The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3108349.stm
This, if you ask me, is something of a medieval attitude, and only goes to show that Catholicism (sp?) has a dwindling place alongside modern society.
This, if you ask me, is something of a medieval attitude, and only goes to show that Catholicism (sp?) has a dwindling place alongside modern society.
Page:
There are two things that worry me.
1) The Bible is an odd piece of literature in that it was originally handed down orally until a bunch of monks decided that it would be good to write it all down. The old testament is the one that was written by 'prophets' who believed they were recieving the words of God. This was then split and many different religions used the same source, but in different ways.
The new testament was created from the writings and oral traditions of the followers of Jesus and then collected together at a far later date to be written in to a book, all the while gaining parts and changing shape, like a snowball rolling down a hill. This would have taken in to account any thinking of the time, including the idea of sexual preference. During this time it had changed with society and been amended and the final book probably relates only in part to the teachings of Jesus (should you believe he existed).
2) On top of this, you have the Church, the founding body of organised Christianity, who devised the Christian Marriage and the 'no sex before marriage' rule to control the booming population. They also came up with rules that reflected what they read in to the Bible. But, of course, not everyone reads a book the same way, especially one that has been translated so badly and so many times.
1) The Bible is an odd piece of literature in that it was originally handed down orally until a bunch of monks decided that it would be good to write it all down. The old testament is the one that was written by 'prophets' who believed they were recieving the words of God. This was then split and many different religions used the same source, but in different ways.
The new testament was created from the writings and oral traditions of the followers of Jesus and then collected together at a far later date to be written in to a book, all the while gaining parts and changing shape, like a snowball rolling down a hill. This would have taken in to account any thinking of the time, including the idea of sexual preference. During this time it had changed with society and been amended and the final book probably relates only in part to the teachings of Jesus (should you believe he existed).
2) On top of this, you have the Church, the founding body of organised Christianity, who devised the Christian Marriage and the 'no sex before marriage' rule to control the booming population. They also came up with rules that reflected what they read in to the Bible. But, of course, not everyone reads a book the same way, especially one that has been translated so badly and so many times.
Sdrawkcab wrote:
> There are glaring faults in Christianity.
>
> If God forgives all your sins, why do bad people go to hell?
Because you have to be sorry you committed them to be absolved.
> There are glaring faults in Christianity.
>
> If God forgives all your sins, why do bad people go to hell?
Because you have to be sorry you committed them to be absolved.
There are glaring faults in Christianity.
If God forgives all your sins, why do bad people go to hell?
If God forgives all your sins, why do bad people go to hell?
Practical Magic wrote:
> But surely fluid beliefs are not true beliefs, but ones subject to
> whims ?
No belief is true, because as soon as a belief is proved true it becomes a fact.
I have no problem with people believing in a moral code, everybody does it, but we must acknowledge that morals and morality in general are not fixed truths. They can be changed. There is no moral law set in stone, and this my is problem with most religions: they claim to KNOW the correct morality we should all be following, because once-upon-a-time God the invisible spoke. I don't buy it.
> But surely fluid beliefs are not true beliefs, but ones subject to
> whims ?
No belief is true, because as soon as a belief is proved true it becomes a fact.
I have no problem with people believing in a moral code, everybody does it, but we must acknowledge that morals and morality in general are not fixed truths. They can be changed. There is no moral law set in stone, and this my is problem with most religions: they claim to KNOW the correct morality we should all be following, because once-upon-a-time God the invisible spoke. I don't buy it.
But surely fluid beliefs are not true beliefs, but ones subject to whims ? Many tenents of religion remain valid today- thievery is wrong, adultery is wrong, murder is wrong etc Morals like this are the basis for every society that exists, albeit modified from place to place. One of the glaring ones which is often broken is adultery, people consider it - generally - to be okay, spurred on no doubt by the plethora of entertainment media which tells them it's okay. Look at today's soaps and sitcoms, the characters have usually had sex with so many of the others that by rights the areas they take place in should be full of near inbreds ! Same idea goes for marriage, the media is generally full of images of people, mainly female, as single parents, having a wonderful time. Take Friends, Rachel - she has a kid, but where is it ? Doesn't get in the way of her character having fun with the rest of the gang does it ? Scully in X Files - the kid appeared every so often but was otherwise noticeably absent. Catherine in CSI - kid safely out of the way whilst she works days on end. And on and on...
DébUK wrote:
> BTW, Black Glove, I would be interested in what you based this comment
> on:
>
> " a glaring lie: that the only way to spiritual salvation and
> enlightenment is through one source - Jesus Christ."
It's a glaring lie because it was an attempt to belittle and dismiss all other spiritual paths by claiming that only through accepting Jesus Christ as the saviour, the truth and the light could one attain everlasting life/spirtual fulfilment.
But I may be reading it wrong, and I'm open to my point of view being smashed like a stained-glass window :)
I just think that spirituality is a fluid thing, and that when beliefs become fixed, that's when problems begin.
> BTW, Black Glove, I would be interested in what you based this comment
> on:
>
> " a glaring lie: that the only way to spiritual salvation and
> enlightenment is through one source - Jesus Christ."
It's a glaring lie because it was an attempt to belittle and dismiss all other spiritual paths by claiming that only through accepting Jesus Christ as the saviour, the truth and the light could one attain everlasting life/spirtual fulfilment.
But I may be reading it wrong, and I'm open to my point of view being smashed like a stained-glass window :)
I just think that spirituality is a fluid thing, and that when beliefs become fixed, that's when problems begin.
Oh, by the way, I will not be around to reply to any more posts as I will be on holiday in the Lake District.
Maybe I will explore Pantheism whilst I'm there in a truly Wordsworthian style!
Maybe I will explore Pantheism whilst I'm there in a truly Wordsworthian style!
I agree with P.M- his points are put accross very eloquently.
People spout on about how Catholicism is 'outdated.' However, the reason it is outdated is because we are living by a book that is thousands of years old. Some sectors of Christianity have attempted to get 'bums on pews' by updating the Bible's teachings to fit modern society.
There is one major flaw to this and that is that 'modern society' changes all the time. The Bible offers consistancy in a world that changes so rapidly. By deciding not to change the teachings of the Bible, Catholicism appears to have alienated many sectors of society such as divorcees and homosexuals. However, this does not mean that ALL Catholics are closed minded. Just because Catholicism does not update its teachings to suit its followers, doesnt mean that I as a Catholic cannot decide which teachings I want to live by in my attempt to live my life as Jesus would want me to.
BTW, Black Glove, I would be interested in what you based this comment on:
" a glaring lie: that the only way to spiritual salvation and enlightenment is through one source - Jesus Christ."
How do you know it is a 'glaring lie'? This is the whole point of religion. I believe that salvation is achieved throught the Holy Trinity, but you may not. This does not believe that my belief is based on a 'glaring lie.' It just means that our beliefs are different and it would be nice if people showed some tolerance of other people's beliefs instead of rejecting them.
Sorry for the long post- I just feel very strongly about my religion. (After all I have spent 1 hour of every sunday of my life in my church!)
People spout on about how Catholicism is 'outdated.' However, the reason it is outdated is because we are living by a book that is thousands of years old. Some sectors of Christianity have attempted to get 'bums on pews' by updating the Bible's teachings to fit modern society.
There is one major flaw to this and that is that 'modern society' changes all the time. The Bible offers consistancy in a world that changes so rapidly. By deciding not to change the teachings of the Bible, Catholicism appears to have alienated many sectors of society such as divorcees and homosexuals. However, this does not mean that ALL Catholics are closed minded. Just because Catholicism does not update its teachings to suit its followers, doesnt mean that I as a Catholic cannot decide which teachings I want to live by in my attempt to live my life as Jesus would want me to.
BTW, Black Glove, I would be interested in what you based this comment on:
" a glaring lie: that the only way to spiritual salvation and enlightenment is through one source - Jesus Christ."
How do you know it is a 'glaring lie'? This is the whole point of religion. I believe that salvation is achieved throught the Holy Trinity, but you may not. This does not believe that my belief is based on a 'glaring lie.' It just means that our beliefs are different and it would be nice if people showed some tolerance of other people's beliefs instead of rejecting them.
Sorry for the long post- I just feel very strongly about my religion. (After all I have spent 1 hour of every sunday of my life in my church!)
Practical Magic wrote:
> You mean modern spirituality here, something that it is well possible
> has been hijacked for other means...
No, I mean just spirituality; the spiritual aspect of man. As soon as "spiritual" teachings or ideas harden into dogma and are declared "eternal" [as has happened especially in the Christian religion] they cease to be truly spiritual in my opinion. They almost become political.
> What you describe
> sounds more like New Age spirituality, which owes more to the drug
> fest of the 60's and 70's than to any real religion.
Call it that if you wish. That's your perception. But spirituality is a "forever thing". It was present in the human mind long before Dogmatic religion reared its ugly head. By the term "spirituality" I'm really talking about "mysticism".
> Take the whole gay argument. Who is to say the Pope is wrong, and that
> anyone else is right ? What, other than moral arguments, can either
> side offer ? Nothing I'm aware of, and when it comes down to morals
> it's all subjective and rooted in an individuals own morality and
> beliefs.
I'm not saying he is wrong at all, it is he/they [Catholism] who are in fact saying they are right. They are the ones laying down the moral law as if they are the sole guardians of fixed moral truth.
> You mean modern spirituality here, something that it is well possible
> has been hijacked for other means...
No, I mean just spirituality; the spiritual aspect of man. As soon as "spiritual" teachings or ideas harden into dogma and are declared "eternal" [as has happened especially in the Christian religion] they cease to be truly spiritual in my opinion. They almost become political.
> What you describe
> sounds more like New Age spirituality, which owes more to the drug
> fest of the 60's and 70's than to any real religion.
Call it that if you wish. That's your perception. But spirituality is a "forever thing". It was present in the human mind long before Dogmatic religion reared its ugly head. By the term "spirituality" I'm really talking about "mysticism".
> Take the whole gay argument. Who is to say the Pope is wrong, and that
> anyone else is right ? What, other than moral arguments, can either
> side offer ? Nothing I'm aware of, and when it comes down to morals
> it's all subjective and rooted in an individuals own morality and
> beliefs.
I'm not saying he is wrong at all, it is he/they [Catholism] who are in fact saying they are right. They are the ones laying down the moral law as if they are the sole guardians of fixed moral truth.
Black Glove wrote:
> What I find most irriatating about Christianity and any Christian
> offshoot sect is that their whole outlook is based on a glaring lie:
> that the only way to spiritual salvation and enlightenment is through
> one source - Jesus Christ.
But if is a belief what is so wrong with that ? Other religions believe in other Gods. You want to try tell people of the Islamic faith their God is wrong, or the same for any other religion.
> Spirituality isn't about truth, about facts, it's about the
> progression of the conscience; it's about the evolution of the higher
> self.
You mean modern spirituality here, something that it is well possible has been hijacked for other means...
> Clinging to "fixed" moral values is a symptom of decay. It's
> closed-minded.
> True spirituality is about "vision"; about being
> "open" to new and different perceptions. Dogmatic religion
> does nothing else but crucify the future to the past.
But arguably, through media influences, the morals of many today have been changed for the worse, a more surefire sign of a society in decay. History is littered with the civilisations which changed their morals, but strangely not with those that didn't. What you describe sounds more like New Age spirituality, which owes more to the drug fest of the 60's and 70's than to any real religion. Like it or not, dogmatic religions have been believed in for thousands of years and have helped and been believed in by billions of people. That's unlikely to change.
Take the whole gay argument. Who is to say the Pope is wrong, and that anyone else is right ? What, other than moral arguments, can either side offer ? Nothing I'm aware of, and when it comes down to morals it's all subjective and rooted in an individuals own morality and beliefs.
> What I find most irriatating about Christianity and any Christian
> offshoot sect is that their whole outlook is based on a glaring lie:
> that the only way to spiritual salvation and enlightenment is through
> one source - Jesus Christ.
But if is a belief what is so wrong with that ? Other religions believe in other Gods. You want to try tell people of the Islamic faith their God is wrong, or the same for any other religion.
> Spirituality isn't about truth, about facts, it's about the
> progression of the conscience; it's about the evolution of the higher
> self.
You mean modern spirituality here, something that it is well possible has been hijacked for other means...
> Clinging to "fixed" moral values is a symptom of decay. It's
> closed-minded.
> True spirituality is about "vision"; about being
> "open" to new and different perceptions. Dogmatic religion
> does nothing else but crucify the future to the past.
But arguably, through media influences, the morals of many today have been changed for the worse, a more surefire sign of a society in decay. History is littered with the civilisations which changed their morals, but strangely not with those that didn't. What you describe sounds more like New Age spirituality, which owes more to the drug fest of the 60's and 70's than to any real religion. Like it or not, dogmatic religions have been believed in for thousands of years and have helped and been believed in by billions of people. That's unlikely to change.
Take the whole gay argument. Who is to say the Pope is wrong, and that anyone else is right ? What, other than moral arguments, can either side offer ? Nothing I'm aware of, and when it comes down to morals it's all subjective and rooted in an individuals own morality and beliefs.
Page: