Here's a different religious perspective on the whole gays/gay marriage issue from an Episcopal Bishop, apparently a liberal one:
http://walkingwithintegrity.blogspot.com/2009/10/manifesto-from-our-friend- bishop-john.html?spref=fb
The Supreme Court has ruled that interracial marriage is legal in the United States. Furthermore, the judge did not have to become a judge. Upon taking the oath of office he swore to uphold and defend the laws and the Constitution of the United States. I am not aware of any religion that teachs that interracial...
I try to avoid postings to these types of threads as much as possible (by just reading/lurking), but sometimes it just surprises me how long it takes civilization to catch up (or fall backwards) with 'modernization'.
Not directing this response to anyone in particular, but I find it ironic that those who espouse and adhere to Mosaic laws (principles, etc.) and still have issues with interracial marriages should take a strong re-reading of Numbers 12 regarding Miriam and Aaron's issue over their brother Moses taking a (Ethiopian/Cushite/dark skinned) wife. When reviewing the text exegetically, one could state that Miriam's punishment was due to her questioning Moses' position in speaking on behalf of God. Another way to look at it -- given that she had succumbed to leprosy and her skin had turned 'snow white', the punishment doled could be viewed as 'an eye for an eye' by pointing out -- "hey, you have an issue with her dark skin? just wait and see what I do with yours and see how you feel about being excluded and persecuted for your skin".
[/steps out and goes back to reading]
|
The passage suggested:
Miriam and Aaron Oppose Moses
1 Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman. 2 And they said, "Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?" And the LORD heard it. 3 Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all people who were on the face of the earth. 4 And suddenly the LORD said to Moses and to Aaron and Miriam, "Come out, you three, to the tent of meeting." And the three of them came out. 5 And the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud and stood at the entrance of the tent and called Aaron and Miriam, and they both came forward. 6 And he said, "Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with his in a dream. 7 Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house. 8 With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?" 9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them, and he departed.
10 When the cloud removed from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, like snow. And Aaron turned toward Miriam, and behold, she was leprous. 11 And Aaron said to Moses, "Oh, my lord, do not punish us because we have done foolishly and have sinned. 12 Let her not be as one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes out of his mother’s womb." 13 And Moses cried to the LORD, "O God, please heal her—please." 14 But the LORD said to Moses, "If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be shamed seven days? Let her be shut outside the camp seven days, and after that she may be brought in again." 15 So Miriam was shut outside the camp seven days, and the people did not set out on the march till Miriam was brought in again. 16 After that the people set out from Hazeroth, and camped in the wilderness of Paran.
The passage suggested:
Miriam and Aaron Oppose Moses
I agree with the base suggestion of the passage. There was a disagreement between sibilings as to who spoke for God. Not exactly a surprise in a family where the older siblings may disagree with the youngest one on who held the right to speak for everyone else. In this case, the older two siblings had a dispute with interracial marriage. Some commentators focuses on the issue that the disagreement was that Moses' wife was not Hebrew. But there was an emphasis on the color of his wife's skin, so it seems to me that his interracial marriage was the greater issue between the siblings and who had the right to speak on behalf of God about how to address the matter.
The irony is the punishment that God exacted on Miriam to set an example as it had everything to do with the condition and color of her skin and her (temporary) expulsion. Any other punishment could have been exacted, but God chose leprosy and made her skin even more 'white'.
But that's just my exegetical interpretation of this passage. Just for the record; I don't make any claims to be religious nor do I have any agenda. I'm just making an observation. Thanks!
|
Interesting article, I will refrain from commenting on it however.
If anyone is going to ban the crucifix, it should be Christians, since it's idolatry. The cross (and the fish, and the dove, and occasionally the star (meant to evoke the star over Bethlehem) or the lamb) were 'secret signs' by which Christians could identify each other in unfriendly regions (such as Rome), not intended as things to be prayed to, which is blasphemy.
Put not your faith in graven icons, and all that jazz.
I need to nest more parenthesis in my next sentence...
|
|
I was just looking up Christmas on Wikipedia, and I thought this was rather pertinent.
Eh. 'Christmas' is just yet another pagan solstice holiday wrapped up in Mithraic ritual. Plus it's shamelessly commercialized, cheapening and sullying any possible spiritual value it once possessed.
Jesus was, based on the climate and astronomical clues in the Bible, 'guestimated' by some Bible scholars at the Vatican to have been most likely born in what would be late August or early September (they couldn't narrow it down to an exact date, and, in a heartening display of humiity, decided not to make stuff up).
Dec 25th was adopted around the time of Constantine, and I've seen dates from Jan 6th to Nov 18th to May 16th floated as possibilities in various bits of scholarly research. Even the year is in question, with a degree of variance of ~4 years.
If you believe, then there is nothing magical or occult about any one specific day on the calender. Every day is equally sacred, in my view.
Interesting article, I will refrain from commenting on it however.If anyone is going to ban the crucifix, it should be Christians, since it's idolatry. The cross (and the fish, and the dove, and occasionally the star (meant to evoke the star over Bethlehem) or the lamb) were 'secret signs' by which Christians could identify each other in unfriendly regions (such as Rome), not intended as things to be prayed to, which is blasphemy.
Put not your faith in graven icons, and all that jazz.
I need to nest more parenthesis in my next sentence...
Meh. Reminds me of my wife's comments about the stained glass windows and 'oppulence' of older Catholic churches. Historically, when populations were largely illiterate those pictures and images told stories. The vaulted ceilings made worshippers feel 'lifted up'. at least that's what my old art teacher said when we studied old church construction. Symbology is very important to some people.
|
|
Jesus was, based on the climate and astronomical clues in the Bible, 'guestimated' by some Bible scholars at the Vatican to have been most likely born in what would be late August or early September (they couldn't narrow it down to an exact date, and, in a heartening display of humiity, decided not to make stuff up).
Based on the historical context, the Augustine census, it would be roughly early to mid April, 3 B.C.E.
UK court rules climate change beliefs can be treated like religion
Thankfully, the headline is a bit misleading; they were covered under the broader umbrella of "religious or philosophical beliefs," and the latter adjective seems a bit more apt than the former in this case.
Then again, denial of the fact of climate change (by "fact" I mean the historical phenomenen, not necessarily any theoretical anthropogenic component), might indeed be exactly comparable to denial of the fact (rather than the theoretical mechanism) of evolution: in short, a religious view based on dismissal of physical evidence.
|
|
Thank you, Crimson Jester, for reminding me why I think the world is doomed.
:)
And:
** spoiler omitted **
Oh the world is not doomed. At least not yet. I think we just all need to get our heads out of our collective rearends. I've noticed and I think that this thread gives some credence to, the fact that most of us think we are right and to hell with what the other guys say. At least here we try to talk and maybe make some sort of sense of the matter. What is one mans Sin sometimes is anothers deeply held spiritual belief or unbelief as the case maybe.
Officially ends Nov. 29th but orders on the website can be done at anytime. In fact we can't do the door to door thing until Sat. But the website is seperate.
|
|
UK court rules climate change beliefs can be treated like religionThankfully, the headline is a bit misleading; they were covered under the broader umbrella of "religious or philosophical beliefs," and the latter adjective seems a bit more apt than the former in this case.
Then again, denial of the fact of climate change (by "fact" I mean the historical phenomenen, not necessarily any theoretical anthropogenic component), might indeed be exactly comparable to denial of the fact (rather than the theoretical mechanism) of evolution: in short, a religious view based on dismissal of physical evidence.
Did you notice how most headlines are a bit misleading. I had to read the subject of the story to understand that the guy may actually have a case for why he was upset and wrongfully fired. It sort of like the hot coffee and Mcdonalds trail awhile back. Sounds silly till you hear the details.
Eh. 'Christmas' is just yet another pagan solstice holiday wrapped up in Mithraic ritual. Plus it's shamelessly commercialized, cheapening and sullying any possible spiritual value it once possessed.
The spiritual character of Christmas was always little more than theoretical. It was a big, secular party for long centuries before it was commercialized. That's why the Puritans canceled it. The idea that it really ought to be something more and is somehow debased by people having fun is likewise as old as the revelry.
Still a big secular party as far as I can tell. And a good one at that. Christmas really sucks over here in China.
Still a big secular party as far as I can tell. And a good one at that. Christmas really sucks over here in China.
They don't have a seasonal winter festivity? That's a bummer ...
Heck, I ain't even Christian and I loves me some Christmas. Of course it ain't about the baby Jesus to me, it's all about the Yule.
|
|
Heck, I ain't even Christian and I loves me some Christmas. Of course it ain't about the baby Jesus to me, it's all about the Yule.
It's all about the eggnog and family gatherings for me. I'm long since over getting swag (since I buy anything I want, and end up getting the most insane collection of bric-a-brac as gifts that I then have to keep around for a couple of years before 'losing').
Then again, my mom has progressed from getting me the same card two years in a row to getting me the same *present* two years in a row. "I saw it and thought of you!" "Yeah. Again." :)
They don't have a seasonal winter festivity?
If you think that, hop up to Harbin (if it's not snowed in) and check out the ice sculpture festival...
They have "spring festival" in February--the Chinese New Year. Big, just like Christmas.
In defense of Christmas, last year my daughter was singing;
"dassing foo da fnow,
inna wahoss oppisyay,
o-da hiz we go,
yaffing aw da way..."
I used to be all jaded about it and whatnot, but she melted my cold cold heart.
Hope you got it on video. :)
Heck, I ain't even Christian and I loves me some Christmas. Of course it ain't about the baby Jesus to me, it's all about the Yule.It's all about the eggnog and family gatherings for me. I'm long since over getting swag (since I buy anything I want, and end up getting the most insane collection of bric-a-brac as gifts that I then have to keep around for a couple of years before 'losing').
Then again, my mom has progressed from getting me the same card two years in a row to getting me the same *present* two years in a row. "I saw it and thought of you!" "Yeah. Again." :)
But it was so you!
They have "spring festival" in February--the Chinese New Year. Big, just like Christmas.In Hong Kong, they get Christmas and Chinese New Year.
Man, they DO know how to party down there.
Slight problem, what if it was a forger who was not a Christian?
OK, let me make sure I understand this. We've got radiocarbon dates that show a Medieval age, and writing that appears to be done in the style of writing from the time of Christ. The argument that "the writing is a forgery of earlier writing" is dismissed out of hand because it is assumed that no Medieval person would ever write Christ's name -- even one who was engaged in blatantly forging a critical religious relic! -- without alluding to his divinity.
The problem is, if you've got the massive hubris required to actually forge Christ's shroud, then forgetting to put "Our Lord" in the fine print really isn't going to bother a whole hell of a lot, if you see what I mean.
<---does not see the significance of the shroud, be it real or forged. Seems like a shiny distraction from more important issues of theological debate.
Of course, "important issues of theological debate" by itself kind of makes me laugh....
does not see the significance of the shroud, be it real or forged.
If it's real: Then Jesus was a historical figure, but that doesn't in any way imply that he is a divine figure, or that he was raised from the dead or whatever. Inconclusive in terms of theology.
If it's forged: That still doesn't mean that there isn't a real one somewhere, or wasn't a real one that was subsequently lost. Also inconclusive.
So, yeah, I can't help but agree.
What about gish?
The githyanki lich-queen lives on the astral plane on the petrified body of a god. But what if it's just a rock, and was forged to look like a god's remains?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Ok, after a hundred pages, have we figured out anything yet?
There was a proof related god's existence on page 34 of the thread, which was complete and accurate. Every person who read it converted as a result. Unfortunately, it used the word gish and was deleted by Ross, so it's lost to mankind forever.
Ok, after a hundred pages, have we figured out anything yet?
Yes. I've found some Christians who are not nut cases, who do not shake tambourines, speak in tongues, handle rattlesnakes, throw rocks at gay people, or try to proselytize me. They're my friends now. Et ca c'est bien.
|
Ok, after a hundred pages, have we figured out anything yet?There was a proof related god's existence on page 34 of the thread, which was complete and accurate. Every person who read it converted as a result. Unfortunately, it used the word gish and was deleted by Ross, so it's lost to mankind forever.
hehehehehehe :)
Ok, after a hundred pages, have we figured out anything yet?
I have Buddhist leanings.
Ok, after a hundred pages, have we figured out anything yet?
Oh, and spotlight fallacy.
|
|
Ok, after a hundred pages, have we figured out anything yet?Yes. I've found some Christians who are not nut cases, who do not shake tambourines, speak in tongues, handle rattlesnakes, throw rocks at gay people, or try to proselytize me. They're my friends now. Et ca c'est bien.
What's wrong with handling rattlesnakes?
|
|
I just wanted to share this civil religious discussion. It's only about Catholicism, but many of the issues are much broader than that.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5Includes some honest exasperation, especially towards the end.
thank you for sharing. it just shows me that much more how hitchens wil spin things. Then again many do..