theworldofdreams.com

simon wrote:I wasn't joking, there have been some 10,000 cases since 1950, if they thought they should have been turned in, why was there a cover up?

But yet, these guys are preaching to the world about whats moral?

This also does not excuse snide comments about people's religion.

You know mine, now what's yours so I can make snide comments about your religion's negative stereotypical subjects. (sarcasm intended)


Do you see where I'm going here?

This should not be about one particular religion. Making comments to that effect is just going to tick people off and turn an itelligent thread (like this has been) into a flame war.

I am totally with you on your on topic post there. No one has the right to tell anyone how to run their religion. So if some faith(other then your own) would want to marry gay couples would you have a problem with that?

Joram Lionheart wrote:
*snips a LOT of stuff*

IS YOUR SOURCE BETTER THAN THE HUNDREDS OF BIBLICAL SCHOLARS WHO HAVE COME UP WITH THE TRANSLATIONS OF THE OLD & NEW TESTAMENT?

Yes, God talks to me. That source is #1 in my book.

Of course, I see dead people too, but I regard that as a divine gift.

Ehran wrote: Another claim i have seen is that when the bible says thou shalt not suffer a witch to live is that witch was poorly translated and should say poisoner. that was for bayn and his fellow cauldron circlers hehe.

Actually, I regard Wicca as a pretty cool religion but I don't really follow any particular religion. I'll admit to dancing around a bonfire all naked on Samhain once or twice but that was years ago and I was mainly watching the ladies.

simon wrote:After bayn acted like a jerk(by calling everyone a dumbass)

dumbass

hehehe

and called Joram's faith weak at best, yeah I'd say

I never said his faith was weak. I didn't even call him a dumbass!

Atei wrote:Naw, Joram wasn't pissed. He was reveling in the fact that he successfully refuted the arguments of someone who doesn't know half as much as Joram does about the Bible, not to mention theology in general, archaelogy, the study of the aforementioned languages etc etc etc. Well done, Joram.

hmm, you know for a fact I didn't study linquistics, religion, philosophy, anthropology and archaelogy for years? I went into computer science as a profession only because it paid a LOT more.

What I'm really waiting on is Bayn's rebuttal, if it's forthcoming.

Naw, I just like to stir things up and try to get them to think. Religion is not something you can argue seriously about because it involves faith.

Joram is one that appears to regard things as black and white and by God (scuse the pun) if you can throw enough books at a subject then it has to be right!

simon wrote:I am totally with you on your on topic post there. No one has the right to tell anyone how to run their religion. So if some faith(other then your own) would want to marry gay couples would you have a problem with that?

Even if I did, (which I don't,) it wouldn't matter because it's not my religion. It's like I said, my philosophy, and many other Catholics, is "to each his own."

I also believe in the final chance. If you sinned or did something wrong in your life, be it gay, athiest, murder, stealing, etc . . When you die you get a chance to repent. If you truly are sorry for what you did and want to make amends, you will find salvation. This doesn't mean you can sin away with this in mind, because then you aren't sorry.

With all the religions in this world it can be confusing which in turn makes it hard to find which one is right. My God is a forgiving God. He can forgive confusion. Besides, if the only people who get into heaven are the purest of souls, Hell has got to be overcrowed and Heaven would be a very empty place.

Joram Lionheart wrote:
Fortunately, it is well recorded the (few) instances when some Catholic priests actually tried to temper with the cannonized text, which was considered extremely sacred throughout most of the middle ages.

*sigh* Joram, you are very facile with words and you even sound convincing to most people but throughout this entire thread you have REacted rather than thought and replied. Your responses are based upon your personal faith rather than solid analysis. Of course, that is just my opinion but I am sure it is obvious to most others.

This kind of thread is what happens when people try to argue religion, the sanctity of various holy books, etc.

*shrug*

But, it has been invigorating! Thanks.

There you go Orion, freedom of Religion for all. It wasn't a personal attack on you

Priests from New York did do some gay weddings

I wonder if anyone is going to mention the fact that the 4 gospels aren't the only ones?

Anyone remember in history that the bible was made because an emporer wanted it collected in one book? It would've been huge if it was all in there and I don't want a fifty thousand chapter book on my coffee table.

simon wrote:There you go Orion, freedom of Religion for all. It wasn't a personal attack on you

I didn't count it as a personal attack on me, just my religion.

Orion Michaels wrote:

simon wrote:There you go Orion, freedom of Religion for all. It wasn't a personal attack on you

I didn't count it as a personal attack on me, just my religion.

Well of course it is, this is a Jihad after all.

Bayn wrote:

Atei wrote:What I'm really waiting on is Bayn's rebuttal, if it's forthcoming.

Naw, I just like to stir things up and try to get them to think. Religion is not something you can argue seriously about because it involves faith.

Bayn, that statement is so hypocritical it's almost nauseating. It was YOU who brought up text-critical issues on the Biblical text in the first place, my original post made no mention or allusion neither to the Bible, nor religion, nor Christianity. It was YOU that went to the trouble of frabricating a (supposedly) Biblical argument against homosexuality. It was YOU who kept insisting the Bible was wrong and you were right.
And now that I've refuted your arguments, you're going to say that you can't really argue this? Very convinient for you to take that position now.

Obviously, you CAN argue issues related to the Bible that are not theological because they are not faith-based. That's precisely what we've been doing here. How artful of you to try to dismiss my position as being "religious" when you yourself are guilty of doing the same thing. The fact of the matter is that discussing the history, archaeology, and language of the Bible are all very valid, debatable topics we can discuss as much as the history, archaeology, and language of any other subject is.

Joram is one that appears to regard things as black and white and by God (scuse the pun) if you can throw enough books at a subject then it has to be right!

First of all, you don't know the first thing about me. You don't know anything about my faith, my beliefs, or my position on 50'000 other topics (from abortion to civil rights) we could have discussing. You do know one thing though, I'm a religious man. Therefore, in your biggoted, anti-religious mind, I must see everything as black and white because your stereotypical view of a religious person is such. Gosh Bayn, I'm hispanic, is my name Jose and I'm from Mexico too?

"If you can throw enough books it must be true." And if you fail to throw any books *ahem*, it must be true? The fact is no one can prove anything about anything with 100% certainty. The best you can do is gather as much evidence about something and then build your argument on the evidence (not build the evidence on your argument). If you feel nothing but utter contempt for the kind of scholarship there is out there, taking cheap shots on scholars because they know more than you do isn't going to help anything. If you really want to make a convincing case the best thing you can do is to become learned yourself and then and only then will your voice carry any weight.

Bayn wrote:Joram, you are very facile with words and you even sound convincing to most people but throughout this entire thread you have REacted rather than thought and replied.

So now your attacking my intellectual expression? Well Bayn, if my arguments which are based on verifiable facts do not sound convincing to you then you're going to have to find (not fabricate as you have done so far) other evidence to refute them. Whether I reacted or not does not automatically make anything I say unreliable (which is what you are implying here).

Your responses are based upon your personal faith rather than solid analysis. Of course, that is just my opinion but I am sure it is obvious to most others.

My responses are based both on solid analysis and my personal presuppositions and beliefs (which I have spent YEARS examining and reevaluating). If you feel my analysis is unsatisfactory you are going to have to prove it. Merely saying it amounts to a whole lot of nothing. Moreover, I have never denied that my stand on this issue stems from my own personal beliefs. In fact, I made it explicit in one of my previous posts that it is. I'm not hiding anything, Bayn. In fact, I have gone through great lengths to make sure everyone who's reading this knows where I'm coming from.

Your accusations of insincerity are just another way to make me look like the 'poor religious guy' that though he claims to know something he really doesn't know anything because he has a religion. If I believe in God and the Bible I just have to an ignoramus and everything he says is false, right Bayn?

This kind of thread is what happens when people try to argue religion, the sanctity of various holy books, etc.

If that's what you truly think then you should berate yourself for making it so. I did not start this thread to discuss my religious views or the Bible.

Let me tell you what I think. I think this thread did not go the way you expected it to go (that much is obvious). I find it very suspicious though, that for a man who claims to have no religion you went through great pains to argue a point in a religious book that should have significance for you whatsoever. We all agreed in the first few posts that a legal decision on homosexuality should be based on anyone's religion. In fact, no one (and I mean NO ONE) tried to argued this point. Not I, not Macitor, not Seon nor anyone else that replied to your comments on the Bible.
In spite of this, you continued to argue text-critical issues on the Bible. Why?
I think you are the one who's hiding something here. In my book, your anti-religious bigotry makes you as much of a fanatic (against religion) as those pigheaded morons of the extreme Christian right.

Orion Michaels wrote:I also believe in the final chance. If you sinned or did something wrong in your life, be it gay, athiest, murder, stealing, etc . . When you die you get a chance to repent. If you truly are sorry for what you did and want to make amends, you will find salvation. This doesn't mean you can sin away with this in mind, because then you aren't sorry.

Umm, that doesn't make much sense, Orion. How would a sinner who is dead be any more repentant than when he was alive (i.e truly be repentant, not choose simply because the alternative is awful)? It sounds like anyone can be a sinner, then die, then repent, and enjoy heaven like those who were not sinners and repented before they died. No real incentive for leading a Christian life here on earth if you're getting a get-out-jail-free-card after death. I mean if you're dead and your only options are hell and heaven, of course you're going to choose heaven. It would make more sense for your last chance to repent be before you die, because no one knows the time and the hour when they're going to die and it is impossible to cheat the system.
What's more, if people can repent after death, what time will there be for them to come to know Jesus and learn to be like him so that in heaven they will actually fit in. Is someone teaching the gospel in the afterlife? Remember that Christian living is not about just whether you sinning or not but about growing spiritually and becoming more and more like Christ. It is hard to see how people who do not know Christ or do not have his character can actually feel comfortable in heaven.

With all the religions in this world it can be confusing which in turn makes it hard to find which one is right. My God is a forgiving God. He can forgive confusion.

Amen!

Besides, if the only people who get into heaven are the purest of souls, Hell has got to be overcrowed and Heaven would be a very empty place.

I think that's what the whole narrow and straight path analogy was trying to convey. The vast majority of people choose the wide and easy road. Few are those who choose the path to righteousness (alas).