Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Khatru on February 07, 2016, 07:44:35 AM
-
Why is there a line in it where believers ask the supreme cosmic mega being not to lead them into temptation?
Is their god likely to do that?
-
Why is there a line in it where believers ask the supreme cosmic mega being not to lead them into temptation?
Is their god likely to do that?
I suppose he must be, otherwise they wouldn't ask him not to. Never thought about that! :)
Just one more contradiction in the farce that is Christianity.
-
Why is there a line in it where believers ask the supreme cosmic mega being not to lead them into temptation?
Is their god likely to do that?
I guess it is a statement repudiating hedonism where the hedonist runs willingly into all kinds of situations for the thrill of it, irrespective of ultimately hurting themselves or others ......
-
And it's God that leads the hedonist there?
-
And it's God that leads the hedonist there?
God provides life and I'm afraid life is full of temptations.
I think you are viewing God in kind of semi deterministic sense here. It seems a recognition of human propensity rather than something God imposes. Therefore it is a statement of intent.
Didn't you study theology, what is your take on it?
-
I guess it is a statement repudiating hedonism where the hedonist runs willingly into all kinds of situations for the thrill of it, irrespective of ultimately hurting themselves or others ......
Would that be you speaking from experience, Vlad?
-
God provides life and I'm afraid life is full of temptations.
I think you are viewing God in kind of semi deterministic sense here. It seems a recognition of human propensity rather than something God imposes. Therefore it is a statement of intent.
Didn't you study theology, what is your take on it?
It's a contradiction - God leading someone into temptation is a different thing to having temptation around us.
My take on it is that it reflects the prayer writer's personal struggle with temptation and where it comes from. You don't need a degree in theology to understand that though.
-
God provides life and I'm afraid life is full of temptations.
So it is pointless asking God not to lead us to temptation, because he has already done it.
I think you are viewing God in kind of semi deterministic sense here. It seems a recognition of human propensity rather than something God imposes. Therefore it is a statement of intent.
Ah, the old "you can't understand God, so shut up" fallacy.
Didn't you study theology, what is your take on it?
Why is theology necessary to understand a prayer meant for everybody to use? Jesus' communication skills must have been a bit shit.
-
It's a contradiction - God leading someone into temptation is a different thing to having temptation around us.
My take on it is that it reflects the prayer writer's personal struggle with temptation and where it comes from. You don't need a degree in theology to understand that though.
Yes I'd broadly agree.
-
Ah, the old "you can't understand God, so shut up" fallacy.
Not at all.....I did ask Rhiannon to give her take on it........hardly a request to shut up......
I think you have committed the old '' Asking someone to say something is the same as telling them to shut up'' Fallacy.
-
Not at all.....I did ask Rhiannon to give her take on it........hardly a request to shut up......
I think you have committed the old '' Asking someone to say something is the same as telling them to shut up'' Fallacy.
Any thoughts on Jesus' woeful communication skills?
-
Any thoughts on Jesus' woeful communication skills?
No
-
Yes I'd broadly agree.
So if it's a personal prayer how does that work as a prayer for the whole of humanity?
-
So if it's a personal prayer how does that work as a prayer for the whole of humanity?
I don't fully know what you're angle is here. Can you expand on what you are trying to get at.
-
I don't fully know what you're angle is here. Can you expand on what you are trying to get at.
I don't have an angle. It's just that Christianity presents The Lord's Prayer as the universal prayer for all of us - we are all supposed to be God's children - but this is a very personal prayer. AB for example believes temptation comes from the devil and not God. Back in the day I thought that temptation was my own human weakness and I wasn't being led by anything - still believe that as a non-Christian. It's a one-prayer-fits-all that doesn't.
-
I suppose he must be, otherwise they wouldn't ask him not to. Never thought about that! :)
Just one more contradiction in the farce that is Christianity.
Inded.
Those contradictions are plentiful and go to show that the Bible is the word of man and not of a cosmic supremo.
-
I guess it is a statement repudiating hedonism where the hedonist runs willingly into all kinds of situations for the thrill of it, irrespective of ultimately hurting themselves or others ......
So, although the prayer, ostensibly, is asking a specific question to the believer's deity of choice; you're saying it's not that.
Do we apply this view to the rest of the prayer where it addresses the believers god?
"Give us, each day, our daily bread", "Deliver us from evil", etc.
-
I don't have an angle. It's just that Christianity presents The Lord's Prayer as the universal prayer for all of us - we are all supposed to be God's children - but this is a very personal prayer. AB for example believes temptation comes from the devil and not God. Back in the day I thought that temptation was my own human weakness and I wasn't being led by anything - still believe that as a non-Christian. It's a one-prayer-fits-all that doesn't.
Occasionally the vicar might talk of the Lord's prayer as the family prayer....but is that the Christian family or the human family?
The line deals with the possibility of temptation and the desire not to fall into it.
I can identify with the possibility of ''a fall'' and ''falling'' or even ''the fall'' but not everybody does.....for example a week or two back a poster described his realisation of having fallen....only to be told by non believing posters that he wasn't and he hadn't.............The Lord's prayer is I would move .....on this line only really grasped by people in repentant mode.
I think the fact that we are talking about it now is a good thing. My own take is that the Lord's prayer is a human family prayer waiting in all our ''lockers''
for the appropriate time and from the appropriate place.....the ''heart''.
-
I am glad I was forced to memorise this prayer as a child and that it is firmly stored away in my memory banks.
It will be easily accessed if I am ever under attack by vampires , the ability to recite it might help!
-
No
So the most important prayer that you have makes no sense (except with advanced theology apparently) and you have no thoughts about it.
This is one of the biggest problems with Christianity, it discourages thinking.
-
Why is there a line in it where believers ask the supreme cosmic mega being not to lead them into temptation?
Is their god likely to do that?
I suppose we only have to look at what happened with Christ...
Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
God knew that both Adam and Eve would be tempted as he did Christ.
Adam failed but Christ didn't.
Temptation will all be part of life but since Christ Satan can no longer accuse even though he will try his best to tempt people away from Christ. As we see the things of the world is what Satan uses to tempt people.
I think it is clear the prayer asks God not to let us go into temptation.
-
I am glad I was forced to memorise this prayer as a child and that it is firmly stored away in my memory banks.
It will be easily accessed if I am ever under attack by vampires , the ability to recite it might help!
I tried to run through it earlier and got muddled. I knew I was getting older, but seriously?
-
Occasionally the vicar might talk of the Lord's prayer as the family prayer....but is that the Christian family or the human family?
The line deals with the possibility of temptation and the desire not to fall into it.
I can identify with the possibility of ''a fall'' and ''falling'' or even ''the fall'' but not everybody does.....for example a week or two back a poster described his realisation of having fallen....only to be told by non believing posters that he wasn't and he hadn't.............The Lord's prayer is I would move .....on this line only really grasped by people in repentant mode.
I think the fact that we are talking about it now is a good thing. My own take is that the Lord's prayer is a human family prayer waiting in all our ''lockers''
for the appropriate time and from the appropriate place.....the ''heart''.
You are mistaking falling - screwing up - with being fallen - being worthless. One dies not follow the other.
You also assume that non-believers don't regret and atone for what they do. But praying is a pretty useless way of doing anything about the hurt that one has caused. Arguably it's dodging the issue - I'm ok with God so people don't matter.
-
I am glad I was forced to memorise this prayer as a child
I don't quite believe that....are you bullshitting?
-
The line deals with the possibility of temptation and the desire not to fall into it.
Speak for yourself. I prefer the version (by whoever-it-was): "Lead me not into temptation - I can find my own way, thanks."
-
I don't quite believe that....are you bullshitting?
If you had quoted the relevant post in its entirety and not selectively you might have picked up on the fact that it was a joke.
-
You are mistaking falling - screwing up - with being fallen - being worthless. One dies not follow the other.
No, Christianity never says people are worthless because Jesus died for us.
It is you caricature of Christianity which is at fault here.
At the end of the day it is the bleak philosophy of materialism which suggests we are worthless and even illusiory since it ultimately contains nothing to confirm the value of people.
-
No a Christianity never says people are worthless because Jesus died for us.
It is you caricature of Christianity which is at fault here.
So the doctrine of original sin never existed, then?
At the end of the day it is the bleak philosophy of materialism which suggests we are worthless and even illusiory since it ultimately contains nothing to confirm the value of people.
You do love to throw in words you don't understand at random, don't you?
-
If you had quoted the relevant post in its entirety and not selectively you might have picked up on the fact that it was a joke.
yeah, but nothings quite ever a joke with Antitheist Axe grinder types is it?
-
yeah, but nothings quite ever a joke with Antitheist Axe grinder types is it?
Nothing's ever a joke with you, Vlad, as the ability to make one oneself or recognise one in another requires a sense of humour.
-
Why is there a line in it where believers ask the supreme cosmic mega being not to lead them into temptation?
Is their god likely to do that?
Perhaps you ought to look at the original language and see whether that is what it says ;)
-
So the doctrine of original sin never existed, then?
what has that got to do with worthlessness or value?
-
what has that got to do with worthlessness or value?
So you don't even know about one of the central doctrines of the religion you claim to follow.
Figures.
-
So the doctrine of original sin never existed, then?
And what does the doctrine of original sin have to do with whether someone has worth or not, Shakes? Take the analogy of a child who starts out their existence with an integral genetic error - for them they are 'originally erroneous' as a human. Does that mean that their parent(s) will regard them as of less worth than a so-called 'normal' child?
-
So you don't even know about one of the central doctrines of the religion you claim to follow.
Figures.
Whatever that is ....and I think it is merely part of a caricature you cling to to keep God away.....what has it to do with God so loving the world that he gave his only begotten son to die for us?
-
No, Christianity never says people are worthless because Jesus died for us.
It is you caricature of Christianity which is at fault here.
At the end of the day it is the bleak philosophy of materialism which suggests we are worthless and even illusiory since it ultimately contains nothing to confirm the value of people.
Go back and look at the original conversation that you decided to reference.
We really don't to need to waste time creating caricatures of Christianity around here, Vlad. It's done for us by Christians themselves.
-
I suppose we only have to look at what happened with Christ...
God knew that both Adam and Eve would be tempted as he did Christ.
Adam failed but Christ didn't.
Temptation will all be part of life but since Christ Satan can no longer accuse even though he will try his best to tempt people away from Christ. As we see the things of the world is what Satan uses to tempt people.
I think it is clear the prayer asks God not to let us go into temptation.
If any of that was true it just goes to prove what an evil so and so the deity is!
-
And what does the doctrine of original sin have to do with whether someone has worth or not, Shakes? Take the analogy of a child who starts out their existence with an integral genetic error - for them they are 'originally erroneous' as a human. Does that mean that their parent(s) will regard them as of less worth than a so-called 'normal' child?
The trouble with these fatuous analogies that the truly desperate keep coming up with is that there's always at least one central and more importantly fatal flaw which demolishes it entirely.
In this case, a genetic error is a random biochemical mistake over which the parents have no control - no parent would want this for their child and, most importantly of all, would prevent it if they possibly could. In the god scenario, on the other hand, if that god (as on the traditional omnimax view) is held to be omnipotent, any characteristics in humanity deemed to be faults exist with that god's knowledge and with its express and explicit permission according to its own will.
Of course, you seem remarkably coy as to whether you regard the God you allege you believe in to be omnipotent or not, for some reason. Given your purported beliefs I can't say I blame you.
-
Whatever that is ....and I think it is merely part of a caricature you cling to to keep God away.....what has it to do with God so loving the world that he gave his only begotten son to die for us?
Stop hiding behind this nonsense that a lack of faith means god -dodging ; it doesn't.
The rest is white noise, but I'll pretend to give it some meaning; explain why a death was required before your all -loving, all-merciful god could forgive.
-
The trouble with these fatuous analogies that the truly desperate keep coming up with is that there's always at least one central and more importantly fatal flaw which demolishes it entirely.
It is hard to demolish analogies, Shakes, because by definition they are not identical to the thing being compared with.
In this case, a genetic error is a random biochemical mistake over which the parents have no control - no parent would want this for their child and, most importantly of all, would prevent it if they possibly could. In the god scenario, on the other hand, if that god (as on the traditional omnimax view) is held to be omnipotent, any characteristics in humanity deemed to be faults exist with that god's knowledge and with its express and explicit permission according to its own will.
But none oif that is relevant to the issue: the issue is whether or not being flawed in any way makes one of less value - to other human beings, to God, to ... - than if you aren't.
Of course, you seem remarkably coy as to whether you regard the God you allege you believe in to be omnipotent or not, for some reason.
About as coy as you are regarding your understanding of God.
-
Stop hiding behind this nonsense that a lack of faith means god -dodging ; it doesn't.
The rest is white noise, but I'll pretend to give it some meaning; explain why a death was required before your all -loving, all-merciful god could forgive.
But having a caricature version of Christianity and wanting to hang on to it is god dodging .......because what else can it be?
For sin to be truly forgiven the cost and consequences need to be borne by someone. Such is the gravity and effect of sin that the price is self alienation and alienation from others hence the crucifixion.
To forgive we must take it on ourselves in a way that is the opposite of retributive justice. When a debt is cancelled for one it is paid somewhere else.
-
It is hard to demolish analogies, Shakes, because by definition they are not identical to the thing being compared with.
It's often rather easy, actually - I've just done it with your latest offering of tripe.
But none oif that is relevant to the issue: the issue is whether or not being flawed in any way makes one of less value - to other human beings, to God, to ... - than if you aren't.
Of course it does, otherwise there wouldn't be such a concept as being flawed (which by definition is a negative - a flawed plan is a bad plan; a flawed diamond is a less-than-perfect diamond, and so forth), and in a Christian context especially, there would be no need for supposedly "flawed" people to swallow the whole Christian schema in order to bridge the gap between themselves and God and to patch up the estrangement between the two parties that sin supposedly leads to.
About as coy as you are regarding your understanding of God.
There's no such thing as "an understanding of God." For the most part even those who claim to believe in such a thing don't make such a claim.
-
But having a caricature version of Christianity and wanting to hang on to it is god dodging .......because what else can it be?
For sin to be truly forgiven the cost and consequences need to be borne by someone. Such is the gravity and effect of sin that the price is self alienation and alienation from others hence the crucifixion.
To forgive we must take it on ourselves in a way that is the opposite of retributive justice. When a debt is cancelled for one it is paid somewhere else.
It's not a caricature Vlad, but even if it were it's not God-dodging.
The rest is a cop-out. 'Gravity' of sin where nothing wrong is done or a cosmic get-out-of jail-free card to make believers feel better about themselves, with little cost (or cost directed up the wrong places) and often at the expense of others.
-
It's not a caricature Vlad, but even if it were it's not God-dodging.
The rest is a cop-out. 'Gravity' of sin where nothing wrong is done or a cosmic get-out-of jail-free card to make believers feel better about themselves, with little cost (or cost directed up the wrong places) and often at the expense of others.
It's not a cop out. If you truly forgive someone then you have released them from a debt because you are now taking what they owe you (restoration) on yourself. And God does that in the crucifixion.
If you do not believe that forgiveness is cancelled restoration then can it be said that you have ever forgiven anybody yourself or do you think they still owe you or righteousness something?
If you have forgiven somebody in actuality then you expect nothing more from them since you are prepared to settle that out of your own account. That is the crucifixion.
-
Vlad,
People forgiving isn't the same as all the god stuff. You can't compare the two.
Also, if God forgives unconditionally then why the Crucifixion? That isn't unconditional by any definition.
-
The language that Vlad is using here is interesting - cancelling debts, accounts, restoration, and so on - it has a commercial or mercantile slant. I suspect this goes back to ancient Judaism, but it was common in medieval theology, and also in the Reformation, for example, I think the Calvinists use it big time. Possibly, it acquired a new momentum under capitalism.
However, it's not necessary to see forgiveness in such commercial terms, as cancelled debts and so on. For example, you can talk about letting go of something, not a debt, but a grudge or a sense of hurt.
-
The language that Vlad is using here is interesting - cancelling debts, accounts, restoration, and so on - it has a commercial or mercantile slant. I suspect this goes back to ancient Judaism, but it was common in medieval theology, and also in the Reformation, for example, I think the Calvinists use it big time. Possibly, it acquired a new momentum under capitalism.
Echoing exactly my own thoughts here - it's very transactional language.
-
It's a contradiction - God leading someone into temptation is a different thing to having temptation around us.
The Christian God 'leads us into temptation' but God help you if you give in to that temptation 'cos you are going to pay for it in Hell for all eternity.
In Floo's words - BASTARD!
-
Vlad,
People forgiving isn't the same as all the god stuff. You can't compare the two.
Also, if God forgives unconditionally then why the Crucifixion? That isn't unconditional by any definition.
That's because I think real unconditional forgiveness is a rare thing because we always harbour some vague hope of restoration. God is not like that hence the crucifixion. Secondly we may forgive but that forgiveness does not affect the recipient in anyway. They are still prepared to have another shot or to see your forgiveness as weakness.
To forgive unconditionally you have to take something on yourself....from your own account as it were.
I think the problem you have is one where God offers unconditional forgiveness but you are not prepared to be affected by that prefering to see God not as someone hugely loving but as the cosmic villain of the piece.
-
Speak for yourself. I prefer the version (by whoever-it-was): "Lead me not into temptation - I can find my own way, thanks."
Piccadilly Circus - Shaftsbury Avenue - Fifth door on the left and ask for Angel - £50 for an hour anbd you will crawl out on your hands and knees.
-
If god's love were unconditional he wouldn't have required the sacrifice of his own son. That's the opposite of unconditional.
God cannot be a villain to people for whom god does not exist.
-
The language that Vlad is using here is interesting - cancelling debts, accounts, restoration, and so on - it has a commercial or mercantile slant. I suspect this goes back to ancient Judaism, but it was common in medieval theology, and also in the Reformation, for example, I think the Calvinists use it big time. Possibly, it acquired a new momentum under capitalism.
However, it's not necessary to see forgiveness in such commercial terms, as cancelled debts and so on. For example, you can talk about letting go of something, not a debt, but a grudge or a sense of hurt.
It's an analogy.
Yes I agree with your analogy of hanging on. hence the clinging by the antitheist to a caricature of Christianity where they have the moral high ground as a life preserver for the ego.
-
If god's love were unconditional he wouldn't have required the sacrifice of his own son. That's the opposite of unconditional.
No it isn't because it is people who are forgiven without condition.
Since Jesus is God the only conditions required by God are on and of God himself.
Your forgiveness by God is unconditional. The way back to God is now open.
-
Not everything is actually a caricature, Vlad - apart perhaps from your posts which make a caricature of reasoned disbelief in and rational disagreement with theism and turn it into antitheism or Stalinism or some other word of the week you don't understand.
-
It's an analogy.
Yes I agree with your analogy of hanging on. hence the clinging by the antitheist to a caricature of Christianity where they have the moral high ground as a life preserver for the ego.
Yes, it's an analogy, but some people who use it, see the language as intrinsic to the atonement, or forgiveness, and that other ways of looking at it, are wrong. In other words, the forensic language (debt cancellation, substitution, justification), is a central part of some theologies, where it's inconceivable that sin could be looked at in another way, esp. in Reformed theologies.
-
Not everything is actually a caricature, Vlad - apart perhaps from your posts which make a caricature of reasoned disbelief in and rational disagreement with theism and turn it into antitheism or Stalinism or some other word of the week you don't understand.
I do not equate reasoned disbelief with Stalinism. The worst I can say about reasoned disbelieve is that it's reasons seem to be poor.
The Stalinists are those wanting the eradication by any means of religion ( In Animal Farm the puppies were taken away to be separately educated in the ways of the new state).
And those who talk of religion in epidemiological or eugenic terms which suggest some kinf of future purely atheist population.
-
No it isn't because it is people who are forgiven without condition.
Since Jesus is God the only conditions required by God are on and of God himself.
Your forgiveness by God is unconditional. The way back to God is now open.
The atonement makes no sense unless a punishment was required.
It would be more accurate to say that the sacrificial aspect of the understanding of Jesus' death makes sense if seen as the final and ultimate blood sacrifice as understood to be required by the god of the ancient Jewish people.
-
I do not equate reasoned disbelief with Stalinism. The worst I can say about reasoned disbelieve is that it's reasons seem to be poor.
Good luck trying to explain why ... you'll need it.
The Stalinists are those wanting the eradication by any means of religion
And this description applies to whom, exactly? Be blunt. Name names. Stop waving the hands and start pointing the finger. Specify.
And those who talk of religion in epidemiological or eugenic terms which suggest some kinf of future purely atheist population.
That's cohort replacement which is part of sociological theory, not eugenics.
-
Yes, it's an analogy, but some people who use it, see the language as intrinsic to the atonement, or forgiveness, and that other ways of looking at it, are wrong. In other words, the forensic language (debt cancellation, substitution, justification), is a central part of some theologies, where it's inconceivable that sin could be looked at in another way, esp. in Reformed theologies.
Yes but lets try another analogy.
Somebody makes a comment one doesn't like on a message board.
One wants justice and restoration.
One tells the transgressor to f*** off, wear the term and identity of f***** disgrace and leave the board because of unworthiness.
Unconditional forgiveness would be to take it on the chin, swallow one's righteous sense of being hurt.
Now, although there is unconditional forgiveness from you I may remain unaffected in which case I have failed to respond to what you have done and I remain an unreconstructed oaf.
-
Good luck trying to explain why ... you'll need it.
And this description applies to whom, exactly? Be blunt. Name names. Stop waving the hands and start pointing the finger. Specify. That's cohort replacement which is part of sociological theory, not eugenics.
Well there's you. You want religion to disappear. you have said that you don't mind if that is through mere apathy so you are prepared for the eradication of religion by any means....even by the means of ''cohort replacement''....which sounds good but I can forsee it going the way of other faddish antitheist bullshit hypotheses.
In other words you are turning a sociological theory into a desire........and THAT my dear friend....is Stalinism.
-
Well there's you. You want religion to disappear.
I'd be very happy if it did (though not equally - vastly more so with some than with others), but unsurprisingly you're already squirming. Let's not forget that you said:
The Stalinists are those wanting the eradication by any means of religion
you have said that you don't mind if that is through mere apathy so you are prepared for the eradication of religion by any means
Gradual attrition through apathy is not eradication because eradication implies and entails deliberate, conscious and purposive removal, though it's no surprise to me that it's another item in your lexicon of words that you don't understand.
....even by the means of ''cohort replacement''....which sounds good but I can forsee it going the way of other faddish antitheist bullshit hypotheses.
In other words you are turning a sociological theory into a desire........and THAT my dear friend....is Stalinism.
Cohort replacement (which is a observable sociological phenomenon, by the way, not a hypothesis) is descriptive, not prescriptive - it describes what actually happens, not whether it should or shouldn't.
The fact that in terms of the waning of religious belief I find it highly desirable is entirely separate :)
-
I'd be very happy if it did (though not equally - vastly more so with some than with others), but unsurprisingly you're already squirming. Let's not forget that you said:
Gradual attrition through apathy is not eradication because eradication implies and entails deliberate, conscious and purposive removal, though it's no surprise to me that it's another item in your lexicon of words that you don't understand.
Cohort replacement (which is a observable sociological phenomenon, by the way, not a hypothesis) is descriptive, not prescriptive - it describes what actually happens, not whether it should or shouldn't.
The fact that in terms of the waning of religious belief I find it highly desirable is entirely separate :)
well i'll certainly be googling cohort replacement.
Come on though Shaker, cards on the table.....if there was a law to ban any public display of religion or involvement of any religion in the public sphere wouldn't you be secretly in favour?
Waning? Don't you really mean disappearance?
-
well i'll certainly be googling cohort replacement.
You do that very thing. In fact, because I'm a generous chappy I'll even provide you with a few links:
https://goo.gl/uJfj29
http://goo.gl/qVMyM
http://goo.gl/wSrSNr
Come on though Shaker, cards on the table.....if there was a law to ban any public display of religion or involvement of any religion in the public sphere wouldn't you be secretly in favour?
No.
Waning? Don't you really mean disappearance?
Is there a difference?
-
Is there a difference?
Yes waning is a decrease and disappearance is, er, disappearance.
-
Yes waning is a decrease and disappearance is, er, disappearance.
So presumably a decrease can continue until it turns into a disappearance, yes? The same process but on a longer time scale, I'd have thought.
-
Somebody makes a comment one doesn't like on a message board.
One wants justice and restoration.
What do you mean by "restoration" in this context?
Unconditional forgiveness would be to take it on the chin, swallow one's righteous sense of being hurt.
Fine, but why is it necessary to engineer the death of your son in order to swallow your righteous sense of hurt?
-
The word temptation in Greek means to test. It does not always mean enticing to sin.
As we read here as well
"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able..." 1Corinthians 10:13
Sorry atheists, pagans and others but this just isn't a puzzler nor contradiction.
-
What do you mean by "restoration" in this context?
Fine, but why is it necessary to engineer the death of your son in order to swallow your righteous sense of hurt?
But the son is God.
Plus the fact you seem to be forgetting the consequence of sin on the perpetrator themselves i.e. progressive corruption of the self.
If I wronged you would expect restoration to be made by me. As humans I may well make some restoration but that is no guarantee that I have made enough or that you accept what is made.
In terms of engineering a death I think it was Socrates who suggested that a perfect being would invite assassination by the imperfect.
-
And yet the Son on the Cross cried out 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' To ignore that is to reduce the sacrifice to a 'happy ever after' fairy tale. But to accept it you have to accept it as unjust and unnecessary.
And no, very few people expect restorative justice. If you go through life wanting that you can expect a great deal of disappointment and bitterness.
-
And yet the Son on the Cross cried out 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' To ignore that is to reduce the sacrifice to a 'happy ever after' fairy tale. But to accept it you have to accept it as unjust and unnecessary.
And no, very few people expect restorative justice. If you go through life wanting that you can expect a great deal of disappointment and bitterness.
yes. He cries that because he has taken the consequences of sin....alienation....... onto himself.
I agree that the sacrifice is reduced....but those who reduce it in the worse way are those who say it was unnecessary because they cannot see sin for what it is and what it does.
Few people may expect it but I think all think they deserve it and that justice is right.
-
And don't ignore that Christ could have called the Angels to deliver Him but chose to be the blood sacrifice for our sin.
"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;" Hebrews 2:14
-
And don't ignore that Christ could have called the Angels to deliver Him but chose to be the blood sacrifice for our sin.
As with the Gadarene swine, he did quite a few daft things according to the storybook.
-
As with the Gadarene swine, he did quite a few daft things according to the storybook.
Unless you accept that the story of the Gaderene swine is a satirical reference to one of the Roman legions. But then you'd have needed to be there to get the in-joke.
-
I realise the conversation has moved on but isn't the 'lead us not into temptation' bit just a request for God to help people avoid it? i don't think it's meant to imply God tempts people, just that Christians are keen to avoid temptation if they can.
I always quite liked the Lord's Prayer. Mainly for the 'forgive us...' line, which includes the expectation the prayer will be forgiving themselves.
-
OMW,
And don't ignore that Christ could have called the Angels to deliver Him but chose to be the blood sacrifice for our sin.
Always good to see the return of an old favourite - I see the reification fallacy is getting a good outing here.
Welcome back old chum - asserting personal faith beliefs with the preface "don't forget" or similar as if they're facts never tires does it.
-
OMW,
Always good to see the return of an old favourite - I see the reification fallacy is getting a good outing here.
Welcome back old chum - asserting personal faith beliefs with the preface "don't forget" or similar as if they're facts never tires does it.
I think people know where they stand in terms of philosophical base in this argument.
if we are discussing Christianity then although we might not agree with it we must at least for dialogues sake enter into it's premises.
I think that the case was made that if we are to discuss what Christianity might be saying we need to get away from misconception.
If you don't want to do that don't get involved. If you don't want to move from holding a caricature of Christianity then you've got....er, a caricature of Christianity.
I can assure you that I have not strayed from orthodox or mainstream Christianity.
-
if we are discussing Christianity then although we might not agree with it we must at least for dialogues sake enter into it's premises.
A great many atheists are to say the very least deeply suspicious of that approach since there have been too many occasions where, in discussing Christianity, "for dialogue's sake enter[ing] into its premises" is dishonestly interpreted by a theistic opponent as agreement with and even belief in what's under discussion.
-
It's not only atheists who find that approach an uncomfortable one.
-
The word temptation in Greek means to test. It does not always mean enticing to sin.
As we read here as well
"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able..." 1Corinthians 10:13
Sorry atheists, pagans and others but this just isn't a puzzler nor contradiction.
There is only one particular problem with this, we are NOT Greek - and therefore whatever it meant to the Greeks is no longer of any consequence, therefore it is a contradiction
The point stands - why would the Christian God lead people INTO temptation - if it was a test it would be lead me TO temptation; and why NOT, surely a Christian would be perfectly prepared to be led to a test of his/her faith in their God?
-
Hi Shakes,
A great many atheists are to say the very least deeply suspicious of that approach since there have been too many occasions where, in discussing Christianity, "for dialogue's sake enter[ing] into its premises" is dishonestly interpreted by a theistic opponent as agreement with and even belief in what's under discussion.
Quite. The moment “for the sake of the conversation” we accept that gravity is pixies holding stuff down with invisible string and move on to what brand trainers they prefer all sorts of madness ensues. I saw the OP more as asking something like, “why would the authors have put it that way?” rather than the presumptive “why would God have written it that way?”
-
Hi Shakes,
Quite. The moment “for the sake of the conversation” we accept that gravity is pixies holding stuff down with invisible string and move on to what brand trainers they prefer all sorts of madness ensues.
Don't have the conversation then...........Honestly....You are like the man who sat on a radiator then complained his rear was burning.
-
Oh, I wish you would pause for an hour before you post something Matty. You realize that the New Testament was written in Greek not English? Greek because that was the language that most could understand, from a Roman to a Jew. And you want to dismiss what those words meant at the time because? You're to lazy to get a Greek concordance? Well my dad was a preacher and my house has always had a Strong's Greek and Hebrew.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3986&t=KJV
-
Oh, I wish you would pause for an hour before you post something Matty. You realize that the New Testament was written in Greek not English? Greek because that was the language that most could understand, from a Roman to a Jew. And you want to dismiss what those words meant at the time because? You're to lazy to get a Greek concordance? Well my dad was a preacher and my house has always had a Strong's Greek and Hebrew.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3986&t=KJV
OK - one more attempt to play nice to you - I have never, ever, heard the Lord's Prayer delivered in any other language than English - it is said in English and its meaning is understood by 99.99% of people in English. I doubt if I could find more than one or two who saw the meaning of the word 'temptation' in the way you describe it if I stood outside a Christian Church on a Sunday and asked every single person who was there what 'temptation' in the Prayer meant, and I include the officiating priest in that count.
As to the Blue Letter Bible - another American institution that, I would guess, not more than one in ten thousand English people, even Christians, has ever heard of. And how many Christians delve this deep into the origins of the bible's contents, even less than one in ten thousand I would guess.
-
Matty,
You do realize that temptation in Hebrew means trial? For you to ignore what the words mean in the language that the book was written (Greek) is a mistake.
Should the Greeks accept all your English homonyms? Sure, because they would probably want to know what was meant.
There is more than one English version of the Lord's prayer
Here is the Lord's prayer in basic English, please note
"And let us not be put to the test"
http://www.lords-prayer-words.com/luke_gospel_scripture.html
-
Matty,
You do realize that temptation in Hebrew means trial? For you to ignore what the words mean in the language that the book was written (Greek) is a mistake.
Should the Greeks accept all your English homonyms? Sure, because they would probably want to know what was meant.
There is more than one English version of the Lord's prayer
Here is the Lord's prayer in basic English, please note
"And let us not be put to the test"
http://www.lords-prayer-words.com/luke_gospel_scripture.html
Fine, but I ask again - where and by whom is this version of the Prayer used and when. I have never heard it used in any of the churches to which my father took me during the time before my lapsing from Christianity.
The only version I have ever heard used - even in the army and at the Cenotaaph on Rememberance Sunday is:
Our Father, who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name;
Thy kingdom come;
Thy will be done;
On earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation;
Deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
The power and the glory,
For ever and ever.
Amen.
I have never, ever, heard a minister refer to the Greek or Hebrew origins of the Prayer, or even the Latin version, so why should those versions have any relevance to modern Christianity if the clergy do not mention it to their congregations; do they, perhaps, presume that the members of their congregations have researched the Greek, Latin and Hebrew origins and meanings for themselves?
I am sorry, but I seriously doubt that this is the case.
-
You don't understand Matty. When my Bible was translated the English word temptation meant, testing, proving, trying and tempting. So the translation from the Greek is correct, it is the English language that has narrowed the meaning of the word temptation over the centuries. At the time of translation it was understood as it should be. That you refuse to accept the original meaning is very silly. It's like somebody 300 years from now won't accept that there were synonyms back in your day. It makes no sense that you refuse to realize it is English that has narrowed the meaning of this word. Do a little research on it Matty, it is at your finger tips.
-
The word temptation in Greek means to test. It does not always mean enticing to sin.
Why did God allow the English to translate it wrong?
-
What do you mean by "restoration" in this context?
Fine, but why is it necessary to engineer the death of your son in order to swallow your righteous sense of hurt?
But the son is God.
OK, why is it necessary to engineer your own death in order to swallow your righteous sense of hurt?
Plus the fact you seem to be forgetting the consequence of sin on the perpetrator themselves i.e. progressive corruption of the self.
And somebody else dying stops that because....?
If I wronged you would expect restoration to be made by me.
In many situations, I might, however, I might choose to forgive you and waive restoration. Or restoration might be impossible.
If you broke my window, you could provide restoration by paying for it to be fixed. However, if I forgive you, I might waive the cost.
If you murder me, what possible restoration could you make? Some people seem to think your own execution counts as "restoration" but I'd still be dead.
-
You don't understand Matty. When my Bible was translated the English word temptation meant, testing, proving, trying and tempting. So the translation from the Greek is correct, it is the English language that has narrowed the meaning of the word temptation over the centuries. At the time of translation it was understood as it should be. That you refuse to accept the original meaning is very silly. It's like somebody 300 years from now won't accept that there were synonyms back in your day. It makes no sense that you refuse to realize it is English that has narrowed the meaning of this word. Do a little research on it Matty, it is at your finger tips.
We are not talking 300 years, we are taking 2,000 years; are you teling me that there are this ids te ponly word that has changed its meaning in that time? How many other words do you/we/everyone use today that have different meanings fromn their original.
So nowadays, when we describe a man as being 'gay', what we are really saying is that he is happy or when we describe a woman as being 'gay' we mean that she is a prostitute. For these are what the word gay meant about 60 or 100 years ago respectively and they are not even translations from other languages, they are English meaning s of the word.
Do you seriously suggest that calling a woman or a man gay today means what it meant then and not what it is taken to mean now?
-
Why did God allow the English to translate it wrong?
I don't think that it is so much a matter of translation. It is more an evolution of meaning; the meaning of the word has changed in day-to-day usage. How long is it since the word 'temptation' was used IN ENGLISH to mean 'test'?
As I said to OMW above, how many words that we use today mean something different to that which they meant 60 years ago, never mind 2,000 years ago?
-
Perhaps it is time to look at what it really says. This is the version in the NRSV, which is a translation that aims to accurately get the Greek meaning across
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come.
Your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And do not bring us to the time of trial,
but rescue us from the evil one.
That's Matthew. For completeness, here is the version in Luke.
Father, hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come.
Give us each day our daily bread.
And forgive us our sins,
for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us.
And do not bring us to the time of trial.
Luke obviously decided that Jesus' original long boring version needed some editing.
-
Perhaps it is time to look at what it really says. This is the version in the NRSV, which is a translation that aims to accurately get the Greek meaning across
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come.
Your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And do not bring us to the time of trial,
but rescue us from the evil one.
That's Matthew. For completeness, here is the version in Luke.
Father, hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come.
Give us each day our daily bread.
And forgive us our sins,
for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us.
And do not bring us to the time of trial.
Luke obviously decided that Jesus' original long boring version needed some editing.
. . . and just how long is it since either of these versions was used in a Christian church service in England? Or anywhere? How many people saying the prayer in church or in private understand that 'temptation' in the Lord's prayer does not mean what they think it means?
Other than biblical scholars, of course?
And why has this only come to light now, when the reason for the request needing to be made by the supplicant is being questioned?
Why are the versions that you quote above not used today? Well, not to my knowledge anyway!
-
. . . and just how long is it since either of these versions was used in a Christian church service in England? Or anywhere?
Probably several times a week in most churches, Matt - depending on how many services that church holds on a Sunday and whether they also hold mid-week services - like a mid-week communion service or have Bible Study groups where it may be said as part of the prayer time. On our projection software at church, we have 4 different versions of the prayer for use with different congregations.
How many people saying the prayer in church or in private understand that 'temptation' in the Lord's prayer does not mean what they think it means?
The Lord's Prayer is quite a common sermon topic, and each preacher may or may not choose to concentrate on this particular 'do not ... but' pairing. It should also be remembered that Bibliclally, temptation is not regarded as a sin; the sin is giving into it. After all, Jesus was tempted whilst in the desert.
Other than biblical scholars, of course?
The advantage of having the Bible in English, and other native languages is that one doesn't have to be a Bible scholar to understand things. Many of us have access to commentaries - both in hard-copy and online - neither of which require Biblical scholar status to be able to read and understand.
And why has this only come to light now, when the reason for the request needing to be made by the supplicant is being questioned?
Has it? As far as I'm aware, it has been discussed and sermonised on for at least as long as I've been alive. As for your earier comment about never hearing Greek or Latin referred to by a preacher, your experience is pretty well diametrically the opposite of mine - I can only think of one clergyman whose preaching I've known over a decent period of time (ie not just a one-off sermon) who never referred to Greek and/or Latin in their sermons. I haven't preached for some time now, but when I did, both here in the UK and in nepal, I too would refer to the original language of a passage to try to draw out its original meaning, so that one can apply it honestly toi modern-day situations.
Why are the versions that you quote above not used today? Well, not to my knowledge anyway!
There are a number of versions that reflect the same meaning as the examples jeremy gave in use in churches across the country and the world. As you say, you have moved away from the church, so you would seem not to know the developments that have occurred within the liturgy, versions of the Bible, etc. over the years.
More generally, its worth noting that the Greek word that is translated 'lead' (in the AV and some other older versions) in the two forms of the prayer we have, was interpreted as meaning 'protect us from' as far back as many of the Early Church Fathers.
-
Probably several times a week in most churches, Matt - depending on how many services that church holds on a Sunday and whether they also hold mid-week services - like a mid-week communion service or have Bible Study groups where it may be said as part of the prayer time. On our projection software at church, we have 4 different versions of the prayer for use with different congregations.
The Lord's Prayer is quite a common sermon topic, and each preacher may or may not choose to concentrate on this particular 'do not ... but' pairing. It should also be remembered that Bibliclally, temptation is not regarded as a sin; the sin is giving into it. After all, Jesus was tempted whilst in the desert.
The advantage of having the Bible in English, and other native languages is that one doesn't have to be a Bible scholar to understand things. Many of us have access to commentaries - both in hard-copy and online - neither of which require Biblical scholar status to be able to read and understand.
Has it? As far as I'm aware, it has been discussed and sermonised on for at least as long as I've been alive. As for your earier comment about never hearing Greek or Latin referred to by a preacher, your experience is pretty well diametrically the opposite of mine - I can only think of one clergyman whose preaching I've known over a decent period of time (ie not just a one-off sermon) who never referred to Greek and/or Latin in their sermons. I haven't preached for some time now, but when I did, both here in the UK and in nepal, I too would refer to the original language of a passage to try to draw out its original meaning, so that one can apply it honestly toi modern-day situations.
There are a number of versions that reflect the same meaning as the examples jeremy gave in use in churches across the country and the world. As you say, you have moved away from the church, so you would seem not to know the developments that have occurred within the liturgy, versions of the Bible, etc. over the years.
More generally, its worth noting that the Greek word that is translated 'lead' (in the AV and some other older versions) in the two forms of the prayer we have, was interpreted as meaning 'protect us from' as far back as many of the Early Church Fathers.
Why am I not surprised at your response?
Only your experiences and knowledge, when it comes to Christianity (which are, of course all embracing), to all its nuances and all its ramifications, have any validity and anyone who disagrees is an ignorant upstart who should be ashamed of having the temerity to question the master!.
-
Hope,
Just out of interest, is your understanding of standard orthodoxy that the words of the prayer were dictated/inspired/whatever by "God", or just that they have been authored by people who wanted to put together something that worked for them as a meaningful supplication?
-
Hope,
Just out of interest, is your understanding of standard orthodoxy that the words of the prayer were dictated/inspired/whatever by "God", or just that they have been authored by people who wanted to put together something that worked for them as a meaningful supplication?
My understanding of standard orthodoxy is that the wording of the prayer was established by Jesus, the Messiah as anticipated by the Jews, (possibly on more than one occasion during his ministry) and recorded by two of the Gospel writers. It is also orthodox understanding that the words may have been uttered in Aramaic originally, and translated into Koine Greek by the gospel writers - which have since been translated into Latin and then English (as far as we in the UK are concerned). As for your second option, it is unlikely for the same reason that the idea of resurrection is unlikely to have been dreamed up by the disciples - the ideas were very different to traditional Jewish thought.
-
My understanding of standard orthodoxy is that the wording of the prayer was established by Jesus, the Messiah as anticipated by the Jews, (possibly on more than one occasion during his ministry) and recorded by two of the Gospel writers. It is also orthodox understanding that the words may have been uttered in Aramaic originally, and translated into Koine Greek by the gospel writers - which have since been translated into Latin and then English (as far as we in the UK are concerned). As for your second option, it is unlikely for the same reason that the idea of resurrection is unlikely to have been dreamed up by the disciples - the ideas were very different to traditional Jewish thought.
That is what you want to believe, but there is NO supporting evidence.
Besides which if the guy did pop up alive, why didn't he stick around instead of conveniently disappearing skyward?
-
Only your experiences and knowledge, when it comes to Christianity (which are, of course all embracing), to all its nuances and all its ramifications, have any validity and anyone who disagrees is an ignorant upstart who should be ashamed of having the temerity to question the master!.
A bit hypocritical coming from someone who chooses to expound on a belief system that they don't believe in and whose experience of is - if their own posts are to be believed - some considerable time in the past.
Might I also point out that what I post is generally a distillation of information from other sources, such as commentaries and sermons, my own reading of the Bible, and discussions and debates with other Christians, atheists and religious non-Christians.
-
A bit hypocritical coming from someone who chooses to expound on a belief system that they don't believe in
So in HopeWorld you're allowed only to discuss things that you actually believe in?
-
That is what you want to believe, but there is NO supporting evidence.
Sorry to disappoint you, Floo, but there is documentary evidence to the information, there is linguistic evidence that the recording of that information is 1st century AD in nature, as well literary evidence that the ideas that Jesus espoused, whilst based on Jewish thought, went a long way beyond them. As I pointed out in the post you have responded to, the idea of resurrection was also one that was by no means mainstream Jewish thinking.
Besides which if the guy did pop up alive, why didn't he stick around instead of conveniently disappearing skyward?
Answer 1: If he had still been around today - 2000 years later - would that have convinced you of the reality of the documentary evidence?
Answer 2: History is full of people initiating ideas and then leaving those who support those ideas to teach them to other people. Note that Answers 1 and 2 are not alternatives but complementary to each other.
-
So in HopeWorld you're allowed only to discuss things that you actually believe in?
Typical misrepresentation, Shakes. Note the use of the phrase " ... who chooses to expound ..." in my original post.
Expound:
"Present and explain (a theory or idea) in detail".
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/expound
To talk in detail about anything, one needs to have up-to-date knowledge and understanding of it; Matt clearly doesn't have either as far as Christianity is concerned.
-
Hope,
My understanding of standard orthodoxy is that the wording of the prayer was established by Jesus, the Messiah as anticipated by the Jews, (possibly on more than one occasion during his ministry) and recorded by two of the Gospel writers. It is also orthodox understanding that the words may have been uttered in Aramaic originally, and translated into Koine Greek by the gospel writers - which have since been translated into Latin and then English (as far as we in the UK are concerned).
OK, so the orthodoxy is that it was "established" by a man/god, and therefore presumably has a divine imprimatur - and with it therefore some degree at least of inerrancy. Why then would a god effectively have to tell people who believe in him what to ask him for?
Doesn't that seem a bit circular to say the least and borderline sadistic to boot - "here's what I can do, but I'll only do it if you ask me to do it - preferably while on your knees" type of thing?
As for your second option, it is unlikely for the same reason that the idea of resurrection is unlikely to have been dreamed up by the disciples - the ideas were very different to traditional Jewish thought.
Ah, but that wasn't the question - I was just asking you for church orthodoxy on the matter. That in practice the thing was cobbled together by the credulous seems to me to be as overwhelmingly more likely to be the case as is the resurrection story being overwhelmingly likely to have been cobbled together by the credulous. But that's another matter.
-
Sorry to disappoint you, Floo, but there is documentary evidence to the information, there is linguistic evidence that the recording of that information is 1st century AD in nature, as well literary evidence that the ideas that Jesus espoused, whilst based on Jewish thought, went a long way beyond them. As I pointed out in the post you have responded to, the idea of resurrection was also one that was by no means mainstream Jewish thinking.
None of which excludes the possibility that the NT accounts, which have uncertain provenance and were written well after the event, contains mistakes or lies: a point you seem reluctant to address.
Answer 1: If he had still been around today - 2000 years later - would that have convinced you of the reality of the documentary evidence?
Answer 2: History is full of people initiating ideas and then leaving those who support those ideas to teach them to other people. Note that Answers 1 and 2 are not alternatives but complementary to each other.
Answer 1 is silly, since it isn't a point worth making in the first place. Answer 2 may well be the case but it fails to address both the risks of mistakes or lies in the original version and also the risk of message creep over time.
You are still stuck with the problem of being able to demonstrate, as opposed to asserting or believing on a personal basis, that the NT contents you set such store by don't include mistakes and lies.
-
Sorry to disappoint you, Floo, but there is documentary evidence to the information
http://goo.gl/8oPzxc
-
Sorry to disappoint you, Floo, but there is documentary evidence to the information, there is linguistic evidence that the recording of that information is 1st century AD in nature, as well literary evidence that the ideas that Jesus espoused, whilst based on Jewish thought, went a long way beyond them. As I pointed out in the post you have responded to, the idea of resurrection was also one that was by no means mainstream Jewish thinking.
Answer 1: If he had still been around today - 2000 years later - would that have convinced you of the reality of the documentary evidence?
Answer 2: History is full of people initiating ideas and then leaving those who support those ideas to teach them to other people. Note that Answers 1 and 2 are not alternatives but complementary to each other.
People have good imaginations, like you, my dear! The only recording of the life of Jesus is in the Gospels, which were written long after he kicked the bucket, so hardly evidence of any kind! Surely if Jesus had come back to life he would have presented himself to Pilot, Herod and lots of others? Historians of the time would have recorded this remarkable event if it had really happened, which they didn't. Before you mention Josephus he was born after Jesus died, I believe!
-
To talk in detail about anything, one needs to have up-to-date knowledge and understanding of it
Which would be a novelty for a 2,000 year-old religion.
-
A bit hypocritical coming from someone who chooses to expound on a belief system that they don't believe in and whose experience of is - if their own posts are to be believed - some considerable time in the past.
Might I also point out that what I post is generally a distillation of information from other sources, such as commentaries and sermons, my own reading of the Bible, and discussions and debates with other Christians, atheists and religious non-Christians.
That is what I am saying - you have read everything, experienced everything and spoken to everybody and us poor mortals should shut T F up and listen to the Master! NO WAY!
You talk as if the Bible is totally and incontrovertably true in every respect. It has been pointed out to you more times than I can count and poke a stick at that this is patently incorrect and untrue but your total monumental arrogance will not allow you to admit that what you believe is nothing more than that, completely unprovable belief and faith.
-
So in HopeWorld you're allowed only to discuss things that you actually believe in?
Of course!
-
To talk in detail about anything, one needs to have up-to-date knowledge and understanding of it; Matt clearly doesn't have either as far as Christianity is concerned.
NO WRONG - as far as HOPE is concerned - why - because I disagree with him!
-
Hope,
To talk in detail about anything, one needs to have up-to-date knowledge and understanding of it...
Somewhat ironic that given the basically mediaeval perspective of the theists here who reference "Satan", "angels" etc as causal agents for some of the the phenomena they perceive in nature.
-
I'm following this thread - well, most of the posts - but the whole thing is very simple and straightforward as far as I'm concerned: no God, so said no-thing cannot ever have written anything, so the 'Lord's prayer' should be called the Human prayer.
-
But the son is God.
OK, why is it necessary to engineer your own death in order to swallow your righteous sense of hurt?
It is for our salvation though isn't it not God's. God could let us just turn into the discarnate human remains which sloughs itself into hell that is the corrupted remains of the self
God only engineers his own death in the same sense that anyone who is prepared to lay down his life to save others engineers his or her own death.
-
I'm following this thread - well, most of the posts - but the whole thing is very simple and straightforward as far as I'm concerned: no God, so said no-thing cannot ever have written anything, so the 'Lord's prayer' should be called the Human prayer.
Thanks for that....another toot on the bagpipes.
-
Which would be a novelty for a 2,000 year-old religion.
Antiquity fallacy....where's Hillside............?
-
Antiquity fallacy....where's Hillside............?
I don't know, but when you manage to find him, ask him to explain to you - extra slowly, in words of three syllables or fewer - what an argumentum ad antiquitatem is and why this isn't an example of one.
-
I don't know, but when you manage to find him, ask him to explain to you - extra slowly, in words of three syllables or fewer - what an argumentum ad antiquitatem is and why this isn't an example of one.
Isn't it?.......darn........i'll have to find something else to stick on you.
-
Isn't it?
Nope!
.......darn........i'll have to find something else to stick on you.
Best of luck!
-
Note the obsolete definition of tempt according to merriam webster.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tempt
-
Note the obsolete definition of tempt according to merriam webster.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tempt
Simple Definition of tempt
: to cause (someone) to do or want to do something even though it may be wrong, bad, or unwise
Yeah - and far more inportantly to this discussion the definition of obsolete
no longer produced or used; out of date.
You have, quite conclusively, proved that I was right and you wrong - well done and thank you!
Hope - please note! Your confederate has just screwed you oiver!
END OF!
-
How totally pig headed and wrong you are Matty. Do you realize much of your English will be obsolete one day? Are you so uneducated that you don't know your language evolves. Now tell me how the translators in the early 17th century could know that in 400 yrs time, trial and test, will no longer be definitions of temptation. They were definitions at the time and understood by the English speakers of that day. You are so childish, you would destroy the English of Shakespeare because you are too arrogant to admit the translators got it right. I pity you in your pig headed and angry misery.
-
NO WRONG - as far as HOPE is concerned - why - because I disagree with him!
But you seem to disagee with me and other Christians based on out-of-date, even incorrect, information regarding the nature of Christianity.
-
But you seem to disagee with me and other Christians based on out-of-date, even incorrect, information regarding the nature of Christianity.
What out of date information?
-
You have, quite conclusively, proved that I was right and you wrong - well done and thank you!
Hope - please note! Your confederate has just screwed you oiver!
END OF!
No he hasn't, Matt because, whilst the language you are referring to is obsolete in the 21st century, it was current at the time that the version of the Lord's Prayer we are talking about was translated from the original languages.
There is another issue with your argument. The language that we are debating was used so that the ordinary people of 17th century England and other parts of the British Isles could read the Bible in their own language; after all, most of them didn't read, let alone understand Greek or Latin. In much the same way, most of the newer versions have been produced so that people in the 20th and 21st centuries can "read the Bible in their own language" - we all know that Shakespearean English (the English that the King James Version is written in) is very difficult for 20th and 21st century Britons to understand properly.
It is interesting that whenever folk want to criticise some Biblical passage, they always seem to use the KJV rather than more modern versions; is this because they don't know about the more modern versions? Is it because they were brought up at a point in time when the English language was developing far faster than it had over the previous couple of hundred years.
It is also worth noting that over the last 150 years or so, more examples of ancient documents have surfaced than over the previous 4 or 500 years providing a greater range of comparative material for scholars of Biblical and other studies to use in translation work.
-
The language of Shakespeare wasn't used for the version of the LP Jesus is supposed have created, if of course it was anything to do with him!
-
What out of date information?
Well, for one thing, Matt seems to assume that practices in the Church that occurred whilst he was attending church are 1) still used and 2) typical of all churches. Now, I don't know what denemonation he used to belong to but most denominations have theologically 'high' and 'low' forms. Which extreme was the church he attended closer to? What versions of the Bible is he conversant with? Was he brought up on the KJV only, or the KJV and the Revised Standard Version or the Amplified Bible; is he conversant with the Good News Bible, or the New International Version - or perhaps even 'The Message' version? I suspect he is working from the KJV and the RSV - much as you probably are.
To pick a term from previous posts, linguistically, these versions are now obsolete, in the same way that Shakesparean English is obsolete.
-
Hope,
No he hasn't, Matt because...
Why would a benevolent god who could do the right thing anyway choose to do so only selectively by drafting a set of instructions for supplicants to recite on their knees to which "He" may or may not respond?
-
Well, for one thing, Matt seems to assume that practices in the Church that occurred whilst he was attending church are 1) still used and 2) typical of all churches. Now, I don't know what denemonation he used to belong to but most denominations have theologically 'high' and 'low' forms. Which extreme was the church he attended closer to? What versions of the Bible is he conversant with? Was he brought up on the KJV only, or the KJV and the Revised Standard Version or the Amplified Bible; is he conversant with the Good News Bible, or the New International Version - or perhaps even 'The Message' version? I suspect he is working from the KJV and the RSV - much as you probably are.
To pick a term from previous posts, linguistically, these versions are now obsolete, in the same way that Shakesparean English is obsolete.
Why does it matter?
lppy
-
Why is there a line in it where believers ask the supreme cosmic mega being not to lead them into temptation?
Is their god likely to do that?
Bad associations spoil useful habits.
~TW~
-
It is for our salvation though isn't it not God's. God could let us just turn into the discarnate human remains which sloughs itself into hell that is the corrupted remains of the self
God only engineers his own death in the same sense that anyone who is prepared to lay down his life to save others engineers his or her own death.
Why did God need to lay down his life? You seem to be suggesting that God doesn't make the rules.
-
Well, for one thing, Matt seems to assume that practices in the Church that occurred whilst he was attending church are 1) still used and 2) typical of all churches. Now, I don't know what denemonation (sic) he used to belong to but most denominations have theologically 'high' and 'low' forms. Which extreme was the church he attended closer to? What versions of the Bible is he conversant with? Was he brought up on the KJV only, or the KJV and the Revised Standard Version or the Amplified Bible; is he conversant with the Good News Bible, or the New International Version - or perhaps even 'The Message' version? I suspect he is working from the KJV and the RSV - much as you probably are.
To pick a term from previous posts, linguistically, these versions are now obsolete, in the same way that Shakesparean English is obsolete.
It is only obsolete so that you do not have to admit that "lead us not into temptation" doesn't mean what it says.
And, talking of obsolescence - the name "Matt" (or "Matty") is obsolete and has been for some time, except as a patheitic attempt to wind me up!
High Church Anglican and the KJV
-
It is only obsolete so that you do not have to admit that "lead us not into temptation" doesn't mean what it says.
... High Church Anglican and the KJV
OK, Matt, let's take the last bit first. The KJV has been shown to include a number of translation errors and idiosyncracies and is known to have been based on limited comparative material. For what it was based on, it wasn't too bad - but during the intervening 410 years, there have been many discoveries of additional material that can used for comparison. The most recent would be the Dead Sea Scrolls, but there have been many others.
As a result, its not a matter of " ... so that you do not have to admit that "lead us not into temptation" doesn't mean what it says"; its a matter of whether 1) the Greek word translated by the KJV translated as 'lead' actually meant that and 2) whether the word 'lead' in Shakespearean English - when used in this context - meant what it means today.
Extra-biblical sources
Prior to the 19th century, textual analysis of the Bible itself was the only tool available to extract and evaluate whatever historical data it contained. The past two hundred years, however, have seen a proliferation of new sources of data and analytical tools, including:
Other Near Eastern texts, documents and inscriptions
The material remains recovered throughout the Near East by archaeological excavation,
analysed by ever more sophisticated technical and statistical apparatus
Historical geography, demography, soil science, technology studies, and comparative linguistics
Anthropological and sociological modelling
The Apocrypha, or non-canonical texts
More modern translations take the lessons of these discoveries into account, making them rather more accurate. They may still have issues and uncertainties, but less than the KJV.
And, talking of obsolescence - the name "Matt" (or "Matty") is obsolete and has been for some time, except as a patheitic attempt to wind me up!
In case you haven't noticed, there are a number of posters who have, over the months, changed their 'posting-monickers' one or more times - but who are still referred to by their original names. In some cases, they are even known by names that they carried on other forums. I tend to carry these names over even when folk change their monickers.
-
I think it is clear the prayer asks God not to let us go into temptation.
Ah, OK.
Except that the prayer doesn't say "let us not go into temptation" but "lead us not into temptation"
-
If any of that was true it just goes to prove what an evil so and so the deity is!
Indeed. Scheming and plotting to have your son brutally killed is pretty dire!
-
If god's love were unconditional he wouldn't have required the sacrifice of his own son. That's the opposite of unconditional.
God cannot be a villain to people for whom god does not exist.
Spot on!
As a minimum, the love of the Bible god is subject to submission and conformity.
-
No it isn't because it is people who are forgiven without condition.
Since Jesus is God the only conditions required by God are on and of God himself.
Your forgiveness by God is unconditional. The way back to God is now open.
So it's like this:
"Humanity! Thou has deeply offended me. Here, taketh my only son and kill him horribly so that I mayest forgive you."
-
So it's like this:
"Humanity! Thou has deeply offended me. Here, taketh my only son and kill him horribly so that I mayest forgive you."
Try as you may, you will not get them to see that their "God" is a despicable old tyrant. They have been brainwashed with too many "justification" arguments.
-
And yet the Son on the Cross cried out 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' To ignore that is to reduce the sacrifice to a 'happy ever after' fairy tale. But to accept it you have to accept it as unjust and unnecessary.
I guess it depends on what book you're reading.
In his book "Jesus Interrupted", Bart Ehrman highlights a fundamental contradiction:
The death of Jesus as recounted in Mark 15:16-39 is notable in that Jesus doesn't say a word until he utters what has become known as "The Cry Of Dereliction". This is a Jesus who doesn't know what's going on and genuinely wants to know why God has left him like this. It's a Jesus full of despair and that's how he dies.
Compare that to how Luke tells it (Luke 23:26-49) and you'll see that Jesus is anything but silent. Even when he's nailed to the cross Jesus knows what the score is and he appears to be in communion with God as he tells his father to forgive them. Then Jesus says "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit".
How different to the forsaken and abandoned Jesus depicted by Mark! Luke's version of Jesus knows exactly what's going on and has no need to cry out " "Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani?"
In Mark, Jesus has been rejected by everyone. Betrayed by one of his own and denied three times by his closest follower. He was mocked by the priests, rejected by the Jews and condemned by the Romans. Even those being crucified with him, mocked Jesus. At the end, Jesus is in agony and despair and he's unsure of the reasons why he has to die.
This is what Mark portrayed - a lost and abandoned Jesus. It's not for nothing that the quote you made is often known as the "Cry of Dereliction"
All-in-all, quite contradictory to Jesus' death scene in Luke.
Here we see a Jesus who has no need to ask God why he's been forsaken. This Jesus knows the reason he must die and he spends his dying moments showing more concern for others than for himself.
Rather than uttering a cry of despairing hopelessness ("Why have you forsaken me?"), in Luke, Jesus prays to God and says "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit". This is not the forsaken, abandoned and confused Jesus of Mark, rather, Luke tells us about but a Jesus who knows full well why he has to die and is fully aware of the reasons why he is suffering so.
I don't believe in what the Bible has to say but I do feel that each author that contributed their specific piece was their own person.
These peoples were individuals and they were saying it in the way they wanted to say it. We should let them have their say, even if it throws up discrepancies, inconsistencies and contradictions in the narratives.
What believer like to do is make one overarching story of Jesus from what are, in some cases, quite different accounts. In their take on the Gospels, Jesus says and does everything that they say he did.
So, whatever messages that Mark, Luke, etc, where trying to convey tend to get glossed over by believers and become lost in translation. Looking at the stories their way means stripping the writers of their integrity as an author and replacing the author's meaning with their own.
-
Try as you may, you will not get them to see that their "God" is a despicable old tyrant. They have been brainwashed with too many "justification" arguments.
Tyrant right enough.
Being a Christian means defending genocide and infanticide. It means you approve of the murder of homosexuals, as well as anyone else who wishes to exercise religious freedom.
-
Tyrant right enough.
Being a Christian means defending genocide and infanticide. It means you approve of the murder of homosexuals, as well as anyone else who wishes to exercise religious freedom.
Hopefully, this century will see the demise of such despicable thinking.
-
Tyrant right enough.
Being a Christian means defending genocide and infanticide. It means you approve of the murder of homosexuals, as well as anyone else who wishes to exercise religious freedom.
Not really. Many Christians support equal marriage and so on, and are quite liberal really.
-
Not really. Many Christians support equal marriage and so on, and are quite liberal really.
And the frothy-mouthed ones say that the liberals are not really Christians.
-
Quote from: Sassy on February 07, 2016, 01:40:40 PM
I suppose we only have to look at what happened with Christ...
God knew that both Adam and Eve would be tempted as he did Christ.
Adam failed but Christ didn't.
Temptation will all be part of life but since Christ Satan can no longer accuse even though he will try his best to tempt people away from Christ. As we see the things of the world is what Satan uses to tempt people.
I think it is clear the prayer asks God not to let us go into temptation.
If any of that was true it just goes to prove what an evil so and so the deity is!
It isn't really a logical reply that, Floo.
After all you never asked your parents to have you.
You say they tried to force you to do as they believed.
By your comment it makes your parents wrong to have given birth to you and allowing you your own choice and rebellion against their faith and them.
The basic truth is God created us, he created your parents and he created you.
He allowed you to choose. Why should it be different for Adam etc?
You need to think about these things.
-
It's not a caricature Vlad, but even if it were it's not God-dodging.
The rest is a cop-out. 'Gravity' of sin where nothing wrong is done or a cosmic get-out-of jail-free card to make believers feel better about themselves, with little cost (or cost directed up the wrong places) and often at the expense of others.
Nah! That there is the cop out. What you have said...
You claim to be educated and ex-Christian who has studied the higher and refined nature of those beliefs.
Yet your answer shows no such education having been attained.
You blame your belief and lack of belief on everything but your self.
That there in itself shows you and you alone control what you believe. It is according to how you life is and not the truth of the word of God or how it reflects in the world and your life.
You cannot claim such things in the statements you have made about "knowing God and the bible".
You have no rights or arguments against the truth which you can use. Because you claimed to know God and believe in the bible. But NOTHING you say or do actually shows any evidence that you ever did.
NO! NO! NO! You don't get to make those claims in the absence of truth that you ever knew anything about God and faith in the first instance. Claim all you want you simply do not have the knowledge that would prove you answer from wisdon or education of such matters.
-
Vlad,
People forgiving isn't the same as all the god stuff. You can't compare the two.
Also, if God forgives unconditionally then why the Crucifixion? That isn't unconditional by any definition.
IF YOU has ever studied the word of God then you know that God and the Law is just and the righteous nature of the law had to be fully met. His love is unconditional in that though men failed and failed again he still made a way back once and for all.
Had you understood Spirit and Truth then you would not be lacking as you clearly are in Christian truth.
You made a mistake the error was to walk away from God and turn your back. Because your put yourself before him.
-
If god's love were unconditional he wouldn't have required the sacrifice of his own son. That's the opposite of unconditional.
God cannot be a villain to people for whom god does not exist.
Righteous demands of the law... Unconditional because the righteous demands of the law had to be met and you and no one else could fulfill that other than by dying the death you deserved.
So Jesus Christ fulfilled the righteous demands of the law by being innocent and dying the death he had not earned and did not deserve. It is simple and yet you don't know it and claim to have been a Christian and one who studied...
Gods existence is not what makes a villain a villain....
Gods existence is neither lessened or increased by what an atheist believes.
"I would rather live my life as if there is a god
and die to find out their isn't, than live my life
as if there isn't and dies to find out there is"
A WISE man but what does it mean to live your life as if there is a God?
At the end of the line is where it counts...
-
In case you haven't noticed, there are a number of posters who have, over the months, changed their 'posting-monickers' one or more times - but who are still referred to by their original names. In some cases, they are even known by names that they carried on other forums. I tend to carry these names over even when folk change their monickers.
Don't try and bullshit a bullshitter Hope!
There is only one other person who refers to me as "Matt", or, as I pointed out, "Matty", and that is because he is a troll who thinks that it annoys me - the idiot whom you so often champion (who changes his moniker more often than he changes his underwear) when I criticise him. Everybody else on this forum calls me Owlswing or Owl or Owly, so I am of the opinion that you call me Matt quite deliberately for the same reason as the troll.
As to the rest, you can, again as I have said, I am not interested in your opinions on the language, mis-translations (being a witch, I am well aware of the most blatant and deliberate and well-known "mis-translation" in the KJV) and obsolescence of language, the Lord's Prayer as quoted says TEMPTATION, you, if you are as erudite and educated as you claim, know fiull well that not one person in Christ knows how many thousands will know of any other meaning than the one that I and others have quoted and I have noticed that your friend has stepped back and let you do the arguing for him, probably because he saw that he was on a hiding to nothing.
You will go to almost any lengths to defend your God even to the point of trying to defend the indefensible. I have never seen a church bible set up on the pulpit lecturn that is not an illuminated edition of the KJV. While I am no longer be Christian I have friends who are and I attend their churches for christenings, funerals and weddings and the word TEMPTATION is still used in the LP.
Every twist, turn, wriggle and bullshit attempt make Christianity and its history what they are not makes me more convinced that I did the right thing in showing Christianity and it followers the rigid middle digit. I equate your defence of Christianity and it multitudinous failings and iniquities over the centuries to those who try to defend fox-hunting - defending the indefensible.
And please do not tell me that I am lumping different beliefs that are not the same together, yours and Ad_O's for instance, there is only one Christian God and only one Jesus Christ and it is, has been and ever was and ever will be their human followers who have used and use their (supposed) words as justification for murder, rape, paedophilia etc - many different loads of shit in a bucket are still shit!
You will steadfastly stick to your stance of Christianity being right as I will stick to mine that it is wrong! Wrong at so many levels.
-
Don't try and bullshit a bullshitter Hope!
There is only one other person who refers to me as "Matt", or, as I pointed out, "Matty", and that is because he is a troll who thinks that it annoys me - the idiot whom you so often champion (who changes his moniker more often than he changes his underwear) when I criticise him. Everybody else on this forum calls me Owlswing or Owl or Owly, so I am of the opinion that you call me Matt quite deliberately for the same reason as the troll.
.
Rhiannon did recently - see link
Hope may be many things but you're being unfair on him for this bit
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10933.msg588794#msg588794
-
Try as you may, you will not get them to see that their "God" is a despicable old tyrant. They have been brainwashed with too many "justification" arguments.
I agree.
-
Rhiannon did recently - see link
Hope may be many things but you're being unfair on him for this bit
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10933.msg588794#msg588794
Don't pull that one - Rhi did it once! By accident!
Hope and the troll do it every time they are talking about me and in Hope's case he should remember that you are known by the company you keep; keep the company of a troll and dyed in the wool Christian fundamentalists . . .
-
Hopefully, this century will see the demise of such despicable thinking.
It would ne nice!
-
Not really. Many Christians support equal marriage and so on, and are quite liberal really.
Yes I'll go along with that.
However, are those Christians the exception as opposed to the rule?
What about the "death to gays" schtick in the OT? Do these liberal Christians condemn that mindset or do they defend it?
-
Don't pull that one - Rhi did it once! By accident!
Hope and the troll do it every time they are talking about me and in Hope's case he should remember that you are known by the company you keep; keep the company of a troll and dyed in the wool Christian fundamentalists . . .
She did it nonetheless, and there was none of this 'you're insulting me' shite from you in that case.
As Hope has pointed out there are a couple of posters at least that get referred to by other names, Vlad more often than any of his names of the month, and while I have no great opinion of him, at least he doesn't pull this crap about it.
I had no clue till you went bat shit that any reference to your previous moniker was naughty and I am sure Hope was the same.
-
Yes I'll go along with that.
However, are those Christians the exception as opposed to the rule?
What about the "death to gays" schtick in the OT? Do these liberal Christians condemn that mindset or do they defend it?
Having once been a liberal Christian and hung out with quite a few I can say from experience that they have no time for the OT attitude to homosexuality. Or the Pauline one either.
-
She did it nonetheless, and there was none of this 'you're insulting me' shite from you in that case.
As Hope has pointed out there are a couple of posters at least that get referred to by other names, Vlad more often than any of his names of the month, and while I have no great opinion of him, at least he doesn't pull this crap about it.
I had no clue till you went bat shit that any reference to your previous moniker was naughty and I am sure Hope was the same.
I didn't know either, otherwise I would have been more careful about not using it. Sorry, Owlswing.
-
I didn't know either, otherwise I would have been more careful about not using it. Sorry, Owlswing.
Don't be!
Yoiu only did it the once and I don't give a damn about NS's defence of Hope - I notice he doesn't defend the troll at the same time and for the same DELIBERATE use of the old moniker, so I would presume from that that he agrees that in the troll's case the use of "Matty" (more usually "dear" or "dearest" Matty - an HE accuses ME of having a crush!) is a deliberate attempt to annoy.
-
Don't be!
Yoiu only did it the once and I don't give a damn about NS's defence of Hope - I notice he doesn't defend the troll at the same time and for the same DELIBERATE use of the old moniker, so I would presume from that that he agrees that in the troll's case the use of "Matty" (more usually "dear" or "dearest" Matty - an HE accuses ME of having a crush!) is a deliberate attempt to annoy.
And you didn't blow up at Rhiannon, and I can't see that you've done it with the other poster - who I would refer to as Johnny, and he doesn't blow up at that.
I'm defending Hope because you attacked him, for something that you didn't attack Rhiannon for, and something she makes clear she had no knowledge was a wind up for you. So if she didn't know why is Hope supposed to?
Get over yourself.
-
Yes I'll go along with that.
However, are those Christians the exception as opposed to the rule?
What about the "death to gays" schtick in the OT? Do these liberal Christians condemn that mindset or do they defend it?
Obviously, they don't defend it. I think there are all kinds of attitudes to the Jewish Bible, for example, some liberals see it in a historical context, and therefore outmoded today.
But in the C of E today, you have the strange position, that the church itself is officially homophobic, and seem to have joined in with the suspension of the American church, yet many members are gay-friendly. For example, I used to go to a church where the rector himself was gay, and had a very obvious boy-friend. I think the bishop disapproved, but the church itself was packed to the rafters.
From memory, the majority of US Catholics support gay marriage, and in fact, more than in the general population.
-
[quote author=Sassy link=topic=11555.msg589626#msg589626 date=1455102250
Gods existence is not what makes a villain a villain....
Gods existence is neither lessened or increased by what an atheist believes.
[/quote]
Of course, you can substitute God with any one of the thousands of deities that are out there. Do you believe or disbelieve in Shiva? Well, it matters not because Shiva's existence is neither lessened nor increased by what you believe.
"I would rather live my life as if there is a god
and die to find out their isn't, than live my life
as if there isn't and dies to find out there is"
Note the lowercase "god" as opposed to the proper noun. The phrase you quoted above is more about choosing the correct god from many. You'll get a fright if you wake up after you've died and it's Baal sitting there waiting to judge you.
A WISE man but what does it mean to live your life as if there is a God?
IF there is a god or indeed gods. Plural you see, not singular.
At the end of the line is where it counts...
-
Having once been a liberal Christian and hung out with quite a few I can say from experience that they have no time for the OT attitude to homosexuality. Or the Pauline one either.
Interesting.
I wonder whether those particular believers will condemn the barbaric rules their god imposed or whether they will opt to defend them.
Perhaps that needs a thread of its own!
-
Obviously, they don't defend it. I think there are all kinds of attitudes to the Jewish Bible, for example, some liberals see it in a historical context, and therefore outmoded today.
But in the C of E today, you have the strange position, that the church itself is officially homophobic, and seem to have joined in with the suspension of the American church, yet many members are gay-friendly. For example, I used to go to a church where the rector himself was gay, and had a very obvious boy-friend. I think the bishop disapproved, but the church itself was packed to the rafters.
From memory, the majority of US Catholics support gay marriage, and in fact, more than in the general population.
Let's have a poll!
-
And you didn't blow up at Rhiannon, and I can't see that you've done it with the other poster - who I would refer to as Johnny, and he doesn't blow up at that.
I'm defending Hope because you attacked him, for something that you didn't attack Rhiannon for, and something she makes clear she had no knowledge was a wind up for you. So if she didn't know why is Hope supposed to?
Get over yourself.
JC is a special case - there is history and background of which you are totally unaware - so don't tell me how to deal with him.
Get over it.
-
Interesting.
I wonder whether those particular believers will condemn the barbaric rules their god imposed or whether they will opt to defend them.
Perhaps that needs a thread of its own!
IME liberals tend to focus on social justice and compassion. Not so much rules and Scripture. Most would probably say they are Christian in spite of the church rather than because of it and I know many struggle with it, which is why so many liberals leave.
-
JC is a special case - there is history and background of which you are totally unaware - so don't tell me how to deal with him.
Get over it.
I didn't tell you how to deal with him. Stop making shite up.
-
IME liberals tend to focus on social justice and compassion. Not so much rules and Scripture. Most would probably say they are Christian in spite of the church rather than because of it and I know many struggle with it, which is why so many liberals leave.
I know several people like that - they really struggle trying explain to people why the church is what it is, locked into antiquity and apparently incapable of getting out of it!
-
I think the recent decision to suspend the US church (Episcopalians), is causing trouble among liberals, as they see no prospect of homophobia being reduced in Anglicanism. Some will leave, some will hang on, hoping to effect a change.
It seems ironic that the general population has become less homophobic, the national church, more.
-
I think the recent decision to suspend the US church (Episcopalians), is causing trouble among liberals, as they see no prospect of homophobia being reduced in Anglicanism. Some will leave, some will hang on, hoping to effect a change.
It seems ironic that the general population has become less homophobic, the national church, more.
I can see the Scottish piskies being next to go.
-
I didn't tell you how to deal with him. Stop making shite up.
I can't see that you've done it with the other poster
This suggests that I am getting your dander up for having a go at Hope and not at Johnny - telling me I ought to treat them the same.
And Hope seems to be quite good at defending himself without your aid.
-
This suggests that I am getting your dander up for having a go at Hope and not at Johnny - telling me I ought to treat them the same.
And Hope seems to be quite good at defending himself without your aid.
No, I simply stated that to point out that there was no reason for Hope to know. If anything is getting my dander (and it is a huge throbbing dander when it gets going), it's your hypocrisy in the way you treated Rhiannon as opposed to Hope.
Again if Rhiannon didn't know you were antsy about Matt, how was Hope meant to know?
-
The other astonishing thing about Anglican attitudes to gays, is that African church leaders who have supported criminalization and imprisonment of gays, have not been censored, as far as I can see. There is usually some feeble statement about treating everybody with love, but presumably that includes prison. Hypocrisy, and then some.
-
No, I simply stated that to point out that there was no reason for Hope to know. If anything is getting my dander (and it is a huge throbbing dander when it gets going), it's your hypocrisy in the way you treated Rhiannon as opposed to Hope.
Again if Rhiannon didn't know you were antsy about Matt, how was Hope meant to know?
I have listed the histoty of my "handles" more than once!
Give it up! This is going precisely nowhere and why would Hope need you to defend him anyway - why is he not saying this himself, that's what is getting me riled!
-
It isn't really a logical reply that, Floo.
After all you never asked your parents to have you.
You say they tried to force you to do as they believed.
By your comment it makes your parents wrong to have given birth to you and allowing you your own choice and rebellion against their faith and them.
The basic truth is God created us, he created your parents and he created you.
He allowed you to choose. Why should it be different for Adam etc?
You need to think about these things.
4 assertions there Sassy what brought that on, were they all pent up ones you couldn't hang on to any longer without bursting?
ippy
-
I have listed the histoty of my "handles" more than once!
Give it up! This is going precisely nowhere and why would Hope need you to defend him anyway - why is he not saying this himself, that's what is getting me riled!
Agree we have taken it about as far as it can go. I'll just note if I see something I think is unfair on anyone on here, i'm inclined to gird the loins.
That said, I can be a full blown 24 carat shitebag myself sometimes.
-
IF YOU has ever studied the word of God then you know that God and the Law is just and the righteous nature of the law had to be fully met. His love is unconditional in that though men failed and failed again he still made a way back once and for all.
Had you understood Spirit and Truth then you would not be lacking as you clearly are in Christian truth.
You made a mistake the error was to walk away from God and turn your back. Because your put yourself before him.
Blimey Sass 7 there?
ippy
-
Righteous demands of the law... Unconditional because the righteous demands of the law had to be met and you and no one else could fulfill that other than by dying the death you deserved.
So Jesus Christ fulfilled the righteous demands of the law by being innocent and dying the death he had not earned and did not deserve. It is simple and yet you don't know it and claim to have been a Christian and one who studied...
Gods existence is not what makes a villain a villain....
Gods existence is neither lessened or increased by what an atheist believes.
"I would rather live my life as if there is a god
and die to find out their isn't, than live my life
as if there isn't and dies to find out there is"
A WISE man but what does it mean to live your life as if there is a God?
At the end of the line is where it counts...
Coming back down there Sass only three assertions this time.
ippy
-
Agree we have taken it about as far as it can go. I'll just note if I see something I think is unfair on anyone on here, i'm inclined to gird the loins.
That said, I can be a full blown 24 carat shitebag myself sometimes.
You want to see 24 carat diamond studded platinum inlaid ebony shitebag? See me when the Mother-in-law decides to give my daughter a bollocking on behalf of my ex!
-
Indeed. Scheming and plotting to have your son brutally killed is pretty dire!
Who schemed and plotted to have their son brutally killed, Khatru?
-
Spot on!
As a minimum, the love of the Bible god is subject to submission and conformity.
Whereas in reality, the love of the Bible god is all about self-sacrifice, grace, mercy and regular forgiveness. Yes, there is discipline - and of course discipline is always all about 'submission and conformity' - ask any parent. ;)
-
Who schemed and plotted to have their son brutally killed, Khatru?
Your God! Who sent him to earth to die by crucifiction.
-
So it's like this:
"Humanity! Thou has deeply offended me. Here, taketh my only son and kill him horribly so that I mayest forgive you."
Except, of course, that isn't what "it's like". To use yor rather naff format, it's 'Jews, you have greatly disappointed me by failing to do the job I chose you to do - to witness to me to those you live amongst. You have regularly offered blood sacrifice to indicate your repentance of that failure, only to continue in it. I am going to change the process I set in motion x00 years ago, by allowing you to use me as a final blood sacrifice that will make blood sacrifice obsolete once and for all - and open relationship with me to the very people you have chosen to ignore.'
-
It seems ironic that the general population has become less homophobic, the national church, more.
Interestingly, when I speak with examples of the 'general population' about this issue, they often come up with points that they believe to be categorical scientific evidence - such as 'science tells us that homosexuality is hereditary', 'science has shown that (it) is purely genetic', 'to be anti-gay rights necessarily indicates that one is homophobic', etc. When asked to define the word homophobic, the response is either (in my experience) "to be against homosexuality, even to regard homosexuality as 'wrong/a sin'" or 'to be afriad of homosexuals and homosexuality' which at least has the benefit of being closer to what a phobia is all about.
-
What about the "death to gays" schtick in the OT?
When a tribe depends on children being born for its survival, do you believe that gay (non-child producing) relationships should betreated the same way as child-producing ones?
-
Hope,
When a tribe depends on children being born for its survival, do you believe that gay (non-child producing) relationships should betreated the same way as child-producing ones?
That's a lot of stupid to cram into one sentence.
Do you want to see whether you can unpick it for yourself rather than rely on others to hold your hand through it?
-
Interestingly, when I speak with examples of the 'general population' about this issue, they often come up with points that they believe to be categorical scientific evidence - such as 'science tells us that homosexuality is hereditary', 'science has shown that (it) is purely genetic', 'to be anti-gay rights necessarily indicates that one is homophobic', etc.
If anecdotal evidence counts, as you seem to think it does, then absolutely nobody I've ever encountered has ever spoken in these terms. The bulk of the population aren't against homosexuality (a fatuous absurdity in itself - that's like being against blonde hair) or gay rights because they're generally fair-minded, tolerant, kindly people who respect difference and the right of people to pursue their happiness as they wish.
Or to say the same thing negatively, they're not narrow-minded, backward, discriminatory, almost inevitably Bible-thumping shitpies.
-
Hope,
That's a lot of stupid to cram into one sentence.
He can do better than that.
-
She did it nonetheless, and there was none of this 'you're insulting me' shite from you in that case.
As Hope has pointed out there are a couple of posters at least that get referred to by other names, Vlad more often than any of his names of the month, and while I have no great opinion of him......
The feeling is entirely mutual.
-
When a tribe depends on children being born for its survival, do you believe that gay (non-child producing) relationships should betreated the same way as child-producing ones?
Since that's not the case any more, the point is irrelevant.
-
Tyrant right enough.
Being a Christian means defending genocide and infanticide. It means you approve of the murder of homosexuals, as well as anyone else who wishes to exercise religious freedom.
Khatru, genocide has been carried out by people of faith and by atheists throughout history. Likewise, infanticide has been carried out by people of all such persuasions.
Acknowledging that such things occurred doesn't involve either condemnation or defence.
As for your last two comments, no Christian I know approves of murder, let alone the murder of people on the grounds of their sexual preference or behaviour. Historically, many non-conformists were in the fore-front of defending the right to hold different or no religious beliefs. Even the Anglican Church in England, though more of a political entity in its early days, became a place which supported freedom of religious thought - though I agree that some of its leaders seemed to want to go back to the 'bad ole days' of Catholic thought in this area.
-
Or to say the same thing negatively, they're not narrow-minded, backward, discriminatory, almost inevitably Bible-thumping shitpies.
And many are also non-religious, fair- and forward-thinking, non-discriminatory and broad-minded. I'm afraid that for every one of your description I know, I know one of my description.
-
Try as you may, you will not get them to see that their "God" is a despicable old tyrant.
S'funny Jeremy P is complaining that he is not in control.
-
Tyrant right enough.
Being a Christian means defending genocide and infanticide. It means you approve of the murder of homosexuals, as well as anyone else who wishes to exercise religious freedom.
Swivel eyed or what?
-
And many are also non-religious, fair- and forward-thinking, non-discriminatory and broad-minded.
Not if they're against homosexuality and full gay equality, they're not, as that would be a contradiction in terms.
-
I know several people like that - they really struggle trying explain to people why the church is what it is, locked into antiquity and apparently incapable of getting out of it!
Owl, I know several people who really struggle to try to explain how encouraging people to dump their elderly parents in residential homes, encouraging people to spend more money than they have, encouraging people to think that body image is the only way to ensure happiness, (not to mention several other common attitudes) is in any way good for society and the human race. Furthermore, I can think of people who, whilst not being people of faith, applaud the church for speaking out against these same destructive attitudes.
-
Why did God need to lay down his life? You seem to be suggesting that God doesn't make the rules.
Again he did it for our sakes. We are in and of a cause and effect universe. Sin is the cause, dying in sin is the effect.....no doubt Hillside is on hand to bleat about consequentialism but that would be a dumb thing to do while arguing cause and effect.
That is why God has, as Jesus, to take on the sins of humanity.
-
Shakes,
He can do better than that.
"Better" meaning even stupider?
Blimey!
-
Shakes,
"Better" meaning even stupider?
Blimey!
Oh yes :o
-
Shakes,
Oh yes :o
I think I'd have to lie down for that...
-
When a tribe depends on children being born for its survival, do you believe that gay (non-child producing) relationships should betreated the same way as child-producing ones?
Yes.
What would you prefer? That the gay people be forced into heterosexual relationships they don't want, so the tribe can have more babies?
It's time you Christians realised that love and hate are not the same thing.
-
Again he did it for our sakes. We are in and of a cause and effect universe. Sin is the cause, dying in sin is the effect.....no doubt Hillside is on hand to bleat about consequentialism but that would be a dumb thing to do while arguing cause and effect.
That is why God has, as Jesus, to take on the sins of humanity.
Yes but why is there a rule that Jesus had to die? Is God not in charge of the rules?
-
Why is there a line in it where believers ask the supreme cosmic mega being not to lead them into temptation?
Is their god likely to do that?
You can ask anything of God. Whether he grants your wish or not is another matter. Jesus prayed "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as [b]You will."[/b] (Matthew 26:39)
-
When a tribe depends on children being born for its survival, do you believe that gay (non-child producing) relationships should betreated the same way as child-producing ones?
That completely misinterprets the whole of human evolutionary behaviour and society.
Human societies aren't set up to generate the most number of babies - rather humans have very few babies, in comparison to many other species - their societies are developed to provide the best opportunity that those babies survive through to adulthood, particularly during the early stages when they are extremely vulnerable and need both protection and later to learn from the rest of that society.
There is an evolutionary theory (which is rather convincing) that sexuality is determined in utero and is linked to earlier births (first born children being less likely to be gay). Given that gay people may not have children, but may support the upbringing of other children, this is entirely consistent with benefit to the overall human society and evolutionary drivers (the children of the earlier born being more likely to survive to adulthood).
But in an ethical sense the answer to the question 'do you believe that gay (non-child producing) relationships should be treated the same way as child-producing ones?' - absolutely, to think otherwise is abhorrent. Hope do you think that infertile people (non-child producing) should somehow not be treated the same in relationships as fertile couples?
-
Yes I'll go along with that.
However, are those Christians the exception as opposed to the rule?
What about the "death to gays" schtick in the OT? Do these liberal Christians condemn that mindset or do they defend it?
The OT was the covenant with the Jews not Christians.
It was for people in a different country at a different time. And no matter what you call this thread you cannot use it to poke at subjects that are nothing to do with the Lords Prayer.
There is no mind set to condemn or defend. That was that covenant. But today for Christians they cannot be homosexual in practice because the body is to be used for Gods Glory not mans lusts or to sin in any way.
Christ is for Christians and homosexuality is for homosexuals. Christians are not allowed to take part in any sexual behaviour considered sin. They cannot sleep with prostitutes and they have to remain in unity with God.
So not really anything to do with Christianity is it?
-
author=Sassy link=topic=11555.msg589626#msg589626 date=1455102250
Gods existence is not what makes a villain a villain....
Gods existence is neither lessened or increased by what an atheist believes.
Of course, you can substitute God with any one of the thousands of deities that are
out there. Do you believe or disbelieve in Shiva? Well, it matters not because
Shiva's existence is neither lessened nor increased by what you believe.
It is lessened in that there is no record of Shiva having done anything.
No Messiah who was foretold and healed. No Messiah who was killed and rose from the dead.
In fact Shiva has nothing to his achievements he has only the things accounted to him
in the beliefs held about him.
So Shiva existence is not even accountable it has nothing to lessen or increase.
"I would rather live my life as if there is a god
and die to find out their isn't, than live my life
as if there isn't and dies to find out there is"
Note the lowercase "god" as opposed to the proper noun.
The phrase you quoted above is more about choosing the correct god from many.
You'll get a fright if you wake up after you've died
and it's Baal sitting there waiting to judge you.
Note I was reflecting what someone wrote...
Baal, would be a difficult one how would nature be sitting in judgement?
Well how would animals and trees etc be sitting in judgement.
Animals and trees here now they have no power so where exactly in death would they get
their power from?
You do know that Baal is basically the worship of nature. The word means Lord and
covers a number of Gods. Heathen and one which most elements of pagan worship fall under.
Maybe you knew that trying to stir something up between Christian and pagan on the forum.
It was also a sun god.
So in the great scheme of things Baal is already here just of not use
when it comes to fulfilling the basic requirements of an Almighty God.
It is rather left deficit to requirements for the purpose of being God both now and
after death.
-
But in an ethical sense the answer to the question 'do you believe that gay (non-child producing) relationships should be treated the same way as child-producing ones?' - absolutely, to think otherwise is abhorrent. Hope do you think that infertile people (non-child producing) should somehow not be treated the same in relationships as fertile couples?
They have never been treated differently in terms of marriage, which torpedoed one of the most common 'arguments' from the anti-equal marriage brigade.
-
I know several people like that - they really struggle trying explain to people why the church is what it is, locked into antiquity and apparently incapable of getting out of it!
I suppose the truth is that the true Church is unchangeable.
Look at what the NT teaches... God is a Spirit and true worshippers must worship in Spirit and Truth.
The Church is not about a set of rules anymore.
2 Corinthians 3:4-6King James Version (KJV)
4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
The written law condemns the letter killeth but the Spirit gives life.
The Christian lives in Spirit and truth and the Lord perfects the work in the believer.
It is not an obeying of rules it is a way of life lead by God in the Spirit.
If you are lead by God in the Spirit you will not do anything contrary to that which is born out of love for God and others.
But you cannot deny either the fact Christ said, "My Kingdom is not of this world". It isn't it has nothing to do with the way people live in this world. It is men and women born of the Spirit lead by the Spirit and living according to that way.
Establishments are not and never have been the true Church of Christ.
The first churches lived according to Christ's teachings. Homosexuality and paganism etc are all born of the world and man.
But the true Church is born of Gods word and love for him and others. Something totally removed from the worlds ways.
-
I think the recent decision to suspend the US church (Episcopalians), is causing trouble among liberals, as they see no prospect of homophobia being reduced in Anglicanism. Some will leave, some will hang on, hoping to effect a change.
It seems ironic that the general population has become less homophobic, the national church, more.
That is the world not the true Church...
-
Who schemed and plotted to have their son brutally killed, Khatru?
The Bible god - albeit with himself.
-
Whereas in reality, the love of the Bible god is all about self-sacrifice, grace, mercy and regular forgiveness. Yes, there is discipline - and of course discipline is always all about 'submission and conformity' - ask any parent. ;)
You missed out the bit about how the love of the Bible god entails creating a torture pit, stocking it with demons, dropping conscious beings into fire, and keeping them conscious forever just to keep the suffering going to the benefit of nobody.
-
The OT was the covenant with the Jews not Christians.
It was for people in a different country at a different time. And no matter what you call this thread you cannot use it to poke at subjects that are nothing to do with the Lords Prayer.
There is no mind set to condemn or defend. That was that covenant. But today for Christians they cannot be homosexual in practice because the body is to be used for Gods Glory not mans lusts or to sin in any way.
Christ is for Christians and homosexuality is for homosexuals. Christians are not allowed to take part in any sexual behaviour considered sin. They cannot sleep with prostitutes and they have to remain in unity with God.
So not really anything to do with Christianity is it?
2
ippy
-
Of course, you can substitute God with any one of the thousands of deities that are
out there. Do you believe or disbelieve in Shiva? Well, it matters not because
Shiva's existence is neither lessened nor increased by what you believe.
It is lessened in that there is no record of Shiva having done anything.
No Messiah who was foretold and healed. No Messiah who was killed and rose from the dead.
In fact Shiva has nothing to his achievements he has only the things accounted to him
in the beliefs held about him.
So Shiva existence is not even accountable it has nothing to lessen or increase.
Note the lowercase "god" as opposed to the proper noun.
The phrase you quoted above is more about choosing the correct god from many.
You'll get a fright if you wake up after you've died
and it's Baal sitting there waiting to judge you.
Note I was reflecting what someone wrote...
Baal, would be a difficult one how would nature be sitting in judgement?
Well how would animals and trees etc be sitting in judgement.
Animals and trees here now they have no power so where exactly in death would they get
their power from?
You do know that Baal is basically the worship of nature. The word means Lord and
covers a number of Gods. Heathen and one which most elements of pagan worship fall under.
Maybe you knew that trying to stir something up between Christian and pagan on the forum.
It was also a sun god.
So in the great scheme of things Baal is already here just of not use
when it comes to fulfilling the basic requirements of an Almighty God.
It is rather left deficit to requirements for the purpose of being God both now and
after death.
Several, such a load of nonsense can't be bothered with this lot, none of them worth a toss.
ippy
-
Except, of course, that isn't what "it's like". To use yor rather naff format, it's 'Jews, you have greatly disappointed me by failing to do the job I chose you to do - to witness to me to those you live amongst. You have regularly offered blood sacrifice to indicate your repentance of that failure, only to continue in it. I am going to change the process I set in motion x00 years ago, by allowing you to use me as a final blood sacrifice that will make blood sacrifice obsolete once and for all - and open relationship with me to the very people you have chosen to ignore.'
Changing the process seems to be something the Bible god has done on previous occasions. Scripture tells us that all of the Bible god's works are perfect. Let's look at that....
In heaven God creates perfect angels and finds iniquity in Satan. Change of plan and God creates Hell and puts Satan in it. We're told that God is the creator of all things - this would include iniquity and rebellion.
How could they appear appear in Satan if God did not place them in him?
God creates a perfect man and woman who later rebel against their god's commands. Was that rebellion also created by God?
Anyway, none of that worked out so the Bible god decides to destroy the world with a genocidal flood. God then restarts with the pure good stock of Noah and his kin.
That's that then.
Well, no, not really because evil and sin re-emerge.
Nevermind, the Bible god moves on and fixes things once and for all by having his son brutally murdered.
That's that then.
No, not quite, as the Bible tells us how the great experiment of Christianity is going to be a massive failure and that humanity will be slaughtered at some undisclosed future point.
Amazing how many times a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent creator has to erase his work and start over, isn't it?
-
Post 203 204 from Sass fantasy world stuff again.
ippy
-
Khatru, genocide has been carried out by people of faith and by atheists throughout history. Likewise, infanticide has been carried out by people of all such persuasions.
Acknowledging that such things occurred doesn't involve either condemnation or defence.
As for your last two comments, no Christian I know approves of murder, let alone the murder of people on the grounds of their sexual preference or behaviour. Historically, many non-conformists were in the fore-front of defending the right to hold different or no religious beliefs. Even the Anglican Church in England, though more of a political entity in its early days, became a place which supported freedom of religious thought - though I agree that some of its leaders seemed to want to go back to the 'bad ole days' of Catholic thought in this area.
Whether it's carried out by believers or unbelievers, I disapprove of all genocide.
While murdering those who practice freedom of religion is precisely what the Bible god instructs his followers to do. Albeit, that was before their god underwent a personality transplant.
-
They have never been treated differently in terms of marriage, which torpedoed one of the most common 'arguments' from the anti-equal marriage brigade.
Yes they have. Some RC priests have refused to conduct services if there is no prospect of consummation.
-
You can ask anything of God. Whether he grants your wish or not is another matter. Jesus prayed "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as [b]You will."[/b] (Matthew 26:39)
Yes:
"Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" Acts 2:21 & Romans 10:13
"Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" Matthew 7:21
"Only those whom the Lord chooses will be save" Acts 2:39
As for wish granting:
Well, whatever god the 9/11 killers worshipped certainly granted their wish when they prayed for the success of their mission and to be ushered into paradise.
-
The OT was the covenant with the Jews not Christians.
It was for people in a different country at a different time. And no matter what you call this thread you cannot use it to poke at subjects that are nothing to do with the Lords Prayer.
There is no mind set to condemn or defend. That was that covenant. But today for Christians they cannot be homosexual in practice because the body is to be used for Gods Glory not mans lusts or to sin in any way.
Christ is for Christians and homosexuality is for homosexuals. Christians are not allowed to take part in any sexual behaviour considered sin. They cannot sleep with prostitutes and they have to remain in unity with God.
So not really anything to do with Christianity is it?
Well, the Bible does tell us that the earlier covenant was faulty.
"For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one."
Hebrews 8:7
-
HWB,
Yes they have. Some RC priests have refused to conduct services if there is no prospect of consummation.
But the comparison was to do with procreation, not consummation. Are there RC priests who would refuse to officiate if they knew the couple to be infertile?
-
HWB,
But the comparison was to do with procreation, not consummation. Are there RC priests who would refuse to officiate if they knew the couple to be infertile?
It's crazy to say that a married gay couple can't have children. They can't both be biological parents of any one child but they can have children.
It's just another smokescreen put up by the likes of Hope because he thinks it's icky.
-
Yes they have. Some RC priests have refused to conduct services if there is no prospect of consummation.
Consummation and infertility are two separate things.
ETA: Ah, I see bluey beat me to it.
-
jeremyp,
It's crazy to say that a married gay couple can't have children. They can't both be biological parents of any one child but they can have children.
It's just another smokescreen put up by the likes of Hope because he thinks it's icky.
Quite. Humph though was attempting a comparison with consummation, whereas the (hopeless) argument that some theists make concerns procreation (ie, the "the purpose of marriage is procreation/gay people don't procreate/therefore gay marriage is wrong" stupidity).
Hope on the other hand likes to rationalise his casual bigotry by reference to bad science and "holy" texts - neither of which butters any parsnips when you examine it.
-
Marriages of post-menopausal women (sometimes extremely elderly women; basically a marriage where's absolutely no chance whatever of having children) crop up in the news from time to time, generally reported in such a way as to invite a rather syrupy "Awwww, how sweeeeeeeeeeet" sort of reaction. Why aren't the procreation-only mob rending their raiment about these?
-
jeremyp,
Quite. Humph though was attempting a comparison with consummation, whereas the (hopeless) argument that some theists make concerns procreation (ie, the "the purpose of marriage is procreation/gay people don't procreate/therefore gay marriage is wrong" stupidity).
Hope on the other hand likes to rationalise his casual bigotry by reference to bad science and "holy" texts - neither of which butters any parsnips when you examine it.
But the very notion that marriage is somehow inextricably liked to procreation is something only seen in religious marriage. Civil marriage, and the key components of a marriage ceremony that are sufficient to ensure that a marriage is valid (whether held in a civil or religious ceremony) are completely silent on the issue of procreation. Having children (or a desire to) is nothing to do with civil marriage, nor relevant in marriage in a legal sense.
So it is a non-issue, albeit some religious types like to pretend it is.
-
Owl, I know several people who really struggle to try to explain how encouraging people to dump their elderly parents in residential homes, encouraging people to spend more money than they have, encouraging people to think that body image is the only way to ensure happiness, (not to mention several other common attitudes) is in any way good for society and the human race. Furthermore, I can think of people who, whilst not being people of faith, applaud the church for speaking out against these same destructive attitudes.
And this has what to do with Christianity in the past, as presneted by your god and in the bible?
-
Given that gay people may not have children, but may support the upbringing of other children, this is entirely consistent with benefit to the overall human society and evolutionary drivers (the children of the earlier born being more likely to survive to adulthood).
Prof,
Is this not rather similar to some species of animals in which the alpha male and his chosen alpha female are the only pair that mate and produce young, all other males hunt/forage and all other females become aunts/babysitters to the alpha couples progeny?
-
I suppose the truth is that the true Church is unchangeable.
In that case I suggest that its inability to evolve (there's irony) condemns it to eventual extinction
-
Of course, you can substitute God with any one of the thousands of deities that are
out there. Do you believe or disbelieve in Shiva? Well, it matters not because
Shiva's existence is neither lessened nor increased by what you believe.
It is lessened in that there is no record of Shiva having done anything.
No Messiah who was foretold and healed. No Messiah who was killed and rose from the dead.
In fact Shiva has nothing to his achievements he has only the things accounted to him
in the beliefs held about him.
So Shiva existence is not even accountable it has nothing to lessen or increase.
Note the lowercase "god" as opposed to the proper noun.
The phrase you quoted above is more about choosing the correct god from many.
You'll get a fright if you wake up after you've died
and it's Baal sitting there waiting to judge you.
Note I was reflecting what someone wrote...
Baal, would be a difficult one how would nature be sitting in judgement?
Well how would animals and trees etc be sitting in judgement.
Animals and trees here now they have no power so where exactly in death would they get
their power from?
You do know that Baal is basically the worship of nature. The word means Lord and
covers a number of Gods. Heathen and one which most elements of pagan worship fall under.
Maybe you knew that trying to stir something up between Christian and pagan on the forum.
It was also a sun god.
So in the great scheme of things Baal is already here just of not use
when it comes to fulfilling the basic requirements of an Almighty God.
It is rather left deficit to requirements for the purpose of being God both now and
after death.
There are plenty of records of Shiva's wonderous deeds and great accomplishments. Have you not read the Gita?
Baal is nature? Not a god?
First I've heard of that.
Makes the Bible god look silly if he was threatened by nature.
-
HWB,
But the comparison was to do with procreation, not consummation. Are there RC priests who would refuse to officiate if they knew the couple to be infertile?
Firing blanks is not consummation. A marriage can be annulled if one or other partner is sterile.
-
Firing blanks is not consummation. A marriage can be annulled if one or other partner is sterile.
What has that to do with the legal basis of marriage. Nothing whatsoever.
As far as I am aware the law recognises non consummation as not having sex as grounds for annulment - whether or not one person was sterile is completely irrelevant. You cannot legally get an annulment on the basis of non consummation, if you had sex after you were married regardless of the fertility/infertility state of either partner.
-
HWB,
Firing blanks is not consummation. A marriage can be annulled if one or other partner is sterile.
Good grief!
First, "consummation" just means having sex rather than conceiving.
Second, the argument that some priests would not officiate at a gay wedding because the couple would not have children collapses unless they'd refuse to officiate too when s straight couple would not have children for other reasons.
-
HWB,
Good grief!
First, "consummation" just means having sex rather than conceiving.
Second, the argument that some priests would not officiate at a gay wedding because the couple would not have children collapses unless they'd refuse to officiate too when s straight couple would not have children for other reasons.
That's Catholic dogma not the law! It is the law that decides on annulments and divorces not the Church - another clue to the fact that marriage is a legal contract and not a religious one!
Henry VIII put a stop to that particular nonsense!
-
The gov.uk page on annulment.
There's nothing in it about inability to have children.
https://www.gov.uk/how-to-annul-marriage/when-you-can-annul-a-marriage
It would be a bit bizarre if sterility was a valid reason for annulment because it would mean that any marriage involving a woman past the menopause at the time she got married could be annulled at any time.
-
The gov.uk page on annulment.
There's nothing in it about inability to have children.
https://www.gov.uk/how-to-annul-marriage/when-you-can-annul-a-marriage
It would be a bit bizarre if sterility was a valid reason for annulment because it would mean that any marriage involving a woman past the menopause at the time she got married could be annulled at any time.
Or a blazing row if the wife underwent sterilisation or hysterectomy or the husband a vasectomy for medical reasons rather than personal choice.
-
The gov.uk page on annulment.
There's nothing in it about inability to have children.
https://www.gov.uk/how-to-annul-marriage/when-you-can-annul-a-marriage
It would be a bit bizarre if sterility was a valid reason for annulment because it would mean that any marriage involving a woman past the menopause at the time she got married could be annulled at any time.
Indeed legally (and lets face it that is the only thing that actually matters) sterility is no ground for annulment.
-
That's Catholic dogma not the law! It is the law that decides on annulments and divorces not the Church - another clue to the fact that marriage is a legal contract and not a religious one!
Henry VIII put a stop to that particular nonsense!
You are quite correct that it is RC dogma! Blue was asking about RC rules, which is why I replied as above!
FTR in the Orthodox Church the consummation of the marriage is the crowning of the bride and groom.
-
You are quite correct that it is RC dogma! Blue was asking about RC rules, which is why I replied as above!
FTR in the Orthodox Church the consummation of the marriage is the crowning of the bride and groom.
Yeah - well - we've had/are having discussions on what the various Christian religions define certain words as meaning - usually it means to them nothing resembling the definition given in the OED (or any similar volume) except under the headings of "archaic" or "obsolete"!
-
You missed out the bit about how the love of the Bible god entails creating a torture pit, stocking it with demons, dropping conscious beings into fire, and keeping them conscious forever just to keep the suffering going to the benefit of nobody.
I suppose everyone in prison is innocent and that they are not there by choice when committing evil offences?
Those who go to hell go to hell by choice. You do realise the reality don't you. You realise you have a choice.
So stop moaning like a baby and sit up and realise there is a choice. God created hell for Satan, the Beast and Son of Perdition.
Anyone else does not have to be there.
-
Oh Sass get real! ::)
-
Yes:
"Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" Acts 2:21 & Romans 10:13
"Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" Matthew 7:21
"Only those whom the Lord chooses will be save" Acts 2:39
As for wish granting:
Well, whatever god the 9/11 killers worshipped certainly granted their wish when they prayed for the success of their mission and to be ushered into paradise.
Ha Ha there is many battles in a war and no one battle wins the war by itself.
How is the 9/11 different to the holocaust of 1939 -1945?
Can you imagine babies thrown in the air and caught on bayonets of guns. What evil did they commit?
Did you see anyone rush in to save them? Did the soldiers refuse to do it?
What I see as truth is everyone who gave their lives even those fighting and brought the plane down before it hit it's target who were Christians went to Paradise... The ones who caused it are in Hell.
They were lost before they carried out their mission but the believers were already saved before they died.
I guess your bragging soon got snuffed out. God isn't daft nor the people of this board. Come here to brag among the imbeciles have you. We are the children of God, we love our neighbour we don't kill them.
The victory is Gods and those who died will live and never suffer again.
What about you? The atheists and others on this board join in the condemning of such actions as the 1939-45 holocaust and the 9/11. The good unites whilst the evil divides...
Whatever men do good men will unite in the face of evil. It won't give it any other name... 9/11 was sheer cowardice. Might as well have shot them in the back...
-
Firing blanks is not consummation. A marriage can be annulled if one or other partner is sterile.
I never knew that. Seems a bit harsh to me, a kick in the teeth for the infertile person. You don't know until you try whether or not you are fertile.
Someone I know had her marriage annulled because it was not consummated. They tried all sorts of treatment (I dread to think what that was like), but it wasn't possible. A sister of a colleague of mine had her marriage annulled because her husband was unfaithful a couple of weeks after the marriage - I suppose it was obvious he didn't take his vows seriously.
I found this on the internet and it doesn't mention infertility:
https://www.gov.uk/how-to-annul-marriage/when-you-can-annul-a-marriage
and this, which says much the same:
http://findlaw.co.uk/law/family/divorce_and_dissolution/other_divorce_and_dissolution_topics/annulment.html
-
Ha Ha there is many battles in a war and no one battle wins the war by itself.
How is the 9/11 different to the holocaust of 1939 -1945?
Can you imagine babies thrown in the air and caught on bayonets of guns. What evil did they commit?
Did you see anyone rush in to save them? Did the soldiers refuse to do it?
What I see as truth is everyone who gave their lives even those fighting and brought the plane down before it hit it's target who were Christians went to Paradise... The ones who caused it are in Hell.
They were lost before they carried out their mission but the believers were already saved before they died.
I guess your bragging soon got snuffed out. God isn't daft nor the people of this board. Come here to brag among the imbeciles have you. We are the children of God, we love our neighbour we don't kill them.
The victory is Gods and those who died will live and never suffer again.
What about you? The atheists and others on this board join in the condemning of such actions as the 1939-45 holocaust and the 9/11. The good unites whilst the evil divides...
Whatever men do good men will unite in the face of evil. It won't give it any other name... 9/11 was sheer cowardice. Might as well have shot them in the back...
One difference between us is that you can disagree with me and I won't think that you're going to be tortured for all eternity for doing so.
Another difference is that I condemn all acts of genocide. Whether they were carried out by believers or non-believers. That includes babies being bayoneted. What about all the babies your invisible sky pixie has killed? Do you condemn him for killing them?
By the way, seeing as you mentioned the Holocaust...
You do realise it was a Christian nation that was responsible for it?
Hitler, the Christian German clergy and the overwhelmingly Christian German people collectively embodied the failure of Christianity as a moral system - again. Say what you want but there was nothing between all of those Jews and genocide except the ethics, the decency and compassion of a Christian nation, which, as it happened, turned out to be nothing at all.
-
One difference between us is that you can disagree with me and I won't think that you're going to be tortured for all eternity for doing so.
Another difference is that I condemn all acts of genocide. Whether they were carried out by believers or non-believers. That includes babies being bayoneted babies. What about all the babies your invisible sky pixie has killed? Do you condemn him for killing them?
By the way, seeing as you mentioned the Holocaust...
You do realise it was a Christian nation that was responsible for it?
Hitler, the Christian German clergy and the overwhelmingly Christian German people collectively embodied the failure of Christianity as a moral system - again. Say what you want but there was nothing between all of those Jews and genocide except the ethics, the decency and compassion of a Christian nation, which, as it happened, turned out to be nothing at all.
Utter bollocks. It was a Nazi nation or had that slipped your mind.
I fear you are so oppositional you might have contemplated for a brief moment arguing Nazi Germany wasn't Nazi.
-
Utter bollocks. It was a Nazi nation or had that slipped your mind.
The Nazis didn't seem to regard Nazism and Christianity as contradictory any more than the Crusaders and the Inqusitors saw wholesale torture and murder and Christianity as contradictory.
-
Utter bollocks. It was a Nazi nation or had that slipped your mind.
I fear you are so oppositional you might have contemplated for a brief moment arguing Nazi Germany wasn't Nazi.
.
So oppositional? Ha ha - speak for yourself. :)
Look at all the Christians supporting Donald Trump with his stance against the Muslims - that's how the Nazis got started.
The NT refers to Jews as dogs, snakes and a vipers brood who cannot escape being condemned to Hell. They're the people on whom God brought a "numbness of spirit" and gave them "blind eyes and deaf ears"
The NT tells us that they're hypocrites and deaf to the truth. No less a person than Jesus told Jews who rejected him that their father was the devil and they chose to carry out their father's desires.
It probably suited the early Christians to blame the Jews to avoid upsetting the Romans. It would make it much easier to continue practising this new religion if they kept Rome sweet.
Then came the early church fathers:
Tertullian told us that Israel is never clean - its hands forever stained with blood.
Origen stated that the blood of the Jews falls not just on the Jews of that time but of all Jews up to the end of the world.
Saint Ephraeum Syrus called the Jews "circumcised dogs"
Saint Gregory of Nyssa said the Jews were slayers of the Lord, murderers of prophets, enemies and haters of God.
John Chrysostom wrote "Eight Homilies Against the Jews" which tell us about the despicable nature of Judaism and of the Jewish people who were driven to the ultimate evil. Christians are warned not to come into contact with Jews, a people who within them, demons dwell and their mothers ate their own babies. Chrysostom tells us that the Jews cause is lost and they can expect no atonement.
I'm hardly scratching the surface here and much more anti-Jewish invective existed. With such writings and sermons, it's little wonder that a hatred of Jews became indelibly stamped on the mindset of Christianity.
Fuelled by the anti-Semitism of their leaders, Christians attacked and destroyed synagogues. The earliest recorded Christian pogrom of the Jews was in 414 CE in Alexandria where the Jewish community was pretty much eradicated.
With such a strong anti-Jewish mindset it wasn't long before repressive laws were created.
The Synod of Elvira forbade Jewish men from having sex with Christian women. It didn't ban Christian men from having sex with Jewish women. Jews couldn't marry Christians or even share a meal with them.
A few years later at the Council of Nicea, Christian clergy were forbidden to hold conversations with Jews.
Then along came the Codex Theodosianus which laid down a slew of anti-Jewish laws. These pretty much turned the Jews' status into that of an underclass and they were banned from the administrative, military and legal professions.
Further laws followed and the religious hatred of Christians toward Jews became state laws.
Hatred of the Jews was pretty trendy in the middle ages. Pope Innocent III used his influence by putting pressure on Christian rulers of other nations to remove Jews from public office. Innocent added a preambles of his own to the papal manuscript "Sicut Judeis" in which he says that the Jews are not to be wiped out completely. In other words it's ok to partially wipe them out. Right.
On an on went the attacks on Jewishness. Further laws were passed and ghettos were set up for the Jews to live in. Life as a Jew in Christendom must have been pretty hellish.
Quite simply, Christians believe that Jews murdered Jesus, It's no wonder that the Jews have been the subject of intolerance, hatred and murder since the early years of the Christian Church. This led to anti-Semitism becoming an integral part of Christian doctrine.
The Church passed various laws and enactments which stripped away any rights that the Jews had. Christians accused the Jews of the most vile and evil crimes, leading to the insane idea of the "blood libel" - something so evil and twisted it could only have come from the Christian Church.
Try looking up "Host Desecration" if you want a laugh at further Christian stupidity and ignorance. We all know the cannibalistic side to those Christians who genuinely believed that the crackers they would eat transformed into the body of Jesus. Such was the level of Christian insanity, they believed the Jews would want to torture these crackers in an attempt to hurt the body of Christ.
Both the Blood Libel and the Host Desecration led to the deaths of thousands of Jews.
Didn't the Catholic Church charge the entire Jewish people with deicide? I'm sure that would have fired up even greater levels of hatred in those Christian heads.
No wonder Hitler targeted the Jews. He was simply taking the hatred and murderous intolerance of the Christian Church to new levels of insanity.
-
.
So oppositional? Ha ha - speak for yourself. :)
Look at all the Christians supporting Donald Trump with his stance against the Muslims - that's how the Nazis got started.
The NT refers to Jews as dogs, snakes and a vipers brood who cannot escape being condemned to Hell. They're the people on whom God brought a "numbness of spirit" and gave them "blind eyes and deaf ears"
The NT tells us that they're hypocrites and deaf to the truth. No less a person than Jesus told Jews who rejected him that their father was the devil and they chose to carry out their father's desires.
It probably suited the early Christians to blame the Jews to avoid upsetting the Romans. It would make it much easier to continue practising this new religion if they kept Rome sweet.
Then came the early church fathers:
Tertullian told us that Israel is never clean - its hands forever stained with blood.
Origen stated that the blood of the Jews falls not just on the Jews of that time but of all Jews up to the end of the world.
Saint Ephraeum Syrus called the Jews "circumcised dogs"
Saint Gregory of Nyssa said the Jews were slayers of the Lord, murderers of prophets, enemies and haters of God.
John Chrysostom wrote "Eight Homilies Against the Jews" which tell us about the despicable nature of Judaism and of the Jewish people who were driven to the ultimate evil. Christians are warned not to come into contact with Jews, a people who within them, demons dwell and their mothers ate their own babies. Chrysostom tells us that the Jews cause is lost and they can expect no atonement.
I'm hardly scratching the surface here and much more anti-Jewish invective existed. With such writings and sermons, it's little wonder that a hatred of Jews became indelibly stamped on the mindset of Christianity.
Fuelled by the anti-Semitism of their leaders, Christians attacked and destroyed synagogues. The earliest recorded Christian pogrom of the Jews was in 414 CE in Alexandria where the Jewish community was pretty much eradicated.
With such a strong anti-Jewish mindset it wasn't long before repressive laws were created.
The Synod of Elvira forbade Jewish men from having sex with Christian women. It didn't ban Christian men from having sex with Jewish women. Jews couldn't marry Christians or even share a meal with them.
A few years later at the Council of Nicea, Christian clergy were forbidden to hold conversations with Jews.
Then along came the Codex Theodosianus which laid down a slew of anti-Jewish laws. These pretty much turned the Jews' status into that of an underclass and they were banned from the administrative, military and legal professions.
Further laws followed and the religious hatred of Christians toward Jews became state laws.
Hatred of the Jews was pretty trendy in the middle ages. Pope Innocent III used his influence by putting pressure on Christian rulers of other nations to remove Jews from public office. Innocent added a preambles of his own to the papal manuscript "Sicut Judeis" in which he says that the Jews are not to be wiped out completely. In other words it's ok to partially wipe them out. Right.
On an on went the attacks on Jewishness. Further laws were passed and ghettos were set up for the Jews to live in. Life as a Jew in Christendom must have been pretty hellish.
Quite simply, Christians believe that Jews murdered Jesus, It's no wonder that the Jews have been the subject of intolerance, hatred and murder since the early years of the Christian Church. This led to anti-Semitism becoming an integral part of Christian doctrine.
The Church passed various laws and enactments which stripped away any rights that the Jews had. Christians accused the Jews of the most vile and evil crimes, leading to the insane idea of the "blood libel" - something so evil and twisted it could only have come from the Christian Church.
Try looking up "Host Desecration" if you want a laugh at further Christian stupidity and ignorance. We all know the cannibalistic side to those Christians who genuinely believed that the crackers they would eat transformed into the body of Jesus. Such was the level of Christian insanity, they believed the Jews would want to torture these crackers in an attempt to hurt the body of Christ.
Both the Blood Libel and the Host Desecration led to the deaths of thousands of Jews.
Didn't the Catholic Church charge the entire Jewish people with deicide? I'm sure that would have fired up even greater levels of hatred in those Christian heads.
No wonder Hitler targeted the Jews. He was simply taking the hatred and murderous intolerance of the Christian Church to new levels of insanity.
The Nazis were Galtonian eugenicists and worked Nietszchian ideas of the Ubermensch salted with German Paganism.
Sorry to piss on your Bonfire.
-
The Nazis were Galtonian eugenicists and worked Nietszchian ideas of the Ubermensch salted with German Paganism.
Sorry to piss on your Bonfire.
Funny, I sometimes refer to Christianity as Judaism spiced with paganism.
Anyway, I'll take your failure to refute the rest of my post as your implicit agreement with what I said. 8)
-
Funny, I sometimes refer to Christianity as Judaism spiced with paganism.
Anyway, I'll take your failure to refute the rest of my post as your implicit agreement with what I said. 8)
I think folk Christians may have blamed the jews for the death of Jesus but most Christians would have acknowledged that Jesus died for their own sins. Given that blaming Jews does not actually make a lot of Christian sense......and never did.
-
I think folk Christians may have blamed the jews for the death of Jesus but most Christians would have acknowledged that Jesus died for their own sins. Given that blaming Jews does not actually make a lot of Christian sense......and never did.
Agreed - it seems to run against the grain of what being a Christian is supposed to be about.
-
Ridiculous to blame "The Jews" for the death of Christ, who was a Jew as were the vast majority of his followers. The Sanhedrin specifically get a bad press but it was the Romans who crucified Christ.
-
Hello Matty,
I know you have missed me badly today.
Anyways about the word temptation. Now hundreds of years ago when my KJV was translated, note the definitions of the word temptation. A monkey sitting on a rock can see that at the time my Bible was translated, one of the definitions for temptation was trial. So the fact is, at the time of my English translation, the English word shared the same definition as the Greek and Hebrew.
http://shakespeareswords.com/Glossary?let=t
-
I never knew that. Seems a bit harsh to me, a kick in the teeth for the infertile person. You don't know until you try whether or not you are fertile.
Someone I know had her marriage annulled because it was not consummated. They tried all sorts of treatment (I dread to think what that was like), but it wasn't possible. A sister of a colleague of mine had her marriage annulled because her husband was unfaithful a couple of weeks after the marriage - I suppose it was obvious he didn't take his vows seriously.
I found this on the internet and it doesn't mention infertility:
https://www.gov.uk/how-to-annul-marriage/when-you-can-annul-a-marriage
and this, which says much the same:
http://findlaw.co.uk/law/family/divorce_and_dissolution/other_divorce_and_dissolution_topics/annulment.html
Rest assured that you cannot have your marriage legally annulled in the UK on the grounds of infertility.
The RCC have their own annulment rules, but this is nothing to do with legal marriage whatsoever - it is their own ruse to get around problems of divorcees wanting to re-marry.
So just as a marriage can only be created according to the law of the land is can only be dissolved, through divorce, or annulled according to the law of the land, and infertility is not grounds for annulment.
So if someone fails to get a divorce (or legal annulment) yet the RCC decides to annul their marriage according to their rules, they remain married - the RCC annulment has no legal effect whatsoever.
-
Rest assured that you cannot have your marriage legally annulled in the UK on the grounds of infertility.
The RCC have their own annulment rules, but this is nothing to do with legal marriage whatsoever - it is their own ruse to get around problems of divorcees wanting to re-marry.
So just as a marriage can only be created according to the law of the land is can only be dissolved, through divorce, or annulled according to the law of the land, and infertility is not grounds for annulment.
So if someone fails to get a divorce (or legal annulment) yet the RCC decides to annul their marriage according to their rules, they remain married - the RCC annulment has no legal effect whatsoever.
Let's hear it for the overarching law of the land!
Huzzah!
-
Rest assured that you cannot have your marriage legally annulled in the UK on the grounds of infertility.
The RCC have their own annulment rules, but this is nothing to do with legal marriage whatsoever - it is their own ruse to get around problems of divorcees wanting to re-marry.
So just as a marriage can only be created according to the law of the land is can only be dissolved, through divorce, or annulled according to the law of the land, and infertility is not grounds for annulment.
So if someone fails to get a divorce (or legal annulment) yet the RCC decides to annul their marriage according to their rules, they remain married - the RCC annulment has no legal effect whatsoever.
The reverse is also true. Obtaining a legal divorce does not mean that the RCC will recognise the divorce, any remarriage or thè legitimacy of any children from that marriage. This can cause problems if a priest or even other parishioners decide to make a thing out of somebody's private business. Refusing divorcees communion is the most common one I've heard of.
-
The reverse is also true. Obtaining a legal divorce does not mean that the RCC will recognise the divorce, any remarriage or thè legitimacy of any children from that marriage. This can cause problems if a priest or even other parishioners decide to make a thing out of somebody's private business. Refusing divorcees communion is the most common one I've heard of.
That's true but their view has no basis in law.
But I'm not sure that the RCC is failing to accept that the person is divorced, rather they believe that if you are a divorcee you cannot participate fully in the churches activities. Hence the 'fudge' to try to claim that there actually wasn't a marriage, through annulment, so that the person was never married rather than married and then divorced.
But again this has no standing in law - in the eyes of the law someone who was married and then divorced is just that, an ex married person, regardless of whether the RCC decides to declare that married annulled.
Likewise if the RCC declares a marriage annulled, without legal divorce or annulment, and that person tries to get married again they will be committing an offence because as far as the law is concerned they are still married.
A marriage can only be granted according to the law of the land and a marriage can only be ended (divorce) or declared invalid (annulled) according to the law of the land. The RCC can play at being law makers all they like, but they aren't.
-
That's true but their view has no basis in law.
But I'm not sure that the RCC is failing to accept that the person is divorced, rather they believe that if you are a divorcee you cannot participate fully in the churches activities. Hence the 'fudge' to try to claim that there actually wasn't a marriage, through annulment, so that the person was never married rather than married and then divorced.
But again this has no standing in law - in the eyes of the law someone who was married and then divorced is just that, an ex married person, regardless of whether the RCC decides to declare that married annulled.
Likewise if the RCC declares a marriage annulled, without legal divorce or annulment, and that person tries to get married again they will be committing an offence because as far as the law is concerned they are still married.
A marriage can only be granted according to the law of the land and a marriage can only be ended (divorce) or declared invalid (annulled) according to the law of the land. The RCC can play at being law makers all they like, but they aren't.
But they set their rules for members of their club. They are not forced in law to give communion to those whom they consider have broken their rules. It ain't a "fudge" it's their club & their rules.
-
But they set their rules for members of their club. They are not forced in law to give communion to those whom they consider have broken their rules. It ain't a "fudge" it's their club & their rules.
It is a fudge, because basically it allows them to 'pretend' that someone who is clearly married under the law and then divorced was somehow never married when they clearly were. They are playing games with reality.
If they want to have sill rules that discriminate against divorcees, then fine, but at least have the guts to uphold then, not to have an opt out, a pretend annulment, that has no bearing in law, nor reality. It is simply a trick to get round their own rules. If you have rules, either enforce them or change them, don't create contrived ways to get around them.
It reminds me of the Jewish eruv.
-
Not all RCs get an annulment. It may seem daft to us but to a practicing RC it can mean geing excluded from the life of the church.
-
Not all RCs get an annulment. It may seem daft to us but to a practicing RC it can mean geing excluded from the life of the church.
I know that not all RCs get an annulment.
That isn't my point - my point is that the RC is perfectly happy to align itself with the legal requirements for the creation of marriage, indeed it is one of the few organisations allowed to conduct legally binding marriages. Yet when it no longer suits them (i.e. when marriages break down as they sometimes do) it fails to accept the law of the land in terms of marriage dissolution.
And there is a dishonesty at heart here - if a legal divorce is accepted by the RC as a trigger for sanction from the full membership of the church, then only a legal annulment can rectify this. So the church should either hold to its rules on divorce and accept loads of very unhappy catholic divorcees - that would be honest. Or it can accept that its rules are too draconian and allow divorcees to be welcomed more - that would also be honest. To create its own rules to try to pretend that a divorcee isn't a divorcee to prevent the church from treating them badly is dishonest in my opinion.
You cannot accept (with open arms) the legal definition of marriage at its creation and then reject the same legal approach to dissolution or annulment of marriage.
-
The reverse is also true. Obtaining a legal divorce does not mean that the RCC will recognise the divorce, any remarriage or thè legitimacy of any children from that marriage. This can cause problems if a priest or even other parishioners decide to make a thing out of somebody's private business. Refusing divorcees communion is the most common one I've heard of.
All very well but there's nothing to stop people from going to another Catholic church with a more liberal outlook and there are plenty that are not ultra-traditonal. I've known loads of divorcees who receive the Sacraments; on another forum a poster once said to me, ''Ah but what you don't know is that their marriage was annulled''. Not true! Of course some marriages are annulled, both legally and by the Church, but that was not the case with these people, nor most people. it takes flipping ages to get an annulment from the Church - years.
-
I suppose everyone in prison is innocent and that they are not there by choice when committing evil offences?
Those who go to hell go to hell by choice. You do realise the reality don't you. You realise you have a choice.
So stop moaning like a baby and sit up and realise there is a choice. God created hell for Satan, the Beast and Son of Perdition.
Anyone else does not have to be there.
2 Assertions.
ippy
-
One difference between us is that you can disagree with me and I won't think that you're going to be tortured for all eternity for doing so.
I have no such thought about hell and being tortured for eternity. Your words, your concept not mine.
Sad you are so misguided by your own particular brand of bull sh*t. Christians do not judge who will go up or who will go down.
Read your bible.
Another difference is that I condemn all acts of genocide. Whether they were carried out by believers or non-believers. That includes babies being bayoneted. What about all the babies your invisible sky pixie has killed? Do you condemn him for killing them?
Babies whom God killed. Interesting theory show me in the bible where God himself actually killed a baby.
Better still show me where the innocent have not gone to heaven.
You miss the point... You don't believe in God so you cannot blame or accuse him. It is illogical to blame something you do not believe exists. But you and men like you can be condemned for killing innocent people.
By the way, seeing as you mentioned the Holocaust...
You do realise it was a Christian nation that was responsible for it?
No! there was nothing about God or Christ involved in the Holocaust.
The commandments say Love God and love your neighbour as yourself. Christianity has no part and does not teach
those things...
So Christian nation did not have anything to do with it. Hitler was a Roman Catholic... did you see the Pope tell him to stop?
Nah! simply another Nero and the burning of Rome. Both Godless heathen who committed those crimes.
Men in the world both atheist and Christian sat back and thought of self preservation.
Our Christian nation rescued them, Britain is a Christian nation and America. I guess in the end mans own evil is responsible.
Logically, you only have to take in all the facts. That holocaust should have been stopped in it's tracks earlier.
Hitler, the Christian German clergy and the overwhelmingly Christian German people collectively embodied the failure of Christianity as a moral system - again. Say what you want but there was nothing between all of those Jews and genocide except the ethics, the decency and compassion of a Christian nation, which, as it happened, turned out to be nothing at all.
Though the Jews were put in concentration camps most of the world pretended not to notice.
Nothing Christian unless you can prove that ALL the nation including Hitler was born of the Spirit and truth. None were born of Spirit and Truth because it would not have happened if there were. As I said many times you and many like you do not understand Christianity and what it means to be a true worshipper.
Your ignorance is there for all the world to see. God was not the one responsible for the Holocaust men like yourself were who did not know God and Christ.
-
God was not the one responsible for the Holocaust men like yourself were who did not know God and Christ.
Of course "God" wasn't the cause of the holocaust ... since there is no such character. It was carried out by humans who believed, like you, that their interpretation of the Bible was correct.
-
The documents making up the Bible have been used as an excuse for evil deeds throughout the centuries! >:(
-
Babies whom God killed. Interesting theory show me in the bible where God himself actually killed a baby.
If you don't know scriptures where the Bible god kills or orders the killing of babies then you domn't know your Bible as well as you think you do.
The Bible god even approves of abortion
Numbers 5:11-31
No! there was nothing about God or Christ involved in the Holocaust.
The commandments say Love God and love your neighbour as yourself. Christianity has no part and does not teach
those things...
I thought you guys don't go by the OT.
The books that make up the OT belong to the Jews, not the Christians. Those OT *prophecies* (I use the term loosely) were made by the Jews. It's their religion, not yours.
Ask a Jew whether Christ fulfilled those prophecies and you'll get a quite different answer to the one you want to hear. Real Christians see the whole Jewish mythology as little more than a dress rehearsal for their own mythology.
So Christian nation did not have anything to do with it. Hitler was a Roman Catholic... did you see the Pope tell him to stop?
Catholics account for the vast majority of the world's Christians. The fact that the Pope was silent says it all.
Your ignorance is there for all the world to see. God was not the one responsible for the Holocaust men like yourself were who did not know God and Christ.
Do you actually read what I say? How can I hold someone responsible for something if I don't believe they exist?
I said the Holocaust took place in a Christian nation where the majority population where Christians. Where was all that Christian morality?
-
Being silenced In prisons and concentration camps.
-
Being silenced In prisons and concentration camps.
It's certainly true that many Christians were sent to and died in the camps. Famous ones like Kolbe and Bonhoffer - inspirational people.
But then it's also true that a sizeable number of Christians, especially though not exclusively Catholics, agreed with and supported Nazism especially because of its anti-Semitism. It was, amongst others, senior Catholics - bishops included; Alois Hudal for example - who established the ratlines that spirited Nazi war criminals and other fascists (including members of the almost impossibly brutal and sadistic Ustashe, perpetrators of some of the foulest atrocities of the war) out of Europe at the end of WWII, helping them to evade justice.
So by all means talk about the former, but don't omit the latter. That would be a partial (in both senses of the word) picture, and dishonest.