The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
I think it's pretty clear here that the Bible condemns homosexuality. Therfore, technically gay clergy should not be admitted to the Church. However, I feel the Bible has one fatal flaw in it, and that is that much of it is not the Word of God, rather the word of man's interpretation of the Word of God, and also man's own views.
I feel that society today ahould set its own standards for what is acceptable and what is not. We have evolved from the human race 2000 years ago, and so our religions must evolve too.
I personally feel that God is a crutch which humans created in order to mask their own vulnerability and for to blame when things go wrong.
I think it's pretty clear here that the Bible condemns homosexuality. Therfore, technically gay clergy should not be admitted to the Church. However, I feel the Bible has one fatal flaw in it, and that is that much of it is not the Word of God, rather the word of man's interpretation of the Word of God, and also man's own views.
I feel that society today ahould set its own standards for what is acceptable and what is not. We have evolved from the human race 2000 years ago, and so our religions must evolve too.
I personally feel that God is a crutch which humans created in order to mask their own vulnerability and for to blame when things go wrong.
I think someone's said this already...
Jesus didn't once condemn homosexuality, but he DID encourage people to accept others with different ways of living - like in the good Samaritan.
I've heard that Paul mentioned it, but he's not God's word and only gave his interpretation based on his knowlegde of the times.
Some of his letters was also sexist, showing that while he did have a reasonably good idea of what good wanted, he sometimes got the wrong end of the stick and shouldn't be taken word for word.
Try tell that to a stupid fundamentalist though...
If we were to follow the entire Bible word for word, then we'd have to stone women for cheating in marriages (men would only get whipped).
Jesus didn't once condemn homosexuality, but he DID encourage people to accept others with different ways of living - like in the good Samaritan.
I've heard that Paul mentioned it, but he's not God's word and only gave his interpretation based on his knowlegde of the times.
Some of his letters was also sexist, showing that while he did have a reasonably good idea of what good wanted, he sometimes got the wrong end of the stick and shouldn't be taken word for word.
Try tell that to a stupid fundamentalist though...
If we were to follow the entire Bible word for word, then we'd have to stone women for cheating in marriages (men would only get whipped).
I tried to read this thread, and then I thought: theology, let's let the grass grow over it! I know for a fact that God's bored of it.
I see the problem like this (in relation to the Bible);
Up until a certain point in history it was possible for the Church, or whoever the Church had allied itself with, to make changes or 'reinterpretations' essentially at will to fit the needs of the Church or their allies. Feel like carting off a pile of people who are still worshipping Pagan gods (who incidentally could well have been old Christians anyway), no problem, just change a bit of text to "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and you'd got your justification.
Each version of the bible has essentially been changed, rewritten e.t.c in part or piece.
However, especially today, it's no longer possible to change the bible. Sure, people can discuss the meanings and interpretations, but no one can say "right, new version out Friday, we've made some 'changes'".
If one believes in Christianity, and accepts the Bible truly is what Christians believe it to be, then surely one must also accept that society has had massive (in some ways) changes since it was orignally written, translated or whatever. What was acceptable then may not be acceptable now, and vice versa, hence I do not see how the Bible can be used to justify more modern issues like Gay Clergy.
I'm no scholar on this, I gather the bible does not seem to allow them to preach, but it seems to me that if the Church is going to use that justification then it must change to follow the Bible in all other areas as well. And there's an awful lot of stuff which I don't see it wanting to do... I cannot see how the Church can treat it like a pick and mix - choosing what they want to abide by when it suits them, and what not to abide by at others.
If memory serves me, I believe it is only in recent years the Church has accepted any sort of responsibility for it's numerous ministers arrested/charged for being pedophiles/child abusers, and for the way the same Church often tried to cover up what had happened and did not report to the authorities in many cases.
Personally, I believe in a God but not particularly in the many institutions which profess to represent him/her because they seem contradictory.
This is going at a tangent somewhat, but how often do you see Churches raising money, having appeals e.t.c. ? Yet the Church Of England is one of the largest landowners in England after the Government and also has (collectively) one of the largest collections of valuable antiques and the like, not to mention the vast piles of cash the Church has stolen/taken/seized all through it's history.
Up until a certain point in history it was possible for the Church, or whoever the Church had allied itself with, to make changes or 'reinterpretations' essentially at will to fit the needs of the Church or their allies. Feel like carting off a pile of people who are still worshipping Pagan gods (who incidentally could well have been old Christians anyway), no problem, just change a bit of text to "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and you'd got your justification.
Each version of the bible has essentially been changed, rewritten e.t.c in part or piece.
However, especially today, it's no longer possible to change the bible. Sure, people can discuss the meanings and interpretations, but no one can say "right, new version out Friday, we've made some 'changes'".
If one believes in Christianity, and accepts the Bible truly is what Christians believe it to be, then surely one must also accept that society has had massive (in some ways) changes since it was orignally written, translated or whatever. What was acceptable then may not be acceptable now, and vice versa, hence I do not see how the Bible can be used to justify more modern issues like Gay Clergy.
I'm no scholar on this, I gather the bible does not seem to allow them to preach, but it seems to me that if the Church is going to use that justification then it must change to follow the Bible in all other areas as well. And there's an awful lot of stuff which I don't see it wanting to do... I cannot see how the Church can treat it like a pick and mix - choosing what they want to abide by when it suits them, and what not to abide by at others.
If memory serves me, I believe it is only in recent years the Church has accepted any sort of responsibility for it's numerous ministers arrested/charged for being pedophiles/child abusers, and for the way the same Church often tried to cover up what had happened and did not report to the authorities in many cases.
Personally, I believe in a God but not particularly in the many institutions which profess to represent him/her because they seem contradictory.
This is going at a tangent somewhat, but how often do you see Churches raising money, having appeals e.t.c. ? Yet the Church Of England is one of the largest landowners in England after the Government and also has (collectively) one of the largest collections of valuable antiques and the like, not to mention the vast piles of cash the Church has stolen/taken/seized all through it's history.
Light wrote:
> Notorious Biggles wrote:
>
>
> It was part of the uncleanness laws. They didn't have tampons back
> then after all. And it wasn't confinement to a cave.
>
> and that any man
> who's testicles are crushed cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.
>
> That is true. However, there is more to it than that. Back in those
> days children were viewed as a blessing from God. Some men were
> voluntarily eunuchs, and were denied full membership of the nation
> of
> Israel for effectively throwing that blessing back in Gods face.
> However, later on in the bible, in Isaiah (56?), God shows love for
> those eunuchs who do serve him. They would have a monument in his
> house. Now that doesn't refer to the temple, but is part of the
> prophecy refering to when the Messiah would come and the Mosaic Law
> would be nullified... Getting off topic.
>
>
> So hang on...you're willing to re-interpret the divine word of God if
> you (and when I say 'you', I mean the church) think that it relates
> to something no longer relevant in todays world? Well, bearing in
> mind the acceptance of homosexuality in the majority of western
> culture, wouldn't you say that it's time to re-interpret that bigoted
> "no gays in our gang" rule?
Well.. when was the last time you met a eunuch?
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.
>
>
>
> The bible also gives a list of races of men who are to be hated and,
> if possible, exterminated (that wacky Deuteronomy book...).
>
> It does indeed. I'm surprised to see someone who knows that. The
> chapter in question is chapter 7, and there are a couple of reasons
> for their destruction. Firstly, the land was given to them by God.
> The seven tribes who lived in that land would not have left. The
> main
> reason however for their destruction was that they would corrupt the
> Israelites and stop them serving God. To prevent that they were to
> destroy those seven tribes.
>
> Right; so the bible ordered an act of genocide. This is that loving
> God I keep hearing about ordering the annihilation of a people based
> solely on race.
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.
>
> Bearing in mind the old testament God was fairly easygoing when it
> came to mass slaughter, and bearing in mind that genocide isn't
> exactly de rigeur any more, how come you're willing to listen to what
> is said about homosexuality. It seems that you're being selective
> about what you choose to listen to.
No. The slaughter as you put it was always justified. Homosexuality isn't.
>
>
> Finally, most of what you talk about is the Old Testament. Are you
> Jewish? If not, why are you listening to the Old Testament when the
> New Testament is what concerns Christianity.
>
> I'm not Jewish, I am Christian. The reason I listen to the Old
> Testament is because (I believe) it is inspired. That wouldn't
> change
> with the writing of the New Testament.
>
>
> Inspired? It directly contradicts the New Testament; the Old says
> "An Eye for an Eye", the New say "Love your
> enemy", for example. It is simply not possible to live your life
> according to both, which is why I have a problem with the church
> using the bible to justify what is nothing more than homophobic
> bigotry.
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.
>
>
> Well yeah...I mean, it's a textbook for how to live your life in the
> 5th century AD.
>
> Perhaps. But points in it are still valid today, don't kill, don't
> steal, marrital faithfulness etc, none of those today are outdated
> concepts.
>
> True, but as I also said; that is basic morality, NOT religion. It is
> entirely possible to live by those precepts as a humanist.
>
It is possible to live by those concepts with out religion. But they were religious first.
>
> Hell, the overwhelming majority of it isn't even
> contemporaneous, but the result of a few centuries of Chinese
> whispers.
>
> To many big words late at night. What do you mean?
>
> Basically it was compiled in the 4th century AD. The gospels were all
> written at least 100 years after Christ.
Matthew was written in 41AD
Mark 60-65AD
Luke 56-58AD
John 98AD
Not a single book in the
> bible was actually written by whomever it was supposed to have been
> (the exception being Revelations; written by a man who had spent too
> long in the sun). Even the Letters to...are suspect; there were so
> many forgeries (the Donations of Constantine for example) around the
> time that it is impossible to be sure.
>
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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> He protected his children by ordering them to massacre 7 races of
> people? Hardly an act of defence, is it?
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.
> I could go a little further and ask that, if there was no need to
> take revenge on pagan nations threatening Israel, why did we ever
> have the Crusades (apart of course from Pope Urban the Somethingth
> wanting to get his name in lights...bloodthirsty git)?
>
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.
> Also, if the Mosaic law was gone, why still listen to the Old
> Testament?
>
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.
>
> Also, the church used to bless gay unions. Don't believe me?
> Well...have a look at who Richard the Lionheart was buried with,
> then
> we'll talk.
>
> I'll look into that.
>
> Do that; you'll be surprised by how tolerant the medieval church was
> of homosexuality.
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.
>
> As for other things like prostitution. Well that was always
> condemned
> in the bible.
>
> Yet it was a Prositute who served the word of God by allowing the
> Jews in to sack...oh, I forget actually. Some city or other. Anyway,
> where in the Bible does it condemn prostitution? I can't say as I'm
> sure about that.
>
> City was Jericho. Her name was Rahab. She did serve him. Having
> heard
> of the miracle at the Red Sea she put faith in God and so hid the
> spies who were sent by Joshua to check out Jericho. She was rewarded
> with her life, and later when she maried a Jew she ended up the
> great
> great grandmother of King David, and hence part of Jesus lineage.
>
> Cheers for that; couldn't remember the story.
>
> However, that story is yet another example of genocide ordered by
> God, no?
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.
>
> Good point. I can't think of anywhere off the top of my head where
> prostitution is condemned explicitly. I worded that wrong in my last
> post. However, it was still wrong, as the bible does condemn
> adulterous affairs and premarital sex, so how could you sleep with a
> prostitute without condemnation from one of those? So it is a null
> point.
>
> Yet there we go again; selective interpretation of the bible. If you
> can selectively interpret it to make Prostitution a sin, why not
> selectively interpret it to say that homosexuality is not?
>
>
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.
To make homosexuality not a sin would require the ignoring of certain laws and principles.
>
>
> Right...so are you saying that the removal of someone's freedom is
> justified if they're treated alright? Just curious.
>
> You worded that very broadly. Removal of freedom as punishment i.e.
> jail, is justified. If guilty of course. However I imagine that you
> are referring to slavery. As I tried to point out, it was a loving
> provision of the law for those who had fallen on hard times. Pagan
> nations of the time would just kill you if you defaulted on your
> debt. Also you would run into serious problems if borrowing and
> defaulting on debt was fine in society with no sort of repayment for
> the lender. I can't think of a better solution. Can you?
>
> Actually, yeah I can; military service. It's not slavery, it doesn't
> take away ones freedom.
True. But it also leaves whoever was owed money out of pocket with no recompense. That isn't fair either.
> Heh. And talking of wording things broadly...bringing the punishment
> of criminals into a discussion about slavery is a little
> disingenuous, don't you think?
> As to a loving provision of the law...well, tell that to all those
> people who lost their lives cos their master would rather pay a fine
> than send them to a Greek Hospital. Or all those who signed up for
> the Gladiatorial arena in Rome. Or slaves put to the torture in legal
> cases in order to extract evidence (a provision in Roman Law stated
> that slave evidence was not valid UNLESS extracted by torture).
> Loving? Only the same kind of Love that drives a God to order the
> extermination of a people.
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.
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.
>
>
> Even nearly 4000 years after some of it was written, the principles
> in the bible still hold true. They still are the best way to live.
>
> B******t. The morality of the bible is convoluted and contradictory.
> A lot of it is basic human decency, hijacked by religion and called
> it's own.
>
> Of course you are entitled to your own opinion. Mine is that it
> isn't
> as simple as that. Basic human decency didn't exist quite the same
> in
> the ancient world. Back then, child sacrifice was socially
> acceptable. But when the Jews turned away from God, and tried it
> themselves, they were to be punished for it. That is just one
> example
> of religion teaching humans basic decency rather than religion
> hijacking human decency and calling it's own. I would like to see a
> contradiction in the bible. All I have ever seen are scriptures
> taken
> out of context and twisted to say something else.
>
> No, it was not. Child sacrifice as practiced by Minoans Phoenicians
> and Carthaginians was the ULTIMATE in appeals to their Gods. It was
> not done without some major threat hanging over them. If it was done
> as a day to day thing, the peoples of those nations would have been
> horrified. It was only ever done when those nations were about to
> collapse. That doesn't excuse it of course, but you're taking the
> last resort of a people and saying they did it all the time.
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.
>
> As to religion teaching people basic decency...religion and the
> ancient world went hand in hand. If you want to find religion
> teaching morality, why aren't you looking at the religion of the
> Babylonians (which taught that crime must not go unpunished, and that
> there should be a system of laws to ensure that inequality was kept
> at bay), or the Egyptians (which taught reverence and obedience), or
> perhaps the Greeks (which gave us democracy). To say that a religion
> that appeared after all of these cultures and just 'invented' the
> principles of morality is, bluntly, false and self deluding.
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.
>
> What I'm driving at is that, in my opinion, human principles came
> first and religion was wrapped around them to give them some weight.
> After all, if you want to influence the hairy ars*d warrior about to
> cut your goolies off, you can't threaten him with something temporal.
> So get him with the afterlife. Worked for every religion ever
> created.
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.
>
> And it was compiled in the 5th century AD. To say it was written
> 4000
> years ago...I assume that's a mistype?
>
> Yeah. The first books of the bible were written over 3500 years ago,
> with the last books being written in approximately 98 AD.
>
> Uhh...you've been misinformed. They were being written up until
> 400AD.
Not genuinely inspired books of the bible. They were all done and dusted by the end of the first century. You've been misinformed.
>
> Also, why were the Gospels of Thomas et al cut out? Could it be
> because they advocated a more personal and spiritual religion that
> cut out the need for a church?
>
> No. It was because it is not believed to be inspired by God, rather
> just contemporary writings.
>
> Right...so the apostles who said "Give us a church which puts
> men in control of other men", they're divine? But the ones that
> say "You need no church; if you wish to commune with God, I am
> with you always, so no church will control you life", they're
> not? Ri-ight...
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. 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.
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.
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.
>
> I do believe in a God, because there are too many unexplained gaps
> in
> the theory that the universe just spontaneously appeared.
>
> So rather than try and find what the answers may be, you'll accept a
> convenient explaination? How is that any different from stone age
> man
> believing the earth was made from the body of a giant? They didn't
> know the geology etc, so they made something up to explain it.
>
> No I have wondered how life got here and how the universe began. But
> the numbers are too big, the odds so small, things so precise that
> it
> seems unrealistic to me that it was all just chance. Despite the
> many
> many failings in this world in which we live, when I look around I
> see something wonderful in life and nature. I see something
> beautiful
> and wonderfully crafted, so much so that I can only believe
> something
> greater than me created it. Random chance is not greater than me.
>
> Yeah, nature is indeed beautiful. And to discover it's secrets has
> been a driving force of man since time immemorial. Yet religion would
> have us stop trying to find answers, and accept the convenient lies
> that they tell in order to keep the people under their sway. Personal
> faith...well that's A-ok with me; whatever gets you through the
> night, y'know? If you think it's more than chance, that's fine. But
> the church ALWAYS seeks to impose it's beliefs on others; it brooks
> no disobedience or questioning and that, to me, is utterly
> abhorrent.
>
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.
>
> Also, life is futile and essentially meaningless in my eyes if it
> was
> just chance.
>
> Not if you give life your own meaning. I've been happily humanist
> for
> 10 years now; my life is far from futile and meaningless. To say
> only
> God can give life meaning is to abdicate responsibility for ones own
> life and own actions.
>
> I don't abdicate responsibility for my life and actions by believing
> in God, rather by believing in him I stand prepared to be judged by
> him for my life and my actions.
>
> 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.
>
> But, again, respect to you for posting an unpopular opinion and
> taking the time to explain your logic behind it.
>
> Thank you. You raised some good intelligent points and made for an
> interesting discussion.
>
> Likewise. Cheers.
> Notorious Biggles wrote:
>
>
> It was part of the uncleanness laws. They didn't have tampons back
> then after all. And it wasn't confinement to a cave.
>
> and that any man
> who's testicles are crushed cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.
>
> That is true. However, there is more to it than that. Back in those
> days children were viewed as a blessing from God. Some men were
> voluntarily eunuchs, and were denied full membership of the nation
> of
> Israel for effectively throwing that blessing back in Gods face.
> However, later on in the bible, in Isaiah (56?), God shows love for
> those eunuchs who do serve him. They would have a monument in his
> house. Now that doesn't refer to the temple, but is part of the
> prophecy refering to when the Messiah would come and the Mosaic Law
> would be nullified... Getting off topic.
>
>
> So hang on...you're willing to re-interpret the divine word of God if
> you (and when I say 'you', I mean the church) think that it relates
> to something no longer relevant in todays world? Well, bearing in
> mind the acceptance of homosexuality in the majority of western
> culture, wouldn't you say that it's time to re-interpret that bigoted
> "no gays in our gang" rule?
Well.. when was the last time you met a eunuch?
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.
>
>
>
> The bible also gives a list of races of men who are to be hated and,
> if possible, exterminated (that wacky Deuteronomy book...).
>
> It does indeed. I'm surprised to see someone who knows that. The
> chapter in question is chapter 7, and there are a couple of reasons
> for their destruction. Firstly, the land was given to them by God.
> The seven tribes who lived in that land would not have left. The
> main
> reason however for their destruction was that they would corrupt the
> Israelites and stop them serving God. To prevent that they were to
> destroy those seven tribes.
>
> Right; so the bible ordered an act of genocide. This is that loving
> God I keep hearing about ordering the annihilation of a people based
> solely on race.
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.
>
> Bearing in mind the old testament God was fairly easygoing when it
> came to mass slaughter, and bearing in mind that genocide isn't
> exactly de rigeur any more, how come you're willing to listen to what
> is said about homosexuality. It seems that you're being selective
> about what you choose to listen to.
No. The slaughter as you put it was always justified. Homosexuality isn't.
>
>
> Finally, most of what you talk about is the Old Testament. Are you
> Jewish? If not, why are you listening to the Old Testament when the
> New Testament is what concerns Christianity.
>
> I'm not Jewish, I am Christian. The reason I listen to the Old
> Testament is because (I believe) it is inspired. That wouldn't
> change
> with the writing of the New Testament.
>
>
> Inspired? It directly contradicts the New Testament; the Old says
> "An Eye for an Eye", the New say "Love your
> enemy", for example. It is simply not possible to live your life
> according to both, which is why I have a problem with the church
> using the bible to justify what is nothing more than homophobic
> bigotry.
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.
>
>
> Well yeah...I mean, it's a textbook for how to live your life in the
> 5th century AD.
>
> Perhaps. But points in it are still valid today, don't kill, don't
> steal, marrital faithfulness etc, none of those today are outdated
> concepts.
>
> True, but as I also said; that is basic morality, NOT religion. It is
> entirely possible to live by those precepts as a humanist.
>
It is possible to live by those concepts with out religion. But they were religious first.
>
> Hell, the overwhelming majority of it isn't even
> contemporaneous, but the result of a few centuries of Chinese
> whispers.
>
> To many big words late at night. What do you mean?
>
> Basically it was compiled in the 4th century AD. The gospels were all
> written at least 100 years after Christ.
Matthew was written in 41AD
Mark 60-65AD
Luke 56-58AD
John 98AD
Not a single book in the
> bible was actually written by whomever it was supposed to have been
> (the exception being Revelations; written by a man who had spent too
> long in the sun). Even the Letters to...are suspect; there were so
> many forgeries (the Donations of Constantine for example) around the
> time that it is impossible to be sure.
>
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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> He protected his children by ordering them to massacre 7 races of
> people? Hardly an act of defence, is it?
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.
> I could go a little further and ask that, if there was no need to
> take revenge on pagan nations threatening Israel, why did we ever
> have the Crusades (apart of course from Pope Urban the Somethingth
> wanting to get his name in lights...bloodthirsty git)?
>
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.
> Also, if the Mosaic law was gone, why still listen to the Old
> Testament?
>
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.
>
> Also, the church used to bless gay unions. Don't believe me?
> Well...have a look at who Richard the Lionheart was buried with,
> then
> we'll talk.
>
> I'll look into that.
>
> Do that; you'll be surprised by how tolerant the medieval church was
> of homosexuality.
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.
>
> As for other things like prostitution. Well that was always
> condemned
> in the bible.
>
> Yet it was a Prositute who served the word of God by allowing the
> Jews in to sack...oh, I forget actually. Some city or other. Anyway,
> where in the Bible does it condemn prostitution? I can't say as I'm
> sure about that.
>
> City was Jericho. Her name was Rahab. She did serve him. Having
> heard
> of the miracle at the Red Sea she put faith in God and so hid the
> spies who were sent by Joshua to check out Jericho. She was rewarded
> with her life, and later when she maried a Jew she ended up the
> great
> great grandmother of King David, and hence part of Jesus lineage.
>
> Cheers for that; couldn't remember the story.
>
> However, that story is yet another example of genocide ordered by
> God, no?
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.
>
> Good point. I can't think of anywhere off the top of my head where
> prostitution is condemned explicitly. I worded that wrong in my last
> post. However, it was still wrong, as the bible does condemn
> adulterous affairs and premarital sex, so how could you sleep with a
> prostitute without condemnation from one of those? So it is a null
> point.
>
> Yet there we go again; selective interpretation of the bible. If you
> can selectively interpret it to make Prostitution a sin, why not
> selectively interpret it to say that homosexuality is not?
>
>
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.
To make homosexuality not a sin would require the ignoring of certain laws and principles.
>
>
> Right...so are you saying that the removal of someone's freedom is
> justified if they're treated alright? Just curious.
>
> You worded that very broadly. Removal of freedom as punishment i.e.
> jail, is justified. If guilty of course. However I imagine that you
> are referring to slavery. As I tried to point out, it was a loving
> provision of the law for those who had fallen on hard times. Pagan
> nations of the time would just kill you if you defaulted on your
> debt. Also you would run into serious problems if borrowing and
> defaulting on debt was fine in society with no sort of repayment for
> the lender. I can't think of a better solution. Can you?
>
> Actually, yeah I can; military service. It's not slavery, it doesn't
> take away ones freedom.
True. But it also leaves whoever was owed money out of pocket with no recompense. That isn't fair either.
> Heh. And talking of wording things broadly...bringing the punishment
> of criminals into a discussion about slavery is a little
> disingenuous, don't you think?
> As to a loving provision of the law...well, tell that to all those
> people who lost their lives cos their master would rather pay a fine
> than send them to a Greek Hospital. Or all those who signed up for
> the Gladiatorial arena in Rome. Or slaves put to the torture in legal
> cases in order to extract evidence (a provision in Roman Law stated
> that slave evidence was not valid UNLESS extracted by torture).
> Loving? Only the same kind of Love that drives a God to order the
> extermination of a people.
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.
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.
>
>
> Even nearly 4000 years after some of it was written, the principles
> in the bible still hold true. They still are the best way to live.
>
> B******t. The morality of the bible is convoluted and contradictory.
> A lot of it is basic human decency, hijacked by religion and called
> it's own.
>
> Of course you are entitled to your own opinion. Mine is that it
> isn't
> as simple as that. Basic human decency didn't exist quite the same
> in
> the ancient world. Back then, child sacrifice was socially
> acceptable. But when the Jews turned away from God, and tried it
> themselves, they were to be punished for it. That is just one
> example
> of religion teaching humans basic decency rather than religion
> hijacking human decency and calling it's own. I would like to see a
> contradiction in the bible. All I have ever seen are scriptures
> taken
> out of context and twisted to say something else.
>
> No, it was not. Child sacrifice as practiced by Minoans Phoenicians
> and Carthaginians was the ULTIMATE in appeals to their Gods. It was
> not done without some major threat hanging over them. If it was done
> as a day to day thing, the peoples of those nations would have been
> horrified. It was only ever done when those nations were about to
> collapse. That doesn't excuse it of course, but you're taking the
> last resort of a people and saying they did it all the time.
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.
>
> As to religion teaching people basic decency...religion and the
> ancient world went hand in hand. If you want to find religion
> teaching morality, why aren't you looking at the religion of the
> Babylonians (which taught that crime must not go unpunished, and that
> there should be a system of laws to ensure that inequality was kept
> at bay), or the Egyptians (which taught reverence and obedience), or
> perhaps the Greeks (which gave us democracy). To say that a religion
> that appeared after all of these cultures and just 'invented' the
> principles of morality is, bluntly, false and self deluding.
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.
>
> What I'm driving at is that, in my opinion, human principles came
> first and religion was wrapped around them to give them some weight.
> After all, if you want to influence the hairy ars*d warrior about to
> cut your goolies off, you can't threaten him with something temporal.
> So get him with the afterlife. Worked for every religion ever
> created.
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.
>
> And it was compiled in the 5th century AD. To say it was written
> 4000
> years ago...I assume that's a mistype?
>
> Yeah. The first books of the bible were written over 3500 years ago,
> with the last books being written in approximately 98 AD.
>
> Uhh...you've been misinformed. They were being written up until
> 400AD.
Not genuinely inspired books of the bible. They were all done and dusted by the end of the first century. You've been misinformed.
>
> Also, why were the Gospels of Thomas et al cut out? Could it be
> because they advocated a more personal and spiritual religion that
> cut out the need for a church?
>
> No. It was because it is not believed to be inspired by God, rather
> just contemporary writings.
>
> Right...so the apostles who said "Give us a church which puts
> men in control of other men", they're divine? But the ones that
> say "You need no church; if you wish to commune with God, I am
> with you always, so no church will control you life", they're
> not? Ri-ight...
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. 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.
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.
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.
>
> I do believe in a God, because there are too many unexplained gaps
> in
> the theory that the universe just spontaneously appeared.
>
> So rather than try and find what the answers may be, you'll accept a
> convenient explaination? How is that any different from stone age
> man
> believing the earth was made from the body of a giant? They didn't
> know the geology etc, so they made something up to explain it.
>
> No I have wondered how life got here and how the universe began. But
> the numbers are too big, the odds so small, things so precise that
> it
> seems unrealistic to me that it was all just chance. Despite the
> many
> many failings in this world in which we live, when I look around I
> see something wonderful in life and nature. I see something
> beautiful
> and wonderfully crafted, so much so that I can only believe
> something
> greater than me created it. Random chance is not greater than me.
>
> Yeah, nature is indeed beautiful. And to discover it's secrets has
> been a driving force of man since time immemorial. Yet religion would
> have us stop trying to find answers, and accept the convenient lies
> that they tell in order to keep the people under their sway. Personal
> faith...well that's A-ok with me; whatever gets you through the
> night, y'know? If you think it's more than chance, that's fine. But
> the church ALWAYS seeks to impose it's beliefs on others; it brooks
> no disobedience or questioning and that, to me, is utterly
> abhorrent.
>
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.
>
> Also, life is futile and essentially meaningless in my eyes if it
> was
> just chance.
>
> Not if you give life your own meaning. I've been happily humanist
> for
> 10 years now; my life is far from futile and meaningless. To say
> only
> God can give life meaning is to abdicate responsibility for ones own
> life and own actions.
>
> I don't abdicate responsibility for my life and actions by believing
> in God, rather by believing in him I stand prepared to be judged by
> him for my life and my actions.
>
> 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.
>
> But, again, respect to you for posting an unpopular opinion and
> taking the time to explain your logic behind it.
>
> Thank you. You raised some good intelligent points and made for an
> interesting discussion.
>
> Likewise. Cheers.
This is why I find organised religion so amusing. They want one foot in the past, one in the present - but it just can't happen. Do one thing and you're out of date and phobic of everything; do the other and you're a hypocrite.
The only religions that work are the purely selfish ones - when bettering yourself is the aim, not repenting your apparent sins (or what were regarded as sins 2000 years ago) to a long-dead god.
The only religions that work are the purely selfish ones - when bettering yourself is the aim, not repenting your apparent sins (or what were regarded as sins 2000 years ago) to a long-dead god.
I got nothing against people who are that way but definetly not in a religion which says that being that way is a sin and you will go to hell for it.
Which translation did you look at though? The Vulgate was translated from original greek. Poorly.
And what phrase book did you use?
That's the thing about ancient languages; there is a lot of ambiguity in them.
And what phrase book did you use?
That's the thing about ancient languages; there is a lot of ambiguity in them.
Had a very quick look over it. I have a translation of the Greek Scriptures that shows the original Greek words with the meanings.
The verse in Corinthians that may mean temple prostitutes does in fact mean liers with males. Either way, it was still condemned.
I'll have a look at it properly later. Don't feel well enough to think just now.
The verse in Corinthians that may mean temple prostitutes does in fact mean liers with males. Either way, it was still condemned.
I'll have a look at it properly later. Don't feel well enough to think just now.
No probs; doubt I'm gonna be able to reply myself until Monday anyway.
Page: