New Pope

[Adron]

I think that what you're also pointing out is that you can't follow rules just because they're in the bible, or just because someone at church said so.

You'll have to find rational reasons for following them. Which is what we've been discussing here in this thread.

[Hazard]

iago, its so easy to sit there and pick out contradictions in Christian living, but the message is still the same. You can nit pick and find ironies all you want, but its totally irrellevant.

It's irrelevant that they follow some parts of the Bible (that are convenient) but not others?

All right, though.  I can't argue against anybody who's going to take that stand.  How could I? 

"Prove that fornication is bad" -- The bible says so, so it must be true; it's the word of God.. 

"Prove that you should be killed for working on Sunday" -- The bible says it, but we don't believe THAT part. 

"Prove that people who don't work should die" -- The bible says it, but again, THAT part doesn't matter.  It doesn't suit our beliefs, so we ignore it.

I don't really see any way to argue against blind faith in the Church.

Have you ever considered that the word of the Bible is not to be taken literally? All you people that argue against the Bible talk about how impossible so much of it is, when in fact Catholics and most Christians accept the symbolism of the Bible.

I base my belief that fornication is wrong off of what the Bible says, yes. Does the Bible make sense on the issue? Of course it does. Should the Catholic church just say "Okay, marijuana is fine" just because millions use it? Do you know how stupid you sound?

[iago]

iago, its so easy to sit there and pick out contradictions in Christian living, but the message is still the same. You can nit pick and find ironies all you want, but its totally irrellevant.

It's irrelevant that they follow some parts of the Bible (that are convenient) but not others?

All right, though.  I can't argue against anybody who's going to take that stand.  How could I? 

"Prove that fornication is bad" -- The bible says so, so it must be true; it's the word of God.. 

"Prove that you should be killed for working on Sunday" -- The bible says it, but we don't believe THAT part. 

"Prove that people who don't work should die" -- The bible says it, but again, THAT part doesn't matter.  It doesn't suit our beliefs, so we ignore it.

I don't really see any way to argue against blind faith in the Church.

Have you ever considered that the word of the Bible is not to be taken literally? All you people that argue against the Bible talk about how impossible so much of it is, when in fact Catholics and most Christians accept the symbolism of the Bible.

I base my belief that fornication is wrong off of what the Bible says, yes. Does the Bible make sense on the issue? Of course it does. Should the Catholic church just say "Okay, marijuana is fine" just because millions use it? Do you know how stupid you sound?

Ok, so we're in agreement that you can't believe something just because it's in the bible.  So how do you choose which parts you believe? I mean, besides believing just the parts that the Church tells you to?  How do you decide that homosexuality is bad, and fornication is bad, but working on Sunday is ok?  Do you decide that, or does the Church decide it for you?

Would you kindly demonstrate the part of the Bible where it says that fornication is wrong, and explain to me how it makes more sense than the part about killing people for working on Sunday (which is pretty clear)?  You seem pretty confident about it, and I guess, as you said, I'm just "stupid" because I can't tell the difference between the parts of the Bible I should believe and the parts I shouldn't believe.  So please, enlighten me?

[Hazard]

Ok, so we're in agreement that you can't believe something just because it's in the bible.  So how do you choose which parts you believe? I mean, besides believing just the parts that the Church tells you to?  How do you decide that homosexuality is bad, and fornication is bad, but working on Sunday is ok?  Do you decide that, or does the Church decide it for you?

Would you kindly demonstrate the part of the Bible where it says that fornication is wrong, and explain to me how it makes more sense than the part about killing people for working on Sunday (which is pretty clear)?  You seem pretty confident about it, and I guess, as you said, I'm just "stupid" because I can't tell the difference between the parts of the Bible I should believe and the parts I shouldn't believe.  So please, enlighten me?

I'd like to start by saying I did not intend to call you stupid, I said that what you were saying sounds stupid. I've said stupid things, but it doesn't make me a stupid person.

I decide what I believe based on a mixture of things. I consider what the Church teaches but I believe that ultimate authority to interpret scripture for individuals is up to the reader. I've decided for myself that in the natural order of things that homosexuality is wrong. Quite simply, it's not natural in my opinion. Fornication, same thing. I accept that sexuality is meant to be sacred and I accept that God spoke out against adultery. Have I sinned against that idea? Hell yes. Am I sorry that I wasn't able to resist it? Hell yes. Have I apologized? You bet your ass. The work on Sunday thing, I think is another form of symbolism. It was meant to be that you have a day of rest, that its not just work work work work work work and to take time out for personal reflection and prayer.

Its not about parts of the Bible you should believe and the parts you should not believe, its all about the interpretation. Quite simply, the Bible is not to be taken strictly literally. The New Testament Book of Mark, the earliest written Gospel, was written almost 60 years after Christ's death, and this was well after the apostles had past on. The parables are just that, parables. Stories meant to relay the teaching of Jesus. In fact it is believed that very few of the stories about Jesus actually happend, they are more symbolic than anything else. Did Jesus work miracles, walk on water, cure the sick and the blind? Of course. Did it happen just as it is written? Probably not. Thats not the point, you miss the idea when you look at it as a textbook instead of an objective work. Its not like reading a book on the Battle of Bull Run where at 8:23 am on the morning of such and such this General attacked with so many men the right flank of the Union Army - thats not the way it works.

[Hazard]

You'll have to find rational reasons for following them. Which is what we've been discussing here in this thread.

Who says you have to be able to explain them rationally? You can't logically explain something that is a) beyond human understanding and b) is beyond time and space.

[Adron]

You'll have to find rational reasons for following them. Which is what we've been discussing here in this thread.

Who says you have to be able to explain them rationally? You can't logically explain something that is a) beyond human understanding and b) is beyond time and space.

I said to find rational reasons for following them. If the rules are beyond human understanding and beyond time and space, we won't be following them anyway. I was speaking of rules that apply to daily life, not beyond time and space at all.

Such as being tolerant and not judging homosexuals.

Or such as giving joy through lovemaking, even if having a child right now wouldn't work, through the use of contraceptives.

[iago]

I've decided for myself that in the natural order of things that homosexuality is wrong. Quite simply, it's not natural in my opinion. Fornication, same thing. I accept that sexuality is meant to be sacred and I accept that God spoke out against adultery.

Having sex without marriage isn't natural? To use your phrase, do you realize how stupid that sounds?  When the Earth was created, there were rocks and trees and fruit and wedding ceremonies?  It seems to me that weddings are pretty unnatural. 

Homosexuality, as I understand it, isn't something that people choose; either somebody is gay, or they aren't, it's beyond their choice.  Does that mean that God is intentionally torturing homosexuals by forcing them to not enjoy their lives in the way Nature intended?  It seems like a pretty nasty God if he's willing to make people Gay so they could suffer. 

Also, if you don't believe me that they're born gay, I'll ask a friend of mine how old he was when he decided to be an outcast and a sinner.

[Arta]

Ok, so we're in agreement that you can't believe something just because it's in the bible.  So how do you choose which parts you believe? I mean, besides believing just the parts that the Church tells you to?  How do you decide that homosexuality is bad, and fornication is bad, but working on Sunday is ok?  Do you decide that, or does the Church decide it for you?

Would you kindly demonstrate the part of the Bible where it says that fornication is wrong, and explain to me how it makes more sense than the part about killing people for working on Sunday (which is pretty clear)?  You seem pretty confident about it, and I guess, as you said, I'm just "stupid" because I can't tell the difference between the parts of the Bible I should believe and the parts I shouldn't believe.  So please, enlighten me?

I'd like to start by saying I did not intend to call you stupid, I said that what you were saying sounds stupid. I've said stupid things, but it doesn't make me a stupid person.

I decide what I believe based on a mixture of things. I consider what the Church teaches but I believe that ultimate authority to interpret scripture for individuals is up to the reader. I've decided for myself that in the natural order of things that homosexuality is wrong. Quite simply, it's not natural in my opinion. Fornication, same thing. I accept that sexuality is meant to be sacred and I accept that God spoke out against adultery. Have I sinned against that idea? Hell yes. Am I sorry that I wasn't able to resist it? Hell yes. Have I apologized? You bet your ass. The work on Sunday thing, I think is another form of symbolism. It was meant to be that you have a day of rest, that its not just work work work work work work and to take time out for personal reflection and prayer.

Its not about parts of the Bible you should believe and the parts you should not believe, its all about the interpretation. Quite simply, the Bible is not to be taken strictly literally. The New Testament Book of Mark, the earliest written Gospel, was written almost 60 years after Christ's death, and this was well after the apostles had past on. The parables are just that, parables. Stories meant to relay the teaching of Jesus. In fact it is believed that very few of the stories about Jesus actually happend, they are more symbolic than anything else. Did Jesus work miracles, walk on water, cure the sick and the blind? Of course. Did it happen just as it is written? Probably not. Thats not the point, you miss the idea when you look at it as a textbook instead of an objective work. Its not like reading a book on the Battle of Bull Run where at 8:23 am on the morning of such and such this General attacked with so many men the right flank of the Union Army - thats not the way it works.

Doesn't that boil down to: read the bible, interpret it how you see fit, and believe what you choose?

nslay: If the old testament is the old covenant, which we don't follow anymore, why do the majority of christians think that homosexuality is bad on the basis of Leviticus?

[nslay]

Ok, so we're in agreement that you can't believe something just because it's in the bible.  So how do you choose which parts you believe? I mean, besides believing just the parts that the Church tells you to?  How do you decide that homosexuality is bad, and fornication is bad, but working on Sunday is ok?  Do you decide that, or does the Church decide it for you?

Would you kindly demonstrate the part of the Bible where it says that fornication is wrong, and explain to me how it makes more sense than the part about killing people for working on Sunday (which is pretty clear)?  You seem pretty confident about it, and I guess, as you said, I'm just "stupid" because I can't tell the difference between the parts of the Bible I should believe and the parts I shouldn't believe.  So please, enlighten me?

I'd like to start by saying I did not intend to call you stupid, I said that what you were saying sounds stupid. I've said stupid things, but it doesn't make me a stupid person.

I decide what I believe based on a mixture of things. I consider what the Church teaches but I believe that ultimate authority to interpret scripture for individuals is up to the reader. I've decided for myself that in the natural order of things that homosexuality is wrong. Quite simply, it's not natural in my opinion. Fornication, same thing. I accept that sexuality is meant to be sacred and I accept that God spoke out against adultery. Have I sinned against that idea? Hell yes. Am I sorry that I wasn't able to resist it? Hell yes. Have I apologized? You bet your ass. The work on Sunday thing, I think is another form of symbolism. It was meant to be that you have a day of rest, that its not just work work work work work work and to take time out for personal reflection and prayer.

Its not about parts of the Bible you should believe and the parts you should not believe, its all about the interpretation. Quite simply, the Bible is not to be taken strictly literally. The New Testament Book of Mark, the earliest written Gospel, was written almost 60 years after Christ's death, and this was well after the apostles had past on. The parables are just that, parables. Stories meant to relay the teaching of Jesus. In fact it is believed that very few of the stories about Jesus actually happend, they are more symbolic than anything else. Did Jesus work miracles, walk on water, cure the sick and the blind? Of course. Did it happen just as it is written? Probably not. Thats not the point, you miss the idea when you look at it as a textbook instead of an objective work. Its not like reading a book on the Battle of Bull Run where at 8:23 am on the morning of such and such this General attacked with so many men the right flank of the Union Army - thats not the way it works.

Doesn't that boil down to: read the bible, interpret it how you see fit, and believe what you choose?

nslay: If the old testament is the old covenant, which we don't follow anymore, why do the majority of christians think that homosexuality is bad on the basis of Leviticus?

The Church is responsable for doctrine, that is why there is an elaborate heirarchy in the Catholic Church for example.  The Pope is the absolute authority over doctrine.  The Church uses history to understand the context in which the bible was written in order to understand precisely why an author wrote a particular passage or text.

It turns out that it isn't only mentioned in the old testament.
Check 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Romans 1:26-27 there are a few others but in the old testament.  Since the laws of leviticus are obsolete, had it not been discussed anywhere else it would have been difficult to argue.  Besides, I don't see any Christians following the law in leviticus against homosexuals anyways.

Regarding fornication, read a previous post of mine...

[iago]

The Church is responsable for doctrine, that is why there is an elaborate heirarchy in the Catholic Church for example.  The Pope is the absolute authority over doctrine.  The Church uses history to understand the context in which the bible was written in order to understand precisely why an author wrote a particular passage or text.

It turns out that it isn't only mentioned in the old testament.
Check 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Romans 1:26-27 there are a few others but in the old testament.  Since the laws of leviticus are obsolete, had it not been discussed anywhere else it would have been difficult to argue.  Besides, I don't see any Christians following the law in leviticus against homosexuals anyways.

Regarding fornication, read a previous post of mine...

I think we're all in agreement with the point I was trying to make: the Bible and precident don't have absolute power, the church can change.

Now, back to the original point: they should get a pope that is looking for reform.  Anti-homosexuality, problems with women working in the church, and anti-birth control are all very old fashioned ideas and should be carefully examined, not blindly accepted.

[nslay]

The Church is responsable for doctrine, that is why there is an elaborate heirarchy in the Catholic Church for example.  The Pope is the absolute authority over doctrine.  The Church uses history to understand the context in which the bible was written in order to understand precisely why an author wrote a particular passage or text.

It turns out that it isn't only mentioned in the old testament.
Check 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Romans 1:26-27 there are a few others but in the old testament.  Since the laws of leviticus are obsolete, had it not been discussed anywhere else it would have been difficult to argue.  Besides, I don't see any Christians following the law in leviticus against homosexuals anyways.

Regarding fornication, read a previous post of mine...

I think we're all in agreement with the point I was trying to make: the Bible and precident don't have absolute power, the church can change.

Now, back to the original point: they should get a pope that is looking for reform.  Anti-homosexuality, problems with women working in the church, and anti-birth control are all very old fashioned ideas and should be carefully examined, not blindly accepted.

Indeed, it is absolutely necessary for the church to regulate doctrine in fact since we now have technology and worldly problems that didn't exist in biblical times.
However, someone made a point that the church should conform to modern trends.  That is something I cannot agree with.  The church is not an object of change because of the majority, it is an institution of moral and ethical doctrine and it is their responsability to uphold morality which cannot and will not be dictated by what the majority does.  The bible is a guide since much of it still applies to us, however, this does not mean it is infallible! 

Homosexuality is abnormal by our anatomy and a lot is said throughout the bible about it, the church will never grant homosexuals marriage.

The only cause of problems with women in the church I can see is the entire Old Testament and Timothy and Titus(which scholars believe are not written by Paul).  Already Women have more of a role in the church, there are now lady alter servers and there is sisterhood.  This I could see being reformed.

Regarding contraception, read a previous post of mine.

Trust me, none of this is blindly accepted ... it is literally a hot seat to be the Pope and with every review or piece of doctrine I assure you there is at least a few hundred pages of reasoning behind his decision.

[Adron]

Actually the protestant church here is in the process of granting homosexuals "marriage". Since homosexuality is a natural thing, that has existed before any christian, as well as exists among animals, the church needs to accept it.

In either case, let God himself be the judge. As was said about the bible and interpretation, it can be read to say many different things. Unless you consider the context in which various parts were written, you can't hope to interpret them correctly. It's not God's literal writing that you're reading, just what people have written down long ago, colored by their prejudices and personal ideas.

[Yegg]

Actually the protestant church here is in the process of granting homosexuals "marriage". Since homosexuality is a natural thing, that has existed before any christian, as well as exists among animals, the church needs to accept it.

How can homosexuality be natural? Would it be completely normal if you wanted to have sex with Hazard (assuming he's a guy)? Marriage was meant for people of the opposite sex to reproduce together. Can two guys naturally create a child? I hope not!Can two women naturally create a child? I hope not! They can only have a child with special operations (etc. etc.). This is in no way natural, that is like saying breast implants are natural when they become enlarged 2 sizes. Homosexual marriage's is in no way natural.

[Adron]

Actually the protestant church here is in the process of granting homosexuals "marriage". Since homosexuality is a natural thing, that has existed before any christian, as well as exists among animals, the church needs to accept it.

How can homosexuality be natural? Would it be completely normal if you wanted to have sex with Hazard (assuming he's a guy)? Marriage was meant for people of the opposite sex to reproduce together. Can two guys naturally create a child? I hope not!Can two women naturally create a child? I hope not! They can only have a child with special operations (etc. etc.). This is in no way natural, that is like saying breast implants are natural when they become enlarged 2 sizes. Homosexual marriage's is in no way natural.

Homosexuality is a natural way to form relationships and enjoy the benefits of them when the population is either big enough or has an imbalanced male-female ratio. Relationships between people can be beneficial even without children being born. If creating children was the primary purpose of all human beings, why would the church want its servants to live in chastity? There are other religions, different from christianity, where fertility and producing children is a priority above anything else. I would understand those not wanting homosexual relationships more than the christian church.

[iago]

Actually the protestant church here is in the process of granting homosexuals "marriage". Since homosexuality is a natural thing, that has existed before any christian, as well as exists among animals, the church needs to accept it.

How can homosexuality be natural? Would it be completely normal if you wanted to have sex with Hazard (assuming he's a guy)? Marriage was meant for people of the opposite sex to reproduce together. Can two guys naturally create a child? I hope not!Can two women naturally create a child? I hope not! They can only have a child with special operations (etc. etc.). This is in no way natural, that is like saying breast implants are natural when they become enlarged 2 sizes. Homosexual marriage's is in no way natural.

As I said, people don't choose to be gay.  I can help to prove that, but my friend isn't online. 

People don't choose to be gay implies that being Gay is natural. 

Maybe it's some kind of genetic mutation, or a sickness, or a mental disorder; but any of those are still natural. 

You look at a hot girl, and you get horny.  You can't control that.  They look at a hot guy and get horny.  It seems pretty obvious to me that they can't control that any more than you can control looking at girls.  Should you hate somebody for something they can't control?

On a sidenote, you and Hazard should get together.  You'd make a pretty couple.