Some thoughts on Easter Sunday

[Ghel]

"To my friends, no explanation is needed; to my enemies, no explanation will suffice."

That's a great example of black and white thinking. Also called false dichotomy or excluded middle. We're not your enemies, here. We're just trying to get you to explain your beliefs/philosophy/position in a way that makes sense. You have yet to give a reason for believing the things that you do.

[Hobbs]

Lazy? I'd say it takes more effort to follow the texts and rules completely. I'm pretty certain they also put in plenty of effort to back up their version of christianity, just as the cathloic faith does, though I have no intent of asking one to find out. Takes ages to get away if you're polite about it. Are they more accurate in their beliefs than the catholics? I don't know.

However, I still maintain that it's more honest to believe all aspects of a faith to be true rather than bits and pieces justified or discarded through sophistic arguments. I'll grant an exception on the parables, since from what I remember they were tales told to give out semi-hidden meanings, but the tales about who begat who, who was speaking to a burning bush, who parted the red sea, who ended up on a cross, who rose from the dead etc - all of that accepted is more honest than doing a pick-and-mix version.

Rapscallion

All of that is accepted.

I've posted it in other threads here; "To my friends, no explanation is needed; to my enemies, no explanation will suffice."

[Rapscallion]

JW are jut lazy and don't want to do research then. The Church spends considerable amounts of time in researching ancient scriptures, scrolls and manuscripts in order to get correct interpretations/translations.

Lazy? I'd say it takes more effort to follow the texts and rules completely. I'm pretty certain they also put in plenty of effort to back up their version of christianity, just as the cathloic faith does, though I have no intent of asking one to find out. Takes ages to get away if you're polite about it. Are they more accurate in their beliefs than the catholics? I don't know.

However, I still maintain that it's more honest to believe all aspects of a faith to be true rather than bits and pieces justified or discarded through sophistic arguments. I'll grant an exception on the parables, since from what I remember they were tales told to give out semi-hidden meanings, but the tales about who begat who, who was speaking to a burning bush, who parted the red sea, who ended up on a cross, who rose from the dead etc - all of that accepted is more honest than doing a pick-and-mix version.

Rapscallion

[Ghel]

But if you believe that the things the Bible depicts God or Jesus saying as true, and the rest metaphorical, then the question remains: how do you know the Bible is an accurate transcription of what God or Jesus said? What reason do you have to believe that God and/or Jesus exist(ed)?

Please note: as far as I'm concerned, the answer to the former question is meaningless without a good answer to the latter question.

[HYHYBT]

Simpler, yes, but not more honest.

[Hobbs]

The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that all the bible is literally correct. I consider that approach to be more honest. Your version is to pick and mix what you want to follow.

Rapscallion

It's not like I seek your approval of what I do and do not believe. Meh.

JW are jut lazy and don't want to do research then. The Church spends considerable amounts of time in researching ancient scriptures, scrolls and manuscripts in order to get correct interpretations/translations.

[Rapscallion]

The Church teaches that the Bible isn't the literal word of God, but is divinely inspired. There are parts we take literally, such as the Eucharist. Ironically, most literalists don't take that part literally and say it's a metaphor. The rule of thumb (my point of view, not the Church) is that, if it's not quoted (ie. what Jesus/God said) than it's not meant to be taken literally. So in that vein, the Beatitudes are real, but not necessarily the Parables.

The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that all the bible is literally correct. I consider that approach to be more honest. Your version is to pick and mix what you want to follow.

Rapscallion

[Hobbs]

[QUOTE=Rapscallion;51060]The bit you believe in, right? Not what all those wishy-washy alternative believers who carry the same basic name as you, right?

[quote]That's all. Yes there are uses of hellfire and such in the Bible, but those are metaphors. For truly, if you don't believe, then you don't think the Bible is literal, do you?

Apparently there are quite a number of people who claim to believe who don't think it literal.

Are you one of them?

If you don't think everything said in the bible is literal, why believe any of it?

Rapscallion

The Church teaches that the Bible isn't the literal word of God, but is divinely inspired. There are parts we take literally, such as the Eucharist. Ironically, most literalists don't take that part literally and say it's a metaphor. The rule of thumb (my point of view, not the Church) is that, if it's not quoted (ie. what Jesus/God said) than it's not meant to be taken literally. So in that vein, the Beatitudes are real, but not necessarily the Parables.

[Ghel]

That said, all Catholic parishes are different. There are those that support equal rights.

Unfortunately, those parishes and priests who support equal rights are the exception, not the rule. If they follow the instructions coming from the vatican, they'll be encouraging gays to live a life of chastity.

[Rapscallion]

Now, in the true faith,

The bit you believe in, right? Not what all those wishy-washy alternative believers who carry the same basic name as you, right?

[quote]That's all. Yes there are uses of hellfire and such in the Bible, but those are metaphors. For truly, if you don't believe, then you don't think the Bible is literal, do you?[quote]

Apparently there are quite a number of people who claim to believe who don't think it literal.

Are you one of them?

If you don't think everything said in the bible is literal, why believe any of it?

Rapscallion

[Hobbs]

That said, all Catholic parishes are different. There are those that support equal rights.

[smileyeagle1021]

The Catholic Church actually stands against hate speech and hate crimes. Hate to break it to ya.

I will give credit where it is due, the Catholic church is one of the few anti-equality groups that not only promotes non-violence against us vile sinners but works to keep violence from happening. That said, the church still opposes equal rights. They still think that my love is somehow inferior to a heterosexual's just because I'm not heterosexual. They still think my integrity is less and that my worth as a human being, lover, and member of a family is less. So forgive me if the little credit I give is rather begrudgingly given.

[HYHYBT]

I just found this, and thought of this thread. From The Salt Lake Tribune, "Utah's next bishop could be gay priest"
http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_14855408

[Hobbs]

So nice that they are so concerned for our welfare after we die, but so little concern for our rights while alive.



Exactly... as I've mentioned earlier, naming a few people who ignore church doctrine to do the right thing does not mean that the doctrine isn't inherently wrong.

The Catholic Church actually stands against hate speech and hate crimes. Hate to break it to ya.

[Fryk]

The depiction of Hell as a place with fire didn't really appear until after Dante's Divine Comedy.

Actually, gotta correct you there. The concept of Hell comes from the Hebrew tales of Gehenna, which is a lake of molten lava and fire.