does religion/God give people a voice?

[Eman Resu]

Exodus tells us that it is our duty (not our right, mind, but our duty) to seek out and burn witches - is that an acceptable stance in the modern world? Has it EVER been an acceptable stance?

Wow - I wish I had that in one of my Bibles.

:(

I can't get any closer than in Exodus 22:18, which would mean that you're translating the Canaanite root "כָּשַׁף" as "one who 'witches(?)' " rather than as "one who whispers." Sounds like someone (the infallible James Strong, no doubt) cut up a Qabbālâ and a Tanakh, put the pieces into an old hat, and pulled them out at random.

I like the Monty Python version better because their witch is made of wood, or she would be wood if she could. Now I'm dumber than a rusty coffee can fulla chicken beaks, but all I got from the Scrolls at Qumran fragment was, "abide not in the company of dæmons." Not even a can o' charcoal lighter and a match, let alone any "witches" or "burning."

:(

[SentimentalSlop]

Well you don't seem to be doing a very good job of defeating our arguments. Maybe you had a bad teacher?

I am not as good at defending my beliefs as he is. He's much smarter than I am. Plus take into consideration that I've only been thinking critically about such matters for only a couple years. I'm young, and he's middle-aged. He's been doing this for much longer than I have.

And he's the best teacher I ever had. I owe my life to him, that's for sure.

So all those liberals are now Roman Catholics are they? Flashy talkers can give the impression of winning off the cuff debates, if you don't keep your b**l*hit detector well polished.

No, they're not. He emphasizes Christianity in general, not a particular denomination.

If he's that good at converting people, why aren't they all Roman Catholics?

Plus it's funny to think that just because someone loses an argument means that they're going to convert. But he has converted people, myself included, and has inspired young men to become priests.

double standards? no it is not. I would have said he should have know better not get involved. it does not take science to tell you that sexual matters other people are none of our concern, that is the attitude to take. it is not for me to agree or disagree with it. it does not bother me is full stop and it should ne bother you either. sexuality is a private matter it is up to the individual concerned to deal with it as they wished. and you and I should not be discussing it as if it was our business to agree or disagree on it. it does not matter what sexuality people are what matters I that one learns to get on with another without having religion having to tell them how to do it.

I don't see what's wrong with having a conversation about sexuality and morality.

[mal4mac]

Lol Mal4mac. It's a joy reading your posts. I'm waving my pom-poms from the sidelines!

Get on the pitch, I need some support at silly mid-off.

[cacian]

I don't see what's wrong with having a conversation about sexuality and morality.

there is nothing wrong about talking about anything.
what is wrong is saying gay is wrong.
what is also wrong is you thinking you can link sexuality to morality. they are two very different things.
morality is a list of vindicated rules/laws to give religion the upper hand and make it look important. preaching is what it is called to ensure sin at the top like a crowned evil waving its punishing stick in case you decide you play out of fit.
fear is morality.
sexuality between two consenting adults is private to them and only to them. it is not our place to make or place moral judgement on it. we are not to decide whether we like it nor not. we are to occupy our minds with other more pressing ideals such as learning to find our minds and form our own opinions.

[mal4mac]

Wow - I wish I had that in one of my Bibles.

Exodus 22:18 is usually translated as something like: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (KJV) I'm not sure where Lokasenna got the "burning" from, but in practice that's often what happened, so it's a forgiveable mistake, if it is a mistake. Check out other bibles here:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...18&version=KJV

[Eman Resu]

Get on the pitch, I need some support at silly mid-off.

Huh! When I saw the four long stops, I figgered you were the wicket keeper.

[SentimentalSlop]

there is nothing wrong about talking about anything.
what is wrong is saying gay is wrong.
what is also wrong is you thinking you can link sexuality to morality. they are two very different things.
morality is a list of vindicated rules/laws to give religion the upper hand and make it look important. preaching is what it is called to ensure sin at the top like a crowned evil waving its punishing stick in case you decide you play out of fit.
fear is morality.
sexuality between two consenting adults is private to them and only to them. it is not our place to make or place moral judgement on it. we are not to decide whether we like it nor not. we are to occupy our minds with other more pressing ideals such as learning to find our minds and form our own opinions.

I can believe whatever I want. I'm not sneaking into anyone's bedrooms telling them what they can and cannot do, preventing anyone from voting for gay marriage, or pushing my beliefs in people's faces. People can believe or do whatever they want. But if I believe it's sinful (which I do), than I am not going to help sin take place by condoning it.

[Eman Resu]

Exodus 22:18 is usually translated as something like: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (KJV) I'm not sure where Lokasenna got the "burning" from, but in practice that's often what happened, so it's a forgiveable mistake, if it is a mistake. Check out other bibles here:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...18&version=KJV

This is the problem with reading modern translation - and what makes watching folks argue about the Bible an admixture of sad and funny. If I knew absolutely nothing about algebra, calculus or number theory, I'd probably look rather silly trying to hold a conversation about Relativity with Richard Feynman.

If physics held my interest, I'd certainly make every effort to learn about it all that I possibly could before posting wild, unverified assertions in a public forum. It constantly astounds me that so many folks want to "discuss the Bible" and profess knowledge thereof, never having even read it other than in modern translation. I can't imagine a scientist whose only language was Urdu, reading Feynman's work as translated by a Comprehensive Schooler with only the most rudimentary knowledge of the target language.

[cacian]

I can believe whatever I want. I'm not sneaking into anyone's bedrooms telling them what they can and cannot do, preventing anyone from voting for gay marriage, or pushing my beliefs in people's faces. People can believe or do whatever they want. But if I believe it's sinful (which I do), than I am not going to help sin take place by condoning it.

fair enough but I personally think sin is a delusion derogatory of a religion that feeds on it. there is no sin what there is people wanting to get on with their lives and others preventing them from doing so.
if you believe in sin then the likelihood of you committing one is pretty strong. to live with it however is pretty cumbersome to say the least.
I do not believe in sin and therefore my actions are solely based on what think is right for me and for others and what is in between I use my brain to figure it out.

[Lokasenna]

Exodus 22:18 is usually translated as something like: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (KJV) I'm not sure where Lokasenna got the "burning" from, but in practice that's often what happened, so it's a forgiveable mistake, if it is a mistake. Check out other bibles here:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...18&version=KJV

Yup, that's what I was alluding to - with perhaps a touch of theatrical hyperbole supplied by the Malleus Malificarum. The practical reality was that a great many people interpreted that passage of Exodus as an instruction to persecute women. I was perhaps letting my irritation run away with me...

I can believe whatever I want. I'm not sneaking into anyone's bedrooms telling them what they can and cannot do, preventing anyone from voting for gay marriage, or pushing my beliefs in people's faces. People can believe or do whatever they want. But if I believe it's sinful (which I do), than I am not going to help sin take place by condoning it.

You are, of course, entitled to your beliefs - but only insofar as they are not incitement. Can I just remind you that a few pages ago you attempted to justify the killing of innocent people for their sexuality, citing the Bible as you did so? Is it really necessary for me to explain why this is an abominable thought? It is this sort of mentality that has caused the deaths of hundereds of thousands of people, and inflicted misery on millions more, throughout history.

[SentimentalSlop]

fair enough but I personally think sin is a delusion derogatory of a religion that feeds on it. there is no sin what there is people wanting to get on with their lives and others preventing them from doing so.
if you believe in sin then the likelihood of you commenting one is pretty strong. to live with it however is pretty cumbersome to say the least.
I do not believe in sin and therefore my actions are solely based on what think is right for me and for others and what is in between I use my brain to figure it out.

What you think is right. Interesting. So there's not really a right and wrong, but just what you think is right and wrong? If right and wrong is just a matter of opinion, then it doesn't really mean anything.

[mal4mac]

This is the problem with reading modern translation - and what makes watching folks argue about the Bible an admixture of sad and funny.

Are you arguing that only people who read Hebrew, or Latin, can have anything to say about Christian viewpoints? That we should all shut up and accept the infallible pronouncements of the Pope? I thought that view disappeared in medieval times. You don't need the equivalent of a degree in physics, or knowledge of Ancient Languages, to see the rubbish the Roman Catholic church comes out with, simply the ability of a child who sees that the Emperor has no clothes.

Also, relativity doesn't have an impact on our day to day lives, Roman Catholic pronouncements affect all of us. In past ages, such pronouncements could have led to us being burned, today we might catch AIDS because of the unenlightened attitude the church has to condom use. So we all need to engage with Christian doctrines, and the church has to meet us half way, or become irrelevant, which it realised in the Renaissance. Isn't it time you had a personal Renaissance? You might even reach the enlightenment one day. So why not retreat to your scholastic ghetto and leave the rest of us to talk in a language we all understand.

[SentimentalSlop]

Yup, that's what I was alluding to - with perhaps a touch of theatrical hyperbole supplied by the Malleus Malificarum. The practical reality was that a great many people interpreted that passage of Exodus as an instruction to persecute women. I was perhaps letting my irritation run away with me...



You are, of course, entitled to your beliefs - but only insofar as they are not incitement. Can I just remind you that a few pages ago you attempted to justify the killing of innocent people for their sexuality, citing the Bible as you did so? Is it really necessary for me to explain why this is an abominable thought? It is this sort of mentality that has caused the deaths of hundereds of thousands of people, and inflicted misery on millions more, throughout history.

Who are you to say that I can't act upon my beliefs? I do everyday.

The OT justified the killing of active homosexuals because it is a sin to act upon such desires, but Christ came not to eradicate the idea that active homosexuality is sinful, but to show mercy to sinners and offer them another way to heaven that is actually possible.

[cafolini]

What you think is right. Interesting. So there's not really a right and wrong, but just what you think is right and wrong? If right and wrong is just a matter of opinion, then it doesn't really mean anything.

Correct. But this has little to do with what Loka said.

[SentimentalSlop]

^I was talking to Cacian. I just forgot to quote her by accident.

Are you arguing that only people who read Hebrew, or Latin, can have anything to say about Christian viewpoints? That we should all shut up and accept the infallible pronouncements of the Pope? I thought that view disappeared in medieval times. You don't need the equivalent of a degree in physics, or knowledge of Ancient Languages, to see the rubbish the Roman Catholic church comes out with, simply the ability of a child who sees that the Emperor has no clothes.

Also, relativity doesn't have an impact on our day to day lives, Roman Catholic pronouncements affect all of us. In past ages, such pronouncements could have led to us being burned, today we might catch AIDS because of the unenlightened attitude the church has to condom use. So we all need to engage with Christian doctrines, and the church has to meet us half way, or become irrelevant, which it realised in the Renaissance. Isn't it time you had a personal Renaissance? You might even reach the enlightenment one day. So why not retreat to your scholastic ghetto and leave the rest of us to talk in a language we all understand.

He didn't say that. All he's saying is that knowledge of the languages used in biblical times is a lot more helpful in understanding scripture.