does religion/God give people a voice?

[Eman Resu]

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've seen firsthand the hideous mistranslations of Beowulf; multiply that manifold for the length of time between the derivation from Canaanite roots three and one-half millennia ago, and the result of James Strong's "concordance." I implore you to devote a few minutes in reading this:


http://trumpetsound.faithweb.com/Preface.html


You can even ignore Riplinger's remark - “James Strong, author of the Strong’s Concordance, has been elevated to the fourth member of the Trinity by many. His corrupt Greek and Hebrew definitions pepper today’s preaching, as if his Concordance was the final and 67th book of the Bible." - on the basis that she's a Royal Nut Job, despite the fact that she comprehends the Aramaic and Canaanite structures better than most (and certainly better than did Strong, whose Hebrew was limited to "see Jane run...") and whose "nutshell Greek" was just that.

Yo! Give a shout-out to dem coolio dudes
Holdin' dem spears way back long ago,
An' all da cool adu-freakin-lation dey got!
Lotta times Beowulf's old man...

and cetera. Really, this is much closer to the original than is most modern Bible translation.

Hebrew is simple to learn, and it's the electric can opener of the Old Testament. Sure, you can open a can with a machete or a Phillips screwdriver, but the can opener makes a really neat sound, and does a pretty darned good job in the end.

[Eman Resu]

The OT justified the killing of active homosexuals

Where; Leviticus 20:13? If you take it literally, Leviticus 20:2 says that applies only to those resident in Israel during the Lifetime of Moses.

[SentimentalSlop]

Where; Leviticus 20:13? If you take it literally, Leviticus 20:2 says that applies only to those resident in Israel during the Lifetime of Moses.

I know that, but it still applied at one time. I know that these laws were to distinguish the Isrealites from the pagans. I'm just saying.

[cafolini]

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.

I dislike to disagree with you because you are a good believer, but I must about this. You actually think that what you are saying will not sneak into gays' bedrooms? Nonsense.

As Nelle Harper Lee put it, the bible is not a book to tell you exactly how to live and do. It is the best book there is to make you think. It is not a book to tell you absolute ways to fry an egg.

[Eman Resu]

Are you arguing that only people who read Hebrew, or Latin, can have anything to say about Christian viewpoints?

Nope; go back and actually read what's written there. As to "Latin" there's no Biblical source material in Latin. The OT and NT sources are Hebrew and Greek respectively, save for Daniel and Ezra whose source material is Aramaic.

You have the right to voice whatever opinion you like, but I do (personally) find it amusing that atheists spend so much time, and expend so much energy talking about God when they claim the He doesn't even exist. Seems to me that if He's not even real, He wouldn't be worth all the effort. I don't see atheists writing long monologues about the Loch Ness Monster, mermaids or Tinkerbell; why all this emphasis on God in particular?

[SentimentalSlop]

I dislike to disagree with you because you are a good believer, but I must about this. You actually think that what you are saying will not sneak into gays' bedrooms? Nonsense.

As Nelle Harper Lee put it, the bible is not a book to tell you exactly how to live and do. It is the best book there is to make you think. It is not a book to tell you absolute ways to fry an egg.

I'm not checking in on people having sex, am I? I just disagree with it and don't want to encourage it because I believe it's a sin and encouraging someone to sin is also a sin. It's not enough to save myself and ignore others. If others don't like what I have to say, then fine.

The Bible as well as with Catholic tradition is how I try to live my life. It's there to make you think, yes, but I believe in its proclaimed truths, and, in my daily conduct, attempt to live by those proclaimed truths.

[Eman Resu]

I know that, but it still applied at one time. I know that these laws were to distinguish the Isrealites from the pagans.

A trifle oversimplified, but not historically inaccurate. By that token then we must say, in reading 1 Corinthians 6:9 that all sexual conduct outside the confines of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is the same - heterosexual and homosexual alike - since it will keep one from the joys Life Eternal.

Since Catholicism teaches us that Absolution and the Sacrament of Penance dispel the commission of one sin, why then would not the same be true of the other? No Human being - including Jesus - has ever lived a Lifetime without falling from the State of Grace. If our sins against 1 Corinthians 6:9 follow us into the afterlife, somebody had better tell Satan to start building an addition.

[Eman Resu]

The Bible as well as with Catholic tradition is how I try to live my life. It's there to make you think, yes, but I believe in its proclaimed truths, and, in my daily conduct, attempt to live by those proclaimed truths.

I'm with cafolini's take on this - I surely can't agree with your views, but I can't help but genuinely admire your Faith and convictions.

[SentimentalSlop]

A trifle oversimplified, but not historically inaccurate. By that token then we must say, in reading 1 Corinthians 6:9 that all sexual conduct outside the confines of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is the same - heterosexual and homosexual alike - since it will keep one from the joys Life Eternal.

Since Catholicism teaches us that Absolution and the Sacrament of Penance dispel the commission of one sin, why then would not the same be true of the other? No Human being - including Jesus - has ever lived a Lifetime without falling from the State of Grace. If our sins against 1 Corinthians 6:9 follow us into the afterlife, somebody had better tell Satan to start building an addition.

Yes, all sexual relations are sinful outside of marriage. But Catholics don't believe that "gay marriage" is even a marriage, so whether they "marry" or not, it is sinful to have sex.

Christians believe Christ was sinless.

[Eman Resu]

On the lighter side, two Catholics walk into a gay bar.























No; there's nothing more to add. Cue laughter.

[SentimentalSlop]

^lol.

I'm with cafolini's take on this - I surely can't agree with your views, but I can't help but genuinely admire your Faith and convictions.

Thank you. I admire your genuine open-mindedness. <3

[Eman Resu]

Christians believe Christ was sinless.

Only those who have redacted the passage from John 8 of their Bibles. According to His Father, who gave the Laws to Moses, and to Leviticus, it was Christ's duty to chastise an adulteress - not to pluck her from the hands of justice.

[SentimentalSlop]

He did chastise her. He made clear to her that she sinned, but he was going to let her go.

The whole entire purpose of God the Father sending his only Son down to Earth was to season the justice already established with mercy. If Christ was only here on earth to uphold the OT laws and teach nothing else, then his purpose was meaningless.

Plus Christ did not sin here. All he did was find a clever way to answer while avoiding death for Himself, the adulteress, all the while giving us an important lesson. He did the same thing in Matthew 22:15-22.

[Eman Resu]

He did chastise her. He made clear to her that she sinned, but he was going to let her go.

The whole entire purpose of God the Father sending his only Son down to Earth was to season the justice already established with mercy. If Christ was only here on earth to uphold the OT laws and teach nothing else, then his purpose was meaningless.

Plus Christ did not sin here. All he did was find a clever way to answer while avoiding death for Himself, the adulteress, all the while giving us an important lesson. He did the same thing in Matthew 22:15-22.

Then why should we not try to be as clever as Jesus was - and listen to His message - and simply let go, to embrace (figuratively, of course, and not literally) everyone, no matter their gender choice, their sexual preference, nor their personal beliefs? Isn't that really what we're supposed to learn from Matthew 7:1 or Luke 6:37?

[SentimentalSlop]

There are many problems with the Christ of the New Testament, what about his famous statement:

Luke 14:26 "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

A very useful verse for cults!

The central New Testament doctrine of 'atonement' for 'original sin' is morally obnoxious. This was taken over from the Old Testament by Jesus, and is based on a woman stealing an apple! I have an apple tree. If I saw a woman leaning over my fence and stealing an apple I'd let it go; heck, it's only an apple.

But God & Jesus think she, and her offspring, need to atone for it by suffering for eternity. Seems a slight over-reaction. Of course 'eating the fruit' is often taken to be symbolic of nakedness & sexual activity. Why would the Creator of the universe take offence at what people do while naked? It's bizarre, and such prudery contributes daily to human misery (for heterosexuals and homosexuals!)

Then God/Jesus adds sado-masochism to the stew, incarnating himself as a man to torture himself, to "redeem" our sin of chewing apples. And Judas & other Jews gets castigated for this, and persecuted ever since, when all they did was help Jesus fulfil his sado-masochistic plan. Besides being repellent doesn't this idea seem barking mad?

If God wants to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them, why go through this crazy drama. It seems to relate to the OT idea of sacrifice being necessary for forgiveness of sins, as in Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews:

9: 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

This is executing the innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty, as Old Testament, and Old Nasty, as it gets, and it's right there in the heart of the New Testament.

1) "Hate" used here doesn't literally mean hate. The Greek word used is Miseo, which means to love less. It's used on a comparative basis, to love something more than another. All Christ was asking was for us to love him above all things. We shouldn't "hate" anyone, in the sense we understand it.

2) It wasn't about stealing an apple. God had to place the tree there in order to give humanity a choice between him and something else so as not to be a tyrant. Adam and Eve knew the tree to be the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They already knew what good was, so the only thing they could have chosen when picking the apple from that tree was evil.

3) Jesus is the lamb. He is the final sacrifice that opened up the gates of Heaven for all those willing to follow him. There are parallels between him the Passover Lamb. Read Exodus 12 to see what I mean.