Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: mitac on April 19, 2005, 01:25:36 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4462077.stm
Discuss.
-
Business as usual then?
-
Originally posted by mitac
Discuss.
you first.
ffs, at least put some effort into threadstarting!
-
Alright, me first.
Quoting my gf : "That's the worst that could happen to the catholic church". She's polish and very catholic, and was really shocked by the result. Though I'm not religious, I'm very suprised by the election, in a negative sense. The catholic church badly needs change in the meaning of modernisation, and Ratzinger - being ultra-conservative - just isn't the man to do that.
So, indeed, business as usual.
-
Well, millions of people hoped John Paul II would be the one to modernise the church and he was a conservative as Reizinger (?) who was practically his protegee.
I dunno. I think maybe the world needs bastions of tradition and conservatism. Don't agree with their views but they can still do good and provide a counterbalance which the world very much needs at the moment.
-
So when you pick a new Pope name for yourself, you do get to pick stats as well? Like, 20 to Dexterity, but only 7 to Agility? What about Feats? Are they even using 3rd edition rules? And how about alignment? I hear Chaotic Good is the new craze.
There's a lot of imporant questions that need answering.
-
I've heard he actually gets an extra armour class from that Thurible...
Seriously though, I'm getting more and more an impression of the Vatican being a bunch of old men hiding away from a world that is changing faster than they can cope with, and clinging desperately to the past.
-
Well, first we need to find out if he is a cleric or a paladin... :nervous:
-
Can he cast 'Find Alignment'? If not, he's a Paladin.
-
so does this mean theyre gonna stop covering this **** 24/7
-
All hail pope Torquemada II, Err, Benedict XVI...
Will pass to history as the only Hitler Jugend child elected as pope.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
All hail pope Torquemada II, Err, Benedict XVI...
Will pass to history as the only Hitler Jugend child elected as pope.
yeah, probably. most of them have thrown in the towel by now.
-
(http://www.penguinbomb.com/rictor/rictor/pope.gif)
and here's one for Neutral Good ("http://www.penguinbomb.com/rictor/rictor/pope_good.gif")
-
Stats are wrong:
It is Lawful Neutral
Cleric
Got the "Deus Volt" natural ability which allows to launch (mediatic) crusades.
-
Actually, he looks like Steve Martin in that picture...
-
I heard on the radio..some American preacher was going "Oh, this is a great time for the world, as we are all united in unty over this..."
Altho I did here that he denounces the "One truth" thing that Christianity has clung to for so long, he, the church, and Jesus can all kiss my ass until they actually act on it. Until then I will never truyl be ok with them.
I know that statement is going to offend a lot of people, so I apologize in advance :)
-
He looks like he'll be pope for about two years.
-
true dat.
Anything more than a decade is unlikely.
-
Why do you say that? Too old?
-
He's 78, the oldest candidate who was in the running.
-
I'd venture a guess that most people here don't agree with me, but Cardinal Ratzinger's election is definitely the best thing for the Church. We don't need a weak pope who bends to secular culture; we need someone who upholds Church doctrine and teachings. From what I've heard, Ratzinger is the right man for the job.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
I'd venture a guess that most people here don't agree with me, but Cardinal Ratzinger's election is definitely the best thing for the Church. We don't need a weak pope who bends to secular culture; we need someone who upholds Church doctrine and teachings. From what I've heard, Ratzinger is the right man for the job.
You could say 'bending to secular culture' often equates to 'tolerance of other people', of course.
-
When you say "secular interests" are you referring to other religions? I realize the value of holding up your religion's inherent beliefs, but don't you think that maybe, just maybe, you should be open to accepting others into the world, and not persecuting people left and right, or condemming them, because you don't agree with their beliefs? Millions have died because of such things, so don't you think that the Church, who claims to be moraly incorruptable, should take a hint and realize that they can't bring everyone into their fold, so they should just accept all people as people, and not carve them up by religion, race, or sexual preference?
-
I actually think that intolerance is one of the things whichs established the Big 3 as what they are. It's not all lovey-dovey. There are strict codified rules and laws, and a belief system which says that there is right and wrong, and that right and wrong are passed down by God.
It doesn't affect me one way or another, but I think that someone who sticks to their guns and refuses to change a 2000 year old relgion, and all the beliefs associated with it, is more authentic than a Pope who would bend to the whim of the times, so to speak. Intolerance is simply part of relgion, because it was a part of the world-view at the time the relgion was created. You may not like it, but it is an integral part of the belief.
-
Yes, millions have died because of that, but as far as I know, all the major religions teach tolerance. Its just people choose to ignore the parts they dont like.
-
Yes, well, the Church was wrong about the Earth being the cener of the universe. By extension, maybe they could be wrong about not tolerating anyone else, and maybe, just maybe, accepting that their basic beliefs might different, but they just might possibly still be human beings, worthy of being treated as such.
Or is that just crazy talk?
-
IIRC the Catholic churches principle aim is expressly to convert the entire world to Roman Catholicism; IMO that does raise a potential issue of tolerance - I think it's ok for the Pope to say 'Catholics can't be homosexual' (etc), but not to extend that judgement to non-Catholics, which I think is what happens.
-
It's exactly what happens, and it promotes it's followers to do the same - witness the current civil rights problem in the US.
-
So, any thoughts on how he satisfies "Gloria Olivae" aside from the name Benedict?
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Yes, well, the Church was wrong about the Earth being the cener of the universe. By extension, maybe they could be wrong about not tolerating anyone else, and maybe, just maybe, accepting that their basic beliefs might different, but they just might possibly still be human beings, worthy of being treated as such.
Or is that just crazy talk?
The the sun being the center of the solar system is irrefutable fact. But there are no universal laws that apply to "tolerance" and "acceptance," so the same argument doesn't apply.
-
The Church can't actually be wrong, because they don't believe things based on facts. Relgion is not rational. They can take moral positions, such as "homosexuality is wrong", but because that it a belief, you can't really say they're wrong about it.
Think about it: in order for you and your religion to be "in" with God, someone else has to be "out", or else the term doesn't mean anything. In that respect, being exclusionary is part and parcel of the big three monotheistic religions.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Yes, well, the Church was wrong about the Earth being the cener of the universe. By extension, maybe they could be wrong about not tolerating anyone else, and maybe, just maybe, accepting that their basic beliefs might different, but they just might possibly still be human beings, worthy of being treated as such.
Or is that just crazy talk?
Last time I checked, the Church tolerates everyone, regardless of beliefs; in fact, anything less would be immoral, since by the Church's own stance, every human being has inherent dignity and worth.
-
We'll see, at this pont there's a lot of upset people here in Italy, hopes were for another kind of pope...
The cheer suddenly disappeared when they heard who the new pope is...
Well, i guess there will be a lot less "papa boys" now...
-
Sounds like he's a real conservative fellow. Hopefully he doesn't rock to boat too much...which is ironic for a conservative but...yeah.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Last time I checked, the Church tolerates everyone, regardless of beliefs; in fact, anything less would be immoral, since by the Church's own stance, every human being has inherent dignity and worth.
Actually, that's the issue being debated. Does, for example, describing the call for legal same-sex marriage as an 'ideology of evil' count as tolerance?
Interestingly, I found this quote;
[q]
2000-SEP-5: Statement on the status of non-Catholic religions by the Vatican: According to The Times News Service, London UK: 12,13
The Vatican published a declaration Dominus Iesus on SEP-5. It was written by Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of the pope. It was ratified and confirmed by the pope "with sure knowledge and by his apostolic authority."
The statement says, in part, that "Churches such as the Church of England, where the apostolic succession of bishops from the time of St. Peter is disputed by Rome, and churches without bishops, are not considered 'proper' churches." They suffer from "defects." Religions other than Christianity are considered to be "gravely deficient." Their rituals constitute "an obstacle to salvation" for their followers.
[/q]
[q]2000-SEP-25: Vatican: Roman Catholic - Jewish Ceremony postponed: According to CWNews: 15
The Vatican indefinitely postponed a ceremony emphasizing Christian-Jewish dialogue. It was scheduled to be held on OCT-3 as part of the Vatican's year 2000 Jubilee celebration. The reason for the suspension was that Elio Toaff, Rome's chief rabbi, had revealed that he would not be attending. There is speculation that Rabbi Toaff was distressed at recent Vatican moves, including:
bullet The beautification of Pope Pius IX -- regarded by many as a notorious antisemite.
The recently released church document Dominus Iesus which stated that religions other than Christianity are considered to be "gravely deficient." 13 Their rituals constitute "an obstacle to salvation" for their followers. This presumably included Judaism[/q]
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Last time I checked, the Church tolerates everyone, regardless of beliefs; in fact, anything less would be immoral, since by the Church's own stance, every human being has inherent dignity and worth.
Err...the Crusades? Slavery? Homosexuals? Other religions?
The the sun being the center of the solar system is irrefutable fact. But there are no universal laws that apply to "tolerance" and "acceptance," so the same argument doesn't apply.
Yes it is. It's not a tolerance to a people - it's a tolerance to an idea. The Church has no tolerance for differing ideas, hence, no tolerance for differring religions.
And it can be scientifically proven that the Earth is indeed not the center of the universe. But even if it couldn't - the Earth is still not the center of the solar system, something the Church was also wrong about.
[qupte]
The Church can't actually be wrong, because they don't believe things based on facts. Relgion is not rational. They can take moral positions, such as "homosexuality is wrong", but because that it a belief, you can't really say they're wrong about it.[/quote]
Then that is one of the reasons why religion should not be involved in government, as it defaults to the beliefs of the religion, not the general moral standings of humanity. For instance, persecution of someone based on their beliefs: the educated amongst us know that this is wrong. Yet a religion (I'm not saying Christianity) can say that it is right, and then do whatever they want with that.
-
"Now, Protestant scum, you will see the true power of this armed and operational Papal Star!"
-
All we need now is a little Yoda bloke to have a lightsabre fight with the new Pope. That would be cool either way ;)
-
"Your immoral tendecies appal me, liberals! I have 10,000 cardinals and bishops willing to piss our pants for conservativism! The tyranny of your regime is finished! Pope Benidict XVI out!"
-
I don´t understand why they elected a guy that can only rule for 2 years. It´s not enough time to warm the seat.
The church needs fresh blood. Literally.
But to be honest, i really don´t give a crap who they elect. It´s all the same crap, only the smell changes. Bunch of pedophiles...
-
Now now :D
Anyway, it's until he dies. I'm not sure when that will be, though.
-
Well first he needs a feeding tube. :nervous:
-
Originally posted by KappaWing
"Your immoral tendecies appal me, liberals! I have 10,000 cardinals and bishops willing to piss our pants for conservativism! The tyranny of your regime is finished! Pope Benidict XVI out!"
:lol:
-
Originally posted by KappaWing
"Your immoral tendecies appal me, liberals! I have 10,000 cardinals and bishops willing to piss our pants for conservativism! The tyranny of your regime is finished! Pope Benidict XVI out!"
"Your efforts to interdict me have failed, papacy. Pentagon, engage propiganda drive."
Donald Rumsfeld, 19-4-2005
-
Originally posted by Shrike
"Now, Protestant scum, you will see the true power of this armed and operational Papal Star!"
(http://www.geocities.com/solatar6189/pope.gif)
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Now now :D
Anyway, it's until he dies. I'm not sure when that will be, though.
No it´s not. Because of a new rule, popes can only rule untill they reach 80 years old. This guy is 78, so...
..but who cares?!
:ick:
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Then that is one of the reasons why religion should not be involved in government, as it defaults to the beliefs of the religion, not the general moral standings of humanity. For instance, persecution of someone based on their beliefs: the educated amongst us know that this is wrong. Yet a religion (I'm not saying Christianity) can say that it is right, and then do whatever they want with that.
Well, unless you're in Iran or something, religion isn't involved in government, at least not to any great degree (even in the States, and even under Bush).
And unless I'm missing something, the Catholic Church isn't prosecuting anyone, they're just being intolerant, which is their right. It's not like they're gunning down gays in the streets of Italy. They're a private membership organization, and it is within their rights to exclude anyone from joining, such as women (talking about the clergy) or to refuse to perform their rituals on anyone (lets say gays). As long as they don't preach actual direct violence, they can propagate their views all they like.
And since it is within the nature of monotheistic religions to believe that they are the only right one, and therefore superior to all others, it stands to reason that they will want to convert, ideally, the entire world. Think of it in terms of sports teams. Manchester fans aren't going to say "we respect Liverpool and ackowledge that they are a team of equal skill and sportsmanship, so we would like nothing better than to embrace them as brothers". No, that doesn't happen, and it's not exactly a surpise or a mystery as to why.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Err...the Crusades? Slavery? Homosexuals? Other religions?
The Crusades occurred over five hundred years ago; you can't blame the Church leaders today for the faults of Church leaders then. As for slavery, the Church vehemently condemns it, and as far as I know always has, unless you're referring to some time several hundred years ago, in which case my previous statement stands.
The Church does not persecute homosexuals; it teaches tolerance for them. The Church condemns homosexual activities, not homosexuals themselves. That's a difference that many people seem to ignore.
As for other religions, do you know nothing of John Paul II? He did more to foster better relations with other religions groups than perhaps any of his predecessors.
Swamp_Thing, there is no age limit on papal rule; they serve for life. The age limit of 80 applies to cardinals; after 80, they must retire and can no longer elect the next pope. They do not give up their title of cardinal, but they no longer serve as the head of an archdiocese.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Swamp_Thing, there is no age limit on papal rule; they serve for life. The age limit of 80 applies to cardinals; after 80, they must retire and can no longer elect the next pope. They do not give up their title of cardinal, but they no longer serve as the head of an archdiocese.
I thought the rule aplied to the pope aswell. Oh well...
..like i said time and time before, i don´t really care.
:rolleyes:
-
I've always been taught that as long as you live an ethical life Jesus will accept you (granted, that's still kinda hiding behind "our way is right..."). But I'd like to think that if I'm wrong about being Catholic, God/whoever judges me (if there is such a thing) will recognize that I've tried my best.
I've also always been taught that the Catholic church believes homosexuality is alright in God's eyes (means they don't hate gay people), but "expressing" it is believed to be "wrong".
-
So... What's unethical? And who decides?
-
Oh, well he won't about around for about 5 years probably, and then they will elect a new one. I was kind of suprised. I was hoping for a Latin American Pope. If they want conservative maybe they should look there.
-
??
If they looked in Latin America, they would be just as likely to get a liberation theologist (which I would welcome) as a conservative, which is what Ratsinger is explicitly against, and what JP2 was none too fond of..
-
Pope Toast (http://www.popetoast.com/)
-
:lol:
I think that choosing Ratzinger, even just as a "transitional pope", is still a good display of what the general policies of the Vatican are (higly conservative that is).
-
Someone told me the new pope was a nazi? I'm not sure if they said that because it has some basis in fact or simply because he happens to be German. I'd love to know though.
-
He was in the Hitler Jugend during his younger days. From what I've read, he wasn't all too enthustiastic about the "cause". But I guess for some people just being a German is enough to be classified as a nazi. :rolleyes:
More on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#Before_1945
-
Originally posted by Ai No Koriida
Apparently he was in the Hitler Jugend during his younger days.
I'm surprised the press haven't gone to town on that. Plus I have to watch Ai No Korida one day. I'm a big fan of Asian cinema. Only thing that puts me off is the cover they've put on the UK video rental release of that film. That's one embarassing video rental experience right there.
-
Originally posted by IPAndrews
Plus I have to watch Ai No Korida one day. I'm a big fan of Asian cinema. Only thing that puts me off is the cover they've put on the UK video rental release of that film. That's one embarassing video rental experience right there.
:o *Is thinking about changing his user name* ;)
-
He was in the Hitler Youth, as was required of all German kids at the time, and worked on an AA gun during the war. He deserted in 1944.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
The Church does not persecute homosexuals; it teaches tolerance for them. The Church condemns homosexual activities, not homosexuals themselves. That's a difference that many people seem to ignore.
I don't ignore it out of ignorance, I ignore it out of choice. The Church is basically saying "We like you if you're gay, just as long as you're not, you know...gay."
An analogy: Let's say you love to fly helicoptors. You love flying them so much, you want to do it every day. In fact, you bought your own. So you like to fly your helicoptor every day, but then one day, a big wig from the FAA comes down and says you can't fly your helicopter anymore, because he says that planes are better than helicopters. Now, he's a nice guy, so he won't punish you or anything, but you can no longer fly your helicoptor anymore. You can own it, you can look at it, you can wash it, you can tell it you love it, but no matter what you do, thanks to him, it's wrong to actually use it.
Make any sense?
As for other religions, do you know nothing of John Paul II? He did more to foster better relations with other religions groups than perhaps any of his predecessors.
So? That doesn't mean much when the basic precedents have remained unchanged.
I've always been taught that as long as you live an ethical life Jesus will accept you (granted, that's still kinda hiding behind "our way is right..."). But I'd like to think that if I'm wrong about being Catholic, God/whoever judges me (if there is such a thing) will recognize that I've tried my best.
Exactly. Why don't you apply that same rule to others? My religion generally believes that here is one destination, but many different paths to it. So that means we're all trying to get to heaven, but you might choose Christianity to get there. I personally choose Wicca, but in the end, we're all going to meet up and kick back and eat some pretzels while watching the game.
-
Originally posted by IPAndrews
I'm surprised the press haven't gone to town on that.
they have, kind of.
noteworthy is that he was forced to and deserted from it later. in fact, most were - it was about the only way to make friends.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Pope Toast (http://www.popetoast.com/)
The only message I see in that is that they have their toaster turned up waaay too high ;)
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
I don't ignore it out of ignorance, I ignore it out of choice. The Church is basically saying "We like you if you're gay, just as long as you're not, you know...gay."
An analogy: Let's say you love to fly helicoptors. You love flying them so much, you want to do it every day. In fact, you bought your own. So you like to fly your helicoptor every day, but then one day, a big wig from the FAA comes down and says you can't fly your helicopter anymore, because he says that planes are better than helicopters. Now, he's a nice guy, so he won't punish you or anything, but you can no longer fly your helicoptor anymore. You can own it, you can look at it, you can wash it, you can tell it you love it, but no matter what you do, thanks to him, it's wrong to actually use it.
Make any sense?
But the Church isn't actually physically preventing anyone from flying their helicopter. They're just giving you dirty looks when you do, which is fine.
The Church is a private entity. They can refuse to perfrom marriage ceremonies (which is what I assume you're reffering to) for any reason, it doesn't have to be a good one. They're not obliged to do it. Similarly, I can ban all black people from entering my house. It's intolerant, but it is within my rights.
With that said however, there are priests who are willing to perform gay marriages. It also stands to reason that if someone practices homosexuality (which Christianity is clearly against, even in the Bible) they're not too big abiding by the faith, so marriage (in the relgious ritual sense) isn't really that big a deal.
Sure, there's really no good reason for the Church to dislike gays, but that's tradtion, it doesn't have to make sense. And aside from a few individuals acting indepedently (who are usually charged with a criminal offence) I haven't seen too much actual persecuation against gays, not including simple rhetoric, which isn't a real attack as such.
Like I said, I can appreciate that a 2000 year old religion should not be changed to "keep up with the times". Its not like reform can save Christianity, or any other religion. They're all on their way out.
-
What was it that John Paul II said? Something about his successor being the anti-christ? Coincidence, I think not...
-
Originally posted by Raa
So... What's unethical? And who decides?
For a large portion of "what's ethical", it's just common sense. Going out on the street and killing somebody isn't ethical. The Church also teaches that humans cannot judge who will go to heaven or not, so go figure...
The reason the Church doesn't support gay sex (basically...that's it. Other stuff that leads to it is only discouraged for that reason) is because in the Church's eyes God created it for two reasons: for procreation, and to strengthen a relationship with two people. In their opinion one cannot exist without the other, so if it does it is (in their eyes) a misuse of a "gift" from God. They do this to try and make a distinction between a Person and an Action. They don't know what causes homosexuality, so they might as well tolerate it to the extent that they can under their beliefs. The person can help the action, however, so the Church believes it is wrong to succumb to it.
The Church is their to help people, and it does help some "faithful" people. If it doesn't help you...then oh well, don't listen to what it has to say (the Church teaches that even the pope cannot decide who goes to heaven or hell, so who are they to tell you you're going to hell for having an homosexual affair?)
-
Originally posted by Solatar
The reason the Church doesn't support gay sex (basically...that's it. Other stuff that leads to it is only discouraged for that reason) is because in the Church's eyes God created it for two reasons: for procreation, and to strengthen a relationship with two people. In their opinion one cannot exist without the other, so if it does it is (in their eyes) a misuse of a "gift" from God. They do this to try and make a distinction between a Person and an Action. They don't know what causes homosexuality, so they might as well tolerate it to the extent that they can under their beliefs. The person can help the action, however, so the Church believes it is wrong to succumb to it.
God created 'sex'? And it's a 'gift'? Interesting... Seems more like a curse to me, at times...
I still think that the church is wrong on this point. For as pious as they may be, they are still humans, who have never been spoken to by God. Any judgement they make is purely concensus of the ruling elders. They are judging other humans, despite preaching that man is not in a position to judge. Et cetera.... you know the spiel, I'm too tired to continue this, so I'll wait for someone else to. ;)
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Yes, well, the Church was wrong about the Earth being the cener of the universe. By extension, maybe they could be wrong about not tolerating anyone else, and maybe, just maybe, accepting that their basic beliefs might different, but they just might possibly still be human beings, worthy of being treated as such.
Or is that just crazy talk?
the Church said the Earth was the center of the universe. The Bible never said it... yet the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. The Bible didn't copy the church.
I don't ignore it out of ignorance, I ignore it out of choice. The Church is basically saying "We like you if you're gay, just as long as you're not, you know...gay."
The church is taking those statements from the Bible, yes.
noteworthy is that he was forced to and deserted from it later. in fact, most were - it was about the only way to make friends.
yet "everyone was required to join" is no excuse. There are many cases of people who refused to join, and sat in prison for their refusal, many even being killed.
-
The bible also says:
DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together
And yet, the church does.
-
damnit you speedy fuker!
-
:D I even had to go find your last post to copy it from your sig. ;)
-
Originally posted by Raa
The bible also says:
DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together
And yet, the church does.
but see, then we get into the old testament vs. new testament. the old testament's laws don't apply today. hence the name: OLD testament
-
I was sooo just about to type
"the Bible says many things /*looks at sig*/"
when I thought, 'hmm, maybe I should refresh, just to make sure someone hasn't posted something to make that seem out of place' and...
and gotamit!!!
-
and yay for picking and chooseing wich rules we like to follow!!!
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
and yay for picking and chooseing wich rules we like to follow!!!
that, i agree with you on.
you know they call American Catholics "Cafeteria catholics", because they pick and choose what rules they want to follow, and what ones they don't :p
-
so, is there a passage somewere that Jesus overturns Deuteronomy 22:11?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
so, is there a passage somewere that Jesus overturns Deuteronomy 22:11?
if you were familiar with the Bible, then yes... with Jesus' death, the old testament vanished, and the 'new covenant', talked about in Hebrews 8:8-9 and Hebrews 8:13, came into play.
EDIT: should mention that obviously there are still universal laws and examples that we can learn from in the old testament, so it's not completely obsolete
-
Fairy tales! :p
-
fairy tales or not, i'm just explaining to Bobbau :)
-
with all the depth people go into LotR mythology you'd think trying to get some clarification on the bible wouldn't raise the BS-o-meter that much, I mean it's not like beleive any of it or anything, but anyway, what exactly is the passage? is the entier OT abolished, and if so then why is it kept around as part of the cannon.
... or perhapse a better question, why did god change his mind, why was it a mortal sin to eat pork or wear cotton-polyester undies in the first place?
-
now you want to do no research on it yourself and just have me tell you everything, so you can then dispute it? Nosir, go do some research on it yourself.
and if so then why is it kept around as part of the cannon
...
why do we keep history books? Why do we study history, if most of it is no longer relevant? :wtf:
-
meh...
/*only moderately interested*/
/*directed at first part, before you edited*/
-
OK, in that case don't do research on it :D :D :D
-
well if it's no longer "The Rules" why is it in The Rule Book?
I could see keeping it around, but if it conflicts with the current enforced rules then keeping it in the cannon is only going to confuse people.
-
The New Testament did not abolish the Old Testament. It completed it. The OT was a shadow of things to come. That doesn't make it wrong, only incomplete. And the OT wasn't automatically invalidated when the NT came along. The morals and laws of the OT still apply.
Not everything in the OT was a law, though. There are at least three different kinds of rules I can think of:
1) Moral laws, which reflect God's moral order and cannot be changed
2) Regulations, which established protocol in various areas
3) Orders, which applied to specific cases
As I said, moral laws (such as the Ten Commandments) still apply. However, rules such as mixing types of garments, eating certain types of food, cutting your hair a certain way, and associating with different types of people fall into the second category.
IMO, these rules were designed to set Israel apart as "unique", but they didn't reflect any particular moral order. In fact, God specifically told Peter, in Acts 10, that eating forbidden food and associating with forbidden people was perfectly fine. I think that these rules, in setting Israel apart culturally, were a foreshadowing of Christians being set apart spiritually. Note that Jesus ate all kinds of things, hung out with all sorts of people, and broke many established rules and regulations.Originally posted by Raa
God created 'sex'? And it's a 'gift'? Interesting... Seems more like a curse to me, at times...
God designed sex to be a wonderful thing before sin came along and corrupted it. In fact, it was intended to be one of the most wonderful things he made. The reason it's been corrupted so much is that it's so valuable in its purest form. Think about it - nobody counterfeits a $1 bill. :)
-
I've never actually encountered counterfeit sex. It all seems to work pretty much the same.
-
hmmm... well all I can say at this time is the following;
"and on the twelveth hour of the evening the LORD God our father said "let there be sleep" and there was much slumber in all the lands"
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
As I said, moral laws (such as the Ten Commandments) still apply. However, rules such as mixing types of garments, eating certain types of food, cutting your hair a certain way, and associating with different types of people fall into the second category.
IMO, these rules were designed to set Israel apart as "unique", but they didn't reflect any particular moral order. In fact, God specifically told Peter, in Acts 10, that eating forbidden food and associating with forbidden people was perfectly fine. I think that these rules, in setting Israel apart culturally, were a foreshadowing of Christians being set apart spiritually.
Or, more likely. One day a guy named Peter looked around and saw more people going to the temples to Isis and Mithras. He decided: "Well gee shucks, if we lower our restrictions we'll get more members!"
Thus Peter, much like Mohammad did when his first wife died, decided to have a vision from god which added some nice, new, convenient rules. :)
However, Robot Jesus in seeing the stupidity of organic meatbags does not believe in revisionist history.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Not everything in the OT was a law, though. There are at least three different kinds of rules I can think of:
1) Moral laws, which reflect God's moral order and cannot be changed
2) Regulations, which established protocol in various areas
3) Orders, which applied to specific cases
As I said, moral laws (such as the Ten Commandments) still apply. However, rules such as mixing types of garments, eating certain types of food, cutting your hair a certain way, and associating with different types of people fall into the second category.
IMO, these rules were designed to set Israel apart as "unique", but they didn't reflect any particular moral order.
So the laws on owning slaves and stoning women who were raped where just to set the jews aside? How? I can't see any way that you can claim that those rules were regulations rather than moral laws.
-
The regulations on owning slaves were just that, regulations. If it was a given that Israelites were going to own slaves, they were given rules on how to go about it.
As for the second case, I think certain rules were combinations of a moral law and a regulation law. For example, "you shall not commit adultery" is an unqualified moral law. But proscriptions for stoning just outlined the punishment for breaking the moral law. Many cultures execute adulterers, but only the Israelites stoned them.
As for women who were raped, the OT treats that carefully. If a woman was within the city limits and didn't scream, she was treated as an adultress because she consented - and therefore, by OT definition, wasn't raped. However if the woman was outside the city limits, it gives her the benefit of the doubt and does not order her execution.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
The regulations on owning slaves were just that, regulations. If it was a given that Israelites were going to own slaves, they were given rules on how to go about it.
What on Earth do you mean if it was a given that the Israelites were going to own slaves? As if God couldn't do something about it and is just a politician who has to put up with a necessary evil.
By making regulations on the treatment of God gives his tacit approval to slavery thereby making it moral to own slaves.
This is like the British parliment passing laws stating what implements you can use to beat your wife and then claiming that it's not okay to beat her.
Originally posted by Goober5000
As for women who were raped, the OT treats that carefully. If a woman was within the city limits and didn't scream, she was treated as an adultress because she consented - and therefore, by OT definition, wasn't raped. However if the woman was outside the city limits, it gives her the benefit of the doubt and does not order her execution.
Not carefully enough. The defence "But she didn't scream when I held a knife to her throat so I'm innocent" would be laughed out of court today. Are you seriously telling me that it was a valid defence in biblical days?
Oh and BTW I've heard women scream when being consensual. Seems like there was an easy way to beat the stoning :p
-
Originally posted by karajorma
What on Earth do you mean if it was a given that the Israelites were going to own slaves? As if God couldn't do something about it and is just a politician who has to put up with a necessary evil.
By making regulations on the treatment of God gives his tacit approval to slavery thereby making it moral to own slaves.
This is like the British parliment passing laws stating what implements you can use to beat your wife and then claiming that it's not okay to beat her.
Not exactly.
A bit of background. God was redeeming mankind gradually. Things like slavery, polygamy, and castes used to be very common thousands of years ago; but God gradually brought societies out of them. Slavery was so ingrained in the human psyche that he let it be for the time being; IIRC nearly all the movement throughout the world to abolish slavery occurred in the space of one century, the 1800s. It took that long for humanity to be pried away from it.
So God allowed certain activities despite his disapproval of them. It's the same as when Jesus said, regarding divorce, "Moses permitted you to divorce because your hearts were hard." In other words, God allowed slavery because to disallow it would probably have made things worse. Israel might have said, "Forget this, I'm not giving up my slaves; I'll go find some other god to worship."
And if you look, you can find God disapproving of slavery in the OT. He commanded all slaves to be set free every 50 years, for example - not that this was ever followed, which supports the original point. ;)
Not carefully enough. The defence "But she didn't scream when I held a knife to her throat so I'm innocent" would be laughed out of court today. Are you seriously telling me that it was a valid defence in biblical days?
Here's what the passage says:Deuteronomy 22:23-24
If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death-the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
Apparently it's assumed that the woman has enough time to scream. However, many documented OT cases included some sort of consultation of God, so I'm sure God would have clarified the issue in such a situation.Oh and BTW I've heard women scream when being consensual. Seems like there was an easy way to beat the stoning :p
Presumably the Israelites would know enough to differentiate between the types of screams. :p
-
obviously the woman would scream if she resisted... and someone would come help. if she didn't scream, it was implied that she 'enjoyed' being raped.
EDIT:
i should mention that i did say "should mention that obviously there are still universal laws and examples that we can learn from in the old testament, so it's not completely obsolete" :D so yeah, obviously there are still lessons we can learn from the OT, but we don't abide by the laws that, nowadays, seem absurd.
-
so, we pick and choose wich rules we want to follow.
rules that are inconvenient for us were just regulations meant to set Isreal aside from other nations, but the rules that we can forge into a political weapon, oh, those were mortal law.
unless you can provide a passage somewere that specificly refutes all of the OT, exept maybe a few choice parts, or refutes a huge number of specific parts of it, I'm going to just sit here and beleive that you just haven't realy looked at the situation with an open mind, you automatically assume that all laws in the bible are moral, and thus any law that doesn't fit into your 21st century ethos you simply ignor/rationalise away.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
In other words, God allowed slavery because to disallow it would probably have made things worse. Israel might have said, "Forget this, I'm not giving up my slaves; I'll go find some other god to worship."
Sorry but I just don't buy it.
Are you trying to tell me that the same God who wiped out 3000 people for praying to the Golden Calf was worried about people worshipping another God and needed to do some touchy-feely weening of people off of slavery because he was worried about people worshipping another God?
If God didn't want people to have slaves he'd have done the same thing he did with every other thing he didn't want and burnt the lot of them if they dared to argue with him. I really don't buy this whole argument.
As for the rape thing lets go for the less ambiguous one then. The whole "rape yourself a new wife for 50 shekels" thing in deuteronomy 22:28? Are you trying to claim that this was also just a regulation then?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
unless you can provide a passage somewere that specificly refutes all of the OT, exept maybe a few choice parts, or refutes a huge number of specific parts of it, I'm going to just sit here and beleive that you just haven't realy looked at the situation with an open mind, you automatically assume that all laws in the bible are moral, and thus any law that doesn't fit into your 21st century ethos you simply ignor/rationalise away.
frankly, you can do whatever the hell you want, it's "no skin off my nose"...
but anyway. there are verses that state that the old covenant was nailed "to the cross" with Jesus... in that Jesus' death signaled the end of the Mosaic covenant. as i said though, the OT is still part of the Bible, because it's very imporant... it's in the old testament that prophecies regarding Jesus were given, and there are many examples people can learn from, recorded in the old testament.
-
Are you trying to tell me that the same God who wiped out 3000 people for praying to the Golden Calf was worried about people worshipping another God and needed to do some touchy-feely weening of people off of slavery because he was worried about people worshipping another God?
If God didn't want people to have slaves he'd have done the same thing he did with every other thing he didn't want and burnt the lot of them if they dared to argue with him. I really don't buy this whole argument.
If you do believe in God, then don't try to justify what God did in the past. Your reasoning is infinitely primitive in comparison to God's (that is, if you believe he exists even), so don't try to call out what God did that was right and what was wrong. if you think about it, that's hilarious for you to try to do.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
but anyway. there are verses that state that the old covenant was nailed "to the cross" with Jesus... in that Jesus' death signaled the end of the Mosaic covenant. as i said though, the OT is still part of the Bible, because it's very imporant... it's in the old testament that prophecies regarding Jesus were given, and there are many examples people can learn from, recorded in the old testament.
But if the old covenant is gone then everything not stated in the new covenant is defunct so why in hell's name do christians constantly go on about the 10 commandments?
And even if it does say in the NT that they are still valid where does it say which other parts are valid?
-
IIRC there's a scientific opinion that parts of the Bible related to Israel were written in the Kingdom of Judah and thus reflect the ambitions of that kingdom (as Israel and Judah were synonymous). There are a number of other arguements with regards to historical accuracy and bias within the OT, I believe.
I believe there is a similar issue / debate over the New Testament; I think the NT has been dated as written as much as 300AD - although AFAIK 130AD or so is a more accepted date - and was edited or modified numerous times before becoming canon.
I think that the Bible - in my reasoning regardless of the existence of God or not - is not written by (a/any) God, but by men. As such, it is subject to the biases and errors of its writers, intentional or unintentional.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I think that the Bible - in my reasoning regardless of the existence of God or not - is not written by (a/any) God, but by men. As such, it is subject to the biases and errors of its writers, intentional or unintentional.
well obviously the Bible was written by man... I mean God didn't write the Bible and hurl it down to Earth... it was written by men who were inspired by God. There are some statements and prophecies in the Bible that no one knew of at the time, that were found out/proven/fulfilled much later... man is not possible of forseeing the future, so...
-
Originally posted by Raa
The bible also says:
DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together
And yet, the church does.
I've worked so hard to get to heaven, yet my boxers are 40% cotton and 60% nylon. Wow, according to this passage, I'm literally covered in sin! I've been a nice person all my life, but it looks like I'm gonna go to hell because of this. Damn you Fruit of the Loom!
-
What about silk and microfiber? I can't get around that, what with ties and all.
-
[q] Damn you Fruit of the Loom![/q]
That's getting immortalized!
-
Ratzinger is the best choice for the church..
The word Conservative has been given a negative meaning lately, while in fact there is no reason for it.
At the same time liberals are started to be called "progressive", like they are mode advanced in human development than the conservatives...what a load of bull!
The goal of hte Church is to preach God's laws, NOT to gain more followers by bending as the wind blows. If the Church lost 90% of it's flock while it clang to it's ways it still wouldn't be considered a failiure.
Most people don't get it that the church and state are different things - whiel the state has to listen to the will of the people, the Church doesn't. And that's what bothers some people....the fact that it won't be their way...
-
The word Conservative has been given a negative meaning lately, while in fact there is no reason for it.
At the same time liberals are started to be called "progressive", like they are mode advanced in human development than the conservatives...what a load of bull!
"Conservative" is given a bad connotation by liberals, and "liberal" is given a bad connotation by conservatives, so don't go nailing yourself to a cross too quickly.
The goal of hte Church is to preach God's laws, NOT to gain more followers by bending as the wind blows.
So apparently God was long under the impression that the Earth is the center of his creation, until he got glasses or something.
If the Church lost 90% of it's flock while it clang to it's ways it still wouldn't be considered a failiure.
Except by the 90% who left.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
So? That doesn't mean much when the basic precedents have remained unchanged.
Not really. The Catholic Church clearly stated that you don't have to be a christian to go the heaven and that everyone is your brother.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Not really. The Catholic Church clearly stated that you don't have to be a christian to go the heaven and that everyone is your brother.
It also stated (quoted previously) that other Christian churches were 'deficient' and 'an obstacle to salvation', in a 2000 statement by none other than Messer Ratzinger.
Incidentally, a nitpick RE: 'conservative'; the actual meaning of conservatism is not to progress atall - i.e. to maintain the current 'order' for better or worse. 'Conservative' (big C) and 'Liberal' are political ideologies more than representing conservatism or its opposite (progressive), i.e. left and right wing. I think that a positive viewing of conservatism (with a small c) could only occur if you thought the world was perfect and didn't need to change.
Finally, the whole reason* (some) people don't like religion in general is simple; it's the question 'who are you to judge me?' I think that's worth noting (although it's somewhat OT); religions by nature have to judge the world and aim to convert it, of course that causes friction.
*IMO
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Are you trying to tell me that the same God who wiped out 3000 people for praying to the Golden Calf was worried about people worshipping another God and needed to do some touchy-feely weening of people off of slavery because he was worried about people worshipping another God?
If God didn't want people to have slaves he'd have done the same thing he did with every other thing he didn't want and burnt the lot of them if they dared to argue with him. I really don't buy this whole argument.
God had certain priorities. Slavery matters less, from a spiritual perspective, than worshipping another god - especially since people are enslaved to sin anyway and also enslaved to each other to some degree (social status, government, etc.).
Slavery matters less, in the long run, than murder, adultery, theft, etc. Those were more important and were therefore given more attention.As for the rape thing lets go for the less ambiguous one then. The whole "rape yourself a new wife for 50 shekels" thing in deuteronomy 22:28? Are you trying to claim that this was also just a regulation then?
That's another hybrid, but it's a complex issue.
The law against committing adultery stands. However, since in that case the girl wasn't married, she wasn't actually committing marital adultery. Therefore the rapist was "marrying" her by having sex with her. The 50 shekels and "taking her as a wife" just made it a legal marriage.
The reason for this arrangement is that the rapist now is responsible for the woman he raped, both socially and because they may have a son coming along. The woman, in turn, is given the security of a husband and saved from being ostracized. Society would otherwise shun a victim of rape, so this is the best possible outcome for her.Originally posted by karajorma
But if the old covenant is gone then everything not stated in the new covenant is defunct so why in hell's name do christians constantly go on about the 10 commandments?
And even if it does say in the NT that they are still valid where does it say which other parts are valid?
Take a look at this:
Colossians 2:13-17
When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
The "written code, with its regulations" was canceled. Not the law, which was "fulfilled" (Jesus: "I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it") and is still valid.
-
So the 10 commandments are now invalid too then?
-
Well, number one certainly has to be. The Cross, The Virgin Mary etc etc are all infractions of it.
-
You'd think God could have come up with a better way of saying what he did and didn't want.... perhaps engraving it upon the coastline of France, or across womens breasts (the latter would ensure men read them.....).
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Well, number one certainly has to be. The Cross, The Virgin Mary etc etc are all infractions of it.
No, no. Those are tests. Like dinosaur fossils...
-
:lol: As one guy being prosecuted for Graffiti writing once said 'Well.... God leads by example' ;)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Well, number one certainly has to be. The Cross, The Virgin Mary etc etc are all infractions of it.
No, they're not. Neither one is worshipped. Images of Christ on the cross, i.e. crucifixes, are what are known as sacramentals, objects or actions that serve to symbolize a certain principle or idea of one's faith. When I kneel in front of a cross to pray, I'm not praying to that piece of wood as if it was an idol; I'm praying to Christ. The cross serves as something like a visual aid, if you will.
As for Mary, contrary to a popular misconception among many fundamentalists, Catholics do not worship her. Rather, we ask her to pray for us and to intercede for us with her son. In the same way, we ask certain saints to pray for us. Mary has never been considered a divine being on the level of God; she was a simple woman, but incredibly special in that she was chosen to bear God's son.
Regarding the Old Testament regulations, i.e. the "wool-linen" line that so many people fling around for some reason, these sorts of statements were really nothing more than societal regulations for the Jewish people. They're your ancient equivalent of traffic codes. As Gooberman, I believe, said earlier, these regulations are completely different from the moral guidelines outlined in the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments outline God's moral law, while the other statements are societal rules. Christ himself spoke of the Pharisees who criticized him for breaking such "commandments" as not working on the Sabbath (one one occasion when he healed a man's hand in the synagogue) as hypocrites, following the law's minutiae such as ritual washing while completely ignoring God's morality.
Regarding Christ and his connection to the Old Testament, he did not abolish it or its commandments; rather, he fulfilled it. Through his death and resurrection, Christ made a new covenant with humanity. While God's original covenant with Abraham applied to the nation of Israel and was sealed with the blood of a ram, Christ's covenant was with all of humanity and sealed with his own blood; Christ died and conquered death so that all of humanity could experience everlasting life. Christ did not abolish the Ten Commandments; he reaffirmed them. Indeed, Christ summed up all ten of the commandments in one of his most important teachings, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as you love yourself."
-
So if the bible is so important, why are parts of it ignoreable? What's the point or relevance of a holy book if some of it isn't actually 'holy'?
-
But there are far far more crosses representing Christiantiy in the world than crosses with images of Christ on them. That suggests the Cross is the more important part of the pairing in Christianities view?
-
You know, if I had been crucified, then came back to life, say 2,000 years later, the last thing I'd want to see was loads of crosses everywhere....
-
i actually agree 100% with Flipside's point...
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Regarding the Old Testament regulations, i.e. the "wool-linen" line that so many people fling around for some reason, these sorts of statements were really nothing more than societal regulations for the Jewish people. They're your ancient equivalent of traffic codes. As Gooberman, I believe, said earlier, these regulations are completely different from the moral guidelines outlined in the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments outline God's moral law, while the other statements are societal rules. Christ himself spoke of the Pharisees who criticized him for breaking such "commandments" as not working on the Sabbath (one one occasion when he healed a man's hand in the synagogue) as hypocrites, following the law's minutiae such as ritual washing while completely ignoring God's morality.
Regarding Christ and his connection to the Old Testament, he did not abolish it or its commandments; rather, he fulfilled it. Through his death and resurrection, Christ made a new covenant with humanity. While God's original covenant with Abraham applied to the nation of Israel and was sealed with the blood of a ram, Christ's covenant was with all of humanity and sealed with his own blood; Christ died and conquered death so that all of humanity could experience everlasting life. Christ did not abolish the Ten Commandments; he reaffirmed them. Indeed, Christ summed up all ten of the commandments in one of his most important teachings, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as you love yourself."
So by that logic the pope should dump the whole restrictions on birth control thing then right? After all that's not even a regulation, Christ never said anything on the matter and the only thing it's based on is Onan getting wiped out for spilling his seed.
If we're saying that anything that isn't restated as being a law in the NT isn't one then birth control is completely okay.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
The goal of hte Church is to preach God's laws, NOT to gain more followers by bending as the wind blows.
No, spreading your legs as the wind blows (and not allowing contraceptives) seems to be the way you're wanting to gain followers. :p
At least you're having fun practicing you faith... though the whole having to wait 14-20 years for an effective follower isn't very cost effective.
-
Originally posted by Clave
You know, if I had been crucified, then came back to life, say 2,000 years later, the last thing I'd want to see was loads of crosses everywhere....
Kinda like going up to Jackie O with a rifle pendant. "Thinking of John." (mimes holding and firing a rifle)
I love Bill Hicks :D
-
aldo, the Bible is a divinely inspired text, but it was also written by humans, and it contains a myriad of different literary types, including but not limited to allegory, parable, poetry, song, genealogy, commentary, and direct narrative. No part of the Bible is unimportant; it's just that some of the social regulations placed on the ancient Isrealites do not apply to modern-day Christians. They were written in the form of legal statutes, not God's moral law.
Flipside, crosses are no more important than crucifixes are. Many Catholic churches I've been in have both crosses and crucifixes on display. A crucifix is generally a more realistic or artistic way of portraying Christ's crucifixion, while a cross is a simpler symbol of Christianity. Some fundamentalist sects view the crucifix as a form of idol, but as I said above, that's not true for Catholics.
karajorma, you're missing a huge and fundamenal part of Catholicism. My beliefs as a Catholic are not limited to the verbatim text of the Bible. The Catholic faith is comprised of both the Bible and Church Tradition, which is made up of the moral teachings of the Pope and Church councils going back to the time of the apostles. I'm going to do myself a favor and copy a post I made a few days ago in another forum about this same point; hopefully, this will clear up some of the misconceptions you may have:
The term "Tradition" refers to something different when referring to the Church than it does in the popular sense. There are many fundamentalist Christian groups that follow a strict and literal interpretation of the Bible; in other words, if it isn't written in the Bible, then it isn't a legitimate belief. We as Catholics believe differently. For the Catholic Church, the teachings of the popes on matters of faith and morals, along with the Church councils and decrees of the College of Cardinals, are viewed as divinely inspired; they are classified under the role of Tradition. (Many people have a misconception about part of this, namely, papal infallibility. This doctrine does not state that the pope can do no wrong; it states that, when he is speaking with his full authority as the bishop of Rome in matters of faith and morals, his proclamations are considered without moral fault.) This gathered body of Church teaching, from the time of the apostles, carries equal weight with regards to faith as does the actual text of the Bible. This does require a clarification, though; all of these teachings were derived in some way or another from the teachings and actions of Christ, in the same way that the Church views the seven sacraments as each having been instituted by Christ.
The prohibition against artificial birth control stems from Catholic sexual morality. For Catholics, the sexual act is a sacred gift from God meant to be shared only between man and wife. It has a dual nature: unitive, for the love and devotion of the couple, and procreative, for the sharing with God in the act of creation of new life. Neither of these elements can be taken away from the sexual act; thus, artificial birth control, since it removes the procreative aspect, is immoral.
P.S. The person who said that the earliest complete writings of the New Testament were made around the year 300 was actually wrong; there are samples of the New Testament dating to as early as 100 or even earlier, and the text of these ancient documents is almost completely the same as that of modern-day translations.
-
P.S. The person who said that the earliest complete writings of the New Testament were made around the year 300 was actually wrong; there are samples of the New Testament dating to as early as 100 or even earlier, and the text of these ancient documents is almost completely the same as that of modern-day translations.
Just a little tidbit to add. IIRC, the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were the two earliest, and they were written somewhere around 40-50 AD I think.
I think Mongoose explained it very well...
-
almost, so not exactly, so not the final version.
and it's nice that all of the sudden you've decided to accept radiometric dateing.
-
lol, I just took that figure out of a textbook. If there's something I haven't been informed of, I'd be glad to hear it (I agree with a lot of Catholicism, but I don't ward off criticism of it, after all, if we didn't ask questions, then I really would would be brainwashed).
-
*thought title of topic was "New pope elected..."*
-
It was. but you know how things go here, sucka. :p
-
Originally posted by karajorma
So the 10 commandments are now invalid too then?
No, since as I said, they're moral law. They're so important that God gave them to Moses personally. He wouldn't do that with mere regulations.
The regulations were cancelled. The law was fulfilled (but is still in effect).Originally posted by Flipside
Well, number one certainly has to be. The Cross, The Virgin Mary etc etc are all infractions of it.
Mongoose addressed this very well IMHO. If you start worshipping Mary directly, it crosses the line. But there's nothing wrong with merely keeping a token around to remind you of your faith.
I think it'd be kinda hard to idolize an image of the cross anyway. Christians are commanded to "take up your cross" daily, after all.Originally posted by aldo_14
So if the bible is so important, why are parts of it ignoreable? What's the point or relevance of a holy book if some of it isn't actually 'holy'?
It's not ignorable. None of the Bible is ignorable. While the regulations and restrictions no longer apply, it's still important to know them. They're still valuable as a history of Israel and an illustration of God's process of redemption. Why else would Christians keep the Old Testament around when they have the New Testament?Originally posted by Flipside
But there are far far more crosses representing Christiantiy in the world than crosses with images of Christ on them. That suggests the Cross is the more important part of the pairing in Christianities view?
It's actually a very healthy thing, from a Christian point of view, to focus on the cross. It doesn't matter whether it's the cross alone or the cross with Jesus on it, becaue they're both valuable. The cross with Jesus on it reminds us of Jesus's sacrifice. The cross alone reminds us to die to ourselves.Originally posted by karajorma
So by that logic the pope should dump the whole restrictions on birth control thing then right? After all that's not even a regulation, Christ never said anything on the matter and the only thing it's based on is Onan getting wiped out for spilling his seed.
If we're saying that anything that isn't restated as being a law in the NT isn't one then birth control is completely okay.
True, it isn't a law, and following it isn't critical to your spiritual health. However, if you agree to be bound by the Catholic church's authority, you must live up to your responsibility and follow its rules. Of course, there's nothing preventing you from joining another denomination.Originally posted by Bobboau
and it's nice that all of the sudden you've decided to accept radiometric dateing.
Leaving the old-earth/young-earth discussion aside for the moment (it's a whole other can of worms, and very off-topic) there are other ways of dating manuscripts. Linguistic styles, graphical styles, references to other documents, type of ink used, and type of paper used, to name several.
-
What exactly were you implying by that last statement, Bobbaou? Why would I, as a physics major, have any problem accepting the accuracy of radiometric dating?
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
aldo, the Bible is a divinely inspired text, but it was also written by humans, and it contains a myriad of different literary types, including but not limited to allegory, parable, poetry, song, genealogy, commentary, and direct narrative. No part of the Bible is unimportant; it's just that some of the social regulations placed on the ancient Isrealites do not apply to modern-day Christians. They were written in the form of legal statutes, not God's moral law.
Originally posted by Goober5000
It's not ignorable. None of the Bible is ignorable. While the regulations and restrictions no longer apply, it's still important to know them. They're still valuable as a history of Israel and an illustration of God's process of redemption. Why else would Christians keep the Old Testament around when they have the New Testament?
(sort of combined)
This is exactly my point, really; parts of the bible are outdated and written for the time they were created - so what ensures the rest is any more sacrosanct than those other than mass acceptance?
It's written combining myth with history with idealised history and using characters whose very existence are debated; on top of that parts of it are definitively only valid for the time of its creation, and other parts appear equally outdated to modern society. IMO something that jumbled up, cannot be used as a definitive set of moral rules (at least when it comes to my choice of how I live my life).
That's why* I don't believe in organized religion (as a personal choice of belief, that is); I feel it bears far more hallmarks of humanity than any divine inspiration. After all, if someone today says God (or Allah, or Buddah, or Vishnu, etc) is speaking through them, 99% of the population laugh or look the other way. And yet IMO exactly the same thing is accepted as a basis of a belief system.
*partly why, at least. It's not the sole reason.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
No, since as I said, they're moral law. They're so important that God gave them to Moses personally. He wouldn't do that with mere regulations.
But who decides what is moral law and what is regulation? Seems to me that you don't seem to have a list from Jesus and are just making it up as you go along.
Sure if the NT mentions the law again you can claim it's part of the new contract but what about in cases where nothing is said. The laws on rape for instance aren't repeated in the NT as far as I know. So who decides whether they are moral laws or regulations?
-
that's the exact point I've been trying to get at too.
DEUTERONOMY 22:11 is outdated and stupid, but Leviticus 18:22 isn't, but were exactly are all these destinctions spelled out? it seems to me that it's totaly arbitrary.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
It's written combining myth with history with idealised history
where do you find any myth in the Bible? Practically everything that the Bible mentions, has been validated today.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
where do you find any myth in the Bible? Practically everything that the Bible mentions, has been validated today.
Genesis? The flood?
EDIT; depending on your criteria, the entire Bible could be considered as mythical; as myths are stories - often with historical origins - usually intended to express some ideological or cultural idea.
-
No... Not that again please...
-
Originally posted by Zarax
No... Not that again please...
Well, note I am saying it could be considered as such; I'm just pointing out there's more than one view of this.
-
I'm sure your intentions are good Aldo, however i'm sure you can see where these consideration leads...
Do we really want another flamewar on that topic?
-
They're not flamewars they're debates.
You people seem to think a difference of opinion constitutes a flame.
-
Not really Vyper... It's just that we already had a several pages long very heated discussion on the topic and i don't think we need another one.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
This is exactly my point, really; parts of the bible are outdated and written for the time they were created - so what ensures the rest is any more sacrosanct than those other than mass acceptance?
I think something Sesquipedalian said exemplified it pretty well: The purpose of the Bible is to point people to God. It does that through history, myth, lists of laws, personal stories, proverbs, poetry, and so forth. The whole thing works as the whole thing. You can't separate out any one part on the grounds of being out-of-date, because each part provides insight into all the rest.Originally posted by karajorma
But who decides what is moral law and what is regulation? Seems to me that you don't seem to have a list from Jesus and are just making it up as you go along.
Originally posted by Bobboau
that's the exact point I've been trying to get at too.
DEUTERONOMY 22:11 is outdated and stupid, but Leviticus 18:22 isn't, but were exactly are all these destinctions spelled out? it seems to me that it's totaly arbitrary.
The more I think of it, the more it occurs to me that the Ten Commandments were the only moral law handed down during the OT. Every law in the OT is either 1) something that directly references one of the Ten Commandments; or 2) a regulation not derived from the Ten Commandments. That's the qualifier.
And that's why you have people preaching against homosexuality but nobody rounding them up and stoning them. The Ten Commandments only says, "Do not commit adultery," period, leaving the consequences up to God. The regulation mandating a specific punishment, as part of "the old written code" was repealed. The moral law, as the basis for that regulation, was not.
-
About that flood the Bible describes. It is possible that it really has happened, though not on that scale. Some theories says the formation of the Black Sea is behind it. The similar flood is also described in Mesopotamian epic Gilgames (along with single survivor completely analogous to Nooa named Atrahasis) so it really is possible that it happened. Main difference to the Bible seems to be that in the epic Gilgames they had more than one divinity to worship.
BTW Christianity is known for its ability to adapt to (or rather: steal ideas from) local customs with good results. For example the Christmas was originally a roman (=pagan) fest called Saturnalia. And even here in Finland we still have originally purely pagan holiday known as Midsummer, complete with bonefires and all, which has been tried in the past to link to John the Baptist by the church with quite poor results.
So which myths or writings are really Christian, and which have been adopted from other sources? Especially after early church in its great wisdom decided to remove (burn?) the religious writings that didn't fit their agenda (the Apocrypha (perhaps misspelled)) from the NT.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
I'm sure your intentions are good Aldo, however i'm sure you can see where these consideration leads...
Do we really want another flamewar on that topic?
It only becomes a flamewar if people start flaming each other.
IMO the main posters in this particular topic are me, kara, Bobbau and Goober, none of whom are noted for this. Now, if Kazan &/or Lib (for example) was here, maybe we'd have a mite of a problem (:p). But they're not, so I think we're fine. :)
Incidentally, my aim in this things is always to point out my personal belief/opinion as much as possible, so people know where I'm coming from. Hopefully that helps.....
-
Ok, i'll preemptively shut up on the issue, hope you manage to keep things cool :)
-
I can't remember any specific examples, but I was sure there were a few more flood stories other than the Hebrew Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh.
*goes and tries to find*
-
Yes, the story of the floods is widely accepted in many cultures.
Also, and this is spooky....
http://mmmgroup.altervista.org/e-ark.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/noahs_ark_010823-1.html
I remember seeing this years ago. Not much concrete stuff, but several religions/cultures do also mention Arks :)
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
"Conservative" is given a bad connotation by liberals, and "liberal" is given a bad connotation by conservatives, so don't go nailing yourself to a cross too quickly.
/// I'm reffering to the way mass media seem to take the liberal side.
So apparently God was long under the impression that the Earth is the center of his creation, until he got glasses or something.
/// The basics of the faith have nothing to do with the flatness of the world. But granted, in the beginning, priests took too much liberty with their interpretations. Luckily, today the church recognizes science and has highly intelligent people in it's ranks...So something like that won't occur again..
Except by the 90% who left.
/// Who cares what they think.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
This is exactly my point, really; parts of the bible are outdated and written for the time they were created - so what ensures the rest is any more sacrosanct than those other than mass acceptance?
//// There is a difference - the Old testament was passed down for generations first verbally and then in written form, and in times were priests took it upon themselves to interpret it and write it far more freely.
That's why it's not quite genuine or correct. The New Testament was writtne immediately by the apostols and their closest folowers, and Christ was directly cited. So it is far more accurate and a univarsal moral guidebook for all times.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
//// There is a difference - the Old testament was passed down for generations first verbally and then in written form, and in times were priests took it upon themselves to interpret it and write it far more freely.
That's why it's not quite genuine or correct. The New Testament was writtne immediately by the apostols and their closest folowers, and Christ was directly cited. So it is far more accurate and a univarsal moral guidebook for all times.
Actually, there are continuing claims of editing and changes to the NT by the church over the years; changed or omitted verses, etc, based upon examining ancient manuscripts.
In particular, I believe there is an issue over whether the spear was thrust into Jesus before or after death; apparently there's evidence of alteration from the older manuscripts.
What you should remember is that this is a document dating from 2 thousand years ago, repeatedly copied, translated, etc by an institution with a vested interest in removing any ambiguity from it.
Unfortunately, the best pages I have on this are (via google; not looked for too long) http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli1.htm & http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli2.htm . You might find the title implies initial bias, of course, so I'm trying to find info on a Channel 4 documentary from a few months ago which examined the question of the church altering the bible to gain followers in the 10th+ centuries.
EDIT; http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/B/believeitornot/debates/bible.html *ding* found it;
[q]The same goes for the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Beckford dives down into the ancient catacombs beneath a church in Rome to discover why Mark, the first Gospel writer, started to write about Jesus in the first place – as an encouragement to the first generation of Christians, who were facing persecution. He discovers that although the Gospel writers seem to be giving us direct reportage from the life of Jesus, each of them actually had his own spin on the story. While Matthew was keen to show how Jewish Jesus was, for the Jewish wing of the early church, Luke pushed the Roman angle. He packaged the teaching and miracles of Jesus to show that even civilised Roman citizens could believe in him.
There have been many TV programmes that have tried to bury the Bible – but this is no hatchet job. We get a clue about this when we see Robert Beckford at the tomb of Christ, inside Jerusalem's Church of the Holy Sepulchre. As he stoops to leave the tomb, he wipes tears from his eyes. 'I was really moved by the experience,' he says. 'I am a Christian; I believe in the teachings of Jesus, so to be in a holy place, contemplating life, moved me. And I'm sufficiently secure in my African Caribbean maleness to express a full range of emotions without fear of censure!'[/q]
Sadly, I can't seem to find a full transcript.
-
I'm reffering to the way mass media seem to take the liberal side.
There are liberal and conservative forces in the media that provide enough material for all people to get their Two Minutes of Hate. Everyone is always quick to point out the ones with an opposing bias, and ignore those that lean in their direction.
The basics of the faith have nothing to do with the flatness of the world. But granted, in the beginning, priests took too much liberty with their interpretations. Luckily, today the church recognizes science and has highly intelligent people in it's ranks...So something like that won't occur again..
If we were to omit everything from a religion that has nothing to do with the "basics of the faith", I think it would become rather apparent how strikingly alike all religions are, as we would be left with relatively little.
Who cares what they think.
They do. And that's not an emotional appeal. If the vast majority of a particular religion abandons the creed, that religion is at risk of becoming extinct, because an ideology with no followers is, by definition, nonexistent.
-
There will allways be some faithfull who will continue to follow, even if most desert...
Faith is not about conforming to your wishes - it's you who have to conform to to the Faith.
-
That's Blind Faith, and it's called Blind for a reason.
-
I always thought faith was supposed to be worthless unless it was tested, by the person or another.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I always thought faith was supposed to be worthless unless it was tested, by the person or another.
Aldo, you're right; that is the definition of true faith. Real faith is a constant test, whether through your own questioning or some outside event or source. The only way faith can be strengthened is through this testing. I've experienced this in my own life; the people I know who have the strongest faith have gone through a lot of misfortune in their lives. Blind faith without reason is immature faith; maturing in faith involves deciding to follow it of your own volition.