-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The Official Religion Thread
- Thread starter U5230
- Start date
- Status
We differ on how we live our lives, but the man is very clear and eloquent about his philosophy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewP5tNLBb2E&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewP5tNLBb2E&feature=related
Joel Was Right
If you smell burning, it's probably the generators acting up. Report it anyway.
About a year and a half ago I began to take part and observe debates about religion on forum largely aimed towards at the student demographic. When I would Google certain subjects I would stumble across similar debates on other forums, including here on GAF. But the similarities didnt end there; something that became clear early on was that the disagreements, mainly from those critical of doctrines or religion in general, were not based on disputing translations, scholarly credibility, or interpretations of verses and text but instead the ethics. In the Bible thread thats being discussed at the moment people are referring to the wrath and violent nature of God as a point of commentary of the ethics or lack of at play in Biblical scripture. But the most popular example was the Biblical perspective on homosexuality and so that became the focus point in my subsequent conversations - not in specifically the opinions about it from a religious point of view, but what the factors for those opinions were.
Criticism and condemnation to this isnt exactly surprisingly, especially when it comes from those with no religious affiliation, but there were a minority in these debates who identified themselves as Christians and dismissed the mere notion of those views being in the Bible. Evidently these individuals hadnt read anything relating to the Bible other than Christmas Carols but they do reflect a growing voice within Christianity that is challenging the orthodox attitudes towards e.g. gay couples. In other episodes I came across other Christians who declared their rejection of e.g. The Old Testament because some things in that didnt sit well with them or their very narrow image of God. Then I came across a girl who described herself as a proud Christian but contested the sanctity, or necessity, for marriage. She admitted she was a committed relationship with her boyfriend, a relationship that was not without sex. One thing that connected all these people was that their own personal understanding of God and what He expected from then and would tolerate. They agreed that the fundamental pillars (or doctrines), if not only pillars, they based their faith on was that God was a loving God and all he essentially required was for you to love thy neighbour. Anything that conflicted with that perception, e.g. the Old Testament, was void. On a private level I suspected that these individuals interpreted their religion in accordance to their lifestyle view as opposed to the conventional method of moulding your lifestyle around your religious beliefs, and if there was a contradiction, their personal view would take precedence over scripture. Let me give you an example; this Christian woman here recorded a video blog on YouTube arguing for a return towards a patriarchal family structure. She doesnt hide her religious motives. Some of her views conflict harshly with that of modern-day standards and in fact if it was a male recording that message, it would have been easy to dismiss him as a sexist and chauvinist. That woman represents orthodox religion in the 21st century where our society and culturally are largely secular, and highlights the incompatibility between the two. When a self-avowed homosexual man from Michigan sued a publisher of the Bible for $60million because of its verses on homosexuality, I became disillusioned as to how people nowadays saw religion.
From starting out taking an interest in the theological nature of these debates, I became obsessed with trying to understand the social and cultural factors behind these conversations. I never found a counter argument using scripture to confront the liberal viewpoints on religion so I abandoned those pointless discussions and started to talk to priests and bishops. I spoke to a few in my city and others around the country. I noticed a pattern, but before I could take at it face value I decided to speak to a few more churches. America was the natural place to find some views on this, so I called churches in the South and those in the North-East. The pattern was constant. Amongst the first churches I contacted was one in Soho here in London, a town with a fair size gay community. The priest was friendly and open. When I asked about his beliefs towards gay couples, he admitted that large parts of his congregation were themselves gay and we had a conversation (where I mainly listened) about the Bible on this regard, and also the necessity of marriage. He didnt refer to scripture all that much, or quote verses, when discussing his defence of gay sex. He did have some words about Paul however, and his work in Romans. In regards to marriage, he used a couple whom he has been friends with a long-time and said that although they are not married, they are in a long committed relationship and love each other. Thats marriage already. I didnt know what to quite make of that, but he was an incredibly moral man who emphasised love as the central theme for everything God-related, and if there was love, then God would not have an issue with it. He invited me for tea to talk more. I always thought that he had suspected that I was a Christian who was afraid to come out, so to speak.
My conversation with the Church in Houston was even more interesting. Although the mood was light hearted, he was very strong on the matter of gay sex from a Biblical point and went on to quote me verses and commentate on them. I provided him counters, some which the priest in Soho explained to me. The reason Im giving you these two examples is that they were completely different, not only in their view but their reasoning, and this is the pattern that I mentioned earlier. Areas, or states, that have a significant gay community or are perceived to be liberal have Churches which subscribe to a tolerant view of many doctrines including the notion of gay couples, if not out right defend the sexuality that is criticised in scripture. They reasoned with ethics, morals and the the right thing to do line. Regardless of your personal disposition to the issue, it was difficult not to be impressed and humbled by such reason. It appealed to the better nature of man. Opponents however, reasoned using scripture as evidence. The two schools of thought, evidently, cannot always co-exist.
Phil Donuhue, a Catholic, sees no other alternative but to reform the Church (and therefore the Christian faith). In a debate about abortion (video here) rights in the United States, he argued with a priest that the Church is declining and for it to survive certain beliefs have to be interpreted in accordance with current day ethics.
How will religion survive if parts of its own members are basing their religious beliefs around their personal beliefs? Regardless of where you stand on religion in general, its hard to disagree that its being undermined. Whether that's a good thing or not is obviously subjective.
Criticism and condemnation to this isnt exactly surprisingly, especially when it comes from those with no religious affiliation, but there were a minority in these debates who identified themselves as Christians and dismissed the mere notion of those views being in the Bible. Evidently these individuals hadnt read anything relating to the Bible other than Christmas Carols but they do reflect a growing voice within Christianity that is challenging the orthodox attitudes towards e.g. gay couples. In other episodes I came across other Christians who declared their rejection of e.g. The Old Testament because some things in that didnt sit well with them or their very narrow image of God. Then I came across a girl who described herself as a proud Christian but contested the sanctity, or necessity, for marriage. She admitted she was a committed relationship with her boyfriend, a relationship that was not without sex. One thing that connected all these people was that their own personal understanding of God and what He expected from then and would tolerate. They agreed that the fundamental pillars (or doctrines), if not only pillars, they based their faith on was that God was a loving God and all he essentially required was for you to love thy neighbour. Anything that conflicted with that perception, e.g. the Old Testament, was void. On a private level I suspected that these individuals interpreted their religion in accordance to their lifestyle view as opposed to the conventional method of moulding your lifestyle around your religious beliefs, and if there was a contradiction, their personal view would take precedence over scripture. Let me give you an example; this Christian woman here recorded a video blog on YouTube arguing for a return towards a patriarchal family structure. She doesnt hide her religious motives. Some of her views conflict harshly with that of modern-day standards and in fact if it was a male recording that message, it would have been easy to dismiss him as a sexist and chauvinist. That woman represents orthodox religion in the 21st century where our society and culturally are largely secular, and highlights the incompatibility between the two. When a self-avowed homosexual man from Michigan sued a publisher of the Bible for $60million because of its verses on homosexuality, I became disillusioned as to how people nowadays saw religion.
From starting out taking an interest in the theological nature of these debates, I became obsessed with trying to understand the social and cultural factors behind these conversations. I never found a counter argument using scripture to confront the liberal viewpoints on religion so I abandoned those pointless discussions and started to talk to priests and bishops. I spoke to a few in my city and others around the country. I noticed a pattern, but before I could take at it face value I decided to speak to a few more churches. America was the natural place to find some views on this, so I called churches in the South and those in the North-East. The pattern was constant. Amongst the first churches I contacted was one in Soho here in London, a town with a fair size gay community. The priest was friendly and open. When I asked about his beliefs towards gay couples, he admitted that large parts of his congregation were themselves gay and we had a conversation (where I mainly listened) about the Bible on this regard, and also the necessity of marriage. He didnt refer to scripture all that much, or quote verses, when discussing his defence of gay sex. He did have some words about Paul however, and his work in Romans. In regards to marriage, he used a couple whom he has been friends with a long-time and said that although they are not married, they are in a long committed relationship and love each other. Thats marriage already. I didnt know what to quite make of that, but he was an incredibly moral man who emphasised love as the central theme for everything God-related, and if there was love, then God would not have an issue with it. He invited me for tea to talk more. I always thought that he had suspected that I was a Christian who was afraid to come out, so to speak.
My conversation with the Church in Houston was even more interesting. Although the mood was light hearted, he was very strong on the matter of gay sex from a Biblical point and went on to quote me verses and commentate on them. I provided him counters, some which the priest in Soho explained to me. The reason Im giving you these two examples is that they were completely different, not only in their view but their reasoning, and this is the pattern that I mentioned earlier. Areas, or states, that have a significant gay community or are perceived to be liberal have Churches which subscribe to a tolerant view of many doctrines including the notion of gay couples, if not out right defend the sexuality that is criticised in scripture. They reasoned with ethics, morals and the the right thing to do line. Regardless of your personal disposition to the issue, it was difficult not to be impressed and humbled by such reason. It appealed to the better nature of man. Opponents however, reasoned using scripture as evidence. The two schools of thought, evidently, cannot always co-exist.
Phil Donuhue, a Catholic, sees no other alternative but to reform the Church (and therefore the Christian faith). In a debate about abortion (video here) rights in the United States, he argued with a priest that the Church is declining and for it to survive certain beliefs have to be interpreted in accordance with current day ethics.
How will religion survive if parts of its own members are basing their religious beliefs around their personal beliefs? Regardless of where you stand on religion in general, its hard to disagree that its being undermined. Whether that's a good thing or not is obviously subjective.
There was a documentary about gay muslims a while back. The gay issue in Islam was probably split 9/10 to 1/10 for and against. But both sides where arguing with the core Quran scripture at heart. Interestingly enough, both schools of thought appeared to accept that society could be wrong, but that the quran could not.
As regards personal versus scripture, I'd be interested to know what Metaphoreus's and JGS views are on the matter.
As regards personal versus scripture, I'd be interested to know what Metaphoreus's and JGS views are on the matter.
Meus Renaissance said:
The core religious belief - namely that a supernatural being created the universe - will never be empirically or ethically undermined. Religious believers may, on the whole, be becoming more liberal as time goes by, but doesn't reflect necessarily on the strength of their ontological beliefs; even in a world where everyone reflects perfectly liberal attitudes, and believes entirely what science tells us about the world, religious belief will persist.
I just watched the documentary Marjoe, about a child evangelical preacher who grew up to not buy into his own faith.
The whole thing is up on YouTube.
Good watch, overall, although I would rather it had more interviews and less HALLELUJAH PRAISE JEEZUZ.
Interesting look at religion as a business, if nothing else.
The whole thing is up on YouTube.
Good watch, overall, although I would rather it had more interviews and less HALLELUJAH PRAISE JEEZUZ.
Interesting look at religion as a business, if nothing else.
LaserBuddha
Member
Himuro said:
Well it is deliberately trying to mock/antagonize religious folks. I don't condone messing with anyone's car and people have the right to express themselves freely, but it's not like you aren't daring someone to, you know what I mean?
Himuro said:
Dude, in the last few weeks I've argued with no less than 3 people on this board about Evolution. All of them of course religious, all of them very... concrete in their self delusion. I know they are going to be offended at me even calling it that, but that's exactly what it is
. They don't deny Evolution because the Science isn't there - there is more Science substantiating Evolution than gravity.What I am saying is, while a lot of religious people will argue that Evolution is not a threat to their belief system, that Science is actually compatible with their version of God - I think a lot of them are upset. Upset that the stories in their respective religious books describing creation are probably nothing more than stories or, at best, metaphors.
And I guess some religious people, either ignorant of the validity of Evolution or just upset at it, really take offense to the theory.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Shit, I've heard arguments that use evolution to explain Genesis, :lol. You must be meeting the wrong people.Kinitari said:Dude, in the last few weeks I've argued with no less than 3 people on this board about Evolution. All of them of course religious, all of them very... concrete in their self delusion. I know they are going to be offended at me even calling it that, but that's exactly what it is
What I am saying is, while a lot of religious people will argue that Evolution is not a threat to their belief system, that Science is actually compatible with their version of God - I think a lot of them are upset. Upset that the stories in their respective religious books describing creation are probably nothing more than stories or, at best, metaphors.
And I guess some religious people, either ignorant of the validity of Evolution or just upset at it, really take offense to the theory.
Tears For Fears
Banned
I really wish I had a piece of cake right now, maybe I can wish one into existence. Anything is possible! o_o
CF_Fighter
Member
I'm Episcopal. My uncle is an Episcopal priest who is in a blessed civil union with another man he's been with for about 20 years. My dad is also in seminary to become a priest in our denomination as well.
Okay so here is my view on homosexuality.
Anyway I was thinking about this. Do you think the verses in the bible that speak of homosexuality being wrong and an abomination were written at times when procreation was needed to keep the numbers up within the Israelites and then during the times when Christianity was just starting out and needed numbers to raise its power in the world?
Other than that we know from the Old Testament and Hebrew Law that God told the Isrealites to not tattoo themselves to separate themselves from the other tribes, so by extension if these tribes or nations practiced homosexuality than god would also condemn homosexuality as a way to separate his people from them. It may seem harsh to us today, but remember when these things were "handed down". People weren't up for much scholarly discussion on the particulars of what God said. They were more focused on just surviving from day-to-day and establishing a place to live so things had to be more cut-and-dry when it came to what was right and wrong.
When it comes to the New Testament people like to pull out the Romans verses as condemnation of homosexuality after Jesus left. But some scholars, and I agree with this viewpoint, was to condemn the nature of rampant sexual relations in Rome in situations such as orgies where people had sex with everyone, man and woman. This would seem like a more natural extension of the emphasis of having one mate/partner as well as respecting you body as if it were a temple. Jesus of course said this as man and woman being together, and there is a belief that Jesus used words, stories, and imagery that would allow him to get his message out but to do so that people would be comfortable with hearing and allow the true meaning of the message, such as love of one another and peace, to take root and grow within those that heard it.
Anyway that's my thing for right now.
Okay so here is my view on homosexuality.
Anyway I was thinking about this. Do you think the verses in the bible that speak of homosexuality being wrong and an abomination were written at times when procreation was needed to keep the numbers up within the Israelites and then during the times when Christianity was just starting out and needed numbers to raise its power in the world?
Other than that we know from the Old Testament and Hebrew Law that God told the Isrealites to not tattoo themselves to separate themselves from the other tribes, so by extension if these tribes or nations practiced homosexuality than god would also condemn homosexuality as a way to separate his people from them. It may seem harsh to us today, but remember when these things were "handed down". People weren't up for much scholarly discussion on the particulars of what God said. They were more focused on just surviving from day-to-day and establishing a place to live so things had to be more cut-and-dry when it came to what was right and wrong.
When it comes to the New Testament people like to pull out the Romans verses as condemnation of homosexuality after Jesus left. But some scholars, and I agree with this viewpoint, was to condemn the nature of rampant sexual relations in Rome in situations such as orgies where people had sex with everyone, man and woman. This would seem like a more natural extension of the emphasis of having one mate/partner as well as respecting you body as if it were a temple. Jesus of course said this as man and woman being together, and there is a belief that Jesus used words, stories, and imagery that would allow him to get his message out but to do so that people would be comfortable with hearing and allow the true meaning of the message, such as love of one another and peace, to take root and grow within those that heard it.
Anyway that's my thing for right now.
Shanadeus said:
Jesus was (probably)!
No one commented on this earlier... CF_Fighter, whaddya think about this: http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html
Chaplain
Member
Game Analyst said:
Eh. He didn't really answer the question, which was "Can a gay person be a Christian?"
His requirements for that were "Believe Christ is God and was resurrected"...so yes. A gay person can be a Christian.
[At times like these, I like to quote Jesus on the subject of homosexuality: "..."]
CF_Fighter
Member
jdogmoney said:
Interesting I had never read that before, I know we're starting to find out a lot of stuff that was mis-translated in the bible from the original Greek. But scholars, linguists, and theologians still don't have a full meaning because there isn't enough to the story and we still don't have a firm grasp on ancient Greek because there were so many little nuanced things within the language such as that "pais" having three possible meanings, but by going back throughout the books we can extrapolate a better idea of what was meant. I personally find all this new translating fascinating, it's probably the history and religion buff in me.
The biggest thing I realized with that was what that event signified during the 1st century in Palestine. Here we had a Roman Centurion, not just any regular Roman btw, coming to a Jewish rabbi and requesting that he lay hands on his "favoured servant". Then Jesus went and healed the man. This was a huge gesture of peace on his part, to go to the house of your people's occupying enemy and heal them.
Also, I'm also one of the people who think that Jesus could very well have been married to Mary Magdalene mainly due to the fact to even be considered a Rabbi in the Jewish faith at the time you had to be married. Jesus spoke of marriage quite a few times and for him to have any type of pull with speaking on that topic he probably needed to have a wife.
To me it doesn't lessen my faith at all to think he affirmed homosexual relationships or had a wife because those were both representations of what he came to do. He loved everyone and worked to spread peace amongst man.
TacticalFox88 said:
Can you give me one? I would love to hear it - were Adam and Eve metaphors for the first sexually reproductive organisms?
JGS said:
We're going to get into this like an old married couple again, can we just accept that you are wrong and move on?
Well the notion of challenging religion is different to challenging faith. That's like how a person brought up say, as a christian, or any religion for that matter, may say the bible, holy text is wrong, but still believe in god.
They may even try other faiths perhaps...
Edit: I don't understand the black american christian part. The countries president, is Black, American, Christian. What's nonsensical about that?
They may even try other faiths perhaps...
Edit: I don't understand the black american christian part. The countries president, is Black, American, Christian. What's nonsensical about that?
soul creator
Member
Ashes1396 said:
He's likely referring to the history of slavery in this country (which was the first introduction to Christianity for a lot of black folks)
Also, Obama's religiosity is an interesting topic (no, not the "secret Muslim!" thing), because he became Christian much later in life, and was raised without any specific religion. And looking at his words, I do think it's interesting to note that none of them have anything to do with "Yep, that Jesus story totally happened!", which one would think would be a pretty important claim to analyze before identifying with Christianity.
Looking at his words, It's basically a roundabout way of saying "if I want to be a part of this community (black folks in Chicago) and be taken seriously, I might as well be Christian..."
Joel Was Right
If you smell burning, it's probably the generators acting up. Report it anyway.
jdogmoney said:
I've always found Wright's commentary on scripture in regards to homosexuality/same sex relations most compelling. Sentences that are entirely in bold are the questions being asked in the interview.
To Catholics the Old Testament is mainly exaggeration and stuff. The main focus is not on the facts but on the teachings. And when it comes to the whole Genesis thing. Catholics don't believe it to be true. Adam and Eve and all that was just a story. It was symbolism.
So there's no reason at all that Evolution could not happen. I am not hiding any anger or contempt.
Also I support gay marriage even if the Church doesn't. The Church isn't infallible as can be seen in its history.
So there's no reason at all that Evolution could not happen. I am not hiding any anger or contempt.
Also I support gay marriage even if the Church doesn't. The Church isn't infallible as can be seen in its history.
soul creator
Member
I always wonder if the whole Adam and Eve story is now just a metaphor/allegory/fable/etc., then what exactly is Jesus' sacrifice supposed to save us from? If the original sin thing doesn't *really* happen, doesn't that sort of lessen its impact? "Jesus gave his life...for one branch of descendents of an ape-like creature" doesn't seem to have quite the same ring to it.
And of course, this ignores the whole "Adam and Eve is obviously just an exaggerated story...but that Jesus resurrection thing totally happened for realz" discussion...
And of course, this ignores the whole "Adam and Eve is obviously just an exaggerated story...but that Jesus resurrection thing totally happened for realz" discussion...
The sacrifice isn't purely for Original Sin in all teachings. People sin every day, and one sin is enough to turn you from God.
Yeah, Paul pretty clearly speaks against homosexuality (to me he reads like a closeted self-hating gay, but whatevs), but I think I'd argue that one can be Christian and gay, since the word Christian means only one who believes Christ, God, is risen, and all that. Since the sum total of Jesus' teachings on homosexuality consist of [], there's not a problem with it.
Now, you can be more specific, and yeah there's a problem with being a Catholic or a Baptist or a member of those sects that are against homosexuality and being gay, but being a straight (heh) Christian isn't invalid.
Yeah, Paul pretty clearly speaks against homosexuality (to me he reads like a closeted self-hating gay, but whatevs), but I think I'd argue that one can be Christian and gay, since the word Christian means only one who believes Christ, God, is risen, and all that. Since the sum total of Jesus' teachings on homosexuality consist of [], there's not a problem with it.
Now, you can be more specific, and yeah there's a problem with being a Catholic or a Baptist or a member of those sects that are against homosexuality and being gay, but being a straight (heh) Christian isn't invalid.
Joel Was Right
If you smell burning, it's probably the generators acting up. Report it anyway.
I really recommend the book History of Freedom of Thought by J.B.Bury. For those with eReaders or whatnot, you can download the ePub version for free from Project Gutenberg. The PDF version is also available.
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10684
Excellent read and quite informative.
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10684
Excellent read and quite informative.
The Bible really is an all or nothing book based on Jesus' teachings about it.That doesn't mean all of it is literal, but all of it is accepted.soul creator said:
Adam & Eve are considered literal by Jesus & the Gospels. They are directly connected to Jesus' lineage (As everyone would be) and there appears to never have been a controversy about their existence throughout the entiriety of the Bible and centuries beyond that.
So from the Bible's viewpoint at least, there is a very specific chain of events connecting Jesus with Adam and the need for a perpetual sacrifice to deliver us from perpetual sin.
There's no real middle ground because if Adam & Eve were allegories, then the purpose of the sacrifice is a lie, so Jesus lied, thus making the sacrifice too corrupt to carry out that purpose.
soul creator
Member
interesting
Chaplain
Member
JGS said:
I would like to add that the Gospel of Luke lists the genealogy of Jesus and it goes all the way back to Adam:
Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry.
Jesus was known as the son of Joseph.
Joseph was the son of Heli.
Heli was the son of Matthat.
Matthat was the son of Levi.
Levi was the son of Melki.
Melki was the son of Jannai.
Jannai was the son of Joseph.
Joseph was the son of Mattathias.
Mattathias was the son of Amos.
Amos was the son of Nahum.
Nahum was the son of Esli.
Esli was the son of Naggai.
Naggai was the son of Maath.
Maath was the son of Mattathias.
Mattathias was the son of Semein.
Semein was the son of Josech.
Josech was the son of Joda.
Joda was the son of Joanan.
Joanan was the son of Rhesa.
Rhesa was the son of Zerubbabel.
Zerubbabel was the son of Shealtiel.
Shealtiel was the son of Neri.
Neri was the son of Melki.
Melki was the son of Addi.
Addi was the son of Cosam.
Cosam was the son of Elmadam.
Elmadam was the son of Er.
Er was the son of Joshua.
Joshua was the son of Eliezer.
Eliezer was the son of Jorim.
Jorim was the son of Matthat.
Matthat was the son of Levi.
Levi was the son of Simeon.
Simeon was the son of Judah.
Judah was the son of Joseph.
Joseph was the son of Jonam.
Jonam was the son of Eliakim.
Eliakim was the son of Melea.
Melea was the son of Menna.
Menna was the son of Mattatha.
Mattatha was the son of Nathan.
Nathan was the son of David.
David was the son of Jesse.
Jesse was the son of Obed.
Obed was the son of Boaz.
Boaz was the son of Salmon.
Salmon was the son of Nahshon.
Nahshon was the son of Amminadab.
Amminadab was the son of Admin.
Admin was the son of Arni.
Arni was the son of Hezron.
Hezron was the son of Perez.
Perez was the son of Judah.
Judah was the son of Jacob.
Jacob was the son of Isaac.
Isaac was the son of Abraham.
Abraham was the son of Terah.
Terah was the son of Nahor.
Nahor was the son of Serug.
Serug was the son of Reu.
Reu was the son of Peleg.
Peleg was the son of Eber.
Eber was the son of Shelah.
Shelah was the son of Cainan.
Cainan was the son of Arphaxad.
Arphaxad was the son of Shem.
Shem was the son of Noah.
Noah was the son of Lamech.
Lamech was the son of Methuselah.
Methuselah was the son of Enoch.
Enoch was the son of Jared.
Jared was the son of Mahalalel.
Mahalalel was the son of Kenan.
Kenan was the son of Enosh.
Enosh was the son of Seth.
Seth was the son of Adam.
Adam was the son of God." Luke 3:23-38
If Adam and Eve was not a literal story the whole Bible falls apart and Jesus' death meant nothing.
Joel Was Right
If you smell burning, it's probably the generators acting up. Report it anyway.
Himuro said:
After I saw this I decided to look at some commentary for the booklet. One in particular caught my eye, raising what seem to be some valid concerns. Gift of Scripture is available for download here. It's only 60 pages in length so it should be an interesting light read.
Slightly Live
Dirty tag dodger
Are we back to the Adam and Eve thing? As a literal story, it falls apart.
No it doesn't, but that's a debate for another time for me at least.Dani said:
This is actually an argument for Christians to discuss although I'm certain it will be hijacked. My view is that ones who claim to follow Jesus need to accept the reason for the sacrifice or they're not really practicing Christians, but rather a bunch of people who like some things a guy that lived a long time ago says. Why would I be wrong thinking that?
I know it's the hip thing nowadays to accept and deny certain parts of the Bible based on what one likes to hear, but the writers of the Bible never appeared to do that so what is the thinking that 21st century believers can? After all if we can reject/deny the parts we have problems with, then surely that would mean that some of the wonderful parts should be rejected/denied too.
Meus Renaissance said:
NT Wright is a god amongst men. You should read his book "The Resurrection of the Son of God" where demolishes the arguments of the Jesus Seminar... if you look on youtube there's a host of interview videos with him.
Himuro said:
The article simplifies the issue a bit, but it's true that for the last 60 years ever since the Pope gave permission for biblical scholars to perform -critical scholarship in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, many Catholic scholars have abandoned their belief in the infallibility of the Bible in favor of a more liberal stance.
It's pretty sad given that the entire history of the Church has accepted the inspiration of the Bible, but even John Paul II stood by silent while liberal scholarship permeated his Church. If he gets sainted, that's even further proof that the Church is an organization of man.
- Status