Religion — Page 14

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

I suspect Popegate.

Popegate?

There's gonna be a scandal.

of what sort?

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

I suspect Popegate.

Popegate?

There's gonna be a scandal.

of what sort?

Maybe it is him protecting pedophiles?

possible I suppose.

It will probably be easier to hold a conservative line with an African Pope rather than a German one of a certain age if you know what I mean?

huh?

The last two Pontiffs have been from the very conservative end of the church.

Very anti-abortion, anti-contraception, anti-equal marriage, anti-female priests.

The current Pope has had his past as a member of the Hitler Youth waved around whenever he speaks out on certain issues (particularly when he spoke out about Islam).

If they had an African Pope any such deflection could be presented as racism.

It would be a smart move.

might be a smarter move to elect a Pope whom is not from the conservative end of the church. 

That might not be so smart from a corporate perspective.

Anglicanism has become more Liberal in the west (openly gay bishops, female priests etc) this has created rifts in the church with many vicars converting to Catholicism and African churches breaking away.

Catholicism is currently a growing church in Africa and South America, places that are more conservative in nature.

Changing the brand might change the churches fortunes and it's got a lot of fortune to lose.

They should pick a lesbian.

*sigh*

God should demand Jerry Lewis to release The Day The Clown Cried.

I think his entire life's work has been building up to becoming the first Roman Catholic to give up being Pope for Lent.

Electric pancake anyone?

(Carried over from Politics thread)

...assume that mankind will have drastically changed his understanding of right and wrong, good and evil, of morals in general.  I ask you, do you think God would judge mankind today by the standards of humanity's 300 year in the future morality?  I think not.

God reveals to man what they are capable and ready to hear.  He changes not, but man changes.  He is dealing with such inferior mortals, such finite minds.  He commands what they are capable of absorbing, internalizing, and learning from.  When their understanding changes, he perpetuates the same core message, but changes the delivery vehicle.  Just because God commanded the stoning of ancient adulterers and Sabbath-breakers doesn't mean that God ever approved of cruelty or senseless killing.  Again, he was working with a culture and people who saw the world very differently than we do today.  He gave commandments that they could understand.

CP3S said:

Essentially, what we have here is a book that claims itself to be the word of god, and it makes further claims that everything written in it is from god (2 Timothy 3:16), and even further claims that everything from god is perfect. You take these things and willingly accept them to be false claims, but still find great merit in this book regardless. What???

Like a feces laced batch of brownies, how can you pick out the good stuff from the bad? Clearly, you'd have to assume any and all claims made about scripture and gods word being perfect, or about the Bible being god's word, are themselves corruptions and blatant falsehoods. It is now a ridiculously slippery slope. And this book is the bases, the very foundation, of the Christian religion.

I think the Bible is actually very clear that not everything from God is perfect.  In specific, what the Bible implies in various places God's greatest creation, that being mankind, is also clearly pointed out to be quite flawed.  And if his greatest creations are flawed, why is it so hard to believe that the message given to and received by and interpreted by those flawed creatures is imperfect?

That said, picking the good out of the bad, I could take this more specifically into LDS doctrine, but allow me to say in more general terms that the Bible tells us that those who have testimonies of Christ have the "spirit of prophecy."  This means that we each have some degree of access to the mind of God.  Obviously, we have been commanded to disregard certain laws in our day.  But on things that are more vague, I think that the humble seeker can gain some understanding of what is right and what is wrong.

And now, for preemptive purpose:

What about those fundamentalists who feel God wants them to bomb abortion clinics?  What about those who believe God commanded them to rape or murder someone?  Etc., etc.

Well, it gets harder for me to defend general Christian doctrine when I'm coming from a very specific and unique perspective which actually IMO provides clearer answers.  But again I'll simply say that a God of mercy clearly does not authorize specific individuals to engage in terrorist activities.  Again, see my earlier post about God working with modern man.  Our standards today, which are based largely on Christian beliefs and morals, clearly indicate that such is wrong.  But man, I've already put more effort into this than I should, and sadly, I probably will have to let you have the last word because I can't spend the time to keep up the interesting debate.

darth_ender said:

Let me at least state that it is often easy to judge another people of an ancient culture by today's standards.  Let's assume that God (with a capital G, even if we don't believe in him, because he is a proper noun) really does exist.  Let's assume that mankind will be around for another 300 years without any Second Coming of Christ.  With that assumption we can safely assume that mankind will have drastically changed his understanding of right and wrong, good and evil, of morals in general.  I ask you, do you think God would judge mankind today by the standards of humanity's 300 year in the future morality?  I think not.

That all has nothing at all to do with what is being said. You quoted Jesus talking about the Sabbath, being a day that God himself commanded capitol punishment for failed observance to. It has nothing to do with ancient cultures versus modern cultures and their understandings of right and wrong. A man collected firewood on the Sabbath, and God told Moses he was to be stoned to death. I found it ironic you'd use a verse on the Sabbath to explain your understanding of God's desire for us to be happy. Again, I doubt much happiness was found by that man, his family he was trying to keep warm, or the countless people to come after him who were stoned for breaking this law. 

Just because God commanded the stoning of ancient adulterers and Sabbath-breakers doesn't mean that God ever approved of cruelty or senseless killing.  Again, he was working with a culture and people who saw the world very differently than we do today.  He gave commandments that they could understand.

So, you're saying God was forced to order these people to be brutally murdered, because they were too dumb to understand anything different? It never crossed his mind not to make up silly laws forbidding them from doing anything on a certain day and commanding his people to kill each other when that law was broken?

I know the context of the verse.  The Sabbath was a blessing, and still is in my mind.  Goodness, I'm working in a framework that is a little difficult for me, because I see things somewhat differently than the rest of Christianity.  But look at it this way: God created laws that indeed conformed with mankind's expectations.  He worked with the tools he had in the day.  He even gave commandments that seem harsh by today's standards, but were the expectation of the day.  He was giving his law to a rebellious people (emphasis on people, as in human), through a person (i.e. fallible human).  He gave them what they could understand.

My children are young.  To make a point clear, sometimes very clear punishment may be affixed.  For instance, I say, "Don't run in the road or I will spank you."  May seem harsh.  Surely when my children are more mature, they will not get a spanking for running in the road, but rather a talking to.

You find for me a culture in 1200 BC that was not harsh in law enforcement.  Mankind was immature.  God gave commandments and affixed punishments that they would understand.  The point of Jesus' higher law was that mankind was mature enough to understand the spirit of the law and not always simply comply with the letter.  Punishment too was changed: no longer were people put to death.  They instead faced punishments more applicable to a more mature species.

darth_ender said:

I think the Bible is actually very clear that not everything from God is perfect.  In specific, what the Bible implies in various places God's greatest creation, that being mankind, is also clearly pointed out to be quite flawed.  And if his greatest creations are flawed, why is it so hard to believe that the message given to and received by and interpreted by those flawed creatures is imperfect?

I didn't mean to say everything from God is perfect, I meant that the Bible claims that God's message is perfect.

That said, picking the good out of the bad, I could take this more specifically into LDS doctrine, but allow me to say in more general terms that the Bible tells us that those who have testimonies of Christ have the "spirit of prophecy."  This means that we each have some degree of access to the mind of God.  Obviously, we have been commanded to disregard certain laws in our day.  But on things that are more vague, I think that the humble seeker can gain some understanding of what is right and what is wrong.

So, the "spirit of prophecy" solves it for the LDS. But what about those countless denominations on every street corner throughout the Bible belt, and much of the US, who can't agree with each other on the Bible's message enough to share a building together? I suppose your answer would be that they haven't seen the truth yet as they are missing an important piece of the puzzle by rejecting The Book of Mormon and other important religious texts.

And now, for preemptive purpose:

What about those fundamentalists who feel God wants them to bomb abortion clinics?  What about those who believe God commanded them to rape or murder someone?  Etc., etc.

None of that is in the Bible, so it has more to do with mental stability and/or justification and less to do with being misguided by ancient Holy book.

CP3S said:

darth_ender said:

I think the Bible is actually very clear that not everything from God is perfect.  In specific, what the Bible implies in various places God's greatest creation, that being mankind, is also clearly pointed out to be quite flawed.  And if his greatest creations are flawed, why is it so hard to believe that the message given to and received by and interpreted by those flawed creatures is imperfect?

I didn't mean to say everything from God is perfect, I meant that the Bible claims that God's message is perfect.

And it is.  But the Bible is not.

That said, picking the good out of the bad, I could take this more specifically into LDS doctrine, but allow me to say in more general terms that the Bible tells us that those who have testimonies of Christ have the "spirit of prophecy."  This means that we each have some degree of access to the mind of God.  Obviously, we have been commanded to disregard certain laws in our day.  But on things that are more vague, I think that the humble seeker can gain some understanding of what is right and what is wrong.

So, the "spirit of prophecy" solves it for the LDS. But what about those countless denominations on every street corner throughout the Bible belt, and much of the US, who can't agree with each other on the Bible's message enough to share a building together? I suppose your answer would be that they haven't seen the truth yet as they are missing an important piece of the puzzle by rejecting The Book of Mormon and other important religious texts.

I meant that was the more general Christian interpretation.  You'll find that most Christians agree that most other Christians will be saved, according to their own definitions, regardless of their differing interpretations.  Even the more dogmatic Catholic Church acknowledges baptisms performed by most non-Catholic Christians (Mormon baptisms are not, as I'm sure are other groups' such as Jehovah's Witnesses and so forth).  My point is that most people believe they are indeed being guided by God from day to day, believe that they do gain an understanding of what in the Bible is applicable to today and what is not.  If I were speaking more specifically about Mormon doctrine, I would have brought up our other scriptures, modern day prophets, etc. at this point.

And now, for preemptive purpose:

What about those fundamentalists who feel God wants them to bomb abortion clinics?  What about those who believe God commanded them to rape or murder someone?  Etc., etc.

None of that is in the Bible, so it has more to do with mental stability and/or justification and less to do with being misguided by ancient Holy book.

 

Indeed.

The God that endorses genocide, wipes out cities, advocates rape and slavery etc is the same God that says let he who is without sin cast the first stone?

The God that guides David's stone to Goliath's head is the same God that says love your enemy and turn the other cheek?

I have no problem with that if God changes his mind, we all do (some of us become better people with experience).

But that suggests at one point God isn't right or as right otherwise why change the position?

Especially if with divine foresight he knows that the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the Burnings, the Torture, the Massacres will all stem from people still quoting the older text and ignoring or explaining away the later text.

It suggests to me a powerful being that is neither infallible or all knowing and prone to some pretty wonky action, if scripture is the word of God and not an evolving written record of already altered oral tradition.

If that's what it is there is no reason why the text could continue to evolve to remove the ugly hateful passages and underline the hopeful, peaceful optimistic passages.

If these are human reflections on the divine and not divine proclamations from above if we strive to be better the text should reflect it.

If scripture is a dead wood and ink, a manifesto of a celestial tyrant who demands abasement I respectfully decline to be commanded.

I am my own master.

darth_ender said:

I know the context of the verse.  The Sabbath was a blessing, and still is in my mind.  Goodness, I'm working in a framework that is a little difficult for me, because I see things somewhat differently than the rest of Christianity.  But look at it this way: God created laws that indeed conformed with mankind's expectations.  He worked with the tools he had in the day.  He even gave commandments that seem harsh by today's standards, but were the expectation of the day.  He was giving his law to a rebellious people (emphasis on people, as in human), through a person (i.e. fallible human).  He gave them what they could understand.

I can't buy that. In Jesus' time, those were still the expectations of the day, yet the message changes to a message of peace, and it took to a good degree, despite it being counter cultural and against the norms of the time. It is remarkable, in that Christianity did have a profound affect on the world around it, even carrying on into today.

I think it is far easier to conclude that the writers constructed a God that fit their standards and the message they wanted to convey or the rules that they wanted followed, rather than to claim God sunk down to the standards of those he was commanding. I don't see how telling a recently enslaved and mistreated people that it is now their turn to kill, conquer, enslave, and mistreat served any kind of greater purpose when he could have easily taught and commanded them to be above that.

He had no problems commanding them to toss out other standard practices of the time, such as that of idolatry, and to order death upon those who failed to leave these practices behind.

I don't fault you for that.  I can see where you are coming from, and I won't critique you for it.  I see it differently.  There is a place for faith.

And this response applies equally well to Bingowings.  I could go on, and I guarantee I am enjoying my discussion with you guys, but I need to call it here.  Always a pleasure.  Maybe I'll pick up the chat tomorrow :)

Bingowings said:

Warbler said:

Bingowings said:

I remember Jesus getting a bit of stick for not washing his hands before eating and he quipped back that the high priests weren't killing enough disobedient children to quote Halakha at him.

maybe I am showing my ignorance of the Bible here,  but I don't recall Jesus ever complaining that the high priests weren't killing enough disobedient children.   

Ted said :

Matthew 15

I am not sure the Jesus' complaint was that the High Priests weren't killing enough disobedient children.   I think the complaint was that the High Priests were allowing children a way out of the 'Honor thy father and thy mother' commandment, that was not sanctioned by God. 

darth_ender said:

CP3S said:

darth_ender said:

I think the Bible is actually very clear that not everything from God is perfect.  In specific, what the Bible implies in various places God's greatest creation, that being mankind, is also clearly pointed out to be quite flawed.  And if his greatest creations are flawed, why is it so hard to believe that the message given to and received by and interpreted by those flawed creatures is imperfect?

I didn't mean to say everything from God is perfect, I meant that the Bible claims that God's message is perfect.

And it is.  But the Bible is not.

But the Bible itself claims to be all those things. Since it makes those claims, which we are both in agreement are not true, it clearly contains some very blatant falsehoods. This book, which we both agree contains falsehoods, is the only source for the idea of a perfect man dying as a sacrifice for our sins and coming back to life three days later. This idea of a divine sacrifice followed by a resurrection to prove its divinity is the entire premise of Christianity. Once the integrity of this source material is admitted to being flawed, which again, I am grateful we are in agreement on, how can anything it says be taken with more than a grain of salt? What if the narrative of the resurrection is a lie, as the Bible's own claim to being the perfect word of God is a lie?

Again, with the acceptance that the Bible is flawed and full of falsehoods, the entire house of cards starts to collapse. Who can ever say what of it is true and what of it is flawed? This has to put the very basis of Christianity into serious question. Without the divine sacrifice and the resurrection, Christianity as a religion is meaningless.

No he is clearly saying 'don't come all high and mighty about me and my friends when you are corruptly profiteering from selective scriptural interpretation'.

"...whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward but are within full of dead men's bones and of all uncleanness."

You know, like those assholes who call homosexuals afflicted, while clam juice runs down their trimmed beards and the sun bakes their tattooed two twine woven muscle vested shoulders.

Jesus often uses the letter of the law to invert the accepted spirit of the law.

With the 'woman taken in adultry' he isn't denying that adultry is a terrible thing, he is saying however that we all do terrible things and should attend to our own failings.

Even as God's incarnation Jesus doesn't throw stones at her.

He smacks the money changers around though (there is a pattern of behaviour here which is lost on many card carrying Christians).