I am afraid that just is not the case.
Ignorance and religion stand hand in hand on a great many things, Homosexuality being one of them.
Cardinal: Paedophiles aren't criminals
- Thread starter estebanrey
- Start date
I am afraid that just is not the case.
Ignorance and religion stand hand in hand on a great many things, Homosexuality being one of them.
I do not want to know what you do with rabbits thank you very much. Disgusting.
Rabbits? I'll pass. I like those monkeys at the zoo but they got armed guards... Why do they get to keep all the sexy monkeys?
/Quagmire.
If that's what you want to believe then go ahead. I won't stop you from being ignorant about what Christianity teaches.
Last edited:
The Canon which makes up the Bible was compiled by Augustine and others and the various councils around the 4th Century, however it is not true that the Bible today is necessarily less accurate that the works on which they based the Canon. Neither is it true that the Bible was written 2000 or 1500 years ago, the truth is that the books and texts within the Bible were written at different times and some are based on oral histories and others on extant texts at the time...some of which were hundreds if not thousands of years old even at that time...the new testament includes texts that date from the 1st century as well as later, the old testament included texts and oral histories that date back so long that we do not have any reliable idea how old they are.
Interpretations are myriad as you know, however in recent years their has been significant progress, discoveries and understanding of the original texts and how they related to each translation and how that impacts not only on interpretation of the texts but also the meaning of those texts and the context in which they were originally written, there is good scientific basis to support that the most modern translations such as the NSRV are the most accurate representations so far and as we learn more we are able to redefine how these texts are translated and interpreted. This has nothing to do with doctrine or how scripture is applied by various religions however, it is purely a multidisciplinary scientific field that looks at the actual texts themselves rather than try to apply any spiritual truth to them.
Not that I mean to argue with you, but it's just an issue of consent. We don't judge anyone with what they want to do, we do judge someone that forces themselves on others, either sexually or otherwise.
Our laws are often pretty consistent in this manner too. You cannot take someones life because of said consent issue. You cannot have sex with a minor because they are unable to consent (according to our laws / beliefs / society).
Where we get a bit mangled is stuff like paedo cartoons or downloading Child Porn images. While neither should be socially acceptable I'm not really sure that these acts alone should land you in prison or a sex offendors list, especially given the minefield of false positives.
Another weird issue is that of euthanasia. It should be legal to kill someone should that be their desire. While I agree that society needs protections in order to mitigate abuse of such things, I can't really see the good we do forcing people with life destroying illnesses to travel to Switzerland to willfully end their suffering.
Within the context of the NT I would disagree. The main issue arises from the term homosexual and that it has no basis in Koine Greek and therefore a certain amount of assumption has been made within the Pauline Interpretation. For example, the oft mentioned Epistle to the Romans make some quite glaring mistakes in how the epistle is expressed in a historical linguistic context. Paul was concerned with what he thought were pagan practices (referring to practices common in Roman and Greek culture ) being conducted by Christians and this included according to Christian Theologians homosexuality, however in both the Roman and Greek cultures homosexuality was not a differentiated practice from normal sexual relations (there was no word for homosexuality in Koine) and what many people do not realise is that Homosexual practice at that time would have involved not two consenting adults, but would have been an adult and a younger male, we call it Pederasty, so Paul was, if we consider this from a purely historical-critical perspective arguing against Pederasty and not Homosexuality as it is defined today. You can also argue pretty solidly that the Epistle is relevant only to Christians rather than everyone because Paul was not judging anyone but the Christians.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 2,014
- Location
- Warwickshire
"The Catholic Archbishop of Durban, Wilfrid Fox Napier, has described paedophilia as a psychological "illness, not a criminal condition"."
Sounds correct to me. How can a psychological condition be 'criminal'? Acting on that condition is another matter entirely.
Sounds correct to me. How can a psychological condition be 'criminal'? Acting on that condition is another matter entirely.
Maybe so, I haven't done too deep of a study into it but I am firm in my belief that it is a sin. I'm no better than them though and hate is not the way to get through to anyone.
While the Epistle is relevant to Christians in large he means the Gentile nation because you're either Jew or Gentile in the Bible.
And there we have one of the fundamental problem of thought structures that underpin large swathes of religious thinking (and other things in fairness) - no examination but a firm belief and conviction nevertheless. Wonderfully illustrated, bravo!
I read my Bible everyday I have you know. Don't think of me as one of these Christians who believe that they don't need to read the Bible. I know what it says in it about what God wants of you.
What I haven't done yet is gone and studied the Greek manuscript and really took time understanding all the different scripture I can find that speaks about it and in it's entire context of the chapter it's in.
I'll bold it for you what I actually said seeing as you seem to believe I've just browsed over a verse or two in the OT and come to the conclusion that it's a sin.
Not to mention you can already tell my position as I've stated it in this thread, I hate no-one because it's pointless.
Last edited:
Reporting such a crime would likely land you on the sex offenders register. I think I'd pass myself. Either way you're skipping the point. At worse people with a child fetish who download images should be sent to therapy. At that point they've not really hurt anyone and I'd believe most of them are unlikely to do so.
Again, the point being that the scripture is not always as clear or as easily interpreted as is often portrayed. It relies heavily on theological idealism and can change over time....the reason we have denominational Christianity is testament to this. Also the word Gentiles is an example of this, as the word has no actual relative direct corresponding term in Hebrew or Greek, it has become a term for Non-Jew only because of later selective translation and attribution. I also disagree that the Bible makes the distinction between Jews and everyone else in the way you suggest.
I am not disputing or attacking your belief, I am offering an alternative understanding of the scripture and attempting to illustrate why people can have equally validated interpretations of the same texts in the theological sense.
Last edited:
What do you study Castiel? You seem to know a lot about this.
I've got a huge concordance for my Bible that's bigger than the Bible itself that has the Greek and Hebrew translation in there and a dictionary. It's great for Bible study.
No, I am not missing the point. The point is you don't see a great deal wrong with people downloading images of children being abused. That is a rather strange and sick point of view in my opinion.
Whilst no physical harm is done to the children by the act of looking at the image the act of proliferating the image and increasing the production due to providing an outlet for the production ensure indirect harm. And your point conveniently ignores numerous studies which have amply demonstrated a marked increase in both committing offenses and re-offending with increased usage of such images.
I am a linguist and I study several ancient languages and religions, predominantly Middle Eastern religions and languages such as Koine Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin and several Arabic dialects. I work on a project that translates and reconstructs ancient texts, both historical and Biblical in nature.
Ahh I think I remember seeing you post an old document some time ago on here. Might have been someone else XD
Aye that was mine.
Yeah, I'm sick because I don't want to throw people in jail for browsing the Internet. You'll note I didn't say there was nothing wrong with it, just that I don't think it should be punishable in the way it is.
I'm good at ignoring studies, especially those can never really be valid because almost nobody would admit to doing something thats going to get them thrown in jail. Please feel free to link one and explain why it doesn't have selection bias.
Lets go back to the rape thread and argue that I'm a rapist again. I mean I once watched a fake rape porn and my girlfriend wanted to role play a fake rape, so I must be a monster right?
Heres a thought.
- Child abuse is bad.
- Request media of children being abused are bad.
- Creating such media are bad.
- Sharing said images is bad.
- People who turn a blind eye to this happening are bad.
I can believe all that to be true and still not think those who browse child porn on their computer, imaginary or otherwise, by accident or otherwise, without ever actually discussing this with another person, are a far away from the henious criminals we make them out to be.
I fully back therapy and state support for those people as opposed to throwing them into a penal system that only serves to make people worse.
If that makes me sick, I don't want to be right.
Yes you must be good at ignoring the studies because they never found that to be a problem.
And yes I do think it is pretty sick you don't want such actions punished because there is a big difference between:
"browing the internet", and
specifically searching the internet for images of children being abused.
Where exactly did I say you was a rapist? Never.
And there is a big difference between a rape scene depicted between consenting actors and actresses and an actual crime being committed without consent, against the law for the pure titillation of someone with rather deviant preferences.
Of course they wouldn't find it a problem, thats the entire point of selection bias. I imagine you just have far more faith in academic studies than I do though.
Cool story bro, but in the eyes of the law, they're both the same thing. You or I get a single iffy image in our browser cache and we will be prosecuted and put on the list. Doubly so given our IT knowledge.
Still, I draw the line all the way up to those who browse it on purpose. Its like any kind of file sharing in my mind: You're a consumer? You're doing something wrong but you're barely worth out time. You're in production? You're going to jail for a very long time. You share? You're in a variable amount of deep ****.
Interestingly you're a lot more liberal when people aren't pushing your buttons.