AWKWARD ZOMBIE

So wait, did God name Adam and Eve. He did, right? Or did they just name themselves.

He named them, if I recall correctly.

Adam bodaciously means "A man" so assumedly god named him.

I know Adam came up with the name "Woman," which basically means "It was created from a piece of man"

Not sure where the name Eve came from off the top of my head though.

EDIT: I'm of course talking about original hebrew names for them, even though I'm not using them in my post.

The thing people have to remember about the bible is that, a long time ago, people in power could easily change it to further their own agendas.

After all, no one will disagree with them if God says it's good!

Guys I wouldn't exactly call Satan the good guy.

He does sort of fry you in a pitch-black boiling lake of shit for all eternity. Whether or not God and the Devil exist is one thing, but I definitely believe in a cosmic sense of right and wrong. I mean I guess you could perceive God as a dick for even creating such a place as Hell, but he's only supposed to send the really bad people down there. I just think that those that actually put pen to paper had a terrible concept of what "really bad" was supposed to be.

Basicrally: God created Hell, then he put the Devil in charge of it. It's the devil's job to show God who to burn.

This is all relative to the two existing, of course. In reality, Hell could just be a glowing white DMV.

I think its more or less Lucifer rebelled and lost and was forced to go down to hell and manage it. Or if he leaves it like in the Sandman comics by Neil Gaiman cool stuff happens (sorta).

Bible/Religious Lore is pretty cool and interesting and things that use religious symbols/ideas for plot (ie Neon Genesis Evangelion) are pretty cool and neat as well, but religion itself is sorta bleh.

Plasma wrote:

Defenestrator2.0 wrote:because they preach acceptance and tolerance, but you never really see any of that message practiced that much. They say that the reason why they won't let Joe Biden take communion is because he's pro-choice

That, right there, is the biggest generalisation I've come across in this thread! You have just taken a single incident of one bishop denying communion to one man and generalised it into the entire religion!

And no, they do not do that. They specifically said that they do not deny communion like that.

You're right, I did generalize there to the point of absurdity. I'm sorry, that was a regrettable mistake on my part. However, the point that I was trying to make was that it just seems to me like the Church, throughout its history, seems all too eager to forget its roots. Things like the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, demanding cheddar in exchange for absolution, the molestation scandal, preventing women from becoming priests despite the fact that it was women ministers that kept the faith alive when it was illegal in the Roman empire... The list goes on.

Defenestrator2.0 wrote:The Church also seems to have the desire to gridlock progress. They condemn people who are pro-choice, and yet the people who suggest encouraging the use condoms and the teaching of a more comprehensive sex education program (because abstinence-only is ineffective) are also condemned, even those people do it in an effort to try to cut back on the need for such an option. Hell, I'm sure that even allowing masturbation would cut back on the number of unwanted pregnancies.

And they don't condemn any of those people! They discourage those things, but that's all![/quote]
That's only in their official doctrine. In practice, however, you'll see an entirely different picture painted. Take this story for instance. This is not an isolated case. I understand that abortion is a sensitive issue, but that's ridiculous. I understand that in the Bible God basically said "Incest = Wincest" but no nine year-old girl should have to undergo pregnancy. Not only is that too young, but I'm also sure that at nine years old, birth would not yet be a beautiful thing, instead being something horrific and potentially scarring.

Zink wrote:The thing people have to remember about the bible is that, a long time ago, people in power could easily change it to further their own agendas.

After all, no one will disagree with them if God says it's good!

Thank you, that is exactly what I've been trying to say about the Old Testament.

I figure people are always going to use something to further their own agendas and behavior, regardless of what they actually should be doing, or if they're being hypocritical assholes.

I'm not going to condemn something that tells people to be good and love everyone and everything. But I'm going to condemn the assholes that sort of just casually only use that/act that way when they feel like it, and the rest of the time use something that could teach so much good as a shield for their own bad qualities. Fuckers.

Watch Dogma.

No, seriously, if you pay attention it raises some good points.

Dogma was a good movie.

Crawfish wrote:Guys I wouldn't exactly call Satan the good guy.

He does sort of fry you in a pitch-black boiling lake of shit for all eternity.

You realize that according to the Bible, Satan doesn't do that, God does. Satan is one of the people that God decided to punish.

Long story short.

Satan was all up in Heaven, and he's all like "God, you a bad motherfucker" and God was all like "BITCH OBEY ME" and cause Satan is an Angel, not a human, he doesn't have free will so he did. But Satan bitched about it endlessly, and wanted to teach humanity about how bad God was. So he was all like "Shit, let's get them some brains up in there. Feed them those apples. VIVA LA REVOLUTION!" And so he did, and God was all like "Oh no you didn't. Bitch, your punishment is to facebattle my feet until the end of the world." and thus Satan spent a few thousand years facebattling God's feet, while cursing and bitching.

Defenestrator2.0 wrote:However, the point that I was trying to make was that it just seems to me like the Church, throughout its history, seems all too eager to forget its roots. Things like the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, demanding cheddar in exchange for absolution, the molestation scandal, preventing women from becoming priests despite the fact that it was women ministers that kept the faith alive when it was illegal in the Roman empire... The list goes on.

The first three of those things, and pretty much all major corruptions and such, were before the Counter-Reformation; they're as good a representation of modern Christianity as the Genesis is of real-world physics.
The molestation scandal is church related, but certainly not anything remotely endorsed by the church.
And the whole female priests issue... is actually too small an issue to be given a clear-cut answer. Basically, since it doesn't quite fall under regular gender discrimination, as priests aren't actually considered to be any more holy or righteous than an everyman by the church, and are actually seen as something of a sacrifice. Thus, things like tradition and such, while would normally be far too minor to enter into debates, become valid opinions here.

Defenestrator2.0 wrote:

Plasma wrote:

Defenestrator2.0 wrote:The Church also seems to have the desire to gridlock progress. They condemn people who are pro-choice, and yet the people who suggest encouraging the use condoms and the teaching of a more comprehensive sex education program (because abstinence-only is ineffective) are also condemned, even those people do it in an effort to try to cut back on the need for such an option. Hell, I'm sure that even allowing masturbation would cut back on the number of unwanted pregnancies.

And they don't condemn any of those people! They discourage those things, but that's all!

That's only in their official doctrine. In practice, however, you'll see an entirely different picture painted. Take this story for instance

You're generalising again! It's quite clearly in their official doctrine that actually undergoing a procured abortion can result in excommunication if necessary. Condemning someone for being simply pro-choice, or advocating protection or masturbation, is and can not be done in practice at all!




And most oddly of all, I'm not even Christian! All this is from just knowing European history and looking up the related stuff on Wikipedia!

Dogma was a pretty cool movie.

And I'm hardly versed in Bible lore so I guess I'll sit this one out. =/

I'll be sitting this one out as well, since I am religious.

Crawfish wrote:Dogma was a pretty cool movie.

And I'm hardly versed in Bible lore so I guess I'll sit this one out. =/

Xeraphem wrote:I'll be sitting this one out as well, since I am religious.

Religion discussions are pretty boring imo. People will believe what they want to believe and there is no changing that. I doubt people will just change what they think because of someone over the internet.

Although they can be entertaining sometimes.