Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Why? there are two religion bashing threads ongoing now. You have to space these out a little bit.

Frazzled wrote:Why? there are two religion bashing threads ongoing now. You have to space these out a little bit.

Except that wasn't religion bashing this is theological discussion on whether or not a christian has to or should follow judiac law

yea...sure it is. Discussed by complete nonscholars and atheists. ok.

Frazzled wrote:yea...sure it is. Discussed by complete nonscholars and atheists. ok.

I have studied theology as personal interest, and am not atheistic. Im fairly sure that most public education outside the US contains theological classes so sebs probably educated on the manner and many prominent theologians are atheists and agnostics

I doubt that.

Doubt what, I gave three distinct claims and all can be proven

Ratbot, Lynata, Sebster....ok sure..whatever you say.

Frazzled wrote:I doubt that.

You'd be wrong. Many Theologians do not believe. Of course, most of them spew gak for scholarship, but that's a separate issue.

heh heh you said gak...heh heh

Jihadin wrote:Want to start another thread about religion?

No. This thread has drifted. That's what happens in conversation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Why? there are two religion bashing threads ongoing now. You have to space these out a little bit.

Uh huh. A thread in which it's pointed out Christianity doesn't require any kind of bigotry is now seen as bashing. Fraz, I know that there is no shortage of teenage rebels ready to come in and bash Christianity at any time, but by being so hyper-sensitive to any conversation about religion at all you only weaken your complaint.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:I have studied theology as personal interest, and am not atheistic. Im fairly sure that most public education outside the US contains theological classes so sebs probably educated on the manner and many prominent theologians are atheists and agnostics

I've not taken a theological class, no. Nor were they required. When I was in Year 4 (I think) the Parents and Teachers Association got won over by a local church, and so for an hour a week some church guy came in and talked to the class. Kids belonging to other faiths and those with no faiths were given the option to sit out, and so we went and sat in the teacher's lounge and talked.

After a while it turned out the guy they had talking to the kids was from a pretty hardline church, and was giving the kids lessons that were not at all like they'd told the PTA they were going to teach, and the whole thing got quickly shut down. Which was a shame, because I had a hell of a crush on one of the girls who sat the classes out.

Basically my theological knowledge comes from talking to Christians.

Whew...make's me glad I worship Mars....occasionaly a few prayers towards Zues....sacrifice towards Venus....lots of tilting back of alcohol for Bacchus

Well, Frazzled, you're right, I have absolutely zero theological training and no faith in any deity.

But I don't have to be a degree-holding theologist to say that I've heard some Christians say the Old Testament doesn't apply to Christians, and I've heard others say it does.


I'm totally serious; which is it? It can't be both. Either the Old Testament applies to Christians, or it doesn't. If it doesn't apply, then the bit condemning homosexuality also doesn't apply. If it DOES apply, well, then pretty much all Christians ever are in gross violation of (probably several) Levitical law(s).

Either way, IIRC there's bits of the New Testament that condemn homosexuality (Romans? I think), so I don't know why they don't use that. Using Leviticus just makes things too easy for us. ("OK, so if Leviticus still applies, why do you eat pork, why don't you stone adulterers, why do you wear blended fabrics, why do you have tattoos etc etc?") It's not going to convince anyone, but it will mean one cannot throw other Levitical laws back at them.

which is it?

Whatever they say. People take and leave from religion all the time.

Some OT laws don't apply because they're specific to the Covenant with the Jews (Pork, Circumcision are examples). Others are just laws, and can be left. Others still apply. It's not clear cut. It has to be gone through and examined, but most people don't have the time or the inclination. Most of it gets repeated in some form in the NT anyway.

Either way, IIRC there's bits of the New Testament that condemn homosexuality (Romans? I think

You'd be correct. Romans 1:26-27. Although on its face, that verse only condemns exclusive homosexuality, while bisexuality is seemingly permitted, but it was written for the Romans so maybe we shouldn't be so shocked.

Putting aside the obesity counseling for a second; now that the ACA has passed SCOTUS muster...

can we finally get Trig Palin in front of a death panel?

LordofHats wrote:Some OT laws don't apply because they're specific to the Covenant with the Jews (Pork, Circumcision are examples). Others are just laws, and can be left. Others still apply. It's not clear cut. It has to be gone through and examined, but most people don't have the time or the inclination. Most of it gets repeated in some form in the NT anyway.

Sure, a religion described mostly through narrative, from multiple sources is bound to require a lot of examination and personal interpretation.

The issue comes when people are willing to apply reason to some things, but just accept others unquestioningly. As such, if you recognise that a women who's given birth within 66 days shouldn't be banned from sitting in church anymore, but think the condemnation of homosexuality in Leviticus is unquestionable, it's really just bigotry you're attempting to give a religious covering.

Ouze wrote:Putting aside the obesity counseling for a second; now that the ACA has passed SCOTUS muster...

can we finally get Trig Palin in front of a death panel?

Thats awesome. Way to troll a handicapped kid. Whats your encore pushing over baby carriages?

sebster wrote:The issue comes when people are willing to apply reason to some things, but just accept others unquestioningly. As such, if you recognise that a women who's given birth within 66 days shouldn't be banned from sitting in church anymore, but think the condemnation of homosexuality in Leviticus is unquestionable, it's really just bigotry you're attempting to give a religious covering.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying tossing out the whole OT is a cop out from discussing the issue rather than an actual argument or examination of things we in modern times might not find so savory (not that that'll stop some groups from doing it anyway EDIT: Or that leaving bits discarded is improper. People underestimate how diverse Christianity is.).

Thats awesome. Way to troll a handicapped kid. Whats your encore pushing over baby carriages?

ACME rocket strapped to it...

I'd suggest some self-moderation of posts moving forward.

Especially where it concerns the mocking of special needs individuals.

Here here.

Darn...I forgot Wiley Coyote and RoadRunner toons are considered violent at this current time frame

feth giving obese people counselling, what about giving them a personal trainer and marching them onto the fething Stairmaster twice a day!?

mattyrm wrote: feth giving obese people counselling, what about giving them a personal trainer and marching them onto the fething Stairmaster twice a day!?

The problem there is the definition of "Obese" as used in the OP. They said everyone with a BMI over 30.
John Cena's BMI is 33 so he classifies as "obese" in this instance.
You wanna tell him he needs to lose a few pounds?

For those of you who aren't wealthy and who are smart enough to realize that "Obamacare" now means many benefits including the fact that your insurance company can no longer cancel you (thereby condemning you to death) for being catastrophically ill here's a bit of humor about the Extreme Right who clearly don't seem to understand that once again they are protesting against their own interests.

Who will hear their cries? The Affordable Care Act has already
unleashed a plague on our country: butthurt conservatives, whose
butthurt medical needs are being completely ignored.

The sound, vigorous spanking by--of all people--Justice Roberts, 30 million Americans getting coverage, and because PREEXISTING CONDITIONS ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION OR SOMETHING has resulted in a wave of redness, welts, and soreness.

Judging from symptoms displayed on Facebook, there seems to be no
balm, lotion or tincture to soothe their butthurtedness. They can't
really move--every other advanced industrial nation has universal
access to decent medical care. So that fething sucks.
http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297c/poverty_prejudice/soc_sec/health.htm

But remember, no whining! After getting all that health care LITERALLY
SHOVED DOWN YOUR THROAT, that will only cause chafing and irritation.

Please subscribe, like, share, like us on Facebook!
http://www.facebook.com/TheSecondCityNetwork
http://www.facebook.com/ThePartisansComedy

Hey John Cena! Yeah, I'm talking to you. You need to lose a few pounds!

Where's my internet tough guy gif?

Alpharius wrote:Especially where it concerns the mocking of special needs individuals.

That hasn't actually happened. My post wasn't actually about Trig Palin per se, more that I was using him as a prop (just as his mother is so fond of doing) to try and again debunk a ridiculous yet inexplicably popular lie. If I inadvertently gave the impression I actually thought we should round up special needs people and deny them healthcare so they died, that was not my intent.

BrassScorpion wrote:For those of you who aren't wealthy and who are smart enough to realize that "Obamacare" now means many benefits including the fact that your insurance company can no longer cancel you (thereby condemning you to death) for being catastrophically ill here's a bit of humor about the Extreme Right who clearly don't seem to understand that once again they are protesting against their own interests.

Who will hear their cries? The Affordable Care Act has already
unleashed a plague on our country: butthurt conservatives, whose
butthurt medical needs are being completely ignored.

The sound, vigorous spanking by--of all people--Justice Roberts, 30 million Americans getting coverage, and because PREEXISTING CONDITIONS ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION OR SOMETHING has resulted in a wave of redness, welts, and soreness.

Judging from symptoms displayed on Facebook, there seems to be no
balm, lotion or tincture to soothe their butthurtedness. They can't
really move--every other advanced industrial nation has universal
access to decent medical care. So that fething sucks.
http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297c/poverty_prejudice/soc_sec/health.htm

But remember, no whining! After getting all that health care LITERALLY
SHOVED DOWN YOUR THROAT, that will only cause chafing and irritation.

Please subscribe, like, share, like us on Facebook!
http://www.facebook.com/TheSecondCityNetwork
http://www.facebook.com/ThePartisansComedy

As long as you're ready for higher premiums, and a plethora of new taxes..er fees and assessments.

LordofHats wrote:I don't disagree. I'm just saying tossing out the whole OT is a cop out from discussing the issue rather than an actual argument or examination of things we in modern times might not find so savory (not that that'll stop some groups from doing it anyway EDIT: Or that leaving bits discarded is improper. People underestimate how diverse Christianity is.).

Fair point.

Interesting read:

Representatives from fatter states were more likely to vote against Obamacare.

Gov. Christie just came to mind big time