The Religion/Spirituality Thread

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

But it is still a choice you make. Others may argue that a blanket statement like that is less important than a highly explicit verse saying clearly that homosexuals should be killed. Which is AGAIN my point: you have decided to focus on some parts of the bible - not because they make more sense -- but because it allows you to be in tune with society. If we go back hundred years or so, christians would argue that the "clearly" that verse was not intended to encompass gays, because they could point to a dozen bible verses that explicitly state that homosexuality is an abomination. They would laugh if you were to say that your verse somehow negates theirs. The reason why all of the verses that condemn homosexuality now have fallen out of favour, while verses like the one you point to suddenly become popular, is due to a need for the church to evolve with the times. There are no intellectual reasoning behind this shift in reality. It is all due to self-preservation.

Nope.  A Catholic wouldn't argue that at all.  Wrong again.  We believe in the Laws of the New Testament as instructed by Jesus Christ and His Apostles in the New Testament.  I don't blame you for not understanding though.  I guess me saying it 3-4 times now still isn't clear enough.  Smh...poor atheist. 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Kasanova King said:

Most charitable means gives the most to charity.  

If we go by your standards, then I can claim to be the most charitable organization in the world if I give everything I make away to charity.  That's pure nonsense. 

Hehe, no. It could be interpreted in both a literal and a relative sense. If you are talking in an absolute sense, then of course an immensely large organization like the catholic church would be more likely to top the list, due to their size alone. On the other hand, if we are talking about the organization that gives the most (per income), and hence are the most charitable, then the catholic church falls way behind all the organizations that are founded for charity solely, including those in my link.

But you are NOT an organization  If you were an organization, and you gave 100 % of your proceeds to charity, then you would be level with many other organizations, and we would differentiate these by their absolute charitable contributions.

[Ace Nova]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Hehe, no. It could be interpreted in both a literal and a relative sense. If you are talking in an absolute sense, then of course an immensely large organization like the catholic church would be more likely to top the list, due to their size alone. On the other hand, if we are talking about the organization that gives the most (per income), and hence are the most charitable, then the catholic church falls way behind all the organizations that are founded for charity solely, including those in my link.

But you are NOT an organization  If you were an organization, and you gave 100 % of your proceeds to charity, then you would be level with many other organizations, and we would differentiate these by their absolute charitable contributions.

You just like to hear yourself talk...in circles.  Smh.

The Catholic Church is the largest and most charitable organization in the world.  No other organization gives more to charitable causes on a global level, overall, than the Catholic Church.  I know you have a tendency to be obtuse so I hope I made it easy enough for your to understand.  

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Nope.  A Catholic wouldn't argue that at all.  Wrong again.  We believe in the Laws of the New Testament as instructed by Jesus Christ and His Apostles in the New Testament.  I don't blame you for not understanding though.  I guess me saying it 3-4 times now still isn't clear enough.  Smh...poor atheist. 

Haha, I have not said anything about what a catholic would argue  Yet, the official doctrine of the catholic church is that homosexual practise is a grave sin, despite your personal focus on that single bible verse that can be interpreted, erroneously in my opinion, to imply that you should love ALL people. So the official doctrine of the catholic church is still in contradiction with progressive society that holds that it doesn't really matter who you fuck or love. I predict that the catholic church will change its opinion on this, because, after all, they have to evolve with society, and I believe we see this slowly happening already. Again, proving my point.

And even if your were correct in your assertion that the catholic church only cares about the new testament, and hence can't be against gays (no wait, "gay activity"!), then you have more verses in nt condemning homosexuality than you have verses implying that male-on-male fucking is okay. Just read Paul's letters. I don't know if you have. Have you even read the entire bible?

 

2 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

You just like to hear yourself talk...in circles.  Smh.

The Catholic Church is the largest and most charitable organization in the world.  No other organization gives more to charitable causes on a global level, overall, than the Catholic Church.  I know you have a tendency to be obtuse so I hope I made it easy enough for your to understand.  

Again, you focus on absolute levels, which doesn't say anything, really, about its charitable fibre. It just says it is a massive organization. 

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Haha, I have not said anything about what a catholic would argue  Yet, the official doctrine of the catholic church is that homosexual practise is a grave sin, despite your personal focus on that single bible verse that can be interpreted, erroneously in my opinion, to imply that you should love ALL people. So the official doctrine of the catholic church is still in contradiction with progressive society that holds that it doesn't really matter who you fuck or love. I predict that the catholic church will change its opinion on this, because, after all, they have to evolve with society, and I believe we see this slowly happening already. Again, proving my point.

And even if your were correct in your assertion that the catholic church only cares about the new testament, and hence can't be against gays (no wait, "gay activity"!), then you have more verses in nt condemning homosexuality than you have verses implying that male-on-male fucking is okay. Just read Paul's letters. I don't know if you have. Have you even read the entire bible?

 

I never stated anything about the specific issue of homosexuality other than what the Pope said in recent years that we shouldn't judge them and if we have judged them in the past, we should apologize to them.  I'll go with the Pope on that one.  

And my point still stands that the most important laws trump it all.  Love God with all your heart, body, mind and soul and Love your neighbor as yourself.   If a Christian follows those two commandments, everything else will fall into line.  

[SoulMonster]

11 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

I never stated anything about the specific issue of homosexuality other than what the Pope said in recent years that we shouldn't judge them and if we have judged them in the past, we should apologize to them.  I'll go with the Pope on that one.  

And my point still stands that the most important laws trump it all.  Love God with all your heart, body, mind and soul and Love your neighbor as yourself.   If a Christian follows those two commandments, everything else will fall into line.  

The official doctrine of the catholic church is still that homosexual practise is a sin. Your pope may fake tolerance as much as he wants, he has never gone on record saying that male buttsex is great. So there's that.

So, are you loving your pedophile neighbor as yourself? Are you loving your jihadic neighbor as yourself? Are you loving your serial killer neighbor as yourself? Or have you simply chosen to interpret that verse to include gays and not include pedos, terrorists and serial killers? If so, you accept that you interpret the verse and whom it encompasses, and that you do not take it at face value.

[Ace Nova]

17 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Haha, I have not said anything about what a catholic would argue  Yet, the official doctrine of the catholic church is that homosexual practise is a grave sin, despite your personal focus on that single bible verse that can be interpreted, erroneously in my opinion, to imply that you should love ALL people. So the official doctrine of the catholic church is still in contradiction with progressive society that holds that it doesn't really matter who you fuck or love. I predict that the catholic church will change its opinion on this, because, after all, they have to evolve with society, and I believe we see this slowly happening already. Again, proving my point.

And even if your were correct in your assertion that the catholic church only cares about the new testament, and hence can't be against gays (no wait, "gay activity"!), then you have more verses in nt condemning homosexuality than you have verses implying that male-on-male fucking is okay. Just read Paul's letters. I don't know if you have. Have you even read the entire bible?

 

Again, you focus on absolute levels, which doesn't say anything, really, about its charitable fibre. It just says it is a massive organization. 

Wrong.  I find it sad that your hate of religion blurs your rationale. 

The vast majority of the Catholic Church's budget (One could argue that close to 100% of its 170 Billion Dollar budget in the U.S. goes towards something charitable since the Church itself is considered a charity as well as its schools are considered non profit.)    In the United States upwards of 50% off all social services are provided by the Catholic Church.  Yes, the Catholic Church is massive in scale and so are its charities. 

[Ace Nova]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

The official doctrine of the catholic church is still that homosexual practise is a sin. Your pope may fake tolerance as much as he wants, he has never gone on record saying that male buttsex is great. So there's that.

So, are you loving your pedophile neighbor as yourself? Are you loving your jihadic neighbor as yourself? Are you loving your serial killer neighbor as yourself? Or have you simply chosen to interpret that verse to include gays and not include pedos, terrorists and serial killers? If so, you accept that you interpret the verse and whom it encompasses, and that you do not take it at face value.

Why would  he?  I don't think male butt sex is great but I certainly don't need to judge someone who does.  That's all the Pope says on it and I agree with him.  You have some really flawed logic there.  

Again, I don't need to mistreat anyone...even if they are far from perfect.  I don't need to be best friends with them either.  "Loving your neighbor as yourself" simply means don't mistreat people.  But since you're being intentionally obtuse, I'm assuming you already knew that. 

 

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

The vast majority of the Catholic Church's budget (One could argue that close to 100% of its 170 Billion Dollar budget in the U.S. goes towards something charitable since the Church itself is considered a charity as well as its schools are considered non profit.)    In the United States upwards of 50% off all social services are provided by the Catholic Church.  Yes, the Catholic Church is massive in scale and so are its charities. 

You would only argue that way if you thought that the spread of catholicism is in itself a charity  I have a more...uhm, objective view on what a charity is, and that would be completely unconditional philantropic activity, and although the catholic church is heavily involved in that -- which is one of the few things I like about the catholic church -- a lot of their activity is also to support catholic schools, missionary activities, preaching, and other things that comes with strings attached, which only a catholic would argue are 100 % philantropic. Take Red Cross as a counterpoint: they have no agenda, whatsoever, besides humanitarian help. 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Kasanova King said:

Why would  he?  I don't think male butt sex is great but I certainly don't need to judge someone who does.  That's all the Pope says on it and I agree with him.  You have some really flawed logic there.  

Again, I don't need to mistreat anyone...even if they are far from perfect.  I don't need to be best friends with them either.  "Loving your neighbor as yourself" simply means don't mistreat people.  But since you're being intentionally obtuse, I'm assuming you already knew that. 

No flawed logic. Just pointing out that according to the catholic church, homosexual practise is a grave sin, and this is justified through numerous bible verses found both in the NT and OT. You, I suppose, disagree because you prefer to emphasize the aforementioned bible verse which you interpret to include homosexually active neighbors. Good for you (and your neighbors)! In this sense you are more socially progressive than the official catholic church. Again, I prophesize that the catholic church will soon follow in your steps. Again, the very fact that your have a more socially progressive interpretation of scripture, compared to the catholic church, proves my point: it all comes doen to interpretation and weighting the various verses that are often internally incompatible, and the fact that such a process of continous re-interpretation is possible allows the churches to move with the times and not become completely outdated (and irrelevant).  

[Ace Nova]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You would only argue that way if you thought that the spread of catholicism is in itself a charity  I have a more...uhm, objective view on what a charity is, and that would be completely unconditional philantropic activity, and although the catholic church is heavily involved in that -- which is one of the few things I like about the catholic church -- a lot of their activity is also to support catholic schools, missionary activities, preaching, and other things that comes with strings attached, which only a catholic would argue are 100 % philantropic. Take Red Cross as a counterpoint: they have no agenda, whatsoever, besides humanitarian help. 

I think the Red Cross is a very good organization and so are the other ones you mentioned.  I donate to to some of them, actually.  But that still doesn't change the fact that the Catholic Church is the most (overall) charitable organization in the world by definition.  And in the view of the Church, of course it's philanthropic.  

[arnold layne]

On 1/8/2018 at 7:17 PM, Gibson_Guy87 said:

I was raised Catholic. I haven't "quit" the church so to speak, I've just found in the last year that I disagree with their views on a lot of things, namely sexual related stuff. Sex is a very private and personal thing and the church, or anyone for that matter, has no right to meddle in stuff like that. I also went to Catholic school throughout my entire childhood and now that I'm getting out into the world, I'm starting to see that all the stuff the Church said was bad for us (pre-marital sex, questioning your beliefs, being non-religious) isn't bad at all, it's part of being human

Pretty much how my experiences with any church I have been to went.

I think they mean well, but some of it is really ridiculous. For example I went to one of those 'new age' churches in Oklahoma. They were doing a sermon on addiction or something with the aid of a PowerPoint, and they were showing some trashed, destructed home in squalor.

The pastor mentioned marijuana as a possible culprit, and I thought to myself, 'Forget it.'

He had some literature out too condemning homosexuality and calling it a 'sinful choice'.

I don't believe sexuality is a choice. I don't wake up in the morning and ask myself, 'Do I choose to be attracted to females or males today?' 

It's just disheartening that people go to these things and act like the Pastor's word is the word of God when in all actually they are just people like you and I. 

I live by the whole 'Only God can judge me' mantra and just treat people with respect. I enjoyed Jesus' teachings but as for Christianity that is pretty much where I start and end. The rest of the Bible encourages people to interpret it in their own way and society has to endure the bullshit as a result. 

 

[Padme]

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

What if they die before they are baptized, which happens regularly. Does that mean they have to suffer eternally in hell because of something Adam did? 

In the past they were going to limbo. But that doctrine has been changed... I think   Anyway what happened with all the civilizations gone before the Jesus coming? 

[SoulMonster]

5 hours ago, Padme said:

In the past they were going to limbo. But that doctrine has been changed... I think   Anyway what happened with all the civilizations gone before the Jesus coming? 

And what about the poor in Australia who didn't hear about Jesus before the 16th century?

[Padme]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

And what about the poor in Australia who didn't hear about Jesus before the 16th century?

And the indians in the Americas before European invasion. Or your Vikings in Norway before Christian misionaries arrived there. I feel bad for your poor Vikings 

[SoulMonster]

9 minutes ago, Padme said:

And the indians in the Americas before European invasion. Or your Vikings in Norway before Christian misionaries arrived there. I feel bad for your poor Vikings 

So do I. But starting with the plundering of Lindisfarne in 793 and using monks as target practise, we started our revenge. 

[soon]

14 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Scripture is scripture. Some denominations will put more emphasis on some parts of scripture, true, but I am talking about scripture, not their emphases.

Where have I cherry-picked? Looking at the entire scripture, i.e. the entire bible without weights, so not just whatever you might find important in your peculiar practise of christianity, there is an overwhelming amount of verses against gay rights and there is an overwhelming amount of verses supporting slavery, as two quick examples. 

I would argue that the very fact that you object to me including verses from the Old Testament supports my point: Your christianity has evolved to down-play the importance of this part of scripture, and instead focus on parts that are less socially repulsive. Thank you.

I have read the whole thing. My favorite part is the gospels. Can't get enough of Jesus dying for my sins.

You are demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of Scripture.  And of how scripture is read.  Its not me who divided it into two separate covenants and its not me who decided Christians follow a new convenant that exists in the NT only.  The Old Testament, which some prefer to call Hebrew Scriptures as to not reject them as "no longer", gives us an insight to one history of God reaching out to humanity and tells the history of Jesus' world.  It gives insight into the prophecy.  The NT wouldn't be understandable with out the Old.  But youd need to read it and then look at Christianity to know that Christianity does not follow those teachings.  Look at food laws and cleanliness laws and such.

You are cherry picking scripture in that given Christity is what Chrit brought, youd have to look at a post Christ scripture so your false claims of anti-gay and pro slavery would come from Christian texts.  So misunderstanding Pauls use of the word Slave and cherry picking Pauls singular reference to homo-sexuality is picking about 3 lines of the entire NT. 

[soon]

12 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

The crucifixion is not graceful or good. If God and the Devil etc is real, then I think the Devil is tricking people into worshiping the violent murder of God's son/an innocent man. Aside from the fact that people should take responsibility for their own actions/sins. How the fuck is torturing him, nailing him to wood and killing him anything other than ugly, violent and evil? Please explain your reasoning @soon@Kasanova King

If you guys were there at the time, just standing there at the cross watching as he died in agony, what would you say? Would you do anything?
 

 

How do you perceive me worshipping Christs suffering?  I really dont understand this at all.

 

[soon]

2 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Because him getting on the cross and dying is seen as a beautiful thing. To me, that's like saying you're glad Frank walked into oncoming traffic because you both thought he was saving the world.

Is it seen as a beautiful thing, though?

[Padme]

Here it is a great example of religion bullshit 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/10/tim-farron-regrets-saying-gay-sex-not-sin

[soon]

1 minute ago, Oldest Goat said:

Yes. There's images of it everywhere and we're constantly told how grateful we should be for his noble sacrifice he made for all of humanity like it's a good beautiful thing.

Theres images of Crucifixes everywhere?  Where are you?  In fact only the Catholic Church uses Crucifixes, other churches have an empty cross, symbolizing the risen Christ.  (I spend a lot of time chilling with the Orthodox but I cant remember if they use Crucifixes too maybe). That is to say that many Christians and most organized Church agree with you that the focus is misplaced and macabre.

Our Salvation in Christ, the gift of the Spirit and the wonder of the God revealed in Christ are things that make us smile.

[SoulMonster]

30 minutes ago, soon said:

You are demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of Scripture.  And of how scripture is read.  Its not me who divided it into two separate covenants and its not me who decided Christians follow a new convenant that exists in the NT only.  The Old Testament, which some prefer to call Hebrew Scriptures as to not reject them as "no longer", gives us an insight to one history of God reaching out to humanity and tells the history of Jesus' world.  It gives insight into the prophecy.  The NT wouldn't be understandable with out the Old.  But youd need to read it and then look at Christianity to know that Christianity does not follow those teachings.  Look at food laws and cleanliness laws and such.

You are cherry picking scripture in that given Christity is what Chrit brought, youd have to look at a post Christ scripture so your false claims of anti-gay and pro slavery would come from Christian texts.  So misunderstanding Pauls use of the word Slave and cherry picking Pauls singular reference to homo-sexuality is picking about 3 lines of the entire NT. 

My whole point is again that Churches evolve in changing their views on what parts of scripture to emphasize. Previously, anti-gay verses found throughout the bible would be used to substantiate churches anti-gay views. Today, as most churches have moved with the times, they would down-play these verses.  And it is not as easy as saying that the Old Testament has no scriptural value to modern christians, there are many denominations that put a lot of value on OT and use it to substantiate parts of their dogma, e.g. the catholic church refers to it this way: "The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.".  

[soon]

2 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Come on man, there's images of the Crucifix/cross all over the place in culture throughout history. There's even one in the music video for Estranged.

But that's interesting to learn that a regular cross is meant as empty/symbolizing the risen Christ and nice that some can see how macabre the whole thing is. But my reasoning is it's still clearly referencing the fact he was nailed up on there, so it still counts. Still hanging over humanity's head.

P.S. You think I'm going to hell when I die, don't you?

I dont actually agree that they are everywhere.  You mean like if HollyWood wants to depict faith?  Yeah, they'd probably use one.  I cant think of the last time Ive seen one.  Thats the truth.

There are countless ways to unpack scripture.  A single line can produce entire libraries.  We could walk through a few layers of the event of the Crucifixion if you're interested?

 

[soon]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

My whole point is again that Churches evolve in changing their views on what parts of scripture to emphasize. Previously, anti-gay verses found throughout the bible would be used to substantiate churches anti-gay views. Today, as most churches have moved with the times, they would down-play these verses.  And it is not as easy as saying that the Old Testament has no scriptural value to modern christians, there are many denominations that put a lot of value on OT and use it to substantiate parts of their dogma, e.g. the catholic church refers to it this way: "The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.".  

The Old Testament does have a lot of value.  I've stated the value.  We've already addressed apostasy. We've already addressed the new covenant.  Im not Catholic so that quote means nothing to me.

Ive laid out churches otherness.

 

 

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, soon said:

The Old Testament does have a lot of value.  I've stated the value.  We've already addressed apostasy. We've already addressed the new covenant.  Im not Catholic so that quote means nothing to me.

Ive laid out churches otherness.

Do you disagree that churches over time shift their positions on what parts of the bible is important? Do you accept that these shifts in emphases does not only have a theological rationale, but also is a reaction to overall societal changes? If you agree with both of these, then you agree with my point.