

My parents raised me as a Catholic since a little kid, but as I got older I lost faith in the church because of the institution's stubbornness. Anyone can see there are serious problems with it, and my personal life was directly affected by the Church's viewpoints on homosexuality and its lack of action on many social issues. So for a while I was almost totally detached from my religion because I figured it was stale. I thought there is no place in the Church for a person like me.

Then eventually I realized a great truth. Religion does in fact give voices to people who have none. I mean, there are so many examples, but I always like the quote of the Greatest Commandment: "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind, *and your neighbor as yourself*". This for me sums up most religions. 

Christian religion specifically is based on the worship of Christ, who was in fact a great missionary who himself gave voices to the voiceless. He served the lowest classes of society and advocated for social change. He established a tradition of human brotherhood that is central to Christian beliefs. There is a long line of servants that follows this tradition, not all of them Christian.

More modern examples are as I mentioned the Catholic church in El Salvador during the civil war. The people were suffering, being slaughtered by the thousands, and the world stood by. Some institutions like the pinche United States government even helped the oppressors. Only the Catholic church within El Salvador was brave enough to help the people. As a result the church there was oppressed too, and the Archbishop was even assassinated. But the Church gave the people hope; it wasn't just a church, it was the church *of the people*.

Catholic religion at least, I don't know about others for certain but I also suspect, does not tell people to "bury their heads in the sand". Rather it calls them to action. The times people do not listen to the calls are the times of misinterpretation, not of bad morals.

As for that man named Gandhi, well, you might know his story. But you seem to treat him as a nonviolent revolutionary who _happened_ to have religion, but whose great accomplishments are not related to religion. No; his great successes were _because_ of religion. His entire philosophy of nonviolence comes from religion, as was his sustaining faith that his people could overcome struggle. I mean, he developed a whole philosophy based on religious principles.

----------->The point I'm trying to make is that religion at its core encourages values that empower people and give them hope and connect them to their fellow humans. People like Dr. King or Gandhi are not just examples of religious people having voices, they are religious people who correctly implemented the *basic principles of their religions*. In cases where religion leads to oppression, it is the result of people misinterpreting those inherently good principles. Cases where religion leads to freedom, such as Liberation Theology or Civil Rights movements, it is the result of people doing things right. <-------------

Once I realized that there was a place in religion for those who believe in humanity, I returned to the Catholic faith. It is far from perfect, but I am now an active member who advocates for reform based on the basic principles that we believe in - compassion, humanity, and loving your neighbor as yourself, because your neighbor is God.

I know I could explain this clearer, but it's Friday night and I'm damn tired from the week. Sorry for the somewhat haphazard explanation.

----------


## Delta40

Your post is only true when you use the teachings of the bible selectively. It endorses slavery and the oppression of women. The other point to keep in mind is that your moral compass has no relevance if it conflicts with gods. If he asked you to sacrifice your son who cares whether it is morally right or wrong since to do his will as a supreme show of faith is what matters. Where is your voice then?

----------


## cacian

> So, if they have no significant impact, what's the point in arguing against them? Cacianate Zolpidem? Don't be ridiculous.


ay I wish not to argue but to value idea for another and since religion does not enquire but reliar then I am simply saying that religion and intellect do not mix.
having to approve of one another is one thing but having to spend time and effort signifying with a being I cannot feel see or even hear does make me ponder where the mind wander. I might as well chase the light. that is all.  :Biggrin:

----------


## cafolini

Precisely. You don't have to signify with what you can't meet. But any statement is fundamentally begging for further statements, arguments. Valuing is arguing.

----------


## The Atheist

> My friends, there is something that I am saying that you seem to not hear. I am not confused; I have personal experience in this matter.
> 
> .....
> 
> Then eventually I realized a great truth. Religion does in fact give voices to people who have none. I mean, there are so many examples, but I always like the quote of the Greatest Commandment: "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind, *and your neighbor as yourself*". This for me sums up most religions.


Meanwhile, avoiding answering the question.

In what way does the Catholic or Southern Baptist church give voice to gays? And in the case of the RCC, women? They still don't have a single woman priest, let alone voice in the Vatican. You can make up all the assertions you like, but the fact remains that by far the largest christian church is a total and abject failure at giving voice to homosexual or female concerns. 




> More modern examples are as I mentioned the Catholic church in El Salvador during the civil war. The people were suffering, being slaughtered by the thousands, and the world stood by. Some institutions like the pinche United States government even helped the oppressors. Only the Catholic church within El Salvador was brave enough to help the people. As a result the church there was oppressed too, and the Archbishop was even assassinated. But the Church gave the people hope; it wasn't just a church, it was the church *of the people*.


That's one example, sure. But I'll counter it with Ireland, where the Catholic church was not just giving covert support to the IRA terrorists, but also provided actual information channels through church personnel.

For every individual case you can find that the church has helped voice concerns of real worth, I'll give you 10 on the opposite side of the coin.

I will grant that the new pope may change things, because it's blindingly obvious from his own speeches on poverty and forgiveness that he completely accepts the church is nowhere the perfect organisation it sells itself as.




> As for that man named Gandhi, well, you might know his story. But you seem to treat him ...


Nobody treated him as anything as far my reading of the thread shows - if I missed something maybe you could point me to it.

It's also irrelevant as it one man, not the church. Do we credit the church with Desmond Tutu's Peace Prize, or the man?




> ----------->The point I'm trying to make is that religion at its core encourages values that empower people and give them hope and connect them to their fellow humans. People like Dr. King or Gandhi are not just examples of religious people having voices, they are religious people who correctly implemented the *basic principles of their religions*. In cases where religion leads to oppression, it is the result of people misinterpreting those inherently good principles. Cases where religion leads to freedom, such as Liberation Theology or Civil Rights movements, it is the result of people doing things right. <-------------


I bet you can type all of that without feeling a bit of the irony in saying it when your own church actively discriminates against homosexuals and females.




> Sorry for the somewhat haphazard explanation.


The explanation was perfectly coherent; you were just wrong.

----------


## Darcy88

Religion is multifarious. The church I sometimes attend has a female minister and other churches of its kind have homosexual ministers. It is also one of the very largest church denominations in my country. My extensive reading of Buddhist literature offers no indication that females or homosexuals are discriminated against in that religion, though I won't state that this is universally and categorically the case. The Christians I know most intimately tell me that to them no church is perfect and in fact most of them are corrupt and furthermore that the true reality of their faith is a personal connection between themselves and God, aided by their reading of the scriptures, interpreted by their own reason and conscience. 

The individual determines the nature of the religious adherent as often as religious adherence shapes the nature of the individual. 

Ignorance is prevalent in monotheistic religion but it isn't prevalent enough in my opinion that we can write those religions off entirely. Through confirmation bias you can find cause to condemn anything. Christians and Muslims can play that game as well and offer much evidence against atheism. Honest objectivity precludes generalizations.

----------


## Delta40

How do you offer evidence against an experience? If someone says they believe/disbelieve it's impossible to prove. However the claim a god exists requires proof and an atheist is simply someone who doesn't accept that proposition for lack of evidence. When there is evidence to back the claim many will be happy to review their position. 

I'm still looking for Purple Unicorns...

----------


## The Atheist

> The church I sometimes attend has a female minister and other churches of its kind have homosexual ministers. It is also one of the very largest church denominations in my country.


I did note there were exceptions, and I'm presuming you belong to the United Church, which makes up 11% of Canada's christian adherents. That's a high percentage to belong to a liberal church, and I imagine Canada is an exception, being more liberal as a country.

The numbers speak for themselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ber_of_members

Liberal churches are a very small minority across the world, so you might call it a generalisation, but it applies to the vast majority of all churches.

Yes, Buddhism scores a pass, but I'm definitely in the camp that doesn't count Buddhism as a religion anyway: http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm

----------


## Darcy88

> I did note there were exceptions, and I'm presuming you belong to the United Church, which makes up 11% of Canada's christian adherents. That's a high percentage to belong to a liberal church, and I imagine Canada is an exception, being more liberal as a country.
> 
> The numbers speak for themselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ber_of_members
> 
> Liberal churches are a very small minority across the world, so you might call it a generalisation, but it applies to the vast majority of all churches.
> 
> Yes, Buddhism scores a pass, but I'm definitely in the camp that doesn't count Buddhism as a religion anyway: http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm


But how can I look upon religion as a negative thing when that liberal church is the only real personal experience with organized religion I've had? My elderly grandmother believes that she is going to enjoy everlasting happiness by the side of her loving God when she passes. It is hard to deny that the message most apparent in the New Testament is one of highly estimable moral import. A lot of Christians actually do feel behooved to go off and do service to suffering strangers in foreign lands. 

My gut reaction to most organized religion is indeed negative. Christianity has historically been a force for evil as much as it has been one for good. But on an anecdotal interpersonal basis, and taking into consideration the innumerable acts of kindness and charity carried out by faithfully devoted religious persons today and in the past, I can't simply say "religion is bad," like I can say racism or ignorance or starvation are bad.

----------


## Delta40

So you choose to ignore your gut reaction, ignore the facts and try to find a church that won't compromise your goodness.

----------


## The Atheist

> But how can I look upon religion as a negative thing when that liberal church is the only real personal experience with organized religion I've had?


I haven't been a member of either the Catholic or Southern Baptist churches, but I can still see that they're misogynistic, homophobic entities.

Ditto Scientology, (not entirely a religion either) Jehovah's Witnesses or the Westboro church. I don't believe personal experience is necessary to be able to categorise an entity or concept. I've never experienced war, but I think it's a bad thing.

My elderly grandmother believes that she is going to enjoy everlasting happiness by the side of her loving God when she passes. It is hard to deny that the message most apparent in the New Testament is one of highly estimable moral import. A lot of Christians actually do feel behooved to go off and do service to suffering strangers in foreign lands. 




> ... I can't simply say "religion is bad," like I can say racism or ignorance or starvation are bad.


I agree with you, which is why I'm always careful to allow exceptions. Believe it or not, I've had some serious flame wars with other atheists arguing from my belief that not _all_ religion is bad. Just most of it.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> i think you will find that religions apart from telling others to commit heinous crimes it also tells the majority to bury their heads in the sand. a bit like a monk. he or she lives apart and in obscurity and no one knows what goes on behind their close doors. the role of a monk is literally to live securely and remotely from everyday life. there is no real practical reason to why they are and frankly the mind boggles.why so many men or women congregate together in such secular manner and in such unnatural way in the name of a god. it is spooky. 
> i believe religion also encourages the majority to care for no one but one being.
> religious people are intellectually inactive ie dormant in that their mind is solely to serve and pray for a being that they do not see. they have no real intellectual input towards the global society. a bit like a dormatt. they just lay about unthinking. it is off putting. 
> religion's primary purpose is to teach people to become lazy intellectually.



You think so? There is certainly are many intellectually sophisticated theologians out there. I'm not saying their ideas are correct or true necessarily, but it certainly requires that they can be quite . . . inventive.






> So you choose to ignore your gut reaction, ignore the facts and try to find a church that won't compromise your goodness.


Or a church that enhances his goodness and matches his values.

----------


## cacian

> You think so? There is certainly are many intellectually sophisticated theologians out there. I'm not saying their ideas are correct or true necessarily, but it certainly requires that they can be quite . . . inventive.


I am not sure I could agree with a theologist being sophisticated and inventive. I will need examples to compare.  :Smile: 
the whole point of religion is that is that it does not allow for changes. the reason religion is is that it is controlling and uninventive. there is no listing to one another as far as religion is concerned. there is a lot of listening to it. it is a one way street.
what religion does is create parameters that works for it and not against it. atheism is because of religion for example. without it atheism does not exist. atheism is conflict and that is what religion wants. conflict between parties.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I am not sure I could agree with a theologist being sophisticated and inventive. I will need examples to compare. 
> the whole point of religion is that is that it does not allow for changes. the reason religion is is that it is controlling and uninventive. there is no listing to one another as far as religion is concerned. there is a lot of listening to it. it is a one way street.
> what religion does is create parameters that works for it and not against it. atheism is because of religion for example. without it atheism does not exist. atheism is conflict and that is what religion wants. conflict between parties.


Why aren't Christians Jews? Why aren't Jews all pagans worshipping the Canaanite pantheon? Why are there 41,000 different versions of Christianity according to Pew Forum? 

In relation to your ideas, it would seem to me that all these questions can be seen two ways, depending on how you look at them. 

1) They can be viewed as data points supporting your assertion that "religion . . . does not allow for changes," and therefore people need to create new versions of their religion to incorporate changes. 

or

2) we see that religions do in fact change and evolve over time by the fact that a few religions have spawned entirely new religions altogether and many different variants of the same religion, challenging the idea that religion does not allow for changes.

----------


## cafolini

> Why aren't Christians Jews? Why aren't Jews all pagans worshipping the Canaanite pantheon? Why are there 41,000 different versions of Christianity according to Pew Forum? 
> 
> In relation to your ideas, it would seem to me that all these questions can be seen two ways, depending on how you look at them. 
> 
> 1) They can be viewed as data points supporting your assertion that "religion . . . does not allow for changes," and therefore people need to create new versions of their religion to incorporate changes. 
> 
> or
> 
> 2) we see that religions do in fact change and evolve over time by the fact that a few religions have spawned entirely new religions altogether and many different variants of the same religion, challenging the idea that religion does not allow for changes.


Excellent. We need more truths like these two.

----------


## YALASH

> politics does
> education does ish
> literature does
> 
> institutions such as these democratic in nature allow for certain voices to be heard and expressions to be formed but does religion hear or is it just heard?


Peace be on you.
In relgion, God hears us, we have to hear the god too :

"And when My servants ask thee about Me, say: I am near. I answer the prayer of the supplicant when he prays to Me. So they should hearken to Me and believe in Me, that they may follow the right way. (Holy Quran, Ch 2, v187)

----------


## The Atheist

> ....I answer the prayer of the supplicant when he prays to Me....


How come he didn't hear the prayers of the children attacked with lethal gas in Syria, or the millions in refugee camps?

Was there a football game on that day?

----------


## Delta40

It is not for us to question these things. I'm sure its all part of gods plan and doesn't that make everything just dandy? I don't know what abused kids have to complain about with such knowledge!

----------


## The Atheist

> It is not for us to question these things. I'm sure its all part of gods plan and doesn't that make everything just dandy? I don't know what abused kids have to complain about with such knowledge!


Isn't it funny how god's plans can be hidden away and known only to him/her, but that's perfectly ok, while Satan, who is at least honest about his intentions, is a bad guy.

----------


## Delta40

Yes and one can confess their sins, receive forgiveness and commit them again. Fly-bys to heaven scheme. There lacks a real accountability for many terrible acts where others suffer while a priest tries to save a soul so it doesn't go to hell.

----------


## SFG75

> politics does
> education does ish
> literature does
> 
> institutions such as these democratic in nature allow for certain voices to be heard and expressions to be formed but does religion hear or is it just heard?


All of the items listed, even religion, give people a voice. You can't state that religion doesn't and give a free pass to politics, education, and literature. I can think of instances in all of those realms where ideas were squashed or that oppression occurred. Humans are prone to make mistakes and given our nature of that, it is nature to conclude that we will mar to some extent, those things which do give us a voice. Religion is inspirational and can bring the best out in people. I've witnessed a service and seen a couple married 50 years struggle to kneel for communion, I've also seen a faithful couple struggle with the health of a terminal child, or the loss of a loved one. You can look for the exceptions in things, or the reality. I understand the bad that is done in the name of religion, but there is more to it if you are willing.

----------


## Melanie

The only religion that doesn't listen is the religion of...Atheism. If they listened to all things of creation, really listened, they would hear God.

----------


## The Atheist

> All of the items listed, even religion, give people a voice. You can't state that religion doesn't and give a free pass to politics, education, and literature. I can think of instances in all of those realms where ideas were squashed or that oppression occurred. Humans are prone to make mistakes and given our nature of that, it is nature to conclude that we will mar to some extent, those things which do give us a voice. Religion is inspirational and can bring the best out in people. I've witnessed a service and seen a couple married 50 years struggle to kneel for communion, I've also seen a faithful couple struggle with the health of a terminal child, or the loss of a loved one. You can look for the exceptions in things, or the reality. I understand the bad that is done in the name of religion, but there is more to it if you are willing.


Nice post, but it doesn't address the question at all. 

The kind of thing would be Pope Franky's desire to drive change within the Roman church, based on what people want. If it works, it will be that church's first case of listening to the people in about 1800 years, so it's a nice change.




> The only religion that doesn't listen is the religion of...Atheism. If they listened to all things of creation, really listened, they would hear God.


First off, atheism isn't a religion. There are no rules, no membership criteria, no tithing, nothing to worship even. Trying to call it a religion has been tried a few times, has been found to be completely spurious, and pretty outdated in 2013.

As to "listening to creation", it may surprise you that scientific atheists are actually extremely good at that. Where do you think they would have heard a god? Do you think the god is there but atheists don't want to look for her/him/it?

If that's the case, how do you explain the ever-increasing number of former fervent believers who grow out of their belief?

----------


## Melanie

> First off, atheism isn't a religion. There are no rules, no membership criteria, no tithing, nothing to worship even. Trying to call it a religion has been tried a few times, has been found to be completely spurious, and pretty outdated in 2013.


"calling it a religion has been tried a few times"?? This arguement started back in 1871 with Edward Burnett Tylor. So call it outdated if you'd like but I call it all a part of history and is now reflected in Merriam-Webster's dictionary, defined as, "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or a group...a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" (definition #4). 

Whether you like it or not, you are part of a group that shares a belief. You share an incredible amount of faith to believe that science created the ability to love, and to reason, etc etc. Science is your god. Look how you worship science in all the many threads you post in. One more thing, you're not really listening.

----------


## The Atheist

> "calling it a religion has been tried a few times"?? This arguement started back in 1871 with Edward Burnett Tylor. So call it outdated if you'd like but I call it all a part of history and is now reflected in Merriam-Webster's dictionary, defined as, "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or a group...a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" (definition #4).


Must be a different M-W dictionary to the one I have which says nothing like that at all: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Or Yahoo!/American Heritage: http://education.yahoo.com/reference.../entry/atheism

Or Collins: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dic...nglish/atheism

In fact, try as I might, I cannot find a description that matches what you say. Every dictionary I know of describes atheism as a lack of belief, or as an alternative description, a doctrine of disbelief. There are definitely some atheists who use it as a doctrine, but they are in a small minority, and I hope I don't have to explain at a literature forum how dictionaries work.

You are just wrong.




> Whether you like it or not, you are part of a group that shares a belief.


See above. You can think what you like, but it won't change the fact that atheism is recognised by every scholar and thinking person as a _lack_ of belief.




> You share an incredible amount of faith to believe that science created the ability to love, and to reason, etc etc.


How did science create an ability to love? Or reason?

I'm 100% confident those things existed long before science.

You seem to be very confused about what science actually is, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with science. Some atheists - like David Icke - are completely anti-science. I think Icke is insane, but he's still an atheist.




> Science is your god. Look how you worship science in all the many threads you post in. One more thing, you're not really listening.


You're also confusing respect for evidence and the scientific method with belief. As to listening, I repeat, to what/whom should I be listening?

----------


## Melanie

> Must be a different M-W dictionary to the one I have which says nothing like that at all...In fact, try as I might, I cannot find a description that matches what you say. Every dictionary I know of describes atheism as a lack of belief, or as an alternative description, a doctrine of disbelief. I hope I don't have to explain at a literature forum how dictionaries work. You are just wrong.


No need to be condescending since we're respectful adults here, right? I posted the definition of "religion" (in post#32) and noted that it was for the word, "religion"...not "atheism". That's why you couldn't find anything under atheism. Here's the link for the definition (see both #4s since I quoted both). Now you can take your foot out of your mouth  :Smile5: 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion





> How did science create an ability to love? Or reason? I'm 100% confident those things existed long before science.
> You seem to be very confused about what science actually is, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with science.


Exactly, the ability to love and to reason came from God. Science isn't even mentioned in the Bible.




> As to listening, I repeat, to what/whom should I be listening?


And I repeat, listen to creation. Walk outside. Use all your god-given senses (sight,sound,touch,taste,smell) and listen to creation. Really listen. Did you know that plants respond to music? You won't be able to deny an intelligent designer.

----------


## cacian

> Exactly, the ability to love and to reason came from God. Science isn't even mentioned in the Bible.


I object your honour, hi Melanie  :Smile: 
I personally think the ability to love is inane/natural/instinctive to humans. it is human to love. God is only part of it as we are part of them god/goddesses. god is a woman and also a man.
science distracts from religion and if it is not mentioned in the bible it is because it wants to. It is tomake a point.



> Did you know that plants respond to music?


why would plants want to listen to music? what would be the reason?
there is a reason to everything. I might as well say the cloud listen to music too.  :Smile:

----------


## The Atheist

> I posted the definition of "religion" (in post#32) and noted that it was for the word, "religion"...not "atheism".


Then it's a great shame your response was directed at whether atheism was a religion.

Try reading what you actually wrote rather than what you think you did.

As long as you understand that atheism isn't a religion, I'm quite happy.




> Exactly, the ability to love and to reason came from God.


Then so did evil, Satan, paedophiles, rapists, famine, war & parasites that eat children's eyeballs.




> Science isn't even mentioned in the Bible.


Yet science continues to work. Some scientists actually believe in a god - you do know that, right?




> And I repeat, listen to creation. Walk outside. Use all your god-given senses (sight,sound,touch,taste,smell) and listen to creation. Really listen. Did you know that plants respond to music? You won't be able to deny an intelligent designer.


Please provide evidence that plants respond to music.

Note that even if they did, there is nothing abnormal about plants responding to stimuli - have you never watched a flower open in the sunlight?

As to listening and looking at all creation, I do that frequently. I look up at the sky at night, gaze at galaxies hundreds of light-years away and wonder how anyone can believe a single entity would create such an enormous thing - the universe - to only allow one infinitesimal portion of it to be used. Conversely, I look at amoebae under a microscope and wonder how people can believe an omnipotent, omnipresent, loving entity would design one of them capable of eating your brain.

I do laugh when theists tell me to look at creation, because it's pretty obvious it's not something they do themselves. Not with their brains open, anyway.

----------


## cafolini

> Then it's a great shame your response was directed at whether atheism was a religion.
> 
> Try reading what you actually wrote rather than what you think you did.
> 
> As long as you understand that atheism isn't a religion, I'm quite happy.
> 
> 
> 
> Then so did evil, Satan, paedophiles, rapists, famine, war & parasites that eat children's eyeballs.
> ...


I would have to agree with you atheist, as I do with atheists that are theists. They all are. But it is a mystery and that subject you hardly touched. So you are indeed religious in your obstinacy, just like any of the other hypocrites behind theological disguises. However, you have some virtue in being informative instead of substituting the incredible (the truths that do not require credulity) with the credible.

----------


## The Atheist

> I would have to agree with you atheist, as I do with atheists that are theists. They all are. But it is a mystery and that subject you hardly touched. So you are indeed religious in your obstinacy, just like any of the other hypocrites behind theological disguises.


If I had any idea at all what you mean here, I'd gladly answer whatever question it is you think I've avoided, but it is incomprehensible to me. 

Maybe you could try expressing it better and I'll have a go.

----------


## Melanie

> Then it's a great shame your response was directed at whether atheism was a religion.


My comment was much firmer than that. I said "like it or not, you're part of a group that shares a belief" and that's the definition of religion according to the link I posted for Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion




> Some scientists actually believe in a god - you do know that, right?


Do you mean God or "a god". Big difference. Yes, many scientists believe in God. Tells you something, doesn't it? Then they give credit where it makes the most sense instead of to a mud puddle that came into existence for no rhyme nor reason. Rather than to put their faith in that they've chosen to put their faith in God. You choose mud puddle, they choose intelligent designer. God gave us all an ability to make choices




> Please provide evidence that plants respond to music.


You're a big boy, google it and you will find many many studies on it. Plants also respond to our voices. Discovery Magazine put plants in 3 separate rooms for several months....one room was silent, one room had classical music, and one room had rock music I think. the silent room plants were sickly and growth was stunted. I can't remember if they found a difference between the types of music but other studies have found that plants don't like rock music as much as classical and pleasant music.

----------


## The Atheist

> My comment was much firmer than that. I said "like it or not, you're part of a group that shares a belief" and that's the definition of religion according to the link I posted for Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion


Unfortunately, (and unsurprisingly) you're still refusing to accept that atheism isn't a belief.

Please do attempt to describe what you allege atheists believe.




> Do you mean God or "a god". Big difference.


No, I advisedly used "a god", because some scientists believe in the christian god & Jesus, some believe in the Abrahamic god of Judaism, some in the Abrahamic god as "Allah" others in Vishnu & Ganesha, Sikhs in Ik Onkhar, Zoroastrians in Zoroaster, and rastas in Ras Tafari.

I know you think your god is the only one, but there are billions of people who would disagree with you and I'm an equal-opportunity atheist. 




> Yes, many scientists believe in God. Tells you something, doesn't it?


Doesn't tell me any more than David Icke being an atheist, or that a lousy 97% of NAS scientists are atheist or agnostic. Popularity confers no truth value.




> Then they give credit where it makes the most sense instead of to a mud puddle that came into existence for no rhyme nor reason.


Crickey! How come I never looked at it like that? It makes so much sense to just ignore 10,000,000,000 years of evidence and think that some entity came along with a wand and wished everything into existence. Very sensible concept - kind of god as Hermione Granger. I like it already!

I only have one query regarding the god-as-designer concept: why did he/she/it bother to create the 98% of all kinds of like that have already died out? Wasn't that a bit wasteful? Or did a few turn out wrong the first time? The way I look at it, since the god kept evil, Satan, bilharzia worms, etc, it couldn't have been too hard to keep the dinosaurs, mammoths & unicorns going.




> You're a big boy, google it and you will find many many studies on it. Plants also respond to our voices. Discovery Magazine put plants in 3 separate rooms for several months....one room was silent, one room had classical music, and one room had rock music I think. the silent room plants were sickly and growth was stunted. I can't remember if they found a difference between the types of music but other studies have found that plants don't like rock music as much as classical and pleasant music.


Nope.

You made a claim - you provide the evidence. That's how it works. 

What is "pleasant" music? Who is the arbiter of it? Is hard rock by christian bands singing about Jesus pleasant or unpleasant?

You do raise most excellent questions, I'll give you that. Who knows, you may even answer some of them!

----------


## Melanie

> You do raise most excellent questions...Who knows, you may even answer some of them!


No, call this a "random drive-by shooting"  :Biggrin5:  ...I'm gone.
I don't argue for long, especially with someone condescending and sarcastic.

1. I don't need to tell you what atheists believe, you know. And I'm well aware of what your weak argument is that it's not a belief.
2. I already told you there's a big difference between God and "a god". You didn't need to explain it to me.
3. whatever (cafolini, these numbers all reply to the 6 comments in above post #40)
4. God has a perfect plan that we will someday understand...in His time.
5. Discovery Magazine/Channel's experiment was my proof. As I stated, if you want more there's tons at the tip of your google fingers
6. The hard rock sound is unpleasant to plants but the christian lyrics are pleasant

----------


## cafolini

"No, call this a random drive-by shooting...I'm gone." You should say "case closed." LOL

3. whatever
What?

4. God has a perfect plan that we will someday understand...in His time.
We might. Clues are not dues, though.

6. The hard rock sound is unpleasant to plants but the christian lyrics are pleasant 
I have them trained for heavy metal. But they are third generation. That's true.

----------


## The Atheist

> 1. I don't need to tell you what atheists believe, you know. And I'm well aware of what your weak argument is that it's not a belief.


I'm sorry you won't be back to defend the outrageous idea that all atheists think or believe .............., because I know lots of atheists and they all pretty well believe in something different.

I'll just consider your failure to answer is down to you not having anything to back up what you've typed.




> 2. I already told you there's a big difference between God and "a god". You didn't need to explain it to me.


Of course, because your view is right.




> 5. Discovery Magazine/Channel's experiment was my proof. As I stated, if you want more there's tons at the tip of your google fingers


Again, refusal to give evidence because none exists. Discovery Channel/Magazine are not evidence.

Well, actually they might be evidence, but not of any scientific value. They are pretty good evidence that some people choose not to believe known facts, however.




> 6. The hard rock sound is unpleasant to plants but the christian lyrics are pleasant


So, instead of growing faster, they grow sideways in confusion?

----------


## Oedipus

I assume that by 'God' Melanie means Zeus, the chief god of the only TRUE religion?

----------


## cacian

> I assume that by 'God' Melanie means Zeus, the chief god of the only TRUE religion?


actually Oedipus how many gods do you think there are altogether?
and also if you do not mind me asking
why did you use Oedipus as a username?  :Smile:

----------


## The Atheist

> actually Oedipus how many gods do you think there are altogether?


I don't know whether anyone has actually counted them, but Ricky Gervais claimed recently there had been 2800, I think.Helluva lot anyway.

----------


## cacian

> I don't know whether anyone has actually counted them, but Ricky Gervais claimed recently there had been 2800, I think.Helluva lot anyway.


really did he? it must have taken him a good few hours to get that conclusion.
2800 sounds more like a year then anything else 2/8/00 LOL

----------


## Oedipus

How many Gods are there? Well females are 1/2 the population, so about 3.5 billion 

As to my username; Daedalus was taken.

----------


## cacian

> How many Gods are there? Well females are 1/2 the population, so about 3.5 billion


female? 3.5 billion haha this is a hefty number. 



> As to my username; Daedalus was taken.


Daedalus taken? you mean someone else uses it as a username?
what is it that you like about Oedipus? I mean there are Greek mythological characters. why these two in particular?

----------


## Oedipus

It is my strong belief that females are divine. Those are the best characters from mythology; Daedalus was in Joyce

----------


## cacian

> It is my strong belief that females are divine. Those are the best characters from mythology; Daedalus was in Joyce


females are divine? I am a female and I happen to believe male is divine but that is a long story. I have no religion by the way and I am ino way reiterating the bible in any shape or form for it is littered with men being this and that and top god being a man too. it annoys the hell out of me religions because it is a one way street.

----------


## Oedipus

> females are divine?


That much is indisputable. It is clear from examination. A proven fact, if you will. Now:

The Aetor suicide machine, being of such a peculiar make and type and so important to the story of the Aetor reconquest of the Galaxy, next to which the story of the small species of carbon-based, primitive life form Homo sapiens (which is situated, on its small planet "Earth") is unimportant, will be described in detail in a future volume. For clarity and for the benefit of the reader, however, here is a small amount of information with which to imagine the suicide machine when reading about it in the next paragraphs.

The Suicide Machine, an Aetor clockwork device invented in 4269 U.9, is used to provoke simulations of deep depression and melancholy; these sensations, those of an abnormal Aetor, grab the user by the metaphorical hand and make them commit suicide 90% of the time. The other 10% grab their own sexual organs and eat them, the "Sexual Suicide" so popular in the Soldiers Of Lieasjaialsa (The English translation of that word is still being created, however it roughly means this: "the celebration of the removal of various sexual organs and other appendages, which cause great pain, and purifies in its removal of lust (the Aetor, of course, having the sexual desire part of their Thought System in their sexual organs, rather like male humans, do not feel arousal after their removal).)

The Suicide Machine was invented by the great Aetor polymath Hamsun Johansson and was used as a psychology assistant. Subjects would be subjected, tested to prove various theories about depression, hence cured by the Delusion Machine, which made them happy again, and then rewarded for their assistance with a Perpetual Masturbation Machine, the workings of which are far more famous then the Suicide Machine and require no explanation. 

That is my metaphor for religion. It's a piece of juvenilia I have adjusted. Now tell me: could this be a real metaphor for life too?

----------


## mal4mac

Margaret Atwood is divine, catch her on the latest "Start the Week", Radio 4. Start of new series. My week has a start again!

----------


## cacian

> Margaret Atwood is divine, catch her on the latest "Start the Week", Radio 4. Start of new series. My week has a start again!


hi mal4mac what is the show about?

----------


## Bleeding Pawn

> Good people will do good things. Bad people will do bad things. But to get good people to do bad things, you will need religion.


I wonder what does the word "bad" represent here. Is it about the harmful/hurting deeds which people commit when they breach the limits of morality, emotions or that which is deemed offensive against the standard law? 
If that is the case then not just religious/theists are not the exception but also atheist are also included as the guilty party ( irrespective of them being under any religious institution). Committing sins ( error to some) is second to nature, we cant single out a certain group but, of course it seems this was not meant by the poster.

Going by the flak religion is weathering nowadays, it seems the bad things mentioned by the poster refers to those whose repercussions on the society and globally are on a wider scale. If we go by this statement then there are many people who are not religious but they still do go out and commit heinous crimes.

It only raises some questions. There are some people, who due to some financial constraints in certain conditions committ heinous crimes, parents for example. These doting parents ( many of whom arent even religious), who do not want to fail their family/kids as their guardians, acts against the fundamentals of their religious institution and by doing so in turn destroys the fabric of the society.

Who is to blame for their misconduct? Religion?

If religion takes the blame for a person`s sin, wonder who takes the credit for a bad person`s change of heart? Does it work both ways? 

Should not we give credit to religion where its due? Should we be hopeful; that religion wont be percieved through 'Nelson's Eye'?





> I don't think this is true since (in my opinion) religion itself is not a bad thing. It is only religious institutions that sometimes convince people to do bad things, but I think this is true of any large organization, be it political or religious.


In some way partly it is true. If we glance back through history we will witness many atrocities committed in the name of religion be it during the ancient/pagan era, the Middle Ages and or in modern times.The catalyst behind all these crimes were the leaders at the helm of their respective religious instituion, but today the world, and to certain extent some devotess, have seen through these corrupt religious leaders. 

It is a pity though that those fanatical leaders, responsible for provoking/inspiring the most horrendous incidents in the history of religion ( crusades, inquisition, holy war in modern times), are beyond the law of justice. These patriarchs interpreted their noble scriptures according to their own understanding and tempted the illiterate devotees(mostly) into war in search for martyrdom/salvation, consequential in being the loss of innocent lives on both sides. Some have gone on to be elevated to the status of sainthood and some of those in modern are revered in some countries that it is impossible to bring them to justice, even posthumously.

----------


## mal4mac

> hi mal4mac what is the show about?


Three guests talking about their work, or some specific topic. Simple format, but they usually have good guests. Today was very good, a general chat about the internet and how some young "cultural entrepreneurs" are making it pay for them. Learn how get yourself onto YouTube, Cacian, and make lots of money. Next week: Greek myth and the Indian epic Ramayana.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006r9xr

My other favourite Radio 4 series, "In Our Time", is also back. Last week's episode, on Blaise Pascal, was magnificent:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03b2v6m

----------


## Delta40

No it was not meant by the poster. A mother who joins a religion which does not believe in certain medical practices and therefore deprives her child from a life saving procedure is not using her own moral compass of goodness to make this decision. Religion sets the standard of what goodness means in order for her to be part of the group meaning to be otherwise, to go against her every instinct, she would be cast out, even be bad for doing so. While others ignore such tenets and are guided by their own set of standards of what is right and what is wrong, she is bound by an imaginary higher power who dictates such things as if she herself is incapable of knowing such things without it.

What an insult and these 'laws' are an atrocity when you realize that religion didn't invent morality but it exploits those who place their lives at its feet.

----------


## Motherof8

I think the right kind of religion gives people a voice. Only fanatics are intolerant.

----------


## SFG75

> Nice post, but it doesn't address the question at all.


Ah, but it did. Religion does give people a voice, it is why many turn to it. It may not be the voice that you would choose, but it doesn't negate that it does speak for others. 




> The kind of thing would be Pope Franky's desire to drive change within the Roman church, based on what people want. If it works, it will be that church's first case of listening to the people in about 1800 years, so it's a nice change.


Even with the backwards position of the church, you still have an entity comprised of monks, nuns, St. Teresa of Avila mystics, priests, students, and regular members who every day, find a deep connection and "voice" with God. Do you deny that such people exist? 





> First off, atheism isn't a religion. There are no rules, no membership criteria, no tithing, nothing to worship even. Trying to call it a religion has been tried a few times, has been found to be completely spurious, and pretty outdated in 2013.


You would be correct with the only omission being that it is a parasitic thought that piggies back off of what it is not, that is diametrically opposed to actually possessing an independent stand. The Epicurian, stoic, and humanist schools of thought function through proposing their own worldview and what each believes, leads to the best life. The atheist position doesn't have legs of its own from which it can stand. 




> As to "listening to creation", it may surprise you that scientific atheists are actually extremely good at that. Where do you think they would have heard a god? Do you think the god is there but atheists don't want to look for her/him/it?


Jiddu Krishnamurti maintained that there isn't such a thing as true seeking. Somewhere in the deep recesses of our minds, we have already made up our minds, as to what we will "discover." This applies to theists as well. If anything, this means we must try to have an authentic search as best we can. I'm not sure if such a thing is possible, but I will keep betting my chips on that effort.

----------


## The Atheist

> Ah, but it did. Religion does give people a voice, it is why many turn to it. It may not be the voice that you would choose, but it doesn't negate that it does speak for others.


I have to dispute what you're saying on a couple of grounds.

First off, outside of developing nations, how many adults turn to religion? As I see it, people are almost always born into religion, and a few find it as adolescents. The incredibly small number of adults who turn to religion seem to do so because they're trying to cope with some inner turmoil and a god provides a handy scape-goat.

Then, let's look at those people who do turn to religion. What voice does it give them? It gives them comfort, but I can't see it giving a voice.

Maybe you can explain it? 




> Even with the backwards position of the church, you still have an entity comprised of monks, nuns, St. Teresa of Avila mystics, priests, students, and regular members who every day, find a deep connection and "voice" with God. Do you deny that such people exist?


No, I'd only deny that they're talking to anything outside of their own head. Again, even if they're talking to a god, how does that give them a voice? We're not talking about the sound of the god's speaking voice here, but how religion enables people themselves to articulate.

You mention St Terese, well, I'll parlay that with Mother Theresa, whose near death-bed admission that she had finally realised she wasn't talking to god at all should be a good guide to believers. 




> You would be correct with the only omission being that it is a parasitic thought that piggies back off of what it is not, that is diametrically opposed to actually possessing an independent stand.


That is superb!

It's written to look meaningful, but says nothing at all. How can atheism be parasitic? How does one piggy-back on the lack of something? How is atheism not independent? They are just wonderful metaphors, but unfortunately, they are hollow non sequiturs. 

Along with the first paragraph of your post, this is making me think that maybe you actually don't have any idea what the discussion is.




> The Epicurian, stoic, and humanist schools of thought function through proposing their own worldview and what each believes, leads to the best life. The atheist position doesn't have legs of its own from which it can stand.


Repeat after me: "Atheism is not a doctrine".

Then you may be able to grasp that atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with any other -ism. Atheism includes altruists, humanists, scientific skeptics, rationalists, Wiccans, Buddhists, agnostics, panspermians and David Icke.

Again, you're taking the nonsensical position that atheism has to be positive. Atheism has exactly the same need to be positive as a-philatelism.




> Jiddu Krishnamurti maintained that there isn't such a thing as true seeking.


That's one. Why would I give a toss what some (presumably) Eastern mystic has to say? The christian bible, supported by billions, suggests that if you seek, you will find. I don't buy that, either.

----------


## mal4mac

> Even with the backwards position of the church, you still have an entity comprised of monks, nuns, St. Teresa of Avila mystics, priests, students, and regular members who every day, find a deep connection and "voice" with God. Do you deny that such people exist?


I'd very much question the idea, many accounts by Roman Catholics are records of a struggle to believe, a struggle that often fails, or is, in any case, a continued struggle. Try reading Karen Armstrong's memoirs of her time as a nun.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

Of course keeping one's faith is a struggle. Christianity especially requires one to be in this world, but not of the world. That's a hard thing to do when the world tells you there is nothing but it alone in the universe. By it alone, I mean the material world.

----------


## mal4mac

> Of course keeping one's faith is a struggle. Christianity especially requires one to be in this world, but not of the world. That's a hard thing to do when the world tells you there is nothing but it alone in the universe. By it alone, I mean the material world.


There are philosophies that have reasonable arguments for there being more than a material world, like Kant's transcendental idealism, so you don't have to adopt a "material world only" position, if you find that distasteful. But why adopt (material!) beliefs of extremely doubtful things like "water turning into wine" or "the resurrection" or "flying to heaven on a horse" to support non-material beliefs?

----------


## SentimentalSlop

Christianity believes that God came into the material world because he is a personal God. He, before the very eyes of the Jews, turned water into wine to show that water alone will not cleanse them of their sins, but the blood he will soon shed upon the cross. He resurrected from the dead (in his human body) to show us that we, like him, can triumph over death. Of course Christianity is going to have material things within it. Christians believe that God took upon himself a material body, was and is still among material people, works with material things, but vehemently rejects materialism. He wants everyone to be in the world, not of it, I told you. I am not preaching here, if that's what you're thinking. I am merely talking about ideas.

----------


## SFG75

> I'd very much question the idea, many accounts by Roman Catholics are records of a struggle to believe, a struggle that often fails, or is, in any case, a continued struggle. Try reading Karen Armstrong's memoirs of her time as a nun.


So it is your contention that there isn't ONE person who finds a voice through the church?

----------


## cacian

> Christianity believes that God came into the material world because he is a personal God.


material world? how do you mean?



> He, before the very eyes of the Jews, turned water into wine to show that water alone will not cleanse them of their sins, but the blood he will soon shed upon the cross.


I doubt it all this because the image is rather too bloody. the other thing is that it seems that there was a lot of godly intervention and yet all this has ceased. if god did all this why is he not intervening now? his actions has suddenly ceased for some reasons.




> He resurrected from the dead (in his human body) to show us that we, like him, can triumph over death.


I again doubt it. to show triumph over death is to show that there is no death whatsoever. why would make someone dies if one is to resurrect? why not keep that one alive to show that death is immobilised.



> Of course Christianity is going to have material things within it. Christians believe that God took upon himself a material body, was and is still among material people, works with material things, but vehemently rejects materialism.


how does god expect people to live ? out in the open without shelter and something to have and to look at? without anything? materials is something humans create naturally. why reject it?
it does not make sense.

----------


## Delta40

People don't commit immoral acts in the name of atheism but they will for religion.

Atheism is a belief system in the same way that baldness is a hairstyle. It simply rejects a proposal.

----------


## cacian

> People don't commit immoral acts in the name of atheism but they will for religion.
> 
> Atheism is a belief system in the same way that baldness is a hairstyle. It simply rejects a proposal.


LOL as oppose to bushy hair baldness is free style whilst lots of hair is costly and dressage convenient. it makes sense  :Biggrin:

----------


## Melanie

Good questions cacian.

*cacian:*...it seems that there was a lot of godly intervention [Jesus' miracles performed] and yet all this has ceased. if god did all this why is he not intervening now? his actions has suddenly ceased for some reasons. The purpose of the miracles that Jesus performed was the fulfillment of a prophesy in the Old Testament, Isaiah 42:7, "I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.” It proved he was the promised Messiah. Today those miracles are not needed because we now have the truth of Jesus and his apostles recorded in Scripture. 

God still performs miracles today but not the same type as He did in Jesus' day. No reason to repeat that purpose since that prophesy has been filled. Miracles God does today sometimes go unnoticed or denied...and they aren't for the purpose of proving that Jesus was who he said he was.


*cacian:*...To show triumph over death is to show that there is no death whatsoever. why would make someone dies if one is to resurrect? why not keep that one alive to show that death is immobilised. There is a difference between "spiritual death" and "physical death". When we die our physical bodies return to dirt "dust to dust, ashes to ashes" (we will be given new bodies, see below*). But our soul or spirit never dies...it enters into eternal life". That was Jesus' purpose for dying on the cross...to bear our punishment for our sins so that we would be worthy to enter into eternal life" after our death. The resurrection proves that God has the power to raise us from the dead. It guarantees that those who believe in Christ will not remain dead, but will be resurrected to eternal life. The resurrection is the triumphant and glorious victory for every believer. Jesus Christ died, was buried, and rose the third day according to the Scripture. And, He is coming again! The dead in Christ will be raised up, and those who remain and are alive at His coming will be changed and receive new, glorified bodies (* 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). The resurrection shows that God accepted Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf.

----------


## Delta40

It's circular nonsense. How do you know this to be true? Because the bible says so. How do you know the bible is true and accurate? It advocates slavery and the slaughter of children but you lot get to pick and choose the good bits and discard what doesn't wash with your moral conscience. How do you expect me to respect someone who is selective about a book they can only partially follow to the letter?

----------


## mona amon

Where in the Bible is there any advocation of slavery or slaughter of children?

----------


## Delta40

From God is Imaginary:

Here are ten passages from the Bible that clearly demonstrate God's position on slavery: 

Genesis chapter 17, verse 12: 
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised. In this passage God understands that people buy other people and, quite obviously, is comfortable with the concept. God wants slaves circumcised in the same way as non-slaves. 

Exodus chapter 12 verse 43: 
The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it. God again shows that he is completely comfortable with the concept of slavery and singles out slaves for special treatment. 

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 1: 
Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life. Here God describes how to become a slave for life, and shows that it is completely acceptable to separate slaves from their families. God also shows that he completely endorses the branding of slaves through mutilation. 

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20: 
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. Not only does God condone slavery, but he is also completely comfortable with the concept of beating your slaves, as long as you don't kill them. 

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 32: 
If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned. Not only does God condone slavery, but here God places a value on slaves -- 30 shekels of silver. Note that God is not sophisticated enough to understand the concept of inflation. It is now 3,000 years later, and a gored slave is still worth 30 shekels of silver according to God's word. 

Leviticus Chapter 22, verse 10: 
No one outside a priest's family may eat the sacred offering, nor may the guest of a priest or his hired worker eat it. But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if a slave is born in his household, that slave may eat his food. Here God shows that the children of slaves are slaves themselves, and that he is completely happy with that concept. 

Leviticus Chapter 25, verse 44: 
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. Here God states where you may purchase your slaves, and clearly specifies that slaves are property to be bought, sold and handed down. 

Luke, Chapter 7, verse 2: 
Now a centurion had a slave who was dear to him, who was sick and at the point of death. When he heard of Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his slave. And when they came to Jesus, they besought him earnestly, saying, "He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation, and he built us our synagogue." And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying to him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. For I am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard this he marveled at him, and turned and said to the multitude that followed him, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave well. Here Jesus shows that he is completely comfortable with the concept of slavery. Jesus heals the slave without any thought of freeing the slave or admonishing the slave's owner. 

Colossians, chapter 3, verse 22: 
Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily... 
Here God shows that he is in complete acceptance of a slave's position, and encourages slaves to work hard. This sentiment is repeated in Titus, chapter 2 verse 9: 
Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity. Once again God shows that he is quite enamored of slavery. 
God loves slavery 

If the Bible is written by God, and these are the words of the Lord, then you can come to only one possible conclusion: God is an impressive advocate of slavery and is fully supportive of the concept. 

As you can see, these slavery passages present us with an immense contradiction: 
On the one hand, we all know that slavery is an outrage and a moral abomination. As a result, slavery is now completely illegal throughout the developed world. 

On the other hand, most Christians claim that the Bible came from God. In God's Word, the "creator of the universe" states that slavery is perfectly acceptable. Beating your slaves is fine. Enslaving children is fine. Separating slave families is fine. According to the Bible, we should all be practicing slavery today. 

The intensity of this contradiction is remarkable. It shows us quite clearly that God is imaginary. 

If God were to exist, and if he were playing any role whatsoever on our planet, he would eliminate this connection between himself and slavery. There is no way that a loving God would allow himself to be perceived as condoning and encouraging slavery like this. 

Here is the thing that I would like to help you understand: You, as a rational human being, know that slavery is wrong. You know it. That is why every single developed nation in the world has made slavery completely illegal. Human beings make slavery illegal, in direct defiance of God's word, because we all know with complete certainty that slavery is an abomination. 

What does your common sense now tell you about a Bible that supports slavery in both the Old and the New Testaments? Given the fact that the Bible clearly condones slavery, your common sense should be telling you that God is imaginary. 



*Understanding the Rationalizations* 

Many believers will argue that God had to talk this way in the Old Testament in order to "fit in" with the dominant culture. This, of course, is silly. In Christian mythology, God is the one who created humans and human culture. In addition, a God that condones the beating of slaves and the enslavement of children at any time is an abomination. 

A believer might say, "Well, all of those verses are from the Old Testament and no longer apply because of Jesus." This line of rationalization prompts several obvious questions. Why would the Old Testament still be printed in the Bible if Jesus overturned it? Why would God EVER tell us to beat slaves? 

The most important thing that this line of rationalization misses is that Jesus specifically states that the laws of the Old Testament still stand. In Matthew 5:18 Jesus says: 
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Then he goes on to say: Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. According to Jesus, the Old Testament is alive and well. According to Isaiah 40:8, "the word of our God stands forever." The notion that these old testament verses no longer apply is completely untrue according to the Bible. Christians imagine that they "no longer apply" as a way of rationalizing their religion. 
Other believers rationalize that God did not write these slavery passages in the Bible. The Bible was somehow corrupted by slave-loving men. In that case, the obvious question to ask yourself is this: If the Bible has been corrupted, how can we possibly know which parts of the Bible came from God and which parts were inserted by primitive men? You have absolutely no way to know. 

It is when you start thinking about the Bible in this way that you understand something very important about the Bible. Either the entire Bible really is God's Word, or the entire Bible was written by primitive men with absolutely no input from God. Here is the reason for this very strong dividing line: 
If part of the Bible came from God and part came from primitive men, you do not know which is which. You dod not know if Jesus really is resurrected, or if that's just a make-believe story inserted by primitive men. How do you know if God wrote the Ten Commandments or not? If any part of the Bible has been polluted by primitive men, you have to reject the whole thing. There is no way to know who wrote what, so the entire book is invalid. There really is no middle ground and the Bible has to be an all-or-nothing book. Either the entire Bible came from God, or none of it did. 
With this all-or-nothing reality about the Bible now understood, you can see that there are only two possible explanations for the slavery passages in the Bible: 
The Bible is right, and God loves slavery. The entire Bible is God's word, so these slavery passages must be God's word too. The laws in the United States and other modern nations that make slavery illegal defy God's word. Justice Scalia should be promoting slavery in exactly the same way that he promotes the Ten Commandments. 

The Bible condones slavery because the Bible was written by slave-owning men, not by God. God is imaginary. 
Chances are that you have a problem with the first explanation. God would not champion the abomination that is slavery. We all know that. 
Therefore, what you are left with is the second explanation.

----------


## cacian

oh my word DAUNTING comes to mind.
with all due respect to believer and Christians and this is in no way to offend but I have to say how it comes cross to me:

god sounds like a right racist. it reads like a dictator telling others what to do. and humans appear to read like sheeps rather humans by the look of it.
there is lot of 'foreigner and not thy seed going on''. the language used is a bit simplistic. people are referred to by order of titles a bit like labels / slave/foreigner/worker/master/ a bit basic and rough in the edges. 
I mean what does that mean: 'man beats a male or female'? male and female is referred in animals too.
in the first verse 12 I read that '8years old'. it is a bit much for very tiny babe that has just been born. I would not do it at that age. scary!!!

sorry but this needed saying. I would not be happy reading this and thinking it is ok. there is no explanation to why these rules are set in this way.
I mean what makes god assumes that everyone is to going to beat someone else because they happen to be 'slave'?

----------


## mal4mac

> Today those miracles are not needed because we now have the truth of Jesus and his apostles recorded in Scripture.


But 97% of the best scientists think the evidence for these miracles is totally insufficient. So it seems that more miracles are certainly needed, if the best testers of evidence are to be converted.




> God still performs miracles today but not the same type as He did in Jesus' day... Miracles God does today sometimes go unnoticed or denied...and they aren't for the purpose of proving that Jesus was who he said he was.


Again, there is no good evidence for their validity. Why doesn't he perform some impressive miracles? For instance, why not part the Red Sea every time Richard Dawkins drinks a coffee? Or zap an atheist scientist with a thunderbolt every time he says, "There is no God."

----------


## cacian

> QUOTE=mal4mac;1241359]But 97% of the best scientists think the evidence for these miracles is totally insufficient. So it seems that more miracles are certainly needed, if the best testers of evidence are to be converted.


it is an argument for the sake of an argument. scientists are no better looking to find a reason to everything. they want to make babies in a lab and then they argue there is no god. I wonder where they get their genes from? a miracle perhaps? a human anatomy is not a science invention. and not a miracle either.
no such a thing as miracles in the same way as there is not such a thing as ufo.




> Again, there is no good evidence for their validity. Why doesn't he perform some impressive miracles? For instance, why not part the Red Sea every time Richard Dawkins drinks a coffee? Or zap an atheist scientist with a thunderbolt every time he says, "There is no God."


hehe that's asking for a lot. we walk the earth today that is one miracle. the other we are still here. we have not eliminated each that's another miracle. what more miracle does one need?

----------


## Melanie

> From God is Imaginary:
> Here are ten passages from the Bible that clearly demonstrate God's position on slavery.......


The "Bible Passages" you posted are not quoted exactly from the Bible...they are commentaries by someone who doesn't understand their history. And since he has taken them out of context, it's unclear which form of slavery was being discussed. God, in no way, condoned the form of slavery we know of in recent times. I'll explain:

1. Slavery in the Old Testament times was very different from slavery in more recent times worldwide. In Old Testament times it was not based just on race, nationality, or color, but rather social status. Man sold themselves as slaves when they couldn't take care of their families and owed debt. Even politicians, lawyers, and doctors were slaves. Some chose to be slaves so they would be taken care of by their masters.

2. The Bible is definitely against slavery. The Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt for being Hebrew (Exodus 13:4) so God brought plagues to Egypt to demonstrate how God feels about slavery (Exodus 7-11)

3. The kind of slaves we think of that were kidnapped from Africa and sold (slave-trading) was appalling to God who said, “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). In 1Timothy 1:8-10 it says, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers.

4. "A crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God by receiving His salvation, God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery." Hard Sayings of the Bible by Kaiser, Davids, & Brauch and Logos Bible Software.

----------


## Melanie

> ...Why doesn't he perform some impressive miracles? For instance, why not part the Red Sea every time Richard Dawkins drinks a coffee? Or zap an atheist scientist with a thunderbolt every time he says, "There is no God."


Because a faith based on miracles is not a mature faith. When God performed impressive miracles for the Israelites, it didn't cause them to obey God...they rebelled. Then when they saw God part the Red Sea, they later doubted whether God was able to conquer the inhabitants of the Promised Land (Luke 16:16-31). 
God still performs miracles today but all too often people see one, have great faith, and then overtime their faith fades.

----------


## Delta40

Whatever Melanie. Go ahead and choose what is literal, what is relative and what is metaphorical so you can justify your beliefs. It doesn't bother me at all. Science doesn't make excuses and is willing to correct itself in the pursuit of knowledge.

The hypocrisy is further added as you pick and choose which sciences to trust in to enhance your life. It is difficult to give you any credibility as you select and reject at will. 

Unlike you I'm not condeming you to hell for having your beliefs nor do I campaign against those who defy atheism since it doesn't teach a doctrine of beliefs to turn good people against others.

----------


## cacian

> Because a faith based on miracles is not a mature faith. When God performed impressive miracles for the Israelites, it didn't cause them to obey God...they rebelled. Then when they saw God part the Red Sea, they later doubted whether God was able to conquer the inhabitants of the Promised Land (Luke 16:16-31). 
> God still performs miracles today but all too often people see one, have great faith, and then overtime their faith fades.


I am not sure that faith fades as much as the things we are told to do because religion says so. the acts of doing what someone says we m ust tend to fade over time. but what does not fade is a belief in something like I believe there is another higher being amongst us in a different world.

----------


## Melanie

> Unlike you I'm not condeming you to hell for having your beliefs nor do I campaign against those who defy atheism since it doesn't teach a doctrine of beliefs to turn good people against others.


Unlike me?? You must be stereotyping me because I never "condemned you" nor even judged you. I only answered some questions here with a few things I know about the Bible...you weren't even mentioned. You sound a little hostile toward me. I don't judge others. I leave that up to God. I'm just expressing my beliefs. I believe the rules state to "respect the religions of others"?

----------


## SentimentalSlop

Read Hebrews chapters 7, 8, 9, and 10. That is why Christians no longer need to adhere to OT laws. There is some verses here and there in other books as well, but nothing like this. 4 chapters in a row in explicit detail.

No other religion has better arguments than Christianity as to why God must exist and why we need him, and lack of belief is just plain dangerous.

----------


## The Atheist

> God still performs miracles today but all too often people see one, have great faith, and then overtime their faith fades.


Couldn't agree more, and every day, I see staunch believers tell the world about these miracles, but nobody listens.

Miracles like the bodyguard in Diana's car living, while one of the world's most recognisable altruists got squashed like a bug.

Or Tim Tebow giving thanks to his God for helping him win a really important game of whatever it is, or avoid Taylor Swift - I can't remember which.

And New Zealand's own hero last week, Sonny-Bill Williams, crediting a god with his team's win; a game described by most of the sporting media as a miracle win. 

Meanwhile, thousands of children die screaming in a chemical gas attack. Just to test your faith.

That's what I like best about this god fella you guys have - the way he's so cunningly devious to test human faith every day. Treating the entire species with the contempt he showed Job, Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, G-d or just plain God. I can only admire the faith of those who see that it all doesn't matter and can smile in the face of a starving child, because who are we to question the will of a being so powerful he can treat us that way.

Delta: I'm in awe of your posting skills.

----------


## Melanie

God doesn't look at death as a bad thing...quite the contrary. He's bringing his children home to an eternal life of glorious bliss...forever and ever. This life is a drop in the bucket. Meanwhile, the method that was chosen to end that life was not God's choice. God chooses to answer the fervent prayer of man, no matter how small or insignificant it may be. God knows what is best for us and all of mankind so He answers accordingly. It's a different scenario each time. Only God knows His perfect plan.

----------


## The Atheist

> God doesn't look at death as a bad thing...


And yet the bodily death of his son was enough to wipe out all the sins of mankind.




> He's bringing his children home to an eternal life of glorious bliss...forever and ever.


That is the worst torture I could imagine - eternal life. I reckon I'd be ready to throw the towel in after a couple of thousand years, but there are still trillions of years to go. I can't imagine why people are drawn to the idea.




> Meanwhile, the method that was chosen to end that life was not God's choice. God chooses to answer the fervent prayer of man, no matter how small or insignificant it may be.


Yes, the parents of kids starving to death in Somalia should pray harder.

----------


## Melanie

> And yet the bodily death of his son was enough to wipe out all the sins of mankind.


Exactly...good thing!...or we would never be worthy to enter into eternal life. And don't forget He rose 3 days later and lives.




> That is the worst torture I could imagine - eternal life.


It sure as hell beats the alternative, if you get my drift.




> Yes, the parents of kids starving to death in Somalia should pray harder.


You recently asked about the suffering children and my answer is the same. Maybe you were hoping someone else would respond. Fervent doesn't mean "harder". It means sincere, heartfelt, and ardent. I'm sure there are many many worldwide praying for them so "fervent" is covered. Now we come to why God hasn't answered those prayers. He has. He has either answered yes, no, or wait for my perfect timing according to my plan. There are over 100 scriptures, all with different reasons, why God allows good people to suffer. He doesn't cause the suffering but He has the ability to mend it. In His perfect plan it's all about love...showing our love, bringing families together, growing closer in a relationship with God, receiving love, testing our love, etc etc. Here's one thing....ever notice how every day is filled with tests, large and small? One of the commandments is to love thy neighbor as thyself. He wants us to help others in need like the starving children. Are you doing your part? And if we're the ones suffering, he sometimes wants us to use that for us to experience what it's like so we're better able to be more compassionate toward someone else who may go through the same thing....again, love. There are way too many reasons for me to list here but you can find them in the Bible. I may list a 100 of them someday in a thread, but it will take time to gather them all. Remember, God says He will reward those in heaven who have suffered in His name.

----------


## Delta40

Oops apologies for my assumption. Since 9/11 anti Muslim propoganda has spread like wild fire and I struggle to support a country who would defy the Geneva convention and call my brother's and sisters to war and imprison them in the horrors of gitmo. 

Then again with your faith everyone who died that day should be enjoying eternal life and it was part of gods plan so no need for tears...

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> You recently asked about the suffering children and my answer is the same. Maybe you were hoping someone else would respond. Fervent doesn't mean "harder". It means sincere, heartfelt, and ardent. I'm sure there are many many worldwide praying for them so "fervent" is covered. Now we come to why God hasn't answered those prayers. He has. He has either answered yes, no, or wait for my perfect timing according to my plan. There are over 100 scriptures, all with different reasons, why God allows good people to suffer. He doesn't cause the suffering but He has the ability to mend it. In His perfect plan it's all about love...showing our love, bringing families together, growing closer in a relationship with God, receiving love, testing our love, etc etc. Here's one thing....ever notice how every day is filled with tests, large and small? One of the commandments is to love thy neighbor as thyself. He wants us to help others in need like the starving children. Are you doing your part? And if we're the ones suffering, he sometimes wants us to use that for us to experience what it's like so we're better able to be more compassionate toward someone else who may go through the same thing....again, love. There are way too many reasons for me to list here but you can find them in the Bible. I may list a 100 of them someday in a thread, but it will take time to gather them all. Remember, God says He will reward those in heaven who have suffered in His name.


We can't forget that God suffered too. He didn't just watch us suffer alone, but he partook in the suffering with us. What god has ever done that?

----------


## The Atheist

> Maybe you were hoping someone else would respond.


I wasn't, because I could have typed more or less exactly what the response would be, so I'm glad you didn't disappoint.

"...His perfect plan..."

Amen

----------


## mal4mac

> Religion is multifarious. The church I sometimes attend has a female minister and other churches of its kind have homosexual ministers. It is also one of the very largest church denominations in my country. My extensive reading of Buddhist literature offers no indication that females or homosexuals are discriminated against in that religion...


There are examples of discrimination against women in Buddhism. For instance, ordination of women is totally opposed in some Buddhist traditions. Ajahn Brahm was excommunicated for attempting it:

http://zenmirror.blogspot.co.uk/2012...cated-for.html

----------


## SentimentalSlop

I guess it all depends on what people view as discrimination against women...I guess I would be considered discriminatory against my own gender lol.

----------


## The Atheist

> I guess it all depends on what people view as discrimination against women...


That's pretty easy to answer: discrimination is not allowing one type of person the same opportunities as another type. It can be based on race, weight, or in this case, gender. If a woman is not entitled to the same treatment as a man, then it's clearly discrimination.




> I guess I would be considered discriminatory against my own gender lol.


Yeah, it's funny the way that works, isn't it?

Almost all cases I know of where people discriminate against their own gender, it's based on religious reasons: women who are in favour of the burqa, women who are in favour of the Roman Catholic Church discriminating against women, women who believe a woman's place is barefoot & pregnant in the kitchen...

I liken it to a type of Stockholm Syndrome. Or, as Muhammad Ali put it; the best thing of all is getting the slave to cheer for slavery.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

How is the Catholic Church discriminatory against women, may I ask?

----------


## The Atheist

I am astonished at the question, but I'll presume it's genuine.

Women are banned from the priesthood, and all positions of power within the church. The discrimination is so open that enlightened countries - those with anti-discriminatory legislation - have special clauses in their laws exempting churches from prosecution.

----------


## Eman Resu

> I am astonished at the question, but I'll presume it's genuine.
> 
> Women are banned from the priesthood, and all positions of power within the church. The discrimination is so open that enlightened countries - those with anti-discriminatory legislation - have special clauses in their laws exempting churches from prosecution.


Let's not forget the Catholic stance on abortion - even when the Mother's Life might be jeopardised, or when the pregnancy is the result of rape - which might be seen as being slightly misogynistic.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

The question was genuine. 

And that's not discriminatory. The Catholic Church simply does not have the authority to ordain women. The priest is acting in the persona of Christ, Christ was a man, and he chose only twelve males to be his apostles. And to those apostles, he gave the authority to ordain men as priests, forgive sins, cast out demons, etc. Christ gave this authority only to man, and man has handed down this authority to other men for 2000 years. The Church would ordain women if they found biblical evidence for it, but there is none.

Plus the Church believes men and women are different. Not unequal, but different. We were created differently and have different roles. Both are necessary and rely on one another.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

The Church is more understanding in situations of rape or the possibility of death for the mother, but it's still not "supportive." But yes, the Church is vehemently against abortion, but I still don't see how that is sexist, to be honest, especially how they want to help the women as much as possible and protect the life of those babies, half of which are girls. 

And look at all the female saints the Church has. Even little girls have been venerated as saints. There are literally thousands of female saints. Not to mention that the most honored person after God is Mary in the Catholic Church.

----------


## Eman Resu

> I still don't see how that is sexist


Depriving_ only women_ of the right to make a choice is, by its very definition, sexist.

"Discrimination based solely upon gender." _Very_ few Catholic men ever get pregnant.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

I guess it all depends on how much worth you put on a child in the womb. Are they lesser or equal to the value of a woman? In Catholicism, they are equals. Well, just in Christianity, in general. If you're a Christian, it should make sense. If you're a nonbeliever, than there is no obligation to believe that that's the case. Plus many people don't believe it's a "choice."

----------


## Eman Resu

> I guess it all depends on how much worth you put on a child in the womb. Are they lesser or equal to the value of a woman? In Catholicism, they are equals. Well, just in Christianity, in general. If you're a Christian, it should make sense. If you're a nonbeliever, than there is no obligation to believe that that's the case. Plus many people don't believe it's a "choice."



Good grief, do you believe that you're in a nursery school?

----------


## SentimentalSlop

What is that supposed to mean? Please elaborate.

----------


## The Atheist

> Let's not forget the Catholic stance on abortion - even when the Mother's Life might be jeopardised, or when the pregnancy is the result of rape - which might be seen as being slightly misogynistic.


I never do, but I wanted to keep the discussion friendly!

 :Smile:

----------


## The Atheist

> The question was genuine. 
> 
> And that's not discriminatory. The Catholic Church simply does not have the authority to ordain women. The priest is acting in the persona of Christ, Christ was a man, and he chose only twelve males to be his apostles. And to those apostles, he gave the authority to ordain men as priests, forgive sins, cast out demons, etc. Christ gave this authority only to man, and man has handed down this authority to other men for 2000 years. The Church would ordain women if they found biblical evidence for it, but there is none.


That is utter nonsense. As I recall, Jesus' mother was a woman. He was able to be born without a man, but not without a woman, and if I recall correctly, Jesus also said something about if thine enemy should smite thee in the left cheek, show him the right and let him smite that too.

Yet, I find 90% of armies made up of christians, and lots of them are Roman Catholics.

Religions cherry-pick the hell out of the bible, and you won't find many Catholics turning down lobster or pork, or refusing to shave on religious grounds, and even the Pope accepts evolution.

The only reason the RCC refuses to ordain women is because they're misogynists. If they can find a just reason for war, in spite of all of Jesus' teachings saying the exact opposite, I'm, 100% certain they could over the ordination if they wished to. A simple revelation _in cathedra_ by Pope Frank will do the trick.




> the Church believes men and women are different. Not unequal, but different. We were created differently and have different roles. Both are necessary and rely on one another.


I'm not going to argue the necessity, but you need to learn that differences do not affect equality.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> That is utter nonsense. As I recall, Jesus' mother was a woman. He was able to be born without a man, but not without a woman, and if I recall correctly, Jesus also said something about if thine enemy should smite thee in the left cheek, show him the right and let him smite that too.
> 
> Yet, I find 90% of armies made up of christians, and lots of them are Roman Catholics.
> 
> Religions cherry-pick the hell out of the bible, and you won't find many Catholics turning down lobster or pork, or refusing to shave on religious grounds, and even the Pope accepts evolution.
> 
> The only reason the RCC refuses to ordain women is because they're misogynists. If they can find a just reason for war, in spite of all of Jesus' teachings saying the exact opposite, I'm, 100% certain they could over the ordination if they wished to. A simple revelation _in cathedra_ by Pope Frank will do the trick.
> 
> 
> ...


Please do yourself a favor and read the Bible. It explains in the NT why we're no longer subject to the OT laws. In the book of Hebrews, it explains it *4 entire chapters* in a row. Please read that book, if nothing else. The RCC follows the Bible very very very closely, and that's why I prefer it over other denominations who have split off from the Church during the Protestant Reformation. If all you do is go on evilbible.com where they pick the bible to ****, then you're not really reading it, I'm sorry. The devil can cite scripture for his own purposes, too.

And if you can give me proof that the only reason why the RCC doesn't ordain women is because they're misogynists, then please show me. I'd like to see it. 

And yes, bad people have been involved with the Catholic Church. There are bad Christians, bad pagans, bad atheists, bad everyone. Look how many secular wars were started in the 20th century and how many people died. 

Plus the Pope can't just change doctrine. He is to uphold it. If he isn't happy with Catholic teachings, then he shouldn't be the pope in the first place and switch to some other denomination. 

And I find it strange that you think evolution and the creation story somehow conflict with each other. Every Catholic I know believes in evolution.

AND no Catholic believes (or ought to believe) that differences affect equality. I don't know where you're getting that from.

----------


## The Atheist

> Please do yourself a favor and read the Bible.


Have done, several times. It's slop. And I've never even heard of evilbible until I read your post.




> It explains in the NT why we're no longer subject to the OT laws. In the book of Hebrews, it explains it *4 entire chapters* in a row.


I do know all that, but to me, it's just cherry-picking. You cherry-pick that bit because it suits, yet in my lifetime, there was a period most Catholics believed it was a sin to eat meat on Fridays. The RCC has had 2000 years to cherry-pick its way to perfection of doctrine, yet it still fails, and this is why:

Since you avoided the point, I will reiterate that the bible does not justify any way at all of avoiding Jesus' teachings on violence and war, yet Augustine's teachings on "just war" are established Catholic doctrine. The RCC listens to its god when it suits, and shuts its ears at other times.





> And if you can give me proof that the only reason why the RCC doesn't ordain women is because they're misogynists, then please show me. I'd like to see it.


The proof is in their lack of action. 

Despite immense internal pressures not to, the RCC has actually changed over the centuries, or were you unaware The Inquisition had ended? 

Not one of those changes has ever shown an acceptance that women are equal to men. They are enforced second-class citizens within the church every bit as much as some poor woman in a burqa is a captive of her owner, the man.




> And I find it strange that you think evolution and the creation story somehow conflict with each other. Every Catholic I know believes in evolution.


Somehow conflict? They are exact opposites, although I will note the ongoing investigation by RCC experts looking for creation in evolution. It is yet another example of cherry-picking, or did I miss the passage in Ephesians where it was explained that Genesis is just allegory?




> AND no Catholic believes (or ought to believe) that differences affect equality. I don't know where you're getting that from.


Your own comment - you said "...the Church believes men and women are different. Not unequal, but different. We were created differently and have different roles."

You are claiming the church treats men & women differently because they're different. That is what sexism is all about - treating people differently because they are different. 

The RCC allows women no voice whatsoever. And it's not just not allowing women to be priests, or ensuring that the entire management layer of the church is male, it extends to things like residence in the Vatican City itself.

----------


## Delta40

Aren't I unclean while I menstruate and not allowed to participate in society during this time or are Christians going to cherry pick this part too?

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> Have done, several times. It's slop. And I've never even heard of evilbible until I read your post.
> 
> 
> 
> I do know all that, but to me, it's just cherry-picking. You cherry-pick that bit because it suits, yet in my lifetime, there was a period most Catholics believed it was a sin to eat meat on Fridays. The RCC has had 2000 years to cherry-pick its way to perfection of doctrine, yet it still fails, and this is why:
> 
> Since you avoided the point, I will reiterate that the bible does not justify any way at all of avoiding Jesus' teachings on violence and war, yet Augustine's teachings on "just war" are established Catholic doctrine. The RCC listens to its god when it suits, and shuts its ears at other times.
> 
> 
> ...


1) Yeah, I'm so sure you've read the entire bible several times. Seriously, the people who cherry-pick the Bible the most are atheists. I haven't met an atheist who has actually read the bible and understood it. They always have a lot to say about something they don't know about. 

2) I find it funny that you think a 4 chapter explanation on why we're no longer subject to OT laws is cherry-picking. There's biblical evidence right there. It explains it all quite clearly. 

3) Women are not second-class citizens in the Church. There are just as many restrictions on men as there are on women. The RCC recognizes and embraces these differences. I have never met a Catholic woman who feels oppressed by Catholic doctrine. And for the women who do, they should just leave the RCC because the teachings are not going to change. There will never be a female priest and abortion will never be okay. As a woman, I'm more than glad about that. I'd leave the Church immediately if it became so liberal.

4) And what the hell does that website prove? The Vatican is small, occupied mostly by cardinals, clergy, and Swiss guards. Obviously there will be more men than women. There is almost no women to speak of. And as for the whole voting thing for the pope, only cardinals are allowed to vote, and cardinals are men because they're either cardinal deacons, cardinal priests, or cardinal bishops. Why would they need women to vote? No one else is allowed to vote on it, not even other men.

----------


## Delta40

There was a time when women weren't allowed to vote at all. I trust had you been around then you would have been a staunch advocate for upholding the patriarchy. Change in societal attitudes demonstrates our collective progressive growth. As religion fails to evolve, I cannot in good moral conscience support it.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

Yeah, we're progressively getting more stupid.

----------


## Delta40

Well that's so adult of you and responsible but then you don't have to own any of what goes on in the world while you have a sky fairy do you? Sorry I forgot. You're forgiven. I'll carry on being the adult... learning from our pathetic ignorance.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

Acting like a spiteful little child doesn't seem very mature to me. I have to own up to a lot more than you do--a hell of a lot more.

----------


## Melanie

SentimentalSlop is absolutely correct regarding Christian matters. 




> As religion fails to evolve, I cannot in good moral conscience support it.


Could you please clarify and back this up with something. Fails in what way? Evolve in what way? Are you talking about a specific church? The Bible evolved from Old Testament to New Testament but once it was finished, nothing needed to be added or subtracted. It's the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It never gets old. That's why it's been the #1 Bestseller every year, year after year. Timeless. Amazing isn't it. No other book can claim that.

----------


## Delta40

You're wrong but I will say sentimental slop suits you very well :-)

I would much rather go through my life looking for collective solutions to problems in this society - because when it comes to the negative, we have to be accountable. When a child is tortured, it isn't good enough to spout out: God needed another Angel. What kind of God allows such horrors on earth and I don't want to hear your piss weak justifications. Human beings own what they do and they are just as responsible for coming up with the solutions. Religion is a get out of jail free card for those who want to separate themselves from taking ownership. What a 'nice' idea that there is a 'parent' in the sky to look over you so you don't have to be a gwown up, be 100% accountable and (shock horror) diverse to alternative ideas and concepts. Sure, you don't mind taking credit for all the joy and love but when it comes to doing anything about hardship and horror, well it's all in Big Daddy's hands and he has a plan which it isn't for us to question. 

I would say grow up but of course you're welcome to your belief so long as you don't actually harm anyone emotionally, mentally or physically because of it and I think I'm justified in making such statements. You're right that people from all walks kill but there is no documented slaughter on record from atheist fervor. Plenty of religious ones though and you're religious - so how on earth can you be trusted?

----------


## Delta40

> SentimentalSlop is absolutely correct regarding Christian matters. 
> 
> 
> Could you please clarify and back this up with something. Fails in what way? Evolve in what way? Are you talking about a specific church? The Bible evolved from Old Testament to New Testament but once it was finished, nothing needed to be added or subtracted. It's the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It never gets old. That's why it's been the #1 Bestseller every year, year after year. Timeless. Amazing isn't it. No other book can claim that.


Agatha Christie is the next best seller. Amazing isn't it? Once it was finished, nothing needed to be added or subtracted. It's the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It never gets old. What is your point?

----------


## Delta40

An unchanging religious text is NOT a good thing. The FACT that the bible doesn't change is one of the major problems with all ancient religious texts. The slavery thing again, for example. If god has somehow changed his position and now abhors slavery, where's the new and improved Bible 2.0? If he no longer wants us to comply with the most horrible of the 613 biblical laws, why hasn't he let us know? 

These verses SHOULD change, the fact that they haven't is a bad thing.

Also, the Bible HAS changed, many times. It was compiled over hundreds of years by many, many anonymous writers, all with different motivations (which is why there are such a staggering number of contradictions in it).The bible didn't even specifically mention homosexuality until the 19th century, when the catholic church made it a priority.

The fact that a book SELLS WELL doesn't mean it's contents are true. Harry Potter dominated the best sellers lists for many years, that doesn't mean there's an invisible village filled with wizards called Hogsmeade somewhere in England.

Basically, you either follow your ancient text to the letter or you don't follow it at all but as has been shown time and time again, you adjust it to suit your modern living and new humane moral standards and then swear - well, on the bible that you're a Christian doing God's will when you plainly are not.

----------


## mal4mac

> 1) Yeah, I'm so sure you've read the entire bible several times. Seriously, the people who cherry-pick the Bible the most are atheists. I haven't met an atheist who has actually read the bible and understood it. They always have a lot to say about something they don't know about.


This is the same attitude of the priests in the old Roman Catholic church to their congregation. It was in Latin, so the hoi polloi couldn't understand it, so the priests could control understanding. Now Christians say atheists can't understand the Bible in a desperate attempt to maintain a monopoly on understanding. They can't provide sensible argument against atheist positions so they deny that atheists have understanding. But we aren't illiterate medieval peasants and we aren't going to fall down when opposed by such intellectual arrogance. Here's a challenge - point to a few verses of the Bible that bolster your belief in a Christian idea, and you think atheists do not understand, then explain them to us in a way that you think will help us understand.




> 3) Women are not second-class citizens in the Church. There are just as many restrictions on men as there are on women. The RCC recognizes and embraces these differences. I have never met a Catholic woman who feels oppressed by Catholic doctrine.


You must move in very small circles! Try reading "The Spiral Staircase" by Karen Armstrong. On becoming a nun, after seven years and a breakdown, she applied for a dispensation from her vows and returned to the world, "obscurely broken and damaged". And what about the Magdalene asylums in Ireland? There's real oppression! 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_asylum

----------


## Emil Miller

[QUOTE=Delta40;1242099 Harry Potter dominated the best sellers lists for many years, that doesn't mean there's an invisible village filled with wizards called Hogsmeade somewhere in England. [/QUOTE]

But it does mean that there are libraries all over England filled with hogwash.

----------


## Delta40

> But it does mean that there are libraries all over England filled with hogwash.


lol. Shhh not so loud in case a molesting librarian hears you....

----------


## Emil Miller

> lol. Shhh not so loud in case a molesting librarian hears you....



I hope she does.

----------


## Delta40

Wow! Even I'd hand in my book late to receive the reprimand...

----------


## mona amon

:FRlol:  Ooh Harry Potter posts! What a refreshing change to the rest of the Hogwash on this thread. 




> SentimentalSlop is absolutely correct regarding Christian matters.


She's absolutely wrong, in my humble christian opinion, but I have to go now. I'll elaborate later.

----------


## Melanie

> An unchanging religious text is NOT a good thing. The FACT that the bible doesn't change is one of the major problems with all ancient religious texts. _The Bible doesn't change because truth is truth. Truth doesn't change. The Bible is complete according to God._
> 
> The slavery thing again _yes, again is right...we JUST went over this very subject a few posts back_, for example. If god has somehow changed his position and now abhors slavery, where's the new and improved Bible 2.0? If he no longer wants us to comply with the most horrible of the 613 biblical laws, why hasn't he let us know? _
> 
> God DOES hate slavery...and God did let us know:
> Which form of slavery are you discussing? God, in no way, condoned the form of slavery we know of in recent times:
> 
> 1. Slavery in the Old Testament times was very different from slavery in more recent times worldwide. In Old Testament times it was not based just on race, nationality, or color, but rather social status. Man sold themselves as slaves when they couldn't take care of their families and owed debt. Even politicians, lawyers, and doctors were slaves. Some chose to be slaves so they would be taken care of by their masters.
> 
> ...


(blue highlighted text is mine)

----------


## cafolini

Excellent post, Melanie.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> You're wrong but I will say sentimental slop suits you very well :-)
> 
> I would much rather go through my life looking for collective solutions to problems in this society - because when it comes to the negative, we have to be accountable. When a child is tortured, it isn't good enough to spout out: God needed another Angel. What kind of God allows such horrors on earth and I don't want to hear your piss weak justifications. Human beings own what they do and they are just as responsible for coming up with the solutions. Religion is a get out of jail free card for those who want to separate themselves from taking ownership. What a 'nice' idea that there is a 'parent' in the sky to look over you so you don't have to be a gwown up, be 100% accountable and (shock horror) diverse to alternative ideas and concepts. Sure, you don't mind taking credit for all the joy and love but when it comes to doing anything about hardship and horror, well it's all in Big Daddy's hands and he has a plan which it isn't for us to question. 
> 
> I would say grow up but of course you're welcome to your belief so long as you don't actually harm anyone emotionally, mentally or physically because of it and I think I'm justified in making such statements. You're right that people from all walks kill but there is no documented slaughter on record from atheist fervor. Plenty of religious ones though and you're religious - so how on earth can you be trusted?


1) My username is taken from the book The Brothers Karamazov. A young boy named Kolya called such beliefs that I have sentimental slop. I just found the phrase funny, and liked the character.

2) Christ (according to the story) was the most innocent and perfect being to have ever been placed on this earth, and he suffered a horrible and gruesome death. Life is suffering, my friend. It is necessary.

3) Once again, Christians are held accountable EXTREMELY. We believe that we are going to be judged by God some day. Catholics especially emphasize sin and going to confession. We are not even allowed to sin in our thoughts. You should look up some time what Catholics are obligated to do and are forbidden to do. It'd make your head spin. Plus Catholics believe salvation is through faith AND works. That is even more pressure than other Christian denominations have. And I don't know where you think religion is some get out of jail card. I would say that it is the exact opposite. It puts even more responsibility on you. God had set up very high standards for us because he has faith in us. He wants us to be perfect like him.

4) I used to be very skeptical of organized religion, very liberal morally and politically, etc. I was open to "diverse" and "progressive" ideas. I've been down that road for most of my life, and I can safely say that I'm never going back to it. 

5) Um, has communism in Germany, Eastern Europe, China, and Cuba meant nothing to you? That's what you get when you try to take religion away from the people. Or, you know, look at North Korea.

6) I'm not allowed to hurt anyone emotionally or physically. I can be and ought to be trusted. I swear by my very life.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> SentimentalSlop is absolutely correct regarding Christian matters. 
> 
> 
> Could you please clarify and back this up with something. Fails in what way? Evolve in what way? Are you talking about a specific church? The Bible evolved from Old Testament to New Testament but once it was finished, nothing needed to be added or subtracted. It's the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It never gets old. That's why it's been the #1 Bestseller every year, year after year. Timeless. Amazing isn't it. No other book can claim that.


And that's with it being the most banned book in the world.

----------


## mal4mac

> SentimentalSlop is absolutely correct regarding Christian matters.


Has she been made Pope? Given all the different sects of Christianity how can one Christian be absolutely correct on Christian matters? I just read an interesting Wikipedia page in which it turns out that 2/3 of Roman Catholics are not really Roman Catholics because the deny the infallibility of the Pope!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_i...l_by_Catholics

----------


## Delta40

What has communism got to do with atheism? Hello I don't believe in god - didn't realise you would assume so much about people and societal structures because of that one point. Amazing isn't it. We are both presumptious.

----------


## mal4mac

Nothing wrong with being presumptuous in a forum, as you can be corrected in the next post. But anti-atheists just cannot seem to see that atheism isn't communism, and continue to presume that if you are atheist you are some kind of Stalinist. This "communism isn't atheism" point has been made so many times, and the anti-atheists just don't seem to get it! They equate communism with atheism and pretend they are attacking atheism when they are really attacking communism. It's pure sophistry, intellectual deceit of the most brazen kind.

By the way, Dawkins just made the point on twitter that Hitler was a Roman catholic. If you were baptised as Roman catholic in Germany/Austria then you were a Roman catholic forever, according to the Roman catholic church. Stalin spent his adolescence in training to be a priest. The heavy religious influence on these two totalitarians must have had some kind of formative influence!

P.S. Dawkins is on a book tour to sell the first volume of his autobiography at the moment and is obviously finding a lot of time to twitter, and is really on form. This is a great chance for anyone in the States to see him, hear him on local radio, or even have dinner with him! "Only 4 tickets left (of 20) for Michael Shermer's dinner for RDFRS. http://conta.cc/16lxqKv 3rd dinner selling out as fast as the other 2." Also, unlike with the recent Pope's tour of the UK, his tour is not paid for out of your taxes.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> Has she been made Pope? Given all the different sects of Christianity how can one Christian be absolutely correct on Christian matters? I just read an interesting Wikipedia page in which it turns out that 2/3 of Roman Catholics are not really Roman Catholics because the deny the infallibility of the Pope!
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_i...l_by_Catholics


Yes, most Catholics do not believe in certain doctrines. That's not good. But the stuff I tell you is basic Christian beliefs. It's nothing surprising. 

And I'm not saying atheism is communism. You guys have got to actually READ what I say instead of twisting it into whatever you want. What I said is that the most cruel, barbaric communist efforts have been dictated by radical atheistic movements. I completely acknowledge the fact that there have been communist Christians, although the combination seems more than ironic to me.

So what if Hitler was baptized a RC? The depraved man obviously did not follow Catholic doctrine or Christianity at all. His beliefs and efforts were the exact opposite of Christianity. He hated Catholicism especially and oppressed it and sought to get rid of it. I've met many people who said they were Christian just because they were baptized, but they weren't Christians at all. My sister was baptized a RC, but she is not a RC. She rejects Christianity and is a self-proclaimed atheist.

----------


## Volya

Just to throw in my own personal questions about the Bible and Christianity...

In Leviticus, it says homosexuals should be killed. So why aren't Christians going around and killing them all? Oh yes, because it says in some other part of the Bible that the Old Testament rules don't count... But then again, why are many Christians still homophobic? And weren't the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament? Shouldn't we ignore them too?

And besides. Even if we aren't meant to follow those silly old laws anymore, why were they ever laws to begin with? Why, at any point throughout history, did God condone the execution of gays? He might've changed his mind at some point I guess (although I thought he was meant to be omniscient so he probably should've seen it coming...), but I personally wouldn't want to follow a religion that EVER said that it was okay to go around killing people because of who they love.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

Read Hebrews chapters 7, 8, 9, and 10. It explains why the OT laws are no longer in use and what the purpose of them was.

Christians are against gay marriage and sex because we believe that marriage is about procreation (not just that obviously, but that is the common denominator), and men and men or women and women simply do not have the means to reproduce. And in order for one to have sex, they ought to be married. That is why both are forbidden. It is not that we should be against homosexuals and not love them as human beings, but we encourage chastity among them. There are many gay Christians out there who live chaste lives and encourage chastity.

There are other verses in the NT that says that practicing homosexuality is wrong. Romans 1:26-27, Corinthians 6:9-10, Corinthians 7:1-2 (it's implied what marriage is and what it is not), Ephesians 5:25-33 (same difference), Colossians 4:18-19 (same difference), 1 Timothy 1:6-11. There might be more, I'm not sure. But marriage in the Bible is never talked about being between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Homosexual relationships are always condemned.

And here is why we still follow the commandments: Matthew 19:16-22.

----------


## Volya

But why was it ever okay to go around killing gays. That is never justifiable.

(I read the Hebrews chapters, didn't really help).

Why is sex not allowed outside of marriage? Cannot gay married couples adopt? What about if a man or a woman was infertile, should they never be allowed to marry?

And that passage from Matthew doesn't refer to all the Commandments.

----------


## Eman Resu

> Christians are against gay marriage and sex because we believe that marriage is about procreation



Why do so many people make such wild statements without ever doing any research? Very few Christian denominations oppose same-gender relationships. Even Wikipedia - dumbest of the dumb - will give you some insight into the situation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homosexuality

----------


## Eman Resu

> And that passage from Matthew doesn't refer to all the Commandments.



No passage in the New Testament does; the Decalogue appears in its entirety only in the Old Testament - in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.

----------


## cacian

> Read Hebrews chapters 7, 8, 9, and 10. It explains why the OT laws are no longer in use and what the purpose of them was.
> 
> Christians are against gay marriage and sex because we believe that marriage is about procreation (not just that obviously, but that is the common denominator), and men and men or women and women simply do not have the means to reproduce. And in order for one to have sex, they ought to be married. That is why both are forbidden. It is not that we should be against homosexuals and not love them as human beings, but we encourage chastity among them. There are many gay Christians out there who live chaste lives and encourage chastity.
> 
> There are other verses in the NT that says that practicing homosexuality is wrong. Romans 1:26-27, Corinthians 6:9-10, Corinthians 7:1-2 (it's implied what marriage is and what it is not), Ephesians 5:25-33 (same difference), Colossians 4:18-19 (same difference), 1 Timothy 1:6-11. There might be more, I'm not sure. But marriage in the Bible is never talked about being between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Homosexual relationships are always condemned.
> 
> And here is why we still follow the commandments: Matthew 19:16-22.


chastity is the worst form of reprimand you could inflict on someone it is terrible. no one should be told or encouraged to practice chastity because of their sexuality. it is twisted and wrong.

----------


## cacian

> Just to throw in my own personal questions about the Bible and Christianity...
> 
> In Leviticus, it says homosexuals should be killed. So why aren't Christians going around and killing them all? Oh yes, because it says in some other part of the Bible that the Old Testament rules don't count... But then again, why are many Christians still homophobic? And weren't the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament? Shouldn't we ignore them too?
> 
> And besides. Even if we aren't meant to follow those silly old laws anymore, why were they ever laws to begin with? Why, at any point throughout history, did God condone the execution of gays? He might've changed his mind at some point I guess (although I thought he was meant to be omniscient so he probably should've seen it coming...), but I personally wouldn't want to follow a religion that EVER said that it was okay to go around killing people because of who they love.


you know what Volya I am tempted to say god is gay himself. how do we know he is not? he is man isn't he right? well then it is a 50/50 chance that he maybe.
I do not believe for a moment god would condemn homosexuality. I believe it to be man made by those who set out to create/invent the bible.

----------


## mal4mac

> Yes, most Catholics do not believe in certain doctrines. That's not good. But the stuff I tell you is basic Christian beliefs. It's nothing surprising.


They are *your* beliefs, stop claiming them for all Christians. The Catholics who do not believe in the doctrines you hold are also Catholics and also Christians, and no doubt many hold their doctrines to be "basic Christianity". What a Tower of Babel! And all because of unsound epistemology. There's no evidence for any of the Roman Catholic dogmas, that's why there's so much division in the Chrurch, and between all the churches.




> And I'm not saying atheism is communism. You guys have got to actually READ what I say instead of twisting it into whatever you want. What I said is that the most cruel, barbaric communist efforts have been dictated by radical atheistic movements.


Atheism is simply not believing in God, how does that direct communist efforts? It's communist ideology that drives the killing fields, not atheism. How does atheism lead to the Stalinist drive to "kill all landowners", or "kill all followers of Trotsky"? Stalin believed in Newton's laws, does that mean barbaric communist efforts are directed by radical Newtonian movements? You are just making no sense at all.




> So what if Hitler was baptized a RC? The depraved man obviously did not follow Catholic doctrine or Christianity at all.


The Germanic RC churches say that anyone baptised a catholic is a catholic forever, therefore Hitler is catholic, and therefore a Christian. This is simple logic. If you accept this simple logic, then you might say that not all RC are good. Personally I'd prefer not to be in any club that tries to retain such nasty members.




> My sister was baptized a RC, but she is not a RC. She rejects Christianity and is a self-proclaimed atheist.


I'm talking about the German/Austrian Roman Catholic church, I'm not sure what your branch is like. If it has the same rule then she can self-proclaim all she wants, but the church still has her, by its account. But you might want to check; heck, I'd be running down to the priest now, if I were you, just to check. If she is still a Roman Catholic she might have a better chance of sneaking into heaven, and wouldn't that make you really happy?

----------


## Eman Resu

> you know what Volya I am tempted to say god is gay himself. how do we know he is not? *he is man isn't he right?*


Read Hosea 11:9, and get back to us on that one.

----------


## Eman Resu

> The Germanic RC churches say that anyone baptised a catholic is a catholic forever


...and while all Catholics are subject to excommunication, whether it's latæ sententiæ or ferendæ sententiæ, even (prior to 1983 anyway) the vitandus excommunicant remained "a Catholic." Catholicism has no direct correlation to חרם.

----------


## mal4mac

> Christians are against gay marriage and sex because we believe that marriage is about procreation (not just that obviously, but that is the common denominator), and men and men or women and women simply do not have the means to reproduce. And in order for one to have sex, they ought to be married. That is why both are forbidden. It is not that we should be against homosexuals and not love them as human beings, but we encourage chastity among them. There are many gay Christians out there who live chaste lives and encourage chastity.


Who are you to say how people should use their sexual impulses? If two guys go to bed together that doesn't harm you, or anyone else, in any way. And it isn't as if there's a lack of people in the world! There are plenty of breeders out there.

----------


## cafolini

> Nothing wrong with being presumptuous in a forum, as you can be corrected in the next post. But anti-atheists just cannot seem to see that atheism isn't communism, and continue to presume that if you are atheist you are some kind of Stalinist. This "communism isn't atheism" point has been made so many times, and the anti-atheists just don't seem to get it! They equate communism with atheism and pretend they are attacking atheism when they are really attacking communism. It's pure sophistry, intellectual deceit of the most brazen kind.
> 
> By the way, Dawkins just made the point on twitter that Hitler was a Roman catholic. If you were baptised as Roman catholic in Germany/Austria then you were a Roman catholic forever, according to the Roman catholic church. Stalin spent his adolescence in training to be a priest. The heavy religious influence on these two totalitarians must have had some kind of formative influence!
> 
> P.S. Dawkins is on a book tour to sell the first volume of his autobiography at the moment and is obviously finding a lot of time to twitter, and is really on form. This is a great chance for anyone in the States to see him, hear him on local radio, or even have dinner with him! "Only 4 tickets left (of 20) for Michael Shermer's dinner for RDFRS. http://conta.cc/16lxqKv 3rd dinner selling out as fast as the other 2." Also, unlike with the recent Pope's tour of the UK, his tour is not paid for out of your taxes.


True. But only a few of them do that. The problem really is that atheism is close to dialectical materialism, and from there communism is an obviously potential conclusion. One insight into this was provided by Nietzsche when he said that Roman Catholic atheism was a-priori fact and that the ultimate degeneration was communism. Not a thing to do with the Nazi's position of idiotic anticommunism, the VRIL powder and all that stuff.

----------


## cacian

> Read Hosea 11:9, and get back to us on that one.


king James Bible
''I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city''

oh my. what is god then. Jesus was a man.

----------


## cacian

> Who are you to say how people should use their sexual impulses? If two guys go to bed together that doesn't harm you, or anyone else, in any way. And it isn't as if there's a lack of people in the world! There are plenty of breeders out there.


LOL too right  :Wink:

----------


## mal4mac

> ... The problem really is that atheism is close to dialectical materialism, and from there communism is an obviously potential conclusion.


Atheism can be "close to" any political stance. And, in practice, you find that it is. There are many famous figures who weren't in any way communist, but were atheists, many (like David Hume) born before Hegel and Marx. Bertrand Russell was a staunch opponent of communism. Just browse wikipedia, you'll find hundreds of examples of people who are, or were, atheist-but-not-in-any-way-communist.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> They are *your* beliefs, stop claiming them for all Christians. The Catholics who do not believe in the doctrines you hold are also Catholics and also Christians, and no doubt many hold their doctrines to be "basic Christianity". What a Tower of Babel! And all because of unsound epistemology. There's no evidence for any of the Roman Catholic dogmas, that's why there's so much division in the Chrurch, and between all the churches.
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is simply not believing in God, how does that direct communist efforts? It's communist ideology that drives the killing fields, not atheism. How does atheism lead to the Stalinist drive to "kill all landowners", or "kill all followers of Trotsky"? Stalin believed in Newton's laws, does that mean barbaric communist efforts are directed by radical Newtonian movements? You are just making no sense at all.
> 
> 
> 
> The Germanic RC churches say that anyone baptised a catholic is a catholic forever, therefore Hitler is catholic, and therefore a Christian. This is simple logic. If you accept this simple logic, then you might say that not all RC are good. Personally I'd prefer not to be in any club that tries to retain such nasty members.
> ...


1) According to the RC, anyone who is Catholic but rejects Catholic doctrine is a heretic. Obviously, Hitler was one. He rejected Catholic doctrine and was a monster. Just because he was a Catholic nominally means nothing. He was not a Catholic in his heart.

2) Why do you keep insisting on putting words in my mouth? When did I ever say all atheists were communists? They're clearly not. All I said was that the most barbaric genocides in the history of the world have been implemented by atheistic communist regimes. Lots of atheists hate communism, I get that. 

3) I'd love for my sister to go to heaven. She's a kind and loving woman with a big heart, but she has to accept God first. 

4) No one's sneaking into people's bedrooms to see if they're having gay sex or not, but I believe homosexual marriage is invalid and that homosexual relations are sinful, therefore I cannot aid in the sin of others. It is against my conscience. 




> king James Bible
> ''I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city''
> 
> oh my. what is god then. Jesus was a man.


That is God the Father speaking in the OT. God the Father is not a man, but Christ is both God and man at the same time.

----------


## Delta40

Volya asks you valid questions. Why not show him Christian respect and address them Sentimental.

Btw Jesus told the people in his sermon on the mount that the old laws would not be changed. So the OT is not obsolete at all and all Christians are therefore hypocrites for not following the word of God.

This is exactly my point about cherry picking. NEWSFLASH: if the OT no longer applies, why the hell do you folk keep quoting the parts that suit you from it???? 

But you won't kill a homosexual....

----------


## Volya

I shall ask for the third time... (In nice big letters so you don't miss it!)

*Why was it ever okay to go around killing gays?*

----------


## Delta40

lol. The question can't be answered. After the ten commandments, the other 603 contradict each other so much, it's impossible for any Christian to live by the laws.

----------


## cacian

> 1) According to the RC, anyone who is Catholic but rejects Catholic doctrine is a heretic. Obviously, Hitler was one. He rejected Catholic doctrine and was a monster. Just because he was a Catholic nominally means nothing. He was not a Catholic in his heart.
> 
> 2) Why do you keep insisting on putting words in my mouth? When did I ever say all atheists were communists? They're clearly not. All I said was that the most barbaric genocides in the history of the world have been implemented by atheistic communist regimes. Lots of atheists hate communism, I get that.


again that is not true. atrocities are equally menacing in the name of religion. people were/are executed daily for having a different. it is all over history.




> 3) I'd love for my sister to go to heaven. She's a kind and loving woman with a big heart, but she has to accept God first.


I have to disagree. no need for god to go to heaven or whatever. you cannot prove it and that is the case.
heaven is not on condition it is a myth in the same that hell is. heaven and hell are the parameters for religion to mean something. take them out of the equation and religion is nothing. in otherwise religion needs to grow a pair.




> 4) No one's sneaking into people's bedrooms to see if they're having gay sex or not, but I believe homosexual marriage is invalid and that homosexual relations are sinful, therefore I cannot aid in the sin of others. It is against my conscience.


it is against your conscious and that is fair enough but remember it is not against theirs and that is all that matters. why it is against your conscious I do not understand it. why should you feel anything towards gay people when you are not involved with it. it is a bit like saying I do not eat pork because it is against my conscious. it could not be you have never had it. one cannot assume something they have not experienced it. sex and sexuality has nothing to do with religion and yet we throw it at it as if a football needing to score a point.





> That is God the Father speaking in the OT. God the Father is not a man, but Christ is both God and man at the same time.


 what?
half man and half god? what is the meaning of that? what is god? you need to explain by giving a clear definition otherwise I can only say he is a man/women going with what Jesus was.

----------


## mal4mac

> 2) Why do you keep insisting on putting words in my mouth? When did I ever say all atheists were communists? They're clearly not. All I said was that the most barbaric genocides in the history of the world have been implemented by atheistic communist regimes. Lots of atheists hate communism, I get that.


You're the one always combining the two words atheism and communism! Pure sophistry. 




> 4) No one's sneaking into people's bedrooms to see if they're having gay sex or not, but I believe homosexual marriage is invalid and that homosexual relations are sinful, therefore I cannot aid in the sin of others. It is against my conscience.


All this bigotry leads to situations like gay teenage boys being murdered in Catholic Brasil, and baseball bats being used to beat gay teenage girls in Russian Orthodox Russia. You may say you wouldn't be wielding a baseball bat, but its "moderates" like you that generate an atmosphere in which such things can happen. These examples come from "Out there", Stephen's Fry's excellent recent series on gay oppression around the world (still available on BBC iPlayer.) Taster here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnBBqYFGKB8

Interesting that all this violent, murderous, bigotry takes place in very Christian or Islamic countries. Stephen Fry is a great atheist, here he dismantles the Roman Catholic Church:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6sz8D411kE

----------


## mal4mac

What about easy living Bishops? Interesting item on BBC Radio 4 this morning about the "Bishop of Bling", who spent £300 000 just on walk in wardrobes, and £40 million on other luxuries:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...-29659398.html

Do you give money to these characters? How did he get so much money? The Germans have to pay taxes to support the religion they put on census forms. Blimey! I can see why "Father Ted" didn't have many series, he just couldn't compete with the satire generated by the church itself.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> I shall ask for the third time... (In nice big letters so you don't miss it!)
> 
> *Why was it ever okay to go around killing gays?*


Sorry I missed your question. Read Galatians 3:1-26. There is your answer.

----------


## Volya

> Sorry I missed your question. Read Galatians 3:1-26. There is your answer.


Trick question, it is never okay to go around killing people because of their sexuality.

Plus I read that passage and it makes no sense to me, could you explain it in simpler terms for me?

----------


## Delta40

You're relying on the OT again! That's so funny....

----------


## Volya

> You're relying on the OT again! That's so funny....


Forgive me if I'm wrong Delta, but Galatians is in the New Testament?

----------


## Delta40

Oh yeah! Sorry it's Monday morning here in Oz... Well I'm off to work now to deal with the tax paying public so I'll leave it all in your good hands Volya.

----------


## Eman Resu

> 1) According to the RC, anyone who is Catholic but rejects Catholic doctrine is a heretic.


_Heresy_, under the Corpus Iuris Canonici's definition pertains _solely_ to doctrine which has been read into Canon as _"Divinely inspired."_ Denouncing doctrine such as anti-abortion codes isn't heresy, and, in fact, such anti-doctrinal exclusions are each specifically addressed within the Corpus (e.g. the foregoing: c: 1398: fticide carries with it the incurrence of latæ sententiæ until Absolution is granted - and in most places, the "local Priest" already has the Grant of Faculty to absolve in this case - the determination of Faculty being conferred by the Diocese).

A Roman Catholic who denounces the Virgin Mary as the Mother of Jesus commits heresy; people whose sexual preference is homosexual rather than heterosexual are certainly _not_ heretics under Canon Law (and, in fact I don't believe that the Corpus even addresses this¹, although Gratian, in the Concordantia did so).


¹I could certainly be wrong here; I don't consider myself a Canonist, and if anyone has evidence that this is addressed in the C.I.C. please give the citation on your correction.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

Abortion is mentioned in Canon Law: http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/abortio2.htm

Catholic stance on homosexuality according to_ persona humana_:

VIII

At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.

A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.

In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.

In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.

----------


## Volya

The Catholic stance on homosexuality is so mind-numbingly idiotic and homophobic it makes me want to tear out my own eyeballs.

They think it is some kind of disease that should be 'cured'?

'Their inability to fit into society' - What does this even mean. The only reason some homosexuals struggle to fit into society is because of moronic homophobes (many of whom follow the spiteful teachings of the RCC). I have several gay and lesbian friends and they fit in perfectly fine I'll have you know.

If you honestly believe something as stupid and hateful as what the Catholic Church is preaching then I think you are missing the (second) most important Commandment in the Bible: _You shall love your neighbor as yourself._

----------


## mal4mac

> _Heresy_, under the Corpus Iuris Canonici's definition pertains _solely_ to doctrine which has been read into Canon as _"Divinely inspired."_ Denouncing doctrine such as anti-abortion codes isn't heresy, and, in fact, such anti-doctrinal exclusions are each specifically addressed within the Corpus (e.g. the foregoing: c: 1398: fticide carries with it the incurrence of latæ sententiæ until Absolution is granted - and in most places, the "local Priest" already has the Grant of Faculty to absolve in this case - the determination of Faculty being conferred by the Diocese).


Interesting post Eman, but can I make a request that you stick to English? To save others Googling Latin phrases¹:

Corpus Juris Canonici - 'Body of Canon Law'
Latae sententiae - excommunication

¹I could certainly be wrong here; I'm not a Latin scholar or Canonist, and if anyone has better translations please correct mine.

----------


## mal4mac

Atheist stance on Roman Catholics according to me:

VIII

At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, Roman Catholic relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of Dawkins and to the moral sense of the Atheist people.

A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between Roman Catholics whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and Roman Catholics who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.

In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case Roman Catholic relations within a sincere communion of life, in so far as such Roman Catholics feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.

In the pastoral field, these Roman Catholics must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the current moral order, Roman Catholic relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable sanity. In Sacred Scripture (the works of Dawkins) they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting reason. This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that Roman Catholic acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.

----------


## Delta40

lol. Especially in regard to the spread of AIDS and other STD's (not to mention the false spread of Catholic AIDS deniers) through the non use of condoms. Catholics will have sex before marriage and still engage in extra marital affairs no matter how much they deny the truth of it all. Not facing up to the realities of what is happening and implementing safe guards is having a detrimental effect on the health of the world.

----------


## Eman Resu

> Interesting post Eman, but can I make a request that you stick to English? To save others Googling Latin phrases¹:
> 
> Corpus Juris Canonici - 'Body of Canon Law'
> Latae sententiae - excommunication
> 
> ¹I could certainly be wrong here; I'm not a Latin scholar or Canonist, and if anyone has better translations please correct mine.



Corpus Juris Canonici is actually the proper title, and you're correct about Latæ Sententiæ being one of the two recognised forms of excommunication. Here, "Latæ Sententiæ" is understood to mean that, at the moment of the transgression, "the sentence is passed" ipso facto (by the fact [of the transgression] itself).

My apologies, and thanks for bringing this up. I'm accustomed to writing on another forum where a substantive understanding of Greek, Latin and Hebrew is presupposed. Hereafter, where titles or phrases generally accepted as being in legal or religious commerce aren't self-evident, I'll add the English translation parenthetically. 

That said, I suppose that someone should have made the comparison between Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation so we're all on the same argumentative page so to speak, but the former has been so closely aligned with Martin Luther's Unio Sacramentalis (the "Sacramental Union" which Luther called "sakramentalische Vereinigung" in describing the presence of the Body of Christ in the [physical] Eucharist), and is so open to misinterpretation (compare above the Latin "substantia" meaning "essence" and "materia" meaning "physicality") that it would / will doubtless further muddy the waters which we're all guilty of stirring now and then.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> The Catholic stance on homosexuality is so mind-numbingly idiotic and homophobic it makes me want to tear out my own eyeballs.
> 
> They think it is some kind of disease that should be 'cured'?
> 
> 'Their inability to fit into society' - What does this even mean. The only reason some homosexuals struggle to fit into society is because of moronic homophobes (many of whom follow the spiteful teachings of the RCC). I have several gay and lesbian friends and they fit in perfectly fine I'll have you know.
> 
> If you honestly believe something as stupid and hateful as what the Catholic Church is preaching then I think you are missing the (second) most important Commandment in the Bible: _You shall love your neighbor as yourself._


I'm sorry that you want to rip out your eyeballs, but that is the RC stance on homosexuality. And that commandment Christ gave us doesn't mean what you think it means. By loving people, we don't gloss over their sins and enable them. Christ didn't do that, but instead he admonished them and told them to sin no more.

----------


## Oedipus

> I'm sorry that you want to rip out your eyeballs, but that is the RC stance on homosexuality. And that commandment Christ gave us doesn't mean what you think it means. By loving people, we don't gloss over their sins and enable them. Christ didn't do that, but instead he admonished them and told them to sin no more.


So you think homosexuality is a sin?

----------


## .snakeface.

Religion fulfills many purposes, and can be used as a tool for positivity or a weapon of negativity. Can it provide a person a voice? Of course, it can be used to achieve many ends. Whether or not that person who now has this voice has really discovered their true self, or have simply found their identity in an abundance of pre-existing religious texts I guess can be taken on a case by case basis. Me, I prefer to create my own content. I try to relate to the prehistoric man, who witnessed the many shocking marvels of the world outside of a prescribed context and with no voice to relate his findings. He didn't know the name of everything, but simply experienced it in purity and wonder. Need everything be said or written down to make it true/important?

----------


## .snakeface.

> Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.


What does the pope say about running backwards through a cornfield? It bringeth forth much...toot?

----------


## The Atheist

> The Catholic stance on homosexuality is so mind-numbingly idiotic and homophobic it makes me want to tear out my own eyeballs.


But hey, it did enable Pope RatZinger to blame the paedophilia within the church on homosexuality, so there is an upside. If not for that, they'd have to admit that many predators join the chuch so they can prey on young boys.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> So you think homosexuality is a sin?


It's not a sin to have same-sex attractions, but it is a sin to act upon it. Yes, those are my beliefs. Believe it or not, up until only a year and half ago I was adamantly for same-sex marriage and physical relations, ever since elementary school. I felt very passionate about since a young age. I fought with my mother and schoolmates all the time about it. 




> What does the pope say about running backwards through a cornfield? It bringeth forth much...toot?


Don't join the conversation if you're going to act like a little kid. At least say something meaningful. 




> lol. Especially in regard to the spread of AIDS and other STD's (not to mention the false spread of Catholic AIDS deniers) through the non use of condoms. Catholics will have sex before marriage and still engage in extra marital affairs no matter how much they deny the truth of it all. Not facing up to the realities of what is happening and implementing safe guards is having a detrimental effect on the health of the world.


Most Catholic men and women have used contraception, even though they're not supposed to. It's not the lack of using contraception that is bad, it's the flagrant sex life so many people have adopted, including Christians. Many people nowadays, Christian or otherwise, have become very weak-minded and can't keep it in their pants.

----------


## cacian

> It's not a sin to have same-sex attractions, but it is a sin to act upon it. Yes, those are my beliefs. Believe it or not, up until only a year and half ago I was adamantly for same-sex marriage and physical relations, ever since elementary school. I felt very passionate about since a young age. I fought with my mother and schoolmates all the time about it.


what do you feel passionate about it? why did you fight it ? what is it to you? do you feel you may same sex attraction yourself? you sound very concerned about same sex as if it was inflicted upon you.

you come across as blinded by script and there is nothing about you your own opinions about the matter.
one must make their own mind about anything including sexuality without the conduct of religion.
you have to step out of the bible script religions thing and learn to address it from a very personal point of view.
everyone eventually has to.

----------


## Oedipus

> It's not a sin to have same-sex attractions, but it is a sin to act upon it.


It's a sin to act according to one's nature? Do you think it is possible to tell people that they can't act on their love because 'it is sin' while claiming a moral high ground?

The rest is yet another rant about immorality in today's society, just like the ones from 1913, 1813, 1713, 1613, 1513, and so on.

----------


## Lokasenna

> I'm sorry that you want to rip out your eyeballs, but that is the RC stance on homosexuality. And that commandment Christ gave us doesn't mean what you think it means. By loving people, we don't gloss over their sins and enable them. Christ didn't do that, but instead he admonished them and told them to sin no more.


As it happens, he also said something about letting he who is without sin cast the first stone...

Wow. Just wow. I'm amazed at such pronoucements - you actually presented Galatians as evidence to answer Volya's 'Why was it ever okay to go around killing gays?' question. Utter backwards barbarism. _Exodus_ tells us that it is our _duty_ (not our right, mind, but our _duty_) to seek out and burn witches - is that an acceptable stance in the modern world? Has it EVER been an acceptable stance?

It's interesting that Christ himself, who really ought to be the central figure of Christian teaching but never really has been, didn't have anything to say on the subject of homosexuality. Given his tendency, however, to hang out with the most despised and marginalised members of society, I suspect he would not have much of an issue. Christ's philosophy says that love is the most important thing in the universe.

It is thanks to Paul and his prejudices, a mindless bigot and outrageous conservative even by the standards of his time, that so much toxic social bile has been perpetrated in the name of the Church for the last 2,000 years. If the Catholic Church wants to have any place of relevance in society, it needs to grow up and embrace Christ's love of humanity.

----------


## mal4mac

There are many problems with the Christ of the New Testament, what about his famous statement:

Luke 14:26 "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." 

A very useful verse for cults!

The central New Testament doctrine of 'atonement' for 'original sin' is morally obnoxious. This was taken over from the Old Testament by Jesus, and is based on a woman stealing an apple! I have an apple tree. If I saw a woman leaning over my fence and stealing an apple I'd let it go; heck, it's only an apple.

But God & Jesus think she, and her offspring, need to atone for it by suffering for eternity. Seems a slight over-reaction. Of course 'eating the fruit' is often taken to be symbolic of nakedness & sexual activity. Why would the Creator of the universe take offence at what people do while naked? It's bizarre, and such prudery contributes daily to human misery (for heterosexuals and homosexuals!)

Then God/Jesus adds sado-masochism to the stew, incarnating himself as a man to torture himself, to "redeem" our sin of chewing apples. And Judas & other Jews gets castigated for this, and persecuted ever since, when all they did was help Jesus fulfil his sado-masochistic plan. Besides being repellent doesn't this idea seem barking mad?

If God wants to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them, why go through this crazy drama. It seems to relate to the OT idea of sacrifice being necessary for forgiveness of sins, as in Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews:

9: 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

This is executing the innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty, as Old Testament, and Old Nasty, as it gets, and it's right there in the heart of the New Testament.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> what do you feel passionate about it? why did you fight it ? what is it to you? do you feel you may same sex attraction yourself? you sound very concerned about same sex as if it was inflicted upon you.
> 
> you come across as blinded by script and there is nothing about you your own opinions about the matter.
> one must make their own mind about anything including sexuality without the conduct of religion.
> you have to step out of the bible script religions thing and learn to address it from a very personal point of view.
> everyone eventually has to.


I said I was *for* same-sex marriage and physical relations since I was in elementary school, not against it. However, I don't feel that way any more. My opinion has changed because I met an amazing person who is Catholic and adheres strongly to his faith. I had a problem with the fact that he didn't support homosexuality, so I talked with him about it. I used all the same arguments pro-LBGT people use--how it's their life and it's not hurting anybody, if two people love each other they should be able to get married like anyone else, that people want to just be who they are, how would you feel if someone didn't allow you to be with the one you loved, etc., etc., and so on. He beat me miserably. He used logic and I used emotion. It was humiliating for me. I went home so upset and hated him because he won and I lost. For about a year after I was still stubborn and clung to my beliefs. Then I learned more about my faith and began to take it more seriously, and then I gave in and finally turned my back on supporting homosexuality. 

My opinions on nearly everything used to be very liberal. Trust me, I've been there. 




> It's a sin to act according to one's nature? Do you think it is possible to tell people that they can't act on their love because 'it is sin' while claiming a moral high ground?
> 
> The rest is yet another rant about immorality in today's society, just like the ones from 1913, 1813, 1713, 1613, 1513, and so on.


Yes, sometimes. Human nature needs to be tamed, and not let loose like some animal. I don't think you want a world where people cannot control themselves, do you? 




> As it happens, he also said something about letting he who is without sin cast the first stone...
> 
> Wow. Just wow. I'm amazed at such pronoucements - you actually presented Galatians as evidence to answer Volya's 'Why was it ever okay to go around killing gays?' question. Utter backwards barbarism. _Exodus_ tells us that it is our _duty_ (not our right, mind, but our _duty_) to seek out and burn witches - is that an acceptable stance in the modern world? Has it EVER been an acceptable stance?
> 
> It's interesting that Christ himself, who really ought to be the central figure of Christian teaching but never really has been, didn't have anything to say on the subject of homosexuality. Given his tendency, however, to hang out with the most despised and marginalised members of society, I suspect he would not have much of an issue. Christ's philosophy says that love is the most important thing in the universe.
> 
> It is thanks to Paul and his prejudices, a mindless bigot and outrageous conservative even by the standards of his time, that so much toxic social bile has been perpetrated in the name of the Church for the last 2,000 years. If the Catholic Church wants to have any place of relevance in society, it needs to grow up and embrace Christ's love of humanity.


Ugh, this is what liberals have reduced the Bible to. Your arguments are nothing new and profound. When Christ saved the adulteress from stoning, what he made clear to the crowd was that all of them are guilty before God. No one is innocent. When the crowd left, he told the woman, "Now go and sin no more." He didn't say, "Now go and sin as much as you want because Jesus loves you." He spoke ardently against sin all throughout the gospels. Where have you been? 

And just because Christ didn't mention something doesn't mean he condones it. That's a ridiculous argument to make. Christ doesn't address homosexuality specifically, but never once does he mention marriage with the idea of two men or two women being together. He defines it as being man and woman. Plus keep in mind that God chose Paul to be a priest, so if you have beef with Paul, then you have beef with Jesus who is God, according to the Christian faith. 

Christ isn't some tree-huger whose philosophy is "it's all good." It's not "all good" to him. He holds us up to incredibly high standards. We must be willing to die to sin in order to be like him and with him in heaven. We must become the perfected creatures God always intended us to be.

And I'm sorry, but the Catholic Church does not need to "grow up." It will always be against an active homosexual lifestyle and it won't change just to "get with the times." 

@mal4mac I'll respond to you later when I have more time and not busy doing homework. -_-"

----------


## cacian

> Then I learned more about my faith and began to take it more seriously, and then I gave in and finally turned my back on supporting homosexuality. 
> 
> My opinions on nearly everything used to be very liberal. Trust me, I've been there.


it is what said before you should have followed your instinct and stuck to your own belief. this idea that you went from one thing to another within a short space of time because of someone else shows a weakness of mind and own self.
just because the script says it is wrong does no make it right for you to change your mind. you should 've stuck to your gains and remained faithful to what you had believed before. this shows strength of character and confidence.
you now seem to lack both. you are easily swayed. what next?
you see your problem is you seem to think people want your approval about homosexuality or other issues. no one cares and so because of it you are better off not showing your disapproval keeping it to yourself is the right thing to do.
religion is a stirrer and if can spread more hates it would.

----------


## mal4mac

> I said I was *for* same-sex marriage and physical relations since I was in elementary school, not against it. However, I don't feel that way any more. My opinion has changed because I met an amazing person who is Catholic and adheres strongly to his faith.


Cult leaders can be very charismatic.




> He beat me miserably. He used logic and I used emotion. It was humiliating for me. I went home so upset and hated him because he won and I lost.


Why not encourage him to use this forum? He will not of course, because we will destroy him.




> Yes, sometimes. Human nature needs to be tamed, and not let loose like some animal. I don't think you want a world where people cannot control themselves, do you?


Dawkins out of control? Hardly. 





> Ugh, this is what liberals have reduced the Bible to. Your arguments are nothing new and profound.


I don't claim originality, these arguments have been used by atheists for a long time. I also think they're quite simple, not all that profound. If you can just turn down the charisma dial on the memory of your cult leader you might get back in tune with your good old liberal arguments.




> And I'm sorry, but the Catholic Church does not need to "grow up." It will always be against an active homosexual lifestyle and it won't change just to "get with the times."


So you can predict the future now?

----------


## SentimentalSlop

I was easily swayed by my sister and emotion. She is the one who taught me what I used to believe about homosexuality when I was just a little kid. 

And I was not easily swayed. I took an entire year to think on it, and then changed my mind. If it were the other way around and someone suddenly changed their conservative opinion on homosexuality to that of a liberal one in a matter of a day, you would probably think, "Good for him. He finally came around. I knew he was smart." Why the double-standard?

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> Why not encourage him to use this forum? He will not of course, because we will destroy him.


I'm sorry, but he's gotten better arguments from high school kids than the stuff I see on here. Liberals argue with him literally every day and he wins every time. He's a college professor at a very liberal university, so he's surrounded by liberal students and liberal colleagues. I've had several classes with him throughout my high school and college career, and no one ever beats him. The kids either love him and consider his arguments or they hate him because he points out the contradictions in their statements, and then they just sit and pout. 

Plus why would he bother going on here to argue with a bunch of liberals? He does that day in and day out at his job, among ten million other things. Not to mention that he's seen all these arguments before, so it's nothing that's going to surprise him in the least.

----------


## mal4mac

> I'm sorry, but he's gotten better arguments from high school kids than the stuff I see on here.


Well you don't seem to be doing a very good job of defeating our arguments. Maybe you had a bad teacher?




> Liberals argue with him literally every day and he wins every time.


So all those liberals are now Roman Catholics are they? Flashy talkers can give the impression of winning off the cuff debates, if you don't keep your b**l*hit detector well polished.




> He's a college professor at a very liberal university, so he's surrounded by liberal students and liberal colleagues.


If he's that good at converting people, why aren't they all Roman Catholics?

----------


## Delta40

Lol Mal4mac. It's a joy reading your posts. I'm waving my pom-poms from the sidelines!

----------


## cacian

> I was easily swayed by my sister and emotion. She is the one who taught me what I used to believe about homosexuality when I was just a little kid. 
> 
> And I was not easily swayed. I took an entire year to think on it, and then changed my mind. If it were the other way around and someone suddenly changed their conservative opinion on homosexuality to that of a liberal one in a matter of a day, you would probably think, "Good for him. He finally came around. I knew he was smart." Why the double-standard?


double standards? no it is not. I would have said he should have know better not get involved. it does not take science to tell you that sexual matters other people are none of our concern, that is the attitude to take. it is not for me to agree or disagree with it. it does not bother me is full stop and it should ne bother you either. sexuality is a private matter it is up to the individual concerned to deal with it as they wished. and you and I should not be discussing it as if it was our business to agree or disagree on it. it does not matter what sexuality people are what matters I that one learns to get on with another without having religion having to tell them how to do it.

----------


## Eman Resu

> _Exodus_ tells us that it is our _duty_ (not our right, mind, but our _duty_) to seek out and burn witches - is that an acceptable stance in the modern world? Has it EVER been an acceptable stance?


Wow - I wish I had that in one of _my_ Bibles.

:(

I can't get any closer than in Exodus 22:18, which would mean that you're translating the Canaanite root "כָּשַׁף" as "one who _'witches(?)'_ " rather than as "one who whispers." Sounds like someone (the infallible James Strong, no doubt) cut up a Qabbālâ and a Tanakh, put the pieces into an old hat, and pulled them out at random.

I like the Monty Python version better because their witch is made of wood, or she would be wood if she could. Now I'm dumber than a rusty coffee can fulla chicken beaks, but all I got from the Scrolls at Qumran fragment was, "abide not in the company of dæmons." Not even a can o' charcoal lighter and a match, let alone any "witches" or "burning."

:(

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> Well you don't seem to be doing a very good job of defeating our arguments. Maybe you had a bad teacher?
> 
> *I am not as good at defending my beliefs as he is. He's much smarter than I am. Plus take into consideration that I've only been thinking critically about such matters for only a couple years. I'm young, and he's middle-aged. He's been doing this for much longer than I have. 
> 
> And he's the best teacher I ever had. I owe my life to him, that's for sure.*
> 
> So all those liberals are now Roman Catholics are they? Flashy talkers can give the impression of winning off the cuff debates, if you don't keep your b**l*hit detector well polished.
> 
> *No, they're not. He emphasizes Christianity in general, not a particular denomination.*
> ...





> double standards? no it is not. I would have said he should have know better not get involved. it does not take science to tell you that sexual matters other people are none of our concern, that is the attitude to take. it is not for me to agree or disagree with it. it does not bother me is full stop and it should ne bother you either. sexuality is a private matter it is up to the individual concerned to deal with it as they wished. and you and I should not be discussing it as if it was our business to agree or disagree on it. it does not matter what sexuality people are what matters I that one learns to get on with another without having religion having to tell them how to do it.


I don't see what's wrong with having a conversation about sexuality and morality.

----------


## mal4mac

> Lol Mal4mac. It's a joy reading your posts. I'm waving my pom-poms from the sidelines!


Get on the pitch, I need some support at silly mid-off.

----------


## cacian

> I don't see what's wrong with having a conversation about sexuality and morality.


there is nothing wrong about talking about anything.
what is wrong is saying gay is wrong.
what is also wrong is you thinking you can link sexuality to morality. they are two very different things.
morality is a list of vindicated rules/laws to give religion the upper hand and make it look important. preaching is what it is called to ensure sin at the top like a crowned evil waving its punishing stick in case you decide you play out of fit.
fear is morality.
sexuality between two consenting adults is private to them and only to them. it is not our place to make or place moral judgement on it. we are not to decide whether we like it nor not. we are to occupy our minds with other more pressing ideals such as learning to find our minds and form our own opinions.

----------


## mal4mac

> Wow - I wish I had that in one of _my_ Bibles.


Exodus 22:18 is usually translated as something like: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (KJV) I'm not sure where Lokasenna got the "burning" from, but in practice that's often what happened, so it's a forgiveable mistake, if it is a mistake. Check out other bibles here:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...18&version=KJV

----------


## Eman Resu

> Get on the pitch, I need some support at silly mid-off.



Huh! When I saw the four long stops, I figgered you were the wicket keeper.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> there is nothing wrong about talking about anything.
> what is wrong is saying gay is wrong.
> what is also wrong is you thinking you can link sexuality to morality. they are two very different things.
> morality is a list of vindicated rules/laws to give religion the upper hand and make it look important. preaching is what it is called to ensure sin at the top like a crowned evil waving its punishing stick in case you decide you play out of fit.
> fear is morality.
> sexuality between two consenting adults is private to them and only to them. it is not our place to make or place moral judgement on it. we are not to decide whether we like it nor not. we are to occupy our minds with other more pressing ideals such as learning to find our minds and form our own opinions.


I can believe whatever I want. I'm not sneaking into anyone's bedrooms telling them what they can and cannot do, preventing anyone from voting for gay marriage, or pushing my beliefs in people's faces. People can believe or do whatever they want. But if I believe it's sinful (which I do), than I am not going to help sin take place by condoning it.

----------


## Eman Resu

> Exodus 22:18 is usually translated as something like: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (KJV) I'm not sure where Lokasenna got the "burning" from, but in practice that's often what happened, so it's a forgiveable mistake, if it is a mistake. Check out other bibles here:
> 
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...18&version=KJV



This is the problem with reading modern translation - and what makes watching folks argue about the Bible an admixture of sad and funny. If I knew absolutely nothing about algebra, calculus or number theory, I'd probably look rather silly trying to hold a conversation about Relativity with Richard Feynman.

If physics held my interest, I'd certainly make every effort to learn about it all that I possibly could before posting wild, unverified assertions in a public forum. It constantly astounds me that so many folks want to "discuss the Bible" and profess knowledge thereof, never having even read it other than in modern translation. I can't imagine a scientist whose only language was Urdu, reading Feynman's work as translated by a Comprehensive Schooler with only the most rudimentary knowledge of the target language.

----------


## cacian

> I can believe whatever I want. I'm not sneaking into anyone's bedrooms telling them what they can and cannot do, preventing anyone from voting for gay marriage, or pushing my beliefs in people's faces. People can believe or do whatever they want. But if I believe it's sinful (which I do), than I am not going to help sin take place by condoning it.


fair enough but I personally think sin is a delusion derogatory of a religion that feeds on it. there is no sin what there is people wanting to get on with their lives and others preventing them from doing so.
if you believe in sin then the likelihood of you committing one is pretty strong. to live with it however is pretty cumbersome to say the least.
I do not believe in sin and therefore my actions are solely based on what think is right for me and for others and what is in between I use my brain to figure it out.

----------


## Lokasenna

> Exodus 22:18 is usually translated as something like: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (KJV) I'm not sure where Lokasenna got the "burning" from, but in practice that's often what happened, so it's a forgiveable mistake, if it is a mistake. Check out other bibles here:
> 
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...18&version=KJV


Yup, that's what I was alluding to - with perhaps a touch of theatrical hyperbole supplied by the _Malleus Malificarum_. The practical reality was that a great many people interpreted that passage of _Exodus_ as an instruction to persecute women. I was perhaps letting my irritation run away with me...




> I can believe whatever I want. I'm not sneaking into anyone's bedrooms telling them what they can and cannot do, preventing anyone from voting for gay marriage, or pushing my beliefs in people's faces. People can believe or do whatever they want. But if I believe it's sinful (which I do), than I am not going to help sin take place by condoning it.


You are, of course, entitled to your beliefs - but only insofar as they are not incitement. Can I just remind you that a few pages ago you attempted to justify *the killing of innocent people for their sexuality*, citing the Bible as you did so? Is it really necessary for me to explain why this is an abominable thought? It is this sort of mentality that has caused the deaths of hundereds of thousands of people, and inflicted misery on millions more, throughout history.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> fair enough but I personally think sin is a delusion derogatory of a religion that feeds on it. there is no sin what there is people wanting to get on with their lives and others preventing them from doing so.
> if you believe in sin then the likelihood of you commenting one is pretty strong. to live with it however is pretty cumbersome to say the least.
> I do not believe in sin and therefore my actions are solely based on what think is right for me and for others and what is in between I use my brain to figure it out.


What you _think_ is right. Interesting. So there's not really a right and wrong, but just what you _think_ is right and wrong? If right and wrong is just a matter of opinion, then it doesn't really mean anything.

----------


## mal4mac

> This is the problem with reading modern translation - and what makes watching folks argue about the Bible an admixture of sad and funny.


Are you arguing that only people who read Hebrew, or Latin, can have anything to say about Christian viewpoints? That we should all shut up and accept the infallible pronouncements of the Pope? I thought that view disappeared in medieval times. You don't need the equivalent of a degree in physics, or knowledge of Ancient Languages, to see the rubbish the Roman Catholic church comes out with, simply the ability of a child who sees that the Emperor has no clothes. 

Also, relativity doesn't have an impact on our day to day lives, Roman Catholic pronouncements affect all of us. In past ages, such pronouncements could have led to us being burned, today we might catch AIDS because of the unenlightened attitude the church has to condom use. So we all need to engage with Christian doctrines, and the church has to meet us half way, or become irrelevant, which it realised in the Renaissance. Isn't it time you had a personal Renaissance? You might even reach the enlightenment one day. So why not retreat to your scholastic ghetto and leave the rest of us to talk in a language we all understand.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> Yup, that's what I was alluding to - with perhaps a touch of theatrical hyperbole supplied by the _Malleus Malificarum_. The practical reality was that a great many people interpreted that passage of _Exodus_ as an instruction to persecute women. I was perhaps letting my irritation run away with me...
> 
> 
> 
> You are, of course, entitled to your beliefs - but only insofar as they are not incitement. Can I just remind you that a few pages ago you attempted to justify *the killing of innocent people for their sexuality*, citing the Bible as you did so? Is it really necessary for me to explain why this is an abominable thought? It is this sort of mentality that has caused the deaths of hundereds of thousands of people, and inflicted misery on millions more, throughout history.


Who are you to say that I can't act upon my beliefs? I do everyday. 

The OT justified the killing of active homosexuals because it is a sin to act upon such desires, but Christ came not to eradicate the idea that active homosexuality is sinful, but to show mercy to sinners and offer them another way to heaven that is actually possible.

----------


## cafolini

> What you _think_ is right. Interesting. So there's not really a right and wrong, but just what you _think_ is right and wrong? If right and wrong is just a matter of opinion, then it doesn't really mean anything.


Correct. But this has little to do with what Loka said.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

^I was talking to Cacian. I just forgot to quote her by accident.




> Are you arguing that only people who read Hebrew, or Latin, can have anything to say about Christian viewpoints? That we should all shut up and accept the infallible pronouncements of the Pope? I thought that view disappeared in medieval times. You don't need the equivalent of a degree in physics, or knowledge of Ancient Languages, to see the rubbish the Roman Catholic church comes out with, simply the ability of a child who sees that the Emperor has no clothes. 
> 
> Also, relativity doesn't have an impact on our day to day lives, Roman Catholic pronouncements affect all of us. In past ages, such pronouncements could have led to us being burned, today we might catch AIDS because of the unenlightened attitude the church has to condom use. So we all need to engage with Christian doctrines, and the church has to meet us half way, or become irrelevant, which it realised in the Renaissance. Isn't it time you had a personal Renaissance? You might even reach the enlightenment one day. So why not retreat to your scholastic ghetto and leave the rest of us to talk in a language we all understand.


He didn't say that. All he's saying is that knowledge of the languages used in biblical times is a lot more helpful in understanding scripture.

----------


## Eman Resu

> Yup, that's what I was alluding to - with perhaps a touch of theatrical hyperbole supplied by the _Malleus Malificarum_. The practical reality was that a great many people interpreted that passage of _Exodus_ as an instruction to persecute women. I was perhaps letting my irritation run away with me...



You've seen firsthand the hideous mistranslations of Beowulf; multiply that manifold for the length of time between the derivation from Canaanite roots three and one-half millennia ago, and the result of James Strong's "concordance." I implore you to devote a few minutes in reading this:


http://trumpetsound.faithweb.com/Preface.html


You can even ignore Riplinger's remark - James Strong, author of the Strongs Concordance, has been elevated to the fourth member of the Trinity by many. His corrupt Greek and Hebrew definitions pepper todays preaching, as if his Concordance was the final and 67th book of the Bible." - on the basis that she's a Royal Nut Job, despite the fact that she comprehends the Aramaic and Canaanite structures better than most (and certainly better than did Strong, whose Hebrew was limited to "see Jane run...") and whose "nutshell Greek" was just that.

Yo! Give a shout-out to dem coolio dudes
Holdin' dem spears way back long ago,
An' all da cool adu-freakin-lation dey got!
Lotta times Beowulf's old man...

and cetera. Really, this is much closer to the original than is most modern Bible translation.

Hebrew is simple to learn, and it's the electric can opener of the Old Testament. Sure, you can open a can with a machete or a Phillips screwdriver, but the can opener makes a really neat sound, and does a pretty darned good job in the end.

----------


## Eman Resu

> The OT justified the killing of active homosexuals



Where; Leviticus 20:13? If you take it literally, Leviticus 20:2 says that applies only to those resident in Israel during the Lifetime of Moses.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> Where; Leviticus 20:13? If you take it literally, Leviticus 20:2 says that applies only to those resident in Israel during the Lifetime of Moses.


I know that, but it still applied at one time. I know that these laws were to distinguish the Isrealites from the pagans. I'm just saying.

----------


## cafolini

> I can believe whatever I want. I'm not sneaking into anyone's bedrooms telling them what they can and cannot do, preventing anyone from voting for gay marriage, or pushing my beliefs in people's faces. People can believe or do whatever they want. But if I believe it's sinful (which I do), than I am not going to help sin take place by condoning it.


I dislike to disagree with you because you are a good believer, but I must about this. You actually think that what you are saying will not sneak into gays' bedrooms? Nonsense.

As Nelle Harper Lee put it, the bible is not a book to tell you exactly how to live and do. It is the best book there is to make you think. It is not a book to tell you absolute ways to fry an egg.

----------


## Eman Resu

> Are you arguing that only people who read Hebrew, or Latin, can have anything to say about Christian viewpoints?


Nope; go back and actually read what's written there. As to "Latin" there's no Biblical source material in Latin. The OT and NT sources are Hebrew and Greek respectively, save for Daniel and Ezra whose source material is Aramaic.

You have the right to voice whatever opinion you like, but I do (personally) find it amusing that atheists spend so much time, and expend so much energy talking about God when they claim the He doesn't even exist. Seems to me that if He's not even real, He wouldn't be worth all the effort. I don't see atheists writing long monologues about the Loch Ness Monster, mermaids or Tinkerbell; why all this emphasis on God in particular?

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> I dislike to disagree with you because you are a good believer, but I must about this. You actually think that what you are saying will not sneak into gays' bedrooms? Nonsense.
> 
> As Nelle Harper Lee put it, the bible is not a book to tell you exactly how to live and do. It is the best book there is to make you think. It is not a book to tell you absolute ways to fry an egg.


I'm not checking in on people having sex, am I? I just disagree with it and don't want to encourage it because I believe it's a sin and encouraging someone to sin is also a sin. It's not enough to save myself and ignore others. If others don't like what I have to say, then fine.

The Bible as well as with Catholic tradition is how I try to live my life. It's there to make you think, yes, but I believe in its proclaimed truths, and, in my daily conduct, attempt to live by those proclaimed truths.

----------


## Eman Resu

> I know that, but it still applied at one time. I know that these laws were to distinguish the Isrealites from the pagans.



A trifle oversimplified, but not historically inaccurate. By that token then we must say, in reading 1 Corinthians 6:9 that _all_ sexual conduct outside the confines of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is the same - heterosexual and homosexual alike - since it will keep one from the joys Life Eternal.

Since Catholicism teaches us that Absolution and the Sacrament of Penance dispel the commission of one sin, why then would not the same be true of the other? No Human being - including Jesus - has ever lived a Lifetime without falling from the State of Grace. If our sins against 1 Corinthians 6:9 follow us into the afterlife, somebody had better tell Satan to start building an addition.

----------


## Eman Resu

> The Bible as well as with Catholic tradition is how I try to live my life. It's there to make you think, yes, but I believe in its proclaimed truths, and, in my daily conduct, attempt to live by those proclaimed truths.




I'm with cafolini's take on this - I surely can't agree with your views, but I can't help but genuinely admire your Faith and convictions.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> A trifle oversimplified, but not historically inaccurate. By that token then we must say, in reading 1 Corinthians 6:9 that _all_ sexual conduct outside the confines of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is the same - heterosexual and homosexual alike - since it will keep one from the joys Life Eternal.
> 
> Since Catholicism teaches us that Absolution and the Sacrament of Penance dispel the commission of one sin, why then would not the same be true of the other? No Human being - including Jesus - has ever lived a Lifetime without falling from the State of Grace. If our sins against 1 Corinthians 6:9 follow us into the afterlife, somebody had better tell Satan to start building an addition.


Yes, all sexual relations are sinful outside of marriage. But Catholics don't believe that "gay marriage" is even a marriage, so whether they "marry" or not, it is sinful to have sex.

Christians believe Christ was sinless.

----------


## Eman Resu

On the lighter side, two Catholics walk into a gay bar.























No; there's nothing more to add. Cue laughter.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

^lol.




> I'm with cafolini's take on this - I surely can't agree with your views, but I can't help but genuinely admire your Faith and convictions.


Thank you. I admire your genuine open-mindedness. <3

----------


## Eman Resu

> Christians believe Christ was sinless.



Only those who have redacted the passage from John 8 of their Bibles. According to His Father, who gave the Laws to Moses, and to Leviticus, it was Christ's _duty_ to chastise an adulteress - not to pluck her from the hands of justice.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

He did chastise her. He made clear to her that she sinned, but he was going to let her go.

The whole entire purpose of God the Father sending his only Son down to Earth was to season the justice already established with mercy. If Christ was only here on earth to uphold the OT laws and teach nothing else, then his purpose was meaningless.

Plus Christ did not sin here. All he did was find a clever way to answer while avoiding death for Himself, the adulteress, all the while giving us an important lesson. He did the same thing in Matthew 22:15-22.

----------


## Eman Resu

> He did chastise her. He made clear to her that she sinned, but he was going to let her go.
> 
> The whole entire purpose of God the Father sending his only Son down to Earth was to season the justice already established with mercy. If Christ was only here on earth to uphold the OT laws and teach nothing else, then his purpose was meaningless.
> 
> Plus Christ did not sin here. All he did was find a clever way to answer while avoiding death for Himself, the adulteress, all the while giving us an important lesson. He did the same thing in Matthew 22:15-22.



Then why should we not try to be as clever as Jesus was - and listen to His message - and simply let go, to embrace (figuratively, of course, and not literally) everyone, no matter their gender choice, their sexual preference, nor their personal beliefs? Isn't that really what we're supposed to learn from Matthew 7:1 or Luke 6:37?

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> There are many problems with the Christ of the New Testament, what about his famous statement:
> 
> Luke 14:26 "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." 
> 
> A very useful verse for cults!
> 
> The central New Testament doctrine of 'atonement' for 'original sin' is morally obnoxious. This was taken over from the Old Testament by Jesus, and is based on a woman stealing an apple! I have an apple tree. If I saw a woman leaning over my fence and stealing an apple I'd let it go; heck, it's only an apple.
> 
> But God & Jesus think she, and her offspring, need to atone for it by suffering for eternity. Seems a slight over-reaction. Of course 'eating the fruit' is often taken to be symbolic of nakedness & sexual activity. Why would the Creator of the universe take offence at what people do while naked? It's bizarre, and such prudery contributes daily to human misery (for heterosexuals and homosexuals!)
> ...


1) "Hate" used here doesn't literally mean hate. The Greek word used is Miseo, which means to love less. It's used on a comparative basis, to love something more than another. All Christ was asking was for us to love him above all things. We shouldn't "hate" anyone, in the sense we understand it.

2) It wasn't about stealing an apple. God had to place the tree there in order to give humanity a choice between him and something else so as not to be a tyrant. Adam and Eve knew the tree to be the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They already knew what good was, so the only thing they could have chosen when picking the apple from that tree was evil. 

3) Jesus is the lamb. He is the final sacrifice that opened up the gates of Heaven for all those willing to follow him. There are parallels between him the Passover Lamb. Read Exodus 12 to see what I mean.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> Then why should we not try to be as clever as Jesus was - and listen to His message - and simply let go, to embrace (figuratively, of course, and not literally) everyone, no matter their gender choice, their sexual preference, nor their personal beliefs? Isn't that really what we're supposed to learn from Matthew 7:1 or Luke 6:37?


Oh, of course. We are to love everyone and not hate a single soul. Even if someone were to stab one of our children, we are still obligated to love them, but we don't have to love all their ideas and adopt them as our own. I find Christ's love so beautiful that I chose Saint Maria Goretti as my confirmation saint. She loved like Christ loves. You should really read up on her sometime or watch the documentary about her on youtube. I'm sure her story will bring you to tears.

----------


## mal4mac

> I don't see atheists writing long monologues about the Loch Ness Monster, mermaids or Tinkerbell...


Use a telescope, oh, sorry, I forgot, you guys don't believe in them, so try Google:

The Loch Ness Monster and the Atheist

An atheist was spending a quiet day fishing when suddenly his boat was attacked by the Loch Ness monster. In one easy flip, the beast tossed him and his boat high into the air then opened its mouth to swallow both. As the man sailed head over heels, he cried out, "Oh, my God! Help me!"

At once, the ferocious attack scene froze in place and, as the atheist hung in mid-air, a booming voice came down from the clouds. "I thought you didn't believe in Me!"

"Come on God, give me a break!," the man pleaded. "Two minutes ago I didn't believe in the Loch Ness monster either!"

The Atheist continues, "God, please let the Loch Ness Monster be a Christian."

God replies, "So be it." The scene starts up, atheist falling.

The Loch Ness Monster folds his claws together and says, "Lord, bless this food you have so graciously provided."

http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles...kerbell-effect

http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/blogs/mermaids

----------


## cacian

> QUOTE=SentimentalSlop;1242657]Yes, all sexual relations are sinful outside of marriage.


 how is having sex outside marriage a sin? explain the reason. you cannot just throw the word sin at everything. you need to show why it is. you are now just listing sin next to everything.



> But Catholics don't believe that "gay marriage" is even a marriage, so whether they "marry" or not, it is sinful to have sex.


sex and sin are two different things.




> Christians believe Christ was sinless.


what proof do they have? he had sex with Mary Magdelene who apparently was a prostitute. he had a girlfriend. he was surrounded by men. he liked the company of men. does not that tell you something?
sinless is someone who abstain from everything including sex according to you.

----------


## cacian

> Oh, of course. We are to love everyone and not hate a single soul. Even if someone were to stab one of our children, we are still obligated to love them, but we don't have to love all their ideas and adopt them as our own. I find Christ's love so beautiful that I chose Saint Maria Goretti as my confirmation saint. She loved like Christ loves. You should really read up on her sometime or watch the documentary about her on youtube. I'm sure her story will bring you to tears.


 you are not to love or hate anyone. just be yourself and treat others the way you treat yourself. keep your love for when you really need it. you can ditch the word hate because it just gets in the way of things.
oh who is WE by the way?

----------


## Eman Resu

> how is having sex outside marriage a sin? explain the reason. you cannot just throw the word sin at everything. you need to show why it is.


Saint Paul probably isn't reading this. Go back; read the second line of post 202; the citation (1 Corinthians 6:9) is right there.

----------


## mal4mac

There actually is no such thing as sin. It's defined as, "an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law." There is no divine law, hence there is no sin, although there are still immoral acts. Atheists should stop Christians trying to monopolise some words, like "spiritual", but "sin" is a word best dropped from everyday conversation when we are talking about actualities, like the words "angel" or "demon" or "tooth fairy".

----------


## Eman Resu

> you are not to love or hate anyone. just be yourself and treat others the way you treat yourself. keep your love for when you really need it. you can ditch the word hate because it just gets in the way of things.
> oh who is WE by the way?



"We" doubtless referred to all of Christianity. What's the "new Commandment" mentioned in John 13:34-35?

----------


## Eman Resu

> There actually is no such thing as sin. It's defined as, "an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law." There is no divine law, hence there is no sin, although there are still immoral acts. Atheists should stop Christians trying to monopolise some words, like "spiritual"


Most Christians use the word "Spiritual" rather than "spiritual" within the confines of religion. That's why the Loch Ness Monster invented the shift key.

Do you think that morality is innate to Humanity - that there's the presence of a "moral compass" in anyone [everyone] with intellectual capacity? Caution: the question presages a "raised by wolves" argument.

----------


## cacian

> Saint Paul probably isn't reading this. Go back; read the second line of post 202; the citation (1 Corinthians 6:9) is right there.





> 1 Corinthians 6:9 that all sexual conduct outside the confines of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is the same - heterosexual and homosexual alike - since it will keep one from the joys Life Eternal


.
Saint Paul? I thought that was a cathedral  :Biggrin: 
anyhow in the above quote the word heterosexual and homosexual are put next to each other which suggest both sexuality being listed therefore recognised.
what does keep one form the joy of life eternal? is this suggesting that in eternal life sex is a joy and therefore there is sex in the afterlife?

----------


## Eman Resu

> .
> Saint Paul? I thought that was a cathedral



Did a little Wren tell you that? Si monumentum requiris, circumspice.

----------


## Eman Resu

> .
> Saint Paul? I thought that was a cathedral 
> anyhow in the above quote the word heterosexual and homosexual are put next to each other which suggest both sexuality being listed therefore recognised.
> what does keep one form the joy of life eternal? is this suggesting that in eternal life sex is a joy and therefore there is sex in the afterlife?



We don't know that there is, but I believe that's what we all _Pray_ for.

----------


## cacian

> We don't know that there is, but I believe that's what we all _Pray_ for.


do you LOL I don't. I can think of better things to do then sex. I have had it here earth I do not want it again surely. :Smile:

----------


## Eman Resu

> do you LOL I don't. I can think of better things to do then sex. I have had it here on earth I do not want it again surely.



Your problem is obvious; you're not supposed to do it on _earth;_ good Heavens - that's what beds are for.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> how is having sex outside marriage a sin? explain the reason. you cannot just throw the word sin at everything. you need to show why it is. you are now just listing sin next to everything.
> 
> sex and sin are two different things.
> 
> 
> what proof do they have? he had sex with Mary Magdelene who apparently was a prostitute. he had a girlfriend. he was surrounded by men. he liked the company of men. does not that tell you something?
> sinless is someone who abstain from everything including sex according to you.


1) Sex outside of marriage is against the seventh commandment, and Saint Paul warns us many times to stay away from sins of the flesh. It's also just a smart idea for one thing. We don't have to worry about spreading sexual diseases if we are chaste, a couple being made to stay together has a better chance financially and spiritually in order to take care of the children and themselves, among other things. 

2) I know sex and sin aren't the same thing. Otherwise, no one should be having sex and we wouldn't be here, which is silly. What I said was that sex for homosexuals is always wrong, whether they're "married" or not.

3) Christ didn't have sex with Mary Magdalene. What are you talking about? 

4) It is knowing WHEN to abstain for sex. Sex isn't synonymous with sin.




> There actually is no such thing as sin. It's defined as, "an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law." There is no divine law, hence there is no sin, although there are still immoral acts. Atheists should stop Christians trying to monopolise some words, like "spiritual", but "sin" is a word best dropped from everyday conversation when we are talking about actualities, like the words "angel" or "demon" or "tooth fairy".


So then your morality is all made up. What's so special about it, then? That means your morality is no better than my morality and we shouldn't even be arguing.

----------


## mal4mac

> 3) Christ didn't have sex with Mary Magdalene. What are you talking about?


There is some evidence for this, about as much as there is for the resurrection, and cacian is just as entitled to believe her myth as you are to believe yours.

"The companion of the Son is Miriam of Magdala.

The teacher loved her more than all the disciples;

He often kissed her on the mouth…"

~ Gospel of Philip

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2012/...ary-magdalene/





> So then your morality is all made up. What's so special about it, then? That means your morality is no better than my morality and we shouldn't even be arguing.


It's not just "all made up", it is reasoned out

----------


## Eman Resu

> There is some evidence for this, about as much as there is for the resurrection, and cacian is just as entitled to believe her myth as you are to believe yours.
> 
> "The companion of the Son is Miriam of Magdala.
> 
> The teacher loved her more than all the disciples;
> 
> He often kissed her on the mouth…"
> 
> ~ Gospel of Philip
> ...



The above, however, is made up. The sole extant manuscript (third century papyrus) of Philip's 'gospel' doesn't include this description; the addition is a modern gnostic idea, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the scroll fragment discovered at Nàg Hàmmadi in the 1940s.

Later today, I'll "find" a portion of the General Theory which says that all matter is composed of green cheese.

----------


## cacian

> Your problem is obvious; you're not supposed to do it on _earth;_ good Heavens - that's what beds are for.


oh no. how am I supposed to reproduce and keep the human race going if any worship is going to be possible.
abstinence means not enough people to go around by the time we finished and god will have no worshipers believers left to revere him.
how shall he do?

----------


## mal4mac

> The above, however, is made up. The sole extant manuscript (third century papyrus) of Philip's 'gospel' doesn't include this description; the addition is a modern gnostic idea, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the scroll fragment discovered at Nàg Hàmmadi in the 1940s.


Surely it has *something* to do with the fragment? Here is, supposedly, a translation of the fragment:

"[Christ loved] M[ary] more than [all] the disci[ples, and used to] kiss her [softly] on her [hand].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_...rning_the_text

Guesses are in the square brackets.

----------


## cacian

> 1) Sex outside of marriage is against the seventh commandment, and Saint Paul warns us many times to stay away from sins of the flesh. It's also just a smart idea for one thing. We don't have to worry about spreading sexual diseases if we are chaste, a couple being made to stay together has a better chance financially and spiritually in order to take care of the children and themselves, among other things.


what is this? a clean up operation? get married or don't have sex. yeah right, try and stop me.




> 2) I know sex and sin aren't the same thing. Otherwise, no one should be having sex and we wouldn't be here, which is silly. What I said was that sex for homosexuals is always wrong, whether they're "married" or not.


what you are saying is wrong. either punish one or the other and even so do not. punishing in the two is taking the piss.
if the script talks about gay the script is by order of logical saying it recognises them. anything after that is silly behaviour.




> 3) Christ didn't have sex with Mary Magdalene. What are you talking about?


what? he did not? really. you need to check again. he is a man and that is what men do have sex. 





> 4) It is knowing WHEN to abstain for sex. Sex isn't synonymous with sin.


ok. I know when I am ready. the bible does not have a time table has it?




> So then your morality is all made up. What's so special about it, then? That means your morality is no better than my morality and we shouldn't even be arguing.


I do not have morality. I have opinions and guess what? it does not come from a bible. I have better things to do then read something that makes no sense whatsoever.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> There is some evidence for this, about as much as there is for the resurrection, and cacian is just as entitled to believe her myth as you are to believe yours.
> 
> "The companion of the Son is Miriam of Magdala.
> 
> The teacher loved her more than all the disciples;
> 
> He often kissed her on the mouth"
> 
> ~ Gospel of Philip
> ...


The gospel of Philip is not in the Bible, and is a gnostic gospel written much too late. 

And my morality is reasoned out, too. :/

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> what is this? a clean up operation? get married or don't have sex. yeah right, try and stop me.
> 
> 
> 
> what you are saying is wrong. either punish one or the other and even so do not. punishing in the two is taking the piss.
> if the script talks about gay the script is by order of logical saying it recognises them. anything after that is silly behaviour.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1) I'm not married and I don't have sex. Lots of people are the same way. It can be done.

2) Men do a lot more things than have sex. Believe it or not, there are men out there whose lives don't revolve around humping a leg.

3) If you don't have morality, how can you say what I am saying is wrong? If you have no morality, my beliefs are neither good or bad.

You're just talking out of bitterness, now...

----------


## cacian

> 1) I'm not married and I don't have sex. Lots of people are the same way. It can be done.
> 
> 2) Men do a lot more things than have sex. Believe it or not, there are men out there whose lives don't revolve around humping a leg.
> 
> 3) If you don't have morality, how can you say what I am saying is wrong? If you have no morality, my beliefs are neither good or bad.
> 
> You're just talking out of bitterness, now...


LOL bitterness not at all. I can tell wrong from right with m y eyes closed. I do not need to consult a dictionary to know. it is instinct. you should try it.
morality is a title. I have opinions. that is a thought formulated when thinking on your feet and measuring to what I think is me in response to others. I see be then I learn. I can only formulate when I postulate and that means it involves another human contact not a book.
I talk to a person i consequently think. I can't do it with a book. thinking/ opinions is a two way mechanism which involves speech and listening. then an opinion triggers. no impediments there just words. i do not do silent learning it is one way traffic and it usually ends up in a cul de sac. ever been in one?

----------


## Eman Resu

> Surely it has *something* to do with the fragment? Here is, supposedly, a translation of the fragment:
> 
> "[Christ loved] M[ary] more than [all] the disci[ples, and used to] kiss her [softly] on her [hand].
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_...rning_the_text
> 
> OK, there seems to be a lot of guessing going on here!




Yep. Beyond the "gap-filling" the membranes between Thomas and Philip are also separate as well - "bound together" doesn't always mean on the same signatures. Not unlike the Vinland Map, the whole is a little suspect. Most latter Post-Ptolemaic period Acacia-carbon inks on Coptic papyri have a faint "bluish glow" in natural light; this manuscript gives the impression of having been archaised, and (strictly personal opinion here) might date as late as the sixth century in any case. Since a large number of modern papyrologists have intentionally been "kept away from" the manuscript, there are lots of hunches brewing. I don't know if Dirk Obbink at Christchurch has handled it personally, but if he has, nothing's been said of it formally. I think it's safe to put aside Philip as being sufficiently questionable that it doesn't figure into the equasion. The usual caveat - "dumber than a milk jug fulla rusty nails" - applies here.

----------


## mal4mac

According to Elaine Pagels in "The Gnostic Gospels", the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas, compiled circa 140, may include some traditions even older than the gospels of the New Testament, possibly as early as the second half of the first century. The gospels themselves are rather late, c. AD 60-110, according to Pagels.

How did these gospels survive? The Bishops tried their best to destroy them:

"By the time of the Emperor Constantine's conversion, when Christianity became an officially approved religion in the fourth century, Christian bishops, previously victimized by the police, now commanded them. Possession of books denounced as heretical was made a criminal offense. Copies of such books were burned and destroyed. But in Upper Egypt, someone; possibly a monk from a nearby monastery of St. Pachomius, took the banned books and hid them from destruction--in the jar where they remained buried for almost 1,600 years." - Pagels

"A heretic may be anyone whose outlook someone else dislikes or denounces. According to tradition, a heretic is one who deviates from the true faith. But what defines that "true faith"? Who calls it that, and for what reasons?" - Pagels

By A. D. 200, "Christianity had become an institution headed by a three-rank hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons, who understood themselves to be the guardians of the only "true faith." The majority of churches, among which the church of Rome took a leading role, rejected all other viewpoints as heresy. Deploring the diversity of the earlier movement, Bishop Irenaeus and his followers insisted that there could be only one church, and outside of that church, he declared, "there is no salvation." Members of this church alone are orthodox (literally, "straight-thinking") Christians. And, he claimed, this church must be catholic-- that is, universal. Whoever challenged that consensus, arguing instead for other forms of Christian teaching, was declared to be a heretic, and expelled. When the orthodox gained military support, sometime after the Emperor Constantine became Christian in the fourth century, the penalty for heresy escalated." - Pagels

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ry/pagels.html

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> LOL bitterness not at all. I can tell wrong from right with m y eyes closed. I do not need to consult a dictionary to know. it is instinct. you should try it.
> morality is a title. I have opinions. that is a thought formulated when thinking on your feet and measuring to what I think is me in response to others. I see be then I learn. I can only formulate when I postulate and that means it involves another human contact not a book.
> I talk to a person i consequently think. I can't do it with a book. thinking/ opinions is a two way mechanism which involves speech and listening. then an opinion triggers. no impediments there just words. i do not do silent learning it is one way traffic and it usually ends up in a cul de sac. ever been in one?


I don't think you want to depend on instinct to tell you what's right and wrong. We are more than just animals. It's good to think things through. And I don't know why you think if someone adheres to Christianity he suddenly stops thinking. It's quite the contrary. It is easy to base morality off feelings, about what we like and don't like. You don't have to think much to do that. It's not like someone put a bible in front of me and said, "believe in it," and I said, "okay," without batting an eye. I think about my faith extensively every day. Christianity has made me think more than ever before.

----------


## Eman Resu

> According to Elaine Pagels in "The Gnostic Gospels", the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas, compiled circa 140, may include some traditions even older than the gospels of the New Testament, possibly as early as the second half of the first century. The gospels themselves are rather late, c. AD 60-110, according to Pagels.
> 
> How did these gospels survive?



See Eleanor Rigby's facial storage for comparison.

There's very little (professed) doubt regarding Thomas (no pun untended).

----------


## mal4mac

I think it's instinctual in the way that driving a car is instinctual. Some of us may not have become instinctual drivers yet, and need to read the driving manuals, or talk to better drivers, and think things through. Unfortunately the Bible is a driving manual for a chariot.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> I think it's instinctual in the way that driving a car is instinctual. Some of us may not have become instinctual drivers yet, and need to read the driving manuals, or talk to better drivers, and think things through. Unfortunately the Bible is a driving manual for a chariot.


Yeah, and what if people's instincts all say different things?

----------


## mal4mac

Father Mckenzie writing the words of a sermon that no one will hear 
No one comes near. 
Look at him working, darning his socks in the night when there's nobody there...

Father Mckenzie wiping the dirt from his hands as he walks from the grave
No one was saved

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> Father Mckenzie writing the words of a sermon that no one will hear 
> No one comes near. 
> Look at him working, darning his socks in the night when there's nobody there...
> 
> Father Mckenzie wiping the dirt from his hands as he walks from the grave
> No one was saved


Good God, I have never seen a more ironic post in my life.

----------


## cacian

> I don't think you want to depend on instinct to tell you what's right and wrong


i think i do very much. it is my livelihood instinct. that is what makes a human.



> 2 We are more than just animals


just am minute. i am no animal. you may think you are. but i think i am not. 



> It's good to think things through. And I don't know why you think if someone adheres to Christianity he suddenly stops thinking. It's quite the contrary. It is easy to base morality off feelings, about what we like and don't like. You don't have to think much to do that. It's not like someone put a bible in front of me and said, "believe in it," and I said, "okay," without batting an eye. I think about my faith extensively every day. Christianity has made me think more than ever before.


i hear you but i could not be you. the difference between you and me is that you need the bible to tell you how you should conduct your life and feelings.
i however do not need a book to form my opinions. i have already got them in me. i already know what i am, how i think how i feel and who i am. god forbid i would need a book to tell me it. how miserable would that be?
if Christianity has made you think then you could not have thought before then who were you? a mere thoughtless being?
religion mad me realise conflict is heartful and mean but logic prevents it. i am more logic then that. no matter how much i try i find religion stifling lecturing and above all ignorant.

----------


## Eman Resu

> I think it's instinctual in the way that driving a car is instinctual. Some of us may not have become instinctual drivers yet, and need to read the driving manuals, or talk to better drivers, and think things through. Unfortunately the Bible is a driving manual for a chariot.



That's pretty complimentary coming from a self-professed "liberal" who undoubtedly would like to make a dent in global warming by reducing carbon footprints. 

See that - you're coming along nicely - in a few days we'll have to going to Confession and wearing an hair shirt.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> i think i do very much. it is my livelihood instinct. that is what makes a human.
> 
> 
> just am minute. i am no animal. you may think you are. but i think i am not. 
> 
> i hear you but i could not be you. the difference between you and me is that you need the bible to tell you how you should conduct your life and feelings.
> i however do not need a book to form my opinions. i have already got them in me. i already know what i am, how i think how i feel and who i am. god forbid i would need a book to tell me how. how miserable would that be?
> if Christianity has made you think then you could not have thought before then who were you? a mere thoughtless being?
> the bible made me realise how logic and religion just simply do not add up. no matter how much i try i find religion stifling lecturing and above all ignorant.


1) I do not think we are just animals. We have animal-like instincts, but we can be much better or much worse than any animal.

2) I did have opinions before and still do. It is beyond easy to form an opinion. All I wanted was an absolute--a definite reason that transcends time and space--a real sense of justice and mercy. It is dangerous to live in a world of moral relativism. As I've gotten older and learned more about Christianity, the more I cannot tear myself away from it. I find the logic of it too overwhelming and the bible the greatest love story of all, and in that love story holds the greatest of the greatest love stories, the crucifixion of Christ.

3) I did not and do not think we're thoughtless beings. We're terribly complex compared to the rest of the life on this earth.

----------


## Eman Resu

> 1) As I've gotten older and learned more about Christianity, the more I cannot tear myself away from it. I find the logic of it too overwhelming and the bible the greatest love story of all, and in that love story holds the greatest of the greatest love stories, the crucifixion of Christ.



There you have it, mal4mac. Now repeat after me,_ "benedic mihi pater, quia peccavi."_

----------


## Eman Resu

> i am no animal. you may think you are. but i think i am not.


Are you mineral or vegetable?

----------


## cacian

[QUOTE]


> 1) I do not think we are just animals. We have animal-like instincts, but we can be much better or much worse than any animal.


i am not animal like. i am a human which puts me at a different level fromthat of an from an animal. i have an instinct different of that of an animal because i have speech. i talk using words and sound. an animal's instinct is therefore different from mine.




> 2) I did have opinions before and still do. It is beyond easy to form an opinion. All I wanted was an absolute--a definite reason that transcends time and space--a real sense of justice and mercy. It is dangerous to live in a world of moral relativism. As I've gotten older and learned more about Christianity, the more I cannot tear myself away from it. I find the logic of it too overwhelming and the bible the greatest love story of all, and in that love story holds the greatest of the greatest love stories, the crucifixion of Christ.


i understand what you are saying but the simple thing is for me is that i find instinct and logic the foundation of my personality and the way i am. religion to me is too busy and things in it do not add up. they make no sense and therefore i rebute all meaning of it. i find it lecturing and feary with a big sin on its shoulder. religion has too much blood in its hand. it has more victims then believers alive or dead.
logic is light inquisitive and above all long lasting. i am all this and more.




> 3) I did not and do not think we're thoughtless beings. We're terribly complex compared to the rest of the life on this earth.


we are certainly complex and the idea is to uncomplex.

----------


## cacian

> Are you mineral or vegetable?


neither. i am a human i am me. the dictionary has not find the meaning to it yet and it is about to find out soon enough  :Smile:

----------


## SentimentalSlop

[QUOTE=cacian;1242782]


> i am not animal like. i am a human which puts me at a different level fromthat of an from an animal. i have an instinct different of that of an animal because i have speech. i talk using words and sound. an animal's instinct is therefore different from mine.
> 
> 
> 
> i understand what you are saying but the simple thing is for me is that i find instinct and logic the foundation of my personality and the way i am. religion to me is too busy and things in it do not add up. they make no sense and therefore i rebute all meaning of it. i find it lecturing and feary with a big sin on its shoulder. religion has too much blood in its hand. it has more victims then believers alive or dead.
> logic is light inquisitive and above all long lasting. i am all this and more.
> 
> 
> we are certainly complex and the idea is to uncomplex.


1) Animal and human instincts are similar a lot of the time, but we must be stronger than our instincts. 

2) You're being vague. What doesn't make sense?

3) The whole victim thing is entirely untrue, by the way.

4) Usually the simplest answer is the right one.

----------


## mal4mac

> 2) I did have opinions before and still do. It is beyond easy to form an opinion. All I wanted was an absolute--a definite reason that transcends time and space--a real sense of justice and mercy. It is dangerous to live in a world of moral relativism. As I've gotten older and learned more about Christianity, the more I cannot tear myself away from it. I find the logic of it too overwhelming and the bible the greatest love story of all, and in that love story holds the greatest of the greatest love stories, the crucifixion of Christ.


Why this demand for an absolute? You can have a sense of justice and mercy without an absolute. We do live in a world of moral relativism, and justice changes all the time, new laws are made. But relativism doesn't mean bad, indeed in the West laws have mostly improved. There has to be more than logic and good stories, there has to be empirical confirmation.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> Why this demand for an absolute? You can have a sense of justice and mercy without an absolute. We do live in a world of moral relativism, and justice changes all the time, new laws are made. But relativism doesn't mean bad, indeed in the West laws have mostly improved. There has to be more than logic and good stories, there has to be empirical confirmation.


Because if there is no absolute than no belief is better than another one. It just can't be in a world of moral relativism. To say one thing is better than another is an absolute statement, and you can't say such things in that philosophy. Then, beliefs are neither good nor bad. They're relative. Why would you ever want to live in a world where murder or rape is neither good nor bad?

----------


## Eman Resu

> Why this demand for an absolute? You can have a sense of justice and mercy without an absolute. We do live in a world of moral relativism, and justice changes all the time, new laws are made. But relativism doesn't mean bad, indeed in the West laws have mostly improved. There has to be more than logic and good stories, there has to be empirical confirmation.



Why? Medieval man had no empirical confirmation of gravity, yet he didn't simply float away into space. Why "must" there be empirical confirmation? That's the equal to saying, "there must be Faith." Both arguments are at once meaningless and absolute. 

For some, there must be empirical confirmation; for others, there must be Faith. Neither conflicts with the other, from the Big Bang forward. It's as easy to say that God created the Big Bang - and hence the physical universe - as it is to say, "it happened by accident." An_ accident_ is what happens when some fool is texting while driving his chariot, and he runs over a physicist; creation (or "Creation" if one prefers) is another matter entirely. Speaking of "matter" since it can't be created by forces known empirically (even I remember the law of conservation of matter), something beyond the "natural" explicable world must have created it. When we rule out the Loch Ness Monster, the Tooth Fairy, and the Honest Barrister, we're left with only one option: God.

----------


## mal4mac

> Because if there is no absolute than no belief is better than another one. It just can't be in a world of moral relativism. To say one thing is better than another is an absolute statement. Then, beliefs are neither good nor bad. They're relative. Why would you ever want to live in a world where murder or rape is neither good nor bad?


"The sun is going to rise tomorrow" is a relative belief. A cosmic disaster might destroy the earth before tomorrow. But, like everyone else, I certainly live my life as if I'm going to see another day. In a similar way, I hold rape and murder to be wrong, and changing my mind about that is going to be as hard as changing my mind about the sun not rising tomorrow. All beliefs are relative, but that's no reason not to hold them very strongly.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> "The sun is going to rise tomorrow" is a relative belief. A cosmic disaster might destroy the earth before tomorrow. But, like everyone else, I certainly live my life as if I'm going to see another day. In a similar way, I hold rape and murder to be wrong, and changing my mind about that is going to be as hard as changing my mind about the sun not rising tomorrow. All beliefs are relative, but that's no reason not to hold them very strongly.


You hold rape and murder to be wrong, good for you. But there are people out there who find all sorts of logical reasons why rape and murder are not wrong. What are you going to say to those people?

----------


## cacian

[QUOTE=SentimentalSlop;1242784]


> 1) Animal and human instincts are similar a lot of the time, but we must be stronger than our instincts. 
> 
> 2) You're being vague. What doesn't make sense?
> 
> 3) The whole victim thing is entirely untrue, by the way.
> 
> 4) Usually the simplest answer is the right one.


let's rephrase that as instinct is different from that of a human. if you cannot see it then i cannot help you. ou must help yourself. may be the bible can shed some light on it.

----------


## mal4mac

> Why? Medieval man had no empirical confirmation of gravity, yet he didn't simply float away into space. Why "must" there be empirical confirmation?


To be effective we need good theories, and we can only see that these theories are good by using empirical methods. Medieval man couldn't float away into space because he had bad theories, modern man could, using spacecraft, because he had good theories.




> For some, there must be empirical confirmation; for others, there must be Faith. Neither conflicts with the other, from the Big Bang forward. It's as easy to say that God created the Big Bang - and hence the physical universe - as it is to say, "it happened by accident."


To say "God caused the Big Bang" is to cut short the possibility of further scientific investigation, such as the speculative theories of "universe from nothing", "multiverse", and so on. The church has always tried to put a halt to scientific speculation, trying to shut up Galileo because the Earth "must" be still, or Darwin because God "must" be the designer. The Roman catholic church is a bit cleverer than tea party fundies, these days, but here you reveal it is still encouraging scientific backwardness by suggesting God "must" have caused the Big Bang. If you then say "God caused whatever the physicists eventually discover that came before the Big Bang", then you are still left with an enigma: what caused God?

----------


## cacian

[QUOTE=SentimentalSlop;1242784]


> 1) Animal and human instincts are similar a lot of the time, but we must be stronger than our instincts. 
> 
> 2) You're being vague. What doesn't make sense?
> 
> 3) The whole victim thing is entirely untrue, by the way.
> 
> 4) Usually the simplest answer is the right one.


let's just rephrase that again an animal instinct is different from that of a human. if you cannot see that then I cannot help you.
you must help yourself or check with the bible. 

usually the simplest answer is the correct one. whether it is right or not is another matter. right or wrong is neither here or there.
and as the saying goes: it is for me to know and it is for you to find out.
that is the correct way to any answer. right has nothing to do with it you may as well ask whether the question is the right one too in which case my answer is does it really matter? I have asked it and that is good enough.
so does religion give people a voice? the answer is no it does not.
that is a question with a correct answer.

----------


## Eman Resu

> To be effective we need good theories, and we can only see that these theories are good by using empirical methods. Medieval man couldn't float away into space because he had bad theories, modern man could, using spacecraft, because he had good theories.
> 
> 
> 
> To say "God caused the Big Bang" is to cut short the possibility of further scientific investigation, such as the speculative theories of "universe from nothing", "multiverse", and so on. The church has always tried to put a halt to scientific speculation, trying to shut up Galileo because the Earth "must" be still, or Darwin because God "must" be the designer. The Roman catholic church is a bit cleverer than tea party fundies, these days, but here you reveal it is still encouraging scientific backwardness by suggesting God "must" have caused the Big Bang. If you then say "God caused whatever the physicists eventually discover that came before the Big Bang", then you are still left with an enigma: what caused God?


Causation is the bailiwick of science; "God always was, and always will be," is the Christian answer to the multiverse extrapolation.

Just remember that Galileo was absolved - after 359 years of fire and brimstone, suddenly, in 1992

*POOF*

wings and an harp.














Y'ask me, I'd have held out for Guinness; Harp's just too light for my tastes.

----------


## mal4mac

> You hold rape and murder to be wrong, good for you. But there are people out there who find all sorts of logical reasons why rape and murder are not wrong. What are you going to say to those people?


I'd avoid them, and wouldn't give them a platform, if I had a platform. If they tried to put their nasty views into action I'd lock 'em up. These people were around in Christian societies, whatever you had to say wasn't effective.

----------


## mal4mac

> Causation is the bailiwick of science; "God always was, and always will be," is the Christian answer to the multiverse extrapolation.


I can see "Universe always was, and always will be," as a reasonable extrapolation beyond the multiverse hypothesis, but why bring God into it?

----------


## mal4mac

Light interlude: 

There was a preacher who fell in the ocean and he couldn't swim. When a boat came by, the captain yelled, "Do you need help, sir?" The preacher calmly said "No, God will save me." A little later, another boat came by and a fisherman asked, "Hey, do you need help?" The preacher replied again, "No God will save me." Eventually the preacher drowned & went to heaven. The preacher asked God, "Why didn't you save me?" God replied, "Fool, I sent you two boats!"

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> I'd avoid them, and wouldn't give them a platform, if I had a platform. If they tried to put their nasty views into action I'd lock 'em up. These people were around in Christian societies, whatever you had to say wasn't effective.


So you'd just avoid the problem and throw them in prison? Not that they shouldn't be in prison, but problems need to be addressed in order to prevent further incidences. 

Such people have always been around. Christians have changed the hearts of many, but some people don't want to listen. How can you get through to someone if they don't even want to participate?

----------


## Eman Resu

> I can see the "Universe always was, and always will be," as a reasonable extrapolation beyond the multiverse hypothesis, by why bring God into it?


Why not? He put us here; the least we can do is invite Him to the party.

;)

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> I can see the "Universe always was, and always will be," as a reasonable extrapolation beyond the multiverse hypothesis, by why bring God into it?


The universe might not always be here, and maybe the other universes may eventually go away, too. But Christians believe God is immortality. He has no beginning or end, but material things do.

----------


## cacian

> Why not? He put us here; the least we can do is invite Him to the party.


true but then maybe god has his own entourage and folks on earth are just mere second class citizens . god does look down on humans and humans look up right?

----------


## SentimentalSlop

[QUOTE=cacian;1242793]


> let's just rephrase that again an animal instinct is different from that of a human. if you cannot see that then I cannot help you.
> you must help yourself or check with the bible. 
> 
> usually the simplest answer is the correct one. whether it is right or not is another matter. right or wrong is neither here or there.
> and as the saying goes: it is for me to know and it is for you to find out.
> that is the correct way to any answer. right has nothing to do with it you may as well ask whether the question is the right one too in which case my answer is does it really matter? I have asked it and that is good enough.
> so does religion give people a voice? the answer is no it does not.
> that is a question with a correct answer.


1) Of course there are differences, but there are also similarities.

2) How does religion not give people a voice? Please explain. It gives me my voice, a better voice than I had before.

----------


## cafolini

> Why not? He put us here; the least we can do is invite Him to the party.


LOL
It's also the best we can do.

----------


## mona amon

> Volya asks you valid questions. Why not show him Christian respect and address them Sentimental.
> 
> Btw Jesus told the people in his sermon on the mount that the old laws would not be changed. So the OT is not obsolete at all and all Christians are therefore hypocrites for not following the word of God.
> 
> This is exactly my point about cherry picking. NEWSFLASH: if the OT no longer applies, why the hell do you folk keep quoting the parts that suit you from it???? 
> 
> But you won't kill a homosexual....


I realize that this is from many pages back and that the discussion has moved on (at least as far as any God discussion ever moves on), but I wanted to try and clear up some of the OT/NT confusion -

Most of the confusion arises because of the highly diplomatic way in which the question is handled. No pastoral authority ever wants to come and say straight out that we do not follow the Old Testament any more, probably because Jesus himself was very diplomatic about it. Christianity, like Jainism, buddhism, Sikhism etc is a reformist religion. Jesus himself had no wish to supplant his own religion, Judaism, with a new faith. What he set out to do was to reform, or at least to disseminate his own passionate beliefs, and he did not want to be executed for blasphemy before he had even begun, and in the end he was crucified for just that, but not before he'd had his say. Anyway, I'm NOT trying to be God's spokesperson, like so many others here and in the wide world are doing. That's for each person to decide on their own. We are not living in the dark ages, when only a few learned people had access to the scriptures, and tried to impose their own (often idiotic) interpretation on a gullible public. The Bible is now free for all - literally, with online access and The Gideons and all that.

So, Matthew 5, 17 - _Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."_ - so he starts off with a professed respect for the law, and in the same paragraph starts showing disdain for the Pharisees and interpreters of the law. As the sermon proceeds, he subtly disregards the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" OT laws and substitutes instead his own gospel of mercy and forgiveness. By the end of his life, he'd be proclaiming that He is the fulfillment of the law, the Lord of the Sabboth, The Son of Man, The Christ, the prophesied Messiah.

After all this, if we (those of us who profess to be Christians) insist on being bound by the law, we are like the foolish Galatians whom Paul upbraids so passionately, comparing those who are still under the law to slaves, and telling them that if they want to be enslaved by the law, then Jesus was crucified and died in vain.

Then why is the OT still a part of the Bible? Well, the question of why certain books were chosen for inclusion in the Bible is itself a complicated one and I do not know much about it, but even Christians do not all follow the same books (the Roman Catholic Bible has more books than the one followed by Protestants, for instance), but certainly no one is bound to follow every word in the Bible. That would be impossible anyway, in a work so complex and contradictory. 

Secondly, Jesus was Jewish, so we need to know his background in order to understand his teachings. The OT is the root from which Christianity sprung, and roots are important.

Thirdly, Jesus himself and many Christians believe that Jesus's coming was a fulfillment of certain Old Testament prophecies, so that's reason enough to include it.

And most important, there are lots of good things in the OT which Jesus himself never challenged, like the Ten commandments. So there is wheat there as well as tares, and if you try to uproot the tares you could uproot the wheat as well. (Jesus's quote, but in a different context)




> Who are you to say that I can't act upon my beliefs? I do everyday. 
> 
> The OT justified the killing of active homosexuals because it is a sin to act upon such desires, but Christ came not to eradicate the idea that active homosexuality is sinful, but to show mercy to sinners and offer them another way to heaven that is actually possible.


If Christ never said anything for, against, or about homosexuality and indeed never mentioned it at all, how can you conclude that he regarded it as a sin?

----------


## mal4mac

> If Christ never said anything for, against, or about homosexuality and indeed never mentioned it at all, how can you conclude that he regarded it as a sin?


You quoted the passage:

Matthew 5, 17 - “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

From what you say, by abolishing "eye for an eye" he actually contradicted his statement that "not the smallest letter... will disappear from the Law", but if we are as generous as we can be, and assume he actually meant "not the smallest letter, except for the bits I explicitly contradict", then by not saying anything about homosexuality he is tacitly backing the Law on homosexuality as it stands. This, of course, makes him complicit with some of the worst excesses of the Old Testament ogre, and explains why burning heretics & witches could so easily become part of Christian practice, and why Roman Emperors (of all people!) could so easily take up the Christian faith.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> If Christ never said anything for, against, or about homosexuality and indeed never mentioned it at all, how can you conclude that he regarded it as a sin?


Because he never once mentions marriage consisting of two men or two women. Nowhere in the Bible is it mentioned as such. He mentions it solely as a man/woman relationship.

19 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he cured them there.

3 Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 8 He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.”[a]

10 His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

----------


## Delta40

I think it is very convenient to use what Jesus says as a basis for argument as well as what Jesus doesn't say as a basis for argument.

Furthermore, Any God that had to do anything is not omnipotent so having no choice but to put a tree in the garden of Eden completely discredits his almighty power.

Add to that the annoying fact how Christians can answer for God's actions some of the time and not for others.

Constant inconsistencies all the way through

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> Furthermore, Any God that had to do anything is not omnipotent so having no choice but to put a tree in the garden of Eden completely discredits his almighty power.


He didn't_ have to_ do anything. Why are you making that argument?

----------


## Delta40

You said he had to so he wouldn't look like a tyrant.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> You said he had to so he wouldn't look like a tyrant.


Yeah, so as not to be a tyrant, but he didn't have to choose to give us a choice in the matter. He could have just not even bothered if he really wanted to.

----------


## cafolini

> I think it is very convenient to use what Jesus says as a basis for argument as well as what Jesus doesn't say as a basis for argument.
> 
> Furthermore, Any God that had to do anything is not omnipotent so having no choice but to put a tree in the garden of Eden completely discredits his almighty power.
> 
> Add to that the annoying fact how Christians can answer for God's actions some of the time and not for others.
> 
> Constant inconsistencies all the way through


Yes. And you will kindly tell us what Jesus doesn't say. Right? ROFLMAO

----------


## Delta40

> Yeah, so as not to be a tyrant, but he didn't have to choose to give us a choice in the matter. He could have just not even bothered if he really wanted to.


Lol. He told you that did he?

----------


## Delta40

> Yes. And you will kindly tell us what Jesus doesn't say. Right? ROFLMAO


I don't have a book to read between the lines, pretend what is there, what isn't there and excuse the inexcusable by saying the real meaning was lost in translation!

----------


## mal4mac

> ...the least we can do is invite Him to the party.


Nah. He never turns up.

----------


## mal4mac

> He has no beginning or end, but material things do.


How do you know that? The universe might be eternal, many physicists think this might be the case, but they are waiting for the evidence.

----------


## mal4mac

> 3 Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause? 4 He answered, Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning made them male and female,


So Jesus believes the Genesis account that man & woman sprang into instance through God's magical powers? I thought Roman Catholics accepted evolution?




> 5 and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate. 7 They said to him, Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her? 8 He said to them, It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.


Here Jesus actually outdoes the Old Testament God in daft science & stupid social practice! One flesh? Genetic analysis has shown that the flesh of men & women retain the same DNA footprint before and after marriage. How on Earth do they become one flesh? I know of several marriages that have become broken beyond repair, divorce is often the best & only solution.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> Lol. He told you that did he?


What other logical answer is there?




> I don't have a book to read between the lines, pretend what is there, what isn't there and excuse the inexcusable by saying the real meaning was lost in translation!


Some things are last in translation, believe it or not.




> How do you know that? The universe might be eternal, many physicists think this might be the case, but they are waiting for the evidence.


I'm going by Christian belief. I don't know it. I believe it.




> So Jesus believes the Genesis account that man & woman sprang into instance through God's magical powers? I thought Roman Catholics accepted evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> Here Jesus actually outdoes the Old Testament God in daft science & stupid social practice! One flesh? Genetic analysis has shown that the flesh of men & women retain the same DNA footprint before and after marriage. How on Earth do they become one flesh? I know of several marriages that have become broken beyond repair, divorce is often the best & only solution.


We could have been. The Genesis story tells us that God first made the earth and the heavens, then there was light and darkness, land and water, the sun and the moon and the stars, then there was fish and other wildlife in the seas and birds, then there was land animals, and finally man and woman. How do we know what "days" really meant here? It could have been millions of years.

About the issue of "one flesh," this website does a pretty good job, I think, explaining the phrase. http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVa...010/07-15.html

----------


## Eman Resu

> Here Jesus actually outdoes the Old Testament God in daft science & stupid social practice!



I hope you're a better scientist than you are a person; actually _choosing_ your words to offend serves nothing.

"And therefore as a stranger give it welcome."

----------


## cafolini

Faulkner wrote As I Lay Dying. Many of the people on this thread like to write As I Lay Farting, and with each fart they get riper.

----------


## cacian

> I hope you're a better scientist than you are a person; actually _choosing_ your words to offend serves nothing.
> 
> "And therefore as a stranger give it welcome."


give it welcome what?  :Smile:

----------


## mal4mac

> I hope you're a better scientist than you are a person; actually _choosing_ your words to offend serves nothing.


Oh dear, have you really descended to personal insults, have you run out of arguments? I didn't choose my words to offend, just expressed things as I saw them. If you choose to be offended at a robust argument against the pontifications of a fictional character, then that's up to you. Why so touchy? If you said that David Copperfield, one of my favourite fictional characters was daft, I'd think you were wrong, but I wouldn't be offended. You Christians get so touchy when JC isn't treated as the fount of all wisdom; what next after personal insults, burning heretics?

----------


## Eman Resu

> If you choose to be offended at a robust argument



Really - you feel that, "Here Jesus actually outdoes the Old Testament God in daft science & stupid social practice," is an _argument?_ This adds nothing to the initial question - "...does religion/God give people a voice..." and really only tends to call your own maturity into question.

----------


## mal4mac

> The Genesis story tells us that God first made the earth and the heavens, then there was light and darkness, land and water, the sun and the moon and the stars, then there was fish and other wildlife in the seas and birds, then there was land animals, and finally man and woman. How do we know what "days" really meant here? It could have been millions of years.


But I thought that Roman Catholics accepted that this was just a story, and that science now gives the full picture, that's certainly what the last Pope thought. He said:

"According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholi..._and_evolution

----------


## Eman Resu

> But I thought that Roman Catholics accepted that this was just a story, and that science now gives the full picture, that's certainly what the last Pope thought. He said:
> 
> "According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution."
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholi..._and_evolution



I believe that was Pope John Paul II, and not the last Pope, which was Pope Benedict XVI., but I could be mistaken.

----------


## Eman Resu

Yep - John Paul II, for the International Theological Commission; 2002, published in Communion and Stewardship, 2004. Didn't sound like Benedict; no German accent.

----------


## mal4mac

Yes, it comes from the document Communion and Stewardship, 2004, written by several people and submitted to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the President of the International Theological Commission, who gave permission for publication, before he became Pope Benedict XVI, during the reign of Pope John Paul II.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...rdship_en.html

----------


## Eman Resu

> It comes from a document endorsed by Pope Benedict XVI, when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, during the reign of Pope John Paul II.


_Later_ endorsed by, as it would have been by_ all_ the Cardinals since it was ex cathedra, but the Roman Curia was still the province of John Paul at the time.

Doesn't matter, really; that's one of the great things about Wiki - it's the product of the average person. "One deviation below the mean," was, I believe, the phrasing of the most recent HEW report, referencing the measurement of IQ against the previous report (2000). That's certainly what _I_ want as a reference tool - an encyclopedia written by folks with an average IQ of 85.

----------


## cafolini

> _Later_ endorsed by, as it would have been by_ all_ the Cardinals since it was ex cathedra, but the Roman Curia was still the province of John Paul at the time.
> 
> Doesn't matter, really; that's one of the great things about Wiki - it's the product of the average person. "One deviation below the mean," was, I believe, the phrasing of the most recent HEW report, referencing the measurement of IQ against the previous report (2000). That's certainly what _I_ want as a reference tool - an encyclopedia written by folks with an average IQ of 85.


How could that be? They beat me by 5. I got 80.

BTW, did you know that the peace treaty between Argentina and Chile was executed in The Vatican supervised by John Paul? Argentinean constitution clearly stated that there was separation of church and state.

----------


## Eman Resu

> How could that be? They beat me by 5. I got 80.
> 
> BTW, did you know that the peace treaty between Argentina and Chile was executed in The Vatican supervised by John Paul? Argentinean constitution clearly stated that there was separation of church and state.



Wasn't the Vatican _invited_ to mediate the "Beagle conflict" by both Argentina and Chile, or was it simply that Argentina bowed to the Vatican's intercession because of the predominance of Roman Catholics there?

----------


## cafolini

> Wasn't the Vatican _invited_ to mediate the "Beagle conflict" by both Argentina and Chile, or was it simply that Argentina bowed to the Vatican's intercession because of the predominance of Roman Catholics there?


Yes that's what I'm talking about, the Beagle Conflict. Argentina took the initiative because of the predominance. Chile already had a good-sized Anglican element. But because the subject was peace, Chile rolled along on ethics.

However, beware that Argentina is very fascist and the Roman predominance might be a need for survival. The statistics are taken from government forms and applications for work where 98% of Argentineans will declare themselves Roman Catholics whether or not they go to church.

----------


## mal4mac

CIA fact books says for Argentina: nominally Roman Catholic 92% (less than 20% practicing). 

The first papal visit to Britain in 1982 highlighted an infamous example of the Roman Catholic church siding with fascism. When the Vatican had agreed to the visit, they didn't foresee that war between Britain and Catholic Argentina would coincide with the papal visit. Normally the Vatican shrouds its political activities under the guise of religion and lofty pronouncements. On this occasion fast moving developments caught the Vatican off balance, and caught the pope making common cause with a sordid Latin American dictatorship.

http://www.wallsofjericho.info/index...&Itemid=68#The Argentine military junta and the Catholic Church

----------


## mona amon

> Because he never once mentions marriage consisting of two men or two women. Nowhere in the Bible is it mentioned as such. He mentions it solely as a man/woman relationship.
> 
> 19 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he cured them there.
> 
> 3 Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 8 He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.”[a]
> 
> 10 His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”



Good grief, Jesus talks about marriage (which at that time was of course between man and woman) in answer to the Pharisees who were trying to trap him into admitting that he thought the divorce laws barbaric, and you conclude that he considered homosexuality a sin? Where on earth did that come from? This isn't even twisting Jesus's words, it's putting your own words into Jesus's mouth. No wonder the atheists are mocking us, if we substitute Jesus's gospel of love with the Gospel of Homophobia according to Sentimental Slop.

Beware of false prophets. A tree can be identified by the fruit it bears. If you are being taught anything that causes hatred, you can be sure that it came from man, and not from God. All the major religions that I know of preach preach mercy, love, compassion blah blah, and yet the believers are so ready to criminalize and find guilty large groups of people who never did them any harm - homosexuals, infidels, blasphemers, idolaters etc etc, and say God told them to do it. We have enough sin in this world without trying to find it in places where it doesn't exist.

Mal4mac, I'll answer your post #268 later. It is far more complicated than this one.

----------


## mal4mac

> No wonder the atheists are mocking us, if we substitute Jesus's gospel of love with the Gospel of Homophobia according to Sentimental Slop.


We don't limit our mockery to the ideas of extremists, the ideas of moderates are just as irrational.

Why should I respect any unjustified beliefs? The tooth fairy is "all nice" but an adult belief structure that supports the actual existence of the nice little lady is, surely, open to extreme mockery. I actually see no difference between belief in the tooth fairy, Odin, and the divinity of Jesus Christ. Whether held by moderates or extremists I think belief in Yahweh is equally preposterous.

Religious faith is nothing more than a desperate marriage of hope and ignorance, even when held by moderates there is a terrible price to be paid for limiting the scope of reason in our dealings with other human beings. Religious moderation, insofar as it represents an attempt to hold on to what is still serviceable in orthodox religion, closes the door to more sophisticated approaches to spirituality and ethics.

Moderates do not want to kill or traduce anyone in the name of God, but they want us to keep using the word "God" as though we knew what it meant. They provide a soil in which extreme views can flourish, as illustrated by the heretic burning fraternity that emerged from the soil of meek and mild early Christians.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secu...Moderates.aspx

----------


## Eman Resu

> Good grief, Jesus talks about marriage (which at that time was of course between man and woman)



Interesting - then Jesus must have had some thoughts on the laws of Matrimony and divorce too - both within and without Deuteronomy 24. I wonder why His Aramaic didn't include a suitable word for "union" since the Canaanites in general, and the residents of the Five Cities of the Plain in particular, used two wholly different words for relations between a man and a woman and relations of the same gender?

Given that during His Lifetime, both "marital" (i.e. monogamous) and extramarital (and pre-marital as well) relations were widely practised in the Five Cities, with their own tradition, and that elsewhere north of the Dead Sea, both homosexual and heterosexual "unions" were perfectly within the norm, as they had been with the earlier Greek civilisations who brought them, and the Roman civilisation which continued them in Jesus' place and time, I'm surprised - no... awed, in fact, that apparently - with absolute suddenness - "marriage" which traditionally in that locale employed the two (Hebrew and Aramaic) words meaning "union between two free people" had inexplicably evolved into being, "of course between man and woman."

Okay - I'm dumber than a rusty bucket of ping pong balls, so humour me here - how was it that a tradition of same-gender relations and relationships which reached back into Greek culture more than a millennium and three-quarters, and which came down to Roman society and was almost revered by Free Romans as a birthright for near six hundred years, suddenly became taboo, with "union" in the vernacular of the land, replaced by something which was "of course between man and woman?"

I guess my question really is, do we know the day and time when Rabbinic Law suddenly superseded two millennia of practise, and caused the definition of "union" which had previously been held to mean "union" from the Iberian coast, north through Gaul, across the whole of what is now Europe and eastern Asia to the very shore of the Caspian, then southward to Babelonia, and across the whole of the northern threshold of the African continent?

Odd... Rabbinic Law ("...a man lying with another as with a woman, or a woman lying with another as with a man...) had always (well, for the four thousand years preceding Jesus, anyway) been confined to Jewish culture, and suddenly it applied across an empire so vast that a man on horseback would take an hundred days to traverse it, and that "union" came to mean "of course between man and woman."

I'm with Johnny Carson on this one - "I did not know that."

;)

----------


## Eman Resu

Was there cable TV in "Eretz HaQodesh,"
Which broadcast the laws of the spirit and flesh?
Did millions of gay men suddenly shout
"This is now very wrong Bob - just pull that thing out?"

Did traditions of Plato and Xenophon too
Just fall by the wayside? Did it turn the Smurfs blue?
Did "erômenos" cease to mean "Loved" to the Greeks;
Did erastês declare, "we have turned enough cheeks?"

Was the Word spread by cell phones and radio waves
To the Freemen in Rome and to hermits in caves?
Not a chance - and this strange promulgation of views:
Could _only_ have been through the BBC News.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> Good grief, Jesus talks about marriage (which at that time was of course between man and woman) in answer to the Pharisees who were trying to trap him into admitting that he thought the divorce laws barbaric, and you conclude that he considered homosexuality a sin? Where on earth did that come from? This isn't even twisting Jesus's words, it's putting your own words into Jesus's mouth. No wonder the atheists are mocking us, if we substitute Jesus's gospel of love with the Gospel of Homophobia according to Sentimental Slop.
> 
> Beware of false prophets. A tree can be identified by the fruit it bears. If you are being taught anything that causes hatred, you can be sure that it came from man, and not from God. All the major religions that I know of preach preach mercy, love, compassion blah blah, and yet the believers are so ready to criminalize and find guilty large groups of people who never did them any harm - homosexuals, infidels, blasphemers, idolaters etc etc, and say God told them to do it. We have enough sin in this world without trying to find it in places where it doesn't exist.
> 
> Mal4mac, I'll answer your post #268 later. It is far more complicated than this one.


You need to realize that Christ isn't all about mercy and compassion. He is also justice. If Jesus wanted to redefine His Father's definition of marriage, he would have done it, but he didn't. Having two men or two men in a committed relationship by some legal contract is not marriage. Having two men or two men "married" in some liberal church doesn't make it marriage. If you have such a problem with "homophobia," then why do you even want to follow Christianity? If the Father never liked homosexual acts, He doesn't like them now, and never will. If Christ's will is His Father's, and the Father and the Son are both One, why do you insist that Christ likes active homosexuality?

I'm not scared of gay people. I don't hate them, either. I'm not a homophobe, sorry.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> We don't limit our mockery to the ideas of extremists, the ideas of moderates are just as irrational.
> 
> Why should I respect any unjustified beliefs? The tooth fairy is "all nice" but an adult belief structure that supports the actual existence of the nice little lady is, surely, open to extreme mockery. I actually see no difference between belief in the tooth fairy, Odin, and the divinity of Jesus Christ. Whether held by moderates or extremists I think belief in Yahweh is equally preposterous.
> 
> Religious faith is nothing more than a desperate marriage of hope and ignorance, even when held by moderates there is a terrible price to be paid for limiting the scope of reason in our dealings with other human beings. Religious moderation, insofar as it represents an attempt to hold on to what is still serviceable in orthodox religion, closes the door to more sophisticated approaches to spirituality and ethics.
> 
> Moderates do not want to kill or traduce anyone in the name of God, but they want us to keep using the word "God" as though we knew what it meant. They provide a soil in which extreme views can flourish, as illustrated by the heretic burning fraternity that emerged from the soil of meek and mild early Christians.
> 
> http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secu...Moderates.aspx


Do you really want to live in a world where all there is is reason? I don't think you'd like the world for very long, if that were the case.

----------


## cafolini

What matters reason? It is a characteristic of the sober as much as of the insane. What matters is the mystery of God, the creator. He needs no reasons to act. We can only postulate his presence as The Mystery and pray that His Grace will be on our side. In God we trust.

----------


## cacian

> You need to realize that Christ isn't all about mercy and compassion. He is also justice. If Jesus wanted to redefine His Father's definition of marriage, he would have done it, but he didn't. Having two men or two men in a committed relationship by some legal contract is not marriage. Having two men or two men "married" in some liberal church doesn't make it marriage. If you have such a problem with "homophobia," then why do you even want to follow Christianity? If the Father never liked homosexual acts, He doesn't like them now, and never will. If Christ's will is His Father's, and the Father and the Son are both One, *why do you insist that Christ likes active homosexuality?*
> 
> I'm not scared of gay people. I don't hate them, either. I'm not a homophobe, sorry.


it is astonishing how you could be so sure what Jesus thought about anything. you do not even know what he looks like. what is more concerning is the blind belief that you seem to display as if you met any of the people mentioned in the bible. you have never met Jesus and yet you seem to think that you know about what he thought then anyone else.
I find this blind belief rather scary. never be sure of anything.
nobody here in this forum has ever interacted of met any of these figures mentioned in the bible. no one knosw including you. your words are pure speculation bound to book called a bible. 
the fact that you have swang from not bothering about gay to bothering is quite telling of your blind belief.
you ought to weigh your thoughts a bit more and think about what you are saying. remember it is a book and anything written could be as fictional as Alice in Wonderland.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

I believe in a lot of absolutes. When I used to think it was okay to not be sure of anything and not believe in any absolutes, that was when I didn't think at all, and _that's_ dangerous. You seem to think that someone just put a Bible in front of me one day and commanded me to believe in what it said without questioning it. That is entirely wrong. It's not just wrong, but that kind of mentality is pretty stupid and I've never been taught to blindly believe in anything. I've always been taught to question religion. I rejected a lot of Catholic teachings for most of my life, or were ignorant of them, and I supported things that I thought little about. Now that I've been thinking about what I believe more and more, researching, asking questions, and receiving answers, I've started to form different opinions. If I were to go back and believe the things I used to believe, I feel I would just be lying to myself. 

I don't know why you think that liberal religious and atheists somehow think more about what they believe than conservative Christians. That is absolute nonsense. You can be an atheist and think very little and still be celebrated as some smart individual because you have all the "right" ideas. You can be a liberal Christian who thinks about his faith very little and the same thing will happen. Once a Christian thinks long and hard about his faith and goes against the grain, then he's an idiot and a bigot. For all these people who think they like Jesus that are either religious or non-religious, they would call him an idiot in no time if he came back now and did the things he did and said the things he said 2000 years ago. People would hate him and tell him to "get with the times." 

And yes, I've never met any of the people in the Bible, but I'm just looking at what's there in scripture. Homosexuality is never once condoned. Even if Christ never mentioned homosexuality, does that really matter? He never mentioned polygamy or pedophilia, but do you think he would be for that? As corny as this much overused phrase is, "What would Jesus do?", it's still a great idea to think about when trying to decide what's good and what's evil. If Christ told us what marriage is and what it is not, then why would he condone gay "marriage" if it's not even a marriage? Why would he condone two men or two women having sex if Christ told us that sex outside of marriage is a sin? I'm not just making stuff up. I'm just saying what is much more likely based in reading scripture. To say that he would be okay with it is a much bigger stretch than the former.

----------


## Eman Resu

> He never mentioned polygamy



The commands in Titus and Timothy were both ordained through, "God whose word is truth," and "through His Son, the Saviour," and both Epistles state clearly that polygamy is banned for Deacons of the Church and for Elders _only._ Rabbinic Law prohibited the taking of more than one wife for a number of sects, but not for all, and throughout the Babylonian captivity, Jews of (nearly) all sects were encouraged in the practise of polygamy because of the attrition attached to Cyrus the Great's proclamations, if for no other reason than to keep Judaism alive, and once we reach fully back into the Old Testament, we begin with Lamech (Adah and Zillah), Abraham (Sarah, Hagar and Keturah and - depending upon how one translates the word "פילגש" under the Levite usage, innumerable other "wives" or "consorts") and an host of others who will bear out the long practise of polygamy both within and without the confines of the Church. 

Polygamy is _not_ a comparitor to be used with homosexuality under Canon Law at any point. "Is," as Boris would say, "bad logics, Natasha."

----------


## SentimentalSlop

I know it's not. I'm just saying, Christ didn't mention a lot of things, so that doesn't mean that whatever he didn't mention is all up for grabs. As for the other books in the NT, I can't argue with Cacian using those books, unfortunately. I have to stop at the gospels.

----------


## Eman Resu

> I know it's not. I'm just saying, Christ didn't mention a lot of things, so that doesn't mean that whatever he didn't mention is all up for grabs. As for the other books in the NT, I can't argue with Cacian using those books, unfortunately. I have to stop at the gospels.



_Without_ using the Bible or the Roman Catholic Church as citation sources - speaking _just_ from your own knowledge or from your own Heart - can you explain the inherent "wrongness" of homosexuality?

----------


## The Atheist

> I believe in a lot of absolutes.


How unusual in a christian.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

^I know you're being sarcastic, but it is starting to become unusual.




> _Without_ using the Bible or the Roman Catholic Church as citation sources - speaking _just_ from your own knowledge or from your own Heart - can you explain the inherent "wrongness" of homosexuality?


It's not having same-sex attractions that are problematic, but the sex. Anal sex between two men (or man and woman, whatever. They do it, too) has a lot more health risks than vaginal sex. The vagina is naturally lubricated and therefore is much less prone to tearing. The vagina also has layers upon layers of cells that make sexually transmitted diseases hard to get through, while the anus only has one layer of thick cells. Therefore, the possibility of getting HIV and other diseases like Hepatitis is greatly increased. Not to mention that, generally speaking, a man and woman through normal vaginal sex can produce children and repopulate the world. Two men and two men cannot do this, no matter how much they try. The parts just don't fit and produce nothing.

----------


## Eman Resu

> It's not having same-sex attractions that are problematic, but the sex. Anal sex between two men (or man and woman, whatever. They do it, too) has a lot more health risks than vaginal sex. The vagina is naturally lubricated and therefore is much less prone to tearing. The vagina also has layers upon layers of cells that make sexually transmitted diseases hard to get through, while the anus only has one layer of thick cells. Therefore, the possibility of getting HIV and other diseases like Hepatitis is greatly increased.


Being a nurse or a physician exposes those people to far more virulent diseases on a daily basis, and medical researchers are even more at risk than medical practitioners. By this token, then, should we not outlaw Medicine and medical research because of the hazards thereunto attendant?

----------


## SentimentalSlop

No, of course not. Medicine and medical research are good things. It aims to alleviate the suffering of individuals all across the world.

----------


## Eman Resu

> No, of course not. Medicine and medical research are good things. It aims to alleviate the suffering of individuals all across the world.


You told us not three breaths ago that the "aim" didn't matter - only the possibility of catching some dread disease was important. Which is it?

----------


## SentimentalSlop

I don't quite understand what you're asking.

----------


## Eman Resu

> I don't quite understand what you're asking.



Of _course_ you understand - that's what makes the whole of it so unsavoury. There's not a single moral nor ethical argument which can be made against same-gender relationships - only responses like "the ick factor" and "they'll catch some dread disease." There are 200 million overweight Americans who'll end up costing taxpayers trillions of dollars in unnecessary health care, and somehow a debate still rages over same-gender Marriage. 

Man, I must be dumber than ol' Persephone's Mother.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

No, I genuinely didn't understand your question. 

I am against active homosexuality for religious and non-religious reasons. If someone gets a sexual disease, I believe they should be cared for, gay or straight.

----------


## Eman Resu

> No, I genuinely didn't understand your question. 
> 
> I am against active homosexuality for religious and non-religious reasons. If someone gets a sexual disease, I believe they should be cared for, gay or straight.



Since the world's number one problem is overpopulation, and since Catholics don't believe in contraception, do you think that all Catholics should be 1.) sterilised or 2,) euthanised?

This logic is precisely the same as you used in failing to answer the question I asked earlier, in Post 306.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

1) Overpopulation is not the world's number one problem. That is an absolutely ridiculous argument.

2) Neither. 

3) I didn't fail answering your question. My answer was simple biology.

----------


## OrphanPip

> It's not having same-sex attractions that are problematic, but the sex. Anal sex between two men (or man and woman, whatever. They do it, too) has a lot more health risks than vaginal sex. The vagina is naturally lubricated and therefore is much less prone to tearing. The vagina also has layers upon layers of cells that make sexually transmitted diseases hard to get through, while the anus only has one layer of thick cells. Therefore, the possibility of getting HIV and other diseases like Hepatitis is greatly increased. Not to mention that, generally speaking, a man and woman through normal vaginal sex can produce children and repopulate the world. Two men and two men cannot do this, no matter how much they try. The parts just don't fit and produce nothing.


Well there are more problems with this than even Eman has pointed out. First of all, what about two gay men who do not have anal sex, the risk of injury during sex would be less than that of vaginal sex between a man and a woman, is their relationship now acceptable? Furthermore, if two people do not have HIV or Hepatitis the risk of contracting it from anal sex between them is the same as the risk between two heterosexual people, or for that matter less than the risk for the general population. 

Also, trust me as someone who has a degree in microbiology and immunology, the vagina does not have "layers upon layers of cells" that make sexually transmitted diseases harder to transmit. According to the CDC, the risk of transmission for HIV for insertive anal sex is lower than that for receptive-vaginal sex, and the risk for anal-receptive sex is only 0.5% higher than receptive-vaginal sex. The different risk of transmission are practically irrelevant.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/risk.html

----------


## Eman Resu

> Also, trust me as someone who has a degree in microbiology and immunology, the vagina does not have "layers upon layers of cells" that make sexually transmitted diseases harder to transmit.


Pish and drivel. Let's ask a Priest - he'll know the answer.

----------


## cacian

> Also, trust me as someone who has a degree in microbiology and immunology, the vagina does not have "layers upon layers of cells" that make sexually transmitted diseases harder to transmit.


it is a cell and therefore it should not transmit but propel that is the role of a cell.
blood however transmits that the only cell that does. it is because it is sticky it is has globin in it that is sugar. and sugar sticks and what's sticks flicks. 
any transmitting of any disease is through blood. cells on their own do not. it takes blood to sake flock.
transmission is quicker when it is same blood less when it is not.
it biogrades when in contact with same blood it does not flow.
see it under the microscope. it likes and it does not. and it degrades not being able to make up its mind
but when it does it become immuned weak because it looses concentrate of its same type now it has two of the same type. it slows down. it sickles. that is what sickles disease is . two of the same type blood. instead of carrying one type it carries two the same type. that is foreign to blood makeup. abnormal is another word.
blood is not thicker then water. water is. blood does not mix well. water does if flushes as well as lushes.
it makes thin thicker and thicker thin.

----------


## cacian

> Pish and drivel. Let's ask a Priest - he'll know the answer.


let's not ask the priest. he is too busy telling Jesus made wine from water after that he cannot have on hand on medical science surely not,

----------


## Volya

> it is a cell and therefore it should not transmit but propel that is the role of a cell.
> blood however transmits that the only cell that does. it is because it is sticky it is has globin in it that is sugar. and sugar sticks and what's sticks flicks. 
> any transmitting of any disease is through blood. cells on their own do not. it takes blood to sake flock.
> transmission is quicker when it is same blood less when it is not.
> it biogrades when in contact with same blood it does not flow.
> see it under the microscope. it likes and it does not. and it degrades not being able to make up its mind
> but when it does it become immuned weak because it looses concentrate of its same type now it has two of the same type. it slows down. it sickles. that is what sickles disease is . two of the same type blood. instead of carrying of type it carries of the same type. that is foreign to blood makeup. abnormal is another word.
> blood is not thicker then water. water is. blood does not mix well. water does if flushes as well as lushes.
> it makes thin thicker and thicker thin.


I recommend you pick up a Biology textbook.

----------


## cacian

> I recommend you pick up a Biology textbook.


I have I studied biology too. I did not touch on micro though.
why? what is it you do not agree with Volya?  :Smile:

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> Well there are more problems with this than even Eman has pointed out. First of all, what about two gay men who do not have anal sex, the risk of injury during sex would be less than that of vaginal sex between a man and a woman, is their relationship now acceptable? Furthermore, if two people do not have HIV or Hepatitis the risk of contracting it from anal sex between them is the same as the risk between two heterosexual people, or for that matter less than the risk for the general population. 
> 
> Also, trust me as someone who has a degree in microbiology and immunology, the vagina does not have "layers upon layers of cells" that make sexually transmitted diseases harder to transmit. According to the CDC, the risk of transmission for HIV for insertive anal sex is lower than that for receptive-vaginal sex, and the risk for anal-receptive sex is only 0.5% higher than receptive-vaginal sex. The different risk of transmission are practically irrelevant.
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/risk.html


1) If two people from one gender (no matter who the people are) cannot produce anything while having sex, isn't nature telling us that it's simply not meant to be?

2) And by the way, if you don't believe in God you can do whatever you want. It's all on the table. 

And this website says otherwise: http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-transmiss.../page/1446187/

----------


## mal4mac

> Pish and drivel. Let's ask a Priest - he'll know the answer.


... from practical experience.

----------


## cacian

> 1) If two people from one gender (no matter who the people are) cannot produce anything while having sex, isn't nature telling us that it's simply not meant to be?


that is nothing to do with it. man does not fall pregnant either. two men one man it is the same idea. where are you going with this?

----------


## Eman Resu

> 1) If two people from one gender (no matter who the people are) cannot produce anything while having sex, isn't nature telling us that it's simply not meant to be?


The world population when I entered university was 3.5 billion; forty-five years later, it's 7 billion. 

In the northeast United States - according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report released in August 2013 - the projected cost to raise a child to age 18 or Grade 12 stands at $446,100.00 without the assumption of private education. Add in college costs through age 22, and the price doubles - or quadruples if your child gets into the ivy league. If you're the sort of Parents who want to provide postgrad studies, add one third to one half again. In the lower third of any projection which includes a Bachelor's degree, expect that you'll have to provide about $750k over 22 years per child - in other words, if you have three children, be prepared to sock away about two hundred grand a year. Again, for the Big Leagues, double that. Certainly not an impossible task, but it means getting all your ducks in a row _before_ you decide that it's time to get married and start increasing the population.

Now put down the Bible and go read John Brunner's Stand On Zanzibar. After that, go to New Delhi - not for lunch at the Park Hotel, but to Zaffrabad - and take a long walk through the villages to see what overcrowding and the attendant poverty really look like up close. Then you can come home and think up names for your five not-yet-born children, and come up with a budget _that includes saving $19,000.00 a week_ for the next 25 years to feed, clothe and house them, and to provide them with an education which will allow them to thrive in a world whose population will then be nearly 10 billion souls.

----------


## Eman Resu

> ... from practical experience.



Being aligned with a religion depends entirely upon whether or not one makes the choice to think for herself or himself. Being Roman Catholic didn't make me shrug my shoulders after my D.Phil was conferred - I stayed in school just like any good atheist would have. "Having" religion - and the basis for the choices one makes being grounded in the physical world - are two wholly different character traits. Einstein once remarked that he didn't, "share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth," but he did pretty well anyway.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> The world population when I entered university was 3.5 billion; forty-five years later, it's 7 billion. 
> 
> In the northeast United States - according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report released in August 2013 - the projected cost to raise a child to age 18 or Grade 12 stands at $446,100.00 without the assumption of private education. Add in college costs through age 22, and the price doubles - or quadruples if your child gets into the ivy league. If you're the sort of Parents who want to provide postgrad studies, add one third to one half again. In the lower third of any projection which includes a Bachelor's degree, expect that you'll have to provide about $750k over 22 years per child - in other words, if you have three children, be prepared to sock away about two hundred grand a year. Again, for the Big Leagues, double that. Certainly not an impossible task, but it means getting all your ducks in a row _before_ you decide that it's time to get married and start increasing the population.
> 
> Now put down the Bible and go read John Brunner's Stand On Zanzibar. After that, go to New Delhi - not for lunch at the Park Hotel, but to Zaffrabad - and take a long walk through the villages to see what overcrowding and the attendant poverty really look like up close. Then you can come home and think up names for your five not-yet-born children, and come up with a budget _that includes saving $19,000.00 a week_ for the next 25 years to feed, clothe and house them, and to provide them with an education which will allow them to thrive in a world whose population will then be nearly 10 billion souls.




It's not like we're going to run out of land to live on. We have plenty of that. We're also developing new forms of farming and agriculture, making it possible to grow crops where we never thought possible on smaller pieces of land. If people would just use what they need and not live their lives in excess, there would be plenty of food and resources for everyone. 

I think those numbers are nonsense. My mom and dad raised 5 children (mostly my mom though) and they never saved 19000 dollars a week, and three of us went to private school. I know lots of parents who raised multiple kids and there is no way in hell they had jobs so extravagant that they could save that kind of money. 

And why should I put down my Bible? There's no reason to do that.

----------


## OrphanPip

> 1) If two people from one gender (no matter who the people are) cannot produce anything while having sex, isn't nature telling us that it's simply not meant to be?


No, "nature" may speak to you, but it doesn't tell me anything. The unnaturalness argument is ridiculous because it relies on whatever arbitrary barrier between the natural and unnatural your personal biases decide to land on. All human behaviour is natural, because humans are part of nature. What do you mean by nature? If you mean part of the material world, then gay people are certainly part of that. If you mean as occurring among animals and humans in an environment removed from the influence of society, then homosexuality is still demonstrably part of nature. If you mean something teleological about purposes of sex as ordained by some creator, well then we're onto arbitrary biases, and any one who has had sex could tell you it's not too hard to think of other reasons for it besides reproduction. 





> 2) And by the way, if you don't believe in God you can do whatever you want. It's all on the table. 
> 
> And this website says otherwise: http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-transmiss.../page/1446187/


Even if you take there higher incidence rates from those studies, the difference is still negligible given how small the incidence rates are in absolute terms. As the CDC data shows, a infection rate of 10 in 10,000 is 5 times less than a 50 in 10,000 rate, but it's still a rather negligible difference. 

The focus on the kind of sex people are having is a failure of HIV/AIDS prevention programs, since HIV infection is most correlated with economic status and race in the Western world than it is with anal sex. The majority of new infections in the US are among African American and Hispanic women and MSM, which suggests that issues of education, stability and access to care are more important than any kind of sex people are having. After all, the HIV epidemic in Africa was hardly caused by anal sex, HIV spreads for a number of reasons but the negligible increased risk of anal sex is not a major contributing factor.

----------


## Eman Resu

> I think those numbers are nonsense.



Of course you do - they're not in the Bible.

The top prep schools in the U.S. are all over $50k per academic year; better colleges and universities higher still. Let's do just eight years times $55k as a mid-range. Use the standard formula for educational projections - 2x current inflation - and we add three percent per annum just as we'd figure the APR on a loan. As you can readily see, we're a few dollars short of a million bucks for those eight years alone. Mark 8:18.

----------


## Eman Resu

> And why should I put down my Bible? There's no reason to do that.



Basing your Life on a single book? That almost makes one wish it was Galaxy Quest instead.

----------


## cafolini

The actual problem with the gay subject is in the meaning of the word marriage. There is no patri and no matri. There is no marriage. It should be called only a legal relationship and fully accepted as such. And it should have all the legal rights of any actual relationship. The word marriage is not appropriate, but the relationship is so.

----------


## Eman Resu

As this thread has reached now nearly to one third of a thousand posts, it gives one pause to consider which is more "important" - a vehicle providing someone with a _voice_, or one which provides the _voice of Reason?_  Please vote now in the unofficial poll!

□ Balance is everything.

□ Shut up; I'm trying to read Hosea 4:6.

□ Bananas in pajamas are coming down the stairs.

----------


## cacian

> As this thread has reached now nearly to one third of a thousand posts, it gives one pause to consider which is more "important" - a vehicle providing someone with a _voice_, or one which provides the _voice of Reason?_  Please vote now in the unofficial poll!
> 
> □ Balance is everything.
> 
> □ Shut up; I'm trying to read Hosea 4:6.
> 
> □ Bananas in pajamas are coming down the stairs.


I voted: bananas in pyjamas coming down the stairs only because I seen them on telly  :Biggrin:

----------


## Eman Resu

> The actual problem with the gay subject is in the meaning of the word marriage. There is no patri and no matri. There is no marriage. It should be called only a legal relationship and fully accepted as such. And it should have all the legal rights of any actual relationship.


Agreed in principle - any civil union between consenting adults should be recognised, and should be accorded any benefits otherwise reserved for "married" couples.








> The word marriage is not appropriate, but the relationship is so.


The words "Holy Matrimony" when viewed as being Sacramental are certainly not appropriate, but the English word "marriage" as taken from the Middle French, and beforehand, from the Latin "marito," had, by about 1375, already ceased to mean "a dowried agreement" even within the legal confines of the Quittances de Dots, and the vernacular use of "married" was widespread by the end of the Medieval period, including in English language legal documents regarding the joining of two properties (e.g. "the court hereby does marry one half hide of land with these boundaries to this adjoining parcel..."), and today the word "married" is applied to any two objects not originally together - "a marriage of a first edition book and a later dustwrapper" as a very common usage. If we can see a book and a dustwrapper as being "married" perhaps we could concede that two women or two men might likewise be seen as being "married?"

----------


## cacian

> The word marriage is not appropriate, but the relationship is so.


you can't have a marriage without a relationship but you can have a relationship without a marriage which means marriage is neither here or there.
relationship comes first of course.
holy matrimony or not it boils down to having a relationship first.

----------


## Eman Resu

> you can't have a marriage without a relationship



If you mean a _physical_ relationship, this isn't true; many Catholic Orders consider their Nuns as being, quite literally, the "Wives of Christ."

----------


## cafolini

> It's not like we're going to run out of land to live on. We have plenty of that. We're also developing new forms of farming and agriculture, making it possible to grow crops where we never thought possible on smaller pieces of land. If people would just use what they need and not live their lives in excess, there would be plenty of food and resources for everyone. 
> 
> I think those numbers are nonsense. My mom and dad raised 5 children (mostly my mom though) and they never saved 19000 dollars a week, and three of us went to private school. I know lots of parents who raised multiple kids and there is no way in hell they had jobs so extravagant that they could save that kind of money. 
> 
> And why should I put down my Bible? There's no reason to do that.


Correct. Forget the brainless pricks. We already won this argument many times.

----------


## cacian

> If you mean a _physical_ relationship, this isn't true; many Catholic Orders consider their Nuns as being, quite literally, the "Wives of Christ."


oh my. are they? a marriage without physical contact. I feel sorry for Jesus.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> Of course you do - they're not in the Bible.
> 
> The top prep schools in the U.S. are all over $50k per academic year; better colleges and universities higher still. Let's do just eight years times $55k as a mid-range. Use the standard formula for educational projections - 2x current inflation - and we add three percent per annum just as we'd figure the APR on a loan. As you can readily see, we're a few dollars short of a million bucks for those eight years alone. Mark 8:18.


You're 40 years older than me, so don't be acting like a snot.

And why does someone have to go to the "top" schools? Why can't they just settle for a local one? That's what I did, and tuition is cheap. Not only that, but my tuition is paid for with grants. If you're a good student, usually the government or private sources will help lend the money. It's also a good idea as well (if you're going to blow tons of money on tuition) to major in something that will pay a lot so you're not in debt all your life. I just don't get the people who major in creative writing or women's studies and wonder why they can't find a job.

I don't even know why I'm talking about this. It has nothing to do with the thread...

----------


## Eman Resu

> And why does someone have to go to the "top" schools? Why can't they just settle


Hopefully, you'll learn before Life grows too old why one should never "settle."

----------


## cafolini

> Agreed in principle - any civil union between consenting adults should be recognised, and should be accorded any benefits otherwise reserved for "married" couples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The words "Holy Matrimony" when viewed as being Sacramental are certainly not appropriate, but the English word "marriage" as taken from the Middle French, and beforehand, from the Latin "marito," had, by about 1375, already ceased to mean "a dowried agreement" even within the legal confines of the Quittances de Dots, and the vernacular use of "married" was widespread by the end of the Medieval period, including in English language legal documents regarding the joining of two properties (e.g. "the court hereby does marry one half hide of land with these boundaries to this adjoining parcel..."), and today the word "married" is applied to any two objects not originally together - "a marriage of a first edition book and a later dustwrapper" as a very common usage. If we can see a book and a dustwrapper as being "married" perhaps we could concede that two women or two men might likewise be seen as being "married?"


Every word no matter what it is will have several synonyms. But synonyms are tied to contexts. The marriage of straw and manure, for example, in growing garlic. But the marriage of two people is Biblical and thats its genuine context.

----------


## Eman Resu

> Every word no matter what it is will have several synonyms. But synonyms are tied to contexts. The marriage of straw and manure, for example, in growing garlic. But the marriage of two people is Biblical and thats its genuine context.



Biblical? How is that? Exodus was revealed to Moses, as near as we can tell, some time between 1440 and 1400 BCE. The Third Tablet of Urukagina, which has long passages regarding marital laws and monogamy statutes, was written a thousand years_ before Exodus._  Please explain to us how marriage is, "Biblical and thats its genuine context." Please - no time machine paradoxes, although the standard answer, "I fell asleep during Mesopotamian History class" will be accepted.

.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

As Christians, we believe marriage is a sacrament instituted by God, and he should be present in that relationship. It's like a love triangle. God is at the top, and man and woman at the bottom.

----------


## Eman Resu

> As Christians, we believe marriage is a sacrament instituted by God, and he should be present in that relationship. It's like a love triangle. God is at the top, and man and woman at the bottom.


Wrong; *dead wrong.*  Baptists are Christians, and beyond not even _using_ the word "Sacrament" for the two ordinances which they recognise, "marriage" certainly isn't one of them. Back to Sunday school for you until you can tell the difference between a Catholic and a Christian.

----------


## mal4mac

> Wrong; *dead wrong.*  Baptists are Christians, and beyond not even _using_ the word "Sacrament" for the two ordinances which they recognise, "marriage" certainly isn't one of them. Back to Sunday school for you until you can tell the difference between a Catholic and a Christian.


One of the variant meanings of sacrament is "a thing of mysterious and sacred significance; a religious symbol". So you can say, "they used peyote as a sacrament". Back to infant school for you until you can use a dictionary. 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...lish/sacrament

----------


## mal4mac

> As Christians, we believe marriage is a sacrament instituted by God, and he should be present in that relationship. It's like a love triangle. God is at the top, and man and woman at the bottom.


Fundamentalist Mormons allow polygamy, trendy Anglicans allow marriage for gays, so I'm afraid you are still heading for Sunday school to learn not to speak for all Christians.

----------


## mona amon

> You need to realize that Christ isn't all about mercy and compassion. He is also justice. If Jesus wanted to redefine His Father's definition of marriage, he would have done it, but he didn't. Having two men or two men in a committed relationship by some legal contract is not marriage. Having two men or two men "married" in some liberal church doesn't make it marriage. If you have such a problem with "homophobia," then why do you even want to follow Christianity? If the Father never liked homosexual acts, He doesn't like them now, and never will. If Christ's will is His Father's, and the Father and the Son are both One, why do you insist that Christ likes active homosexuality?
> 
> I'm not scared of gay people. I don't hate them, either. I'm not a homophobe, sorry.


I'm not calling _you_ a homophobe, Sentimentalslop. If someone thinks something is a sin, that's an opinion which they have every right to, as long as they don't try to 'punish' the 'sinner' or incite others to do so. However, it does become a Gospel of Homophobia if an institution like the Church teaches its members that homosexuality is sinful, thereby equating it with cheating, stealing, adultery and so on. 





> If you have such a problem with "homophobia," then why do you even want to follow Christianity?


I'm a christian because I believe in Christ and his teachings, and I guess being baptised when I was a baby did help.  :Smile:  Are you suggesting that only people who support Homophobia can become christians? I hope not, but that's what your statement sounds like. 




> If the Father never liked homosexual acts, He doesn't like them now, and never will. If Christ's will is His Father's, and the Father and the Son are both One, why do you insist that Christ likes active homosexuality?



Well 'the Father' used to be pleased with the aroma of burning animal sacrifices, but that's no longer the case, or at any rate no one's giving it to him anymore. Just this morning I came across a passage in Numbers where God orders a man to be put to death for the horrible crime of collecting wood on the Sabbath. He doesn't seem to be like that anymore. There is no religion on earth today that insists on following the 613 commandments of Old Testament law. As a christian, I feel bound only to follow Christ's teachings, including the reiterated Ten Commandments (reiterated by Jesus I mean), and by doing so I will know what the Will of the father is, since, as you say, Christ's will and his Father's are the same.

As for insisting that Christ "liked active homosexuality", I'm doing nothing of the sort. I do not know what his thoughts about it were, since he never talked about the subject, and I do not presume to guess what he thought about it. I use my own judgement in this case, just as I have to do with any issue which he never mentioned like slavery, human rights, pedophilia, etc.




> As this thread has reached now nearly to one third of a thousand posts, it gives one pause to consider which is more "important" - a vehicle providing someone with a _voice_, or one which provides the _voice of Reason?_  Please vote now in the unofficial poll!
> 
> □ Balance is everything.
> 
> □ Shut up; I'm trying to read Hosea 4:6.
> 
> □ Bananas in pajamas are coming down the stairs.


Bananas in pyjamas of course!  :Banana:  :Banana:  :Banana:

----------


## cacian

> As Christians, we believe marriage is a sacrament instituted by God, and he should be present in that relationship. It's like a love triangle. God is at the top, and man and woman at the bottom.


the ''as christians we believe'' this and that is misplaced. the ''We'' do not believe anything . THey tell you what to believe. there is a difference there.

----------


## Eman Resu

> One of the variant meanings of sacrament is "a thing of mysterious and sacred significance; a religious symbol". So you can say, "they used peyote as a sacrament". Back to infant school for you until you can use a dictionary. 
> 
> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...lish/sacrament




Go back. Actually _read_ post 345, then look at your own link, retained above. 

Capitalised, "when it forms part of the proper noun as in 'Catholic Sacraments.' " Your reading comprehension needs work, and as a "scientist" you need to be able to distinguish between upper and lower cases so you don't confuse things like "Γ" - the complex propagation constant, and "γ" - electrical conductivity. Back to Grade 0 grammar studies, chav.

----------


## Eman Resu

> Bananas in pyjamas of course!



Given the consideration that B1 and B2 are well known for, "_coming_ down the stairs," I'd expect that soon they'll have earned the Vatican's ferendæ sententiæ censure as well. Enjoy them while you can, before the decretum is intoned: "banana; pajama; scala; anathema."

----------


## mal4mac

> Go back...


No. You go back, actually _read_ post 344, then look at your own response.

You stand accused of inappropriate capitalisation, how do you plead?

----------


## cafolini

> Biblical? How is that? Exodus was revealed to Moses, as near as we can tell, some time between 1440 and 1400 BCE. The Third Tablet of Urukagina, which has long passages regarding marital laws and monogamy statutes, was written a thousand years_ before Exodus._  Please explain to us how marriage is, "Biblical and thats its genuine context." Please - no time machine paradoxes, although the standard answer, "I fell asleep during Mesopotamian History class" will be accepted.
> 
> .


I have seen you come round and round using meanings to destroy meanings; the same brainless illness as Cacian's. I am now closing this insane circularity of absolute instability, where democracy could not survive. You don't have what it takes to moderate this subject. Enough.

----------


## Eman Resu

> As for insisting that Christ "liked active homosexuality", I'm doing nothing of the sort. I do not know what his thoughts about it were, since he never talked about the subject, and I do not presume to guess what he thought about it.



Now you're back to 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10; I hope you've written a letter to the "translators" of the New English Bible, thanking them for slipping the word "homosexual" into those two verses where never before it had appeared before the 1946 publication of the NEB.

NEBbish - the language invented by the publishers of the New English Bible.

----------


## SentimentalSlop

> Wrong; *dead wrong.*  Baptists are Christians, and beyond not even _using_ the word "Sacrament" for the two ordinances which they recognise, "marriage" certainly isn't one of them. Back to Sunday school for you until you can tell the difference between a Catholic and a Christian.


Catholics are Christians. Why are you talking about them as if they're different things?

----------


## cafolini

> Catholics are Christians. Why are you talking about them as if they're different things?


You are correct. All Catholics are Christians. And Baptists are also Christians. However, it would be foolish not to recognize the difference between Roman Catholics and Anglican Catholics. The latter are mostly represented by the Episcopalian Church. Research it. As I said many times, I am here to post conclusions only.

----------


## mona amon

> Now you're back to 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10;


Not me! Christ didn't write 1 Corinthians or 1 Timothy, and as Paul himself reminds us in 1 Corinthians 1:13, I was not baptized in the name of Paul.

----------

