The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Marriage, divorce and the Bible > Comments

Marriage, divorce and the Bible : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 10/8/2018

I can remember, in my first Parish, standing before the congregation as a divorced man having married a divorced woman to preach.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All
The bible was written by men and reflected the cultural norms of their time and ethnicity.

Had any of it been inspired by God? Or If you will, eternal unconditional love, your first sermon would have sounded very different! ABSOLUTELY!

No two people who have essentially fallen out of lust? Should be compelled to share the marital bed or conjugal relations!

And all too common when infatuation is interpreted by the emotionally immature as love.

I believe a God of Love would have foreseen this very dilemma and allowed in his or her infinite wisdom for it.

Time to stop treating God-given instinct as some sort of sin. And remember, the word sin comes to us from ancient English and was an archery term that simply/only ever meant, to miss the mark.

And like all sin, just an opportunity to learn and progress.

So, put the (regretted) past where it belongs, empty your heart of all hate and remorse and simply move on as a wiser more compassionate human for the experience and inherent lessons it taught!

No need for any self-flagellation! Always providing you own your own behaviour, accept responsibility and consequences!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 10 August 2018 11:38:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I still think the Bible was an early manual which has been misinterpreted for two thousand years to suit the corrupt & kinky.
Posted by individual, Friday, 10 August 2018 2:10:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
immoral living always leads to 'liberal' theology. Instead of repentance for failure and sin, liberals condone the sinful activity.
Posted by runner, Friday, 10 August 2018 2:40:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Answer regarding romance, its inevitable decline, then the pain that is marriage?

TRY BEFORE YOU BUY!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPCWZG5FYzM

Got it?
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 10 August 2018 5:04:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As always, runner speaks as if he were God? And with that absolute authority! Based only on massively edited and continuously revised words written eons ago by who? And on what authority?

Today, folks who claim to hear God speaking to them are either medicated or institutionalized, runner and perhaps with your absolute certainty on all things moral! Always providing they only ever pertain to other folk and never ever a perfect sinless runner!

It must be extreme comfort runner to know you are always right sinless and perfect! And therefore able to speak with the absolute moral authority of Almighty God!

Next thing, you'll be walking on water, perhaps after you've turned it into (abracadabra) wine?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Saturday, 11 August 2018 11:16:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see Alan the topic is marriage , divorce and the bible and only the unbelievers are allowed to comment. Ever thought of joining Antifa? Those thugs also would only allow their own putried dogmas' aired.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 11 August 2018 7:33:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This may be presented as a parody but it's based on (inconvenient) fact -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

Biblical divorce is only allowed in the case of adultery or if one partner abandons their Christian belief. Remarriage is also not permitted unless one partner has died and therefore no chance of reconciliation exists.
Posted by rache, Sunday, 12 August 2018 1:24:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, runner, I do believe in God, a creator and the immutable fact that energy can neither be created nor destroyed!

Therefore had to always exist in some form before the creation of the known universe. And that the known universe, in essence, is composed of energy.

Albeit mutated or altered to become atoms, which are positive, negative and neutral energy held together in covalent bonds to form the very atoms that compose all physical matter.

And that a whirlwind whipping through a junkyard has greater odds of creating a fully functional flyable 747! Than life to have created itself through serendipity or chance.

And wherever one sees design and purpose, there needs must be a designer.

Having said that I don't believe in you or that you, in particular, are in any way, as a perceived, brainwashed unthinking devotee of some nut job cult? Can ever speak for God (eternal unconditional love personified) or know what is his or her interpretation of sin.

Which to reiterate, JUST FOR YOU, is an ancient English archery term. Which merely means to miss the mark! THAT IS ALL!

And, not your atypical stoning offence.

As always with runner, he can only see the alleged fault in others even in the face of factual evidence that absolutely proves him and his ilk absolutely wrong!

And continues to hurl abuse at God-given creation, because of some medieval manmade perception of difference! And the only real evidential evil in any of these debates!?

Even so and contrary to his false witness allegations, nobody here has prevented him or her from commenting on the manmade institution of church-based marriage!

He/she clearly doesn't cope well with deserved criticism or being held to account for his or her own witless and broken record, thoughtless parroted commentary!
Without bias, Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Sunday, 12 August 2018 11:10:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Peter,

.

So, Arius, whose common sense dictated that “the Son was subordinate to the Father (the Holy Ghost who inseminated Mary)”, was wrong and Athanasius, who ingeniously squared the circle by an extraordinary feat of his exceptionally fertile imagination : that the Son, God and the Holy Ghost were all one and the same, was right.

So, Arius was a conservative and Athanasius an innovator.

So, Judaism and Islam (more conservative and less imaginative) are wrong, and Christianity is right.

So, Christian civilization … does not constantly look back on revelation … but forwards to a changing future.

So, like “the evils of slavery … our understanding of marriage has also undergone a change”.

So, “Part of … the decline of the Church is because of the disastrous association of Christianity with morality”.

So, “ … the application of stray moral commands or guides by Matthew on marriage, or Paul on the male headship of the family, or the silence of women in worship, may be … regarded as being injurious to radical freedom in Christ”.

So, that’s it, Peter :

« … standing before the congregation as a divorced man having married a divorced woman to preach on Matthew 19:9 "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery", is simply “the application of stray moral commands or guides by Matthew on marriage »
.

So, to sum-up, the moral of the story is :

What appear to be mistakes are simply progress. We can devote ourselves, heart and soul, to one religion (The Uniting Church) and forsake it for another (the Anglican Church). We can swear to God to love and cherish someone “until death do us part” and forsake her for another. We can believe in God “cross my heart and hope to die” and …

As you say :

« Change … cannot always be understood as liberalism, the conformity to the politics of the day, but a genuine progress in our understanding of … God »

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 13 August 2018 1:43:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Christianity itself is full of contradictions. It maintains it is a monotheistic faith and has a God made of three distinct entities. One of the entities is God born of a virgin as many of the pagan gods were. Horus, Osiris, Mithras, Dionysus, Krishna, and others all fit this description. The virgin birth seems to have been a device to make a modification of Judaism acceptable. This was done by translating the Hebrew word, almah, in Isaiah meaning young woman in to the Greek, parthenos, meaning virgin.

The idea of a chosen people contained in the Jewish Bible is apparently common to all tribal people. The word for themselves such as Inuit in the case of the people formerly called Eskimos means ‘the people’. Others outside of the tribe are less than members of the tribe. With the appearance of Jesus Christians are the new chosen people. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any deity, multiple or single.

A divorced man serving a ministerial function in a church whose scripture bans divorce seems trivial in the face of all these other contradictions. Christianity challenges reason and common sense. In this age can’t we rid ourselves of that and other superstitions?
Posted by david f, Monday, 13 August 2018 9:37:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

Shri Krishna was not born of a virgin - he was born in jail as the eighth son of Vasudeva and Devaki who were imprisoned together.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 13 August 2018 10:12:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The usual quote is "Whom God has joined together, let no man put asunder"

I see this as meaning, let no outsider break a marriage union, and that continuing it or busting up is the concern of the two most involved; with society having an input on the welfare of those concerned, especially children.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 13 August 2018 6:10:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Matthew 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Nobody can break up families like Jesus.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 14 August 2018 12:26:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Is Mise,

.

You wrote :

« The usual quote is "Whom God has joined together, let no man put asunder"

I see this as meaning, let no outsider break a marriage union, and that continuing it or busting up is the concern of the two most involved; with society having an input on the welfare of those concerned, especially children »
.

That’s one way of looking at it, Is Mise. I tend to feel that “man”, in this sentence, means “mankind”, the married couple, themselves, being included in the injunction. In other words, nobody is to “put asunder whom God has joined together” – not even themselves.

Here are a few other interpretations :

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-10-9/
.

Might I add that I, personally, see nothing wrong with divorce, provided it is carried out in a civil, courteous and responsible manner. I consider that marriage is a voluntary contract, a personal engagement, which each of the contracting parties is free to cancel at any time.

To be perfectly clear, my position on this is not dictated by any religious belief or affiliation of any sort whatsoever. It is my own, personal opinion.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 14 August 2018 12:48:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

The horrendous paedophile scandal in the US, following the release of the Grand Jury report in Pennsylvania, highlights Peter’s statement that “part of … the decline of the Church is because of the disastrous association of Christianity with morality”.

It is reported that hundreds of Roman Catholic priests molested more than 1,000 children — and possibly many more — since the 1940s, and senior church officials, including the archbishop of Washington, D.C., systematically covered up the abuse.

The “real number” of abused children might be in the thousands since some secret church records were lost, and victims were afraid to come forward.

Attorney General Josh Shapiro said at a news conference in Harrisburg that the investigation confirmed a “systematic cover-up by senior church officials in Pennsylvania and at the Vatican”.

The release of the grand jury’s report comes at a time of renewed scrutiny and fresh scandal at the highest levels of the U.S. Catholic Church. Pope Francis stripped 88-year-old Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of his title and ordered him to a lifetime of prayer and penance amid allegations that McCarrick had for years sexually abused boys and had sexual misconduct with adult seminarians.

Revelations of Church-related paedophilia continue around the world and seem to be never-ending. They touch all denominations, but the Catholic Church is by far the worst offender – on a world-wide scale – to such an extent that its endemic nature is evident.

The Catholic Church is morally bankrupt as an institution.

Pope Francis is now left with just two options : either he puts a stop to it or he admits his inability to do so and resigns :

« And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves » — Matthew 21:12–13

As Jesus clearly demonstrated: there is no other honourable alternative.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 16 August 2018 11:17:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just goes to shew what can happen when an institution is infiltrated by homosexuals.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 16 August 2018 11:50:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Is Mise,

.

You wrote :

« Just goes to shew what can happen when an institution is infiltrated by homosexuals »
.

I don’t think homosexuals “infiltrate” the Catholic institution, Is Mise. It’s part of the normal selection process for candidates. Only those who accept to take the vows of celibacy are accepted into the priesthood.

That’s not a problem for homosexuals, bisexuals, or transsexuals. They might even consider it an attractive feature of the job, with the aditional advantage of being a safe haven for predators such as themselves (Matthew 19:14).

It’s more of a problem for heterosexuals – probably dissuasive for most. As for the others, who, despite the difficulty, accept the challenge and resolve to renounce their natural instincts, unfortunately, many later succumb to temptation and fail miserably. In their desperation, some have no alternative but to commit bisexual or homosexual acts, depending on the circumstances, in order to satisfy their natural sexual urges.

The final result is that there is a maggot in the apple and the apple is rotten to the core.

How does a maggot get inside an apple? Scientists have discovered that it does not burrow in from the outside. The maggot comes from the inside. But, how does it get there? Simple. An insect lays an egg in the apple blossom. Sometime later, the maggot hatches in the heart of the apple, and thrives in its habitat before finally easing its way out.

That’s the story of the Catholic Church, Is Mise. Sad isn't it ?

Mind you, there are maggots in all the other Christian denominations as well, but not as many as in the Catholic Church.

This could be due to the multiple advantages of predators operating from a Church - any Church - as previously indicated. Parents candidly entrust their children to the clergy and the Churches of all the denominations, without exception, protect their clergy form the law.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 18 August 2018 12:37:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo,

Maggots there are a plenty but that doesn't affect the core of Catholicism.
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 19 August 2018 12:00:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Is Mise,

.

You wrote :

« Maggots there are a plenty but that doesn't affect the core of Catholicism.»
.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so they say, Is Mise. Apparently, morality is too.

I have no doubt it would take much more than the never-ending onslaught of paedophile attacks by Catholic priests on innocent children for religious zealots to see the light.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 19 August 2018 10:06:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Peter Sellick.

I see you're addressing the broad topic of changes within the church, as all as with divorce. But I would ask about the theological support for divorce, or for leaders of a church to be divorced men or women.

This is a reality for many people. For one reason or another they get divorced or alternatively they should have considered it long ago due to abuses within the relationship. Some reasons are more controversial then others for why they get divorced. Others hold on through a harmful relationship long after they are encouraged by family to divorce.

With that in mind what are some of the theological support for getting a divorce outside of the reality of it being in our lives or the lives of those around us?

Since this is a common and a practical concern, it's worth exploring the topic.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Monday, 20 August 2018 5:02:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The cause of divorce is marriage. One of the causes of marriage is the push for people to get into a committed relationship before they are ready for it. Teenagers with active hormones are generally all sexed up, Let them explore their sexuality with adequate instruction in contraception until they are ready for a committed relationship. This can result in fewer abortions, unhappy marriages and fewer divorces.

Raise the legal age of marriage to 21, provide sex education, make contraceptives available and keep abortion legal.
Posted by david f, Monday, 20 August 2018 7:29:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Pope Francis has issued a 2,000 word letter following the recent Pennsylvania Grand Jury report into clerical child sex abuse in the Catholic Church.

I don't wish to be facetious but, apart from exhorting his followers "to a penitential exercise of prayer and fasting, following the Lord's command", his response basically boils down to a very simple message : "Not to worry. We are already doing all that needs to be done".

More precisely, he declares :

"I am conscious of the effort and work being carried out in various parts of the world to come up with the necessary means to ensure the safety and protection of the integrity of children and of vulnerable adults, as well as implementing zero tolerance and ways of making all those who perpetrate or cover up these crimes accountable. We have delayed in applying these actions and sanctions that are so necessary, yet I am confident that they will help to guarantee a greater culture of care in the present and future".

That's it - just business as usual really.

Here is the speech in full :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-45250452

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 23 August 2018 9:04:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Peter Sellick.

I still hope you'll consider responding about theological support for divorce. This is one area I think is worth putting in the public sphere. Though I'm not a fan of divorce, I know at least one person who was in an abusive relationship but only recently put in for a divorce and took her kids from the abusive father.

There is a need for divorce sometimes, which I think is why God gave laws through Moses to allow divorce. It's not something to take lightly, but it is for our hard hearts and sinful natures a concession to remedy harm we might do to eachother. A last resort kind of thing for a relationship.

As for the woman I know, if she had some support in religous teachings to leave man who hits her when he's drunk, then maybe she wouldn't have waited so long and potentially put her kids at risk too.

You know more theology then I do, so if you have a theological approach I would encourage you to share it. Not for my benifit, but in general for public knowledge to consider from a Christian perspective, not just a secular one.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Friday, 24 August 2018 2:38:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear NNS,

I agree that divorce is not to be taken lightly. However, marriage should not be taken lightly either. When one pushes for a committed relationship before a person is ready for it one is taking marriage lightly. Let people play around until they are ready for a committed realationship.
Posted by david f, Friday, 24 August 2018 8:57:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To David f.

I agree that marriage should be taken seriously. I've never argued to rush into marriage. However I would still say to not fool around until there's a commitment that's been established. How many marry because they got pregnant, or got someone else pregnant? That said this topic is about later on in a relationship. When divorce is an issue. It's a worthwhile enough topic to not be side tracked, because it happens often enough for many reasons.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 25 August 2018 3:15:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear NNS,

In telling teenagers not to fool around you are ignoring human nature in favour of your religious strictures. There is no good reason for them not to fool around.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 25 August 2018 9:59:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To David F. There are plenty of good reasons to advise teenagers to not fool around. And though it is harder to hold that kind of restraint, having that as your starting foundation will help.

Sex helps hold a relationship together. Kind of makes a bond that is easily seen as the love and commitment of the couple. However in a failing relationship, sex might be the bond that holds that failing relationship until it has the chance to do a greater amount of harm.

Here are 4 lessons for you to consider from 3 of my closest friends and myself. I doubt I'm the only one who sees these lessons in life.

•In one relationship not long after highschool the woman became pregnant. The man wanted to commit himself to her, bought a ring and was ready to propose, but the woman after finding out she was pregnant ran back to her parents a fair distance away. The guy had made jokes in passing conveying he never wanted children, and even with his change in attitude, it's not a far stretch to see her descide to run back to her family for help in light of those jokes. She would not talk to my friend when he tried to reach her, and in light of this he never got the chance to propose. It was only discovered later that a second reason could be named. She didn't know who the father was. So yes fooling around harmed that relationship in more then one way.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 26 August 2018 6:21:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

•Another example is from later in life. Late 20s or so. After several relationships come and go. One couple is formed after meeting on the Internet. The dating site was offering a free month so they decided to meet when the free period was over for one of them. They got to know each other a little bit before they started to love each other in a more physical way. It was a short relationship before they decided to get married. But if they had gotten to know each other more before the marriage, (and weren't biased about each other because of sex). They could have avoided a divorce 3 years later. They might not have gotten married or they could have been better prepared when they did get married.

•A third lesson mirrors the second one in what it teaches. But this time the couple weren't married yet but were engaged, when one of them had a job opportunity that was far away. They both move out there being each other's only support they knew. But because of this dynamic, one of them wanted more space and distanced them self from the other, while the other who moved out there without any job prospects or people to know, tried to cling harder to the one they traveled with. This was a sad relationship to hear deteriorate over the phone long distance. And again looking back, I doubt they would have jumped into the relationship so quickly had they not been having sex. Their personalities were different.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 26 August 2018 6:24:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

•The forth lesson is my own. And though I won't go into the details as much, I will say the end result. Mistaking sex as part of the commitment of a relationship blinds a person when they put forth as much as they can in the relationship (out of love? Or out of ignorance?) while the other puts little or no effort into the relationship. If there wasn't fooling around going on, the relationship could build on opportunities for both to commit to each other, and strive in their efforts for each other. Or walk away earlier because it is seen that it was not with the effort to at least one of them.

The lessons I've watched or experienced are enough to sober me against sex in early relationships, and would be enough for me to recommend to the next generation the conclusion of the lessons. Wait until there's commitment in the relationship before blinding the couple with sex. Or having the potential of pregnancy.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 26 August 2018 6:26:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David F. This part of the conversation is an extension of an earlier one you and
I had that talked about sex in teens. But it over laps this conversation in the influence to marry. In my observations sex has added to the element of marrying too soon. And in some of those relationships that relationship is more brittle and easier to break in divorce. It's not the only reason for divorce. There are many.

I agree with you that marriage should not be considered lightly. Or entered lightly. However even with those that are approached with a stronger relationship or a commitment; divorce sometimes happens for other reasons. Some hard and valid reasons. Others not so much. So with that in mind I would encourage you to talk about the other side of this conversation. Elements of divorce, and input for when to end a marriage, or when to hold strong in the difficult times. Let the other conversation go. Taking marriage lightly is related but shouldn't be the only focus. Divorce happens to strong relationships too, because of grief or betrayal among other causes. (Losing a child, or cheating on each other).

Though you're not a theologian so I still would like to hear from Peter about theological elements regarding divorce.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 26 August 2018 6:42:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear NNS,

In giving an example of a woman not knowing who had impregnated her you have made an argument for adequate knowledge and provision of contraceptives.

In the past there were reasons for people to marry young and have children young. A teenager could be out in the working world making a living, and there was a high infant mortality rate.

The situation is different now. In the developed world people need more education, in some cases, until their thirties, to make their way in the world.

Yet their hormones are still as active as those of their ancestors. The morality you subscribe to was adequate for the past. It is simply not adequate in the current age of technology
Posted by david f, Sunday, 26 August 2018 9:07:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To David F.

There's no reason to think they weren't using contraceptives. They don't always work. That doesn't resolve the issues at all in that case. But if that's your take away from it, so be it. Whatever you need to justify yourself and your beliefs.

In the past, I would support waiting to marry until after college, if they wanted to go that direction. But not anymore. In my opinion education is too expensive with little rewards after it. Often people get the same jobs that those who didn't go to college, or are just fresh out of high school. Except now they have a huge debt also.

Waiting to get married (and to start a family) has it's benefits, but it also has it's drawbacks. Namely our biology. If people want to have children and have healthy pregnancies and babies, then waiting till their thirties or later closes that window.

More people should just start their lives earlier, instead of going to college and putting their lives on hold. More often they'll find out that that was a mistake. Find a job, save up. Live with your parents even for a while with a job to save up for an investment, that way you have a better start to buy your own home, or start your own business. That works and people can be 25 or 29 with their life in order (maybe even married), instead of 35 or 40 and massive debt, and to many bills to keep up.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Monday, 27 August 2018 6:47:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear NNS,

Not getting higher education is not an option for many jobs. I could not have held the jobs I have had without a university education. Getting an education is not just for jobs. It makes one's life richer. One is aware of more of the world and its riches. I am 92. I am not working, but my life would be much poorer if I had not had an education. I am giving lectures in philosophy. I would probably not be giving them had I not had an education. Giving those keeps me learning. Learning is not just for jobs. It can make your life fuller.

Yes, contraceptives do not always work. However, they usually work and should be used if one doesn't want to conceive. Delaying having children would mean fewer children. One big problem in the world today is uncontrolled population growth. The Chinese realized that with their one child policy. they were wrong because they used coercion. However, it is not wrong if it is done voluntarily. My oldest granddaughter is now in her thirties. She does not want to have children although she may adopt. I wish there were more like her.

Be fruitful and multiply is no longer good advice for the world of today.
Posted by david f, Monday, 27 August 2018 8:29:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

The foundations of the Catholic Church are beginning to tremble from the onslaughts of revelations of cover-ups of paedophilia – including by Pope Francis himself !

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/ex-nuncio-accuses-pope-francis-of-failing-to-act-on-mccarricks-abuse

As well as by the Catholic Archbishop of Washington :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cardinal-wuerl-says-he-was-diligent-on-pedophile-priests-the-facts-say-not-always/2018/08/16/896f19f8-a0c4-11e8-83d2-70203b8d7b44_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9f9c77ea4272

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 27 August 2018 7:06:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

In publishing his reply to a journalist’s question, the Vatican has erased the recommendation by Pope Francis that parents should seek psychiatric help for children who show homosexual tendencies.

When asked why, a Vatican spokeswoman replied that it had been done in order to not "change the thoughts of the Holy Father".

It seems they were not only the thoughts of the “Holy” Father, but also the “holey” thoughts of the Father !

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/28/vatican-erases-popes-remarks-about-psychiatric-help-for-gay-children

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 29 August 2018 1:04:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

No doubt, Pope Francis had in mind Saul of Tarsus’ epistle to the Romans :

« Romans 1:26-28 New International Version (NIV)

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. »

Based on Saul’s diagnosis, Pope Francis obviously considers that homosexuals have depraved minds and need psychiatric treatment.

A rather archaic point of view, n’est-ce pas ?

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 29 August 2018 10:41:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Peter Sellick.

I'm still scratching my head over theological reasons for divorce. Reading your next article on marriage, and when it's failed. I'm still not seeing a justification for divorce. Only a rationelle that if the couple stop journeying together then their marriage is over. I might be summing up that rationelle wrong as well. It felt like you were trying to write to scholars instead of to married couples. Please consider this question, Peter. When is divorce looked at as a justified option, and when should a couple buckle down and stick with it even in the hard times? Before I gave some examples of where divorces happens and it might be more justified. Like with an abusive relationship or with adultry. Should I also give an example of when it looks unjustified? When one person should stay married to their husband or wife, and stay with their kids (all who appear to love eachother). Then here is my example for divorce for dubious reasons. One person I know left her family to rediscover herself. Her husband and two kids were left behind as she left without any known reason. Then she marries again has two more children, and is again ready to leave.

For those who are serious in both their faith,many serious in their marriages, there are examples of married people divorcing for hard life realities, and there are divorces for people on the whim who "fell out of love," or seemed to leave their family for a better catch. But stuck in the middle of these examples are the justifications for sticking together or justifications to leave. Most of these justifications come from a variety of secular philosophies. But if there are theological approaches to justify divorce, then please point out what they are. Or point to a book or a web article if it's already been articulated. Divorce is a serious matter. One that some people enter too easily, while others don't consider even in the mists of physical abuse.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Friday, 31 August 2018 3:45:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To David F.

Your experiences with going to a university might be something different then my own experiences around the academic world. If Australian universities can accomplish an education without leaving the students in a massive debt to slave under, then that is a real accomplishment for that approach to finical support of education. In the US, colleges only get more expensive every year. Exponentially more expensive in fact. And the loan system has a high intreast rate that often swamps people into a debt they can't keep up with. It is based on this that I've deemed that colleges and universities have out placed their usefulness. Education is important, I agree with that. But it's important in a simular way that having food or shelter is important. Important in a way to be accessible to the public. Not something to rob the public with because it's valued.

I honestly hope your experience in a university is like the experiences in universities today in Australia. Where you can go to get further education, get a better job, and be able to pay it all off without difficulty (regardless how long it takes).

That said. The other side of the coin is that an education is not required to live in today's world. That philosophy is false, but still believed by many. In fact many jobs that require a higher education, shouldn't require it. Their pay and the scope of the job aren't something worth demanding more education. Expecially if the work is trained on the job anyways.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Friday, 31 August 2018 4:02:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Banjo Peterson. The bible verses you Refrences actually are in context to address both homosexuality and pedophilia. In Romans 1:18-32. Paul goes into detail how when people turn away from God, He gives them over to to the lusts of the world. And if they don't see their error by this time, God will give them over to even worse evil natures. From this perspective having pedophiia in your mists should be a sign that something is wrong and to have turned away from God. In this way I think the Catholic Church should put a spotlight on themselves to root out their issues, instead of (if the accusations are true) instead of hiding the wrongs done by the priests and other catholic leaders and protecting them from facing justice.

The uncomfortable part is that this logic still applies to homosexuality as well. Either indivually or as a society that people have turned away from God, so God has given them over to harmful lusts that will hurt themselves.

I hope this isn't universally true, but I've heard from one source that I've heard is that the homosexual community is not as innocent as it lets on. Instead from the inside of it there are many abuses that homosexuals put themselves through. From a higher drug use scene, to being materialistic and uncaring, to a higher rate of verbal and physical abuse. These were the experiences of one person I've met who's gay and distanced himself from the homosexual community. It is enlightening to hear, but still hope it is just that person's experience instead of that the homosexual community as a whole is really that toxic.

As for what a gay person should do. I'd recommend to do what the person I know tries to do. They aren't trying to change who tgeir attracted to, but instead given up on finding a partner and remains celibate.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Friday, 31 August 2018 4:21:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear NNS,

To be a tradie, to have a business or to work in many jobs one need not have a university education.

I was in WW2. Since I was a veteran of that conflict the US government paid for my education. It cost me nothing. I have 3 bright children. They all got scholarships to university and graduated. The total cost of their education to me was $285. It is much harder for many people to get a university education.

I have been a design engineer and a professor of mathematics and computer science. My older son is a professor of anthropology. My younger son is a biochemist heading a group which develops pharmaceuticals and the technology to manufacture. My daughter decided to turn down various prestigious jobs to run reading programs for culturally disadvantageous children.

In addition to my education in science I have an education in the humanities which I greatly appreciate. It has brought great joy to my life. My children and I would not have the lives we’ve had without university educations.

If all your university education does is to get you a better job I agree with you. Try to get a better job some other way.
Posted by david f, Friday, 31 August 2018 8:28:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear NNS,

I see no reason why a homosexual person should be celibate any more than a heterosexual person should be celibate. Whether or not the Bible considers it a sin, I see no reason why one should be guided by the Bible unless one chooses to be so guided. We live under civil law, and that is the law we have to obey or suffer the penalties. The division between religious and secular law has been supported by clergy on the grounds that sin and crime are not identical. Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury said, “In a civilized society, all crimes are likely to be sins, but most sins are not and ought not to be treated as crimes. Man’s ultimate responsibility is to God alone.”
Posted by david f, Friday, 31 August 2018 8:48:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To David F. That's great that you and your family have the education you've had. And it's encouraging that the cost of it was so low for your kids. Maybe there's hope for it yet. Admitedly I'm a bit angry at the education system that I was exposed to, because as a kid out of highschool your encouraged to go to college. Even if you don't know what to go there for. Then in the after math comes the bills. It's not just the education system that has me bitter to it though. The so many things designed for debts to pay them off, as well as expensive housing markets, which are bad enough on their own without considering the parallel renting costs that go up and push people out to either be homeless or always moving because their home gets too expensive.

When it works out though. Like for you and your kids, it's inspiring and encouraging.

As for homosexuality. I wasn't saying to ban it as a criminal offense. But if a person does want to guided by the bible, then they have to come to terms with God rejecting homosexual sex. On that note though, sex outside of marriage is rejected by God also. So being in a culture that can't say no to sex is worth noting that we should be more celibate as hetrosexuals as a general rule too. To those who are homosexual and not attracted to the opposite sex, the only recourse I have to offer those who want to be faithful to God is to be celibate. To those who are not Christian but are gay, I'd recommend them to seek God (as anyone should) but also keep an eye on their community. See if they see warning signs of a destructive eviornment among gay peers, and if so get out. This is the sort of thing that they would only likely be able to see and confirm or reject if it is a toxic atmosphere. So keep an eye on it for their own benifit.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 1 September 2018 7:35:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear NNS,

We really don’t know if there is a God. If there is a God we don’t know that the Bible tells us about that God. There may be a God, and that God is not described in the Bible. I cannot believe in a God that would destroy almost all life on earth in a flood because he got annoyed at a human behavior when he created them with tendencies to behave badly. I cannot believe in a God who would tell a man to sacrifice his son and would submit his own son to torture.

We don’t know that God isn’t positively delighted with homosexuality. You believe that the Bible is the work of God. How do you know that? I think, if there is a God, he cannot be the mean son of a bitch described in the Bible.

I think Christianity is absolute rubbish. If God is all-powerful, all-wise and all-good why should he need Jesus?
Posted by david f, Saturday, 1 September 2018 10:44:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To David F. You might not know there is a God. But I know God is real. I can see where you might come from (at least partially) but I can't wear the same doubt you wear.

Some things are the way they are, and it's just known. It might be verified several times or only a few, but you know The love from your family, it is not something you can hang a doubt on. Unless you really don't know it. I would not ask you to hang doubt on you as if it was a shirt regarding your love for your kids or their love for you. And if they do love you as I assume by how you've written about you and them bring enriched through college, then the best you could probabley do to a parent who's kids don't love them is try to understand them from a distance. Understand where their coming from, but not closer then that.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 2 September 2018 6:19:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the same way I can understand your doubts, if you've never found God. And I can understand the bias to not not believe and to not look. I understand that bias from a different angle watching people hold to their beliefs and their doubts regarding faith, or regarding theology, or regarding life in general. Some things people won't challenge because they already know. (Why test the love of your family? All it will do is strain the relationship.). Other things people won't challenge because they believe something but haven't had a chance to confirm it or challenge it. (Some of the most depressing perspectives stem from thinking how the world really works and not giving people a chance. They are biased beliefs and generalizations usually.).

Others believe and know something and allow it to be challenged, and come out stronger in that knowledge of it. God has let me challenge Him on a few occasions of desperation. He came through for me on those times. There is no doubt that I can hang on to whether God exists. But U'm sorry for you that you don't know or never knew. The way you feel about education enriching your life, I feel about God enriching mine. And I'm sorry for you to not know that kind of stability.

With that in mind though, knowing God is real is just the first step. Seeking Him is anthoer thing entirely. It is from seeking Him that I've come to trust the bible. For those who what to know what God wants, I recommend to read it in the bible.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 2 September 2018 6:22:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Not Now Soon,

.

I tend to think there might be some truth in the theories of Jewish scholars Heinrich Graetz (1817-1891) and Hyam Maccoby (1924-2004).

According to Maccoby, the founding of Christianity as a religion separate from Judaism was entirely the work of Saul of Tarsus. He claimed that Saul was a Hellenized Jewish convert or perhaps even a Gentile, coming from a background exposed to the influence of Gnosticism and the pagan mystery religions such as the Attis cult, a myth involving a life-death-rebirth deity. The mystery religions were the dominant religious forms in the Hellenistic world of that period and would have influenced Paul's mythological psychology.

In this, Maccoby's view was based on that of Heinrich Graetz.

According to Graetz, Jesus was probably an Essene. The Essenes were a Jewish sect that lived in the desert, with strict dietary laws and a commitment to celibacy.

The Essenes are believed to be an offshoot of the group that lived in Qumran, near the Dead Sea where, in 1947, a Bedouin shepherd stumbled into a cave containing various ancient artifacts and jars containing manuscripts describing the beliefs of the sect and events of the time.

Though Saul of Tarsus never met Jesus, some scholars think he had some sort of revelation or hallucination on the road to Damascus that resulted in his religious conversion, though whether the incident actually occurred or not remains a matter of debate.

It would therefore be more prudent to consider that :

« … if a person does want to [be] guided by the bible, then they have to come to terms with Saul (not "God") rejecting homosexual sex. On that note though, sex outside of marriage is rejected by Saul also ».

Faith in “the bible”, in this instance, is simply faith in Saul’s letter to the Romans. As “God” (presuming there is one) could not possibly have subscribed to what the tentmaker wrote in his letter because, as we know today, homosexuality is a perfectly natural phenomenon observed in in all animal species without exception :

http://pactiss.org/2011/11/17/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality/

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 2 September 2018 8:42:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear NNS,

You wrote: “if you've never found God. And I can understand the bias to not not believe and to not look.”

Dear NNS,

I have looked more than you will ever know. I have come to the conclusion that all religions are just man made organized superstition. You don’t know. You have told us how little you know of other beliefs. You haven’t looked, and you assume others are as ignorant and uncurious as you are. You know only your superstition, and you want to push it on others. You believe, and you confuse that with knowing. At some time all religions have been invented by human beings. Other human beings believe them. They get excited about the way humans conduct themselves sexually. It’s nobody else’s business what part of a human body goes into an orifice in another human’s body as long as all parties concerned are consenting adults, care is taken to avoid pregnancy and spread of disease. Believers oppress, suppress, torture, exile and kill other people who don’t accept the particular form of superstition they accept. I am a happily married man with a wife I love dearly. Not everyone is or can be in that situation. For those who prefer to form lasting attachments including sex to people of the same sex go to it. It cuts down the spread of disease. It counters uncontrolled population explosion. It brings them happiness. You would deny them that happiness because you apparently think everyone should share your superstition.

You make the assumption that I haven’t looked. I’ve looked, thought about it and think I am well informed on the subject. If you knew anything about other superstitions you might still follow yours, but don’t assume others are ignorant of your superstition. It is possible to investigate superstition and reject adopting it. Maybe if you looked at other religions you might get some insight about your beliefs.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 2 September 2018 10:14:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David F. Calm down. I didn't insult you. I don't know if you've searched for God in the past but I do know that you don't care to look for Him now. It's evidant in what you write and what you say. And it does create a bias. I can see that much. Sheesh man, calm your little butt down. I can also tell by your side of the conversation that you haven't found God. Therefore I stand by what I've said earlier. Do not take it as insult. also don't project your actions onto me. This conversation started with the subject of theology, and specifically about divorce. I entered the conversation with that in mind. What did you come here for? To push your doubts onto me? I've explained it well enough to you why I can not wear your doubts as you do. And I have not pushed my beliefs down your throat. You came here, and addressed me first. I didn't go to you.

Regarding homosexuality, what I've said is mostly to those who are homosexual and also believe in God. To those that aren't Christian and are homosexual, my message is short. Seek God and be aware of your enviornment. Make sure it's not like the discription I've been told. If it is, get out and away from that community.

You got some anger issues to work through David. Don't try to vent them on me like I'm your punching bag. Work out your anger on your own instead of trying to start a fight, or instead of getting insulted over nothing.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 2 September 2018 4:07:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear NNS,

I was brought up to believe in God. No searching was necessary. After considering the matter I decided the God of the Bible was something I could not accept. I was brought to believe in the God of the Jewish Bible. At least he could operate without a sidekick.

The New Testament gave God a sidekick in Jesus. That is silliness. An all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good entity needs a sidekick? That just adds to the superstition.

I came to this thread because I think divorce is a civil matter as is marriage, and I object to religious interference in people’s lives in matters under civil law. A religious group can consider two people married or divorced by their religion. However, we live under civil law. In the case of divorce, property settlements and child custody are the businesses of civil law not any religion.

I get excited because you continue to equate believing in God with a belief in your particular Christian sect. Some Christian sects accept homosexuality and perform same sex church weddings. They still believe in God. Homosexuality in practice is ok with them. Some Christians accept changes with the times. Few Christians now accept slavery although the Bible accepts slavery. Deists, Jews, Muslims, Baha’i and Sikhs believe in God. Muslims, Baha’i and Sikhs have their own scriptures. Jews do not include the New Testament in their Bible. Deists have no scriptures. Many people believe in God. Many of those people are not Christians. Many Christians differ with you on what is moral and what is not moral. In fact, many Christians differ with you on the nature of God.

Your particular version of Christianity seems to me very narrow, prejudiced and limited. I think it is very harmful and has caused much human suffering. You feel you have the right to interfere in human lives. You would deny a woman an abortion. You would deny homosexuals a legal connection. I get angry at those that would push the clock back to a more rigid, less free society.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 2 September 2018 5:18:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hogwash and horse manure, David F. If you want to believe your lies then so be it, but by what you wrote you did not come here to talk about marriage or divorce or even civil law, but to use the subject loosely to address your real concern. Your anger towards Christianity. Your first two comment reveal your reasons for commenting. First sentence in this topic: "Christianity itself is full of contradictions." and from your second post? "Nobody can break up families like Jesus."

I'll say it again. Deal with your own anger. It's not my job or anyone else's to calm you down or be the focus of your anger. When I came into the conversation, what was the topic you approached there? Was it marriage and divorce? No, it was abortion. Divorce has many other reasons then people marrying after they discover there is a pregnancy. And so I still maintain the focus of that conversation is worth while. Divorce is a worth while conversation. Not to be sidelined within it's own topic. Why? Because it would help to have some guidance on the topic when people are considering breaking their vows of marriage.

Is it worth struggling through to save the marriage? (Some couples go through a hard time before things get resolved and they continue a happy and meaningful marriage). Or is it time to throw in the towel and move on? The reasons to move on vary from something like career opportunities leading them in different directions (so they deicide that's more important then staying together); to "falling out of love" with each other and either because they have been trying to make it work and it hasn't, or because they've found someone else and no longer love their spouse but do love the their replacement. That excuse is used in several situations. Throwing in the towel can come from abuse, continual disrespect, or just ongoing problems that aren't going away. There is not a shortage for philosophies to divorce, nor are there a shortage of philosophies for sticking through it, and being married.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Monday, 3 September 2018 3:40:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

The topic is big enough to talk about on it's own. For Christians facing hardships and divorce, or are already divorced, or for Christians and nonchristians on a Christian understanding to guide people through this rough spot of failed or failing marriages.

If you want to talk about a narrow view consider your own. Even bringing up the idea that people don't need higher education to get their lives in order is enough to have you kicking and screaming about it. Get over yourself with your "narrow view," criticism and apply it to yourself. I have my views, my opinions. Have lived long enough to aquire them instead of welcome everything indiscriminately, but at least I'm willing to talk to people with differing views and hear them out before hollowing down their throats as you repeated do. Yet you accuse me of doing this instead.

As for searching for God. Some clarification. Did you search for God "more then I know," or were you raised in a Christian home and never needed to search for God. The difference is worth noting. Some people grow up in a Christian background but don't engage it more then that. Not an accusation, just looking for clarification for future conversations. Especially when you say you've looked into other religions. Did you give any of them a chance? Did you give Christianity a chance? By giving it a chance I mean to look at it from the inside of that religion and explore it's teachings and applying it to a person's life. It doesn't have to be applying it to yourself, but looking at a believer (or a community of believers) that tries to apply the teachings and see how they are doing.

Or we can actually talk about divorce (don't pretend you want to talk about the legalities of it or that was ever a concern brought up before). It is a reality of life. People get divorced. Both Christian and non Christian. It is a mess for the couple and for the kids if they have any. It's worth it's own discussion.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Monday, 3 September 2018 6:35:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear NNS,

Again you reveal your bigotry. One only finds God in Christianity. That is absolute nonsense. Your superstition is just one of many superstitions that postulate God or gods. Humans have been inventing gods for a long time. Your particular version has a sidekick and comes in three parts. You know little or nothing of other versions. We now have separation of religion and state in civilized democratic countries. We now have a woman's right to abortion and the right of two people regardless of sex to form a legal commitment in some civilized democratic countries. Some with your superstition would like to get rid of that.

The adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire brought on the Dark Ages. If enough people see things your way they'll come again. The fight for civilisation will continue against superstition. Who knows? Maybe your superstition will win out, and the Dark Ages will come again. Maybe the Muslim or other superstition will win out, and the Dark Ages will come again under another management. As you have demonstrated some pockets of the Dark Ages still exist.
Posted by david f, Monday, 3 September 2018 8:39:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//I'll say it again. Deal with your own anger. It's not my job or anyone else's to calm you down or be the focus of your anger.//

//Even bringing up the idea that people don't need higher education to get their lives in order is enough to have you kicking and screaming about it.//

Kicking and screaming, eh?

//I could not have held the jobs I have had without a university education. Getting an education is not just for jobs. It makes one's life richer. One is aware of more of the world and its riches. I am 92. I am not working, but my life would be much poorer if I had not had an education. I am giving lectures in philosophy. I would probably not be giving them had I not had an education. Giving those keeps me learning. Learning is not just for jobs. It can make your life fuller.//

//In addition to my education in science I have an education in the humanities which I greatly appreciate. It has brought great joy to my life. My children and I would not have the lives we’ve had without university educations.//

Nope, can't see any kicking or screaming there, just a man who places great value on the education he received and hopes that others lives might be enriched in the same way.

I'm not sure this new tactic of trying to discredit your opponents arguments as angry outbursts when they don't sound angry is as much of a winner as you think it is. Kinda makes you look a bit silly.

//Get over yourself//

Well that's a bit rich coming from a chap more full of himself than the biggest matryoshka doll in the set. Matthew 7:3-5, NNS.

//but at least I'm willing to talk to people with differing views and hear them out//

Hah!
Posted by Toni Lavis, Monday, 3 September 2018 10:41:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, Toni Lavis. I should have realised that NNS sees reason as kicking and screaming. He is not alone. The spirit of the stake and the torture chamber lives on. I was in Lubeck, Germany during a Christmas season. In Lubeck are the twin towers with a passage near the top connecting them. One sees that decorating marzipan boxes. At the bottom of one of the towers is a torture museum. Thumb screws, the iron maiden, the rack and other instruments of the Inquisition were on display. As I was watching I heard the strains of "Silent Night, Holy Night". The dialog with NNS brought the juxtaposition of the expressions of Christian faith to mind.
Posted by david f, Monday, 3 September 2018 11:59:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Banjo Peterson.

History will likely tell how much Paul did for starting up churches and spreading Christianity. But as far as I'm aware Paul did not write and of the gospels or any books of the Old Testament. There are verses in the Old Testament stating that God is against homosexuality. Specifically against the act.

On the off chance you would like to discuss it. What are your thoughts on divorce? It's a mess right? Studies show that kids that go through a divorce in their parents might have their own issues to deal with because of it. But even those are better then being in an abusive relatiinship. As for the parents? What can be said. Should more failed marriages try to push through and make it work? Or should it be harder to both get married and get divorced? Or any other thoughts on the matter would be welcome. You're not a theologian, but if you want to talk about the issue, then you'll be the only other person here who sees the marit of discussing it.

David F,

Is that a yes you searched for God? Or a no, you never needed to search for Him? Remember this is your credentials on the line of actually looking into it or not. Or if looking into it is code for looking for support of your already made views? And not finding God means not finding a religion that supported your (narrow?) view?

Some clairification on your looking for God.

...or you know, avoid the question again.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Monday, 3 September 2018 6:04:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was taught to believe in the God in the Jewish Bible. The God mentioned in the Jewish Bible and in the New Testament was not a god in which I could believe. I read about other gods like Apollo, Krishna, Thor etc. I concluded that all gods are merely human inventions. It seemed pointless to look further. I am sure that humans have invented many gods that I have never heard of. One can spend one's life looking for gods, vampires, demons, ghosts, devils, sprites, nymphs, mermaids, etc. Some entertaining literature has been produced on those subjects. It would be a waste of my life to spend it looking for something that only exists in the minds of the gullible. I would rather cast out superstition and deal with what exists. If you wish to retain and try to spread your superstition, if you wish to go back to the Dark Ages (A man I knew called it the Golden Age of Faith), if you wish to insult people who try to use their reason instead of accepting superstitious nonsense and if you wish to turn society's clock back to deny woman's choice and homosexuals the freedom to live a life suitable for them you will continue to do so. You are not alone. There are many like you. I shudder at the thought, but that's the way it is. Superstition will continue to exist.
Posted by david f, Monday, 3 September 2018 7:03:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Not Now Soon,

.

You wrote :

« History will likely tell how much Paul did for starting up churches and spreading Christianity. But as far as I'm aware Paul did not write and of the gospels or any books of the Old Testament. There are verses in the Old Testament stating that God is against homosexuality. Specifically against the act »
.

Hyam Maccoby, whom I mentioned in my previous post, was a British Jewish scholar, known for his theories of the historical Jesus and the historical origins of Christianity. This is what he has to say :

« As the Jerusalem group of the original disciples of Jesus gradually became aware of Paul's teachings, bitter hostility ensued between them. However, the Jewish Rebellion of 66–70 soon brought a violent end to the Jerusalem sect, and the Gentile Church founded by Paul emerged as the winner by default »

Maccoby viewed the Book of Acts as a later attempt by the Pauline Church to present the relations between Paul and the Jerusalem disciples as harmonious, thus presenting the Pauline Church as legitimised by the chain of apostolic succession reaching back to the original disciples of Jesus. Maccoby also conjectured that the Jewish-Christian sect of Ebionites may have been an authentic offshoot of the original Jerusalem community.
.

It is interesting to note that Saul of Tarsus and his friend and disciple, Luke, wrote most of the New Testament – 50.96% (undisputedly) and perhaps as much as 64% if (as some experts consider) it is confirmed that the Letter to the Hebrews was written by Saul and that Luke did, indeed, assist Peter in the writing of his First Epistle (as a number of experts have conjectured) – as the style is very elevated and manifests a command of the Greek language which only Luke (among the New Testament writers) possessed.

Luke’s (undisputed) word count is 37,933 and Saul’s is 32,407 compared to a total word count for the New Testament of 138,020 :

http://www.bible-history.com/new-testament/authors.html

http://www.catholic-resources.org/Bible/NT-Statistics-Greek.htm
.

My opinion on divorce is on page 3.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 4 September 2018 1:57:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//There are verses in the Old Testament stating that God is against homosexuality. Specifically against the act.//

There are verses in the Old Testament stating that God is against a whole range of bizarre and highly specific acts. To my mind, he comes across as a bit OCD. Which reminds me of another of my favourite hymns:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irlz5iCc5NM

But yeah, according to the Old Testament god is against the acts of wearing poly-cotton blends, eating shellfish, wearing glasses inside church, attending church whilst menstruating, and a whole ton of other mental stuff. Although in somebody with OCD, the price for transgressing their own weird and arbitrary rules is a sense of anxiety, whereas God tends to demand stoning as a punishment.

Christians very sensibly ignore almost all of the passages detailing these loony strictures... except the one about gays, which some (not all; I suspect not even most) arbitrarily pluck out of the list things God hates and place reverently upon a pedestal.

It's not really about being a devout Christian who is faithful to every word of the Bible; it's about picking and choosing the bits they like. Which is fine and everybody does it... but I think it speaks volumes about people when the bits they're picking and choosing just happen to be the ones about how much God hates gays, and never, say, the ones about not wearing poly-cotton blends.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 4 September 2018 10:03:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Banjo Peterson.

The Historic Jesus theories are a copout. 20 years ago people argued that Jesus didn't exist. Now apparently either people found new evidence that corroborates Jesus existing, or they got tired of Christians not listening and tried to recreate the narrative of who Jesus was instead of taking the few sources that actually talk about who Jesus is and what He did. It's a copout told by those that don't believe Jesus existed in the first place but aren't honest about their perspective.

The same is true of the Jewish scholar's retelling of Paul. Pure speculation. Loud philosophy trying to pass it self as historic facts.

To David F.

I hope there is more to your story then as you've described. As of now it reads that you were taught about God, but rejected Him. Not that you sought God or tried to find out if He exists or not. Then in a pursuit for answers you looked for a god you could agree with. This is far from the expressed statement that you've looked more then I know.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 4 September 2018 1:52:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear NNS,

I haven't looked for gods, vampires, demons, ghosts, devils, sprites, nymphs, mermaids, etc. It would be silly to look for something that you have no reason to think is there. You haven't looked for any gods outside of the one in your own superstition. Yet you expect others to look for the god you believe in. That is totally unreasonable.

The god of the Bible is a ridiculous creature telling people they shouldn't eat of the of the tree of knowledge. Any reasonable god would want people to use their brains. The god of the Bible submits his son to torture, destroys almost all life on earth in a flood, hardens Pharaoh's heart, prohibits mixing fibres, condemns homosexuals who wouldn't exist if he hadn't created them etc. If you follow the King James Bible the old monster even creates evil.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

If I were going to follow any god, I certainly wouldn't follow the old reprobate in the Bible. He is worse than I am. He is certainly not good enough for me. He doesn't come close to my standards of behaviour.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 4 September 2018 3:17:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear NNS,

I would like to help you to be freed from your delusion that there is a supernatural entity. There is actually no evidence that such a being exists. it is simply a delusion shared by many.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 4 September 2018 10:35:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Not Now Soon,

.

You wrote :

« The Historic Jesus theories are a copout … The same is true of the Jewish scholar's retelling of Paul … »
.

That comes as something of a surprise, Not Now Soon. I was (apparently mistakenly) under the impression you believed that Jesus really did exist, that he was, indeed, an historical figure – not simply a myth. You add that the same goes for Paul (Saul of Tarsus). That’s really is a surprise !

Admittedly, in the absence of falsifiable evidence for most of the bible narratives, much is left to conjecture – but I had no idea you denied their historical authenticity.

While it is true that the existence of Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost has never been established beyond all reasonable doubt, I, personally, consider that Jesus probably did exist – but not so the other two. In fact, I suspect that there were several Jesus born and bred in Nazareth at the time. Jesus was as about as common a first name then as John is today.

As for Saul of Tarsus, so far as I am aware, I don’t think any reputable historian has ever expressed any doubts about his existence as an historical figure.

There are three non-Christian sources which are typically used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus — two mentions in Josephus and one mention in the Roman source, Tacitus. Apart from that, it seems there are no independent eye-witness accounts of Jesus nor of any of the events mentioned in the New Testament relating to his life. I understand, there is no trace of him ever having written anything either.

It seems to me that if anybody’s life depended on such flimsy “proof” it could only be judged insufficient. As for “proof” of a God, Holy Ghost, angels, arch-angels, devils or other nebulous entities … I’m afraid there’s nothing much to go on – apart from what religious believers declare has been “revealed” to them in some mysterious fashion, as related in the bible.

.

(Continued …)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 5 September 2018 2:17:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

(Continued …)

.

I have full respect for your religious beliefs, Not Now Soon, whatever they may happen to be, but I cannot see how the object of those beliefs could possibly be deemed to correspond to objective reality in the absence of falsifiable evidence of such reality.

Until such falsifiable evidence is forthcoming, I think one should content oneself with the idea that they are simply beliefs – nothing more and nothing less.

Naturally, if you consider that there is such falsifiable evidence for your beliefs, Not Now Soon, I should be pleased to hear of it.

In the meantime, I, personally, am willing to examine all and any theories relating to the narratives of the bible as well as their authors (supposed or real), with interest and without prejudice – on the contrary – with an open mind.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 5 September 2018 2:25:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear NNS,

Since there is no reliable evidence to support your beliefs you may have doubts in their veracity. Rather than accept that fact you may try to involve others to share your delusions. The fact that you have delusions does not mean you are of unsound mind. Many people believe things for which there is no proof. They may be good parents, reliable workers and good citizens. As long as their beliefs do not result in violations of the law or cause them to be a nuisance they may believe what they like. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Baha'i, Shintoists, animists and others have beliefs unsupported by evidence. In a free society any belief is allowed, but illegal actions are not allowed. I prefer not to believe anything for which there is no evidence although I am sure I believe some things which are unsupported by fact. It is not worthwhile and impossible to check out all assertions one is subjected to. However, others may have what beliefs they like. The problem is that some who have beliefs for which there is no evidence will try to get others to join in those beliefs and may feel affronted that others refuse to support those beliefs. My neighbor is a nice old lady who subscribes to New Age magazines. She passed some on to me. When I showed no interest she stopped passing them on to me. You, on the other hand, get annoyed that I don't share your unsubstantiated beliefs. Since you don't investigate the unsubstantiated beliefs of others why should you expect me or anybody else to investigate yours?
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 5 September 2018 7:20:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Banjo Peterson.

I believe that Jesus and Paul were both historic people and really did exist. My complaint is the differentiation between Jesus as described in the bible, and recreating who people say Jesus was and calling it the historic Jesus. It's poppycock to think after 2000 years past Jesus living on earth, that anyone will have anything reliable to add to who Jesus was, or correct any source of who Jesus was. The bible itself is a reliable source of information regarding Jesus.

I wish I could believe you when you say you have respect for Christianity. Before this conversation, I thought that you did have respect for it even if you disagreed with it. However on a topic of marriage and divorce, you've made the conversation your soap box against the Catholic Church. Your actions speak differently then your words regarding any respect to Christianity.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 6 September 2018 2:31:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To David F.

This is going to sound harsh, but bare with it. The question is genuine.

Why should I trust your view? Or trust you?

Based on you comments in just this conversation, you made a drastic switch of perspective from you've studied more then I know to you couldn't be bothered to even look into it. You've said earlier you came to talk about marriage, divorce, and civil law. But when I challenged that that and called it out as a lie, as well as encouraged to talk about the topic of divorce, you moved on. Divorce was not even pretended to be approached. Even with those criticisms you and Toni pat yourselves on your backs for (falsely) finding out my true reason for the criticism. Apparently to be manipulative and make you look bad.

With this kind of dissuasion going on, trying to say you're on my side and want to help is a far cry to believe. Trust usually comes from either being reliable, or having someone's back (often a combination of the two). With this conversation in mind why should I trust you? With past conversations in mind, why should I trust you?

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 6 September 2018 3:11:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

I would like to show you that God is real, let you have that reassurement when life gets hard that God is still out there. Even if we never get to the parts of why to trust Christianity to be from God and how to grow in your faith, just knowing He's there is enough to start you on the same journey that I was on when I was a teen. Knowing God was real but not which religion(s) (if any) were from him. Then searching the religions that claim to have God in them. It changes your approach if you recognize that God is there when you set out to see which things are from Him and which aren't. (If you don't think He's there then your looking for Him will be shallow or non existent. Essentially exactly as you've described your journey when I challenged your searching for God).

But all that said. Why would you trust me in this? In our conversations things got ugly, bitter, and angry. Both on your side as well as my own. Though I haven't lied to you, or changed my stance showing an unreliability to it, there has grown some bad blood between us. I can recognize this. And if you were willing I would try to be more patient with you instead of reacting to your different attempts to start a fight. Then I could try to teach you about God from what I know. Several years looking into it. More years after finding my conclusions to test them and seek more insight from God. And just a knowledge from trying to apply what I know and seeing the results happen in life. I could have more to teach you if you would let me. It would show you that they aren't delusions.

(Don't ask for examples of you trying to start a fight, in this conversation alone there are enough examples to make this point and that would turn this conversation to finally a dead conversation. Instead take the criticism, while I try to be more patient).

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 6 September 2018 3:12:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

By the way, what makes you think that I don't investigate the beliefs of others. There is a lot of good insight out there in the world. Some things you have to look at from a more in depth approach. Kind of like looking at a blue print of a house or a building. Most of the design relates to the other parts in the blueprint, so looking at it as a whole design fills you in on the structure of the house and how it fits together. The same way is true with people and their understanding of the world. Look at the people, and look at what they believe. Then you can better see the structure of their beliefs and the valid aspects of their beliefs, or the deterrents of them based on the whole structure of their life, their character, or their struggles. This goes beyond just religious beliefs. However, when you find out something that is true, you don't just ignore it's true or not when someone else believes differently. When I found out that God is real, that's not some delusion or some philosophy. That was a discovery I had to deal with in relation to everything else. When a person's philosophy about the world or about God leaves that aspect out that He is real, then that philosophy is missing a piece. A very big one. I keep that in mind while looking at their beliefs. Some still have merit, others do not.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 6 September 2018 3:14:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear NNS,

I don't think you investigate the beliefs of others because you have admitted your lack of knowledge of other's beliefs. You keep insisting that your God is real. Allah, Krishna, Zeus etc. is real to those that believe in them. You don't believe in the non-Christian gods. Those who believe in other gods see no reason to believe in the Christian god. I see no reason to believe in any of them. We are both non-believers to many gods. I see no reason to believe in your god in preference to any other god. I have read the Bible, and I think the God you believe in is a monster as defined by his acts. I feel it is better to believe that such a monster is merely a creation of the human mind rather than to believe such a monster actually exists.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 6 September 2018 9:23:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David F.

I get tired of arguing with you. Over and over again I get dragged away from any position and into personal attacks. I'm not even sure you're aware that you're doing this.

I don't think you've done much investigating of religions either. In order to investigate them you have to be willing to offer at least a little benefit of the doubt to see it from their eyes and see if there is merit in it. "If God exists and their religion is right...." Then you can look at their statements, perspectives and observations and see if they hold any insight. From what you've written, it sounds like you already decided your conclusions about God before any investigation of any religion began. If a detective did this it would harm the investigative process and might let a guilty person go while an innocent person takes the heat. So I've doubt about your investigation too.

Moving on, away from an already established point, that we don't trust each other. I have an idea. You said you want to help me. I know your help isn't really help, but if you really believe I am living in delusion, and do want to help, I say go ahead. I will judge to see if my conclusions on your help are justified or if you are actually sincere. One point of interest though. I know God is real not just by religion, but by experience within my life. On that point, I searched for God a long time after I found enough experiences to bat away any doubts that God doesn't exist. In my opinion the best you can do with that in mind is try to point to how any religion isn't from God.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 9 September 2018 4:59:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

Either way, make your best attempt to "help me away from the delusion." Then we can both move on. If I see any merit to what you say I might be able to move on from your contributions in any conversation that that has faith in it's topics. Especially this topic where I thought the topic of divorce was worth while enough to not be derailed by the ongoing conversations of God existing or not existing. If nothing else this is an opportunity to make your case worth while and not be ignored as a troll.

For my part I will try to not reply and let you finish saying what you have to offer. Or if you have a question posed to me, I will try to keep the answer short and only about what you asked.

If you are willing and were sincere, then go ahead and try to "help me."
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 9 September 2018 5:03:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//I know God is real not just by religion, but by experience within my life.//

Perhaps, but it seems to me that you're not using the word 'real' in the sense that most people use it, i.e. having an objective, verifiable existence in the same way that, say, cabbages do.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 9 September 2018 9:48:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear NNS,

You may be beyond help. You may continue to confuse superstition with truth. I am also tired of arguing with you. However, when you post your wishes about turning the clock back to a less free society in the areas of homosexual rights and a woman's right to abortion I will post in opposition. Adoption is no solution to abortion because adoption assumes a continuation of pregnancy when a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 9 September 2018 4:10:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's a cop out David F, but you know what whatever. If I post something you disagree with and you see that as justification to follow that disagreement to another conversation, then that counts as a troll. The agreement to let you try to help me as you say you want to, was more for me to give you a chance to explain yourself in light of your contributions to this conversation that could have been about discussing the merits and flaws of divorce. And when divorce should be considered versus when people should push through and try to make it work.

Good luck where ever you go, but don't expect many replies from me in the future. I've given you the chance to justify yourself, and you didn't even bother.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 9 September 2018 7:32:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear NNS,

You certainly don't have to answer me. You cannot convince me that an imaginary entity exists. I can't justify myself to you. One does not convince by logical argument a person under a delusion that he or she is under a delusion. Circumstances might cause you to examine your delusion. They might not. Till we meet again.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 9 September 2018 8:07:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy