religion and homosexuality
- Thread starter TheOverlord
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Posts
- 5,842
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,611
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
- Gender
- Male
Yes John Wesley was an Anglican Priest. The Methodist Church Bishops were consecrated by an Orthodox Bishop and the Methodist Church was founded because the KIng had ordered all the priests back home during the American Revolution. In fact until 1939 the name of the church was the Methodist Episcopal Church. There was a union with the Methodoist Protestant Church and the Episcopal part was dropped then. And after another merger the name became the United Methodist Church. So Methodism does use the Nicene Creed and does consider itself to be a part of the holy catholic and apostolic church.
They are all based on these parts of worship if there is communion and not necessarily in this order.
Praise and Adoration
Confession and Pardon
The Hearing of the Scriptures
The Sermon or Homily
The Response and Offertory
The Affirmation or Statement of Faith (One of the Creeds Nicene or Apostles'
The Peace where forgiven people share fellowship with one another
The Invitation to the Table
The Great Thanksgiving also called the Euchuristic Prayer
The consecration of the Sacraments which is part of the Great Thanksgiving where the elements become Sacraments. Sacred and are to those who believe the bread and body of Christ. (Catholics believe that it is the actual body and blood of Christ. Methodists believe it is the body and blood of Christ for those who believe. To nonbelievers it is just bread and wine. This the time where Christians can taste the grace of Jesus Christ.
The Lord's Prayer
The Sharing of the Sacrament of Holy Communion
The Closing Song of Fellowship
The Sending Forth or Benediction
This is called the Mass in the Catholic Church. The Service of Word and Table or The Celebration of Holy Communion in the Methodist Church. I'm not sure what the other denominations call it, but I think most refer to it as Holy Communion.
There are various jymns and chants intersperesed. The servive can be done with no music. or it can be done with the high high service with Medival Chants and all. But the basic ritual or liturgy is the same. There may be a choir that sings things like Choral Introits. There may be processoinal hymns. All that depends on the local churches resources and whether a low mass or high mass is being done. (Or high church or low church in other demonations.)
Freddie
=prepstudinsc,Mar 4 2005, 10:19 AM]
If I remember correctly, the word liturgy comes from the Greek word "leitourgia", which means "the work of the people".
The Episcopal/Anglican church resulted from Henry VIII's argument about divorce, from the Episcopal church, the Wesleys birthed the Methodist church, so it's no wonder that liturgies are remarkably similar. Even the liturgies of the Lutheran and Moravian churches are very similar, as well as the Orthodox churches, too. It's easy to see the common ground. When one goes to a synagogue, the direct tie to the Jewish ceremony is quite evident, too.
They are all based on these parts of worship if there is communion and not necessarily in this order.
Praise and Adoration
Confession and Pardon
The Hearing of the Scriptures
The Sermon or Homily
The Response and Offertory
The Affirmation or Statement of Faith (One of the Creeds Nicene or Apostles'
The Peace where forgiven people share fellowship with one another
The Invitation to the Table
The Great Thanksgiving also called the Euchuristic Prayer
The consecration of the Sacraments which is part of the Great Thanksgiving where the elements become Sacraments. Sacred and are to those who believe the bread and body of Christ. (Catholics believe that it is the actual body and blood of Christ. Methodists believe it is the body and blood of Christ for those who believe. To nonbelievers it is just bread and wine. This the time where Christians can taste the grace of Jesus Christ.
The Lord's Prayer
The Sharing of the Sacrament of Holy Communion
The Closing Song of Fellowship
The Sending Forth or Benediction
This is called the Mass in the Catholic Church. The Service of Word and Table or The Celebration of Holy Communion in the Methodist Church. I'm not sure what the other denominations call it, but I think most refer to it as Holy Communion.
There are various jymns and chants intersperesed. The servive can be done with no music. or it can be done with the high high service with Medival Chants and all. But the basic ritual or liturgy is the same. There may be a choir that sings things like Choral Introits. There may be processoinal hymns. All that depends on the local churches resources and whether a low mass or high mass is being done. (Or high church or low church in other demonations.)
Freddie
=prepstudinsc,Mar 4 2005, 10:19 AM]
If I remember correctly, the word liturgy comes from the Greek word "leitourgia", which means "the work of the people".
The Episcopal/Anglican church resulted from Henry VIII's argument about divorce, from the Episcopal church, the Wesleys birthed the Methodist church, so it's no wonder that liturgies are remarkably similar. Even the liturgies of the Lutheran and Moravian churches are very similar, as well as the Orthodox churches, too. It's easy to see the common ground. When one goes to a synagogue, the direct tie to the Jewish ceremony is quite evident, too.
[post=288269]Quoted post[/post]
[/quote]
Satsfakshun
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Posts
- 843
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 59
- Points
- 248
- Location
- Indianapolis, IN
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
The New Testament was written in Greek.Tthe larger portion. the Old Testament, was written in Hebrew. Some parts that are accepted by the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox were written in Aramaic. I don't think we can say that the Bible was re-written , but verses have certainly been taken out of context and been re-interpreted to justify some peoples' ideas. That is a misuse of Scripture.
There is no direct reference to age limits for sexual partners in either Testament.
[post=288297]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]Well, the languages are a whole different matter. I should have made a distinction between Hebrew and Greek. While Judeans of Christ's era would spoken Aramaic, they weuld have written the gosphels in Greek to communicate with the broader Roman world. The Romans didn't speak Latin, they spoke Greek. Latin was their formal language for public ceremonies, poetry and public pronouncements. Similarly, the apostles would have had one language for speaking and something more formal, and universal for writing.
Still there's been 2,000 for this stuff to be flippy flopped around with. Read up on Martin Luther and the things the church had added into the religion by his time...
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Posts
- 5,842
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,611
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
- Gender
- Male
I respect your beliefs concerning God. That is between you and God if there is one. If not then it doesn't really matter. But you have my complete respect. I understand you do not believe in God. That is your choice and I respect it.
I would appreciate if you would respect my religion as well. I am not Muslim and I thing they may be wrong on some points, but I give my complete respect to Overlord and He has been very respectful to the Christians here.
This thread was started as a religious thread. And we don't all agree. That is OK. Each of us is responsible for our own personal decisoins.
Thanks for your consideration.
Freddie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Posts
- 5,842
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,611
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
- Gender
- Male
Methodists believe that God has to complete the process of perfection before you can enter heaven. In some cases, I believe God does that just before death as a witness. People come back from the dead and give witness to what they saw in heaven. No one can see that without being cmpletely perfect.
So we don't have a formal dogma, except somewhere toward the end of the dying process and the entrance into heaven, there as to be the final acts of perfection. That may be going into purgatory. OK That is fine with me as long as I get into heaven. And from what you say, purgatory is not a painful place. There are those Christians who refer to that as paradise and say that no Christians will enter heaven until after the Great Resurection and Second Coming of Christ.
Thanks for the explanation.
Many Catholics don't really understand Purgatory either! A lot of people view Purgatory as a place of punishment, but that's not accurate. Purgatory is a place full of hope, because the souls in Purgatory know that they are going to be in the presence of God after their spell in Purgatory is done. The name Purgatory is related to the word purge. The belief is that sin taints the soul and makes it unfit to enjoy the Beatific Vision. Before a person enters his eternal reward, the stains of sin must be removed: you must dress properly for the banquet. Purgatory is a place (or state) of cleansing; the soul is purified before it can accept full, eternal union with God. Think about this: most religions encourage prayers for the dead. If someone's soul is in Heaven, he doesn't need your prayers. If someone is in Hell, all the prayers in the world't going to do him any good. Catholics offer prayers for those undergoing expiation for their sins in Purgatory. Just a note: the existence of Purgatory is not Catholic dogma. We are not required to believe in it in order to be in full communion with the Church.
So we don't have a formal dogma, except somewhere toward the end of the dying process and the entrance into heaven, there as to be the final acts of perfection. That may be going into purgatory. OK That is fine with me as long as I get into heaven. And from what you say, purgatory is not a painful place. There are those Christians who refer to that as paradise and say that no Christians will enter heaven until after the Great Resurection and Second Coming of Christ.
Thanks for the explanation.
Many Catholics don't really understand Purgatory either! A lot of people view Purgatory as a place of punishment, but that's not accurate. Purgatory is a place full of hope, because the souls in Purgatory know that they are going to be in the presence of God after their spell in Purgatory is done. The name Purgatory is related to the word purge. The belief is that sin taints the soul and makes it unfit to enjoy the Beatific Vision. Before a person enters his eternal reward, the stains of sin must be removed: you must dress properly for the banquet. Purgatory is a place (or state) of cleansing; the soul is purified before it can accept full, eternal union with God. Think about this: most religions encourage prayers for the dead. If someone's soul is in Heaven, he doesn't need your prayers. If someone is in Hell, all the prayers in the world't going to do him any good. Catholics offer prayers for those undergoing expiation for their sins in Purgatory. Just a note: the existence of Purgatory is not Catholic dogma. We are not required to believe in it in order to be in full communion with the Church.
[post=288294]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]The subject of hell is fascinating. The burning, etc., comes principally from images from the book of Revelation. John wrote the book to be confusing and a way to protect certain Christian beliefs, so early Christians would not be totally annilated. (One of many reasons. There are scholars here who could obviously expound on this quite a bit.) If you consider the images John wrote about in a sort of dream state, you begin to unravel the mysteries of his writing. Likewise, if you consider the remarkable literary images of Isaiah, you find similar clues.
Hell, as I understand it, based on teachings, writings, and my own feelings, is a place far removed from God, where, as nearly as I can tell, we are pretty much alone. The fire, I believe, is more a fire of the mind, wherein remorse and agony of not being able to undo certain things, is the cause of suffering. I would imagine darkness prevelant since God is light.
However, I think the consolation is that as we understand who God is, but then purposely turn against him and hate him, we are not likely to have to suffer this idea of hell. I believe that is the purpose of religion and God, to provide hope for us, when we cannot fully help ourselves.
I think that is the consolation of the atonement. And even if one is not a Christian, following the teachings of the prophets can have a similar consolation to safeguard against a tour of hell. My Catholic friends have spoken about purgatory, and as Double has written, I think there is a wonderful consolation in that. In other words, there is an end to it, and beginning for something wonderful beyond it.
Atheists and nonbelievers will always be around. They see more of human frailty than they do the wonders of divinity, and seem focus on that. But I think it's fine, really. Discipleship is far less about judging and condemnation, and more about tolerance, and love, with an attitude of agreeing to disagree, and remain respectful of each other's views.
I weary of the same old excuses and reasons for those who poke jest, fun and mockery at believers. It seems there could be a more intelligent effort than being the butt of a bad joke to reason with believers why there may not be a God. It only reinforces my belief there is a God.
Buff
Hell, as I understand it, based on teachings, writings, and my own feelings, is a place far removed from God, where, as nearly as I can tell, we are pretty much alone. The fire, I believe, is more a fire of the mind, wherein remorse and agony of not being able to undo certain things, is the cause of suffering. I would imagine darkness prevelant since God is light.
However, I think the consolation is that as we understand who God is, but then purposely turn against him and hate him, we are not likely to have to suffer this idea of hell. I believe that is the purpose of religion and God, to provide hope for us, when we cannot fully help ourselves.
I think that is the consolation of the atonement. And even if one is not a Christian, following the teachings of the prophets can have a similar consolation to safeguard against a tour of hell. My Catholic friends have spoken about purgatory, and as Double has written, I think there is a wonderful consolation in that. In other words, there is an end to it, and beginning for something wonderful beyond it.
Atheists and nonbelievers will always be around. They see more of human frailty than they do the wonders of divinity, and seem focus on that. But I think it's fine, really. Discipleship is far less about judging and condemnation, and more about tolerance, and love, with an attitude of agreeing to disagree, and remain respectful of each other's views.
I weary of the same old excuses and reasons for those who poke jest, fun and mockery at believers. It seems there could be a more intelligent effort than being the butt of a bad joke to reason with believers why there may not be a God. It only reinforces my belief there is a God.
Buff
GottaBigOne
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,035
- Media
- 13
- Likes
- 255
- Points
- 303
- Age
- 42
- Location
- Dallas (Texas, United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
What's interesting is if you read the account of Sodom and Gamorrah(sp?) God doesn't at first want to smite them with his wrath, but only does so because of the protestations of humans.
negative. I'm afraid I can only respect you as a person. as a human being.
I respect your PERSONAL beliefs, and I acknowledge the necessity of your right to them.
I respect your choice as regards your OWN worldview and morals, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with any of them.
what I can't and don't respect is your endorsement and participation in an ORGANIZED religion. I can describe at length all of the unacceptable things - historical and contemporary - about organized religion if you like, although as an intelligent person I suspect you will have identified many of them yourself, even if you don't like to think about it. I ain't saying that you're guilty of all, or even necessarily any, of those things YOURSELF; but by subscribing to an organized religion you are perpetuating them nonetheless.
the bottom line, from a personal perspective, is that if you really feel you need someone else to tell you how to live your life - and more specifically, if you really need a book of 2,000+ year-old dogma to tell right from wrong - then I'm afraid you got bigger problems than worrying about whether you're gonna get into heaven or whatever.
Whatâs the Truth Anyhow?
Books are an amazing invention and thereâs a saying that you can tell a lot about a person based on the books he/she owns. A truly good book can influence and permanently affect the readerâs life, such as the start of a life-long interest. To give you an idea of the type of person I am, if you visited my home youâd find books with titles such as The Oregon Trail, The Custer Myth, Journal of a Trapper and Indeh: An Apache Odyssey. I just happen to find the nineteenth century American West infinitely fascinating. On controversial topics, such as the oft-written about Battle of the Little Big Horn, I read books that present opposing points of view. After all, itâs the only way to gain a realistic and fair-minded opinion about the event and personalities in question. But that the event itself happened, there can be no question. Even though I didnât see it with my own eyes, it is current enough in human history to be positively confirmed as a real happening.
Speaking of books, the two most famous books of all-time are clearly the Old and the New Testament. If any books can ever be said to be responsible for a life-altering experience, it is certainly these two books. But are either of these books truly the word of God? Are they man-made creations based on fables from antiquity? Or perhaps they are based on some semblance of truth that has been garbled beyond our grasp? As a matter of fact, they could be evidence of some of mankindâs earliest contact with extraterrestrials. And if you think thatâs crazy, itâs no crazier than to believe otherwise.
The fact is that nobody can prove the authenticity, veracity, integrity, accuracy or origin of any religious texts. And the texts themselves cannot be used as evidence to prove their authenticity or origin. Thatâs just bad methodology. The only thing we really know is that they are indeed historical documents.
In any event, one line of thought is that all religions canât be right but they can all be wrong. An alternative to that is the existence of multiple gods who have divided up the people on earth, each to worship a different deity. And if that sounds crazy, well, again, itâs no less crazy than the current âworking model.â Of course, still another alternative is that theyâre all man-made religions and the greatest form of mind control ever created.
I find the following scenario very interesting. Religious Jews believe that the Old Testament (Torah) was given to them through Moses. They donât believe that Jesus is the messiah (or perhaps that he ever existed) and by circumstances must believe that the New Testament is a fraud. However, it is very interesting to note that both the Old and New Testament are very similar in style and level of intelligence (disregarding inconsistencies and the fact that they are not always intelligent). So if the Torah is truly from God, it is indeed strange that mere men were able to write fraudulent documents that so closely resembled these alleged texts straight from God. How could man be clever enough to forge such writing so similar in style to the God given Torah? Well, either the New Testament is also the word of God or both are just man-made creations. Personally, I choose the latter.
Another huge matzo ball out there is why God has chosen to remain silent all these years since speaking to Moses at Mount Sinai. Itâs not enough to say that God has given us signs of his existence. I donât want signs. Considering all the turmoil and strife in the world, largely due to religion, we need God to speak as plainly to us as he allegedly did to Moses to set the record straight once and for all.
As someone with a deep interest in Native Americana, I am greatly disappointed that much of their worldview and cosmology have been unalterably entangled, corrupted and tainted by Catholicism and Christianity. It is unfortunate that a book such as The Sacred Pipe: Black Elk's Account of the Seven Rites of the Oglala Sioux by Joseph Epes Brown cannot be read at face value. Thatâs because Black Elk became a Catholic in his later years, thus tainting his presentation of traditional beliefs. The integrity of the telling of his traditional Lakota rituals and beliefs has mournfully been lost forever.
Catholics and Christians should not take pride in these reservation conversions. It wouldnât be completely inaccurate to say that duress played a part in many of them and that free will was not a factor. Their old way of life was destroyed and they felt powerless. They adopted Christianity (many without renouncing and denouncing their old ways) as a means of survival. What is ironic is that they adopted the very faith that played such a prominent role in their subjugation. But it must be understood it was pushed upon them, especially once confined to the various reservations (keep in mind that missionaries started the conversion process pre-1850). It wasnât like the Native Americans were given a choice between popular religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or a preservation of their old ways. It was my way or the highway.
When you hear an ignorant zealot proudly proclaim that the United States of America was founded on Christianity, be sure to remind him/her that this must include the good with the bad, so they must also take credit for slavery and the near destruction/genocide of the Native American population and the theft of their land.
If God exists and gave us intelligence and the ability to think logically, why is faith required t
believe in God? God would surely make his presence known in an unmistakable manner. However, once logic enters the equation, reason defies the existence of God.
Applying logic and reason, there is no choice but to deny the legitimacy of religion, yet there are logical and reasonable people who believe in religion. It makes one wonder if there is such a thing as common sense after all.
Oh, by the way, hello!
Books are an amazing invention and thereâs a saying that you can tell a lot about a person based on the books he/she owns. A truly good book can influence and permanently affect the readerâs life, such as the start of a life-long interest. To give you an idea of the type of person I am, if you visited my home youâd find books with titles such as The Oregon Trail, The Custer Myth, Journal of a Trapper and Indeh: An Apache Odyssey. I just happen to find the nineteenth century American West infinitely fascinating. On controversial topics, such as the oft-written about Battle of the Little Big Horn, I read books that present opposing points of view. After all, itâs the only way to gain a realistic and fair-minded opinion about the event and personalities in question. But that the event itself happened, there can be no question. Even though I didnât see it with my own eyes, it is current enough in human history to be positively confirmed as a real happening.
Speaking of books, the two most famous books of all-time are clearly the Old and the New Testament. If any books can ever be said to be responsible for a life-altering experience, it is certainly these two books. But are either of these books truly the word of God? Are they man-made creations based on fables from antiquity? Or perhaps they are based on some semblance of truth that has been garbled beyond our grasp? As a matter of fact, they could be evidence of some of mankindâs earliest contact with extraterrestrials. And if you think thatâs crazy, itâs no crazier than to believe otherwise.
The fact is that nobody can prove the authenticity, veracity, integrity, accuracy or origin of any religious texts. And the texts themselves cannot be used as evidence to prove their authenticity or origin. Thatâs just bad methodology. The only thing we really know is that they are indeed historical documents.
In any event, one line of thought is that all religions canât be right but they can all be wrong. An alternative to that is the existence of multiple gods who have divided up the people on earth, each to worship a different deity. And if that sounds crazy, well, again, itâs no less crazy than the current âworking model.â Of course, still another alternative is that theyâre all man-made religions and the greatest form of mind control ever created.
I find the following scenario very interesting. Religious Jews believe that the Old Testament (Torah) was given to them through Moses. They donât believe that Jesus is the messiah (or perhaps that he ever existed) and by circumstances must believe that the New Testament is a fraud. However, it is very interesting to note that both the Old and New Testament are very similar in style and level of intelligence (disregarding inconsistencies and the fact that they are not always intelligent). So if the Torah is truly from God, it is indeed strange that mere men were able to write fraudulent documents that so closely resembled these alleged texts straight from God. How could man be clever enough to forge such writing so similar in style to the God given Torah? Well, either the New Testament is also the word of God or both are just man-made creations. Personally, I choose the latter.
Another huge matzo ball out there is why God has chosen to remain silent all these years since speaking to Moses at Mount Sinai. Itâs not enough to say that God has given us signs of his existence. I donât want signs. Considering all the turmoil and strife in the world, largely due to religion, we need God to speak as plainly to us as he allegedly did to Moses to set the record straight once and for all.
As someone with a deep interest in Native Americana, I am greatly disappointed that much of their worldview and cosmology have been unalterably entangled, corrupted and tainted by Catholicism and Christianity. It is unfortunate that a book such as The Sacred Pipe: Black Elk's Account of the Seven Rites of the Oglala Sioux by Joseph Epes Brown cannot be read at face value. Thatâs because Black Elk became a Catholic in his later years, thus tainting his presentation of traditional beliefs. The integrity of the telling of his traditional Lakota rituals and beliefs has mournfully been lost forever.
Catholics and Christians should not take pride in these reservation conversions. It wouldnât be completely inaccurate to say that duress played a part in many of them and that free will was not a factor. Their old way of life was destroyed and they felt powerless. They adopted Christianity (many without renouncing and denouncing their old ways) as a means of survival. What is ironic is that they adopted the very faith that played such a prominent role in their subjugation. But it must be understood it was pushed upon them, especially once confined to the various reservations (keep in mind that missionaries started the conversion process pre-1850). It wasnât like the Native Americans were given a choice between popular religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or a preservation of their old ways. It was my way or the highway.
When you hear an ignorant zealot proudly proclaim that the United States of America was founded on Christianity, be sure to remind him/her that this must include the good with the bad, so they must also take credit for slavery and the near destruction/genocide of the Native American population and the theft of their land.
If God exists and gave us intelligence and the ability to think logically, why is faith required t
believe in God? God would surely make his presence known in an unmistakable manner. However, once logic enters the equation, reason defies the existence of God.
Applying logic and reason, there is no choice but to deny the legitimacy of religion, yet there are logical and reasonable people who believe in religion. It makes one wonder if there is such a thing as common sense after all.
Oh, by the way, hello!
GottaBigOne
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,035
- Media
- 13
- Likes
- 255
- Points
- 303
- Age
- 42
- Location
- Dallas (Texas, United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
very nice post brooklynite. It's good to know that there other people out there that give reason and logic such respect as you do.
Sometimes I wonder about the point of debate. No one is going to convince me that my belief system is based on nonsense, and I'm not going to convince a non-believer to believe in something that he cannot see. But take the quote about logic and reason. One of the most logical thinkers of the twentieth century was Albert Einstein. He had been an atheist. He later said that he had theories about some of the biggest mysteries in the universe, but none of them worked unless there was a God. He thought it unreasonable to believe that all we are and all we can see came about by cosmic accident. He converted to Christianity.
- jonb,
Theories about the universe vary. The problem with deities in physics is that they're untestable; often, physicists use "God" as an anthropomorphism for the laws of the universe, though, hence Einstein's famous quote "God does not play dice." (Of course, today, everyone agrees that he does, just with very tiny things.)
Bottom line is this, any religion that states all are going to hell who don't believe in a certain alleged messiah is clearly a form of mind control. Any negative comments towards my post, even done in a friendly manner, that fail to disprove me convincingly point by point, are just helpless jabs at my overall theory. It is only human nature to not want our bubbles bursted. I am an agnostic. Some consider that a cop out. I do not. It's a very honest assessment which is that I just do not know the truth. But no one does! So deep down we are all agnostics. But applying logic, it is clear that even if there is a God (and that's a big IF), that mankind has really gotten off track from whatever was intended. And that being the case, why did God choose to reveal himself/herself/itself to a primitive people in the desert several thousand years ago and leave behind such ambiguous information that has since been the cause of so much pain in the world?
If a believer and a non-believer were told to sit down and write a list in an attempt to prove whose point of view is correct, the agnostic/atheist would have the potential to write pages upon pages of inconsistencies, logical absurdities and "hard to believe" stories from the bible, and all the believer could write is "I just have faith."
Did you know that the bible tells you to stone to death your relatives who do not believe as you do (Deuteronomy 13:6-11)? To do that in the modern world would mean going to jail by way of the justice system that uses/upholds the very book that states it is okay to do what you are now going to jail for. And it's not enough to say that the bible is just stories to learn by. It's either the infallible word of God or it isn't. And if it isn't, which it can't be since it's not infallible, then the entire argument must end right there. But the fact that it doesn't just goes to show how powerful (largely through fear) the bible is.
And what makes this a serious issue is when religion enters government and corrupts it, as is happening now.
Did anybody ever see the Star Trek episode when the Enterprise visits a planet where the inhabitants are using a gangster book as their bible? It was really a very profound episode.
If the bible was truly the word of God, why do we need "professional" religious leaders to explain to us what was "really meant?" And these professionals often can't agree. And don't forget the inherent problems of translation. Much of what the bible states is more than likely misinterpreted or purposely altered.
Is there any truth hidden about our origins within the bible? Perhaps, who knows. But taking it all at face value (Old Testament, New Testament, other religious texts) is really pushing the limits of believability. And Mormonism is a perfect example of the craziness that people are willing to believe in.
Oy vay, I've said enough.
If a believer and a non-believer were told to sit down and write a list in an attempt to prove whose point of view is correct, the agnostic/atheist would have the potential to write pages upon pages of inconsistencies, logical absurdities and "hard to believe" stories from the bible, and all the believer could write is "I just have faith."
Did you know that the bible tells you to stone to death your relatives who do not believe as you do (Deuteronomy 13:6-11)? To do that in the modern world would mean going to jail by way of the justice system that uses/upholds the very book that states it is okay to do what you are now going to jail for. And it's not enough to say that the bible is just stories to learn by. It's either the infallible word of God or it isn't. And if it isn't, which it can't be since it's not infallible, then the entire argument must end right there. But the fact that it doesn't just goes to show how powerful (largely through fear) the bible is.
And what makes this a serious issue is when religion enters government and corrupts it, as is happening now.
Did anybody ever see the Star Trek episode when the Enterprise visits a planet where the inhabitants are using a gangster book as their bible? It was really a very profound episode.
If the bible was truly the word of God, why do we need "professional" religious leaders to explain to us what was "really meant?" And these professionals often can't agree. And don't forget the inherent problems of translation. Much of what the bible states is more than likely misinterpreted or purposely altered.
Is there any truth hidden about our origins within the bible? Perhaps, who knows. But taking it all at face value (Old Testament, New Testament, other religious texts) is really pushing the limits of believability. And Mormonism is a perfect example of the craziness that people are willing to believe in.
Oy vay, I've said enough.
DoubleMeatWhopper, Is it safe to assume your a religious person and a homosexual? Do you mind if i ask what you do follow, if any organized religion at all?
About purgatory, wasnt that the place made after the catholic church decided to sell indulgences? I could be completely wrong on this.
About purgatory, wasnt that the place made after the catholic church decided to sell indulgences? I could be completely wrong on this.
As are many theories. Lack of proof is not the same as lack of existence. For a long period of time, astronomers theorised that there must be a planet beyond Neptune even though they couldn't prove it. Then Pluto was eventually discovered. Pluto didn't suddenly spring into being; it was always there even though it had escaped detection. People can poo-poo faith all they want; I believe that faith is a beautiful thing. I'll admit that I don't have blind faith. I have to reason everything. My reasoning has led me to the conclusion that there must be a God. But again, that's only my theory. I obviously can't expect everyone to follow my line of reasoning, nor to agree with me. My religious views work for me, and that's ultimately what matters.
I'm Catholic, but I see good (and bad) in all religions. Religion is man's search for the Eternal Truth, and organised religion provides him with a community that shares his beliefs.
Not exactly. The Council of Trent was convened in 1546 to resolve the 'Luther problem'. Martin Luther never intended to leave the Catholic Church. He had some legitimate beefs with many of the practices of the Church in his day, and one of the main complaints was the selling of indulgences. The belief in Purgatory had to already be in place; otherwise, indulgences wouldn't make any sense! The idea of Purgatory goes far back into antiquity; it even predates Christianity. All the Council of Trent did regarding the doctrine of Purgatory was to clarify exactly was Purgatory represented. There were much more important matters to discuss at the Council, namely Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther was formally excommunicated, and Protestantism was proclaimed a heresy.
- jonb,
What I meant is, the problem is that we can come up with any number of metaphysical arguments, but one's no more true than the others simply because we can't test it, much like a singularity: Singularities exist, but what happens inside one requires knowledge of a zero-dimensional universe. Topological defects, such as cosmic strings and domain walls, have the same problem, in one and two dimensions. As does hyperspace in four or more dimensions. (Note that for all this, I mean spatial dimensions, not time.) Hence the fruitlessness of Einstein's search for a grand unified theory.
We're close to quantum gravity without deities, save for two problems:
1) None fit testability requirements, just like with deities.
2) Different theories requires ten, eleven, or twenty-six dimensions. They don't work otherwise. Prior to this, we could just plug in the number of dimensions.
We're close to quantum gravity without deities, save for two problems:
1) None fit testability requirements, just like with deities.
2) Different theories requires ten, eleven, or twenty-six dimensions. They don't work otherwise. Prior to this, we could just plug in the number of dimensions.
DMW, does it bother you at all the catholics say being homosexual is wrong?
Catholics say that the word of the pope is in essance the word of God, how do you follow a religion that tells you that you are wrong?
I'm not trying to create flame wars, im just curious.
Catholics say that the word of the pope is in essance the word of God, how do you follow a religion that tells you that you are wrong?
I'm not trying to create flame wars, im just curious.
The Catholic Church does not teach that homosexuality is wrong. The Catechism of the Catholic Church reaffirms that homosexuals are the children of God and of no less value than any other child of God. And if some Catholics believe that the word of the Pope is in essence the word of God, then they don't know their own religion. The Pope speaks with infallible authority only on matters of dogma; he does not claim the gift of Prophecy. The Church does not hold that the Pope speaks with the voice of God.
yaoifun
Just Browsing
Hahaha that is one of my favorite points to bring up when I'm talking to people about homosexuality and religion. I'm not exactly "out" yet, but when people say being gay is defying the word of God, I get a little ticked. Just becuase I'm technically gay does NOT by any means dictate that I hate God or love him any less. It's just how I feel, and if people don't like it, too damn bad. I also love it when straight people butt into business like that - they aren't gay, so therefore it is NOT thier business and shouldn't run thier mouthes. I have actually been in heated arguments about the whole "the Bible says being gay is wrong" finally when I'm done listening to them repeat the same garbage all over and over again, I say the words "where then? Tell me or show me where exactly in the Bible it says this, because you sure "seem" to know what you talking about *smirk* My favorite and most common response is "Umm....uhh...I dunno, but it's there!!!...I think..." I'm technically a Christian, but if I wear to find a religion that honestly in my heart felt more honest and true to me, I would convert, and that does NOT mean I love God any less, I have just found a different way to worship him. I do not think being gay is wrong, otherwise why would God have made people as such? We are all God's creations, and we all deserve the same amount of respect as any other person. OK, I know I sound like a psuedo-fundie talking all about God like this, but it just pisses the living Hell outta me when people use God and religion, regardless of what religion, to put some sort of justification on their prejudices and hate crimes. And I am through!!!
Similar threads
