Christian Churches Celebrate Darwin's Birthday

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, again it seems that we have no direct teaching by Jesus on the matter. We have a mention in epistles by Paul (to be honest, I'd fling Paul and all his works straight out of the canon, given my druthers - once a fanatic and a persecutor...), and we have the Old Testament injunctions (depending on translation).

In the sermon on the mount Jesus speaks out against adultery. (Matthew 5:27-28). In verses 31 to 32 He adresses divorce, which is between a man and a women. The only allowance for divorce is 'marital unfaithfulness'. If you divorce for any other reason you become and adulterer on marrying someone else. In conclusion: Marriage is between man and woman, sex is to be within marriage and any sex outside of marriage is wrong.

Scofflaw wrote:

Those following the Old Testament injunctions are presumably avoiding the wearing of cloth made of two kinds, etc?

And I have problems getting my colours to match, let alone the fabrics.:)

hairyheretic

wolfsbane wrote:

You really think Hitler regarded himself as a Christian?

He certainly seemed to.

wolfsbane wrote:

Look at his actions against the churches, against all non-Aryian types; his promotion of Germanic mythology.

Hitler also acted against a great many others.

And for what its worth, Hitler made a number of quotes about paganism and the old Gods being dead and gone.

Hitler: On Paganism and Heathen Religion

On the 14th of October, 1941, Hitler said: "Nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology had ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself ... I especially wouldn't want our movement to acquire a religious character and institute a form of worship. It would be appalling for me, if I were to end up in the skin of a Buddha."


"The characteristic thing about these people is that they rave about old Germanic heroism, about dim prehistory, stone axes, spear and shield, but in reality are the greatest cowards that can be imagined. For the same people who brandish scholarly imitations of old German tin swords, and wear a dressed bearskin with bull's horns over their heads, preach for the present nothing but struggle with spiritual weapons, and run away as fast as they can from every Communist blackjack" (Mein Kampf, Chap. 12).

We've covered the Nazi abuse of paganism before here, if you want to have a read.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3244636&postcount=5

wolfsbane wrote:

Even before Hitler commenced his political career, he wrote:

He also wrote a great many things which would appear to be pro-Christianity.

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_AHitler.htm


Still, identifying yourself as one thing or another doesn't mean very much, if by your actions you prove otherwise.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

In the sermon on the mount Jesus speaks out against adultery. (Matthew 5:27-28). In verses 31 to 32 He adresses divorce, which is between a man and a women. The only allowance for divorce is 'marital unfaithfulness'. If you divorce for any other reason you become and adulterer on marrying someone else. In conclusion: Marriage is between man and woman, sex is to be within marriage and any sex outside of marriage is wrong.

I am forced to point out that that's a hell of a jump. It's a bit like jumping from a comment on family law to outlawing homosexuality - actually, that's not even an analogy.

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

I would read that instead as Jesus making the point that a literalist interpretation of the law (the letter) is not as important as the spirit of the law, and the consideration of consequences to others - something very much in line with his other teachings. In fact, I think I consider your interpretation both bizarre and unfounded, given that it's totally unrelated to homosexuality.


regards,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

I am forced to point out that that's a hell of a jump. It's a bit like jumping from a comment on family law to outlawing homosexuality - actually, that's not even an analogy.

I don't see where the jump is?

Scofflaw wrote:

I would read that instead as Jesus making the point that a literalist interpretation of the law (the letter) is not as important as the spirit of the law, and the consideration of consequences to others - something very much in line with his other teachings. In fact, I think I consider your interpretation both bizarre and unfounded, given that it's totally unrelated to homosexuality..

I agree Jesus refers to the spirit of the law.

The point that I am trying to make is that sex outside of marriage is adultery. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore sex between same sexes is also adultery.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

I don't see where the jump is?

I agree Jesus refers to the spirit of the law.

The point that I am trying to make is that sex outside of marriage is adultery. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore sex between same sexes is also adultery.

Jesus is referring specifically to marriage. I would certainly accept that he is saying the homosexual adultery is the same as heterosexual adultery, and that homosexual fornication is the same as heterosexual fornication, because he does not make any distinction.

However, he does not make any distinction. There are, therefore, no grounds in the quote above for a specific condemnation of homosexuality, which is what is being taught.

regards,
Scofflaw

robindch

> [wolfsbane, quoting hitler] Privilege through strength the basis of all Nature

Well, reading this, it's clear that Hitler understands evolution crudely as 'survival of the fittest', which, as I've pointed out time after time, is nothing close to what biologists say about evolution (to remind you *again*, evolution can be understood as the results of differential reproductive success).

In fact, looking again, Hitler misquotes and misrepresents evolution for his own political ends. Just as creationists do

John Doe

robindch wrote:

In fact, looking again, Hitler misquotes and misrepresents evolution for his own political ends. Just as creationists do

Interesting. Berry interesting indeed... although Hitler did misquote and misrepresent just about anything he could for his own political ends. When it comes down to it, all he was interested in was power, and for some reason in the holocaust. Historians still haven't figured out any concrete motive for the latter.

Asiaprod

John Doe wrote:

Interesting. Berry interesting indeed... and for some reason in the holocaust. Historians still haven't figured out any concrete motive for the latter.

I believe the consensus is that he had a personal problem with the Jews, and then turned that problem into a national problem, which he used as a political platform to launch his ****** here words fail me as I do not know what to call what he launched...the Nazi Party??.

Sorry if I am off topic.

John Doe

Asiaprod wrote:

I believe the consensus is that he had a personal problem with the Jews, and then turned that problem into a national problem, which he used as a political platform to launch his ****** here words fail me as I do not know what to call what he launched...the Nazi Party??.

Sorry if I am off topic.

I started the off-topicness, so I'll just have one more: though Hitler had a personal problem with Jews it still made no sense even in a cold, calculating way to attempt the Holocaust during World War 2. It contributed to his losing the war (along with other things). It really annoys me when people use the foremost evil men of the century to try to prove some abstract point: there's really very little we can take from these monsters.

Excelsior

I see where you are coming from Scofflaw but the definition of adultery that Jesus is extending isn't that which we commonly casually use today. If I go behind my wife's back and have sex with my neighbour I am said to be committing adultery. If my wife and I had sex before we were married, that would not be referred to as adultery. But Jesus (as a Jew following from the Pentateuch) would have understood adultery to be all sex outside of any marriage agreement.

With his sole recorded teachings on sexuality precluding any sex outside of marriage, it seems difficult to reconcile with a new interpretation of Romans 1 or 1 Cor 6.

Homosexuality as a category, it has been well traced, is an invention of the Victorian era. To demand that Jesus speak to the homosexual issue is like asking him to speak to the "professional". It is a category his listeners would never have understood.

robindch

> It really annoys me when people use the foremost evil men of the
> century to try to prove some abstract point:

Indeed. Around once a week or so for the last couple of months, we've been seeing "secularism" or "humanism" or "atheism" or "evolution" (and a few more) trotted out as the root motivator for the actions of a unpleasant variety of megalomaniacal mass-murderers and I'm thoroughly tired of it, as much for its glass-eyed repetitiveness, as for its daft inaccuracy.

> there's really very little we can take from these monsters.

Don't agree with this at all. What these lads showed is that it's quite easy to install an uncontrollable dictatorship into a society, if you make free reference to some glorious and virtuous mythology, work on developing divisions within society (pre-existing religious divides are useful here), declare a looming external threat, make sure that you control access to information and make sure that everybody understands that anybody who questions the administration, or ignores or retaliates against the binding prejudices which it propagates, is a direct threat to the stability of society. Once you've done that, it's pretty easy to get a pliant population to do whatever you like.

Most, if not all, dictatorships arise by choosing a few of these old reliables to motivate enough people to control the remainder and the ease with which that can be done is what Hitler and the rest of that sorry lot should make us all aware of.

Bringing this briefly back on-topic, modern evolutionary psychology does provide evolutionary explanations for why this happens (here's a fanitly relevant short essay on the topic).

Scofflaw

Excelsior wrote:

Homosexuality as a category, it has been well traced, is an invention of the Victorian era. To demand that Jesus speak to the homosexual issue is like asking him to speak to the "professional". It is a category his listeners would never have understood.

Er, exactly. And how does that lead to the specific condemnation of homosexuality frequently made by Biblical literalists?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Excelsior

Homosexual sex is sex outside of marriage, yeah? Well then Jesus ticks that one off his list in the Sermon on the Mount.

John Doe

The concept of homosexual marriage wasn't around in Jesus's time though. Maybe he didn't know it would be. I'm hoping that if he knew that two gay men or women could have a loving and monogamous relationship then he wouldn't have had a problem with it.

John Doe

robindch wrote:

Don't agree with this at all. What these lads showed is that it's quite easy to install an uncontrollable dictatorship into a society, if you make free reference to some glorious and virtuous mythology, work on developing divisions within society (pre-existing religious divides are useful here), declare a looming external threat, make sure that you control access to information and make sure that everybody understands that anybody who questions the administration, or ignores or retaliates against the binding prejudices which it propagates, is a direct threat to the stability of society.

You're completely right there. My comment was a silly generalisation. I was trying to say that just because X was a Y doesn't mean squat without a lot of backing up. Actually I'd like to withdraw the comment altogether, on reflection.

BrianCalgary

John Doe wrote:

The concept of homosexual marriage wasn't around in Jesus's time though. Maybe he didn't know it would be. I'm hoping that if he knew that two gay men or women could have a loving and monogamous relationship then he wouldn't have had a problem with it.

He would have a problem with it, because it fits into the adultery category.

John Doe

It fits into the adultery category as it was then, but was there any group of people back then who proclaimed that they were attracted to members of the same sex and would, ideally, like to fall in love with one of them, marry them and spend their lives with them? If not, it's kinda like saying that Jesus wouldn't have been in favour of cars because he didn't mention them. Ok, not quite, but close!

Scofflaw

Excelsior wrote:

Homosexual sex is sex outside of marriage, yeah? Well then Jesus ticks that one off his list in the Sermon on the Mount.

Excelsior wrote:

If I go behind my wife's back and have sex with my neighbour I am said to be committing adultery. If my wife and I had sex before we were married, that would not be referred to as adultery. But Jesus (as a Jew following from the Pentateuch) would have understood adultery to be all sex outside of any marriage agreement.

I'm not asking about whether homosexual sex is condemned as being outside marriage - I can see where that derivation comes from (although I don't particularly agree) - I am asking about the specific condemnation of homosexuality.

I would also presume that the problem can be solved by allowing same-sex unions.

regards,
Scofflaw

robindch

> I was trying to say that just because X was a Y doesn't mean squat
> without a lot of backing up.

Agreed; there has to be some causal link demonstrated between X and Y, which in the case of the stuff I mentioned, has never been shown, even mildly, despite it being claimed week after week. In my darker moments, I suspect that all of these claims are simply unhappy extensions of the curious religious notion that it's ok to assert that something is true, just because one might believe that it's true -- a mindscape where the mind's eye overrules the body's.

> You're completely right there.

Hmm... reading my post again, I can't help but think of religion. Dang, and I'm trying to be nice!

Anyhow, now back to the christianity forum's weekly discussion of gay sex :rolleyes:

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

I would also presume that the problem can be solved by allowing same-sex unions.

Can't agree with your presumption here. Surprised?:)

We may allow it with man made laws, but God still condemns it, because a marriage is between a man and a woman.

Definitions change, and offspring aren't quite so necessary these days

Non religious gay marriage I think should be allowed, churches don't have to marry them if they don't want

BrianCalgary

bluewolf wrote:

Definitions change, and offspring aren't quite so necessary these days

Non religious gay marriage I think should be allowed, churches don't have to marry them if they don't want

Mans definitions may change, but God's don't.

The fear of churches is that a gay couple will approach the church for marriage. The minister will refuse on religious grounds and then get sued by the couple for refusing their request.

It has happened in Sweden. We are just waiting for it in Canada. The gay couple will go through the Human rights boards, which are not accountable to anybody.

So much for religious freedom.

John Doe

That is disgraceful. A church, in that situation, is accountable to no-one. If it so chooses I believe a church should have the right not to marry people because they're too hirsute. It just wouldn't be a very popular church, but that's their own business. It's a bit pointless my arguing in favour of gay marriage, because when it comes down to it I just don't have faith in the Bible so I can believe what I want, based on whether or not I think it's dangerous.

Scofflaw

John Doe wrote:

That is disgraceful. A church, in that situation, is accountable to no-one. If it so chooses I believe a church should have the right not to marry people because they're too hirsute. It just wouldn't be a very popular church, but that's their own business. It's a bit pointless my arguing in favour of gay marriage, because when it comes down to it I just don't have faith in the Bible so I can believe what I want, based on whether or not I think it's dangerous.

I would fully concur. It is entirely up to a faith/church to determine who it will or will not marry.

If a person considers themselves to be a member of that particular faith, and wishes to do something against the tenets of that faith, presumably they are no longer members of the particular faith (or at least, not members in good standing, although I don't know if most churches require that members be members in good standing to avail of sacraments).

regards,
Scofflaw

hairyheretic

Why would someone want to get married in a church that didn't want them?

BrianCalgary

hairyheretic wrote:

Why would someone want to get married in a church that didn't want them?

Unfortumately there are radical people within the gay community who hate the church and this is their way of exacting punishment, and maybe get some financial compensation along the way. The gays that I know can't stand the radicals as they cause the radicals on the other side to commit crimes against the gay community.

And on and on it goes. The human heart is the same as it has always been. Just our toys of destruction are more sophisticated.

Scofflaw

hairyheretic wrote:

Why would someone want to get married in a church that didn't want them?

There isn't time for any minister to address all the possible points of disagreement between members of the congregation and doctrine. Many people assume that they are 100% in agreement with their church, and then come up against something like this.

It's next to impossible for a minister to remind every new member of the congregation that should they be gay (for example), they should be aware that their sexual preferences are in conflict with doctrine.

Catholicism handles such conflicts largely by the mechanism of the confessional, but the Protestant sects have generally handled it more directly and somewhat more confrontationally (er, see above).

regards,
Scofflaw

robindch

> It is entirely up to a faith/church to determine who it will or will not marry.

I think it would be useful to tack on "within that belief system/church" onto the end of that sentence. Meaning that if you wish to undergo a catholic or protestant or muslim or a whatever marriage, the guys running the relevant local religious outlet can reasonably get to select who's going to be permitted to stay in (or join) their club and who, by implication, is going to have to sign up to produce more kids to continue the belief system concerned. I'm not aware of any religions which do not make it a condition of a religious marriage that you must promise to bring up any kids in the religion concerned, though I'm sure there must be some.

However, what I find thoroughly obnoxious is that the concept of "marriage" -- in the sense of a life-long, loving commitment between consenting adults -- has been hijacked collectively by, I think, just about every religion there is. So that the religions, rather than spreading, or even ungrudgingly permitting, the love and concern for fellow human beings that they earnestly declare, with loud hosannahs, is amongst their highest ideals, instead they define a sense of marriage, between a man and {a woman|some women}, which seems to exist simply to produce more little religious believers.

Defining it this way has the additional benefit that anybody who bangs on endlessly about gay marriage and what they're going to do about it if they're re-elected president for another four years, will gather the unconditional support of a large group of wide-bodied voters for whom this, utterly incomprehensibly, is one of the two greatest threats to the stability of society.

> I don't know if most churches require that members be members in
> good standing to avail of sacraments.

Not to my knowledge -- most will, I think, quiet happily forget that you've not shown your face in the place for twenty years, as long as you promise to put your and your kids' names on the books.

samb

BrianCalgary wrote:

Can't agree with your presumption here. Surprised?:)

We may allow it with man made laws, but God still condemns it, because a marriage is between a man and a woman.

Elected representatives are changing that in many countries, if you don't like it then tough. Accept Democracy or leave-'the times they are a changin'

So much for religious freedom. What about individual freedom, in all rational organisations it is an offence to refuse employment based on religion or sexuality. The people do not accept such discrimination yet religous organisations get away with it.