Theological Opinions , PART II

[klatukatt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Whatever you want, EXCEPT Trinitarianism. Or polytheism. Or a negation of Universalism.

What is wrong with those? I am muchly confused. It may be the lack of sleep however.


And why can't Abraham, Jesus, and Mohammad all be prophets of one god?

And why is there always only one god? I have met a few mortals that posess god like qualities. In olden times, before monothesim, they would have been worshiped.

[Falagar]

It's been interesting! I fear I'm going to be overwhelming you with responding to this monster two-parter post, though. It took me hours to write. I will probably not have much time tomorrow or the day after for writing more on this thread, either . I'm preparing for my final exams, you see.

So am I, should actually have been reading up on it while posting in this thread. I don't have the time to read through and answer all your points right now (life once again ruining for philosophy), but as you asked how I think it all happened I can try to give a version of how it might have evolved here.

Background: On one side you have the largest and most advanced empire that part of the world ever has seen. It's been through some heavy social and political changes in the past 100 years. Where you once had a constantly squabbling and unstable senate you now have an "all-powerful" emperor (though offcially still only "priceps"). The empire spreads greco-roman culture, building cities (pòlises) and spreading greek culture.

On the other you have rural areas, where the majority of the populaion is confined. Not only do you get a clash between the different forms of civilisation, but also a clash between ways of understanding the world - the formal and tradition-bound polytheism of the Greek and Roman world, and the more personal and strictly moral religion of the jews - both, I'm guessing, with a lot dissatisified adherents, as both had become more a formality for the majority of people than a true beliefsystem.

The Levant became a pretty central area (geographically), between the greco-roman world in the north-west, the (partly greco-) egyptian culture in the south-west, and the Parthian empire which had a ressurection of Persian culture to the east. Becoming a part of the Roman empire opens for lots of cultural influences from the outside world, trade and city-building makes for a closer contact between the various culture on a much wider scale than earlier. Roads and trade-ships also makes it much easier for people, and thus ideas, to spread to the various parts of the empire.

Along comes Jesus - perhaps partly inspired by greek and eastern thoughts but definitely with his own twists - who manages to use dissatisfaction with both the political situation (the area having recently been subjucated by the Roman empire) and the religious (people still being close to their religion, but not happy with the current leadership, and the gentiles having no close relationship with their religion at all) to gather followers around him. He uses old prophecies and the theory of himself as the son of God to sement his teachings. As the teachings and rumours of his claimed divinity spread, stories of miraculous feats appear - probably encouraged by his followers, and either rejected or dismissed as black magic by the jewish leaders. But Jesus is too charismatic and their methods aren't effective enough, so they appeal to the Roman authorities to intervene. The Roman procurator, not wanting to interfere with local religious disputes but neither wanting to upset the deals he's made with the religious leaders, decides to have Jesus executed as a rebel. But how can a Roman procurator be more powerful than God's own Son? Impossible. But neither are the Christians strong enough to resist and protect Jesus from the Roman authorities. Some of those closest to Jesus come up with the idea that this was all a part of the plan (Jesus himself probaby alluded to this when he understood how fragile his position was), and that Jesus didn't 'die' - he conquered death!

Truth mingles with metaphors and fiction; the idea that he rose from the dead needs some sort of confirmation, and the apostles - knowing in their hearts that he had risen, feeling his presence - might not have seen him that accurately, but he talked to them. 30 years later they can describe how he looked and what he said in detail. The stories vary, according to what the different apostles believe to be the central points in Jesus' teachings. Many possibilities here, of course.

The histories of Alexander the Great and the top-politicians in the classic greek area was followed by the greatest politicians, writers and minds of those times. The life of Jesus was followed by his closest friends, "common people" and jewish opposition in a pretty rural area with low literacy - but with long and proud traditions of religious thought. There were already rumours while Jesus was alive, and 30 years is quite enough time to give the stories flesh (more imaginative stories appear later, but as they are sometimes contrary to those already established there are lots of disputes on what really happened). Eyewitness who claim to have seen the miracles appear (just as there are people telling stories of alien abductions, telepathy, spells (see f.ex. Wicca) and miraculous events today). The most widespread ones are written down.

Got to run again, hope this clarifies some issues. I'll see if I can answer your points later, but I'll have to get started on exam-stuff myself. Won't have much time for this thread before the 14th, I suspect.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by klatukatt

What is wrong with those? I am muchly confused. It may be the lack of sleep however.

Unitarianism is the doctrine that there is One God, in one person, as opposed to One God in three persons, or many Gods. Also, Unitarianism and Universalism (the belief that all men are saved) have joined to form their own denomination.

And why can't Abraham, Jesus, and Mohammad all be prophets of one god?

No reason why they can't be, but I do think that not many Unitarians believe in them as prophets. Unless you count Muslims, since Islam is actually a Unitarian religion.

And why is there always only one god? I have met a few mortals that posess god like qualities. In olden times, before monothesim, they would have been worshiped.

Well, the name 'Unitarian' sort of necessitates one God, doesn't it?

[Lief Erikson]

I'll respond, Falagar, after you've finished your response. I realize you have exams, and so do I, which is part of the reason for my holding back from responding now! So take your time .

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

No reason why they can't be, but I do think that not many Unitarians believe in them as prophets. Unless you count Muslims, since Islam is actually a Unitarian religion.

Only with a few certain religions, the only ones I know of being Christianity and Judaism. Muhammad preached to the polytheists who lived around him that their ancestors were burning in hell. That preaching, naturally, didn't make him any friends.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Hmm? What exactly does that have to do with my reference to Islam as Unitarian?

[Lief Erikson]

Sorry, I've always been under the impression that Unitarians try to say all religions are acceptable and really the same religion when it comes down to the nuts and bolts. If Unitarianism is focused on one God though, then my point there was rather irrelevant.

Do you know of other religions Muslims accept as paths to God, aside from Judaism and Christianity?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Unitarianism actually means the belief in one God in one Person, as opposed to Trinitarianism. The Unitarian Denomination joined with the Universalist denomination a while back to create the Unitarian Universalists; I imagine this is what you are thinking re: all religions are acceptable, though technically this teaching is known as indifferentism, and may be found in nearly any religious group.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Sorry, I've always been under the impression that Unitarians try to say all religions are acceptable and really the same religion when it comes down to the nuts and bolts. If Unitarianism is focused on one God though, then my point there was rather irrelevant.

Do you know of other religions Muslims accept as paths to God, aside from Judaism and Christianity?

I don't think so- they'd have to be People of the Book, and to have lived before Mohammed.

Religions like Bahai and Sikhism that recognise One God are rejected because they arose after the Koran was propogated- I think that's why strict Sunni Salafists regard Shiites as apostates, because they accept the Imams as prophetic successors to Mohammed.

[klatukatt]

I always thought of Unitarianism as "one faith" rather than "one god."

Ah, organized religion is annoying anyway.

[GreyMouser]

About Talmudic references to Jesus, found this:


http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html
The Jesus Narrative In The Talmud

Written from a Jewish perspective. Like anything to do with the Jews, there's a lot of stuff out there written by nutcases, cultists, racists and people with their own axe to grind, so it's hard to judge how reliable anything is.

[Lief Erikson]

I'll just cite the introduction of the article. I read the whole thing, GrayMouser, and it was interesting. A well-constructed argument. I can't accept it as conclusive at all on the matter, of course, as it's an argument rather than an unbiased explanation of both sides. Hence, it doesn't cite all the professionals who disagree with it or go into as much depth on their positions. There is only one paragraph in the parts after he discusses the quotations in which he gives some summaries of opposing views, without getting into the evidence or reasons for those views. Then he spends all the rest of the article working to debunk those views.

Originally Posted by the article

We will quickly realize that there are great difficulties in stating that any of these texts refer to Jesus. We will see that a large number of historians and talmudists have addressed these issues and have concluded that either none of these passages refer to Jesus or that they refer to a proto-Jesus, whose life was later obfuscated by the theologically motivated rewriting of history.

I'm citing this just to show that it's all an argument and far from an unbiased examination of those passages.

Meanwhile, I've got a couple more sources who back the connection between the Talmud and Jesus.

Originally Posted by The Case for Christ

Lapides earned a bachelor's degree in theology from Dallas Baptist University as well as a master of divinity and master of theology degree in Old Testament and Semitics from Talbot Theological Seminary. He served for a decade with the Chosen People Ministries, talking about Jesus to Jewish college students. He has taught in the Bible department of Biola University and worked for seven years as an instructor for Walk Through the Bible seminars. He is also the former president of a national network of fifteen messianic congregations.

He is a former Jew and a former extreme skeptic of Christianity as well, I might add.

In his words, "The Jewish Talmud refers to Jesus in derogatory ways." (p. 184)

Here's a quote also from Professor M. Wilcox, who wrote the following in an article that appeared in a scholarly reference work.

"The Jewish traditional literature, although it mentions Jesus only quite sparingly (and must in any case be used with caution), supports the gospel claim that he was a healer and miracle-worker, even though it ascribes these activities to sorcery. In addition, it preserves the recollection that he was a teacher, and that he had disciples (five of them), and that ata least in the earlier Rabbinic period not all of the sages had finally made up their minds that he was a 'heretic' or a 'deceiver.'"

Here's an additional quote from the About Judaism website:

Originally Posted by About Judaism

A story about a man named Yeshu can be found in the Talmud. There is debate whether this Yeshu in the Talmud is the same Jesus who later became a Christian divinity.

According to the Talmud, Yeshu was the son of a Jewish woman named Miriam who was betrothed to a carpenter. "Betrothed" means she was legally married to him, but she was not yet living with him or having sexual relations with him. The story says that Miriam was either raped by or voluntarily slept with Pandeira, a Greek or Roman soldier. Miriam than gave birth to Yeshu, who was considered a "mamzer" (bastard), a product of an adulterous relationship. The Talmud describes Yeshu as a heretic who dabbled in sorcery and lead the people astray. Later, the Sanhedrin (the Jewish "Supreme Court") ordered Yeshu stoned to death and his dead body was hung from a tree until nightfall after his death, in accordance with the ancient Jewish punishment for heretics.

While some believe there is no connection between the Talmudic Yeshu and the Christian Jesus, others believe there is a connection. The main inconsistency between the Talmudic and Christian story is that during the time that Jesus was killed, the Romans ruled and the Sanhedrin did not have the power to impose the death penalty. Thus, some Jews believe that today's popular Christian ideas about Jesus are based on a melding of the Talmudic story of Yeshu and the historian Josephus' writing about Jesus, which included his execution by the Romans.

http://judaism.about.com/od/beliefs/a/jesus.htm

This seems to undermine problems such as the time gaps that the other article emphasized as being important discrepancies. But I haven't yet got a counter argument to the one you posted, GrayMouser, that goes into as much depth as he does. It's got to have been convenient that that article is the first one that turns up if you type down "Jesus" and "Talmud," on Google .

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But I haven't yet got a counter argument to the one you posted, GrayMouser, that goes into as much depth as he does. It's got to have been convenient that that article is the first one that turns up if you type down "Jesus" and "Talmud," on Google .

Hey, I've had my ears shot off so many times by the experts on this site that I try to keep a low profile.
"I didn't say it... it was this other guy..."

[Lief Erikson]

Lol.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

I thought that the Israelites had invaded out of the Sinai desert to take the land of milk and honey from its inhabitants? In that case, the actions of the Midianites would be more like the peole defending themselves against invading Nazi armies- quite a close analogy, in fact, given the Israelite commitment to genocide.

I believe that the Midianites were one of the tribes that lived in the desert outside of Canaan. Unless I'm mistaken, that means that they wouldn't have been one of Israel's Canaanite targets. *Examines the notes.* Ah! It appears I'm not mistaken. In the notes on the NIV text, written by the scholars who assembled it, it says, "Balak king of Moab did not know that Israel had no plans against him."
There is more evidence for this in Numbers 22:2-6.

Now Balak son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites, and Moab was terrified because there were so many people. Indeed, Moab was filled with dread because of the Israelites.

The Moabites said to the elders of Midian, "This horde is going to lick up everything around us, as an ox licks up the grass of the field."

So Balak son of Zippor, who was king of Moab at that time, sent messengers to summon Balaam son of Beor, who was at Pethor, near the River, in his native land. Balak said:

"A people has come out of Egypt; they cover the face of the land and have settled next to me. Now come and put a curse on these people, because they are too powerful for me. Perhaps then I will be able to defeat them and drive them out of the country. For I know that those you bless are blessed, and those you curse are cursed."

This shows that the Moabites and Midianites launched a preemptive strike against Israel out of fear of what Israel might do to them. Israel had no plan of attacking Moab or Midian. If Israel had possessed such a plan, they probably would have spoken of it in a straightforward manner. After all, they were straightforward enough about their attack on the Canaanites having been unprovoked.

It is also well worth noting that the Lord had already given Moab and Midian warning that their planned attack was against his will and would only bring about their destruction, if they proceeded. In full view of "all the princes of Moab," Balaam spoke the words of the Lord:

Originally Posted by Numbers 23:5-9

"How beautiful are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling places, O Israel!

"Like valleys they spread out, like gardens beside a river, like aloes planted by the Lord, like cedars beside the waters. Water will flow from their buckets, their seed will have abundant water.

"Their king will be greater than Agag; their kingdom will be exalted.

"God brought them out of Egypt; they have the strength of a wild ox. They devour hostile nations and break their bones in pieces; with their arrows they pierce them. Like a lion they crouch and lie down, like a lioness-who dares to rouse them?

"May those who bless you be blessed and those who curse you be cursed!"

Moab and Midian plotted unjustly against Israel, so the Lord actually went out of his way to warn them of what his will was, through their chief sorcerer. They engaged in an underhanded, demon-style attack in spite of being fully warned of what was to come, if they did.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Plagues are sent by God to kill sinners?- wouldn't that mean that doctors, nurses, aid workers, researchers etc are doing the work of the Devil?

You're making a big generalization. Remember that Jesus healed the sick. Sometimes, a plague might be from the Lord. Other times, a plague might be from the devil. Instances of demon inspired plague are predicted for the End Times, in the Book of Revelation, and of demon inspired disease are spoken of in the Book of Job and the Gospels. Then there also are plenty of times that people get busted without an enemy attack or a punishment from God. Jesus is very clear about such cases existing in the New Testament, when he talks about apparently random deaths.

And as for doctors sinning when they do happen to work against a plague that God sent- I think it's very clear that they are working out of compassion and without understanding of what's going on. God is very clear in the New Testament that he is much more merciful in cases where people don't know that they're sinning.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

So you think indulging in pagan fertility rites is a capital crime.

Yep. I think God has justly destroyed people because of sexual immorality before. This also combines sexal immorality with idolatry, making it far worse. In the times of the Old Testament, hard justice was necessary, and God exacted judgment with justice to keep Israel pure. It's his right, as Creator, to do that. And it's our ignorance, as humans, to condemn it.

God exacted justice with regard to Israel and the surrounding nations, bringing a sharp and deserved penalty to the crimes committed.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Two-year-olds with dark heritages? Killing babies because they've inherited the sins of their fathers?

No.

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 24:16

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

But when a child receives and embraces the sins of his father, he'll become sinful just like his father and the sin will have passed down from father to child. More often than not, this is exactly what happens. If a parent has anger problems, often his child will have such problems too. If a parent is abusive, often the child will be too. If the parent is sexually immoral, generally he'll teach the child to be too. On the other hand, if a parent is a very good parent, he'll often teach his children to be too. So blessings pass from father to children, and curses too. The good deeds of a father can lead to blessings for his children, and the sins of a father can lead to curses for his children. We see that all the time in regular life. It has been admitted repeatedly by people on this website, who see parental influence as generally directing the course children take throughout life. Children tend to become like their parents . . . and if children's parents are killed off by invaders, often they'll want revenge. Especially the more aggressive children, and males are generally more aggressive than females. Males also, in my experience, tend to have certain leadership qualities and females helpmate qualities. Males are designed to be the head of the family, though this, of course, doesn't mean that they get to treat women at all like slaves. That's just hideous, where it occurs.

Now, if you are living with a conquering nation that you know has destroyed your parents and their people, I suspect that you'd also be highly inclined to check out exactly what practices your parents and their people were engaged in. That would be a big temptation, because those are the people you come from. Further, if you're a man and so are going to become leader of a household, you might be able to lead your wife and your children astray. You also might very likely want revenge.

The Moabite and Midianite children had a wicked background. They had a dark heritage. Remember also that the Old Testament talks about a time when Israel opposed the will of the Lord and let the children live. The consequence was predictable and disastrous- those people led Israel astray.

Here was the command of the Lord concerning the Canaanites.

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 20:16-18

However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them- the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites- as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshipping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.

That was why the children had to be destroyed, and the Lord was later proven to be right, when they disobeyed him.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

This is even worse than the kid who murders his parents and asks for mercy because he's an orphan.

"We just killed your father in war, then slaughtered your granny, mother, sisters and and your baby brother against the rocks; now out of the kindness of our heart we're going to enslave you because you don't have a family to take care of you."

Your argument has changed, you notice. Previously, you were arguing that they were being raped. Now you're arguing simply that they were being abused by their families being killed.

Even if they were being treated wrongly by all their relations being killed off, they themselves were taken care of rather than left to starve. So we can drop them out of the argument altogether, can't we, and just focus on the killings of their relations, seeing whether that was right or wrong? Because your argument now is that it's because of those wrongs that the young women were wronged, which means that you're not talking about any specific wrongs against the women themselves.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

So, Leif, you would have bashed the old woman's head in, plunged the spear into the young mother's heart, and then smashed her baby's head against the rocks, secure in the knowledge that this was a righteous act and pleasing in the eyes of the Lord- more in sorrow than anger, I'm sure.

Yes. Except that actually, I rather suspect the Israelite attack was engaged in much more in anger than in sorrow. These people had gotten 25,000 Israelites killed in an unprovoked attack. That would get me mad.

The children would have wanted revenge. The Lord said that they would take up the sins of their parents if left alive, and later in the scripture we see the consequences of being merciful with these people. Those consequences are exactly what the Lord predicted and were a reason for the destruction of so many.

Also, I would argue that God has the right to destroy people if he wants. He made people, so he has the right to kill them again. God killing children, or authorizing the destruction of children, is not the same as humans doing it. God has a great deal more knowledge, and sufficient knowledge to act in this way in perfect justice. Humans don't have that ability.

The only times when Israel kills children are when God tells them to. God generally detests the killing of children and considers it a terrible sin:

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 12:31

You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.

Originally Posted by 18:9-13

When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord, and because of these detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before the Lord your God.

Children clearly have a great deal of value in the eyes of the God of the Old Testament. However, he knew that these children would lead to the corruption of Israel if left alive. He has sufficient knowledge to make that decision about people's lives, and humans do not.

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

I think I'll take my "relativist" morality, thanks.

A morality that leads most liberals nowadays to participate in the slaughter of tens of millions of children in America alone, through abortion, and hundreds of millions worldwide.

[Lief Erikson]

I've got an idea about how the Tower of Babel languages break-up might have occurred. Those who don't believe in the Tower of Babel account from scripture don't need to reply, but for those who do, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

It could, of course, have been simply a miracle. However, I have a non-miraculous possibility to suggest.

In the US right now, cops from town to town in Virginia aren't able to communicate with one another or work with one another. This is because, to make their work easier and more efficient, they developed little code words to describe different activities. They developed these words into a virtual language, and police forces in other towns have developed their own languages too, and they use some of the same words as the other people's code languages. However, those words don't always mean the same thing from one police force to the other, so when they try to work jointly, often their operations have trouble and sometimes break down. Because of this, the code words have only recently been banned altogether in Virginia.

I wonder if something similar might have happened with the Tower of Babel. Different groups of laborers would probably have been working steadily at different job tasks and it's very likely they would have developed their own words or catch-phrases for their parts of construction. Expressions and such to simplify talking and give quick instructions could easily have cropped up.

These might have been developing in all the groups, much like the code words in the Virginia police forces, and the same as with those Virginia police forces, could have ended up resulting in a number of errors. That would have led to immense frustration.

I just wonder if this might have been how the language break-up occurred.

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'll respond, Falagar, after you've finished your response. I realize you have exams, and so do I, which is part of the reason for my holding back from responding now! So take your time .

Said earlier in the thread that I'd try to answer your posts after the 14th (my last exam), but have worked every day - excepting the weekend - since then, and it being Christmas I really don't have the time (or will, dead tired :-/) to try a coherent argument. I'd probably have to go through the few last pages to get into the argument again, try to see where I think you're wrong/have misintepretated my posts, expand on/explain earlier ideas, and look up sources - which I'm not exactly up for at the moment. Too much of a holiday mood around here (and alchohol, of course )

If there are any of my points you think I'm especially far out on or if you want my opinion on something I'll answer those, but the discussion as it has evolved has IMO become much too entangled in speculations (and a few of my points seems to have been a bit rushed) to continue - either way I won't have time to make any decent posts again in a while, by which time everyone's probably lost interest.

[hectorberlioz]

Interesting theory Lief...

[hectorberlioz]

SisAunt, this is the reply:

Well, I'm not even Catholic (I'm Orthodox), but I thought Vatican II was pretty darned per-historically liberal, their main intention being to try and "popularize" theology and mass....but you know, in the end, it's not how "comfortable" and "up-to-date" a church is that people seek.

Now, what I "thought" when Vatican II happened, I can't tell you...I was born in '87.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

More like, "I am Orthodox, and therefore I think the Second Vatican Council was pretty liberal".

[Nurvingiel]

From Homosexual marriage II

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Do you mean Church of England? I'll certainly grant that.

Haha, well, be nice to them too, but I meant Christians who only go to church on Christmas and Easter. (The Church of England is CofE anyway. )

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

There is more than one way to be a good Catholic, but they are set within fairly strictly defined parameters. Within those parameters, diversity is welcomed, but those parameters are a must. This is a big difference between the Anglican Communion and the Roman. The Anglican religion doesn't really have a strong central leadership; the primate of any given Church is a primus inter pares, nothing more, and the head of the communion of the whole is the same, a primus inter pares. A consequence of this is that what to believe and what not to believe is largely up to individual, whereas the leadership in the Roman Church is endowed with the highest authority known to man, and their word, to put it briefly, goes. If you deny the Catholic Church, you are not a Catholic.

That all makes sense.

It's true, we don't have centralised leadership. I like that. This gives the Anglican church to have a quite significant group of liberal Anglicans. Of course, there is a very significant group of conservative Anglicans too. We also don't have the parameters you make reference too, I know what you mean, and I don't think the same thing exists within the Anglican church.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Are you saying that there is no objective right and wrong?

To a degree, yes. Somethings we can objectively say are right and wrong, for example, murder is wrong. All humanity agrees on that, by which I mean all societies that make up humanity all agree murder is wrong.

We don't agree on what constitutes murder, and how a murderer should be punished, but we do agree that it is wrong.

The subjective aspects would be the aspects that one group or individual believes to be wrong for logical reasons, for example, because it's against their religion, but other groups do not believe to be wrong (also for good reason).

Obviously my own definition falls into the subjective category, but that's the gist of what I believe about rightness and wrongness.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Do you believe the Gospels are eyewitness accounts?

Well, some of them were written after the fact. But I do think they were written about things that happened.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I hold to neither of those views. There are many ways to be a good Catholic, and a number of ways to read the Bible well.

I agree completely.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Not in the Greco-Roman culture, by any means, which is where Christianity was really spreading.

Oh yeah, good point. Though, the Greeks and Romans didn't write any of the Bible, so their attitudes on homosexuality would not have entered into it.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I have the same memories! *high five*

It looks like you were going to write more there.

Haha, woo!

No, that's all I was going to write.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I don't remember reading it, but I'll comment, just for you.

Christianity elevated the woman in many respects above the place she had in the pagan or Jewish worldview.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Slavery...I just had a discussion in theology class about this. Let me just say that, while slavery is certainly a social evil, it is not the greatest social evil, so that it is wrong to take certain measures to eliminate it.

What could possibly be worse than slavery? Equally evil, yes, but worse? I can't imagine anything more horrible than slavery.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Society was certainly intolerant in many ways, but Christianity is by no means representative of the society of the time. In fact, it radically departs from it.

In many ways, absolutely. But some stories in the Bible totally reflect the society at the time. Like Esau (?) who had tricked his younger brother out of his inheritance, then later in life he wants to make it up to him and assembles a great deal of wealth, sheep and such, and sends a message to his brother, but when his brother comes (with 400 men for some reason), his brother says "I have enough" and doesn't take what Esau had to offer.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Glad you're not offended. Though it doesn't show the attitudes of the day.

We're we talking about the "use of women" passage?

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Sorry, my dear, but it's just not true. The Douay is translated from the Vulgate, itself a Latin translation.

That really damages my faith in the Bible. Well, I have plenty of faith in the Bible, but not that much in the people translating it. I have very little confidence that we didn't screw it up somehow.