|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 9:55 am
Manga Punk Sai I'm gay, clearly for gay marriage, And I've met gays against gay marriage and straights for gay marriage so no that doesn't really make it clear but whatever. Quote: but what I DON'T get is that people refuse to accept that the Bible and Abrahamic religions (Christianity included) are anti-gay and anti-women and a slew of other unpleasant things. And yet they persist on being part of that religion, despite the fact their own views are at odds with it. You seem to assume that interpretations don't change as those of those religions come to new understandings of their God and core teachings. Is coming to new interpretations of Holy Texts when shown that previous interpretations are incompatible with core teachings some how wrong?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:16 am
divineseraph Semiremis divineseraph Semiremis Captain_Shinzo Semiremis Like I said before. You have to be open minded to have a decent conversation on this.
Again, I was opened minded on this before and it didn't hold too much water to an argument.There were more arguments than the ones based on human reproduction which do have their merits but eventually break apart (my opinion even after reading the arguments based around the necessity of having a father and mother in order to ensure the best scenario for the development of human young). You must be some sort of genius though, to go through the information so fast while at the same time giving it some thought, either that or you fit into a category similar to the first one I mentioned: Most far left liberals are typically not open minded enough to even briefly look over some of the arguments made in articles like the two I posted above which makes discussion and consideration of the points sort of difficultMaybe I'm being rude here but I don't think you really looked into it. You couldn't have. Take some time...think about it. Meditate over what being fair and open-minded really means. A quick glance with your mind already made up doesn't fit the category of open-minded but maybe I'm the only one who thinks that. If it takes a genius to see a logical fallacy, then I may very well be a genius. Why don't YOU take some time to meditate on the idea that love is love and should not be controlled by legal systems of man. Open minded rarely means denying others of rights that harm no others. You tried to push a point that wasn't relevant to the discussion and I agreed with the point you made but the counterargument just wasn't being made anywhere in the sources I provided... You may have seen a logical fallacy but it's in something that was never even proposed to begin with in this case. I never said love should be controlled by a legal system... @everyone in the guild: Someone asked about secular arguments against gay marriage. They exist, they are made, I don't agree with most of them I have yet to see ONE person with strong opposing opinions even consider them and give them a fair chance... open mindedness and tolerance works both ways. DO NOT EXPECT someone against gay marriage to give your side a fair shot if you cannot provide them the same courtesy. The crux of the argument was that some marriages are not protected by law. How is my argument against the validity of using the law as proper reason of goodness irrelevant? Your argument was irrelevant because no one was taking the opposing side of the argument, I wasn't, the articles I provided weren't. Without that you're just preaching to the choir. The typical gay marriage proponent doesn't address why gay marriage should be included in the law. 'It's equal rights' doesn't suffice, what does it have to do with equal rights when marriage isn't a right to begin with? That's the question that was being proposed and it's not up to the opponents of gay marriage to argue their point since they aren't introducing anything new. Those in favor of gay marriage need to stop pointing fingers and make their case, not the other way around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:59 am
suprgrl12 First of all, marriage is a solely religious serimony. If the government and other factors were not involved with marriage, I think gay marriage should'nt be allowed since the belief of the religion (Christianity for example) does not allow for gays to marry.
Secondly, religion, Christianity included, does NOT talk bad about gay marriage or homosexuality for that matter.
There is no scripture within the Bible saying Homosexuality is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:01 pm
Manga Punk Sai I'm gay, clearly for gay marriage, but what I DON'T get is that people refuse to accept that the Bible and Abrahamic religions (Christianity included) are anti-gay and anti-women and a slew of other unpleasant things. And yet they persist on being part of that religion, despite the fact their own views are at odds with it.
Sure, I think the entire concept is silly but it is not anti-gay from what I have seen.
As for anti-women, not many religions are except for the abuse of the religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:22 pm
Manga Punk Sai I'm gay, clearly for gay marriage, but what I DON'T get is that people refuse to accept that the Bible and Abrahamic religions (Christianity included) are anti-gay and anti-women and a slew of other unpleasant things. And yet they persist on being part of that religion, despite the fact their own views are at odds with it. The Abrahamic relgions aren't anti- gay and anti-women, the more extreme people who follow them just find verses that defend what really is just, "you act/ are different from me. that means that somethings wrong with you." Plaese don't take what I'm saying to be offensive, it's just the way i see things. If you disagree, tell me your side of the arguement. Just dont get all in my face about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:34 pm
rmcdra Manga Punk Sai I'm gay, clearly for gay marriage, And I've met gays against gay marriage and straights for gay marriage so no that doesn't really make it clear but whatever. Self-hating Christian gays maybe? Quote: You seem to assume that interpretations don't change as those of those religions come to new understandings of their God and core teachings. Is coming to new interpretations of Holy Texts when shown that previous interpretations are incompatible with core teachings some how wrong? Captain_Shinzo Christianity, in all honesty, is not anti-gay what-so-ever.
Sure, I think the entire concept is silly but it is not anti-gay from what I have seen.
As for anti-women, not many religions are except for the abuse of the religion. Sashaajnin The Abrahamic relgions aren't anti- gay and anti-women, the more extreme people who follow them just find verses that defend what really is just, "you act/ are different from me. that means that somethings wrong with you." Plaese don't take what I'm saying to be offensive, it's just the way i see things. If you disagree, tell me your side of the arguement. Just dont get all in my face about it. See this is kind of what I'm talking about. People can try to twist Judaism, Christianity and Islam around to align with modern sensibilities but that doesn't mean that they do. How can the holy, infallible word be up for interpretation? Wouldn't choosing to follow some things on not others bring down the wrath? Here's some examples from the holy texts: -Old Testament-Gays: Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. (this can also go for Women. Stop wearing pants, ladies, it's an abomination!)
1 Samuel 20:30 Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness? (Jonathan and David have what pretty strongly appears to be a homosexual relationship, here Jonathan's father decides that because Jonathan's mother is lewd and Jonathan saw her naked, that must have made him gay)Women: Gensis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.- New Testament -(I'll admit these are all Paul, NOT Jesus, but Christians seem to take as much from Paul as 'ol JC) Gays: Romans 1:26-32 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet ... Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (I think Pat Robertson said something similar last week)Women: 1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Timothy 2:11-14 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.- Qur'an -Gays: (The Heights) Surah 7:80-81 And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk.(the same general idea/story is repeated several times throughout the Qur'an) Women: (The Cow) Surah 2:282... And call two witness from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not at hand, then a man and two women ...(this suggests one man is equal to two women)
(Women) Surah 4:15 As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation).
(Women) Surah 4:34 Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
(The Light) Surah 24:31 And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:25 pm
Manga Punk Sai See this is kind of what I'm talking about. People can try to twist Judaism, Christianity and Islam around to align with modern sensibilities but that doesn't mean that they do. Strawman much? Quote: How can the holy, infallible word be up for interpretation? Because we are limited in our understanding and there's more to the religion than that book. Without a tradition to guide it, it's dead words. Sola Scriptura is not only stupid but it doesn't exist. Quote: Wouldn't choosing to follow some things on not others bring down the wrath? Who says those things are being ignored if there's commandments within the book not to follow it? Quote: -Old Testament-Gays: Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. (this can also go for Women. Stop wearing pants, ladies, it's an abomination!)
1 Samuel 20:30 Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness? (Jonathan and David have what pretty strongly appears to be a homosexual relationship, here Jonathan's father decides that because Jonathan's mother is lewd and Jonathan saw her naked, that must have made him gay)Women: Gensis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. 2 Corinthians 3 12Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 13We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. 14But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. Hebrews 7 11If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. 13He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. So if a Christian is following the Old Testament as something more than a historical text, they aren't practicing Christianity right. Quote: - New Testament -(I'll admit these are all Paul, NOT Jesus, but Christians seem to take as much from Paul as 'ol JC) Gays: Romans 1:26-32 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet ... Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (I think Pat Robertson said something similar last week) I'm not seeing anything about homosexuality in this passage. Now I see a Bacchic cult being condemned here but nothing concerning homosexuality. Quote: 1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Are we sure now that woman is not symbol here considering this verse? Galatians 3 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. This seems to suggest that there's something more in 1 Corinthians 11 then what is being presented. Quote: Timothy 2:11-14 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. If I do recall, I think this has to do more with priesthood than how the social order should be. I could be wrong on that though. I'm not familiar with it since my sect rejects this book. In my sect, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus are rejected since they were forged and included to refute Marcionism, i.e. they were included for ecclesiastic politics. You may have to wait for someone more tradition to give proper apologetics regarding this. Concerning the Qu'arn I'm not familiar with it so I can't comment on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:18 pm
rmcdra Manga Punk Sai See this is kind of what I'm talking about. People can try to twist Judaism, Christianity and Islam around to align with modern sensibilities but that doesn't mean that they do. Strawman much? How is that a strawman argument exactly? You can't make ancient ideas align with modern ideas, it doesn't work. It isn't the interpretation that changes, it's the world. Quote: So if a Christian is following the Old Testament as something more than a historical text, they aren't practicing Christianity right. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Jesus, Matt 5:17-18 Besides which, if it's Christian to ignore the Old Testament then the sin of Adam of Eve should also be ignored. As should the Ten Commandments ( seeing as Jesus only named five, and then made up one of his own) Yet they're not. Quote: I'm not seeing anything about homosexuality in this passage. Now I see a Bacchic cult being condemned here but nothing concerning homosexuality. Men and women abandoned their "natural use" to hook up with the same sex and Paul calls them a bunch of nasty names? Seems pretty clear to me. This is also the man who said "effeminate" men can't get into heaven. But then Paul hated everyone who wasn't a virgin, cause he was sure Jesus was coming back real real soon so no one should even bother getting married. Quote: Are we sure now that woman is not symbol here considering this verse? No considering the Acts also say women must cover their heads and be silent in church, and repeatedly say husband/man is head of the wife/woman just as Christ is head of the man. Of course it was Paul who started calling him "Christ" and elevated him to deity status, but since Christians do follow those ideas I'm going to assume it's part of the religion. Quote: If I do recall, I think this has to do more with priesthood than how the social order should be. Because there were so many female teachers, politicians and authority figures in the 2nd century middle East. The fact that it's even called "apologetics" is interesting. I just don't understand if you're going to take your religion and its holy texts and carefully snip away everything you don't agree with why you'd even bother to be part of that religion to begin with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 5:43 pm
Manga Punk Sai How is that a strawman argument exactly? You can't make ancient ideas align with modern ideas, it doesn't work. It isn't the interpretation that changes, it's the world. And you assume that the tradition is fixed. Traditions grow and change, the core of Christianity is still present and the new interpretations develop that is still consistent with the core. Quote: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Jesus, Matt 5:17-18 And the law is what now... Matthew 7 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.So how now is the Law and prophets being denied now if this is kept. Also which laws and which prophets? The 10 commandments are implied in the Law of Agape and most traditions do not consider the 10 commandments part of the Laws of Moses since it is believed the addition 603 mitzot were made by man to try to complete the Law. In Christianity Christ completed the Law with the law of agape. As for Original Sin, it's part of Christianity's oral tradition. Some traditions of Christianity do not accept it. Quote: Men and women abandoned their "natural use" to hook up with the same sex and Paul calls them a bunch of nasty names? Seems pretty clear to me. This is also the man who said "effeminate" men can't get into heaven. But then Paul hated everyone who wasn't a virgin, cause he was sure Jesus was coming back real real soon so no one should even bother getting married. Then your study is very shallow. But whatever it's not your religion anyway Quote: No considering the Acts also say women must cover their heads and be silent in church, and repeatedly say husband/man is head of the wife/woman just as Christ is head of the man. Seems that you lack an understanding of cultural symbolism such as equating the female with intuition and male with rational but whatever, you don't seem to have any interest in serious study of Abrahamic religion. Quote: Of course it was Paul who started calling him "Christ" and elevated him to deity status, but since Christians do follow those ideas I'm going to assume it's part of the religion. No Christ was the Greek equivalent for the Messiah. And as for his deity status, it had been hotly debated before Paul if there is any validity to oral tradition. Quote: Because there were so many female teachers, politicians and authority figures in the 2nd century middle East. More that there were gaps in the theology that would allow for such a thing and there was a movement starting in the early church for a female priesthood until said texts came to the forefront. Quote: The fact that it's even called "apologetics" is interesting. I just don't understand if you're going to take your religion and its holy texts and carefully snip away everything you don't agree with why you'd even bother to be part of that religion to begin with. It comes from a Greek word meaning "speaking in defense". How you seem to equate reinterpretation of core text when it becomes known that the old interpretation is not in line with core teachings with snipping away what one doesn't like is beyond me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:34 am
rmcdra Manga Punk Sai How is that a strawman argument exactly? You can't make ancient ideas align with modern ideas, it doesn't work. It isn't the interpretation that changes, it's the world. And you assume that the tradition is fixed. Traditions grow and change, the core of Christianity is still present and the new interpretations develop that is still consistent with the core. I do, namely because people tell me the Word is infallible, forever binding, and the perfect guide to life. The book itself says nothing should be added or taken away. Though interestingly enough people often like to interpret it to their convenience, such as saying "well god wouldn't MIND if I had sex before marriage" at the same time they're condemning gays based on Leviticus. Quote: Quote: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Jesus, Matt 5:17-18 And the law is what now... Matthew 7 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.So how now is the Law and prophets being denied now if this is kept. Also which laws and which prophets? The prophets would be the ones of Jewish tradition, and their Law included about 600 commandments. Quote: The 10 commandments are implied in the Law of Agape and most traditions do not consider the 10 commandments part of the Laws of Moses since it is believed the addition 603 mitzot were made by man to try to complete the Law. In Christianity Christ completed the Law with the law of agape. As for Original Sin, it's part of Christianity's oral tradition. Some traditions of Christianity do not accept it. My point still remains, these are things taken from the Old Testament, people use the Old Testament to oppress gays, and yet when you bring up passages from it they go "oh that doesn't apply to ME". It is amazingly frustrating. Quote: Quote: Men and women abandoned their "natural use" to hook up with the same sex and Paul calls them a bunch of nasty names? Seems pretty clear to me. This is also the man who said "effeminate" men can't get into heaven. But then Paul hated everyone who wasn't a virgin, cause he was sure Jesus was coming back real real soon so no one should even bother getting married. Then your study is very shallow. But whatever it's not your religion anyway I noticed in my studies that Paul had... very SPECIFIC beliefs, ones that were radically different than the gospels and it seemed to me he had started his own cult with Jesus not as a teacher or person but a full-on god. Christians only seem to follow this because it backs up the worship of Jesus as a god, but I wonder if the religion wouldn't be completely different without Paul. Quote: Quote: No considering the Acts also say women must cover their heads and be silent in church, and repeatedly say husband/man is head of the wife/woman just as Christ is head of the man. Seems that you lack an understanding of cultural symbolism such as equating the female with intuition and male with rational but whatever, you don't seem to have any interest in serious study of Abrahamic religion. This is what I was talking about in my other post. So it's "symbolism" now? What seems to be a pretty clear instruction that women should remain silent and cover themselves in church? Is it symbolism because it makes you uncomfortable to see sexism in the holy word of a religion? It would have been acceptable back then, but to our modern sensibilities it looks bad, so people try to explain it away. Quote: Quote: Because there were so many female teachers, politicians and authority figures in the 2nd century middle East. More that there were gaps in the theology that would allow for such a thing and there was a movement starting in the early church for a female priesthood until said texts came to the forefront. So then the church used the texts in order to oppress women. That's no surprise. Quote: Quote: The fact that it's even called "apologetics" is interesting. I just don't understand if you're going to take your religion and its holy texts and carefully snip away everything you don't agree with why you'd even bother to be part of that religion to begin with. It comes from a Greek word meaning "speaking in defense". How you seem to equate reinterpretation of core text when it becomes known that the old interpretation is not in line with core teachings with snipping away what one doesn't like is beyond me. If you're saying oral tradition is more important than the book, why bother with the book at all?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:56 pm
Manga Punk Sai I do, namely because people tell me the Word is infallible, forever binding, and the perfect guide to life. The book itself says nothing should be added or taken away. Though interestingly enough people often like to interpret it to their convenience, such as saying "well god wouldn't MIND if I had sex before marriage" at the same time they're condemning gays based on Leviticus. Well most US Christians follow sola scriptura and at the same time are rather ignorant of scripture and core teachings and judgmental assholes. Quote: The prophets would be the ones of Jewish tradition, and their Law included about 600 commandments. Which Jewish tradition? The Jewish tradition that exists today is a reconstruction for the most part after the fall of the 2nd temple. Before the fall of the 2nd temple there were multiple Hebrew religions. Next the canon of the Torah wasn't closed until the fall of the 2nd Temple and it was in response to the growing Christian movement. Regardless for someone that seemed to be in support of the Law and Prophets he teaches some things quite antithetical to it. Quote: My point still remains, these are things taken from the Old Testament, people use the Old Testament to oppress gays, and yet when you bring up passages from it they go "oh that doesn't apply to ME". It is amazingly frustrating. Because they are ignorant bigoted asses using their religion to support their bigotry. So. You have bigots using anything and everything to support their bigotry. Why is using religion any surprise. Quote: I noticed in my studies that Paul had... very SPECIFIC beliefs, ones that were radically different than the gospels and it seemed to me he had started his own cult with Jesus not as a teacher or person but a full-on god. Christians only seem to follow this because it backs up the worship of Jesus as a god, but I wonder if the religion wouldn't be completely different without Paul. Well Yeah he had more Gnostic leanings and wanted to create a Christianity open to the Gentiles. Of course you're going to see difference when you have Jewish-Christian literature, Gentile Christian literature, and Gnostic Christian literature all put in the same book. Yeah Christianity would have been more Hebrew than it is now since James and Peter wanted to keep it as a Hebrew mystical tradition. What Paul's intentions were we don't know but as a result he opened Christianity to the Gentiles. Quote: This is what I was talking about in my other post. So it's "symbolism" now? What seems to be a pretty clear instruction that women should remain silent and cover themselves in church? Is it symbolism because it makes you uncomfortable to see sexism in the holy word of a religion? It would have been acceptable back then, but to our modern sensibilities it looks bad, so people try to explain it away. Other Christians might have to because of their theology but I can't. See I'm not part of fixed tradition nor am I sola scriptura. I'm not a Christian trying to pretend to be a 2nd Century Jew, like many other Christians are. If I was to interpret that as literal I would be going against and contradicting core teachings so I cannot accept that interpretation. So yeah you're arguing with the wrong person about this. Quote: So then the church used the texts in order to oppress women. That's no surprise. The defense I've heard is that the liturgy is designed for a male. To put a female in that role of a male priest would mess up the symbolism and intended effect of the liturgy. One would have to rework the liturgy for it to allow for female priest. If you aren't big on ritual and don't want to be catholic, there are plenty of other Churches and religions out there that allow for a female priesthood and female teachers. Christian and non-Christian. Quote: If you're saying oral tradition is more important than the book, why bother with the book at all? Because the book is basically a cliff notes version of the oral tradition and it is a tool to keep the oral tradition theologically sound. Protestants are the ones that put more importance on the book than oral tradition since they reject it but oddly still follow a good portion of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:27 pm
Captain_Shinzo Well, I couldn't call anyone a religious bigot before hearing their claim but most that I have met either believed in no homosexuality because of religion or just used the same arguments most religious debaters on the opposing side use.
EX: It is not natural. It funny because it is natural... You don't see it usally but many animals do show homosexuality. don't belive me google it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:54 pm
bluewolfxx Captain_Shinzo Well, I couldn't call anyone a religious bigot before hearing their claim but most that I have met either believed in no homosexuality because of religion or just used the same arguments most religious debaters on the opposing side use.
EX: It is not natural. It funny because it is natural... You don't see it usally but many animals do show homosexuality. don't belive me google it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
