|
|
Post by goz on May 25, 2018 21:31:15 GMT
FilmFlaneur The flood was punishment for people (& angels) who made mistakes. God was not making mistake destroying wicked people. 1. As I always say, I rarely if ever talk to non-believers as a believer. I'm simply going off what is written or the flaws in your own argument. It is irrelevant what my beliefs are in relation to this discussion. Lets assume God doesn't exist and we are discussing a work of fiction that your are insisting on inserting into the real world. 2. God permits free will and he permits imperfect people to boink and have imperfect kids, so I'm not sure why that's an odd thing. Every Christians & Jewish denomination I have ever heard of outside of the hardcore predestination folks follow this notion that people choose their actions, so you may need to talk to more Christians or simply read the Bible. You can talk as much as you want, you just lack persuasion for your argument. Regarding Isaiah 45 specifically (I can quote it but I assume you have the same access to a Bible I have even if it's apparently just one verse at a time), he is specifically discussing a warning message and I never said that God doesn't punish wrongdoing and does so in any way he chooses, including using a pagan nation to do so. This has little to do with choices or being born into sin since one can be imperfect and righteous at the same time. You and FilmFlaneur have, as usual had an interesting religiously philosophical discussion which I enjoyed butt you are both missing the actual point of this thread. This thread points out the logical difficulties with religion (Catholic in particular, religion in general) blaming gay people for 1. Being what they are. ie being born gay 2. Behaving according to that fact. 'Religion' therefore places gay people in a no win situation owing to the dogma, rules and regulations that to an outsider (non-religious person) seem illogical untenable and cruel. Sex outside marriage is a sin. 'Religion'(of course there are exceptions) does not allow gay marriage. The result of this logically ( or rather illogically in the overall picture) is that gay people must necessarily remain celibate to avoid sinning. ( and we all know how that went down {pun intended} with the Catholic priests) THEN the religious bring in this concept of 'choice' and 'free will' alleging that gay people have a choice because of the free will God gave them, ignoring the now scientific fact that gay people are born that way. ( which the Pope is now acknowledging in this thread). As others have pointed out, this leads to the conundrum under discussion here of the impossibility of reconciling religion with homosexuality. |
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on May 25, 2018 22:09:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on May 27, 2018 18:34:29 GMT
Your third point irks the shit our of me and is typical of (thankfully rare outside this board) anti religionist hypocrisy. Everyone wants the church to evolve and move with the times, but when there is a hint they do they bleat like pigs about how the church mush be false because they are rethinking their moral stance. Pick an option and stick with it. We're probably not talking about the same people in both sides of that equation, no? I am pretty certain I have seen CaptainBryce lament that the church is stuck in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 27, 2018 21:06:39 GMT
We're probably not talking about the same people in both sides of that equation, no? I am pretty certain I have seen CaptainBryce lament that the church is stuck in the past. That is not the point. Can you not see, that when the Church makes rulings and 'ponitifcates' on life and death sexuality and morality for all its members to follow laying down the Church law in black and white with penalties for those who transgress that it seems preposterous that suddenly they would change these 'encyclicals' and edicts. Those of us who wish for progress in the church welcome it, butt it HAS to be viewed as a chink in the armour of absolute morality and the level of authority which the Church hopes to maintain. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on May 27, 2018 21:23:45 GMT
I am pretty certain I have seen CaptainBryce lament that the church is stuck in the past. That is not the point. Can you not see, that when the Church makes rulings and 'ponitifcates' on life and death sexuality and morality for all its members to follow laying down the Church law in black and white with penalties for those who transgress that it seems preposterous that suddenly they would change these 'encyclicals' and edicts. Those of us who wish for progress in the church welcome it, butt it HAS to be viewed as a chink in the armour of absolute morality and the level of authority which the Church hopes to maintain. I don't believe in black and white church law, nor do I believe in absolute morality.
If you think the church should change, good, you accept that they got it wrong previously, but changing does not mean the whole thing is wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 27, 2018 21:31:39 GMT
That is not the point. Can you not see, that when the Church makes rulings and 'ponitifcates' on life and death sexuality and morality for all its members to follow laying down the Church law in black and white with penalties for those who transgress that it seems preposterous that suddenly they would change these 'encyclicals' and edicts. Those of us who wish for progress in the church welcome it, butt it HAS to be viewed as a chink in the armour of absolute morality and the level of authority which the Church hopes to maintain. I don't believe in black and white church law, nor do I believe in absolute morality.
If you think the church should change, good, you accept that they got it wrong previously, but changing does not mean the whole thing is wrong.
You might not, yet others do. You have seen it ad nauseam on these boards, and in fact you have been criticised by those for your more progressive views. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on May 27, 2018 21:34:51 GMT
I don't believe in black and white church law, nor do I believe in absolute morality.
If you think the church should change, good, you accept that they got it wrong previously, but changing does not mean the whole thing is wrong.
You might not, yet others do. You have seen it ad nauseam on these boards, and in fact you have been criticised by those for your more progressive views. Whoopee, people believe differently than I, no surprise there. I can't argue for others, the fact is you are either happy for the church to change or you are not, you cannot have it both ways. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 27, 2018 23:02:29 GMT
You might not, yet others do. You have seen it ad nauseam on these boards, and in fact you have been criticised by those for your more progressive views. Whoopee, people believe differently than I, no surprise there. I can't argue for others, the fact is you are either happy for the church to change or you are not, you cannot have it both ways. I am very happy that they are changing however that does NOT negate the very fact of a previously inviolate positions on some vital matters now somehow being different and the consequent holes it puts in their whole credibility of supposed power and control over the lives of their adherents. ie 'We were right when we said that homosexuals were mortal sinners butt now they are not so much.....!' |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on May 28, 2018 2:26:45 GMT
Whoopee, people believe differently than I, no surprise there. I can't argue for others, the fact is you are either happy for the church to change or you are not, you cannot have it both ways. I am very happy that they are changing however that does NOT negate the very fact of a previously inviolate positions on some vital matters now somehow being different and the consequent holes it puts in their whole credibility of supposed power and control over the lives of their adherents. ie 'We were right when we said that homosexuals were mortal sinners butt now they are not so much.....!' The church (all the mainstream ones) have accepted they were wrong and have had to change in the past, why do you think they are inviolate? |
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 28, 2018 23:01:40 GMT
I am very happy that they are changing however that does NOT negate the very fact of a previously inviolate positions on some vital matters now somehow being different and the consequent holes it puts in their whole credibility of supposed power and control over the lives of their adherents. ie 'We were right when we said that homosexuals were mortal sinners butt now they are not so much.....!' The church (all the mainstream ones) have accepted they were wrong and have had to change in the past, why do you think they are inviolate? ...because whilst they were busy being 'wrong' they were claiming they are totally and absolutely right and pushing that view on everyone else! |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 29, 2018 13:00:32 GMT
We're probably not talking about the same people in both sides of that equation, no? I am pretty certain I have seen CaptainBryce lament that the church is stuck in the past. I wasn’t an atheist then. I was actually a Christian who believed myself to be more progressive than the antiquated ideals of the Church. Kind of like you! |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 29, 2018 13:07:08 GMT
You might not, yet others do. You have seen it ad nauseam on these boards, and in fact you have been criticised by those for your more progressive views. Whoopee, people believe differently than I, no surprise there. I can't argue for others, the fact is you are either happy for the church to change or you are not, you cannot have it both ways. We don’t have to have it “both ways”. The fact is, I am happy that the church is changing for two different, unrelated reasons: 1) because they are becoming less bigoted and more inclusive to the people they used to condemn (sort of still do), and demonize 2) because it makes it even more clear to any objective eyes that what they used to teach was complete bullshit, and made up as they go along. The fact that the church changing for the better proves their religion false is something celebrate. You just don’t like the idea of people criticizing the church in a way that you disagree with because you still buy into their bullshit. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 29, 2018 13:08:03 GMT
I am very happy that they are changing however that does NOT negate the very fact of a previously inviolate positions on some vital matters now somehow being different and the consequent holes it puts in their whole credibility of supposed power and control over the lives of their adherents. ie 'We were right when we said that homosexuals were mortal sinners butt now they are not so much.....!' The church (all the mainstream ones) have accepted they were wrong and have had to change in the past, why do you think they are inviolate? I don’t see any evidence that this is true. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 29, 2018 13:29:32 GMT
FilmFlaneur The flood was punishment for people (& angels) who made mistakes. God was not making mistake destroying wicked people. But if God's plan had worked perfectly, then there would have no need to start, more or less, over again - the point, rather. I quite agree that your supposed God is entitled to smite the wicked. But that is not really at issue, it's more the fact that an imperfect world, deliberately created so by your supposed deity, inevitably led to imperfection (something it would not take just an omniscient god to foresee). Moreover I can imagine a perfect god with a perfect plan which would be to make a perfect world and perfect creatures - still with free will - within it, to begin with, hence avoiding all these painful corrections down the line. But it is not the god you worship. I am very grateful for your special consideration today, naturally. Matthew 10:33 "But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven". But, go on: So we are discussing things irrelevant to your beliefs and about a god that now does 'not exist'? Is there any more distancing that you could possibly insist on? LOL (Unfortunately as a soft atheist I, at least, always have to assume at least the possibility of a deliberate supernatural - not to mention that, if we both assume a negative as given, then all points would be moot.) Ok. Er. is this the god which does not exist, or the one that does? Because if it does not, then any supposed decision over free will does not either. See how this works? But since I have not suggested that it is 'odd' that god creates imperfection (in fact the opposite), then this is something of a straw man. More to the point of the current exchange is, still, that god created imperfections in an imperfect world and that, ultimately we would all result from that decision. Once again, I am so very grateful The argument that as your 'non existent' god admits to both creating (natural) evil, and an imperfect world, we ought to expect necessarily imperfect results? That these results can be hereditary? 'Warning message' or not, your 'non-existent' Almighty clearly admits to creating evil (or at the least 'misfortune', depending on how much the special pleading waters it down today). QED. But it is interesting, the suggestion that your 'non-existent' deity is "punishing wrong-doing" with natural evil. Is this the one where divorce, abortion, homosexuality and other things hated by the religious right cause earthquakes? Indeed, and unfortunately I have seen and written to plenty of the said very imperfectly righteous, on these very boards. |
|
