Alright, "Loving the sinner but hating the sin": this statement is very often applied to gays by Christian conservatives. In the same statement homosexuality is very often lumped in with other sins such as adultery, bestiality, polygamy, pedophilia and even murder. Personally, I find this to be patently offensive. Those who say these things have no understanding of homosexuality at all. Let me be loud and clear here: Gay is something you ARE not something you DO. Being gay is inherent and intrinsic to the nature of the persons existance. To describe that existance as sinful by "love the sinner but hate the sin", is offensive, wrong and in my opinion a sin itself. It is certainly true that any gay person can participate in any sinful act but ones nature of being cannot be, in and of itself, sinful. We can debate all you like about whether any homosexual act is sinful and that's a different subject. But please, in my opinion "Love the sinner but hate the sin" when applied to the state of being or of ones existance as gay, is dehumanizing and demeaning to God's creation. I don't know a single gay person including me who woke up one morning and said "Well, I think I'll be gay". It is not a choice. It is just what you are. How you live your life, is a choice. I would think a truely loving and accepting church would apply the same standards to gays and non-gays alike. That being, whatever applies in their moral understanding to man and woman applies equally to man and man or woman and woman. That would be acceptable, consistent and loving. Telling gays to be separate, celebate or change is homophobia.
- jonb,
Um, Moses did introduce them.Originally posted by suaige@Sep 25 2004, 12:26 AM
well I guess if that is how you want to interpret that - um sure. But be both should know that the 10 commandments weren't part of the Law of Moses and therefore were not replaced. So I guess not eh.
That's because you read the KJV rather than the original Greek. For those of you stuck with English Bibles, consider, why would he care so much about a single slave?
And in 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul says long hair's a sin, even though Jesus, being a Nazarite, had long hair. (Women must also cover their heads or shave them in church, just a few verses earlier.) Paul had a tendency for insults to the reader's intelligence on roughly the same level as "Now that I've been found not guilty, I'm going to find the REAL killer." In Revelation 14:3-4, only 144,000 celibate men will be saved, so apparently heterosexuality's as much a sin as homosexuality. (Of course, no one but the Jehovah's Witnesses take this seriously.)
Actually, hysterectomy is the removal of the uterus.On the hystorectomy thing. After having an ovary removed, and still getting pregnant 2x on the pill my mom had one for birth control, but by then it was pretty much the last option. everthing else had failed. 8 kids 9 yrs..
My grandma's theory was my dad was just too horny.
freeper -- derisive term for arch-conservative paranoid conspiracy theorists. The name comes from the site freerepublic.com Examples of freeper media beyond the aforementioned site include Fox News, WorldNetDaily, and the Washington Times, as well as any study produced by a think tank rather than a peer-reviewed journal. Freepers love complaining about the "liberal media" or how others "hate America"; the best ones can make a Garfield strip look like Al-Jazeera.
I would guess he equates the freedom to choose in both instances as mutually binding and therefore, mutually supporting? But they let us all know when you get pregnant,
[post=257418]Quoted post[/post]
I knew you'd like that one.suaige: ya - very familiar with what hystarectomy is. Like I said nothing else worked.
Moses did introduce them, but they were given before the law of moses.
do you read greek?
Oh and your comment before on big business welfare. Much agreed. I think the ten billion farm subsicy act of is one of the biggest farces ever, paying millions even if you haven't planted in 2 years and sold your farm. & milk price floor so we can pay $4/gal and over produce huge quantities that we then pay taxes to buy up. Do think some subsidies can be beneficial and serve a good purpose, but feel they are usually over done.
I did reply to the mariage laws.
think the whole topic has seriously chnaged from the original intent and continuing to discuss the in/correctness of sexual prefrence is futile. I think it wont really do much but make people really mad. But, I do very much appreciate the comments that have been given, especially those on how people view christians. It has helped me understand others better, and perhaps have a more balanced view. If you desire to hav me comment further, post or send me a note.
Y'all are pretty cool.
Moses did introduce them, but they were given before the law of moses.
do you read greek?
Oh and your comment before on big business welfare. Much agreed. I think the ten billion farm subsicy act of is one of the biggest farces ever, paying millions even if you haven't planted in 2 years and sold your farm. & milk price floor so we can pay $4/gal and over produce huge quantities that we then pay taxes to buy up. Do think some subsidies can be beneficial and serve a good purpose, but feel they are usually over done.
I did reply to the mariage laws.
think the whole topic has seriously chnaged from the original intent and continuing to discuss the in/correctness of sexual prefrence is futile. I think it wont really do much but make people really mad. But, I do very much appreciate the comments that have been given, especially those on how people view christians. It has helped me understand others better, and perhaps have a more balanced view. If you desire to hav me comment further, post or send me a note.
Y'all are pretty cool.
I thought this was supposed to be to be a forum for straight, gay, bisexual men and women to have a place to go to discuss the pros & cons of a having or not having a large penis. Are there not other forums / blogs where a person can go to discuss the bible's view on homosexuality ? Let's get back to what this forum is all about-PENIS !!!!
Sorry, guess you didn't realise people with brains hang around here as well.
Peter Wood
Mythical Member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Posts
- 4,462
- Media
- 35
- Likes
- 32,189
- Points
- 518
- Age
- 72
- Location
- Provincie Utrecht, NL
- Sexuality
- 60% Gay, 40% Straight
- Gender
- Male
I have read most of the posts / replies in the thread Moral and / or christian conservatism, its a crime that suaige started. My knowledge of English is not so very good developed so I had often difficulties to understand what posters meant to say. At the moment religion is subject of a discussion people use another language is my opinion.
There is left and right, but no way in the middle. Living in the Netherlands I recognize a lot of what people divides. In my country there are so many churches. Most protestant churches are separated because people had different thoughts about parts of the bible. Church separated regions, cities and families . all in the name of religion! The group op non-believers was never as big as these days.
But because of all these separated groups of inhabitants we (almost) never have to deal with a Parliament / Government that is not divided about issues as abortion, euthanasia, marriages between two men or women. Step by step we managed to get these issues accepted. It is a sign of a liberal climate. Although we are far away from acceptation by ALL inhabitants, quite a large group respects the choice others make.
Law tries to follow the will of the majority. Churches are minorities that can hold their members together by strong rules. Society is and I am happy about that more than a collection of churches / religions.
I am brought up as a (non-conservative) protestant Christian, but members of the church I belonged have treated me so bad at the moments they could do well for me and my family, that I have quit.
My believe is to respect other human beings, to help them, to support them, but never to judge them about what they believe or not.
For example: if two men love each other so much that they marry, so that by law they are equal to me and my wife, I will respect that marriage. Who am I to doubt their choice? If these two men will adopt children tot give them love, protection and to bring them up as good (future) citizens? Who am I to say that it is not good. I see many fathers and mothers unable to give love to their children!
Totally different but another thing I read: having sex before marriage! Sex is part of life. If you love some one you come to a point you will have sex together, not to make a child, but because you want to be so intimate with the one you love that you will share these feelings; you want to make the other happy as he or she wants to make you happy. Why should you wait until marriage? If you find out then that for what reason so ever, you are not turned on by the other, you have tot stay, to try and try and try until both are unhappy? In my opinion no religion may ask a person to bring that offer.
People who believe sex is only meant for persons that are married, must live by that rule, but they should never have the power to make that a rule for others. As I respect their choice, they have to respect mine.
There is left and right, but no way in the middle. Living in the Netherlands I recognize a lot of what people divides. In my country there are so many churches. Most protestant churches are separated because people had different thoughts about parts of the bible. Church separated regions, cities and families . all in the name of religion! The group op non-believers was never as big as these days.
But because of all these separated groups of inhabitants we (almost) never have to deal with a Parliament / Government that is not divided about issues as abortion, euthanasia, marriages between two men or women. Step by step we managed to get these issues accepted. It is a sign of a liberal climate. Although we are far away from acceptation by ALL inhabitants, quite a large group respects the choice others make.
Law tries to follow the will of the majority. Churches are minorities that can hold their members together by strong rules. Society is and I am happy about that more than a collection of churches / religions.
I am brought up as a (non-conservative) protestant Christian, but members of the church I belonged have treated me so bad at the moments they could do well for me and my family, that I have quit.
My believe is to respect other human beings, to help them, to support them, but never to judge them about what they believe or not.
For example: if two men love each other so much that they marry, so that by law they are equal to me and my wife, I will respect that marriage. Who am I to doubt their choice? If these two men will adopt children tot give them love, protection and to bring them up as good (future) citizens? Who am I to say that it is not good. I see many fathers and mothers unable to give love to their children!
Totally different but another thing I read: having sex before marriage! Sex is part of life. If you love some one you come to a point you will have sex together, not to make a child, but because you want to be so intimate with the one you love that you will share these feelings; you want to make the other happy as he or she wants to make you happy. Why should you wait until marriage? If you find out then that for what reason so ever, you are not turned on by the other, you have tot stay, to try and try and try until both are unhappy? In my opinion no religion may ask a person to bring that offer.
People who believe sex is only meant for persons that are married, must live by that rule, but they should never have the power to make that a rule for others. As I respect their choice, they have to respect mine.
That's also a bad translation. Paul said nothing about 'long' hair, but 'flowing' hair, if you translate the Greek more literally. The Nazarites were obligated to wear their hair long during much of the year, but they kept it bound in a ponytail, not loose and flowing. Long hair allowed to hang freely was considered a sign of wanton character.
lacsap1
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2002
- Posts
- 201
- Media
- 2
- Likes
- 32
- Points
- 348
- Age
- 46
- Location
- Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
I'm back from holidays
Suaige,
First I should point out - I am not a Christian - (although I find a lot of what Christ said to be inspiring). I was born in a semi-Christian household but have developed my own spiritual beliefs. I'm fascinated with religion and religious concepts of the body and spirit and that is why I have studied (a little) Christianity.
Nothing in the Bible would have categorically precluded homosexual relations. If old testament texts and the words of Paul are used to construct anti-homosexual Christian propaganda then they are ignoring the words of the savior himself, who never once chose to speak on the subject of sex between men or sex between women. Christ would break bread with those who were judged and cast out by others. His primary message was love, and in no instance did he even speak of homosexuality.
Jesus talked about the story of Sodom, but only in regards to the sin of inhospitality (If Jesus really had a concern with homosexuality this would have been a good time to bring it up...) The bible refers to Sodom 12 times in the context of evil, but not one of those times makes mention of homosexuality, yet other sins are explicitly mentioned !!
The only specific mentioning of homosexuality in the old testament; "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind": it is abomination, but remember, abomination is a strong word used to restrict many other things under leviticus law that modern Christians have completely discarded - to live by leviticus rules today would mean eating a completely kosher diet, not wearing clothes of mixed types of thread, following a whole set of regulations against "abominations" that most Christians do not follow.....
Paul, who saw Christ after he had risen made the following statement: "And likewise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one towards another: men with men working that which is unseemly." Are Christians "Paulists" or "Christians"? Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. It is likely that Paul (who shows signs of internal struggle with this issue in his own life - that 'thorn in his side'...) was presenting his own anxiety about the issue. If Jesus wanted us to know his opinion on this, he would have said something about it. He wasn't shy about speaking his mind.....
The development of anti-homosexual sentiment then, is not a representation of the ideals of Christ. It is an expression of theology that reaches back to the early years of the church and has more to do with church doctrines developed by men than it does with the words of Christ.
So, a little background on medieval original marriage:
1 Marriage in pre-modern Europe was predominately
about property, not love.
2 Inheriting money was the chief way to attain wealth
in this world, so families controlled their wealth by
selecting spouses for their children that would
enhance or maintain the families wealth. The poor
would marry the poor.
3 In Christian terms, marriage was a compromise with
the material world: the only appropriate venue for sex
because it created children.
4 The church stayed out of the business of marriage for
the first 1000 years of Christianity because it was
about property and was lower than celibacy.
5 Clerics only gave nuptual blessings at marriages for
royalty, not for commons. Marriage ceremonies were
not held by the church.
6 1215 4th Lateran council: Matrimony became a
sacrament. Rules were developed for performing the
sacrament.
There has found evidence of 4 types of ceremonies for marriage sacrament for this period:
1) heterosexual betrothal
2) 2 types of ceremony for heterosexual marriage
3) A comparable prayer for uniting two men
Same Sex Ceremony specifics:
The name of the ceremony "prayer for making brothers". The ceremony is found in manuscript collections from locations all over the Christian world, but it appears that most of the manuscripts were destroyed and only recently have many of them been found. The ceremony involves a ritual of burning candles, placing two right hands together joined on the Gospel, crowning the two partners, the lords prayer, communion, a kiss, and then sometimes circling around the alter. The symbols of marriage were all present: right hands joined (a traditional symbol of marriage) being blessed by a priest, sharing communion and holding a banquet. Because we are talking about non-literate societies, the symbolism of these ceremonies is very important for determining their meaning. If two men walked down the aisle in a modern church with bells ringing and the song "here comes the bride" playing, you would immediately get the picture of what was going on. That is why the symbolism means so much here. People only did these rituals in marriage - and when you consider the history of Ancient Greek and Roman attitudes towards sex between men, this ceremony seems to be an appropriate compromise. This ceremony was a voluntary emotional union not involving property or family loyalty (this is one distinction from heterosexual marriage which was largely about property). Was the ceremony representative of a sexual union? We will never know. BUT: Monks were prevented from the ceremony - if it was non-sexual, they would be the ideal candidates. If it was sexual, this would explain them being excluded. Furthermore, why were manuscripts of documenting the ceremony destroyed? If this were a non-sexual ceremony why would the church care? It appears that the church accomodated local customs that had been supportive of sex between men and boys for many years by creating a relationship of monogamy between men. Eventually as anti-sodomy sentiment grew, these rituals became increasingly suspect and disappeared.
So all religious people having difficulties with the gaymarriage and building there defense on religious grounds should also be aware that Christ gave no opinion on the subject and that to be truly Christian, one should focus more on the Christian ideals of unconditional love than on human bias against difference.
=====================================
"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image, when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." -Anne Lamott
Suaige,
First I should point out - I am not a Christian - (although I find a lot of what Christ said to be inspiring). I was born in a semi-Christian household but have developed my own spiritual beliefs. I'm fascinated with religion and religious concepts of the body and spirit and that is why I have studied (a little) Christianity.
Nothing in the Bible would have categorically precluded homosexual relations. If old testament texts and the words of Paul are used to construct anti-homosexual Christian propaganda then they are ignoring the words of the savior himself, who never once chose to speak on the subject of sex between men or sex between women. Christ would break bread with those who were judged and cast out by others. His primary message was love, and in no instance did he even speak of homosexuality.
Jesus talked about the story of Sodom, but only in regards to the sin of inhospitality (If Jesus really had a concern with homosexuality this would have been a good time to bring it up...) The bible refers to Sodom 12 times in the context of evil, but not one of those times makes mention of homosexuality, yet other sins are explicitly mentioned !!
The only specific mentioning of homosexuality in the old testament; "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind": it is abomination, but remember, abomination is a strong word used to restrict many other things under leviticus law that modern Christians have completely discarded - to live by leviticus rules today would mean eating a completely kosher diet, not wearing clothes of mixed types of thread, following a whole set of regulations against "abominations" that most Christians do not follow.....
Paul, who saw Christ after he had risen made the following statement: "And likewise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one towards another: men with men working that which is unseemly." Are Christians "Paulists" or "Christians"? Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. It is likely that Paul (who shows signs of internal struggle with this issue in his own life - that 'thorn in his side'...) was presenting his own anxiety about the issue. If Jesus wanted us to know his opinion on this, he would have said something about it. He wasn't shy about speaking his mind.....
The development of anti-homosexual sentiment then, is not a representation of the ideals of Christ. It is an expression of theology that reaches back to the early years of the church and has more to do with church doctrines developed by men than it does with the words of Christ.
So, a little background on medieval original marriage:
1 Marriage in pre-modern Europe was predominately
about property, not love.
2 Inheriting money was the chief way to attain wealth
in this world, so families controlled their wealth by
selecting spouses for their children that would
enhance or maintain the families wealth. The poor
would marry the poor.
3 In Christian terms, marriage was a compromise with
the material world: the only appropriate venue for sex
because it created children.
4 The church stayed out of the business of marriage for
the first 1000 years of Christianity because it was
about property and was lower than celibacy.
5 Clerics only gave nuptual blessings at marriages for
royalty, not for commons. Marriage ceremonies were
not held by the church.
6 1215 4th Lateran council: Matrimony became a
sacrament. Rules were developed for performing the
sacrament.
There has found evidence of 4 types of ceremonies for marriage sacrament for this period:
1) heterosexual betrothal
2) 2 types of ceremony for heterosexual marriage
3) A comparable prayer for uniting two men
Same Sex Ceremony specifics:
The name of the ceremony "prayer for making brothers". The ceremony is found in manuscript collections from locations all over the Christian world, but it appears that most of the manuscripts were destroyed and only recently have many of them been found. The ceremony involves a ritual of burning candles, placing two right hands together joined on the Gospel, crowning the two partners, the lords prayer, communion, a kiss, and then sometimes circling around the alter. The symbols of marriage were all present: right hands joined (a traditional symbol of marriage) being blessed by a priest, sharing communion and holding a banquet. Because we are talking about non-literate societies, the symbolism of these ceremonies is very important for determining their meaning. If two men walked down the aisle in a modern church with bells ringing and the song "here comes the bride" playing, you would immediately get the picture of what was going on. That is why the symbolism means so much here. People only did these rituals in marriage - and when you consider the history of Ancient Greek and Roman attitudes towards sex between men, this ceremony seems to be an appropriate compromise. This ceremony was a voluntary emotional union not involving property or family loyalty (this is one distinction from heterosexual marriage which was largely about property). Was the ceremony representative of a sexual union? We will never know. BUT: Monks were prevented from the ceremony - if it was non-sexual, they would be the ideal candidates. If it was sexual, this would explain them being excluded. Furthermore, why were manuscripts of documenting the ceremony destroyed? If this were a non-sexual ceremony why would the church care? It appears that the church accomodated local customs that had been supportive of sex between men and boys for many years by creating a relationship of monogamy between men. Eventually as anti-sodomy sentiment grew, these rituals became increasingly suspect and disappeared.
So all religious people having difficulties with the gaymarriage and building there defense on religious grounds should also be aware that Christ gave no opinion on the subject and that to be truly Christian, one should focus more on the Christian ideals of unconditional love than on human bias against difference.
=====================================
"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image, when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." -Anne Lamott
suaige:
I was not going to post further as I don't intend to debate sexuality and the bible, but I have to reply to this.
Remember christ did not personally write one word of the Bible. It was primarily written by prophets and apostles - with parts like the proverbs, songs of solomon probably being exempt from that category. But if we are Paulists then we have to be markists or Isaiahists or jobists or danielists. None of us would be Christians. only 2 of the gospels were even written by those who heard Christ in person. The rest of the prophets and apostles learned through revelation. So if we claim to be christians either we can only read 2 books of the bible or we have to take the word of the servants of the Lord when speaking on doctrine as the same as his own.
Thats how I see it. So yeah I am a Paulist and believe in the other prophets and apostles as the servants and voice of Christ. But all that leads to being a christian. Its the only way I know of, until I am able to learn by revelation as they did.
I was not going to post further as I don't intend to debate sexuality and the bible, but I have to reply to this.
Remember christ did not personally write one word of the Bible. It was primarily written by prophets and apostles - with parts like the proverbs, songs of solomon probably being exempt from that category. But if we are Paulists then we have to be markists or Isaiahists or jobists or danielists. None of us would be Christians. only 2 of the gospels were even written by those who heard Christ in person. The rest of the prophets and apostles learned through revelation. So if we claim to be christians either we can only read 2 books of the bible or we have to take the word of the servants of the Lord when speaking on doctrine as the same as his own.
Thats how I see it. So yeah I am a Paulist and believe in the other prophets and apostles as the servants and voice of Christ. But all that leads to being a christian. Its the only way I know of, until I am able to learn by revelation as they did.
- jonb,
And here I thought he was just jealous because he was bald.
Personally, I don't have as much of a problem with Christians as with CHRISTIANS. You know, the type who proclaim it proudly, never mind that Jesus went against Jewish priests doing exactly that? LOL That's the problem with a lot of organized religion: Too much hypocrisy.
My own opinion of Abrahamic religions? Let's just say my cosmology doesn't include an omnipotent being obsessed with foreskins. LOL
Hey, if I was all-powerfulll, I'd want as much vagina as possible!
Actually, maybe God isn't a bloke, or at least not straight.
Actually, maybe God isn't a bloke, or at least not straight.
NelsonMuntz84: As a practicing roman catholic, I have to say anything which goes on between 2 consenting adults is fine with me, I have no interest in having an opinion on such things, I know you will get Catholics who are dead against it, but there many who are liberial like myself, basically I have enough time worrying about myself with trying to kid on I'm god and judge others when its certainly not my place.
People might say I dont practice what I breach since I have sex with my gf and go to mass, although confession is good for that, but I believe I'm a good person, who lives a good life and is nice to others..thats more than enough for me.
The only think I get annoyed about is people having the idea I have sexual hang ups or guilt because I'm a catholic, I dont and have not regretted one sexual experance I have had, okay some could have been better than others, but it all goes to make me what I am.
To be honest I look at this way, if I have a son who turns out to be gay, will I stop talking to him ? no chance in hell, so I'm notgoing to be 2 faced and say its wrong when its nothing to do with me.
As for banning or not mentioning xmas, well thats just people going to an extreme, and if I may say so and not sound a smart arse, it seems to be pretty much an American problem to a large degree, where society can swing from one degree to the other.
People might say I dont practice what I breach since I have sex with my gf and go to mass, although confession is good for that
, but I believe I'm a good person, who lives a good life and is nice to others..thats more than enough for me. The only think I get annoyed about is people having the idea I have sexual hang ups or guilt because I'm a catholic, I dont and have not regretted one sexual experance I have had, okay some could have been better than others, but it all goes to make me what I am.
To be honest I look at this way, if I have a son who turns out to be gay, will I stop talking to him ? no chance in hell, so I'm notgoing to be 2 faced and say its wrong when its nothing to do with me.
As for banning or not mentioning xmas, well thats just people going to an extreme, and if I may say so and not sound a smart arse, it seems to be pretty much an American problem to a large degree, where society can swing from one degree to the other.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
You see, that's my exact problem with Christianity. I am NOT a Paulist, who was judgemental, elitist, rude toward women. His words are distinctive in the Bible, and I am quite comfortable disreguarding most of them. So that's where the problems begin. Also, we all know the Bible is a collection of works, voted on by a human council as to what would or would not be included- too much room for man's intention to dominate here. How could anyone POSSIBLY just believe every word as written, when it was never even written cohesively? Why did NO ONE respond to Jonb's long, shocking list of marital laws quoted from the Old Testament? If you beleive every word as writtten, you have to DO IT, not blow smoke. I have never found ONE Christian who doesn't get to a point of "I don't want to discuss this any further" when these blatant absurdities are brought up. One simply cannot validate them without being seen as a lunatic, so if there are a few things to disreguard in the Bible, the rest is suspect as well. This shakes the firmness of even a true believer's convictions, when in the quietness of their own mind they must ask themselves "How can this be?". I know this because I went through it myself. I never personally hated anyone, but knew that my faith felt the homosexuality was wrong. When I really started digging, I found that it was really my fellow Christians who hated gays, not Jesus Christ himself. I'll add my "Jesus never mentioned gays" to the list of others who have said it before, and Paul's biggest slam was at hetero marriage, offering it only as a poor substitution to the preferred state of celibacy. I guess the race would have died if Paul had his way. Hmmm, and this is a guy I"M supposed to take advice from? Not likely.
Suaige, I appreiciate your candor and the effort you've obviously made to learn more about the viewponts of others. That road took me a good deal further than I was expecting, I hope yours takes you where you need it to go. BTW, as I understand the New Testament, God sending Jesus Christ to the world as a sacrifice was so he himself (God) could feel pain and know compassion, so YES- we are to understand that the nature of God has changed and the law has been disposed of in preferrence of the higher law of love. In this was we are to forgive others, even those who harm us, knowing that our loving father will forgive us too, in our time, when we are not perfect. We are to give to each other in abundance knowing that our needs will also be fulfilled, etc. I am not capable of loving those who have offended me greatly, but there are only two. I can't see how you could not put a rapist in a special category, at the same time, I do know that monsters are not born, they're created, so some series of events caused those people to become what they were, and I can feel compassion for that. This doesn't mean I would spend time in their space, but I feel a sense of sadness that whatever horrors they experienced are spreading through time to others. I will make it end with me. I won't be ugly because ugliness was done to me. "Turn the other cheek", well I do believe in non-violence, I don't hit back when someone hits me. I attempt to make the violence stop in any means possible, but not by bringing injury to another. Not even when I was being raped. So yes, I do feel I have a right to comment on the impact the life of Jesus has had on me. I do practise my beliefs, but I will never blindly follow the meandering beliefs of the idiotic masses, which unfortunately many "organised christians" fall into. They don't know why they believe what they do, they have never done any research into anything, they just ignorantly regurgitate whatever their pastor or any other member of their gathering says, and then they have the audacity to assert their view as if it's a documented fact, when it really came from "some guy". Guess I'm a little steamed. Answer Jonb's list on marital laws and I'll happily entertain notions on the wrongness of homosexuality. I was a little offended by your comment of "I don't want to get into this any further so as not to offend anyone", I thought it felt a little dismissive or was possibly a way to save face when there really is no good answer. Not trying to break your balls, I just would like to hear your real thoughts.
Hello
It's a while since I took alook at how this post is progressing. Boy was I right when I forecast we could never agree to agree. I see that some of you have introduced Marriage and Gay Marriage and so I thought I'd write a few lines about The Church and Marriage.
Webster's dictionary defines a sacrament as "A formal Christian rite, as baptism or matrimony, esp. one thought to be instituted by Jesus." The New Century Dictionary (last century) defines sacrament as an oath, a solemn engagement, mystery. Derived from the Latin sacrare, it is to make sacred - something regarded as possessing a sacred character or a mysterious significance; also a sign, token or symbol. The sacraments then, are the rites of the Christian Church, a means of grace. The Latin word sacramentum, from sacer, sacred, meant originally a solemn oath or vow, and when applied to the Lord's Supper, made this the time to renew our vows and binding obligations to serve and follow Jesus. The word signified, in classical Latin, the oath which a soldier took to be faithful to his commander.
The sacraments are central to Christianity, the chief of many bridges that Christianity has sought to throw between this world and the other world, the imperfect and the perfect, the real and ideal. If you hold strongly that salvation is inward and emotional, then outward acts such as the sacraments become superfluous - or worse, a possible refuge for hypocrites. God expects his true children to act according to patterns laid down by Jesus (i.e. good works). Excesses could logically make the organized church quite unnecessary; and could lead to the freedom of the believer outside the church; the second extreme could lead to the complete control of daily life by an all-powerful clergy.
The seven sacraments in the Roman Church are Baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, ordination and matrimony. Baptism and the Eucharist have remained in most Protestant groups. The sacrament of penance is generally attacked and rejected. The West limited these to seven, but in the East every religious act had a sacramental quality.
The Greek text of Ephesians 5:32 translates that marriage is "a great mystery (mysterion)" while the Latin Bible translates the verse as "a great sacrament." The sacramental mystery in this sense implies to initiate into the rite. The historical problem was as to what constituted a sacrament and not questioned until the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Saint Augustine thought there were about 30 sacraments including the Lord's Prayer and the Creed, naming marriage as a sacrament of supreme importance. Tetullian also considered marriage as enjoying the "protection of the Divine grace." St Hugh of Victor in the twelfth century taught that it was a sacrament, Peter Lombard fixed the number at 7 in the fifteenth century, including marriage and it became doctrine from the Council of Trent in the mid-16th century. Baptism: cleansed of the taint of original sin and initiated into the Christian fellowship.. confirmation: reasserted his membership in the church and gave him the additional grace to cope with the problems of adulthood.. holy orders: if he chose the calling of the ministry, he was spiritually transformed into a priest and married to the church.. extreme unction: which prepared his soul for its journey into the next world.. penance: receive forgiveness from the damning consequences of mortal sin by repenting his past transgressions.. Eucharist: receiving the body of Christ into his own body.. Thus the church through its seven sacraments, brought God's grace to all Christians, great and humble, at every critical juncture of their lives. St. Thomas Aquinas thought that marriage was not a sacrament in the strict sense but did finally accept the seven sacraments that Lombard had listed. The Orthodox church has no problem with the sacramental quality of marriage, settling the issue hundreds of years earlier.
The sacramental system which only assumed final form in the high middle ages, was a source of comfort and reassurance; it brought hope of salvation. It made communion with God not merely the elusive goal of a few mystics but the periodic experience of all believers. And, of course, it made the church as the essential intermediary between God and man. The church did not agree to Lombard's seven until the Council of Florence in 1439. Luther, with one stroke reduced the sacraments from 7 to 2. Protestants confine the number to two, baptism and the Lord's supper, since these alone were instituted by Jesus and commanded to be observed. Protestants consider them as signs and seals of a living faith, while the Roman Church regards them as the absolutely necessary channels of all divine grace. Hugh of St. Victor enumerated as many as 30. Tolstoy rejected all of them. The elimination of the sacrament of penance is serious because it involves the forgiveness of sins. Taking the sacramental quality out of marriage led to fornication and the break-up of the family.
Is marriage to be held holy and a sacred rite or not? When the sacrament of marriage was done away with by the Protestants, it was upon the authority of the sola scriptura doctrine. Luther found the "sacramental character of matrimony without foundation in Scripture" and the "invention of men in the Church." Communion and baptism were retained as sacraments because they were instituted by Jesus and since marriage was not mentioned as instituted as such in the Bible, the sacramental quality of marriage was put away. Calvin considered matrimony as instituted by God but also denied it as a sacrament.
Jesus' body is divided. Especially divided are the hairs on His head that countless theologians and contentious Bible scholars have split over arguments that should never had been brought up. Here is the question at hand concerning the marriage sacrament, that of God's grace being conferred in the covenant relationship between man and woman. If this is all a sacrament consisted of, we could limit our discussion but if it also includes sacred rites, mysteries and signs of Christianity, we could list dozens of valid sacraments. Men in the church did not institute the sacraments, God has through His Holy Spirit. In the early church, sacraments had a variety of meanings, to limit our definitions of any doctrinal question to minuscule exclusivistic interpretations will only lead to more disunity and strife. To force sacraments to fit into the narrow confinements of sola scriptura is to say that Jesus does not actively deal with His people since the Bible was completed and He does not have the power to establish doctrine through His own body now, the church.
Insisting on particular words is divisive if it is unnecessary. Still, the causes of divisiveness must be exposed and denounced. It is in the nitpicking that legalistic churches have put up as roadblocks so that the unsaved will see the hypocrisy, lack of love and unholy confusion. Restricting the number of sacraments is just such a roadblock that sola scriptura has insisted upon. Who gave these people the right to set these laws and limit God's grace anyway? Many of these same churches teach that you cannot fall from grace but I see God's word telling me that if you are justified by the law that you are fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4). More and more legalistic requirements to limit the number into heaven, exalting themselves as the true guides and making others just as blind as they are. As to the Catholic Church's teaching on the marriage sacrament, it is God that bestows the grace, the priest only gives his blessing to the union.
There is a certain holiness inherent in marriage. It is considered to be instituted by God in the garden of Eden when two people became one flesh. Saint Augustine taught sacraments to be a visible signs of an invisible grace. This divine presence must exist for marriage to be equated with the mystery of Christ and His church for we are the divine sacrament of our union with Him; it arises from the love necessary between the bride and the bridegroom. The Roman church quotes the anathema clause on anyone denying that grace is not conferred in the marriage union. This is division. Listn in the United States, half of the marriages end up in divorce.
In Indian dharma, marriage is viewed as a sacrament, not just a contract, it is a life-long commitment of one wife and one husband. Should the Hindus put Protestant Christians to shame? They have. To deny the sacramental quality of marriage just because it is not expressly dealt with as such in scripture is to quench the spirit and deny the grace from God that is needed for us to overcome in these last days. Adultry, covetousness, pornography, licentiousness, blatant sexual situations in prime time television, movies and advertising are all conspiring to entice us from the grace of God that leads to holiness. It is especially damaging to our children.
Tillich - The decrease in sacramental thinking and feeling is appalling.. Christ is interpreted as a religious personality and not as the basic sacramental reality, the "New Being." The Protestant protest has rightly destroyed the magical elements in Catholic sacramentalism but has wrongly brought to the verge of disappearance the sacramental foundation of Christianity.
We should draw the line between the spiritual and the magical use of the sacramental element and encompass the world of mystery and grace. To the Christian, the Sacraments are not mere rites, ceremonies, or ordinances, they are the very channels of Life; by them and through them the Christian comes into contact with the very source of Life. Ignorance of sacramental life has made many Christian groups conservative, legalistic and prone to religiosity rather than a living faith.
I will leave it to you to decide whether marriage between two men or two women whether gay or not should be recognised by the Church. I think most Christians would answer no. I'm more open minded but don't have an answer at this time.
It's a while since I took alook at how this post is progressing. Boy was I right when I forecast we could never agree to agree. I see that some of you have introduced Marriage and Gay Marriage and so I thought I'd write a few lines about The Church and Marriage.
Webster's dictionary defines a sacrament as "A formal Christian rite, as baptism or matrimony, esp. one thought to be instituted by Jesus." The New Century Dictionary (last century) defines sacrament as an oath, a solemn engagement, mystery. Derived from the Latin sacrare, it is to make sacred - something regarded as possessing a sacred character or a mysterious significance; also a sign, token or symbol. The sacraments then, are the rites of the Christian Church, a means of grace. The Latin word sacramentum, from sacer, sacred, meant originally a solemn oath or vow, and when applied to the Lord's Supper, made this the time to renew our vows and binding obligations to serve and follow Jesus. The word signified, in classical Latin, the oath which a soldier took to be faithful to his commander.
The sacraments are central to Christianity, the chief of many bridges that Christianity has sought to throw between this world and the other world, the imperfect and the perfect, the real and ideal. If you hold strongly that salvation is inward and emotional, then outward acts such as the sacraments become superfluous - or worse, a possible refuge for hypocrites. God expects his true children to act according to patterns laid down by Jesus (i.e. good works). Excesses could logically make the organized church quite unnecessary; and could lead to the freedom of the believer outside the church; the second extreme could lead to the complete control of daily life by an all-powerful clergy.
The seven sacraments in the Roman Church are Baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, ordination and matrimony. Baptism and the Eucharist have remained in most Protestant groups. The sacrament of penance is generally attacked and rejected. The West limited these to seven, but in the East every religious act had a sacramental quality.
The Greek text of Ephesians 5:32 translates that marriage is "a great mystery (mysterion)" while the Latin Bible translates the verse as "a great sacrament." The sacramental mystery in this sense implies to initiate into the rite. The historical problem was as to what constituted a sacrament and not questioned until the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Saint Augustine thought there were about 30 sacraments including the Lord's Prayer and the Creed, naming marriage as a sacrament of supreme importance. Tetullian also considered marriage as enjoying the "protection of the Divine grace." St Hugh of Victor in the twelfth century taught that it was a sacrament, Peter Lombard fixed the number at 7 in the fifteenth century, including marriage and it became doctrine from the Council of Trent in the mid-16th century. Baptism: cleansed of the taint of original sin and initiated into the Christian fellowship.. confirmation: reasserted his membership in the church and gave him the additional grace to cope with the problems of adulthood.. holy orders: if he chose the calling of the ministry, he was spiritually transformed into a priest and married to the church.. extreme unction: which prepared his soul for its journey into the next world.. penance: receive forgiveness from the damning consequences of mortal sin by repenting his past transgressions.. Eucharist: receiving the body of Christ into his own body.. Thus the church through its seven sacraments, brought God's grace to all Christians, great and humble, at every critical juncture of their lives. St. Thomas Aquinas thought that marriage was not a sacrament in the strict sense but did finally accept the seven sacraments that Lombard had listed. The Orthodox church has no problem with the sacramental quality of marriage, settling the issue hundreds of years earlier.
The sacramental system which only assumed final form in the high middle ages, was a source of comfort and reassurance; it brought hope of salvation. It made communion with God not merely the elusive goal of a few mystics but the periodic experience of all believers. And, of course, it made the church as the essential intermediary between God and man. The church did not agree to Lombard's seven until the Council of Florence in 1439. Luther, with one stroke reduced the sacraments from 7 to 2. Protestants confine the number to two, baptism and the Lord's supper, since these alone were instituted by Jesus and commanded to be observed. Protestants consider them as signs and seals of a living faith, while the Roman Church regards them as the absolutely necessary channels of all divine grace. Hugh of St. Victor enumerated as many as 30. Tolstoy rejected all of them. The elimination of the sacrament of penance is serious because it involves the forgiveness of sins. Taking the sacramental quality out of marriage led to fornication and the break-up of the family.
Is marriage to be held holy and a sacred rite or not? When the sacrament of marriage was done away with by the Protestants, it was upon the authority of the sola scriptura doctrine. Luther found the "sacramental character of matrimony without foundation in Scripture" and the "invention of men in the Church." Communion and baptism were retained as sacraments because they were instituted by Jesus and since marriage was not mentioned as instituted as such in the Bible, the sacramental quality of marriage was put away. Calvin considered matrimony as instituted by God but also denied it as a sacrament.
Jesus' body is divided. Especially divided are the hairs on His head that countless theologians and contentious Bible scholars have split over arguments that should never had been brought up. Here is the question at hand concerning the marriage sacrament, that of God's grace being conferred in the covenant relationship between man and woman. If this is all a sacrament consisted of, we could limit our discussion but if it also includes sacred rites, mysteries and signs of Christianity, we could list dozens of valid sacraments. Men in the church did not institute the sacraments, God has through His Holy Spirit. In the early church, sacraments had a variety of meanings, to limit our definitions of any doctrinal question to minuscule exclusivistic interpretations will only lead to more disunity and strife. To force sacraments to fit into the narrow confinements of sola scriptura is to say that Jesus does not actively deal with His people since the Bible was completed and He does not have the power to establish doctrine through His own body now, the church.
Insisting on particular words is divisive if it is unnecessary. Still, the causes of divisiveness must be exposed and denounced. It is in the nitpicking that legalistic churches have put up as roadblocks so that the unsaved will see the hypocrisy, lack of love and unholy confusion. Restricting the number of sacraments is just such a roadblock that sola scriptura has insisted upon. Who gave these people the right to set these laws and limit God's grace anyway? Many of these same churches teach that you cannot fall from grace but I see God's word telling me that if you are justified by the law that you are fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4). More and more legalistic requirements to limit the number into heaven, exalting themselves as the true guides and making others just as blind as they are. As to the Catholic Church's teaching on the marriage sacrament, it is God that bestows the grace, the priest only gives his blessing to the union.
There is a certain holiness inherent in marriage. It is considered to be instituted by God in the garden of Eden when two people became one flesh. Saint Augustine taught sacraments to be a visible signs of an invisible grace. This divine presence must exist for marriage to be equated with the mystery of Christ and His church for we are the divine sacrament of our union with Him; it arises from the love necessary between the bride and the bridegroom. The Roman church quotes the anathema clause on anyone denying that grace is not conferred in the marriage union. This is division. Listn in the United States, half of the marriages end up in divorce.
In Indian dharma, marriage is viewed as a sacrament, not just a contract, it is a life-long commitment of one wife and one husband. Should the Hindus put Protestant Christians to shame? They have. To deny the sacramental quality of marriage just because it is not expressly dealt with as such in scripture is to quench the spirit and deny the grace from God that is needed for us to overcome in these last days. Adultry, covetousness, pornography, licentiousness, blatant sexual situations in prime time television, movies and advertising are all conspiring to entice us from the grace of God that leads to holiness. It is especially damaging to our children.
Tillich - The decrease in sacramental thinking and feeling is appalling.. Christ is interpreted as a religious personality and not as the basic sacramental reality, the "New Being." The Protestant protest has rightly destroyed the magical elements in Catholic sacramentalism but has wrongly brought to the verge of disappearance the sacramental foundation of Christianity.
We should draw the line between the spiritual and the magical use of the sacramental element and encompass the world of mystery and grace. To the Christian, the Sacraments are not mere rites, ceremonies, or ordinances, they are the very channels of Life; by them and through them the Christian comes into contact with the very source of Life. Ignorance of sacramental life has made many Christian groups conservative, legalistic and prone to religiosity rather than a living faith.
I will leave it to you to decide whether marriage between two men or two women whether gay or not should be recognised by the Church. I think most Christians would answer no. I'm more open minded but don't have an answer at this time.
yourclovergrl:
I havent even really read this post just skimming thru but I saw this and had to say that xtra that is the best way I have ever heard anyone put it. Thanks.
I havent even really read this post just skimming thru but I saw this and had to say that xtra that is the best way I have ever heard anyone put it. Thanks.
May I offer different perspective? I am one of the Canadians that is also one of the "faithful" in this community. Pun Intended.
I live in the province of Ontario, which border New York, Ohio (by water), Michigan and Minnesota in addition to sharing water boundaries with Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In short we are exposed to a variety of American media and thought.
Almost all Ontarians have been in one of these states. Most have driven to Florida or the Gulf of Mexico on vacation.
We have been in the South with it fire and brimstone sermons, crosses on hills and our real favourite, the TV evangelists. Many of us comment on the narrowmindedness of southern religious conservatism. To any of who choose to equate religious conservatism with decent behaviour, consider these points.
1.) Intolerance is NOT a Christian trait;
2.) The moral majority is neither;
3.) If gay people were to marry, would you stop marrying;
4.) Many of your religious leaders have their own skeletons hidden very deeply in their own closets.
I live in the province of Ontario, which border New York, Ohio (by water), Michigan and Minnesota in addition to sharing water boundaries with Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In short we are exposed to a variety of American media and thought.
Almost all Ontarians have been in one of these states. Most have driven to Florida or the Gulf of Mexico on vacation.
We have been in the South with it fire and brimstone sermons, crosses on hills and our real favourite, the TV evangelists. Many of us comment on the narrowmindedness of southern religious conservatism. To any of who choose to equate religious conservatism with decent behaviour, consider these points.
1.) Intolerance is NOT a Christian trait;
2.) The moral majority is neither;
3.) If gay people were to marry, would you stop marrying;
4.) Many of your religious leaders have their own skeletons hidden very deeply in their own closets.
headbang8
Admired Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2004
- Posts
- 1,619
- Media
- 12
- Likes
- 811
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Munich (Bavaria, Germany)
- Sexuality
- 80% Gay, 20% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Suaige--sorry in advance for such a long post!
Its great to see a Christian who wants to hear other beliefs, and respects them. You acknowledge that everybody has a right to hold and express opinions, and I believe that youre genuinely interested to hear diverse points of view. Very Christian of youor to be more precise, very catholic of you, in the original sense of the word. And a splendid thread this has become.
Maybe you raised the topic because your brother is gay. Perhaps you seek to reconcile the teachings of various old testament verses with Christs new commandment to love your brother (and every other human being) as God loves you .
In my years as a nominal Roman Catholic, I faced the same dilemma. How to make sense of often contradictory doctrine, and determine what moral behaviour actually is.
Now, heres where I really need to thank you for starting this thread, Suaige. Because somewhere in the middle of it, the reason I am no longer a Christian became incredibly clear to me.
Stx1979 and InsertHere exchanged a few words on the bible as a narrative about how to live your life to get into heaven, as opposed to a guide to whats moral (i.e. good) or not. Hmmm.
It confirmed an impression that Id got from my limited study of the bible. That no matter how hard you triedhow moral you wereGod retained the right to flunk you on a technicality and send you to hell.
Missing mass on Sunday was a favourite threat of the nuns at my school. Sister Mary Butch, do you mean that a lifetime of good works counts for nothing because my Dads car had a flat tire? Dont worry about that, headbang, its only your father who will go to hell. (I kid you not. Thats what one of the nuns said to me.)
Can a lifetime of blood on your hands be written off with a single deathbed confession? It seemed that the Act of Contrition took the place of contrition itself.
Reading the old testament as a child, I lost track of whom Im supposed to stone, smite, slay, put asunder, murder, banish or impregnate. God is mighty, God is powerful, God is a jealous God, God is good, God needs praise like a three-year-old in toilet training, God will smite you for eating pork, or for drawing a picture of anything on the planet oops, making a graven image, which you might worship, even admire for a moment in place of constant adoration of Him. (Art can subvert morality, as we are reminded today every time an NEA grant is made.)
This simply didnt make sense to my so-called God-given faculties, and still doesnt.
If the bible is a guide to us, its unintelligible. Now, maybe my intelligence isnt great enough. Im a mere human being and my powers of understanding arent up to the task of deciphering bigger truths of the universe, and maybe I should just shut up and take the word of God as read. (Of course, thats on the assumption that the bible is the word of God, not a fancy of its human transcribersa condition by no means guaranteed on the evidence Ive seen.)
Sorry, no. The emperor has no clothes.
Suaige, it's pointless to sink into the quicksand of biblical quibbling when a perfectly workable alternative moral code presents itself in plain view. Its called common sense.
Intelligent human observation has delivered more undisputable truth to mankind than any religion. Let's give that intelligent observation a name: science.
And while I dont believe science can or must reveal every truth in the universe, it has a much better track record than Catholicism, Judaism, Hinduism, Protestantism (if Protestants can actually agree on what that is) Buddhism, Shinto, Islam or astrology . Sorry, I take that back; for a brief period, astrology
was thought have some small scientific basis, but it was later discovered to be a placebo.
Many thanks to GottaBigOne for his help with terms. The meticulous decision-tree of belief in his poll on religion identified me as an Agnostic Theist, though I prefer to call myself a Secular Humanist, because it sounds nicer, and impressions count in our modern-day faith-based economy.
Believers seem to be somewhere between 40 and 65 times more likely to be convicted criminals than athiests, depending on how you define the terms. The Vatican, apparently, has one of the highest crime rates of any developed country. Atheists have a significantly lower divorce rate than believers, especially Jews and Born-Agains.
By every account, atheists and agnostics conduct themselves with a level of moral decency that often puts the followers of organized religions to shame.
The best bits of the bible are simply common sense illustrated with a narrative, and the worst bits of the bible are obscene gibberish. The way its proponents insist that the bible must be placed on a equal footing with works of human reason is nothing more than frea speach (Thank you, jonb; what a useful term!
Sorry if I offend you, suaige, but you asked for our opinions. And I apologise if I have offended our other believers here--it's obvious that in many, their faith inspires great charity, compassion, and moral conviction. Please, let me honour that.
Peace, everyone. Now let's get back to talking about dicks!
hb8
Its great to see a Christian who wants to hear other beliefs, and respects them. You acknowledge that everybody has a right to hold and express opinions, and I believe that youre genuinely interested to hear diverse points of view. Very Christian of youor to be more precise, very catholic of you, in the original sense of the word. And a splendid thread this has become.
Maybe you raised the topic because your brother is gay. Perhaps you seek to reconcile the teachings of various old testament verses with Christs new commandment to love your brother (and every other human being) as God loves you .
In my years as a nominal Roman Catholic, I faced the same dilemma. How to make sense of often contradictory doctrine, and determine what moral behaviour actually is.
Now, heres where I really need to thank you for starting this thread, Suaige. Because somewhere in the middle of it, the reason I am no longer a Christian became incredibly clear to me.
Stx1979 and InsertHere exchanged a few words on the bible as a narrative about how to live your life to get into heaven, as opposed to a guide to whats moral (i.e. good) or not. Hmmm.
It confirmed an impression that Id got from my limited study of the bible. That no matter how hard you triedhow moral you wereGod retained the right to flunk you on a technicality and send you to hell.
Missing mass on Sunday was a favourite threat of the nuns at my school. Sister Mary Butch, do you mean that a lifetime of good works counts for nothing because my Dads car had a flat tire? Dont worry about that, headbang, its only your father who will go to hell. (I kid you not. Thats what one of the nuns said to me.)
Can a lifetime of blood on your hands be written off with a single deathbed confession? It seemed that the Act of Contrition took the place of contrition itself.
Reading the old testament as a child, I lost track of whom Im supposed to stone, smite, slay, put asunder, murder, banish or impregnate. God is mighty, God is powerful, God is a jealous God, God is good, God needs praise like a three-year-old in toilet training, God will smite you for eating pork, or for drawing a picture of anything on the planet oops, making a graven image, which you might worship, even admire for a moment in place of constant adoration of Him. (Art can subvert morality, as we are reminded today every time an NEA grant is made.)
This simply didnt make sense to my so-called God-given faculties, and still doesnt.
If the bible is a guide to us, its unintelligible. Now, maybe my intelligence isnt great enough. Im a mere human being and my powers of understanding arent up to the task of deciphering bigger truths of the universe, and maybe I should just shut up and take the word of God as read. (Of course, thats on the assumption that the bible is the word of God, not a fancy of its human transcribersa condition by no means guaranteed on the evidence Ive seen.)
Sorry, no. The emperor has no clothes.
Suaige, it's pointless to sink into the quicksand of biblical quibbling when a perfectly workable alternative moral code presents itself in plain view. Its called common sense.
Intelligent human observation has delivered more undisputable truth to mankind than any religion. Let's give that intelligent observation a name: science.
And while I dont believe science can or must reveal every truth in the universe, it has a much better track record than Catholicism, Judaism, Hinduism, Protestantism (if Protestants can actually agree on what that is) Buddhism, Shinto, Islam or astrology . Sorry, I take that back; for a brief period, astrology
was thought have some small scientific basis, but it was later discovered to be a placebo.
Many thanks to GottaBigOne for his help with terms. The meticulous decision-tree of belief in his poll on religion identified me as an Agnostic Theist, though I prefer to call myself a Secular Humanist, because it sounds nicer, and impressions count in our modern-day faith-based economy.
Believers seem to be somewhere between 40 and 65 times more likely to be convicted criminals than athiests, depending on how you define the terms. The Vatican, apparently, has one of the highest crime rates of any developed country. Atheists have a significantly lower divorce rate than believers, especially Jews and Born-Agains.
By every account, atheists and agnostics conduct themselves with a level of moral decency that often puts the followers of organized religions to shame.
The best bits of the bible are simply common sense illustrated with a narrative, and the worst bits of the bible are obscene gibberish. The way its proponents insist that the bible must be placed on a equal footing with works of human reason is nothing more than frea speach (Thank you, jonb; what a useful term!
Sorry if I offend you, suaige, but you asked for our opinions. And I apologise if I have offended our other believers here--it's obvious that in many, their faith inspires great charity, compassion, and moral conviction. Please, let me honour that.
Peace, everyone. Now let's get back to talking about dicks!
hb8
That study - I don't believe that 0.2% of the prison population is athiest. That study can't have been complete enough - I'm sure the numbers inside and outside of prison would be about the same, because I can't see why there should be 60 times less in prison than out side (proportionally, anyway). Perhaps the believers are more inclined to own up or give themselves in? I don't know.
Anyway. I believe much of the Old Testament to be people writing down what they expected of God (to be vengeful, or need total attention 24/7) and I believe this because Jesus set about basically making a new set of ground rules - love is all important - love God, your brother, your neighbour, your enemy. The Grace of God means that if you whole heartedly believe Jesus died for your sins you're saved, and there is nothing you can do to make God love you more or less. I like that. I'm not saying the Old Testament is fiction, indeed large chunks of it tie in with well respected historical documents. The prophecies are very impressive (helps me to believe what I read in the NT).
Anyway. I believe much of the Old Testament to be people writing down what they expected of God (to be vengeful, or need total attention 24/7) and I believe this because Jesus set about basically making a new set of ground rules - love is all important - love God, your brother, your neighbour, your enemy. The Grace of God means that if you whole heartedly believe Jesus died for your sins you're saved, and there is nothing you can do to make God love you more or less. I like that. I'm not saying the Old Testament is fiction, indeed large chunks of it tie in with well respected historical documents. The prophecies are very impressive (helps me to believe what I read in the NT).
Similar threads
