The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
In light of the Anglican Church's recent meeting I think a debate is in order (preferably a civilised one with no name-calling)
Should there be gay priests, bishops etc in the Church?
Your opinions please.
Should there be gay priests, bishops etc in the Church?
Your opinions please.
Page:
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> Genesis 1:27 says "God created man in his image".
I read somewhere that the correct translation from the Hebrew is: "Gods created man in their own image" - which if true, conjures all sorts of ancient extraterrestrial visitation images.
Gabriel pays Mary a visit and soon thereafter she falls pregnant without having sex... artificial insemination perhaps.
God descends in fire and smoke on Mount Sinai and scorches the earth.
The destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah reads like a nuclear explosion.
Not that I adhere to this point of view *cough*
> Genesis 1:27 says "God created man in his image".
I read somewhere that the correct translation from the Hebrew is: "Gods created man in their own image" - which if true, conjures all sorts of ancient extraterrestrial visitation images.
Gabriel pays Mary a visit and soon thereafter she falls pregnant without having sex... artificial insemination perhaps.
God descends in fire and smoke on Mount Sinai and scorches the earth.
The destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah reads like a nuclear explosion.
Not that I adhere to this point of view *cough*
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> Well Bell, Genesis 1:27 says "God created man in his image".
> So that is probably where referring to God as He or Him comes from,
> also that Genesis has Adam created first, then Eve.
>
> I read you post Light, will reply when I have time over the next few
> days.
M'kay, looking forward to it.
Wasn't there a Hebrew word that meant "person" (ie. was not masculine or feminine) and it was translated as 'he'?
> Well Bell, Genesis 1:27 says "God created man in his image".
> So that is probably where referring to God as He or Him comes from,
> also that Genesis has Adam created first, then Eve.
>
> I read you post Light, will reply when I have time over the next few
> days.
M'kay, looking forward to it.
Wasn't there a Hebrew word that meant "person" (ie. was not masculine or feminine) and it was translated as 'he'?
I'd say that line was pretty open to interpretation, and given the male dominated church of the time it seems inevitable it should be interpreted as that. It could be used to argue that the Earth was seeded by a humanlike race from lightyears away..., plus evolution kinda pours water on Adam and Eve actually being anything like people today except in the basic ways.
Well Bell, Genesis 1:27 says "God created man in his image". So that is probably where referring to God as He or Him comes from, also that Genesis has Adam created first, then Eve.
I read you post Light, will reply when I have time over the next few days.
I read you post Light, will reply when I have time over the next few days.
22 (just), though I rarely act it online :)
Belldandy, this is no way connected to that post, and it is not intended as some sort of insult, but what age are you? Becasue I'm just wondering.
Couldn't help noticing how many people in this thread, especially Biggles, refer to God as "he".
Now I'll readily admit that my train of thought on this was inspired by Dogma, but it's interesting not many consider that he could be a she, or neither. Undoubtedly God became referred to as a he in the beginnings of the religion simply because men were the dominant gender. In fact - and again I could be wrong seeing as I've never really read the bible a great deal - the vast majority of the bible and the important people in it are men. Whilst those that interpretted the earliest bible were again, more than likely, men, one has to wonder why - if the Bible truly is the foundation of western Christian religion and the book of a being which created the entire world and mankind - women seem to have very little to do with it all for the most part.
Cynics could argue that an organisation dominated by men simply churned out a work of fiction that legitimised their own position and source of power...
Now I'll readily admit that my train of thought on this was inspired by Dogma, but it's interesting not many consider that he could be a she, or neither. Undoubtedly God became referred to as a he in the beginnings of the religion simply because men were the dominant gender. In fact - and again I could be wrong seeing as I've never really read the bible a great deal - the vast majority of the bible and the important people in it are men. Whilst those that interpretted the earliest bible were again, more than likely, men, one has to wonder why - if the Bible truly is the foundation of western Christian religion and the book of a being which created the entire world and mankind - women seem to have very little to do with it all for the most part.
Cynics could argue that an organisation dominated by men simply churned out a work of fiction that legitimised their own position and source of power...
Light wrote:
>A helluva lot, whcih I'm not going to quote.
Yikes.
>A helluva lot, whcih I'm not going to quote.
Yikes.
If you need to lie down after that little marathon typing effort, I'll understand.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
>
> Well.. when was the last time you met a eunuch?
Heh. Tempted though I am to say "the last time I talked to Belldandy", I'll admit I've met none. But I have met men who've lost a ball to testicular cancer. Technically, these chaps are going to have to explain themselves when it comes to getting into heaven...
>
> I understand your point about the acceptance of gays in western
> culture, but our opinion clashes on the basis of belief in God or
> not. I haven't re interpreted anything. I wish to distance myself
> from the church however, as there are definitely some things on which
> they are wrong and have re interpreted the bible. Accepting
> homosexuality as ok is however a reinterpretation.
SOME things?!?!
Mate, the whole bible and subsequent dogma are interpretations and re-interpretations; the celebacy laws for priests for example (as you know) are an interpretation. In any case, how does Belief in God dictate whether or not to have a bias against homosexuals? You seem to be saying that, to believe in God, one must be anti-Gay. Surely I must have misunderstood what you're saying?
Plus you're allowing one reinterpretation because of advances in society (mentruating women being shunned is no longer a priority cos of sanitary products). So why are you opposed to another reinterpretation because of another advance in society (western society is now willing to avoid judging people because of their sexuality)?
>
>
> Not to do with race, to do with the fact that they would fight with
> and corrupt God's nation. Had they just moved out of the land then
> they would not have been destroyed.
Right...so if those Palestinians had just left the land then there would be no problems in the middle east?
C'mon, use your common sense; no tribe or race of people in the history of mankind has willingly conceded territory to an aggressor. Are you really saying that these people deserved it because some ambitious Jewish holy man said God had given him a note to say it's okay? Sorry mate, but that's still an act of genocide.
Also, they were driven out for being non-Jews. That makes what happened a war of genocide as it was about the destruction of people not of a certain race, particularly as Jewish people are considered a semetic race in their own right. They wiped out all non-Jews there...so how is it not about race?
>
> No. The slaughter as you put it was always justified. Homosexuality
> isn't.
And HOW exactly was the slaughter justified? By the Bible? Which was compiled after the fact anyway?
If you really want to pursue the point and stick with the Bible as justification for beliefs in various societies, how come you can ignore Christ's exhortation to mankind to simply love thy neighbour? Did it change to "Love thy neighbour...unless you don't want to" and nobody told me?! Or maybe "Love thy neighbour...unless he's funny lookin' and maybe a queer"?
>
>
> It does indeed say an eye for an eye. Do you know what context? It
> was the punishment for false testimony. If you falsely testified
> against someone you would suffer what they would have suffered.
> Because the concept became twisted over the years Jesus went over it.
> He told his disciples to be peaceable, to turn the other cheek, as
> opposed to an undying need for revenge.
I didn't know the context actually, so thanks for that. However, does what you've said change in any way my original point; that the Old Testament is contradicted by the New? If anything, what you've written here supports that point. In which case, why listen to the Old at all when it contradicts the New? Could it be that the arguments against homosexuality are simply selectively culled from the Bible to support the reader's own personal prejudices?
>
> Matthew was written in 41AD
> Mark 60-65AD
> Luke 56-58AD
> John 98AD
Hmm...we both have differing sources for our History. My own bias coming through here, but I'm guessing your sources are from pro-christian biblical scholars? However...even using your dates, at least 1 of those people would have been dead by the time of the supposed writing of that Gospel.
>
>
> What do you base that on? The books that are genuinely part of the
> biblical canon have been verified , sometimes through contemporary
> writings, sometimes through manuscripts etc.
See above; at the very least, John's Gospel cannot have been written by him using your dates; he could not have survived that long in the 1st Century AD; Tiberius only lived into his 70's, and he led a rich and pampered later life. Aside from that, I'm basing it on (if I'm honest) a mixture of History Channel, UK History, BBC and C4 documentaries, and some crashingly dull books that I used to read for fun in order to argue with any Jehovah's Witnesses and/or Mormons who came a'knocking.
And which books are genuinely biblical in your eyes? I get the impression that you're saying some books in the Bible are not 'correct'. Again, I suspect much of what you've got is from Biblical scholars; no offence to you, but I find many of them, like all fundamentalist types, have a habit of only looking for evidence that supports their beliefs and of ignoring that which contradicts them. I could be totally wrong about your sources though; you show me yours and I'll show you mine!
>
>
>
> But it isn't really the case. In the time of the nation of Israel,
> they were his chosen people collectively, as a nation. He loved his
> people and as such protected the nation. There were times when there
> was war, and he was vengeful against the attacking nations. But it
> was to the end of protecting the nation. In the New Testament, after
> the messiah the Mosaic Law was gone, and the Jews were no longer his
> chosen people, there was no nation to protect. Just individuals who
> had embraced what became Christianity. Because of that there was no
> need to take revenge on pagan nations threatening Israel.
A Key word here; vengeful.
You say below that attack is the best form of defense (more on that later). How can one be vengeful when one is the aggressor? Surely revenge requires something to be done to you first? And I don't really think "being on land that isn't mine but that I want" can be considered an act of war (unless you're Dubya, obviously...)
>
>
> The best form of defence is offence. By leaving a threat, there was
> always going to be danger to his people. By removing the threat there
> wasn't.
Using that logic, Japan and Germany have won WWII...
I'm extremely perturbed at this logic, because it seems that all someone needs to do is to declare someone or something a 'threat' in the eyes of God in order to turn the followers of a religion against them/it. Surely that, once again, contradicts the teachings of the New Testament? And as it is in direct contradiction, how can that logic therefore be justified post-Christ?
>
> By the second century apostate teaching had entered the church and
> twisted the bible. From that time onward I no longer agree with the
> church, just what was written in the bible. The Crusades in my
> opinion should never have happened and that was the result of men,
> not God.
Amen. Though I would say that the church had been twisted long before then. Also, I don't think the Bible wasn't compiled by the second century; I'm sure it was the 4th. I'll check up on that.
> >
> The Law was no longer binding for Christians because of the ransom
> sacrifice paid by Christs death. But the principles were still valid.
> I think you would agree that some things in the law such as not to
> murder are still applicable today. The laws governing the running of
> an actual nation however are not.
Again though, not killing is basic human decency. And if we're going to give credit for that prohibition to Religion then why aren't you beating a path to the temple of Marduk, as it was the Sumerians and Babylonians who's religious texts first gave that prohibition, and the writings from those religions pre-date any Jewish Kabballah or Christian bible.
>
> Still not looked into it fully. As I mentioned earlier, after the
> second century the church suffered major apostasty which led to major
> twisting of the bible. The best example of this is hell. The hell in
> the bible is not one of eternal fiery torment. But that is nothing to
> do with this per se, just an example of how the church deviated from
> the bible.
Again, I'm saying the bible had not been compiled by this point. It was compiled after Constantine, and he himself was around in the 3rd century AD. I'll have to find something linkable...
>
> What I said earlier about them having to fight several tribes to take
> possession of the land of Israel and to eradicate pagans applies
> here.
You do realise that Hitler used the exact same justification for his lebensraum policy? What's the difference between a man saying that a race of people should be driven from their land, and a man saying people should be driven from their land because God says so?! It's nothing more than naked aggression given a veneer of respectability by use of a figure to whom there is no right of appeal, or even any way to check if thats what they wanted.
>
>
> How is it selective interpretation regarding prostitution? To be a
> prostitute (or to use one) would require you to violate certain laws
> and principles. It isn't selective, there are no loopholes or ways
> round that.
Fair enough, I concede your point. But isn't it selective to say "Homosexuals are bad" when Jesus was saying things like "all men are equal in the eyes of God" and "Hey, love one another, M'kay?" (I'm paraphrasing but you get the idea..)
>
> To make homosexuality not a sin would require the ignoring of certain
> laws and principles.
Like the church has done throughout all recorded history? Did you read about the behaviour of the various popes throughout the ages? Bearing in mind that the pope is, according to Catholic dogma at least, Gods representative on earth, can you think of a single reason why it shouldn't be declared that homosexuality is not a sin?
Also, MAKING homosexuality a sin requires one to ignore the law and principle of loving thy neighbour, love for ones fellow man, peace, and brotherhood. Which, as they form the whole basis of Christianity, are fairly big things to be ignored. As nice Mr Shaw once said, Christianity would probably be a good idea if only someone would try it.
>
> True. But it also leaves whoever was owed money out of pocket with no
> recompense. That isn't fair either.
No it isn't. So garnish the soldiers income so that a portion goes directly to the creditor. It's what the courts do today and it's a damn side more loving than enslaving someone.
>
> The things you mention there were all after the Mosaic Law was gone,
> after Jesus. It was a loving provision of the law, it just was no
> longer in effect and never was to non Jews.
Nope, wrong I'm afraid. They were all in place prior to the end of Mosaic Law (which I'm taking to be not long after the birth of Christ?); they were all laws of the Roman Republic, and the Republic was pre-Christ and greatly influenced (ie. controlled) Judea and the surrounding areas at the time. Pedantic of me I admit, but that's the chronology.
>
> Not only that, but a real, faithful Christian wouldn't have done
> that. Many Christians themselves were slaves. It is a rather sad fact
> that what you mention did occur. But that was people, not religion to
> blame for it.
Erm...so why did so many 'real and faithful' christians order and inflict such horrendous atrocities on each other during the Arian heresy? Did it not count because they were a different flavour of Christian? Also, many Christians were important and influencial figures in Rome too. The whole Christian Persecution Complex only has half-truths at its root (there were persecutions of Christians, but for the majority of the Empire they were either left alone, or positively encouraged), and many Christians were more than happy to take advantage of their fellow believers to advance themselves. Funnily enough, they generally used religious 're-interpretation' to retrospectively prove that whomever it was they'd screwed over were clearly heretics.
>
> It wasn't the ultimate. The tophet in Carthage was in use between 750
> BC right up to the destruction of the city in 146 BC. The period
> with the most burials was 400-200 BC when 20,000 urns were buried.
> That is around 2 per week. Every week for 200 years. Not exactly due
> to a major threat hanging over them. They did do it very frequently,
> not just when they were losing wars.
I see. And the archaeologists involved; they examined every one of those 20,000 urns and found human child remains in each one, did they? My, they must have been very keen; spending all that time in North Africa and going through all those urns, not to mention the time it took to locate and excavate them...
Utter, utter cobblers. I'm afraid you've fallen for one of the first recorded uses of political propaganda. In this case, perpetrated by a Roman Republic senator named Cato the Elder, a man who finished every speech in the Senate for years with the phrase "That is my opinion. And it is my further opinion that Carthage must be destroyed".
After the second Punic War, Rome imposed many levies and taxes on Carthage designed to cripple them as a trading power in the Med. This didn't work, and Carthage was approaching a position of power again. This made Rome nervous. And so a flimsy pretext for war was concocted, and supported with all manner of slander and general gossip from the patrician and knight classes, particularly Cato and his supporters. Slander that included the child sacrifice tales. Although the Carthaginians had been known to practice human sacrifice, it was actually animal sacrifice (as it was in Rome, where human sacrifice of any kind was forbidden) that was prevalent there. In other words, the Romans did then what Dubya and Blair have done recently; decided on who the war will be against, then demonised the enemy as much as possible in order to justify it.
>
> True... in a way. Christianity did come after those religions, but
> Christianity has its beginnings in Judaism, which was around before
> or at the same time as those other cultures, not after.
Nope; Judaism was contemporaneous with the Babylonians who had also been around well before the Jews. And I seem to recall the Assyrians playing a part in the mix as well. Before I go any further into that argument though, I should point out that, if you're a creationist, you'll almost certainly not agree with any of my sources concerning ancient history!
>
> Again it all comes down to belief in God. I believe in him and
> because of that I believe that religious principles came before human
> principles.
Fair enough; I believe that man created Gods in his own image, but everyone is entitled to their beliefs. Whatever gets you through the night!
>
>
> Not genuinely inspired books of the bible. They were all done and
> dusted by the end of the first century. You've been misinformed.
>
Guess we'll have to check our sources then; the damn thing wasn't compiled in Latin until 4th/5th century AD as far as I'm aware. I'll check that.
>
> From the time of the nation of Israel onward, there has always been
> organised religion. That was what the apostles wanted, organisation.
> There was a need for that, otherwise many would have lost their
> faith.
Yet the New Testament was....well, new. It was a break from the tradition of Israel was it not? So why not break with the need for an organised church? To a lesser extent, the Celtic Catholic church almost managed this in that anyone in the congregation was allowed to preach from the pulpit. Then they got annexed by the Roman Catholic church which was, to my mind, a great shame.
> The way the church has developed with priests bishops and
> cardinals is wrong. Jesus said call no man father that is on earth
> (not referring to a dad, but to a priest) but only him that is in
> heaven. Plus he also referred to his disciples as brothers. The
> apostles didn't say that either.
If the church is wrong on some things, then why are you supporting it's position on homosexuality? Couldn't they be wrong about that as well? Why are you willing to accept that they're right about some things and not others?
>
> The gospel of Thomas etc was cut for not being inspired. They were
> fake. They detailed miracles that occurred in Jesus childhood. Which
> couldn't of happened before his baptism.
Says...the Bible? So let me get this right; the convocation decided which books to put in the bible, then once they had done that they declared the other apocryphal books to be fake because the Bible proved them wrong?
That's what is known in the medical trade as a load of old b*ll*cks. And as I say, don't you find it a tiny bit suspicious that the only gospels to make it in were the ones that came out in support of a church, whilst the ones that were cut out did not? Especially as leadership of such a church brought temporal power with it.
>
> The Acts of Paul etc were also not inspired. They placed strong
> emphasis on abstinence from sex. Which goes against other counsel
> Paul gave. Celibacy isn't a scriptural requirement, that was a false
> doctrine added by the church.
So...parts of the New Testament are to be ignored as well?!? Man...how selective are you going to be?! Don't you agree that this selectiveness is further proof that any and all organised Christian religion today is nothing more than an extension of it's founder and subsequent priesthood's personal beliefs, which then use those parts of the bible that support their views and ignore those that do not?
>
> It isn't that I don't want to know the secrets of creation, its that
> I haven't yet seen anything that convinces me that there is no God.
> But yet it does still interest me and always will. You're right to a
> degree with the Church, it is a deeply flawed organisation, there is
> a difference between preaching and using logic to reason with people
> compared to force and fear which have been used so frequently over
> the centuries.
Fair enough; can't argue with your beliefs. Speaking personally, I don't really think God is relevant and as such I don't care whether he exists or not. Did he create the universe? Possibly, but we're here living in it and we have to make the best of it. If God REALLY wanted us to live according to strictly defined rules, then I'm sure he would have been a lot clearer about them.
>
> I don't; I stand prepared to be judged by me. There can be no
> harsher
> critic than ones own conscience. Nobody NEEDS a mythical umpire to
> keep score on their life. One just needs to be honest with oneself.
>
> Possibly. But I'm a biased judge of myself.
Heh. So am I; I'm a lot harder on myself than anyone else could ever hope to be in judgement of me. Trust me; when you've betrayed your own conscience and you have no-one else to blame, no mythical figure to blame for your lapse and no father figure to ask for forgiveness, and nowhere to hide from yourself, THAT hurts worse than any biblical slap on the wrist.
>
> Well.. when was the last time you met a eunuch?
Heh. Tempted though I am to say "the last time I talked to Belldandy", I'll admit I've met none. But I have met men who've lost a ball to testicular cancer. Technically, these chaps are going to have to explain themselves when it comes to getting into heaven...
>
> I understand your point about the acceptance of gays in western
> culture, but our opinion clashes on the basis of belief in God or
> not. I haven't re interpreted anything. I wish to distance myself
> from the church however, as there are definitely some things on which
> they are wrong and have re interpreted the bible. Accepting
> homosexuality as ok is however a reinterpretation.
SOME things?!?!
Mate, the whole bible and subsequent dogma are interpretations and re-interpretations; the celebacy laws for priests for example (as you know) are an interpretation. In any case, how does Belief in God dictate whether or not to have a bias against homosexuals? You seem to be saying that, to believe in God, one must be anti-Gay. Surely I must have misunderstood what you're saying?
Plus you're allowing one reinterpretation because of advances in society (mentruating women being shunned is no longer a priority cos of sanitary products). So why are you opposed to another reinterpretation because of another advance in society (western society is now willing to avoid judging people because of their sexuality)?
>
>
> Not to do with race, to do with the fact that they would fight with
> and corrupt God's nation. Had they just moved out of the land then
> they would not have been destroyed.
Right...so if those Palestinians had just left the land then there would be no problems in the middle east?
C'mon, use your common sense; no tribe or race of people in the history of mankind has willingly conceded territory to an aggressor. Are you really saying that these people deserved it because some ambitious Jewish holy man said God had given him a note to say it's okay? Sorry mate, but that's still an act of genocide.
Also, they were driven out for being non-Jews. That makes what happened a war of genocide as it was about the destruction of people not of a certain race, particularly as Jewish people are considered a semetic race in their own right. They wiped out all non-Jews there...so how is it not about race?
>
> No. The slaughter as you put it was always justified. Homosexuality
> isn't.
And HOW exactly was the slaughter justified? By the Bible? Which was compiled after the fact anyway?
If you really want to pursue the point and stick with the Bible as justification for beliefs in various societies, how come you can ignore Christ's exhortation to mankind to simply love thy neighbour? Did it change to "Love thy neighbour...unless you don't want to" and nobody told me?! Or maybe "Love thy neighbour...unless he's funny lookin' and maybe a queer"?
>
>
> It does indeed say an eye for an eye. Do you know what context? It
> was the punishment for false testimony. If you falsely testified
> against someone you would suffer what they would have suffered.
> Because the concept became twisted over the years Jesus went over it.
> He told his disciples to be peaceable, to turn the other cheek, as
> opposed to an undying need for revenge.
I didn't know the context actually, so thanks for that. However, does what you've said change in any way my original point; that the Old Testament is contradicted by the New? If anything, what you've written here supports that point. In which case, why listen to the Old at all when it contradicts the New? Could it be that the arguments against homosexuality are simply selectively culled from the Bible to support the reader's own personal prejudices?
>
> Matthew was written in 41AD
> Mark 60-65AD
> Luke 56-58AD
> John 98AD
Hmm...we both have differing sources for our History. My own bias coming through here, but I'm guessing your sources are from pro-christian biblical scholars? However...even using your dates, at least 1 of those people would have been dead by the time of the supposed writing of that Gospel.
>
>
> What do you base that on? The books that are genuinely part of the
> biblical canon have been verified , sometimes through contemporary
> writings, sometimes through manuscripts etc.
See above; at the very least, John's Gospel cannot have been written by him using your dates; he could not have survived that long in the 1st Century AD; Tiberius only lived into his 70's, and he led a rich and pampered later life. Aside from that, I'm basing it on (if I'm honest) a mixture of History Channel, UK History, BBC and C4 documentaries, and some crashingly dull books that I used to read for fun in order to argue with any Jehovah's Witnesses and/or Mormons who came a'knocking.
And which books are genuinely biblical in your eyes? I get the impression that you're saying some books in the Bible are not 'correct'. Again, I suspect much of what you've got is from Biblical scholars; no offence to you, but I find many of them, like all fundamentalist types, have a habit of only looking for evidence that supports their beliefs and of ignoring that which contradicts them. I could be totally wrong about your sources though; you show me yours and I'll show you mine!
>
>
>
> But it isn't really the case. In the time of the nation of Israel,
> they were his chosen people collectively, as a nation. He loved his
> people and as such protected the nation. There were times when there
> was war, and he was vengeful against the attacking nations. But it
> was to the end of protecting the nation. In the New Testament, after
> the messiah the Mosaic Law was gone, and the Jews were no longer his
> chosen people, there was no nation to protect. Just individuals who
> had embraced what became Christianity. Because of that there was no
> need to take revenge on pagan nations threatening Israel.
A Key word here; vengeful.
You say below that attack is the best form of defense (more on that later). How can one be vengeful when one is the aggressor? Surely revenge requires something to be done to you first? And I don't really think "being on land that isn't mine but that I want" can be considered an act of war (unless you're Dubya, obviously...)
>
>
> The best form of defence is offence. By leaving a threat, there was
> always going to be danger to his people. By removing the threat there
> wasn't.
Using that logic, Japan and Germany have won WWII...
I'm extremely perturbed at this logic, because it seems that all someone needs to do is to declare someone or something a 'threat' in the eyes of God in order to turn the followers of a religion against them/it. Surely that, once again, contradicts the teachings of the New Testament? And as it is in direct contradiction, how can that logic therefore be justified post-Christ?
>
> By the second century apostate teaching had entered the church and
> twisted the bible. From that time onward I no longer agree with the
> church, just what was written in the bible. The Crusades in my
> opinion should never have happened and that was the result of men,
> not God.
Amen. Though I would say that the church had been twisted long before then. Also, I don't think the Bible wasn't compiled by the second century; I'm sure it was the 4th. I'll check up on that.
> >
> The Law was no longer binding for Christians because of the ransom
> sacrifice paid by Christs death. But the principles were still valid.
> I think you would agree that some things in the law such as not to
> murder are still applicable today. The laws governing the running of
> an actual nation however are not.
Again though, not killing is basic human decency. And if we're going to give credit for that prohibition to Religion then why aren't you beating a path to the temple of Marduk, as it was the Sumerians and Babylonians who's religious texts first gave that prohibition, and the writings from those religions pre-date any Jewish Kabballah or Christian bible.
>
> Still not looked into it fully. As I mentioned earlier, after the
> second century the church suffered major apostasty which led to major
> twisting of the bible. The best example of this is hell. The hell in
> the bible is not one of eternal fiery torment. But that is nothing to
> do with this per se, just an example of how the church deviated from
> the bible.
Again, I'm saying the bible had not been compiled by this point. It was compiled after Constantine, and he himself was around in the 3rd century AD. I'll have to find something linkable...
>
> What I said earlier about them having to fight several tribes to take
> possession of the land of Israel and to eradicate pagans applies
> here.
You do realise that Hitler used the exact same justification for his lebensraum policy? What's the difference between a man saying that a race of people should be driven from their land, and a man saying people should be driven from their land because God says so?! It's nothing more than naked aggression given a veneer of respectability by use of a figure to whom there is no right of appeal, or even any way to check if thats what they wanted.
>
>
> How is it selective interpretation regarding prostitution? To be a
> prostitute (or to use one) would require you to violate certain laws
> and principles. It isn't selective, there are no loopholes or ways
> round that.
Fair enough, I concede your point. But isn't it selective to say "Homosexuals are bad" when Jesus was saying things like "all men are equal in the eyes of God" and "Hey, love one another, M'kay?" (I'm paraphrasing but you get the idea..)
>
> To make homosexuality not a sin would require the ignoring of certain
> laws and principles.
Like the church has done throughout all recorded history? Did you read about the behaviour of the various popes throughout the ages? Bearing in mind that the pope is, according to Catholic dogma at least, Gods representative on earth, can you think of a single reason why it shouldn't be declared that homosexuality is not a sin?
Also, MAKING homosexuality a sin requires one to ignore the law and principle of loving thy neighbour, love for ones fellow man, peace, and brotherhood. Which, as they form the whole basis of Christianity, are fairly big things to be ignored. As nice Mr Shaw once said, Christianity would probably be a good idea if only someone would try it.
>
> True. But it also leaves whoever was owed money out of pocket with no
> recompense. That isn't fair either.
No it isn't. So garnish the soldiers income so that a portion goes directly to the creditor. It's what the courts do today and it's a damn side more loving than enslaving someone.
>
> The things you mention there were all after the Mosaic Law was gone,
> after Jesus. It was a loving provision of the law, it just was no
> longer in effect and never was to non Jews.
Nope, wrong I'm afraid. They were all in place prior to the end of Mosaic Law (which I'm taking to be not long after the birth of Christ?); they were all laws of the Roman Republic, and the Republic was pre-Christ and greatly influenced (ie. controlled) Judea and the surrounding areas at the time. Pedantic of me I admit, but that's the chronology.
>
> Not only that, but a real, faithful Christian wouldn't have done
> that. Many Christians themselves were slaves. It is a rather sad fact
> that what you mention did occur. But that was people, not religion to
> blame for it.
Erm...so why did so many 'real and faithful' christians order and inflict such horrendous atrocities on each other during the Arian heresy? Did it not count because they were a different flavour of Christian? Also, many Christians were important and influencial figures in Rome too. The whole Christian Persecution Complex only has half-truths at its root (there were persecutions of Christians, but for the majority of the Empire they were either left alone, or positively encouraged), and many Christians were more than happy to take advantage of their fellow believers to advance themselves. Funnily enough, they generally used religious 're-interpretation' to retrospectively prove that whomever it was they'd screwed over were clearly heretics.
>
> It wasn't the ultimate. The tophet in Carthage was in use between 750
> BC right up to the destruction of the city in 146 BC. The period
> with the most burials was 400-200 BC when 20,000 urns were buried.
> That is around 2 per week. Every week for 200 years. Not exactly due
> to a major threat hanging over them. They did do it very frequently,
> not just when they were losing wars.
I see. And the archaeologists involved; they examined every one of those 20,000 urns and found human child remains in each one, did they? My, they must have been very keen; spending all that time in North Africa and going through all those urns, not to mention the time it took to locate and excavate them...
Utter, utter cobblers. I'm afraid you've fallen for one of the first recorded uses of political propaganda. In this case, perpetrated by a Roman Republic senator named Cato the Elder, a man who finished every speech in the Senate for years with the phrase "That is my opinion. And it is my further opinion that Carthage must be destroyed".
After the second Punic War, Rome imposed many levies and taxes on Carthage designed to cripple them as a trading power in the Med. This didn't work, and Carthage was approaching a position of power again. This made Rome nervous. And so a flimsy pretext for war was concocted, and supported with all manner of slander and general gossip from the patrician and knight classes, particularly Cato and his supporters. Slander that included the child sacrifice tales. Although the Carthaginians had been known to practice human sacrifice, it was actually animal sacrifice (as it was in Rome, where human sacrifice of any kind was forbidden) that was prevalent there. In other words, the Romans did then what Dubya and Blair have done recently; decided on who the war will be against, then demonised the enemy as much as possible in order to justify it.
>
> True... in a way. Christianity did come after those religions, but
> Christianity has its beginnings in Judaism, which was around before
> or at the same time as those other cultures, not after.
Nope; Judaism was contemporaneous with the Babylonians who had also been around well before the Jews. And I seem to recall the Assyrians playing a part in the mix as well. Before I go any further into that argument though, I should point out that, if you're a creationist, you'll almost certainly not agree with any of my sources concerning ancient history!
>
> Again it all comes down to belief in God. I believe in him and
> because of that I believe that religious principles came before human
> principles.
Fair enough; I believe that man created Gods in his own image, but everyone is entitled to their beliefs. Whatever gets you through the night!
>
>
> Not genuinely inspired books of the bible. They were all done and
> dusted by the end of the first century. You've been misinformed.
>
Guess we'll have to check our sources then; the damn thing wasn't compiled in Latin until 4th/5th century AD as far as I'm aware. I'll check that.
>
> From the time of the nation of Israel onward, there has always been
> organised religion. That was what the apostles wanted, organisation.
> There was a need for that, otherwise many would have lost their
> faith.
Yet the New Testament was....well, new. It was a break from the tradition of Israel was it not? So why not break with the need for an organised church? To a lesser extent, the Celtic Catholic church almost managed this in that anyone in the congregation was allowed to preach from the pulpit. Then they got annexed by the Roman Catholic church which was, to my mind, a great shame.
> The way the church has developed with priests bishops and
> cardinals is wrong. Jesus said call no man father that is on earth
> (not referring to a dad, but to a priest) but only him that is in
> heaven. Plus he also referred to his disciples as brothers. The
> apostles didn't say that either.
If the church is wrong on some things, then why are you supporting it's position on homosexuality? Couldn't they be wrong about that as well? Why are you willing to accept that they're right about some things and not others?
>
> The gospel of Thomas etc was cut for not being inspired. They were
> fake. They detailed miracles that occurred in Jesus childhood. Which
> couldn't of happened before his baptism.
Says...the Bible? So let me get this right; the convocation decided which books to put in the bible, then once they had done that they declared the other apocryphal books to be fake because the Bible proved them wrong?
That's what is known in the medical trade as a load of old b*ll*cks. And as I say, don't you find it a tiny bit suspicious that the only gospels to make it in were the ones that came out in support of a church, whilst the ones that were cut out did not? Especially as leadership of such a church brought temporal power with it.
>
> The Acts of Paul etc were also not inspired. They placed strong
> emphasis on abstinence from sex. Which goes against other counsel
> Paul gave. Celibacy isn't a scriptural requirement, that was a false
> doctrine added by the church.
So...parts of the New Testament are to be ignored as well?!? Man...how selective are you going to be?! Don't you agree that this selectiveness is further proof that any and all organised Christian religion today is nothing more than an extension of it's founder and subsequent priesthood's personal beliefs, which then use those parts of the bible that support their views and ignore those that do not?
>
> It isn't that I don't want to know the secrets of creation, its that
> I haven't yet seen anything that convinces me that there is no God.
> But yet it does still interest me and always will. You're right to a
> degree with the Church, it is a deeply flawed organisation, there is
> a difference between preaching and using logic to reason with people
> compared to force and fear which have been used so frequently over
> the centuries.
Fair enough; can't argue with your beliefs. Speaking personally, I don't really think God is relevant and as such I don't care whether he exists or not. Did he create the universe? Possibly, but we're here living in it and we have to make the best of it. If God REALLY wanted us to live according to strictly defined rules, then I'm sure he would have been a lot clearer about them.
>
> I don't; I stand prepared to be judged by me. There can be no
> harsher
> critic than ones own conscience. Nobody NEEDS a mythical umpire to
> keep score on their life. One just needs to be honest with oneself.
>
> Possibly. But I'm a biased judge of myself.
Heh. So am I; I'm a lot harder on myself than anyone else could ever hope to be in judgement of me. Trust me; when you've betrayed your own conscience and you have no-one else to blame, no mythical figure to blame for your lapse and no father figure to ask for forgiveness, and nowhere to hide from yourself, THAT hurts worse than any biblical slap on the wrist.
Page: