Christianity

[Adam Murray]

I don't accept his comparison in any way. One of the main reasons gay marriage wasn't acceptable 100 years ago is because religion does/can make people mental. Thankfully a lot of secular countries have wriggled free from this.

 

We don't need a book to tell us having sex with kids is wrong, it just is. This won't change in 100 years and to compare it to a change in attitudes towards gay marriage is outrageous, to be honest.

 

I have three young daughters of my own, so spare me the mock outrage. The age of consent varies in different countries, and the maturity of people differs greatly, and while the law is the law, my point was, who knows what will be deemed morally right in one hundred years time.

[Riddley Walker]

I have three young daughters of my own, so spare me the mock outrage. The age of consent varies in different countries, and the maturity of people differs greatly, and while the law is the law, my point was, who knows what will be deemed morally right in one hundred years time.

No outrage here, mock or not. Just calling someone out on their backward views. Views which are shared by religious nutjob groups around the world.

 

It's nothing to do with differing ages of consent, yes, perhaps it might be lowered/increased at some point. But "paedophilic marriages" or whatever term he used means marrying children, not 13/14 year old teenagers.

[Riddley Walker]

I have three young daughters of my own, so spare me the mock outrage. The age of consent varies in different countries, and the maturity of people differs greatly, and while the law is the law, my point was, who knows what will be deemed morally right in one hundred years time.

By the way, my post two posts back wasn't laying into your point, but the guy before you.

[Adam Murray]

By the way, my post two posts back wasn't laying into your point, but the guy before you.

 

No worries.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

I think the point here is, that somethings that are deemed acceptable nowadays would have been unheard of 100 or maybe even 50 years ago. The point that you are rightly putting down just now, may not seem so ludicrous in another 100 years, who knows?

 

Until 1929 in Scotland it was perfectly legal for girls aged 12 to get married, for boys it was 14, however it was almost unknown to have happened, almost unknown which means it must have happened.

http://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/registration/getting-married-in-scotland/minimum-age-for-marriage-in-scotland

 

The point I'm making is to back up your post that things which were perfectly acceptable 100 years ago are not today and vice versa.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

 

You?re good at presenting your view as fact when in reality many scholars hold an opposed view.

However that?s not my point for question.

So my questions to you then are:

Who has the right to determine what is good or bad, who determines what is morally acceptable in the culture?

Further, who has the say on whether marriage as an institution should be preserved, and if so, who sets the rules?

If the populous majority agrees on a set of standards, what happens when they are replaced by a new majority with new standards?

By example many majorities are now advocating ?gay marriage?.

Where is the line drawn ? How long before polygamous, or paedophiliac relationships are promoted? Perhaps some want this allowed now.

Who is to say that they are wrong, if the majority are on their side?

 

 

 

Your first sentence is a fair point.  I have strong opinions on this stuff, and try to ground them in facts and strong arguments, but they're only that.  If I think there's a scholarly consensus, then I'll assert that (like on the existence of a historical Jesus), but otherwise I'm often presenting arguments that some scholars disagree with.

 

Polygamy and paedophilia are odd ones to pick, as they're both present to some degree in the Bible (particularly polygamy, which was widely practiced in the Old Testament, including by the patriarchs of Judaism and by the hero kings of the histories).  We've decided since that they're both unacceptable, for different reasons, but one could make a scriptural case for supporting them, much like people did for slavery.

 

There are many bases for which moral and ethical systems are developed, but I think the New Testament has a pretty good starting point, and it's not in narrow parsing of Paul's epistles for things he frowns upon.  Rather, when asked what the most important commandments to follow are, Christ specifically answers love God and love your neighbor, and elsewhere adds to love your enemy.  Paul expounds on this for chapters and chapters in various letters (Gal 5, Rom 12, 1 Cor 3, Rom 2, and so on).   When we see the damage that incest and paedophilia cause to a person's psyche for all of their lives, how can it be loving to not interdict upon others to prevent it?  When we see the damage that condemnation of homosexuality does, and we see the healing that acceptance can give, how can it be loving to continue to sit in judgement and condemnation?

 

Some will say this is allowing the church to be "changed by the world," which Paul says not to do. To my eye it's following the instructions of Jesus that he specifically said were the most important ones over minor bits of law that Jesus got angry with the Pharisees about getting hung up on.  But as you say, many scholars disagree with me.

[maroonlegions]

The trouble with most religions is when they become dogmatic, authoritarian and sanctimonious  and not to mention mentally blackmailing people with the threat of eternal damnation in some  biblical hell..  

 

You would think that if the bible  was the word of the creator it would contain a lot more credible and believable references than mere fairy tales .

 

Those that wrote the bible did not contend with the future of  scientific advancements and the breakthroughs they have made.

 

Religions were created when most people were ignorant or unaware of future science and that is why today the stories in the bible seem ridiculous and far fetched, religion is an outdated  method of manipulation and control.. 

 

 

Take the concept of Noah's ark, its construction and so forth,, was this  idea not  debunked by science?? 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

The trouble with most religions is when they become dogmatic, authoritarian and sanctimonious  and not to mention mentally blackmailing people with the threat of eternal damnation in some  biblical hell..  

 

You would think that if the bible  was the word of the creator it would contain a lot more credible and believable references than mere fairy tales .

 

Those that wrote the bible did not contend with the future of  scientific advancements and the breakthroughs they have made.

 

Religions were created when most people were ignorant or unaware of future science and that is why today the stories in the bible seem ridiculous and far fetched, religion is an outdated  method of manipulation and control.. 

 

 

Take the concept of Noah's ark, its construction and so forth,, was this  idea not  debunked by science?? 

 

Not to mention that the vast majority of the populous couldn't read or write, and had to rely on the Church for teaching them what was in the bible.

 

One of the most damaging things ever to befall the Church was the invention of the printing press because this removed the Church's exclusive hold on the information contained within the bible and more importantly how that information was delivered to the population as a whole.

For the first time people could read the bible in the privacy of their own homes and were then able to draw their own conclusions instead of being told by the Church what to think.

[deesidejambo]

The trouble with most religions is when they become dogmatic, authoritarian and sanctimonious  and not to mention mentally blackmailing people with the threat of eternal damnation in some  biblical hell..  

 

You would think that if the bible  was the word of the creator it would contain a lot more credible and believable references than mere fairy tales .

 

Those that wrote the bible did not contend with the future of  scientific advancements and the breakthroughs they have made.

 

Religions were created when most people were ignorant or unaware of future science and that is why today the stories in the bible seem ridiculous and far fetched, religion is an outdated  method of manipulation and control.. 

 

 

Take the concept of Noah's ark, its construction and so forth,, was this  idea not  debunked by science?? 

For once I agree with you.  As David Icke once said - God save us from Religion.

[michael_bolton]

One of the most damaging things ever to befall the Church was the invention of the printing press because this removed the Church's exclusive hold on the information contained within the bible and more importantly how that information was delivered to the population as a whole.

For the first time people could read the bible in the privacy of their own homes and were then able to draw their own conclusions instead of being told by the Church what to think.

 

Damaging to the catholic church, perhaps. But to argue that event was damaging to 'the church' as a whole is completely wrong, in my view.

 

It opened up the Bible to the common man. Bad for the political church, if you like, but very good for the church itself.

[michael_bolton]

I find it funny that these discussions always lead to the old argument about the young earth v old earth.

 

I find it utterly bizarre. The Bible never says how old the earth is at any stage. I find it mystifying that some people like to claim that it does.

[Riddley Walker]

I find it funny that these discussions always lead to the old argument about the young earth v old earth.

 

I find it utterly bizarre. The Bible never says how old the earth is at any stage. I find it mystifying that some people like to claim that it does.

Why do creationists think the Earth is really young, out of interest?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Damaging to the catholic church, perhaps. But to argue that event was damaging to 'the church' as a whole is completely wrong, in my view.

 

It opened up the Bible to the common man. Bad for the political church, if you like, but very good for the church itself.

 

Around the time that Johannes Gutenberg introduced the printing press in Europe, which was around 1439 there really was only the 'Catholic Church', there was some very early Protestant Reformers around at this time but it wasn't really until Martin Luther in about 1517 that the beginnings of the Protestant movement as we know it really took hold.

 

When I said the Church, I of course meant the Catholic Church as there really only was the Catholic Church in the mid 1400's.

[michael_bolton]

Why do creationists think the Earth is really young, out of interest?

 

They don't. Some do. You're making the common error of assigning a view to a very large group of people, many of whom disagree very passionately with each other.

 

The ones who do believe the earth is young (I've never knowingly met anyone who thinks so) do it basically by adding up all the generations.

 

This assumes that the generations began immediately after creation. The Bible never claims this at all.

 

It's deeply flawed reasoning. As I said, I don't know anyone who thinks that way, and I know lots of Christians.

[michael_bolton]

Around the time that Johannes Gutenberg introduced the printing press in Europe, which was around 1439 there really was only the 'Catholic Church', there was some very early Protestant Reformers around at this time but it wasn't really until Martin Luther in about 1517 that the beginnings of the Protestant movement as we know it really took hold.

 

When I said the Church, I of course meant the Catholic Church as there really only was the Catholic Church in the mid 1400's.

 

I know that.

 

As I said, if you're referring to the church as a political entity, then you've got a point.

 

But for a real believer or anyone who considers it important that people make up their own mind (as believers do), then this was a great leap forward.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

I'm with John Dominic Crossan on this for the most part:

 

?My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.? 

 

Noah's ark is an incredibly old story, with a very similar story appearing in the Epic of Gilgamesh in the story of Utnapishtim and other similar stories appearing in other old texts.  It was likely ancient when it was first incorporated into the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible). Given that other stories in the Pentateuch are brought up again in later texts but that one doesn't get much mention, it likely was treated then much as it is now -- as a bit of a children's story.

 

 

Around the time that Johannes Gutenberg introduced the printing press in Europe, which was around 1439 there really was only the 'Catholic Church', there was some very early Protestant Reformers around at this time but it wasn't really until Martin Luther in about 1517 that the beginnings of the Protestant movement as we know it really took hold.

 

When I said the Church, I of course meant the Catholic Church as there really only was the Catholic Church in the mid 1400's.

 

Not to nitpick, but there wasn't only the Catholic church, there was also the Eastern churches, most notably the Greek and Russian churches but also scads of others.  Of course in the West, there was one church (albeit with lots of continuously feuding bishops), so in western Europe your point certainly holds.

[Ray Gin]

Why do creationists think the Earth is really young, out of interest?

 

http://creation.com/6000-years

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

I'm with John Dominic Crossan on this for the most part:

 

?My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.? 

 

Noah's ark is an incredibly old story, with a very similar story appearing in the Epic of Gilgamesh in the story of Utnapishtim and other similar stories appearing in other old texts.  It was likely ancient when it was first incorporated into the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible). Given that other stories in the Pentateuch are brought up again in later texts but that one doesn't get much mention, it likely was treated then much as it is now -- as a bit of a children's story.

 

 

 

Not to nitpick, but there wasn't only the Catholic church, there was also the Eastern churches, most notably the Greek and Russian churches but also scads of others.  Of course in the West, there was one church (albeit with lots of continuously feuding bishops), so in western Europe your point certainly holds.

 

I knew as soon I wrote it someone would mention the Greek & Russian Orthodox Churches or even the remnants of the Cathars, however they where at the time mainly localised.

The point was, I think referring to the mainstream Catholic Church which was the dominant Church in Europe at the time.    

 

I agree with the Great Flood story, it was probably already an ancient story when it was first written down, and there is little doubts that a major event such as the flood did happen as the story appears in numerous different cultures around the World and all in the far distant past.

 

 

[Riddley Walker]

http://creation.com/6000-years

 

 

What have I just read. "We know that Adam was 130 years old when he fathered Seth."

 

Deary me.

[Ray Gin]

Grown adults actually believe this stuff.

 

 

[Ray Gin]

[Jambo 4 Ever]

Good point - where did Adam and Eve's kids find wives etc to have kids with?

[Riddley Walker]

Good point - where did Adam and Eve's kids find wives etc to have kids with?

I think they only had each other. Any hole's a goal and all that eh?

[Jambo 4 Ever]

I think they only had each other. Any hole's a goal and all that eh?

Then what about their kids?

[Riddley Walker]

Then what about their kids?

Same again. The phrase "All God's children are beasts" doesn't come from nowhere.

[Ray Gin]

"'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD."

Leviticus 18:6

 

"Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her."

Leviticus 18:7

 

Oh, Christianity.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

"'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD."

Leviticus 18:6

 

"Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her."

Leviticus 18:7

 

Oh, Christianity.

Why not Judaism?

[XB52]

Why not Judaism?

because you will immediately be jumped upon as an evil anti-semite

[Ray Gin]

Why not Judaism?

 

Because this is a Christianity thread.

 

You can pick any religion you wish and apply a cornette to it though as far as I'm concerned.

[deesidejambo]

"'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD."

Leviticus 18:6

 

"Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her."

Leviticus 18:7

 

Oh, Christianity.

Are you suggesting the above statements are wrong?    You want to bang your own Mum?

[Ray Gin]

Are you suggesting the above statements are wrong?    You want to bang your own Mum?

 

No, it is in reference to Cain and Abel having nobody to pump but their own mother and sisters. Yet incest is a sin. Christianity tying itself in knots.

[Irufushi]

Grown adults actually believe this stuff.

It's frightening

[deesidejambo]

No, it is in reference to Cain and Abel having nobody to pump but their own mother and sisters. Yet incest is a sin. Christianity tying itself in knots.

I wouldn't say Christianity is in knots, its more that the Bible contains a lot of stuff that is clearly bollocks.

[deesidejambo]

Well does that not make it a strange thing to base a religion around?

 

Maybe the need to update the manual every so often as human understanding of the world/universe increases.

 

To me it has always been bizarre that Christianity is based on the Belief in God, rather than just the peace and love message.

Most religions are like that.   But the problem with religion (and not spirituality) is that it is just natural human tribal behaviour to split into groups.    If religion didn't exist there would be something appearing to replace it.    Blue eyes/brown eyes type of thing.  Lord of The Flies etc.

 

The real problem is not religion - its the Church.    That is an exercise in mind-control.     All it takes is a visit to the Vatican Museum to see the hypocrisy of the Church.

 

I think peeps mix up faith and spirituality with religion, which is different.     

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Most religions are like that.   But the problem with religion (and not spirituality) is that it is just natural human tribal behaviour to split into groups.    If religion didn't exist there would be something appearing to replace it.    Blue eyes/brown eyes type of thing.  Lord of The Flies etc.

 

The real problem is not religion - its the Church.    That is an exercise in mind-control.     All it takes is a visit to the Vatican Museum to see the hypocrisy of the Church.

 

I think peeps mix up faith and spirituality with religion, which is different.     

 

And this is what it is all about, power, influence and wealth, dressed up as a promise of salvation, entry to heaven and everlasting life and the people bought it.

The hypocrisy is that the church holds one hand out for donations, whilst all the time they have hundreds of thousands of treasures sitting in their churches which would fetch a fair amount of money.

 

It's not just the Vatican Museums but the sheer opulence of St. Peter's Basilica itself which shows the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church.

[deesidejambo]

And this is what it is all about, power, influence and wealth, dressed up as a promise of salvation, entry to heaven and everlasting life and the people bought it.

The hypocrisy is that the church holds one hand out for donations, whilst all the time they have hundreds of thousands of treasures sitting in their churches which would fetch a fair amount of money.

 

It's not just the Vatican Museums but the sheer opulence of St. Peter's Basilica itself which shows the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church.

I'm with you on that.    The treasures there are worth multiple billions (thats billions) of dollars, much of it plundered.     I did the Vatican tour hoping for insights but came out absolutely raging.      And as for confessions of sins and the associated punishments, what a load of mind-control nonsense.

[Sidelight]

For once I agree with you.  As David Icke once said - God save us from Religion.

 

Jesus is my Saviour, not my religion.

I don?t wish to annoy the atheist majority, however there are several communiques laid down by some which just don?t hold water.

I refer mainly to the inference that science in the 21st century has disproved God.

Wishful thinking really.

Anyway it?s not up to Christians to change someone?s mind-set or force them to believe in God. It is up to God.

[Maple Leaf]

 

Jesus is my Saviour, not my religion.

I don?t wish to annoy the atheist majority, however there are several communiques laid down by some which just don?t hold water.

I refer mainly to the inference that science in the 21st century has disproved God.

Wishful thinking really.

 

 

It would be a bold claim, in my opinion, for anyone to assert that science has proven that God doesn't exist.  What branch of science deals in the non-existence of belief systems?

 

And God clearly does exist, even if it's only in the hearts and minds of the faithful.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

No, it is in reference to Cain and Abel having nobody to pump but their own mother and sisters. Yet incest is a sin. Christianity tying itself in knots.

 

I again refer to the Crossan quote.  The creation story in ancient times as well as modern ones has largely been read as myth.

 

My favorite sophistry in this line is the proof that there's an infinite number of Jesuses.  It goes like this: Jesus rose to heaven and sits on the right hand of God.  But Jesus also IS God.  So Jesus is sitting on the right hand of . . . himself.  Therefore, there must be another Jesus sitting on HIS right hand.  And so again with that Jesus and so forth.

 

Fortunately, there's also plenty of other scripture that pretty clearly says, "THAT'S NOT THE POINT!"  

[i8hibsh]

As a Christian......

[Ray Gin]

I again refer to the Crossan quote.  The creation story in ancient times as well as modern ones has largely been read as myth.

 

My favorite sophistry in this line is the proof that there's an infinite number of Jesuses.  It goes like this: Jesus rose to heaven and sits on the right hand of God.  But Jesus also IS God.  So Jesus is sitting on the right hand of . . . himself.  Therefore, there must be another Jesus sitting on HIS right hand.  And so again with that Jesus and so forth.

 

Fortunately, there's also plenty of other scripture that pretty clearly says, "THAT'S NOT THE POINT!"  

 

So if there are parts of the bible you accept as being myths, how do you choose which parts you believe in?

 

What makes you think that the concept of God himself isn't also a myth?

[Boris]

I think the point here is, that somethings that are deemed acceptable nowadays would have been unheard of 100 or maybe even 50 years ago. The point that you are rightly putting down just now, may not seem so ludicrous in another 100 years, who knows?

 

Or not ludicrous in the eyes of the Church 7-800 years ago.

 

I think the problem is trying to equate homosexuality as a sexual deviance akin to paedophilia, thus prompting a subconscious connection between the two.  Which is, of course, complete nonsense.

[Adam Murray]

Or not ludicrous in the eyes of the Church 7-800 years ago.

 

I think the problem is trying to equate homosexuality as a sexual deviance akin to paedophilia, thus prompting a subconscious connection between the two.  Which is, of course, complete nonsense.

 

I'd say marriage between same sex couples was probably seen as some kind of sexual deviance not so long ago. Homosexuality is still seen as worse than pedophilia in some countries, with it being punishable by death. Things change, and are changing very quickly, too quickly for some it seems, who knows what the future may hold for sexual morality.

 

On a side note, when did the word pedophile become mainstream, I remember when I was at school they were just called beasts, amongst other things.

[Boris]

I'd say marriage between same sex couples was probably seen as some kind of sexual deviance not so long ago. Homosexuality is still seen as worse than pedophilia in some countries, with it being punishable by death. Things change, and are changing very quickly, too quickly for some it seems, who knows what the future may hold for sexual morality.

 

On a side note, when did the word pedophile become mainstream, I remember when I was at school they were just called beasts, amongst other things.

 

I suppose paedophile sounds slightly less emotional when used on the news than beast or nonce or the like.

 

But again, just because attitudes to homosexuality have changed, is no barometer as to whether paedophilia would become acceptable.  The two are not connected in any way.  Perhaps attitudes to homosexuality have changed because they were so obviously absurd in the first place?

[Adam Murray]

I suppose paedophile sounds slightly less emotional when used on the news than beast or nonce or the like.

 

But again, just because attitudes to homosexuality have changed, is no barometer as to whether paedophilia would become acceptable.  The two are not connected in any way.  Perhaps attitudes to homosexuality have changed because they were so obviously absurd in the first place?

 

Indeed, and whilst I'm not a particularly religious person myself, who am I to deride people if it gives them comfort in times of trouble, who are we to mock Arnaud Djoum for thanking God when receiving his player of the year award.

The future will bring what the future brings, there's no telling how attitudes will reflect on sexual morality in the years to come. I'm not so sure there's many people use the bible as their reference to what's right and wrong these day's, most people actually know for themselves what's acceptable and what's not

[Boris]

Indeed, and whilst I'm not a particularly religious person myself, who am I to deride people if it gives them comfort in times of trouble, who are we to mock Arnaud Djoum for thanking God when receiving his player of the year award.

The future will bring what the future brings, there's no telling how attitudes will reflect on sexual morality in the years to come. I'm not so sure there's many people use the bible as their reference to what's right and wrong these day's, most people actually know for themselves what's acceptable and what's not

 

I'd pretty much agree with that.  Each to their own, obviously as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

 

I suspect sex with kids will always be (rightly) frowned upon though, but who knows, as you say.

[Norm]

I suppose paedophile sounds slightly less emotional when used on the news than beast or nonce or the like.

 

But again, just because attitudes to homosexuality have changed, is no barometer as to whether paedophilia would become acceptable. The two are not connected in any way. Perhaps attitudes to homosexuality have changed because they were so obviously absurd in the first place?

There's a connection between homosexuality and paedophilia though. The same way there's a connection between heterosexuality and homosexuality. If you accept that we have no control over our sexuality, then there's a connection between all of them.

 

The issue paedos have, is it's impossible for them to have consensual sex. Being attracted to kids isn't the problem. It's people acting on their attractions that's the issue.

[Boris]

There's a connection between homosexuality and paedophilia though. The same way there's a connection between heterosexuality and homosexuality. If you accept that we have no control over our sexuality, then there's a connection between all of them.

 

The issue paedos have, is it's impossible for them to have consensual sex. Being attracted to kids isn't the problem. It's people acting on their attractions that's the issue.

 

OK, that seems logical.

 

I guess the crux is on consent then.  And non consensual sex, regardless, is a crime.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

There's a connection between homosexuality and paedophilia though. The same way there's a connection between heterosexuality and homosexuality. If you accept that we have no control over our sexuality, then there's a connection between all of them.

 

The issue paedos have, is it's impossible for them to have consensual sex. Being attracted to kids isn't the problem. It's people acting on their attractions that's the issue.

 

What?

Many, if not the majority of paedos are married with kids themselves, so consensual sex isn't the problem for most of them.

 

 

Sorry for going off topic.

[Adam Murray]

What?

Many, if not the majority of paedos are married with kids themselves, so consensual sex isn't the problem for most of them.

 

 

Sorry for going off topic.

I think he means consensual with the victim, as they are underage they cannot consent