And boiling a kid in its mother's milk!
Also, Matthew 5:18.
The point DW is that unless Jesus specifically states that a previous tenet of the Law from the Old Testament is canceled then it is very much in effect. All of the myriad of laws from the OT don't suddenly become null and void simply because Jesus came along.Just to be clear here, are you saying that eating cheeseburgers is still a sin?
I was raised in a family of fundamentalist freaks and I'm not aware of any of them ever claiming that eating cheeseburgers was a sin.
Almost certainly? I think that the point is well made. If you're looking for an interpretation of what are "god's laws" you look to the book of laws. If you have a belief that says the savior came and made SOME stuff null and void, isn't it fair to assume the things he doesn't specifically nullify are still in effect?
But, thing is, it depends who you ask. Obviously the King James, or any other accepted version of the christian bible is notably lacking a good portion of the pre-existing hebrew texts.
|
God told man to be fruitful and multiply and, for that, he created a helper. Can you guess as to why the first helper to be fruitful and multiply had to be a woman?
It still says nothing against homosexuality.
The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
And, throughout all of creation, the only suitable companion for man was woman. Now, if YOU would like to tell God that Man is a perfectly suitable companion for Man, then be my guest :P.
|
|
Just because God didn't think of making another man first, does not mean woman is the only suitable companion.
Actually, a commonly held viewpoint (at least common in my area) is that when the bible speaks of Adam, it refers to the entirety of mankind (specifically male), which is an equally valid translation of the text we have access to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think he and I would get along. However I do have a thing for nice Jewish boys so I could see maybe mutually agreed upon fun time sex.
There's plenty of bad in the new testament as well. But yes, Jesus himself was a pretty cool dude. He and I could've been buds.
While I too like nice Jewish boys I don't think Jesus was gay. In every painting I've ever seen him in his robes look like they are off the rack and he is wearing last season's sandals.
Sorry, but you're demonstrating a basic misunderstanding of how religion works. You shouldn't look at the scripture, look at how it is practiced. Its all about interpretation - which is constantly being contested. How it has been interpreted can be revealed by looking at how it is practiced.
So you're saying nothing can be a sin as long as people who claim to be christians continue to do it?
I guess pretty soon murder won't be a sin.
I mean seriously, I don't know what you're even saying anymore.
When it comes to whether the bible (and therefore christianity) is against homosexuality it's okay to use scripture because that's where the doctrine of the religion is contained.
However, when ascertaining whether there is a scriptural foundation to the argument that "cheeseburgers are sinful", we're not allowed to read the actual bible but must go by the practices of self-identified christians?
Certainly you must see the hypocrisy here.
No. I'm saying that nothing can be a sin if it isn't interpreted to be a sin.
Sorry, but you're demonstrating a basic misunderstanding of how religion works. You shouldn't look at the scripture, look at how it is practiced. Its all about interpretation - which is constantly being contested. How it has been interpreted can be revealed by looking at how it is practiced.So you're saying nothing can be a sin as long as people who claim to be christians continue to do it?
I guess pretty soon murder won't be a sin.
Right.
...like bombing abortion clinics.Interpretation is left up to the individual or at best individual pastors except in the cases of monolithic religious organizations like the Catholic church.
When Pat Robertson, or whoever, says its okay to hate gays or okay to bomb abortion clinics, what is he doing other than interpreting scripture?
|
|
Do I really need to explain why 'throughout all of creation' the only suitable companion for man was woman? I mean, its one thing to say that the Bible says nothing against homosexuality (which it doesn't) and an entirely different thing to claim that two men, alone, can start the human race.
A couple of points:
1) I was a little confused about the double negative, but thought I should point out Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable." That having been said though, many believe that the sacrifice of Jesus frees us from the constraints of the Levitican law, so it's kind of a moot point either way.
2) I know how babies are made. My point is that, regardless of how babies are made, God states that it is not good for Man (in this interpretation, Mankind) to be without Woman, who was deemed the only suitable companion for him (with disregard for the reproductive process). There are no other qualifiers associated with the statement.
3) The possible existence of Lilith or possible hermaphroditic nature of Man in certain Jewish traditions does not undermine the validity of the above statement.
I would like to mention, at this point, that I definitely don't consider myself an expert on the Bible, nor do I wish to sound confrontational if I do.
No. I'm saying that nothing can be a sin if it isn't interpreted to be a sin.
Sorry, but you're demonstrating a basic misunderstanding of how religion works. You shouldn't look at the scripture, look at how it is practiced. Its all about interpretation - which is constantly being contested. How it has been interpreted can be revealed by looking at how it is practiced.So you're saying nothing can be a sin as long as people who claim to be christians continue to do it?
I guess pretty soon murder won't be a sin.
Right.
...like bombing abortion clinics.Which you may well interpret to be a sin, but those who do it don't.
If they are sincere in their Christianity, they will reach a point where they become men and realize all the horror they've caused. At that point, their actions will be their sin.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
So you disagree with me when I say that "soon, murder won't be sin." Then you turn around and agree with me that, since that's their interpretation, it isn't a sin. Fascinating.
The problem is that it's a doctrinal religion and they aren't theologians. They don't get to decide that bombing an abortion clinic doesn't count as murder any more than you get to decide that eating a cheeseburger isn't a sin. Unless you want to break with your church. It's happened before for dumber things.But hey, now that we've determined that sin is completely subjective, if not arbitrary, let's all have one WICKED party!
|
|
Macro-evolution occurs over ages. On a GEOLOGIC time scale. Prokaryotic to Eukaryotic cells. Examples: horses, marsupials, whales, rabbits, and manatees.
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. It's two different fields. Evolution doesn't try to explain how life came to be, it concerns itself with how life changes.
I understand that Macro-Evolution is supposed to occur within enormous time-frames. I've just never been shown conclusive evidence.
And I've always found it odd that Evolution and Abiogenesis would be considered separate. I mean, I understand that the chemistry and biology behind the two is fundamentally different, but it seems like they should be interconnected. I dunno, maybe I'm just crazy :P
If they are sincere in their Christianity, they will reach a point where they become men and realize all the horror they've caused. At that point, their actions will be their sin.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.
I understand that Macro-Evolution is supposed to occur within enormous time-frames. I've just never been shown conclusive evidence.
It's only inconclusive evidence if you arbitrarily decide to ignore the whole of the fossil record. Like, by saying, "but god MADE the earth with age" or some other pigswill.
I'm sure you've been TOLD that it's inconclusive, but there's pretty solid science behind it. I implore you to educate yourself on the matter.
|
|
It's only inconclusive evidence if you arbitrarily decide to ignore the whole of the fossil record. Like, by saying, "but god MADE the earth with age" or some other pigswill.
Or God created everything in a timeline fitting what we have access to. I've never seen someone make a "God made the earth with age" statement with a straight face XD.
Don't get me wrong, I'm doing what reading I can atm, but so much of what I'm finding is MIRED under a bunch of technical jargon I don't care about, so it's taking a while. Seems like a proof like this would be simpler to explain... XD
It is a complicated thing. The reason its complicated is because we can't view it directly. They're piecing a lot of things together, using 'unrelated' methods to lead to the same conclusion.
For example, they can extrapolate approximately when humans lost the majority of our body hair by studying different kinds of lice. Using DNA, we can see that head lice, pubic lice and gorilla lice are all related. Using the molecular clock, we can tell about approximately how long ago they diverged as a species. Pubic lice and head lice only survive on those two specific areas on our body that they're related to. The interesting thing, is that the molecular clock tells us that pubic lice and gorilla lice are more closely related to each other than head lice and pubic lice.
The theory is that as we lost our body hair, head lice adapted to survive just on our heads. Much later, after some contact with gorillas, we got another type of lice from them and it adapted to only live in our pubic areas.
The divergence between the 3 species gives us a window in which we as humans adapted to not have body hair.
|
|
Okay. I managed to finally find a few simple (yet thorough) explanations of Macro-evolution (especially in regards to plants) that I'm willing to at least take an "agnostic" approach to it. Further study may sway my opinion one way or another.
@Darkwing Duck: You keep mentioning that woman is needed to be fruitful and multiply, but the verses in question are unrelated. By that logic, the only reason the animals and other men were not suitable companions is because they couldn't have sex (well, and multiply >_>). The point isn't that man needs woman because he cannot procreate, but that woman is the penultimate companion for man (aside from God himself), and that it is not good for man to be without woman.
By stating that engaging in homosexual acts is acceptable, you are inherently disregarding the fundamental nature of the creation of Man and Woman, by claiming to have a superior insight into the nature of companionship to that of God.
Why would I have to break with my church to decide that eating a cheeseburger isn't a sin? I don't know of any denomination that considers it a sin.
You've never met a kosher jew?
I had a jewish friend with this precise problem. Well not cheeseburgers, but actually pizza with anything else on it but cheese.So...yeah.
There are lots of Christians who accept evolution (the whole she-bang of evolution). Religion isn't meant to be tangled up with science. Its about an entirely different sort of problem. Just like architecture solves entirely different sorts of problems then science (how to build complex systems whether they be computer systems, buildings, or cities) and history is concerned with entirely different sorts of problems then science (how to gain lessons learned from the past).
...except religion IS meant to be about the same problem. Understanding the universe. It's something (nearly) all established religions attempt to do.
You also say that religion solves problems, which I've yet to see...ever.
|
|
You also say that religion solves problems, which I've yet to see...ever.
What about the people who have life-changing spiritual experiences, are able to walk away from a life of emptiness? Or the countless people that are saved by the donations and dedicated work of religious peoples around the world?
That's not to say that only religious peoples/groups can do that kind of thing, but Religion can provide a network for people to work together and interact with each other in a way very few mediums can.
I'm neither kosher nor jewish, so I don't get your point.
Why would I have to break with my church to decide that eating a cheeseburger isn't a sin? I don't know of any denomination that considers it a sin.You've never met a kosher jew?
I had a jewish friend with this precise problem. Well not cheeseburgers, but actually pizza with anything else on it but cheese.
So...yeah.
OK, I'll spell it out for you in terms even you can understand.
Kosher means observing Jewish religious law in regards to food preparation. There are certain things that are forbidden for the Jewish people to eat. Christianity is based on Judaism, including its heritage and laws, i.e. the ten commandments.If the idea is that SOME of these laws were repealed, replaced, or obviated by the coming of Jesus, as is the doctrine in most Christianity, it is up to the doctrine of those churches to explain WHICH ones have been deleted.
This is god's LAW we're talking about. If he doesn't say that things have changed, they haven't. Thus, it is STIL a sin to eat shrimp.
You argue in circles.
I say it's a sin because it used to be and nothing changed.
You change the subject and say that it is only a sin if it is INTERPRETED as a sin. In other words if it continues to be doctrine. I mention a sect that continues to believe it IS a sin. Then you say it doesn't apply because YOU personally aren't a member of that sect.
Do you see how you continue to shift goalposts? I've shown that there is a sect that would, indeed, find eating a cheeseburger to be a sin.
If your point all along was that nothing can be a sin objectively because any two sects disagree on what constitutes a sin, I find that to be intuitively obvious. You would have been better served by saying nothing.
History is also about understanding the Universe. But, history is not science. Neither is religion.
You've yet to see religion solve problems largely because you refuse to see. You're like a little kid with his fingers plugging his ears and shouting at the top of his voice. I can't have a discussion with you about the problems religion solves as long as you act like that.
Step down off your high horse, take the fingers out of your ears, and lets have a discussion where we don't start from the premise that the other person is completely wrong.
No...history is about understanding history.
Not only is the rest of your post INCREDIBLY arrogant and patronizing, it's also wrong. You make all sorts of assumptions about me, contrary to what I've told you about myself.
Look, I get that you've "studied religion" and have found it to be all A-OK, that it cures the common cold, and that the rest of us morons don't understand it the way you do. But I've also studied religion, and lived in this world, and my experience is THE OPPOSITE. We've come to different conclusions with the same data because we're different people.
What YOU'RE saying here is that that's not okay. It's not okay for me to dislike religion, because if I do I MUST be ignorant. I'm not.
Please tell me what problems religion has SOLVED.
What about the people who have life-changing spiritual experiences, are able to walk away from a life of emptiness? Or the countless people that are saved by the donations and dedicated work of religious peoples around the world?
That's not to say that only religious peoples/groups can do that kind of thing, but Religion can provide a network for people to work together and interact with each other in a way very few mediums can.
Those are entirely subjective experiences and I'd be foolish to comment on them. They can't be entered into evidence since I can't experience them. For myself, though, I've never felt any emptiness or a need to seek out religion to fill it.
Despite all the good work that religious PEOPLE and religious ORGANIZATIONS (note: not religion as a concept) have done, I have to say a fair sight more evil has been done in its name. For all the charity work done with starving children in Africa (for example), religion was used as a justification for the colonialism that created those socio-economic challenges. That, or tribal wars fought between different ethnic/religious groups. Or the catholic church's policy regarding sex education and birth control which contributes to the spread of AIDS. Let's be generous and call it a wash.
@DD
You CANNOT continue to argue both sides.
Either religious doctrine is determined by the hierarchy of the religion OR it isn't. You can't have it both ways.
If you say that what is a sin is "determined by a person's understanding of his actions, that understanding is guided by the teachings of his church" then, absolutely, homosexuality is a sin...to some people.
You want to use scripture to say that, emphatically and empirically, Christianity doesn't call homosexuality a sin. Except that if some churches do, and at this point I'd call that an overwhelming majority of churches, then it's not an outlandish statement to say that in the eyes of most Christians, homosexuality is a sin.
???
You say there has been 2000 years of change. If Christianity operates on the principle that god created the universe, and that the bible is his means of communicating his will to humans, how is it anyone's business to reinterpret scripture?
Darkwing Meatrace:
I think the confusion here is that Meatrace considers the religion to be whats written down in their book (which has not explicitly changed the old dietary laws) and Darkwing considers the religion to be whatever the believers say it is (which has changed on shrimp, but is currently undergoing a schism re homosexuals)
Darkwing Meatrace:
I think the confusion here is that Meatrace considers the religion to be whats written down in their book (which has not explicitly changed the old dietary laws) and Darkwing considers the religion to be whatever the believers say it is (which has changed on shrimp, but is currently undergoing a schism re homosexuals)
Actually I am saying that religion is both of those things, as well as something in between. Also not all religions are doctrinal, but there's me being pedantic.
DD makes an argument based on doctrine, and then I attempt to rebut using doctrine. He then insults and switches to an argument based on current practices. Rinse, repeat.
My doctrinal law argument is one I had with my friend who has a masters in theology from a jesuit school, and he agrees with me (but still eats pork).
I think the problem with that is the assumption that everyone who thinks homosexuality is a sin is really just a homophobe. I've met many who are not homophobes, and yet hold this to be truth. It boggles me, but it's nonetheless the case for a good deal of Christians. There's a very casual bigotry in accepting a doctrine with these terms when their mind tells them otherwise.
I also think it's naive to think that Christians will "grow up" and see the error of their ways without taking into account the other socio-political factors in fundamentalist christianity's popularity today.
I do want to take this point though: "There is a BIG difference between saying that there is no one way to interpret scripture and saying that every way is equally valid." That's the way I feel about religion as a whole. Admitting that there are various ways to understand the universe doesn't mean they're equally right, or equally useful. (As an aside I"m much more concerned with it being right than useful). You seem to think, that religion is at least as useful as science. The evidence I've been presented leads me to strongly disagree.
Furthermore, I hope that humanity will "grow up" and discard parts of ALL religions that ARE toxic, that divide us, that lead to violence, that keep its adherents in the dark. But then, I also think that religion without those things won't look anything like it does today, which is precisely why there is so much fight to keep believing.
Everyone is afraid of change.