theworldofdreams.com

Ehran wrote:

Kramer Vorlock wrote:Well it would affect us. Inbreeding. Simply put. We would have a bunch of retards runnin around the streets, and with the new gun laws they could all have guns. Wouldnt that be fun?

kramer you are gonna have to lay it out how inbreeding is connected to gay marriage cause i am just not seeing it somehow?

I was talking about the guy in the letter marrying his grandma. Sorry I guys I didnt stay on subject

thanks kramer for the explanation. some days i am frightfully slow.

Eldric wrote:Erm, well not really, no, you seem to be making a distinction between discussing textual issues and Theological ones it seems that they would be more or less one and the same.

I think we are having somewhat of miscommunication problem due to the technical nature of the terminology I'm using. In Biblical studies we tend separate 'external' and 'internal' factors when looking at the Biblical text. Historico-critical questions (was there an Exodus? did Moses really exist? did the walls of Jericho come tumbling down?) fall under the category of external issues. Source-criticism (who wrote the pentateuch? how many sources did Luke rely on to write his gospel? was Daniel written by a 6th or 2nd century B.C. writer?)and text-criticism (what is the meaning of the Hebrew word barah? in what context is barah usually used? how many instances of barah are there in the OT?) are internal factors.

Before we can arrive at a good interpretation of the text (i.e. understand the theology behind it), one needs to address all these external and internal peripheral issues (yet at the same time foundational) on which interpretation is based. Whe two people come to discuss a theological question, they need to have a shared understanding and agreed upon assumptions about the text they mean to discuss. If you and I sit down to talk about the theological significance of the Sanctuary, for instance, and we cannot agree on the contextual meaning of the word kaphar (atonement) in such-n-such passage, then we need to take a step back and address that text-critical point before we can continue.

Text-critical and interpretive (i.e. theological) issues are related to the extent that the latter is (partly) based upon the former, but they are not one and the same. When I argue the martureo (witness) in John 1:7 has a sense of advocate-for-someone instead of just merely eyewitness to an event (just to pose an example), my conclusion has theological significance for what it will do to my interpretation, but it is not immediately evident (or necessarily true) that my theological understanding of John 1:7 will be based interely on my understanding of the word martureo.

To use a less technical analogy, if I go to a chatroom where I know most people don't believe in God or don't care for the authenticity of the Bible and I start making theological postulations left and right, I will inevitably start getting responses like "science has proven God does not exist" or "the archaeological record denies the existance of King David" or "the Bible has been translated so many times it's not accurate anymore." These are all interesting and debatable issues that I can spend my time discussing, but they are not theological. I started off by making theological assertions about the Bible and ended up talking about how science cannot prove God does not exist anymore that it prove it does exist, or how (1993) excavations at tel-Dan have uncovered evidence that point to the existance of the Biblical David, or why careful analysis of original textual records allow us to come up with a valid and accurate Bible translation, all peripheral aspects of interpretation but not theology itself.

On the other hand, if I go to a chatroom of Bible-believe christians where I don't feel the need to convince everyone else of my religious views about God and the Bible, we can move right along and get to the core theological stuff. It just makes things much easier if people can understand each other and actually know what the other person is talking about.

If Theological issues can only be debated between people who believe in God, it wouldn't seem there would be a whole lot to debate would there?

*chuckles* You really don't know much about the Christian world, do you? Let's just say the thousand and one Christian denominations out there (including the Catholic Church) did not result from the fact they could not agree on set date for the Exodus. However, whether Jesus Christ is only God, only human, or fully human and fully God, I think that might've proven to be a more divisive factor.

I hope this explains a bit better why I'm reluctant to discuss theology with people who only want to argue, and arguing is something I cannot do in this case (unless we can actually understand each other). If you want to listen to my views on theology I'm more than happy to share them with you. Somehow, I doubt that's what you were actually asking me to do.

simon wrote:My point about the two cloths is that, it would seem that they are picking and choosing what to believe from them there texts. If I recall things right, wearing two different cloths was in fact a worse sin the homosexual acts. The merits of that would seem to be fairly strong if Joram wouldn't rebut it.

I don't know where you get the "it was a worse sin" than homosexual acts since nowhere in the Bible does God lays down the methodology for quantifying degrees of "evilness" or "sin." Accountability IS measureable, however, according to the "light" people have received, but that's something different (that's why the people of Niniveh will rise up in the day of judgment and condemn the generation that rejected Jesus--the latter had more "light" than the former but they refused to listen to the Holy Spirit working in their hearts). I'd be interested to read the text that says "and wearing linen mixed with wool clothe garments is worse than so-and-so sin" or something to that effect. I think the general idea that is conveyed in the Bible is that ALL sins are detestable to God. There's only one penalty for sin, death. Thank God he's not making us pay that penalty.

Now about the levitical laws, this is a deeply theological and very sensitive issue. I don't think I can sit down and type up all there is to know about this subject in just a few minutes and do it justice. I can give you a real brief explanation, however, that you should be able to kinda understand if you know anything about basic Christian beliefs.

Before I say anything else, though, let me make this fact VERY CLEAR. Everything that is written down in the Bible (even the most mundane little sentence) has some direct or indirect significance/relevance to the modern Christian. There is a theology out there--know as dispensationalism, very popular in some evangelical circles--that says the Old Testament--i.e. The Hebrew Bible--was given to the Jews as part of their own dispensation and as such, nothing in the OT can be of any relevance to the modern Christian who lives in a different dispensation. What these people do in effect is reject any teachings and/or commandments given in the OT to the Jews because they (supposedly) do not apply to modern Christianity. I don't agree with this interpretation. I think the OT is of GREAT relevance to the modern believer as much as it is the NT. Not for nothing were the Apostles and Jesus very adamant about keeping their ties with OT teachings and theology.

That being said, the reason why Christian don't observe all of the (613) commandments found in the Torah is related to the same reason why Christians do not continue the sacrificial systems and slaughter animals as part of their daily rituals. The slaughtering of animals for sacrifice is one of those 613 commandments that Christians do not observe because of the theological implications behind this commandment (in short: Christ's sacrifice in the cross made it pointless to continue the sacrificial system). Not EVERYTHING in the Torah has been made void under the 'new covenant' (warning: this is not the same as a new 'dispensation'). Obviously, Christians are still expected to not worship other 'gods,' steal or cheat, etc (I would argue that the Ten Commandments oughta stand apart from the mosaic law of the Torah since one is moral and other casuistic, among other reasons). A lot of ritualistic practices/commandments became impractical or downright pointless after Christ. Again, I cannot do justice to the theology behind this Christian doctrine in just a few sentences but the basic premises are somewhat summarized in that statement.

Ehran wrote:one thing we should't overlook is the role played in this by mother church's internal politics which has no doubt subtly distorted things in favour of one viewpoint or another.

This is also one of those issues that people tend to look to WAY more often than they actually should when speaking about the authenticity of the Bible. It has become somewhat of a 'conventional wisdom' to affirm that the Catholic church has changed large portions (if not ALL OF IT!) of the Biblical text to fit their theological inclinations and presuppositions. 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. Modern Biblical societies have long traced and corrected these (minor) alterations, which in all cases failed to alter theological interpretations to any large degree. The uncovering of archaeological records once lost to 18th and 19th scholars have also served to help clarified and solidified these issues.

I have for instance seen claims that one of the ten commandments is incorrect. rather than "thou shalt not kill" the claim is that it should be "thou shalt not murder" which is to my mind a pretty huge difference. now i don't know whether that one is true or not but it's interesting.

Actually this is true, the hebrew ought to be translated (or at least it would be more accurate to translate) "murder" rather "kill." The King James is far from perfect (sorry ). Most modern translations reflect this fact and now more accurately translate that passage with the word "murder" (aren't you glad we have MORE translations instead of fewer? ) Not sure how HUGE of a difference is there, considering that Jesus himself was a pacifist and would have opposed any kind of killing (not just murder). Then defining what constitutes murder also gets a bit tricky, especially as it relates to our modern society. The ancient Hebrew cultural context admitedly isn't the same as our modern 21st century one. I leave you to deliberate the significance of this finding. I for one prefer to be on the safe side and I'm trying to avoid any kind of unnecessary killing. After all, I wouldn't be much of a Christian if I'm looking for ways to get away with "murder" .

Wolfie wrote:I'm sure I'll get some negative feedback on this, but a couple movies about religion I found very good were Stigmata and Dogma. If you're not familiar with the movies, they are very different. Stigmata is a more serious movie. Dogma is a comedy some would find tasteless but its hilarious

I've seen them both (ashamed to say). Stigmata was just downright boring (I had to watch it in parts because I was falling asleep). It was also kinda "funny" that the same Jesus who suffered greatly and died for all human beings would come out and blurt out crap like "The messenger is not important . . ." (let the bitch BLEEEEEED for all I care! I'm Jesus, foo'! I can do whatever the hell I want!). Oh and when Jesus' "secret gospel" turns out to be a convoluted mix of New Age philosophies, now THAT was the real kicker. What's worse, throughout the whole movie I couldn't figure out if the person suffering the stigmata was possessed by the spirit of God or by Satan himself. In all likelihood the writers wanted you to see both in the same person (heheh).

Dogma, now there is a funny movie. EXTREMELY sacrilegious to point of being distateful in some scences (kinda like South Park ), but I have to admit I'm sucker for a good laugh. I watched a second time a few months ago but it wasn't quite as funny this time. I guess it's just one of those movies that only really tickles you the first time you watch it.

Joram Lionheart wrote:I think we are having somewhat of miscommunication problem due to the technical nature of the terminology I'm using.

Bah, I just deleted part of my response while trying to trim the quoting down some. I really need to be more awake when I do this.

I am starting to get a bit of an understanding of your destinction but it still isn't real strong. Perhaps a couple rereads of your post a bit later when I am, as I say, more awake will help. The 2nd and 3rd rereads added some level of understanding.

I am somewhat reluctant to contnue the thread until I do, seems a bit too much like playing with a loaded gun. Perhaps it is better to just let it die while things are still civil. In the past I have perused the posts in talk.origins (actually due to this thread I just recently resubscribed to it) and if what goes on there is any indication the likelyhood of this not erupting into something really ugly is probably something in the tenths of a percent.

This excercise may help me, I am not asking you to respond to the points that follow (before actually making them I'd want to make sure they actually have some basis in fact), just tell me which ones would be ok to bring up and which ones wouldn't.

- Is the earth 6000(or so) years old or millenia
- Which verson of the flood is correct
- Why should I want anything to do with a God that expects <something>
- If biblical translation is guarnateed to be correct due to Gods will (grr I'm sure the word for this came up in the tread someplace and I can't find it) how is it possible for there to be inaccurate bibles.

If Theological issues can only be debated between people who believe in God, it wouldn't seem there would be a whole lot to debate would there?

*chuckles* You really don't know much about the Christian world, do you? Let's just say the thousand and one Christian denominations out there (including the Catholic Church) did not result from the fact they could not agree on set date for the Exodus.

I am guilty of some very imprecise language here, I was actually meaning debeate on "Does God exist." not debate about specific instance of things in assorted religious texts.

If you want to listen to my views on theology I'm more than happy to share them with you. Somehow, I doubt that's what you were actually asking me to do.

Not really no. While I find a discussion/debate between people with different beliefs to be interesting, listening to a lecture* the topic would be of little intrest to me.

*Just in case there is any doubt, I am using this word in the good sence not as a derogatory comment.

That being said, the reason why Christian don't observe all of the (613) commandments found in the Torah is related to the same reason why Christians do not continue the sacrificial systems and slaughter animals as part of their daily rituals. The slaughtering of animals for sacrifice is one of those 613 commandments that Christians do not observe because of the theological implications behind this commandment (in short: Christ's sacrifice in the cross made it pointless to continue the sacrificial system).

Then wouldn't homosexual acts also be covered by Christ's sacrifice? Wasn't he sacrificed for the sins of man?

simon wrote:Then wouldn't homosexual acts also be covered by Christ's sacrifice? Wasn't he sacrificed for the sins of man?

Hahah . By that line of reasoning ANY sin is permissible for Christians since Christ died for our sins. Murder, stealing, adultery, all these are ok because Christ died for our sins. I'd suggest you read Romans to get a better understanding why committing sin is not conducive to Christian living ("We have died to sin. How can we live in it any longer?"). And if there was any question whether homesexuality is still frowned upon in Christianity or not, Paul makes it very clear in his writings that it is.
Christ did not come to do away with the law, he came to fullfill it (paraphrasing Jesus).

Eldric wrote:

Joram Lionheart wrote:*chuckles* You really don't know much about the Christian world, do you? Let's just say the thousand and one Christian denominations out there (including the Catholic Church) did not result from the fact they could not agree on set date for the Exodus.

I am guilty of some very imprecise language here, I was actually meaning debeate on "Does God exist." not debate about specific instance of things in assorted religious texts.

So you want to argue whether God exists or not? I assume you mean base on empirical, scientific (or perhaps philosophical) basis, what proof could I offer that God exists. I'm not sure how much of debater I can be here since I don't know the main arguments for God's existance from a secular perspective. Theology alas, isn't going to help much here for theology is faith-based.

Murder, stealing, adultery,

But you guys still do those things. The clergy in your church gets in touch with young boys, so who are you to preach to us?

Joram Lionheart wrote:So you want to argue whether God exists or not?

Not espeically, at least not right now. My original point when starting that particular piece of the discussion was that a debate as to the existance (or not) of God between two people who already believe in his existance would not be all that intresting, that you pretty much need at least 2 people with opposing beliefs.

It is worth noting that I brought it up originally based on an incorrect reading of what you were saying in a couple posts that I interpreted as a version of "only people who believe this can discuss it". So it may be best to let this particular bit of the thread die.

simon wrote:

Murder, stealing, adultery,

But you guys still do those things. The clergy in your church gets in touch with young boys, so who are you to preach to us?

If you are talking about Catholic priests "getting in touch" that is a small percentage of the priest population. Most priests DO NOT do that and believe the ones that do should be prosecuted in a court of law.

Either way I do not find that little "joke" amusing in the slightest and it was in very bad taste, not to mention that it has nothing to do with the arguement at hand.

In the future, Simon, please do not make snide comments about other people's religons. I would really appreciate it.

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?

Because the priests do not make the rules of the church. The higher Bishops, Cardinals and the Pope do. The priests, who outnumber the rest basically have no say in what gets done with the offenders.

I am so sick of the anti Catholic crap that goes on in this country (USA) and other parts of the world. The entire population of the religion is getting blamed for what is done by less than 1% of the people in it, (ie child abuse, fanatical intolerant people)

There is a difference between the Catholic CHURCH (the people that run it/think they should run it) and the Catholic Religion (what the silent majority actually stands for.) Most Catholics are very tolerant people who do not judge others by what they do. The are concerned about their own religious path to do so.

When it comes down to it, that's what any religious or moral debates boil down to. People trying to tell other people what to do/how to live aginst the others that say live and let live.

Now before I get too ahead of myself in defending my religion that this turns into a flame war, I repeat what a great man once said:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."


(this is more on the actual topic of this thread.)

This is also a very hypocrytical time. We (again, the USA,) live in a society where courtrooms are ordered to remove religious symbols, yet we have faith based initiatives and a president who doesn't understand "separation of chuch and state" He says the sanctity of Marriage must be protected. I agree, but it is NOT his place to do so. Marriage is two things: 1. The RELIGIOUS act of binding a man and a woman together, governed by the church. 2. The LEGALLY binding contract between 2 people. I believe that the RELIGIOUS act should be protected and stay as a man and a woman, but the LEGAL act of binding people together should be ANY 2 people that want to do so.