07-22-2007, 10:23 AM
Well I'm Roman Catholic - and I don't have anything against homosexuality. One of my oldest school friends is gay, and he's such a nice guy to know.
07-22-2007, 10:23 AM
07-22-2007, 11:51 AM
IPU FTW!
07-23-2007, 07:47 PM
M Wrote:
...
So really, are these laws for protecting the women or the men?
So really, are these laws for protecting the women or the men?
Those laws were for protecting, maybe ~3500 to 2000 years ago (when the Bronze Age was about to end).
(For example David, the king of the Israelites, lived 1006BC-965BC, and laws such as above have their roots in more ancient times.)
07-23-2007, 08:42 PM
What first jumped into my eyes in this thread was the opening sentence:
We don't seem to have a proper thread for this and I'd hate to put further posts where people who aren't looking will be forced to see them.
It struck me somehow that being inspired by a god of love creates such words.
Furthermore, the first post says:
2. God wrote the Bible
3. God gets to punish, we do not
4. The Bible also warns that hating your brother is a way to forfeit eternal life. As my younger brother as unsaved it seems perfectly natural that brother can refer to any unsaved person as well
2+3: So, the loving god mainly is an author. And, the loving god punishes.
4: If the loving god wrote that book and all there is in is true, how dares the first poster to interpret its content to that extend that it fits the random constellation of his family?
And, more subtly, if the first poster would hate something he does, does he not therefore hates himself doing something? And if one hates himself, does he not hate the closest brother one can have? So, does not one forfeits his eternal life a little bit who hates something he is eventually doing?
We don't seem to have a proper thread for this and I'd hate to put further posts where people who aren't looking will be forced to see them.
It struck me somehow that being inspired by a god of love creates such words.
Furthermore, the first post says:
2. God wrote the Bible
3. God gets to punish, we do not
4. The Bible also warns that hating your brother is a way to forfeit eternal life. As my younger brother as unsaved it seems perfectly natural that brother can refer to any unsaved person as well
2+3: So, the loving god mainly is an author. And, the loving god punishes.
4: If the loving god wrote that book and all there is in is true, how dares the first poster to interpret its content to that extend that it fits the random constellation of his family?
And, more subtly, if the first poster would hate something he does, does he not therefore hates himself doing something? And if one hates himself, does he not hate the closest brother one can have? So, does not one forfeits his eternal life a little bit who hates something he is eventually doing?
07-24-2007, 04:06 AM
The bible is largely irrelevant as a guide to human behavior and psychology for the same reasons it is irrelevant as a text book on physics or biology: very little was understood about people then that is relevant to people as we are now understood.
Look at the vaunted Ten Commandments:
1. “I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
Whatever. A million gods make this same demand and nobody obeys all one million of them. Irrelevant.
2. “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”
Graven images? Who cares. Irrelevant. Next.
3. “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”
That's one of the ten most serious moral issues? Irrelevant.
4. “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
Beyond irrelevant. A waste of tablet space.
5. “Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.”
Honor them if they deserve it, same as anybody else. "Honor" the father that beats you and sells you into slavery and kills you (as allowed in the bible)? No. Stupid commandment.
6. “Thou shalt not kill.”
Yeah, we all knew that one long before the bible was written. And it would carry a bit more weight if the command wasn't coming from a god who is a wanton mass murderer.
7. “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
That one's okay with me, personally, but it's up to the couple to decide.
8. “Thou shalt not steal.”
See #6 above.
9. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”
Good one! Although, again, hardly original to the bible.
10. “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.”
That one makes no sense. No one in the history of the world ever kept that commandment. I don't care if somebody covets my stuff. It doesn't hurt me any.
So that's three or four out of ten, and those all predate the bible by thousands of years? That's an F in my classroom.
If you want a list of Ten Things to Be Concerned About, try this one:
(Okay, it's 23)
* Manipulative and Conning
* Grandiose Sense of Self
* Pathological Lying
* Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
* Callousness/Lack of Empathy
* Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
* Irresponsibility/Unreliability
* Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
* Criminal Versatility
* Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
* Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
* Authoritarian
* Secretive
* Paranoid
* seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
* Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
* Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
* Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
* Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
* Incapable of real human attachment to another
* Unable to feel remorse or guilt
* Narcissism, grandiosity
* May state readily that their goal is to rule the world
Those are 23 traits of a sociopath, and god demonstrates every one of them.
Look at the vaunted Ten Commandments:
1. “I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
Whatever. A million gods make this same demand and nobody obeys all one million of them. Irrelevant.
2. “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”
Graven images? Who cares. Irrelevant. Next.
3. “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”
That's one of the ten most serious moral issues? Irrelevant.
4. “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
Beyond irrelevant. A waste of tablet space.
5. “Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.”
Honor them if they deserve it, same as anybody else. "Honor" the father that beats you and sells you into slavery and kills you (as allowed in the bible)? No. Stupid commandment.
6. “Thou shalt not kill.”
Yeah, we all knew that one long before the bible was written. And it would carry a bit more weight if the command wasn't coming from a god who is a wanton mass murderer.
7. “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
That one's okay with me, personally, but it's up to the couple to decide.
8. “Thou shalt not steal.”
See #6 above.
9. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”
Good one! Although, again, hardly original to the bible.
10. “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.”
That one makes no sense. No one in the history of the world ever kept that commandment. I don't care if somebody covets my stuff. It doesn't hurt me any.
So that's three or four out of ten, and those all predate the bible by thousands of years? That's an F in my classroom.
If you want a list of Ten Things to Be Concerned About, try this one:
(Okay, it's 23)
* Manipulative and Conning
* Grandiose Sense of Self
* Pathological Lying
* Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
* Callousness/Lack of Empathy
* Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
* Irresponsibility/Unreliability
* Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
* Criminal Versatility
* Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
* Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
* Authoritarian
* Secretive
* Paranoid
* seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
* Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
* Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
* Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
* Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
* Incapable of real human attachment to another
* Unable to feel remorse or guilt
* Narcissism, grandiosity
* May state readily that their goal is to rule the world
Those are 23 traits of a sociopath, and god demonstrates every one of them.
07-24-2007, 04:43 AM
I've taken classes (and special critical interest) on religious things.
A 'professor' I've talked to claimed that the Bible is merely a guideline. We must not take it literally and the people who wrote it were 'inspired' by God, therefore it shouldn't be taken literally. The Bible was passed down, in the beginning, by word of mouth, then after a few years, by writing. We are not supposed to take it literally, but merely as 'how good God is'.
I've also asked about homosexuality and the guy replied that, as Roman Catholics, 'we welcome all people'. But! (Of course there is always a 'but') There is a law of nature and that clearly states that homosexuality is not approved. 'Man and woman were clearly made for each other. You can see that when you look at the human body. Man and woman are made for each other to keep each other company and to reproduce, which cannot be fulfilled otherwise. Therefore homosexuality does not exist because there cannot possibly be any sexual activity without the chance of reproducing.' Yada-yada-yada.
By the way, the 'Loving God' came only about in the New Testament. I don't get it because God is supposed to be never-changing (to put it simply).
Oh! And also, we're not supposed to label God with human traits (Another thing I fail to understand).
~ Cal
A 'professor' I've talked to claimed that the Bible is merely a guideline. We must not take it literally and the people who wrote it were 'inspired' by God, therefore it shouldn't be taken literally. The Bible was passed down, in the beginning, by word of mouth, then after a few years, by writing. We are not supposed to take it literally, but merely as 'how good God is'.
I've also asked about homosexuality and the guy replied that, as Roman Catholics, 'we welcome all people'. But! (Of course there is always a 'but') There is a law of nature and that clearly states that homosexuality is not approved. 'Man and woman were clearly made for each other. You can see that when you look at the human body. Man and woman are made for each other to keep each other company and to reproduce, which cannot be fulfilled otherwise. Therefore homosexuality does not exist because there cannot possibly be any sexual activity without the chance of reproducing.' Yada-yada-yada.
By the way, the 'Loving God' came only about in the New Testament. I don't get it because God is supposed to be never-changing (to put it simply).
Oh! And also, we're not supposed to label God with human traits (Another thing I fail to understand).
~ Cal
07-24-2007, 09:33 PM
When I said "that makes no sense" I meant its inclusion as a commandment.Yeah, I'm not saying "coveting" is a great idea -- but neither are "procrastination", or "failing to retain receipts", or "keeping a large dog in a small apartment." And I'd be surprised to see those on the list, too. Note to god: it's the Ten Commandments, not "The Ten Random Things That Might Be Nice."
If one were trying to come up with a top ten list for moral and ethical mandates, I can't imagine "coveting" being in the top 1,000. What kind of morally obtuse god would put that on the list but not rape, child abuse, slavery and other such atrocities that are either allowed or encouraged in the bible?
What I'm saying is that god had a great opportunity to make a clear, meaningful list and he totally blew it. An average classroom of fourth graders could come up with a better ten commandments. Yet you get all these Christians and right-wing politicians wanting to enshrine the TC as the moral (and legal) foundation for mankind. Ridiculous.
If one were trying to come up with a top ten list for moral and ethical mandates, I can't imagine "coveting" being in the top 1,000. What kind of morally obtuse god would put that on the list but not rape, child abuse, slavery and other such atrocities that are either allowed or encouraged in the bible?
What I'm saying is that god had a great opportunity to make a clear, meaningful list and he totally blew it. An average classroom of fourth graders could come up with a better ten commandments. Yet you get all these Christians and right-wing politicians wanting to enshrine the TC as the moral (and legal) foundation for mankind. Ridiculous.
07-25-2007, 01:23 AM
08-23-2007, 02:17 PM
Response to a few questions above
1. I don't need to learn Greek actually, I am close friends with a woman who had a Greek mother. My sister-friend is fluent in Greek, has traveled, even wondered if Y2K was going to be a problem, have her first daughter born (October 1999) in Greece (which has less technology than we do, she said). I had one other Greek-fluent friend in college with us but she became a nun after graduating.
Greek was hot stuff among the Christians in college. I don't have any Hebrew speaking friends to my knowledge but maybe my last gf's mother can speak it, she's a Christian of Jewish ancestry)
2. You have it backwards Hyke. Try the guys sticking up for the women when they speak. Paul makes mention of excellent Christian ladies, but yes, the women of the New Testament need more than just a proofread to know.
3. The cross. The cross is for Jesus to put Satan on. It is a sign of victory. It was intended as a humilating means of capital punishment but, like a few other things (such as Jesus exalting the marginalized because the exalted were too busy to come to Jesus' feast in Heaven), Jesus stood that one on its head.
1. I don't need to learn Greek actually, I am close friends with a woman who had a Greek mother. My sister-friend is fluent in Greek, has traveled, even wondered if Y2K was going to be a problem, have her first daughter born (October 1999) in Greece (which has less technology than we do, she said). I had one other Greek-fluent friend in college with us but she became a nun after graduating.
Greek was hot stuff among the Christians in college. I don't have any Hebrew speaking friends to my knowledge but maybe my last gf's mother can speak it, she's a Christian of Jewish ancestry)
2. You have it backwards Hyke. Try the guys sticking up for the women when they speak. Paul makes mention of excellent Christian ladies, but yes, the women of the New Testament need more than just a proofread to know.
3. The cross. The cross is for Jesus to put Satan on. It is a sign of victory. It was intended as a humilating means of capital punishment but, like a few other things (such as Jesus exalting the marginalized because the exalted were too busy to come to Jesus' feast in Heaven), Jesus stood that one on its head.
08-23-2007, 04:47 PM
On belief systems, especially circular belief systems and on how the human's perception can be influenced and on how these two relate to each other, please read Derren Brown: "Tricks of the Mind", 2006. Also, watch some scenes (youTube) from his shows like 'Trick or Treat' or 'Trick of Mind'. Maybe even the whole 'Messiah' documentary.
It really boils down to 'Faith cannot be discussed' (just like the Roman proverb 'De gustibus non disputandum est') and 'I permit to see what I believe - I believe what I permit to see'.
Every communication is influentual and is 'supposed to be' so. The term is set in apostrophes because it should not suggest there is some intelligent being that made us all this way.
Some single people know very well which triggers to pull in a communication; some institutions do know so as well. Commonly, if any institution is quite old and not yet deteriorated too much, it can be assumed that the knowledge of how to influent the minds and therefore beliefs (or moral systems or ethics) is huge and it applies well.
That does not imply at all that a working manipulative system is wrong or right in its core proposition, nor that it is wrong or right in the way it actually manifests on planet earth. Not even if it is good or evil, just based on the fact that it is manipulative.
Churches as institutions are like coats: one can perceive the form on the inner core, the body, but the coat is not the body. It might be even tailored in a way that certain features of the inner body are emphasized, hidden or exaggerated. The inner body is growing and living, but the coat around is being taken care of that it does not change too much. The inner body is what it is, call it natural, and the outer coat is artificial, manmade, constructed to suit some temporary fashion, and it is supposed to not only have a purpose, but also a meaning (so it is also a sign, as is meant in semiology). Finally, the coat costs some money, while the body comes totally free of charge.
It really boils down to 'Faith cannot be discussed' (just like the Roman proverb 'De gustibus non disputandum est') and 'I permit to see what I believe - I believe what I permit to see'.
Every communication is influentual and is 'supposed to be' so. The term is set in apostrophes because it should not suggest there is some intelligent being that made us all this way.
Some single people know very well which triggers to pull in a communication; some institutions do know so as well. Commonly, if any institution is quite old and not yet deteriorated too much, it can be assumed that the knowledge of how to influent the minds and therefore beliefs (or moral systems or ethics) is huge and it applies well.
That does not imply at all that a working manipulative system is wrong or right in its core proposition, nor that it is wrong or right in the way it actually manifests on planet earth. Not even if it is good or evil, just based on the fact that it is manipulative.
Churches as institutions are like coats: one can perceive the form on the inner core, the body, but the coat is not the body. It might be even tailored in a way that certain features of the inner body are emphasized, hidden or exaggerated. The inner body is growing and living, but the coat around is being taken care of that it does not change too much. The inner body is what it is, call it natural, and the outer coat is artificial, manmade, constructed to suit some temporary fashion, and it is supposed to not only have a purpose, but also a meaning (so it is also a sign, as is meant in semiology). Finally, the coat costs some money, while the body comes totally free of charge.
08-23-2007, 07:12 PM
Shocking! I am not really afraid of homosexuals adopting kids. I am more afraid of the parents that procreate kids and victimize them.
I'm really glad my family of origin has little experience with corporal punishment and no experience with sexual assault because I have a close friend who was motivated to attempt suicide with lithium (it is not hard at all) because of being raped. Not quite like Jamie's Got a Gun but heart rending for her close friends to feel.
I'd wish she had grown up with two lesbians instead, even two male homosexuals. Yes, someone like Max.
I'm really glad my family of origin has little experience with corporal punishment and no experience with sexual assault because I have a close friend who was motivated to attempt suicide with lithium (it is not hard at all) because of being raped. Not quite like Jamie's Got a Gun but heart rending for her close friends to feel.
I'd wish she had grown up with two lesbians instead, even two male homosexuals. Yes, someone like Max.
08-24-2007, 04:07 AM
I also don't lose any sleep over a boy named Jake, who would be almost ten years old now. He was conceived with donated male gametes by my friend's lesbian partner.
I think he's in good hands.
I think he's in good hands.
08-24-2007, 04:20 AM
I'm sorry you took me literally. Yes the cross is a victory sign because Jesus turns things upside down.
1. Dying as a martyr gives life to others, to die is gain
2. A torture stake is a symbol of victory
3. The rich man said invite all the poor, the disabled to my banquet because the celebrities of the era snubbed his request
4. Forgiveness is a weapon like fiery coals on someone's head
5. Giving away is gaining treasure
6. Love is more powerful than hate
I could go on.
1. Dying as a martyr gives life to others, to die is gain
2. A torture stake is a symbol of victory
3. The rich man said invite all the poor, the disabled to my banquet because the celebrities of the era snubbed his request
4. Forgiveness is a weapon like fiery coals on someone's head
5. Giving away is gaining treasure
6. Love is more powerful than hate
I could go on.
08-24-2007, 07:47 PM
Heaven yes. That is when and how He won.
It is Jesus turning things upside down again.
The untrained person sees a man crucified.
The Christian sees the son of God, by dying a perfect man, pay the price for the sins of Everyone who will follow Him,
just as killing a lamb or a scape-goat used to pay for the sins of ancient Israelites/ancient Israel.
It is Jesus turning things upside down again.
The untrained person sees a man crucified.
The Christian sees the son of God, by dying a perfect man, pay the price for the sins of Everyone who will follow Him,
just as killing a lamb or a scape-goat used to pay for the sins of ancient Israelites/ancient Israel.
08-27-2007, 07:40 AM
I decided to dust the book shelves today and came upon a book I don't remember buying..Why Christianity Must Change or Die by Bishop John Shelby Spong, author of Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism
Have you heard of him?
Briefly ( WIKI):
Spong has also been a strong proponent of feminism, gay rights, and racial equality within both the church and society at large. Towards these ends, he calls for a new Reformation, in which many of Christianity's basic doctrines should be reformulated. These beliefs are most fully outlined in his book A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith Is Dying and How a New Faith Is Being Born.
Hmm. Now I can't wait to read it. He sounds interesting, and no doubt controversial...
Have you heard of him?
Briefly ( WIKI):
Spong has also been a strong proponent of feminism, gay rights, and racial equality within both the church and society at large. Towards these ends, he calls for a new Reformation, in which many of Christianity's basic doctrines should be reformulated. These beliefs are most fully outlined in his book A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith Is Dying and How a New Faith Is Being Born.
Hmm. Now I can't wait to read it. He sounds interesting, and no doubt controversial...