Bible verses often ignored by Christians (1 Viewer)

[yy]

I think it's a little ironic that people use the Bible to justify some acts, but don't quite follow through on everything the Bible contains. It's really a sign that some parts of the Bible just aren't relevant to today's society, and as a consequence, Christians just don't follow them.

one of the reasons why i started it. like, people using the bible to say homosexuality is a sin, yet eating prawns are not. i also find it annoying that catholic church is so against using condomns, despite an AIDS crisis, simply because it wants them to multiply (overpopulation). however, i wonder how many catholics actually never used contraceptives in australia?

 

[Tabris]

Yeah, why is the Catholic CHurch, does not support the emthods of AIDS prevention?

There is a relatrively large proportion of South Africans who are Catholics and a relatively large porption of AIDS sufferers are from South Africa. The catholic church can do something big here...

Also, theres a large part in the bible of what to eat and what dont to eat, because the animal is "unclean" like pigs etc. and there is a list of criterias of whats cleana nd unclean.

Although theres heaps ignored because of irrelevance, there still which are useful, large parts of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes(spelling?) are still relevant.

People also have to remember the where the catholic church came from. After the Nicean Creed and the meeting of the council, the head of Christianty was dominated by Patriachs, these Patriachs were heads of Christianty in their respective City, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus, Jerusalem etc.

Rome was perhaps the most powerful and dominant, since it was the only one in the west, I think it broke away from the others and became the basis of catholicism through the appointment of the Pope. After the dark ages, the former Barbarians became Christian under catholicism and the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine, retained the old system and is now Orthodox. There have been attempts to reunite but it was like getting SUnni and Shi'ites back together.

Thats something an ordinary Christian wouldn't know about. IF a person knew the entire history of the church, they would be rathar disgusted by the institution's hypocrisy and corruption in many parts of history.

plz correct me if i am wrong

 

[hopeles5ly]

My bad... I mis-understood what you meant.

My point that i wanted to make though was that the human condition has not changed no matter how much time has passed. Our dreams and desires and needs are still the same.

I personally dont find it difficult to take the bible literally because I see all the issues dealt with correlating to issues that i have faced or will face in the future. I have to take the whole bible literally because if i say "This is only meant for people back then..." It lays the foundation for not taking other things literaly.

By that I don't mean that i sacrifice animals... which is for two reasons.
1. I think its there to show how much my sin costs. For every time I wrong someone, for everytime I want to thank God, for everytime I needed forgiveness, this many animals would die. My sin is literally so damning that it costs the life of X amount of animals. That's a sobering thought when taken literally.
2 Christs sacrifice was once for all. He has made me right with God for the rest of my life. It doesnt matter how many animals i sacrifice i will not be as righteous before God as Jesus has made me. My body is now a living sacrifice as everyday i die to my sinful desires and say yes to the life of Christ.

But i do understand what you are saying with "modernising" the bible. I think it would be useful for some people to have a bible that is more relevent for today... but in the end it is not the bible that convinces people of God, it's God who does that.

If we can learn a lesson from the Jesus Movement, though, I'd say that modernising is both good and bad for the church. It opened the way for so many more people to become Christians, but tore a rift between the generations. I think whatever happens people need to think very hard about things

hehe its ok. yeah i get where your coming from.

 

[veterandoggy]

Yeah, why is the Catholic CHurch, does not support the emthods of AIDS prevention?

is the ctholic church supportive of fornication? if so then they are fools not to support these methods, but if they dont, then they have ultimately stopped AIDS at its roots, but you cant see that because you like the idea of safe sex.

There have been attempts to reunite but it was like getting SUnni and Shi'ites back together.

yes, an almost exact analogy i must agree

 

[Not-That-Bright]

is the ctholic church supportive of fornication? if so then they are fools not to support these methods, but if they dont, then they have ultimately stopped AIDS at its roots, but you cant see that because you like the idea of safe sex.

You would find that the catholic church (in theory) is as rigid and conservative as your religion, the only difference is that the catholic church has had its power severely diminished... while yours has not.

 

[veterandoggy]

You would find that the catholic church (in theory) is as rigid and conservative as your religion, the only difference is that the catholic church has had its power severely diminished... while yours has not.

so in other words they disapprove of fornication, hence there being no need to show approval/disapproval of protective methods during sex?

 

[gerhard]

Yeah, why is the Catholic CHurch, does not support the emthods of AIDS prevention?

There is a relatrively large proportion of South Africans who are Catholics and a relatively large porption of AIDS sufferers are from South Africa. The catholic church can do something big here...

The catholic church HAS done something big here. They are partly responsible for the deaths of millions.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

One thing you have to realise veterandoggy is that aids is not being spread due to voluntary 'normal' sex.... it is often being spread as people in poverty are being forced into the sex industry, and also the viscious rapes which are occuring all over africa.

 

[veterandoggy]

in which case it wouldnt make a difference if the catholic church approved of it or not, wouldnt you agree?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

in which case it wouldnt make a difference if the catholic church approved of it or not, wouldnt you agree?

They disapprove of the use of condoms because they believe sex should only be for procreation.

 

[veterandoggy]

The catholic church HAS done something big here. They are partly responsible for the deaths of millions.

explain how they are responsible for those deaths.

as ntb mentioned, they are forced to do it.

 

[veterandoggy]

They disapprove of the use of condoms because they believe sex should only be for procreation.

well, i dont know much about what they approve/disprove of, i was just arguing about what i had read here.

 

[gerhard]

From the Gaurdian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html

The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.

A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are untrue.

From Asia Times
http://atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GD12Aa02.html

'One out of every eight Catholics is African, a proportion that seems certain to rise'

From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church

The figure for Roman Catholics in the 2003 Statistical Yearbook of the Church, based on the written statistical reports on the situation on 31 December of that year that Catholic dioceses throughout the world submitted during the following year, is 1,085,557,000; because of obstacles to regular contacts, this figure does not include Catholics in mainland China and a few other places. According to canon law, members are those who have been baptized in or who, after being baptized in another Church, have been received into the Catholic Church on making a profession of faith, and who have not formally renounced membership.

http://www.aidsandafrica.com/2003_aids_country_data.htm
I added up the total deaths column and got 2,186,990 deaths in the year 2003



So we have a little over a billion Catholics, which leaves us with 125 million African Catholics, who are taught when they go to church/when they recieve food or medical aid from catholic organisations that not only will wearing a condom send you to hell, but it will not protect you from HIV, which is a known lie.

 

[insert-username]

The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.

but it will not protect you from HIV, which is a known lie.

Condoms aren't foolproof against HIV, although they do help to greatly reduce the risk of infection. Statistically, they have a 1 in 121 chance of breaking during intercourse, which means they definitely aren't impermeable. The only foolproof ways of avoiding HIV are abstinence or knowing your partner isn't infected.

Also, latex condoms don't have tiny holes. However, natural skin condoms (made from animal tissue) may sometimes have the tiny holes that the Church is talking about, and they don't protect against STDs as well as latex. I'm guessing that the more common variety of condom in Africa is the natural skin version.


I_F

 

[veterandoggy]

hmm, it would seem likely that animal skin condoms are easier to make, and therefore more numerable in africa.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Countries in Africa with more Catholics actually have less AIDS than the more non-Catholic countries. No sex before marriage prooves a more effective defense against AIDS than condoms...

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yea I find the whole 'catholics cause aids' argument quite pathetic.

 

[yy]

this is in no way representative of the catholic church, just something interesting:

from wikipedia:
The Banquet of Chestnuts, known more properly as the Ballet of Chestnuts, refers to a fête in Rome, and particularly (in historical terms) to a decadent banquet thrown on October 30, 1501, by Pope Alexander VI.
The banquet was thrown in the apartment of the apostolic palazzo with, it is said, upwards of fifty prostitutes or courtesans in attendance. After the food was eaten, candles were lit and placed on the floor and chestnuts strewn about, which the prostitutes, naked and crawling between the candelabras, were encouraged to pick up. According to the diarist Johann Burchard, the papal Master of Ceremonies, an orgy then ensued.
According to William Manchester, "Servants kept score of each man's orgasms, for the pope greatly admired virility and measured a man's machismo by his ejaculative capacity. After everyone was exhausted, His Holiness distributed prizes — cloaks, boots, caps, and fine silken tunics. The winners [according to Burchard] were those who made love with those courtesans the greatest number of times."

apparently, there are many sexually active popes throughout the history.

 

[gerhard]

condoms breakages are almost always from incorrect application. if you dont put it on properly, it will fuck up. you need to educate people about this stuff. there are going to be much higher condom breakages that 1/121 in african countries where people are not being educated.

while abstitence might be a loftly ideal to some people, i dont think a fear of god is going to stop everyones biological instincts.

 

[supercharged]

i don't know if it's the right category to put in. but here it is:

Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. (Letivicus 19:19)

Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you. (Letivicus 11:9-12)

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death. (Exodus 35:2)

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (1 Timothy 2:11-12)

And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. (Revelation 14:3)

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)

Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deuteronomy 19:21)

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

The LORD said to Moses, "Say to Aaron: 'For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. (Leviticus 21:16-20)

While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses. (Numbers 15:32-36)

What's your point? Almost all those quotes are from the old testament which serve no more purpose than a history book. Those religious laws aren't relevant to christains. Judaism is based upon the old testament, Christainity on the new.