Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/11/08 11:33 PM, xpotatoXmosherx wrote: I understand the Christian perspective here, but excuse me for disagreeing.

that isn't at all what christians beileve, what the fuck kind of pastor were you talknig to?

ask a diffirent pastor that question, see what their response is.

on another note, nearly everything in the old testement has been dis-owned by the catholic chruch.

At 12/11/08 09:59 PM, homor wrote:

At 12/11/08 04:36 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Opposite of the truth?

another example of my notoriously bad wording.

Have you ever read the bible?

thats all from the old testement.

That doesn't matter. Jesus SPECIFICALLY STATES that he doesn't come to change the rules, just complement them. Also, it has been true for some people at some time, until Jesus' came along, right?

Also, God can't really change on moral issues due to his all-knowing omnipotence and omnibenevolence. There's some bugs with that.

Also, the last thing, about it being right to punish slaves even if they didn't know they did anything wrong, was from the new testament.

However you want to twist and turn this, this IS the word of God/Jesus to humans. Doesn't matter if we limit it to the time from Moses to the preachings of Jesus; God has said this should be done.

At 12/12/08 01:04 AM, homor wrote:

At 12/11/08 11:33 PM, xpotatoXmosherx wrote: I understand the Christian perspective here, but excuse me for disagreeing.

that isn't at all what christians beileve, what the fuck kind of pastor were you talknig to?

Some do, and all should, because that's what the bible says.

ask a diffirent pastor that question, see what their response is.
on another note, nearly everything in the old testement has been dis-owned by the catholic chruch.

Well then they're not christians. You can't be christian if you disown half of the holy writings in christianity.
Do you think God will care about what the church says when he sends you to hell for not obeying his rules?

At 12/12/08 01:04 AM, homor wrote:

At 12/11/08 11:33 PM, xpotatoXmosherx wrote: I understand the Christian perspective here, but excuse me for disagreeing.

that isn't at all what christians beileve, what the fuck kind of pastor were you talknig to?

ask a diffirent pastor that question, see what their response is.

on another note, nearly everything in the old testement has been dis-owned by the catholic chruch.

If you look in the New Testament you will still find some clearly disgusting stuff. A good example is sexism where it is clearly stated that a women may NEVER have authority over a man.

And the New Testament did not revoke the Old Testament it just complimented it. The Old Testament is just as important as the New one.

At 12/12/08 08:31 AM, hippyhunter5 wrote: If you look in the New Testament you will still find some clearly disgusting stuff. A good example is sexism where it is clearly stated that a women may NEVER have authority over a man.

of course you obviously aren't a preist, so your interpretation could easily be in-correct.

And the New Testament did not revoke the Old Testament it just complimented it. The Old Testament is just as important as the New one.

that doesn't mean we beileve in all the stuff in it, it was written for a much diffirent time, a much older, abit more savage time.

At 12/12/08 03:58 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Some do, and all should, because that's what the bible says.

thats the thing, its from the old testement,

Well then they're not christians. You can't be christian if you disown half of the holy writings in christianity.

well, its still a very important book, but it was written for a much diffirent time, as i said before, christians beileve that when jesus came to earth, many of the old rules were ommited.

At 12/12/08 03:54 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: That doesn't matter.

yes it does.

Jesus SPECIFICALLY STATES that he doesn't come to change the rules, just complement them.

of course, you aren't a preist, so you don't know what the correct interpretation of that line is.

of course, you could still be TECHNICLY right. but i doubt some of the perspectives on love life and slave ownership have been carried over by jesus.

or, he could be reffering to the specific rules, such as the ten commandments.

Also, God can't really change on moral issues due to his all-knowing omnipotence and omnibenevolence. There's some bugs with that.

who said he changed them? maybe they had it wrong? maybe god beileved those morals were good for that time but not for when jesus came.

Also, the last thing, about it being right to punish slaves even if they didn't know they did anything wrong, was from the new testament.

again, intrpretation is an important thing, you could read the bible up fro mdown, but if you mis-intrepret everthing its in-effective.

However you want to twist and turn this, this IS the word of God/Jesus to humans.

you clearly aren't a preist, so how would you know the real word of god?

no-no no wait, i hate getting involed with religious arguements, and now i'm just getting suced into one.

plus, i haven't read the bible fully, so i don't know what i'm talking about, i could be very wrong, or you could be very wrong, depending on the correct interpretation.

but i know that christians don't support slaves or raped wemon marrying their rapists, even if it looks like it says it in the bible.

but i don't want to argue aimlessly about this stuff, i'd rather keep my religion to myself and let you keep yours to yourself.

feel free to reply to my posts anyway, even though they're nothing more than strawman arguements now.

At 12/11/08 10:58 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 12/11/08 08:11 PM, Brick-top wrote: No, they're just Anti-gay. And I never mentioned any type of executions.

Right, your wide open remark was just vague enough so it can be interpreted as anything, making it easier to defend yourself.

No, you simply didn't understand.

The topic starter is dishonest, and so are you.

If bigotry is not evil then either you or me have a very screwy definition to what evil is. Oh well, I guess being tollerent to people's sexual preferences (for the exception of one) is just down right bad.

It is not bigotry

big-ot-ry

-noun, plural

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Wow, you can use online dictionary. But I wonder if you knew what the word meant before or after you searched it on Google. But if you don't strike this as intolerence then i wonder what you say to blacks and mexicans while walking down the street.

"And who said religion ever did any evil?"

Yes, 'Religion' unless Catholism is the only Religion that statement still stands because Religious people have done evil things caused by their Religious beliefs.

What does that have to do with this topic?

You quoted me. I replied.

And being homophobic is obviously bad.

Homophobia? Who?

I bet you've got countless posts on this topic showing all the vaticans positions, plans and quotes coupled with your own opinion on the matter.

No idea what you just said.

I'll simplify it for you. You have not yet added anything relevent to the subject.

Oh wait, you've merely replied to me without actually adding anything.

What kind of insult is that? I don't even get it? Actually even adding anything? Oh man I'm dissed.

It was not meant as an insult.

I've done the same but I don't go after people in threads and get this nice warm feeling up my spine when think I've outsmarted someone.

I don't know you nor do I care enough about you to stalk you.

But you seem to care enough to check for replied and put plenty effort in replying.

At 12/12/08 08:05 PM, Grammer wrote: I have a dictionary on my desk near my bed but that would mean I'd have to get up, and you're not worth that much of my time :(

This is as far as I'm reading. Because you say I'm not worth time and effort however you reply very quickly with relativly large posts.

Inconsist much?

However while I make that statement hypocrisy is looming over me quite quickly and vigerously so I'm going to save myself from the hypocrite label. And I'll say I don't care about this thread, your opinion or the subject at hand.

At 12/12/08 02:11 PM, homor wrote:

At 12/12/08 08:31 AM, hippyhunter5 wrote: If you look in the New Testament you will still find some clearly disgusting stuff. A good example is sexism where it is clearly stated that a women may NEVER have authority over a man.

of course you obviously aren't a preist, so your interpretation could easily be in-correct.

And the New Testament did not revoke the Old Testament it just complimented it. The Old Testament is just as important as the New one.

that doesn't mean we beileve in all the stuff in it, it was written for a much diffirent time, a much older, abit more savage time.

My interpritation could be incorrect? The exact words are "They may never have authority over a man". How can that be misinterpreted?

Alright. If it were any other religion's leader, no one would care. (Although I am a Catholic..) What makes the Pope so special?

At 12/12/08 10:04 PM, Gwarfan wrote: (Although I am a Catholic..) What makes the Pope so special?

this is the most ironic thing i've ever read.

At 12/12/08 09:53 PM, hippyhunter5 wrote: My interpritation could be incorrect? The exact words are "They may never have authority over a man". How can that be misinterpreted?

Well for one you're reading an English translation of a Greek text.....

At 12/9/08 07:02 PM, homor wrote:

At 12/9/08 04:23 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: Actually this doesn't surprise me. The vatican isn't against a lot of insane things. Like the sun orbiting us.......

except they haven't beileved that in hundreads of years. and nothing in the bible says anything about it.

its still a good swing though, maybe next you'll bring up the crusades that haven't existed for hundreads of years ethier?

Actually I was just about to. Just because things like that are in the past doesn't mean they hold no relevance to today. These two historical facts prove that large groups of organized religion can cause people to ignore evidence and start wars. When any group becomes powerful enough to prevent it's followers from listening to reasonable arguement they become slaves. When any group becomes powerful enough that it can convince it's followers to kill other human beings for a difference in lifestyle, that group becomes dangerous.
It is my firm belief that the Vatican is both capable of enthralling victims into servitude and enciting them to riot. Most religions are capable of this. For that very reason the Pope has a duty to display tolerance and peacefulness, and to show a willingness to question everything including that which his predecessors claimed as fact, so that no future version of the Vatican will ever drive willing slaves to war for no reason. I'm not accusing him of anything just pointing out that the past shows this could all go south very easily.

At 12/12/08 02:22 PM, homor wrote:

Jesus SPECIFICALLY STATES that he doesn't come to change the rules, just complement them.

of course, you aren't a preist, so you don't know what the correct interpretation of that line is.

Bullshit. If God is good, and you have to follow the word of Jesus to get to heaven, he wouldn't make the line so that we need a god-damn priest to tell us how to read. I've read it in several different translations from different periods of time, in three different languages which would allow for nuance.

Also, saying that you need to be a priest to talk about the bible is like saying you have to be a full-blooded stalinist in order to talk about Gulag. You don't know jack shit about my theological education, so don't go there.

of course, you could still be TECHNICLY right. but i doubt some of the perspectives on love life and slave ownership have been carried over by jesus.

or, he could be reffering to the specific rules, such as the ten commandments.

These ARE specific rules, given from God to the people. Though it's not in the ten commandments (which by themselves would destroy our society if followed, especially the second), it's still specific rules. Leviticus begins with the exact wording:
"And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation"

Also, God can't really change on moral issues due to his all-knowing omnipotence and omnibenevolence. There's some bugs with that.

who said he changed them? maybe they had it wrong? maybe god beileved those morals were good for that time but not for when jesus came.

Oh, so you mean God would allow people to get COMPLETELY the wrong meaning of his own rules, so thousands upon thousands would be punished in hell for eternity because HE was unclear? Also, if you can't trust the bible in one place, why should you trust it in another?

Also, the last thing, about it being right to punish slaves even if they didn't know they did anything wrong, was from the new testament.

again, intrpretation is an important thing, you could read the bible up fro mdown, but if you mis-intrepret everthing its in-effective.

So, you're again saying that God dictated a book so ambigous and uncertain, that even if you read it time and again, you would still be condemned to eternal suffering because you didn't get it right? That's a pretty fucked up God right there. Not even the most bible-beating rednecks would accept such an idiotic view of a god that is said to be "good".

However you want to twist and turn this, this IS the word of God/Jesus to humans.

you clearly aren't a preist, so how would you know the real word of god?

If only a priest can know the real word of God, millions would suffer in eternity. How could YOU say that the bible doesn't condone this, unless you are a priest? And if you are a priest, I must say that you must have slept through your classes in theology, since you don't seem to know much about either the bible or christianity, and especially not about intellectual theology.

At 12/13/08 10:39 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 12/12/08 09:53 PM, hippyhunter5 wrote: My interpritation could be incorrect? The exact words are "They may never have authority over a man". How can that be misinterpreted?

Well for one you're reading an English translation of a Greek text.....

Yes, and translations can loose a lot of nuance. But still, they seldom stray too far from the original, and if you read translations from different times and a couple of different languages, there is plenty of room for nuances to take form. I don't know about this certain sentence, as I don't remember reading those words exactly anywhere in the bible, but one can't blame all atrocities in the bible on bad translations, especially not if tenths of re-translations haven't been able to solve the problem.

At 12/13/08 02:38 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: you don't seem to know much about either the bible or christianity, and especially not about intellectual theology.

which is why arguing with me is a waste, and vice versa.

At 12/13/08 09:06 PM, homor wrote:

At 12/13/08 02:38 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: you don't seem to know much about either the bible or christianity, and especially not about intellectual theology.

which is why arguing with me is a waste, and vice versa.

And still, you were the one denying texts in the bible said stuff, were proven wrong, and started denying the evidence.

At 12/14/08 12:38 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: And still, you were the one denying texts in the bible said stuff, were proven wrong, and started denying the evidence.

I MUST HAVE THE LAST WORD GRRRRRRR I WANT TO FEEL ON TOP I NEED THE CONTROL RAWR

At 12/8/08 07:01 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: Remember folks these are the same people who disapproved of Hussein's execution.
Hey I just discovered a new way to spell hypocrite

V.A.T.I.C.A.N.

Sorry, I'm a Catholic and as such believe that this is trying to provoke the Papacy into destroying its policy of political neutrality. The Vatican is neutral in such matters and stands by this.

At 12/13/08 03:10 AM, homor wrote:

At 12/12/08 10:04 PM, Gwarfan wrote: (Although I am a Catholic..) What makes the Pope so special?

this is the most ironic thing i've ever read.

I meant in a political sense...

At 12/12/08 10:04 PM, Gwarfan wrote: Alright. If it were any other religion's leader, no one would care. (Although I am a Catholic..) What makes the Pope so special?

... Can I please use this quote?

At 12/11/08 11:33 PM, xpotatoXmosherx wrote: his response: "It is *God's* will that they are,".

I understand the Christian perspective here, but excuse me for disagreeing.

You also have to realize that at one point women who were not virgins had pretty much no chance of ever being married. So they forced the rapist to take care of her since he just ruined her chances of finding a man.

You gave yourself to 1 person and 1 person only. Which is the way it should be, but today's culture... meh, it just doesn't happen anymore. Of course back then if a child was born, the mother didn't have to ask the question "who is the father?"

At 12/9/08 09:21 PM, CBP wrote: Vatican spokesman Rev Federico Lombardi said "no one wants the death penalty or jail or fines for homosexuals"

Taken from your first link. Why don't you read the whole thing next time? I do think that gays should be allowed to marry, but this is slander.

Well I tried to make the title vatican opposes un resolution banning homosexual executions or something like that but it wouldn't fit. That was the closest I could get. Although I see your point, I should've put that quote in.

At 12/9/08 05:38 PM, marchohare wrote:

To be fair, the Church isn't being hypocritical: it opposes the death penalty, as well as abortion. It doesn't believe homosexuals--or anyone--should be executed. At the same time, it opposed giving homosexuals special status, as if executing gays is worse than executing anybody else.

I don't agree with the church's position, but I don't see it as hypocritical. It seems, in fact, fairly consistent.

No it's not, the Vatican is against murder (of course) yet at the same time it doesn't like giving the death penalty to murderers, why wouldn't the same logic apply to homosexuals?

The law doesn't give special treatment to gays it doesn't say 'ye shall not execute a gay man' it says 'ye shall not make being gay a crime' that's it. The Vatican claims this will somehow lead to gay marriage, which I find very suspicious.

At 12/14/08 09:07 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 12/11/08 11:33 PM, xpotatoXmosherx wrote: his response: "It is *God's* will that they are,".

I understand the Christian perspective here, but excuse me for disagreeing.

You also have to realize that at one point women who were not virgins had pretty much no chance of ever being married. So they forced the rapist to take care of her since he just ruined her chances of finding a man.

You gave yourself to 1 person and 1 person only. Which is the way it should be, but today's culture... meh, it just doesn't happen anymore. Of course back then if a child was born, the mother didn't have to ask the question "who is the father?"

This was all part of my argument. Society changes, and should ancient religions be forced to change with it? I said they're called 'ancient' because they're irrelevant. He said some joke about me being firewood. I replied: "Lion food". Jokes aside, the entire argument is irrelevant to the debate. I was just adding fuel for both the fundies and scholars.

At 12/13/08 02:43 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: Yes, and translations can loose a lot of nuance. But still, they seldom stray too far from the original,

You have far too much faith in humanity......

and if you read translations from different times and a couple of different languages, there is plenty of room for nuances to take form.

Why would you bother reading different languages, rather than the original?

At 12/18/08 01:41 AM, Imperator wrote:

and if you read translations from different times and a couple of different languages, there is plenty of room for nuances to take form.

Why would you bother reading different languages, rather than the original?

Because I can't. I can only read Swedish, English, and Norweigan.

At 12/9/08 05:38 PM, marchohare wrote: Did He ever? After 325 A.D., I mean. The Church has always been more about political and economic power, less about God.

I know. What's the strangest thing is that people can hate religion, but still think Jesus is the greatest role model ever (i.e. Bill Maher).

Personally, I am going to keep being a Christian because if something founded by the greatest teacher can't be improved, what can be improved? I mean, really.