Support NeoGAF

[Morn]

If you are really interested in learning about the Bibles validity, please watch this:

The Case for Christ
71 minutes
2007

In this thought-provoking program, Lee Strobel -- a former legal editor for the Chicago Tribune and a self-described atheist who became a Christian -- shares the details of his spiritual quest and asks tough questions of a wide range of experts. Is the New Testament a reliable source? Did Jesus Christ in fact exist? Was he really the Son of God? And could Christ's resurrection have actually occurred?

Excellent movie. Everyone should see it.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament was written in Greek. Both are still living languages so people are able to read the actual original text. That's what a Strong's Concordance and Vine's Dictionary helps with.

One minor point of disagreement: Koine greek, the greek of the NT, is vastly different than modern greek. Modern greeks cannot read the greek New Testament. Consider the difficulty of an English-speaking person when reading the original Beowulf. Beowulf is "English", but not the kind of English that you or I understand; and Beowulf far post-dates the text of the NT.

 

[PoliceCop]

I am just sharing what is true. What people do with that information is up to them.

You're sharing what you believe to be true, not objective truth. It would benefit you and your Christ not to conflate the two.

 

[Typographenia]

Just now noticed this! I'm surprised to find this many believers on GAF.
Add me to the bunch. : P

I was raised Catholic and we were taught that the majority of the Old Testament should be taken as allegory.

(don't read this as confrontational, I'm just giving my own upbringing)
I was always told that the bible was written for all people, but not all of it is written to us. The old testament is still very important for modern christianity because of the many times God uses things as foreshadowing of Christ, showing the need for a new covenant, giving others examples of strong figures who listened and acted when God called them, and so forth. Not to mention it's always good to know the history of things you believe.

Just as a disclaimer- I'm baptist raised, but I tend not to let things like that get in the way of what really matters between fellow believers. Bickering over which denomination is better, right, or whatever always really annoyed me. The separation of the body is so counter-productive to what Christ wanted for those that believed that it just frustrates me. And, I know, that probably comes off as idealistic, but I digress, haha.

Edit:

How many of Christian-GAF regularly read the Bible?

I definitely don't read as much as I should, but I make an effort to spend time in the Bible once a day. I try to start my day with a chapter or two, depending on how long and the content therein. Spending time with the Lord in a "quiet time" is something I hold important for myself, but I don't look down on others because they don't do that. I'm not really in any position to do that.
I just finished the book of John, and my church wanted to start a deal where we all read through a book a month. We're doing proverbs at the moment, and it has been really nice rereading it. Never go wrong with a 31 day reading of proverbs, haha.

 

[Shanadeus]

I'd like to see another version of this quiz where getting 100% means you abort Hitler, Charlie Manson, and other cool people.

It's just such a pointless thought example that it makes me wonder who even falls for these cheap emotional tricks.

Not allowing someone to come into existence is not the same as killing someone and you cannot say that people should act according to what is "beneficial" to the whole by allowing these great, awesome people to come into existence (I'm ignoring the fact that two of them seemed to be gospel singers/missionaries/religious nuts).

That sort of thinking is dangerous and it ends at people requesting you sacrifice your body so that many in need of an organ donation will be able to live.

 

[Chaplain]

You're sharing what you believe to be true, not objective truth. It would benefit you and your Christ not to conflate the two.

Jesus said truth is not subjective but objective. I base my beliefs off what He said. That is my choice.

 

[teruterubozu]

Why do these things always become a faith contest?

 

[PoliceCop]

Jesus said truth is not subjective but objective. I base my beliefs off what He said. That is my choice.

That's all well and good, but please understand that when entering into conversation with others you will sometimes find yourself in a situation where establishing your notions of truth based on the beliefs manifested in a thousand+ year old book will leave you factually incorrect.

 

[Shanadeus]

Let's talk about something more light-hearted:

Around here Churches are trying to make an effort in helping out youths and are among other things keeping meetings where they can meet up and talk about life, hold concerts in their church buildings (great acoustics) and a number of other non-faith related activities.

What are your thoughts on this tactic of staying relevant in a modern society?

 

[Mgoblue201]

Excellent movie. Everyone should see it.

I read this book when I was a Christian, and much of my deconversion owes to the eventual awareness of all the tricks that people like Strobel use in their arguments. For example, he (or the expert he speaks to) makes the argument that the chances of Jesus fulfilling all of the prophecies are so small that the only explanation is that his life was preordained. This sounds convincing on its face, but there are two large problems with it. 1) Very little has ever corroborated anything that Jesus said or did outside of the Bible. Mere gossip or innuendo can easily be spun into an authoritative source. 2) The prophecies are suspect to begin with. The large majority of them, when you look back at the original "prophecy", seem to be taken wildly out of context. There is a good argument that some of them were even misunderstood by the NT writers. You can pick apart the entire book like this and find that the entire case is rather tenuous.

I didn't want to wade into this thread, but it looks like it's already gone to hell, so to speak.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

Jesus said truth is not subjective but objective. I base my beliefs off what He said. That is my choice.

Reference, please.

 

[teruterubozu]

Let's talk about something more light-hearted:

Around here Churches are trying to make an effort in helping out youths and are among other things keeping meetings where they can meet up and talk about life, hold concerts in their church buildings (great acoustics) and a number of other non-faith related activities.

What are your thoughts on this tactic of staying relevant in a modern society?

I find Protestants to be very effective in connecting their faith to everyday life, keeping their teachings relevant and reaching out to the youth. Catholics are lousy at keeping the Church connected to modern life thus they suffer major attrition.

 

[jaxword]

Why do these things always become a faith contest?

The entire world has been fighting a faith contest for millenia since the first man looked up and asked "Why are we here?"

 

[Chaplain]

Reference, please.

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me."

"I was born and came into the world to testify to the truth. All who love the truth recognize that what I say is true.”

 

[PoliceCop]

I didn't want to wade into this thread, but it looks like it's already gone to hell, so to speak.

Just like those Egyptian firstborns Jesus killed.

 

[teruterubozu]

The entire world has been fighting a faith contest for millenia since the first man looked up and asked "Why are we here?"

Um...I meant why do these arguments turn into "I have more faith than you/holier than thou"

 

[Ivan A Nguyen]

Let's talk about something more light-hearted:

Around here Churches are trying to make an effort in helping out youths and are among other things keeping meetings where they can meet up and talk about life, hold concerts in their church buildings (great acoustics) and a number of other non-faith related activities.

What are your thoughts on this tactic of staying relevant in a modern society?

I was taught that the church is the people, not the building. I was in a youth group and youth choir when I was growing up. I think allowing kids to use the church buildings is a great idea. It should always be a place where you should feel safe and are surround by loving people who share your faith. Mass is a celebration of faith.

I would be interested to know what is considered a non-faith related activity. Is that to say that it's open to people who are not of the same religion or is it non-faith because of other means?

 

[jaxword]

Um...I meant why do these arguments turn into "I have more faith than you/holier than thou"

I was essentially saying the same thing. That's the nature of religious fights.

 

[JGS]

I was wondering if anyone is actually brave/bold enough to have a strictly Bible debate thread?

Atheist (& religious for that matter since interpretations differ) could simply ask/answer/fight to their heart's content- almost like how people debate how good/bad Inception is.

The religion thread sort of does this now, but it's focus is on all religion & on particular religions in general whereas a Bible topic would focis on love/appreciation/hatred on the text themselves. It was tried before but the tone of the OP was far from neutral. The thread itself can be neutral and the opinin can flow freely.

Of course, if the purpose is simply to screw up every positive religion thread, then it would be pointless, but otherwise...

 

[Dascu]

What is your opinion about these Biblical facts:

http://actionskeptics.blogspot.com/2006/12/bad-bible-science.html

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me."

"I was born and came into the world to testify to the truth. All who love the truth recognize that what I say is true.”

Well I figured you would cite those, but that has nothing to do with "objective" and "subjective" (which are frequently abused words anyway).

 

[Morn]

http://actionskeptics.blogspot.com/2006/12/bad-bible-science.html

Everything he uses on that post comes from Skeptics Annotated, which immediately makes it worthless dribble...which is what he calls the Bible as well.

 

[MrHicks]

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me."

"I was born and came into the world to testify to the truth. All who love the truth recognize that what I say is true.”

uuuuuuum pretty much all religions claim to be "the truth"
otherwise it wouldn't have followers lol

a hindu is 100% sure his way is "the truth"
a christian is 100% sure jesus is "the truth"
etc etc etc

plz don't compare whatever you believe with IRL universal truth
theres thousands of "truths" out there you just believe in one of the many

 

[Dascu]

Everything he uses on that post comes from Skeptics Annotated, which immediately makes it worthless dribble...which is what he calls the Bible as well.

His refutations for each element on the chart are not taken from another source. He's using common sense and basic educational knowledge.

Not only that, but the chart itself offers no sources for the "Science then" or "Science now" sections. The chart is absolutely worthless.

 

[Barbacoatl]

Moses wrote the first five books and there is speculation that he learned the events of Genesis first hand. How? From looking at the life spans named in the Bible in the early OT, people have worked out the math and Adam was actually still alive around the time of Noah, and thus that's how Moses got the information. Everything from Exodus on was during the time of Moses so he could write it first hand.

If Adam died @ 930 and Noah was born in 1056, then the math is close but no cigar.

That's why people leave the Catholic Church.

I heard Ze Pope spends most of his time personally crafting witty remarks and changes to the NT. Dat sly devil, always lurking in the shadows, modding ur holy bewks. When I heard he hired Charlie Sheen as an assassin I had to come back to Papa.

 

[Shanadeus]

I was taught that the church is the people, not the building. I was in a youth group and youth choir when I was growing up. I think allowing kids to use the church buildings is a great idea. It should always be a place where you should feel safe and are surround by loving people who share your faith. Mass is a celebration of faith.

I would be interested to know what is considered a non-faith related activity. Is that to say that it's open to people who are not of the same religion or is it non-faith because of other means?

It's a non-faith related activity when it doesn't involve faith basically.
That is, the concerts there were very often rock and it wasn't like they restricted the type of bands that could play in their locales. They would also have "confirmation" trips which people of all religions and people of no religion were welcome to come along for some fun camp activities and discussion regarding some of life's big questions - all in a pretty open manner without trying to teach anyone the message of Jesus. But it'd be the same as any other camp with teens sneaking into building where the opposite sex was sleeping and have sex all over the place like usual.

Some time ago there was a youth coordinator who even said something like "I guess sins have to get redefined as society moves on" in response to a teen asking him about homosexuality.

When religion is progressive in this manner like it is over here I don't have anything to complain about it.

 

[Gorgon]

What is your opinion about these Biblical facts:

Most of those "Biblical facts" are correct. A few are incorrect, though.

For example, "Blood is the source of life and health" is both worng and also out of context. Most of the biomass on this planet has no blood, that beying plants, macrofungi and microorganisms. As such, niether is the Bible ccorrect nor the assumption that science confirms it.

Another example is the remark "The ocean constains springs and is not fed by rivers and rain only". This is wrong. Ocean springs are water that comes from the sediment and rock fissures below BUT that water penetrated from the body of water above in the first place. As such, the ocean IS fed only by rain and water coming from the continents.

The remark "the earth is flat" is incorrect. That notion was only generaly accepted during the middle ages and it was never science. It had been scientifically proven by Erathostenies in the 3rd century BC to be round.

There is quite a lot of disenginuity on that table. There is also an attempt at ignoring the limits of observation in those days that led to many of those wrong assumptions by "science". It also should be noted that none of those wrong assumptions by science were "facts" as per modern scientific definition. They were all philosophycal speculation based on very limited observation capability. Even "Science" as we know it today didn't exist then, although cases like Eratosthenes show the use of what would become the scientific method. Sayin "science then" is disingenious. E.g. "earth is flat" or "earth sits on a large animal" was never science to begin with.

We can discuss this further if you want.

PS: looking at this link http://actionskeptics.blogspot.com/2006/12/bad-bible-science.html it seems to me that not even some of those "biblical facts" were ever really presented in the way that table shows. This is a good example:

Isaiah 40:22 says "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" It isn't even a complete thought. Not only that, nowhere does it make anything regarding a clear claim that the Earth is a sphere. "The circle of the Earth," in fact, is far more likely to mean a flat disc, as a circle is a 2-dimensional shape, the 3D analogue of which is a sphere. It is also entirely possible that "circle of the earth" is a piece of poetic language

All the other are worth reading too. Which means in practice that it goes a long way from the Bible showing any "facts" at all as per that table.

 

[ghst]

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me."

"I was born and came into the world to testify to the truth. All who love the truth recognize that what I say is true.”

why is it that some phrases in the bible are held as metaphorical, symbolic or contextual - while others are cast iron to the word?

if it's interpretive, you have no basis for getting particularly hung up on any single line or phrase. or, if every line is indeed signed off by god, why passages such as:

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."

a cited part of christian teachings? did god specify at some point that the old testament and exodus isn't strictly canon?

 

[Ivan A Nguyen]

It's a non-faith related activity when it doesn't involve faith basically.

Ah, I guess the way I see it, a person does not abandon their faith when they leave the confines of a traditional church activity.

Some time ago there was a youth coordinator who even said something like "I guess sins have to get redefined as society moves on" in response to a teen asking him about homosexuality.

When religion is progressive in this manner like it is over here I don't have anything to complain about it.

This does not seem progressive in my eyes. His assertion that the majority view of society should be the determinate of sin seems flawed. There have been instances when the majority view has been wrong. The acceptance of slavery was widely held in days of past, but that did not make owning a person any less of a sin. In fact, there existed societies where being homosexual wasn't frowned on either (This is not a judgement on homosexuality, but rather illustrating a point that society's majority view is not a good standard). It is for these reasons that we should strive to forgive instead of judge. With judging we might be wrong, but with forgiveness and tolerance it's hard to find fault in your actions.

 

[Laurentius]

Pristine_Condition: I have no problem if you want to believe in a deity because for some reason you believe there needed to be a creator to have started the Universe. My problem is with people that:

1) Want to teach creationism in school science classes
2) Do not understand a HUGE body of evidence to explain biological evolution and therefor call it a lie
3) Look to the Bible for a 2000 year old cosmological understanding of the Universe, when evidence clearly shows it to be wrong
4) Deny basic human rights to people with different sexual preferences/identities
5) Deny females the right to choose what happens to their bodies after being put in a bad situation
6) Deny scientists the ability to better understand life, and better create methods of helping people using stem cells
7) Force their beliefs on 3rd world countries so that people can receive aid.
9) Say that I can not possibly be a moral person because I do not believe in God.
10) Use fear and hate as a tool to train children
11) Kill other people in the name of their God
12) Refuse to educate children about sex and contraceptive.

A lot of these are overgeneralizations, stereotypes, or just plain untrue. I see where you're coming from, but I would like to respond to these.

1. Personally, I think "creationism" is a pretty faulty science. I don't believe we'll be able to "prove" the existence if God. Doing so misses the point. I'm open to schools teaching different views, but not in teaching creationism as it stands right now.

2. I don't call evolution a lie. I understand that it's a theory, and an incomplete one that doesn't fully explain the existence of life. I'm open to the possibility that God works through evolution. In no way does the theory of evolution refute the existence of God.

3. What 2000 year old cosmological understanding are you referring to?

4. I am Christian, and strongly disagree with those who persecute homosexuals. But I also strongly believe in God's law of chastity, which prohibits sexual relations excelt between a married man and woman. I don't fully understand why that is, but I do believe it's from God. I harbor no ill feelings towards homosexuals, and I do not believe they are sinners because of their sexual attractions. But I also believe the law of chastity is real.

5. I personally believe that in cases of rape, incest, and times when the mother's and child's life are at a large risk, that abortion is a viable option. In those situations it's up to the woman, and I do not think it would be wrong if they chose an abortion. In any other situation, I believe that it is a terrible, terrible thing.

7. Untrue. My church, for instance, has a huge humanitarian program that assits third world countries and areas struck by disasters. Providing aid to our fellow humans is a huge part if being a Christian, and we don't "force" our beliefs on anybody in order to give them aid. Honestly, this point shows a huge misunderstanding of religion in general.

9. I don't believe that at all. I don't personally know any Christians that do.

10. What evidence do you have to back that up? The Christians I know use love and compassion to raise their children. You're taking a few fringe examples and using them to overgeneralize all of Christianity.

11. People are always killing. And in the name of a lot of things. They'll find a reason to kill, no matter what. It doesn't mean that reason is true, or that they are an example fir that entire group.

12. Again, what evidence do you have to lay this claim on all of Christianity?

I would be willing to hear your responses to these.

 

[Gorgon]

A lot of these are overgeneralizations, stereotypes, or just plain untrue. I see where you're coming from, but I would like to respond to these.

5. I personally believe that in cases of rape, incest, and times when the mother's and child's life are at a large risk, that abortion is a viable option. In those situations it's up to the woman, and I do not think it would be wrong if they chose an abortion. In any other situation, I believe that it is a terrible, terrible thing.

I would be willing to hear your responses to these.

The usual argument is that you are killing a human being. As I said before:

It's far more complex than that. It goes back to at what point can you say you have a living human being and you're killing it. When is that? When the hearth starts to beat? When that fetus can survive independently of the mother's womb? When the brain shows activity? Where do we draw the limit between a living human being and just living tissue? is a fertilized egg a "living human beying"? It's a complicated question that has more to it than your simplification. Just a few decades ago a human was considered dead when the heart stoped beating. Now it's considered dead when brain activity stops (hence "brain-dead"). But it can change as time goes by and we learn more. These questions are heavily phylosofical because many times we have the data but we have to base our definitions on our moral systems, prejudices, culture, etc. It's not as simply as saying "YOU're KILLING BABIEEESSSS!". When do you have something that can be considered a baby, that is, a living human being? Where do you draw the line? Yes, this ain't that easy. That's why the discussion still exists and there are many opinions out there.

Which brings us to your point. Killing a "baby" when it is the product of rape, incest, etc is fine but when nothing like this is an issue it's sudendly murder? Where do you draw the line?

 

[manueldelalas]

The thing that Christianity has been fighting all these years, especially the Catholic church, is that often factoids and unproven science is taken as real science and as proven facts.

Many say that the church is against science, etc etc; but you fail to realize that it is against fake science.

Every scientific knows that to prove a theory you need to take 4 basic steps. First is taking data, concrete data. Then, formulate an hypothesis. After that, you NEED to PROVE your hypothesis, and finally you can call that a scientific fact.

Galileus didn't do the 3rd step, because at the time he couldn't, it was impossible for him. So he said that even though he couldn't prove it, what he said was science. Result: EVERYTHING Galileus said was wrong, and none of his theories are valid today.

The same happens today. We all want a cure for Cancer, AIDS or any other disease, even the church want that (why wouldn't they?). But to do this, scientists have proclaimed that life starts at the 12th day so they don't feel guilty to kill innocent human beings. The thing is that the origin of life is not proven, they haven't done step 3 of the scientific study. The Church doesn't know when life starts, nobody really knows, but for prudence, they proclaim it when the sperm and ovule join; because there is no conclusive scientific facts to say otherwise.

The origin of man is also something completely unproven. We may share 99% of our DNA with a Gorilla (or chimpanzee, choose your favorite monkey), but the fact stands that there is more resemblance between a frog and a monkey than between monkey and man. We are a whole universe superior to monkeys. You can pick any monkey you want, train it, try to instruct him, but he would get stuck to the knowledge of a 3 year old boy. And still, there's that damn missing link that can't be found. It is really hard for me to accept that man evolves from a monkey, because of how radically different we are from them. No 3rd step, hence, it's only a theory.

That's why I always laugh at people being mad when creacionists say they want to teach their children the history from the Bible's perspective. We just don't know the truth, we must accept that; it's impossible to prove today the theory of evolution, the origin of man, the beginning of life, etc. Maybe 500 years down the road we will be able to do that, just like we were able to disprove Galileo's theories.

The post of ivedoneyourmom was laughable in this phrase:

"Do not understand a HUGE body of evidence to explain biological evolution and therefore call it a lie."

When the fact is that ivedoneyourmom is calling creacionists liars themselves with an unproved theory.

 

[Shanadeus]

The thing that Christianity has been fighting all these years, especially the Catholic church, is that often factoids and unproven science is taken as real science and as proven facts.

Many say that the church is against science, etc etc; but you fail to realize that it is against fake science.

Every scientific knows that to prove a theory you need to take 4 basic steps. First is taking data, concrete data. Then, formulate an hypothesis. After that, you NEED to PROVE your hypothesis, and finally you can call that a scientific fact.

Galileus didn't do the 3rd step, because at the time he couldn't, it was impossible for him. So he said that even though he couldn't prove it, what he said was science. Result: EVERYTHING Galileus said was wrong, and none of his theories are valid today.

The same happens today. We all want a cure for Cancer, AIDS or any other disease, even the church want that (why wouldn't they?). But to do this, scientists have proclaimed that life starts at the 12th day so they don't feel guilty to kill innocent human beings. The thing is that the origin of life is not proven, they haven't done step 3 of the scientific study. The Church doesn't know when life starts, nobody really knows, but for prudence, they proclaim it when the sperm and ovule join; because there is no conclusive scientific facts to say otherwise.

The origin of man is also something completely unproven. We may share 99% of our DNA with a Gorilla (or chimpanzee, choose your favorite monkey), but the fact stands that there is more resemblance between a frog and a monkey than between monkey and man. We are a whole universe superior to monkeys. You can pick any monkey you want, train it, try to instruct him, but he would get stuck to the knowledge of a 3 year old boy. And still, there's that damn missing link that can't be found. It is really hard for me to accept that man evolves from a monkey, because of how radically different we are from them. No 3rd step, hence, it's only a theory.

That's why I always laugh at people being mad when creacionists say they want to teach their children the history from the Bible's perspective. We just don't know the truth, we must accept that; it's impossible to prove today the theory of evolution, the origin of man, the beginning of life, etc. Maybe 500 years down the road we will be able to do that, just like we were able to disprove Galileo's theories.

The post of Gorgon was laughable in this phrase:

"Do not understand a HUGE body of evidence to explain biological evolution and therefore call it a lie."

When the fact is that Gorgon is calling creacionists liars themselves with an unproved theory.

Wow.

 

[PoliceCop]

Congrats manuel, you just retroactively made the Catholic church more correct than Galileo. That's a tremendous achievement.

 

[kinggroin]

Let's talk about something more light-hearted:

Around here Churches are trying to make an effort in helping out youths and are among other things keeping meetings where they can meet up and talk about life, hold concerts in their church buildings (great acoustics) and a number of other non-faith related activities.

What are your thoughts on this tactic of staying relevant in a modern society?

It starts and ends with todays youth. The same youth that now have the internet at their disposal. Its important to use these channels to reach them, its important too, to package the message in way that doesn't offend their sensibilities while also being easily relatable. I think the challenge is trying to show them that the word of God, and this faith, aren't just something old un-hip grown ups practice and believe in.

You also need to be prepared to tackle things of utmost importance to them, like why God hates gays (he doesn't) and why sex is something to be approached with maturity and treated with respect and understanding.

 

[Laurentius]

The usual argument is that you are killing a human being. As I said before:



Which brings us to your point. Killing a "baby" when it is the product of rape, incest, etc is fine but when nothing like this is an issue it's sudendly murder? Where do you draw the line?

Very good question. I agree, it is definitely a complicated matter. I don't personally think it should be relegated to what "point" it becomes murder, because that's an impossible subject to come to resolution with. In all honesty, the "point" at which you're killing a human being doesn't exist, because without that direct intervention, that fetus was going to become a human being. Regardless of what it could have been classified as at that point.

As to the subject of rape and incest, that is also a complicated matter. What I'm saying is that it's not so easy to say that in every single situation abortion should be prohibited. It's also not as simple as saying that in any case of rape or incest that abortion would be fine. It doesn't automatically justify an abortion. In all honesty, in those situations would an adoption be a better alternative to an abortion? Very possibly.

I don't know where exactly to "draw the line" when it comes to rape and incest. But I certainly can't judge those that choose it in a situation such as that.

 

[manueldelalas]

Congrats manuel, you just retroactively made the Catholic church more correct than Galileo. That's a tremendous achievement.

More correct is not a very intelligent phrase. The church was correct, Galileo was wrong, end of story. If you want to discuss ancient laws, then it is a whole other subject.

 

[Jangocube]

Not a religious person here and haven't read much of the thread but I just wanted to say that I love the original post's vibe.

I wish more people on both sides of the fence felt the same way. Ok, just wanted to say that, continue on =P

 

[PoliceCop]

More correct is not a very intelligent phrase. The church was correct, Galileo was wrong, end of story. If you want to discuss ancient laws, then it is a whole other subject.

Would you prefer "correcter"? He was more correct than the church, who advocated a geocentric hypothesis and the idea of a stationary Earth.

 

[manueldelalas]

Would you prefer "correcter"? He was more correct than the church, who advocated a geocentric hypothesis and the idea of a stationary Earth.

He was not correct, end of story. The Church didn't have a single position at the time, they said repeatedly to Galileo that he must prove his theory. If he had proven it, the church would have accepted it, as it accepts all PROVEN science.

And how in the world the idea of the Earth being the center of the universe is worse than the idea of the Sun being the center of the universe??? Are you crazy?? If you must put a center of the universe anywhere, obviously it is the Earth, which is thousands of times more important than the Sun. The Sun is just 1 from an infinite number of stars, there is nothing relevant or especial about the Sun, except the fact that the Earth circles around it (or you could say the Sun circles the Earth, both are equally valid, just changing a point of reference). The Earth, is a planet full of life that homes the most intelligent beings of the universe, that is a fact, thus, the Earth is FAR more important than the Sun.

 

[krypt0nian]

He was not correct, end of story. The Church didn't have a single position at the time, they said repeatedly to Galileo that he must prove his theory. If he had proven it, the church would have accepted it, as it accepts all PROVEN science.

And how in the world the idea of the Earth being the center of the universe is worse than the idea of the Sun being the center of the universe??? Are you crazy?? If you must put a center of the universe anywhere, obviously it is the Earth, which is thousands of times more important than the Sun. The Sun is just 1 from an infinite number of stars, there is nothing relevant or especial about the Sun, except the fact that the Earth circles around it (or you could say the Sun circles the Earth, both are equally valid, just changing a point of reference). The Earth, is a planet full of life that homes the most intelligent beings of the universe, that is a fact, thus, the Earth is FAR more important than the Sun.

This is the sort of craziness I come to GAF for!

 

[PoliceCop]

Jesus Christ. Galileo's understanding can at least be connected to reality in our solar system. You're either willfully ignorant of history or lacking in basic cognitive functions.

 

[Shoogoo]

He was not correct, end of story. The Church didn't have a single position at the time, they said repeatedly to Galileo that he must prove his theory. If he had proven it, the church would have accepted it, as it accepts all PROVEN science.

And how in the world the idea of the Earth being the center of the universe is worse than the idea of the Sun being the center of the universe??? Are you crazy?? If you must put a center of the universe anywhere, obviously it is the Earth, which is thousands of times more important than the Sun. The Sun is just 1 from an infinite number of stars, there is nothing relevant or especial about the Sun, except the fact that the Earth circles around it (or you could say the Sun circles the Earth, both are equally valid, just changing a point of reference). The Earth, is a planet full of life that homes the most intelligent beings of the universe, that is a fact, thus, the Earth is FAR more important than the Sun.

I can't believe anybody would write this

 

[manueldelalas]

Jesus Christ. Galileo's understanding can at least be connected to reality in our solar system. You're either willfully ignorant of history or lacking in basic cognitive functions.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Epcott]

Fascinating OP!

Christianity is funny.
I wonder sometimes if I'm even doing it right,
and when I think I am, I read a little this and that and dig up things that prove me otherwise.


For instance, I was raised to say "Amen" at the end of prayer as a youngster. I hear it used in common practice even in the most stuffy houses of worship. But then I thought, "Amen" is pagan... another saying of Amon, Ammon, you know, that Egyptian god.

Its almost like your prayers are being misdirected at the last second, I mean, if that sort of thing is important to you.

Question is, does it matter?

As Christians (and most westerners) we follow a 7 day Gregorian calender, with day cycles named after Norse gods, celebrate Church on SUNday (again, vague Egyptian overtones) and not Saturday (as originally intended according to the original 5 day lunar calender), celebrate one holiday named from a pagan goddess and another sharing a history with Saturnalia... ugh...

Sometimes I wonder... is there is a way to do it right, or is it in itself broken? Should I just go YHWH or to Judaism or go atheist and say "whatever"?

Blah blah blah, just thinking out loud.

Carry on!

 

[mac-boy]

You do know that amen is Hebrew for it is true, right?

 

[manueldelalas]

Fascinating OP!

Christianity is funny.
I wonder sometimes if I'm even doing it right,
and when I think I am, I read a little this and that and dig up things that prove me otherwise.


For instance, I was raised to say "Amen" at the end of prayer as a youngster. I hear it used in common practice even in the most stuffy houses of worship. But then I thought, "Amen" is pagan... another saying of Amon, Ammon, you know, that Egyptian god.

Its almost like your prayers are being misdirected at the last second, I mean, if that sort of thing is important to you.

Question is, does it matter?

As Christians (and most westerners) we follow a 7 day Gregorian calender, with day cycles named after Norse gods, celebrate Church on SUNday (again, vague Egyptian overtones) and not Saturday (as originally intended according to the original 5 day lunar calender), celebrate one holiday named from a pagan goddess and another sharing a history with Saturnalia... ugh...

Sometimes I wonder... is there is a way to do it right, or is it in itself broken? Should I just go YHWH or to Judaism or go atheist and say "whatever"?

Blah blah blah, just thinking out loud.

Carry on!

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=amen

 

[Epcott]

Yes, but who's to say its origin is not of Egypt, carried over even after their stay in the wilderness?

 

[Angry Fork]

He was not correct, end of story. The Church didn't have a single position at the time, they said repeatedly to Galileo that he must prove his theory. If he had proven it, the church would have accepted it, as it accepts all PROVEN science.

And how in the world the idea of the Earth being the center of the universe is worse than the idea of the Sun being the center of the universe??? Are you crazy?? If you must put a center of the universe anywhere, obviously it is the Earth, which is thousands of times more important than the Sun. The Sun is just 1 from an infinite number of stars, there is nothing relevant or especial about the Sun, except the fact that the Earth circles around it (or you could say the Sun circles the Earth, both are equally valid, just changing a point of reference). The Earth, is a planet full of life that homes the most intelligent beings of the universe, that is a fact, thus, the Earth is FAR more important than the Sun.

There would be no earth without the Sun, therefore the Sun is more important than it. The fact that earth has life doesn't automatically mean it's the most super duper coolest most important thing ever. The sun has more value because it provides more to this solar system than our life does.

 

[Haly]

Prove me wrong.

Consultant's Report on Copernicanism (24 February 1616)
Assessment made at the Holy Office, Rome, Wednesday, 24 February 1616, in the presence of the Father Theologians signed below.

Proposition to be assessed:

(1) The sun is the center of the world and completely devoid of local motion.

Assessement: All said that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology.

(2) The earth is not the center of the world, nor motionless, but it moves as a whole and also with diurnal motion.

Assessment: All said that this proposition receives the same judgement in philosophy and that in regard to theological truth it is at least errouneous in faith.

Petrus Lombardus, Archbishop of Armagh.
Fra Hyacintus Petronius, Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace.
Fra Raphael Riphoz, Master of Theology and Vicar-General of the Domincan Order.
Fra Michelangelo Segizzi, Master of Sacred Theology and Commissary of the Holy Office.
Fra Hieronimus de Casalimaiori, Consultant to the Holy Office.
Fra Thomas de Lemos.
Fra Gregorius Nunnius Coronel.
Benedictus Justinianus, Society of Jesus.
Father Raphael Rastellius, Clerk Regular, Doctor of Theology.
Father Michael of Naples, of the Cassinese Congregation.
Fra Iacobus Tintus, assistant of the Most Reverend Father Commissary of the Holy Office.

Done.

If you want more proof here are some transcripts from the Inquisition minutes: http://web.archive.org/web/20070930...e/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html#conreport