Theology IV

[katya]

1. Neo-Pagan (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (86%)
3. New Age (84%)
4. Mahayana Buddhism (76%)
5. Liberal Quakers (74%)

Hinduism was #6, I identify with many aspects of Hindu religion. My whole belief system is so... vague though.

I will actually read this thread later and give my opinions later, by the way.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by inked

SHOCKINGLY ......

1. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (99%)
2. Eastern Orthodox (100%)
3. Roman Catholic (100%)
4. Seventh Day Adventist (90%)
5. Orthodox Quaker (85%)

Who'd a thunk it?!!!!!!!!!!!!!

More RC than Protestant? I'm surprised by that!

[Insidious Rex]

Why is 99% greater than 100%?

[Curufin]

Sane, I was raised a 'liberal quaker' - PM me if you really want to know more.

[katya]

I considered myself a Quaker for a brief period. In between Catholicism and agnosticism.

[inked]

Well, GW, one could do the Gates business when the western church arrogated to itself the addition of the filoque on its own authority and altered the received catholic faith, I suppose.

Interesting definition of protest-ant; possible, do you think, that protesting on behalf of Luther might have had something to do with those 95 Theses thingies?

[katya]

Does anyone actually want to continue discussion of God's sex/gender here? I only brought it up myself because I was giving EAR a hard time, but I suppose it could be.... more or less interesting.

In my world religions class we've been studying Christianity now. God the Father is called the father, I think, partly because of his father-like qualities. I think he's been called motherly too, though. I don't think of it as "God is everything so by definition he's both male and female" but because he actually shows both of those sides in action.

My professor tended to think He went more toward female (in being nurturing and loving) but I think there's a pretty good balance going on. There's something akin to that balance to be found in the sephiroth of the Kabbalah.

[Empress_Flynn]

I suppose it would just have to depend on what religious beliefs you have.... is there one god? Are there many gods? Should we worship Mother Nature? Is there no real god figure but some sort of mystic force to the universe?

Those foundational beliefs would be the first step in defining how you think of god's sex/gender, I suppose

Oh yeah, I went all Jedi on you

[katya]

Yeah, I don't think of God as the Christian God myself, but that's just the one I happened to be discussing. I tend toward a "force" myself. It seems like kind of an arbitrary discussion because I don't think most people picture God as having genitalia, and whether he/she shows masculine or feminine characteristics seems kind of irrelevant at times too but if you think about it the right way it seems kind of important at the same time too. In terms of morality and other various things.

[Empress_Flynn]

Yeah, that makes sense...

I'm more of a "force" person lol... but I suppose if we go for the Christian god as the one under debate of sexuality/gender... dunno, it's difficult. Maybe first we'd have to determine what traits are typically "feminine" and which are "masculine"

Can't we just peek under the robe and figure it out?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by inked

Well, GW, one could do the Gates business when the western church arrogated to itself the addition of the filoque on its own authority and altered the received catholic faith, I suppose.

As far as I know, the Protestants never objected to the Filioque, did they?

Interesting definition of protest-ant; possible, do you think, that protesting on behalf of Luther might have had something to do with those 95 Theses thingies?

Not really a definition; just the historical origin of the term.

And yes, I'm sure protesting on behalf of Martin Luther had quite a lot to do with his heresies.

There are a lot of religious people who think it's bad to question and to hear different viewpoints because it's too dangerous, we could be fooled by Satan, or something like that.

It's true; this kind of attitude just makes me sad.

[ElizabethAnnRoger]

you know what makes me laugh about non catholics who say I dont read the bible? i love turning around and asking "Have YOU read the bible? Dont you know that the church started as ONE church?" lol then they just stare and me and say,"well...we read the bible" and kinda run away. haha!

[katya]

Eh, to an extent. Christianity started out as Judaism, pretty much. Paul and Peter had a big argument about whether the Jesus followers had to be Jews or if it could be like a new thing (for example following food laws, getting circumcised, etc.). There were many diverse kinds of Christianities until they were unified. Iirc the council of Nicea that were talking about and Constantine had a lot to do with that. But yeah, then there was pretty much one Catholic church for a while until it started dividing up.

People were really confused in the beginning of Christianity though, like right after Christ's death. For example, wondering why Jesus died when he was supposed to be the savior that would fix the world, and wondering why he didn't come back right away like everyone seemed to think he would. The Messiah, the Jews thought, would be kind of a military leader.

[Empress_Flynn]

And that's only if Jesus existed at all!



Eh... circumcision really has no bearing on health... it's more an aesthetic thing...

Personally I quite like uncircumcised...

[katya]

Yeah like with the not eating pigs because they were likely to have diseases? Hehe, I like uncircumcised too. ...

I'm kind of leaning toward Jesus having existed. In some form or another. Anything in the old testament before Babylonian captivity not so much.

[Empress_Flynn]

Yeah.. it's really not that hard to clean lol..

I can say maybe it was a concern back in those days because washing wasn't really done on a regular basis and so things weren't as sanitary... they really had no notion of bacteria... but today it's a non-issue

Hell yeah, katya!

And I think maybe my Jesus logic is that... maybe there was someone who the Biblical figure of Jesus is based on, but I'm not wholly convinced about the whole "son of God" thing... was he really "The Savior" or was he just a really cool guy who liked the preach?

[inked]

Originally Posted by Empress_Flynn

And that's only if Jesus existed at all!



Eh... circumcision really has no bearing on health... it's more an aesthetic thing...

Personally I quite like uncircumcised...

EF,

To deny Jesus existed is so 19th -not to mention - 20th century! But hey, if evidence doesn't matter, go right ahead.

YOU ERR SERIOUSLY on the matter of circumcision "really has no bearing on health". It is well documented in the medical literature that circumcision does reduce the transmission of HIV/AIDS, that uncircumcised males are more likely to transmit yeast infections (particularly when diabetic), and that transmission of some of the 102+ known sexually transmitted diseases are enhanced by the uncircumcised status in later life. Since this is the theology thread, I won't belabor the point.

Now, what do you know about the theology of circumcision as opposed to your personal preferences for or agin' it?

GW,

Some Protestants did object to the filioque, some still do, and some are even non-Trinitarian. But you know this. The question is do you know the number of years in Purgatory one gets for protestant-baiting?

The term originates in the application of the label or in the actions of those to whom it is applied? Not to put too fine an edge on it, are mackeral-snappers people who eat fish or people who because of religious dietary standards eat fish? (No offense intended but it is a pretty clear example of the principle under discussion between us here.)

Martin Luther's 95 Theses were posted for university debate in the standard internet fashion of his day: he nailed them to the church door so that all who could read would have a chance to enter the debate they wished. Of course, since they did not have the 'Moot, (Al Gore not yet having invented the Internet) the debaters did it in person. At the time he posted them they were not "heresies" but merely discussion questions. They were well within the range of then-current disputation in the Church at the university level.
Again, you know this. Add more years to penance!

Those afraid to encounter ideas other than their own are sad. Encountering does not mean acceptance of change of view, but it does mean having to think, and as Dorothy L. Sayers quoted (aciduously, I note): "Most people would rather die than think and most do."

[katya]

Originally Posted by inked

EF,

To deny Jesus existed is so 19th -not to mention - 20th century! But hey, if evidence doesn't matter, go right ahead.

Did you read her later posts? She doesn't deny his existence so much as his divinity/son-of-god-ness.

(Al Gore not yet having invented the Internet)

LOL Nice.

[Empress_Flynn]

Originally Posted by inked

EF,

To deny Jesus existed is so 19th -not to mention - 20th century! But hey, if evidence doesn't matter, go right ahead.

YOU ERR SERIOUSLY on the matter of circumcision "really has no bearing on health". It is well documented in the medical literature that circumcision does reduce the transmission of HIV/AIDS, that uncircumcised males are more likely to transmit yeast infections (particularly when diabetic), and that transmission of some of the 102+ known sexually transmitted diseases are enhanced by the uncircumcised status in later life. Since this is the theology thread, I won't belabor the point.

Now, what do you know about the theology of circumcision as opposed to your personal preferences for or agin' it?

First of all... thanks to Katya for sticking up for me...

Secondly... read what she said... I wasn't denying the existence of a man who was known as Jesus and the inspiration for Jesus Christ in the Bible, I was questioning whether or not he was truly the "son of God" and Messiah... It is in that area that the evidence is lacking. The Bible does not count as evidence. Those who are Muslim agree that a man named Jesus existed, but they do not think he was the Messiah... so my opinion is both well-founded and on topic.

Thirdly... to my knowledge, while there have been studies done on the medical benefits and risks of male circumcision, and they have found correlations between urinary tract infections and some STI's, but correlations are not causes. Furthermore, "The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns."

All in all, it comes down to a matter of personal hygiene if you you are uncircumcised. There is no, and I repeat no direct cause and relation between uncircumcised penises and HIV transmission or penile cancer: "There is evidence that circumcision results in a reduction in the incidence of penile cancer and of HIV transmission. However, there is inadequate information to recommend circumcision as a public health measure to prevent these diseases." (Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS), Canadian Medical Association Journal 1996; 154(6): 769-780 (Revised February 2008))

I wasn't debating the theology of it, I was responding to a comment made by EAR about God requiring circumcision for our health. My response was on topic and you shouldn't have a problem with me expressing my opinion, even if it goes against yours.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Empress_Flynn

And that's only if Jesus existed at all!



Eh... circumcision really has no bearing on health... it's more an aesthetic thing...

Personally I quite like uncircumcised...

EF,
Sorry you missed the at the end of my response to this quotation. It was meant to indicate tongue in cheek at your above initial quotation and in regard to the theology of circumcision as opposed to personal preference for the state of circumcision.

I am not ignoring your subsequent posts, but have not had time to address them.

Please be patient. I will be back.....