Also can a Christian not respectfully disagree with Jesus and/or God on at least some issues? Could a Christian just think they're a couple of old foggies when it comes to gays and sex before marriage and still stay in God's good graces? Or does God demand perfect obedience? Is obedience the proper stance of a person to their 'savior'? Are you sure God/Jesus wouldn't tolerate a little dissent? In preparing our kids to be peers of the realm we ultimately have to come to terms with their making their own choices. So often Christians speak of God as a kind of loving parent. If God is like a loving parent, shouldn't He want us to grow up some day and be able to disagree with Him?

Quote:The typical Anglican view on divorce is wrong.

Curious, given that the Anglican church was started by a king who wanted a divorce...

It's only OK for kings, I guess.

(November 21, 2012 at 9:17 am)whateverist Wrote: So do you define adultery as sex between a married person and someone other than the person to whom they are married? Is avoiding breaking the bond between two married people the main point of making adultery a sin?

No, all sin is primarily against God and not others. Yes sins can also affect other people, but that's just the nature of sin.

Quote:If so do you also consider sex between two people who are not married to be a sin or whatever?

The Greek word used in the NT is pornea which literally means fornication, it appears more than 30 times by 6 different authors. Jesus himself uses the word. What pornea means is sex outside of marriage, which obviously includes premarital sex, promiscuity, homosexual sex, adultery, etc.

Quote:If these are both sins, then do you have a problem with a homosexual couple marrying and enjoying non-adulterous sex?

I have exactly the same problem with any homosexual couple as with any de-facto couple. I think Christians who don't treat them exactly the same way are double-sighted. Yes homosexual sex and relationships is a sin, but it's not unique and it's no different to heterosexual fornication and de-facto relationships.

---

(November 21, 2012 at 9:27 am)Kirbmarc Wrote: Curious, given that the Anglican church was started by a king who wanted a divorce...

It's only OK for kings, I guess.

Well the RCC decided whether or not you were allowed to get a divorce at the time. Had they been willing to compromise, or had the state had the power and not the church, perhaps they would have set back the reformation movement for some time?

Quote:Well the RCC decided whether or not you were allowed to get a divorce at the time. Had they been willing to compromise, or had the state had the power and not the church, perhaps they would have set back the reformation movement for some time?

You carefully dodged my point. I can't see how the Anglican Church can be against divorce if it was founded because a man wanted to divorce.
Of course the RCC is just as hypocrite. They're agains divorce unless they're the ones who regulate it (for a fee).

Quote:No, all sin is primarily against God and not others. Yes sins can also affect other people, but that's just the nature of sin.

And this is why I think that your moral system is skewed. This concept of "sin" basically tells you that your morality doesn't depend on the consequences of your actions on your victims, but on what offends or doesn't offend your god.

So if your god said that murder and rape were OK, you would agree with him. Actually, he did that, according to the Old Testament. You (thankfully) choose to ignore it when it comes to stoning adulterers or people who work on Saturday.

The truth, Daniel, is that your morality isn't based on the Bible (it couldn't be: the Bible is full of contradicctions). It's based on your personal beliefs, and you carefully cherry pick the parts of the Bible that seem to agree with you.

Your morality, if anything, it's more subjective than the secular morality, but you want it to objective. You construct your moral compass according to what your hypothetical god (which isn't the god of the Bible, but the god of your interpretation) and assume he's the supreme moral authority; secular morality is constructed on preserving the well-being and respecting the choices of other human beings, and there is no ultimate moral authority.

Yes, secular morality is subjective to a degree, but so is yours. At least with secular morality you don't have to pretend that your instincts or decisons are objective.

Henry's divorce was mostly about politics, the Pope was in the control of the king of Spain, and Spain wanted England in its control rather moving to be a French ally. Although cristards talk about the church as being the house of god, all churches actions are about temporal power relationships. The idea any church has acted in any other way than seeking power for its human controllers is not shown in any study of historical evidence.

Any moral philosophy any church claims to have, is only a means to hold control.

Quote:Henry's divorce was mostly about politics, the Pope was in the control of the king of Spain, and Spain wanted England in its control rather moving to be a French ally. Although cristards talk about the church as being the house of god, all churches actions are about temporal power relationships. The idea any church has acted in any other way than seeking power for its human controllers is not shown in any study of historical evidence.

Of course, but it's important to point out the contadictions within a certain religious belief to make religious people understand that their positions do not deserve to be called "an objective morality".

When I look at the history of churches, I cannot see any sort of action that could be mistaken for morality of any form, I can only see decisions driven by power and expedience.

(November 21, 2012 at 11:28 am)jonb Wrote: When I look at the history of churches, I cannot see any sort of action that could be mistaken for morality of any form, I can only see decisions driven by power and expedience.

Oh, you know that pope, he's not a True Christian™. Seriously, I think someone here once claimed that the pope during the crusades wasn't actually a Christian. I'm pretty sure said person actually asked how we could possibly prove that the pope was really a Christian.

(November 21, 2012 at 11:32 am)Darkstar Wrote: Oh, you know that pope, he's not a True Christian™. Seriously, I think someone here once claimed that the pope during the crusades wasn't actually a Christian. I'm pretty sure said person actually asked how we could possibly prove that the pope was really a Christian.

I think it may be true that at one time a person of wealth could buy high positions in the Catholic church, possibly even the pope's office. If a person of little faith wanted the power of an office it probably could have been purchased for the right price no matter what the person's religious standing. You might say their religious standing also had a price and they could afford that too.

(November 21, 2012 at 4:33 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(November 15, 2012 at 6:02 am)Darnem Wrote: Why do you push your religion of Atheism on others when there is no evidence that God doesn't exist?

Take a look in the mirror, bro.