That's all very good, but there are matters that have nothing to do with belief that the church will not budge on. St Peter, the first Pope, no doubt believed that Apostles,and disciples should be allowed to marry. Strange that the present Pope is strongly against its Priests marrying and this is a sad disaster of Catholicism.I would rather the church stands up clearly for what it believes in and what it was built upon, rather than be swayed by the mainstream opinion of the day.
That's all very good, but there are matters that have nothing to do with belief that the church will not budge on. St Peter, the first Pope, no doubt believed that Apostles,and disciples should be allowed to marry. Strange that the present Pope is strongly against its Priests marrying and this is a sad disaster of Catholicism.
However, If a priest of another religion, Church of England for instance, joins the Roman Catholic Church he is allowed to become one of its Priests and this, even if he is married.
You are right that an awful lot of evil has been committed by people taking the Bible out of context. An obvious example is the 'Christian' crusades. Those people called themselves Christians, but they can't have been based on what we are taught in the Bible.
Here's another true story that shows a positive side of religion. I don't say it shows the beauty of religion - I think the word 'beauty' does a poor job of accurately describing religion
Nice point.IMO that's an excellent way of putting it. There is no beauty in religion itself, but it does have a positive side that inspires many of its followers to do beautiful things and create beautiful things. But such inspiration is not the exclusive domain of religion, as some previous examples have attested.
1.
3. This is gonna be a very long thread. Why start it for? This forum is supposed to be about stocks/trading.
This will be a matter of context and interpretation, but I agree that the verses in isolation look extremely nasty. I need some time but leave it with me and I'll provide a fuller response.
Originally Posted by Tink:
well you never know - Banjo Patterson and the like might have...lol
Its all history talk - they arent gonna change the words to redo it..
You gotta read between the lines...
Originally posted by Bunyip:
The only reason 'you gotta read between the lines' is if you don't want to accept the confronting reality that the Bible is in many respects a very harsh and cruel book that promotes, glorifies, and instructs people to commit some very nasty crimes.
Your assertion that 'you gotta read between the lines' is a good example of you seeing only what you want to see.
I believe this is something that you accused others of earlier in this thread in post 108 when you said, in reference to posters who had spoken out against religion..."They only see what they want to see."
Another beautiful story Bunyip, thanks for sharing
I still dont agree with you that I see what I want to see
I gave you my interpretation, if you dont agree with it, then thats your problem..
I see what I have seen in the Catholic Church all my life, and as I have stated, it has been all good, for myself, my family and the billion of others that are involved in the Church.
The Catholic Church is one of the oldest Religions with alot of history
I noticed you said 'our church' - what church are you in?
and for the record, my childrens school has a 3 year waiting list and its not a small school. Part of the acceptance is that the people have to attend Church
Alot of people still have the Catholic faith... like it or not...
Sorry if I came across as blunt Bunyip, wasnt suppose to sound like that
Of course I have heard of the bad side, by the billion, I meant the ones involved now and happy..
I am not defending the catholic church, there is good and bad in all religions
This thread is about the good..
Couldn't happen bunyip. Their authority is written in the pages. It was probably easier to alter it centuries ago due to a lack of readily available photocopy machines and scanners, but we're stuck with the rules now, as absurd as they may be.What do you think of my suggestion that the Bible needs to be re-written to better reflect true Christian values?
Couldn't happen bunyip. Their authority is written in the pages. It was probably easier to alter it centuries ago due to a lack of readily available photocopy machines and scanners, but we're stuck with the rules now, as absurd as they may be.
I actually have a small project underway tentitively titled 'The New 10 Commandments', which I hope will capture modern day moral values.
I'll be keeping most of the 10th Commandment in of course. I definately do not want to covert my neighbour's goat, or male or female slave.
Actually, maybe the female slave is OK....
So true a lot of evil has been performed in the name of christianity, a favourite Tee shirt of mine says " if you can get a man to believe absurditys, you can get him to commit attrocities". But by the same token , it is obvious that christians believeing they are doing the right thing , tend to use a lot of lattitude regarding interpretation of the babble.
If the Bible is our moral guide, then how can it make pornographic statements such as: “...they may eat their own dung and drink their own piss with you” (2 Kings 18:27)? Also consult Numbers 31 where a whole tribe of people, including the elderly and children are slaughtered. The only survivors were the virginal women, who were later raped by the “just and perfect” Moses and his men. Is that what you want your children reading on Sunday?And how else can you interperate this other than disgracefull and evil.
This will be a matter of context and interpretation, but I agree that the verses in isolation look extremely nasty. I need some time but leave it with me and I'll provide a fuller response.
2 Kings 18:27
"He replied, 'Do you think you and the king are the only ones the emperor sent me to say all these things to? No, I am also talking to the people who are sitting on the wall, who will have to eat their excrement and drink their urine, just as you will.'"
Who says this? One of the three highest officials of the Assyrian emperor.
Who is he saying it to? Directly to Eliakim, Shebna and Joah, three officials of Hezekiah, king of Judah. Indirectly to King Hezekiah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
Context? The Assyrian emperor has sent an army to conquer Jerusalem. The army is right outside Jerusalem and the three Assyrian officials are threatening three officials of King Hezekiah. The officials of Judah ask the official of Assyria to speak in Aramaic, not Hebrew:
2 Kings 18: 26
"Then Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah told the official, 'Speak Aramaic to us, sir. We understand it. Don't speak Hebrew; all the people on the wall are listening.'"
They didn't want the soldiers and citizens in Jerusalem to hear the conversation as it could effect their morale. That only encouraged the Assyrian official to continue speaking in Aramaic and become even more threatening. The Assyrians were going to siege Jerusalem and force all its inhabitants to "eat their excrement and drink their urine...". These words were a threat to the people of Jerusalem to make them terrified and surrender the city to the Assyrians.
Hopefully that helps with the context of those words. I'm still to look into Numbers 31.
So true a lot of evil has been performed in the name of christianity, a favourite Tee shirt of mine says " if you can get a man to believe absurditys, you can get him to commit attrocities". But by the same token , it is obvious that christians believeing they are doing the right thing , tend to use a lot of lattitude regarding interpretation of the babble.
If the Bible is our moral guide, then how can it make pornographic statements such as: “...they may eat their own dung and drink their own piss with you” (2 Kings 18:27)? Also consult Numbers 31 where a whole tribe of people, including the elderly and children are slaughtered. The only survivors were the virginal women, who were later raped by the “just and perfect” Moses and his men. Is that what you want your children reading on Sunday?And how else can you interperate this other than disgracefull and evil.
This will be a matter of context and interpretation, but I agree that the verses in isolation look extremely nasty. I need some time but leave it with me and I'll provide a fuller response.
Peterh, thanks for looking into that for me , when your done perhaps you could explain to me in what context we could all take this ;Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God. "Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you." (Genesis 22:1-18) Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him. He even lies to his son and has him help build the altar. Then Abraham ties his son to the altar and puts a knife to his throat. He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith. However, God still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram.
Even though he didn't kill his son, it is still an incredibly cruel and evil thing to do. If Abraham did that today he would be in jail serving a long sentence as someone's prison-bitch. It amazes me how Christians see this story as a sign of God's love. There is no love here, just pure unadulterated evil.
Peterh , thank you for that , and as i asked before if you could also give me your spin on Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God, and how that isn't the most evil wicked bit of child abuse a father could ever perform on his son , i would really appreciate that as well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?