|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted November 07, 2007 08:09 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 20:12, 07 Nov 2007.
|
Quote:
A more correct translation of Exodus 20:13 would be: “You shall not murder.” (NKJV, NIV)
Wars and Executions are not murder.
Correct according to whom?
What if the war is not "justified"? What about killing defenseless POWs? What about killing civilians in wartime? Etc. Your unilateral statements are just absurd.
What if the person being executed is innocent? What if the laws are unfair or unnecessarily harsh? ETc. Your unilateral statements are just absurd.
Quote:
The Holy Inquisition still exists. It is not, and has never been perfect, and inquisitors have done many mistakes and suffered from some corruption and plots, just like any other authority.
That's quite an understatement. Do you agree that the use of torture to elicit forced confessions from alleged heretics is wrong?
On a related matter, did you know that one mode of punishment in the middle ages for stealing property from the Church - often decided in "Ecclesiastical Courts" that were not bound by state laws and without formal judicial proceedings - was flaying alive (essentially, tying someone to a pole and cutting all of their skin off)? I find it hard to believe that such horrible inhumane punishments would have been condoned by Jesus.
Quote:
That said, I have nothing against an inquisition that protects the Church from heresy.
Just for the sake of argument, what's wrong with heresy? If I want to believe in Zeus or some other god, why should I be murdered for it? What harm am I doing to the Catholic church by not being Catholic or holding beliefs not endorsed by the Catholic Church? Did God not give us free will? If I wish to use the gift God gave me, why should I be punished - in horrible ways - by an earthly judge?
Quote:
Like, when the luciferian occultist Cathar cult infested large parts of Europe, notably Southern France, the Holy Inquisition prevented this plague of heresy to spread further and actively fought it in Italy and in the Netherlands.
Why should the Catholic church care? Why are they threatened by heresy? Why the need to stamp out divergent thought so ruthlessly, and, what's more, what gives them the right to do so? The truth is that wars like the Albigensian Crusade are no different than other, secular wars between states except that they are condoned by the Church rather than a secular power. The Church uses words like 'heresy' as a moral justification for its actions but it's really just smoke and mirrors. The fact of the matter is that the Church eliminates the spread of "heresy" because divergent thinkers are a threat to the Church's power base. When heretics espouse a doctrine that is separate from that condoned by the Church, the Church fears - rightly so - that the common people will find the new doctrine better than the old doctrine. This is especially dangerous to the Church if secular powers are swept up in the heresy, because in that case the Church's immense power and wealth are at risk (e.g., Henry VIII and the Church of England, The Investiture Controversy, etc.). So, obviously, the Church attacks vigorously and preemptively any perceived threat to its monopoly on human thought. "Serving mammon" indeed. Sadly, rather than just trying to "keep its customers" through persuasion, discourse and a willingness to conform and adapt to new emerging patterns in sociopolitical thought and theological belief, the Church chose to protect its interests through many centuries of terror, manipulation, torture, bribery, extortion, corrupt politics, threats of excommunication, and of course, military force, all under the guise of "serving God".
Quote:
I’m a friend of science. Creationistic science.
You mean, you're a friend of science, as long as it does not conflict with your pre-held belief system. You're basically like a fair-weather fan. Unfortunately, science does not work that way.
Quote:
Quote:
Murder = First Child of Egyptian houses
Rape = Mary of Nazareth
War Crimes = Blinded Enemies
Arson = Sodom
God is like an MI6 agent, he has the right to do those things.
And yet he's all-loving. Right.
Quote:
Quote:
Since when does a human have the right to say who's God's substitute and infallible?
Well, Jesus said so. Matthew 16:18-19 as I already told you.
The notion of the pope being a perfect human - which nobody really believes anymore - is a self-contradictory one, because it violates the principle of free-will for all men, which is central to many early stories in the bible. Thus if you hold the pope to be infallible, then you are implicitly calling the Bible incorrect. If you need me to explain why, I would be happy to.
Quote:
Sola Fide is Latin and means: “Faith Alone”; that we are saved by faith alone, a false and unbiblical doctrine. Paul told us that we would be forgiven if we confessed our sins to each other.
Of course, the Church LOVES confession. A great way to keep the common folk under the Church's thumb.
Quote:
Paying was a way of penance, it was abolished in the Tridentine council because His Holiness was afraid that local bishops and priests could misuse it.
You don't say!
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted November 07, 2007 08:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Correct according to whom?
I think it's time for me to get in again as a more or less neutral side that can explain something.
I have actually read the origin of the Old Testament - Tanah (parts of it to be exact), in its original language - hebrew.
So, first of all - Zan is right: "You shall not murder" is a more correct translation.
Second - a few books later the Tanah also serves as a code of laws. From this code I understood that the only time when an execution is allowed is when the criminal himself is accused of murder. For the value of life is the highest value of all and life can be taken only to avenge another lost of life. That being said, those laws also strictly forbid personal vendeta. A man will be considered a murderer only if there is an official trial at which at least 2 people can concur that he deliberatly killed a man.
If there is not enough proof the man is set free. If it's proved that the man did kill someone, but it was either an accident or his was provoked to do this and didn't plan this ahead, he is not killed, but exiled to the a special city and couldn't leave it until the head of the council that condamned him has died.
The executions weren't done by anyone as well. That job belonged to one man, because he had perform a great sin and there was no need for others to perform it as well. His title in hebrew was "Goel Ha-dam". I'm sorry, but I'm not able to translate it correctly, maybe roy or anti can.
That's pretty much all I know on the matter. Sorry if I went a bit of topic, but once I started typing I just couldn't stop. Hope it clarified something for someone.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 07, 2007 09:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
This is without question Old calendarian Eastern-Orthodox propaganda.
Lol no, I mostly said that just to piss you off
And by the way, the Eastern Orthodox church just considers you kinda wrong (which you kinda are ).
The idea of Catholicism being the Antichrist is more, like, protestantish. Sir Isaac Newton, for example, was one of the main followers of that idea.
But never mind. Don't mind me, I actually like you, I think you're one of the funniest persons around.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 07, 2007 09:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I have actually read the origin of the Old Testament - Tanah (parts of it to be exact), in its original language - hebrew.
So, first of all - Zan is right: "You shall not murder" is a more correct translation.
I see. So you were around X,000 years ago when the relevant passage was first written down?
Also, the fact that you yourself stipulate "grades of correctness" when referring to the translation pretty much illustrates my point about the subjectiveness of interpretation and translation. Forget about translation at all - the word murder in english alone is subject to a large degree of interpretation (what constitutes murder?), so for someone to try to make a semantics argument based on the translation of a word from the original document - and somehow use that to justify killing people under certain circumstances - is just as pointless as it is repugnant.
(Not implying that you, Geny, are the one making that argument, of course.)
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted November 07, 2007 09:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I see. So you were around X,000 years ago when the relevant passage was first written down?
No, but some time after the Tanah was compiled, it was also kanonized (or smth like that ) and the text in it haven't changed since then. Even when "typos" and other minor mistakes were found, only a footnote was added besides the text. And since there was no need to translate from Hebrew to Hebrew the words I read are the exact same words that were written X,000 years ago.
Quote:
Also, the fact that you yourself stipulate "grades of correctness" when referring to the translation pretty much illustrates my point about the subjectiveness of interpretation and translation. Forget about translation at all - the word murder in english alone is subject to a large degree of interpretation (what constitutes murder?),
I may not be the perfect translator and sometimes the meaning may be lost during translation, but in this particular case I'm quite sure about the correctness of the translation. As for the meaning of the actual word, I think that the practical meaning of "murder" that exists in the Tanah is explained in my previous post: a delibarate and planned killing of a man. (btw in ancient times slaves were considered more of a property than persons)
Quote:
so for someone to try to make a semantics argument based on the translation of a word from the original document - and somehow use that to justify killing people under certain circumstances - is just as pointless as it is repugnant.
That I will not discuss, because I'm here to clear some facts, not get into discussions.
Quote:
(Not implying that you, Geny, are the one making that argument, of course.)
I'm glad you don't.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 07, 2007 10:09 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 22:10, 07 Nov 2007.
|
Quote:
No, but some time after the Tanah was compiled, it was also kanonized (or smth like that) and the text in it haven't changed since then. Even when "typos" and other minor mistakes were found, only a footnote was added besides the text. And since there was no need to translate from Hebrew to Hebrew the words I read are the exact same words that were written X,000 years ago.
So I've heard it said. You'll forgive me, of course, if I am skeptical of the claim that there are no errors in translation. But in any case, as I said, the accuracy of translation for me is not the most important issue. Even if you assume that you have translated the word perfectly, there is no way to know the intent of the people writing the language. What you think murder means may very well be different from what the author of the passage thought it meant. That's not to mention the fact that society has changed a great deal since then, as well, which (in line with your slave statement below) gives credence to viewpoint that you should not take 2000 year old language very literally. Or at the least, you shouldn't assume that you know exactly what the language was exactly supposed to mean.
Quote:
I think that the practical meaning of "murder" that exists in the Tanah is explained in my previous post: a delibarate and planned killing of a man.
That's an alright definition I guess. Of course, as you say, both execution and war would thus be murder, regardless of the justification for doing it. I would be interested then in hearing what Zam's definition of murder is, since he seems to think killing is fine (not a sin) as long as it isn't murder, and then goes on to say that execution and war are not forms of murder, and hence a-okay as far as the Church is concerned. Goes against the supposed loving message of Jesus, if you ask me, but then since when did the Catholic Church really care that much about that when it interefered with "pursuing mammon"?
|
|
Spectrum
Famous Hero
Plan B
|
|
posted November 07, 2007 10:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It was and is right, through it has done some mistakes in the past.
And where did they get their orders again? Oh yes the infallible pope. Hm. Something's not right here now is it?
____________
Aculias is like the male nipple of HC, TNT being the other one -Baklava
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted November 07, 2007 10:17 PM |
|
|
so let me respond to hola bola:
Zan:you agree that if im a sadomise,pedophile,brutal,rapist,murderrer,insane humane that is the worst of wrost,yet i belive in cathlic christianity,i will not go to hell?
or if im the honests,virtuest,heroric,person,and etc,the good incranated,and wont see heaven,couse ill be an atheist? thats one hack of a way to incourge people to go to cathlicsm.
gallow: your right,religion and god is differnt. religion is abused,god might not be. how do you know that man did not made god as well a scape goat for stuff he did not understand,isent that logical?
also
"Goel Ha-dam"
Goel from the word Geula-redemption
Ha-dam might have 2 meanings:
HADAM(humane,person) person redempter (or whatever you say it like)
or ha-dam,the blood. Blood redemption,which is more logical.
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted November 07, 2007 11:03 PM |
|
|
Okay, I just can't get over the whole infallibility issue.
As all absolute values, it just generates too many paradoxes for my liking.
Given:
The pope is infallible
The pope is elected by the cardinals
Then:
Has the pope been infallible before his election?
Are the cardinals infallible in choosing the pope? If they are, then why don't the all vote for the same person? You can't have two people voice different opinions on the same matter and retain their infallibility, unless all opinions are equally right. And if they are equally right, then what's the point of having an election in the first place?
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted November 08, 2007 03:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Rape = Mary of Nazareth
God is like an MI6 agent, he has the right to do those things.
MI6 agents are allowed to rape people? Where the hex is the logic there?
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
|
roy-algriffin
Supreme Hero
Chocolate ice cream zealot
|
|
posted November 08, 2007 03:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The executions weren't done by anyone as well. That job belonged to one man, because he had perform a great sin and there was no need for others to perform it as well. His title in hebrew was "Goel Ha-dam". I'm sorry, but I'm not able to translate it correctly, maybe roy or anti can.
quote]
Vindicator sounds about right.
____________
"Am i a demon? No im a priest of the light! THE BLOODY RED LIGHT"
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted November 08, 2007 09:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Rape = Mary of Nazareth
God is like an MI6 agent, he has the right to do those things.
MI6 agents are allowed to rape people? Where the hex is the logic there?
apperntly so.
whats more is that why is the pope allmighty,i mean as i said,if mankind invinted religion as gallow said,then he invnted god as well,otherwise??
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted November 08, 2007 01:38 PM |
|
Edited by Azagal at 13:44, 08 Nov 2007.
|
@ Daystar
Quote:
Murder = First Child of Egyptian houses
Rape = Mary of Nazareth
War Crimes = Blinded Enemies
Arson = Sodom
You are not being very exact there you know...
Definition: Murder
Murder is the unlawful killing of one human being by another. Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice, aforethought, and the lack of justification.
Now you're talking about the death of the Egyptian firstborns... this was the TENTH plague it was the final step against the Pharaoh who allready had promised Moses that the the Israelites could leave but he continued breaking his promises... so there is no "lack of justification" here I think. I guess you can argue over this point but with a bit of logic thinking I guess one would see that it's rather the Pharaoh who commits murder (he is not willing to let his slaves go free... it's not like he has any right to do so btw... nobody owns another human being) by not giving in eventhough he must have known that it would happen after all that happend previously.
Definition: Rape
Rape is a form of assault where one individual forces another to have sexual intercourse against that person’s will.
Now I don't think I need to explain further how it is absolutely RIDICULOUS of saying that god raped Mary... please don't say that you don't see that one...
Definition: War Crimes
In the context of war, a war crime is a punishable offense under international law, for violations of the laws of war by any person or persons, military or civilian.
Now don't tell me they had international law back then... besides blinding your enemys is fairly mercyfull compared to killing them don't you think? (again one can argue on that point. I'm not saying im right!)Apart from that other "regular" things happen in war which are much worse than blinding someone else without any pain.
Definition: Sodomy
Sodomy is a term used particularly in law, and with wider local currency, to describe an act of sexual intercourse except copulation.
The term includes all sexual acts other than coital sex between a male and female. Although not gender specific by definition, in common use sodomy generally refers to homosexual intercourse between males.
So sodomy is gay sex... BIG DEAL!! OMG IT'S A CRIME PUNISH HIM FOR IT!! Dude... gay sex is not a crime atleast not for tolerant enlighted nonfanatically unconservative people... I guess you are in there somewhere...
Now please I didn't post this for the sole purpose of "defending" god I just think that one shouldn't throw acusations arround one if this is suposed to be a productive discussion... If you don't like god please find real arguments and don't just come with stuff like that. In case I'm wrong I'd be happy to hear where and how you are right.
Besides Quote:
God is like an MI6 agent, he has the right to do those things.
I agree with angelito how often does someone OBVIOUSLY have to prove to you that you can NOT take him serious? That "argument" is utter nonsense...
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
Gallow
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
Avenger
|
|
posted November 08, 2007 02:03 PM |
|
|
Besides Quote:
God is like an MI6 agent, he has the right to do those things.
I agree with angelito how often does someone OBVIOUSLY have to prove to you that you can NOT take him serious? That "argument" is utter nonsense...
Cmon he gave an EXAMPLE,that means that god has the power to do what he wants,he is all-powerful,and the wars he did in the ancient times,or killed,then was necessary to,like sodoma and gomorathe ppl in that city were all perverts,evil(like our society in these days but much more worser) less noah and his family for what i know.
|
|
ZanJerusalem
Disgraceful
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2007 03:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And where did they get their orders again? Oh yes the infallible pope. Hm. Something's not right here now is it?
Not necessarily. And the Pope is only infallible when it comes to Theology! Sure, we have had a lot of bad popes here, and may former popes will surely burn in hell, the pope am not impeccable. But they have always spoken the truth when discussing theological issues.
Quote:
But never mind. Don't mind me, I actually like you, I think you're one of the funniest persons around.
I am funny? I have never said anything funny here, except when speaking about WoW, and I have no sense of humour. Thanks anyway…
Quote:
so let me respond to hola bola:
Zan:you agree that if im a sadomise,pedophile,brutal,rapist,murderrer,insane humane that is the worst of wrost,yet i belive in cathlic christianity,i will not go to hell?
I stated the opposite. If you did those things and where a Catholic, you would surely come to hell. However, Protestants believe that we are saved by faith alone, ie: that you can do whatever you want and still be saved by believing in Jesus Christ. Not only is that crazy, it’s also completely unbiblical.
Quote:
Has the pope been infallible before his election?
No. He becomes infaillible when he becomes Christ’s Vicar.
Quote:
Are the cardinals infallible in choosing the pope?
Not at all. You don’t need to be infallible to elect a pope.
Quote:
I agree with angelito how often does someone OBVIOUSLY have to prove to you that you can NOT take him serious? That "argument" is utter nonsense...
Blame my English teacher. Sorry my argument doesn’t make sense, what I was saying was that God cannot be judged on earthly laws, as he has the right to do those things.
Thank you for your support, Gallow.
____________
|
|
Shadey
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2007 04:00 PM |
|
|
God only does what is in his nature. God does not rape people despite whatever sick examples or explainations you might try to give ie. God did not rape Mary. For one God didn't have sexual intercourse with her. So the aurgument is ridiculous in the first place.
God does have the right to take the life of anyone and everyone. He is the creator. He is the lawmaker. He is the judge of the living and the dead. It isn't complicated people. There are rules which you must follow otherwise you have a death sentence. Now to you who would say "OH so God is not loving, because a lawful God and a loving God cannot coexist together..." God is loving because despite the fact that you continually deny his existance, break his laws, and hate and kill your neighbors God is longsuffering in dealing out your deserved punishment. God is giving you time to repent and turn to him. Take that as a favor, because you in realty don't deserve to live, certainly don't deserve to be in the precence of God.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted November 08, 2007 04:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Cmon he gave an EXAMPLE,that means that god has the power to do what he wants,he is all-powerful,and the wars he did in the ancient times,or killed,then was necessary...
Of course this was an example, but someone who really believes in God wouldn't chose such a ridiculous comparison. If you see how Shadey for example explained this fact why god makes these things, you can see how serious he is with what he says. But to compare God with "James Bond" is something I expect either form a 9 year old boy, or from someone who makes fun out of religion. I made my choice.....
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
ZanJerusalem
Disgraceful
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2007 04:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Cmon he gave an EXAMPLE,that means that god has the power to do what he wants,he is all-powerful,and the wars he did in the ancient times,or killed,then was necessary...
Of course this was an example, but someone who really believes in God wouldn't chose such a ridiculous comparison. If you see how Shadey for example explained this fact why god makes these things, you can see how serious he is with what he says. But to compare God with "James Bond" is something I expect either form a 9 year old boy, or from someone who makes fun out of religion. I made my choice.....
I don't like James Bond movies actually, I have seen a few but not many. I don't see how that's such a ridiculous comparison, we are not talking about James Bond here, but about Real live jurisprudence. God has a similar position than to a security agent of "whatever nation", he is allowed to do such things as the one I replied to pointed out, killing, arson and such.
Not only do I feel very insulted about someone questioning my faith, I am also very surprised that a Moderator is flaming me here. I should report this to the webmaster, Moderators are not to start flaming other members, their job is to end flamewars and alike. Perhaps you should log out from your computer and visit nearest Catholic Church. Then you will know that they still are people who believe in God.
____________
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted November 08, 2007 04:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Has the pope been infallible before his election?
No. He becomes infaillible when he becomes Christ’s Vicar.
Quote:
Are the cardinals infallible in choosing the pope?
Not at all. You don't need to be infallible to elect a pope.
So a pope becomes infallible upon election? Then what difference does it make whom the cardinals choose? Why not pick someone at random and then say that "so God has spoken, and so it shall be"?
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
|
|
ZanJerusalem
Disgraceful
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted November 08, 2007 05:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So a pope becomes infallible upon election?
I think he becomes infallible when he is declared the Pope for the people and for God, the man that the priests have chosen to be God's vicar on Earth.
Quote:
Then what difference does it make whom the cardinals choose? Why not pick someone at random and then say that "so God has spoken, and so it shall be"?
Well, I think this would be possible, as the apostles did when choosing between Matthias and Barnabas. However, I think this is more about tradition than what’s most logical, as some are given the responsibility of choosing a Vicar for Christ. Some say they are guided by the Holy spirit when they choose, although I don't know what’s the Vatican’s official standing on this.
Also this shows that the Vatican isn't Anti-democratic in nature, as some claim.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
