We have a new pope! (1 Viewer)

[withoutaface]

The first four books of the Bible are the most contradictory pieces of crap ever written.

 

[Lexicographer]

Sigh.

If the Old Testament were so irrelevant, why would Christians have fought and died to preserve BOTH?

As for the contradiction in the Genesis, the whole point was that readers would realise that they were not meant to be taken literally. That's the problem with these dodgy new "churches" which base everything on the word of the Bible - they don't realise that there is a historical context into which the text fits. Why should God be mentioned creating the light, sun, moon etc? To dismiss the Persian, Egyptian and Babylonian beliefs (respectively) that God was equivalent to one of the above. Why Adam and Eve? Adam is the Hebrew word for Man as in mankind, Eve likewise. They are written about as individuals to express an idea, not to record history.

As for the "religious lie" comment, I put to you the question Pilate gave Jesus.

Qui est Veritas?

 

[Phanatical]

Agreed. I do not believe in "God", and I don't pay much attention to the Christian Bible. But I believe that it serves a VERY useful purpose - to instill a sense of ethics and good behaviour. I don't think it was ever intended to state that an event Actually happened, but as a guideline to good behaviour which both christians and non-christians would be better off paying attention to.

 

[Xayma]

Sigh.

If the Old Testament were so irrelevant, why would Christians have fought and died to preserve BOTH?

As for the contradiction in the Genesis, the whole point was that readers would realise that they were not meant to be taken literally. That's the problem with these dodgy new "churches" which base everything on the word of the Bible - they don't realise that there is a historical context into which the text fits. Why should God be mentioned creating the light, sun, moon etc? To dismiss the Persian, Egyptian and Babylonian beliefs (respectively) that God was equivalent to one of the above. Why Adam and Eve? Adam is the Hebrew word for Man as in mankind, Eve likewise. They are written about as individuals to express an idea, not to record history.

As for the "religious lie" comment, I put to you the question Pilate gave Jesus.

Qui est Veritas?

People have fought and died for alot more irrelevant things

 

[Rafy]

Agreed. I do not believe in "God", and I don't pay much attention to the Christian Bible. But I believe that it serves a VERY useful purpose - to instill a sense of ethics and good behaviour. I don't think it was ever intended to state that an event Actually happened, but as a guideline to good behaviour which both christians and non-christians would be better off paying attention to.

Agreed. However, you'll be suprised how many religious nutters like to take it literally.

 

[Lexicographer]

People have fought and died for alot more irrelevant things

True, but never for as long.

 

[Lexicographer]

Haha what makes you an expert on the Mind of God eh?

You can't claim an understanding of Catholic doctrine just because you've heard Monty Python's sperm song. It's a lot more complex than simply calling sperm sacred, the theology considers the entirety of the sexual act. I won't go into it now though because I know better than anyone else that I'm no professor of theology.

 

[Rafy]

The Catholic doctrine is currently utter bullshit. They say its the fundamentals, but it isn't. Its not the true core of catholisim. These supposed ideals regarding contraception, celibacy, etc etc are just the products of milleniums of pope imposed rules as a reflection of their mainly concevative views. If the church really wants to get to fundamentals then they are going down a deluded and incorrect path

And this dogma thing? wtf. give me a break. In fact get rid of the pope all together.

 

[Lexicographer]

I'm not biting that. You seem like the stereotypical "the church is bullshit because I don't agree with them" person who hasn't even bothered asking WHY the rules are as they are. So far your only arguments are "they say this but they are wrong" without actually explaining WHY. You say it's "just pope imposed rules" which too me looks like a complete and utter misunderstanding of the whole concept of the magisterium. If you think Christianity must follow the mere letter of the Scriptures then fine, blind fundamentalism is for you. I prefer to view my faith in the context of the words, the spirit of the law.

 

[um..]

lexicographer do you masturbate

 

[Generator]

I prefer to view my faith in the context of the words, the spirit of the law.

The context and spirit of bygone, or mythical, era, right?

 

[Lexicographer]

I believe that may leave some room open for the occasional spill...

Ah, but given the asumption of my greater familiarity with said law, it seems reasonable to deduce that what you believe isn't as important as what I believe.

 

[Rafy]

If you think Christianity must follow the mere letter of the Scriptures then fine, blind fundamentalism is for you. I prefer to view my faith in the context of the words, the spirit of the law.

Well actually I just happen to be a steadfast atheist. I dont think the church should follow the scriptures or blindly follow pope imposed doctrines either.

I highlighted their conflicting views. They say they wish to go to fundamentals, yet they not. They are confused to what the fundamentals actually are.

But if i had it my way, i would abolish to position of pope and the church would look somewhat Anglican. But would like to see the plague that is religion swept away. It would be a much better world.

 

[Lexicographer]

Our definitions of what constitutes a good world, let alone a good church, are obviously and irrevocably different.

Let us agree to disagree. I after all do not criticise your antitheism (yes you are not an atheist but an antitheist).

 

[phemale_souljah]

Okay...this is all a bit tiring...
I've read like the first couple of pages in this thread...and all the arguments seem to be the same or based along similar lines.

first of all...As Catholics...we have a new pope, one which we'll pray for every week in mass and one in which those numerous cardinals have placed in a position of power and trust. That people of other religions rock up out of the blue and offer their futile, let alone shallow, perceptions as to the appearance of Pope Benedict XVI is beyond me, I mean why do they care?

secondly...the extremists and fundamentalists of sacred texts are found in every religion.

braindrainedAsh, those are some harsh comments and ones which give the impression that because of your hostility towards the Catholic church and Catholicism in itself, you are blinded as to the good it has done, in every facet of society. From education, politics(the Labor Party and bringing an end to the rise of communism-back in the day) to the very problematic issues which you brought up those of poverty and famine. I suggest you perhaps do your research before you decide to post things which are obviously uninformed.

Following on from imhere4themusic's point...conversionism is ever abundant in Australian society...so if you can't stand the heat in the kitchen...or should I say chapel...get out

Ratzinger's stance on abortion, female clergy, contraception and homosexuality are his views and wether one opposes or agrees with him has no avail on the job he may do for the Catholic church. So who are we to judge..before he even serves the papacy for a week, how good a job he'll do??

 

[Rafy]

I would argue that the fundamentalists and the extremeists are in fact the same person, in this context at least.

 

[jennylim]

I would argue that the fundamentalists and the extremeists are in fact the same person, in this context at least.

don't be silly. fundamentalists are going back to the basics, extremists are...well..extreme. you can be a moderate fundamentalist - i'm a christian fundamentalist and hardly extremist. and i'll bet many muslims will say similar things, too.

 

[Lexicographer]

No, you misunderstand the terminology. Fundamentalism doesn't mean "going back to the basics", it means viewing the Bible as a document to be followed literally, ignoring all historical and linguistic context.

 

[Lexicographer]

...and hence a fundementalist is an extremist?

I didn't want to make that jump myself.

 

[Phanatical]

As far as I can tell, all the criticism of the new Pope stems from the fact that he's Actually a Catholic.