Who is right, me or the Pope? Me, of course. I don’t think you have any intrinsic disorder – other than that hatred for all religion, that is! 
Jesus said a lot of stuff. Some of it was irony, some parable, some hyperbole. Look up what he said was most important. Check how he said to apply it to daily life.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Right, right, fairly right, and wrong, in that order. No spittle needed. 
[/QUOTE]
You have a problem with “heavily”, I assume? And what’s wrong with “one of the earliest”? (Briefly, of course. I don’t expect you to give me a history of Xian texts here.)
[QUOTE=RedFury]
How could he NOT? They are both the same dude. Remember that whole Trinity thing?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Matthew 24:36]
But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=RedFury]
This is where religious people lose me; they turn logic into a pretzel in order to attempt to make sense of the absurd.
[/QUOTE]
Separate but the same, it’s a very hard thing to grasp, I would think people of this board have a better then average chance of understanding multi-dimension physics (beyond 3d+time) and how 2 objects can actually be part of the same multi-d object, and how they can be independent in our 3d world. I’m not saying that’s how God works, jut the theory that 2 or more independent objects can be the same thing.
The New Testament is secretly a parable for understanding string theory and particle physics, right?
For the question of homosexuality, I will contribute my WAG’s:
Homosexuality is a sin (as is a lot of other sexual and non-sexual things). Before Christ died for us, a practicing homosexual was just racking up more and more sin, so it was a mercy killing to end his life early and incurring less judgment.
After Jesus, this no longer applies as all sin can be totally transfered to Jesus instantly. Killing a homosexual while in a state of sin means eternal death, while letting him live allows more of a chance to come to accept Christ and have eternal life.
This however leads to a rather odd situation where you should kill a homosexual (and all sinners) once he comes to accept Jesus, to keep him from slipping back. But Jesus’s value on life here seems to answer that odd situation.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
The New Testament is secretly a parable for understanding string theory and particle physics, right?
[/QUOTE]
And nuclear science, God destroyed 2 cities, only seconded 1000’s of years later by Americans.
Well I guess that’s the secret of the Old Testament.
[QUOTE=Valteron]
Obviously, you and Falwell are reading two very different messages out of the same gospels. Somebody is cherry picking somewhere!
[/QUOTE]
GWB, Abe Lincoln, Jimmy Carter, and Richard Nixon, all swore to uphold the Constitution. Is somebody cherry picking?
A book like the Bible or any religious text, as well as other documents that are philosophical in nature will be subject to interpretation. The interpretation reflects the inner person doing the interpretation, not necessarily the writing.
This point was made in another thread a few months back. Someone suggested that perhaps it’s even incorrect to call it an interpretation of the Bible since people seem to be so selective. Perhaps the Bible and Jesus tools for own self exploration revealing something about us, not the book or JC. In that each person must take responsibility for their choices and their actions. If they give their hearts and minds over to others {like Swaggart etc,} to tell them whats right and whats wrong, what to think and how to feel, they’re responsible for that too.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
For the question of homosexuality, I will contribute my WAG’s:
Homosexuality is a sin (as is a lot of other sexual and non-sexual things). Before Christ died for us, a practicing homosexual was just racking up more and more sin, so it was a mercy killing to end his life early and incurring less judgment.
After Jesus, this no longer applies as all sin can be totally transfered to Jesus instantly. Killing a homosexual while in a state of sin means eternal death, while letting him live allows more of a chance to come to accept Christ and have eternal life.
This however leads to a rather odd situation where you should kill a homosexual (and all sinners) once he comes to accept Jesus, to keep him from slipping back. But Jesus’s value on life here seems to answer that odd situation.
[/QUOTE]
If you do not agree with him, how can both of you come to such diffrewnt conclusions based on the same Jesus and the same Gospels. One of you is wrong, obviously!
So how does that differ from “Everyone can do whatever they damned well feel like, and justify by Scripture–or just throw Scripture out the window, if they like–and invent his own standards of ethical behavior, and believe in a combination of Jesus, Mohahmmed, and the Good Humor man, or the IPU, and/or Satan and His Merry Band”?
OE: this is in response to Cosmosdan.
[QUOTE=Valteron]
One of you is wrong, obviously!
[/QUOTE]
Welll, both of them could be wrong, too. (That’s how the smart money is betting.)
[QUOTE=Valteron]
If you do not agree with him, how can both of you come to such diffrewnt conclusions based on the same Jesus and the same Gospels. One of you is wrong, obviously!
[/QUOTE]
The US Constitution is a great example of this phenomenon, as already mentioned. The most far-left liberal and the most far-right conservative both think they are interpreting the Constitution “correctly.” Maybe only one of them is right, or maybe neither is, but the act interpreting rightly or wrongly doesn’t change the fundamental truth of the document.
[QUOTE=Valteron]
Religion is a weapon and a dangerous one. By serving as moral cautions and buffers to religion, religious liberals offer themselves as facades that mask the true extent of cruelty and inhumanity that is inherent in religion.
To some extent, they play the same role as segregationst politicians of the past century played in relation to the KKK. While the violence and bigotry of the KKK was enough to revolt most normal people, lovable, folksy, populist politicians in the South could defend the system of institutionalized racism by claiming that segregation was designed to protect “the Negro”. And if a few white hot-heads went a bit far, wellll, now that really wasn’t what the segregation laws were all about. That was just some extremists.
Just for fun, see the Bible’s Guide to Torture at this site:
Quick quiz: In what year did the Catholic Church, in a Papal Bull, condemn the use of torture: 1611? 1790? 1816? (Hint: It was very very late!)
Just for the record, in case you are wondering which Holy Book, the Bible or the Koran, contains more verses of violence or cruelty, the numbers are Bible: 857; Koran 494. However, since the Bible is a much longer book, the Koran is in fact the cut-off-hands-down winner on a percentile basis, with 7.92% of its verses dedicated to holy violence, maimimg and torture, as opposed to 2.75% of the verses in the Bible.
But the Bible often makes up in quality of cruelty and numbers killed what it lacks in individual verses. Take the case of King David, who “did what was right in the sight of the Lord … save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite” (1 Kings 15:5). Since he tortured the inhabitants of several cities, we must conclude that this is acceptable to the same God that liberals like Polycarp and Liberal worship.
“And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. 2 Samuel 12:31”
“And he brought out the people that were in it, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes. Even so dealt David with all the cities of the children of Ammon. 1 Chronicles 20:3.”
Without religious liberals and “moderates” we would be forced to look directly at the reality, cruelty and fanaticism of religion.
[/QUOTE]
I can see you feel strongly about this but honestly, you sound like any other person ranting about their beliefs without any evidence. The same people you rail against. No amount of statistics or historical mentions will support the thesis contained in your last sentence. you’ve mentioned this before in other threads.You simply have no evidence to support your emotional belief. How much does it help your case about the evils of religion when you yourself continue to hold and promote your own unsubstantiated beliefs? How do you successfully criticize others emotional attachment to their beliefs while clinging to your own?
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
The US Constitution is a great example of this phenomenon, as already mentioned. The most far-left liberal and the most far-right conservative both think they are interpreting the Constitution “correctly.” Maybe only one of them is right, or maybe neither is, but the act interpreting rightly or wrongly doesn’t change the fundamental truth of the document.
[/QUOTE]
So the Bible is a living document, intended by its framers to be interpreted as applying to future civilizations, added to, changed, and (in one of the framers’ words) revoked and rewritten if it ever became antithetical to the needs of a future generation? Sounds good to me.
Cite me the chapter and verse of the Gospels where this is specified btw. I’d like to study that.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
So the Bible is a living document, intended by its framers to be interpreted as applying to future civilizations, added to, changed, and (in one of the framers’ words) revoked and rewritten if it ever became antithetical to the needs of a future generation? Sounds good to me.
Cite me the chapter and verse of the Gospels where this is specified btw. I’d like to study that.
[/QUOTE]
Your description of the Constitution as a “living document” is an interpretation in itself.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Your description of the Constitution as a “living document” is an interpretation in itself.
[/QUOTE]
Well, me and about a gazillion lawyers, scholars and judges. What, you think it’s a dead document, and Negroes are still 3/5ths of a human?
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Well, me and about a gazillion lawyers, scholars and judges. What, you think it’s a dead document, and Negroes are still 3/5ths of a human?
[/QUOTE]
My point was that the term “living document” means different things to different lawyers, scholars, and judges.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
So how does that differ from “Everyone can do whatever they damned well feel like, and justify by Scripture–or just throw Scripture out the window, if they like–and invent his own standards of ethical behavior, and believe in a combination of Jesus, Mohahmmed, and the Good Humor man, or the IPU, and/or Satan and His Merry Band”?
OE: this is in response to Cosmosdan.
[/QUOTE]
Everyone can do whatever they feel like… and then they have to take full responsibility for their actions. People do invent their own standards of ethical behavior whether they are believers or not. Their view of what constitutes ethical behavior will inevitably conflict with others and in that conflict we examine ourselves {hopefully} and grow {eventually}
It works exactly the same for believers and non believers. Neither has any edge or moral advantage in trying to justify their behavior.
I’m all for chipping away at the use of religion to justify heinous, immoral and just plain stupid acts. People can say “I believe this is God’s will for me, for mankind” and really believe it but they are still responsible for their actions. The same goes for those who rant that “all religion is tainted with stupidity and evil” If the goal is to move the discussion and mankind forward rather than just vent , then either side has to come to some realization that there is something to learn from the other.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
My point was that the term “living document” means different things to different lawyers, scholars, and judges.
[/QUOTE]
I’m still waiting to hear how you think it’s not a living document. “Your description of the Constitution as a “living document” is an interpretation in itself.” Let me hear your description of it as anything other than a living document.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
So the Bible is a living document, intended by its framers to be interpreted as applying to future civilizations, added to, changed, and (in one of the framers’ words) revoked and rewritten if it ever became antithetical to the needs of a future generation? Sounds good to me.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Deuteronomy 4:2]
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Revelation22]
18 I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book:
19 and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book.
[/QUOTE]
It appears that if the Bible can be amended that man is not given this privilege.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
So the Bible is a living document, intended by its framers to be interpreted as applying to future civilizations, added to, changed, and (in one of the framers’ words) revoked and rewritten if it ever became antithetical to the needs of a future generation? Sounds good to me.
Cite me the chapter and verse of the Gospels where this is specified btw. I’d like to study that.
[/QUOTE]
John 8:32
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.