"Moral Values" > National Security

[vaulos]

And that's why you are going to hell, Keeber.

Seriously though, my point in closing will only to be that we have now receeded to that old chestnut of religious discussions which ends with one person espousing to existence of God, and the other denying it. So, I suppose it's time to stop the conversation.

[SicTimMitchell]

Seriously, Relbeek, this is the time for people who believe the Bible teaches tolerance, charity and love to speak up.

We've been too quiet, in the name of tolerance for how others interpret Christianity.

I'm not at all surprised by your interpretation of the Bible -- the message you're receiving is the propaganda all around us right now.

Just read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They're a tiny part of a big book, but the Gospels are the meat. See if you feel the same about Christ's teachings after reading what He actually had to say.

[Relbeek Einre]

Oh, no, vaulos, I'd take neither position, I'm an agnostic.


Bangzoom: You say that like I've never read them.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Oh, no, vaulos, I'd take neither position, I'm an agnostic.


Bangzoom: You say that like I've never read them.

Beek... yu don't have to beleive that Christ is god incarnate to see the message in the Gospels. Even if you see him as only a man, his entire life, as depicted in the Gospels, was one of acceptence, love, forgiveness and self-sacrafice.

That is the overall message of the Bible (New Testament especially).

And you misjudge me sir. I wouldn't presume to speculate on who is damned and who isn't. None of my business. I have a hard enough time with myself without worrying about others like that.

[Ddrak]

Well, Jesus' teachings weren't entirely acceptance and good will. I recall him getting pretty pissed at some of the merchants that had taken up spots inside the temple...

Dd

[Narith]

And if you read some of the books left out purposefully by the catholic church (which they recently admitted to leaving out) you will see that Jesus was actually quite a naughty child and was in fact accused of killing one of his play mates. The lesson learned from these books are that with great power comes great responsibility. Jesus learned that he must use his power to do good with the world and had many responsibilities along with these gifts.

As for Jesus being the child and incarnate of god that is only the christian and catholic teachings, if you follow the jewish faith he was a great man and leader, but was not the son of god.

As for the passages in Romans you will notice that the homosexuality was part of a punishment given by god, when it says furthermore it tells of crimes that at the time were considered punishable by death, it does not say that homosexuality was punishable by death it said homosexuality was the punishment itself. Now a days crimes like disobeying ones parents is not considered a crime punishable by death, if it was we would not have any children left on this planet. People interperate the scripture to suit thier own views and some use them to spread messages of hate (for example Hitler used bible scriptures to show he was doing what was right and his cause was backed by god). Many Americans believe that the scripture telling of the punishment of homosexuality inflicted upon these people was actually one of the crimes punishable by death, however though no one believes the majority of those crimes to deserve death you will still find people who misinterperate the text and believe that homosexuality is a crime and punishable by death they skip the part about it being a punishment not a crime. It also does not mean that homosexuality never exsisted before then, it simply meant that god turned them homosexual (as we know can be temporarily done to heterosexuals from another post on th is board).

[SicTimMitchell]

Narith,

The Apocrypha are not something new. (The books left out of the Bible.) If you get the Anchor Bible it's like 12 volumes. There's all kinds of wild stuff in there. The concept of Mary Magdalene being a whore actually comes from confusion with another Mary in the Apocrypha.

Also, Catholics and Protestants do not use the same books of the Bible. Is Ecclesiastes II a real book of the Bible or not? (The Protestants are the ones who tend to leave it out.)

Ddrak,

Jesus was God experiencing life as a human. I asked my daughter, "Did Jesus, as a human, sin?"

I think it's a good question. His wrath at the moneychangers is an example I brought up, as well as his doubts in Gethshemane and the words "Father, why have thou forsaken me?"

BTW, I will never forgive Gibson for placing Satan in Gethshemane to tempt Jesus. It ruins the whole point.

[Relbeek Einre]

Beek... yu don't have to beleive that Christ is god incarnate to see the message in the Gospels. Even if you see him as only a man, his entire life, as depicted in the Gospels, was one of acceptence, love, forgiveness and self-sacrafice.

Mm. Yes, primarily. But he had no problem telling off people either. He had few kind words for the Pharisees. -- which of the Gospels was that, anyway, the one that the author obviously had a grudge against them. Luke?

[SicTimMitchell]

Again, Relbeek, if you look at Jesus simply as a man (which I suspect you are wont to do anyway) you will find a revolutionary and poet, subject to human emotions. (Jesus wept.)

Now, as a Christian, I believe in the Trinity. Jesus is the same as God, but also different. As is the Holy Spirit in all of us. It's paradoxical, in its way. (Saint Patrick legendarily explained it best, and that's why the shamrock is the national symbol of Ireland -- three leaves, one plant.)

Jesus got pissed. He got sad. He felt fear and pain and doubt. If Jesus is simply God, stripped of his humanity, the story is not the same, and the sacrifice is far less touching.

[SicTimMitchell]

BTW, there are some who claim that Jesus never laughed.

Well, to my mind, he told at least two pretty good jokes. The most obvious is when he tells Judas, "The poor will be with us always." He is, of course, speaking of Judas, whose future betrayal he already knows about.

My favorite though, is when Satan is tempting Jesus in the desert, and tells him to go climb to the highest temple and jump off, and God will surely lift him up. Jesus' reply is along the lines of "Shyah, right."

[Relbeek Einre]

Again, Relbeek, if you look at Jesus simply as a man (which I suspect you are wont to do anyway)

Actually, at my core I regard Jesus as a metaphor, not an individual. He's a fictional character to personify virtues and a story that the authors wanted to communicate. Kinda like Frodo Baggins, really, except when Frodo was tempted at the end, he fell from grace, and it was only his earlier acts of mercy that saved him -- and the world -- in the end.

Yes, I agree with you. He was a revolutionary. He was a poet. He was frought with human emotion and that makes His sacrifice not only more touching (in that it makes it easier to understand, as a human, the fear, doubt, pain he was experienceing), but more significant.

I think you, Embar, and I, and I think Narith as well, are all in agreement as to what the central message of that book is. You and Embar, of course, believe the book to be God's word (more or less), and I don't, but there we are.

Where we differ is the "devil in the details". Embar seems to think it blasphemous to mention them. You seem to think that by pointing them out I somehow miss the point (I don't, my friend, I assure you). I'm just saying they're there -- prejudice, fear, aggression -- and I'll even go so far as to say that even if the Bible is the word of God, those taints to it are where the hand of Man has corrupted His word. And that corruption has been used to justify a hell of a lot by His supposed disciples, from Torquemada to Fred Phelps.

[Alannia_Raindancer]

Biblical reference aside...

We have a situation in which trained personnel were dismissed because they were homosexual. More specifically, because they ANNOUNCED they were homosexual.

Personally, I don't think that's a good thing to do. It seems to me that if we're going to fight these wars, we should be utilizing all our resources, whatever skins they come in. Black, White, Male, Female, Heterosexual, Homosexual. We have access to so many minds and so many abilities that it seems stupid to exclude one set because of sexual preference.

OTOH, I can't help but wonder why these people spoke out when they did. Wouldn't it further the cause better to announce their sexuality after they'd performed their service? I suppose it would depend on what cause they were fighting for.

People in the military KNOW about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Personally, I don't agree with it, but they KNOW it when they sign up. Every time someone in the military "comes out", I wonder why. Why now?

"Don't ask, don't tell" was the military's way of saying " yah, we need people in our camp." They extended an olive branch to people who wanted to serve. While I don't think that our servicemen/women should need to hide who and what they are, I wonder why they joined....was it to serve, or was it to make a point?

[Ddrak]

and I'll even go so far as to say that even if the Bible is the word of God, those taints to it are where the hand of Man has corrupted His word. And that corruption has been used to justify a hell of a lot by His supposed disciples, from Torquemada to Fred Phelps.

I think there's a decent amount of truth in that. It's not feasible to think that the Bible has come down untouched by human influence through the years. In fact, it's why I think the KJV is a horrific piece of tripe and the newer translations which attempt to find the oldest records possible are far better references - especially if you use the ones which explain the difficulties they had in translation on the way. That should also tell you my feelings on denominations that revere the KJV...

I do believe that the Bible is the word of God, etc. etc. I think it's entirely possible to read it far too literally though. I did find Gutofsouls' questions interesting, because I could answer every one of them without breaking a sweat. So much for his assertion that it would cause Christians "trouble".

Interestingly enough, my biggest problem with Christians (especially those belonging to organized religion) is they need to read 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 a few more times.

Dd

[Rsak]

I consider the Bible the word of god interpretted by the disciples who wrote the gospels and it has been influenced over the years. I am not going to try to claim I know when these actions were deliberate or unintentional.

The central message is important and should not be ignored due to mistakes or conflicts seen when taking the book as literal truth. The power of the message is that even when you dismiss the bible and its history as false the message can stand on its own.

[SicTimMitchell]

I think you'll find very few HERE who think that the Bible is the literal and untransmuted Word of God, Relbeek.

It's the nature of the beast -- we're computer geeks, and tend to be literate, well-educated, and have more than your average passing knowledge of the hard sciences. And those of us with a keen interest in the Bible will look into its history. For the most part, any hard question you can ask us, we've already asked ourselves.

This is why, say, quoting Paul isn't going to be persuasive to us -- we know what Paul was trying to do (gain converts at just about any cost) and why he wrote a lot of what he did.

[Partha]

The entirety of the New Testament was written by man. None of it is claimed to be the Hand of God, brought down from the mountain.

You have a dozen differing accounts of the same man's life and a couple of postscripts, including the last chapter written by a man who had anticipated Owsley by a few centuries. There are going to be differences because no two saw the same thing. There are going to be parts that don't fit because any truth you gain from the religions of the Christ are going to be your truths. Aside from the base 10 Commandments, the biggest testimony to the New Testament's power is in the flexibility it shows the reader in finding your God - murderers on the cross can get to him just as well as the most pious.

[Relbeek Einre]

This is why, say, quoting Paul isn't going to be persuasive to us -- we know what Paul was trying to do (gain converts at just about any cost) and why he wrote a lot of what he did.

Persuasive to what, Bang? What I quoted is what's in the Bible. It's not a message of love. Ergo, Embar's characterization of the Bible was oversimplified and incomplete. Is there something besides that you think I'm trying to say?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Beek....

Are you tring to claim that because EVERY passage in the bible isn't about love, peace, forgivenes, etc., then the totality of the bible can't represent those ideals?

[Relbeek Einre]

Actually I'd say the totality of the Bible is about redemption, not love or peace, but that's just my opinion.

I'm saying enough of the Bible is not about those virtues that to define the book as such is inaccurate.

[Ddrak]

You'd have to divide the Bible into old and new testaments. It really doesn't make sense to talk about the totality of it. I assume we're talking about the new testament here though when "redemption" is mentioned.

The old testament is pretty much a rambling story about the Israelites getting the shit kicked out of them from any number of foreign invaders but holding it together. There's a few prophets tossed in and God does a good deal of being pissed with everyone but that's about it.

The new testament - definitely redemption over peace and love in my mind. I think it does a good deal of extolling peace and love as the ideals to uphold but not necessarily exclusively. In fact, I think you could make a plausible argument that a jihad could fit within the bounds of the new testament without a lot of trouble.

Dd