The God Delusion

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Hello matey, do you agree with everything in the Bible? Do you believe that the New Testament is the literal word of God?

The new Testament is written by men...mostly the Apostles. Most of it is more what I would call teachings of Jesus than burning bush straight from God messages.

What do you think of the Catholic Church's attitude of not advocating the use of Condoms in third world countries with Aids epidemics?

I believe the Catholic Church to be the single most corrupt entity that man has ever seen. My personal belief is that they did inded hide books written by the apostles and others....some of which have since been found.

One thing I have always asked myself is, why does God hold faith in him higher than all other values? (Including being a "good man")?

The biggest hypocrisy in religious groups today is that they attempt to legislate morality. God's decree to man is basically that if you have faith in him you will follow the commandments he laid out.....which would pretty much mean you were not a lying, killing, stealing shithead.

I would sort of assume that if there is a compassionate God he would take the moral elements of humanity as more important than simple faith.

You would really need to read and understand the bible to see where you are missing this. No way could someone express the entire Bible and its teachings on a message board.

But didn't God make man in like a day? Why do you believe that God made the world, but now accept that God did not make Adam in one day?

The second biggest issue I have with Christians is the literalness they take in "days" in scripture. How do we know that one revolution of the earth is what God used to measure time?

I have also seen and felt to many things that I believe were God's hand at work. They don't conform to rational explination and they weren't random neurons firing.

Mind sharing these with us? I've never ever experienced a miraculous incident myself :/

I have seen it first hand myself. When my mother was going through chemotherapy the second time, she had a brain anuerysm that ruptured. I don;t think you can even fathom how many people were praying for her. We hd to take her via air-care to an area hospital that is one of the best in the area for brain related issues.....where the anuerysm had completely disapeared within 24 hours. Some traces of blood remained behind as proof that it HAD existed. She was up and around again within a couple of weeks....and she lived long enough to introduce me to my wife. I have no doubts that God kept her here for that sole purpose.

I also believe that if we all truly followed the teachings of Jesus Christ that the world would be quite a wonderful place. While I'm not trying to judge I will say that most fail at that much of the time, including myself... however I try to do a little better each day.

Does that mean we should kill a disobedient child? Or villify homosexuals? How would that help the world be a wonderful place?

Again....you really need to actually read the bible. Jesus never villified anyone....and certainly would not advise killing a child. If you read it, you would know he washed the feet of people the equivilant of our homeless....visited the lepers.....was friends with the prostitutes. True Christianity does not villify anyone. Jesus preached to love the person even if the lifestyle they chose was sinfull.

[Marbus]

Jice, just like the stuff Nick is alluding to you are quoting from the Old Testament..

There are some teachings that carry over to the NT, such as the 10 Commandments, but the "Law" which you are quoting was done away with when Jesus was crucified and rose again.

I will agree with both of you guys and with Kilmoll that there are MANY people who want to pick and choose from the OT to support whatever moral issue they seem to be fighting or gung-ho about at the moment... or whatever the particular minister of their current church is yelling about latley.

I do not believe this is how we are suppose to interpret the Bible and why I believe God is calling me to join the Catholic Church.

Don't get me wrong and start quoting about how some of the Popes in the middle ages were scoundrels or just power hungry fools, they were, even the Chuch dosen't deny that.

However in regards to scriptual interpertation that, IMHO, makes the most logical sense, they seem to have it down. They also have systems in place to make sure that Priest Billy Bob can't change things for his Parish that the Chuch has held consistent for 1700 years... With all the freako fundies, that is very important to me as a Christian.

Do I disagree with their stance on somethings, yes. However I can see the logic of where they got it and why they believe that way... which is at least a starting point for future discussions and adaptations. The Church has adapeted a lot in the past 40 years, without contridicting itself I might add. The main problem I have with fundies is that you can never argue logically about anything, even scripture. I've been spending time latley on a Christian Discussion forum latley and it's amazing the number of Fundies that want to say Catholics are everything from Hell bound to Satanic... in almost every case, as soon as they start to loose the arguement, even when using their own justifications, they resort to the same type of childish name calling we see here from some of our more intellectually challenged posters...

From this board and from my life in general, it seems that these are the same people that have driven so many away from Christ and His True message by their ignorance and judgementalness. In saying that I hate that it seems I may be doing the same thing in regards to their statements... I pray that I am not, as I never intend to preach hate. And hate speech is exactly what some people have experience and why so many are turned off to even the mention of Christanity.

I too would encourge everyone, if for no other reasons than the Historical relavence in regards to Western Civilization, to read the first 4 books of the NT on your own. You might be surprised.

Marb

[Truant]

There are some teachings that carry over to the NT, such as the 10 Commandments, but the "Law" which you are quoting was done away with when Jesus was crucified and rose again.

Is there an official list of these things which do carry over somewhere, or is it just whatever is convenient for whoever is arguing at the time? I don't recall them anywhere in the bible during my time studying it. I could, of course, be wrong.

[Xatrei]

Of course many would argue that Christ was rather clear that the entirety of the Law of Moses is in no way affected by his coming. In Matthew he said that he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, and that until the end of all things not the smallest piece of the Law is diminished (my phrasing, choose your own translation of Yahweh's Fairy Tales). It can be argued (and many do argue) that elsewhere in the new testament, this position is reiterated by words and actions of Christ.

Of course I personally don't buy any of it, but lots of you do. Either it's all the "word of god" or it's not, I think. But the word of god means about as much to me as the inspired word of Odin, Baal, Jupiter, Athena, Osiris, Isis or the Bogeyman.

[Jice Virago]

So, essentially, the NT which is written by man is more accurate than the OT which is written by God?

Sake of argument:
Lets say you are correct in your interpretation of Gods divine plan. Wouldn't that make all of the sexist and homophobic shit in Lev (and many other parts of the OT that the crispies love to quote) tossed out as well? You cannot have it both ways without being hypocritial. Of course, all religeons are based on fear and hypocracy, so my statement is mostly preaching to the proverbial choir, as it were.

[kyoukan]

did jesus hate gay people?

[Sylvus]

No, the only mention of that was in the Old Te- HEY, WAIT A MINUTE!

[Sabek]

There are some teachings that carry over to the NT, such as the 10 Commandments, but the "Law" which you are quoting was done away with when Jesus was crucified and rose again.

Is there an official list of these things which do carry over somewhere, or is it just whatever is convenient for whoever is arguing at the time? I don't recall them anywhere in the bible during my time studying it. I could, of course, be wrong.

As far as I am aware the "Law" didn't carry over into the NT. Jesus meant, in saying he fulfilled the law, that he was going to die and be the final sacrifice. That once he was crucified there would be no need for the law.

You have to remember that the "Law" and the Ten Commandments are separate. The "Law" was all the things that the Israelites had to do to stay in good standing with God. It included the sacrifice of animals, what to eat etc. The sacrificing was what got you back into good standing with God after you had sinned. Perhaps someone who knows more of Judaism than I can correct me if I am wrong.

The Ten Commandments are a whole different thing, and Jesus didn't throw the Commandments out the window. In fact he ratcheted them up.

[vn_Tanc]

So, essentially, the NT which is written by man is more accurate than the OT which is written by God?

I'm sure God didn't put actual pen to actual paper for the OT so at some point man's interpretation is involved.

Everyone knows that each refinement of interpretation of God's word supercedes any previous ones. Which is why even most moderate muslims believe that the words of Mohammed (600AD?) are a more accurate view of God's will than the words of Jesus (0AD).

[Marbus]

Right, but in Islam in many ways is a re-establishment of the OT type "laws."

My reading of the Koran is that Jesus was a great prophet but love and people treating each other well weren't enough to keep us troublesome humans in line. Thus a new set of rules were needed to keep people on the straight and narrow in order to get to Heaven.

I don't think there is a "list" anywhere in the Bible. However it's pretty clear from the Four Gospels what Jesus thought was important. There are many discussions about the commandments, as previously stated the "Law" that was needed to get to Heaven is no longer valid. This issue is finally put to rest at the Council of Jeruselm a few years after the Resurrection when the Disciples, Lead by Peter, declared that Christians (Gentiles) do not have to be circumcised to be Christians. Thus nullifying one of Judiasm fundamental "laws."

Here are some notes from Mark, NIV (my favorite Gospel BTW)

MK 12:28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"

MK 12:29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: `Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. [30] Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' [31] The second is this: `Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

MK 12:32 "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. [33] To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."

MK 12:34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

Unlike Islam, Love is the overriding them... heh some of you may be wondering how many Christians understand this as well, that's probably a good point.

We could agrue that Protestantism's focus on the moment of being "saved" rather than a "saving" being a life long committment (like in Catholicsm, Orthodox, Coptic etc...) has lead to much of the zelatory here in the US. Of course one would only have to look at history to see that this happens frequently in regards to Religion, especially when Religious Leaders gain political power (think Papacy during the time of the Holy Roman Empire). Thus from History we can see that in many cases when we mix Politics with Religion (which I believe Jesus meant to be separate) the result is less than favorable, which is some of the issues the US is having to deal with currently and I believe hurting Christanity rather than helping it.

If we need more examples we can look at Islam and the Sunni and Shia power plays throughout the past 1400 years. Shia's believe that the leaders of Islam should have some type of apostolic sucession to Mohammad, hence his Grandson should have been the first Leader after his death. Sunni's on the other hand believe that the Church should have more of a political power base. Obviously these have become somewhat mixed over the years but it was only in the past 30 years (with the Iranian revolution) that Shia's have really had any political power. While Iran definitely has issues that it needs to work though, I think if we compare the leadership structure to a true Sunni Islamic state (think Taliban) there is definitely some progression in regards to political freedoms based upon the partial separation of Church and State. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they are separate, they are not. However the Iman isn't the President. At least that is my understanding, I'm still trying to learn more about Middle Eastern political and religious affairs so that I can better undestand what is really going on.

Marb

[Wulfran]

We could agrue that Protestantism's focus on the moment of being "saved" rather than a "saving" being a life long committment (like in Catholicsm, Orthodox, Coptic etc...) has lead to much of the zelatory here in the US.

Thats not really accurate either, Marb. Sects like the Baptists, Pentecostals or other "Born Again" churches don't represent all of Protestantism any more than they represent all of Christianity. Being raised by Lutheran parents and in a community where they shared facilities and at times even ministers with Anglicans (Episcopalians/Church of England) and the United Church, I can say that their outlook was very similar to Catholicism (my mother even related how during her confirmation studies, the Lutheran bishop teaching her class took them to a Catholic Mass to show how similar the sects were). Honestly, from what I have seen, I think the United Church is probably closest to the spirit of what Jesus taught in terms of accepting and tolerating others, than any other.

[cid]

I do not know what I am anymore; I lost my faith when my mom passed away 10 years ago. But, if something happened to one of my kids I bet you anything I would pray to God to help them. I hope that there is some sort of afterlife also.

[Dregor Thule]

I do not know what I am anymore; I lost my faith when my mom passed away 10 years ago. But, if something happened to one of my kids I bet you anything I would pray to God to help them. I hope that there is some sort of afterlife also.

Sounds to me like you haven't lost your faith after all.

[Marbus]

Wulfran, my bad, I should have said American Evangelicles. As a Presbyterian we, like most Methodist, Lutherns and Anglicans are very different from the "Fundamentalist." Thank you for correcting my mistake.

[Truant]

There are some teachings that carry over to the NT, such as the 10 Commandments, but the "Law" which you are quoting was done away with when Jesus was crucified and rose again.

Is there an official list of these things which do carry over somewhere, or is it just whatever is convenient for whoever is arguing at the time? I don't recall them anywhere in the bible during my time studying it. I could, of course, be wrong.

As far as I am aware the "Law" didn't carry over into the NT. Jesus meant, in saying he fulfilled the law, that he was going to die and be the final sacrifice. That once he was crucified there would be no need for the law.

You have to remember that the "Law" and the Ten Commandments are separate. The "Law" was all the things that the Israelites had to do to stay in good standing with God. It included the sacrifice of animals, what to eat etc. The sacrificing was what got you back into good standing with God after you had sinned. Perhaps someone who knows more of Judaism than I can correct me if I am wrong.

The Ten Commandments are a whole different thing, and Jesus didn't throw the Commandments out the window. In fact he ratcheted them up.

If that is the case. Then every christian who does any form of work/labor on sunday is sinning in the eyes of god/jesus. That would include (if we're literally taking the 10 commandments as the word of god) any sort of chores/housework, working in the yard, fixing a car, basically anything that isn't eating/sleeping/shitting on sunday.
And since there is no mention of homosexuality anywhere in the 10 commandments. Then it is perfectly okay to be gay in god/jesus's opinion.
It is also perfectly okay to use contraceptives, since the passages about spilling your seed outside of a woman were part of the old law which is now irrelevant.

[Marbus]

It depends on the work and the 10 commandments hold, unless Jesus overrode it. The not to work on Sunday is part of keeping the day Holy for God. I think it's best if you don't have to work on Sunday but if you have to do that in order to support your family then I think God would say taking care of your family, since that is part of your duity as a Christian is "OK" but you should still go to Chuch or attend Mass. Remember in Jesus' time people were, just like today taking things out of context or too far. Remember when Jesus told the old man to pick up his bed and it was the Sabbath (Saturday)? That was a HUGE issue because of their untra literal interpertation of the OT Laws.

I believe you can discount the Leviticus laws on Homosexuality, some of them aren't really even talking about Homosexuality but rather pedophelia which was common in Greece, the whole man / boy love stuff. However there are passages in Romans that condem Homosexuality (Romans is in the NT). Now some would argue that those passages are not talking about Homosexuality but rather the Homosexual practices in certian pagan rituals... Not sure myself. I belive we aren't suppose to go around condeming anyone...

Actually the "spilling your seed" story isn't about contraception it's about defilement. That it's better to spill your seed on the ground rather than the belly of a whore. Hence because you defile her as well.

That being said there is the OT story of Orenus (sp) who pulled out to keep from giving his brother an heir. The practice was that if your brother died w/o an heir, you were to take his wife and produce an offspring with her. Rather than doing this, whatever his name is pulled out to keep from following what God commanded and God struck him dead. Now some people would say it's because he disobeyed God, other (the Catholic Church) say it's because he pulled out and didn't allow the creation of life. Hence the ban on contraceptives.

Marb

[Truant]

It depends on the work and the 10 commandments hold, unless Jesus overrode it. The not to work on Sunday is part of keeping the day Holy for God. I think it's best if you don't have to work on Sunday but if you have to do that in order to support your family then I think God would say taking care of your family, since that is part of your duity as a Christian is "OK" but you should still go to Chuch or attend Mass. Remember in Jesus' time people were, just like today taking things out of context or too far. Remember when Jesus told the old man to pick up his bed and it was the Sabbath (Saturday)? That was a HUGE issue because of their untra literal interpertation of the OT Laws.

So the commandments are open to interpretation then? If a man is threatening your family, is it okay to kill him...since it's your christian duty to take care of your family? Is whether or not an action is a sin completely conditional?

I believe you can discount the Leviticus laws on Homosexuality, some of them aren't really even talking about Homosexuality but rather pedophelia which was common in Greece, the whole man / boy love stuff. However there are passages in Romans that condem Homosexuality (Romans is in the NT). Now some would argue that those passages are not talking about Homosexuality but rather the Homosexual practices in certian pagan rituals... Not sure myself. I belive we aren't suppose to go around condeming anyone...

We can discount more than the Leviticus laws on homosexuality, we can discount everything in Leviticus except for the commandments. Which begs the question, why is it even in the christian bible if it doesn't apply? If Jesus died to free the people of the old laws (except the commandments apparently), then why even include them?
Regarding romans. It is not part of the Jesus gospels. Does it apply? Is it considered to be written by man, or by God as the old Testament was. Furthermore, why is there text that isn't the teachings of Jesus in the bible for a religion based on the teachings of Jesus? Irregardless(!) I don't recall anything in Romans about homosexual practices (it's been a while since I studied the book thoroughly). So I'll concede to you about what it's actually about.

Actually the "spilling your seed" story isn't about contraception it's about defilement. That it's better to spill your seed on the ground rather than the belly of a whore. Hence because you defile her as well.

That being said there is the OT story of Orenus (sp) who pulled out to keep from giving his brother an heir. The practice was that if your brother died w/o an heir, you were to take his wife and produce an offspring with her. Rather than doing this, whatever his name is pulled out to keep from following what God commanded and God struck him dead. Now some people would say it's because he disobeyed God, other (the Catholic Church) say it's because he pulled out and didn't allow the creation of life. Hence the ban on contraceptives.

Marb

My apologies on the misunderstanding of the 'spilling your seed' bits. I remember that from some baptist retreat about chastity and abstinence I attended back when I was younger. I may have mislearned it. I remember there being something in the laws about being unclean if you masterbated and had to sacrifice two doves and sit in a tent for 5 days or some such, heh.
But that begs the question, why would the Catholic Church ban contraceptives based on someone disobeying old testament laws if Jesus freed them of old testament laws?

To be clear, I'm not directing this at you, or attacking in any way. This is just how I am. I ask a lot of questions, and incosistency in all things stands out and gets my attention (that includes myself).

[Xatrei]

Trying to figure out how Xians cherry pick which rules apply to them from their holy book is impossible, Tru. Best not to even try to understand it because there's no rhyme or reason behind it. No logic, just whatever happens to be desirable to them at the time.

[Sabek]

It depends on the work and the 10 commandments hold, unless Jesus overrode it. The not to work on Sunday is part of keeping the day Holy for God. I think it's best if you don't have to work on Sunday but if you have to do that in order to support your family then I think God would say taking care of your family, since that is part of your duity as a Christian is "OK" but you should still go to Chuch or attend Mass. Remember in Jesus' time people were, just like today taking things out of context or too far. Remember when Jesus told the old man to pick up his bed and it was the Sabbath (Saturday)? That was a HUGE issue because of their untra literal interpertation of the OT Laws.

So the commandments are open to interpretation then? If a man is threatening your family, is it okay to kill him...since it's your christian duty to take care of your family? Is whether or not an action is a sin completely conditional?

The actual translation is thou shall not murder. It isn't kill.

My apologies on the misunderstanding of the 'spilling your seed' bits. I remember that from some baptist retreat about chastity and abstinence I attended back when I was younger. I may have mislearned it. I remember there being something in the laws about being unclean if you masterbated and had to sacrifice two doves and sit in a tent for 5 days or some such, heh.
But that begs the question, why would the Catholic Church ban contraceptives based on someone disobeying old testament laws if Jesus freed them of old testament laws?

Every book I have read regarding Sex and Christianity states that the 'spilling of seed' thing is read wrong. They say that it was "camp law" that you wouldn't want someone spilling their seed on the ground in the camp, because it was considered unclean. Not that God forbid it. Supposedly the rule was that things that were unclean needed to be done outside the camp.

Edit..
Found this website that talks about some the masturbation arguments that I alluded to.
http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer ... /site/iiim

[Drinsic Darkwood]

It depends on the work and the 10 commandments hold, unless Jesus overrode it. The not to work on Sunday is part of keeping the day Holy for God. I think it's best if you don't have to work on Sunday but if you have to do that in order to support your family then I think God would say taking care of your family, since that is part of your duity as a Christian is "OK" but you should still go to Chuch or attend Mass. Remember in Jesus' time people were, just like today taking things out of context or too far. Remember when Jesus told the old man to pick up his bed and it was the Sabbath (Saturday)? That was a HUGE issue because of their untra literal interpertation of the OT Laws.

So the commandments are open to interpretation then? If a man is threatening your family, is it okay to kill him...since it's your christian duty to take care of your family? Is whether or not an action is a sin completely conditional?

The actual commandment forbids murder, not the act of killing. I think we can agree that killing in the defense of yourself or a loved one is not murder.

Edit: looks like Sabek beat me.

[Marbus]

Truant,

The commandment is actually Murder not kill. Think of all the people the Jews killed in the OT and all the laws regarding things which you killed people for back in the Laws, "kill" is just a mistranslation.

Most things are open to interpertation regarding their application when it's not frankly spelled out like "thy shall not commit adultry" or something. That is where the problems come in right? In the Catholic teachings that is what the Church is to do and is protected by the Holy Spirit in their interpertation. Everyone is to read and study the Bible but when people can't understand what the meaning, the Church wil intervene.

I agree, on your Leviticus statement - my bad on the wording. Yes I don't send my wife away during "that time" and make her live in a tent.

In my understanding, and I may be wrong, the OT is there from a Historical perspective regarding where we came from, for the messianic predictions and to assist in our understanding of the NT. The Bible, accoding to the Catholic and most Mainline Protestents is God's word. Some of it was a direct dictation like the Torah but the rest was written through men but with divine inspiration.

Romans isn't about homosexuality, it's about the Church in Rome and how to be a good Christian for those new believers there struggling against opression in a outlawed religion (in particular for their belief of "eating" their God at worship - something that only Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans still do). Most of the letters in the NT are to different Churchs or groups of people to help them further their faith and usually address specific issues that particular congregation is dealing with. Due to the practices in Rome at the time, that is why Homosexuality is mentioned in that book. However it's not a long diatriabe or anything.

Your last point about the contraceptives is my point as well To me it seems like they are reaching on that and the story could be interperted differently, plus it's in the OT. There is probably something in the NT as well, I just haven't found it yet.

The other thing, from a Catholic perspective, is that both the Bible AND the Church are how we learn about God. Since the Church was started before the Bible was compiled and we only had the Historic Oral Traditions along with tons of different writings. It was up to the Church to decide which of those not only should be in the Bible but also what the Church should teach. Since the NT gives the power of Apolistic succession to Christ Church on Earth with Peter as the head of the Church, then the Catholic Church, Peter's SEE (Rome) not only has the authority (the "Keys of the Kingdom" from Matthew I think) but also the duty and protection to document teachings (DOGMAs) that may not be in the writting word or Canon (Bible).

I'm still learning though... it's pretty interesting stuff though coming from a Protestant background. Where as we seemed, even in the Baptist Chruch growing up, to disregard some scripture and being not valid anymore or as contridicting another portion (even though they believed the KJV was THE only TRUE word of God) the Catholic Church dosen't do that, they actually put together logical arguments (which you can still disagree with of course if you aren't Catholic) to help everyone understand that each verse is needed and dosen't contradict other verses.

Example, all the people that seem to think 1000 years is EXACTLY 1000 365 day periods... if you take a completely literal view of the Bible that is what you get. However in most, almost all cases 1000 years or 1000 sheep or 1000 anything is "a lot" or "a LONG time." I was reading a critique of the Apocrphya the other day and why we shoudln't include it. One of the reason was the guy said it contridicted another book in the Bible because that book, which this person believes to be properly in the Cannon, said 70 years of captivity and the book, Judith I think, said like 49... hrm... not sure that really makes a difference, especially considering there are no numbers per se in Hebrew.

Here is another interesting note that I didn't know, in the writings of Martin Luther, he wanted to take James, Revelation, Hebrews and another book out of the NT because they don't really fit into the whole "faith alone" aspect of Protestantism... considering it is the material clause of the entire reformation he went so far as to add the word "alone" into his German translation of the NT to help make sure people got the picture... not sure that is really valid myself. Of course that addition is not in the newer translation or even the KJV for that matter...

I'm enjoying the studying though... and I don't take it personally, we are all just asking questions and giving opinions here.

Marb

[Truant]

Truant,

The commandment is actually Murder not kill. Think of all the people the Jews killed in the OT and all the laws regarding things which you killed people for back in the Laws, "kill" is just a mistranslation.

I sort of remember this. KJV says kill. NIV says murder. Although even in KJV it was always understood that killing in war did not apply in the way the words are used. That there were always holy wars, and that those were okay.
I had just understood that the modern translations (NIV,NLV,etc.) had changed it to murder, and said that the original phrase meant murder (but everything I read said otherwise). It's not really important, I don't have any argument. I just learned it as kill, and was taught it as kill. Now apparently it's murder, and it's okay to kill. (excluding of course the context of war...which has gotta really piss off those conscientious objectors, eh?)

Most things are open to interpertation regarding their application when it's not frankly spelled out like "thy shall not commit adultry" or something. That is where the problems come in right? In the Catholic teachings that is what the Church is to do and is protected by the Holy Spirit in their interpertation. Everyone is to read and study the Bible but when people can't understand what the meaning, the Church wil intervene.

When Jesus' teachings are as simple as, "Love thy God. (and) Love thy neighbor as thy would love oneself." Why leave in all the other stuff that isn't as clear and requires interpretation. All that does is confuse the issue and take attention away from Jesus' message. If christianity is to be based on the teachings of Jesus, why muddle the teachings of Jesus with all this other stuff (much of which isn't even applicable)?

In my understanding, and I may be wrong, the OT is there from a Historical perspective regarding where we came from, for the messianic predictions and to assist in our understanding of the NT. The Bible, accoding to the Catholic and most Mainline Protestents is God's word. Some of it was a direct dictation like the Torah but the rest was written through men but with divine inspiration.

I can understand the OT being studied and included for historical purposes. But if that's the case, leave it for scholars and theologians to study. If it's irrelevant, as per the actions of Jesus, then it's inclusion only serves to confuse and crowd the message of Jesus.
I can also understand it's inclusion in protestant bibles. Since the protestant reformation there have been movements of 'fire and brimstone' preachers leading revival movements. It's an important aspect of their method of saving people (even if I don't agree with it).
I can also understand it being included to put the "Fear of God" in people. That was especially important in earlier days, although I doubt it is much anymore.
It just seems incredibly ineffecient for a religion that was freed from the rituals of old judaism to carry around the holy book of old judaism. If they're included because they're considered to be the word of God, and we're just trying to be complete in that presentation. Then why are some of the books left out, and others included in the christian bible as opposed to the jewish bible? Do we now disagree on which books were the word of God and which weren't?

Romans isn't about homosexuality, it's about the Church in Rome and how to be a good Christian for those new believers there struggling against opression in a outlawed religion (in particular for their belief of "eating" their God at worship - something that only Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans still do). Most of the letters in the NT are to different Churchs or groups of people to help them further their faith and usually address specific issues that particular congregation is dealing with. Due to the practices in Rome at the time, that is why Homosexuality is mentioned in that book. However it's not a long diatriabe or anything.

I knew the book of Romans wasn't about homosexuality. I may not have been clear above, but I meant to say that I didn't at present recall the passage in Romans that mentioned homosexuality, and thus defer to you on your explanation of it. I do remember that the book of Romans was written by Paul after Jesus died. Subsequently I don't see how homosexuality (consensual) goes against the teachings of Jesus.

The other thing, from a Catholic perspective, is that both the Bible AND the Church are how we learn about God. Since the Church was started before the Bible was compiled and we only had the Historic Oral Traditions along with tons of different writings. It was up to the Church to decide which of those not only should be in the Bible but also what the Church should teach. Since the NT gives the power of Apolistic succession to Christ Church on Earth with Peter as the head of the Church, then the Catholic Church, Peter's SEE (Rome) not only has the authority (the "Keys of the Kingdom" from Matthew I think) but also the duty and protection to document teachings (DOGMAs) that may not be in the writting word or Canon (Bible).

Does that mean that the church gets to 'append' the word of God and the teachings of Jesus with whatever they feel is necessary and wasn't covered by God/Jesus? Cause if so that's pretty whack. Especially considering that Jesus' message at it's core is completely all-encompassing.

Here is another interesting note that I didn't know, in the writings of Martin Luther, he wanted to take James, Revelation, Hebrews and another book out of the NT because they don't really fit into the whole "faith alone" aspect of Protestantism... considering it is the material clause of the entire reformation he went so far as to add the word "alone" into his German translation of the NT to help make sure people got the picture... not sure that is really valid myself. Of course that addition is not in the newer translation or even the KJV for that matter...

Other protestant reformers/movements tried to add/cut books of the bible as well, but I don't believe any of them ever actually did. Also, that little addition to the translation happened in other forms to be sure. I know for a fact that KJV has little phrases appended here and there that really change the meaning quite a bit. And there's obviously a pretty massive gender bias in the KJV, heh.

I didn't quote other parts of your post that I only had random comments on (meaning:nothing relevant), but thank you for the responses.

edit. Conscientious is a dumber word than irregardless. You guys won't let me have irregardless but you allow conscientious? C'mon someone was just cheating at scrabble that day.

[Marbus]

My understanding is that the Church can't contradict Scripture but can only expand on it. Thus the expansion can't go against what is taught in the Bible and should be based upon historical traditions.

[Neroon]

I've always hated the term "atheism". The idea that a lack of belief in something is a belief system is rediculous. Atheist is not to atheism, as christian is to christianity. It's essentially just a way for religious people to group non-believers together, so they are easier to point fingers at.

This topic is right up there with the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate. Two irreconcilable viewpoints smashing heads together until one side gets tired of arguing and walks away.

[Winnow]

Sad Times for America.

The only caveat is that, besides the south, most people that say they believe in God and are religious really don't practice what they preach so it doesn't matter.

NEWSWEEK Poll: 90% Believe in God

The latest NEWSWEEK poll shows that 91 percent of American adults surveyed believe in God—and nearly half reject the theory of evolution.

WEB EXCLUSIVE

By Brian Braiker
Newsweek
Updated: 12:04 p.m. MT March 31, 2007

March 30, 2007 - A belief in God and an identification with an organized religion are widespread throughout the country, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. Nine in 10 (91 percent) of American adults say they believe in God and almost as many (87 percent) say they identify with a specific religion. Christians far outnumber members of any other faith in the country, with 82 percent of the poll’s respondents identifying themselves as such. Another 5 percent say they follow a non-Christian faith, such as Judaism or Islam. Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the scientific theory of evolution; one-third (34 percent) of college graduates say they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact. Seventy-three percent of Evangelical Protestants say they believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years; 39 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants and 41 percent of Catholics agree with that view.

Although one in ten (10 percent) of Americans identify themselves as having "no religion," only six percent said they don’t believe in a God at all. Just 3 percent of the public self-identifies as atheist, suggesting that the term may carry some stigma. Still, the poll suggests that the public’s tolerance of this small minority has increased in recent years. Nearly half (47 percent) of the respondents felt the country is more accepting of atheists today that it used to be and slightly more (49 percent) reported personally knowing an atheist. Those numbers are higher among respondents under 30 years old, 62 percent of whom report knowing an atheist (compared to just 43 percent of those 50 and older). Sixty-one percent of the under-30 cohort view society as more accepting of atheists (compared to 40 percent of the Americans 50 and older).

Still, it is unlikely that a political candidate would serve him or herself well by declaring their atheism. Six in ten (62 percent) registered voters say they would not vote for a candidate who is an atheist. Majorities of each major party — 78 percent of Repulicans and 60 percent of Democrats — rule out such an option. Just under half (45 percent) of registered independents would not vote for an atheist. Still more than a third (36 percent) of Americans think the influence of organized religion on American politics has increased in recent years. But the public is still split over whether religion has too much (32 percent) or too little (31 percent) influence on American politics. Democrats tend to fall in the "too much" camp (42 percent of them, as opposed to 29 percent who see too little influence) as Republicans take the opposite view (42 percent too little; 14 percent too much). In the poll, 68 percent of respondents said they believed someone could be moral and an atheist, compared to 26 percent who said it was not possible.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17879317/site/newsweek/

[Xatrei]

Those are truly depressing and, more importantly, frightening statistics.

[Adex_Xeda]

/wave

Hey guys,

I haven't checked in in a while. It's good to see you're still talking.

[Winnow]

Variation in divorce rates by religion:

Religion ----- % have been divorced

Jews ------ 30%
Born-again Christians ----- 27%
Other Christians ----- 24%
Atheists, Agnostics ----- 21%

Ron Barrier, Spokespersonn for American Atheists remarked on these findings with some rather caustic comments against organized religion. He said:

"These findings confirm what I have been saying these last five years. Since Atheist ethics are of a higher caliber than religious morals, it stands to reason that our families would be dedicated more to each other than to some invisible monitor in the sky. With Atheism, women and men are equally responsible for a healthy marriage. There is no room in Atheist ethics for the type of 'submissive' nonsense preached by Baptists and other Christian and/or Jewish groups. Atheists reject, and rightly so, the primitive patriarchal attitudes so prevalent in many religions with respect to marriage."

Better pray a little harder to make those relationships work!

[Zaelath]

Interesting reading of those statistics... personally I would expect less atheists get married in the first place, which makes it really unlikely they will divorce.

[vn_Tanc]

Interesting reading of those statistics... personally I would expect less atheists get married in the first place, which makes it really unlikely they will divorce.

Why would you think that? Pair bonding is an instinctive behaviour. Just because religions co-opted most of the services to their own ends doesn't change that.

Me and the missus don't have a religious bone in our bodies. We got married in a civil ceremony (perfectly legal but no religious trappings/songs/readings allowed by law) despite family pressure for a church-job that we refused because we had no interest in being hypocrits. And we are very happy thangyewverymush.

[Zaelath]

Interesting reading of those statistics... personally I would expect less atheists get married in the first place, which makes it really unlikely they will divorce.

Why would you think that? Pair bonding is an instinctive behaviour. Just because religions co-opted most of the services to their own ends doesn't change that.

Me and the missus don't have a religious bone in our bodies. We got married in a civil ceremony (perfectly legal but no religious trappings/songs/readings allowed by law) despite family pressure for a church-job that we refused because we had no interest in being hypocrits. And we are very happy thangyewverymush.

Because a lot of "bonded pairs" don't feel the need to marry, unless pushed in that direction by religious dogma.

[Nick]

I wonder if there's any actual evidence for that or if you're just talking out of your colonial buttocks on this one?

[Truant]

Interesting reading of those statistics... personally I would expect less atheists get married in the first place, which makes it really unlikely they will divorce.

Why would you think that? Pair bonding is an instinctive behaviour. Just because religions co-opted most of the services to their own ends doesn't change that.

Me and the missus don't have a religious bone in our bodies. We got married in a civil ceremony (perfectly legal but no religious trappings/songs/readings allowed by law) despite family pressure for a church-job that we refused because we had no interest in being hypocrits. And we are very happy thangyewverymush.

Because a lot of "bonded pairs" don't feel the need to marry, unless pushed in that direction by religious dogma.

Here in the states there are several financial advantages to being married (which is why gays are fighting for civil unions).

[Arborealus]

Pair bonding is an instinctive behaviour. Just because religions co-opted most of the services to their own ends doesn't change that.

The procreant urge is instinctive. Pair bonding, maybe less so in humans...

[Sylvus]

Pair bonding is an instinctive behaviour. Just because religions co-opted most of the services to their own ends doesn't change that.

The procreant urge is instinctive. Pair bonding, maybe less so in humans...

whatever, dude. u don't even no grammer.

[Zaelath]

I wonder if there's any actual evidence for that or if you're just talking out of your colonial buttocks on this one?

Ah no, but you see, that's exactly my point. The athiest guy has no proof that his assessment of the statistics is correct either; which is why statistics are so flawed as a scientific tool.

[Boogahz]

Here in the states there are several financial advantages to being married (which is why gays are fighting for civil unions).

um, there is a bit more to it than that, but if you stopped listening to people like Michael Savage only for entertainment reasons you might believe that to be the main reason.

[Xatrei]

For most people, I think it is more about the legal protections afforded to married couples with regards to property, end of life care, inheritance, child custody in the event of death or divorce, and a myriad of other things. Most of these can be achieved outside of marriage through legal documents, power of attorney, etc. but are much more vulnerable to legal challenges than when conveyed through a legal marriage. These are the most compelling reasons for extending marriage equality to same sex couples, in my opinion.

That's the reason that this atheist is married to his atheist wife

[Truant]

Here in the states there are several financial advantages to being married (which is why gays are fighting for civil unions).

um, there is a bit more to it than that, but if you stopped listening to people like Michael Savage only for entertainment reasons you might believe that to be the main reason.

Of course there's more to it than that. I didn't feel like writing a dissertation on the 'merits of marriage/civil unions and the justifications/reasons behind them' at 7 am when I posted that. Thus far in the thread, there were no arguments for people getting married for reasons other than religious ones. I was simply posting a very simplified example of that reasoning.

I have no idea who Michael Savage is. I don't really give a fuck either.

If you disagree with my examples, provide some better ones.

edit. made it nice.

[Boogahz]

Here in the states there are several financial advantages to being married (which is why gays are fighting for civil unions).

um, there is a bit more to it than that, but if you stopped listening to people like Michael Savage only for entertainment reasons you might believe that to be the main reason.

Of course there's more to it than that. I didn't feel like writing a dissertation on the 'merits of marriage/civil unions and the justifications/reasons behind them' at 7 am when I posted that. Thus far in the thread, there were no arguments for people getting married for reasons other than religious ones. I was simply posting a very simplified example of that reasoning.

I have no idea who Michael Savage is. I don't really give a fuck either.

If you disagree with my examples, provide some better ones.

edit. made it nice.

hehe, Michael Savage is a "radical" talk radio host. I only listen to his show occastionally just for a good laugh. I did think his death metal chant of "Left-wing, death-wing" was funny though. My reference to him was basically saying that if "you" stopped listening to someone like him (not that you listened to him before) just for laughs and started taking him seriously, comments like the one above would make "sense."

Here's "his" wiki!

I walked my mom down the aisle in her holy union ceremony a few years ago. She and her partner are not together for any financial reason, as that union does jack for them in Texas.

[Truant]

Yeah, in Texas it's a bit different because of our oddball property/marriage laws we inherited from our spanish ancestry. Even the custody/child support laws in this state sound like something out of a bizarro universe.

Of course people want to get married because they love each other, but that doesn't really do anything to the argument earlier of why would an aetheist/agnostic want to get married since marriage is largely a religious ceremony. Two atheists who love each other would be content to just love each other, instead of going through a religious ceremony they didn't believe in to prove it to someone they don't believe in. I was trying to establish that there were some legal reasons behind a non religious person wanting to get married. (same sex marriage had nothing to do with the discussion, I just cited it as a random example for my 7am reason)

[Xatrei]

Religion has no need to enter into a wedding ceremony. Ours was absolutely devoid of any religious nonsense (much to the chagrin of some of our relatives), and I've been to plenty of weddings without the slightest hint of religion (funerals too, for that matter). Marriage is more of a legal institution than a religious one as far as I'm concerned. After all, regardless of the religion (or lack thereof) involved in any given marriage, the one thing that is common to them all is the legal status given to the two people who are marrying. As I stated before, the legal benefits alone are worth it, all other reasons not withstanding. In our case, however, we're two people who felt that a public commitment to each other was something that we both wanted to do.

[Winnow]

Religion has no need to enter into a wedding ceremony. Ours was absolutely devoid of any religious nonsense (much to the chagrin of some of our relatives), and I've been to plenty of weddings without the slightest hint of religion (funerals too, for that matter). Marriage is more of a legal institution than a religious one as far as I'm concerned. After all, regardless of the religion (or lack thereof) involved in any given marriage, the one thing that is common to them all is the legal status given to the two people who are marrying. As I stated before, the legal benefits alone are worth it, all other reasons not withstanding. In our case, however, we're two people who felt that a public commitment to each other was something that we both wanted to do.

I've said something similar to that several times except I'd take it one more step and say that the government shouldn't even use the term "marriage". The government should only be involved in granting civil unions to any two (or more, hell, what's exactly wrong with polygamy?) consenting adults that wish to enter into one for legal purposes. There should be a totally separate set of laws governing children so the protection, benefits and breaks involved with dependents are separate from civil unions. Gay and lesbian couples that go through the adoption process should be granted all the dependent benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy which, again, should be separate from the civil union contracts protecting possessions and property between couples.

[vn_Tanc]

In our case, however, we're two people who felt that a public commitment to each other was something that we both wanted to do.

Bingo.

Do people here really think religious folk fall in love then say "Oh but we must demonstrate our commitment to God by getting married!!!". Of course they don't. "Forsaking all others" and all that.

[rhyae]

Bingo.

Do people here really think religious folk fall in love then say "Oh but we must demonstrate our commitment to God by getting married!!!". Of course they don't. "Forsaking all others" and all that.

You've never been to a southern baptist (bible methodist, church of christ, assembly of god etc) church then.

Lucky man.

[Jice Virago]

Marriage predates Christianity by a couple thousand years. So do homosexuals and secularism.

[Keverian FireCry]

And until that point EVERYONE went to hell, which is why it's so crucial that we all become Christians before hell is full and zombies inherit the earth.

[kyoukan]

I think I'm prepared for a zombie apocalypse, should one arrive. I have a shotgun and several dozen cans of food.

[kyoukan]

This thread is now about creating a checklist of things we'd need should the dead rise from their graves!

[Lynks]

Don't forget bottled water. Tap water could be the cause of turning people into zombies.