"a new ideology of evil"

[Moonlit_Angel]

Well, to clarify, men were to have orgasms without lust, because it served a function (in their eyes, men had "little people" and women just had the incubating waters; it served to demean women by saying that men were the sole creators of life). Women, however, were not to even look happy to be having sex.

Melon

...

This reaction applies to your other post, too: yeow.

Angela

 

[deep]

I see what you're saying. That's one of the biggest problems with Christianity I think. People just don't like to think that people are condemned just because they didn't know any better. I would say they probably do know better, because they're consciences probably warn them,



but I can't speak for them because I'm not them.




I feel like I'm being attacked by a bunch of bandits. HELP

it is no fun being attacked

i appreciate that you probably live in an environment with like minded people.

where thinking like yours is condoned and validated


i hope you have an opportunity to live in different places and get exposed to different mind-sets on a first hand basis.

peace to you

 

[Irvine511]

Well I'll be back to try to explain myself a little more, but you guys have exhausted me.

most likely because you have no argument, you just have a set of poorly substantiated inherited beliefs used to justify a silly, archaic prejudice.

 

[FullonEdge2]

most likely because you have no argument, you just have a set of poorly substantiated inherited beliefs used to justify a silly, archaic prejudice.

Why thank you.

 

[FullonEdge2]

it is no fun being attacked

i appreciate that you probably live in an environment with like minded people.

where thinking like yours is condoned and validated


i hope you have an opportunity to live in different places and get exposed to different mind-sets on a first hand basis.

peace to you

You're probably right in that the majority of people I deal with share some of my opinions.

I'm always open to looking at ideas with fresh perspectives, which is one reason I even ventured in to Free Your Mind. I know it gets intense in here sometimes. But yeah, I enjoy seeing other people's opinions because I know that I know almost nothing when it comes to exactly how the world works. Sometimes a change in perspective can be the most meaningful lesson.

I think it's clear, though, that you're not going to convince me right now and I'm not going to convince you, so I'm just going to let the debate rest.

Peace to you also!

 

[Dreadsox]

And I was so looking forward to you coming back with something to say.

i will have to let my rector, my bishop, and my congregation know they are not Christian.

 

[FullonEdge2]

And I was so looking forward to you coming back with something to say.

i will have to let my rector, my bishop, and my congregation know they are not Christian.

It's not that they're not Christian. They're unrepentant Christians.

 

[Dreadsox]

Right, i will have to let them know while they are feeding the homeless......

Get of your judgemental seat.

 

[FullonEdge2]

Now here's a concept that I KNOW will be unpopular here. I don't believe good works achieve salvation.

 

[Dreadsox]

But judging others is a sure way in.

 

[Dreadsox]

Start your own thread then....stop polluting mine.

 

[FullonEdge2]

For example, and this is where the whole 'but Christians aren't any better than other religious people debate' would come in, a person belonging to some cult can help people, but that won't get him or here salvation.

Christians should and often do good works as thanksgiving for Jesus' sacrafice, but anyone can do them.

 

[FullonEdge2]

But judging others is a sure way in.

NO. I'm not saying I don't have any problems. I'm just pointing out something that the Bible apparently indicates to be wrong.

 

[FullonEdge2]

Start your own thread then....stop polluting mine.

This is exactly why I didn't want to come back and share some more thoughts. I'm sorry if you think I polluted your thread with judgmentalism. It's obvious that you're not accepting of different opinions. I'm ok with that.

 

[Dreadsox]

really, where?

 

[FullonEdge2]

really, where?

I thought we had been through that.

 

[Dreadsox]

Well, it was demonstrated based onthe greek what Paul was talking about.


You seem to think it is alright to pick and choose from Leviticus when it suits your argument.

What more is there?

 

[FullonEdge2]

Well, it was demonstrated based onthe greek what Paul was talking about.


You seem to think it is alright to pick and choose from Leviticus when it suits your argument.

What more is there?

What do you believe then? I don't want to impose my opinion on you, so explain why you believe what you believe. Do you believe the Bible should be interpreted literally word for word? Do you believe the Bible should be interpreted entirely by the historical critical method, in which scholars judge the Bible through human reason?

 

[Dreadsox]

No, I do not believe it is literal, and yes I believe that there are historical and scholarly revelations that need to be taken into account.

I am not sure what you mean by human reason.

 

[FullonEdge2]

I mean the Bible really can't be understood by man's logic. If you believe the Bible can be effectively interpreted by scholars, I think we would disagree then. Personally, I wouldn't hold the Bible credible if it were 'just another book.'

 

[Dreadsox]

Did I say it was to be interpreted by scholars? I said it should be taken into account.

 

[Dreadsox]

There are new archeological findings that change things. The actual translations throughout the last 2,000 years are important as well.

How could they not be?

 

[FullonEdge2]

There are new archeological findings that change things. The actual translations throughout the last 2,000 years are important as well.

How could they not be?

I totally agree. I think the best way to interpret it is to go back to the original languages and the grammar used along with the context of passages.

 

[FullonEdge2]

It looks like this thread has been derailed. Sorry..carry on.

 

[verte76]

Catholic Bibles have footnotes on scholarly context. Here's what they say about 1 Corinthians 6 (things in [brackets] are my comments):



So there you go. Bible scholars link Romans ("lusting passions for each other") and 1 Timothy (almost identical to 1 Corinthians in text) to temple prostitution, which I have maintained for the past four years.

Melon

Yes, and this practice was very commonplace in Roman society, which is no doubt why Paul felt like he had to condemn it. This gives liberal Catholics like myself who support Gay Pride and such real problems. This way of thinking is too medieval for me. It's based on the whole idea of marriage being strictly for procreation. This has been called into question by Catholics going all the way back to Christine de Pizan, who wrote in the early fifteenth century. She thought that marriage was for companionship as well as procreation, and for crying out loud, she was devoutly Catholic. She even entered a convent after the Battle of Agincourt. Using the "companionship" argument, the argument against gay marriage doesn't really work. It only works with the procreation argument. And in this day and age the procreation argument doesn't carry the weight that it did when infant mortality was sky high in Europe, this worked very well for the thirteenth century Scholastics, but it's a different world. In this way the Church hasn't adopted to the modern world, and I'm not the only Catholic struggling with this.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

The Roman society in biblical times was much like how our society is becoming today. They were focused on women's liberation, surely Paul felt they took it to extremes. What I've always wondered about Paul is how much of a prophet was he - if there are degrees. I would wonder this - if God knew what Paul was going to preach - and if it was wrong - why would he make Paul a prophet? He is one of history's most respected preachers of all time. Translating scripture from Greek may have its share of puzzling, considering there are supposedly seven separate kinds of love in the Greek language, for example. I also genuinely wonder this - if God created marriage, why do you think it should've been done any differently? When the Bible was written, it occasionally focused on gender differences. For example, it is not good for a man to be alone, as found in Genesis. According to that chapter, God created a partner suitable for him.

Ephesians - Chapter 5:25-33

25. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
26. to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,
27. and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
28. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
29. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-
30. for we are members of his body.
31. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”
32. This is a profound mystery-but I am talking about Christ and the church.
33. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself...

Personally, I think that if the Bible was written in modern times, it would condemn things like drug use, pornography, and probably some things that we think are fine and dandy. The pope is doing what he feels is right, and upholding what he believes is true. Quite a few of you may beg to differ, which is fine. We're all entitled to a stance, but let's try to keep it respectful.

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q]Quite a few of you may beg to differ, which is fine. We're all entitled to a stance, but let's try to keep it respectful.[/Q]

Exactly what about calling homosexual marriage "a new ideology of evil" is repsectful?

 

[Dreadsox]

What I've always wondered about Paul is how much of a prophet was he - if there are degrees. I would wonder this - if God knew what Paul was going to preach - and if it was wrong - why would he make Paul a prophet? He is one of history's most respected preachers of all time.

This could be said about almost any book from the Old Testament. There are plenty of things that we adhere to from the Old Testament and plenty that we no longer find relevant.

If it's acceptable to pick and choose what we find relevant....why should it be acceptable to someone who is gay, born gay, loves another human soul with the same kind of Love as Christ loved the Church as Paul writes, that we pick to cling to passages that reinforce this one prejudice.

Can a Gay person love someone of the same sex the way Paul described in Epheisans? ABSOLUTELY. There is nothing in that passage that a Gay person is not capable of doing other than our gender specific word "wife".

Most people I know would do almost anything to have this kind of love between two partners.

And this is where I see the church as WRONG.

You in your post disrespect another human being by implying that being gay is a choice. You lump it in with drug use, pornography, and a bunch of other things that we do. It is no more a choice than your "choice" to be heterosexual.

The Church is wrong because it does not take a male part or a female part to LOVE AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH. Which is the MAIN point Paul is trying to make. Paul was NOT running around defending men loving men, or making a point about women loving women. He was making a point obout the KIND of love that two people committed to each other should share.

And there is nothing a MALE part or a FEMALE part can do to improve on loving as CHRIST loved.

 

[Dreadsox]

More quotes that inspire respect for the Pope.

[Q]The pope writes that gay marriage is "insidious" and "attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man."[/Q]

 

[melon]

If you believe the Bible can be effectively interpreted by scholars, I think we would disagree then.

Jesus Christ...do you really think the Bible has been interpreted exactly the same for 2000+ years?! It isn't even interpreted uniformily today!

What kind of crap does religion teach people these days? You talked about "cults" earlier. I think Christianity exhibits cult-like behavior more and more, and the denial of the truth in favor of preposterous ideas (literal 7 day, 24-hour creationism, fundamentalism, "natural law"...we might as well throw in leprechauns and a flat earth!) and then threatening those who challenging those ideas ("hell") is certainly cult-like behavior.

I don't know. When it comes to discussions like this, I start coming across as a raving atheist, but that's not the case. I am utterly boggled by what conventional religions teach these days, because I was never brought up in that environment. Once upon a time, there was a Catholicism that actively encouraged Biblical scholarship as a means to discover what "God's word" really was outside of "tradition" (and this was back in the 1930s that the then-Pope first encouraged this!) and where scientific truth was not shunned. Instead, the overwhelming evidence of evolution is encouraged to be taught (and is taught in Catholic schools), as long as you're aware that they believe God created evolution (is that "Intelligent Design"? I can't keep up with these stupid catch-phrases anymore.). And this is the "Catholicism" that I knew; and then to hear the Pope say utter crap like this ("a new ideology of evil") proves to me that this isn't the "Catholicism" that I grew up to know. If the Pope will willfully ignore science and logic, in favor of upholding the obsolete anachronism that is "natural law," then Catholicism left me, not the other way around.

I'll say this: I trust a Bible scholar to interpret the Bible anyday over a Cracker Jack "minister." The latter knows nothing about the Bible, other than what they think tradition says.

Melon