By the way, Sam, I have great respect for you as a person, a friend, and as someone who isn't afraid to face difficult, thought-intensive issues straight on.
I know you know that--I just felt like I oughta say it.
Indeed, I have the greatest respect for all who have taken part in this thread.
These are indeed difficult issues on many levels simultaneously. It takes guts to look at this stuff square-on, and lots of courage to look and see why you really believe what you do.
I commend everyone for not descending into ad-hominem, for not taking it into a shouting match or flame war, and for their careful handling of those who believe differently then they do.
<i>The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.</i>
If you say that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then it's you that is making the phenomenal claim. You prove it.
Also remember that phenomenal claims require phenomenal proof.
--James
Much of the evidence lies in the positive changes made in the lives of those truly, and nonhypocritically impacted by the Gospel. People who no longer exposed their infants, people who no longer killed the widow when the husband passed away, people who no longer had to dwell in the depths of despair.
I told myself I wouldn't get involved in this particular train wreck of a thread, but it looks like I have changed my mind.
Proof of God? To a Christian, Muslim, or any other group believing in a divine creator, the universe is proof. It came from somewhere, right? Where? Big bang? Then, where did that ball of super-compressed matter come from that banged one moment and started the universe as we know it? How did it get there? The fact is, we exist. Even if you accept the big bang idea, it happened at a particular time (the universe is expanding, so we can assume that everything was once closer together, at one time all in the same place, right?), so something started it. There was a beginning. To me, as a Christian, that beginning was when God spoke and created the universe. Nobody atheist has yet offered me a source for that ball of matter that supposedly banged us all into existence.
I refuse to touch the old earth/young earth thing in this thread. I will discuss it rationally in face-to-face conversations with people who are willing to first agree on some common ground, but it is just too much to do here.
Cranberry, I won't bash the Mormons, especially not here, but I caution you to be sure that whatever you choose for your spiritual direction, you do because you are trying to serve God (or what you believe to be divine), not for the attractiveness of the lifestyle. I like the Mormon emphasis on family and on service, but I know that I could never be one. Again, I will discuss further only in direct conversations, though anyone who wishes may certainly e-mail me at patrick_wooleryATyahoo.com (you know what to do to make it a real e-mail).
Regarding acceptance of homosexuality, I will say that the Bible, no matter what translation you use, contains repeated statements that homosexual relations are sinful. Grievously so. I don't know about other churches, but the Catholic Church has a view that I think is good. As I understand the Catholic official stance on homosexuality, nobody konws why some people are only attracted to others of the same sex. The fact of attraction is not sinful, any more than the fact that I think a woman I work with is attractive is sinful. The sin comes in when actual lust or sexual activity enters the picture. Homosexual Catholics are called to chastity, just as any other Catholic is. Chastity (warning- some simplification here) means that you don't have sex outside of a sacramental marriage. So, just as unmarried heterosexuals are required by church doctrine to remain virgins, so are homosexuals.
I have friends and a relative who are homosexual. I think of them first as friends, not as homosexuals. I don't define my heterosexual friends by their sexual orientation, so it would be silly to be any different with homosexual friends. Those of my friends and relatives who are sexually active without being married (in a religious, not just legal sense) are all equally committing sin. All of them, regardless of sexual orientation. And those who are not, are not guilty of that sin of unchastity.
For me, I believe very strongly in the universal Christian church (small c catholic) and its ongoing faithfullness since the time of Christ. I do not believe that everything ever done or said in God's name was automatically right, regardless of how sincere the person doing it was. I do think that the Catholic Church is owed a great debt of gratitude for the preservation of knowledge through ages of war, strife, ignorance, and hostility. I am not Catholic, but I have some very dear friends who are. I don't doubt their salvation any more than I doubt my own (less, actually, as I do question myself, but consider it presumptuous to question others who have not presented themselves to me for my opinion). But, I do not believe that one Christian (note: this is not the same as "christian - TM", you know what I mean.) denomination has the lock on all the truth.
I am not denominational in my outlook. To answer the question as to why some folks move from one church to another every few years, it often has to do with pastors teaching things that turn out not to be Biblical (at least in the opinion of the person moving away) or not living up to the duties percieved by the members of the congregation. I have left three churches in two denominations for teaching that is not supported by scripture. In one case, I was very sad to go, as my family really did well in that church's culture. Thing is, if I hear something in a sermon that contradicts what I am reading, I give a pastor a chance to explain the apparent contradiction or to offer a correction, either to my understanding or his. But if he continues teaching something that he can't support, I need to be out of there. It has become a place where the message can't be trusted. In other cases, it is a matter of the preacher not living the life he preaches. Jimmy Swaggart being a very obvious example.
Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk. His work is the foundation for a lot of our understanding of genetics. The Church didn't try to shut him up, so we all have a better understanding of how our physical traits are passed to future generations than we would have if he had not made his findings available to others. Gutenberg invented the ancestor to our modern printing presses. What was the first thing he printed? Yep, Bibles. With the sanction of the Church. During the Middle Ages, there was only one way for a peasant to rise to a social stature that rivalled nobility. Through the Church. I know that a lot of bad things were done by leaders of the Church throughout history, but much of the world we live in today would not be here if not for that same Church.
Okay, so there you have it, my answer to the whole thread. Or at least to all of the parts that stick in my memory. I'll try to exercise enough self-control to only respond to direct, rational questions instead of jumping in again. Anyone who wants more of my thoughts, please feel free to e-mail at the addy above.
Cranberry, I won't bash the Mormons, especially not here, but I caution you to be sure that whatever you choose for your spiritual direction, you do because you are trying to serve God (or what you believe to be divine), not for the attractiveness of the lifestyle. I like the Mormon emphasis on family and on service, but I know that I could never be one. Again, I will discuss further only in direct conversations, though anyone who wishes may certainly e-mail me at patrick_wooleryATyahoo.com (you know what to do to make it a real e-mail).
Oh, God. I didn't mean to come across as bashing Mormons! I'm sorry if that's how it seemed. Like I said one of my best friends for the past few years is Mormon and I love her dearly. It has nothing to do with Mormons as individuals, my gripe(to put it nicely) is directed at the way people have been abused at the hands of the LDS Church. I'm sure Sunnywindo or Ron Kiley, or anybody else here who is Mormon had nothing to do with the thousands of people who were subject to electric shock treatment, erased in church records, and completely cut off from their familes - it's not directed to any particular person, just the Church as a whole.
Regarding acceptance of homosexuality, I will say that the Bible, no matter what translation you use, contains repeated statements that homosexual relations are sinful. Grievously so. I don't know about other churches, but the Catholic Church has a view that I think is good. As I understand the Catholic official stance on homosexuality, nobody konws why some people are only attracted to others of the same sex. The fact of attraction is not sinful, any more than the fact that I think a woman I work with is attractive is sinful. The sin comes in when actual lust or sexual activity enters the picture. Homosexual Catholics are called to chastity, just as any other Catholic is. Chastity (warning- some simplification here) means that you don't have sex outside of a sacramental marriage. So, just as unmarried heterosexuals are required by church doctrine to remain virgins, so are homosexuals.
Not accepting homosexuality is like not accepting people with green eyes. I think those policies are very outdated by the centuries and in need of change. The Bible(s) have changed millions of times (nobody disputes that) and I believe it's still a living document that reflects the times. For example, we don't still sell our teenage daughters or keep slaves. The change will come, slowly but surely. We're on the path.
I have friends and a relative who are homosexual. I think of them first as friends, not as homosexuals. I don't define my heterosexual friends by their sexual orientation, so it would be silly to be any different with homosexual friends. Those of my friends and relatives who are sexually active without being married (in a religious, not just legal sense) are all equally committing sin. All of them, regardless of sexual orientation. And those who are not, are not guilty of that sin of unchastity.
I'm not guilty of sin. I'm perfect. How could you have missed that?
I have just a few random thoughts on this subject.
Proof of God? To a Christian, Muslim, or any other group believing in a divine creator, the universe is proof. It came from somewhere, right? Where? Big bang? Then, where did that ball of super-compressed matter come from that banged one moment and started the universe as we know it? How did it get there?
By this line, one may ask: Who created God? Its ok to have no answer, its probably a waste of time even thinking about it. But having a lack of answers does not make me believe in God.
I think its sad, perhaps even evil, how a homosexual, or any other decent person, can be coerced into hating oneself by a religion. Isn't that a terrible waste?
Perhaps this whole sin concept is just another way to control people's behavior, and control their thought? What need does a strong person have for this?
I'm thankful that I exist, but I don't feel a need to pray to a God as a result.
Cranberry wrote:Not accepting homosexuality is like not accepting people with green eyes. I think those policies are very outdated by the centuries and in need of change. The Bible(s) have changed millions of times (nobody disputes that) and I believe it's still a living document that reflects the times. For example, we don't still sell our teenage daughters or keep slaves. The change will come, slowly but surely. We're on the path.
Cran, I think a distinction needs to be made between homosexuality and homosexual activity. A biblically orthodox version of Christianity does not exclude homosexual people, rather it expects the homosexual person to refrain from acting on their persuasion. The sin lies in the action, not the mindset.
The Bible was not intended to be cut and chopped and ignored based on whatever social lobby was prominent at the time. The Bible has rules in it. If the ever-changing present society molded our understanding of the Bible, it would eventually lose all its meaning. The entire foundation of Christianity is in danger of being ignored or destroyed by watered-down interpretation. If everyone had the opportunity to cut out what they didn't like or agree with, nothing would be left. How could it still be a religion without any foundation?
Unreasonable person,
ants
|___|)____________O___O___O___o__O___O_____|
Cran, I think a distinction needs to be made between homosexuality and homosexual activity. A biblically orthodox version of Christianity does not exclude homosexual people, rather it expects the homosexual person to refrain from acting on their persuasion. The sin lies in the action, not the mindset.
That's how you interpret it, but not everybody does. Some people think that being gay is a sin and a mental illness and should be corrected. The Mormon Church had this view until very recently, with the shock therapy and other methods used to try to 'change' people, then after they were subject to years of abuse and still hadn't changed (their eyes were still green, too), they ex-communicated them. Then, there are people like me, who say that two women in a stable committed relationship aren't sinful at all and that the Bible says nothing of the sort.
[/quote]The Bible was not intended to be cut and chopped and ignored based on whatever social lobby was prominent at the time. The Bible has rules in it. If the ever-changing present society molded our understanding of the Bible, it would eventually lose all its meaning. The entire foundation of Christianity is in danger of being ignored or destroyed by watered-down interpretation. If everyone had the opportunity to cut out what they didn't like or agree with, nothing would be left. How could it still be a religion without any foundation?[/quote]
You make it sound like I want to chop out 450 pages and re-write them myself, then viola! That's the new Bible. LOL. I'm just saying that the Bible is alive, it is constantly changing and has been for 2,000 years, and it will continue to change and within my lifetime I will see legal gay marriage and a gay President, there will be no hatred disguised as religious conviction, and it won't be a big deal.
Patrick wrote:I told myself I wouldn't get involved in this particular train wreck of a thread, but it looks like I have changed my mind.
Regarding acceptance of homosexuality, I will say that the Bible, no matter what translation you use, contains repeated statements that homosexual relations are sinful. Grievously so.
Yeah, well, you jumped onto the train after it wrecked!
You know, I have doubts that the biblical condemnation of homosexual acts, which is undeniably present in the texts, ought to be used to condemn sexual relationships between loving and committed homosexual people. Here's my thing:
I don't think that the storytellers and writers in Biblical times could have had any concept of two homosexual persons living together in a committed relationship. I imagine that would have been unthinkable. So, I ask myself, what would have been known in those times of homosexual acts. I think (I'm not sure) it would have been this:
1. Molestation of young males by older males.
2. Forcing conquered armies into performing sexual acts on conquering armies.
3. People get stinking drunk and doing the nasty, by definition outside of their marriages.
That kind of thing. The kind of stuff one would probably want to see condemned.
Of course, this kind of discussion would make us go back to the bigger question of the meaning of biblical inspiration. I believe the Bible was inspired by God. For some, they think of that as God dictating every word to writers who did little more than transcribe. For me, I think there was a human, social context to the writings--and that view, by the way, is entirely orthodox in the Catholic church to which I belong.
And you're right, the official stance of the Catholic church is this: To be homosexual in orientation is NOT a sin. It is morally neutral. (This is a good thing, or the shortage of priests would become more acute really quickly). To engage in a homosexual act is immoral, says the RCC categorically.
An ethics professor of mine, a priest, put sexual ethics in the Catholic tradition this way: A morally good sexual act is one that occurs between two married people and which is open to the possibility of procreation. EVERYTHING ELSE is immoral. (This does not preclude the morality of nonprocreative sexual behavior between said married folks, as long as it "ends up" with an act that is open to procreation. It's an interesting deal.)
I really had hopes that the penguin joke might have derailed this, uh, train before it, uh, wrecked. Oh, well. It's a reasonably civil thread
mjacob wrote:By this line, one may ask: Who created God? Its ok to have no answer, its probably a waste of time even thinking about it. But having a lack of answers does not make me believe in God.
Do you realize that you have come pretty close to committing the unprdonable sin? You have dared to explore the origins of God. That is a dangerous area to be questioning. Yesterday (so it seems) you could have been put to death by the church for such blasphemous-like thoughts. Please, please...wait till you get to heaven for such things as that.
You really should leave such hard questioning for creationists who love to ridicule anything that doesn't agree with their hopes.
Cranberry wrote:You make it sound like I want to chop out 450 pages and re-write them myself, then viola! That's the new Bible. LOL. I'm just saying that the Bible is alive, it is constantly changing and has been for 2,000 years, and it will continue to change and within my lifetime I will see legal gay marriage and a gay President, there will be no hatred disguised as religious conviction, and it won't be a big deal.
Technical point: the Bible can't change, except in very minor ways as more reliable manuscripts in the original languages are discovered. The newer translations don't change the Bible, they just attempt to render the available manuscripts more accurately.
Cranberry wrote: You make it sound like I want to chop out 450 pages and re-write them myself, then viola! That's the new Bible. LOL. I'm just saying that the Bible is alive, it is constantly changing and has been for 2,000 years, and it will continue to change and within my lifetime I will see legal gay marriage and a gay President, there will be no hatred disguised as religious conviction, and it won't be a big deal.
The Bible does not change its position on matters of what is sin and what is not. The major changes in the Bible have been linguistic in nature. It is <i>people</i> who choose to change what doctrine they will accept and what they will not. If the Bible continues to change as some are changing it now, then there will come a time when no recognizable theology will remain acceptable to them.
I am aware that some do use religion as a cover for hate. That petition in your other thread comes to mind, also I think of terrorists and stuff like that. However, please allow for the existence of sincere religious convictions.
Unreasonable person,
ants
|___|)____________O___O___O___o__O___O_____|
