http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071012/ts_nm/vatican_templars_dc

Seems like its a little overdue. But, so was an apology to a lot of "heretics."

Now, hopefully, they'll look over their own Bible and try to find and resolve the inconsistencies there.

Now, hopefully, they'll look over their own Bible and try to find and resolve the inconsistencies there.

Why? If they did, would you convert to Christianity or something?

No. It's just nice to see Xtians looking realistically at their own deeds, and acting accordingly. If they observe their own Bible, I believe, there will be very few Xtians at all.

Dream, I know, but one that could be enough to shift the world out of its heavily Judeo-Christian influenced culture.

Maybe they'll take a good look at Hammurabi for a change...

Actions like this are the Catholic Church's ongoing campaign to "apologise" for their atrocities, atrocities that actually continue today in the guise of pervert priests.
The history of the Catholic institution is so riddled with heinous atrocity that I don't see how it still exists. Officially "pardoning" or "exonerating" past victims of their crimes doesn't accomplish anything. Dead criminals pay for nothing and dead victims are afforded no restitution.
It's a PR campaign for a sagging, scandal ridden old power whose time to crumble has come. So be it!

Most humans lack the ability to do that. That's why there are so many Christians, Muslims, Wiccans and whatever out there.

The very reason why there are religions is most people are incapable of analyzing simple facts from a logical stance.

If the Vatican admitted there are errors and contradiction in the Bible, that wouldn't change anything. As a matter of fact, religious authorities have publicly recognized errors in their dogma in several occasions and that didn’t change anything.

Some years ago the Pope publicly admitted the concept of Evolution was not in contradiction with Christian faith... did we see any worldwide change in Christian's attitude?

In the same way, they have admitted some contradiction in their bible, but they immediately say the important thing is the "faith" and not the literal interpretation of the book.

True.

Well, then, maybe it's just a little thing that caught my eye. One way or another, it does nothing for those who died 700 years ago.

Interesting, to say the least.

Yes. It's not like the can "unburn" all those people now!

I'd read it just because it sounds interesting and I like history. Still, people need to stop trying to make up for problems of the past like this. Whats the point of exonerating people who died because of injustice centuries ago when there's people today dying of injustice?

Satanism's concern for the here and now isn't just in reference to the White Light concern with death.

You mean the whole "eye for an eye" thing?

It's an amusing historical reference point, but asking that Christians be realistic is firmly in the realm of "spiritual pipe dreams."

They're not unrealistic because they're Christians, they're Christians because they are fundamentally unrealistic.

That's like saying, "I wish murderers would re-examine their urge to kill and realize it is harmful to society."

The very thing.

Or, perhaps, "Lex Talonis"

Same difference.

If you want to, read the whole code.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

I've felt that we could have done well to follow this for years, even before I ever even ran across a Satanic Bible.

Wait... You Mean The Charges Weren't True?

My respect for the Knights Templar has just diminished dramatically.

You realize that the same "eye for an eye" concept is found in the Bible, too, don't you?

The Code of Hammurabi is a lot rougher than Lex Talionis. The Code of Hammurabi violates Lex Talionis because punishment doesn't fit "in kind and degree" to the crime (What happens to women who backtalk their husbands? They're executed).

Lex Talionis, the world's oldest law code, was in fact semi private (meaning citizens tried to work things out, THEN they'd go to the State if they couldn't) in its heyday and the whole point was to have punishment fit in kind and degree. So if you broke a man's arm, you weren't executed (as was probable under Hammurabi, seeing as Hammurabi was bent on executing EVERYBODY), but you had your arm broken in return (though if you were rich you could just pay a fine, which I would say is one of the few instances in which this law code doesn't sound useful, but then this is just the history of it so we can't accept everything that the Sumerians did wholesale).

Yes, in the Old Testament. I believe that, in all actuality, much of Hammurabi's code was found in the law books (Deuteronomy, Leviticus, etc.), and for a very good reason. These laws are a powerful set, with highly structured social and economic guidelines, that allowed two similarly organized cultures (in this case, the early Babylonians and the early Jews)to function at a peak level for their time.

There was one major difference in the two, though, and that was delivery. And that difference, it seems, made the Babylonians a set of laws, and the Jews a religion.

Hammurabi's code was viewed as set down by a man, a fallible man, and could therefore have been revised at any point, had anyone (in power) seen that they were unacceptable in any way. On the other hand, the rules set down in the Jewish law books were the works of "God," a supposedly perfect entity, and one that did not often seem up for questioning or argument. The code of Hammurabi was set down as rules that one could, if one was willing to take the punishment, break. Basic calculated risk (i.e. if the reward is greater than the punishment, many will opt for the reward.) But the "God" made laws could not be broken unless one wished to not only be punished, but then left an outcast of society, and risk eternal damnation.

So, when both sets of laws are similar, it does not surprise me. As a matter of fact, it helps one see the logic in both sets of laws.

In sum, yes, both have many of the same concepts. But the delivery makes all the difference.