NewCelica.org Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
161 - 180 of 253 Posts

·
Argentum Chaos Vae Victis
Joined
·
6,652 Posts
It does however say a lot about the nature of the people practicing religion. There is and always has been two kinds of religious people. The ones who twist/change sound religious principles to fit their agendas and the ones who fit their agendas to sound religious principles.
I couldn't agree more... but you seem to forget that it goes both ways. Yes, some people will misuse religious teachings to their own ends and persecute others on that basis.

However, there are also people who will always clamor that religion makes them good people by cherry-picking what they like from the texts and ignoring or dismissing the bad aspects as either metaphorical or part of a past with a harsher, but "necessary" moral system. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way...

ALL of religious teachings and texts are a direct reflection of how human beings value each other. However nice you may want to make it sound, you cannot expect a gay person not to feel unfairly judged when you say: "I accept you as you are, but I still think you are living in sin". It is hypocritical to want to show proper moral judgment, but still fall back on your preconceived dogma.

So when you say:
Religion's biggest nightmare is mostly the people, not the principles themselves.
I disagree with you. As a religious person, you bind yourself to these principles and this is reflected in how to interact with others, no matter how nice you may want to appear to them.
 

·
Daddy Daycare
Joined
·
20,265 Posts
ajh1717 said:
GSBoek said:
Luke was a doctor.
Prove this.

GSBoek said:
Matthew was a tax collector
Prove this.
I have to ask if you are being serious. While the Gospels themselves are formally anonymous, there is enough internal and external evidence to draw a conclusion about the profession AND authorship of both Luke and Matthew. The material covering this is so extensive that we'd all easily fall asleep if I were to lay it all out here. For the sake of all who might feel compelled to read but don't want a wall of text I will just include a synopsis by author Brian Tubbs. It will take way too much time to actually list all the evidence with sources.

Some deference should be given to those who lived during or close to the time period in which the Gospels were written. It is due to these individuals, who lived near the area of the books' composition, that traditional attribution to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John was made.

Gospel of Matthew - The strongest evidence attesting to Matthew’s authorship is the fact that four ancient sources (Papias of Asia Minor, Irenaeus of Gaul, Pantaenus, and Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea) specifically attribute the Gospel to Matthew, the disciple of Jesus.
Gospel of Mark - Early church figures, including Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Jerome of Palestine all attribute Mark's Gospel to Mark. There's little reason to believe the early church would falsely attribute this Gospel to Mark, who was a second-tier church figure at best.
Gospel of Luke - Evidence associating Luke with his Gospel (as well as the book of Acts) includes the Muratorian Canon (c. A.D. 180-200) as well as the writings of Irenaeus, Clement, and famed early church historian Eusebius.
Gospel of John - The evidence is thinner for John than the others, but Irenaeus and Polycarp (according to Eusebius) both attribute the fourth Gospel to John.

If these attributions are correct, then the dates for the Gospels shift to an earlier time frame, since Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not live into the second century (though there is some speculation that John may have come close).
Responding to the Critics

Critics often contend the Gospels were modified or changed by agenda-driven editors. This was certainly the case with many of the copies, but the sheer multiplicity of manuscript copies makes a widespread, successful conspiracy to change the Gospels virtually impossible. Given the volume of copies (and the early date of many of those copies), the modern reader can trust that the preserved Gospels reflect the originals.

Other critics say we cannot trust early church attribution. While false attribution was not unheard of in the early Christian community (the Gospel of Thomas, not part of the canon, is an example of this), it is unfair for biblical critics to simply make the assumption that the canonical Gospels were misattributed and shift the burden of proof to those who hold to traditional authorship.
ajh1717 said:
I have never heard of any scholarly work being able to pin point the actual people who wrote these scriptures. Let alone their job. Hell, I think you even agreed with me in a different thread about this.
Actually, what we agreed upon was not the Gospels if I recall correctly but the Torah. There is a lot we can't pinpoint with absolute accuracy about history that happened 2000+ years ago. The aim is always to measure things against a fair and balanced examination of ancient history.


ajh1717 said:
GSBoek said:
That the accounts are identical points to a common source. What that source is will remain up to debate. The writings off the Q source remain hypothetical to this day.
The writings of the Q source remain hypothetical? You think it is coincidence that anyone who quotes Jesus directly almost has it verbatim? Also, the fact that they are almost identical up until the resurrection, then all differ vastly, should be a HUGE red flag.
Take note that I used "writings off the Q source" while you used "writings of the Q source". Big difference there. The reason why the Q source is hypothetical to this day is because there is absolutely NO actual scroll or manuscript. Early German scholars merely concluded there "must" exist such an additional source, based on their study of the Gospels and the mention of the Logia by Papias. They formed a hypothesis of a second source but since it was a hypothesis they called the source Quelle (German for "source"), from which the Q is derived.

ajh1717 said:
GSBoek said:
It is what it is.
You don't seem to be bothered by it, at all.
People will ultimately do whatever they want to do. I accept that I'm part of a minority within the Christian community.

ajh1717 said:
GSBoek said:
In saying this you are picking and chosing
Not really. From what I've seen, women rights (or lack thereof) has a lot of text in the bible.
See my response to boothten. You are picking some particular texts that mention the submission of women but you pay no regard to the immediate surrounding texts nor the setting and context in which they are written. The cultural framework plays an important role in most of those texts. Modern day example of that: As much as you may not like how some countries in the middle east treat women, if you happen to go on a trip to one of them with your girlfriend you still will not put her in harms way by letting her walk around with a t-shirt and shorts.

ajh1717 said:
GSBoek said:
Wait and see how the tables turn. The next thing you will hear is that not allowing gays to marry in church is an infringment of their rights. I will be the first to commend them if it doesn't happen.
I doubt they will. I don't see any of them trying to get married within the churches for the most part. Honestly, I wouldn't want to. I wouldn't want anything to do with the body of people that prevented this right for so long.
You are probably right but who knows.

ajh1717 said:
Omnious said:
GSBoek said:
The message really is what it is: Religious people like me were also burned at the stake back then, by other religious people no less.
Well, you said it, not me... So what does that instance tell you about the nature of religion?
Fucking this. Religion is about peace. Wait, you don't believe in what I do? Aw fuck no! Die bitch!

I find it amazingly ironic. People argue, fight, and kill over what happens after we die and cite fictional scripture that was written THOUSANDS of years ago by people who didn't understand 1/1,000,000,000 of what we do today.
See my response to Jack concerning the above.

ajh1717 said:
GSBoek said:
Oh look, I can pick and choose too:
We know. You, and every single other religious person, do it every day. They choose to believe being gay is a sin, but believe that raping a virgin and then forcing her to marry you is metaphorical. That is only one of the hundreds, maybe thousands, of examples.
Lo and behold, the reason why people don't take you seriously when you argue. I will not even address the allegation.


EDIT: As far as picking and choosing, see my response to boothten.
 

·
Daddy Daycare
Joined
·
20,265 Posts
I couldn't agree more... but you seem to forget that it goes both ways. Yes, some people will misuse religious teachings to their own ends and persecute others on that basis.

However, there are also people who will always clamor that religion makes them good people by cherry-picking what they like from the texts and ignoring or dismissing the bad aspects as either metaphorical or part of a past with a harsher, but "necessary" moral system. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way...

ALL of religious teachings and texts are a direct reflection of how human beings value each other. However nice you may want to make it sound, you cannot expect a gay person not to feel unfairly judged when you say: "I accept you as you are, but I still think you are living in sin". It is hypocritical to want to show proper moral judgment, but still fall back on your preconceived dogma.

So when you say:
GSBoek said:
Religion's biggest nightmare is mostly the people, not the principles themselves.
I disagree with you. As a religious person, you bind yourself to these principles and this is reflected in how to interact with others, no matter how nice you may want to appear to them.
Everything you say here is in fact the embodiment of my statement. There is not a single person in the world who does everything perfectly. We are all flawed to a lesser or greater degree. Human nature I suppose.
 

·
Can't touch this.
Joined
·
3,629 Posts
Gospel of Matthew - The strongest evidence attesting to Matthew’s authorship is the fact that four ancient sources (Papias of Asia Minor, Irenaeus of Gaul, Pantaenus, and Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea) specifically attribute the Gospel to Matthew, the disciple of Jesus.
Gospel of Mark - Early church figures, including Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Jerome of Palestine all attribute Mark's Gospel to Mark. There's little reason to believe the early church would falsely attribute this Gospel to Mark, who was a second-tier church figure at best.
Gospel of Luke - Evidence associating Luke with his Gospel (as well as the book of Acts) includes the Muratorian Canon (c. A.D. 180-200) as well as the writings of Irenaeus, Clement, and famed early church historian Eusebius.
Gospel of John - The evidence is thinner for John than the others, but Irenaeus and Polycarp (according to Eusebius) both attribute the fourth Gospel to John.
Sounds like majority of the gospels written after Jesus. By believers, for believers.
Brian Tubbs
Googled him and, well, yup.

Actually, what we agreed upon was not the Gospels if I recall correctly but the Torah
Definitely not. I've never learned anything about the Torah so I would not make those claims.

See my response to boothten. You are picking some particular texts that mention the submission of women but you pay no regard to the immediate surrounding texts nor the setting and context in which they are written. The cultural framework plays an important role in most of those texts. Modern day example of that: As much as you may not like how some countries in the middle east treat women, if you happen to go on a trip to one of them with your girlfriend you still will not put her in harms way by letting her walk around with a t-shirt and shorts.
I am merely doing what majority Christians/ *insert religion here* do - pick and choose what to site literally, and disregard the rest.

You are probably right but who knows.
Screen shot for proof :gap:

Lo and behold, the reason why people don't take you seriously when you argue. I will not even address the allegation.
Is it not true? Do religious people not pick and choose what to believe every day? If they didn't, women would still be looked at as inferior to men, the Earth would be the center of the solar system, any non-believers would be killed, and African Americans would still be in slavery/being stoned/killed.

It may have come off as childish, foolish, or stupid, but at the end of the day, you cannot say that it isn't true. If it wasn't true, you would look down upon your wife as someone inferior, which, I highly doubt you do.
 

·
Argentum Chaos Vae Victis
Joined
·
6,652 Posts
Everything you say here is in fact the embodiment of my statement. There is not a single person in the world who does everything perfectly. We are all flawed to a lesser or greater degree. Human nature I suppose.
How religiously typical... "I know it seems currently wrong morally to believe this, but I can't help it because the book says I have to..."

So you accept that your statements are contradictory, in that you claim gays should have the same rights as everyone else, but will still judge and condemn their way of life...
Ignore facts and cling to tenets.

How about you put yourself in their shoes and see if they will ever feel accepted for what they are in our society as long as religion, as it stands now, is still around.
I know that if I was religious and came up to my openly gay work colleague, trying to explain that I want to accept him as he is, but still condemn his love, I would lose a friend and probably many of the other colleagues who would hear me say this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,253 Posts
How religiously typical... "I know it seems currently wrong morally to believe this, but I can't help it because the book says I have to..."

So you accept that your statements are contradictory, in that you claim gays should have the same rights as everyone else, but will still judge and condemn their way of life...
Ignore facts and cling to tenets.

How about you put yourself in their shoes and see if they will ever feel accepted for what they are in our society as long as religion, as it stands now, is still around.
I know that if I was religious and came up to my openly gay work colleague, trying to explain that I want to accept him as he is, but still condemn his love, I would lose a friend and probably many of the other colleagues who would hear me say this.
A book is never a valid excuse for your own personal bias. If you don't like someone/something for a reason just admit that it's because YOU don't like them/it/he/she/etc and why you don't. Don't use a book as a crutch to prop yourself up with. Figure out why you dislike/disapprove homosexuality and be honest about it, I respect that many times more than I respect someone who is afraid to take responsibility for their own personal bias and feels that they have to lean on a book OR who is too afraid to admit that they disagree with a book and embrace those who are not the same as he is.

Basically, don't be a pussy, think for yourself, and speak your own mind.
 

·
Daddy Daycare
Joined
·
20,265 Posts
Sounds like majority of the gospels written after Jesus. By believers, for believers.
Yup, that's exactly how it sounds. Where you honestly expecting it to be any different? Jesus was the focus. Besides the Twelve he had many disciples. Everyone would like to share their experience. Then you have those who had not been eye witnesses but shared a second hand account they received from the eye witnesses. So it progresses.

Googled him and, well, yup.
So you are saying that you will not look past the person? It would be like me saying "AJ makes some valid points and his arguments are sound, but you know what I will not take anything he says seriously because well...it's AJ and he's an idiot."
I don't know who Brian Stubbs is. It could have well been Charlie Sheen who wrote that, I would still need to assess if what he writes makes sense. I could have left Mr. Stubbs name out altogether but that would have been poor judgement on my side for not disclosing a source and acknowledge authorship. I get the feeling it won't matter one bit who I quote, you are going to throw every argument out the door just because.


Definitely not. I've never learned anything about the Torah so I would not make those claims.
Don't make me go back and find it. It was about who authored the Torah and the discussion was triggered because I said Moses did and you happened to be taking classes about biblical history and authorship and said there is no proof. Go back and look, I never said you were learning about the Torah.


I am merely doing what majority Christians/ *insert religion here* do - pick and choose what to site literally, and disregard the rest.
Good for you. I'm glad this time around you at least included the word "majority". It changes your argument a little.


Screen shot for proof :gap:
Contrary to you I have no problem admitting someone else is right. I even said it in the original post, I would commend them if I'm proven wrong.



Is it not true? Do religious people not pick and choose what to believe every day? If they didn't, women would still be looked at as inferior to men, the Earth would be the center of the solar system, any non-believers would be killed, and African Americans would still be in slavery/being stoned/killed.
I don't know why you keep arguing the "pick and choose" aspect. I already acknowledged that it happens and it shouldn't. I get the impression that you either didn't read my reply to boothten where I outlined the danger of picking and choosing or you didn't understand the point. I have to ask a few questions then: Do ALL religious people pick and choose what is convenient to them? Do ONLY religious people do that? Is it a problem of religious people or a problem of all people?

Since you are vehemently arguing "pick and choose" I will ask you to do something: Bring up all the Bible texts that sustain the views in your quote above and let's have at it and see if the views you outline are correct. Your pick-and-choose argument is at stake here.

It may have come off as childish, foolish, or stupid, but at the end of the day, you cannot say that it isn't true. If it wasn't true, you would look down upon your wife as someone inferior, which, I highly doubt you do.
Your allegation was that the person of Gio AND every other Christian are exactly the same. Your statement said I'm guilty by association and I view homosexuality as sin but rape as metaphorical. You went from having some valid arguing points earlier in the discussion to a blatant false accusation.



How religiously typical... "I know it seems currently wrong morally to believe this, but I can't help it because the book says I have to..."

So you accept that your statements are contradictory, in that you claim gays should have the same rights as everyone else, but will still judge and condemn their way of life...
Ignore facts and cling to tenets.
I think there is a misunderstanding here and we are arguing right past each other. I don't judge anyone's way of life and I do not condemn it. It is not up to me to do neither of the two actually. It's one thing to adhere to a set of beliefs, quite another to point a finger at everyone else who doesn't share those beliefs.

The point I made was simple however: There is not one person in the world today that is completely non-judgmental about everything. It is an acknowledgement that once in a while I make mistakes of thought. When that happens I remind myself right away that I'm not the one to judge anyone. Once in a while I will even make a mistake that goes beyond the thought process. When that happens I correct myself and apologize to the people. Sometimes it's easy to do, sometimes it takes a little more effort but I always do.

How about you put yourself in their shoes and see if they will ever feel accepted for what they are in our society as long as religion, as it stands now, is still around.
I know that if I was religious and came up to my openly gay work colleague, trying to explain that I want to accept him as he is, but still condemn his love, I would lose a friend and probably many of the other colleagues who would hear me say this.
If I didn't try to put myself in their shoes I would be a representative of religion "as it stands now" as you say. I have an openly gay colleague. He is a team member in my department. He is completely aware of my beliefs. You'd think that my beliefs and his lifestyle would influence our interaction. They don't as far as I can tell and I have no intention in changing that. We discuss religion, we discuss people, he sometimes jokes about himself and being gay (I don't as part of work ethic), we argue like every person does once in a while.

I'm confused. Why are you guys making Gio defend his beliefs? He doesn't make you defend yours.
It's alright, I've had to argue beliefs against fellow Christians too, this isn't much different. It's not pleasurable but I still think the environment is amicable so far.


bitter said:
A book is never a valid excuse for your own personal bias. If you don't like someone/something for a reason just admit that it's because YOU don't like them/it/he/she/etc and why you don't. Don't use a book as a crutch to prop yourself up with. Figure out why you dislike/disapprove homosexuality and be honest about it, I respect that many times more than I respect someone who is afraid to take responsibility for their own personal bias and feels that they have to lean on a book OR who is too afraid to admit that they disagree with a book and embrace those who are not the same as he is.

Basically, don't be a pussy, think for yourself, and speak your own mind.
All well but it doesn't work out quite like you put it. I was born in a Christian home and while I had the choice to walk away as an adult I stuck around. I figured out a long time ago that what I had learned from a book is a guide for many of the choices I make everyday....many but not all. The moment I decided that I wanted to continue my life according that book it was my right. I don't use it as an excuse and I certainly don't use it as a shield for my own personal bias. I do not dislike people based on their sexual orientation. They have a right to their choice, I have a right to mine, we should be fine if neither imposes his right above the other. Someday my right to freedom of religion might be revoked by society when the tables turn.

Gio is a liar. I'm gay and he still treats me fair and kindly.
I appreciate you trying to lighten up the mood but I think you have it wrong. According to this thread I despise you and treat you quite unfair and unkindly. I heard in the hallways that you like it though. :hide:









That last part was a joke guys, Colin only likes it when Jack treats him badly. :chuckles:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,253 Posts
So why don't YOU like homosexuality? Don't say it's because you were raised that way or taught not to. That's not why YOU don't like it, that's why you were TOLD to not like it.
 

·
Can't touch this.
Joined
·
3,629 Posts
Yup, that's exactly how it sounds. Where you honestly expecting it to be any different? Jesus was the focus. Besides the Twelve he had many disciples. Everyone would like to share their experience. Then you have those who had not been eye witnesses but shared a second hand account they received from the eye witnesses. So it progresses.
And you believe it is credible? A story can't even cycle around modern day news without it being skewed, let alone ancient times.

I get the feeling it won't matter one bit who I quote, you are going to throw every argument out the door just because.
It matters hugely who you cite. Did you do a back ground of him? He is a pastor. That is not a scholar. I've heard pastors say Jesus could fly. Catch my drift?

Do ALL religious people pick and choose what is convenient to them?
Yes.

Do ONLY religious people do that?
No.

Is it a problem of religious people or a problem of all people?
Everyone picks and chooses. However, there is a MAJOR difference between regular people picking and choosing, and religious when it comes to beliefs.

That major difference is people cite an ancient text as their 'proof' or belief and say 'it is gods word, it is true' and take it literal. Then, a paragraph later, will say 'this was a human aspect and a metaphorical representation'.

Since you are vehemently arguing "pick and choose" I will ask you to do something: Bring up all the Bible texts that sustain the views in your quote above and let's have at it and see if the views you outline are correct. Your pick-and-choose argument is at stake here.
I'm not going to dig through the bible to find the exact posts, however, you believe religion is a sin. The bible says that. Okay. The bible also talks about how women should submit to men, and how men are above them. I'd bet $100 that you believe both men and women are equal.

Perfect example of picking and choosing, without going into detail or bringing in the extremes of what the bible says.

Your allegation was that the person of Gio AND every other Christian are exactly the same. Your statement said I'm guilty by association and I view homosexuality as sin but rape as metaphorical. You went from having some valid arguing points earlier in the discussion to a blatant false accusation.
Again, do you treat your wife equally? Does she obtain the same rights as you? Same amount of input on big decisions? If she does, then you have chosen to ignore what the bible says about women and their place in society.
 

·
FananaNanaFoFenny
Joined
·
4,279 Posts
The bible also talks about how women should submit to men, and how men are above them.
I don't think it says that anywhere in the bible. I believe, and someone with more biblical knowledge can correct me if I'm wrong, that in the past people generally assumed that because Eve "came" from Adam's rib, she was below him and had to submit to him as his inferior.
 

·
Can't touch this.
Joined
·
3,629 Posts
I don't think it says that anywhere in the bible. I believe, and someone with more biblical knowledge can correct me if I'm wrong, that in the past people generally assumed that because Eve "came" from Adam's rib, she was below him and had to submit to him as his inferior.
If however the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death..." Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

"For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head;" 1 Corinthians 11:9, 10.

"women should remain silent in churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission..."1 Corinthians 14:34

"Wives submit to your husbands, as is fitting to the Lord." Colossians 3:18
And more

[Levi. 12:2]
If a woman conceives, and bears a MALE CHILD, then she shall be unclean seven days.. But if she bears a FEMALE CHILD then she shall be unclean two weeks.

Fuck it.

Enjoy the rest for yourself. Before anyone makes a comment about the website, use it as only a reference to then google the cited books.

http://www.missionislam.com/comprel/womenbible.htm
 
161 - 180 of 253 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top