Find content
Not Telling
Lets not forget, generation one had a pokeball with Hunters eyes on it, then flipped it upside down and called it an evolution. If that didn't bother you, then a pile of garbage or a few ice cream cones shouldn't bother you either.
Arioch
Member Since 04 Aug 2011Offline Last Active Jun 14 2021 08:04 PM
#154337 Big Pokemon Announcement Coming on January 8th
Posted by
on 31 December 2012 - 03:53 AM
#152675 Westboro Baptist Church VS. Anonymous
Posted by
on 27 December 2012 - 03:01 PM
Mournblade,
Your post is a handy summary of modern liberal/revisionist biblical scholarship, but it is seriously flawed both logically and historically, and offends basic common sense. As a practicing Roman Catholic I want to offer a brief response so that more than your side and Phyrexian's equally interesting perspective can be taken into account.
I realize that different Christian traditions interpret the Old Testament and its relation to the New Testament differently, but this is a gross oversimplification of any of those traditions. To begin with, your statement flatly contradicts Jesus' own words as recorded in Matthew's gospel: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them." Second, the Ten Commandments are part of the Old Testament, and they have always been a defining part of Christian moral theology. Third, Leviticus' teaching on homosexuality is related to the understanding, deeply ingrained in ancient Hebrew culture, that sexuality was expressed between men and women in marriage. This understanding was derived from the book of Genesis, where Adam is given a woman as his partner, and this understanding is repeated by Jesus in the gospels.
Whenever people use the term of homosexuality today in reference to the new testament, they fail to understand that the word didn't exist back then. Going back to Greek translations, it gets vague and rather than condemning homosexuality, it can be interpreted that it condemns feminine men for being weak or lazy.
Which passage in the New Testament specifically are you referring to when you say that the translation of the Greek is "vague" and could just mean men being weak or lazy? I studied Classics in college, have a master's degree in Ancient Christianity from a major research university, and read Greek on a daily basis. I teach Latin and Greek for a living. When I read the New Testament, I do so in Greek. I also heard these very arguments when I was taking my New Testament class with the renowned textual critic Bart Ehrman (author of "Misquoting Jesus" and "God's Problem"). I'm not trying to toot my own horn here, but I just want to point out that I've done what you recommend at the end of your post and studied these issues extensively but find it disingenuous for you to make it sound like there's one acceptable opinion here. It's important that you not overstate your case by making it sound more "obvious" than it really is that Christians for 2000 years have simply been getting it wrong and forcing their own agendas into the bible when they translate it, and that anyone with half a brain would obviously recognize this when studying a very difficult language, 2000 years of Church History and theological reflection, etc.
Anyway, the fact that there is no one word for homosexuality in Greek is irrelevant, as they didn't have words for many of the things for which we have words. The question is whether or not the early Christians understood what we call homosexual acts to be morally neutral, morally positive, or morally negative. See below...
You said:
I disagree. In the first chapter of the letter to the Romans, Paul wrote:
Here Paul says that for men to have passion for men and women for women is the opposite of "natural relations." He calls what they're doing "shameful acts" and "dishonorable passions." Sure he doesn't use one specific word, but to say that this issue is never mentioned in the gospels and letters is quite unfair, as he clearly describes homosexual acts in this passage.
As for Jesus, there are probably a lot of things he didn't say since most people can't say everything that could possibly ever be said in one lifetime. The New Testament is also short, and a lot of what Jesus said wasn't written down. What we know from the gospels is that his moral teaching was in line with Jewish moral teaching. The one thing we know he modified was divorce, except this doesn't help the "Jesus didn't mention homosexuality" case because he actually made it more strict than Moses' teachings on divorce, not less. The fact is, Paul's teaching and other literature from early and later Church History are clear, and Jesus' statements about morality are consistent with earlier Jewish moral codes and later Christian reflections on morality. That we would expect anything different on this one case of homosexuality is a very weak argument from silence.
On the contrary, it is quite useful for people who have a social agenda to push and want to label others as bigots or homophobes to argue that what the people who hold the despised social view (in this case that homosexual acts are immoral) are doing is not holding to an ancient tradition taught by the founders of their religion, but purposefully twisting their own religious texts to make them suit their own hateful views. Indeed, the revisionist points you propose would have us believe that, as it turns out, those men who lived 2000 years ago in a culture that by modern standards was highly restrictive in terms of sexuality actually didn't care about this sort of thing and probably thought just like modern post-Enlightenment secularists!
Let me be clear that my goal is not to convince you are anyone else of the validity of the moral code contained in the New Testament, nor am I saying that Westboro Baptist Church represents anything resembling a Christian moral code. My point is that Phyrexian's original point here was quite good. There's no point in trying to change an ancient religion, that was born in a culture MUCH different from the modern western world, to suit modern western moral sensibilities. Just reject it and move along. I wouldn't tell Muslims that the Qur'an and Hadith actually support women's rights if we pay attention to the fascinating findings of modern scholarship - I'd just tell them they're wrong and their sources are outdated and shouldn't be taken seriously in the modern world. This is the part about "offensive against common sense" that I mentioned in the beginning. It's a much more honest approach, one that I as a Catholic, perhaps strangely, prefer to the attempt of modern liberals to tell us that we've simply been fooling ourselves about our religion's moral teachings for 2 millenia or that we're so hateful that we'd change the bible if it said something we didn't want it to say, (which btw assumes that traditional Christian sexual ethics have anything to do with hating people who don't subscribe to them). In my opinion it'd also be a more intellectually honest way of handling the data.
Your post is a handy summary of modern liberal/revisionist biblical scholarship, but it is seriously flawed both logically and historically, and offends basic common sense. As a practicing Roman Catholic I want to offer a brief response so that more than your side and Phyrexian's equally interesting perspective can be taken into account.
Technically, no, as Levitacus is in the old testament, which was directed at the Jews. All the laws in the old testament were basically overridden by Jesus and the new testament.
I realize that different Christian traditions interpret the Old Testament and its relation to the New Testament differently, but this is a gross oversimplification of any of those traditions. To begin with, your statement flatly contradicts Jesus' own words as recorded in Matthew's gospel: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them." Second, the Ten Commandments are part of the Old Testament, and they have always been a defining part of Christian moral theology. Third, Leviticus' teaching on homosexuality is related to the understanding, deeply ingrained in ancient Hebrew culture, that sexuality was expressed between men and women in marriage. This understanding was derived from the book of Genesis, where Adam is given a woman as his partner, and this understanding is repeated by Jesus in the gospels.
Whenever people use the term of homosexuality today in reference to the new testament, they fail to understand that the word didn't exist back then. Going back to Greek translations, it gets vague and rather than condemning homosexuality, it can be interpreted that it condemns feminine men for being weak or lazy.
Which passage in the New Testament specifically are you referring to when you say that the translation of the Greek is "vague" and could just mean men being weak or lazy? I studied Classics in college, have a master's degree in Ancient Christianity from a major research university, and read Greek on a daily basis. I teach Latin and Greek for a living. When I read the New Testament, I do so in Greek. I also heard these very arguments when I was taking my New Testament class with the renowned textual critic Bart Ehrman (author of "Misquoting Jesus" and "God's Problem"). I'm not trying to toot my own horn here, but I just want to point out that I've done what you recommend at the end of your post and studied these issues extensively but find it disingenuous for you to make it sound like there's one acceptable opinion here. It's important that you not overstate your case by making it sound more "obvious" than it really is that Christians for 2000 years have simply been getting it wrong and forcing their own agendas into the bible when they translate it, and that anyone with half a brain would obviously recognize this when studying a very difficult language, 2000 years of Church History and theological reflection, etc.
Anyway, the fact that there is no one word for homosexuality in Greek is irrelevant, as they didn't have words for many of the things for which we have words. The question is whether or not the early Christians understood what we call homosexual acts to be morally neutral, morally positive, or morally negative. See below...
You said:
Plus never did Jesus or the letters mention homosexuality at all.
I disagree. In the first chapter of the letter to the Romans, Paul wrote:
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves...For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
Here Paul says that for men to have passion for men and women for women is the opposite of "natural relations." He calls what they're doing "shameful acts" and "dishonorable passions." Sure he doesn't use one specific word, but to say that this issue is never mentioned in the gospels and letters is quite unfair, as he clearly describes homosexual acts in this passage.
As for Jesus, there are probably a lot of things he didn't say since most people can't say everything that could possibly ever be said in one lifetime. The New Testament is also short, and a lot of what Jesus said wasn't written down. What we know from the gospels is that his moral teaching was in line with Jewish moral teaching. The one thing we know he modified was divorce, except this doesn't help the "Jesus didn't mention homosexuality" case because he actually made it more strict than Moses' teachings on divorce, not less. The fact is, Paul's teaching and other literature from early and later Church History are clear, and Jesus' statements about morality are consistent with earlier Jewish moral codes and later Christian reflections on morality. That we would expect anything different on this one case of homosexuality is a very weak argument from silence.
It's not so much nitpicking the bible, as it is the translators who wanted to enforce their own homophobia and etc... This becomes ironic...
On the contrary, it is quite useful for people who have a social agenda to push and want to label others as bigots or homophobes to argue that what the people who hold the despised social view (in this case that homosexual acts are immoral) are doing is not holding to an ancient tradition taught by the founders of their religion, but purposefully twisting their own religious texts to make them suit their own hateful views. Indeed, the revisionist points you propose would have us believe that, as it turns out, those men who lived 2000 years ago in a culture that by modern standards was highly restrictive in terms of sexuality actually didn't care about this sort of thing and probably thought just like modern post-Enlightenment secularists!
Let me be clear that my goal is not to convince you are anyone else of the validity of the moral code contained in the New Testament, nor am I saying that Westboro Baptist Church represents anything resembling a Christian moral code. My point is that Phyrexian's original point here was quite good. There's no point in trying to change an ancient religion, that was born in a culture MUCH different from the modern western world, to suit modern western moral sensibilities. Just reject it and move along. I wouldn't tell Muslims that the Qur'an and Hadith actually support women's rights if we pay attention to the fascinating findings of modern scholarship - I'd just tell them they're wrong and their sources are outdated and shouldn't be taken seriously in the modern world. This is the part about "offensive against common sense" that I mentioned in the beginning. It's a much more honest approach, one that I as a Catholic, perhaps strangely, prefer to the attempt of modern liberals to tell us that we've simply been fooling ourselves about our religion's moral teachings for 2 millenia or that we're so hateful that we'd change the bible if it said something we didn't want it to say, (which btw assumes that traditional Christian sexual ethics have anything to do with hating people who don't subscribe to them). In my opinion it'd also be a more intellectually honest way of handling the data.
- Arioch likes this
#151572 Secret Santa Gift for Mournblade
Posted by
on 24 December 2012 - 05:05 PM
sorry, D:I couldnt figure out anything more than just a signature, so, here you go:
if you need some changes just tell me :3
http://img838.images.../mournblade.png
Merry Chirstmas
if you need some changes just tell me :3
http://img838.images.../mournblade.png
Merry Chirstmas
#137725 The effects of cancer are horrible
Posted by
on 24 November 2012 - 10:57 PM
I recently made a rude comment regarding cancer and would like to make amends for it. Cancer is a serious thing and it is nothing to take lightly. 4 of my grandparents have died and at least 3 from cancer and 3 I got to experience firsthand. This has shut me up so bad emotionally, that I could hardly even feel for others in this situation. Rather than crying, I chose to be tough, and I built a wall of toughness and machoness around myself to hide a lot of hurt feelings.
Approximately every two years, I have had to go to a funeral for one of my grandparents. When the latest died, I couldn't even sit straight in the car. My family had to wait until I could sit straight up and put my seatbelt on before they could drive. And that took 45 minutes. Normally I would not tell this story to anyone, but my insincereness has brought up that, I actually do feel. Just not well.
Approximately every two years, I have had to go to a funeral for one of my grandparents. When the latest died, I couldn't even sit straight in the car. My family had to wait until I could sit straight up and put my seatbelt on before they could drive. And that took 45 minutes. Normally I would not tell this story to anyone, but my insincereness has brought up that, I actually do feel. Just not well.
#136340 Newbie here. Wii are from Kingston, Ontario
Posted by
on 22 November 2012 - 01:32 PM
All I'm saying is I think it would of been easier to give a response to his question..and then be like " hey since this is an introduction, can you introduce yourself? those are forum rules ! 
"
All of us were new members at one time - it doesn't matter if your old or new man. Just want to be a good model of the forums here. I like to think these forums aren't Elitist like some I've been on or rule nazi's like others...thats why I love it so much here. I think everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt - I never read forum rules on any forums since they should generally be all common sense lol.
" All of us were new members at one time - it doesn't matter if your old or new man. Just want to be a good model of the forums here. I like to think these forums aren't Elitist like some I've been on or rule nazi's like others...thats why I love it so much here. I think everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt - I never read forum rules on any forums since they should generally be all common sense lol.
#134867 Roleplay
Posted by
on 20 November 2012 - 03:09 PM
FixedI am already Alexander and Larry, but if I could be anyone else, I'd be Batman.
- Arioch likes this
#118569 cute pics.
Posted by
on 17 October 2012 - 05:23 PM
Posted by 
#38343 Bring Sonic Generations Collector's Edition to America!
Posted by
on 23 October 2011 - 08:27 PM
Hello everyone! So I'm calling out to all Sonic fans! Sonic Generations will be getting a collector's set, with figurines, a soundtrack, DLC, and a whole bunch of other great goodies. Unfortunately, the set will only be available in Europe and Australia. I really like Sonic and so do other people in America, and Sega has the potential to do amazing things with this game! For anyone who wants to try and see if we can get Sega to at least consider the idea of bringing this to America, you can like the brand new Facebook page set up for this idea. When Capcom cancelled MML3 a page was created and actually got through to Capcom. Capcom at least explained themselves, and so did Kenji Inafune (MM creator). So at least we might be able to do this, if not get the bundle into America. Please like the page below! Thank you all Sonic fans!
Bring Sonic Generations Collector's Edition to America - Wall | Facebook
Bring Sonic Generations Collector's Edition to America - Wall | Facebook
- Arioch likes this
