The great and all powerful religion thread!

[cookiecutter]

I edited my post up above. I think it raises a good point. This Bible debate is like Trekkies arguing why the Cardassians sided with the Dominion (those bastards ). Interesting but obviously fiction.

 

[Ender Rises]

The Cardassians sided with the Dominion because Gul dukat is power hungry and wanted to destroy Sisko.

/geek

 

[skeptik]

Religion is for blacks.

 

[AchrisK]

So AchrisK, is the debate over?

Not necessarily. But I have a family and a full time job which requires me to work so I don't have all that much extra time. Go ahead and go through my posts and answer all of the things I said that nobody responded to, and I will try to get back to it eventually.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I already responded to the last post you directed at me. The ball's in your court.

 

[cookiecutter]

The Cardassians sided with the Dominion because Gul dukat is power hungry and wanted to destroy Sisko.

/geek

Best character in the series. But this is offtopic, and there will be no OT discussion on this thread.

God hath decreed it.

P.S. Ender start up a Star Trek thread.

 

[~Derek~]

^I don't know what the hell Ender's tlaking about.

 

[Ender Rises]

Best character in the series. But this is offtopic, and there will be no OT discussion on this thread.

God hath decreed it.

P.S. Ender start up a Star Trek thread.

You and Hatebreeder beat me to it.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

Religion is for blacks.

Greatest random sentence ever.

 

[genocide roach]

if god exists, and he created everyone in his divine image, then why does shit stink?
~gR~

 

[AchrisK]

Actually no. This is a misconception that most protestants have because they interpret the bible in a historical vacuum. Priests are merely Presbyters (which the bible mentions 1 Tim. 4:14) and the Pope is merely the Bishop of Rome (an office also found in the Bible 1 Tim. 3:1). A bishop is of course a head or chief presbyter. So even though the power and roles of these offices have expanded greatly from their early Christian beginnings they do in fact have a basis in the bible and hence are not "inventions" of some later Catholic institution.

1 Timothy 4:14
Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.

1 Tim. 3:1
1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,[a] he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.


Those positions *may* have evolved from the positions mentioned in the Bible, but they in no way represent the intention of those positions. To claim this is just to be argumentative, and you know that.

Nowhere is any man set up as an intermedeary between God and man. Nowhere does it say that we have to confess out sins to a man for forgiveness (as is the case with the Catholic priets). Nowhere does it tell the church to set up one man as more holy or authorative than everyone else.

So my assertion is still valid, that there is no one group, especially an organized religion, that has anything to gain (i.e. power, money and things like that) from the bible as it is written. Don't neglect those last four words, because everything else is irrelevant regarding this point.

This just speaks of motivation. Who would write or compile such a book?

 

[AchrisK]

if god exists, and he created everyone in his divine image, then why does shit stink?
~gR~

Because it come out of your butt and is old food.

 

[genocide roach]

that doesnt explain why god made it that way. it could smell like apple pie or somthing

proof there is no god
~gR~

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Because stinking is subjective.

 

[AchrisK]

that doesnt explain why god made it that way. it could smell like apple pie or somthing

proof there is no god
~gR~

Dangit!!!

 

[skeptik]

So my assertion is still valid, that there is no one group, especially an organized religion, that has anything to gain (i.e. power, money and things like that) from the bible as it is written. Don't neglect those last four words, because everything else is irrelevant regarding this point.

This just speaks of motivation. Who would write or compile such a book?

How do those little quotes prove that nobody has anything to gain from exploiting the bible as it is written, and what difference does it make whether or not people take advantage of it via their own interpretations? That doesn't stop people from condemning the Qu'ran, so why should the Bible be protected against being taken in a way that (that believe) it was not meant to be taken?

Oh, and of course anti-gay groups aren't taking the Bible out of context when they say that it is against the will of God to "lay down with another man." That is the Bible as it is written, no? A group taking advantage of the Bible?

 

[genocide roach]

Because stinking is subjective.

ok, everyone who thinks shit smells like dasies and perfume, raise your hand...
~gR~

 

[genocide roach]

That doesn't stop people from condemning the Qu'ran, so why should the Bible be protected against being taken in a way that (that believe) it was not meant to be taken?

because christians are stupid and biased. most muslims would do the same thing though. it goes back to the "my religion is the only true religion" argument
~gR~

 

[AchrisK]

How do those little quotes prove that nobody has anything to gain from exploiting the bible as it is written, and what difference does it make whether or not people take advantage of it via their own interpretations? That doesn't stop people from condemning the Qu'ran, so why should the Bible be protected against being taken in a way that (that believe) it was not meant to be taken?

Oh, and of course anti-gay groups aren't taking the Bible out of context when they say that it is against the will of God to "lay down with another man." That is the Bible as it is written, no? A group taking advantage of the Bible?

Again, you are adding to what I said. You said How do those little quotes prove that nobody has anything to gain from exploiting the bible as it is written. Are you saying that it was written or compiled in an effort to present something that people would misinterpret and misuse to take advantage of others? It must be evaluated as written and compiled.

I am just showing that there is no group that has any motivation to make up the writings or select the books that would make up the Bible based on their own selfish or power hungry motivations.

EDIT: The Bible does call homosexuality sin, but it also calls murder and theft and adultry and lust and coveting and lying and getting drunk and ripping people off and many other things sin. Everyone has done or thought things that make them guilty of sin. So in reality it just levels the playing field. A gay person is to be considered no worse off than any other "sinner". I will grant you that those who call themselves Christians can get ugly about certain things, and are very wrong in their approaches all too often. It's really an emarassment to be honest.

 

[genocide roach]

but the bible also condones murder, lust, etc...
~gR~