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.

Ahtman wrote:That is not post-modernism, that is history. You don't have to ascribe to post modernism to notice that different time periods treated the words differently.

Maybe, depending on how varied and how deep you ascribe postmodern thought. I don't know about you but I really don't want to get into a conversation on postmodernism

Let us all agree that Edward Said is the worst artifact of that thing we call 'PoMo'.

dogma wrote:Let us all agree that Edward Said is the worst artifact of that thing we call 'PoMo'.

There's also the word 'PoMo', which is narrowly behind 'bromance' as the silliest word in use today.

It seems you have not yet encountered antidisestableshmentarianism

Okay, the thing with us christians is that we tend to follow the new testament more than the old testament. Its like a message on an answering machine; if someone calls saying that they're going out somewhere, and then call later saying that they're staying home, which message would you listen to?

The whole thing with Chrit's divinity is talked about in the trinity. The father, the son, and the holy spirit are actually one being in spirit of the father(god).

It depends on what kind of rich you look at, rich in spirit and rich in wallet are two different things. They could be looking at the fact that if you are religious, you will be moral. If you are moral, you will get raises and be kept by whatever business you work at.

Has anyone seen the family guy episode with the star trek cast? That's how most christians are converted.

That still doesn't clarify why gays = bad and pork = ok.

gays=bad only applies to some churches like the pork=ok thing.

The thing about christianity is that you can't stereotype it. Its like this, not all muslims are terrorists, not all atheists want to kill god, not all emo kids are vampires(thats a lie I think), not all christians hate gays, not all gays hate christians, not all black people play basketball, not all illegal immigrants are mexicans, not all catholic priests molest children, and etc.

The whole pork thing was also because of health reasons, but we learned to cook pork right and so people didn't care anymore.

halonachos wrote:
The whole pork thing was also because of health reasons, but we learned to cook pork right and so people didn't care anymore.

It's not just about health, it is about recognition of the sacred. Sure you could eat it and know you aren't going to get sick but you also need to give a little reverence to g-d. The the big guy some props yo.

Once again HaloNachos has caused me to jump in.

Halonachos, no offense intended, but you really need to do some research before you attempt to defend the faith as you can do more harm then good when you are uninformed.

According to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin, adultery is a sin, theft is a sin. lying is a sin. ect.etc. A Christian saying homosexuality is a sin, is not saying that Christians hate gays. In fact if you hate gays then by definition you aren't a Christian, because you have no love for the sinner.

As for the pork thing. It is against the law of the old testamant to eat pork, as were many other things. The Bible teaches that the crucifixtion of Jesus did away with having to try to keep the Law for the Laws sake. Because He was the ultimate sacrifice, and therefore there is no longer any need to continue sacrificing animals(prescribed by the law) to atone for sins. The Holy Spirit would come and convict sinners of the need for repentence and no longer needed the priestly system of the old testament law. Read the book of Hebrews, in the Bible, it's a really good treatment on the subject.

GG

generalgrog wrote:Once again HaloNachos has caused me to jump in.

Halonachos, no offense intended, but you really need to do some research before you attempt to defend the faith as you can do more harm then good when you are uninformed.

According to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin, adultery is a sin, theft is a sin. lying is a sin. ect.etc. A Christian saying homosexuality is a sin, is not saying that Christians hate gays. In fact if you hate gays then by definition you aren't a Christian, because you have no love for the sinner.

As for the pork thing. It is against the law of the old testamant to eat pork, as were many other things. The Bible teaches that the crucifixtion of Jesus did away with having to try to keep the Law for the Laws sake. Because He was the ultimate sacrifice, and therefore there is no longer any need to continue sacrificing animals(prescribed by the law) to atone for sins. The Holy Spirit would come and convict sinners of the need for repentence and no longer needed the priestly system of the old testament law. Read the book of Hebrews, in the Bible, it's a really good treatment on the subject.

GG

I'm confused. You say that you don't have to follow stuff from the old testament yet still claim homosexuality is a sin which is back in the old testament with the delicious bacon laws. If we want to be really technical, like ultra-orthodox Jews, only hot man-on-man action is forbidden in the old testament. Of course they don't follow the new testament at all, so they don't have to worry about working their way around this contradiction.

Christians are supposed to respect both, although the new Testament takes precedence. How much the Old is respected depends on the sect.

So you're going to tell me that the sole reason priests can't get married is because of religious beliefs?

I mean, relgion and traditions are important, but some actions and current traditions are caused by non-religious reasons.

For example: It used to be a sin to "waste" the male "secret ingredient" and not have a child. But recently the pope said it is okay to use condoms, this is against scripture, but the pope said its okay so it must be.

Also, people KNEW that pork not cooked well would give the consumer trichinosis. So many people avoided pork altogether.
Now, lets go back to the pope. The pope used to be able to get married and have children, but one pope had some kids and way back then, the pope OWNED land owned by the church and OWNED all of the money in its coffers. Well, said pope had 4 sons and an argument came about. Technically the 4 sons owned all of the land owned by the church and demanded that it be split. The church changed the rules so that the pope couldn't get married or have kids.

This isn't in the bible, even chastity of the priests isn't in the bible.

So, no offense to you either grog, but there are more reasons than just pure religion for most religious traditions.

Thank the germans for christmas trees and easter eggs.

halonachos wrote:
For example: It used to be a sin to "waste" the male "secret ingredient" and not have a child. But recently the pope said it is okay to use condoms, this is against scripture, but the pope said its okay so it must be.

No, he said that condoms increase the spread of AIDs. You're both very, very wrong.

Oh god, not that again. I already pointed out that the pope had said that condoms increase the spreadof AIDs. The fact is, he was trying to promote abstinence instead of wonton sex just because they use a condom.

And recently the pope has said it is not a sin to use condoms. I go to a catholic church, I am catholic, and I read what the pope says. Did you know that Pope John Paul II had breakdancers come to the Vatican and blessed them. John Paul II was probably the coolest popes ever.

John Paul II was probably the coolest pope ever.

This is true.

They had an action figure for him, I wanted it so badly so I could pretend he was super pope or something.

A quote from a local priest: "How the hell do you know the pope is holy until you put him into the ground?"

Haha, good one. I take it you've heard of Battle Pope?

Ahtman wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Once again HaloNachos has caused me to jump in.

Halonachos, no offense intended, but you really need to do some research before you attempt to defend the faith as you can do more harm then good when you are uninformed.

According to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin, adultery is a sin, theft is a sin. lying is a sin. ect.etc. A Christian saying homosexuality is a sin, is not saying that Christians hate gays. In fact if you hate gays then by definition you aren't a Christian, because you have no love for the sinner.

As for the pork thing. It is against the law of the old testamant to eat pork, as were many other things. The Bible teaches that the crucifixtion of Jesus did away with having to try to keep the Law for the Laws sake. Because He was the ultimate sacrifice, and therefore there is no longer any need to continue sacrificing animals(prescribed by the law) to atone for sins. The Holy Spirit would come and convict sinners of the need for repentence and no longer needed the priestly system of the old testament law. Read the book of Hebrews, in the Bible, it's a really good treatment on the subject.

GG

I'm confused. You say that you don't have to follow stuff from the old testament yet still claim homosexuality is a sin which is back in the old testament with the delicious bacon laws. If we want to be really technical, like ultra-orthodox Jews, only hot man-on-man action is forbidden in the old testament. Of course they don't follow the new testament at all, so they don't have to worry about working their way around this contradiction.

I said that the Holy Spirit convicts believers to repentence, not the Law. "the letter killeth and the spirit giveth life". It's not a contradiction. That's why it is called a new testament or new covenant. New... meaning that God has given us a new way to atone for our sins by believing that Jesus Christ , The Lamb of God, was sacrificed for our sins, instead of following the Law of Moses, which required the sacrifice of animals for atonement.

Homosexuality was not only sin in the old testament levitical law, but it is also a sin under the New testement. There are all kinds of sexual sin, the problem I see is that people focus on homosexuality and forget about adultery, fornication and lust. Acording to the Bible they are all sins, whether you look at old testament or new.

Also you must remember that there were many many laws (100's 1,000's?) that went beyond the 10 commandments that were in the levitical Law.

GG

Never heard of battle pope, but I thought that the pope-mobile should shoot communion crackers out of its headlights though.

@grog

Haha, I made you do something! :p

halonachos wrote:
For example: It used to be a sin to "waste" the male "secret ingredient" and not have a child. But recently the pope said it is okay to use condoms, this is against scripture, but the pope said its okay so it must be.

Where does it say that in scripture? (Let me clarify....where does it say that it is against scripture to, as you put it, "waste" the male "secret ingrediant"?



GG

Thou shalt not waste the fruit of thy loins or something like that.

Old testament, better to bang a woman of the evening then having special happy time (Transformers quotes, love them).

halonachos wrote:Thou shalt not waste the fruit of thy loins or something like that.

sigh......

You can sigh all you want, I don't care if I quoted it wrong, the general pretense is there.

generalgrog wrote:

halonachos wrote:Thou shalt not waste the fruit of thy loins or something like that.

sigh......

No, it was a guy in the Old Testament named Onan. It says that he "spilled his seed upon the ground, and God struck him dead." <paraphrase> In context though the story is that Onan was supposed to marry his dead brothers' (plural) wife, but since she had already married and buried like 5 other brothers, Onan said screw that and masturbated rather than consumate a "bad luck" marriage.

So it basically has nothing to do with giving yourself a hello stranger, and more to do with not pissing off the Lord.

Now we know why masturbation is illegal.

Just joking, but it will give you acne,

Ahtman wrote:If we want to be really technical, like ultra-orthodox Jews, only hot man-on-man action is forbidden in the old testament.

Actually, a man can have sex with a man, as long as he does it in a different way from how he would have sex with a woman.

By RAW.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

When's the last time you went by RAW? Nobody I know does so.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Ahtman wrote:If we want to be really technical, like ultra-orthodox Jews, only hot man-on-man action is forbidden in the old testament.

Actually, a man can have sex with a man, as long as he does it in a different way from how he would have sex with a woman.

By RAW.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Which is impossible as (most) men don't have vaginas. So, by RAW, gays are set.

Also, by RAW, those without sin may cast the first stone. However, I throw rocks at people regardless of this turn based game.