Q&A on Christianity

Waverly · Post by **Waverly** » Fri Apr 19, 2002 1:27 pm

Voodoo: I suppose that is one of my points. The blatant misogyny of some [or most] denominations is quite objectionable, as are some of the views on birth control, and many other topics. That people invariable turn to the bible to justify what is essentially only a personal belief is disturbing.

There would be many positive things about truly living your life as Christ seemed to, but all to often people get hung up in a most un-Christlike way.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Apr 19, 2002 1:35 pm

Originally posted by EMINEM

I think without doubt the US was established as a Christian nation, and that the Founding Fathers built the government on Christian principles regarding human nature and a theistic view of reality, but secular historians have eradicated as much Christian influence as possible from American history.

I figured you wanted to keep this thread bible-focused, and the Jefferson bible certainly fits well within the parameters of the discussion. However, if you would like to restart that thread separately, @Eminem, I shall be happy to place a link back to our discussion of the issue, and we can resume it.

Der-draigen · Post by **Der-draigen** » Fri Apr 19, 2002 2:05 pm

Originally posted by Aegis
DO you,a s a christian, believe that the pope should be considered infallible, even in his waning years, and degradedation of health?

Sorry if this question has already been answered:

1.) Christians in general do not believe in the infallibility of the Pope. Only Catholics hold this belief.

2.) The Pope is not considered, in the teaching of the Catholic church, to be infallible in and of himself, all the time. Not every word that comes out of the Pope's mouth is to be considered infallible. Infallibility is claimed ONLY when the Pope chooses to claim infallibility on a particular issue. Infallibility in these cases stems from the Catholic belief that the Pope, as vicar of Christ on earth, is inspired by the Holy Spirit to make or confirm some ruling or teaching.

In fact very few popes have actually claimed infallibility throughout history.

Der-draigen · Post by **Der-draigen** » Fri Apr 19, 2002 2:17 pm

Originally posted by Waverly
So now Sailor is the arbiter of which bible versions are most accurate, and the judge of which one I should reference? I find such posturing extreme sillyness.

No, it isn't. SS is right in accordance with current biblical scholarship.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Fri Apr 19, 2002 2:24 pm

Originally posted by Waverly
Voodoo: I suppose that is one of my points. The blatant misogyny of some [or most] denominations is quite objectionable, as are some of the views on birth control, and many other topics. That people invariable turn to the bible to justify what is essentially only a personal belief is disturbing.

There would be many positive things about truly living your life as Christ seemed to, but all to often people get hung up in a most un-Christlike way.

Christians mysogynist? That's a serious accusation, especially since historically Christians have led the charge in the liberation of women. Even today, who do you think leads the vanguard in the (losing) battle against pornography? Women, now and since the time of Christ, comprise the majority of Christians in the world. And in Matthew 5:28, Christ admonished his followers not to objectify women even in their thoughts, equating their imaginative fantasies with actual transgression (ie. if you think it, you've done it). Quite apart from how modern culture and Biblical scholars interpret this passage, I think it's a penetrating insight into how much the Son of God esteemed and regarded the opposite sex.

Der-draigen · Post by **Der-draigen** » Fri Apr 19, 2002 2:27 pm

Originally posted by VoodooDali
Re: above argument. I think that Waverly's trying to point out that there are a lot of rules in the Bible that were relevant 2000 years ago, but not acceptable today.

That's exactly right. When you read the Bible you have to keep in mind that its legislative codes were written in a very specific historical/social/cultural context. There's a lot I don't like about those legislative codes; but I'm not going to toss out the entire Bible and claim it has nothing to say to me because of them. The heart of the spiritual truth that the Bible teaches is more important than legal codes which can change according to circumstances. In fact, if you look closely through the Bible you'll find changes to the legal codes within the first five books alone (the Torah/Pentateuch).

This is part of what St. Paul meant when he said we are saved through faith, and not the law. "For the letter kills, but the spirit gives life" (2 Cor 3:6).

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Fri Apr 19, 2002 2:37 pm

It's amazing how someone from "Hell" can know so much about Christianity.

Waverly · Post by **Waverly** » Fri Apr 19, 2002 3:30 pm

Originally posted by EMINEM
Christians mysogynist? That's a serious accusation, especially since historically Christians have led the charge in the liberation of women. Even today, who do you think leads the vanguard in the (losing) battle against pornography?

Perhaps you have a list of female priests you would like to share? Perhaps you didn’t note that none of the 12 apostles is female. Those denominations that frown upon any forms of planned parenthood interfere with the decisions women make about their own bodies. I’m not saying the bible gives many compelling reasons to be misogynistic, but certainly that is the trend for many Christians.

I also have to say that crusading against pornography doesn’t strike me as involving any altruistic gender issues. It seems to be a matter of one group wanting to dictate what is considered decent by society as a whole. As I’m sure you know, women employed by adult magazine or film media companies make much more than men. It could be argued they themselves do more for women than the self appointed crusaders.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Fri Apr 19, 2002 4:03 pm

Originally posted by Waverly
Sailor: as per Buck’s rules, I only jab people in the spirit of good natured fun, and I attempt to keep it to a minimum in a serious discussion. Is your childish outburst a symptom of your immaturity, or frustration that a non-believer has read and understood the bible in totality?

I don't consider that outburst childish, though I admit some immaturity had a hand in it, though not just my own immaturity.

I could never be frustrated that you read and understood the Bible in totality, Waverly, because it never happened. You obviously have little actual understanding of the Bible. If you did, you wouldn't be a non-believer.

The reason I got mad is because of your unfounded accusation that I am unable to think for myself. I am sick and tired of idiots constantly saying that I am unable to think for myself. The accusation is 100% false. Accuse me of insanity or immaturity all you want, just stop trying to say I can't think for myself. If you continue to do so, you'll merely prove that you do want me banned and are trying to make me angry enough to get myself banned.

I have no wish to see you banned, so take some friendly advice and either calm down or avoid me altogether. I’m above childish tattling, but obviously the moderators will do their job with or without my input. If you feel you really want Buck to make a judgement based on the discussion in this thread; by all means, go ahead and contact him.

If you will quit making unfounded accusations, there will be no need for Buck to get involved in this.

I’d have been happy to avoid this topic, as I have not need to witness witnessing, it was you who prompted me to post here with your incorrect insinuation that any seemingly contradictory passages could be explained by mere context.

I did no such thing. I pointed out that I had already answered the question CE was asking where it concerned canabalism, a case where you did twist it by leaving out the context. I did not say that all things can be explained by their context. What I said is that the context should not be ignored.

If you're on trial for murder, but it was a kill or be killed situation in which you were having to defend yourself, would you prefer the judge to just look at the fact "You killed this man" or would you prefer for him to look at the context of the situation, the context being the fact that you would've been killed if you had not killed him first?

I'll give a response about the passage from Numbers later.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Apr 19, 2002 4:10 pm

This thread is closed because of flames. A shame it has to be that way, but all requests for greater courtesy have failed.

T'lainya · Post by **T'lainya** » Fri Apr 19, 2002 4:13 pm

Fable got there first

Post by **BuckGB** » Fri Apr 19, 2002 4:29 pm

I just got home from work and have gone through several email complaints concerning Sailor Saturn in this thread. After reading them myself, the only course of action I feel is appropriate is to ban her indefinitely. Since she has been a regular member of these forums, I thought it would be best to let everyone know why I've chosen this course of action.

Sailor Saturn had many warnings in the past, as well as a temporary banning for her behavior. Despite the prior warnings and banning, she continues to break the forum rules with her constant insults towards Waverly (and others):

In response to Waverly's request that she call him by his real forum username after referring to him as "Wankerly":

I'll call you whatever the hell I feel like calling you.

Several direct insults towards Waverly:

Despite your idiotic attempts...

And your intelligence hasn't diminished. It can't get any lower than it already was.

I am sick and tired of idiots constantly saying that I am unable to think for myself.

I will remind all of you that flaming/insulting other members will not be tolerated. Regardless of how controversial the topic is, I ask that all you maintain your composure and to not let your temper get the best of you.