New Pope condemns Spain gay bill • Page 2
-
deem 31,667 posts
Seen 8 months ago
Registered 18 years ago -
Sid-Nice 15,848 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 18 years agoErrol wrote:
***** Official Result ******
The new pope sounds like a complete tosser, tbh.
Hurley's Heros 3 - 0 Tyneside
After 3 very long and draining games against Slurpy each going into extra time the final game Dida threw away by bringing down Drogba unnecessarily in the box in Stoppage time after I'd gone 1-0 up, I was dazed and numb going into this game.
Hurley's Milan seemed to be out to prove a point and quickly seized control of the game. It was unfortunate for Sid Nice's Tynside that this was the first time we'd met, because he soon felt the pent up frustration as Hurley's Heros got off to an early lead through Seedorf. In form Crespo rounded the game off with a simple tap in and a well struck header.
After the first, Hurley's Heros relatively strolled home to victory and it was sad to have to play Sid on the back of 3 very competetive games where I'd had to play my best. On another night it might have not been so hard for Newcastle to make any decent chances, but Bellamy was his usual impetuous self and shot plenty of balls high and wide at the earliest sign of goal. Shearer was better but didn't rub any of his patience or experience on the rest of his team.
It was a tough game for Sid Nice's Newcastle, but they rarely threatened and it ended Hurley's Heros 3 Tyneside 0. Nominates HurleyBird for the next Pope..gif)
-
drumbaby 2,688 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 17 years agoCerrado esa puerta! -
otto wrote:
Hi otto, haven't we already chatted about homosexuality (OT and NT) in the Bible and the old and new covenant?
Oh look! Here's some other stuff that this wishy-washy pinko Pope allows to happen under his nose!
Anyone who dreams or prophesies anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 13:5)
If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of its inhabitants... even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)
Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)
The OT and NT stance on morality and how true and false worship mix (ie. they don't) is principly the same throughout the Bible. For instance whilst not putting such people to death they are excommunicated, different 'law' but no real change in what's acceptable and unacceptable. At the risk of labouring the point in the OT there was a nation, nations have laws etc and they can be found in the OT. Then when Jesus came, there is no nation of Christianity, in fact many rejected Jesus for not being a political or military figure, and he was even put to death by the leaders. So when looking at the NT, there are no orders for anybody to be put to death, sentenced to prison etc., merely what is acceptable for worship.
I'll leave it there as I've got a feeling that I'm wasting my time and I'm dealing with people that are quite determined to remain ignorant. -
otto wrote:
Errr, the Bible canon. :0)
malloc, that all depends on whose interpretation/sermon/canon law you're listening to.
I realise I'm being a tad facetious, but the 'Yes, but then there's loads of religions aren't there'-card is one that's all to eaily played, and merely allows one side to put across their arguments as poorly as they wish without it possible to construct a reply. Not wishing to come across melo-dramtic but I think that's pretty pathetic at best and dangerous at worst. -
Then I must be wrong.
Well done, you won. -
Yes, of course I do, and you know I do. Although I'm interested in the right one, or atleast finding the right one. (I don't say right to come across superior, but if various opinions differ, yet they're based on the same textbook, then they can't all be correct) Yet as soon as I put across a point of view on the issue, I'm met with,
"you'll find plenty of theologians and students of the Bible from all wings of Christianity who see the difference between the Old and New Testaments as fundamentally more significant than the way you described it"
I'll do another post to demonstrate what I was saying earlier. (Feel free to reply to this post btw) -
On homosexuality. The OT view of homosexuality is that two men engaging in this practise are to be punished, following the law given to the nation. I believe that we are all agreed on this one. The NT also mentions homosexuality, although by the way some people talk you could be forgiven for not realising this. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, mention this. It is noticeable that such people are not to be put to death, merely that it is unacceptable for maintaining a Christian standing. Therefore has the Bible's stance on homosexuality been replaced by a cuddly touchy-feely stuff NT?
It doesn't look like it. There is a difference, which is that there's no national law, as no 'nation of Christianity' was setup by Jesus (please correct me if I'm wrong), and the punishments given were more removal from the church (excommunication as someone else said in relation to Mr. Kerry).
(BTW any comment on what I said about Christ and politics? That's potentially a massive point.) -
Ermmm, isn't that what you're doing? I put across one opinion, and you say that there are loads of opinions by poeple that must be better educated than me and seem to use that to dismiss what I say.
If you think I'm wrong, that's fine mate, but say why. This isn't the laws of physics, we can discuss it, as we have in the past.
It's a bit unfair to call me lazy (and pathetic for that matter) when I've actually replied (and more than once) to what you've said with actual arguments, ie. more than 'well scholars would disagree with you, so I can't be bothered to argue with you, but just letting you know you're wrong'. -
tengu 10,294 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 18 years ago -
tengu 10,294 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 18 years ago -
He's basically told any Catholic involved in any way that they should quit their job rather than be party to it - so registrar, caterer, social worker, social security, anyone who might be involved in the paperwork is told to quit rather than help two people live a married life together. Nice.
The Mac/Catholic analogy is breaking down for me I have to say. -
TBH I can't see the issue, I mean obviously the Pope isn't going to be happy with this piece of legislation. We can't expect the Pope suddenly to change two thousand years of doctrine. Even if they'd elected the most liberal cardinal they could find, he'd still have said the same thing. The criticism has to be of the Church, rather than this specific Pope.
My problem is more with the right wing in the US who claim that the Church supports them and their stance against gay marriage and abortion, while ignoring the Church's stance against the death penalty and the war in Iraq. So basically the rights of unborn Americans count for more than the rights of Iraqi children. That is what I find really despicable. -
I can't help feeling you've kind of missed the point. -
CerealKey wrote:
Exactly. Classic Microsoft business practices.
What Catholics don't agree with homosexual practice is a surprise? Although I was reading an article about Bush and he had a long meeting with Ratzinger and then Ratzinger issued a statement to US bishops telling them to refuse communion to those who supported certain political parties, like the Democrats.
Wait- -
Incidentally Sam where did you see that article? I was reading a similar one the other day but I can't remember where I saw it. Essentially Ratzinger's open letter talked about excommunicating a "prominent Catholic politician" (i.e. Kerry) for his views on gay marriage iirc. Definitely the Republics made a big play for the catholic vote on the anti-abortion ticket which I thought was well out of order. -
Monsta, you're absolutely right. The Bible says it's wrong:
Leviticus 20:13 clearly states "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
So no room for argument there. Oh, but hang on, what's this?
Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)
Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)
Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)
Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9) Have you ever done that?
If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).
If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16).
If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)
Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)
If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)
People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)
Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16) -
Anyone care to bet on whether the Pope wears clothes made of more than one fabric? -
Oh look! Here's some other stuff that this wishy-washy pinko Pope allows to happen under his nose!
Anyone who dreams or prophesies anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 13:5)
If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of its inhabitants... even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)
Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7) -
k.o.t.i wrote:
They're from the Old Testament. The point about Christianity is that there is a 'new deal' with God - a 'new covenant' - so that all the harsh stuff in the Old Testament is replaced by the cuddly touchy-feely stuff in the New Testament thanks to Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, yadda yadda. So instead of 'let's kill everyone different' now it's 'love thy neighbour'. The problem is that assorted Christian fundamentalists be they Catholic or nutjob Yank evangelical choose to ignore the New Testament bit about being nice to each other and turning the other cheek, and turn straight back to the hell & damnation stuff in the Old Testament. But they pick and choose, conveniently ignoring the stuff that's just plain mental or illegal. In other words, they're a bunch of bastard hypocrites or (to use a popular Christian fundie phrase) 'false prophets'.
And these are from the Catholic faith?
I thought murder is one of the seven deadly sins. -
malloc, that all depends on whose interpretation/sermon/canon law you're listening to. -
Whatever. The fact remains that you'll find plenty of theologians and students of the Bible from all wings of Christianity who see the difference between the Old and New Testaments as fundamentally more significant than the way you described it. -
Yay, I won. o_O
You realise that more than one point of view can exist on the issue? -
Look, I think you're being overdefensive. I can understand that a Christian might think there's only one 'right' answer but I don't think there is. We're not talking about the laws of physics here, we're talking about how to interpret a very old book. You can't just dismiss someone else's point of view because they point out that different interpretations exist. Frankly that's the pathetic and lazy approach. -
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
